The Need For Unity

By Big Tent Democrat

This is a startling and troubling finding from today's AP poll:

[A]bout one-third of Obama's supporters picked McCain when asked their preference in a Clinton-McCain general election matchup. Nearly three in 10 Clinton backers said they would vote for McCain over Obama.

It seems clear that most of Obama's edge in the McCain matchup is this type of simply unacceptable recalcitrance from Democratic Obama supporters, and Clinton supporters are hardly better.

I will say this bluntly - any person who claims to be a Democrat who will vote Clinton but not Obama, and vice versa, are in a cult of personality and do not deserve to be called Democrats. Such an attitude is simply disgraceful.

The Supreme Court? Iraq? Taxes? The environment? Health care? How could any Dem POSSIBLY support McCain? These are not Democrats. These are petulant, stupid members of cults of personality, for Clinton and Obama. Shame on them.

NOTE: Comments are now closed.

< Electability Strategies | AP Poll: Hillary Leads Obama, 46% to 41% >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    at the end of the day that usually (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:19:48 PM EST
    tightens up. Still, the people who would split away are pretty stupid.

    Republican run that high.

    It is a disgrace.


    These are cult members (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:26:59 PM EST
    I Don't Think So (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:31:58 PM EST
    I think it's ridiculous.  Judges alone are a reason to vote for Obama.
    But I don't think this is about Hillary voters being so enamored of her that they won't vote Obama out of spite.  Sure, there's some of that on the internet, but I don't think it's widespread.  

    This is about Obama, IMO, and not Clinton.  For whatever reason, Obama hasn't closed the sale with some democrats.  I think he could change that, but it worries me that he will have to.  Perhaps this is the downside of running a unity-schtick campaign?


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:34:46 PM EST
    I have read more Obama followers say they would vote for McCain than Clinton followers.

    On the Intertubes (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:41:33 PM EST
     But I don't think we can take that as representative of democrats generally.  And I take those statements with a grain of salt anyway.  Sure, if you've committed to Clinton, Obama might not look great but wait until you see McCain.  And vice versa for Obama supporters.  

    Which is why I don't think any kind of Clinton cult explains it.  These polls capture more than just us political junkies and those are fairly big numbers that are shifting away from Obama.  I find it hard to believe that all of them would reject any nominee other than Hillary.  If her support were that rabid, she'd be kicking butt in caucuses.

    No, there's something more going on here.


    i think it has to in part with the hubris coming (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:05:33 PM EST
    the obama supporters. not to say that it hasn't come from both sides. but obama's comments about how people will vote for him and not hillary sure as heck doesn't help. i point out mo's comment about she wasn't sure she'd support hillary.

    all in all it has to end. the bitterness needs to put to rest. i have found hillary more centered on the ge in recent comments than obama. but tomrorrow is another day.


    I happen to agree with you (none / 0) (#45)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:44:06 PM EST
    I don't take this poll seriously because it's easy to say your a Democrat is not like the ask you for your registration form.

    Women's concerns need to be (3.00 / 2) (#183)
    by sancho on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:58:26 PM EST
    addressed by obama. Many women women are upset about his tacit support of msm sexism. if he addresses women instead of assuming women are there for him no matter what he does, then i will vote for him. instead, he pretends sexism is not there while he plays to it and benefits from it. i'd also be happy to hear him quit making ambiguous comments about roe v. wade (consult your clergy! come on!). at this point, i dont trust him on that issue. i did before the campaign began.

    Agreed. (1.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:05:24 PM EST
    This is Obama's weakness in my book, too.

    Women and Obama (3.66 / 3) (#202)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:24:22 PM EST
    Everyone has discussed the repair work the Clintons need to do with blacks, which they appear to have already started, but Obama will need to do the same with women if he's the nominee.

    Here's Tom Watson's blog entry on Obama's silence in the face of MSM misogyny.


    Well, I think part of it is that the average (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by derridog on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:04:44 PM EST
    person sees McCain as more liberal than he is.  For heaven's sakes, the anti-war Republicans (who knew there were any?) are choosing McCain.  It might be that when they realize he wants a 100 year war,  people might change their minds.

    I certainly never thought I'd be a Hillary supporter, but here I am.


    If that is remotely true, we are in (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:22:31 PM EST
    a whole heaping load of trouble.

    Obama and the Democratic Base (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:26:20 PM EST
    I agree with you, BTD, but as I said in the previous thread, Obama has a problem solidifying the democratic base.  This is the third poll that indicates that.  NPR recently had him losing 18% of Democrats to McCain, while Hillary only lost 9%.

    I don't know why this is.  How anyone who called themselves a Democrat would think John McCain is a better choice than Obama is beyond me and I will be voting for Obama if he's the nominee.

    I do have two theories about why Obama fails to hold onto the base as well as Clinton:

    1. Older voters really aren't kidding when they say they care about experience and Obama hasn't adequately addressed these concerns;

    2. By running a campaign designed to appeal to independents and cross-over Republicans, Obama has managed to make himself look less like a democrat.  In other words, his unity has convinced at least some democrats that he isn't really a liberal and so, why not vote for the war hero.

    Again, these are just theories, not my own personal beliefs.  I punch (D) on my ballot, even for triangulating uniters.

    I blame the cultishness (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:29:09 PM EST
    Everyone needs to stop this NOW!

    I Don't Think So (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:38:12 PM EST
    This has been a consistent problem for Obama even before the recent silliness of the last couple of weeks (which is when I think things started getting nasty).  Via Kevin Drum, here's the LA TImes poll in mid-to-late January that shows Clinton losing 11% of democratic voters and Obama 18%.  That's the same number for Obama that NPR had a week or so ago.  So I don't think this is some sort of Clinton cult, there is a problem Obama has with some base democrats.

    I wish I could agree it was a Clinton cult because I think that would fade before the GE.  But I honestly don't think that's the problem here.


    He has run a third-party campaign (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:45:39 PM EST
    and this is the result.

    And at least some Dems are smarter than that and see it -- which is why Clinton consistently polls much better among Dems, while Obama draws non-Dems.

    Call 'em Indies, call 'em crossovers, but don't call 'em Dems.  Reading their stuff on blogs, it is so clear that many have no idea how the Dem party process works, what is in the Dem platforms, etc.

    I worry very much about this, because non-Dems are draining the party of resources and energies we will need.  


    the primary needs to stop (none / 0) (#40)
    by Nasarius on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:42:47 PM EST
    The GOP already has their nominee. We won't until perhaps the end of April. In the meantime, all the intra-party stupidity is killing us.

    Well Dona Brazile Is Establishing That It Is (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:51:21 PM EST
    A-OK not to vote for the Democratic nominee. A few more media appearances by her saying that she will leave the Democratic Party and a few more by Obama saying Clinton voters will vote for me, but my voters won't vote for her and I bet we can get those percentages up even higher.

    I'm am really ticked by this whole thing.


    Old broad here (none / 0) (#43)
    by lectric lady on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:43:30 PM EST
    At the age of 62, I read #1 and totally agree. I read #2 and totally agree.

    But, I will come around. Eventually.


    The reality is (none / 0) (#65)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:50:00 PM EST
    in the big picture, party ID is softer than you think.

    I think it is harder than you think (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:51:06 PM EST
    In the base (none / 0) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:51:57 PM EST
    it's very hard. It runs from generation to generation.

    Yes (none / 0) (#95)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:57:35 PM EST
    but there's an awful lot of people outside the base!

    Look at the polling before the 2006 election.  All the conservative blogs said no way, this polling has way more Democrats than we know are in the electorate from the 2004 exit polls, it can't be right!  And yet it was right.  The reason is that even in the span of two years, a lot of people can shift their party ID if conditions are right.


    And they do... (none / 0) (#222)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:05:36 PM EST
    I'm not a straight ticket voter, as the majority voters are.

    Folks vote on issues important to them. That can mean voting Republican one election; Dem on the other.

    In the process I get literature from both parties...hehehe


    I agree wid ya (none / 0) (#125)
    by blogtopus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:10:31 PM EST
    I think that this could almost be expected for such an important milestone candidacy. It has attracted such a large group of people from places normally outside the boundaries of typical Dem voters that I'm not really surprised that those who were attracted to Hillary's campaign from McCain (conservative women) or those who were attracted to Obama's campaign (first time / college voters, independents who usually vote republican) would abandon their first plan and go for their otherwise default mode.

    Let's be clear: I don't think those 1/3 responders are Dems. I think they have been attracted from outside the normal voting areas due to the unique nature of the candidates. If it had been another white guy, they'd have been supporting McCain.


    Solidify the base? (none / 0) (#171)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:46:47 PM EST
    He's essentially alienated the base.

    Attack your own party, appeal to the Republicans, denigrate the last successful and popular Dem president, threaten to take your supporters away, ignore the working class, don't reach out to women or older people...

    Way to unify, dude.


    Part of the bleed (none / 0) (#221)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:02:43 PM EST
    Is due to the Republican plants doing their job.

    Did anyone think that the white male vote will be so enthralled to Obama in places like SC? The same state that battled for years to keep the confederate flag on their capital dome?

    This is what I mean about politics is local. Those not knowing the area don't follow the instrinsic details -- and that's one of them.

    You expect the black vote to be high, you never expect whites to pick a non-local. Obama isn't that special to gain Bubba's attention -- to them he's a nobody from Chicago.

    What a rotten election either way.


    Personality vs. Issues (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:31:27 PM EST
    When this primary got hijacked by Axelrod's style of creating a personality rather than making the issues the central point. He knew Obama would lose, that is why I find the Obama campaign self serving and risky. Dangerous for the General Election.
    Axelrod's is a less grand, postideological approach, and his campaigns are rooted less in issues than in the particulars of his candidate's life. For him, running campaigns hitched to personality rather than ideology is a way of reclaiming fleeting authenticity.

    I know all that (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:32:35 PM EST
    No excuse for this.

    I'm not surprised at some of the Obama (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:39:59 PM EST
    supporters - the ones who are new to politics. They don't feel loyalty to the Democratic Party and they hate HC for being in Obama's way. As for the Clinton voters, I think they are angry, really angry at how she has been treated and a lot are angry that he now goes states how bad Bill Clinton was for our party in the 90's. I heard him do it yesterday and again today.

    That plus bringing up Social Security and wanting to get along with Republicans, especially while criticizing a popular former President, has turned a lot of people off. I think most of the Clinton voters will come around because if nothing else, she says in every speech that one of them has to win in November.


    Theresa.. (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by lectric lady on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:48:57 PM EST
    I am with you 100%. Couldn't have said it better.

    It's not an excuse (none / 0) (#73)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:51:10 PM EST
    it's responsibility.

    Well, who is going to tell (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:36:09 PM EST
    Michelle Obama?

    Also, The new flyer the Sen Obmama has out talks about the loss of Gov., Sen and such when Bill Clinton was elected. So HOW are we going to get ANYONE to vote Dem when the last Dem President is portrayed like that?

    He is advertising for Independant votes by dissing the Dems. And not one single person on this site has even mentioned this. And it has been posted. No wonder we are divided.

    Her statement was disgraceful (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:43:06 PM EST
    and it bothered me no end that Obama supporters could not admit that.

    That new flyer is anti-Dem (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:52:41 PM EST
    and disgraceful, too.  I keep saying it -- he's running a third-party campaign but benefitting from our party's resources.  Rove couldn't have come up with a better game!

    Well PLEASE (none / 0) (#56)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:46:40 PM EST
    look at the latest ad.



    Your link does not work for me (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:49:04 PM EST
    Here (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:52:47 PM EST
    She put it as mail instead of link - here.

    Perhaps Obama would win more democratic voters if he asked for their votes or acted as if they were just as important as Republicans and independents.  Just a thought.


    That is horrible (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:58:42 PM EST
    Just horrible.


    Where is it running?


    Zogby poll says 1/2 say they (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:06:55 PM EST
    won't vote for Clinton.  I do not think Axelrod and company are reading you, BTD.

    As bad as Obama is for saying that (none / 0) (#132)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:16:08 PM EST
    it was even worse when Chris "1%" Dodd practically screamed it out during one of the debates!  Imagine, Chris Dodd making an electability argument.

    One of the reasonsI dropped him (none / 0) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:21:27 PM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:20:57 PM EST
    I'll ask you, what happened to Zogby? Has he disappeared with Cheney? Have not heard a word from him since Cali?

    and Zogby (none / 0) (#146)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:25:03 PM EST
    has such a great reputation for accuracy!

    That flier has me frackin furious.  Tearing down Bill Clinton, selectively using polls, quoting TPM--what was up with that?!--and the whole, "fair or not..." crap.  And he LIES saying in the headline that he's the only one who can beat the repubs, yet in the text it says she can, too, just not by the same margin.

    what a crock.  UGH.  I am so furious.  I'm going to go Rezko-bait Stella until I get over this.


    I Presume Clinton's Response (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:29:34 PM EST
    To a question about "Zogby said half of all voters would never vote for you" would be "He also said Barack was going to win California."

    Citing him is as bad as citing an Iowa college newspaper to prove what a great healthcare plan you have.

    And why did he cite TPM and not Gallup directly?


    There you go again (none / 0) (#161)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:38:02 PM EST
    Look, there will be no health plan if he gets elected, and I wondering the streets with a van with Rezko all over it, obsessing and I will blame you. ( PS found some good stuff today)

    good stuff? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:55:53 PM EST
    What stuff?  The FBI Mole?

    (why do I feel like I'm asking, "are you holding?"  I need my Rezko fix!)


    Ok..missed some news cycles (none / 0) (#184)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:58:58 PM EST
    The Landmarks commission, Michelle Obama, and the zoning of the lot....

    oh, yeah-- (none / 0) (#219)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:54:30 PM EST
    That's good stuff.  The lot next door has no egress and without the driveway (that services the Obama house) it's not really buildable.  The fence goes around both his house and the "lot."

    Nothing to see here, folks...just keep moving along.

    Did ya see the FBI mole says Obama was constantly visiting Rezko?


    No...link? (none / 0) (#225)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:18:31 PM EST
    been gone (Michelle was on the Landmarks Commission she knew she could get the fence through, she quit the commission right before they got the waiver)

    That's in every speech now. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:03:39 PM EST
    Michelle has an hour on Larry King tonight so maybe she can explain it to us. Not that Larry will ask a tough question but maybe she will volunteer the answer.

    Bush sd. yesterday on Fox he didn't (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:11:46 PM EST
    think HRC's MLK/LBJ remark was racist.  Maybe Michelle will speak to that.

    Literature (none / 0) (#113)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:05:57 PM EST
    It looks like a mailer/lit drop piece to me.

    It is beneath contempt (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:06:58 PM EST
    John Trapper (none / 0) (#118)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:07:31 PM EST
    on ABC had an article abut this.

    Trapper Article


    Thanks BDB (none / 0) (#89)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:55:35 PM EST
    I run a network but I'm "link challenged" on this site.

    "The Clintons" (none / 0) (#90)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:55:53 PM EST
    Funny, but I thought Obama said that Hillary just played hostess during her husband's administration.  Now she has joint responsibility for all of the democratic losses.

    And, again, I'm not even going to go into his failure to understand or accurately remember the political history here and the very big problems congressional democrats had separate from the Clintons  (Dan Rostenkowski, anyone?).  I'm going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and presume he knows he's lying because I don't believe he's stupid.

    Unity, baby.


    I was just furious (none / 0) (#104)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:02:33 PM EST
    when I say that ad.

    But when I go to vote in Nov... if he is on the ticket... I'll hold my nose and vote for him.

    I predict there will be many undecided that may not feel the same way.

    I really eant the White House back.


    Michelle Obama.. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by lectric lady on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:59:30 PM EST
    .. hasn't got a CLUE what is about to hit her and her family when the Republican Machine puts her in its sights.

    Get ready for the "deer in the headlights" moment.



    And the sad thing is (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:08:10 PM EST
    that they are going to expect us veterans of the fights of the 1990s that they decry to defend them and bail them out.

    I haven't decided that one yet.  I'm definitely voting Obama.  But I'm so disgusted with his Clinton bashing, that I'm less sure about going to the mattresses for him.  Loyalty is a two-way street.  

    Oh, hell, who am I kidding.  The Republicans suck and spite will bring me round to fighting on Obama's side.  But I'm going to be saying "I told you so" the entire time.  Because I'm not that good a democrat.


    Should've Added (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:09:27 PM EST
    But I hope to be fighting on Hillary's side instead.  Because she's tough enough to take it and then hit them back 1,000 times harder.

    I'll fight them (none / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:19:41 PM EST
    Axelrod's Trap (none / 0) (#142)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:24:01 PM EST
    They've got us, don't they.  Even as he panders to the right and weakens UHC, Team Obama knows that, in the end, if he's the nominee most of us will not only vote for him, we'll fight for him.

    He may never get an accountability moment.  Which sucks, frankly, because if you don't hold politicians' feet to the fire, they're worthless in the long run.


    I am beginning to think (none / 0) (#122)
    by IndependantThinker on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:08:54 PM EST
    that the best position for Corporate America is to let Obama win so he gets free pass to the White House. To destroy his administration they will attack to distract him from everything. The attacks will be brutal unless Obama agrees to play ball. He will agree.

    I don't think Michelle Obama is going to (none / 0) (#147)
    by derridog on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:26:01 PM EST
    wear well in the general. There's an article about her on the front page of the Wall Street Journal today that implies she pretty much rules the roost and tells Obama what he should do.  Then they show a picture of her with her head on Obama's shoulder, looking fairly unattractive and kind of smug (my thinking anyway).  The article goes on to say that when Obama and his counselors are talking, she butts in and tells Obama to keep talking about feelings not ideas and that all the advisors quit speaking because they know who's boss, or something along those lines.

    Anyway, the article was sort of damning with faint praise with several backhanded comments that didn't make her look good.  She will understand, I'm afraid, how Hillary feels if Obama gets the Democratic nod. This being the WSJ, I'm sure they have more of that ready to go only worse.


    Yeah highly unlikely (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:34:28 PM EST
    that the WSJ would write an unfavorable article about a strong woman that is slanted against the woman.

    And I'd say the same thing if they said it about Hillary.


    Thing is it's not appealing... (none / 0) (#193)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:08:04 PM EST
    Obama is getting the kid votes for the primaries. Primaries draws them. But not in the GE.

    But folks you will have to tone down the partisan rhetoric before October comes, or you will alienate what you need to attract. Because if the Republicans play the inclusion game (which may have to be played since the base is fractured, you're in trouble otherwise), McCain will look more attractive no matter what Dem is running.

    Need to divide and conquer those McCain votes, instead.


    It is so nice to agree with you, BTD. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:36:26 PM EST
    I've been Obama's strongest supporter on the threads I've commented on this week (even to the pooint that I think someone accused me of working for him), but I've consistently said I will be glad to vote for Clinton in November if she wins this thing.

    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#196)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:11:06 PM EST
    I didn't accuse you for working for him. I did question the motives of your posts.

    Queen Mum? I just hope you're not doing the footwork from London. It's not going to help the vote in the US. Politics is local, not international!


    I would think my motives are clear. (none / 0) (#205)
    by halstoon on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:27:16 PM EST
    I'm a Barack supporter, and I want to defend my preferred candidate. The reason I do so is in hopes that I can make a Hillary voter or two switch sides to support the candidate that does provide hope over fear, that does promote unity over division, and who does support these things:

    banning land mines and cluster bombs
    diplomacy with cubs
    transparency in gov't by giving voters a way to follow their money through the system
    funding needle exchange programs that prevent the spread of HIV and other diseases
    ending mandatory minimum sentences that punish minorities disproportionately
    ending the disparity between punishment for crack and cocaine
    supports diplomacy talks with a post-Fidel Cuba
    believes in engaging Iran and other enemies directly

    Those are all things which Sen. Clinton either has not or does not endorse. Sen. Obama has voiced support for them.

    With all due respect, I've been posting on these issues because they matter to me, and in a forum called Talk Left, I thought I might be able to get some Left leaning folks to join the movement.

    I am not, however, an Obama plant, a Repug, or a Briton. I am a white guy Democrat in GA who really believes Obama is the best candidate for president in my 32 years here on Earth.


    the candidate that does provide hope over fear, (none / 0) (#213)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:42:10 PM EST
    Lost me right there.

    Try again.


    Well let's duke it out then ;) (none / 0) (#218)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:50:38 PM EST
    ending mandatory minimum sentences that punish minorities disproportionately


    Minorities tend to be the ones picked up for various reasons (mostly socio-economical), but to give a blank check just on race, I'm glad she didn't sign up on it.

    That's playing on racial themes (and in this case, a 100% way to get the white vote to flee), and crime isn't only due to whites arresting blacks.

    And the other themes play right into the kid cult experience. If exchanging needles is more important than repealling NAFTA/CAFTA, seriously.


    taking out my magic cpa calculator, (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by cpinva on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:52:29 PM EST
    i deduce that 1/3 and 3/10 are roughly equivalent.

    should sen. obama win the nomination, i shall vote for him, with some trepidation, because i am truly concerned about his readiness for the job. perhaps he can pick a VP who will make up some for that.

    of the two, i'd prefer sen. clinton, she's got the chops to hit the ground running.

    I will vote for Either with a great deal of pride (none / 0) (#105)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:03:00 PM EST
    and relief

    Sad and depressing (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:52:58 PM EST
    The good feelings about a united party after the last debate in Los Angeles lasted about one day.  I  think that was the real turning point, with Edwards out of the race Obama started to go more negative on Clinton and we are seeing the effect of that change.  

    It's sad (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:54:53 PM EST
    Clinton has tried very hard to argue for the importance of having a Democrat, not necessarily her, in the White House.  Obama very rarely makes the case for the Democratic Party in general as opposed to the case for himself specifically.  Yet there's not a lot of difference in the numbers you cite.

    I agree that it's disgraceful, of course.  But what this evidence points to is that Obama has a problem with some chunk of the Democratic base that is not going to go away if Hillary starts talking more about unity or the importance of the party brand.  She's already doing that and she's been doing it for ages.

    I'd just note that Chris Bowers has not been doing the cause of unity any favors, either.

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:56:41 PM EST
    you know those guys act the fool sometimes.

    Heck,I do all the time.


    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:59:32 PM EST
    but there are certain core principles that you adhere to.  Even in your most heated moments, you understand that threatening to walk out on the party is a card that can never be played.  And for God's sake, the man is elected to a party position!

    My father (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:03:29 PM EST
    a lifelong dem who can barely check his email (let alone look at blogs) gets all his news from the MSM.  He thinks Obama is a republican in disguise and trusts nothing the man says.  The Reagan comments, trashing Bill Clinton's legacy...it's made him furious.

    The part that annoys him the most, though, is the pitting of youth against age.  (Somehow, my dad got hold of the speech where Obama was calling Ted Kennedy an old man)  The final straw was the wholesaling of Kennedy's image (my father worked on Kennedy's campaign).  He was absolutely livid.

    He keeps saying, "if Obama doesn't understand and respect the past, then he will never be able to lead us into the future."

    I'm not saying it's right, but I am saying that it is clearly true that Obama has taken the base for granted.  His campaign constantly says that all it takes is for people to "meet" Obama and then they want to vote for him.  Obama himself has said more than once that Hillary's folks will go for him.  

    Everytime he says that on TV, my dad screams, "Not this democrat, you smug bast*rd!"

    a lot of people feel that way! (none / 0) (#162)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:38:22 PM EST
    I was just (none / 0) (#163)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:39:09 PM EST
    watching Fox something and they were interviewing a young girl who said the Youth vote were getting the shaft that it was they who are the ones out shopping spending the supporting the economy.  I kid you not I swear she said that, still laughing lordy oh my.

    Sen Obama had a (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:18:45 PM EST
    new term in his speech today....The Obama Republicans... a play on the Reagan Democrats.

    With both Obama and McCain going after the Independents... I do not trust any polls that say Sen Obama can beat Sen McCain.

    The Repubs are getting some buzz now that Huckabee is staying in the race. They are attracting some media now.

    Obama divided the party (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Janet on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:24:51 PM EST
    Not him the big boys who set him up!!!

    You mean Ted Kennedy and John Kerry? (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:05:03 PM EST
    In any event I wish you all well, I am swearing off Progressive blogs until I vote on March 4th, I am an Independent and I have faith that Hillary will be the nominee you send us and that she will win in the general election and be our first female President as she is exactly what we need to turn this country around.

    Oh well :( (none / 0) (#226)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:20:26 PM EST
    Don't know how folks can put up with Ted. Gave Reagan the win in 1980 (even challenging his own party's president for the bid). Endorsed Obama, which if he wins the nomination, will give it to McCain with a bow.

    Gotta love politics. People love to forget history, until it repeats itself. :/


    WELL, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:56:01 PM EST
    LOL! That went well, didn't it.

    But really, there are big issues that as Dems we need to be concerned about. Should the your "other candidate" get the nomination... Please vote Dem in Nov.

    I am still waiting (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by rosaleen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:58:15 PM EST
    for one of B.O.'s supporters to explain to me how B.O. will unite the country when he could not achieve his aims without dividing the Democratic Party. His whole schtick is divide and conquer.

    You can NOT (none / 0) (#207)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:32:49 PM EST
    get both UNIYT and CHANGE together.

    To make "CHANGE" happen there is some resulting pain. And if you don't believe me .... drive to work using a different route tomorrow morning.

    His UNITY will out weigh this change. He won't get much done as Pres. But he will get doen soem things we really need... Supreme Court comes to mind.


    I don't understand the whole (none / 0) (#220)
    by ding7777 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:02:36 PM EST
    netroots support of Obama.

    The netroots hated Lieberman for "crossing the aisle" but absolutely loves Obama for saying he will "cross the aisle".

    What issues is it ok to "cross the aisle"?

    Social Security? Personal Accounts?
    Health Insurance?
    Estate Tax?
    Tax cuts?

    Obama doesn't say...


    Illustrates (none / 0) (#1)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:19:05 PM EST
    my point exactly. Did no one in the party leadership see this coming? The Republicans forced an inexperienced puppet president on their party, but they made sure they had the party united behind him.

    AND (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by tek on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:22:06 PM EST
    Seeing as how Bill Clinton is the most popular Democrat in the country and the Most Popular Man in the World (by a scientific poll) it seems hardly likely the Democratic Party leadership thought all Democrats see the Clintons as pariahs and would just jump on Obama's bandwagon, but they Drafted him to run against her. That's where the responsibility for this debacle lies.

    That's the answer. (none / 0) (#160)
    by ghost2 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:35:36 PM EST
    So-called democratic leaders are jealous of Bill Clinton's popularity.  That's it.  

    I've just had an epiphany. It's not the Clintons who are poll-tested! It's them, ie Kerry and Kennedy and the run-of-the-mill democrats.  Bill Clinton, especially, is in touch with his humble roots.  He knows how real people think.


    The only brightside is that they (none / 0) (#2)
    by auboy2007 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:19:15 PM EST
    still are leading him even with the turncoats.

    With a 15 point Party ID lead (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:27:43 PM EST
    IT remains hard to lose but this is disagraceful.

    Sign the petition to discuss women's issues (none / 0) (#4)
    by hillaryisbest on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:20:32 PM EST
    and sexism in the media's coverage of the election!

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/5/presidential-debate---womens-issues-and-sexism-in-the-media-coverag e-of-the-2008-election

    I am an Independent and I will vote for McCain if BO is the nominee because I want someone that has experience. There are too many chalanges and troubles to leave it to a neophyte.

    McCain has experience in doing the wrong (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:24:33 PM EST
    thing, with great consistency and vigor. A vote for McCain is a huge mistake.

    Then you are a fool (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:25:38 PM EST
    Pure and simple.

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:27:25 PM EST
    Not just a fool, but an utterly selfish fool.

    I'm with you (none / 0) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:25:26 PM EST
    I declared my independence from the Democratic party this weekend.  I don't consider myself a Democrat.  I'm a LIBERAL.  I really feel the Democrats have left me, rather than the other way around.

    We needed someone with experience to hit the ground running in the White House in 2008.  Instead, they ran an inexperienced person with fluffy promises of hope and another with a  past.  The one with the past can at least probably get things done which is why she is my choice.

    Of course I didn't see anything about how many McCain voters will defect if he's the nominee....could be a wash.

    I won't vote for McCain, but I certainly won't vote for "hope".  We need cahones, not hope.


    Then you are a fool too (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:25:56 PM EST
    Sometimes you go with the nominee you have (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:36:56 PM EST
    rather than the nominee you want.

    This convention met to express the will and reaffirm the beliefs of the Democratic Party. There have been differences of
    opinion, and that is the democratic way. Those differences have been settled by a majority vote, as they should be.

    Now it is time for us to get together and beat the common enemy. And that is up to you.

    HST 1948

    One way or another we need to close ranks. It won't matter who is elected anyway with out more and better Democrats in congress.


    I'm with you (none / 0) (#39)
    by IndependantThinker on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:42:36 PM EST
    I will not vote for a sexist to save the democratic party. A party by the way that seems more and more to be undemocratic.

    Furthermore, my socioeconomic and political views are feminist as number 1 and anything else a very distant second.

    But before you say it, I believe Obama would compromise away the entire Democratic platform if it served his own interests, including Roe v Wade.

    He will have to prove to me that he is worth voting for.

    Frankly, I don't think BTD has the right to call my position disgusting just because he doesn't agree with it. And "the party above all else" is why America is headed right down the toilet.


    McCain will be worse (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:50:18 PM EST
    I will vote for Obama/Clinton if he/she is the nominee because:

    Even if he/she is willing to sell out every liberal ideal, which I don't believe, he/she presumably will not veto legislation put forth by the Democratic Congress such as S-CHIP expansion.  

    The judges he/she nominates will be better than the wackos McCain nominates.

    He/she is unlikely to randomly invade countries (bomb, bomb Iran) or build permanent military bases in Iraq.

    He/she is likely to life the gag rule (haven't heard this from Obama, but I'm going on faith).

    When Republicans win, working people, minorities and women lose.  I'd rather vote for a sexist Democrat who at least tries to pander to women than for a Republican who will make it his mission to attack my reproductive rights, weaken the EEOC, and try to roll back everything feminism has fought for.


    I called it disgraceful (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:44:16 PM EST
    and I have every right in the world to call it such.

    I agree with you, voting for a republican in 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by katiebird on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:50:56 PM EST
    I agree with you, voting for a republican in 2008 would be a very dangerous thing.   I could never do it.

    But, I do have some sympathy for those who are feeling shattered by the process.

    It's one thing to want everyone in every state to have there say.  But the fact is it's an incredibly stressful experience.

    I was a McGovern supporter in '72 and I honestly thought the party would come together after the convention.  

    I'd hate to see another election like that.


    Well, I won't (none / 0) (#106)
    by IndependantThinker on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:03:09 PM EST
    vote for McCain, I will simply withdraw from the process. Obama can pick up a Republican to replace my vote.

    Well that is helpful. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:08:40 PM EST

    I think that will be the issue (none / 0) (#123)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:09:16 PM EST
    Not Dems voting for McCain, but Dems staying home rather than going out to vote for Obama.

    Those Dems (none / 0) (#130)
    by Hypatias Father on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:15:39 PM EST
    saying they would not go out to support the other candidate if he/she wins, should do a little more soul-searching.  It's one thing to argue that Obama isn't likely to win the GE, or Clinton for that matter, and quite another to simply announce that you will withhold your vote in the GE.

    Talk about a self-fulfilled prophecy...


    i'm not going to say i won't vote for obama, (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:22:35 PM EST
    but i have to tell you that the words and attitude i have seen displayed irritate and dishearten me. i'll think long and hard about it. i agree it's true that the welfare of the country comes first. mccain is a nightmare.

    Just curious (none / 0) (#153)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:30:05 PM EST
    What if Clinton is Obama's VP nominee.  Would you vote for him then?

    Why would she want to be VP? (none / 0) (#164)
    by lectric lady on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:39:26 PM EST
    When she has a powerful position in the Senate.

    Oh... wait...

    She can continue to use the power that Cheney has given the VP office.

    Hmmmmm, maybe she should reconsider...


    A vote for McCain (none / 0) (#127)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:14:07 PM EST
    seals the deal on overturning Roe.  Next up, Griswold.

    Are those People Democrats (none / 0) (#6)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:22:25 PM EST
    In a system that allows Independents and Republicans to vote in your primaries you should expect this.  Does this article identify the voters by Party Allegiance?

    Where is this coming from? (none / 0) (#8)
    by mexboy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:23:40 PM EST
    It's from the top. The behavior of the leaders always gets transmitted to the followers.

    I think it correlates directly to the percentages. Pressure should be put on those dividing the party.

    Leaders need to lead, not just for their best self interest but for America.

    Article claims moderates are important (none / 0) (#9)
    by rilkefan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:24:04 PM EST
    I thought the cw in the wonkosphere about the electorate was that the center is empty.

    Anyway, I don't believe that 3/10 figure reflects reality.

    do we have any numbers from (none / 0) (#13)
    by NJDem on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:25:53 PM EST
    previous election years to see if this is always the case, but then we come together in the GE?  

    Also, I think a lot of people forget just how scary the GOP platform is, I can't imagine a real Democrat risking the Supreme Court, Iraq, the economy, etc.  

    Am I just wishful thinking?      

    Never have I seen numbers like this (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:28:32 PM EST
    I think they might have been like this in 1972 (none / 0) (#29)
    by katiebird on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:36:46 PM EST
    I think there was a lot of bad feeling between McGovern & Humphrey Supporters.

    And I don't think the Humphrey Supporters turned out for McGovern.

    It was my first election and it broke my heart.


    Yep (none / 0) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:38:36 PM EST
    1972 the last time the kids took over the party and basically marginalized the base.

    So true -- and I was just past being (none / 0) (#68)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:50:06 PM EST
    one of those kids but could see they were so wrong.  I was raised in the Dem party, I was raised to vote party, not personality.  But there was a shift between the '60s ones of us and the early '70s ones.

    McGovern was my first vote for pres (none / 0) (#150)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:28:44 PM EST
    I was 18 that year. And my mother took me to campaign for McGovern. She was 53 at the time - about my age now.

    I had no idea he was the "youth" candidate.


    Count me in (none / 0) (#165)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:39:33 PM EST
    exact same thing

    oops... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:40:26 PM EST
    read it wrong...I knew he was.

    yup, but the kids weren't trending to the cult of (none / 0) (#144)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:24:19 PM EST
    personality so much as ending the viet nam war. BIG DIFFERENCE!

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#38)
    by rilkefan on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:42:26 PM EST
    a reason to be skeptical.  I'd like to see more polls + historical context.

    I've been saying that for some (none / 0) (#15)
    by hillaryisbest on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:25:58 PM EST
    time now.  The Dems put up their most inexperienced candidate and the Repubs put up their most experienced.  Are people really starting to wake up?

    "a whole heaping load of trouble"

    Agree and not (none / 0) (#32)
    by koshembos on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:38:22 PM EST
    As Democrats, 100% of each of the two candidates supporters must vote for the nominee if her/his candidate loses the nomination. I don't agree that doing otherwise means that you belong to a cult. Cult is a well defined term; it's not for us to use it at will. Obama has a cult following and Hillary has, my assumption, supporters who are tired of the hate, the sexism and Obama's racist use of the race card.

    Why are we here. First and foremost, the candidate are very close politically; this emphasizes personalities. We Democrats are not used to that. The Gore/Bradley fight was between center and left (although it was a pretend left because Bradley was centrist all his life until the elections). All Democrats voted for Gore. Kerry/Dean was between nothing and the left. Democrats have chosen nothing and got nothing as a result.

    If we do have wise women and men, they should make this a big issue. If...

    So what are the demographics on these? (none / 0) (#34)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:39:42 PM EST
    I have noticed many of the college students following Obama. Do remember McGovern. I also remember my college days where people over 30 were old. Well, changed my mind on that one quite a while ago. But are we talking Women, Blacks, or as Obama puts it, sons of the South? Are these the Reagan Democrats who vote Republican anyway? Or are there people out there who got on the bandwagon and if you do not play by their rules, they take their ball and go home. I believe it is a smidgen of each. But as our goals are to protect our rights by restoring the Constitution, take care of our citizens, keeping some balance in the Supreme Court, and regaining world respect among other things, I believe whoever is left standing in Denver should be our next President of the United States.

    Here's a paragraph from Tom Hayden's (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:44:45 PM EST
    op ed on Huffington Post:

    At some point, perhaps, a pact between the candidates will be possible.

    If not, the massive and peaceful pressure for transformation heading into Denver may be unique in the history of American social movements. One generation of reformers, exhausted but still fighting, will have to decide whether power is so important that they are willing to roll over young people no different than themselves three decades ago.

    BTW:  He has a different history re superdelegates; says they were in place before McGovern got the nomination.


    So, in short, he says Clinton needs to (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by tigercourse on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:46:26 PM EST
    give up. Yes, I'm sure that will happen.

    Wow That Will Unite The Party (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:06:01 PM EST
    Great selling point. Hey old guys just give up and give in and do what we want. In you don't it is all your fault because you are power hungry and want to roll over others in the party. Arrrrrrrrr...

    See it is stuff like this that just increases the divisions and then people wonder why the party is not unified.


    I'm equally tired of the (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:54:00 PM EST
    crap from McCaskill too.  She was on CNN's Late Edition yesterday, putting forth the same old meme:

    MCCASKILL: Well, the way you make change happen is by bringing people together, by getting away from the partisan food fight. That's what's so appealing about Barack Obama. He doesn't want to make the Republicans an enemy. He wants to find that common ground.

    The Republicans have made themselves the enemy.  How many compromises have Democrats made with the Republicans in the last 7 years?  McCaskill implies that the problems we have had are the result of Democrats demonizing Republicans when it has been the exact opposite.  


    Well McCaskill Prides Herself In Compromising (none / 0) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:01:28 PM EST
    with Republicans. Just look at her votes on Iraq and FISA. She just loves to give the Republicans each and everything they want.

    She is my Senator and I have zero respect for her. I wish I had saved my time and my money in 06. I knew she would not be great but I didn't think she would be this bad.


    My Senator too (none / 0) (#195)
    by standingup on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:10:57 PM EST
    I phone banked, donated and even drove to St. Louis to see Bill Clinton's rally for her in 2006.  Anyone would be better than Talent but a strong Democrat would be better than Claire.  

    How do you think the GE will go in Missouri?  I'm not sure McCaskill can pull if off for Obama the way she did in the primary.  


    Not Sure She Can Either (none / 0) (#200)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:21:18 PM EST
    Even with most of the Democratic machine behind him, Obama only won the Democratic strongholds in MO. Clinton won the other counties. He definitely wasn't getting base Dems there and if he was receiving strong support from Indies, I would have thought he would have won some of those. IMO you have win in more than the Dem counties to win the state.

    That is the most ridiculous thing (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:47:49 PM EST
    I have ever read.

    But I have always found Tom Haydn incredibly ridiculous.


    Hayden Is One of the Reasons Why Dems Lose (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:14:18 PM EST
    He's ridiculous and yet some parts of the party have from time to time taken him seriously.  Only an idiot would suggest that the Democratic party should seek to replicate that wonderful time known as the McGovern campaign.  Yes, the party elders got rolled by the kids and Richard Nixon was re-elected.  What a great thing for the country and the party.  We should definitely do THAT again.  Geesh.

    He is suffering from a brain cramp. (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:52:27 PM EST
    He forgot McGovern got beat up so badly in '72.  

    This is now... (none / 0) (#35)
    by lectric lady on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:39:50 PM EST
    ...Nov will be Nov.

    Even I am thinking, right now, that if Hillary Clinton is not the nominee, I am outahere. I am that upset by the Hillary trashing that is going on.

    But I also know (after all, I first voted in the '60's and have lived through this stuff a long, long time), that my hard feelings will fade. If Obama is the nominee, I will be firmly in his camp, and will actively work for him, the instant that the Republican Machine begins to draw and quarter him.

    And, believe me, it will.

    Enjoy the kumbaya while it lasts, folks.

    Phoning (none / 0) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:43:15 PM EST
    I had a number of people when I was calling for Hillary tell me they will vote as Dems this time but will be indie next time because Obama broke the party. I was surprised.

    Wow. That's interesting. What state are you in? (none / 0) (#156)
    by derridog on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:33:01 PM EST
    California (none / 0) (#231)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:29:22 PM EST
    For what it's worth. . . (none / 0) (#44)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:44:05 PM EST
    I've discussed this issue with exactly one independent, my cousin who lives in Obama's district, and he will vote for Clinton vs McCain but McCain vs Obama.

    On what basis? (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:45:48 PM EST
    Certainly not on the issues.

    I'll wait for Larry here, but maybe his (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:53:25 PM EST
    relative reads the Chicago Sun-Times?

    A question, respectfully if timidly put (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:03:36 PM EST
    -- um, is this what happens with a "big tent" strategy?  And you're the theorist on it, so . . . what do we do know that they're in the tent?  How do we educate them but fast as to why to stay in it?

    I do think Clinton is doing that -- always talking about it's about a Dem win, always talking about the issues that are Dem issues.  And with the Clinton voters I know, this result really doesn't ring true.  Maybe it's what they say at this point in a campaign rather than concede an inch even in a poll?  (Or especially in a poll, since that's what media will talk about, who is committed to their candidate.)

    But I don't see how we get Obama to start talking like a Dem, and all the time.  His strategy is to appeal to non-Dems.  They're in his tent.


    If they do not choose Obama/Clinton over (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:06:09 PM EST
    McCain, they are not in the tent, even the big one.

    While I Will Support The Dem Nominee, (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:15:59 PM EST
    I think that Clinton supporters not wanting to vote for Obama is not the result of anything the Clinton's have said but is a backlash from what Obama and his surrogates have said.

    I went through almost this entire election cycle undecided and finally chose Edwards a month of so before he dropped out. When it came down to Clinton vs Obama, I chose Clinton. So I'm not what you would call a hard core Clinton supporter. Yet, with all that has been going on it has become harder and harder for me to support Obama if he wins the nomination.


    Hmmm. Care to shed anymore (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:46:21 PM EST
    light on why?

    Well, I didn't want to question. . . (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:26:25 PM EST
    him too closely -- I come from a small family and although my cousin and I are not especially close (we see each other once every three years or so) we were having the conversation over dinner and I didn't want to provoke an incident in which I would stab him to death with the butter knife.  I can't afford to lose any cousins.

    He said it was because of "familiarity", that he knew what he'd be getting with Clinton and liked it, but he had a better idea what he'd be getting with McCain than with Obama (yes, but that's the point, thinks I).  In any event Obama has something of a tarnished image with my cousin who's familiar with his political history in Chicago and some of the (my cousin feels) unsavory machine politicians he's worked with.


    AMEN! (none / 0) (#47)
    by magster on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:44:21 PM EST
    Fantastic post.

    I don't get the point of your complaint (none / 0) (#48)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:44:42 PM EST
    1/3 = 33%
    30% = 30%

    This is within the margin of error; i.e., as many Clinton supporters would cross the line to support McCain as would Obama supporters.

    I get the generalized nature of your complaint (Democrats should vote for Democrats), but why pick on Obama?

    Ah nevermind (none / 0) (#52)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:45:58 PM EST
    read some of your posts downthread.

    Instead of parsing my post (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:46:36 PM EST
    Why not embrace my point.

    Stop being an Obama supporter for a moment and be a DEMOCRAT FIRST please.


    I'm strongly voting Clinton if it's HRC vs. JM (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by andrewwm on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:48:08 PM EST
    No questions asked.

    He's not. Read it again. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Teresa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:47:11 PM EST
    Pay attention (none / 0) (#62)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:48:20 PM EST
    These are not Democrats. These are petulant, stupid members of cults of personality, for Clinton and Obama. Shame on them.

    Trouble (none / 0) (#57)
    by Janet on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:46:55 PM EST
    I have said for the last month that the group of Four (Dean, Gore, Kennedy and Kerry) set this whole scenario in motion not ever believing that they could destroy the Democrats ability to win back the White House. I never have been sure that their efforts were due to their Hatred of the Clinton's or their need to bring the Democratc Party back to the left but whatever their goal it has been a disaster. I have heard from a number of Hillary supporters that they would vote for McCain.i fear that obama will not beable to bring the older and Hispanic voters to vote for him since I think most older voters see through the speeches. We are really in trouble in November and Dean has no way out. I wonder why they will not allow the Florida vote when both canidates were on the ballot.

    Speculation: it used to be (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:47:37 PM EST
    pconsidered impolite to inquire how another person was going to or had voted.  Not anymore.  Plus, the vehement nature of blogging exaggerates everyone's position.  

    Anonymous polling (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:50:01 PM EST
    is voluntary.

    I just think people get more entrenched (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:55:21 PM EST
    the more they talk, are argued with, and go on blogs.  

    For example, a friend and former colleague (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:50:02 PM EST
    Omale) who voted for Obama, emailed me David Brooks's Sat. NYT column on HRC's health care plan when her husband was President and how she treated Cooper, who had a non-mandated proposal poorly.  Headline of the op ed included "ice queen."  Now why send me that column, knowing I'd already voted for HRC?  I was really surprised.  

    I saw that as good for Clinton (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:53:26 PM EST
    It does not amaze me that an Obama supporter would prefer a sellout on health care.

    Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:56:16 PM EST
    It would please me to no end if Edwards refuses to endorse Obama because of the healthcare stuff.  Better yet if he endorses Clinton.  But I'd settle for him simply refusing to endorse Obama.

    Honestly, Clinton has gotten so little reward for sticking up for liberal causes (MoveOn, YearlyKos, universal healthcare) and Obama has had no penalty for tacking right every time that I'd just like to see one accountability moment.  One person who tells him that his half measures aren't good enough.

    The more I think about it, the more I think Edwards should endorse Clinton.  It would be the best thing for him.  Obama doesn't really need him.  If he threw in with Clinton and she won, he'd have a heck of a lot more pull in her administration than he's ever going to get in an Obama administration.


    I did too. I'm pleased she (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:56:29 PM EST
    has been fighting for universal coverage for such a long time.  But "ice queen"?  

    Did you see 60 Minutes? (none / 0) (#189)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:03:46 PM EST
    HRC was asked if some people in HS really called her "ice maiden" or something like that. She said, "only the boys I wouldn't go out with."

    Heh heh heh. I've been there.


    I think it was 'Miss Frigidaire' n/t (none / 0) (#227)
    by irene adler on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:21:40 PM EST
    I am a senior citizen and alot of the (none / 0) (#70)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:50:32 PM EST
    seniors that I know will vote for Clinton in a race against McCain but will vote for McCain in a race against Obama...most reasons given have revolved around Social Security and his unknown track record...they are rather adament about it...Seniors are very very afraid of touching SS...

    My very Personal opinion is (none / 0) (#75)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:51:35 PM EST
    That this is not about the Democratic party but about America.  If you think McCain is a centrist you have to check out his voting record on things such Choice, Taxes, and specially the war.  Apparently a lot of Independents have bought the line that we have to fight them over there as if that would protect us here.  The media has always made McCain look like some kind of independent straight talker. Reality is he has flip flopped as many times as Mitt.  And he is as extreme right as Chenney or any other neo-con.

    DO THE MATH! HELLO (none / 0) (#77)
    by seabos84 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:52:17 PM EST
    Both candidates have been trying to appeal to the fascist defined 'middle' / 'independent' / 'centrist'.

    the occupants of these groups are people who've bought the MSM definitions hook, line and sinker.  OF COURSE they'll vote for freaking McCain!

    tens of millions of low income people do NOT vote cuz 1 party is trying to keep them serfs, and the other party offers big thoughts, big words, big sentences, big white papers, big tomes, big f$$$ing excuses.

    remember these guys ... howard dean and john edwards AND how they got ignored / buried by the powers that be?

    because of Dem ineptness / corruption, they are incapable of message. cuz they are incapable of message, the entire debate is in right wing world.

    teh ONLY people who should vote fascist are the fascists themselves, adn their direct lackeys - well, except they have as opponents our incompetent sell outs!

    hundreds of millions spent campaigning and all we can get for message is snivelling that ---

    we can't do message - BUT - we need more money to snivel!



    I do not disagree with you (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:54:23 PM EST
    but there are still major differences with McCain.

    Trouble (none / 0) (#85)
    by Janet on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:53:38 PM EST
    We have to unite because McCain will concede Conservative Judges to keep the religious right happy. for that reaon this HRC supporter will vote for Obama

    McCain has consistently (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:58:43 PM EST
    been a right to lifer, so I don't expect his nominating conservative judges will be conceding anything.

    Voting (none / 0) (#91)
    by kathlee on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:56:02 PM EST
    After the dreadful witchhunt of the Clintons, I switched from Independent to Democrat. I will always vote Democratic, no matter who the candidate is. I DON"T even like primaries --especially this one! But there is no way that a true Democrat could ever vote for McCain if there chosen Democratic candidate doen't get the nomination. Gosh, McCain is right wing social conservative and fiscal ignorant. What are people thinking???

    Susan Estrich would disagree she (none / 0) (#94)
    by Janet on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:56:49 PM EST
    she stated in her column on Sat that HRC would not bow out gracefully.

    Susan Estrich. She's (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:00:21 PM EST
    not a person whose opinion I value.  

    When will she bow out period? (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:01:29 PM EST
    Estrich is a disgrace herself.

    Dukakis! (none / 0) (#133)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:16:21 PM EST
    Why must all paid democratic consultants be:  trolls, liars, losers, or idiots?  A question for the ages.

    Yes (none / 0) (#96)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:58:12 PM EST
    ..it is actually worse than that I belive..

    Hispanics (none / 0) (#129)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:14:27 PM EST
    dont appear to have been polled much here so Clinton probably has a stronger lead then represented I add about 7 points for each of her polls seems to work.  

    See this one is wrong for sure not possible...Clinton has a very high advantage in white and Hispanic women by 18 pints, no natural McCain group

    Women favor Obama over McCain by 12 points, and favor Clinton over McCain by 11.

    But I do believe when I compared the numbers I came up with 4 in 10 of the base, now this is the Dem base that would be adrift if Obama and not Clinton were the nominee.  Independents Dems would hold 40ish percent unless there is an external event corruption, terrorist national security scare then of course to unpredictable.


    Susan Estrich would disagree she (none / 0) (#103)
    by Janet on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:01:41 PM EST
    It just reinforces the pundits hatred of HRC

    HRC (none / 0) (#111)
    by kathlee on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:05:33 PM EST
    After more thought, there is no way Hillary supporters could vote McCain. First off, Hillary WILL get out to push the democratic ticket and her supporters will see the light. Secondly remember who the real John McCain is --the straight talk joker--his offensive remark about the Mormon religion as a swipe at Romney. But the one that spoke volumes to me about his character was the Janet Reno/Chelsey Clinton joke. If you don't recall, I won't repeat but that sure told me a lot about John McCain. He's as disgusting as the rest of the rabid right wing. And let's not forget how he bent over backwards to appease Bush and show his "support" for the resident.

    I really think (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:34:21 PM EST
    ...you may be wrong here, Hillarys voters are looking for the substance and strenght she displays and the confidence that she can lead and tackle tough issues when she takes the job.

    Those are not qualites Obama has dispalyed frankly he dose not provide a confidence that he can be other than an inpirational charmatic leader very thin on experience and with a desire to just get along.  

    And this may hurt but the Party appears to have been attempting to enthrone and heir instead of provide the best candidate for the voters in Nov..

    But everyone needs to take a chill lets wait for Ohio, Tx and Pa but maybe temper the belief that most voters are thinking it must be a Dem, divided government is also a driver. Dont fall for the O is crowned spin or MSNBC wait for the voters.


    your father is right (none / 0) (#119)
    by Janet on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:07:38 PM EST
    Obama is no Kennedy. i worked for Bobby Kennedy's Campaign in 1968. When you met him you knew you were in greatness. The greatest video of Bobby is his leaving a home in the Mississippi Delta. That was a man who got it

    And what should be (none / 0) (#135)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:19:27 PM EST
    a diary about unifying the party turns into a polemic about Obama.

    I only have 2 things to say to your Clinton supporters who are willing to take you ball and go home.

    Ginsburg.  Stevens.

    Remember those 2 names should McCain become President.  Or maybe you have more faith in McCain's experience on judicial matters than Obama.  Certainly most of you have almost nothing positive to say about them.

    Luckily the Internet zealots are a tiny minority of voters.  Those numbers will go down, either way, once the nominee has been selected.  A lot of people are still looking at the other candidate as the opposition.  That will disappear once the GE is upon us.

    You do not help matters (none / 0) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:29:00 PM EST
    Look in the mirror.

    Simply not true (none / 0) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:31:44 PM EST
    Show me a single thing I have said that is critical of Hillary.  Go to TMV or ObWings and find one.  Instead of innuendo how bout some examples?

    I really don't get what your beef with me is.  


    I meant to other commenters (none / 0) (#172)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:47:12 PM EST
    You are incredibly nasty.

    I'm not trying to be (none / 0) (#194)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:10:27 PM EST
    But it is possible that I take things more personally than I should.  

    I have two things to say (none / 0) (#201)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:22:51 PM EST
    to someone who wants to pin the entire blame on Clinton supporters.

    Barack Obama. Michelle Obama

    For both saying, respectively, Hillary won't get my supporters, and I'd have to think about voting for her.

    In two statements, they told their supporters that voting Democratic isn't important (but voting for Obama is) and told Democrats who won't vote for them they'd take their ball and go home.

    They also attack fellow Dems instead of Republicans, trash the best Dem president since Kennedy, and drool over Republicans.

    You want some unity? Go talk to your candidate. I hear he's good at that unity thing. Haven't seen much evidence of it, myself.


    I am not (none / 0) (#211)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:38:42 PM EST
    Trying to blame Hillary for everything.  It's a two way street.

    It is not (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:46:52 PM EST
    Hillary and Bill have both gone on record as saying they will support the Dem candidate whoever it is.

    Thus setting the example of what Democrats do.

    The Obamas? Not so much.


    Look (none / 0) (#224)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:09:54 PM EST
    Both candidates campaign in the best way they see fit.  You can pick and choose what you find it appropriate or not.

    I am fully certain that Obama will give his full throated support of Hillary if she gets the nod.  But right now it would not help his campaign to be openly supportive of the Clinton campaign.  


    Unity, please (none / 0) (#137)
    by cann on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:20:05 PM EST
      I have also been worried the about "my candidate or McCain" attitude.
       We Democrats were so right to be against Nixon in 1968 and in 1972. The split in the party had disastrous consequences. It was painful to see and painful to live through.
       The country can't afford another Republican President, c'mon!

       Right now it is still a very competitive race and it isn't a surprise that both are being competitive.  Strong feelings are what have drawn record numbers of Democrats to vote in the primaries.
         But, in November we have to come together. Isn't Obama the candidate of unity, anyhow? Hasn't Clinton invested a few decades working hard - as a Democrat?  
       How could it make sense for either not to support the eventual nominee?  United we stand, etc.
       Hmm...I am pleased to see the AntiMcCain parodies of Obama's video. That might well send a useful message about what we we are up against.


    Obama divided the Democratic Party (none / 0) (#138)
    by rosaleen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:20:25 PM EST
    When he entered the race, I believe over 60% of Democrats already supported HRC. He had to divide the party to get his foot in the door. And he did that when he let his toadies twist the words of HRC and Bill Clinton into some impossible semblance of racism. He let that meme spread through the Black community (via Jesse Jackson, Jr. for one) for four days before he tepidly said he doesn't think they are racists.  He wants to be POTUS more than he wants to be a part of the Democratic Party.

    As for judges, who knows what he would do? He voted present on seven important women's rights bills in Illinois. He sucks up all the sexist favoritism the press lays on him without mentioning that HRC's thick ankles are out of bounds.

    Personally, I view him as an Independent and his pandering to the middle is frightening.

    Would I vote for  him in November if he is the nominee? I'd have to, wouldn't I? But someone should have told him last year that he doesn't have the experience and it isn't his time and it isn't worth dividing the Party for him to be elected POTUS this year.

    Oh please (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:26:23 PM EST
    Did Bill Bradley divide the party by running against Gore in 2000?  When did Hillary Clinton become the heir apparent to the Democratic Party?  I missed that memo.

    It amazes me that some of you seem so comfortable attacking Obama's record on abortion.  

    But of course I shouldn't be surprised if you are galled by charges of racism in the same post you speak of rampant sexism.

    Perhaps the thing that upsets you the most is he is out-victiming your candidate.


    Bradley is a bad example (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:28:05 PM EST
    He certainly triede to divide the Party.

    He ran a despicable campaign.


    Yes He Did (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:51:24 PM EST
    He started many of the lies about Gore that got repeated in the GE and he started the meme that Gore was no different than Bush that led to the Nader debacle.  There's a reason that was Bradley's last stand in Democratic politics.

    And many Democrats are still angry about it.  At the Clinton office here, when someone mentioned something Obama had said about Hillary, one of the volunteers (note - not Clinton staff) said he was running a Bradley campaign and went off on an anti-Bradley tirade.  To which one of the younger volunteers said, "who's Bradley?"  Heh.


    I don't recall that at all (none / 0) (#157)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:34:18 PM EST
    I remember the campaign pretty well.  Bradley kept trying to talk about health care.   First national candidate with a real national health care plan.  

    To each their own I guess.


    Bill Bradley's campaign (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:35:46 PM EST
    absolutely sucked.  It set up a lot of the talking points that Bush used against Gore in the GE.  For a primer you can look at DailyHowler archives.  He absolutely did his part to lose us the election in '00 and mostly with flat out lies.

    By the way, Obama's campaign is a pretty close approximation of Bradley's.  IMHO.


    Then your memory is horrible (none / 0) (#170)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:45:55 PM EST
    I suggest you read Bob Somerby on the subject.

    Yes that is a concern (none / 0) (#168)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:44:46 PM EST
    older Democrats understand that you (none / 0) (#143)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:24:16 PM EST
    cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear...they are smart...but they love the Clinton legacy and they hate Reagan...Every word out of Obama's mouth sinks him right now with them...however, they also think "kindly" toward McCain, as he is the old war hero and I always felt he got a raw deal from Bush back in the other campaign...I am not sure how "Aunt Margaret" will think of the ramifacations of voting republican...Not educated enough in the political system to figure it out...IMO...Kennedy and Kerry havent taken that into account IMO....

    Maybe it's not the acrimony on the internets (none / 0) (#154)
    by AF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:30:25 PM EST
    I am an Obama supporter who has felt positively toward Hillary and her supporters (eg my mom) throughout the campaign. (Bill has gone down somewhat in my estimation, but that's another story).  I will vote for her enthusiastically in November if she is the nominee.  I don't know anyone who feels differently.

    All of which is throat-clearing for the following comment: Maybe the people who would vote for McCain over Hillary or Obama are not the testy political junkies who populate the Internet.  Maybe they're folks who are not ready to vote for a woman or an African American.  In particular, many of the McCain over Hillary folks could be Hillary haters, ie sexists.  And many of the McCain over Obama voters could be those white economic liberals who are still a bit racist.  

    I do not mean to cast aspersions on any individuals or demographic group or suggest that opposition to one or the other candidate is tantamount to sexism or racism.  But this is one way to explain these strange numbers.

    It is beyond foolish to think (none / 0) (#167)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:44:09 PM EST
    that you can "preach" republican talking points and expect the democratic base to just fall in line....Ain't gonna happen....I have been saying this for months but noone believed me...Noone vote should be taken for granted...EVER...

    It's not Republican talking points (none / 0) (#173)
    by AF on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:49:51 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's triangulation strategically literally borrowed from Republican talking points -- but he kept the base, and rightly so. Obama and Hillary are both more liberal, relative to the base, than Bill was. Something else is going on here.

    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#206)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:27:50 PM EST
    did not campaign on Republican talking points. That is what Obama is doing.

    When did Hillary Clinton become the heir apparent (none / 0) (#169)
    by rosaleen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:45:17 PM EST
    She earned that 60% approval rating and you know as well as I do that were Obama not Black, he would be out of the race right now. He divided the party along racial lines.

    He is not experienced, he is not ready, and he is divisive as hell while claiming he can unite the country. How can he say he will unite the country when he and his supporters have divided the Democratic Party? And how can anyone with two eyes and a brain in their head believe this fairy tale?

    Obama is politically ambitious and a charismatic talker so he is where he is. He's an empty shirt. He has no plans and no solutions beyond being a messiah.

    in those numbers are a number of (none / 0) (#174)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:51:14 PM EST
    people who don't vote and at the end of the day probably won't vote this time. not because of obama or hillary, but because it is just too much trouble. think about that.

    i am not being negative and i sure am not validating obama's campaign stragedy. i think some of the buzz has to do with people who have no party loyalty at all and in some cases don't have a clue what is at stake. they are voting like the do on american idol. cynic that i am!

    I doubt seriously (none / 0) (#177)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:54:03 PM EST
    the ability now of Hillary to be able to agree to be on the same ticket because Obama has literally trashed her husbands and her legacy totally...How can she now join up and say ok I will be your VP...she cannot...he burned the bridge...

    That is not cynical at all. (none / 0) (#178)
    by rosaleen on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 07:55:25 PM EST
     Most Americans are sheep.

    It's a Cult of Kids (none / 0) (#185)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:00:15 PM EST
    Pure and simple what Obama has is kids causing this surge. They're great for publicity, but they offer Obama no political clout. He'll have to build bridges with the politicos those very kids hate -- the Washington insiders.

    Old timers know the game, and pick accordingly (they also pick to win).

    I wouldn't get smug, but I will be patient for October (once the momentum dies down when the kids attention span goes with it).

    Get over yourself (none / 0) (#186)
    by jarober on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:00:17 PM EST
    There are plenty of us Republicans who will not be able to vote for McCain, precisely because he has no respect for the first amendment (McCain/Feingold).  Mind you, don't take that to mean that we'll vote Democrat - Hillary is in love with speech supression as well, and it's not at all clear what Obama thinks - on that, or on anything else.

    Given that, why are you stunned that there are Democrats who can't stomach one candidate or the other?  After awhile, it gets tiresome to hold your nose and vote against, regardless of where you live on the political spectrum.

    Republicans may not, conservatives will (none / 0) (#199)
    by SandyK on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:18:10 PM EST
    I'm a Buchanan conservative (not going to get much more Right than that), and I'm voting for Hillary. Partly for the reason you stated, partly gender, but mostly because McCain is literally m-a-d. Don't trust him as CiC.

    Want stability, and that warhawk is going after Russia next. No WWIV. Nope.

    There is no conservative candidate in this race. Not Paul, not McCain, not Huckabee or anyone else. Have to pick the less of what evil, or throw the vote.

    Simply not giving it away to McCain.


    Temper and Madness (none / 0) (#203)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:24:33 PM EST
    Some of the conservatives keep talking about the McCain temper, that he is a hot head. That alone in the hands of the president is scary, what further discussion is there?

    Been following some of those links (none / 0) (#188)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:01:30 PM EST
    and I agree with you BTD DISGUSTING

    My Atheist Mother in L.A. Voted For Huckabee (none / 0) (#192)
    by xjt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:06:11 PM EST
    But swears she will support Clinton if she makes it to the general election. I'm still trying to figure it out. I said, "Ma, Huckabee wants to change the constitution to be in line with the bible." She said, "Oh I didn't know that. I just like him because he talks nice and reminds me of my late father."

    This is not a defense but.... (none / 0) (#197)
    by ding7777 on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:15:55 PM EST
    If you are disappointed in the choice of the eventual nominee, then you will be susceptible to the right-wing noise machine.

    So guard against it, now!

    I plan on voting for Obama if its necessary, but I really really really don't want to.

    Let's see I'll vote for one of the Dems OR... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Dadler on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:16:10 PM EST
    ...the guy who is happy to militarily occupy Iraq for only a CENTURY!

    Madness, pure madness.

    you forget that many dems (none / 0) (#204)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:25:05 PM EST
    won't think it thru...they will hear Obama trashing Clinton on the tube or in an ad and they will say aint no way I can vote for him....

    I have been a Dem for 35 years. Frankly, I could (none / 0) (#208)
    by jere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:34:17 PM EST
    not care less what your judgment is about me and about who I decide who to vote for, or not.  I am so disgusted by the hate and hypocrisy that has reared its ugly head in the Democratic party that I don't want to be associated with the Democratic Party any more, period.  I have never been apathetic.  I have always supported and voted for Democrats, regardless of whether I "liked" them or not, but something has changed for me this year.  I can't stand the Democrats anymore.  This country deserves what it gets.  I know my vote does not matter to Mr. Obama.  He has done nothing but insult me with his arrogance and hate filled message of unity.  Before this year, I never understood why people did not value their right to vote and participate in the process.  Now I get it.  So go ahead and judge me for not being a "good Democrat."  Maybe I'm not, but it is the Democrats that pushed me away, not the other way around.

    Maybe you won't find much sympathy here (none / 0) (#215)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:45:19 PM EST
    but you have mine.  This is a democracy and you have the right to vote, or not, for whomever you want without anyone telling you different.  You can put that in the bank and feel good about it.  :-)

    Thank you for your reply. I am not looking for (none / 0) (#223)
    by jere on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:07:55 PM EST
    sympathy.  I am offended by this post because BTD assumes that anyone that decides not to vote for one of the Democratic candidates is a member of some cult of personality.  I have 2 post graduate degrees and have been licensed to practice law for 20 years in NM and CO.  I am quite informed about what is going on. I don't happen to like what I am seeing coming out of this process.  I had a lot of respect for BTD until I read this.  Spare me the guilt trip about all the wonderful things that will happen if we can only elect Obama to be our saviour, but if we lose, it is your fault because you are not a loyal Democrat.  That is a bunch of sanctimonious BS.  The Democrats are their own worst enemies.  If we lose this election, it will be the fault of the Democrats who drafted someone that is not up to the task and has a resume that is one page deep because the Democrats would rather sacrifice this country than elect another Clinton.  Talk about small minded.      

    you will do what you wish (none / 0) (#232)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:43:05 PM EST
    but I will heap contempt and disgust on you if you vote for McCain.

    Vote as you like, of course. . . (none / 0) (#230)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:29:06 PM EST
    He has done nothing but insult me with his arrogance and hate filled message of unity.

    but a little perspective might be in order.  Just what is a "hate-filled message of unity"?


    I truly think (none / 0) (#209)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:35:42 PM EST
    that Kennedy and Kerry thought they could run a turnip this year and win because of Geo. Bush, so they gathered up Obama to take Hillarys black base away from her thinking thats all they need to do....but it has tilted over to trashing the Clintons and praising Reagan...Dems wont forget that..so if Obama loses the GE, he can forget any future with presidential politics...what a shame...if he had just waited and been a VP instead for Hillary he would have been set for positive results within the party...

    Working Polls for Obama (none / 0) (#214)
    by NaNaBear on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:42:12 PM EST
    I will be making calls tonight on Obama's behave.I just received the list.  
    Tommorrow I will work at the polling station near me,  passing out Obabma fliers, ect ect..

    I am a senior citizen and think both candidates  are brilliant. We are blessed to have Hilary and Obama. If she is the nom. in Nov. I will do the same thing for her. I haven't talked to any one that said they want support Hilary if she gets the nomination. I don't know where some of you are meeting these people that said they want support her.  

    If we want to unite, why not start now.  Accusing others of making negative remarks about your prefered candidate , while doing the same thing doesn't add up. I have never spoken against Clinton, just because I prefer Obama. They are Democrats, why diss either one .
    If Clinton wins, I want have a problem with it. I am so glad I feel this way. Some of you need to chill out. Its not as bad as it seems. Its how you want it to be. If you want to stress over it, and go negative, than thats on you. Pick your chose. Unite or go negative

    it isn't us that is the problem to convince (none / 0) (#217)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 08:49:40 PM EST
    it is the entire democratic base that has been bombarded with negative democratic Clinton ads...they are turned off...big time...Just because you have a bunch of kids now in smaller caucuses that will come out and participate etc doesnt mean you have the entire base of support...big difference...plus like in Wisconsin they are famous for cross over Republicans trying to sway our nominee...none of that counts in the GE....

    Why I won't vote for Obama? (none / 0) (#229)
    by BigB on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:28:46 PM EST

    I would like you to hear from me why I won't vote for Obama. It has nothing to do with the cult of personality from my side.

    It has to do with the fact that Obama has been trashing progressive ideas such as universal health care and praising Ronal Reagan. It is to do with the fact that he has been trashing all the good things that happened during the Clinton years. It has to do with Obama using right wing talking points to attack Hillary as divisive. It has to do with the ad hominem attacks and viciousness of his supporters towards the Clintons. It has to do with my sincere belief that Obama is simply unqualified to be president.

    Even though I disagree with McCain on many issues I do believe he has the qualifications to be commander-in-chief and I will have to put my country ahead of my party.

    Comments at 231, closing now (none / 0) (#233)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 09:43:39 PM EST
    Thanks everyone.