home

Self Interest

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:13:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

What do pols care about the most? My consistent answer has been that they care about winning their own elections above all else. Of course, they won't say it that way. They will argue, and maybe even believe, that there is nothing more important to the commonweal than their election to office.

Steve Benen cites Jon Chait:

An easier question to answer is, How much does Clinton value her own interests versus those of the Democratic Party? And here the answer is very clear: Clinton is acting as if she doesn’t care about the Democratic Party’s interests at all, except insofar as they coincide with her own.

Benen's response gets it right:

[A]t Clinton HQ right now, a team of advisors are likely thinking, “If Obama’s the nominee, Democrats lose. We may be the only ones who realize it, and we may only have a 10% shot, but we need to keep fighting . . . in order to save the party and protect the party’s interests.”

As I say, pols ALWAYS think their election is critical to the interests of the party and the Nation. What I find ironic is when faced with, at the least, similar action by Obama, the same handwringers have not a word to say. And yes, I am talking about Obama blocking the revotes in Florida and Michigan - which undoubtedly were in the best interests of the Democratic Party. Not one of these pundits has ever stated the obvious - Obama put his own interests before those of the Democratic Party. They have no credibility in their handwringing about Clinton in my mind.

Related - The latest low from a once proud Democratic online community here. What an embarrassment that community has become.

[Update (TL): Comments now closed.]
< Obama's Potential Path To The Nomination | Does Anyone Care About The Rules?! Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Self Interest | 183 comments (183 topical)
    But, surely you know Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:18:40 PM EST
    name wasn't even on the ballot in MI and nary a soul knew who he was in FL.  I am sooo sick of this.  Which is why Carville is so refreshing, albeit abrasive.

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by NJDem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:28:17 PM EST
    that's why only 500,000+ people voted for him in FL.  Please, that's more people than many caucus totals!  

    Other than BTD--why hasn't anyone pointed out that BO's road to the nomination by blocking FL and MI is the exact reason he may loose the GE?  I just don't get it, aren't there any Dems who want a fighter and someone who will, you know, win?  

    I used to defend the argument that seating MI as is wasn't fair to BO b/c he took his name off.  But after he agreed to whatever the DNC said and then still refused the re-vote, I say, too bad.  He had two chances in MI, now we need to do what is best for the general.  

    Can anyone really see going into August without FL and MI?  I just can't.  Maybe I have too much faith that eventually they'll do the right thing...    

    Seriously (none / 0) (#20)
    by AmyinSC on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:41:16 PM EST
    Who knew there were do-overs for failed campaign strategies??  I have to say, THAT is certainly "new Politics!"

    Didn't Obama have ads run in MI telling his supporters to vote Uncommitted??  So, give him the Uncommitted votes - he's still making out better since SOME Of those votes must belong to Edwards!

    Parent

    I think Florida is like (none / 0) (#32)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:51:21 PM EST
    the Republicans and New Jersey: tantalizingly close but really out of reach.  In 2000, Florida was close most likely because Lieberman was on the ticket.....

    Michigan should come around in the Fall for the Democrats.

    Parent

    Except it's not (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:58:55 PM EST
    Clinton win in 1996 and AHEM Gore won in 2000. SUSA says Hillary has a very good chance to win there.

    Here's a fun game for you: find me a reasonable scenario where a Republican or a Democrat can win the election when the other candidate has won FL, OH, and PA.

    Parent

    Do you really believe Obama could lose (none / 0) (#53)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:01:40 PM EST
    PA in November? If so, why? The Wright stuff?

    Parent
    Yes and yes (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:05:01 PM EST
    Though race WAS a problem before. My Governor may often stick his foot in his mouth, but he frequently tells the truth.

    Parent
    Obama would lose anyway in PA. (none / 0) (#162)
    by sas on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:20:40 PM EST
    was going to lose PA, regardless of the Wright stuff.

    PA is the second or third oldest state in the nation, and older voters don't like him much. They do not find him inspiring. They've heard the change/hope argument so many times before from other politicians.  They want specifics.

    There are alot of working class whites here who do not identify with Obama.  The college educated group is split basically down the middle, and young people are about even for the candidates.

    PA is Ohio squared.

    He would have lost here by 10 before the Wright thing, but now he'll probably lose by fifteen.

    Parent

    I want a fighter and a winner, too! (none / 0) (#40)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:56:57 PM EST
    "I just don't get it, aren't there any Dems who want a fighter and someone who will, you know, win?"

    It seems to me that Obama supporters have a candidate who is fighting and winning ... against an "inevitable" candidate no less. More delegates is winning.  

    I'm happy to support a campaign that DOES NOT believe it has only a 10% chance to win the nomination.  

    The Mark Penn strategic blunders that included ignoring the word "caucus," failing to jump in earlier in Iowa, not implementing solid ground organizations until it was too late, failing to use the internet wisely, also included the failure to request re-votes in Florida and Michigan in a timely fashion.

    Are the strategic blunders noted in the paragraph above those of a "winning" campaign?    

    Parent

    What about the mercy rule? ; ) (none / 0) (#122)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:41:03 PM EST


    Parent
    this... (none / 0) (#137)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:53:12 PM EST
    isn't little league where the mercy rule applies.

    This is the big leagues and only she decides when to call it, or not call it.

    What are Obama supporters so worried about? Getting their clocks cleaned the rest of the way? If so, some candidate.

    Parent

    Oh, please stop it. This is so dumb. (none / 0) (#199)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:27:31 PM EST
    I'm happy to support a campaign that DOES NOT believe it has only a 10% chance to win the nomination.  

    I am too. In fact, I'm happy that I'm smarter than to mistake a paraphrased, unattributed quote in a RW online rag for what the campaign of my candidate is really thinking.

    Do you realize what you do to your credibility when you repeat this as though it were established fact?

    Parent

    As a Florida voter I do blame Obama (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:36:36 PM EST
    2000 Election I voted for Gore.  As a Florida democratic voter, I resent any politician that is in favor of disenfranching voters, and with Florida's track record it amounts to not only a slap by Obama but a double slap by the DNC.  With the DNC and Obama as the nominee, you might as well color Florida red in the GE.  No need to g d America, but g d the DNC by handing McCaine the election.  And by the way, since Florida is a purple state, many crossover voters do not have a big problem voting for McCaine.  Iraq is not the only issue on the minds of Florida voters. BTW, many us feel that our state sanction election in January was legitimate.  

    Yup (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by RickTaylor on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:39:39 PM EST
    Both candidates have been advocating what is clearly in their best interest. Hillary Clinton has called for the delegates to all be seated, even though she signed a pledge not to participate, neither candidate could campaign, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. While Obama argues the delegates should be split fifty fifty. By amazing coincidence, after careful deliberation, both candidates have decided the objectively right solution just happens to be the plausible solution that benefits them the most.

    What I don't understand is why Hillary Clinton didn't protest the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan before the candidates agreed not to participate. Why did she sign that agreement at all? It was clearly not in her interest. If she'd protested early, she'd be in much better shape now, her opponents would have a much harder time painting her actions as a naked grab to fix the game in her favor, and there would have been a better chance of her actually succeeding in having Michigan and Florida delegates counted.

    I can only think of two possibilities. On the one hand, maybe she just thought she had the election in the bag. Maybe she though she could win the nomination without those two states, and there was no point in raising a stink. Pride goeth before a fall.

    The other possibility is she didn't believe the DNC penalty would stick. She assumed she'd get the delegates, even with Obama not on the ballot in one state, and was happy with the advantage of reaping the delegates without to campaign.

    Neither of those explanations is flattering, but I can't honestly think of another. Either way, it was a bad miscalculation on her part.

    I ciriticized Clinton for that (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:43:42 PM EST
    Do you read this web site with any frequency?

    Parent
    Re: I criticized Clinton for that (none / 0) (#218)
    by RickTaylor on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:51:36 AM EST
    I'm fairly new here, and regardless I didn't mean my post to be a criticism of yours, or to imply you hadn't. I think I basically agree with you; shockingly, neither candidate is an angel. Maybe that's more important to point out in Obama's case as more people pretend otherwise with him.

    My final question was sincerely meant; I honestly don't understand why the Clinton campaign didn't challenge the DNC decision earlier. Maybe it would have had a political downside in some way I don't understand.

    Parent

    Have You (none / 0) (#28)
    by AmyinSC on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:46:51 PM EST
    Read the Pledge?  It was posted at this site not too long ago.  

    Parent
    This (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by tek on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:40:51 PM EST
    whole thing is the fault of the DNC.  From the beginning they have tried to skew the process to give the nomination to Obama even though the majority of traditional Democrats favored Clinton.  So, you could say, it's not so much the candidates who are guilty of thinking their election is essential to the country as it is the Dem insiders thinking that it's essential they get the candidate of their choice.  I find this every bit as elitist and undemocratic as the antics of the neoCons.  Disgusting.

    I've stayed out (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:45:56 PM EST
    of this particular blame game theme, mainly because it will solve nothing.

    But it seems so obvious that if politicians want to prove to the American public that they can solve the larger problems that we face, why is it that they can't solve one of the smaller and more pertinent problems that we face...disenfranchised voters?

    I have poked Obama for saying that the plan in MI was too 'complicated' primarily because no matter how you slice and dice it, if you can't solve a complicated matter such as reaching across the aisle and finding a way to work out a solution to this with your opponent, how can you sell the idea that you can work the 'other' party to get solutions?

    Forget the blame game...the challenge is here...now.

    Parent

    Not a good argument (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:42:51 PM EST
    Obma is doing 35% with Whites.

    Let me give you a piece of advice - Obama supporters should NEVER argue demographics. EVER.

    Not to the tune of of 65% (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:51:39 PM EST
    If that is the breakdown in November, we have lost already.

    Parent
    That's what keeps me up at night, frankly (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:56:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:58:27 PM EST
    Easter Lynching Sermons do not help either.

    Parent
    Makes me want to rewind to a year ago (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:00:37 PM EST
    and join the Gore beggars.

    Parent
    We would have welcomed you! (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:26:38 PM EST
    There still are a few of us still rooting for a guy who isn't even running.  I know that it's a fantasy, but still it's hard not to cheer for someone who makes these two look like the self centered, ambitious pols that they are.  I want more....

    Parent
    I Was Probably One Of The Last Holdouts In (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:34:41 PM EST
    the waiting for Gore group.  Never would have imagined that I would wind up voting for Hillary. Life is full of surprises and proof positive that you should never say never.

    Parent
    A year ago (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:38:06 PM EST
    I fully expected that I would be supporting either Gore or Obama. I don't even know why Obama seemed like a good idea at the time.

    I still can't believe that I'm about to vote for Hillary, but I am.

    Parent

    I thought that Hillary was a (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:47:26 PM EST
    self centered, ambitious politician.

    Now I think they are both are - but that Obama seems as substantial as cotton candy.   There is a gritty reality to Hillary.  I'll take an edgy realist over a warm, fuzzy motivational speaker.

    Parent

    Hillary seems able to bounce back, (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:50:09 PM EST
    but Obama can't grab a convincing win from a silver platter. That scares me about his prospects in November.

    Parent
    I (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by sas on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:31:06 PM EST
    love the fact that Hillary is strong and tough as can be.

    She has taken everything everyone has thrown at her (even her husband) and has come out standing.

    No matter the sexists, the Right wing attack machine, the MSM, and even the DNC.

    I want a president like that.  She isn't always right, but she never gives up.  She's a worker and a fighter, even under extremely adverse circumstances.

    Love that.

    Parent

    Never Could Get Excited About Obama (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:55:16 PM EST
    I wanted someone who could walk in the door of the WH and start reversing all the harm that Bush has done. Never saw anything that convinced me that Obama could do that. I also wanted someone who I thought would fight against the Republican agenda and not someone who would prop them up as Obama IMO has been doing throughout the primaries. Then came McClurkin, the Clinton's are racists, Social Security is in crisis and the "Harry and Louise" fliers against Universal Health Care, all who don't vote for Obama are racists and now Rev. Wright (GE loser IMO).

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:57:16 PM EST
    The McClurkin episode made me take a critical look at Obama. Everything else you mention is just stinky brown icing on the cake.

    Parent
    You just recited my list (none / 0) (#191)
    by vigkat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:57:03 PM EST
    I traveled the same trajectory, noting the same decidedly uninspiring words and deeds.

    Parent
    From the exit poll (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:18:22 PM EST
    White voters went 58/41 Bush, sez the 2004 exit poll. Kerry lost, of course. In 2000 it was 54/42.  In both cases, Black voters went about 90% for the Dem.

    Do I have to tell you what happens to the overall vote if white voters drop their support for the Democrat by 10%?

    I don't care if Obama ups black turnout: in PA, black turnout already rocks in Presidential elections, so he can't do enough to make up for the loss.

    Add to that his apparent problem with Latinos, and we're talking about a blowout.

    Parent

    Well your forgetting about younger voters (none / 0) (#106)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:34:03 PM EST
    who will come out at record levels to support Obama.  The point you miss is Obama attracts voters that have never been a major part of the political process before.  Add Richardson or Edwards to his ticket and oh boy we got ourselves a winner.

    Parent
    Riiiiight (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:36:24 PM EST
    And I have a bridge in Montana to sell you.

    Parent
    Obama's young voters.. (none / 0) (#208)
    by Chisoxy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:12:19 AM EST
    Remind me of how Kerry was running strong with young voters who didnt come up in polling because they had cell phones and were projected to come out in big numbers and decide the election.

    That worked out so well for us in 2004.

    Parent

    Republicans are lucky (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:00:10 PM EST
    they stumbled upon nominating McCain....

    Parent
    No way (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:01:20 PM EST
    Honestly, he was their strongest candidate.

    Parent
    McCain wasn't stumbled upon (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:52:50 PM EST
    they nominated their strongest candidate.  They want to win and know how to do it.  Democrats have a lot to prove in that regard.


    Parent
    Incorrect (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:19:38 PM EST


    Parent
    but...? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:52:43 PM EST
    And what about latinos?  Or asian americans?  Clinton has proven she can get a commanding number of votes from both groups.  Can obama?  Especially with latinos - can obama get even a majority when he's up against Mr. Reform?  How about women?  Older voters?  Those groups heavily lean democratic but will they again this fall if obama is the nom?

    I suspect not, but I'm not going to definitively try to project six months from now based on heated emotions during a close primary.

    Parent

    oh (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:36:55 PM EST
    Oh she CAN'T win.  Well then nevermind.  Might as well call all the votes off.  Because surely polling of one demographic eight months before an election is all we need to know.

    /snark

    Polls are funny things.  Clinton might, MIGHT lose some AA voters. Who knows - maybe even half.  So that's five percent total nationally (which by itself is rather misleading as the AA popluation is not spread evenly amongst the 50 states).  But according to the polls above Obama might lose 10 percent of white voters.  How does that break down?  What if he loses 10-20 percent of latino voters?  Haven't seen polling on that but he's not done well with them.

    I can make an argument either way.  But it's still an aeon in political terms until the GE.  Hyperbole is not very helpful.  (And obama's supporters are not the only ones taking this personally.)

    Parent

    no (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:56:34 PM EST
    It's a loss of 5 percent.  AAs are about 10 percent of the electorate.  You lose half and it's a net five percent loss.*

    But again, you are assuming an entire population is going to 1) feel the way you do and 2) still feel that way in November.  (And I would point out that NEITHER candidate can win without super delegates.)

    It's a little premature to be making blanket, definitive conclusions on that basis.  

    * and I would again add that even a national drop of five percent would not necessarily have that impact as AA voters are not spread evenly throughout the country and in the GE it is the electoral college that counts.  Clinton could lose 100 percent of the AA vote in mississippi, georgia and alabama and it wouldn't change the outcome of those states.  But, again, I'm not going to assume that people will feel the what they feel now.  No more than you should assume that clinton's core voters are any less passionate or angry about what they perceive of this race.

    Parent

    that's irrelevant (none / 0) (#153)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:07:48 PM EST
    That doesn't matter in a GE matchup.  Republicans and independents vote too.  What matters are the overall numbers and who gets the most electors.  Heck, only about 35-40percent of voters register as democrats - it's not near fifty.  No matter how you slice it, losing half the AA vote does not result in a ten point drop.

    Parent
    Seems that what he's trying to get at is that (none / 0) (#157)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:14:18 PM EST
    if 100% of the Democratic voters, black and white, stayed home on MS, AL, GA, SC, UT, WY, ID, etc it will not matter at all in a general election.  Those electoral votes are not up for grabs anyway.

    A substantial portion of that 10% you seem to think is all powerful is concentrated in the deep south where Democrats will not win in '08.  FWIW.

    Parent

    and ... (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:28:08 PM EST
    Every state has a sizeable population of women.  Well over fifty percent!  And no democrat can win without getting a majority.

    This is getting silly.  No one knows what will happen in november or what will change in the meantime.  You're making declarative statements that are impossible to prove at this point.  I, for one, am getting sick of being told that my candidate CAN'T do something when there is just as much evidence that obama CAN'T win.  

    Parent

    women (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:42:53 PM EST
    I do think some gop (and indie) women will crossover for hrc.  Moreover, I suspect that some dem women cross to mccain or stay home if obama's the nom.  Dems rely on an advantage with women to win.  

    But I don't pretend I KNOW what will happen.  And I'm not going to go around and tell other candidates they need to quit based on a gut feeling for how passionate people are right now.

    Parent

    that's your view (none / 0) (#190)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:56:39 PM EST
    I believe that it's hard if not impossible to make declarative statements (as you have been doing) based on polling so far out.

    But if it is true, than you better worry because - as BTD and others have pointed out - obama's numbers with white people right now are nothing to write home about.

    Parent

    Obama Can't Win MO With Just (none / 0) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:38:11 PM EST
    the AA, youth and wine and cheese votes either. He needs women, seniors, the working class and conservative white Dems to win the state. Don't think he will win enough support in those groups to win the state. Recent polls seem to indicate that he will lose the state to McCain.

     

    Parent

    i mean (none / 0) (#158)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:15:38 PM EST
    That a projected five point loss would not necessarily mean clinton CAN'T win when you consider population distribution and strength amongst other segments of the electorate (ie women and latinos).  Of course, I'd rather not have the loss but I'm not the one pretending that it is set in stone and threatening other voters that they should cave based on that theory.

    Further, I am arguing that if you want to make the demographic argument, there's much to be worried about with obama as well.  Especially if he's running against Mr. Reform.

    Parent

    susa (none / 0) (#180)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:37:03 PM EST
    Check those polls.  I believe they have her winning at least two of those states.

    Parent
    depends on where they reside. (none / 0) (#159)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:15:50 PM EST


    Parent
    two different things (none / 0) (#161)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:19:13 PM EST
    "Self identify" is not the same thing as actual registration.  The former includes a sizeable number of independents.  The latter does ...not.

    Parent
    math (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:34:48 PM EST
    This is getting (already at?) ridiculous.  AAs are ten percent of the population nationally.  They vote 90 percent dem.  90 percent of 10 percent is 9 percent.  Half of that is 4.5 percent.  So that how much of the NATIONAL vote clinton could theoretically lose (making the wild assumption that poll numbers 8 months out are set in stone.)

    20 percent of 45 percent is 9 percent - so totally consistent with the above.  Half of that is 4.5 percent.  

    Unless clinton lost every AA voter, it would not result in a 10 percent popular vote drop.  

    Parent

    Well done! (none / 0) (#210)
    by standingup on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:24:52 AM EST
    I think your style of commenting is one that we should all aspire to on this blog and others.  Very impressed with the way handled this entire thread  with civility, respect and sound reasoning to the end.  

    Parent
    This (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by sas on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:35:14 PM EST
    is personal for women too.

    You can't begin to know how ticked off women will be.....

    Parent

    Plus... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:01:39 PM EST
    ...the unknown wild card that Clinton has in her favor is that in a general election the current dynamic of a white women running against a black man will change to a women running against an old white man. The subset of people that that feel they are choosing between being a racist and a sexist, will pick sexist everytime, but when Hillary is the only "historic underdog" in the race, she will pick up alot of support from women. Remember, for all the lamenting about losing black support, this country's registered voters are somehting like 9% black and 56% women.

    Parent
    I agree. It will be the woman who (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:10:13 PM EST
    will bring the soldiers home vs the old guy who will want to be there forever and "win". Women disapprove of Iraq by a much greater margin than do men.  And that is what will win in November.

    Parent
    I agree. It will be the woman who (none / 0) (#66)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:10:57 PM EST
    will bring the soldiers home vs the old guy who will want to be there forever and "win". Women disapprove of Iraq by a much greater margin than do men.  And that is what will win in November.

    Parent
    I love this comment. (none / 0) (#81)
    by CaminNM on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:19:40 PM EST
    I love this comment.  I've been thinking the same thing and I haven't seen a word about it.  The dynamics will be completely different.  It will become a campaign of issues rather than personality.
    Although each have strong personalities they neither
    a cult make.  

    I will be very grateful for that. Blind adoration
    makes me nervous.

    It will be less exciting, more substantial, more
    comforting, and perhaps a relief. The hero thing
    plays so differently with Clinton than it does with
    Obama.  

    Parent

    I'm trying to remember (none / 0) (#102)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:30:31 PM EST
    when an election was about issues rather than personality...

    Parent
    That was the point Bill Clinton was trying to make (none / 0) (#132)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:48:34 PM EST
    when he made the comments that are now called "McCarthyism".

    Honestly, I do love the guy, but I don't know why he had to throw that 'love their country' line in there.  I don't think he did it maliciously, but if he did do it on purpose to try to insinuate something about Obama, he deserves all the criticism he gets.  

    Parent

    if boomers stay home no Dem will win (none / 0) (#111)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:35:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Some AA will stay home... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Exeter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:33:02 PM EST
    ...but some racist Dems will stay home or vote for McCain if Obama wins and some GOP women will vote only for McCain if Obama wins. At the very least its a wash.

    Parent
    BTD, do you know the facts about (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:46:26 PM EST
    Obama's TV advertising in FL?
    I read that he ran several ads per day for one month prior to the FL primary. He did this via regional or national ad buys, where he had the option of blacking out FL, but chose not to.
    Well, that is my understanding of what happened. Is this correct? Also, it would be interesting to see what national ad buys he made after 1/29, for comparison.

    I do (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:50:54 PM EST
    He ran national ads. I think it is irrelevant to the question.

    Parent
    How is it irrelevant? If he made national (none / 0) (#34)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:52:31 PM EST
    purchase solely to be able to run ads in FL, I think this gives a very good reason to seat the FL delegates.

    Parent
    You can win a blog argument with that (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:53:45 PM EST
    which is worth exactly nothing.

    Parent
    Oh really? How many ads did he run in FL? (none / 0) (#38)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:55:32 PM EST
    I think the answer to that question is both relevant and politically significant, if it is a large number. If there were only a few, then no.

    Parent
    As a Floridian from Broward County I felt like I (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:00:54 PM EST
    saw more than I should have on CNN especially since no other candidate ran ads. Oh, I forgot, I did have a Hillary bumpersticker on my car, does that count?

    Parent
    He ran a national ad that ran (1.00 / 1) (#91)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:24:52 PM EST
    in a very small portion of the NW corner of the state.  Flame on but Democracy will prevail and Obama will win.  Imgagine that.

    Parent
    Democracy? Count the votes! (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:28:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Broward county is in the NW corner? (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:37:04 PM EST
    Wow.

    Parent
    Not true (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:05:32 PM EST
    It was statewide on CNN.  I saw it in Orlando.

    Parent
    Misinformation Spreader? (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Jon on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:03:00 PM EST
    Either you are here to spread misinformation or you comment without bothering to verify the information you post.

    Either way, whenever I see your comments I immediately discount them. I'm sure I'm not alone in doing this.

    It's your reputation. Perhaps you don't care about it.

    Parent

    There you go again!!! You're just making (none / 0) (#124)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:41:18 PM EST
    it hard for me to trust Obama.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:57:52 PM EST
    You go with that and see if you can convince Donna Brazile with that argument.

    Parent
    I think the SD's will be interested in it. (none / 0) (#50)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:01:04 PM EST


    Parent
    There is a troubling (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:46:40 PM EST
    pattern with Senator Obama taking credit for things other people have done.  First it was back in Illinois when he was getting ready to run for Senator and was given credit for all legislation whether he was the one who came up with the idea and the one who worked on it or not. (link) Then we find out that he has been doing something similar in DC. (link)

    Self-interest makes him want to take credit for things he didn't do.

    And yes I know people are accusing Hillary of padding her resume, but most of this is after the fact.  Ted Kennedy used to give her credit on SCHIP but now says she did next to nothing.  Last December the NYT panned her but at least gave her credit for going into Bosnia when it was considered unsafe for Bill. (link) Now people are saying all she did was have tea parties and sing with Sinbad.  She will win this argument in the end because she really has done a lot of things.  But Senator Obama has almost no foreign policy experience and even the legislative experience he claims belongs mostly to other people.

    This comment seems off topic to me (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:50:31 PM EST
    Explain the relevance to my post please Mike. We are strict on that.

    Parent
    Honestly I misread the (none / 0) (#62)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:09:59 PM EST
    topic at first.  Now that I look at it again, I see it had more to do with FL and MI than self-interest in general.  So let me expand in a way that is more related to that.  I think the change in popularity of Senator Obama, as more stories come out each day, contributes to the fear of revotes in both cases and that it is even more in his self-interest to avoid revotes than it was previously.  

    Parent
    sorry btd i just opined on it too. (none / 0) (#182)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:38:39 PM EST
    i will watch it. thanks

    Parent
    As an Obama supporter... (none / 0) (#47)
    by ItsGreg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:00:12 PM EST
    ...I have to admit that on pure policy wonkery, Hillary clearly outweighs Obama. She knows all the power players in Washington, and she'd be effective in developing policy. One of my concerns about her, though, is that she knows all the power players in Washington. And while I would expect her to be dependable in moving policy, I just don't think she'd do anything terribly original.

    As to "padding her resume" I think we expect all politicians to do that to some degree. She surely hurt herself with the snipers in Bosnia tall tale, but it wasn't a mortal wound.

    Parent

    I think she honestly (none / 0) (#70)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:13:11 PM EST
    confused two events.  Though I am not sure what the other event was.

    Parent
    She took two helicopter trips to army (none / 0) (#77)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:16:29 PM EST
    bases that day. Either one could have matched the details of her recollection more closely.

    Parent
    Possibly. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:25:02 PM EST
    Last December even when it was busy denying that she had any real Foreign Policy experience, the NYT at least gave her credit for going into Bosnia and Kosovo before it was considered safe for Bill.  It seems entirely possible that she is remembering a real trip but not this particular trip.  I am waiting to see what others who were there say.  I expect Togo West in particular to have more to say on this.

    Parent
    Actually I think that picture of her greeting (none / 0) (#96)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:26:45 PM EST
    the girl is lovely. It shows her in a very positive light.

    Parent
    Not that I know of. n/t (none / 0) (#98)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:27:54 PM EST


    Parent
    I saw Morton Kondracke on C-Span (none / 0) (#83)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:20:36 PM EST
    interviewing several Dems and GOP on what the new administration will face in November. The first question by the GOP was about Hillary's experience, and Leon Panetta (stellar guy) gave her a boatload of credit for her 8 years as well as Mickey Kantor. Panetta is such a class act.

    Parent
    yes, that worries me even more than (none / 0) (#179)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:36:59 PM EST
    the obama campaign stragedy and actions. it speaks to lack of experience and reyling on others to make it right. i have a question and perhaps some better informed in this area can help. just what leglistation or action has obama ever undertaken for the welfare of aa voters? ok they are proud and rightly so of having him run. but so did jesse jackson. i don't count shapton though i enjoyed watching him in debates. personally with his flaws i like jackson better and actually trust him more. i believe he does care about the welfare of the aa community and the welfare of the democratic party.

    Parent
    This is so obvious! (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jen on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:03:56 PM EST
    (The linked orange place diary, I mean.) I think enough O supporters know he can't/won't win the GE, so they're setting it up so that if he's the nominee, when he loses, which he will, they have the excuse already in place. It's all Hillary's fault! They are so transparent it's almost laughable.

    Don't need excuses your (1.00 / 0) (#97)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:27:26 PM EST
    candidate was throwing dirt from DAY ONE!

    Parent
    That argument works both (none / 0) (#61)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:09:45 PM EST
    ways....

    Tweety today made the argument that Hillary would prefer that McCain win against Obama (assuming she could not get the nomination herself), rather than wanting a Democrat to win, in order to set herself up for a run against a very old McCain in 2012.  Others on the panel tended to agree with Tweety....

    Parent

    Precisely the reason (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by jen on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:14:29 PM EST
    I turned off the teevee over a year ago and have never looked back.

    Parent
    Does anybody watch that (none / 0) (#88)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:23:17 PM EST
    windbag anymore?

    Parent
    Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:39:13 PM EST


    Parent
    C-SPAN Radio played today's (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:06:13 PM EST
    Obama conference call, and if you wanted to listen to some self-interest, there were boatloads available from Mr. Plouffe.  After 10 minutes of Plouffe barely pausing for breath while he made sure to get in every single talking point and attack on Clinton that he could, I finally had to change the station; people look at you funny when you are alone in your car and screaming at the radio.  I'm sure the Clinton calls are much the same, and Obama supporters who listen to them probably feel the way I did - but, honest to Pete, I don't know how anyone can listen to that stuff day in and day out and not feel like they have worms eating through their brains.

    To listen to Plouffe, Hillary is killing the party, she has no chance to win, she's changing the rules every day, Bill Clinton has no business questioning anyone's patriotism, she's got to be hiding something in those tax returns, Obama is The One.  There was more, but you get the idea.

    I did have one chuckle - when someone from one of the Pittsburgh papers asked if a superdelegate "coup" was the only way Hillary could win, and if that happened, could the party survive...guess someone was reading kos today, huh?

    I Don't Get It (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Richjo on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:14:48 PM EST
    If the race is essentially over as the Obama campaign claims it is, then why would it matter who gets to vote in Michigan and who doesn't? According to the logic of the Obama campaign the vote in Michigan or Florida for that matter won't really count anyway because there is no way Hillary can win the nomination. It seems therefore that not counting the delegates from the original vote or having a revote serves only to needlessly disenfranchise two very important states. It wouldn't seem to be in Obama the eventual nominee's self interest to do that. That would seem to be proof that the race is in reality far from over. As such I don't see how any arguments about Clinton damaging the party can be taken seriously until the party goes ahead and counts the orginal votes or allows revotes in Florida and Michigan. Only then would anyone have any really credibility to suggest that the race is over and therefore ciriticize Clinton.

    Disenfranchisement (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:18:23 PM EST
    is in the best interest of Obama, but I have a hard time seeing how that can be spun as in the best interest of the party.

    Oh, Man, that *is* embarrassing (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by goldberry on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:21:56 PM EST
    I hope I never wrote anything that stupid when I was there.  
    As for it being sickening that the Clintons are in my party, I have to agree.  They must be absolutely nauseous to see what a mess Howard Dean and David Axelrod have made of it.  I barely recognize it myself.  Sickening indeed

    See, why must (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by rooge04 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:43:39 PM EST
    some of you go over the edge??  Can you not talk strategy and electability without dropping ridiculous statements like the one you just did? Talk Left is NOT Daily Kos. Be ready with arguments and facts, not insults and ridiculous statements.  You might have missed the turn to Daily Kos on the internet.

    I just deleted the comment (none / 0) (#212)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:02:06 AM EST
    you are replying to. It was by stopcomplaining and act. He is warned.

    Parent
    Not only is she not mathematically eliminated (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by white n az on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:49:10 PM EST
    it's obvious that she won't be mathematically eliminated prior to the convention.

    The simple fact is that she has earned the right to stay in and hope that she wins on first ballot (super delegates) or subsequent ballots.

    So if we take on the notion of withdrawing 'for the good of the party' - the issue clearly is who is it that clarifies 'the good of the party'?

    Perhaps Bill Clinton since he is the only living 2 term Democratic president.

    Jimmy Carter?
    Al Gore?
    John Edwards?
    MSNBC?

    In the end, it has to make sense to her to withdraw.

    For others to demand that she withdraw is partisan and insulting to her own personal judgment.

    The events of the past few weeks have demonstrated that the process is fickle and can turn on a dime.

    The prospects that she will win the next primary, Pennsylvania by a substantial margin look great.

    As Mark Twain commented..."The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated."

    It also insults women -- the Dem base -- (none / 0) (#207)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:24:43 PM EST
    but all we hear about is it will hurt feelings of others who are pressuring for the first woman ever to make it this far to give it up for the guy.

    We don't do that anymore.  The guy can tough it out against an opponent for the first time ever in his career.  The Chicago Way won't work this time.

    Parent

    Right idea but overly pessimistic (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by dwmorris on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:47:54 PM EST
    I agree that Clinton's team puts Obama's chances in the GE at 0% (which is probably spot on).  However, this idea that they are internally putting their odds at winning the nomination at 10% doesn't pass the smell test.  Bottom line - from an ethical perspective, the Clinton camp is absolutely operating in the best interests of the party (as well as the country and the world, for that matter).  The effort by Obamas partisans to bully her into dropping out is extraordinarily divisive, dangerous, and ill-considered.  If Obama is so fragile that we need to prop him up until the GE, he doesn't deserve the nomination.

    smell test (none / 0) (#196)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:07:24 PM EST
    I agree that 10% chance stuff just does not ring true.  More anonymously sourced dreck.

    Parent
    What do you mean I didn't imply (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:46:54 PM EST
    anything the Clinton campaign hasn't implied of Obama.  I'm not a supporter or directly linked to Obama don't start a new thread!

    Carville's comments (none / 0) (#2)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:23:44 PM EST
    put a pretty fine point on the what's-good-for-Hillary-is-good-for-the-country line of argument.

    It would seem that Hillary has fairly successfully scored points on the re-vote issue in spite of blocking a re-vote in Florida and saying months ago that the vote in Michigan wouldn't count....

    And, Obama didn't create this mess...At most, it can be said he didn't try to fix it....

    Seems to me he actively opposed fixing it. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:26:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Some certainly view it that way (none / 0) (#10)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:32:01 PM EST
    The problem is that the re-vote issue in Michigan was floated with little time on the clock....The issue about letting Democrats who voted in the original Michigan Primary on the Republican side participate in the re-vote, was a legitimate one.   Markos, as I recall, asked for all Michigan Dems to vote on the Republican side to muck things up.....

    If Hillary really wanted a re-vote in Michigan she should have raised the issue earlier, and should have been consistent in seeking a re-vote in Florida too.

    Obama's forces in the Michigan may have slow-walked the proposal....but it did have problems....

    Parent

    I'm blaming MI on Kos. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:33:04 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm of the opinion... (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:40:28 PM EST
    ... that of all the groups whose interests needed protecting in the Michigan situation, "Democrats who went out of their way to vote for John McCain" ought to be pretty far to the back of the line.

    Parent
    AMAZING (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by ghost2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:10:40 PM EST
    His supporters don't have a problem with disenfrachising two big states, or not counting 1.7 million votes in Florida alone.

    But the right of a few nuts who want to vote in both R and D primaries in Michigan gives them 'concern', to the ultimate result of disenfrachising the whole state to prevent that from happening.  

    Reminds me of the definition of chutzpah!

    Parent

    California ran a recall in less time (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:57:26 PM EST
    It took about 3 months to organize a recall election in California. There was and is plenty of time to re-vote Michigan and Florida. The only reason this is dead in the water is that Obama has opposed it at every step.

    Parent
    Gray Davis was a turkey (none / 0) (#72)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:13:41 PM EST
    The petitions were circulating for awhile....

    Parent
    There are no petitions here (none / 0) (#211)
    by dianem on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:26:55 AM EST
    The date the recall was certified was when money was allocated for the recall. They had 76 days. There is no reason that a re-vote could not be completed in that amount of time.

    Parent
    At the risk you are already aware of this (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:26:34 PM EST
    fact, Obama did say quite recently he'd go along with whatever the DNC decided.

    Parent
    that's hardly a call (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by sancho on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:28:24 PM EST
    to enfranchise voters. especially since the DNC first disenfranchised them.

    Parent
    Well, no... (none / 0) (#23)
    by ItsGreg on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:43:24 PM EST
    ...the DNC didn't disenfranchise the voters in Florida and Michigan; it was the state Democratic parties who did that by voting with the local Republicans to move their primaries after they'd been told it would result in the primaries not counting.

    Parent
    Well, yes (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ding7777 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:25:26 PM EST
    by inceasing the normal "penalty" from a 50% delegate ban to a "special" 100% delegate ban, the DNC did disenfranchise FL and MI.

    The DNC also added injury to the disenfranchisement by allowing 4-State Party Chairs to demand the candidates sign a "Pledge".

    Parent

    So Hillary said back in November... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:02:17 PM EST
    that the votes won/t count, and we've heard that over and over.  But Obama also said he would finish his first term as senator before seeking higher office.  How come we don't hear that over and over?

    Parent
    What Hillary said ... (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by plf1953 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:13:29 PM EST
    Please provide a link and the quote that you and many other Obama supporters keep trotting out as if its fact.

    You even seem to know exaclty when she said it.

    So, please find this and post it.


    Parent

    "This election they're (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:21:05 PM EST
    having [in Michigan] isn't going to count for anything."

    Here is the YouTube audio.

    Parent

    Is that approval? Sounds like she (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:23:05 PM EST
    is acknowledging a fact. So what?
    In FACT, the rules allow the MI delegates to be seated.

    Parent
    Not an Obama fan here! (none / 0) (#167)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:22:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Sorry, (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by plf1953 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:25:42 PM EST
    I just get exasperated whenever anyone talks about "what Hillary said," becuase usually its a lie that has become conventional wisdom.

    Parent
    Time honored (none / 0) (#58)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:05:32 PM EST
    tradition about breaking pledges not to run and to finish terms.....Bill did the same thing...

    The Michigan comment by Hillary goes right to the point....

    Parent

    In some ways (none / 0) (#5)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:27:02 PM EST
    Hillary repeated Gore's mistake in 2000 of seeking a recount in only select counties instead of state-wide......Hillary wanted a re-vote in Michigan but not Florida?

    Parent
    And Obama made the mistake of being against (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by MarkL on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:31:11 PM EST
    all recounts, just like Bush.

    That was too easy.

    Parent

    Hillary could have made (none / 0) (#14)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:34:31 PM EST
    a better case for a re-vote had she been more consistent and timely with her requests....

    Now, the situation is murky and she is not free from blame....

    Parent

    You just blamed Gore (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:58:04 PM EST
    For Bushco stealing the 2000 election.

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#55)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:03:41 PM EST
    Gore could have done things differently....That doesn't mean Bush is without blame....Lieberman shooting his mouth off that invalid military ballots should be counted didn't help much.....

    Parent
    uh uh uh (none / 0) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:05:41 PM EST
    I know what you said.


    Parent
    Blame assignment for FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:11:40 PM EST
    DNC 70%    
    Obama 20%
    Clinton 10%

    Clinton and Obama have the excuse that they are looking out for their interest as they see it.  What's the DNC's excuse?


    Parent

    How come the Republicans (none / 0) (#206)
    by Manuel on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:10:52 PM EST
    don't have this problem?

    Parent
    Unity (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:19:44 PM EST
    In an effort to unify the party, Obama should have taken the lead on this and been more consistent and timely with his responses to the state's request.

    Now the situation is unclear and he is not free from blame.

    Parent

    Ha Ha, back to the topic of this thread... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:21:11 PM EST
    ...Obama's interest in party unity revolves around unifying the party around him.

    Parent
    Plenty of blame (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:29:20 PM EST
    for all....

    Parent
    But he is not souly to blame (none / 0) (#103)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:30:32 PM EST
    either, although some on this blog will definitily tell you otherwise.

    Parent
    Who (none / 0) (#126)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:43:36 PM EST
    I think the majority here are equal opportunity blamers.

    Parent
    Obama is an accessory after the fact (none / 0) (#9)
    by badger on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:31:42 PM EST

        (a) Whoever aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of an offense, is punishable as a principal.
        (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense, is punishable as a principal.


    Parent
    I don't believe (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:32:25 PM EST
    Clinton blocked a revote in CA.


    Parent
    Candidates responsible for supporters ? (none / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:42:22 PM EST
    Hillary's supporters in the Florida Congressional Delegation vehemently opposed a re-vote in Florida.....

    In Michigan, Obama's supporters are viewed by some as having dragged their feet on a re-vote by making so many objections to it....

    Both Obama and Clinton can claim that they personally are not responsible....but their supporters did take certain positions....If we are to blame Obama for what his supporters did in Michigan, then the same should apply for Clinton in Florida...

    You meant, Florida, not California?....If you did mean California, I have certainly missed on this....

    Parent

    Yes. FL (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:46:38 PM EST
    And some of her other supporters put up the money for it.

    Parent
    You seem to miss the majority republican (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:53:53 PM EST
    legislature in Florida.  When the bill moving the primary date was submitted by the FL legislature it was tied to a paper trail to our electronic voting machines made by dietech.  Further Crist our repub gov stated that he would veto the legislation if the primary was not moved.  Dems (which do not amount to much in numbers) added an amendment changing the primary date to Feb 5, but of course it failed due to the numbers in the legislature.  To those of us in FL we know that a revote would be blocked as much as possible by the repubs in FL (some state cooperation would be required).  Add to this that we had record turn outs in the January vote and only Obama ran national ads and held a press conference in FL(Tampa in Sept), I say the playing field was level.  Clinton is realistic by saying just count the votes.

    Parent
    Benen's response gets it wrong (none / 0) (#12)
    by digdugboy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 07:32:35 PM EST
    Inventing a benign pretext for highly partisan advisers is complete silliness.

    just found this (none / 0) (#75)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:14:32 PM EST
    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080407/hayden_et_al

    Sorry, I couldn't make the link deal work--and do not have mailto on this.  Thought you might like to comment on this (starting new thread)

    Obama Fact or Fiction? (none / 0) (#99)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:28:44 PM EST
    If we belived all the pollsters and pundits after Iowa then we should have stayed home in our hammocks and enjoyed the afternoon. But as you know the pollsters and pundits have always underestimated Clinton. This year has been especially interesting because they have been wrong more often then "wright". Which has shown the pundits bias towards one cadidate. For my self I tend to ignore pundits & pollsters and make up my own mind. I say hillary should stay in until the convention.

    from the DK diary (none / 0) (#104)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:31:08 PM EST
    >>>>It makes me sick that the Clintons are still in our party, we should have sided with the Republicans in the impeachment trial and booted them out for good, let them rot like Richard Nixon in the history books as a footnote of how to destroy your Presidency and the Party,,

    Remember - these are the same kids who benefitted from their parents' prosperity during the 90s.
    It's been said "hate is a powerful drug" - I say it's taken over DK.

    But Kos says the diaries have never (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Teresa on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:37:20 PM EST
    been better. :)

    It looks like everyone has forgotten that proud moment when they walked onto the stage together at the debate in LA. How have we ended up here?

    Parent

    Let them rot? (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:00:18 PM EST
    I can understand why someone might prefer Obama to Hillary.  But I don't understand the hate.

    I tend to think it's a kind of conditioning.  They've heard such vitriol for years, and they just come to accept it.

    But sometimes I wonder ....

    Parent

    If they did that (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:52:07 PM EST
    darned sure the Clintons would run a 3rd party candidacy.  And who would blame them?

    Parent
    You know that Chris Matthews ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:47:58 PM EST

    ... is saying this, and his panel unanimously agreed with him. Over at counterpunch, there's an article making the same argument:

    http://counterpunch.org/stclair03242008.html

    I'm not saying it's true, but a lot of smart people are putting it out there. Counterpunch has even drawn an analogy between Gerald Ford/Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton that is, at least, interesting speculation.

    If you are in the HRC campaign, and you realize you only have a 10% chance to win, and that you are doing Obama damage for the general election, why DO you stay in?

    I personally believe HRC was hoping Wright stuck.

    Parent

    Why is she staying in the race? (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by ahazydelirium on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:55:10 PM EST
    Because we want her to.

    Parent
    Obama has been calling her a liar since September (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:55:57 PM EST
    No one mentioned that it might hurt her in a general election.  He has also said his voters may not back her in the general election. His own wife may not back her in the GE.   I think Hillary figures all is fair regarding the general election at this point.

    Parent
    His campaign slogan ... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:02:00 PM EST
    "change we can believe in" is just a snarky way to call Hillary a liar.  His whole campaign is based on calling Hillary a liar.

    Parent
    Enought with the 10% meme! (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:15:15 AM EST
    Its an effing SINGLE-SOURCED, ANONYMOUS quote from effing Politico, for pity's sake, and it's spreading like herpes.

    Goodness, I don't suppose all this could be, er, orchestrated?

    Nah, what a concept.

    Parent

    If Hillary is as conniving as (none / 0) (#171)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:26:38 PM EST
    Matthews thinks, and wants Obama to lose so she can run in 2012, what makes them think she won't mount a primary challenge to him in 2012 if he does win?

    She doesn't need him to lose this time to run in 2012, especially if he turns out to be as unprepared for the job as she is implying that he is.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#185)
    by Dave B on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:47:25 PM EST
    I used to throw zeros at those kind of comments at Daily Kos.  I haven't been there in a while and I no longer have TU status.  I don't know if it's because I have not posted for a couple weeks, or if I got it yanked for recommending diaries that someone didn't like.

    Parent
    I wish it were just a comment (none / 0) (#203)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:54:54 PM EST
    but the excerpt in my post is part of the diary on the DK Rec list!


    Parent
    I still think (none / 0) (#109)
    by rooge04 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:34:49 PM EST
    it's in the best interest of both candidates and the party as a whole for these two to be sewn together on the same ticket. Ideally, HRC wins the popular vote and Obama is her VP. Otherwise, HRC may be too old to take the VP slot (in her eyes anyway). That's the only way I see the party surviving. They must be on the same ticket...or else we lose to many people from one side or another.  

    Not in Barack's best interest ... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Tortmaster on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:52:37 PM EST
    He can slot the Kansas Governor as his V-P choice and avoid the 52% negatives that HRC would bring to his candidacy.

    Or, he can get a good Democrat from Ohio, Florida or Pennsylvania -- a purple state. Hillary Clinton as V-P would be a terrible move for Barack.

    Parent

    Not quite (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:00:28 PM EST
    Kathleen Sibelius as VP may wipe out a little of 52% negative, but she won't come near Hillary's positives either.  All woman candidates are not interchangeable, any more than all African- American candidates are.

    Parent
    Jeez, you're insulting and for no reason. (none / 0) (#155)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:09:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Didn't mean to be insulting (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:22:29 PM EST
    I just don't think Sibelius is as desirable a Dem VP as Clinton.  She is a lot more conservative than Clinton, and I think would not be rated as positively by most Dems.  I could be wrong, I know.

    I think it's more insulting to think you can just slot in one candidate with another to fill a 'woman' vacancy.

    Parent

    You do understand (none / 0) (#192)
    by rooge04 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:57:08 PM EST
    that if the PARTY leaders tell Obama there will be a joint ticket there will be a joint ticket.  It's not Barack's choice if he does not have the 2025 needed for the nomination to tell anyone anything about Sebelius (which would be a terrible choice IMO. He does NOT get to choose. Somewhere along the line we forgot that this is a PARTY thing. and the party might very well (and IMO if they know what they have to do to win) will force them onto the same ticket.

    Parent
    Oops, my comment was not to you (none / 0) (#194)
    by RalphB on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 10:03:52 PM EST
    but for the comment you replied to.  Sorry  :-)

    Parent
    Wow! How patronizing (none / 0) (#205)
    by splashy on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:10:38 PM EST
    Reminds me of all the times I have seen women relegated to treasurer, secretary, or some other lesser role because they would be more "useful" there, rather than actually running things.

    I would rather see her as prez, and Obama getting more experience in the Senate.

    Parent

    STOP STOP STOP (none / 0) (#110)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:35:21 PM EST
    MSNBC Jeralyn's on.........................................................................................

    Tune in....

    msnbc (none / 0) (#118)
    by CHDmom on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:37:46 PM EST
    OT Jeralyn is on MSNBC right now,(about cross voting) doing Great

    Regarding DK post (none / 0) (#123)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:41:06 PM EST
    Warning: extreme sarcasm ahead

    It all makes sense to me now.  It is another one of those Clinton patterns!  Remember when they did not campaign hard enough for John Kerry, so that he would lose?  And did not campaign enough for Al Gore - or was it that they campaigned too much for him? - I can never keep the patterns straight.  Now if Obama loses, it will be the Clinton's fault.

    Clinton Rule #578:  Whenever a Democrat loses, it is some Clinton's fault.  In fact it is even true of a Clinton - if Hlllary loses, it will be Bill's fault!!!

    I don't think Politicians ... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:54:16 PM EST
    are any more self-interested than anyone else.

    And, unlike Republicans, I think people are basically good.

    This whole idea of politicians (or any group) always placing self interests before anything else is a conservative talking point.  

    The human race is far from perfect.  But there's a lot more good in us than we're given credit for.  

    I don't want to get into a huge philosophical debate, but these ideas are a core difference between liberal and conservative world views.

    Unless Obama has racked up 2025 delegates while (none / 0) (#139)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:54:21 PM EST
    I was sleeping, neither candidate will win without SDs.  Without allowing FL and MI to be seated and have a say on who the nominee is, the Dem candidate may not look like a legitimate winner. How can you win the majority of voters without counting 2 states.  At this point let's drop the fallacy of winning without SDs.

    Ha Ha (none / 0) (#146)
    by waldenpond on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 08:58:21 PM EST


    Your assuming MI and FL won't be (1.00 / 1) (#160)
    by stopcomplainingandact on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:16:58 PM EST
    seated I believe they will, Clinton will probably get a few more delegates but not substantial.  Unless she blocks it of course. But if Obama wins 45% including MI and FL he is at 2046.  

    Parent
    If you think that Obama can win by counting MI and (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by countme on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:34:22 PM EST
    FL, then why is he blocking it?  By your reasoning why support disenfranchising voters when it may cost you the GE? Counting MI and FL would legitimze his win. Why wait, let's count the popular votes and the delegates now.

    Parent
    If he is that sure of himself (none / 0) (#152)
    by confloyd on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:06:33 PM EST
    and that he has already won the nomination, then why does it make a difference if the votes are counted and the delegates are awarded. The man and his supporters clearly say over and over that he is the nominee, so lets count the votes and award the delegates because afterall he already the nominee!!

    I think (none / 0) (#183)
    by sas on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:39:22 PM EST
    Hillary has a good chance to run the table on upcoming primaries.

    PA, W VA, and KY all look like hers without question.

    NC and Ind will be close.  I read that Oregon will be close.

    That leaves him with Montana, and South Dakota, two states that almost never vote Democratic.

    Handwringing about those delegates (none / 0) (#214)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:25:18 AM EST
    Re revotes Obama "blocked" (what, you're already forgetting Hillary blocked them too?):

    Reid says "Michigan and Florida delegates are going to be seated. They're going to be a part of the convention...they will be seated. They're big states. They represent 29 million people. We want to make sure their delegates are part of the convention that takes place in Denver."

    And word tonight is that the Florida situation is going to the party Rules and Bylaws Committee for a decision within the next few weeks. "Leonard Joseph, Executive Director of the Florida Democratic party, assured the crowd of southwest Florida Democrats that Florida will count at the national party convention."

    Egad! What will you be able to cudgel Obama with daily once this is settled? Not to worry. I'm sure you'll come up with something.

    See Jeralyn's post tonight re the rules. (none / 0) (#215)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:27:28 AM EST
    Comments should decrease dramatically if the MI and FL delegates are all seated based on previous primaries.

    Parent
    Nah (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:44:36 AM EST
    This primary "world of pain" we've entered is just too entertaining.

    That Big Lebowski clip summed it up perfectly. Hysterical.

    Parent

    Comments over 200, thread closing (none / 0) (#217)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:51:05 AM EST
    thanks for your thoughts.

    Self Interest | 183 comments (183 topical)