The Lost Opportunity?

By Big Tent Democrat

There is something otherworldy about the suggestion of some folks that the continuing race is a lost opportunity for Obama to define John McCain. Matt Yglesias writes:

Ross explains the cost to progressive politics of Hillary Clinton's decision to unleash the kitchen sink in a likely-futile effort to overcome Barack Obama's delegate lead:
Rather, the problem is that the party is losing a golden opportunity to try to put the race away early, the way Bill Clinton more or less did with Bob Dole in 1996 - by using their enormous fundraising advantage to rebrand John McCain as a Dole-style loser while he's still struggling to get his money-raising operation up to par. As Patrick Ruffini suggested earlier this week, if Obama had finished off Hillary last night he could have been up with anti-McCain ads all over the country immediately, forcing the GOP to play defense in places it usually owns all through the summer.

Think about what they are suggesting - that Mr. Post Partisan New Politics is losing an opportunity to employ a 20th Century political tactic used by BILL CLINTON! He will put up negative ads as his first act as the newly crowned Moses leading us to the promised land of The New Politics. Yes, that will surely help Obama's image of transcending politics. The irony drips.

But the more important factor overlooked is the fact that the moment Obama is not running against Hillary Clinton, he loses his biggest Media advantage, that he is running against Hillary Clinton. For some reason some folks simply do not want to believe that a lot of Obama's appeal to the Media is that he is running against Hillary Clinton. Heck, Obama's best strategy may be to keep Clinton in the race until the Convention, even if she wants to drop out.

< Legitimizing The Nominee | Team DLC? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I am so glad you've taken this on (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Klio on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:18:54 AM EST
    I just don't have the stomach to deal with it anymore.  After I read this today, I promptly removed MY from my reading list.

    As this primary season goes on, I find former must-reads becoming less and less and less salient. I'm gaining all kinds of extra time!

    Prolonging (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:32:27 AM EST
    I want to see Obama start picking on Grandpa war hero.  How will that play in Peoria?  

    The other advantage is that McCain is out there shadow boxing.  He has no clue who he will be facing so he is just spinning his wheels.  It's the best of all worlds.  He gets put on the side until he picks a VP, dems stay in the forefront, and hopefully the real dem agenda is establishing the issues for the election, and not some war mongering McCain talking point.  I say the longer it takes the better.  And even if the Dems kick each other with the kitchen sink, there will not be anything new for McCain.  

    right (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:46:33 AM EST
    it goes both ways--the dems have to concentrate on each other while McCain has to split his attention between both of them.  Plus, the dems get all the leads in the news because their race is more exciting.  McCain slowly becomes irrelevant.

    You know, let's be serious here: the time to call for a candidate to drop out was after Super Tuesday when Clinton won.  The media didn't want it to end there, so the narrative was all about how Obama was on the rise.

    And now we have people telling Clinton to take it easy on Obama, to give the guy a chance.  She is running against him for the most important job in the nation.  Why would she back down?  No one seems to care when Obama slings mud at Clinton, or outright LIES about her, or sends out Harry and Louise mailers.  Why is she held to a different standard than he is?


    Everyone should have called on (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:51:33 AM EST
    Obama to drop out after Super Tuesday?  And there are complaints here about Obama supporters not being part of the reality based community.

    The democratic nomination is a contest for delegates (See Mark Penn's comment).  Barack Obama won the delegate count on super tuesday and has been ahead in the delegate count since day one of the contest.  I'm not saying Hillary should have dropped out after Super Tuesday,  or even that she should do so now,  but the idea that Obama would have after actually winning the delegate contest on that day is absurd.


    I assume Kathy (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:57:28 AM EST
    was satirizing.

    <sigh> (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:06:23 AM EST
    you really get me.

    Florida and Michigan (none / 0) (#86)
    by Paladin on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:46:39 AM EST
    Looks like there will be some sort of do-over, and those two states strongly favor Clinton. So her campaign may legitimately wind up with more delegages.

    Democracy (none / 0) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:52:57 AM EST
    Watching the Russian elections, this bit of a scrum is a pleasure.  Let McCain stew on the side.  

    So unleashing $30 million (none / 0) (#17)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:45:13 AM EST
    dollars a month in advertising defining John McCain as a Bush Republican and someone who wants to spend the next 1,000 years in Iraq would be

    a) ineffective
    b) "picking" on Grandpa war hero.

    i'm not sure how you think either Democrat can win if that would be off limits.   Much as Hillary seems to be playing up John McCain's "lifetime of experience" it is possible to use advertising to define him without being negative.


    Hillary has been doing it (none / 0) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:55:19 AM EST
    90% of Hillary's speeches are against the Republicans.  She has been defining them.  Obama just started.  

    Yes, picking on Grandpa war hero, I think you guys should ask how the transcended "white males"  will take to that.  


    Heh (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:58:42 AM EST
    You kid I hope.

    BTW, are you describing the "New Transformative Politcs" there? Seems pretty 20th Century to me.


    The behavior (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by tek on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:38:55 AM EST
    of Obama Democrats is becoming truly disturbing.  I wonder if these people realize how much they resemble the Bush Republicans?  Two groups who are willing to sacrifice democracy to have their way.  

    The only blogs I read anymore are TL and Taylor Marsh.  The rest of them appear t have gone over the edge.

    What bothers me (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    is the reality-creating nature of the whole movement.  We used to be reality-based in the sense that we tried hard not to buy BS even when it came from our own side.  Now spin worthy of the Bush WH is regurgitated far and wide as though people are actually going to believe it.  Why, did you know each and every denial Obama's campaign issued concerning that NAFTA story was completely forthright and accurate?  Tomorrow Obama could say things are going great in Iraq and I feel like the movement would instantly follow along.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:54:09 AM EST
    Many in Obama's camp have either
    A) Been dealing with a growing sense that the dem party cares mostly about getting their vote (not saying it's right).
    B) Really tied themselves to Obama himself and not the democratic party.
    If all seems fair, all will be well.  If not, these groups will feel that their fears about the process and the party were legitimate.

    I don't see how that makes them Bush Republicans.


    Not only on the blogs (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:06:48 AM EST
    I know people in Florida and in Texas who are Obama supporters. They are good Democrats and loyal to the party. They are white. They are 2 females and 1 male. You can not reason with them. They say I know I know, just to be nice and preserve our life long friendships but they will not be moved. One thing, I do know for fact, that if Hillary won the nomination, they would vote for her. Even the one who sent me an e-mail this morning saying Hillary is vicious because she attacked Obama before the Texas primary. I shudder at the mob mentality.



    Go back and read what you have just written (none / 0) (#119)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:13:35 PM EST
    Because these Obama supporters don't agree with you,  and you cannot talk them round into becoming Hillary voters in the primary,  you are saying they have a mob mentality?

    That is just beyond patronising,  maybe they just think Obama is the better candidate,  surely that is also possible?


    yup the appeal to the dark side of folks (none / 0) (#97)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:01:19 AM EST
    all the while saying i am the way leaves me skeptical to say the least.

    Otherworldly indeed (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:57:46 AM EST
    But, when it comes right down to it, it's just another way to say that Hillary Clinton should drop out.

    One could reverse Matt's point:  Clinton staying in the primaries allows Obama to deal with his negatives in a more conducive environment before having to take on the full brunt of the Republican attack machine.

    That is an accurate point in fact (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:01:42 AM EST
    I use that logic to argue that Obama should renounce public financing in the GE now while he is running against Clinton.

    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:22:28 AM EST
    I remember that point.  During the primaries, Obama rescinding that pledge is a two or three day story at best.

    But if he waits, McCain can make a meal of it.


    The gist (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:01:48 AM EST
    The unifier has not managed to unify the Dems.  Obviously, half or more than half if you add MI and Fl, of the voters are not on the bus.  So what these guys are saying, let him loose, so that he can unify some more.  Well, I don't see the unity super skills, or pardon me, the attacking skills?  I am getting confused.  

    i am speaking stricly from personal point (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:06:29 AM EST
    of view here and not stats, but it seems to me the dems are more divided than i have ever seen them. who do we thank for that? the media first of all! then i thank obama with his gender, race, and victim cards. i don't leave the clinton campaign out either. i am sure they contributed also. the blogs in my humble opinion are among the worst. maybe i feel that way because my trust is gone. my trust is gone in countdown also. my trust in the dem leadership is gone. it won't return. and for what? to push obama at us 24/7. i respect obama's right to campaign and try his best for the nomination. but there is an unfair advantage with the media and some bloggers. the attacks on hillary aren't just typical partisan bickering during an election. this has been over the top. no wonder there is division.

    from MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:13:03 AM EST
    his is the first time I have seen a June date suggested:

    The Michigan governor, along with top officials in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign and Florida's state party chair, are now saying they would consider holding a sort of do-over contest by June. That's a change from their previous insistence that the primaries their states held in January should determine how the their delegates are allocated.

    Let me be the first to tell you (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:38:56 AM EST
    June is a better month for turnout in Michigan than January!  Brrrrr.

    Ageist observation of A Listers (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:20:22 AM EST
    I find the "aggravation" and the vapors are part of a youthful arrogance.  They wanted change and they wanted to happen in an instant.  You hear this, the young people will lose interest. Excuse me?  Working for change is a lifetime struggle.  It does not happen with one primary election.

    The bloggers should be educating the younger participants about the history of primaries, about how this is not one flash.  About the long term.  How to build a movement over time.  How losses and gains come with the territory.  

    For Peet's sake the thing I learned in my life was the youthful assumption that change is linear and always progresses.  You have to fight for things you thought you gained.  That is why I think the Obama "change" may be good, but it implies that it will be easy and by the click of your heels.  Sort of the new click for change politics.  So this urgency and this lets hurry before the people we managed to interest change their mind.  

    the majority of this youth generation (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:25:01 AM EST
    is not used to having to work hard for things.  Remember, these are the kids who grew up never losing a t-ball game, never getting an "F" in class and being given numerous do-overs so that they always succeed.  A little hyper?  Here is a pill to fix it.  A little slow?  We'll change the curriculum to help you.  SATs too hard?  We'll make it easier. Teacher too mean?  We'll have a talk with her.

    I cannot imagine how exasperated they must be that this didn't end months ago.  No wonder they're so angry.


    That's my Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:27:44 AM EST
    I really find a loss opportunity for Obama and the A list bloggers to teach them something, instead they cater to the pathology.  I think this is excellent.  We get to see the candidates evolve.  

    Double Standard (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:40:29 AM EST
    You know, Kathy, I just wrote in my own blog (an homage to Clinton and other politics) about the double standard employed with Clinton.  It is maddening.  I heard a woman on Washington Journal this morning saying she voted for Obama because Clinton was sarcastic abt him.  Huh???  Has she heard ANY of Obama's speeches??  He has been railing against her for MONTHS!!!  THen there are the mailers you mentioned - when he says he is going to go negative, I am left with my kouth hanging open.  GO negative??  What the heck has he been doing all along??  But, the media has not been covering that, or framing it as such - only when Clinton says something in response to his attacks on her!  Grrrr.

    And to Stella, too - at the end of Washington Journal, this elderly woman called from TN and said she is really glad so many young people are involved in this election.  But it is important for them to READ and be educated abt their candidates.  I thought that was a mightty fine point!


    I gotta tell ya (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:43:25 AM EST
    I think this sort of thing has been said about every generation, other than the one that grew up in the Depression.

    I don't feel guilty about criticizing the youth vote because I'm implicitly criticizing myself when I do so.  I remember what I was like at that age and I remember what I understood and didn't understand.

    I'm confident there's quite a bit that I still don't understand, but I try not to fall into the trap of imagining that my generation has a monopoly on wisdom.  This is relatively easy for me since I belong to the most conservative generation in living memory.


    Actually, I have to argue with that a bit (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:53:01 AM EST
    as, sadly, the college enrollment stats and others suggest -- and this fits with the demogs of the ballistic blogs -- that is seen more in the boys and young men today than the girls.  The latter seem scrappier, and understandably so for several reasons.

    But look back a decade or so ago to the pedagogical lit alone, as well as media puffery of it , that advised their K-6 teachers and society that those women-to-be were mean girls whose mothers had gained too much of an edge.  The advice and reaction gave us what we see today -- far fewer men in college, far fewer who get there getting to graduation, etc.

    As a pundit put it in my paper today, we see that group of young men averaging three hours a day on video games, but we don't see young women spending their time that way.  They're working on better grades or graduated and at work already.  (Btw, with those better grades, women grads are starting out at just about similar pay these days -- but within a decade, their pay falls behind, per usual.)


    Are you mad at this youth generation or (none / 0) (#96)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:00:54 AM EST
    the parents that produced this youth generation?

    This generation didn't produce the rules they grew up under.

    All kids of all generations have understood how to play the game; they will look to get away with what they can.  It's the parents that have to lay down the rules and enforce them.


    Oh, don't get me wrong (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:33:04 AM EST
    I totally blame their parents--what do you expect from the "me" generation?  There are many teachers on TL who can probably tell you horror stories about parents trying to work the system, or sue the system, into making their kids succeed ("all of the credit, none of the work" seems to be the motto)  On the other side of that coin, people often forget that GWB is a baby boomer, as is Karl Rove.

    I'm not saying this applies to all of the youth generation, I'm just saying that a lot of them that we are seeing on the Obama side are not used to losing (even when they lose) and that having to face the prospect now is making them angry.

    I suppose this ties back into what we were talking about last night-some blogs spiraling into a hate-filled black hole.

    I would argue that this attitude is endemic to a certain section of the vaunted "youth vote."  They do not know how to lose because they have never had to.


    i was having dinner the other (none / 0) (#104)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:10:27 AM EST
    night with my attorney, a lady. she told me about watching a show on tv regarding the younger working generation. she said that today's workers expect success now without having to work for it. in the show parents were actually calling bosses because their child got a poor rating in a personnel review.

    personally i know a lot of younger people who work very hard and make a real contribution. but there is a sense of give it to me now and get out of my way that doesn't bode well. that attitude reminds of the young republicans today.


    could youy be more bitter and stereotypical about (3.00 / 2) (#112)
    by dem08 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:31:43 PM EST
    "the youth"? I don't think so. I cringe every time I hear someone complain about T-Ball and "young people". When I was 18, 1968, America had a vibrant economy based on Industry. The Middle class and the working poor have been growing ever since 1972.

    Phil Ochs, who died in 1974 at 33 by his own hand, wrote
    "Feeble, aged, people almost to their knees
     Complain about the present using memories
     Never found their pot of gold
     Wrinkled hands pound weary holes
     Each line screams out you're old, you're old,       you're old."

    Most of us in our age Cohort did find our pot of gold, so why are so many of you complaining so bitterly and patronisingly about "young people"?

    My 25 year old daughter's generation is squeezed, in debt, and has entry level jobs that pay minimum wage. In 1972 an average Factory worker's salary was over 50 thousand in today's dollars, plus benefits, plus paid vacation.

    There is a defeatist tone in Hillary Supporters that I think stems from envy of the young, envy of idealism, and I think it is ugly.


    addendum (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by dem08 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:33:49 PM EST
    we, my wife and I, make a lot of money, own our house and a vacation home, travel widely, have health insurance and a pension. We are typical of the 55 + cohort

    I envy the young their looks but not their future.


    i think your attitude is very negative. (none / 0) (#120)
    by hellothere on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:57:00 PM EST
    also note that i mentioned the parents calling about the boss's poor evaluations. the parents helped create the problem. if you don't know there is one, then i have to wonder about how much reading you do. education is broken in this country. there was a time that respect for parents, etc was common. today, not so much.

    at some point it becomes the individual's problem and they have to accept responsibility. do i despair? yes, i do! hillary supporters? hmmm, no one say anything about hillary, till you did. please don't try and equate hillary supporters, blah, blah, blah with comments about youth. that form of logic doesn't compute.


    Clinton can't win it (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:21:16 AM EST
    without the Party making it possible for her to do so. Which will happen when enough people are convinced she can win in November.

    Obama can't win it without the same calculus being applied.

    They have both earned the right to be considered seriously.

    Can either one be chosen quickly enough for the Democrats to gain a serious advantage over the Republicans in the GE?

    If not, how does the race continue without damaging either one's chances in the GE?

    Yup, Obama can't win with math alone (none / 0) (#70)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:26:23 AM EST
    Don't take a slide rule to a knife fight.

    Slightly OT (perhaps worth a diary of its own) (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:52:55 AM EST
    Hillary just announced raising $3.6 million in the last 24 hours, surpassing her target of $3 million.

    She's now trying to increase that to $6 million by tomorrow.

    BTW, has Obama officially announced his February numbers yet?

    $55 million, announced today nt. (none / 0) (#117)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:03:10 PM EST
    Obama creates the idea tht HRC is mean to him (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Prabhata on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:06:01 AM EST
    The media only follows Obama in the discourse that somehow HRC is throwing false attacks on Obama.  He plays the victim.  He did it before in SC with the race.  I don't think this time is going to stick because HRC learned from SC.  I'm looking forward to HRC continued attack on his lifetime lack of accomplishments and yes, even Rezko because he needs to be vetted in that area.  I don't want some silly bit of information that the Republicans may use to be the reason that the Democrats lose in November.

    You look forward to Hillary continuing to (none / 0) (#118)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:11:06 PM EST
    attack him on Rezko and his supposed lack of accomplishments,  and Hillarys campaign say Obama is doing a Ken Starr when he mentions their tax returns.

    Partisans of both candidates should (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:14:05 AM EST
    take a break from criticizing the other side.

    I think we have two superior candidates either one of which will defeat McCain.

    All the tension stems from the length of the process, the crazy rules, the closeness of the contest and people caring more about winning battles than wars.

    I've yet to have my preferred candidate win the Party's nomination for this party going back to Gary Hart in '84.  It ain't gonna happen this year either since Edwards was my guy.

    As long as the Party's candidate is not a close relation to Lieberman or Zell Miller, I'm gonna support and work for our candidate in the GE.

    I'm glad people are passionate about their own candidate, but I hope they are more concerned with the positions and ideals they espouse and not the individual who speaks the words.

    The right will coalesce around McCain.  All the blather about McCain from the wing nuts will fade and they will attempt to smear our candidate non-stop.

    It's going to be a rough ride so we once this nerve-wracking nomination process is done, we need to come together around the Party's (our) nominee.

    Count me as one (none / 0) (#1)
    by Lena on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:15:31 AM EST
    who thinks that the press is out there waiting to go after Obama as soon as Clinton is gone.

    The mistake they made in the week before the Ohio and Texas primaries is that they started their Obama negativity shtick slightly too early. Instead of McCain being the beneficiary of Obama's bad press, it was Clinton, and she won Texas and Ohio. Oops!

    It makes me wonder (none / 0) (#62)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:19:19 AM EST
    why the Chicago papers are so tough on Obama when the National media is not...is there local sentiment about Obama that is more reflective in the local media of Chicago? So far it hasn't gotten picked up nationally, but it is a matter of time. So I wonder what exactly is going to be the leak in the dam.

    First, Chitown media are notoriously scrappy (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:34:11 AM EST
    and second, Obama ticked them off by claiming that he has allowed recent interviews on Rezko when he has not.  Ya gotta love a paper (Sun Times, as I recall) that calls him out in a headline on that, a headline with its phone number for him to call.

    But third, the Chitown media would have moved on to the next scoop -- as they still have the scoop mentality, they still do investigative reporting, unlike most media today -- if they didn't think that there's something there.  

    And that oughta be cause for worry, you are correct.  But the nationals are starting to watch them now.


    does the Sun Times lean Dem? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Josey on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:54:37 AM EST
    and the Trib lean Repub?

    The trib doesn't lean Repub. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Arbitrarity on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:03:51 AM EST
    So much as it can see the centrist line through binoculars as it's so far Conservative.

    The Trib is hard right (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:08:14 AM EST
    The Sun-Times used to be somewhere around the middle, but I think they made an open decision within the last year or so to adopt a more liberal line.  Kinda seems dumb that in a town like Chicago you wouldn't have a liberal paper.

    "Liberal" should not be confused with "partisan Dem," however, because Chicago is a one-party town and if your paper turns a blind eye to Democratic corruption there is very little to write about.


    leak in the dam (none / 0) (#65)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:21:16 AM EST
    will be Rezko's trial picking up steam.  The fun part starts today.  We'll see what comes out and how the media spins it.

    Local press is almost always harder (none / 0) (#75)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    on a candidate than the national media.

    The MSM loved Jesse Ventura (former wrestler turned guv).

    He was a great story (independent candidate shocks political world) with good quips.

    Decent guv, but very sensitive to criticism.

    The local press knew him better and had to deal with him on a day to day basis and asked more and tougher questions.

    No skeletons in the closet, but the lack of fawning bugged him.

    The local media asked about the cost to the state for his security detail on his book tour and why his eldest son held a party at the guv mansion.

    The national media won't pick up on the small stuff that the local media knows unless it has the whiff of scandal.


    The Chicago media. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Arbitrarity on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:46:11 AM EST
    Is a funny thing.

    On one hand, they're great with investigative reporting.

    On the other hand, most people have written them due to their insistence on gossip-mongering and smear campaigns, while giving the truly, truly corrupt like Todd Stroger and Blagojavich what is nearly a free pass.


    With Hillary Out of the picture (none / 0) (#3)
    by Kate Stone on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:23:52 AM EST
    The MSM and some liberal bloggers are flogging this "fight to the death" to the point of making things up.  Think of Obama alone standing up against the Republican slime machine.  He will be termed a loser by the media that now loves him because he is opposed by Hillary Clinton.

    My favorite (well, you know what I mean) (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by dk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:33:59 AM EST
    example of this is when the left blogosphere claims that Obama voted against the Iraq war, a statement which is 100% factually inaccurate.  Yet, in the last week alone, both Ezra Klein and Chris Bowers made that very statement in blog posts.  It just boggles the mind.  

    Sorry, I realize if I make a claim like this, (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by dk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:47:39 AM EST
    I should provide links.  Ezra, and Chris.

    Nitpikcing by you (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:59:27 AM EST
    Obama publically opposed the war.

    yes, but many people think (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:04:57 AM EST
    that Obama VOTED against the war, that he took a stand on the senate floor, when he did not.  Obama even said in an interview that one of the hardest decisions he ever made was VOTING against the war.  Actually, what he was talking about was that he voted against funding.  Obama has tried to put it out there that he took a very hard vote and went on record when in actuality, he did not.

    I think raising this discrepancy is valid.


    Intentional (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:08:43 AM EST
    I think this was an intentional representation that he voted against the war.  Very clever, very subtle.  Funny that his whole judgement is based on that.  I don't think he can use that on in the GE unless they have some trick up their sleeve.  

    McCain will make mincemeat of BO (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:38:47 AM EST
    if he tries that lie again. That the Repubs haven't had their fun with it, getting the media to follow along, is reason for worry, frankly -- they're waiting for the moment, wisely, as this past week with so much else was not the time to do so. Come to think of it, they don't need him to try that lie again -- he already is on the record with it. Picture the ad that says Obama is the one with the memory problems. Picture the ad that puts together "faulty recall" on a crucial non-vote along with Obama pushing the wrong button on his "accidental" votes as well as other "present" non-votes. Ouch.

    Amazing how Polite HRC was (none / 0) (#85)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:46:20 AM EST
    Every time he said that in a debate I kept having a fantasy of her slamming him down for the lie that it is.  But, she was so polite.  She had to kill this one in the bud.  I think it has become the lie of the decade.  

    I think reasonable (none / 0) (#48)
    by dk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:04:53 AM EST
    minds can disagree on whether it's nitpicking or pointing out a big factual difference.

    The point, though, is that these guys are writing Obama spin.  The question is whether this stuff is subcounscious slipping on their part, or whether it is intentional promotion of Obama spin (using their paid platforms working for semi-major news outlets).  I don't know them personally, so I don't which it is.


    Sorry, (none / 0) (#54)
    by dk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:08:50 AM EST
    Chris obviously does not work for a semi-major (or any kind) of publication.  I was thinking about MY there for a sec.  He was, however, it seems part of a movement that billed itself as a "reality-based" community though.  So much for that.

    re: Ezra (none / 0) (#56)
    by Nasarius on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:10:56 AM EST
    I think this makes it pretty clear.

    Well, I'm not sure if it proves (none / 0) (#59)
    by dk on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:15:07 AM EST
    whether he is just overly susceptible to internalizing Obama talking points, or whether he intentionally shills for Obama even when he knows he is making stuff up.  

    Basically, though, it doesn't really matter what his motivations are.  Whether he is unwilling or unable to be rational, the writing comes out the same.


    Yeah, true (none / 0) (#57)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:12:40 AM EST
    If he'd actually BEEN on the senate floor, he'd have voted present.

    I've got the Dems' new plan (none / 0) (#4)
    by david mizner on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:28:58 AM EST
    Move the convention to the week before election.

    Heh (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:30:29 AM EST
    So, when and if Obama gains ... (none / 0) (#6)
    by Meteor Blades on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:32:23 AM EST
    ...the nomination and the opposition to McCain starts to flow in earnest, is it going to be three months of I-told-you-so all the time around here, or will Obama's connecting of McCain to Dubyanocchio be taken for what it will be, smart politics because the President's ratings, even among Republicans, is weak?

    Just askin'.

    I support Obama for the nomination (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:37:30 AM EST
    I will have to tell myself I told you so.

    As for connecting McCain to Bush, I say duh.

    It is impossible to NOT see how to run against McCain - you run against a Bush Third Term.

    Here's the thing, can we shed this post-partisan transformative nonsense anytime soon?


    I don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:38:08 AM EST
    who is saying that Obama's attempts to frame McCain have been bad ideas?

    The argument on the table is that mean old Hillary is preventing Obama from doing any framing of McCain at all by remaining in the race, which obviously isn't true.  In his speech Tuesday night I heard lots of solid shots against McCain.

    By the way, MB, I really appreciate you as you seem to be about the only one of the DK stalwarts who's retained his sanity throughout this primary process.  Even grizzled veterans are succumbing to the primary fever this time around.


    Not all have succumbed... (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by oldpro on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:58:47 AM EST
    Many grizzled veterans are taking an extended vacation from DK...most particularly, those experienced grizzled females like myself who learned years ago to avoid feeding unhealthy, dysfunctional relationships.

    Last I checked (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:35:27 AM EST
    Mike Huckabee dragged the Republican race out until the very last moment he could, and nothing came of it other than a little teasing on SNL.  We didn't hear any "Mike Huckabee is going to tear the party apart with his ambition" from the Republicans, who are starting to come across like the grown-up party in all this.

    We all recall 2004 as a primary that was basically over after Iowa and New Hampshire, but in reality Kerry's last rival didn't withdraw until March.  Somehow the party endured.  And given the headaches we suffered in 2004 as a result of nominating someone who hadn't been tested enough on the campaign trail, you'd think we wouldn't be in such a hurry to get this year's version over with.

    Huckabee did not have a chance to win (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:39:11 AM EST
    Clinton does. That is the irony of all this - the demands that Clinton drop out because she can not win are due to the fact that she actually can win.

    If shoe could not, Obama and his hordes would just ignore her.

    I have suggested that if NBC is convinced the race is over, they should stop covering it.


    The other day (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:44:22 AM EST
    I pointed out to Bob Johnson that while I have no problem with Obama going negative if he chooses to, you can't have the "delegate math makes it impossible for her to win" narrative at the same time you have the "time to rummage through her tax returns" narrative.  Going hardcore negative undercuts the argument that the race is already over.

    His response? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:45:27 AM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:49:54 AM EST
    He called the whole vetting thing "a case to be made to superdelegates."  

    I, frankly, was unaware that any case had to be made to superdelegates other than showing them the pledged delegate total.  Isn't that what you've heard, too?


    Yes (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:56:56 AM EST
    The explanation seems to accept that the Super Delegates will decide the race.

    Sort of the point.


    Then why send out Pfloffe (spelling) (none / 0) (#60)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:15:09 AM EST
    to say daily that Obama has clinched the nomination? (in so many words)

    Uh (none / 0) (#80)
    by Claw on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:42:42 AM EST

    It was rhetorical (none / 0) (#82)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:44:26 AM EST

    Exactly (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:45:01 AM EST
    Obama has rasied zillions (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:49:40 AM EST
    right?  So, why can't he fight a campaign on two fronts--spend some money on attacking Clnton and some on attacking McCain.

    because if he focusses on McCain (none / 0) (#28)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:53:18 AM EST
    then everyone on here freaks out about how he is being presumptious in ignoring Hillary and acting like the presumptive nominee.

    And to paraphrase Matthew Yglesias the minute he turns his attention to McCain he gets clobbered over the head by Hillary.


    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:56:01 AM EST
    You can't seriously believe that Obama refrains from attacking McCain because he's worried about the delicate feelings of Hillary supporters who want him to attack her instead.

    Honestly? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:58:16 AM EST
    That has been our beef, how he never talks against the Republicans and blames them all as the transcending candidate.  We would welcome some Republican trashing from the Unifier.  

    That kind of presumptious I could get behind. (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:56:25 AM EST
    I tell you right now if Obama had spent more time bashing McCain than the Clinton administration I might be one of his supporters right now. I adore the Clintons, don't get me wrong, but I thought it was time for some new blood in the party. And I was equally attracted to the candidacy of Edwards, Clinton, and Obama. But trashing the Clinton administration? I give Obama enough credit to believe that he could have found another way to present himself as the better alternative without doing that.  It felt dishonest to me and that's why I ultimately cast my vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary and have continued to support her to this day.

    But if he starts going after McCain with both barrels I could still get behind Obama with some, if not all of the enthusiasm that I might have had if his campaign hadn't trashed the Clintons.


    Everyone? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:56:10 AM EST
    That is false.

    Have your read the posts on this subject?


    ok so I have a weakness for hyperbole! (none / 0) (#115)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:55:49 PM EST
    Tax returns (none / 0) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:50:18 AM EST
    It seems all the huffing and puffing is because they want to make some connection between the Clinton personal income and the Foundation.  Well, the foundation info should be public, why don't they start looking.  What do they think, the Clintons are laundering foundation money?  

    The truth about taxes that are that complicated from personal experience, the 1099 comes from various sources and are continually being corrected and updated.  No one in their right mind these days, would file, and then keep submitting the corrections, till the 15th, if they did that, people would think they are doctoring.  


    Nobody care about the tax returns (none / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:02:24 AM EST
    Nobody has ever cared about tax returns.

    Are you saying (none / 0) (#55)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:10:36 AM EST
    Carl Bernstein is a nobody? (I agree)

    Tax Returns ... (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    are very 20th century.

    What's Obama going to do next?  Claim Hillary isn't tough enough on the Soviet Union?  Or unleash his plan for rural electrification?


    Suggest building a hyrdoelectricl dam (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    on the Colorado river, just outside a little whistle stop town called Las Vegas...look for it!!

    Unless there is something to care (none / 0) (#88)
    by Joike on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:49:18 AM EST
    about.  If nobody cares, then release the tax returns and move on.

    I imagine that it would show that the Clintons have been very successful and good for them, but there's the concern of appearing wealthy and not being "of the people".

    If you say you're too busy, the story becomes "Candidate not releasing returns" particularly if other candidates have done so.

    My guess is that Sen. Clinton would rather deal with this issue in the GE where all voters might care less than just the Democratic demographic.

    If she wins, she can release the forms; if she loses, then she can keep them private.  If I were her opponent, I use the issue to frame her as being secretive and evasive like Bush.


    I suspect (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:57:15 AM EST
    that there is a certain element of strategy in letting everyone work themselves into a lather over the tax returns, so long as there's nothing of interest in them when you actually do release them.

    While I never discount the possibility of scandal or faux scandal where the Clintons are concerned, it's hard for me to see how there could be anything earth-shattering in their tax returns, since I'm confident they've prepared every return since Bill left office with this day in mind.


    Respectfully disagree with Big Tent (none / 0) (#114)
    by dem08 on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    about Tax Returns, and all donations, including The Swift Boat and other Interest Groups (I am NOT a pro, I mean 500whatever groups).

    I would like to know who gets and gives money in our Public Square.

    I have read that these presidential libraries are all built with money from donors who do not ever have to identify themselves.

    What is wrong with demanding our public life be public?


    What do Hillary supporters think of the new (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 03:02:15 PM EST
    Clinton campaign spin on tax returns being put out by Howard Wolfson, i.e. That Obama is behaving like "Ken Starr" when he plays up the fact that they haven't released their tax returns and he has.

    I'm not sure that is a winning argument.


    As Hillary (none / 0) (#122)
    by Daryl24 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 12:05:06 PM EST
    pointed out at the SOTBU, Bill Cinton didn't wrap up the nomination until June. Strange that with record voter turnouts and audiences for the televised debates, you hear some people saying they want this race to be over. Could be nerves but the last time we had a coronation was in 2004. How'd that turn out?

    The most frustrating thing here is (none / 0) (#14)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:39:38 AM EST
    the lack of logic in the underlying argument...

    The pledge delegates are not the deciding factor! All of these arguments for Obama are based on that premise.

    Exactly, the superdelegates are. (none / 0) (#22)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:47:40 AM EST
    But you do not follow that argument to it's logical conclusion,  ie if the superdelegates continue to fall for Obama in the 4-1 margin they have in recent weeks then surely Hillary has a problem.  She cannot realistically close the pledged delegate gap and she has shown no signs of winning over superdelegates.

    As we heard so often form Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:55:16 AM EST
    Super delegates can change their mind.

    If Obama can not win PA and if he loses potential revotes in FL and MI, the stampede you foresee seems unlikely.


    And, of course, the argument ... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:01:50 AM EST
    that the pledged delegates represent the will of the people is seriously flawed.

    Though I do think Clinton probably has to pull ahead in the popular vote to make this argument work for most people.

    But if Obama gets more delegates out of Texas that makes the point fairly clear.


    Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada (none / 0) (#47)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:03:48 AM EST
    already made the point...Texas is just a giant exclamation point.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#38)
    by AF on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 09:58:41 AM EST
    Both of your points are wrong.  

    Irony or no irony, it would be to Obama's advantage to focus on tying McCain to Bush rather than be double-teamed by Hillary and McCain while McCain floats through his lean months without a scratch.

    And Obama's former media advantage was not based primarily on running against Hillary.  It was based on Obama's ability to inspire huge, enthusiastic rallies, the excitement of which which rubbed off on the reporters who were covering those rallies.

    This isn't to say Hillary shouldn't be in the race, but pretending there aren't disadvantages to an extended race is naive.  The disadvantages will be particularly serious if the rest of the campaign is based on "contrasts," as it seems it will be.

    So...Obama should not have to (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:08:01 AM EST
    win the nomination to gain it, because by having the win it, unfairly hampers him against McCain in the general election; assuming of course that at the end of the primaries he would in fact clinch the nomination.

    Odd way at arriving at an argument that in essence argues that Obama should just be handed the nomination without having to win it. (isn't that how he's won all of his elections?)


    apparently, we are not inspired enough :-) (none / 0) (#66)
    by RalphB on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:21:45 AM EST
    Ahh (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Virginian on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:46:42 AM EST
    so Obama inspires Republicans and Independents enough, but not Democrats...but he wants to wear the Democratic nominee mantle...hmmmm...odd logic there isn't it?

    You don't read too carefully do you? (none / 0) (#121)
    by AF on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 06:09:47 PM EST
    Take another look at my last paragraph.  Obama should not be handed the nomination because Hillary has a chance of winning and has no reason to drop out.  Nevertheless, the extended primary has downsides for the Democrats, which will be particularly bad if the rest of the primary is negative.

    Heh (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:00:33 AM EST
    No YOU are wrong!

    So there.


    why isn't the media (none / 0) (#61)
    by Kathy on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:19:19 AM EST
    insisting on nailing down a solution to FL and MI from both campaigns?  This is basic reporting: we have an issue, let's get the people involved in the issue on record saying how they would solve it.

    I understand the media waffling on this toward Obama, but you'd think they'd be going after Clinton.  Someone needs to ask both candidates outright: what is your solution.

    Actually, Clinton needs to get ahead of this and present the solution that would be most advantageous to her, then keep repeating it and repeating it until it's conventional wisdom that it's the best solution, until Obama is forced to come out and reject or accept.  Rope-a-dope.

    The media interested in issues? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:24:17 AM EST
    Are you new here?


    Just teasing.


    Riverdaughter is right (none / 0) (#95)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:59:41 AM EST
    Write your State Party leaders this issue impacts down stream State races. Check out the Confluence blog great article on Mi Fla and right on the mark and how to act aginst this blunder.

    the optics on this (none / 0) (#73)
    by myed2x on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:34:41 AM EST
    certainly shouldn't help...

    In Austin on Feb. 21, Clinton had a solid debate performance, although her aides groaned as she accused Obama of offering "change you can Xerox." The line, advisers said, was offered during debate preparation by Bruce Reed, a Clinton White House official, but onstage it came across as forced and drew boos.

    Clinton is getting her debate prep from Bruce Reed, the president of the DLC.


    Off topic (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:09:30 AM EST
    and hypocritcal of you.

    See my latest post.


    I think you're right, BTD... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kinglet on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:45:17 AM EST
    And I know you do, too. Heh. Last night I saw a frantic user on another blog posting about how to bring this primary thing to an end for the good of the globe or something. In this post, though, the writer actually said if Obama were to be VP, he would be reduced to a eunuch.

    All the hand wringing doesn't show a hell of a lot of faith in the greatness of Obama.

    Stuff and Nonsense (none / 0) (#92)
    by Salt on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 10:55:21 AM EST
    Senator Clinton in no way should even remotely consider walking away, ridiculous. Obama dose not perform in the Big States period and nothing and no one on his ticket can help, the NAFTA memo, his wife's first time I have been proud of this country, Rezko's federal trial, his return to Iraq comment, his anti female slights, his attacks on Bill Clinton, his campaign co chairs and supporters strong arming with group grievances, Mich and Fla with differing Party base demographics being marginalized, becoming the butt of late night, it has gone to far Dean, Donna Brazile, JJJR, Ted Kenndy MSNBC all have done him no favors.  He has been defined by himself I might add no feather attack from Clinton no swift boating required, right or wrong but it is done, I truly believe his opportunity to be the Nominee is gone and I further believe he would drag down a Senator Clinton Ticket for the same above elements. My thoughts for the Senator from Il would be to withdrawal use the Rezko federal trial distraction as the rationale clearly indicating he has done no wrong grow his resume, dump the mansion, give the wife more time to become accustomed to campaigning, remove his co chair JJJR or like Kerry and Gore there will be no next time for him.  If he dose not and the Party is harmed in the general and in down stream races, as he has no gift or talent that will draw the remaining base or groups to him, the Praty will again be changed for many years.   I believe you are either enamored now or you are not he has a locked in pool affluent progressive liberals, AA, and some youth vote but so did Kerry that's a finite base and smaller than Clintons reach and growth in Catholic women returning and Hispanics locked in much larger potential everyone but Alter Newsweek editor gets this math.

    If Senator Clinton is the nominee, and I believe she will be, and the Dems return the Positively America platform outlined in Senator Schumer book for 2006, and move off this return to Camelot road trip from the left, we will have the first Women Democrat President of the United States come 2009.

    All This Nonsense About How Hillary Should (none / 0) (#99)
    by MO Blue on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:04:32 AM EST
    drop out of the race will cause resentment with Hillary supporters which might well be carried over into the GE if Obama is the nominee.

    it is funny (none / 0) (#107)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:25:40 AM EST
    but when it was assumed Hillary would roll to the nom., it was the Obama supporters saying they wouldn't support Hillary.  Now that the Obama supporters have become so focused on attacking Clinton's character the shoe is on the other foot and I notice more and more Hillary supporters saying they won't support Obama.

    Dean's call for a "revote" is only going to further the rift.  Why not just accept what the voters of those states already had to say?  Because Dean is trying to give Obama a chance to do better in both states.  Because if the delegates go to Clinton as is the race is back to near even which would give the superdelegates more reason to consider Clinton once again.  FL, MI, OH Obama can't win the GE without them.  If Clinton does really well in PA then the Superdelegates ought to take into account the fact that Clinton is winning the important swing states in primary type voting, which should count more for winning caucuses in states like ID.

    Whether Obama and his followers like it or not the superdelegates are going to decide the nomination.


    Reasons Why... (none / 0) (#110)
    by AmyinSC on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:19:17 PM EST
    Well, the MEDIA pushed the notion that Clinton had the nomination all sewed up, then proceeded to punish her for HER "presumption," rather than themselves for pushing their own narrative.

    As for those of us who support Hillary but won't Barack, there are a few reasons - his arrogance masquerading as charm, sexism, mean-spirited attacks, lack of experience, temper, and unwillingness to answer questions - all of which sounds exactly like George W. Bush, to me.  THAT is why I won't support him.  Add to that his unwillingness to take a stand on anything that leaves a real record, and there's just no way. I used to like him, I might add, but the more I have seen of him, the less I have liked him.  Oh, and I am sick of the man with less experience beating out the woman with more experience, whose ideas I actually like better (her support of the LGBT community, for example, has been unwavering for YEARS - the same most DEFINITELY cannot be said of Obama).

    Dean's utter lack of real leadership on MI and FL, his unwillingness to seat the delegates for those two states as they STAND, and as was EXPECTED byt the two state Dem. chairs at the time of the primaries, makes it seem clear that the "fix is in," if you will.  Again, that's what happened in 2000 and 2004 - if Obama cannot win on his own merits, with honest-to-goodness vetting, why the heck should I support him as my nominee?

    I realize this sounds like I'm arguing, and I;m not - just saying why this Hilalry supporter will not support Obama.  :-)


    Obama is a "pop star" (none / 0) (#105)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 11:12:50 AM EST
    He's had a quick rise in politics.  Will it last?  It is hard to say but they can't bank on the continuation of favorable press coverage.  They can't bank on the speech of hope.  The only thing they have in the GE, right now, is "McCain likes Iraq, Obama doesn't."  

    How fast do pop stars fall from grace?  All it is going to take is one skeleton to fall out of Obama's closet and he is done.  He has been presented as the infallible voice of reason, fair play, and righteousness...that all goes away if it is revealed he has accepted gifts in return for votes, it all goes away if he gets caught in a lie.  The only way to go when you sit atop the hill is down.  If Dems really want the win this fall they had better hope that Obama's image remains untarnished.  Or better yet, that Hillary becomes the comeback kid wins the nomination outright.

    But I agree that Hillary is the best thing for Obama.  Demonizing her has become part of American culture but in a GE they won't have her to demonize and they have to win popular votes, not caucuses.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#111)
    by chemoelectric on Thu Mar 06, 2008 at 01:30:29 PM EST
    Yeah, BT, I think you may be right.

    I don't think the suspense is good for the grassroots voters, however--uncertaintly causes anxiety and anxiety causes illness, and also accounts for all the worrying about tangentially related matters (such as being able to spend money on, apparently, morphing the face of John McCain into the face of his name-rhyming brother, Saddam Hussein). So I would sort of rather this nomination race be over, but for different reasons and not desperately.