home

Obama 's Inadvertent Political Successes

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for Me Only

One of the ironic aspects of the the wild success of the Obama campaign thus far is that it is succeeding in some ways in spite of itself. If you have read me, you will remember one of the aspects of Obama's political style I found most objectionable was his "appeal" to "values voters" by trashing Democrats on "faith." This was one of the reasons I found Chris Bowers' Reagan Dems post so absurd. But the very astute Paul Rosenberg has turned Bowers' lemon of a post into lemonade in this excellent post highlighting Obama's very real map changing successes. Paul writes:

Obama's strength in the West is particularly embarrassing-not to mention debilitating-to McCain.

But it's also embarrassing to Obama, since it belies his earlier rationale in reaching out to religious conservatives, and his claims to be a mapchanger by drawing unprecedented numbers of blacks to the polls, and contesting Southern states Democrats otherwise would lose. It is not the religious conservatives dominating the South who have responded most to his calls, nor does he put more pressure on McCain there than Clinton does. His "unique" contribution is to do what Schaller mapped out as the natural thing for the Democratic Party to do, regardless of their nominee.

Great point from Paul. Read the whole post as it has a very interesting take on what I call the Mark Schmitt Theory of Change. It is somewhat persuasive as well. It makes me more optimistic that not only can Obama be a successful candidate in the fall but that he can be a more successful progressive President than I thought. It seems to be more a circumstance of accident than design but as Lefty Gomez said "it is better to be lucky than good." This probably holds true for Presidents as well as ballplayers.

And now for some red meat for Hillary supporters -- Obama's political style remains a roll of the dice, both electorally and as a question of governance. His inability to win key components of a winning Democratic coalition remain very worrisome. He remains a DLC style political triangulator if not a policy triangulator. The success of Obama remains to be seen and may never be seen tested this year on a general election stage. But I must admit that Paul's piece cheered me, for I remain, as I have been, a tepid Barack Obama supporter.

< Why Did Obama Withdraw From the Michigan Primary? | Corzine And Rendell To Raise 15MM For MI/FL ReVotes >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Paul R (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Steve M on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:51:56 PM EST
    is just super duper smart.

    He is excellent (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:52:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I hope you're right (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:54:55 PM EST
    I started out as an Edwards supporter who really didn't like Clinton, and I'm now a Clinton supporter who really doesn't like Obama, but believes he will be our candidate in the Fall. I think that his current standing is more due to the media dislike of Clinton and their desire to show that they really can support progressives (at least in primaries) than due to anything Obama himself has done. Successfully labeling Clinton as a racist and thus dropping her support among African Americans from the 40's to the 10's also helped, but that trick only works once - next time Obama supporters start crying "race" the public will notice a pattern.

    I agree completely on one point - Obama is a triangulator. He chooses his words to please the most people, not to take a stand. I respect that you recognize this and support him in spite of it. A lot of his supporters actually think that he's a non-establishment candidate who is going to change the world, not a politician who is pandering the same way the politicians have pandered since the beginning of time.

    Most of his supporters think (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:55:47 PM EST
    I am the devil - one of Hillary's spawn.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm just relieved... (5.00 / 10) (#33)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:03:26 PM EST
    ...to finally find an Obama supporter who admits that he has faults. I have never had a problem admitting that either Clinton or Edwards were not perfect people or perfect candidates, but a lot of Obama supporters seem to view his candidacy with religious zeal and refuse to acknowledge his weaknesses.

    [ Parent ]
    They can't help it. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:06:08 PM EST
    They tend to be very earnest and literal minded.


    [ Parent ]
    Underestimating (none / 0) (#122)
    by AdrianLesher on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:50:04 AM EST
    Obama and his supporters is part of what got Hillary in the mess she's in now.

    Obama's supporters are portrayed as part of an educated elite, yet they supposedly have no critical thinking abilities and are easily entranced.

    Obama himself is portrayed as either a complete naif or a venal cynic.

    Mayybe it's time to reevaluate.  

    [ Parent ]

    Nope. Sorry. (5.00 / 6) (#123)
    by echinopsia on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:57:03 AM EST
    When I see so many formerly pragmatic people who wanted a fighting Democratic candidate four years ago favoring a non-fighting "postpartisan" candidate now, I have to question their critical thinking abilities.

    Most of them are only really interested in demonizing Clinton, who most of them used to actually admire.

    But they say her actions in this campaign have turned them off and now they hate her. What, because she never said she wasn't a pol? And she runs as a pol? And she is obviously more concerned with Democratic values than winning for herself and Obama is obviously more about himself than about Den values?

    This is not rational.

    [ Parent ]

    I haven't portrayed Obama's supporters (none / 0) (#150)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:34:03 AM EST
    as "part of an educated elite."  I've observed that many of his supporters do not argue rationally.  I don't think he's "a naif," but I do think he is not experienced enough to be President yet.  I try to avoid all or nothing thinking myself.  

    I think both Obama and Clinton have done some negative campaigning, but nothing that yet approaches what Kerry and Gephardt did to Howard Dean in 2004.

    [ Parent ]

    what mess is that? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:40:26 AM EST
    About to pull even and overtake the popular vote and perhaps pick up even more delegates?

    [ Parent ]
    In Obama's worst week of the campaign (none / 0) (#157)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:20:01 AM EST
    he actually beat Hillary in delegates won  by 1 delegate,  including Super Delegate endorsements.

    He also picked up an 8 delegate swing when the California delegates were certified.

    The only metric by which Hillary is about to pull even on Popular Votes,  is one which includes Michigan.  If you want to include votes where she only managed 55% where she was the only candidate on the ballot then your argument is weak.

    [ Parent ]

    She WAS NOT the only candidate on the ballot (none / 0) (#172)
    by echinopsia on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:38:06 AM EST
    Michigan Democratic primary results

    Why do Obama supporters keep repeating this lie?

    What do you gain by it?

    [ Parent ]

    I don't see Obama as motivated by (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:57:00 PM EST
    anything except winning elections.


    [ Parent ]
    Making him a standard issue pol (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:58:29 PM EST
    Hilary is no  different in that respect.

    That is what pols are. Don't start a Hillary Cult on me please.

    [ Parent ]

    But then I rather have an old style Pol (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:01:22 PM EST
    that admits she/he is one than one who claims he/she is different and continues to prove that he/she is just the same old kind of Politician.

    [ Parent ]
    It's all a matter of degree. (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:02:06 PM EST
    Hillary obviously cares deeply about certain issues, such as UHC. Obama? The ONLY hint of passion I have seen from him is in his defense of the right of individual choice in the health care debate.

    All politicians have enormous egos. The question is whether the ego drive is directed to anything long term, or just winning per se.

    [ Parent ]

    Fair enough (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:03:00 PM EST
    I'll grant the health care point to you. But nothing else.

    [ Parent ]
    And that is the ball game for many voters. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:03:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If it is (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:05:16 PM EST
    their choice is clear. Hillary. No question about it.

    [ Parent ]
    I've go to add women's right to choose. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:08:08 PM EST
    Obama mealy-mouths on this, just as he does on gay and lesbian equal rights.  When the chips are down, will he nominate judges who will support Roe v. Wade and will he fight for confirmation for such judges, or are there other issues more important for his expenditure of political capital?  I want to know this now.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, I was VERY unnerved to read (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:49:29 AM EST
    the backstory on Obama's vote on Roberts.  He was all ready to vote for him, just found him impressive and smooth -- and it was Obama's staff who had to pull him back and persude him to vote otherwise.

    And that their argument was that it would be a political miscalculation to vote for Roberts, rather than persuading Obama on the issues, worries me even more.

    [ Parent ]

    Marginally concerned on this (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:10:27 PM EST
    But I simply can not imagine him nominating someone questionable on that.

    [ Parent ]
    I can. (none / 0) (#95)
    by sancho on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:31:06 PM EST
    It would be a supreme high Broderism moment for him--a total consolidation of Obama's own right to choose as President, to prove he can "reach out" and unite "red and blue." And he'd do it over a living woman's body--consistent with how he has campaigned.

    [ Parent ]
    What about social security? (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:08:21 PM EST
    Are you OK with that going down the tubes?  I don't think Hillary would let it happen, but I suspect Obama would.  I will not vote for him without a very clear commitment on social security.


    [ Parent ]
    Hmm (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:12:18 PM EST
    I think he will face enormous pressures from his Left and not do it.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't have as much confidence (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:21:12 PM EST
    in that kind of pressure after the Democrats in Congress have caved on Iraq, torture, spying since winning in 2006.  We can't even get them to restore habeas corpus.


    [ Parent ]
    Now you had to come with reality check (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:26:17 PM EST
    and ruin the dreams of a better future : >

    [ Parent ]
    No Hllary Cult (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:24:35 AM EST
    I don't do cults. Authoritarianism doesn't suit me. I think what bothers me is that Obama is supposed to be "different", and he isn't. An awful lot of people act like he is doing a different kind of politics, clean and optimistic. I see him attacking Clinton and pandering to the masses the same way that every other politician does - but claiming to not be doing it. I hate hypocrisy. I've lived for too many years with a President who says one thing and does another, a leader who gives the people platitudes instead of progress.  I hope I don't get in trouble for this, but in all honestly Obama reminds me too much of Ronald Reagan. He had the same capacity to inspire, the same tendency to give moving speeches that said nothing, and the same tendency to leave the details to his underlings. I know that Obama's politics won't be Reagan's politics, but ... I don't like this authoritarian movement coalescing behind Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Not possible (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by facta non verba on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:25:45 AM EST
    since I think we all admit she has warts. Too many Obama supporters, however, are typified by that kid in Columbus, Ohio that Dan Savage interviewed for a video shown on Real Time with Bill Maher. The kid said "Obama is infallible. He can't f**k up." Others said "your heart tells you all you need to know."

    I ain't shy. If someone is bold enough to wear a button I will approach them. This afternoon, an Obama supporter got more than he bargained for. I pointed to his (gay white male late 40s) button and asked him to name an accomplishment. He couldn't and so I asked again. He then at least confessed. "Maybe he doesn't have any." Score one for honesty. Then why are you voting for him? "Because he stands for change." It's hard to argue with logic like that.

    [ Parent ]

    Off topic He reminds me of Sila. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:07:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    red herring alert! red herring alert! (none / 0) (#153)
    by cpinva on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:35:39 AM EST
    puhleazzzzzzzzzzzeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!! BTD, shame on you!

    Don't start a Hillary Cult on me please.

    if, by "hillary cult" you mean pointing out that she seems to be the sane one of the pair, then i'm a charter member. if, by "hillary cult" you mean pointing out that her campaign has focussed on more than one substantive issue, then i'm a charter member.

    please, spare us all the "oh, but they're essentially the same!" nonsense, they aren't. if they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

    sen. clinton is hardly perfect (and mccain and obama are? i think not!), but she has consistently made her campaign to be about the democratic party, not about "saint hillary". sure she's a politician, duhhhhhhhhhh! let me be the first to break the news to you: they all are, by definition.

    that's not the real issue, and you know better, or should. the real issue is: who of the two best represents what the democrats are supposed to stand for, sen. clinton or sen. obama? who of the two consistently remains true to the democratic ideal, sen. clinton or sen. obama?

    the envelope please! (drum roll here) and the winner is......................sen. clinton in a landslide!

    sen. obama means well (at least, i'm pretty sure he does.), but got thrust into the spotlight wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too early. this is the first time in his political career he's actually had a fight on his hands. his mettle isn't testing all that well, when things don't go all his way. sen. clinton just keeps on keeping on.

    as for the "unity" and "bipartisan" schticks; positions of last resort, not the first thing you do. sen. clinton understands this, sen. obama seems not to.

    again, sen. clinton is a politician and not perfect. i'll take that for $100 alex!

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, You Are A Charter Member (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:29:13 PM EST
    The tipoff being that people belonging to the Obama cult, argue the same points but in reverse. Bottom line: one is horrible and the other is great.

    In reality both candidates have pretty much the same, platform, policies, and voter appeal.

    Yes the dressing is different but that is about all.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup. (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by ajain on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:00:16 PM EST
    I think it is very possible that he spends his first term being very cautious and doing what is poll-tested so that he gets re-elected. At least that is what reading todays NYT article suggests to me.

    But who knows. Maybe he will surprise us all.

    [ Parent ]

    Doubt it. (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:02:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He Will Pick The Low Hanging Fruit (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:19:31 AM EST
    In his first term, he will probably expand S-Chip and maybe lift some restrictions on stem cell research. Both had enough bipartisanship support to pass but not enough votes to override a Bush veto.

    After that, it gets scary because of the unknown unknowns with Obama. With his statements that Social Security is in crisis, I worry about what his plans are for that program. Also, if he nominates SCOTUS judges, how moderate they will be so that he can keep his bipartisanship badge bright and shiny.

    [ Parent ]

    That is (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by 0 politico on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:29:27 AM EST
    presuming he would get more than one term.

    I remember seeing in the past week or two that Mass. voters are no longer enamoured with their governor's performance after his being elected on a campaign of "Hope."  They have found this to have evloved into an administration of non-accomplishment.

    Also, this presupposes that the attacks from the other side are not going to have an effect.  No Quarters notes that Hannity has been trying to get others to notices BO's connections to militants:

    http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/03/10/hannity-like-a-dog-with-a-bone/

    Ugh.  I don't care for this.  But, if it gets any traction, McCain won't have to be the one throwing the rocks.

    [ Parent ]

    I think he is motivated by more than that (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by dianem on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:11:47 PM EST
    The scary thing is that I don't know what. Hillary Clinton has a long history of working for children's and minority rights. John Edwards has a similar history, as well as the motivating factor of the memory of his son. I'm not sure what Obama's motivating factor's are. "Hope" and "Change" are a bit vague. He seems to be running on a "vote for me and you'll be electing the first black president" platform. He's better have some other motivations, because once he wins the election he's going to have to actually do something. I have no idea right now what that will be.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed. (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by jpete on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:29:13 PM EST
    I hear him talk a lot about process; much less about goals, except for very general, vague  ones  - oh, and the specific one of getting him elected.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it is about him. (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:35:52 PM EST
    That could be fine if his policies and desires allign with yours, but I get the sense that it is about him - just as it is with 99.9% of all politicians.  But I agree very much with you that it is difficult to determine what it is that drives his interest.  The obsession with process as opposed to end results has always been a big obstacle with him for me.  I am leary of people who constantly focus on process as opposed to specific end results.  We can all be really nice to each other going right over a cliff.  I suppose that would be better than being mean going over the cliff, but I think being mean and getting something constructive done would be better than either.

    [ Parent ]
    You must be (5.00 / 8) (#97)
    by facta non verba on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:32:42 PM EST
    my long lost twin. I too am an Edwards support and saw myself as an ABCer, Anybody But Clinton. But the more I learn about the junior Senator from Illinois, the more I am put off and dismayed.

    Your second paragraph could describe any number of Obama performances. The question on Farrahkan in the last debate. He tried to measure his words so tightly that he came off pissing off everyone. In Beaumont, Texas, he spoke eloquently for the cause of gay equality but got no applause for his remarks so he switched to the Praise Jesus, my personal lord and savior routine. The response was, of course, a big cheer. Lost in the shuffle was the message of equality. It is difficult to discern what he stands for. In Iowa, he against drivers licenses for illegals but by California he was for them. On that note, in the Senate he votes for a border fence but in Texas, he is against it. It was guns in Boise 'cause those hunters in southern Illinois want them but he from the South Side of Chicago where guns kill people not deer says not a word to a captive audience. In Reno, he sings the praises of Reagan but he goes to Ohio and there NAFTA is the problem, a Reagan-Bush project that Clinton signed into law. So who is the real Barack Obama? A hypocrite, a charlatan, a fraud, an empty suit.

    His wife's former firm Sidley-Austin LLP is a big contributor to his campaign naturally. Over $800,000 and guess what they are a registered lobbyist but he doesn't take contributions from the lawyers who are registered lobbyists; he takes them from their colleagues who are not. Never mind that in a partnership they all profit from the work of others. And yet he can claim he takes no money from lobbyists. In the narrowest sense, it's true. In the broadest sense, it is mass deception.
    I'll vote for Nader if it comes to that unfortunately. Or even for the Socialist candidate but Obama, thank you no.

    Mrs. Clinton has warts but Obama is the cancerous tumor he rails against. It's hypocrisy. It is the audacity of blind ambition.

    [ Parent ]

    Could not agree more (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by RalphB on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:40:05 PM EST
    I'll vote for Nader if it comes to that unfortunately. Or even for the Socialist candidate but Obama, thank you no.

    Mrs. Clinton has warts but Obama is the cancerous tumor he rails against. It's hypocrisy. It is the audacity of blind ambition.

    I've felt this way for quite some time now.

    [ Parent ]

    I always read (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by facta non verba on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:49:56 AM EST
    your posts with interest. Thanks for all the insight you provide and the links that you have provided as well. I've learned a lot from you.

    [ Parent ]
    I won't vote for Nader or McCain (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:37:28 AM EST
    Not that it will matter in my state (California).  I'll show up to vote for a local House candidate in a very challenging race (It has the potential of turning a red district blue).  I'll fund his race, but not the national.  I don't know what I'd do if I lived in a state that might go red. I don't think I'd be willing to vote for Obama unless the Republican VP was particularly egregious. McCain isn't Bush. He talks right to get elected, but his record is much more moderate. And I worry about things that will happen - the president effects our nation in many ways. He/she needs to understand how to get things done and who to trust to help them. Obama just doesn't have that kind of experience. McCain does. Clinton does. (I'm not quoting Clinton - I said this before she did).

    [ Parent ]
    If you think McCain is moderate (none / 0) (#158)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:28:58 PM EST
    you need to do some research.  He has taken stands on a few issues that are outside the republican mainstream but he is a conservative.  He is anti-choice, he would keep us in Iraq for 100 years, he has now locked into supporting the bush tax cuts.  He is a fiscal conservative who will gut social programs, including privatizing social security, that are at the core of Democratic values.  And you will not like who he puts on the Supreme Court.  Even if you think that Obama can't get anything done for 4-8 years you are still better off with him (at least if you are a Democrat).  I think he has the potential to be much better than that, but every time I read this kind of I'll-take-my-toys-and-go-home argument from either side I am amazed.

    [ Parent ]
    "More moderate than Bush" (none / 0) (#161)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 03:52:41 PM EST
    I don't think McCain is particularly moderate. I do, however, think that he is not like the extremist's who have been in power for the last 8 years. I'm not relishing a McCain Presidency, but I'm sure that he won't take us into ruin.

    My real problem is that old cliche - experience. I'm not being petty here. I have not seen evidence that Obama has the judgement and experience to be President. I fully expect another terorrist attack on American soil in the next 4 years. They have not had any reason to attack since we have been essentially acting as a recruitment office with our actions in the Middle East. But as Iraq winds down, they will have to rally their troops, and that means attacking us. I can think of a dozen ways they could do it tomorrow, each as spectacular, in it's own way, as 9/11. So...whose butt do I want sitting in the oval office chair when it happens? A candiate who has not even learned the ins and outs of Washington politics, much less how to run a nation? Or a person who has been in more crises than I could imagine, and has survived and prospered? Either Clinton or McCain fit into the latter category. Obama is certainly the first.

    As much as I don't like McCain's politics, I can't in good conscience put politics before the welfare of the nation. I don't trust Obama. I don't like McCain, but I trust him. Given the choice, I won't actively fight for McCain, but I won't impede him, either, and part of me will be relieved if he wins. This saddens me more than you could know, because if McCain wins we will lose so very much.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, its not like McCain would do something crazy (none / 0) (#162)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:13:33 PM EST
    like bomb Iran.  That is your guy in a national security crisis? You really want him in the hot seat.  Enjoy the endless war.  Bill had no national security experience of any kind, yet managed to avoid Armageddon.  Obama will have plenty of experienced advisors.  Just what is it you think he might do that would be worse than what McCain will certainly do?

    I just find incomprehensible this experience trumps all.  Who cares what he will actually do as long as he has experience.  Is the Clinton experience cool-aid really that powerful?  Do you not realize that McCain is even more pro-war than Bush?

    If it makes you feel better Hillary now says Obama might actually be experienced enough, at least if she needs him.

    That is exactly why Hillary extolling McCain's experience was so appalling.  

    [ Parent ]

    And Obama will invade Pakistan (none / 0) (#163)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:24:47 PM EST
    Honestly, that scared the heck out of me. I don't want endless war, and I think that McCain doesn't like war any more than most of us do (as opposed to Bush, who has never seen war close-up and therefore loves it). I don't think that McCain is more pro-war than Bush. I think that he's talking tough in an effort to win over Republicans whom he needs to win the nomination and the election. His record is not one of a warmonger. Obama is not so much a warmonger as he is unknowledge about international politics in general.

    Clinton isn't saying that Obama would make a good president when she suggests him for VP. The standard has always been lower for VP.  Think Dan Quayle. Obama has it all over him.

    Look... it's a moot point. I live in California, and I'm not going to make any difference in the general election. I plan on supporting a downticket Democratic candidate who has a decent chance of taking a house seat in a right-leaning district. I certainly won't be an advocate for McCain. I'm way to ambivalent to be a decent one, anyway. If McCain picks an extreme enough VP, I might even donate a few bucks to the DNC to fight him, given that there is a good chance he won't live to see re-election (the presidency ages men, and he is already pretty old). But I can't pretend to believe that I think Obama is qualified to be president if I really don't.

    [ Parent ]

    First of all (none / 0) (#164)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:29:58 PM EST
    Obama did not say that.  Its simply absurd (or ignorant) to claim otherwise.

    McCains tough talk is not new.  He has other problems with the right, but that is not one of them.  He criticized the surge as not big enough.  

    As for what Clinton is saying about Obama, did you read the link?  She has clearly said

    1. Obama is not fit to be C in C
    2. We won't have a running mate who is not fit to be  C in C
    3. We are considering Obama as a running mate


    [ Parent ]
    He said we would go into Pakistan (none / 0) (#166)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:58:19 PM EST
    ...after al-quaeda with or without their permission. I'm not exactly an international expert, but I know that Pakistan is a very strong but very fragile U.S. partner. They have a lot of internal conflicts that may preclude their giving us permission to send troops into portions of their nation (the portions most likely to be harbouring al-quadea).  If we invade without permission, it could destabilize the nation and cause a civil war. I would be considered an act of war by the U.S..

    At the very least, if McCain starts a war it will be with due consideration for the consequences, not as an accidental result of trying to please the American people and look tough.

    [ Parent ]

    Last I checked... (none / 0) (#168)
    by CST on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:43:39 PM EST
    That's exactly what we JUST DID.  Also, as far as I know, the Pakistani government has yet to complain.

    Also, he never talked about invading pakistan.  He talked about a strategic attack on known Al-Queda operatives.

    [ Parent ]

    without their government permission and/or help we will just be opening another tinder box in the region and one with known Nuclear Weapons.  What next attack across the borders on the north of Afghanistan into the ex-Soviet Union countries?  Look the Turkish Government is doing that in Northern Iraq and that is already causing some instability in a region that was more or less stabilized for us.  The last thing this Country needs now is more war fronts.  On one hand we talk about bringing home the troops and on the other we want wretch up the fighting?

    [ Parent ]
    and BTW (none / 0) (#171)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:10:22 PM EST
    Our attack and killing of the so called number whatever Al Queda leader in Pakistan that also killed a bunch of other people has already caused enough trouble we don't need another Bush in the White House.

    [ Parent ]
    So... Bush is now your model of propriety? (none / 0) (#170)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:10:16 PM EST
    We are very lucky that Pakistan is in political chaos right now as a result of Bhutto's assassiantion. Regardless, in my world you don't send either troops or weapons into allied nations without permission. I don't really know why that is controversial.

    [ Parent ]
    I think if you want to see what (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:57:45 PM EST
    his agenda will be, look in Ted Kennedy's desk drawer.

    There is no way Obama will be able to get anything through the senate or the house.  They have no respect for him.  They don't fear him.  They think of him as a kid.  And before anyone makes the Kennedy comparison, Kennedy had Bobby, whom everyone was afraid of.  He carried the big stick while Jack took all the glory, and Bobby was perfectly fine with that.

    I have thought the Bobby - Obama (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by sara seattle on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:06:00 PM EST
    comparison so strange especially as you mention - everyone was afraid of Bobby -- and I cannot imagine anyone afraid of Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I think so (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:00:15 AM EST
    as I always have found that much ambition to be worrisome.  And having read up on his history in the Daley machine, well . . . Chicago politics is pretty scary stuff.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll take it (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:58:56 PM EST
    I love Ted Kennedy.

    [ Parent ]
    No Kennedy left behind for you, eh? (none / 0) (#29)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:03:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:03:52 PM EST
    I think Ted has been the best Senator for the last 20 years at least.

    [ Parent ]
    At least he has been consistent (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:09:04 PM EST
    in maintaining the Democratic Core Values in the forefront.

    [ Parent ]
    well that is a subset (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by facta non verba on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:45:02 AM EST
    of who? Who has been in the Senate that long?

    Robert Byrd, Dick Lugar, Carl Levin, Orrin Hatch, Mitch McConnell, Arlen Spector, Pat Leahy, Joe Biden, Ted Stevens, Tom Harkin, Charles Grassley, Daniel Inouye, Harry Reid, John McCain, Barbara Mikulski. Those are the ones that come to mind off the top of my head. Personally, I'd go with Byrd for his stance on the Iraq war and with Biden for his hard work. Don't always agree with him but you can't deny he tries damn hard. Harkin and I line up frequently too. Mikulski seems decent. Did I miss any other dinosaurs?

    Try that with Senators since 1992. My pick is Barbara Boxer. Of the new arrivals, I like Bernie Sanders. And I am hopeful on Jon Tester. And I can't wait for Al Franken.

    My other Senator, Dianne Feinstein, has largely failed me. I do applaud her leadership on assault weapons.

    [ Parent ]

    New arrival senator (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by zyx on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:11:54 AM EST
    one that has really wowed me is Sheldon Whitehouse.

    (Great name...)

    [ Parent ]

    He's (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:22:09 AM EST
    awesome. I hope we see more of him in the future. Would love to see him as Attorney General.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, not so much on Thomas confirmation (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:09:38 PM EST
    hrg.  

    [ Parent ]
    Or NCLB... (none / 0) (#63)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:24:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:03:41 AM EST
    He has way too much experience to ever become president.

    [ Parent ]
    Great (none / 0) (#40)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:05:24 PM EST
    Suggest that you drive everywhere though.

    [ Parent ]
    The fact that Ted will have influence (none / 0) (#52)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:10:40 PM EST
    is the only thing that gives me hope for an Obama administration.


    [ Parent ]
    You are right (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:24:27 PM EST
    Kennedy did so much for Obama in MA...

    [ Parent ]
    I meant that Obama would owe him. (none / 0) (#82)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:40:59 PM EST
    We don't really listen to Kennedy in Kerry much here.  We just expect them to do their jobs in Washington, not tell us whom to vote for.  I never thought Obama would win the MA primary.


    [ Parent ]
    Influence Over Whom? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by facta non verba on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:47:40 AM EST
    Over Obama perhaps but over the other members of the Senate? The Senate is like herding cats.

    Each Senator sees himself or herself a potential President. I do think Byrd is right when he argues that the Senate is really the most powerful segment of the government but it so failed its oversight and consent functions.

    [ Parent ]

    Ahhh...the 'new politics' of hope (none / 0) (#67)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:25:58 PM EST
    managed by the same old same old.

    Keyryst.

    [ Parent ]

    Personally I think (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:58:53 PM EST
    that a lot of what he has said and done during this primary to get the votes of this group today and then changed to get that group tomorrow may come back to haunt him if he is the Nominee.

    it will certainly haunt him (5.00 / 12) (#60)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:21:50 PM EST
    in FL and MI.  Not to sound like BTD, but I said this a while back: Obama runs the race that is directly in front of him.  If you look at Clinton's speeches, they're always the same, always nailing the same core issues.  Granted, she talks up some depending on her audience, but basically, she's said the same thing all along.  Obama shifts left or right depending on where he's headed.  In IA, he's transcending race.  In SC, he's embracing race.  In Nevada, he's talking to the republicans.  Going into Super Tuesday, he's scattershot, which is why he couldn't knock it out.  TX and OH were perfect examples where he had to straddle one issue that each state viewed completely differently: NAFTA.  And y'all know what happened there.

    To have to go back to FL and MI and find out how to appeal to those voters without having all those burned bridges behind him come up will be catastrophic, which is why he is not going to support a revote.  He doesn't know which Obama to be in order to win.

    He wins the battles but not the war.

    [ Parent ]

    Sad but true (none / 0) (#103)
    by facta non verba on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:45:56 PM EST
    I could not agree more. The question is has he won enough battles to have won the war? I still think not but if he has then it will prove a Pyrrhic victory because along the way he will have pissed off too many people. Two weeks ago, before OH & TX, I saw a poll that only 65% of Clinton supporters would support in the general election. That number seems low to me but then I remember that Hispanics who are 3:1 overall for Clinton and 4:1 in California will probably go close to 1:1 in the general. Asian-Americans too will break for McCain in greater numbers if he is the nominee. My neighbors, a gay couple in their 60s, will go for McCain. Myself I am likely going Socialist or Green. I meet someone the other night sharing a table at a pizzeria here in the Castro. Another elderly gay man, he is going for Nader unless Clinton is the nominee. After a while, these are more than just isolated data points, they show a trend. For someone who is the "uniter" he sure sows a lot of disunity.

    [ Parent ]
    Gay people (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by DaleA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:28:32 AM EST
    are beginning to ask questions about Obama. He does not have much of a record on these issues. Nor are there many openly gay people in his circle. Very troubling.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure, and the Clinton's have an unimpeachable (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:07:05 AM EST
    record on LGBT rights.  What with DADT and DOMA.

    [ Parent ]
    Apropos of nothing... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:03:16 PM EST
    I just play with some numbers...and ya know what?  Obama doesn't have a majority of the popular vote.  Right now, its merely a plurality, approx. 47.7% to Clintons 47.4%.  

    In other words, 53% of the voter/caucus goers wanted someone other than Obama. :-)

    Paul Tweety Lukasiak!!! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:04:25 PM EST
    LMAO.

    [ Parent ]
    oops... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:04:59 PM EST
    that should be 52.3% of voters/caucus goers want someone other than Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    And slightly more (none / 0) (#159)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:30:35 PM EST
    52.6% want someone other than Clinton.  So what?

    [ Parent ]
    This race is very close. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:38:18 PM EST
    The idea that either one is winning or that either one is entitled here is really far fetched based on the numbers and the fact that we haven't seen the primary season through.

    [ Parent ]
    Whaaa??? (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by pluege on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:22:16 PM EST
    the post doesn't strike me as particularly insightful, clear, resolving of any issues, or providing any new perspective - guess I missed it. The post mostly cabals together citations of Digby, Greenwald, and others.
    .

    For me, this is just one of may ways in which... (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:40:15 PM EST
    All that was solid about the narrative of Obama's campaign has melted into air after Texas and Ohio. Last week, his candidacy effectively lost "Teh Momentum." And, TalkLeft has demonstrated - all weekend long - that a slew of MSM and blogospheric narratives have run their course, to no good end for Obama. To what BTD mentions, I would add:

    Pledged delegates are more important than the will of the people. Obama can no longer claim to be the red-state candidate after Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Arkansas, Texas, and Ohio--to which we will most likely add, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia. The whole premise of Obama's coattails in downticket races burst this morning because a few reporters in Texas did their jobs. NASA seems to have no role under his inspirational leadership. And, the rationale behind the Obama campaign's stance on Florida and Michigan appears to be nothing more than crass politics and pledged delegate mining.

    If the campaign has come this far based on luck, no amount of hope and belief will deliver the SUSA projections in November (just more luck). In essence, the Obama campaign does not have a reality-based political strategy, and that will undermine their use of funds and the power of their rhetoric in the general election. How are Democrats really supposed to support the accidental tourist of "creative class" consciousness?

    As with Kerry, they will stay home (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Kathy on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:41:52 PM EST
    How are Democrats really supposed to support the accidental tourist of "creative class" consciousness?


    [ Parent ]
    Which western states? (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:16:49 AM EST
    If we look at the primaries, which I think we should, it is not California, AZ, NM or NV.  Hillary won those.  Are we going to win UT?  Not any time soon.  Nor Wyoming.  ID? Probably not.  So Paul must mean CO and WA, both of which were caucuses?  Not much to base a theory of transformational politics on.

    I don't get why you think Paul is so smart on this.   He uses big words but still fails to say much as far as I am concerned.  Polling this far out is useless, especially if they contradict what happened in recent primary elections.

    Besides, Paul once accused me of being a "Fox News Democrat."  So I seriously question whether he knows what it is to be a real Democrat.  You don't soon forget an insult like that.

    What Paull misses (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 02:24:50 AM EST
    If you read the article by the local reporter, who basically exposes the Obama myth, Obama did nothing and could do nothing for 7 years when the Republicans were in charge.  The 8th year, the Dems were in charge and the Dem majority leader threw every piece of progressive legislation his way, to the dismay of long time advocates of the legislation.  What did Obama really do? <a href="http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/">Barrack and Me</a>

    Further there is a leap of faith that he will be this great progressive.  I don't buy it.  No one get this far with so much money and is not bought, sealed and delivered. <a href="http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=548&Itemid=1">Obama Bubble</a>

    Except look at where the money came from (none / 0) (#165)
    by CST on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 04:51:33 PM EST
    Most of his donors are small donors.  This would suggest that he does in fact have to be more progressive since he was "bought" by the people.  Also, it's not a leap of faith, it's based on the work he has done to date, especially as a community organizer in Chicago

    [ Parent ]
    Most of Obama's political success (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:43:35 AM EST
    is due to the media giving him a pass.


    BTD, italics overload on the front page! (none / 0) (#1)
    by plf1953 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:45:17 PM EST


    Just keeping ya'll (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:47:54 PM EST
    on your toes.

    [ Parent ]
    That's to signal "red meat." (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:47:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And there is nothing we Hillary supporters (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:52:50 PM EST
    like more than red meat--preferably fresh killed.  We are meanies.


    [ Parent ]
    Could I please have Red Peppers? (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:25:58 AM EST
    I'm a vegetarian.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:56:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Did you mention (none / 0) (#56)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 10:13:40 PM EST
    raw?

    [ Parent ]
    Taking it on faith you support (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:47:03 PM EST
    Obama due to your opinion he is more electable than HRC.  Otherwise, I might suspect you may support Obama because he's not HRC.  

    BTD is a gamblin' man (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:58:23 AM EST
    and a ramblin' man -- geographically, not in his writing. :-)

    Me, I've taken enough risks in my life to gamble on a good-lookin' and sweet-talkin' man again. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Right now I'm thinking (none / 0) (#127)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 01:02:25 AM EST
    emphasis is on "man," as all other signs point to supporting and advocating on behalf of HRC.  

    [ Parent ]
    More than that (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:49:32 PM EST
    he might be able to accomplish more as President.

    Of course he might be unable to win in November and even if he does he may accomplish less.

    The ceiling is higher and the floor lower with Obama in every way.

    He is very much a roll of the dice. I think the odds are favorable.

    [ Parent ]

    There is absoluately no there there. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:50:52 PM EST
    What do you think he may accomplish and how?

    [ Parent ]
    Everything Hillary wants to (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:52:39 PM EST
    except mandated health care.

    There is not a dime's worth of difference between them on policy.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by facta non verba on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 11:59:48 PM EST
    I do think there is a world of difference on policy even beyond health care. On energy, he favors nuclear and liquefied coal. Clinton does not. He provides more subsidies to oil & coal and less for alternative energy. On HIV/AIDS, Obama offers $50 billion, Clinton calls for $55.2 or 10% more. But beyond that, can he get anything done? He has not shown to fight the good fight. Why wouldn't the GOP just sit and obstruct? They are good at that.

    And then even more than this, some of his Senate colleagues seem rather annoyed with him. The NYT article today left me with the impression that in the Senate he is not seen as a team player. Will John Lewis remember all the unkind pressure he was subjected to or will he tow the line? Obama doesn't cajole in the LBJ sense, he intimidates. That style of politics seems more Nixonian to me. And then can he execute? It's one thing to have vision but can he bring it to bear. The Kennedy comparison, a model for his campaign and perhaps his Presidency is a case in point. Kennedy got some of the vision part of his program enacted: the space program, VISTA, the Peace Corps. But foreign policy, Kennedy's failures due to his inexperience cost us plenty. Cuba and Vietnam are Kennedy legacies. Obama wants to sit down without preconditions with Chavez, Iran. Is that not a problem? I am all for a sensible policy with Cuba, Venezuela and Iran but there needs to be an understanding that we expect them to live up to certain standards.

    I would love to hear your thoughts on this. I respect your views.

    [ Parent ]

    Their priorities may be (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:00:13 AM EST
    quite different.

    And there are some important policy issues which have not been discussed in this campaign...and will not be, as policy action items.  I doubt Obama will countenance them but I am positive that Hillary will.

    I refer to all the issues related to women and children (they make up at least 1/2 of those in poverty) not just in this country but worldwide.  Domestic violence, trafficking in women and children as sex slaves, descrimination against women of all colors in all societies, HIV-AIDS in women, basic research/science re women's health issues, women and sexual-assault issues at the military academies...

    None of these things will have to be explained to Hillary.  There's more, of course, but for now...

    [ Parent ]

    Sexual assault on women in the military (none / 0) (#108)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:11:06 AM EST
    reportedly extends far beyond the academies to military installations here and abroad.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes...it's true. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 12:58:21 AM EST
    I guess the thing that really makes me furious about the continuing problems of sexism, rape, sexual assault at the academies is that these are the places designed to teach leadership, values, honor to our servicepeople...

    [ Parent ]
    That's a pretty big difference to many of us. (none / 0) (#15)
    by Teresa on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:55:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I understand that (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 09:57:22 PM EST
    and if it is, your choice is an easy one.

    It is not to me, therefore it is not an easy choice.

    My calculations on who to suppor