home

The Argument Obama Supporters Should Avoid

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:30:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

TINS:

They just don't get it. . . . [T]here's a big problem with the whole "electability" argument, anyway. Let's . . . say that Hillary is a sure thing, while Obama would likely lose. . . .

I. Wouldn't. Care. Anyway. And neither should you.

I. Do. Care. Anyway. And so should you.

It so happens that I think Obama is more electable than Clinton. But I must say there is really something wrong with the argument that I should not care that, for just one example, John Paul Stevens has just turned 88. I can not fathom how any progressive could write what TINS wrote. I really can't.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me.

< Ruh-roh: Obama Going On Fox | Rev. Wright: Obama A Politician >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Argument Obama Supporters Should Avoid | 201 comments (201 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I don't even know what to say to that. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by MaryGM on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:36:16 PM EST
    Silly season indeed.

    Yup... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:51:16 PM EST
    and as BTD points out, we need a democrat in the white house, regardless of which is the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    We do not need (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:16:34 PM EST
    a self-centered teenager in the White House--even a dem. teenager.  Luckily, my sitting out an election will have zero effect.

    [ Parent ]
    So... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:18:21 PM EST
    you think Jeralyn and BTD are wrong to support Obama, should he get the nomination?

    [ Parent ]
    My state will go (none / 0) (#117)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:32:10 PM EST
    Dem no matter who gets the nominaition. Chicago will carry the state for Dems.

    I'm more worried about the down ticket candidates in Down State Repub areas.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, a Democrat who did not (none / 0) (#32)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:54:08 PM EST
    have to be talked out of voting for Roberts. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    do you have a link for that? (none / 0) (#41)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:58:06 PM EST
    I remember reading it too, but did not bookmark. Was just over there, and meant to slip in a little piece from the more reality-based progressivosphere, but could not find it.

    [ Parent ]
    Link (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:05:58 PM EST
    You can find a link to it in this piece by Kate Harding.  Apparently Obama is so proud of this fact - that he had to have the politics of voting against Roberts explained to him - he posted the article on the website.  I'm linking Kate's piece because that's where I go to get a lot of these kind of links.

    [ Parent ]
    The Website = Obama's Website (none / 0) (#63)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:06:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Good ol shakespeares's sister! (none / 0) (#72)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:11:58 PM EST
    what a great site! How many good new sites I have discovered since becoming thoroughly disenchanted with dailykos.

    thanks, I'm gonna go insert it.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:16:57 PM EST
    from the little bit I read following the link, it does seem to be great in rallying the troops.  However, I think her implied method of fighting anti-choice movements is doomed to fail.  This quote:

    "This isn't a "Hey, we just see things differently!" thing. This is a "Hey, we believe in a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and they don't""

    will never change the other sides mind, and thats the only way to really win.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree. (none / 0) (#179)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:39:18 PM EST
    I have a right to make decisions about my own body, just as you do. So do all women and men, and no one's religious or moral beliefs may have any agency over that under our system of government. Fighting for respect for each and every person's civil and human rights cannot be won by saying, "We just see things differently."

    [ Parent ]
    I absolutely agree... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:48:53 PM EST
    it cant be done by saying "We see things differently" and leaving it there.  Ive never endorsed ending it like that.  The only real way to win is to say, "We see things differently, so lets figure out why".  

    Now I acknowledge this approach relies on us having faith the other side can change.  But if were able to look past the demonizing and loathing we throw at them, we'll see humans just like us.  People who hold to ideals, regardless of how bad they are, for reasons they believe in.  It is possible to show others a better way to think, and it is possible that they'll agree.  But just bashing them around and shouting at them how wrong they are has no chance of changing anyones mind, as tempting as it is to do.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry I misunderstood, (none / 0) (#187)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:02:07 PM EST
    I totally agree with you there. If there's any lesson I've had drilled through my head this primary season, it's that depersonalizing and dehumanizing others is no way to live and no way I ever want to win anything. :)

    [ Parent ]
    The thing is... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:58:53 PM EST
    a democrat president, regardless of which candidate it is, is more likely to be talked out of a republican nominee than a republican president.  

    [ Parent ]
    I saw that and my jaw dropped (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:36:57 PM EST
    But the fact that it makes the wreck list tells you everything you need to know about that community today.

    Not recc'ed by me (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by magster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:14:06 PM EST
    Not read by me after the 1st paragraph either.

    [ Parent ]
    And quick scanning comments (none / 0) (#164)
    by magster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:18:09 PM EST
    I saw lots of disagreement.

    E.G.:  

    Awful, Awful Argument (18+ / 0-)
    Recommended by: akr nyc, Yosef 52, gregonthe28th, jps, highacidity, mrblifil, mcfly, auron renouille, the ac, buddabelly, Magnifico, merrinc, Seneca Doane, Barry in MIA, dewley notid, CA Libertarian, Prince Nekhlyudov, CrustyPolemicist
    We want the person best able to win and be a good president.  If I thought Obama couldn't win, but would excite young people, I wouldn't support him, because the damage that could be done on the supreme court alone would be worth backing Hillary instead.

    This is an awful, awful argument.

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by DHinMI on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM MDT


    [ Parent ]

    TINS is on a suicide mission. (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:24:21 PM EST
    He is incredibly irresponsible, destructive and divisive on this front.

    He is not helping Obama at all either.

    His attitude and popularity amongst the true believers has always been a huge obstacle for me in supporting Obama.

    I don't like being threatened with ultimate destruction just so someone can get their own way.

    I don't like it at all.

    [ Parent ]

    TINS (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:11:14 PM EST
    seemed to go 'round the bend just after the Nevada primaries. I'd hoped he'd come back...guess not.

    [ Parent ]
    I support Obama (none / 0) (#190)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:23:09 PM EST
    but the title alone was enough to keep me from reading that diary.

    [ Parent ]
    Not At All Surprised (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:41:00 PM EST
    They hate Hillary more than they hate McCain.  

    Or, if you prefer, they care more about taking control of the democratic party than they care about the success of the democratic party.  You've said it all along BTD, for some of the Obama folks (certainly not all or even most) it's about destroying the Clinton wing of the party.   Which will reduce the Democrats to minority status even if they keep control of Congress.  But that's okay because it will be their party, even if it's a party that can't get anything done.

    A significant number of Obama's more obnoxious supporters are children.  And I don't just mean the young ones.

    The OFB would rather lose with Obama (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:00:53 PM EST
    than win with Hillary.

    CDS does that.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton Humiliation is the goal (4.57 / 7) (#18)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:46:23 PM EST
    I just read a good post at lancemannion.tyepad.com along the same lines.  He mostly gives an overview of why he wants the campaign to continue, then adds some things Obama supporters ought to keep in mind, one of which is:

    ---It's infuriating the Beltway Insiders.

    They have been rooting from the beginning to see Clinton humiliated.  Way back when, when the show was just getting started and they were declaring that her nomination was inevitable, they were consoling themselves with the hope that Rudy Giuliani would mop up the floor with her in November.  Then they saw that Obama had a chance to give them what they wanted a lot sooner, with the bonus of giving them another Democrat whose humiliation in November they could root for and aid and abet.

    They've wanted nothing more than to be able to laugh at her in defeat and declare that it proof that the country had rejected...Bill Clinton, at long last.

    It's always been about Whitewater.



    [ Parent ]
    Insanity (none / 0) (#154)
    by BearerofBN on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:04:06 PM EST
    Obama supporters would make the same argument against HRC supporters. Our party has completely lost its mind on both sides of the primary. And yes many of Obama's supporters are young, many of HRC's supporters are old and are just as big of babies as anyone supporting Obama.
    I also read in an article earlier today that something like 46 % of HRC voters will either stay home or vote for McCain  if Obama wins the nomination.

    Im just saying it goes both ways, Im getting tired of this election. It has destroyed the party and Im seriously doubting a democrat can win if we lose either constituencies aka (Blue collar vote for HRC, or the AA/educated white vote for Obama). Without those main groups the Democratic party cannot win, even if we are running against a weak candidate (McCain).

    [ Parent ]

    Unacceptable (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:41:21 PM EST
    Surely derangement has set in for someone to even think like that, let alone admit it in public.

    It's very well thought out (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by vigkat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:45:21 PM EST
    and presented, unless, of course, you're looking for some measurable degree of logic.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah! that is always where I make my mistake! (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:46:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It set in ages ago with him. (none / 0) (#169)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:27:19 PM EST
    I think he ought to seek counseling or get a job working for the Republicans and I am not actually kidding.

    [ Parent ]
    I would agree (none / 0) (#176)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:35:37 PM EST
    with you based on many of the statements I have seen him make about boomers and it's not just ageism. There is some serious anger and intolerance that is disturbing, particularly for a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]
    I read it (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by vigkat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:42:43 PM EST
    I could not believe it.  I now understand that Obamamania has altered some critical thought processes in ways that I simply cannot comprehend. It would be an understatement to call it beyond the pale.

    How would you reply.... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:48:09 PM EST
    to Clinton backers who say they wouldn't vote for Obama in November?

    [ Parent ]
    I am starting to see their point (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    to tell you the truth

    [ Parent ]
    Our point (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:20:20 PM EST
    is that we don't see Obama accomplishing anything if he's elected.  We don't trust him on women's issues in particular.  We are not stupid enough to think that McCain will be a good President especially for women.  But if Obama makes a total mess out of his Presidency, we'll be looking at a long term return of the Republicans to the White House. If McCain fails, we can try for a Democrat again in 4 years.  And, no, we don't expect that it will be Hillary. There is nothing at this point short of having a brain transplant that would get me to vote for Obama- either his brain or mine.  8^)  Whether I vote for McCain or write in Minnie Mouse depends on how much more disgusted I get.  It ain't lookin' good for Minnie.

    [ Parent ]
    Replace the Word Obama with Hillary (none / 0) (#175)
    by BearerofBN on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:35:07 PM EST
    And you have the same argument that Obama supporters are making except for the womens rights issue... where the heck did you come up with that?
    Anyways we're all screwed, this mentality is useless. If the primary had ended in February we would be in a completely different place.

    We now hate eachother more than the Republicans. We each blame the other candidate for this. Its like we all make the same arguments just for a different candidate.

    Complete madness.
    I wish we would all wake up and stop the fratricide.

    [ Parent ]

    You see this fella here is just doing (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:45:17 PM EST
    exactly what Obama said to us a few months ago. I was all set to vote for him.  Then came the misogyny and then came the Hillary hate and then came the fact that he is trying still to destroy the Clinton White House.  The fact that he claimed like his little minions all over the internet that he'd GET our votes but she wouldn't get his.  That's EXACTLY what this kid is saying. He's just repeating the word from on high.  

    [ Parent ]
    I was (none / 0) (#189)
    by BearerofBN on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    Replying to a message where the writer declared she couldnt vote for Obama save if she had a brain transplant. I will vote for either candidate, I just hate seeing both sides make the same stupid arguments.
        "The fact that he claimed like his little minions all over the internet that he'd GET our votes but she wouldn't get his. " Im simply pointing out that both sides are making this argument. But Im also not going to insult you like you did me. Im no minion and Im certainly no "kid".
           I also realize Im in the minority on this site with my plea for unity. But you should seriously look in the mirror before you start accusing Obama supporters of withholding their votes if they dont get their candidate.


    [ Parent ]
    Have you (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:48:00 PM EST
    listened to Obama?  He is a sexist of the nth degree.  While 48% of African American teenage girls have an STD, he supports abstinence education. He's asking the pro-choice people to understand that the pro-life people have to make heart wrenching decisions?  Deciding to have an abortion is not a heart wrenching decision?  Having a child is "punishment" for teenage sex? Universal health care for children, but not for their mothers? Doesn't let Michelle take a job until he meets with the new boss and approves it?  And I don't want to hear about SCOTUS.  This guy liked the choice of Roberts.

    [ Parent ]
    How about (none / 0) (#184)
    by pie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:50:42 PM EST
    getting away from the computer and taking a nice long walk.  Clear your head.

    It'll be okay.

    [ Parent ]

    It's hard to tell on the blogs... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:04:49 PM EST
    Her followers were so few until a few months ago that you couldn't vouch for their Democratic provenance.

    MANY who say those things, are trolls of the RW variety.

    Her presence on the net was so small until recently that I can't take much of it seriously.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary's supporters (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:39:28 PM EST
    have had a strong presence on the net for a long time.  We keep getting confused with Republican trolls because Obama's supporters just don't believe that any Democrat could be for anyone but Obama.  CDS is so strong that only the brave would stay at it, but we're still here because we're fighters, too.  The decision not to support Obama if he's the nominee was not an easy decision to make. Only Obama could change my mind, and so far he has made no attempt to win the votes of Hillary's supporters.  As the weeks go by it only gets worse.

    [ Parent ]
    Mostly, I think Clinton folks could be talked (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:31:41 PM EST
    down out of the McCain tree.  I think a lot of those people have stuck with Clinton because they care about the country and the party.  The other team OTOH seems to only care about their guy and believe that compromise is evil incarnate - which is so incredibly ironic given their candidate's incredibly middle of the road and compromising positions on so many key issues.

    [ Parent ]
    Mostly (none / 0) (#202)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:18:04 PM EST
    for me it's Michigan and Florida.  I understand how people can see the issue differently, but for me it's about the fact that I think millions of people are being disenfranchised for a reason that's just not good enough to deprive them of their right (not privilege) to vote.

    Their electeds screwed this up.  In the case of Florida the primary date was bundled with desperately-needed election reforms and railroaded through by the GOP.  And yet, to Obamaborg, that fact doesn't matter.  Neither does the fact that millions Americans got up to go to the polls and vote in elections that have now been certified; that's apparently less important than some intraparty squabble.

    What happens when one of the parties decides certain states can't vote in the general election because of some technicality?  If we grant them this kind of power - to utterly discount votes cast by taxpaying American citizens - it doesn't take a lot to imagine other abuses they might inflict.  And DNC members in general are not accountable to the public (in many states they're elected by members of a state Executive Committee, many of whom enjoy the powers of incumbency to hold their slots indefinitely.)

    And for it to happen in Florida, of all the heartbreaking places.  And for Obama to refuse a pre-funded re-vote because he's scared of the voters.  It's the hypocrisy, too - I can just imagine the outcry if this had gone the other way, Obama had won the states and Hillary were the one blocking a resolution.  Clinton supporters would be called un-American, we'd be compared to the whites under Jim Crow imposing poll taxes & grandfather laws, etc.

    He gets this nomination without a resolution on Florida and Michigan, and damn right I'm writing in Hillary in November, nominee or no.  I just didn't sign up to support a party full of powermad insiders so desperate to skew an internal election that they'll cheerfully violate the Constitution without a second thought.

    (I'll be in Denver on the Florida/Michigan picket lines, also - and there will be some.  Florida and Michigan delegates are coming to the Convention.  I'm thinking that's a scene that nobody wants to see on national television, and you'd think it would be something that Obama would have already considered with his hemming, hawing and heeldragging.  But noooo.)

    [ Parent ]

    I would (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:45:41 PM EST
    say that Obama has done a horrible job of trying to expand his demographics so far. It's up to Obama to get Clinton voters to vote for him if he's the nominee. I'm not sure he's up to the job. Secondly, what exactly are you voting for with Obama? He isn't very specific and if UHC is your main goal you could easily vote for McCain because he doesn't offer it either.

    [ Parent ]
    Um, are you looking (none / 0) (#43)
    by vigkat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:58:32 PM EST
    for a particular answer?  I'm not sure what you're point is.

    [ Parent ]
    this feeling is widespread (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:43:02 PM EST
    I have been seeing it hearing it and posting here about it.
    they dont care if he loses.  as long as Hillary is defeated.  this guy is far from alone.

    Small minded... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    people will be like that.  Which demonstrates how important it is that HRC supporters, should Obama get the nomination, continue to vote for a democrat.  Its been pointed out how foolish people can be, so lets not follow their lead.

    [ Parent ]
    I am trying (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:28:26 PM EST
    I really am battling with the lesser angels of my nature.
    but I am really really starting to want to see them lose.
    but I am trying.

    [ Parent ]
    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:34:30 PM EST
    its hard when the other side acts so horribly. But remember, as bad as they act now, another 4000 American troop deaths in the middle east isnt worth it... something we'd definitely see should McSame win.

    [ Parent ]
    Tell Obama to fight for Democratic values (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Davidson on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:39:20 PM EST
    If Obama becomes the nominee he should focus on standing up for Democratic principles (e.g., abortion rights, health care reform, etc.) rather than appeasing the right (e.g., privatization of SS, Harry & Louise ads, moralist rhetoric on choice, exploiting homophobia and misogyny, etc.).  There's no proof Obama would fight for any progressive issues.

    Don't assume that Clinton supporters who will sit out this election have no legitimate basis to do so simply because many online Obama supporters are delusional in their Clinton hate.  False equivocation.  The problem lies with Obama and his polarizing campaign.

    That being said, Obama's GE demise is truly beyond any of our control once the media and the GOP have him in their cross hairs.  It's not as if they even have to smear him, just expose him.  He has no substance or qualifications to stand on once his house of cards falls down.

    [ Parent ]

    this is my biggest problem as well (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:58:51 PM EST
    I am not at all convinced that if I stand up for him he will stand up for me.
    in fact all the indicators I see so far say the exact opposite.


    [ Parent ]
    If theres that fear about a democrat... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:11:44 PM EST
    you know for sure a republican isnt going to.  Look, I realize how Obama is by no means the perfect candidate; but that doesnt mean we should fold up camp and let a republican, fully endorsed by bush, take over.

    [ Parent ]
    A democrat... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:53:58 PM EST
    is going to be easier to sway towards democratic ideals than a republican.  Also, whether or not Clinton supporters have a reason to sit out this election doesnt mean they are right to do so.  My plea is we look passed wars in the primary because those casualties pale in comparison to actual casualties carried home, draped in the American flag.

    [ Parent ]
    But what (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:26:32 PM EST
    makes you believe that Obama will end the war in Iraq?  He's interviewing Republicans for Secretary of State and Defense.  I think that whether it's McCain or Obama there will still be a substantial number of troops in Iraq in 2012.  

    [ Parent ]
    With McSame... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:34:05 PM EST
    its a 100% chance.  Also, he'll go to war with Iran.  I dont think any reasonable democrat would give anywhere near 100% chance of either happening with Obama.  And I agree that its sad theres any kind of chance those things will happen, but as I said, with a republican its 100%.

    [ Parent ]
    It's interesting to watch so many smart people (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:43:18 PM EST
    march right off a cliff together.  TINS says this:

    Reagan Democrats  . . .  will probably never come back to the Democratic fold in the sorts of numbers that will swing an election to our Party in the years ahead.  That is because their instinctive focus on divisive social issues, their racial resentments . . .  their inherent distrust for government and its efficacy, and their disbelief in the power to effectuate real change through partisan means are directly contrary to the message of the post-racial, structurally focused and fundamentally optimistic Millennials that the Democratic Party should and must adopt going forward.  Reagan Democrats are not the present or future of the Party: new immigrants (especially Hispanics) and Millennials are.

    Short version: old Democrats are small-thinking racist bigots who don't grasp the possibility of real change.  Millennials are smart, optimistic post-racial young gods whose inherent goodness makes it unnecessary to win elections.

    That's really something.  If this kind of attitude pervades Obama's support group, it's no wonder so many regular Democrats turned to Hillary on Tuesday.  They can probably smell the self-righteous delusion from miles away.

    Wow (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:47:40 PM EST
    I guess the idea that Obama is our Reagan and can sell people on the progressive message is dead and buried.

    I'm probably just an idealistic liberal but I happen to think that if you do a good job of running the government, you can restore people's trust in government.  It's not easy, but it's a mission I can believe in.

    This comment seems to be the polar opposite of the unity message: there are people who will never believe in us, and we should just leave them by the wayside and not try to win them over.  And, by the way, I'm already completely sick of this term "Millennials," which appears to be slang for "people with no political memory."

    [ Parent ]

    Do you think Obama would agree (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:49:45 PM EST
    with that? Of course not.

    But TINS is looking out for TINS, as always.

    [ Parent ]

    if McCain can be blamed (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:53:17 PM EST
    for what the NC GOP does Obama can be blamed for this.
    he as done nothing do discourage this.
    nothing.

    [ Parent ]
    The problem is I don't know (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:57:19 PM EST
    what Obama would think about that, and neither do you.  I think I know what he would say, but don't believe there would be any truth in it.

    [ Parent ]
    I was wondering what a Millenial was.. (none / 0) (#204)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:58:20 AM EST
    I figured they were people who were born around the Millenium. In which case they are 7 or 8 years old and way too young to vote. I have found out what they are, and my original opinion, above, still stands. They may be physically older, but they are about 7-8 mentally. No wonder they are all Obama fans, after outgrowing My Little Pony they went looking for a substitute, and lo and behold Obama appears. Everyone is happy now. How nice.

    [ Parent ]
    Seems To Me TINS Is Saying That They Will Lose (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:55:28 PM EST
    not only this election but elections in the years ahead and he is O.K. with this.  Can't see the coalition he is envisioning coming together this year or in the near future because IMO the numbers are just not there.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I dunno (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:21:31 PM EST
    I just think it's pretty humorous how invested some of these guys are in the legend they're convinced is being created with their help.  

    [ Parent ]
    lol (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:08:19 PM EST
    Kamikaze Democrats Say:

    get lost you clinging gun and god racists!

    Was this after Pennsylvannia results or before?

    Do our leftwing pundits learn?

    [ Parent ]

    TINS (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:24:41 PM EST
    has big issues with boomers. I have seen it in many of his diaries and comments. I certainly don't think (or at least hope) he is fully representational of all Obama supporters or Millennials. This is another nasty screed about boomers that he made in an email exchange with another Clinton supporter, SluggoJD:
    Like this: "You boomers (I have to assume you're a boomer, or at least an older "X"er) are all the same. Lots of self-righteousness, lots of selfishness, not a lot of brains. Lots of trashing all the sexual rules and doing lots of drugs when your hormones were raging, lots of "me decade" selfishness when you were finding yourselves during the 70's, lots of racism and tax cuts when you finally settled down in the 80s, lots of "what's good for the Dow is good for America" and moaning about your own kids' sexuality and those awful video games (shudder!) during the frivolous Roaring 90s, and lots of getting back at those nasty terrorists during the midlife crisis years under Bush II, together with consolidating your housing and 401(K) profits you "earned". Now you'll be demanding your cheap prescription drugs and pensions from a boomer candidate who will do everything to deliver them, while panicking about the value of the houses whose equity you leveraged to the hilt. Color me singularly unimpressed." (Thereisnospoon, Obama supporter? - 1/22/08 in an email to me, available upon request)
    I don't understand the anger with boomers but I assume it is something on a personal level and being displaced politically.

    [ Parent ]
    That's OK (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:32:37 PM EST
    At least it's clear and honest.  I've felt from day 1 Obama was evoking this attitude.  He pretty much trashed anyone and everything of the Boomer generation.

    The part that has puzzled me has been why anyone would possible imagine that he could, then, turn around and want our votes?

    I got the message from Day 1.  

    The conclusion was that he thought there was nowhere else to go.  We'd be forced to vote for him.

    I still think that's his strategy.

    [ Parent ]

    but Reagan Dems are voting for Hillary! (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:26:51 PM EST
    my Repub family in GA, SC and TX were excited to vote for her primarily because of the Economy!
    And they're not part of Operation Chaos.

    [ Parent ]
    There's a non-sequitur in the reference (none / 0) (#15)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:45:04 PM EST
    which follows your comment title.

    [ Parent ]
    Ah, the Disposable Diaper Dems: just toss it 'kay? (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:18:27 PM EST
    I'm just astounded by how many yoots think it's okay to toss a hard earned -- or any -- basic human right that they don't happen to need at the moment.

    The ones that come most frequently do when arguing about FISA (well, if you didden do anyfing wrong then who cares if the guvmint spies)

    and arguing about Roe v Wade (so cancha get borting somwhere else or just like have the kid and get nannies already?)

    Yes, I've dumbed down the language to achieve better harmony of form and content, as the content is so slack-jaw droolingly dumb I could scarcely believe it in better English.

    [ Parent ]

    And THESE are the people who claim to care (none / 0) (#192)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:58:38 PM EST
    so much about NAFTA???

    What.  A.  Crock.  Of.  Sh1t.

    [ Parent ]

    Remember when that site used to hate (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:43:37 PM EST
    greens with a passion? now they've adopted the same philosophy. "Better a Republican wins then a Democrat who I don't love". It's inane, stupid and self destructive.

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:44:04 PM EST
    There is a school of thought that says if you believe, for example, that a black man can't win, it would still be wrong to vote against Obama for that reason, because we'll never get anywhere if people think that way.  Same goes for gender, of course.

    There's another school of thought that says, screw that, I want to win.  I respect both schools.

    Setting that issue aside, of course it's okay to think about a candidate's chances of winning, or we'd all be Kucinich supporters.  (Okay, not all of us.)  In fact, the argument that it's wrong to think about electability is generally a tell that says "my candidate is less electable."

    But look, I don't kid myself into thinking I know for certain who can win and who can't.  I have my concerns about Obama, because he does have certain similarities to failed candidates of the past, but we've clearly never run a candidate with his overall combination of traits before.  So no one really knows.  I only have two simple things I ask of Obama and his supporters:

    1. If we nominate you, please, please don't lose.

    2. If you do lose, you sure as h*ll better not try to blame it on Hillary.

    Too much to ask?  Maybe.

    John Aravosis (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:45:59 PM EST
    and others have already preblamed Hillary for what happens in the fall.

    [ Parent ]
    Well sure (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:50:26 PM EST
    I know there are people who will believe, against all evidence, that if Republican attacks on issues like national security have salience against Obama the only reason is that Hillary went there first.  But I'm nevertheless asking these people to bite their tongues in the name of party unity, because I have a hard time backing their candidate if they're not even going to hold him responsible for his own success or failure.

    [ Parent ]
    absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:51:39 PM EST
    they have their scape goats all lined up.
    it will never be them who is to blame for the landslide that is coming in November.  it will be Hillary. and to a lesser extent, us.
    if Hillary had never brought up all those inconvenient truths no one else would have.
    the dementia boggles the mind.

    [ Parent ]
    Republicans would run the dastardly 3AM ad? (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:03:15 PM EST
    You mean they would dare to run an ad against him to say that they might be the more calm, competent, and reliable in dealing with a crisis?

    I doubt they'd think of that...its just too low and dirty!

    [ Parent ]

    They've Been Blaming The Clintons Since 1992 (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    It is easier to blame someone else then own up to your own mistakes.

    [ Parent ]
    Blame Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:58:16 PM EST
    Obama lost TX, OH, PA because Hillary wouldn't quit. Obama is used to having no opponent and win the easy way.

    [ Parent ]
    That is exactly what I think (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:27:42 PM EST
    He's used to running virtually unopposed, as in his senate race and in all those February caucuses that HRC so foolishly ignored.  When she pushes back hard, he can't take her.  (The one exception to this is Wisconsin ~ and I thought the race was over when I saw those numbers.  He had the base, for that single election.  No more.)

    He'd better figure out how to run against a strong opponent pretty soon if he's going to be our nominee, don't you think?  It's not like McCain will suddenly turn up with a set of sleazy divorce papers to help Obama's cause.

    [ Parent ]

    Not completely without reason: (none / 0) (#30)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:52:51 PM EST
    "Every day they run a primary campaign, we run a general election campaign," explained Mark McKinnon, McCain's senior media adviser, as the campaign bus rolled through Kentucky. "And every day we run a general election campaign is a good day for us."
    I agree Hillary has every right toi stay in, and in fact given her strong support in PA and on the day after, can't blame her for carrying on.  But the extended process is going to make it harder for the eventual nominee, who is still likely to be Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    But mattt, an extended contest could be a boon (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:06:16 PM EST
    to Sen. Obama if he started campaigning better and stopped stepping on himself. Plenty of free media with ways to get a message out there and connect with voters. And the primary turnouts---how can you not love that?

    I ran across an excellent study about long primary/nomination contests versus GE victory chances. I should try to find it because it was pretty interesting.

    Anyway, Sen. Obama himself admitted the long campaign is toughening him up. So why not pivot the conversation at Sen. McCain. Nothing's stopping him from going on the attack against McCain. And if he can't stand this process, then he shouldn't be the nominee. I'd rather know about all his vulnerabilities now than in the fall.

    Sen. Clinton is far from perfect, but I think her chances of taking the White House and running some long coattails are better.

    But of course, agree to disagree.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks, (none / 0) (#90)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    for a reasonable and positive post.  I try too, to look on the bright side.  Certainly the mobilization of new Democrats who might have stayed home if their states hadn't been in play in this primary, is one of the biggest.

    But a lot of people are writing McCain off way too early.  Yes he's old and can be tied to the failings of Bush&Co...but he's a war hero, a media darling, and - sorry but it needs to be said - a white male.  Either Dem candidate is in for a very tough fight in the fall.  And JP Stevens, I'm told, is 88 years old.  Iran will (probably) develop or reach the cusp of developing nukes in the next 4 years.  "Peak Oil" is going to wreak havoc on our economy.  And we'e probably already at the triage stage of dealing with global climate change, and well past prevention.

    We MUST have a Democrat in the White House.  Every other consideration is secondary.

    [ Parent ]

    mattt, Sen. McCain will have a hard time (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:53:59 PM EST
    staring down Sen. Clinton in a debate. She will cream him, as in turn him into creamed corn, especially on the economy. Did you catch her on Jim Cramer's show a week or so back? Holy crap.

    C'mon, just the idea of CLinton v McCain the Money Smackdown---it has to send a tingle up your leg.

    FTR: the man is a war hero and he has served his country in jobs I could never do. regardless, his ideas are misguided. And attackable. And she will attack. And attack. And a couple more attacks in the space of five minutes, without even mussing her hair.

    And the Republicans are not going to whine about how mean she is.

    [ Parent ]

    By this logic (4.40 / 5) (#45)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:59:44 PM EST
    if Hillary is the nominee and loses, it is Obama's fault.

    As long as you're fine with both conclusions in equal measure, I guess I'm fine with that, although this is the reality of how primaries work.  And I don't think McCain is benefiting from this, at all, since he's not raising any money and no one is paying attention to him.

    [ Parent ]

    No. (none / 0) (#76)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:14:56 PM EST
    By this logic...if Hillary is the nominee and loses, it is Obama's fault.
    Obama is well ahead, Intrade currently figures the race 81-17 Obama.  He can't be blamed for staying in, if the second-place runner should be some miracle overtake him.

    As I said I understand why Clinton is staying in, given the closeness of the race and her undoubted conviction that she is the best choice.  Good intentions, however, do not absolve one completely of blame.

    [ Parent ]

    Ahh, yes (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:17:16 PM EST
    let's run our campaigns by the "wisdom of the market!"

    [ Parent ]
    Uh (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:25:01 PM EST
    I'm not talking about Obama staying in at this point.  I'm talking about his decision to trash Hillary's character and the record of the Clinton Administration to get to this point.

    It's politics.  He was entitled to do these things, just as Hillary is entitled to campaign hard against him.  But I will not subscribe to the theory that if Obama is the nominee and loses, it's Hillary's fault, but if Hillary is the nominee and loses, it's all on her.  That's juvenile.

    [ Parent ]

    ah, yes, Inttrade (none / 0) (#109)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:30:07 PM EST
    way to make money is bet low on the one you think will actually win.  

    If Hillary's that much lower than Barack, you can bet some smart people are banking on making a bit of a mint when she gets the nod.

    [ Parent ]

    Let's stipulate that you're right (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:55:09 PM EST
    That's quite different from what Aravosis has said.

    [ Parent ]
    Also McCain gets (none / 0) (#191)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:36:33 PM EST
    very little of his message out.  All the media, all the time, Clinton/ Obama.

    The media may try to get MCain out front but no ones paying attention.  Except Think Progress of course.

    [ Parent ]

    If he is nominated and loses (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:24:08 PM EST
    His webizens will blame it on Hillary and all the racist losers in the Democratic party which will further alienate said Democrats from wanting to stay in the newly created new Dem coalition.  We could continue on being fractured forever.

    [ Parent ]
    Fractured (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:36:34 PM EST
    for years to come.  Obama divided the party from Day 1.

    The problem is that once you've dissed an entire generation, then why should we care if that party wins or loses, anyway?

    They certainly won't be taking care of boomers.  Boomers aren't even all that important to them.

    So what's in it for boomers to help him even win?  So the name Democrat gets in?

    Big deal.

    If it represents such opposite principles as what it always used to represent, who cares?

    [ Parent ]

    Funny (none / 0) (#185)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:53:06 PM EST
    Because Obama IS a Boomer (albeit near the very end). Interesting how his supporters dis that generation.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with you mostly (none / 0) (#50)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:00:32 PM EST
    I would ask all supporters of either candidate  not to blame supporters of the other in the case of a loss.  I will only blame those who refuse to vote Democratic up and down the ticket.

    BTW: which candidates do you think Obama compares with. Adlai comes to mind for me.

    I think the McGovern comparisons don't work (as does Ed Kilgore, of all people)  

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    I yield... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by NealB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:44:25 PM EST
    ...to the outcome of the process, whatever it may be. I like Hillary. I like Barack. Either of them will beat McCain and either of them will be better than any President in my lifetime. Either way, we win.

    Why Would This Surprise Anyone? (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:44:31 PM EST
    Destroying the Clintons by any means necessary has been the prime motivation of DKos for sometime.  Goes hand and glove  with purging the party of anyone who is not a REAL DEM (i.e. Clinton and her supporters).

    Absolutely (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:37:46 PM EST
    obvious.  Ageism is OK.  Sexism is OK.  

    There is absolutely no respect at all for anybody's actual life records or experience.  Trash away.

    [ Parent ]

    A sign of growing concern in the Obama camp (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:44:52 PM EST
    Something like that argument would never even be contemplated if there were not some serious doubts creeping in.

    But how many Obama supporters, if challenged, could really reproduce this argument and defend the idea that a loss by Obama is preferable to a win by Clinton. And how many of those are superdelegates? I find it hard to imagine that many Democratic superdelegates would prefer McCain over Clinton.

    Good Point (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:08:58 PM EST
    Ceding the electability argument - which is amazing since that was a big part of the Obama sell from the beginning - is a huge deal.  And I agree a sign that some are worried.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps This Is Why The Concession of Electability (none / 0) (#128)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:34:46 PM EST
    at least by some.  Jerome Armstrong looks at recent poll match-ups.  Like Paul L's on-going series at Corrente, it ain't pretty for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    The reverse, of course, is true as well. . . (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:46:34 PM EST
    I had to take some time off from here when I read someone say that Obama really wasn't any different than Bush (in terms of not having to had to work for anything he's gotten) and I was the only one who seemed to have a problem with that statement.

    Both sides, frankly, are getting a bit nutty.

    I can't vouch for commenters (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:48:59 PM EST
    Only for my posts.

    I have been clear on this.

    Heck, my support for Obama is entirely hinged on his superiority, imo, in terms of having a chance to win in November. I do not buy any of the New Politics nonsense.

    To wit, I do not believe anything TINS writes in that diary. But I OBJECT to the argument I highlight here.

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting discussion. . . (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:57:02 PM EST
    his superiority, imo, in terms of having a chance to win in November.

    on this topic on Morning Edition today.  Juan Williams was asked who the Republicans consider harder to beat in November and said the in the last few weeks there's been a sea change in their thinking and that he now believes they believe Clinton would be stronger.

    I'm not sure to what degree one can consider Juan Williams statements as accurate assessments rather than an attempt to shape the debate in ways favorable to Rupert Murdoch.

    I'm nearly alone, apparently, in not believing I can say who has the better chance to win in November.  I can make the case for either candidate.  However, I've noticed that you seem to be making the case for Clinton (on demographics) while maintaining you believe Obama has the better chance (on media positioning).

    [ Parent ]

    The Media matters most (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:02:14 PM EST
    They would eviscerate Clinton in unbelievable ways if Obama is deprived of the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    you could be right (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:05:37 PM EST
    I expect they will eviscerate the dem nominee whoever it is.
    I trust Hillary to deal with better than Obama.
    based on his performance so far if he encounters any REAL hostility from the press he is going to fold up like a lawn chair.

    [ Parent ]
    Does it really? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:13:05 PM EST
    Because more than once (more than once a day, in fact) you've written that "Demographics is Destiny".  Never that "Media is Destiny".

    I see your argument about the media but it's also true that they've already been eviscerating Clinton and she's still standing (although a bit wobbly).  But no matter what the media does, as you've pointed out, if Obama can't bring home the people Spoon is so disdainful of (and isn't that quote so in keeping with Obama's leaked San Francisco statements?) he can't win.  Or maybe in I should say he can't win either.

    Which is a pretty distressing thought.

    [ Parent ]

    Both Will Have Problems w/Media (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:22:35 PM EST
    Clinton will get hit harder, but Obama will get hit plenty hard and I don't think has shown his ability to withstand it as well as she has.

    But here's the thing, the Media is part of what's wrong in Washington and part of what needs to be fixed.  Nominating Obama does nothing to undermine their power.  So even if he wins, one of the m