home

Unity Ticket Verboten?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:33:01 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Supporters of both Obama and Clinton seem unable to even consider a Unity Ticket. I think that is exactly why it is necessary. The divisions are extreme now. They are not ideological. Heck, how could they be? There is not a dime's worth of difference between the candidates on the issues.

Some want imagine there is some huge philosophical war going on - some New v. Old Politics fight to the finish. That is delusion or a grasp at thinking there is something really meaningful to this nomination fight. Others have absolutely no concern about the divisions in the Party. Indeed, there is more concern about the probable winning candidate's base:

The Field’s presumed qualifications are that it will be a Catholic Democrat of evident competence and experience, a team player, and someone the nominee and his base consider ready to be president.

(Emphasis supplied.) We already know how immature Nancy Pelosi has been. I wonder if there are any grownups left in the Democratic Party.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Prepare to Read the Fine Print in Your ISP Agreement | DNC Rules Committee To Meet May 31 on MI and FL >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Unity Ticket Verboten? | 234 comments (234 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Stance on the issues may not be different (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Lysis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:37:33 AM EST
    But it sure seems their commitment to fighting for them, framing them, and indeed truly believing them, are miles apart.

    I still think Obama's playing dress-up Democrat, and thinks our party shares equal blame, if not more (pro-choice folks, anyone?)than the other side.  

    If Clinton is the nominee, she has to keep his rhetoric in check if she picks him as VP.  He could undermine her whole message with one ill-timed gaffe .
     

    It Works on a Risk/Reward Basis (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Petey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:03:50 AM EST
    "If Clinton is the nominee, she has to keep his rhetoric in check if she picks him as VP.  He could undermine her whole message with one ill-timed gaffe."

    Sure.  But I see no reason to believe Obama can't be a team player.

    And I'm actually a big tent Democrat.  I want Obama's base of African-Americans and upscale goo-goos to be enthused come fall by having Obama as Veep on the Clinton ticket.

    Having Obama as Veep will bring his constituency home in a way that having Clinton as Veep won't bring her constituency home.  And that's a substantial part of the reason why Clinton is going to end up on the top of the ticket.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't understand your dichotomy (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:06:39 AM EST
    in the last paragraph.  (But I do enjoy "upscale goo-goos.":-)

    [ Parent ]
    It would (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:38:08 AM EST
    have to be Clinton/Obama. No other way would work. Putting a more qualified candidate at the bottom of the ticket will not pull in those women and working class voters. In fact, it would keep them ticked off. If you truly believe in a unity ticket then you should advocate for a C/O one.

    Frankly, I don't really see how it works out in the real world though. Obama has already turned down the VP slot anyway. Do you suggest he change his mind?

    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:39:33 AM EST
    Of course it will work if Democrats want it to.

    Honestly, I find you are just as recalcitrant as the Obama supporters. You think your argument is as reasonable as they think their arguments are.

    I say a pox on both camps on this.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:41:09 AM EST
    really think that qualifications and experience don't matter? That's what you are advocating? Am I reading you correctly?

    [ Parent ]
    Democracy matter more (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    to the overall health of the party.

    Problem is, we're quickly coming to the point where no one will be able to agree on who "won."

    [ Parent ]

    Sad but true. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:51:50 AM EST
    I just don't see how a unity ticket can be brokered at this juncture. The leadership seems to be against it. The voters seem to be against it. Perhaps things will change but people generally vote for the top of the ticket and more Hillary supporters are going to abandon ship if Obama is the Presidential nominee and I don't think that anything she says or does will help. Obama has created a lot of animosity toward himself by his own actions and rhetoric despite what his supporters want to believe.

    [ Parent ]
    I am advocating for winning (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:49:36 AM EST
    And in my opinion winning requires a Unity Ticket.

    Whoever wins the nomination MUST, imo, pick the losing candidate as their running mate.

    [ Parent ]

    Okay (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:54:08 AM EST
    I understand where you are coming from now. I agree that it should be offered to the other candidate but how do you make them accept? I can't see Hillary wanting to be on the bottom of an Obama ticket, not because of any ego problem, but because it looks to be a loosing ticket electoral college wise and in the end she'll still be a Senator from New York.

    [ Parent ]
    I give up (none / 0) (#105)
    by Coral on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:41:12 AM EST
    You win. You have convinced me. This split needs to be repaired in order to win in the fall.

    [ Parent ]
    as much as I hate to contemplate this and I have- (none / 0) (#106)
    by kimsaw on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:41:16 AM EST
    I agree with BTD there is no way out for Dems. They are equally divided just look at the total popular vote with MI & Fl., Clinton leads but not by much. I agree that Clinton should be on the top of the ticket, no doubt as to her expertise on the issues and her foundation is solid dem. Obama is not top of the ticket material because the biggest question is Obama's inability to take stuff stands on his own and that's why the Pelosi crowd seems in the bag for him. Is he or isn't he a dem?  His "me to" syndrome doesn't send a warm and fuzzy leadership message anymore than Pelosi's performance as Speaker.

    The candidates need each other and the dems need them both. If they don't do this the odds are a  Pres. McCain will be sworn in next January.  

    [ Parent ]

    sorry should be "tough stands" (none / 0) (#111)
    by kimsaw on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:42:41 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's not just a matter of tough stands. (none / 0) (#183)
    by Boston Boomer on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:25:16 AM EST
    In my opinion, Obama is in the pocket of Wall Street corporations that want to privatize social security and prevent universal health care.  Furthermore, I have read Obama's book The Audacity of Hope, in which he clearly indicates that he is in favor of privatization of social programs as well as faith based "solutions."  Even if I liked Obama as a candidate otherwise, I could not support someone with the economic advisors he has and who has written what he has written about domestic programs and his approval of Reagan's cuts in the past.

    BTD, I know that you have said in the past that universal health care isn't an important issue for you.  I don't know how you feel about social security.  I will not support any candidate who favors privatization.  That is a real bottom line issue for me.  And it's not about me so much as future generations.


    [ Parent ]

    And I would add, the clean energy policy (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:47:33 PM EST
    differences are huge - his is all ethanol and nuclear and clean coal, and written by Republicans.

    Hers is Democratic policy from The Center For American Progress.

    [ Parent ]

    You may be right (none / 0) (#107)
    by frankly0 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:41:36 AM EST
    that, for whoever wins the nomination, the strongest ticket would be the one in which they choose their opponent as VP.

    But the real problem is that I see only the C/O ticket as being really viable.

    The C/O ticket works because Clinton is effectively now defined -- in terms of her appeal to voting segments of the population, as opposed to her policies -- as the center-right candidate. Obama is clearly defined now as the left wing of the Democratic Party.

    The effect of a C/O ticket is that she can, at the top of the ticket, bring in the center of the country in the general election -- always the hard part in any election -- and Obama can maintain the solidity of the left. While the left may be quite unhappy with Clinton on top, they will have no place else to go than Democrat, and will be at least mollified by Obama on the ticket -- especially given that he will be getting groomed for the Presidency later.

    But the O/C just doesn't work that way. The presence of Obama on top of the ticket will do far too much to repulse the center of the larger electorate -- Clinton, as VP, is in no position to counter the effects of this repulsion. The "swinging" center will mainly be paying attention to, and being extremely picky about, the Presidential candidate. They, unlike the left, have someplace else to go -- namely, McCain.

    Concretely, I see Wright and Bittergate and Ayers as all influencing the the swing voters if Obama is at the top of the ticket in a major way, and Hillary's presence as VP as doing little to counteract that effect. If Hillary is at the top, she still has her "honesty" issues as before, but she will have established a very real appeal to the working class, seeming as their best, and most authentic representative -- one of the really remarkable and completely surprising outcomes of this campaign process.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe one way to think (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by frankly0 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:45:29 AM EST
    about my point is that the left of the Democratic Party only needs to be mollified to vote Democratic in the general election, but the center-right of the party needs to be persuaded to do so.

    I think that a VP choice can do a lot to mollify, but can do very little to persuade.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you and Clinton are on the same page. (none / 0) (#121)
    by lorelynn on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:46:51 AM EST
    What was her comment a few weeks ago that sent the blogosphere into high dudgeon over the audacity of her comment? Something, like, "It looks like that's the direction we're heading."

    In the past when contemplating Clinton/Obama, I was worried about Rezko biting Obama in the ass and damaging the Clinton campaign or White House in the process. But perhaps the length and the drama of this contest might protect her from fall out as long Obama ultimately did the right thing - whatever that may be under the circumstances.

    As for Obama/Clinton - I think that would be a harder sell all the way around. It would, however, produce great comedy for four years and that might make it palatable. I believe Clinton would do it, if asked, because she is a party person. I'm skeptical of Obama having the humility to ask though.

    Well, we'll see. I'm getting a lot of work done I wouldn't get done otherwise because this primary is such a miserable affair. I've stopped watching virtually any broadcast news. I'm reading the entire newspaper again. And I'm actually getting a book written on my nook in the entertainment industry. I guess there is a silver lining to all of this. It's been over a decade since I've looked forward to not being online.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you think a Unity-Lite ticket would work (none / 0) (#186)
    by magster on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:28:15 AM EST
    W. Clark, Rendell, Wasserman-Schulz, B. Nelson? (Just to name a few possibilities)

    [ Parent ]
    How does any ticket without Obama satisfy ... (none / 0) (#236)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:06:39 PM EST
    ... his supporters, when Obame himself -- not his policies -- is what they are supporting.

    [ Parent ]
    The reality is (none / 0) (#44)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:04:45 AM EST
    the team has to be sold to the rest of the American people.  Having those two together in a ticket also runs the danger of having those adamantly opposed to clinton to stay away as well as those who are adamantly opposed to Obama, for whatever their reasons are.  The Democratic brand goes not preclude anyone from voting their own self interest.  What what can you really come up with that would encourage everyone to support the ticket?

    It's been a long campaign.  Barack, more than Clinton has made many character attacks.  Clinton has said Barack lacks experience.  Do you really think Barack is not going to be accused of grand hypocrisy if all of a sudden he holds hands with Hillary Clinton?  And would people suddenly believe, just because they are on the same ticket that Barack has become qualified and experienced after Clinton has been saying the opposite for months?

    It will be like Kerry and Edwards all over again.  You are asking the improbable of many voters: that all give up sexism,racism in one moment in the voting booth.  And you don't even know who has got what ism.

    It will be a campaign team horror.  Coordination; talking from the same page, having monitors keeping an eye on what the running mate is doing or saying instead of focussing instinctively on the message, the competition from within the organization, leaking out into the press.

    Sure, the two, in whatever order, will be united in defeat.

    [ Parent ]

    Note that Clinton's "attacks" on Obama (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:44:51 AM EST
    as nominee are about something which can be changed and improved. She says he lacks sufficient "experience," which time and work in the Senate can certainly counter. It is not something inherent in him.

    But about her, he says she lacks "character," which is something essentially immutable in a person. Or at least in the public's perception of the person.

    I'm not agreeing that his despiction of Clinton's "character" is correct; indeed, his version of her "character" owes much to the RNC and the MCM, and little to reality. It is highly unfortunate that he has taken the RNC attacks as his own! But it was what he attacks. Oh, and I assume the "racism" and "race baiting" things which his campaign throws into attacks on her and her supporters are part of her bad "character."

    Given the approach of attacking her personally, it makes it harder for him to 1) name her as his VP and 2) for her to accept the spot, and 3) for his followers to accept her in the VP spot.

    "Out, out, damn spot!" kind of thing....

    I initially thought having a Clinton/Obama ticket would be great--not perhaps the greatest, but very, very good.  I thought highly of Obama and just felt he was unformed in his political opinions (or at least having trouble forming them in comprehensible ways for the public to understand) and inexperienced. I figured some more seasoning, some more campaigning would make him the Next Best Thing--in 2016.

    I was impressed by what I'd heard about his speaking style. Until I actually heard him speak -- which was in the debates--I had not heard his '04 Convention speech nor any rally speeches. Then I heard him going on about "seeing the light," using Repub talking points about SocSec--and I began to think less highly of him and look more closely at his actual record.

    Now, I'm not so sure he's a surefire positive addition to her ticket.

    I may change as the intensity of the primary lessens, but, right now? Not my fave.

    I'm also not so sure his approach to this primary race is going to stand up in the long run.  How often can huge rallies about generalities keep followers in a near-swoon state? (How will Deval Patrick run his next campaign in MA? He can't use the first style, since it's been used by Obama--and he has an actual record to run on. Interesting.)


    [ Parent ]

    "Despiction" = typo of "depiction (none / 0) (#128)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:49:51 AM EST
    Not a portmanteau word combining "despise" and "depict."

    Altho' that may be in his thinking....  He does seem to feel the first in some aspects of his demeanor toward her.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton and Obama will bring out more voters to (none / 0) (#125)
    by kimsaw on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:49:18 AM EST
    the polls, they've proven that.  I think the problems in the Republican party and the disaster of the Bush administration will outweigh the problems of this joint ticket. Of course it is dependent on who McCain selects as his vp.

    [ Parent ]
    I've just begun reading this thread (none / 0) (#109)
    by sarahfdavis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:42:39 AM EST
    But I must tell  you my first reaction.
    I so appreciate this site because you put things fairly and ask us to be adults.
    You just challenged me to put my big girl panties on and be supportive of a Unity ticket.
    Honestly, I cannot stand Obama and am infuriated by many of his supporters. But somehow, the way you just presented the Unity ticket, I popped out of my angry little box and want to forgive and unite.
    Reminds me of the amazing couples therapist my girlfriend and I used to see. We've been together 19 years.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (none / 0) (#155)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:07:42 AM EST
    with BTD; and I think Pelosi is trying to force super delegates to make a choice; if she convinces those who would prefer Hillary but fear rejecting the AA candidate that they must choose one or the other, she may think they'll opt for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    She (none / 0) (#156)
    by sas on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:08:36 AM EST
    will not play second fiddle to a less knowledgeable and less experienced running mate.  That's not the way it works in business either.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:01:04 AM EST
    right. The decades in which women have fallen second to inferiorally qualified men would be happening once again at the presidental level?  If people minimize this, they do so at their own peril.  It is an issue with likely half of the 58% of the voters (those who have been in the work world during the last 30 years).

    And  when I talk about qualifications, I'm not talking about which of the candidates survived "Bosnian sniperfire".  I'm talking about the one who is taking the time and effort to understand the issues facing our country.

    Clinton wants the actual work of the presidency more.  Obama has shown he doesn't.  He just wants to win.  Let someone else do the actual work of the presidency.   And you put him at the top of the ticket knowing that the woman would be too old to run in 2016?

    The Obama/Clinton ticket would enrage the feminism issue in the campaign.  And personally, I think rewarding the woman hate in this election would be worse for women than dealing with McCain for another 4 years.

    That's just my reality, and a reality of many of the women in the electorate.  Whether a person chooses to believe it or not is neither here nor there to me.   I'm a liberal and I believe that people have a right to their opinions, and I don't want anyone telling me how stupid it is that I think this.

    Yeah, it's vitrioloic of us to think so.  But we have a freaking good reason to be vitriolic.  Can you say MSNBC?

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#112)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:42:49 AM EST
    people do not want to believe it, but women have a legitimate gripe about how this campaign has played out.  Sexism has been rampant and I for one and many other women are not going to go for a more qualified , more prepared harder working woman being told she has to take the VP slot because of some arbitrary rules that force us to pretend people in Florida and MI did not vote and do not count.

    [ Parent ]
    What if his margin of victory (none / 0) (#189)
    by magster on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:30:06 AM EST
    exceeds Clinton's best case scenarios from FL and MI?

    [ Parent ]
    delegates are not representative of (none / 0) (#227)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:33:15 PM EST
    popular vote or popular will. She is already ahead in popular vote if you count MI and FL

    [ Parent ]
    Some Obama supporters (none / 0) (#179)
    by ding7777 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:24:52 AM EST
    cannot even credit her as a Presidential nominee in her own right [Bill Clinton Seeks Third Presidential Term (front page at dailykos.com)]

    [ Parent ]
    Typical (none / 0) (#197)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:32:20 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Typical (none / 0) (#198)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:32:31 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Any candidate at this point must say no (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:07:47 AM EST
    to VP or undermine their campaign.  It's what they say when the result is clear that counts.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#166)
    by manys on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:15:15 AM EST
    This is just a media-driven meme because reporters and editors are, once again, bored with the current story of the campaign so they try to stir something up. Ayers and Wright have been dealt with and are yesterday's news. Nobody minds Hillary's "cackle" or cleavage like they did four months ago. So on and so forth. To "agree" to a unity ticket would be to tip the Democratic hand and is just pointless at this stage.

    The tone of the Democratic campaign narrative has been truly shrill the last few weeks as the media has run out of headlines. Their boredom translates into hare-brained ideas like this. Not that it would be a bad (or good) idea in general, just that it's too early for this to be decided on. From where I sit, Pelosi was just saying "mind your own business."

    [ Parent ]

    I agree (none / 0) (#122)
    by BernieO on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:47:01 AM EST
    Clinton as VP makes him seem more like a kid with his mommy. I also think she needs to wait to see how the Rezko thing plays out. By the time of the convention it may be a little clearer just how much of a risk that will be.
    If he is the nominee I think she will campaign for him with her supporters and I have a feeling it will go a long way to convincing them to vote for him. That would/should also earn her big points with the party. She is already much more strong on that than he seems to be.

    [ Parent ]
    Although I would respect (none / 0) (#234)
    by misspeach2008 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:56:43 PM EST
    Senator Clinton's decision to support Obama herself, I will not be following her lead.

    [ Parent ]
    Okay, here's what I consider to be a major (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:39:06 AM EST
    difference between the two. Clinton wants to return the Capital Gains tax to 20%. Obama wants to raise it as high as 28%. That will make a differnce in my life. It will cost me thousands of dollars a year. It might mean that my Grandmother will have less time in the nice assisted living faciity she now lives in. So, that's at least a dime's worth to me.

    I'm Retired With A Very Small Retirement (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:45:37 AM EST
    income from my former employer. Without money from my investments, I would be in bad shape financially. The differential between capital gains tax would definitely hurt me.

    [ Parent ]
    Same here. It matters. (none / 0) (#102)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:40:17 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Ditto (none / 0) (#141)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:00:09 AM EST
    All of us with a modest nest eggs in the stock market would get killed.

    We can go up some.  But not double.

    [ Parent ]

    This is a good issue for voting (none / 0) (#219)
    by dem08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:32:20 PM EST
    Republican. As a Democrat, lifelong, I agree with Big Tent that we need to separate out the needs of retirees from issues that so clearly work almost entirely for the benefit of the waelthiest one percent of Americans.

    Hedge Fund Manager incomes often pay in the 100's of millions of dollars a year.

    This is a Republican issue, and I am certain McCain would love to see the tax rate dropped completely on Capital Gains.

    [ Parent ]

    Anecdotal stories (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:45:52 AM EST
    can by moving. But I prefer that the capital gains be taxed the same as other income.

    If there is a need for more support for senior citizens for other needs, then it should be targetted for that purpose.

    The biggest beneficiaries of lower capital gains taxes are the wealthiest Americans.

    If I actually believed Obama would do something about this I would argue that his is a big plus for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Another Faith Based Argument (none / 0) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:53:44 AM EST
    That is one of my problems with Obama. If Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax to 28% and intends to actually do something to protect seniors who really need this income, then he needs to spell it out in his presentation of the subject.


    [ Parent ]
    Would Do It? (none / 0) (#188)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:29:58 AM EST
    He cannot do it, just as Hillary cannot make UHC happen. Both require cooperation from congress and they will pass neither.

    [ Parent ]
    Then It Is Stupid To Run On Raising It 28% Across (none / 0) (#210)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:48:26 AM EST
    the board to begin with. Health care is something that people want. I would be willing to sacrifice a little so everyone can have it.

    Believe me seniors who are paying 5% and relying on this income do not want to pay 28% and try and make ends meet. A difference between a little sacrifice and a lot.

    Why give seniors the opportunity to reject you for something that will never happen? Bad politics IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    Because (none / 0) (#215)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:06:22 PM EST
    If let's say 50% of americans own stock, and stock holders tend to vote republican, it would not be an issue for most democrats, because they do not want to see those richer than themselves get taxed at a lower rate.

    Besides if this is a real issue for seniors, who do tend to own more stock than those younger, than they should not be buying stock. Stocks can drop far below 13% during a bear market. If that would make someone's life unbearable they should sell now, pay the 15% tax and invest in bonds or something more stable. Gambling on the stock market is not for those who cannot afford it.

    [ Parent ]

    Gambling (none / 0) (#216)
    by daryl herbert on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:21:29 PM EST
    Retirees who get good financial advice do not "gamble" all of their money on individual stocks, they invest in a lot of stocks and in market funds.  They may invest in non-stock vehicles that are safer.  "Capital gains" does not just apply to stocks.  It's true that the whole market could drop by a large amount, but that's not as likely as a single stock tanking.

    You have a very patronizing attitude towards retirees.  They earned their money and they saved it, now you want to tell them what to do with it.

    There is a chance stocks will, across the board, drop 13% in value.  But when the capital gains tax is raised, there is a guarantee they will be less valuable to the investors.  That's a big difference.

    [ Parent ]

    Patronizing (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:31:23 PM EST
    Hardly. But those who feel that they should not be paying such high taxes can vote for McCain. Seems callus to me that anyone would not care about the rising deficit's effect on future generations.

    If losing 13% of sales profit due to a capitol gains rate hike, is going to harm someone so that they will be on the street or living below the poverty line, they should not be gambling with their money. It seems like a no brainer to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Besides (none / 0) (#220)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:34:59 PM EST
    It is not going to happen, and the reason is not the group you are concerned about, but R's and conservative Dems will not allow it to pass because they are protecting those who a 13% rise in Capitol Gains tax means nothing.

    [ Parent ]
    I See, I Should Take Food Off My Table (none / 0) (#225)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    and put it on yours. How generous of you.

    According to you, I guess I should sell and just put it in bank and get a negative return. After it is all gone, I will be comforted to know that I have help you to live better.  Go look at the income level that pays a 5%  rate on capital gains and if you are living on less, come back and talk to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry To Hear (none / 0) (#229)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:04:44 PM EST
    My heart goes out to you. If I were you I would sell all my stocks for something safer, or tax free bonds and get a part time job. BTW- your friends that are all for lowering your investment taxes are also for gutting SS, funny how that works.

    And I would vote McCain, if I were you. But, if you are planning on respecting core Democratic values Obama would be a better choice for you because his tax increase is not going to happen, while Clinton's has a slight chance of becoming law. And with Obama's tax plan seniors making less than $50,000 per year pay no income tax. Although I am sure Hillary's plan has the same language, I just could not find it as easily as Obama's plan(PDF).

    Investment Securities
    The 5% Rate
    Who's Eligible: Individuals in the 10% and 15% federal income tax brackets with net long-term capital gains from selling investment securities held for more than one year.
    More people than you might think qualify for the new 5% rate. Why? Because the 15% bracket covers 2005 taxable income of up to $29,700 for singles, $59,400 for joint filers, $39,800 for heads of households, and $29,700 for married individuals who file separately. Here's how this rule works in real life. Say you're a joint filer and have $55,000 of "regular" taxable income in 2005 and a net long-term gain of $10,000 from stock sales. The first $4,400 of gain ($59,400 - $55,000) will be taxed at only 5%. The remaining $5,600 ($10,000-$5,600) will get taxed at the 15% rate you hear so much about. Now let's say your net long-term gain is $4,400 or less. In this case, you'll pay only 5% on the entire gain.

    link

    [ Parent ]

    You Know You Had A Valid Argument With The (none / 0) (#232)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:45:16 PM EST
    information you provided. i

    You had a great opportunity to win me over to your POV on this issue and  have us both feel good about the encounter. A shame you didn't  stop there.

    [ Parent ]

    What? (none / 0) (#233)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:29:44 PM EST
    Not sure of what you think I was trying to convince you of. I voted for Hillary and am not trying to convert you to an Obama supporter, unless he wins the nomination. My argument is that there is little difference between Obama and Hillary, and both would make decent presidents.

    Sorry for the snark, but it is hard for me to understand the emotional stuff that prevents anyone from realizing that the two candidates are almost identical, and not particularly progressive in several areas like crime, and the WOT. And the senseless Obama bashing is really incomprehensible to me. Especially when those who bash Obama are repeatedly pointing out what a disservice the Obamamaniacs who bash Hillary repeatedly are doing to the party. Bashing either is absurd, imo. And to go on the fainting couch evert time either candidate attacks the other is equally absurd, because that is what the Pols do, and it is not personal, iow, they are seasoned pros and are doing what pols do.

    I do not know Hillary's position regarding the $50,000 cap for seniors, but my guess it is that she has something similar. If not and it is a really vital issue for you, rather than bash Obama you may want to put Hillary's feet to the fire instead.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank You daryl (none / 0) (#223)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:56:01 PM EST
    I was going to reply but you said it much better than I ever could.

    Worked too hard for what money I have to have someone tell me what I should or should not do with it. Especially someone who apparently does not know what they are talking about.

    "Capital gains" does not just apply to stocks.

     Not to mention he provides no data to substantiate his claims that this will not affect Dems and we do not care about it.

    [ Parent ]

    Capital gains (none / 0) (#31)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:54:14 AM EST
    tax increases really do not bring in more money.  That was one thing the moderator got right on the nose.  

    And it punishes the little investor far more, really, than the big investor.  

    [ Parent ]

    Charlie Gibson was pretty roundly criticised (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:51:00 AM EST
    for his assertions by economists after the debate.

    [ Parent ]
    Importance of capital gains tax (3.66 / 3) (#47)
    by CoralGables on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:07:05 AM EST
    If someone's biggest issue in determining their vote for president is a lower capital gains tax, I would suggest voting for Bush.

    [ Parent ]
    this is why Obama will not get (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:15:40 AM EST
    as many independents and repubs as he thinks. THe capital gains tax will be huge in the debates btw McCain and Obama, and he will lose them because of he pledge to raise these taxes to 25-28%.  That will be almost double what it is now.

    [ Parent ]
    Affects the very wealthy the most-they are (none / 0) (#136)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:57:45 AM EST
    not voting Democrat regardless. It is an attempt to get them to  pay their fair share. 15% is much less than the average American pays in taxes on earned income.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll also add that a rise of 13% will also lead to (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:11:11 AM EST
    a change in the way people invest. Buy and hold will diminish as people try to make short term profits because they know that the tax will onlybe moderately higher. I don't think that will be good for the overall market.

    [ Parent ]
    Investments are one of the main ways (none / 0) (#148)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:05:34 AM EST
    that average Americans break out of day to day, check to check living. Long term capital gains provide for retiements in ways that Social Security simply can't. Raising it from 15 to 20% is one thing, nearly doubling it is another. If the capital gains increase is only limited to people in higher tax brackets, it's one thing, but an accross the board increase is (I think)a  mistake. People making 250,000 a year can afford to pay 25,000 extra. People making 40,000 a year will be hurt by losing a few thousand extra to taxes.

    I think it hurt people who are trying to build wealth more then it hurts people who are already wealthy.

    [ Parent ]

    For Some Of Us It Would Be Raising It From (none / 0) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:15:43 AM EST
    5% to 28%. In case anyone doesn't know how this works, you have to be in a fairly low income bracket to qualify for the 5% rate.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, I have to imagine that there would (none / 0) (#171)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    be exceptions for the people currently in the 5% bracket. If not, that's really terrible policy. As someone replied to me downthread, an increase like that wouldn't make it past congress. At least I hope not.

    [ Parent ]
    See Here Is The Problem On Running On 28% (none / 0) (#194)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:32:03 AM EST
    You can't campaign on raising it to 28% and just leave it there. If there is a real need for a tiered system, then that needs to be part of the dialog on the subject from the very beginning. Most seniors like me aren't going to say that will never get through Congress. They are going to react to how that will change their standard of living. It will not help Obama with his all ready existing problem attracting seniors.

    [ Parent ]
    I apologize for giving thought to my own (none / 0) (#56)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:10:08 AM EST
    interests.

    [ Parent ]
    thanks for the input, because (none / 0) (#193)
    by ding7777 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:31:19 AM EST
    we have a diversified income infrastructure

    Capital gain increase for retired seniors is every bit as troubling  as reducing the minimum wage for workers would be

    [ Parent ]

    Do You Rely On This Type Of Income To (none / 0) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:05:55 AM EST
    make ends meet? If not, maybe you need to think about your comment. It is very easy to demand hard sacrifices from OTHER people when they do not mean any real difference in your own standard of living.

    [ Parent ]
    good point! (none / 0) (#7)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:43:17 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Holy crap, I didn't know that (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jim J on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:53:24 AM EST
    That's reason enough to fight Obama tooth and nail right there. What an idiot.

    [ Parent ]
    The 28% won't happen (none / 0) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:07:43 AM EST
    That's called hopes and dream, not reality.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks (none / 0) (#174)
    by manys on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    Just as, of all people, Fred Thompson said this week, that Presidential elections are about things that the President can't do anything about anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeremiah Wright .... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by coolit on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:40:33 AM EST
    said something last night on PBS last night that confirmed my worries about Barack Obama.  It makes me very  nervous about his presidency.  What I have been wary of about is his willingness to speak with grace and eloquence out of one side of his mouth and then do something very worrisome when it comes to his true reality.

    Wright said that Obama will say what he has to say because he is a politician.  What this tells me is that Obama does not believe these things he says, but he will say them to get elected.   He says them because his running for president and that's what people want to hear. He isn't necessarily a different type of candidate, but he will say that to get elected.  He will make something a racial issue that he knows is not true.... if it will get him elected.   He does not believe in his message per se, but as a politician, he will say what he has to say to get elected.

    He can do this.  It is fine.  But if he chooses to do this, the American people should be aware of it.

    Hillary admits her faults.  She admits her style, She admits that you may not love her.  But she puts it on the table.  She is honest and will tell the truth to the American people.  She is not a closet racist (like the front page of the WaPost today claims). Obama hides his true nature.  He will not tell you the truth.  He will tell you what you want to hear and then do something else behind the scene.  He is the perfect (deceitful) politician.

    The media and his followers have so bought in to his political message that they will never open their eyes to this hypocrisy.  To me, this is scary, and it reminds me that I am not on the same page as most Americans.  What seems obvious to me is usually overlooked by most of the electorate.  It has been that was for the past 8 years and it seems that not much has changed.

    This is Off Topic (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:43:36 AM EST
    Can you explain to me why I should not delete this comment?

    [ Parent ]
    go ahead (none / 0) (#10)
    by coolit on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:44:33 AM EST
    just something i wanted to share, sorry to screw up your blog

    [ Parent ]
    We strictly enforce relevance (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:46:47 AM EST
    to the posts here.

    I will let it go this time but please keep that in mind in the future.

    [ Parent ]

    please delete (none / 0) (#41)
    by coolit on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    and i'll try to repost it in a more relevant thread.

    sorry

    [ Parent ]

    Hungry to discuss this topic, like me (none / 0) (#182)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:25:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The creative class, (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:43:58 AM EST
    having broken with the petty concerns of the past, no longer needs to actively promote unity, which will come at the end of the glorious people's revolution.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:47:17 AM EST
    The Clinton Class is just as bad now.

    [ Parent ]
    Then they aren't listening to their candidate (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:51:01 AM EST
    who has proposed such a solution directly and through surrogates.

    [ Parent ]
    No one is listening anymore (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Faust on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:30:46 AM EST
    At least not in the blogosphere.

    Look at the posts in this thread. Are the Clinton supporters listening to Clinton?

    Go to Obama sites. Are they realistic about not alienating the Clinton wing of the party?

    On the contrary. It seems to be a contest which side can poison the well most thoroughly.


    [ Parent ]

    I am (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:46:32 AM EST
    listening to Clinton.  She says she'll work her heart out for him if he's the candidate.  I believe her.

    And I'll listen to why, too.  A lot of my own objections could be won over.  I could tell them precisely how, too.

    My biggest reason for not supporting Obama was the over-heated rhetoric from the progressive side.  I couldn't "get" it.  I couldn't understand why liberals such as myself were being so trashed.  

    I have watched Obama, and he's not entirely stupid.  He'll dump that wing faster than you can say "waffle."  And he has a knack for blaming others, so he'll get by with it.  :)

    So I feel that he won't transform the party into some form of a movement that emphasizes filling our souls with political hype and a twist of hope talk.  He's already dumped that.

    Second, and he said this himself this week.  I'm headed into a ahem later stage in life.  Not there yet, but headed there.  His ideas on social security won't fly.  No privatization.  He needs to change his platform to be more like hers on these issues.

    Third, he needs to soften the rhetoric about the Clintons.  A whole lotta soothing words over and over will suffice.  I don't need some big apology.

    Finally, keep Michelle off the TV.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Strongly disagree (none / 0) (#208)
    by joanneleon on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    I'm not sure who is included in the "Clinton class" but overall, I don't see how you could say that the Clinton class is just as bad now.  There is a stark difference.  Attacks on Hillary are tolerated both in the media and on the blogs that would never be tolerated if the same kinds of things were said about Obama.  The double standard is huge and it's alive and well.

    Nobody's blameless in this whole thing, but to say there is any kind of equivalence in the way the different camps and their supporters have behaved is ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]

    Never trust anyone who says "trust me" (none / 0) (#228)
    by soccermom on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:39:51 PM EST
    He is simply unqualified.  Lacks experience.  Immature.  You can't get around it.  "Hope" and "change" don't buy groceries or gas.

    He gave the middle finger not only to Senator Clinton, but to every one of us who do not support his candidacy.

    I plan on giving it back to him in the voting booth.  I don't care who his VP pick is.  Voting for Obama is like voting for Bush-- "trust me."

    [ Parent ]

    The Reason... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by AmyinSC on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:45:45 AM EST
    There is not a dime's worth of difference between them is that Obama keeps parroting CLINTON'S poilicies!  Like now he is jumping on the Hillary bandwagon of needing more police officers on the ground.  My point is that it seems to me the DNC would want the person who is actually capable of creating the policies, not just say, "Ditto."  And what else does Obama HAVE but that??  Not a whole lot.

    Frankly, after all of the sexist, misogynisitic, anti-democratic attacks by Obama (like the afore-mentioned attack on pro-choice people, wanting to return to the foreign policies of DONALD RUMSFELD, praise of Reagan and 1990's Republicans), I don't WANT him to be the VP.  Not at all. He seems to be much more of a Republican than a Dem., and for the life of me, I do not know why progressives (and the DNC) are supporting this guy!!

    Obama Jumps On Hillary's Bandwagon... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:18:52 AM EST
    ...consistently while out and about dissing the Clinton Era as bad times.  Honestly, are is supporters not paying attention at all?

    [ Parent ]
    they don't have to they're in love! (none / 0) (#134)
    by kimsaw on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:53:05 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The young (none / 0) (#161)
    by sas on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:13:36 AM EST
    don't know much history, and the others are sexist or just plain wrong.  I'm not chalking everything up to sexism, like the Obama campaign does with racism (you must be a racist not to see how wonderful he is) , but it is there.  I think there is some male Oedipal fear of the BIG MOMMY or whatever, who knows.  Some of them are such little boys.

    [ Parent ]
    It was a "Jump To Conclusions" mat (none / 0) (#184)
    by manys on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:27:23 AM EST
    "More cops" is hardly a "Clinton policy," and it's not like the President can wave their hand and instantly the funding and people appear to swell the ranks.

    Think of it this way: every candidate wants to receive police union endorsements.

    [ Parent ]

    I've been saying from the start (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Jim J on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:51:54 AM EST
    it has to be Clinton/Obama. I feel more strongly about that now than ever.

    It will be a real test of character for the party: Unity ticket and certain victory and possible realignment, or no Unity ticket and sure defeat and a continuation of Bush policies.

    Mind you, I'm not betting money they will make the wise choice.

    Arghhhhh. Men just don't get it! (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Shainzona on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:54:05 AM EST
    The "Bonus" of having Sebelius on the ticket....

    "Bonus: white woman from Kansas reminds of Obama's own oft-overlooked roots. A "mother and child reunion."

    I am so sick of women having to bolster men - Hillary would have to clean up after Obama (and probably would be doing all of the work and getting none of the credit) and now, Obamanation's ideas for better VP's than Hillary include another women to be his mommy.

    These are sick puppies!

    Ah, any ovaries will do (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:25:00 AM EST
    even Kansas ovaries, girls.

    This is the only other set of ovaries they can find?  No regionally diverse ovaries and from states we could win?  Obama already has Kansas in his background, Clinton could get the Dem votes there, too -- and it's going to be a red state, anyway.

    All those political calculations are aside from the fact that Sebelius brings not much else to the ticket, from what I've seen and heard.  You don't hear gaffes from her, as the Field says, because you don't hear much from her at all, fortunately -- when I've seen her, she's not very articulate.  But, oh, she's "competent" is the best that they can say.

    On that count, Sebelius suffers greatly by comparison with Clinton.  Come on, come up with some other woman who can match up to Clinton.  Give it the ol' guy try -- and then maybe you'll begin to get it, guys.

    [ Parent ]

    Great (none / 0) (#165)
    by sas on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:15:08 AM EST
    a neophyte as prez, and a neophyte as vice-prez....sheesh.

    [ Parent ]
    I thihnk there is (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:55:18 AM EST
    a huge philosophical difference!  As far as I can see, Obama is almost a blank slate.  If he has opinions of his own, he hides them well.  I do not trust his handlers one little bit.

    I think a lot of us are trying to be (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:55:22 AM EST
    grownups; we wanted to keep that feeling we had early on - that we had such a great field of candidates that no matter who was the nominee, we could be energized and excited - but as the days and weeks passed, as we began to take the true measure of these last two candidates, it became harder and harder to do that.

    Part of the reason many of us no longer view a unity ticket as a good idea - in addition to our belief that Obama is not electable, and would sink Hillary if she is at the top of the ticket - is that we keep hearing Clinton talk about party unity, about her willingness to do whatever it takes to put a Democrat in the WH, and we hear none of that from Obama.  Zip.  Zero.  We don't understand a candidate who talks about unifying the country, who doesn't appear to have any interest in unifying his party if he is not the person around whom they unify.  Who thinks unity means standing alone at the top of the ticket, and who can't bear to say anything positive about his opponent, her husband's time in office, or Democratic party successes because it takes the spotlight off him.  Doesn't unity start at home, so to speak?  Doesn't it require some selflessness, as opposed to the selfishness that Obama increasingly seems to personify?

    If there is to be unity in this party, Barack Obama needs not to lead that effort, but to apply himself to that effort.  It has to be the "Barney" approach, and if that means they have to stand on a stage and sing "I love you, you love me, we're a happy family," then that's what needs to happen, now - not at the end of the primary season - NOW.

    Clinton supporters know that it isn't going to happen, that whatever Hillary's efforts are to speak to unity, they will be twisted and presented by the Obama campaign and his supporters as some desperate attempt on her part to undercut him and steal votes.

    Really, we'd like to be all grown-up and adult about this, but that requires adult behavior from all parties - starting with the man who wants to bring unity to the country and change the way things are done.

    Ain't gonna happen.

    This is the worst kind of attitude (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:10:48 AM EST
    especially this:  
    it'll be up to the losing side to accept reality and get on board

    If you're looking to lose an election, well, that's how.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think you understand (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:23:21 AM EST
    this isn't about the politically sophisticated supporters of one candidate or the other. It's about the base of support they have among the millions of Democrats who have already voted or will vote soon. Condescending to them about what they must do will not keep them in the tent, and so it is up to the winner to bring the party together.

    [ Parent ]
    Condescending To Them About What They (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:33:40 AM EST
    must do or what they will do has worked real well so far. Seems to me this strategy has only increased the number of Dems who will not vote Democratic in November.

    [ Parent ]
    You make sense in principle (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:34:22 AM EST
    but in the particulars, this comment just appalls me.  It's hard to consider uniting with those who are simply so oblivious to the treatment of women that we have seen, with the treatment of this woman.  

    And that is not petty but about principle for a lot of us, about issues -- the principles and issues of reproductive rights, comparable worth, and much more that affect every day of the lives of us, our sisters, and our daughters.  

    So this dissing of these principles and issues just affirms for me, sadly, that I cannot trust even the Obamans like you who are not engaging in the nastiness.  I do appreciate that you and many others backing Obama are not being childish -- but the answer is not to be paternalistic and imply that we ought not worry our pretty little heads about what is central to our support of our candidate, principles and issues that have priority for us.

    It wouldn't work with AAs now.  It won't work with us.  And for the same reason -- it is more than dermatological for them, just as it is more than gynecological for us.  To paraphrase BTD's mantra, our demographics have been our destiny too often.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:24:50 AM EST

    I don't want to hear anything from supporters of the losing candidate for the next 4 years if they refuse to support our nominee whoever that may be.