Will Obama Act To Unify The Party?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:31:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I was struck by this post, by the invaluable Meteor Blades. It is wonderfully written, as we expect from him. The tone was just right. But I was not struck by that - I expect that from him. Nor was I struck by the conclusions on the state of the race, they largely mirror my own (that Obama will be the Democratic nominee.) Instead, I was struck by the idea that it is incumbent on the loser in the Presidential nomination race to move to unify the Party and think about winning in November. My view is that it is the responsibility of the likely nominee to move towards unifying the Party. Since, like Meteor Blades, and one presumes, Barack Obama, I expect Obama to be the nominee - I believe it is incumbent upon Obama to move towards unifying the Party. More.

What should Obama do? I believe, first and foremost, for the sake of his general election candidacy and for the sake of the Democratic Party, I believe he should move to settle the MI/FL dispute, preferably by revotes. He can not wait until he has reached the non-FL/MI 2025 number to do this. He should do it when the nomination is, at least ostensibly, still in doubt. This is essential to a sense of fairness for Clinton supporters AND to providing Michiganders and Floridians inclusion in the nomination process. Seating the FL/MI delegations AFTER the fact will do nothing to solve the FL/MI problem nor to help have Clinton supporters accept Obama as the legitimate nominee.

Second, Barack Obama should recognize and appreciate the importance of the Clinton legacy to the Democratic Party. Like many Democrats, I was dissatisfied with part of the Clinton legacy. But we can not deny the good when considering the bad. Bill Clinton made the Democratic Party a Presidential party again. He convinced Americans that Democrats could govern the nation and govern it well. He made Americans forget that Jimmy Carter was the last Democratic President. Bill Clinton changed the electoral math. And Bill Clinton accomplished good things. The EITC. He balanced the budget by raising taxes on the rich. He made the United States the most respected nation on the Earth. He was a good President. Barack Obama should acknowledge this.

Third, Barack Obama should acknowledge the merits of his opponent, Hillary Clinton. He should call for respect for her and her historic run for the Presidency. I believe he should choose her as his running mate. He should call for all Democrats to respect what Senator Clinton has accomplished.

Fourth, Obama should acknowledge and embrace the fact that his agenda is the Democratic agenda, and also the Clinton agenda. That in fact, almost nothing divides us on issues. That in fact, Democrats are united on issues as never before.

I believe that the Presidential nominee of the Democratic Party is its leader. I think the nominee of the Party must demonstrate leadership on all issues, including leading us to unity inside the Party. In my view, this is Barack Obama's responsibility. It is time for him to step up and meet this responsibility. In fact, contrary to Meteor Blades' statement, this is not Clinton's moment - it is Barack Obama's moment. It is the moment to be a leader.

Comments now closed.

< San Francisco to Undocumented Residents: You're Safe Here | Penn Is Out Of Clinton Campaign! >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Will Obama Act To Unify The Party? | 277 comments (277 topical)

In fact (5.00 / 8) (#2)
by ajain on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:40:00 PM EST

If he doesn't step up and move to unify the party, if in fact she does that job for him, I think he will look like an arrogant, arrogant man and not a leader.

She will look magnanimous and gracious, he will look like a kid who just managed to convince his parents to let him have the house for the weekend so that he can throw a party.

: I WILL NEVER UNIFY WITH OBAMA (5.00 / 1) (#287)
by fly on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:54:05 AM EST

I will never under any circumstances unify with Obama.
He and Dean and Donna Brazile stole my vote in Fla...i never forgave the republicans for stealing my vote over and over again, and i will not do so with this bunch of crooks.
It won't happen, i will write in Mickey Mouse in November to send my message and i will never again vote for the democratic president as long as these crooks are running anything!
And that goes for Nancy Pelosi as well!
I am finished with the dem party, as it stands today.
I was a 2004 Elected dem delegate for the State of Florida, and i have worked my butt off for this party and donated a ton of money to the Dem party, well those days are over!
I housed the field rep for Kerry in 2004 for 7 mos.and i fed all the out of state field staff for Kerry for months, no more, not another red cent comes from me for these crooks!I helped run the field office for 3 counties in my state, and i ran all of the rally's in my county for the pres election..i did msny fund raising events..and brought in alot of money..i did public speaking for the dem party for over two years , night after night..never again!!!
Screw the dem party of crooks now running things..i will do nothing for this bunch..ever!
This year I went to Iowa and SC as a volunteer for Edwards Campaign ..I saw the cheating up front and nasty..i am done forever with what the dem party has become under the current leadership..or so called leadership.
They can go to hell as far as I am concerned.
I will never , ever , ever support Obama. Although i do not think i could ever vote for a republican as i am a lifelong Democrat, if need be to keep that crook out of my white house for 8 years..i would vote for McCain!..My husband who was in the army says , as a lifelong dem , he will vote McCain over Obama.
so maybe the dang so called leaders of this Dem party better wake the heck up and start listening to the real Dems , the ones who donate the money and do the work on the ground..oh never mind, they want us all to believe Obama gets his money from the college kids..what a freaking joke!
Names of the DC Lobbyists Obama "Doesn't" Take Money From : NO QUARTER#more-2091#more-2091
do read the comments section!!

[ Parent ]
: BTD, do you agree with this? (none / 0) (#211)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:15:01 PM EST

Specifically, the part where Meteor Blades says:
"Your chances of getting the nomination in a way that can heal the party for the unified run we need to win in November are nil".
MB fails to elucidate how it is that Obama would be better able to do the foregoing than Senator Clinton.
Could you (BTD), or somebody, explain it to us (please)?

[ Parent ]

Nagonnahapin (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by pluege on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:40:02 PM EST

I don't see any of BTD's should do's happening if Obama is the nominee other than perhaps some perfunctory disingenuous mouthings on the Clinton stuff.

: If the Edwards non-endorsement (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:42:06 PM EST

story is true, I suspect you're right.
Totally off topic, but it looks like Mark Penn just finally got fired.

[ Parent ]

Off-topic (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by ajain on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:42:17 PM EST

But I think BTD will like this news - Mark Penn just got fired. Or well, he stepped down from the Clinton camp.

interesting... (5.00 / 7) (#6)
by kredwyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:42:33 PM EST

Thus far I have not seen a lot of the "unify the party voters" stuff coming from the Obama camp.

It seems that many of us who are skeptical of both candidates have reiterated that we will vote for the nominee. But the request that voters do so hasn't come from the Obama camp.

However, Clinton has made several different salvos into this idea that party members should rally around the nominee instead of voting for McCain.

I was struck by the fact that she voiced this at the event down in New Orleans as well as other places.

So if, as MB has suggested, Obama is the nominee when the dust settles, Clinton has already taken steps to do just what he's asking of her.

I agree. (none / 0) (#31)
by nemo52 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:18:09 PM EST

So far, I have seen NOTHING from Obama or his campaign that suggests he will try to unite the party.

[ Parent ]

I hope that changes... (5.00 / 3) (#45)
by kredwyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:31:29 PM EST

because right now it's feeling a lot like the assumption is "What choice have you got?"...and that vibe weirds me out.

[ Parent ]

You do realize (1.00 / 1) (#63)
by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:53:58 PM EST

that you are in a myopic, and very small minority on this point, right? Most people seem to be decently comfortable with both campaigns at this point. Media hype aside, no one's drawing blood or committing unforgivable sins.

[ Parent ]

Cool (5.00 / 3) (#71)
by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:57:53 PM EST

Then there's no argument for forcing her to quit. Glad we're on the same page on that one.

[ Parent ]

Most polls have shown (none / 0) (#78)
by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:00:05 PM EST

that the "blood-letting" is over-hyped. I'm not going to go track down a poll showing this. As far as there being "no argument", I think that's a logical stretch. I agree the blood-letting is over-hyped, but that's just one argument for her to drop out. Here's another: She's not going to win a majority of pledged delegates even including Michigan and Florida. She's therefore relying on the super-delegates to nominate the candidate trailing in pledged delegates. This is very unlikely to happen (not to mention a bit undemocratic). Her campaign is expensive and premised on a very remote possibility--at this point it's simply wasting resources that could be spent to hammer McCain.

[ Parent ]

: Um (none / 0) (#194)
by badger on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:36:49 PM EST

Obama isn't going to win a majority of pledged delegates either, even ignoring MI and FL, and will have to rely of superdelegates for the nomination.
By your reasoning, he should drop out too. Which is fine with me.
Who leads in pledged delegates is meaningless without a majority - first one to get a majority of all delegates wins, just like it's always been.

[ Parent ]

"Most people" (none / 0) (#69)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:56:50 PM EST

argument does not hold up... Where's the beef!??!

[ Parent ]

I think the thing that bugged me... (none / 0) (#83)
by kredwyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:02:40 PM EST

was where he responded, when asked, that he didn't know as his supporters would turn around and vote for HRC were she the nominee...while he was aware that her supporters would probably vote for him were he the nominee.

I ignored the media spin and listened to his words on the issue. And though I assumed that he was talking primarily about these "Obamacans," it sounded weird.

I suspect that the campaign may have tried to walk that back some.

But his statement was there, and there was something about the statement that bugged me re: assumptions about votes and voters.

[ Parent ]

That comment bugged me too -nt- (none / 0) (#106)
by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:11:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Jeez (none / 0) (#108)
by Korha on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:12:48 PM EST

Obama said a while back when he was trying to hit Clinton over electability. And it was true when he said it, as a matter of polling (he was getting crossover independents and republicans while still holding the democratic base). Obviously the political situation has changed. You don't see Obama saying that now, do you?

[ Parent ]

: Oh...well... (none / 0) (#153)
by kredwyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:40:38 PM EST

"when he was trying to hit Clinton over electability..."
I guess that makes it okay then...

[ Parent ]
: The last time Olbermann (none / 0) (#222)
by bjorn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:35:53 PM EST

ever criticized Obama was for this statement. Even Keith thought it was off base to say "he could get her voters, but she could not get his."

[ Parent ]

You're Both Right (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:42:55 PM EST

Senator Clinton's moment, coming soon, is about recognizing that the good of the party is more important than her own fading chances. Senator Obama's moment, which follows logically on the heels of the first, is to act in a way that unites the party in its effort to defeat the GOP in the fall.

Points two and four are easy. He's as much as done this already. Point one isn't going to happen. It's become part of the battle for the nomination, and both sides played and are playing to win. Point three is a tougher call. As I've said before, he may have no choice in the matter if he wants to keep the Clinton voters in the fold.

But again, the onus is on both of them.

Clinton is already calling for people (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by kredwyn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:56:23 PM EST

to vote for the Dem nominee come November. She's been doing that for a while.

[ Parent ]

No on point one (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by rilkefan on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:19:57 PM EST

This is inconsistent with Meteor Blades's post. Either Obama can win in a way that won't tear up the party (and disenfranchising 10% of the party will), or he should be the one to quit.

I'd be happy enough if he'd stop using Republican presidents as examples of good foreign policy instead of, say, President Clinton.

[ Parent ]

Well, Okay (none / 0) (#40)
by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:26:51 PM EST

But quitting while your ahead seems unlikely in this instance. Also, the Reagan canard is just that and best left to lie fallow.

[ Parent ]

Reagan Canard? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by rilkefan on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:40:55 PM EST

Perhaps you don't want to reargue earlier statements of Obama, but I was referring to this, linked by an annoying Clinton supporter here the other day but as far as I can tell clear evidence of Obama using awful framing from my perspective.

[ Parent ]

Not referring to Republican framing here (5.00 / 2) (#172)
by rilkefan on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:09:40 PM EST

I repeat, I'd like him to point to realist Dems when he praises realism, not realist Republicans. If he's a centrist on FP then it makes sense, but it's not how to attract my vote. If he's going to unify the party, as the above post describes, he could praise WJC's policies.

[ Parent ]

That's Odd (none / 0) (#186)
by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:29:48 PM EST

I'd like him to praise men and women when they deserve it. Full stop.

[ Parent ]

And you think (5.00 / 2) (#195)
by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:37:00 PM EST

Reagan deserves praise for his foreign policy? Nicaragua and the Contras? Lebanon? Grenada? Iran?

Talk about Republican framing. Yup, illegally subverting democracy, indiscriminate bombing of foreign countries, invading small countries on trumped up pretexts, illegally diverting money and weapons to foreign governments, all fine things well worthy of praise from a Democrat,eh? Good grief.

[ Parent ]

Of Course Not (none / 0) (#217)
by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:21:33 PM EST

And Obama has never said anything remotely like that. This is where the meme gets very thinwitted.

[ Parent ]

: not thinwitted at all (5.00 / 3) (#234)
by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:20:32 PM EST

From the link already posted:

Senator Barack Obama said Friday he would return the country to the more traditional foreign policy efforts of past presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
Why not mention Bill Clinton instead of Ronald Reagan? There was no massive illegality involved in Clinton's foreign policy, unlike Reagan's.

[ Parent ]

He didn't specify in which way, though (none / 0) (#238)
by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:25:02 PM EST

Most of Reagan's foreign policy involve illegal secret crap. It was the bulk of his foreign policy. Its a stupid and non-unifying way to get voters, as if simply mentioning Reagan will get you votes from Reagan lovers, without alienating those who rightly think that Reagan's foreign policy was atrocious.

[ Parent ]

Where the Obama defense gets thinwitted (5.00 / 1) (#271)
by rilkefan on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:25:19 PM EST

is insisting he has to volunteer Republican names as representative of good foreign policy in order to espouse particular policies enacted by Republicans - and to do so while ignoring examples of Democratic presidents that are nearer at hand than the guy who gave us the Bay of Pigs, continued a doomed Vietnam policy, helped set up the Baath in Iraq (along with good stuff).

[ Parent ]

Bingo (none / 0) (#167)
by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:58:26 PM EST

It's one of the smarter moves he makes. (The latter sounds better if sung to the tune of "Something" by the Beatles.)

But seriously. Obama is a relatively rare pol in that he seems to think on his feet rather than offer packaged platitudes -- tho' he can do that too. The Reagan quote was simply an example of that. And continuing to ignore the roots of Reagan's success -- not his foreign policy, etc. -- is letting grudges trump common sense. The guy expanded the playing field for his political party and put my party into a nearly permanent limbo when it comes to the White House. That's what Obama is trying to tap into, and while he may not succeed, I can't help but respect the effort.

[ Parent ]

: Did you read the link? n/t (none / 0) (#173)
by rilkefan on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:10:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Ah, but you forgot about GHWB (none / 0) (#85)
by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:03:26 PM EST

is that just to lie fallow also?

He has spent more time during the DEM primary wooing republicans and ignoring the base. And his plan for the GE sounds like it's more of the same. Sign up more young voters and AAs. Change the Map. Nice bit of unity there . . .

[ Parent ]

Clinton (none / 0) (#115)
by sas on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:15:59 PM EST

will be the nominee, IMO.

Obama can't win.

[ Parent ]

you are wrong (none / 0) (#215)
by kc on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:19:53 PM EST

Traditionally, the loser calls for unity-makes a nice speech, etc.........

But, the onus for uniting the party is always on the winner. Check back on previous elections.

[ Parent ]

True (none / 0) (#219)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:29:06 PM EST

And I agree that the onus is on Obama. But this is also a historic situation. Both candidates are very strong and need to lead their supporters to unite against McCain.

[ Parent ]

Just gamesmanship (none / 0) (#247)
by lambert on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:36:48 PM EST

Meteor Blades is just trying to keep the totals down in PA, denying them their votes.

Shameful.

[ Parent ]

: Really? (none / 0) (#263)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:00:09 PM EST

I don't see him as that grandiose. He is making an argument as far as I can tell.

[ Parent ]

I hope he reads (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by bjorn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:43:31 PM EST

this. If he does these things he will win the general in a landslide. If he does not, it will be too close to call. If the violence in Iraq continues to escalate, I am not sure how it will play out, but I fear it could make things lean towards McCain. A real leader would see the wisdom in BTDs suggestions.

I Believe (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by kenoshaMarge on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:45:22 PM EST

that he will be the nominee. I wish I believed that he will united the party.

: I (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by sas on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:00:47 PM EST

believe Hillary will be the nominee.
I believe Obama cannot win the GE.
I do not think Obama can unify the party.
Especially after his stonewalling of the Mich and Florida situations so he can weasel out a win.
I will not support him in November, and there is nothing he cn do.

[ Parent ]

Doesn't your plea for leadership (5.00 / 7) (#12)
by Mark Woods on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:46:01 PM EST

from Obama further underscore his inappropriateness for the post? Why do we have to beg him to exhibit even the tiniest bit of proven character? The thought of all this is disgusting, not inspiring.

I just read another article in the Miami Herald about Dean continuing his side-stepping about seating/not seating our FL delegates and I immediately got angry at Obama, as well, not only at Dean.

I cannot under any circumstances imagine voting for a ticket that doesn't have Clinton as 1/2 of it. Clinton is about to clobber Obama in PA and I hope she fights his supreme sorry-ness all the way to the convention.

Precisely (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Suma on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:52:51 PM EST

It is almost like begging him to unite the party, allowing him to happily carp on how divisive Clinton is.

[ Parent ]

Yes, because (5.00 / 4) (#67)
by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:56:39 PM EST

if Clinton wins and the party splits, it will be Clinton's fault because she is so divisive. But if Obama wins and the party splits, it will be Clinton's fault because she is so divisive.

Hey, wait a minute....

[ Parent ]

: But we know by now (none / 0) (#91)
by nemo52 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:05:23 PM EST

Everything is Clinton's fault!

[ Parent ]

You just wouldn't be convinced no matter what... (none / 0) (#59)
by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:52:16 PM EST

from reading your posts. Reminds me of a Bible verse about logs and specks in eyes. Clinton is not perfect and neither is Barack Obama. Neither of them will be perfect leaders. But either will be better than McCain.

[ Parent ]

He's never going to bring you around (none / 0) (#96)
by Korha on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:07:40 PM EST

If that's what you mean.

Hopefully Obama can bring around all the majority of Clinton supporters that do not hate him. I want to say vast majority but at this point that may no longer be true.

[ Parent ]

Please don't be silly. (5.00 / 2) (#149)
by jeffinalabama on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:33:24 PM EST

the overwhelming majority of 'us' want a democratic President in Jan. 2009. Obama has not won us over in this contest. I for one, think his machine is uglier in its methods than most I have seen-- and I live in Alabama.

But I'll probably vote for the head of the ticket in Novemver if it's Obama. I know I'll do all of the downticket votes.

Obama hasn't closed the deal, and he doesn't seem particularly interested in doing so.

By the way, I am only a tepid/warm HRC supporter, but her tenacity, statements, and more important for me, actions, are making that support even warmer.

[ Parent ]

He won't bring me around.. (5.00 / 3) (#170)
by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:06:46 PM EST

I think he is a total phony whose only real agenda is to get himself ahead. He isn't a public servant, he is an ambitious narcissist. I will hold my nose and swallow my stomach to vote for him in the unlikely event that he should be the nominee. But I won't like it, and he had better live up to his hype, which I doubt he can, or my knives will be out for him all during his term. But I don't think he can win the GE, too much crap from his Chicago days coming home to roost. The GOP won't have to swiftboat him, they will just bring out all the lies and exaggerations he has based his career on. And Wright will be the icing on the cake. He won't have a chance in the GE.

[ Parent ]

: You hit the nail (5.00 / 1) (#259)
by Arcadianwind on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:53:30 PM EST

right on the head, FDF.
What will Obama do to help unify the party? Very little, if past performance is any indicator.
What can--we the people of the Democratic Party--do to help unify the party? Maybe for starters we could call on Pelosi, Reid, and Dean to step down. They do not appear to further the ideals of fairness or justice, not to mention unity.

[ Parent ]

why are you mad at Obama (none / 0) (#292)
by onemanrules on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:20:33 AM EST

Your candidate, along with the rest of them signed documents agreeing not to vie for either Michigan or Florida and also agreed that the delegates wouldn't count. Your crying over spilt milk and your candidate should have fought for those states when she was signing paper in agreement with them not counting.

[ Parent ]

I've yet to see (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by stillife on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:56:51 PM EST

Obama be gracious in victory or defeat.

Honestly? (none / 0) (#22)
by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:07:06 PM EST

This is the kind of comment that makes me wonder if there is anything Obama can do to unite the party, or at least certain elements within it. Bitterness is not a strategy, right?

[ Parent ]

It's absolutely right (5.00 / 0) (#26)
by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:14:20 PM EST

Obama has shown a remarkable lack of grace and humility throughout this process. You don't have to worry about losing MY vote in the fall, but there are others who have seen this and will not be inclined to vote for him.

[ Parent ]

Weird (none / 0) (#34)
by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:19:12 PM EST

I just don't see it that way. And while it would be easy for me to accuse Senator Clinton of a similar lack of grace -- there's that weird idea that whenever she loses a primary she pretends it didn't happen -- that's just more back and forth that serves nobody. Supporters seems to be self-selecting reality in this regard, myself included.

The more important thing will be reaching those folks who, unlike you, are not inclined to vote for him. Which, given the opposition, seems close to insensate to me. I'm hoping time will heal some of these wounds.

[ Parent ]

: Frankly I have only seen this (5.00 / 0) (#36)
by andgarden on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:21:49 PM EST

there's that weird idea that whenever she loses a primary she pretends it didn't happen
From Obama. After he lost TX and OH, he FINALLY reacted in the right way. But for me this goes way back to October: the McClurkin episode was essential to my understanding of the campaign.

[ Parent ]
: It'll take more than time (none / 0) (#46)
by stillife on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:34:03 PM EST

to heal those wounds. Agreeing to seat MI and FL would be a good start.

[ Parent ]

Frankly (5.00 / 0) (#27)
by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:14:37 PM EST

if you've got an example of Obama being gracious to Clinton in victory or defeat I'd be happy to hear it. I've got to agree with stillife on this one. What can Obama do? BTD has some great suggestions. Will Obama commit to any of them? Don't know, but if he doesn't its merely more proof that he's not ready for the job.

[ Parent ]

Not just Obama (5.00 / 5) (#32)
by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:18:13 PM EST

I find the whole DNC and some of the Senators culpable and in collusion. I don't think this is an easy mend. They want to and have turned the Democratic Party into the RNC, win at any price and putting together false coalitions that are everything to everyone yet stand for nothing. This is exactly what corporatist America wanted and they get it. A Democratic party that loses it's base and creates a new weak kneed coalition that will capitulate to corporate interests. Cheers to change.

[ Parent ]

The DNC Florida video (5.00 / 0) (#39)
by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:24:16 PM EST

After watching this, how will these blockheads come up with unity?

[ Parent ]

They (5.00 / 0) (#86)
by sas on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:03:26 PM EST

are so worried about appeasin blacks, but they forget about appeasing women. They think with a pat on the head we wil comply. We will not be forgotten, appeased or mollified.

[ Parent ]

: sorry (none / 0) (#89)
by sas on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:04:08 PM EST

about the missing letters
My pc cannot keep up with me.

[ Parent ]

Not a Lakoff fan here... (none / 0) (#245)
by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:36:06 PM EST

: "framing" (none / 0) (#277)
by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:01:02 AM EST

Is just another way to do what the RNC does. I prefer being honest. Don't know, sort of like that thing. Lakoff is an academic. Yes, I don't get Obama. I don't want issues to be "framed".
I want them to be spoken in English. I think the American people were ready to hear honest progressive issues and we got stuck in the muddle of the personality and the muddle of words with no real pith.
Finally, this will end us up like the Republicans with no idea what the party stands for and with false coalitions. Yes, I have no use for Lakoff and I listen and support KPFA for years, this does not make him legitimate.

[ Parent ]

There are plenty of things (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by stillife on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:30:05 PM EST

Obama could do to unite the party. BTD has provided some excellent suggestions. The problem is, he's done none of them so far. Rather, he's displayed a dismissive and condescending attitude towards Hillary and her supporters - who just happen to comprise 50% of the Democratic party. But then, IMO, Obama is not about the Democratic Party - he's about Obama. He seems to think he can call us "sweetie" and give us a kiss and we'll just melt under his charm.

[ Parent ]

You must be joking... (none / 0) (#178)
by Alec82 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:16:49 PM EST

...because Senator Clinton's campaign has dismissed Obama supporters as "latte drinking liberals," "activists" (how that is supposed to be a bad thing is beyond me), voters in irrelevant states that don't support Democrats anyway (including Maine, Connecticut, Missouri, etc.). I could go on. But I guess it doesn't matter because those are her surrogates engaged in those proxy fights, right?

[ Parent ]

I'm not joking (5.00 / 1) (#180)
by stillife on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:22:55 PM EST

please provide examples of Obama being conciliatory to Hillary supporters, which is the subject of this post.

Hillary has congratulated Obama on primary victories and stated that she would encourage her supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee. Obama has said that he's not too sure whether his supporters would vote for her. I can't recall him ever congratulating her or reaching out to her supporters - please correct me if I'm wrong.

And the latte liberal thing? AFAIK, it's a construction of the MSM rather than the Hillary campaign.

[ Parent ]

: Hmmm... (none / 0) (#188)
by Alec82 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:33:04 PM EST

...so prominent Texas Democrat Garry Mauro and campaign consultant Chris Lehane did not use those terms? In support of Clinton, against Obama? Cause I think they did.

[ Parent ]

x (none / 0) (#285)
by CognitiveDissonance on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:45:00 AM EST

Wrong! The MSM has framed Obama supporters as "latte liberals", not Clinton. She has never used that phrase.

[ Parent ]

For starters he could try.... (none / 0) (#49)
by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:39:49 PM EST

...I'm not inclined to give him credit for something he hasn't done, although I recognize that others are willing to do that.

[ Parent ]

I'm not as impressed by MB's post (5.00 / 5) (#25)
by Trickster on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:10:42 PM EST

I think it's a bunch of "Clinton has lost" BS. She hasn't lost, and the odds, while against her, are not vanishingly small. And it's certainly not impossible for her to win and unify the party, which Meteor Blades states as if it is a fact.

Trickster! (none / 0) (#28)
by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:15:01 PM EST

I'm curious. What is her path to the nomination? And what current data supports it? (The latter seems very important if her only way in is to prove Obama's lack of viability in the general. No current polling data supports that notion to a degree sufficient to the cause. For example, Obama currently runs better in Cali against McCain than Senator Clinton.)

I'm genuinely curious.

[ Parent ]

And what is Obama's path? (5.00 / 5) (#41)
by Mark Woods on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:28:57 PM EST

Other than bullying Hillary to quit? Neither Obama or Clinton can get enough delegates to win the nomination, if Lou Dobbs is fact-checking, and I bet he is.

So put back FL & Michigan today -- no more Bs. You asked, 'What is her path to the nomination?' As far as I'm concerned that path runs through Miami.

With everyday that passes Obama pushes more Clinton supporters closer to Hillary and into the 'if not Hillary, then stay home or hold your nose and vote McCain camp'.

Obama is a silly wabbit who needs a mature woman to teach him how it's done. Go Hillary.

[ Parent ]

Obama is a silly wabbit? (none / 0) (#58)
by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:49:41 PM EST

His campaign has been run excellently. He's run circles around her in fundraising and he has financial surpluses while she has deficits. Who needs to teach who how it's done?

[ Parent ]

and he's got the media firmly on his side (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:53:31 PM EST

at least for the primary. And still he can't put her away. And still they are essentially tied. His campaign may have been a good one for the primary, but if he can't change on a dime for the general it will mean that his campaign will ultimately go down as a big fiasco.

[ Parent ]

Media bias is not true. (none / 0) (#66)
by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:56:08 PM EST

Sorry, but the media bias charge is just silly. The fact of the matter is that the media has given Senator Clinton more than a fair chance to pull off an increasingly unlikely comeback because of her stature in the party. That's fine with me--she deserves it. But Obama has been dogged by misperceptions perpetuated by the media the whole race. For instance, delegate counters and calling close states as WINS has served to create the illusion that Senator Clinton is "tied" with Obama when that is not true. I believe the bias in the media is simply conventional wisdom. That cuts both ways.

[ Parent ]

If you really believe this (5.00 / 1) (#145)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:31:14 PM EST

you are blind, and I cannot take anything you say seriously.

[ Parent ]

: I meant Daedalus (none / 0) (#147)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:31:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]

three words (none / 0) (#122)
by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:17:49 PM EST

"October 30 debate"

Two more words: "daily howler". Go there and look up above three words.

[ Parent ]

What a bizarre statement (none / 0) (#240)
by kayla on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:25:29 PM EST

I don't want to be rude, but I can't see anyone making this statement unless they were a low-information voter.

"For instance, delegate counters and calling close states as WINS has served to create the illusion that Senator Clinton is "tied" with Obama when that is not true. I believe the bias in the media is simply conventional wisdom."

This is not an example of media bias. I don't get it. Are you talking about states like NM where Hillary only won by a little bit? You think they should be considered Obama victories? If one wins PV and the other wins del. count, isn't that a tie? I'm pretty sure I'm interpreting what you're saying incorrectly, so I don't mind you clarifying.

The only instance I can think of the media being unfair toward Obama was that week long loop of the Wright videos with only 6 second clips being shown. And they really didn't show the most damaging tapes. However, I remember being irritated that they never played Hillary's speeches on FP or the economy but dropped everything to give Obama a chance to dig himself out of that hole... Her speeches are too boring I suppose.

Anyway... I really dislike Obama personally, but at least he's a Democrat. I'll gladly vote for him in November, and I'll hope that he wins and surprises me with a great run in the White House too.

[ Parent ]

Low Information? Please, I'm a Junkie Like You (none / 0) (#260)
by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:55:05 PM EST

You said it better than I did. I'm just pointing out one instance of bias I've found in the media towards conventional wisdom. The media has not portrayed the race in terms of delegates and even chose to include super-delegates in their overall totals while not including fairly accurate caucus projections giving Clinton a more significant lead than she really held for the period of time leading up to Super Tuesday. (AP and New York Times did this, unlike NBC). Anyway, it's been pointed out.

[ Parent ]

Hah! So now its media bias to point out the truth? (none / 0) (#264)
by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:01:56 PM EST

Super delegates are part of the equation. No one will win without the superdelegates. The superdelegates count. If you think that counting delegate totals with superdelegates included is bias, I think you are looking through the wrong end of the binoculars. In other words, there's bias there, but its your own, not the media's on this point.

[ Parent ]

: Ugh (none / 0) (#270)
by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:23:52 PM EST

They both count, of course. I was pointing out that the AP included super delegates without including caucus delegates to point out bias. Slice my words how you like, it's a fact.

[ Parent ]

Out spent at least 2-1 since Super Tuesday (none / 0) (#213)
by Trickster on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:15:20 PM EST

Plus an adoring media, and the polls have barely budged.

[ Parent ]

Trivia: Who are the Candidates... (5.00 / 4) (#191)
by Exeter on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:34:43 PM EST

...in the modern political era that were in Hilary's position or better and then quit the fight for the nomination? Answer: there haven't been any. Not one that has even been close.

In 2004, John Edwards stayed in until March and was never as close to Kerry as Clinton is to Obama. In 2000, Bill Bradley, despite never winning a single contest, stayed in until he lost his 19th state -- then when he finally did concede, he refused to endorse Gore. In 1992, former California Gov. Brown kept his campaign going all the way to the convention and Bill Clinton did knock him out of the race until he won NY in April. In 1988, despite being in contention early, Jesse Jackson never withdrew from the race until the convention. In 1984, Hart and Mondale battled all the way to the conventin. In 1980 Carter and Kennedy battled all the way to the convention. In 1976, California gov Jerry Brown and Idaha Senator Frank Church entered the primary season late in an effort to prevent Carter from getting the nomination and this battle went all the way to convention.

So, as you can see, the "Hillary should quit" meme is dothing more than an ugly attempt to undermine her candidacy by painting her as Tanya Harding and out to destroy her opponent and the whole democratic party.

Perhaps a more worthy thing to be concerned about are the ramifications of Obama becoming the first candidate from either party in the modern era to lose the popular vote in the primaries, yet still win the nomination.

[ Parent ]

Answer (5.00 / 1) (#209)
by Trickster on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:09:26 PM EST

This is a little dated but the great majority of it still holds true. Basically, I'm looking for Clinton to win at least 7, hopefully more, of the last 10 primaries, close the pledged delegate gap to relatively close and the popular vote gap to non-existet, get a favorable deal on MI & FL, and take the lead in the polls. I think SD would fall her way if those things happened, and I don't see them as bizarrely unrealistic.

Current data does not and will not reveal any path to the nomination for Clinton--however, current data is current, and the word current contains an implication of "not the future." Certainly, trends would have to change for Clinton to win the nomination, but that's what things tend to do when time passes--change.

I keep hoping that what I see as her huge edges in several areas important to being a President are going to be recognized by the electorate. It hasn't happened yet, but there is a lot of time between now and the end of the primaries.

We're way short of quitting time.

[ Parent ]

Fair Enuf (none / 0) (#214)
by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:18:46 PM EST

But looking at those primaries? She'll be extremely lucky to win a majority, will not close the pledged delegate gap as a result, and may make a dent in the popular vote gap but will not close it.

And at some point the narrative becomes set in stone. Hope is, after all, not a plan. And given what Obama has weathered already? It is highly unlikely that anything will occur to change the data we're looking at today. Not in any significant fashion. And the only thing that's currently changing as time passes is the growing sense of impatience within the party hierarchy -- ie Super Delegates -- about the impact of a needlessly protracted primary battle.

We're done by July 1st at the latest.

[ Parent ]

: If your first paragraph comes to pass (none / 0) (#218)
by Trickster on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:22:16 PM EST

She'll drop out. Selah.

[ Parent ]

If it's close one in NC (none / 0) (#229)
by Arcadianwind on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:57:58 PM EST

after a big win in PA, I think she will then run the table. Obama's small popular vote lead will be gone before PR votes. Obama can then help unify the party by stepping aside.

[ Parent ]

Before I stopped visiting DailyKos... (none / 0) (#125)
by Alvord on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:18:15 PM EST

... I noticed that Meteor Blades was recommending vicious anti-Hillary diaries that had made it to the infamous wreck list. After that I lost respect for him. Encouraging the bad behaviour of others is as bad as doing it yourself.

[ Parent ]

Please show me a single ... (none / 0) (#139)
by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:29:24 PM EST

...example of a "vicious" anti-Clinton Diary that I Rec'd. I have Recommended Diaries by supporters of ALL the candidates (well, maybe not Gravel since there weren't many of those). I have Rec'd Diaries of praise AND criticism for all the candidates, including those of Clinton supporters now on strike.

[ Parent ]

I can attest to this, actually (5.00 / 1) (#158)
by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:47:31 PM EST

MB has bravely recced several of my bleak cries in the wilderness for fair treatment of a good Democrat: thanks, MB.
Clammyc also is bravely holding up basic fairness over there.
Kos though turned away millions with the horrible photoshopped racism accusations.

[ Parent ]

I publicly and privately objected ... (5.00 / 1) (#243)
by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:34:23 PM EST

...to the photoshopped racism accusations.

[ Parent ]

: Good for you! (none / 0) (#246)
by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:36:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: I know you did (none / 0) (#257)
by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:52:12 PM EST

And I don't understand why kos would be so obtuse politically. I absolutely do not understand the strategery behind insulting the voters you seek to woo from your Democratic competitor.
I sure hope it is not Obama planning this.
It seems much more honest to run a straightforward campaign on "why I will be better" etc.

[ Parent ]
: I know you did (none / 0) (#258)
by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:52:47 PM EST

And I don't understand why kos would be so politically obtuse.
I absolutely do not understand the strategery behind insulting the voters you seek to woo from your Democratic competitor.
I sure hope it is not Obama planning this.
It seems much more honest to run a straightforward campaign on "why I will be better" etc.

[ Parent ]

It's Amazing to Me (5.00 / 6) (#29)
by BDB on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:17:04 PM EST

That Obama supporters - and perhaps Obama himself based on his inaction - believe it's Clinton's job to unify the party and legitimize his nomination. That's ridiculous. It's the job of the nominee, whoever it is, to prove that they can win legitimately and unify the party. Given that Obama has run a campaign promising to unify the country, it's ironic his supporters won't even put upon him the responsibility to unify his own party.

Speaking for myself, the only way Obama can become the legitimate nominee of the democratic party at this point would be to win the popular vote, a vote that includes some representation of Florida and Michigan. There was a time when that would not have been true, but having watched so many DNC officials trying to game the system for him in recent weeks (I'm looking at you Dean, Brazile, and Pelosi), if he gets the nomination having lost the popular vote it will look like nothing more than the Democratic elite snubbing their noses at the voters. Which might not be so bad if the democratic elite hadn't so often shown themselves in recent years to be complete idiots.

: Clinton will do it (none / 0) (#199)
by waldenpond on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:45:43 PM EST

You know she will. She's loyal to the party. (After McCain does his four years, she'll run in 2012)

[ Parent ]

MI & FL expose the weakness of (5.00 / 5) (#33)
by katiebird on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:19:02 PM EST

Obama's campaign.

I believe he should move to settle the MI/FL dispute, preferably by revotes. He can not wait until he has reached the non-FL/MI 2025 number to do this. He should do it when the nomination is, at least ostensibly, still in doubt. This is essential to a sense of fairness for Clinton supporters AND to providing Michiganders and Floridians inclusion in the nomination process.

I believe that if he was truly a strong front-running candidate, he would have made a move for revotes or accepting the delegations long ago.

What scares me about his reluctance to do this is that it can only mean that he believes it will have a negative impact on his campaign.

And if that's true (if we could no that it was true), it would prove that his nomination would be illegitimate.

But it's okay (1.00 / 1) (#57)
by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:48:31 PM EST

for HRC to ask pledged delegates who represent the will of real voters to switch their votes. Cuz that's showing integrity and respect for the democratic process.

[ Parent ]

Urm...Obama does that too. (none / 0) (#64)
by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:54:13 PM EST

Ummm (none / 0) (#68)
by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:56:39 PM EST

link please? He hasn't done it once.

[ Parent ]

several diaries over the last week (5.00 / 1) (#159)
by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:50:14 PM EST

cheering the turning of delegates to Obama at dailykos, check jotters most reccomended lists, you'll find em.

[ Parent ]

So when his campaign (none / 0) (#76)
by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:59:48 PM EST

gets Iowa delegates to switch from Edwards to Obama, that doesn't count?

[ Parent ]

Several differences (1.00 / 1) (#90)
by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:04:13 PM EST

Which you noted, nicely. 1. Delegates at a caucus are allowed to convince delegates to switch uncommitted delegates. 2. Edwards delegates were "released" and no longer pledged, therefore they were uncommitted. So yes, nothing wrong with that.

[ Parent ]

Edwards did not release his delegates (none / 0) (#103)
by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:10:41 PM EST

I believe this is false (none / 0) (#113)
by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:13:52 PM EST

Edwards suspended his campaign, he did not release his delegates. Do you have a link showing he did?

Now, it is true that caucus delegates are less bound than primary delegates, but when Clinton tried to explain that, she caught hell from Obama supporters.

[ Parent ]

: As far as the rules are concerned ... (none / 0) (#255)
by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:49:24 PM EST

...it doesn't matter whether he technically released his delegates or not since the Democratic Convention has no rules regarding first-ballot votes. Edwards's voters can vote however they like. On "moral" grounds it may be a different matter.

[ Parent ]

UMMMM how (none / 0) (#77)
by PlayInPeoria on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:59:56 PM EST

many of these one liners are you going to post?

You want a link to the statement made about Sen Obama but you did not furnish one for your own information.

[ Parent ]

: Ummm... (none / 0) (#82)
by Deadalus on

Will Obama Act To Unify The Party?

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

Menu

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

Contributors

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Stats