Will Obama Act To Unify The Party?

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • 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!!


    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)?


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    "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!??!

    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.


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

    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...


    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."

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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).

    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.


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


    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.  


    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.


    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.

    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.



    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.

    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.


    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.

    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....


    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!

    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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?

    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.  

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    I'm not as impressed by MB's post (5.00 / 4) (#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.


    And what is Obama's path? (5.00 / 4) (#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.


    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

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


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

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


    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.


    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)

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    Ummm... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:02:29 PM EST
    excuse me? Obama has never stated that pledged delegates should switch their votes. I can't find a link to information stating he's not stated that because it would be incredibly hard to find. The poster said Obama said it--he didn't. The poster should link to the information. If you'd like an instance of Clinton saying it--head to ABC or HuffPost or any other news outlet and you'll find it (it's common knowledge).

    Perfect example (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:24:49 PM EST
    of WHY the DEMS wil NOT be united.

    EXCUSE ME.... I'm not suporting of defending the statement... I'm pointing out the BIG PROBLEM... double standards.

    You are so into having others post links... this blog is full of unsupported statments made about Sen Obama..... most people know.... most polls show...it is common knowledge.

    And your support is the Anyone But Clinton (ABC) and another Blog?

    The truth is common knowledge is just NOT THAT COMMON.

    And the truth is.... you are not helping to bring the party together using these tactics... it turns people off.


    I believe Clinton said (none / 0) (#97)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:08:07 PM EST
    that pledged delegates could switch their votes, not that they should switch their votes. A statement of fact, but meant to frame the issue, sure. But I don't think she came out and said any particular delegate should switch to her.

    If Sen. Obama really believes that pledged delegates should not switch their votes, then he needs to turn away those Edwards delegates that he picked up in Iowa.


    That's a specious comparison. (none / 0) (#102)
    by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:10:00 PM EST
    But those 8 delegates aren't really that important and he could turn them away and still be up by about 5 percent of the pledged delegates allotted. What's your point?

    what's yours? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:13:12 PM EST
    You seem to have caved on the idea that Obama doesn't believe in poaching delegates, so now your fall back point is that its OK for Obama to poach cuz he really doesn't need them?  

    I've articulated in this thread elsewhere (none / 0) (#119)
    by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:17:26 PM EST
    why the comparison is specious. You're smart enough to figure it out I'm sure. Clinton spoke in interviews and in her rallies and muddied the waters about pledged delegates. Obama delegates in Iowa convinced Edwards delegates to join Obama's delegation because their candidate had dropped out. That's a difference.

    Your argument is unconvincing (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:20:33 PM EST
    I am smart enough to figure out that you're adjusting your argument as you are presented with facts that don't fit your story.

    Fine (none / 0) (#256)
    by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:51:11 PM EST
    You'll not admit that there is a difference between Edwards delegates switching to Obama months after the vote when their candidate has dropped out and Senator Clinton loudly repeating her claim that "pledged delegates aren't really pledged". It's a difference. Chose to ignore it if you want, but it looks silly.

    But (none / 0) (#72)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:58:33 PM EST
    It's OK When You Are Obama, don'cha know?

    No, it's not (none / 0) (#84)
    by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:03:06 PM EST
    Except he hasn't done that. And the poster is not linking to information because it's an unsubstantiated, and false, claim.

    Give me time. (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:06:53 PM EST

    "Obama lands more Iowa Delegates"

    If taking Edwards' Iowa delegates doesn't mean anything to you, then I don't know what to think.  Clinton said pledged delegates can change their pledge, and they can.  Obama shows us how.


    Again (none / 0) (#100)
    by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:09:00 PM EST
    These delegates were no longer "pledged" as their candidate dropped out. This is a far cry from Clinton saying in three or four interviews and to her crowd of supporters at a rally that pledged delegates can switch votes if they want to. While technically true, it's a disservice to the process and you cannot come up with one argument that justifies it but to point to a specious comparison to Edwards delegates who are now uncommitted voting for Obama.

    Edwards did not (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by caseyOR on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:16:07 PM EST
    release his delegates. He suspended his campaign; he did not end it. This suspension means he keeps his delegates, thereby giving him a little something with which to bargain.

    Edwards, as said above (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:16:15 PM EST
    did not drop out.  He suspended his campaign.  His delegates were never released.  Remember the gossip about king-maker Edwards?  Technicalities are actually important when you're trying to only pin down Clinton on them.

    a Q & A (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:24:07 PM EST
    Iowa Delegates

    Re: Not committed Reply
    By Adam Today at 2:18 pm EDT
    Yeah, we were burning the midnight oil trying to get those delegates, We thought we might even get some Clinton delegates but we werent able to turn over enough. We got some of Edwards and I think we will get the rest when the convention rolls around.

    William J Meyers for House 2008

    Poaching delegates is happening, and I'm actually fine with it.

    (I cannot vouch for the accuracy of that blog)

    Am I still lying?


    I'd be more sympathetic to (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:22:42 PM EST
    this idea that Senator Clinton should step aside for the "good of the party" if the delegate counts included FL and MI (at 50% would be fine) and the popular vote count from those states was respected by everyone involved, just as voted. As it is, it looks like the party leadership and the Obama faction trashed two entire states just to keep him even in the first six contests. She won four to his two, but the narrative didn't play out that way because FL and MI were not just penalized, but totally blocked out.

    For a variety of reasons, this could be quite dangerous for us in the fall if Obama is the nominee.

    Are you (none / 0) (#121)
    by sas on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:17:43 PM EST

    %0% of the delegates to each candidate.  Giving votes to Obama which h did not earn?

    And he would take votes he did not earn?



    I meant the original DNC penalty (none / 0) (#133)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:24:26 PM EST
    of seating 50% of the delegates in each state, apportioned just as the voters voted, not a 50/50 split. Sorry I was unclear, but namecalling seems a bit of an overeaction.

    so (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by sas on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:15:18 PM EST
    sorry, not direted at you

    Obama for takng votes he did not earn

    please forgive


    Michigan Voter here! (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:29:13 PM EST
    I voted in the Michigan Primary, and I told Chelsea Clinton today (at a fundraiser in Chicago) to tell her mom to "Give em Hell" and fight on the floor for the Michigan delegation to be seated.

    I've been very active in Michigan politics and a lifelong Democrat, but man alive, I hate hearing all of this sudden "concern" for Michigan's Primary, but not nearly enough for us voters.

    It's worse when I see out of stater's telling us to effectively stone our Democrats here for doing this, when they're the only ones attempting to keep this state halfway sane in terms of policy.

    But it'll be very difficult for me to vote in the Presidential should Obama win without Michigan representation.  Sounds petty, sounds bitter, but then again, not electing to vote absentee is such an easy thing to do.

    He needs to patch it up with Michigan, Florida, their supers, and the voters right quick.  I don't know anyone in Michigan who is not an ardent Obama supporter (sorry, Uncommitted) who is okay with this.  Any Hillary supporter, Dem-leaning supporter, or self-professed "Independent" are pretty much ready to arm up with their middle finger.

    Obama (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by sas on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:13:33 PM EST
    has no legitimacy without Mchigan and Florida counting as is, including the popular vote in those two states.

    Until he acts ike a leader and works for revotes, there is nothing he can do to get my vote - ever.

    He keeps trying to weasel out of those two states.  It would be the right thing to do, and if he cannot stand on principle, and do the right thing, what kind of leader is he?

    McCain and Clinto would revote them, and let the chips fall where they may.

    He's tryin to steal ths.

    To hell with him as a president.


    I'm sorry, but... (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:47:44 PM EST
    please explain to me how re-voting in Michigan would change the race at all? As you probably know, whoever would win would likely net only a single digit delegate margin. That's not enough to overcome his pledged delegate lead. It's really silly to get all worked up about Michigan since the stakes are so small, and as the race stands now Obama would still be ahead in delegates if the delegates were seated as they stand (with Obama receiving none and Hillary about 80, I believe).

    Because... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:02:19 PM EST
    To reiterate, since it apparently wasn't clear enough...


    Please, sir, may I have a re-vote?

    Add that into the backseat commenting from the more virulant Obama supporters who insist the voters here shouldn't count, insist we direct our anger elsewhere, and insist it be a non-issue for the Primary (as you just did, I might add), and then you have a recipe for a big, fat, disaster.

    The Republicans haven't even begun trying to sway independents or Dem-leaners on this issue, but you can trust that Saul Azunis and his giant mouth will shout from the rooftops, "Oh, NOW Obama wants to make nice with Michigan -- after he and the DNC insisted their own party members wouldn't count!"

    You're thinking in terms of a Primary election, comfortably out of State, as an Obama supporter.

    I'm thinking in terms of the General Election and actual voters, as a Michigan voter who has worked on elections past here in the State.



    Okay (none / 0) (#95)
    by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:07:23 PM EST
    so he seats the delegation when his pledged delegate lead surpasses Clinton's even including Michigan and Florida. This is the likely end-game scenario....all this whining about Michigan and Florida now just serves to stir up animosity amongst Democrats which is unnecessary because Obama would still be ahead including these state's delegations.

    It's the folly of believing (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:35:31 PM EST
    we really are low-info voters with a sheep mentality  ;)

    yes----- (none / 0) (#231)
    by kc on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:08:41 PM EST
    It is the folly of believing that we 'old boomers who need to get out of the way because we have screwed up the entire country' are stupid and poverty stricken.

    the stakes are small? (none / 0) (#75)
    by bjorn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:59:42 PM EST
    You really don't get it do you?  The people in MI voted.  But, let's just pretend like they didn't because the stakes are so small?  I wish you had not posted this, now I want to go back to Hillary fighting it all the way to the convention.  The stakes are so small?  WHAT!!

    The stakes are high (none / 0) (#92)
    by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:05:42 PM EST
    but the stakes of a Michigan re-vote are small. That is, Michigan is not going to determine the primary. Spending 25MM on a re-vote is somewhat wasteful, no?

    Clinton rules all the way (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:35:32 PM EST
    It's pathetic...

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:59:24 PM EST
    Everything from the hardcore Obamafans in the last few weeks has been geared towards blaming Clinton if he loses in November. They are beginning to sense that he is by no means a shoe-in against McCain and are paving the way towards blaming anyone but themselves.  "I asked her nicely in April to get out of the race, and she wouldn't.  See what happened?"

    Yep...it's the typical (none / 0) (#107)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:11:55 PM EST
    attitude of Obama's campaign (take no responsibility).

    If he is the nominee, we need to start a movement
    for the day after election day called  
    "We told you so"


    Revive the old Mass. McGovern bumper sticker (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:20:43 PM EST
    "Don't blame me, I voted for Hillary."

    Good idea!! (none / 0) (#137)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:25:43 PM EST
    Hopefully my dog's sweat jacket won't (none / 0) (#148)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:32:28 PM EST
    be saying that next winter. No bumper for stickers here, so she's my bumper  ;)

    just on Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by anna shane on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:43:12 PM EST
    if he wins she supposed to unite the party behind him and if she wins she's supposed to unite the party by sucking up to him.  It's been that way throughout this campaign. If he wins she'll call for her supporters to vote for him and she'll mean it, and maybe I will and maybe I won't  If he isn't getting us out of Iraq, if he thinks he's so great that he can push the Iraqis to reconcile and stick around hoping they will by making it impossible through keeping in effect Bush's no bid contracts and paying mercenaries to guard them, i can't see what difference it will make. He'll appoint middle of the road justices, and he won't pay attention to agencies which will stay in need of cleaning up, and I might not see enough of a difference to vote for a guy who broke my allegiance to the party though his hate hillary campaign.  I'm too old to reward those who take me for granted, and who use prejudice against me to win support.  If he wants to unite the party he'll have to adopt her exit Iraq plan to the letter,  

    Fear Not BTD (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by OxyCon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:53:56 PM EST
    The Chosen One will give a speech after he takes the nomination, the Heavens will align, the pundits will have tingling sensations throughout their lower extremities and all will be well with the universe, for a great speaker will make sure to tell everyone what they all want to hear.

    I might miss it... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:59:21 PM EST
    I am planning on going bowling.

    Mind if I join ya? (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:08:56 PM EST
    I'll spring for Pizza n' a 6-pack  ;)

    LOL !! (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:13:11 PM EST
    Can I go with you?

    Hmmm, I see a national bowl-in (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:41:50 PM EST
    on Labor Day weekend by Clinton Dems.  Call and reserve your local lanes now, folks!

    The facts are... (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:54:58 PM EST
    • that it ain't over until the fat lady sings and this presupposition of yours that Obama needs to start considering this is entirely premature.

    • that a considerable number of Hillary supporters have already tuned Obama out and there's probably little Obama himself can do or say to bring them back in. I'll not go through the demographics of this but it's a real problem.

    • that his nomination apparently will require a beatdown of both Florida and Michigan, thereby insulting to Democrats in those states.

    • Obama has shown little connection to the mainstream core Democrats or their issues and it's not as if he suddenly becomes interested in the LGBT community, women's reproductive rights, lowering taxes for the poor, etc., that he gets them back. He's so determined to find the middle that he makes Nader a very reasonable option. Your notion that he should 'acknowledge and embrace the fact that his is a Democratic agenda' is an admission that he has utterly failed to make that point. The reality of his attitude is that if he is the nominee, then the Democratic agenda is his agenda because he is the nominee which means that there will be too many uninspired, uninvolved and ultimately, left behind.

    I know I am not alone in the assessment that thus far, all I have seen this far is an empty suit, cautious not to take a position, triangulating with the best, anxious not to be identified as to who and what he is with stilting speech patterns that leave me cold.

    I have yet to hear a speech from him that I thought was better than average...but hey, that's just me.

    This is a big problem (4.00 / 1) (#87)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:03:33 PM EST
    that a considerable number of Hillary supporters have already tuned Obama out and there's probably little Obama himself can do or say to bring them back in. I'll not go through the demographics of this but it's a real problem.

    Older women.  What's going to happen to them when Obama runs against McCain?  They are the Dems' strong suit and if turnout is depressed or if they switch to McCain, we are in trouble.  

    Obama will need a strategy to pick them up.  That strategy might be Clinton herself.  

    And I do wonder what the lasting legacy of Obama's trashing of Bill Clinton will be.  Many people really hold fond memories of him though I know many also disagree with him.  And Obama has blamed him for Washington's "do-nothingness," for the Dem losses nationwide, for basically party weakness.  Solely in order to get at Hillary.  There was a whole stupid mailer based around it.  This negativity is a big part of the plan.  Like others, I don't like it.


    I don't know if (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:58:06 PM EST
    having Clinton will make a difference.  If your mother tells you to stay with an abusive husband for the sake of the children because it isn't that bad, wouldn't you rather just tell your mum to bugger off?  It's kind of a hard to take advice to buddy up to the abuser when the one giving you the advice has been the most abused.  It's a nauseating premise actually.

    I am one of those (5.00 / 2) (#236)
    by kc on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:22:53 PM EST
    older women and I am also a Floridian.

    And, my friends and I are mad as hell.

    Besides the sexism and media  bias, it is a wonder that Clinton is still standing.

    What sent me over the line,however, was the labeling of the Clintons as racist. That was unforgivable.


    Obama has made it impossible, actually (5.00 / 2) (#253)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:45:44 PM EST
    for the Clintons to effectively campaign for him by his calling them racist.  Everywhere they would go, more media attention would be given to his race because of this then to what they would say for him.  He also would have to keep answering questions about it, about having them campaign for him despite what his campaign has said about and done to them, etc.

    This is another reason why I consider him not electable -- he is the only one who cannot use our best votegetters on the campaign trail, Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Obama's fault, Obama's failing, and nothing Obama says can fix it now or ever.

    So it goes, Obama.  Short-term strategy, long-term loser.


    He's also cried wolf too many times (5.00 / 1) (#262)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:56:51 PM EST
    Who's going to believe him when he cries "racism" in the general after his campaign  called the Clintons and many of Hillary's voters "racists"? I'm truly hoping this won't happen, but throwing the "racism" charge around so recklessly, like his campaign has done, could set back race relations for decades if they aren't careful about this.

    Already has happened (5.00 / 1) (#265)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:03:25 PM EST
    as I see this in my field, in which it has been important and the work of decades to have such discussions about race.  But it's not possible recently, and perhaps not for a long time.  It's a career-ender to be called a racist, and it's a real risk in the current climate.  So sad, but so it is.

    BS (none / 0) (#267)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:07:05 PM EST
    You are hyperventilating and underestimating both candidates.
    Obama has made it impossible, actually for the Clintons to effectively campaign for him by his calling them racist.

    Gee I missed that. Do you have a quote?


    Oh, give it up. (5.00 / 1) (#280)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:24:38 AM EST
    In your terms, the only problem is that they're "typical white persons."  Uh huh.

    There Can Be No Unity If You Ask Me (5.00 / 7) (#88)
    by Richjo on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:03:45 PM EST
    The reason for this is because the process is a joke and is incapable of rendering a legitimate winner. Obama has only won if we accept the premise that the superdelegates are not really superdelegates, but are in fact some quaint anarchism, that we should simply ignore the nature and function of, and pretend tha we have a legtimate system that is actually based on the expressed will of the people. That is a fantasy. This race is a draw. Obama is making a naked power play by basically threatening to tear the party apart if he doesn't win. He may have the power to do this, but the raw and naked exercise of power will never confer legitimacy on a process. The day Obama tried to delegitimize the role of the superdelegates, or the popular vote for that matter, he undercut any sembelance of legitimacy he may have been able to gain. Because of this, unity is going to be difficult to impossible to achieve. We are basically being told that the 50% of us who support Senator Clinton are making unity impossible by strongly standing for the candidate we believe in. Meteor Blades claims Hillary cannot win without tearing the party apart. That is only because Obama and his supporters have refused to acknowledge and respect the rules of the process. Unity will only be possible when Obama stands up and says that he will accept the outcome of the process no matter how the superdelegates decide, and if he can't reach 2024 then he is not the rightful nominee and he has no grounds to complain. Obama and his supporters do not respect the process, they are using a naked power play to try to extort the rest of the party to do their will.

    We should allow the process to play out, and respect the rights of people in the remaining states to express their true preference about who will make a better president. We should not pressure them to cast a vote for the good of the party, rather than one according to their own conscience. We should also respect the rights of the superdelegates to make their independent choice.

    Meteor Blades tells us that it doesn't really matter who the nominee is as long as the democrats win. If that is the case, then why not be willing to respect that Clinton could win under the rules of the process through the vote of the superdelegates? If this election is so important fo a democrat to win, then the entire premise that the argument is based upon- that Clinton cannot win without tearing the party apart is a contradiction. If that was true then Obama supporters should not allow the fact that they don't like the way the nomination process is set up to sway them to not vote for the democrats in November.

    Basically they are saying that the party needs to unify, but we refuse to do it if our candidate doesn't win, so Hillary you need to drop out so we can have unity. They tell us the most important thing is that the democrats win, yet they don't actually believe that or else there would not be any problem with Hillary getting the nomination within the rules of the process. The hypocrisy is disgusting. I have no desire to be united with the type of people who perpetuate it. Every time I read a post like that it moves me one step closer to just sitting home come November.

    Sorry ... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:16:00 PM EST
    ...but if you're going to make accusations of this sort Basically they are saying that the party needs to unify, but we refuse to do it if our candidate doesn't win, so Hillary you need to drop out so we can have unity directed toward me, you are going to have to provide evidence that I have EVER said that I would not unify behind Clinton if she wins the nomination.

    In fact, I have said the opposite. I will support the Democratic nominee - because, as a Popular Front Democrat, I support the party as an alternative to the Republicans, whoever is chosen, and have done for decades.


    MI/FL disenfranchisement (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by rilkefan on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:35:03 PM EST
    If I understand your position correctly, you're assuming MI/FL don't get a voice - because otherwise it's not over (why else is Obama opposed to revotes?).  This scenario is likely to cause a significant tearing-apart of the party (or at least likely enough to be a significant concern given that those states represent 10% of the electorate).  Calling on Clinton to unify the party absent a call for Obama to do the same stat makes your argument uninteresting to me.

    Sorry, but (5.00 / 6) (#175)
    by Richjo on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:13:45 PM EST
    You wrote:
    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. And every day you continue to pursue the nomination is another day for John McCain.

    If you accept this, then you are basically accepting that Obama supporters are more concerned with their candidate winning then with the Democrats winning in November. Maybe you don't feel the same, but you are empowering those who seek to make it a reality that Hillary cannot win, by accepting this; rather than fighting against it. Where is your letter to Obama or his supporters that do believe this? You buy into the Obama talking points on this issue, hook, line, and sinker. Obama has only won if people accept his argument that the superdelgates aren't really superdelegates, which is not a fact, but simply an opinion.

    If you are going to call upon Senator Clinton to sacrifice for a bunch of people who have vilifed and smeared her and her husband, then you might try doing it with a little humility. While the run of the mill Obama supporter may accept your distorted view of what has gone on in this race, obviously Clinton and her supporters do not. If you had any class you would have tried to appealed to Senator Clinton by acknowledging how unfairly she has been treated, how the situtaion she finds herself in sucks, and how she has every right to stay in, and should be respected no matter what her choice. Once you have said all that you could then ask her to, in spite of all that, make a brave sacrifice for the good of the country. Your lack of humility and utter arrogance is so typical of Obama and his supporters and is only helping McCain.


    Maybe I missed something in the verbiage (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:08:36 PM EST
    but the only thing MB suggests she do to unify the party is get out of the race in the near future.  

    I think BTD's suggestions are a lot more constructive. Anything the loser does to unify the party gets treated with suspicion as a ploy for support for themselves, especially if that person is named Clinton.

    Obama needs to be the uniter. For the love of god, that is his whole reason for being in the race. Asking the person he has called 'polarizing' for the last year to do his uniting for him would be the height of hypocricy.  (Not that that would stop a politician)

    I'll be very surprised if he goes very far down the road of your #4 though. He loves those Republicans and Independents more than the Clinton Dems.

    I don't think I can watch Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:11:10 PM EST
    uniting the party for Mr. Unity. I just can't.

    His leadership and unity skills are seriously AWOL.


    That's a lovely story but... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by g8grl on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:15:28 PM EST
    I just don't see Obama stepping up that way.  One of the things that I keep coming back to about Obama is that I don't think he identifies with the Democratic Party very much.  I think he believes he's beyond the Democratic party.  Also, he has really only come very lately to the Democratic party.  I believe he thinks of it as the only viable party where he would be a viable candidate and thus is using it to become President.  That's why he doesn't have any problem trashing the Democratic brand and the last Democratic President.  That's also why he doesn't have any problem with implying that good, lifelong Democrats are racists.  I think he doesn't see the stark differences between the Democrats and the Republicans and that's why he won't and doesn't talk about Democratic principles and the Democratic legacy.  Like many people who come late to a group, Obama doesn't respect the group or the group history.  Thus the damage to the group isn't seen as very important.

    and more, (none / 0) (#124)
    by g8grl on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:18:06 PM EST
    it's made absolutely obvious through his lack of loyalty to the party.  Thus he won't come out for party unity or supporting the nominee if it isn't him.

    What I am waiting to see is if he (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:27:40 PM EST
    stays in the Senate after losing the nomination, or, God forbid, the election. I agree that he is a Democrat by convenience rather than conviction. He is a little too eager to embrace the Republican programs and agree with their positions to suit me.  He sounds like he is saying things to please whoever is the audience at the time, not like he is stating policy or principles. Frankly, I don't think he has principles. Just my personal opinion.  

    That said... (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:17:52 PM EST
    I believe hillary will be very gracious in defeat and will work for Obama as hard as she always works.  It is in her future best interest in the Senate to do so.  I do not expect anyone to stop attacking her though, or to give her credit for anything she does to help Obama get elected. It will never be enough.

    I do not (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by sas on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:24:58 PM EST
    see Obama as a real Democrat either.  I feel he is using the party as a vehicle to the nomination.

    His campaign knew he could get the black vote by crying racism, and using preacher cadence, hope, unity, etc.

    And he could grab the far left with the "No" on the Iraq war, tho' never had to vote on it in the beginning.

    His health care and economic plans are Republican lite, I ever hear him saying anything about unifying the party, tha he will be behind Hillary if she is the nominee.

    I think he will compromise Dmocratic principles when push comes to shove.

    He says that he wouldn't have voted (none / 0) (#192)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:35:41 PM EST
    yes for Iraq, but he voted to fund it every time it came up. What is the difference? I agree with you, by the way, just wondering why people think he is anti-war when he keeps voting to fund it.

    I don't think uniting the party is something that (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by tigercourse on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:30:10 PM EST
    Obama is particularly interested in. I'm sure at some point he will give it the old college try, because neither he nor his advisors are that stupid. But if I take everything he has said in the past years at some level of face value, Obama is more interested in rising above parties then strengthening them. I don't think that will work, but it really seems to be what he believes.

    If and when he actually wins, (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:30:25 PM EST
    I'm sure she will. He hasn't got enough delegates yet and seems unlikely to until after June 3rd at the earliest.

    Will Obama Act to Unify the Party? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jginnane on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:31:11 PM EST
    "Will Obama Act to Unify the Party?"

    Of course!

    First -- let's get those REPUBLICANS "MODERATES" appointed to the WH Cabinet.  Let's give them DEFENSE and the TREASURY -- eh?

    And stay tuned, DanGerStein -- you may have a future in politics yet!!!

    Second, Obama can pretend that Al Gore would also accept some subflunkie role in his on-the-job-learning administration.

    Third, two words:  JOE LIEBERMAN (appointed to replace Howard Dean).

    OK kids, what more outreach do you want?

    Obama cannot have a unified Democratic Party (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:56:33 PM EST
    because he's been working to divide and conquer.  Too late.

    Sorry, BTD, if Obama's the nominee, I'm out (5.00 / 6) (#168)
    by goldberry on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:01:44 PM EST
    I don't find your reason for rejecting Clinton in favor of Obama to be sufficient or reasonable.  He has no record to speak of, I know virtually nothing about him and he will have won it by an illegitimate strategy of discounting the voters for his more worthy opponent.  
    When it comes to comparing Obama vs Clinton, there is no comparison.  I don't care what part of the Clinton years you didn't approve of but with a Democratic Congress, we can expect good things from Hillary, along with the knowledge base for managing a rough economy.  
    We get NONE of those things with Obama except a virtual guarantee that he will be at the whims of the people who installed him at our expense.  
    If Obama is the nominee after all that has gone on this election cycle, I am out of the party.  Period.  
    He can try to win my vote but he is going to have to grovel and kiss my ass a whole lot. I will NOT get over it by August.  In fact, I will still be fuming many years from now.
    Your faith in Obama is completely unfounded and he  is going to lose when they start rolling out the terror tricks.  We keep telling you and telling you but you refuse to listen.  If the presidency goes to McCain this year, you Obama supporters have no one to blame but yourselves.

    Fair Enuf (none / 0) (#208)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:06:49 PM EST
    By all means leave.  And good luck in advance on your new ideological home, wherever that may be.

    of course you are right (5.00 / 5) (#171)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:08:32 PM EST
    as Clinton says: It isn't a coronation.

    It is the job of the candidates to earn someone's vote, not the responsibility of the voter to give their vote to a person or a party.  

    Obama has not earned my vote and it would take a miracle for him to do so.  That he has a (D) next to his name is not enough.  If he wants my vote he has to earn it.  

    I ave a (5.00 / 6) (#185)
    by sas on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:28:34 PM EST
    master's degree in Mathematics, and am an upper middle class 58 year old woman. I'm one of Hillary's base.

    This is what I wrote to the DNC today...

    "Dear Democrats,

    I am a female Pennsylvania Democrat, and I am angry.

    Florida and Michigan have to either be re-done or accounted for as they currently stand. Hillary should be awarded the delegates she earned.

    Obama will have NO legitimacy whatsoever, in my view, until all the votes are counted. How can he argue that he won by the will of the people?

    If the Democratic party won't count all the votes, then it isn't very democratic, is it?

    My candidate will be Hillary, whether she is nominated or not.

    BTW, you are all so afraid of losing the black vote if Obama doesn't get the nod. You need to be worried about the women's vote if Hillary doesn't get the nod. We are the backbone of this party. I personally think the party has taken women for granted for too long.

    Women will not vote in droves unless she is treated fairly."

    Meteor Blades - words and actions (5.00 / 12) (#201)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:48:16 PM EST
    There is some nice language in the post by Meteor Blades that is clearly meant to acknowledge the unfair treatment that Hillary Clinton has received during this campaign -- both from the MSM and the so-called progressive blogs. However, putting aside for the moment the main thesis of the post - that Clinton should step aside now - I have several questions for Meteor Blades.

    If you have really viewed the misogynistic and vicious treatment that Hillary Clinton has received unacceptable and unworthy of the progressive wing of the democratic party as you state, then why are you still posting on the blog that has exhibited some of the most virulent aspects of that which you claim to deplore? Why have you not written and spoken out consistently against the malign acceptance of sexism from progressives - as has BTD for example? Did you push back publicly against the unbelievable trash from Kos about the darkening of Obama's picture by the Clinton campaign? Have you called out Keith Olbermman? Randi Rhodes? Half of the posters and most of the commenters on Daily Kos?

    That you still participate in the site that is the worst offender of the behavior that you claim to denounce speaks volumes to me. Just look at the comments in response to your post -  they are just as vicious and sexist as ever. Isn't it time you denounced that commmunity for the sake of integrity? Words are nice; action and leadership are better.

    Oh my gosh (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:40:31 PM EST
    you absolutely and completely hit the nail on the head.  I am in awe of your brilliance!

    Thank you for speaking not only for yourself, but for me too.


    You know if Clinton could bring (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:59:15 PM EST
    herself to offer Obama the VP slot, after he and his campaign has continually trashed her character, and claimed that she would "say and do anything", then I really don't see what makes it so difficult for Obama to do the same thing simply because she pointed out his lack of experience. This is a campaign, and candidates all regularly question and attack the qualifications of other candidates in a primary. Why are the rules suddenly different for Obama? Why is Clinton not allowed to point out his weaknesses, while he's allowed to trash her character and his campaign is allowed to falsely imply that she and her husband are closet racists? Why does Obama need to be coddled?

    As for you question, I would guess that she would NOT be urging Obama to drop out, if she had the nomination sewed up. I think she understands the need for unity and that part of the unity involves letting the Obama delegates feel that they have some input on the convention and in the party. Obama's understanding of party unity? Not so much.  

    From John Adams on HBO (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:59:52 PM EST
    Whether I shall have any further service to the government besides praying for it, I do not know.

    Sounds like an authentic quote.

    let's toss out the votes... (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:03:34 PM EST
    because that strategy worked so well for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 so why not Obama in 2008. Clearly a winning strategy for Obama in the general election...taking the position that he feels it acceptable to disregard the votes in 2 states.

    The facts are simple enough and have been hashed enough on TalkLeft that:

    • Obama chose to take his name off the ballot in MI
    • Apparently you find it easy to disregard the fact that 2.3 million Democrats voted in FL and MI (record numbers)
    • If Obama is capable of reaching across the aisle for consensus, why is it so difficult for him to reach consensus with another Democrat on a strategy to re-vote in FL and MI?
    • It makes absolutely no sense for Obama or the Democratic party to risk alienating FL and MI voters by tossing their votes out simply because they had the temerity of holding their votes early...but I suppose it's your party too...I'm sorry that we embrace too many who are so willing to stand on rules that they will risk losing in November. Rules can be changed but principles do not change (i.e. Votes count and we count votes).

    Obviously the fact that in the two states that had both a primary election and a caucus both revealed entirely different outcomes doesn't clue you in on the fact that caucus results have little adhesion to voting results.

    As for your hypothetical SillyDutchman...since you already have the answer, why would anyone tackle your question? Why not make your point honestly?

    probably pointless to argue (4.20 / 5) (#248)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:38:16 PM EST
    with someone who is challenged both in principle and in factual events but...

    • Hillary NEVER promised to remove her name from the ballot in MI. In fact, she stated quite the opposite. If you care about facts, you will provide a link that demonstrates her 'promise to remove her name'

    • FL and MI voters will be heard in the general election...yeah, like thanks for tossing my vote in the primary but just like 'Animal House'..."Thank you sir, may I have another?" You really believe that Obama can reject seating their delegates in August that they're going to vote for him in November? I'm sure that they have some some good deals on land in FL for anyone that believes that.

    • 50/50 seating plan is DOA - only a fool would suggest such a thing. See above...Gee, thanks for dragging your butt to the polls and even though I took my name off the ballot, didn't get a single vote, I demand half the delegates. See offer for FL property above.

    • You understand my frustration? I'm only frustrated that you feel you can post up like the above which demonstrates that you are incapable of getting beyond Obama campaign talking points and have nothing interesting to offer in terms of discussion.

    FL and MI can be settled in a minute if Obama just accepts those votes and demands that the delegates selected in those primaries are seated. In fact, it would be the first presidential act he will have performed. As long as he plays politics as usual, he will appear to be a fraud for claiming not to play politics as usual.

    I think putting your name on is participating! (1.00 / 1) (#282)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:31:42 AM EST
    THEREFORE, I (Hillary Clinton), Democratic Candidate for President, in honor and in accordance with DNC rules, pledge to actively campaign in the pre-approved early states Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina. I pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any election contest occurring in any state not already authorized by the DNC to take place in the DNC approved pre-window (any date prior to February 5, 2008).

    Not according to the DNC rules it wasn't (none / 0) (#286)
    by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:48:49 AM EST
    And are you going to claim that Obama was "participating" in campaigning in Florida because his name was on the ballot there? Or are there different roolz for Obama?

    It's the blame Hillary Game (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by nycvoter on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:32:25 PM EST
    I think the progressive blogs will blame Hillary if Obama can't pull off this election, because Obama can do no wrong.  I have found nothing unifying about this candidate.  You suggest that he should show some respect for the Clintons, well that time has passed, just as I suspect Obama will let the time pass to show he respects voters in Michigan and Florida.  He should have "represented" for the Clintons, like he did for Joe Biden at a debate, that their history tells the story that they are NO racists, but no... he just sat back and enjoyed the ride.  I've never expected a Democratic nominee to earn my vote, but Obama will have a lot of work to do before I would vote for him and I've voted in every single election, straight Democratic ticket, since 1984.

    Meteor Blades (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by MKS on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:01:50 PM EST
    is the real deal....

    He is one of the few people in the blogosphere that I really respect....He has been right on so many issues over the years....His activism has been for many unpopular causes and people....the nobodys

    Always restrained but driven by conviction.....

    Re-enfranchise MI and FL (5.00 / 2) (#244)
    by lambert on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:34:58 PM EST
    Then we'll talk.

    Honest? (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:18:29 PM EST
    Let's see, you've commented on two items... The first regarding Contempt for Clinton supporters and now this.  Guess who didn't get it?

    So let's be honest... You are a troll spouting the same tired lies and lines.  

    Here's a question for you... if you have to be annoying, could you shorten it.

    Why would I work for Obama? (5.00 / 2) (#237)
    by lambert on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:23:36 PM EST
    Let me say I will vote for Obama.

    But why would I work for him? My two issues are Social Security and Universal Health Care. Obama dogwhistled on the first, won't deliver on the second, and his (more youthful) base won't push him on those issues, because they don't need them (yet).

    Makes more sense to me to support Congressional Democrats, who aren't Blue Dogs, that want to do the right thing on my issues (and, of course, no money at all do Dean).

    Besides, why would I want to have make up sex with Obama? Plus, he wouldn't let a stupid, old, racist Archie Bunker type like me near the phones anyhow.

    "make up sex" (none / 0) (#252)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:45:29 PM EST
    lol!~ damn good point.

    I don't think he's expecting my help or anything. After all, I'm just a typical white women. . . .


    Poached delegates on toast (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by lookoverthere on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:25:13 PM EST
    I believe pledged delegates can switch candidate preference. See Mister Super's website for more info.

    Also, delegates can switch at the caucuses in WA state because I was there yesterday when it happened.

    But that wasn't your point. Your point was that Sen. Clinton said delegates could switch candidates and that was wrong somehow. Technically, yes, they can and do switch sides. That's one reason whips are assigned to ride herd over their candidates' delegates at caucuses and conventions.

    I also remember watching a convention from way back that showed a delegate poached from the opposition being surrounded by his newest BFFs. I can't recall which convention it was because I was a kid, but it was in black and white and rowdy as all get out. I thought it was great.

    (BTW, 39th LD, 1&2 CD, 27/12 Obama/Clinton. Clinton hung onto each delegate from the previous round of caucuses. Don't know about the rest of the state.)

    Holy crap (5.00 / 1) (#254)
    by lookoverthere on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:48:32 PM EST
    I was responding to earlier comments regarding pledged delegates and ended up all the way down here. Sorry.

    BTD, I agree with your recommendations. However, the time for action regarding this on Sen. Obama's part has come and gone. I have no polls or anything else to back it up. Just a gut feeling. And a day spent at a caucus with 600+ people.

    Lemme tell you, my experience with Obama supporters yesterday...for a group of people who keep telling me their candidate has won, they sure don't act like winners. "Gracious" is not a word I would use. Or "well-bathed."

    Okay, that thing about the hygiene was mean. Not all of 'em stunk the place up. However, some of them need to be clued in that "patchouli" is not synonymous with "soap."

    I kid because I love. Well, I kid because I hate patchouli.

    I mean, I really hate it.


    Ha! Patchouli's not bad if you keep it down to (none / 0) (#266)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:06:04 PM EST
    just a very small dab. Unfortunately most people who wear it think they have to be baptised in it. Whew! Mega sensory overload!

    delegate poaching (none / 0) (#290)
    by onemanrules on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:14:41 AM EST
    You can talk and wish for delegate poaching all you want, but the fact is that only the most ardent of supporters are selected as delegates. As things are likely to progress she have have to poach alot of delegates to win. Winning by delegate poaching is like wishing for a fighter plane for Christmas.

    agree that Obama would need to do these things (5.00 / 1) (#274)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:38:32 PM EST
    and I actually think he is smart enough to see that. But I think the cold reality is that there is a power struggle going on in the party and even if he captures the nomination that struggle won't be over.

    I think if he's nominated there will still be posturing and power moves and humiliation to be served. I think he will go through some of the motions as any good politician would. I don't think he would let MI/FL happen until it's too late to make any difference. I think he would consider asking Clinton for VP only because it would be humiliating to her, but I don't think he would for fear she might accept.

    I actually think some of these underlying power plays aren't even about winning the presidency in '08, and some of the people behind the scene's would be fine if Obama looses, as long as Clinton and others are pushed out.

    I suspect if he gets the nomination Clinton will indeed go through the motions of trying to unify as the post referenced suggests. I think she will be thinking of her senate career and a possibility against McCain in '12. But mostly about immediate political survival. But she won't be the fall guy for a dem loss in '08 and she'll position herself to insure that.

    Just one cynic's view.

    The Clintons always work hard to unite the party (4.66 / 3) (#131)
    by lorelynn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:21:44 PM EST
    They always have the big picture in mind. It shows up in how they handle the Mi/Fl debacle. Clinton kept her name on the ballot running the risk that Obama's gamble would pay off and early states would punish her for jeopardizing their status, but, in the end, if she wins the nomination, she's in good shape in November. In Florida, she showed up to thank them for their votes even though she was ridiculed by the Obama/Edwards campaigns and the press. Obama, otoh, tried a fast one with Michigan, which may help win him the nomination, but may well cost him the election. She was willing to risk losing Michigan in revote to have their delegates count. He wasn't willing to risk losing Florida though. She's looking at the big picture and taking the action that  helps the Dems in November. He's looking at how to win the primary away from her, maybe at the cost of the election. Obama supporters should be factoring the judgement that leads to the different conclusions into their assessment.

    All of that being said - there is literally nothing that Clinton can say or do that will get me to vote for a bigot. I'm a Democrat because I want to see people, regardless of race or gender or class, treated fairly. Obama clearly has huge issues with women, and I don't believe we will fair any worse under a McCain presidency than under an Obama one. I don't think McCain is one iota more likely to overturn Roe v Wade than Obama or less liikely to pull us out of Iraq. Obama looks like a status quo kinda guy to me and I think he's gonna come in and validate a lot of George Bush's predations upon our Constitution. Look how far right he's tilted the party already. No universal health care if he wins, and 60k troops in Iraq until 2010. Forget that brigade or two a month. Oh, and social security? We need to do something according to Obama and George Bush.

    I've lived through the Reagan years and now the Bush years. I watched the Watergate hearings with the patients of the psychiatric ward where i worked. My stepson served in Iraq.  I had brothers in Vietnam. My uncles served in both World Wars and my stepfather in Korea. I've lived through Republican presidencies before, and I and this nation will survive a McCain presidency just as we survived the Civil War and Reconstruction. But as a woman from a family such as mine, in a nation such as this one, I will not be threatened into using my vote for a bigot to prevent a worse bigot from taking office. Obama can't get my vote by offering a protection racket. That's what it looks to me like he's offering.

    I recc'd your post because (none / 0) (#164)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:54:15 PM EST
    I deeply respect your passionate and articulate statement.  I agree with almost all of them.

    But I'm not sure that the thing about keeping 60K troops in Iraq is legitimate.  I read recently that this idea was in a paper of some kind by one of his advisers, submitted as his/her own idea, at some private conference.  If that's true, I think it isn't right to assume that that's Obama's position.

    The bottom line for me, anyway, is that I don't believe it's correct to say that McCain and Obama will do the same thing about Iraq.  I just don't believe that's true.  I think Obama would do pretty much what Hillary would do, and McCain not.

    I'm probably at a point where I will write in Hillary if Obama's the nominee if it's clear McCain has no chance to win my state.  But I will not under any circumstances vote for McCain or do anything other than carry my air sickness bag to the polls and vote for Obama if there's any chance McCain will win my state.

    People's lives are literally at stake.


    I don't believe Obama is capable of (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by lorelynn on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:14:06 PM EST
    doing what Hillary will do. I think getting us untangled in Iraq is going to take tremendous will power, discipline and tenacity. I think it's going require someone who is willing to push every international button as hard and as long as possible and it's going to take extremely skilled and fast thinking people on the ground.

    Getting out of Iraq is going to take the best people we got doing the best work they've ever done. I see that group of Wesley Clark/ Joe Wilson/ Bill Clinton and I think all of those people, and their associates are going to have to give it everything they've got to pull this off. Hillary is going to have her plateful because she's going to have to manage the country as well. She's going to need the best people we got on the ground cleaning that mess up and it isn't going to be easy.

    I see Obama as a repeat of George Bush. Inexperienced and ego driven. I have zero faith in the people he's gathered around him. He's got a few shiny stars but no one blinding. And he's just not that damn smart. Lastly, he has  virtually no accommplishments to his name after making Law Review Editor. Between that time and the gifted legislation, there's nothing. That's the problem. He's not a guy who gets stuff done. he's not a guy who has politics in his bones. He clearly knows how to galvanize people but it takes one helluva lot more than that to run the White House. I think if Obama's elected, we'll be there in 2012. And he'll be making excuses.


    So, instead, you oh-so-honest sir ... (3.00 / 2) (#232)
    by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:16:37 PM EST
    ...will vote for McCain? Is this what passes for a principled stance in your eyes?

    You really don't get it do you? (5.00 / 2) (#241)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:30:32 PM EST
    If Obama wants votes he has to earn them, not take them for granted. If people find it hard to vote for him because they aren't sure where he really stands, or because they don't like his tactics, then it is Obama's responsibility to reassure them. He needs to take that responsibility seriously.

    EVERYbody has to earn ... (none / 0) (#242)
    by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:32:49 PM EST
    ...voter confidence, of course.

    So why don't you listen to the (5.00 / 2) (#250)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:42:15 PM EST
    heartfelt criticisms from those that find it hard to vote for Obama and use that as a basis for an article on what Obama needs to do to unify the party, instead of blaming those who have reservations, and trying to bully or shame them into voting Obama? Figure out a way for Obama to earn their votes. The answers are all here, if you really care to listen, rather than just reject and belittle, which, BTW, never gets you unity.

    Well, see, I don't reject and bully ... (5.00 / 1) (#275)
    by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:50:29 PM EST
    ...that's never been my style, as anyone who has read more than a few of my posts can attest.

    So, does that mean you will listen? (none / 0) (#276)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:55:01 PM EST
    This s the best way I can put this (5.00 / 2) (#278)
    by tree on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:06:14 AM EST
    Clinton making a move of reconciliation will not on its own heal the split. She's already made several statements along that line. But Obama, if he wins, has to make the move to earn those votes. Simply having Clinton urge her voters to support Obama won't do it and here's why. We all know that she will do the unity thing when the time comes, and we know it because she is a loyal Dem and the party means a lot to her. But that's the very reason why her statements won't be enough. She'll say it because of who she is, not because of who Obama is, and all her voters know that. They need to know that their issues are truly Obama's issues, and that he will not ignore them or their concerns. They need to be respected, because how are they to believe that their concerns are important to him if he and his campaign doesn't respect them. And they need to know that he truly is a Democrat and not just a poseur. She can't provide that for him, even if she tries mightily, and I'm sure she will if asked. Its up to him to come through. If you want unity  you need to be addressing the Obama campaign and the Obama supporters.

    good luck is all I can say (5.00 / 1) (#279)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:17:59 AM EST
    because after Obama/Axelrod's campaign of personalities (tearing down Hillary's and building up his) with no policy advantage but a willing press to carry their destructive narrative, it's seems pretty obvious to me that they aren't going to win many of them back.

    It was a pathetic strategy of how to win a battle and lose a war.

    The funny thing is that the one who was most responsive to David and Susan Axelrod's mission for epilepsy was Hillary.

    The really really horrible thing about this should have been a year when a Democrat wins the election.

    Don't misunderstand me...if Obama is the nominee, he will get my vote and I will curse him if he loses as I surely expect he will.


    You think Obama (5.00 / 1) (#251)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:42:51 PM EST
    and McCain are the only choices?  The other one is to stay at home -- and knit like the low-information grandmas we are.

    Write in is a very nice option (5.00 / 2) (#261)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:56:01 PM EST
    for me since I'll be voting down ticket here. Gotta protect my interests  ;)

    GOP (none / 0) (#235)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:22:09 PM EST
    Defector switching back, as far as I can guess.  

    My hope is that these few come to their senses in Nov., not that it will matter.


    I expect this isn't within the posting rules (3.00 / 2) (#272)
    by rilkefan on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:31:30 PM EST
    Meteor Blades is widely respected in the liberal sphere and in particular here and you can't just call him dishonest.  You can make your argument without the smear.

    While I agree with much of what you say ... (2.33 / 3) (#105)
    by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:11:38 PM EST
    ...here about what Obama should do, I completely reject your characterization of my essay as saying it is up to Clinton to unify the party. In fact, that is not at all what I wrote. Here is what I did say in that regard:

    Rather, I'm writing to ask you - to plead with you - to admit to yourself what is clear to nearly everyone who is closely following this contest: Your chances of getting the nomination are slim. 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.


    That isn't how things are, however. You've fought hard. But you've lost. Acknowledging that, accepting it, and acting graciously and selflessly on it right now would mean the Democrats - your supporters and the supporters of other candidates who have already left the contest - could unite behind Barack Obama without further delay. It would mean we could get on with the process of regaining the White House and dealing with the problems this nation has avoided for decades.


    Right now you can have an instantaneously positive impact on the coming general election that will never again be as powerful. You can seize the moment, today, tomorrow, early next week, and give the Democratic nominee an edge in November. Or you can hang in there and hamstring us.

    What I say throughout is that Obama CANNOT unify the party, that it CANNOT be his moment until Clinton gives up on a contest whose inevitable outcome is a different inevitability than the inevitability it was assumed to be by her and her campaign six months ago.

    Your sentence (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:17:34 PM EST
    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.

    apply equally to the Obama campaign: seriously. He has no legimacy (1) having no majority (plurality is not enough) but mainly because of his attitude towards FL &MI all this time.  And you can take this to the bank.


    meant "legitimacy" above. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:19:09 PM EST
    Why can't Obama unify the party now? (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:26:47 PM EST
    Why can't he make the same statement that Clinton made a few weeks back, that his supporters should support whomever wins the party nomination because either one of the Democratic contestants is preferrable to McCain? How hard is that to do? If he really is Mr. Ineveitability now then there is absolutely nothing to be lost by saying it, and everything to gain in helping to woo back disillusioned Clinton supporters.

    If he can't because he doesn't have the balls, or he doesn't believe it, or can't at least convincingly lie about his beliefs, then why should anyone think that he can do any unifying at all. Unity, yeah, right.


    He SHOULD urge his supporters... (3.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:35:24 PM EST
    ...to support whoever wins the nomination.

    But, please, there are just as many Clinton backers claiming they won't vote for Obama as there are Obama backers saying they won't vote for Clinton, more if you believe the polls.

    Since neither Obama nor Clinton was my first choice, I obvously find it easier to say that I will support the Democratic nominee in November than do some TalkLefters who despise Obama and make that obvious in every comment they post, occasionally noting they will stay home if he wins the nomination.

    Unity. Yeah. Right.


    It would help (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by rilkefan on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:43:25 PM EST
    if you'd point to a Dear Senator Obama post of yours.  That is, it would help those willing to listen, but forget the rest anyway.

    Meteor Blades (5.00 / 5) (#161)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:52:03 PM EST
    I did like your post.  However it is a lot of self-sacrifice you are requiring from Hillary Clinton (and notably none on the part of Barack Obama).  Thousands have donated to her with the expectation she will continue.  PA is hers to lose.  Obama has, as BTD points out, been dumping on the Clintons constantly.  At this point Clinton would have to be way too self-sacrificing to give up.  And if she gave up at this very moment, would she have enough authority to direct her supporters to Obama?  To me it doesn't seem so.  To get that authority she has to not just shy away, but lose, and then with her group of losers, including myself, push forward under Barack Obama.

    The voters of PA are IMO quite aware that their votes are important not just in choosing the nominee but choosing when the GE gets started.  I'm in NC and still have yet to vote.  Clinton is losing - but at least allow her to actually lose.  The voters will show the ship is sinking.

    So at some level I think you are reiterating the "odds are bad, she should drop out" argument, except you actually acknowledge Clinton and her supporters are important, which is great.  But the odds are good for her in PA.  She probably won't hit a home run, but we don't know that.  

    So let's just vote.


    Look, you claim that Obama can't do the (5.00 / 6) (#162)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:53:10 PM EST
    unity thing until Clinton drops out, but when I ask why he can't make a statement like Clinton, you say, oh yeah, sure, he should do that. So why haven't you posted a long commentary urging Obama to say just such a unifying thing? Why can't you think of any other thing that Mr. Unity could do now to help mend fences? Why is it all up to Clinton now? Why the double standard?

     I didn't start out as a Clinton supporter either. My pick was Edwards. My dislike of Obama is not some misplaced and misapplied loyalty to Clinton. Its the result of the things he and his campaign have said and done. Clinton making nice, which she will, will not heal the rift. That has to come from Obama. If he doesn't have it in him then he doesn't have the qualifications to be President, and we might as well learn that now.

    Please, write a piece urging Obama to reach out and tell his supporters that they should vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who it is. Then we can talk about healing. Otherwise, what you are really talking about is not healing but capitulation.


    My next piece is more likely ... (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:15:22 PM EST
    ...to be on resolving Michigan and Florida, which, as we all know, is going to be a sour point from now until November unless some resolution agreeable to both sides is adopted. The only way that can happen is if Obama is willing to be more flexible in this matter than he has been so far.

    So, throw in a pitch (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:24:44 PM EST
    for a little unity talk from Obama RIGHT NOW. It won't hurt your main point, and believe me, it will help mend.

    A sour point? (5.00 / 0) (#184)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:28:21 PM EST
    I'd say it's more like a show-stopper for the Democrats.  It will make your Obama an illegitimate winner.

    Maybe you can do both ;) (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:33:11 PM EST
    Without him fighting for those 2 states AND Clinton supporters, he's toast, imo, in Nov. I think a more realistic view needs to be drummed out there that this IS about Nov, not Obama. Drives me nuts that there seems to be a very shortsighted look coming out of the O Camp/supporters.

    Seriously, if Clinton ends up fighting for unity AND those 2 states so HE can win, it's gonna be ugly in the Dem party. Again, imo  ;)


    With good reason MB (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by goldberry on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:33:27 PM EST
    After that travesty of a DNC hearing on Florida how can we ever expect Obama to be the legitimate nominee if he "wins" on a 48 strategy?  How can I, a voter in NJ vote for a guy who went out of his way to shut me out, to make sure my vote would have no impact because it was denied the critical mass of Florida?  
    Unless he agrees to waive the rules and seat Florida NOW and have a revote of MI, he is not legitimate.  I will write in Hillary's name in this fall.  And it isn't MY problem to come together for the good of the party.  It is YOUR responsibility as an Obama supporter to force him to behave ethically and do the right thing, even if it means he takes a small setback in delegates.  And until you do, YOU and the other Obamaphiles bear the sole responsibility for losing the election this fall. Don't blame US.  We backed the real Democrat.

    Your Right MB (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Richjo on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:53:11 PM EST
    Of course Obama cannot unify the party, his whole strategy is to tear it apart if he doesn't win, and it is a little too late to go back on that now. Obama supporters obviously do not care about beating the Republicans in the fall. If they did, they wouldn't allow the fact that they don't like the nominating process to cause them to defect the party if their candidate doesn't win. Obama has not won yet- he has simply declared that he will cry foul and take his toys and go home if he doesn't prevail, which under the rules as they are written he may not.

    Here is what you should have written to Senator Clinton-
    You must realize that Obama supporters do not give a damn about the Democratic Party or the good of the country. They are not interested in policy or qualifications. They would not even be participating in the process were they not caught up in this cult of personality. They do not understand or appreciate the nature of the process, and if they don't get their way they will condem the country to more years of diastrous Republican rule. Though you have been branded by your opponent as someone who will do anything to win, who is only out for yourself- you need to give up your dream, and the dreams and hopes of millions who have supported you, for the good of the country. Senator McCain made great sacrifices for his country, now it is your turn. I am not sure what sacrifices Senator Obama ever made for his country, but because he can give a good speech and has never taken the time to fight any battle that might leave scars and have political consequences for him, you, and Senator McCain for that matter, need to defer to him so the country can unite. His supporters are no where near principled enough to do the same. They will appeal to your sense of what is good for the party in the same breath that they claim you don't have any regard for it. They have smeared you as a racist and unprincipled, and now they are asking you to do what they never would. I spite of all that, I ask you to step aside so they can turn their attention to smearing a war hero so we can win in November.

    If you had been honest and said that, then maybe you might have convinced some people. Right now the only thing you are convincing people to do is consider voting for McCain. If you truly care about the party's chances in November please just stop. You are only making things worse.


    Yeah, uh-huh ... (3.00 / 2) (#181)
    by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:23:35 PM EST
    They do not understand or appreciate the nature of the process, and if they don't get their way they will condem the country to more years of diastrous Republican rule.

    Except that, according to Gallup, If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain:

    As would be expected, almost all Democratic voters who say they support Obama for their party's nomination also say they would vote for him in a general election matchup against McCain. But only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for the Republican McCain. This suggests that some Clinton supporters are so strongly opposed to Obama (or so loyal to Clinton) that they would go so far as to vote for the "other" party's candidate next November if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

    "If you had been truly honest..." perhaps you might have mentioned this poll. Seems I don't have to convince people to consider voting for McCain. Who's arguing for tearing the party apart if they don't get their way?


    Is it a top-down (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:40:42 PM EST
    campaign message thing that leads to a bleeding away of 28% of Clinton supporters to McCain?  Is it a demographic thing?  Those numbers are really interesting and I hope Gallup repeats this poll.

    He left out that another (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:34:52 PM EST
    13% will just stay home.  That's 41% of Clinton supporters that don't want to elect someone that is inexperienced, has developed no policies on his own, has brought a 'new' type of politics that involves belittling women, and developed a new type of activist quaintly referred to as a thug.

    Fascinating, but irrelevant (5.00 / 6) (#200)
    by Richjo on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:46:33 PM EST
    I don't doubt that many Clinton supporters may wind up voting for McCain, just as many Obama supporters may wind up doing the same. The question is how to prevent that- your answer is for Senator Clinton to withdraw. My answer is for Senator Obama to stop trying to extort the nomination out of the party by putting to rest the false conventional wisdom that the race is over, and that the superdelegates deciding for Senator Clinton would be illegitimate. The disunity in this party is at worst the responsiblity of both parites, but in reality the Obama camp has created this situation to a far greater extent than the Clinton camp. Obama's attempt to cut this race off and to distort the process in his favor need to stop far more than Clinton needs to drop out. Once Obama is willing to do what is necessary for unity, then we can ask Clinton to do the same. Stop helping perpetuate the false narrative being driven by thr pro Obama media and allow the race to continue in a way that is fair and just. Then and only then will unity be possible. Of course, that is not going to happen, because if it does Obama might lose. Unity will only be possible when Obama comes out and sccepts that Clinton can legtimately win the nomination and stops perpetuating the idea that only he can wi without the party being torn apart. When he says, I may lose, and I accept that, and so must everyone else, let's get to work getting me to 2024- then unity will be possible. Anything other than that will be insufficent, and it will be his, not Clinton's fault if the party fails to unify.

    another concern troll... (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:02:06 PM EST
    The rules of the Democratic party are clear enough...that the nominee is selected by the delegates at the convention.

    Absent clear and convincing evidence that Obama has reached the threshold of necessary delegates, there is no reason, rationale or purpose for Hillary to remove herself or 'give up' as you put it.

    I would suggest that the only inevitability I can see is the inevitability that neither candidate will have achieved 2025 delegates with clear and convincing evidence and even then, delegates still have the discretion of changing their votes at the convention.

    This discussion was pointless last week when it reached a crescendo with surrogates calling for her to withdraw and her response was no different than the general when asked to surrender at the Battle of the Bulge - "Nuts"

    Evidently there is a distinction that seems to be missed by too many people that if you succeed in forcing Hillary out before, regardless of her overtures to keep her supporters invested in November, many will be too embittered if they don't feel that she simply lost.


    You're asking her to step aside (5.00 / 8) (#179)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:17:34 PM EST
    when this primary campaign is closer than any one previous that I can find. Even leaving out FL and MI, Obama currently has 1627 and Clinton has 1497. If you include Fl/MI as voted, Obama has 1699 and Clinton has 1690.

    At the Democratic Conventions in the past:

    • 1972--George McGovern  had 1864.95 delegates; his nearest competitor Scoop Jackson had 525.
    • 1976--Jimmy Carter had 2,239 delegates; Mo Udall had 330
    • 1980--Jimmy Carter, the sitting president, had 2,129.02 delegates; Ted Kennedy, challenger, had 1,150.48 and fought through the convention to get delegates released from their voting commitments.
    • 1984--Walter Mondale had 2191 delegates; Gary W. Hart had 1200.
    • 1988--Michael Dukakis had 2687 and Jesse Jackson 1218  
    • 1992--Bill Clinton had 3372 delegates; Jerry Brown had 596.

    To many Hillary supporters, that looks like the younger, less experienced man needs the older, more qualified woman to get out of the way so he can "win." And it's not just older women--I'm in my early 30s, and that doesn't sit well with me.

    Thanks (5.00 / 5) (#291)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:18:55 AM EST
    for digging up that information, eleanora. I was just going to when I saw your post.

    This is EXACTLY why no Hillary supporter can possibly believe that Obama has sewed up the nomination. Any one who wants to WIN in November recognizes that FL and MI have to be seated somehow. And when we see that Hillary is within 9 delegates of Obama if they are seated, you can surely see why we aren't ready to give up, and why SHE is not ready to give it up. She will make up that number of delegates when she wins Pennsylvania.

    So the only reason Obama is currently ahead in delegates is FL and MI. Without them, this whole election is going to be a farce. This is the whole reason the Obama campaign is trying to get Hillary to drop out, and why the Obama press is so shrill right now. And why many of us frown on all these blog posts telling Hillary to drop out. How about if you all just settle down and let people vote? My primary isn't until May and I intend to vote!


    MB: Saying Clinton Should Drop = Smear (5.00 / 6) (#228)
    by Exeter on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:53:56 PM EST
    There is ZERO precedence for someone in Hillary's position to drop out. Zero. Even suggesting it is, in itself, a an ungly smear job because the clear implication is that she is somehow behaving in an extraudinarily selfish manner of putting herself before her party.

    Nothing could further from the truth.

    In fact, many candidates have stayed in far, far longer with dimmer hopes of recapturing the nomination. It's not that big of a deal and saying it is a big deal is intellectually dishonest and a low-level smear job.


    nonsense, i will never unify with Obama! Ever! (5.00 / 1) (#289)
    by fly on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:14:10 AM EST
    I was a co-captain in Iowa for Edwards as a volunteer, i will never support or unify with Obama he is a dang cheater!

    If any of Edwards volunteers had cheated Like Obama's they would have been off the team immediately..without question..

    I will never ever ever ever unify behind that cheater Obama!

    won't happen, can't happen.

    If you want to unify with a cheater, have at it..I will not denigrate my integrity..ever!

    there is no integrity with the Obama campaign..none what so ever!

    I am embrassed to say hbe is in the same party as myself..and that won't be long thanks to he , Dean ,Donna Brazile, Pelosi, Kerry and Kennedy and Dodd...they can kiss off as far as this Dem is concerned..i am going to leave the party for good if they steal this primary for that cheat!


    Wrong again (1.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Publicus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:57:38 PM EST
    The first step has to be that the losing candidate withdraws and endorses the winner whole-heartedly.  Only thereafter can the winner begin, and I have no doubt that Obama will do just that (if he wins!).

    The bigger question is whether the Clintonites will get over it.  

    Sorry (5.00 / 0) (#216)
    by mm on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:21:04 PM EST
    Senator Obama has done nothing to reach out and appeal to this lifelong Democratic voter.  He's my President a racist and my candidate a liar.  And you would expect me to vote for him?

    I have some trouble with point #4, (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:35:10 PM EST
    as I see a large difference between Obama and Clinton on health care.  He shouldn't blend the two together.  

    Uhhh (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:50:13 PM EST
    Compared to McCain?

    No. I'm afraid Clinton's advocacy (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:04:41 PM EST
    for universal health care will be lost; seems like the opportune moment to push for such a plan in Congress, but it won't happen if Obama, as he has been, says their plans are the same.

    It Is A Pipe Dream (none / 0) (#210)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:12:07 PM EST
    At this point, unless we gain at least 10+ more progressive senators, and then its chances of passing is still very iffy. Obama's plan, albeit less progressive, has more of a chance of getting through as is.

    Sorry delect if you want (none / 0) (#7)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:42:40 PM EST
    Mark Penn to leave Clinton campaign breaking news on CNN.

    And as for Obama unifying the party, that's months away and a lot of think to do on that .  Speaking for me.

    Saw it too (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:44:37 PM EST
    Just posted it.

    Good Point (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:55:40 PM EST
    Obama needs to get his act together ASAP, I am less worried about Clinton.

    And in case you haven't noticed KO is still wondering why everyone left KOS. His essay was good, but horribly marred by denial of culpability in alienating Clinton supporters. No apoligies forthcoming.

    My new motto (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 05:57:36 PM EST
    is to not say anything about someone if I can not say something nice - except for pols, political opertives, the Media, bloggers, . . .

    OK (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:08:33 PM EST
    Good point. It is sad to see someone so smart act that way, incredible.

    Clinton is a professional (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:04:05 PM EST
    She'll do what needs to be done-- as she has from the beginning.  I fear the Obama people will be triumphal and in no mood to advise the candidate to make nice in other than perfunctory ways.

    Obama particularly needs to work hard to mend fences since his supporters have just about ridden Clinton supporters out of town on a rail.  A nice phrase or two ain't gonna do it.

    What on earth is Meteor Blades thinking?  It's never up to the loser to make nice with the winner, whether you're talking sports or politics.  It's always the winner's obligation.


    I'm not convinced he's a hard worker (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:06:32 PM EST
    Another one of my red flags with him . . .

    "A nice phrase or two ain't gonna do it."

    Especially if he calls us "Sweetie".  ;)


    Yes, But in This Particular Process? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:08:24 PM EST
    The loser will determine when the process ends.  Which is an obligation in and of itself.

    And the obligation is not to the other (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by tree on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:17:31 PM EST
    candidate but to the voters. I'm tired of everyone who thinks Clinton owes something to Obama, rather than to Democratic voters. The vast majority don't want her to drop out now.

    End the process (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:30:40 PM EST
    and the Democratic Unity Pony will magically appear? Ok.

    The Choice Will Be Yours (none / 0) (#47)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:34:51 PM EST
    If you believe there would be no difference between an Obama presidency and a McCain presidency?  Like I said.  The choice is yours.

    And it's got nothing to do with ponies of any variety.  It's the way the game has always been played.  It's how LBJ, who spent months telling everyone how inexperienced his opponent was, ended up as Kennedy's Veep.  At some point supporters on both sides have to understand that their candidate's success if not a reflection of their own value.  This isn't a mirror, it's a campaign for the  White House, and a campaign against the GOP.

    At some point.


    Well, duh (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:44:35 PM EST
    I'm aware this is a campaign for control of the White House. I don't take this campaign personally. I think Sen. Obama needs to convince Clinton supporters to vote for him, and for many Clinton supporters, he hasn't done that yet. Instead, he has been ungracious and dismissive of the Clinton supporters who he assumes will vote for him anyway.

    Well, if he assumes we will vote for him anyway, and we do even though he continues to be more interested in unifying with Republicans and Independents than the base of his own party, then why would I think he will be influenced by the policy concerns of the Clinton supporters once in office? Allowing one's vote to be taken for granted does not produce good results.

    The point is not simply to have someone with a (D) after their names in the White House. At this point, I don't believe he has what it takes to push forward the policies in which I am interested. If he wins the nomination, he'll have many months to convince me I'm wrong.


    Wasn't that Kennedy unifying the party? n/t (none / 0) (#55)
    by rilkefan on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:45:49 PM EST
    Yes, It Was (none / 0) (#157)
    by Harley on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:46:39 PM EST
    It was also Kennedy needing to bolster his support in the South.  My point was not who made the first unifying move, but rather that all the current hysteria between the two camps -- camps of supporters, I mean -- is nothing new, and that it will pass.  

    Hope so, but '68? (none / 0) (#273)
    by rilkefan on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:37:15 PM EST
    Note that a lot of the unhappy reaction here is to MB implicitly saying Clinton should make the first move to unity, so ordering is in fact entirely relevant.

    Kennedy needed LBJ to carry the South (none / 0) (#281)
    by kc on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:31:03 AM EST
    ....It took LBJ (who was still majority leader of the senate) to come to the old southern Democrats and tell them that if they won, he would be vice-pres. and if they lost, he would still be majority leader of the senate. Basically, they had better get in line or they would never get any goodies for their districts or states. He also knew where all the bodies were buried--remember LBJ and Rayborn's  'board of education.'

    That man knew power politics!


    Indeed (none / 0) (#126)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:19:02 PM EST
    Which is why I expect Obama to drop out after Pennsylvania. :-)

    If he's outspending her 5-1 (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:35:55 PM EST
    and can't win . . . Houston, we have a problem.

    No kidding, if he offers me a kiss.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:44:37 PM EST
    ....I'll barf.

    KO is wondering why everybody left Kos? (none / 0) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:01:04 PM EST
    What?  What did I miss? Where was he wondering this?    What essay?  I was under the impression that Kos's numbers were holding fine, despite the departure of the Hillary supporters.  Not so?

    If this is OT, could BTD or Jeralyn start another thread for it?


    There is an exisitng Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:02:04 PM EST
    whose job to unify the party (none / 0) (#37)
    by diogenes on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:22:29 PM EST
    Of course Obama, if he is the nominee, will want to unify the party.  It is in his personal interest to do so.  If Hillary loses, then it is in her personal interest that Obama loses in November so that she can run in 2012.  It is her job to unify the party even if it is against her personal interest.

    I agree...mostly (none / 0) (#51)
    by Deadalus on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 06:42:39 PM EST
    1 -- Yes 2 -- Yes 3 -- He's done this several times, but I don't feel he should chose Senator Clinton as the VP. Everyone here knows the reasons why I think they'd make a bad duo. 4 -- Hasn't he done this as well? This challenge will be the hardest, so it will be interesting to see how he approaches it. I hope that everyone gives him a fair shake in his inevitable efforts to bring the party together. I also hope that Senator Clinton helps. (I believe her statements about pledged delegates not being pledged is indicative that she is more intent on dividing and conquering, for now, but I expect this will stop at some point.)

    Good post (none / 0) (#80)
    by Korha on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:01:33 PM EST
    Two points:

    1. An Obama/Clinton ticket will not work. It just won't. I'm surprised you don't realize this. No positives, all negatives.

    2. Michigan/FL revotes are dead. Obama should just seat the delegates, much easier and simpler. I doubt this will happen.

    Otherwise I agree with your post.

    Republicans feel good about Obama match-up (none / 0) (#101)
    by nellre on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:09:53 PM EST
    Republicans feel good about Obama match-up
    '"What more are you going to tell the American people about Hillary Clinton? But most Americans didn't even know Barack Obama eight months ago, and there is so much more for them to know." '

    The color orange (none / 0) (#128)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:19:49 PM EST
    is irrelevant to this election. It doesn't make sense anymore.  It is the color of insanity.

    Well, if his supporters, ahem, don't (none / 0) (#136)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:25:31 PM EST
    learn some respect for Clinton supporters, he's just gonna be outta luck, along with his supporters and the country. I'd say the sooner that starts, the better  ;)

    the big CHANGE will be a female (none / 0) (#140)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 07:29:51 PM EST
    president. If what we know about Obama is true his (arrogance) he won't extend the olive branch.

    and I stopped going to DK since BarbMD and the rest of the pack kept calling for Hillary to step down, they don't strike me as a fair bunch, as much as they want to seem 'progressive'.

    Hillary is in the true spirit and tradition a Democrat.I don't feel that way with the Obama fans.

    They want this to be some kind of coronation as Hillary mentioned in her speech yesterday.

    I think the people are going to come through for her in big ways because too many people are seeing Obama for the politician that he is and has been thoughout this.

    and what I think has not (5.00 / 0) (#174)
    by nemo52 on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 08:11:46 PM EST
    been fully accepted yet is the depth of the response of the women who have been the backbone of the democratic party for years, often for decades, and whose votes have always been taken for granted.  That strikes me as being a bit stronger than the usual disappointment that "my candidate didn't win."  I have heard too many say they are considering leaving the democratic party altogether, given the behavior of the Obama camp and the media this time around.  And these are women who have always before been "hold your nose and vote for the democrat."

    BTD (none / 0) (#226)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:46:34 PM EST
    good points all. However, I don't see it happening. I think Obama is afraid to seat MI and FL or call for revotes. He's never had to unify before and I don't think he knows how to do it. One of my main complaints is that his campaign thinks that they're still running for a senate seat from the south side of Chicago where winning the dem primary equals winning the election. You don't really have to worry about unifying in that case. So what if large chunks of the party are not going to vote for you? You still win in those situations.

    I just read Meteor's hilarious post. (none / 0) (#284)
    by lorelynn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:43:31 AM EST
    Buck up, dude. It's not all that bad.

    both candidates need to act (none / 0) (#288)
    by onemanrules on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:05:26 AM EST
    Both candidates are going to have to act to pull the party together. Both campaigns have very dedicated voters and hurt feelings are going to need to be mended. As for Obama trying to unify the party, I'm sure he will as judged by his campaign. He would be nowhere if he couldn't unite people. For example going into states 20+ points down and either winning or narrowning the gap to single digits in most cases. As far as Michigan and Florida go, I don't believe he has to do any more than he has already done by his stating he would agree to whatever the DNC deemed fair. It's hard to argue that the states should count as voted due to the fact that ALL candidates signed documents in agreement with the DNC that those states wouldn't count and also that they wouldn't campaign in them. It may be a stupid rule, but everyone agreed at the time and should have spoke up at the time if they were worried about disenfranchising voters, not start crying about it when their campaign falls behind. The only way those two states should count is if there is a complete revote with both candidates having fair opportunity to campaign there. There was huge turnout in the two states, especially Florida, but it is also true that many people didn't vote because they knew it wouldn't count. The tones in both campaigns have seemed to tone down a bit in the last couple weeks and I hope that continues, and that they both do their best to bring this thing together.

    comments now closed (none / 0) (#293)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:22:35 AM EST
    comments closed, thanks.