"No Longer In Doubt?" Then It Is Time For Obama To Unify

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Chris Bowers joins the Obama supporter chorus - the nomination of Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee is a certainty. (I also believe this to be so, but I have a bit more humility than to assume my believing something makes it so.)

But like Meteor Blades and Markos before him, Bowers does not make the logical leap - that since Obama will be the nominee, he must and should start thinking about November and move to unify the Party and to secure his being viewed as the legitimate nominee by the near half of the Democratic Party that supports Hillary Clinton.

As I wrote yesterday, the most important thing Obama must do is accept a valid result, preferably through revotes, in Florida and Michigan. Until I read anything from these "not in doubt" Obama supporters, like Bowers, Kos and MB, urging Obama to act on Florida and Michigan, and to act to unify the Party, it seems to me they are acting as if the contest is actually in doubt.

< Hillary Unveils Breast Cancer Plan | How the MSM Treats Hillary: One Video Shows It All >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Did they (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:30:42 PM EST
    not learn from the last time they tried to get her to drop out?? It always backfires yet they continue to beat the drum.  They are so scared that she will win PA.  Because, she WILL.

    Before tomorrow, if possible (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:43:29 PM EST
    Yes, and they'd especially like her out before tomorrow, when she proves who is more equipped to go toe to toe with Petraeus.

    I simply don't understand (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    the relentless calls for her to drop out. They do it every other week. Drop out, drop out. It doesn't work yet they continue on.  Obama will have a VERY tough time if he is not seen as a legitimate nominee. And bullying HRC into dropping out now will only blow up in their face.  

    Funny because it's all for nil. She will not drop out. That is why I love her.


    Obama's entire primary strategy.. (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    ...was to 1) attract new voters (even if just for "a day" and 2) attack Clinton to deprive her of voter's. There has never been a significant attempt to win over existing Democrats.

    Now that his primary campaign strategy has led to a virtually certain win in the primary, I've been waiting for him to move on to his general election strategy, which, in my mind, has to involve convincing the Dems who voted for Clinton to switch to him. But he seems to be stuck on "attack Clinton" mode. He has not been able to switch gears into "attack McCain" or "promote Obama" mode. In fact, after the last bout of primaries, he accellerated and formalized the "attack Clinton" campaign, saying that is was necessary because she attacked him (by pointing out to the world that he has virtually no freaking experience). He has some plansto "rewrite the electoral map", which means that he will win with new voters, young people, blacks, and disaffected Republicans, but this idea is more of a campaign slogan than a strategy.

    Bullying won't work with McCain. The right wing will not be constrained by the niceties Clinton must observe in campaigning, because they don't care how badly they offend Democrats who won't vote for them anyway. Obama has to come up with a different strategy. But his people are like one-trick ponies. They don't have anything up their sleeves - they worked their magic, Clinton is widely considered to be a lying, greedy, racist who doesn't deserve to be President. So, now that they've unloaded their entire arsenal on Clinton, what do they use on McCain?


    me too (none / 0) (#97)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:35:03 PM EST
    I've been waiting for him to move on to his general election strategy, which, in my mind, has to involve convincing the Dems who voted for Clinton to switch to him. But he seems to be stuck on "attack Clinton" mode.

    But...but...but...but,.. (none / 0) (#67)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:22:23 PM EST
    It won't be fair because Sen. Clinton has seniority, and gets to ask questions before Obama. So that will make her look good...and she will steal all of Obama's questions..even the one he stole from Sen. Warner. IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!

    Total snark, by the way..channeling an average Obama supporter, I guess.


    It occurs to me (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:46:16 PM EST
    that telling Hillary her opponent can't win unless she drops out, is not the way to go about convincing her to do so. ;-)

    They're appealing to her party loyalty... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:01:03 PM EST
    ...which is ironic, since part of the appeal involvs convincing voter's that she has no loyalty to the party but is staying in the race to further her own selfish interests.

    Actually, Bowers is not saying she should drop out (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:49:45 PM EST
    until it is obvious to most of her supporters that she cannot win - after the primaries are over.

    So I have to agree with him on that point.  I think they have realized the damage they did with their earlier calls for her withdrawal.


    Then what is the point of his post? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:51:50 PM EST
    To repeat that he has already said? His prediction is on record. I wonder that he does not focus his thoughts on what the Party needs to win in November if, as he says, Obama has already won the nomination?

    Agree, he's trying to cover his tail (none / 0) (#41)
    by Virginian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:58:26 PM EST
    "I'm not saying she should drop out...she just doesn't have a chance to win, and shouldn't be in the race any longer, but I'm not suggesting she should drop out..."

    Who is the audience? The highly vaunted "high information voters" the left blogs claim to be?


    I was wondering that myself (none / 0) (#59)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:12:18 PM EST
    I think it was just to reiterate yet again that he is sure Obama will win, but he doesn't care if Clinton stays in until the primaries are over if it helps bring "closure".  Obama said something similar the other day - 'she can stay in as long as she likes'.  It seems to me to be the new 'we're gracious winners' strategy.  

    It would be a lot more effective if they were counting FL and MI


    Well you know (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:20:16 PM EST
    us women need closure. We just don't know when to quit and let the man run things.

    Translation (none / 0) (#137)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:17:24 PM EST
    "Lay back and enjoy it."

    Implicit (I think) in your question (none / 0) (#129)
    by Arabiflora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:55:40 PM EST
    is that Obama's decision not to shift to national campaign/GE mode belies an insecurity in the inevitability of his ultimate nomination. Yet if he were to do so, were he to abandon a direct campaign against Clinton in PA, NC, IN, etc., I predict that he (a) would suffer greater defeats/lesser victories in the remaining contests and (b) would be roundly criticized here and elsewhere as having written-off voters in the late-primary states. Both outcomes would slow his campaign's momentum as it emerges from the primary stage.

    Clinton's continued presence in the race, predicated as it is on some hale mary pass (on her part) or colossal blunder (on his), mandates no other course on his part.


    Which of course, essentially means (none / 0) (#143)
    by tree on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 05:14:49 AM EST
    that the race is not over, and there still is plenty of doubt. If Obama is "forced" to attack her to keep her from racking up big wins against him, then he clearly doesn't have it in the bag.

    I propose a petition for Democrats to sign (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:31:36 PM EST
    saying they will not vote for Obama unless FL and MI are counted.
    I do not believe this would exacerbate the problem, because many Democrats have already made this decision. The point is to show Obama that he cannot win without doing the right thing.

    I will sign it (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:41:28 PM EST
    My understanding (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:47:39 PM EST
    Is this can be done online.

    But I always thought it was not considered valid because it's too easy to forge things.

    I'll sign this.


    Tie it to credit/debit cards.. not for money but (none / 0) (#20)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:48:57 PM EST
    for ID.
    I don't know if people would go for that, but it would be an easy way to arrange for verifiable ID.

    I do know (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:52:22 PM EST
    Obama activists are better at this sort of crap than we are.

    They'd have their petition all wrapped up in a bow by now.


    The will be counted... (none / 0) (#61)
    by sar75 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:14:40 PM EST
    ...and the delegates seated, probably according to the actual results (with Obama taking c.40% of Michigan). At least that's my recommendation

    But, let's get real:  This will not happen until he clinches the nomination and Clinton drops out. And while some of you may say that's unfair, the fact is that these states still broke the (however bad) rules, and there's no reason why there peculiar situation should be resolved before the other states have voted.

    So again, I expect that once Obama clinches the nomination and the supers move to him decisively, he'll agree to the results of the Michigan and Florida primaries.


    That doesn't make them count (none / 0) (#86)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:51:17 PM EST
    Surely at that time, I will fall to the feet of the Democratic Party and thank them profusely for allowing a group of people I've never met go to a city I've never visited and party like it's 1999. After all, that is why I vote. Not to elect people. Not to have my voice heard. But to see strangers wear funny hats and hold signs and perhaps, if I'm very lucky, have balloons drop on their heads.

    Seating meaningless delegates doesn't make them count.


    Then we are in trouble (none / 0) (#88)
    by Manuel on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:59:10 PM EST
    because he can't clinch the nomination until the convention and Clinton won't drop out until then (unless we get some surprise in the primaries ahead).

    I wonder if the party could move up the date of the convention.


    Yes, he can (de facto) clinch it... (none / 0) (#93)
    by sar75 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:11:37 PM EST
    ...if supers move toward him in droves after North Carolina, and possibly even Pennsylvania. At that point, Clinton's already fading support will plummet. She'll probably leave at that point. Of course, she can make noise at the convention, but it won't be much more than that.

    Clinton won't concede (none / 0) (#116)
    by Manuel on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    until all the primaries are done.  She owes that to her supporters in the late states.  Even if the supers declare their support for Obama she is not obliged to concede.  As supers can change their mind, (some have this season already) she can stay until the convention.  In fact, I predict that in this scenario Obama will be less likely to deal with FL and MI before the convention as that will reduce the number of super deleagtes Clinton would have to flip.

    Obama's claim to legitimacy rests on a pledged delegate lead flawed by the process and is stained by his refusal to deal with FL and MI in a fair way.


    Ummm..... (none / 0) (#123)
    by sar75 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:57:41 PM EST
    ...he also leads in the popular vote with Michigan and Florida counted (even though he gets none from Michigan).

    I think that, and pledged delegates, and an extremely well-run campaign (much better than Clinton's train wreck, which I think most Clinton supporters would concede) that has generated hundreds millions in donations also give him legitimacy.


    I would concede (none / 0) (#126)
    by Manuel on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:34:34 PM EST
    that his campaign has maximized its assets (media frienliness, personal story, supporters).  From a unity point of view, it has not been that well run (and his supporters have not helped).  Obama's campaign has been run in a divisive manner (racism charges, will say anything, attacks from the right on issues, insistance on Clinton quitting, ...) that is sad to see in a democratic primary.

    A well run campaign and fundraising prowess does not in and of itself confer legitimacy.


    Great idea, MarkL! (none / 0) (#68)
    by sar75 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:26:35 PM EST
    Yes, if Florida and Michigan are not seated, we should all not vote for Obama or vote for John McCain, because that will do so much to promote the policies you and I, despite our differences on who should be the nominee, support.

    Man, this "I won't vote for Hillary" or "I won't vote for Obama" nonsense coming from both sides disgusts me.  I don't know how you could sleep at night helping McCain get elected over a Democrat who is very close to Clinton on policy.

    I'll make a pledge: I will vote "D" in November no matter who's on the ticket.  Why?  Because there's a time for inter-party squabbles and a time for unity, a time to think of the good of the country, a time when your vote will determine actual policies on health care, Iraq, the environment, and the economy.  November is that time, and if you call yourself a progressive and a Democrat, you'll know what to do, no matter how bad a taste this primary season may have left in your mouth.


    x (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:37:35 PM EST
    Do you understand that if I feel that if Obama is not qualified (he's not) or he presents a danger to us than it is my choice and my duty as a responsible citizen to not vote for him?  He may be better than McCain, but really, how much?  We've had almost 8 years of a president who got on-the-job training - we can't afford another one right now. I won't vote for McCain, but any presidential candidate must earn my vote and not take me for granted because I'll "step in line".

    You'll step in line... (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by sar75 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:01:35 PM EST
    ...I'm sure.  Talk big now, but if you're here on this blog, you're probably a progressive and a good Democrat.  You're so committed to Clinton right now (good for you) that you don't realize that Obama is qualified to be president.  But he is, and, unlike Bush, he's also intellectually gifted, curious, and shares progressive values.

    So, I just don't buy it.  You'll step in line.


    OMG (none / 0) (#127)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:00:08 PM EST
    Yes, this is likely to be very effective -- tell her to just step in line. Are you clueless?

    Wow (none / 0) (#132)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:30:12 PM EST
    I think that is the most arrogant, condescending and frankly, vulgar thing you have yet said.....

    You'll step in line I'm sure.  Talk big now, you're probably a progressive and a good Democrat.

    What?  You're pouting, but you'll get over it and be a good little boy or girl.

    you don't realize that Obama is....  

    What?  People are just to low knowledge to have figured it out, but you're going to explain the wonders that are Obama?

    Stunning, just stunning.  I have difficulty believing people when they say they are Democrats.  Statments like that just lead one to believe they are being trolled.


    The bogus 'Unity' plea fails for being on-sided (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:24:37 PM EST
    It's as bad as the One-Party calls based on one side always being expected to be "non-partisan" by doing everything ever that the Republicans -- I mean the One Party unifiers say.

    OR ELSE.

    TeamObama's showing their colors by painting a rosy picture of being BFFs with the right wing whackjobs that hate boring old feminists who won't STFU about neutral human rights, in which we irritatingly expect to share.

    Trying to strongarm my boring old feminist vote by conjuring the specter of an overturned Roe v Wade isn't going to work after Roberts and scAlito.

    If they don't see the inherent error of reducing Roe vs. Wade to a wimmins problem, as if it's in the legal cramps aisle or something, they'll never get it.

    I've already said they have to earn back my vote and I'm listening.

    An apology would be nice. If the Roolz'ing Class is too busy with important Dem business, maybe one of Sen. Casey's activist army of fertilized eggs he guaranteed to deliver or those ever so helpful Dems for a Day can swing by and rock my world.

    I'm listening.

    Overturned Roe vs. Wade? Please. If Obama's pandering to the right wing now, he's not going to challenge them tomorrow -- and good luck pretending it was the fault of feminists.


    Of course, the easiest thing (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:43:39 PM EST
    for him to do would just be to accept all of the delegates as is. It poses some danger, but give him a chance to take the high road.

    It is true that he doesn't want anyone to consider the popular vote from Fl or MI, but if he does not allow these delegates to be seated, or for revotes to be taken, there is a strong chance that many Democrats will not see his nomination as legitimate.

    Of course, if he actually goes on the win PA in a few weeks (I still expect he won't, but money can be magic in politics), this is all moot.

    Obama might not want people to consider (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    the popular vote, but they will.

    That is the crux of the problem. Those millions of voters in MI and FL will not take kindly to his obstructionism.


    neither obama nor his supporters (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:49:06 PM EST
    want to allow the popular vote from those states to be considered. in fact, they seem to be afraid of the results of the popular vote even in new elections, which would be closer than in the original elections. he can still lose the overall popular vote, even by a fairly substantial margin, and that little secret undermines the entire rationale of those screaming for hillary to quit. of course, i posted on that, today...

    Playing w/ the RCP scenario generator (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:51:23 PM EST
    shows that, unless he draws PR close, wins PA, or wins revotes in FL and MI, he WILL lose the popular vote.

    and if turnout is HUGE in puerto rico (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    she can win be a large overall popular margin. a gore margin. the aftermath of which would be fascinating to watch, if obama still won the nomination...

    Yep-- Obama would be the first... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:06:32 PM EST
    ...in the modern political era to win the nomination w/out winning the popular vote.

    Not at all absolutely the case! (none / 0) (#71)
    by sar75 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:31:32 PM EST
    Obama, with Michigan and Florida included, is still 94,000 votes ahead.  With each passing day, Clinton's lead in PA declines.  She'll be lucky if she wins with 7% at the rate she's going.  And then Obama is going to trounce her by 20+ in NC, a state not too much smaller than PA.  In doing so, he will pad his margin further.  He'll take Oregon as well, and even if he loses Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, he'll still almost certainly be up in the popular vote with Michigan/Florida included.

    So, while it's possible Clinton ekes out a slight popular vote win, it's not very likely.


    It's a terrible strategy (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:52:03 PM EST
    and even the RULZ don't support it, since other states moved up their primaries with no penalty.

    There have been many opportunities for.... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:03:09 PM EST
    ..Obama to take the high road and he never does. I used to expect him to because he presents himself as the "high road" candidate, but I don't expect him to anymore.

    i may be wrong (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:45:07 PM EST
    but i think we'll hear more from mb. i disagreed with yesterday's post, but something about it made me curious. mb has mostly stayed out of the horse race muck, so his post yesterday didn't strike me as his definitive statement. again, i may be wrong, but it felt more like an opening to a longer conversation.

    That is his choice (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:50:38 PM EST
    I reacted to what he did write.

    And let me say I have all the respect in the world for Meteor Blades. His choices are not mine, nor should they be.


    i understand (none / 0) (#39)
    by Turkana on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:57:59 PM EST
    just saying that i think you'll hear more from him. the other two, perhaps not.

    He said here (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:46:03 PM EST
    that soon he would cover FL and MI. So you might be right.

    hard to take him seriously (none / 0) (#128)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 06:03:13 PM EST
    when he still supports that vile community

    Yeah, that's helpful (none / 0) (#131)
    by Arabiflora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:21:41 PM EST
    I've taken to lurking (mostly) here of late. I'm firmly in the Obama camp, but I want to know what other people have to say. Reading the posts here have given me that perspective and I appreciate the opportunity.

    That being said, I can't help but shake my head in wonder and disappointment sometimes that DKos in general, and too often Kos himself, can so often be thoroughly vilified in posts to this site. I read both and although my reading on DKos may not be exhaustive, it's my clear impression that the venom expressed in the prior post is not at all reciprocal: posts on DKos surely run in favor to Obama, but largely in a way that highlight his favorables, and only rarely sink to ad hominem attacks on Clinton. Moreover, I can't recall any FP attack on Talk Left or it's contributors.

    Talk Left partisans have ideological allies at DKos and elsewhere, I can only hope that the number of bridges burnt in this overheated primary season can be rebuilt, or not set afire in the first place.


    PS: Please do not serve up in response your top-ten list of outrageous posts. I'm not interested in starting or participating a pi$$ing match.


    Don't worry, I wouldn't bother (none / 0) (#133)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 08:20:19 PM EST
    listing the thousands of outrageous posts you yourself admit occur there and you yourself admit you're not interesting in re-visiting because clearly you yourself are not interested in reality.

    The fact that you can characterize the posts and commentary on DKos as "only rarely sinking to ad hominem attacks on Clinton" is so incredibly reality-free as to make discussing anything with you futile.

    Do I find this surprising? No. DKos and his supporters have disconnected the link to the world of reality long long ago.


    Proof of the pudding... (none / 0) (#138)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:19:52 PM EST
    ... is in all the bloggers that left DK and struck out on their own. A good thing, ultimately.

    yes, a good thing (none / 0) (#144)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 06:52:39 AM EST
    and notably your blog stands out as proof!

    Thanks, Molly, but-- (none / 0) (#147)
    by lambert on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:32:32 AM EST
    Corrente has been around since 2003 for I don't know how many thousands of posts.

    It's just with the Kos purge and the collapse of the A list, with the notable exception of Atrios, people came looking, just like here.


    I think Obama should drop out... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:46:02 PM EST
    ...so that the party can rally around Clinton, who is far more likely to win the general election. It will be a sacrifice, of course, but since it's for the good of the party he should be willing to do it. Staying in the election when polls and analyses indicate he has no hope of winning the general election shows that he is selfish and is trying to destroy the Democratic Party.

    Well, it makes as much sense as the opposite, doesn't it? Clinton has been positioning herself as McCain's opponent for months now, while Obama has been totally dedicated to dividing the Democratic Party in order to win the primary, while assuming that the party will magically unite around him in the general and his fans (both new and old) will sweep him into vicotory and carry him on their shoulders in triumph.

    Not so (none / 0) (#44)
    by Traven on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:01:07 PM EST
    Polls and analyses don't show either HRC or Obama in significantly different positions -- the national polls have each up or down about the same against McCain, Hillary is ahead in some states in which he "loses" but he's ahead in a whole bunch of others in which she "loses."

    But most of the purple states... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:03:57 PM EST
    ...are the ones in which she wins but he loses. Regardless, a very good case can be made that Obama doesn't have a chance in the general election. So why are all of calls directed at getting Clinton to pull out and none toward convincing Obama to pull out? This process really isn't about winning a primary, it's about winning a general election, and Clinton has at least as good a chance at winning the general election as Obama does.

    Their positions ARE siginificantly different (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:04:25 PM EST
    Their electoral maps are different.

    Obama provides more potential reward but also more risk.


    Nonsense... (none / 0) (#77)
    by sar75 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:36:00 PM EST
    ...there are just as many polls that suggest Obama is the better general election candidate. That you can say something which such certainty is amazingly arrogant.

    I support Obama, but wouldn't say that Clinton would lose in the GE. I think she might win, although I think Obama does better.

    As for Obama dropping out, ummmm, he leads in the popular vote and pledged delegates. How utterly ridiculous to suggest that he, who is much more likely to get the nomination, drop out. Is this what Clinton supporters have been reduced to?


    No more ridiculous... (none / 0) (#113)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:45:02 PM EST
    ...than suggesting that Clinton should drop out of the primary even though many states have not voted and she could still win. Do you get the point now? Or are you completely unwilling to see any Clinton supporter as anything but "arrogant" and "ridiculous"?

    Not so much arrogant AND ridiculous (none / 0) (#134)
    by Arabiflora on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 09:30:53 PM EST
    but arrogant OR ridiculous. Given the circumstances, reality favors the latter.

    Not a logical leap (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Virginian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:46:04 PM EST
    it is a logical conclusion...no extra effort (jump/leap) needed to come to the conclusion you brought up yesterday.

    You're spot on though, the "HRC must united the party" is an effort to rebrand the "its over - drop out" push Obama surrogates made last week only to walk it back after it didn't go over so hot with the local journos and voters.

    From 10 feet away, it doesn't seem (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:47:53 PM EST
    any different.

    They probably don't realize that.


    They realize it (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Virginian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:56:18 PM EST
    I am not going to anoint the entire Obama support network as a brain trust (it isn't), but they aren't a bunch of blockheads either...this is the same argument they've been repackaging since Iowa and Super Tuesday...when Obama took the pledge delegate lead, and after Edwards dropped, they turned their sites to calling for HRC to leave the race...same ploy, same approach, different verbiage...

    The 'tell' -- since the poker metaphor came up (none / 0) (#140)
    by Ellie on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:52:43 PM EST
    ... as loud and relentless as the calls for HRC to fold have been, not once has anyone on TeamO put down their FRACKIN cards to show this insurmountable win.

    I call.


    And I want to see the workbook, math and actual names of presumed pro-Obama Dems that make the difference to HRC so insurmountable she really really needs to fold.

    They really really don't want to show the cards?

    I call and raise.


    picked right up on that, (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:52:40 PM EST
    did you?

    ....it seems to me they are acting as if the contest is actually in doubt.

    and they would be right. their calls sound more like a plea for mercy (drop out, before i lose again!), then the reasonable request of one who is masterfully in command. sen. obama is far from being masterfully in command of anything, much less the nomination.

    what i find even more amusing is the assumption, based on, well, nothing much really, that the MSM obama love-fest will continue on into the GE. perhaps not so much by the sen. himself, as by his accolytes and supporters. i submit counseling will be the order of the day, when the reality of the GE hits.

    I suspect they will not need counseling. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:54:39 PM EST
    IACF covers it. (It's All Clinton's Fault)

    True (none / 0) (#118)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:04:31 PM EST
    The campaign never really seems that confident that they're going to win are they? It seems that they fear the voters.

    Not in doubt mean with all votes counted (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    I agree with BTD.  I'd be a lot more convinced that Obama and his supporters were convinced he had won if he would work now to get these votes counted.

    If they are not convinced themselves, they are not going to convince Hillary's supporters. And her supporters are keeping her in the race.

    Don't count on Obama for anything (none / 0) (#63)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:17:08 PM EST
    that involves work. Work isn't his strong suit. And why should he do the work if he can palm it off on Hillary? And then spend all his time blaming her for the fact that the party isn't united, while overlooking the fracturing caused by his supporters. I am so tired of Obama and his mythical accomplishment. Let's see some real ones for a change. Change, that is one of his buzz words, right?

    Closure? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    [On an emotional level, it is far more difficult to accept your favorite candidate withdrawing from the campaign after s/he wins an election than after s/he loses an election. As such, if we want to achieve closure, we cannot expect, or really even ask, for Clinton to drop out of the campaign following a primary state victory.] 'Ugh'

    [there are only three realistic dates for Clinton to drop out]  'Why won't she quit.'

    [Obama to dictate the terms of Michigan and [Florida]  'When they don't matter.' (insert evil grin here)

    [Even if Clinton is able to win the popular vote in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and one of South Dakota and Montana, closure can alternatively be achieved by Obama locking up the nomination in the popular mindset by reaching one of these three milestones.]   'Closure... mindset'

    It will take quite a bit to convince even the majority of Clinton supporters that the nomination campaign is over.]  'Why won't she quit.'

    [even her closest supporters feeling as though all chances are lost.]  'Broken hearted, in a state of despair, they will see that The One is the only pathway to the White House.'

    [Achieving the sort of closure necessary for a healed, unified party for the general election will require Clinton supporters feeling as though they were allowed to fight until there were no more realistic options remaining.]  'Ha! Ha! Ha!]

    Here's my favorite......[the pain will be less with a gradual withdrawal via the patch as Obama slowly builds on his advantage]  'Oh, the angst of it all.'

    [it strikes me as quite possible that the party will be almost instantly unified] 'Another Ha! Ha!.'

    I must be losing it.  I thought it was drivel.  It is not an issue of unifying.  The primary will end. The GE will begin and it'll be as if the primary never existed.  Some never supported Obama, nor will.  Have any of these guys done a piece on how Clinton supporters have been driven away and what they are going to do to get them back?

    Obama should not be on the MI and FL ballot (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Saul on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    if he does not allow Mi and Fl to be players in the nomination process.  I have asked this question several times but have yet to get anyone with authority to answer it.  

    What role does MI and FL have in the general election of who can be on their ballots?  If Mi and Fl are told they cannot play a role in the  primary democratic nomination process then why can't  they tell the DNC the following:  

        Since we played no role in the primary nomination process there will be no democratic nominee on our ballots in the GE.

     Moreover could they also in turn tell the DNC this:  

        The only way a legitimate democratic nominee can be on our ballots is if and only if there is a primary re vote in those states.

    Do they have the legal power to do this?

    Methinks they doth protest too much. (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:38:46 PM EST
    I don't think they actually believe that Obama has won. Full confidence in that outcome would result in more pressure for action in/on FL and MI.

    The problem with FL and MI from a short term tactical perspective (from the Obama perspective) is that keeping them out of the narrative in the short term is critical to keeping Clinton on the ropes (within the narrative). If they get dropped back into the mix it shakes up the narrative enough that it breathes new life into the Clinton campaign.

    It's clear to me that the move currently being made is to keep them out of the narrative in the short term and hope that the "Clinton can't win" narrative become a self fulfilling prophecy (are we already seen this with money? for example).

    PA is a long shot for Obama, and there is a sense in which the poll numbers being so even is actually bad for him in terms of expectations games, but if he DOES win, it's arguable that one of the reasons will be because Clinton looked like she couldn't win and people like to vote for winners.

    And of course the reason that she looks like she can't win is very heavily tied to FL and MI since without them she really can't win unless she has a series of enormous upsets.

    It's cynical stuff but that doesn't mean it won't be successful as a short term tactic. How it plays out long term will be connected to how successful it is in the short term.

    A win in PA, unlikely though it is, could result in a Clinton collapse that makes some of these issues irrelevant.

    "Hillary Should Quit" Meme is Sexist (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    I don't say that lightly and I know that it means a lot to call someone sexist... but, when you have a situation where historically no other candidate in the modern political era has been this close and yet this candidate is being pressured to drop out to such an extreme and ridiculous degree, AND this candidate also happens to be the first woman to be in this position, AND all the previous candidates in this position have had dimmer chances, but been men, AND these men were not scathed to this degree for staying in the race,  it is clearly a double standard and sexist.

    And I would say it was racist if the situation was reversed and Obama was being pressured to drop out. Imagine the uproar if no other candidate in Obama's position or better had dropped out and yet for some reason Obama--the first African American in this position-- was suddenly the first person to be scathed for staying in the race. It would be a clear double standard and clearly racist.

    These absurd calls for Hillary to drop out have been coming since after Super Tuesday. Hillary's top two states not being counted? Who cares-- drop out! Her best states yet to come? Who cares-- drop out! She can still win the popular vote? Who cares-- drop out! These calls-- rooted in sexism-- have always been nothing more than a smear intended to undermine her support with the voters-- and sadly its been very effective.

    I think we often forget that this is an historic election for women in this country as well as African Americans. Will this historic election be remembered as when the first serious female candidate for president was forced out in unprecedented fashion by rabid Obama supporters, before Obama clinched the nomination, or will it be remembered as one candidate fairly winning the nomination and that candidate happening to be a woman or an African American?  

    Very well said. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    I think we often forget that this is an historic election for women in this country as well as African Americans. Will this historic election be remembered as when the first serious female candidate for president was forced out in unprecedented fashion by rabid Obama supporters, before Obama clinched the nomination, or will it be remembered as one candidate fairly winning the nomination and that candidate happening to be a woman or an African American?

    Thank you, especially, for bringing this up. We all need to perceive the primary winner as legitimate, whomever it is.


    No it isn't.... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:06:44 PM EST
    ...and on this site on March 24th you asked "why doesn't obama?" leave the race, called Rev. Wright a "hate monger" and said Obama was "unelectable" and said he should drop out.  

     Was that racist?


    Ever heard of Sarcasm?!? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:25:11 PM EST
    That was in response to someone calling for Hillary to drop out.

    The hate monger... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:52:10 PM EST
    ...comment did not sound like sarcasm to me.

    You're off topic, but... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:25:35 PM EST
    I do believe that promoting and collaborating with Louis Farrakhan, who leads and organization that is defined by the Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League and other groups as a "hate group" and using his pulpit to promote hateful attitudes in a categorical way, is somewhat at least, "hate mongering." I do think that is a bit too strong of language to describe Wright, but as I mentioned before, I was being sarcastic.

    Excellent. (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:33:59 PM EST

    Eh... (none / 0) (#9)
    by rolfyboy6 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    Clinton's hopes rest on a very tight scenario with very high results.  The remaining primaries will probably decide the contest.

    This is off topic (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:48:44 PM EST
    imo. Please comment on the subject of the post. Future off topic comments will be deleted.

    What's to unify until this is done? (none / 0) (#47)
    by rolfyboy6 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:01:53 PM EST
    This is no doubt an interesting rhetorical question, but it's meant as a "response" to the calls for her to quit.  I've read them, I've read this.  There's no unifying to be done at the present time in the face of all the psychologically hardened positions until after this is finished and people go through their mending processes.  The two candidates are fighting it out for votes right now and will be for the next several weeks, so calls for what one candidate can use to "unify" the Party are a bit disingenuous and probably serve only as a place for petulant responses.

    I disagree (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:05:54 PM EST
    with your implicit point that nothing that happens now will have an effect on the ability to unify later.

    I think in particular what has been done and will be done about MI/FL will be critical to unifying the Party.


    offtopic, but thankyou Big Tent Democrat for this (none / 0) (#100)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:43:49 PM EST
    well...big tent here for me and so many disaffected fellow kossack refugees I see here. You have saved my sanity during this primary.

    If only my eyes didn't autoscan everytime on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:05:54 PM EST everytime I read each post...the design at dailykos is much more easy to skim fast through posts without reading anything irrelevant like that. (Mindless, deafening and as depressing as straying into a videogame arcade...that's another matter...)

    So, thank you.


    Clinton's senario (none / 0) (#31)
    by Virginian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:52:29 PM EST
    rest in keeping the status quo (as to current polls) moving forward, and winning the automatic delegates...

    the argument you're making is one that assumes the winner of the pledged delegates is the winner of the nomination, and in order for HRC to win she must win the remaining primaries by large margins...not so...


    A point of privilege here (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:47:33 PM EST
    Yesterday in my post regarding a post by Meteor blades, a number of comment attacked him personally including calling him dishonest.

    Let me say this, not only were such attacks against the rules of THIS SITE, I was personally offended by them and found myself thoroughly disgusted by the commenters who did so. If an when I see those commenters comment here I will make a point of telling them this personally.

    Those commenters were as bad as any I have seen and unworthy to comment at this site. It pains me that some of the are TL regulars who I thought better of. No longer.

    Do not reply to this comment please.

    Good article in Salon about this (none / 0) (#22)
    by Paladin on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    Here's a pretty good article in today's Salon that speaks to a lot of these points, particularly as they relate to MI/FL.  I was pleased to see this perspective coming from a site that tends to be anti-Hillary, although not quite as hateful as the blogs.

    Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:49:33 PM EST
    Yes, here's the link (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Paladin on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:52:05 PM EST
    Unfortunately, I couldn't get the hyperlink button to work properly, so here it is in text format:



    Oh (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:53:39 PM EST
    The Sean Wilentz piece. I did not think much of it myself. And I have great respect for Wilentz, but found the piece pedantic.

    Please amplify (none / 0) (#78)
    by Manuel on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:37:52 PM EST
    I found the following Wilentz points valid.  Mind you, these are points that have been made here and elsewhere over and over but which Obama supporters refuse to engage.
    • This is a very close race.

    • Other candidates in worse position than Hillary have pushed on to the convention including Obama supporters Kennedy and Bradley.

    • Pledged delegates are a poor measure of "the will of the people".

    • Superdelegates can consider other measures of popular will as well as other arguments.

    If Obama wants to unite the party one thing he can do is to ensure that all Hillary supporters in the remaining states including FL and MI get a chance to express theisr preference.

    Hmm ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by cymro on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:05:31 PM EST
    I have great respect for Wilentz, but found the piece pedantic.

    ... I sometimes feel exactly the same way about your posts, BTD. But I found the Wilentz article a refreshing change from the more common variations on this theme, namely "Why Obama is Winning," "Why Clinton is Losing," and "Why Clinton should Quit".


    I think this was very (none / 0) (#73)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:32:09 PM EST
    interesting. Thank you for posting it. To me, it is one of the best things I have seen so far that demonstrates Obama's current "legitimacy" problem.  It makes me rethink whether I can support him or not in the GE. I have gone back and forth, and probably will several more times before this is over.  But Obama has hurt himself badly by not letting MI and FL count. This article also makes me realize the Howard Dean and Donna Brazile should both be exiled!

    You've got it backwards (none / 0) (#34)
    by Traven on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:53:59 PM EST
    The winner -- whether Obama or Clinton -- will OF COURSE try to unify the party by saying all the right things.  They always do.  Ford invited Reagan onto the convention stage in '76, Carter did the same with Ted Kennedy in '80.  JFK chose Johnson, reagan chose Bush, etc.  It will be up to the loser -- Obama or Clinton -- to make his/her followers see the importance of going forward to elect the Democrat, whoever he/she is.  The winner will have to try to address the concerns of the loser's constituents, but the loser will be the one who really has influence over them.  Both Clinton and Obama are pros -- they will do what's necessary.  Whether it works or not is another matter.  But this race is nothing compared to the nastiness of '68 and in the end, most Democrats came home because they didn't want Nixon to win.  Most Democrats will come home because they want the war to end, the packing of the Court with right-wingers to end, and so on more than they will want to wreak revenge on the winner.

    If Obama believes that (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:55:00 PM EST
    Then we will certainly lose in November. One hopes he has more sense than that.

    Oh (none / 0) (#55)
    by Traven on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    I failed to read all your original post and now see you are once again on a tear for re-votes in FL and MI.  Since I didn't read this blog back in December, were you just as outraged back then about FLA and MI getting screwed?  I would applaud your prescience in that case.

    I was (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:08:57 PM EST
    And of course, you NEVER cared, not even about Obama's chances of winning in November apparently.

    Snide begets snide.


    Snide? (none / 0) (#130)
    by Traven on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 07:07:33 PM EST
    Snide?  I thought I was paying you a compliment.  Frankly I didn't pay any attention to MI and FLA until Hillary started talking about it around the time she was losing SC.

    Flip it around (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    The nominee becomes the acknowledged leader of the party.  If he can't lead in uniting his own party, he should not be the nominee.  For one thing, it is very dangerous to expect someone else to pick up that ball and run with it.  You have to do it yourself.

    The loser needs to unify? (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by Emma on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:03:13 PM EST
    I'm a Clinton supporter.  I've heard her calls to unity, no matter who the candidate is, and I applaud her for making them.  But, if Clinton loses the nomination, it won't matter to me what she says about unity.  It will matter to me what Obama says and does.

    The winner has the burden of creating unity.  That's what winners are supposed to be able to do.  I don't think the loser should impede unity or victory.  But it's on the winner to make good on their own campaign promises. And Obama's biggest, most hyped, most talked about campaign promise is UNITY.

    If he think his ability to bring unity is compromised b/c Clinton isn't all sweetness and light all the time, I'll hate to see the state of the unity promise after the Republicans get done with him.

    If he can't unify the Dems for the GE then he can't unify the country, and his central campaign promise is a sham.


    Agreed. I like Hillary Clinton.... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:12:07 PM EST
    ...I support her candidacy. But she is not my "dear leader" whose wish is my command. Barack Obama himself needs to convince me to vote for him.

    He has convinced me not to vote for him! (none / 0) (#122)
    by alexei on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:41:54 PM EST
    Obamacans, etc. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Traven on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 12:58:23 PM EST
    What Obama meant was the independents and Republicans who will vote for him but not Hillary.  That's an objective statement, and no different from Hillary saying because she won the Ohio primary she'll win it in the general but Obama won't -- in other words, that her supporters won't support Obama.  

    So, by your logic, you can not now support either candidate!

    Actually, (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:27:27 PM EST
    you missed the point.

    The point is that Democrats are not as likely to support him as they once were because of the way he has run his campaign.

    So, he should not take Hillary's voters for granted.

    As for Independents and Republicans, what they do in the primaries and what they do in the GE are two completely different things. He can't count on their votes either, especially since many of them were strategic switchers.


    madamab, please explain why you rated (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by independent voter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:27:09 PM EST
    my comment a "1". Is no one allowed to question the statements you make that you offer NOTHING to back up? You do this continually, pronouncements that are nothing more than your opinion, and then go on the attack when asked to substantiate your claims. A rating from you of any number is meaningless.

    I did it because you attacked me personally. (none / 0) (#98)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:43:14 PM EST
    last week, and now your attitude is still combative and insulting.

    I don't want to be OT and hijack the thread, so I will say no more.


    Expecting you to substantiate a statement (none / 0) (#111)
    by independent voter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:39:18 PM EST
    with evidence is not a personal attack.
    And harboring a grudge, and acting on it for some perceived insult days or weeks ago certainly is misuse of the rating system.

    voted for Obama were strategic switchers.

    That will play out in (none / 0) (#92)
    by nemo52 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:10:39 PM EST
    the General.  I personally don't bet on it happening if it is Obama/McCain.

    Actually Clinton supporters more dangerous (none / 0) (#103)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:04:58 PM EST
    b/c they are more likely to vote for McCain, while the Obama supporters are more likely to simply stay home.  

    If I was MeteorBlades, Kos or Bowers (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:03:33 PM EST
    And someone had written that I couldn't make a logical leap that was not only for the good of the party but also for the good of my preferred candidate, I'd be a little put out.

    Possibly I'd feel personally attacked.  Maybe a little.

    Good thing I'm not those bloggers.  I take things far too personally.

    I think he can unify the base (none / 0) (#51)
    by Virginian on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:03:47 PM EST
    He's run a reverse nomination contest

    Normally, candidates play to the base during the primary, then move center during the GE.

    Obama is doing the reverse, he is appealing to the center during the primary, and his GE approach is yet to be seen. What they have decided to assume is, like Bush in 2000 and 2004, that the base will vote for you no matter how play the primary; so instead of playing to the base, spend resources playing to the middle and setting up for the GE. They took it a step further of course, and tried to also bring "outside the party" voters into the primary to aid their chances of getting to the GE.

    It de-legitimizes his DEMOCRATIC support for the nomination a bit, but, that isn't to say that HRC, or Edwards or anyone else could not have done the same...

    Bob Barr (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:08:38 PM EST
    could put Obama over the top.

    A Question: (none / 0) (#60)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:14:32 PM EST
    Would Senator Clinton's supporters even care about Senator Obama's constituents?

     From what I see in the media, in the blogs and on this site, the answer to that is a resounding no.  We've been told that we are part of a cult of personality and have been drinking poisoned kool aid.  We've been told that caucuses don't matter, that primaries Obama wins don't matter, etc.    

     I would be happy to accept a revote in MI.  I would be happy to have FL punished the way the GOP punished it.  Fine by me.  But I don't believe Senator Clinton's supporters really want revotes, they want the delegations seated as is.  

     You know, Senator Obama won plenty of delegates in the "big states" that Senator Clinton's supporters keep talking about.  I should know, I live in one of them (CA), and I used to live in MI.  As it turns out, there may be a cult of personality in this primary.  It just happens to be the Clinton brand.

    This is not about supporters (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:17:24 PM EST
    At least for me - it is about winning in November and what the  candidate should do.

    Don't put words (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by stillife on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:17:42 PM EST
    in Clinton supporters' mouths.  I'm a Clinton supporter and I support a revote.  Your candidate? Um, not so much.  The Obama campaign has consistently opposed a democratic solution to MI and FL (either revotes or seating the delegates).  

    Then don't put words... (1.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:33:55 PM EST
    ...in Senator Obama's mouth.  He never opposed a revote.  I know, off the top of my head, five people in Michigan who voted in the GOP primary because they knew their votes were not going to count in the Democratic primary.  Yet conveniently a plan favored by the Clinton campaign would prevent those people from participating in the revote.  Yet this is supposed to be irrelevant either because their votes "count" in the sense that the only real election was the GOP election or because mysterious unnamed Obama "allies" encouraged voters to vote uncommitted.



    Oh yes he did (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:38:37 PM EST
    He blocked the revote in Michigan.

    This is a matter of record.


    No... (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:45:41 PM EST
    ...it is a matter of public record to Senator Clinton's supporters.  Your bias for her bleeds all over your posts.  The Bauer memo, your offer of "proof," is indicative of nothing.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:53:01 PM EST
    The Bauer memo is the irrefutable evidence.

    But those who want to delude themselves, will.


    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:18:26 PM EST
    ...does opposition to a caucus mean that one has killed a revote?

     Or do caucuses only count before Iowa votes?


    The state wanted a primary (1.00 / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM EST
    Obama blocked it. Live with it.

    I feel for you, but what do I know? (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 10:57:16 PM EST
    I mean, I'm a racist, old, and an Archie Bunker type.

    And I, personally, have never made the argument that caucuses "don't count." I have made the argument that caucuses, since they disproportionately exclude the sick, the elderly, those who have to work, the poor, those with child care issues, and those without cars, are intrinsically undemocratic and should be abolished, or, to put this another way, that the secret ballot was invented for good reason. Naturally, the automatic delegates should take these factors into account when making their decision, but that doesn't mean they don't count. In fact, I applaud the Obama campaign for its tactical acumen in focusing on them.

    And this Clinton supporter absolutely wants revotes.


    Well at least the Clinton Brand (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:29:49 PM EST
    Has a record of some accomplishment.

    I guess I'm a little cultish about the 90s.  But I know it wasn't a great time for everyone.


    Is Senator Clinton... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Alec82 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:35:27 PM EST
    ...her own candidate, or do we just get to take the good stuff about the 90s, associate it with her, and ignore every bad thing that came out of the Clinton white house?



    Taking everything into account (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:47:28 PM EST
    I think the good far outweighs the bad.

    I for one have never been shy about saying there were some huge mistakes.  Failing to intervene in Rwanda might top that list.

    In the end, I think this speaks for itself:


    Just as far as branding is concerned.


    if Obama (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by americanincanada on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:10:37 PM EST
    wants to hit her on NAFTA or anything else that happened while she was in the whitehouse as first lady then he needs to also give her criedt for all the good.

    I also am for revotes in Mi and Florida and I am a florida voter. I also woud be ok if the DNC has stripped half the delegates. The popular vote would still have counted in it's entirety, as did the Republican popular vote.


    An Answer (none / 0) (#125)
    by Richjo on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 05:13:05 PM EST
    We've been told that we are part of a cult of personality and have been drinking poisoned kool aid.  We've been told that caucuses don't matter, that primaries Obama wins don't matter, etc.
    If you don't like being called a cult of personality then maybe you should stop villifying everyone who disagrees with your candidate. (Paul Krugman for example. Tavis Smiley who apparently got death threats for criticizing Obama for skipping the Black State of the Union. I am sure there are many others.) Better yet, why not simply respond by pointing to your candidate's substanial record of accomplishments that has caused you to support him. I guess you can't do that, can you?
    Furthermore, no one has ever said that caucuses don't matter, but why is it not valid to point out that the weight placed upon them should not be equal to the weight placed upon contests that are far more accessible to all people and which allow more people the opportunity to participate. Defending the caucus system is tantamount to saying the voice of those who can't get out of working, taking care of their kids, or who are out the country, possibly serving to defend this nation in our military don't matter because they can't participate. The fact that you would defend the merits of such a system because it favors your candidate is disturbing to say the least. Even worse than that it is Obama and his supporters who have basically decided that Michigan and Florida don't count. Not at all. Not even a little bit. Obama would not agree to revotes. Clinton did. How you can accuse Clinton and her supporters of opposing revotes is rich considering that. They may prefer the results count as is, but that still puts them ahead of Obama and his camp or prefer that Florida and Michigan not count at all. While you at it, can you explain why the fact that Obama has lost all the big important states (other than his home state) that a Democrat has to win to win the general election doesn't matter? Obama has run a divisive campaign built on tearing down the frnt runner and been allowed to do it by the media and their bias coverage and double standards. He has misled the public about everything from his relationships with Rezko and Wright, his past political positions, his ties to big oil and lobbyists. I have no doubt that once the Republicans get into gear they will make him look like a saint and I will wind up voting for him. But your defenses of him as being anything other than a power hungry politican and political opportunist are only serving to make that conversion harder for many people. If you spent half as much time criticizing the Republicans as you did try to defend Obama I am sure we would be much closer to unifying.

    Obama has no chance of winning PA (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:16:26 PM EST

    Unless the demographics are fundamentally altered, I think the polls that think it is close are simply wrong.

    For example, an ARG, which stinks, poll, says white voters in PA will split 52-36. that would be Obama's best performance among white voters since Wisconsin.

    What That Means, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by BDB on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:33:37 PM EST
    Is that, absent revotes, Obama will have failed to win a single big state primary (I'm defining big as 20 EVs or larger).  That's the weakness the Obama supporters are afraid of.  He is not nearly as strong a candidate as they need everyone to believe he is.  

    Let me ask you, BTD, if Clinton is ahead in the popular vote* after all the contests, do you think she should be the nominee?  Can Obama be a legitimate nominee, if with all his advantages, he cannot win the popular vote?

    * I know there are a lot of ways to calculate the popular vote.  My own belief is that it should be the broadest popular count - meaning every state, including caucus estimates, and where there was a primary, using the primary vote.  If there are no re-votes in Michigan and Florida, I'd use the original votes, but give the uncommitted to Obama because whatever else those voters were, I think it's safe to say they weren't Clinton voters.


    I have argued for the popular vote (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:39:26 PM EST
    as the standard many times.

    Do you believe that the 4 Caucus states (none / 0) (#90)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:07:46 PM EST
    that have to be gestimated should be included int the popular vote total? Or do you believe that they are inadmissable due to the dificulty of calculating them?

    I'd Pressure State Parties to Release the Data (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by BDB on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:43:33 PM EST
    If they don't, then I'd take the best estimate I could.

    Personally, I'm all in favor of counting every vote.  I know, crazy talk.


    Yes (none / 0) (#102)
    by BDB on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 02:55:05 PM EST
    But, as I recall, you have also indicated Hillary should concede after May 6th (I apologize if I'm misremembering), which is before we will know who the popular vote winner is and is right before what should be two of Hillary's best states (WVA and KY) and a state where she should have a chance (OR).  Why would she - or should she - concede after May 6th, if she didn't concede before Texas and Ohio?  Unless Obama wins somewhere he isn't supposed to, like Pennsylvania, it is unlikely we'll know the popular vote winner before the end of voting, especially since PR could provide a lot of votes.

    I doubt he'll win PA too... (none / 0) (#79)
    by sar75 on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 01:38:21 PM EST
    ...but if he comes within 8 or 7, or even under 5, it will be considered a win, and might even be enough to get large numbers of superdelegates off the fence, especially after he trounces Clinton in North Carolina by as many as 20 points.

    How about the opposite? (none / 0) (#115)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    You think Obama does well if he comes within 5 (a 5 pt gain on Clinton)in PA and it has been expected he will beat Clinton by 20 in NC.  Where does she need to be to have a 'win' in NC?  Does she need a 5 pt gain to show Obama's support is slipping?  If she cuts the difference by 10, that would mean his support in the white vote (I have the AA vote as 35% of the total) has gone from an expected 47 to 38%.

    The premise of this subject a straw man (none / 0) (#110)
    by itsover on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:27:39 PM EST
    There's no evidence that Obama cannot or will not strive to unify the party.  As for MI and FL, it's fairly well determined that they will ultimately be seated in some compromise that serves both representation and punishment for breaking the rules.  

    Any liberal that says he or she will not vote for Obama in the GE needs a break from politics.

    OK, so if its a "compromise" ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:42:23 PM EST
    ...that serves both "representation and punishment," then will Obama and Clinton share equally from not having Florida and Michigan counted. For example, can we take an equal amount from Obama as we did from Clinton?

    Yes (none / 0) (#117)
    by itsover on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 03:58:28 PM EST
    That's what compromise entails.  In my opinion, they should take Florida as is, but split Michigan 50/50.  But there are other workable ways, if one is willing.

    There's a news item today that nobody here has mentioned - which suggests Clinton does not want to compromise because she wants to keep the controversy alive until the convention.  Interesting possibility.


    Ready to attack (none / 0) (#119)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 04:11:14 PM EST
    I find it interesting that on your first day at a new site you have chosen to post on an item about unity und jump in with the name 'itsover.'

    FYI, the problem being discussed is that many are going to take follow your recommendation and take a break from politics and stay home in November.


    I won't stay home, of course (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 07, 2008 at 11:04:06 PM EST
    My current resolution is this.

    My issues are:

    1. Universal Health Care (Obama doesn't have it)

    2. Social Security (Obama dogwhistled on it)

    3. I will not reward the vile misogyny of so many of Obama's supporters -- or smearing the Clintons as racists. Neither of these are politics as usual; they are both attempts to drive opponents from public life altogether -- just as the Republicans did with impeachment.

    Further, I think that going forward, Iraq is a wash.

    Now, Obama's base, being disproportionately youthful, isn't going to push my issues, since they don't -- yet -- need those programs. So, he hasn't asked for my vote so far, and he's not going to in the general, because he'll figure I have no place to go.


    1. Vote for Obama.

    2. Work for UHC and SS.

    3. Money to good, not Blue Dog, Democrats who support UHC and SS.

    4. No money to Obama.

    5. No money to Dean.

    6. No money to the party.

    That's where I am now.

    Yes (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Publicus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:21:04 AM EST
    There won't be unity until Clinton admits defeat and stops causing conflict.

    Another straw man (none / 0) (#142)
    by Publicus on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 02:22:51 AM EST
    (FYI, the problem being discussed is that many are going to take follow your recommendation and take a break from politics and stay home in November.)

    can't get over no MI/FL votes... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Truth Partisan on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 07:37:35 AM EST
    Good place to be, Lambert, and I respect your work.

    Thanks BTD for being great and clear-sighted!

    I find myself wanting to be a "good" Democrat but I really feel that I CANNOT vote for candidates who repress the vote. I CANNOT vote for Obama with the clear vote repressing behavior he is showing right now.

    Is one of the GOP ideas he admires not counting votes?

    I am NOT one of those voters looking for a reason NOT to vote to Obama--I can't stand him in many ways but he's not as conservative as McCain. I'm not naive enough to think that the whole vote thing is simple--but the idea that a DEMOCRAT would publicly try to take votes away from people is SO wrong and bad for the party.

    And yes, Clinton will throw my vote if she does anything like this too.

    Obama fans keep talking about smart he is, but where's the brightness in turning off two states we need? That FL is one of them adds more pain. Surely he can come up with a good solution if he tried? (I am NOT snarking here at all. I am urging.)

    Would LOVE to see Obama step up and go for the votes or revotes AND lead the party in a good way FOR the party. Bonus points: stop the sexism.

    The "smartness" thing is the Boiz again (none / 0) (#146)
    by lambert on Tue Apr 08, 2008 at 08:28:38 AM EST
    See, they're smart.

    They're smart enough to run the Democratic Party.

    The fact that they got there by suppressing the voters of two states is living proof of that.