Obama Camp Not Interested In Unity

First it was Ted Kennedy. Now we hear it is Michelle Obama:

Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama. The Democratic front-runner's wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party's nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility.

If this type of petty nonsense is holding sway in the Obama camp, Obama will lose in November. It is one thing to hear this ridiculous nonsense from absurd and unimportant bloggers. It is another thing to hear it from the Obama camp. I hope someone with more maturity reins in this juvenile, divisive and destructive behavior from the Obama camp. I am heartily disgusted. They seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed

< Obama's Horace Greeley Electability Argument: Go West | W.Va: It Counts, Deal With It >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Didn't Michelle.... (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:02:43 PM EST
    shout down his advisor's ahead of the Texas debate?  And then he went on to get his clock cleaned by Hillary.

    He should have learned a lesson there.

    Yup. (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:03:07 PM EST
    Sorry, BTD. Obama's not going to change. The Unity Ticket will not happen unless HRC is at the top, and even then, I don't see it, given this new information.

    If Obama is the nominee, we are lost in November. I see no way to prevent this disaster from happening. :-(

    Obama's new DNC Nomination Rule may help (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:12:37 PM EST
    With respect to some way to prevent this disaster from happening, Obama may have helped prevent it.  I can't believe he's planning to proclaim himself on May 20.

     See this column today by Marc Rubin, on his Tom on Paine site.  It's about the May 20th Obama Rule that was apparently just added to the DNC rules and supercedes them too.

      There's a rash of stories about most of the delegates telling reporters they want to wait to see who is most likely to win the election.  


    Oops, most of the UNDECIDED delegates ... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andrys on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:17:12 PM EST
    re my note above

    btd, i very much respect your opinion (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:05:47 PM EST
    and also your writing. you were one of my favorites over at dkos and helped so much during the campaign in 2004. i also enjoy the timeliness of talk left. ya'll get onto things and have commentary out far ahead of some other blogs i visit.

    having said that i can understand to a point your support for obama. if he truly was what he represented, then we would be very fortunate. to be honest i had this very concern months ago. the red flags have been flying for a long time. michelle? geez! such a nasty attitude! and personally i think it reflects obama's as well. she just acts it out for them.

    welcome to the world of the disillusioned.

    Unfulfilled potential (5.00 / 8) (#120)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:20:52 PM EST
    having said that i can understand to a point your support for obama. if he truly was what he represented, then we would be very fortunate. to be honest i had this very concern months ago.
    I am ashamed to admit it at this point, but I donated to the Obama campaign early on.  It was after Edwards had dropped out, and he (Edwards) had called Hillary an agent of the 'status quo' (debatable) and Obama as an 'agent of change.'  I think this was a big mistake by John Edwards because he (apparently) bought into the Obama PR campaign without taking a closer look.  Having been impressed by Edwards' focus on economic justice issues in the past 4-5 years his remarks at the time seemed credible.  How I wish I could have that $25 back now and have given it to Hillary instead.  

    The promise and potential that Edwards saw was, at the very least, overstated -- if not a cruel joke.  The Obama campaign thus far has survived by 1.) Glowing press coverage and excessive focus on bogus Clinton 'mistakes,' 2.) Pure misogynistic anti-Clinton(s) vitriol from the press as well as the Obama campaign surrogates and supporters, 3.) Electoral factors peculiar to the Democratic campaign which will be obsolete in the GE, 4.) Restraint and grace on the part of Hillary's campaign in response to the numerous daily character assassinations and smears.  And in all this there has been much attention paid to daily campaign gossip and little to the real differences on issues between these 2 candidates.

    Once the Obama campaign's straw woman is teed up and knocked down, a good deal of the Clinton haters will go home to the GOP.  Relying on positive press, moaning about 'old politics' and trying to win over voters using threats, accusations of racism, and insults about John McCain's age, will get them nowhere as the GOP propagates videos pairing Obama up with Bill Ayers.  To Tim Russert, it will be "fair game."  It will fit the narrative.  And then Obama will give a speech about real patriotism, and his supporters will accuse everyone who doesn't see Obama's greatness as unpatriotic.  And somehow, the Clintons will be blamed.  I hear Obama supporters saying that the GOP doesn't have enough money to run that ad in the general election, forgetting the fact that they don't have to, because the Village will do it for them.


    If Obama get the nomination this caveat (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Saul on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:06:59 PM EST
    My gut feeling lately is that Obama will not offer the VP to Hilary and this will be the biggest error Obama could  make.   That alone will wind the fires of more dissent to the Hilary supporters who would already be extremely  angry because she is not the nominee.  

    Many of the pundits to include Hilary say they will be united for the GE if Obama is the nominee regardless of what Obama does or chooses as VP.  I honestly feel that this year is very different than any past nomination.  The divisions are so great and so entrenched that that division will continue very strongly in the GE and the party will not unite.  

    I think Obama got the majority of the AA for only one reason and that is  because he is AA and not because of any hope or change that Obama preached in his campaign.   Not that J Jackson or Sharpton did not get a good deal of the  AA but compared to  Obama he got almost 100 percent. The main reason for this was that the AA saw that Obama was the strongest AA candidate ever since AA starting running for the presidency. The desire on the AA voters  to not let this one go down the drain is extremely high and the word was out to vote for this AA if you ever one to see an AA as president.

    It is because of this very strong division that will not go away in the GE that makes me say   that  Obama could very well loose the GE because of this division.

    Obama's judgment is at issue, again. (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by MarkL on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:08:25 PM EST
    So many questionable judgments, and one good speech.

    I give him three good speeches now, (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by oculus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:30:24 PM EST
    although the one in Federal Plaza is a re-do.

    Ted Strickland (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:15:47 PM EST
    The article did say that Ted Strickland, Governor of Ohio and a staunch Hillary supporter, is getting serious consideration for VP. He may be able to deliver Ohio which could win the election for Obama I think.

    I doubt Strickland could help Obama pull in Hillary voters in other states, that will fall to Hillary and Bill. But with Michelle going around saying she wants to claw their eyes out, I don't blame them if they go back to NY and just give token support.


    I hope this doesn't pan out (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Munibond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:30:37 PM EST
    Ohio needs Strickland to continue as governor.  While he has been careful to cultivate the NRA, he is a true FDR populist, which would get him nowhere in an Obama administration.

    Clinton does have a job (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:01:09 PM EST
    She is going to have to go back to the Senate and work for her state.  The other candidates haven't been out campaigning for Obama nor do I expect them to.  

    If Obama refuses to have Clinton on the ticket because she is old politics and the Clinton era was bad for the country, he would refuse to have them campaign for him.


    Obama has painted himself (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Benjamin3 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:40:57 PM EST
    into a corner by frequently trashing Bill Clinton's legacy.  On the economy, being able to reference the expansion and jobs creation of the Clinton years would have helped him in a GE - but Obama is on record as saying that our current economic problems actually "began" during the Clinton Administration.  Even if not on the ticket, I could see HRC actively campaigning for him - but I don't think he would get that much help from Bill.

    if obama was what he seemed to be in (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:17:31 PM EST
    2004, i could well understand the aa community wanting to get behind him. but frankly at least part of this support and lack thereof for hillary has to do with race baiting. obama and axelrod had used this in a way i haven't seen in politics since southern politicans used it in the other direction. that was and should be condemned and so should what they did.

    i have asked a number of times on blogs just what has obama actually done for the aa community and so far i don't have an answer. based on that why should anyone support him. he has a paper thin resume. he has some real baggage with his past associations. i don't think the so called party elders are so in love with the obama concept as they are with derailing the clintons. partisan, ugly, and totally useless to the american people.


    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:19:59 PM EST
    floating he would consider Hillary on the ticket is pandering.

    Of course he wouldn't.


    yup i remember jackson's rainbow (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:30:26 PM EST
    campaign with fond memories compared to this ongoing nightmare.

    Me too. (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    I remember lots of working class whites really liked him because of his stance on issues. He even won MI in the primary.

    If Jackson ran against Hillary (1.14 / 7) (#85)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:00:55 PM EST
    and beat her you'd be harder on him than you are on Obama. Of course you don't mind a token black candidate with no chance of winning.

    By the way, it's this kind of statment that got Bill in trouble in SC.


    Accusing (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    people of racism again I see?

    Fact of the matter is that Obama will lose the general election but being black is the least of his worries. He has a lot worse problems than the color of his skin. However, since he has deemed that if it's him vs. McCain it's going to be black vs. white and that everyone who doesn't vote for him is a racist then he better be prepared for a shellacking that hasn't been seen in a presidential race in 20 years.


    What the hell are you talking about? (1.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:11:45 PM EST
    I don't think you're responding to my post. If you want to make a ridiculous statement don't do so under my comment.

    Sorry Seth (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by blogtopus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:19:14 PM EST
    You got caught with your race bait hanging out. Tuck it back in and rejoin the reasonable discourse.

    Being accussed of racism, race-baiting or reverse (1.00 / 5) (#190)
    by Seth90212 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:58:11 PM EST
    racism on this blog is a joke. You people have earned quite a reputation here. Submit some of these threads to independent, impartial analysis and they reek of the stuff you are falsely accusing me of doing. All because your preferred candidate is losing. Much of the mentality here (and the racism often demonstrated) offers a dramatic demonstration as to why a lot of righteous black intellectuals prefer conservatism and republicanism. There may actually be more respect and less racial animus in that camp than there is in the so-called liberal or progressive camp. Increasingly, I think AA's are discovering that conservatives may be more colorblind.

    Methinks (none / 0) (#130)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:25:24 PM EST
    you know exactly what he's talking about. Very transparent.

    please explain that comment. (none / 0) (#155)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:37:54 PM EST
    I was replying to seth. (none / 0) (#163)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:43:29 PM EST
    Sorry about the mix-up. ;-)

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Jane in CA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    >I honestly feel that this year is very different than any past nomination.  The divisions are so great and so entrenched that that division will continue very strongly in the GE and the party will not unite.<

    Interestingly, Paul Krugman's column today deals with this very subject -- and he agrees with you. I was surprised that Krugman actually calls out the Obama campaign staff/supporters and the party leadership as well -- Krugman usually does not go there. He has become the only MSM columnist I read anymore, and the more I read him, the more I respect his intellect and his innate sense of decency.


    Hmmm... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:07:56 PM EST
    I'm not sure about how persuasive I find unsourced rumors -- backed up by circumstantial evidence of Michelle's "sniping" at Clinton -- as reported by Robert "Prince of Darkness" Novak. I'm surprised you've posted this given your viewpoint of people who drag such things out from right-wing sources. I'm further surprised that you use such a source to jump off on a discussion of the Obama camp's "juvenile, divisive and destructive behavior." It seems like a departure from your normal SOP.

    Lol.. what Michele O has said publicly (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by MarkL on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    is nasty enough. There's no reason to doubt the accuracy of this report.

    This isn't sniping? (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:18:42 PM EST
    She said she wanted to claw Bill Clinton's eyes out and that was for making a statement that she knew damn well he never made. So the attitude was there, she just made up a bogus reason to try to justify it.

    Frankly (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:29:42 PM EST
    It's what I think is going on.

    I do not believe Novak is making it up. Do you?


    no i don't. novak is not someone i (none / 0) (#46)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:31:40 PM EST
    admire. but he also has good sources and in recent months some of his columns have had some real "meat" in them.

    Hoodwinked AA Voters Need To Pay (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:08:24 PM EST
    attention.  If they are voting for obama because they think he will help black causes, I think they are in for a huge surprise.  Just look at what obama did to his own constituents choosing Rezko over them when they were suing to get heat in their apartments.  And, he played down being black until he figured out he could get more votes touting his being black.  IMO obama doesn't think he really needs anyone...he has already thrown large voting blocs under the bus.  EGO is what drives him and michelle.  Unity was the catch phrase to hook the people and bring them into his camp, where he will have no compunction about kicking them to the curb when they are no longer useful.

    i think we have a trojan horse in the (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:35:56 PM EST
    making here. the party elders are pushing an unknown and untried green candidate because they think he speaks well and looks good in order to maintain power in a power struggle with the clintons. and the american people? well pushed to the side and taken for granted as usual!

    Agreed (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Munibond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:39:18 PM EST
    Most AA's are low and moderate income and would benefit from populist policies.  Unfortunately, AA politicians seem to have focused more on achieving wealth transfers through minority contracting than on creating opportunities to move up to, or stay in, the middle class.  I think AA's have been particularly shafted by the loss of factory and tech jobs overseas and the shifting of construction and many service jobs to low wage, transient immigrant workers.

    From what we have seen of Michelle Obama (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by akaEloise on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:11:45 PM EST
    in the public sphere so far, she does appear to be an unpleasant and immature person.  However, this particular information does come from Robert Novak, so I'm going to reserve judgment and see if there is a second source with less of an agenda.  

    Reality check, please. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:12:51 PM EST
    Michelle is, IMO, supporting her spouse.  Some of her comments may be interpreted as divisive.  But Hillary had this problem during Bill's entire elected life.  While Michelle is not Hillary  (accomplishments), how many voters are turned off by Michelle?  Some of the "white working class", only.  I'm a "Hillary or tear it up" supporter.  But I think this might be stretching.

    I am turned off by Michelle (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by sleepingdogs on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:57:26 PM EST
    She's a type of tie breaker for me.  I think she's the sexist, racist in the Obama family.

    I watched a Michelle Obama campaign (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:37:49 PM EST
    even in NH on C-Span and was quite impressed with her speaking to the audience in detail w/o notes, with passion and knowledge.  Since so many people one would have thought would publicly support Hillary Clinton are publicly supporting Obama (Reich, Richardson, et al.), it seems to me Michelle Obama is the "new" Hillary Clinton, presemptive First Lady, under the magnifying glass.  Add the fact she is an African American woman, highly educated and outspoken--I am reserving judgment.

    Now YOU'RE stretching! (none / 0) (#173)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:47:14 PM EST
    They (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:12:52 PM EST
    aren't going to change BTD. If we nominate Obama this is the kind of attitude we are stuck with. I keep telling you guys that Obama's campaign has not got a clue as to how to run a general election. The still think they are running for a senate seat on the southside of Chicago where winning the Dem primary equals winning the election.

    The GOP has already said that Michelle is one of the things that will be used against Obama. She is a disaster plain and simple and people won't vote for Obama simply because they don't want her in the WH. The arrogant attitude. The chip on the sholder. The sense of being owed something is a real turnoff. The whining too.

    Every election since 1992 I have been hopeful that we would win. If Obama is the nominee, we will lose. The handwriting is already on the wall on this one. Apparently the party is on some sort of suicide mission. Or they are absolutely the most clueless bunch of dolts that have ever run a national party.

    If the party names Obama as the nominee, I've decided that I'm leaving. I'll go independent. I'm done supporting losers.

    Went Indy myself (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by smott on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    ...on Thursday.
    Had no idea it would feel so good.

    Sent a blistering email to the DNC too when they asked me for money.


    Excuse me? (none / 0) (#104)
    by 1jane on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:13:25 PM EST
    The GE planning by the Obama campaign has been underway for a long long time. The Obama campaign organized one of the most sophisticated grassroots campaigns ever and their GE plans are incredible. They already have one million donors and one million volunteers. Wait until the release the bigger plans.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:28:20 PM EST
    they are certainly acting like the biggest bunch of amateurs right now with their prancing around.

    One million volunteers won't be enough when the candidate has managed to be so divisive and undisciplined.


    And if (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:30:02 PM EST
    it's the same strategy they had here in GA it won't work for the general election. There aren't enough AA's and wine drinkers in the country to win an election.

    i have been absolutely dismayed (none / 0) (#187)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    with obama's campaign in the past few weeks. oh, and the no commercials comment isn't meant for you in case there is confusion.

    please no commercials! (none / 0) (#157)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:39:28 PM EST
    Ahhh, (5.00 / 11) (#26)
    by MMW on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:17:21 PM EST
    How many times must they show you who they are for you to see?

    When someone (5.00 / 9) (#53)
    by hlr on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:36:05 PM EST
    shows you who they are ...

    Believe them the first time!


    Michelle lost me with (5.00 / 12) (#32)
    by smott on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:22:27 PM EST
    ...the comment re HRC "if she can't manage her own house, she can't manage the WH"

    I assume a crass ref to Bill's folling around.

    That was the last straw ffor me. WHen it comes from another woman I just really hate it.

    I keep repeating ad-nauseam (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:23:25 PM EST
    That I have come to believe the entire Obama camp has so fixated on winning the primary that they have lost all sight of what comes after. This is yet another example. Why bad mouth a candidate you MAY need to win the election? I can't see a group with such an almost NIxonian fixation on their "enemies" managing to win in November.

    I have seen stated that attitude of some Obama supporters does not reflect the ones of the Obama campaign. Are you guys so sure of this? From their daily memos, to talking points, etc, I think it probably reflects pretty well what goes on behind closed doors.

    To rephrase the headline: Obama camp not interesting in winning in November.

    I think they (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:25:04 PM EST
    figure they have it sewn up.

    But they have done this all along (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:25:51 PM EST
    They pick strategies that even if they work in the short term are damaging in the long term, and yet they didn't seem to care.

    so do you think obama already (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:44:44 PM EST
    knows he will lose as do the party elders? and they are all doing this for their own personal agendas? that is something to consider.

    If Hillary's supporters (none / 0) (#68)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:49:12 PM EST
    make it clear he will not win, that they will protest, then "they" will know.  I haven't seen much/enough of that.  Just IMO. August is 4 months away.

    if you visit taylor marsh and (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:51:25 PM EST
    no quarter for example, it is very clear that the hillary supporters won't support obama. that is under reported by the msm, but as november comes closer they will. i already saw an article that mccain is already going after that group. the party elders of course don't want this to get much attention.

    That's a start. (3.00 / 2) (#87)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:01:09 PM EST
    But I don't think those are mainstream bloggers, traffic-wise.  Not to get off topic (Michelle), but put it out there: TPM, MyDD, KOS (and beware), Open Left, and here.

    i don't make a habit of visiting them (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    anymore for my own well being. i guess and comment and run for the hills might be in order. smile!

    actually the clinton marriage is none of (5.00 / 12) (#35)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:24:25 PM EST
    our business(the private part) the republicans used it for their own ugly purposes. and now you?the private part of the obama marriage is also their business and not ours. our discussion of michelle has to do with her affect on the primary and general elections.

    You will understand (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:27:10 PM EST
    when you're older that marriages are complex institutions.  

    And every marriage is different (5.00 / 15) (#52)
    by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:36:01 PM EST
    as I can attest, with a couple of them myself. :-)  

    And for that reason, I have immense respect for those couples that even after the most horrifically public of problems, somehow find the forgiveness to stay together and stick up for each other.

    Plus, a couple that raised a Chelsea Clinton does not need the approval of anyone else in this country.  If every parent produced a Chelsea Clinton, this would be a far better country.


    Amen to that! (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:43:02 PM EST
    And (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:15:22 PM EST
    in marriage (at least in mine) you develop something that transcends being a couple.  You're family, and you can no more divorce that family than you can cut off your arm.

    You are right (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by riddlerandy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:49:22 PM EST
    it was an ill-considered comment

    Michelle Obama (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by facta non verba on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:29:04 PM EST
    was quoted in the UK Guardian as wanting to scratch Bill Clinton's eyes out. If Obama is the nominee, she will be fair game. From remarks on her patriotism to Reverend Wright to her Princeton thesis to her work at Sidley-Austin, she will be mercilessly attacked.

    What is it with the Guardian? (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by hitchhiker on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:20:49 PM EST
    Wasn't that also the paper that printed Samantha Power's remarks? Maybe we're seeing an example of how an unbiased, normal press would deal with these people.  Maybe Mrs. Obama thinks that because the US media is so kind to her family, she deserves that kindness.  Maybe she believes that she is good and the Clintons are bad and so it's perfectly reasonable to say so in front of cameras and reporters.

    Incredible.  I want to scratch his eyes out.

    We don't dare to imagine what might have happened if Bill Clinton had said he'd like to physically harm Barack Obama.  Thank goodness for British journalists.


    As in the run-up to the war (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by blogtopus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:38:10 PM EST
    we have to rely on foreign press to tell us what's really happening.

    MO is a major liability (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by Raven15 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:41:50 PM EST
    She's ungracious, smug, and entitled. These kind of things are a HUGE turnoff for many voters. They confirm Barack's image as arrogant and out of touch. These are CLASS and CHARACTER issues, folks, not issues of race.

    Republicans mention Michele at the top of their attack strategies. She won't know what hit her.

    Perhaps (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by hlr on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:53:50 PM EST
    Republicans mention Michele at the top of their attack strategies.

    Obama will reject/denounce/repudiate her at a convenient time, and ultimately disown her.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:32:55 PM EST
    Unity is just another card in Obama's deck. (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by kimsaw on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:56:32 PM EST
    Obama's unity, race and gender are flash cards in the movement called Obama. Unity is a code word to gather the unsuspecting masses, in the same vein as "you're likable enough" is covert sexism. AA's will "get it", the word fairytale and now the infamous white working class are all about calling someone else a racist. It's how teachers train pre-school kids in their abc's and first graders memorize addition.  Say it often enough it gets remembered, no question need be asked. Political flash cards have nothing to do with reality they only set the stage so that propaganda can flourish.

    If the Obamas were truly post racial, transcendent figures than they would rise above the Clinton derangement and not partake in it. They may be Harvard educated, but they lack common folk smarts. Give me Bubba any day. They are not agents of change because they are driven by their racial anger. If they were post racial- one Sunday with Rev. Wright would have been one Sunday too many.

    A unity ticket secures the nation with its best leaders and shows wisdom, Clinton would have no choice but to pick Obama, Obama shouldn't have one  either. You pick the best strawberries in the field to make the best jam and Clinton is the best of the best.  In my opinion Hillary Clinton's genius is in her attention to detail, a valuable asset that Obama does not have. Having both Clintons' expertise in your corner is good for the nation having the extremes of Kerry and Kennedy are not.  The Clinton baggage is obsolete. These days substance matters more.  Hate is only important to those who live in it like the far right who aren't going to vote for Obama either,or members of the KKK.  

    Obama continues to talk the talk, but his strutting isn't walking the walk.

    Obama has very little at stake here (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by dianem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:08:24 PM EST
    He went on vacation in the middle of the primary, fercryingoutloud. He hasn't bothered to study the issues beyond the absolute minimum he needs to - he just refuses to answer tough questions. I'm sure that he wants to be President, but I doubt that he expected it to happen so soon. If he loses, it's an ego hit, but he will still sell books and will still be a popular speaker, and he will still be recorded as a "historic" figure. He might even think he can run again if he loses. And Obama is inexperienced in politics. He didn't really drag his bills through either the state or federal Congress, which means that he hasn't had a taste of the compromise necessary to get things done in political systems. He is probably confident that leadership will fall in his lap the way the nomination did.

    that is sorta what i think. (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:17:40 PM EST
    he is doing it for his ego and "place in history". frankly that is not a job i would want and wouldn't take it if offered. it is hard work! which leaves me thinking maybe they really don't care if they lose.

    Obama's bet(?) (none / 0) (#212)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    I remember reading in one of the major news mags right after the '92 election that Bill ran in 1992 basically as an exercise in getting his name out there, building a team, etc. for a later, serious run.  The article mentioned how one night he sat bolt upright in bed and realized he was on the brink of winning the nomination (or the GE?).

    I sometimes wonder if that's what we're seeing with Obama.  He assumed he would be knocked out by the more experienced people like Clinton, Biden, Dodd, et al., and then Something Unforeseen Happened.


    Obama has given McCain (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by abfabdem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    a HUGE opportunity to appeal to those who voted for Hillary by reminding them he and she worked together in the Senate for many years, he respects her, values her experience, etc., and did not approve of the way she was treated by the Obama campaign during the primary.  He can totally use a sympathy play to get disgruntled Hillary voters onto his side.  And the Obama camp apparently doesn't see this or maybe doesn't care since they've written off the Hillary voters (except that we are almost 50% of the primary votes so I really don't get their strategy!).

    Oh forgot one thing . . . (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by abfabdem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    McCain also did shots with Hillary at one time.  I think it was reported she drank him under the table.  So he can say they are drinking buddies, too!

    Interesting point about the McCain opportunity... (none / 0) (#208)
    by CK MacLeod on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:22:33 PM EST
    In replying to Obama campaign attacks and counterattacks, the McCain campaign has inched in this direction - describing the hypocrisy of Obama's approach to competitors, something he virtually admitted when directly confronted about it during the last debate - but for the moment McCain s still resisting any appearance of meddling in the Democratic campaign (Limbaugh's done more than enough of that already, I think).  

    Considering how pissed-off McCain's own supposed base is toward him (over immigration, global warming, torture, denunciations of Republican race-baiters, and so on and so on), and how positively many especially on the grown-up center-right have responded to Hillary's recent campaign, I wonder how much of an opportunity there is for him.  The personal approach is interesting, but could easily be seen as patronizing and paternalistic (gallant McCain standing up for damsel Hillary).  

    Anyway, at this point I think the last thing Hillary would want is McCain's open support on any issue, and I suspect that by the time McCain could say anything positive about her and against Obama, most of the Ds will have come back into the fold, including Hillary herself.  Tell me I'm wrong!


    BTD not sure the other half is either we can wait (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Salt on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:11:51 PM EST
    until 2012, better than more peevish behavior in the WH.  We have a country in decline a war to exit and an economy and climate to turn and calling names and peevish behavior won't make any of that happen, divide governance is preferred to this immaturity again.

    That's (5.00 / 11) (#141)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:31:59 PM EST
    how I feel. Obama has the same exact personality flaws that Bush has. Inexperience. Messianic following etc. Why do we want to go through another 4 years of that?

    Yep, I can't tell who he likes . . . (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by abfabdem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:15:23 PM EST
    he seems to hate everyone (kind of like MoDo).

    WE SEE (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by snucky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:28:45 PM EST
    the politics of bringing people together indeed.

    But Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#171)
    by DJ on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:46:14 PM EST
    was talking about herself.  Michelle Obama is attacking a Democratic Senator.  There is a huge difference.

    I suggest making sure you separate (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by oculus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:53:32 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson from Jesse Jackson, Jr., though.

    no you haven't. there you go dilberately (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:02:44 PM EST
    misunderstanding the other's comments again. michells is a disgrace pure and simple.

    And what he should have been doing (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:06:46 PM EST
    was helping to cool his supporters and the press down by being brave enough to tell the truth, that the movement is important and the President's commitment is important as well.  Instead, he chose to feed the flames, and when Bill referenced Jesse Jackson's presidential campaign (he was the first, after all, in case we've forgotten) suddenly the "pattern" or the narrative is that the Clintons are playing the race card.  Obama's campaign went along with this 100% and never questioned it.  

    We will forever remember 2008 as the campaign where Obama abetted the press in dividing the party along racial and gender lines....thx Obamanites.

    His avoidance is a clear message (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:11:11 PM EST
    Watching Obama respond to questions about Hillary on the ticket when he spoke to citizens in the 57th state was pretty clear to me. He gives her these high-minded compliments in such a condescending way. He has already answered the question when he finishes the sentence, "it is premature to believe I am in a position to select anyone as my running mate."

    For the life of me, I cannot imagine what it would look like, or feel like to have both Clinton's connected so closely to an Obama administration. Would they find themselves banned from the premise?

    They really have some strong differences of opinion on taxes, social security, and health care. Michelle can't stay quiet, the riffs between the Pres & the V Pres would not just be a rumor.

    It doesn't seem unfair (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by camellia on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    to comment on Michelle's behaviour; certainly the comment about scratching Bill's eyes out went way over the line, as did the one about "the first time I've been proud of my country"; she is now, willynilly, a "public" figure and as long as she is campaigning for her husband she needs to remember that.  Certainly her inexperience in public life is showing, as well as some unattractive aspects of her character.

    Certainly if Bill Clinton had said anything remotely similar, it would have made headlines in every news source from here to Ouagadougou.  And they wouldn't have been nice ones.

    I'm a professional "negotiator" (3.66 / 3) (#150)
    by samanthasmom on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    1. Obama wants something the HRC supporters have - enough votes to get him elected.

    2. What does he have that the HRC supporters are willing to trade for those votes?

    3. What is he willing to give to get them?

    4. What is the lowest bid the HRC supporters are willing to accept?

    If Obama is not willing to meet your "price", what is the HRC supporters' BATNA?  (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement - e.g. vote McCain, stay home, third party.)

    Any ideas?

    BATNA is unique for everyone (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by blogtopus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    For me it is registering independent, creating a large resource of graphics for a write-in Hillary campaign online, and writing in Hillary as my vote in November.

    Obama is a disaster. He is McGovern reborn.


    (shaking my head) (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by katiebird on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:30:33 PM EST
    I was about to write a qualifier like, "without McGovern's heart" or "without McGovern's experience"

    or something.

    Then, I thought.... Why?  I've been justifying the McGovern Campaign for 35 years.  But today I'm officially over it.

    That was my first experience with a campaign that went ALL OUT in the primary only to collapse like a popped balloon in the general election.

    Now, I've heard that Obama already has a paid Transition transition team.  So maybe they're prepared for what's ahead.

    But, that's a different question.  

    One of the things McGovern couldn't do was successfully court the Humphrey voters.  And that's the biggest similarity here.  

    Today?  I am a Humphrey supporter.


    Congress becomes the priority. (5.00 / 5) (#170)
    by MarkL on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:46:09 PM EST
    McCain as President faced against a strong Democratic majority in Congress would be liveable.
    Obama? He'll make enemies with half of Congress before his first 100 days are up. He has no ability to negotiate at all.

    I live in a state (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:02:47 PM EST
    where apparently you cannot write in a candidate who lost a presidential primary (something to do with letting the PARTY choose the nominee).

    Anyway, so my choice will depend on if I feel I need to execute the "nuclear" option or the Nader option.  It will be one of the two.  I won't leave the presidential spot blank.


    My price (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:53:02 PM EST
    My price for Obama to get my vote in the GE is simple: He has to remain obviously (to me) a better choice than McCain.  Period.

    There is a lot I'm not thrilled about with Obama, to put it mildly, but all I can think about in this race is the world my three nieces and all the other children in my life will grow up in, and how that world will be shaped by (among other things) the Supreme Court nominations of the next US president.

    If Obama does get the nomination, which seems exceedingly likely, he will get my vote and (so she says) that of my wife.  Voting for McCain is completely off the table for us.  Not voting in the presidential race or writing in Clinton or someone else is almost as bad.  

    I'm not at all happy to say that I will be voting against McCain instead of for a Dem, but that's where we seem to be headed.  And it stinks on ice.


    And Bill has been (3.00 / 2) (#7)
    by riddlerandy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:06:17 PM EST
    such a unifying influence

    Again (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:12:07 PM EST
    The chip on his shoulder is a response to the campaign.  His administration and his legacy was going to be attacked from day 1, so lo behold he's taken it personally.

    Michelle's chip on her shoulder appears to have been there from the start.


    actually bill has done a good job. (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:12:10 PM EST
    he has had his comments and actions purposely misunderstood by the obama campaing. not to say that bill didn't make some mistakes. how would you like to see your wife called such ugly names and have every action and word spoken defamed and put down in a manner unheard of in politics in the last fifty years.

    I thought (none / 0) (#70)
    by Claw on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:50:34 PM EST
    He'd do a great job but I don't think he has.  Hillary has done her best work when Bill's been quite.  He's picked a lot of fights with the media that allowed them to run "Bill's gone off the rails," stories.  I think these stories ultimately hurt his image and distracted from Hillary.  

    He Has Been Hitting The Small Rural Towns (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    and has been doing a good job for her lately.

    well i said bill made some mistakes. (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:01:03 PM EST
    think about this. the pathetic media has used him as a means of knocking the hillary campaign so they can further build up obama. they take anything and magnify it in a negative way.

    Obama is going to be the nominee (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:30:51 PM EST
    When will Obama supporters deal with the fact that that carries greater responsibilities.

    They won't (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by smott on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:35:12 PM EST
    Not with such a convenient scapegoat in Hillary.

    And thus if, big if, Obama is the nominee (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    they are so unready for the Republicans that it entirely discounts BTD's electability argument for me.

    And (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:13:30 PM EST
    with their current feeling that the fact that Obama is winning is proof that they are "right".

    I do not (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Leisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    believe many of them look past the urgency of now...

    Wasn't that (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by blogtopus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:30:31 PM EST
    One of his books? 'The Urgency of Now'?

    Nah. I think his book was titled "The Audacity of Hope-they-don't-look-closely"


    The "presumptive" nominee (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Raven15 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:48:46 PM EST
    And as the Obama camp seems pretty expert at bleeding support from all but the converted and unable to handle criticism, his candidacy may not get any stronger between June and August.

    You do realize that in the comments you (2.33 / 3) (#88)
    by debrazza on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:02:27 PM EST
    make about Michelle could just replace her name for Hillary and change the date to 1992 and I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

    debrazza (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:29:40 PM EST
    the people who read and comment here are far too well informed to fall for that trash.  They know it's an absolute lie.  Making stuff up doesn't cut it with this crowd.

    Michelle is not the only spouse taking it personal (2.00 / 4) (#59)
    by halstoon on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:41:21 PM EST
    Bill Clinton doesn't have much nice to say about Obama, either, it would seem.

    When someone attacks the person you love the most, it's natural to take it personally. I don't blame either Michelle or Bill. They're protective of their spouses, and that's not a bad thing.

    It should be pointed out that Barack and Hillary make their final decisions, and Bill and Michelle will support their decisions, and time will heal old wounds.

    You're (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:47:10 PM EST
    liking to HuPo? Really, they have lost all credibility this primary season.

    Link. (none / 0) (#78)
    by halstoon on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:57:27 PM EST
    If you prefer, here's a direct link to the New Yorker's story.

    The Ryan Lizza hit piece . . . (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by wurman on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:34:31 PM EST
    . . . is a sequential pastiche of gossip items that have mostly been debunked.

    It contains this grizzled falsehood:

    The day before the primary, Bill Clinton lost his temper with a radio host who asked about the Jesse Jackson comments. Clinton went on a three-minute rant in which he posited the mysterious theory that Obama had played the race card against him.

    Most readers here have a very clear understanding about how the Big Dog's comment on the Jesse Jackson win was not indicative of the overall campaign.  Many people here & elsewhere (outside the Obamarama) now clearly perceive the manner in which this phony racial division was generated.

    Big Dog said:

    "Hillary is in this race today because of people like you," he told one white working-class audience. "She's in it for you and she's in it because of you. People like you have voted for her in every single state in the country." People like you. The phrase hung in the air and the room quieted. Clinton didn't say what the people who voted for Obama were like, but the suggestion was that they were somehow different.

    Lizza's blatant innuendo in the last sentence is not, never was & never will be an implication by Pres. Clinton.  Referencing this garbage is a useless ploy at Talk Left.  To Lizza: journalists like you is why Al Gore invented the internet.

    If you're going to link & quote to stuff like this it's difficult to have a serious discussion about issues.

    And on that, Ryan Lizza wrote:

    While Obama downplays wonkiness and Hillary presents her plans as tedious laundry lists, Bill makes connections and translates abstractions into folksy humor.

    Sen. Clinton's "wonkiness" seems to tranlate into understandable issues & action plans for the 49.999999% of the Democrats who vote for her.

    Dr. Feelgood Obama is peddling patent medicine by comparison.


    these wounds won't be healing (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    anytime soon. the wounds from the 1960s as seen by southern voters still hasn't healed.

    I'm confused (none / 0) (#79)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:58:35 PM EST
    What do you mean?

    ok, it is a very general comment. (none / 0) (#206)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:13:59 PM EST
    the southern voters left the democratic party in the 1960s due to johnson's civil rights bill. at least that was part of it. now don't get me wrong, the civil rights bill had to be passed and changes had to take place. it was a price paid to advance a group that had been mistreated. those wounds still have not healed. i personally believe that the wounds from this campaign won't heal for a long time. those leaving the democratic party won't come back easily. they are being left on the side of the road. please look at the comments made by various "leaders". i include brazile and the comments from axelrod. the divisive coments from kennedy about hillary as a veep were very rude and not necessary. there were so many other ways he could have handled it. the so called party elders have run rought shod over the voters to push obama at us with the cooperation of the msm. we are told blue collar workers aren't needed. all they are it seems are bitter and clinging to religeon. only the aa and creative class are needed. that is not a winning game plan.

    i haven't seen bill clinton attack (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:44:18 PM EST
    michelle in the manner she has both hillary and bill. you have no comparsion there.

    I find all of these comments about Michelle (1.85 / 7) (#97)
    by debrazza on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:09:25 PM EST
    to be a bit offensive.  As I posted before, in any one of these comments, you could replace "Michelle" with "Hillary" and change the date from 2008 to 1992 and no one would be wiser if this site was a progressive site or Free Republic.

    I read things like "attitude problem" and "chip on her shoulder" and so forth and I have to wonder who you people are that are writing these things.

    I appreciate Hillary as a strong woman and I appreciate Michelle as a strong woman.  I think that everyone who has made the decision to trash her like this, you may want to reconsider what you are doing for a minute.

    Why should we reconsider it? (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by shoephone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:14:59 PM EST
    Is that a threat?

    You should reconsider (1.00 / 0) (#159)
    by debrazza on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    Because the language you are using is anti-feminist and inconsistent with the reasons why many here purport to support Hillary.  Just read the words again and then remember back to 1992.  Hell, just remember back to last year.  Many people here are using the same words about Hillary that you would rightly get indignant about and think it is fine to apply that to a different woman all for the sake of an election?

    You should reconsider because you should be consistent with a view towards women that does not equate negative attributes to women that have "strong" qualities.  And as I said, it is hypocritical to value those qualities in Hillary but to condemn them in Michelle.


    you won win any debates with (5.00 / 4) (#196)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:01:19 PM EST
    arguments based on purposefully misunderstanding the comments made. many of us are strong women, so this bull that we are dissing poor michelle because she is a strong aa woman is horse xxxxxx. she is being taken to task due to her public behavior and comments. there are any number of strong aa women to admire. mrs ml king comes to mind. she spoke her mind but i never ever saw that type of behavior from her.

    It is a threat (none / 0) (#132)
    by blogtopus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:26:30 PM EST
    They'll threaten to not vote for Hillary... oh wait. They already aren't going to.

    And why would we do that? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:21:59 PM EST
    Michelle Obama is caustic.  Maybe if people tell her so she'll stop.

    And caustic is a word that the media (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by debrazza on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:52:46 PM EST
    How do you read things like (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by hitchhiker on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:26:06 PM EST
    I want to scratch his eyes out?

    How do you see this playing in the general election?  All McCain has to do is convince a majority of independents that there's no need to take a risk with the Obamas.  If Michelle is going to be this cranky and bizarre, it's just one more thumb on the scale.

    I'm saying, it's not her strength as a woman that's under consideration; we all applaud strong women.  It's her ability to convince a majority of voters that she can handle herself well enough to keep her thoughts to herself when it's prudent.


    Don't like it (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by sumac on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:49:12 PM EST
    In at least one case Michelle has been a liability for her husband, an that was with me. Early on, I was a tepid Hillary supporter who really didn't get what all the fuss of Obama was about... but I was not opposed to his winning the nomination either. I just found his rhetoric dull rather than inspiring.

    When Michelle said Obama could get Hillary's supporters but Hillary could not get Obama's supporters, a warning light went off in my head. I found the statement:

    1. arrogant
    2. counteractive to the unity theme Obama was championing
    3. insulting in that it didn't sound like Michelle knew much about Hillary's supporters and was taking us for granted.

    And that is where the tide turned for me. I started researching both candidates and I became an ardent Hillary supporter. And I don't think Obama would be a good president (I don't think he'll make it that far anyway).

    I can't know Michelle beyond what I see and what she says. For me, personally, I don't like a lot of what I see and hear.

    It would seem, to me, a great folly of the Obama campaign to not offer the VP position to Hillary. Even if they hope and pray she turns it down.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:33:13 PM EST
    You are lying about my post.

    You are suspended. Comment no further.


    I am not responding to your post (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by debrazza on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:45:15 PM EST
    I am responding to posts that say she has an "attitude problem"

    we are writing our opinion based (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:43:33 PM EST
    on what we see, hear, and read. that is the american way. i think it needs to be related only to the campaign. the obamas also put it out there and ran an ugly campaign with very ugly comments from michelle. why are you not addressing that. i highly recommend that you consider that.

    I like Michelle too (none / 0) (#117)
    by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:19:46 PM EST
    but I think the idea here is that she would definitely veto Hillary on the ticket, even if it is a good "unity" idea, given her remarks in the past.

    The Obamas are a young, good-looking, attractive family with cute kids...just the kind of thing the American public likes to see in its White House.

    However, the same public and also the media hasn't previoulsy tolerated a strong non-elected 1st spouse...perhaps won't even like them as 1st candidate spouse.

    So it's a political reality that may bite MO.


    Political reality? (none / 0) (#149)
    by magisterludi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:36:58 PM EST
    That's an unspeakable concept in some quarters these days.

    I'm just referring (1.00 / 0) (#121)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:21:02 PM EST
    to the general argument that Michelle is divisive, costs Barack votes.  That has been said of Hillary.  I think it is a wrong argument, the spousal support.  Otherwise, how does one defend Hillary throughout Bill's career, how does one support Bill during this campaign.  I just think "lets not go there".

    well normally i'd agree with you. (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:25:22 PM EST
    but this isn't normal times. and michelle has put herself out there with these comments. they have invited it with the type of campaign they run. and for sure it will be part of the general election whether we like it or not.

    Once again, (2.00 / 0) (#148)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:35:42 PM EST
    the same has basically been said of Bill.  I don't think you can say one's spousal support is apples and the other's is oranges.  IMO, it's aplles and apples.  But I agree it will be a GE issue, just like Hillary was and Bill is in these primaries.

    i have looked and i haven't seen the (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:47:41 PM EST
    mean spirited personal attacks by bill that michelle has indulged in.

    OKaaaaay. (none / 0) (#189)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:57:15 PM EST
    Michelle's a beotch.  How many votes does that get Hillary?

    It would be nice if we could discuss (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:37:49 PM EST
    whether/to what extent Michelle Obama will be an asset (or liability) to a Barack Obama candidacy without reflecting our own opinions of her.

    But other than pointing out that there are apparently plans to use Michelle's past as part of the overall narrative that the right-wing smear machine will be promoting about Obama, its really tough to do.

    I will say that I think the years that Hillary Clinton spent as First Lady of Arkansas prepared her for the role of "wife of the Presidential candidate" in ways that Michelle Obama has not been prepared -- and it shows.

    If I was running the Obama campaign, I'd try to find a way to reduce Michelle's role to that of "wife and mother" because when the inevitable attacks on her past come, the more closely she's associated with the kids, and the less closely she is associated with the campaign, the easier it will be to hit the "don't attack my family" theme.


    That sounds like an excellent political plan. (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:42:39 PM EST
    But then again, I won't be supporting Barack for Prez.  My dilemma is how to protest; sit it out or counter-vote?

    Write in ;) (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:01:43 PM EST
    Divisive (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:43:17 PM EST
    Divisive was/is said of HRC as a candidate, not as a spouse of a candidate.

    So your reference is off.


    Please tell me (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:55:09 PM EST
    how the Obama campaign HAS NOT been divisive.  Thee AA vote is certainly divisive, albeit demographic.

    It was said of her as a First Lady candidate (none / 0) (#186)
    by debrazza on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:56:15 PM EST
    Which is the same argument that people are making now about Michelle.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#192)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:58:35 PM EST
    Hoffer (none / 0) (#38)
    by livesinashoe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:26:58 PM EST
    IMO, what Obama has going is a good old fashioned mass movement, as Eric Hoffer defined it.

    i think mass movement is not a (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:33:43 PM EST
    correct term. it is a short term group with varying goals that will implode when reality sets in probably in november. then the so called party elders will return to what they know best, less power and possible minority status.

    I certainly hope you are incorrect (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by livesinashoe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    but I fear you are right.

    I do see similarities between the True Believers Hoffer described as the Obabgasmics.  The disillusionment with the present, for instance....what's Obama selling ?  Hope.

    Another thing that strikes me is the ageism, the hatred of boomers so many of them express.  I read that as a very real ( in their minds) devaluation of the past - never mind the massive social changes brought to you courtest of the Boomers.

    They want to move on from the Sixties, without realizing that 1) we have   and 2) you can't escape history no matter how much you try.

    Hoffer did say that these movements collapse once they reach the active phase-- short term?   Maybe you are thinking even shorter term than I.

    I do agree things will fall apart in November.


    hatred of boomers? hatred of mom & dad! (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:15:54 PM EST
    these folks running around doing all this condemning makes me ask just what have they done for the country and environment. the answer is nothing for the most part.

    The comments here (none / 0) (#209)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:27:49 PM EST
    attacking Michelle Obama personally are being deleted. So are the race-baiting ones. I don't have time to fully clean the thread now but when I get back if they are still here, I will change this thread to read only.

    There will be no personal or character attacks on this site and no race-baiting.