Sunday Talk Open Thread

If ever you wanted to see how clueless the Beltway Gasbags are, watching them discuss the Presidential election and potential VP choices today will convince you. They have no clue about the depth of the commitment of Clinton supporters to Hillary Clinton. They live in their DC bubble and have no idea what happens outside of it.

On the Unity ticket issue, I recommend Jerome Armstrong's fine post on the subject.

This is an Open Thread.[ More...]

BTW, Josh Marshall proves he is ready for Sunday Talk. He implies the Women's Voices, Women Votes group is trying to suppress the vote to advantage Clinton, IN WEST VIRGINIA. He is on the lookout for black helicopters now.

Comments now closed.

< Happy Mother's Day to All | Did You Know . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Part of the process of making Hillary invisible (5.00 / 15) (#1)
    by Exeter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:06:00 AM EST
    As media matters pointed out recently, Hillary's treatment is unprecedented: no other presidential candidate in her position or better has ever been forced off the stage this way by the media.

    Scott Rasmussen has decided to stop polling her, Newseek officially says she can either quit now and go out "classy" or stay in and go out "ugly," and every major network has declared the race over and Obama the winner.

    The media has made Hillary invisible. I hope the first serious female candidate isn't remembered by history going out this way.

    It was painful enough with Edwards. (5.00 / 14) (#12)
    by Fabian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:22:03 AM EST
    It's even more painful now.  And the whole "Be a good little girl and go away so the adults can talk." vibe just sets my teeth on edge.

    It's really, really the wrong message to use with women or anyone for that matter.  Sit down, shut up and vote Democratic or else!

    I can just feel the disrespect and disunity oozing from that message.


    "Just quit" has a long, sad history... (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Exeter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:35:23 AM EST
    ...for women in this country. And, frankly, Hillary's treatment now is what has happened to millions of women before here that didn't quit-- you are marginalized, dehumanized, and made to feel you like you are invisible and don't exist.  

    I hope she takes it to the convention and if they don't count Michigan and Florida, and MI and FL would have changed things, its grounds for her to run as a third party candidate.


    She's too loyal of a Dem to do that. (none / 0) (#202)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:06:22 AM EST
    Making the Cable Networks Invisible (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:23:32 AM EST
    Change the channel to FOX where Hillary gets the only unbiased coverage at the moment. The Obama demographic isn't inclined toward MSNBC, CNN, or CNBC. They aren't Sunday morning fans of MTP, or This Week. So, if Hillary's demographic stops watching, they lose their entire audience. Until that happens, they aren't going to change.

    lol...Did You Ever Think You Would Post A (none / 0) (#171)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:44:25 AM EST
    comment saying turn to Fox News?  Times they are a-changing.  But I see your point!

    And don't forget (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by stillife on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:33:25 AM EST
    that Time Magazine has Obama on the cover as the presumptive nominee.

    I don't know if it's misogyny, CDS, an evil media plot or what, but I've never seen anything like it.  Even the treatment of Gore in 2000 pales in comparison.

    And this is why I will never vote for Obama.


    My friend who is an Obama (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:38:27 AM EST
    supporter was furious about the Time magazine cover and the call for Clinton to quit.  She may be voting for Obama but she thinks it is disgusting and disrespectful to Clinton for this to be going on when it is not over.  I hope there are other women who voted for Obama that feel the same way.  I think women, regardless of who they supported, are pissed that Clinton is being treated so shamefully after running a strong campaign and winning half the vote.

    I think Obama provides cover for sexism (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Exeter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    Sexism is always much more socially acceptable than racism, but it is especially now the case with Obama on the other side, because everything the media does can be thinly veiled under the guise of sticking up for Obama and ensuring that he is treated fairly.

    I feel (none / 0) (#124)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:20:19 AM EST
    more venom toward Obama,Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Kennedy and Kerry than I ever did to W and Cheney - and that is saying something.

    I spit on them all.


    Even if she DOES lose (none / 0) (#175)
    by herb the verb on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    She will not be ignored, because SHE will pick the VP nominee. Not Obama, Michelle, or his supporters. Math is a funny thing: it has two sides to every equation and she has won that side of the 'Math'. Nobody has even realized that yet (except her and Bill I imagine) since they have been so snake-charmed by the Obama Phenomenon.

    Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Donna Brazille, Ted Kennedy, etc., etc. are, dare I say, stupid if they thinks Hillary will slink away and subserviently bow down without fully exerting her power of 49.9% of the delegates.

    Even Jesse Jackson is smarter, he said last week on CNN that a unity ticket might be the best thing.


    Clinton won't try to influence the VP (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:56:10 AM EST
    Clinton won't try to influence the VP choice -- if/when she does concede, she's going to distance herself as much as possible from the decisions that will be made, because any influence she does exert will be "the reason Obama lost."

    The only place I see Clinton taking a stand is on the platform when it comes to health care.  I think she'll demand that the party support a true "universal" plan.

    But other than that, she's gonna take a "you made your bed, you lie in it" approach to decision-making in the campaign.  She's seen this movie before... it was Brazile's Gore 2000 campaign.  


    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by herb the verb on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:09:44 AM EST
    Clinton cannot afford to be seen as either unimportant or washing her hands of the campaign at the point the VP slot is decided. Her supporters within the party itself will demand that and her future viability within the party will demand that.

    Look Chris Bowers wrote some pretty dumb stuff this week but that is because it is not based in reality. Clinton's supporters within the party structure are AT LEAST HALF of the party, they will NEED legitimacy within the party and will DEMAND it.

    Plus, when in this process have we ever seen her back down from a fight? The thing speaks for itself.


    Read Jerome's Post This Morning (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:10:36 AM EST
    Can't say that the choices mentioned excite me and one ticks me off.

    I agree with Jerome's assessment of  Webb.  

    First off, in regards to Webb, the guy hates campaigning, he doesn't seem to enjoy showing up at campaign events and besides, its the economy, and not Iraq, as the main issue.

    Also, would prefer someone who didn't vote with the Republicans on Iraq, FISA and immigration. His vote on immigration would IMO not help Obama gain support in the Latino community.

    Selecting Sebelius would just make even more reluctant to vote for Obama. Women are not interchangeable. IMO it is insulting.

    Richardson was so horrible during his brief presidential bid that it was painful to watch. I can see where it might help Obama with Latino voters but Richardson seems prone to political "gaffes" and the campaign definitely doesn't need that.

    The only thing I know about Kaine is that he is a popular governor.  

    Richardson will NOt help with Latino voters (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:18:41 AM EST
    Period. Most Latinos have no idea who Richardson is, much less that he is a Latino.

    Richardson (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:38:04 AM EST
    couldn't help Richardson with the latino vote.

    Ha - exactly (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:10:40 AM EST
    Disaster in debates (none / 0) (#198)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:02:40 AM EST
    If McCain picks Carly Fiorina as his running mate she would wipe the floor with Richardson.  I liked him until the debates, he was terrible.

    It's interesting to me that Jim Webb's persona (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by chancellor on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:25:47 AM EST
    has never broken out of the military mode, when, in fact, he claimed that his primary reason for running was to be an economic populist for the people of VA. Of course, his committee assignments, and the bills he has supported or sponsored, do tend to emphasize his military and foreign policy backgrounds, so maybe he's just fallen back into a comfortable role. Do agree that he would be a terrible campaigner.

    One person here, the other day, mentioned the possibility of McCain choosing Christine Todd Whitman as a running mate. IMO, that would be a brilliant move for McCain, since she is largely perceived as a moderate who broke early with the Bush administration over policy disagreements. Also, if Obama is the Democratic nominee, I don't see a Dem. female he could run with. Many women might also be drawn to a ticket with a female VP, out of sympathy, if Hillary doesn't get the nod.


    Webb would be a good choice (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:30:01 AM EST
    But a VP has to campaign his butt off. If Jerome is right about him not liking campaigning, then he can't be the VP choice.

    There is no guarantee a Dem will replace Webb (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jawbone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:37:53 AM EST
    in VA.  The most popular Dem, Warner, is running for the Senate this year.  

    Who can be elected to the Senate as a Dem?

    Maybe Obama will change the state overnight, but, somehow, I doubt it.


    I Remember That Even Strong Webb Supporters (none / 0) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:23:33 AM EST
    on DKos were complaining about the fact that he didn't like campaigning and seemed unwilling to put everything into the effort.

    Christie Todd Whitman (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Kensdad on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:41:05 AM EST
    she would be a brilliant VP choice for mccain.  in fact, i think that she would steal so many women from obama that he'd be finished unless he actually chose hillary as his running mate.

    No she wouldn't (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:47:00 AM EST
    It would seriously piss off the RW to do that. Probably depress turnout in November.

    Jerome names Kay Bailey Hutchison, and he's on the right track.


    Whitman... (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    whitman would be a brilliant choice for McCain regardless of who the Dem nominee would be.  If the Dem nominee is Clinton, she will have a much harder time, because there were a lot of women who ordinarily vote GOP who would have voted for Clinton.

    If the nominee is Obama, his chances of winning in November go from "not very good" to "practically impossible"

    As to Webb, I think he is just about Obama's best option --- given all the potential questions about Obama's personal "judgment", a Webb choice will be "reassuring" to potential Obama voters -- Obama needs to sends the message that he is aware of the deficiencies in his own background/experience, because those deficiencies will be glaringly obvious to everyone else.


    Whitman is too librul (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by brodie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:20:22 AM EST
    for the Repub base.  Won't work, particularly since McCain is still viewed with some suspicion by the RW and has been spending a lot of time lately just trying to build trust with his party's base.

    KBH is far more likely.  Solid conservative creds, fairly attractive face and articulate; not terribly smart, but, hey, she's a Repub and therefore the MCM will treat her gently on this score, as they did Junior.  Probably the most likely female pick for the Repubs, and doesn't come with Condi baggage over 9-11 negligence and all the stuff about Iraq.

    Webb?  We were fairly lucky that he won that seat, and he didn't exactly win in a landslide even against a nutty racist fratboy opponent.  And he's not likely to help repair any gender issue in the party; in fact, iirc his record with women in the 80s, he may be the last person we'd want in that slot.



    Whitman may be too liberal (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:12:41 AM EST
    for the far right wing of the Republican Party, but Hutchinson may be too far right to scoop up enough of Hillary's support.  It would be a balancing act for McCain.  Would Whitman bring in enough crossovers and indies to more than offset the die-hard Republicans who might stay home?  The RWer's certainly wouldn't become Obama supporters.  The Hillary supporters would essentially be "2fers".  If I were McCain, I'd be polling this one.

    Yep (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:05:22 AM EST
    Not in the NYC metro area! She's polluted! (none / 0) (#107)
    by jawbone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:10:30 AM EST
    last time I checked... (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:18:21 AM EST
    the NYC metro area had almost as many electoral college votes as American Samoa.

    Christine Todd Whitman (none / 0) (#71)
    by chrisvee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:50:26 AM EST
    Wasn't her political career in effect ended by her response to the air quality concerns in NYC after 9/11?

    She tried to refute that in (none / 0) (#75)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:52:25 AM EST
    congressional hearings.  I liked her because it seemed obvious that she was butting heads with Bush and that is why she quit.  But I am not sure how she is perceived in NJ now.  If she has a positive legacy there she could help McCain win that state....just don't know how she is perceived now.

    All (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by chrisvee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:02:27 AM EST
    I can envision are the 527 attack ads with her giving the 'all clear' and I'm not sure the claim, 'Bush made me do it' helps her.

    ads against VP candidates are pointless (none / 0) (#126)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:20:28 AM EST
    ...I mean, if the VP candidate mattered even marginally, Bush I would have never gotten elected with Dan Qualye in the #2 spot.

    The VP candidate is mostly meaningless. (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:42:00 AM EST
    That is why Hillary should not accept it.  She would be disappeared in the campaign and in the WH.  The only way a "unity ticket" would be acceptable is with Hillary at the top.  Even then, it would be very hard for me to vote for Obama.  If he is at the top of the ticket and Hillary is VP, I would still not be able to vote for him.  As for replacing Hillary with another woman VP candidate that would make me so angry, I'm not sure what I would do.

    You Are Correct. Hillary Is Too Smart And (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:50:51 AM EST
    savvy to be the VP.  All her talents would be put on hold because there is no way obama will let her shine because he will be such a weak president; that is if he makes it to the WH.

    His primary reason for running (none / 0) (#77)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:54:05 AM EST
    was that his son was serving in a war he disagreed with so much that he wrote an op-ed piece in the NYTimes about how wrong it was to be there in the first place.

    Yeah...he's a populist.

    But mostly he's there to try and get vets the help they need for after they come home.


    Hillary or Obama should pick Wes Clark (none / 0) (#167)
    by Exeter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    Whether they admit it, or not, the vast majority of Americans would rather John McCain answer the "3AM phone call."  It would give either ticket the necessary "national security gravitas" that both lack. 9/11 and homeland security may not be the top issue like it was in 2004, but it is still a huge swing voter issue and Obama and Hillary's biggest weakness and McCain's biggest strength.

    I watched Sebelius' (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by kimsaw on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:02:27 AM EST
    Democrat response to the State of the Union- she is Obama's rhetorical twin and even duller in her presentation. This hopey, changey, I can give a speech  stuff, or look at me cause I'm so different, is driving me mad! These twin vapors ought to stand on something more than I voted present, I pushed the wrong button, I didn't vote because it was beneath a vote and I was against the war before I voted to fund it.

    I think this nation has lost its collective mind. We have learned nothing substantive from a lazy, leg tingling MSM since this campaign began. The media has turned Rovian! It continues to fail us. Hard journalism exists in snippets while everybody feeds on opinion, rather than facts. The media failed us on Iraq and questioning Obama's record and relationships. They have fawned "just words" and explored  nothing substantive. When someone does ask pertinent questions, the questioner is  attacked and those questions never get truly answered.

    Obama has yet to put words into action. His race speech was not a bridge builder just a history lesson stating the facts. He offered no solutions In fact he stereotype the bitter, clinging voter. There's change for you.

    Clinton states the facts and she's a racist and anyone who votes for her is too. Yet 90% of AA community voted for Obama and that's not racism in reverse. That's called identity politics.
    We're  politically correct when it comes to race relations, but when it comes to gender, sexism is acceptable. Clinton is easily compared to Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction by an arrogant congressman or she's called a female dog that's likable enough or her likeness can be molded into a nutcracker, but no harm done. Just imagine if that likeness were your mother, wife or daughter.  

    The Dems don't want to lose the AA because they are a loyal voting block. But their leadership and Obama willingly toss out those low information white voters clinging to their guns and bibles, because they swing either way. How do you build unity without swing voters? How stable is your new coalition without winning the in betweens? Isn't the goal creating unity? If you can't build unity in a party how do you coalesce a nation? I guess there's unity and then there's Obama's unity.

    The MSM and their corporate backers are nothing but lobbyist working on Obama's behalf.  We get  in return what we allow to happen. Majority rule gave us Bush and now we'll get Obama. Their strengths are based on politically fabricated hate. Divide and conquer strategies employed long ago. I totally understand why some people become apathetic, because nothing really changes in politics, the rhetorically driven divides thrive while substance dies.

    Clinton deserves more respect then she has gotten and so do her supporters. I have a right to believe in substance more than mere words, it not about anyone's skin color, its about what the candidate brings to the table. In Obama's case the plate's not full, in fact, what little there is, is starting rot.


    Looks like I'm not (none / 0) (#54)
    by brodie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:40:43 AM EST
    the only one online who's been thinking about Sibelius as a not unreasonable VP consideration.  She's solid, a two-termer from a longtime political family, and could help in repairing intraparty wounds along gender lines.  Unfortunately, she's not a HRC backer, which would be preferable for party unity, but every potential has her downside.  

    Some other possible women VPs are mostly from the senate, and would leave us with a Repub gov (Blanche Lincoln, McCaskill) picking the replacement.  We can't afford to lose any Dems from the senate, and McCaskill has little experience outside of her state.

    Gov Napolitano is strong, maybe a little too strong on anti-illegal immigration, but she's also unmarried and I don't want yet another dicey social issue to do with marital status/sexual orientation thrown in to go with the black guy with the funky name and the gender stuff.

    Judas Richardson as VP would really be a roll of the dice as it would make some of us fervent HRC backers more than a little insulted when we need to be uniting.  And we would get yet another softie VP candidate reluctant to aggressively engage the oppo in a role where traditionally the #2 is assigned the hardball duties while the #1 gets to play above the fray.  With Richardson and Obama on the same ticket, we'd have two softies not inclined to fight.


    McCaskill has been horrible (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Kensdad on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:45:16 AM EST
    Claire McCaskill has ruined any appeal that she has to Hillary supporters.  She has been piling on and Hillary-bashing with incredible glee.  She also dumbed-down her obama endorsement by repeated telling the world that her 18 yr old daughter talked her into it by saying, "mom, if you don't endorse obama, then i'll never speak to you again."  what a twit!  that's some endorsement for a U.S. Senator!  talk about judgment, McCaskill has very little apparently and needs her 18 yr old daughter to advise her.

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:48:29 AM EST
    Plus she has no gravitas.  She is not impressive at all and is less experienced than Obama. He needs someone with experience.

    Clinton campaigning as VP (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:52:51 AM EST
    would present one HUGE problem: she will outshine Obama in every way.  Think about Edwards holding back so he wouldn't make Kerry look like the cardboard cutout he is.  Painful.

    But, Clinton still has a shot at this, so I nominate Clark for her VP!


    I know it would probably (none / 0) (#85)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:59:15 AM EST
    not work, but if Clinton won, what if she picked Harold Ford Jr.?  He is a centrist and very sharp.  He has remained truly neutral during the primaries.  I guess Obama supporters would want someone who openly supported Obama but I think Ford is a great candidate.

    No (none / 0) (#116)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:14:31 AM EST
    If Clinton is the nominee she has to pick Obama. She has no ohter option.  If he refuses, she needs a VP with more experience than Ford.  John Lewis or Andrew Young are better choices than Ford.

    bjorn, Thank goodness... (none / 0) (#204)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:07:30 AM EST
    you've mentioned the V.P. "choices" for Hillary instead of for Obama. Although realisistic comments here, we STILL must remain positive that she WILL BE ABLE to secure the nomination! We all need to rally behind her, make sure that voters turn out in great numbers for her in the last contests, for which is poised quite well now, and definetly press on for seating the Fla. and Michigan delegates.

    McCaskill Is My Senator (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:56:45 AM EST
    and as far as I'm concerned she would be a negative on the ticket. (BTW I would think this even if she had endorsed HRC) She was not  particularly popular in MO to begin with and her endorsement of Obama will not help her with her constituents in the non Democratic strongholds.



    Sebelius, nor any other random woman (5.00 / 10) (#67)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:47:21 AM EST
    will not "help repair intraparty wounds along gender lines."  Women are not interchangable.  I would be supporting Hillary against Obama if she were a man, or a little green Martian.  The fact that she is who she is simply adds more fervency to my support, but that is not even a little bit transferrable to Sebelius, especially in the VP slot.

    If he knows what's good for him, he will not throw the little women a bone by putting some random female on his ticket.


    If (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by chrisvee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:59:00 AM EST
    it wasn't for the fact that this election is critical to our country, I might almost enjoy watching the party go 'boom!' if Obama selects a woman other Clinton as his VP.  Women are not interchangeable. Clinton is likely the most qualified person in the field of choices.  I think this path is closed to Obama from a political perspective.  Imagine if Clinton were the nominee and selected an AA running mate other than Obama.  It would be political suicide because she would be accused of thinking all AAs are interchangeable.

    I (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:24:58 AM EST
    hope the party absolutely explodes.

    maybe, but (none / 0) (#89)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:01:01 AM EST
    I just recommended Harold Ford Jr below.  He is a strong candidate and it is not because he is Black that I would recommend him, but if Obama did not want it, he would be excellent.

    agreed.... (4.80 / 5) (#117)
    by p lukasiak on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:14:50 AM EST
    Clinton's higher support among women than men is due to two things....

    1. Women who see Clinton/Obama as a toss-up, and vote for Clinton because she's a woman.

    2. Women are far less likely than men to buy into the anti-Hillary media message, and make the rational decision that Clinton is by far the better candidate.

    The fact is that the nation is like a dilabidated house that the Democrats will inherit if we win the presidency.  The person you want running things is going to be a "jack-of-all-trades", someone who knows how to patch the roof, fix the leaky plumbing, and replace the bad wiring.  That's Hillary-- and that's why people support her.  Obama supporters are people who think the house needs an interior designer.  

    From one Woman (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:54:38 AM EST
    I believe many of us women support HRC because she is the stronger candidate, because we know where she stands, and we think that the mess created by the current administration will require someone who knows the ins and outs of our federal government from day 1; someone with the skill and persistence to pay attention to the details as well as the broader picture.  I often think it takes any new president at least a year to figure out what agencies do what, how to get them staffed and working, where the loopholes are, etc.  We don't have the luxury of waiting out the first year of the new presidency, and I believe HRC already has more than a handle on the instruments of federal government.  

    You say women are not (none / 0) (#92)
    by brodie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:01:56 AM EST
    interchangeable, and I agree.  I prefer to call it a reasonable alternative to Hillary who, for reasons I've already noted, would not be a good pick for his VP.

    Some of us fervent Hillary backers would also be greatly offended were she to play the subservient role to a much younger guy much less qualified than she to be president.  I suspect too that Obama wouldn't be very comfortable having her as VP (as JFK was with LBJ), and having Bill to deal with.  HRC also undermines Obama's campaign theme of Change/New Politics.

    Though we have 2.5 more months to hash these things out, and things can change a lot in that time.  Right now it's fun to discuss the various possibilities.


    Theorizing (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by chrisvee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:09:29 AM EST
    I do realize the perception of Clinton in a subordinate position to a less qualified man is a drawback to her as VP.  I'm sensitive to that myself as I've encountered it in my own work life.  However, I suspect that if Clinton makes it clear that she really wants it and if she generates excitement amongst her supporters about the historic nature of that ticket, I think it would work.

    The escalation of the hostilities between the supporters of the campaigns may have made that impossible, though.

    Despite the fact that I think she might make more difference in the Senate, if someone is going to shatter that glass ceiling, I want it to be Clinton and not Sebelius.  She's endured the slings and arrows; let her enjoy the rewards.


    I am in AZ (none / 0) (#63)
    by bjorn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:44:51 AM EST
    and you are right about Janet. She is a great governor, has had to be very tough because it is still a Red moving to purple state.  But the rumors about her sexuality would kill it in a NY minute.  And she did not support Hillary either.  Obama, if he does not get Hillary, needs to pick someone who supported her like Ed Rendell or Bill Nelson in FL (he puts me to sleep personally) or someone in that vein.  Picking someone who supported him would piss me off because it would be a total blow off to Clinton supporters.

    I wonder (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by OldCoastie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:14:16 AM EST
    if Obama is that "tactical"... he seems to be very fond of lots of agreement - I'm guessing he will chose someone who was a supporter.

    Hard to imagine (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by Fabian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:34:43 AM EST
    Obama choosing someone who would challenge him over someone who was loyal to him.

    I try so hard not to see Bush parallels, but Obama really appears to be someone who prefers the comfort of willing loyalty to the work of winning over someone who doesn't immediately agree with him.

    In fact, I see Obama on both sides of the stereotypical Hollywood pitch:

    "We love you!  We love your work! But...there's a couple of changes we'd like to make.  Just to broaden your appeal, to reach a wider audience - your Stuff is great, amazing right now.  But it could be even better!  What do you say?  Just give us the word and we'll do it."


    I am also from Arizona. (none / 0) (#209)
    by befuddled on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    The same sexual slurs against Janet are the ones that have always been around against Hillary, but she has Bill to counter that image and Janet has an agenda and resume, not so good.  If she were Obama's VP--It's hard to imagine that she wouldn't be doing all the work or that there wouldn't be a blow-up eventually. What I am struggling with is the disconnect that Janet has always seemed to cut right through the BS, and yet she endorsed Obama. One of us must not have been paying attention to the discourse.

    Webb is (none / 0) (#103)
    by sander60tx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:08:12 AM EST
    an economic populist as well and he would probably appeal to some of the voters that like Hillary (e.g., scotch-irish appalachian whites).  Also, he's a former republican who might appeal to independent voters.  However, I'd much rather see Webb in the Senate than as VP.  We need every democratic senator that we can get.  Agree also that a "substitute" woman VP won't appease many woman and that Richardson is a gaffe machine.  However, he does have a strong resume and might help Obama out with hispanic voters.

    Oh yeah, I refuse to turn the TV on this morning.  I'm disgusted with the media's premature crowning of Obama.


    Richardson? Snort! (none / 0) (#161)
    by herb the verb on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:36:04 AM EST
    I agree with BTD that the only choice that will help him is Clinton. Obama really has got nowhere else to go, and if you read between the lines of Jerome's piece you will see that.

    IMNHO, the VP spot is Clinton's for the taking if she wants it. And maybe she does want it, because even if she thinks they will lose in the GE (which I believe strongly and I also believe SHE believes strongly, and maybe ESPECIALLY if she believes that) it is likely the only thing that will repair her relationship with AA's in the party and save her and Bill's legacy and power within the Party without a devastating divorce. The divorced from reality Obama set of his supporters have no idea what the reality of having 49% of the delegates in your control means (see Bowers, Chris, Stoller, Matt or JM, WK).

    His only other potential choice if Clinton doesn't want it? Evan Bayh (and don't get me started), Ed Rendell, or some other prominent Clinton supporter. She will demand that for her support, and she will win that battle. The VP slot is Clinton's choice, not Obama's, she has "The Math".

    As for McCain, I am reasonably certain he will pick Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. He is everything McCain needs, strong conservative support (without being a nut-job), young, strong campaigner, personable, no skeletons, will likely deliver SD, ND, MN, WI and make IA competitive. He didn't win McCain MN because of Religious Right freaks for Huckabee early on, but he is strong with independents.


    Perhpas (none / 0) (#168)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:42:48 AM EST
    Those who suggest Richardson as VP in event Obama wins nomination believe Richardson could counter-balance the negative impact Obama has had among Latino voters.  I doubt Richardson will truly help here.

    Thanks for that link. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Fabian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:11:00 AM EST
    I read the comments, about the first dozen.  Many adjectives came to mind: embarrassing, juvenile, painful, stupid, futile.

    If that's what mainstream blogdom looks like, I prefer to be an elitist.

    Sibellius (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by NYMARJ on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:14:13 AM EST
    Even my husband thinks that putting Sibelius on the ticket is enough to garner the "woman's" or Hillary vote.  Really annoying

    Your husband is ready for a TV news gig (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:17:27 AM EST
    True (5.00 / 7) (#111)
    by Brookhaven on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:11:18 AM EST
    I remember back when Bush, the Elder was running, he was advised that putting Quale on the ticket would get the women to vote because he was such a "dreamboat".   "big eyeroll"

    It sounds like not too much has changed has it? The Sibelius ploy would be another one of those insulting-to-women choices. First and last, she is not qualified. I never saw her before she gave that mind-numbingly boring and idiotic response after Bush gave his State of the Union, and I was way underwhelmed.  

    The Dem Party needs to get it through their thick skulls that women voting for Clinton are mostly voting for her not because she's a woman (that's the icing on top) but because she is the most qualified person to run the country and fix some of the mess left us by the Bush/Cheney criminals.

    We are voting for Clinton because of her superior Health Care Plan, energy plan, economic plan, the way she will get us out of Iraq, her overall foreign policy expertise (and the Military brass who support her have referred to her in this way after working with her on the Senate Armed Services Committee: she really knows her stuff and we saw that in the debates).  

    We don't even know the half of what the Bush/Cheney crime family left us and what the next POTUS will face.

    I won't vote for someone who is not qualified, period, I don't care if she is a woman or not. And, trying to lure women into voting for Obama as he drags some unqualified woman onto the ticket will backfire.  Most Clinton women will turn away from him in November even more than they already have and said they will(if that's possible), imo.  

    The Dems and the Repubs are no different when it comes to women and except for one thing, they both are clueless.  

    The exception: The Repubs would not have stood for the disrespect and misogyny and contempt that many Dem men (and some women: to their shame) showed towards Clinton had a Repub woman run for POTUS.

    This election season has been a true eye opener for me.  I've been a liberal Dem forever and respected so many of the same men (and some women) whose behavior this season has been contemptable and threw me sideways. It's shaken me to my core.  I now know how some devout Catholics felt discovering that some priests were molesting kids.  It must have shaken them right down to their core beliefs.  But, I found my core political beliefs are stronger than the misguided respect I had for these clowns such as Kerry and Kennedy and Pelosi among many others. If nothing else, I'm glad to know that about myself after being thrown for a loop by their mean-spirited, malicious behavior.


    I hope your husband (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:36:12 AM EST
    is not as wrong about most things as he is about that!

    I think any woman other (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Leisa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:40:47 AM EST
    than Hillary as VP would really be seen as pandering to us Hill supporters.  This would also further demonstrate his total lack of understanding of many of us.

    We (none / 0) (#142)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:26:52 AM EST
    are tokens to be interchanged then?

    On Reliable Sources (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:19:47 AM EST
    this morning, everyone agreed happily-- Karen Tumulty, Roger Simon and a young woman from the NYTimes whose name I didn't catch-- that yes, indeed, Hillary's supporters are mad as hell, but they're mad as hell at the media, not actually at Obama himself.

    It's breathtaking.

    Watching it (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:21:30 AM EST
    Right there are 3 of the stupidest people in the Media.

    The funny thing is Tumulty doesnot act this stupid on her blog.

    Simon is truly one of the stupidest men in the Media. What makes it hilarious is he thinks he is reallly smart. I love laughing at Simon.


    LOL, they are happily taking the hit.... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:22:38 AM EST
    ...for the team. What a bunch of losers.

    Denial is a self defense mechanism that shields (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Salt on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:01:44 AM EST
    Truth and a weapon for inane data points as faux proof of elect ability.  I personally was not drawn to Obama's who IMO's weak dependent personality, leadership style, voting record were not pluses for me and the when his campaign began using grievance to re victimize identity groups to inflame voters and move them to him and against others, it was a no starter ever for me, not someone I could or would ever support. But any anger I have is at the Democratic Party and their current Leadership for what I believe was a scam on the American People by providing Obama using made up Rulz momentum he had not earned in the Primary turning the contest into rope a dope shell game intended to enthrone a nominee regardless of the wishes of the now no longer needed majority in the base.  But some good will come of this I believe both Party's have shown themselves to be the business they are and not paragons of any past fictional virtue projected on their group, same with the media, bloggers self destructed as well, maybe now we can all get back to voting for our interest not made up divisions or labels and recall We are the power in the county.

    The thing about those MyDD.com maps. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:21:32 AM EST
    You can click on them and they'll change the electoral vote count, which is cool because I REALLY don't see Obama winning PA or IN in the general election, but that's the "default" that comes up for the map in the upper left corner.  It's still a McCain victory at 273 to 265, but without PA and IN, the win increases for McCain, 305 to 233.  I don't even see Obama carrying CO, which makes it even wider a win for McCain.  They even have Iowa going for Obama in the default, but it was red in 2004 and unless I'm mistaken, it's not a swing state this year, is it?  Though I guess it was blue in 2000.  Hmm.

    Oh, and what's REALLY irritating me re: maps (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:24:12 AM EST

    is the 270toWin.com map re: McCain vs. Obama.  Sorry, but South Carolina does not become a swing state if Obama's the nominee.  That state is red.

    Of course (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:24:55 AM EST
    Some of these maps are just silly.

    North Carolina is not in play either.


    And yet (none / 0) (#33)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:29:51 AM EST

    I see Clintonites and Obama people referencing 270toWin all the time.  It's REALLY irritating, considering that...well, I don't even know what kind of polling they're using to calculate this stuff, but it's really ridiculous to think that SC or NC or any tried and true deep red state would ever go swing because of Obama.  That other site, too...the one that's similar to 270toWin...is even more irritating to me.  D:

    Though I still think that if something weird happens at the convention--weird enough to really p*ss off the Clinton supporters--that California could go red.  People here love Arnold...so they might perk up their ears if they feel like they've been abandoned or shafted by their party.


    I dunno (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:31:01 AM EST
    I do not reference anything.

    I look at state polls myself and use my common sense.


    Eh, I don't even look at polls much. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:41:45 AM EST

    I look at demographics and the people themselves.  If this season's proved anything, it's proved that polls are iffy (what happened to Clinton's possible win/cutting it close in North Carolina, according to the polls?).

    On the ground over here in California you know where your Obama people are and your Clinton people are (and where the McCain people are hiding ;) ).  Obama gets Oakland hands down (where I live), Berkeley, Rockridge...but then when you start moving out of this area towards the places where the richer white people live (past Rockridge), you get more Clinton supporters (so I don't know where the "rich, white people voted for Obama" meme applies here in NorCal).  Hell, Obama lost bigtime to Clinton in L.A. County (what happened to his celebrities?  I guess Scarlett "I've Got a Big Johanssen" Johanssen couldn't go door-to-door with her shilling), so that has to tell you something.  My girlfriend's parents live in SoCal in San Diego, and that's Clinton and McCain country.

    My parents live in Massachusetts and they voted for Deval Patrick.  They're also p*ssed off that Patrick turned out to be a do-nothing numbnut (my dad's word) and see a lot of Patrick in Obama.  They live in a conservative area too, and it's similar there as it is here;  once you get out of the urban areas towards the countryside and the "affluent" areas, Clinton and McCain dominate the support.  They can see McCain winning their neighbors over (and I can too x_x).  Heck, they're not afraid to vote for Republicans (Romney, Weld), and with the disappointment in Patrick, I wouldn't count Massachusetts firmly in Obama's column either.

    But those are the only two states I've got firm opinions on, because I've lived half my life in one and am working on the other half in another.  The demographics and the way things work could very well be different elsewhere.


    what I believe (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Josey on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:28:15 AM EST
    Obama isn't relying on ideology or stats from 2004 to win the general.
    He's relying on amassing registering a zillion voters to vote for him.

    Iowa is Obama's (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:24:26 AM EST
    in  a walkover. He won't even have to fight hard there.

    Even tho' IA has been tight as a tick for (none / 0) (#53)
    by jawbone on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:40:36 AM EST
    the past two elections?

    Yeah. (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:12:48 AM EST
    IA is no walkover. The GE is not a caucus.

    McCain will take it easily IMHO.


    That Indiana lead is from one outlier poll. (none / 0) (#26)
    by tigercourse on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:27:16 AM EST
    If you go to electoral-vote.com you see that McCain has a comfortable lead there in the other polls.

    Thaaaaaat's the other website I was (none / 0) (#38)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:32:31 AM EST

    thinking of.  Thanks!

    Last 2 April Polls Showed Obama Beating (none / 0) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:30:24 AM EST
    McCain in IA by 7% - 8%.

    Yeeeeaaaaah, but I'm not looking (none / 0) (#62)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:44:36 AM EST

    at the current polls, I'm looking at the general climate and IA's history from the past elections.  It seems as though it could go either way (when you look at it in past elections), but when it comes down to it, I think it'd go red if Obama's the nom.  Remember, polling now is nothing come November.

    You're joking, right? (none / 0) (#200)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:04:51 AM EST
    Someone thinks Obama will win Indiana in the general?  Did you mean Ohio?  There is no way Indiana will go for a Democrat for President.  The last time that happened was 1964, and that was because JFK had been assassinated and LBJ won in a landslide.

    Hmm If I were McCain and if I were Clinton with (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Salt on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:24:31 AM EST
    all this shunning of Clinton's and McCain's talent I would team up on one ticket for America and break this strangle hold the two wings of the Party's have on the electorate in this country and cast off these puppets the extreme sects force on us along with there manufactured grievances that divide and undermine our future country's future prosperity. That's a ticket I am positive could win and bring change Day 1 and for a log time needed change.  It is a powerful coalition that IMO could easily win, hands down in Nov .  Real change and real courage and a ticket about We the People not the Progressive or the Christian Right image that both McCain and Clinton shunned by the wings, well there are plenty of us in the middle to put them in the White House if they choose.  I know Hillary is brave enough but is McCain I hope so.

    That is an insult to Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:26:11 AM EST
    She will work hard for the Dem nominee, be it herself or Obama.

    She is a loyal Dem (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Leisa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:56:26 AM EST
    too bad it seems that the DNC has not been so loyal to her.

    Salt, that ticket would be truly historic. Talk about implosion of both parties...



    Mmm, I don't know. (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:04:33 AM EST

    Remember when there were talks of Kerry/McCain?

    I think that Clinton/McCain would be crazy popular.  I think there are a lot of people outside of our little blog world here who would say "SEE?  THAT is what you call real UNITY!" and then they'd win every state save for Illinois against Obama/Whoever.  It would be devastating and historic in a three-fold way (Clinton/Obama would be historic in a three-fold way, but merely based on race and gender...this would be first First Lady to become prez, first woman to become prez, and first dual-gender/dual party ticket to win).

    Of course, it'd set the Republican mouthpieces on their ears.


    Its meant as a compliment, I beleive she is (none / 0) (#114)
    by Salt on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:14:12 AM EST
    a brave trail blazer who has the courage to put her country future first, we need her skills, talent and experience in the White House this round and bias should not be what keeps her out sometimes bold action are required to break through bigotry.

    Did you see McCain's reaction (none / 0) (#129)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    when Jon Stewart jokingly suggested that the other night as a sure thing winner in November?  If McCain could have said 'Are you effing kidding me?', he would have.

    Pretty sure there is absolutely no serious discussion of this in the McCain camp.


    Hillary as VP (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by DCDemocrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:26:07 AM EST
    I had an interesting interaction with an Obamadroid at Political Wire the other day.  I observed that Hillary actually is in a position to force herself onto the ticket if she should want.  She could go to the superdelegates, tell them she intends to bow out gracefully for the vice presidency, and they all would rise "as a man" and go to Obama to make it the price of their vote for him.  It would happen.  The Obamaphile had no end of pricey words, bought on some elementary school campus in Brooklyn, to shower on me.

    Your thought seems right to me (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:27:15 AM EST
    I wonder if she wants it.

    It may be her play after West Virginia and Kentucky.


    Not sure I'd want it... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:06:12 AM EST
    I'd be hard pressed to sit on my hands and stay quiet if I saw him making first timer's mistakes that I could easily fix.

    If you give to much advice, the person your serving with gets resentful. Don't give enough, things go bad quick.

    As Majority Leader, she'd be a force to be reckoned with...and a thorn in the side of many who burned their bridges over the past couple months. Ostensibly, she could broker the Leader position into a far more powerful role than any of the Dem leaders have managed thus far.

    Plus she could wop Nancy over the head with the metaphorical gavel.


    Disturbing (none / 0) (#43)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:34:47 AM EST
    but it could be true.  There's an article on CNN that suggests that Hillary is pushing for the slot according to "close friends."  

    I found the notion a bit disturbing in that I can't imagine what good would come of it if he can't stand her, and from all reports, it appears that the animosity is very strong.

    I'm hoping that is just a bad bit of journalism.  No real source was named.


    I wouldn't believe anything (none / 0) (#48)
    by stillife on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:37:44 AM EST
    from CNN, the "most trusted name in news".

    With "close friends" like that, Hillary doesn't need enemies.


    I'll eat my hat (none / 0) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:35:18 AM EST
    I think the only way she would even accept VP would be if the Obama people and the party poobahs begged her to for the critical good of the party.  That's not going to happen.

    I still say she can do just as much good, probably more, by campaigning her butt off with Bill for whoever the ticket is.  She will do that.  My intention now is not to vote for Obama in the GE if he's the nominee, but I don't completely discount the possibility that Hillary could argue me into doing it against my inclinations.  I think I'm not alone in that.


    I was thinking she might not want it, (none / 0) (#57)
    by DCDemocrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:41:24 AM EST
    but there was a campaign appearance yesterday where she called for Democratic unity and talked about, "we," going to the White House in a way that made me wonder if she meant, "Barack and me."  On the other hand, I am notorious for reading stuff into stuff.  

    What would happen (none / 0) (#102)
    by americanincanada on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:08:10 AM EST
    if Hillary "suspended" her campaign, took a tentative VP slot on the ticket with Obama and they started campaigning...only to have Obama implode before Denver and become irrevocably unelectable?

    Could Hillary become to nominee?


    Ditto (none / 0) (#159)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:35:36 AM EST
    I was wondering the same thing.

    Have to wait and see (none / 0) (#123)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:19:58 AM EST
    but the article essentially said that she's going to demand it.  yikes

    That actually supports the notions that her critics have been saying that she's not going to be graceful here at any point, and it will hurt the party.

    I found the article disturbing, as I said.

    It also said some of her friends are going to try to talk her down.  

    Makes her sound a bit pathological at this point.


    My $.02 (none / 0) (#153)
    by chrisvee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:33:48 AM EST
    It seems to me that there's a movement afoot to keep her from being VP and this is just part and parcel of it. First we have Obama surrogates explaining why a unity ticket is no good. Now we have anonymous Clinton 'friends' casting her as Lady Macbeth trying to force her way onto the ticket despite Obama's objections.

    It's sort of amazing.  The party couldn't be more evenly split between these two candidates, yet we keep hearing reason after reason why it makes more sense for them not to be on a ticket together.


    That makes sense (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:45:21 AM EST
    since I'm convinced the real reason for Obama's success is that the insiders wanted to kill off the Clintons and get the power for themselves.

    Obama is a president in their pocket.


    Reading the comments at Jerome's (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:26:42 AM EST
    who knew that Al Rogers was an unrepentant sexist? Ugh.

    I sort of did (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:27:57 AM EST
    I am ashamed I did not call him on it more. Generally he is a nice guy. But that is no excuse for me.

    I did. (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:08:46 AM EST
    But I'm a woman, so I tend to notice.

    Sorry, I'm talking about his other post (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:28:16 AM EST
    on WWTSBQ.

    I'm getting a whole new picture (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by Fabian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:05:27 AM EST
    of some e-folks.

    Kind of like:  Smart, talented, amazing people who I would never let my relatives marry.

    Now I know why people chafe against having to be "politically correct".  It's no fun when you have to argue on facts and can't use an assumption of shared bigotry to get people to agree with you.  


    One point (5.00 / 10) (#31)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:29:14 AM EST
    that Jerome seemed to miss is that the Clinton supporters "hate" of Obama is also a factor. Many loathe the misogny, the trashing of WJC's legacy, and the "cult-like" actions of so many of Obama's supporters. Obama could have stopped much of this if he had wanted to do so. Thus to me, it appears his unity schtick is pure bovine excrement and reinforces my feelings that he is just another bee-essing pol.  

    Unity ticket with Clinton subordinate to Obama will not bring in unreconstructed Feminists either. To many older women that will simply look like one more time that an older, more qualified woman had to take a back seat to some younger man. That doesn't bring unity, that bring rage and a lifetime of resentment.

    And just throwing another woman in the mix to get the woman's vote is beyond stupid and dead center insulting. IMO.

    kenoshaMarge, you are so right about (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by chancellor on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:41:34 AM EST
    Hillary as VP. Can anyone say Lily Ledbetter? You can pair an inexperienced candidate with an experienced candidate if they're both the same gender (think Kennedy-Johnson), but an older, more experienced woman second to a younger man? Too many women, including me, would see this as sexism.

    Agree that many current (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by brodie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:51:11 AM EST
    HRC backers, like myself, would find it just plain wrong for the older and much more experienced Hillary to play second fiddle to the new kid on the block.  Unprecedented for Dems to do that also.

    I can't believe she would want to, in effect, repeat as VP a job she essentially had with Bill.  In fact, she would have less power than she had with BC -- unless somehow she were able to force some sort of power-sharing arrangement with Barack along the lines of Bush-Cheney or what Reagan in 76 wanted with Ford.  

    A virtual co-presidency, something Lyndon tried with JFK, who turned him down on several occasion, wouldn't seem to be a plausible scenario this year when most people see a Dem victory.


    One thing to think about ... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:29:49 AM EST
    Once Obama gets the nomination (IF), we are going to see the "same" thing. Obama's campaign against McCain will be similar to the strategy he and Axelrod devised against Clinton. Helped by the MSM, and his supporters, I bet we will see clever and not-so-clever race and age baiting while he adds a few sops here and there to the working middle-class.

    Question is: how will the nation react? In particular, how will YOU -- as a Clinton supporter, or as a supporter of the Democratic party -- react?

    I found the McCain's camp's response to the comment that Obama made about "McCain losing his bearings" -- telling. The Republicans understand Obama's style and way-with-words a bit better than perhaps the Clinton camp did. More than anything, I think Clinton supporters and independents will be drawn toward McCain -- not because of his appeal per se -- but because of the behavior of the Obama campaign and his supporters.

    What say you? Will you feel that Obama's tactics, dog-whistles and race-baiting against your candidate was not-OK, but is kosher if directed againsta a Republican? Will your allegiance to the Democratic party, and the gulf on issues it has with the GOP over-ride what you may feel at the means with which campaigns sometimes achieve their ends?

    IMO Attacking McCain On Age Would Be A Big (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:39:15 AM EST
    mistake. Obama already has problems with the senior vote and this would only escalate it. If Obama continues to use race in the GE, he will lose more of the non AA vote. People are already tired of being called racists. He needs to do more than throw a few bones to lower income folks.

    I will not jump on McCain's bandwagon no matter how the GE plays out. The only question that remains is if I vote for Obama or write in another alternative.


    Short answer (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:43:13 AM EST

    Longer answer-- I would never under any circumstances either vote for McCain or not vote at all if there was any chance at all he could win my state.

    I think, though, some others who don't see McCain as dangerous as I do might well be tipped over the edge.  I think it is brilliant tactics on his part to highlight Obama's history of dirty campaigning.  It's pretty amazing that his campaign, even if just for tactical reasons, calls him on it openly where nobody in the Dem. Party but Bill Clinton has dared to, or even apparently seen it.


    I think the Clinton campaign (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Fabian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:48:30 AM EST
    knows exactly what Obama's weaknesses are.

    They just can't take advantage of them without alienating their base.

    Now, since the GOP base isn't the same as he Dem base, McCain and the GOP can use attacks that would hurt Clinton as much as they would help her.

    The GE is a whole different war.  Different strategies apply.


    I agree. (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:54:43 AM EST
    I was saying to my husband a couple of days ago that Obama absolutely CANNOT attack McCain's character if he wants to win the GE (and is the nominee). Obama has gotten lazy and sloppy because HRC would not fight back strongly against his constant smears and slurs, and because the media has been so in the tank for him and hateful towards HRC.

    McCain is the once and forever media darling that Obama is not. His character is unassailable because of that simple fact. Obama can only beat McCain on the issues, and frankly, I don't think he's going to try.

    I hope to Jeebus and the Giant Green Lizard that the Democratic Party does not nominate Obama. Otherwise this country is in a lot of trouble with President McCain at the helm.


    Obama is already bringing up the Keating Five. (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:13:23 AM EST
    He is opening himself up to the Republicans throwing everything they know about Barack's and Michelle's involvement in the Daley Machine and with Rezko and his associates.  Hillary has held back on all this dirt.  The Republicans won't.

    Yes. If Clinton could have gotten away (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:56:59 AM EST
    with as pointed a response as Salter came out with, she would have done so.  You can be a lot sharper when you are not trying to keep the opponents supporters on your side at the same time.

    McCain (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:50:44 AM EST

    Will you feel that Obama's tactics, dog-whistles and race-baiting against your candidate was not-OK, but is kosher if directed againsta a Republican?

    No, it's not o.k., considering that I generally like McCain.  And it's going to be a disastrous tactic to attack a war hero/POW like that, and it's already proving to be a bit STUPID for him to come out with that "losing his bearings" junk.  Obama's tactics suck, no matter who they're directed towards (Alice Palmer, anyone?).

    And I'm not a Democrat.  I'm registered Indie.  I was a Clinton Dem back in Massachusetts (back in 1992-1998), but for some reason when I re-reg'ed out here in California they listed me as Indie.  I thank G-d for that now.


    Count me among those who will (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by dk on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:16:44 AM EST
    at this point at least not vote for Obama in the GE because he is not liberal enough.  That said, though, I think that going after McCain with attacks on his character is not only wrong, but bad politics.

    I do think that's what Obama will do, though.  Partly, because they are drunk on their apparent success of beating Hillary using these tactics.  Also, of course, because Obama doesn't really have firm (or liberal) positions on most issues.  Character attacks is really all he has in his arsenal, unfortunately.


    Old age and wisdom (none / 0) (#87)
    by herb the verb on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:00:26 AM EST
    Vs. Youth and inexperience? Does Obama really want to open up that can of worms (and there by also the "Affirmative Action Candidate" dogwhistle)? Well, his campaign does currently live in the protective bubble of the Democratic primary race, so it's possible.

    Similar tactics by Obama (none / 0) (#127)
    by sander60tx on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:20:57 AM EST
    against McCain will not fly with me and I think I will enjoy seeing McCain call him out on it, as he did with the "losing his bearings" comment.  That makes me like McCain more, but not enough to vote for him!  I think that the Clinton campaign tried to call Obama out on some things, but could not get favorable media attention about it.  However, I'll bet that McCain can!

    your point is well taken (none / 0) (#134)
    by english teacher on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:24:27 AM EST
    but i would extend it by adding that the republicans need only be successful witht the tactic you describe in a few key areas where they have strategically placed prepositioned opportunities to cheat and tilt the outcome of a close election.  should this be one.  which i doubt.  but they will be ready, same as it ever was.  

    On, and on the substance of VP choices (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:31:56 AM EST
    Jerome's suggestion that McCain might choose  KBH scares the living sh*t out of me. She would be an excellent choice for him, and she's really hard right.

    Well put (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:52:11 AM EST
    Lately McCain has been working, with varying degrees of subtlety, on picking off the disaffected Dems. He has been courting African Americans, in case Clinton is the nominee, and women in case Obama is the nominee. I would not be at all surprised to see him pick a woman VP, and Hutchison would be a good choice to shore up his support on the right.

    Picking such a conservative woman would be an even more cynical ploy than Obama picking Sebelius however.  

    Do these men understand women at all? We actually like Hillary for lots of reasons, not just that she is a woman.


    A republican asked (none / 0) (#84)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:59:08 AM EST
    some of the women bloggers on the site that shall remain unnamed if she would make a difference to us.

    My radar said it was a campaign staffer feeling it out.  

    The question was asked too soon, but I think that would be an absolutely brilliant move on McCain's party.

    I believe some women would jump to vote for that ticket.


    I think it would force Obama's hand (none / 0) (#90)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:01:11 AM EST
    He'd have to pick Clinton.

    I was wondering about that too (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:07:41 AM EST
    the Republicans will probably name their VP first, since their convention is first.

    I would not be any more likely to vote for McCain if he nominated Hutchison in particular, but the visuals would be really harmful for Obama.

    Plenty of women don't know how conservative Hutchison is.  Obama would be put in the position of having to negatively attack yet another woman to point it out.

    Let's hope McCain isn't smart enough to do this.


    Don't count on that. (none / 0) (#110)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:11:07 AM EST
    The only thing Republicans are smart about is how to win elections.

    KBH said she (none / 0) (#94)
    by Leisa on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:03:15 AM EST
    was not interested in being VP.

    So? (none / 0) (#109)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:10:59 AM EST
    If her party calls, I think she'll do it.

    She'll say that right until she is asked (none / 0) (#139)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:25:46 AM EST
    yes i blanched when i saw that (none / 0) (#137)
    by english teacher on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:25:12 AM EST
    I agree--- I thought KBH would be first (none / 0) (#174)
    by Exeter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:45:22 AM EST
    female president when she first came on the scene. I disagree with politics obviously, but she's a great politician.  

    BTD (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:33:29 AM EST
    I just saw your remark about my Ted Bundy remark (that Ted Bundy worked on a rape crisis hotline and was credited by many women for his help and compassion).  I wasn't comparing the two, I was using an exaggerated circumstance to draw attention to the fact that hypocrisy knows no bounds.  I also invoked serial adulterer Newt Gingrich calling out Bill Clinton while cheating on his own wife and Foley fighting for child protection legislation while texting pages for secret rendezvous.

    It was merely a rhetorical device. I am kind'a shocked that you would think I was actually putting the guy on par with Ted Bundy.  That was certainly not my intent, which was to say that actions speak louder than words.

    I know someone who worked with (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by MarkL on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:30:47 AM EST
    Bundy and Ann Rule on on that phone line.
    He said he liked Bundy better.. true story, and not much of an endorsement of this guy's judgment.

    MSNBC anchor (5.00 / 11) (#42)
    by Kensdad on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:33:36 AM EST
    this week i met an MSNBC anchor at a reception in NYC.  she is one of the few anchors who has managed to stay out of the muck this political season and not debase herself with the shameless bias of her network.  i complimented her on her unbiased presentation of the news and she admitted that too many of her colleagues have fallen into the trap of criticising Hillary (though she excludes matthews and olbermann as "pundits, not journalists" who can "spin away")...  the most amazing moment was when i pointed out that so far the democratic race is tied and that by trashing Hillary MSNBC is alienating 1/2 of the democratic voters out there.  she honestly seemed surprised by that thought (as if it had never occurred to her!)  she did not seem all that happy with my observation and seemed to worry about whether i might be right...

    Glad you clued her in (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    I used to watch MSNBC regularly.  They definitely lost a loyal viewer in me.

    I Can Hardly Imagine (none / 0) (#196)
    by flashman on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:01:20 AM EST
    the the networks don't realize they are alienatint Hillary's supporters.  My take is they just don't seem to care.  Obama's voters, it would seem, are more prone to get their "news" from the cable networks, internet, etc.  Hillary's "down-scale" supporters are the Walter Croncrite, 5 o'clock news types that the cable don't count as amongst their audience anyway.

    Speaking for myself as an older female (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by athyrio on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:35:07 AM EST
    Hillary devotee, the only way I would vote for Obama is if he chose Hillary as his VP and then openly promised she would be in charge of getting health care thru congress, etc.....Her own version of health care that is....

    Obama has too much foolish pride... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Exeter on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    ...to ask Hillary. He wants a sycophantic head nodder.

    Something important to think about... (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by kdog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:59:24 AM EST
    this mothers day...drug war p.o.w.'s

    To all the moms in the pen over bullsh*t, my heart goes out to you this mothers day.

    Obama supporters are campaigning against Obama (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by Sunshine on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:05:31 AM EST
    With all of the vicious and sexist attacks being done by the press and the Obama blogs against Hillary, they are just cementing the determination not to vote for Obama in Nov. by the Hillary supporters....  I'm not one for turning the other cheek.....   I have never seen these kind of attacks against a candidate from members in the same party in my life and I strongly suspect sexism, that's the only thing that is really different this time...   A good example of what I am talking about, take a look at www americablog.com this morning...   Do they think that I would ever vote their candidate after they attack mine this way?

    I'll (none / 0) (#186)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    take your word for it because I do not go to Americablog, ever. Arivosis lost his friggin mind months ago. I feel dirty when I think of how many blogs that I once read on a daily basis are now my idea of political pornography.

    I just don't see how (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:08:18 AM EST
    HRC makes Obama electable.

    He will be destroyed by the Republican 527's in very short order. He is the weakest candidate we have put up in decades. There is nothing she can do to save Obama from himself.

    He cannot be on the ticket if we want to beat McCain.

    So the question for me is not whether she'll be on the ticket, but whether he will.

    And I say no. Clinton/Clark 2008. That's the winning ticket.

    Obama? No! (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:14:52 AM EST
    Even if Chelsea called me personally and urged me to vote for Obama I wouldn't do it. I would tell Chelsea that I'm proud her mom is my Senator, and that I felt sorry for people in the other 56 states who don't have her mom as a Senator.

    D**n straight! (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:16:43 AM EST
    Since the campaign started.... (none / 0) (#122)
    by kdog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:19:43 AM EST
    New York, Illinois, and Arizona have been missing a senator.  

    I feel sorry for the people of Illinois, New York, and Arizona who have not been properly represented in the Senate for the past 6 months.  I don't know about you, but if I stop showing up for work I don't get paid and I get fired.  Too bad the same does not apply to senators.


    Don't feel sorry for the people of New York. (none / 0) (#131)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:23:15 AM EST
    HRC shows up when we need her.

    I'm a New Yorker.... (none / 0) (#157)
    by kdog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:35:19 AM EST
    from my view she hasn't done much for us.  

    come on, kdog (none / 0) (#177)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:49:17 AM EST
    is there a politician out there who you think has done anything like they should be doing?  

    Josh Marshall Has Definitely Been Kidnapped (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:50:19 AM EST
    Does this person impersonating him really think that attacking Women's Voices, Women Votes is beneficial to Obama or the Democratic Party. Buy a clue will you guys, Obama and the party has a escalating  problem with female voters. Why are you so bound and determined to make it worse?


    they have been attacking women (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:54:50 AM EST
    (under the guise of, "I don't hate all women, just that woman") for months now.  Why not attack our groups now, too?

    It's not just women's GOTV groups, but vet groups, and any group perceived to be against Obama.  Or not even against; being non-partisan seems to be a tacit endorsement of Clinton these days.

    It really reminds me of what Bush & Co have done over the last seven years, where they weed out anyone who might perchance eventually not agree with them.  The fascinating thing is how quickly the blog boys have started to eat their own tails.

    A mob is still a mob, even when it's with you.


    Does Anyone Other Than Me Find Trying To Strip (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:02:54 AM EST
    activist groups of funding troublesome? Remove all the groups that may "push back" against your agenda and you pretty much have a free ride for good or ill.

    Amazing. (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by kestrel9000 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:26:46 AM EST
    I haven't been here in months, and I kind of abandoned myDD a while ago.
    Big Tent Democrat. Disheartening to see a blogger I once respected immensely that is committed to the shoring up of an inarguably failed and horribly divisive candidate, and apparently contributing to what could well mean the destruction of the Democratic Party.
    You suck, Armando. I thought more of you than this.
    I'm out. I doubt I'll be back.

    You hate Obama that much? (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    I utterly disagree with your characterization of him.

    Zing! (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:33:19 AM EST
    wow, that's nasty (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:33:23 AM EST
    if you haven't been here for months, you're hardly an expert on the temperature here.  I don't speak for TL, but I think I speak for a lot of posters here when I say that you are totally out of line.

    Sweriously though (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:33:49 AM EST
    I am trying to shore up a horribly divided and headed to failure Democratic Party.

    You are part of the problem. You hate Clinton so much you can not imagine how it is necessary to unify the Party.

    I suggest you need to see the bigger picture.


    My problem (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:49:20 AM EST
    is the insiders in the party rather than Obama.

    I'm pretty sure I could vote for him.  Right now, a vote for him seems to be a vote for his Dem. supporters, and I really, really have a problem with their tactics this year.  They seem very dishonest to me, and it's hard to think I should participate in letting them run the show.

    I'm not quite sure how to back away from my conclusions, either.


    BTD (none / 0) (#172)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    I appreciate that you are trying to shore up a deeply divided party.  You have also tried to get people to see the value of a unity ticket.  

    That is a plus in your favor.

    But maybe, it is time for the halves of the party to just get a divorce and part ways.


    That is a losing strategy (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:56:40 AM EST
    Losing to the GOP in this election is unthinkable.

    what's the winning strategy? (none / 0) (#194)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:57:42 AM EST
    Well, I'm sorry about Obama too. (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by MarkL on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:50:09 AM EST
    I hope you don't vote for McCain though.

    That's sort of a weird post (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by Burned on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:24:27 AM EST
    From a supporter of hope and change.
    It was more like a typical drive-by and toss a flaming brick in the window post. I could almost hear the tires screeching.

    There isn't anyone left over at Dkos to insult.


    You gotta admit one thing (none / 0) (#225)
    by lyzurgyk on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:31:11 AM EST
    Obama has the emotionally unstable vote (I call it the "TJ Rosenberg Demographic") all locked up.

    Jerome's (none / 0) (#8)
    by 1jane on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:20:29 AM EST
    assessment of possible VP candidates seems off base. Whenever either Clinton and Obama campaign and mention an orderly withdrawal from Iraq the audiences go nuts.

    Most voters recognize the Iraq War has gutted our economy. The VP should be the person who can tie the withdrawal in Iraq to reinvesting in the United States through improving infrastructure which means jobs, jobs, jobs, and workforce training, more jobs, jobs and jobs.

    None of us know who Obama will select for his running mate yet. Jerome needs to go back to his drawing board.

    I wish it were so (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:23:16 AM EST
    The Dem dropped the ball on Iraq and the issue is very much weakened now.

    The economy is now the winning issue. Iraq is only as slight positive for Dems now.

    I think you confuse a Dem campaign rally with the general electorate.


    Obama tough talk: Keating 5 not off limits (none / 0) (#15)
    by Josey on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:23:30 AM EST
    then I read that Politico was reporting 2 of the 5 support Obama, but I can't find the link.

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:28:31 AM EST
    I guess it will be off limits after all.

    McCain, Iraq, Roe (none / 0) (#41)
    by Munibond on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:33:32 AM EST
    Personally, I think McCain is a phoney and a sellout, and voting for him is nearly unthinkable.  On the other hand, isn't it possible that a hawkish republican would be better positioned to actually get us out of Iraq, a la Nixon and Vietnam?  And on Roe, if polls showing majority support for legal first trimester abortions are correct, maybe the time has come to fight this battle in the state legislatures anyway.

    almost 30% of all abortions (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:45:22 AM EST
    in women under 18 are performed in the second trimester.

    If Bush could not get Roe v Wade overturned, McCain won't (he's waffled on abortion before)

    It's not outlawing abortion outright that we have to fear, but restrictions places on access.  Time out laws, parental consent, waiting periods, mandatory sonograms, etc.  Slowly, access is being restricted until there will be a stranglehold and only women who have money and time will be able to get safe, legal abortions.

    Google around and see how much abortions cost now.  The higher they get, the more illegal abortions are performed.


    Here is my evolving thinking (none / 0) (#146)
    by dk on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    on the stakes of Obama v. McCain regarding abortion.  I'm not committed to this line of though, but I'm interested in what you think.

    At this point, polls seem to show that, at most, one third of Americans want substantive restrictions on abortion.  My assumption is that these are mostly religious fundamentalists.  So, the question is which of the candidates is most likely to pander to the minority religious fundamentalist view.

    On this question, I seriously think that the answer might be Obama.  Yes, McCain as a republican has to pander to these people more openly to win elections, but does would he really govern toward appeasing these people?  My gut feeling is that he wouldn't.  On the other hand, Obama seems a true convert a-la-Bush.  His attacks on pro-choice advocates, combined with his gay baiting to win elections, combined with his Reverend Wright connection, lead me to believe that his commitment to religious fundamentalism is pretty deep.  Remember, there are Democrats who are anti-choice, and the powerful among them (Bob Casey, Harry Reid) seem pretty strongly behind Obama.  


    I hear there's a sale (none / 0) (#155)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:34:09 AM EST
    on tin foil hats.

    So you think McCain (none / 0) (#165)
    by dk on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:40:31 AM EST
    is more religious than Obama?  You don't think that Obama demeaned pro-choice advocates?  You don't think he gay-baited in South Carolina?  You don't think he didn't try to win elections by sending out pamphlets talking about he was "called by Jesus" etc?  

    I am the first to admit we don't yet know the answer to who is more threatening to women's reproductive rights, but belittling my pointing out actual statements and actions and tactics of Obama is just lazy.

    In my opinion, the abortion issue is now firmly a losing one for Republicans.  It would take a Democrat to move backward on the issue at this point.


    Totally insane (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:43:01 AM EST
    you can try to rationalize a vote for McCain, but I ain't buying.

    First of all, can you cut it (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by dk on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:48:11 AM EST
    out with the personal insults?  You have now called me insane twice.  You do not know me.  If you disagree with a point I am making, please argue it on the merits instead of attacking me personally.  Let's keep some semblance of respect here, please.

    Back to my point.  You are putting words in my mouth.  Nowhere above did I say I was making an argument for voting FOR McCain.  I was specifically addressing the argument I keep hearing that voting FOR Obama is necessary in order to protect women's reproductive rights.  I was responding to that argument by explaining why, at this point, I am not inclined to find that argument compelling.  


    the best way (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:51:46 AM EST
    to protect reproductive rights is to vote down-ticket dems.  The federal government isn't where the problem is on this issue--it's the states.  There have been some absolutely horrible laws put up by the GA legislature in the last six months that sane, pro-choice dems* working with Planned Parenthoo and other groups, have managed to bat down.

    (*oh, Andgarden...we do have a few!)


    Roe isn't Roe anymore (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by davnee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:30:41 AM EST
    anyway.  The states are where abortion rights are at.  PP v. Casey made sure of that.  Consolidating abortion rights at the state level is the key, whether Roe survives or not.  That's where the pro-life movement has started concentrating.  They've figured out that Roe has been neutered.  So state Dems are already the key to abortion rights.  So no time to waste angsting over SCOTUS if you believe in reproductive rights.  The game is already on.

    Kathy, (none / 0) (#187)
    by dk on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:53:25 AM EST
    I totally agree with you.

    I agree (none / 0) (#193)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:57:38 AM EST
    with you.  I think we have to stop thinking of it as strictly a court issue.

    You assume that Obama will intentionally (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:52:24 AM EST
    dismantle the Democratic party for a few votes at the margins.

    Yes, the idea is insane.


    Do we really know what Obama would do? (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:57:02 AM EST
    Giving him the benefit of the doubt is just as bad as predicting he will bring on the Apocalypse.  Each is rooted in the same amount of fact and logic.  We have absolutely no idea what he'll do, except protect himself at all costs.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by andgarden on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:00:22 AM EST
    As the Democratic nominee, there are things we can be assured he will not do. This is one of them.

    Any other suggestion is simply deranged and irrational, and I'll keep calling it that.


    I suppose this is where (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:09:35 AM EST
    experience triumphs age.  I've seen my party make a lot of compromises over the years that have surprised me.

    You may call it deranged and irrational; I call it having lived a lot longer than you and seen a lot of really surprising things happen that I would have never thought possible.  You can read about it in history books, but not until you experience it first hand d you really know what has happened.

    And you know I respect you terribly, and really enjoy your posts and think you are a brilliant young man, but this is just the way I see things.


    Kathy - I think what gives me such pause (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by Anne on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:23:41 AM EST
    with Obama is that we don't have any idea when or on what issues he will reject political expedience for some core belief that will make him draw a line; I suppose the "brilliance" of his campaign is that he has so many people thinking he's on their side, but I think governance is where the rubber meets the road - and where he could not only end up being a terrible president, but could also end up bastardizing the whole concept of what it means to be a Democrat.  

    I do see him believing he can chip away at the margins while still preserving the essence, because this is his M.O. Up until now, it's been a way for him to win elections, and he's been able to hide among a lot of others - as president, there is no more hiding and I don't think he realizes that all that chipping changes the essence into something most of us won't recognize and many will profess not to know how it happened.

    He's dangerous.


    Andgarden, (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by dk on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:25:00 AM EST
    Well, I suppose you have exhibited about a .05% level of improvement for calling my idea insane, as opposed to calling me insane.  But, it's still lazy name calling.  I bet you can do better.

    Now, as far as your statment that Obama would not dismantle the democratic party, let's talk about Obama's recent statement that "some" pro-choice advocates have made the "mistake" of failing to talk about abortion as a "moral" issue.  Here are my two problems with this:

    1.  Who is Obama, or anyone, to insist that everyone has to view "morals" as he does?  Yes, many people, including many pro-choicers, view the decision to have an abortion as a moral question, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to.  If a woman doesn't have any moral conflicts in taking a morning after pill, or in having a second trimester abortion, I don't think that makes her a bad person.  Do you?

    2.  By legitimizing the right-wing smear that some pro-choicers are immoral, he does more damage, frankly, than when the anti-choicers say it.  He makes this view more acceptable among the mainstream American majority, and probably emboldens anti-choicers within the Democratic party to fight harder against womens' reproductive rights.  It also alienates voters, such as myself, who view leadership on this issue as an important factor in making my choice of how to vote (or not vote) for President this fall.  Kathy is right that the real battle is now in the states; there is, in my opinion, little actual impact a President can have on the issue other than through her/his use of the bully pulpit.  

    So, Obama actually is already working on dismantling the Democratic party through his wrongheaded statements.  Now, I suppose your reaction may be to say I'm insane, and to say good riddance to me as a Democrat.  My response is that, while being a Democrat usually means voting Democrat, sometimes it means not voting Democrat if that would mean voting against the issues that the Democratic party represents.

    Did You Ever Think That 3 Years After (3.00 / 2) (#210)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:12:02 AM EST
    a united Democratic party spent months disproving that Social Security was in a crisis state, a Democratic candidate for president would claim that a crisis existed and put it on the table? That is something that I would have said that a Democrat would not do.

    How about promoting abstinence only sex education? That is something that I would have said that a Democrat would not do.


    If Obama wants my vote, (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:25:50 AM EST
    he needs to make an MSM apology to the Clintons, their surrogates, and her supporters for playing a whole deck of race cards in this primary.  It has to be a "Harry Truman - the buck stops here" kind of apology. Not an "I'm sorry if you misunderstood" variety.  The reason is that I want a President who takes responsibility for his actions no matter whether I agree with them or not.  I also want assurances that reasonable people will be able to disagree with a President Obama and not risk being labeled "racist".  Anything less than that and Obama is also a "sellout and a phoney", and Daffy Duck can have my vote.  I will be waiting to see which candidate "smells less" and they both need a shower at this point.  The VP choice is just one thing I will be watching. So far I've heard Judas, Sexist, and Milquetoast are in the running for Obama.

    I don't think Webb is a terrible choice. His (none / 0) (#44)
    by tigercourse on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:34:50 AM EST
    drawbacks are that he lacks political experience, he has a sexist history, he isn't terribly popular in Virginia and (apparently) he doesn't enjoy campaigning. Still he is at least from an important state that we have an outside chance at winning and bolsters Obama's non existent credibility on defense. He also loves Reagen, so they have that in common.

    If the conversations in the Obama (none / 0) (#144)
    by ruffian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:29:41 AM EST
    war-room are sounding anything this, I'd say Webb is not going to be the VP, despite that Reagan endorsement that they have in common.

    Roger Simons (none / 0) (#68)
    by garage mahal on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:47:51 AM EST
    Eggh. I was watching him and Matthews laugh and mock the idea that popular vote has any relevance as a metric to guage the true will of the people. Then I realized Hillary lost this spin war 2 months ago when it was apparent to anyone paying attention it would more than likely come to superdelegates deciding the outcome. That's why they trotted out that 20 yr old SD very early on that looked like he was 14. They were trying to say "look at who might take this away from Obama".

    Hard to fathom how woeful and inadequate her camp was pushing back on this narrative. Could have been they thought they couldn't get the popular vote in the end and didn't want to publicly gamble on it, but if that was the case that was dumber than staking a claim to it.

    I Didn't Think It Was Woeful (none / 0) (#214)
    by flashman on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:14:53 AM EST
    rather, they had the media against them.  That makes it hard to get their message out.  But ever time I saw Clinton or her people talking about this issue, they were strongly defending their positions about electability, popular vote and electoral strategy.  I though they did a pretty good job, but couldn't get the Obama luvin' media on their side.

    Luv what you had to say in your first paragraph though.  Very insightful.


    What are the true facts on Bill and SC (none / 0) (#78)
    by Saul on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:54:15 AM EST
    Which is true and can be backed up with  facts? If you have the facts please post them in your reply.

    Bill on his own played the race card

    Bill was baited by the Obama campign so Bill would look like a racist in order to bring all AA over to Obama.

    Bill made a horrible remark (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:03:48 AM EST
    at the end comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson.

    Before that. The race baiting came from the Obama camp.


    That remark (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:09:52 AM EST
    was in context and true. It was not horrible. How did Obama win SC if not by getting the AA vote?!

    Bill is not a racist and never has been.


    BTD.. (none / 0) (#145)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:29:48 AM EST
    By juxtaposing those two sentences you make it seem as though Bill's "horrible remark" was racist.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Bill's remark was neither horrible nor racist.

    You have often pointed out how demographics rule, and hence NC would go for Obama. Does that make YOU racist? It doesn't. Bill's comment was similar, and I read it the same way -- he was making a point about demographics.

    From Sean Wilenz's article I posted a link to:

    When asked by a reporter on primary day why it would take two Clintons to beat Obama, the former president, in good humor, laughed and said that he would not take the bait:

        Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice in '84 and '88 and he ran a good campaign. And Senator Obama's run a good campaign. He's run a good campaign everywhere. He's a good candidate with a good organization.

    According to Obama and his supporters, here was yet another example of subtle race-baiting. Clinton had made no mention of race. But by likening Jackson's victories and Obama's impending victory and by praising Obama as a good candidate not simply in South Carolina but everywhere, Clinton was trying to turn Obama into the "black" candidate and racialize the campaign. Or so the pro-Obama camp charged.

    According to me too (none / 0) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:31:32 AM EST
    It was a horrible remark.

    you don't think (none / 0) (#201)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:05:50 AM EST
    Hillary's statement "hard working voters, white voters" was subtle race baiting? Or was that rallying the base?

    I think she quoted the AP article (none / 0) (#213)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:13:28 AM EST
    and also, Brazile had just thrown a hissy over using the term, "working class," saying it left out AA working class and was offensive.

    OK, so then if the sentence is qualified, it's now viewed as racist?

    That's the ultimate gotcha crud.


    Rallying The Base n/t (none / 0) (#216)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:16:10 AM EST
    Well, I'm in the minority here (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:11:24 AM EST
    but the over-sensitivity to gender and race resulting in accusations of sexism and racism seem over-the-top to me.

    But then, I worked in a male-dominated industry for years and probably saw every gender trick in the book pulled to make sure I didn't get this or that.  None of it really worked, and I probably have a thicker hide than most.

    I also am always one to champion stating the obvious.  This nonsense where we can't notice that 90% of AA voters are voing as a bloc or we can't notice that a candidate is AA or we can't point out that many of the state results were due to this kind of unprecedented support make me nuts.  I'm in the group that says transcending racial and gender bias requires us to be able to talk about it, for gosh sakes.

    My own preference is just to say, "You do know that's pretty sexist or that could be seen as racist," and then let it go.

    I'm firm that true sexism and true racism involves acts that, in fact, harm the person in a tangible way.

    But then, I'm a huge believer that what people say reflects upon themselves, not upon the person they are talking about.

    Bill's comment seemed to me a very simple matter of trying to point out that Hillary lost due to a landslide vote of the AA bloc, to be expected, just as other AA candidates had done in the past.

    I believe that if Clyburn and Co. hadn't faked outrage, the entire comment would have caused a few eyes to roll in the AA community and not much more.

    Over-reactions on both sides to stuff has probably bothered me the most this season.

    I'll be glad to see everyone turn down the thermostat.


    Neither Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:25:14 AM EST
    could open their mouth at that point without being misconstrued.  People were just looking for it.

    Super well said Ann.... (none / 0) (#133)
    by kdog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:23:36 AM EST
    especially this bit...

    I'm firm that true sexism and true racism involves acts that, in fact, harm the person in a tangible way.

    But then, I'm a huge believer that what people say reflects upon themselves, not upon the person they are talking about.

    I was begining to think maybe I was nuts...for all the talk of sexism and racism, I haven't seen acts that harm in a tangible way.  I think people confuse bigotry and prejudice with sexism/racism far too often.


    yeah....the reaction from the Obama camp (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:38:35 AM EST
    gave me all the information I needed.  Bill's comment from someone who DID NOT want to be viewed as the AA candidate would have been similar to Hillary's when the "boys" ganged up on her in the NH debate.  She said, piling on.  Then she said, "Well, it's because I'm ahead, not because I'm a woman."  She was right, but more important, she didn't want that "woman" label to stick and turn it into a gender only race.

    Obama could have easily said, "Bill is trying to minimize my loss.  That's all, and he's ignoring my success with this group, that group, yadda, yadda."

    Then Bill's remark would have been seen for what it was:  A way to minimize a big loss.  All politicians do that.

    Instead, everything in this primary has been twisted into painting the Clintons as racists.

    What truly disappointed me was that their honest record didn't cause that charge to crash and burn even among the AA voters.  That still bothers me.

    People should be judged on their actual records more than on some marketing twist.  I really thought we were beyond that type of superficial thinking.


    It's like once the..... (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by kdog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:43:25 AM EST
    "I'm offended" flag goes up all critical thinking goes out the window.  I have no reason to believe the Clintons are racist or Obama is sexist...all I see is "gotcha" bullsh*t.

    90% or so of Blacks (none / 0) (#222)
    by dem08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:25:08 AM EST
    vote for ANY Democratic candidate for President.

    It is difficult to see History until time has passed, and, although I love Blogs (sort of), the instant way opinions become facts and facts harden into us-them, really blinds us to what is going on.

    I do not know why blacks went from a significant percentage for Hillary to an overwhelming percentage for Obama.

    But if Obama dropped out, say he could not continue in the nomination, it is an almost certainty the Hillary would get 90% of the black vote.

    I have no idea what percentage of self identified white democrats would vote for Obama, but I also really do not know what percentage of white democratic voters would actually pull the lever for Hillary against McCain.


    SC was pure and out race-baiting by Obama... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:22:44 AM EST
    Read Race Memo article and Race Man. Warning: both articles are long, and will require you to think back as to how the events unfolded, how the MSM portrayed their words. If you have any critical thinking abilities -- you will have to conclude in favor of Bill and Hillary and against Senator Obama -- given the factual evidence. No amount of shouting, or clever history re-writing by the MSM or Obama supporters will EVER change this for me.

    And I want to add a personal note: It just so happened on MA TV (I forget the channel) -- Bill Clinton's comments about the "fairy tale" (where he was clearly talking about Senator Obama's record on the Iraq war -- and that his claim that he had always been voting against it etc. was a fairy tale), was played right before a clip of Michelle Obama saying that the Hillary campaign was saying that an African American ever winning the Presidency was a fairy tale. I found it disgusting that they were twisting his words that way -- and that no one in the MSM were calling them out on it.

    I could provide more example like that.. but once it became apparent, I could never ignore it. Pure and out race-baiting by the Obama camp.


    Webb has always been viewed as sexist (none / 0) (#128)
    by athyrio on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:21:32 AM EST
    I think in many circles....Might not help him with the female voters....Also he might be hard to replace as a democratic senator from a red state....

    We need him in the Senate. (none / 0) (#135)
    by madamab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:24:49 AM EST
    He was the one who took all the inflammatory language out of the Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran. I think if he had not been screaming about it, it would have passed as written, which would have allowed Bush to attack Iran quite easily with cover from Congress.

    Bush doesn't need (none / 0) (#148)
    by Kathy on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    Congress's approval to attack Iran.  I think past actions have proven that he'll do whatever he wants.

    No to "Backstabbing" Bill Richardson! (none / 0) (#160)
    by lyzurgyk on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:35:44 AM EST
    I'd have a real problem with a veep who got the nod that way.   Character flaw.

    The (none / 0) (#164)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:40:25 AM EST
    best the Dems can get from me now is a write in for Clinton.

    They should implode because of all this, and I hope they do.  Obama has been allowed to slip/slide into the nomination without all votes being counted.  It's disgusting.

    As soon as I get the forms in the mail (and they are on their way) I'm registering as an Independent.  I'm mailing my torn up Democratic voter card to the DNC.

    I agree sas (none / 0) (#206)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:09:17 AM EST
    A write in for Hillary, a couple of votes for Dems down ticket that I respect and a certain vote for a Green Party candidate I support.

    Voting for Obama is validating all the bee-ess that has tarnished this primary. If I vote for Obama I say I'm fine with rampant misogyny, media choosing candidates, media fawning over one candidate and relentlessly attacking the other, disenfranchising voters from 2 states, Tarnishing the WJC legacy and calling people that fought for woman's rights, civil rights and human rights "racist" if they don't support Obama. There are more reasons but I've ranted enough.

    These things are not fine with me. That they come not from the Rightwingnuts but from the Left disgusts me beyond my ability to articulate. I refuse to sanction such actions with my vote.


    Good NPR story this morning (none / 0) (#180)
    by akaEloise on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:50:16 AM EST
    I usually find Weekend Edition Sunday to be the weakest of the major NPR shows, but this was a well-done piece on a topic I had heard nothing about: Injured US Troops Battle Drug-Resistant Bacteria
    NPR did a skillful job IMO of taking what would have been an interesting but relatively dry piece about a particular bacterium affecting people treated at Iraqi field hospitals and how the Pentagon needs to rethink its policy on antibiotics, and framing it with the case of an individual soldier, his mother, and his baby daughter, but without dumbing it down or making it sentimental.

    bloomberg (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jlvngstn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:06:48 AM EST
    for vp or easley. I would not extend it to Hillary especially if she tried to twist my arm.

    The discussion of this is premature (none / 0) (#215)
    by AnninCA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:15:20 AM EST
    until Obama reaches the true number of needed delegates to win the nomination OR is named at the convention.

    Why (none / 0) (#217)
    by sas on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:23:02 AM EST
    ever would Hillary want to be on a ticket with Obama - a losing ticket.

    Besides, if he lost, she would get all the blame.

    Best to stay away...

    Comments closed (none / 0) (#223)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:26:07 AM EST