Does Unifying The Party Involve The Clinton Wing?

In praising John Edwards' excellent speech yesterday endorsing Barack Obama, Paul Rosenberg makes a case for John Edwards as the VP candidate. The case is a pretty good one. With one exception, the blithe disregard for the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party. Paul writes:

I know that in terms of unifying the party, putting a woman on the ticket would be an excellent move. But putting Edwards on the ticket would put the election away. Because of the unique dynamics of this race, it would be one of the rare examples of when a Vice Presidential candidate really can sway an important, if not crucial demographic--the very "Regan Democrat" demographic that McCain cannot win without. . . . Most importantly, Edwards on the ticket would be a powerful figure for healing the deep rifts that have divided our party in the past, and that clearly still linger in hearts of many . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) More . . .

Setting aside the rather, to put it mildly, rosy expectations regarding Edwards' appeal, isn't there something missing from Paul's discussion? Yep, that's right - Hillary Clinton and her supporters. Any woman can unify the Party. Hillary Clinton is viewed as having NO appeal with voters. It is rather funny when you compare it to the high regard that Paul has for Edwards' supposed appeal to voters.

The more I read from Obama bloggers and the Creative Class, the more I become convinced that driving the Clinton wing of the Dem Party out is one of their primary goals. I hold to my view that the Obama Wing of the Democratic Party needs to decide what is more important to them, winning in November, or destroying the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party. I doubt they can do both.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

Comments closed

< It's Not A Contest | Pellicano and Codefendants Convicted in Wiretapping Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I was an Edwards supporter early in the race ... (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:40:53 PM EST
    but it wasn't an "excellent speech."

    Especially not the "only one man" bit.  

    Either that was Edwards in stealth snark mode .... or it was something that should have been discussed in your previous diary.

    I'm certain he sd. it that way to (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:43:49 PM EST
    make sure he wasn't excluding Hillary Clinton.  There's only one man--please note I didn't say a woman couldn't do this stuff.

    Which would be a pretty snarky thing ... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:48:09 PM EST
    to do in an endorsement.

    "There's only one person who's name ends in a vowel in this race who can face up the challenges of this time."



    Completely agree (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by IzikLA on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:00:10 PM EST
    As much as I was dismayed by the endorsement, I think a lot of people here got this part of the speech wrong.

    I am pretty sure he kept saying "one man" as a pointed way of not saying "one candidate" for good reason.  The implication of "One candidate" would be that Hillary couldn't unite the party.  He took efforts not to say that.  It may have come across to some people the wrong way, but I think it was actually a way of not belittling Hillary.  I do think he has tremendous respect for her.  


    given the timing of Edwards announcement... (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:04:45 PM EST
    I do think he has tremendous respect for her.

    if that's how he treats people he respects, I can't imagine how he acts when it comes to those for whom he has contempt.

    It really was a slap in the face -- an "oh no you DON'T".... and the whole "one man" thing rubbed it in.


    Perhaps (none / 0) (#149)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:31:52 PM EST
    it was a reference back to "cojones" and Carville's intent to say she can go against any man, any time.

    Maybe Elizabeth wrote that part? (none / 0) (#161)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:36:51 PM EST
    I keep saying...Edwards endorsement is a feint. (none / 0) (#10)
    by cosbo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:44:25 PM EST
    But we'll see how it plays out.

    A feint? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Emma on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:48:26 PM EST
    A feint for what?  I mean, what is there time for it to be a feint for?  This is it.  This is the final hour, D-Day and there's the beach, win or go home.  There's nothing left after this.  Clinton takes it now, or she doesn't take it.  And if she takes it now, all she gets is to take it to the Convention.  She can't win outright, not before the Convention.

    How could this be a feint?  It's now or never, there isn't time for anything else.


    also this (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:41:46 PM EST
    "I doubt they can do both"
    I doubt they can do either.

    My thoughts exactly (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by flashman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:48:40 PM EST
    The only thing they can really do is ruin the party's chance to get elected on 2008.  The party, and the Clinton wing, will survive in tact.  Death to the raiders!

    I am convinced after yesterday (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:42:18 PM EST
    Obama sprung the endorsement when he did to mute the calls for him to o.k. Clinton on the ticket w/him.  Edwards will be his VP.  They will both lose to McCain, espec. since CA will be in play with the "Marriage is between a man and a woman" and/or judicial recall likely to be on the Nov. ballot.  

    Is Rosenberg an Obama supporter now?  Lost track.

    Do people (5.00 / 10) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    really think this is a good idea? Have they all lost their minds. Edwards couldn't help Kerry and he won't help Obama.

    Why don't we just run Kerry again then? At least he could "unify" the party. Feh.

    What is the saying, if you do it wrong once (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:46:00 PM EST
    keep doing it wrong over and over.  

    The definition of insanity (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:20:57 PM EST
    is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

    (At least I think that's the saying you're talking about)


    And Then There's the Counter (none / 0) (#174)
    by The Maven on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:40:55 PM EST
    which says, "fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

    ROFL (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:41:42 PM EST
    IF Obama actually gets the nomination, and IF he gets a chance to choose a running mate, he is welcome to choose whomever he wants to take down with him. Edwards is already a 3X loser in presidential races, and he was only a 1 term Senator.

    I am pretty sure Hillary won't be choosing him as her running mate.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:53:14 PM EST
    he's a good dem then. We keep doing the wrong things over and over.

    I'm pretty sure (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:47:49 PM EST
    that even Kerry could pull off a win in this electoral climate.

    Better than Obama. (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:49:20 PM EST
    At least Kerry has experience, and is a war hero like John McCain.

    Obama has zero shot unless he's VP.


    I like your optimism, although I don't (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:50:43 PM EST
    share.  Yet, the GOP House of Rep. campaign chair on NPR this a.m. sounded really defeatist.  

    The GOP (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:56:56 PM EST
    is absolute toast in the House. They are losing dozens of seats because incumbents are refusing to run, and they will lose many more this year.

    If the GOP House of Rep. campaign chair were optimistic at this point, I'd want to check him for uppers.

    However, the Presidential race is an entirely different story.


    If I was the GOP chair.... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:16:04 PM EST
    I;d be guardedly optimistic...

    In all the self-congratulations that of Democrats, no one seems to have noticed that in order for Childers to win, he had to completely disavow any association with the "Presumptuous Nominee" of the Democratic Party.

    I mean, when saying "my opponent was endorsed by Barack Obama" is described by a Democratic candidate as an attack, there is a lot to be concerned about.


    But it worked. (none / 0) (#129)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:22:50 PM EST
    The GOP is toast in the House.

    The chairman of the RNC, however, is probably turning cartwheels.


    I think not (none / 0) (#154)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:33:42 PM EST
    he had a confusing persona.

    He had no appeal outside New England.


    Obama cannot win the presidency... (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by cosbo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:43:20 PM EST
    without Clinton supporters. His vitriolic supporters are driving themselves off a cliff and laughing all the way. Too bad, the faith of the country or even the rest of the world will probably be at the bottom of that cliff us.

    The democratic party has been divided and conqured by the republican media. AGAIN.

    Non-Clinton supporters just don't get it (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by vicndabx on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:44:16 PM EST
    The vast majority of her supporters like her because of what she brings to the table, who she is is simply an added bonus.  Until they understand that, there will be no unity.

    Absolutely right. (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:48:19 PM EST
    Atrios made this very same point near the beginning of the campaign.

    We are not voting AGAINST Obama, we are voting FOR Hillary.

    The Obamasphere seems to think everyone shares their irrational hatred of HRC. It's unbelievable how blind, deaf and dumb they are.

    Especially dumb. ;-)


    17 million of us in the bag (5.00 / 10) (#56)
    by dotcommodity on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:57:53 PM EST
    and they keep peering around under the sofa for...hmmm....who....lets see, now.. who could bring Democrats to the table...?

    Likewise all the vitriolic diaries at the big orange  Cheetopia saying its all the evil spawn of satan Clinton who won't quit, not understanding that  its us 17 million real Democrats behind her keeping her going!


    Overshadowed (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:44:24 PM EST
    Clinton took Edward's populist agenda and did it ten times better.  I thought about it last night, and I bet John is rather peeved that she did a better job and took away his raison d'etre.  

    I Like John And Love Elizabeth (5.00 / 12) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:45:08 PM EST
    but I'm really confused as to why anyone could believe that Edwards can help Obama win the GE when he failed to help Kerry in 04.

    I don't believe that people vote the bottom of the ticket. IOW if a person doesn't connect with the nominee or his policies, they are not going to vote for that person.

    I do agree that destroying the Clintons seem to have a higher priority than actually winning back the WH.  

    He's not looking for the VP spot... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by cosbo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:46:39 PM EST
    so talks of his VPness is irrelevant.

    Huff Post headline sd. he'd consider VP (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:51:42 PM EST
    or AG.  Of course, often the headline there has no relationship to what is in the article.

    Funny. 3 or so nights ago... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by cosbo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:56:49 PM EST
    he said he is  not interested. He will not do it. From what I read, he sounded pretty firm.

    As firm as he sounded (5.00 / 9) (#71)
    by miriam on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:02:58 PM EST
    when he said he would not endorse?

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:50:54 PM EST
    John Edwards wasn't even going to be able to hold on to his senate seat. He did nothing for Kerry in 04. I still maintain that it will be the foreign policy stuff, Rev Wright and Ayers that will ultimately doom him. After all, they have to get Reagan Dems and those issues are going to overshadow everything else because they will be featured in 527 ads non stop for months.

    Barack Obama is just going to look too scary to moderate and conservative dems even if he promises that John Edwards will the Economic and Health czar.

    If Obama didn't have all that baggage, I think he could sneak across but he does have that baggage.


    He needs (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:53:24 PM EST
    Wesley Clark or Joe Biden. Despite what Obama thinks, a few years of living in Indonesia as a child do not foreign policy expertise make. Obama needs massive cover on his National Security flank, which is extremely weak.

    He does not need John Edwards as VP. No one needs John Edwards as VP.

    Poverty czar, maybe.


    If the GE is McCain v Obama (none / 0) (#188)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:47:14 PM EST
    this will absolutely be an election where people will be looking very hard at the bottom of the ticket.

    McCain because of his health

    Obama because of his absence of message


    What's wrong with McCain's health? (none / 0) (#196)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:55:12 PM EST
    He's had melanoma. Says he's (none / 0) (#207)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:04:07 PM EST
    fine now.

    Oh - (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:09:31 PM EST
    I knew about that. But he hiked the Grand Canyon last year and his 95 year old mother and her twin are still scooting around (and even campaigning for him), so I don't necessarily see his health as a factor.

    Reagan Dems? (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:46:07 PM EST
    I could be wrong, but isn't the target those individuals that are an unusual mix of social conservatism and fiscal liberalism or those individuals that are social liberals and fiscal conservatives.

    Edwards ran a very progressive agenda so I don't see him having crossover appeal.  Edwards doesn't bring foreign policy experience, military experience or economic experience.  We are in two wars, need to change our foreign policy, have economic and domestic issues to deal with.  I don't see Edwards as having a broad base of experience (Obama is weak in several areas).

    Now, I'm going to be honest, jump on me if you want, but two effetes on the same ticket?  Nope.

    The Point Might Be (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by flashman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:56:36 PM EST
    That the so-called "Regan Democrats" are just moderates who were siphoned off by Regan's charismatic campaigns, and are now so disenchanted with the utter failure of the Republican Party to provide competent governance, that they are ready to go back.  But Obama's weakness amongst working class whites may portend a failure to capture them.  Edward's populist message just might work, who knows?

    As the Lt (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:03:29 PM EST
    He can't give his populist message because Obama does not endorse the policies. He will have to speak the party line.

    I know blue collar workers may not have gone to college but how stupid does BO really think they are. I mean, come on. It is like another insult - I'm gonna pander to you now vote for me!


    Why will it work now? (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:17:43 PM EST
    It didn't work in the primary.  Clinton is the one it looks like is attracting the working class, moderates, women etc. a significant portion of the demographics.  You can't capture all of her voters with one VP.  Obama needs at least 3.

    Well, Really Doubt Clinton Will Be Selected (none / 0) (#127)
    by flashman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:22:46 PM EST
    and Edwards is probably expecting a quid pro quo.  I know Clinton would strengthen the ticket, but I'm not really considering it right now.  I see greater things for her, actually.

    Slightly ot your comment (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Lahdee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:57:55 PM EST
    but it got me to thinking about "reagan Democrats." I wish we'd stop calling them that after Clinton's wins in WVa, Ohio and PA. Perhaps Clinton Democrats? Oops, that maybe too much. How about just "go jump in the lake" Democrats.

    I don't get it (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:47:18 PM EST
    Paul is usually so smart.

    Most of the talking points about Edwards' 2004 campaign are bogus (i.e. "he didn't help Kerry in NC"), but reality is that he does not have any kind of unique superstar quality among white working-class voters.

    Obama's biggest problem is not a race problem.  It is the "elitism" perception that has haunted Dems for decades, the failure to persuade working-class voters that you understand their concerns and will do something about them.  These voters simply don't perceive the causal connection between cleaning up the lobbyist influence in politics and solving the kitchen-table problems they face.  And the lobbyist thing was a big part of Edwards' schtick this year too, of course.

    If your problem is the exact same problem John Kerry had, why would anyone think you could fix it by choosing the same VP as Kerry?

    All of this, of course, is completely beside the point of BTD's post, which I agree with 100%.  As my wife was fuming this morning about the "sweetie" thing and wondering how she could live with herself if she voted for this a**** in November, it occurred to me that because she doesn't read blogs much, she has no idea how many women and Clinton supporters there are who are dealing with the exact same feelings she's experiencing.  It's a big issue that no one who cares about winning should ignore.

    Bingo! (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by pie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:53:28 PM EST
    If your problem is the exact same problem John Kerry had, why would anyone think you could fix it by choosing the same VP as Kerry?

    Edwards couldn't get his message across then or in this primary.  It's time to move on.


    There really aren't any women who make (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:47:19 PM EST
    sense. Who, Napolitano? Won't carry her state and major electability issues. Who, Sebelius? Can't carry her state, not terribly interesting, no foreign policy experience. McCaskill? Can't carry her state, sort of an idiot.

    If Granholm wasn't born in Michigan, she'd make some sense.

    Meant Canada. And John Edwards didn't (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:48:35 PM EST
    help Kerry much.

    love the idiot comment and (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:51:32 PM EST
    totally agree...btw shouldn't we wait to see if John Edwards endorsement does any good in Kentucky before we start talking about his appeal?

    I have come to (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by LoisInCo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:58:32 PM EST
    loathe Claire. I hope someone runs against her (another dem) when she is up for re-election and gets rid of her.

    Regarding Kentucky (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by IzikLA on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:08:59 PM EST
    I truly don't think the endorsement will help and I have a feeling that, yet again, it will only harden the support that was already there for Hillary Clinton.  We'll see but I think a big win is in order.

    If my own reaction/response to the (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:00:33 PM EST
    endorsement is an example of how it was received, then,

    It hurt both of them. The timing and location showed a real intent to diss Clinton's
     win in WV,
     coming wins,
     and her battle to get the MI delegation seated.

    It must be really difficult for the politicians who have been unsuccessful in their own efforts to move into the presidency to face the prospect of both Clintons holding that office.

    It really feels like this entire primary has been about way too many petty personal agendas.

    Too much media and Obama talk right now. He is NOT the nominee and we need to get back to thinking and talking Hillary so, if there really is a Law of Attraction, we get the energy flowing the right direction.


    You mean Canada n/t (none / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:48:39 PM EST
    Obama folks in denial (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by nellre on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:49:59 PM EST
    The race is so close it could be called a statistical tie in the popular vote if you include MI and FL
    Nearly half of us actually voted for Hillary.
    I don't see these guys coming to terms with that.

    Heh. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by liminal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:53:16 PM EST
    And this despite a long, loud, triumphalist clamor of WWTBQ by the media and <distaste> "creative class" </distaste> since Wisconsin.

    If Edwards has such a huge (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by liminal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:50:10 PM EST
    appeal to voters, uh, why didn't Edwards manage to win a primary?  

    Sigh.  Sometimes I wonder if there's a brain-eating scarab in the kool-aid (I kid!  Don't kill me!)  

    I always liked he message, but I find him mildly suspect as the spokesman for the message, and an imperfect candidate to carry labor's message back to well, labor's audience.  I think he's sincere and I agree with much of what he says, but I think he appeals to the liberal wing of the working class rather than the Clinton wing of the working class, he lacks the aura of toughness that Clinton has earned over the course of the campaign, which really does appeal to voters - considerably more voters than Edwards managed to draw.

    The media wouldn't let him. (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by cosbo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:53:49 PM EST
    America as usual fell for it.

    The media (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by liminal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:05:19 PM EST
    collectively hate HRC and have been declaring her a corpse walking since Iowa.  Through the course of the campaign, she broke through the brick wall and I think has emerged as a stronger, tougher, more appealing politician - especially to non-African-American working class voters - for it, so I'm not as willing to resign myself to the power of the media as you are.

    while the media screwed Edwards... (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:30:57 PM EST
    Edwards never did anything other than talk to get the support of progressives that were looking for a candidate.  

    In fact, except for Dodd's taking a stand on FISA, none of the candidates seemed to have cared about what progressive thought at all.  (Dodd failed to follow through on the attention that he got from his FISA stand; had Dodd adopted a much stronger populist stance across the board, he would have been the progressive's choice.  But I guess when you're from CT, and owned by the insurance companies, populism isn't an option.)

    Edwards political instincts sucked as well -- he thought he could knock clinton out of the race with Obama's help, and then be the last man standing.  If Edwards had any sense, he would have understood that their could only be one "anti-Hillary"....


    Repugs were there too; went after Edwards hard (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    IMO they feared Edwards hard and early to take him out first because he was the one they LEAST wanted to run against. Not only as outspoken as Howard Dean -- their last early victim -- but telegenic, passionate, good speaker, persuasive, cred on liberal and conservative merits ... and of course:


    You'd think Repugs valued this the most the way they go on about it.

    Repugs haven't been as big a part of the HRC pile-on other than to add the occasional, Oh no she didden! in the way of encouraging the CDS "libruls" and RW @ss-kissers on TeamObama to show they're ready for the Upper Echelons of Villiage Idiocy.

    Dems who are doing all this knife-wielding to make room in the tent will find themselves at a party that no one wanted to go to on Election Night. Oh well, more sh!t for Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to eat, huh?


    Dare I again mention he is a (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:55:28 PM EST
    highly-compensated plaintiffs' trial lawyer?  I agree--the message is excellent, but the person delivering it doesn't seem quite right for the slot.  Yes, I know Hillary and Bill are quite wealthy also.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:59:07 PM EST
    You may have a point - being rich AND a trial lawyer don't play to well to the masses.

    Defense lawyers defending civil (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:03:03 PM EST
    cases, are, of course, doing the Lord's work.  <snk>

    Brain-eating scarab (none / 0) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:09:40 PM EST

    Edwards (none / 0) (#208)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:05:39 PM EST
    main problem, imo, was hooking up with Joe Trippi. Joe Trippi can turn a moderate into an angry fire breathing faux populist in a heartbeat.

    Edwards? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Cal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:50:52 PM EST
    Really?  He was on the losing ticket last time.  Sheesh.  

    Edwards could bring in Reagan Democrats? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by badu on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:51:25 PM EST
    Wow, thats really hard to believe.  I thought he was a smart guy too, but I have to wonder after that - the guy they call "the Breck girl" could bring in Reagan Democrats?

    They are Clinton Democrats. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:05:31 PM EST
    They're voting for Clinton, not Edwards.

    If Clinton is not at the top of the ticket, they don't vote for her, since Obama has wasted so much time proving to them how unimportant, bigoted and stupid he thinks they are.

    Seems pretty obvious to me.


    badu, I agree Edwards has no (none / 0) (#128)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:22:47 PM EST
    working class street cred, irrespective of his concern for poverty/economic justice. In the eyes of the electorate, he just doesn't convincingly embody those issues. With respect to Edwards and talk of Obama dangling a woman for the VP slot, did you see the link for the video upstream: "Who's the Next Obama Girl?"

    Yes (none / 0) (#170)
    by badu on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:39:24 PM EST
    but its the kind of thing that gets thrown back in our face.  I'd rather keep criticism legitimate.

    ok (none / 0) (#175)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:41:13 PM EST
    I like Edwards and supported him (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:51:50 PM EST
    until he dropped out. He has a good message but a tin ear for politics and would be a drag on the ticket, for that reason and because he reinforces the 'elitist' meme and because frankly he's had his chance. Someone new is needed to reinforce the change theme. I don't know about "destroying the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party" - wanting to reduce its influence is certainly part of what's going on.

    Unified Dem front = Clintons gone (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by huzzlewhat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:52:04 PM EST
    As much as I'd like to think that Obama could offer the VP slot to Clinton and the two of them could ride to the White House on a wave of unity, I'm not sure he can, given the nature of the criticism he's used to campaign against her. He and Edwards traded no barbs that would call a VP slot into question. If Clinton were the nominee, she could pick Obama, because the core criticism she's leveled against him is that he's inexperienced -- and she could argue that he could gain experience as VP and be ready for the main spot in 8 years. But Obama's campaign against Clinton has called her divisive, secretive, dishonest, and lacking in character. At this point, if he believes all that is true, how could he justify wanting her as VP? He can't say that he doesn't believe it, because that would sabotage his message of a new kind of politics. He's painted himself into a corner on the Clinton-as-VP issue -- there's no place for her at the table he's set.  

    and there won't be desert for him 11/08. (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:23:52 PM EST
    Just today he lumped her in with Bush (none / 0) (#163)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:37:02 PM EST
    and McCain at a campaign event. How do you walk that back?

    You might want to link (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:58:39 PM EST
    to a video clip of that for BTD.  I believe he still wants Obama to offer the VP to Clinton.

    Does Obama think he's going to get Clinton's voters doing that?  I can't wait till the Repubs get started on his statements and go after her voters.  It's going to be a bumpy ride.


    Not Just That It Disses Clinton (5.00 / 10) (#37)
    by BDB on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:53:20 PM EST
    But it also makes it sound like putting a white man on the ticket is what's needed to win the white working class vote, as if that's the only problem Obama has, as if Edwards didn't lose the white working class vote to Clinton.  And he lost the white working class to Clinton because of women.  But, of course, there's no need to appease women voters, we'll fall in line like the good little sweeties we are.  Just threaten us with Roe and tell us we have no other choice.  

    Screw that.  I have a choice.  Loyalty is a two-way street and if they want my vote, they're going to have to ask for it.  And even then they might not get it.  I am that angry.*

    * Of course, these entitled men have no idea how angry a lot of women are because they do not think about us or worry about us as a voting bloc.  Just as the party leadership does not feel the need to fight misogyny.  It's a given we'll vote democratic until, of course, we don't.  The latest Rasmussen poll has 29% of democrats saying if Clinton isn't the nominee, she should make a third party run.  Any bets on how many of that 29% are women?  

    2-way street is it exactly: Dems give me NOTHING (5.00 / 6) (#115)
    by Ellie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:19:53 PM EST
    I'm infuriated beyond words with the tactic and talking point to pre-blame women for Dems' own ineffectiveness by holding Roe v Wade and SCOTUS and other "women's" issues over our heads.

    And doesn't that shameful diminishment of using vanishing constitutional rights like a Willie Horton fearmongering flash-card say all there is to say about what this Obama-bound Dem party is about.

    I haven't even started on why this oily posedown of proxies, mascots and shills to get HRC supporters into the herd is deeply insulting to us as free thinking people and as voters in a democracy.

    Since no one else has raised this, do I need to remind anyone that one's vote is one's own until cast, and no one has to justify why it will be / has been cast that way?

    Apparently certain groups have taken it upon themselves to demand (rather imperiously) that other individuals or groups explain why they intend to vote this way or that.

    This would be unthinkable to demand of, eg, rich older white men. Why aren't the news networks demanding that "the guys" at the studio declare and defend their allegiances on camera?



    I applaud you! (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by pie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:21:30 PM EST
    Well said.

    We've got a woman candidate... (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:38:20 PM EST
    ... who's winning men, primary by primary. That's an amazing achievement, when I think about it.

    I think he should have a series of VPs ... (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:53:57 PM EST
    to fit different occasions.

    A Veep sixpack.  Or Veep accessory kit.

    One for region, one for gender, one to match his mood on a given day, one because they photograph well together, and one for the buddy comedy version of this campaign.

    He'd need an entire platoon (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by echinopsia on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:19:25 PM EST
    to prop him up in all the areas he's lacking.

    I posted this elsewhere (closed), but. (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:54:11 PM EST
    From The Corner (Again, I know it's the Devil's pit, but here's what's coming)

    "McCain should pray that Obama picks (he won't) John Edwards as VP--he brings no executive record of experience, and offers less ideological balance; he has a poor record of winning primaries over two failed runs for the Presidency, has never appealed to working-class whites, hurt the Kerry ticket as a mediocre VP candidate, did poorly in past and present debates, and went even harder to the left (in scripted fashion) in the primaries. Moreover, he adds to, rather than ameliorates, the sense of elitism and out-of-touchness that plagues Obama. For all the talk of growing up the son of a mill worker, voters remember 'the haircut' and that gargantuan house with the "John's room" inner sanctum. I'm afraid all that outweighs the photogenic youthful appearance and occasional glibness."

    If Obama picks (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by pie on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:56:15 PM EST
    another woman, I'm done with him.  Besides, there isn't one mentioned that I'd want to vote for.

    I'm voting for the Dem, but I think (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:58:43 PM EST
    picking a woman - being a woman myself - just for the sake of saying he picked a woman would be a really insulting move on his part.

    Why? (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:11:21 PM EST
    Aren't women interchangable? Take out one woman and plug another one in. Problem solved and all those women having hissy fits will calm right down and scurry back in line.

    yep ... (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by cherubic18 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:31:52 PM EST
    All little 'sweeties' look alike ...  

    On the topic (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    I love that [Al Giordano http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1209 has decided we're a research project]. But frankly I think he's pretty dishonest about the whole thing. The comments he cites are ones that I personally object to, mostly, but he has nothing to say about our more substantive discussion. He was and is unable to name any realistic strategy to bring the Clinton supporters back into the fold. He variously claims (both in the comment thread he cites and in his new entry) that we don't have a problem, and that if we do have a problem, it's not his problem anyway.

    And he accuses Clinton supporters of being delusional? I think he and his friends need to get real, especially because it is going to be theirs and Obama's job to unify the party. The winner has to do that.

    Oops, Flubbed the link (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:57:39 PM EST
    BTD, if you'll delete, I'll repost and fix it.

    sounds like he went and got the (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:02:30 PM EST
    quotes that confirmed his hypothesis instead of really talking to some of her supporters.

    Al is a good guy (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:07:59 PM EST
    As is apparent, we have a profound disagreement on this and many things (you should see us discuss Hugo Chavez). As I have stated earlier, I hope folks can see clear to treating Al with the respect he deserves.

    He is one of the good ones.


    I believe it (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:10:43 PM EST
    but I find what he's doing to be somewhat counterproductive.

    Obama Doesn't Need A Strategy To Bring (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:52:12 PM EST
    Clinton supporters back into the fold because we will all just get over our little tiff and fall in line in November.  Basically, once again it is that Obama does not need to change anything. It is the voters who need to change. Good luck to that.

    When 25% to 50% of self described Democrats say that they will not vote for Obama, it just might be an area for concern. IMO many on the blogosphere believe that everyone views issues the same way that they do without even considering what actually happened in the last two elections.

    Over and over again large segments of the population have chosen  respect and personal dignity over financial concerns, Roe v Wade is not a deal breaker with many voters and some conservative Dems prefer a hard line foreign policy.


    I'm an Edwards gal and I still think (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:57:00 PM EST
    that if it isn't Clinton, it ought to be Wes Clark.

    I thought Edwards was brilliant and great last night, but he was speaking to Democrats and advocating Democratic unity.  I don't know that I think that his appeal in the GE would be as strong.  I would love it if it was, but I am a realist about my guy and I think he has a ways to go to establish the kind of cred that would really help a candidate as unknown as Obama.  Edwards isn't that well known himself.

    i like clark. why would you wish that on him? (none / 0) (#114)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:19:35 PM EST
    Because I think that there is an elder (none / 0) (#195)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:54:48 PM EST
    statesman and simultaneously an attack dog quality to him that I think Obama will need to win.  Plus he has FP/Military cred as well as the fact that he is one of the few Dems who is able to not only hold his own, but also garner respect over at Fox News.

    This is the dream team for folks who don't need (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by esmense on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:57:40 PM EST
    -- and at heart don't understand or in denial about how much the country today requires -- so much more from politics today than hot air; two cute, telegenic guys who are as big on rhetoric as they are light on resume. Guys who have devoted immense amounts of time to talking, very eloquently, about issues they've spent very little, if any, time actually working on.

    The issues at hand are profound. Too profound to be addressed by a campaign of good intentions, big egos, zilch experience and unproven competence.

    I was an Edwards supporter. (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by TokenLiberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:58:12 PM EST
    When he suspended his campaign I studied the others and decided to support Clinton based on her being the next closest to the issues I cared about and her experience and determination. When Edwards endorsed Obama, I felt like a door had been slammed in my face or like they were forming a boy's club with the "No Girls Allowed" sign posted. If Obama expects my vote he needs to earn it - I don't ever want to hear how we'll "come around" again. And if the pundits think I'll vote for Obama just because Edwards is his pick for VP - they'd better think again.

    Well, you should consider the fact that (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:56:24 PM EST
    Edwards may have saved our hopes on his issues from being dashed by the Obama camp's win.  I am grateful to him for striking a deal that Clinton really can't.

    I was hoping he wouldn't endorse. I think not (none / 0) (#217)
    by TokenLiberal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:20:05 PM EST
    endorsing made him seem above the fray and would make him more effective in presenting our issues - poverty, eduction, health-care, vet's issues, etc. While I believe his intentions are honorable I'm afraid that too many people will think he only endorsed because something was in it for him and could, possibly, make him less effective. Despite the facts, many people will be wondering "What's in it for him" personally and not thinking that he's doing it to further his issues. Wish that wasn't the case but that's, in my opinion, how'll many will react.

    But why? (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Klio on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:58:26 PM EST
    You're right, they do seem intent on destroying the Clinton wing of the party.  I think they see Obama as a two-fer.  And without getting into the folly of that strategy, I have to ask Why?  Why would they want not only to destroy the Clintons politically, but estrange all their supporters as well?

    What is this new Democratic Party they envision?  What are its principles?  Where are its constituencies?  I'm just baffled.

    because the clintons (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:41:45 PM EST
    ....the Clintons represent the non-elite -- both of them connect with "average americans" that few professional Democrats know how to do.  

    Ultimately, the Clinton's base is the American people as a whole and most Democrats are so used to playing "interest group" and "identity" politics that the Clintons don't fit in.

    Another factor is the media -- the Clintons "transcended" the Villagers and their petty concerns, and continue to do so.  Most professional Democrats live for media exposure, and getting stroked by the media -- they get a tingle up their leg if Broder OR Brooks says something nice about them.   And professional politicians aren't stupid -- Villagers keeps signalling to them that they don't like the Clintons, and that criticism of the Clintons is a great way to get positive press, and so the professional Democrats act like the trained seals that they are, and trash the Clintons and get their coverage as a reward.


    Bob & Ray, "Garish Summit"... (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:46:54 PM EST
    "There in stately splendor, far removed the squalid village below, they fight their petty battles over power and money."

    That's what they want: Money from Obama's new technology, and power over the party apparatus. They get cocktail wienies, win or lose. That makes control the must-have; and winning the nice-to-have. Sigh.


    Here's (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:17:32 PM EST
    the way I see it:
    It's the old power brokers reasserting themselves. Nevermind that these power brokers have lost almost every presidential election. They really don't care about winning, it's all about their little power base maintaining power within that base. The McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis/Kerry left wing part of the party wants absolute control. Right now they have found an empty vessel to front their aspirations. Too bad Hillary and her followers aren't cooperating with this little charade.

    I have learned so much in the last few months it's been amazing.


    This is a good example (5.00 / 9) (#64)
    by miriam on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:59:54 PM EST
    of the dismissive attitude toward women on the part of Democratic leaders. Just read this again:

    I know that in terms of unifying the party, putting a woman on the ticket would be an excellent move. But putting Edwards on the ticket would put the election away...

    In other words, yeah, it might be nice to have a some broad (obviously not the dreaded Hillary) on the ticket, but not if we really want to win.

    Here again is the assumption that women will just dutifully fall into line, once more, behind the party-picked male nominees.  I must say, I am not so sanguine about discovering, after lo these many years of being a Democrat, that I'm just a taken-for-granted cog in the mighty masculine wheel. What, ladies, are we getting out of this?  Disgusting, discriminating, hate-filled slurs against the first serious female candidate, that's what. But just imagine the howls of outrage if a significant number of women publicly vowed their refusal to vote for a male POTUS.  (And we'd probably only have to do it this once.)

    Why not this time? (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by soccermom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:10:05 PM EST
    If you don't want to get thrown under the bus, don't get on it. This is going to be my personal Birmingham.  MLK had it right.  Boycott the bus.

    Sweeties for Hillary, unite.


    SFHU? (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by miriam on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:19:16 PM EST
    I'm there. I'd already decided  I would not vote for Obama (and not for McCain either).  I wonder how many other women would announce this...and now, before it's too late.  It probably wouldn't matter now, though, because none of the Obama-males would believe us.

    Which may be precisely why it's important to take a stand. The blatant hatred of women exhibited in this campaign should never be allowed a repeat performance.    


    I'm with you (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by badu on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:24:01 PM EST
    One more reason (none / 0) (#144)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:29:21 PM EST
    I am voting for McCain if Obama is the nominee. I want to ensure it is a message they never forget.

    But voting for McCain (none / 0) (#185)
    by miriam on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:46:24 PM EST
    is a lost vote in terms of principle. And, I think, a bad idea for the country.  We'll just look like spoil sports. But, when the exit polls come in and a sizeable number of women (Democratic) are seen as simply having refused to vote for Obama, it could have a large impact.  In fact, I doubt he can win if enough women don't vote.  We have always been the stalwart voters of the Democratic party. It's time we started exerting some real influence on the choice of OUR nominee instead of being taken for granted and enduring nasty mysogynism in the process.

    agree (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by badu on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:21:24 PM EST
    thats what i said below - we would be a heck of a voting bloc if we threaten to withhold our support, as a group or even third party.  I've never been so disgusted with democrats and wish there was an option besides "republican". We need another choice.

    This was over at Riverdaughter this afternoon... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by sas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:01:41 PM EST
    Please pass this on folks....our future depends on it.  I can't bear the thought of Obama.
    This was sent to Riverdaughter.....keep it going.....

    "This little ditty was sent in by commenter Nana. It looks like the Obamaphiles have pushed the envelope:

    WooHoo...................Wilk talk radio here in Scranton, PA is going wild this afternoon. Host Steve Corbett has had it with being called a racist for supporting Hillary Clinton and has stated he will not vote for Obama. The lines are going crazy with calls from people in NE PA who feel the same way. They will not vote for Obama and will vote for McCain if they have to to stop him. The mementum is starting against the Democratic Party. Keep it going all over the USA"

    say goodbye to Roe v. Wade. (none / 0) (#83)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:06:26 PM EST
    They will never (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:10:08 PM EST
    overturn Roe v. Wade.

    It's a recruiting tool for them.

    Plus, the Democrats can block McCain's choices.


    Childers and his ilk? (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:10:59 PM EST
    He is pro-life.  

    Then isn't it (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:15:28 PM EST
    wonderful that we're all so happy about electing Democrats that don't believe in a woman's right to decide what goes on in her own body. A Blue Dog Democrat is worse than a Republican to me. At least you know that a Republican is the enemy and will thwart you at every turn. Blue Dogs are fifth columnists that thwart their own party.

    Well, I denounce this line of thinking (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:12:09 PM EST
    People who refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee are working against choice. That is my firm belief.

    I have never in my life (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:17:45 PM EST
    worked against choice.

    I marched on DC for choice in 1989. I am firmly, firmly pro-choice.

    Much more firmly than Barack Obama, in fact.

    What an insulting statement.


    I strongly believe a vote for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:21:00 PM EST
    is a vote against a woman's right to choose.  

    I do not say this to take anything from what women such as you have done in the past.  I just see it as reality.  

    FYI:  Molly Bloom expresses this much better than I do.


    No (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by BDB on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:29:48 PM EST
    Because there will be a Democratic majority in the Senate.  So I have empowered the Democratic party to stop McCain.  If they won't do that, then in the next election, I'll find someone who will.  

    I will not allow my reproductive rights to be held hostage by any political party.  They do not get to threaten to cave to McCain as leverage to get me to vote for Obama.  The answer to "we're too weak to stand up to McCain" is not "great, I'll vote for more of you!"  I refuse to vote for Obama to protect me from Senators like Obama (who was going to vote for Roberts).  

    There may be good reasons to vote for Obama, but I will not be blackmailed into doing it.


    True. And if we let (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:35:00 PM EST
    these people get away with the garbage, then it IS my whole life. We gotta make this stop before things get out of control.  And it's not going to stop if the candidate wins.

    I will never vote for McCain. (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:32:40 PM EST
    But I won't vote for Obama either.

    It would go against my principles as a Democrat and a woman.

    If woman are so f*cking concerned about their reproductive rights, then they can vote for the winning candidate. The one who has a great record on women's issues, not the one who votes "present."

    If they're not concerned, then neither am I.


    As BTD says, on the issues I care about, (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:34:48 PM EST
    they are the same.  I care about a woman's right to choose, so I wouldn't vote for McCain or not vote for President, which would be the same, in my mind, as voting for McCain.  Your mileage probably differs.  

    Was Hillary going to vote for Roberts? (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:44:02 PM EST
    Not that I know of. I don't see (none / 0) (#187)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:46:57 PM EST
    KObama as committed to a woman's right to choose.  Afterall, he is a pragmatic guy who will reach across the aisle and heal all wounds.  But I do see him as more committed than McCain, who is fully committed against that right.  Moral relativism, I guess.

    SG2RvW (none / 0) (#176)
    by soccermom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:41:19 PM EST
    I'm not talking about your whole life, (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:21:51 PM EST
    I'm talking about November.

    It Is Always Just This November (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:08:51 PM EST
    This is what is said every election cycle.

    One vote (none / 0) (#155)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:33:53 PM EST
    or lack thereof, does not make me someone who is anti-choice.

    I like your comments very much, andgarden, but that was just out of line.


    Objectively speaking (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:36:58 PM EST
    if, in November, you vote for anyone other than the Democratic nominee, you are voting against choice. That is simply the truth. I said nothing about whether you were personally pro-choice or not.

    That is not objective. (none / 0) (#182)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:45:23 PM EST
    that is your opinion.

    It is entirely possible that McCain administration will do nothing differently with regards to choice than an Obama administration.

    The stated beliefs are different, sure, but the actual results may not be different at all.

    Now I have to go be a traditional wife-type and make my husband dinner. Good night all!


    i have to wonder just how much (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:21:54 PM EST
    younger women know, understand or give a darn about how much we went through so they could have what they have now. however saying that, i think they'll get to learn the hard way down the road.

    But We Don't Have What We Once Did (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by BDB on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:35:07 PM EST
    Because democrats have been wishy-washy on Supreme Court judges and so the original Roe ruling has been scaled back and eroded.  Yet, we reward them time and again to protect what's left.  I'm all for protecting Roe, but I won't allow those who currently have the power to protect it to abdicate that power if I don't vote for their nominee.  Roe, which should be used to empower women, is now a gun to our heads.  And so long as we let the gun stay there, Democrats will continue to be squishy on reproductive rights because there's no consequences.

    Instead of rewarding that behavior, the right answer it seems to me is to tell them that if Roe gets overturned because of their ineptitude or weakness there will be hell to pay at the ballot box and Republicans won't be the only targets.  

    Again, there are many reasons to prefer Obama to McCain, but I reject the framing that makes Roe one of them.


    That morning after pill must really work. (none / 0) (#165)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:37:37 PM EST
    Yes, thanks to HRC (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:46:19 PM EST
    we have access to it over the counter.

    RU 4-86 (none / 0) (#183)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:45:47 PM EST
    And that quite frankly it is one reason why it is easier to vote against Obama. Every person in America can get an illegal drug and it is how most abortions are performed in Europe.

    People who think only in the short-term (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:36:38 PM EST
    need to gain an understanding of the long-term.

    Oculus, (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by soccermom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:12:17 PM EST
    it may surprise you that I hold the well-being and future of this country above personal freedoms.  Stop with the RvW threats.  We're over it.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:17:28 PM EST
    as Riverdaughter said: "they can roe, roe, roe that boat up..."

    The Roe v Wade issue has been used as a club to whip women into line for too long.


    I'm not threatening, just reminding. (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:21:56 PM EST
    You and others who say they will vote for McCain have every right to do so.  

    And every time you get the chance (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by soccermom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:39:50 PM EST
    to throw it out, you "remind us."  Could we just shorten it to SG2RvW?  Kinda like WWTSBQ?

    Ha. Not likely. As you may have (none / 0) (#179)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:41:58 PM EST
    gleaned, this IS my issue.  

    Several states already have their own pro-choice (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:12:24 PM EST
    laws, if they overturn it, and I don't think they will, more states will adopt such laws.  Sometimes it's actually better to have a court out of step with the people.  It forces Congress to act.  

    Yes. My state, CA, is definitely one of them. (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:23:10 PM EST
    But Mississippi has no providers at present due to restrictions imposed by state law.  

    wasnt it (none / 0) (#219)
    by isaac on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:42:18 PM EST
    obama man, michael moore who said, i give up, you can have abortion

    Maybe the Dems (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:14:29 PM EST
    Will have to start doing their job in Congress. Maybe they will have to choose leaders for leadership positions. Stopping insane judges can be done. It worked rather effectively against Reagan and Bush I. When does somebody hold the congress responsible? I mean seriously, I am sick of hearing it is my fault if I don't vote for Obama. It isn't my fault. Thre crisis on the court is the fault of spineless congressional leaders.

    If Roe goes, it goes but I am no longer a hostage to it. I'm sick of this crap. I live in CO. This is a pro-choice state. I guess other states will have to take responsibility for the people they elect at the local level.


    Goodbye (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by BDB on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:15:24 PM EST
    With the confirmation of Alito (thanks, NARAL!), they already have their five conservative votes.

    But even if they didn't, the threat of Roe is not a reason, IMO, to vote for Obama.  There may be other good reasons to do it, but Roe ain't it. Senate Democrats have the power to stop any McCain nominee.  That they might not, is not a reason to vote for a democrat.  I reject the idea that the Democratic Congress has no responsibility to protect my fundamental rights. If they won't do that, then why am I electing them in the first place. See my post at Corrente, which I clarified in the comments (here).


    Exactly (none / 0) (#130)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:23:02 PM EST
    And while McCain is anti-choice, he is gonna be one and done. What does he care what the Republican wingnut base thinks or does. I am convinced he is driven by not losing another war. I don't think he cares about economics or anything else really. He wants out of Iraq with honor of some kind.

    Maybe he will put up Sandra Day O'Connor types. He can claim they are just like Reagan appointees.


    McCain's record on choice is perfect: (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:27:19 PM EST
    he's against it.  

    Of course the Congress, with a Dem. (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:26:26 PM EST
    majority in the Senate has a responsibility re judicial nominees of McCain.  But, to me, that is like saying there has been no misogyny in this campaign because there has also been racism.  And the Congressional Dems. have not done well in blocking Bush nominations so I see no reason they will do any better on McCain's.

    Then The Answer (5.00 / 5) (#211)
    by BDB on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:09:21 PM EST
    Is to push back against the idea that democratic weakness is a reason to vote democratic.

    As I've said, this is not about who you vote for, this is about framing why.  And I reject the framing that says I have to vote for Obama to save Roe from the democrats.  I think it's self-defeating and encourages dems to continue to be wishy-washy on Roe because so long as any remnant of it stands, they get to avoid any electoral responsibility for the weakening of it.  Why do you think Obama feels free to talk about how forced birth zealots understand the moral choices involving abortion better than pro-choice forces?  Because we've lost our leverage by agreeing that so long as democrats don't permit Roe to be completely gutted, they've done enough.  

    Again, this isn't about who you vote for, it's about controlling the conversation on Roe and not permitting democrats to take women voters for granted when many of them have actually been bad for the cause.  Instead of saying, "I have to vote for Obama because of Roe," I think it's much better for reproductive rights in the long run to say "if democrats permit Roe to continue to be weakened or overturned, there will be hell to pay."  That doesn't mean you don't vote for Obama, it just rejects the framing that you have no choice about your vote because of Roe.


    If They Do Not Block Future Nominees, Then The (none / 0) (#206)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:03:57 PM EST
    Dems no longer have this issue to use as leverage to get out the "hold your nose and vote" crowd. Now granted, they may not be smart enough to realize this but it seems like many in the party are willing to risk the WH, the courts and dividing the party in half so that they can grab control of the party and increase their own personal power and influence. If they don't care, why should I?

    Sadly, Roe does not need to be overturned for (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by suisser on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:40:02 PM EST
    most women to lose access to abortion. It is being nibbled to death.
    Drs are not being trained, restrictions on funding women's health centers and regulations like waiting periods, parental notification to name a few will make abortion virtually against the law for many women without overturning Roe V Wade.

    All of Which (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by The Maven on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:59:05 PM EST
    Obama has seemingly indicated that he's okay with.  Pardon the repost of part of this comment I made yesterday, but here's the response Obama (and/or his campaign staff acting in his name) gave to Reproductive Health Reality Check last December:
    Does Sen. Obama support any restrictions on abortion, or does he believe it should be entirely up to women?

    Obama supports those restrictions that are consistent with the legal framework outlined by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

    Yet another reason why the national NARAL endorsement was such a puzzler.  I'm not suggesting that Obama's necessarily bad on choice, just that his great desire to be "post-partisan" could lead him to make some very poor compromises.

    The "Pocket Guide..." covers this (none / 0) (#190)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:50:27 PM EST
    Code range: Threat Mode.

    Code Orange (none / 0) (#214)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:14:52 PM EST
    This is pretty funny.  I have heard everyone of these.  They did a good job.  :)

    Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned (none / 0) (#221)
    by hookfan on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:54:06 PM EST
    Yup. I can see this as just the appetizer for what's coming. . . "Sweetie" indeed.

    I don't think the Democratic (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Lahdee on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:01:49 PM EST
    party as a brand is the intent of BO's campaign. After all it is new politics. Perhaps the Neuvocrats hope for a "phoenix" thing even if the apparent nominee succeeds in the general.

    The Clinton purge is more important than a win. (5.00 / 10) (#72)
    by wurman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:02:58 PM EST
    Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, et al. were on a vendetta to displace Sen. Clinton & probably could not even imagine that an unknown, un-vetted, IL senator (who beat a carpet-bagger, substitute GOP candidate) would strike a nerve with some very skillful, dedicated, hard-working campaigners.

    At present, if my view & my speculations are at least partly accurate, the goal of eliminating the Clinton faction from the Democratic Party is paramount.  This is why Richardson turned coat.  This is why Edwards just endorsed the candidate least like his actual JRE positions.  This is why Brazile & many of the DNC poobahs are fronting for the Obama candidacy; ad nauseum Daschle, McGovern, etc.

    Yes, the leaders of the purge will gladly lose the general election to McCain (who they sort of like, anyway--he's one of the good old boys) in order to "control, alternate, delete" & "end program" the Clintons.

    Party before country (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by nellre on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:18:23 PM EST
    Right out of the GOP playbook.

    Obama's a weak candidate with major (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:03:03 PM EST
    electablity problems, that's why the obsession about who can prop him up as VP.  Truth is no one votes for VP.  Here's a good idea.  let's stop declaring the winner early.  When Hill ends with the pop vote, let's nominate the candidate who could run with a ham sandwich and win.

    Ahahahahahah.... (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by indymom on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:15:36 PM EST
    "let's nominate the candidate who could run with a ham sandwich and win. "

    You are so right.


    And the Tenn. GOP is already starting on Obama. (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:22:08 PM EST
    Check out this story about Michelle Obama's trip to Tennessee today and the ads that are being run.
    n a preview of the political onslaught Michelle Obama may face in the fall, the Tennessee Republican Party unveiled a Web video Thursday highlighting her comment that she was proud of America "for the first time in my adult life.  

    The four-minute video coincides with a visit to the state by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's wife for a Democratic Party event Thursday evening.

    It features several Tennesseans saying why they are proud of American while repeatedly cutting to Michelle Obama's comments."

    And they aren't too happy with him either.

    "While Mrs. Obama has trouble being proud of the country where she earned degrees from Princeton University and Harvard Law School and then became a multimillionaire, her husband makes statements that belittle average Americans' response to the difficulties of life."

    But hey, they're just words, right??


    She is as least as much a liability (none / 0) (#141)
    by madamab on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:26:55 PM EST
    as her husband.

    My husband really likes HRC and thinks she is incredibly inspiring and Presidential, so this is not a woman thing...but he just cannot stand Michelle. He keeps mentioning that comment of hers. He also thinks she is a Lady MacBeth type who pushed Obama to run for President now instead of waiting until he had a better resume.


    Yes, MO turned out to be nothing like (none / 0) (#143)
    by masslib on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:29:21 PM EST
    Jackie O, of course that was just more Axelrod marketing.  

    Hey now (none / 0) (#199)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:57:05 PM EST
    You'll alienate the Jewish vote with talk like that.

    What I find interesting (5.00 / 10) (#78)
    by Steve M on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:04:07 PM EST
    is the argument by some Obama supporters that while a woman would be nice, or maybe a Latino like Bill Richardson, he's really going to need a white guy to balance the ticket.

    Now, that might be true, and it might be realistic, for all I know.  But my question is, if you're willing to make the argument that the VP has to be a white guy for electability reasons, what can you possibly say to people who believe the top of the ticket has to be a white guy?

    Heh. (none / 0) (#172)
    by liminal on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:39:52 PM EST
    That is a sharp and spectacular point.

    If they want us out (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by badu on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:10:35 PM EST
    maybe we should go.  We would could start a 3rd party or organization that Republicans and Democrats would have to court to get elected.  We would be a heck of a voting block, that they would have to listen to.  

    It's long past time (5.00 / 5) (#146)
    by miriam on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:30:15 PM EST
    for a third party and this primary season seals the deal.  The Democratic party with its "Impeachment is off the table" mantra and voting in lockstep with Bush's wishes convinced me two years ago that it has little interest in upholding the Constitution and/or protecting the country.  It simply wants to win the next election.  I've been a registered Democrat for 47 years, but I'm leaving this party that can no longer be bothered to represent me, my gender, or my country.

    The reason Edwards was so generous (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:13:15 PM EST
    in his praise for Clinton during his speech last night, IMHO, is that he is going to take the VP slot that she deserves and worked so hard for.  I believe it has already been decided and Clinton will be denied.

    This is coming from someone who was a strong Edwards supporter and who, under other circumstances, would have been ecstatic to have him as the VP nominee.  But what they are doing here is just plain wrong.  She worked for this.  She brought voters out in droves to vote for her.  She obviously has appeal to the demographic Obama has trouble with.  It's wrong.

    But it sure looks like that's what's going to happen.  The other thing that galls me about it is that Edwards just stood there on cable news and said he has no interest in the VP position, that he wouldn't be in that position, and that he would be working on his poverty issues.  And now, if he is indeed being offered and taking the position, he looks dishonest again.  First he said he'd be in the race til August, and shortly afterward dropped out.  Then he said he wasn't going to endorse and shortly afterward he endorsed.  Now we will see whether his recent statements about the VP were dishonest too.

    I don't think so (none / 0) (#111)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:19:02 PM EST
    Obama is in love with his SW strategy. Edwards does nothing to further that effort. He is gonna take Richardson who also has some foreign policy experience. I think that was deal he made when he agreed to dis Clinton in the first place.

    Edwards wants poverty addressed or the AG slot. Or maybe he just wanted some attention. Who knows. Neither of them are gonna help Obama.


    nah (none / 0) (#164)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:37:26 PM EST
    he's not the VP.

    Mkayyyy....there would have been hints at that from Obama people over at Dkos.

    Seriously, Obama is going Rocky's not South.


    "putting a woman on the ticket (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by nycstray on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:13:20 PM EST
    would be an excellent move."

    {head explosion}

    If I hear THAT one more time . . . .

    Edwards on the Ticket would be the election away (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Richjo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:20:16 PM EST
    for the Republicans.

    Edwards appeal to white working class voters was that he spoke to the issues they cared about, it was based on the message, not the messenger. Clinton has since taken up the mantle of reaching out aggressively to these voters, and with her we have both the message and an impressive messenger. Edwards was a lousy Senator, and his campaign was built in large part on the enormous amount of time he spent courting voters in Iowa over the last 5 years. He was a weak VP for Kerry, and he would do little to help Obama win the general. He has not won the respect of the voters through the determination and willingness to fight on their behalf that Clinton has. Nor does he have the Clinton legacy to run on either. Not to mention he has not distinguished himself through his service in the Senate the way Clinton has.

    Also where is the proof that Edwards would have carried more of these voters than Clinton has. I don't ever remember polls suggesting that Edwards was going to win in places like Ohio, Pennsylvannia, etc. If there was data suggesting this, why the hell did he drop out?

    People are not going to be attracted to a ticket with Edwards because his election as vice president is not historic in any way, and he has not built a loyal following of supporters the way Clinton has. Edwards as VP will only seem like Obama and he cut a deal to advance both of them when Obama was in toruble. It would be viewed as self serving, and won't change the fact that Clinton supporters will feel she was cheated out of the nomination. In fact it would only increase that belief. If Edwards wants people to truly believe he is only interested in unifying the party he needs to make clear now that he is not going to be VP. He must have endorsed Obama without any gain in return to be the type of honest broker the party needs.

    If Clinton is not offered a spot on the ticket than I take that as a sign that the Democratic Party has left me. If it doesn't need me or 50% of its members, so be it. But that is what we have come to. Obama has the power to unify the party as much as it can be unified. If he chooses not to, then he shouldn't be suprised when he loses in November. If he values his selfish agenda against unifying the party, then it won't be a that much of a loss if he loses. A divided Democratic party may win this election because of how bad the Republicans have done for the last eight years, but it will be easy prey for a Republican resurgence once the old GOP no longer has W pulling them down.

    Richjo, very well said indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:38:18 PM EST
    If Obama is the nominee he needs a VP with gravitas; Edwards doesn't project that quality. However, Hillary has that, and every other quality we would want in a President.

    Let's put the shoe on the other foot. If we imagine Hillary as the nominee (please), it would be a subject of endless uproar if she passed up Obama and went trolling for another AA man.


    Edwards shouldn't be VP (none / 0) (#159)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:35:34 PM EST
    because Obama will lose anyway.

    Poblano surprises me with that post (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:22:02 PM EST
    I have thought him nothing but an Obama shill.

    good for him. I was wrong and I apologize to him now.

    Obama may be doomed. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:32:15 PM EST
    And any southerner is suspect when you do a generic polling of Dems nationwide.  That's just that way it has always been.  You can yell at a Californian or Northerner til you are blue in the face and they don't ever realize you need to dramatically break the GOP in the south in order to win.


    They are happy in their general smugness.  Clinton does have her old man to provide the southern charm.  Edwards will simply be suspect no matter he does because he has an accent.  


    I find it facinating (5.00 / 13) (#134)
    by LoisInCo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:23:13 PM EST
    that after certain demographics are shown to conclusively support Clinton, some failed candidate who "represents" that demographic shows up to prove all those voters were wrong.

    Hillary wins people seeking "experience": Kerry and Kennedy endorse Obama.

    Hillary wins the majority of Latino's: Richardson endorses Obama.

    Hillary wins the majority of working class workers: Edwards endorses Obama.

    Does it show WHY all these people are failed candidates? Yes, because they never listen to the people they are suppose to represent.

    There are Donald Regan Democrats?????? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:26:19 PM EST
    First I've heard of that.

    When they don't know what to do (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:30:51 PM EST
    they ask each other.  And the answer is always "yes, man" (as in yes-men).  And the bubble thrives and lives on, while the reality gets farther and farther away.

    It's getting funnier every day.

    Just to freak everyone out ... (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:32:04 PM EST
    he should pick Taylor Marsh.

    Let's leave it at this (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by landocalrissian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:52:24 PM EST
    Since the inception of the attacks from Clinton with the 3 AM ads, Obama and many of his supporters have rightfully shown disdain for that kind of politics. And although there are a lot of whinging freaks on the Obama side of the fence as well, the data shows that we'd all fall in line IF Hillary had won.

    She didn't.

    So now, you guys are sniping at every opportunity to try and justify why you're going to deprive this country of decent leadership because your candidate ran a campaign that was rejected by a majority of the people, the delegates, and the superdelegates.

    Are you signed up to get out the vote for McCain? Are you pushing for Hillary to be his VP?


    Correction. (none / 0) (#194)
    by landocalrissian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:53:33 PM EST
    The data suggests a majority of Obama supporters would fall in line behind Clinton, IF she won the nomination.

    your key phrase (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by dissenter on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:56:31 PM EST
    "is decent leadership." I'm sorry, but that is where Obama loses me.

    Feh (none / 0) (#215)
    by lambertstrether on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:16:01 PM EST
    Obama sure didn't show any "disdain" -- and he's good at showing disdain, right "Sweetie"? -- for "that kind of politics" when he smeared the Clintons as racist after NH (and his fans promptly piled on with it and haven't let up). The 3AM ad was nothing compared to that. What a WATB....

    This is absolutely a fight for the soul of (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by chancellor on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:03:08 PM EST
    the party--in so many ways. There has long been a desire, on the part of certain Democrats, to re-write the electoral map to exclude the South. In its place, these individuals, IMO, hope to create a neo-Libertarian party, cobbling together voters in the Southwest and the Mountain States, with a few border states, such as MO and VA on the horizon. By eliminating the South, they also eliminate the influence of the southern politicians:  Carter, Clinton, Gore, and, yes, even Edwards, who appeal to voters who want and need government to play an active role in their lives.

    The problem many of us have who see this going on is that the new party they envision is not based on traditional Democratic values. Libertarians are closer in ideology to Republicans than they are to Democrats. It also explains why some of Obama's positions are disturbing to traditional Dems: Does he just want to raise the earnings cap on social security (fine by me) or does he want to slink towards privatization (definitely bad)? When the majority of the country wants UHC, why doesn't his program offer a competitive govt-run option like those of Edwards and Clinton to wean people away from private insurers?

    Edwards and Clinton have always been fairly close on the issues--much more so than Edwards and Obama. If you look at the early primary contests, it was Edwards and Clinton who were splitting the working class vote, with Edwards receiving a higher percentage of voters who had completed college or graduate school. Also, both of them are excellent at retail politics, something Obama clearly loathes. But all that still doesn't mean Edwards should be the VP.

    Unfortunately, a ticket with both Clinton and Obama won't persuade either side, IMO, because Clinton represents a wing of the party that is so vastly different than what Obama represents. It isn't just about the personalities anymore; it's about the direction the party takes going forward. Edwards may be willing to go along to get along, but his willingness to endorse Obama, rather than staying neutral, also speaks to a neo-Libertarian supporter rather than a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat like Clinton.


    Hold on ... (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by LostAirman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:27:06 PM EST
    Obama supporters as so much made of the same cloth as wingnuts its scary.

    Really? It's pretty shocking to look through the comments here and see the level of irrational generalization directed toward Obama supporters.

    I'm an Obama supporter. I would have just as happily supported Hillary had she managed: managed her strategy, managed to reach out for every vote (caucuses included), managed her money, managed her message, managed her surrogates, managed her ground game, managed Mark Penn. I can't expect her to manage her supporters, but I can hardly believe she'd support the level of vitriol throughout this thread and others on TalkLeft.

    News flash: Barack Obama isn't Satan. His approach to campaigning is different than Hillary's. Both campaigns and both candidates made mistakes. Yes, the media swooned at Obama's rhetoric. They also jumped all over Jeremiah Wright, "bittergate", Anthony Rezko, etc. They needed a horse race for ratings and, frankly, kept Hillary in it for that purpose longer than she would have been viable in any other campaign. If you can move just a scoche past your disappointment, (which I fully understand - I was a staffer for Wes Clark in 2004), you'll see the striking similarities in the positions of both Senators Clinton and Obama. We're talking mere millimeters difference. Both are capable of bringing enormous change from Bushco. And either would.

    Seriously, Barack Obama and the vast majority of his supporters are not the enemy. If you believe they are, you're already drowsy from the carbon monoxide of the Republican machine.

    The moderation here should be just a touch more even-handed. TalkLeft is starting to take on the hollow sucking sound of circling the drain. It's perfectly normal to grieve a bit at the demise of a campaign you feel strongly invested in. But, when you grab the AK and start gunning down your classmates, somebody needs to step in.

    Look (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by sas on Thu May 15, 2008 at 09:43:34 PM EST
    support who you want.  Whatever.  Fine.  I will also support who I want OR NOT.  

    I believe some of Barack's supporters are my enemy - the sexist A list blogger boyz, the people who cry racist at me because I believe Hillary is WAY better, the people who call Hillary a liar etc, and villify her otherwise.

    Yes, they are my enemy, as is the empty suit known as Obama.  Just because he has a D beside his name in the voting booth does not make him my candidate.

    Go over to Kos and HuffPo and use your AK line - bet they gun you down, classmate.

    I dont know (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:40:18 PM EST
    it didnt help Kerry much.

    Without Bill Clinton's last minute help (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:47:00 PM EST
    Kerry would likely have lost Pennsylvania.

    and kerry is so grateful and remembers (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by hellothere on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:23:08 PM EST
    his friends. right?

    Kerry is what he is (none / 0) (#189)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:47:36 PM EST
    a new englander--like all our failed attempts.

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by IzikLA on Thu May 15, 2008 at 04:56:43 PM EST
    This is what I really don't get.  How does Edwards bring in all these alleged voters when 1) he couldn't carry his state for Kerry in 2004 and 2) he dropped out of the race because he wasn't getting the votes, whereas Clinton now has almost 50% of Democrats solidly behind her.

    I think the Obama campaign or, shall I say, his supporters, are completely delusional if they think Clinton is not the best choice.  Granted, I wanted her on the top of the ticket, and I'm not sure she'd want VP, but she should certainly be offered it.  Why take a risk going into a general election so late in the game with barely 50% of Democrats supporting you.  Why wouldn't you go in with a ticket that represented almost 100% of those voters.  Whatever work to be done from there on would be icing on the cake.

    I also don't buy the argument that he should pick a governor or someone from a swing state like Ohio or Pennsylvania.  Why make a calculated move to bring in one state when you can bring together the entire party and bring someone on the ticket that already is proven to be supported by voters in many many states all across the nation.  

    In addition, if there are any residual worries about inexperience, what better way to dispel those fears than to have the comfort of knowing the Clinton's are there, just in case? : )

    Finally, I find it hard to believe that Obama picking Clinton would all of a sudden turn off so many of his voters.  He's done plenty of things already that they have accepted, they look up to him tremendously, I think he could smooth this one over.


    I have been reading (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:09:02 PM EST
    that one particular supporter may be the biggest obstacle to the unity train.
    his wife.

    answer your questions. (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:25:52 PM EST
    Kerry was the top of the ticket. It's likely that noone could have saved Kerry.

    The other thing is that Edwards was given no cash to spend on a southern push.  Kerry ended his campaign with about 10 million unspent.

    That could have been used in the small towns of Ohio.  Edwards could have been packed on a bus to advertize and spend as he saw fit with that extra 10.

    Alos 204 was a learning experience.  

    Next thing--Rendell looks good.


    Not that Edwards should be veep (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Salo on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:23:10 PM EST
    BUT he did help Kerry.  Kerry OTOH never gave Edwards a budget to spend anywhere in the south.

    Edwards probably did help in Penn with his country persona. Alot of the failure was Kerry being a Yalie New Englander on the top of the ticket.  Bush out countryed Kerry at every turn.

    I like the idea of Rendell.

    Edwards should be given the Healthcare portfolio.  He's been studying it for years.


    Edwards should also be given the (none / 0) (#210)
    by Saxon on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:09:10 PM EST
    Treasury portfolio; he has been working for hedge funds for several years (along with studying poverty).

    The BO + JRE ticket will put it away . . . (3.00 / 2) (#109)
    by wurman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:18:12 PM EST
    . . . the election will be put away for J. "W" McSame & his non-name running mate.

    If "W" Mac reads the Rosenberg screed, the old guy won't be able to speak in public without having to wipe the drool off his chin . . .

    Oh, wait, that may already be the case.  But, the GOoPerz will be slobbering at the chops to attack that ridiculous ticket.

    How quickly people forget ... (none / 0) (#77)
    by bridget on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:03:52 PM EST
    Coy opportunist John Edwards ran a negative campaign based mainly on two things: the apology and trashing Hillary Clinton.

    Oh yes, he was also selling Universal Health Care and he worried about the "two America's" again.
    But I never bought that one the first time around.

    People like Rosenberg who believe he makes a great VP AGAIN live in denial.

    Michelle Bernard thinks this is a good (none / 0) (#105)
    by bjorn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:16:12 PM EST
    idea, that might be reason enough not to do it!

    who said that? (none / 0) (#137)
    by seesdifferent on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:25:26 PM EST
    "Hillary Clinton is viewed as having NO appeal with voters."
    I would venture to guess that only you have said that. Attributing to Obama or his supporters is really not right.

    I think you would find Edwards' speech important as regards reconciling the party. A similar speech from Obama would customarily follow a concession speech by Sen. Clinton.  I mean, how can Obama make his speech first?

    The Clinton Wing (none / 0) (#169)
    by LostAirman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:38:56 PM EST
    I've not been a regular Talkleft reader for some time. There's only so much political reading that a working stiff like myself can accomplish in a day. But, I do feel compelled to comment ...

    I'm not sure that leaving The Clinton Wing of the party to the 90s is all bad. I was a Bill Clinton supporter, through thick and thin, and would have voted for Hillary had she won the nomination. In part because the last eight years have seen the fulfillment of policies so horrific we'd never have imagined them, we tend to paint the 90s with a rosy glow. But, in some ways, the facts about those years are pretty stark.

    1. Bill Clinton had no coattails in either his election or re-election. That the 1994 "Republican Revolution" was able to occur at all is a sign of just how weak the party was at the time - a weakness that could have been mitigated (certainly in '96) by the bully pulpit of the leading Democrat in the country. In effect, he stifled his own greatness by neglecting the coattails.
    2. "Welfare to work," a centerpiece of the Clinton presidency, pushed the poor who were already out at the edges right off the cliff. Worse, it pushed many off the reporting radar, leaving a possibly mistaken impression that poverty decreased during the Clinton administration. It may actually have - we just don't know. It's shameful, frankly, that we'll never be sure exactly what happened to many of those folks who were pushed off of welfare with nowhere else to turn.
    3. NAFTA has been an unmitigated disaster for working Americans and a windfall for corporations. We have the most creative, talented, productive, innovative, dedicated workers in the world. But, they're losing the jobs that feed their families to countries with no environmental controls, marginal government oversight and wages that keep their own workers enslaved.

    We were prosperous during the heyday of the Clinton Wing, for sure. Silicon Valley built a bubble around revenue-free IPOs and drove Wall Street into a frenzy, temporarily masking the impact of NAFTA. When the bubble burst, leaving investors holding the bag, those companies headed south of the border, or west of the Himalayas. It was, of course, all made worse a few years later by the economic impact of Bushco's utter ignorance of active terrorism.

    The Clinton Wing had its accomplishments - I don't want to leave the impression that I saw those years as a total loss. But much has changed in the world since their presidential zenith.

    Senator Clinton has been, for the most part, a stalwart Dem standing strong for Democratic principles in the Senate. Strong enough, in fact, that we need her there, in a formal position of leadership, to guide and assure the success of the next Democratic administration. President Clinton is now most effective in his philanthropic efforts. It's in those two respects that The Clinton Wing of the Democratic party can and will continue to exert important influence for the country. Choosing not to select her as the vice-presidential candidate is far from exclusion from the party. It's a recognition of where, in reality, the Clintons can exert balanced and reasonable influence on the process of leading us out of the consequences of Bush's radicalism.

    Speaking only for myself ...

    Interesting... (4.40 / 5) (#200)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:57:07 PM EST
    You do know that the "Republican Revolution" (a.k.a. The Contract with America) was a long time in the works and had less to do with Clinton than it did with a very long period of Dem control and more than a few scandals that didn't go over well with the American public, yes?

    Certainly, there were other factors (2.00 / 1) (#213)
    by LostAirman on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:10:53 PM EST
    and neither Clinton can completely shoulder the blame. But, no one has more influence in reversing the direction of their party than a sitting president of that party. (OK - I could make the case that George Bush has done more to reverse the direction of both parties, but that's another thread altogether!)

    The impact of the Republican Revolution could have been mitigated (as noted above - not completely reversed) by more attention to the down ballot candidates and races in '96. The fact that it wasn't mitigated left the Dems in an even worse position. And, the Clinton fatigue that set in after Lewinsky and the media's sickening obsessive coverage left him compromised in '00.

    In short, the weakening of the Democratic party certainly started before the Clintons came to power. But, they either didn't or couldn't make a compelling case to reverse that damage.


    Whatever those guys are smokin'... (none / 0) (#181)
    by magnetics on Thu May 15, 2008 at 05:44:18 PM EST
    ...I want some of it...

    ...wait... on second thought, maybe not.

    We won't vote for Obama (none / 0) (#204)
    by chopper on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:00:57 PM EST
    Hillary is ahead in the popular vote.

    Hillary is ahead in the electoral votes.

    Hillary won the big states.

    Hillary is experienced and has a record of accomplishments. BO has neither.

    Hillary's close friends don't include an anti-American terrorist bomber, crooked Iraqis, Chicago crooks, Farrakhan, and the Black Panthers. And, she didn't sit in front of an anti-American racist preacher for 20 years, who Oprah has sense enough to leave, but Obama is a bit slow.

    Obama is a loser. If you can't see it now, you will when you congratulate McCain.

    If we have to wait 4 years for a great president like Clinton, we will. We will not vote for a corrupt, lying, charlatan.

    If you want to see more reasons why we won't vote for BO go to:


    Awesome. (none / 0) (#218)
    by landocalrissian on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:38:59 PM EST
    You've resorted to total fiction to justify your arguments:

    "Hillary is ahead in the popular vote.

    Hillary is ahead in the electoral votes.

    Hillary won the big states.

    Hillary is experienced and has a record of accomplishments. BO has neither."

    Complete fiction. Although, I guess Obama wasn't married to a President, so if that is experience, then I suppose that's allowable.

    The length of your resume does not correlate to the quality of your service.

    Edwards (none / 0) (#220)
    by tek on Thu May 15, 2008 at 06:48:04 PM EST
    would be a perfect match for Obama--he can't win anything (like Daschle, Kerry, Kennedy, et. al.)

    Edwards was my first choice. (none / 0) (#222)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:07:25 PM EST
    Him being on the ticket as VP won't get me to vote for Obama though. I'm really not certain what the Obama camp could do to win me over at this point. I am completely unexcited and unimpressed with Obama and his supporters.

    Go ahead (none / 0) (#223)
    by nell on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:32:39 PM EST
    purge us Clinton supporters from the party and see who you have left...certainly not enough to take on McSame.

    The only chance for Hillary is to convince the (none / 0) (#224)
    by WillBFair on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:33:31 PM EST
    supers that she would win the ge with a better margin, would have a greater mandate, is far more knowledgeable, would govern more effectively, and would advance the progressive agenda for decades to come. All true.
    But dingbats have taken over the party, and Rosenburg is just the tip of the iceburg.
    If we have to support them, we don't have to listen. I for one have had enough of their ignorance and vulgarity.
    I know this is sour grapes, but I don't even want Hillary on the ticket. After the way Obama and his worshippers have behaved, they don't deserve the Clinton's vast knowledge and flawless reasoning.
    So it'll be four years of Obama's shallow rhetoric and dated, far left cliches.
    Hopefully we have enough political capital now that he'll be able to get some things done.
    When I think of the utopian changes the Clintons could have engineered in this political climate, it makes me so sad.

    Obama supporters = wingnuts (none / 0) (#225)
    by pluege on Thu May 15, 2008 at 07:47:42 PM EST
    because of the unique dynamics of this race,

    translation: Obama is Black

    it would be one of the rare examples of when a Vice Presidential candidate really can sway an important, if not crucial demographic

    translation: Obama has a working class white problem

    don't you just love it when Obama supporters use dog whistle language to say the same thing they get the heathers over if a non-Obama supporter says it.

    Obama supporters as so much made of the same cloth as wingnuts its scary.

    Errr, LostAirMan.... (none / 0) (#229)
    by Chesserct on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:22:35 AM EST
    I think you Obominates might get a surprise this November. If the GOP is looking like they will lose substantual seats in the house, and there is a good chance of Dems being prevalent in both House and Senate, a lot of swing voters may decide that McCain will be pretty well ineffective for the GOP due to this, and vote for the devil they know, McCain, rather than the empty suit with serious unknown factors, Oboma. I am definitely not pushing for McCain, but this could be the way things shake out, with Obama and the DNC not courting Hillary voters.

    Well, That's Up To Obama, Isn't It, Lost? (none / 0) (#230)
    by Blue Jean on Fri May 16, 2008 at 12:57:36 AM EST
    As I've said before, it's up to Obama to include Clinton voters or not.  He can include the Clintons in some way, invite Clinton voters to join in, and together, we can try to win this thing.


    He can try to shove the Clintons and their supporters out, tell their voters "You're with us or against us." and go on to lose in November.

    We've already had one arrogant, thin resume "God gave me the Presidency" jerk in the WH for the last seven years.  We don't need another one, thanks.

    RE: Rules Committee will slant Obama (none / 0) (#231)
    by fctchekr on Fri May 16, 2008 at 06:51:04 AM EST
    Doubtful there will be any good surprises May 31st..

    It would seem according to AP that the rules committee is bent on keeping New Hampshire and Iowa as the preeminent states that set the pace; this is the likely reason why they punished two out of five only, the other state S.C. which did not get punished.

    The point being, according to AP is that the rules committee will not favor anything that remotely threatens Obama's course to the W.H.

    It should be fairly clear to all that their job now is to make sure Hillary is OUT.

    And if Hillary wants to continue to make a strong case for herself she needs to stay in, no matter what.

    Take a look at WAPO today: by far the most anti-Hillary, right in line with MSNBC.