home

Why A Unity Ticket?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:32:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I always am amazed that discussions of the Unity Ticket never seem to include any reasons why it MIGHT be a good idea. Thus, I must protest Bob Wright's discussion with Mickey Kaus of the Unity ticket possibility.

Their entire discussion is predicated on the assumption that, despite the fact that Democratic voters strongly support a Unity Ticket, it is bad for Obama to have Clinton on the ticket. I think the polling has clearly said otherwise. I have made arguments for why I think it is almost essential that Obama pick Clinton as his running mate. No such arguments are addressed in most elite pundit discussions of a Unity Ticket.

More . . .

There is a real disconnect that I see from the elite pundits like Wright and Kaus with the data and the wide swath of Democratic voters who actually are strongly committed to Hillary Clinton. They dislike the Clintons and therefore assume everyone else must or should too.

It is just this type of elitist attitude that the Obama campaign must avoid. I think the solution is simple, a Unity Ticket. But the pundit elites have their own ideas and wash away any plausible concerns about Obama's general election candidacy.

To see a Democrat win in November while dissing half of the Democratic Party will be an amazing feat. But to the elitist pundits, this is not only not a concern, actually ADDRESSING that Clinton half of the Democratic Party is a terrible idea. It is remarkable how people can convince themselves than what they want personally is what the voters want.

P.S. I never knew Bob Wright was a Clinton Hater. I knew Kaus was.

Comments closed.

< Ted Kennedy Hospitalized With Stroke Symptoms | Horace Greeley Speaks: Dems Lead Over McCain/ GOP In NM >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why A Unity Ticket? | 205 comments (205 topical)
    I guess they think that the Republicans will (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by athyrio on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:38:08 PM EST
    make up the difference in their vote needs in the general election....I disagree....

    thanks for addressing an important (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:40:05 PM EST
    issue. i have read that the northeast power dems want to push out the southern bubbas or clintons. it makes one wonder with the comments from brazile and axelrod. take a good look at their distain for the hillary voters and obama's bitter comments. they go along with that very idea. take a look at anglachel's take on it. arrogance and hubris by dem leaders is not a good thing followed along with the same type of attitude among many media elites.

    good point about the anti-south slant (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:28:03 PM EST
    especially considering it was a weak, elitist dem party during the seventies and eighties that made the south ripe for the picking.

    I wonder, though, if folks here or BTD can say what, exactly, makes them think that Obama will ask Clinton, should the situation arise. (Of course, she still has a chance and FL and MI will give her the edge, I think).

    I have no doubt that Clinton would ask Obama for all the points listed.  Above all, she wants to unify the party and beat the repubs so we can take back our country.  

    What BTD says about folks being in a Clinton-hating bubble is correct.  I don't think Axelrod or any of them see or understand that there are fervent Clinton supporters out there.  I just don't see them asking because they obviously think they do not need her.

    Thank God she still has a chance!

    [ Parent ]

    I Would Put The Odds Of Obama Seriously Asking (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:31:00 PM EST
    Hillary to be VP at about 75% to 25% against him doing it.

    [ Parent ]
    There Is Not An Ounce Of Unity In obama (none / 0) (#149)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:14:17 PM EST
    look at his future plans:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080517/ap_on_el_pr/obama_finale

    [ Parent ]

    It's the Bush strategy (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by NWHiker on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:20:52 PM EST
    The presumption of victory. Worked in Florida in 2000, it's working again.

    Unity? Hardly.

    I won't vote for him for Pres, period. Even if Clinton is the VP. I would vote for Clinton/Obama, though not as happily as for her with a better VP.

    Obama has said and done some things that are beyond what I can deal with and still vote for him. His supporters have just cemented that conviction.

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsense (2.50 / 4) (#159)
    by Alec82 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:28:49 PM EST
    especially considering it was a weak, elitist dem party during the seventies and eighties that made the south ripe for the picking.

     You have heard of the Southern strategy, yes? Senator Clinton herself was turned off of the Republican Party by this strategy.  

     I am tired of hearing this elitist nonsense from fellow Democrats (or I guess I should say Clinton Democrats, as she is the only Democratic candidate they will support).  This from a candidate whose surrogates dismissed half of the party as latte-sipping liberals and argued that states Obama was winning "don't matter."  This from our former "first black president" who attempted to play the race card to marginalize Senator Obama's victories.

     Sorry, I don't believe the Clintons are fellow working class travelers, I strongly suspect that there are plenty of white "Democrats" who were voting against a black candidate and I think that barrier is more difficult to overcome than gender, at least in this country.  

     That being said, I would support a unity ticket, either way.  I don't think she has a chance in hell of winning the nomination, though, so it will almost certainly be the VP spot.  If it will placate her more rabid supporters then fine.  If it won't, it is useless and he should select someone else.  I suspect that, if polling indicates it will, then he will ask her.  Then we will see who has the best interests of the Democratic Party, and the Party's issues, at heart.

    [ Parent ]

    And I'll Say Again (5.00 / 9) (#71)
    by The Maven on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:54:44 PM EST
    that the folks in that group don't even seem to notice the hypocrisy involved in this dismissal, considering that one of their stated reasons for disliking Clinton so strongly throughout this campaign was her perceived disdain for the 50-state strategy.  And now, indeed, we have Axelrod, Brazile, et al., writing off this gigantic segment of the country by falsely claiming that no (real) Democrat could win them over, so why even bother trying?

    That no one like Howard Dean has called them on this shows either (1) what a poor job as chairman Dean is doing, or (2) that the theory of the 50-state strategy was never anything more than a stalking horse to disembowel the "old" Party base, permanently moving the Dems away from anything resembling the New Deal coalition or its ideals and toward the free-floating concept of "change":  hard-working Americans and the Boomer generation are so 20th Century -- it's time for the Creative Class to demonstrate that it knows what's best for everyone.  But that's not in the least bit elitist . . .

    [ Parent ]

    i think dean meant it when he said it, (none / 0) (#102)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:17:11 PM EST
    but i have to wonder just what the dem leadership has promised or threatened in order to get this horrific result.

    [ Parent ]
    Unity Ticket (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by Pat Johnson on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:46:11 PM EST
    The only way I would support a unity ticket is if she were at the top.  He has no experience and completely lost me with that "you are likable enough Hillary" as if he were addressing a naughty child. I see no reason, from my own perspective, to vote for  Sen Obama.  I would never vote for McCain but I feel this guy is a disaster.  

    She'd do all the work, and he'd (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:05:43 PM EST
    take all the credit. It would be a non-stop debate experience. "What she said."

    The only reason I would accept the unity ticket is that we might get HER universal health care plan, and HER foreign affairs diplomacy, etc.

    He is all for show, and would most likely jump at the chance to give his policy decisions to someone capable of making sound decisions and making him look great.

    Even at that, I don't believe he can win the GE and I shudder at the culture of the country taking on the culture of his campaign and his aggressive group of supporters.


    [ Parent ]

    'Sweetie, you're too valuable in a support role' (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:20:23 PM EST
    That's what they're saying to HRC and that's what anyone who's been unfairly shunted aside so the less qualified, but expediently and superficially useful fraud can be put on display.

    Obama may have the talent. I haven't seen signs of it outside the kind of public speeches that most high school valedictorians could manage. He might yet develop the credentials, merit and depth some day. That day isn't this day.

    I judge him not by the color of his skin but the content of his character, which is questionable at best. (The content of his speeches is cribbed and I wouldn't critique them because I have too much respect for the visionaries he's plagiarized and whored for easy money.)

    [ Parent ]

    It's Bad Enough He Steals All Her Stands On (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:44:34 PM EST
    the issues, and copies her policies after she issues the particulars.  He is shameless.

    [ Parent ]
    MyDD has become pretty much unreadable (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Teresa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:55:48 PM EST
    except for the front page but I read a diary there a day or two ago about the unity ticket. Not one Obama supporter was for it. They were actually angry at the suggestion. They are in so much denial about Clinton supporters. She isn't the anti-Obama to us - we really do support her strongly.

    The Front Page Of MyDD Has Been Great IMO (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:01:18 PM EST
    Very balanced with posts both pro and con for each candidate. Good coverage of down ticket races also.

    Don't spend too much time on the comments because of the tenor of the discussions.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup - we really do support her! (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Shainzona on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:05:06 PM EST
    And The Obamanation - in true form - thinks it's all about him.  Other than the (big) fact that I DO NOT believe him to be qualified for the job, I could care less.

    [ Parent ]
    I hate the idea of Hillary being Obama's VP (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:56:56 PM EST
    ..but I think it is necessary for a Democratic victory if Obama is not the nominee. It will be a lot easier to bring back disgruntled Clinton supporters with her on the ticket. A female vice president is historic and frankly, Hillary is the female that deserves that honor more than the female politicians that Obama has in his pocket. They, in my opinion, would be tokens. (Sorry, Claire but its true.)

    Hillary can be very, very persuasive. This would be a plus for Obama. But even with her and Bill's persuasive powers they cannot convince people to vote for Obama if they themselves have been marginalized and dissed. I mean, what would that make us, the coalition of the whipped? Talk about bitter. I know I would be and I would cling to my bitterness all the way to November.

    So the biggest obstacle in the way of a unity ticket would be exactly what you have pinpointed because I'm afraid the following applies not only to the pundits but also to the Obamas themseves:

    They dislike the Clintons and therefore assume everyone else must or should too.
    No Way....Hillary At The Top Of The Ticket (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    or just stop talking about it....she is the most experienced, qualified, savvy and a fighter.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not convinced she (none / 0) (#169)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:35:22 PM EST
    would take it if asked. I hear her and her campaign saying that they will support the nominee, enthusiastically even, but I can't see VP in her comfort range. It sounds like to me, on the blogger call IIRC, that she'll do the best she can do and if it's not in the cards then she'll move on.
    Can't put my finger on it just yet, but I don't think she'd go for it.

    [ Parent ]
    Mickey Kaus is odious to me (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:57:47 PM EST
    He spent the entire 2000 election dithering over the choice between Bush and Gore, fretting continuously (and for some years afterwards) about the dangers Democrats posed to welfare reform.

    And then in 2004, he went on and on about how Democrats should not attack Bush.

    With friends like him ...

    Dissing half of the Democratic Party (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Demi Moaned on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    This is another article of faith among mainstream pundits-- that Democratic candidates can only win by humiliating and insulting their voting base.

    Bah!

    [ Parent ]

    And another related issue.... (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:59:40 PM EST
    is this. Let's say that Obama wins, selects someone else as VP, and wins the GE. Hillary is demolished and sent packing with her supporters, while Obama is transcendant, as so many seem to want. What then? What is it going to be like in America when half of the democrats feel disrespected, and/or cannot stand the President or the way that he won?

    It just seems like the attitude of contempt for half of the democratic voters doesn't bode well no matter what. It would be the same problem if it went the other say and Hillary won the nomination and sent Obama packing.

    Exactly, I live in Maryland and... (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:03:18 PM EST
    ...I went to both Clinton inaugurations. I can't imagine how I would feel about seeing Obama getting sworn in surrounded by all the jerk Democrats who support him. I would have to skip it and to think that I have been looking forward to the end of the Bush administration for 8 years.

    [ Parent ]
    I, too, started out last year thinking about (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Shainzona on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:07:19 PM EST
    rejoicing at the end of the Bush horror show.  And here we are, a year later, and I feel no such happiness.

    My heart is very sad for my country.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it will be the same as it has been (none / 0) (#32)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:22:09 PM EST
    for the last 8 years except there will be miserable Repubs as well. It might be a little better because they will be unable to continue their destruction of the Constitution. Maybe a new movement will arise.

    [ Parent ]
    We Were Already Relegated To That Status (none / 0) (#65)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:48:15 PM EST
    when Kerry lost and gwb came in to lord it over us.  It really bugs me how much gwb and bho are alike.  gwb, elitist from the east pretending to be a cowboy---obama, elitist and arrogant passing himself off as in touch with America and an average joe....bah!

    [ Parent ]
    Pros and Cons (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Exeter on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:02:39 PM EST
    Pros:
    -Clinton is a name brand that will help quell concerns about Obama's inexperience--especially on the economic front.
    -There is a segment of Clinton voters, mostly women, that may stay home or vote for McCain if Clinton is not on the ticket.
    -Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are bg name draws for public events and fundraising.
    -The ticket will be novel: no white guy on the ticket.
    -Bill Clinton could be promoted as Sec. of State, UN Ambassador, or Sec. of Commerce.

    Cons:
    -Clintons may energize Clinton-hating conservatives.
    -The ticket will be "unbalanced" with two unconvetional candidates... or, more bluntly, there is no white guy on the candidate.
    -Lack of national security experience on the ticket.

    I agree with the pros (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:26:19 PM EST
    I am biased as I think I could vote for Obama if Clinton is on the ticket.

    The first con I believe will balance out for both candidates.  Wright and Michelle Obama can be portrayed as anti-American and there are anti-affirmative items in many states that are expected to energize the base.

    The second con: unconventional issue I agree with.  Although, I think Clinton has been able to connect with demographics I didn't expect her to do as well as she has with.

    Third con I don't necessarily agree with. Clinton is viewed as experienced.  All the polling says she does even with national security.  She also has the backing of many military higher-ups.  It will depend on who McCain has.

    [ Parent ]

    So what's their brilliant plan? (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:06:20 PM EST
    Just sit back, ignore the Clinton supporters and expect the lost lambs to return to the fold with no encouragement at all?

    Or close the gate and let McCain poach Clinton supporters at will?

    Wow, Kaus has a serious case of CDS.  Possibly incurable.  I can see where the Fatal Attraction comparisons come from.  I know people say that they'd like to see a woman president, just not this woman - but their narratives say otherwise.  Has any man been accused of scheming his way into the VP slot and making his primary opponent's life miserable and a living hell?

    Ever?

    Being ambitious is usually considered an asset for men, not pathological behavior.

    The plan is to use (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by MarkL on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:08:53 PM EST
    paid a** kissers to get the Clinton folks in line.
    "Come on sweetie, Obama's a great candidate."
    .. that sort of thing.

    [ Parent ]
    Unofficial @$$ kissers. (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    Who won't be officially affiliated with the Obama campaign.

    Our "fellow concerned citizens" who will try to convince us that we are betraying not just the Democrats, but our country if we don't join Teh Movement.

    [ Parent ]

    They are already online.. we've (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by MarkL on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:13:23 PM EST
    seen them here. They are subtle as bricks.

    [ Parent ]
    do you see them getting anyone in line? (none / 0) (#107)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:20:16 PM EST
    i sure don't.

    [ Parent ]
    They are not doing a very good job.... (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:18:15 PM EST
    ...cause they can't stay in character when you give them a little back talk. Obama should hire some Republican concern trolls, they actually are much better at it.

    [ Parent ]
    republican concern trolls (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:26:40 PM EST
    use issues.

    Obama isn't all that big on issues and neither are his supporters unless you define Change! as an issue.

    In fact, that's one thing you'll see over and over.  Obama is good on this issue and that issue, but the reason I really support him is because he will Change our government and Change our nations and Change our lives.  As long as they cling to Change! there's not really any point in talking to them.

    [ Parent ]

    Well then, I'm trading in my thong... (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Shainzona on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:14:32 PM EST
    for something that covers all of my a@#.

    Sorry Victoria Secrets!  It's Vermont Country Store for me!  (Who, BTW, carry some great functional things - particularly the old fashioned candy!  Yum!)

    [ Parent ]

    I've had my feet kissed and @ss kissed plenty ... (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:41:30 PM EST
    ... in my life and I gotta say, the oPods are really bad at it. It's not my style, normally, to (get) kissed and tell, but this recent experience leaves me more insulted than mollified. It's not just routinely bad, either.

    It's the Worst. Booty call. Ever.

    (The Obama campaign's really looking good to lock up the most "worst ever" categories.)

    [ Parent ]

    calling folks sweetie isn't a good start. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:20:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    as a former clinton voter, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by cy street on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:20:01 PM EST
    current obama supporter, the unity ticket is my preferred option.

    for those that oppose this, the question to ask is:  who can deliver today more voters than hillary?  seems obvious no one can.  

    why should the party field anyone other than the "a" team?  this team is demographically jordan pippenesque, the first championship run.

    my hope is that the campaigns are better winners and losers than some of their supporters are.  the overall tone of the candidates seems headed in that direction.

    If, as you say, (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by miriam on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:00:53 PM EST
    Who can deliver today more voters than Hillary... Then why on earth shouldn't she be our nominee?  I never cease to marvel at the convoluted reasoning of Obama supporters. That is, Hillary can deliver the most voters so she should be VICE-PRESIDENT??????????
     

    [ Parent ]
    I believe cy means (none / 0) (#175)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:42:50 PM EST
    deliver more votes as a VP running mate to Obama.  He is right there - Richardson sure isn't gonna do it.

    [ Parent ]
    You are right (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:02:24 PM EST
    This has always been my main argument, who is already a proven vote-getter?  And now, with the shortened GE schedule, I think this is extremely important.

    I'm an ardent Clinton supporter but I appreciate your balanced take.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not ready (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by katiebird on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:23:30 PM EST
    to think about this.

    Just think about your preconditions (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:29:54 PM EST
    I would support this IF:


    and then fill in the blanks.  It'll give you a good look at your priorities apart from the candidates.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd support it IF the President Position (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:05:17 PM EST
    is ABOLISHED

    [ Parent ]
    Unity ticket (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Coral on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    won't happen. There is too much rabid anti-Clintonism among top-tier Democrats and Obama supporters.

    It would be a great healing move, IMO, but I can't see it happening.

    Unfortunately, I'm worried that even a move toward inclusive rhetoric toward the Clinton supporters will not happen--and that, more than the lack of a unity ticket, spells real difficulty for Obama in the fall.

    I'll vote for Democrats. I always do, but seeing how alienated the anti-Clinton forces had made me feel this election cycle, I imagine there are many who are not quite so committed will be swayed toward McCain.

    The problem for Obama is that McCain has quite a lot of working-class appeal, and that he is seen as a maverick.

    This dismissal of huge swaths of the working and lower to middle-middle class is very troubling. I suggest these people take another pass at reading Tom Frank's brilliant "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

    Hillary as president or bust (5.00 / 6) (#35)
    by Danielle on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:24:52 PM EST
    This question has been posed many times in the last few weeks.  I still feel the same either Hillary is president on the ticket or nothing at all. I do not want Hillary to be BHO's vp.  She is to qualified to play second fiddle.

    Premature discussion? (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by zebedee on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:26:30 PM EST
    I'm not sure trhis discussion is worth having before we know who the nominee is. Fistly, I'm not sure you get to what everyone real feelings are while so many of the Hillary supporters are still hoping she'll pull it off.

     Secondly, and more importantly, these discussions play into the Obama inevitability campaign, which is his main strategy since NC to drive HRC out and more or less win by default. Nothing dramatic happened in NC and IN or even in WV. Hillary won the white vote in all by around 62-37, a bit better in WV because of the higher low-income proportion. It's just the demographics at work yet the media and Obama's team have conveyed these as earth-shattering and the end of HRC's campaign. Unfortunately, if this succeeds in taking hold, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    I am not in favor of an Obama + Clinton ticket. (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by wurman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:33:43 PM EST
    It seems to me that Sen. Obama has no workable path to win the electoral votes for election.  Too many negatives.  Too much blue sky, if, if, if forms of change & hope.

    Sen. Clinton should calmly back away & wait until 2012 when the Obama wing will be a disgruntled rag-tag band of "losers" with no clout.

    Sen. Clinton can then run again knowing exactly how to work the caucuses, how to de-fang the DNC poobahs & how to quicly ID on all the DC elites who thought they could purge the Clintons from the party by wasting energy bashing her & the very rapidly growing influence of women in Democratic power circles.

    The poobahs, pundits, grandees & DC elitists have no idea as to the nature of the firestorm they are in the process of creating.  Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

    [Off-topic: I watched about 7 minutes of the Kaus & Wright malarkey, clicked off & took a shower.  If them'z the clinical analysts, the left needs us a brain transplant, it does.  Sad.]

    Calmly wait until 2012 (none / 0) (#54)
    by wasabi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:40:04 PM EST
    The Democrats never seem to let those that have lost a previous Presidential election try again, unlike the Republicans.  If Obama gets the nod and loses in the GE, Hillary will be blamed by the media and the noisy wing of the Democratic Party from here to forever.  2012 would be a pipe dream for Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama loses as badly as he's projected to (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    then the wing you are talking about will be gone, baby, gone.

    The media has never bothered Clinton, nor have they dictated what she does.  She has broken enough molds by now that I think she can do anything she wants...including win the nomination right now.  2012 won't be a problem.

    (ps: I think you are right about recent dem history re: losers of the nomination, but go back a bit farther and you'll see it's happened more often than not)

    [ Parent ]

    that's what i have said. in a year, it will (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:34:13 PM EST
    be "oh yeah, obama, what about him?".

    [ Parent ]
    We've never been (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by eleanora on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:36:26 PM EST
    in this situation before, at least not since primaries started deciding our nominee. Most of the traditional party base wants Hillary; the upper crust, AA's, and young voters want Obama. When we go into the convention, they're going to be separated by a hair in popular vote and pledged delegates. If the party leadership doesn't push for a joint ticket, they're just insane.

    I believe that ol' divisive, polarizing Hillary Clinton has been open to a Unity ticket since at least March, said we just needed to figure out what position each would take. And Barack Obama, hope-filled proponent of Unity and Making Friends with your former opponents to Change Politics, doesn't even want to consider it. What's wrong with this picture?

    I'm not in favor of a unity ticket (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by stillife on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    and I hope Hillary would turn it down, if offered.  However, I don't think it'll be offered.  The DNC is trying to push the Clintons out of the party, and Obama is too arrogant to offer her the spot.  

    I think it would be bad for the Dems, and particularly bad for Hillary.  If they lost in November, she'd be the scapegoat.  All we'd hear about during the campaign would be stories about drama and infighting between the Clinton and Obama camps.  

    A great part of Obama's campaign strategy has been to discredit Bill and Hillary Clinton.  He'd better dance with them that brung him (i.e., Clinton-haters).  If he tries to back-pedal now, it would destroy what little credibility he has.

    Doesn't the Constitution say (none / 0) (#179)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:47:05 PM EST
    something like the person with the second highest total shall be (will be) vice president?

    [ Parent ]
    There is nothing wrong w/Clinton as VP (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:41:48 PM EST
    Yesterday, there was support for Clinton as displaying grace, strength, knowledge... now?  VP is beneath her.  Clinton has earned the right to determine whether she thinks the position is a vehicle she can use to accomplish goals she thinks are important or if she can do more in the Senate.  It isn't second best to achieve the VP.  It is an incredible accomplishment.

    If she hadn't ran for President yet was selected for VP, I would most likely support the ticket.  Many would think it a great idea.

    Clinton has worked harder than any other candidate this cycle and earned the votes and the delegates.  Maybe not enough to tip the superdeez over the top. So what? Clinton has earned the right to make this decision.

    I have had enough jobs to know I am not limited by a job title nor the job description.  Use strength and conviction and bring your skills to the task and you can get a lot done.

    If Clinton decides she can do more in the VP spot than in the senate?  I could vote for that.  I wouldn't vote for Obama without Clinton.

    That's where I finally came out too. (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by eleanora on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:14:10 PM EST
    It will be hard to swallow seeing her take second place when she's so obviously more qualified in my view. But I trust Hillary Rodham Clinton to make the best decisions not just for the party, but for our country-- that's why I support her so strongly. If she decides to accept VP, I'll stand with her, work my heart out, and hope that she can accomplish what we need from that office.

    [ Parent ]
    Not hard for me to swallow (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:19:26 PM EST
    the only thing I need is for Obama supporters to Shut The F^ck Up!

    [ Parent ]
    I think a hurricane (4.75 / 4) (#116)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:25:35 PM EST
    on Lake Superior is more likely.

    (For the "low information" folks - hurricanes form over warm waters, and Superior is the deepest and coldest of the Great Lakes.

    [ Parent ]

    I fail to see why you must always suggest (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:54:59 PM EST
    that Hillary be on the bottom of this ticket.  Honestly, it makes my stomach turn everytime I come here and see you promoting yet again, the stronger candidate for the bottom of the ticket.  By the end of this, there will be about 70 pledged delegates between these two, Hillary will have the popular vote, and she will have won far more votes since Obama peaked in WI.  She will hav won registered Democrats by a healthy margin.  She will also have won the big electoral states, the swing states, and the swing groups.  She is far more experienced and prepared for office than Obama.  Please explain to me why you never suggest Hillary for the top of said unity ticket?

    I think Cokie's right/ (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:04:08 PM EST
    This is the basic premise for nominating Obama.

    http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0508/croberts.php3

    [ Parent ]

    Perfect!!! (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:40:03 PM EST
    Money quote for me:

    How can it make sense for Idaho, Kansas and Louisiana to have a bigger impact on choosing the Democratic nominee than Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio? Add in the exclusion of Florida and Michigan, two crucial states that favor Clinton, and there's only one word for the Democrats' system: crazy.

    Can't say it any better than that.  They are about  to nominate someone who is popular among Dems in the states with the fewest, and in some cases the most conservative, Dems in the country.   It makes no sense whatsoever, especially when we have a more qualified, more popular (among Dems) candidate ready to go.

    She needs to be on the ticket to avert total disaster.  She will be a wonderful VP.  I know people have legitimate reservations about seeing her take second place to a less qualified candidate, but she will shine in that role and make you proud.

    [ Parent ]

    I believe the annointment (none / 0) (#165)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:31:00 PM EST
    of Sen. Obama is to secure the vote of independents and unhappy republicans. Who then, needs all the factions of whats left of the dem party after securing the aa's and younger voters and affluent voters. Just as all of us dems who are told we are racists if we oppose Obama's annoitment, the indys and repubs will be told the same to "shame" them. Bring them into the dem party and you have elections won. And so, imho, I believe, like many others, that there should be a 3rd party, independent candidate and I believe Hillary should be the first person running for the presidency this way. This way, even if she doesn't win, she takes a lot (about 17million and counting) away from him and the dems. I am sick of what is happening in this election. Spit on me and then expect me to fall in line....don't communist/dictator governments practice this?

    [ Parent ]
    Bravo, masslib (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by miriam on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:11:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hillary does not help herself with VP (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Prabhata on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:03:39 PM EST
    I support Hillary, but I will not vote for BO if he's the candidate for POTUS.  There are limits to what I'll do to support Hillary, and voting for BO is beyond out of the question.  Let it go BTD.  BO trashed any hope of unity when:
    BO played the race card
    BO displayed immaturity and lack of civility at the SOTU and by wiping his shoulders as if Hillary was feces.
    BO said at a debate, "I don't want a continuation of Bush-Cheney. I don't want Bush/Cheney-lite..."
    BO did not repudiate the Wright attacks against BC and Hillary

    The list goes on and on.

    So many Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:52:49 PM EST
    do not seem to understand that we who will not vote for Obama, should he get the nod, has nothing to do with being a sore loser, or "our candidate came close but didn't make it." "We are mad as hell as we're not going to take it anymore" from Obama's sexist remarks to Hillary and to us, as women, as Hillary supporters. Keep insulting us and you'll get your wish..especially this year..we'll go away. If Hillary wants the VP slot and she is offered it (I doubt she'll be offered), I will not vote for Obama on the top of the ticket..I want to see an independent ticket with Hillary on the top..

    [ Parent ]
    To zfran (none / 0) (#195)
    by klp on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    And Vice Versa.  If Hillary gets the nomination, I will not vote for her.  She cannot win with Obama supporters as well.  So, again I ask where does that leave us?  Neither Hillary nor Barack will win in the fall.  I hate when Hillary supporters think this way.  I think the pundits are right.  McCain and the republicans will win the nomination this fall.  Sad day for America, but because of some intolerance toward an African-American or because he is a male, some will not vote for him.

    [ Parent ]
    Dear Kip-When I say I (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:08:24 PM EST
    won't vote for Sen. Obama, I'm a racist, but when Sen. Obama calls Clinton out for tearing up, showing her claws, being harmonal, giving her the finger (that jury is still out)calling him sexist is off-base??? Believe me there are many more instances of this. Please tell me Sen. Obama's position on global warming, what kind of judges he'd appoint to the Supreme Court, will he or won't he meet with dictators personally, did he or didn't he sit through sermons, etc. He has taken every side of all arguments (including Hillary's). At least she, as a candidate spells out her visions. In this country if you don't want to vote for her you don't have to. In this country, if I don't trust someone who I don't believe is qualified and has insulted me, I don't have to, and I'm not a racist.

    [ Parent ]
    Make that klp not kip, sorry (none / 0) (#200)
    by zfran on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:10:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Unity ticket? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by ruthinor on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:31:27 PM EST
    No way, unless HRC is at the top of the ticket.  If she's VP I won't vote for it.  The democratic party and Obama have treated her like crap.  She's supposed to reward this by being a sacrificial lamb?  If BO wins the nomination, I say, let the loser lose all by himself.  He earned it.  And please, no threatening us with the supreme court nonsense.  BO would have voted for Roberts if his advisors had not talked some sense into him.  Here's a professional man who can't seem to address women in a professional manner; in short, he's a sexist pig.

    Serious Red Flag to keep Obama off ANY ticket (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:33:05 PM EST
    I was distressed at the unveiling, last week, of Obama's decree to Obot-Nation to cease donating to issues groups and send all the ducats to him.

    He, The One, would decree which issues and groups were deserving of The Jack and The Juice, squeezed through Him.

    No diggity, no sale, no go. (In retrospect, this is why NARAL, DC, wimpishly got on board the wheezing Obama gas-guzzler.)

    Look at how TeamObama burns through money just to stay in place. Bad enough he's snookered donors to use their pennies and megabux to tread in place for weeks in PA, it disgusts me that he wants to suck issues groups from the popular to those "Icky" ones desperately in need of advocacy and cash.

    Don't confuse the first-glance peccables of the physical office with the hard, grueling and sorely needed work done in the trenches.

    Obama must never see any more powerful office before he has established a record.

    He actually IS worse than Bush to me: he'd be like electing "our" version of Tom "Man Purse" DeLay to the White House. Don't want Bosses anywhere near in the party, in the Cameras or in the Big House.

    I don't want to be typified as a Clinton Democrat, either, although the good Sen. has earned my respect and support.

    I'm a proud Liberal and MY standard is Shirley Chisholm: outspoken, unbought and unbossed to her dying day. I really wish I had been around to see her in action because she's one of the rare politicians I'd trust 100% to speak for me.

    The Hillary/Michelle thing (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:33:19 PM EST
    I really do not like how that antipathy or alleged antipathy is being promoted.  It just perpetuates the "female cat fight".  I think we have to nip this one in the bud.  It's really irrelevant to the issues.  I personally have no great tingles in the Michelle part, but I have to say that I think the families are just that, families and no matter how hard it is, we should try to not demonize the spouses or children.  There is something evocative of how we all did not like Hillary's treatment as first lady.  

    I dunno, Stellaaa (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:11:03 PM EST
    I totally agree with you on the "catfight" crap, not least of all because only one of these women is running for the presidency; MO is a spouse, not a contender.  

    I think that MO is out there just as any surrogate is out there, and should be held to the same-if not higher-standard.  What I don't like is people who denigrate her because she is a woman (which is the problem I had in the 90s when they did it to HRC; attack her for policy, not because her ankles are thick or whatever).  It's okay to talk about how you don't agree with MO's interpretation of Obama's duplication of Clinton's policies, or point out how stupid it is for her to say she wants to claw Bill Clinton's eyes out, but it's not okay to talk about anything  personal like how she's raising her kids or what she's wearing (though I will say she opened the door to a lot of personal crap by saying HRC couldn't keep her own house in order and therefore should not be trusted with the White House.)

    I think that once you go out and start stumping for a candidate, you open up yourself to praise or ridicule. So long as it's about what is coming out of their mouths rather than what is between their legs, I think it's okay.  Bill Clinton gets scrutinized to heck and back.  I don't see why MO should be treated any differently. If Laura Bush went out advocating we nuke Iran, you wouldn't say she's off limits because she's a spouse. (you meaning general you, not you specifically)

    [ Parent ]

    I was trying (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:23:24 PM EST
    to articulate the "tone" of the discussion that has been sort of bothering me lately.  I completely agree that the political talk is open season, but the sort of "the women don't get along" theme, gets me sort turned off.

    [ Parent ]
    oh, yeah (none / 0) (#187)
    by Kathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:53:38 PM EST
    That kind of stuff ticks me off tremendously.  When two strong men disagree, no one screams, "catfight!"*

    *unless you're at a drag show

    [ Parent ]

    Won what? (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by makana44 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:30:30 PM EST
    Obama hasn't won anything yet. Nobody has the requisite number of delegates yet. It will require the vote of the super delegates to put either of them over the top. And the only metric the super delegates are supposed to use is, "who is the best candidate to run against McCain." When it comes to the end of the primary voting, Obama will lead in number of pledged delegates, and Clinton will be ahead in popular vote. That makes it a level playing field. And the only issue will be who will be the best candidate in the general election. At this moment, that looks to be Hillary Clinton.

    Why are Wright and Kaus "elite" pundits? (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by bridget on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:36:02 PM EST
    What is their claim to fame?

    I forced myself and listen to about six minutes of their talk. By that time they actually seriously discussed what Dick Morris had to say ... Dick Morris' opinion re Clintons, for heaven's sake!!!

    I turned the whole thing off a couple minutes after that because what these Clinton-hating pundits are doing is repeating talking points that others of the same ilk have already said somewhere else or will say while we type and as long as its en vogue.

    btw. my eyes rolled over whenever pundits start talking Bill wants this, Bill doesn't want that, Hillary wants this and does this and that .... WHILE KNOWING ABSOLUTELY ZERO about the Clinton's   ... Nada. Not any more than I know already myself.

    And even if these pundits found out the truth they wouldn't want to know it and set the record straight because  it most likely wouldn't fit the narrative the Clinton haters have worked on for years now.

    This whole episode I witnessed sounded like Koffeeklatsch without the Koffee and Donuts ;-)

    To see grown-up people take themselves so serious, to hear them talk the same thing over and over ... and they even get paid for this. Chris Matthews gets 5 Mil a year. Whatever pundits like these two  are making from a show like this. It certainly is Easy money. It's basically easy gossiping and nothing but.

    I really don't want HRC to... (4.33 / 6) (#3)
    by Shainzona on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:40:23 PM EST
    become Obama's mommy - cleaning up after the messes he will make and doing the hard lifting because he hasn't got a clue.

    Over at MyDD there have been diaries trying to "make nice" and they all extol HRC's strengths - to a point that you want to ask, "Then why the hell aren't you supporting her for POTUS?"  I mean, they all say how much she can help Obama do X or achieve Y.  

    And I have a question:  IF there were an Obama/Clinton "unity" ticket, and Obama suffers one or two October surprises, could the Dems change the ticket and put HRC in where she belongs - as POTUS candidate with her own choice for VP?  Or would she go down with his stinking, er, I mean, shinking ship?

    i think the dem leadership will (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:54:30 PM EST
    continue to take us over the cliff. have they shown any sign at all that they are listening? i didn't think so.

    [ Parent ]
    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:54:55 PM EST
    While I certainly want Clinton at the head of the ticket, I can maybe see why she would also be a great VP.  Think of how much of a figurehead Bush is and, in contrast, what power and policy influence Cheney wields.  I wouldn't discount the likelihood of that kind of power structure, or the good it could bring to our country, if Obama could just do the right thing and actually bring the democratic party together rather than just talking about reaching across the aisle.

    [ Parent ]
    and i don't see any good thing but for (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:18:14 PM EST
    hillary to head the ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    I do agree (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:34:27 PM EST
    Honestly.  I'm coming up with 2nd best solutions.  I absolutely want her to fight until the end and then, if she is not the nominee, I want her to do what's best for the party and the country.  

    I have the utmost respect for Clinton and I don't for Obama, unfortunately, so I understand your argument.

    [ Parent ]

    Great... (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by kredwyn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:23:34 PM EST
    another figure head president...just what we need.

    [ Parent ]
    Do You Think Those Are Some Of The 400 (none / 0) (#61)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:43:15 PM EST
    people hired by the obama camp entering these comments, assuming it is true about those 400 being hired?

    [ Parent ]
    Do you want McCain to be president? (1.00 / 1) (#206)
    by msblucow on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:13:23 PM EST
    Hi all, Obama supporter here.

    So after reading all these posts, I'm getting the impression most of you won't vote for Obama even if it means McCain becomes president. If that's the case - and feel free to disabuse me of this notion if I'm not correct - what do you hope to accomplish?

    Do you believe a McCain presidency is preferable to a Obama one? If so why?

    Do you believe McCain would either be unelectable or dead in 4 years, giving Clinton another shot?

    If that's the case, are you willing to risk another 2 (and possibly 3) Supreme Court appointments that will tilt the court overwhelmingly towards the right for the next 20-40 years (depending on the ages of the justices appointed)?

    Is your dislike of Obama and supporters like myself (latte-drinking film editor in Venice, CA - can't get more elitist than that, I guess) worth risking overturning Roe v. Wade and a host of other civil liberties?

    Fire away.

    It could be a good idea (none / 0) (#11)
    by HelenK on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:01:13 PM EST
    but if Hillary's supporters won't vote for the unity ticket anyway if Obama is on top, then there is no point.

    Althought I know for sure that the general public who are not political junkies and are NOT reading blogs and posting everyday, are not so personally invested and I don't believe they won't vote for the Dem ticket regardless. The ones who will never vote for a black man are a lost cause unless Hillary thinks she can bring them over by being the VP candidate.

    It's not a good idea if it won't actually unify the party and people here mostly don't like it unless Clinton is on top, and since that is unlikely, then I see little merit in the idea.

    Sounds like you are saying that.... (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    ...Hillary's got the racist vote in her back pocket.

    [ Parent ]
    Plus - It's Clinton's job to do that. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:09:20 PM EST
    Not Obama "content of his character", but Clinton "appeals to white racists".  (Just the white racists, mind you.)

    Urg.

    [ Parent ]

    The AA vote is more racist than the white (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Prabhata on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:37:39 PM EST
    voters

    [ Parent ]
    Well she does. (1.00 / 2) (#40)
    by HelenK on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:28:34 PM EST
    Real people in WV and KY were interviewed and many of them voted for Hillary because they will not vote for a black man. If Hillary took the VP spot, obviously their policies would need to be in synch, not identical, but in synch, so if the policies are the same, why not vote for the Dem ticket? But some still will not.

    And if Hillary should be able to get the working class vote to support the ticket because again, if she took the spot she would be saying that Obama's policies and hers are in synch, so voting for the unity ticket should be a lock. Right? If policies are the only reason they voted for Hillary and not racism, then they would vote for the unity ticket.

    so in that case, a unity ticket is a very good idea

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe its just me but.... (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:34:13 PM EST
    ...there are so many contradictory statements in your post that I can't really figure out what you are saying.

    [ Parent ]
    Let me clear it up (none / 0) (#55)
    by HelenK on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:40:36 PM EST
    I am saying that the unity ticket could be a great idea IF the Hillary supporters will support a unity ticket with her as VP.

    And if she accepts the VP spot, she is saying that their policies are mostly the same, so her supporters should have no problem supporting the ticket.

    But that is only IF the policy differences are really the deciding factor, and not race.

    [ Parent ]

    It's a ridiculous assertion (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by stillife on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:47:06 PM EST
    that people are voting for Hillary because they're racists.  I'm so sick of this whining from the Obama camp.  I've voted for plenty of AA candidates - my Congressman, Ed Towns, is AA.  I wouldn't hesitate to cast my ballot for a qualified AA candidate.  But I don't need to validate my liberal credentials by voting for an unqualified minority candidate.

    To me and many other Clinton supporters, Obama is a sham.  It has nothing to do with race.  He has little experience yet he's been anointed by the MSM and the Dem Party leaders.  He's like the cool new brand, the i-Pod candidate.  Sorry, I'm not buying.

    The whole race issue is bogus, IMO.  He doesn't connect with working class, non-AA voters because he lacks the common touch.  He's seen as effete and elite, much like Kerry.  We're not racist, Barack.  We're just not into you.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary will do whatever is best (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    for the Party.

    I respect that.  She and her husband have been good to the Party and the Party has been good to them.  

    As a Clinton supporter, I don't have that history, that relationship.  If Clinton wants to woman the oars for the sake of the Party, that's her decision but it's not necessarily mine.

    Hillary's supporters are loyal to more than Hillary Clinton, and they may choose to be loyal to principles above personal loyalty.  As the VP, she has no real control over the P.  If we don't think the P embodies those principles and supports our issues, then we'll wish Hillary the best and look for a better, more deserving candidate.

    One common misconception is that Hillary's supporters are loyal to HER in the same way the Obama's supporters are loyal to HIM.  I don't think it is true.  

    [ Parent ]

    See you are still holding race over our heads... (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:04:16 PM EST
    ...it is entirely possible that we do not agree that Obama's "policy issues" are identical to Clintons for one thing. For another, not all people are so besotted with Obama. Some people just really don't like him for the same reasons that they didn't like Kerry and Dukakis. You can continue to call these people racists if it makes you feel better. But it seems to me that what you are really doing is trying to find a way to dismiss people that don't see things as you do on the grounds that they have lesser value because they must be racists.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama Kerry Dukakis (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by noholib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:57:07 PM EST
    Actually some people did like Dukakis and Kerry but don't like Obama.  Not the same reasons for all three.  Dukakis and Kerry were experienced politicians who had established their bonafides as  liberal Democrats.  To my mind, Obama has little experience nor has he proven his bonafides as a liberal on domestic issues.  Sorry, for me, using Republican-inspired Harry and Louise type attacks on  Clinton's universal health care coverage was decisive.  It made him very suspect in my eyes. And dissing the only two-term Democratic administration since FDR just because it was headed by a "clinton".  And Obama's voting for Cheney's energy bill in the U.S. Senate, his support for the Illinois nuclear power industry Exelon, etc.--  I still don't think we know enough about the big money bankrolling him from the beginning. Unlike other recent Democratic
    Presidential candidates, he is too quick to praise Republicans and to criticize Democratic positions.  

    I agree that the "racism" charge has been levelled so much in this campaign at anyone who doesn't support Obama that it has lost almost all meaning.  In Massachusetts, there are lots and lots of people who had no trouble voting for Deval Patrick as Governor but who did NOT support Obama in the primary in September.  They are not racists.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama Dukakis Kerry correction (none / 0) (#193)
    by noholib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:59:08 PM EST
    mistake: I didn't mean "primary in September."  Of course, I meant "primary in February." sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    then Hillary should NOT take the VP spot (none / 0) (#128)
    by HelenK on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:33:53 PM EST
    Let's say that in the end, the VP spot is offered.

    You are saying that their policies are too different so she can't even consider it.

    the exit polls were pretty clear,not me, the exit polls, the same exit polls that others use to prove she is more electable, so don't claim you don't believe in exit polls

    SOME Hillary supporters can't vote minority. If they say it themselves to people doing the exit poll, then I believe them.

    Thank goodness it is only SOME of them.

    [ Parent ]

    Well you know.... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:45:00 PM EST
    ...sometimes its just pointless.

    [ Parent ]
    helen, you are ignoring the (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:23:57 PM EST
    entire obama campaign with your assertions. if hillary supporters do this and if hillary does that. how ABOUT YA'LL SHUTING ABOUT AND SHOWING A LITTLE RESPECT. HOW ABOUT YA'LL STOP THROWING UNDER THE BUS? AND THAT'S JUST A START!

    [ Parent ]
    Um (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    Real people in WV and KY were interviewed and many of them voted for Hillary because they will not vote for a black man.

    You need to support this with a link or you need to refrain from saying it.

    [ Parent ]

    Here it is (1.00 / 3) (#69)
    by HelenK on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:53:13 PM EST
    Racial attitudes also came into play, and favorably for Clinton. About one in five whites said race influenced their choice of a candidate, one of the highest proportions who have said so in states that have voted thus far.

    Of them, about eight in 10 were backing Clinton, roughly matching the high set by several other Southern states.

    that makes 20% who won't vote for the black guy because he is black. (and he black people who voted race, they have voted for white people in every election, and finally a black man runs, it is exciting and they vote FOR his race, different than voting AGAINST his race.)

    http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/13/america/NA-POL-US-Elections-Exit-Poll.php

    New York Times reported that exit poll surveys in West Virginia showed two out of 10 white voters cited race as a factor in their decision

    ***********
    Anyway the point of the post is that a unity ticket could work if Hillary can get her low information voters to support it.

    [ Parent ]

    I am so sick of this... (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Teresa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:57:30 PM EST
    Anyway the point of the post is that a unity ticket could work if Hillary can get her low information voters to support it.

    We are smart enough to recognize that we are headed for a major loss in November and that we need more than half of our party to win.

    [ Parent ]

    Someone needs to define (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:08:01 PM EST
    "low information".

    Because I would call myself that.  Sure I'm above average, but I hardly know everything.  I've seen people present themselves as very knowledgeable only to repeat inaccurate information as if it were incontrovertible.

    The truth is that there are very few people who have a firm grip on enough information on McCain, Clinton and Obama to really be considered totally reliable.  Everyone else is probably getting something wrong daily.

    Do I want perfection?  Of course I do!  I neither like being lied to or believing misinformation and repeating it.

    [ Parent ]

    [edit] wouldN'T call myself n/t (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:08:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    lol, I was getting ready to correct you on (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Teresa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:10:14 PM EST
    your behalf.

    [ Parent ]
    Good to know I have friends! (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:12:35 PM EST
    thx! :D

    [ Parent ]
    false unity (5.00 / 3) (#196)
    by noholib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:03:31 PM EST
    Bravo to "cay."  I too think that the Obama campaign has made divisiveness part of its operating procedure. It's all the worse because it's under the guise of "Unity." Political movements that offer false unity are quite dangerous in my opinion.  People get "bamboozled" that way (forgive me for using that word).

    [ Parent ]
    Same number won't vote for a woman, (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by eleanora on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:06:35 PM EST
    so it turns out to be a wash. Should I run around saying all Obama supporters hate women and are misogynists, based on the exits? Extending your logic, should we assume AAs must be misogynists, since they're voting against Clinton in such extraordinary numbers?

    PS--Calling us "low information voters" is probably not your best bet if you're trying to win Obama votes here, just saying.

    [ Parent ]

    Knock it off (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:16:09 PM EST
    You have now called us racist and low knowledge.  Knock off the garbage.

    that makes 20% who won't vote for the black guy because he is black  NO it doesn't mean anything of the sort.  Get a clue.  What it means is that race is an issue because some think others are not going to react positively to being repeatedly called racist and that it is going to backfire in the GE so some decided they had better vote for Clinton if they want to win the White House.  Race isn't an issue because of race, it's an issue because of people that trot around to web sites calling others racist because they won't for their candidate.  

    If you think the point BTD was trying to make was the importance of getting low info voters to support it, you are truly clueless.  

    I notice you have been here only 3 days.  Obviously you should have spent more time lurking at the site.  Go read some of BTDs posts.

    [ Parent ]

    you can take your low information comments (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:24:57 PM EST
    and put them somewhere very dark.

    [ Parent ]
    you have your statistics wrong (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by wasabi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    16%, not 20% of whites who took race into consideration voted for Clinton.  4% of whites who took race into consideration voted for Obama.
    For the voters who picked Clinton, they said they took race into consideration, not that they would not vote for a black man.  We don't know how many of those would not vote for a black man specifically because he was black.

    And you might wan tto rethink that last dig: "Anyway the point of the post is that a unity ticket could work if Hillary can get her LOW INFORMATION VOTERS to support it."


    [ Parent ]

    "It's that old (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:40:59 PM EST
    black magic"

    [ Parent ]
    KY hasn't even voted yet. Where are these (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Joan in VA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:41:09 PM EST
    interviews? I haven't seen anything even close to that from WV.


    [ Parent ]
    The Blogosphere Is A Very Small Segment Of (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:07:00 PM EST
    the voting population. The opinions on the blogs do not always reflect those of the general public. While I'm not in favor of a unity ticket, recent polling indicates my opinion is actually a minority opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    My UPS guy didn't know there was a primary (none / 0) (#43)
    by HelenK on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:30:47 PM EST
    last tuesday at all, so most people are not junkies and will not have any lasting wounds or resentments after this process is over!

    That is the good news!

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, There Are People Like Your UPS Guy (none / 0) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:48:23 PM EST
    If exit polls were the only source of Democrats voting for McCain instead of Obama, I would agree that this attitude may be prevalent only among the most politically involved. Unfortunately, this trend is being upheld by polls taken after the primaries are over.  These polls should be capturing a more diverse group of Democratic voters (i.e. unaware to politically involved) and the percentages still remain high enough to cause concern.  

    [ Parent ]
    and you don't have a clue about the (none / 0) (#118)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:26:26 PM EST
    whole hillary campaign. i'd wager your ups driver knows more than you.

    [ Parent ]
    If he didn't know there was a primary (none / 0) (#138)
    by Burned on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    then he didn't vote and probably isn't wounded or resentful.
    Not that he even matters since he's not a voter.
    What else do you have?

    [ Parent ]
    We don't know that her supporters won't come (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Teresa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:08:31 PM EST
    around with a unity ticket. It depends on how it is presented to us. We do know according to the polls, the people do support it. But then, you don't believe polls.

    You are seriously wrong if you think Obama's problem is only with people who won't vote for a black man. My family supported and worked hard for Harold Ford in TN and will again if he chooses to run for office here. It isn't his color, it's his message that he doesn't need us.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL, Teresa.... (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:12:38 PM EST
    ...I voted twice for Jesse Jackson and I voted for Al Sharpton too. But of course I'm Latina, not yet. And yet by supporting Hillary I have now become an honorary typical white person, i.e., racist.

    [ Parent ]
    Part of my post didn't make sense.... (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:14:06 PM EST
    ... grammatically due to poor editing, but I think you get my point. Now that I am an honorary racist white person, I guess I am losing my creative class skills.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:45:10 PM EST
    I think that I Hillary is going around campaigning as VP, many of her supporters on this blog will come around eventually.

    I know I could not stay home or cast a protest vote if her name is someplace on the ballot.

    [ Parent ]

    I meant 'if Hiilary' (none / 0) (#178)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:45:51 PM EST
    not 'I Hillary'.

    I should be so lucky ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    How could it be presented (none / 0) (#46)
    by HelenK on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:31:27 PM EST
    that would satisfy Hillary supporters?

    [ Parent ]
    With Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by stillife on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    at the top of the ticket. =)

    [ Parent ]
    Well, first of all, I'm talking about the ones (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Teresa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    who don't currently support a unity ticket. Most of her supporters do according to polls.

    I think it needs to be presented in the manner that John Edwards spoke of her the other day. About how her contributions to this country and our party are needed to get the country back on track. If it's presented as being forced on them, it won't help.

    I'd personally need to see Obama speak in her defense about the racist garbage. I think a greater percentage of his AA supporters support her as VP than his white creative class supporters. They are the ones who just don't get it. Defending her only after he needs her isn't enough.

    He also needs to address the sexism from the media and his supporters. That would most likely continue if she is the VP candidate and he needs to be prepared to defend her and make it believable which it wouldn't be to me at this point because he has said nothing so far.

    [ Parent ]

    Why does everyone here support divisive (none / 0) (#75)
    by HelenK on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:56:17 PM EST
    generalizations like the Creative Class smear?

    I am of the creative class, I own a latte machine, but I think a unity ticket is a great idea.

    Why promote more divisiveness than we already have!!

    [ Parent ]

    The "creative class" is an absolutely (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:58:09 PM EST
    ridiculous, self-congratulatory way to refer to one's self.  It's foolish.

    [ Parent ]
    Talk about divisive generalizations! (5.00 / 7) (#81)
    by Teresa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:03:19 PM EST
    You've put a ton of them out there. If you really supported a unity ticket, you'd try a little harder to hide your condescending attitude about her racist low-info voters.

    Besides that, they created that description of themselves and are slapping themselves on the back for their cleverness that will come back to bite them in the butt.

    [ Parent ]

    it is not a generalization (none / 0) (#98)
    by HelenK on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:12:53 PM EST
    to post actual REAL exit polls that show there are voters who will not vote for a minority candidate.

    Generalizations refer to all members of a group.

    Obama and Hillary supporters come in all races, genders, ages and geographic locations. Yes some groups tend to favor one or the other for reasons unrelated to policy, we are only human still.

    Obama has never called his supporters the Creative Class and that's what matters, not the supporters like us here. I bet neither candidate would support a lot of the things any of us are saying!

    Thank goodness for that!

    [ Parent ]

    Ok, so how does that make Obama more electable? (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:17:45 PM EST
    Personally, I think race and gender are both hurdles.  So I don't buy the argument.  Frankly, I think a lot of "high-info" men can't stand the thought of a woman in charge.  But how does you argument, that's lots of voters won't vote for a minority, argue for Obama's electablity?  

    [ Parent ]
    With me it is simple: Clinton or McCain (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by felizarte on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:04:08 PM EST
    and more disparaging comments from Obama supporters only make me more resolute.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you sure SWEETIE? (none / 0) (#161)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:29:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    There are also voters (none / 0) (#117)
    by stillife on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:25:49 PM EST
    who will not vote for a woman.  BFD.

    Are you one of Obama's 400 paid bloggers?

    [ Parent ]

    Umm, you're characterizing (5.00 / 7) (#91)
    by MarkL on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:09:19 PM EST
    Clinton supporters as racist, and saying that clinton's strength is attracting the racist vote, and you're lecturing US about divisiveness???
    Are you getting paid to do this?

    [ Parent ]
    Im reporting her to Axelrod.... (4.80 / 5) (#94)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:11:13 PM EST
    ...she's not being very persuasive.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL to you latte drinker..... (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:10:23 PM EST
    .. above you call Clinton supporters "low information voters" and now you protest the "creative class" smear?

    [ Parent ]
    Only some of them (none / 0) (#103)
    by HelenK on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:17:11 PM EST
    Only some of her voters were no-college, working class whites, and some are NYC executives that I know in my neighborhood.

    It is those voters who may or may not support a unity ticket that I was talking about. The ones, 20% in WV who may not support a unity ticket with a black man in either spot.

    The discussion was the idea of a Unity ticket. And it is a good idea if Hillary can bring those people on board. If not, I am not sure it is a good idea.

    I don't generalize about her supporters, although both candidates have groups one could identify, young college kids tend to be obama supporters like working class South-eastern whites tend to support Hillary.

    But all Obama supporters are not some snotty people you all have deemed the Creative Class.

    [ Parent ]

    It is common knowledge that... (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:23:02 PM EST
    ..Obama supporters named themselves "the creative class" so please stop accusing us of making up that title. If you don't like it, take it up with your fellow Obama supporters, who by the way were also responsible for the "low information voter" tag.

    [ Parent ]
    20% (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by liminal on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:59:50 PM EST
    The last I heard, 80% of 20% was actually 16%.  Remember,  2/10 white voters for whom race was important did not support Clinton.  Maybe they supported Edwards.  Maybe they supported Obama.  Maybe there are voters for whom race is important in a positive way.  Still, that means that for 80% of Clinton's white voters in West Virginia, race was NOT an issue in the campaign.

    Exit poll questions are not the best way to gauge sentiment.  Had I been asked, I probably would've said that race was not important in my decision about whom to support, but I think it has been important in the overall campaign.  Poll questions - especially on thorny issues like race - are hardly the best place from which to draw conclusions about Demographics.  Anyway, even if you discount the alleged 16% of Clinton's voters who voted for her because they are low information redneck racists, she still won WVa by 25%.

    [ Parent ]

    Self identification sweetie (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:24:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Anyone who uses Creative Class as a self-definer (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:16:17 PM EST
    Intrinsically lacks both on the face of it.

    There are way more fun (and useful) categories to strive for (America's Most Smartest Model or America's Biggest Loser).

    I'm not up on reality TV, but I like what I've seen of Dogs with Jobs and Shark Week.

    A natural Dem version would be Cats with Jobs, or to copy a UK/Scottish TV obsession, perhaps Cat Herding.

    [ Parent ]

    Who is defining that? (none / 0) (#115)
    by HelenK on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:25:21 PM EST
    I read most threads here and the term Creative Class, the educated latte drinkers, is bandied about when discussing Obama's supporters. According to most posters here, that is what you think I am. Because I like an espresso drink rather than regular coffee. Which is just ridiculous.

    Someone posted that no creative class Obama supporters like the unity ticket, and I called Bu88s88t on that because I do support a unity ticket.

    and note, the only reason I will not be answering any more questions is that I am at my limit for today. Adios til tomorrow!

    [ Parent ]

    No, according to Chris Bowers. (5.00 / 6) (#122)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:28:32 PM EST
    And, please, it is so smug to refer to yourself that way.  If you don't like it why do you keep using it?

    [ Parent ]
    Sleep well Sweetie (none / 0) (#166)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:32:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Because That Is How Many Obama Supporters (3.66 / 3) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:28:28 PM EST
    on the blogs CHOSE to define themselves to differentiate them from the low information, uneducated, Hillary supporters.

    We are just using the words that they chose for themselves. Maybe you might want to take the issue up with Chris Bowers over at Open Left who IIRC introduced this idea into the blogosphere.

    [ Parent ]

    that is such an arrogant, biased remark. (3.66 / 3) (#133)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:43:12 PM EST
    you are writing to highly educated well informed posters here. many of us are latte drinkers and members of the so called well paying creative class. that we reject obama and his campaign has to do with our real disagreement on issues and our understanding of the divisive campaign he has run with low information voters on his side.

    hillary didn't bring up racial differences. obama did for his own ends. hillary's pastor didn't make racist comments. bill didn't either whereas michelle certainly has.

    [ Parent ]

    HelenK's entire argument is a canard (5.00 / 6) (#183)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:50:52 PM EST
    (big surprise huh?) So, some people in exit polls said "race was a factor" when they voted and some of those voted for Clinton. And, from this, she extrapolates that they won't vote for a black man. WTF?

    "Race was a factor" could mean many things. Maybe they meant that race was a factor because they'd been called racists and they don't like it. Maybe they meant that race was a factor because they heard that Obama's church's theology promotes division of the races and they don't like it. You have no idea what it means, and you certainly don't have enough data to conclude that some ambiguous answer given in an exit poll is enough to start asserting that certain voters won't vote for a black man.

    What a waste of this thread on someone who's just invested in repeating the same old tired theme of racist voters dressed up in different language.

    Hmmm... reminds me of another waste of a thread earlier where some moron suggested Hillary had not suffered during her campaign from sexism (remember 'feminazi' anyone? I mean Hillary has been demonized and subjected to sexist slurs for her entire adult life - she has quite literally been defined by sexists). I was so disgusted by that one that I had to leave the computer. Luckily, when I returned, all my favorite commenters had set her a** straight! There's nothing worse than a woman who is so invested in denying sexism that she pretends it doesn't exist so she doesn't have to fight it. No wonder we're in the state we're in.

    [ Parent ]

    How could it be presented? (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by miriam on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:08:34 PM EST
    Obama could withdraw.  He is completely, totally, absolutely unqualified to be a US president.  It took Bill Clinton more than a year, according to his former advisors, to get up to speed in the executive office.  And he had been a state governor.  Obama is no Bill Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Universal health care (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Foxx on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:11:51 PM EST
    Put universal health care, regulating gas and oil companies, closing Guantanamo and her 100 days plan into the platform. AND convince us you mean it.

    [ Parent ]
    well a nice start would be for posters (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:27:25 PM EST
    like you to go do your homework and show some respect to hillary voters which you haven't and don't.

    [ Parent ]
    I think I read (none / 0) (#49)
    by wasabi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:34:48 PM EST
    somewhere that 60% of Democrats would like to see a unity ticket.  That is a whole chunk of voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Why are you here? Is 60% not enough? eh, eh (none / 0) (#176)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:42:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why am I here? (none / 0) (#189)
    by wasabi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:56:36 PM EST
    Probably the same reason you are here.  We both are political junkies.

    [ Parent ]
    It's the only way. (none / 0) (#41)
    by wasabi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:29:21 PM EST
    Sink or swim together.

    I'll throw him a life preserver. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:30:50 PM EST
    But I'm not diving in after him.

    [ Parent ]
    excuse me, the dem congressional (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:28:07 PM EST
    tickets will probably be ok if obama doesn't drag them down. otherwise, he pulls everyone down.

    [ Parent ]
    Divide and conquer (none / 0) (#67)
    by Lora on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:48:52 PM EST
    If Democrats don't want to be conquered, they'd better wake up.  Together we stand...

    the obama campaign has divided us. (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:28:35 PM EST
    write to them.

    [ Parent ]
    NEITHER would settle for it (none / 0) (#74)
    by makana44 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:55:17 PM EST
    A Unity Ticket may be a good idea but realistically even if Obama or Hillary offered the other the VP slot, NEITHER would settle for it.

    Hillary would surely prefer a return to the Senate. The VP relegates her to a position of limited influence and would be a dead-end. She would be sublimating herself to save Obama (and the party), so he (they) could step over her into the Presidency.

    If Obama runs and loses in 2008, Hillary could run again in 2012. If Obama won and served 2-terms then Hillary could run again in 2016 (not likely). Either way, the Senate would provide her a more compelling seat of power than a failed vp run or 8 years of relative invisibility. Also, Hillary and Michelle are like oil and water - highly toxic. Surely Hillary remembers what it was like to be Al Gore to Bill (and Hillary) for 8 years. Not a lot of fun.

    I think Obama would finish out his term as Senator, then go on to private life as a $100K+ speaker, best-selling author, corporate honcho; and major celebrity. He's never really been all that committed to public service even while he used it as a path to bigger and better things. And remember, Michelle said he gets this one chance, and one chance only. Though, were Hillary to run and lose against McCain, Michelle likely would have second thoughts in 2012.

    The VP holds no allure for either of them; and were either to offer it to the other it would be for show only. That might help ameliorate the rancor that exists between the two campaigns and groups of supporters. But it wouldn't result in a unity ticket.

    How can you say that? (none / 0) (#78)
    by HelenK on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:00:18 PM EST
    What evidence do you have that his community service was not sincere?

    You have NONE. He could have just gone to a huge law firm and made huge bucks, but he actually cared about the people. Do you really think he imagined that a black man could actually be a serious candidate for the presidency in 2008? Circumstances called him, the time was right.

    It is fine to support Hillary but do you have to trash another DEM unfairly.

    [ Parent ]

    What was he doing to stop the war? (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Ellie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:08:25 PM EST
    Recorded actions only please.

    Regardless of his repeated claims that he wouldda, shouldda, couldda voted against it. He has employed this hypothetical as "contrast" to eviscerate HRC for voting, on the record and in a difficult time, based on a betrayal of her (and congressional) trust by a corrupt administration.

    So in lieu of actual apples-apples comparison, what did Obama ACTUALLY DO, within political office or at a community level, to oppose the war?

    [ Parent ]

    If his community service was sincere (5.00 / 6) (#109)
    by miriam on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:21:25 PM EST
    He really botched it.  Take a ride through his Chicago district.  This run of his was planned long ago by the Chicago machine--before he went to law school.  That's why he turned down the alleged offer from a "huge law firm" and virtually went to work for Rezko.  Why he wrote letters of recommendation for Rezko's funding for projects that threw Obama's black constituents into housing that was grossly inferior (and still is).  Where was Obama's concern for black people then?  What has he done for them...other than collect their votes for his vanity run for president?

    [ Parent ]
    Ha ha ha. wow. don't bash other dems. hysterical. (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by sarahfdavis on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:23:40 PM EST
    and if you actually research Obama's "community organizing" all he did was sign more people onto voter rolls. what did he do for the AA community there...nada. The only event where he did do something was to side with Rezko rather than Rezko's tenants for better heating in their rat traps. Obama has been very deliberate to NOT associate with important AA events....Katrina, Jenna 6, on and on. but he sure did stir that racial pot when he wanted the Clinton's to be bashed as racist. yuch. he's a nasty fraud. oh, and i love how he uses Malcom X code words when he's speaking to AA audiences "they bamboozle yah". slash and burn right through the middle of the democratic party.

    [ Parent ]
    Community Organizing and sincerity (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:40:43 PM EST
    Obama had a nice big funder.  His name was Rezko.  Rezko developed/owned and managed affordable housing in the communities that Obama worked as an organizer and represented in the State Senate.  Rezko's properties went into financial and performance default when he basically took the funds for reserves and did not pay heating or other on going maintenance services.  Now, 30 Rezko projects, 11 in Obama's district, were closed and the people lost their housing.  Obama at no point did anything to express concern or to cure the loss of the housing.  Basically, this is unheard of behavior from a Community Organizer.  

    About taking a job and making tons of bucks, he used community organizing as a stepping stone to this day, when you can use that stepping stone as the narrative that makes you believe in "him".

    [ Parent ]

    sincere you say? lady, i have (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by hellothere on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:29:21 PM EST
    not seen one sincere thing from the obama campaign. your posts on here are insulting.

    [ Parent ]
    His community service (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by wasabi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:05:12 PM EST
    HIs Community Organizer role was done prior to his going to law school, not after.

    [ Parent ]
    What did he accomplish (none / 0) (#90)
    by stillife on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    in his community service?  

    "Circumstances" called him?  I guess that's what they're calling the Democratic, anti-Clinton leadership these days.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, yeah, I saw the Axelrod/Patrick (none / 0) (#111)
    by masslib on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:23:28 PM EST
    commercials about how Patrick could have earned so much money but worked in legal services.  It's really not impressive.  Lot's of people pick jobs in public service, and could make more in private industry.  It's a marketing tool.  Obama's rich now, so clearly it didn't hurt him.  His wife worked in private industry and made a very comfortable living.  It's really only impressive to people who themselves choose lucrative careers.

    [ Parent ]
    I couldn't even get through the video.... (none / 0) (#134)
    by kimsaw on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:44:11 PM EST
    My biggest question (speaking as an independent and really not wanting to offend any Democrat with a brain). This video once again demonstrates why dems lose the big contest. I hate to say this but how stupid is stupid? When the voice of the majority of Dems would like to see a unity ticket and either sides' pundits offer it's not possible, someone's brain is fried with Obama or Clinton overload. Over 34 million have voted for a Dem in this primary season,(it's as close to a tie as you can get) instead of embracing the fact that an Obama-Clinton bridge would put the party in a great position in Nov. they've decided to shove one side out in hopes all will be forgiven. They are delusional at the very least.  

    Unity means we all have the power to change a part of the present. If Obama is blind to a partnership on behalf of this nation, and if Clinton would not accept, I'd really question their sincerity and  motivation for running in the first place. This race is not about one side or the other, it should be about what's in the best interest of our nation. The unity of these two would bring a balanced ticket of style and substance.

    I am an ardent Clinton supporter, but I'm not stupid regardless of what Obama supporters may think. There is a forest out there folks some of us understand that.  

    If Clinton is not asked to join the ticket, she will get my vote regardless of the primary out come, because I trust her to be the best president for current times. I don't believe she would turn down the chance to be second in command. She will accept because of her commitment to our nation and on behalf of her gender. It may not be the top spot, but the window will nearly be smashed and she won't turn back, she's opening the door to change just as much as Obama.

    I feel the same way (none / 0) (#143)
    by klp on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:06:13 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter, I feel the same way about if Hillary gets the nomination.  I will vote for Obama regardless.  Where does that leave us?  Hillary nor Obama can win the general.  This leaves the country in the hands of McCain.  If we do not unite or find some kind of way to overcome this disappointment, neither of our candidates will win.  Obama has won the nomination fair and square.  He followed all of the rules.  Why is it okay for him not to get the nomination?  Please answer that for me.  How can a person that followed all the rules, played the game as requested, received all the points necessary to win the game, not get the nomination?

    [ Parent ]
    Rules. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:20:09 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    First of all this isn't a game, its about our (none / 0) (#152)
    by kimsaw on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:20:22 PM EST
    nation. I didn't say he couldn't get the nomination.  I am advocating for a unity ticket it supports both of our objectives. I'm not an Obama fan for a lot of reasons I don't have to support him just because he beat her. I will support him if she is asked to be VP then I believe the ticket will be balanced. If she won she'd have to ask him.

    You are conflating two issues. I'm not going to jump on board if Clinton is not on the ticket, you can say the same if the reverse were true, but she would be forced to offer him the position. Why shouldn't he ask her?

    An about those rules, please the Democrat rules are ignored when convenient, and applied unevenly.  I would also point out that caucuses are not fair elections. I would advocate in the future that primaries are the best way to gauge the support a candidate has and caucuses should just outlawed under the voting rights act.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree. (none / 0) (#144)
    by wasabi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:07:44 PM EST
    Clinton will do what is best for the party.  If accepting the presidential or vp nod is good for the party, she will do it. I don't get the same feel from Obama though.   It's more about him rather than the country.

    [ Parent ]
    I think he would (1.00 / 2) (#147)
    by klp on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:11:54 PM EST
    I think if he had to select Hillary as VP, he would.  I am just not sure others in the democratic party would want this.  My only fear is that if the unity ticket is a go, Obama may not have to still watch his back with Hillary and Bill both back in the white house.

    [ Parent ]
    What in the world are you talking about? n/t (none / 0) (#157)
    by DJ on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:24:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    who ? others like you (none / 0) (#168)
    by kimsaw on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:33:39 PM EST
    who don't want a unity ticket to happen. Who are those others? The Dem. party is divided right down the middle just like the nation, half republican, half dem. So Obama's solution is what?  Throw away Clinton voters dismiss them in hopes that he can win by getting more Republicans? What sense does that make? A unifier set on dividing. Is that politically intelligent? I don't think it is. I'm a member of the demographic that Obama is trying to win, but he's not winning me by dividing his own party.

    By the way the Clintons are DEMOCRATS. Is Obama one?  What are Obama and his supporters afraid of? His own weaknesses. Clinton has worked with those who have hated her. She has destroyed no one in the process. But everyone seems bent on destroying her.  He doesn't have to worry about the Clintons nice try though, the Republicans have taught you well.

    [ Parent ]

    I am talking about (none / 0) (#185)
    by klp on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:52:38 PM EST
    What I am talking about is that if Hillary is the VP, Obama would have to watch his back.  I think Hillary and Bill would set him up.  I find that many of the Hillary supporters are being closed-minded.  If not her, then nobody.

    [ Parent ]
    IT's too bad you believe all the crap (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by wasabi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:00:09 PM EST
    about how the Clintons are EVIL INCARNATE.

    "I think Hillary and Bill would set him up."

    Such utter crap.

    [ Parent ]

    Surprised (none / 0) (#139)
    by klp on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:01:08 PM EST
    What is surprising to me is that the Hillary Clinton supporters continuously say that Obama cannot win without her voters.  The same is true for Hillary.  There is no way she will win the general election without the support of Obama voters. As an Obama supporter, I will totally pissed off if the nomination is stolen from him when he ran and won fair and square.  However, if she does STEAL the nomination, I will not say that I would vote for McCain.  I think a lot of Hillary supporters have a disconnect with reality.  You would prefer insane McCain over a democrat that would really try and change the country's circumstances.  

    As an African-American, I never had an opportunity in my life to vote for an AA female candidate.  My ONLY choice has always a WHITE MALE.  I find it appauling that now there is so much resistance toward Obama.  I have always been loyal to the Democratic party but if Hillary and her supporters have their way, I will truly change my affilation. So, if everyone thought like this, we will not have either Hillary or Barack in the White House.  So, now where does that leave us?  I would love to see both an African-American or a Women as President but this year we cannot have both.  

    Hey! Guess what? (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by wasabi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:10:22 PM EST
    I've always been loyal to the Democratic Party too.  Being a female, I always have to vote for the white guy too!

    [ Parent ]
    I guess we are in the same place (none / 0) (#148)
    by klp on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:14:16 PM EST
    I guess we are in the same place except I am a black women.  So, I cannot split myself in half.  I would love to see both, but only one of the candidates won fair and square.  Why is it hard for you to vote for Obama?  Why ruin the democrats chances in the fall? If the the situation was reversed, I would not have a hard time voting for Hillary.  I do not understand.

    [ Parent ]
    I will vote for him if (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:49:26 PM EST
    he is nominated, but he has not been nominated yet.  Why is it "stealing" if delegates select Hillary instead?

    [ Parent ]
    The point (none / 0) (#191)
    by klp on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:57:41 PM EST
    is she is not leading in delegates.  I believe the superdelegates are not going to take this away from him when he is leading in all aspects of the contest.  Right now, he is leading in both pledged and superdelegates.  He is only 119.5 votes away.  Hillary is 317.5 (??).  If they give the nomination to someone who has not won the most contests, who does not have the most pledged delegates, who does not have the most popular votes based on the rules, then it is "stealing."

    [ Parent ]
    Superdelegates are (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by ruffian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:12:39 PM EST
    delegates too.  If his total of pledged delegates + his superdelegates is greater than her total of pledged delegates + her superdelegates, he wins.  Otherwise he doesn't.  

    There is no such thing as superdelegates 'taking it away' from him. Framing it that way is sheer spin.  

    [ Parent ]

    Unity ticket (none / 0) (#174)
    by wasabi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:42:37 PM EST
    I think it makes more sense to have Clinton on top, but I clearly see that neither one will win without the other's constituents getting on board.  My case against Obama is that I don't think that at this particular time in history it is wise to have a newbie running the show.

    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't matter (none / 0) (#181)
    by klp on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:48:59 PM EST
    It really doesn't matter what you think right now because he will get the nomination. We need to move forward.  However, I think he would make an excellent president.  He would be better than Bush, Cheney and McCain.  I just wish we could unite.

    [ Parent ]
    Voted for plenty (none / 0) (#170)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:40:00 PM EST
    of black women in my life.  Worked in many of their campaigns.  It's not always white guys.

    [ Parent ]
    "steal"? (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:17:59 PM EST
    Rules are rules.  Once the people have spoken, it's up to the delegates.  Once the delegates decide on a nominee, end of story.  No theft anywhere.  Just rules.

    And I'm not "resistant to Obama".  I think he's a great person, a nice guy, a promising politician.  Good with speeches, poor with policy.  Great rhetoric, weak on substance.

    Plus his initial skirmishes with the Right Wing have been painful to watch.  Doesn't know how to pick his battles, let alone win them.  Far too easily provoked.  Makes strong stands and then slides away from them.

    I've watched the Right Wing savage more than one Democratic candidate who had a plan for the country, but not a plan for the General Election.  I'm thinking that Obama has neither, so even if he wins, he loses.

    [ Parent ]

    History (none / 0) (#163)
    by klp on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:29:56 PM EST
    You are right!  Rules are the rules and Obama wins.  I pray that he will win in the fall despite all the opposition from suppose-to-be democrats.  If not, I still had a chance in my lifetime to vote for an african-american candidate.  I may never get this chance again.  You sound like a republican or someone that would not vote for Obama anyway.  Not going to waste my breate on you anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    God, you guys can never ever come up with (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:58:02 PM EST
    anything new, can you? Someone disagrees with you and they're automatically a republican and someone you don't need to talk to anymore. How childish. I wish all of you would go back to Obama Propaganda Blog.

    [ Parent ]
    To Dr Molly (none / 0) (#198)
    by klp on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:07:42 PM EST
    This is not childish.  Why try to correspond with someone that will not vote for him anyway?  Some of these people feed right into the stereotypes about Obama and it is evident in these blogs.  I am not going to fight against that.  This is being a mature American, not childish.

    [ Parent ]
    It's childish (5.00 / 5) (#203)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:13:23 PM EST
    to call people 'republican' and refuse to speak to them just because they disagree with you about obama. if you can't see that, you have some issues. but i know from past experience that this is the standard response on the obama blogs.

    if you don't want to talk with him, fine, don't talk with him. it's not necessary to assume he's a republican just because he is not enamored of obama.

    besides, maybe you should remember that your candidate wants to reach out to independents and republicans, not just democrats.

    [ Parent ]

    Piffle. (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by Fabian on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:07:04 PM EST
    Voted for our two term AA mayor.  His career even managed to survive a his wife's struggle with alcoholism, though that cost him a shot at the governor's office.  He declined to run because it would have been too hard on his wife.  He got my respect for that.  

    Would have been great to see Blackwell versus Coleman as two AA men campaigned to be governor of a major swing state.  But it was not to be.

    I'm excited by Hillary not because she's a woman.  Nancy Pelosi is a woman too and she does not excite me at all.  Hillary is tough.  She knows her politics.  She knows her policies.  She even seems to enjoy talking policy and issues.  I'm not sure if she has a plan for the GE, but she sure sounds like she has a plan for the Presidency.

    Obama keeps coming across as someone who did the policy thing because he was expected to.  He loves campaigning and the media spotlight.  He loves firing up a crowd.  He does not seem to like the nuts and bolts of governing.  The GE seems to be something he'll deal with - after the primary.  The policy stuff seems to be something he'll deal with - after November.  It's not part of him.

    Granted, this behavior isn't unique.  But it stands out in contrast to Clinton, who presents herself as someone who knows about this stuff and cares about it and is on top of it.  She's better at picking her fights and fighting them.

    I've seen the Right successfully dominate the media narratives and portray Dem candidates as too left, too liberal, not tough enough, out of touch and elitist.  Barack Obama is walking right into that framing.  Clinton probably could tell what the Right will do and in what order.  She's lived it more than once.  It's made her painfully cautious, but she knows that being safe is better than being very, very, very sorry.

    Sometimes I wish the media hadn't been so kind to Obama.  He's been leaning on the media support, but the media is not a reliable ally.  In the beginning, I did have hopes for Obama, but the more I've learned, the more I think he isn't ready.  He's never had the kind of national, brutal GE battle that is coming.  

    If he showed a tendency for being disciplined, willing to learn and willing to attempt the impossible - it would be easier to support him.  But his mouth keeps getting him into trouble, he shirks from campaigning in unfriendly territory and instead of trying to woo Clinton's base, he alienates them and tries to get Republicans and Independents.

    He places far too much emphasis on the short term and not enough on the long term.  He needs to push issues, not Obama to win the GE.  He needs to shut up and stop providing the Right with ammunition.


    [ Parent ]

    That's your opinion (none / 0) (#201)
    by klp on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:11:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Winning "fair and square" (5.00 / 3) (#162)
    by eleanora on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:29:47 PM EST
    is a matter of some debate, though. You have to understand that Clinton voters see the MI/FL debacle as not winning "fair and square." We see the DNC's actions in denying delegates as "stealing" votes from real voters to help Obama. And other delegate problems arise, like Clinton winning the TX primaries by 100,000 votes, but Obama ends up with five more delegates from gaming the caucus. Seems like "stealing" to many of us. I understand that you are angry over what you see as cheating; I hope you can see that we how we might feel the same way.

    "I would love to see both an African-American or a Women as President but this year we cannot have both."

    Me too. My only choice has always been a white male as well, and I've never in my life had the opportunity to vote for a female presidential candidate, which is life-changing for me, too. But you just said you're going to vote for McCain if Obama doesn't get the nomination, right? Tell me, how is that different from Clinton voters saying the same thing? The "disconnnect from reality" seems to run both ways.

    [ Parent ]

    Personally (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:33:26 PM EST
    I cannot vote for Obama because of something that he did in his District, that adversely affected the African American community.  I have worked in communities developing and managing affordable housing.  When the housing in Obama's district that was occupied by low income African Americans, his response to the Chicago Tribune was that this happens in affordable housing "because of the socio economic conditions of the neighborhoods".  Frankly, this for me disqualified any real sincerity and commitment to low income people and to the AA community.  He has stood by Rezko and not once has did he do anything to save the housing.  To me that is a core value breech.  You have to stand for the community you represent.  

    I will not repeat all the stuff, cause I have bored the TL folks to death with this issue.  

    [ Parent ]

    I would prefer not to vote for a candidate (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:55:55 PM EST
    whose supporters are so blinded by irrationality that they use phrases like "if Hillary STEALS the nomination from Obama". What a bogus load of crap. The nomination is not HIS to steal.

    [ Parent ]
    She won't "Steal" the nomination. (none / 0) (#160)
    by MarkL on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:28:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    How can she steal (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:40:48 PM EST
    something that he does not have?

    [ Parent ]
    the rhetoric (none / 0) (#158)
    by seesdifferent on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:24:36 PM EST
    seems designed to inflame.  How many times can "elite pundits" be used in one piece without giving credit to Rush Limbaugh?

    BTD (none / 0) (#173)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:41:29 PM EST
    isn't is possible she wins the popular vote? And even if it is really close the 600k win in Illinois should force the SD's to consider pledging her way, no? It seems to me if she wins the pop vote or is within 100k, the unity ticket should be reversed.

    There was a good article about it (none / 0) (#180)
    by rafaelh on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:48:15 PM EST
    It's called: ...And why it isn't nuts, by John Harris and Jonathan Martin
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10241_Page2.html

    It notes 5 reasons why it could work. I'll post the main points here here but you should check the article to see them fleshed out.

    1. It's not his choice. Clinton's support among her most loyal partisans, women's groups especially, is as intense as Obama's is among African-Americans and young people.
    2. It's a character test for him. Obama does not like Clinton. Who cares?
    3. The Sicilian hug.
    4. It's an unbeatable merger of strengths.
    5. She'd take the job -- and be good at it.


    Hate (none / 0) (#205)
    by lentinel on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:26:56 PM EST
    I think the simple truth is that much if not most of the energy going into the Obama campaign is fueled by an irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton. So, for them, a Unity Ticket would be a big let down since their anointing of Obama would have not destroyed Clinton as they hoped. To put it crudely, they would not be able to come.
    Why A Unity Ticket? | 205 comments (205 topical)