home

Hubris

If the article I post about below is an indication of the attitude that now permeates in the Barack Obama campaign, he may be headed for a hard fall. The Obama camp seem to underestimate the divide in the Party and the strong feelings of the millions and millions of Hillary Clinton supporters. I expect this from the Media, whose contempt for Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party is obvious. I do not expect it from the Obama Camp. The Obama Camp seems to be believing its own press clippings.

Imagine for a moment, Barack Obama has clinched the nomination. And he has called a news conference to announce his Vice Presidential choice. It is not Hillary Clinton. What do you suppose the story of the day is going to be? [More...]

For all the speculation about Obama's potential Vice Presidential choice, no one seems to be thinking about how that day will look and feel if Hillary Clinton is not the choice. Let me give an example of the type of myopic thinking I am seeing. Here is Chuck Todd on what happens if the Dems lose the Presidency this Fall:

If Obama loses, then it's because he lost it somehow. Maybe it'll be because he's too easily painted as an elitest. Maybe it'll be because he doesn't seem up to the job. Or maybe it'll simply be a function of racism. But whatever the reason, losing is not an option and an Obama loss would bring out the long knives inside the party walls.

But unlike the Republicans, a Democratic loss won't be blamed on ideology. Instead, the warring factions will consist of two groups.

First is the old Clinton guard who will argue that the party got too idealistic and didn't go back to its core FDR roots. In addition, the Clinton guard will argue that Obama alienated too many women as well as Jewish voters and that'll explain why he didn't win Florida and, perhaps, lost Pennsylvania.

. . . Obama partisans will whip around and point the finger right back at the Clintons and claim she stayed in the race too long, race-baited and created an environment that was too toxic for an Obama victory.

Look, Barack Obama is almost certainly going to be the nominee. Is the plan now to have good reasons to point a blaming finger at the Clinton Camp or is it to win the Presidency? There seems to be a Media and Left blog view that the Party will be unified no matter what. I think that's nuts. We have never had a campaign like this one.

But I ask them to again imagine that morning when Barack Obama announces his VP pick, and what the reaction will be if it is not Hillary Clinton. You think the Party is divided now, wait till that day.

To me it remains unthinkable that any Democrat who wants to win in November thinks that not picking Hillary Clinton makes sense for Barack Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Obama Calls FL/MI A Clinton-Contrived Controversy | Hillary Says She Will Finish the Race >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    And all of those people (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:35:40 AM EST
    in the Creative Class who will claim that they never liked him anyway. Ugh.

    This is a great post, BTD... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:36:36 AM EST
    I hope that I am not the first comment because all I have to say at this point is that you speak for me as well on this. Someone please add something more substantial.

    I think Obama thinks that (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:51:36 AM EST
    older women, who he needs to come back to the party, will just suffer into dementia, forget that they said they would never vote for him, and vote for him anyway? NOT!@!

    [ Parent ]
    You're right (5.00 / 11) (#56)
    by JimWash08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:05:55 AM EST
    And the ludicrous notion that ALL Clinton-supporters have to automatically fall behind Obama should he be the nominee is just laughable.

    He has and continues to run a campaign of new politics and change, but his chief surrogates are Old-Washington politicians who are using old-washington politics to stab the Clinton campaign and supporters by using race and class against them.

    The worst, most caustic one of them is Carter, who's now trying to goad the unaligned Super Dels to speak up for Obama next week -- whether they really support him or not.

    This Clinton supporter, and I'm a 26-year-old male, won't just fall behind Obama. No, I vote for the person (who has spoken to me and made me comfortable with her holding the top office), not the party (that hasn't spoken for me and has sat quietly as the media has dictated the direction of this primary). Period.

    [ Parent ]

    If he cannot "lead" his (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:15:00 AM EST
    surrogates to spread his message, how can he lead this country.

    [ Parent ]
    If he thinks he can just sit back (4.33 / 3) (#131)
    by Fabian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:45:04 AM EST
    and let other people run the show now, who does he think will really be in charge if he wins the White House?

    Does he think the people who he's let do his work for him will suddenly come to heel and do his bidding?  The odds are good that he'll be just as effective at reining in the mavericks and renegades then as he is now.

    Yeah.  Scary thought, isn't it?

    [ Parent ]

    "older" starts at 40 (5.00 / 2) (#247)
    by dotcommodity on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:35:54 PM EST
    he wins the naive and inexperienced vote under 40, sure, but dementia does not set that early.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (4.89 / 19) (#102)
    by A little night musing on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:27:55 AM EST
    I don't always agree with BTD on everything, but he understands very well the alienation a lot of us have felt and that there is a need to do something about it.

    I started out long ago torn between supporting Clinton and supporting Obama, and as must be obvious from my comments at TL I've come to feel more and more difficulty facing the prospect of Obama being the nominee, based entirely on his comments and actions and the comments and actions of those acting on his behalf (that is, putting aside the blog commenters). This is a problem that I've said repeatedly he's got to own. He and his campaign have made a few little feints toward reconciling with me and voters who feel as I do recently, but it's way too little and way too late and comments like the one about MI/FL being something Clinton stirred up just go to undermining it.

    Being a woman and a long-time voter (voted as an 18-year-old in the first Presidential election in which it was legal to do so) and activist (against  wars from Viet Nam on, and on poverty issues) the feeling I've gotten from Obama and his campaign (and again, ignoring the bloggers and commenters for a moment) is that I'm part of a failed past along with Hillary and Bill Clinton and should just silently go off to retirement and let him and his Unity Pony (including Republicans!!!) take things over. I'm exaggerating a little, but not much. And that, frankly, makes me angry. I've been working hard to make this country a better place all my life for me and my community, and now I'm being treated as irrelevant by the candidate who claims to represent change and hope.

    This is "only" a question of tone, but it's a big one. Why should reaching across the aisle to Republicans be more important than reaching out to people like me?

    Obama could still do something about this, but only if he realizes what a problem it is and that it's not just going to go away, and certainly not with a few little tepid attempts at outreach. And "guilting" me into supporting him will definitely not work and will only increase my sense of alienation.

    I don't know that I want Clinton to be VP - I'd much rather see her at the top of the ticket, or as Senate Majority leader - but it may be the only meaningful move he could make at this point. It would also need to be clear that this is a unity ticket in every sense of the word, that Clinton would have a strong voice in the administration as well. (The idea that she becomes somehow irrelevant to national politics if she doesn't get the nomination, after having run a campaign that kept it so squeaky-close, is one I find bizarre.)

    Sorry this is so long. I guess a lot had been building up and it just kind of boiled over this morning.


    [ Parent ]

    Bingo! (5.00 / 7) (#157)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:05:42 AM EST
    Why should reaching across the aisle to Republicans be more important than reaching out to people like me?

    And that, in one sentence, is the backbone of distrust people have for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Context (5.00 / 3) (#227)
    by squeaky on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:35:33 PM EST
    Hillary is tryng to appeal to to Republican voters just as much as Obama is.

    I'm going to reach out to Republicans, all kinds of Republicans, because I think it's important that we try to have a bipartisan foreign policy," she said on CNN's Larry King Live.

    The context of A little night musing's statement was Hillary as Obama's Veep. If he wins the nom. and if he chooses her, he needs to reach out to Clinton voters.

    To complain that Obama cares more about Republicans than you, is absurd.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't remember... (5.00 / 5) (#234)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:47:51 PM EST
    ...Hillary airing ads that told Republicans they could become dems for a day then switch back to vote Republican; do you?


    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely!! (4.25 / 4) (#211)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:07:11 PM EST
    I was just about to make the exact same post.

    Why has Obama made no effort known to me whatsoever to reach out to Democrats?


    [ Parent ]

    You and BTD (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by annabelly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:11:47 PM EST
    both speak for me today! Wow, that was a great post with an awesome tone. I'm so angry these days it's hard for me voice it like that, but you hit the nail on the head time and again. This post of BTD's also resonates with me, particularly in the context of the mood you describe here.

    [ Parent ]
    A common (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by tek on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:44:07 AM EST
    saying among lawyers is, "You're in trouble when you start believing your own BS."  Remind anyone of Obama?

    With respect to (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by frankly0 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:49:39 AM EST
    Todd's analysis of what Obama supporters will say if Obama loses, I have zero doubt but that he's right that they will blame the "divisiveness" of Hillary's staying in the race as the cause for his loss.

    But what he doesn't seem to get is the dynamics of losing in this context.

    Everybody knows that this is the Democrats year. That fact will almost certainly be proved out by large scale further consolidation of Democratic majorities in Congress. What is also a near certainty too, though, is that the support for Obama will greatly lag that Democratic surge (perhaps even suppressing it somewhat downticket, but still significantly lagging it).

    When it becomes apparent that it is Obama who is depressing, rather than enhancing the Democratic brand, it will be very bad news for him should he win or lose the WH.

    But if he loses, it will be simply terrible for him and his wing of the Democratic Party, just as it was a terrible and decades long blow to the McGovern wing of the Party (really, the same wing, transported in time). They will have no credibility and no clout. They may point all the fingers they want, but they, as losers of a battle they absolutely should have won, will have no standing to be listened to.

    They will be finished. And it will be for the rest of the Democratic Party to put together the pieces so that it won't happen again, just as it was after the McGovern fiasco.

    I've been in blog conversations... (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:05:03 PM EST
    where that "blame her" frame started long long ago.

    [ Parent ]
    I find it rather telling (4.75 / 16) (#54)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:05:06 AM EST
    that if Clinton wins the nom, nothing Obama has done to her during this long primary process will hurt her chances against McCain--not being called racist, not being called a lunatic fanning the flames of assassination, not being called divisive or polarizing or any of the various smears the Obama camp has sent her way.

    Why not?  Because people know who Clinton is.  They know she is not a racist.  They know all that other crap is just that--crap.  they know her voting record.  They know what she stands for.

    What has Clinton said about Obama that will hurt him so much in a ge?  That he is inexperienced.  That he is not seasoned enough to run with the big dogs.  That even with all the money in the world and the media on his side, he can't close the deal.  That he cannot handle pressure very well.  That he can't win vast voting blocs that dems need to win.  That he is weak, elitist, out of touch (though Obama claimed these last three problems for himself with his own words)

    Why do these hurt him?  BECAUSE THEY ARE TRUE.

    [ Parent ]

    I Agree That Todd's Analysis Completely Misses (4.66 / 9) (#101)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    the dynamics of the internal struggle for the direction of the party that is currently going on. By focusing on race, the media has ignored (willing?) the tendency of the Obama wing of the party to abandon the working class in favor of higher income, college educated folks and this includes much of the youth vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Correct. It is a class war (4.50 / 8) (#215)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:12:04 PM EST
    but the Obama/Kennedy/Kerry, et al., cabal could not admit that.  So they had to use race -- use it as a weapon against Clinton.  And it got out of hand, as they went from labeling Bill and Gerry Ferraro and other leaders as racits to labeling Dem voters as racist . . . as well as bitter, clinging to God at the same time that we found out about the God that he follows as espoused by his pastor, who turned out to be the real racist.

    And that, I will predict, is when Obama lost this race -- when he lost his "post-racial" argument by labeling most of the country as racist, but not him.  Hypocrisy as well as hubris is a losing combination.

    [ Parent ]

    and they would be (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by cpinva on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:57:04 AM EST
    very obviously, to anyone with a brain, full of it.

    . . . Obama partisans will whip around and point the finger right back at the Clintons and claim she stayed in the race too long, race-baited and created an environment that was too toxic for an Obama victory.

    the harsh reality is, he and his campaign have done this to themselves.

    with respect to sen. clinton as VP: ha! are you f*ing kidding me? why should she? what's in it for her?

    no, this is what i envision, should (and it's by no means inevitable) sen. obama be the eventual dem nominee:

    sen. obama, recognizing that his GE prospects are circling the drain, pleads with sen. clinton to become his VP running mate (if he has any smarts at all, which i'm beginning to question), in an effort to shore up his pitiful demographics.

    sen. clinton, realizing that truman's VP was right, it's an office "not worth a bucket of warm spit", and not feeling like lowering herself to being second to the lesser of the candidates, graciously declines the offer, while pledging (along with bill) to campaign hard for sen. obama.

    this scenario mollifies a significant % of the disaffected. not enough to get him over the top in the GE, but she's done her duty for the party, and kept her options, and power, open in the senate.

    when sen. obama loses in the GE, they'll blame it on sen. clinton, whether or not she's his VP running mate, so why give up her senate seat for anything less than the presidential nomination?

    I think Obama is becoming (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Makarov on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:57:18 AM EST
    less, and not more, likely to be our nominee.

    Looking at the majority of swing state polls, Hillary Clinton's performance from March to May (great analysis on this over at corrente), and the fact she is almost certainly going to be the popular vote winner, are all leading up to the fact that this contest is heading to Denver. If it comes down to a floor fight, my money is on Hillary Clinton, and not on the guy that won caucuses in February.  

    Some portion, if not all, of FL and MI delegates will be seated.  Given the number of remaining superdelegates, it's unlikely we'll see enough to put either candidate over the top in June.  See you in Denver.

    Buyers' remorse (5.00 / 4) (#223)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST
    If Obama doesn't win in the GE, it's his fault (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Sunshine on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:58:24 AM EST
    The group that is trashing Hillary the most, using most vile language and making the most ratical sexist remarks about her is the Obama supporters...
    They seem to think that the Hillary supporters are just a bunch of old women and they can be controlled and they will vote for Obama...
    They are wrong to think this and they might get some of Hillary's supporters but I don't think they will get the amount they think they will... Women have had enough of this and every time you see a male journalist get on TV and talk about how we are all going to come together, women are getting more and more determined to show them that we're mad as h*ll and not going to take it anymore...
    Obama has very little time to make nice and I don't see it coming yet...

    Stepford Voters (5.00 / 6) (#97)
    by Athena on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:26:08 AM EST
    Women will not be Stepford Voters this year.

    [ Parent ]
    Forget what Bill and Hillary do (5.00 / 10) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:58:34 AM EST
    think instead about what will help Obama win in November.

    If you believe that dividing the Party by not at least offering the VP to Clinton is smart politics that will help him win in November, then bully for you.

    You call them "the old politics." the "old politics" represnts half the Dem Party and already they are none too happy by the like of people like you trying to drum them out of the Dem Party.

    As I have said often now, the biggest danger to Obama's chances of winning in November is if he thinks along the line of people like you.

    "Pandering"? or "uniting"? (5.00 / 6) (#125)
    by A little night musing on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:42:24 AM EST
    See my long comment above. Why is it "pandering" to try to appeal to Clinton supporters but "reaching across" and "uniting" to try to appeal to people who aren't even Democrats?

    BTD gets it:

    You call them "the old politics." the "old politics" represnts half the Dem Party and already they are none too happy by the like of people like you trying to drum them out of the Dem Party.


    [ Parent ]
    Worse. They're not trying to drum us out (5.00 / 5) (#221)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:25:20 PM EST
    -- instead, they're expecting us to stay in the party and just fall in line.  They fell in line, so why wouldn't we do so?  They see the McCaskills doing what their teenagers told them to do, so why wouldn't we do so?

    Uh, nope.  Not the way it works with most adults.  Wait and see.

    [ Parent ]

    Sounds like (4.80 / 5) (#177)
    by MichaelGale on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:25:55 AM EST
    magical thinking by projecting if, when and should, in re Clinton as VP.

    I think it sets up Clinton.  Has she ever indicated, (link please) that she would be willing to be a VP?  Has she ever given the impression that she is just waiting in the wings to be asked?

    What I make out of these statements is that this hoped for alliance is to ensure the Democrats win in November. Speaking for me, this is the setup. If Clinton is not the chosen one, she is even more vilified because she didn't make the grade. If she is chosen, then she is being put in the position to play the fixer to insure that the least competent candidate succeeds. I doubt that she would do that to herself. If she does, she would appear to love this country more than I think is necessary after the horrific treatment she has received.

    She will not be considered. I want it to play out ......ca sera sera. If Hillary does not win the nomination, then let the Party eat cake as they self destruct.

    [ Parent ]

    What won't help Obama win (none / 0) (#45)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:01:12 AM EST
    is people like Mike Barnacle who say that if Hillary is on the ticket as vp, it will make Obama seem so "ordinary"

    [ Parent ]
    Mike Barnicle's opinion (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:11:25 AM EST
    is interesting and influential with Mike Barnicle.

    His views do not even merit skewering.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama seeming ordinary (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by lilburro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:16:32 AM EST
    would probably be the best conceivable turn of events for him.  

    [ Parent ]
    McCain (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:59:34 AM EST
    Will not have to do much work.  Bush's approval ratings at any given time ranges from 19-30%.  If we assume 25% off the top (the middle of the approval rating) are going to vote for McCain (if Obama is right and McCain=Bush III), and 15% of HRC supporters will vote for McCain, he just has to fight for 15%.  Figure in those HRC supporters that can't vote for McCain, but won't vote for Obama (me), and I don't Obama even getting close to 50% of votes.

    Is my math close?

    I still hold that I don't want the more qualified (5.00 / 14) (#40)
    by rooge04 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:59:44 AM EST
    woman playing second fiddle to the less-qualified man.  However, at the point where Obama loses the GE...do the left blogs and Obama's campaign think that us Clinton supporters will care?  Because do you know how completely and utterly non-bothersome it'll be to me when they blame the GE loss on Clinton?  It will not bother me at all. Nor will I be surprised since I've been expecting it all along.

    Hillary had the audacity to run a primary campaign.  How dare she? Why didn't we blame Dukakis' loss on Jesse Jackson?  Or Mondale's loss on Hart?  Oh yeah, because back then at least people knew what a competition was.  Now apparently, Obama is just too fragile to handle a challenge.  Sounds promising for his GE chances.  Or not.

    Exactly (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:29:19 AM EST
    They can blame whatever they want.  If they lose this election. they will be the ones discredited, not the Hillary people.

    [ Parent ]
    Today (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by coolit on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:00:22 AM EST
    I just decided.  I'm not voting for Obama in November.  He is running a campaign of principles and I can't agree with anything he does.  He has said vote for me "to bring about real change in Washington."  I think this country is in a bad place if the cult of Obama actually takes hold.  It is scary when you can say one thing so noble and do another so underhanded.

    If everyone becomes like him, I am afraid of what could happen.

    Kennedy damaged Carter (4.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:31:42 AM EST
    and Bradley damaged gore.

    otherwise it has to be free range.

    [ Parent ]

    The "controversy" was not contrived. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by wurman on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:00:43 AM EST
    Sen. Clinton has nothing to do with the presence of a "controversy."  Both the MI & FL state Democratic Party operations were going to do something, appeal, fight, argue & probably go to the convention floor whether or not the Clinton campaign worked with 'em, for 'em, or against 'em.

    Sen. Obama is not merely spinning a publicity twist, nor is he tone deaf, nor is he propping up a straw man to knock down.

    He's stupid.

    Wrong thread (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:09:51 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My impressive cyber-leap (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by wurman on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:30:39 AM EST
    You hadn't even posted "Hubris" when I tried to make this comment in "Controversy."

    Another Windows moment.

    [ Parent ]

    Honorably? (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:00:50 AM EST
    Good grief. Yes, it would be beneath The One's honor and dignity to have Clinton as VP. He is so far above them and above 'that wing of the party'. Sanctimonious much?

    Again, it's HILLARY that is running, not Bill. (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by rooge04 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:01:20 AM EST
    I used to have to correct wingnuts for using them interchangeably. Now it's Obama supporters. How far we've come.

    pathetic (5.00 / 7) (#152)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:02:11 AM EST
    what an incredibly sexist remark - she owes her career to Bill's leftover good will. Why doesn't she just stay home and bake those cookies, eh?

    Has it never occurred to you that the goodwill was to some degree there because of the influence SHE had on HIS campaign and presidency?! That when HE was president that SHE was his chief campaign surrogate and close advisor? At the time, only the wingnuts, who you seem to have found some sympathy for, claimed that Hillary was running things. But now that she is the candidate, you -- a non-wingnut -- wants to resurrect that whole "behind the scenes" meme.

    Spare us your sexist fantasies, please.

    [ Parent ]

    The funny / sad thing is some of the (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:52:52 AM EST
    wingnuts have come to respect Hillary. That tells you the kind of company we have been keeping within are own ranks. Despicable.

    [ Parent ]
    Now I know (5.00 / 6) (#162)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:09:27 AM EST
    to never read anything you write again because you are a liar, and a bad one at that. Do you seriously believe that your completely false last sentence will be believable by anyone here? We're not as stupid as the people on the hate machine sites that wait to lap up the Hillary hatred and misogyny.

    Some people actually know about the lifetime of work and accomplishments Hillary has done on her own, not to mention how much she helped her husband's career get off the ground and succeed. You've got it completely wrong. She doesn't need to be an icon. She just is who she is - an intelligent and accomplished senator. Who, by the way, has been treated incredibly unfairly during this campaign. This last is why some women have rallied around her - not because they started out strongly supporting her but because they couldn't bear any longer to watch her public lynching.

    --Just Another Useless Menopausal Chick

    [ Parent ]

    What I don't get is... (5.00 / 1) (#248)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:37:07 PM EST
    Since this seems to be RFK weekend ...

    Robert F. Kennedy's chief claim to the presidential nomination was that he was the brother of a president, and his advisor.  He also was a junior senator -- yet that association held him in good stead.

    Why is it that the same association is so invalid in the case of a president's wife.

    (Also, the sainted RFK was a close associate of Sen. Joe McCarthy, as I recall.)

    [ Parent ]

    The more I see and hear of Sen. Obama's (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by FLVoter on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:01:53 AM EST
    myopic strategy the more I think about the Elvis Costello song "Brilliant Mistake."

    Guess who's back? (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by ajain on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:11:39 AM EST
    Snotty Obama. This is New Hampshire Obama. Drinking his own Kool-Aid. We all gleefully remember what happened then.

    Lets hope he either snaps out of it or Hillary gets nominated.

    He does remind me in so many ways of (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by jawbone on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    our current pResident.

    Somewhat more articulate, and does better at the the teleprompter, but so many uncanny similarities

    Immaturity?

    [ Parent ]

    The whole point of the hysteria (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by vcmvo2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:17:32 AM EST
    over the RFK comment was to make sure that Hillary was disqualified, for once and all, from any claim to the VP slot. The whole thing was set up by the Obama campaign to fan the flames. This way the MSM can nod their heads and agree with Obama's decision.

    I don't know if Hillary would have even accepted it, but imo she should at least have been asked.

    Hubris is the perfect word to describe Obama. His campaigning style continues to trouble me more than I can say.

    Even the MSM is catching on (5.00 / 6) (#155)
    by Makarov on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:03:51 AM EST
    to the two-faced nature of the Obama camp.  While BO was saying Saturday that obviously Hillary didn't mean anything by her RFK comment, his press office was emailing the media exactly the opposite.

    George called Axelrod on it this morning on This Week, who basically pretended it didn't happen.  It was pretty amusing to watch.  David suggested that the campaign's first response was before they understood the context, but failed to explain why they were still shopping the story more than 2 days later.

    And the A-lister's call Clinton's tactics "rovian"....

    [ Parent ]

    Ironic isn't it? (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by vcmvo2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:10:29 AM EST
    But that is a key Rovian trait to accuse the other party of what you, yourself, are doing. It's part of the distraction tactics. They work, unfortunately, but they leave a lot of animus behind them. I don't think Obama is skilled enough to avoid the payback on this.

    This whole RFK flap is what has finished any chance Obama had with me. I just can't get past it. And I'm a yellow dog Democrat. It was really an unbelievably tone deaf and callous tactic.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's skills (2.50 / 2) (#243)
    by talktruthfully on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:28:38 PM EST
    That point jumped out at me. Let's digest with a bit of evidence shall we:

    1. The democratic nomination requires the nominee to win the a certain number of delegates (2025 or 2209 depending on whether or not one is a Hillary supporter)
    2. Hillary Clinton has wide name recognition
    3. President Clinton campaigned for Hillary Clinton
    4. Hillary Clinton had all the machine support in the big states
    5. Hillary Clinton had bagged 100+ superdelegates before a single vote was cast
    6. Barack Obama is "African American"
    7. Barack Obama has a "muslim" middle name (his middle name,  like his first name is actually Jewish -- derived from Hosea, but I'm sure you knew that right?)
    8. Barack Obama, according to many Hillary Clinton supporters is: an empty suit, unexperienced ...
    9. Barack Obama has been in the senate for a single term
    10. Oh and my favorite, Barack Obama is an elitist

    Now given those points of premise, lets see where we currently stand:

    1. Barack Obama has more pledged delegates
    2. Barack Obama has more superdelegates
    3. Barack Obama has won more states
    4. Barack Obama is closer to winning the nomination (whether you chose to count FL/MI or not)
    5. Barack Obama's campaign is cash-flow positive
    6. Barack Obama was hit with RWright - he bounced back
    7. Barack Obama was hit with Gamma under the bus - he bounced back
    8. Barack Obama was hit with bitter - he bounced back
    9. Barack Obama was hit with NOI, Ayers - he bounced back

    I really do think we're looking at the most skilled, bar none, politician this side of JFK that the Dem party has put up to bat. Simple truth is, if Hillary Clinton was a better politician/campaigner, she'd have won the nomination. It makes very little sense to put up the person who lost the nomination by all agreed-to metrics, given all her seemingly insurmountable advantages at kick-off,  as our GE candidate. SD, MT, and PR will vote. March 31 will come, MI and FL will be decided and then the SD's will weigh in.

    Come what may, Hillary Clinton won't be the Democratic presidential nominee for 2008. It's a disappointment to her millions of gracious supporters - but somebody had to lose. Unfortunately it was Hillary Clinton this time round.


    [ Parent ]

    The most skilled since JFK? (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by vcmvo2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    That is a laugh! But then since he is the presumptive nominee- so we shall see, won't we?

    The rest of your condescending post aside- I agree that many of your "facts" can be stipulated to.

    But I'll stand by my judgment on things and you can stand on insult as a means of persuasion.

    [ Parent ]

    Newsweek wakes up (5.00 / 4) (#172)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:23:15 AM EST
    wow, Axelrod does fake grass roots campaigns and works for lobbies....wow
    When Illinois utility Commonwealth Edison wanted state lawmakers to back a hefty rate hike two years ago, it took a creative lobbying approach, concocting a new outfit that seemed devoted to the public interest: Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity, or CORE. CORE ran TV ads warning of a "California-style energy crisis" if the rate increase wasn't approved--but without disclosing the commercials were funded by Commonwealth Edison. The ad campaign provoked a brief uproar when its ties to the utility, which is owned by Exelon Corp., became known. "It's corporate money trying to hoodwink the public," the state's Democratic Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn said. What got scant notice then--but may soon get more scrutiny--is that CORE was the brainchild of ASK Public Strategies, a consulting firm whose senior partner is David Axelrod, now chief strategist for Barack Obama.


    [ Parent ]
    high energy prices are policy. (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:36:56 AM EST
    Axelrod's core belief.

    [ Parent ]
    The instant it happened (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:25:21 AM EST
    I knew it.  I posted that here and BTD saw no malice in it.  I tell you this is so disgusting.  

    [ Parent ]
    Earth to BTD........ (5.00 / 10) (#87)
    by Andre on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:21:47 AM EST
    a good portion of us Clinton backers do not want her to be chosen for the VP slot.  When the thing goes off the cliff, she shouldn't be anywhere near it.
    And another clue for you, we're not voting for Obama simply because he is a disaster waiting to happen.  It has nothing to do with Clinton not getting the nomination.  Clinton is the best candidate and Obama is not the second best!  


    Think of it this way (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by rilkefan on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:02:33 PM EST
    Would you rather have HRC in the WH affecting policy - maybe running health care, for example - or 1% of the Senate?

    [ Parent ]
    That's not the choice (5.00 / 4) (#225)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    The choice is this:

    Would you rather have Hillary locked in the bunker at the Naval Observatory, and occasionally wheeled out to deal with "women's issues," or would you rather have her in the Senate, holding hearings and getting Universal Health care passed?

    The assumption seems to be that if Obama is forced to accept Hillary as VP, he'll magically see a good reason to give her any actual power. We're not looking at Clinton/Gore here, but rather at whichever VP called the office a "bucket of warm spit."

    [ Parent ]

    I'd like to see her on the ticket (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Coral on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:10:55 PM EST
    I'll take what I can get. She certainly deserves it more than, say, Edwards, whose name has been floated.

    Edwards I like, but Clinton has much more experience, does better in debates, and has fought for the nomination and bring a huge faction of the party that is seriously disaffected.

    [ Parent ]

    A gooder portion does (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:23:06 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You may be right (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:51:17 AM EST
    but my own little personal surveys tell me that he's gonna lose a ton of Hillary's support either way.


    [ Parent ]
    HRC (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Lil on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:22:03 AM EST
    has at least HALF the Democratic party on her side right now. Why wouldn't Obama want to combine that with his HALF? I believe it is crazy to not see that. sorry.

    If that is true (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:22:05 AM EST
    he will be an independent loser.  Good for him.

    Can Dems please nominate a winner for a change?  

    too late (5.00 / 7) (#95)
    by neilario on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    i believe she will be the nominee and i will stay with her until the end. BUT at this point the only unity ticket most hrc supporters will vote for is if she is at the top. an obama/clinton ticket is not one i will support. he is unqualified  and vp is ceremonial. i will not support him for president no matter who is on the ticket.

    and there are many many more like me. so you also underestimate the divide BO has created and continues to create daily

    yeah but (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Lil on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:33:37 AM EST
    as a Hillary supporter, I would be extremely insulted if he ignores her and chooses someone else; this may be stupid, but "the political is personal". I can't imagine I'm the only one who feel this way.

    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't this sort of hubris worry you (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:31:55 AM EST
    about what kind of President Obama would be?

    Nah (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:46:54 AM EST
    we will never have to find out.

    [ Parent ]
    From your keyboard to God's ears! (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Shainzona on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:54:29 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    nah (none / 0) (#143)
    by uncledad on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:55:56 AM EST
    So you'll be voting for McCain?

    [ Parent ]
    you do realize (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:11:25 AM EST
    that not supporting Obama does not mean that someone will support McCain, right? Or does that involve greater complexity than you can appreciate?

    [ Parent ]
    You are very wrong (4.00 / 1) (#170)
    by pluege on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:21:47 AM EST
    not supporting the democrat IS supporting mccain. mccain badly needs a low turnout to have any chance of stealing the election. the bush justice department is still in charge. if they can steal the election fro mccain they certainly will.  

    [ Parent ]
    i disagree (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:29:34 AM EST
    There is just as much anxiety about McCain among swaths of the GOP electorate; they are hardly embracing him. He has his own problems.

    Not supporting Obama is simply not supporting Obama. If he is as determined to "remake" the Democratic party as some of his surrogates are suggesting he is, I cannot support that and will not vote for it.

    He has to earn the support of Democrats, and that is a lesson he seems to be slow to learn.

    [ Parent ]

    wrong (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:34:35 AM EST
    Mccain is popular with Centrists and liberal GOP.

    Obama is highly suspect among conservative and moderate dems.

    That's to McCain's advantage.

    Conservative GOP will rally to prevent Obama' s rise to ultimate power.

    [ Parent ]

    SUPPORTing Obama (5.00 / 6) (#185)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:33:43 AM EST
    is supporting the purge of the working class from the Democratic Pary.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes it is something along those lines. (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:41:50 AM EST
    Brazile and Axelrod stated so.

    The tenor of the attacks on Edwards at the start for his populism were also aimed at gratifying uppermiddle class liberals who are scared of the unwashed.

    It's pathetic how the voters in Iowa were led around by the nose by the media.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, I will! (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:16:57 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Speaking of not adding to the discussion (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:43:49 AM EST
    I want you out of my thread.

    you can participate ion Jeralyn;s threads if you like.

    I will delete your comments going forward in mine.

    John Rove (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:04:26 PM EST
    is now banned.

    [ Parent ]
    I Think That You Should Definitely Stick With (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:45:54 AM EST
    the opinion that losing in November is not that important. It will make you feel much better when McCain is sworn in as president if Obama does not find a way to win over Clinton supporters.  

    Not just in the view of Hillary supporters, but his own! That's what I think makes his choice of VP and consideration of Hillary Clinton difficult.

    Is he going to be the "unifier" he claims he is?

    I agree w/ the contrarian view expressed up-thread. I think his campaign possibly sees the numbers, and would be foolish not to consider Hillary as a serious VP candidate. However, Obama, himself, has shown signs that he is not quite as astute. His views seem to be shaped not so much by demographics or statistics -- but by emotions, campaign tactics and behavioral science (Richard Thaler, Goolsbee et al.). More than anything he will therefore be guided by the crowds whose adulation might figure larger in his calculations than electoral politics. It will be his loss.

    Personally speaking, I hope he does not co-opt the Hillary camp by offering her the VP spot. Hillary/Obama IMO would be far more preferable to Obama/Hillary. Hillary would do well to refuse the  offer even if it were to be offered to her w/out explicit mandates for her policy proposals and involvement in an Obama administration.

    That'd be his second REAL TEST... (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by talktruthfully on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:33:46 PM EST
    .... his first REAL TEST will be clinching the nomination. You have to give credit where it's due :)

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, please keep thinking this way... (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Shainzona on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:59:48 AM EST
    We will be so happy to see your candidate trounced in November and be laughing our a**es off that you all wonder "how did it happen?"

    Dooh!!!


    How does BTD Know for Certain that Obama (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by carmel on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:01:10 AM EST
    will be the nominee? These types of statements are exactly what infuriates Hillary supporters and democrats that are looking at the DNC as a corrupted political organization that needs a thorough house cleaning! If Hillary has the popular vote lead and is within 100 pledged delegates, and she has proven herself to be the better candidate, the DNC and superdelegates should nominate her! Just because the MSM and Obama keep proclaiming his coronation, it isn't done until the actual votes at the convention. Right now, I'm voting against Obama and any superdelegate that endorses Obama downticket, and I know many other democrats who feel that way. Donna Brazile made it very clear that we're not wanted in the "new" party.

    Exactly. Ultimately, the supers are (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:15:01 AM EST
    nominating the Dem candidate.  Hillary's argument is as good as if not better than Obama's.  And I fail to see why BTD has to assert he will be the nominee when it hasn't been decided yet.

    [ Parent ]
    I used to like Chuck Todd, but like alot of MSM, (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Exeter on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:02:52 AM EST
    his red-tinted Hillary hate glasses has distorted his view of everything Hillary related. He was the first media person to push the ridiculous Obama spin that pledged delegate winner should win and it has stuck.

    Obama supporter arrogance should be expected (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by pluege on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:06:28 AM EST
    I do not expect it from the Obama Camp.

    BTD, I can't imagine why you wouldn't expect self-indulgent arrogance from the Obama camp. All along they've been about the indisputably obvious superiority of Obama in every human category, and maybe a few others. They've been angry and dismissive all along at anyone and everyone who wasn't on-board with the beautification of Obama. Its really been quite sickening.

    For the Obama club to recognize the legitimate opinions of others is what would be totally unexpected. Looking down their noses at all who can not see the Obama aura is what is to be expected.  

    I beg to differ on one thing (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by vicsan on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:06:30 PM EST
    you posted. Obama is NOT going to be the nominee. The SDs cannot look at an electoral map and nominate him. They KNOW he cannot beat McCain in November.

    However, should they all lose their marbles and hand the November election to McCain by voting for BO and he doesn't choose Hillary as his VP, you are correct....many of the Hillary supporters will NOT vote for BO. I won't. I'm tired of voting for loser candidates. I held my nose and voted for Kerry. I'm not doing it again. There's no "making nice" after this primary. I-Am-Finished-With-The-Democratic-Party-After-
    Their-Swiftboating-Of-Hillary.

    I'm not so sure I would vote for a BO/Clinton ticket either. The man is not qualified to be the President. If Hillary is the nominee and chooses BO, I MIGHT vote for that ticket, but I would be holding my nose again.

    I don't want Hillary on his ticket. She's too good for him. He can't win without her. Why should SHE help HIM win after what he and his supporters have done to her during this Primary? I hope she says NO to him. I'd love to see her run as an Independent. I'd vote for her as an Independent! I believe most of her supporters would support her if she ran as an Independent. It would be our best chance to get a third Party into the WH.

    Go Hillary! Stay in until the Convention. Don't let the BOYZ push you out of the race.

    I'm waiting for Hillary to name Obama (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by McKinless on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:28:13 PM EST

    as her choice for Vice President.

    Best Laugh Of the Day (5.00 / 6) (#235)
    by creeper on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:48:21 PM EST
    From the article cited by BTD:
    Obama has not called for Clinton to drop out of the race and has been careful to avoid alienating her supporters.

    What can I say?

    My response? (5.00 / 2) (#237)
    by Regency on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:52:12 PM EST
    "The stupid it burns!"

    [ Parent ]
    Every time Obama disses the FL (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:31:58 PM EST
    voters like that, an angel smiles on McCain and, no doubt, he gets new donations.
    The only thing that makes me happy about the latest developments is that the real Obama is showing now---no core, no principles, and not even the intelligence to back down for the sake of appearances, sacrificing a miniscule amount of his winning chances.

    Obama's lack of experience is why (5.00 / 3) (#253)
    by Lisa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:16:50 PM EST
    I'm not voting for him as president.  No, even if Thomas Jefferson was his vice president.  The president is the president.

    That, and Obama's current and past behavior, which shows me he does not have a high enough regard for the people and cannot handle power well.

    Of the three candidates, ability to not diminish the country and its citizens is in this order for me:  Hillary, McCain, Obama.  

    As a patriot I must vote accordingly.  It's my duty.

    And this is coming from a lifetime Democrat (who recently became an Independent because of the behavior of Obama and his backers).

    I don't HAVE to support Obama or his power machine (5.00 / 1) (#256)
    by Ellie on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:15:30 PM EST
    Here is why I resist this notion that core Dems that are dissatisfied with Obama and the Dems now HAVE to support them ... or else.

    I've heard a version of this all of my markedly adult life. Obama and this takeover he and his kingmakers have planned is not something I signed on for and it is not a party, cause or plan I will support.

    The Dems have had over thirty years to shore up Roe, reproductive and other rights and core principles. They have let those erode, spending more energy exploiting the Dem "brand" (ugh) for their own coffers and careers.

    During the Bush admin, dry powder Dems have wasted real opportunities to use their brains during elections and in congress, as a minority or a majorty, into energy to blame and bullying their voters for money/support than standing up to Republicans.

    At every juncture of opportunity when core Dem activists and voters have begged, pleaded and provided means to back the party up for standing for core principles, they have not.

    Off=camera they've worked with our enemies and persecutors. In media used the opportunity to blame supporters, threaten worse catastrophes will occur if more money doesn't pour in and more voter compliance. After the fact, this has been shown to be the case time and time again.

    Now we -- HRC supporters and disproportionately, women -- are supposed to sit back and pretend to look the other way during a ridiculous internecine power play over the keys to the cash box and an untried golden goose.

    We're supposed to let ourselves be slimed by alleged partisans as ignorant disloyal hyper religious racists whose fault it will all be if the abusive parties don't get their way -- all because of the ineptitude, greed and arrogance of people who are too busy jockeying to get this "new" machine in place.

    I won't support that.
    I won't support Obama, his kingmakers and his "neutral" Dem nannies and flatterers in this sham.
    I won't support the Dem leadership, who have had months to get their act together.
    I won't contribute to this obscene food fight.
    I won't accept guilt, blame or bullying for this ridiculous situation during which I've behaved ABOVE AND BEYOND what any of these individuals and groups have a right to demand, or deserve.

    To my surprise during this atrocious display, the one candidate I was certain I would not vote for has earned my trust, pride, support and MY VOTE.

    This is not transferrable without my say and no one should expect it to be.

    I hate being spoken about in the third person when I'm in proximity, which is what the Dem braintrust and Team Obama do when they assure each other that the stupid rac!st b!tches and other doofuses will mindlessly step in line.

    Newwwwp. HRC's my candidate for Pres, not VP.

    Obama is barely qualified to be in the Senate. I hope he'll go back there and do what he promised to do and serve out at least one term there before he became "bored".

    Normally I differentiate. . . (4.87 / 8) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:38:53 AM EST
    between the nuttiness of Obama supporters and the candidate himself -- who clearly is a much smarter, hard ball politician and centrist thinker than that wing of his support camp that so annoys me (and most other people here).

    But in the area of believing his own press I think Obama is as much at fault as his supporters.  He seems to genuinely believe that he represents something new in politics, that he will produce a magical surge of voters (although the evidence is somewhat on his side here), that he's above criticism, and that the Republicans will work with him in a post partisan fashion.

    For that reason I'm guessing that he's strongly disinclined personally to pick Clinton.

    Then we have made a grave mistake (5.00 / 14) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:43:45 AM EST
    in likely nominating him.

    [ Parent ]
    Ding ding ding ding ding ! (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:45:04 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's not too late!!! (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:46:07 AM EST
    And then you won't have to get your tattoo removed, because you didn't say WHO would be at the top of the unity ticket.

    Lookit, does anyone here, from Clinton-lover to troll to Clinton-despiser, have any question in their mind that, should Clinton get the nomination, she will ask Obama to be her VP?

    It's very telling that we're mostly certain that Obama will NOT.

    Tells you a lot about who they are, and what kind of politician they are.

    [ Parent ]

    We've been screaming this for ages..... (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Angel on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:48:48 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The breakthrough! (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by befuddled on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:10:07 AM EST
    We love you, BTD.

    [ Parent ]
    There is a great deal of support (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:28:13 AM EST
    for that reality.

    [ Parent ]
    "Whaddya mean, 'we,' kemosabe?" (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by oldpro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:44:19 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My thought, exactly -- even including (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:57:15 AM EST
    the politically incorrect Hollywood line.

    [ Parent ]
    I See Absolutely No Indication On Obama's Part (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:48:28 AM EST
    that he will pick Hillary as VP.  NM (IIRC) and CA had polls with 4 VP combinations. The VPs listed were Edwards, Sebelius, Rendell and Hagel.

    BTD is IMO beating another dead horse on the unity ticket.

    [ Parent ]

    He hasn't even said, as she has (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:53:55 AM EST
    that he'll support whoever the nominee is. Of course does that mean if he gets the nomination he won't even support himself (he wouldn't if he listened back to some of the really inane things he's said)

    [ Parent ]