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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute 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!@!

    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.


    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.

    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?


    "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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?

    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?


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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"

    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.


    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.  

    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.

    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.


    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
    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.


    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.


    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


    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.)


    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



    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"....


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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?

    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."


    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.


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

    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.

    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.

    From your keyboard to God's ears! (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Shainzona on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    nah (none / 0) (#143)
    by uncledad on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:55:56 AM EST
    So you'll be voting for McCain?

    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?

    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.  

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


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

    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 :)

    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?"


    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.

    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-

    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!"

    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.

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


    We've been screaming this for ages..... (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Angel on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:48:48 AM EST
    The breakthrough! (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by befuddled on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:10:07 AM EST
    We love you, BTD.

    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.

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

    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.


    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)

    Actually, he has. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:57:42 AM EST
    Several times. (none / 0) (#175)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:25:16 AM EST
    He does believe it (4.69 / 13) (#8)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:42:38 AM EST
    Just like he thinks those three years in Indonesia as a child give him FP experience, just like he thinks everyone hates Clinton, just like he thinks he'll get her voters in the end, just like he thinks three years doing voter registration for a church is community organizing, just like he thinks Wright will go away because he says he should, just like he thinks Rezko, Ayers, Auchi, etc are just "people he knows out of, like, at least 900 friends" and they don't matter.

    that's it in a nutshell. (4.50 / 8) (#63)
    by rise hillary rise on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:10:46 AM EST
    If Bush was the Potemkin President, then Obama will be the Facebook President.

    You can't just run a negative campaign (4.42 / 7) (#166)
    by esmense on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:12:37 AM EST
    You have to give the voters reasons to trust you -- rather than just reasons to distrust your opponent (especially when your opponent has been on the political scene for a very long time -- much, much longer than you -- has a very distinctive image in the popular mind, is a lauded war hero who suffered and sacrificed greatly for his country, etc.)

    Trust is usually built on public track record and personal biography. But Obama doesn't have much track record. It is also built on associations -- positive association with your party and its record of success for instance. But Obama has disassociated himself from the most recent Democratic administration and accused that administration of being as corrupt and as complicit in the current state of the nation and our politics as the Bush administration and the conservative movement. So while he has little record himself, he also can't run on his own party's most contemporary record.

    Those two things; Obama's thin resume and his strategic decision to run against his own party's most recent history, provide Obama with big disadvantageous in the general election. They also make it easier for the opposition to define him negatively based on both his lack of experience and manipulation of public perception of his personal biography and associations (Wright, Ayers, Resko, etc.)

    The truth is, with no substantial record -- his own or his party's -- to run on, Obama is left with NOTHING TO RUN ON except a negative campaign against McCain.

    But people may have great difficulty trusting his negative assessment of McCain if he hasn't at first given them some substantial reasons to trust him.


    So far everytime (4.42 / 7) (#171)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:22:19 AM EST
    Obama and McCain have had a back and forth, McCain has spanked him.  He just looks petulant while McCain seems to like it.

    that should have read (none / 0) (#168)
    by esmense on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:15:24 AM EST
    "provide Obama with big disadvantages"

    Don't distinguish (3.00 / 2) (#218)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:22:08 PM EST
    Remember that Axelrod's day job is corporate AstroTurfing. Half the nuttiness you're reading is probably billable hours from him. Or have you not noticed how the OFB turns on a dime when a new talking point comes out?

    Not Only Dems For A Day But Today's (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:38:18 PM EST
    talking point. Yes, it is hard to miss what talking point is being promoted on any given day.

    Hubirs. (none / 0) (#83)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:20:35 AM EST
    "Hubris" not "hubirs". (none / 0) (#99)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:26:43 AM EST
    Or as my dissertation advisor (none / 0) (#184)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:32:57 AM EST
    loved to point out...



    She disqualified herself from VP consideration (4.80 / 5) (#3)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:37:33 AM EST
    when she said RFK was killed during June of that campaign, according to Olbermann and the Obama Blogs.

    And if Obama is looking to those fools (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:44:31 AM EST
    for political advice, he will lose and it makes sense that they are planning for the blame game.

    Je repete (4.57 / 7) (#216)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:17:47 PM EST
    You're assuming what Obama's goals are. Remember, he's also building a completely independent "movement" with its own funding sources, database, and voter registration drive.

    I argue, therefore, that control of the Dem Party machinery is Obama's have-to-have.

    Winning the Presidency is the nice-to-have, and if losing gets the "movement" all that much more "fired up," then so much the better.

    Which explains why they're not acting like they need to win. They don't think they do.

    Note also that this works from Axelrod's perspective as well.


    If I look at this logically (4.50 / 4) (#82)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:19:47 AM EST
    Hillary and Obama together have brought in 34 million voters, isn't that just 9 million less than John Kerry brought in in the general election?  Obama's donor list is immense but Hillary's is nothing to sneeze at.  Logically he'd be a fool not to want to run with her, but...

    sorry but nothing will allow me to vote for Obama (4.33 / 6) (#178)
    by fly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:28:08 AM EST
    i was not for Hillary to start ..i was an Edwards  volunteer..i came to Hillary when i was a co-captian of a caucus in Iowa for Edwards and i saw the downright cheating of team obama..

    i have fought since 2000 to have legit elections i n Florida..i watched as Obama's surrogates Dean and Brazile aided by Pelosi steal my vote in Florida last year...

    i am done..Obama could put the ope  down for VP and i would not vote for him..i don't care who he picks..that cheater will never ever ever get my vote.

    I have fought the cheaters in the republican party and i would be the biggest hypocrite in the world if i turned my back and said it was ok for a so called dem to cheat in our elections.

    No..it is unacceptable.

    Maybe some in the dem party have no integrity..but no one will ever own my soul..or my integrity..it is not for sale..no way no how!

    Unity??? ..bunk..there is no unity when people have their votes stolen.

    My dad died a young man fighting for that vote..my husband wore the uniform of this country for that vote.
    My grandfather was an officer on the
    U.S.S.ARIZONA in WWI...for that vote...he left his eye on that ship..for that vote.

    What have we become but a bananna republic when we don't fight for the right of all Americans to vote and have their votes counted??????

    You can not Unite..when people have their votes stolen..there is no way to unite that.



    If you won't vote for Obama (1.00 / 1) (#196)
    by rilkefan on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:46:18 AM EST
    at least vote against McCain.

    no dice. (5.00 / 4) (#251)
    by hilldemgoneindie on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:54:30 PM EST
    personally, i will never vote for obama. i'd rather be under the rule of satan himself than reward obama for his (in deference to site rules) "poor behavior." i resent being told to vote the party line for the good of the party.

    i've left the democratic party because i have been told time and time again to hold my nose and vote for an inferior product to protect roe v wade among other reasons. and i did, and we lost. this time, i'm being told the same thing, except this time, the candidate has, imho, the appearance of being a cheater, a misogynist, a bad judge of character, a bully, an embellisher of the truth and completely and TOTALLY unqualified to run the most influential, complex country in the world that happens to be at the moment, in major crisis. i won't be a member of a political organization that has the appearance by its actions of being seedy, duplicitous and undemocratic.

    now, i could be wrong about all of the above "appearances" (though that rarely happens ;~) but in my experience, if it walks like a duck... etc.

    bottom line is this... the democratic party establishment of which obama claims he will rid d.c. is exactly who is backing him and propping him up with what i consider rigged primaries and undemocratic caucus events. doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that two and two equals "hoodwinked."

    no. i will vote for hillary but NOT obama.


    Ineffective rhetoric (4.40 / 5) (#204)
    by Coral on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:58:38 AM EST
    There are many of us who are Hillary Clinton supporters who will vote for the Democratic nominee, despite our feelings of anger at the sexism and unfairness of the Obama campaign.

    However, a percentage will not. With Obama's electoral map numbers now, his camp would be wise to look for an argument/invitation to Hillary supporters that goes beyond "McCain is evil" "Supreme Court" etc.

    The voters who are going to be convinced by that argument are already committed to voting for the Democrat even if they wish they had an alternative.

    The ones Obama needs to reach out to are those who are so disaffected by the primary season that they are willing to vote third party (I've been toying with the idea, believe me) or leave the top of the ticket blank.

    Simply saying that McCain is the greater evil will not wash. And that may lead to a loss of the presidency this fall, which should have been a Democratic walk in the park.


    None of this is relevant to my comment (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by rilkefan on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:08:29 PM EST
    I can't make Obama be reasonable re HRC - I can't make him take the rational course re FL and MI.  But I can urge people to vote in their own self-interest and that of the country, which is against McCain full stop.

    sorry i don't see it that way.. (4.33 / 6) (#238)
    by fly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:52:33 PM EST
    It was the democratic party that stole my vote..they don't want my vote to decide the democratic nominee ..they won't have my vote in November..it is really that simple..i have had my families vote stolen enough..i will not stand for it from the party i have given tens of thousands of dollars to , been an elected delegate for , have run their presidential campaigns and housed their field reps ..no ..they will not get my vote unless my state is represented.

    No siree..let it be your vote stolen and then we will talk..

    Slick obama and his surrogates deliberately stole my vote to steal this primary..they will not get my vote and there are many dems where i live that feel the same way!

    I have been a registered dem for 38 years. I have never ever voted for a republican..but if my vote is not counted..the way my state counts for the GE i will vote for McCain.

    Obama will never ever get my vote.

    I have done all the research into who his advisors are..I know darn well where he went to school...and all the crap in between..

    Like i said..I am not doing this for Hillary..i am doing this because it is right..one can not steal two states and think they will steal the primary that way , and have my vote..like i said my vote is not for sale..

    I voted for Edwards, and i was registered to be a Edwards delegate..he was not viable in my county..but that does not mean that my vote should not count, or those that voted overwhelmingly for Hillary in my state.

    I have been a poll watcher AT LARGE for the dem party for 6 years to protect the voters of my state and their vote.

    I WAS A POLL WATCHER ON JAN 29TH...to protect the voters right to vote and have their vote counted.

    I have walked the walk..for the dem party.

    Now the dem party has not counted my vote...that is not tolerable.. to me ...nor should it be to any real American.

    This is not about the candidates..this is about the peoples right and obligation and responsibility to vote..and have that vote counted.



    According to them. . . (4.78 / 19) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:39:51 AM EST
    she disqualified herself when she said "Hello, my name is Hillary Clinton, and I'm asking you to vote for me instead of Barack Obama."

    No, Obama hoped to disqualify her with that (4.20 / 5) (#92)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:24:11 AM EST
    The backpedalling by Axelrod this morning was amazing to watch. I think they got a lot of blowback.

    would love to know more about what you heard (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by Lil on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:42:52 AM EST
    this morning. missed it.

    Do tell (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:59:07 AM EST
    I'm at work and didn't see any morning shows.

    Too little, too late again -- front page (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:55:06 AM EST
    story this morning in my Sunday paper on Clinton's RFK comment, most popular paper statewide.  

    I'm weary of the Obama comments backpedaled days later.  He knows exactly what he's doing with that.


    Apparently the (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:02:05 PM EST
    "waiting in the wings" story was not a winner -- no matter what Keith "Joe McCarthy" Olbermann says.

    Saw that (4.60 / 10) (#120)
    by Sunshine on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:38:56 AM EST
    I think, for the first time they are beginning to understand that we mean what we say....  That we are getting to the point of no return, that we will not vote for Obama under any circumstance....  We must vote Democrat down ticket so McCain will have less power than the Democrats in Congress....

    I'm already at the point of no return (3.75 / 4) (#217)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:20:21 PM EST
    The latest smear uses the same techniques and the same transmission vectors as the Republicans did in the Clinton years. I may have to hold my nose and vote for the Republican who's managed a hostile takeover of the Democratic party, but it is not going to be easy.

    RFK thing was inside baseball nonsense NT (4.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Exeter on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:50:49 AM EST
    additionally (4.25 / 4) (#190)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:39:28 AM EST
    Humphrey was expected to win in June and Kennedy was a Clinton like long shot at this point.

    So it was about a second place longshot getting cut down...and what might have been. It wasn't about the likely nominee getting assassinated.


    Exactly. She was relating to RFK's (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:22:26 PM EST
    long primary run.  She wasn't comparing Obama to RFK.  

    Most Obama supporters will also say that (3.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Politalkix on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:50:34 AM EST
    she disqualified herself the day she went in front of the TV cameras in Ohio to proclaim "Shame on you, Barack Obama". That drama filled moment would give enough material for Republican attack ads against Obama (that too in HRCs own words).

    That's because he SHOULD have been (5.00 / 8) (#57)
    by rooge04 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:06:01 AM EST
    ashamed of himself with those Harry and Louise ads.  Shame shame shame.

    Please (4.50 / 4) (#52)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:04:03 AM EST
    Then I guess Obama disqualified himself about 20 times with all of his comments against Clinton that could have been used as fodder if she won the nomination.

    You know, anyone who has watched that video of her comments and is honest can easily tell that she wasn't even talking or thinking about Obama when she mentioned RFK. She was answering a question about the duration of her campaign. Enough.


    What you won't read on the blogs (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by talex on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:09:27 AM EST
    People are also ignoring the historical reference to Kennedy. Via Wikipedia:

    "At the time of his death, [Bobby] Kennedy was significantly behind Vice President Hubert Humphrey in convention delegate support"

    So you see, Bobby was still in the race in June even though he was running behind Humphrey in convention delegate support.

    That is something the Obama Clinton slimmers would never mention. And it is OBVIOUSLY what Clinton was referring to when she mentioned Kennedy.


    And how about (4.50 / 8) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:18:52 AM EST
    the clips of Obama saying that Hillary is divisive and that Hillary is polarizing in addition to Obama saying shame on you Hillary Clinton.

    The Democratic Party got in trouble the day it failed to talk an inexperienced, unqualified, polarizing, divisive, phony Barrack Obama out of running for the nomination.

    If the nomination process today were pre-McGovern Commission, Barrack Obama wouldn't have gotten more than a handful of votes in the convention. He would have been weeded out as too shallow, too inexperienced, with a questionable background; unsuited for the Presidency.


    What I think is more likely is that (4.63 / 11) (#26)
    by Anne on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:50:45 AM EST
    long before there is an official announcement, the name of the VP pick will be widely leaked, and Obama will be depending on the media to sell it for him, to deliver a message of what that pick means, and to downplay the implications that attach to it not being Hillary.

    And, sadly, I suspect much of the media will play along.  Olbermann will school the nation on exactly why Clinton does not deserve to be VP (I mean, this is the woman hinting at assasination, remember?), and why Clinton as VP would be a disaster for the election.  People like Russert and Andrea Mitchell and Chris Matthews will have orgasms over whoever Obama does pick, asserting that whoever it is reflects the obvious brilliance of the Obama campaign; Hillary will be but a footnote for them.

    And after the reliably sycophantic media have had a chance to set up the narrative, Obama can confirm in some dramatic speech that will be covered live on every outlet imaginable; if Obama even mentions Hillary, he may do so without actually ever saying her name.

    And you know what?  If that's the way it plays out, then the other thing Obama will have "brilliantly" set up is his owning - lock, stock and barrel - what I think will be the inevitable loss in November.

    On the other hand, it's not even June yet.  The convention is still a couple months away.  It ain't over even if Obama has decreed it so.

    I am still counting on Hillary accepting the nomination of her party on MY birthday - August 28th; if that doesn't happen, I am just going to have to be 54 for another year.  ;-P  So there.

    On this (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:00:56 AM EST
    the Media does not matter. If there is one thing this campaign has proven, that wooing Clinton supporters, the Media HURTS Obama, it does not help him.

    Interestingly, If Obama does think in the way you describe on this point, it will prove he has learned nothing in this campaign about the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party and he will likely lose in November.


    There is so much Obama has had the (4.66 / 6) (#70)
    by Anne on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:12:44 AM EST
    opportunity to learn from and about the Clinton wing - opportunities he has ignored over and over - that it seems clear to me that he doesn't think he needs to: he's going to do this without us and in spite of us.

    As for the media, I think there are an awful lot of people who have finally begun to see them for what they are, and will not be drawn into that game.  Obama, on the other hand has, I believe, begun to mistake the media's reaction to him for the voters' reaction to him - simply more evidence that hubris has crowded out common sense.

    And, while Obama thinks he can play the media like his own personal violin, I think he underestimates McCain's ability to orchestrate media coverage - at his (Obama's) peril.

    It may not matter what is playing out in the coverage; I think a growing segment of the electorate is changing the channel on the media - which will not work in Obama's favor.


    This has been my issue about his not coming (4.83 / 6) (#146)
    by BGP on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:58:13 AM EST
    to Kentucky or West Virginia to campaign. By coming, he might have broken some barriers. By staying away and giving passive support to the really nasty media pictures of us as incestuous worthless bigots, he has only hardened attitudes.

    I'll grant you, this area is Clinton country. As our Lexington paper said, the day after the primary, Clinton's economic policy floated all boats and we are desperately poor here. (The day before they endorsed Obama and ran a lot of op-eds about how racist we were to vote for Hillary.) BUT...campaigning here in the primary would have been the mark of a leader.


    If Nothing Else, Campaigning In KY And WV (4.80 / 5) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:36:56 AM EST
    would have provided him with "practice" in speaking to a large demographic group that he needs to win in November. So far, Obama has shown no ability to adapt his political style to garner enough of their support. He needs to revamp aspects of his campaign  and "practice, practice, practice."

    Ah, but the media do matter. (4.50 / 4) (#53)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:04:44 AM EST
    Talking to a young voter the other day he's an Obama supporter, but couldn't tell me why except to say that on the economy, he thinks Obama is best. Why, he doesn't know. The young tend to be followers (until they learn for themselves how to be leaders)..the problem is, Obama is not young and he hasn't learned.

    Then you miss the point (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:12:27 AM EST
    Obama does not have to worry about Obama supporters. It is the Clinton Wing of the Party he needs to worry about.

    Right On Target (5.00 / 7) (#104)
    by JimWash08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:28:33 AM EST
    About the young being followers. Sad to say, I have a large number of college friends who are supporting Obama, but they haven't a clue about why exactly.

    One of them actually told me point-blank that she supports him because Oprah and Maria Shriver (yeah, I don't get it either) support him, while another one said he was amazed that Obama had a such a strong Web presence and embraced the technology and services (Facebook, YouTube, MySpace etc.)

    I'm sorry to say we're GWU graduates, not 12-year-old kids, as their comments might seem to indicate.

    In their comments are as ludicrous as the arguments given by Claire McCaskill ("my 18-year-old daughter said she wouldn't speak to me if I didn't endorse him") or Kathleen Sebelius ("my husband and son think he's so eloquent").

    I think it says a lot that all the news cable networks this morning are broadcasting Obama's commencement address at Wesleyan too. They know exactly who his key supporters are and which demographic will bring in their advertising dollars.

    (Of course, I see it as unfair, free national coverage for him; if it was Ted Kennedy (the original speaker), not one network would have covered it.)


    One correction (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:32:25 AM EST
    Olbermann doesn't school "the nation".  Most of the nation has no clue about who he is.

    How do you know the nation (none / 0) (#144)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:56:16 AM EST
    doesn't know who KO is?

    His ratings. (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:02:37 AM EST
    I hope they leak the name of (4.00 / 5) (#81)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:19:19 AM EST
    Kathleen Sebelius and see the uniformly outraged reaction they get from the Hillary supporters.  A reporter from the Financial Times told Chris Matthews that would be the reaction the other night, and he was astounded.  It is clear that the 'establishment' thinks that Obama can buy us off with a Sebelius VP nomination.

    I hope your birthday is better than mine - it was the day of the Iowa caucus!!!


    The Two State Polls That Listed VP Match Ups (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:40:16 AM EST
    indicated that Obama would lose the women's vote if he picked Kathleen Sebelius. SUSA's CA poll indicated that with no VP selection Obama is slightly ahead of McCain among all women 45% to 43%. Considering the fact that the majority of AA women (based on prior trends) are probably voting for Obama this would indicate that a non-Hillary woman candidate would cause him more problems among women.

    There's not much that could offend me more (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by shoephone on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM EST
    than Obama choosing Sebelius as VP. Putting the nation to sleep with her silly pablum after the SOTU was proof enough the woman is a joke.

    I have been saying all along that I will vote for whoever the nominee is in November, but I am serious, if he chooses Sebelius I would be hard pressed to pull the lever for him (them).

    Is the Obama camp smart enough to do the polling on a possible Obama-Sebelius ticket? They would find out quickly that it's a total non-starter.


    why would Obama choose Hillary? (4.60 / 10) (#6)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:40:59 AM EST
    imo - the Washington establishment ran Obama to keep her off the ticket!
    And they've never once condemned any of his other divisive comments and actions that have successfully divided the party.
    What other Dem presidential candidate would have the audacity to repeatedly trash the Clinton administration? the only 2-term Dem president since FDR.

    Yes, they did try (4.33 / 6) (#72)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:14:10 AM EST
    but they failed.  I think they are beginning to see that they  have to have her on the ticket if they want to win, and are resisting it - hence the last ditch desperate attempt to take her out this weekend.

    We'll see if they want to win more than they want to blame Hillary for a loss.


    Error in judgment! (4.55 / 9) (#18)
    by Doc Rock on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:46:42 AM EST
    Obama's recent attack on Clinton in re Fl/Mi is a strategy that is decidedly short-sighted!  His casual dismissal of the voters in Fl/Mi is in line with his casual approach to universal health insurance, Social Security, and a number of other people issues. Most disturbing!

    Trust us, BTD, we don't want Hillary as VP (4.50 / 8) (#17)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:46:21 AM EST
    In the unlikely event that Obama is the nominee, what we want to see is for Hillary to give a press conference to say that Obama offered her the job and she told him she wasn't interested in a lateral career move.  Also, that she will try to persuade her supporters to vote for him but he's got to do most of the heavy lifting to heal the divide that he caused himself.  
    Then, she should go back to the senate and make his life miserable when he comes back beaten by John McCain.

    Let me address you for a second (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:50:29 AM EST
    You speak in the "We" a lot. you have a lot of hubris in you too.

    I sign my posts speaking for me only, and some ridicule me for it.

    But I think many people may want to take that phrase to heart.


    He can say "we" (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:55:02 AM EST
    because there are at least two of us.

    Or she can say "we" (none / 0) (#33)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:56:15 AM EST
    She (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:02:14 AM EST
    should then define her "we."

    If her we is 2, 20, 2000 or 2000, there are millions and millions of Clinton supporters and she does not speak for all of them.


    You haven't been paying attention (4.57 / 7) (#93)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:24:52 AM EST
    There is program Operation TurnDown started by Steve Corbett at WILK in Scranton that got hundreds and hundreds of calls last week from allover the nation from people both male and female who are angry at being called racists and pissed that their votes don't count.  The DNC is going to do what it damn well pleases.  
    You haven't checked out Taylor Marsh's comments or the commenters at my blog at The Confluence.  I am getting thousands of hits a day despite my relative obscurity and these people really mean it.  I mean it as much today about Obama as I did about George Bush in 2000 and even more so in 2004.  But you want real hard numbers?  Check out the exit polls of voters in WV, KY, OH, PA.  
    When people tell you what they are thinking, they aren't f$^&ing around.  They had every reason to vote for a Dem this year and the fact that so many of them would rather slit their own throats than vote for Obama should tell you something.  Here's a hint: It ain't about race.  

    Exactly (4.63 / 11) (#126)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:42:31 AM EST
    When Obama tells people they aren't members of the party they've belonged to for 30 years and the party itself agrees, then people go vote for a different party.  And it's not outrageous, and it's not petty, and it's non immoral to do so (no matter what BTD and Obama supporters say).  It's a matter of survival of your own place in the party.

    What will we do when we have no party, no representation at all?  And how can the party have a place for us if Obama wins on this hideous change of course?

    It's as simple as that.


    And, BTD, when he plays his next big card.... (4.00 / 4) (#174)
    by Shainzona on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:25:07 AM EST
    the VP selection, as you have described it and suggested what will happen, "our" resolve to do anything possible not to help Obama may slip over to actually voting for McCain.

    We are at a tipping point and BO and Friends do not believe us.

    They do so at their own peril.


    That;s nice (3.66 / 3) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:30:16 AM EST
    you belittle Hillary Clinton with your efforts.

    Over 17 MILLION people voted for her.

    Support Hillary Clinton with all your heart. But to fight against the Democratic nominee if it is not Clinton? Unforgivable.

    Sit it out. Write in Clinton. Do what you must. But do not expect any respect from me for campaigning for McCain.


    You are mistaken (4.75 / 8) (#123)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:41:29 AM EST
    I have no intention of voting for McCain.  But I can't stop other people from doing it.  If Obama is the nominee, I will turn my attention to getting my local congreeperson elected but I will not lift a finger for Obama.  I won't vote for him.  I'll write in Hillary's name.  
    As for the 17 million who voted for her, Obama and the DNC show the ultimate contempt for them.  Without the critical mass of Florida and Michigan, it has appeared that Obama has had an insurmountable lead in the delegate count.  He is told he only has to get to 2025 delegates to win; she has to reach 2210.  There is nothing fair or equitable about that, BTD, not to the voters or Hillary. The party doesn't deserve her loyalty although they hope to benefit from it.  But no matter how much she tries to get us to vote for her, the party and Obama have to understand that everyone has free will in this situation.  Obama can urge the party to count FL and MI and try to atone for the damage.  The superdelegates can start paying attention to what voters are saying and throw their weight behind Clinton, not Obama this fall.  The Clinton supporters can vote for Obama, McCain, write in their votes or do nothing at all.  But one thing is for sure, if the party chooses to ignore our warnings and proceeds to coronate Obama, it has no one to blame for its loss in November than itself.  We take this election more seriously than it does, apparently.  They are deluding themselves if they think we are going to behave like Republicans and march in lockstep into the voting booth.  

    there is a more serious way (4.66 / 6) (#130)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:44:20 AM EST
    that this will be framed.  McCain will ressurect the experience argument.

    If former-Clinton supporters really beleived that resume was the clincher they might weigh Obama and McCain and simply go with the fat resume. Obama will not be able to counter it very well because he'll be distracted by ideological fighting with McCain.

    Experience is an intrinsically valuable trait. It can't be BSed.  Experience can't be invented, and the resentment toward Obama must be extraordinarily high if the pro Clinton blogs are anything to go by.  If she has that support from a long resume--expect the expereince vote to switch to McCain happily.


    Good point (5.00 / 7) (#161)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:08:54 AM EST
    and indisputable by anyone.  In this vein, his statements about being a foreign policy expert because he lived in Indonesia from age 6-10 will be telling.  I will bet that's part of someone's ad campaign.  :-)

    It's not that simple (4.50 / 8) (#191)
    by Pacific John on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:40:08 AM EST
    I'd be happy to email you the affidavits I helped gather showing that the Obama campaign is clearly criminal. I have it in black and white, but many others have it in their gut, that Obama represents something un-Democratic, often worse than the GOP.

    I'm having a very hard time figuring out if Obama's Nixonian personality traits are better or worse than  what we would expect from a McCain presidency.

    And that's saying something. I have been an officer in this party. I was a proud Dem long before this quaisi-religious hijacking, and I will be after. But what I see now does not look like the Dem party.


    Affidavits? I like the sound of that (none / 0) (#229)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:36:08 PM EST
    lambert_strether DOT corrente AT yahoo DOT com

    My pleasure n/t (none / 0) (#233)
    by Pacific John on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:45:37 PM EST
    It's not unforgiveable if you're not a Democrat. (4.33 / 6) (#147)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:58:39 AM EST
    Actually, it's not even unforgiveable if you are. I refuse to follow anyone over a cliff just because we belong to the same group. I won't be campaigning for John McCain, but I don't think the world will end if he wins. I do think that women will lose their voice in the Democratic Party (if we ever really had one) if we fall in line behind Obama. My voice is my vote this time around. Let Obama apoligize for his behavior toward Senator Clinton publicly - he can give one of his famous speeches - and put the ERA in motion again.  Then we'll talk.

    A vote for Obama (4.66 / 12) (#179)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:29:09 AM EST
    is a vote to reject the whole reason I'm a Democrat.

    Obama has no qualms about exercising nuclear options against Hillary (essentially, he's said, she's a racist waiting in the wings for his assasination).  Why would it be so bad to fully exercise the nuclear option against his candidacy by voting for McCain.  Any other option is tepid at best.

    Obama says over and over again (this latest FL/MI thing is a case in point) that he has no qualms at all about rejecting whole classes of individuals in a quite nuclear fashion just because they don't agree with him.  

    People have a right to representation, and therefore people have a right to do everything in their power to ensure that the representation will come back.  And that right is bigger than 4 years of court picks. (and Democrats will have to grow a spine when it comes to the Supreme Court.)  And our representation WILL NOT come back if Obama wins the presidency.


    I can confidently say "We" (4.69 / 13) (#58)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:06:12 AM EST
    There are a lot of us, BTD and our numbers are growing with each one of his stupid moves.  It is time you come to terms with this reality.  We will not support a candidate who has no respect for us and the party that insists on him is writing its own death warrant.  
    They think we will come back before the fall election but we are so disgusted by the way this has all played out and the near certainty of a loss that many of us will vote for McCain.  I don't believe voting for a Republican but I have to admit that the ones who say they are going to do it have a point.  If we don't make sure this version of the Democratic party is finished, it will never learn from its mistakes.  
    If I were the SDs, I would be very concerned.  Because the "older" voter is more secure economically and can more easily ride out 4 years of McCain, especially if the Dems maintain control of the house and senate.  But there is no doubt in my mind that there are a lot of "we" out here who will see to it that Obama never serves a day in the WH.  

    An issue of semantics (none / 0) (#145)
    by Exeter on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:57:11 AM EST
    In the context of a blog, when you say "we" you are intimating that you are speaking for everyone else. If you are IDing yourself as part of a particular group of like-minded indivuals, you should qualify the "we."  OK?!? ; )

    Sure, use semantics to distract (5.00 / 5) (#159)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:06:43 AM EST
    Whatever.  If you fail to miss my point because you insist on qualifying and quantifying the pronoun, then we'll just wait until the day after the election and figure out how much Obama lost by.  Ooo, I ended my sentence with a preposition.  This is an outrage up with which we need not put!

    and then take the White House in 2012.

    Great line on "lateral career move." I love it!


    I've never had this question answered... (5.00 / 2) (#232)
    by Shainzona on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:44:33 PM EST
    (and I've asked it many times) by an Obama supporters, so I'll ask again...

    If Senator Clinton gets a truly universal health care plan passed will a "President Obama (Gag!)" sign it?


    Can't see it (4.33 / 3) (#79)
    by geordie on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:18:33 AM EST
    I just can't see Obama putting Clinton on the ticket - I think he would believe (and he might be right) that having her as VP would let him in for 8 years of Bill, if not Hillary, trying to run his Presidency.  I don't think that would happen - I think Hillary would be a good team player if given areas of real authority, like health care - but I think that's what Obama would see happening.  So I don't see it.

    I really hope BTD is wrong about the depth of the division, but I fear he may be right.  I know I, as an Edwards and then reluctant Clinton supporter, and lately a total agnostic because I've reached the point where I can't stand any of them, will still vote for the nominee in November.  Because whatever Obama's faults are - and I believe they're substantial, just as Clinton's are - I think he still would stop the race to obliterate the Constitution and individual rights in the name of "war on terra".  And that's just about enough for me at this point.

    War in terra is right (5.00 / 4) (#187)
    by feet on earth on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:35:36 AM EST
    Obama wants to go in Afghanistan with more troupes, bomb Pakistan with or without the democratic party let him get away with Pakistan government consent, and has no clear timetable or a plan to begin withdrawing troupes from Iraq.  

    Now, should I remind you that Pakistan has nuclear bombs?  As a pacifist, I find Obama very scary presidential material.


    but... (none / 0) (#105)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:28:33 AM EST
    will "his presidency" happen if he doesn't? That is a point he seems to be overlooking.

    Not that big a story - (4.00 / 2) (#78)
    by minordomo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:17:45 AM EST
    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?

    The story of the day will be on Obama and the VP pick, detailed info about the VP pick, speculation about how this will affect the race vs. McCain. Clinton will barely be mentioned.

    I say this because there will be no general expectation at that time (neither by the media nor the public) that Hillary will be selected as the VP, as presumably some time drops have passed between when either Hillary dropping out or it becomes clear to Hillary supporters that the nomination is well and truly out of reach and the time when Obama announces his VP pick; it won't be all in the same week.

    Besides, whatever expectations of a "dream ticket" there may have been at some point, they were surely ratcheted down around the time Clinton questioned whether Obama was fit to be president / commander in chief ("passed a threshold" etc.).

    Sure (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    Because bashing Clinton has always been a story the Media has taken a pass on.

    but beyond that, you also miss my point. the Media is not the audience, the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party is. Indeed, IF Clinton is not mentioned at all, that does not help Obama either.


    Good point (none / 0) (#195)
    by minordomo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:44:52 AM EST
    Because bashing Clinton has always been a story the Media has taken a pass on.

    Yes, there is that tendency, but (1) Clinton will most likely no longer be in the media spotlight by then, and (2) VP picks are generally pretty major media events, with wall-to-wall analysis of the VP pick etc. Most of the Clinton (and Obama) bashing of late is simply because they're competing (in some form) against each other, so every minor statement and gaffe by either of them gets a lot of coverage. I don't really see that kind of environment the day of a VP pick.

    the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party is. Indeed, IF Clinton is not mentioned at all, that does not help Obama either

    Good point - though I think this will also be assuaged somewhat in advance of the time of the VP pick. There will of course be some, if I may use the word, bitter Clinton supporters once Clinton is out of the race who will remain bitter for a long time to come.

    Around the time Clinton exits, I'm guessing (and hoping) Obama will do his best to overcome that animosity in some way, and hopefully so will Clinton. The majority of current Clinton supporters will come around to supporting the Democratic nominee vs. McCain in the GE.

    I may of course be entirely wrong, but I do think that by the time the VP is picked, some time will have passed and the focus will then be on Obama vs. McCain. If anything, Clinton demanding attention at that time may be perceived as unwelcome by the general public, possibly even causing a backlash against her.


    Yup, you're entirely wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Shainzona on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:52:31 AM EST
    About everything you've just said.

    You think that when "Hillary drops out" (not going to happen!) her supporters will be assuaged (not going to happen!) and that she will be off the MSM radar screen when (if) Obama makes (gets to make) a VP choice (not going to happen!).

    You're just wrong.


    We will see on the day, won't we? (2.00 / 3) (#230)
    by minordomo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:37:55 PM EST
    1. I didn't say she would drop out.

    2. I don't think (all) her supporters will be assuaged, and I didn't say so. I said IMO the effect  BTD was referring to would be assuaged somewhat in advance of the time when Obama picks a VP.

    3. Not all Clinton supporters will come around to supporting Obama; a bitter fringe will most likely remain; that's what I said above. I suspect you belong to that group.

    The majority of current Clinton supporters will come around to support the Democratic nominee against McCain.

    You're just wrong.

    I may well be, but I don't think so. We'll see what happens - we can revisit this topic on the day Obama picks a VP.

    Out of interest, though: what do you think will happen the day Obama picks a VP? Will Clinton hold a hostile speech? Will she complain and rally her supporters against Obama?


    Are you kidding me? (5.00 / 5) (#236)
    by Shainzona on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:50:41 PM EST
    Clinton has never been hostile, why would she start now.  And she has already said that she will work for Obama if he's the nominee.

    But there are many many many of us who, while we respect her tremendously, will not support him under any circumstance.

    The only thing to be decided now is whether we will simply withhold our vote - or actively begin to campaign against him and vote for McCain (which will be two votes against BO).

    There is little doubt in my mind that his VP selection will push fence sitters over the edge.


    You didn't answer the question: (none / 0) (#240)
    by minordomo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    What do you think will happen the day Obama picks a VP?

    Incidentally, you said:

    There is little doubt in my mind that his VP selection will push fence sitters over the edge.

    So do you think there will be Clinton supporters who will actually expect him to pick Clinton, and who will be gobsmacked on the day of the announcement if he dares to pick someone else?


    And are you one of those people?


    No (5.00 / 2) (#241)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:08:19 PM EST
    Out of interest, though: what do you think will happen the day Obama picks a VP? Will Clinton hold a hostile speech? Will she complain and rally her supporters against Obama?

    Of all the candidates, she's definitely been the one with class.


    I've always been conscerned of (3.66 / 3) (#86)
    by kayla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:21:12 AM EST
    Obama's (or his campaigns?) hubris problem.  It's one of the reasons I don't support him.

    Fantasy (2.00 / 2) (#51)
    by uncledad on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:04:00 AM EST
    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.

    Your entire post is a fantasy, Obama is not the nominee yet, he has not picked a VP yet. Your whole post is based on what media pundits think of an event that has not yet happened? Generally getting yourself upset about events that have not yet taken place is know as paranoia!

    Amazingly stupid comment (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:09:18 AM EST
    uncledad (none / 0) (#67)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:11:54 AM EST
    I remember you because of your nasty screen name.  I think the last time we saw you, you hustled off right before you got banned.  As I recall from last time, your MO was to say something reasonable, then go off the deep end.

    On a personal level, I find your choice of names absolutely repugnant--much more so than your tedious, Obama-world views.


    I remeber you (none / 0) (#135)
    by uncledad on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:47:24 AM EST
    Yes I remember your distaste of my screen name? What can I say, it is the name of my band, it doesn't have any meaning really. It certainly has nothing to do with politics.

    no, actually (none / 0) (#98)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    it's not paranoia. it's anxiety. there is a considerable difference. either way, the basic gist of your comment is amazingly silly - it would logically follow that we shouldn't worry about the impact of campaign tactics because, golly gee, the election hasn't happened yet!

    It's anxiety! (none / 0) (#142)
    by uncledad on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:53:33 AM EST
    So you are anxious that the party will be divided if Hillary isn't the VP? Are you not dividing the party by refusing to support the nominee? I have said over and over on this blog that I will vote for the nominee whoever it is. So you will be anxious because you will divide yourself from the party because you don't like Obama? I don't like Hillary but will vote for her because I see that she would be 10 times better than McSame. If the party is divided it is because we choses to be divided.

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#160)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:08:02 AM EST
    I am anxious that the party will be divided if Hillary is not on the ticket. Your original point was speculating about VP choices was paranoid. You seem to now be moving on.

    To answer your question, I don't view it as a voter's responsibility to unify the party. That is a candidate's job. That's the whole freaking point of this debate. This is an unprecedented primary, and the at-this-point-presumptive nominee has done precious little to even acknowledge that there is anger and mistrust of him among a huge segment of the party. His response seems to be dismissive and/or presumptuous.

    As for myself, I would never in a million years vote for McCain. Ever.

    I have not decided whether I will vote for Obama yet, should he be the candidate.


    You think that party matters more (5.00 / 5) (#226)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:30:46 PM EST
    than principles -- when it is the Dem party that, with its selection of candidates for Congress even before this, began to lose me.  Now it pushes a candidate who isn't even making it clear how he stands on those principles that matter to me.

    I pick a party based on my principles.  When neither party stands for my principles, I become an Independent.  As I now have done -- after almost half a century of working for Dem candidates, even before I could vote.

    But it's not my dad's or uncles' party anymore -- and even more, it's not my mother's party anymore.


    Do you think (1.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Slado on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:12:39 AM EST
    they will talk about the part where Bush won every recount after it was over?  or will they try to pretend Gore really won?

    Bush won more legal votes.  Oreo will conceed that Gore probably had more voters show up that day but they weren't able to use a punch card ballot.

    Dens where let down by their own demographics.  Not by anything some evil republican did.
    But why let the facts get in the way of a good story?

    I'll watch because it will be entertaining but i'll expect it to make the dens look like martyrs and the republicans like dimmwitted monsters.

    excuse my grammar (none / 0) (#73)
    by Slado on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:14:39 AM EST
    I wrote this post from my new iTouch.  Pretty cool device.

    Oreo? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:20:48 AM EST
    Please explain yourself.

    Um, (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:25:55 AM EST
    wrong thread.

    Recount thread coming up though.


    i don't think (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:27:03 AM EST
    that it is only the THREAD that is wrong for this post.

    please (1.00 / 8) (#90)
    by JohnRove on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:22:58 AM EST
    Hillary is sort of like Brittany Spears the press follows her around waiting for the next trainwreck.  
    Putting her on the ticket while it would increase the entertainment value, would just prolong her ability to spout nonsense.  
    Hillary needs a long vacation.

    great point! (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:30:31 AM EST
    if you think like a 12 year old.

    What an idiot (none / 0) (#118)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    you I mean.

    Divided Party (1.00 / 6) (#128)
    by Amaliada on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:43:35 AM EST
    The party is already divided.  You can tell by reading the blogs.  I don't have an oar in this boat other than that of being a Democrat.  I'm an Edwards supporter and if it weren't for the lessons of 1972 and the last 8 years, I might consider writing in his name.

    But I can't.  I have to vote for the candidate.

    While I don't believe that Hillary had malice in mind when she made her statement about June 1968 and RFK's assignation, I believe that her courting of people who admit being unable to vote for a Black man as coloring perceptions (and I used that word on purpose).  

    If Obama had been openly courting people who said they couldn't vote for a woman (and he hasn't openly said that although many people believe he has implied it), we would all rightly call him pandering to sexist voters.  But Hillary can't be accused of pandering to racist voters.  Why?

    I think if we just substituted the candidate we support (and remember, even though I'm a black woman who shares Hillary's birthdate [26 October 1947], I have yet to feel that either of these candidates represent what I want from the next President) perhaps we can start rebuilding the trust and faith we used to have with each other and will need again after this election is over.

    Who would have thought that having so many great choices to choose from would result in a divided Democratic party?

    You're making false (5.00 / 5) (#141)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:51:55 AM EST
    accusations and you're basing them on twisted reports.

    Hillary no more courted racists than Obama courted sexists.

    Stop making hideous accusations.


    He kinda harnessed the (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:00:51 AM EST
    Stop hillary GOP cross over in the first couple of months.

    So I think you are wrong.  

    There was a definite vibe about that early cross over.  Now it's GOP cross overs who may prefer her over Obama (their motivations are an open question)   Given Wright--they have reason to be suspicious of Obama's inner belief system.


    Hah! (none / 0) (#250)
    by talktruthfully on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:48:39 PM EST
    Obama's "inner belief system" -- not a loaded statement at all. Hagee said Hitler was sent by God to exterminate Jews (or something along those lines). And McCain sought his endorsement. If these so called holier than thou folks have a problem with Wright (because he quoted a US ambassador in the GDA clip) well, heck they should be downright apoplectic with McCain's Hagee connection.

    Do not blame the candidate (5.00 / 5) (#156)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:04:29 AM EST
    You say
    her courting of people who admit being unable to vote for a Black man

    People vote for a candidate or against another for different reasons. Some day I hope Obama supporters learn to respect other voters and stop brushing all of Senator Clinton's supporters with broad strokes as above.

    I don't know where people get the idea that Senator Clinton was explicitly "courting" such voters. It has been widely reported and understood that the Obama campaign explicitly pushed that meme and made that the cornerstone of their campaign since prior to the SC primary predominantly to get the AA vote. It would seem that they have been particularly effective, since you sure seem to have bought it.

    You should really think about the last question you ask.. esp. in light of Senator Obama's presentation of himself as the great unifying hope and change candidate!


    You really need to think (5.00 / 5) (#198)
    by MichaelGale on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    more about this.

    What I hear you saying is that you know that all those people who voted for Clinton in WVa, KY and other states are racists. That meaning they cannot possible believe that she is much more capable and competent of being president.  Or just maybe, they like her better.

    I will speak for myself in that I really dislike Obama and I know why.  He is so dismissive to Hillary and acts so invincible that it turns me off.

    Now if he had followed up with a different agenda following the 2004 DC speech, I would have been out there campaigning for him.

    You might want to go hear her speak.

    And thanks for the past memory of feeling we had two great candidates and how special the Democratic Party was to take the risk.


    And Obama's courting of sexists? (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 12:36:02 PM EST
    No problem for you?  Selective reasoning, there -- only one sort of bigotry bothers you?  As for your conclusions re Clinton and racism, they run counter to the facts.  But bigots see what they want to see.

    I think you're missing something simple. (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:52:05 PM EST
    African-Americans are voting for Obama. Over 90 percent.

    There's no way HRC is going to get those votes, and she knows it. Everyone knows it.

    That leaves her to face a political reality: she can only get the non-AA votes.

    But why do you assume the only racists in this country are white?


    Clinton Is Wrong for VP (1.00 / 2) (#242)
    by myopinions on Sun May 25, 2008 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    Leave aside the nature of the campaign and whatever bad feelings might have built up, and look at what a VP nominee is there for.

    You want someone who straddles the line between credibility and obscurity. The former for obvious reasons, the latter because the presidential campaign needs to be able to mold the nominee's campaign image and mission to suit its needs.

    Hillary Clinton has too firm and longstanding a national image. She brings too much baggage to the table, both positive and negative. She would steal too much of Obama's limelight, and I say that not in terms of the recent contratemps but in a broader sense. The stories would be too much about her, and not enough about him.

    Moreover, they are both senators. That won't fly either. He's going to need to pick either a governor or someone who's not a sitting officeholder.

    To me, his logical picks would include Strickland from Ohio, Sibelius from Kansas, and Gen. Wesley Clark. They all fit the mold for VPs, having credibility but not overexposure, and offering balance of one sort or another.

    BTD, for the sake (none / 0) (#7)
    by JimWash08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:41:28 AM EST
    of our country, I hope you're wrong when you say, "If the article ... below is an indication of the attitude that now permeates in the Barack Obama campaign, he may be headed for a hard fall." But, anyone with a semblance of intelligence will easily agree with you.

    But, what Chuck Todd is doing is laying the groundwork for the narrative for a post-Obama loss. This is quite possibly the first election that has been dictated by the media, in both the R- and D- primaries.

    And the media is just in a total tizz over the Argus-Leader comment, and it has been twisting every thing she meant by it. Of course, she shouldn't have even said it, but she did.

    I have no doubt that the media has laid out a narrative for an Obama-win, and if Hillary isn't on his ticket, they'll find some way to trash her. Could even bet on it.

    Imagine a campaign (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:43:06 AM EST
    focused on who to blame for a loss than on what to do to win.

    This is my point.


    Well, that's what this campaign is all about, (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by lilburro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:47:07 AM EST
    isn't it?  The who of the candidates, not the what of electability or even 2009+ policy.  People believe Obama is so perfect it's impossible for him to lose.

    Oh yes (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:54:49 AM EST
    Did you read Bowers's post recently, where he seemed to suddenly realize that this wasn't going to be a cake walk? Nobody on the Obama blogs has otherwise  been talking about how difficult this is going to be. It's all "Hillary is evil," all the time.

    They might wake up the dayu after (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:03:29 AM EST
    and wonder why the Clinton Wing did not go with Obama in sufficient numbers to win the election. And they will ask why?

    Because they are fools.


    No not fools (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:16:57 AM EST
    The simply lack the empathy to understand voters and the reasons (both rational and irrational) that determine votes.

    Obama will have to find another gear or level of connection before this turns into a complete disaster.

    I recall a conversation about a year ago.

    I was waiting outside a diner in Tucson with my kids bottle feeding by youngest and a lovely old Jewish couple from Brooklyn, snowbirding, started chatting about the baby and they were giving me tips about sleeping habits for the baby and the U of A law school. Eventually the conversation turned to politics and I said i liked Edwards--my heavens these old folk were stunned. I didn't say anything to criticize Clinton but  the old man looked appauled.  I think he was stunned that anyone could pick anyone but Clinton.  They loved her. Then we got back to talking about bottle feeting a carefully timed walks in park and bedtime drives.

    You cannot get that sort of loyalty out of people very easily. It was a gut level affiliation. I've only seen that in GOP voters before. They had spent years anticipating her triumph. Looking back at that conversation I do feel a sense of impending doom for November.

    Will voters like that even think twice?


    Yea, Tucson! We just moved here... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Shainzona on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:44:08 AM EST
    and adore it!  (But don't let a lot of people know...we don't want it spoiled!)

    Erm (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by lilburro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:10:16 AM EST
    no...I used to think OpenLeft was interesting, but now it seems like they are part of an Obama school that says "With our Jedi mind tricks, Obama will be elected and progressivism will reign."  Whereas, the only Jedi mind trick I see happening is the one played by the Obama campaign on progressives; suggesting he is one of them, even as he compiles, as Chris Bowers notes, one very conservative VP list.  

    Because of the Iraq funding debate (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:11:41 AM EST
    I already didn't respect many of these people. Their opinions did not carry much weight with me.

    I don't need to imagine it (5.00 / 11) (#55)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:05:34 AM EST
    I'm watching it live.

    The RFK blow up indicates to me that Obama's supperters subconsciously expect he's going to lose in Nov.

    I can't imagine why he'd approve the highlighting of the RFK June comments like that.

    He can't gain votes from it.  It's pure spite.


    Just so (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:13:24 AM EST
    Yes - the exact opposite (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:30:53 AM EST
    of what you would do it you really cared about unifying the party.

    Obama's #1 platform (5.00 / 8) (#117)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    is that he is a victim. It permeates everything he does.

    yep (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:44:02 AM EST
    they are already laying the groundwork for why Obama will lose the ge.  What does that tell you?

    Since he's unelectable? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by katiebird on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:46:49 AM EST
    Good Planning.

    I guess they think it will tell us... (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Shainzona on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    that it's all Hillary's fault.  Everything.  Everyday.  Every way.

    The Coronation of the press (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:01:47 AM EST
    and the abdication of the people.

    Chuck Todd's comments (none / 0) (#107)
    by This from a broad on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:29:27 AM EST
    Chuck Todd is paid to go in front of a camera and say something, at a designated time.  It doesn't matter what he says -- he just has to speak to fill in his time.  Consequently, these "talking heads" spout absolute nonsense. I find it somewhat disconcerting that you would quote such an idiot.  The next thing you'll be quoting Andrew Sullivan as if he had any credibility.

    Todd is one (3.66 / 3) (#116)
    by Salo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:35:45 AM EST
    of the reasons that Obama topped Clinton.He was instrumental in Obama's rise.

    Todd was attacking Edwards in the fall.   Then he attacked Clinton post Iowa.

    And then he cheekily points out that Obama is probably a born loser in the November sweepstakes.

    Chutzpah.  Oh by the way Democrats if you lose, he says as he holds the bloody dagger aloft, we'll blame Clinton too.  


    Unity and dissing Fl at the same time.. (none / 0) (#254)
    by Rainsong on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:24:06 PM EST
    Obama's timing is poor.

    Most of the Clinton-voters will come back in the fall, no matter what Obama does re VP.

    I don't know if it will be enough to pull him over  - because they won't be enthused or happy about it. That always leads to some percentage of lower turn-out, how low is anybody's guess - especially as McCain isn't a scary Republican. There isn't even the motivation of needing to help bring a nasty evil McCain down, at this point in time.

    Whether they vote for McCain or not, many like me are anti-Obama for a whole host of reasons, that are independent of our support for Hillary. Some of us just think he is not a Democrat, or a DINO of the worst kind, as he has made deal-breakers and worked against so many Party principles.  Or that he would be such an appalling President.

    The support of the Party in this, by fair means, but more often very foul means, is people are leaving the Party. Obama's Party is no longer a political Party of worth to some Clinton supporters.

    I don't support McCain, or Republicans - but after 30+ years, have finally understood what the apathetic non-voting cynics have been saying all along.

    There is no difference between the two Partys, and if Obama is the nominee then that proves it to me.

    Maybe its been that way all along, but it was just this primary that brought it close enough to the surface, and so in-your-face blunt, for me to finally notice it.  

    One of the problems with Hillary as VP, is because many Clinton supporters don't trust Obama, on how he wields power. He will not let her DO anything. She will be more hobbled and silenced and gagged as VP, than if she chose another career path. He might be better to offer her an important  Cabinet position, one that actually holds power in its own right, but that would be unthinkable for him.

    In short, I think Obama's win in the GE, will depend mostly on McCain's campaign success or otherwise.