home

Can Obama Win Without Clinton Democrats?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:42:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In the latest attempt to rationalize marginalizing Hillary Clinton and her supporters, Ezra Klein, seconded by Duncan Black, writes:

The electorate, its composition and universe of possible winning coalitions, is quite different now [than in 1980]. Many, many Democratic pundits and strategists connect their party's decline to Reagan's win, so a tremendous amount of mental energy is expended theorizing how they can take back what he wrested from them, and which candidates can win back "the Reagan Democrats." But the battle isn't to reconstruct the coalition that was dominant in the 1980s. It's to envision and form the majority that will endure for the next ten years.

I think this is a deflection. We need not look back to 1980. We need only look at the Democratic primary contest of this year. [More . . .]

There is now a great divide in the Democratic Party - there is an Obama Wing and Clinton Wing - divided equally in votes in the contests. Despite claims to the contrary by the Obama News Network (NBC) and Obama blogs, the split is almost precisely even. This has been the closest nomination race ever. And in key swing states, it can be strongly argued that the Clinton Wing is significantly larger. The question the Democratic Party and its likely nominee must ask is this - do you want to win without Clinton Democrats and do you think you CAN win without Clinton Democrats?

Me, I do not want to take any unneccessary risks regarding winning the Presidency in November. It seems there is a whole class of pundits, Democrats and Obama supporters who really really despise the Clinton sooo much that they are willing to risk the Presidency to drive the Clintons out of the Party.

Oh they will couch their arguments in terms of baggage and Bill Clinton (as if the only two term Democratic President of the last 50 years would somehow be a problem for a Democratic campaign, it is mind boggling). But what they want is the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party gone - dead and buried.

They despise the Clintons so much, they seem willing to risk the Presidency to destroy them. I find this attitude simply irresponsible. Just as I despise those Clinton supporters who say they won't vote for Obama, I equally despise those Obama supporters who would rather destroy the Clintons than win the Presidency.

I repeat for the umpteenth time, Obama would be nuts to divide the Party by not offering the Vice Presidency to Hillary Clinton. In a year where only Democratic division could possibly deny us the White House, it would take a stupendous act of political immaturity to even contemplate taking such a step.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Hillary Says She Will Finish the Race | The Popular Vote Six Ways: Where We Stand Today >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Can Obama Win Without Clinton Democrats? | 241 comments (241 topical)
    and the irony (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by Turkana on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:45:47 PM EST
    is that if they lose by not reaching out to the clinton wing, they blow the party apart. because they'll blame clinton, and the clinton wing will blame them, and they will ignore the reality that they cannot win by themselves.

    And (4.42 / 7) (#3)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:48:33 PM EST
    since I personally don't think the "Obama wing" is really all that strong and cohesive, the real irony will be that when Obama gets blown out in November, Hillary becomes an even stronger candidate for 2012.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed. When Obama is trounced in Nov, (4.42 / 7) (#35)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:01:45 PM EST
    the loose coalition that Obama has built will not be able to withstand the inevitable finger-pointing that will ensue among many of the elitist sycophants backing Obama. They will try to blame it on Hillary, but it's really a matter of time before they begin to eat their own and the last shred of credibility that some of these "leaders" had will be spent. Ahem, John Kerry.

    Meanwhile, the Clinton wing has had a united front through thick and thin, the fat has been trimmed, and her support will be further cemented by an Obama loss.

    This has nothing to do with Obama specifically, but I would love nothing more than to see the elite wing of the Dem Party sent home with their collective tails between their legs.

    [ Parent ]

    Terrible... (4.00 / 4) (#115)
    by tsteels2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:26:48 PM EST
    This has nothing to do with Obama specifically, but I would love nothing more than to see the elite wing of the Dem Party sent home with their collective tails between their legs.

    They are all elites.  Clinton and Obama.  Graduated from great colleges and have had good political careers.  And they are both wealthy.  Enough with the "elite is a dirty word" angle.  Please!

    Seantor Obama will not be trounced in November because Senator Clinton will make sure that doesn't happen.  Obama isn't stupid.  Some of the "wacky wing" of Obama supporters may talk that "Hillary is nothing" jive.  But Obama does not.  Why do you think he's did not pile on the RFK statement?  In fact, he defended her.  He knows Clinton is a power.  Just like Obama himself is a power.  Obama's coalition is as strong as Clinton's and the ticket will be set: Obama/Clinton.  And if folks have a problem with that history and that political power then you will be looking at the arse end of the Obama/Clinton Train.  527s be damned.  The Republicans have deep problems with a base that is apathetic, at best towards McCain.  Openly hostile at worst.  If they play the race/sex card against Obama/Clinton, they will look like "back-thinkers" and prejudiced blowhards.

    And Obama didn't cause Democratic divisions.  Obama's race and Clinton's sex did.  To political minorities vying for the top spot.  The passion was always going to run high among supporters.  This is a first chance.  And the fight for first is ALWAYS tough and bitter.  That's the war all "firsts" are.  So stop it.  I'm a black man that has been a Green Party forever.  And I will vote for either Obama or Clinton as president over McCain.  Even though my heart wants to see the first black president, the Republicans give me nothing.  The Democrats have alot of something.    That's good enough for me.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Elitism has nothing to do with (5.00 / 6) (#139)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:33:54 PM EST
    educational attainment or wealth. It's all in the attitude.

    On the RFK thing, Obama said one thing while his campaign and surrogates did the dirty work.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse the grammar. I was too excited. :-) (none / 0) (#123)
    by tsteels2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:28:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Kudos. (none / 0) (#168)
    by lilburro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:43:08 PM EST
    also I hope we can get people excited with phrases like "Obama/Clinton Train."  That's what makes politics fun.

    [ Parent ]
    A win-win situation! (none / 0) (#196)
    by tsteels2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    ALL ABOARD!  I'm starting a new slogan: Bros riding the Obama/Clinton Train!  LOL!


    [ Parent ]
    i disagree (3.66 / 3) (#6)
    by Turkana on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:49:44 PM EST
    if we don't win in november, neither clinton nor obama will ever be president.

    [ Parent ]
    Agree with that (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:17:06 PM EST
    That's why I find the theories about her wanting Obama to lose in November so she can run in 2012 so ridiculous.

    [ Parent ]
    HRC has already (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Emma on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:25:05 PM EST
    redefined what it means to be a woman politician.  She's already redefined what it means to be a First Lady.  She has, by herself, shifted how people think about her, about women, about the role of women in politics.  Having seen what she's done thus far, if anybody can be viable in 2012, it's her.

    And, also, I think Obama.  He's also redefined how people think about African Americans' participation in politics on a national scale.  I think, at the least, Obama's candidacy has shown a path for more African Americans to be elected to the Senate.  

    Whichever one loses the nomination, they have the potential to run strong again in 2012, if the other loses the presdency and he/she is not the losing VP candidate.

    These two are transformational politicians on a national scale, I think they both have the ability to transform this one more thing, given the right conditions.

    [ Parent ]

    if the divisions of the party (4.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Turkana on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:44:06 PM EST
    result in a november loss, neither donors nor party activists will want anything to do with either clinton or obama. i'm certain hillary understands that, and i wish more of her supporters did. and i just voted for her.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? Hillary has already made it fairly clear (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:49:40 PM EST
    if the supers nominate her, she will run with Obama.  If they nominate Obama, she will do what she can.  She can not force voters to vote Obama.  I fail to see how you fault her with dividing the Party.

    [ Parent ]
    well... (3.00 / 0) (#208)
    by Turkana on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:53:39 PM EST
    if she does the job she's capable of doing, and if obama takes the lead in healing the party, obama has a very good shot at beating mccain.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I don't think he's capable of taking (5.00 / 7) (#223)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:00:07 PM EST
    the lead and healing the Party.  His campaign is sending supers a tape of Keith Olbermann's special comment.  I can't imagine a more immature tactic.  

    [ Parent ]
    X (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by Emma on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:51:26 PM EST
    That may be true.  I don't think I'm sufficiently knowledgeable about those types of dynamics to say or not say.  I'm just talking about voter support.  Which I could be wrong about, too.  We'll know a lot more after November.  I honestly think we don't have enough data to know what the political landscape/conditions will be in 2012.  Which is why I said "given the right conditions".

    I'm just talking about Clinton's and Obama's personal abilities, not whether it's a realistic scenario, i.e whether the right conditions will obtain in 2012.  Am I making sense?

    Having said all that, nothing I'm doing as a voter/supporter is being done because I believe Clinton will run and win in 2012.  I don't think she should be Obama's VP for reasons entirely independent of what might happen in 2012.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you're wrong on this (5.00 / 4) (#245)
    by Pacific John on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    Like most times in history, this is a case where one side is responsible for divisions. Newt Gingrich was not our fault, and neither is Barack Obama.

    Hillary may be the sharpest political mind of her generation, and will navigate the next few months to be a healer, and a greater statesman than Gore.

    She is, by definition, a better Democrat than her supporters. This is obvious on its face, and not the slightest bit controversial. People like me who thrive on field work know that the winning margin of any campaign is supplied by casual non-ideological voters. These people are utterly blameless if one candidate or the other loses. No one blames the hundreds of thousands of FL Dem cross-overs for Gore's loss, they blame Gore for not winning them over. It will be the same if Obama is the nom. No one will blame gays, Hispanics, middle class whites or feminists for having depressed turnout. No one will blame Hillary.

    One last thing, although during this primary, the Internet has done little more than prove its own irrelevance to the voters, it has overturned the campaign donation model. Hillary's "big money donors" maxed out by early Feb,  and her 80 or so mega bucks since then have come from people who will gladly get behind a draft movement. And activists? The majority of experienced activists like me are already on Team Hillary. Unlike the impressive number of kids on Team Obama, we have proven staying power, and will not disappear from the process when we grow up and start families.

    [ Parent ]

    this is what Clinton cultists (3.80 / 5) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:04:08 PM EST
    seem to be missing.

    [ Parent ]
    Cultists? (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    Whatever dude.  I can certainly see the flaws and short-comings of Senator Clinton.  I don't agree with every single flank of her platform.

    So I would appreciate it not being referred to as a cultist, just because I have such strong support for her.

    [ Parent ]

    I do not think I call you anyhting (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:12:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You said Clinton supporters are cultists (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Lisa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:17:48 PM EST
    and despised.

    So I'm going to leave now.

    [ Parent ]

    I think I will join (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:20:11 PM EST
    you Lisa.  This might be a preview of what Talk Left will be like if and when Obama is the nominee.

    Happy long weekend to all.

    [ Parent ]

    wow (3.00 / 2) (#161)
    by CanadianDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:40:51 PM EST
    I think you're proving his point really. BTD the visitors here seem to be getting to the fringe on occasion.

    AND HE did not call anyone in particular a cultist, he referred to it in a generalized way.

    [ Parent ]

    When you generalize you make an (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:43:15 PM EST
    assumption about every one in a group. That's why they call it generalizing. So yeah

    [ Parent ]
    errr (none / 0) (#186)
    by CanadianDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:46:42 PM EST
    ok.

    [ Parent ]
    so (none / 0) (#190)
    by CanadianDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    you feel as if you are part of the group/cult? And hence your reaction? Or are you comfortable in your own beliefs and values?

    [ Parent ]
    My reaction is this (3.00 / 1) (#204)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:52:33 PM EST
    They both have roughly the same amount of votes. A cult is defined as exotic--out of the mainstream, values not shared by many persons, weirdos.  

    How are Hillary supporters a cult when she has more votes than any other candidate. That's just dumb.

    [ Parent ]

    on further thought (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by CanadianDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:45:47 PM EST
    it's almost as if these new posters are following that McCain troll program??

    [ Parent ]
    Hey TX (none / 0) (#122)
    by blogtopus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:28:49 PM EST
    Don't leave, we need sharper minds like you to keep us cultists on track. No joke; if it weren't for some of the more clearer minds here I would go off the tracks.

    Stick around. I hear the BBQ's are going to be good tomorrow!

    Lisa, same for you! :-)

    [ Parent ]

    he didn't (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by Turkana on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:20:45 PM EST
    he called a certain segment of clinton supporters cultists. i get a similar reaction from some obama supporters, when i refer to the obama cultists as obamabots. both sides have cultists, and the cultists can't see beyond their candidates to the larger picture.

    [ Parent ]
    The larger picture is often viewed differently (4.50 / 8) (#246)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:15:45 PM EST
    and is not always candidate related. IMO this is not just a struggle between two candidates but a struggle over the direction the Democratic party is going to take for the foreseeable future.

    I can only speak for myself when I say that I do not feel any connection with the Obama wing of the party. In fact, the ideas put forward are completely contrary to my view of the party and its values.

    To me the Democratic Party always represented working class people and at least threw some bones their way. The Obama campaign has said that they do not need this demographic. I have no desire to support a party whose base considers anyone not in their class as defective.

     If anyone had told me a couple of years ago that a Democratic candidate for president would put Social Security on table, I would laughed in their faces because that is not something a Dem would do. Yet, here we have a Democratic candidate who has for no logical reason that I can discern has done just that. One of his chief financial advisors is also on record as being in favor of privatizing Social Security. IMO a Republican could never privatize Social Security but it is possible that Obama could.

    Obama issued what I consider "poison pill" Harry and Louise ads against UHC. I do not trust Obama implement any real changes in health care.

    After establishing the precedent for an  Unitary Executive, I am very concerned with Obama attempting to consolidate all Dem funding under his brand and his push to defund and marginalize outside activists groups. Complete control of the money and the message is something that can be misused.

    These are just a few of my big picture concerns.  

    [ Parent ]

    I did not say that (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:58:29 PM EST
    and if you need an excuse to leave, here is one, you are lying.

    [ Parent ]
    what? (none / 0) (#111)
    by lilburro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:25:42 PM EST
    there are surely some Clinton cultists.  But he didn't say all Clinton supporters are cultists, or that Clinton supporters ARE cultists.

    I'm a Clinton supporter.  I'm not a cultist.

    Don't be so sensitive on this issue.

    [ Parent ]

    Dude, you've been so great at not name-calling (5.00 / 9) (#205)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:53:22 PM EST
    so far, what happened?

    I'm "despised" because I won't vote for Obama.  Look, I may be part of the bitter demographic but it's not bitterness that keeps me from voting for him.  If people are not voting for Obama out of pique or petulance, that probably is worthy of criticism.  But if people are not voting for him because he does not represent their interests, or because voting for him is tacit approval of a bad direction for the party, the race-baiting, the misogyny, the 'new' vs 'old' divide, etc etc, how is that worthy of despite?  Even assuming they're all wrong, as long as that's their genuine reason?

    Among other things, I think a bad Dem president for the next 4 years could set the party and the issues it is supposed to be fighting for back a lot further than a bad Republican.  Look at Jimmy Carter and subsequent Reagan Revolution.

    As for being a cultist, because I think she might win in 2012 if BO loses in November (which, btw, I don't think is her strategy), whoah Nellie.  I think there are a lot of indications she could still get the nom AND win in Nov.  Maybe the chances aren't great, but they are there.  As for 2012, at every major step in her career people have predicted failure for Clinton.  She's not electable, everyone hates her, she's Bill's appendage, blah blah blah.  She's defied the predictions again and again and is still in the game.  It's a mistake to count her out for 2012.

    But even forget all personalities for a minute.  The next president is facing a gigantic clusterfrak of problems.  It will take an extraordinary combination of luck, hard work and wisdom to pull us through the economy and withdrawal from Iraq.  Chances are good that the next president will fail to pull it off and there will be a party switch in 2012 no matter what.  It'll be anyone's game, and (switching back to personalities), Clinton's got as good a chance as anyone.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually I have been a great name calller (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:59:37 PM EST
    you just don't like the names I am calling now.

    [ Parent ]
    What constitutes a Clinton cultist....what are (none / 0) (#248)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:21:22 PM EST
    the qualifications?

    [ Parent ]
    agree (1.50 / 6) (#10)
    by manish on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:52:27 PM EST
    Clinton's political career is finished.  She will keep her Senate seat as long as she wants it, but other than that, she is now polarizing both with the Democratic base as well as the Republican base.  If Obama loses this November, many will blame Hillary (justly or unjustly).

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:56:25 PM EST
    I can't imagine the Dems putting up a stronger candidate - are they gonna run John Edwards for a 3rd time?

    [ Parent ]
    I hope so. He was the best all along. (none / 0) (#36)
    by cosbo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:02:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Probably Mark Warner (none / 0) (#228)
    by Shawn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:03:19 PM EST
    Maybe Al Gore will spring up again, but there may be resentment that he didn't run and "save the party" this time.

    Warner (who I'm not all that enamoured of) would be a solid "unity candidate" - a white male Southerner with Clintonish policies and a good relationship with the blogs.

    [ Parent ]

    bullsh*t (5.00 / 18) (#38)
    by ccpup on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:03:10 PM EST
    when Obama loses in November, he will have only himself and his inexperience to blame.

    As for Clinton, her political career will not be "finished".  Like Gore, many in hindsight will see this Nomination -- through insider shenanigans and DNC ineptitude -- was stolen from her and may be itching for her to run again ... much as people were and are itching for Gore to run again so they can "fix" the mistake of 2000 having been stolen from him.

    And that divisiveness you point to?  Obama has done more to divide the Dem Party than Hillary ever could.  She has Republican women willing to vote for her and Republicans conceding she's a stronger candidate than they initially gave her credit for while many in the Dem Party are either very reluctantly willing to vote for Obama simply because he's a Dem or not willing to vote for him at all.  And the Republicans can't WAIT to run against Barack because they see a cake walk to the White House if he's the Nominee in November.

    And Obama can whine and point the finger at Clinton all he wants, but he has his own self to blame when he fouls up in the GE and takes what we knew of the Dem Party down the crapper with him.

    [ Parent ]

    Absolutely (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:07:43 PM EST
    Barack is his own 527.  Wright, Rezko, Michelle.  IF his OWN wife says she has reservations about voting for Hillary if she is the nom, why can't WE have our own regarding him?

    Blowback and karma is a b1tch.  And I see no more deserving people of it than Obama and his supporters---that campaign got in bed with the media, when they turn on you, it will be disastrous for his campaign.

    Judging by all the women who are angry (to say the least), Obama will have to win with the creative class and the blacks.

    Have at it.


    [ Parent ]

    come on (2.66 / 6) (#85)
    by manish on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:17:08 PM EST
    I don't know if Obama will win in November or not.  Perhaps his inexperience will sink him or perhaps it won't.  But the fact is that he's who the Democrats look like they are going to nominate.  What has Obama done to divide the Democratic party?  He's brought in an excitement that hasn't been seen in a long time.  He has gotten a lot of young people to register to vote and to care.

    Should Obama lose, unless Clinton does a huge job of campaigning for Obama, many will see her as a reason he lost. Whether you think thats a fair assessment or not, is besides the point..the perception will be there.  Did Nader cost Gore the election in 2000?  He argues not, but many of his supporters definitely thought so, thus his increasing marginalization.

    Hillary is pulling this two-step with Florida and Michigan.  She and her surrogates voted to strip them of their delegates and have now made it a cause celebre to have their delegates count as if those primaries were on the up-and-up.  In doing so, they have proposed that to enfranchise MI voters, they will disenfranchise all of the Obama voters in MI.  Both the ones that voted uncommitted and the 12% of Clinton voters in MI who really supported Obama.  How do you think those Obama supporters in MI are going to feel if she pulls that one off?

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton isn't proposing disenfranchising (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by lorelynn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:42:02 PM EST
    anyone. Uncommitted delegates can vote for whomever they want. If all of the uncommitteds want to vote for Obama, they can - that isn't a problem. What she is opposing is Obama being assigned all of the uncommitteds - that's not really fair either.

    In the end, he'll probably get them but there's nothing wrong with her pointing out that the other candidates may have gotten a few as well.

    [ Parent ]

    uncommitted (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by manish on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:53:23 PM EST
    So then how do you explain the 12% of Clinton voters in MI who actually supported Obama?  Don't you think that that is somewhat disenfranchising to them?  What about the people who stayed home or voted in the Republican primary because that one appeared to mean something.  Beyond that, 4 Dems took their name off the ballot:  Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Biden.  Edwards and Richardson have both endorsed Obama and Biden likely got next to no support.

    I'm all for seating MI in some way.  I'd even say that Clinton should get more delegates in the name of party unity.  However, simply stating that we should act as if the primary happened on the up-and-up and that it wasn't her own surrogates that voted to strip MI of their delegates, is intellectually dishonest.

    Lets count the MI pledged as 50% and let her have her 55%, with Obama taking the entire uncommitted.  Or lets base it on exit polling where it was Clinton 46, Obama 35 and Edwards 12.  But don't pretend that MI was a regular primary just like California or New Hampshire.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama turned down a revote so (3.66 / 3) (#234)
    by WelshWoman on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:06:52 PM EST
    I think it should Clinton gets her delegates and they split the uncommitted 50/50.

    Looking at todays pledge delegate count if you seat Florida as by the vote, I believe Clinton would still be approx. 50 behind with 86 to be allocated.

    Let them fight it out from there.

    [ Parent ]

    non-sequitors (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by manish on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:06:16 PM EST
    you are making some generalizations..can you provide specific examples of anything above?  Are you really claiming that Obama has character-assassinated his opponent at EVERY opportunity.  He hasn't skipped a single opportunity..not even one?  Heck, he skipped the opportunity to character assassinate Hillary on the RFK comment, so that proves that statement wrong.

    I'm not certain what you mean by his comments on pro-choice women.  Perhaps you are talking about his support amongst pro-lifers (which seems to be in the vein of bringing the party together which is good right?)

    As to FL and MI..Clinton is doing a 180 because it suits her.  Ickes and 11 of her surrogates voted to strip them of their delegates and now want them restored because its convenient for her.  Do you think that if those results went the other way that they would be doing the same?  Its Obama who is being conciliatory by entertaining the idea of seating those delegates instead of demanding that the rules put in by Clinton surrogates in the first place be adhered to.

    O.k., I didn't like him going on Fox, but other than that you've got nothing.

    [ Parent ]

    Buyers remorse (4.57 / 7) (#95)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:20:35 PM EST
    In fact, Barack looks less and less like the choice of voters -- no matter how much Obama games the system and works the refs.

    [ Parent ]
    He has (4.42 / 7) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:27:27 PM EST
    not brought in excitement. He has brought in divisiveness. I'm sure the creative class is excited but it doesn't seem that anyone else is.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama supporters in MI (3.66 / 3) (#181)
    by WelshWoman on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:44:53 PM EST
    If Obama really wanted he could have agreed to a revote, the second time around he wound have gotten more votes as it would have been between 2 candidates.

    Obama wouldn't take the chance

    [ Parent ]

    How will they feel? (none / 0) (#102)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:22:34 PM EST
    Angry at Obama for not allowing them to vote for him?

    Just a guess.

    [ Parent ]

    Not angry at Obama (none / 0) (#220)
    by WelshWoman on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:59:31 PM EST
    but the main thing is Clinton can use it as away to ensure they don't become angry with her, its a way to unite people if used in a gentle manner and not as a stick to beat Obama with.


    [ Parent ]
    well said (none / 0) (#101)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:22:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    let's try unjustly (5.00 / 6) (#177)
    by kempis on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:44:24 PM EST
    The "it'll be Clinton's fault if Obama loses" notion is simply a way to alleviate Obamabot anxiety, nothing more.

    There are many months between now and November. Obama has all this time to transcend and unify and hope us into one big happy family--which is what you guys keep telling us he's good at. Hillary won't be in the picture. So it's going to be his to lose, if the DNC has its way.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton's political career is finished. (5.00 / 6) (#203)
    by hitchhiker on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:52:12 PM EST
    Yeah, because she only won the votes of 17 million Democrats.  That's always the kiss of death.

    I'm sorry.  

    Her political career would indeed be finished-would have been finished long ago, or never begun in the first place--if the people who use their microphones to impose their own idiotic and simple-minded opinions could only have their way.

    They can't.

    In the USA a person's political career is finished when the voters reject that person as a candidate for office.  And voters like Hillary Clinton a lot, in spite of being told over and over how divisive and bad she is.  They like her more now than they did 3 months ago.  

    Voting patterns in this primary season ought to be instructive, but they're not . . . maybe because too many people think that Tim Russert et al are actually as important as they pretend to be.

    [ Parent ]

    that is NOt what Turkana said (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:04:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, that is not the reason I see (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:22:06 PM EST
    I agree with Turkana that she won't win in 2012, but not for the reasons you say.  I think it is clear that the powers in the media and the Dem party do not want her to be president, and this year is as close as she is going to get unless she serves as Obama's VP.

    If McCain wins in November, then Dems need to go with someone different next time IMHO.  No Obama, clinton, or Edwards.

    [ Parent ]

    Draft Gore Movement (none / 0) (#152)
    by blogtopus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:36:24 PM EST
    Will just move on to the Draft Clinton Movement in 2012 - The Clinton Wing will create it. I honestly think this would happen if she didn't.

    If she doesn't get the nomination, or the Veep, I think she will be trying to really build up a huge momentum in the next few years as a powerhouse senator, public speaker on women's rights and trying to put the Fairness Doctrine back into play. In addition to revamping the primary process: No caucuses without serious oversight (maybe Carter can get involved here), hard and fast rules for punitive maneuvers (that can NOT be changed mid-primary), maybe a better McGovern rule more reliable than the Super D's, and who knows what else. She basically has the world at her fingertips if she doesn't become the Nominee / President, because she'll have the full and unwavering support of more than half the dem party, enraged and ready for change of their own.

    [ Parent ]

    Tell that to Ronald Reagan. (none / 0) (#110)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:25:28 PM EST
    I disagree.  

    [ Parent ]
    perhaps you don't recall (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Turkana on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:40:43 PM EST
    reagan's 11th commandment. he never participated in dividing his party.

    [ Parent ]
    Reagan took his first primary (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:43:16 PM EST
    all the way to the convention, lost, and was nominated in the following primary.  I fail to see how Hillary has divided the Party.

    [ Parent ]
    reagan supported ford (none / 0) (#193)
    by Turkana on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:49:24 PM EST
    and avoided going negative. he was also a media darling, which made his comeback very easy. both clinton and obama have engaged in negative campaigning, and the media hate the clintons more than they hate any other national political figures. which makes hillary's run all the more remarkable, but the tensions between the clinton and obama camps are on an entirely different level than were those between ford and reagan.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think Hillary has gone (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:01:55 PM EST
    negative much at all.  Compared to other primaries, she's been easy on him.

    [ Parent ]
    That's offensive. You despise me? (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:46:15 PM EST


    That's BTD's problem (5.00 / 12) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:51:40 PM EST
    I can't vote for the destruction of the reason I joined the Democratic Party -- because it helps people.  If he can, then that's on his conscience.

    Personally, I'm a long-term thinker.

    [ Parent ]

    global warming/climate change (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Turkana on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:55:37 PM EST
    iraq, the viability of the u.s. military, u.s. standing in the world, torture, the evisceration of the constitution, poverty, education, health care- those are long-term issues that need to be dealt with now.

    [ Parent ]
    Then the (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by LoisInCo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:56:48 PM EST
    Democrats should put up a nominee that will take care of them.

    [ Parent ]
    This response (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:57:40 PM EST
    reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of coalition politics.

    [ Parent ]
    But (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by rnibs on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:05:39 PM EST
    the Obamites don't seem to understand what a coalition is either.  

    [ Parent ]
    That's not a "but," (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:07:55 PM EST
    it's an "and."

    [ Parent ]
    I don't see (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by LoisInCo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:14:06 PM EST
    Obama LEADING any coalition. I see Obama doing exactly what Obama feels like at the moment on any given issue. I see his feeling on any given issue changing depending on whom he talked to last. I see all the sub-sects of the Democratic party hacking away at each other to get "their" specific issue taken care of first.  He will have NO ability to rein them in to a cohesive group. None. Hillary Clinton will run them with an iron hand. And many will dislike her for it. But it WILL accomplish much more than Obama ever will.

    If McCain is President, the Democratic congress will have to form a block out of necessity to stop McCain's worst policies. This will also lead to more being done than electing Obama will.

    [ Parent ]

    The coalition is the Democratic party (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:16:12 PM EST
    which exists independent of Obama's leadership, or lack thereof. The only alternative is the Republican coalition, which is always worse.

    If you believe in Democratic values, then in my opinion there is absolutely no justification for not voting for the Democratic nominee. No, your personal hurt feelings--some of which I share--are not a sufficient justification.

    [ Parent ]

    can you tell me what (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:32:04 PM EST
    exactly, this new democratic party stands for?

    Because if it's anti-choice, anti-gay, anti-woman...well, what exactly makes it the democratic party?

    We all have a right to our votes.  As much as I cannot stand Obama,   I am hard pressed to say that any rational supporter (and there are a few) is someone I despise.  That sort of language is very troubling to me. It hardly promotes unity.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is none of these things (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:34:16 PM EST
    and frankly maintaining that he is seems somewhat deranged to me.

    [ Parent ]
    andgarden (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:43:23 PM EST
    you were talking about the "coalition" of the dem party.  I responded to that.  Perhaps you should review my statements again in that light.  

    I believe you were the one who was glad of the new anti-choice, anti-gay, pro-religion dem in MS the night he won.  

    I also believe you were the one prior to that who made the blanket statement about how you hated and despised the entire south based on...the anti-gay marriage initiatives that were passed, specifically in MS.

    You can blanketly hate an entire region of millions of people because of an anti-gay amendment passed at the state level, but you rail against fellow dems who have real problems with the anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-women, pro-religion politicians who are being welcomed into the party.

    Weren't you the one calling me a hypocrite a while back?

    [ Parent ]

    It's pretty simple (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:49:19 PM EST
    We have two parties, and the Democratic party is the pro-gay rights, pro choice party. but in order to be in the majority, not everyone in the party is going to be on the same page on every issue. that's the point of coalition politics.

    [ Parent ]
    ah, the sweet clarity of youth (none / 0) (#211)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:55:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Your comment speaks for itself (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:56:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If Obama can't get elected (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by blogtopus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:45:34 PM EST
    without using any of these 'antis', as he has been, then how can we expect him to fight for them once he gets in? How is that a message of Hope?

    My issue with Obama's coalition is that there seems to be this complete naivete about how he will inspire people to change. At this point, it is all about his selections for the government of hope. If I see a crowd of Daschles in there, he's buried himself COMPLETELY.

    If he goes into the White House with Chicago politics - dirty schemes, intimidation, legal loopholes - how is that different from Bush? How are we to know he won't do more damage to the government than before? And in doing so, won't he distract a generation from Bush and show that BOTH parties are just as bad?

    I'd rather have a third term of Bush - with massive Dem oversight* - than a second term of Carter (or worse) followed by 3 MORE terms of Bush lite whoever that is.

    *The other reason I'm comfortable with an Obama loss. Our numbers in the senate will only increase as the Clinton wing understands what 'downticket' means. We'll lose the battle but will continue to shore up victories in the War.

    [ Parent ]

    The thing is, andgarden, I would like a (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Anne on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:36:18 PM EST
    nominee who believes in Democratic values, and we are on the brink of having a nominee who hasn't shown me that he does.

    [ Parent ]
    neither clinton nor obama (4.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Turkana on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:00:24 PM EST
    will deal with them as aggressively as is needed. but mccain will barely give them even lip service. both democrats will at least recognize and publicize that something needs be done.

    [ Parent ]
    x (5.00 / 10) (#94)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:20:32 PM EST
    I'm not so sure that someone who would vote for the Cheney energy bill will do that at all. See the whole argument that we have to vote for Obama because he's a Democrat is seriously lacking if you look at his background, his associates, what he has or has not done in the past, and what he has said. I don't get the sense of a democrat. In fact, if you look at his campaign tactics, they smell distinctly Rovian to me. I don't buy that voting for Obama will give us a democrat whose priorities will be democratic priorities. Nothing he has said or his supporters have said convince me of this. What I see is a very divisive and dangerous person who doesn't care that his tactics are tearing the party apart, are causing - not ending - racial strife, and who could be even more dangerous than McCain.

    That doesn't mean that I will vote for McCain. There is always the Green Party. Quite frankly, I have an easier time believing Cynthia McKinney would bring change I can believe in than Barack Obama.

    Oh, and let's not forget, this race is not over yet. The DNC may yet pull back from the abyss. I'm not counting on it, but miracles do happen.


    [ Parent ]

    then why isn't the dem controlled (5.00 / 9) (#70)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:13:46 PM EST
    house and senate dealing with them?  Last I saw, they were burning fuel grilling Roger Clemmons and whining at oil company execs the same as the repubs did for the last ten years, and accomplishing the same results the repubs did, which was to do nothing and take the oil lobby money.

    They have absolutely no backbone against one of the weakest and most unpopular presidents in history.  When do we demand more of them?  When do we stop bending over and taking it?

    [ Parent ]

    i've been demanding more of them (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Turkana on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:16:27 PM EST
    i was for impeachment. but we need a president to lead them. and we need the liberal blogs to push that president to lead them. of course, the latter is one of my main worries about an obama presidency- that the blogs will go along with his incrementalism instead of holding his feet to the fire the way they would have held clinton's.

    [ Parent ]
    The problem (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    I see here is that Obama has shown exactly zero leadership abilities. Look no further than to the MI and FL debacle. Instead of taking the bull by the horns and standing up for the voters he continually blames someone else or shifts the problem. Heck, he can't even decide whether Iran is a problem or not. He has a history of avoiding anything the least bit controversial. He never says that the Democratic party is better it's just both the fault of the GOP and the Dems whatever.

    [ Parent ]
    i agree with much of that (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Turkana on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:39:13 PM EST
    which is one of many reasons i'm no fan. but the alternative is mccain, and if people really believe we can survive four more years of the current ideology, they really don't understand how tenuous is the survival of our republic.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think McCain (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:50:21 PM EST
    is four more years of Bush.  I am not voting for him, I do not agree with his policies and I think he is an a-hole, but I don't think he's Bush 3.

    What I think is relevant here is that we need strong, fighting dems in the house and senate so that whomever is president doesn't matter as much.  We need someone to check the powers of the president as the constitution intended.  If their power base is shaken with a big loss, then maybe they will actually do their jobs.

    But, please, let's be honest here--it's not the handful of ticked off TL-ers who are going to lose Obama the election; it is the middle class.  We are mostly not the middle class, else we wouldn't have the time we do to post here.

    This is why Clinton is staying in.  She knows how important it is, and that is why I will keep supporting her and won't give up.

    [ Parent ]

    some problems (none / 0) (#219)
    by Turkana on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:59:17 PM EST
    most of the house seats we can pick up, this year, will not be won by fighting dems. they will be won by blue dogs. the senate candidates are a mixed bag (as they were last year- webb, mccaskill, tester- not exactly liberals).

    as for mccain, i do actually think he's four more years of bush. his foreign policy team would be hardcore neocons, and he would love to go after iran. he is now pro-torture. he's for domestic spying. his doj would be a continuation of bush's. he will appoint a roberts or alito to replace a stevens or a ginsburg. the idea that mccain is a moderate or reasonable or rational is absurd.

    [ Parent ]

    Overstated and frankly shortsighted (5.00 / 7) (#225)
    by xspowr on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:01:51 PM EST
    The republic has survived far worse than what a McCain presidency would represent, however distasteful that outcome may be. What the republic may not survive, however, is the institutionalization of the technocratic, anti-working class, misogynistic, and neo-liberal (read libertarian in sheep's clothing) ethos of the Obama campaign and its adherents. Put simply, Obama has run an independent third party campaign that hijacked the machinery of the Democratic Party and created a so-called "movement" around a particular candidate rather than around the principles and historical values of the Democratic Party. To have both major parties embrace essentially the same anti-egalitarian values, while the working class and large swathes of traditional FDR Democrats are marginalized and held in contempt, simply furthers the slide toward a one-party state where the only differences between the camps are ones of degree, not substance. This is not just a battle for the presidency, but rather for the soul and identity of the Democratic Party (and more broadly the two-party system).

    [ Parent ]
    The Dems Have Very Successfully Ignored (5.00 / 6) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:46:49 PM EST
    the very people who put them in office since they received majority status. Even before the primaries, blogs were not effective in generating enough signature to seriously impact legislation. A hundred thousand or so signatures spread across the country will not get the job done.

    IMO the A-list blogs will not hold Obama's feet to the fire and even if they write about his shortcomings he won't particurly care. He will just label them a radical fringe group and dismiss them. The blogs asked nothing for their support of Obama and they will get exactly what they asked for in return.

    [ Parent ]

    agreed (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Turkana on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:51:15 PM EST
    and if you follow my writings at tlc, you know that my greatest anger and disgust, this campaign season, is directed at the once-liberal blogs.

    [ Parent ]
    agree, that is offensive (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Lisa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:55:39 PM EST
    Democrat first, America second.  Got it.

    [ Parent ]
    I was agreeing with masslib's statement (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by Lisa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:58:51 PM EST
    that what BTD said was offensive.

    Just to clarify.

    And since he characterized our position so badly, I thought I'd take a stab at his:

    We should put the Democratic party first, before what we feel is in the best interest of America.

    Obama is a deeply flawed candidate.

    And remember, you are hearing this from LONG TIME DEMOCRATS.

    But we've said this all before...

    [ Parent ]

    party over country (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Turkana on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:01:17 PM EST
    is, essentially, the rove ideology.

    [ Parent ]
    America First (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    Hating Obama second.

    You are looking in the mirror at what Obama supporters who hate Clinton are.

    You are what you claim to despise.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, is your support for (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:08:10 PM EST
    Obama,really your non-support for McCain and, if so, what does this particular Dem (Obama) bring to the table that McCain won't (and please leave out end the war in Iraq..I'm not convinced Obama will do that). Great posts.

    [ Parent ]
    and you are getting way too personal (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Lisa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:11:11 PM EST
    with your statements.

    I won't respond in kind.

    [ Parent ]

    & one less Clinton supporter on Talk Left (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by Lisa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:14:18 PM EST
    Nice job...

    [ Parent ]
    that is your choice (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:35:27 PM EST
    I have always expressed my views frankly.

    I can not worry about hurting feelings.

    If you feel alluded to, then consider what I am saying.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by janarchy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:14:14 PM EST
    perhaps it's not hate of Obama so much as disgusting, exhaustion and generally being treated like dirt. If we vote for him after everything that has been said and done to coronate him and annoint him and dismiss us, Hillarys supporters (as well as Edwards, Kucinich and every one else who ins't Obama), what's in it for us?

    Personally, speaking only for myself, I keep hoping for an olive branch from the other side or some recognition that maybe, just maybe, we've been treated badly and if they want us, they need to court us back. I've seen no indication about that as yet. As you pointed out: hubris, discounting Florida and Michigan, etc.

    Some of us have been through this dance one too many times. This has been the worst primary Ive ever seen and I've been politically active since I was 5 years old. I know you and others are sincere in your wishes to reunite the party and that's admirable I wish more people did. Sadly, when the non-stop message is 'we'd rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton', it doesn't give me much hope. I'm just giving them what they want, especially when I've spent years (as have my parents) working for the Democratic party, even at its bleakest. Having been told we're not wanted or needed was the last slap in the face.

    I would not vote for McCain. I will just vote 3rd party or downticket. I hate that it's reached this point -- a few months ago, it was any Democrat will do. But Obama and his minions scare the life out of me. They offend me too. It'd take an awful lot to get me to change my mind. I can't speak for anyone else.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe those of us who choose (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:30:26 PM EST
    not to be a stepford voter are truly reflecting the change so many Obama supporters and Obama him self say they want. Change to me means which of the two candidates running will do the least harm (don't we always seem to have this choice, this way). So, we choose to exercise our voting right of choice. Just because you do not, does not make you wrong, and many of us right. It just makes America. America needs strong, decisive leadership, which imo with the dem. as Obama, it doesn't have.

    [ Parent ]
    He is bringing change (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by blogtopus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:52:09 PM EST
    but it isn't the kind he'll be known for. He'll be known as the candidate who's campaign inspired the Dem party to split and form the third party it's always wanted. What that means we'll not know, but as you can see in political history, parties come and go. Maybe it's time for the Dem party to decide what it wants / doesn't want. It decided in the 60's to support the civil rights movement, and pushed a huge amount of voters into the GOP.

    Maybe by this move by the 'Creative Class', we're seeing the true third party emerge. Who knows?

    [ Parent ]

    Frankly (4.16 / 6) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:48:41 PM EST