Can Obama Win Without Clinton Democrats?

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    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.


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

    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!

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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
    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.


    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.


    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.


    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

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

    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?

    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.


    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??

    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! :-)


    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.

    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.  


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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).

    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?

    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
    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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


    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.


    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.

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


    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.


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


    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.


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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    This response (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:57:40 PM EST
    reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of coalition politics.

    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.  

    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."

    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.


    The coalition is the Democratic party (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.


    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.

    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?


    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.

    ah, the sweet clarity of youth (none / 0) (#211)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:55:14 PM EST
    Your comment speaks for itself (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:56:22 PM EST
    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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?


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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).

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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...


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    & 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...

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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?


    Frankly (4.16 / 6) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:48:41 PM EST
    Yes. I despise the entire stop Obama and vote for McCain movement that you have become a part of.

    I will not vote for McCain. (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:57:45 PM EST
    And, I am not part of a vote for McCain movement.

    Then you are not referred to (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:03:21 PM EST
    Oh, ok, then I am not offended. (none / 0) (#44)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:05:13 PM EST
    Whew. (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by oldpro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:10:42 PM EST
    Close call.

    "despise" is a strong word (5.00 / 13) (#45)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:05:21 PM EST
    Obama won't reach out to Clinton dems.  He insults the base.  His surrogates say they don't need us.  We are called elderly, racist and uneducated hillbillies.  He denigrated both Bill and Hillary Clinton.  He ripped apart Clinton's legacy.  He destroyed our chance at universal healthcare.

    If the only reason you can come up with for us to vote for Obama is that he might be the democratic nominee, I think your argument falls short.  It's tantamount to a lawyer going in and telling a jury that his client should get off because he's a Shriner and there are members of the jury who are also Shriners.  Right is right and wrong is just wrong.

    I have never said I would vote for McCain.  I said I would vote down-ticket dem, but that my vote hardly matters as I am in GA.  I also said I might have moral qualms with this if I were in a swing state.  This is my right as a voter.

    But, the point is that for you to despise us for making a moral choice seems very out of character for you.  Granted, I don't know you well, but it seems very disrespectful of you to make such a comment.  Further, saying you "despise" someone for a moral choice is certainly not a way to win them over.  You are constantly bashing Obama supporters who are nasty and disrespectful even as they call for unity.  Maybe you should look in the mirror.


    huh? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by manish on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:21:49 PM EST
    Obama won't reach out to Clinton dems.  He insults the base.  His surrogates say they don't need us.  We are called elderly, racist and uneducated hillbillies.  He denigrated both Bill and Hillary Clinton.  He ripped apart Clinton's legacy.  He destroyed our chance at universal healthcare.

    huh?  You have some proof that Obama won't reach out to the Clinton dems?  How about some examples of him insulting the base or that his surrogates are calling Clinton supporters elderly, racist or uneducated hillbillies?  I also don't remember him denigrating the Clintons and have no idea how the candidate not taking money from the insurance companies is somehow destroying our chance at universal healthcare.


    not just a river in egypt (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:24:08 PM EST
    I guess you aren't paying too close attention.

    Wax build-up in your ears for 10 months? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Shainzona on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:46:37 PM EST
    The latest RFK smear (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:25:11 PM EST
    looks like proof positive to me that:

    1. Obama will never offer the VP slot of Hillary*

    2. Clinton voters have no place in Obama's party, if he wins the nom. I mean, think about it: Do you really want to work with people you claim are calling for your candidate's death? Do I really want to work with people who propagate that Big Lie?

    OK, so now what?

    (Of course I hold Obama responsible. He could have stopped the whole thing with a word when it started. He waited 24 hours, until the damage was done, and then put out his snarky "take her at her work" statement. Does he think we are stupid?)

    * Not that I think she should take a lateral promotion, but it would be a choreograph-able gesture of reconciliation.


    "Take her at her word" = (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by Shainzona on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:43:42 PM EST
    "is likeable enough".  

    I want to slap his face when he plays these games.


    If I can't vote for the better candidate, because (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by Anne on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:28:12 PM EST
    the powers-that-be (DNC and some of the dumbest superdelegates I ever knew existed) have been seduced by little more than their belief that backing Obama means they will get their own personal ATM card to use at the Obama Money Machine, I don't understand why I should reinforce their stupidity by voting for Obama.  

    Or why I should give Obama permission to "shape" the party around ideas and ideals that I don't share, and discard the ones I think are most important.

    Or why I should assist the candidate who has made trashing the backbone of the party into a sport.

    The man has not earned my respect and he hasn't earned my vote.  I won't vote for McCain, but I also won't sell out my principles for someone who doesn't give a cr@p about me.

    Obama's candidacy is about Obama. He's not worth it.


    Its called a rebuilding year (4.92 / 13) (#97)
    by SeaMBA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:21:11 PM EST
    Hi BTD,
    I don't have a ton of time to carefully craft my post, so please bear with me.

    I despised people that voted for Nader, so I can understand your sentiment.  However, I think that the situations are a little different this time than when Nader siphoned off critical votes.

    As I recall, the Naderites felt that the other candidates weren't Democratic (left) as they should be.  

    I am not going to vote for Obama not because I don't think he is Democratic enough, but because I think he is going to do the Democratic party irreparable harm.  I think he is going to be a LOUSY president.  He is going to be the Democratic George W. Bush.  

    I don't see him as a fighter for principle.  I don't find him to have a serious grasp of policy.  He is clearly not a uniter.   I see him as an intellectual light weight.  When he doesn't have a teleprompter he can't speak.  He has a weak record of accomplishing things before running for president.  He wasn't thoroughly vetted in the press and by the American people.  I think that describes Bush to a T, although he at least was a Governor.  

    Iraq is a mess. We face huge energy and environmental issues.  To solve the problems we have is going to take a strong leader. Obama is not a strong leader, otherwise he would have been the runaway winner at this point.   Instead we have a party well divided.

    In some ways I would rather another 4 years of Republican stupidity, to firmly settle the problems of this country on their ideas.  The flaw with that idea is that it would assume that we have a Democratic leadership in Congress that actually has a SPINE to offer reasonable, workable ideas that they stand behind.  I might feel somewhat better about Obama if we had stronger Congressional leadership, but as it is, I only see Trouble (yes, with a capital T).  In 4 years, with this congress and Obama as president, I see Democrats once again and more firmly labeled as ineffective.  And we then face another 20 years of Republican crap.

    If I were a sports fan I might call this a rebuilding season.  We clearly couldn't win against GWB, so we obviously need to build a better Democratic party.  Obama is not the face of a better Democratic party.

    I'll be voting for Clinton no matter who is the official nominee.


    I will not vote for McCain nor (none / 0) (#249)
    by rise hillary rise on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:33:14 PM EST
    will I vote for Obama. I've been a registered D for 30 years. no longer. I'll write in Hillary if she's not the nominee. I am not even sure I would vote "unity" at this point.

    If Obama is gonna be POTUS he's gonna have to do it without my support.


    All one needs to do is watch Obama's (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:48:47 PM EST
    face when interviewed, or in some way paid extra attention to. He does not (imo) want to share the camera, or the moment and I believe that will be reflected in his vp choice. Hey, he did it when he stepped in to defend Michelle. He answered the questions with "I" instead of "she" or "us". He is an elitest who craves attention. Just look into his eyes..they are practically "sainting" right before our eyes. Honest, I've seen it.

    I think the dismissive attitude of Obama (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by athyrio on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:52:23 PM EST
    reflected to the media on the plane reflects his real attitude of Clinton supporters....He isn't capable of unity with that attitude as I really think he is starting to believe his own publicity...Too bad really as he had a promising career before all this mess....I know of many Clinton supporters that won't vote unless she is on top of the ticket...otherwise makes no sense since she is by far the more experienced and knowledgeable...

    Clinton supporters (1.50 / 4) (#15)
    by manish on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:55:17 PM EST
    There were many Republicans who said that they would never vote for McCain who are now rallying around him.  Having said that, can you imagine the feeling of being robbed that Obama supporters are going to feel if Obama isn't at the top of the ticket?  He's clinched the pledged delegates based on the rules that Ickes and 11 other Clinton supporters (and the Clinton campaign in writing) agreed to at the DNC.

    good point (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:59:47 PM EST
    McCain has (to a degree) mended fences with the conservatives in his party.

    How do you suppose he did that?

    Hint: It wasn't by continuing to insult them and their issues, or by calling them racists (which, it turns out, they likely are).


    I think (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by rnibs on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:12:57 PM EST
    they're rallying around McCain because they REALLY don't like Obama.  

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:19:08 PM EST
    Even though they don't like McCain, they want a Repub back in the WH.  They also know that McCain attracts indy voters and, with all the Clinton supporters who are being turned off by Obama, I think they sense a pickup of some votes.

    Repubs always rally around the nominee. (4.00 / 1) (#93)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:20:29 PM EST
    Historically speaking, far more than Dems.

    "The feeling of being robbed..." (5.00 / 6) (#127)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:29:00 PM EST
    Can I imagine the feeling of being robbed?

    You mean like when FL and MI were disenfranchised?

    You mean when caucus state votes count more than real secret ballot elections?

    You mean like the stories filtering out about what really went on in the TX caucuses?

    You mean like the press, who've thrown their support to Obama, trying to suppress voter turnout?

    That kind of robbed? Or what kind of robbed do you mean?


    FL and MI disenfranchised? (1.00 / 3) (#158)
    by manish on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:40:18 PM EST
    And who voted to disenfranchise FL and MI before she tried to get their votes to count in a way that would disenfranchise only the Obama supporters because it was convenient for her?

    The rules are the rules..you think caucuses are bad, then work to turn them into primaries.  But those were the rules that were in effect when the game was played out.  


    DING DING DING DING (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by blogtopus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:56:37 PM EST
    RULZ ALERT!!! Duck and Cover.

    Manish, you REALLY need to do some research into the previous threads here at TL, or you risk getting a troll rating and booted. I guess you probably have about 2 or 3 postings left before that happens.


    Unity begins..... (1.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Laureola on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:01:38 PM EST
    ....when the loser concedes.

    Obama;s candidacy is on him (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:07:28 PM EST
    He needs to unite the PArry if HE wants to win.

    You are so delusional that again, you seem intent on making sure Clinton gets blamed for Obama's loss than on Obama actually winning.


    She's already getting the blame (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:12:24 PM EST
    since Super Tuesday, when they were already trying to push her candidacy out. What makes you think that no matter what happens, even if she would be on the ticket as vp, she still would get the blame if he loses because he was forced into accepting her, or people who hated her wouldn't vote.

    Obama can't unite the party until...... (1.80 / 5) (#103)
    by Laureola on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:22:42 PM EST
    ....Clinton concedes.  However long that takes, the ball is in Clinton's court.

    the latest version of (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:25:52 PM EST

    Utter nonsense.


    troll alert (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:28:54 PM EST
    No. Unity would have (5.00 / 8) (#100)
    by rnibs on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:22:12 PM EST
    begun if Obama hadn't gotten where he was byu turning most AA's against Clinton by smearing her as a racist.

    And unity would have begun if Obama hadn't stood by while the DNC and media called Hillary every sexist name in the book.

    And unity would have begun if Obama and his cohorts hadn't tried multiple times to force Clinton out of the race early.

    And unity would have begun... the list goes on.

    All things that Obama failed even try for.  He now wants unity because it's his last desperate chance to win in Nov., if he becomes the nominee.

    Why wasn't he doing something about unity back in March when all of the Hillary hatred started ramping up?


    All things of which..... (1.80 / 5) (#105)
    by Laureola on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:24:35 PM EST
    ....Obama is not guilty of.  In my humble opinion, those are contrived excuses for failure.

    no. (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by sarahfdavis on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:50:45 PM EST
    all of your responses are contrived.
    your nasty candidate smiles and rips the party in half.
    and his bullying supporters gloat and laugh as they
    descend on clinton like maggots.
    i don't care what happens at this point. I have no wish to be
    part of the new hatocratic coaliton.

    Agreed (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    This "new coalition" that they talk about just isn't big enough to win in November. We need the whole party to do that, and writing off people you need is a guaranteed way to lose.

    The blame game that will arise afterwards, as described by Turkana, is not something I want to be a part of either.

    Exactly who is talking about the (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:14:13 PM EST
    "new coalition?"  Is it Obama himself or those supporters who blog?  

    I just can't imagine a stategist looking at the map and the numbers and thinking that Obama can win the GE without a major part of the Clinton wing.  It would be absolute folly.

    Now how to reach out to the Clinton wing is another question.  Asking her to be VP is certainly one good way to bring some of them on board.  Beyond that, is there something else he can do?


    He could ask for my vote. (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by hitchhiker on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:56:58 PM EST
    He never has.  He has, instead, said that he's going to get it.

    He could have not waited (5.00 / 2) (#243)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:12:50 PM EST
    until after the attack dogs savaged Clinton on RFK to say that he did not think the was hoping for his assassignation.

    That is just the most recent thing, not the most important one.


    we'll see how he handles the VP issue (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:15:58 PM EST
    I am discouraged by how he is dealing with FL/Mi.

    Obama is the only one that..... (1.00 / 4) (#113)
    by Laureola on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    ....is seeking a fair compromise on FL and MI.  Clinton's non-negotiable demands are an obstacle.

    Oy (none / 0) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:27:33 PM EST
    I am done discussing anything with you.


    Please do not reply to me and I promise I will ignore you.


    Why don't you crown him after June 3rd? (none / 0) (#88)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:18:11 PM EST
    You are asked "us" to think (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:54:05 PM EST
    about the party first and foremost, when Obama doesn't. So why would we support his behavior when he chooses not to support mine?

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by blogtopus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:59:57 PM EST
    That's what beaten spouses do, don't you know that? You do what THEY want, WHEN they want it, and the next day is followed with a peck on the cheek, and a 'that wasn't so bad, was it?' or 'I promise I won't ever hit you again.'



    Disappointed (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:54:35 PM EST
    Duncan has pretty much stopped pretending to be impartial, which is a good thing. The one-sidedness of his campaign critiques have been obvious for some time. The bad thing is I now have lost respect for another blogger I used to like as he slips deeper and deeper down the wormhole to O-fantasyland.

    I have some sympathy for Obama here. He has campaigned in a way that denigrates the Clinton presidency, which was an appealing tactic to broad numbers of voters and independents. It was not principled, it was pragmatic. He didn't/doesn't differ from her in many policy-related ways, so this  ("she's a Clinton, Clintons are bad, I am change") is how he campaigned.

    Now, of course, that it (hypothetically) comes time to pick a VP nominee, the pragmatic thing to do is ... pick the person he's spent so much time and energy bashing. Some of his supporters will clearly be enraged if he does, even if many (not all) of HRC's supporters will see it a good move.

    Personally, I don't think he has the courage to do it.

    I think possibly your piece got (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:57:36 PM EST
    a bit screwed up--I am sure you meant to say you don't want to 'take a chance' on losing the presidency??

    As to despising Clinton supporters--hey, imagine for a moment being a person who for 20 or 30 or 60 years has had 'democrat' as part of her identity.      Plus I, at least, have a gay family member who is very edgy about McCain.

    But principles must be upheld by at least a few people, and the party will not be fixed by nominating and electing an unqualified person to the highest office.  I see too much likeness to Bush 2, and a scary and totally repelling similarity to a number of demagogues and con merchants I have observed.

    I won't vote for McCain, but neither will I vote for Obama (in this totally red state, it won't make a hair's difference to the outcome).  Short term pain for the party may equal a long term gain for justice and for civil rights and for respect for others.

    Ahem (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:58:52 PM EST
    the party will not be fixed by nominating and electing an unqualified person to the highest office
    Some of us care more about winning than "fixing the party." A McCain Presidency is more unacceptable than anything else.

    As I recall, (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:16:11 PM EST
    you are a year or so younger than I!  I lived through Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 2.  I can live through McCain, and America can survive McCain.  I am not at all sure America would survive Obama years intact.  Sometimes, winning is not the whole story--aka, Vietnam, tho that won't resonate with you, I guess.

    And now, I shall take myself off this thread.  When this site descends to the point of throwing words like 'despise' around, we are already broken.  That was a word 'too far.'


    Is having (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:25:21 PM EST
    another Jimmy Carter for 4 years worth winning in Nov.? That one win set off over a decade of Republican dominance that still echoes today.

    Whatever happens, (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:29:00 PM EST
    he is guaranteed to be better than McCain. Even if he can replace a few aging SC justices, it will have been worth it.

    If the SJC grows a spine (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:31:29 PM EST
    we don't have to worry about the SC.

    I'm tired of hearing that argument.


    I'm inclined to deal with the reality (none / 0) (#151)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:36:20 PM EST
    that only controlling the Presidency really matters.

    Destruction of the (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:54:44 PM EST
    Democratic party means destruction of wins for a very long time.

    Think long term.  Was Carter helpful to the Democratic brand?


    I change the wording (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:00:14 PM EST
    to remove any confusion.

    As for the rest of your comment, I refer you to my post.


    It's impossible to vote while disliking (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by Prabhata on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:58:57 PM EST
    a candidate. I don't see how he can reach me if I won't even listen to him.  I dislike his character, his speeches and his supporters. I dislike him so much, I'm set to use my vote as a protest against BO and the DNC, even if it means McCain gets to select the next(s) Supreme Court judge(s).

    It wasn't that way in January.  BO earned my dislike of him.

    It's impossible to vote while disliking (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by delacarpa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:19:33 PM EST
    because of the reason being, the news media the DNC members trying to present a new Democratic party, and the fact that if my husband was trying to get a high tech job that would require a security clearence and had the background Obama does he would not get one. If one wants to argue my point the info is there which by the way will be in the GOP back pocket. Why worry we will McCain anyway.

    Donna Brazile (5.00 / 13) (#39)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:03:11 PM EST
    has already said that white rural voters and Hispanics, core components of the HRC bloc, are not needed.

    She said it.  She speaks for the DNC.  NOT one MEMBER of the DNC came out and refutted those comments.

    He will lose the GE, and deservedly so when his surrogates spout off like that.

    I know she said it (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:09:33 PM EST
    She is the problem.

    She is "A" problem... (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by oldpro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:16:21 PM EST
    but sure as shootin'

    ...she's not the only one.


    True (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:26:22 PM EST
    If nobody slaps Donna down... (5.00 / 6) (#136)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:32:18 PM EST
    ... then the problem is a lot bigger than she is.

    Axelrod (5.00 / 5) (#173)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:43:48 PM EST
    said the same thing about working class whites. Nothing was done by the Obama campaign.

    One good thing - Donna Brazille (5.00 / 3) (#240)
    by DJ on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:10:15 PM EST
    said if the 750 superdelegates chose the nominee she would quit the democratic party.

    Oh goody!


    Power, Obama's unity pony (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:06:42 PM EST
    Obama had visions of sugar plums.  He would be the uniter by crushing everyone else.  Well, he did not crush.  He thought the Dem nomination would be piece of cake, but instead it tore up the people that were all united.  Now, he has to bring together the people he thought he had before he can even start attracting the Indies etc.  He broke it with his nuclear candidacy and the Clinton trashing.  They believed the Clinton hate, that is why I think they are doomed.  They don't pay attention and like you said earlier, hubris.  Obama is exposed as a weak candidate.  No one did it to him.  

    Winning and Losing. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by not the senator on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:13:24 PM EST
    Speaking as a long-time Democratic Party member:

    Two of the most important constituent groups in the Democratic party are supporting history making nominees and unfortunately, only one will win and the other's backers will be disappointed. Neither group has the "right" to the nomination, they competed under the same rules.

    Only one way of winning is fair and that's by obtaining the most delegates since that is the method that the nomination is awarded.

    Once 2,026 delegates are won (and we have to go by that number since the holder of that number of delegates will be in control of the credentials committee and be able to apportion the delegations of the penalized states of MI & FL) it is over. That's the process that is in place for this year. If you want to change it to Popular Vote or Electoral Vote or All Caucus or All Primaries or All Super Delegates, you can...next election cycle. Anything else is just an attempt to sabotage the existing nomination process and obtain the nomination by coup.

    If you are interested in electing a Democrat, in stopping 4 more years of Bush and interested in preventing more right-wing appointments to the Supreme Court, the loser and their backers must to accept that this was close but they lost.

    This applies equally to both the Clinton and Obama campaigns.

    Let's get on with it and with winning in November.

    Nosequitor to my post (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:14:29 PM EST
    btw, BTD, you're apparently a racist (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:50:08 PM EST
    according to comments at the Klein piece you link.

    Maybe worse, but I stopped at that one.  I found it as despicable as being told here that I'm despicable.


    Sorry, (none / 0) (#90)
    by not the senator on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:19:18 PM EST
    Thought it was the open thread.

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:13:42 PM EST
    BTD you said Obama would be nuts not to count FL and MI and it looks like he will do everything to deny them their primary votes. The greatest hits keep coming from the inept Obama campaign:

    1. Bill Clinton must heal the party. WTF???
    2. Everything is Hillary's fault.

    The Obama wing is the McGovern wing of the party. They were a lot happier before Clinton came along and won, truly I believe this. I don't know how many Obama supporters I have talked to that talk about losing congress in 1994 but naively forget about 48 state GOP landslides in presidential elections. They are for a small tent.

    The party needs to figure out a way to get Hillary on the top of the ticket. There's just no other way we're going to win in Nov. unless this happens. Obama has burned too many bridges for one and frankly, a lot of people just don't see him as qualified and there is nothing that can be done about that. After all, when you run for the presidency you are asking the electorate to hire you to do a job. Most people won't hire an unqualified candidate.

    Not Clinton Cultist (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:16:44 PM EST
    I am officially not a Clinton cultists.  I want Hillary to win but me not supporting Obama in the GE is I do not want "the movement to have that much power" , he does not know how to build coalitions and I do not know what he stands for.  So, I will work for a strong Senate and Congress, but I don't want the Presidency to have all that power.  I would prefer a lame president than one who can build all this power.  It's that simple.  

    I AM A LIBERAL CULTIST (5.00 / 6) (#230)
    by blogtopus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:04:09 PM EST
    How's that for an answer. I want the candidate most likely to bring effective Health Care for all, Keep Social Security Safe, and bring our troops home in a safe manner for all. Among other things.

    Obama is even more of a centrist than Hillary, and a heckuva lot more inept. He has the backing of several major powers and is still in a statistical tie with Hillary who has enjoyed nearly the exact opposite in terms of press, support, etc. Which candidate would YOU choose?


    I can live with someone (5.00 / 8) (#86)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:17:22 PM EST
    despising me for the choices that I make. Those choices are mine to make and did not come quickly or easily.

    What I cannot live with is despising myself for voting for someone I not only dislike, but loathe. I cannot in all good conscience vote for someone that I find divisive, dishonest, shallow, arrogant, misogynistic, and guilty of calling people racist simply because we don't want to vote for him. There are more reasons but that's a good start.

    Others may not see Obama in the same light that I do. That is their right. I am simply saying how "I" see him and his campaign. I am well aware that he is not responsible for all the ugliness that Obama supporters have committed. But he sets the tone. And the tone has been ugly.

    I don't remember those on the left willing to give GWB a pass on the ugliness committed on John McCain by Bush surrogates and supporters. I find such double standards offensive.

    I will not vote for Obama. I will not vote for McCain. It is my right to cast my vote as best suits my conscience. If that is despicable, so be it.


    That makes no sense (none / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:24:42 PM EST
    Are you saying if Bush had NOT done those things to McCain in 2000 you would NOT have voted for Gore?

    Excuse me, buy you must be joking.


    If you are responding to me (5.00 / 4) (#238)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:09:27 PM EST
    then you misunderstood what I said or I didn't say it plainly enough.

    What Bush did or did not do to McCain had nothing to do with my voting for Gore. I have never even considered voting for a Republican in my life.

    The ugly campaign that was run against John McCain in SC (?) was not done by Bush himself but since he did not denounce it and benefited by it, to me that meant he owned it.

    When Obama (or anyone's campaign) surrogates commit ugliness in a campaign, such as the misogyny used against Senator Clinton, then it is up to the candidate to denounce it or they own it. Benefiting by some one's else doing the dirty work doesn't absolve anyone in my mind.

    I suspect you won't agree with this either.


    huh? (none / 0) (#124)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:28:54 PM EST
    I don't understand your comment, here, BTD.

    The Obama campaign seems to be of two minds (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by ruffian on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:31:11 PM EST
    about selecting Hillary.  One camp puts out statements like Friday's, making it impossible to believe they would select her, and the other camp sends Axelrod out there today to all but apologize. I believe Axlerod may be a pragmatist who probably sees things like BTD.

    The irony is that the efforts that one side makes to ensure she will not be VP also insult her so much that they undermine Obama's chances in November without her on the ticket.  

    They should try to control (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:32:23 PM EST
    their cultists. Same goes for the other side. Though if this thread is any indication, that may not be possible.

    Axelrod (Obama)..... (4.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Laureola on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:35:14 PM EST
    ....is clearly trying to promote unity.  Most people here are not.

    (in my humble opinion)


    A link please? (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:38:03 PM EST
    Your opinion, and five bucks, will buy a latte at the Ritz Carlton.

    You can get a latte (none / 0) (#164)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:41:53 PM EST
    at the Ritz for $5?

    Wow...I thought it'd be more.


    Wanting party (5.00 / 3) (#207)
    by rnibs on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:53:28 PM EST
    unity is not the same as promoting it.  

    Ok..you owe me for a new (4.83 / 6) (#163)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:41:43 PM EST
    laptop.  First you conflate Axelrod with Obama.  Then you say they want unity.  They want absolute power.  It's the only way their alleged bipartisanship will work.  In my humble opinion, I will not give it to them.  The party cannot be "the Obama" party.  It's the Democratic party.  It existed before the movement.  I will not hand it over.  

    putting "(in my humble opinion)" (4.40 / 5) (#155)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:38:52 PM EST
    at the end of your comments doesn't make you any less nonsensical. Axelrod and the Obama campaign are still -- by his own admission -- circulating the youtube video of HRC's RFK remark to uncommitted superdelegates.

    If this is your idea of "clearly trying to promote unity," you need a remedial lesson in the meaning of words.


    I think Axlerod despises us as well (4.00 / 4) (#154)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:38:13 PM EST
    Axelrod suffers from Rove (4.42 / 7) (#166)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:42:44 PM EST
    envy.  I will not let those people in power.  It's that simple.  

    The dumb thing is (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by lilburro on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:35:56 PM EST
    there's no need to "theorize."  Clinton is winning them.  The tremendous amount of mental energy wasted on this issue is useless this year, because the answer is obvious:  stop hating the Clintons, have Hillary on the ticket.  What the tremendous amount of mental energy spent theorizing is NOW used on is ignoring this and figuring out how to win without her.  

    Why not "envision" what has already happened:  Clinton has gotten a lot of white working class voters on board again.  And you want to say, no, let's start over, I didn't blog about that, whine whine whine?

    Oh I feel some rage coming on.

    The Obama wing... (5.00 / 7) (#162)
    by Demogrunt on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:41:29 PM EST
    is a misnomer.  There is no Obama wing of the Democratic Party, and that will be shown in the upcoming general election.  There is an Obama personality cult, but that is a different story.  

    Hillary has maintained her hold on the Democratic base.  Barack Obama's support is a mix of blacks, ultra liberals, college students, and faux Democrats made up of Independents and Republicans, who may or may not support him in the general election.  I question the depth of his true support.  

    As for if Barack can win without Clinton supporters, no way.  He is a vacuous, and narcissistic individual that thrives on adoration, but is rather lazy when it comes to the nuts and bolts of policy. This sounds like the Democratic version of George Bush to me.

    The Heraclitan Fire blog has an excellent post entitled "Not now, not ever - A repudiation of Obama and the New Bolsheviks and an Interesting Possibility" from 5/18/08.  It is an excellent read.


    Obama will beat all odds and lose (5.00 / 4) (#174)
    by Sunshine on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:43:51 PM EST
    Until we completely get rid of Donna Brazile, Bob Strum and af few other so called leaders we will not win.... These losers never won anything...   They looked at Kerry and said "war hero", they should have been saying "Jane Fonda"... They had Gore acting like a goof-ball in the debates... Now, they're saying "wouldn't it be nice if a black guy won", it doesn't matter if he is qualified or not... They say that Jeremiah Wright won't matter, it didn't with the 92% blacks that voted Obama knowing about him and a few other shady relationships, wait until the Independents get mixed in....  They say they don't need Hillary's supporters, that's great, they won't have them... They think they will woo the Republicans, ther're already talking about the return of the Reagan Democrats,  well, lots of luck with that....  
    Glad I live in Texas with these Red-necks that think that bumper stickers are gospel, after all thats how GWB got elected is reciting bumper stickers, no matter which way I vote, McCain will win here, it won't be my fault...  

    This is the funny part (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:47:56 PM EST
    They think they will woo the Republicans, ther're already talking about the return of the Reagan Democrats,  well, lots of luck with that.

    They say he is a "uniter" on one hand (he has cross-over appeal), yet when it came down to it, these became "Clinton Democrats" (yes, SHE brought them back into the party) and these are the same people Donna Brazile says the "new coalition" doesn't need.

    The stupid - it burns!


    BTD, who are you (5.00 / 2) (#250)
    by gandy007 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:44:51 PM EST
    to think you have the right to despise me.

    I believe you have said you are 45 years old.

    I have been a good and faithful Democrat, election after election, for just about as long as you have been on this planet.

    The only way I believe I could possibly vote for Obama, as I have said, is if it became crystal clear that McCain would make preemptive war against another nation.

    You think this was not an excruciating decision.
    The problem for me is that I see this as a moral imperative and no one, including you, has the right to judge me or my reasons for reaching that decision.

    Questioning my judgment or moral justification is somewhat akin to saying that the reason I voted for Clinton is because I am a racist.  I will proudly write in Hillary Clinton and vote for every Democrat down ballot, if she should not get the nomination.

    Maybe you should  consider that my not voting for Obama is at this point merely theoretical, as I still have hopes that the world will become sane and the best candidate will  be nominated.  But then, perhaps unlike me, you have given up any possibility that Clinton could prevail.  

    I'll be frank -- I think Obama is unelectable (4.50 / 6) (#71)
    by katiebird on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:14:03 PM EST
    Unless the issues that we aren't even allowed to talk about are addressed openly.

    Obama has some very serious baggage and most Democrats -- I'm guessing even Super Delegates don't know it's there.

    I asked Ezra months ago about the truth & importance of one of those issues and Ezra's answer is that no one cares about it.  The trouble person isn't Obama, it's someone he knows.  Oh really?

    Look, I know we're not to talk about this stuff here or just about anywhere else.  

    But, I think that unless Obama figures out how he's going to deal with it in the GE, he's got a lot more problems than Clinton Democrats.

    [Delete if necessary]

    Why do they want to bury the Clinton legacy? (4.40 / 5) (#229)
    by Saul on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:03:23 PM EST
    Through out this campaign I can see a clear difference between the current Bush Administration and any new democrat administration that probably will come in to play in 09 but for the life of me I cannot understand why Obama is not only fighting the Bush administration with their obvious reason for being against them but he is also running a campaign against the Clintons as though they were on the same level as the Bush administration.

    Can some one list for me the the things that the Clintons did that  were so terrible that Obama  equates them  to the same level as the Bush administration?

    He was a two term Democrat president
    He left the highest financial surplus ever.
    He left with I think was a 65 approval rating.

    Why would Obama say all this is bad.  What am I missing here?

    Could it be that Obama deep down inside is saying

    "Yeah the Clintons did a lot of good but were tired of that old good and we need some new good"

    From the UK (4.33 / 3) (#83)
    by Emma on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:16:53 PM EST
    Times Online, in a story on Hillary's remark about RFK, an article which blames the divided dem party specifically on Hillary's campaign:

    Senior officials on Obama's campaign believe Bill Clinton has the unique status and political gifts to reunite the party after such gaffes [by HRC]. They expressed confidence that the former president would rise above the perceived slights and grudges of a hard-fought campaign and work flat out for an Obama victory in November's presidential election.

    "If anybody can put their arms around the party and say we need to be together, it is Bill Clinton," a senior Obama aide said.

    "He's brilliant, he has got heart and he cares deeply about the country. It's tricky because of his position as Hillary's spouse, but his involvement is very important to us.

    "Bill Clinton will give permission to Hillary supporters to come into our camp and become one party. He is critical to this effort."

    One, I don't agree that the division is Hillary's fault so I'm already angry.

    Two, we want Bill, but not Hillary?  WWTBQ becomes WWTBG(et)L(ost).

    Three, what "one party" are we supposed to become?  Go into "our camp" and become "one party"?  I'm not sure I'm going to like their party.

    It is a delicate matter to bring Bill Clinton on board. The former president believes that Obama should offer his wife the vice-presidential slot as a mark of respect after she proved her electoral strength in the big must-win states for Democrats, but her latest error is widely perceived to have squandered what little chance she had.

    "It would be hard to take the country in a new direction with the Clintons in the White House," a source in the Obama campaign said. "They bring controversy."

    From this, it's clear to me that the only reason to bring Bill on board is to marginalize both him and Hillary.

    There's more, and I don't know how much of it is true.  It's all speculation built around sort of generic quotes aboue Bill's character from second-hand sources.

    I found this trial balloon to be hilarious (5.00 / 11) (#216)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:57:15 PM EST
    as well as demeaning to Hillary, of course.

    But it is hilarious -- if exactly what I predicted months ago -- that Obama's solution to his problems is to call on the guy he (yes, Obama, speaking through his campaign co-chair) called out as a racist.  

    And I love Bill, but he is not the go-to guy to talk to women voters who have been barraged with sexist attacks by the Obamans and their media bullies.

    The only one who can fix this is Obama -- and I don't think that he can, as he went off his "post-racial" message himself with smears of racism for starters, and he has derailed over and over since with his race speech demeaning grandma, "typical white person" that she is, and then most decidedly with revelations of his long allegiance to his racist mentor and pastor.  

    Maybe Hillary Clinton can help with another of Obama's problems, his sexism, but I doubt even that can be done.  And, clearly from this trial balloon, the Obamans don't want her help.

    And all this means that as Prima Donna says, they don't want me, just my vote.  And that message really is the worst of all.


    Can Obama win without Clinton (4.33 / 3) (#202)
    by bjorn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:52:10 PM EST


    Clinton needs to be on the ticket one way or the other.  And if she is on top, Obama needs to be VP.  Because she can't win without his voters either, imo.

    I'm not in politics. I'm a voter. (4.00 / 4) (#224)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:00:57 PM EST
    And I'm still trying to find even a phrase in your opus that does not tick me off -- as so many of your comments here do.  You're not earning your pay.

    Clinton IS NOT destroying the party by continuing (4.00 / 4) (#235)
    by deebee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:07:18 PM EST
    I read as far as the post that said the Clinton is destroying the party because she continues to run.  In my opinion, BO is destroying the party and intends to.. because he does not think that the party needs working class whites..  He has characterized them in the most unflattering terms (racist).  He has not campaigned personally in two states that are heavily working class white.  

    I am not surprised that someone who spent 20 years with Rev Right would think this way..  No accident there.

    Quit frankly I think BO and GWB are quit similar.. Two divisive people who are being packaged as "uniters", change agents. Two people who are immature, incapable of facing strong opposition directly, blame their failings on others, (white, working class voters don't like me because they are racist).  

    Neither of these men had achieved anything significant before they were forced on us  as a reasonable choice to be president of the country.. In fact, BO's resume is thinner than GWB's was...  He is a better package than GWB but the immaturity and arrogance are very similar

    The media destroyed the candidacy of a stellar person, Al Gore and delivered us GWB....  Don't let them deliver their pick, BO..   Stay strong.. support Hillary.  Come to DC on May 31.

    It's the Obama Campaign in a Nutshell--. . . . (3.66 / 3) (#236)
    by Doc Rock on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:08:34 PM EST
    . . . high-minded values expressed in platitudes without vision, step-by-step tactical attack plan, or comprehensive strategy.    Focussed on the youth  leaving the lame and the old to fend for themselves in competition with the lesser-skilled workforce.  Where's the Big Tent that will achieve the 50 state strategy of the DNC?  DOA.

    I just don't get BTD's support of Obama when: (3.50 / 2) (#184)
    by athyrio on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:46:18 PM EST
    1. the rules say going to the convention is Ok and has been done many times before....

    2. Obama is clearly the least experienced and least knowledgeable as proven by his many gafts....

    3. Hillary is now in the electoral polls clearly the stronger candidate...

    So why, is BTD, supporting "tepidly" a candidate that doesn't have the strongest electability? The media darling thing doesn't cut it because most Hillary supporters seem to be impervious to the medias badmouthing of her...I don't understand it, but then again I am an old lady that maybe isn't too smart...

    Ezra Klein (3.00 / 2) (#159)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:40:38 PM EST
    is 24 years. He is too young to remember the battles and he thinks it's history. It's not. If Obama wins it will because of McCain's ineptitude though as right now the election is McCain's to lose.

    I now that I won't be voting for Obama because he doesn't share my values and I think a fair number of  Americans vote their values and that spells trouble for Obama.

    Can Obama Win Without Clinton Democrats? (2.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Laureola on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:00:34 PM EST
    That's up to Clinton Democrats.

    Can America win with them failing Obama?

    Anpother perfect example (5.00 / 8) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:08:36 PM EST
    It is up to OBAMA, not the voters.

    This is just the destructive thinking that will sink us in November.


    If the blogs reflect the party (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:10:05 PM EST
    then we're finished for November.

    It's perfect logic (2.60 / 5) (#119)
    by Laureola on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:28:06 PM EST
    Whether or not Obama can win is largely up to how Clinton supporters process their grief.

    textbook immaturity (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:30:02 PM EST
    Nothing is our responsibility, nope, nosirree. It's all on someone else. Just pathetic.

    too funny! (5.00 / 7) (#232)
    by hitchhiker on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:05:12 PM EST
    but a great example of how some of Obama's supporters have personalized this primary.

    hon, you process grief when somebody close to you gets permanently disabled.

    you process grief when you lose your house.

    you process grief when you go bankrupt.

    when your mom dies.

    when some moron runs over your dog.


    this is politics, 'kay?  we're trying to choose the best candidate for the presidency, because we think it would be good to have somebody competent and knowledgeable in office, just for the novelty value.


    process grief . . .snort.


    Whether or not Obama can win (4.69 / 13) (#188)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:46:51 PM EST
    just may be up to how soon Obama supporters like you learn to STFU.

    LOL failing Obama (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:27:59 PM EST
    That is funny!  :)  My best laugh of the day.

    failing Obama? (5.00 / 5) (#237)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    That's a whole new concept for a democracy.

    GIve it a rest... (4.85 / 7) (#129)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:30:02 PM EST
    You and I both know that unity starts with the person who is the nominee extending a real olive branch to the opponent and his/her supporters.

    You don't attain any sort of viable unity by lording it over folks, threatening voters, insulting voters, and dismissing them as irrelevant.

    If you don't understand what actual coalition building is (as opposed to the faux stuff currently being bandied about), maybe you ought to go and observe how it's done elsewhere. May I rec Belfast? Cause right now you have two top ministers who couldn't be more opposite of each other...


    How does one extend an olive branch..... (4.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Laureola on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:31:15 PM EST
    ...to an opponent that is still fighting?

    Note the "is" (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:34:24 PM EST
    Neither of these candidates is the nominee at this point.

    As of right now, that would be at the end of August.

    Once that's been determined the unity effort starts with the nominee...


    Maybe by not smearing her? (4.78 / 14) (#147)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:35:51 PM EST
    Just sayin. The RFK thing is the last straw for me.

    Me too. (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:39:34 PM EST
    "failing Obama" (4.76 / 13) (#58)
    by Kathy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:09:58 PM EST
    Can someone please give me one instance where Obama took the blame for any of his problems?

    If Obama cannot connect with and win voters, it is OBAMA'S problem, not the voters.  The failure to grasp that basic fact is what is sinking his bid.


    What problems? (1.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Laureola on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:28:28 PM EST

    pathetic (4.71 / 7) (#67)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:13:11 PM EST
    You continue to propagate this notion that somehow voters owe candidates their votes.

    Candidates have to earn them.

    McCain has reached out to conservative elements within his party to attempt to reassure them that he will represent their concerns. They have not simply just mindlessly said, "Must. Obey. GOP."

    Obama's campaign continues to sneer at Clinton and her supporters. This is not the way to earn votes.


    Obama is not Satan (3.00 / 4) (#130)
    by Laureola on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:30:11 PM EST
    There's no rational excuse for not supporting him as a second choice after one's favorite candidate fails.

    (in my humble opinion)


    thank you (5.00 / 6) (#149)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:36:01 PM EST
    for clearing up the fact that the junior senator from Illinois is not, in fact, a mythological demon. It was confusing there for a while.

    That you cannot identify reasons not to support him, even hypothetical ones, tells me a great deal about the penetrating nature of your intellect.


    I have completely rational democratic... (5.00 / 7) (#227)
    by cosbo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:02:17 PM EST
    friends who will not vote for Obama because they think he is not qualified. They have no confidence in him to be their leader. They know today, that they will not be voting for Obama in the fall. His thin foreign policy resume reminds them of Bush thin foreign policy resume and they want nothing to do with selecting him president.

    Do Clinton Democrats (4.40 / 10) (#56)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    see something in the Obama candidacy and the Obama movement that scares them as much as the RNC?  YES.   So, it's not trivial our concern.  I don't want anyone, never mind a weak candidate, to have so much power.  So, my not voting is to not give that much power to anyone, and particularly someone I do not respect or who I do not share values.  

    Exactly (4.50 / 8) (#140)
    by rnibs on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:33:58 PM EST
    My own personal position is that having Obama represent the Dem party is as bad as having Bush represent the GOP.  I always felt that if I had been a Republican, I would have been screaming my head off for the last eight years saying, "I want my party back!"  I don't agree with Republican ideas, but today's party seems worse to me than it was pre-Goldwater and pre-Contract-with-America.

    If the Dem party starts looking like the Obamites, I'll be screaming, "I want my party back."  That's what my not voting for Obama will be.  I know that parties need to evolve, but this is not the direction that I choose.  Should he be the new face of the party, I guess that will make me an independent who will vote for every other Dem on the ticket, but leave the top blank.


    despise the Clinton's? (1.84 / 13) (#7)
    by manish on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:49:55 PM EST
    I don't think anyone coming into the race really despised the Clinton's.  There are many that wanted someone else to be the nominee, which is perfectly fine.

    However, what you have now is the Clinton's bringing scorn upon themselves.  Jesse Jackson won the South Carolina primary, RFK's assasination, 3am phone call, praising John McCain..the list goes on.

    That is why many Democrats are turning on the Clinton's.

    As to naming Hillary the V.P...the VP is the 2nd in command.  Many previous candidates have selected a VP based on electoral considerations.  In reality, the VP should be someone that the Presidential candidate feels comfortable with as a 2nd in command that they feel that they can work with.  Bush specifically chose Cheney for those reasons.

    If Obama feels that Hillary is that person, then I support him in doing so.  If not, he should be free to chose any VP candidate that he feels most comfortable with.

    Making my point (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    some Obama supporters are so obliging.

    stupidity (4.77 / 9) (#21)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:57:38 PM EST
    The only people bringing scorn upon the Clintons are  the media and those of you in the Obama camp who deliberately misinterpret her remarks to suit your own ends. Why do that, I wonder?

    Hating the Clintons is the most basic answer.


    Um (4.62 / 8) (#14)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:55:01 PM EST
    However, what you have now is the Clinton's bringing scorn upon themselves.  Jesse Jackson won the South Carolina primary, RFK's assasination, 3am phone call, praising John McCain..the list goes on.

    Everything she (or Bill) said in those supposedly "bad" comments were true, factual comments.  So now we're supposed to hate politicians when they tell the truth?


    give me a break (3.00 / 2) (#24)
    by manish on Sun May 25, 2008 at 02:58:03 PM EST
    Yes, it is true that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina when he ran..however, other than race-baiting, how is this factoid relevant to the point that Obama won South Carolina?

    How is any of this relevant to my post? (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    Get back on topic, or be gone?

    the relevance is (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:08:21 PM EST
    that Jesse Jackson, though he won a state with a large African American democratic voter base, did not win the nomination. That was his point. The entirety of the quote makes that painfully obvious.

    That is only race-baiting if you are determined to perceive racism whenever race is mentioned by a white candidate. Not very post-racial of you. I'm sure Obama would be very disappointed.


    Well (4.50 / 6) (#48)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:06:00 PM EST
    I guess since Jesse Jackson himself said the comments weren't racist, I find it incredible that Obama and his supporters and the worshippers in the media made it out to be a racist comment.

    But then again, I'm just a low-information voter.


    Obama Golf! (none / 0) (#141)
    by lambertstrether on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:34:02 PM EST
    A game you might enjoy, cmugirl!

    I saw that! (none / 0) (#167)
    by cmugirl on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:42:49 PM EST
    Thanks!  I'll give it a try!

    (OT - I posted my first comment at Corrente [jbaker] today - thanks for another outlet of sanity!)


    That's great! (none / 0) (#217)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:58:24 PM EST
    And there are many who do want her and (4.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Joan in VA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:04:48 PM EST
    many who aren't turning on them. So where will he get replacements for her voters? His current coalition isn't enough to win. Your attitude will see that he doesn't.

    C'mon. Cheney was chosen for more reasons than that GWB was comfortable with him.


    Chose Cheney? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Blue Jean on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:04:11 PM EST
    Actually, Junior didn't "choose" Cheney.  Cheney chaired the committee for Junior's Veep selection and decided that the best person to be Veep was...Cheney.

    Maybe we should appoint HRC as the chair of a committee to choose Obama's Veep. ;-)


    We can win without Clinton (1.33 / 6) (#138)
    by EmmanuelWinner on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:32:41 PM EST
    Obama is pulliong together such a grassroots coalition that, yes, I think we can win without the Clintonistas.
    Besides, the Clintons occasionally hinting at the VP spot is just playing for time.  Rachel Maddow is right, they intend to take it to the convenhion anyway, which would hurt the party as much as if they just walk out on it.  So Obama might just as well let them go, and decide to push into the disaffected Republican and independent ranks, which he is doing now anyway.  I'm sorry that the Democratic Party won't be the same after all this, but that was Clinton's choice, not Obama's.

    at least you're honest. (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by dws3665 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:44:51 PM EST
    Good luck with that.

    No, you can't (4.80 / 5) (#179)
    by rnibs on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:44:40 PM EST
    It's delusional to think, as you state, that
    "Obama is pulliong together such a grassroots coalition that, yes, I think we can win without the Clintonistas."

    Ever heard of George McGovern?


    Disappointed in Duncan Black (none / 0) (#63)
    by catfish on Sun May 25, 2008 at 03:12:03 PM EST
    he was a good voice of reason for a long time.

    Atrios was not (none / 0) (#252)
    by desert dawg on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:21:54 AM EST
    seconding Klein, he was disagreeing with him.