Obama's GE Margin Of Error: Nonexistent

I am sorry to continue to harp on the need for a Unity Ticket, but I feel it is important. I just looked at the latest McCain-Obama head to heads (forget the electoral college math problems for a moment) and here they are:

Rasmussen: Obama 44, McCain 46

Gallup: Obama 45, McCain 47

Newsweek: Obama 46, McCain 46

Forget for a moment that Clinton is beating McCain in these same polls, excuse me, is no one but me worried about needing a unified Democratic Party in November? I pray there are grownups in the Obama camp that will give him a reality check on this.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed. I am gone for the rest of the weekend. I might be back Tuesday or Wednesday if something about FL/MI happens. I will not be writing on anything else for the time being.

< Sunday Afternoon Open Thread | Open Thread - Watch Recount Tonight >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why not nominate Hillary? (5.00 / 22) (#1)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:52:33 PM EST
    She'd be happy to run with Obama as her VP.  Problem solved.

    I'm thinking (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:02:52 PM EST
    that I as witness the evolution of BTD's thinking that is where he will end up. One of few true enjoyments of this primary has been to read his posts and see his thinking evolve. His honesty is refreshing.

    Because losing is what Democrats do best (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by Davidson on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:06:49 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton, with her incredibly strong and potent coalition, threatens that cherished tradition of losing elections, even those that are gift-wrapped for Democrats (see: McGovern).  What better way to display "unity" than giving the Republican Party a way to win the White House when it should be impossible for them to do so?

    So it's better to pretend that it's not totally possible and within the precious "rules" to nominate Hillary Clinton and just focus on making Obama somehow electable.*  May I suggest asking McCain to drop out now for the sake of the country?  Or perhaps disenfranchising all those states that probably are too stupid to understand the awesomeness that is Obama (I'm looking at you, OH!).  And if all else fails, we should switch to caucuses!

    *By "electable," I don't mean actually winning--Heavens, no!--but avoiding a landslide loss and settling for a "respectable" one like Kerry or Gore.


    I had some testy exchanges with friends (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by zyx on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:55:15 PM EST
    ...in past months who told me that Obama was the best choice because he was the best candidate for the GE--that he led in the polls, etc.  I suspected that they didn't want to tell me that they disliked Hillary, and that was their way of rationalizing--but STILL.

    Gag me.

    It simply hasn't been true (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:56:22 PM EST
    since Super Tuesday.

    Yes, the supposed fact that he would (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:58:43 PM EST
    win the GE in a landslide was a very important reason to choose him!

    This is early polling (none / 0) (#120)
    by 1jane on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:35:46 PM EST
    and McCain and Obama have not yet gone head to head. There is so much baggage McCain carries, a broke and broken RNC, Bush fatigue, dispirited Republicans, losing House and Senate seats right and left, inability to field Republican candidates in state races.....

    Way to soon to jump to any conclusions.


    I am not the one who argued choosing (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:41:44 PM EST
    Obama because he would win the GE in a landslide. That WAS the primary argument of his online supporters, 5 months ago. According to you, they were jumping the gun.

    If Obama supporters had allowed a reasonable (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:10:23 PM EST
    level of vetting Obama, the Republicans wouldn't have to do it. Don't doubt they have a busload to run over him with.

    McCain was broke before (none / 0) (#295)
    by zyx on Mon May 26, 2008 at 01:00:18 PM EST
    and the oddsmakers were giving his single-digits for the nomination in 2007.  You could have made a lot of money putting a few dollars on him back in December or so.

    I am not a big risk-taker, and wouldn't put money on him or against him.  I think McCain has a lot of potential appeal to voters.  


    I am hearing this from MANY Obama (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by kenosharick on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:39:06 PM EST
    supporters- they say all the polls show him winning big. Where are these polls they speak of? The vast majority think he will win the WH in a cakewalk.

    Well, why not?? (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:49:12 PM EST
    After all, if mean ole' Hillary hadn't kept campaigning and ruining his roll to the nomination, the primaries would have been a cakewalk. Of course, I am not sure how he is going to persuade McCain to "quit for the good of the (insert whatever here)". Obama seems to think that when he wants an office, everyone should get out of the way and let him have it. Someone should point out to him that is not how a democracy works. And I don't think the GOP is going to buy any of his arguments for why he is the best candidate for President. They will start showing reasons why he is one of the worst ever offered. I wonder how many of those reasons will be news to the Democratic leadership. Not many, I'll bet.

    Gallup (5.00 / 5) (#153)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:55:51 PM EST
    Daily trackin' poll had him beating the tar out of her (all the while Obama was losing to and she was beating McCain).  Those are likely the polls being quoted.

    I think the RFK garbage produced a rally around Clinton effect, because she's coming back.

    And that's likely why Obama et al. walked back on the RFK fake controversy (of course while still handing out Keith "Joe McCarthy" Olbermann's vitriolic garbage).

    One thing I noted during impeachment -- Bill Clinton never did better in the poll than when he was being trashed by media.  Everyone knows the media trashes the Clintons.  Her voters just don't care.


    you're right! (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:17:21 PM EST
    Today Axelrod was trying to walk it back. It didn't seem like he be doing that unless he'd figured out that continuing to scream ASSASSINATION! isn't wise while complaining that Hillary placed Obama in danger.

    Golly Gee (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by pammc on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:55:24 PM EST
    seems like the DNC may need us after all.

    It is my opinion that the only reason (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:57:32 PM EST
    Obama has wanted Hillary out of the race before August is that his camp anticipated a drop in polls for him against McCain. Whether this is because of Hillary or not, I don't know or care. I don't see any other logical reason for them to be so desperate to get her out, since the "math" seems so good for Obama.  With Hillary in the race, SD's have over 2 months to reconsider choosing Obama.
    At the rate things are going now, maybe that is enough for Hillary.

    I also think Hillary would be willing to drop out in return for the VP nomination. If Obama's camp is smart, they should be asking her to make that choice, instead of having their surrogates scoff and chuckle at the possibility.

    I disagree that Hillary would be interested in the (5.00 / 15) (#15)
    by athyrio on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:01:57 PM EST
    VP position at all...There is absolutely nothing to be gained for her in this....After all the hate, etc from the Obama campaign (even the mailing of Olberman tape to the media in recent days) there is absolutely no reason for her to stay around if he wins the nomination except to campaign for him as promised....She is a great senator from NY and should return to that to rerun again in 4 yrs...The only unity ticket most of her supporters would be interested in supporting would be her at the top of the ticket..

    Athyrio, I am truly sorry if I have (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:32:21 PM EST
    misinterpreted your words. I have been reading these posts all day and so much of what you wrote sounded like the (what I would call)trolling that has been going on here and perhaps I should have recognized your name, but I did not. I am truly sorry.

    Thank you for the apology (5.00 / 0) (#126)
    by athyrio on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:38:12 PM EST
    and if you read back many months you will discover why I have very personal reasons for supporting Hillary and shall continue to do so....

    I, too, have supported Hillary for quite (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    a long time. I did the Tx 2-step for her, complained at the unfair pandering of the process, and have told her she's my hero. We are on the same team and again, I apologize.

    Please update your talking (none / 0) (#18)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:03:28 PM EST
    points book(s). We've heard this all many, many time before. Please give us new info.

    For a first-day poster here (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:23:22 PM EST
    you're awfully sassy with a longtimer here.

    Athyrio has detailed, far more than anything you have done, exactly why her stand is what it is.  We don't do the work for you.  Use the search function.


    Is your reply directed at what I (none / 0) (#90)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:25:16 PM EST

    Why should I care more than Obama (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by felizarte on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:28:30 PM EST
    if he is the nominee, for the democratic party in November?  He has campaigned with no regard for half of the democratic party.  Why should the victims of his thinking, now be the ones responsible for acting to unite the party after he has done with impunity, to divide it?

    Obama and the leaders of the party no longer deserve my loyalty. I will vote for what I believe is best for the country.  And Obama is not it for me.


    my sentiments exactly (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by ccpup on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    I have friends who bought the media blather and voted for Bush in 2000 and, since then, quite literally hang their heads in shame whenever they think back to what they unwittingly helped create.

    I refuse to vote for Obama simply because he has a (D) by his name.  I'm not going to be even slightly responsible for yet another disastrous Presidency.

    I won't vote McCain, though.  I'll leave Pres blank -- for the first time in my voting life! -- and support worthy downticket Dems.  

    But Obama will never have my vote, my money or my support.  And, yes -- knowing how politically active and engaged I am --, my friends ARE shocked by my intractable stance.

    In fact, I was speaking with a very good friend in Paris last week who spent our whole dinner together repeatedly asking "really?  you really won't vote for pres?  really? ... really?!"  She knows my history and my loyalty to the Dem Party and my not voting for the Top of the Ticket just didn't compute for her.

    I suspect many, many feel the same way.


    Yes, the parallels with 2000 make me (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:42:52 PM EST
    bitter too. I am fortunate that I am in a state where Obama has no chance, regardless.

    I live in NYC part-time (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by ccpup on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:50:59 PM EST
    and, although I'm by NYU in Greenwich Village, I don't know anyone who supports Obama now even if they were gung-ho (mainly NYU kids) for him during the Primary Season.

    Actually, many regret voting for him and wish they could recast their vote for Hillary.  In fact, one of my friends who voted for Obama via absentee in WA State was aghast with his last debate performance and just could not stomach the fact he voted for "that guy", as he now puts it.

    The more they see of him, the less they like him ... ergo the desperate attempts to force Hillary from the race.  The only way he wins is if there isn't an opponent ... which is kind of an obvious end result if you stop and think about it.  :-)


    But if you are a Hillary supporter, you (none / 0) (#124)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:37:23 PM EST
    must acknowledge that she is in a good position to convince you to vote for Obama, if she is on the ticket.

    Was that a snark? (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:37:30 PM EST
    I support Hillary, but my vote isn't hers to give to someone else.

    I don't think they are reasoning well, though (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:12:00 PM EST
    in looking at the situation this way.  Maybe it's because a lot of them (note I didn't say all) are not old enough to remember what real negative campaigning is, Republican-style.  And I think perhaps the hatred for Hillary has blinded them to how effective the Republican machine can be.    They managed to turn Kerry's war record into a liability, for goodness sake.

    The longer the attention is on Obama vs Clinton, the  less time and airtime the Republicans have to attack them.  I think Obamas supporters may look back to the last few months as the good old days.  Most of the swing voters don't get into a tizzy about references to RFK, or respond to race-baiting.  They're too busy living their lives and worrying about their mortgages for the MSNBC/blogger crowd to get any traction with them.  The Republicans, however, have always done a great job of aiming their ads right into the center of most people's everyday fears and problems.


    what gets me is - (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:28:26 PM EST
    their Hillary-hate is stronger than their knowledge of Obama's positions on the issues. Most don't have a clue he voted for Cheney's energy bill or voted against capping credit card interest rates.
    Instead they believe St. Obama would never vote to give the oil companies huge tax breaks! And yet who was first out of the gate to dismiss Hillary's gas tax suspension and claim the oil companies paying the taxes "just wouldn't work."

    Hillary as VP - bad idea (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by LCaution on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:19:43 PM EST
    I think Obama would still lose - and she would get the blame.  Besides, she would have more power and influence as Majority Leader or even as just a Senator.

    Even as a Hillary supporter, I don't think I could vote for an Obama/Hillary ticket for the simple reason that I have decided he is not qualified to be President, and he's too arrogant to turn the effective reins of govt. over to her (as Bush has done with Cheney).

    Turn things around: do you think Obama's supporters would accept a Hillary/Obama ticket?


    It wouldn't make a difference! (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Cate on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:00:21 PM EST
    I am committed to re-registering as 'unafiliated' if Obama gets the nomination and then leaving the top spot empty in the GE - even if Hillary is on the ticket..BTD, you are wrong about it healing the wounds.

    The reason: I want to take down not only Obama but the people BEHIND Obama's campaign. They are a cancer on our society. It is appalling that this faction of the Democratic Party has been there all along - no wonder we lose and the Republican's hate us with the likes of Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews being our spokesmen!!!

    We are totally disgusted - and maybe BTD should accept this reality.


    I switched to independent (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by Mrwirez on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:31:16 PM EST
    2 weeks ago after 22 years in the D party.

    I think they wanted her to quit (none / 0) (#196)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:28:38 PM EST
    because she was starting to win and gather significant momentum thus becoming the favored candidate.

    Additionally, that crowd wanted her to quit because hints of Obama's vast weaknesses were emerging.

    They didn't care about the GE, only the nomination and defeat of the Clinton wing of the party.


    I see a lot of "yes men" (5.00 / 0) (#11)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:59:05 PM EST
    and very few who are willing to step into the breach and say "hey look."

    Feingold did ages ago...and look how he got thwacked for his observations.

    My Formerly Intelligent Friend (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Kensdad on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:02:42 PM EST
    who has fallen heart and soul for obama assures me that hillary's poll numbers would fall instantly (vs. mccain) if she were to win (i.e. "steal") the nomination...  you see, obama supporters are very magnanimous towards Hillary, he assures me, but if she were successful in her bid to win (i.e. "steal") the nomination, then suddenly those unity-loving obamaites would start telling the truth to pollsters that they would not vote for Hillary in november...  also, he assures me that obama's poll numbers against mccain will rise as soon as hillary leaves the race and hillary supporters regain their senses long enough to realize that obama is their only choice!

    (the above message is brought to you from the mind of an otherwise intelligent and rational person...)

    Well It Is A Hope Based Candidacy n/t (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:16:29 PM EST
    I love the 'poll #s will go up when HRC (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by nulee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:21:48 PM EST
    exits' - was just reading this over at MYDD.  I am glad you focused on this because this is a really weak argument from the Obama camp.  He will have great GE numbers when McCain drops out too!  LOL.

    They will (none / 0) (#108)
    by waldenpond on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:30:53 PM EST
    statistically speaking they will.  Both camps prepare for it and then wait for it to shake out.  McCain camp has planned on riding out the wave for Clinton or Obama.

    Problem: if pollsters stop polling Clinton if Obama is labeled the presumptive nominee.


    What fantasy (none / 0) (#201)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:32:15 PM EST
    were they citing?

    I guess if one is stupid enough to fall for the Unity pony they'll buy into any crackpot ideas.


    Umm, don't think so (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:29:03 PM EST
    Oh, sure, there would be some online kool-aid drinkers whose head will explode but my canvassing experience showed me that most ordinary Obama people don't really have that much problem moving over to Clinton.  They only need a gentle push.  Clinton people are adamant though.  They don't want anymore amateurs in the White House.  

    Exactly. That's my biggest problem (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:30:48 PM EST
    with Obama.  He's done nothing in nearly 50 years of life to merit the office.  I don't want another President where the advisors have to make the decisions.  It's no time for amateur hour.

    yes, the advisers will help him.. (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:39:13 PM EST
    I have mentioned my poli-sci prof friend who said Obama will do well because he'll have good advisers.
    I know this person has little respect for the abilities of ANY Presidential candidate, which I think is a terrible mistake.

    I think the Wright (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by LoisInCo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:44:51 PM EST
    nonsense blew his argument there. He claimed not to know at all how his pastor thought after 20 years. So it makes claiming you will know how an advisor will think a wee bit hard to swallow. ( For the record I have no issue Wright, just think Obama harmed himself with his reaction ).

    Well, this is a guy who thinks William (none / 0) (#157)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:59:51 PM EST
    Ayers has some good arguments for his terrorism.

    Oh God (none / 0) (#206)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:34:09 PM EST
    a closet Jacobin.

    I remember literally begging my best friend not (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by suki on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:22:33 PM EST
    to vote for Bush in 2000. She said the same thing about him - it will be OK because he'll have 'good advisors'. I even mailed her Molly Ivin's book,"Shrub" (which was all anyone needed to know) to no avail.
    I never said, I told you so, but it was really hard not to. I feel as frustrated now as I did then.

    I know of many people who...tell (none / 0) (#247)
    by AX10 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:32:55 PM EST
    me that Obama will have "good" advisors and we need not worry one bit.
    This could be another disaster in the waiting.

    I'm Particurly Fond Of Obama's GOOD Advisor (none / 0) (#283)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:54:30 AM EST
    who is in favor of privatizing SS. Stephanie Powers (who I think will be back on board) is on record as favoring military intervention in Israel.

    Jennifer Hart? (none / 0) (#288)
    by dws3665 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:51:33 AM EST
    of Hart to Hart fame is an Obama supporter?! I've heard he's "in" with the Creative Class, but this is just ridiculous! ;-)


    You mean Samantha Power, of the famous "monster" quote.


    frankly, obama hasn't shown a great (none / 0) (#292)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:26:01 AM EST
    deal of talent for picking good advisors over the years. witness reverend wright. i think the block supporting him will make sure they dominate the inside advisors. the insider dems might find the door locked. it will be "their time" and to heck with the rest.

    switchability of supporters (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by LCaution on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:26:30 PM EST
    I think you've hit on a key point.

    I've been surprised by the repeated polls showing that Obama's supporters are more willing to vote for Hillary than v.v. because, based on online comments, the reverse has seemed to be true to me.

    Bur I've started to think, as you point out, that the explanation may be experience rather than race.  More of Obama's supporters think Hillary is qualified to be President than the reverse.


    switchability of supporters (none / 0) (#193)
    by LCaution on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:27:00 PM EST
    I think you've hit on a key point.

    I've been surprised by the repeated polls showing that Obama's supporters are more willing to vote for Hillary than v.v. because, based on online comments, the reverse has seemed to be true to me.

    Bur I've started to think, as you point out, that the explanation may be experience rather than race.  More of Obama's supporters think Hillary is qualified to be President than the reverse.


    Sometimes you might think some obama (4.00 / 4) (#34)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:10:41 PM EST
    followers have had partial lobotomies...all clear thoughts and rationale have seemed to fly out the window.  Those of us who support Hillary, do not go along with all she has done; and yes, there have been gaffes, but nothing earth shattering that would take away from her being a good president.  On the other hand, obamatrons REFUSE to believe this guy can do any wrong...they will twist all his wrongs into a right to protect him.  It is frightening and people need to wake up to what is going on.

    One more thing...all those young voters obama supposedly brought to the table, might have voted in the primaries, but traditionally young voters do not show up for the GE.  With the lack of the working class voters, those former followers suffering buyer's remorse and not having the youth vote...obama is royally...well you know the rest.


    I'm starting to wonder (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Grace on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:49:10 PM EST
    if some of the SDs (especially the ones with elected positions) aren't looking out for their own jobs by supporting Obama.  

    Let's face it:  The Democratic Congress isn't exactly "well loved" at this point.  

    It would give them a little job security if a Republican became President.  We'd get gridlock again.  


    agree re Dem. leadership (none / 0) (#200)
    by LCaution on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:31:19 PM EST
    I've thought for some time now that Pelosi and Reid would prefer to have a disinterested, uninvolved Obsma in the White House than a detail-oriented, policy-smart Hillary.

    And McCain would be almost as good, maybe even better, because the two of them could blame yet another Republican President for their own inadequacies.


    Well, I'll be damned (none / 0) (#190)
    by dell on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:25:34 PM EST
    ...so THAT'S what's happened to me!!  

    I HAVE been wondering.

    I sure hope my insurance covered it.

    But if it turns out that it was more than partial, I guess I could get Jeralyn and/or Armando to represent me...


    Projecting (none / 0) (#214)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:40:53 PM EST
    "all clear thoughts and rationale have seemed to fly out the window."

    In 2000 I knew people who projected their goals on Bush.

    But the mass projection we hear from the Obama crowd is just way way overboard.  I've never experienced anything to match the madness we see in his following.


    i look on it as the american idol syndrone. (none / 0) (#293)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:27:54 AM EST
    I'm confused. (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by mystic4hill on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:04:50 PM EST
    If Hillary can win without Obama, but you don't think Obama can win without Hillary, tell me again why Obama should be top of the ticket?

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by LoisInCo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:06:57 PM EST
    he is the media darling. And that is the single most important quality in a President. <sarcasm>

    Forget what I think (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    Obama is going to be the nominee.

    Keep fighting. I applaud you. I applaud her.

    But I do not stick my head in the sand.


    Why? Why will Obama be the (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:08:32 PM EST

    You know, (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by LoisInCo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:10:01 PM EST
    even I think that he will be the nominee and I am a Hillary cultist.

    That's not what I asked. I said why. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:10:51 PM EST
    Because the SD's will stick with him, (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:12:40 PM EST
    IMO. What will peel them away? 2 months of miserable polling will probably not be enough---unfortunately, IMO.

    Let's say the Republicans put something (none / 0) (#167)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:08:35 PM EST
    from their list of attacks out there that shows Obama in a light that destroys his base of supporters and his numbers drop to only a 35% to McCain at over 55%?

    Then, do you honestly think the SD's will stick by him?


    Well, first of all that's a hypothetical; (none / 0) (#182)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:18:34 PM EST
    second, why would the Republicans unleash their strongest attacks before Obama is nominated?
    The Swift Boat stuff didn't start until Kerry got the nomination---and that selection wasn't even in doubt before then.

    I don't agree (none / 0) (#235)
    by Cate on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:22:17 PM EST
    I truly believe if the SD's were for Obama, they would not want Hillary to continue in the race. They would believe she is 'ruining the party' by prolonging the primary. They COULD end it right now by coming out for Obama. But guess what? They haven't....why is that BTD?

    Because the SD's (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by LoisInCo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:12:48 PM EST
    will NOT give Clinton the nomination. They dont have the cojones half of them were born with. One part is the racial aspect, another part is the CDS aspect and the last part is the coward aspect.

    I have to disagree. I think (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:17:14 PM EST
    cowardice comes first.

    Cowardice would seem to be a safe bet (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:25:17 PM EST
    to come in first.  

    I think it is a fair question - (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by nulee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:16:58 PM EST
    I am guessing the reason BTD is saying this is that he thinks the SDs will go for BO post-primaries in large enough numbers to put him over the delegate finish line.  But yours is an important question to ask.  1) will that happen given that there are polls like these? 2) if HRC just lies low between now and August, will BO self-destruct, or at least look so weak that a convention reassessment of things will not be crucial, potentially putting HRC over the top?

    Bottomline - BTD is making a prediction, totally fair.  We don't know what will happen - and there are definitely scenarios under which HRC could clinch the nomination.

    Remember - there is no nominee until the convention.


    BTD is not making a predication. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:20:38 PM EST
    BTD has said the same thing, consistently, for as long as I've been coming here. For whatever reason, he has been consistent. Obama supporters, however, that I've seen come here, have changed positions over several cycles to see what works. They think it works, it does not. BTD's opinions matter to me and perhaps to others here.

    of course he is making a prediction (none / 0) (#86)
    by nulee on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:23:25 PM EST
    he can't read the future!

    Someone once said: (none / 0) (#125)
    by magnetics on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:37:30 PM EST
    "Prediction is difficult; especially of the future."

    Yogi Berra said: "A ballgame ain't over 'til it's over."


    They Want Access To His Donor Lists (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:20:36 PM EST
    They fear the party will lose the support of the AA community and the youth vote.

    They think that any Dem can win in 08 or at least at this point they want to believe it.


    But they want to send Bill Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#170)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:09:21 PM EST
    out to fix the party unity problem. What is wrong with that picture?? It doesn't make sense to me. If the Clintons are the ones that can bring the party back together after the "unity candidate", and his supporters, fractured it, why isn't Hillary the best candidate for nomination? Unlike Obama, she can get cross-over Republican women who might stay with us, and the AAs and the middle class were always with the Clintons, and the Democrats, until Obama came along. Again, what is wrong with this picture?? Everything.

    I Also Think That Clinton Would Be (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:30:48 PM EST
    the best candidate for the GE and the best president. I also think that this primary is not about who is the best candidate to win. This is an internal power struggle for control of the party and what direction it will take now and in the future. The powers behind Obama encouraged him to run this year with that end in site. They have used the fear of losing the AA community, money via donors and donors lists, promises of future powerful positions and threats of primary challenges to get the S.D.s to fall in line behind Obama. They have been very successful. 95% or better chance that Obama will be the nominee IMO.  

    Because he will have 2210+ delegates (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:12:04 PM EST
    when it is all said and done.

    Because the supers are nominating (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:13:02 PM EST
    Obama.  Thanks.

    duh (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:14:27 PM EST
    Ok, fine, but I prefer that to (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:15:25 PM EST
    the lame argument about, well, he won a fraction more pledged delegates.

    When you see me make that argument (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:21:00 PM EST
    Then you should rip me.

    Of course (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:20:30 PM EST
    What would you have me do? I can not change that.

    Really (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:26:44 PM EST
    he probably is going to be the nominee but if he is we also need to deal with the reality that it will be a loss in Nov too. Don't stick your head in the sand on that account either.

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:31:21 PM EST
    Are you seriously accusing me of sticking my head in the sand on Obama's difficult road? REALLY?

    you know what, I am sick and tired of the commenters at this site.

    I have been writing, I bleieve, as honestly and forhtrightly as most any blogger around and I get this sh*t from all of you today?

    Eff it. I am in no mood for it.

    Like j., I am gone for the night.

    I'll put up an Open thread and you can all talk to yourselves.


    Don't Be Mad! (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Jane in CA on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:55:50 PM EST
    I have been both informed and entertained by your commentary in the month or so I've been here.

    I think what you may be hearing is frustration.  For me, it is the frustration of realizing that the party elite is not going to allow the voters to chose HRC as the dem nom, despite all the evidence indicating that she is more electable. That knowledge, along with all the vitriol the MSM, the DNC, and the Obama campaign has spewed makes it impossible for me to support Obama in  the GE.

    I know you understand this; hence your constant promotion of a "unity" ticket. Unfortunately, I -- and many others, I think -- are not going to support any kind of forced "unity" ticket.  This dichotomy is guaranteed to result in heated exchanges between posters.

    I don't think anyone here believes that you are not a political realist. Speaking only for myself, I'm not ready to accept that the Obama machinations are going to deny us a viable candidate in November. I'd prefer to see more strategizing about how to sway the superdelegate vote rather than how to unite the party behind the weaker candidate, but I can't argue with your logic in promoting the unity theme, if your primary goal is to elect a dem president.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:40:42 PM EST
    I didn't read what you were saying that way. Have a good evening.

    You are 100% correct BTD! (none / 0) (#135)
    by 1jane on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:41:37 PM EST
    The selection of the next Democratic nominee has already been decided except for those who have their head in the sand where they cannot see or hear anything.

    So you back Clinton for VP? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Manuel on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:00:13 PM EST
    IF BTD is 100% correct, I mean.

    I don't have my head in the sand. (none / 0) (#290)
    by mystic4hill on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:34:35 AM EST
    While I still believe there's a chance, albeit a very small one, that the SDs will support the candidate who has a better chance of beating McCain in November (Hillary, of course), I don't believe she should come to Obama's rescue by taking the VP slot, if (and that's a big if) he should offer it. Yes, I'm aware that Presidential candidates choose their VPs on the basis of what states they can bring to the election, but it sounds to me as if those who are pushing the Unity ticket, with Obama at the top, don't think he can win at all without her. So, the SDs and the Dem elders are backing a loser but wanting Hillary to make it okay. That's just bull#@$&. And it's same-old-same-old Dem thinking - let's ask the more competitive candidate to take it over the finish line for the least competitive. I'm no longer buying into that. For the first time since I've been old enough to vote (1972) I have my head out of the sand.

    Yes, tell. (none / 0) (#20)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:05:21 PM EST
    Imagine it's "the math" (none / 0) (#30)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:09:07 PM EST
    but that can be taken care of in Denver.  Go all the way!

    Your logic has become tiresome (none / 0) (#109)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:31:06 PM EST
    We really have no place for it this year.  You must be one of the "old coalition".  They used to be into that rational behavior stuff.  That is so five minutes ago.

    But, as long as Hillary is in (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:06:14 PM EST
    Obama loses, that is the logic.  So, the margin of error will come from the ex Clintonites...or something like that.  "the waters are murky cause of her"

    I am (as an old lady) sick and tired of seeing (5.00 / 10) (#50)
    by athyrio on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:14:35 PM EST
    the more experienced female prop up the less experienced male...have seen it for years and years and it is time to stop this madness...

    Time to consider the alternative, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:17:51 PM EST
    If Unity is what you want, put Clinton at the top of te ticket and call it a day.  
    You Obama supporters can continue to be stubborn about it and drag us all off the cliff or you can reconsider your options and make another choice.  
    'Cos we are not going to enable you in indulging your fantasy.  
    Think about it.

    Exactly. It's a choice. The wrong choice (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:19:33 PM EST
    is nominating the weaker candidate, IMO.  

    Correct, shannon. (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:11:51 PM EST
    Good for the Party, good for the country, great for Obama...but Michelle doesn't like it.

    hilarious (1.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Ovah on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:44:41 PM EST

    "you Obama supporters can continue to be stubborn"...it has been a close race, one candidate is leading by a slim margin, it just happens that it isn't your choice.

    this site will be interesting to read once Obama is officially the nominee and chooses a VP other than HRC.

    I read a lot of sports blogs and the democratic primary has become   too much like the fanaticism incumbent in a Red Sox - Yankees rivalry. The playground taunts and reasoning is hilarious. You have so many "valid" reasons why your candidate (team)  is better but in the end they both play the same games and their positions are very similar.

    Everyone is railing on about how important it is to have their choice of candidate win the nomination but then turn around and say "well if Clinton isn't the nominee, then I might not vote or I might write her name in"...really? you would rather martyr your vote just to "prove a lesson to Obamites"?


    I just wrote a post on that very issue (none / 0) (#299)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:04:26 PM EST
    And, by the way, you are new here. Read the comment rules and like all new commenters you are limited to 10 comments in a 24 hour period. You've already insulted one reader, I've deleted the comment, so I won't be surprised if you end up being banned.

    If I could (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    maybe I would. I can't. It is not going to happen.

    Never say never, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:23:16 PM EST
    Funny things can happen when enough people are screaming in their faces.  

    Funny thing... (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Pacific John on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:40:26 PM EST
    ... my widely distributed Texas fraud open letter to my friend, a superdelegate, had an effect. I short order, she endorsed Obama, heard from me, and effectively got back on the fence, saying she is willing to go with the winner of the national popular vote. That's saying something: her daughter works for Kerry, and her son in law is Obama's national communications director.

    I have zero doubt that if superdels see similarly compelling evidence, they will slosh over to Hillary in a heartbeat. This is, after all, the party of Gary Hart. I suspect a lot of superdels are damn glad to be able to hold off until Denver.

    I don't think there is a honest person here who does not think it is best for the party to wait until Denver to pick the nominee, and once that happens, force Obama swallow his pride and go with a unity ticket, no matter which slot he has to take.


    Mhmm, yes. (none / 0) (#92)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:25:53 PM EST
    Okay, I guess it's time to be resigned (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:32:19 PM EST
    and accept that the Dems will lose.  Because that's what happens if he's the nominee.

    Ah, I suddenly have so much more time ahead.


    you will definitely have more time ahead (none / 0) (#298)
    by Ovah on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:52:18 PM EST

    considering you average about 40+ posts a day on this site alone.

    There has to be a better reason (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:18:10 PM EST
    Other than Obama will lose if not.

    Nope, that's it. That's (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:28:27 PM EST
    it in a nutshell.

    That is the best reason (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:26:30 PM EST
    I could possibly imagine.

    Sometimes the best reason (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Edgar08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:38:27 PM EST
    Isn't enough.

    What role will VP Clinton have in an Obama administration?

    Unity for unity's sake isn't going to cut it here.


    "Harping" on unity (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:19:39 PM EST
    isn't how to make it happen.  This post is just about winning with Obama.  Sounds like the idiot superdelegate from California, Cardoza, although at least he didn't "harp."  He just "hopes."

    I hope for a lot of things, too.  But I don't see Obama doing more than promise "hope" even for those things upon which he and I agree.

    You hope (none / 0) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:26:04 PM EST
    Obama will not be the nominee. who is being realistic here, you or me?

    Cream City (5.00 / 0) (#222)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:49:04 PM EST
    isn't running a presidential campaign on hope.

    I hope Obama will mature overnight (5.00 / 2) (#224)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:49:51 PM EST
    if he is to be the nominee, and if he wins the presidency.  You hope he will win, for the sake of winning.  Why?  You are confident that -- what, he can come up to speed fast, he can be controlled by those firmer in their Dem principles?  I have not seen signs that he thinks he has much to learn, nor have I seen others on his staff who merit that high estimation that they would push him to uphold Dem principles.

    I only have seen repetition of Rovian tactics within the party -- and those have been destructive to the Republican party, just as they will be to the Dems.  I see nothing in your candidate that says he wants to repair the damage done to this country by the Republicans, nor do I think he can repair damage already done to the Dems, so they will not be able to do so even without him.

    The clock is ticking on him.  I'll see what he does to merit my trust and my vote.  Or not.  If it was today, I could not vote for him and his tactics.  So today, I continue to work against him.  As you say, that's politics.


    BTD (5.00 / 0) (#230)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:54:43 PM EST
    You actually were the one who convinced me that I didn't want Hillary to be the VP.  It was in the post you wrote that with Hillary in the VP slot, she could take all of the cr@p during the election and let Obama remain above the fray. The picture of that happening, and the realization that it probably would, put me over the edge. That's not a position I want Hillary to be in.  Even if she would allow herself to be used that way, I couldn't support it. Up until then I was beginning to believe that half a loaf was better than none.  There is no half a loaf anymore - just crumbs.

    BTD (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:20:22 PM EST
    has Obama polled over the mid forties post Rev. Wright. It might be conceivable that Wright has damaged him beyond repair and rendered him unelectable under the best of circumstances.

    If this is supposed to be such a good democratic year and Obama STILL can't beat McCain what the heck are we doing? Why nominate a known unelectable candidate? With all the media help it has done absolutely nothing to help his chances. He's split the party wide open. Hillary's voters are leaving in droves. He's deliberately disenfranchising two swing states. I mean how stupid can we get? His campaign seems to think that they are owed the Presidency and that people will automatically vote for him because they hate the GOP? Well, in the end people have to vote based on the candidate not the party and time after time they are rejecting Obama.

    Not in most polls (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:23:23 PM EST
    What can I say? you and I can argue till we are blue in the face on this but the Dem Establishment has decided they are going for Obama.

    They will have excuses in Montana and South Dakota probably and that will be that.


    I say (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by nene on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:34:09 PM EST
    This is where the Dem establishment and many long-time party members part ways.  Many of us can no longer recognize this party and what it stands for.  We won't grovel for recognition or fall into line anymore.  We'll just leave.  We won't reward bad behavior with our votes any more than the Dem party will reward FL or MI for bad behavior (but not their favorite children IA, NH, SC).  We know when we are being treated unfairly.  It's about the party, not the cultism or the candidates.

    Clinton is representing the Democratic (1.33 / 3) (#144)
    by 1jane on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:49:34 PM EST
    establishment as their candidate. She represents the way Washington beltway politics is played now and in the past and Obama represents a deeper more progressive, more inclusive Democracy in politics. His speech today at Weslyen University, standing in for Edward Kennedy, was all about the future and he sounded a lot like JFK. Those who remember JFK's call to action knew he was not an establishment Dem when he made the call.

    Perhaps I misunderstand your personal definition of establishment Dems?


    If JFK had not picked Johnson for VP (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by Manuel on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:05:42 PM EST
    we would have been looking at President Nixon eight years ealier.  Obama will still need the "Clinton" establishment.  What do you advise him to get that support?

    Try rephrasing the problem. (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by befuddled on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:21:02 PM EST
    The unity ticket keeps coming up because there are two candidates evenly split and both sides want to keep their candidate--but that only works on a unity ticket. My opinion, unity ticket won't work RIGHT NOW because the division of attitudes is stable and until something happens to cause a widespread attitude shift, discussing it is almost counterproductive to getting one. Just my idea as a statistician looking at the splits and trends.

    Instead, look at the situation from another angle, perhaps the part where the party needs enough people hanging together to win over McCain. I missed the other thread about the Clinton Democrats but it's the same problem. There has to be a critical mass of voters. Maybe the unity ticket won't work. What's the fallback plan?

    It is up to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Manuel on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:09:46 PM EST
    Only Obama can take concrete actions to unify the party.  So far, he is not showing any signs of even acknowledging there is a problem.  The handling of FL and MI and the recurring calls for Hillary to quit are worrisome.  They show a campaign a little disconnected from reality.

    hillary (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by tedsim on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:22:50 PM EST
    Let's wait for the election to end please!!!This is all rederic. Then hillary will play her cards accordingly. She is not running for V.P.

    rhetoric. (none / 0) (#95)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:26:18 PM EST
    if I remember correctly Jeralyn said that (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by athyrio on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:27:20 PM EST
    the SD's votes aren't binding until the convention and we are far from the convention....ya never know what will happen....not a sure thing either way...

    be worried all you want BTD, (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by cpinva on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:52:09 PM EST
    sen. obama has dug his own grave, let him lie in it. i have no, repeat, NO sympathy for him or his acolytes.

    geez, being "THE ONE", he shouldn't even really need a VP running mate, now should he?

    my only desire is that, after the GE disaster to come, should sen. obama be the eventual dem nominee, all the current leadership of the DNC is cleared out, from top to bottom, and replaced with thinking brains.

    start with howard dean, and work your way down.

    It's a roll of the dice (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Sunshine on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:01:23 PM EST
    Nobody knows how the women will react, they have never been this pissed before...  It's going to be different...   Lets wait and see...

    Unity Ticket (5.00 / 6) (#166)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:07:52 PM EST
    BTD, there is one aspect of your constant call for a Unity ticket that I don't think you are considering. Namely, it is going to piss a lot of women off big time. Too many males are tone deaf to the fact that women have endlessly been expected to take the back seat to men, even when they were imminently more qualified. Too many women have trained men to be their bosses instead of being offered that position. Do you really understand what it would look like to women to make her Obama's VP? In other words, the highly qualified woman takes the back seat to the underqualified male with no experience and the thinnest resume a presidential candidate has ever run with? I predict a huge backlash if this were to come to pass. If he gets this nomination, he would be better off choosing elsewhere.

    Oh, don't worry (1.00 / 2) (#175)
    by talktruthfully on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:12:18 PM EST
    There's no danger of her being selected as VP. America is a country of 300 million people and the Democratic party is full of very talented people who could fill the VP spot; both male and female.

    There is no doubt in mind that Obama will lose (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by bridget on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:16:05 PM EST
    in November should he be the nominee - something I still hope he will not be - and my head is not stuck in the sand at don't you know?

    So if the Supers and Obamafans want and must have him they can have him. I don't have the blowhorn, I have no way to change the national discourse or even add my own voice to it. Who would care. Nobody.

    So I am not going to bang my head against the wall in desperation after all the elections I have been thru should another loser be elected by the Dem party.  
    Also The youngsters and nitwits from the media and blogs w. the blowhorn (same thing nowadays I suppose) will not help me with my migraines now and at the endgame would I do so.

    People like Chris Cillizza(who fawnes over "Superliberal" Olbermann's last Clinton Special Comment with utmost nitwittery. I didn't hear it, of course, because I must respect my healh.

    And there is cute little 23 yr old Ezra who was 13 in 98 (rolling eyes) and someone like Matt Taibbi who sheepishly admits to his own Obamamania on Real Time despite his better judgement: yes, Obama is Republican lite just like Hillary ... but Obaaamaaaa!!! Ah, Matt, I had such hopes for you ... Taibbi used to be a young outsider, spent a long time in Russia... but then came back and it didn't take long for him to fall into the $$$ crowd.

    Re this Very interesting Q and A in People.
    Just read the Bill Clinton article in People and one qs dealt with the campaign press coverage bias against Hillary. "Why do you think that is?"

    Bill: "I think most of the press people are in Obama's demographic. They need a feeling more than they perceive they need a President. There have been times when I thought I was literally lost in a fun house."

    BINGO! Now how brilliant is that?
    He is describing the Matt Taibbi types right there and then. A feeling. Fun House. You betcha.

    So BTD,
    Maybe your above question should be directed to the youngsters and wannabee young with the blowhorn who fell so deep into the Kool Aid tank ... nothing will and can get them out ever it seems to me.

    btw. Bill Clinton was asked 15 qs  in that great article. These days People trumps the elite papers by a mile. Glad I came across it this morning.

    I am completely against a Unity ticket with Obama on top. You couldn't pay me enough to join it as VP myself. And Hillary doesn't need that either.

    People do deserve the leader they get ... it's just a pity there is always the other 50 % who at the end have to suffer along with those who are wrongwrongwrong ....

    Barack Obama (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by tek on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:21:31 PM EST
    has deeply offended almost every group of the Democratic base.  That is just one thing that demonstrates his very poor judgment and political ineptness.  Why should anyone cast their very valuable vote for a man who is not only inept but in many ways looks dangerous?  

    The DNC and the Obama camp are to blame for this whole mess.  I will not support a political party that supports the demonization of a great Democratic president and First Lady.  If the party and the Obama camp had moderated this primary season and run a fair, respectful campaign and Hillary just didn't have the support to be president it would be different.  How dare the DNC do this to Democrats after we have suffered through 8 years of Bush?  If they have their way we will now have 4 more years of a puppet president.

    Go with Obama, and the spouse of the Pres (5.00 / 0) (#197)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:29:16 PM EST
    will be the loose canon.

    Why not nominate tha candidate that can win? (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by pluege on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:33:57 PM EST
    funny how BTD insists on a unity ticket because Obama can't win the GE without it instead of acknowledging that HRC can win the GE ('its the electorial college math stupid') without Obama. Why not nominate the candidate that can actually win - HRC; what on earth is so inevitable or critical about nominating Obama.

    But he *can* win (none / 0) (#216)
    by talktruthfully on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:41:57 PM EST
    All you have to do is vote for him.

    Well, obviously. (none / 0) (#251)
    by Lysis on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:46:20 PM EST
    I just don't see a reason why I should vote for someone who doesn't respect or understand where I come from.

    Racial guilt assuasion? (none / 0) (#226)
    by Regency on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:51:13 PM EST
    I'm not even being snarky and I'm not race-baiting. Seriously, it's like our party's trying to make up for something we didn't do wrong.

    I'm not voting that way, either for HRC or BO. I'm voting for the candidate that has the superior policies and can win in November.

    I don't understand what's happening this primary season. It's absolutely bizarre.

    I almost think we don't want to win.


    I think it's a bit more than that (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by talktruthfully on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:42:18 PM EST
    Not to say that there might not be some people who may see a vote for Obama as a way to somehow redeem the slights of our ancestors, but to peg it down to just that would be too broad a brush. There are so many things at play:

    1. some voters may be put off by the idea of Bush->Clinton->Bush->Clinton
    2. there's the sexism aspect (although one could argue that it would be balanced out by racism)
    3. Obama is charismatic, telegenic and can knock a speech out the park (kinda like Bill)
    4. there are a lot of younger voters today whom would not be nostalgic for the 90's since they were not politically astute/active at the time so just as Bill inspired that demo in the 90's, Obama is doing the same now
    5. Hillary hate - there's lots of folks whom simply don't like her - unfair perhaps, but a rationale nontheless for how well Obama has done comparitively
    6. Just as there are folks who are nostalgic for the 90's, there are others who associate that era, with all the drama and negativity that got in the way at times

    It's been a long hard-fought campaign. We had an absolutely brilliant line-up of candidates. Whatever Obama's flaws are, he's only human afterall, he's the one who is now in a position to clinch the nomination and hopefully win the GE. Voting for McCain or not voting for Obama will do nothing to put the country on the road to recovery.

    If Obama holds on to his supporters, and the vast majority of Hillary supporters are brought on-board when Bill and Hillary start campaigning for Obama in the fall, McCain does not have a snow-ball's chance in hell of winning. Hillary will have her pick of position in the new Obama cabinet come 2009 (my personal choice is health czar).


    I disagree (none / 0) (#256)
    by talktruthfully on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:30:57 PM EST
    You have no way of knowing what's in the minds of millions of people. And if your reason for not voting for Obama is that he somehow disrespected Hillary, then by that same token you shouldn't vote for Hillary cos she also disrespected Obama (not passing the CIC threshold, all he brings is a speech in he made in 2002, not a muslim ... as far as I know).

    As I've posted to others, there's more at stake here than bruised egos. Both Bill and Hillary will campaign hard for Obama, because they are American patriots and do not for one second wish for McCain to finish off what Bush started.

    As for your vote, of course you should vote your conscience. If you weigh the perceived slight against Hillary by Obama as more important than all the other pressing issues facing this country so be it. Just don't try and make the claim that you are speaking for Hillary supporters in general.


    You said... (none / 0) (#276)
    by TheViking on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:53:07 AM EST
    "Both Bill and Hillary will campaign hard for Obama, because they are American patriots and do not for one second wish for McCain to finish off what Bush started."

    You emphasized "hard" in BOLD -- is this your Nov strategy? I hate to tell you, but that's very thin, and of course, wishful thinking...

    And I hate, as many do, the insinuation that Bill and Hill are great Patriots (all of a sudden) and will come out gushing with support for Obama.

    Don't count on it. Like the saying goes, "Usually I like to have a kiss and a cuddle before I get fu*ked!" -- Hill and Bill will make a couple token speeches and send you on your merry way.

    But as many have already said, THEN you'll just turn around and blame us/Hill/Bill when he doesn't win, with your incessant whiny tone.

    Lookit, this whole scenario, and the REAL REASON we are all sick to death of your Obama Reasoning is because, and I'm sorry to say it. You just sound like Whiny Brats.

    It goes like this:

    "Mummy, Mummy, I want this new toy! I WANT IT MOMMY!",

    "But little Johnny, you can't have it, we need to be grown up about this and do what's best for our family."

    "BUT MOTHER! I SAID I WANT IT! Why can't you just give it me, and make it ok mommy"

    "But why should I Johnny? You're being very selfish right now."

    "But you CAN get it for me Mommy, just don't get all that food daddy said you could buy. You can use that money and me my new TOY!"

    "Little Johnny, it's time for you to go to your bedroom little man, and think HARD about what you've just said".


    ....and on and on and on and on and on....

    Tiresome isn't, I can't stand brats and bratty-logic :)


    Hmm (none / 0) (#280)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:51:13 AM EST
    Actually main November strategy is to trust Obama and trust the American people. As for the second part of your post, I really think you need to step back a bit.

    But be honest... (none / 0) (#282)
    by TheViking on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:25:46 AM EST
    ...you really did enjoy the second part :)

    And I too trust the American people, that's way I know Obama will never be President.


    It's OK to be angry (none / 0) (#285)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:17:28 AM EST
    If the roles were reversed and Obama was losing, I'd probably feel pretty dejected. If the choices were between Obama and some other reasonable candidate in the GE, perhaps he might have trouble making his case and winning. But McCain is anything but a reasonable candidate. Obama is going to wipe the floor with him.

    Guess What (none / 0) (#284)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:07:36 AM EST
    There are a lot of voters who simply don't like Obama and it doesn't have anything to do with Hillary or Bill Clinton. It has to do with Obama.

    Obama has created a crash and burn primary and there is a good chance that is what he will do in November.


    OK let's play (none / 0) (#286)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:34:56 AM EST
    If crash and burn is what you say Obama has done in the primary, and he won that way, then I'd like more of the same in the GE. For too long the Republicans have defined the story and drawn the lines. I'm happy to take my chances with a candidate that doesn't confine themselves to the box that republicans constantly try to put us in.

    Case in point, had Hillary voted against the AUMF we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. But she believed at the time she'd be viewed as weak and unpatriotic if the war had indeed been successful (even though it was wrong to wage the war regardless). Republicans boxed Democrats in, and too many were willing to stay confined in that box.

    Obama is going to be the next POTUS. Don't think because a few thousand folks online are adamant they're not going to vote for him is reason to believe that the general electorate is going to base their November vote on whether Obama was flipping Hillary off when all he did was scratch his face.

    This country is in deep doodoo; if McCain wins in November that will be the end of this great country as we know it. China, India and the resurgent Russia will take full advantage and we will go the same way all other great empires in history went when they got too big for their own boots.


    A Few Thousand Folks Online? (none / 0) (#289)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:00:12 AM EST
    Anyone who wants to ignore the exit polls that indicate that anywhere from 25% - 50% of Democratic voters will either vote for McCain or not vote at all has their head in the sand.

    One of these days it might just occur to you and the Obama campaign that insulting voters by labeling them backwards, stupid, racists and completely unnecessary may not be a great GE strategy.

    Also, Obama is going out of his way to help the Republicans create the box to put him in . Do you really think it is great strategy to campaign with two completely diverse views on an important issue in less than 24 hours.

    Barack Obama, last night in Portland, on Iran: "They don't pose a serious threat to us."

    Barack Obama, earlier on the afternoon of May 19th, in Billings, Montana, on Iran: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

    How about the various conflicting accounts on his associations with Rev. Wright, Ayers and Rezko? Do you honestly think that the Republicans won't be able to use these instances to depict Obama as unbelievable?

    You think your candidate is going to stroll easily into the WH. I think your candidate has a good chance of losing the election. I'm not going to continue to argue with you because we will never agree and to continue would be a waste of time and effort.


    Rezko? (none / 0) (#291)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:41:26 AM EST
    Seriously, Rezko? Hasn't that horse been beaten, buried, resurrected, beaten again and incinerated?

    Forget exit polls. Forget what others will do with their vote. Just think about what you will do with yours. If you are not going to vote for him then you have no justification for saying he can't / won't win since you are a willful participant in making that outcome a reality.

    Reverend Wright is entitled to his own views. Just as Pastor Hagee is. But since neither of them are running for president, I'm not concerned about their views. Obama is not going to stroll into the whitehouse. Just as he didn't stroll into the presidency of the Harvard Law Review, or stroll into the position of being the presumptive nominee. He worked hard, as did Hillary, and he is winning. You don't like it, fine. I wouldn't have liked it either if Hillary was winning at this point.

    The republicans can throw the worst they can come up with at Obama, I'm supremely confident in his ability to weather any storms that come his way.

    Oh and finally, as for his position re Iran, there's a certain nuance that may have been lost on you. His two statements are not mutually exclusive. The threat from Iran can be grave (to its neighbors) without "posing a serious threat to us".


    Honestly.... (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by Spike on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:29:42 PM EST
    ...it has nothing to do with guilt. Many Democrats -- such as myself -- have enthusiastically concluded that Obama will make the best president and will be the most electable Democrat in November. I believed that throughout 2007 and I believe it even more strongly today. Although Bill and Hillary Clinton have done a lot for the Democratic Party and for America, this is a change election. The Clintons represent the '90s and Barack Obama represents a new and brighter future for America.

    Exactly. I have asked BTD that many times. (none / 0) (#240)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:55:37 PM EST
    Because of lack of respect for their (5.00 / 0) (#219)
    by feet on earth on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:46:07 PM EST
    struggles, economic worries and way of life. Simple.

    Who? Me worry? (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by Prabhata on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:52:39 PM EST
    I'm looking forward to use my vote and protest BO and the DNC.  Today I got a call from BO beggars,  I was delighted to get off his list (probably via Edwards). My response was short and sweet: I don't like Obama.

    A new voter coalition (1.36 / 11) (#80)
    by negriotude on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:22:19 PM EST
    Why does the Democratic Party's aspirations have to be governed by the backwards look, a nostalgia, a need to reclaim some lost electoral territory? For a moment, the excitement around Obama's campaign provided a glimpse of a new progressive coalition of voters.

    I envision a new coalition that doesn't have to pander to the most backwards element of the party to achieve power.

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:31:41 PM EST
    Obama's coalition is very nostalgic. See McGovern, George 1972

    And that would be...me? (5.00 / 8) (#123)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:37:01 PM EST
    How is it that I, a creative class person from working class roots, who is female Obama's age, living in a blue, creative class area of the country is unwelcome in your Brave New World?  What am I now, a delta?  Fit for only providing my vote and making myself invisible?  Who the hell do you people think you are?!!

    BTW, I saw your little master race routine at my blog yesterday.  You're one of those paid trolls, aren't you?  Yeah, I got your number.  You've been sent to the spam filter over there.  


    People who voted for Clinton are not (1.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Tano on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:06:36 PM EST
    necessarily anything like the "clinton supporters" that you have been listenting to day in and day out here at TL.

    Most of them are not haters, do not obsessivly spin everything Obama says or does in the most cynical manner, and really will end up voting for Obama come Nov.

    Thats not to say that Obama shouldnt make efforts to reach out to Clinton supporters. But he sure as hell need not reach out to the haters, nor does he necessarily need to put Clinton on the ticket.

    I dont think he trusts her, and he is right not to. He deserves to have a VP he can work with.

    How does anyone see being VP as the best use of her skills anyway?

    I think she should be President (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:10:41 PM EST
    and should turn down the VP slot.  No need for her to get pulled under by an Obama ticket.

    The best use of her skills would be (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:11:41 PM EST
    helping Obama win an election he may  not win otherwise, if you want a Democrat to win in November.
    I don't like your suggestion that Hillary voters are "haters" that Obama does not need to reach out to.0 Most of them are older and have been Democrats longer than Obama supporters. Calling them haters is a sure way for Obama to lose.

    A fair few have been Democrats since (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by magnetics on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:31:24 PM EST
    before he was born.

    Not me; I have only been a Democrat since he was 11, in 1972, when I voted for McGovern -- my first ever presidential vote.

    I have pulled the lever Dem in every subsequent election, and would not vote for McCain dogcatcher.

    That said, I have always thought Obama was a media creation; but I did not initially dislike him.  I have, however, come to do so  considerably over the course of the campaign -- mostly over his treatment of MI/Fl -- to the point that I am considering sitting out this November if he is the nominee, although I can tell you that that would cost me a great deal of skin at home, where spouse (AA Hillary supporter) strongly believes one must vote against McCain.


    read more carefully (1.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Tano on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:51:28 PM EST
    I specifically said that most Clinton voters are NOT haters, like so many of the posters herem, who rather obviously are.

    I read your rhetoric quite clearly, thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:56:12 PM EST
    You're trying to excuse calling the people here haters by saying we aren't representative of HIllary supporters. Silly try. BTW, the readership here covers a really broad cross-section of American society, so I suspect we ARE representative of Hillary supporters

    huh? (1.00 / 0) (#164)
    by Tano on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:04:41 PM EST
    a broad cross section of American society?

    Thats pretty funny. Used to be that there was at least a broad cross-section of those American leftists interested in crime and politics here, but that was before this primary season, and the transformation of this site into a Clinton refuge and Obama hate-site.

    And no, you are not at all representative of typical Hillary supporters. Kos isnt representative of typical Obama supporters either.


    Why do you use the word hate? (none / 0) (#277)
    by TheViking on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:04:48 AM EST
    That's very strong language, and whatever you think about this "Clinon Refuge Site", things aroung here are very civil for the most part, and yet you like to make comparisons to sites like Kos etc.

    For the record, I for one, do NOT HATE Obama.

    I actually think he's a real good Poet.


    well, if you dont hate (none / 0) (#294)
    by Tano on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:38:34 AM EST
    then obviously I wasnt talking about you.

    But if you claim that things around here are "civil", when it comes to characterizations of Obama, then you truly in some alternate universe.

    This site is every bit as rude, offensive, and ridiculous contra Obama as Kos is contra Clinton.


    MarkL....Better watch it or Tano will give you a (none / 0) (#176)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:13:21 PM EST
    "1" rating if you hurt its feelings, like the one I got...we really need to learn to ignore trolls on this site.  But I will rate you 5 to offset your "1" :)

    yeah, you got that (1.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Tano on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:32:15 PM EST
    for calling Obama supporters lobotomized, and incapable of rational thought.

    Disrespectful, and a violation of the site policies.


    Tano...maybe you can read, but your compre- (5.00 / 0) (#213)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:39:48 PM EST
    hensive skills need work...I never said you HAD been lobotomized.  If you feel you are taking abuse her, you should ask obama for a raise.

    Obama only pays in words... (none / 0) (#278)
    by TheViking on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:06:36 AM EST
    ...if your really nice, he might write you a Poem.

    It's not about the best use of her skills (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Burned on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:11:45 PM EST
    It's about winning the presidency.
    I think it would be a waste of her skills to be VP but I think we lose without Clinton and Obama on the same ticket. so I vote Clinton as P and Obama as VP. I hope everyone comes to their senses in time.

    Tano....so lurking is your specialty and you just (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:14:30 PM EST
    came on to post a negative against Clinton and her supporters?  Did you just get your first paycheck from the obama camp?  As for trust, that is definitely something obama does not inspire in me.  

    In my personal experience, you are wrong. (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by Teresa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:17:36 PM EST
    My older family members have never heard of TL. I can still be persuaded. They can't. These are people who have actively worked in politics for forty years.

    What is the main reason? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:19:09 PM EST
    I think experience is the killer issue, based on conversations I have had.

    For them, it is the Clinton-hate that pushed (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Teresa on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:32:06 PM EST
    them away. The media and the Obama campaign and the way they treated Hillary. I am speaking of more men than I am women! These people wouldn't vote for a Republican for dog catcher so they won't vote for McCain, but Obama can write them off.

    I don't see anyway they'll ever vote for him unless Hillary if VP and even then I'm not sure because they don't want her to take it if offered.


    The main reason, for me... (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by NotThatStupid on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:34:33 PM EST
    . . . is not Senator Obama's dearth of experience (although that's in the minus column, too) but his lack of a backbone. I keep harping on this. The man sat in a church and listened to garbage being preached (don't even try to tell me he was absent every time Wright spouted off with another "controversial" sermon, that's such an obvious lie it isn't worth discussing) and did absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, zip, zero about it.

    There are a multitude of complex, agonizingly difficult problems facing the next President. They absolutely require the President to be a person with a hefty dose of moral courage; to paraphrase Fred Allen: You could put all the guts that Senator Obama has in a gnat's navel and still have room for Dick Cheney's heart.

    The race-baiting and the sexism from his campaign have been despicable, but they are not the reasons I will not vote for the man, the above is.


    Yes, lack of experience... (none / 0) (#279)
    by TheViking on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:09:12 AM EST
    ...and he's also a National Security Liability.

    But I guess National Security is only a Republican view.


    Your post (5.00 / 5) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:23:19 PM EST
    exemplifies the tone deafness of the Obama campaign. They just "assume" that everyone is going to get on board.

    Frankly, Clinton supporters are very much NOT likely to get on board with Obama because of his problems. There are lots of people who vote for the candidate and not the party.


    Clinton Supporters Who Blog Are An (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:52:57 PM EST
    extremely small fraction of the support she has nationally. Yet, exit poll after exit poll and current polls of key states indicate Democratic voters choosing McCain over Obama. The current polls do not capture the Dems who say they will not vote that was picked up in the exit polls . Obama and his supporters can dismiss this information or label all these people stupid, haters or racists but to do so will IMO only escalate the existing problem.

    Women will cross over (5.00 / 0) (#208)
    by fctchekr on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:35:51 PM EST
    Just think of how many moderate Dems there are who are women and have never had a female candidate in their life times.

    If swing voters are the key to this election, and pundits say it will all come down to non-paritisans and Independents, women could be part of that swing. This election could come down to the Revenge of Older Women...


    Right now he needs to win (4.75 / 4) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:10:39 PM EST
    You wish to pretend Hillary on the ticket does not help with Hillary supporters who,, despite your ostrich attitude, do not seem poised to move to Obama in overwhelming numbers.

    The best use Obama can make of Hillary Clinton RIGHT NOW is to help him win the election in November.

    It's fun to speculate about how an Obama Administration might work and the chemistry and whatnot, but if he does not win, he will not have to worry about the "chemistry."


    So, if he need to win, can I ask (5.00 / 5) (#141)
    by feet on earth on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:49:07 PM EST
    for what party is he running?

    I know Hil is running for the Dems, this guy? He is wearing the Dems' suit, but that's it. No resemblance with dem's principles, platform , fundamental social justice issues and disdain for long standing activists.

    Speaking for me only, this is not my party, not point uniting under a banner that has nothing left of any substance.  


    And why would Obama want Bill in the Whitehouse? (3.00 / 2) (#146)
    by 1jane on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:50:57 PM EST
    Because (none / 0) (#155)
    by LoisInCo on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:57:16 PM EST
    people like him more?

    What is that supposed to mean? (none / 0) (#156)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:57:35 PM EST
    He's still performs better than Hillary (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by cannondaddy on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:36:36 PM EST
    in an the average of polls.  Her margin of error is even less.  I just wish SUSA would include her as a VP choice in their state GE polling.  I would only be for it if it was more conclusive she would help.  

    coalition (1.00 / 0) (#122)
    by negriotude on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:36:42 PM EST
    I'm speaking of that Appalachia Democrat that is suddenly being lionized. It's not that they don't count, but that they only became important to Clinton when her chips were down.

    I have a little secret for you (5.00 / 9) (#145)
    by Pacific John on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:50:14 PM EST
    ... that you can learn for yourself if you read Sen. Webb's history of the Scots Irish in America - those  backwards people are everywhere. They make up something close to half of the military. Think you can win by writing off the military?

    They are everywhere, including the Oregon cross tabs, as BTD recently showed; Springfield, the town over the river from Obama-central, Eugene, is fondly/derisively called Springtucky.

    And tho' you might not think so, these are good people, as good as your family and mine.

    And like all of us, they just want a little respect, and will not vote with us if they are treated like you seem willing to.


    x (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:03:31 PM EST
    Do you realize that working class (blue collar) voters are 40% of the population?????? This is what just frustrates me endlessly about this argument that Obama has a new, winning coalition. If that 40% of voters is on the other side, you DON'T have a winning coalition. Then when you add in women, latinos, gays, asian americans, and jewish americans, you're not left with much in the way of a coaltion. Obama's coalition is basically the same old losing coalition that sunk Dukakis, Kerry, et al, going back a good 40 years. Let's get something through our minds: Bill Clinton has been our only 2-term democratic president simply because he could build a coalition that included working class voters. Without them, feggedaboutit.

    The hills of MO are alive with the sounds of (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:47:07 PM EST
    Appalachia Democrats. Those pesky people as well as blue collar workers are all over the place. I bet they are in all 57 states. Also, Obama loses seniors to McCain in almost every state. Keep shrinking the tent and history will repeat itself until the November results will duplicate the other elections where the coalition consisted only of AAs, "creative class" and young voters. Not a pretty sight in case you are not into history.

    hey, whats up with that Mark? (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Tano on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:26:45 PM EST
    you want to play little site cop because someone makes a good point?

    whats your problem?

    Keep on this BTD (none / 0) (#2)
    by catfish on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:53:36 PM EST
    Stop being so shy. Come out of your shell man, you're making a good point!

    But Jonathan Singer sez that Bob Barr (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:54:06 PM EST
    will solve all of the problems!

    They looked for a savior for their nominee and now (5.00 / 0) (#225)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:50:51 PM EST
    they are looking for another savior to rescue Obama's candidacy. It would be really nice if they assigned responsibility where it belonged. Hint: The responsibility does not belong to Clinton.

    Don't (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mary Mary on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:01:52 PM EST
    know who Singer is, but I got a happy little feeling when I saw that Barr is running. Don't you think it will help in PA? Did you see the Ron Paul vote in PA?

    From MyDD (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:08:22 PM EST
    Barr might help a little, but I don't think there's any reason to believe that he'd pull exclusively from the Republican ranks.

    What of the "Libertarian Democrats" Markos was so interested in last year?


    Nader (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:13:32 PM EST
    He's going to poll very well this year. There are a lot of upset Hillary supporters

    Oh please (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:13:42 PM EST
    Bob Barr will not even be a blip. Nader will get more votes.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:16:12 PM EST
    x (none / 0) (#88)
    by Mary Mary on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:24:25 PM EST
    Ross Perot pulled 18% in PA in 1992. He pulled 9.5% in 1996. Paul got 16% in a closed primary this year.

    I think Barr might have an impact. Possibly enough of one to swing a close race, which IMO it will be if Obama is the Dem candidate.


    2000 closed the door (none / 0) (#98)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:26:51 PM EST
    on serious 3rd party candidacies for the foreseeable future.

    The door has always been closed (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:39:29 PM EST
    That doesn't mean that 3rd parties won't influence the outcome. How many votes did Al Gore lose by in Florida?

    Nader could get 1-3 percent nationally, more in some states like Florida, California, Oregon and Washington


    x (none / 0) (#106)
    by Mary Mary on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:29:44 PM EST
    Who said anything about serious? He pulls 5% from McCain and I will be ecstatic. If Obama is the candidate, I think he will need it.

    Ugh (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:28:20 PM EST
    Dream on.

    I guess (none / 0) (#114)
    by Mary Mary on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:32:00 PM EST
    we'll know in November.

    In PA? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Mary Mary on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:15:30 PM EST
    Haven't read Markos in a long, long time. I don't see libertarian Dems here; if they're libertarian-leaning they are Rs.

    Ross Perot did very well here, and I think PA will be very close. A Barr candidacy might well have an effect.

    We shall have to watch and see where he campaigns. I think he'll go after the Ron Paul Rs.


    if a libertarian... (none / 0) (#287)
    by dws3665 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 08:42:28 AM EST
    is really a Republican who likes to smoke pot, then what is a libertarian Dem? A Republican who likes to smoke a LOT of pot?

    Idiot (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:15:22 PM EST
    I live in GA and Barr only polls at 8% here. If that's what he's getting in GA, I would imagine that is probably his high point.

    Bob Barr (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:45:34 PM EST
    Bob Barr = Clinton Impeachment Manager.

    No short memory here!

    He may very well get some McCain votes.


    8% - (none / 0) (#267)
    by Invictus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:38:46 PM EST
    - puts Georgia in play for Obama.

    No it (none / 0) (#281)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:57:07 AM EST
    does not. Obama is only polling at 35%.

    LOL! Oh, wait....You're serious? (none / 0) (#297)
    by kempis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:37:18 PM EST
    They are a funky ticket (none / 0) (#4)
    by catfish on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:54:20 PM EST
    it is a little odd to visualize...but then every guy is odd to visualize as president even the first few months into his presidency.

    I'm sorry, (none / 0) (#9)
    by jtaylorr on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:58:24 PM EST
    but I'm sure Ross Perot would have a few things to say to you about judging who will be president using polls from 4 months before the election, especially when one party doesn't have a definite nominee yet.
    Also, those polls don't take into account Nader and Barr.

    Snort (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:59:32 PM EST

    I wonder how Hill is doing in those polls. (none / 0) (#13)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    I only know he Gallop numbers.

    She is winning in all of them (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:05:53 PM EST
    Check the first link.

    Thanks. I still don't understand your (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:07:48 PM EST
    argument then, that Obama must be the nominee.

    The Argument BTD Is Making Is That Obama (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:15:12 PM EST
    WILL be the nominee. As much as I wish otherwise, he is probably correct. The Dem leadership seems committed to his nomination even if it costs the Dems the WH.

    Chances are he is right (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:18:43 PM EST
    but, if so, then why does the Democratic party exist?  If not to win elections, then WTF?

    Lately It Seems To Exist To Provide Jobs And (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:28:07 PM EST
    benefits for Democratic politicians and their staffs.

    Obama WILL be the nominee (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:13:02 PM EST
    is my statment. Not the he must or even should be.

    A critical distinction often lost in the (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:15:41 PM EST
    blogosphere. If people can intentionally misinterpret you to mean "should" they can get angry, fight with you, and then dismiss you.

    I wasn't fighting or dismissing. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by masslib on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:17:32 PM EST
    I just like it to be clear.  It's not the fractional pledged delegate lead. It's simply the supers siding with Obama.  They could as easily side with Clinton.

    They have accepted (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:19:53 PM EST
    the pledged delegate leader criterion as legitimate.

    "They" have? All of them? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:29:05 PM EST
    Enough of them?  I've heard some of them say it -- but then why haven't more than 200 who are uncommitted gotten the memo?  Or ignored it?

    Can you give me a reason why he (none / 0) (#57)
    by zfran on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:16:22 PM EST
    will be, and why he must or even should be?

    polling (none / 0) (#31)
    by VicAjax on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    This far out from November means very little, either for or against obama.

    Unless, of course, you want to admit that his Montana numbers prove that he doesn't have a "white working class problem" anymore. Or maybe he really does only have an Appalachia problem, in which case, he can certainly win the GE without Appalachia.

    Of course it means something (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:11:17 PM EST
    Who invented this nonsense that it does not mean anything?

    This is just sheer nonsense.


    I believe the Clinton campaign sarted the (1.00 / 2) (#151)
    by 1jane on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:54:37 PM EST
    "those states don't count" meme.

    This is a really stupid comment, (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by andgarden on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:12:54 PM EST
    but let's just suppose you're right, and it's only an Appalachia problem. Here's a quiz: which important states have big chunks in Appalachia? Which of them can Obama win without? Pennsylvania? Ohio?

    He'll win both.. (1.00 / 1) (#168)
    by talktruthfully on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:08:46 PM EST
    There's no reason why he won't win both handily. President Clinton and Senator Clinton will both campaign hard for Obama come the GE. Most people will think in practical terms when pulling the lever in November. It's very difficult to see how McGrampa would be appealing to anyone who's suffered considerably under GWB -- and that's pretty much everyone. GWB was given the benefit of the doubt in 2004 -- I'm confident the electorate will pay a lot more attention, this time round, to their overall welfare.

    Same thinking was prevalent in 2000 & 2004 n/t (5.00 / 2) (#229)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:52:57 PM EST
    Yes but, the difference between 2000 and now is (none / 0) (#238)
    by talktruthfully on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:53:28 PM EST
    4000 patriots and 10's of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have perished for nothing other than GWB's ego.

    Gas is $4 a gallon just because GWB's friends are too greedy to see how they're ruining the country.

    Home foreclosures are at an all-time high, we're in the midst of a spiralling recession, and McCain wants to continue tax cuts for the wealthiest.

    Affordable healthcare is non-existent and continues to slip away from the most vulnerable.

    The difference couldn't be more stark. If we are unable to figure out, given the past eight years, that having McCain as president would seal our fate, then we deserve the pain and misery that will ensue.

    The sad thing though is that even if we wilfully condemn ourselves, the children in Iraq, whom are no less precious than our own kids, have no way of weighing in to prevent the catastrophe that would be a McCain presidency.

    There's more to this than the personalities of Hillary, McCain and Obama.


    Troll rated for "McGrampa" (5.00 / 2) (#252)
    by Lysis on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:51:56 PM EST
    Even worse than the "McSame" because now you're throwing blatant ageism into the mix.

    Do you have any idea how many people will simply dismiss what you have to say about Sen. McCain because you start out with such a dismissive and disrespectful tone?  

    I disagree with McCain's policies and can't see myself voting for him because of it, but the man did serve his country honorably.  There's a basic level of respect that should be shown to people simply because they're other human beings.

    My father died last year at the age of 59.   I only wish God had allowed him to reach McCain's age.  You insult every person of that age group when you attack McCain like that, just like every woman (and self respecting man) is disgusted when Hillary's attacked in a misogynist fashion.


    Sincere apologies (5.00 / 0) (#258)
    by talktruthfully on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:36:46 PM EST
    I really meant no offense and I apologise for the insular reference to his age. My sincere condolences on your loss.

    Much appreciated. (none / 0) (#274)
    by Lysis on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:43:36 PM EST
    Thanks. Troll rating removed.

    Why would they vote for someone (none / 0) (#212)
    by nycstray on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:39:01 PM EST
    with less experience than Bush. Your thinking is a tad off there, imo.

    Just goes to show experience is overrated (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by talktruthfully on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:17:15 PM EST
    It's not quantity, it's quality. Dick Cheney has more experience than half of the Democratic line-up (put together) this primary, but that doesn't mean you'd want him within 10 parsecs of the presidency. And if we really wanted the candidate with the most experience, Biden, Richardson, heck even Gravel would have been shoo-ins.

    I try my best to not attack Hillary Clinton because I believe she's truly a remarkable human being to have gone thru this primary season and still be standing strong today. But one question I really wish to ask and would really like an honest answer to is:

    If Hillary Clinton was unable to take her huge advantages coming into the primaries and outright obliterate the one-term black senator with a funny sounding name, what does that say of her ability to choose the right people to run the country?

    I'm not bashing Hillary, it's a genuine question which I'd really appreciate an answer to.

    Her staffers did her in, but she chose them. In my opinion, Mark Penn should not get a single penny cos' he basically took a winning hand, partied to the wee hours of the morning and then high-tailed, leaving Hillary with the horrendous cheque.


    He'll win both. (none / 0) (#273)
    by Invictus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:41:55 PM EST
    Correct.  He's already pulling ahead of McCain, and he'll get a big bounce when he locks up the nomination next week.

    What about Massachussetts (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:17:39 PM EST
    Florida, Michigan, and Indiana

    He's not attracting Hispanic support in sufficient numbers either, and McCain will


    Think again. (none / 0) (#275)
    by Invictus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:44:34 PM EST
    The Hispanic vote is quickly trending toward Obama, and that's partly why in recent polls he has taken over the California lead against Clinton.

    You're right, it's bound to get worse (5.00 / 6) (#79)
    by goldberry on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:22:14 PM EST
    He is a walking, talking disaster waiting to happen.  The primary season has been mild to him.  Once the GOP gets their hands on him, he's toast.  They'll turn McCain's experienced and strong on national security message up and put Obama's campaign on mute.  At least with Clinton, nobody cares if she's on mute except the Obama people.  She's just a better candidate and everyone knows it now.  But with Obama, all the evils that lurk in the mud will hatch out.  
    Get your fingers out of your ears when I'm talking to you and don't look at me in that tone of voice!  
    You've been, told over and over again.  If you choose to ignore the facts, don't blame us when he crashes and burns.

    Republicans (none / 0) (#232)
    by talktruthfully on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:04:33 PM EST
    will attack no matter who our nominee is. If they don't have stuff, heck, they'll just make sh*t up. It's the way they play. What we have to pray for this GE is that Americans will finally have come to understand that it's a bad idea to not vote for someone simply because they don't wear a flag-pin on their lapel -- even though they are your best chance for improving your life and the lives of your loved ones.

    Barack Obama is not going to lose the GE. In the off-chance that he does, well, we will never know whether Democrats would have fared better if Hillary was our nominee. But the way to ensure that he does not lose, is to go out there and vote for him. Bill and Hillary certainly will be doing their best to ensure Democrats retake the whitehouse. The stakes are simply too high for the country and no matter what the worst has been said about them, they are professional and loyal Democrats who won't let the vitriol get in the way of their advancing the lives of millions of their fellow Americans.

    I never understand some folks who say unequivocally that he cannot win and in the same breadth say they won't be voting for him in the GE. Has a self-fulfilling prophecy ring to it.

    So if you don't want Obama to crash and burn, just go out there and vote for him. America (and the world) will be a better place without a third Bush term.

    P.S - folks, please don't downrate my comments. If I say something offensive, call me out on it so that I can rectify. Alternatively, if you think something I say is erroneous/inaccurate I would much prefer to be corrected. If I'm silently downrated, I have no way of knowing what it is that I'm being punished for and could inadvertently repeat the mistake.



    If I were a SD I'd be tempted to vote for Clinton (none / 0) (#112)
    by barryluda on Sun May 25, 2008 at 05:31:29 PM EST
    Assuming Obama is the nominee, Clinton is absolutely the best VP choice not only because that would give us Dems the best chance to unify, but because Clinton -- especially these last few months -- has shown herself to be absolutely ready to be President and Commander in Chief.

    If I were a Super Delegate right now I would be torn because I'd be tempted to vote for Clinton -- although I've been an Obama supporter up until now -- since I now think she's shown herself to be the stronger candidate.  But I think there would be so much negative fall-out for Clinton to win at this point (unless, as I keep saying, something NEW and BIG happens to change the dynamic) that Clinton would actually have a much harder chance to win the GE than would Obama with Clinton as his VP.

    UK Times Obama Camp wants Bill Heal Divide (none / 0) (#181)
    by fctchekr on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:18:27 PM EST
    This feels like another unsubstantiated rumor, wishful thinking. But it's a tit for tat, getting back. They do that kind of politiking in D.C. Obama camp is pushing their noses in it...

    Even though they deny they can't win with her or without her, which is it? This is their way of healing the divide, that they now acknowledge?


    the ideal.  I always thought it was a long shot.  But given recent events, I know longer think it is possible.  

    If Obama needs a Unity ticket to win in November, we are doomed.

    And I pray (none / 0) (#185)
    by dell on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:20:15 PM EST
    ...that someday, as many Hillary supporters choose Obama in an Obama - McCain head-to-head as Obama supporters choose Hillary in a Hillary - McCain head-to-head.  That would explain the difference, wouldn't it?

    And it would also be nice if Hillary supporters choose to vote for Obama in November.  They could well put him over the top.

    Different dynamics at play (none / 0) (#198)
    by fctchekr on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:30:16 PM EST
    Everyone seems to forget, there are two historic candidates running. I guarantee there will be many moderate Dems in Hillary's female base who will have a hard time voting for Obama.

    I don't think that's accurate (none / 0) (#242)
    by talktruthfully on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:02:25 PM EST
    It's absolutely normal to be feeling upset that one's candidate did not win. But given the state of the country today, and with Hillary and Bill working hard in the fall for the nominee, there's little chance that the Democratic party won't coalesce and finally get some sane folks into power so that we can bring this country back from the brink. GWB has messed things up royally and it would take a miracle for McCain to win in November.

    exactly! (none / 0) (#217)
    by Josey on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:42:46 PM EST
    Repubs will save new negative stuff on Obama until Sept.
    Fox News could have aired the Wright videos a year ago or before Iowa.
    ABC broke the story mid-March - after most of the primaries were over and Obama had begun calling for Hillary to GET OUT.

    BTD's Post (none / 0) (#218)
    by cal1942 on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:43:36 PM EST
    I pray there are grownups in the Obama camp that will give him a reality check on this.

    Someone should come forward and tell Obama to drop out for the good of the party and the nation.

    Yes, please do (none / 0) (#220)
    by Valhalla on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:46:45 PM EST
    I think a lot of the rage and energy at Clinton supporters who say, on this blog and elsewhere, that they won't vote for Obama is misdirected.

    Although I'm one of them, I don't think it's us not voting for BO that will lose him the race.  There's not enough of us to swing the vote.  (I may be wrong about this, this is my impression).  It's the people in the middle of the party, most of whom are not addicted to politics through the Internet, not voting for him that will cause him to lose.  

    In some earlier thread BTD said something about now the people who matter are the ones at the margins.  I thought he was talking about the people who could really go either way, Rep or Dem.  These aren't the people seething over at DailyKos, or even the folks here who are committed (I think quite reasonably) to not voting for Obama.  These are the people who voted for Clinton but whose second choice at the time was probably McCain.

    Unfortunately for BO, I'm guessing many of those people are among the groups he's been blowing off instead of reaching out to them.

    Obama does not need a Westener (none / 0) (#227)
    by Cream City on Sun May 25, 2008 at 06:52:03 PM EST
    as he is one.  Then he became an Easterner (and still sounds like one).  Then he became a Midwesterner (and does not sound or act at all like one, but there it is).

    He needs a Southerner.  I bet it will be the bargain made with Edwards.

    Kinda like - (1.00 / 1) (#265)
    by Invictus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:34:46 PM EST
    - Hillary was a midwesterner, and then a Pennsylvanian, and then a southerner, and then a New Yorker, and now a Puerto Rican.

    Kinda like ObamaMama was from (none / 0) (#268)
    by MarkL on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:39:00 PM EST
    several different states, as the primaries changed locations.

    Gore? (none / 0) (#233)
    by RalphB on Sun May 25, 2008 at 07:11:24 PM EST
    while I like Al Gore, where do you get this utter crap you spout here?  I hope you're kidding but have the horrible feeling you may be serious.

    She adds 17 million voters (none / 0) (#248)
    by Lysis on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:35:58 PM EST
    Given that the other half of the Democratic party has voted for her rather than him, she's the only thing that can "balance" the ticket.  

    Tell me (none / 0) (#250)
    by kimsaw on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:41:20 PM EST
    Did Al Gore win the election?  Who really cares what the Green God has to offer about the party? He couldn't save himself from losing in 2000. His backbone must be hiding in the same place as Obama's. Gore ran away from Clinton and couldn't deliver on his own. What would have happened if Clinton campaigned for him?  If Gore had not given up on Florida this country might be in a different place today. Gore's political savvy is questionable. He's smart and committed to his cause, but he's didn't deliver when he should have.

    Bill Clinton is not a loose cannon. He is a respected world leader who has represented the US around the world at the request of Pres.Bush.   Didn't Obama say he would call on Bill Clinton as President? Or is that just more double speak, love hate -hate him when its convenient.  Obama doesn't want him for a neighbor, but he'll want and the party  will expect the Clintons to campaign and fund raise for him.

    IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT! (none / 0) (#253)
    by Lysis on Sun May 25, 2008 at 08:53:28 PM EST
    Please take great care to protect your keyboard from whatever drink is in your mouth right now!

    As soon as Hillary concedes - (none / 0) (#254)
    by Invictus on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:11:22 PM EST
    - Obama will get a surge in polls, and it will continue to grow as more Clinton supporters get on board.

    Obama-Gore (none / 0) (#255)
    by Mrwirez on Sun May 25, 2008 at 09:21:55 PM EST
    Two guys who can't get elected...lol  Like he would like to be a VP again. Webb said No way already. Looks like Clinton or bust

    Clinton in the same polls (none / 0) (#259)
    by mikeel on Sun May 25, 2008 at 10:21:50 PM EST
    She's up 3, 5 and 4 points respectively in the same three polls.

    It's a shame, because the Democrats are finding a way to lose an election which should be a near-lock.  I don't think a unity ticket is going to happen after the RFK flap.  

    I admire her tenacity, but the numbers aren't there.  And some of the blame has to go to Clinton
    for not getting organized in the caucus states.

    So may main concern this year will be downballot.  I just hope Obama doesn't impact
    the potential for large gains in Congress (though he could cost some close races).

    Obama will lose by 5-7% in November.

    Clinton's establishment (none / 0) (#271)
    by Manuel on Sun May 25, 2008 at 11:40:40 PM EST
    It doesn't matter where she is from.  The claim was that she represents some "establishment" with significant influence (as Johnson did).  How can Obama get those voters?  Specifics please.  Saying he can just pick someone else just reveals the bogosity of the Clinton "establishment" claim.

    Independent voter. (none / 0) (#296)
    by ThePartyIsOver on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:03:29 PM EST
    As of last Wednesday I became a registered independent.  Finally have had enough.  I am approaching 67 and have only once voted for a republican for a president (have on occasion voted for republicans down ticket).  This year I it appears I shall be voting for Sen. McCain for president.  Will I feel guilty about it?  ABSOLUTELY NOT!  For me the democratic party has lost its standing as a party of and for the people.  It, similar to the republican party, has now become a party for a certain group of people.

    Sad to say that it certainly appears to me that there is an effort for a take over of the democratic party by its far left element which is being aided by the DNC and our so called non-biased free press.

    Will admit that I am currently a Sen. Clinton supporter but started out being luke warm about her and more leaning toward Sen. Obama.  I was initially impressed by Sen. Obama's personality and rhetorical skills but started to having questions and some concerns.  I started doing quite a bit of blogging on HuffPost and that is where I really started getting turned off to him.  Seemed like everytime I would raise a question or a concern about him I was being belittled in some manner or called some sort of name (many quite vile and derogatory) by his supporters.  That along with the Clinton hatred exhibited by Obama supporters soon led me to the decision that I could not be, or maybe better would not, want to be considered a part of that group.  Guess I am just an old fart who was brought up that you respect your other humans and show respect for others have done in trying to better society.  Frankly I have to say I was really amazed by the Clinton hatred.  Don't think I have really seen it near as vitriol even in republican circles.

    Anyway, as more and more of Sen. Obama's past associations came out (which I still have great concerns about) and as I began looking more and more at Sen. Clinton I changed to being very impressed with her knowledge of politics and policies.  Don't know that I have ever seen a president, or presidential candidate, who has such control and immediate recall of policy details and specifics.  And she most certainly does not fit into any mold of a woman who is going to let anyone run over her or have her just sort of quietly step away and let the men handle whatever the situation is.

    So I support Sen. Clinton and would certainly love to see a female president of her abilities running or government.  I think most thinking people would have to admit that overall we males certainly have not done that great of a job running it, especially over the last few years.  Quite frankly I would rate Pres. Clinton as one of the two best presidents in my life time and I think that Sen. Clinton would be even better.

    The attitude of the DNC and certain of our elected officials pushing to get Sen. Clinton out of the contest has along with its attitude and initial lack of concern about disenfranchizing voters finally turned me off to the democratic party.  I have been around long enough to remember several primary contests going to the convention before they were decided and really cannot recall there being such a concerted effort to get one candidate to step aside.

    Will I come back to the democratic party?  Probably not as more than likely only have a few more elections left for me so why make the effort.  What would have to change for me return to the democratic party?  Several things but most importantly: (1) count every vote; i.e., may be necessary to penalize, but do not disenfranchize voters; (2) do away with the undemocratic caucuses; live in a caucus state and have never participated and never will as I do not feel they are representative of the will of the people; (3) if you feel you must stay with the apportioning of delegates, make it more fair and representative of votes case instead of a complicated system that now exists, (4) put more emphasis on the will of the people instead of the will of the pledged and super delegates; and finally (4) at least perform some minimal vetting of a candidate before the party throws its weight behind that candidate.

    Today is the first time I have read anything on TalkLeft.  Good site.  Will be back but probably only to read as you can see I sort of get carried away in responding to or expressing an opinion.

    Hillary or McCain '08