home

Krugman On Unity

At the risk of offending, I note Paul Krugman's column on the division in the Democratic Party, the risk it is causing to winning the Presidency and what can be done about it:

Why does all this matter? Not for the nomination: Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee. But he has a problem: many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment. And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.

To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries. His health care plan is seriously deficient, but he will nonetheless be running on a far more worker-friendly platform than his opponent. . . . [MORE]

The point is that Mr. Obama may need those disgruntled Clinton supporters, lest he manage to lose in what ought to be a banner Democratic year. So what should Mr. Obama and his supporters do?

Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won’t persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November. [Krugman also urges Obama to offer Clinton the Vice Presidency]

Nor should Obama supporters dismiss Mrs. Clinton’s strength as a purely Appalachian phenomenon, with the implication that Clinton voters are just a bunch of hicks. So what comes next?

. . . [M]ainly it’s up to Mr. Obama to deliver the unity he has always promised — starting with his own party. One thing to do would be to make a gesture of respect for Democrats who voted in good faith by recognizing Florida’s primary votes — which at this point wouldn’t change the outcome of the nomination fight. The only reason I can see for Obama supporters to oppose seating Florida is that it might let Mrs. Clinton claim that she received a majority of the popular vote. But which is more important — denying Mrs. Clinton bragging rights, or possibly forfeiting the general election?

. . . Here’s the point: the nightmare Mr. Obama and his supporters should fear is that in an election year in which everything favors the Democrats, he will nonetheless manage to lose. He needs to do everything he can to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Yes, as has been obvious for months now, I agree with Paul Krugman yet again.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Overnight Open Thread | Electability KY Style >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Not surprisingly (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:01:10 AM EST
    Krugman is Evil at the Big Orange Satan. He may find that he is also "Evil" with some Clinton supporters now after this column.

    I don't think he is evil (5.00 / 13) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:06:09 AM EST
    I always respect what he says.  But I am not a columnist.  I agree with what he says, if Obama is nominated.  But I hardly see Obama's capacity to unite.  Like I said, if Obama amasses this power in the party, I cannot support his candidacy cause frankly with the power he will have, his tactics and "the movement" I do not feel comfortable handing him the presidency that has been given all these powers by Bush.  Particularly if he has a big majority in Congress.  I am very dubious of amassed power, wether from the right or the left, particularly when we are talking about someone that I have little or no respect regarding his core values and character.  

    [ Parent ]
    why evil? (5.00 / 14) (#34)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:22:10 AM EST
    I mean, he wrote something I don't agree with.  There's no reason to vilify or despise folks whose opinions don't match your own.  Isn't that how things used to be before Bush and Rove made it us-against-them?  My dad was very high up in the state dem party, yet we had suppers and parties with repubs all the time.  They disagreed the way that football fans disagree--my team lost this time, your team lost that time, let's razz each other about it over bbq.  I doubt very seriously that could happen now.  Heck, even fellow dems can't talk about politics over bbq unless they are all on the same "side."

    Krugman's basic premise is that Obama has won the nomination.  I don't agree with that.  I think he vastly underestimates two things: the animosity of Clinton supporters (a small group, comparatively) and the animosity of folks toward Obama because of Wright and the bitter/cling comments (let's call it his "appalachia moment").  I think a year from now, that will be called Obama's tank/windsurfing/Dean scream moment.


    [ Parent ]

    I opened the can of worms (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:33:21 AM EST
    so I should not complain, so I will keep my mouth shut and not respond on the question of voting for the candidate who most agrees with your views.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't that called a paralipsis? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:48:23 AM EST
    :-)

    [ Parent ]
    I vote for "not evil" (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:07:06 AM EST
    Clinton supporters shouldn't find PK evil because of this column. Would Obama be more worker-friendly than McCain? Surely, that must be true. Is that reason enough to vote for him? A lot of people, right now at least, are saying no. Is it Obama's problem to fix? Yes. That seems to be PK's view, which I think is spot on accurate.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:14:51 AM EST
    he's probably more worker friendly than McCain but probably not by enough I think.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:21:54 AM EST
    It's a pretty low hurdle to be more worker-friendly than the GOP.

    [ Parent ]
    What an annoying diary at DK. (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by outsider on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:13:14 AM EST
    Starting with that first line: the confession about being an economist.

    Translation: "I took undergraduate economics course.  Last semester."

    [ Parent ]

    Nah, Krugman Is Right On As Usual (5.00 / 11) (#50)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:33:16 AM EST
    I think the greatest umbrage that will be taken here is his assertion that Obama will be the nominee. While I would prefer that not to be the case, all indications are that will be the final outcome.

    This part interests me and I would like your feedback on it.

    Most immediately, they should realize that the continuing demonization of Mrs. Clinton serves nobody except Mr. McCain. One more trumped-up scandal won't persuade the millions of voters who stuck with Mrs. Clinton despite incessant attacks on her character that she really was evil all along. But it might incline a few more of them to stay home in November.

    This is the part that definitely doesn't make sense to me from a political standpoint. Why would the Obama continue in what I agree is counterproductive actions? By not seating FL and MI and continuing to take a scorch and burn attitude with Clinton, he is just giving people more reasons not to vote for him. This is beyond stupid IMO.


    [ Parent ]

    On RFK (5.00 / 15) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:37:30 AM EST
    the DAY OF THE SCANDAL, Axelrod absolutely defended Clinton and stood far away from the craziness.

    The next day, Obama was supposed to do the same thing, but he did not do it well imo, clearly he feels resentment about Clinton's "I take him at his word" answer about him being a Muslim.

    He repeated it verbatim. I feel confident he had that answer in mind.

    Obama is NOT a disciplined candidate. Lost in all the shuffle and Media Darlingness is the fact that Obama makes a ton of political mistakes. Not fake ones, but real ones.

    But he is made of Teflon right now for the Media.

    But his problems, as Krugman and I have stated, are not with the Media - it is with the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party.

    [ Parent ]

    well, that day (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:41:41 AM EST
    Burton sent out a statement that what Clinton said has no place in this campaign.

    Also apparently the campaign is sending around Olbermann's special comment?  That I find kind of weird.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:49:08 AM EST
    Kudos to Axelrod IMO, but the campaign is all over the map on this one.  Very schizophrenic reaction.

    [ Parent ]
    maybe it's revenge for (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:51:03 AM EST
    the Superdelegate/Clinton camp conversations about Wright?

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:00:20 AM EST
    But with Obama in position to claim the nomination (maybe! possibly! all the usual disclaimers!) they are really stupid if it is about revenge at this point.

    [ Parent ]
    Seems like a lack of maturity. It's as though (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Joan in VA on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:56:05 AM EST
    they just can't stop themselves. Not only weird but seems like a terrible way to portray a future presidency.

    [ Parent ]
    but see - that's another lie (5.00 / 9) (#109)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:06:00 AM EST
    that Obama has perpetuated about Hillary - creating false narratives that will be considered factual in history books. Character assassination comes easy for Obama and his winning based on "the end justifies the means" is very Bush.

    Media Matters - excerpt
    http://tinyurl.com/4rqyp5

    Less than one second. That's how long it took Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to answer, "Of course not," to Steve Kroft's question on 60 Minutes about whether she thought Sen. Barack Obama was a Muslim. You can time it yourself by watching the clip at YouTube.

    Still, that didn't stop MSNBC's Chris Matthews from complaining on-air last week that it took Clinton "the longest time" to answer Kroft's question.

    Lots of eager, tsk-tsking pundits and reporters agreed. They said Clinton was guilty of "hemming and hawing" in response to Kroft's peculiar, repeated insistence that she make some sort of declarative statement about her opponents religious beliefs. And then when she did, Kroft asked that she do it again. That's when Clinton, looking befuddled by the multiple requests, added some qualifiers to her response, including "as far as I know." What stood out in the exchange was not Clinton's responses, but Kroft's weird persistence in asking a question that Clinton addressed unequivocally the first time, as though he was trying to draw out something she was not saying.
    Even more peculiar was Kroft's obsession with the Muslim question amid a 60 Minutes report that was about Ohio's shrinking working class and what Clinton and Obama were going to do to try stop of the overseas flow of U.S. manufacturing jobs. (Note to Kroft and the rest of the media: Obama is not a Muslim; Clinton knows Obama is not a Muslim; Clinton does not believe Obama is a Muslim. Clinton made this very clear.)

    After parsing Clinton's answer and then conveniently setting aside key sections of it, journalists at NBC, MSNBC, The New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Time, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post, among others, declared her response had been wholly deficient. Worse, Clinton's answer simply confirmed that she was running a "slimy," "nasty" contest. It was a "galling" comment; "the sleaziest moment of the campaign."

    The only thing sleazy about the episode was the type of journalism being used to concoct a Clinton slur.

    [ Parent ]

    Axelrod may have "defended" (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:26:10 AM EST
    Hillary, but his people sent out the ridiculous Olbermann special comment to the super delegates.  What do you think of that?  You seem to think all these accusations of racism toward Hillary happen in a vacuum.  This is the "new politics" of Acelrod/Obama.  I wonder if you realize that.

    [ Parent ]
    I missed what Axelrod did to defend Clinton - (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by jawbone on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:29:08 AM EST
    could you steer me to it?

    I know about Burton, and sending emails to all media sources with the link to article about Obama being the first nominee candidate to get Secret Service so early.

    I know about the Obama campaign sending out the KO special comment videos to SDs.

    And I'm aware of what Axelrod said and didn't say on Little George's show.

    What did he do on the day? T/U much.

    [ Parent ]

    Compare (3.00 / 2) (#127)
    by cannondaddy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:17:15 AM EST
    I don't think that Senator Clinton intended anything by it and I think we should put it behind us. -Obama

    to

    I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Senator Obama made about people in small-town America.  -Clinton

    Both candidates apologized in much the same manner, saying their words were not intended the way they were being interpreted.  I've never heard a single Clinton supporter cut him the slightest slack on his gaffe, and she certainly didn't.

    [ Parent ]

    The difference is not in what they say (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by Anne on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:31:19 AM EST
    but what always comes next.

    Obama makes his typical Eddie Haskell-like comment oozing something that appears gracious, but behind the scenes, his people work overtime to push the message that not only did she mean what she said in the worst possible way, but proceeds to detail what all those possible ways are.

    Clinton just says it right out.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton supporters are generally (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:28:25 AM EST
    more rational and less prone to character attack than Obama supporters.  I will be very suprised if you find one person who supports Hillary that will claim Krugman is evil.

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't you know (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:03:59 AM EST
    that he's really just an evil right wing economist who's bad on television?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:14:32 AM EST
    he is not great on television imo.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:18:09 AM EST
    but they might as well have called him fat.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, if he's going to use Talk Left (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:02:51 AM EST
    as a crib sheet for his columns. . .

    I am sure (4.71 / 14) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:13:37 AM EST
    he reaches his conclusions independently.

    What this actually proves is that brilliant minds think alike. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    heh (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:15:43 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I an really sorry to see (5.00 / 9) (#42)
    by talex on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:28:27 AM EST
    Krugman and other Democrats resign themselves publicly that Obama will be the  nominee. That sentiment extends to the blogosphere where some like you have thrown in the towel.

    Props to Jeralyn for fighting until it is over. Rather than suggesting a VP spot for Clinton (which I highly question that she would accept) she fights on with posts that make the case for Clinton instead of sounding like a defeatist moderate Obama surrogate wiling to throw Clinton a bone.

    [ Parent ]

    All I can say for myself is (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:32:03 AM EST
    I am of the view that Obama will be the nominee as the Democratic Establishment has decided it will be so.

    Whether that is good or bad is a debate that can be had, but it is not what I am writing about and I do not think Krugman is writing about it either.

    [ Parent ]

    The unity Mr. Krugman (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:38:26 AM EST
    speaks of should have started a long time ago. Sen. Obama's minions have somewhat changed their tune, albeit still hitting sour notes. He does not seem to care. Neither do I. This is more than a rift imo, this is many tearings outside of the seams and it's gonna take more than mere patches to put it together again, if at all.  

    [ Parent ]
    You write about (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by talex on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:41:21 AM EST
    a unity ticket with Clinton losing the nomination and being VP.

    That is trowing in the towel - something that Jeralyn to her credit refuses to do. Like Clinton she is not a quitter. That's all I'm saying, some people have quit on Clinton and others have not. Krugman has quit sad to say.

    [ Parent ]

    Krugs is not a HRC surrogate, (4.00 / 4) (#78)
    by brodie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:49:39 AM EST
    and seems to be correctly reading the political situation for Hillary.  He's not far from the tone of a few actual HRC surrogates or defenders in the media, like Carville and Begala, who've been sounding lately like they know it will take something extraordinary, like Obama talking about how he's been previously kidnapped by space aliens and taken aboard the mother ship, in order to turn this one around.

    Oh, and I like the way he referenced the suggestion I made in these pages some weeks ago, that it might be helpful to party healing for O to at least make the VP offer to Hillary  -- which, by prior arrangement she would turn down, with many thanks, etc.  

    At least I hope that's feasible, since at this point there probably isn't enough trust betw the two camps to quite pull that off.  A month or so down the line though, after all the public and private conciliatory rhetoric and actions, and it will be more doable.

    [ Parent ]

    Smile (none / 0) (#151)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:28:48 AM EST
    Well said :)

    [ Parent ]
    Great column (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by truthseeker77 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:05:24 AM EST
    Krugman reminds us that some effectively portrayed Clinton's LBJ comments as "racist". And it stuck, when in fact the comments had not a hint of racism. And no, they were not "racially tinged", as some like to call it when they have no evidence of racism.

    When the media starts to assign evil intent to inoffensive comments by Obama against McCain, his supporters will know how it feels.

    Obama has been for the most part (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by talex on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:32:08 AM EST
    been the Teflon Man with many Dems. But the primaries are not the general and in the general many more voters come into the process and things will not go a smoothly for Obama once the press turns on him - and they will turn on him as he has been setup from the beginning to be our nominee for a reason: He is an easy target to define.

    [ Parent ]
    actually, (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by ccpup on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:50:19 AM EST
    he is an easy target to define ... and then irreparably destroy.

    I get a sense we're seeing the height of Obama's political career.  A comet that burned unbelievably bright, but sputtered and then fizzled quickly, disappearing once he got stomped in the General after being drawn-and-quartered by a Press he truly thought loved him.  

    It's downright Shakespearean in it's sense of Tragedy and I almost feel sorry for him.

    Almost.  

    [ Parent ]

    I would like to know (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Y Knot on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:51:47 AM EST
    Where the idea that the media "loves" Obama comes from?  I've seen that said here as granted time and again, but I just don't see it reflected in the news.  

    They came after him pretty darned hard (fairly or unfairly) with the Reverend Wright issue, the "Bitter" issue, Ayers, the meme the he's inexperienced, when that didn't work, they tried tagging him as "elitist" and on and on.  I'm not saying they're out to destroy him by any stretch, but that's not the same thing as saying they "love" him.

    Have they treated Clinton worse?  (And again, I'm talking about in this election, not how she was treated in the 90's, which was way out of proportion)  Maybe. I think its debatable.  I'd say the media's "Bosnia" faux outrage was less egregious than his "bitter" faux outrage... but on the other hand, the "assassinate Obama" faux outrage is still being played out.

    As for general tone?  I think they came after Clinton when she was the front-runner, then I think they came after Obama when he was the front-runner, and now that he seems to have weathered that, they're coming after Clinton again to get out because... well, frankly another story of Obama still ahead in the delegate count isn't all that interesting.  So, they're trying to stir up trouble.  

    When the primaries are over the whichever one is the winner, will be hit with the string of "can she/he unite the party?" stories.  They'll talk to ardent supporters of the loser, and feed on their genuine, anguished emotions, turning it into a weapon against the winner.  After that, assuming the winner can manage to get some unity, there'll be a love fest until before the convention, then just before, some new faux outrage will be created to see if they can cause a split at the convention, so they can have a real fun time covering that... and on and on until November.

    The details would vary, but that'll happen no matter which one of them becomes the nominee.  The media loves drama, not Obama.

    (Oooh!  That rhymes!)

    [ Parent ]

    May already be too late (5.00 / 20) (#5)
    by Mike H on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:06:07 AM EST
    I for one have reached a point where I can not imagine voting for Obama.  The extreme and ridiculous vilification of HRC by Obama supporters, including the blogosphere bullies like A-blog, have turned me from someone who thought moderately well of Obama 7, 8 months ago to someone who just loathes him and his supporters today.

    I really think I'm at the point where I'd prefer McCain to win just because I don't think the awful tactics of Obama supporters deserve to be rewarded.

    If Clinton isn't the Dem nominee I'll probably write her in.

    I won't vote for McCain (5.00 / 10) (#25)
    by The Poster Formerly Known as cookiebear on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:16:23 AM EST
    o/w, agreed.

    [ Parent ]
    Mike H: I Understand (1.66 / 3) (#121)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:14:43 AM EST
    I understand exactly how you feel. Substitute Clinton for Obama and Obama for Clinton in your post and you have described my feelings exactly -- except I could never actually prefer that McCain win.

    The question is: What can be done about this at this point? If the shoe were on the other foot, I think I would (a) stop criticizing Clinton and accept that she had the nomination; (b) contribute and work for down ballot Democrats; and (c) quietly write in "Obama" on my ballot in November.

    I have two questions for Clinton supporters:

    1. What would you say to convince me to affirmatively vote for Clinton in November?

    2. Would your arguments for Clinton work to convince you to vote for Obama?


    [ Parent ]
    Except it's more than just "tit for tat" (5.00 / 14) (#146)
    by Mike H on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:27:17 AM EST
    It's not just that if we substitute "Obama" for "Clinton" we'll somehow magically understand how each other feels and all miraculously come together.

    The tactics I have seen used by Obama supporters have completely undermined my confidence that we're even in the same book, let alone the same page.

    I do not believe that these people represent the same progressive, liberal values I hold.  Their treatment of Clinton is far beyond the pale.  They take the worst of the right-wing talking points against her and resurrect them as if they were gospel truth, they act as if they can read her mind and ascribe motives to her through simple guesswork and then act as if it's fact, and they build upon this day after day after day until they've created -- wholly within their own minds -- a monster that is nothing like the actual Senator Clinton.

    Her experience, her voting record, her standing tall against decades of attacks that would have -- and have -- decimated lesser politicians, and her mastery of policy that leaves Obama in the dust, are all I need to know about her to know that she is the better candidate.

    The attacks against her say far more about Obama's supporters than they do about her.

    [ Parent ]

    Not Tit for Tat (4.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    I still believe that by substituting candidate names we can better understand the depth of the other's feelings. I never meant to imply that increased understanding would cause us to miraculously come together. For some, that may come with the passage of time. For others, it will never come. As an Obama supporter, I hope the Obama campaign reaches out to the former. As for the latter, there's only so much that can be done. No point wasting time worrying about those who will never come around.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh please... (1.88 / 9) (#201)
    by Rictor Rockets on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:56:33 AM EST
    Spare us.

    Seriously, spare us.

    The Clinton Personality Cult has somehow managed to become the supreme masters of projection, and of accusing others of PRECISELY what they themselves are doing.

    As bad as you lot say that Obama is, we feel exactly the SAME way about Clinton, if not moreso. We feel she has embraced the worst of the GOP tactics, the worst of the Rovian excesses, has shown her true colors as a pandering dogwhistler who came into this contest with a TREMENDOUS sense of arrogant entitlement. She plays the self-aggrandizing bully when she has the upper hand, and pulls out the "pity me, I'm jus a poor widdle woman!" victim card when she's on the ropes. She gets pass after pass after pass for all her mistakes, while the so called "Pro-Obama media" shiskabobed him tremendously over March, April and May.

    You complain that Obama supporters don't see the "real" Obama. Well, we complain that you don't see the REAL Clinton. And instead of trying to understand us, you just say "Yeah..but...WE'RE right, and you're right. Everything we say is correct, and everything you say is incorrect." You don't even TRY to understand why some people might find Clinton to be a deeply flawed, problematic politician. Most folks I know who support Obama are at least willing to acknowledge his flaws and weaknesses (I myself am more anti-Hillary than pro-Obama. He's okay, but not my first choice), but I see nothing but the blindest of devotion from the vast majority of Hillary Supporters.

    Also, the other big difference between the two groups? Far more of the Obama supporters understand what's at stake here. Far more Obama supporters are willing to get behind the Party and it's Nominee and work to help fix this country. Most of Hillary's supporters seem fixated on getting their pound of flesh and vengeance galore, consequences be damned.

    You say you want understanding and empathy? Try giving some first. Try pulling the log out of your eye before you criticize the mote in others.

    [ Parent ]

    You seem to ignore when she did it... (1.85 / 7) (#170)
    by Kevin on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:40:03 AM EST
    At least with his campaign, he isn't the one going out and saying these things about her and piling on.  Who can forget her trying so desperately to attach him to Reverand Wright's statements in television debates?  Or piling on "bittergate", making commercials referencing it and passing out buttons, twisting something that pretty much everyone, including her husband, has known to be factual into something "elitist"?

    It's just politics, some of you just don't like it applied to your candidate.  But she's been more then Obama's equal, and you guys have more then been a match for the Obama supporters in overzealous ridiculousness.

    The fact that there are multiple posts calling Obama "evil" proves that quite nicely.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (5.00 / 8) (#184)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:45:27 AM EST
    Who can forget her trying so desperately to attach him to Reverand Wright's statements in television debates?

    I guess I did because I have no idea what you are talking about.  HRC never talked about Wright until she was hounded and finally answered a question by saying she wouldn't have sat in that church.  Her opinion - can't be wrong, just an opinion.  According to the 'bots, you would've thought she said she wanted to eat his children.

    [ Parent ]

    Nothing (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    1. If you've watched the entire primary and still believe that Obama has come by his "wins" honestly and honorably, there's little that could be said to change your mind. Your support is for an ideal that even he can't live up to, but he is the only one who can prove that to you.

    2. No.


    [ Parent ]
    I would tell you to (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:36:52 AM EST
    look at HRC with an open mind.  You will see tremendous experience, smarts, commitment, wonkishment, and strength.  All things that we must have after 8 years fo GWB.

    And no, those things do not apply to Obama in any way, shape or form.

    [ Parent ]

    Questions (5.00 / 12) (#167)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:37:26 AM EST
    1a.  Her health plan is the best that's out there, and so sayeth many economists.  While it might be a pipe dream in the short term, I know she'll actually fight for it and not start with the premise that leaves 15 million people out.

    1b. National security - she has the backing of over 30 flag officers, which is unprecedented in political history for a Democrat. While many Dems don't like to talk about the military and national security, it's still an issue that our next president is going to have to deal with.  Hillary also said she will work to getting groups like Blackwater out of contracting with the government -Obama will not rule out using Blackwater.

    1c.  HRC is much stronger with her economic message.  Obama has advisors that want to privatize SS.

    1d.  She has been a child advocate for over 35 years.  She has worked tirelessly for families and children, including fighting for reading programs and rural school improvements and early childhood programs.

    1e.  She is the strongest candidate on the environment and has worked to connect environmental concerns with green technology and green jobs.

    1f.  She has laid out the most comprehensive plans of all the candidates and can actually talk to her plans off the cuff because she knows the details so intimately, as opposed to constantly referring people to her website.

    These are just a few of the reasons I support her.

    2.  No.  I won't vote for Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    it it a serious mistake for obma and (5.00 / 7) (#176)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:42:34 AM EST
    his supporters to assume it is tit for tat. it is much more than that. many of us have very serious questions about obama. i certainly do. when i voice those concerns obama supporters turn typically very defensive. so be it, but that won't help now like we have been trying to tell them all along.

    [ Parent ]
    I made a comment below in the open (5.00 / 26) (#8)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:07:48 AM EST
    thread that seems more apropos here:

    I really do think that this latest episode of trying to trump up Hillary hatred based on nothing (how can the Obama camp explain their complete silence when Hillary made the same remark with essentially identical language in March in Time magazine?) is really going to come back to haunt the Obama campaign.

    Certainly Obama is odds on favorite to win the nomination. And Obama and his camp have been talking about being "nice" to Hillary supporters in the service of their so-called unity.

    And after all that talk, we get this kind of despicable behavior out of them and sheer abuse of Hillary?

    What this reveals without question is their utter insincerity when it comes to their claims that they really do respect Hillary, or her supporters, or their point of view, or their sentiments. What we can know for sure is that, given the opportunity, they will simply take what they need from us -- enough of our votes to install their guy in the Presidency -- and then they will return to their previous abuse as soon as we've served the narcissistic purpose they had in mind for us. It is ever thus with abusers.

    But, from our point of view, what's the relevant saying?

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

    Reign of terror. (5.00 / 22) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:09:57 AM EST
    I call it.  I will not be threatened or terrorized.   The fear tactic is  being used on me and I refuse to participate.  

    [ Parent ]
    it's not working on us.... (5.00 / 11) (#115)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:11:57 AM EST
    ...can you imagine how badly it will backfire when the targets are republilcans? They may not have love for Bush anymore, but they will surely rebel against the new "pc" police, especially since it will include the "liberal media" that they already hate. It may not seem like it now, but I worry that the Rebublican base may feel "inspired" to turn out in large numbers against Obama, which wasn't supposed to happen. That was part of the fear of nominating Clinton among some...how she energized the rightwing base. But Obama's campaign is showing all the signs of one that can bring them all out again.

    [ Parent ]
    May not hurt in the primary (5.00 / 4) (#207)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:08:37 AM EST
    This behavior will (and has already begun) by used by the Repubs.  Obama has said things about McCain and already they brush it off and use Clinton as a reference.  If anyone thinks the repubs won't use his treatment of Clinton to get votes, nor the disparagement of her demographics against him to get votes, I think they will be proved wrong.  Obama benefitted in the primary as the blank slate, it will be used against him in the general.  Insincere yes, and insensitive and elitist, out of touch etc are easy after this primary.

    [ Parent ]
    I am a Clinton (5.00 / 18) (#9)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:09:17 AM EST
    Supporter and I don't find Krugman "evil", although some may. That's their schtick and welcome to it.

    I agree with some of what he says:

    And the lingering bitterness from the primary campaign could cost Mr. Obama the White House.

    But disagree with him when he says:

    To the extent that the general election is about the issues, Mr. Obama should have no trouble winning over former Clinton supporters, especially the white working-class voters he lost in the primaries.

    I think he will have a a whole lot of trouble. But that's my opinion and I respect Krugman as much as I always did, I just don't happen to agree.

    Of course he's paid a lot of money for his opinion and mine is important only to me.


    I wonder if you (5.00 / 13) (#17)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:14:53 AM EST
    really are disagreeing with Krugman here: note that he carefully distinguishes between the effect of issues on Hillary supporters in terms of their votes, and the effect of the abuse Hillary has received at the hands of the Obama campaign on their emotional reaction to Obama and whether they will vote for him.

    To many of us, a vote for Obama has come to seem like a vote for a serial abuser. And the latest episode of trumped up Hillary hatred, even after Obama has said it's time for his supporters to be "nice" to Hillary and her supporters, would be just one further example of both the abuse and the insincerity of the apology and the "nice" behavior.

    I mean, how many of us can be fooled anymore by the flowers and candy the guy and his campaign bring us just after they engage in more of their hateful behavior?

    [ Parent ]

    To me it has all the attributes (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:18:01 AM EST
    of the Bush victory.  How can I in any way, stomach his nomination or maybe his presidency?

    [ Parent ]
    Issue votes require trust in the person making (5.00 / 11) (#165)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:36:55 AM EST
    the promises. Obama has not earned the trust of the Hillary supporters, or the Republicans and Independents who want change. He can't get it back.

    He took it all too far, made no effort what-so-ever to stop it. He has behaved as though he is entitled to be handled under different rules: Chelsea is fair game, but Michelle is not, he can pound racism into the dialog, but sexism is out of bounds, he can disenfranchise the voters of FL, MI and PR, but Hillary is only defending them as an act of pandering, he can misspeak and get away with telling voters they have no right to judge him for it, but they have a right to take license with Hillary's benign statements and write an entirely new statement between the lines.

    Anti-Obama people are anti-Obama. It wouldn't matter who he was running against. He is GWB pretending to be a democrat. He can't be trusted with our country.


    [ Parent ]

    I so agree with you kenoshaMarge. (4.33 / 6) (#31)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:21:13 AM EST
    This all join hands after the primary is pandering and petty. I wrote an email to a colunist this morning for feeling sorry for west virginia voters because they are prejudice and that's why they all didn't vote Obama. I asked why he did, other than both the columnist and Sen. Obama are both black. I say, country first!

    [ Parent ]
    I usally (5.00 / 12) (#145)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:27:16 AM EST
    hate to paint with a large brush but in my estimation anyone that tries to suggest that a whole state is racist because they didn't vote for Obama is devoid  either of common sense or intellectual honesty. Or both. And not worthy of respect.

    I always felt that way when some self-righteous lefty painted the entire state of Texas as evil Bush country when it was the home of Ann Richards and Molly Ivins.

    Whenever someone cries "racist" now, many people will just shrug and say; "what again?" Such ugly names should be saved for those that deserve it otherwise it becomes meaningless.

    And isn't it amazing the number of people on the left, like Krugman, Joe and Valerie Wison, Gene Lyons, Wes Clark and others are no longer Liberal heroes just because they supported a Democratic candidate?

    [ Parent ]

    The white working class voters (1.30 / 13) (#68)
    by 1jane on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:43:10 AM EST
    in SD and MT have given Obama a substantial lead in the polls. Obama is up by 17 pts in MT.

    All you McCain voters enjoy 4 more years of Bush policies, the endless war, higher gas prices, a crumbling economy.

    [ Parent ]

    Not helpful (5.00 / 9) (#69)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:43:53 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    feel the hoof of the unity pony! (5.00 / 13) (#71)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:45:06 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    So, if Obama becomes President (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by dk on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    and gas prices don't miraculously get cut in half, will we finally be allowed to call him evil too?  <snark>

    [ Parent ]
    Unity??? (1.57 / 14) (#101)
    by 1jane on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:01:07 AM EST
    The last thing Clinton supporters seem to want is unity. The base-driven backlash Clinton supporters are participating in is a carefully orchestrated Clinton campaign strategy.

    [ Parent ]
    If Obama is himself (5.00 / 8) (#116)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:12:08 AM EST
    interested in unity, why does he have his campaign allege that Hillary was suggesting the Obama might be assassinated?

    I think your idea is that if there's a failure of "unity" in the end, the only responsibility lies on the side of the Clinton supporters, and that Obama and his campaign must be forgiven for any smear against Hillary or her supporters, no matter how vile. We should, for example, be completely forgiving of having been called racists time and again by his supporters and surrogates.

    Sorry, "unity" isn't the responsibility of only one side.

    [ Parent ]

    IACF (5.00 / 8) (#120)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:14:03 AM EST
    You remind me of this deluded Obama supporter ranting about the "assassination" comment:

    I have no doubt that Clinton keeps certain phrases and buzz words stocked away in her head, ready to pull out for some guilt by association smear whenever she thinks she can work it in.

    Truly, everything that happens occurs due to some cynical calculation by that evil, evil woman.  You claim to not be a hater, but there is no other word for people who repeatedly make such absurd claims regarding Hillary Clinton.

    They don't resent anything Obama has actually done!  They've just been brainwashed by Hillary's machinations!  Please.

    [ Parent ]

    Carefully orchestrated strategy? (5.00 / 6) (#125)
    by magisterludi on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:15:50 AM EST
    Okay guys, who got the strategy memo and didn't tell me? Nobody ever sends me the memos :-(

    [ Parent ]
    Don't feel (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    like the Lone Ranger, I didn't get one either. And boy am I pi$$ed!

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry Jane - wrong again. (5.00 / 10) (#134)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:20:56 AM EST
    As I confessed here last week, my sister is a paid staffer on the HRC campaign. The Obama talking point #482 of a "carefully orchestrated" backlash is just hogwash.

    The outrage felt by millions, however, is completely real.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course we want unity. (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Radix on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:01:59 AM EST
    Most of us have been life long Dems, unlike many Obama supporters. Unity is not telling us to suck it up and then beg to preform the Osculum to prove our loyalty. If Obama and his supporters wish to win more that just the nomination, he and his supporters  will apologize and he dam well better make us feel it.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    [ Parent ]

    The U pony has no legs, you cut the last one off (4.75 / 4) (#197)
    by feet on earth on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:54:33 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    and all you Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by ding7777 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:53:32 AM EST
    enjoy 4 more years of Karl Rove (Mayberry Machiavelli) tactics.

    [ Parent ]
    More games with numbers (5.00 / 8) (#90)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:54:42 AM EST
    Obama has won white voters without a college education in exactly one state, Wisconsin.  He lost them in his home state of Illinois.  He lost them in Oregon, despite endless hype leading up to the election about how it was a "white working-class state."

    No one talks about the demographics of Democratic voters in MT and SD.  No one talks about how Obama will perform with this particular demographic that he has so difficult a struggle with.  Everyone just pretends that because the states fit some overall profile, as long as Obama wins those states that means he has no worries whatsoever.

    I will support Obama in November, but his supporters need to get over this delusion that electoral votes can be won with spin.  Denial is not a strategy for the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    so according to some obama (snark) (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:48:52 AM EST
    supporters the voters in wv and other places that didn't support him are all doing it for racial reasons and the aa voters are all supporting him for noble reasons that we hicks just don't get. boring!

    [ Parent ]
    Are there any polls (none / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    with crosstabs in MT and SD?

    [ Parent ]
    Dunno (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by Steve M on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:36:54 AM EST
    I'm not as close a poll-watcher as some, I haven't gone looking.

    I'm interested in what the actual results show on this issue, but really, all the pre-election hype about how these primaries will refute Obama's so-called "Appalachia problem" strikes me as the exact same deceptive BS that we heard for weeks prior to Oregon.

    [ Parent ]

    Did you know . . . (none / 0) (#169)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:39:37 AM EST
    That 78% of Oregon voters had college degrees?

    [ Parent ]
    Correction (none / 0) (#178)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:42:55 AM EST
    "Some college"

    [ Parent ]
    8% higher than in Ohio (none / 0) (#181)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:44:38 AM EST
    for example.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps you have not followed the argument (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:05:16 AM EST
    Obama has strengths in MOST of the West that he does not have in the East. For example, Obama will win whites in California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico and Nevada against McCain, imo.

    He will also win whites in Wisconsin and Iowa against McCain.

    But he will lose them in every other state by at least Kerry margins. At least he will if he does not do a better job connecting with non-Western white voters.

    Obama has a funny popular vote map. I think he will win out West in the popular vote and run up even larger African American Margins and the in the South and in the cities than Dems normally do.

    But just as the mantra from Obama supporters in the nomination contest is "it is about the delegates," in the GE, the GOP mantra will be "it is about the electoral votes."

    Obama's election is at risk for two reasons - one he has a divided Party on his hands. Two, he has problems connecting with working class voters of all stripes other than African Americans, Latinos and seniors.

    These factors makes wins in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida a difficult task for him.

    He certainly can not afford to lose all 4. He has his best chance to hold Michigan and Pennsylvania and if he can flip Iowa, NM, Nevada and Colorado. That gives him 26 electoral votes and if he holds all the Kerry states that gives him 278, 8 more than needed.

    It is a precarious map. If Clinton can help him solidify the Kerry states of Michigan and PA, through Party unity, and perhaps help him in Florida, and deliver Arkansas, as the Clintons absolutely will (6 EVS), he gives him self more margin of error.

    Personally, I think it is a no brainer for Obama. there is no other VP choice, other than perhaps Webb in Virginia (and at this point, I do not really believe even that), that makes as much sense as Clinton for VP.

    [ Parent ]

    The HRC as VP idea (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by brodie on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:33:19 AM EST
    has some of the flavor of the old saying that for every major problem there's a quick and simple solution which also happens to be wrong.

    Not that I don't see the virtue of some of your upside arguments.  It's just that I think you're overstating them, or the traditional ability of the #2 to move that many voters outside of his/her own state.  

    Asking Hillary to help bail out Barack in PA and MI and FL sounds like quite a demand as we consider that usually people vote the top of the ticket outside of favorite son/daughter states.  And it's probably unprecedented, unless we want to give Lyndon credit for actually helping JFK get several southern states in 60 (though that one may have had more to do with traditional Dems returning to the fold after Ike).

    The major downsides we've gone over before, but with the latest bogus gaffe story involving HRC, the Obama camp is probably more convinced than ever that having her on the ticket would just mean more dishonest negative stories about the team which they wouldn't otherwise have gotten.  

    And it would tremendously undermine their winning Change theme.  Charlie Black & Co would just just make the campaign about Hillary Hate, Hillary hoping for an assassination so she can grab power, and other noxious stuff, and the media would obediently go along.

    He's better off going governor.  Webb concerns me because I'm not sure we could put another Dem, for very long, in his senate seat.  And he doesn't help bridge the gap with disaffected HRC-backing women, not with his background.

    [ Parent ]

    Those are McCain weaknesses (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:42:19 AM EST
    not Obama strengths. WA is a state that doesn't fall into any norms. Pat Robertson won the primary here in 2000.

    Any democrat will win here. The state always leans democratic, but McCain alienated the state with his active campaign against Boeing following the Mike Sears scandal.

    Reagan won the state in his second term run.


    [ Parent ]

    Watching Recount, I had a flash (5.00 / 6) (#196)
    by Cream City on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:53:22 AM EST
    of what could come on election night 2008.  It will be a squeaker, and late in the night, it all comes down to . . . Florida again.  And when Obama loses it, exit polls will show his behaviors lost too many older women as well as too many voters furious at being denied their voice throughout the primary season.  

    And pundits will point, then, to the turning point for his loss being the last week of May -- when he talked out of two sides of his mouth on (a) being "nice" to Clinton supporters while pushing yet another "trumped-up scandal," in Krugman's terms, and (b) claiming he wants Florida seated when he continues to fight it, as Krugman also notes.

    You read it here first: Recount Redux, the Sequel.

    Oh, and the reason it comes down to a squeaker is that Wisconsin goes red.  I've said it before, as have other here who live here: Obama will not win Wisconsin.  He will not keep all those whites, those "Dems for a Day" from the primary.  

    He didn't even have them the next day -- and then, after the primary, the Rev. Wright sealed it for him here.  Plus wait 'til there is more attention to Wisconsin's own Dohrn, Ayers' wife.  A lot of voters still remember bombings here by radicals at campuses who killed a fine young grad student and father.  A lot of voters here remember her -- and our leading paper, a Republican paper, will be glad to remind them of this and much more.  I also don't think he'll "flip" Iowa, unless he can bus enough faux Iowans across the Mississippi River again from Illinois -- but this time, the number of buses it would take would be just too obvious.

    [ Parent ]

    Disagree on Wisconsin (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:03:51 AM EST
    I lived there once upon a time. McCain is a perfect fit there. He already leads there and once the populace focuses on the election it won't even be close. I think the same will follow in alot of other states that have been force fed the Democratic race news for months. Once the focus switches to the general election the Obama will be left with his 50+1 democratic primary coalition that will turn out to be 50-5 for the general.

    [ Parent ]
    Hint (none / 0) (#112)
    by andgarden on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:08:31 AM EST
    Webb isn't really that strong in Virginia. See here.

    [ Parent ]
    How many working class white voters... (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:18:26 AM EST
    ...are Democrats in those states? Not many, I dare say. In the states where there are large numbers of working class dems and that dems need to win in November, the numbers are greater and so is the problem. And really, I don't think it will work to tell working class whites in PA and OH that white people like Obama in SD and MT because whether you realize it or not, it is telling them that they are racists and their counterparts in SD and MT are not.  When the party realizes (or admits) that Obama's working class problem is not racial in nature, maybe the Democrats can do something about it. Until then, it will be a mystery that will continue to elude them.

    [ Parent ]
    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:25:47 AM EST
    And one could just as easily flip this on its head if one wanted to and say that working class white voters in the West are sexist whereas working class white voters in the East are not.

    I wish Obama supporters would stop demonizing voters who don't like him or who prefer Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    that won't happen! why? well you have (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:51:50 AM EST
    the arrogance factor and many of his supporters are wedded to their positions. sure there are some like perhaps axelrod who might can turn on a dime when needed. but frankly i think obama and many of his advisors like jesse jackson jr, etc all feel this is their time and we hicks just better get out of their way. good luck with that one!

    [ Parent ]
    Montana and both Dakotas are sitting on a (none / 0) (#117)
    by dotcommodity on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:12:30 AM EST
    shiload of oil.

    The resource curse causes Republican (or candidsates promising to be 'bipartisan' with Republicans)votes.


    [ Parent ]

    How do you know this? (none / 0) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:24:18 AM EST
    do you have a poll with crosstabs for those states?

    BTW, the West has never been Obama's problem. It is where he expands the map. It is the rest of the country.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD (5.00 / 11) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:12:34 AM EST
    glad to see you are back today!

    I don't share Krugmans optimism that white working class voters will "come home" in Nov. I don't see Obama's economic policies as appealing to them and he isn't really selling said policies. Obama's economic team is Univ. of Chicago which shares much in common with McCains economic team.

    He's right about the denomization. However, the problem is that the RFK flap is probably the last straw for a lot of Clinton supporters. Obama may not be able to repair the damage.

    One suggestion Krugman does not make is that Obama should take full responsibility for the sleaze that has come out of his campaign. If he would take responsibility and offer a complete PUBLIC apology then it MIGHT help.

    Anyway, I think a lot of this is wishful thinking from Krugman. So far, we have seen nothing of the sort and I believe we are unlikely to see it. Obama seems to think that he's owed everything and there is no need to earn it.

    I don't know if Obama thinks (5.00 / 10) (#27)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:17:41 AM EST
    that -- that he is owed things and doesn't have to work for it. What I object to is the attitude of Obama-leaning bloggers that not to vote for Obama means we are more interested in being bitter. They don't think they have to do anything to earn our vote. They don't think an objective person could look at Obama and deem him unqualified for the office he seeks. I object to that.

    I can give him a list of the things he needs to change to earn my vote. I don't know what he can do, however, to make me believe he's actually qualified to be President.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is perceived to be 'qualified' (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Josey on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:38:40 AM EST
    because while media corporations occasionally publish negative info about him, it's rarely on TV.

    Instead, the media goes along with the Obama camp manufacturing another tizzy fit to deflect Obama's lack of foreign policy knowledge and experience on full display last week....

    What the FARC was Obama talking about? - ABC News

    http://tinyurl.com/5zapvv

    [ Parent ]

    Don't conflate the two (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by talktruthfully on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:40:30 AM EST
    The Obama campaign and Obama leaning bloggers are not one and the same. I wouldn't for one second think to attribute the vitriol espoused by Hillaryis44 and No Quuarter posters to the Clinton campaign. This has been an unbelievable race. And Democrats should be proud that we are progressive enough to have fielded a woman and an AA as our potential standard bearers. It's been a long, long campaign that got too ugly - with supporters on both sides feeling that they and their candidate have been wronged. Regardless, we're going to clean out the republicans' clock this November.

    I'm an Obama supporter through and through, but if the SD's decide in the end, as is their right, that Hillary is who we should be putting up against McCain, I'll vote for her in November. I'm not pretending that I think it would be fair or justified for such an outcome in our primary, but d*mn it, McCain ain't going to even smell that oval office unless he's invited over for a photo-shoot.

    [ Parent ]