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.

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?

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.

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.

It's people like me who began with Obama, but were sickened by his supporters.

It's become my policy to ignore completely anything that contains this phrase unless it's qualified upfront as personal opinion.

We have a convention coming up, remember?  When THAT is over we will have a nominee.

A unity ticket will help with the Hillary supporters who like her personally. It will do nothing for those who support Hillary because of her policy.

Actually I think giving Clinton those bragging rights is very critical to smoothing over the hard feelings. Because in the end, the hard feelings will be mostly about legitimacy and cheating. If things are resolved in a way that feels fair, then I think many people can move on. And that includes a decision where Obama has the delegate count and Clinton has the popular vote (and well, more electability by the polls). We just need to see that those issues are agreed upon, and the SD's make a decision with that in mind. We may think it's the wrong decision, but what we can't stomach is for FL and MI to be considered some sort of artificial or cheating attempt by Clinton.

Where I disagree is the view that making things right or smoothing out any divisive feelings with the Clinton supporters over treatment of Clinton or fairness of the process is all Obama has to do to win over those blue collar white workers. I think there is a lot of damage there that has nothing to do with Clinton and has everything to do with the SF comments and the Wright issues. Actually I think the SF comments are much worse than the Wright issues, but I could be wrong there.

So bottom line, for Obama to have any chance, count the votes in FL and MI. MI can be some reasonable compromise. Then have everyone on team Obama be OK with the fact that Clinton has the popular vote. And then work to keep his team in line and supporters with bridging the divide. Of course Clinton will do what she has to do to bridge that, but the winner is the one in the hot seat, not the looser.

Krugman: 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?

Either Markos is sticking his fingers in his ears and saying la-la-la or he's attempting to argue with Krugman by pointing out today that poor whites in Montana are more enlightened than poor whites in Appalachia. Kos points to polls and concludes, essentially, that poor whites east of the Mississippi are indeed racist hicks.

Nice going. But then Kos has been shooing away the unity pony for months and months in his campaign to purge the party of undesirables.

many grass-roots Clinton supporters feel that she has received unfair, even grotesque treatment

She should go through the same vetting process that all other prospective VPs will go through, including  an interview/interaction phase.  If her negatives (from vetting) aren't too high, if the two candidates are compatible, and if internal polling suggests she'll help the ticket more than any other potential running mate, then I'm sure she'll be offered the position.  

The problem I'm having right now is that some Clinton supporters are presenting this as some form of extortion (put her on the ticket...or else) rather than making the argument that her negatives are exaggerated, that she can play the VP role cordially and effectively, and that he'll poll better with her as VP than any other potential ticket.

He's going on the assumption that many of us Hillary supporters won't vote for Obama because of the treatment she's received from the media, the DNC, the Party elders, and the Obama campaign itself.

That is NOT why I cannot, and will not, vote for Obama. I do not think he is qualified to be the leader of the free world. His utter lack of experience, his poor judgment, his choice of associations, his voting (and non-voting) record, his lack of an inner strength necessary to stand up against the Repubs, and the almost cult-like worship of Obama by the Dems in Congress, are a few of the reasons an Obama presidency scares the hell out of me. And yes, it scares me more than a McCain presidency.

I'm past  voting just the party line now. I've done that for 36 years, but no more. As a matter of fact, my party is now the DTS (Decline To State, aka Independent) party.

I've decided that if people want to proclaim Obama the nominee and pretend that Obama still does not have the magic number - either one - of delegates, I can't stop them; their insisting on saying it does not make it so (See: Mission Accomplished, May, 2003).

I think the mistake that people like Krugman and others make is that they think the only way to discuss party unity is to do it from the assumption that Obama is the nominee; I think this is tunnel vision at its worst, and that it contributes to more tension and animosity within the party than it purports to be trying to solve.

Starting from that supposition - that Obama is the nominee - is a great way to make sure that the Clinton supporters will tune you out, because let's face it, the same thing would happen with Obama supporters if you started from the premise that she is the nominee.

So, what does that tell us?  That there is a unity problem no matter which one of them is the nominee, and solving that is not as simple as them being on the same ticket; there may have been a time when an arranged marriage like that would have worked, but it was back in the day when there was no minute-by-minute news cycle, and us Clinton supporters did not feel like we'd been trashed at every opportunity.

For me, I would like people to stop telling me that I have to get over whatever is happening and climb on the Obama Train.  I would like the Obama supporters - and the Obama campaign - to realize that if they had spent as much time talking about actual issues and plans and solutions for the things that face us, maybe I would now be willing to consider getting on board, but the only reason that seems to be being offered has to do with the greatness of The One, and it requires me to be willing to completely suspend my thought process and rely only on the "Trust Obama" factor.  Sorry - that's not good enough.

Part of the reason why Clinton supporters are not inclined to have to do all the mending, is that neither Hillary Clinton nor her supporters did the breaking.  And frankly, what we see Obama as having to offer just does not measure up in any way, shape or form.  His candidacy is built on money and the cult of personality ( a personality, I might add, that leaves many of us cold) and is as empty as the promises of unity and change he's been making for months.

My advice for the Obama campaign and for the well-meaning who think we have to impose unity NOW, is to just back off.  Stop looking at us to fix this.  Start looking within a bit more.  Do some analysis of what is lacking in the Obama candidacy that has brought us here, and stop looking for the quick and easy fix.  Realize that "quick and easy" may be a theme for Obama that will not carry over well to the presidency.

I have no idea how his doing with them in south Dakota and Montana.

I know he won the WHITE vote in Oregon.

White does not mean "working class" you know.

And for the umpteenth time, unless Appalachia extends from Florida to Arizona to Massachusetts, NH and Rhode Island as well as the more traditional definition, this game of ostrich that Obama supporters have invented is simply insulting to working class voters. Krugman makes that point in his column but I see some Obama supporters will persist in it.

If getting working class whites was only about issues, or Veep choices, the Dems would never have lost them.

Like so many things it politics it's about displaying an understanding of their plight.  And this isn't something you can get with ads or slogans.  

You either have it or you don't.  Obama doesn't have it.

He needs to get some depth along with his lofty rhetoric. He needs to develop some patriotism as he runs against the war hero. He needs to get a little credibility on both foreign policy and just general competence. He needs to change his growing elitist image and cast off some of that arrogance he oozes. He needs to start building up himself as the heir to FDR, not Kennedy. That's an important one in my mind.

The big blogs have been advocating for Atwater style  , Nixon style, dirty politics...they have been advocating a scorched earth variety of politics in order to win the 2008 presidential election since Kerry was swift boated in 2003-2004. This is just the culmination of the energies spent...

So the question becomes why is HRC their target? 1) They never liked her anyway...many wanted Gore, Edwards, Clark or Warner...Obama was at that time not expected to run, AND considered much to inexperienced and an easy win for the Republicans (which still is very possible)
2) When Obama skyrocketed to stardom, a conscious decision was made to hitch the "netroots" wagon to him...by and large, the "netroots" has advocated losers, with exceptions like Webb and Tester where the "netroots" choose the nominee while ignoring the claimed "progressive principles" that they cited in support of candidates like Lamont. Obama is their chance at being with a winner, and the "netroots" hope that by supporting a winner, they will become legitimized in the political discussion, earn a chair at the table, and actually carry some weight outside of being an ATM. The bloggers want to be invited onto the very media stage they once (not that long ago) decried, they want to make their dedication to blogging full-time become profitable, and their voices become truly influential and valuable...its a political AND financial decision...

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.

I say: too late.

The signs of Obama losing the GE should he be the nominee are portentous !!

I agree. The racial, generational, gender and class divisions and prejudices he has exacerbated and exploited during the primary can't be healed for the general election. And, if he persists in using these divisive tactics in the general election, will play much more negatively with the broader electorate than it has with the most elite elements of the Democratic base.

More websites have popped up in addition to petitions pledging not to vote for Obama.

The DNC and Obama have treated Hillary Clinton with amazing disrespect.  Women have had it.  And, their fathers, husbands, and sons agree.

There won't be any backing off.

Hillary is ahead in the popular vote and in the electoral votes.

The delegates are based on a corrupt caucus system and are further corrupted by Obama's thugs going in and pushing, blocking, throwing out, and threatening voters.

TX is a prime example of some of this mayhem.  Hillary won the legitimate Texas primary, but "somehow" lost the delegates.  Delegates are useless, corrupt, and meaningless.

If Hillary is denied the nomination we would rather put up with 4 years of McCain, who will have his hands tied by a Democratic Congress, than put up with a corrupt, lying, cult leader who has no experience whatsoever.

http://www.bartcop.com/141-bombshell-sample.m3u