home

Barack Obama Is Electable, But . . .

While Barack Obama has the Problem, there is no doubt he is electable. Heck, any Dem would be in this political climate. Paul Krugman explains why:

First, votes are affected by the state of the economy — mainly economic performance in the year or so preceding the election. Second, the approval rating of the current president strongly affects his party’s ability to hold power. Third, the electorate seems to suffer from an eight-year itch: parties rarely manage to hold the White House for more than two terms in a row. This year, all of these factors strongly favor the Democrats. Indeed, the Democratic Party hasn’t enjoyed this favorable a political environment since 1964.

But being electable does not mean he will win. Krugman recognizes the problem:

There’s just one thing that should give Democrats pause — but it’s a big one: the fight for the nomination has divided the party along class and race lines in a way that I believe is unprecedented, at least in modern times.

Ironically, much of Mr. Obama’s initial appeal was the hope that he could transcend these divisions. At first, voting patterns seemed consistent with this hope. In February, for example, he received the support of half of Virginia’s white voters as well as that of a huge majority of African-Americans.

But this week, Mr. Obama, while continuing to win huge African-American majorities, lost North Carolina whites by 23 points, Indiana whites by 22 points. Mr. Obama’s white support continues to be concentrated among the highly educated; there was little in Tuesday’s results to suggest that his problems with working-class whites have significantly diminished.

That is "the problem." Krugman puts it succinctly:

[Obama] needs to bring Democrats who opposed him back into the fold.

Krugman advises the following:

So what can be done to heal the party’s current divisions? More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer — they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal.

Nor is it helpful to insult the groups that supported Mrs. Clinton, either by suggesting that racism was their only motivation or by minimizing their importance.

After the Pennsylvania primary, David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, airily dismissed concerns about working-class whites, saying that they have “gone to the Republican nominee for many elections.” On Tuesday night, Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist, declared that “we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.” That sort of thing has to stop.

One thing the Democrats definitely need to do is give delegates from Florida and Michigan — representatives of citizens who voted in good faith, and whose support the party may well need this November — seats at the convention.

And to the extent that campaigning matters, Mr. Obama should center his campaign on economic issues that matter to working-class families, whatever their race.

Good advice.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Why Did Obama Vote for a Bad Tort Reform Bill? | Meanwhile In West Virginia . . . >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Older white voters (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:07:48 AM EST
    to be more specific.  I think he should highlight his income tax break for retirees.

    You mean (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:15:12 AM EST
    for reasonably high income retirees.  Many retirees, especially ones on SS or other fixed income, don't pay income taxes.

    But, of course, the creative class retirees are a different story, I'm sure ;-).

    [ Parent ]

    Older Voters Have Heard Campaign Promises (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:25:00 AM EST
    for decades and know that they often do not become reality. A campaign promise weighted against inherent dignity, the feeling that they are valued, may not do the trick.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM EST
    Trying to out-tax cut a Republican is a pretty dangerous game.  It's not like McCain will insist on soaking seniors for every dime.

    In my experience, the problem seniors have with Obama seems to be more visceral than based on policy.  It's sort of an arrogance thing.  I don't know what he's supposed to do about it other than kiss babies.

    [ Parent ]

    Taxes (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:37:48 AM EST
    Trying to out-tax cut a Republican is a pretty dangerous game.  It's not like McCain will insist on soaking seniors for every dime

    But he's not offering anything at all for them.  His "middle class" tax cut is just a repeal of the AMT.  That's really an upper middle class tax cut.  I know I've never earned enough to pay the AMT.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (none / 0) (#105)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:19 AM EST
    I'm pretty confident that McCain would be more than happy to propose a tax cut for seniors at the drop of a hat.

    [ Parent ]
    I have (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Nadai on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:39:00 AM EST
    something else he can kiss.

    [ Parent ]
    He might try... (none / 0) (#210)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:26:13 AM EST
    He might try refraining from ageist comments about his opponent having Alzheimer's because he says something BHO doesn't like.  

    I'm sure that sent a chill through everyone over 65 across the country.  

    It's hard for him not to come across as arrogant when he is arrogant.  But I really hate all these passive-aggressive digs towards the weak, the poor, the old, and the female.  Or his tolerance of these comments from his campaign people.

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the man who sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years feels free to use hate speech when he wants to.

    But it's not the party I signed in for.

    [ Parent ]

    Good Luck (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:09:29 AM EST
    Will not work
    In terms of the 'Iron Law of Institutions', the Obama campaign is masterful.  From top to bottom, they have destroyed their opponents within the party, stolen out from under them their base, and persuaded a whole set of individuals from blog readers to people in the pews to ignore intermediaries and believe in Barack as a pure vessel of change

    Stoller and the other members of the cult, are in glee for the destruction of the opponents.  

    Sounds like somebody is still a preclear ; ) (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Exeter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:26:35 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Stellaaa - source? iron law of institutions? (none / 0) (#84)
    by noholib on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:45:51 AM EST
    what's the source please of this quote?


    [ Parent ]
    source is Stoller @ Huffington (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by sarany on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:14:13 AM EST
    Matt Stoller writing at Huffington yesterday:

    link to Huff entry

    I find this thinking frightening.  If this revolution hinges upon Obama as personality, we could be in for real trouble.  What if Obama begins to believe in his own hype?  How will he take care that he doesn't?  It's all too easy to dismiss the non-belief of non-believers as proof they are _______  (fill in the blank with your own experience of how Obama supporters, surrogates & pundits have dismissed and written off a huge number of Dem base supporters).

    [ Parent ]

    one pull quote (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by sarany on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:20:17 AM EST
    I would amplify this and point out that it's time to get ready for a party that is being taken apart and rebuilt as the Obama movement.

    ugh. I'm afraid I need to stop reading the blogs so I can do more than just VOTE for Obama.  It would be nice to feel good about him as our candidate, and WANT to work for him, talk him up and so forth.

    But I need a little break from the worshipful tone and the cavalier dismissal of longtime strong & passionate Dems.

    [ Parent ]

    The Roman emperors (none / 0) (#177)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:54:17 AM EST
    FDR Lincoln all had cults one way or another.

    JFK is clearly an imperial cult.

    Reagan certainly is.

    We have just ended the Clinton Cult years.

    [ Parent ]

    are you kidding me? (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:35:21 AM EST
    I've have never heard anyone talk about FDR, JFK or WJC in the same slavish, cultish tones that I've heard in reference to BHO. No one I know (including my relatives who were all alive and well during the FDR years) thought he could walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead or just fix everything because he was, yanno, FDR.

    I lived through the Reagan years and while I did have friends who were enamoured with him to the point of getting glassy-eyed and nuts, nothing ever reached the fever pitch that is the Cult of Obama. Nothing.

    [ Parent ]

    don't put cult in my mouth (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by sarany on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:40:11 AM EST
    I was never ever the least little bit cult-blinded about Bill. Not when he was running, not when he was in office. I was pretty darn disappointed by his policies and his self- (and Dem party) destructive behaviors.  And believe me when I say that I am not wearing blinders about Hilary either.

    Bill, maybe, gets some adulation from masses of people. Not Hilary, not never.

    I've seen them both in person, and I can see his appeal.  She's good, she's really good, but he has got Charisma with a capital "C."

    However, there is NO comparison to make between what we are seeing with Obama and anything I've experienced, other than maybe, The Beatles or a religious leader.

    And, while I could be wrong, could be overreacting, I am really concerned.

    Show me a leader that allows him/herself to be so focused upon, so adored, and basks in it as I perceive Obama does, and I see (potential) dangers.  I hope he knows enough to keep a grip on who he is, and who is isn't. In a situation like this, we have to rely on him to keep checking reality.

    The best thing about this Primary, at least I hope, is that Obama can honestly begin to claim to have EARNED the nomination, whereas it was looking like an easy stroll a couple months back. And that would be bad prep for the GE and bad for the sense that he was annointed.

    He needs to get a grip on his supporters, surrogates, stop basking and earn our respect and support. I want to see hard work, the courage to fight, state his convictions and stand by them.

    If he wants to win by more than a slim margin, or avoid LOSING by a slim margin, he'd better get my strong support, and as many of Hilary's supporters as he can manage.  He's got work to do and he'd better get over himself and get to it.

    And he'd better call his supporters to heel before they do any more damage.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama long ago (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:53:18 AM EST
    fell for his own hype.  Are you kidding?


    [ Parent ]
    What! (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:10:10 AM EST
    More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer -- they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal.

    That's crazy talk, I tell you.

    Clearly, a great many Obama supporters on the blogs haven't figured out that calling the Clintons racist is not really the way to win over Hillary's supporters for November.

    Axelrod's attempt to minimize Hillary's win in Indiana by claiming she only won because of Limbaugh supporters is another example of poor judgment.  Why does it matter at this juncture?  If you want unity, you will just have to stop twisting the knife at some point.

    I've often joked that Obama's plan to unify the party involves unifying it around the principle of hatred for Hillary.  I'm starting to wonder if it's really a joke.

    Works for Republicans, doesn't it? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:12:37 AM EST
    So instead of Guns/Gays/Bibles/Taxes the O-Team will run on Hillary/Bill/Chelsea/....?

    [ Parent ]
    No, that's not a joke. (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by mm on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:54:58 AM EST
    I've often joked that Obama's plan to unify the party involves unifying it around the principle of hatred for Hillary.  I'm starting to wonder if it's really a joke.

    If anyone's been paying attention, that's been his campaign from day 1.

    He keeps talking about how we all have to get past the divisivness of the 90's.  My answer is that most of the country already had.  He's the one that seems obsessed about the Republican attacks on the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]

    That is no joke (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:20 AM EST
    The attraction people have to negativity and division actual can and do build coalitions...

    Nothing can bring groups together better than by dividing them.  One group being superior.  The politics of division.  It works.  That is how things like the Holocaust happen. (I know, extreme example, but true...)

    Anyway, the irony is the hope and change man has using that tactic to build his coalition...  Why do people not see that?  

    [ Parent ]

    No joke at all (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:47 AM EST
    He would not have run at all if he did not have this plan of attack against Hillary.  She's the only Dem he had a chance of beating.

    [ Parent ]
    OK, I exaggerate (none / 0) (#111)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:57:46 AM EST
    I mean he had the best chance of beating her.  But I really don't think he would have run if she had not run.

    [ Parent ]
    Axlrod's Rush rant was just (none / 0) (#237)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:08:16 PM EST
    feeding the MSM so it could help him sway the SD's with the "Obama really won Indiana" narrative

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you , Mister Krugman (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:10:46 AM EST
    I'll wait and see what the reaction from the Big O is.

    Just got back from there and it's another round of eggs-actly what Krugman advised against:

    More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer -- they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal.

    Nor is it helpful to insult the groups that supported Mrs. Clinton, either by suggesting that racism was their only motivation or by minimizing their importance.

    I agree with Krugman.  As for anyone who doesn't think the blogosphere has any real impact, I suggest that the Media does take at least some cues from the largest and loudest blogs.  Perhaps not particulars, but in overall framing.   Constant harping on "divisiveness" does not help Obama in the least.

    Meanwhile, the other side of the page (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:10:53 AM EST
    writes a nasty editorial essentially accusing Hillary or race baiting and demanding that she not move to seat the FL and MI delegates. It was classic CDS.

    What a schizophrenic editorial page.

    I love3d the condescending attitutde (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:16:38 AM EST
    They believe she has the right to continue. Oh you believe do you? What a crock.

    [ Parent ]
    One imagines (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:18:59 AM EST
    that the people on the ed board who voted to endorse Obama are now getting their revenge in the most petty way possible. NYT Editorial board to Democrats: "Don't count the votes!"

    [ Parent ]
    The editorial was insane (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by suisser on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:50:26 AM EST
    " Mrs Clinton must drop her plans to seat the delegations from FL and MI"     while
    "Mr. Obama could do more to reign in his anonymous campaign aides" ???????

    What has happened to my once esteemed NY Times?

    [ Parent ]

    As one of those alienated by the Obama haute... (5.00 / 13) (#7)
    by jeffhas on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:12:57 AM EST
    may I just say that I am not sure I will ever allow myself to vote for THE ONE.  As much as he is to blame for this sense of arrogance, his supporters have done even more damage.

    As a lifelong Dem, to look upon the landscape of what was once the most exciting year in Presidential politics, I now find myself wanting to bury my head in the sand at what has become of the Party... no not MY Party, not even OUR Party... just THE Party.

    Sad.

    His supporters have done incredible damage (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:15:49 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    As if the Hillary supporters didn't. (3.00 / 3) (#81)
    by demsforlife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:45:17 AM EST
    This was a high stakes contest between both sides. Dems are in it to win it and right now it is for their candidate.

    At this point, once both sides acknowledge punches were thrown and received reconciliation can begin.

    The tit for tat can continue, but as we've seen with the ruling partisanship of the Bush Admin that never works out for any of us.

    [ Parent ]

    Gosh (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    If you support Obama, it seems to me that it's pretty necessary to pursue unity whether Clinton's supporters choose to acknowledge things or not.

    There has been a bitter argument throughout this primary, where the Obama supporters believe Clinton used race-baiting tactics, and the Clinton supporters believe Obama falsely accused the Clintons of racism.  Gee, does it help Obama at this point for his supporters to continue pressing their case on that issue, or would unity maybe be a little more likely if they would just let it go?  

    Unfortunately, Obama's blog supporters appear more fixated on trashing Hillary Clinton than on winning the election in November.

    [ Parent ]

    Steve, Thanks for your answer (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:06:33 AM EST
    last night on the Michigan Compromise Unfair to Hillary thread.  My 5 yr old had trouble sleeping and my husband needed help with something for work so I didn't get back to the computer until late, and comments were closed.  

    I wanted to say that I agree with your analysis of the Mich primary, Obama's strategy, and the need for some solution to be found.  So, there's some hope if this Obama supporter can agree with you the HRC supporter, yes?

    Know this is off-topic, but I had no choice.

    [ Parent ]

    In your opinion (3.00 / 2) (#122)
    by demsforlife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:07:45 AM EST
    But in reality, supporters are their to support the candidate to the end, that is why there will not be reconciliation between the two factions.

    Once Hillary and Obama openly reconcile the healing can begin.

    Its the same when any factions have disputes, the party leaders must come together before the supporters do.

    IMO it will be a love fest.

    [ Parent ]

    Just an observation... (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:14:59 AM EST
    but most "love fests" don't happen over night. And they don't happen without lots of olive branches being extended from the nominee and supporters.

    So if you're just going to assume there will be a love fest cause it's always happened that way...and you don't do anything to create the ground work for it...

    Don't bet your pony on it.
    "Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words." Dorothy Parker
    [ Parent ]

    You are underestimating the depth of the division (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    It will take more than words.  It will take actions, starting with the items proposed by Krugman.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:53:47 AM EST
    If your goal is fingerpointing, then Obama will lose.

    [ Parent ]
    difference between fingerpointing... (5.00 / 11) (#130)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:15:47 AM EST
    ...and facing reality.

    Obama's entire campaign was premised on promoting the idea that any criticism of him was 'dog-whistling', and demanding that no one notice that were it not for identity politics, he would not even be in this race.  Anyone who pointed out the latter fact was immediately branded a racist.

    Obama exploited identity politics to the hilt -- and pointing it out isn't finger-pointing, its truth-telling.  

    When the response of the Obama campaign to Bill Gray's assertion that it was "outrageous" to say that Hillary Clinton's remarks about MLK and LBJ were somehow racist was "no comment" but "people have a right to make up their own minds", the dark underbelly of the Obama campaign was exposed for all to see.

    People DON'T have the right to throw around scurrilous and baseless charges of racism.  That's called libel and slander, and simply because Clinton is a "public figure" does not make it any less libellous or slanderous.  By making it clear to Obama supporters and the media that it was perfectly acceptable to the Obama campaign to portray the Clintons as racist, Obama "enabled" every race-pimp and Clinton=hater in the country.  

    [ Parent ]

    Wish I could give you a "10." (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:28:14 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Another tit for tat (1.00 / 2) (#182)
    by demsforlife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:00:37 AM EST
    The sooner this is over the better.

    So I will continue with the tat.

    Lets see...

    Hillary supporters had no problem in tying in Obama to madrassas, referencing Hussein, comparing Jesse Jackson, and confirming that he couldn't possibly be a muslim.

    Identity politics at its finest.

    Let the tit for tat continue.

    [ Parent ]

    nostalgia (4.50 / 2) (#248)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    Is anyone else feeling a lot of nostalgia for the good-old-days when we would call the progressive blogosphere a "reality based community" without irony?

    [ Parent ]
    My goal (none / 0) (#126)
    by demsforlife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:11:29 AM EST
    is to point out that time heals all wounds if we let it.

    Again, the tit for tat will get us nowhere.

    It all starts and ends with Obama and Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    I think Obama has to take resposibility.... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:26:42 AM EST
    ...for his supporters. It seems like he will be the nominee so why does HRC have to apologize to your team. You are the ones who need us now. Do not assume you can "shame" us into support. We should not be taken for granted, we are voters who count every bit as much as the Republicans he wants to woo and the Democratic coalition that brought him the nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (none / 0) (#197)
    by demsforlife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:11:07 AM EST
    I don't need you at all.

    By the same token, Hillary will need us to vote her back into the Senate. So maybe, inline with your thinking, I'll hold what she in the campaign against her.

    I'm simply pointing out that both sides fired and both sides drew blood. At this point we have to realize, in the end, it really is friendly fire.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you a New Yorker? (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:39:57 AM EST
    By the same token, Hillary will need us to vote her back into the Senate. So maybe, inline with your thinking, I'll hold what she in the campaign against her.

    Do you know how Obama is playing in Upstate New York? Do you know how HRC is playing there? At the moment, I have absolutely no worries about her being voted back in 2012 if that's what she wishes to do.

    [ Parent ]

    Cue: HillarySupporter Speak (none / 0) (#251)
    by demsforlife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:50:33 PM EST
    What a shocking display of arrogance.

    You need me to blah blah blah so Hillary will need to earn my vote.

    That was kind of fun...now I see why this continues.


    [ Parent ]

    Arrogance? (none / 0) (#255)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:30:57 PM EST
    Why, because I know more moderate Democrats and even Republicans in Upstate NY than you do and know how this whole thing is playing out? They love HRC. They won't be handing her walking papers any time soon. Sadly, the arrogance is from people like you who think the Obama wing of the party (and I use that term lightly) are in the majority because you scream the loudest and try to play bully. We're not buying the clambor.

    [ Parent ]
    Go ahead its no skin off my nose.... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:14:48 AM EST
    ...I like Hillary and all, but I do what I do on my own behalf, not hers.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary will have no problem being re-elected (none / 0) (#243)
    by Iphie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:20:08 PM EST
    from NY. Any argument to the contrary is beyond wishful thinking and is not borne out by any evidence available here NY. She has delivered consistently and strongly for her constituents around the state; Obama's smears are hardly enough to dent her support here.

    [ Parent ]
    It sounds like gutter fighting on the Obama side (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by hairspray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    while they act so holier than thou.  Hardly tit for tat.

    [ Parent ]
    Gutter fighting... (none / 0) (#186)
    by demsforlife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:01:53 AM EST
    of which the Clintons certainly are not capable of.

    Get real.

    But by all means lets keep it going.

    [ Parent ]

    How about some documented examples? (none / 0) (#202)
    by hairspray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:15:06 AM EST
    It is a common meme but often not explained.  And please don't use the Bill Clinton remark about Jesse Jackson also winning South Carolina in '88.  That is more race baiting by the Obama campaign who have done an excellent job.

    [ Parent ]
    No, it really doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:01:13 AM EST
    Time does not "heal all wounds."  Grievous wrongs have to be acknowledged, confessed and sincerely repented before there can be any prospect of genuine healing.  It is not up to the guy who won through slimy means to decide when the wounds are healed.


    [ Parent ]
    There will be scars. (none / 0) (#199)
    by demsforlife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:14:01 AM EST
    Fortunately, they will be in the minority come the GE.

    Obama will appeal to those who have the dem parties interest in mind and not Hillary's.

    [ Parent ]

    Both sides have . . . (2.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:39:38 AM EST
    but you are right that it incumbent upon Obama to reach out and unify the party.

    [ Parent ]
    And (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:46:05 AM EST
    he isn't going to do it. He's just assuming that he's going to get Hillary's voters without trying. He hasn't got a clue.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, for more cynicism (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:20:43 AM EST
    the DNC moved the convention so that the nominee would speak on the day that MLK gave his "I have a dream" speech.  Funny how they did that, isn't it, given that their candidate imagines himself the MLK incarnate?

    So tell me you won't get chills down your leg from that and vote for Obama ;-).

    [ Parent ]

    Whose History Matters? (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Athena on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:24:37 AM EST
    I'm tired of the narrative framing Obama as a historic figure and Hillary as a distraction.

    On the verge of a female President within 100 years of women "getting" the vote?  That is history.

    But the good thing about history - it's all about memory - and I won't forget this season soon enough to win my vote back.  

    [ Parent ]

    Actually - my little fantasy is that the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Anne on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:27:51 AM EST
    knows that August 28th is my birthday, and all this Obama nonsense is just to make Hillary's nomination one of my best birthday presents ever.

    [what the heck - might as well dream big!]

    [ Parent ]

    The "new" (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:40:00 AM EST
    Democratic party...  we have all been accused of not being Democrats (and worse) because we support Hillary.  We have been told we do not matter...

    The "new" Democratic Party surely is not my party.

    I will vote in the fall, but Obama has a big bridge to build if he wants to unify the party and earn my vote.   The Uniter's change we can believe in has become unbelievable.

    I will not be quiet and be a good girl.  I feel like Democracy has been soiled to benefit Obama's campaign.  That is unforgivable to me.

    He is still not the nominee, so, let's stop talking about it as if he is inevitable.  The only thing that I a certain is inevitable, is that he will not win the GE.  

    [ Parent ]

    Over at Hullabaloo, (5.00 / 8) (#80)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:45:01 AM EST
    the lead post by tristero is about the "Obama Party". Now we don't even belong to the Democratic Party anymore, it's the Obama Party. Yeah, that's gonna bring a lot of us Hillary supporters on board. NOT!

    And turkana is trying his best to effect some conciliation with his posts at the left coaster and gets comment after comment about the vile Hillary.

    How does this get fixed? Can you honestly expect to bring people together when they hate each other's candidate worse than they hate the Republican?  I am not overstating, I do mean hate.

    [ Parent ]

    Not sure (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    Hillary supporters have had 8 years of Republican rule and GOP rulz, media consolidation under Conservative control, and constant bashing of their values. They wanted something different this year, and instead they got Obama, who basically co-opted the media control, the GOP rulz and the talking points and CONTINUED to lump it on Hillary supporters.

    Can anyone blame us if we're a little incensed? We're basically looking at another 8 years of GOP mob rulz; no wonder some of us are looking to take our chances with McCain than to stain the Democratic Party for a generation by electing a useless suit who will solve NOTHING when we need it the most?

    [ Parent ]

    How does this get fixed? (none / 0) (#176)
    by Coral on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:53:32 AM EST
    Maybe Obama can issue as strong a denouncement of his overzealous supporters as he did of Rev. Wright. After all, they, too, have become caricatures of themselves. :)

    [ Parent ]
    It should have been electrifying. (4.66 / 3) (#16)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:16:56 AM EST
    Of course, it should have come on the heels of a Year of Change as the Democratic Congress fought Bush/Cheney to a standstill, exercised rigorous oversight and began purging the corrupt and venal from our government.

    Someone asked who I thought Obama's VP should be.  Nancy Pelosi, quoth I, because they'd be two of a kind.

    [ Parent ]

    She has a ton of progressive bills passed (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:29:18 AM EST
    in the House, awaiting a clotureproof Senate to be signed by a Democrat.

    Although she apparently said some mean stuff, I am much more inclined to overlook what the press selects as "the quote" because of how Clinton has been similarly parsed and skewed by the other side...

    [ Parent ]

    "off the table" (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:44:50 AM EST
    Why would any leader give up one of the gravest responsibilities they have?  Even the mere threat of impeachment could have been used to good effect.

    Justice delayed is justice denied.  

    [ Parent ]

    Nancy Pelosi (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by joanneleon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:32:54 AM EST
    This is exactly who I think of when I watch what's going on with the Obama campaign.

    She thinks she knows better.  She capitulates.  She is an authoritarian who doesn't listen to the people.  In the process of doing things her way, she is not upholding the Constitution.  She is allowing the Bush administration to get away with murder, gambling with the lives and well being of people in this country as she places her bets on 2008, discarding the promises of 2006 and abusing the mandate given to her by the people.  She's betting the farm.  

    This is exactly what we will get with an Obama administration -- a group of people most interested in consolidating power and doing things their way, because they think they know better.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.  Real change?  Hardly.  

    [ Parent ]

    Democrats DO NOT DISENFRANCHISE!!!!! (none / 0) (#253)
    by beebop on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    More than anything else, this is the deal breaker for me.

    Too many people marched and died.  He gives them lip service, but doesn't honor their fight.  Rules when it comes to standing in the way of people voting?  GET REAL!  The cider house rules are the metaphor for those rules that you feel you have to oppose because you feel they don't make sense.

    How is it that we can send our envoys to the ends of the earth to guarantee free votes for third world nations and then ACT like a third world nation within the Democratic party?

    The two things this party has always stood for was inclusion and the working class.

    [ Parent ]

    Too late (5.00 / 19) (#9)
    by nell on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:15:10 AM EST
    I have hardened more in the past week than at any other time during the primary season. I am sick to death of the way Obama has been hailed as a can-do-no-wrong second coming, despite his relatively few accomplishments, while Hillary, a decent Democratic woman who has worked her whole life on behalf of issues I care deeply about has been vilified by the media, by the DNC, by the Obama campaign, and by Obama supporters. His arrogance in declaring victory on May 20th is just stunning, STUNNING.

    When Howard Dean made it a point to say that talking about Wright was racist (a claim I disagree with) on Fox News about a week ago, criticizing them for their coverage of this matter, but NEVER once stood up against all of the blatant sexism in the media, he lost my heart and my allegiance to the Democratic Party. So many women called begging him to say something to stop the women bashing in the press and he did nothing. The party no longer stands for the things I care most deeply about - equality, civil rights, and providing opportunities to lift up all Americans.

    This goes beyond Obama's campaign, though they are responsible for much of the division with their disgusting playing of the race card and use of right wing talking points against key Democratic issues, it goes to the heart of the Democratic Party.

    hardening... (5.00 / 9) (#112)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:59:10 AM EST
    I don't think that opposition to Obama is "hardening" so much as Hillary supporters finally focussing on Obama.  Clinton's campaign has been almost relentlessly positive -- when you go back and look at the campaign, its been all about her being a better choice than a generic Democrat -- and she stayed overwhelmingly positive despite the relentless attacks on her from September onward.

    Its only since the 3AM ad that she has made her "better than" argument specific to Obama in the same way that Obama has been contrasting himself to her.  And while Clinton supporters were well aware of Obama's deficiencies as a candidate, they weren't focussed on them -- we know that Clinton is so much better than Obama that we assumed that it was self-evident.

    And it is self-evident to most voters -- and while most of us accepted the fact that Obama would benefit from "identity politics", Tuesday night we were struck with the hard reality that Obama hasn't merely benefitted from identity politics, he's exploited identity politics.

    I don't know if Obama adopted Jeremiah Wright's attitudes, but I think its obvious that he's learned the fine art of using the legitimate frustrations of the African American community for his own benefit and advancement from Wright.  

    [ Parent ]

    Well said, Nell...... (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by kc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:19:46 AM EST
    I agree with you and so do my friends.  We live in Florida to boot.  I have written (e-mail and snail) to Dean many times to speak up about the treatment of Hillary - gotten no reply.

    I have been a Democrat and voted since McGovern faithfully, sent money, and worked on campaigns--no more. The Democratic Party, in my opinion, was to speak for those without a voice and support equality. This 'new coalition' makes me sick--sounds like repub. lite.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not angry or hardened... (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Rainsong on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:03:30 AM EST
    I've been voting Dem since Carter, but now nearing 50, I'm out of anger at the Party, Obama or his supporters. I am just soooo over it, as my Gen Y daughter would say.

    I will support Hillary to the end of her choosing, as it may be my last opportunity to see her in high-profile, then look forward to spending time with family in Florida. A really nice quiet change to be in a 'safe' state, even if a red one. Not as much campaign hammering in the safe states, and will be nice not to go through the "battleground" 24/7 this year.

    I never understood the big chunk of Americans who don't vote, but this year? Not having a dog in the race, is very attractive. Six of one, half-dozen of t'other. No choice to make between bad and bad.

    My family, are all looking forward to joining the Great American Apathy Party in the fall. Maybe we can watch from the sidelines, way up the back, and see if McCain is going to make a play to take California, or if not, which other states he might try to take.

    I would if I was him, with Florida nicely tucked away as a safe GOP state, thanks to the Democratic Party leadership who just handed it over, gift-wrapped, as a done deal before the primaries even began. Thats one big ECV state the GOP doesn't have to defend too hard, opening up more resources for a good try at somewhere like California.

    [ Parent ]

    Look, this is the scary part (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:16:02 AM EST
    the he could win.  An Obama win means none of the social and economic reforms.  Secondly, the mob is the scariest  aspect.  And like Jeralyn pointed out last night, the crowd he will bring will be marginal, ossified DC types, Daschle etc.  

    Also the Bowers article yesterday about the Creative Class, BTD you need to give that one a hard look.  That it is a nightmare.  

    That is part 2 to this (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:18:11 AM EST
    "Obama Worst Enemies, His Creative Class supporters"

    [ Parent ]
    Seriously (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:20:57 AM EST
    I do not want to give power to those people.  They have adopted all the characteristics of their oppressors : Stockholm Syndrome.  

    [ Parent ]
    Bowers and Stoller (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:19:44 AM EST
    have gone above and beyond in projecting the cult image in the last few days.

    [ Parent ]
    He cannot win (5.00 / 11) (#36)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:26:01 AM EST
    not just because of Ayers and Wright, but because folks continually discount McCain as an opponent.  Pay attention, folks.  McCain may be under the radar right now, but he is reaching out aggressively to Clinton's voters.  Obama's latest salvo seems to be aimed at presenting McCain as senile and old.  How do you think that is going to work with baby boomers and the early-bird dinner crowd, who see themselves as aging and don't particularly care for those stereotypes?  Some arrogant young guy telling them that the 60s don't matter, that they need to step off the stage because it's Obama time?

    McCain will appeal to the same bloc of dems that Bush appealed to, without any of the baggage.  At the very least, they will vote for him because he is more experienced.  Go look at Obama's resume again--if you can find it.  Clinton hasn't been able to really go after Obama because she won't do that to a fellow dem.

    McCain will have no such qualms.  

    [ Parent ]

    The DNC (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:53:06 AM EST
    and many of Obama's surrogates seem determined to insult the most reliable voting block in either party. Us old coots vote dammit! Maybe because many of us have nothing better to do, or more likely because many of us, myself included, were raised that voting was your civic duty and a small price to pay for living in a democracy. (Please space me the Republic lecture.)

    And if I hear "new young voters" one more time I will implode. It's as if a family was bringing home a new baby and decided that it would be best for all concerned if they kicked out the first born to make room for the newbie. Not good for families and not good for political parties either, IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton went after his experience (4.00 / 1) (#88)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:47:26 AM EST
    quite a bit in the begining.  She only stopped because it didn't work.  She also tied him to Hamas and Ayers the same as McCain has, so I don't really think your "she won't do that to a Dem" statement has any basis in fact.

    Obama should be careful about being perceived as attacking McCain's age.  There will be plenty of others who will be doing that whether Obama wants them to or not.


    [ Parent ]

    excuse me... (5.00 / 7) (#120)
    by karen for Clinton on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:07:12 AM EST
    When did HILLARY tie him to Ayers or Hamas?

    Give me a date and quote please.

    Didn't he tie himself to all his own connections?

    Didn't the media bring up all of them all on their own?  

    She did not bring up one thing about Wright except to say, long after it was well known, that she would not have attended that church for long.

    And as for his experience, she ran on HER experience and he attacked HER of having none.

    And people think we can unify?  Nope, we are not as low information as they assume.  However it has appeared to me that I am consistently correcting his supporters who are filled with disinformation about her.

    hmfffph.  

    [ Parent ]

    Ayers was in the last debate, I think. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:27:20 AM EST

    George opened the question up, but then Hillary said it needed some thought...Obama wanked on about how her hubby "pardoned two members" of the Weather Underground (he pardoned one, commuted the sentence of an other).

    [ Parent ]
    Hamas in the same debate (none / 0) (#154)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:34:29 AM EST
    I think that both are subjects Obama should be expected to answer to, but not from a fellow party member.

    [ Parent ]
    ya know what (none / 0) (#230)
    by karen for Clinton on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    There has been media coverage for months about ob and Ayers and the Hamas connection to the church. She did throw it back at him but she didn't ask the questions.  He can't sidestep the truth of how deep those ties are forever.  There are way too many people who know what is going on for it to be hidden in plain sight for long.

    Do his people who are calling for her to get out of this contest comprehend that the moment she is no longer there as an alternate he will be ransacked and left for dead in a barrage of attack that will be relentless?  As long as they are both in the contest they are not going to be hammered too hard by opposition forces.

    He got a slap on the wrist from her and plenty of kind words as well from her to him.

    Remember what the NY Times did to McCain the day after he became the presumptive nominee?  They said they published the story when it was ready, and that may be true, but the timing was everything wasn't it?  They didn't come out with the story till it was in the bag.

    When Obama's in the bag it'll be a blitz.

    [ Parent ]

    Hamas in the same debate (none / 0) (#157)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:36:47 AM EST
    (and Farrakhan again)I think that these are subjects Obama should be expected to answer to, but not from a fellow party member.

    [ Parent ]
    the missing explanation (none / 0) (#254)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    here is that when many progressive blogosphere types say 'unity' they mean unity in sticking your head in the sand, insisting that this 'won't be a problem' because Obama is going to change reality...

    It's a lot like Karl Rove citing 'the math' in 2006 as a fake-out right up until the end to try to shore up confidence.  It is a sort of stockholm syndrome; they abhor Rove but have learned their lessons well.

    [ Parent ]

    No... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:18:51 AM EST
    That was the Mittster...
    "Wit has truth in it; wisecracking is simply calisthenics with words." Dorothy Parker
    [ Parent ]
    Clinton did contrast her experience to Obama (none / 0) (#185)
    by hairspray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:01:31 AM EST
    and it is questionable whether it worked, certainly not with the younger crowd, but I think it did work with older people.  But believe me when McCain starts asking voters whether they think a person with the equivalent of 5 months experience in a corporation should be promoted to the CEO there will be a stark contrast.  The 3 am phone call which drove the MSM ballistic will be mild compared to what the GOP will do.

    [ Parent ]
    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:16:52 AM EST
    This is what we do not need.

    BTD, I hope you'll delete this too (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:28:29 AM EST
    I doesn't make any sense out of its original context.

    [ Parent ]
    BO never (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by neilario on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:20:05 AM EST
    the problem with any attempts at BO trying to bring people like me 'into the fold' is the way he has acted and treated our candidate for so long. because this has never been an issue campaign, sadly, but BOs manipulation has been all around the heart... this has been on an emotional feeling playing field entirely - one reasons for so much passion on both sides. so, there is no intellectual argument to weigh to say - oh well, ok i will ' come to obama'. the dislike/ hatred/ resistance many people feel towards him is viseral and solidified.  and of course he really doesnt want us or care about us  and isnt a good enough actor to pretend otherwise. so he has no avenue of appeal that will resonate.

    he will loose precisely for this reason. and if he steals the nom i am one who will happily watch it. and reluctantly help turn MA red i guess... i will never give the priviledge of my vote to someone who does not ask for, deserve or respect it

    out of the fold, more like (5.00 / 11) (#54)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:34:21 AM EST
    The biggest thing that the Obama camp has underestimated again and again is the fury of Clinton's base, namely women like me.

    I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday about the calls for Clinton to bow out "gracefully" (implying she's being ungracious by not, I suppose) and she told me about her grandmother, who was one of two Jews allowed to go to a very exclusive private school in Manhattan (hey, Andgarden, did you know that racism isn't just for the south?)  Anyway, her grandmother was valedictorian, and the school principal came to her and said, basically, "you know, you're not really the 'face' of the school.  We'd appreciate it if you didn't make the valedictorian speech because, really, X [the salutatorian, a blonde, blue-eyed beauty] is much more representative of our student body."

    And my friend said that every time she heard crap from the Obama camp about how Clinton should leave for the good of the party, she donated a hundred bucks to our girl.

    It's not even really about liking or hating Obama anymore, it's that a lot of women have had the same crap happen to them that Clinton is getting, and it's making them absolutely furious.  So many people are clutching the pearls worrying about the aa community.  They should worry about the very real rift that is occurring between the sexes.

    [ Parent ]

    Women are 50% +1 of the voters... (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:38:26 AM EST
    Interesting fact, don't you think?

    [ Parent ]
    Harumphhhh. That kind of stuff still happens. (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:41:33 AM EST
    My daughter, 5 years ago and in a "fine and diverse"  suburban MD high school faced a similar situation. Traditionally, the senior class officers (all of them) speak at graduation, not the student council officers who represent the whole school. My daughter, who was class secretary, got bumped from the program by the principal in favor of the student council president (a pretty blonde girl and no doubt a fine person, that isn't the point. Well for some reason, all but one of the senior class officers were "of color" and they picked my daughter (the lone Latina) as the one to bump. Up until that point, she always told me I was paranoid about racism, but that opened her eyes. She stood up to the principal and got her speaking spot back.

    [ Parent ]
    There's a great scene (none / 0) (#257)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:51:19 PM EST
    in the movie "Ben-Hur" that I think is relevant here.  Insert "Obamabot" for Massala and tell me it doesn't sound familiar:

    Massala: "The emperor is watching us, judging us. All I need do is serve him.  And all you need do is help me serve him.

    Juda: "You speak as if he were God."

    Massala: "He is God...the only God.  He is power, real POWER on earth!"

    soon after:
    Massala: "Either you help me or you oppose me. You have no other choice.  You're either for me or against me..

    Juda: "If that is the choice, then I'm against you."



    [ Parent ]
    I disown and disavow this comment. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:21:13 AM EST
    And the commenter too, for good measure.

    It's becoming more clear every day (5.00 / 11) (#27)
    by joanneleon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:21:55 AM EST
    that the Obama campaign truly does not care about losing the demographics that they continue to insult and dismiss.

    At first, I thought it was just a relative few of the loudest and least helpful Obama supporters who felt this way, with a goodly number of Republican trolls thrown in, who knew that the only way they could win this race was to divide the Democratic party.  But now we're hearing the same things from Axelrod, netroots leaders, and the media.

    Krugman is yet another former thought leader who has been vilified by Obama supporters, so I strongly doubt they will listen to his advice.  I'm afraid that their campaign has two problems.  One, they (strongly) don't understand the groups of people that they are losing, and second, they really don't give a damn about them.

    They expect (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:23:19 AM EST
    to be treated as liberators. But first they must take care of the dead enders. . .

    [ Parent ]
    no cakewalk (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:51:08 AM EST
    that's for sure.

    [ Parent ]
    Can we call them NeoLibs now (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:42:21 AM EST
    and get it over with?

    [ Parent ]
    And tear down that statue of Bill Clinton. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:43:30 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It does kind of seem... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:25:08 AM EST
    ... that the Obama campaign and (especially) it's online supporters are doing everything in their power to assemble a