I am amazed at the view expressed by Obama supporters that unifying the Democratic Party is a problem for Hillary Clinton. Like me, they all expect Barack Obama to be the nominee, but they insist that the problem of unifying the Democratic Party belongs to Hillary Clinton. This is an incredibly obtuse view. Obama is going to be the candidate who will win or lose in November. It will be HIS job to unify the Party. Ezra Klein does not see it that way:

[There is an] authentic, deep anger among Clinton supporters. And that's not a problem the Rules Committee can resolve. This one is up to Clinton herself.

Um no. That is up to the likely nominee, Barack Obama. It will be his campaign this Fall. Not Hillary Clinton's campaign.

POST SCRIPT: And here is Meteor Blades berating angry Clinton supporters. There is a winning strategy. Not. Unity? Not hardly. And maybe never if people like Ezra Klein and Meteor Blades have their way. Yelling at people who consider themselves aggrieved is not exactly a smart way to bring them back in the fold. Time for some OBAMA supporters to grow up.

Speaking for me only

Comments closed

< The Epitaph | Puerto Rico Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you, BTD. (5.00 / 29) (#1)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:08:31 AM EST
    I am with you 100% on this one.

    As I said in the last thread, some Obama supporters appear to confuse "Unity" with "submission."

    Which candidate really has the low-information voters? The Obamans seem to be rather unable to understand the meanings of simple English words.

    There is a sense of entitlement (5.00 / 28) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:09:44 AM EST
    somewhere on the border of Obama and his supporters. It is really quite off-putting.

    And yet they say (5.00 / 20) (#15)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:17:16 AM EST
    that Hillary is arrogant and entitled.

    But what do they base that on? Mark Penn's campaign strategy?

    When HRC supporters say Obama is arrogant and entitled, they can point to specific words and deeds by the candidate himself. BitterCling comes to mind. Obama blames and derides voters for not voting for him. It's their fault for not understanding His Greatness.

    HRC would never do that or think that. She works her butt off for every vote.

    And this is how she's being rewarded. Torrents of lies and snickering disrespect being thrown at her by her own Party...and now an obvious rigging of the nomination by the DNC.

    I am just heartsick.


    Frat House Still Open (5.00 / 8) (#241)
    by Athena on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:13:40 AM EST
    No, they won't "change."  That was just a slogan to distract from a lack of substance.

    This is who they are.  They have lived and partied in the frat house for many months now.  

    They have feasted on the derision of Hillary and are not willing to let it go - as it was the source of energy and bonding for these guys.

    What would they do without Hillary and her sweeties to kick around?


    Obama has no supporters. (5.00 / 15) (#109)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:40:24 AM EST
    He has followers.  That is an important distinction.  To now state that it is Clinton's burden to unify the party is laughable.   Recall Obama is the candiate of unity.  Let him roll up his sleeves and do the heavy lifting.  I doubt he has ever done that in his life.    

    Nail, meet hammer (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by livesinashoe on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:49:05 AM EST
    The PRINCE doesn't want to muss up his nice silk shirt.

    Let him roll up his sleeves and do the heavy lifting


    Ah (none / 0) (#214)
    by Claw on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:06:39 AM EST
    Thanks.  I guess I'm a follower drinking kool-aid laced lattes.  I WAS a Clinton supporter but once I switched I turned into a follower.  That's very interesting.  
    On the topic, I didn't think the MI decision was entirely fair to Clinton.  Clearly, giving Obama zero delegates would be crazy.  Obviously some went to the polls and voted uncommitted (Obama)...others were trying to vote for Biden, Edwards, Richardson, et. al.
    I agree that the Obama camp needs to unify, but the constant insults from Clinton supporters (Obama's supporters are cutists, followers, kool-aid drinkers, naive, latte-drinkers, elitists)...it doesn't help the effort.

    What effort? (5.00 / 4) (#267)
    by vigkat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:23:41 AM EST
    We haven't seen any sincere effort to unify coming from the Obama camp.  Just words.

    It's just that old patriarchy thing.... (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:24:05 AM EST
    It's pathological (5.00 / 21) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:08:58 AM EST
    and deeply rooted in WWTSBQ, I think.

    That's Because They Don't Understand (5.00 / 15) (#172)
    by BDB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:53:11 AM EST
    what "Unity" means.  They think it means the end of the primary process.  That simply by winning that will bring about Unity because Hillary will be a good girl and endorse Obama and the rest of us will fall in line.

    There's only one problem with that.  My problems with Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.  I'm not changing my registration later this week to unaffiliated because Hillary Clinton lost.  I'm changing my registration because the Democratic Party and its new leader have shown they do not share my values.  

    As much respect as I have for Hillary Clinton, if she showed up personally at my door and asked me to stay a registered Democrat, I wouldn't.  Same thing about voting for Obama.  

    Only Obama can win my vote.  He had the chance yesterday to take steps that would do that and, once again, he told me to go screw myself.  Well, he's not the only one who can change votes.  I can change mine, too.


    I am waiting until after the election (5.00 / 4) (#278)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:27:20 AM EST
    to change my registration. For one simple reason. I want my vote of the undercard to come from a registered Democrat while leaving the top one blank and writing in Hillary Clinton. I don't want them to think it's an independent doing that, I want them to know that it's a Democrat who is disgusted with the Party and its candidate. Then I will switch to Independent.

    Although, I have considered remaining as a Democrat since that gives me leverage to complain and write letters to the DNC as an alleged constituent of theirs. But I will NOT support an unqualified candidate for President, no matter who it is. And I will not support a candidate who thinks I can be bullied or guilt-tripped into voting for him. I will not vote for a candidate who dismisses entire populations of voters with a sneer. This is not the person who can unite the Party, this is the person who has fractured it.

    Why should Hillary unite a Party that she had nothing to do with splintering? Obama is the "Uniter", let him unite the Party. It would be good practice for uniting the country. Long trips begin with little steps. If Obama does make it to the WH, it will be a long, strange trip indeed. But he can't do it without uniting the Party. It's HIS job, not Hillary's. He broke it, he can damn well fix it.


    Oh, but some delusional (5.00 / 16) (#4)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:09:31 AM EST
    Obama supporter just told us in the previous thread that everyone's going to forget all about yesterday's proceedings in a few weeks.

    [There is an] authentic, deep anger among Clinton supporters.


    We're just women (5.00 / 24) (#21)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:18:31 AM EST
    periodically, we get upset.

    put away your claws, sweetie! (5.00 / 19) (#28)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:20:07 AM EST
    I'm a guy, so what's my excuse?

    Sorry, sweetie! (5.00 / 18) (#43)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:24:49 AM EST
    I guess you must be one of those bitter, low-information voters.  =)

    ya'll watch it! the bus is starting! smile! (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:57:37 AM EST
    Given that this particular bus ... (5.00 / 6) (#277)
    by Inky on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:27:01 AM EST
    is hell-bent on driving straight off a cliff, I'm perfectly happy to be thrown under it.

    He's alienated numerous groups (5.00 / 9) (#44)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    do you belong to one of them? Do you need uniting?

    heck (5.00 / 12) (#61)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:29:53 AM EST
    I'm just here for the pony!

    I shall name him ... "Hope."


    I'm naming mine "Glue" (5.00 / 16) (#80)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:34:56 AM EST
    Dear Lord (5.00 / 11) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:36:25 AM EST
    We have to kill the pony to save the party.

    Maybe we'll have to go to Unity Camp n/t (5.00 / 4) (#252)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:17:53 AM EST
    Men.. (5.00 / 16) (#73)
    by NotThatStupid on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:33:26 AM EST
    ... like me, are just as outraged.

    Unity?  No thanks.


    And after the upsets, (5.00 / 3) (#285)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:30:55 AM EST
    come the hot flashes. Those are what they ought to be worried about, not a little PMS. Heh.

    Well, many Obama supporters ... (5.00 / 8) (#108)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:39:54 AM EST
    over in the Orangey Place said people would forget about Wright too.

    I really believe that Senator Clinton will (5.00 / 22) (#6)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:10:01 AM EST
    do her part.  What I am not so sure of is Obama's ability to take full advantage of her help especially when his most vocal supporters keep throwing road blocks up that continue to alienate Clinton supporters.

    Ironically (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by blogtopus on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:15:38 AM EST
    Hillary doing her best to unify the party might be enough. It's funny; she's just so damn good at making her case, she might actually convince me eventually that I should vote for Obama.

    For me the most egregious thing is his Health Care Plan; if only he'd steal her plan!


    Well if he does, maybe he can send (5.00 / 15) (#24)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:19:05 AM EST
    any leftover Harry &Louise fliers to the Republicans. Save paper and such . . .

    blogtopus (5.00 / 9) (#138)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:45:27 AM EST
    It's worse than you think.  Health care is only part of the problem. What Obama means by change is changing the Democratic Party from a party that promotes government activism to a government playing a passive role in our society.

    Obama's tepid policy offerings tell the story.  I believe that candidates always mean what they say.  Bush told us much of what he'd do in 2000 but nobody listened. In 2000 Bush's policy agenda was a window into the intent of the Bush administration. This tells it better than I can:


    This guy would change the emphasis of the Democratic Party we've known since Roosevelt.


    Health care, just read in Houston (5.00 / 1) (#270)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:24:50 AM EST
    Chronicle today of a woman who was turned down for health insurance because she had had a c-section and they were not going to pay for another.They said that if she was over 45 or had been "sterilized" during her previous c-section, they would have given her insurance!!!

    She might try (5.00 / 11) (#142)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:46:12 AM EST
    but it is too far over the line now I believe. We would realize she has to do what she will do for the sake of the party. The same party that does not want  or need me anymore. My Mamma always told me the roolz too and they are if someone stabs you in the back once, they are going to continue to do it over and over if you let them. They will act contrite and talk all sugar and then whop, another zinger in the back. There would be no health care reform under BHO. BTW, some of those columnist and bloggers who are saying it is up to Hillary, are already in their sub-conscious acknowledging Obama loss in the GE and are setting up the "It was Hillary's fault" defense for November 3rd.

    If he loses in November and tries (5.00 / 3) (#250)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:17:23 AM EST
    to blame the Clintons, that will be really pathetic.

    If Clinton Is Not On The Ticket... (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by talex on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:18:23 AM EST
    I'm not really sure what she can say or do to get some of us on board. Obama is just to flawed in general and never reached out to us or our concerns and didn't reach out to large swaths of America.

    And to be honest I think Hillary standing on the sidelines cheerleading would be doing it in an obligatory and half-hearted way and I could understand why.

    Right now anything short of Clinton being on the ticket would not get me to vote for Obama.


    Nothing will get me to vote for Obama. (5.00 / 11) (#90)
    by alexei on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:36:34 AM EST
    Nein,nada, no!  Now, I will work against any "Dems" who still support Obama.  And definitely all who support the RBC's actions.

    Under no circumstances... (5.00 / 7) (#162)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:49:52 AM EST
    ...will I vote for Obama. None.

    It's over.


    And... (5.00 / 8) (#174)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:53:32 AM EST
    ...I will never vote for him, ever, for anything.

    I have learned everything I need to about this man in the past handful of months. This is not a man I trust or whom I want to be running anything which I am the least bit involved with. He has atrocious judgment, zero loyalty or integrity and, quite frankly, the people he surrounds himself with scare the heck out of me.


    Ditto (5.00 / 2) (#289)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:36:03 AM EST
    Not for dogcatcher or anything else.

    Indeed (4.93 / 30) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:10:46 AM EST
    because many of them hate Hillary Clinton more than they want to win.

    As with everything that comes (5.00 / 24) (#10)
    by The Realist on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:15:12 AM EST
    out of the Obama campaign, it is never his fault and it is never his responsiblity. Sounds like BushIII to me.

    I noticed this (5.00 / 20) (#12)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    in news articles this morning, ABC and NYT to name two.  It's up to Clinton and her supporters to unify the party.  

    I have no doubt that when the time is right, Clinton will throw her support behind Obama, like the loyal Democrat she is.  However, many of us (her supporters) are not ready to make nice.  

    We were already told the party doesn't (5.00 / 11) (#33)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:22:44 AM EST
    need us. Many have registered Independent, most are going to stop watching the race until the convention.

    Clinton's are still campaigning for Hillary until the convention is over. Then they have a right to campaign for their friends who are running for re-election in the House and Senate. You know, people who treat them with respect.


    I know (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:51:07 AM EST
    Carney voted his Super Delegate vote for Hillary because his district voted for her. Now, he is the only reason to vote Nov 2. I owe him my support and vote for standing by his district's voters. Not like Byrd, Rockefeller, Kerry, or Kennedy. Gawd, with all their wisdom, how can they be so foolish.

    Clinton told them how to unify the party! (5.00 / 8) (#132)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:44:36 AM EST
    Hillary (and her supporters) said "Pick the most electable person" and they decided not to do that.  



    It appears to be (5.00 / 3) (#256)
    by vigkat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:19:29 AM EST
    The talking point for the day, and it's being delivered in an unnecessarily strident manner.  It's interesting to see people who I used to imagine had some degree of connection with reality, mindlessly repeating talking points which have no true basis in fact.  

    Ezra Klein is 23 years old (5.00 / 21) (#14)
    by magisterludi on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:17:06 AM EST
    and I can hardly take him seriously when it comes to party politics.

    Apparently Obama himself must (5.00 / 13) (#25)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:19:24 AM EST
    feel it's up to Hillary because when Anita Dunn, a spokesperson for him yesterday said that it was up to Hillary to bring the party together, she was speaking for Sen. Obama. Personally, I don't want to be led as a lemming. Obama, I have heard, thinks he's now the head of the dem. party....well, to me, w/o Bill Clinton in l992, there is no Barack Obama in 2008!!!

    Obama and his spokes people (5.00 / 15) (#49)
    by talex on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:33 AM EST
    saying it is up to Clinton to bring the Party together is a WEAK sign of who Obama is.

    If he can't heal the other half of the Party he ignored on his own how in the hell is he going to heal the nation!!!

    When he has to go crying 'Mama' to the loser to unify the Party then he is showing just what a weak pretender his is.


    yeah, we can have obama condemn (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:05:29 AM EST
    our attitude and have michelle tell us we don't appreciate it because we are low information bigoted hicks. then end of the commercial with having brazile lecture us on the rules that now it is our reponsibility to elect obama. that will be a winning commercial i tell you.

    It's the new MCM and Obama Narrative; Clinton must (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:36 AM EST
    bring everyone to him and then he can win.

    If he does not win, it will be all her fault. NPR did a piece on how long primary battles usually mean that party loses. So it's all the fault of the second place finisher.

    Unless, as history shows, it isn't. But the MCM does history the way it does facts: Only when it confirms their Narrative.


    The media is so lame (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    they construct a scenario that simply suits their personal prejudice.

    Bill Clinton didn't clinch the nomination in 1992 until June and the convention started the second week in July.


    What? (5.00 / 8) (#57)
    by JustJennifer on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:29:09 AM EST
    You are kidding, right?  The Obama campaign is saying Clinton has to unite the party?  That can't be true.  HOW IN THE HELL is it that not the responsibility of the person who now "owns" the party.  Oh man I just can't believe how bad this is getting.  They are setting her up to take the fall when or if he loses in November.

    Hillary didn't break this; Obama and the DNC did. (5.00 / 21) (#26)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:19:55 AM EST
    So it's not hers to fix.  And I. WILL. NEVER. VOTE. FOR. OBAMA.

    What could Obama say or do (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by digdugboy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:42 AM EST
    to change your mind?

    What could Hillary say or do to change your mind?


    Hillary will do her part to unify (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:18 AM EST
    the party, I have no doubt about that.  Obama needs to show respect to the Clinton Legacy, something he has systematically torn down throughout the campaign.  He needs to take some responsibility for all the crap from his campaign.  Winners do that.  And finally, he needs to tell his supporters (the ones who are so hateful and vile) to stfu! The sane Obama supporters do him proud.  Then I think I can vote for him.

    i highly recommend that you concentrate on (5.00 / 5) (#221)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:07:46 AM EST
    what obama can do to fix it. he broke it, now he can fix it. he won't! they already planning on blaming everyone but themselves for any upcoming defeats. tell you what, folks get darn tired fast at listening to blamers and whiners. that doesn't win votes. you might start there.

    If Obama (5.00 / 4) (#239)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:12:39 AM EST
    is supposed to be so wonderful then he can figure out what to do.  

    It's a sign of a genuinely weak and clueless candidate who can't figure that one out on his own.



    there is nothing that Obama can say to change my mind, especially after yesterday.

    As much as I love Senator Clinton, admire and respect her, there is also nothing she can say or do that can change my mind either.

    I'm done with the democratic party and I will not support Barack Obama.


    How about these for starters (5.00 / 2) (#263)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    Obama should acknowledge the use by his campaign of low politics like character assassination and distortion of records and policies, the acceptance of millions of dollars  from individuals in special interest lobbies, and the use of other tools of the old politics. And having confessed to his hypocrisy, he should vow that from that point on he will truly practice his new politics.

     He should disavow the foreign policies of Bush I and Reagan.  He should tell us what values he stands for, what he wants this country to stand for and how he will achieve his vision.  


    Let me be clear in my answer. NOTHING. (4.42 / 7) (#106)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:39:42 AM EST
    Absolutely (5.00 / 4) (#232)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:10:55 AM EST
    If HRC picked up the phone herself and asked me to vote BHO I would respectfully tell her no.

    I'm in Texas, so it really doesn't matter on an electoral level anyway.  If 4 million voted for Bush here in 2004, does BHO or the New democratic party think they could ever get NEAR that number??

    That's what's funny about what's being said from Obama people in Houston and Austin....that Texas could be in play.



    Funniest post of the year (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:23:28 AM EST
    and typed with a completely straight face, I'm sure.

    Spoken like a true Obama, Jr. (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:27:53 AM EST
    though. No big deal, they'll all be fine and vote for BO come November. Well, he's not on that ticket yet. Unity isn't really an issue until September. By then there won't be any way to repair the mess Obama has made.

    It's a shared problem, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:24:45 AM EST
    Not Obama's, Clinton's or their supporters' problem alone. Unity -- in a team -- is always a shared burden.

    Rumors abound that the Obama campaign will co-opt Hillary -- by offering her a graceful exit with a HHS Cabinet post from which she can direct health-care reform. Whether that will work is anybody's guess, but one thing seems pretty sure to me.

    Some will unite. A lot won't. As the MSM, and the Dem. blogosphere increasingly turns Pro-Obama, I suspect people that chill, tune out politics and with a quiet conviction go to the polls in November will determine the outcome.

    It is funny that Obama supporters (5.00 / 18) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:30:34 AM EST
    think an offer of HHS offers clinton a graceful exit.

    It really shows how out of it some of you are.


    I am not an Obama supporter (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:39:15 AM EST
    I actually do NOT agree w/ the HHS offer at all! In fact, were it to be made, I think Senator Clinton should turn it down because she can do far more good , across the board in her present position at the Senate. Going to HHS will cast her as a single-issue politician -- which I do not think she is (or what she has come to believe in after this campaign).

    But the fact that the media is pushing this narrative says to me that Obama does not want Clinton on the ticket.. which I think is a big mistake. I cannot, right now, think of any other way to unify the party (as I think you and others have pointed out).


    There's really only (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:36:54 AM EST
    one gesture that might actually help quell the anger of many Hillary supporters: offering her the VP slot.

    Anything short of that will be understood as a clear indication that Obama really is using them, not listening to them.


    Agreed.. (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:42:29 AM EST
    Personally speaking, I'm not sure where I stand on an Obama/Clinton ticket. Right now, I'm still thinking Clinton/Obama rather than the other way around.

    Just to add to my point (5.00 / 8) (#191)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:59:25 AM EST
    Why is the VP slot the only thing that Clinton supporters will accept?

    To begin with, it is of course the highest position Obama might offer her.

    But that is not really the most basic point.

    We want him to offer her the VP slot precisely because we know he would find it very hard personally to do so. We know that it would require him to swallow his pride.

    From our point of view, we simply won't believe that the man has taken the necessary step to embrace and accept Hillary supporters unless he does something that requires him to do something that is personally difficult. Nothing short of that shows any sincerity whatever in his embrace of the Hillary side.

    At bottom, the importance of offering Hillary the VP slot comes from our understanding of human nature. We want to see that there's sincerity in his attempts to reach out to us. Only swallowing his own pride will demonstrate that sincerity. Eating a little humble pie will do a lot to assuage our feelings of anger toward him, as well as our sense that he is far too arrogant to be our political leader.


    well said (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:02:12 AM EST
    One final qualification (5.00 / 4) (#254)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:19:00 AM EST
    While I think that Obama's offering Hillary the VP position is certainly a necessary condition for most Hillary supporters to embrace him, I don't think it is by itself even sufficient. At minimum, more will be required of him.

    But if he can't bring himself to make her that offer, don't blame Hillary supporters if they don't come to his side.

    You can blame the man himself.


    Offering her (5.00 / 2) (#275)
    by cal1942 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:26:08 AM EST
    the VP spot is the same as getting rid of her.

    That may work for some Clinton supporters but it certainly won't work for all Clinton supporters.


    VP??? Heh. To cover for the unqualified male? (5.00 / 6) (#225)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:09:22 AM EST

    An esteemed honor above and beyond regular women's experience.


    sorry but unity begins with the one (5.00 / 5) (#234)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:11:31 AM EST
    side reaching out to the other in good faith. i sure haven't seen that happen and don't expect it. so let's shuffle hillary off to a cabinet position. she does't want that. she knows better. you know if obama had really wanted to bring people together yesterday would have been a darn good time to start. but what did we get? obama supporters already blaming us. forget it speaking only for me.

    That is dumb as dirt (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:07 AM EST
    I don't often write such things but when the shoe fits!  I posted in your last thread about watching a recent John McCain speech outlining his desires to scale back the nuclear arms of the United States.  McBush and McSame or very cute things to call him at Orange, but they aren't accurate in depicting his voting record and how he is going to run in the G.E.  They aren't accurate in depicting McCain's attraction to indy voters and his attraction to disgruntled Dem voters via that and his immigration stance.  That is just the beginning of how McCain can and will appeal to indy and disgruntled Dems!  

    Eh... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jay Elias on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:36:13 AM EST
    ...I think you are correct, Tracy, in saying that despite the humor in it, McCain is not "McSame", but I'm not sure he will have that kind of significant appeal this election.  He'll probably lose on Iraq alone, and his breaks with his party on immigration and judges will do him little good.

    Further, the reason people call him that is not in spite of but because of his voting record.  McCain talks a far better game than he votes.


    I could be wrong (5.00 / 4) (#128)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:43:58 AM EST
    but McCain is going to begin to evolve and pivot on Iraq.  I think he's going to declare victory and take leave.  He is going to begin to point to little victories dialy when we are in the general election and begin talking about how we can start scaling down due to this small victory or that small victory.  When "bad things" happen he will bring up that the Iraqis are learning to govern themselves.  He will not leave though declaring trounced as a Democrat will.  He isn't bound by the same grading scale as Bush is on this so he will invent his own.  He also isn't pigheaded like Bush and is capable of evolving his positions on things and explaining his evolutions well.  

    I think that McCain will also be helped by... (5.00 / 6) (#182)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:55:22 AM EST
    ...a media backlash. I disagree with those who think that Obama will lose his media darling status. MSM are too invested in him at this point. But oddly, Mccain may be the beneficiary of the backlash because there is advantage in the good coverage that being a darling garners you, but MSM will be called the "liberal" media by Republicans and this time around it will ring true to many viewers.

    Who let the voters out? (5.00 / 9) (#60)
    by DoggieDaddy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:29:52 AM EST
    A year ago I made the claim that my dirty'ol hound dog could win the white house over any GOPig that was running. But with the 'so called' news media playing favorites and the party 'elders' all sucking up and riding rough shot over BO's campaign AND playing the race card at every turn, the dreams of 'ol dirty finding a warm place in the Lincoln bedroom are getting very slim.

    This was not only a great peak at the backroom dealings of the political machine, it was foretelling of what's to come form the great savior of our party - Nothing.

    If BO gets the nod and IF he wins imo nothing will get done. With claims of uniting those on both sides of the aisle falling on deft ears.
    Reform - fugetit. He's proved himself to be a tool of his campaign managers.
    Unity - Great way to start, take votes away from you opponent and get yourself votes even though you weren't on the ballot.

    I Take Exception (5.00 / 11) (#62)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:30:05 AM EST
    at "White women, around 40-65, who are mostly middle class, and closet racists".

    It is not only sexist. It is racist and ageist too.

    I know many men of all ages, and met many AA, Hispanic and Asian women yesterday outside the DNC meeting yesterday who were extremely incensed by the outcome of it. They weren't all Clinton supporters even.

    I am a male in my 20s and I am equally angry about what has transpired during this nominating process.

    The fact that the TV networks show videos of older women with extremely passionate views and support for Clinton is what fits with the narrative -- however misguided it is -- that her sole support comes from middle-aged and elderly white women.

    It's total bollocks. She has huge numbers of students, AAs, Latinos, Asians of both sexes of all ages who support her and will continue to support her for as long as she's in it. Many of them will NOT support Obama just because he's been shoved down their throats as the party's nominee.

    More often than not, they may not vote at all, but for others, it more about the person and not the party. The next best choice is McCain and if no one in the media and the Obama campaign sees that, they are in for a 2000/2004 Redux this November.

    It is Clinton Rules (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:30:27 AM EST
    They know they have in Obama a losing candidate in their hands in the GE. So why not blaming HRC and her supporters; huh? Sure why not.

    History will not be kind to the primary and that will not be Clinton nor her supporters fault.

    Obama must think we all have short memories. (5.00 / 8) (#66)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:30:55 AM EST
    We will never forget the "Hillary, you're nice enough." comment; the brushing her off his shoulder; the wiping her off his shoe; his sexist remarks; his finger on his face (I know what I saw); and the fact that he has never come to her defense when things were said about her - specifically what his preachers said and did at the pulpit of his church.  He does  not have the character to be president.

    No Legitimacy, No Unity eom (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by livesinashoe on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:32:27 AM EST

    I have found that Meteor Blades (5.00 / 9) (#70)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:32:29 AM EST
    ...has a very locked-in position as regards certain matters, sadly.

    It sounds like his desire to see Obama elected has gotten the best of him once again.

    You don't start Civil Wars and then suddenly look to call ceasefires arbitrarily. To the overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters (and to the GOP), the Obama camp and it's supporters in the media and beyond have done everything in their power to burn bridges at every opportunity. The RFK debacle was just another example. And so, the aftereffects of this strategy will have to be lived with by the Obamans.

    Things are likely to dramatically shift now. There are no more committees to be rigged our states to be disenfranchised. And thus, the reality that Clinton supporters constitute the majority of the party and that we hold the fate of Obama in our hands (well, somewhat; even if all of us voted for him he might still lose in November) is now coming to the fore of the minds of those who were calling us all sorts of names only days ago.

    I do not envy the Obamans' position, and I have no great words of encouragement for your predicament. All I can say is in the future, please remember this phrase:

    If you live by the sword you will die by the sword

    And hopefully, as we negotiate our way through our 3rd straight GOP presidential term, we can avoid what Obama's tactics have done to our party heading into 2012.

    Agreed, BTD ... (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:32:44 AM EST
    I just made the same point in the Epitaph diary.

    Unifying the party will be up to Obama (if he's the nominee).

    And it's just nonsense to claim "there's nothing he can do" to unify the party.

    If Obama is the nominee, I still plan on voting for him.  But he, and his campaign, make this harder every day.

    They don't even seem to want my vote.

    Meteor Blades wrong also. (5.00 / 7) (#72)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:33:25 AM EST
    I'm trying to explain this, I don't think Obama has the resume for the job.  I seriously worry about the country in the hands of someone I don't think is qualified.  Michelle Obama once said running the federal government is not brain surgery.  I contend she is right.  It's much more complicated than brain surgery.

    Let me put it this way... (5.00 / 9) (#79)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:34:27 AM EST
    I could have unified behind Gore, or Dodd, or even Biden.  I really value experience.

    Exactly... (5.00 / 11) (#125)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:43:28 AM EST
    I was having this discussion with my hubby last night.

    Any of the other candidates that started out in this process were far more qualified than Obama. Obama was always my least favorite (except Gravel), simply because of his thin resume. If any of them had beaten HRC (who was not my first choice), I would have been fine with it.

    Now I see that unqualified Obama, by using the most divisive and hateful campaign ever waged by a Democrat against another Democrat, and by stealing delegates and claiming votes that he didn't get, has all but won the nomination.

    Nothing HRC does or doesn't do is going to convince me this is democratic OR Democratic.

    The top of my ballot will remain blank if Obama or McCain are my choices.


    More Magical Thinking (5.00 / 18) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:34:05 AM EST
    When Clinton concedes and says unite behind Obama, a breeze will blow across American carrying a magic potion that will erase all memory of past offenses and of Obama's associates and positions.

    People will automatically forget that they have been called racists, uneducated, low class, low information voters who are not necessary to the NEW Democratic Party. They will forget that Obama has put SS on the table, ran "poison pill"  ads against UHC, wants to have a foreign policy like Reagan, has stated that he might put Republicans in the positions of Sec. of Defense and State, has a Republican on his short list for VP, believes that Republicans have better ideas regarding government regulations and education, voted in favor of Cheney's Energy policy, introduced a liquified coal bill which Gore said was horrible, supports nuclear energy without being aware of  the dangers such as Hanford and has supported disenfranchising two swing states.

    People will automatically forget that the NEW Democratic remained silent or contributed to the sexist attacks and the demonization of Hillary until it no longer mattered and then make a few token comments. People will automatically forget that the NEW Democratic remained silent or contributed painting the Clintons and large segments of the party as racists and claiming that the Clinton presidency was as bad for America as Bush's current administration.

    People will ignore the fact the Obama campaign, his surrogates and his supporters continue the attacks on Hillary and continue their insults of voters who do not support Obama.

    Magical Thinking at its very finest.

    To me, (5.00 / 17) (#154)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:48:09 AM EST
    one of the most disgusting things that the Obama camp did was to encourage the belief that Hillary's RFK remarks were alluding to the possibility of Obama's own assassination, as if Hillary were capable of deliberately conjuring up -- and presumably hoping for -- that possibility.

    It was just vile almost beyond comprehension.

    And they engaged in this smear attack at a time when all the odds favored Obama immensely for winning the nomination. It could hardly have been more unnecessary. It was just an ugly, primitive knifing of a political opponent simply to do her damage out of the darkest vindictiveness.

    Honestly, I can never forget that or forgive that.


    I remember well how BTD (5.00 / 10) (#202)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:02:33 AM EST
    weeks ago, tried to say that Obama would now stop knifing Hillary in the back and would concentrate solely on McCain.

    I told him that would not happen, and of course, it didn't, because McCain was kicking Obama's a$$ every time Obama tried to take him on. Obama then resorted to IACF! to smear Hillary with the RFK pseudo-scandal.

    Unity will not happen either because Obama confuses submission with agreement.

    He's nothing but a bully. And so are many of his supporters.


    What do they mean? (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Sunshine on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    [There is an] authentic, deep anger among Clinton supporters. And that's not a problem the Rules Committee can resolve. This one is up to Clinton herself.
    The Rules Committee caused it, they can solve it...
    This is an attack on women in general, this must be what abused wives feel...
    The attacks have come from all sides, the Rules Commettee, the media, men in general, not one of the original candidates supported Hillary, even though some said she was the best candidate, Obama supporters and freinds have made vicious attacks on Hillary and women, some TV personalities have been just as vicious as Obama's religious supporters and some magazine people have used their publications for this hate for women in general... You would think she was running on the Nazi party the way Keith Olbermann reacted to her....
    Now Hillary is supposed to bring us all together, she will probably do her best but I don't think all women will be so generous...
    I think the Rules Committee has it's nerve to even ask her to put it all back together or to ask women in general to forgive and forget..

    So what should he do, BTD? (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:39:21 AM EST
    What are the steps he needs to take at this point?

    Vague demands of Obama bringing the party together are all well and good.  But what can he specifically do to further that goal at this point?

    Until Hillary concedes, any sort of appeal to Hillary supporters will be received by them as arrogance since he isn't the nominee yet.

    I can't think of a thing he can until Hillary concedes.  If you have some ideas I would certainly like to hear them.

    I think it essential (5.00 / 16) (#123)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:42:59 AM EST
    That he insist to his supporters and his surrogates that he treat her with th respect she deserves. Continuously. Believe it or not, he needs to court them.

    My own view is that IF he wants to unify the Party, he will need to offer her the Vice Presidency.

    If he feels he does not need or want that to win, then he can choose not to. But that is taking an unnecessary risk imo.

    But we will see what Obama does. right now, his supporters are his worst enemies with regard to unifying the Party. Starting with Donna Brazile especially.


    Impossible (5.00 / 12) (#152)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:47:49 AM EST
    it's not in their makeup, they think it's old politics.  Look at Wexler compared to Nelson.  We are entering the age of accepted political brutality  under the guise of being fighters.  I was sincerely stunned with him yelling at that woman on the committee.  Then look at Brazille talking down to the Blanchard?  

    Impossible BTD, it is not in the capacity of the movement.  They did not want to get rid of Bush they wanted to use his tactics.  


    For example (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:55:38 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton will be offered a dignified exit from the presidential race and the prospect of a place in Barack Obama's cabinet under plans for a "negotiated surrender" of her White House ambitions being drawn up by Senator Obama's aides.

    Their tone


    That is the big question (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:50:40 AM EST
    I have no idea if the Obama campaign believes that Hillary should be on the ticket or not.  We will find out.

    Brazile is a loose cannon.  Technically she is not an Obama supporter although it seems fairly obvious that she backs him.  But she is a DNC official and I am not sure that a candidate should be attacking DNC officials regardless of their views.

    Respect is a vague term because it is dependent on the receipient to feel that something is or is not respectful.


    While I Agree (5.00 / 7) (#165)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:51:06 AM EST
    with the crux of your argument, BTD, about offering VP to Clinton, I think most Clinton supporters (many I know, at least, including me) would see right through that and see that it is his last, and only hope of winning the Presidency -- because right now, more Democrats have voted for her than him. We know that he HAS TO offer it to her, but she SHOULD decline it.

    Completely agreed.. but he needs to do MORE (5.00 / 9) (#175)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:53:43 AM EST
    In my opinion
    • Obama should explicitly start talking to Clinton supporters, not using code-words, not using brush-offs and twisting the knife gestures, but to say "I need you" over the public airwaves, and
    • Obama needs to acknowledge his campaign's race-baiting, and divisive tactics and APOLOGIZE for them. He needs to tell his supporters and the MSM that "this race is over so cut it out!"
    • And Obama should start showing real respect for HRC and Bill Clinton. Not just words, Senator. Actions that show us in the Democratic party that you mean it.

    IMHO, not ONCE has he taken a real stance on any of the  above. Instead his campaign and supporters have gone out of their way to indicate how they can win with new voters, emerging coalitions etc. If he continues  to do that -- the democratic base that voted for Hillary is just going to solidify in their will to "show him in November".

    I, for one, have (5.00 / 0) (#272)
    by digdugboy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:25:06 AM EST
    always treated HRC with respect on the blogs. I got troll-rated almost to oblivion at DKos for defending her during the stupid RFK event. When her supporters act like children in the middle of a perpetual tantrum, it's kind of hard to respect that for long.

    For months (5.00 / 2) (#288)
    by Foxx on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:33:04 AM EST
    you have been saying that Obama must act with leadership and dignity and for months he has not been doing it.

    there is no requirement (5.00 / 6) (#145)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:46:50 AM EST
    that "unity" can only begin after concession.
    Where did you learn that??
    Oh wait - like other issues, Obama is simply running out the clock, unable to reflect nobility and statesmanship, while partisanship is reinforced.
    Obamamites are no smarter than Obama on "unity."

    As I said (none / 0) (#179)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:54:57 AM EST
    Offer ideas of what he can do to bring Hillary supporters over to him right now, before she concedes.  

    Criticizing "Obamamites" serves no purpose.


    First (5.00 / 2) (#259)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:20:17 AM EST
    He could try actually securing the nomination before he crowns himself kinf og the world.

    Then he could try not insulting her every time one of his surrogates opens their mouths.

    He could have seated both delegations yesterday fully and truly come out of the meeting united.

    That last one prevented anything from working for me.


    What should he do? (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by NotThatStupid on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM EST
    ... if he would put in eight years of hard work (heh...made myself laugh at that one) in the Senate, avoiding places such as TUCC and the people therein like the plague, start treating everyone in the Democratic Party - women, elderly, low income, low education, - as valued members, then, maybe, I could vote for him ...

    ...in 2016.


    please, anyone good policitan (5.00 / 3) (#249)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:17:10 AM EST
    knows there are hundreds of positive things he can do and probably won't. don't insult us.

    Meteor Blades focuses on Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:39:46 AM EST
    to distract from Obama throwing his church under the bus.
    In 2004, the GOP railed about a divorced Dem nominee partaking of communion.
    Obama is a gift to the GOP! and makes it easy for them since he's emulated the philosophy of Wright and Phleger throughout the primary.

    MB is just being shrill. (5.00 / 8) (#183)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:55:29 AM EST
    What MB should be doing, with his long history of activism, is leading the charge to FIGHT for the survival of the party.  And you don't do that by smearing people think they have been shut out, shouted down, disrespected and now - cast out.

    Are there no leaders left in the Left?  At least the GOP saw the fatal flaw of their party staring them in the face this primary season and decided to go with the one candidate who stood a chance of keeping the deeply divided coalition together.  The Democrats see a huge divide staring them right in the face and not one can say "Hey, no matter who wins - I'll support them!".  Love to hear Brazile say that or Richardson or someone other than Hillary Clinton.  We should have a press conference with SDs linked arm in arm, declaring that no matter who the nominee is, they WILL support them fully, completely and unreservedly.


    Both need to provide for unity. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Faust on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:47 AM EST
    Neither one of them can provide unity alone. BOTH need to lead the democratic party to unity. That's what UNITY means. Obviously Obama needs to take the lead since he will almost certainly be nominated as the leader.

    Both. Not just Obama. Not just Clinton. Both. Unity.

    That's why a unity ticket is a good idea. Because it creates a structural unity that permits them both to lead together.

    agreed (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:44:34 AM EST
    He broke it (5.00 / 11) (#120)
    by livesinashoe on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:42:37 AM EST
    So he bought it

    End of story.

    "they" are talking about (5.00 / 11) (#147)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:47:11 AM EST
    the Obama Party now.

    The Obama Party took it over from the Clintons!  

    Good, now that it's "his" party - "he" can deal with its problems.


    More probably (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by livesinashoe on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:01:41 AM EST
    he will let his female, erm, "supporters" do it.

    What it takes for Unity (5.00 / 16) (#122)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:42:43 AM EST
    are some elements that are totally lacking in the culture of the movement.  Here is a small list graciousness, sense of justice, sense of history, humility, fairness, respect for others, questioning,  tolerance, kindness and yep, love.  They have been fed the politics of the last 8 years and they have believed and embraced the methods.  

    After Edwards fell through I would have been willing to go either way.  But found the shortcomings of the candidate, Obama, then I started to see the shortcomings of his surrogates and his supporters.  My conclusion, is and will be I do not want people, who may share some of my political aspirations, who do not share my values to have power.  Cause in the end, things like that matter.

    Will they learn?  NO.  Will they act better if elected?  NO.  The rot starts from the top, and the top being Axelrod with a weak and ambitious client makes for another dangerous combination.  
    So, work for a Congress and abstain from the presidency.  Let Reid and Nancy earn their keep.  

    Add on to this (5.00 / 10) (#127)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:43:54 AM EST
    people of that ilk, have no capacity for doing the hard work, they want others to do it for them.  That is why they want Hillary to do it.  

    How TeamO, Super Genius, will lose even bigger (5.00 / 12) (#126)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:43:45 AM EST
    ... than they were slated to do on Obama's built-in weaknesses as a leader, and his kingmakers' arrogance.
    If their contemptuous attitude was localized to internecine squabbles that would be one thing.

    Their contempt is for voters, and not just in slamming the popular vote as if it means less than some slick political hucksters bullsh!t du jour. Their contempt is clear with stupid pol tricks like getting voters to vote Uncommitted, or get Repugs in on the joke by being Dems for a Day.

    Why should anyone be an activist for this mockery?

    How dare Donna Brazile huff and puff with Mamma talk and lay that fake Della Gente smack about disenfranchisement. She's no Dem but she's definitely one of the biggest Jackasses to ever disgrace this once proud party that made me declare Independence from their shameful Bush era record.

    Stealing votes from Sen Clinton, and shredding others so they won't count, lays down the doubt in millions of voters' heads that it could be his or her vote that was treated that way.

    That's the thing, unless EACH VOTE is treated as precious, even a small number of votes shabbily treated puts the entire process in jeopardy.

    The other self-defeating principle of this contempt for the popular vote is going to make it hard for all but those swimming in BO's tank of Whine-Koolaid to GOTV, knock on doors for him.

    Why, when votes don't count for the candidate, should disenfranchised Dems go out and scrape together every possible vote for this (impending IMO) most expensive landslide loser in history?

    What Sen. Clinton shows me by going out and personally fighting for every vote by reaching the voter is that my vote will be appreciated and, more importantly, she'll fight to get it counted.

    [Sorry for the double post, but it was at the very tail of a long thread, has many undiscussed aspects of the "Unity" issue, and is much more pertinent here. I strenuously throw myself before the mercy of the court)

    And I think the title of Riverdaughter's (5.00 / 19) (#137)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:45:11 AM EST
    latest post is apt: "The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves."

    A friend from college is a battered wife (5.00 / 7) (#244)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:14:25 AM EST
    She lived in a big house and had lots of neat stuff.  But when her husband came home angry from work or had a little too much to drink, he beat her up.  Not enough to kill her, but enough to send to the ER a couple of times. He threatened he'd follow her if she left.  When she finally left for the battered women's shelter, she found herself sharing a room with five other women. It took her a long time to get back to a big house and neat stuff again, but she did it and so did the others. I look at leaving the Democratic Party and going to vote for John McCain as finding myself in the shelter.  There isn't much for me in the Republican Party, but if the other five women that I am sharing this experience with and I work together, maybe we can carve out a space for ourselves. I know I'm not going to keep being battered just because there are some things that I want that the shelter doesn't have. And the apologies are only good until the next time we get kicked.

    Your posting really touched me (5.00 / 5) (#287)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:31:49 AM EST
    Not much that I read on the web tugs my heart strings often anymore but this did.  My first "serious" relationship became a battering relationship.  Happened from the time I was nineteen until I was twenty-one.  It was very mysterious to me until a healthcare working identified me as a battered woman and sent me to a group for women at a shelter.  Once the dynamics were explained to me the mystery was over and strangely I was "free" after that.  I broke off the relationship and didn't end up in a long term relationship leading to coupleship with a man until I was 31 yrs old.  I grew my own garden outside of the dynamics of abuse that women in our culture endure.  It was odd attending that support group because once the battering dynamics were explained and how the battered person returns due to the batterers tears and temporary remorse and promises for the future I could clearly see long lines of generations and generations of women who had been ensnared and entangled in that dynamic.  My mother attempted to break free before an accident that took her life and she probably laid the groundwork that enabled me to make the transition beyond being battered at such a young age.  I refuse to respond to the battering dynamic.  All my circuits for it were shorted out years ago.  I will not respond to the Democratic party as an obedient battered woman does and also apologize for "making them" be as abusive to me as they were.  Not this girl.

    This is the end of the blackmailing (5.00 / 12) (#140)
    by Paul F Villarreal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:45:45 AM EST
    And it is dying with a last hope that Clinton can make her supporters lock-step behind her in support of Obama.


    Hillary's supporters -- we the majority of the party which is being set-up for an elitist coup -- understand her position. We know she will have to do the right thing if she is denied at the convention. We get it. Unlike many Obamans, most of us have spent decades in politics and we know how the drill goes.

    That said, if Hillary came to my house tomorrow and told me to vote for Obama, I would still both campaign for and vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. I am not a Clinton Cultist; I think for myself and will act for myself.

    And what has happened and has been done to the Clintons, myself, fellow members of the Clinton Majority, and FL & MI has provided me with all the data points I need in order to have made my decision.

    The Obamans are scared, and rightly so. Despite the bold announcements by the Chaz Todds of the world, the Democratic Party is not the Obama Party. And more to the point, America is not the Obama Party.

    The reality of the futility of trying to force-feed a candidate down the nation's throat via ethnically divisive means and coercion such as that by Klein and Meteor is about to hit exceedingly hard for the Obamans.

    There are no more committees to game, no more caucuses to bus supporters in to. The long, difficult denouement which follows a misplaced scorched-earth campaign is about to begin for the Obamans. Let us hope the proper lessons will have been learned when McCain is elected.

    i plan on asking the down ticket dems (5.00 / 6) (#268)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:24:00 AM EST
    what they plan to do for me. i don't want to hear two more years of "we don't have the votes" i saw that they had the votes to insult me yesterday so they can get off their backsides and help americans. they can stop whining about how hard it is and DO SOMETHING BESIDES BLAME US.

    As much as I adore Senator Clinton (5.00 / 13) (#146)
    by gabbyone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:47:00 AM EST
    she can never convince me to vote for Obama.
    Part of it comes from campaigning for him when he
    ran for the Senate and the lies he told us.
    A second part of it comes from all the new information we know about him since that time.  The largest part comes from the way he, his campaign, and his supporters have treated Senator Clinton.  Obama is simply not the best person to lead this country and I have seen no signs of unity building from him........ever.  He is an Axelrod created politician just like Deval Patrick in MA....ask the people of MA how that is working.  I saw this on another site this morning and it is so true.  

    "In Illinois, he eliminated the competition.

    In FL, he eliminated the voters.

    In MI, he stole the voters.

    Thank God, he is the hope and change candidate. Otherwise, how low would he go? "

    I'll diverge from other Clinton supporters here. (5.00 / 5) (#151)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:47:41 AM EST
    I think Hillary is one of the most qualified candidates to ever run for office.  She has a sophisticated knowledge of the most pressing issues, understands the levers of power, has the stomach to make some of the most difficult choices that lay ahead, so I do think the only way I could vote for Obama would be with Hillary on the ticket.  I simply trust her competence in running the federal government.  Not asking Hillary to run with him is just another demonstration of Obama's inexperiernce, and puts the lie to his theme of unification.  Clearly, in this case when half the voters choose one candidate, and half choose the other, a unifier would want to run together.  Hillary, everyone knows, would have asked Obama to run with her.

    this Clinton supporter totally agrees with you (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:51:47 AM EST
    After All Hillary Has Done (1.00 / 15) (#185)
    by Rictor Rockets on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:55:54 AM EST
    To undercut Obama, to attack him again and again, to whip up her true believers into a froth against him, can you really blame him if it's difficult for him and his team to offer up the veep slot? Especially after the whole "I win best with white people" and the "RFK-gaffe" statements?

    What if he put Hillary on the cabinet where she could do the most good? Or they offered her the Senate Majority leadership position, where she could keep him honest, in loyal opposition?

    I agree with you this much: Obama does need to make a lot of conciliatory gestures. But what happens if the other side is so angry, they refuse to see them, and will only behappy with complete and utter genuflection and capitulation? That is not the nature of compromise. You have to give a little to get a little.


    you mean (5.00 / 13) (#195)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:01:18 AM EST
    the RFK gaffe that was utterly and completely ginned up by Obama's campaign?

    Yes, I can blame him. If he's the nominee, it's his responsibility to move forward and unify, just as it would be Clinton's responsibility, were she the nominee, to look past the nonsensical race-baiting of the Obama campaign throughout the primary season.

    It's called leadership.


    Uh, NO. First of all, Hillary has run a very (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:03:39 AM EST
    classy campaign.  She has hardly laid a glove on Obama.  That's foolish.  Second, no cabinet position.  She could do the most good as President, but I could see her as a powerful VP.  Best position to help an ill prepared President.

    Again, I have said, it's not anger at Obama from my perspective.  It's the inexperience.


    You and others (5.00 / 6) (#218)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:07:26 AM EST
    should spend a moment to reflect on why people are angry and frustrated. Obama supporters at the RBC meeting yesterday reported being surprised that the Clinton supporters were so angry. It's not about hurt feelings, it's not about bitterness. Obama's campaign and his supporters do not understand what is going on, and they cannot fix it until they make an effort to understand it.

    they don't want to reflect (5.00 / 7) (#258)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:19:36 AM EST
    That would require them to take a look at their own behavior. They much prefer to label HRC's supporters as racist, shrill, and contemptible.

    It's much more comfortable for them that way, and doesn't interfere with their triumphalism.


    Obama she'd hear a major lecture from me.

    It is bigger than Obama or Hillery at this poit.  Much bigger for me.

    I would tell her that she cannot support the NUP (New Undemocratic Party), that for the good of the country she should work as hard as she can to take the party back as she is the only person that can do that by leading the Old Democratic Party into the straggle of repossessing democracy.  If she doesn't, someone else will be and we'll have a 3rd party.  All together this outcome will not be a bad thing because it would hold the balance of power.


    You Are Such A Great Advocate For Obama (5.00 / 5) (#265)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:23:33 AM EST
    and unity. Did you have to take classes to develop your technique or did it just come naturally?

    If you did receive training, I bet the course was taught using the Brazile method of blame the voters.  

    Keep up the good work. You are a great advertisement for the NEW Democratic Party.


    And then again (5.00 / 3) (#283)
    by zyx on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:29:40 AM EST
    It might be hard for her to accept, after being symbolically brushed off as "dirt on his shoulder", doncha think???

    Seems to me (5.00 / 11) (#157)
    by Lahdee on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:49:08 AM EST
    that they're not very confident he can win the general. Why berate 50% of the primary voters unless you feel there will be a need to scapegoat? Isn't even August yet and the whining has begun.

    Senator Obama needs to lead not by minimizing Clinton supporters or allowing others to do it for him. Talk to them Senator, talk to them like you want their vote.

    Unity, @ this point, (5.00 / 7) (#187)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:56:40 AM EST
    is a fool's errand.

    What's next? (5.00 / 7) (#193)
    by Sunshine on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:59:55 AM EST
    Maybe he would like for her to iron his shirt and make him a batch of cookies....

    I've pretty much tuned out (5.00 / 10) (#220)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:07:32 AM EST
    and what is said by the Unifiers has little impact on me either way.  It does surprise me that someone like MB would jump into pounding on Clinton supporters though.  There are very few reasonable voices left.  

    The notion that Clinton could heal the party by launching some unity campaign is ludicrous.  Do they really think we haven't seen and heard everything that has happened?  Do they really think that Clinton can direct people to just forget?  Perhaps they really just don't realize how much has happened and they are so blinded that they can't begin to empathize.  That's the only thing I can figure -- because some of these people were, I thought, truly good people.  If the shoe were on the other foot, they'd never stand for the kind of treatment Clinton has gotten.  

    Why is it that so many feel that they can verbally beat people into submission?  It just doesn't work.

    I'm really starting to wonder about so many things and so many people.

    You don't understand, BTD (5.00 / 11) (#222)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:08:01 AM EST
    Everything is Clinton's fault.

    Everything that ever happened is Clinton's fault. (Unless it's a good thing. Then it's Reagan's fault.)

    Everything that ever will happen is Clinton's fault. (Unless it's a good thing. Then it's Obama's fault.)

    To improve your understanding, it may be useful to review certain historical examples.

    I made the comparison ... (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:12:15 AM EST
    you make in your link some months back.

    I honestly wish I wasn't being hyperbolic in that comparison.


    Dewey Redux (5.00 / 3) (#228)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:10:05 AM EST
    It really seems as though Obama is basing his strategy on Dewey's '48 campaign:

    Trying to stay above the fray and speak in mindless platitudes, allowing his competitor to go out and fight for every vote.

    And McCain will happily accept the Truman role, and play it to a tee.

    yes, losing the GE is a tough pill to swallow (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:12:22 AM EST

    Love the Diana Ross/Ru Paul (5.00 / 2) (#243)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:14:21 AM EST

    I keep wondering why anyone thinks that insulting people on the brink will bring them back.  I did the whole abusive relationship thing once, briefly.  "No one loves you the way that I do." sounded false the first time that I heard it.

    And if anyone tells me that the Dems are the only thing holding the Republicans in check, I'll laugh in their face.  I don't remember the Cold War, but that's what it feels like to me with claims that Armageddon is just around the corner.  Gah.  Tomorrow I expect the Obama supporters to tell me the bogey man will get me!

    There Can Be No Unity With This Decision (5.00 / 10) (#271)
    by bmc on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:24:55 AM EST
    Harold Ickes was right when he said this is not a decision that bodes well for "party unity."

    As far as Booman is concerned, it's now the Obama Party.

    In my view, that means it's Obama's--not Clinton's--job to unite the party.

    We just discovered that the Clintons no longer control the Democratic National Committee. They were unable to win a single argument today. The Obama campaign joined both the Florida and Michigan Democratic Party's proposals, and both proposals prevailed. In Florida, the delegation was restored but given only half votes. In Michigan, the delegation was also restored, but given only half votes. But the Rules and Bylaws Committee (RBC) chucked out the results of the Michigan primary and instead used a formula awarding Obama all Uncommitted delegates plus four delegates the election results would have awarded to Clinton.

    This is a thing to celebrate, according to Obama supporters. Let's see--did Obama need those 4 delegates to announce his own coronation this week, as he plans to do? Were those 4 delegates that belong to Clinton--but were stolen from her and awarded to Obama by RBC--the only thing standing between Obama and his coronation?

    If they were not, then why are Democrats celebrating such despicable disenfranchisement of Democrats?

    This simply cannot stand. For Sen. Levin to offer a 69-59 split of delegates and take 4 delegates FROM Sen. Clinton in order to award them to Sen. Obama--who wasn't on the ballot--is postitively Orwellian.

    And, for Howard Dean to excuse the decision--while commending the RBC this morning on CNN--by saying there were no other offers presented--is stunning.

    Did there need to be an offer presented that Clinton would get the delegates she's already earned with the voters' votes?

    What sort of logic is that? Under Dean's logic, they might have split the delegates in Florida 50/50 because "neither could campaign in the state"!

    This is unconscionable, sickening and outrageous. I can't speak for others, but I won't stand for it.

    Unless Clinton gets the delegates she has earned in the Michigan Primary, regardless of what happens with the "uncommitteds," which should go to the Convention as "uncommitteds" in the first place--then I am leaving this party, registering as an INDEPENDENT, and voting for McCain to register my DISGUST with this party. Don't lecture me about "unity" MB; and don't lecture me about "4 more years."

    We got the first 8 years because of DISENFRANCHISEMENT of Democrats. We were supposed to be angry and outraged by that; and we were.

    Now, MB and Booman are celebrating DISENFRANCHISEMENT of Democrats, and deriding me for not celebrating it.  

    Gimme a break. Who am I gonna believe, you or my lyin' eyes, right booman, right MB?

    The Meteor Blades Essay (5.00 / 5) (#280)
    by Cal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:27:42 AM EST
    He lost me at "your shrieking...".  But those two words at the end?  Since you're tossing sexist insults...well, back at ya, MB.  Is that shrill enough for you?

    The party's been transformed (5.00 / 8) (#286)
    by WillBFair on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:31:40 AM EST
    before our eyes.
    Obama's 'new politics' turned out to be old republican tactics: nonstop race baiting, but with age and gender baiting added; the usual simple minded cliches disguised as policy; false accusations and childish sneers; and of course voter fraud.
    It's their party now, and welcome to it.
    We may vote for the candidate, but we should have too much integrity to give him our support.
    His supporters won't understand why. And explanations are useless because they know zip about Democratic values.
    It's horrible to say, but we're dealing with the hick side of the party: vulgar, unprinciplied, and obsessively self righteous. The cultural divide is just too great. They're too ignorant to come to our side. And I won't go to their's.

    I largely agree with you BTD (5.00 / 1) (#292)
    by riddlerandy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:43:26 AM EST
    I think that the unity onus falls primarily on Obama, but Hillary needs to meet him part way, and there is every indication that she will.  Timing is an issue.  Reaching out prematurely would give Hillary's strong supporters more reason to say he is presumptuous, arrogant, etc.  Remember, there are lots of Hillary supporters who insist that this will not be over until August, and any effort to say it's time to come together will simply infuriate them.

    Notwithstanding the arguments in favor of SDs going with Hillary, my guess is that there will SD move to Obama soon after Tuesday.  At that point, he can move more to the unity theme without offending all but the most die-hard Hillary supporters.

    I am sure that this is going to sound patronizing, but I can understand to some extent the strong reaction of the Hillary supporters to her not getting the nomination.  In 1980, I spent six months working on Ted Kennedy's campaign, and was, to say the least, very unhappy with the result, to the point were I voted for John Anderson.  It was a big mistake for which I have never entirely forgiven myself, the one time in my lifetime I did not vote for the Dem nominee.  I know that Hillary supporters will say this is different, and I understand that.  

    But in the end, it still comes down to whether in your heart of hearts you really think that there would be no difference between McCain and Obama, or that somehow Obama must be punished.  

    I appreciate your and Jeralyn's commitment to support the Dem nominee in November, and I hope to see more about the importance of that in the coming months.  

    In the North of Ireland (5.00 / 1) (#293)
    by Curious on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:44:21 AM EST
    people are sitting in government together who were actively trying to kill each other a few years before.

    Murderers have been released from prison on both sides, in order to build peace, and it's working pretty good.

    So I beg Clinton supporters (and Obama supporters too for that matter) to quit repeating every hurt that has been uttered and refusing to forgive. Because it is too important. Maybe Obama, with the benefit of Clinton's wisdom, (which some of you think he lacks) and the wisdom and energy of many people on this site will be a good president. (He certainly cannot be worse than the guy who's there at the moment.)

    Give him a chance. And increase the peace. If people in Northern ireland can forgive killers you should be able to forgive a few bad words. Even a bit of injustice.

    RE: Ride on her parade.. (5.00 / 1) (#295)
    by fctchekr on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:16:46 PM EST
    They carried out the ultimate humiliation yesterday ... i.e. you've made us count now you come to the table and play it our way or you'll destroy the party...

    THE DNC had to count, but how they counted them was intended to show their support for Obama, not her..

    So she brought them that far, how much farther she can bring them to her side will be intriguing to watch...

    Never say never...


    Claire McCaskilll (5.00 / 1) (#296)
    by AX10 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:21:12 PM EST
    whom I intend to work my ass of to defeat in 2012 is in the same boat.  They are trying to set up Hillary as the one to blame when Obama loses in the fall.
    They best remember that we are individuals who will vote for whomever we want to.
    Ms. McCaskill is hellbent on blaming Hillary for Obama's loss in November.
    I WILL be voting for McCain BTD and Jeralyn, if Obama is the nominee.  When that time comes, I will no longer be posting here as I do not want to interfere with your work and do not want to violate the rules.

    Who would have though the DNC could have (5.00 / 2) (#299)
    by Salt on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:58:32 PM EST
    made a bigger blunder than the first time they broke the rulz, but they did.  The Dem Party is changed IMO the 60's break off is nothing compared with what will now happen, the unprofessional behavior and seemly represetntatives of the commitee and their ruling was unaceppatable, but their behavior as well, answers why the DNC can't get out of their own canidates way. Kenndy and Pelsoi can have the Party I want no part of it, and LEAZZZZZZZZZZZZZZe which side lack class...and I take many with me just as disguted.

    Ageism and sexism (5.00 / 1) (#302)
    by laurie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:35:26 PM EST
    Has anyone noticed the new take of the Obama camp on McCaine? Personally I find it very distasteful-almost as bad as the media's blatant sexism.

    The line is that McCaine is an OLD FART,repeated continuously, and goes on to assert that McCaine was STUPID to go to Vietnam in the first place and even STUPIDER to get himself TORTURED.

    These kind of gang attacks are something that I find totally unacceptable. As an older woman I feel it would be impossible to vote for this kind of candidate. I am even beginning to find McCaine quite charming! His remarks on non-nuclear proliferation convince me more, while Obama's lack of preparation on HANFORD convince me ever less.

    Hillary should definitely not run as VP, it would be below her dignity. And she's got oodles of class that's why we all love her. She can and will try to help unite the Party but ultimately that's HIS job.

    He's never responsible (4.86 / 15) (#18)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:17:46 AM EST
    for anything.

    Hillary is within her rights to brush herself off and go to some wonderful south Pacific island to relax for a few weeks come Wednesday.

    She will not be able to change her supporters mind. This is about Obama. Only he can fix it and he needs to figure out how. He's pretended on several occasions to know what drives large groups of people, let's see if he can figure this out, or even thinks to ask what he needs to do.

    That "faction" (4.80 / 21) (#16)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:17:28 AM EST
    is 50% of the Democratic Party.  Good luck in November without it.

    The condescending tone of your post is typical of Obama supporters and of the candidate himself.  It does nothing to encourage party unity.

    I'll accept a gracious concession after Convention (4.42 / 7) (#31)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:22:02 AM EST

    I think she must keep her campaign viable, take a long and deserved vacation after Tuesday, then do what she thinks best serves the country, the Dem Party, and her campaign.

    Do not concede, unless the Dem Party makes going forward impossible. Which might happen!

    But she must remain viable and ready to take over the top spot, should Obama implode.


    I'm not angry at Obama. (4.76 / 17) (#19)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:18:11 AM EST
    I'm disappointed with the voters.  I'm totally upset with the Party "elders".  I hate the MSM.  But, I'm not upset at Obama.  I simply think he's completely unqualified.  Here we are in the middle of two wars, with an economy in crisis, crisis in our health care system, and our schools.  And, I feel like these two are tied, and for the good of our country, I feel the supers should nominate the candidate with experience in the federal government, sophisticated knowledge of the issues, the one who seems most prepared for the job.  I can't even find evidence of a prior full-time job in Obama's resume.  

    So you are correct.  It's outrageous to suggest Hillary has to unify the Party for Obama. But, I'm not sure Obama can anyway.

    Site abuser: Rictor Rockets (4.75 / 8) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:21:17 AM EST

    Unity? The Obama way? (4.75 / 12) (#215)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:07:00 AM EST
    I don't think so.

    He proved to me a long time ago that he is not capable of winning the hearts and minds of those who, in his mind, have had the bad judgment to support someone who opposed - and opposes - him.

    It is his treatment of Clinton which has given his supporters and his surrogates permission to be vile and ugly and divisive.  

    I find it beyond ironic that after months of being treated like we are too stupid to live because we are supporting Clinton, now we are being "encouraged" to unify behind Obama by being told we will still be too stupid to live if we don't.

    No, I don't think so.  My salesman husband says that you never try to close a deal by insulting the customer into it, but that is exactly what Obama and his supporters are doing.

    Dukakis earlier, then McGovern, now Dean are all (4.73 / 15) (#17)
    by jawbone on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:17:32 AM EST
    saying the most important candidate in a tight race is the losing candidate. That the loser's "sincerity" or strength in support of the winner will be determinative in whether the winner wins the general or not!

    Really! Dukakis said that's what he learned in his loss. McGovern said that recently; that the lose needed to have worked more for him. Dean said it today on ABC: The most imporant supporter is the one who gets 49% of the vote.

    They're setting the stage for a scapegoat. IMO.

    No, they know the Clinton's are the best (4.16 / 6) (#23)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:18:46 AM EST
    campaigners and they want them out there stumping for Obama. That's all it is. He's tired.

    He just wants to raise his genteel (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:10 AM EST
    hands and thy work shall be done (cue harps and chorus in the background)

    The man is (4.33 / 6) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:22:14 AM EST
    weak.  He's proven this time and again.  He can't take hard work.

    I am not sure where this silliness about (4.73 / 15) (#41)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:24:06 AM EST
    politicians just quitting before all the contests have concluded started, but I've never really thought much of that approach to selecting a nominee.  

    What I don't get is why - if the Obama crowd is so convinced that he is already the nominee based on the numbers - why can't the Obama campaign wait gracefully for the contest to be over?  Why must they continue to sling mud against Clinton and more importantly continue to insult her supporters?  I actually think that had they "politely waited" rather than obnoxiously pushed, Senator Clinton might have conceded by now - but they couldn't keep their mouthes shut.  Their lack of self-discipline definitely isn't a confidence builder for me.

    You're going to love this one, BTD! (4.71 / 7) (#194)
    by OxyCon on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:00:14 AM EST
    Obama Won't Wait for Clinton Concession
    Asked if Obama would wait to get a concession call from Clinton before claiming the nomination, Dunn said the onus was on Clinton now that the Democratic Party has firmed up the number of delegates needed to claim the party's nod.

    "He's not going to wait by the phone like a high-school girl waiting for a date," said Dunn. "That's not Barack Obama."

    "After Tuesday," Dunn added, referring to the final contests of South Dakota and Montana, Clinton "can decide how united she wants this party to be."


    See, this kind of arrogance worries me. (4.33 / 6) (#219)
    by masslib on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:07:32 AM EST
    We have just been through this for 8 years.  

    Thank you! (4.00 / 4) (#204)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:03:33 AM EST
    That's the article I was referring to in an earlier post on this thread.  The tone is unbelievable - although I have to giggle b/c it gives me an image of Barack in a prom dress, waiting by the phone.

    What HRC has to say (4.69 / 13) (#37)
    by magisterludi on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:23:45 AM EST
    will mean little to an unknowable number of dems who feel the DNC fixed the nomination. To them it is more than the candidates- it's about fundamental fairness and counting the votes as voted.

    It's really old school American democrat, you know?

    thats because they know B O CAN'T unify (4.62 / 8) (#3)
    by environmentally blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:08:59 AM EST
    squat.  He's on a free fall, all of his own doing, so, like Obama himself, blame everyone else for his own mistakes.

    A lesson he must have learned by his mentor Joe Lieberman and the NeoCons.

    You may not have noticed: (4.55 / 9) (#169)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:51:45 AM EST
    Sen. McCain is already reaching out to Clinton's voters. He's defended her against attacks. What is wrong with your candidate that he and his supporters can't do the same? Am I to beleive you are all too polite to do so?

    The beatings will continue (4.33 / 6) (#235)
    by Jake Left on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:11:43 AM EST
    until morale is restored.

    This is from the management concept that the best way to get premium work from employees is to shout at them, cut their pay, and tell them how useless they are. A decidedly elitist, management class belief system.

    I agree that Barack Obama (3.66 / 3) (#13)
    by independent voter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:16:58 AM EST
    has to make connecting with Clinton supporters a HUGE priority, but he cannot make any progress on this front without full and unconditional support of Hillary Clinton.
    Neither one can do it alone. If you disagree with that, please share with me how Obama can get CLinton supporters to even give him a fair hearing without Clinton herself pushing for it.

    She has pledged her full support (5.00 / 19) (#22)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:18:42 AM EST
    quite a few times SHOULD HE BE THE NOMINEE.

    Your conditions have been met.

    What is your candidate waiting for?


    To do otherwise (5.00 / 6) (#144)
    by K Lynne on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:46:34 AM EST
    would be political suicide, don't you think?

    No way is Obama qualified to be president.  And no amount of Hillary campaigning for him will change my mind about that.

    As one who has bounced between Indy and mod republican for years, and absolutely HATES the way the crazy Christian Right has taken over the party, I'm glad that they've nominated someone like McCain.  I would love to see Hillary vs. McCain - but I can't see ANY way I would ever vote for Obama.  If it is McCain / Huckabee vs. Obama / anyone, I'm sitting out.  

    I have numerous friends who are hard-core Republicans.  Many of them are completely torn over the Obama / Hillary thing.  On one hand, they'd love to see Obama as the nominee because they think McCain will wipe the floor with him.  On the other hand, the idea of Obama in the WH scares the cr@p out of them - Hillary at least, in their opinion, would not be a total  disaster and cares about the country.  Many of them grudgingly respect her now after seeing how much fight she's got in her ;-).  


    First he has to inflame her RFK remarks (4.71 / 14) (#34)
    by catfish on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:23:26 AM EST
    that was not a good move.

    Swiping four of her delegates from Michigan to add to his column was not a good move.

    Praising Jay Z in general is not a good move, in reference to Senator Clinton really not a good move.

    We'll see.


    No, we won't. (4.69 / 13) (#45)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:25:46 AM EST
    We won't see any outreach from Obama.

    BTD can hope he does the right thing, but Obama is Obama. His spokespeople made it quite clear that he has no intentions whatsoever of trying to unite HRC's supporters behind him. He'll leave that to HRC.

    I say, good luck with that, and hello, President McCain.


    And Hillary will be blamed (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by catfish on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:15 AM EST
    when he loses.

    He's waiting for (3.66 / 3) (#180)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:54:58 AM EST

    "We are the ones we've been waiting for."  

    Whatever that means....


    No, they have not (1.00 / 7) (#46)
    by independent voter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:25:52 AM EST
    she has not acknowledged he is the nominee. And you know damn well that none of you will even consider getting behind him until she does just that.

    You Seem To Be Under The Assumption (5.00 / 15) (#130)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:44:34 AM EST
    that we will all automatically get behind Obama when Hillary concedes. Many of us have serious reservations about an Obama candidacy that have absolutely nothing to do with Hillary.

    If Obama, not Hillary, is the cause of our opposition to his candidacy, nothing that she says or does will impact our decision. The ball is in Obama's court. His campaign and his supporters can continue to operate under the premise that it is up to Hillary but IMO that will not be a successful strategy.


    Amen... (4.77 / 9) (#209)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:04:27 AM EST
    I support Hillary over Obama but I'm not a sheep.  Whatever she says will be of interest but won't be sufficient for me to select Obama.  As far as I am concerned he has to convince me to vote for him.  

    Even if she does (5.00 / 3) (#237)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:12:20 AM EST
    I still will not get behind him.

    I am re-registering as independent in my home state of Florida tomorrow. I will no longer have any loyalty to the democratic party. I don't recognize it anymore anyway.

    I will vote my heart and my interests and Obama represent neither.


    Why would she acknowledge (4.73 / 15) (#68)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:32:10 AM EST
    something that hasn't happened yet? Has he reached 2218 delegates yet? Have the last primaries been held? Is it August yet?

    [cricket cricket cricket]

    Your argument is ludicrous.

    If Obama truly believes he has won, as he's been declaring for months now, then why hasn't he tried to earn our votes already?

    He won't because he can't. It's not in him.

    And if he can't ask for my vote, then he's certainly not getting it.


    I don't expect her to acknowledge (1.00 / 4) (#83)
    by independent voter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:36:13 AM EST
    him as the nominee yet. I thought this post was about what happens WHEN he is the nominee. But you do not want to discuss that, you want to throw out things that are confrontational and impossible for Obama to accomplish so you can validate for yourself (again) how inferior you find him to be.

    More mind-reading (4.63 / 11) (#167)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    and personal attacks.

    Feel the Unity!

    And no, that's not what this post is about. BTD has been saying for months that Obama is the LIKELY nominee. As the LIKELY nominee, he should have been trying to Unify the party a long time ago.

    By the way, there is nothing impossible AT ALL in what I suggested. HRC has consistently been respectful towards Obama and his supporters.

    It is merely impossible for Obama.

    Which is why he will not get my vote.


    I have said this many, many times here... (4.69 / 13) (#133)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:44:38 AM EST
    ...I think for myself. Hillary Clinton can't do anything to make me vote for Obama. That is my decision and my choice...and it is Obama's job to win my vote. I've been listening for a long time. It is my sense of justice that requires of Obama that he repudiate in no uncertain terms the smears against Hillary Clinton. I do not require this because I worship or follow her in some way. And finally I would like for him to recognize the irrational hatred of the Clintons among some of his supporters. I feel as if his campaign is saying let's put all this behind us and pretend it never happened. I'm not very good at that. I can put things behind me, but the pretend it never happened part is not in my nature.

    A disconnect perhaps... (4.71 / 7) (#233)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:11:30 AM EST
    between the Dem leadership and the electorate to me explains this thinking that we'll all come together in unity if Hillary says the magic words.  I think that will be true of the delegates to the Convention.  There will be lots of rallying behind the candidate.   But there may be a disconnect between the party leaders and the rest of us.  They simply may not be correctly gauging the depth of the split.

    Nothing Hillary could say (4.60 / 10) (#52)
    by mikeyleigh on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:44 AM EST
    would induce me to vote for Obama.  That's a job for Obama to do.  So far, I haven't seen much willingness on his part to undertake it.

    Besides, I can't trust him anymore (3.66 / 3) (#181)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:55:06 AM EST
    He showed his stripes and they were scary.

    Honestly (4.50 / 8) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:20:57 AM EST
    after the RFK flap, I'm hoping like heck that she doesn't get around Obama.  I won't respect her as much if she does.

    As much as (4.80 / 5) (#82)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:36:10 AM EST
    I hated how the media and the Obama campaign descended onto her for that, my respect for her will never waver, no matter what she does.

    I love her and support her in whatever she chooses to do, even if she endorsed Obama.

    However, that would be the ONLY time, I believe, when I will turn a deaf ear to her if she asks me (her supporters) to support him.


    She's a politician (4.75 / 12) (#39)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:23:55 AM EST
    and an excellent one at that.  Unlike certain other candidates, she's gracious in loss and victory.  I fully expect her to throw her support behind Obama, just as I fully expect not to follow her gracious example.  Oh, and I fully expect Obama and his minions to continue to be nasty to her and not to take her up on her expressed offer to campaign her heart out for him.

    Funny (4.20 / 5) (#134)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:44:57 AM EST
    you ask that question. Where have you been the last few months? How about he starts apologizing specifically to Sen. Clinton for the hideous comments his various uncles made, the RJK baloney, unleashing through his blogger and MSM pals an unprecedented level of aggressive misogynist rethoric, etc etc etc etc. Trust me:  Obama knows what he had to do; he still knows and if he doesn't , Axelrod his master knows.

    should have been : RFK (none / 0) (#149)
    by Andy08 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:47:28 AM EST
    it isn't hillary's job period! (3.00 / 2) (#200)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM EST
    i haven't seen any of the other candidates get out there and do one darn thing for unity. or by the way any democratic leader. the dnc? don't even go there. so why should anyone even focus on her? let obama get off his backside and do something!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i am sick of hearing all about hillary and what she should do. sick of it, sick, sick, sick, sick sick!

    Clearly (3.00 / 2) (#266)
    by americanincanada on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:23:35 AM EST
    Obama does not agree with this:

    Political tradition and logic dictate that the victor politely waits for the vanquished to leave the field.

    Dunn said yesterday that Obama will not wait "like some school girl waiting for a date" for Clinton to step out. "That's not Barack Obama."

    FINE. So be it.

    I emailed her about her comments (5.00 / 4) (#284)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:30:05 AM EST
    yesterday, she wrote back saying she apologized because she was upset at something a Hillary supporter had said. I re-wrote her saying that since her candidate did not want my vote, he won't get it.

    In support of Hillary (2.50 / 2) (#300)
    by ProChoise on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:18:20 PM EST
    Hello everyone,

    I have been a long time (in blog life)  reader of this Blog and new subscriber (first time on any blog actually). I was drawn to this site to meet, listen  and understand the arguments, positions and grievances of Sen. Hilary R. Clinton supporters.

    Please note that I have the at most respect and admiration for Sen. Hillary R. Clinton, her supporters who like all supports (including Sen. Brack H. Obama) ran the gamut for the level of passionate support to their chosen candidate, knowledge of the issues, and for lack of a better word prejudice (Sexism/Racism etc.)

    I grew up in the era of President Bill Clinton and  was inspired by the Pres. Clinton handling of difficult political, economical, and internal issues. After these past 7 years of Bush, I was in desperate need for a leader in the white house that I could understand (as much as I can understand any one outside of myself) and share a common causes like: the Rights of Women, civil liberties/equality for all including our sexual orientation, the pursuit of peace, respect for the rule of law,  and the addressing crisis of climate change and global warming to name a few.

    These past few months have been difficult for me watching my candidate lose (regardless of the horrendous coverage by the media). I came to this site in hopes of finding those who support Sen. Hillary R. Clinton discuss how we could further our cause, but instead on this blog and in other I have found the most horrific display of Sexism and Races and other forms of bigotry in every blog I have visited.

    I find these blogs give every fool who can type to say whatever sick fantasy that crosses their mind without repercussions. I have read allegations being launched about Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama that should make all of us Democrats grinch, but we scroll bass them and continue on and shout over each other. Do we listen to each other any more, do we even care about the causes we as democrats should care about and are vital to the national/global interest. I know, you wont answer, because these issues that I listed above are not on your mind, you are rooting for your favorite sports team and are exited and don't care about any other thing except to feel the thrill of victory or in some others carry defeat as justification and simple of all the wrongs in our society. I don't know if I can find an answer to explain what I have been reading these past weeks, but I will continue to try and remember why I am a democrat.

    I have resolved to my self that Sen. Hillary R. Clinton will lose this election. I am sadden and disappointed by this, she ran a great campaign that had great moments and not so great moments at times, but still it was a historic battle and I will continue to support Sen. Hillary R. Clinton in whatever she choses to do.

    Furthermore, I have resolved my self to supporting Sen. Brack H. Obama because of the shared causes we as democrats including Sen. Hillary R. Clinton have in common and the challenges we face in the coming years.

    Thank you everyone, for taking the time to read my feeling on this matter.

    I hope to continue to fight for what we as democrats believe in TOGETHER.

    A little magnanimity of both sides (2.33 / 3) (#78)
    by scribe on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:34:25 AM EST
    will go a long way.

    I suppose unifying the party is "a problem" for HRC only insofar as getting her supporters to go along with unity is "a problem".

    The same obtains for Obama and his supporters.

    Both sides need to take a day off, look around at the magnificent (where I am, anyway) late spring day which is today, enjoy it, and then come back to the race later.

    And, as to both sides on this dispute, they (and every one of them) need to remember and ponder these points:  

    1.  IF the Democrats do not unify - now - there is a very good chance of President McCain come January 20, 2009.  
    2.  And of whomever McSame chooses as his Vice President taking over sometime between then and January 20, 2012.
    3.  And by November 2012, wistful memories of how the 2008 election was the last presidential election.  Ever.  

    Because you, and every cogent reader of this site knows the Republicans would do it if they could.  They raised the threat of cancelling elections in 2004 - have you forgotten that already?  

    Last week, the government lawyer in the al-Marri appeal explicitly acknowledged in responding to the judges during oral argument that the government's position was that the government could lawfully send soldiers into your house, seize you, haul you off to a military prison, and hold you there indefinitely with neither a formal charge nor hope of one, all if the President decided you were to be suspected of being a terrorist.  That term, of course, being defined solely by him, in whatever way he chose at the moment.

    Do you think for a minute that Vice President Giuliani, or Vice President Romney, or whatever hairball the Republicans cough up to fill in for McCain's cancerous carcass when it finally craps out would hesitate to use that power against Democrats?  If you do, you're dumber than you look.  Remember, Karl Rove walks free as we speak - and he's been behind targeting Democrats through the civilized niceties of actual criminal prosecutions.

    You won't get those niceties if the Democrats lose this election.

    So, take a day off.  Go smell the roses (if, like for me, they're blooming where you are).  Enjoy the sun and breeze.  Remember, as you do, what's at stake.

    And then - both sides - back off your positions and hurts and woes and get together on the main objective - winning the general election.

    BTD, shouldn't you make these appeals (2.33 / 3) (#208)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    in a more neutral forum? I mean, the crowd here will except nothing short of a Hillary Clinton nomination. Obama could be a combination of Lincoln, FDR and JFK and it wouldn't matter at all here. Nothing will pacify this crowd other than Obama somehow bowing out in favor of Clinton.

    I assure you that if Obama (4.55 / 9) (#274)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM EST
    was a combination of Lincoln, FDR, and JFK, we would vote for him.  Unfortunately, he's not.

    this kind (4.00 / 4) (#264)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:23:32 AM EST
    of mischaracterization and misunderstanding of the issues is exactly what's wrong with Obama supporters. You believe your own "she'll do anything to win" bilge.

    Wow! First comment of yours that I agree with. (3.66 / 3) (#226)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:09:38 AM EST
    Obama is not ready to be president.

    Clinton supporters who are angry (1.80 / 5) (#76)
    by digdugboy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:34:11 AM EST
    at Obama display a lot of hatred. Asking Obama to persuade them to give up their hatred toward him is, as you can probably relate to in some interaction you've had in your own life, more likely to put more fuel on the fire than it is to douse it.

    Klein, IMO, is correct. Hillary needs to give permission to her supporters to stop hating on Obama. They will continue to do so out in part out of loyalty to her, and until they are persuaded that it's not an act of disloyalty not to hate Obama, they're unlikely to relinquish their hatred.

    Then you are no help (5.00 / 12) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:38:53 AM EST
    Do Obama a favor and stop posting at this little site. You really hurt Obama's cause imo.

    Jeralyn and I will be doing our best to convince colinton supporters to vote for Obama. People like you, Meteor Blades and Ezra Klein are making our jobs very very difficult.


    They don't understand that (5.00 / 9) (#121)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:42:37 AM EST
    you are fighting a two-front war.

    Obama's supporters are a big liability (5.00 / 6) (#297)
    by lobary on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:29:25 PM EST
    Your comment reminds me of an exchange I witnessed earlier this morning on The Obama Network between Pat Buchanan and Democratic strategist and Obama supporter Keith Boykin. The two were engaged in a back-and-forth about yesterday's Michigan travesty, with Buchanan advocating the position that it's preposterously unfair to take delegates that Clinton had expressly earned and give them to Obama, especially in light of Clinton's cumulative popular vote tally. Boykin didn't disagree with Buchanan on Michigan and thought it was strategically unwise for the Obama campaign to accept those votes. His disagreement was with Buchanan's popular vote argument, and it led him to express the kind of arrogance typical of many of Obama's supporters. He yammered on about the ROOLZ and the metric, allowed himself to get a little worked up, and then said the following in response to the MSNBO bobblehead's question about Clinton dropping out of the race:

    "I'll be blunt. If we're still having this exact same conversation a week from now, Hillary Clinton is finished. [paraphrasing] She'll have no future in the Democratic party. She's smart. She understands this, so I think she'll get out...."

    Buchanan was having none of it.

    "Who is Keith Boykin to tell Hillary Clinton, a candidate who's won over 17 million votes, to get out?!?! [paraphrasing again] Obama cannot alienate those loyal Clinton supporters, he needs them to win...."

    Boykin: "Oh, the Obama campaign should not say this publicly, it would be a big mistake."

    Buchanan: "But you just said it! ON TELEVISION!"

    How's that for unity? Hilarious.  


    Don't you think ... (4.25 / 4) (#153)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:48:07 AM EST
    he needs to start by asking for their votes?

    Not claiming he already has them, not relying on Clinton to do the heavy lifting, but simply and specifically ... asking.

    If he's the nominee, I plan on voting for Obama.  

    But, as I said up thread, I don't feel like he wants my vote.


    You are making it more difficult than I am (1.00 / 3) (#129)
    by digdugboy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:44:16 AM EST
    You are an opinion leader here, not me. After yesterday's event, you felt the need to post your severe criticisms of all concerned, then offered your plaudits to Alcee Hastings for his decision to boycott the convention.

    You are fueling dissention. If you want to do your part to see a democrat retake the White House, you must stop doing that.


    I think you misunderstand (5.00 / 6) (#150)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:47:34 AM EST
    As a reader her for the last few months BTD is the only thing that has kept me from walking away from the party, like so many are doing, and I respect their decision.  You don't undertand anything if you think BTD is fueling dissenssion.  I think you are talking crazy.

    p.s. (5.00 / 8) (#160)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:49:38 AM EST
    that also includes Jeralyn and posters like Andgarden.  They are keeping me sane and you are just not understanding anything.  

    You, and you alone (1.00 / 1) (#253)
    by digdugboy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:18:33 AM EST
    are responsible for your sanity.

    Alcee Hasting said he would fight for Obama (5.00 / 12) (#163)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:50:04 AM EST
    while recognizing the grievance.

    He SETS an example.

    And you criticize me for using Hastings an example for what Clinton supporter should do?



    This has set me thinking (5.00 / 16) (#173)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:53:29 AM EST
    There is a "how dare they be upset" dynamic that needs unpacking. Because even when the upset is productive, it is unacceptable to Obama supporters. Only they are allowed to be upset.

    The upset (none / 0) (#257)
    by digdugboy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:19:30 AM EST
    here is not productive, is it? How is it productive?

    Read the Hastings post again (5.00 / 1) (#273)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:25:36 AM EST
    I disagree (5.00 / 5) (#262)
    by Burned on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:21:49 AM EST
    I would much rather have a party with eyes wide open than one the stumbles along with blinders on.
    It makes us stronger. It makes our opinion mean more. It makes our endorsement of a candidate or an idea more honest.

    I wish we had a whole bunch more BTD's spreading their (political) opinions.


    Disagree (4.50 / 8) (#201)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:02:21 AM EST
    It is up to the winner to act 100X more gracious than the loser. We need that kind of leadership right now, and it is painfully obvious, that is if your mindset is more developed than a 15 year old's.

    I am quite surprised at MB's lack of leadership here, he seems like he is one of the kids from Lord of the Flies.

    Time for the grups to take over.


    you don't understand the difference between (5.00 / 11) (#117)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:50 AM EST
    anger and hatred.

    Or perhaps you do, but are just trying to insult HRC supporters.

    So ... dumb, or insulting? I can't decide. But I know I don't want any of what you're selling.


    there you go, it is hillary and not obama again. (5.00 / 3) (#247)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:15:57 AM EST
    listen up, it is obama, and it isn't going to happen with him.

    That's as off mark as what Obama is thinking (4.69 / 13) (#141)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:46:04 AM EST
    We are not defending Hillary Clinton, she is a very capable person and doesn't need defending.

    Obama attacked women, middle class working people, and others. He called us names, he put stereotypes on us that are inaccurate and judgmental. Do we want him running our country? Can he do it without insulting and misreading the motivations of our foreign friends and enemies? Has he done anything, so far, to pass the qualifications test of this job application? Can we stand 4 years of listening to this preacher hollar style he has when talking to people.

    He's not my rock star, I don't like his friends, and I'm not going to "just trust him" because he sure won't tell me what he plans to change before he gets there.

    You've made the same lousy assumptions.


    LOL! (4.66 / 12) (#100)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:38:52 AM EST
    Unlike Obamans, we do not worship our candidate as a combination of Jeebus and Elvis.

    We do not look to HRC to tell us how to feel.

    This is just version 1,000,417 of IACF!

    Sorry, Obama has to gasp take responsibility for his own divisive actions in the primary.

    If he doesn't, he and he alone will be responsible for what happens in November.


    Wrong (none / 0) (#245)
    by digdugboy on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:14:39 AM EST
    Each one of us bears responsibility for our own emotional states. If you are filled with hatred it's nobody's responsibility but yours to deal with it. You are not a victim of anybody but yourself. That applies to everybody, including me.

    Even Hillary Clinton cannot convince me to vote (4.63 / 11) (#92)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:07 AM EST
    for Obama.  

    digdugboy here is a news flash for you (4.60 / 10) (#229)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:10:13 AM EST
    You may need to receive the Obama talking points of the day to give you permission on what you should think but most adults do not need any politician's permission to make decisions on who they will or will not support in November.

    Here is another news flash for you. Opposition is not synonymous to the word hate. The "hate meme" was a Republican frame used to distract and discount from the issue based reasons for opposing a political candidate. It is no surprise that Obama's campaign, his surrogates and supporters have adopted this Republican tactic.


    Wrong, again (4.50 / 6) (#290)
    by santarita on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:37:22 AM EST
    It is really easy to ascribe  hatred of Obama as the motivation for non-support.  That  way you can simply put it all on the "haters" to make it right and not expect Obama to do anything because hatred is irrational..

    I don't hate Obama.  I don't think he is qualified and I think he is more fraudulent than many politicians.  

    Maybe you could start the unity push by refraining from stereotyping.


    Don't be obtuse. (1.66 / 6) (#38)
    by Tiger Burning on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:23:52 AM EST
    It's certainly true that, as the nominee, it is Obama's problem whether the D party is united behind him in November (well, his and everyone's who doesn't want another Republican president). But you can't be so dense as to not see that it's Clinton, more than anyone, who has the power to unite or destroy the party between now and then. Such power usually resides with the losers in close contests.

    People have their own (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by pie on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:56 AM EST
    minds.  For many, it won't matter what Clinton says.  They want the best qualified candidate and he's not it.  

    Bullying will get you nowhere.  


    Here's obtuse (5.00 / 10) (#54)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:27:11 AM EST
    How many times has Hillary ALREADY said that she'll support whichever Dem, that voting for McCain instead of any Dem will be a tragic mistake, etc.?

    What you miss in your arrogance is that the problem with unity is staring your candidate in the mirror! Obama must reach out to the Clinton voters. It is as simple as that.


    So educate me. (3.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Tiger Burning on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:38:32 AM EST
    What are three things that Obama could do to reach out to Clinton supporters like yourself? Three real steps that he could take to unite the party? And "Stop being a big jerk." and "Concede." and "Make the MSM be nicer to Clinton." don't really qualify.

    I just gave three above (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:42:33 AM EST
    He could ask for my vote. (4.50 / 6) (#227)
    by hitchhiker on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:10:00 AM EST
    Something he has not yet done.  When he campaigned in my state, he chose to do only one appearance, and it was in the late morning.  It was pre-filled with busloads of high school students, all of whom were excused from classes to go.

    What I take from that is that he believes I will vote for him because of the D . . . he's said as much.

    Sorry, but I need to know that he even knows I exist before I help hand over power to him.  


    so ... (4.42 / 7) (#178)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:54:54 AM EST
    now you want us to feed obama his lines? fine.

    a) acknowledge that his campaign race-baited
    b) apologize for pushing the RFK story and state affirmatively and unequivocally that any implication that HRC was hoping for his assassination was obscene
    c) acknowledge that his campaign has made very unfortunate, sexist remarks about HRC
    d) formally ask the DNC to seat the MI and FL delegations as voted, with full votes (since, as we all know, "the math" is in his favor regardless).

    And that's just after thinking about it for 30 seconds.


    So, basically, (1.00 / 3) (#248)
    by Tiger Burning on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:16:19 AM EST
    you want him to fall on his sword in a way that no politician, ever, in the history of human beings, has done. And if he crawls through the streets, tearing at his clothes and clawing at his face and decrying how low and terrible he and his people and his supporters have been - then maybe you'll think about supporting the Democratic ticket?

    You know, six months ago I wouldn't have given McCain a one in three shot, but you, sir , give me hope.


    My, oh my (5.00 / 0) (#298)
    by vigkat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 12:56:28 PM EST
    Well, perhaps not literally, but at the least, it must be something more and other than what he has been doing.

    Wow are you lame (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by talex on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    If your guy can't heal and unite his own Party then he isn't really who he says he is and can't do what he has been campaigning on can he?

    Indeed (5.00 / 6) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    I am obtuse? Keep thinking that.

    So, (5.00 / 1) (#261)
    by Tiger Burning on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:21:35 AM EST
    you don't believe that Clinton will have a huge, huge role in determining whether the Democratic party is unified in November?

    So, your preference is Clinton as VP (3.00 / 2) (#85)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    Actually, when she takes the nomination in August, will you be publicly stating that Obama must continue campaigning on her behalf?

    Without question, (none / 0) (#112)
    by Tiger Burning on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:40:46 AM EST

    Time for some Clinton supporters to grow up too... (1.28 / 14) (#63)
    by Jay Elias on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    ...you are correct that there is a powerful onus on the victor to be magnanimous and gracious in victory, BTD.  But you are also neglecting that there is also a powerful onus on those who do wrong to atone and seek forgiveness.

    Obama had no Geraldine Ferraro, who Ta-Nehisi Coates aptly derided in Slate.  Obama had no Lanny Davis.  Obama had no supporters at the RBC selling the idea that Sen. Clinton was a murderer.

    There is powerful onus on both of them, and in my humble opinion, you need to accept that.

    (I know this is going to be very unpopular here.  If it makes anyone feel any better, y'all can call me whatever names you like.  Cheers, and enjoy your Sunday.)

    If Clinton supporters ... (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:35:34 AM EST
    are now those who have "done wrong" ...

    Well, fine. Obama's just lost the election.

    How about trying something other than bullying and shaming?


    How about reading what I said? (1.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Jay Elias on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:39:08 AM EST
    Clinton has, in my opinion, done wrong, by allowing such persons to speak for her officially.

    I haven't said a word about "Clinton supporters" in any general sense having done something wrong.  But you cannot as a political leader simply allow people to do whatever in your name and not be responsible for it.  Someone above mentioned McClurkin.  No where have I absolved Obama for that in the slightest.


    You said (5.00 / 10) (#116)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:41:47 AM EST
    Obama had no Geraldine Ferraro

    That is quite simply a self-serving lie. And it is a useless one, because even if it were true, saying so will not bring Clinton voters back into the fold.


    Geraldine Ferraro did not speak for her (5.00 / 8) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:45:38 AM EST
    OFFICIALLY, no ore than Plfeger, Wright, or Jesse Jackson, Jr. did.

    you are being counterfactual now.


    What, pray tell, was Pflegler's post... (1.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Jay Elias on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:49:28 AM EST
    ...in the Obama campaign?

    We are talking past one another now.  Which I regret, but I have faith we'll come through it like we have on so many other issues.


    he was an advisor (5.00 / 5) (#188)
    by dws3665 on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:57:00 AM EST
    Pray tell.

    an advisior, surrogate and supporter (5.00 / 11) (#192)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:59:35 AM EST

    You are a typical (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by talex on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:52:53 AM EST
    Obama supporter. You guys never have anything good to say about Obama - instead for the last year it has been about Clinton Hate. You are not pro-Obama, you are anti-Clinton.

    Before January when Edwards dropped out Obama had minimal support on the blogs. And when Edwards left the race Obama was the only fall back position you guys had - and a bad one at that unless of course you like making nice with Republican politicians with post-partisanship which DOES NOT forward a Progressive agenda.


    I am a lot of things... (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jay Elias on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:01:53 AM EST
    ...but I doubt you'll find me to be a typical Obama supporter, particularly as I don't particularly support Obama.  

    I'm not a progressive.  I'm not a liberal.  And I'm not especially anti-Clinton.


    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by talex on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:04:46 AM EST
    You are NOT  lot of things politically. Why are you here then? Just trying to stir up trouble or is it just that you are attention starved?

    I'm here... (4.00 / 1) (#230)
    by Jay Elias on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:10:25 AM EST
    ...because I consider BTD to be a friend and someone whose intellect and opinion I think quite highly of.  And because I believe that Jeralyn is one of the more important writers online on our criminal justice system.

    Well yeah yes of course (4.66 / 9) (#281)
    by talex on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:28:10 AM EST
    I can see from your original post entitled: "Time for some Clinton supporters to grow up too"...

    And by you calling people 'wrong doers' that you came here as a "friend" in the spirit of harmony.

    And of course your ending:

    (I know this is going to be very unpopular here.  If it makes anyone feel any better, y'all can call me whatever names you like.  Cheers, and enjoy your Sunday.)

    Now that shows you came in harmony doesn't it? Or does it show that your intent was to piss people off and you knew it would?

    Most would say the latter.

    You must think people are stupid and we are not.

    Enjoy your Sunday you apolitical instigator you.


    Excuse me Jay (5.00 / 9) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:36:27 AM EST
    The way to bring them back into the fold is not to berate them.

    I assure you I will be arguing for a vote for Obama in November. but every time people like Meteor Blades write posts like that it makes it that much more difficult for me to convince the few people I reach here at Talk Left.

    That as a nah nah nah post. Hardly what we need right now.


    I agree it isn't... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Jay Elias on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:44:58 AM EST
    ...but I'm not berating them.  I'm taking issue with you.

    My concern is not with bringing people back into the fold, or even with getting people to vote Obama in November.  I'm no Democratic party activist, or even a straight partisan.  It isn't, for me, about what most effectively helps the Dems win the election.

    There is a moral responsibility that exists here which goes well beyond the election.  A moral responsibility on both sides to own up to despicable actions and statements made.  I'm not defending what MB said - I haven't even read the whole thing yet.  I'm disagreeing with your oft-stated position that it is upon Obama alone to unite the party.  He wouldn't be capable of doing so in any case.


    But I am a Democrat (5.00 / 8) (#155)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:48:18 AM EST
    who will try as hard as I can to get Obama elected in november.

    We are a little web site so our influence is not large.

    But in our little world, people like Klein and Meteor blades are making our job harder.

    THAT was what my post was about.


    I know... (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Jay Elias on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:54:34 AM EST
    ...and for what it is worth, I respect you greatly for your position on that.

    But I doubt it comes to you as a surprise that my position is not the same.  My influence is negligible, both in absolute terms and compared to yours.  But I care a lot more about who we are and what we do than whether or not my side wins.  What has taken place is so ugly that it may be beyond the power of either Obama or Clinton or both of them to fix.  But I think dealing with the ugly is more important that winning in November.  The Democrats will, in my opinion, almost certainly win in November regardless.  But if this isn't addressed, that victory will be Pyhrric.


    I am a grown up (5.00 / 6) (#89)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    And I am waiting patiently for Obama to say or do anything to try and unify the party.  He could start by apologizing for all the sexist crap that has gone on, and some from his dear friend Rev Pfleger.  I am a democrat, but I am not a blind follower.

    BTW (5.00 / 10) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:15 AM EST
    A few days after Pfleger, you have to be kidding me about what Obama did not have.

    That shocked me more than anything (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:40:29 AM EST
    I didn't think that Jay was actually stupid enough to believe that.

    The difference there... (1.00 / 4) (#148)
    by Jay Elias on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:47:14 AM EST
    ...is of course that not only was he not a representative of the campaign, but Obama went and quit his church of over a decade a week later.

    Compared to the bile which is Ferraro, I think you're reaching for a comparison.  Far.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 13) (#190)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:58:24 AM EST
    He was a represntative of Obama's campaign. Much more so than Ferraro WAs for clinton. BTW, Ferraro resigned from her seat on the Clinton FINANCE committee almost immediately after the brouhaha started.

    Hey Jay, what you read at Daily Kos diaries is usually false.


    I'm sure most of the stuff at dKos is false... (1.00 / 1) (#216)
    by Jay Elias on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:07:05 AM EST
    ...but kudos for saying so.

    That being said, I can't find a source on Pflegler's formal association with the Obama campaign.  Could you point me to one?  I'm always open to the idea that I am wrong.


    Abc news was one of the first to report (5.00 / 3) (#260)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:20:24 AM EST
    the story and identified him as a 20 year assoc of Obamas, campaigned for Obama in Iowa, Obama got him an earmark for his church while in IL senate.  The story was on ABCnews.com I am sure you can find it there.

    The bile which is Ferraro??? (4.55 / 9) (#207)
    by hitchhiker on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:04:06 AM EST
    That would be funny if you weren't so serious.  She said that his being black was an advantage in the nomination process.  

    He also said so.  He also very deliberately milked that advantage for all it was worth, and I applaud him for the intelligent politics of that.

    I continue to be appalled and disgusted by this idea that her decision to comment publicly and plainly on what every single person following this election could see has turned her into


    Vomit.  That nasty stuff that fills your mouth when you're sick.  "The bile which is Ferraro."

    Now that's disgusting.


    "Those who do wrong"? (4.63 / 11) (#77)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:34:22 AM EST
    Jay, this is just stupid. As a matter of politics, and in the realm of truth.

    Obama had no Geraldine Ferraro

    No, but he did have Donnie McClurkin. Which, if I were only interested in the realm of truth, would be enough to make you look like a partisan idiot.

    But politically, it doesn't matter one iota what Hillary and her supporters may or may not have done. In order to win, it is the WINNER who needs to suck it up and suck up.


    Oh, and Donna Brazile (5.00 / 9) (#93)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:09 AM EST
    who is at least as bad as Ferraro. But guess what, it's irrelevant to BTD's point.

    Donna B's email for all who wish (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:40:41 AM EST
    to opine is info@brazileassociates.com

    Fact of the matter is (4.60 / 5) (#74)
    by stillife on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:33:54 AM EST
    Obama, as the presumptive (and presumptuous) nominee, has the responsibility to bring the party together.  If Mr. Unity can't unify the party, how  on earth does he plan to unify the country?

    So Jay, tell me this.... (4.60 / 5) (#242)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:14:10 AM EST
    ...if some of us decide that we can no longer support this party, does that make us any less people? The problem as I see it is that many, I won't say all because it isn't all, but many Obama supporters attribute to Clinton supporters all manner of base motives and then ask us to seek forgiveness and atone. But if for whatever reason, perhaps because we are all you say we are, we do not seek forgiveness nor ask for atonement, then that's it, right? No unity? If those are the terms of the new Democratic party then what choice do we have. We don't see it your way, and short of that we are not wanted. I don't see any room for compromise in your position.

    pointing out the possible consequences of actions (1.00 / 10) (#51)
    by seesdifferent on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:26:40 AM EST
    is what Meteor Blades is doing. That is an adult thing to do.

    No, it's condescending as he**. (5.00 / 16) (#55)
    by madamab on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:27:52 AM EST
    And so are you.

    HRC supporters are not stupid. We are not irrational. We are not children.

    And we do not have to vote for Barack Obama.

    Buh-bye now.


    I assure you (5.00 / 13) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:29:30 AM EST
    it does not read that way to the target audience. Obama supporters like yourself will of course LOVE his post. I found it really really a stupid strategy for coaxing such people back in the fold.

    But if you are interested in say nah nah nah, then it is a GREAt post. There is the irony of Meteor blades' post. he engages in that which he purports to condemn.

    Believe you me, I will be arguing for everyone to vote for Obama. Meteor Blades makes it harder for people like me to do that.


    The DNC (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by magisterludi on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:37:18 AM EST
    should have considered the consequences. This enormous mess lays squarely in their laps- they exhibited zero leadership.

    So are we. (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by hitchhiker on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:10:48 AM EST
    Stop worrying and start winning November (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by fatgoldchain on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:43:11 AM EST
    It doesn't matter who the nominee is. They are the same across the board on the issues. Have different personalities, different backgrounds, different bases, but for all intents and purposes they have similar agendas. Let's stop killing ourselves and start working to win.

    That's nice. (5.00 / 11) (#136)
    by Fabian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:45:05 AM EST
    If I believed that Obama wasn't going to be a bigger embarrassment than some people think that Clinton was, I'd be more enthusiastic about the prospect.

    If only I had known it didn't matter (5.00 / 0) (#213)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:05:56 AM EST
    I could have saved myself a lot of trouble and money the last few months.  Now you tell me.

    i suggest you go and tell the rest of (5.00 / 2) (#255)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:19:19 AM EST
    your obama supporters that. by the way you might tell them to start with not blaming hillary.

    HAHAHAHAHA (5.00 / 2) (#276)
    by zyx on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:26:41 AM EST
    Please make that identical entry at the pro-Obama blogs.  Come back and tell me about what response you get.

    Yes, it does matter who the nominee is. They (4.71 / 14) (#161)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:49:51 AM EST
    are not twins.  Hillary has years of experience that Obama does not have.  She has judgment that he does not have.  They do not have similar agendas.  They do have different backgrounds and different bases.  All good reasons that Hillary should be the nominee.  Obama is inexperienced, weak, and an unknown quantity.  Yes, it does matter who the nominee is.  

    You signed up to write this? (4.00 / 4) (#206)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:04:05 AM EST
    They are only close on the issues because Obama parroted Hillary. They do not have the same agenda either or else Obama would not have taken until yesterday to resign from his church. Obama could have a hidden agenda. And Obama does not have the experience. When I read that people who met him melted when he smiled I am so reminded on Karl Rowe saying when he met George he was so overwhelmed with his charisma and personality. Like too much for one man. So thanks for the unity pony ride, but your comment will not be the factor to change my mind. Besides, my one vote is not important. I will not be here ragging on you or Obama. I will be here discussing political and legal issues. Like you think the Big Orange is going to go nice again tomorrow? The knife is still stuck in my back.

    And (none / 0) (#282)
    by Claw on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:28:31 AM EST
    I would add he's much, much better than McCain.  There's a good argument to be made that Clinton is better than Obama, but McCain is just a disaster.

    Wailing -check, gnashing -yep, (1.00 / 0) (#291)
    by Tiger Burning on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 11:40:38 AM EST
    but really, how many Limbaugh-Coulter-Hannity hit jobs is it going to take to put you squarely back in the "Blue" box, come November? Be honest.

    Absolutely. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 10:12:23 AM EST

    Comments are closed here (none / 0) (#301)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jun 01, 2008 at 01:30:07 PM EST