McCain's Tightrope

John McCain has locked up the Republican nomination, but he may not have locked up Republican votes in the general election. Will he need to move farther to the right to keep the Republican voting coalition intact?

The size of the evangelical community ensures its voice must be listened to. In the post room of Focus on the Family, dozens of workers sift through the mail, which can be as much as 150,000 items a day. Such power and influence mean evangelicals are a voting bloc McCain cannot write off. His campaign is bombarding 600 nationwide leaders with regular emails and appeals for help. Plans have been drawn up to mobilise the evangelical vote in 18 vital states. His top staff, like senior aide Charlie Black, have regular meetings with evangelical leaders. It might work. McCain's record on the key issue for many conservative evangelicals - abortion - is solidly hostile. 'The evangelical community will come around in the end,' said Steve Mitchell, a political pollster and chairman of Mitchell Research. 'Some leaders have not endorsed him yet because they are just tough negotiators. They are playing politics.'

[more ...]

McCain's problems still leave him walking a tightrope. He needs evangelical voters, but also needs to retain his appeal to the more moderate middle ground. McCain was recently forced to renounce the endorsements of two religious leaders because of their past extremist statements on Islam and Jews.

McCain may find that his balancing act between the Republican base and the middle ground becomes impossible. Take two Colorado City women: Susan Henderson and Cindy Smith. Both were Bush voters in 2004. Both distrust McCain. 'I am pro-choice and he's not,' said Henderson. Smith said: 'I'm the conservative type. McCain is a bit too much for the other side.' Neither would say she would definitely vote for McCain in November. Nor would they reject Obama outright.

< Complaints Against Chicago Police Are No Surprise | The 2008 'Fear Iran' World Tour >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Once the far-right 527s get through (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kenosharick on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 08:36:27 PM EST
    with Obama, repubs will vote for mccain in droves. Not even close. The election will be framed as an all American war hero vs. an anti- american terrorist coddler. Or worse. This election may be closer than I once thought, but I see no way Obama pulls it out.

    527s (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Rekwin08 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:16:56 PM EST
    Once the 527s get done, the voter will be so disgusted Obama will win in a landslide. They have nothing but BS and hate to sling and it will not wash.  McCain will be so tied to Bush and the far-right wacko wing of the Republican Party (the only wing it has left)there will be no standing up.

    I wish I had your confidence (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:31:57 PM EST
    that the average voter has gotten so much more discerning since 2004.

    Or 2000, 1988 and 1984 (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:43:03 PM EST
    When has the right-wing attack ad strategy ever not worked?

    Oh yeah, when Bill Clinton was elected.


    Don't let that pesky fact (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:30:51 PM EST
    get back to the DNC...The Clintons don't lose elections against the Republicans.  Just to Democrats who stack the deck against her and a complicit media.

    Me? Bitter?  you bet!  Am I going to exercise my bitterness in November?

    You. Bet.


    Its not worked... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:34:14 AM EST
    so far this year in most any election.  Sorry to disappoint you but things have changed.

    We haven't seen any Republican attack ads (none / 0) (#156)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:01:47 AM EST
    yet.  I still remember the Willie Horton ads from 20 years ago.

    There are a large number of points on which the ads almost write themselves.  Is there any film from Ayers time in the Weather Underground?  There's already footage of Pfleger and Wright.  That vote for the Bush-Cheney energy bill will not play well as prices go over $5 a gallon.  And those are just the issues that the Republicans will hardly have to exaggerate in.


    The attack ads we have seen... (1.00 / 0) (#158)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 05:43:23 AM EST
    include the 'evil liberal' wing of Obama, wright and all that noise, used to include whatever democrat candidate was running.  They desperately tried to link Obama/wright to everyone... and its failed most every time.  

    Again, things have changed.


    In the (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 06:22:05 AM EST
    races you are talking about the candidates threw Obama under the bus and ran over him. So I don't think that it shows anything other than you can disassociate yourself successfully from Obama and win.

    The real point is that... (1.00 / 0) (#171)
    by Thanin on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:17:46 PM EST
    the 'liberal is evil' shtick isnt working anymore.

    Confidence (none / 0) (#164)
    by Rekwin08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:23:44 PM EST
    My confidence isn't that great either after 2004 but I felt I had to respond to this nonsense. Besides, in 2004 you had a sitting president in a time of war (actually an occupation but whatever)and a very unattractive candidate (Kerry) who didn't seem like he really wanted the job. Plus, we have had four years of disastrous mismanagement of everything from a war to the economy (Think Katrina) and people are sick of the useless name calling and bickering. The Republicans had there chance and they screwed up. This is not 2004--things have changed.

    Huh??? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by pluege on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:53:22 PM EST
    They have nothing but BS and hate to sling and it will not wash.

    it is pure wishful thinking that "it will not wash". ALL recent history says just the opposite, that voters are highly, highly susceptible to BS, hate, lies, and smears.


    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by daryl herbert on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:28:45 PM EST
    They have nothing but BS and hate to sling and it will not wash

    Really?  Because back before Sen. Obama clinched the nomination, I got the impression that he had some serious weak points, and that Sen. Clinton was the stronger candidate.

    He's got people from his past who didn't match his "hope & change" rhetoric, a record devoid of bipartisanship (again failing to match "hope & change"), unpopular past positions (his handwriting on a document advocating a total handgun ban), making verbal gaffes every time he speaks without a teleprompter, afraid to debate McCain, constantly ditching campaign advisers (calling them "volunteers" whenever he wants to cut ties), flip-flopping on important issues like Rev. Wright, NAFTA, and meeting with Iranian leadership . . . and did I mention he has no foreign policy experience and no executive experience?

    Or does that all count as BS and hate?


    I think this is a naive assumption (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by davnee on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:33:19 PM EST
    Negative campaigning works.  It always has.  And I believe this will be a manifestly negative campaign.  Obama's background begs for a negative campaign.  He's got a double whammy of inexperience and radical and corrupt associates.  That's not a good combination.  Throw in that he's black and his persona matches up well with the loser Dem stereotype of the effete, elitist liberal, and well that is a toxic brew waiting to be served by 527's.

    Obama may win, but I guarantee you it will be in spite of who he is and not because of it.  The only thing that can push Obama over the top is that this is overwhelmingly a Dem cycle.  He's not going to win on his own merits.  Those are going to be easily outweighed by his negatives by November.  He can only hope to win on the demerits of the Bush legacy.

    The GE is going to be a game of chicken between disgusted and dissatisfied (with their own candidates) R and D voters, with the deciding factor being who the indies hate more by the end of this process and feel they have to vote against.  I'm not optimistic about Obama's chances of being viewed as the lesser of the two evils.


    Here's your choices: (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:44:01 PM EST
    (two party anyway):

    A 1/2 term senator with REALLY questionable associations and a shifty background with NO military experience


    an experienced member of Congress from a fairly conservative state that was a POW.

    Here's the line that is being served up:  "John McCain was chained and listened to anti-American propoganda for 5 years and paid a dear price.  Barack Obama listened to anti-American propoganda for 20 yrs and paid for the privilege."

    Get back to me on Wed Nov 5th which is going to work in places like KY, WY, ID, UT, MO, OH, PA....


    I can't see any earthly reason to (none / 0) (#72)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:46:04 PM EST
    wait til Nov. 5th to answer your question.
    Am I missing something?!

    Some people (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:56:41 PM EST
    are going to have to have the hard truth hit them in the face because change and hope is all they have right now.

    presidentelect.org gives enough history about the Electoral College for the "creative class" to discern that BHO has a snowball's chance in hell to win certain states they are touting he will carry.


    Check back here in November (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:22:53 PM EST
    and we'll see how your prediction holds up.

    Agreed (2.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Spike on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:13:17 PM EST
    Obama will be well over 300 electoral votes. I could be a landslide.

    Wow (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:15:33 AM EST
    it's Kool Aide time.

    For Obama to get ANYWHERE NEAR that number he would ABSOLUTELY have to take WV, KY and TN....

    which AIN'T gunna happen.

    try again.


    Some of the crap he's getting from his (none / 0) (#60)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:37:10 PM EST
    right is about the right preparing for defeat.

    They will simply claim that Mccain was not a proper conservative. That's really all they are panicing about.  The conservaiteves know they buggered up and they have to have MCcain as their scapegoat for failing in 2008.


    gee that is interesting. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:44:30 PM EST
    all these folks are thinking, i'd better say this and that now so when mccain loses, i can explain it.  you know most people don't think like that. no how, no way, no time. they think this person suits me or they don't. their pocketbook, their health care plan, their childrens' futures matter to them and not politican spin. most of us are sick of it.

    For Republicans I think the (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:52:23 PM EST
    feeling is it's all about how many people they can get out to vote.

    I doubt they have any fear they can turn people in swing states against Obama.  It's about motivating them to go to the polls.

    But while they're not involved in the same pre-blame-game the Dems are with Hillary and her supporters, they are (again, from what I can tell) much more sanguine about a McCain loss.

    They think Obama will be a 2nd Jimmy Carter, and they can use the next 4 years to get the party back on track and take the WH back in 2012.


    i can't say for sure what they think (none / 0) (#80)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:55:25 PM EST
    about mccain, but i think they plan on his winning. i know for sure they are counting on the democrats to help them win can substantial numbers if not control in the mid terms. i have mentioned before and will again, the president is just part of this. congress has lower approval ratings than bush. why is that? we need to hold their feet to the fire. just look at how pelosi for example behaves and speaks.

    I'm not saying that is what they are (none / 0) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:06:41 PM EST
    planning.  It's just that they don't seem as do-or-die as the Dems that it has to be now, this very minute.  And they don't seem to be wailing ahead of time about what a loss it would be if their candidate didn't win the WH.

    the repubs are crafty folks. (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:22:59 PM EST
    they are more disciplined than democrats. look at the votes in congress this past year. their calculation just might be to let the democrats do it to themselves. sad to say there is some merit to that.

    I've heard this phrase alot. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:56:35 PM EST
    "let Obama in for one trmand then run a real conservative"

    It's similar to our problem with Nader in 2000.  Let Bush in for one term and then get a real liberal to run.  

    Of course we don't even have a real liberal running in 2008 yet--funny thing is though although Obama is a centrist lightwieght he's easily portrayed as a boutique socialist radical.


    all things to all people or so i have read! (none / 0) (#91)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:03:41 PM EST
    The evangelical community is really popular this (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 08:53:47 PM EST
    election cycle with both McCain and Obama vying for their votes.  How much farther right will Obama go in order to garner their votes?  Seems that Obama has chosen to join McCain in the balancing act arena?

    Yet again... (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 08:58:36 PM EST
    Is it just me, or is there something a little bit strange with this whole pandering to the evangelical community...yet again?

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:03:07 PM EST
    is bothers me immensely. Obama supporters have adopted the Bush rhetoric about any criticism of evangelicals being "anti christian". I simply am astounded at this garbage. It just goes to show in many ways that no matter who wins the election, the evangelicals ONCE AGAIN will be running the country. They've done such a great job for the last 8 years why wouldn't we want them to continue?/snark

    Not Just You (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:07:38 PM EST
    Although it is no surprise to me that Obama is pandering to the evangelical community. In some ways, Obama is really about change. He is definitely changing the values of the Democratic Party to be more in line with Republicans. It is not a change that I've have been looking for and that is why I'm now an Independent.

    If Obama goes for the (none / 0) (#153)
    by Grace on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:55:53 AM EST
    evangelical pro-life voter, then McCain can go for the Clinton pro-choice voter --

    And Republicans and Democrats can switch positions AGAIN!!  Just like they did during the Civil Rights era!!  

    Whoop!! Whoop!!  Aren't Politics fun??!!  


    I would be happy (none / 0) (#155)
    by LoisInCo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:01:33 AM EST
    with a fiscally conservative/socially moderate/liberal party actually.

    Pandering is in the eye of the beholder (2.00 / 0) (#87)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:00:37 PM EST
    Pandering is one of those funny words that is totally dependent on which side of the fence you sit.

    Reaching out is when they try and get the vote of your particular group...Pandering is when they try and get the vote of a group you don't belong to...Honesty is when you don't reach out at all in a quest for bi-partisanship by treating everyone the same, and no one votes for you.


    news flash, obama isn't an (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:06:59 PM EST
    evangelical. he has been a member of a church that has a black liberation theology for 20 years or so.

    yeah we know that. (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:24:29 PM EST
    it's a syncretic Southside religious millieu That contains Pleiger Wright and Farrakhan.

    We do know it's going to cost votes in November.


    Do You Have A Problem (2.00 / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:29:50 PM EST
    With black liberation?

    You forgot to finish your thought (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:35:06 PM EST
    theology belonged in there.

    black liberation is different than black liberation theology.


    Really? (3.00 / 1) (#127)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:42:41 PM EST
    Why because it involves the church? Seems to me, whether you like it or not the point of it is black liberation ala MLK.

    Anthony Pinn of Rice University acknowledges that black liberation preaching often sounds angry. But he says the anger does not advocate violence but is instead channeled into constructive routes. Trinity UCC, he notes, has 70 ministries that help the poor, the unemployed, those with AIDS or those in prison. Pinn says the words can be jarring to the untrained ear, but they're still valid.


    Black liberation preaching can be a loud, passionate, physical affair. Linda Thomas, who teaches at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, says the whole point of it is to challenge the powerful and to raise questions for society to think about. Thomas says if white people are surprised by the rhetoric, it's because most have never visited a black church.


    "These people are a part of me. And they are part of America, this country that I love," Obama said.

    He denounced the harshness of Wright's words -- not because they were false, he said, but because they did not acknowledge the strides that the U.S. has made in the fight against racism. Obama said his own candidacy shows how far the country has come.



    recall when Russert asked Obama about Farrakhan? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:00:46 AM EST
    That wasn't a casual passing comment on Russert's part.  I didn't really catch what was going on when Timmeh asked him that Question.  Obama didn't even catch the significance because he didn't realize that the religious millieu up there was an aberation.  Clinton realized what Russert was up to though.  The oddball religous structure there is going to develop into a major theme in October.

    It Doesn't matter what I think on the subject really.


    I See (1.00 / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:15:27 AM EST
    It Doesn't matter what I think on the subject really.

    You are just concerned?

    I never have listened to Russert, he seemed like a hack from what I have read, though. And I am not sure what you are getting at. If it is that Obama is unelectable because he is black, and attended a black church, I disagree.


    no not concerned (none / 0) (#157)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:02:11 AM EST
    It's almost laughable that this was overlooked.

    Do you have a problem with slanted (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:35:49 PM EST

    It's cool (none / 0) (#136)
    by Salo on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:03:40 AM EST
    see the TUCC does some really cool stuff. That's the first rhetorical response of other orgs that don't bear mentioning.

    Yes, like the RCC> (none / 0) (#137)
    by MarkL on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:05:04 AM EST
    black liberation theology, not black liberation (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:03:11 AM EST
    but nice try.

    What Is The Difference? (1.00 / 0) (#163)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 11:50:47 AM EST
    It is about ending racism through non violent means. Seems to me that energizing and rechanneling the day to day oppression into action is a good thing.

    The fact that one AA poster here is embarrassed to admit that he loves watermelon, suggests to me that BLT is on the right track.  


    Um, there is a huge difference (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:51:26 PM EST
    Black liberation refers to the liberation of blacks.

    Black liberation theology is a doctrine that, among other things, preaches innate learning differences between blacks and whites, the bell curve, and that the government is trying to kill black people with HIV.

    Get it?


    Yes That is What It Sounds Like To You (1.00 / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 01:34:25 PM EST
    But, from what I have read, BLT is a direct descendent of MLK's teachings. AA culture is different from white american culture, and that is a fact I have personally witnessed.  BLT encourages AA to be proud of that difference rather than feel ashamed.

    My very limited search of BLT shows me that the predominant critique comes from right wing and conservative sources because of its left slant (marxist).

    I do know that AA have been Americans longer than most whites, yet they remain, for the large part on the bottom of the social ladder. My thoughts are that liberation must come from within the black community and not from outside. So I do not believe that it is my position to pass judgement on BLT. But if Obama, whether or not you like him, is an example of how some AA's can become liberated and rise up in society, BLT seems to be working, imo.


    It only sounds that way to me (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:06:51 PM EST
    because the practitioners of it say so in their writing. And so does TUCC's writings and Rev. Wright and Rev. Meeks. I didn't make it up. Nor did I say that there was nothing positive about it. It is what it is.

    But I was responding to your original post that twisted someone's words above who was critical of black liberation theory into being critical of black liberation. They are two very different things.


    I have no doubt (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    you've read all those writings first hand and in context and thought about them (for 30 secs), in historical context.

    Because you're not the type of person to perpetuate a lowball, now obsolete, smear campaign.


    That was for (none / 0) (#189)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 04:04:08 PM EST
    Dr Feelgood.

    No Twist (none / 0) (#169)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:16:44 PM EST
    The end results are the same, BLT is one approach to black liberation. And do you really think that you are in a position to judge what is best strategy for black liberation?

    You're doing it again! (5.00 / 0) (#170)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 02:24:59 PM EST
    Twisting words. I never judged strategies for black liberation! I distinguished between the concept of black liberation and black liberation theology. You really do have a penchant for this.

    Absurd (1.00 / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:33:58 PM EST
    Just because you refuse to acknowledge that BLT a subset of Black Lib, or means for AA's to achieve liberation, doesn't make it so.

    Besides I do not think your approval of how AA's accomplish liberation is needed wanted or relevant.


    Incoherent drivel (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 07:45:55 PM EST
    And you continue to put words in my mouth that I neither spoke nor implied.

    I should have known better. Why don't we just cut to the chase where you start your typical name-calling? I'm waiting.... 'hillary shill', 'hillary cultist', got any new ones for me?


    OK (1.00 / 0) (#176)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:50:17 PM EST
    Sorry the
    I'm waiting.... 'hillary shill', 'hillary cultist', got any new ones for me?

    Nothing comes to mind.

    BTW-I think either characterization is no longer relevant.


    I didn't think (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:08:23 AM EST
    that they were relevant in the first place.

    But Astroturfing (1.00 / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 09:37:13 AM EST
    And Obama shills and cultist were relevant? I do not think you can have it both ways. In case you have not noticed, in the last six months there have been commenters here whose sole purpose has been to promote their candidate, relentlessly. Were they paid, I don't know, but they were indistinguishable from paid shills.

    Did I say that? (5.00 / 0) (#180)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:30:49 AM EST
    Or did you simply assume that I was okay with pejoratives re: Obama supporters?

    You Explained What Astroturfing Was (none / 0) (#182)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:03:40 PM EST
    Because I had never heard of them. And yes I did, without basis, assume that you were OK with Obama pejoratives. A quick look at your comments, suggests that you are not part of the handful that use pejoratives for either candidate. Sorry to assume that you were, my bad.

    FYI (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 11:32:25 AM EST
    the only person I ever referred to as a "shill" was Geekesque...and that was after he told me point blank, during one conversation over at dKos, that he was a shill.

    OK (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 12:07:03 PM EST
    Yes he was a self proclaimed shill. Others here were much worse, imo, as they were far less interesting commenters, and unwilling to admit that they were in fact shilling.

    They aren't worse... (none / 0) (#184)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 16, 2008 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    Many are bland in comparison...some are as extreme...most are just there.

    OK (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 02:10:49 PM EST
    As ridiculous as geekeske got, at least he was a self professed shill. I find it worse to read garbage from those who were true believers spouting empty talking points engaged in full suspension of disbelief, irrespective of who they were supporting.

    blair pandered to british evangelicals (none / 0) (#63)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:39:50 PM EST
    and even framed socialism as "christian  socialism". So i'm not surprised Tony Obama would do the same thing.

    It is Generational (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:33:30 AM EST
    There is a new generation of evangelicals whose agenda includes fighting poverty and protecting the earth from global climate change. It is this group that Obama is appealing to.

    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:25:09 PM EST
    know but there are certainly more people on that list than I expected. Heck, we even have reps who are publicly stating they won't support Obama.

    That whole thing was today, right? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:11:17 PM EST
    Anyone hear it, or know how it's being reported?

    Only in my wildest dreams (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:36:29 PM EST
    Preview is your friend. I don't use it enough myself.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:56:55 PM EST
    Preview is indeed my friend but even the preview doesn't always keep me from reading what I thought I wrote. Why is it the brain sees what it wants to see rather than the missing or misspelled words?

    I don't think so (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:42:54 PM EST
    And more OT:

    Tallahassee Florida had a huge drug bust in 6 homes in a very good section of town.  Thousands of MJ plants were confiscated to the tune of over 4 million dollars.  Tallahassee Democrat is the only newspaper in town and was covering the story.  Of course, there is a blog online.  Someone posted that he wished the TPD would bust the crack house on his street. He provided the name of the occupant and the dealer's name.  Seems it is a big operation.

    Suddenly the guy realized that he may have put himself in jeopardy. People posted furiously and he could not remove the post.  Poor guy I felt for him, but once posted you no longer own it and no way to correct.    

    and he posted the precise address (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:43:57 PM EST
    of the crack house.

    good god (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:32:21 PM EST
    Sometimes it really is just survival of the fittest, you know?  Is this guy up for a Darwin Award this year?

    It shows a pattern (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:47:25 PM EST
    and when Obama's people dismisses them as "nobodies", it reinforces the elitist label.

    Damn don't Obama's people get it at ALL?

    WHEN Obama loses (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:49:07 PM EST
    it's OBAMA's fault.

    End of story.  Finito!

    txpolitico67! bingo! that's right. (none / 0) (#88)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:00:56 PM EST
    if obama loses, he is the one who did it. the buck stops with the candidate. it isn't like he doesn't have numberous advtanges like with the media. kerry picked strum, so the responsibility belongs with kerry for his loss and others also.

    It's Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:18:02 PM EST
    modus operandi.

    The whole primary campaign model was based on victimhood.  Hence, the supporters cannot assign blame to Obama for his losses;  it was external forces:  The Clintons, ABC News, Fox News, chain emails, racism...on and on and freaking on.

    So BUCK up BHO people.  His campaign.  His job is to win or lose.  And its up to supporters to make it happen or not.  But in the end, it is up to Obama.  No more excuses and no more blaming.

    Suck! It! Up!


    Agreed, But... (none / 0) (#128)
    by Spike on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:45:33 PM EST
    I agree entirely that it's Obama's to win or lose. He gets the glory or he gets the blame.

    But your description of victimhood sounds exactly like the Clinton campaign to me. The never ending mantra is that she lost because of Obama playing dirty or the sexism of the media or other external forces. There is never an acknowledgment that the campaign had no strategy after Super Tuesday or that Mark Penn's messaging based on running as a pseudo-incumbent was a loser during a change election. Or that Bill Clinton was more of a liability than an asset on the stump. There is always someone to blame OUTSIDE of the campaign for its failure to secure the nomination.


    it was far more (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:54:29 PM EST
    prevalent by Obama.  Hell even he acknowledge it in his run-up to Kentucky.

    Anything and everything was NOT his own doing. And the comparison to Clinton is a joke.  The media, the sexism was BLARING.


    A small suggestion. Stop using the (none / 0) (#131)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:48:29 PM EST
    phrase "change election".
    I have never heard it before this year, and I have no idea what it means. I believe it is simply an empty buzzword. If you remove the reference to "change election", your post is just as convincing.

    Thanks for the Suggestion (none / 0) (#143)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:27:30 AM EST
    But I assure you it's not new this year. To me, it's an election that represents a political realignment. In 1980, Republicans took both the White House and the Senate and the political center shifted to the right. In 1994, Republicans took both houses of Congress from the Democrats and things shifted even further to the right. In 2006, Democrats took back both Houses of Congress and conservatism was unraveling as a political force. I think it is unprecedented to have two change elections in a row. But due to the deep unpopularity of Bush and the Republican brand, 2008 is sizing up to be another such election with the possibility of a Democrat in the White House and widening Democratic majorities in both Houses. This election could mark the end of the conservative era that was ushered in by Reagan in 1980.

    You Might Be Right (none / 0) (#154)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:59:45 AM EST
    Bill Clinton may have been a real asset when he was quietly working small towns in rural areas. But on several occasions he threw the campaign off message with ill advised comments that dominated news coverage. Hillary Clinton was a much stronger candidate when she was dominating the media.

    Except that one cannot assign blame (none / 0) (#90)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:03:19 PM EST
    to a nobody, which is what Obama will be if he loses.

    omg, that is just too funny! (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:58:04 PM EST
    Once the 527s get done, the voter will be so disgusted Obama will win in a landslide.

    rekwino8, do you actually believe this nonsense, or have you just been so brainwashed, the obvious stupidity of it just goes right over your head?

    no, don't bother answering, it was more a rhetorical question, you clearly haven't a clue. but hey you keep believing that. i do hope you have an antidote readily at hand, come nov. 4th.

    And What If S/He's Right? (none / 0) (#115)
    by Spike on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:27:12 PM EST
    Will you mourn or rejoice?

    To the point (none / 0) (#172)
    by Rekwin08 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 04:27:53 PM EST
    You are the truly clueless one. As I said, 2004 is history. The economy is in the dumpster, gas prices thru the roof, and we're spending money like water in an unpopular war. There is such a striking difference between the two candidates with McCain more clueless than you. The Rethugs have to get the religious right vote to win and their candidate is an adulterer who dumped his wife for a younger women (who then financed his entire political career)and who has waffled on abortion (actually he has waffled on every issue that matters).  

    McCain's chances lay in the middle (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by davnee on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:04:25 PM EST
    I believe Obama will be reason enough for the conservatives to vote for McCain.  The 527's will ensure that.  Shoot my mega-R father is already making all his ridiculous pronouncements about having to move abroad and put all his money in gold if Obama gets elected.  He's even lamenting the demise of Hillary Clinton, eulogizing her as at least someone who likes America and could be trusted to find her own ass with a map and a flashlight especially if you baited it with a nickel.

    McCain doesn't need to move rightward.  Sure he can't run too far to the middle, but he needs to be just centrist enough to embrace all the people in the middle who are going to be riding the wave of Obama revulsion right into his arms.  It's already happening in a small way, and we haven't even got to the GE negative campaigning yet.  That's just the primary fallout.  He just needs to be less scary than Obama.  Which of course is madness, because in this cycle it is unbelievable that any Democrat could be scarier than the Republican.  But we did it.  We picked the one candidate who had the potential to be that scary.

    i haven't read up as much as i would (none / 0) (#118)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:30:22 PM EST
    have liked on the proposed town hall meetings between mccain and obama. can anyone with some knowledge comment on that.

    Still Happy with Clinton or Obama (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:25:57 PM EST
    I voted for Clinton but only after much internal debate. I'll be voting for Obama in November. Unlike the rabid supporters of each candidate, I rarely saw much daylight between their platforms. Both brought strengths and weaknesses to the table, but both with more strengths than any of the other candidates.

    My five stages of Elizabeth Kubler Ross dealing with it's "Clinton or no one" flashed past about eight weeks ago when I realized Florida wasn't getting a new vote. It was a 48 hour could I vote for McCain moment ...then slapped myself and came to my senses. By never being a hardcore Hillary voter my denial-anger-bargaining-depression-acceptance cycle moved much quicker than others.

    I'm not voting for any third party candidate, I'm not voting for McCain. I'm a Democrat.

    That's a reasonable position, but (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:29:20 PM EST
    I also respect those people who will vote against Obama because of the way he was installed as nominee against the will of the people, and with the DNC violating its own rules to help Obama steal votes.
    Obama's selection violated core principles of Democracy---and probably quite needlessly, at least   looking at the actions of the RBC.

    heh, that's a list of nobodies (4.25 / 4) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:42:42 PM EST
    and has beens. There's no one on that list that matters in a state that will matter.

    Yeah- pretty loose definition of prominent there (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:48:33 PM EST
    Though you know what they say: as goes a city clerk in Mississippi, so goes..well, I forget how the rest of it goes.

    Obama has a few problems... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cosbo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:55:14 PM EST
    aside from the women holding a serious grudge long enough to vote against (and they will), he also has an "inexperienced" problem. A good portion of democrats have no confidence in Obama's ability to lead and they're just not going to vote for him. That's without even mentioning race. Combine 'black' with 'inexperience' & 'women angry' and to me at least, we're looking at an electoral loss.

    Now combine 'black', 'inexperienced', 'angry women', 'radical black separatist', 'wright', 'rezko', 'ayers', 'muslim', elite' 'bitter'... and in my mind that translates to: Electoral DISASTER. But hey...


    don't forget the above list of (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:15:47 PM EST
    nobodies. i suppose if you don't agree with the obama campaign then you are now a nobody.

    Far worse 527 stuff to land on Obama! (none / 0) (#49)
    by wurman on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:29:32 PM EST
    The Post-Chronicle (link) of Phoenix AZ, which you may have heard is the capital city of McCain's power base, has a great article--pretty well sourced, too.  D'ya s'pose Saint John may know about this stuff?  How could he miss it, & who may have planted it?

    In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama's life as a "secret smoker" and how he "went to great lengths to conceal the habit." But what about Obama's secret political life? It turns out that Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.

    In his books, Obama admits attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a "hard-core academic Marxist" which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.

    If it's in the Post-Chronicle, it's in McCain's power alley.  True or not, this will be nationwide as soon as Sen. Obama is the Democratic candidate.  Peruse the article lightly, check out the links, & then imagine the appropriate TV ads.

    Then you can take that line of attack straight to the production studio.


    McCarthyism is Old Hat (none / 0) (#110)
    by Spike on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:24:16 PM EST
    That crap might have worked during the Cold War but what person outside the John Birch Society is going to believe it?

    Every voter McCain needs to win. (none / 0) (#139)
    by wurman on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:09:43 AM EST
    All of the folks who "believed" that Al Gore invented the internet after starring in Good Morning Vietnam. . . .

    All of those folks who believed that Dan Rather fabricated & lied about the Bu$h xliii AWOL from the Alabama National Guard. . . .

    All of those folks who believed that Sen. Kerry wrote up his own recommendations for the Purple Heart medals & that he falsely created the citation for his Silver Star. . . .

    All those ridiculous American voters who think that Barack Obama's supporters are a bunch of anti-American, unpatriotic, left-wing, socialist apologists. . . .

    etcetera, you know, the Bu$h xliii base of foolish voters who can't tell a commie from a Sunni--sort of similar to Sen. John S. McCain.


    That Was All True (none / 0) (#147)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:36:24 AM EST
    But times have changed. Those folks have lost the trust of a lot of Americans. Those arguments won't work as they did before because people don't like what has happened in Iraq, with jobs and with gas prices.

    I've lived in AZ for 30 years... (none / 0) (#162)
    by K Lynne on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 09:08:42 AM EST
    And I've never heard of the Post-Chronicle.  No idea what it is, and which way it leans.  Is it something like the National Enquirer???  Either that or it has a small circulation somewhere on the other side of town.

    When it hits the Arizona Republic, then it has hit mainstream news in AZ.


    It's up to us (none / 0) (#7)
    by StevenT on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:12:30 PM EST
    Whether Obama wins or loses is entirely up to us - the Hillary people. I know that i won't cast my vote for McCain, but i still need more time to get through the Hillary grief. At least i'm through the state of voting for McCain =P

    However if Hillary is not in the VP then maybe i might have to go through all the stages of grief again.

    No... (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by kredwyn on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:17:21 PM EST
    It's up to Obama.

    Votes...even Democratic votes...are earned. They shouldn't just be assumed to be there regardless of how much pandering he does to try and bring in folks like the evangelicals.

    Ultimately, he earns or fails to earn those votes.


    I wouldn't say it is up to us (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:35:31 PM EST
    unless and until Obama and his supporters are as willing to share the credit with us if he wins as they are willing to blame us if he loses.  I am not taking responsibility for his candidacy.

    share the credit? (none / 0) (#22)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:48:34 PM EST
    share the blame?

    Here is a simple formula.

    Vote for him, and either talk him up or at least say nothing, and you can share in all the credit.

    vote for McCain, and/or keep on trash-talking Obama, and yeah, you earn blame.

    Not so complicated.


    I'm pretty sure I'm going to get the blame (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:51:41 PM EST
    if he loses no matter what I do.  Somehow his failure to win me over is a character flaw on my part.

    Blaming the voters - great tactic.


    Who cares what "THEY" say? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by pluege on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:56:33 PM EST
    what do you mean (none / 0) (#30)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:04:50 PM EST
    "no matter what you do?

    Why would you get any blame if you were a supporter?


    I mean that (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:11:42 PM EST
    even if I personally vote for Obama, as I intend to do as my 2nd choice Dem nominee, the stage has been set to blame Hillary, and by extension her supporters, if Obama loses.

    I could be paranoid (correction: I AM paranoid) but that is the way I see the commentary of the last couple of months.  Maybe it will die down as we get further into the GE..


    yeah,,,dont be paranoid (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:19:28 PM EST
    Look, there has been a lot of anger at Hillary from Obama people because of the perception that she stayed in the race for at least 2 months after it was obvious to all that she could not win - and thus she was seen to be gratuitously harming him, putting her ego ahead of the party, just generally being a narcissist rather than a team player.

    I realize that Hillary supporters dont accept that she effectivly lost it back in April, but lots of other people think thats true. So there are bruised feelings.

    If Hillary does as she says, spends the next 5 months doing her part to help Obama be elected, then there really wont be any cause for anyone to blame her if he loses.

    Of course there are lots of people 'round here who are so invested in beleiveing that Obama is evil, and his supporters insane, that I suspect to get lots of angry pushback,,,but this is how I see it.


    We respect your right to sre it that way (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:25:04 PM EST
    now, we just want you to respect that fact we don't.

    There are too many things happening this primary season that have not happened before, and it simply has raised some serious concerns.

    Many, if not most, of Clinton supporters were supporting the best candidate in the race. Not because she is a woman, and not because she's Hillary Clinton. It is not personal with us. She was the best candidate.


    look, I would be more than happy (none / 0) (#52)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:31:55 PM EST
    to extend to you all manner of respect as a sincere Democrat doing what you feel is best for your party and your country.

    But it would be nice to know that you might consider doing that to Obama supporters as well.

    To wit: you really need to come to grips with the fact that this statement: "She was the best candidate" is your OPINION. It is NOT objective fact. It is your opinion. And yes, there are equally intellegent, equally sincere, equally liberal and progressive people who have and had a different opinion.

    If you can accept that, then so can we and all can be well on the left.


    Whatever (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:38:00 PM EST
    Look, I tried to be fair with you and your cocky manner of addressing people.

    If you can't understand that all of the comments being made here are the opinion of the person writing them, I can't help you. We are not expected to include the phase "in my opinion" every single time we say something.

    So, relax and join the conversation without that abusive attitude.


    That's far from all of what you are asking. (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:39:45 PM EST
    You insist that the Clinton supporters agree with your view of the campaign. What is the point?
    We don't and we won't. Can't you move to general election mode, or must you cling to the memories of the primary?

    Can't imagine why I'm paranoid (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:26:42 PM EST
    but I'm pretty sure you're not insane and I know Obama is not evil.

    We'll see what happens.  I really do hope Obama wins and I never have to find out if he and his supporters think Hillary did "her part" to get him elected. If he loses, I'm sure they will think she did not do "her part", by definition.

    What I tried to say above is that if Hillary does campaign her heart out, and Obama wins, I hope she and those of us who supported her in the primaries, get our fair share of respect for our issues.


    Stop making things up. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:32:18 PM EST
    Your last paragraph is paranoid projection.

    Hilllary didn't lose---she was robbed (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:35:32 PM EST
    Nothing will change that.

    oh grow up Mark (3.00 / 2) (#64)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:39:57 PM EST
    She forgot to organize the caucus states because she assumed she would win the nom on SuperTuesday.

    That cost her 100+ elected delegates, a gap she never was able to make up, despite the strong finish.

    Thats all she wrote, baby. Dont go all KosKidz on us with black helicopters robbin the vote or whatever...


    The robbery was in plain sight (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:42:02 PM EST
    If you REALLY want to keep discussing the primaries, then I and the other Clinton supporters will educate you about the facts.
    Obama cheated in the caucuses, had the RBC steal votes for him, got clobbered in the later primaries and lost the popular vote. He's about as legitimate as George W. Bush.
    Growing up means not gloating, Ben.
    Give it a rest.

    sorry about one thing (none / 0) (#78)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:53:09 PM EST
    I really have no desire to gloat. Sorry if I gave that impression.

    NO gloating, but yeah, I will argue with you and whoever else you dredge up all night if you want to perpetuate those insane lies about somehow this election being "stolen".

    Cheated in the caucuses? That is really lame.
    The RBC - geezz. Even if I decide to save us some time and grant you your 2 delegate votes from Michigan, what does that change? She lost by 150+ votes.
    Yeah, she won some of the late primaries. So what? They are not weighted such that the votes count more if cast in May than in Jan.

    And of course, the only way she "wins" the popular vote is if you pretend that no one came out to vote for Obama in Michigan. You are welcome to the argument, but dont expect anyone outside your little circle to be convinced by it.

    I dont know why you are so personally invested in this. I have rooted for, and worked for dozens of candidates over the years, and most of them lost. ITs tough, I know, and believe me, having suffered the pain so many times, I have no desire to inflict it. But dude, if you are so incapable of dealing with this, that you have to lash out with all this crazy talk, then yeah, you deserve to be slapped down.


    I have difficultly dealing with (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:57:45 PM EST
    smug people who think they understand something simply because their candidate won.
    You have not demonstrated an iota of comprehension of the primaries in your comments, to date.
    This is not particularly important. What is grating is that you are writing reams of gibberish without making any case whatsoever for Obama.
    Please, think, edit, and be concise.

    Mark, (none / 0) (#102)
    by tben on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:12:44 PM EST
    perhaps in some other thread we can discuss the relative merits of the candidates. If you track up on this thread, you would see that we were discussing other matters. So yeah, I havent been making a postive case for Obama here, cuz that was not the issue at hand.

    I think I understand the primaries pretty well. I have been following and participating in Dem primaries since '72, and have been total junkie in this one too. As is always the case, people take sides, see all the events that transpire through a certain lens, and tend to feed their own outrage. I certainly acknowledge that many Obama supporters around the web went off the deep end, but lots of Clinton supporters did as well.

    This election was not stolen. It was close, but actually not all that close. I realize that Hillary could well have won - if she had played even in those caucus states (certainly doable if she had the organization) she may well have actually won the pv, and may well have ended up even or so in pledged dels, and may well have had a credible argument to the SDs. Must be maddening to lose on a strategic error, but you gotta give Obama credit where do. He ran an excellent campaign. Anyway, he won, she lost - both of them will have important but different roles in the new progressive era, and that is something to be excited about.


    Actually you have been discussing the (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:23:53 PM EST
    primaries in most of your comments---to no avail I might add, if you are trying to change the minds of Clinton supporters.
    For instance, you called Clinton a narcissist and said she should have dropped out in April.
    Lovely unity.

    Look, Jeralyn discourages posters from long back and forth exchanges, so I'm cutting this "conversation" off.


    you need to grow up . capece? (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:52:18 PM EST
    Yep she had no chance (5.00 / 8) (#74)
    by davnee on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:47:56 PM EST
    She only kicked his butt over the last two months of said primary to the tune of more than half a million votes.  Obama is a candidate on a downward trajectory.  I don't ever expect that to change.  He's leveled out now, but I don't see him significantly reversing the trend.  And if he doesn't build a significant lead before the GE campaign commences in September it will be a bloodbath.  His only hope is to get out so far ahead of McCain that even the swiftboats can't chase him down.  Because there's a fleet idling in the back swamp.

    The SD's went with the candidate that was falling instead of rising.  They're stupid (and demonstrably corrupt), but it is what it is.  Let's see what happens.  But don't peddle that IACF crap.  You wanted Obama so bad.  You own him.  He's your mess.  Clinton didn't give him those warts he's sporting.  He grew them all by himself.  Chicago-style.  


    Charming. (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:58:19 PM EST

    oh if he loses (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:45:34 PM EST
    all his backers are going to be politically destroyed.  

    The wanted a  charge fo the light brigade.  Let em have it.


    Points for invoking (none / 0) (#86)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:59:26 PM EST
    Alfred, Lord Tennyson!

    i rather liked the poem (none / 0) (#99)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:09:53 PM EST
    when i studied english literature in college. i never thought that i would see an application today. of course i also studied shakespeare and see applications constantly.

    :) Oh well (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:16:34 PM EST
    "They" are going to have to find us. If we all stick together and claim we voted for him, they will have to blame the voting machines.

    I'm in Florida (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:19:56 PM EST
    I can easily blame the voting machines.;-)

    Ha Ha (none / 0) (#125)
    by CoralGables on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:37:52 PM EST
    But wait, Floridians will have a paper trail this year. It only took 8 years and the Florida Legislature screwing up a primary to get it done. Still, better late than never. (except the quest for a paper trail may have cost Hillary the presidency)

    don't you dare tell us how to conduct (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:17:57 PM EST
    ourselves. got it! this is america and you don't have that right.

    But You Have The (2.00 / 1) (#121)
    by squeaky on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:33:47 PM EST
    Right to tell someone how to conduct themselves? Sounds like blatant hypocrisy to me.

    One person's "trash-talking" is (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:04:22 PM EST
    another's "really concerned about the weaknesses of the nominee, worried that he can't seem to figure out what side of an issue he's on, less-than-enthused that he expects loyalty but shows little himself, not liking his penchant for GOP talking points (see: Harry and Louise) and his say-one-thing, do-another schtick."

    And one more thing: this is not a bandwagon thing for most of us - being on the winning side is not what is most important for us.  We're not going to be bullied into it, we're not going to be shamed into it.  We're not going to allow ourselves to be shunned or ridiculed or laughed at, or made to feel we are just not cool.  We will vote our conscience and our principles - if that's okay with you.

    The news flash for Obama, and for all his supporters who still seem to think that the superior attitude is a winning one, is that if he wants to win, if you want him to win, there's work to be done to earn the votes he needs.  Work.  Show us the progressive platform.  Show us a commitment to Democratic issues and values.  We had a candidate who did that, who showed her willingness to work for us, whose commitment was solid, who wasn't afraid of the hard work - so our standards are high - try rising to those standards instead of dumbing it down with platitudes, and see if that helps.

    Just stop acting as if Obama is not responsible for whether he wins or loses - because you all sure as heck blamed Hillary for losing.


    i can see that as a basis for a good (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:11:39 PM EST

    Totally Agree; No Excuses (none / 0) (#140)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:11:29 AM EST
    Barack Obama will be totally responsible for winning or losing in November. Just as Hillary Clinton was totally responsible for winning or losing during the primaries.

    Wow, have you been gleaning insights (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:07:09 PM EST
     from GlenGarry Glen Ross?

    True Democrats will (none / 0) (#28)
    by pluege on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:01:51 PM EST
    suck up whatever they're feeling and vote for Obama - the consequences of a mccain presidency are way too severe not to.

    The problem isn't people who follow politics, the battleground is the 'couldn't-care-less' voters who are highly susceptible to the lies, smears, and character assassination that the republican slime machine will generate and be propagated by their facilitators the US corporate media. The great uninvolved are the ones Obama needs to win over.


    Another wave of loyalty posts n/t (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:09:46 PM EST
    and please refrain from defining (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:19:46 PM EST
    "true democrat". a person is a democrat if they are registered and say they are. you have not and won't be given the right to define me or anyone else. define yourself and stick to that.

    I have a different way of defining (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:32:10 PM EST
    those people. Wouldn't call them "true". But, there are numerous reasons why a democrat just sticks with the democratic candidate. Everything from "just hoping" to truly believing in the candidate.

    Perhaps you could rephrase your (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:33:31 PM EST
    sentiment for clarity.
    Try, "A lot of female Clinton supporters will eventually lie back and enjoy voting for Obama", for example.

    and think of England... (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:11:16 PM EST
    True Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:21:09 PM EST
    think for themselves and don't steal votes from one candidate and give them to another.

    Being, rather, WAS a life-long Democrat I see Obama as nothing more than a republican using his racial background to wedge voters against one another in the Democratic party.

    If I were into conspiracies, I would see this as a brilliant ruse by the GOP to split the Dems for good on the lines of race.


    Well, I doubt that's the case; however, (none / 0) (#112)
    by MarkL on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:24:52 PM EST
    the Republicans did infiltrate and take over AARP, and attempted a coup of the Sierra Club as well.

    No Right to Run? (none / 0) (#149)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:44:09 AM EST
    You seem to be saying that no black candidate has a right to run for president as a Democrat because s/he could potentially split the Democratic Party along racial lines.

    That sounds like second class citizenship.

    Isn't that a slippery slope?


    My Republican friends (none / 0) (#17)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:43:01 PM EST
    do not like McCain at all, because of campaign finance reform, immigration reform, etc. - basically all of what I see as his redeeming features - but they will vote for him without hesitancy over Obama. What seems to be sticking for them is the time honored tax-and-spend-liberal label.  I applaud Obama for admitting he is going to raise taxes on some people, but it is going to solidify McCain's base quite nicely.

    One thing Obama needs to stop doing is saying he is going to spend all the money we save when he pulls out of Iraq. That even grates on me.

    The War Is Off Budget And Is Being Put On (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:01:55 PM EST
    the deficit spending credit card. IOW our children and grandchildren will eventually have to pay the bill. Even if the occupation ended tomorrow there would be large dollar amounts needed to replace military equipment and to cover all disabled veterans medical costs and benefits.

    To spend the money now spent in Iraq for domestic programs, Obama would have to raise taxes well beyond the public's tolerance level or continue to increase our national debt at an unacceptable rate for years to come. IMO that line is just political B.S.


    Exactly right (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:07:03 PM EST
    That is what irritates me about him making it sound so simple - get out of Iraq, and hey, we have money for health care and infrastructure!!!  Well, not quite.

    Even the Republicans that are not thrilled with McCain will vote for him against that kind of logic.


    I Remember A TV Focus Group Talking About (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:22:34 PM EST
    Kerry's domestic campaign promises and how he intended to pay for them. Kerry's standard line was that he would roll back Bush's tax cuts to fund the programs. The only problem is that he had numerous domestic programs that fell under that umbrella. Per the focus group he lost credibility that he would ever implement the programs since the the combined cost of all of the programs far exceeded the amount of the roll backs. IOW he used that line for too many programs and the public was actually smart enough to catch him in the deception.

    talk about raising taxes! ok, got it! (none / 0) (#59)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:35:37 PM EST
    they should never have been cut the way they were. congress was never taken to task for that the way they should have been. the cost of this war is terrible. what's left? the type of change i see as having a real impact would be to get our house in order and ask people like the heads of corportions to roll up their sleaves and join in sort of like the way they did for fdr in ww2. but i don't see that. based on what i have observed in this campaign, i think it will be groups vying to get theirs and pushing and shoving the others(bitters, boomers) out of the way.

    There was a small 3-4 person panel (none / 0) (#120)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:32:55 PM EST
    of economists on FOX this morning discussing the current state of the economy and the policy ideas that have been put out there by both presumptive nominees. They pretty much knocked Obama out of the park for how destined his ideas were to destroy the economy.

    I understood a couple of the arguments (no one ever accused me of having a solid grasp on economics), and Obama looks too weak on the topic.


    i see the economy, foreign policy, (none / 0) (#132)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:53:18 PM EST
    the war, and domestic policy as weak issues for the democrats in the presidential race. whereas i don't agree with mccain on everything, i also don't agree with obama.

    when you are walking down the street (none / 0) (#43)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:22:17 PM EST
    and a fellah has an items and says guess which cup it is in as he moves them all around, run like heck for the nearest exit.

    I have found (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by indy in sc on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:18:59 PM EST
    that the first paragraph of your post is what works the best with my Republican friends in trying to get them to see the problem with voting McCain(at least those who are fiscally conservative and not just socially conservative). They tend not to be so exercised about the war itself unfortunately, but they understand the bottom line of how much is being spent on the war every week and how much of that is coming from money we are borrowing from China and elsewhere. They don't want to mortgage their children's futures and leave them with that kind of burden. As to the second paragraph of your post, Obama has a lot of work to do to hone his economic policy and messaging and that needs to be done soon. He should really be owning that space and he isn't right now. Fortunately for him neither is McCain, but he can't count on that to last forever.

    The blessing is (none / 0) (#20)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:44:36 PM EST
    we've all done it numerous times, and we're pretty good at figuring out what the comments were supposed to say. I knew what your subject line meant :)

    Dark Comedy (none / 0) (#26)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 09:55:41 PM EST
    It seems that Debra Bartoshevich is so overcome with grief about HRC not winning the nomination that she has decided to vote for the candidate (McCain) who voted to impeach Bill Clinton in 1999.

    More Dark Comedy (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 08:20:04 AM EST
    It seems that John Kerry, who voted for the AUMF, is being praised as a potential running mate for Obama, who ran almost entirely on his anti-war creds.

    It also seems that the Democratic nominee is meeting with far right-wing christian conservatives and talking about his respect for their morals and values.

    Plenty of Dark Comedy to go around lately. And plenty more to come.

    Your 'overcome with grief' snark is repellent to me. Look, I'm not going to vote for McCain, but I do understand some people who will. Maybe you just don't can't understand how enraging the conduct of the democrats has been to many people.


    wierd innit? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:42:58 PM EST
    Although the underlying calculation is that Obama loses and Clinton roars back into power in 2012.

    So Johnny is in a wierd way doing her work for her


    so based on what you said above, you (none / 0) (#71)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:45:42 PM EST
    are preparing to blame clinton if obama loses? did i get that right?

    No (none / 0) (#89)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:01:01 PM EST
    I'll blame Daschle Kerry Kennedy Olberman Tweety Pelosi Kos AdamB...Russert too.

    true, but in the end the one who (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:05:53 PM EST
    is running gets the majority of the blame. i can't exclude anyone from that list but will add brazile.

    And Dean (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:08:25 PM EST
    let's not forget Howard "let's have a national conversation" Dean.

    hangs head! sighs! i forgot! (none / 0) (#105)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:19:42 PM EST
    That goes without saying. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Salo on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:25:54 PM EST
    He's a given.

    Use the "Parent" (none / 0) (#50)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:30:11 PM EST
    tool to see who is being responded to when the thread stops indenting.

    If Sen. Obama gets the nomination . . . (none / 0) (#68)
    by wurman on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 10:44:03 PM EST
    . . . & if he loses, no one--not any person of any consequence--will give a round, brown, rat's rump how he lost or why he lost or who stabbed him in the back . . .

    except the 4 people who will write 400 page books about how the junior senator from Illinois fell from grace.

    And the 4 books will disagree, totally.

    Vidilicet: George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, et alii.

    Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha.  What a bunch of pained, strained, feigned concern about a future that is utterly unknown--even its premises are still unknown.

    Tightrope? heh (none / 0) (#119)
    by Prabhata on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:30:54 PM EST
    Every election and poll shows that the more religious voted for Clinton, and now they are going for McCain (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107989/Religious-Americans-Prefer-McCain-Over-Obama.aspx

    mccain will retain the religeous (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by hellothere on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:06:38 AM EST
    vote that traditinally goes with the republicans. some may sit home but i don't see it as many. the remaining base will fall in line for mccain. there isn't that much division this year. whereas some core democratic voters will most probably peel off and vote for mccain or write in a name. i think many of them will continue to vote down ticket for democrats for the most part.

    Gallup Poll (none / 0) (#152)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:54:38 AM EST
    A recent Gallup poll asked "Is religion an important part of your daily life?"

    • 64% said Yes
    • 35% said No

    • Of those saying yes, they favored McCain over Obama by 47% to 42%

    • Of those saying no, they favored Obama over McCain by 58% to 33%

    • Obama led McCain in the poll by 48% to 42%

    Im still trying to (none / 0) (#187)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:27:00 PM EST
    figure out how "religion" became Thou Shall Not Kill
    (fetuses) and the utilization of quantum physics to force camels through the eye of a needle.

    No (none / 0) (#130)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 11:48:22 PM EST
    I can't even edit my own comments. (Although I can delete mine and re-post correctly.)

    You can email me and ask it be deleted so you can repost. Sorry, thats' a function of Scoop, the blogging program, not my wishes.

    McCain Should Lose the GE (none / 0) (#165)
    by Niffari on Sun Jun 15, 2008 at 12:43:03 PM EST
    There's really no reason to vote for him, I mean that. Unless of course you are really a Republican. Then, good luck to you & McCain.

    I must say that if anyone was doubting the clarity of some Clinton supporters, they might check on this thread. I get the anger over Clinton's loss. How that translates to support for a person who basically disagrees with EVERY major position Hillary supports, I'll never know. I doubt she knows why either.

    Im so mad (none / 0) (#186)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 03:00:51 PM EST
    Im going to ram my head into this brick wall. Something like that.

    Dont discount the number of right wingers whose desire to be "part of" a historic moment by jumping on the proverbial bandwagon outweighs their dedication to self aggrandizing voodoo economics, perpetual war, and punishing the poor.