Kicking Bill Clinton To The Curb

Unlike Jeralyn, I believe this campaign is all but over and Barack Obama will be the nominee. Believing that, most of my thoughts have been focused on how Democrats make sure they do not kick away an election they should win comfortably. What concerns me most is whether the impulse we read from many Obama supporters and in the Media to purge the Democratic Party of its Clinton Wing is the thinking of the Obama campaign. Last night, Josh Marshall provided a variation on this theme:

I think the most revealing thing . . . is that Bill refers to the youtube viral video of Rev. Pfleger as "the movie." In a sense, of course, this is just a triviality of word choice; he's a little out of touch with the lingo. But for me -- maybe just the personal prism through which I see the drama -- it communicates the larger truth: that Bill is a man out of his time, out of his element, which is something painful to watch and must be a unique agony for him to experience.

I find this a dangerous attitude for two main reasons. First, because Marshall seems prepared to toss out the Democratic strength of being able to point to the Clinton Presidency as an example of Democratic governance. Second, it seems to me to show a real contempt for older people, who, in case people have forgotten, STILL vote in higher numbers that the much vaunted youth vote. It is a dangerous game to play. More.

One of the aspects of the Obama image that should be of most concern to Democrats is that his message of hope and change has become, in some sense, a message of disdain and condescension. This is really manifested to me in the discussion of Obama's so-called "Appalachia" problem and the ridicule heaped on older white women who support Hillary.

It is clear to me now that Barack Obama does not have Bill Clinton's gift (and I daresay Hillary Clinton's gift or John Edwards' gift) for demonstrating empathy and concern for the concerns of all voters, but especially working class white voters, seniors and women. His image has taken on a patina of hauteur and disdain. "Elitist" has stuck for a reason. But instead of recognizing this problem, some want to bury the past. Marshall writes:

Bill Clinton was on so many levels the master of the politics of the 1980s and 1990s, the magic with words and connection with people, intuitively sizing up the tempo and undercurrents of the political moment.

(Emphasis supplied.) Here is the danger for Obama - a belief that "connection with people" is so 1990s, that a politician does not need that anymore. I think hardheaded and clear thinking Obama supporters and Democrats need to see this problem and address it. Barack Obama needs to be MORE like Bill Clinton. He needs to think a little bit more like the 1990s Bill Clinton. Because the Obama coalition as it currently exists can win the Presidency, but it could lose it too. Instead of concentrating on expunging Bill Clinton from the political memory, Obama needs to remember what made Bill Clinton a great politician and try to draw from it.

In my view, not addressing this problem in Obama the politician would be the biggest threat to a Democratic victory in the Presidential election.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

Comments closed

< How to Lobby Superdelegates | Will He or Won't He Declare Victory Tonight? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • BTD - you speak for me! (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:03:45 AM EST
    >>>the Obama image that should be of most concern to Democrats is that his message of hope and change and has become, in some sense, a message of disdain and condescension

    but it was the only way the "unity" candidate could win the nomination.

    It is interesting that Josh Marshall (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by TalkRight on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:07:27 AM EST
    can write a post commenting on Bill's choice of words and be critical.. but does he have the courage and comment on Obama's choice of words.. "sweetie" for instance comes to my mind.. what decade is Obama from?

    What makes Josh (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:21:16 AM EST
    think that only the youtube video exists?  

    No doubt there is a longer (movie) version of  Rev. Pfleger's "sermon".


    Well, it looked like B (or lower) movie ACTING! (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:41:56 AM EST
    This is another example of the left blogosphere, the MCM Jr type, aping the MCMers' tendency to take something, anything, often out of context, and use it as a cudgel against the politician (or anyone in public life) they don't favor.

    Did Josh wonder about Obama's mindset and grasp of the present when Obama talked about McCain fulfilling Bush's 4th term this past week???

    Josh is showing way too many High Broderism tendencies lately....


    Without Bill Clinton, there would (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:04:45 AM EST
    be no Obama!@!!

    I think when you say "not (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:07:52 AM EST
    addressing the problem in Obama the politician" you identify the problem right there. He never learned to "respect his elders." Remember how he threw his grandmother off the bus, and she raised him!!!

    You can't blame him for that (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Arjun on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:20:14 AM EST
    She was a "typical white person" remember?

    Respecting elders? (none / 0) (#150)
    by hillspwns on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:08:58 AM EST
    Not to mention cutting in line in front of HRC...

    I'm older than Josh Marshall probably.... (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:31:52 AM EST
    ...but I wouldn't say that makes him a spring chicken. Cluephone Josh, my kids think you're old and probably laugh at some of the quaint expressions you use. But only in private because I did teach them to respect their elders.

    Extremely well put. (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:08:32 AM EST
    Too bad Obama never listens to your advice.

    He and his wife, and everyone they surround themselves with, have an irrational hatred of all things Clinton, including the "politics of the past," where Bill and Hill had to court the votes of "racist bitter low-information hillbillies" to win the White House.

    This irrational hatred, I believe, is what has caused the former Republican Obama bloggers to embrace Obama with such fervor and passion. You see, they were Republicans when Bill was President, and I don't think they ever got over their insitutional revulsion for the man and woman that won twice despite their best efforts.

    Today I heard Obama bloviating about how wonderful HRC was. Just words. No way is he going to change himself to be more like Bill. For Obama, that would truly be becoming the thing you hate. In a weird way, I think it would be against his "principles."

    IMHO as usual.

    True enough, but... (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by magisterludi on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:54:49 AM EST
    Remember Sister Souljah?

    Lisa Williamson, AKA Sister Souljah, was a protege of Benjamin Chavis, who is a big O supporter. I can easily believe the intra-party Clinton hate is based on revenge (especially from this crew).

    BC's smackdown of her was big news, remember?


    good point (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:59:22 AM EST
    You see, they were Republicans when Bill was President, and I don't think they ever got over their insitutional revulsion for the man and woman that won twice despite their best efforts.

    I oftent wondered why comments on say, HuffPo, seemed to repea every republican lie about the so-called scandals of the Clintons


    there seems to be irrational hatred for (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:10:48 AM EST
    a lot more things than the clintons. and btd i am having to politely disagree. i feel no desire to put hatersw in the white house. that to me is extremely dangerous. speaking only for me here!

    Whenever I hear BO say anything nice (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:13:57 AM EST
    about Hillary I want to smash my foot through the tube.

    I don't think he is fit to even speak her name.

    Like Bush, when BO appears on screen, the TV gets turned off.  CLICK!

    (Yup, I guess I'm really really really mad as hell.  And I'm not going to take it anymore!)


    Foolishness. (5.00 / 12) (#5)
    by rooge04 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:09:37 AM EST
    Bill Clinton is a Democrat through and through that we can be proud of. That we SHOULD be VERY proud of. Instead, the Obama camp and the Obama blogs have tried to make him into an old, out-of-touch buffoon. Yes. Our last Great Democratic President was Republican-lite and scandal-filled--as per the left blogs now anyway.  

    Nevermind that Bill had over 60% approval when he left office, something NO other president can claim. But somehow he's become something to be ashamed of.

    What is wrong with these people?  They even throw our last good President under the bus for good measure.

    Yeah and condescending to say the least. Watch how condescending I will be when they beg me for my vote and I deign myself too good to give it.  

    Speaking of buffoons (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:15:51 AM EST
    It's the same people that are avidly advocating Richardson as VP. IMO, that would be a train-wreck of a ticket.

    Like BTD the first time I heard (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by rooge04 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:25:42 AM EST
    Bill Richardson speaking at a panel I couldn't believe he was running for anything. He's a dolt.

    We've (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:00:00 AM EST
    heard Obama sans tele-prompter, would make sense, dumb and dumber.

    would be a trainwreck? already is! (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:12:01 AM EST
    what the dnc just did is called the death knell of this campaign. good luck with anything difference. arrogrance and hubris does not win elections.

    Most Obama supporters like Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#198)
    by Exeter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:26:31 AM EST
    and most Americans, overall, like Bill Clinton. This is just the loudest faction of the Obama camp-- the "stuff white people like" faction -- that is simply delusional about general election voter preferences.

    You do realise that the (none / 0) (#208)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:32:27 AM EST
    stuff white people like blog/site is satirical?

    This dismissing of older voters ... (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:09:38 AM EST
    has been fairly consistent.

    And it's not something Bill Clinton did in 1992, when he was about Obama's age.  He was the darling of seniors, and spoke out aggressively on their issues.

    Also a quick google search found that referring to Youtube videos as "movies" is not uncommon.

    It has been (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:19:37 AM EST
    a consistent theme of Obama's.

    I remember when he essentially said that Hillary was a scary 60's liberal who was stuck in fighting the battles of the past. Her generation was just so 24 hours ago!

    It was just another warning bell in my head that Obama was not who he was trying to appear to be.


    Obama supporters called me "old bittie" (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:44:25 AM EST
    yesterday on Jake Tapper's blog.  "Old bittie" was response to my posting re: the Bork Hearings.

    I hope you corrected their spelling!! (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:57:40 AM EST
    "Old bittie" is spelled "old biddy". If they are going to call people names, one would think they could at least spell the names correctly. Heh.

    hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:01:06 AM EST
    intelligence and stereotyping were never mutually exclusive

    Bill Clinton never disrespected any group (5.00 / 5) (#131)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:58:59 AM EST
    Whereas the Obama campaign seems to have disrespect for more groups than not, and now, realizing it needs the votes of the very groups it has disdained, thinks that complimenting his opponent after using dirty tricks to squeeze her out is going to get her supporters to vote for him. Well, the campaign will have to do better than that, and the Democratic Party will have to re-examine its non-democratic conduct.  I'm sorry, but the gratuitous bashing of Bill Clinton by Purdum to help Obama win over the SDs is a new low in trash-talking journalism. I supported Clark in '04, did not think Kerry was the best candidate but as he won the primaries fair & square, did not smear his opponents, and what he would do as president was clear from both his statements and his long record, I willingly joined the unity campaign behind him. I am open to being persuaded, but it's a much harder sell this time.  

    you are more forgiving that the democratic (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:15:31 AM EST
    core is going to be i think. why forgive? do we honestly believe that all of a sudden obama is going to show respect for the voters his campaign distains in the wh. there are so many red flags here. pay attention to them.

    They Have No Clue (5.00 / 6) (#170)
    by Athena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:16:23 AM EST
    The Creative Class foundation unerlying Obama's rise is possessed of very false power.  In part, the Internet bubble contributes to this - a world of ideas and phrases - where you are just a mouse-click from changing the world.  Wrong.

    But the CC core of Obama's movement totally lacks what Clinton had - class consciousness (unless they immediately know you are not one of them).  Clinton had it in his gut.

    They don't realize who America is - most Americans did not graduate from college, and the high school dropout rate is rising.  

    To them, that's data.  It's not life.

    Class issues for them are academic, and a nice topic for a law review article.  Then it's off to a panel discussion on "The Rise of the Cyberstocracy."


    Did Anyone See Craig Crawford? (5.00 / 7) (#141)
    by Athena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:03:00 AM EST
    In a panel last night on Dan Abrams, discussion of the "unity" ticket.  Roy Whatever from HuffPo, dismissed the idea - too incompatible - "that's like Apple joining with the PC."  

    To which Craig replied:  "There's a lot more PCs."


    Mac vs PC? (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:19:42 AM EST
    Gee, that's a really interesting thought. THis whole thing is lot like Mac vs PC in the way a certain cult-like subset of Mac users consider themselves so much more hip and with it and in the know compared to us old fogey PC users.  Hmmm.  Lotta parallels there, I think.

    Disdain at its Core (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Athena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:24:46 AM EST
    Indeed - that's what Roy was suggesting - new and hip - and as a result totally incompatible with the old fogies.  And a disdain for the old.

    That's why Craig's smckdown of where the numbers are hit so hard.


    while being able (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:24:58 AM EST
    to run about half as much software.

    Bill clinton may confuse movie and video (5.00 / 17) (#7)
    by Arjun on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:11:02 AM EST
    But at least he knows the difference between Auschwitz and Buchenwald.  

    If confusing two trivial things like 'movie' and 'video' puts you out of your element, then what exactly does confusing two concentration camps put you out of?

    And I would (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:01:53 AM EST
    hazard to guess Bill knew he was running for FIFTY states instead of 116

    Bush's 4th term (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:21:55 AM EST
    Great Lake in, where was it, Oregon?  Arabic translators in Afghanistan, on and on and on.

    Give me the guy who knows what language they speak in Pakistan over the guy who knows "viral video" from YouTube, thanks.


    Oops. Try that again... (none / 0) (#185)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:23:10 AM EST
    Bush's 4th term (none / 0) (#184)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:22:32 AM EST
    Great Lake in, where was it, Oregon?  Arabic translators in Afghanistan, on and on and on.

    Give me the guy who knows what language they speak in Afghanistan over the guy who knows "viral video" from YouTube, thanks.


    I think it's more simple than that (5.00 / 11) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:11:05 AM EST
    The fact that Marshall quibbles over a word choice only shows that he finds what Pfleger said acceptable.

    Nothing at all ever needs to be said more about Marshall.

    All the other things talked about here are important, but if one is interested in winning in November, before one can even address Obama's weakness with certain demographics, one needs to address, OBAMA NEEDS TO ADDRESS, people like Marshall.

    And kick them to the curb.

    Simple as that.

    First step on the road to Unity.

    If one is interested in winning in November.

    Politics of the past...right (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:11:11 AM EST
    except in the WSJ today the Obama campaign is talking about wanting Clinton supporters like M Albright and others to join team Obama.

    Now they're good enough? I (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:16:20 AM EST
    go back to Geraldine Ferraro, if Obama were a white senator from IL with the sort of experience he touts (which I don't believe one could call real experience)he wouldn't be where he is. For a candidate of "change" the only change I've seen is more divisiveness and disengenuous, disgusting propaganda!!!

    Excuse me (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by cmugirl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:19:31 AM EST
    This is no in anyway ladylike, and my mother would not be proud, but I think Bill should smile sweetly and tell the Obama folks to go f--k themselves and then take a vacation.

    Vacation? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by marianne on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:25:41 AM EST
    Sounds good. Maybe we Clinton supporters should take a little vacation from political engagement until, say, December?

    my sentiments exactly! (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by NJDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:26:19 AM EST
    the personal attacks on both the Clintons and attempted destruction of WJC's presidential legacy is one of the reasons I could never vote for Obama.  

    I may have been impressed (none / 0) (#27)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:20:21 AM EST
    with that once.

    But now, it seems like Team O is playing a two faced game.  Reaching out with one hand, and ignoring the very reasons that Team O is perceived as being willing to discard any demographic that is resistant to Obama's charm.

    First Team O needs to make it clear that the Clintons are friends and allies.  Then they can reach out to their supporters.

    Otherwise, it will be perceived as false.  


    After saying HRC wanted him dead (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:30:31 AM EST
    and accusing her and Bill of racism, I won't believe one word out of Obama's mouth regarding his friendship with the Clintons.

    He needs to show his contrition with actions, not words.


    Oh, really? Just going to throw (1.00 / 3) (#166)
    by independent voter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:14:59 AM EST
    that out there with no DATA to back it up? You like to get called out, don't you. And don't do your usual avoidance of sneeringly telling me to look it up. If you are going to make those kinds of claims, you need to support them in your comment.

    LOL! (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:26:10 AM EST
    Yes, I am trying to get called out by posting information that most people on this site are perfectly well aware of without needed to look it up.

    I am not avoiding you, I am laughing at you.

    You just keep reading my mind, independent voter. Maybe tomorrow you'll tell me the Lotto numbers!


    here's a clue for YOU (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:34:04 AM EST
    Jesse Jackson really did win SC in 1984 and 1988 but didn't become the Dem nominee.
    It really did take a president (Johnson) to implement Dr. King's dream.
    Robert Kennedy really was assassinated in JUNE during the 1968 primary.

    These are historical facts - but in ObamaWorld they're racist statments!

    With Obama's 20-year education in race-baiting and hatemongering, just think how as president he could ruin the reputations of other good people who disagree with him.


    some of them like richardson (none / 0) (#171)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:16:57 AM EST
    and a few others will join. others with some understanding of politics will sit this one out.

    Regional prejudice plays a big role here (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by Jim J on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:11:34 AM EST
    As a Southerner it's been painfully obvious to me that a lot of the dynamic in this primary is about regional prejudice. Notice Obama's big backers -- Ted, Kerry, Dean -- are all typical New England liberal losers. They retain a lot of jealousy that the only two-term Dem since FDR was a Southerner.

    While certainly Hillary is a New York senator, she cut her teeth in Chicago and then Arkansas. They lump her in with her husband as a hayseed that they're too good for. They'd rather lose without them than win with them.

    Yup. They've always thought the Clintons (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:16:55 AM EST
    weren't their kind.  

    Yup. The Clintons were trash from (5.00 / 10) (#36)
    by rooge04 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:24:43 AM EST
    Arkansas and the Midwest. Bill's mother Virginia (I ADORED her) was trashy. She had big hair and a foul mouth.  Neither one of them are blue-bloods. It absolutely KILLS them that Bill and Hillary went to Yale and were more intelligent than them. It kills people like Kerry that someone like Bill Clinton, from his poor background and volatile upbringing is a brilliant man AND that people love him.

    The Clintons never belonged. That's why the Dems helped kill universal healthcare in 1993. It's why they turned on them both on a dime...as soon as there was another elite like them to get behind.  

    Al Gore? I remember thinking "Why would you distance yourself from a popular president, beloved by Dems and moderates alike?"  Apparently I in my 21 yr old wisdom knew more about winning than Donna Brazile back then.  And I still do.

    They will lose with their Northeast Harvard Educated, Worldy Liberal. As long as that White Trash Man's WIFE doesn't win. Shudder


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:51:35 AM EST
    But recall, Massachusetts went big time for Hillary Clinton, despite Kennedy and Kerry.  Our state legislature overwhelmingly backed Clinton also.

    As an MA native, I'm going to (none / 0) (#109)
    by dk on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:51:42 AM EST
    stick up for New England here.  Remember, MA, NH, RI went solidly (in MA and RI, overwhelmingly) for Clinton.  I think if Maine had had a primary instead of a caucus, Clinton would have done solidly there too.  

    I give Dean some credit.  Yes, since he's the leader of the party he has to take responsiblity for the mess that the party made.  But I get the sense from observing all of this from the outside that others in the party bear a lot more of the blame than he does.  And as for Kennedy and Kerry, all I can say is that in this case, they were woefully out of touch when it came to the opinions of their own constituents.


    Then the good (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:04:17 AM EST
    people of Massachusetts need to primary their asses and boot them out of office

    I don't think the two of them (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:12:02 AM EST
    really cared about what their constituencies thought on this one. They have been helping to promote Obama's candidacy from his first speech at the convention.  I don't know if they are anti-Hillary or just pro-Obama.

    My opinion is that (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by dk on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:24:06 AM EST
    they were thinking like BTD.  I.e., Clinton had too much baggage to overcome, and Obama seemed charasmatic enough to pull it off.

    It would be interesting to know if, in private, they now have the same concerns that BTD has.


    I give Dean no credit. (none / 0) (#148)
    by rooge04 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:07:34 AM EST
    He has been nothing but a disappointment in every way. First order of business: disenfranchise FL and MI.

    brazile is from louisana i think. (none / 0) (#181)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:21:48 AM EST
    of course she is no guidling light on winning elections. but heck neither is the rest of the democratic party with the exception of the clintons. the books that are written about this will show exactly the lack of campaign smarts and common sense these so called leaders have shown. call it what it is. the people aren't stupid; they get it.

    A lot of truth to that (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:42:20 AM EST
    and now apparently Bill Clinton is some kind of an old out of touch rube who doesn't understand that a video is not a movie.  Unbelievable.

    You really have to stop (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:29:00 AM EST
    including Ted Kennedy in this gang of morons with Daschle and Kerry et.  He's not a "loser," he's not even slightly condescending or sneering about Southern or working-class voters, has worked his whole life for people on the bottom of the barrel, and was genuinely close to and supportive of the Clintons up until The Precious came on the scene.

    His motivations for supporting Obama come from stuff way deep in his psyche about his lost brothers, not "creative class" superiority or Clinton hatred.


    Sounds like you have plenty regional (none / 0) (#218)
    by JoeA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:35:41 AM EST
    prejudice of your own there.

    As Bob Somerby so famously stated, (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:12:40 AM EST
    "Have they kidnapped the real Josh Marshall?"

    People like Josh have gotten (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:14:26 AM EST
    an inflated sense of importance.  If Obama had the qualifications, if he had been sincere in his campaigning, if he had, even once, taken a stand on a controversial issue when he had something to lose, if he had demonstrated maturity and statesmanship, I could understand why people were rallying around him.

    But he hasn't!  It's all hype and marketing.  It really makes me question the judgment and of all these blogger boyz.  They're not supporting him out of some deep sense of party loyalty.

    That's judgment (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:15:45 AM EST
    and motives

    hmm, these old(before the great fall) (none / 0) (#194)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:25:36 AM EST
    bloggers are also so yesterday. the new ones on the cutting edge who use common sense like talk left, the confluence, etc will be the wave of the future. whereas after the great fall(november) the old bloggers will be looking for their new little friends, and most of them will be gone on to the next adventure. their old standbys will be long gone to "new, younger" sites that understand reality.

    so those old bloggers need to beware of the names they call.


    2000 redux? (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Demi Moaned on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:14:33 AM EST
    This has so many resonances of 2000, where the Gore campaign felt it needed to distance itself from the Clinton legacy with the result that a Republican candidate who (by previously prevailing standards) should have been unelectable went on to win the election.

    At least Gore campaign (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:40:22 AM EST
    did not slam Clinton -- just tried to run on Gore's own steam, so did not seem hypocritical. The Obama campaign, on the other hand, spends months trashing the Clintons and now wants them to make nice and hand over their voters.  

    I wish I understood exactly why it is that (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:15:09 AM EST
    the elites of the Democratic party hate everything that has to do with the Clintons. It can't be ideology, because the disdain is present across a spectrum that ranges from Kennedy to Daschle. I don't really believe that it could be a disdain for the working class that the Clintons represent. Kennedy, Kerry, Dean and Pelosi might be rich elites, but I don't think they actually have antipathy for the working person.

    Whatever the reason for this antipathy, it's keeping this party weak.

    A lot of people who aren't successful (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:17:03 AM EST
    Resent people who are.

    Envy. (none / 0) (#86)
    by oldpro on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:44:27 AM EST
    They think they're white trash. (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:19:09 AM EST
    They were outsiders (5.00 / 10) (#46)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:27:51 AM EST
    I think it's not antipathy for the working class, just for the Clintons themselves. They came from freaking Arkansas of all places and succeeded where the party insiders had failed. From a Sally Quinn article in 1998: "At a black tie dinner at the British Embassy not long after the Lewinsky scandal broke, you could sense the distinction Washington makes between one of its own -- Vernon Jordan -- and the president he serves, who is not of this town and who will be gone in less than three years, if not sooner."

    Again, according to Quinn, they committed the sin of not inviting the right people to dinner parties.

    In Broder's words, Bill Clinton "trashed the place and it wasn't his to trash."

    DC is a very provincial town. It's not about good governance, it's about power and position.


    Exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:01:18 AM EST
    >>>DC is a very provincial town. It's not about good governance, it's about power and position.

    I used to think it was just the Republicans who trashed Clinton because they didn't want the Democrats to have an icon like Reagan - as FDR passed into history. But now it appears it's the Elites - Repub AND Dem - who allow the Washington and media Establishment to manipulate public opinion to favor their Establishment candidates.


    power and jealousy come to mind. (none / 0) (#199)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:26:33 AM EST
    throw in hubris and arrogance and you have a losing combination as usual.

    You know, I saw Bill Clinton (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:18:20 AM EST
    at the Clinton Global Initiative for three days in New York.  He seemed extremely up on the lingo.  These guys ever think his word choice may be to connect with the audience?

    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by standingup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:42:37 AM EST
    is one of the best at knowing how to connect with his audience, where ever he is speaking.  I doubt the people in South Dakota gave one moments thought to the choice of movie over video.  

    Even when Bill is exhausted from a campaign schedule the last 5-6 months that many of these Obama bloggers could not begin to keep, he could still run circles around them.  And where is the attention to the ridiculously dated words like "sweetie" that we have heard Obama use at least twice?  I could believe an older man falling into the trap of using such a condescending term but Obama is young enough to know better.  


    WKJM = Male Maureen Dowd (none / 0) (#74)
    by Dan the Man on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:40:45 AM EST
    Did Maureen Dowd kidnap Marshall?

    its pod people (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:41:40 AM EST
    no one believes me.  but what else explains it?

    Short Term Memory (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:19:26 AM EST
    Al Gore dismissed Clinton in 2000. It cost him the election. If he hadn't distanced himself from Bill, he would have carried Arkansas and we never would have had to deal with GWB. He is still the most valuable asset the party has. I have never understood the concept of having tearing someone down to build yourself up. That's not leadership.

    No, it's not leadership. (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Fabian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:26:58 AM EST
    I can forgive politicians for being politicians.

    But the POTUS is supposed to be a leader.  Leadership isn't playing Chainsaw Al with the Democratic Party.  


    Josh Marshall and a few (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by TomP on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:19:27 AM EST
    others in the so-called "progressive blogosphere" have shown some real arrogance that I think is class and age based.  The creative class is merely the updated verszion of the yuppies.  By self definition, the are not the majority.  

    But what is wonderful is that there is another generation coming who think Josh is hopelessly old fashioned and another one after that who will think the same about the previous generation ....

    Demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton seems to be an addiction of some in the so-called "progressive blogosphere."  It's wrong, but I expect it to continue even after the nomination.  A few may even see Clinton as a bigger enemy than McCain, which is absurd, but I think for them it is not about politics or issues.  It's something else entirely.  

    I chose Obama about a week before Edwards endorsed him.  I respect Hillary and Bill Clinton and see little difference between the two on the issues.  

    I also agree with what Edwards said about Senator Clinton:

    "She is a woman who, in my judgment, is made of steel, and she's a leader in this country not because of her husband but because of what she has done."

    Hillary Clinton showed a lot of people that she deserved to be where she was because of her own merit, not because of Bill.

    I was thinking the same thing: (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:21:36 AM EST
    But what is wonderful is that there is another generation coming who think Josh is hopelessly old fashioned and another one after that who will think the same about the previous generation ....

    Edwards on Clinton (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:22:23 AM EST



    BTD, I also think that it's only a formality (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:21:46 AM EST
    until the presumptive is removed from Obama's race. I have been thinking deeply about my peronal growing concern about the Obama candidacy.

    Admittedly I am angr over Saturday. But that anger goes to the Clinton campaign's actions then also.

    Here are my concerns, BTD: The Obama supporters appear to me to want to dismantle the new-deal foundation of the party. I am attributing this to the followers, not the candidate.

    Women, blue-collar voters, low-income earners, AAs and other ethnicities are all part of the grand coalition.

    I think there's an attempt to reprudiate not only Bill Clinton, but the makeup of the party itself. Obama talks about unity, and about the party, but then his underlings repudiate Clinton supporters and Clinton arguments.

    Policy-wise, there is little difference, but Bill Clinton sold his policies to the public in understandable terms.

    Rather than ramble on, I must ask... does Obama actually LIKE 'the people?' Or does he think his policies are best for the people, and those that dont support him or his policies 'just don't get it.'

    Geez, still too wordy.

    Is Obama the person his supporters say, or is he like his supporters?

    Don't he and his supporters get the love that people have for the Clintons? PAssion! People love to love them, or love to hate them. PAssion is useful!

    This is about respect, even (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:27:30 AM EST
    if you don't mean it. You respect the ones that layed the path for you. Politics is down and dirty in its nature. But I have never known the disdain being spewed now. For me, it's vote candidate, absent that, it's party, absent that, it's country. I am very afraid for my country.Again, Obama sits on the sidelines and preaches his ideas, never having implemented anything to back anything up, just like his iraq non-vote!!!!!

    It may not be popular here, (none / 0) (#48)
    by TomP on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:30:00 AM EST
    but I think Obama is different from a few of his supporters.  I think he believes in that coalition.  Some of what happened in the primary may have been driven by the need to differentiate from Clinton, who was the leader through much of 2007.  Both sides wanted to win and created differences to try to build support.

    Time will tell.


    He does? Then why does he continually spit on it? (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by rooge04 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:32:48 AM EST
    Why does he tell us voters that vote for that part of the coalition are bitter, gun-clinging, religious racists? Why does he tell me the leader of that coalition was the same as Bush ? Why does he tell me that part of the coalition is all liars and will do anything to win?  

    Please. Obama believes in Obama.  


    Like I said, time will tell. (none / 0) (#61)
    by TomP on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:34:50 AM EST
    I hope Obama will reach out to bring the party together if he is nominated, just as Clinton would if she is.

    Time HAS told. (5.00 / 8) (#63)
    by rooge04 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:35:32 AM EST
    He doesn't give a rat's arse about the Clinton Coalition.  

    oh, he will. (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:40:59 AM EST
    trust me. he will.  I cant wait.

    He could have (5.00 / 9) (#92)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:45:47 AM EST
    brought it together to get noominated. Instead he divided it by levelling false racial charges against the Clintons. The ship has sailed, with a lot of Clinton supporters on board.

    If so, that is unfortunate. (none / 0) (#111)
    by TomP on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:51:58 AM EST
    After Edwards suspended his campaign in late January, I decided that either Clinton or Obama were far better than McCain, so always planned to support whichever one was nominated.  

    People differ.  That's democracy.  Go with your heart.


    And I looked at my two choices left (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:25:03 AM EST
    I had always thought any of the 3 would do wonderfully. Then when Obama went off script, I saw the real him and it wasn't pretty anymore. I saw Hillary as a leader with strength and I liked her stances on issues. Obama is lite on them. Might be the same issues as her but he is not passionate about them. What annoyed me the most was in SC when the Obama campaign panicked and threw in the race card against Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton? Suddenly his Presidency was bad. Yeah, that peace and prosperity was just a bad thing. Bill was a racist. And then you know what DK was like. Apparently you went with the flow and that is fine. But it was also nasty over there and Obama did not even stick up for them as Hillary did. Obama said he looked at the site again and it was about like he figured it was. Probably based upon the flogging he got there in 05 in his support for Roberts and then defending the votes. Obama is not one of you. Heck, he is not one of me either. He has his own agenda. You don't belong to a church for 20 years that sprews disdain for the white person and sounds like radical militants without something sticking. TomP, I respect your opinion and your trying to get us to ride the Unity Pony, but I truely believe that Obama would not make a good President. I believe he had no leadership and a terrible lack of good judgement. He can easily be manipulated by the good Senators who are backing him. They hate Bill Clinton and thus Hillary too. They do not like that even in his lowest personal days, the public supported him with resounding confidence. Then know that Hillary will not just bend over for them in the WH. And THIS time they know she has the power to push for the right health care program. Bill connected with the people in the 90's. Hillary connected with the people this primary. I will not vote for someone who I believe will not make the Democratic Party proud.  

    Well if I followed my heart (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by Redshoes on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:25:50 AM EST
    I wouldn't vote for Obama -- it's a sad day when the republican nominee issues a brief but heart-felt defense of HRC but her democratic rival fails to defend her and instead was "deeply disappointed" for himself.

    I'm voting my head for the democratic nominee because of those on the margins -- even though I think he's a puppet and lacking even the basic values of empathy and gratitude.

    But as Camus notes:  "The heart has reasons that reason cannot know"


    He has burned (5.00 / 7) (#107)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:51:08 AM EST
    many, many bridges in this candidacy, made humongous irreparable mistakes.  He won't get some of us back -- ever.  Neither will his coalition.

    I'd be more inclined (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by standingup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:21:25 AM EST
    to believe you if you could provide one example of Obama reaching out to unite and bridge the gap.  So far he has shown arrogance in assuming that Clinton supporters will fall in line behind him as the nominee.  He will have to do one he!! of a lot of work to reach voters in rural Missouri with his unfortunate statements at the fundraiser in San Francisco.  And his remarks about the people in Kentucky being lost to him because of Fox News and email campaigns are telling too.  I have seen little from Obama to convince me he has any idea of how to lead the party in November.  

    Obama is not different from his (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:37:31 AM EST
    supporters because he knew what was going on and didn't stop it. He, himself, practiced it. To differentiate yourself from another, you talk about yourself. You build up your bio, not trash some else's (unless you have a very weak bio). To say "change" is coming doesn't speak to what change. When you are on all sides of all issues,  it's negative (uncommitted) change. When you tell people you don't want them in your party, it's negative change. I'll stop!!

    The Russians have a saying - (5.00 / 9) (#120)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:56:31 AM EST
    "the fish rots from the head down."

    Either Obama is one of them, or he can't control them.  The choice is poor character or poor leadership.


    B-b-but he transcends having (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:00:13 AM EST
    to simply say what he wants...he only needs to send it to his followers by telepathy and they will understand and obey!!!

    i don't need time to tell me anything. (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:29:13 AM EST
    i trust my judgement and it tells me to run like heck as fast as i can from these folks.

    Oh, my (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:22:13 AM EST
    Just when I think it can't get any worse--
    it does.
    These Obamafolk must really, really want to lose the GE, or else they are guilty of magical thinking.
    I suspect it's the second option.

    FYI: Bill Clinton is NOT old. (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by Shainzona on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:22:49 AM EST
    If Bill is old, then so am I and I totally reject that characterization.

    I am a 62 years old women who spent 25 successful years in adverting in NYC and then went to law school and practiced immigration law for 8 years before "retiring" so I have time to enjoy the world around me...I swim 4 miles a week, walk and bike 5 days a week and have never felt better...never.

    My mind is sharper, more thoughtful and, if I might say so myself, smarter than any time in my life.

    So kick Bill to the curb and I'll be right there, too.


    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:49:02 AM EST
    Bill is not old by any measure. Besides, my 80 yr old father uses the internet every day for gods sake.  Does JMM think it is still the tool of only the young and elite?

    I refer to videos as movies and cds as records constantly.  It is just a manner of speaking.


    Actually, let me go further (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:23:43 AM EST
    It's time to place the blame at the top.
    Senator Obama, what say you?

    it is a movie (5.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:26:22 AM EST
    Im really starting to hate these people.

    BTD (5.00 / 11) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:27:00 AM EST
    I give you an A for effort and honesty on this issue but what you are proposing isn't going to happen. Obama has had 6 months to try to expand his coalition and has failed to do so.

    Obama's problems are his ego (he obviously thinks there's nothing that needs to be changed) and cultural. There's really nothing that can be done about these things. There's not a VP candidate alive that will solve his problems.

    In the end, if the party leadership doesn't care about his problems why should we? They seem to be just as out of touch with the electorate as Obama is. Will losing a "sure bet" election wake them up? Who knows?

    "Will losing . . ." (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:29:03 AM EST
    it didnt seem to do much in 2000 or 2004

    How silly (5.00 / 9) (#45)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:27:33 AM EST
    Look, it's just dumb to point to the single word "movie" as a cosmic sign that Bill Clinton has lost his connection with voters.  This is Josh Marshall trying to prove he can be vapid enough to write for the MSM, that's all.  It's simply an absurd point.

    Little People who want to be big! (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:33:23 AM EST
    Too many of our progressive thinkers have become too impressed with themselves to bother with trivial matters like facts. Evidently the Clinton people didn't kiss the pinky ring and bow low enough!

    BTD, you can't conjure empathy (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by soccermom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:33:47 AM EST
    It's a personality thing. Either you have it, or you don't. When he attempts to be empathetic it falls flat.....arugala, anyone.

    and yes (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:34:29 AM EST
    he was a republican.  but that is no excuse.  so was I. once.

    as were Kos and Huffington... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by NJDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:44:47 AM EST
    Truly bizarro world!

    More of the arrogance ... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:35:58 AM EST
    from a DK front page diary:

    Obama can lose via any one of a variety of ways, but McCain can't win.

    I don't even know what that means.  But I think the import of the statement is Obama controls the election.

    BTW, I read the rest of the diary.  It didn't really clarify the point.

    I get this all the time (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:55:46 AM EST
    from locals.  I am in Il.  McCain cant win.  the "people" will never elect a republican.  honestly.
    what do you even say to someone who is that clueless.
    were you alive through the last two elections?  do you have a teevee?  do you EVER talk to ANYONE but another Obamabot?
    I am getting quite remote from it.  it is actually becoming sort of fun to watch.  I seriously and looking forward to this election.
    its going to be fun.  once you remove yourself from the horror that will result from it, I mean.

    I have reached a decision from listening to it.  I will not vote for Obama.  not sure what I will do, I have never, being a true yellow dog, been in this position before. but,
    I want Marshal and Kos and Aravosis to lose far far more than I want Obama to win.  in fact I dont think I want Obama to win.  he scares me.  and his flying monkey scare me even more.


    I'm reminded of a remark from the '88 election (5.00 / 3) (#230)
    by blcc on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    when Dukakis lost to Bush in a landslide:  

    A woman from the Upper West Side was quoted expressing her bewilderment at the results "but everyone I know voted for Dukakis!"


    I will probably vote for him. (none / 0) (#157)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:11:52 AM EST
    I'm also a yellow dog, and I want the presidency.

    I also can't wait to see what happens after November. Remember, Obama throws people under the bus when they aren't useful any more!

    I'm reminded of a quote by Mikhail Bakunin, "Anyone who makes plans for after the revolution is a reactionary."

    Well, there are a lot of reactionary folk, it seems...


    I want the presidency too (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:33:46 AM EST
    but I can wait four years.  I do not want the Obama wing of the party in charge for 4 or 8 years.  just dont.  they scare me more than McCain.  and more importantly, I will not help them rout the people I care about from the party.
    if that makes me a bad person I can live with that.

    Actuallt I think that post is right (none / 0) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:39:34 AM EST
    What it does not do is articulate the ways Obama can lose. I think I talk about the main way here.

    Okay ... (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:55:39 AM EST
    but it just reminds me of those things Little League coaches would say.  

    "They didn't beat us, we beat ourselves."

    No, coach, they actually beat us.


    with all due respect btd, the mindset of (none / 0) (#216)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:34:36 AM EST
    the obama campaign is not going to change. you and jeralyn are on record as being a consistent and realistic bloggers in this chaos of 2008. that means a lot.

    With this kind of mindset (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:38:23 AM EST
    Obama, Inc will absolutely deserve the colossal landslide loss they will get in November.

    Bitter yes?  Clinging to religion or guns? No.

    I will always cling to the truth that a Clinton presidency was FAR better than any Bush one.  I have been alive since 1967, and the Dems have given me TWO winners in my lifetime, so their judgment and credibility is severely lacking right now.

    another one tossed under the bus (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:39:08 AM EST
    Tossing people under the bus is what Obama and his supporters do best. That's of course a bit of a glib way to say it, but really this prevalent negative approach to people that happen to be different than you or have a different opinion is not very helpful. Not that us Clinton supporters are always at our best either, but then we're the underdogs in a corner fighting. They, if they really believe they are going to win, have no excuse. I can only conclude it's part of who they are. Which makes me worry that an Obama administration and their core followers would be on par with a dubya administration (and his core 25 or 30% who see no wrong in him) in it's bullying and callous attitudes. Perhaps not the message they want to send.

    once again, mr. marshall (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by cpinva on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:41:05 AM EST
    displays the hubris and, frankly, ignorance that he's become (in)famous for during the entire primary campaign. in his defense, he's merely channeling the obama campaign, which has decided the sen. doesn't need the core democratic constituency to win in nov. another prime example of that vaunted "new politics".

    perhaps they're right. maybe all us old fogies, who vote religiously every election, will be washed away by the tidal wave of new voters in the 18-25 year-old range, that have registered during the primary season. perhaps.

    possibly (should sen. obama be the dem. nominee), he'll be swept to the white house by that force of nature he's unleashed known as the "youth vote". possibly.

    more likely, as with every election held since 18 year-olds got the franchise, they'll show up in pitifully small numbers, barely registering a bump on the richter scale.

    we'll be witnessing the inauguration of pres. mccain next jan.

    Because Barack Obama has been so busy (5.00 / 8) (#83)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:44:03 AM EST
    making short-sighted decisions to help win himself the nomination, he has lost sight of the long-term strategy that he will need in order to win the general election.  He not only distanced himself from the Bill Clinton presidency to the point where it would be hard to tell from listening to Obama that we even had a president from 1992-2000, but he and his surrogates took the low road against Hillary at every opportunity.  Obama feared the support from the black community might go to Hillary, so they cast the Clintons as racist - something that a lot of people are not going to forgive him for, especailly when added to the long list of other despicable actions and comments.

    It's one thing to run against someone's policies and plans, but it's another thing altogether to do to the Clintons what the Obama campaign has done.  And that is not going to heal, it is not going to just magically go away, people are not just going to understand.

    I have to say that if Obama is the nominee, he is going to have a very hard time getting past the visual of looking down his nose at John McCain - I know he won't be able to help it because he is taller, but the images, combined with his attitude, are going to really hurt.

    I'd try to feel bad about that, but I just can't seem to work up any sympathy for Obama.

    You are spot on... also, in swing states older (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Exeter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:44:21 AM EST
    voters make up a much higher percentage of the population.  In fact, Florida is the "oldest" state in the country.  Pennsylvania, is number two... then West Virginia, Iowa, Missouri checks in at 13th, Ohio at 15th, Wisconsin at 20th, and Oregon rounds out the "older half" of states.  

    This vote is huge. As AARP study of voters 50 and over in battleground states in 2000 election shows, they were clearly the most important swing vote.

    this (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by tek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:45:25 AM EST
    will be the thing that come back to bite Obama in the butt, in the end. (no pun intended).  Barack Obama is the one who's out of touch and a bigger ingrate never drew breath.  If it weren't for older Democrats, there could be no Obama candidacy.  But what has been done can always be undone.  Obama's candidacy will set this country back 100 years in race relations.

    Boil that Dust Speck (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:48:31 AM EST
    This is exactly what frightens me about the new coalition.  New Bolsheviks indeed.

    There is no sense of limits, no empathy for others, not even a sense of when they are acting counterproductively or destroying the path to their own goals.  

    Just winning isn't enough, no, they have to utterly destroy all in their path.

    They claim to have won the contest; they've already planned their victory celebrations; yet they are still earnestly trying to destroy Bill Clinton's legacy.  Mindboggling.

    At least the Reagan Revolution, as revolting as it was, was in significant part ideological.  But this, this is just the mob dragging out the guillotines.

    My 19 year old son, whom (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:55:03 AM EST
    I've brought up to be a Dem. and who voted last march, says that his generation is not very smart, and very nilly-willy...he, of course, is worldly, smart, polite,respectful and before he voted, I told him to get informed about each candidate (I didn't influence him at all). He did and made his choice. He voted Hillary because of her experience and understands the complexities of the world. My guess is he will also vote dem. in Nov.

    Marshall & TPM, etc., were dumped by me (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by wurman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:49:44 AM EST
    About 4 years ago, I pixeled away from the TPM electronic rag because it was populated, to a very large extent, by DC insiders--junior, sub-assistant legislative aides, pompous bureaucrats, middle-level worker bees from law firms & lobby or PR shops, and some remarkably obtuse folks with various non-profits.  They waste a great deal of bandwidth currying each other--sort of like chimps sitting around & picking at fleas or other parasites.  And my-oh-my, how perfectly that term fits.


    Since they have convinced themselves it's no longer possible to feast off the Clinton beast, it looks like a fine time to jump onto another source of sustenance.  Sen. Obama is merely fresh meat to those people.

    That sums it right up (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Valhalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:09:22 AM EST
    their allegiances are to power, not ideology.

    Certainly better stated than my comment! (none / 0) (#211)
    by wurman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:33:27 AM EST
    But not quite as colorful, perhaps.

    National practice (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:51:06 AM EST
    of generational cannibalism followed by a nice vintage of disdain.  First of all Josh has proven that he lacks any kind of analytical or critical thinking skills.  He just spews out stuff and thinks it's "modern journalism" .  That attitude is in those new liberals.  They always talk about "how stupid" American voters are.  I have never seen such hatred of the alleged people, they tell us they want to help.  

    so after the election what possible reason (none / 0) (#221)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:38:53 AM EST
    would anyone have to visit his site. sure the obama supporters might go there right now. later? naw! so he has then lost his old audience. his creds are shot. he'll have to start over and many will remember this. i for one thought he was on his way to the big time. i don't now.

    Shakespere was all about the tragic flaw (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:52:20 AM EST
    You may have hit upon Obama's tragic flaw. The part of himself that he can't fix and will doom him in the end. He lacks empathy for others. The Bitter-Cling remarks were classic. He appears to regard the people he claims to be trying to help as lab animals. Being an only child will do that.

    Immaturity (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:53:03 AM EST
    Let me get this straight - I'm supposed to conclude something significant about the fact that JMM's generation calls it a video and Bill called it a movie? Jeezus - does JMM ever write anything substantive anymore? It's hard for me to take any of these guys seriously anymore - they are so immature.

    This post reminds me of something that I've been thinking about during this political drama. The contempt for the previous generation shown by the young Obama supporters is interesting to me because I see the same thing all the time in academia. Young scientists (especially grad students) are often arrogant and constantly dissing older scientists' ideas and pointing out their mistakes. They are too immature to recognize that they stand on the shoulders of those who came before. Many times I've had to gently suggest that a grad student not write that tempting paper trashing an older scientist for their mistakes lest their hubris come back to haunt them. Everyone makes mistakes and most of them also make contributions. I mean Darwin made a lot of mistakes because he didn't know about plate tectonics and Mendelian genetics but that doesn't mean we throw out his contributions to evolutionary biology.

    I'm only 40, but I have a different perspective - I see a great chain of those who came before with all their mistakes but all their positive contributions too, and we can learn from all of it, including the mistakes.

    The same thing holds in politics or any other field. The youf are often filled with hubris and disdain for those who came before (until they get a little older and the same mistakes are made towards them). Bill Clinton made some mistakes and, yes, he's part of an older generation that calls it a movie - shocking! But Josh and the rest could learn a lot from him if they weren't so contemptuous and immature. It is always tempting to trash your elders instead of learning something.

    IMO, BTD is right - this stuff really turns older people off.

    I think they forget who invented (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:32:43 AM EST
    the things that they are using so effectively in this campaign. I was around when the "internet" was a small cluster of government computers called ARPAnet until someone said, "What else can we use this for?"  Talk about "unintended consequences"? 8^)

    It is... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Jackson Hunter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:54:08 AM EST
    It is true, as was Kos (not a slam, but a fact).  Hell, John Cole who calls us all the most vilest names on earth, voted for Bush in 2004!  After a lifetime of having his head you know where, he tells me, a man who has voted straight Dem for 20 years, that I'm not a loyal Democrat.  Well, I show him more dignity than he shows us, and I'll respect Jeralyn and BTD's admonitions not to bash other Bloggers, but I will say this.  John Cole has one H*lluva lot of corpses to answer for, and until he sends out 4000 letters of condolence to the grieving parents of our Soldiers fighting for a war that he looked at, in 2004 I remind you, and said "Yeah, I want me four more years of that!", I won't be going to him for any "political analysis".

    BTD, they hate the Clintons.  They hate us for not kissing their candidates ring.  And. I. Never. Will.  And, to honest, they are so blinded by their certainty that it's scary.  Maybe I'm wrong and this haughty, Harvard educted (which is great btw, but a lot of people go to Harvard and don't become elitist, although I'm sure that it helps-:)) who hangs out with a bunch of 60's radicals (again, no bother for me, I probably would have been one myself if I wasn't born so late) and has such an aura of arrogance is going to beat a man that spent five years in a tiger cage getting the crap kicked out of him on a daily basis, but I'll believe it when I see it.  

    Okay, THAT was a run-on sentence, eh?  LOL

    BTW, I will never vote for McCain or Nader, you don't have to vote for president, you can leave it blank.  I'm in WA state, which will probably go Obama but it will be close.  The Regressives are gunning for our Governor hard, but of course you probably know that, so turnout is key.  They Regressives will be energized, while maybe we won't be.  Gregoire and Cantwell are getting my vote, but not Obama.  But I'll gleefully be here with you bashing the crap out of McCain, and I'll just shut up about Obama and hope we only lose by a little.  I'm sorry, a vote for him is to reward a dirty, vile campaign run by his associates, if not himself.  No deal.  But I will beat on McCain like a kettle drum.  :)


    This desire to "purge" the party (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by kempis on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:57:11 AM EST
    is precisely why I left it and changed my registration, after 32 years, to Independent. I don't stay where I'm not welcome.

    I don't know what this "new and improved" Democratic party stands for, but it clearly stands against the working class. I'm one of those old dinosauric New Deal Dems, so I'm without a party now.

    And another they're accomplishing with this foolishness (and is IS foolishness because that 2006 Midterm election depended on turning out the working class vote, and the world hasn't changed drastically in the past two years) is that they are making it easier and easier for those of who've been alienate to NOT vote for Obama in November.

    If Obama is the candidate of these people who are taking over and purifying the party so that it stands firmly for...hipness, then I honestly don't know whether I should support his election--at all. Perhaps I should even work actively against it. I'm going to have to think long and hard about this.

    sorry about the typos.... n/t (none / 0) (#126)
    by kempis on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:58:01 AM EST
    It sounds more like arrogance (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by environmentally blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:58:40 AM EST
    and elitism displayed by Obama and his supporters, to me.

    I sure hope you're wrong and the leaders are smart for a change, unlike what we got to witness by that horrible RBC and choose Hillary as the nominee.  Otherwise, the D's are toast.

    Michelle: Bloggers lie, take that Josh (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:04:51 AM EST
    "The way this campaign has been run is the way we need to be forever," Obama said. "Don't trust bloggers or someone else's opinion, because people lie."

    Not the MSM, not MSNBC, not other media, bloggers.  

    She needs to be (none / 0) (#151)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:08:59 AM EST
    More specific.

    It's hillarious (none / 0) (#161)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:12:26 AM EST
    the lies of their campaign fed through bloggers and MSM got them this far, otherwise they have nothing.  

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:18:36 AM EST
    Just in terms of a Unity gesture, what's she doing, calling you and I liars?

    Some gesture.

    Maybe it was stupid for me to think of it like that.


    Trashing was the strategy (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Sunshine on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:07:17 AM EST
    Obama didn't decide to run for President until he felt sure he could trash the Clinton's and take the black vote completely...  I could not understand how the AA's in one week could change from supporting Hillary to supporting Obama by 92% until the videos started to come out on the pastors....  If they start looking they will find many more than the 2 that we now know of...  This had nothing to do with Bill Clinton's statements in SC... Just look at how far they had to reach to make his statements racism.... This had been planned much longer as to how to do both Hillary and Bill in...

    Of course it was (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:11:29 AM EST
    the only coalition Obama created was by breaking in the most despicable way, the Clinton connection with AAs, by painting them racist.  This is one of the three core issues I cannot in any way support Obama and his "movement".  All he did is destroy, he has not built.  

    Karen Tumulty is not bright (5.00 / 5) (#168)
    by herb the verb on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:16:01 AM EST
    By Karen Tumulty on The Newshour.

    An exerpt:
    "GWEN IFILL: Now, Karen, how much of this is emotion? And how much will practicality rule of the day?

    KAREN TUMULTY: Well, you know, it's not unusual for supporters at the end of a long and bruising primary -- and, as Adam says, this has been longer and more bruising than most -- to feel this way.

    And you hear a lot of pundits, even party leaders, pointing to polls that suggest that a third or more of Hillary Clinton supporters will say that, in November, they will not vote for Barack Obama.

    But if you look back at history, if you look back at the polling that was done, say, of people who voted for Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party in 1976, or people who voted, you know, in 1984 for Gary Hart, you often find these kinds of percentages, somewhere between 30 percent and 40 percent, saying, "I am not going to support that other person.""

    Read that again, the stupid just burns and burns and burns like a million suns. "But if you look back at history" Karen my cognitively dissonant friend you would notice that every single example you gave, that nominee LOST IN NOVEMBER! Why didn't you just throw in Carter/Kennedy in 1980 while you were at it?

    My sweet, sweet goodness gracioius.

    This is not just a problem with Obama *supporters* (5.00 / 5) (#172)
    by outsider on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:17:09 AM EST
    I am genuinely surprised that nobody has noticed that, at a philosophical level, Obama's message is self-contradictory.  It consists of two parts:

    (1) Unity and post-partisanship - building bridges across old divides, healing wounds in order to get things done.  A "new" coalition.

    (2) Change - being a clean broom through Washington. Out with the old, in with the new.  The old politics has failed us, etc.

    These two messages are in fundamental tension.  You cannot say, on the one hand, that you want to bring everyone together, and then say, on the other, that certain people and groups are part of the problem, and not the solution.  If you say the latter, you are setting yourself up for a confrontation with those groups.  A change candidate has to say "there are people who we need to get rid of to make politics work again, because they have failed us."  A post-partisan candidate has to say, "There is nobody who I do not respect, or who I will not work with to implement the people's business."

    You can't get away with both.  At times, Obama's change message has been so extreme and divisive that it's no wonder his supporters now ridicule people  - e.g. seniors, people who don't use the internet regularly, etc. - who are not part of the exciting new coalition.  Obama's core message has often been that anyone with more experience of national politics than him (and let's face it, that's 99% of Washington) is part of the problem, not the solution (witness, for example, his views on what counts as appropriate foreign policy experience).  That will upset supporters of those politicians - notably, Clinton supporters.  In fact, one of the weirdest phenomena of this primary battle is the number of Dems on the Hill and elsewhere that have been happy to say, in effect "Yeah, he's right, we're all fuddy-duddies.  Give us hell, Obama!".  Instead of, presumably, "Look, I was fighting for issues like a woman's right to choose and healthcare when you were still writing essays at kindergarten about how you want to be president some day.  So give us some respect."

    Anyway, a long rant, but you get the idea...

    "Change" is happytalk (none / 0) (#232)
    by marianne on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:52:43 AM EST
    for "raze and rebuild", judging by the actions of our current administration. To achieve the desired state of a greater good, it seems, one must first destroy all vestiges of the offending past, then exterminate the  current occupying vermin that prevent us from achieving our unclouded vision of a more perfect future. Only after all this necessary purging can we achieve our new Eden.

    Except that the specifications of that idyllic place exist only and, quite subjectively, in the minds of the visionaries who contract and/or carry out the project.

    Scary, when the latest such visionary is an unknown quantity.


    And Josh isn't even accurate (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:19:43 AM EST
    in his distinction.  In the Mac world they ARE often referred to as movies (e.g. Quicktime Movies).  In the PC World there's a tool called "Windows MOVIE Maker" for cutting your digital video.  Even YouTube says in order upload to them, you need a tool that can capture a digital MOVIE. As a LIBERAL (right) he should accept that different people IN THIS DAY AND AGE call them both video and movies, and that both are acceptable terms.

    Of course, the New Democratic Party ISN'T liberal, and is one of small tent, very, very, small -- and apparently not very techy at all in Josh's case, if he doesn't get that the term 'movie' is also accurate.

    If he's going to criticize Bill for using old whipper snapper terminology, he needs to be accurate.  Bill is an old whipper snapper, and the majority of DEMOCRATIC voters think that's a good thing.

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:22:23 AM EST
    Here's the YouTube help page where YouTube videos are frequently referred to as 'movies'.  You gotta upload the movie, etc.


    End of lesson in how Josh doesn't have good depth of knowledge in terminology.


    The venom is sad (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:23:28 AM EST
    and you have warned and warned and warned starting long ago that this is where the party is headed, down this very dark road, but few other bloggers were able to stay objective and the media has had a heck of time even coming close.  I don't think the nomination is locked up yet, but somehow a party has to come together.  I was impressed with Clinton's presidency.  I feel that he did a lot to improve the American quality of life and the quality of life for some of the world.  He continues daily to apply himself to the global condition.  He is an extremely effective leader with an amazing legacy developed after 12 yrs of Republican leadership and voodoo economics, and he champions the causes of the Democratic party.  Those are the facts, and he is more than just his ideas.  He is flesh and blood just like the rest of us and he exudes that.  So does Hillary Clinton.  It isn't just Obama supporters who treat Obama like he's a messiah, Obama himself seems to believe he is some sort of messiah.  It creeps me out, can't help it.  It creeps me out because we are all just mortals and nobody has had to deal with the reality of our mortality bashing up against our ideals of late like the military and its families.  I suppose that is why he really really creeps me out.  I've seen his kind in uniform, they've gotten a lot of people killed and most of them split when things went to hell because they couldn't handle the reality of the blood and the loss when it turned out that nobody was a god and nobody was a messiah.

    just my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by cigan on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:29:44 AM EST
    The disdain for Bill Clinton may also come from jealousy in that he is the only proven winner for the presidency. Look at Obama's supporters now:  Kennedy, Edwards, Kerry, Richardson, McGovern, Dodd, Dean (undeclared) and the great campaign manager, Donna "my Momma done told me" Brazile.  Even Carter only won once and could not hold onto it. Daschle could not hold his own Senate seat.  

    You are right, in part. (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by AX10 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:33:45 AM EST
    These people you mentioned, are also insiders.
    Clinton was an outsider from a small southern state.
    The Washington elite could not stand that an outsider, more so a "hick" won the Presidency, TWICE, where all others failed.
    Kennedy, Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Brazille, etc... cannot stand the fact that an outsider succeeded where they the insiders failed time and time again.

    Again, again, again (5.00 / 4) (#209)
    by lambert on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:32:40 AM EST
    The reason there has been no attempt at unification with the Clinton wing -- the majority of Democratic voters, let us remember -- is that the Obama Movement doesn't want it. (You can hardly smear your opponent as calling for your assassination and then unify with them, eh? This is not sharp-elbowed politics; this is an attempt to drive your opponent from public life.)

    And the reason the Obama Movement doesn't want that, again, is that control of the party machinery is more important to them than winning the election.

    Paranoid fantasy:

    No doubt part of the "shock therapy" to come will be a government of national unity, which greatly devalues the office of the Presidency...

    As for "be more like Bill Clinton" -- if Obama wanted to be, or could be, he already would have. He is what he is. Good luck to him.

    Many of Obama's supporters though (none / 0) (#225)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:40:47 AM EST
    are thrilled that the party machine has been wrestled away from the Clintons.  I don't think it is a good thing for anyone to own the party machine but the machine tends to create its own owners over time.  Why don't the Obama supporters clearly see that what is happening is that ownership of the machine is only changing hands and that such extreme power always corrupts?  Even Booman is an idiot about it.  I read this post of his last night that we are headed to the promised land.  What is he smoking?

    Late to the party (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:50:09 AM EST
    but I agree.

    In the larger game of constituencies ... (5.00 / 2) (#239)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:12:36 AM EST
    ... Democrats have turn a historic opportunity cycle into a multi-generational epoch of self-destruction.

    when i think of bill clinton getting up (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:20:45 AM EST
    off his sickbed to help kerry(whom i now consider personally a ingrate) i just burn. i think i'll write the good senator and tell me what i think. (not that he will care).

    Obama's Contempt for Clinton (4.83 / 6) (#142)
    by bmc on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:04:08 AM EST
    The disdain and condescension--the outright contempt--for Bill Clinton and Sen. Clinton, are epitomized in the story of what happened during that "secret meeting" of the RBC on Saturday. Ickes presented a compromise plan to the Obama negotiator where Clinton gets the 73 delegates she earned in Michigan, and Obama got all of the 55 "uncommitted" delegates. The outcome wouldn't have undermined Obama's delegate lead; yet the Obama team rejected it outright. It was, to coin a phrase, a real "middle finger" flipping meant to demoralize and show contempt for Clinton, a "muscle flexing" act of disdain. See? Not only can I beat you in delegates; but I can actually steal 4 of your delegates to punk you.

    That's a measure of the contempt that Barack Obama has for the Democratic Party, and for voters who supported Hillary Clinton. That is why Harold Ickes nailed it when he said it was not a good step toward "unity" for November.

    Those 4 delegates....Obama's shocking act of brazen scorn tips the balance for me. I cannot vote for anyone who has such contempt for Michigan voters, or for Sen. Clinton. Whether or not Clinton works to support the party for November, I know that I will not do so. I will vote for John McCain--my own "middle finger" flipping act of contempt for Barack Obama.


    Yeah, this sort of arrogance reminds me (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:16:14 AM EST
    of our current President.  It's a worrying sign.

    BTD, it appears to me... (2.50 / 2) (#88)
    by VicAjax on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:45:06 AM EST
    That you are convoluting two points: one, the opinion that Obama dems are kicking Bill to the curb, and two, that Obama doesn't have the gift of empathy of Bill (or Hillary or Edwards or...), and therefore can not afford to discard him.

    On the first point, I'll begin with a caveat: I like Bill, a lot.  I think he was a great president. I would love to have the Clintons participate in a large way in the party going forward, they have tremendous strengths.

    Having said that, I think what's happening, in part, from Obama supporters is a reaction to some of the attack dog statements Bill has made over the course of this primary.  I know you will vehemently deny that any of these statements were of an attack dog nature, but if you can shed the partisan spectacles for a moment, you will recognize that, yes, indeed he made a few rather inflammatory remarks.  And yes, so did many Obama surrogates, but Bill Clinton has a unique and amplified podium from which to speak.

    Just yesterday (or Sunday?), Bill was lamenting that his days of campaigning are now finished.  The insuation, to me, is that he will not be campaigning for the Dem candidate this fall.  So, if one removes the partisan lens, perhaps you may see that some Obama supporters are feeling mutually rejected by the Clintons and their supporters (come on now, you can't argue with that point).

    On the second point, that Obama is disdainful and condescending, well.. you're certainly allowed to hold that opinion, but i think crowds of 20-75,000 belie the biased nature of that point.  

    Of course people who frequent this site will share your opinion because, with very few exceptions, the hatred of Obama here is downright Bilious.  Which is a shame.  But again, I believe this is the result of the partisan echo chamber.

    Umm (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:49:50 AM EST
    I look at data, not rallies.

    I suggest some cold realism is in order now. We have to win this elecion.


    ok (none / 0) (#162)
    by VicAjax on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:12:26 AM EST

    which data are you using to quantify Obama's lack of empathy?

    Ahem.....votes in...oh, say (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by oldpro on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:23:52 AM EST
    West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Florida.

    Your's is the 5th interpretation of Bill's (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:29:19 AM EST
    statement that I've heard. I think everyone is parsing his remark way too much. I think he said it was the last time he would be campaigning for Hillary in a primary. Realistically, I don't see how him campaigning for Obama is anything that they would want anyway. So, I do reject that point.

    Isn't it funny, for someone supposedly (none / 0) (#217)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:35:03 AM EST
    so distasteful and WRONG?  Everytime he opens his mouth the media can't wait to use it.  As if they have made it their mission.

    Couple of points (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:39:51 AM EST
    People have been making up insinuations out of B. Clinton's words very conveniently in this campaign. Clinton was not saying he would not campaign for the Dem candidate.  He was saying he would not campaign on such a personal level. Of course that is true. Obama supporters are way too sensitive if they take that as a personal rejection.

    But they are really just manufacturing outrage and making up excuses to kick him to the kerb, as with Hillary and the RFK incident, and many others in the last few months.

    Also, how do groups of 20-75,000 belie the point that Obama can be condescending and disdainful?  Those types of crouds are designed to allow the candidate to speak in a loftier manner and not address anyoine personally.  It is in small groups that his less attractive traits come through.  

    I don't hate Obama.  I think he has the potential to be a good president, if he got more experience and seasoning. I just don't want 200,000 troops in the field to pay the price while he learns.


    Some Obama supporters are feeling (none / 0) (#236)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    rejected by the Clintons?

    Hahahahah!  Boy, that's good.  Tell us another one!


    AP Report (2.00 / 1) (#233)
    by 1jane on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:54:47 AM EST
    AP just reported Clinton will make a major speech tonight with a statement that Obama has more delegates and will campaign hard to be certain the country has a Democratic President.

    Clinton was a mixed bag (1.20 / 5) (#51)
    by lgm on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:31:22 AM EST
    Bill Clinton was a better President than the recent Republicans, but he was indeed a mixed bag.  On the positive side was the balanced budget (aided by a Republican Congress happy to curtail Democratic spending), even though he threw the Democratic congress under the bus to get it done.  In the middle was welfare reform.  On the negative side were weak foreign policy (lack of interest) and serious ethical lapses.  

    And there's the fiascos -- don't ask don't tell, hillarycare, Lewinsky.

    LOL (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:33:50 AM EST
    What job approval rating do you expect Barack Obama to have at the end of his term?

    Hillarycare? Who are you Limbaugh? (5.00 / 14) (#62)
    by rooge04 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:34:52 AM EST
    It was the same Democratic congress that threw healthcare under the bus. Oh and please tell me the foreign policy blunders. Was it the peace?  Or was it when we went to Bosnia without losing a single soldier? Even Rwanda, Bill's great regret, was in response to the Republicans that would eat the Dems alive after Somalia.

    Tell me more of these huge blunders.  Because last time I saw your list it was on redstate.com.


    Reminds me of Anglachel's post (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by katiebird on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:08:56 AM EST
    "aided by a Republican Congress" (5.00 / 7) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:37:43 AM EST
    this is misinformation (a lie actually)
    the first budget Clinton passed to balance the budget passed without a single republican vote.  NOT  ONE.  many democrats lost their seats in 94 because of that vote.
    google "Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky" and the bye bye Margie chants when she voted for it.

    Wow. I also didn't realize (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by rooge04 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:42:40 AM EST
    that a balanced budget nefariously aided by working together with Congress was bad now!! Hee. Obama supporters have taught me so much!

    Whether I aqgree with you or not (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:38:30 AM EST
    on the meirts is irrelvant to my post.

    I am talkng about two things - the perception of Bill Clinton's Presidency as proving Dems are adept at governing, which is indisputable. And the skill of Clinton the politician.

    I could go on and on about whether Obama is going to be the progressive President you seem to expect (and my questions are not about what he thinks but whether his political style will permit him to accomplish progressive policy), but at this point I am thinking about winning in November and nothing else.


    The Democratic congress, at least in part (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:47:47 AM EST
    jumped under the bus with some pretty ugly scandals and a certain amount of arrogance... House Bank scandal, post office scandal, Foleygate, Dan Rostenkowski, and more... Congress wasn't all that pretty back then, if we remember, and the Republicans used the 'culture of corruption' approach.

    I guess what I'm saying is that Congress played a role in its losses, also.


    Let me guess (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:59:26 AM EST
    You're 20 and your parents are staunch Republican...

    I'm not sure (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:04:29 AM EST
    How you way Bill was weak in Foreign policy.  He's done more than anyone to push for beat in Northern Ireland AND the Middle East.

    Lack of interest.  LACK OF INTEREST?  I have no idea where that came from.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:31:47 AM EST
    Anyone who has read Richard Clarke on the merits of the Clinton and Bush administrations knows from "lack of interest."

    Don't Ask Don't Tell (5.00 / 4) (#220)
    by JDM in NYC on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:37:29 AM EST
    It always amazes me that people blame "don't ask don't tell" on Bill Clinton. Here is a the story of what happened.
    While campaigning for the Presidency, Bill Clinton proposed issuing an Executive Order to override Department of Defense regulations that banned the service of gay people in the United States Armed Forces. But in the first piece of legislation passed by Congress in 1993 (the Family and Medical Leave Act), Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, proposed, and the Senate enacted, a six-month moratorium on any changes in the military's policy. During this period of time, Senator Nunn proposed holding hearings on the question of whether gay individuals should be permitted to serve in the military.

    The Campaign for Military Service (CMS) was formed for the purpose of operating during this six-month moratorium. Together with other gay civil rights groups, CMS prepared background materials on witnesses chosen by Sam Nunn for the hearings, proposed witnesses to testify against the ban, and organized a grassroots and media campaign to lift the ban. CMS also worked with individuals within the White House and the Department of Defense to develop alternatives to the existing ban that, while not legislating complete equality, would have allowed openly gay people to serve in the military.

    Unfortunately, the combined efforts of Senator Sam Nunn and a group of military commanders within the Defense Department torpedoed any efforts to achieve the compromise sought by CMS.

    The very first thing that the Dem. Senate did after Clinton was sworn in was to stab him in the back. And the person who held the knife is being discussed as a possible Obama VP.

    I wonder how Sam Nunn refers to YouTube videos.


    I disagree! with your mix. (none / 0) (#130)
    by felizarte on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:58:47 AM EST
    and I see no reason at all to vote for Obama.

    If You Think Bill Was A Mixed Bag (none / 0) (#235)
    by Blue Jean on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:57:16 AM EST
    It will take you about five minutes to be disappointed in BO, if he even gets to the Presidency in the first place.

    Connections (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by fazel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:31:41 AM EST
    Couldn't it be argued that Obama is connecting with different people? Of course, the reply would be that those very people are elitist themselves, which I'm sure some would argue (that would make me elitist by the way). But, to draw the types of crowds Obama's drawing, you'd have to conceed that he's connecting. I think it might be more accurate to frame this idea in terms of empathy. This is where Bill did so well and Obama struggles more.

    You could even argue that what the people connecting with Bill Clinton saw as empathy, others saw as B.S., and that the converse is true with Obama, i.e., that what his supporters feel as a connection other see as B.S. (see the Messianic postulates).

    Rallies (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:41:51 AM EST
    mean nothing. People can go to them simply out of curiousity. Despite having these rallies, he continues to lose in states where he has held them.

    No more of a connection there (none / 0) (#189)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:24:33 AM EST
    then you get with Mick Jagger at a Stones concert.

    he is certainly connecting (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:46:19 AM EST
    with a lot of the "low brow, low information, low education" democrats I communicate with.
    not in the way he would want but there is no question he is connecting.  they are completely bemused that the democratic party seem bound and determined to nominate him.  they will never vote for him.
    btw this is the base of the democratic party I am talking about.  he thinks he can replace those people?  us, I should say.
    I cant wait to watch him try.

    The Base (none / 0) (#121)
    by fazel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:56:57 AM EST
    There are two "bases" at play here, which is what has made the decision for superdelagates so hard. Surely you would grant that the african american community is a "base" of the democratic party. I'm not arguing your point about the blue color workers, just pointing to another large voting block that has reliably (maybe more reliably) voted for democrats. Instead of focusing on these two bases, we (both Obama and Clinton supporters) should be looking for ways to bring both coalitions together. This is the "new majority" about which Obama has spoken.

    Obama's planning on winning, and to do so he will need super support from the coalition represented by this blog. You can argue whether or not he's done a good job up to this point , but I think it's silly to say that he's unaware or dismissive of the power represented by this group. The Clinton's are powerful, and I think he will have to feel completely comfortable with the fact that he's won before you will see a big change in the way he approaches this group (my analysis...)


    All due respect, fazel (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:09:48 AM EST
    You are confused.  I'm judging Obama's future behavior by his past behavior.  
    People don't change unless they really, really want to.  
    Where's the motivation?  From what I have seen, the Senator and his supporters believe they don't need Clinton's supporters.  Therefore, they won't seek their votes.
    They've got Republicans and independents to go after, yes?

    I beg to differ on one point.. (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:39:16 AM EST
    to draw the types of crowds Obama's drawing, you'd have to conceed that he's connecting.
    He maybe connecting, but he isn't the only thing drawing the crowds. He consistently has top bands in concert at his rallies. So the chances are that a good many of the people at his rallies are coming for the concerts, not to hear Obama speak. Hillary Clinton draws crowds on her own. Obama seems to use other people's talents and fanbases to enlarge his rally numbers. And that isn't the only thing that is inflated about his campaign. Once all the hot air is let out, and it will be, there will be nothing left but a pile of soggy dreck.

    That's a fair point (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:35:48 AM EST
    And then the question becomes is he connecting with ENOUGH people to win in November? A very open question right now.

    I think his campaign said (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:46:49 AM EST
    all along that they wanted the Reagan Dems. and the Repub. lights and the as community and that was the demographics they were looking for. Elitists. No one else is welcome!!!

    s/b aa community. (none / 0) (#96)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:47:43 AM EST
    18,000,000 (none / 0) (#72)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:39:15 AM EST
    voters will help determine that in November.

    Right now, it doesn't look promising.


    Time will tell (none / 0) (#95)
    by fazel on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:47:02 AM EST
    I don't know. It's hard to believe that he won't. I think Hillary's played hardball, with which I don't have a problem, but some of the impetus to pull the party together lies with her. Of course, Obama has more responsibility in this area, and I think he's trying. But, for all the talk of the cultish following that Obama has, the ardent supporters of Hillary are just as committed and if she is unwilling to help out, than these voters are most likely, lost. They will have to work together. It will be a big test for both of them.

    Nope (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:58:15 AM EST
    if Obama is the winner then the impetus is on him to unite the party not Hillary. The problem is Obama. An endorsement by Hillary will do nothing to change the way her supporters feel about Obama. There's one huge problem that Obama has that will never be resolved: many people feel that he is simply unqualified to be President.

    Why do you think the impetus lies on her? (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:10:24 AM EST
    I know she will do what she can, but why do you feel she is obligated? In my view the loser has no other obligation than to get out of the way.

    C'mon (5.00 / 2) (#234)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:56:21 AM EST
    Of COURSE she will "help out."  Despite what he's done to her, she will campaign her butt off for him because she's got genuine class.

    But it won't make a whole lot of difference unless Obama changes his whole approach pretty fast because there are two elements here-- intense dislike of Obama and support for Hillary.

    What you Obamans fail to get is that most of us don't dislike Obama because we like Hillary. I know that's an alien concept, but it's a fact.  Most of us got pushed into the Hillary camp because we looked hard at Obama and didn't like what we saw.  It was only after we crossed him off the list that we began to pay more attention to her and found what we were looking for.

    So whatever political reconciliation goes on between Hillary and Obama personally really has very little bearing on what voters will end up doing.  I very much doubt Hillary can say or do anything that would make me less unwilling to vote for Obama.

    The two things are separate issues.


    I think part of the point Josh was trying to make (none / 0) (#50)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:30:49 AM EST
    at least in the last quote was that Bill could connect with people in the '80s and '90s but can't any more because, in Josh's view, politics and life has moved on to the 2000s but Clinton hasn't.

    I don't think he's saying that connecting with people in unimportant, I think he's saying that Obama can connect with people in this day and age while Clinton is trying to do it in the same way he was doing it in the 90s and that way just doesn't work any more.

    I guess one can debate whether Josh is correct in this regard, but I think that's what he was trying to say.

    What Josh Marshall Meant! (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:31:52 AM EST
    There's gonna be a lot of translating
    between now and November!

    No (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:32:54 AM EST
    He's just saying look over there instead of having to comment on the real issue, what Pfleger said.

    Which shows to me he agrees with what Pfleger said.

    Do you agree with what Pfleger said?


    I don't necessarily see (none / 0) (#90)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:45:33 AM EST
    how the style of the article is different from most that he's written recently

    It isn't different. (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by kmblue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:48:00 AM EST
    That's the point.

    I think what Pfleger said was wrong (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:51:56 AM EST
    I found it very offensive, and any attempt to focus on something else within the context of that discussion causes some dismay.

    Of course it still works. (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:36:39 AM EST
    while Clinton is trying to do it in the same way he was doing it in the 90s and that way just doesn't work any more.

    They both have their supporters. Clinton has a record that speaks for itself - certainly some bad, but a lot of good.

    What does Obama have besides hope, change, and the unity pony?  BTW, I'm realy amused at all this unity crap.  We've been saying for years that we don't want to "get along" with the republicans, because they have no interest in behaving in a bi-partisan manner.  This government only works if it's adversarial.

    Otherwise, we may just as well have one party.  Some days, I think that's exactly what we do have.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 9) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:43:46 AM EST
    I think I accept that but I wonder that you miss MY point - that Obama DOES NOT connect with Clinton constituencies in the way Bill Clinton did and does.

    What Josh seems to think is that the Media is determining what people think of Bill Clinton. This is forgetting your history.

    In a way, your take is more damning of Josh's than mine.

    And the bottom line is this , Bill is not running, Obama is. Do you and Josh feel good about Obama's ability to connect with voters and do you think it compares favorably to Obama's ability to do so?

    Let me put it another way. Do you think Bill Clinton 1992 would have any trouble winning THIS election? Do you think Barack Obama will have any trouble winning this election?


    Ooooooooooooo! (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by pie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:49:51 AM EST
    Do you think Bill Clinton 1992 would have any trouble winning THIS election? Do you think Barack Obama will have any trouble winning this election?

    Excellent questions.


    Well, if one assumes (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:01:13 AM EST
    that a large part of Bill's constituencies are the people who are voting for Hillary, then I think the obvious answer to that question, for the time being anyway, is "no."

    He's obviously reaching a lot of people (as is Hillary), though, or he wouldn't be getting the crowds and votes that he does.  Is he AS effective as Bill? Well, I was 10 when Bill first ran for President so I'm not sure I can say for certain, but if Bill's State of the Union address are anything to go by, I've always loved them (even if they went on for forever) and I don't think Obama is up to that level yet.

    Whether Bill is still as effective or not now I can't really say since he's mostly been pushed to the side as Josh says.  

    I would assume there is still a rather significant chunk of Democratic voters who still love him and are greatly influenced by him, both because of his personality and his success (one thing people tend to forget about.  They always blame him for losing Congress in '94, yet forget that Dems gained seats in both houses of Congress in '96, '98 [remember when gaining seats in a mid-term year was an extraordinary event?] AND 2000, despite Gore's loss, which they also blame on him despite the fact that Gore kept him away).

    As for the last question, no I don't think Bill would have any problem winning this election, and as I noted earlier, if it can be assumed that Bill's base is comparable to Hillary, that claim is strongly supported by the fact that - however unreliable EV maps in June may be - Hillary is currently beating McCain 327 - 194.  McCain might not even have got 200 EVs if Hillary was running?

    While I think, ultimately, Obama won't have any problem defeating McCain either, I think he starts in an inferior position at the start of the general election than Hillary would, and thus presumably Bill (EV maps currently have Obama ahead of McCain 276-238)


    I got an eerie mental image of Obama campaigning (none / 0) (#139)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:01:28 AM EST
    as a big video giant head when I read your post.  

    He does not try to connect with voters on a personal level as Bill has. His whole style of addressing mostly large audiences and communicating at arm's length through oratory is the opposite of the populist approach. In fact is strikes me as authoritarian.

    I'm not saying he could not do personal politicing if he tried, but from what I've seen so far the answers to your questions are obvious.


    I agree BTD with your assessment here (none / 0) (#160)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:12:16 AM EST
    What Josh seems to think is that the Media is determining what people think of Bill Clinton. This is forgetting your history.

    I will never forget how really pissed off Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson (one ABC Sunday) were when the American people gave Clinton bigger approval numbers in the middle of the Lewscandal and the impeachment.

    They were tssking the people...how could you not disapprove of this man? It was pretty stunning how angry they were that American did not agree with them, especially from a "moral" point of view.


    The problem, BTD (none / 0) (#81)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:43:22 AM EST
    is that Bill Clinton has been one of Hillary's campaign trail.  This has nothing to do with his legacy.  This has to do with his performance in the past 5 months.

    He has had a bad case of foot in mouth disease during this campaign.  

    We shouldn't run away from the Clinton years but let's not ignore the fact that Bill has been a problem for Hillary.

    The evidence that Bill has been a problem is? (5.00 / 8) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:45:35 AM EST
    The Media? If that is the case, then he was a problem since 1992.

    Yes. The fact that Chris Matthews and his ilk (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by rooge04 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:50:31 AM EST
    have painted Bill as an old buffoon is Bill and Hillary's problem.  It seems like some Obama supporters believe everything the media tells them.

    Tell me (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:33:29 AM EST
    when this primary is over, do you intend to return to being skeptical about the media narrative?

    Bill has "been a problem" (5.00 / 3) (#219)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:35:56 AM EST
    for Obama and his supporters.  not Hillary.

    After all is said (none / 0) (#105)
    by Lahdee on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:51:05 AM EST
    and done it's beginning to appear that BO may be incapable of uniting the Democratic party for the march to November. He has proven unable to rein in surrogates, such as Ed the radio mouth, unable/unwilling to act as a leader - just my opinion, but his dueling with mcsame on Iran is truly WTF territory and I don't see anything much past lip service on this unity thing.
    Come on Senator, act like a national leader and not just a local politician before the supers wake from their trance and take it away from you.

    my question is, (none / 0) (#163)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:13:32 AM EST
    how did a politican as supposedly talented as Obama let this image come to pass?  I think he's always attacked the "Obama out of touch" view by saying he has no ties to special interests or lobbyists.  It's not a great defense since most people don't really see that as the main problem in their life.  Which in turn confirms that "Obama out of touch" view.

    Obama could probably use some humanizing embarrassment (I'm not talking preachers here).  Be less dapper.  Start hosting fireside chats or something.  He needs to do something that will bore the media but interest the voters.

    BTD, Obama is the typical "elitist" (none / 0) (#165)
    by AX10 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:14:10 AM EST
    characature, a "left wing liberal" who makes the affluent party elites feel good about themselves.  He comes from the same part of the party that gave us those "winners" such as McGovern, Mondale, and Dukaikis.

    As for Gore, the media trashed him 24/7 and Kerry made a horrid attempt to fight back the swiftboaters.

    At the same time, Hillary is in the same place that Gore was in eight years ago.  Only this time, she leads her GOP opponent unlike Gore who trailed badly until the convention.

    The thing is that many of those working class folk who started out hating Hillary have come to admire and respect her.  They now want her to be the President.

    There's a sadness about this (none / 0) (#173)
    by Piledriver on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:17:42 AM EST
     to go along with the madness. I identify completely with her.  I've been a yelladawg for 65 yrs.  No more.  This primary insanity caused something to die within me.  The unfairness from the top down, hatred disresct for Bill & Hill and the '90's.  Arrogance.  The least qualified telling the most to get outa the way.  MSM favoritism.  Disloyalty of colorblind blacks, sleazy connections.  Are they crazy?  2 things blind us: what we love and what we hate.  I'm not sure which is worse.  I don't know what I am just now, but it ain't a democrat.  That's kinda sad to me.  I took great pride in being a Dem all my life.  I cannot tolerate the big wigs, New Enland elitist losers and I live in Rhode Island!  Mr. Pompom and his audacity of hype, fawning young worshipers, the great Explainer, somebody give me "hope" for somebody to vote for in Nov.  Damn.

    Pundits (none / 0) (#177)
    by formerhoosier on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:19:42 AM EST
    Really do not care what Josh Marshall has to say anymore, although used to read regularly since he seemed to have insight on DC views.  Did not always agree since his stances were too centrist and cautious.  Him and Calpundit were similar, more Libertarian than Progressive.  They are not interested in the New Deal programs because they and their cohorts do not need government to work.  

    A new low for Marshall (none / 0) (#190)
    by suki on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:24:43 AM EST
    Now he's psychoanalyzing President Clinton and finds him to be in 'unique agony' because he's just an old, out of touch has-been? HAHAHAHA!!
    I'm finding some of this truly hilarious now.
    What planet is Josh Marshall posting from?
    Marshall has played his part in CREATING the Clinton wing of the party. And it grows every time these folks say something this stupid. Obama and his campaign are deaf, blind, and DUMB about this and it will cost them the WH.
    And President Clinton's out of touch? Wow.

    Not to be too catty (none / 0) (#196)
    by Sweet Sue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:25:53 AM EST
    Speaking as a bitter fifty seven year old woman, I must say that someone who has lost his hair to male pattern baldness before the age of forty as has the man who kidnapped Josh Marshall should think twice before saying nasty things about old people.
    Hey, look at Baldy!!

    Sadly....BTD I have to..... (none / 0) (#200)
    by Kefa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:26:39 AM EST
    agree with you. I wish I could disagree. I also think this will be the dog that will bite Obama on the rear in the GE.  

    well i hope obama knows that the repubs (none / 0) (#206)
    by hellothere on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:31:49 AM EST
    are going after him also but not with their votes. foolish, foolish and so much arrogance!

    They "appeal to Republicans....." (none / 0) (#226)
    by mm on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:41:20 AM EST
    It certainly is going to be an interesting election.

    The Republicans have nominated a candidate who is hated by a significant portion of their base,

    and, the Democrats have nominated a candidate who hates a significant part of their base.

    hi from rainy ole blighty (none / 0) (#228)
    by Oceandweller on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:41:57 AM EST
    Aside the fact we have today a tyical british weather i.e. rain, tha fact us, Democrats Abroad whi held our first primary -when was it already possibly on Big Tuesday which turne dout to be not so big, is the fact that living abroad protects us all of the hate speech going back and forth from both camps- so guys that is my perception both camps bloggers have been ...lets us say pretty heavy handed, candiadtes have blundered then be great which leaves us with wll from my side of the pound and the pond with what seems a clear if not fast winner and the veep slot seems also very obvious
    my impression is that we all have been about as fired up when lers me see when bush started his lies about iraq and the wmd FIASCO ETC
    I remember very well how we were trashed when some of us dared to say bad ideas for thousand reasons which later came back as very clairvoyant and While not denying the surge, I just wonder how long will it last as I remember all those vietnam surges and how it ended
    so regardless ofw who wins and who loses
    it is clear we all wish that dream ticket to work ,I read some want HRC to become veep but I have not read a lot about oBAMA AS VEEP UNDER CLINTON
    i AM quietly open to discussion not retribution
    and when you live in the uk you learn very quickly that sweet ; sweetheart etc are not sexist, that is the way it is and no insult or pun meant
    as this is the very first election where an AA and  Woman are in for good , many skins ahave been to my belief unfairly tender
    we are all adults and deep inside we know it
    so regardless of who is on top what is your feedback for a Clinton/Obama ticket in alphabetic order and not in would be pres/veep order

    Timeless (none / 0) (#237)
    by ww on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:09:02 AM EST
    What was at one time truly good will be just as good today. What was once a foundational strength will serve as one just as well today.

    What johnny-come-latelys and neophyte change agents seem to forget is that bringing along that which worked before, that which was truly good and foundational, is not antithetical to their epiphany currently driving them forward. (which may have some merit) A respectful understanding of what came before is essential to moving forward in a just, economical, and efficient manner.

    Its called elegance by another name, wisdom by yet another. Obama lacks both.

    The realist tell me the float has begun, (none / 0) (#238)
    by kimsaw on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:12:05 AM EST
    I think BTD hits the nail on the head in terms of the moral ground and political wisdom. Obama's breeds political arrogance the same way conservative republicans do. Talk about antipathy.

    Pres. Clinton provided sound footing and effective leadership. Personal indiscretions are personal failures that intruded but did not devour a productive economy. He secured greater successes for low income constituencies. How can his successes be ignored. He still marshals on for the most needy around the world. He is a substantive American statesman who has a global heart of gold.

    The float of Clinton supporters like Wes Clark  suggests to others that we should do the same but to me, they are former supporters looking for new opportunities. Clark introduction of Sebellius as the next VP is telling. Identity substitutions will attempt to persuade the offended and substantive moral fiber is nothing compared to perception in Obama's world. I can't stand turncoats to substance. I want a leader to run this nation with substantive knowledge and the tenacity  to stand up for their beliefs. Voting present does not reflect a substantive stand. Questions of actual alliance to cause should not have to be clarified. Compromise is one thing. Capitulation is another.

    Obama may win but not from my support. It's not because I'm a woman scorned, it's simply because Obama is not a leader of substantive integrity.