home

Morning Edition

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:33:22 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I was watching Terry McAuliffe on Morning Joe and he was damn funny. Anyway, he acknowledged Obama is the nominee and said last night was a night for Hillary to celebrate her campaign with her supporters and that what is is. He expected Hillary and Barack to meet very soon and all will be love and kisses.

We'll see. I am just telling you what McAuliffe said.

By Big Tent Democrat

Commnets closed.

< Late Night: Piece of My Heart | Clinton Dems: Will Obama Fight For Them? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Morning Edition | 175 comments (175 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Terry M (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by bobbski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:40:33 AM EST
    "He expected Hillary and Barack to meet very soon and all will be love and kisses."

    Right.  Sure.  After slamming Clinton unceasingly, all will be love and kisses.  Good luck with that.

    As for her supporters, as I have said all along, it will be difficult to gain the support of those whom you have called six kinds of SOB and racists throughout the campaign.  Good luck with that as well.

    Will Hillary get the kisses before or after he (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:01:36 AM EST
    brushes his shoulder and wipes his shoe?  Just wonderin'.

    Parent
    Actually I think this was a brilliant comment... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:18:41 AM EST
    ...from Terry. Having read BTD's latest post before this one, it seems that Clinton is certainly running a better post nomination campaign than Obama. Clinton expects harmony and unity. If it doesn't come, the blame can no longer be put on her. Not that I'm expecting that it will stop certain people from doing so, but still.

    Parent
    She Lives (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Athena on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:49:03 AM EST
    All the rage this morning:  Hillary's still here!

    She stole his thunder?

    He stole her delegates.

    I guess you missed the whole (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:59:43 AM EST
    Michigan, "here, have 4 of Hillary's delegates" thing last weekend?

    Parent
    are you living (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:07:48 AM EST
    in a pre-rules committee meeting universe?  tell me how many delegates did Obama obtain last night, and what was the magic number?  Michigan counts.  It was included in the total.  And Hillary won it BTW.  A win is a win is a win.  If the concept of delegates has any set value or relation to the popular vote, they should have been hers.

    Parent
    if you actually cared about the rules (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:27:54 AM EST
    you would know that the Michigan results as accepted by the RBC were exceptionally strange and basically arbitrary.  There are many posts here about the "roolz."  I suggest you do more research.  This statement:  "in the Democratic nomination process the rules say that only the delegates count" is not true.  The nomination process is more complicated than that.


    Parent
    Even the Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by befuddled on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:17:26 AM EST
    have been impressed with the rules and the RBC. Sad day for the Dems when Arlen Specter is the one to be looking into that. The 527s about the illegitimate candidate just write themselves. Look back through the threads here about the rules and consider how it will look in the future.

    Parent
    What rule? (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:33:33 AM EST
    The rules have been discussed numerous times on this site.  Use the search tool.  

    The rules head for a 50% strip.  Brazile pushed for 100.  The rules allowed a re-vote.  Obama blocked those.  

    As for quoting 'the roolz, the roolz'...you better tell Dean.  He went on the morning shows and blatantly admitted they had NO rule that allowed them to shift delegates from one candidate to another.  They wanted to shut it down for ha! get this... 'party unity'.... if they had no rule that allowed them to do this, they broke their own rules.  

    In other words, they stole votes/delegates from Clinton to give to Obama because he was short 8 SDs and would not have been able to declare himself the putative nom without them last night.

    Parent

    Then why steal them (none / 0) (#111)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:42:15 AM EST
    in the first place?

    Parent
    that is why you will fail (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:05:22 AM EST
    If you have your head in the sand and don't understand what happened, and what is happening now, your candidate has no chance. It's one thing to spin and to spew propaganda, that's cool, but it's another thing to live in denial. The delegate stealing is a big issues with many democrats and will not look good when made a campaign issue. We who know this don't need your candidate, it's your candidate that needs us.

    Here's some free advice to your candidate. To heal the wounds, these issues need to be dealt with. Now. The MI vote (referred here) and FL must be dealt with to help that healing process. Of course it's only symbolic, but it still must be done. To deny this reality is to face defeat in November. End of free advice.

    Onward to 2012.

    Parent

    Officially, Obama has somewhere (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:33:56 AM EST
    around 1760 pledged delegates... the rest are just promises from the SuperDs.

    So according to the DNC "rules" Obama is not and will not be the candidate until the actual voting takes places in August or until Hillary drops out.

    Parent

    Learn to preview before posting. This doesn't (none / 0) (#65)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:14:00 AM EST
    make any sense.

    Parent
    Then please leave our "politic" (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:57:58 AM EST
    to us, the voters.  Or, just please leave.

    Parent
    This is a U.S. election (none / 0) (#181)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:47:55 AM EST
    and although I enjoy commentary from non-U.S. citizens who will not be voting, I do not welcome their criticism of how we do vote.

    I would not dream of telling an Italian how to vote in their elections.  Nor would I dream of telling you how much you need to mind your manners, too.


    Parent

    How funny was he with (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:51:16 AM EST
    the rum?  OMG, I love that guy.  You can't not be happy when you hear him speak.  

    Mugged, thugged and not one bit hugged (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:53:17 AM EST
    Notes from the morning wheeze fest:

    Your morning mug(ging) at CNN
    Part 1
    Part 2
    Blinkered against historical milestones for females

    CNN asked black Obama supporters (pedestrians and studio shills) to discuss his historical moment of "clinching" this, in terms of history and personal impact. Though SenC's accomplishments were considerable as well, the same didn't occur among women (pedestrians, who are confined to whether they'll vote for Obama) or studio shills for SenHRC on historicity or personal impact therein.

    The WWTSBQ humm was in the air.

    Now the ethics guy from Business Week is on to lecture to give "an important lesson we can all take away from losing." We mustn't be angry! That's the thing, look at how angry Gore and Dean were! Stay angry but not for too long!

    Roberts thought HRC was ungracious! Bruce Weinstein vulcan mind melded that the various loser emotions she must be going through with "personal failure" and urged her to move on.

    Oh my! I'm glad my first double-shot latte was gone or both my computer monitor and TV would have their wipers going from my spit takes.

    Concern Troll prophylactic: No, I'm not angry. I used to be disgusted, now I'm just amused. (If I were, my brain would still work and my vote would be where I left it to be pulled down in Nov.)

    I'm Indy. I'm peaceful. I'm out.

    that attitude absolutely MYSTIFIES me (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by blcc on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:26:01 AM EST
    Nobody told Romney he needed to hurry up and get over it and move on.

    The rank misogyny in insisting that it's time for HRC to be a good girl and make nice just frosts me.

    Parent

    Manners? (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:38:37 AM EST
    This is not about bad manners, that is utter BS. This is about politics. Bringing around over 18 million supporters who voted for her is not something done in a rush.  Hillary is doing exactly the right thing for the party and the record number of americans who voted for her.

    What are you losing, or anyone for that matter, by giving Hillary and her camp some time?

    Parent

    It's called winning the nomination (4.33 / 3) (#180)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:22 AM EST
    first.  He hasn't done so, no matter that he coronated himself, and the court jesters in the media played along.

    When he gets the needed number of pledged delegates, you come on back and tell us.  That may be in late August.  Or not.  We'll see.

    Parent

    She's also a corporate shill (none / 0) (#189)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:31:33 PM EST
    who was the head of the Recording Industry Assoc. of America for many years, and advocated suing music fans for downloading music on various shaky legal grounds.  She's hardly someone I'd look to as some kind of ethical beacon.

    Parent
    Was McAuliffe Drinking? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Pol C on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:57:05 AM EST
    My girlfriend came into my office and told me McAuliffe was doing rum shots on Morning Joe. Is that true?
    Yep (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:57:27 AM EST


    Parent
    MJoe (none / 0) (#37)
    by Athena on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:02:22 AM EST
    It looked like a crew closing the bar at the end of the show.  Mika was surrounded by the usuals and asked: "How many white men does it take to run Morning Joe?"

    Parent
    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:02:41 AM EST
    what do you think of the Obama campaign going public with the fact that it will not try to get Hillary's supporters on board?

    I've got it (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:11:21 AM EST
    I think there are always immediate feelings of disappointment and anger," Anita Dunn said. "But in the months ahead, he must appeal not just to the constituency groups who favored her in the primaries, but those he wants in the general election, and that includes independents and Republicans."

    Another Obama adviser, who asked not to be identified, said that he was not worried that Clinton supporters would stay angry.

    "Look at how many switched today to Obama," he said. "Look at the Clinton supporters, look at Maxine Waters [the congresswoman from California who endorsed Hillary Clinton in late January but switched to Obama on Tuesday], who were passionate advocates for Hillary, but who switched to Obama."

    "At the end of the day," he went on, "Hillary supporters will look at John McCain and decide they are not going to vote for a man who will put judges on the Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade."

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10827.html

    So Maxine Waters was proof that the Clinton supporters would come around?  I wish him and all of his supporters very much luck with that.

    Parent

    Turning abortion rights into (5.00 / 7) (#76)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:20:30 AM EST
    a bargaining chip is just freaking tacky.  Are they asking for backlash?  

    I've not been impressed with Anita Nunn.  I believe she is also the source of the "Barack won't sit by the phone like a high school girl" quote.  Whatever.

    Parent

    Wouldn't it be nice to hear, just once (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:48:01 AM EST
    that Roe v. Wade matters to Obama supporters?

    What I keep hearing between the lines like this from fools like Anita Nunn is that Roe v. Wade matters only to Clinton supporters.  So that means it doesn't matter to Obama supporters -- which makes sense, since so many of them are only Dems for a day.  And that day was so, y'know, months ago.

    Parent

    Unity (4.75 / 8) (#109)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:27:07 AM EST
    through putting a gun to women's heads.  Because Roe v. Wade is all about restricting women's choices.

    Of course, Senate Democrats could stop any McCain nominee.  But, you know, they're weak.  So now I have to vote for Obama to protect me from Senators like Obama.  You know, the ones who tell pro-choicers that the forced birth zealots are the ones who consider the moral implications of abortion, have to be told they should oppose an anti-choice Supreme Court nominee, like John Roberts because they aspire to higher office and even then lecture liberals on why they should not be angry at Democrats who voted to confirm Roberts, and then in the next go round choose in a display of democratic tactical brilliance to criticize a Democratic-led filibuster* of Alito the weekend before it's scheduled to take place (which kind of makes this rumor sound true).*  

    There may be reasons for voting for Obama, but Roe v. Wade isn't it.  Besides which, the swing vote was O'Connor and she was replaced by Alito.  They already have the five votes to overturn Roe if that's what they want to do.  I would almost welcome it at this point because what we've been getting is a continued weakening of it while Democrats use it to take women voters for granted and as cover for going all squishy on the issue to suck up to the religious right, ala Obama's comments about how those are the folks who see the moral issues regarding abortion, not pro-choicers.

    * "Playing chicken with the troops" anyone?  Because only the very bestest negotiators give away the store before the other side even has a chance to refuse their offer.  Just as only the smartest politicians go on record claiming that their party is engaging in stall tactics to thwart the president.  Smart. Very smart.

    * Of course, if you're going to make the Roe argument it helps if the candidate on whose behalf your making it has a history of fighting for reproductive rights.

    Parent

    Maxine Waters must need Obama (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:44:02 AM EST
    but I don't.  

    When the Obama campaign gets that, they may make progress.  But they just don't get it or us.

    Parent

    Without Hillary, it doesn't matter (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:05:38 AM EST
    what Obama does or doesn't do. Nothing will be enough. If the msm calls me a "racist" for not supporting Obama, what redeeming piece of nothing could he offer me. This is so really like the "pods" taking over.....keep staying awake Hillary supporters!!!! I am appalled, insulted and he deserves whatever punishment Hillary deems appropriate.

    Parent
    Thankfully (none / 0) (#195)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:44:23 PM EST
    the little levers inside the voting booth won't call you names.

    (does anyone use the levers anymore?)

    Parent

    Maxine Waters was on the stage (none / 0) (#127)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:09:19 AM EST
    with Hillary last night (I thought she was anyway) anyway, elected officials are trying to bring the party "together" to show harmony. How many of the l8M voters who voted for Hillary will come "home." I may consider it if she's on the ticket, no way w/o her!!!! After the convention, I'll change my affiliation. But I'm just one voter (who he doesn't want, by the way)

    Parent
    Mr. In visible, me (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by gandy007 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:51:01 AM EST
    This is what I posted at Politico.

    "...but Obama is not, one of his senior advisers assured me Tuesday night, going to spend a lot of time in the next few months wooing Clinton supporters whose feelings may be hurting."

    Gee, I always suspected that Obama was a smart politician.  Now I know he is.

    Why make much of an effort to assuage the hurt feeling of 18 million or so, mostly Democrats, that with a little sincere effort might be persuaded to vote for you, or at least not vote for McCain, but vote mostly Democratic down ballot.  People like me for example.

    Of course not, better to try to woo Independents or Republicans. Now there's a brilliant strategy, screw us!  

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:04:42 AM EST
    Cite?

    Parent
    Here: (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:10:07 AM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/3k8wne

    It's a link from a previous thread.

    Parent

    Political Article Cites Obama Advisors (none / 0) (#58)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:10:19 AM EST
    saying that Clinton supporters will fail in line and Obama won't spend much time courting them.  Politico

    It has been a hard-fought and sometimes bitter campaign, but Obama is not, one of his senior advisers assured me Tuesday night, going to spend a lot of time in the next few months wooing Clinton supporters whose feelings may be hurting
    .

    Parent
    Just posted on it (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:19:22 AM EST


    Parent
    I read something similar but can't remember (none / 0) (#59)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:11:17 AM EST
    where.  I thought it was a strange comment when I read it.  Said something like they would go after "other constituences" as if there are any others.  

    Parent
    Three hours after Maypole Dancing around The One (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:07:51 AM EST
    And safely after the 9:00am cutoff when the suits are usually gone*, CNN finally dials back the Historical Clinch victory brekk and informs the viewer that Obama's merely the PRESUMPTIVE nominee.

    Ohhhhhhhhhh. [/Emily Litella]

    Never mind. (none / 0) (#133)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:19:31 AM EST


    Parent
    I'm still thinking of David Axelrod's slip of the (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by carmel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:08:54 AM EST
    tongue calling Obama the "punitive nominee" instead of "presumptive nominee". It must be all those people thrown under the bus during this primary that caused the slip. All Hillary asked for last night was a little R E S P E C T - does she get it? NO!

    Carmel - the word Axelrod used was (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:31:33 AM EST
    "putative," not "punitive."

    It's a term one sees a lot in legal settings - "putative father," "putative Will."  

    Where Axelrod may have outsmarted himself is that "putative" tends to be applied to something that may not be what it is reputed to be:

    putative adj. commonly believed, supposed or claimed. Thus a putative father is one believed to be the father unless proved otherwise, a putative marriage is one that is accepted as legal when in reality it was not lawful (e.g. due to failure to complete a prior divorce). A putative will is one that appears to be the final will but a later will is found that revokes it and shows that the putative will was not the last will of the deceased.

    Which is kind of funny, really.


    Parent

    3 odd results of the primary season--- (5.00 / 9) (#74)
    by wurman on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:19:45 AM EST
    1. Kennedy, Kerry, Dean & the lame stream media failed to purge the Bubba bunch from the party.

    2. Sen. Obama will bring the Chicago & Illinois "Combine" into Democratic Party power roles & the corruption will astonish everyone.

    3. Sen. Clinton has "found" a power base that she can develop into a new core for the Democratic Party--women will now define themselves as a bloc & reach across the entire political spectrum.  Misogyny has to have consequences & when cloth coat GOoPer women see that they have more in common with "librul" women then the structure will change because they are all together, in fact, the majority.


    #2 is scares me the most (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:35:09 AM EST
    I can see HUD turned into Rezko-on-steroids. The FDA turned into a kickback-palooza fro Big Pharma. Will the Illinois boys treat the federal pension system as their private piggy bank like they do the Illinois teacher and hospital funds?

    Parent
    Yes, #2 is why I get nightmares (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:50:44 AM EST
    of impeachment of a Dem president again.  Seriously.

    Parent
    nicely said (n/t) (none / 0) (#117)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:55:38 AM EST


    Parent
    Hugs & Kisses (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:26:34 AM EST
    You mean like the Obamabots who tried to hijack Hillary's rally last night?  Yeah, I'm sure all those Democrats in that room who are Hillary supporters just looove Obama and can't wait to kiss and make up so they can be under this mob's thumb for the next four years.

    Notice how even now it's more important to humiliate Hillary than it is to celebrate Obama.*  Thugs.  And while the policy proposals may differ the attitude is an awful lot like the one that pushed W. on this country.  Yeah, I rejected that four years ago and I'm pretty sure if that's one of my options I'll be rejecting it again.  

    * The misogyny that has been unleashed in this campaign is not going to easily be put back into the bottle.  It is a sickness that infects the culture and has been allowed to not only fester but bloom during this campaign.  What has resulted is ugly and the Democrats are not going to just be able to put it back in the bottle.  Bigots thrive in oppressing the targets of their hatred.  Having been empowered by Obama and the media, they aren't going to stop now.

    Wonder How Many Votes That Little Act (5.00 / 0) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:24:57 AM EST
    of immaturity cost Obama in the GE. Going from Bush thugs to Obama thugs is a real achievement.

    Parent
    They are not thugs (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:10:11 AM EST
    They are "unity ambassadors."

    Parent
    ROTFLMAO Great Response n/t (none / 0) (#173)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:24:52 AM EST


    Parent
    Ohio (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by Belle on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:28:37 AM EST
    I was listening to NPR in Columbus this morning. Gov. Strickland was saying that he continues to support Senator Clinton because she speaks about very important issues for the country (jobs, health care, etc.).

    Strickland is a good man. (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:13:58 AM EST
    Dealt with the AG scandal well, still supporting Hillary because of [gasp!] The Issues.

    I'm glad there are Dems who can see the bigger picture includes more than egos and political power grabs.

    Parent

    I understand that things for them may be (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:37:07 AM EST
    hugs and kisses and that is as it should be.  This morning though I'm left with the taste of misogyny in my mouth.  I'm not placing it directly on Obama, but on his surrogates and most of his supporters and the media so he is getting some on him.  I have been female living in this culture and in the lower 48 for 43 years now.  I have had my trials as a woman due to being a woman.  I lack energy and enthusiasm for anything Obama today.  I'm told that Obama doesn't really care and he doesn't need me and anyone who is like me and that's fine because I don't need him or anyone who likes him.  Nope, don't need.........it is a choice and one that hasn't taken from me yet like others they would like to take from me that Obama says are moral issues.  Like in America HE can tell me what MY MORAL issues are!  This will be chalked up to bitterness I'm sure, but it is far more than that.  It is who I am and it is my life.  I won't be resorting to preaching Feminist Liberation Theology though.

    Barnacle??? (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by janedw420 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:45:29 AM EST
    MSNBC called her a BARNACLE, didn't mean to watch, just changing channels...

    Add it to the list. (none / 0) (#106)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:14:59 AM EST
    I guess that doesn't count as sexism, but it's hardly a compliment.

    Parent
    Sexism is not just (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Foxx on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:50:53 AM EST
    derogatory comments about femaleness. It is also ugliness directed at women that isn't directed at men. As I'm sure you know, just pointing it out.

    Parent
    Barking: debunked zombie hooey risen at CNN (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Ellie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:39:02 AM EST
    (Or: why I usually never watch clown media.)

    After falsely touting for several hours that Obama "clinched" the Dem nomination, CNN issued a few-seconds' long clarification that Obama is merely the "PRESUMPTIVE" nominee.

    The undead walks again ... the media-issued Obama cummerbund for the presumptive nominee as he speaks to AIPAC:

    Obama Makes History
    Speaks in DC after clinching nomination.

    That. He. Actually. Didden.  by CNN's own walkback.

    I normally don't care about these twits, but you'd think that there'd be some room in the Obama infomercial for news about Sen. Clinton's accomplishments outside the droopy-shouldered sad enquiry of WWTSB/OMFG- what'd she do NOW???

    Everyone get real (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:13:42 AM EST
    He's not going to be the next president. Wait till the new skeletons and the TV ads come out. The country simply has never elected anyone this far to the left. In times of economic troubles, they vote for someone who looks like a bank director, not a novice who talks about hope. He is the typical McGovern demographic, with problems McGovern never dreamt of

    Hillary has got to get out of the way. Let me say this again: Hillary has got to get out of the way!

    Please. No miracle scenarios of upset victories in Denver. She's already had a history of trouble putting together a campaign, and she would be getting a late start in the season long after the GOP has mobilized. Plus, there's a group already assembling to riot in Denver if anything happens to take the nomination away from Obama. Remember Hubert Humphrey in '68? Did he win? Hard to start a campaign in the midst of race riots.

    From Pelosi's comment this morning about "getting stern" with the Hillary forces, it's clear they are going to continue to blame Hillary as long as she is anywhere in this picture! And if she is the VP, they are going to blame her for his loss. (And I don't think she's going to be able to troubleshoot the problems when the skeletons begin to dance.)  

    These people have no strategy except blaming Hillary.  For her own political survival, she should smile gracefully, wish them all luck, and take an extended vacation in San Juan.

    Please please please: let him fall on his own fanny! The car is rolling downhill now -- get out of the way!

    A long cruise-no media! (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:25:47 AM EST


    Parent
    Training Wheels Come Off... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by santarita on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:46:31 AM EST
    for Obama sooner or later.  Might as well be sooner.  

    Obama should be thanking Hillary for schooling him on campaigning and for keeping the attention of the national media on him in a favorable way. In fact, she should keep the drama going for him all the way to the convention.  

     With Clinton out of the way it's just going to be Obama and McCain.  I don't see  McCain bashing by the media in general.  That means that the media will bash Obama or simply find other stories of more interest.  Of course, Olbermann and MSNBC will maintain the Obama love fest for a dwindling demographic.  

    Parent

    it seemed like MSNBC (none / 0) (#188)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:25:59 PM EST
    didnt even carry McCains speech last night.
    is that true?  I turned over at the end to see what they would have to say about it and no McCain.

    Parent
    Why the heck should anyone (none / 0) (#194)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:59:13 PM EST

    cave due to the threat of a riot?  This is the exact same bunch of crap that gives race relations a terrible, terrible name, and if anyone's going to riot over Obama RIGHTFULLY losing the nomination for a position he's not qualified for, then that says more about the people rioting than it does the system.  It's fear mongering and if it does happen, then hey, welcome to Kenya (where Obama's candidate/relative lost his election and then his supporters rioted/slashed/burned/killed).  If people want to behave like a bunch of animals, let them.  The police (and G-d) will take care of it.

    Parent
    "Clinton supporter"? Yeah, right (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Raven15 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:26:01 AM EST
    How stupid do you think we are?

    He voted for some of those items. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:39:17 AM EST
    Not so compelling. A little too rah-rah. If we wanted to read MyDD, we would. If you would use a link, we could decide that for ourselves. Thanks.

    the nominee of the pundits and party elders (4.70 / 10) (#11)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:50:17 AM EST
    Pat Buchanan said Obama was the nominee of the pundits and party elders whereas Hillary was the nominee of the people.

    And man, the Obamabots on that show have been realliy out there. Chris has surpassed himself in his Obama love. It's kind of sickening to watch, even if you're for Obama I would think.

    I won't be surprised if Hillary doesn't wrap this up in some fashion as Terry suggested. I would of course like her to leave things open in some official capacity in case the universe changes, but I can certainly see her acknowledge Obama "won" and to offer to campaign for him. As others have said, that won't change the minds of many of her 18 million, but then the Obama camp has said they don't need them or want them, so no problem I guess.

    Ugh (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by Athena on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:52:51 AM EST
    Tweety this morning on Obama:  "he had the iconic look of an American hero when he announced in January 2007;" and "the graceful way he moves."  We already know about the tingles.

    Get a room, already.

    Parent

    Tweety also said (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:00:38 AM EST
    that Kerry looked like Lincoln, or something like that, before proceeding to do his part to take him out.

    Parent
    I don't have any problem (none / 0) (#64)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:13:21 AM EST
    with Clinton Dems quoting Pitchfork favorably.  From the little I saw of MSBHO post-Iowa, he was almost their only in-house pundit who gave her a fair shake consistently.

    Nutjob Tweety just has a thing, or hang-up, about guys and their size ... and that's the only way he could have reached Kerry=Lincoln.

    Nutjob me, I think Kerry probably is the reincarnation of Andy Jackson ... when you look at some of the non-$20 depictions ...

    Parent

    Re: (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Pol C on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:00:50 AM EST
    Bathroom stall's more like it.

    Parent
    The graceful way he moves.. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Burned on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:00:20 AM EST
    Seriously?

    Parent
    Just the 3 of Us (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Athena on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:08:06 AM EST
    Yes - it all followed a question: "Chris, in the beginning no one but you and Barack and Michelle Obama believed this was possible.  What did you see?"

    He lapsed into a sentimental recitation of his infatuation, as desribed.

    Parent

    I don't know why (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Burned on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:11:49 AM EST
    But that gives me the giggles and I can't stop.
    Maybe it's hysteria.

    Parent
    I just threw up a little (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:21:33 AM EST
    in my mouth

    Parent
    He said last night he had waited a year and 1/2 (none / 0) (#115)
    by mogal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:54:07 AM EST
    ...FOR THIS MOMENT

    Parent
    He sounds like a Kelly Clarkson song. (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:23:15 AM EST


    Parent
    Oh, yuk, that love triangle (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:02:16 AM EST
    of Tweety and Obama and the Other Obama . . . that makes for a mental picture that just destroyed some brain cells forever.  I hope.  I don't want that mental picture back.

    Btw, did anybody in this interview even seem to be a bit uncomfortable talking about what a so-called journalist "believes"?  Oh, well, pesky professional ethics?  Bygones.

    Parent

    Wouldn't we all rather have (none / 0) (#47)
    by TomP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:06:29 AM EST
    Tweety have a crush on McCain.  Tweety is such an idiot, his "love" has to lose the candidate votes. :-)

    Parent
    I'd rather have him take an extended sabbatical (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Burned on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:17:14 AM EST
    from politics.

    He'd be a great addition to the panel on American Idol.

    Parent

    since he won't (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:42:04 AM EST
    I've been taking an extended sabbatical from him--and MSNBC and CNN and Daily Kos etc.

    It works well for me. :)

    Seriously, I've been horrified to see--once again--how dangerous it is to give incompetent and immature people like Matthews and "Hey, Lookametoo!" Olbermann a platform.

    Honestly, the bias of 99% of the television media in favor of Obama and against Hillary has led me to watch less television than I have in years. I guess that's one gift of this nomination.

    Parent

    I agree. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Burned on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:47:38 AM EST
    I started watching my local news and I got a netflix account and some.....books.


    Parent
    books? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:08:28 AM EST
    what is this strange, new-fangled thing you call "books"?  I've heard stories, but have yet to see them.  Can anyone buy this so-called "book", or does one need a license?  Or a sherpa, perhaps, to find said "book"?

    Do tell.

    :-)

    Parent

    Please don't quote Pat Buchanan (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by independent voter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:58:53 AM EST
    for G-d's sake, what is his agenda???? It is not helping out Democrats!

    Parent
    of course not (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:03:17 AM EST
    But it's informative -- it tells you what one of the lines of argument against Obama will be. "He couldn't even win the majority of voters in the Democrat [sic] primary and he wants to be President of the United States?"  "Installed by party leaders against the wishes of the people.  Why do Democrats hate Democracy?" Coming soon to a 527 near you.

    Parent
    actually (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:04:15 AM EST
    that Pat Buchanan line has all ready been used by McCain. No doubt that most Republicans will believe it. The big problem is that many Independents and Democrats believe it too. And Clinton supporters really believe it.

    After what we all saw happen right on television for all the  world to see last Saturday afternoon the Democratic Party should be held in contempt by everyone with any integrity.

     We saw the disrespect for 1 Democratic candidate in order to lift up another candidate and we saw petty vote stealing that told us that when Nancy Pelosi wants to talk about a culture of corruption she needs to look at both sides of the aisle.

    Parent

    I told a couple of Obama supporters (none / 0) (#196)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:55:06 PM EST
    So, when 2000 was all over, settled by the Supreme Court, did it make you feel compelled to run out and vote for ... BUSH?

    That's exactly how I feel about this election....gamed, manipulated, and illegitimate.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:04:17 AM EST
    but you have to realize that the GOP is trying for these votes while Obama is not.

    Parent
    That's because they have said (none / 0) (#166)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:12:48 AM EST
    they want the "Reagan Dems" and Repub. lite. The rest, unless you're of the elite or go to college, are unneeded. So go and build your new coalition....it's only this country at stake!!!

    Parent
    On the contrary (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:04:28 AM EST
    This is exactly the point that Obama has missed and that must be drilled into his head before Hillary endorses him iff he endorses him: Obama has to marry the other half of his party.  This is a shotgun wedding. She can't do it for him.  If he's the nominee, HE has to take responsibility for it.  And if he can't or won't do it, then he has no business being the nominee.  You can't write off more than half your base and then tell them to suck it up and vote for you and, oh, by the way, the loser better whip her people harder.  That's more divisive than anything.  
    So, Pat is absolutley correct.  She is the heart of the people, he is, well, we don't know WHAT he is exactly.  But he's the one who'd better get his act together or just step aside and let her do the whole thing.  


    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:15:27 AM EST
    given that we're all the menopausal crowd, why the heck would we care about Roe?  

    Maybe we care more about how we're treated on a day to day basis.  And it's pretty much sucked in the Hillary Clinton campaign days.

    I can't think of a single woman in power that would have been treated much differently than Hillary by the punditry.

    Let's see.

    Nancy Pelosi
    Barbara Boxer
    Diane Feinstein
    Chris Gregoire
    Patty Murray

    All very higher up women.  Do you think Chris Matthews and KO would treat any of them well if they were running for president?

    It's a woman thing.  They don't like women running for president.  We should know our place.  As far as Chrissy is concerned, we should be "obedient".

    Parent

    It's been more a Clinton thing (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by brodie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:21:09 AM EST
    than a purely woman thing, imo, in respect to MSM behavior.

    If we were talking about Repub women (and we might come the fall) vying for the presidency/VPency, many of these MSMers would have not played the sexist/misogynist card, or not nearly to the extent they did against HRC.

    Btw, Tweety likes both the centrist DiFi (they go back years to when he was a mere columnist) and, to a lesser extent, Pelosi (I think because of her long family political history and its old school machine nature in Baltimore).

    Parent

    Not the point. Dem women named (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    and only Dem women in post to which you reply.  And every one of them would meet misogyny from media, believe me.  Different forms of attacks would come for each one than for Clinton -- but attacks, there would be.

    We cannot kid ourselves that this is just a Clinton thing.  Women in politics with whom I'm talking do not kid themselves about it, and with what they've seen this year, we just lost some more women who could provide real Dem leadership.

    But yes, Repubs treat women far better.  They always have, historically, since supporting woman suffrage when Dems would not, since electing the first woman to Congress when it took Dems more than another decade, etc.

    Parent

    Its very difficult for the Obama side to see this. (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:30:41 AM EST
    I have had this argument several times with a relative and the very idea of it being Obama's job to win these voters makes him very angry. I mean it isn't that he takes it out on me or anything but on some level he feels wronged by Hillary voters. I'm starting to feel like it is a bigger impasse than I had imagined. I feel sometimes like I am being required to apologize for not having voted for their candidate.

    Parent
    Obama Has Stated Numerous Times (5.00 / 12) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:05:22 AM EST
    that Dems should not discount the wisdom of Republicans. We are in the post partisan era of American now.

    Parent
    lol (n/t) (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:08:55 AM EST


    Parent
    Those statements no longer are (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by TomP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:21:17 AM EST
    operative.  :-)

    It should be interesting times.  I think Senator Clinton will endorse Obama soon, campaign for him, and reject being VP.

    For all the vicious attacks on Senator Clinton by some, she has been a Democrat her whole life for a reason: she believes in our values.   Some folks have turned her into a villian, like in a wrestling match, that they love to hate and demonize, but their carricature is not the real person.  She fought for health care reform in 1993.  She worked for McGovern's election in 1972.  She and Bill fought Ronald Reagan and Bush I during the dark years of the 1980s and early 90s, when Republican rule lasted 12 years until Bill was elected.

    People choose to forget the Clintons' lifetime of service.  I don't.  They were more centrist than me, but we are on the same side.

    What Hillary Clinton said last night in her speech has been missed by some, but, I hope, not by Barack Obama:

    I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible.

    The people on this blog deserve respect as fellow Democrats.   Those who supported Clinton are not racists, are not Appalachian hillbillies, are not whatever names they have been called at times by a few immature bloggers.  The Clinton voters deserve respect, just as Hillary Clinton deserves respect.  She and you have earned respect.

    I think Barack Obama will do that.  I hope so. He cannot unify the country if he cannot unify the Democratic Party.  Clinton will help, but as nominee, Obama must unify.  

    Last nights statements praising Clinton were good.  Now he must reach out to her voters and begin the process of healing.  

    Parent

    actually, sen. obama himself (5.00 / 7) (#86)
    by cpinva on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:29:27 AM EST
    has used racist, bitter, gun toting, appalachian hillbilly, religious nuts to describe those who didn't get the "hope and change" memo, and failed to vote for his oneness.

    i hope he enjoys being the answer to a future trivial pursuit question.

    Parent

    Oh, puhleeze -- patronizing speech (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:14:52 AM EST
    by Obama.  Yeh, people here heard his speech.  And Clinton's speech, too.  Count on it.

    Yeh, we also know that we deserve respect.  But we deserved it all along, so it's late for platitudes now.

    So now, can you identify what we did not hear in Obama's speech?  I waited all last night and now wait this morning to see if any Obama supporter can figure it out.

    Then, we might see whether we are even beginning to get the respect we deserve -- and always deserved.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#103)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:08:01 AM EST
    Actually, she hasn't been a Democrat her whole life. Her final break with the Republicans came when she famously was disgusted with the way the Nixonites treated the Rockefeller Republicans in 1968.

    Parent
    Reality check please (5.00 / 9) (#93)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:37:46 AM EST
    Unity was the primary focus of the GWB campaign in 1999. Look where that got us. And to date I haven't seen any effort by the Obama camp that even remotely resembles unity. They were more than happy to shred the party to suit their needs.

    Parent
    I just spit my coffee on the screen! You should (none / 0) (#52)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:08:14 AM EST
    get a job on the Daily Show or Howard Stern!  What a joke.  Post partisan era????

    Parent
    Why Not Quote Pat Buchanan (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:46:24 AM EST
    You may not like certain of his stances, but I think he calls 'em as he sees 'em. For example, he's been against Iraq War since it's contemplation, he's continually pointed out Obama's electoral weakensses and Hillary's strengths, & yesterday he was the only one to argue with Richard Cohen's insistence that when white voters' votes for Hillary are racist (yesterday's Morning Joe).

    Parent
    Buchanan's is a legitimate point (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Raven15 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:19:55 AM EST
    ...because she won the popular vote. It doesn't make it any less legitimate because it comes out of the mouth of someone you don't like. Obama needs to try to wrap his mind around populist messages, whether coming from the "right" (Buchanan) or "left" (Edwards).

    Parent
    Pat Buchannan is telling the truth, though (none / 0) (#187)
    by SarahinCA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:13:47 PM EST
    so what is the problem?

    Parent
    Repub campaign (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:13:19 AM EST

    will use this approach .....

    Pat Buchanan said Obama was the nominee of the pundits and party elders whereas Hillary was the nominee of the people.

    The Dem Party & DNC will need to address the issue if they want to win the GE.

    It will be interesting to see if they want to win the GE enough to place Sen Clinton as VP.

    At this point the Oboma supporters are protesting her as the VP along with the media.

    Simple fact, Dem Party needs every vote they can get. I'll be one of those votes.

    The only way to do it is to start treating the Clintons with respect.


    Parent

    Is McCain's (none / 0) (#87)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:29:35 AM EST
    name suppose to add support to that agument?

    You know the Repubs are going to use it. They can smell the victory. In the mean time the DNC and Dem Party Powers are blowing IT!!

    DNC needs to be unifying the party not tearing it apart.

    Parent

    Certainly, someone is going (none / 0) (#112)
    by independent voter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:43:50 AM EST
     to realize that Barack Obama garnered many, many more votes during the primaries than John McCain. If McCain tries to make that stick, it could get interesting (the comparison to McCain's lack of votes during his primaries)

    Parent
    That is an (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:00:03 AM EST
    intersting angle for the Dem to take.

    But the Repub response will be... he received less votes because he was uncontested .. the others dropped out early in the primary process.

    And it is sure to come up that all of McCain's votes were for McCain .... not uncommitted.

    The Dem run for the Presidency is NOT going to be a cake walk.

    The extent of the DNC & Obama supporters reaching out to the Clinton supporters will determine the fate of the Dem Party.

    Making Hillary the person to bring them into the fold will not work.... The DNC & Obama has to do it.

    Parent

    watch your language. that manner of (none / 0) (#199)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:09:45 PM EST
    expression is very distateful.

    Parent
    Hillary '08!!! (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by ParkSlopeVoter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:19:16 AM EST
    "clintons have dominated the democratic party since 1992 and it is very strange to read this assumption"

    The Clintons have dominated the party because they were the heart and soul of the party.  It's good to know that Senator Clinton has not yet officially conceded -- that means we wtill have a chance in November!

    -MS

    Parent

    I doubt many Obamabots found it sickening (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Raven15 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:06:34 AM EST
    And that's precisely what's so scary about them. They have no clue what a totalitarian media is, much less what it looks like.

    Parent
    Pat Buchanan (none / 0) (#40)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:03:07 AM EST
    Does that mean Harold Ford cannot be a source in a republican discussion?  Wake up, they're pundits now.  Sure, they still belong to their parties, but they don't have a horse in the race.

    Parent
    Neither should Drudge have been a source... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:36:12 AM EST
    ...and yet he has been for various Clinton smears. Pat Buchanan, whom I despise, is not being quoted as a source here but rather as what he is---a Republican commentator. If he were to be quoted as a source of an Obama smear I and many of the other commentors here would be the first to denounce him, I can assure you.

    Parent
    This makes me (4.55 / 9) (#91)
    by sas on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:35:27 AM EST
    physically ill.

    Obama is a demagogue.  I am afraid of what I saw last night, as he declared himself the nominee.  A man, totally unqualified, decides to say "I won" in front of 20 K people.  He stands for a long time and lets them cheer, hears the crowd roar, and declares that this is a defining moment (picking Him, as it were)for our country.  He uses the tone of MLK and adopts the black preacher cadence to excite the crowd.  Still he has said nothing of substance.

    He says nothing of substance, yet the crowd adores him. What are his positions?  Most of the crowd doesn't really know.  What is is background?  We get bits and pieces, some of what we don't like at all, but the crowd doesn't care.

    As he campaigns, He claims that those who criticize Him are racists .  He uses sexist language and offensive body language.

    Who is this man?  A demagogue for sure.  Beware.

    Obama - never,Hillary forever.


    if she concedes soon (4.42 / 7) (#21)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:54:20 AM EST
    she'll be setting up herself as a prime contender for the 2012 race against an Incumbent McCain.  

    And, as I posted on an earlier Thread, when the Media finally lets those pesky facts and figures out of the bag (her EV strength, more votes, Swing State strength) as their doing their "aren't the Dems hapless and stupid" post-mortem while John McCain readies himself for his Inauguration, there will be a lot of Americans absolutely livid with the Dem Party and Dem Leadership for pushing aside the accomplished female so the inexperienced, but charming, male could have a go ... and then lose by a historic margin.

    In other words, I suspect Hillary could be the Al Gore of 2012 with people feeling she got majorely robbed and begging her to run and her Nomination an almost foregone conclusion.

    And Barack?  An also-ran and future trivia question who, after doing almost nothing for his Constituents in his first term in the Senate and saying himself Senate work was "boring", may be looking at not being able to hold his Senate Seat in 2010.

    Um, I don't find him charming (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:57:43 AM EST
    IMHO, he has no redeeming qualities.  

    Parent
    well, I'm being kind (none / 0) (#70)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:19:10 AM EST
    and doing my best to figure out why they (as in the Party) have chosen him over her and charming with the ability to make a good speech was all I could come up with.

    Parent
    In other words, (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:03:07 AM EST
    she'll be the one to clean up after all the DNC kiddies are done making their messes again.

    But in 2012 I won't mind, not one bit.  ;)

    Parent

    a plus to all this (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:05:25 AM EST
    is how in the heck will Brazile and Dean be able to keep their jobs in the Dem Hierarchy if their Chosen One loses on such a massive, embarrassing scale?

    Answer is, they won't.  

    Ergo, Dean/Brazile/DNC win this battle, but Hillary ends up winning the war in 2012.  Hillary survives, they don't.

    Expect to see Brazile on her "What My Momma Taught Me" book tour sometime in 2010.

    Parent

    Clinton lost (2.00 / 4) (#138)
    by lgm on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:25:35 AM EST
    Clinton began the primary season in the lead.  She had far more money, organization, and institutional support than any of the other candidates.  Pundits openly wondered why the other candidates (Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Obama, ...) bothered to run.  They called Clinton the presumptive nominee.

    Somehow, all this momentum did not get her to the finish line in first place.  Who knows why?  Obama's the more effective speaker.  Clinton was not shot at in Bosnia.  Her "don' need no stinkin' `conomists" defense of the gas tax holiday cost her "high information" voters.  Obama's speech on race won him lots of supporters.  

    Come on (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:18:04 AM EST
    The necessary conditions for her loss were (a) voting for the AUMF, without which there wouldn't have been a meaningful primary challenge; and (b) a primary challenger with a solid strategic and fundraising organization.

    The sufficient condition was the Obama campaign's (in retrospect brilliant) decision to sorta bail on California and rack up huge delegate margins in the caucuses. When it became clear (Feb. 6?) that Clinton didn't have the money or organization to stop Obama winning delegates in the caucus states basically at will, things were pretty much set in stone. When he navigated through the Wrightmare, that sealed it.

    Parent

    Unity (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:40:56 AM EST
    If all this talk of unity and the party is true, I would expect Obama to publicly make a sincere offer of VP position to Hilary today. Whether she accepts or not is fine with me but I feel a public offer has to be made. Today should be the day rather than allowing time for more resentment. I want a Dem president and Obama and his people need to realize, they need Hilary and her supporters.

    Obama supporters (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by bobbski on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:43:35 AM EST
    "I want a Dem president and Obama and his people need to realize, they need Hilary and her supporters."

    If you have learned anything about Obama and his supporters, it is that their arrogance and vitriol know no bounds.

    Vote for Obama?  Not in this lifetime, I think.

    Parent

    I hate to admit it, but one joy of Clinton on the (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:07:45 AM EST
    ticket would be the collective wail and gnashing of teeth from the shrillosphere [(c) Turkana]

    Parent
    Won't happen, his stratgegy is always (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:49:07 AM EST
    to try to ride things out.  Until they become so pressing that he has to answer them, and then looks foolish for waiting.

    He'll try to ride the VP question out, too.

    I like this Gordian Knot for him though, because it's largely of his own and the MSM's making.  Hillary's shockingly revelatory answer to the VP question yesterday was bland as could be, not any different from anything she's said all along, and the MSM were choking with excitement over it last night.  They were the ones running with it, not her.  His condescenion and disdain for her will be proved beyond doubt if he doesn't offer it.

    If Fox is anything to go by (they were quite funny) -- if he offers it it's only because he's such a weakling he can't carry the party himself, and if he doesn't it's only because he's such a fool he doesn't see she's his only path to the WH.

    Ahh.  I too, would like to see some exploding heads.

    Parent

    Obama: Reactive not Proactive. (5.00 / 7) (#104)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:08:21 AM EST
    It's one of his worst flaws.

    It's also what the Right will use to push his buttons.  Clinton is a LOT more resistant to rising to the bait than Obama is.  I've said before that I find her infuriatingly cautious, but a look at what the RWNM has done in the past to Dem candidates reveals good reason for that caution.

    Parent

    Well then, (1.00 / 3) (#4)
    by LibOne on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:42:48 AM EST
    I guess last night was about getting supporters to pay off her debt.  Like an idiot I fell for it and sent her money.  I'm going to ask for it back.

    Go ahead and ask for it back. (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:46:02 AM EST
    It's your right. How much did you give? I'll make up the difference to Hillary.

    Parent
    GE money (none / 0) (#6)
    by Davidson on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:45:09 AM EST
    Clinton has about $25M kept locked away for the GE so she'd be using that money to pay off any debt.

    Parent
    It's not clear to me that she can do that. nt (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:45:47 AM EST


    Parent
    What happens to it? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Davidson on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:50:18 AM EST
    Does it go to the Democratic nominee?

    Parent
    she has to issue (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:52:45 AM EST
    refunds to everyone who gave over the $2300 in primary funds.

    Parent
    She has to offer to return it (none / 0) (#22)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:54:24 AM EST
    If people don't take it, I think it rolls into her funds that she can use in future Senate campaigns or to give to other candidates.

    Parent
    I do not think that is correct (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:55:36 AM EST
    I think she can roll into a different campaign fund.

    Parent
    I would hope she wouldn't (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:53:07 AM EST
    use or release that money until after August. As they say, it ain't over until the vote is in. Or was that it ain't over until the vote is stolen. I forget.

    Parent
    Everyone responding to you is correct (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:54:39 AM EST
    Look, Hillary does not need money. She can make all she needs and can raise all she needs.

    I think people think this is a bigger deal than it is.

    Parent

    campaign debt help (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:44:23 AM EST
    It's another tactic by Obama campaign that is read off his talking points by the media.  

    I felt disgusted when I first heard it.  I knew where it came from.

    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ghost2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:45:22 AM EST
    No one mentions that Romney lent his campaign a lot of money.  I guess he can just forgive his own loan.  NO?

    It was a lot of money, and I doubt he can raise it another way.

    Parent

    But However Will The Clintons Pay Their Mortgage? (5.00 / 12) (#107)
    by BDB on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:17:20 AM EST
    It's too bad, really.  If only Hillary had done something historic or notable and had experience writing books and a built in audience to buy them, then maybe she'd be okay.  Or if she had a spouse capable of earning large speaking fees.

    But since she's a cackling shrew everyone hates and her husband has totally destroyed his reputation, they're screwed.  I hope there's some section 8 housing in Chappaqua.

    Parent

    LOL! (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by madamab on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:47:07 AM EST
    Priceless.

    The way Obama has characterized the Clintons has no basis in reality whatsoever.

    Their "poverty" is just another insulting meme spread by AxelTurf and his minions.

    Parent

    Bwah! Section 8 (none / 0) (#157)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:57:40 AM EST
    Priceless.

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#163)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:11:15 AM EST
    I'm an old "Army Brat" from way back and to us old-timers a "section eight" is when someone is released for the military cause they have mental conditions of one kind of another.

    So when "Section Eight Housing" was mentioned I thought it was some kind of housing for the, oh he11 whatever the PC term for people who are a few sandwiches shy of a picnic. I try to be sensitive to terms but I got all excited at the thought that I had found housing for a good many ex-in-laws. My Bad.

    Parent

    I don't think she can use her GE money to (none / 0) (#8)
    by kimsaw on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:47:37 AM EST
    pay off the primary debt. But I could be wrong.

    Parent
    if she is not in the GE (none / 0) (#15)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:52:15 AM EST
    she can't use the GE funds, primary debt is still primary debt.

    GE funds can't be used in the primaries.

    Parent

    From OpenSecrets (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ding7777 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:21:36 AM EST
    Instead, under the Federal Election Commission's rules, candidates can either refund the money to their donors within 60 days after the person is no longer a candidate or get permission from their donors to re-designate it for use by the candidate's campaign for another federal office. To pay off debts from their primary campaigns, candidates can tap general-election funds from contributors who didn't max out in the primary*, with the donor's permission.

    If, for example, Hillary Clinton doesn't make it to the general election season, she'll have to go back to the donors who've given her at least $16.7 million toward November's election and get their permission to use it to pay off primary debts, transfer it to her Senate committee or use it in a future presidential campaign.

    link

    .

    Parent

    No way should she drop out yet--she needs to not (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:32:57 AM EST
    only, per Charlie Rangel, use time to bring her voters on line for Obama, she needs it to figure out her finances. Plus, is she were to to tapped to take the top spot, she'll need the money.... (hey, where's there's life, there's hope (Dr. Who).

    Parent
    from memory . . . (none / 0) (#88)
    by pukemoana on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:30:27 AM EST
    she can transfer her primary debt as well as her ge funds to her senate campaign, so while the ge money can't pay off the current debt directly, it can through rerouting (all legal and above board)

    Parent
    note (none / 0) (#197)
    by boredmpa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:05:59 PM EST
    i don't think interest is covered in the situation, so she could technically sit on the money til the convention before refunding.

    Parent
    Can she do that? (none / 0) (#75)
    by minordomo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:20:25 AM EST
    Technically?

    What happens to funds intended for the GE if the candidate doesn't take part in the GE?

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:52:36 AM EST
    I am curious why. What did Hillary say that led you to believe she might not decide to endorse Barack Obama?

    Parent
    How do I get my money back? (none / 0) (#83)
    by LibOne on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:27:02 AM EST
    I can't get through on the phone.  Of course, I just get stuck in automated  message hell.

    Parent
    No choice but voting BHO (1.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Oceandweller on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:18:41 AM EST
    why
    because of the math
    no
    not those 2008 math, rather
    because of 2012 and 2013 and 2016
    you are a clinton fan
    fine by me
    she wont get 2008
    we all know
    fair unfair is now beside the questio
    facts is he is the presumptive nominee
    facts is the GE
    facts is if Clintons voters fail him
    facts is 2012 is roast and so roasted that even Chelsea political dabbling will be a foregone conclusion
    it is sort of a deal
    you help me I help you
    why no one  was enough cooled headed to realize that one cant win without the other and one loses because of the other loss beats me anyhow
    the deal is cLINTONIANS VOTE FOR OBAMAS
    oBAMAS VOTE FOR cLINTONS
    YOU DONT WANT
    Fine by us
    but in 2012 when you will need us as you know deep inside you cant get elected without the AA vote , we shall go fishing or bonding with our innerself very far from any voting booth
    you ask why you need to vote that is why
    we all dems can take the WH for 2008-2012 2016 and why not 2020 or you dot and we make sure never again at whatever cost it takes any blackmail will be considered
    I dont know who started the game , but someone started itand the sooner people understand the rules of that game the better it is
    people meanwhile will see roa and wade gone , iraq war carries on etce etc more money for the rich you name you will get it
    it will be the bataan march
    but anymore any party comes to think of it will tolerate whter tory labour socilaist republicans you name it will tolerate his constituents to behave like kids having tantrums and egos pbs
    and if you cry belatedly too late, too bad
    you will have to swallow the bitter potion even if it kills you
    because that is the wonderful world of politics and that is a world who taught to the maffia the rulz
    no I am not happy at telling you the real rulz, the awful rulz but that is the way it is
    if you want hrc in 2012 or 2016 you have to vote now and be counted otherwise your team leader is history and you dont want that dont you
    and yes she certainly can be on the veep ticket
    she certainly deserves it and yes her votrers are much needed
    but just like a car needs gas and oil; you cant get hrc elected without obamas voters
    and yes we are all stuck in the middle and there is no way out unless we learn to graciously bow to each other and help each other
    a deal is a deal is a deal
    and better half of the cake than none

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:31:03 AM EST
    e e cummings, call your office.

    Parent
    i think june jordan (none / 0) (#198)
    by boredmpa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 04:39:43 PM EST
    is a good response to that crap and indicative of the general rage at how screwed this process has been.

    Poem about my rights

    Parent

    His appearance on The Daily Show was (none / 0) (#1)
    by Joelarama on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:39:53 AM EST
    rather surreal last night.  Seemed a little punch drunk, or perhaps just drunk.

    So, maybe he started the party early.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:00:33 AM EST
    that he was doing a little self parody.  Then again he has been spotted at least twice on national TV with a liquor bottle.

    Parent
    Daily show? (none / 0) (#56)
    by noholib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:09:34 AM EST
    Who was on the Daily Show last night, and spotted with a bottle?

    Parent
    "Well, at least they did kiss" (none / 0) (#10)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:49:16 AM EST
    Will that be the coverage?

    Obama and Clinton (none / 0) (#118)
    by Lupin on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:57:10 AM EST
    I don't particularly like McAuliffe, but in this case, I think he is correct.

    I don't mean to insult anyone here (I've had equally bruising scrapes with "Obamatons" at Kos) but I think quite a few posters are in complete denial.

    There is a strong likelihood that Barack Obama will be the next President. Senator Clinton is a strong, realistic, practical, pragmatic politician (an oxymoron?) So is Obama, in fact. They're both pragmatists, nor progressive enough for my tastes in fact, but exceedingly good at "realpolitik" and triangulation. Each has too much to gain from the other, or too much to lose, to carry a juvenile grudge.

    In fact, Obama and Clinton have a lot in common; they liked each other in the Senate, and very probably will make up and become respected colleagues again.  

    Clinton is too smart to alienate the next President, and Obama is too smart to seek to bury the Senator from NY. Campaign excesses will be blamed on surrogates and, well, people like you, and a new alliance will be forged.

    yes, she is too smart (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:22:00 AM EST
    to alienate the next President.  Fortunately, she and McCain have already worked together quite well in the Senate and there's a sincere sense of mutual respect.

    As for Obama?  Once he loses in November -- and loses big --, he'll quickly discover he's no longer the Golden Boy in the Senate (something which will bruise his already post-November battered ego) and find it difficult to even hold his Senate Seat in 2010.  Not enough work for the Constituents and too many gaffes (both past and future) will give his opponents too many opportunities to paint him as someone not worthy of their trust.

    Hillary wins in the end by remaining relevant and running successfully against McCain in 2012.

    Parent

    Clinton now speaking on C-Span. (none / 0) (#128)
    by mogal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:13:17 AM EST
    c

    I can't get in to the comments in the post above (none / 0) (#145)
    by jawbone on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 10:34:31 AM EST
    this one--too many comments? Site hammered (slow getting on here)? Denial of service?

    Can't get NoQuarter to load at all.

    After 200 comments (none / 0) (#165)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:11:50 AM EST
    the posts get really slow to load.  It starts getting buggy around 250 and giving errors.  They should have closed comments on that one earlier.  

    Parent
    I couldn't get in at all (none / 0) (#190)
    by Eleanor A on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:51:24 PM EST
    most of yesterday.  Maybe enough of us will kick in, that Jeralyn and BTD will be able to afford to move to bigger servers...

    Parent
    oh yeah (none / 0) (#161)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:07:38 AM EST
    yesterday when discussing PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass) I suggested the name could have been taken from something Timmah said on Morning Joe about "older women"
    I apologize.  my brain broke wind.  I was thinking of this:

    Tim Russert, adding his oversized ego to the fat-faced lineup, said on Morning Joe that he's faced plenty of "80-year-old cougars" trying to chase him down while on the trail in Iowa. A cougar, you'll recall, is an older lady who's hot to trot. Go, Timmy.

    so, anyway
    PUMAs Cougars, you get the idea.
    apoligies to all you (us) PUMAs out there.

    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:14:33 AM EST
    believe any female has chased "Timmeh" for a very long time. Unless he had the right amount of money laying on the nightstand.

    Parent
    McAuliffe on TDS (none / 0) (#164)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:11:40 AM EST
    Video here. I think he's doing a parody of himself, but it's kind of strange. Look, whichever side you were backing, even if you think David Axelrod et al. are the Devil incarnate and his minions, respectively, it's a good thing that people like Mark Penn and to a lesser extent McAuliffe are out of business.

    Anyway, the case for Barack Obama is that all of his positions are better than all of McCain's positions. Not by a small margin either, by a huge margin. Not just because McCain's positions are awful, though they are, but because Obama's are very, very good. He is running on the most liberal (progressive, if you like) platform of a major party nominee in decades.  

    If any of you caught Hillary's speech to AIPAC today, it's clear she's beginning to make the case for Obama (good for her). And Obama is being exceedingly friendly and welcoming to Hillary and her supporters (good for him). Look, contested primaries magnify the narcissism of the small difference, and words are frequently exchanged that shouldn't be. (Go search for some of the crossfire between Kerry and Edwards; it was over quickly, but it got quite ugly before it ended).
    Both sides are guilty of that --- and it's silly and fruitless to rehash all the cases to try to say which side was marginally worse --- but they're reconciling now and so should progressives. And also, there was plenty of projection and failure of interpretive charity: Clinton's LBJ/MLK point wasn't (at all) racist, Obama borrowing the Jay-Z move wasn't (at all) sexist. (It also wasn't about Clinton for Christ's sake --- it was about the disgraceful McCarthyite tactics of George Stephanopoulos and Charles Gibson.) Etc.

    What everybody was saying at the beginning of the year isn't any less true now: We had an incredible slate of candidates, and the primary turned out to be one that, despite the aggravation and anger both sides felt, was a milestone in American history. Time didn't begin on January 1, 2008. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were great Democratic leaders back then and still are now.  

    Heh (none / 0) (#169)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:15:30 AM EST
    I noticed last night that McCain attacked Obama from the left on his vote for Cheney's energy bill, which McCain opposed.

    My question is, are so-called progressives going to continue making up justifications for that vote (which never happened before this primary, oddly) or is there going to be a consensus that it was a bad move?

    Parent

    Sheesh (none / 0) (#172)
    by dmk47 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:24:02 AM EST
    I'll give you another: McCain is right about the farm bill, Obama is wrong.

    I have the audacity to hope so-called progressives can tell the difference between, on the one hand, Obama's fantastic record and platform (even if they think Hillary Clinton's record and platform are better), and on the other, McCain's uniformly appalling record and platform.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:30:22 AM EST
    Obama is obviously better than McCain on the issues.

    But I am fine with "yeah, my candidate cast a bad vote or two."  Everyone does that.  What has astounded me over the last several months is watching progressives actually start to CHAMPION that particular vote for one silly reason or another.  One commentor at MyDD actually said, "There were funds for renewable energy in that bill.  Why doesn't Senator Clinton want to fund renewable energy?"

    It's just troubling to me that, prior to this primary, you could not find ONE SINGLE PERSON on the blogs who supported Cheney's energy bill.  But since Barack Obama voted for it, suddenly the justifications start to emerge.  It's not a trend I want to see continue.

    Parent

    this primary with the uggg media (none / 0) (#201)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:21:54 PM EST
    reminds me more and more on a really bad surreal picture i'd expect to see on the scfi channel after midnight. so bizare that you can't believe people would really act in it and you watch it to see if the monster is really an alien or a human.

    Parent
    Please review this blog's rules (none / 0) (#178)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:37:19 AM EST
    re number of posts as a newcomer, re length of posts, etc.  Thanks in advance for complying in future, as of course you will.

    The problem with your list (none / 0) (#192)
    by tree on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    is that for most of them it really won't matter whether Obama or McCain is President, the problems will continue to exist. I don't believe in Magical Democrats. Especially ones that talk up former Republican Presidents and support University of Chicago economic and legal libertarianism.

    Fear and Blame (none / 0) (#193)
    by tree on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 02:39:11 PM EST
    They're the new Obama campaign messages. Along with Resistance is Futile.

    yawn, you are so wasting tl bandwidth (none / 0) (#200)
    by hellothere on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:13:18 PM EST
    with  your talking points. in the future please give them as a reference and save us the long boring post.

    Morning Edition | 175 comments (175 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment