home

Clinton Dems: Will Obama Fight For Them? Part 2

On Wednesday, Roger Simon of Politico:

. . . 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.

I wrote in response "So it turns out the Obama campaign has some not too smart people on his campaign too. Expect a swift rebuke from Axelrod over this."

More . . .

Today's reporting:

In conversations with Mr. Obama and his aides, “I’ve tried to make sure that everyone understood that these women have a right to feel frustrated and angry,” said Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, an important ally who is one of his leading emissaries to women. “To try to make that less than real is a huge mistake.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Hmmm. You think maybe Axelrod gave some folks a rebuke? Or did he get the rebuke?

By Big Tent Democrat

< Now They Notice | Saturday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Claire McCaskill is the wrong emissary... (5.00 / 13) (#2)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:12:42 AM EST
    ...only slightly better than Donna Brazile. I will never forget how she let herself be used as the excuse of Obamm and Teddy snubbing Hillary at the State of the Union address. Hasn't he got anybody else on his campaign with credibility on this?

    I'm not sure there is (5.00 / 18) (#11)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:28:54 AM EST
    I can't think of anyone on his campaign that has credibility on this. Dean doesn't either. This is the "Honey, I really love you, I won't do it again" phase of the abuse. I'm not feeling very forgiving.

    Parent
    You forget the (5.00 / 8) (#112)
    by frankly0 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:48:43 AM EST
    part we keep hearing too: "We've got to stay together for the kids, you know? We're a family. We've got responsibilities!"

    Parent
    right on could not be a worse choice (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:30:17 AM EST
    McCaskill has been one of the worse Clinton bashers.  She started in 2004 saying it would be bad for Democrats if Senator Clinton won.
    Obama helped her out in the urban area of Mo and she won and for her to pretend otherwise is a lie

    Not too mention she has crappy stands on immigration and FISA  I find her character wanting and in her career she has not been helpful to other women at all.  She is a horrible terrible person and a liar.


    Parent

    If Claire is Obama's leading emissaries to (5.00 / 16) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:45:15 AM EST
    women, you might as well start practicing saying President McCain. She is not only crappy on FISA and immigration. She has voted in support of Bush on Iraq as well. She is extremely proud of how much the Republicans in D.C. like her. Why wouldn't they like her. She votes with them at least half the time.

    The thought of seeing McCaskill practicing her adoring Republican wife look every time she is around Obama is enough to make me ill.

    Parent

    Claire and Barack (5.00 / 9) (#30)
    by Athena on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:48:51 AM EST
    Why do I see a 21st century Pat Nixon?

    Parent
    Perfect. n/t (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:17:35 AM EST
    Progressive? (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:06:04 AM EST
    If they are the picture of the new progressive Democratic party, I'm proud to be a liberal. He votes the Patriot Act and she backs telecom immunity. What a team.

    Parent
    She received over $14,000 from Obama for her (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:48:57 AM EST
    senatorial campaign! I remember Senator Hutchison from Texas, a rep, telling in an interview that there is a code or agreement between the female senators that they would not campaign against another female senator.

    Parent
    You are correct about the pledge (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:42:43 AM EST
    by the women in the Senate, however, it probably doesn't apply to running for president, nor probably does it apply to Hillary!!

    Parent
    You are implying loyalty (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:46:40 AM EST
    and that goes out with the dishwater when it comes to the Clintons.  

    Claire McCaskill will probably be a one-term senator when the GOP taints her association with Obama when he loses on a colossal scale this fall.

    Karma will be sweet.

    Parent

    That's not the kind of feminism I want (none / 0) (#131)
    by mbuchel on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:29:50 AM EST
    If women are going to be viewed as equals in the arena, then this sort of thing (women not campaigning against women no matter what, for perpetuity) certainly doesn't help.
    Does this mean that AAs shouldn't campaign against other AAs too?
    All I'm saying is that we've made a lot of progress - not enough - but to criticize women for voting for Obama instead of HRC just because she's a woman is not progress for women.

    Parent
    Someone may have been listening (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Lahdee on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:13:56 AM EST
    Hopefully Claire and others are making inroads or we won't be getting our invites to those inaugural balls.

    At work I was approached by a gentleman, an Obama supporter, who wanted to understand why his spouse, a HRC supporter, was so upset with him. Now, it's not like we hadn't been talking throughout the primaries, but he honestly didn't know what to do. "But, we're upset too," he said. "There were some nasty things tossed at BO." "But, you won," I said. We went round and round on that until we broke through with a discussion of respect. Okay, I threw up the pony, but after a time he began to see the light.

    It's as though some Obama-supporters (5.00 / 16) (#7)
    by kempis on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:23:48 AM EST
    aren't content that their guy "won." They also want us to affirm that he was the best candidate all along. That's an unrealistic expectation, to say the least. And it's not helpful--to say the least.

    Parent
    I remember (5.00 / 15) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:29:06 AM EST
    atrios talking about the Bush supporters extreme anger after the 2004 election calling it the "anger of the enfranchised". The Obama supporters seem to be the same way

    Parent
    Basic human dignity (5.00 / 14) (#20)
    by songster on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:36:55 AM EST
    I've been struggling to understand why my feelings are so violently opposed to my rational choice to vote for Obama.  

    It's amazing what a person will sacrifice to maintain their human dignity. Be warned, Obama supporters.

    Perhaps that's "what's the matter with Kansas," too.


    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 14) (#22)
    by Athena on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:39:58 AM EST
    Bingo.  A nomination secured with disrespect will backfire.

    All the bitters and the sweeties out there will now have their turn.

    Parent

    Just the thought that he might crash the Hillary (5.00 / 10) (#38)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:00:20 AM EST
    event today and have her force him on us so soon, will stop me for watching it live. I will come back here after it's over! I'm physically sick when I see or listen to him as I was with Bush. I have to tape everything in order to be able to fast forwad otherwise I have to turn the TV off. I cannot believe that I will not be able to watch or listen to my president for another 4 yrs.

    Parent
    If HRC invites (none / 0) (#71)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:38:56 AM EST
    him to her event.  If she wants him there, then he wouldn't be "crashing" the event.  

    Parent
    Ha, that's exactly the argument I had... (5.00 / 9) (#15)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:30:45 AM EST
    ...with my daughter yesterday. I had to flat out tell her that the fact that Hillary is out of the race doesn't mean that I automatically fall in love with Obama. She said finally, well maybe you'll like him more eventually. I said, yeah maybe.

    Parent
    yup, let him earn it. the hard way. (none / 0) (#143)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:58:55 AM EST
    let him get out there and campaign his heart out in the rural areas, with workers, etc. if he thinks that having michelle run around and tell us about negative bull and despair along with complaining about her bills will get him the presidency, then he and his campaign should hang it up now. i am also not talking about events where people actually come to hear the rock group either. that won't win an election.

    Parent
    Definitely an unrealistic expectation... (5.00 / 14) (#33)
    by Shainzona on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:51:22 AM EST
    ...because Obama has never been the "best candidate".  Still isn't.  Never will be (imho).

    And you're right - they want us to fall at his knees  begging forgiveness for our ways and then tell him how wonderful he is.

    Not.  Going.  To.  Happen.

    Parent

    Maybe its because..... (5.00 / 8) (#36)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:53:18 AM EST
    ...we are the mommies. We have to validate their choices....because we always have before.

    Parent
    It's more than that.... (5.00 / 7) (#155)
    by NWHiker on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:22:17 AM EST
    It's not that they aren't content that their guy one, I think, it's that they know it wasn't a real win. He never really beat her, he got it close enough so the DNC and party elders could finish it for him.

    It's like Rs who are still Gore-bashing. Because they know their guy was elected 5-4.

    I don't follow boxing, so I"m not sure of the proper terms, but Obama never got a knock-out, he got a victory on points, given by a corrupt ref, when his opponent had actually done better and he was barely standing at the end while his opponent was hopping around the ring. They know this. It grates.

    Parent

    my feelings exactly. (none / 0) (#167)
    by jeffhas on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:07:00 PM EST
    misdirection.... (5.00 / 26) (#21)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:38:46 AM EST
    Why the sudden emphasis on sexism?

    I think its all about misdirection.... because the reason that Obama is the "presumptive nominee" has nothing to do with sexism.  It has to do with the corruption of the DNC.

    While 'sexism' doubtless played a role in the size of Clinton v Obama margins, the simple fact is that CLinton was winning in all the important states despite the prevalence of sexism.  

    Clinton "transcended" gender to a very large extent when it came to the voting booth -- Obama is the nominee because despite the overwhelming evidence that Clinton was the stronger candidate for November, and far better prepard to take on the repsonsibilities of President, super-delegates continued to flock to Obama.

    Obama had TWO GOOD WEEKS in mid-February  That was it.  By every rational criteria, after that Clinton demonstrated that she was the superior candidate.  After Texas and Ohio, the flow of superdelegates doward Obama should have stopped...and after Pennsylvania it should have reversed itself --- IF the superdelegates were looking out for the interests of the country and the party.

    But the more Obama lost, the more SDs he got.   Only complete corruption of the process can explain why Obama build a lead among SDs while losing consistently from March through May.

    Parent

    I think that Obama is very well aware of... (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:41:58 AM EST
    ...his media darling status. It was there that sexism played to his advantage. It's kind of like St. Augustine's youthful prayer, "Oh lord make me chaste, but not yet."

    Parent
    Speaking of.... (5.00 / 8) (#49)
    by kempis on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:09:54 AM EST
    Have y'all seen the video of Obama telling the crowd in Chicago this week that at the end of 2016 he'll be nearing the end of his second term and riding in a ticker-tape parade with assorted Illinois pols celebrating the Olympics' coming to Chicago?

    And they say Hillary is delusional?

    Parent

    Link?? Please???? n/t (none / 0) (#137)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:45:14 AM EST
    ah, but that Media Darling status (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by ccpup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:19:36 AM EST
    isn't as strongly entrenched as he believes.

    In all Elections, the Republican candidate gets a basic pass from the Press on any lies, any embarrassments from the past, etc. while the Democrat in the race endures a steady drip, drip, drip of revelations and negative spin and a bright as can be highlighting of any gaffes.

    Obama is a veritable gaffe-machine waiting to happen and his past certainly offers up more than enough copy to last us at least through Election Day and probably beyond.

    Barack has a tough road ahead and, as we could see from Hillary's consistent wins despite his "favored" status and the constant cries for her to give it up, I don't think any Press hand-outs (via MSNBC) are going to be enough to surmount the strong feeling people will have that Obama just isn't ready and, besides, there's just something about him they really don't like.

    Parent

    n/t (5.00 / 10) (#28)
    by Athena on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:47:03 AM EST
    nothing to do with sexism

    Wrong.  There is a multi-layered explanation for how Obama got the nomination, but the sexist climate of the campaign is fairly objectively noted by many.  No one has said - I haven't - that it's the only factor worth noting - but this a common response by the pundits and Obama supporters is to say that Hillary's supporters are mono-dimensional in their analysis.  Wrong.

    Why has it risen as one of the top factors in the post-mortem?  Because it mirrors the actual experience of many of us.

    Parent

    They are also very uncomfortable (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by BeBe on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:00:38 AM EST
    when social class, regionalism, and race is mentioned. They have chosen sexism as the "ism" that is allowed to be discussed apparently and gave the press their marching orders. But it is leaving out other groups they went after and those people are going to want a discussion by Obama also. This simply more target marketing.

    Parent
    I would love to know if they were the majority of (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:04:17 AM EST
    the people to whom he had contributed to their campaigns through his PAC? Would explain a lot. Does anyone know how to find out who were the SD who first endorse Clinton and then switched to Obama before the primaries ended?

    Parent
    it's common knowledge (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by ccpup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:23:48 AM EST
    that Obama was a huge ATM machine for many SDs who through their support to him.

    For them, filling their coffers for their re-election efforts was more important than getting a Dem in the White House.  That's the only way I can excuse away such willful ignorance of Electoral Vote fact.

    Parent

    oh man (none / 0) (#63)
    by ccpup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:24:19 AM EST
    need more coffee:

    it's "threw" and not "through"

    Ugh.

    Parent

    yup and the so called dem elders (none / 0) (#144)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:02:37 AM EST
    were all concerned about their power base. we are actually relying on these people to right what's wrong with america? good luck with that! i say let's take this grass roots group and join together to continue to kick their tushes from now on. let them come to dislike us as much as we dislike what they have done. see ya at the polls. w

    Parent
    Maybe there was something (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:05:00 AM EST
    corrupt in the process, but I suspect more SDs were worried about the highly emotional onslaught against them should they deny the frontrunner and first AA candidate the nomination -- especially in favor of an opponent and her spouse who were being slandered in the media and by the O camp as ruthless race baiters.

    I think too wrt "transcending" that, given the nature of our society, minority BHO was in the position where he had to do some transcending as to his race.  As for my female majority candidate, I wish she'd hammered home a little more the historic nature of her candidacy.   And she missed out therefore in creating a good deal more excitement for her candidacy, not to mention more appeal to the youth.

    Parent

    Loose Change (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Athena on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:07:48 AM EST
    I agree - how can the first female President not be a "change?"  Give me a break.

    Parent
    that's exactly right - they are so used of (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:30:07 AM EST
    taking our votes for granted they never thought that the "little women" would revolt - in their twisted little minds they wrongly assumed that we would come home to roost because of Roe vs Wade.
    !

    Parent
    yup george will was saying the women will (none / 0) (#164)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:39:50 AM EST
    come back to the democratic party. not in my house!

    Parent
    hellothere (none / 0) (#174)
    by suki on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:07:26 PM EST
    Just wanted you to know the comment about thread spamming wasn't directed at you. The comment it was directed at was deleted. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

    Parent
    What's Incredible About This (none / 0) (#132)
    by creeper on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    is that the superdelegates exist solely to prevent the kind of disaster we are experiencing right now.

    Barring a sudden return to rational thought by the ones who sold out their party in return for campaign money, this nomination is a done deal...bought and paid for by the people who had more dollars than sense in this primary.  

    Parent

    so you are saying they found it easer to just (none / 0) (#145)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:04:30 AM EST
    give in to the hoopla and spin because they were basically chicken and didn't want to listen to threats or cajoling about race or and clinton hate? and having money thrown their way made it easer to salve their conscience? hmm, that's what i thought too.

    Parent
    This is so true (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by honora on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:16:54 AM EST
    I hope that at some point someone writes the definitive book on the DNC during this election.  I just do not get why they carried Obama through the entire process.

    Parent
    You're right about the corruption (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by RalphB on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:14:25 AM EST
    and anyone who votes for Obama will be validating that corruption.  The only way to reform the process and root it out is if Obama and the DNC sustains a massive loss in November.

    Parent
    I've always (none / 0) (#158)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:26:46 AM EST
    thought that their is more than one way to approach a problem.

    How about the Dem Party Base letting the DNC know the outright mistake they made in the MI & FL ruling.

    How about making sure the DEM Party gives Hillary the opportunity to find a place that she can serve her DEM Party loyals.

    She does not have to be Pres to have power in the DEM Party.

    Right now Hillary has them against the ropes...they just messed with the wrong women....and I'm going to follow her lead so she can keep the pressure on the Dem Party. And the Dem Party is going to know that they now have to kiss her bu$$ to keep me in!!

    Parent

    Reply.... (5.00 / 22) (#24)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:44:23 AM EST
    The difference is that everytime something "nasty" was thrown at Obama, the entire universe exploded in indignation -- and would explode in indignation based on imaginary nasty things being thrown at Obama.

    But all the crap that was rained down on Clinton was met with approval.  That crap was very real, and very consistently coming from the Obama campaign itself.

    Parent

    Very Deliberate (5.00 / 8) (#34)
    by Athena on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:51:52 AM EST
    That's why I describe it as a campaign tactic.  Derision will get you to June, but explode in November.

    Parent
    Rephrased (5.00 / 11) (#8)
    by Athena on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:26:20 AM EST
    I'll turn the question around:  Will they fight for Obama?  

    In these last few days of the wake, I'm only sensing more anger out there, not less.

    The sheer cynicism of dismissal followed by courting is not lost on many Hillary supporters.  We have not just lost a nomination, but endured a hostile primary season where denigration was celebrated.  I can't predict what will happen, but in all of my travels - work, family - I'm seldom meeting any Democrat who's voting for Obama.

    "More Anger" (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by creeper on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:18:23 AM EST
    I'm not sure about the "more" part.  I'm no madder than I've been for months.

    But my feelings have hardened considerably.  The passion has been replaced by a cold emptiness.  The party I joined four years ago (for the purpose of caucusing for Howard Dean, no less) has revealed itself to be as bad as the Republican party.  Worse, maybe, since Republicans are usually upfront about screwing you.  Dems do it behind closed doors.

    This is just like the end of a love affair that went on longer than it had any business doing.  You can blind yourself to your lover's shortcomings for only so long.  When you can no longer do that, you turn and walk away.  

    Parent

    I once heard my mother explain to an ex-boyfriend (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:46:07 AM EST
    of mine why I refused to continue to see him: "there's no deader love than a dead love" - that's the way I presently feel about the democratic party.

    It's a lonely world being a democrat in Texas. My argument had always been that we believed in counting all the votes. I've now lost that superiority thanks to the actions of my party. It has shown itself just as corrupt as the rep

    Parent

    here in SF (none / 0) (#170)
    by boredmpa on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    it's probama all the time.  and it's problematic when a psuedof@g like myself has to explain to a bunch o lesbian friends why obama's campaign was sexist and anti-democratic.  i feel like my otherwise intelligent feminist friends were kidnapped by space aliens.

    i guess we all have our blind spots, but my most recent experience was particularly disturbing because it was after a umm musical that highlighted coalition politics. sigh.

    Parent

    BTD (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:26:40 AM EST
    this isn't a rebuke. It's desperately flailing around. It's trying to have it both ways. McCaskill is absolutely the WRONG person to use for this.

    having an offender tell me what is and (none / 0) (#147)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:08:59 AM EST
    isn't offensive and then giving me permission is well offensive. and women are sexist also. sometimes they are the worst. some of these chickens are marching to their karma trucks for the long drive to november, claire!

    Parent
    Notice the language.... (5.00 / 19) (#10)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:27:35 AM EST
    Its never that "women have a reason to be frustrated and angry", but that they have a "right" to be frustrated and angry.

    While I'm not a woman, this "right to be" language is the equivalent of an "I'm sorry that you were offended", faux-apology -- its a failure to acknowledge that the anger is legitimate, and that its not just the media that is at fault, but the candidate and the party itself.

    Analysis (5.00 / 20) (#18)
    by Athena on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:33:50 AM EST
    How subtle - there is a little permission slip buried in Claire's words.  That's a mistake.

    This is a national teach-in on women's anger - whether women will own it, firstly, and then whether the anger becomes political energy and moves us forward.

    This is not just about Hillary - Hillary's treatment exposed how all women are treated.  That's why the resonance is so strong.

    Watch out for the classic tools of delegitimation: analysis becomes whining, anger becomes bitterness, dissent becomes divisiveness.

    But it's all about dissecting the psychological state of the objects of the sexism - those who hurled the mud are defined as the norm.

    Parent

    Yes! (5.00 / 13) (#57)
    by nfstltx on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:18:09 AM EST
    The anger that men and women feel about the blatant sexism sanctioned by Sen Obama, his campaign, the media is legitimate.  I for one do not want to be healed - as if a process will somehow make it all ok - I want to see concrete real efforts, not just nice words, to make it unacceptable to play this sexism card ever again.  I don't know what those efforts would be but I am reasonably sure they have to start with an acknowledgment of culpability by those who played as opposed to psycho-babble about stages of grief.

    Parent
    The phrase used above (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:53:09 AM EST
    "make sure that everyone understood that these women" is quite insulting. The terms "these women" as tho' we were something other than a part of society. Being sensitive, perhaps, but I do not forget, I forgive, but I do not forget!

    Parent
    What about men? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by catfish on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:45:41 AM EST
    Lanny Davis friends of mine who were very committed to her campaign.

    It is normal when your candidate loses to take at least a day or two to adjust. Heck we phone banked for her until 8:00pm Tuesday night. And everybody's whining she wan't sufficiently conciliatory.

    Parent

    those women, sounds like a close first cousin (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:10:54 AM EST
    to typical white person and bitters to me. "those women" hmm i bet that term was used in an not so nice way by the some of the obama supporters. hehehe

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by The Maven on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:04:26 AM EST
    The first thing that jumped out at me from Sen. McCaskill's remarks was her presumption that the frustration and anger is somehow limited to "these women".  Message for the Obama campaign:  there were more than a few Democratic men who weren't backing your candidate in the nomination battle, either, and we need to be given a better reason to vote for Obama than "He's better than McCain".

    It was in large part the condescension and patronizing attitude coming from the Obama camp that turned a lot of voters off to Obama in the first place, and they need to be won back over without any presumption that they will all fall in line.  Most will, but that may not be enough to win in November.

    Parent

    Hear! Hear! (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Calvados on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:42:54 AM EST
    What was said was like an "I'm sorry it upset you" non-apology.

    Even an acknowledgement that there was a wrong, while better, does nothing either to fight for the Clinton (former-)Dems or to woo them back into support of the party's nominee.

    A better approach might be something like this:

    "We are disgusted by the sexism and other shenanigans that have occurred in this campaign, and we are ashamed that this campaign has helped to perpetuate it.  This behavior is going to stop right now.  Here's how: [Insert appropriate changes that we can believe in.]

    We believe our candidate is qualified.  We know we'll need to work to convince you of that.  While we have benefitted from some of these wrongs, we don't see a way to undo what has been done.  We do, however, intend to work to make it up by [insert appropriate uniter-not-divider-type actions here]."

    I don't see it happening, but while apologies may bring closure to some offenses, without something to help bridge the schism, they are just words.

    Parent

    Words (none / 0) (#139)
    by creeper on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:48:38 AM EST
    are Barack Obama's sole stock in trade.

    Parent
    How hard he fights for the Clinton Dems (5.00 / 12) (#12)
    by kempis on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:29:06 AM EST
    determines how I'll perceive not just Obama but my former party. I left because I became convinced that working-class Dems were being too "unattractive" for the party as it rebrands.

    I'm waiting to see if I was right. If I was wrong, I'll feel better....But honestly, this nomination has made me question how much the Democratic party has really fought to represent the interests of the working class in this country in recent years. I can't shake the  feeling that I was snookered for 32 years....But I hope I was wrong and I'm just looking at things through a (justifiably) angry lens right now.

    Slick (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Athena on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:03:20 AM EST
    "Rebrands."  That could not be more accurate and more devastating.

    Working class?  Women?  Seniors?  That's so retro and 20th century.

    In the new CC-owned Democratic party, these groups have just been outsourced.

    Parent

    you were NOT snookered (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:48:48 AM EST
    between 1993 and 2000, hence your support for Hillary.

    Parent
    point taken :-) n/t (none / 0) (#115)
    by kempis on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:51:40 AM EST
    well at least we have been snookered (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:13:02 AM EST
    since 06 with "impeachment is off the table/i have spoken" pelosi.

    Parent
    Would that explain his non-campaigning in the (4.70 / 10) (#37)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:53:41 AM EST
    Appalachian states? If I were these people, I'd be mad as hell - everyone knows how much money he spent elsewhere so no wonder they came out in force for Hillary. Nobody accepts lightly to being slighted - most people want to feel that you are just as important as the next guy and in this instance the next state!

    Parent
    McGaskill... (5.00 / 11) (#25)
    by Cal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:45:08 AM EST
    ...,the self-serving perma-grin wimp, can bite me.  Traitor.  She's old enough to know better.

    "There is a special place in hell for women who don't help other women."  Madeline Albright

    No, But Every Woman Should Have Denounced (5.00 / 23) (#47)
    by Blue Jean on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:07:59 AM EST
    the rampant sexism aimed at Senator Clinton, whether they supported her or not, as should every man who cares about equality.

    I've lost almost all respect for Dr. Dean this season, as well as McCaskill, Brazille, etc.  They should have been at the forefront of the Dem party, saying "There are good reasons to oppose Senator Clinton, without the insults, the taunts, etc. that hurt all women, not just Sen. Clinton."  Instead, they were oblivious to it, when they weren't actually cheering it on.

    Now that they've got what they've wanted, (and they've started to realize that they could actually lose this thing without the Clintons and the Clinton voters), suddenly they're aware that they may have crossed the line with millions of women.  It's a bit like watching Larry Talbot change from Wolfman to human again and saying "Wah...?  Did I really kill all those people?  But I didn't mean to!"

    Yes, Dr. Dean, Senator McCaskill, etc, I know you didn't "mean to" come off sounding like a bunch of sexist jerks shouting "Burn the witch!" but that's exactly how y'all sounded.  Good luck with unringing that bell, folks.

    Parent

    Stood idley by + looked away till the wildfire (5.00 / 9) (#56)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:17:54 AM EST
    Brazile and McCaskill brought early gasoline, too, for the media to throw on the bonfires under the effigies.

    Parent
    Come one... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Cal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:15:42 AM EST
    ...are you really that clueless?

    Parent
    Can't today's Turfing Points Memo trolls do better (5.00 / 10) (#61)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:23:01 AM EST
    OMFG, they still don't get that Sen Clinton's 18 million supporters cut across every category.

    Perhaps you should be trolling -- I mean polling -- the 90% of African American voters who support Senator Obama and ask if they're voting because of race.

    Frankly, you insult the diversity of Sen Clinton's supporters, and you demean other groups that experience racism and other forms of bigotry and whose plight has been rendered invisible by media to make this All About Obama.

    Parent

    NO, and again, Hillary's supporters (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:55:12 AM EST
    are men and women. Most of us support the candidate who we deem most qualified. That Sen. Obama used and allowed to be used sexist insulting and vile sexist remarks is appalling and very immature, and before you use the "racist" term back, please note, we have been there...that part of the campaign was highly discussed and not dismissed as the sexism was.

    Parent
    I Would Submit To You (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by creeper on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:53:59 AM EST
    that what racism there was in this campaign worked FOR Senator Obama, not against him.

    People are so conditioned to fear being called racist that they will do anything to demonstrate that they're not...including voting for an inferior candidate who happens to be black.

    Parent

    actually HECK YES SHE DARN SURE IS! (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:16:04 AM EST
    she is supposed to support her in that she stands up when hillary as a woman is attacked in the vile, demeaning way she was. darn straight i expect it. she can campaign for henry her cat for all i care, but if she can't call sexism when it's there in front of her, she has no right to represent any american woman or man.

    Parent
    Yes, Every WOMEN (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:30:12 AM EST
    should support Hillary because she is a women.

    That does not mean they have to support her for the DEM Party nominee.... but they should stand against they way she has been treated.

    Parent

    McCaskill (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:45:34 AM EST
    Sorry, typo.

    Parent
    Oh, stick with McGaskill. (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by Radical Faith on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:34:45 AM EST
    I think it suits her.

    Parent
    lol n/t (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Cal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:35:36 AM EST
    This is worse and patronizing. (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by masslib on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:05:26 AM EST
    This is not respecting the Hillary Clinton Democrats.

    Take it out on McCain (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by 1jane on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:14:11 AM EST
    Clinton's candidacy is appreciated because she represented the holy grail and the noble effort it took for her and her supporters. This isn't an argument over sexism being worse than racism. Clinton lost because her opponent ran a better organized and smarter campaign, Obama didn't make up the rules.I admire Hillary Clinton but her campaign was filled with tactical errors. She has made it seem normal for a woman to run for president and for our daughters it is the greatest gift of all.  

    Tactical errors like winning (5.00 / 15) (#54)
    by masslib on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:17:18 AM EST
    the big electorals, the big swing states and the swing groups?  What happen to Obama's campaign?  He lost each of the last four consecutive months of the campaign.  He only won 40% of the final 15 contests.  

    Parent
    And, he couldn't beat her with (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:21:44 AM EST
    the pledged delegates. That's how strong she is. It took the SD's. I wonder what the Obama bloggers would say had the SD's switched or flat out voted for Clinton and put her over the top. That's how close it was.

    Parent
    Some of us are unwilling to wait until our (5.00 / 6) (#59)
    by honora on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:20:14 AM EST
    daughters, or maybe granddaughters, can enjoy a female president.  

    Parent
    The Rulz? (5.00 / 15) (#60)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:22:21 AM EST
    Meanwhile, Obama supporters need to recognize that their candidate is the victor not because he put together a majority coalition, but because he out-maneuvered Clinton. This was a highly intelligent strategy, but it was not a grand feat of majority building. Obama supporters need to recognize that their candidate won not because "the people had their say," but because his campaign out-smarted her campaign. Accordingly, they need to respect the candidate whom they could not beat in a straight-up fight for votes from realclearpolitics

    Parent
    or, as Pat Buchanan (5.00 / 13) (#65)
    by ccpup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:28:03 AM EST
    recently said -- and I can't believe I agree with him --, "Hillary is the Nominee of the People" and then he went on to say that Barack was basically the Nominee of the Party Elites who don't like Clinton.

    I don't know about you, but most elections are won by the Nominee of the People, right?  

    Parent

    I used to think so. (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by suki on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:36:04 AM EST
    Obviously I was very naive.

    Parent
    It was a tie (none / 0) (#92)
    by Newt on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:03:22 AM EST
    and Pat Buchanan is just trying to extend the animosity between Democrats.

     

    Parent

    Get used (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:27:43 AM EST
    to it. All of Michelle and Barack's clueless statements are going to be played in an endless loop for the next 5 months.

    Parent
    It was never really a tie ... (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by Inky on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:34:01 AM EST
    Among registered Democrats, Hillary was always ahead. And any legitimate advantage that Obama once held over independents and disgruntled GOPers (as opposed to GOPers who were gaming the system to elect the weakest Democrat) evaporated after Wright, Bittergate, and other gaffes and past associations were aired. For the final three months of the election, Hillary trounced Obama -- even though he was able to win a few contests where the AA population among registered Democrats was too large to be denied. And of course, she managed this even though she was outspent 2-1, 3-1, and sometimes even 4-1.

    Apparently, the DNC, in its infinite wisdom, decided to side with the candidate who had the edge in fund-raising ability, even as the primary process was demonstrating that money can't win elections when the voters aren't buying what you have to sell.

    Parent

    Also, the Repubs didn't want to (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:36:33 AM EST
    run against Hillary, think they can beat Obama so imagine if they had both to beat. I think teaming up (I didn't think this at first, but I do now) will win it. Otherwise, no top of the ticket voting for me.

    Parent
    Obama 'won' because he was carried (5.00 / 10) (#72)
    by honora on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:39:57 AM EST
    by the DNC and because Florida and Michigan were disenfranchised.  Good luck in November.

    Parent
    let's not forget the complicity of MSNBC & CNN (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:47:19 AM EST
    and being outspent 3 + to 1 and she still pulled off winning the majority of the popular vote! She's extraordinary really!

    The Texas caucuses were a joke - it was anything goes when it came to Obama's supporters - no ID, come right in, no proof of voting, step this way and intimidation galore. I was a driver for 5 elderly neighbors and they were screamed at and told the only reason they were not voting for Obama was because they didn't want a black man as president. They got so close to them that they were scared they were going to be pushed to the ground so asked me to take them home resulting in 6 less Hillary voters caucusing for her.

    These are also going to be 6 less votes for Obama in November.

    Parent

    SOMEONE needs (5.00 / 7) (#81)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:53:08 AM EST
    to ask Obama, "Since you won in places like Idaho, Utah and Wyoming, how much time and money do you intend to spend there?"

    Those little red state caucuses do NOT equate to electoral victories.  NOT pissing off more than half the base (see: WOMEN) and winning PRIMARIES in swing states do make a difference.  A BIG one!

    Parent

    A better-run campaign? (5.00 / 9) (#89)
    by chattedort on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:57:54 AM EST
    There is no effective campaign strategy that can overcome a biased, hateful media and a ruthless opponent willing to use the enemy's lies against you, knowing that the biased, hateful media will not expose the lies.

    Parent
    You admire Clinton? (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:35:19 AM EST
    Since when?

    Parent
    oh please don't be so condescending! (none / 0) (#153)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:18:21 AM EST
    hillary was demeaned, insulted, deviled and put down in ways i find disgusting. so the after fact she was historical doesn't impress me while the ones who did it march on under false flags. we know the difference. this isn't behind us; it is in front of us.

    Parent
    The Obama organization (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by samsguy18 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:26:14 AM EST
    Here in Chicago.... There is little doubt in the minds of his supporters that they will easily win this election.Their expectation is the Hillary supporters will fall in line over time.

     

    ain't gonna happen (5.00 / 10) (#67)
    by ccpup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:32:22 AM EST
    a very recent Gallup poll showed 17% of Hillary Supporters voting for McCain and a solid 22% deciding to stay home.

    That's nearly 40% of her supporters he's going to have to win back and, as it stands, his arrogance is preventing him from clearly seeing he needs to come off his damn high-horse and WORK for those votes.  In the bubble they keep him in, he doesn't need them to win and Michelle and Oprah are already choosing the drapes and -- per his remarks in Chicago yesterday -- looking at a successful second term ending in 2016.

    Perhaps a loss of historic proportions is exactly what the Dems need to clear out the corrupt dross from the DNC. (cough) Brazile (cough) Dean (cough)

    Parent

    Rest assured that McCain has seen that poll (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by honora on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:44:05 AM EST
    and is already working to capitalize on it.  I think there is a good chance that he will pick a woman and that would be a game changer.

    Parent
    Oh, you are SO WRONG! (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Shainzona on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    If he picks any woman he will have behaved as James Cagney did in the movie where he smashes a grapefruit in the woman's (Jean Harlow?)face.

    Seriously, if you think for one minute that picking a woman as his VP is going to have us swooning in the streets, you are seriously delusional.  Seriously.

    Parent

    Whoops - sorry I thought you were (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Shainzona on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    talking about Obama.

    IF MCain picks a women, you're right.  And isn't it sad that the first female president in this country will probably be a republican?

    Parent

    What's her name, Florina? the ex ceo of Hewlett (none / 0) (#122)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:13:26 AM EST
    Packard who is campaigning for him? - she would be acceptable to the GOP because of her business experience! That would be tragic, if McCain won because of his pairing with a smart woman while Obama spurned Hillary because of arrogance and spite!

    Parent
    I see Kay Bailey Hutchison (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:18:22 AM EST
    on the horizon.  They (GOP) will start courting her left, right, front and center.  Kay Bay is also a moderate (she is pro-choice for the SCOTUS blackmailers).


    Parent
    do you remember her history of (none / 0) (#154)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:21:59 AM EST
    hitting staffers? kay is a mixed candidate of sorts. she has been better than the other gop senator from texas but that's not saying much. if she doesn't get the gop nod for veep, she might run for governor.

    Parent
    the concensus is that she is running for (none / 0) (#166)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:04:06 PM EST
    governor because her children are very young and she wants to come back to TX permanently! Now that she's in the minority, she's lost all her powers.

    Parent
    The way the economy is tanking (none / 0) (#127)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:24:39 AM EST
    right now and gas prices going through the roof, housing market plummeting, health care expenses rising, well in a solidly Dem year, you can bet Team McCain are almost certainly thinking they'll need a game changer come the fall.

    And they would score double, maybe triple bonus points for their side with a solid mod-conservative female VP pick if the Dems run an all-male ticket.

    Either KB Hutchinson or Gov Palin of AK are the two most obvious women he could choose.

    Parent

    All that McCain has to do (none / 0) (#168)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:11:33 PM EST
    is remind people of the gas lines in 1974 with Carter (wasn't his fault but he was blamed).  Couple that all of Obama's gaffes that bring forth his inexperience, and we'll have President McCain.

    Then maybe we can start over with Hillary in 2012.

    Parent

    A Sen. Obama loss won't clear anything. (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by wurman on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:54:33 AM EST
    In fact, during his campaign, Sen. Obama will appoint many operatives to the DNC.  His word alone will sway decisions about both the house & senatorial campaign committees.

    As the nominee, Sen. Obama will re-structure the financial, platform & rules apparatus of the Democratic Party.  Win or lose, the party will be substantially altered before Election Day in November to totally support the needs of the Obama campaign.  If he wins, some of those folks will follow him into the administration in various patronage type jobs.  If he loses, those "minions" will stay in their positions with the party structure.

    The reason Donna Brazile & all her ilk are in positions of power is because Sen. John F. Kerry was the nominee in 2004.

    Parent

    Let's not forget that these same people lost (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:44:38 AM EST
    elections after elections. Daschle lost the senate twice and his own re-election campaign!!!! and actually seriously thought of running for the presidency - talk about delusional! This will be my consolation when they lose again in November.

    I just don't understand why the SD listened to losers and ditched the winners of 2 elections, one of which was won after the republicans took control of both houses and were at their peak of popularity!

    I feel they backed Obama to atone themselves of the miserable job they did in losing previous elections, therefore, feel they are in the best position to counsel him in the art of not repeating their mistakes by focusing instead on new voters enthusiasn, to give them the win, while ignoring  and ditching the old party's constituency which they blame for their inadequacies!

    Parent

    well then they are setting the stage then (none / 0) (#156)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:23:26 AM EST
    for decades of loss sorry to say.

    Parent
    I (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:55:24 AM EST
    wonder if the Obama campaign will have the sense to keep Dean and Brazille out of sight if at all possible. McCaskill too. Dean and Brazille are seen as corrupt by most of Senator Clinton's supporters. McCaskill is simply a hugh disappointment in every way. Hopefully she will be a one term Senator.

    I like to see women in the Senate, just not this woman. ;)

    Parent

    naw, they don't have that kind of sense. (none / 0) (#157)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:24:30 AM EST
    you couldn't get brazile from in front of the cnn camera with a blow torch.

    Parent
    Remember...for every ONE of that (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Shainzona on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:43:01 AM EST
    17% who vote for McCain, BO has to earn two.

    I like that math!  He's got to pick up 6 votes in our house alone.

    Parent

    Talking about Oprah, I cannot remember where I (none / 0) (#114)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:51:04 AM EST
    heard it, but it's reported that she said that she is going to go door to door campaigning for him.

    Parent
    maybe not such a good idea (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by ccpup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:03:39 AM EST
    as the ratings for her show have dropped and her own personal popularity rating has tanked since her endorsement of him.

    Parent
    SenC 'erred' by winning voters; BO wooed media (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by Ellie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:48:20 AM EST
    TeamObama's early avalanche was a purely generated, target marketed phenomenon more than Obama's a phenom himself.

    He is still hopelessly light on record, credibility and actual achievement beyond being a plausible figurehead. Even his words aren't his own.

    At a fraction of Obama's burn rate, Senator Clinton won the voters themselves and came out of it with the kind of respect and support that is historically awesome considering the unprecedented attacks even from her own party.

    She'll get stronger in this. Obama's weaknesses will only undermine his candidacy, should the Democrats not have buyer's remorse by the convention. Obama has yet to be tested both as a candidate and as a leader at the national level.

    If McCain nominates a moderate female VP, the Republicans will be the ones making history.

    I've got my fingers crossed that the Dems will come to their senses in Denver.

    Parent

    Typical (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:57:57 AM EST
    attitude. You are also forgetting that the GOP is going to remind voters of Obama's behavior.

    Parent
    "Fall in line" what a (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:07:02 AM EST
    communistic, dictatorship terms that is.

    Parent
    If Axelrod is going to rebuke this (5.00 / 8) (#79)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:48:49 AM EST
    he had better get started. They, the Obama people just do not get it, and if they really do, then it is a testimony to the ill-qualified candidate they have. BTD, I think you do get it, however, to preserve the democratic party by teaming these two people, which would, I believe, solidify a win in Nov., is not going to happen. Your ego may allow it, Obama's ego will not. He put pre-conditions on his meeting with Hillary (or so it was reported), he screwed the media (his friend), he has made no gestures to anyone except who he wants as his constituency, his minnions are still on the web blogging insults, McCaskill is run by her children (as is Caroline, I'm afraid), all the media is talking the Clinton's are done!! What more proof do you need???

    I don't believe it's the case with McCaskill - it (none / 0) (#117)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:55:07 AM EST
    was payback for his $14,000+ contribution to her senatorial campaign - she couldn't come out and say that she was basically bought so came out with the story re: my daughter made me do it!

    Parent
    What exquisite timing! (5.00 / 11) (#80)
    by marianne on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:49:26 AM EST
    This week the DNC sent me a personal survey to complete and return - postpaid - to their D.C. address. After all the multiple choice questions I saw (my stars!) a request for my very own comments, to be directed toward "our" Presidential nominee.

    I was pleased to comment the following thoughts:

    That after the DNC failed to validate certain states' primary results, denying Florida primary voters the required equal protection (one full vote per voter), reassigned Michigan votes to candidates not appearing on the ballot, and then discarded the most popular and (when you blow the media smoke away) leading candidate, "our" nominee may represent the DNC's choice but not much more than that.

    For that reason, I continued, my vote for President this November will be made outside the party. Unless HRC is somehow reinstated as "our" Democratic nominee.

    Sadly, my primary vote was not fully counted, but now perhaps at least one person in the DNC will hear my "voice", on their survey...

    He hasn't fought for John Edwards contingent.... (5.00 / 7) (#88)
    by jerry on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:57:12 AM EST
    I see no reason to think he'll fight for Clinton's contingent.

    LOL, Edwards is supposed to fight... (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:04:55 AM EST
    ...for his contingent. Obama doesn't get that when Hillary and Edwards said they would fight for us, they meant for our interests...not for our votes for Obama!

    Parent
    That NYT article is full of little gems... (5.00 / 7) (#98)
    by americanincanada on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:10:11 AM EST
    Former Gov. Madeleine M. Kunin of Vermont suggested in an interview that Mr. Obama promise to appoint women to half his cabinet positions.

    Ms. Steinem advised that Mr. Obama deliver the same sort of ambitious speech about sex that he did on race. An aide said the campaign was considering such an address.

    Oh yes, another Obama speech, this time on sexism. Won't that be fun. Obama on sexism. What a riot. Break out the popcorn, I would almost pay to see what the reaction to that would be.


    Well you and I will have one reaction (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by catfish on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:54:45 AM EST
    but he'll say the things we've been saying for months and MSNBO will hail it as a genius speech and they'll say "nobody ever explained it like he did."

    Parent
    No one has done more (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by americanincanada on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:40:06 AM EST
    to fight sexism than Senator Obama. /snark

    Parent
    How can he give a speech against what he (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:04:05 AM EST
    practices? Will he use his "racist, typical white grandmother" as an example again? What bothered me about his grandmother's comment in his race speech was the fact he chose to use his grandmother but not his grandfather as the example and I'm sure it was done as to not offend white men but be damn women, they'll all come around because of Roe vs Wade!

    Parent
    If Axlrod designed this strategy (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:30:32 AM EST
    Which I highly doubt he did, but if he did, then he's a complete moron because it won't work.

    "I know.  I'll offend a group of voters and then when there's no political risk I'll pretend we never offended them."

    That's a LOSING strategy.  a FAILING strategy!

    If Obama wants to earn my vote.. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by TimNCGuy on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:50:37 AM EST
    The way to start is to make a public statement rebuking, by name, those that participated in the vile and disgusting personal attacks against Clinton.  That includes bloggers like Kos, Atrios, HuffPo and AmericaBlog.  It also includes memebrs of the media.  

    I personally think Obama should take away the convention blogging credentials of the bloggers who both allowed and encouraged the attacks on their sites.

    So, on Wednesday (5.00 / 8) (#128)
    by mkevinf on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:25:19 AM EST
    a young African-American co-worker, who is a man of few words, passed me and said, "So your girl lost yesterday."  Insofar as I'd never talked about my preference while at work - something I've learned not to do, despite the pro-Obama conversations taking place all over the work-floor this year - I have to assume he saw my Hillary bumper stickers.
    Now, I took offense at a couple things: "your girl" was, of course, one part, although I realize that's an expression often used to refer to one's preferred female candidate/celebrity, etc.  Still, given that the young man is African-American, had I said "your boy won't have it till the convention vote", it might have resulted in a meeting with HR.
    Secondly, it was not enough for the young man that "his boy" had won, but he seemed happier that Hillary had lost.
    I can not help but feel that, in addition to the fallout from the silence by Dem leaders, including Obama, regarding the sexist filth that flowed daily from the media and bloggers, there is racial fallout.  The "race-baiting" narrative has taken root in the AA community, apparently; indeed, it seems that "race-baiting" has turned into viewing Bill and Hillary as racists. I felt as though my co-worker's happiness stems from buying into those reprehensible tags put on the Clintons.  And having supported "my girl", an assumption on his part may very well be that I, too, am a race-baiting, racist, redneck.
    I don't expect any apology from any black leader, let alone Obama, for the willful distortions by the media and the Obama campaign regarding Bill's "fairy tale" description and Hillary's "it took a president" comments, but I think one would be appropriate.  
    With friends like Charlie Rangel, who referred to Hillary as "our fearless leader" and worried about being out on the limb regarding constituencies that were pro-Obama, it's obvious to me that some of that black leadership support was, you should pardon the expression, skin-deep.
    The sexism in this primary was obvious; the elephant in the room is the accusation of race-baiting, and racism on the part of Hillary and her white supporters.  I'd like to hear Barry-O denounce those mischaracterizations, but I won't hold my breath.

    Oy (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by bmc on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:25:31 AM EST
    If they're going to dismiss Clinton voters by sendin out Claire McCaskill as the emissary of "good will," they've got a huge problem. McCaskill is the worst choice as surrogate--her smug arrogance comes through every time she is interviewed. Go ahead, make my day. Bring out Claire McCaskill as the spokesperson for Clinton's women voters. Yeah, that'll work. McCaskill's the one to bridge the divide.

    Please read the rules (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    It is a violation to insult Jeralyn, BTD the site or other posters.  If you have an issue with a fact, provide a link with data that refuts it.

    obama isn't going to get my vote, (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by cpinva on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:30:22 AM EST
    in any election. his campaign proved what kind of politician he is, the sleaziest. i guess it's that "chicago style" politics that got him "elected" there, and to congress, played out on a national stage.

    i'll write-in sen. clinton's name on my ballot, because i just flat out don't like sen. obama, as a person or a candidate.

    Unity? I think not. (4.70 / 10) (#94)
    by americanincanada on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:04:51 AM EST
    When Mr. Dean reached out to Cynthia Ruccia, who started an organization of female Clinton swing-state voters threatening to vote for Mr. McCain, Ms. Ruccia asked that the Democratic convention include a symbolic first ballot for Mrs. Clinton's delegates. Mr. Dean discouraged the idea on the grounds of unity."

    Disrespect (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by waldenpond on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:44:34 AM EST
    That is a horrible sign of disrespect.  It's just another get over it.  What? does he think the first vote would accidently go for Obama?  what a coward.

    Parent
    The first vote going against Obama (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by americanincanada on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:46:49 AM EST
    is EXACTLY what he is afraid of.

    Parent
    Indeedy. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:57:34 PM EST
    Terrified, I'd guess.

    Parent
    Was unity really the reason? (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by sj on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:58:31 AM EST
    Or did he have a fear that the "symbolic" first vote might actually give her the nod?  I am so, so very disappointed in Dean.  For five years he's been my man, Howard Dean.

    I truly believe that a major mistake of the Clinton campaign was that they never formed an alliance -- or even a truce -- with him.  Instead, there was Carville out there with a sledgehammer every chance he got.

    Parent

    What are you saying? (none / 0) (#16)
    by lgm on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:31:10 AM EST
    Are you reacting to something Roger Simon said about Obama?  Are you saying Obama has not been gracious?  Is there something in particular he should be doing that he is not doing?    

    Ask Claire McCaskill (5.00 / 12) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:35:47 AM EST
    Appparently she felt it necessary to explain it to the Obama campaign.

    Parent
    What do you see it as? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 07:51:52 AM EST
    So your theory is that (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:06:32 AM EST
    it is up in the air whether Obama will fight for Clinton Dems? Interesting.

    Parent
    Roger Simon's interpretation (none / 0) (#48)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:09:39 AM EST
    of a comment,  which may not be an accurate representaion of said comment.  Maybe that interpretation says more about the view that Simon himself has than the view of the Obama campaign.  

    That comment doesn't sound accurate in view of Obama's actions here      
    or this statement regarding Bill Clinton.

    Parent

    Nooo (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:12:32 AM EST
    Simon has on the record quotes that absolutely backed up his interpretation.

    Look, you want to play game and act foolish in defense of Obama, that is your choice, but I will not do that.

    I am not a cheerleader in this election.

    I refer you to my "What Now?" post.

    Parent

    This advisor may be one (none / 0) (#66)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:30:36 AM EST
    who thinks that all the Clinton voters, or enough of them, will come back on their own. Others in the camp and Obama himself may disagree. OR that advisor may be one whose view is colored by Clinton-hate.  OR he may be posturing somewhat -- would the campaign really come out and say they have a big problem with part of the Dem base -- would that really be a good strategy in battling McCain.

    Again, I'd say that OBAMA's actions to Clinton supporters provided in link above, and Obama's statement's regarding Bill Clinton seem to show that they do want to woo Clinton voters, and seem to contradict that senior advisors position.

    Parent

    Sort of my point (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:42:30 AM EST
    in this post.

    The report today was a rebuke to the "senior advisors" who spoke to Simon.

    I have to ask, does anybody ACTUALLY READ my posts?

    Parent

    I gets the sense... (5.00 / 7) (#84)
    by p lukasiak on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:54:54 AM EST
    I get the sense that the reason behind the "woo-ing" of Clinton supporters is a lot closer to the "high school quarterback bets his friends that he can turn the ugly-duckling into a prom queen" movie cliche than actual interest in Clinton's supporters.

    Team Obama is wooing us just to win the bet -- they still think of us as "ugly ducklings", and there will be no happy ending.  

    Parent

    And McCain's wooing (none / 0) (#118)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:58:04 AM EST
    of Clinton supporters is because he has an actual interest in them?

    Parent
    He at least acknowledged that we exist - it makes (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:52:15 AM EST
    me wonder if Obama has finally turned his attention to us simply because McCain did it first!

    Parent
    Obama's bamboozling with graciousness (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by kimsaw on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:46:51 AM EST
    you got to love it. First he wants Bill out of the way  and now he wants him standing up for him, and  Clinton supporters will fall in line. Spare me. Some Clinton supporters will. Look at the ones that came on board already, all the pols that think they need him. Dem die hards.  This unaffiliated Clinton supporter sees through the politics of convenience. It's the same old politics. Obama the messiah of the new politics is a fallacy.

    His strategy is to divide and conquer. What's new with that?
    -Assume the voter is stupid.
    -Create racism where there is none.
    -Allow sexism to run rampant and only offer _"you're likable enough" in response. -"Periodically" cycle your opponents polarizing stats.
    -Never accept responsibility, someone else is to blame, never apologize. Don't forget if necessary have bus ready to throw grandma under.
    -Make sure party dumps supporters of opponent as not essential to your win.
    -Slam opponent when she doesn't give up. Harass her to drop out. Make sure the press and surrogates trash her when she refuses.
    -Don't recognize the power of 18 million voices.

    When you've won,
    -Make sure to make-up by wanting the "big guy" on your side. Make sure everyone thinks you'll be working with you opponent in Nov.. But don't offer what you mean.
    -Set up preconditions to meet with opponent, but make sure the same will not apply to Iran.
    -Hold press captive on plane, in order to meet in secret.
    -Make sure press knows just enough till the convention and have surrogates slam opponent as needed.
    -Tell everyone to calm down while ignoring opponent's supporters because on preconditions she will bring them back to the fold.

    So what's new?

     

    Parent

    I have a feeling that Bill will not campaign (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by suzieg on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:14:36 AM EST
    in any visible way for Obama. and why should he? Calling him a racist through his surrogates and that race baiting Clyburn must have hurt worse than anything that could have been negatively said about him. I cannot imagine dedicating your whole life on civil rights causes, starting a foundation through your presidential library to African causes and in return be called "racist"! That must hurt!!!

    The Obama campaign used the Rove playbook which advocates destroying your opponent strong suit which for the Clintons was their dedicated work on civil rights! That is when I turned against Obama, it was below vile..... but the greatest sin rest on the media, which knew perfectly well that there was not an ounce of truth in these accusations but went ahead anyway and peddled that filth.

    I take Bill at his word when he said that it was going to be the last time he would speak in this presidential race, back in South Dakota and good for him! Why should he be conciliatory towards Obama, who, at every chance he got, denigrated him personally and his accomplishments.

    Parent

    Obama's actions... (5.00 / 8) (#87)
    by wasabi on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:55:44 AM EST
    Well isn't that special!  At his event at the Xcel Energy Center where 17K people attended, he had a room set aside after the rally for the 25 Clinton supporters who attended.  There he shook the hands of each and thanked them for coming.  All were party bigwigs or superdelegates.  Ok, then!  
    18,000,000 - 25 = 17,999,975.

    From the Roger Simon article reference earlier...
    "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."

    The professional politicians and movers and shakers will get behind Obama.  It's their jobs on the line.  However it doesn't follow that the rank and file Clinton-supporting Dems will fall in line too.  My political career won't be affected with how I decide to vote.

    Parent

    Guess you would have been (none / 0) (#121)
    by IndiDemGirl on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:09:23 AM EST
    happier if he had forbidden the Clinton supporters from attending his speech; refused to shake their hands; told them he hated them.

    And while you may not "fall in line" as you put it, certainly some other Clinton supporters will support him or he would be behind by 20 plus  points in every state poll.

    IF Clinton had gotten the nomination, do you think that Obama supporters wouldn't have been bitter?  What would she have done to win them back?  She would have had the same problem.

    Parent

    she cewrtainly (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by TimNCGuy on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 10:21:19 AM EST
    wouldn't have spent the last twomonths telling the media that she didn't need them.  And, wouldn't have sent a spokesman out this week saying he wasn't going to spend a lot of time trying to woo them back.

    And, I think she would have told her supporters in the blogosphere to STOP the bashing.

    Parent

    Schizophrenia (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:09:20 PM EST
    I think it's becoming clear what all the multiple personality disorder is about.

    Obama's campaign knows they need Clinton's supporters, or at least some significant part of them.  But if they admit that, it weakens their negotiating position wrt keeping her from being VP or putting her supporters in any major posts.

    This has been the MO all along -- like Obama's public comments about the RFK thing v. Axelrod's stirring up the media and blogbubble.  Say two opposing things with a straight face and hope it will work.

    The DNC et all are not done purging the party yet.  Thus Dean's acknowledgement of sexism and wet noodly assertions about a national conversation while blaming us for getting wounded in the first place.

    I studied the Soviet Union in college and all their moves track Stalin's consolidation of power almost exactly -- destroy anyone who isn't 100% for you.  For people too powerful or important to be quietly disappeared, have a big show trial (can you say 'Rules and Bylaws Committee' anyone?).  Attack anyone who does not support you enthusiastically enough.

    I suppose we should be grateful that Obama does not yet have the power to have his nonsupporters killed or shipped off to the gulag.  Although, if I were Hillary, I might be careful about opening my front door to any knocking that comes in the middle of the night.

    Parent

    What do you think, BTD? (none / 0) (#169)
    by lgm on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:40:19 PM EST
    Your post seemed ambiguous, maybe because it was written in a hurry (being a blog post).  It played up the idea that Obama had not been gracious and was not interested in Clinton supporters.  It seemed to hint that this was also your opinion but it didn't actually say so.  Hence the question to you, BTD:

    Has Obama been ungracious?  If so how?

    Do you see Obama ignoring Clinton supporters?  If so, what should he do that he's not already doing to get them to vote Democratic in the next Presidential election?

    BTW: this blog is great.  I don't agree with lots of it but there's a lot to learn in it.  Thanks.

    Parent

    well yeah! read the posts here (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:30:36 AM EST
    might be a good start for you. so please read what is being written before asking such questions.

    Parent
    While some forces may have conspired (none / 0) (#91)
    by ricky on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 08:59:03 AM EST
    against Senator Clinton, Obama would have had no chance of prevailing if he hadn't won the majority of pledged delegates. No DNC conspiracy, if that's what happened, would have been possible without that circumstance. If nothing else, he ran a very smart campaign to achieve that aspect of his victory.
     

    please come back after the general (none / 0) (#163)
    by hellothere on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:34:13 AM EST
    with some more thoughts. i am sure your thinking will have changed a great deal after the fact.

    Parent
    Axelrod Got Rebuked (none / 0) (#97)
    by BDB on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:09:47 AM EST
    If I had to guess, many in the Obama campaign still aren't listening.  McCaskill needs them to listen because I bet she's hearing from a lot of her donors and supporters.  

    He doesn't need McCaskill (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by zfran on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:28:33 AM EST
    anymore!! She's done her work for him.

    Parent
    Defining the new base (none / 0) (#151)
    by mmc9431 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 11:14:44 AM EST
    After reading the comments on several sites yesterday, I am convinced that Obama really does believe that junk about not needing Hilary's supporters. They think there are more than enough Republican's and Indep. to offset any loss. It's scary how blind they are. Unless the Democratic platform does a 180 I don't see a mass exodus of Republican flocking over. And when Obama and McCain competed in open primaries, McCain got the independants. This strategy is a flawed as his western strategy is to me.

    I found out I'm an "optional" voter (none / 0) (#171)
    by splashy on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:07:03 PM EST
    Just the other day.

    So, I guess I'm an independent voter - he doesn't have my vote. If Clinton doesn't end up on the ballot, I'm seriously thinking of going Green this time for prez, and who knows down ticket. With all this misogyny, I don't feel so attached to the Dems any more. Makes things a bit more difficult in some ways, but we should all vote issues instead of party, IMHO.

    Parent

    Hillary was McCaskilled (none / 0) (#175)
    by suzyqueue on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 09:12:34 PM EST
    If Claire McCaskill is their women's emissary, their in trouble.  Every time I see her on TV, I switch the channel, frantically searching for the remote  enough so I don't have to hear her uttr a single word (besides her, only Olbermann incites this reaction in me).  She did more to sink Hillary's candidacy than any of his surrogates.  What a traitor to women.