home

Why Dems Lose, Part . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:15:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via digby, Clark sidelined:

“On a scale of 1 to 10, Clark’s words were a 10 in terms of unhelpfulness,” said one Democrat who has helped manage past presidential campaigns.

Bob Shrum? Bob Beckel? Donna Brazile? What a bunch of losers. Cowering and flinching is what Dems are known for. Looks like that ain't changing.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Webb Out Of VP Stakes | McCain's Plan to Further Weaken a Struggling Economy >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Why Dems Lose, Part . . . | 202 comments (202 topical)
    It hasn't changed because they truly think (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:17:07 PM EST
    their's is a winning stratejery....frightening!

    Well it was Obama (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by talex26 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:11:45 PM EST
    who initially reacted to it and tossed Clark under the bus.

    [ Parent ]
    To no one's surprise...obama is in knee- (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:54:13 PM EST
    jerk mode 24/7...

    [ Parent ]
    Face it, (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by tek on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:58:33 PM EST
    Democrats eat their own.  That's the most distinguishing characteristic of today's Democratic Party and that's why for the first time in many years I will not be voting Democratic.  No one should be rewarded for attacking their own family.

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by andgarden on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:17:49 PM EST


    Looks like vintage Shrum to me. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Pegasus on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:24:38 PM EST


    It is a shame that they took that (5.00 / 14) (#4)
    by hairspray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:26:14 PM EST
    position on Wes Clark.  He is their strongest military expert in that he engineered the sucessful Bosnia conflict, with nary a US soldier death and saw to it that other
    European countries paid their fair share so that the US only paid 1/8th of the costs. Clark was the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO with a chest full of ribbons and an incredible intellect. It is also a shame that they savaged Bill Clinton who is adored by world leaders and their populations and extremely well liked by over 60% of the Americans. I gues the young don't study things like that in school anymore, not that it would matter.

    It's like having Ike (none / 0) (#133)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:31:02 PM EST
    warn you about a crazy eyed Politico Patton.  Even though Ike liked Patton as a good buddy.

    [ Parent ]
    I love this party (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:26:50 PM EST
    I think I was wrong on one prediction, though.  I fully expected some prominent Dem to make an on-the-record call for an apology from Clark.  Maybe it happened and I missed it.

    Progress (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:31:46 PM EST
    Now they say their idiocies unattributed.

    Actually, I think Jim Jordan is the quote. lots of times you'll see attributed and unattributed quotes from the same person in an article.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes. I got the (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:35:57 PM EST
    same impression after just reading the article.

    Too bad for Clark.  Too bad for us.  Again.

    [ Parent ]

    As a Clarkie (5.00 / 10) (#19)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:50:58 PM EST
    I'm sure you are familiar with his quote where he said that he chose the Democratic Party because, given his position on domestic issues, he would have been "the loneliest Republican in America."

    I mention that only because now he is seemingly finding out what it's like to be the loneliest Democrat in America.

    Is it not the duty of every good Democrat to hate their own party?

    [ Parent ]

    Lonely? Nah. Lots of others (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:57:15 PM EST
    under the you-know-what already.  

    [ Parent ]
    for sure (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:01:17 PM EST
    he wont be lonely under there

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure they think....... (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:51:19 PM EST
    ...we're all Bozos underneath this bus. But in reality, the clowns are the ones on board.

    Still, I'm quite pleased to have General Clark down here with us. I hope he realizes that he's got friends here.

    [ Parent ]

    Hey, extra points (none / 0) (#119)
    by tree on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:02:16 PM EST
    for the Firesign Theatre reference!

    [ Parent ]
    "Mr. Uh, Clem... (none / 0) (#145)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:55:21 PM EST
    please report to the hospitality shelter."

    [ Parent ]
    apologies (none / 0) (#161)
    by weltec2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:28:08 PM EST
    for going off topic.

    [ Parent ]
    Clark is not lonely (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:04:05 PM EST
    He has a committed group of supporters and I think you will see him working for non-Presidential Dems.

    Maybe not of the Hoyer variety, but of the Darcy Burner variety.

    [ Parent ]

    Hopefully he will get out there (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:13:44 PM EST
    working for non-Presidential Dems. He endorsed a Dem in CA and campaigned for him in 2006 along with Max Cleland. The guy didn't win, but he's running again, so hopefully Clark will endorse him again. From what I can tell, he has a better shot this time. It's the CD I'm moving to, so here's hoping I get the Dem!

    [ Parent ]
    We need him here in NC (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by BernieO on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:41:04 PM EST
    to help Kay Hagan defeat the invisible Liddy Dole. Her main job is raising funds for the RNC. She can't be bothered coming here except near an election. She just came out for offshore drilling, then for portecting the coral reefs off the NC coast. How's that for trying to have it both ways? She is incredibly phoney.
    I am particularly hoping Hillary goes to bat for Hagan. There are a lot of women who worked on her campaign here - many for the first time - who would respond if she urges them to get involved in Kay's campaign. The Republicans are getting nervous about Dole's seat.

    [ Parent ]
    Email! (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:48:54 PM EST
    I'm emailing Hillary about the CA Dems. Yeah, I hope they both go out and work for some good solid down ticket Dems. We're gonna need them no matter who wins. Sad but true, imo. I'm looking to support CA ones as mine here are set this time around, and I'm moving to CA. Working both coasts here :)

    [ Parent ]
    Wouldn't (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:08:34 PM EST
    it be odd if more candidates wanted Hillary to campaign for them than Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    Liddy did a terrible job raising funds for the (none / 0) (#156)
    by DeborahNC on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:12:30 PM EST
    Republicans, and it looks as if she's not doing much better for her own campaign this time around. If Kay runs a strong campaign, I think that she can defeat Dole, and help from high profile Dems can only strengthen her position.

    I don't think that support for Liddy is as strong as it once was. Lots of people are just tired of having Republicans run things. And Bush's legacy is just icing on the cake!

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:13:48 PM EST
    I would hope you understand I was not referring to supporters.  Of course real Democrats would not abandon him.

    [ Parent ]
    Hoyer Dems have and will (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:19:25 PM EST
    I do see this as part of the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party and I find it striking that there is not more realization that in many ways, the embrace, no questions asked, of the Obama campaign was in fact an embrace of gussied up Hoyerism.

    I never could break through with that message.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps this shows that supine (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:21:20 PM EST
    Daschle-ism IS a winning message which was only waiting for the right messenger.

    [ Parent ]
    you broke through to some (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:56:59 PM EST
    its why I am still here.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#78)
    by Steve M on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:52:32 PM EST
    I bet you never thought Hillary Clinton, of all people, would wind up as the candidate of political courage.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure she did (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:58:04 PM EST
    on the issues.

    But she sure proved a fighter and I doubt they would have backed down on Clark. Just on principle of never conceding anything.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh (none / 0) (#129)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:21:45 PM EST
    Mandates.  blah blah blah.

    [ Parent ]
    Happy to see you (none / 0) (#201)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:45:18 AM EST
    acknowledge this.

    [ Parent ]
    Darcy Burner (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:22:13 PM EST
    My future rep ;-).

    [ Parent ]
    Show our General (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by jen on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:09:06 PM EST
    some LOVE! :D

    Updated: Wes's week from Hell Fundraiser <---CCN (Clark Community Network)

    [ Parent ]

    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by tek on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:00:43 PM EST
    that's what I keep telling Obama people.  There IS a principled position in opposition of Obama.  It ain't just revenge.

    [ Parent ]
    Digby is so right, as usual (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:29:08 PM EST
    I think everyone will be a little bit more circumspect about criticizing McCain's military expertise and national security judgment from now on, don't you? Some things are sacred in the village and McCain's superior leadership ability is one of them.

    Hmmmm. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:37:50 PM EST
    That sure bodes well for the general election, doesn't it.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it revealed (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:42:38 PM EST
    once and for all who the media darling really is.

    [ Parent ]
    You're probably right. (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:44:28 PM EST
    We'll find out soon enough.

    This hasn't even begun to get nasty.

    [ Parent ]

    Not so sure (none / 0) (#61)
    by BernieO on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:36:06 PM EST
    I am listening to media guys on MSNBC defending Obama on the flip flop charge. John Harwood said his only flip was on campaign finance reform. How's that for favoritism?

    I have a feeling that most in the mainstream media are torn and have not yet settled on a favorite to sell to us.

    [ Parent ]

    the media pundits may like obama but (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:38:22 PM EST
    in my view their bosses like mccain.

    [ Parent ]
    George Soros (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by tek on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:07:16 PM EST
    owns CNN.  Not sure what's going on with MSNBC, but NBC bought The Weather Channel today so I guess we'll start hearing that Obama is Inspiring the weather to Change.

    [ Parent ]
    MSNBC will stick with Obama... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:54:23 PM EST
    ...still unclear which way the others will go, but they have been harsher on Obama lately.

    [ Parent ]
    you are talking about MSNBC (none / 0) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:55:29 PM EST
    they are, as almost anyone would admit, a special case.  they are so deep in the tank for Obama they dont even try to hide it anymore.  coincidentally they are the least viewed cable station.
    although I grant you CNN is not that much better.


    [ Parent ]
    yeah the choices are? msnbc, cnn or fox! (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:03:43 PM EST
    msnbc-last seen struggling to stay above the water but taking it on quickly.

    cnn-paddles around and goes nowhere.

    fox- in the tank for mccain!

    it will indeed be interesting to watch. i'll read about it on here but i won't watch.

    [ Parent ]

    Thankfully both Dems and Repubs Agree with Hillary (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    that McCain has passed the Commander in Chief threshold.

    [ Parent ]
    I suppose that was (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:58:06 PM EST
    intended as a jab at Hillary when all it really points out is that she was right about that too.


    [ Parent ]
    That was supposed to be a jab at Obama supporters (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Dan the Man on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:09:12 PM EST
    for criticizing her then when it turns out Obama is agreeing with her now.  Frankly, I thought the entire Hillary shouldn't have said that controversy was sort of silly because no Democratic candidate was going to attack McCain's commander in chief credentials.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:17:42 PM EST
    sometimes you cant tell the ACs from the DCs.
    (but I agree with you completely)

    [ Parent ]
    <cough>bulls#*t<cough> (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:50:49 PM EST
    In my book nothing is more sacred than those guys and girls in uniform right now standing at the next death's door and the reason they are standing there......certainly not McCain's military past because his past and theirs is present and we can all do something positive and productive about the present.

    [ Parent ]
    Which "prominent liberal blog" (none / 0) (#35)
    by joanneleon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:08:00 PM EST
    were they referring to in the Politico article?

    [ Parent ]
    It's really (none / 0) (#202)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:48:10 AM EST
    a subject they shouldn't bring up.

    [ Parent ]
    I've Said It Before (5.00 / 12) (#10)
    by BDB on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:39:11 PM EST
    but I'll say it again (not that it's particularly an original thought) - the American people may be dumb, but they ain't stupid.  There's a reason why they think the Democrats are weak on national security and it has nothing to do with policy.  It's all about the politics.  If Democrats won't stand and defend Wes Clark, then why should any American voter believe they will stand and protect them.  

    There is no principle these losers won't compromise.  And then run to the press and brag about how smart they are for selling out their colleague or principles.  

    Stupid is as stupid does.

    with a strong (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:47:14 PM EST
    top-of-the-ticket candidate, it's possible the Dems could get away with such abject stupidity and short-sightedness.  But with Obama as "our" Nominee, there isn't that necessary sense of strength and leadership the Party needs in order to effectively fight against McCain on this score who, at the very least is seen (rightly or wrongly) as someone "tough" who is a "fighter" and "won't back down".

    When Obama and the Dems keep refining and apologizing and, in yet another attempt at political expediency, throwing more and more groups under the bus, how can he be seen as fighting for anyone but himself?

    [ Parent ]

    GOP Will Probably Lose (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by BDB on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:59:31 PM EST
    the political winds are so strongly against them, it's difficult to see how they could pull this out (but it's nice of the Dems to try to help them so much or at least make them feel better by adopting so many of their positions on social issues).

    The real tragedy is that this could've been a year when the Democrats won instead of simply being the party the GOP loses to.  But it's pretty clear that the party has decided not to use this opportunity to push any core policies.  They're so afraid of not losing, they aren't willing to play for the win.  Which just shows what a weak pathetic shell of a party they've become.  Forget Obama, this is the party that Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid built.  Obama's just the best candidate to represent it.

    [ Parent ]

    I respectfully disagree (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:06:33 PM EST
    If Obama was the "best candidate" to represent our Party, why was he unable to -- even though he outspent his opponent -- win any of the big Dem States and ended up, basically, limping across the finish line with an assist from his pals at the DNC?

    Have we ever had a Nominee who lost NH, CA, NY, NJ, OH, FL and PA to an underfunded and harassed (via the Media) opponent?

    He isn't the best candidate we could have had, but he WAS the candidate the Powers That (Wanna)Be at the DNC decided would be The One.  

    Now they're working double-time trying to fit a very square peg into an obviously round hole and the Voters just ain't gonna buy it.

    [ Parent ]

    I Don't Think He Was The Best (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by BDB on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:11:04 PM EST
    in terms of being a good candidate.

    When I said he best represented the party, I meant he was "best" in terms of representing this capitulating group of losers that are led by Pelosi, Reid, et al, because he is the most like them.  From what I can tell, Obama - like the current party - has never met an issue that he wouldn't compromise.  So, in that way, he's the best representative of the party.

    [ Parent ]

    gotcha (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:19:42 PM EST
    as for the wind being against the Republicans, it was strongly against them in 2004.  But add in a very successful Swiftboat Campaign -- with a laughably weak response -- and a few interestingly timed Terrorism Alerts and, Voila!, Bush gets a second term.

    Kerry's tendency to go on and on and on without saying much of anything sank him.  And, unfortunately with this refining and WORM, I fear we may have yet another candidate Voters will feel confused by and impatient with by Election Day.

    For what it's worth, Yahoo! had an interesting Poll out today about the Top Ten words Voters think of when asked about each Candidate.  McCain's Top Five were

    1. Old, 19 percent

    2. Military service, 9 percent

    3. Record, qualifications, 8 percent

    4. Bush, 7 percent

    5. Strength, 7 percent

    Obama's were:

    1. Outsider, change, 20 percent

    2. Lack of experience, 13 percent

    3. Dishonest, 9 percent

    4. Inspiring, 8 percent

    5. Liberal, 6 percent

    Probably not worth much, but it is an interesting snapshot.

    [ Parent ]
    Hey BTB (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Jane in CA on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:55:57 PM EST
    I've been reading your posts for a long time and find that we are most often in agreement.  I have to admit, though, that comments like this puzzle me:

    GOP Will Probably Lose the political winds are so strongly against them, it's difficult to see how they could pull this out

    I am curious as to why you (and other folks I respect and admire) are so sanguine on this matter.  I've read the articles about how this is the democrat's year, and so on, but I simply don't see it playing out that way based on some on the things I'm observing.

    I remember reading that 2004 was the Democrat's year as well, with Kerry running against a president with the lowest approval ratings ever, promising to end an extremely unpopular war, etc. etc.  Yet at this time in 2004, Kerry was running at or slightly higher against Bush in the polls than Obama is running against McCain now and Kerry had been under swift boat attack for a full two months by early July.  I emphasize this point, because Obama has yet to be tested at all in this manner, and yet he is unable to muster up a more robust lead against McCain than Kerry did against Bush while simultaneously fighting attacks on his integrity and honor?

    And, let's be honest.  Obama's past and present is a minefield, both personally and professionally.  I'm feeling a little ambivalent here, because I don't believe the Democratic party should be rewarded with the White House for its shameful tactics during the primaries and its utter capitulation on FISA, among other things. At the same time, I've been a yellow dog democrat for nearly 30 years, and it's hard for me to accept that the party is just going to let its candidate sit there like a complacent pheasant while a sky of hawks circles overhead.

    So, I guess I'm asking: am I missing something? Did the 527s really get scared off by some court admonishment of which I'm unaware and cannot find reference to? Does someone have the proverbial pictures of McCain in leopard-skin underwear to ensure that Obama is not attacked? Do people believe that the GOP is a kinder, gentler party now that Rove is not driving campaigm rhetoric? Not being snarky here at all, just wondering, what's behind this optimism?

    [ Parent ]

    Sanguine Is Probably the Wrong Word (5.00 / 7) (#164)
    by BDB on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:44:35 PM EST
    Uninvested is a better one.

    I don't like Obama (I've developed a personal loathing for the man on top of my many policy disagreements) and think he and his movement are bad for the Democratic Party and the country.   I'm not interested in the two party system being made up of a far right and center-right party and I think Obama is center-right.  Obama may be less evil than McCain, but I can't get all worked up over the electoral prospects of a candidate whose best quality from my perspective is "less evil than McCain."  

    I find the entire thing depressing.   I'm torn over which would be worse in the long run - McCain as President or losing what's left of the Democrats as an opposition party (the slide into neoliberalism and corporatism didn't begin with Obama, I see him more as the culmination).  And I have yet to decide who I will vote for in November other than it will not be McCain.  Could be Obama (although he hasn't improved his chances these last two weeks).  Could be McKinney.  Could be a write in for Abraham Lincoln.  

    I do think Obama is likely to win if for no other reason than the economy is going to probably suck by November and that's usually bad for the incumbent party.  It would not surprise me in the least, however, if he gets a smaller percentage of the vote than the Congressional slate does.  I expect the coattails to go the other way this year, with guys like Warner helping Obama rather than vice versa.   I do grant you that the Democrats are doing everything possible to lose and may yet prove they can do it even in a year like this.  But if that comes to pass, then we may get an opportunity to purge many of the party leaders that have failed us so miserably the last eight years and we'll still have large majorities in the Congress which can either stand up to McCain or prove once and for all the Democratic Party isn't worth saving.  Wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by Jane in CA on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:56:41 PM EST
    these kinds of posts are the reason you have so many upratings from me :)

    Thanks for great analysis.  I agree with you on every point you make -- even up to the prediction that the economy is going to be THE single most compelling issue in November. I agree, as well, that the Democrats typically have better luck than the republicans when the economy is the primary issue.

    What is strange to me is that in the internet articles I'm reading (not blogs; news stories on AOL/Yahoo/etc), polls have Obama/McCain tied or even McCain slightly ahead on economic issues.  I haven't seen any in-depth polls on this, but I'm concerned because it appears that the average person's knee-jerk reaction is to trust McCain on this issue. And, let's face it,  Obama and the Democratic party should OWN this issue.  Obama should have double digits leads over McCain on the economy, especially this early in the game and with the weight of the party's historic strength on economic issues behind him.  

    I'm concerned that the economic issue is just another reflection of voters' uncertainty about Obama's reliability.  And that should be worrying the party a heck of a lot more than it seems to be doing, IMHO.

    [ Parent ]

    There's Lots of Troubling News Underneath Polls (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by BDB on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:17:28 PM EST
    McCain often does horribly on the issue of Iraq policy but more often than anyone should like wins on the issue of who people trust more.  When folks trust the guy they disagree with you have a problem.  To me, this indicates Obama has never adequately addressed the experience issue.

    And, yes, the Democrats should own the economy as an issue.  But Obama has never connected with non-AA working class voters, who are among the most vulnerable in the economy, and I don't see that changing (especially when he's done little to try to change it).  

    I also think it's a concern that Obama is often not above 50% even as he leads McCain.  That's very puzzling to me and we saw in some states in the primaries that candidates could lead in a poll, but where they never topped 50%, they didn't win.  Obama led in one PA poll (but was at 49%) and tied in a very late Ohio poll, but in neither state did he ever top 50%.   Against McCain, there are few polls where Obama has ever topped 50%.  Same for McCain.  Which to me says that neither of them have got the support they would need to win right now.  Obama is closer to having it, but he's not there.

    [ Parent ]

    One More Troubling Indicator (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by BDB on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:19:32 PM EST
    If it's right, the latest CNN poll showed that Obama had lost ground among Clinton voters in the last month from winning 60% of them to 54% of them.  That's moving in the wrong direction.  Far from winning them over, he appears to be alienating them.  

    [ Parent ]
    Forgot to add (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by BDB on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 10:21:00 PM EST
    about that CNN poll, the good news for Obama is that a third of the Clinton non-Obama supporters said they would stay home or vote third party.  They won't be voting for McCain.  So it's only a one vote swing instead of two.   The bad news is that means there are solid Dems out there who still won't vote for him.  Not a good sign, IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    How Do You Defend His Remarks? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by talex26 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:06:55 PM EST
    It isn't that he said something that bad, it is how he phrased what he did and how he injected it into the middle of what he was saying. If you are going to say something that may be taken wrong then you have to be careful that it can't be chopped and sound bitted. And if you don't do that then you have not done your homework. Both are a sin in politics.

    And then to top it off Clark let the genie out of the bottle and Ameriblog had a front page diary entitled:

    Honestly, besides being tortured, what did McCain do to excel in the military?"

    That is helpful to Clark and everyone trying to defend Clark, isn't it? Nothing like the unthinking loonies giving Obama a hand. That diary brought him no closer to the Left.

    But none of it makes a difference now as Clark knocked himself out of the ball game. Via Digby:

    But now Clark is looking to put the remarks behind him. The former NATO supreme allied commander and 2004 Democratic primary candidate is "moving on," said a close aide, who added that Clark can now "devote his time to the business affairs which pay the bills."

    Well at least he didn't say he needed to spend more time with the family. Gotta make them greenbacks - lot's of them - because they are not worth what they used to be.

    Obviously Obama after initially throwing Clark under the bus handed Clark his walking papers. I wonder if he got a severance check and letter of recommendation?

    And another one bites the dust!

    [ Parent ]

    i haven't seen anyone comment on (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:27:21 PM EST
    why webb made sure his name didn't come up in the veep discussion. maybe just maybe he didn't appreciate the way clark was treated. there have been others who let it be known they just weren't interested. why is that? a thought!

    [ Parent ]
    Another question (5.00 / 8) (#68)
    by BernieO on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:43:26 PM EST
    Why when the Republicans are so unpopular is Obama barely beating McCain in the polls. He should be over 60% at this point in the game given how bad things are and how dissatisfied people are.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by talex26 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:46:29 PM EST
    I've made that comment elsewhere. Obama is only at 48% in the Gallup tracking poll. So he can't even break 50% at this point. Pretty bad.

    [ Parent ]
    IMO (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:19:30 PM EST
    it's because it's Obama against McCain not Obama the Democrat against McCain the Republican. Both are running on this "working across the aisles" stuff. Obama isn't really advocating for Democrats or democratic policies. He's pretty much conceding a lot to McCain by doing that.

    [ Parent ]
    That's a possibility (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by talex26 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:44:31 PM EST
    I hadn't thought about that but it is a very interesting and valid thought.

    As for others not being interested I have a feeling that they think that with Obama they would be minimized and marginalized. if true who would want to give up their position of current authority for that?

    [ Parent ]

    what are the dem fund raising numbers? (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:55:38 PM EST
    the houston chronicle had an article about the shortfall of money for the dem convention saying it is an embarrassment.

    [ Parent ]
    Last I read they still don't (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by talex26 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:20:47 PM EST
    have enough money for the convention center little on the Stadium. And that is just the facilities. You will now have all the other expenses of a separate outdoor venue including Security which is much harder outdoors plus having non-delegate types to control.

    [ Parent ]
    part of the story was also devoted to (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:28:04 PM EST
    the fighting between the obama functionaries and the dnc types. it seems the dnc leased too much luxury space for too much money and put very expensive rental furniture in. hear the echo!

    [ Parent ]
    or, as a friend of mine put it, (5.00 / 6) (#97)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:20:11 PM EST
    why would they want to do all the heavy-lifting for a guy who'll barely lift a finger yet take all the credit?

    And I've yet to see anything in his record that would suggest he's as hard a worker and as dedicated to ... well, pick a cause, I guess ... as Hillary is.  I just think these people turning down the VP spot are seeing the writing on the wall.

    [ Parent ]

    good guess! (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:14:06 PM EST
    Quite possible. Remember, Webb was there after Clark's comments, and was backing him.  So maybe he wasn't too happy with the way Clark was treated.

    Webb seems like the type who has a temper.  Really, this explains his statement which appeared out of the blue.  Perhaps, it was his way of getting back at the campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    Kerry as inartful (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:21:58 PM EST
    as the media portrayed him, would have ben a good commander to serve under in any unit. Webb too.  Clark obviously (wining wars without casualties more or less) I'd have been happy to have any of those three be a subaltern or ensign.

    Obama not so much.  He'd let you risk getting killed needlessly I suspect. Not that being qualified to lead a platoon or company would make you any good at being President.  lol.

    IRONIC REALLY.

    [ Parent ]

    I wondered about that via Webb... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:59:00 PM EST
    ...he strongly defended Clark, as I recall.

    [ Parent ]
    You want to spend all day (none / 0) (#147)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:57:36 PM EST
    Making sure you can't be sound bitted, great.

    Sounds pretty dumb to me.

    [ Parent ]

    It doesn't take all day (none / 0) (#199)
    by talex26 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:17:40 AM EST
    to think about what you are going to say and "refine" how you are going to say it in a safe way.

    Fact is that if you are going to spend 15 important minutes talking then you better spend an hour or two preparing.

    [ Parent ]

    the point is (none / 0) (#200)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 12:32:57 AM EST
    when there are people who will distort anything you say, you can spend all day refining what you say (which is what obama does) and still what you say will be distorted.

    I choose to say what I believe and when people distort it I call them out as liars.

    You can spend two hours or all day or whatever worrying about saying what you think if you want.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't (none / 0) (#158)
    by tek on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 08:13:38 PM EST
    even think the dumb bit fits anymore.  The most educated people in the country support Obama.  I think Lincoln was right when he said you can't fool all the people all the time, but we see now that it is possible to fool some of the people all of the time and then if you can just rig the electronic voting machines, you can win elections with only some of the people.

    That's the "new politics" in America.

    [ Parent ]

    Not ALL of (none / 0) (#176)
    by oldpro on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:35:34 PM EST
    'the most educated people in America' support Obama...only some.

    Bill Clinton and Wes Clark support(ed) Hillary.  As Rhodes scholars they're probably in the top 1/2 of one per cent re educated Americans.

    It's not about education or native intelligence.  People with more education and more money can afford to take more risks than people living from paycheck to paycheck for whom the penalities can be devastating if they choose wrongly.

    [ Parent ]

    And that goes triple (none / 0) (#203)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:52:53 AM EST
    for Obama's assault on the Clinton administration.

    Obama is the quinteseential example of a Democrat willing to let his own twist in the breeze.

    [ Parent ]

    I respect Clark even more (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:45:40 PM EST
    for walking away instead of giving himself a lobotomy before every TV appearance.

    by 2012 (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:49:48 PM EST
    Clark will be illegible for Secretary of State.  He's probably seen how monstrously disorganized and politically tone deaf the Obama Campaign is and wanted no part of it.  Best to cut one's losses and get out with one's dignity and political clout intact.

    [ Parent ]
    If Clark is illegible ... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:07:04 PM EST
    ... then we'll just have to read between the lines, won't we?  ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    You funny. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by pie on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:09:54 PM EST
    :-)

    [ Parent ]
    yep (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:13:34 PM EST
    and I'm obviously exhausted.  Finished a screenplay today under a nasty deadline and my fingers aren't typing what my mind says, ergo "eligible" becomes "illegible"

    Sigh.

    [ Parent ]

    cool (none / 0) (#55)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:32:03 PM EST
    hope there is an open so I can find out what its for.

    [ Parent ]
    there will be! (none / 0) (#95)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:16:49 PM EST
    they're looking to shoot the film in Spring 2009 in Paris and London.  

    Thankfully the Production companies and Studio are also working around my schedule as both playwright and actor (show opening in Paris in October as playwright and another show opening in London as actor and playwright in -- fingers crossed -- February), so I've got it pretty damn good.

    :-)

    [ Parent ]

    well you be there as a "consultant"? (none / 0) (#105)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:29:37 PM EST
    sounds like a fine spring/2009 to me!

    [ Parent ]
    nope (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:54:16 PM EST
    I'll be there as one of the lead actors as well as screenwriter (for those inevitable last-minute rewrites).

    Still negotiating one of the other leads (there are three with two parts already set -- myself included), but it looks to be a strong, character-actor driven Cast.

    The "smaller" roles -- equally important as the Leads, in my book -- will be cast locally in Paris and London.

    But, yeah, in the craziness of the process and the inevitable pressure-driven lack of sleep, I trust it WILL be a fine Spring 2009.  :-)

    [ Parent ]

    reasons not unrelated (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:56:25 PM EST
    to the previous thread wondering about Webb.

    [ Parent ]
    HAH HAH HAH. (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by MarkL on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:48:13 PM EST
    I'm not going to look, but this should elicit some worried commentary from JMM, according to his b!tch-slap theory of Dem-Rep politics.

    Stupid move on the part of the Dems. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Grace on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:49:39 PM EST
    Clark was their best National Security/Military person.  

    I agree about McCain's military experience though...  I think it is off the table, just like Obama's race is.  Neither one is a winning argument for either party.  Any mention of McCain's service makes people remember he's a POW.  

    McCain's age, however, is an open issue that can be attacked.  

    perhaps (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    but not a winning strategy, in my opinion.

    Obama and the Dems -- ha!  sounds like a bad 60s band! -- need to be careful to not anger or unnecessarily turn-off a large block of the Dem Base which has yet to feel the Hope and Change and could easily go for McCain:  older voters.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama blew this one, badly (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 04:56:19 PM EST
    and I gain even more respect for Clark if he is, as suggested, saying that he will say no more for the likely nominee.  There goes the guy who "has perhaps the most impressive defense credentials and highest name recognition of any of Obama's supporters."

    Maybe he can bring McPeak back out (none / 0) (#127)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:19:15 PM EST
    Who, fine service to his country and all, but the redesign to the Air Force uniform to look more like Airline pilots seems to be his one big thing.


    [ Parent ]
    mcpeak?/clark? there is no contest. (none / 0) (#179)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:46:10 PM EST
    mcpeak isn't even in the same room as clark.

    [ Parent ]
    i don't see where obama has any really (none / 0) (#171)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:19:40 PM EST
    good show folks to go on tv and lead the charge during the ge. clark was the best. the clintons will do their bit and not much more. the obama supporters? daschle, kerry, pelosi, dean don't do well in their presentations. the obama campaign speakers leave me cold. so who? i can't think of anyone.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, at least he doesn't have to (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:02:29 PM EST
    play along with this farce for awhile. I sure wish Clinton didn't have to either. Maybe if her funders don't fork over enough this week, she'll get kicked to the curb also.

    I'll be honest, I can't stand seeing folks that are more qualified and, imo, would make better candidates/president than Obama go out there and shill for him

    by the end of the campaign (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:10:42 PM EST
    season, I suspect there will be many people who see Obama as the guy who -- through luck, butt-kissing and charm -- pole-vaulted past the experienced people into the corner office and then had everyone do the heavy lifting for him while he took the bows and got the bonuses.

    Unfortunately, there are many people who know or know of someone like that and, when the GOP is done with him, I suspect they'll view Obama the same way. Not exactly the best way to get votes, in my opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    you are presuming he will win. (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:29:07 PM EST
    i have my doubts about that with his lack luster performance these past weeks. the repubs are usually good in the general wheras the dems!

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ccpup on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:01:21 PM EST
    I remember watching Bush in the debates both election cycles and thinking quite optimistically that there was no way the Dems could lose to HIM!

    But the Media did what it always did (and does) and propped up the Republican at the obvious expense of the Dem.  I see no reason whatsoever why -- especially with their longtime friend McCain giving them their "From POW To The Presidency" storyline -- they'll act any differently this time around.

    I fear McCain will be afforded the opportunity to run a lackluster campaign, to misspeak, to outright lie and, at the end of the day, it'll be yet another story and serious roundtable discussion about Obama "refining" another one of his "inartful" statements.

    [ Parent ]

    yeah! same song second verse it (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:07:58 PM EST
    seems to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Lackluster for months now (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:19:52 PM EST
    since the last big win in mid-February.  That is, not counting the big win of superdelegates, but a few hundred of them won't win in November.

    Since the decision to stop doing the big rallies, the Obama campaign just doesn't sizzle and seems to make news only when he's refining, refining. . . .

    Yeh, it's the dog days of summer.  But sizzle has to be kept up and is difficult to start up again.

    [ Parent ]

    The loss (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by joanneleon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:03:30 PM EST
    is Obama's.  

    And BTD is right, it sure is starting to smell like some seasoned Democratic (so-called) consultants during the last few weeks.

    and we all know the "great" job they do. (none / 0) (#172)
    by hellothere on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 09:20:57 PM EST
    look to past campaigns like kerry and gore.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain and the Republican's strategy was (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:04:56 PM EST
    to eliminate Clark, a powerful advocate, from Obama's campaign. With the help of Obama and his advisors, McCain has successfully achieved this objective.

    Shame the Dems keep learning the wrong lessons from past experience.

    I thought that too (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by BernieO on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:33:46 PM EST
    I am sure  that McCain was terrified of Clark being chosen as VP. Obama is too dense to see that.

    [ Parent ]
    Clark would have been a great VP for Obama (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:59:45 PM EST
    but even without that, he was one of the best media spokesman  to poke wholes in McCain's national security creds. This one time that imitating Bush would have been advantageous to  Obama. In response to the swiftboating of Kerry, Bush merely said (paraphrasing) Of course, we honor Kerry's service and refused to go any further.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Should read (none / 0) (#136)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:34:37 PM EST
    to poke holes in McCain's national security creds.

    [ Parent ]
    Wondred about that myself (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:22:45 PM EST
    and it makes sense.  I saw Clark as the best VP for any Dem candidate this round, once McCain was the nominee, so as to counter military experience in a wartime campaign.

    Bad mistake to boot out Clark from the campaign.  That didn't need to happen, if Obama hadn't handled it so badly.  Off the VP list is one thing, but off the campaign trail for Obama is a bad thing for him.  He will need military cred.  (And McPeak isn't it!)

    [ Parent ]

    If this is true we are all in a swiftboat (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 06:26:43 PM EST
    load of a few troubles.  I had never thought of it that way, mostly because I just can't believe that people think up devious things this many plays in advance.  It seems like such a waste of energy to me that I have never been able to bring myself to even try to do it.  If anyone was able to make McCain look silly though it was Clark.  Clark fought a recent urban style war that involved Muslims and good things have been the outcome and he made it look easy even though it was anything but. I tend to find Wes Clark absolutely brilliant in how he is able to create positive outcomes when military force must be used....but Clark's CURRENT military record is practically miraculous and if this is how the GOP gets rid of him early on I wish they could wage actual war as well as they wage political war!!!!!

    [ Parent ]
    In the twisted minds (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Salo on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 07:37:00 PM EST
    of certain corners of the left, his successful war was the precursor to the invasion of Iraq.  See it's all his fault for making war look easy. hehe. I'm not being sarcastic. The pacifist Democratic voter really does think that.  I recall the howling against Clark in2004 among the Deaniacs.

    [ Parent ]
    Is there any room left (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by joanneleon on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:12:19 PM EST
    under that bus?

    Yes. (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by nycstray on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 05:1