PPP Poll: Tie In Ohio

Are you worrying yet? Steve Soto is. I'm getting there. And here is another reason why -- PPP (PDF) says its tied in Ohio (PPP had Obama up 8 last month):

John McCain has pulled even with Barack Obama in Ohio, according to the newest survey from Public Policy Polling. Obama had led in PPP’s June and July polls of the state. It’s 45-45 with 10% undecided. One factor causing Obama problems is that he’s not doing as good a job as McCain of getting folks in his party to vote for him. While McCain leads 89-7 among Republicans, Obama’s lead is a narrower 75-17 among Democrats. Obama has the 45-28 edge with independent voters.

The Democrats neglecting to choose Obama are disproportionately white, female, and middle aged, an indication that it could be former supporters of Hillary Clinton who are holding out.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yep. Not considering Hillary for VP is brilliant. If Obama loses without picking Hillary, he and his team will have some serious splainin' to do.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Did Putin Lose? | How Can Obama NOT Pick Hillary For VP? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Worried? (5.00 / 0) (#4)
    by Burned on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:42:36 PM EST
    Yes I am.
    A month ago I wasn't.
    I want the convention over and for this campaign to kick into high gear. I feel like he's just waiting around.
    And of course fingers and toes crossed for the perfect VP.
    Clinton or Clark.
    Although both seem NOT to be in the running, I'm not giving up until it's done.

    The (5.00 / 13) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:53:42 PM EST
    campaign is NOT going to kick into high gear. What you see is what you get. These "consultants" come from Chicago where winning the primary is the equivalent of winning the election. They don't know how to run against Republicans. And all this is before the RNC starts unloading 100 million dollars worth of advertising telling us "who Obama really is".

    Isn't the campaign's (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:21:04 PM EST
    notion of high gear the 75,000-person stadium acceptance speech?

    Unfortunately yes. (none / 0) (#136)
    by prittfumes on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:30:27 PM EST
    If he picks Clinton (none / 0) (#29)
    by Burned on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:03:40 PM EST
    He will win. High gear or no.
    Or he could pick Clark and snap to just a little.
    No one else will do if this is the way this campaign is going to be run.

    As poorly (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:15:39 PM EST
    as he's done post primary, even before the end of the primary, I don't know that either of those could drag him across the finish line.

    He hasn't given anybody (5.00 / 10) (#69)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:33:28 PM EST
    any reason to vote for him.  That's what a super-cautious campaign gets you.  He will confess to being sorta kinda pro-choice with Rick Warren, but he won't go out and fight for it.  Etc.  Pick an issue, even one you disagree with him on.  There's no there there.

    The only one waiting to kick it into high (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:47:08 PM EST
    gear is McCain to see who the nominee is.  obama already claimed he is king, so what would be the point in holding back?  Doesn't make sense.  What makes sense is that he is running an inept campaign and is dissing the voters he needs right and left.

    I'm not worried (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:48:30 PM EST
    Then again I'm "old" coalition. After I heard I wasn't needed, I became disinterested. If the Democratic party has changed its mind on that they need me they can reach me by putting Hillary on the ticket(or at the very least a pro choice strong advocate of women who was in the Hillary camp).  By the way, they can also get me interested in the campaign by putting Kaine on the ticket but it won't be in a "good" interested way.

    It's been (5.00 / 12) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:48:57 PM EST
    known for months that many of Hillary's supporters would not vote for Obama for a variety of reasons. They told the exit polls this yet people ignored it. Obama has failed to even try to get Hillary's supporters on board and has relied on her to try to do it. Do you realize how that looks? It looks pretty bad for Obama that he expects someone else to deliver votes that he's not willing to vote for himself.

    I've always known that Obama's chances in OH were slim to none. If you followed the demographics from the primaries it told the story.

    That should (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:49:47 PM EST
    be deliver votes that he's not willing to work for himself

    Pretty much says it all. (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:13:53 PM EST
    Not willing to work for votes in tough states, not willing to debate, not willing to go the distance.  Too many questions at thi point.

    Look, he's intelligent, focused, and he could be a great advocate for the people.

    But he's not ready for primetime.


    He's (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:17:14 PM EST
    intelligent obviously but I don't think he's focused. Someone who is focused wouldn't be all over the place like Obama has been.

    I was trying to be kind. (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:30:54 PM EST
    WTF were the dems thinking?!!!!!

    He's *above* working for votes (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by blcc on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:49:56 PM EST
    don't you know?

    He's the prince, the anointed one, the Obamesiah.  And ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do and die.

    Don't you see?


    where is the evidence (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Ford Prefect on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:26:14 AM EST
    he is "intelligent, focused and could be a great advocate for people?"

    I think he is intelligent in a generic sense perhaps indicated by his law degree. But what does that intelligence mean in policy making, governing, decision making and leadership? In which elected position has he demonstrated any of those traits in the past? can  you give me some concrete examples? I am finding it very hard to see his intelligence or focus or great advocacy for any cause, with the exception of running for higher office. Even there he cant be fully credited with the primary succes, which has so far been the only worthy success in running for higher office.


    Didn't he make the proclamation that (5.00 / 11) (#14)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:51:39 PM EST
    Hillary's voters would vote for him if he was the nominee, but he didn't know if his would vote for her?  Whahappend?

    He (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:54:36 PM EST
    couldn't become qualified in the past months.

    It takes more than a weekend trip (5.00 / 13) (#83)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:52:41 PM EST
    to Europe to become qualified.

    Consider that he spent less time in "fact finding" in the Mideast and in Europe than he is spending on body-surfing in Hawaii.

    If a Republican behaved this way in a campaign, we would be laffing our butts off, because that would be a candidate who deserves to lose.

    Especially a Republican who, consider this, padded his resume with Senate committees on which he does not serve, a Republican who never even calls a meeting of the committee he does chair, etc.  A Republican who served all of a few months in the Senate before deciding he deserved the White House.

    Consider that.  The DNC is, well, nuts.


    Tom Daschle, just this morning (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:09:49 PM EST
    compared Obama's foreign intelligence stronger than McCain's simply because he knew which country bordered which. He was responding to the Republican who said McCain had made a multiple of trips to Georgia, knew the President, and spoke intelligently about the current conflict.

    Obama/Daschle '08



    Tom Daschle (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:20:05 PM EST
    couldn't win his own state after serving for four terms.  Might have something to do with his inability to connect with those he was supposed to represent.  I don't know.  

    He was an incumbent, a Majority/Minority Leader, who voted with Bush when he should have been voting against him.

    Stand for something or stand for nothing, Tom.


    There are two problems here (5.00 / 8) (#57)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:22:56 PM EST
    One is that many of us found him to be an unsatisfactory candidate -- and yes, we told the exit polls this so it shouldn't come as any surprise.  The main reason he was unsatisfactory was "experience" which is not something that can be manufactured in a few months.

    The second problem is that he wrote us off immediately without even trying to win our votes.  John McCain sent us Abba songs, Obama sent us silence.  John McCain told us in clear, concise terms that he was against everything we ever wanted.  Obama told us in 50,000 words (or more) that he didn't know what he stood for but we were the ones we were waiting for.  

    Many of us are standing around now thinking "Is this all there is?"  This is going to be one low calorie, less filling, tasteless election.    


    Why would the dems (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:33:40 PM EST
    not be interested in putting forward the strongest possible candidate after eight years of Bush?

    Why on god's less-than-green earth did the party back Obama?

    My poor haid.


    I think (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by IzikLA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:02:55 PM EST
    At the time, they were merely looking for an alternative to Hillary...

    I do not think that anyone truly anticipated how strong a candidate or a campaigner Hillary would be until March and by then it was just a little too late for the powers that be to fix the issue... That, combined with the brilliant Obama campaign idea to focus on the red state caucuses really sealed the deal...


    I agree except that (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:37:52 PM EST
    the reason they didn't know is that they let their cds-fueled fantasies blind (not cloud) their judgment, their knowledge of the Clintons, their knowledge of the primary-caucus system, their experience in politics, the polls, the demographics and every other scrap of information, data, judgment, history, etc ad infinitum related to political campaigns.  They were too busy having the Frat Party of Joy that We Finally Got Rid of that B*tch.

    In law, there are many things you can be culpable for even if you didn't know they were going to turn out a certain way, if you reasonably should have known.  They should have known they at least needed a back-up plan in case their projected Transcendence of the entire population of the US didn't actually happen.


    Well, in all honesty... (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by IzikLA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:19:15 PM EST
    I was a Clinton supporter from the beginning but I literally had NO idea that Hillary would be as strong as she was.  I had respect for Obama at the beginning of the campaign and slightly more for Clinton.  By the end, after many debates and much campaigning, my Obama respect was nil and I was simply astounded by Hillary, by her abilities, her experience, her knowledge and her perseverance.  

    I also think that one of the big things that did her in were the polls, and the media's rush to push them, that Obama would be more likely to beat McCain - I simply never agreed with these. Polls are just polls, they are not reality and I never thought there was anything the Republicans could throw at Hillary that she didn't already know how to deal with.  She proved this to me throughout, Obama only made me worried...


    I was just like you in the beginning (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:57:37 PM EST
    Obama was fine but I liked Hillary's experience a bit more and trusted her more.

    The thing though, the polls on balance did not show he would do better against McCain than she would.  Not even in Feb.  In fact, they tended on average to show the opposite.  The MSM only reported on the ones that showed him doing better, not unlike what they've been doing since June.

    I started watching the polls and esp. the RCP averages (RCP had the Clinton vs McCain and Obama vs McCain numbers pretty regularly) back in February.  And they mostly tied or she was ahead with an occasional reversal.  But those were never reported.

    Also -- there was much ballyhooing over polls that showed most Americans thought he'd do better, while utterly ignoring polls that showed she actually did better based on who people said they'd vote for.  Some stats guy at HuffPo did a really interesting article about it.  When asked 'Who do you think will beat McCain?' something around 60-70% of Democrats said Obama.  But when asked 'Who will you vote if it's Clinton v. McCain?' and then the same question with Obama's name, she clearly did much better.

    Well, effin' A, of course people thought he'd do better, the MSM was 24/7 He's Awesomest/She's a B*tch, showing endless footage of his rockstar events and fainting in his presence -- who wouldn't think that?  If I witnessed the Second Coming on CNN every day, I'd think he'd do better also.

    Ok, I'll stop ranting, I'm a bit of a data geek and this one thing still rankles (obviously).


    You are exactly correct (none / 0) (#161)
    by IzikLA on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:45:06 AM EST
    I was referring to the much-ballyhooed polls that people "thought" he would do better against McCain.

    In short, I never once bought it, but I think enough people did to change the outcome of the primaries.


    I always wondered (none / 0) (#184)
    by tlkextra on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 04:04:15 PM EST
    about the wording of the Clinton/Obama polls (which I couldn't verify). If the question was "Who do you think will win Primary?" versus "Who do you want to win Primary?", even I would have answered differently on those questions. Many of us saw early on that many of both the Media and the Party were in the tank for him. So if it's reported that Obama is getting more votes (without knowing the real question polled)it can become a self fulfilling prophecy.

    they'd rather lose (none / 0) (#154)
    by sancho on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:18:23 AM EST
    than have hillary win. and when obama loses, his supporters will spin it as a moral victory--they did the right thing but just go the wrong result. and the rest of us are stuck with mccain.

    to keep their own jobs (none / 0) (#183)
    by nycvoter on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:41:33 PM EST
    If the Dem Pres blows it, out goes the Congress in 2010, if it's a Republican than people want to keep the other party in to balance bad behavior

    John McCain (none / 0) (#174)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:15:26 AM EST
    reiterated saturday nite that he will be
    ''the pro-life president''. That is everything Hillary is about?
    I missed that memo. Criminalizing abortion is ''everything we are for''

    But, there is those ABBA songs,I guess.

    John McCain is for taking down Roe vs Wade, more wars, more outsourcing of jobs by his corporate friends,less unions,22 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, drilling off the coast of California,and more torture by the US intel services.

    That is really everything that democrats are for?
    I disagree.


    Reading comprehension 101 (none / 0) (#181)
    by tree on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:28:44 PM EST
    The post you were responding to said:

    John McCain told us in clear, concise terms that he was against everything we ever wanted.
    Emphasis added to make clear what was apparently not clear to you.

    Hint: She's complaining about BOTH candidates, not endorsing McCain's views.


    He HAD to task Hillary with getting her (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:13:36 PM EST
    supporters behind him. He knew he would fail on his own, and this is how he will be able to blame HER for his loss in November.

    Same holds true for BTD's question on how he could possibly NOT choose Hillary and hope to win. If she's not on the ticket, he loses, it will obviously be her fault. Goes to much of the logic I've seen him use.


    Yes, all true (5.00 / 6) (#101)
    by shoephone on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:49:26 PM EST
    We already know the way the cards are being dealt: if he picks Hillary as his running mate and loses it will somehow be all Hillary's fault. If he doesn't pick her and loses it will still be all her fault.

    Imagine this: if he wins we will be treated to the spectacle of his cabinet members and other staff members being blamed for every little fiasco emanating from his White House. Who would want to be his VP under those circumstances?

    I can just feel the hope and change.


    If you read the PPP report (none / 0) (#177)
    by laurie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:59:41 AM EST
    You'll see that it isn't just the older female vote which is sinking,  but also AAs down to 80%BO, 18%McC.

    Wow. Really? Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#180)
    by derridog on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:24:15 PM EST
    link is in BTD's post (none / 0) (#185)
    by laurie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:34:04 PM EST
    Oh, I'm worried. Ohio is the whole shebang (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:50:40 PM EST
    at this point. Obama and his people better get this floundering ship headed in the right direction, and soon. This whole last months has had McCain out manuvering him again and again.

    Electoral College projection now will be (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:55:59 PM EST
    255 Obama, 250 McCain at electoral-vote.com, if this Ohio polling is used there.

    A reminder, as I've noted in other comments, that a dozen days ago now, that site had Obama with 316 Electoral College votes.

    Real men don't need beach time.


    I heard Indiana (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:15:04 PM EST
    will be flipping for McCain next week, so he'll be picking up those EVs as well.

    Indiana didn't even go to Obama in the Primary, I sincerely doubt it'll go for him in the GE.

    End result?  McCain will have the EV lead while we march our way forward into Oblivion by Nominating this guy in less than two weeks.


    Obama just believes we don't remember (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:19:24 PM EST

    He must have needed that beach time real badly.

    All those months of his camp, media, the DNC screaming for Hillary to drop out NOW because they needed as much time as they could get to fight the battle against McCain. What changed?

    To take 10 days off, and he truly did take the time off, at this point in time shows one of two things: 1. Obama is absolutely unaware of what kind of commitment will be expected of him, or 2. He's just a puppet and was told he could relax while they handled things.


    I disagree with one of your (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:48:59 PM EST

    I believe the Campaign and the Dem Leaders desperately wanted him to stay in the States and campaign and he petulantly refused, insisting he needed time off and, despite what they said, went ahead and did it.

    Same thing with prepping for last night's Forum or for the Debates.  I get the sense that it's like pulling teeth getting him to focus and do the work he desperately needs to do to be prepared.

    Obama's good when it comes to reading the teleprompter or walking on-stage to applause.  The rest of it?  Nah, not so much.


    Wasn't this obvious (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:59:45 PM EST
    to all of us months ago?

    Yes, but (5.00 / 0) (#119)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:21:02 PM EST
    I was still disappointed that no one has forced a speech coach onto Obama since it is obvious he desperately needs one.

    I'm positive he has (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:05:09 PM EST
    a speech coach.

    Now, does he do the work the speech coach demands of him?

    I'm guessing No.


    Yes. (none / 0) (#126)
    by prittfumes on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:42:15 PM EST
    interesting, isn't it? (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by kempis on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:10:09 PM EST
    There is a big disconnect between the average voters and the Obama-supporters in the media and the DNC. When Obama was speechifying in Berlin, the word among talking heads was that he had the election wrapped up. It was all over but the shoutin'.

    But the ordinary folks who will do the voting beg to differ--as reflected in the polls. The deal has not been closed. When it is, McCain may be the closer.


    Honestly (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:32:32 PM EST
    how stupid does he think the American people are?  The Berlin thing was designed to make the media swoon and produce a coupla good shots for TV, but they're not as smart as the voters.  U.S. voters may get taken in by this or that, but they're not so stupid as to think a weekend tour playing pretend president compensates for an utter lack of foreign policy experence.  Geesh.

    plus the footage (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:52:29 PM EST
    Obama had hoped to use for his own commercials is now useless because it was used by McCain in the Celebrity Ads -- which effectively knocked Obama down a few pegs -- and now the Obama campaign is stuck at square one trying to figure out how to give the sense of Obama's "Power" in front of a crowd (because, really, without that what else does he have?) without using, you know, those now-tainted crowd shots.

    Hey tigercourse- they don't need Ohio! (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by kenosharick on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:57:35 PM EST
    the koolaid drinkers think they will sweep Georgia, Montana, Colorado, North Dakota, Virginia,and probably South Carolina & Utah as well. They might be in for a huge shock on election night.

    Not to worry- Sam Nunn is advising him (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by mogal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:51:11 PM EST

    Okay stop it (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:54:36 PM EST
    I just about destroyed my computer screen. It ISN'T comnpletely unfathomable that he'd be taking his advice from someone from the GOP side of the aisle- being bipartisan and all that BS.

    Sam is a Dem (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by badger on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:30:34 PM EST
    but in GA it can be hard to tell sometimes - look at Zell Miller.

    In principle, you could be right.


    In regard to this quote: (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:55:30 PM EST
    "(Emphasis supplied.) Yep. Not considering Hillary for VP is brilliant. If Obama loses without picking Hillary, he and his team will have some serious splainin' to do."

    I believe his version of an explanation will be...waaah it was all Hillary's fault, imho... :)

    What happened to all the western states (none / 0) (#143)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:56:44 PM EST
    dems were going to win? Like Colorado and Nevada.

    EV has McCain gaining all over the Midwest and PA.

    I didn't think dems could lose this election, but now I'm not sure.


    Obama should have (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by Bluesage on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:57:02 PM EST
    Picked Clinton as VP within days of her leaving the race.  He stupidly chose not to and it will probably cost him the election.  His naivete led him to believe he would ride this wave of empty adulation of adoring "fans" all the way to the WH. I've been a Democrat a long time and I don't think we have ever put forth a candidate so flawed and so not ready for the job.  I'm just disgusted with the DNC and the hoops they jumped through to drag this man over the finish line.  Our only hope now is that the Super Delegates will remember what they are there for, send the bribes back and do their duty to this country.

    Too late. (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:03:50 PM EST
    Relying on the Supers to bail out this sinking ship is beyond unlikely.

    Amen Bluesage....if obama was a true (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:05:11 PM EST
    dem and REALLY cared for America and the party, he would humble himself by stepping back and asking that Hillary become the nominee and he could be her VP.  It seems it would nearly guarantee 16 years of a dem in the WH. And, by the time he had his chance in the WH, he would own the experience he so sorely lacks now.

    Heck (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:09:20 PM EST
    If he did this in eight years time he'd have me locked solid and I'd be on the team to pull him across the finish line. He's gotta give me something though that tells me this is less about his ego and nore about what's best for the country.

    The fact that he campaigned (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:37:26 PM EST
    from the beginning on his own magicalness and not on progressive issues tells you all you need to know.  He's not going to change, and wouldn't even if he'd been VP for eight years.  He is who he is.

    I'm not who I was 8 years ago (none / 0) (#81)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:48:02 PM EST
    Not entirely anyway. We change as we experience things. People are not stagnant for the most part. We change all the time. Obama strikes me as a person still trying to figure out who he is and what he stands for. He could potentially benefit by being mentored by someone who Clinton, who seems to know exactly who she is and what she wants and how to go after it.

    Clinton was his Mentor (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:16:10 PM EST
    in the Senate.  See how nicely it turned out for her?  (knife meet back)

    I agree about the knife in the back, (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:54:55 PM EST
    but I thought LIEberman was his mentor...

    In your wildest (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:21:47 PM EST
    dreams would Obama ever consent to being "mentored" by Clinton.  I think you still don't get who this guy is.

    I agree entirely he doesn't know who he is, and that's a big part of his problem, but I see no evidence whatsoever that is interested in finding out.


    the same dream (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:22:50 PM EST
    where he steps aside to let Clinton be at the top of the ticket? I don't believe his nature will allow this to happen but if it were then I'd have to rethink my impression of his ego. A girl can dream.

    Gyrfalcon meet wildest dreams. (none / 0) (#150)
    by LatinoVoter on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:24:35 PM EST
    Wildest dreams meet Gyrfalcon.

    ..On February 1, 2005, the two talked for an hour in Clinton's cheerful, canary-yellow Senate office. Obama developed a good sense of the Clinton algorithm for success: Don't be a showboat. Keep your head down. Choose the right committees, the ones that will allow you to deliver tangible benefits to your state. Go to hearings, stay the whole time, wait to speak, follow the lead of the chair or the ranking member, and remain quiet and humble at press conferences.

    "I hadn't known her well prior to joining the Senate," Obama told me in New Hampshire this fall. "We had a similarity in that we both came in with a celebrity that outstripped our actual power, although I think it was much more pronounced for her than it was for me."

    The senators' staffs soon paired off. Obama's aides drew on Clinton's example to face the barrage of questions aimed at the new senator. These ranged from those that confront all senators--how should they tend to the interests of downstate constituents?--to those that confront only a few. "We had people who wanted, for different causes, to auction off signed copies of the senator's books," an Obama aide recalls. "How do you deal with that? Who do you say yes to? Who do you say no to? We asked ourselves, `Who else would know how to deal with it?' The Clinton folks."

    Teacher and Apprentice


    Talking about as VP (none / 0) (#167)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:57:04 AM EST
    as you very well know.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#112)
    by IzikLA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:06:35 PM EST
    I think he would have made a great president in 8 years...

    Oh well...


    I used to say that, but he will really have to (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:22:56 PM EST
    prove to me he's used those 8 years to correct this lying problem he has.

    I have to believe (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:06:17 PM EST
    there are Super-delegates out there who DO want to win and ARE willing to send back the bribes, tell Donna Brazile (and her Mama) to back off and do the right thing:  choose the Candidate who can actually win.

    How many SDs are there?  Hundreds or something, right?  I strongly suspect many of them can read Polls and follow trend lines and, with Obama's decidedly heading South, it's inconceivable to me that these people aren't scared to death of a monumental, embarrassing loss in November and four more years of a Republican President.

    I also wonder how those SDs who hold office and are up for re-election are feeling realizing Obama on the ticket may be more of a drag than anything else.  Do THEY want to remain supporting him and lose their cushy jobs in the House as a result?

    The NY Times article with the Dem Leaders speaking openly about their concerns indicates that there ARE SDs actively considering switching and the "get off the Hope and more toward Specifics" was the shot across the bow to see how Obama responds.  

    If he doesn't, they switch and he's out.


    I find it doubtful (5.00 / 12) (#45)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:14:28 PM EST
    because the writing was on the wall BEFORE they pulled him across the finish line. The fact that Clinton had such a solid end of the primary performance and they STILL chose to do everything they could to make him the nominee instead of her speaks about the monumental stupidity of our Democratic elected leadership.

    I wish I could say I thought any of these people(Team Obama, DNC, superdelegates) had the ability to do the right thing. Unfortunately, I pay far too much attention to politics to know this is just wishful thinking.


    It was all fixed from the time they planned the (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by derridog on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:46:33 PM EST
    Convention for August and the winning candidate's speech to coincide with MLK's I Have a Dream speech. When was that? Last year? No wonder Hillary lost. She never had a chance.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#113)
    by IzikLA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:08:51 PM EST
    They simply did not do what they were put in place to do...

    There's not much to say about it beyond that...

    If they had waited til the end and saw that Clinton won SD by 10 points in a region of the country that Obama had won over and over again they may have had the chance to realize that she won almost all of the important and rather large contests at the end...

    They chose to ignore... so be it...


    Wonder what Charlie (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:04:30 PM EST
    Rangel is working on right now.

    Hopefully, he is working on (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by shoephone on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:52:01 PM EST
    getting HB 676 passed in the House, no matter what noises Obama makes against universal, single-payer health care.

    PPP, Q, Rasmussen and SUSA have all (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:57:50 PM EST
    shown Obama lose between 4 to 9 points over the last 2 months. Nearly every single state poll has had him drop. Electoral-vote.com shows him doing worse then Kerry at this point. The most optimistic mydd numbers show him doing worse then Kerry.

    Get it together Obama. You're in the big leagues now.

    and Hey (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:00:35 PM EST
    we all have the 527s and the really negative GOP ads to look forward to. THOSE haven't really started in full force yet. Isn't it just peachy?

    In fact, right around this time 4 years ago (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:08:04 PM EST
    was when Kerry got decked by the swiftboaters. I'd say that after our convention, the real fire works will get set off. It seems to me as though we are seeing Obama replay his primary performance. Strong start, weak finish. Maybe he'll be able to stumble to victory again. Maybe not.

    Lord, I hate to say this, (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by clio on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:00:18 PM EST
    but it seems clearer and clearer that Team Obama bought their own primary hype of "a different politician" and post-partisanship. They forgot that hype is for the other guy.  You're not supposed to believe it yourself.

    It's fairly inconceivable to me that the Obama campaign would be so determined to prove that they can win this thing on their terms, and their terms alone, that they would blow the chance to win at all.  But that seems to be what they are doing.

    A certain shot of adrenaline would be for Obama to name Clinton as his VP.  I don't think he and his advisers can bring themselves to do it.  I think they'd rather lose.

    And while it's by no means certain that Obama will lose he and his campaign seem to be testing out pry bars to find one strong enough to open the jaws of victory.

    I'm not a swearing person.  Or I haven't been.  But this is un-f**king-believable.  John Kerry blew it in August.  Didn't Obama learn anything from that?!?

    Why no (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:04:20 PM EST
    He didn't. That's fathomable. What I find comkpletely unfathomable is that the whole subset seems to be playing this EXACTLY like Kerry. Straight down to the reason to vote for Obama is that he isn't McCain, sending him off to play in the surf........As I said the other day, I'm expecting to see him in duck hunting garb any day now.

    Maybe he could find a tank to get in (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by derridog on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:47:54 PM EST
    and put a helmet on his head.

    Yes, cawaltz, I am desperately afraid (none / 0) (#36)
    by clio on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:09:04 PM EST
    that you are right.

    Clinton's fault (none / 0) (#124)
    by Mike H on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:26:31 PM EST
    And again, to reiterate what will be said... it will all be Clinton's fault somehow.  

    At this point, I don't want McCain to win, but the Obama supporters seem to be in more of a bubble than Bush was.

    Their sole motivator lately remains dissing Senator Clinton and proving how much they supposedly don't need her.  And then after vilifying her, if they lose, they'll blame her.  

    This is no way to run a railroad, people.


    Unsurprised (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:02:13 PM EST
    Obama is simply following the primary formula - except that Hillary is not the GOP nominee.  Good thing too, cuz she cleaned up in OH and WV and...

    Gee, sounds like the bright thing to do is to figure out what Hillary did right and do that too.  Any day now...

    McCain took notes on Hillary's campaign (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:15:28 PM EST
    He managed to see what she was doing. Unfortunately, Obama isn't good in those situations. He'll prob go to Ohio and have a big rally and run commercials until people are sick of them . . . . Throwing money at the problem isn't the answer. Getting real and having some solid positions/answers is.

    ...the economy... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:23:52 PM EST
    Throwing money at the problem isn't the answer. Getting real and having some solid positions/answers is.

    Which option do you think will win over voters worried about their jobs?


    Why spending 4times as much as (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:29:44 PM EST
    McCain and losing Ohio of course  ;)

    BTD (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:02:25 PM EST
    as one of the few bloggers who followed the demographics in the primary I'm surprised that you ever thought that "Obama had it in the bag".

    The great thing about not having a candidate is that you can see things very clearly.

    It should be in the bag (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:04:04 PM EST
    AND Obama is going to win but WTF? This should not be close now.

    I HATE that Obama is gambling on this when picking Hillary locks it up period.


    Right (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:09:14 PM EST
    now I wouldn't bet on Obama winning. He hasn't been able to expand his demographics. 45% is what he got in the OH primary and is probably what he'll get in Nov. And the GOP hasn't even started on him. The few times he's been hit he's acted very stupidly even turning off voters with some of his responses.

    He's not making a case to vote for him, only a case to vote against McCain. It's the same failed approach Kerry used in 2004. It's very hard to beat something, even something bad like conservative ideology, with nothing. His "post partisan, unity" schtick is a very poor strategy this year. He's only legitimizing the conservative agenda, not fighting it. And going to HI on vacation may have cost him the election. Shades of Ned Lamont on that one.


    I guess Media Darling (5.00 / 0) (#55)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:20:39 PM EST
    only goes so far..

    Probably across the finish line (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:23:09 PM EST
    It's not like the Obama campaign is turning the world on fire and he is still going to win.

    I think (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:32:55 PM EST
    that the "media darling" status is actually hurting him because many voters see him getting favorable press due simply to his race. If the status couldn't help him in dem primaries I don't think it'll help him in the general. Heck, the GOP has won many a race without that status.

    You're right (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by IzikLA on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:15:43 PM EST
    I believe this even hurt him towards the end of the primary, the current situation is only a continuation of that...

    How else to explain all of Clinton's wins towards the end when all I could ever hear anywhere was how it was already over??  Why go out and vote if it was over??  People were not happy with their candidate, I'm sorry...  I plan on voting for Obama even in CA where it may not matter, but I find the shoo-in argument ridiculous...  It is a recipe for loss and the fact that we've seen it over and over again should be proof enough...

    BTD, this is now the ONLY site I come to to read bloggers opinions and I truly respect your candor and your arguments as to why it's boneheaded to not choose Clinton as his running mate at this time, but this is the one thing I truly disagree with you on.  This election is not a shoo-in, no way, no how...


    If McCain comes across in the debates as (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:37:47 PM EST
    everyone's grandfather and Obama stammers, I wouldn't bet on it. I think some voters just want simple answers even if we know they are the wrong ones.

    New voters? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:45:17 PM EST
    Where are all the new voters that the Obama camp touted. Supposedly they were in the millions. If they're included in these polls he is in trouble. With the addition of all the new Dem's, his margin should be a lot better than it is.

    Well, the new voters are busy registering for (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by derridog on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:58:40 PM EST
    classes and finding friends on Facebook and they are being cancelled out by crochety, old, post-menopausal women, like me, who won't vote for Obama no matter WHO his VP choice is.

    And, by the time they get their text message, (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:26:00 PM EST
    they'll have forgotten they were waiting for it.

    No "splainin", just "Blaimin" (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by OxyCon on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:02:36 PM EST
    "If Obama loses without picking Hillary, he and his team will have some serious splainin' to do."


    The Obama supporting blogs and the Obama friendly media are already plotting how they will blame Hillary when Obama loses.

    She's the only former Democratic candidate that is doing anything for Obama. In some instances, she is even campaigning harder for Obama than Obama is for himself. Yet, these people are going to blame her when he loses, when the fault will most definitely rest on Obama himself, the DNC for selecting the weaker candidate, and the Obama supporters for being such belligerent bleeps.

    If you haven't heard this yet, then consider that you heard it hear first when it all comes to pass.

    time to be bold (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:09:17 PM EST
    This is not the time for a nothing, behind the scenes, maybe help in IN or VA VP pick. Seriously.

    And I hate to say this, but it's what I think, I think when you see these polls, subtract 5% for what in the future we'll call the "Obama effect". Sad but true. Now are you worried?

    Dandy, no doubt about it. (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by prittfumes on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:21:12 PM EST
    The "Obama effect" will be significant -- imo lots more than 5% in the final analysis. While I can understand your reluctance to mention it, I admire your honesty in acknowledging the neon whale right in the middle of the swimming pool while most everybody else swims around it and pretends it isn't there.

    Read the internets (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:09:53 PM EST
    Team Obama is in  a state of ignorant bliss once again.  "How could they lose"  "it's in the bag"  " of course the voters in Ohior are stupid"...etc.  

    Just mention that this is a possibility and they are all sure cause their cousin said they would vote for Obama that it is so.  

    What they fail to see are the closeted women who lie to them that they will vote for Obama.  PUMA's are not the problem, it's the closet PUMA that is.  

    even commenters here keep saying (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:11:42 PM EST
    Obama's numbers have been steadily rising in the polls against McCain. I've stopped responding to those kool-aid drinkers. Someone in that camp better have their brain on. Just saying.

    part of my 5% (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:13:56 PM EST
    referenced above are the closeted PUMA's and similar others. And before other responders misunderstand (not you, I know you get it Stellaaa), that 5% "Obama effect" isn't about racism either.

    Some of us are border PUMAs (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:36:58 PM EST
    The DNC and TEAM Obama needs to give me a reason to vote for him and I ain't buying "hope" or "change" as a reason to vote for him. I've been "hoping" for 8 years now. That ain't done bupkiss for me. Furthermore, I'd say I've had it up to here with "change". I've seen the Geneva convention become quaint, Congress shirk it's responsibility to be a check on Presidential abuse, watched while they shredded the 4th amendment. Before anymore "change" is done in the name of the electorate I want to know exactly HOW that change is going to be made and HOW it is going to affect me and my family. Cute little catch phrases and pretty speeches ain't doing it for me.

    The "Obama Effect" (none / 0) (#145)
    by prittfumes on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:58:53 PM EST
    Dandy, I misunderstood what you meant (in your earlier comment) and I apologize. But I believe that after this election "Obama effect" will be right up there with "Bradley effect", "Wilder effect", "Dinkins effect" etc., all of which refer to undeclared racial considerations.

    I think part of what I was calling (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:11:04 AM EST
    the Obama effect will be racial but I think the majority of it will not. At least among dems. For example, I think 90% of the dislike of Obama from PUMA's and other Clinton supporters and other progressives has nothing to do with race. Instead it's because of him, his lack of experience, his attitude towards women, his campaign of course, the media coronation, the all too familiar to those around during Reagan crowning of him as the great communicator, etc. Perhaps some of it is because he's just a good politician that's never caught saying anything or standing for anything, which perhaps isn't fair since many are like that.

    Of course like Obama raising the race card in the primaries and now in the GE, the irony of course will be that Obama supporters will call it all race based. But yes, there certainly will be lots of that too. Bottom line, as in the polls in the last four months of the primaries, you need to subtract some significant number from what you see.


    Thanks so much for (none / 0) (#172)
    by prittfumes on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:24:05 AM EST
    your reply. I agree in principle except for the percentage, and question whether these other issues you have cited, even among some Democrats and "progressives", are being used (not by you) to mask a core racial concern. Thanks again.

    definitely possible (none / 0) (#173)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:12:05 AM EST
    and maybe my numbers are off about what percentage is really about race and what is about Obama personally or his campaign. It would be sad of course, but definitely possible.

    Saw that too. (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:18:00 PM EST
    Blaming the voters!  I did try to explain that perhaps the politicians might be the ones who are having problem with the learning curve.

    (We would have won too, if it hadn't been for those stupid voters!)


    That is exactly the Dems downfall (5.00 / 7) (#129)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:55:23 PM EST
    every election.  They insist on arguing with the voters instead of winning them over.  Winning the argument is more important than winning the election.  "If only the voters were smart enough to realize how right we are!"

    Which is part of why Bill Clinton won.  He didn't talk down to anyone (even though 99.9% of the entire country is less smart than he is), he tried to win their votes.

    It's amazing how much more effective "Will you vote for me is" than "Vote for me or else" with most people, especially rank and file Dems.



    Great insight -- and perfectly put. (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:05:20 PM EST
    closet PUMAs? (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:08:54 AM EST
    I don't think there are any 'closet PUMAs' -- PUMA is about being actively defiant, and you can't be actively defiant in a closet.

    And its not the PUMA vote that is bringing down Obama's numbers -- we were never voting for him to begin with.  Rather, its the impact of the PUMAs on peoples thinking.

    Because PUMAs are staunch (former?) Democrats, their opinions carry a lot more weight with non-partisan voters.  PUMAs can articulate why they are not voting for Obama -- and the fact that they generally don't prosyltize for McCain makes their critique more effective.  

    But ultimately, PUMAs influence in felt virally.  When staunch Democrats are raising questions about the fitness of the Democratic party candidate, those voters who were tending toward voting for the Democrat because of the GOP's failure over the last eight years reconsider their options.  


    I'm pretty sure (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Bluesage on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:15:31 PM EST
    The Obama camp and Obama himself knows that picking Hillary at this late date and when he is dropping in the polls would only make him look weak.  His ego is his biggest flaw and it is what will do him in.  His inexperience and his absolute inability to take a firm position without equivocation is glaring and voters obviously are having second thoughts and losing confidence.  I don't know what he can do at this point.  From the lineup at the convention, it could also be a snooze-fest and trying to marginalize the Clintons and snubbing Charlie Rangel is not helping.  

    This "making him look weak" (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:07:07 PM EST
    stuff is really quite nonsensical in terms of the voting public.  It's an obsession of the commentariat, but the wavering public would see it only as interesting and intriguing.  If anything they'd see it as a sign of strength that he could embrace his bitter opponent.

    I don't see this as a problem at all.


    Well, maybe (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Bluesage on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:32:09 PM EST
    You don't know too much about the people who actually vote and know they don't visit blogs to tell them how to think.  Common sense is not completely dead in America yet and most voters I know would think it is too little, too late and question his motives.  Even HE, The One, would see it as a weak move and is exactly why he won't do it.  He's not completely stupid either, just inexperienced and naive and quickly getting backed into a corner there is no way out of.

    gyrfalcon (none / 0) (#139)
    by Bluesage on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:34:19 PM EST
    The "well maybe" post was a reply to you.  It just didn't show up under your post.  

    Most voters (none / 0) (#169)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:09:05 AM EST
    don't obsess about the tactics and timing of the VP choice, they just wait to find out.  Probably a good half of them don't even realize he hasn't picked a VP yet.  They don't know or care that it's fairly late in the game to be making the pick.

    If he makes a big splash with an unexpected pick-- ie, either Hillary or somebody outrageous like Hagel-- he will look terrific and very strong.  If he picks white bread like Bayh or Kaine or even Biden, it won't make much of a ripple outside the VP's home state.

    What makes a candidate look weak is not VP choices, it's fumbling and and flip-flopping and not having a clear message.  Kennedy didn't look weak when he picked Johnson, Bush didn't look weak when he picked Cheney, they both looked smart.  Dukakis looked weak*er* when he picked Bentsen because Bentsen was a nothingburger.


    I agree (none / 0) (#114)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:12:58 PM EST
    Anyone who is secure enough to pick one tough pol as his running mate is not weak, he is savvy. I think having Hillary as a running mate might re-energize Barack himself.  He's been looking grim of late -- or am I imagining????

    I think it does make him look weak (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:58:00 PM EST
    now though, because he waited so long.  If he'd picked her in June and was going strong in the polls, he and the KA crowd could be telling themselves it's only because he is so super-fantabulous.  But now everyone's seen that he's weak in the polls.  The inevitability shtick is gone, and you can't recapture that.

    A blatant guess (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:15:54 PM EST
    I think I know what's going on here.

    Obama didn't want Clinton as VP, so the campaign said, "We'll take advantage of the late convention date and not make a premature announcement.  If Clinton's supporters come around, we can pick whomever we want.  If they don't and things look bad, we can make a surprise announcement at the convention and completely dominate the news for at least a week."

    At this point it would take one heck of an acting job by everyone involved to make it sound like they weren't [1] doing what I described above or [2] just playing games because Clinton was the pick all along.  They'd have to spin quite a story about how Obama and Clinton talked on the phone a couple of times every day and had a real meeting of the minds, he grew to recognize the depth of her commitment to public service, etc.

    And it could be that putting her name into play for the convention vote is part of the process, as it sets up Obama to use a strong showing by her (when she actually has zero chance of being selected) as proof that he's making the right choice when he has to justify it to the fanboyz.

    Will Obama and Co. agree that they're in enough trouble to pick Clinton?  I have no idea.  But the next week or so sure won't be dull.

    I had been thinkig the same thing (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:24:47 PM EST
    until I read about the abrupt dismissals of Wes Clark & Charlie Rangel; not a way to get Clinton backers behind the ticket.

    If Obama had turned (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by misspeach2008 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:16:59 PM EST
    to Hillary in mid-June and asked her to be VP, it might have brought a significant number of her supporters to his campaign. But to wait until a week before the convention, after tossing around a gazillion other names, and when he's in trouble to boot, I don't think so. Most of us are in "You broke it, you bought it" mode. The numbers do support the claims of the anti-Obama groups that there are more than three of us, and we're not going away. The "sour grapes, sore loser" "silly, nutty" pejoratives that have been leveled at us from many directions aren't making an impact on people who have taken a principled stand for something we truly believe in. This was the Democrats' election to lose, and they are showing once again how good they are at it. This time they will not be able to blame Karl Rove.

    O camp thinks the roll call is all (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:26:35 PM EST
    we need to make us 'happy'. A scripted one at that. They seriously don't get it. We are serious.

    For the O camp to cave on that roll call topic (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:34:34 PM EST
    shows they know they are in serious trouble with the number of democrats who left the party, and/or are going to protest vote.

    From all I've seen about the convention agenda, speaker list and highlights, I can't imagine the end result will be a dribble, not a bounce.


    Not only would it have brought (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by shoephone on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:00:24 PM EST
    instant supporters to the campaign, but it would have brought more money as well. And it would have enabled Hillary to traverse the campaign trail while Obama took his Hawaii vacation, thereby keeping the media focused on the intelligent words coming from his running mate rather than the so-called decisive sound bites coming from McCain.

    I'm (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by sas on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:17:48 PM EST
    an Independent PA voter.  I think McCain is a bad candidate.

    However, Obama, (he who has said little, and accomplished less) is absolutely awful.  He offers nothing to the people, nothing to the working class, nothing to women., nothing to seniors, just about nothing to those who are looking for health coverage.  His smooth tongued words about hope and change are pure drivel. So many words to say so little....not to mention the interminable ahs and ums.

    I have a difficult choice ahead.  I'm leaning McCain even tho the thought of voting Republican really bothers me.

    But the Democrats have managed to come up with a  "nothing" candidate.

    Now, now, no reason to panic! (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:24:38 PM EST
    I'm sure Ennis will be along shortly to explain to us all how a tie in Ohio is a wonderful thing and all part of the super-smart secret plan of the Obama campaign.

    How true is it? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:30:37 PM EST
    How true is it that Obama will lose some voters if he picks Clinton?

    Obviously one could make the easy and logical assumption that the amount Obama gains far exceeds what he loses.

    But the point that seems ultimately worth considering at this point is that the situation is not the same in reverse.  Even in the deepest and darkest backwater towns of No Quarter you won't find anyone so obsessed with Obama that they would refuse to vote for Clinton if Clinton chose Obama to be VP.  

    After mulling it over I've decided that what I'm suggesting about some of Obama's supporters should not be considered true.  Or if it must be considered true, then one should be willing to consider that the truth of it is proof of the extremist instractable silliness of some of Obama's support.  An extremist intractability and silliness that would far outdo any of the most ardent PUMAs.

    If I was an Obama supporter, I would claim that it wasn't true.  

    Not true at all I think unless they are truly (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:40:33 PM EST
    deranged. They are willing to accept Sam Nunn! If Obama says something, it's always right. Though a Clinton might be pushing it.

    This is just stupid. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:31:03 PM EST
    Strategically, Obama's campaign did well in the primaries (though they did kind of bomb out the last three months) but they are blowing it now. How can they let their egos and dislike for a woman who is campaigning right now for him stop them from making the right decision?

    I guess Obama won't do what it takes to win if it means associating himself with a Clinton. At other blogs, they still think she's the worst choice possible. I question their judgment for more than one reason.

    Those (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:35:50 PM EST
    blogs are notorious for picking losers.

    If Obama were shrewd enough to (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:16:57 PM EST
    pick Hillary as VP, it would be up to him to reverse all the negativity surrounding her among his supporters.  His campaign stirred up the negativity, and it would be incumbent on him to quell it; I think he could do this if he could get past eating some humble pie.

    Humble pie? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ap in avl on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:22:39 PM EST
    Shouldn't be too hard for BO.  
    He can just tells his fans that Hillary is "likeable enough".
    Should work.....

    Unbelievable in this election cycle (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:35:39 PM EST
    With both Hilary and Ckark out of the VP picture, I am more than worried. The Obama ship has been slowly sinking since Feb. The worst part of it is that they're in denial. McCain has succeeded in controling the agenda and as usual the Dem's are stuck on defensive. Plus when you're pandering to everyone, it's tough to take a stand!

    Obama is stuck, it seems to me, (5.00 / 10) (#77)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:43:50 PM EST
    in a rut of his own making, but at some point, if he doesn't take control of the dynamic, it is no longer going to be controllable.

    I have a feeling that he is going to regret not only taking the 10-day vacation, but waiting so long to name a VP.  With bad polling info preceding his naming of a VP, he does now risk having his pick look like it is being made from a position of weakness, not strength.

    And, increasingly, it's beginning to look to me like he has bought his own hype and the media's infatuation, and has failed to realize that the voters are not on board with the plan.  He's approaching this as if winning in November is a fait accompli, and all he has to do is go through the motions and it will be his.  He ought to be working his butt off, making his case to the voters in concrete language, taking on McCain whenever and wherever - people appreciate someone who is working for their vote, not assuming it is inevitable.

    My guess is that he will not change a thing in light of these or any other poll numbers, until it is too late.

    I am NOT a Cavuto fan, but I do agree (none / 0) (#133)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:17:47 PM EST
    with what he said:

    "But I think we will look back to this week in August as the time the party that had it all in the bag...just puked in it."


    75 to 17 among Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Demi Moaned on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:53:35 PM EST
    That kind of says it all. With the Republicans in such deep disgrace, Obama can't carry his own party.

    AFAIK, the vote fraud mechanisms are still in place in OH, so even with a narrow advantage it still goes to McCain. If someone knows something different about this, I'd be glad to hear it.

    Ohio voting (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:19:14 PM EST
    I'm not sure all the vote fraud mechanisms are in place -- didn't ohio buy new machines? And the state has a Dem Secretary of State in place of Blackwell.  What am I missing?

    Obama Vote Fraud (none / 0) (#163)
    by laurie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:53:03 AM EST
    if you look at the two (5.00 / 8) (#88)
    by TimNCGuy on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:08:49 PM EST
    electoral college sites that I'm aware of

    RealClearPolitics (with no toss ups) and Electoral-Vote

    you will see that as of today, McCain just has to flip IN (which always votes R) to his column and he wins.

    Then remember back to the primaries at how Obama always polls BETTER before the vote than he actually performs.  Late deciders always went to Clinton.

    Doesn't look good for Dems.

    Same as it ever was, same as it ever was (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 08:55:01 PM EST
    Only Obama supporters don't seem to see Obama clearly. I see all candidates clearly.  I always saw Hillary's weaknesses.  I've become an ardent supporter of Hillary because she earned my vote and see what her strengths are.  Obama has never been a good candidate and even with time, I don't believe he'll ever be a good candidate.  His opponent would have to quit due to some scandal or some bad filing for him to win.  Maybe Obama will start a campaign for McCain to quit, but I don't think it will work this time.

    it's simple! obama has made no decison (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:56:43 PM EST
    since the primaries that says "elect me".

    Sure he has (none / 0) (#149)
    by dianem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:07:44 PM EST
    He's met with fundamentalist Christian and right wing leaders, as well as Middle East leaders and Germans. He is saying "elect me" - he just isn't saying it to progressives.

    he isn't saying it to the core democratic base (none / 0) (#153)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:10:25 AM EST
    either. you know all those bitter gun loving folks referred to as "those" people. that won't win friends.

    The latest rumor (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:38:47 PM EST
    has Rob Portman's stock rising.  If that is, in fact, McCain's pick then it pretty much locks up Ohio no matter what.

    BS (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:41:25 PM EST
    Rob Portman as the closer in Ohio? You gotta be kidding me.

    I am not kidding (none / 0) (#42)
    by Steve M on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:12:27 PM EST
    Portman is very popular in Ohio, particularly the southern part of the state.  He's considered a good bet to be Governor someday.

    Portman is going to (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:22:03 PM EST
    lock in older white women Dems? Suuuure.

    No, he won't, (none / 0) (#62)
    by misspeach2008 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:27:23 PM EST
    but a feisty woman might. I can't wait to see which interest group McCain goes after with his VP choice.

    Yep, I'm worried ... (none / 0) (#2)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:39:44 PM EST
    ... don't want any more Clarence Thomas, Scalia, Alito, Roberts nominations.

    If Sen. Obama loses (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:48:14 PM EST
    Congress is going to have to get tough. Oh wait.

    I thought he would wait until the last possible minute to decide and would only pick Sen. Clinton if polling showed he was in trouble. Maybe his internal polling is showing the same trends, and he'll do the smart thing.

    Today's Sunday morning talk shows painted a pretty rosy picture for Obama winning, but I have no confidence that they understand how to read polls.


    Congress getting tough--that's a knee slapper (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by robrecht on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:49:22 PM EST
    LOL (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:52:55 PM EST
    Gracious, no. I don't think there is ANY room on the Congressional Calendar for anything other than Post Office naming. Besides that's the only thing we can agree on and we wouldn't want any of that unmannerly dissent and vigorous debate occuring on the floors of Congress. (me mimicing Nancy Pelosi)

    I think more face slapping is needed in (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:53:25 PM EST
    Congress to get them to wake the hell up!

    No we won't (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:06:18 PM EST
    I won't vote for BO even if Hillary is the VP.  I don't want BO for president. NO WAY! And I'm from San Francisco, and as liberal as anybody.  I will not vote for BO.

    The press is still desperately trying to keep (none / 0) (#158)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:12:31 AM EST
    the Obama campaign afloat.  

    Poor Andrea Mitchell just couldn't believe how poorly Obama did on Saturday night.  She had the nerve to say that McCain must have cheated because he was too good!  Then she made all kinds of excuses for Obama.  She even called him 'very brave' for showing up!  Sheeze.  The press is SO in the tank for Obama.  They will do, or say, ANYTHING to get him elected.  

    But you all knew that, long ago.  


    McCain has called out NBC's coverage (none / 0) (#159)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:52:32 AM EST

    Seems they were paying very close attention in the primaries and are jumping on the Obama camp tactics pretty aggressively. They called out the race card BS and now MSNBO. Of course the Obots are claiming McCain is whining, but it seems we've been down this road before. Served up a second time doesn't seem to stick as well.


    okay (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:51:53 AM EST
    so if Obama can't cry "racism" in response to McCain criticizing him and the Media finds themselves having to watch their backs in their slavish, unseemly devotion to him, what will be left for Obama to use?

    Not that most people believe the Media bobble-heads by this point anyway, but ... it seems as if Obama's Bag of Tricks is slowly being emptied by an opponent he assumed would be a lot easier to "beat".

    Perhaps he'll have to get out there, shake hands, kiss some babies and convince people with specifics (gasp!) why they should vote for him.


    Not a chance (none / 0) (#182)
    by SueBonnetSue on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:24:30 PM EST
    He's the anointed one.   He doesn't have to do anything.  Or so he and the press think.  

    PPP isn't really a real pollster though. (none / 0) (#13)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:51:30 PM EST

    Yeah (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 06:59:35 PM EST
    but they are always more favorable to Obama than other pollsters so he could be doing worse.

    Don't Panic (none / 0) (#54)
    by dianem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 07:19:09 PM EST
    Just pick up you copy of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and your towel and get ready to move. Okay, seriously... don't worry. Really. It's not that I think that Obama is going to win (I think it's unlikely), but it's the 2nd quarter and your team is behind by 1 point. Big deal. A lot is going to happen between now and November, and nobody knows how it will play out. Will McCain's "celebrity" become the new meme? Will McCain or Obama either nail the debate or stumble badly? Will swift boaters go after Obama? McCain? Remember, there are right-wingers who hate McCain just as much as they hate Obama.

    Polls are not crystal balls. They are snapshots, and blurry ones, at that. If you want to worry about something, then come on over to my place and you can help me figure out how to figure out how much my mother owes on her amended tax returns (the idiots at Oppenheimer told her that her pension was not taxable - it is).

    Who, me worry? (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:03:16 PM EST
    It's the fact that BO was like 9 points ahead in CO and he lost that.  Now OH (other polls have told the story that McCain had regained OH) is down the drain.  BO is finally tanking as those who paid attention knew he would.  The press and the blogs were too busy hitting Hillary and carrying the water for BO to pay attention to what mattered.  I've always said that I was like the canary in the mine.  I've never voted Republican and wouldn't have even crossed my mind to do that.  I'm as liberal as they come, I've worked to GOTV for Democrats, I've donated to Democrats and live in San Francisco.  I will not vote for Obama, period.  It's the candidate. He does not have what it takes to be a leader of the greatest military power in the world.  I see him too similar to Bush, an unaccomplished man who happened to get the support of powerful people. One president like that it's enough.

    brace yourself (4.83 / 6) (#146)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:59:51 PM EST
    The more his poll numbers plummet, the more TL will be infested with angry Obama Supporters taking out their frustration and anger on those of us they blame for, well, everything that's not right with his campaign.

    It's never his fault, of course.  It's Hillary's or ours or, interestingly, Talk Left's!  Who knew we were so powerful here?!?!?!

    Just FYI.  :-)


    excuse me (1.66 / 3) (#138)
    by nycwahoodem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:32:22 PM EST
    but what ef-ing experience does hillary have to lead the military?!?!

    i'm a nyc-er. have worked for hillary, donated to her, and love her, but she lost the primary. The fact that so many here don't see how by saying "pick hillary or lose" you make it more likely that he won't pick her, shows how messed up this once great website has become.

    if you all had quietly laid down and supported him, he might have felt like kerry, and realized she had a lot of support and skills he needed...now if he picks her, it looks like a last-ditch effort to please whiny people.

    the willingness of people on this blog to trumpet that they won't vote for one of the more liberal democrats to ever run for president proves why we hardly ever win...we on some level, like losing and telling people it was "so and so's" fault. must be because it's so much easier than trying to win.


    Wow. Really removed from reallity. (5.00 / 5) (#140)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:38:57 PM EST
    If only we all whiny people at this blog had supported Obama, he would be 'way ahead in the polls, huh?


    It is good to know that it will not be Clinton's fault.  It will be this blog's fault!


    I'm just impressed (5.00 / 6) (#141)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:50:22 PM EST
    that this Poster -- who allegedly worked for Hillary here in NYC -- is courageous enough to lay the Most Liberal Senator EV-AH! mantle around St. Obama's neck.

    Most of us can't figure out where in the heck he stands and yet this Poster assures us he's not only a Liberal, but THE MOST Liberal ... EV-AH.

    So, if I don't consider my daughters having a baby being a mistake or flush our 4th Amendment Rights down the toilet with a capitulation on FISA, what does that make me?  An ... un-Liberal?


    what "eff-ing" (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by ccpup on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 10:56:48 PM EST
    experience does Obama have to run the military?

    A photo-op tour through the Mideast, a speech in Berlin (preceded by a free concert and free beer and food) and a few years spent in Indonesia as a child?

    I understand you suffer from CDS -- and I'm truly sorry for that --, but it just fascinates me how Obama Supporters (perhaps like you) can so eagerly attack and belittle Hillary and then turn around and defend a man of little experience in an effort to convince us he's The One ... or something.

    I find it amusing, actually.  But I must admit I don't know any Democrats in NY, LA or Paris -- the places where the majority of my friends and acquaintances live -- who are going to vote for Obama.

    And much of the reason is because of Obama Supporters who have this mystifying and saddening combination of arrogance and ignorance.


    You got your admonition wrong. (5.00 / 8) (#147)
    by tree on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:03:20 PM EST
    if you all had quietly laid down and supported him

    I'm sorry, I think the proper phrase for what we were supposed to do is "lie back and think of England". Not doing it, thank you. A candidate has to earn my vote. No more freebies.

    And Obama is not a liberal. You don't know what a liberal is if you think Obama's one. An honest liberal would have never voted for the FISA Amendment crock, or issued Harry and Louise type ads against health care reform, or had U of Chicago economists advising him, or praise Reagan's foreign policy.


    Bingo-He isn't a Liberal (none / 0) (#165)
    by laurie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:03:32 AM EST
    and he just cheated on and defeated one of the few liberals left.
    She was also well loved by voters, and was finally going to give women UHC-but of course we're racist for having our own opinions.

    I don't like Obama (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by dianem on Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 11:04:23 PM EST
    It has nothing to do with Clinton. Obama cheated - he let people think that Clinton was race-baiting in order to win the primary. He used the sleaziest Rove style campaign tactics imaginable. He won, but in the process he divided the party and created racial disharmony when he had a wonderful opportunity to do the opposite.

    He is also, by the way, completely unqualified for the job of President. He has no leadership experience - unless you're willing to count his being Editor of the Law Review. I'm not. We're not threatening that he must "pick Hillary or lose", we're prognosticating. The only way he's going to win is to be the unity candidate he says he is - and to start by unifying the party he tore asunder to win the primary. He's willing to meet with right wing fundamentalists and swift-boater, but he doesn't seem willing to reach out Clinton supporter's in a meaningful way.

    No, I won't vote for him, but my vote isn't going to make all that much of a difference. But there are a lot of other not happy Dems and Independents out there, and cumulatively those voters will make a difference. What possible reason could Obama have for not making a decision for VP that would immediately bring him a significant number of votes?


    If you had all quietly laid down and supported (5.00 / 6) (#152)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:06:55 AM EST

    Omg, I couldn't get past this sentence for laughing so hard.

    Quietly laid down?  Do you LIVE in the United States?

    This entire country is built on a mythology of rebellion, scrappiness and perseverance -- speaking out and speaking your mind -- and this is the argument you're making for him?  LOL.

    I really, really hope you aren't majoring in Marketing at that college of yours.


    "if you all had quietly laid down"? (5.00 / 3) (#156)
    by sancho on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:39:16 AM EST
    implied date rape logic from a hillary supporter? i dont think so.

    Nancy Pelosi talking points (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 03:34:19 AM EST
    We are all just a bunch of uncouth, unmannerly and ungrateful upstarts. THEY picked our candidate. We're supposed to shut up and be grateful and adulating. No messy opinions. Oh and voicing them? Forget that. Miss Manners(Nancy Pelosi) is in the House. We must be gracious or we'll give her the vapors.

    You'd think they have been taking lessons about democracy from Bush and the GOP. The next thing I expect to hear out of their mouths is how much easier a dictatorship or police state would be.


    Things were so much more gracious (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by laurie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:57:20 AM EST
    when caucuses were attended by three or max 20 old ladies. And voters voted the way the TV told them to.
    Daddy's little girl had it soft...

    Wow, it's a three-fer (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:04:23 AM EST
    > three or max 20 old ladies

    Age-ism, and sex-ism. It's a two-fer!

    I take it you're an Obama Fan, then?

    > Daddy's little girl had it soft...

    Who, Hillary?

    The theft -- yes, theft -- of the TX caucuses is going to bite you guys in the a**. Hopefully sooner rather than later.


    No, Daddy's little girl for me is Pelosi!! LOL (none / 0) (#176)
    by laurie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:52:04 AM EST
    Hillary had a merit scholarship...she worked her way up.

    I wrote that about the caucuses because I read a post this morning by a Hill supporter and precinct captain,  about not being able to get her usual old ladies to her caucus because it was icy out and they were in their eighties and were very disappointed not to be able to place their vote for the first woman candidate.

    However  about 50 unknowns showed up at the caucus all at once....

    It seems the usual number was 3 at that particular place.

    Are you the "mighty Lambert" from Corrente or not?


    What experience does Hillary (none / 0) (#179)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 11:13:34 AM EST
    have to lead the military?  You'd better ask all those retired military in every branch who have endorsed her.  They know, as I do, that 'leading the military' is actually done by the civilian Secretary of Defense who is appointed by the President and by the Chiefs of Staff.

    Evidently they have confidence in Hillary's ability to both listen and make decisions.

    There is a 'Clinton' track record to look back on and evaluate.  Hillary knows that.  So does 'the military.'  They must have confidence that she would not only listen to them...but to Bill.

    Who will Obama listen to?  Not either Clinton, evidently.  Daschle.  Kerry.  Nunn.

    If that doesn't give you pause, I don't know what would.


    I don't know much about Ohio (none / 0) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:17:08 AM EST
    I know Colorado though and I knew he wasn't going to carry Colorado in the end.  I didn't expect to see this this early though, that part has thrown me a bit.  You have to "do stuff" to carry state's with that Libertarian streak.  One of the reasons Salazar carried the state is because of his past work on Colorado's water issues which are often go from unpleasant to hostile to deal with.  The Western states are all like that.  They are younger states and less populated, we all must get out there and take part in our destiny and the West doesn't really care for people who don't stand for anything in particular and don't deliver anything in particular.  McCain being from Arizona, having a past where he has served his Latino constituency, and also having a past where he has really "done stuff" and  fought for issues he believed in will carry the West.

    Sorry, I need to proofread and more coffee (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:18:04 AM EST
    On Friday (none / 0) (#175)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:22:19 AM EST
    McCain came out for adjusting the Colorado River water rights agreement to reduce the flow of water to Colorado,New Mexico,and Wyoming while adding to the allotment for Arizona,Nevada and Ca..
    In terms of water rights..John McCain is on the wrong side of this issue and it will hurt him in Colorado. Look for many ads in Colorado and New Mexico using McCains own words to damage him.

    No one said it would be easy to elect the first non-white male in the country's history.


    I went and read about this (none / 0) (#178)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:11:09 AM EST
    I agree that it could hurt him in CO, but it seems to me that he said nothing hardline at all that the MSM can feed on and in doing so he hasn't hardlined CO and what he said can easily be parsed into nothingness.  On the other hand he has said something somewhat remotely promising to NV, CA, and AZ.  What a way to play the whole flippin Western field to your advantage on one of our hot issues.....utterly smart to the nth degree.