Cheerleaders Wanted, Clinton Supporters? Not So Much

I've been getting some e-mails that are upset that my support for Barack Obama for President is not blind. Nothing new there, but I was struck by a particular pitch I got from one Obama fan:

I find it disheartening that you contantly choose to bash [Obama] on www.talkleft.com. It is as if he hurt you personally. . . . I have phone banked and attended voter registration. People are a lot more informed of the issues than you think. It is about voter registration to make up for the 10% Clintonites who won't vote for him and getting them out to vote which is what unfortunately what Bush did in 2000. After watching the media bash Clinton and distort her I am seeing them do the same to Obama. He stays consistant, registering more voters, and on message. I know it was hard for me to see Clinton lose but I have met some wonderful and active Obama supporters who will come out and guarantee a win. Please don't believe the media hype. You know what they did to Clinton and what they will constantly do. We don't have any wedge issues to drive out the GOP so we can win it. He is not John Kerry. I have never seen supporters like he has.

(Emphasis supplied.) The e-mailer claimed to have been a Clinton supporter in the primaries and I have no reason to disbelieve that but I was struck by the idea that instead of trying to appeal to other Clinton supporters, this Obama supporter is confident that Obama can ignore them because of his great ground game. I just do not get that - why is there this insistence among certain Obama supporters - I call them "anti-PUMAs", to not try and win former Clinton supporters to Obama. It is an interesting phenomenon.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Denver Police Issue DNC Protest Flyer | Monday Night Veepstakes Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Sigh. (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:54:48 PM EST
    He stays consistant, registering more voters, and on message.

    Spelling error, facts not in evidence, and facts definitely not in evidence.

    We heard this voter registration crap in 2004.  

    Been there; done that.

    I heard 40%, not 10%, of Clinton supporters (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:50:22 PM EST
    were not moving to the Obama camp. I'm sure that has changed some, but if sampling my acquaintences, family and friends, the 40% is a low percentage. Only 2 out of 23 Clinton supporters in my circle are voting Obama, the rest are not voting or writing in Clinton.

    Sigh (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:55:54 PM EST
    The discussion on choice today has pretty much outraged me out for the day.(If I have one more person tell me legislating limiting a woman's options is choice I'll scream). I don't think I have ever been so discouraged about my choices for representration. Never(and according to my husband I am the most Pollyannaish optimist he's ever seen).

    Sorry BTD if this is off topic too much delete away. I just need to vent.

    Because we're old and female... (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:56:09 PM EST
    and not members of the Kool-Kidz.

    Seriously, we have been characterized so often as being over-the-hill that to try and speak to us now would definitely be uncool.

    Of course, Obama has reversed himself plenty for other things...like FISA, and Choice, and Off Shore Drilling and.....

    Oh, and BTW, I do not consider (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:58:33 PM EST
    myself or my friends to be old.  But to the Obamanation any "boomer" is too be ignored and done away with.

    I'm not even old enough to be a boomer (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:16:01 PM EST
    and I'm too old.

    What had been coming to mind (5.00 / 7) (#105)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:44:39 PM EST
    for me was the old movie: Logan's Run.
    I used to go to all the democratic events in my area. I worked for candidates but ever since the Obama crowd took over her in CO, I hate going. I really feel the ageism (as well as sexism).  But the ageism thing is obnoxious.  I may be vintage or old or whatever at 62, but I am still a citizen and my brain cells are fine, thank you very much.

    I love it when one of these thirtyish guys talks to me as if I am mentally disabled when mentioning the computer, web sites, e-mail.  I used to run our school's network and have been on line since 1989 and they act like I am incapable of tech jargon, or don't know what a blog is.  
    I'm sick of it.


    I hear you. I skipped a local Dem (5.00 / 6) (#129)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:55:25 PM EST
    event last week.  I felt bad about it, as it was an LGBT event, with a lot of folks there who need to know we're with them.

    But at the last local Dem event, there just were too many true believuhs talking about Obama, Obama, Obama, and why we needed him.  Not talking about the needs of the local Dems running for office.  And not talking at all about the needs of the people.

    How I miss the old days of sitting with the savvy pols who talked about the people, god bless 'em, as one used to say in prefacing every discussion of how the votes had come down in every town, every neighborhood, every block.  That's when we won.


    It's now just a Marketing Demographic (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:54:29 PM EST
    that makes no sense.

    I was born in 1949, and as a child was not in the baby boomer group. That group was formed by the surge of births post-WWII military coming home. It was very specific with its timing.

    Now, I think you can be as young as 40 and be a boomer!!


    I'm vintage (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:21:24 PM EST
    but not antique.  ;-)

    Reminds me of the time we told my (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by honora on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:35:55 PM EST
    then 5 year-old that we were moving from our Victorian era home.  She looked at my in horror and said "Why our house is old, but it is not broken!!"  I have the feeling that they think that we are broken.

    Well, I am (5.00 / 0) (#206)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:20:30 PM EST

    Geeze....makes us sound like we are (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08:28 PM EST
    ready to be made into Soylent Green!! :)

    Ha good luck with that..... (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:21:55 PM EST
    ....anyway we are tough old birds. The younguns are the tasty, tender ones.

    You hit it. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by tek on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:23:17 PM EST
    Obama trashed the Clintons and Clinton supporters so much during the primary season that those little twerps who support him can't reach out to Clintonites now.  And who would want their embrace, anyway?

    Ok, well THAT email wasn't written by one (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:58:31 PM EST
    of the campaign staff.  Not at all.

    Could it have been written (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:01:07 PM EST
    by the same "Obama fellow"?

    Nah.  What are the odds of that?


    No (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:12:10 PM EST
    Different person.

    Okay. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:29:47 PM EST
    Same delusions though.



    Interesting Is Not The Word I Would Choose (5.00 / 15) (#8)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:59:09 PM EST
    but cursing isn't allowed here.

    I'm a Clinton voter and Obama wouldn't have to do all that much to get my vote.  But he does need to ask for it.  I think my demands were fairly reasonable.  All I wanted was for him to vote against FISA (something he had already promised to do) and get the DNC to revise the nominating process to address caucuses and other process issues.  Of course, he's already failed the first.  But I still keep hoping he'll find a way to ask for my vote.  So far, nothing.

    Instead, I get the faith off forum with John McCain, silence on the redefinition of birth control as abortion, anti-choice Dems and GOPpers floated as possible VP selections, the FISA vote, and wobbly language on the mental health exception for abortion.  He seems interested in winning voters who don't want him and completely uninterested in me.  And if he thinks I'm just going to show up and vote for him, he's wrong.  As I've said ad naseum, I have one rule in politics - ask nothing for your vote and nothing is what you'll get.  I'm willing to lower my price since McCain is his opponent, but I'm not giving it away for free.  I don't work at The Nation.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by lmv on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:37:34 PM EST
    Of course, he has a bigger problem with Clinton voters and PUMAs - he was selected by the supers.

    I know.  I know.  Hillary would have been, as well.  That's the way the system works.  And, it's why I've believed for months we need a truly open convention.

    Clinton supporters won't be satisfied unless they believe Obama earned this nomination, rather than had it handed to him by the DNC.  Many believe she was forced to concede and had no choice but to be a good soldier and support the annointed one.  

    The chances of having an open convention are slim to none.  So, the chances of Clinton supporters "getting over it" are slim to none as well.  

    Either Obama doesn't get that or he doesn't care.  But, this idea that a rush of new voters will make up the difference is arrogant and naive.  Remember, there is a huge difference between registering to vote and actually turning out to vote.


    Obama was selected by delegates (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by S on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:02:23 PM EST
    not only was he selected...it appears he was bought and paid for...

    you have all these voters voting for Hillary but their votes are ignored as the DNC pays delegates in Hill's districts and then they endorse Obama...over and over again...and screw the will of the voters...why should we bother to vote?

    have you seen this utube yet?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a593lfawFBU&eurl=http://comealongway.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/bou ght-and-paid-for-by-nancy

    allegre has a big list of delegates up with the votes Hill got in their districts and then they endorsed obama and the amount of money Obama donated to them...


    actual PUMAs.... (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:00:12 PM EST
    The fact is that actual PUMAs -- those who are not going to support Obama on 'principle' despite the fact that he 2% less evil than McCain -- are not a very large group.

    But as you note, the Obama campaign had done practically zero to attract Clinton supporters who have problems with Obama (other than make the 2$ less evil argument ad naseum).  

    But these Clinton supporters are not the only people who have questions about Obama -- and writing off these Clintonites as 'dead-enders' is also writing off the voters who share the same concerns of the Clinton supporters.

    In other words, even allowing for the rather dubious proposition that Obama can 'make up for' the loss of Clinton supporters through new registrations, is it realistic to assume that there is no need to address the concerns of voters who did not vote in the primaries, but are skeptical of Obama?


    You might find (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:00:37 PM EST
    Ambinder's "socratic dialogue" interesting:

    Socratic Dialogue

    That your writer is willing to give up almost 2 million votes is astonishing.  What hubris.

    I have seen BTD take obama to task when (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:02:33 PM EST
    needed, but it does not qualify as bashing...And, I would be inclined to think this person who emailed him was NOT a Clinton supporter...too many fingerprints of SOP from obamacans.

    SOP (5.00 / 11) (#40)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:15:05 PM EST

    It is as if he hurt you personally

    You're overly emotional and grieving

    I know it was hard for me to see Clinton lose

    but unlike you, I was able to get over my overly emotional grieving.

    What I find interesting is the attempt to establish some sort of 'Clinton' connection with BTD, and pushing the cult riffs -- come join us, you'll never be without friends again!

    If this person had actually ever read any of BTD's posts, they'd know that the way to his heart was talking about issues, not cueing the siren song of

    P.S., sorry but the 'I saw what the press did to Clinton' is just the most unimaginable chutzpah-y hubris.


    The funny thing is (5.00 / 6) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:19:56 PM EST
    I have been a tepid Obama supporter throughout.

    I am quite rational about the whole thing.

    As I have written many times, pols are pols and do what they do. I have on emotional investment in any pol.


    Do you think this is just awkward micro-targeting? (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:25:45 PM EST
    Or attempted micro-targeting?  I wonder if any of the Corrente folks got similar emails.

    Not meaning to be (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by tek on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:28:21 PM EST
    impertinent, but who does?  Have an emotional investment in pols, that is?  With the possible exception of W's crazed fundies, I haven't seen an election heretofore where people only care about the cult of personality, especially in such critical times.  

    I had an emotional investment this time. (5.00 / 10) (#137)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:03:34 PM EST
    Fairness means everything to me and I saw a lot that wasn't fair. Also, I'm not that old, but I have experienced sexism in my life and I saw it plainly during this primary. That invested me far more than I would have thought possible. My biggest disappointment ever in politics was 2000 and this equals that.

    I was really invested in JFK. (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:37:34 PM EST
    But then I grew up. :-)

    Not even a teeny little soft spot for.... (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:25:01 PM EST
    ....Wesley Clark?

    I don't get it either (5.00 / 16) (#16)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:04:39 PM EST
    We had one pro-Obama poster here - haven't seen him in a while - who used to argue that the reason Obama had to move to the center on all these issues was because of the Clinton supporters who wouldn't vote for him, thus the need to pick up more Independents and Republicans to compensate.  Strange variation on IACF.

    It never seemed to occur to him that moving to the center was part of what made these Clinton supporters reluctant to support Obama.  I mean, there are a non-trivial number of people who felt that Clinton was the real Democrat and Obama was the guy who wanted to sell the party out to some kind of faux unity concept.  And whether they're right or wrong, confirming their fears is not the way to win them over.

    It's just so weird to me that these Obama supporters are optimistic about reaching out to evangelicals and all these other pro-GOP voting blocs, but somehow they just assume every recalcitrant Democrat is a Harriet Christian type who is completely unreachable.  In reality, Obama has simply done very little to reach out to disaffected Clinton supporters since the end of the primary and thus their reasons for disliking him just get reinforced thereby.

    Clinton has done (5.00 / 11) (#63)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:22:00 PM EST
    what, maybe 4 events since her concession to him?  

    For someone supposedly media savvy, the narrative has been markedly bad.  

    June 20 -  According to Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., Obama then said, "However, I need to make a decision in the next few months as to how I manage that since I'm running against John McCain, which takes a lot of time. If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it."

    Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a longtime Clinton supporter, did not like those last three words --"Get over it." She found them dismissive, off-putting.

    Congressional Black Caucus meeting

    Then you had the spate of articles about the unwillingness of each group to fundraise for each other, each with their own rationalizations.  The Patti Solis Doyle hiring.  And since the Unity Event, Hillary was given little to do for his campaign.  To say she was too busy fundraising for herself is IMO B.S.

    And they thought people weren't going to notice this attitude?  Obama has done very, very little to integrate his campaign with the Clinton campaign.  He hasn't promised to carry her torch the way he even insisted he would do for Elizabeth Edwards.

    And additionally, what I love, is that Hillary supporters are chided for being irrational, or wanting catharsis, or whatnot, for having feelings and attachments, while Obama supporters are comfortable talking about their many feelings and emotions being involved with his campaign, being touched by his speeches, etc. etc.  

    Everybody has emotions.  The Obamafans need to "get over it" and reach out to PUMAs.  If the Obamafans take a moment to realize that on every issue important to them, PUMAS are in their corner, that would help them get over it.


    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:26:12 PM EST
    If the Obamafans take a moment to realize that on every issue important to them, PUMAS are in their corner, that would help them get over it.

    That was really, really good.  Kudos.


    Shouldn't Obama (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:47:32 PM EST
    be using that to his advantage?

    What's the matter with him?


    good point... (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:59:08 PM EST
    And since the Unity Event, Hillary was given little to do for his campaign.  To say she was too busy fundraising for herself is IMO B.S.

    if Obama had been serious about helping Clinton with her campaign debt, he would have been out doing joint fundraisers aimed at getting his maxxed out fat cat contributors to pony up for Hillary (and get Hillary's fat cats to do likewise).  

    Instead, he held 'joint' fundraisers for Hoaward Dean and the DNC -- if Clinton had been included in those events, everyone would have come out ahead....


    You're a lawyer. (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:31:49 PM EST
    In reality, Obama has simply done very little to reach out to disaffected Clinton supporters since the end of the primary and thus their reasons for disliking him just get reinforced thereby.

    Obama's a lawyer.

    You make more sense. :)


    I don't believe him/her. (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:04:42 PM EST
    Talkleft does not bash Obama.
    But it does represent a progressive point of view - and if Obama does something like vote for FISA, what is anyone to do?

    I don't believe the emailer's claim to have been a Clinton supporter.
    The emailer gives him/herself away by using the word "Clintonites".

    The emailer is just being manipulative.

    Seems like a power play (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08:54 PM EST
    You can try to address the concerns of people who have been Democrats for years. Or you can appeal to new people who are politically not very active. (Some of Sen. Obama's supporters are obviously very active, but if you are registering as new voters many people in their mid-20s and beyond, then you are talking about bringing new people into the process.)

    The old Democrats aren't Obama's. They belong to the Party or to Clinton. The new registrants? They are his. Bring in enough new people so that the old people aren't needed. Make it Obama's party.  Power play, pure and simple. If he can't win with the new Party -- his Party -- he's willing to lose. It's not just about being President.

    Also weird... (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:27:47 PM EST
    If the emailer is so sure Obama's going to win with all these new voters, why email BTD at all?

    Nah, not so weird (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:30:27 PM EST
    I think when people really believe in something, they want other people to believe in it too. Some might call it proselytizing.

    it's hard to fight the gop talking point (5.00 / 13) (#32)
    by Turkana on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:11:24 PM EST
    that obama's a mere personality cult when so many of his supporters act like cultists. it's also not going to help- and is not smart- to be holding his acceptance speech in a football stadium. does he want people to see him as a substantive leader or as a rock star?

    My husband finished your last sentence (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:15:48 PM EST
    before I read it to him.

    We're screwed.  Undecideds will go with McCain.


    Good point (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:20:19 PM EST
    Well, he sent an email today (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:25:52 PM EST
    telling supporters about the backstage passes that had been given to ten supporters.

    I wonder where the after-party will be...


    Backstage passes (5.00 / 5) (#200)
    by joanneleon on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:03:21 PM EST
    Well if that doesn't reinforce the rock star image, what does?  Originally I thought the stadium idea wasn't bad, in the sense that it would allow for a lot of people to attend who wouldn't otherwise be able to.  I was looking at it as being more inclusive, and such.  But as this thing unfolds, and all the gimmicks and such are revealed, I now understand who some people reacted so negatively to it right from the start.

    Also, I think that people are finally starting to look at things differently in this country.  What used to be considered glamorous might very well be viewed as excessive by many people.  I know that I see things through a different lens these days.  Have the politicians caught on to this yet?


    BTD (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Miri on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:13:48 PM EST
    What are you playing dumb?

    You know exactly why Obama is doing what he is doing?

    The One is declaring "Democratic Party, c'est moi".

    He wants to purge the party of anyone he cannot control.

    Wesley Clarks, Joseph Wilsons......these people were not for him. He wants to drive them from the Democratic party and replace them with republicans, people like Andrew Sullivan.

    He doesn't want Hillary voters. In his mind he will be getting millions of evangelical voters to vote for him. He thinks he will win states like Georgia, Louisiana. The guy is totally deluded. The media adoration has gone to his head.

    Mere politics as usual (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Fen on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:19:09 PM EST
    He wants to purge the party of anyone he cannot control.

    He needs to take the Dem party from the Clintons. I'm voting against him, but I recognize its simply a sound tactical move. The Clintons would do [did do?] the same.


    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by tek on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:30:46 PM EST
    would have had Obama as VP.

    with the intent to co-opt Obama (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Fen on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:38:06 PM EST
    into the Clinton sphere of influence. Thats different.

    Its also unfortunate for Obama that he peaked so early. As VP, he would have gotten enough OJT to make a more serious run, to continue to Clinton legacy.

    As it stands now, his prospects are slowly diminising. And Democrats have not been enamored of renominating candidates who have lost, like Gore and Kerry.


    I don't think so (5.00 / 10) (#106)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:45:27 PM EST
    Bill Clinton was quite happy to let Al Gore develop his own power center within the White House and nurture his own sphere of influence.  He didn't feel the need to make Gore into an FOB.

    VP Obama would have very clearly been the presumptive Dem nominee 4 or 8 years from now and, as such, would have surely developed his own, independent entourage whether President Hillary liked it or not.  But my guess is, based on Bill's example and what we know of Hillary's nature, that she would not have minded one bit.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#65)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:22:22 PM EST
    The Clintons would do [did do?] the same.

    Clinton Machine (none / 0) (#76)
    by Fen on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:28:28 PM EST
    Aren't most the party elite Clinton people? Didn't the Clintons actively seek to promote "their" people into those positions during his first term? Thats all I'm saying. Obama likely views the current party leadership as the "old guard" and believes he needs to marginalize them to have a smoother term[s] in office.

    Kennedy (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:51:58 PM EST
    is not a Clinton person...that's obvious.  Nor is Kerry.  Nor is Dean.  Who are the Dem elites these days if not them?

    What?! (none / 0) (#93)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:37:16 PM EST
    Aren't most the party elite Clinton people?

    Name some names here.


    I'm asking (none / 0) (#100)
    by Fen on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:40:24 PM EST
    Not asserting.

    You're suggesting. (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:43:15 PM EST
    Back it up or withdraw.

    uhm (none / 0) (#201)
    by Fen on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:03:51 PM EST
    Back it up or withdraw.

    Go pound sand?

    Yes. Do that. Then lighten up some.


    No. (5.00 / 11) (#141)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:10:47 PM EST
    That's a fundamental problem with the DNC and is one of the three reasons I'm a PUMA.

    The Clintons (both of them) are FDR, lunch-bucket, government's job is improve opportunities for people not lord over them, Dems.

    That is quite at odds with the New Coalition faction, which includes Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, Pelosi, and fan-favorites (snark) like Daschle.  The New Coalition has been itching to get their guy (any guy, this year it just happened to work out to be Obama) in as President so they would no longer need to dirty their fancy hands messing about with the likes of the working class Dems, or those demanding older Dems, or those never-freakin-satisfied whiny women.  The Clintons' power comes through their immense popularity with the hoi polloi, not through being party royalty, and it offends them.  Think House of Lords vs House of Commons.

    The best-written summary I've seen of the philosophy war/party purge going on in this campaign is by Anglachel, here.

    I think someone here said, or maybe cited someone else who said, that the common element in Obama's base outside AAs -- rich uber liberals and college kids is that they give a lot of money to the party but are the least demanding of constituencies when it comes to making calls on the government to support serious and hard-to-sell social support systems, like Medicare, Social Security, welfare (what's left of it), better Veteran's benefits, and so on.  The New Coalition base people can afford to give lots of money (rich people) or lots of time (college kids) and are largely satisfied with inspiring, lofty rhetoric and anxious handwringing over the world's injustices.  They are not making pesky demands on the government like solving the damn mortgage crisis so they don't lose their homes.


    Bravo, Bravo, Bravo (5.00 / 6) (#166)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:27:30 PM EST
    You said it, explained it concisely.

    I saw this in my caucus.  Now while I am college educated, with an MA and have taught college as well as k-12, my roots are working class.  Immigrant parents, factory workers, english was their second language and they came of age in the depression and neither got beyond the 10th grade (mother only in 6th when pulled out to work in a textile factory).  But they managed to instill in their children a desire for education, a belief in hard work and an adherence to family. And no way would they have tolerated, let alone us attempt, acting better than those in our little neighborhood or family...just because we went to college.

    But when I went to my caucus, I saw it and I felt it...that subtle snobbery toward older, less educated dems in the precinct.  Many of these folks had never attended a caucus before but suddenly they wanted to take over.  The old timers who had been working for the party for years, people in their 80s, were totally ignored.  I took control and did my best but honestly I could feel the snobbery.  Now they knew nothing about me or my education or whatever but I know they made a generalization.  So the few of us there for Hillary, quite a few of them who actually were alive when FDR was in office, were talked down to.  I kept my composure but I knew then.

    It's sad.  The party of FDR is the party that gave my parents the chance to create a better life for their children.  They succeeded and yet now those people who believed in that kind of democratic party are now no longer welcomed.


    If one policy pronouncement... (5.00 / 4) (#204)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:15:37 PM EST
    ...symbolizes Obama's pandering to those who don't need government, it is his response to the question of mandatory health coverage -- specifically as it concerns young adults who don't think they 'need' health insurance.

    Obama's solution -- let people up to the age of 25 stay on their parents health insurance.

    In other words, the cost of coverage for young adults who don't feeling like paying for health insurance would remain the parents responsibility until their kids are 25.


    I called it an interesting phenomenon (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:21:14 PM EST
    I do not think I wrote I did not know what was going on.

    Disaffected Clinton supporters, net margin equiv (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:22:11 PM EST
    ... comes to about 13 million votes (per latest Pew results).

    Disaffected Obama supporters -- Democrats and D-leaning independents who say they supported Obama in the primaries -- add another 5 million net margin votes. (These might be taken with a somewhat larger grain of salt.)

    Note: Both categories include some undecideds, not firmly committed to vote McCain or Other or sit it out.

    Stop confusin' me (none / 0) (#98)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:38:38 PM EST
    wit da facts, willya?

    Yegawds...this is 7th grade math, people.


    Obama & supporters represent the anti-Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by pluege on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:35:29 PM EST
    wing of the democratic party. End of story. They'll do anything to NOT engage Clinton, including risking the GE by alienating Clinton supporters. Obama and supporters are making sure democrats remain divided.

    Pure-play progressives (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:37:19 PM EST
    Progressive movements are a good thing, and the goal the party ought to be steering towards in a lot of ways. But I'm leery of anyone who tells me all the old rules have changed. And I think that courting people with a proven history of voting for Democrats is a better strategy for winning elections than courting non-voters who are suddenly going to change the world.

    I really enjoyed your line about blind support. (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by WillBFair on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:39:14 PM EST
    Could they be ignoring the pumas because they feel guilty about what they did in the primary? I know expecting guilt from true believers is like waiting for Jim Morrison to reincarnate as Mr. Rogers, and roar like a bull moose in heat on public television. But one can hope.
    As for being over the hill to the Obamanaters. Fine. I'm fifty and know vastly more than they do. And I still look great in shorts. So there.  

    Obama gave life to PUMAs (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:41:36 PM EST
    Thank you BTD for sharing the email.  It's a perfect illustration why we exist.  We understand that our vote and support was never part of the picture.  I'm happy to oblige.  Anyone who believes anything coming from Obama, e.g., policies, does not understand human nature.  Obama made "unity" one of his campaign cornerstones, but his actions tell a different story.  Obama is the most divisive candidate in the Democratic Party I've seen.

    I think (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 10:40:47 PM EST
    Obama himself is an "anti-PUMA," and a great deal of why the PUMAs exist.

    He even said, her voters will vote for me, but I doubt the reverse.

    And Michelle just wasn't sure she could support Hillary, if Hillary was the nominee because of her "tone".

    If the tables were turned, I think Obama would front the Obama-PUMAs not turn his back on them the way Hillary has.


    Well (5.00 / 9) (#107)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:45:48 PM EST
    She said one thing that I completely agree with.  I have never seen supporters like he has either. Well, other than the sheeple that still follow and praise Bush.  And I can honestly say that I hope the DNC is very proud of all their "new" supporters. So much damage has been done to the party I've been active in for four decades by these very "special" new supporters that I don't have any faith left in the party at all. I don't think Obama has shown on any level that he can win in Nov. and when he doesn't, we will have the opportunity to clean house at the DNC and throw Dean, Pelosi, Brazile and the rest out to the curb and rebuild our party so we can actually start winning elections again.  I'm a Democrat damnit and I want my Party back.

    Throwing out Pelosi, Brazile, etc (none / 0) (#118)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:51:22 PM EST
    Losing the presidential race won't be enough to get rid of those people.

    I would take with a large (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by FemB4dem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:55:12 PM EST
    grain of salt anything written by a purported former Clinton voter who is now enthusiastic about Obama and has found "wonderful" Obama supporters.  I know a lot of Democrats; I don't know a single one who took Hillary's side in this mess who is now enthusiastic about Obama and his supporters.  Nose holders?  Sure, there are a lot of "vote for any D" folks, and "can't stand McCain" folks.  However, Clinton voters who now think Obama and his supporters are wonderful?  After that horrible primary season? Please. Where is the bridge BTD's correspondent is selling?

    Replacing Clinton's delegates (5.00 / 6) (#130)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:55:36 PM EST
    Obama camp has replaced Clinton delegates to put his own.  Now, that's basically stealing votes.  Why would he do that if he had the nomination locked up?  Obama is simply making sure he gets the votes at the convention.  I don't trust anything coming from Obama.  How can anyone vote for someone like that?  He'll never get my vote.

    He can't do that (none / 0) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:04:25 PM EST
    Do you have a link for your claim? I do not believe it.

    Here's one (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:16:20 PM EST
    from Kentucky:


    There have been similar stories out of FL, and efforts by local parties to throw out a Clinton del in I think Colorado because she told another delegate she wasn't sure if she would vote for Obama at the convention.  (NOT the one from WI who got decredentialed and replaced with an Obama delegate for saying she'd vote for McCain in the GE).

    Technically, it's not Obama, but the state parties acting. (not excusing, just...whatever)


    DNC and Obama camp (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:27:49 PM EST
    Are now one and the same.

    They can't do it either (none / 0) (#165)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:26:07 PM EST
    I do not believe it.

    They are doing it, or are trying to do it (5.00 / 5) (#187)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:44:28 PM EST
    There was a big brouhaha over the FL thing -- Ausman got involved -- I will try to find links.  But that was a while ago.

    The WI delegate who got decredentialed was replaced with an Obama delegate. (according to the WI delegate, I haven't seen that in print anywhere).

    There's also been a variety of intimidation tactics employed -- making people state publicly why they are not supporting Obama at party meetings and such.  The intimidation information is coming in through PUMA channels, mostly from the people involved.  I've found most accounts pretty credible, but of course you may suspect my statement as you wish since I am a PUMA.  But I'm also a lawyer though and do have a bit of experience separating out exaggeration from a credible story.

    It's getting quite ugly out there for Clinton's delegates, not all the Obama campaign's methods are of the sing kumbaya with us variety.  


    Losing delegate status (4.50 / 2) (#210)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:31:42 PM EST
    There must be several rules governing delegate status.  This Wisconsin person was stripped because of statements.  Here's a Denver person that was required to explain why they should remain a delegate and was eventually stripped.  

    Apparently State orgs can vote delegates out by a 2/3 vote.

    The rules should hold that party loyalty is more important than candidate loyalty and have mechanisms in place to achieve the desired end.


    PUMAs (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by joanneleon on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:12:36 PM EST
    Since I absolutely cannot vote for McCain, I can't be considered a PUMA, but I do understand where they are coming from and I agree with them on some issues.  Also, I really don't like all the PUMA bashing and ridiculing.  Worst, I hate the dismissal of a group of voters who could pretty easily be brought back to the dem side again.  It wouldn't be that difficult, IMHO, to give these voters some respect, and if that were done, I think a lot would vote for Obama.  I personally don't believe that they really want to vote for McCain.  They have gone in this direction simply because they felt that they had no other choice.  The Obama campaign refused to give them an ounce of respect, refused to listen to them, told them they didn't matter, and the most radical Obama supporters eviscerated them whenever given a chance.

    The path to election and the best success for our party is so GD clear -- choose Clinton as the VP and reach out to the Clinton supporters.  It's the best solution.  The things keeping it from happening are egos, grudges, and hubris, all of which are things that go before a fall.

    If Clinton as VP isn't possible for Obama, then at the very least, reach out to the Clinton supporters.  Not to do so, and to rely on the fact that newly registered voters will come out and vote for Obama, is an incredible risk.  How do they know that these new voters won't turn around and vote for McCain after some perceived slight or something the media does to sway them?  There are a hundred old sayings about this subject.  A bird in the hand,... etc.  To throw away voters who have voted Dem for decades is, sorry to put it this way, stupid.

    I can hardly believe all of this is happening, given the situation we are in.  Has everyone forgotten what a bloody mess we are in in this world?

    Not all PUMAs vote McCain (5.00 / 5) (#173)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:31:44 PM EST
    A PUMA is a voter that does not toe the line.  I'm not sure I'll vote for McCain because it depends on what the polls say, but I KNOW I won't vote for Obama.  That's 100 percent certainty.  I knew I wouldn't about the time the TX and OH primaries took place.  Obama camp just turned me against him to the place of no return.

    Most PUMAs are not voting McCain (5.00 / 9) (#191)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:52:37 PM EST
    that's a fallacy.

    And there's certainly no push for PUMAs to do so either.  I spend enough time at a couple of the main sites to say that with absolute confidence.

    Some groups within the JustSayNoDeal coalition are advocating for McCain.  Most groups are not.  Fwiw, although I think JSND is great, I think of myself as only PUMA because of the McCain groups.  They are all McCain protest groups, yes, but the distinction is still important to me.  I say fwiw because most outside people just lump them all together in one big group anyway.


    "You'd let McCain WIN????!?!" (5.00 / 10) (#169)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:29:29 PM EST
    This is the astonished, horrified reaction to PUMAs and other resistant voters.

    The answer to that is that it's larger than this one election.  But forget that.

    That whole riff can be turned right around on Obama and his ever-alienating unity ambassadors.

    So, rather than suck it up and stop being sore winners, swallowing your d*mn pride and reaching out to Clinton and her supporters, You'd Let McCain WIN?!?!?!

    Truly, Obama has so far shown little except that yes, he'd rather risk the election than show a tiny bit of give toward Clinton or her supporters, undecideds, tepid and PUMA.

    At moments like this, I wish I wasn't such a B!tch (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by Ellie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:29:52 PM EST
    ... but a mangy old Boy Dog instead, so I could lick my tired set of b@lls in a perfect picture of self-teabagging indifference.

    Jeez, this mailer's woes don't even merit a few sarcastic bars of from the world's tiniest violin.

    Otherwise, here's me in non- gender-specific ASCII:


    I don't know where you've been BTD (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:33:34 PM EST
    The delegate replacement is old news.  We PUMAs were so outraged.

    No link yet (none / 0) (#180)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:40:07 PM EST
    Give me the link.

    June 13 Miami Herald (none / 0) (#181)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:41:04 PM EST
    here's Prahbata's link as a link (none / 0) (#193)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:54:50 PM EST
    It's amazing how many people there are (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:35:48 PM EST
    who try to help Obama, but only end up hurting him.

    PUMAs know what is going on (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:51:03 PM EST
    We are staying on top of what is happening to Hillary's delegates.  When it was clear that Obama would not put Hillary's name for nomination, some delegates got together to get the 300 delegates to sign the petition to put Hillary's name for nomination.  The DNC would not give the list to the organizer, so she had to google their names with hopes that she could get from google the information to contact them.  It's incredible how Obama has dissed these delegates who worked so hard for Hillary.  These are strong Democrats who under normal circumstances would work to elect a Democrat to the WH.  But their experience with Obama has turned us all against Obama.  There is no return.

    Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by Tim V on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:53:52 PM EST
    Hillary can and should be nominated for prez and should be selected. Obama is a losing choice.

    Pelosi and Dean won't allow it (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:58:49 PM EST
    It's a done deal.

    I never e-mailed Marcos or others (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:21:10 PM EST
    This was an interesting e-mail. I never e-mailed other bloggers to complain that they were being unfair to Hillary. I just moved on. Because of that, I always find it funny to hear that people rather attack others who might question their candidate's motives or issues rather than hang around with friends. It is expected that people must be lemmings and not question the leader. That is not a democracy.

    Training Camp (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by glennmcgahee on Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 07:22:17 AM EST
    This is straight out of Obama's training playbook where they tell Obamacans to write comments about how they were once Clinton supporters who have seen the light and are now supporting Obama. They may have.  I listened to John Edwards explain how his "faith" wouldn't let him support gays, I see how the platform removed gay rights. I see Obama says that he could possibly support gay civil unions but not marriage, but, I remember the beginning of Obama's campaign  well. I saw The Gospel Tour that kicked off his campaign. He paraded through churches in the South with ex-gays talking about how jesus saved them from homos. Who is this guy? He's not in any way a true Democrat. They have co-opted Republican successes so whats the difference? I'm not supporting him. I know he will not win the General Election. Yea, I'm old, 50. To the young folks I say, we've seen this stuff before.

    BTD, I don't think (3.00 / 3) (#1)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:53:54 PM EST
    that it is so much about being confident that Obama can ignore some portion of Hillary supporters as it a recognition that he cannot win some of those voters no matter what.  I think that this is clear from some of the posters here, who are at a minimum going to skip the Presidential race, if not vote for McCain.  

    That does not mean that he should shy away from seeking their support, but there is no use spending his time and efforts chasing voters who will never support him.

    You don't get it. (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:57:34 PM EST
    You really do not get it.

    Obama has not delivered the goods from the beginning.

    You labeled us racists and bitter and all sorts of vile labels.

    Reap what you sow.  

    You deserve whatever happens.


    Obama and his goods (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by S on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:13:30 PM EST
    ...and don't forget Obama's "Democrats for a Day" campaign that he had all thru the primary season when he exploited the Clinton hate and invited Repubs to vote against Hill...

    well looks like many of those Dems for a Day had their day and are going home to Rove and Co...

    so he pushed the Clinton people away...those Dems for a Day are gone...no wonder he can't get past 46% in the polls...


    don't get it (1.33 / 3) (#20)
    by Ovah on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:05:58 PM EST

    you would rather have McCain...and you think that woudl be punishing Obama supporters.

    this isn't a game, the Obama team doesn't lose, we all lose.


    Yawn. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:10:31 PM EST
    Yawn this (2.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:18:31 PM EST
    "Yawn"?  You surely have got to be kidding.  

    I'll see your yawn and raise you an "I'm going to support Obama for the sake of my three nieces who will have to live a long time with the ramifications of whatever the next US president does."  You can add to that all the other children in my family, your family, our neighborhoods, and the world in general.

    I'm not thrilled with Obama for a lot of reasons others have expressed on this site.  But I have no delusions that McCain would in any way be a better president, given the challenges America is facing.


    Nope, I'd rather have a real Dem (5.00 / 11) (#46)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:17:04 PM EST
    in 2012.

    2012 (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Emma on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:33:05 PM EST
    I'm with you.

    Thank you for making my point (none / 0) (#55)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:20:43 PM EST
    Simple question (5.00 / 9) (#67)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:23:30 PM EST
    Do you care more about winning an argument or winning an election?

    Your comments here strongly suggest the former.


    I dont see any elections being won or lost (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:27:58 PM EST
    on this site, with all due respect to Jeralyn and BTD.  

    Neither do I (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:32:26 PM EST
    some e-mailers seem to.

    As do some Obama cultists commenters in the blogs.

    The issue is bigger than Talk Left, but if you do not think so, then you should move on I think.


    The level of criticism of Obama (none / 0) (#139)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:04:29 PM EST
    extends beyond policy issues such as FISA.

    The Left is always like this....The Right--at this point in the election cycle they are quite efficient--they save their criticism for policy issues that matter to them such as abortion.

    I am actually fairly pessimistic about this election... One of the reasons is the continuing fracture among Democrats....And much of that seems insoluble.


    I criticize political strategy (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:18:14 PM EST
    and will continue to.

    I told you and everyone long ago you want cheerleaders, you are at the wrong site.

    Hell, just wait till Obama picks Biden and Jeralyn starts writing how she won't vote for Obam.

    You'll think better of me then when I push back against her.  


    I enjoy discussing issues (none / 0) (#159)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:22:24 PM EST
    with bright, thoughtful folks.

    I would like to continue to post here for that reason.

    But I am not so delusional as to believe that I will have an impact on the election by doing so.  


    Well (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:33:11 PM EST
    Voters being persuaded or not persuaded is a microcosm of elections being won or lost.

    If you want to take the position that the efforts of a single person to win over voters are too insignificant to bother with, then it's a wonder anyone ever tries.

    I know that an awful lot of former Clinton supporters are significantly more anti-Obama because of the behavior they've seen from his online supporters.  Why are you even bothering to make arguments if you don't think it makes any difference whether you persuade people?


    A President McCain (none / 0) (#124)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:54:15 PM EST
    would not be all that easy to beat in 2012.  

    If there is no recession, he would have to be the favorite for re-election--most Republican incumbents sail to re-election.  

    Bush I lost because of a recession.  Ford was never elected and almost won against Carter, lost because of Watergate and pardoning Nixon and a goofed up answer about Poland during the debate with Carter.

    All rest were re-elected.  This country likes Republican Presidents....Placing all your eggs in the basket of beating McCain in 2012 is very problematic.  If McCain wins, the Right will be resurgent....


    Actually (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:17:00 PM EST
    I see the right being more resurgent after an Obama win. He's running for Carter's second term so I fully expect history to repeat itself on that account.

    The next president is almost certain to be (5.00 / 7) (#155)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:21:17 PM EST
    the next Jimmy Carter.  I'd rather see the next JC be McCain than a Democrat.

    If by some miracle McCain can pull the country out of a recession and put it on a strong economic footing in the next 4 years (doubtful since he, like Obama, doesn't really have an economic plan), then he would deserve to be hard to run against.

    But you can't argue the evils of McCain, and bleat about what a bad candidate he is now, and then claim he'll be unconquerable in 4 years because he'll have successfully turned the economy around.  You might as well be campaigning for the Republicans with logic like that.


    Recessions tend to be cyclical (none / 0) (#171)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:31:04 PM EST
    An economy like the one we had 2004 would be enough for McCain to gain re-election.....nothing too great, continued stagnation for the middle class, band aids for health care....

    The problem is that underlying economic woes do not generally get addressed unless there are severe consequences that are clear...

    Republican incumbents are not easy to knock off....The key is to prevent them from becoming incumbents....


    Threats don't work. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:40:49 PM EST
    I'm not punishing anyone.

    You can't possibly make the case for Obama when he himself can't do it.

    So stop trying.  :)


    This is the attitude that makes me (5.00 / 6) (#108)
    by angie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:45:58 PM EST
    resolved NOT to vote for Obama -- for crying out loud where do people get off thinking that they can tell me how I have to vote to be a "good person" or a "progressive" or whatever the catch word of the day is? It is the candidate's job to win my vote -- he doesn't automatically "get it" because he has a "D" behind his name, and voting for FISA, telling me I'm racist if I don't vote for him and that he "doesn't need my vote" is not persuading me one bit. There is a reason the voting booth is private -- and whether I vote for Obama, McCain, or a third-party that vote is mine, and mine alone. I have voted in every election for the last 21 years of my life and while I have coincidentally always voted Dem, more importantly I have always voted my conscience. I plan to do the same this November. If my vote is in fact important, then Obama and his supporters would be well advised to start acting like it.

    You forgot gracious (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:22:23 PM EST
    You have to vote for Obama or you are ungracious.  Nancy says.

    I didn't label anybody anything (none / 0) (#18)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:04:58 PM EST
    I was one of those duped Edwards supporters

    Glad I found one, I would ask: (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Fen on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:12:26 PM EST
    If John & Eliz had come clean earlier, would you have chosen to invest your time, energy and money in a more viable candidate?

    And would that candidate have been Hillary?

    Other former peeps of Edwards are welcome to respond.


    Absolutely I would have chosen someone else (none / 0) (#45)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:16:35 PM EST
    It's hard to put myself back where I was in February when I cast my absentee ballot for Edwards in Ca (days before he dropped out) in terms of who I would have supported.  I had been a pretty hardcore Edwards supporter in 2004 and 2008.  I saw Hillary speak in SF in late 2007 and was very impressed.  There is a good chance I would have voted for her, I just dont know.  Sorry for the Hamlet-like response.

    Yeah, right. (none / 0) (#28)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:09:59 PM EST
    Edwards is the latest boogy man.

    Say what? (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:12:44 PM EST
    Sorry, I voted for and contributed to Edwards, not Obama or Hillary.  And am regretting it now.  

    Since he hasn't tried to win us (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:02:57 PM EST
    how does he know it can't be done?  How do you know?

    He hasn't tried.  Now we're told that he is not going to try.  Hmmm.  It must be, then, that it's because he is going to take even more positions that are opposed to those that got us voting for Clinton.

    If so, that just may be a big oh-oh warning for others of you here.  Just saying.


    Very insightful. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by tek on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:34:51 PM EST
    Your analysis certainly explains why he wants to CHANGE the membership of the Democratic Party.

    I have no doubt that the majority (none / 0) (#25)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08:41 PM EST
    of Hillary supporters already support him, and that can win over more, and he should strive to do so.  I also have no doubt that there is some percentage -- and maybe 10 is in the ballpark -- who will not vote for him no matter what he does at this point.  Again, you dont have to look any further than the posters here who have already said that they can never vote for him.

    Now, what percent of evangelists will (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:19:07 PM EST
    never vote for him?  95%?  

    Good that you must have gotten (4.75 / 4) (#43)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:15:49 PM EST
    a different pep talk about Obama going to get some Clinton supporters.  BTD's correspondent must have missed that rally.

    Other than that, I'm not sure that I see that you're saying anything much here.  Some will, some might, some won't.  Yep.  

    But that part doesn't seem to correlate with that   contribution to understanidng that you made at the start -- that Obama should strive to do so.  So is he going to do so?

    And that takes us back to the start.  So maybe now you can see that what you are saying is this:

    It is up to him.  It is about Obama.  It is not about who will, who won't, who might.  You never will know if you don't ask.  Politics 101.


    Sorry, havent been to any pep talks or rallies (none / 0) (#48)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:18:31 PM EST
    Then you have no info (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:35:19 PM EST
    from or on the campaign that the rest of us haven't seen, yet you have no doubt, on the basis of --  what you see here.  So what you see here is what you've got?  And so it's not telling us anything we don't already know?

    I'm trying to get why what you say has weight, and I'm not getting it.  I'm looking for evidence that puts some ballast behind the weightless email that BTD got.

    That is, some evidence that Obama will do the opposite of what that emailer says, which is to write off a significant number of actual voters to go get people who never bothered to register before, much less go to the polls.


    Stupid strategy (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:05:48 PM EST
    First, it's not 10%.  Where are they getting these numbers?

    Second, this is a false dichotomy.  What campaign puts all their eggs in one iffy voter registration drive basket?  Clue for the clueless: by all means, GOTV like crazy.  That's a good thing.  But there's no reason to frame it as a zero sum game.  Go for the Clinton vote too.

    How?  Do one freaking thing to reach out to Clinton voters that does not include grinding them into subservience or require humiliation first.

    You know, the whole 'Obots' thing started as a joke/laconic commentary, but I wonder if it isn't truer than not.  Has anyone on the campaign met other people?  Spent any time among people?  Had even a stray thought along the lines of 'Well, if my choice lost and the other side danced for joy and bombarded me with hostile, taunting messages, or taunted me with SCOTUS armageddon, I probably wouldn't be super-inclined to jump on the bandwagon either?


    Oh, I dunno.... (5.00 / 12) (#27)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:09:04 PM EST
    he's chasing Republicans,  evangelicals and people who can't be counted on to vote...even if you register them.  Not a lot of gold in those mines.

    Look...the polls are showing he only gets 75% of the DEMOCRATIC vote.  75%?  That is PATHETIC.  If he can't win his base, stick a fork in him...he's done.  And by his base I mean lifelong Democrats who have NEVER considered not voting for the nominee...OK, maybe a few voted for Anderson or did a writein...very few of the base.

    PUMAS, much as they wish they were, are not the remaining 25%...nowhere near...but the number is GROWING and there is a huge gap there, of Democrats who haven't committed to Obama - or anyone else - who are watching and waiting.  For what?  For evidence that this guy has a clue!

    Shortest, straightest route to those voters is naming Clinton his VP.

    You'd have to be blind, stupid or a sexist/CDS victim not to see it.

    This convention will be an IQ test...of Obama's political IQ.  It will win him or lose him hundreds of thousands of votes - perhaps millions - in one week.

    I'm fresh out of hope for the Democrats...deeply sad and furious at the same time.  What a combo.


    No matter what (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:14:20 PM EST
    Well, when you do not try, that is a hard theory to test.

    That might be part of Obama's strategy (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:33:47 PM EST
    here.  His campaign may not want to test the waters with Clinton folks for fear of defeat - but they will go out and do back flips for Evangelical fundamentalists - and not do a super great job which makes them look defeated - and on top of it all confuse their own base in the process by pandering to people who are in total disagreement with most Democrats - but they won't talk to the Clinton folks - PERFECT.

    If one of my friends called me and asked what's going on with Obama - I tell ya I got nothin' right now - I haven't a clue what they think they are doing.


    You are right, I will never vote for him. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by honora on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:47:35 PM EST
    But he is also ignoring my entire extended family here in Maryland. I am amazed that so few of my relatives plan on voting for him and the ones that do are only doing it out of fear of McCain.  I do not see people in my circle, life-long voting Democrats all, who want to vote for him.  I admit that in November some of them will come around. I do believe, however, that he plans on replacing the Mikuski Democrats entirely.

    wait a minute (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by AlSmith on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:49:06 PM EST

    choice is ok for your body but not your vote?

    Nobody owns my vote. I am the only person who decides who will get it.

    Just because I am in your party does not mean you have any hold over an hour of my life to go out the pooling place, stand in line and X your name. I might support you, I might give money, but you cant compel me to vote for you.

    You have to earn that. And if you dont like that proposition, that is one more reason you shouldnt get my vote.


    What you see is the reaction of people (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:52:09 PM EST
    Who are dealing with no effort at all to reach out to them.

    the message we're being sent is being received loud and clear.


    He never tried.... (5.00 / 9) (#135)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:01:38 PM EST
    he should have offered the VP spot to Hillary as soon as she suspended her campaign.  He and all his supporters know darn well that would have been, not only the fair thing, but the best thing for the party and the way to unity.  Even if she declined, it would have healed wounds. It was a no brainer.

    But he didn't.  And in fact his team has continued a smear campaign toward Hillary and her supporters.  It's not that he failed at unifying and mending fences, he did not try and in fact his team has gone out of his way to alienate.  

    I started out as an Clinton and/or Edwards as first choice but confident I could support any dem nominated.  It was the Obama bloggers and campaigners who alienated me.  At one point I swore I would vote for whoever the dems nominated.  Thanks to the arroagance of Obama campaigners and bloggers and the campaign's teams need to trash anything Clinton for the first time in my life I may not vote at all.

    I was not an extremist...I did not start out angry.  Now I am livid and getting more so the longer the Obama campaign thinks pandering to the right is more important than working to mend fences with longtime democratic women.


    Honestly, I think the idea that he (4.75 / 4) (#12)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:02:09 PM EST
    can't win Democrats over is ridiculous if that is what they are saying here.  I do not think that it reflects well on anyone - Obama, Clinton or either camp's supporters to say that or to plan on that.

    I think that this is a negotiation that Obama folks may not like being forced to enter, but I think that if they let their egos get the best of them they have no right to the nomination.  

    I will add that if that roll call vote goes the wrong way - against Obama - then it will be the Obama's campaign's fault and the fault of his supporters for not being very graceful winners.  

    I was never in either one's camp and frankly as a person who saw their candidate hopes dashed early on, it is difficult for me not to say to everybody on both sides of this issue "Grow the f up and try and figure out a truce."  

    Sorry - I am getting tired of the whining from both sides - no make that exasperated - I was tired in April.



    Whining from both sides. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:07:23 PM EST

    It's called picking the best candidate.  

    Gore was.  Where were you?

    Kerry was only slightly better than Bush.

    Where were you?


    Weakest of the bunch.

    You can try to do your kumbaya, but I can assure you that it's not going to work.


    I'd hardly call what I just wrote (none / 0) (#60)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:21:37 PM EST
    "kumbaya" and I supported Gore, went from Kerry to Dean and bac to Kerry because he got the nod, and never have supported or really believed in Obama for a whole lot of reasons - but now he's all I got - he's all I have to work with and until the election is over I have to deal with what the cards the majority of the party dealt me.  BTW I was a Harkin girl in 92 too and I have long understood that John McCain is one of the scariest Republicans you'll ever encounter - and if you care about democracy and the Democratic Platform (such as it is these days) you will work to keep him out of office - if you don't then you should go ahead and vote for him I suppose.  This ain't kumbaya - this is pragmatism on my part.

    No. (none / 0) (#123)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:53:27 PM EST
    that John McCain is one of the scariest Republicans you'll ever encounter

    It's not going to work.  Sorry.

    I won't vote for McCain or Obama.

    BTW? The democratic platform has no meaning.

    Thanks for nothing.


    Dick Cheney is scarier.... (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:37:46 PM EST
    ...and to me so is Rudi Guiliani and Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay. But that's not to say that I like McCain or would ever vote for him. But come on, I know for a fact there are scarier Republicans.

    I calculate scary factors based on how (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:49:23 PM EST
    many people can be fooled into thinking they are not scary - which gives them the kind of latitude that Bush and Cheney enjoyed for many disasterous years - McCain rates high based on that metric now as far as I am concerned.

    Discredited lunatics aren't scary because they are dicredited.  Lunatics who are thought to be "moderate" and "mavericks" are dangerous.  I hope he doesn't have the chance to prove me right BECAUSE HE WILL.

    But whatever.  I heard all these same arguments from Independents and Nader supporters in 2000 - they asked "How bad could they really be?"  I think we have our answer, but nevermind.


    its even worse then that (2.00 / 0) (#23)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08:33 PM EST
    this writer said that the 10% Obama just could never get he could replace with new voters, the Will Bowers out there raising 10 million in July for Hillary saying he would never vote for Obama.

    but now what does the writer assume of the other 90%

    and what is BTD implying the writer assumes, (hint just look at BTD title), wow someone things ok 10% wont vote for Obama no matter what but its out because he can replace them with new voters, and BTD is out once again to try and show that Obama camp doesn't want any Clinton supporters, but no thats not a stretch at all.


    You are now lying about me (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:15:35 PM EST
    And That makes a warning in order.

    Stick to what I write, not what you think is in my mind.

    Do it again and you will be gone from my threads.


    what is there to get? (1.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Ovah on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:02:23 PM EST

    I don't think anyone is looking for blind support, that seems to be a Republican trait.

    There has been an outspoken minority of HRC supporters that have expressed their outrage to the Obama nomination to the degree of "I won't vote for him, I'd rather vote for McCain or not at all". Try to appeal to this group?  In my opinion, if you are a democrat, there are some basic issues that should make your decision easy.

    If you are willing to spite the party because your candidate didn't get the nomination, what do you need to hear to vote for Obama?

    What do I need to hear? (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08:40 PM EST
    Briefly - I need to hear Obama talk like a progressive.

    Yup. And a bit of fight would help (5.00 / 5) (#122)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:53:17 PM EST
    But he's never fought (5.00 / 4) (#199)
    by abfabdem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:02:54 PM EST
    for anything in his whole career so why would he start now?  He ran out the clock in the primary and just assumes he can do it again - limit debates and do the rock star stadium appearances reading speeches.  What is going to change between now and November?

    Well, the party seems to have no problem (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:10:13 PM EST
    spiting its members, quashing the democratic process as it were.  And, it is about America first...to hell with the party.  What is good for America is the important thing; and this party has decided to put up (by cheating no less), the lamest of the lame in candidates imo.

    What's good for America (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:46:23 PM EST
    really is the most important thing.  

    The political party that holds the Presidency shouldn't really matter IF Congress and the Senate also do their jobs.  Right now, it appears none of the three (President, Congress, Senate) is doing their jobs or their ratings wouldn't be so low.    


    Once again (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:25:21 PM EST
    it's not about Hillary. And the party really doesn't care about issues anyway. Look no further than their behavior for the last 2 years.

    I see the problem as this ... (4.60 / 10) (#110)
    by Inky on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:46:55 PM EST
    You can cast aspersions on the bitter dead-enders of the PUMA movement, but the fact is that Obama has never really tried to win over Hillary's supporters. He has had ample opportunity to be magnanimous with Clinton supporters, yet at every step of the way he has responded with pettiness. On the eve of his primary victory he was still peddling OCD stories to the press, including sending every member of the press Olbermann's unhinged Special Comment on Hillary's RFK assassination reference. Since then, while Hillary has been out campaigning for him, he has made no attempt to undo the damage his surrogates did to the Clintons' standing within the AA community. He hasn't been to Pennsylvania, to name just one "bitter, clinging" pro-Hillary state, since he lost the primary there. He initially attempted to deny Hillary even the traditional roll call vote at the convention, and he has denied Clinton supporters like Rangel and Clark any role in the convention. If he wants to win without us, he's certainly welcome to try.

    And for people who supported Hillary because of her dedication to certain issues such as UHC (as opposed to the far more dubious UHC "access") he has shown zero desire to make us feel like he shares our concerns.

    To me it's no longer about Hillary. It's about Obama, and what his willingness to brush off those within his own party who preferred another candidate says about his character and his ability to lead the country even if he does manage to eke out a victory in the GE.

    Oh, and Kaine seems like a perfect choice for VP, given Obama's character traits, as Kaine was the first non-Illinois pol to support Obama. It's loyalty above everything else in Obama world.


    Maybe the fact that he hasn't been to PA (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:41:10 PM EST
    is why Ed Rendell sai today he will be casting his super delegate vote for Hillary at the convention.

    "la-la-la (none / 0) (#97)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:38:24 PM EST
    I'm not listening "

    I see it as not giving in to blackmail (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by VelvetElvis on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:20:33 PM EST
    He's his own man and is going to do what he thinks is best regardless of how many people hold their breath until they turn blue.   We saw it with the FISA vote. We see it with him ignoring the demands of diehard Clinton supporters. We'll see it plenty of other places between now and November. It's frustrating for a good many of his supporters too, but that's who he is.

    Responding to some other people here, he didn't move to the center to pander. He's always been in the center.  So was DLC membership team member Hillary Clinton. We had two leftest candidates in the primary, Kucinich and Gravel. I personally would have loved either one of them but neither had a shot of breaking the 5% threshold required for delegate allocation so I went with Obama because he was the most electable.

    I am my own man too (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:21:48 PM EST
    How come that is not admirable?

    It is (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by lmv on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:01:18 PM EST
    You've been out here on your own in the blogosphere trying to reason with Obama supporters for months.  

    It's admirable and, as a Clinton supporter, I truly appreciate it.

    I'm just afraid that most Obama supporters are too far gone to see reason.  


    No. (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:25:43 PM EST
    so I went with Obama because he was the most electable.

    He was never the most electable, based on his performance, experience, and ability to connect with the voters.


    First time I've seen that combo... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oldpro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:36:46 PM EST
    Kucinich, Gravel and Obama.

    Are Kucinich or Gravel speaking at the convention?

    Good grief...


    Ignoring the will of the people (5.00 / 9) (#104)
    by pluege on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:43:58 PM EST
    ...is going to do what he thinks is best regardless of how many people hold their breath until they turn blue.

    reminds me of bush not setting a timeline or committing to redeploy from Iraq no matter what 80% of the American people think. Just what we need another egotist willing to thumb his nose to the will of the people. Whatever happened to the notion that politicians work for the voters?

    He's always been in the center.

    agreed, only with his pro-religious fundamentalism, anti-gay, pro-Constitution destroying positions and sexism I'd put him at center-right at best. puzzling how so very many Obama supporters think he's progre3ssive.


    Are you the guy who wrote a highly recommended (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:54:56 PM EST
    Diary on Dailykos where you said people should not vote for Clinton if she was the nominee?

    er, leadership team (none / 0) (#62)
    by VelvetElvis on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:21:56 PM EST
    Perhaps because (1.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:36:58 PM EST
    reading comments at sites like talkleft one could get the impression that those diehard Clinton supporters who say they won't be voting for Obama aren't amenable to being reached by any sort of appeal at all - on the issues, on policies, on his capabilities, on implications for the SC or four more years of Republican rule, or on any other grounds. They say as much right out. So why waste time or effort on them? If they just don't want Obama, even to the point of planning to go to the convention just to hold "Nobama" rallies, they're a lost cause. Evangelicals and Republicans would be softer targets.

    Not that I think Clinton supporters are or have been ignored or not reached out to. And not that I don't think some Obama supporters are dreadful idiots and are his own worst enemy. And in any case, increasing voter registration of likely Dem voters is good in and of itself, whether or not it makes up for refusenik Clintonites, so what's the problem?

    Good points. The Nobamas are dingbats, (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by WillBFair on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:47:14 PM EST
    and it is silly to waste much time on them.
    But Obama and his people are responsible for this situation by their appaling acts in the primary. Maybe if they turned off the arrogance for three minutes, some of the pumas would return to the fold.

    It was a hard-fought primary (1.50 / 4) (#147)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:14:41 PM EST
    There are/were bad feelings on both sides. It's easier to get over them when you're on the winning side though, that's for sure.

    And "Obama's arrogance" is a GOP-pushed meme. Even the evangelicals last night said they thought he was "humble."


    Man (5.00 / 12) (#151)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:17:58 PM EST
    nothing annoys me quite as much as the people who think there's no legitimate reason anyone could find Obama arrogant or elitist or whatnot, that it's just  a "GOP-pushed meme."

    This is what I mean when I talk about liberals trying to intellectualize everything.  Gee, the attendees at one event said Obama was humble, that's ironclad proof that anyone who believes otherwise has just been bamboozled by Karl Rove!


    You have a right (1.50 / 2) (#172)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:31:20 PM EST
    to hold your beliefs, as absurd as I think they are. But I have a right to say that's what I think too. I think you've been bamboozled by the McCain-loving media spin. Psst...the comment about the evangelical was meant to be funny, not an intellectual argument to change your position on the Dem candidate, though it really was said. Sorry I didn't mark it as snarky for you.

    Huh? (5.00 / 9) (#179)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:38:15 PM EST
    What "absurd" beliefs do you think I hold?

    I don't find Obama particularly arrogant.  But when he says at a debate "I look forward to you advising me, Hillary" (I personally found this funny), I don't have a problem acknowledging that a non-trivial number of people will view that as an arrogant remark.  They don't need Karl Rove to whisper in their ear to come to that conclusion.

    Likewise, plenty of people, including Obama supporters I know, heard Obama's "bitter" remarks and concluded that he comes across as elitist, without any need for the GOP to create the meme.

    What annoys me is the people like yourself who don't acknowledge that there can be legitimate differences of opinion about things that are very much matters of personal perception.  Not everyone who holds a different opinion of Obama than you do has been brainwashed by the GOP.


    It's not that I think (none / 0) (#208)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:21:52 PM EST
    there aren't any "legitimate differences of opinion" on the subject of BHO and his personal characteristics. Of course there will be. It's human nature. It's just that I think it's ridiculous to give that aspect serious consideration and overlook THE PRIMARY FACTOR - the binary nature of US elections. I think Obama is arrogant and elitist is fine as a personal opinion. I wouldn't even blink at it. But I admit I don't have much patience for people who don't acknowledge that the alternative to a candidate who is not perfect is not a perfect candidate but a freakin' McCain presidency.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:49:31 PM EST
    Anyone who is basing their judgments on comment at blogs or posts a blogs is pretty dim imo.

    Your emailer was talking about talkleft (none / 0) (#142)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:11:51 PM EST
    So discussing TL comments as examples seems appropriate. I don't think some of the absurd anti-Obama, anti-DNC comments posted here are representative of those 10% resisters. I'd jump off a cliff if I really thought that many supposed progressives were so stupid.

    The e-mailer (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:14:22 PM EST
    only discussed MY POSTS, not Talk Left per se.

    Your interpretation of the e-mail is completely flawed.


    As I read the section of it you posted, (none / 0) (#163)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:25:12 PM EST
    the email was simply an effort to get more favorable-to-Obama posts out of you rather than an argument that Hillaryites should properly be written off.

    It was clearly both (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:43:32 PM EST
    Not clearly to me (none / 0) (#209)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:29:31 PM EST
    From the excerpt anyway, it seemed not at all about willingly writing off hardcore anti-Obama Clintonites, just acknowledging they exist and that the deficit will therefore have to be made up other ways, by necessity.

    You are being simplistic (5.00 / 7) (#116)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:49:41 PM EST
    There's the PUMAs.  They won't vote for him no matter what.

    But there's a great many Clinton supporters sitting in the Undecided/may not vote column.  
    There are LOTS of them.  Unless of course, you'd like to cede all of the Clinton voters who haven't moved over to Obama yet to PUMA (which I'd be happy to do but I don't think their numbers are quite that high, yet).

    They could be reached out to.  I am not one of them, but there are plenty right here at TL, so I'm guessing there's more out there to be influenced.

    But messaging like 'get over it', 'you're just an overly emotional grieving girl, ewww', and 'shut the eff up and send money' is not reaching out.  Throwing temper tantrums that Clinton supporters won't hand over a blank check is not reaching out.  This is not reaching out:

    I must confess a bit of fatigue and irritation with people who continue to carp, complain, and criticize the results of the primary and lay down conditions for their support.

    Any fence-sitting Clinton supporters is not going to be moved by Don Fowler's 'fatigue', not should they be.

    It's Obama's election to lose, and so far he and his surrogates are doing a damn fine job of it.


    The most fundamental error (5.00 / 11) (#128)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:55:16 PM EST
    is assuming that all the people who supported Clinton, but are now reluctant to support Obama, are in that position solely because of their personal loyalty to Hillary Clinton.  No, it couldn't be that  they had substantive reasons in the first place for not supporting Obama, reasons which they still find compelling!

    This is the case with a lot of Democrats who fell naturally into the Clinton camp, particularly the older voters.  They couldn't care less how Hillary was treated in the primary, they're simply reluctant to support Obama because he seems inexperienced and somewhat full of himself.  It's a big mistake not to understand what motivates this sort of voter.


    You are being simplistic (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Catesby on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:57:22 PM EST
    it's not only Clinton supporters sitting in the 'undecided' column.

    I was an Edwards supporter, and I am sitting there too.


    Anyone who's voting (2.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:09:25 PM EST
    rationally and on the issues will vote for Obama over McCain if they were Hillary supporters in the primaries. Those who are holding out supporting the Dem now either never really were going to vote Dem or they're willfully choosing not to educate themselves on the real situation as opposed to sucking up the propaganda that's still emating from those who are still invested in pushing HRC for VP at the very least.

    The rabid Obamaites are doing damage, no question about it. Don't attribute their idiocy to the Obama campaign or simply to people who plan to vote for the Dem candidate. Too many here do, and it's prolonging the viciousness of the primaries unnecessarily. And then there are those who talk so gleefully about the prospect of Obama losing. Revenge will be sweet for some, not all the rest of us who don't deserve another four GOP years.


    But the solution (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:13:28 PM EST
    the politcal solution is staring everyone in the face - picking Hillary as VP and Obama will not do that. At some level, he is feeding the beast.

    You choose to ignore that.


    Oh, one could hardly (none / 0) (#150)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:17:24 PM EST
    read talkleft and ignore that...

    You did in your comment (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:20:22 PM EST
    I knew we'd get there eventually... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:34:10 PM EST
    You should have acknowldged it (none / 0) (#184)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:42:57 PM EST
    in your comment.

    NO no no no and No (5.00 / 6) (#156)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:21:48 PM EST
    This is the issues/policy perspective that assumes everyone with the same goals is equally successful at execution.  

    I don't want to keep repeating this because it's getting old, but there is some rationalism here.

    Listen I have no doubt that Clinton and OBama have the same goals.  In truth, Carter's goals were even more admirable than both Obama's and Clinton's combined.  But Carter wasn't successful at providing a better quality of life for all Americans.  Populist values.  An unpopulist outcome.  And a severe hit to the policies that I think are important.

    Now would I have voted for Reagan knowing that Carter would be unsuccessful and do a lot of harm to the Democratic brand?  I don't know.  I doubt it.

    But there is a rational reason to not support someone who may agree with you on policy if you believe that person will incompetently execute that policy, the net result being:  people concluding that the policy itself is bad.


    Edit (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:23:44 PM EST
    Clinton and Obama actually don't have the same goals with respect to each other, but, yes, with respect to McCain, they're in the same ballpark.

    I know some argue that (none / 0) (#188)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:46:19 PM EST
    an incompetent Dem would harm the Dem brand more than letting the GOP have four more years of rope to hang themselves. Two flaws with that argument - 1) another term of Bush-like policies could well do irreparable damage to the country along with the damage to the GOP. 2) What if McCain turns out to be a moderate R after all and rescues the reputation of his party, or at least cements Republican prospects through the next round of redistricting. Think on that.

    Your comment (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:05:18 PM EST
    isn't a critique of the "rabid Obamaites," it's simply no different.

    You're familiar with the concept of "asking for a vote" right?

    Knowing that the primary was so hard fought, don't you think the Obama campaign would've been wise to pursue former Clinton supporters and PUMAs a little more intelligently and persistently?

    You say either a voter is voting for McCain because they never were going to vote Dem, or that the voter is "willfully choosing not to educate themselves on the real situation."  

    I don't know how many people out there are actually PUMAs.  But Obama could be doing a lot better among white women.  I guess they should figure out where their home is, by your logic, or "stop choosing not to educate themselves on the real situation."

    OR HE, the CANDIDATE, could try to educate them!  Hillary has been underused (I think the best way to show that she won't disrupt the party, or the convention, is Obama making her stump for him - keep your friends close and enemies closer, as they say).  There has been precious little pushback by the Obama camp on Clinton-Obama acrimony stories.  

    How do you motivate voters?  Not just by shouting "change" and "hope."  You target voters and invest resources in their demographics.  You paint yourself as part of a tradition.  You send out thousands of mailers of you and Hillary talking about healthcare in Ohio and Florida.  You do photo-ops.  You snuggle.

    This is standard stuff.  This is when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

    When you KNOW that millions of people voted for Hillary, doing "what Romans do" means showing some love for her.  This actually causes less heartburn than eating a Philly cheesesteak in Philly.

    And the Obama camp has been unwilling to do so.  Maybe the convention will be a well-seized opportunity to turn that approach around.


    How about camp Obama tries (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:56:15 PM EST
    And then sees what happens?

    realy? thats what you got? (none / 0) (#10)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:00:45 PM EST
    because to me sounded like the writer thought Obama could get 90%, and that the other 10% who just won't give Obama a chance no matter what new voters can replace.

    but sure I guess assuming he can get only 90% of Clinton supporters must be the same thing as saying that Obama doesn't need them.

    That's exactly what I got (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:11:19 PM EST
    But you get what you want from it I suppose.

    The e-mail bashes me for not cheerleading for Obama, rhetorically asking if Obama killed my puppy (actually addressing anything I have written seemed impossible) and then out of the blue, talked about how NOT getting Clinton supporters was not important  since Obama's supporters are so great at organizing.

    Frankly, I think my interpretation is the only sane one. Unless of course, you actually ignore what was written in the e-mail, as you choose to do.


    he said 10% (1.00 / 2) (#39)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:14:29 PM EST
    why didn't you put SOME clinton supporters at least?

    because its been your MO for months that Obama wants nothing to do with ALL Clinton supporters even when this email at least does not suggest that.

    unless you think Obama can get 100% of Hillary supporters like Will Bowers and the rest of Pumas, then you also agree there is a percentage maybe not 10% but a percentage that Obama just won't win over, that he will have to replace with new voters,

    there is always a percentage of both sides that crosses over, we all know Obama will lose some percentage of Clinton voters, the fact that the writer says not to worry we will get new voters in and you take this as another sign that ALL clinton voters are not wanted I think is misleading at least.


    Republicans are (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:20:37 PM EST
    not going to cross over to vote for Obama.

    He's lost a bloc of democrats, and he also losing independents.

    How can the man possibly win?


    register more voters than exist (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by pluege on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:52:50 PM EST
    Well, (none / 0) (#132)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:56:29 PM EST
    either that or continue to screw around with voting machines.

    Okay, so which Clinton supporters (5.00 / 15) (#56)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:20:44 PM EST
    did Obama ask yet?

    Not those who cared about the FISA vote.

    Not those who care about Roe v. Wade.

    Not those who care about church vs. state.

    Not those who care about internal party matters such as caucuses and corruption.

    Which Clinton supporters did he reach out to and by saying what?  

    I don't mean saying "gimme money."  I mean on issues.  'Cause guess what, that's why we voted for Clinton.  So, stunningly, that's how to ask us for our vote again.


    From what I have seen (5.00 / 9) (#59)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:21:26 PM EST
    McCain has worked much harder to reach out to the disaffected Clinton supporters than Obama has.  Instead, he sort of acts like they will assuredly come around in the end, or else he will just dispatch Hillary to bring them into the fold as if they only live to do her bidding.

    It is fortunate for Obama that McCain has also insisted on running a hard-right campaign that is ideologically unacceptable for the vast majority of Democrats no matter what.

    But even for me, a yellow-dog Dem, it's still depressing to watch a tone-deaf campaign remain so indifferent to concerns of party unity, and its supporters (who assuredly take their cues from the campaign) go around harming the cause of unity by trying to bully instead of persuade.


    So (none / 0) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:27:32 PM EST
    far McCain has done some hard right pandering. We'll have to see if he continues or reverts back to his "maverick" status.

    You are permanently banned from my threads (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:17:50 PM EST
    now. "My MO?"

    Get the eff out of here.

    Gone. Do not comment anymore in my thread.


    This is directed at Truth Matters (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:26:09 PM EST
    for whom the truth does not mater at all.

    He is permanently banned from my threads so please do not reply to his comments as they will be deleted.


    Was that (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:29:21 PM EST
    the same guy who went around calling people like you and me "Putin supporters" or was it that other guy with "Truth" in his name?

    I'm developing a theory that anyone who feels the need to put "truth" in their name is most likely a habitual liar.  I've seen many examples.


    No (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:35:12 PM EST
    That was "Truth Sayers."

    Interestingly, people who put Truth in their online names rarely are much interested in it.


    Why assume it at all? These are normally (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 07:12:05 PM EST
    hard core Democrats we are talking about, not one time Obama and forget the down ticket voters. Ask for my vote. Embrace real universal health care (at least to the extent Hillary and Edwards did), don't tell me that you'll be outraged if your daughters are ever subjected to sexism but ignore what happened in this primary and make the obvious choice for VP and that would win over most of them. Embrace the good part of the 90's (the Clinton Presidency) and you might get nearly all of them.

    Stupid... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Addison on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 08:44:21 PM EST
    ...I personally think that Obama really IS going to GOTV in a way unprecedented in modern Dem politics. By winning the nomination he proved that to a certain degree that's hard to argue against.

    However, why give up the guaranteed voters?

    I don't really think that's Obama's jist (to forsake the guaranteed voters) -- unlike many on this blog -- but if you KNOW people are going to vote, focus on them first.

    Common sense.

    Hey, it's not hard to argue against. (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by dk on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 09:01:12 PM EST
    Obama won the nomination because he won red state caucus states whose numbers of delegates were out of proportion to the actual populations of those states due to Democratic party rules, as well as red state southern states due to African-American voters. His GOTV operations did not work in the other states (you know, the ones that he actually needs to win the GE), as shown by the fact that he did not win them in the primary.