home

Political Toughness

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:16:32 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Sorry to clutter the page this morning, but I have to share this post from Americablog. This passage especially:

[I]f you thought that somehow this year was going to be different - something would change and somehow the American electorate would look completely different this year than any other year, the numbers today just don't show that. This isn't a transformative election, it's another hardscrabble, claw out each and every vote, election. To win that kind of election, you need to fight for every vote and fight hard. That's why you hear the concern you hear from Josh Marshall, John, Joe, etc. And it's backed up by years of experience watching the Republicans make Democrats look weak - Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry [BTD -look what name is missing from that list]. That line of attack works when not countered and we were defeated. None of us want that in 2008.

(Emphasis supplied.) Now they want a fighter?

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Too Close To Call? Now What? | Bill Maher: Hillary For VP >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Political Toughness | 122 comments (122 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    They had one. They passed. (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by davnee on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:18:34 AM EST
    No sympathy.

    We saw this from miles away: Obama is Kerry (none / 0) (#17)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:27:05 AM EST
    First debate in 2004 I thought Kerry looked like he needed a double espresso.

    I would love to put on their koolaide glasses and see what mirage they were looking at.

    Parent

    It's not clutter; this is the stuff we need (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:18:53 AM EST
    to talk about.

    If Obama loses this election, there will not be enough crow to go around.

    we can import Mexican crow (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:20:10 AM EST


    Parent
    There are lots of crows... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kredwyn on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:24:44 AM EST
    wandering around my neighborhood...starlings too.

    Parent
    We Have a Lot Of Blackbirds (none / 0) (#79)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:09:45 PM EST
    Maybe crow recipes will work with them.

    Parent
    Note to self... (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by kredwyn on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:31:55 PM EST
    get a copy of the song "Blackbird" from iTunes.

    Parent
    If Obama loses this election, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:23:24 AM EST
    there will not be a Democratic Party to go around. Yeah I said it, and it's the truth.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:29:18 AM EST
    it'll survive but Obama will be continually pointed at as the type of candidate to never again nominate. And he'll probably be universally disliked and probably even hated by all those who supported him.

    Parent
    I wonder if that true (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:31:09 AM EST
    or if the ODS we have seen will continue with finger pointing and blaming we have already seen.
    they have not shown themselves to be that great at introspection and self re-evaluation.


    Parent
    It's (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:35:01 AM EST
    not ODS to hold Obama responsible for losing the election. It's up to him to make the case for himself. He's an awful candidate who is running a disastrous campaign. There's no other way to put it. When the SD's and Dem elite pushed him over the finish line, it was obvious to many that he was a very weak general election candidate. It's not like "no one knew" what we were getting ourselves into.

    Parent
    sorry (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:39:11 AM EST
    I guess I meant a sort of "reverse" ODS.
    the sense that he can do no wrong and that anything bad that happens to him is either the fault of Hillary or her evil dried up old supporters.


    Parent
    Naughty language, there. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:33:20 PM EST
    Hillary supporters as far as I can see are neither old nor dried up. They come in all the stripes that supporters of others do. These days you gotta be over 90 to be old anyway. But never underestimate a ninety year old. It's not nice particularly on this site to push nasty stereotypes of old women in any context, or to suggest that only self admitted old women support Hillary.  Yes, I know who I am and what i think.  And yes, I am female and over 60.

    Parent
    sorry (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:51:03 PM EST
    I actually thinking more of myself as an old and dried up Hillary supporter.


    Parent
    I agree with some of your (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:36:36 AM EST
    supposition, however, Hillary as well, will be the one who is blamed along with her supporters for his loss, primarily because "it is never his fault!

    Parent
    Bad for race relations? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:49:48 AM EST
    I think you are right.  I never thought of that.  Hillary bettered the chances of another woman being chosen for president.  If Obama loses he will have demonstrated for many that an AA cannot win the general election.  It would be the wrong conclusion because BO is flawed and not indicative of a good candidate.  We had a great AA mayor in SF.  Willie Brown is the epitome of a man who can get things done.  I would vote for him because he'd be everything I want in a candidate. Before being mayor he worked in the CA Legislature for years. He would have experience, intellect and political savvy.

    Parent
    I was literally (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by IzikLA on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:22:48 PM EST
    Just thinking of posting a similar comment upthread.  If Obama fails it may be awhile before we nominate another black candidate and that would be a shame.  We could've gotten it right this time around.  We could have had Clinton/Obama and almost guaranteed ourselves 16 years in the White House and all sorts of barriers broken.  But he was pushed too high too fast and it could bite us all on the rear very soon.

    Parent
    I hope you're right. (none / 0) (#97)
    by blcc on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:33:07 PM EST
    Maybe next time this won't have to be so stupid.

    Parent
    Next time there will not be two Firsts in the same (none / 0) (#99)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:34:56 PM EST
    year. We all underrate what kind of problems that is causing. All the Firsting will be done, then.

    Parent
    Not that I don't see your point, (5.00 / 7) (#102)
    by blcc on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:41:25 PM EST
    but sometimes I think taking note of the "first" element of Hillary's candidacy does her a disservice.  It allows people (people in general - I don't mean you personally) to ignore what an excellent candidate she became.  

    In my political lifetime (I'm 40) I don't recall another politician growing so clearly in excellence over the course of the campaign season.  Certainly a lot of blame has been and will be placed on her staff, but her brand of retail politicking became absolutely TOP NOTCH.  And without detracting from the historic "first" nature of that, I continue to be impressed by her ability to rise above the field in campaigning deftness and art.

    Parent

    I respectfully disagree with your conclusions (none / 0) (#125)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:36:56 PM EST
    about your candidate, as you respectfully disagreed with me.

    Parent
    I actually disagree (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:29:37 AM EST
    I really think the party might be in more danger if he wins.  danger of being merged into one big demopublican blob. but thats just me.
    if he LOSES Hillary is going to come roaring back next time.  the democratic party survived Mondale and Carter.  it will survive Obama.

    Parent
    ITA with the demopublican blob comment but (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:27:06 PM EST
    Why shouldn't the Dem party have survived Mondale and Carter? There never was and still is no question that they are 100% DemsDemsDems. I just don't get that one. Why pick those two? Those were the days when Dem candidates were Dems and didn't sidle up to the Reps as Obama does now and has all thruout the primaries.

    Parent
    Having lived in Canada (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by CDN Ctzn on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:44:51 PM EST
    at the time of the Carter administration I can tell you that the international community, not to mention our neighbors to the north, at least had respect for President Carter and saw that he had integrity. That is something that has been absent in the worlds opinion of America lately. I suppose that would be alright if we weren't still a part of planet earth!

    Parent
    Yes.I also remember that during the hostage crisis (none / 0) (#117)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:23:35 PM EST
    Europeans praised Carter for responding with restraint. Instead he worked hard to get the hostages back. Which he did. On Reagan's first day in office. What a shocker that was for him when that happened.

    Parent
    Capt. Howdy - I agree (5.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Bluesage on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:45:42 PM EST
    Our party will suffer more from an Obama win than an Obama loss.  The direction those running our party have taken to bring him over the primary finish line will be an issue for a long time to come and will be more difficult to correct if he squeaks out a win.  They turned their backs on the voters and propped up a novice. I hate to say it but my Democratic Party is in the time-out corner until this can be corrected.  And you are right about Hillary roaring back in 2012.  We will survive McCrazy and who knows, he may prove to be less pliable for republicans than Obama would.  

    Parent
    Sadly, I'm inclined (none / 0) (#39)
    by dk on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:36:14 AM EST
    to agree with Capt Howdy.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#78)
    by Iris on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:55:47 AM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    No it isn't (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:24:38 AM EST
    There will be discredited party members, but I'm sure it will survive in some form or another. It survived Jimmy Carter, after all.

    Parent
    Andgarden, Carter was a sitting (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:29:43 AM EST
    president with a failing admin. Obama is just a candidate and people are losing their freaking minds on both sides already about him. People who think the Dems are gonna recover in my lifetime after a potential loss THIS time are as pie-in-the-sky as the Obama primary campaign theme.

    Parent
    We'll still control both houses of Congress (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:34:13 AM EST
    so I think you're obviously wrong.

    Parent
    Oh I meant on the presidential level. (none / 0) (#51)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:41:31 AM EST


    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:35:43 AM EST
    When there's no possible chance they could lose this time.....but they lose.  They will come away as weak as I've ever seen them.

    Besides that, they've deliberately divided the party because in their little intellectually dishonest bubble they thought they could.  It will take many eons to repair that.

    Parent

    You can have mine (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by Emma on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:30:24 AM EST
    If Obama loses this election, there will not be enough crow to go around.

    I'll pass.  "Don't blame me.  I voted for Hillary."

    Parent

    No crow for me either (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    "I told you so!"

    Parent
    I dont plan to eat any (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:41:03 AM EST
    but I plan to have lots and lots of crow on the barbie.


    Parent
    Now? (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by katiebird on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:20:06 AM EST
    I keep hearing, "Not going to happen" when some people ask that the Super Delegates vote for the one who fought -- Hillary.

    If we don't ask though, how can we get the fighter? Or the fight we deserve.

    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by frankly0 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:32:31 AM EST
    that's an interesting point.

    All of these stories coming out at this stage talking about Obama's weakness is certainly going to lend a great deal more, well, drama to the convention.

    I certainly don't see how Hillary's going to win at the convention, given the commitments that have already been made.

    But I also see a very loud and proud Hillary contingency turning out, and perhaps taking the opportunity to rub something in the faces of Obama supporters.

    Parent

    Other than a huge printing bill (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:55:37 AM EST
    for Obama/Mystery Guest signage, there have been no commitments made that can't be broken. The Super Delegates can vote however they want at the convention. It would just be another "flip-flop". I bet there are a few printing companies in the Denver area that would stay open all night to produce the Hillary/Obama signs in time for Thursday. If not, a trip to Staples for poster board and markers would satisfy me. It's hard to stop a speeding train, but one that's run out of steam will stop on its own if it hits a small wall. This is only inevitable if the SD's make it so. Of course, so many of the SD's are spineless or too afraid to act.

    Parent
    for what it's worth (none / 0) (#68)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:10:37 AM EST
    -- and I must admit I'm not familiar with the site -- Hillbuzz reported that she put in an emergency call to her delegates and big money donors last night.

    Tantalizing news, perhaps.  But, again, not being familiar with the site, I don't know what to think of it.

    Just FYI.

    Parent

    That may have been because (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:36:25 AM EST
    of the FEC decision about deadlines for her to pay back her loans to the campaign.  I read about it yesterday, it's complicated beyond my ability to summarize here.  But it could be a reason to contact big donors quickly and nothing to do with the convention.

    Parent
    Has it occurred to you that all this face rubbing (none / 0) (#101)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:40:20 PM EST
    and Obama having to spend so much time dancing, dancing to soothe Clinton supporters who won't be soothed unless she is the actual candidate, is negatively affecting the candidacy of any Democrat because he has to do that rather than run against McCain? And will probably continue to have to spend time doing it rather than running against McCain after the convention as well. And to know that instead of getting a big push from the convention, he will get a blobby mess because of the intense brouhaha about Clintons that is making posters so happy to contemplate?  If you thought this was a losing year anyway, that might make sense. But please, at least think about it.

    Parent
    It might have occurred to me if... (5.00 / 4) (#107)
    by Romberry on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:11:02 PM EST
    ...I had seen any "face rubbing" or "dancing" from Obama or the Obama camp in an actual effort to soothe Clinton supporters. Of course I haven't seen that. What I have seen till now is a bunch of "we don't need you to win anyway" stuff, including Donna Brazille's dissing of old people and working class whites.

    If Obama had done it right and reached out immediately, and especially if he had secured the nomination without the thumb of the DNC's RBC on the scale, this would all be past. But he didn't and he didn't.

    Anyway, what is this "face rubbing and dancing" of which you speak? Pretend I am from Missouri and show me.

    Parent

    I Think Clinton Supporters (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by BDB on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:30:04 PM EST
    should take up more of Obama's time, it limits the damage he does "fighting" McCain.  So far, he's gutted the Fourth Amendment, waffled on Roe, sat silent on the redefinition of birth control as abortion, agreed to consider off-shore drilling, floated GOP and conservative Dems as VP, and has never missed an opportunity to suck up to the right-wing Christianists that are ruining this country, most recently by having his first encounter with McCain at that awful faith off.  If Obama spends much more time fighting McCain, I'm not going to be able to tell him from McCain.

    Parent
    I'm with Romberry on this. (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by tree on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:30:26 PM EST
    I haven't seen any dancing by Obama for the democratic base. I've seen a cop-out on FISA, a flip-flop on public financing, a cave-in to off shore drilling, a lot of pandering to evangelicals. I've missed the dancing for Democrats bit. Please fill me in, and please don't mention that Obama has "graciously" deigned to let Clinton put her name in nomination, like every other Democratic candidate has had the right to do throughout history.

    Obama claims to be the great uniter, but he can't even unite his own party. I've never seen his unity shtick show positive results. Its all hype and no substance.  He doesn't have it in him. He's tone deaf about how to do it. Obama isn't going after McCain the way he should because he's too busy playing post-partisan, and he's too busy being "transformative" to get out there and talk about Demoratic issues.

    Parent

    And with BDB, who posted (none / 0) (#113)
    by tree on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:34:56 PM EST
    about the same time I did, and said things more succinctly than I.

    Parent
    Want a fighter? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:45:04 AM EST
    Biden for VP.

    Parent
    A good fighter (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:52:31 AM EST
    not an inept one.

    Biden is up and down.

    Parent

    Sad isn't it??? (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:21:16 AM EST
    These guys were so damned hellbent on hating Hillary for whatever reason, they could not see the forest for the trees.  Americablog and a few other sites are filled with younger males apparently unable to see a woman as inspiring.   NOW suddenly they want a fighter.  Some of us all along knew who was the fighter and SHE inspired us because we get what it takes to fight and win the battles Senator Clinton has been winning for years.

    Remember "fighting Dems"? (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:30:29 AM EST
    The boyz must have thought it meant Dems fighting with each other.  And boyz do like to pick on smart girls.:-)

    Grownups knew we needed someone who would fight Republicans, fight for Dems.


    Parent

    fighting Dems (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37:36 AM EST
    The boyz must have thought it meant Dems fighting with each other.

    Well, we finally figured out what they were keeping their powder dry for -- so they could use it on Hillary.

    Parent

    The irony of course (5.00 / 9) (#56)
    by frankly0 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:48:50 AM EST
    is that the great majority of the loudest, most virulent Obama supporters were also the ones who, until Obama came on the scene, were the furthest "out there" in crying for "fighting Dems".

    Look at Kos as one simple example. He was simply stuck on the idea that Democrats fight back to the point that he couldn't even see that at least sometimes it might be overdone, and that swinging wildly might not always be a successful strategy.

    Then, Obama comes to the fore, and all that attitude is basically retired.

    One reason I thought that so many Obama supporters were part of a personality cult is that they turned on a dime on one of their most basic beliefs -- that Democrats, most importantly, need to fight back -- only because their guru pointed in another direction.

    The amount of crazy rationalization I heard out them when I pointed out this inconsistency was pretty incredible. The most common one was that the "fighting back" thing applied to virtually all Democrats, but Obama, because of his unique gifts, rendered that unnecessary and unproductive for his case in particular.

    It was truly delusional.

    Parent

    This was the kicker for me.. (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by mogal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:34:14 AM EST
    It's quite possibly the best thing we've ever published in four years of running this blog. I've been wanting Rob to write for us (again) for a long while (he wrote a bit at the beginning, then got a real job). Rob used to be, arguably, the Republicans' top Internet political strategist until he defected around the year 2000.

    Emphasis mine

    Parent

    Amen (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:56:15 AM EST
    Those guys make me ill.

    If even one of them had the b@lls to admit now how deeply sexist and hateful they were, it might be interesting. But it will never happen - no introspection capable on this subject for them. Just deep deep denial.

    Parent

    They want their mommy..... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:27:44 AM EST
    ...Just kidding. (Anyway, sort of just kidding.)

    Parent
    snort... (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by kredwyn on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:22:11 AM EST
    Even back in Jan., someone...wearing orange and sporting a Mac...was pointing out which candidate possessed the fight spark.

    And then...something weird happened to him...and his tune shifted...

    Full disclosure (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:24:27 AM EST
    I favored Obama because the Media would be on his side. And I believe I was right. Obama needs to leverage that against McCain.

    Parent
    I know you did... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by kredwyn on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:27:48 AM EST
    I disagreed with you because I don't think that media darling status makes for a solid POTUS.

    Plus media darling status doesn't hold....or last.

    Parent

    Exactly. Media darling status (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:33:03 AM EST
    is perilous and ephemeral.  I always favor -- in any realm, not just politics -- the one who manages the media, not the one who opts to be managed by them.

    Even better, of course, is the one who knows how to go right around the media to reach the public.  See Clinton, Bill.  And I could tell from her previous talks and writings who was a big part of that.

    Parent

    And (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37:01 AM EST
    It's been carried too far this time and people are seeing through it.

    When the person is such a media darling that you gag, it isn't helpful.

    Parent

    I'd Venture a Guess (none / 0) (#81)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:18:10 PM EST
    that the media's approval ratings aren't any higher right now that Bush's.

    Media manipulation only works for so long.  Sooner or later the electorate sees the reality.  Bush's poll numbers were crashing long before the media started reporting anything negative about him.  

    Parent

    Media Darling Status slipping (none / 0) (#115)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:17:39 PM EST
    Who knows if it will bounce back up, but here are the RCP top four headlines:

    Inflated Expectations Hurting Obama - Michael Goodwin, NY Daily News

    Does Obama Need Hillary Clinton? - John Nichols, The Nation

    Obama's Female Voter 'Problem' - Ruth Marcus, Washington Post

    Words That Joe Biden Would Like to Forget - Jim Geraghty, NRO


    Parent

    BTD, they were always more against Hillary (5.00 / 10) (#54)
    by esmense on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:45:41 AM EST
    than for Obama. They have never been "against" McCain in the same way.

    Last night on CNN, the story was all about Hillary -- and how McCain is supposedly using lessons he learned from her against Obama. Read MoDo's deranged column this morning. Same storyline taken to an absurdist degree.

    This nonsense isn't "anti-Obama" -- but it isn't helpful to Obama either. It just detracts from and obscures his attempts to (negatively) redefine McCain.

    I think this is a pattern -- the media may be much more positive toward Obama than they ever would have been toward Clinton. But that does not mean they are willing to help support his lines of attack against McCain. And that, in the long run, presents a serious problem for the campaign.

    Parent

    The Media loved Obama..... (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by trillian on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:36:43 AM EST
    ....no question.

    But the voters loved Hillary

    Who do you want to go into the GE with?  My pick is the person the voters loved......which is of course what the SuperDs should have done.

    Parent

    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#76)
    by nemo52 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:53:42 AM EST
    the media love for Obama will continue into the GE.  Not when they've got "Maverick" McCain, an even bigger media darling.

    Parent
    agree, you're record is clear (none / 0) (#66)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:08:15 AM EST
    about that. And you may very well be right. Well, if Obama actually uses the media darling status to his advantage. And the VP pick is a perfect example of where we'll see if he knows what he's doing. I.e., if he picks HIllary, shouldn't his coolness outweigh the media's hate for Hillary.

    But as many of us said all along, media proof (Hillary) trumps media darling. Especially when what you really need even more than the media is a fighter who can stand up to the repubs and connect with the people. I think we were right. Even if Obama squeaks by, I think Hillary would have done better than that. And of course if Obama looses, well, there you have it.

    Parent

    If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be laughable. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by janarchy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:23:04 AM EST
    The schadenfreude come November 5 is going to be staggering. I normally hate having to say "I told you so", but this year, it may really feel cathartic given what we've had to go through over the past 8 months.

    I doubt any of them will recant their CDS. They'll just blame the Clintons for this loss and not making Obama better. I just heard it on CNN - McCain is using "pages from HRC's playbook" to attack Obama to great effect. Apparently pointing out the truth about Obama is wrong. ::sigh::

    The Repubs didn't need anyone's playbook (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:36:57 AM EST
    for this one.  They wrote it: Obama is Kerry redux.  Handpicked by Kerry in 2004 for the speech, after all.  I expect that Repubs started oppo research then.  It was the Clintons who didn't think that the Dems would be so dumb again.

    And the Repubs haven't even swiftboated yet.  When they turn that page of the playbook, it could be a debacle that will set back Dems by a decade again.

    Parent

    Of course. (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by janarchy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:52:48 AM EST
    You know that and I know that. Obama's flaws are as plain as the nose on his face and both Hillary's campaign and McCain's are just calling attention to them. The Repubs haven't even had to crack open that supposedly 1000 page dossier on Obama to get the numbers to move which is just staggering.

    Sadly, the DNC and their minions refuse to accept the fact that they're wrong. They'll stick with their supposed Messiah till the bitter end claiming victory, and when they loose, they'll blame the Clintons and the PUMAs and anyone who dared criticise him because none of them can take responsibility for their actions.

    This whole mess has not only set back the party another 10 years (at least), it's also split it apart. I went from 'any Dem will do' a year ago to leaving the party in May. I still can barely believe it. The fact that I can now understand the Republican charges of elitism and effetism that I've heard my whole life is kind of scary. But lets face it, when they were handed a fighting Dem on a silver platter, they threw it away (and I had to endure well meaning but clueless 'progressive' friends trashing the Clintons just last week). Some people never learn!

    Parent

    100-page Dossier (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:22:58 PM EST
    I cannot shake the feeling that Barack Obama has a closet full of skeletons that are going to come tumbling out the moment he's the nominee.

    Parent
    I may not like Clinton but she is competent. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:44:31 PM EST
    If there were good ones out there, we would have heard them from her.

    Parent
    Not a Chance (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:17:57 PM EST
    She would never stoop that low.  She's been on the other end and she knows what it feels like.

    Smearing your opponent has never been the Clintons' style.

    Parent

    You know it (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by janarchy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    That's been one of the biggest b.s. statements from the Obamanation. The Clinton campaign treated him with kid gloves all the way through and yet they whined and carried on whenever she gave him even a gentle hit. The Republicans have no such compunction to hold back -- they're going to fight hard and dirty and not worry about being called racists or any other names the Obama campaign can come up with.

    Supposedly the Clinton campaign knew all about Wright and a few other things and kept schtum about it rather than coming across as mudslingers. Pity no one has given them credit for pulling punches.

    Parent

    Thanks, jan. (none / 0) (#120)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:21:59 PM EST
    Hillary's compulsion to play fair has always been her biggest handicap.  If she'd been willing to get down and dirty she could've dispatched Barry months ago.

    Thanks also for schtum.  That's a new one for me.  Assume it means "silent". I'm guessing it's Yiddish.  Yiddish has all the good words.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by janarchy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 04:36:16 PM EST
    The problem is the people with CDS never want to give her any credit for finesse. Then again, they seem to think that a political campaign means 'everyone be nice to the guy we like because we like him'. If she had played truly down and dirty, there would have been no end to the screaming and carrying on from the Obama camp -- not to mention nonstop allegations of racism, which seems to be the default position whenever anyone questions anything about Obama, unfortunately.

    Yes, schtum means 'silent'. It's both Yiddish and German (although the Germanic version is 'stoom', I believe). Oddly enough, it's a common British idiom as well as a New York one.

    Parent

    the problem with people who sling cds around (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:35:13 PM EST
    as a term is that as with all the reply commenters here, they use it as an explanation to avoid the consequences of their statements and to deny reality, especially the reality that other people cannot be induced, battered or bribed or insulted into agreeing with them. using cds as an explanation is a way of avoiding reality.

    Parent
    Huh? n/t (none / 0) (#127)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:55:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Heck if I know (none / 0) (#128)
    by janarchy on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 06:48:55 PM EST
    Apparently we're all delusional because we can see other people are delusional and call 'em on it?

    Parent
    Ahhhhhhh (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:24:02 AM EST
    I just love navel gazing. It's the mostest, bestest fun ever. I gather we are done with the campfire Kumbaya songs and are ready to move on to the weenie(Obama) roast. I almost feel sorry for Obama. Wwhen he loses it will be all his fault and the collective peanut gallery will claim they had nothing to do with it, even as they did have EVERYTHING to do with it(contributing to the ugliness fo the primary which led to the deep divisions).

    Nah. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:30:46 PM EST
    When he loses it will all be Hillary's fault.  

    Didn't you get the memo?

    Parent

    LoL (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by Little Fish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    experience watching the Republicans make Democrats look weak - Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry [BTD -look what name is missing from that list].

    Would that name be the only 2 term democratic president in...forever?

    ::bangs head on desk::

    Imagine how boring this election would be if we didn't have the netroots to laugh at?

    It IS kinda funny in the (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:34:36 AM EST
    sick feeling in the pit of your stomach at the idea of a John Mccain presidency kinda way. Sigh. This one doesn't fall on the heads of the electorate though(for a change). This one is gonna be on Nancy Pelosi, Dean and the DC Democrats and the "progressive" blogosphere folk who aided and abetted.

    Parent
    The Dems named were losing (none / 0) (#57)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:50:00 AM EST
    Democrats; Bill Clinton's name is missing from that list because he is the only one the GOP did not render weak and ineffective.

    At least, that's how I read the excerpt you provided!

    Parent

    Yep! (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Little Fish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:53:53 AM EST
    The only Dem who wasn't painted as weak and ineffective is Clinton, but it seems the Dems are intent on driving the Clintons out of the party.  Makes zero, zero sense to me.

    Parent
    Bill (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:25:03 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's name is missing from that list because he is the only one the GOP did not render weak and ineffective.

    But oh, how they tried.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:26:10 AM EST
    what exactly are they going to do about it? Sit around and complain? Obama is NOT a fighter and nothing can be done about that. His advisors are inept and the only thing they have proven themselves adept at is losing elections.

    I expect a pretty glum convention.

    Adept at what? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:48:16 AM EST
    How are they adept at losing elections? We haven't even had an election yet! They've actually proved to be pretty good and they beat Hillary. We have a few months to go. Why is everyone suddenly freaking out?

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:02:50 AM EST
    let's see:
    Daschle is an advisor.
    Kerry is an advisor.

    Those are two winning names aren't they?

    Wow, winning red state caucuses and being pushed over the finish line by the Dem elite is now called "beating Hillary"? Obama is an awful candidate and it shows. He's been declining for months in the polls and has shown no ability to turn it around. He couldn't even change strategy in the primary when he started losing in March.

    Parent

    It's not too late....... (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Kefa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:26:47 AM EST
    but the clock is ticking down.

    Something really is different this year (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by OxyCon on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:26:53 AM EST
    I no longer read Americablog, Josh Marshall or KOS because they all "jumped the couch".
    For their behavior during the primaries, I wish them as much angst over their selection as humanly possible.
    Seriously. (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by dk on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:40:22 AM EST
    Who reads those blogs?  They have zero credibility left.  Zero.

    For all I know, some of them might even be nice guys in person.  This is not a personal attack against them.  But they really need to find other lines of work, because they will never regain any kind of reputation for quality as bloggers.  It's way too late for that.

    Parent

    I never trashed Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:36:22 AM EST
    I already made my disclosure on my Obama support in this thread.

    Aravosis (5.00 / 9) (#41)
    by Bluesage on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:36:23 AM EST
    And the rest at Kos and Huff Post and all the other CDS sites deserve all the scorn that we can heap on them.  Maybe the lesson here is ex-republicans don't make good progressive Democrats and their judgement can never be trusted.  They, just like the DNC picked the weakest candidate of the lot and carried him over the primary finish line.  The next line is going to be a lot tougher and we're finding out that Obama loves the adulation and hates the work.  By November he will be lucky to lose with some margin of dignity and not look like a complete fool.

    This Won't Wash (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:27:43 PM EST
    Maybe the lesson here is ex-republicans don't make good progressive Democrats and their judgement can never be trusted.

    Remember, Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.

    Parent
    Yes, she was (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Bluesage on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:22:18 PM EST
    FORTY years ago.  I think she has proven to be quite a good Democrat.  Your argument is just that, an argument, without merit.  Check her history as a Democrat.  

    Parent
    Whoa! Wait a Minute! (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:31:07 PM EST
    Your comment didn't include any time frame.  It was a flat and sweeping statement.  I'll re-post it, in case you've forgotten:

    Maybe the lesson here is ex-republicans don't make good progressive Democrats and their judgement can never be trusted.

    I provided you with an example of a former Republican who is the best Democrat I know right now.  For you to say my argument is without merit borders on denial of reality.

    Parent

    Oh Geez! (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Bluesage on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:21:01 PM EST
    Okay, let me rephrase that.  Maybe the lesson here is ex-republican Bloggers don't make good progressive Democrats and their judgement can never be trusted.  I'm thinking Aravosis, Moulitas and Huffington here.  

    Sorry I wasn't clear enough and you are right, it was a sweeping statement. Hillary did come from a Republican family and changed her affiliation about 40 years ago. I agree with you about Hillary and think she should have been our nominee.  I'm not here to argue with anyone.  

    Parent

    no one knows this (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:37:32 AM EST
    better than us, ay?

    Parent
    Not a transformative election? (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by lambert on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:38:12 AM EST
    I'm glad somebody still reads Avarosis. I, like, totally missed that memo. I was still in the grip of oldthink, I guess, with all the "hope" and "change" stuff. Thanks for bringing me up to date!

    BTD - maybe it's time you (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by lizpolaris on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:42:12 AM EST
    backed off your repeated comment that you'll support Obama no matter what.

    If YOU want a fighter - time for YOU to say so.  Stand up and be counted.  You've said many times you prefer HClinton to be the nominee and you consider Obama a poorer candidate.

    So go to the front of your blog and take this step - advocate for the candidate you actually want.  Just say it.

    Democrats don't have to sit still and shut up while the nominee hasn't been nominated yet.  State which you prefer.  THEN if your preferred candidate isn't the one nominated, you can say if you will support the one that was.  Until then, say what you think, not what will keep you in good graces with the rest of the bloggers.

    Amen. n/t (none / 0) (#91)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:38:40 PM EST


    Parent
    It's not so much cluttering the page (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Bluesage on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:53:01 AM EST
    As most of us just not caring what is on Americablog. I am an alumnae of that site but moved on months ago and by the time I left I was referring to Aravosis as "Little Mr. Pi**y Pants" and knew it was time to go.  So, if now, they are realizing that the CDS and the Obama worship was over the top and they are wanting a fighter rather than the Messiah then shame on them.  We had a fighter who had been fighting the republicans, the DNC and the media for over a decade and was still standing and fighting.  She wasn't just a fighter but knew the issues and could discuss them in detail.  She gave the answers and he said, me too and now he's standing on his own and is pandering instead of campaigning because he doesn't know what the hell he's doing.  They got what they deserve. Unfortunately, we also got him and will have to pay the price too.

    I gave up on Americablog (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by nemo52 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:54:59 AM EST
    When the deep misogyny, as well as the CDS, became clear.

    Parent
    So... (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by Nadai on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:54:38 PM EST
    now they want a fighter.  Now.  After how many months of screaming WWTSBQ?

    Just how firm is Jeralyn's policy against profanity?

    What it is (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 01:34:59 PM EST
    It's the difference between:

    Ego with confidence

    Versus ego without confidence but with hubris.

    The ego without confidence is all over the place in the blogosphere.

    Confident men don't hate strong women.

    Here's the definition of a fighter: (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by sallywally on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:21:33 PM EST
    "Time and trouble will tame an advanced young woman, but an advanced old woman is uncontrollable by any earthly force."

    - Dorothy Sayers

    Quoted in "Writing A Woman's Life" by Carolyn Heilbrun, a fabulous book. This quote begins the chapter on women finding new possibilities as they age.

    I think it's a great description of Hillary and her supporters on this site!

    Americablog - call for Obama to step down (none / 0) (#22)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:29:44 AM EST
    it will be very strong coming from you. Do the right thing.

    And Obama would look like a HERO if he decided to be veep. No politician in the HISTORY OF TIME has done that. Obama: be a hero.

    you are a man (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:33:31 AM EST
    of great faith.

    Parent
    On the CNN Ticker (none / 0) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:33:11 AM EST
    Caroline Kennedy is floated for VP.

    See?  He is a fighter.  LOL!

    I saw this (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:33:59 AM EST
    honestly
    he would be better off with Michael Phelps

    Parent
    Isn't that exciting. He's charismatic. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jpete on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:04:19 AM EST
    She can be sort of. What more do we need?

    Unless it's experience, guts, credibility, etc, etc.

    Parent

    I do like the name. nt (none / 0) (#85)
    by jpete on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:26:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Caroline Kennedy (none / 0) (#114)
    by eleanora on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 02:53:18 PM EST
    a lawyer and author of bestselling books on the right to privacy and the bill of rights. I believe she also was a fellow at the Harvard Institute of Politics, as well as working with the NAACP's Legal Fund and administering various family charities, like the Profiles in Courage award. So she does have a great resume for a run at another political office,IMO, just nothing close to what a Vice President needs to be.

    Parent
    Now If THAT Doesn't Convince You (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:32:24 PM EST
    they're desperate, nothing will.

    Geez, that campaign is flailing around like a punch-drunk fighter.  

    Parent

    my fault (none / 0) (#67)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:09:59 AM EST
    on that one. I've been making some bets on her and have been pushing that in some circles to make it so. Sorry. My bad. :-)

    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#34)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:34:50 AM EST


    Articles popping up on this too (none / 0) (#69)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 11:20:19 AM EST
    So the 'same old same old' thing is just now occuring to everyone.  

    Remember bipartisanship?  Is it dead?  Sullivan.   Same old, same old.

    Media darling?  'above my pay grade' (WTF) RCP: they show McCain leading in 4 states, Obama in 2.  

    State Polls
    Ohio (Rasmussen): McCain +6
    Iowa (Univ. of Iowa): Obama +7
    Missouri (PPP): McCain +10
    Indiana (SurveyUSA): McCain +6
    Penn. (Susquehanna): Obama +5
    Florida (Rasmussen): McCain +2

    Remember Obama would have the big money advantage?  Article says not so much.

    but but but Bush's approval ratings are lower than ever....  well, guess what, so is the Dem Congress AND on teebee yesterday it was reported that this congress has passed the least legislation in 20 years.  Can anyone say 'do nothing' (same old, same old)

    Political Gossip:  Biden just went to the dump. oooh aaaah

    The only poll there that surprises me (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:47:44 PM EST
    is the Rasmussen poll on Florida. I would never imagine Florida to be that close.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#116)
    by AlSmith on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 03:21:36 PM EST

    Obama has run nearly 10,000 (!) ads in that State and McCain has run none.

    This is still totally winnable, just need to wake up to the fact that this is a EV vote election.

    Penn looks pretty good. O should shore it up and move outward. I dont think FL, NC and GA are happening though.

    Parent

    "Money Advantage" (none / 0) (#90)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 12:37:35 PM EST
    That money advantage is not showing here in Iowa.  We've been seeing two or three McCain commercials a day for the past week.  In that time frame we have see only two Obama commercials.  

    Makes you wonder what they're doing with all that money, doesn't it?

    P.S.  The McCain commercials connect solidly with the voters.  "Washington is broken."  Talk about stealing someone else's thunder!

    Parent

    More than a few here (none / 0) (#123)
    by pluege on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:24:35 PM EST
    predicted that buyers remorse would set in among the former superstars of the left blogopshere who went insane with Obama fever (Americablog prominent among the insanity). The only thing at all surprising about this is how quickly Obama made them see the dung heap they hoisted upon us all.  

    One thing you can do to fight back... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Pyre on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:20:16 PM EST
    ... is always, everywhere, refer to Obama's opponent as John "Songbird" McCain -- complete with that link -- and spread that meme as far and wide as you can. He's been using the POW card as a free pass. It's time to show the flip side.

    Political Toughness | 122 comments (122 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment