CBS Poll And WSJ Poll: Obama By 3, Clinton Supporters Reluctant

Update [2008-8-20 19:52:7 by Big Tent Democrat]: CBS poll also has it 45-42 Obama.

The NBC/WSJ poll has Obama leading 45-42, but Obama still having trouble with Clinton supporters:

[P]erhaps the biggest factor keeping the presidential race close has been Obama’s inability to close the deal with some of Hillary Clinton’s supporters. According to the poll, 52 percent of them say they will vote for Obama, but 21 percent are backing McCain, with an additional 27 percent who are undecided or want to vote for someone else. . . . For these reasons, Hart believes that Clinton’s speech on the Tuesday night of the Democratic convention will be a significant event. “The Democratic convention is more than a coronation,” he says. “It is an event where the words of Hillary Clinton are probably going to be exceptionally important.”

Oh, and Clinton would lead McCain by 6 49-43, in a hypothetical contest. But hypotheticals do not matter. And yep, picking Clinton for VP would solve Obama's problems to a great extent imo.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Razor Wire Won't Top Makeshift Convention Jail Cells | Update: Stephanie Tubbs Jones Has Died >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    BTD....I have never been reluctnat....:) (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:50:10 PM EST

    Is that anything like reluctant ? ;) (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:53:36 PM EST
    I shouldn't pick I'm the queen of typos.

    cawaltz...methinks yes, but I thought he (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:54:25 PM EST
    would want to know :)

    Who' sup for a tpyo of the weak contest? (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Ellie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:41:50 PM EST
    Dang, I thought I was the Queen of the Tpyos!

    Being a fan of errors that speak more truly than the "correct" version, I enjoyed this one from BTD earlier (in the Political Toughness thread):

    [...] you have to send as a message is not MCCain - flip flopper or anything like that, you say McCain - Bush's third term. Period, That is the negative branding that should be driven home every single day.

    It was just such a Dem moment.

    I know, I know -- banned from the thread, I'll see myself out. :-D


    Also give due credit to sticky keys. n.t. (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:48:46 PM EST
    I have never been more convinced... (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by Shainzona on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:08:25 PM EST
    about anything in my entire life.

    And I have long passed the point of simply being a Clinton supporter...I am NOT an Obama supporter.

    Never will be.  Sorry.


    I am not reluctant. (5.00 / 12) (#55)
    by 0 politico on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:26:36 PM EST
    I never bought into him as being "the One" for this election.

    The more and more that gets turned over regarding BO, his past, his "record" (what there is), his campaign, the seeming choreographed support of the party elite, etc., the more I cannot support him either.

    There is no reluctance in the position.

    And, yes, being a former Arizona resident, I know who John McCain is.

    Whatever HC says will not influence me.

    I can live with the alternative for four years.


    I'm not reluctant, either (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:17:59 PM EST
    But, I sure am confused.

    One day we hear the MAJORITY of Clinton supporters are now on board with Obama, just 10% or less won't vote the Democrat.

    The next day we get something more like this 48%, which indicates the insignificant numbers of PUMA isn't really so insignificant.

    That spread 10-48% is far greater than the margin of error that should be coming out of the polls. Maybe that is why the Obama camp wanted those cell phone numbers...they need to be able to poll their supporters to get their numbers up.

    All very confusing.


    Polling (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:50:23 PM EST
    This is just a guess, but I'd bet my lunch money that polling Clinton supporters about voting for Obama is one of those issues that's extremely sensitive to the exact wording of the question and the questions that precede it.  All it would take is one or two minor changes in wording to influence the results one way or the other.

    I'm not suggesting that anyone did this intentionally, just pointing out that it seems like an issue that would be much harder than normal to poll in a neutral way.


    I really don't see obama picking Hillary (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:52:41 PM EST
    for VP for the simple fact she will outshine him every which way to Sunday...fact is, she already is doing that!  He and his camp have made it clear they think they can win without Hillary's supporters; I say, good luck with that, considering how many other groups he is losing ground with.  

    You know (5.00 / 11) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:54:50 PM EST
    he shouldn't care if she outshines him. All he should care is whether or not she will help him take the WH for the Democrats. Ego second, country first.

    Obama Second, Hillary First. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:36:17 PM EST
    For hillary to be first, she needed to win (3.50 / 2) (#165)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:51:53 PM EST
    the primaries. She didn't.

    If someone genuinely has a logical and rational reason why O should surrender his win, not one of these 'he recognizes the error of his ways in ever running against her in the first place, foolish boy', would they please post it here.


    OK. (5.00 / 7) (#171)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:55:31 PM EST
    He cannot win this election, and we need a real Democrat in the WH.

    Of course, that's all beside the fact that he did not win, he was carried over the finish line and he's not the nominee yet.


    right. (5.00 / 6) (#185)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:05:53 PM EST
    He did not win the nomination.  He did not win the required number of pledged delegates.  If anyone doesn't understand that, they should not be participating in politics.  The SuperDs GAVE him enough votes so he could say that he was the PRESUMED NOMINEE.  Those votes are not binding.  The SuperDs can vote any way they want at the convention.  

    On top of not winning enough pledged delegates Obama took some of Hillary's pledged delegates (delegates that Democrats gave to Hillary with their votes in the primaries)!!  That's just wrong and apparently lots of people in this country don't like having their political rights subverted by leaders who think they know best so they should be THE DECIDERS.

    Obama people rant about how Hillary people are stupid and don't care about the country, but they threatened to riot in the streets and quit the Party if Obama wasn't the nominee.  So once again, Orwellian, Rovian nonsense.


    well, he says he wants to get along, and (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:55:45 PM EST
    compromise is part of it. He needs to compromise on this VP issue for his own good. I have mixed feelings about it but it is such an obvious choice to me. Doesn't he want to get along with nearly half of his own party?

    Does she want to get along with more than half (1.00 / 0) (#168)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:52:40 PM EST
    of hers?

    Obviously, she does. (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by suki on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:00:35 PM EST
    She's done everything asked of her with a gracious attitude and a smile on her face.
    Your comment really frosts me.

    She already does. (5.00 / 5) (#186)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:06:04 PM EST
    It's a very common statement from Obama supporters - "If Hillary were the nominee, I'd gladly vote for her." Also, "I like Hillary, but I like Obama better."

    That's because, despite the CDS, most of them know that she is qualified, experienced, and stands for something. She is not the one who wants to purge the Democratic party of FDR Dems and ideals. She's the real fighter. And no one can deny that she is a team player.


    it's the whole mindset (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:16:42 PM EST
    it's like if captain jeter actually secretly hoped arod strikes out.

    Another sports analogy, I know but that's how insane this mind set is.

    Yes.  It's like jeter hoping arod fails.



    IMO, People (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:10:56 PM EST
    like you think that way because you're voting for a personality, not for Democratic values.  You don't care what Obama did to get on the ticket, you're just intoxicated with him and want him no matter what.  I watched a YouTube video made by Obama supporters and they came right out and bragged that it didn't matter to them if Obama cheated to get the nomination because they said "Obama OWNS the WH."  Nice.

    I hope she doesn't say yes, because he will just (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:54:23 PM EST
    use her to get the Presidency and then ignore and disrespect her the rest of his term. I say term on purpose.

    Prediction (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:54:12 PM EST
    If Obama should offer her the VP slot (which I don't think is even remotely likely at this point), she'll take it and set a world record for being a team player on the campaign trail and then in office.

    Yeah. That's what I'm afraid of. Women (5.00 / 7) (#181)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:01:29 PM EST
    are always being asked to be a "team player."  "That's okay, Sweetie, you'll get your turn someday."   I hope he doesn't offer and I hope that, if he does, Hillary will tell him she can't be VP for the next four years because she has to wash her hair.

    It's going to be a rout... (5.00 / 15) (#12)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:57:51 PM EST
    and I don't want her anywhere near it. Let the DNC clean up their own ka-ka. She'll be needed in the Senate.

    I have more faith in her ability (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:01:08 PM EST
    and I believe that she would not let the Obama camp push her around. Perhaps I'm living in my own fantasy world but hey, it sure is nice here. ;)

    Is it just me? (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:04:26 PM EST
    Everyone else seems to be assuming that the VP choice is yet to be made.

    I assume the decision was made some time ago, and is just being kept under wraps until the magic moment.

    Surely he couldn't be keeping his VP-to-be in he dark at this late date?

    People do have commitments and schedules. If they are going to drop everything in their lives for the next few months, if not 4 years, they'll need some warning.

    Oh I'm pretty sure he's made it (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:07:54 PM EST
    and fairly certain it isn't Clinton because it would be incredibly stupid if it were Clinton for him to continue keeping it a secret when it would so obviously help him close with her supporters.

    Keep hoping I'm wrong.


    i always thought (4.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Little Fish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:26:00 PM EST
    they waited until right before the announcement to tell the pick. I know in 04 Edwards didn't know until that morning. He wasn't at the initial rally where Kerry announced it and I think Elizabeth said she was in the Drs office and found out from the news.

    I thought that Hillary wasn't asked for her (none / 0) (#102)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:56:42 PM EST
    materials to be "vetted."  Has that changed?

    Fineman said this week she was but I don't (none / 0) (#113)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:07:10 PM EST
    know if he knows what he is talking about. I can't remember where I read that, though.

    I don't take Finemans' word for anything. (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:42:21 PM EST
    ...he's positively deranged lately.

    He has apparently not told (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:18:29 PM EST
    the finalists who it is to be.   Biden says, assuming it is not blarney, that he has not been told anything by Team Obama as of yesterday.

    i'm not reluctant. (5.00 / 12) (#18)
    by hilldemgoneindie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:06:01 PM EST
    oh hell, yes i am. obama can choose BOTH clintons for his vp and i wouldn't vote for him. hillary could arrive at my house, clean it, do my yardwork, pay my bills for the rest of my life and put a hundred million bucks in my bank account and BEG me to vote for him and... NO!! my personal opinion is that he is grossly unqualified to run this country in any way let alone a positive manner. to vote for him would be going against EVERYTHING i believe in. and, i'm not alone in this. we who are reluctant own our own vote and hillary has the right to do with her vote what she wants. she can ask, demand or beg but we don't care. when are the pundits and the dnc going to get this point? oh, i know... the morning of november 5th. the morning after the biggest general election landslide in history,

    I'm with you. (5.00 / 12) (#56)
    by janarchy on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:26:47 PM EST
    HRC and WJC need to do what they've got to for their own careers. They can ask nicely. I'm not listening. My frustrating with the DNC and the Obama campaign goes way beyond her not getting the nomination. I will not vote for that man under any circumstances.

    oh come on... (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    hillary could arrive at my house, clean it, do my yardwork, pay my bills for the rest of my life and put a hundred million bucks in my bank account and BEG me to vote for him and... NO!!

    I mean, I can be bought.  And as long as Hillary agrees to pay my bills in New Zealand dollars (where I'll be able to afford to move and not have to deal with the mess either candidate will bring us) I'll vote for Obama!


    This is a new one, and I like it (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:50:17 PM EST
    Both Clintons for VP!  yaaay!

    C'mon, Val (none / 0) (#215)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:57:05 PM EST
    You know perfectly well that if you get one Clinton, you get both.

    That's a big piece of what the Obama people are afraid of...they're afraid of each individually ... and both of them together?



    Loved Your Comment (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:43:28 PM EST
    Loved your user name even more.

    My new voter registration card arrived yesterday, with a spiffy "NP" in the space for party affiliation.

    I will not re-register as a Democrat until Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate for President of the United States.

    When that happens I will work my ass off for her.


    Assumption (5.00 / 18) (#21)
    by lentinel on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:07:31 PM EST
    There is an assumption in Hart's analysis which is that Hillary Clinton can sway people who supported her to now support Obama.

    I don't believe this will be the case.
    She has already appeared at a unity get-together.
    That accomplished nothing.

    It's not about Clinton - except to the extent that people are reeling from the treatment she received from the media and the Obama campaign and the DNC.

    It is about issues.
    And Obama has been on the wrong side of just about everything since Clinton threw in the towel.

    She would sway some of them, I believe.... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:45:02 PM EST
    ...because I think a good number of the "reluctants" are secretly hoping she will be the VP. But there is another group of Hillary supporters that Obama has probably lost forever.

    but hillary's evil (5.00 / 11) (#26)
    by Turkana on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:12:43 PM EST
    or so i read on the once liberal blogs...

    Ah, turkana (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:46:36 PM EST
    you gotta quit hanging out at the Big Orange.  Those people are addled.


    P.S.  Good to see another refugee here.


    heh (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by Turkana on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:53:27 PM EST
    good to see you, too. i only peruse dk once or twice a day, but don't bother commenting or posting. i still have nothing but respect for some of the fpers- darksyde, kagro, mcjoan, mb, page, etc.- but that place did become toxic, and it did trickle down from the top...

    Hillary does only 3 points (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:15:33 PM EST
    better than Obama?

    I still think Hillary is the best VP pick.  I base this almost entirely on her joint campaign appearance with Obama in late June.....They looked like a good team.  I was impressed that Hillary could absorb a disappointing loss but still be a good team player.  Okay that is my  gut instinct.   On to the facts.  The polls for Obama spiked to their highest level after their joint campaign appearance.....

    On the other hand, Poblano has some stats that show Hillary only did well after the attacks against her ceased in February.  I do think the Republicans stopped attacking her at about that time.  She has not been under right wing fire, so her numbers, the argument goes, are a little inflated.  This NBC poll would tend to support that theory.

    I still go back to the joint appearance in June.  It worked.  The polling shows that.  Hillary has proved since then she can be a good team player and follow Obama's lead.  She can work the change angle by saying she will help Obama implement the much needed change....With Hillary on the ticket, an Obama pivot to say that the Democrats know how to grow the economy becomes less awkward and more plausible...

    Plus, Obama coud show strength by picking a rival....He could say he scoured the face of the earth looking high and low for VPs and found no one else better qualified.

    I don't remember attackes ceasing in (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:19:26 PM EST
    February. Republicans? If you say so; maybe they thought she'd be harder to beat.

    Come on MKS, she's only three points ahead? She's not even running and hasn't had an adoring audience all over the world.

    I agree with the rest of you post. :)


    Poblano said attacks (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:23:06 PM EST
    and meant, I think, attacks from all sources....

    I think the Republicans laid off and starting praising her--operation chaos and all that...

    But all is just hypothetical--except for the June joint appearance....That worked....No need for guesswork there...


    You believe Poblano? Did he forget the (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:29:03 PM EST
    assassination plots, etc. He may be good with numbers but I wouldn't trust his analysis at all.

    He had some polling numbers that (2.00 / 0) (#68)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:37:11 PM EST
    showed Hillary started to improve in February.....

    As to the rest, I do like the Poblano analysis that weights the various polls based on past accuracy....and factors in interesting demographic data such as the percentage of people who self-identify as "American" when asked their ethnic background.

    If it is looking at numbers, Poblano is worth a read....Poltical analysis not tightly tethered to those numbers, maybe not.


    Come on (5.00 / 7) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:44:13 PM EST
    Poblano's post was absolutely laughably absurd.

    If you can't admit that, then what is there dor us to talk about?


    Er . . . (5.00 / 9) (#150)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:41:18 PM EST
    possibly her numbers improved because of
             1. Reverend Wright
             2. Solis-Doyle's firing, and the corresponding campaign retooling (eg, the 3 AM ad, etc)

    You're reasoning backwards, dude. "Her numbers improved, therefore the attacks must have ceased." The attacks against Clinton NEVER ceased (from Obama supporters, the Obama campaign, and the media), and to say otherwise is nonsense.


    "ONLY 3 points"??? (5.00 / 19) (#44)
    by eleanora on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:22:58 PM EST
    She's been out of the race since June 7th and she's still doing better than the presumptive nominee against McCain. And Lord knows, it's not like the media or the Democratic Party has been singing her praises or pumping her up in the meantime. The attacks have been more bitter and prevalent if anything, because she hasn't been able to answer them while she's campaigning for Obama. I'm amazed she's anywhere near Mccain, much less ahead of both of them.

    And I don't know where Poblano thinks that right wing attacks against her have ever ceased. The Republicans slowed down a bit because the traditional smears were taken over by the progressive left, who took it further than they ever dared.


    What is this with "the attacks against her (5.00 / 9) (#109)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:01:34 PM EST
    ceased in February."  You and whoever started this meme must live in an alternate universe.   If so, I have a question. Are my socks there?

    How about the kitchen sink smear.... (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:48:51 PM EST
    ...and the Bosnia flap? Those were in March.

    If you think the "attacks ceased (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by angie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:56:17 PM EST
    in February" meme is bad -- the Nation reported today in the story on what bosom buddies Obama & Hillary are that "when things got nasty, Obama stepped in and defended Hillary." Now THAT is some revisionist history.

    By the Republicans (none / 0) (#177)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:00:33 PM EST
    is what I said....

    MKS, You're Missing the Whole Point (none / 0) (#161)
    by creeper on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:49:08 PM EST
    Yes, Hillary is a "team player."

    She's also vastly more qualified to be POTUS than Barry.  To have her on the ticket in second place is a travesty.


    No Barry here (3.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:13:15 PM EST
    Barack or Obama. No Barrys.

    ABC News now reporting Tubbs-Jones has (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by athyrio on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:17:52 PM EST
    died in the hospital this afternoon...Also heard it confirmed on Fox News as well...So sad...

    Too young for this (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:19:43 PM EST
    infuriating... (5.00 / 21) (#41)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:21:04 PM EST
    Its already becoming Hillary's fault if Obama doesn't win....

    For next week's Democratic convention to be a success, Hart says that not only does Hillary Clinton have to make the case to her supporters that Obama is the right choice for president

    Its NOT Clinton's job to make that case.  Its Obama's job.  Hillary Clinton already made that case -- and some of us never bought it to begin with, while others (if the poll is to be believed) bought in, and since then have come to realize that her 'case' for Obama isn't enough.

    Bingo! (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by dk on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:30:51 PM EST
    Obama can blame his post-partisan unity shtick (oh, and his sexism and homophobia too) for my reluctance.

    What else could she do? (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by catfish on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:40:38 PM EST
    Magic? That's what it will take to make me vote for him. Even if poof! he suddenly has good judgement, it will be really hard to change the cumulative impression he's made on me.

    I also thought it was funny that Hart (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:55:47 PM EST
    picked up on the 'coronation' riff.  That's a still-Clinton-supporter thing, have a convention not a coronation.

    Hart was trying to refute it, sure, but picking up the language-framing of the people who are against your guy is bad stuff.  I know he's only a pollster, but he's supposedly a Democratic pollster (maybe he's for Hill?).

    And ITA -- stop putting everything on Clinton.  Gees, does she have to carry the whole party across the finish line?


    If she is a team player, it most certainly (1.00 / 2) (#179)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:00:39 PM EST
    is her job. You can't have it both ways, that she can say or do anything she wants that benefits her and that she is a team player.

    Team player (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by Miri on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:08:33 PM EST
    Hillary has already done more for Obama than Reagan did for Ford.

    She's a leader (5.00 / 5) (#199)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:18:44 PM EST
    Not a dictator.

    What she has and is doing is exactly the right thing for her to do. If it works, it works, if it doesn't, it's only because Obama didn't do his part.


    Heh (5.00 / 11) (#42)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:21:46 PM EST
    It's kinda funny sitting here watching Hardball (I'm stuck in the Milwaukee airport) and seeing the talking heads coming to terms with the fierce urgency of Hillary.  It's like, Chris Matthews hates her, but the working-class Catholic voters he always tries to identify with apparently love her!  What's a hater to do?

    Hillary's speech ... (5.00 / 12) (#50)
    by OrangeFur on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:24:21 PM EST
    ... won't convince many people. She's been supporting Obama for months now. Another speech isn't going to do it, especially given that it's not even the keynote that night.

    As for people who say that it's irrational to vote for someone other than Obama if you share Hillary's views, I have to disagree, even though I have no plans to vote for McCain. To take an extreme example, you'd be reluctant to vote for someone who shares your views but who likes driving drunk, or ran over your dog on purpose, etc. A lot of people are still angry over the kinds of things that happened during the primary, and they feel that they need to send a message that those actions have negative consequences. That's their right.

    He really messed up (5.00 / 9) (#57)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:27:04 PM EST
    by not condemning the sexism. people take that personally.

    Hey, what would I know? (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by lambert on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:45:48 PM EST
    I'm a racist.

    i still don't get that part of it actually. (none / 0) (#110)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:02:14 PM EST
    please don't explain it to me. I don't want a revisitation.

    You sound bitter and clingy, too. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:44:27 PM EST
    Not (4.50 / 6) (#196)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:15:40 PM EST
    condemn it?  He was responsible for lots of it himself.

    Unity Schmunity (5.00 / 7) (#58)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:28:03 PM EST
    Obama will go for unity w/ republicans before dems? He throws most of the party under the bus?
    He has made it hard to vote for him no matter which rivals he bested with DNC/MSM help.
    And his sexism and lack of zeal for any democratic platforms makes it hard.
    So while not voting for mcCain, I'll not likely vote for Obama.

    I had dinner with PUMA friends last week - and they won't vote for him unless Hillary is VP, and maybe not then even. But they won't be voting for McCain either. They either won't vote or plan to just vote downticket. My friend (Hillary supporter who will reluctantly GOTV for Obama) tried to convince them not to throw votes away and that the Supreme Court is all.

    And while I see that argument too, Obama has not earned my vote. If my state was borderline I would probably hold my nose but I think I can still write in Hillary.

    Hillary supporters and Obama-haters come in all stripes and do not see eye to eye at all. Please stop making generalizations. And to suggest party unity when the party sucks is silly.

    Well, I'm voting for McCain because I think there (4.41 / 12) (#129)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:21:51 PM EST
    should be consequences to the Democratic Party's rigging of this election, their picking of this flawed candidate and their toleration of the vicious misogyny, not only on the part of the MSM, but on the part of the candidate, who thought nothing of giving her the finger and smiling when his supporters booed her and saying nothing when she was called a b...ch and a wh.... and worse.

    I plan on voting for Democrats downticket to, hopefully, give the Democrats the 60 votes they need to forestall a filibuster. What they'll do with it is anyone's guess, but if they are opposing a Republican, they might do more with it than if they have an in-house Republican like Obama, whom it would be hard to cross since he's pretending to be a Democrat.

    I'm also voting for McCain because I think Obama has very bad associates and they aren't just in his past.  I don't want to bring crooked Chicago politics to the White House. I don't want the corruption we've had for the past 8 years to go unchecked any further. I actually think McCain would do more to stop it. He has that in his record when he was the Other McCain.

    However, if other people can't stomach voting for McCain, I can certainly understand why not. But, when your friends say "don't waste your vote," then you can tell them you are not wasting it, but voting for Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party. All they need is 5% to become a viable political force.   Here's your chance to make that happen.  


    True (5.00 / 5) (#175)
    by Miri on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:57:12 PM EST
    "should be consequences to the Democratic Party's"

    There must be consequences to the Democratic Party, the Liberal Elite and the media.

    It will take an Obama defeat to repudiate them all. And they need to be repudiated.


    From the bottom of my heart... (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by Romberry on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:02:57 PM EST
    ...I'm asking you to NOT vote for John McCain. I am no Obama supporter and do not plan on voting for him myself. I see our best hope for the next four years with a divided government where a Democratic congress acts as a moderating force on an opposition president and forces that president to act pragmatically in order to get anything done at all. That said, I am not voting for John McCain (though he will win my state no matter what I do.)

    Consider voting third party this election cycle in the presidential race while voting Dem in all the downticket contests. If you can't do that, consider simply not making a selection in the contest for president.

    I'm of the opinion that both of these candidates (McCain and Obama) are bad choices and the result of an obviously malfunctioning political system. (If this is the choice that the system gives us, something must be out of whack, yes?) My conscience will not allow me to vote for either of them. Please consider the options other than casting a ballot for McCain.


    They just don't get it. (5.00 / 10) (#60)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:29:14 PM EST
    I was HRC's supporter, not her devotee. She doesn't tell me what to do.

    Wasn't it the SDS who said, way back in the 60s, "When we vote, we use the democratic principle; when we think, we do the best we can."

    Heard Donna B on CNN today say (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:34:00 PM EST
    she thought Biden would be a really good pick. When Wolf asked about Hillary as the pick, she skirted even mentioning Hillary's name and said Biden would be a good pick. My guess is she's privey and not to be trusted anyway but couldn't even say Hillary's name.

    stevie ^^^^^ in your email, don't forget Donna. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:40:48 PM EST
    Get her off TV. She makes it worse.

    Off TV? (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:47:18 PM EST
    get her scheduled on the next space shuttle flight without a return ticket!

    Yeah. You want to raise the number (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:24:51 PM EST
    of Hillary voters who won't vote for Obama to over 50%?  Just keep Donna Brazille on TV!

    I tried e-mailing her yesterday (none / 0) (#88)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:48:30 PM EST
    and apparently she has me blocked (from emails during the primaries). I wanted to inquire about the article posted yesterday regarding her alleged alignment with Karl Rove.

    She probably has her email set to (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:23:54 PM EST
    only accept email from people in her address book. She got some of her very nasty replies posted on the internet by the people who were unfortunate enough to receive them.

    As long as she represents DNC leadership, Obama will have a real problem with getting any of the remaining Hillary supporters to come to his side.


    I've got a secret (5.00 / 12) (#69)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:37:29 PM EST
    On the blogs, the majority of refuseniks are former Clinton supporters who are unhappy with the conduct of the primary or the behavior of Obama or have other grievances of that type.  Now, of course Obama could be doing a much better job of reaching out to this group, but that's not the real problem.

    Obama's real problem is that he has to close the deal with a wide range of long-standing Democrats who simply doubt his experience and his readiness to lead.  I keep running into more and more people who have voted Democratic for decades but simply have serious doubts about Obama's experience and are thinking about sitting this election out.

    Obama supporters who run around making silly arguments like "Obama is actually more experienced than Hillary" - or, worse, accusing any Democrat who doubts Obama of racism - will never get it.  They just won't.  Here's hoping the Obama campaign gets it and takes steps to make their case to these voters, instead of just continuing to take Democrats for granted.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:40:03 PM EST
    And those are the kinds of Democrats Hillary could help with.

    Hillary will only be able to help (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:47:30 PM EST
    if she is given a long term role in the campaign. There are alot of hurt feelings out there and the consensus is that they don't want token gestures but a real attempt to understand the anger and do everything to ensure it never occurs again.

    Yep (5.00 / 7) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:46:12 PM EST
    you have a great understanding of the problem. Obama has done nothing to quell the fears of these people but also in the same vein is reinforcing their fears with his lack of leadership.

    I'm sorry but the whole Invesco field thing is beyond creepy to me. It just sounds like a moonie event.


    Especially since he's stacking it with his own (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:27:04 PM EST
    supporters.  Shades of you-know-who.

    IAWTC (5.00 / 10) (#105)
    by eleanora on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:58:35 PM EST
    I think Hillary would be the best candidate and the best president, and I'm mad at the DNC for their dishonorable conduct, but that's not the main problem. I didn't support Kerry and wasn't that thrilled with Gore, but I worked my a** off for both of them and donated more than I could afford. But they ran as Democrats, and that's Senator Obama's main sticking point with me. He can't make his resume any thicker, but he can stop adopting Republican positions and caving on longtime Democratic priorities. I'm trying to make myself support him, but he doesn't make it easy.

    Eleanora, I feel exactly the same way. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:27:45 PM EST
    Make the case? (4.88 / 9) (#183)
    by Miri on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:03:53 PM EST
    How can they make the case?

    This guy's main experience was in the state legislature where he accomplished nothing. He got into the US senate, unpacked his bags and started running for president.

    Seriously, if Obama had been a republican everybody would be laughing at him. The guy is unqualified for the job.

    You don't gain foreign policy experience going on a week long European trip.

    You don't gain health care expertise getting your hired hand write policy papers for you.

    The guy is out of his depth, he is in over his head. It is obvious in interviews. He is just a lightweight.


    Please stop using the hackneyed cliche (3.50 / 2) (#188)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:07:40 PM EST
    that obama supporters accuse anyone who does not support their candidate of being racists. It is a term with content. And is still very real with a lot of people who dont want to believe they do it when they do. But there are other people who legitimately don't like Obama, such as for the FISA compromise  or because he went to Saddleback and does not want programs  so structured which shut out religious organizations doing good work as long as they are not both getting federal money and discriminating on the basis of religion in who they hire and pay with that money, which have nothing to do with racism and nobody calls them racists.

    Hackneyed cliches (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:12:00 PM EST
    come from all directions.

    Obama supporters at other blogs accuse me and this site of any number of things that are blatantly false smears.

    And I am not even running for anything.

    Glass houses.


    He (5.00 / 8) (#201)
    by tek on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:22:23 PM EST
    does use racism.  He just used it recently against McCain in a very foolish way that backfired.

    A lot of Obama's problem, frankly, is that he thought (or Axelrod thought) that because he's black he could completely trash the Clintons and it would be overlooked if he got nominated.  I believe his camp is so out of touch they really thought that Democrats held the Clintons in contempt like Republicans and if they just circulated the old Republican hate speak about the Clintons, the youth would swallow it and then the traditional Dems would have no choice but vote for him.  Axelrod and Obama underestimated the intelligence and loyalty of traditional Dems--to their political values which Obama doesn't share.

    He has no one to blame but himself for his troubles.


    Huh, Could you (none / 0) (#207)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:29:20 PM EST
    break this into a couple or three sentences so I can follow your reasoning?  Thanks.

    But there are other people who legitimately don't like Obama, such as for the FISA compromise  or because he went to Saddleback and does not want programs  so structured which shut out religious organizations doing good work as long as they are not both getting federal money and discriminating on the basis of religion in who they hire and pay with that money, which have nothing to do with racism and nobody calls them racists.

    "And we get?" (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by lambert on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:42:37 PM EST
    I keep asking this, but there's never an answer except another kick in the teeth. I'm betting the Bayh rumor is just tinsel, and the real pick is going to be Sibelius -- because that's the most insulting possible choice.

    I'm starting to think that's the best prediction (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by blogtopus on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:50:52 PM EST
    Just find the worst possible choice aaaaaand BINGO.

    I'm betting on Biden, tho.


    Kaine is more insulting... (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:03:55 PM EST
    Kaine is more insulting than Sibelius.  Sibelius is just condescending.  But an anti-choice homophobe like Kaine...now THAT is insulting.

    The last line in the WSJ article (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by facta non verba on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:43:19 PM EST
    "It won't be easy, Mr. Newhouse, the Republican pollster, said. "They've already voted once against Barack Obama, and right now, after three months of 20-20 hindsight, they're still not voting for Barack Obama."

    Hindsight? Or foresight? I'd argue the latter.

    These (5.00 / 12) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:51:38 PM EST
    dimwad you quoted in the article BTD STILL don't get it. Let me put it simply for any dem bigwigs who might read this blog:

    Obama is the problem
    Obama is the problem
    Obama is the problem.

    There is NOTHING Hillary can do short of becoming the nominee that will change the minds of many of her voters. Obama simply is NOT qualified nor has the convictions to handle the job of President.

    That is a problem (4.00 / 0) (#120)
    by coigue on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:12:30 PM EST
    and there's nothing we can do NOW to remedy it.

    But we can still think about how to win. In my book, that means Hillary as VP.


    Hillary (none / 0) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:20:45 PM EST
    is NOT going to be the VP so what is your suggestion as how to win? I thought Biden might help him but then all the oppo research on him started to surface and I'm not so sure anymore. The others that are listed I would expect to cost him a minimum of 5 pts. in the polls.

    Maybe Hart (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:53:46 PM EST
    is under the impression Hillary is the keynote speaker?

    I don't think people are looking for a Clinton speech, as much as they are Clinton policy.  And having a Clinton on a ticket pretty much ensures you'll get some of that.  Having Clinton speak at the convention does not.

    I imagine (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Jeannie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:10:42 PM EST
    Hillary will spin the glories of Obama and his liberal values - and, frankly, I won't tune in. That is more than my weak constitution can bear.

    I hope (and think)... (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:21:56 PM EST
    ...I hope (and think) that Clinton will concentrate on her own priorities (in a manner that isn't inconsistent with Obama's...and since Obama "has always said" whatever he needs to have said, that won't be hard).

    And what I'd really like to see is Hillary announce that she changed her plans for her speech, and that she'll be doing a tribute to Stephanie Tubbs-Jones.  Tubbs-Jones was one of Clinton's staunchest supporters, and was steadfast in her advocacy for the same progressive values that Hillary espoused throughout the campaign -- it would be a perfect fit....and a perfect tribute to a great woman.


    I thought her speech was on Tuesday so that (none / 0) (#192)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:11:11 PM EST
    it coincided with the anniversary of getting the right to vote for women or some similar feminist event. that's why it was tuesday. Combine recognition of her Firstyness and her the most prominent speaker that night.

    "Or some similar feminist event"? (5.00 / 13) (#210)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:32:10 PM EST
    Sweetie, that's your history, too.  Learn it.

    And "Firstyness"?  You're done now.  


    Leadership (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:54:58 PM EST
    Looking at other polls that show Obama down 10 pts in MO, 5 pts Ohio, 6 pts in IN I would hope the Democratic leaders are stepping in and helping Obama with the decision. Their jobs are also on the line. If Obama loses this thing there should be a complete clean out of the leadership. This election was a cake walk. To lose it would be inexcusable.

    Right, like Tom Daschle (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by lambert on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:58:36 PM EST
    It's the party leadership that got us into this position. Nobody but them.

    ROTFLMAO! (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    You are on a roll tonight!

    Those (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:59:20 PM EST
    dimwads don't know anything about winning elections only losing. Now, if Bill Clinton was making the pick for Obama that might be a different story but Kerry, Daschle, and Pelosi? No way could they ever pick and good VP.

    why is this vp pick different from all others (2.50 / 2) (#195)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:14:00 PM EST
    that the candidate doesn't get to make it and WJS does? why are the rules different for O than for all other prior candidates? why do posters keep suggesting this stuff since the suggesting has consequences. If the positions were reversed, would you give O the pick of HrC's veep.

    The rules (none / 0) (#198)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:18:04 PM EST
    aren't different. The above poster was stating that the DNC wouldn't let him make a mistake. I was pointing out that the Dem elite has horrible judgement when it comes to picking winners. Obama hasn't shown very good political instincts either with the candidates that he has been putting out trial baloons on.

    48 pct Hillary supporters don't support Obama (5.00 / 8) (#114)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:07:57 PM EST
    She's been doing the unity speech since June and the speech hasn't taken.  Why would a Democratic Convention change the dynamics?  What's wrong with these people.  I won't even watch the convention unless I read that the delegates have chosen Clinton because I don't care anymore.  I know of some Hillary supporter that have echoed my sentiments. I would support Hillary, I would support Dodd, even Biden, but not Obama.  He just doesn't do it for me, and no Hillary speech will change how I view him. Even if Hillary is the VP, I will not vote for Obama.

    Argree (5.00 / 7) (#123)
    by Miri on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:14:46 PM EST
    According to the WSJ poll Hillary supporters have a more favorable view of McCain than they do of the One.

    I feel the same way.

    I could live with McCain for four years.

    I don't want another Bush clone. Obama reminds me of Bush. Same arrogange, same egomania, same lack of accomplishments.


    It's the candidate (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:23:32 PM EST
    What's more, those who backed Clinton in the primaries -- but aren't supporting Obama right now -- tend to view McCain in a better light than Obama and have more confidence in McCain's ability to be commander-in-chief.

    I've said it before. I'll repeat it until I drop. It's not the policies.  It's the fact that I don't believe Obama on any position he takes.  I'll take my chances with McCain.


    the basic problem, (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by cpinva on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:09:07 PM EST
    with whoever he selects as his running mate, is that it isn't going to change the fact that he's still sen. obama. jesus christ himself can't change that, and it's what will do him in, in nov.

    to be blunt, if sen. obama is all that, how come he holds such a scant lead (assuming he does) in most of the polls, if not actually showing behind the worst candidate, john mccain?

    the best thing sen. obama has going for him, at this point, is that he's not sen. mccain. for myself, that's just not a good enough reason to vote for him.

    No, no, no (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Miri on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:10:37 PM EST
    I don't want Hillary as VP candidate.

    It would be a terrible mistake. There is absolutely nothing in it for her.

    After the Messiah loses in November his cult followers and media groupies will blame her. They will claim he was hurt by her so called "baggage".

    And if he were to win she would be completely shut out from any decision making. The guy would be another Bush, an incompetent egomaniac. Being associated with his administration would ruin her chance of ever getting elected president.

    There is absolutely no up side to her taking the VP slot.

    She should follow the Reagan example. Give a cool endorsement. Offer platitudes. Keep her distance. Wait for him to go down to defeat. Organize for another run in four years.

    CBS/NYT agrees with Quinnipiac (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:25:06 PM EST
    Obama gets about 60% of Hillary's supporters. That's not good enough. . .

    Major, major gaffe (5.00 / 5) (#205)
    by Gabriele Droz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:25:15 PM EST
    on their side.  Can they reverse it.  Not so sure.  Feelings have hardened since Obama did nada, zilch, zero to address the Clinton supporters personally.

    It's a real shame that it's come to this, but it is what it is.

    The only chance Obama has in my book, is to make her VP, and even that is iffy right now, since he waited so long.  It would be a sign of manipulation based on polls.  But I'd give it a shot.  I'd certainly never vote for McCain.  If I could bring myself to do it, I'd have a heart attack exiting the voting booth.

    No, cannot do.  But I can vote third party or abstain.  That's my plan for now.

    But I also share the worry of Hillary hanging herself to a sinking Titanic.

    Then again, I have hope (true hope, not just fake), that she would find her way out of such a disaster.  But then again, what do I know.


    And that's all he's gonna get imo. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:27:49 PM EST
    Obama (5.00 / 8) (#146)
    by TadNauseam on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:36:31 PM EST
    will lose my vote in Nov not because of Hillary but because of his supporters.  From the beginning of the campaigns they were polluting many of the left leaning blog sites with their constant vitriol against the Clintons.  They were more vicious than the right in their attacks.  They barked Hillary out of the arena then forced their mediocre candidate onto the party.

    I'm male and not all that old, so I don't fall into the demographic of the typical Hillary non-Obama supporter.  Since he became the presumptive nominee, my desire to see him as President has been shrinking daily.  I'm confident that's not going to change, even if Hillary begs, kicks and pleads.

    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Mike H on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:50:07 PM EST
    I've been trying to get Obama supporters on other blogs to realize this, but it seems like they don't really care about hurting Obama's chances, they'd rather spend some more time making stuff up about how evil Clinton is and how stupid her supporters are.

    Everything they say about the PUMAs being stubborn and spiteful works for them as well.  It would take VERY little effort for them to be gracious and honorable towards Clinton, but they won't do it.

    And so they're part of the problem with the disorganized, fractured party, and may very well be a big part of the reason Obama loses.


    what's worse, I bet a lot of that 52% (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:39:41 PM EST
    supporting Obama are assuming Hillary will be the VP. When she is not, watch that 52% drop to say 45%.

    If Obama has lost 3 points or so in a poll, (5.00 / 8) (#167)
    by DFLer on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:52:20 PM EST
    why is that not Obama's "fault"?

    Hairball and Countdumb cite these polls and immediately move to a discussion of how Clinton has to make the case for Obama to raise those numbers. But how can she do that with voters who previously (in the last poll) supported Obama and now do not?

    If he has lost voters, surely that is the fault of Obama and his campaign, and not Clinton.

    Am I missing something here?

    You are missing two key things (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by angie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:01:18 PM EST
    1. Your daily allotment of the kool aid; and
    2. Surer then the sun rises in the east and sets in the west -- it is always Hillary's fault.

    Try this... (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:48:27 AM EST
    So why switch from left to right? Why not just sit it out or vote for a third party candidate? I really don't get it.

    Put the shoe on the other foot. Imagine that Hillary had won the nomination, but had done so by repeatedly using racist terminology to define Obama; cracked racist jokes about him, right in front of him; played a song bragging about her putdown of n***s during a campaign event; and laughed when her supporters booed and jeered at the mention of his name. Now imagine that on top of that, she played the little woman card and said over and over that it would be sexist not to vote for her, and called Obama and members of his family "chauvinist pigs" every time they criticized her.

    Now imagine that to top it all off, the DNC took votes--actual votes--of several million people in two states and handed them to her, even though those people actually voted for Obama (or someone else).

    OK...so how quick would you be to vote for her, knowing all this, and how easy would it be for you to put all this aside just because you agreed with her on the issues more than McCain? Not so easy, is it?

    I was chattering about that in the open thread. (4.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:52:06 PM EST
    If they can't see the writing on the wall, they deserve to lose.

    Oh so it really isn't some evil Clintonian (3.50 / 2) (#16)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:02:11 PM EST
    plot to have a roll call and appear at the Convention afterall?  

    Probably just plain old early internal polling showing the Obama camp that they still have work to do and a gracious enough also-ran to accomodate him in his hour of need.

    Why is this being treated as a big concession (5.00 / 16) (#19)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:06:53 PM EST
    or some part of an evil plot?

    As far back as I can remember, losing candidates were named at the convention, their supporters shouted and hollered and waved signs, and a glorious speech or two was made before conceding.

    This is NORMAL and USUAL. Why is it being treated with such suspicion?


    because this time (5.00 / 8) (#66)
    by ghost2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:36:49 PM EST
    it's actually close.  The MSM, DNC, and Obama surrogates have spent months trashing Hillary, calling her evil, and saying she had no chance of winning.  

    They need a choreographed event to not let the public know how close it actually was.

    Your corporate media at your service.


    Because it is close, all of those (5.00 / 12) (#100)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:55:27 PM EST
    people spawning conspiracy theories are able to make it look worse than it actually is - which they think over in ObamaLand is a good thing - but really it only hurts their candidate.  In addition, the media are allowed to get their digs in against the Clintons perpetuating a lie about also rans in our party immediately getting in lock-step with the nominee when it seems to me anyway that Clinton is doing back flips to help Obama.  Frankly, I can't really remember a more gracious response from a front runner who did not garner the nomination in my lifetime than what Senator Clinton has offered.  And still whether she helps or gets out of the way, they condemn her.  I find it very irritating.

    Russian Orthodox believer, and said in public that he had no soul. How do you deal with him after that?

    Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#206)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:29:18 PM EST
    was 100% right on that account. Putin does have no soul. The kumbaya schtick from Obama IS downright scary. Putin is believed to have ordered murder. I would say that he IS someone who doesn't have a soul. On this account, the GOP is right. There are some purely evil people in this world who can't be "loved" out of their problems.

    clinton is ahead in polls that are.... (2.00 / 3) (#20)
    by colettewoolf on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:07:27 PM EST
    ...entirely hypothetical.  If she was running now, the Rove/McCain machine would be dragging out the big artillery -- everything from the death of Vincent Foster, to her husband's infidelity, to her flip-flops during the primary.

    This is an ugly fight to the death between the forces of darkness, and the forces of (at least) moderation.  It was never going to be pretty, but the Republicans know how to bring out the worst in the electorate.

    However, I'm still amazed how 21 percent of people who supported the pro-choice, pro-national health insurance Hillary Clinton, could allow themselves to vote for the anti-choice, laissez-faire, hothead McCain?  The only explanation is a triumph of manufactured biography and, yes, celebrity (takes one to know one) over any kind of rationality.....

    The rationale (5.00 / 9) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:12:48 PM EST
    is rather persuasive if you believe the Democratic party needs to be saved from itself. They'd rather have the government split with a chance that the Dems will be the true opposition then be GOP lite and have the Dems rubberstamp all of Obama's decisions.

    The rationale isn't really all that out there. When I remember that they stole 4 delegates I start getting angry at what a mockery they made of democracy I can completely understand where the constituency that feels this way is coming from.


    Sure (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:14:29 PM EST
    but the stuff they are getting read to unload on Obama is a lot worse and he's is all new.

    I think the answer is simple: (5.00 / 12) (#31)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:15:39 PM EST
    they're really pissed off.

    However, I'm still amazed how 21 percent of people who supported the pro-choice, pro-national health insurance Hillary Clinton, could allow themselves to vote for the anti-choice, laissez-faire, hothead McCain?  

    Wow (5.00 / 13) (#38)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:19:18 PM EST
    You're much more plainspoken then me but yeppers that's what I'd say too. I'd also say the anger isn't for some tiny little misunderstanding. The lack of respect to half the party from the Obama camp and the DNC has been pretty awful. They did everything they could to stymie even recognizing that she won over 18 million votes.

    Yep, I understand (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:23:34 PM EST
    most votes in history of either party's primaries (5.00 / 11) (#76)
    by ghost2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:41:54 PM EST
    and they don't want even a roll call for that.  It's like Bush in 2000 saying they can't have the official tallying of delegates by Senate, b/c it would make him look bad.  

    Yes, even Bush didn't stoop that low. That's frankly why Obama and his backers scare me.  They call themselves democrats, but there is no principle upon which they won't trample.  

    Speaking of policies, what has Pelosi stood for in the past two years?? More of the corporate sellout agenda.  What makes you think it would be different with Obama?  Economy, world affairs, everything else can go to hell, but hey at least the Roe strawman is intact.


    Well, there's also the fact that the (5.00 / 12) (#164)
    by derridog on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:51:17 PM EST
    Supreme Court already has enough votes to kill Roe.  How did this happen? Because the Democrats laid down and rolled over. And Obama didn't see anything wrong with voting for Justice Roberts. He wanted to give the President the right to pick his own people (no doubt thinking of himself even then).  The only reason he didn't vote for Roberts was because his advisors told him it might be a problem when he ran for President. This was on his own website.

    What this tells me is that the man is willing to change his vote with an eye to his own benefit and that he has no real principles. His whole record is one of dodging hard votes. He was the ONLY person in both houses of the Illinois Senate to vote PRESENT when the question was letting women who were victims of sex crimes keep their identities unknown.  He said he thought it was against the first amendment! Everyone else in both houses voted FOR this bill!

    This is the guy who is going to protect women from the overthrow of Roe? Right. Dream on.


    Let's not forget that the majority of Democrats... (4.87 / 8) (#99)
    by lambert on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:55:16 PM EST
    ... voted for Hillary.

    Not to mention the, er, deeply flawed caucuses -- that would be undemocratic even if they weren't gamed.

    And on top of that the spectacle of the Rules and Bylaws Committee handing delegates to Obama.


    People who do not send workers to caucuses (2.00 / 3) (#202)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:22:29 PM EST
    and do not show up or campaign for them in the way they do for primaries should not expect to win caucuses or be disappointed or bitter when they don't. She made that choice. She must live with the consequences. If the talkleft report is correct (and I have huge problems with it) her choice to participate is the difference between being a lot behind in pledged delegates and being 1.2 percent ahead.

    Some people are not seeing the big (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:16:53 PM EST
    picture of how much trouble obama is in....just today I was asked if I wanted to join Dems for McCain...still thinking about it...

    Don't join (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:25:06 PM EST
    Just vote for McCain.  Be a Republican for a day.

    first off... (5.00 / 20) (#33)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:17:21 PM EST
    you assume that Clinton doesn't know how to handle attacks.  She does -- she played softball against Obama, but she'd play hardball against McCain.

    secondly, if you paid attention during the primaries, Clinton is extraordinarily good at changing people's perceptions of her.  And people have been looking for a reason to support the Democratic candidate -- Clinton would be providing them with what they want because she's been positioning herself to do that for eight years.  If Clinton was running, the gap would be bigger than 6% right now....

    Finally, the reason why some Clinton supporters support McCain is because they see McCain as someone who will probably take us in the wrong direction, and see Obama as not unlikely to drive us over a cliff.  McCain will at least keep us on a road, and we can turn around in a couple of years.  (And no, I'm not voting for McCain, but I do think that Obama is a very high risk.)


    Democrats play hard against each other (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by ghost2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:44:44 PM EST
    but fold when faced with republican.  Case in point: John Edwards, John Kerry, and countless others.

    Hillary was the only one who didn't do anything to win!! Surprising, really, considering the whole crap against her.  Of course, with the billion dollar media-industrial complex against her, she had no choice.  And she almost beat it.  That was the amazing part.


    Not this time (none / 0) (#117)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:09:14 PM EST
    Read my post below.

    Maybe they think it's better to have (5.00 / 11) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:52:17 PM EST
    divided government, than to elect God's gift to Pelosi as president -- along with a probably anti-choice VP?

    And maybe they think it's better for the country long-term that the Democratic Party doesn't go in the direction it's going (e.g. very RIGHT and not very democratic).

    Just a couple of possibilities.


    But we're in a post-partisan era now (5.00 / 10) (#103)
    by lambert on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:57:19 PM EST
    It's right there in the pre-amble of Obama's platform.

    Why, then, is it so bad to vote for McCain, given Obama's assurance that parties don't matter so much?


    Ouch. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:52:08 PM EST
    and we've never heard that before have we? (4.75 / 4) (#25)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:10:24 PM EST
    Please look at the discussion now (4.00 / 2) (#208)
    by Christy1947 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:31:02 PM EST
    underway on the prolife circuit as to Obama and the legislation in the Illinois legislature for the tied package of bills which provided for medical care for infants born alive when it was not thought they would survive. He didn't vote for the package and is now catching hell for it because a tied part of the package exposed any doctor who did any abortion to the possibility of litigation or jail for doing one if anyone made various claims related to the status of the fetus in the process of the abortion, which depended on its possible but not actual viablity at that point. He did not vote for it and therefore did not vote for the package because he felt it would so threaten doctors that they would not out of fear do abortions which were legal under Roe v. Wade and might undermine access to abortions thereby. that is not a pro-life position in the way politics defines it. And he knew when he did it that the prolifers would want to take parts of his political anatomy off for that, and will be defending his position all fall.

    Hillary's support (2.00 / 0) (#73)
    by mtnbiker on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:40:04 PM EST
    HRC could certianly help the Democrat ticket, it is doubtfull that Obama will pick her. It will be interesting to see how much Hillary will be campaing for Obama in the fall. If she is really supportive and enthusiastic many of her support will be there for Obama, but if she is lackluster they may not.


    If she was that powerful, she would be the (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    nominee. She is campaigning hard. What else do you expect of her?

    Hmmm...... (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by michitucky on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:13:56 PM EST
    They expect her to deliver the Presidency to "The One!!!"

    She's already campaigning for him (5.00 / 14) (#125)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:17:14 PM EST
    She was campaigning her butt off for him while he was sitting on his in Hawaii for a week.  And his support is going down.

    She can't move her supporters on this because 1) their supporters, not followers; and 2) it's become much, much bigger than just her.  People who support Obama on personality/KA reasons just don't get #1, and I doubt they ever will.  For #2, there's nothing Clinton can do to erase the DNC's and Obama's malign acceptance of sexism, the due process fakeout that was the RBC meeting in May, the utter fiasco that was MI-FL (punishing the only 2 states out of 5 that violated the rules and looked like Clinton wins), and the DNC's campaign to oust lunch-pail/FDR Dems (most specifically the Clintons, but all of them if they can) from the Democratic Party.

    One thing grownups understand is that often, there are consequences for actions.  The consequences for the DNC's/Obama's actions is loss of support.  If they didn't know what they were risking, they should have.  If they did realize and went ahead anyway, then sorry, they just have to s*ck it up now.  They can't reverse what they did, even if they were trying to remedy it, which they're pretty loudly not.


    I caucused for Hilary in Minnesota. I still think, all things considered, she was the better choice. But that idea lost. Hilary was no lock. She has her own very considerable negatives and might very well have lost had she become the nominee. I undertstand the bitterness, but the peculiar, one-sided fantasy that Obama done her wrong and she kept to the high road is farcical. Hillary's crew crafted the weapons McCain is now using. Those who are working themselves up to some other vote in November than for Obama ... I think they themselves and many of those they think they are standing with will live to regret it if McCain wins in this way. In my first election, I supported Kennedy against Carter, voted for Anderson and got Reagan for 8 years and Bush(I) for four more. It did feel good momentarily to see Carter go down, but how much was lost, how much National debt, bad consequences. If McCain wins, I hope y'all will keep bragging in the years ahead how you brought down Obama and let McCain win. But in that event, I doubt many will.

    The Q poll yesterday (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:51:16 PM EST
    said that Obama got 62% of Hillary supporters, so I think this one is probably a bit low. But yeah, too close for comfort.

    The good news is that Obama is still probably a few ticks ahead, and his natural advantages should help him win.

    Isn't this the poll that always had him further (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:53:10 PM EST
    ahead than the others? Like 14% at one time? Am I thinking of something else?

    The last one didn't (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:54:07 PM EST
    Anyway, this result is consistent with the trackers.

    Wasn't Kerry a few tics ahead (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Lil on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:15:37 PM EST
    for awhile too, until the Republican Convention and then Kerry never really rebounded until he kicked Bush's butt in the debate, but it wasn't enough.

    I'm really starting to bite my nails on this one, because I don't see Obama going for the throat. McCain had way too much of a free ride imo, and not picking Hillary is going to hurt him. He's one gaffe away from being a tick or 2 down, I think.

    And just wait until they really start throttling him. I've already gotten plenty of wing nut e-mails from right wing associates who basically think he is the anti-christ.

    If he wants to win he should just pick Hillary and go out and beat the pants off Bush...I mean McCain.


    I think the more relevant comparison (none / 0) (#67)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:36:52 PM EST
    is to the 2000 election. And Obama is. . .

    Andgarden, I love your brevity (none / 0) (#115)
    by Lil on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:08:26 PM EST
    but sometimes I need more. Tell me more about the 2000 comparison. Although I've always been a Dem and supported Gore, I didn't really start paying attention until Bush, at which point, I became obsessed, because I wanted him to lose so bad.

    Briefly, W was ahead all summer (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:21:59 PM EST
    and hovered around 45%. Gore was always around 40%. The two major factors were Clinton fatigue (mostly among Bush supporters) and lingering suspicion that Bush just wasn't up to the task of being President. Undecideds broke hard for Gore in the last two weeks. You know the rest of the story. . .

    Other than Bush being at 25% (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Jeannie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:17:57 PM EST
    what are Obama's natural advantages? None of these advantages are about him - just the Republicans. What are his positives? I still haven't found any.

    That 52% number is dangerous (none / 0) (#10)
    by steviez314 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:55:43 PM EST
    It's dangerous for Obama, it's also dangerous for Hillary (fairly or not, doesn't matter, she will get some blame for it) and lastly dangerous for the country if it causes McCain to win.

    It's time for everyone to realize we're in the same boat and start rowing together.

    Obama has to meet me half way (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 05:59:33 PM EST
    If I am going to have to put up with faith based forums the least he can do is pick Hillary to assuage my concerns on choice.

    If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd be mad as (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:00:42 PM EST
    the devil if Obama supporters didn't support Hillary, but, she would have picked him as VP to truly unite the party.

    Yes she would pick him. (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Jeannie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:22:00 PM EST
    If he picks her and she accepts, I will be very disappointed in her. It would mean the end of her usefulness in most of her causes and the end of her power. If she helped him win, it means that she will never be president, and that she has given up her desires and abilities for the good of the party that screwed her so badly. It would be very sad to me.

    Hillary supporters have every right to be mad (2.66 / 3) (#37)
    by steviez314 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:19:12 PM EST
    but if by being mad on Nov 4th, it helps 300 million Americans to get screwed, it's just not worth the anger.

    I was raised Catholic (5.00 / 9) (#47)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:23:56 PM EST
    Guilt just doesn't work on me.  In fact, people who try to lay guilt trips on me just make me angry.

    And you wouldn't like me when I'm angry...


    Guilt (none / 0) (#52)
    by steviez314 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:25:31 PM EST
    Well, I'm Jewish, so I bet I'd win the guilt-off.

    At least that's what my mother would say.


    That's your opinion (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:24:00 PM EST
    and your certainly entitled to it but ALOT of people see the country being equally screwed if Obama wins just in an entirely different way.

    Everyone has their own hypothetical on what we will be looking at a year or two down the line. That's part of the problem with Obama trying to please everyone(faith based community,GOP party members included).


    It's not over yet. My mom changed her mind (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:24:40 PM EST
    and is voting for Obama. If he reached out to her supporters instead of telling them to get over it, it would help. If she had lost badly and they were still mad, it would be one thing, but she won the big states and neither had enough delegates to win on their own. It's up to him now.

    Hey (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by ghost2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:33:59 PM EST
    If those 300 million decided to have McCain, please respect democracy and don't blame Hillary supporters.  After all, people with CDS constantly claim that PUMAs don't amount to much and won't be a deciding factor.  

    The beauty of democracy is that it allows the 300 million to collectively screw themselves.  They did so in 2000 and 2004.


    It's Obama's (5.00 / 13) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:10:05 PM EST
    responsiblity to unite the party. He hasn't even tried. If you are so very concerned about it, you should start calling the Obama campaign daily and make them get to work.

    I don't think they take my calls but.. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by steviez314 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:17:22 PM EST
    tell me exactly what you mean by "unite the party."

    If you mean "make Hillary VP", that may or may not happen, so we need a plan B.

    Abortion rights.  Check.
    Equal Pay.  Check.
    Prime speaking spots for HRC and WJC.  Check.
    Platform now calls for universal health care.  Check.
    Plank on sexism.  Check.

    So now tell me exactly what you want him to do, and I will write an email.  And please don't say "show respect".  I want to know exactly.


    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:24:17 PM EST
    So now it's the responsibility of Obama skeptics to provide a laundry list of their needs?  Hilarious.

    I frankly get quite tired of this incessant rhetorical advice.  You have no ability to change the message or tone of the Obama campaign, even if you send TWO emails.  So why play games?


    Don't be checking off abortion rights (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by cawaltz on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:25:33 PM EST
    He has a guy on his short list that approved of partial birth abortion ban. I don't care how you want to color that but it isn't pro choice.

    Diplomacy (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:32:03 PM EST
    He needs to ease up on the saber rattling. It may appeal to a certain segment of the population,(they'll vote for McCain anyway) but Iraq has made the country weary of war. He should be focusing on the failed efforts of the Republican's foreign policies. We don't need to expand the "War on Terror". We need to redirect the money to rebuild our own country.

    Oh geez, (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:36:34 PM EST
    you don't get it do you? Obama has all these plans but he doesn't have the spine to implement them nor is he trying to sell them on the campaign trail. Those are just position papers from his website which we all know can be changed at any minute. We've already seen how he caves when the going gets tough. You can't rely on him to keep any of those stances tommorrow, the next day or the next.

    Okay (5.00 / 10) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:39:26 PM EST
    here's the list:
    Apologize to Bill and Hillary publicly for calling them racists.

    Apologize to 1/2 the dem party especially the blue collar voters who were called "bitter, clingly, old, bitter" etc.

    Get a spine. Quit waffling over every issue.

    Realize that answering any question with "it's over my paygrade" is beyond stupid and insulting.

    Quit the arrogant condescending attitude toward the voters.

    How's that list for starters?


    You forgot the misogyny (5.00 / 5) (#200)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:21:23 PM EST
    This is so three months ago (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:39:52 PM EST
    All during the primary, Obama supporters asked us "what does he have to do to win your vote?"

    We answered then. You could go back and look.

    The response was invariably, ""Never mind, he's not gonna do that."

    The assumption then as now was that we'd eventually "come to our senses," "grieve," and "get over it."

    It hasn't happened. It isn't GOING to happen.

    And it's not just about Hillary (ignore the title of the piece - it never WAS just about Hillary - in fact, see Lambert's take on this article, plus the comments).

    The fact is that Obama had a multitude of chances to unite the party, and he blew them all through the primary and hasn't stopped blowing them since.


    It is as if Obama (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by Jeannie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:28:31 PM EST
    and Axelrod had plans for the primary (do and say anything to win, call people racists, say dreadful things about the Clintons,and pressure the delegates) - but never expected it to happen and have no plan to win the general. Now they have insulted too many people and the chickens are coming home to roost - to coin a phrase....

    How about Hillary as keynote speaker (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:49:39 PM EST
    Instead, Mark Warner is keynote -- on women's night.


    Platform NOW calls for universal healthcare?  What's wrong with this picture.

    Obama doesn't even offer equal pay in. his. own. campaign. staff.

    Playing lip service doesn't get it.

    Abortion rights?  LOL! But we have to ask our pastor and our "family" (meaning husband).



    Uncheck that health care plank (5.00 / 10) (#92)
    by lambert on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:51:24 PM EST
    not because it's not single payer (though that's the right thing) but because there's still no mandate -- correct me if I'm wrong.

    What is there is a lot of bogus language about how health care is a "shared responsibility" between business, the citizen, and the insurance companies.

    Yeah -- it's the insurance companies' job  to deny me care so they can profit, and it's my job to get care so I don't get sick and die. It's shared.

    Oh, and "please tell me exactly" -- classic troll language. It's almost as if it were scripted....


    Those are just text typed onto platform (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:05:47 PM EST
    pages.  Nothing he's done or campaigned on since June has given any indication any of them are important to him, or will be any kind of priority if he is elected.

    His history during the primaries shows that they were entirely unimportant to him prior to June (except the speaking gigs, which he could hardly refuse to give the Clintons, and which, btw, should never have been de facto something he was able to 'give' anyway).

    So you're typing up a little list means bupkis.  And you gave yourself away with that last snarky line.


    Write another letter (5.00 / 5) (#184)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 08:04:54 PM EST
    to progressive bloggers and sites they command and tell them to apologize to the women they verbally abused with their comments using Hillary Clinton as their target,

    Remember, it's not about Hillary. She just took the punches for women in the most misogynistic campaign in history.

    Progressive blogs, MSNBC and their abhorrent behavior - one reason I will not vote for Obama.


    We are not in the same boat (5.00 / 18) (#83)
    by angie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:45:42 PM EST
    What is good for "this country" usually means what is good for the men in this country. I'm a woman first and while I admit (that most days) I'm in the 27% of "undecideds" it is because I find the choice between McCain & Obama to be equally as bad for women's issues. And make no mistake -- women's issues are priority number 1 for me. For the last several years, I've seen the Dems talk a good talk of advocating women's issues, but their actions (or inactions) have frittered away my value in society (shown by the DNC's silent acceptance of the sexism in the primary) and my right to personal autonomy (as seen by the ban on the so-called "partial birth abortions" and validation of parental notifications). The Dem argument seems to be "look at the big picture -- lets get Obama elected, then we will address your issues" -- it is the same old song and dance and I'm not going to allow myself to be duped into believing, again, that maybe this time the Dems are going to do something for women's issues -- their track record doesn't deserve my trust.  The argument that "I have nowhere else to go" just isn't going to cut it anymore for me -- I will not be threatened with the loss of the rights I already have.  

    All I know for sure is that I'm voting for NotMcCain (tm Dr. Molly) -- but that doesn't mean I'm voting for Obama -- there are other choices on the ballot.

    P.S. (1) to those who may be inclined to tell me that I am being "self-centered" for putting women's issues first, too bad -- I can't stop being a woman & since no one else seems to put my issues first, I will; and (2) to anyone who wants to give me a lecture on Obama being a strong advocate for women's issues, I'll continue to believe my lying eyes -- this man refers to professional women to whom he is not related as "sweetie," thinks women run out to get late-term abortions because they are "feeling blue," doesn't think pro-choicers understand the "wrenching moral decision" of that choice, believes a woman's right to choose should be predicated on the advice of her "husband and pastor" and characterizes his female opponent's valid criticism of him as due to the fact that she is "feeling down."


    while women's issues are NOT #1 (5.00 / 15) (#96)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 06:54:02 PM EST
    for me, its Obama's complete lack of commitment to womens issues (or any other issue that I feel is important) that is one of the reasons I'm having no second thoughts about not supporting him.

    People talk about the supreme court, but I have absolutely no confidence that Obama would not appoint an anti-choice judge if he was in political trouble when a vacancy occurred.  Yeah, sure, if everything is bright and rosy he would probably appoint a pro-choice judge -- but the next four years are NOT gonna be bright and rosy, they're gonna be a mess regardless of who the President is.


    Issues (5.00 / 9) (#140)
    by Miri on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:27:37 PM EST
    Supreme Court? Obama has already become buddies with Ken Starr's close friend and impeachment supporter.

    Obama does not really believe in anything. Except career advancement. He had not stayed at any job long enough to accomplish anything or develop a philosophy. His policy papers are written by hired hand. When he talks about policy there is no there there.

    He hasn't given issues a lot of thought. How could he? He has so little experience on national level. His lack of substance shows in interviews and debates.


    Does BO have a commitment (5.00 / 12) (#144)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:33:56 PM EST
    to any issue? I've looked into his background and I don't see it.  That's one of my biggest problems with BO.  He doesn't care about anything but his image.  He trashed the Clintons and the voters playing the race card (A BIG no no for me).  My perception is that he is low class and immature.  When he wiped his shoulders to signify he was wiping sh*t (Clinton) after the last debate, I knew I didn't want such a man to be my president. There is more, but I don't think it's necessary.

    LOL, thanks for the 'tm' (none / 0) (#147)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:37:59 PM EST
    Just to be clear, voting 'NotMcCain' for me equals voting for Obama (whom I've taken to calling NotMcCain). But I understand that voting 'NotMCain' for others means other options.

    You welcome! (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by angie on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:46:09 PM EST
    I love the "NotMcCain" -- and re: the earlier thread -- want to let you know that just as you respect my choice (which still might end up being Obama) I respect yours as well.

    Blame Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:26:40 PM EST
    I don't care. I own my vote and I will choose the best candidate to take my vote.

    NBC polled Obama v McCain head-to-head (none / 0) (#174)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 07:57:06 PM EST
    Obama does a bit better when Barr, Nader, McKinney etc are offered in the mix. (Obama does about the same, but Nobama votes are split, giving McCain smaller numbers).

    In the LAT/Bloomberg poll, D's are slightly more loyal to Obama (80% vs 78%, IIRC) when Nader is listed!

    Call me naive.. (none / 0) (#216)
    by JanG on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:13:40 PM EST
    I am a democrat, who was torn between Obama and Hillary Clinton. In comparing their beliefs on most major issues and certainly the issues that are most important to me( a women's right to choose and getting us out of Iraq) So I knew I would be happy with either one as the nominee. What I simply do not get is the anger from so many Clinton supporters. What exactly did Obama do to cause such anger?  I know somehow they blame him for Hillary not getting the nomination but the process played out with the Democratic pary guidelines (granted they are convoleted and not so great-but they are the rules,well atleast as of now.)

    Obama on women's issues (none / 0) (#217)
    by JanG on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:22:06 PM EST
    Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)

    Where are you all getting your information? I checked his voting record. He has always supported women's right to choose.

    Today McCain (none / 0) (#218)
    by JThomas on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 09:44:42 PM EST
    said reinstating the military draft was fine by him. The iraq war has cost us 4100 young americans. McCain and Bush worked together to foist this invasion and war on america ..and now we know that the intel was definitely rigged.
    I have a son in baghdad right now who I want to see come home in one piece next year.
    McCain was pushing for invading Iraq as far back as 1998.
    He wants to take out Iran.
    Please consider all of us military families with loved ones at risk before helping John McCain bring more wars to our doorstep.
    Bush-Cheney-McCain..an unbroken line of neo-cons with delusions of American imperialism.
    With the war powers act, congress cannot stop a President McCain from bombing Iran which would start a new conflagration in the middle east the would result in many of our sons and daughters as well as thousands of innnocent Iranians and other natives of the middle east their lives.
    This is life and death for all of these people.

    I'm voting for Obama, but I won't stop (none / 0) (#219)
    by WillBFair on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:15:17 PM EST
    talking about the trashy things he and his supporters did in the primary. As I explained to a kool-aid drinker at work, if we don't call people on their abuses, they'll only get worse. And they have really dragged the party down to the republican level.
    On the other, hand, I think enough of the brass know that the Clinton policy agenda should be the standard by which we govern. Obama swiped it from day one. So I have to vote for him and hope he runs with it.

    Obama was silent during the misogynist assault (none / 0) (#220)
    by chezmadame on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:42:04 PM EST
    on Hillary during the primaries. It was to his benefit, so he didn't speak up or speak out. He pretended that prejudice didn't exist because it was to his advantage. This tells me everything I need to know about "the content of his character."
    He will never get my vote.

    Clinton = McCain? No way (none / 0) (#221)
    by Rashomon66 on Wed Aug 20, 2008 at 10:44:41 PM EST
    Do the 21% of Clinton supporters who say they will vote for McCain really understand the issues? If you support Hillary it would seem part of the reason you support her is because of where she stands on the issues. And McCain is much further away from Clinton on those issues than Obama. In fact, much further. So why switch from left to right? Why not just sit it out or vote for a third party candidate? I really don't get it.

    It's not going to be Clinton (none / 0) (#222)
    by bmc on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 07:14:13 AM EST
    I'd be very surprised--pleasantly so--if Obama chose Clinton as his VP. I might even vote for him if he did; it would show some actual character. Short of that, Obama is not getting my vote. It's as much about Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, and Nancy Pelosi as it is about Barack Obama.

    Yes, I ended up strongly supporting Sen. Clinton as the nominee. But, it's not about Hillary Clinton anymore. There's a macro-perspective problem here with the Democratic Party machinations and manipulations during this primary nomination process that has turned off huge numbers of Democrats.

    The simple, fundamental problem is the betrayal of trust by the party; that betrayal will hurt Obama in this election. And, well it should; he created his own illegitimacy by colluding in the machinations. At any point during the process, Obama could have stood up for principle. He could have not taken the 4 delegates stolen from Clinton; but he never showed any principle at all.

    At the moment that the DNC/RBC gave a candidate who wasn't even on the ballot--through his own choice--all of the uncommitted delegates and 4 of Clinton's delegates, they betrayed the voters' trust. Florida and Michigan involved disenfranchisement of 2.3 Million Democrats. Those are serious betrayals of trust in my view.

    Loyalty to the party was tossed out the window the moment the party showed they have little or no loyalty to the party's voters.

    Thus, voters like me are now free to choose the candidate they believe has enough experience, character and guts to run this country, or the candidate which best embodies their own personal values, which is what I plan to do. I'm voting for the Green Party nominee, because I'm a progressive. I just don't support the Democratic Party any more after what I witnessed in this campaign.

    I think it will be either Kaine or Bayh for VP--both of which are really uninspiring choices.