Stories The Obama Camp Should Be Forwarding

Here's one, via Glenn Reynolds:

Florida Sen. Bill Nelson said he talked with Obama last Tuesday and put forth two names: Biden and Clinton. "He's an excellent choice for Barack in Florida," Nelson said of Biden, noting that he "knows all the players on the world stage," but has never lost touch with his working-class roots. "He's got appeal across the board," Nelson said.

Why? Because folks like Bill Nelson, a Clinton supporter and a fighter for seating the Florida delegation to the convention, have some credibility with Clinton supporters. Look at how Nelson frames the issue. He says he recommended Clinton and Biden. He makes it seem picking Biden is a nod to Clinton. That is the type of framing I would use if I was the Obama campaign.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< M-D NV Poll: McCain By 7; Q CO Poll: McCain By 1 | Sunday Morning in Denver >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And perhaps, in yesterday's (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:35:29 AM EST
    speeches, replace the seoond references to Scranton and "single mom" with a laudatory call-out to Hillary Clinton and her supporters.  

    In Biden's VP speech (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:37:58 AM EST
    He was definitely channeling (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:56:39 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton's principles, but w/o attribution.

    To be fair, Biden shares those principles (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:59:29 AM EST
    or at least a lot of them, I think.  That he is emphasizing their shared principles is just smart.

    Yeah and they are both from (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:02:08 AM EST
    Scranton so I can't think what people would have him do - pretend like he wasn't so he did seem like a "copy cat" or something.

    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:38:01 AM EST
    herself could sing the praises of an Obama/Biden ticket and it isn't going to do anything more than illicit a yawn. From what I have seen the Clinton supporters aren't much into talk about support for the working class they want to know "where the beef is."

    I disagree (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:38:47 AM EST
    He won't get everyone, the question is getting enough.

    He won't get anyone (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:43:38 AM EST
    It's a done deal.

    PUMAs aren't gonna make nice this time, no matter how many flowers and candy we get.


    PUMA's are not many people (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:46:36 AM EST
    I am talking about Clinton supporters.

    Thank you. (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:55:39 AM EST
    I have no problem with PUMAs.  I empathize with a lot of what they have to say, and I actually applaud their effort, as it always requires a really radical stand to move the stand-pat leaders of a party to realize how wrong they have been.

    I do have a problem with the pundits and others who can't seem to understand the distinction you make.  PUMAs are not undecideds on Obama.  They include some who are undecideds on McCain, but that's different.  

    The key always is turnout.  We will see how many voters remain undecided about voting on the top of the ballot at all.


    If what happened at our community (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:48:45 AM EST
    parade yesterday is any indication, voters are either on the fence or aren't showing their hand.

    Our local state rep, who's a dem, came down the street first, followed by a group of people carrying Obama signs.

    Little or no crowd reaction.

    Then the jerk who our congressional rep, a repub, came with a much larger contingent and lots of McCain signs.

    Little or no crowd reaction.

    This is in Michigan.  Not sure what to make of that.


    Maybe the Michiganers are depressed by (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by derridog on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:54:31 PM EST
    their options. I can sympathize.

    Or indifferent, (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    which doesn't bode well for November.

    Registered PUMA's are probably (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:58:51 AM EST
    not many. The organizers would boast them if they had them.

    PUMA, though, has come to represent any and all Democrats who have decided to protest the handling of the primaries by the DNC with how they cast their vote.

    These are people who will do one of many things at the polls this time: vote Republican, vote third party, write-in, not vote that place on the ballot, or not vote at all. Protest votes. The message of the PUMA is being sent to the DNC, not to Obama.

    We can't know how many there are until the votes are counted.

    I've said this before, of the 23 people in my immediate circle who are life-long democrats, only 2 are voting Obama. The rest are protest voting, but only 1 is registered as a PUMA.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:00:08 AM EST
    PUMA means nothing.

    And if Obama supporters let themselves think of reluctnat clinton supporters as PUMAs, as they show every indication of doing, they hurt Obama.

    See my post last night on the subject.


    The time to reach out (5.00 / 12) (#29)
    by madamab on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:04:06 AM EST
    to Clinton supporters was a long time ago. I think the lines are pretty drawn in the sand at this point.

    And frankly, for someone who writes a lot about PUMA, and not in a complimentary way, you seem to know very little about us.

    But that's how most Obama supporters seem to be. They dismiss us and say we are few, without even bothering to understand our concerns or doing the least amount of research.

    So much for objectivity.


    Had dinner wth 5 friends last night who all (none / 0) (#35)
    by Aqua Blue on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:10:25 AM EST
    said they are voting the Obama ticket because Biden was selected.

    Comments were made that other than Clinton, Biden was the only other VP choice that would get their vote.   Obama made the next best choice.  

    Now as BTD says, will it be enough?


    Excuse me (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:32:53 AM EST
    I know well what you are and I think your approach to trying to achieve your goals has been incredibly stupid.

    See, I can say it about Obama and I can say it about PUMAs.


    There is nothing more honorable or brave than to (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by derridog on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:07:11 PM EST
    stand up and take a public stand that engenders anger, bullying and abuse from others.  I've lived through the Civil Rights movement and the Women's movement.  The people who first came forward, led others to come.  It's not easy to get called names, threatened and even potentially hurt to try to change things in this country for the better.  It takes courage.  For that reason I admire the PUMAS.

    Our country is in very bad shape. We need a progressive movement that deals with the problems of ordinary people. PUMAS want that. They think Hillary was going to help them get universal health care and was knowledgeable and willing to work on the problems that affect their lives.  They think the primary election was stolen. They have a lot of evidence for their beliefs, as they have been paying attention, as most of those on this site have also been.  However, in addition to paying attention, they have principles they believe their party should stand up for. They aren't making their decisions as to who should run the country based on whether or not the MSM is sucking up to  them but on what they believe is best for the country.


    PUMA means nothing? (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    We'll see about that.

    What will PUMAs accomplish? (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:32:00 AM EST
    Reform of the primary system (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by DaleA on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:46:53 PM EST
    That seems to be the one uniting focus of the PUMA movement. And if it takes an electoral loss to accomplish the goal, so be it.

    PUMAs aren't nothing, if for no other (5.00 / 8) (#51)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:25:04 AM EST
    reason than the fact that the MSM and the Obama campaign are doing exactly what you are saying they shouldn't, which is act as if every Clinton supporter is a PUMA and should be treated as the enemy.

    Part of the problem is that they treated Clinton supporters as if they were PUMAs before PUMA even existed.  It's not a new thing, it's a continuation--the MSM just paid no attention then, and Obama's strategy was to ignore Clinton supporters concerns entirely because he was going to coast to victory on the wave of inevitability.  They are still clinging to their rile-the-base tactics of demonizing Clinton supporters, because that was what (they thought) created the wave in the first place.

    PUMAs are also not nothing because they are different from other groups, like Paul's and Barr's backers.  Those folks have always been there -- PUMAs are newly created, made up of people who have long voted Democratic but are breaking away for a specific reason now.  The message is, you don't have to vote for Obama just because your voter card has a D on it.  Combined with the lackluster polls, the wave of inevitability is broken.


    If the Democratic Party repairs the damage (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:31:45 AM EST
    they have done to themselves this election cycle, it will NOT be to the credit of Obama voters.

    That will be to the honor of those who dared to demand it be fixed.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:31:44 AM EST
    It means nothing to me.

    And Obama needs to not think of Clinton supporters as PUMAs.


    Yep (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:03:50 AM EST
    The DNC with their manipulating made this about more than Obama and without something meaningful occuring to change that perception I still see a loss in the future.

    It's not about Hillary (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:19:49 AM EST
    It's about Obama and the way he became the "presumptive" nominee.

    We are not a bunch of sore losers, which is implied in the idea that we can be persuaded by endorsements.

    The ignorance and misinformation about PUMA and the rest of Hillary's supporters who are not supporting Obama is stunning.  We are not secretive about who we are or what we believe.  

    Obama is grossly unqualified and his campaign tactics have disqualified him from holding office.


    Exhausted (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:29:11 AM EST
    No matter how many times the explanation is given, Obama supporters simply can't comprehend the reasoning behind democrats not voting for the democrat.

    Obama is seriously short of qualifications, and he shows no ability to take good direction and exercise good judgment. The DNC isn't just allowing him to embed religion into the government, they manipulated the rules and broke the democratic system to get him there.

    At their peril.


    Excuse me (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:31:05 AM EST
    PUMAs have themselves to blame for the misinformation.

    They have behaved atrociously. you have every right to behave anyway you like, but you can not blame me for what you have allowed PUMA to come to mean.


    We are to blame for lies being told about us? (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:41:26 AM EST
    Interesting theory.

    Is that an extension of the Clinton Rules?


    What lies are being told about you? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:47:54 AM EST
    Please tell me what they are.

    I think folks have OPINIONS about how you are conducting yourselves. No one is lying about you.

    and to compare yourself to Hillary Clinton is a wonderful example of just how ridiculous you are acting.


    What conduct are you describing, exactly? (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:06:53 PM EST
    That is so reprehensible?

    Dean and much of the media have been trying to claim we're Republicans, for jeeper's sake.

    PUMAs have held a few protests.  We're holding more in Denver (along with many other groups).  We've sent letters and emails to our elected representatives.  We've donated to retire Clinton's debt.  We have a number of blogs.  We've refused to vote for or financially support the DNC or Obama.

    We've done a lot of research about the connection between where Obama's campaign money has gone and SDs who voted against the majorities in their districts, about both caucus rules/gaming and voter intimidation in the caucuses.

    These are all traditional forms of protest. (well, except for the blogs, those haven't been around for 100 years, and the whole research thing seems to be becoming a lost art).

    Imo, much of the hostility to PUMAs is because they have had an effect.  I don't see Obama supporters swarming Ron Paul sites and calling them racists.


    At the very least (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:15:20 PM EST
    PUMAs have demonstrated Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    Where's the backup for that? (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:28:35 PM EST
    I'm just one of thousands but I've been pretty clear that my disgust is with the DNC, the sexism (which is an important issue to me although it's not regarded as important enough to matter with many), and violations of process.

    I don't hate Obama, I don't even regard him as worth all that much attention except to the extent his actions and attitudes reflect the DNC's Big Blowoff of the traditional base, or willingness to be fighting Dems with their own but Capitulatin' Dems with the Republicans and DINOs.

    Criticism isn't derangement syndrome.


    Oh yeah. I gave him money at first. Then I (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by derridog on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:09:36 PM EST
    researched his background, which isn't pretty.  Then I saw him throw universal health care under the table and accuse fellow Democrats of being racists just to win the election. Then I listened to him say he wanted unity with Republicans, which he backed up in spades after he got the nomination and voted for Fisa, etc.  I also watched him encourage the sexist crap and name calling against Clinton and all the women in this country, who have fought hard against  discrimination and vicious misogyny all our lives. I saw a man who was not troubled by Justice Roberts or the idea that women have to fight for control over our own bodies in this country.  I saw someone willing to let victims of sex crimes be outed by voting present rather than vote yes or no on a bill in the Illinois Senate to keep that from happening.  I saw a guy who lifted whole speeches and policies  from others, who never wrote a single article when he was the supposed editor of the Harvard Law Review (the only editor who never wrote anything). I also saw a guy who appears to have serious problems with vindictiveness.

    Hey what's not to like? I must indeed be deranged.  I should follow your example and base my decisions on which candidate the Media wants.


    Or at least OSDS? (none / 0) (#122)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 01:02:38 PM EST
    Obama Supporter Derangement Syndrome?  

    In most cases this is a short-term condition best remedied by a nice long troll-free nap.  But it can also fester and lead to some very bad anti-social conditions.


    I realize your question was not (none / 0) (#104)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:21:51 PM EST
    directed at me, but I'll give my opinion.  People I associate (perhaps wrongly) w/PUMA seem to be really quick to deride any comment focusing on Roe v. Wade, SCOTUS appointments, Dem. Congress's failure to stand up for what Dem. voters say they want.  Tiring, and the responses don't acknowledge the seriousness of the issues.  

    What was so atrocious? (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by daria g on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:01:28 PM EST
    I do not understand that.  Given the usual standards of behavior in the blogosphere especially (I do not include TalkLeft in this!), it takes a lot to be "atrocious."

    It seems to me that any group of people are free to dissent and organize themselves for that purpose, and be as vocal as they want about it, even if they are Democrats, even if the leaders of the Democratic Party insist on Unity.  


    The blogs have been atrocious (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:14:33 PM EST
    I rip them all.

    Many of them are (none / 0) (#110)
    by daria g on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:30:35 PM EST
    A few exceptions (and IMHO Somerby has always been brilliant) but the biggest ones.. terrible.  Maybe I shouldn't be surprised.  I remember when things really got going, back in the days of Dean's Blog for America (which I frequented.. and I lurked at dKos before it was Scoop-ified).  The Kerry crowd were demonized primarily at that point, and it was nasty, and it kind of built up and there was angry lashing out at reporters, anyone who didn't agree with anything Dean said or did.  

    I hope the discussions of blogosphere 2.0 go somewhere and can be productive?  Of course it's a free country and Internets and people can be as hostile as they want on the blogs, but I don't think it benefits progressive causes at the end of the day!


    Um. What have they done that is so (4.50 / 2) (#135)
    by derridog on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:58:25 PM EST
    atrocious? Tried to keep Obama from winning?  Well, if you believe that Obama would be bad for the country and the primary voting system should be reformed, what is atrocious about trying to make that happen?

    Um, 21% of Hillary's voters (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by derridog on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:52:33 PM EST
    say they are voting for John McCain and up to half are not committed to Obama.  Hillary had 18 million voters. If you just count the 21%, that's close to 4 million voters.  If you count the close to 50% who don't want to vote for Obama, that's close to nine million.  Gore lost by 500 +/- votes, did he not?

    Now, you might say not all of those people are Pumas. I'm not a Puma, but I'm going to vote for John McCain and I have relatives who are not Pumas and they are doing the same.  

    I think you underestimate the anger out there and the idea that some politician in Florida is going to "frame" (ie, spin) the situation in any way whatsoever that is going to affect that reality is, I believe, not warranted by anything other than wishful thinking.  Our party is badly split. I've been voting for Democrats since 1964 and I'm considering becoming an Independent. if you had asked me a year ago or even six months ago if I would consider doing that or, God knows, voting for a Republican, I would have thought you were out of your mind.  I know I'm not alone. Even on this site, there are many people who agree with me.


    The O'Biden Ticket... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Aqua Blue on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    Being a strong and very angry Cinton supporter, I did not plan to pull the lever for Obama.

    Now I find myself doing an about face.
    I think I can vote an Obama/Biden ticket.

    I can't explain it rationally.   It is an emotional reaction.  


    Me too (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:26:16 AM EST
    And I can't explain it either.
    Biden is not perfect.  No one is.  But in the end he is the one besides Hillary I felt OK about.
    Bayh or Kaine would have put me to sleep and I may have forgotten to vote.
    Chet Edwards or Sebelius made me angry.
    Richardson would have made me see red.  

    Anyway, talking to my cousin and her partner who are die hard Hillary fans, and were ready to drop out of the democratic party, are OK with Biden and more likely to vote Obama because of him.  They live in SE PA (where I grew up) and we all have always liked Biden.  We were not happy with how he handled the Anita Hill stuff, or Scalia.  But like I said, we never expect perfection from anyone.


    I think it's an interesting moment (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:10:26 AM EST
    I'm still digesting it because at this point all I can keep thinking about is everything I've ever heard the netroots say about Biden.

    This could evolve into a real problem for Obama with his supporters.

    I mean.  Damn!  Clinton could have chose Biden.

    So yeah.  If one wants to one can see it as a rejection of the things I don't like about Obama's support.

    It has changed things for me somewhat.


    If rumors/theories are true that Biden was (none / 0) (#70)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:41:27 AM EST
    put on the ticket not through Obama's choice, but as a sort of forced stabilizer from the the DNC, then I don't see how it changes the evaluation of Obama's judgment.  P Lukasiak has made a fairly good case to that point over the past few days here.  It's pretty plausible that Biden 'not wanted, but have to' choice who was better than the more unwanted Clinton.

    Esp. not unless there's evidence that Obama will allow Biden to play a real political role.  But Obama's not given much of an indication he's willing to bend in a Democrat direction, so that doesn't seem likely.

    If they work out an issue or two for Biden to mini-campaign on, it might work.  Then there might  be a reason to think that as VP Biden would have an Al Gore-like role where he can actually influence policy under an Obama administration.  But since lack of policy specificity has been the hallmark so far, I don't forsee it happening.


    Biden can go any-which-a-way (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Josey on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:59:08 AM EST
    Biden said he'd be glad to campaign with John McCain or against him.
    Sounds like Biden was willing to be on any presidential ticket.

    If that's the case (none / 0) (#88)
    by daria g on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    Does Biden really think he'll have much power at all?  What is he expecting?

    I'm seeing all this raving over Biden on this (none / 0) (#101)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:19:35 PM EST
    morning's punditry programs. Where were these people early in the primaries? From what I'm hearing, Biden should have won the primary without any of the challengers coming close to him.

    What did he get? Some 9000ish total votes, and zero delegates?


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by daria g on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:36:16 PM EST
    I guess if they awarded delegates for zingers in the debates he might have got a few more.

    Couple things on my mind..

    1. If Biden's own candidacy barely got off the ground, can he really win over enough voters for Obama to carry Pennsylvania and Ohio?

    2. If Obama's voter-registration efforts and ground game and financial resources are so amazing, extensive, and unprecedented, why didn't he win the primaries in Pennsylvania and Ohio?  Why would the general election be different?

    IMO (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:49:11 AM EST
    he has gotten as many as he is going to get without doing something meaningful that negates the idea that the party is somehow remaking itself and no longer needs the Clintons(and their supporters) and by meannigful I don't mean talking about it to death. We all know Obama can talk, we want to see more than talk.

    If Obama listens to Biden (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:05:12 AM EST
    and actually admits him to the inner circle, it may make a difference.  If Obama is educable.

    If not, better we find out now that Obama wouldn't listen to Biden if they were in the White House.  Because Obama's problems as a candidate could be disastrous if he is president.

    Biden knows politics beyond Chicago from experience as a candidate beyond primaries.  Biden knows compromise from experience in Congress of more than months.  This is exactly the concern of voters who wanted experience.

    So now we'll see if Obama is willing to listen and learn from the experience of others, at least.  If not, again, better we know now.


    I don't think it's gonna be enough (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:12:58 AM EST
    The rift in the party is partly about Obama but another part of it is about the Democratic brand. The DNC screwed up royally and I'm not sure how they can fix it.

    I was so certain this was going to be a slam dunk year. Some slam dunk.


    Agrreed, that group won't be reached (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:20:03 AM EST
    and it includes me at this point.  So we'll see.

    We just don't know how many there are of that group, and if there are enough of the other group.  Because, as is pointed out in several comments here, no one is asking.  We're not seeing polls designed well to make the distinctions.  And we're not seeing Dem leadership like Brazile even attempting to understand the distinctions.


    Yep, no good data (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by lambert on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:04:36 PM EST
    It's an extension of the idea that all of the people who voted for Hillary after February did so buy giving the press exactly zero credibility, since they were saying it was over.

    It's like we've blinded ourselves -- no good data, no good research, all we get is shouting heads in an echo chamber. Ick.

    As far as PUMA, they're clearly not one thing and its useless to speak of them as if they were. Cannonfire, for example, spent a great deal of energy taking down that stupid COBL thing that Johnson was propagating. Every grassroots effort has its foily outsiders, so the fringe doesn't bug me. Then again, since we don't know anything, they can't claim to represent the 18 million, either. The only thing we can do is let it play out.

    As far as Biden, I don't see how it changes a thing. Clinton, though never in the cards (she's a racist and wanted to assassinate Obama), might have helped; the best that can be said of Biden is that he won't hurt. Sure, he's being billed now as an attack dog, but that's a standard narrative. If Obama had chosen Mother Teresa, she'd be billed as an attack dog (besides bringing "experience" to the ticket.


    Attack dog (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by daria g on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:39:44 PM EST
    I wonder about that too.  We'll find out..  But good lord, I wish he'd been something of an attack dog when it came to confirming Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court.  

    Not to mention resurrection--very attractive (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:14:14 PM EST
    to Evangelical Christians.

    I agree (with BTD) (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:51:56 AM EST
    I think the Biden selection will quickly be seen by a large portion of the American public as a successful attempt to (as my mother used to say) "split the difference."  Biden brings enough gravitas and experience and plain old fire in the belly to the ticket that he'll be seen as a net plus, despite not exactly fitting in with the "change everything, right now!" mindset.  And yes, because Biden is not Clinton, his selection will lose some votes.  But I suspect it will gain more than it loses, overall.

    I'm feeling much better about Obama's chances than I was a few days ago when we were all staring at each other and saying, "Chet Edwards?  Really???"


    I think (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:57:18 AM EST
    that Barack Obama is gonna lose. I think he's going to do so because the DNC decided to play favorites and in doing so insulted two states(and millions of voters). I think that besides the two states Barack's campaign has insulted two or three more. Let's not even get into how they split the base and have done little to nothing to fix that rift. Personally, I'm done worrying about it too much. It appears the Democrats want to lose. Who am I to stand in their way?

    It can be sold that way a bit (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:58:55 AM EST
    is my argument, if the Obama camp could learn to do it.

    Of course, this is pretty insulting to Biden but hell, he took the job knowing what was up.


    There is more to Clinton's appeal (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:50:13 AM EST
    than this.  It may be enough for Obama to get some of her working-class vote this way.  It may get more working-class men, which is where he's really behind.  (Again and again, women are not the problem.  It's just so convenient for Men With Issues who are in the media to blame their mothers.  Working-Class Joe cannot win the women for whom women's issues are a high priority, not with his votes on "partial birth" and his rating on all reproductive rights issues, not to mention the Anita Hill hearings.)

    But the economy always is the number-one issue with women as well as with men.  So can Working-Class Joe convince those voters that he's really on their side because he rides Amtrak?  That means he doesn't deal with rising gas prices at the pump.  And he just puts his Amtrak tickets on his charge card -- and hmmm, about his ties to the other great gouging industry that is killing the working class.  

    But Biden is the only one on the ticket who ever has admitted that he was wrong on something and  knows how to tender a heartfelt apology for when he was wrong -- as does McCain.  That can resonate and make a difference.  Because voters understand and like humilitas.  They are turned off by hubris.

    All true (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:51:24 AM EST
    But you do what you can.

    Of course, Obama could have picked Clinton as his running mate and I say that if he loses, this will be the biggest reason.


    Yes. (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:58:23 AM EST
    See my last paragraph.  It wasn't the best VP pick.  We'll have to see if the second-best VP pick is enough to compensate for the problem at the top that prevented Obama from making the best VP pick.

    Hillary was always a bad choice (1.00 / 2) (#31)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:06:18 AM EST
    in terms of working partnership chemistry once in office.  

    According to the latest backstories, being comfortable with the #2 on a personal basis was a key consideration for O.  

    Can't blame him.  In the modern P-VP substantive relationship, it has to factor in heavily in the final thinking.

    Caroline Kennedy, assuming she's up on her knowledge of her father's WH and his relationship with his very complex and hypersensitive VP, could have told O of the importance of not picking someone (unless absolutely necessary) you don't feel entirely comfortable with.  

    O wasn't faced with the necessity of a Hillary pick, and Hillary wouldn't have brought a TX with her anyway.


    That is a strike against Obama (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:13:43 AM EST
    to Clinton supporters.

    I wonder what you think you are accomplishing by continuing to make that argument?


    I say nothing here (none / 0) (#44)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:18:32 AM EST
    about the lack of personal chemistry/VP as wrong role for Hillary that hasn't been said either exactly or essentially in recent months by more prominent Hillary backers -- the public figure types like Paul Begala for instance.

    Personal chemistry is a two-way street.  From either side of the equation, it would have been a most awkward situation.

    And the VP consideration from Hillary's angle, well how many of you here in progblogland are really inside her tent enough to say with authority that it was something she truly, badly wanted?


    So personal chemistry is what you see as (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:26:59 AM EST
    what drives Obama in a working environment? He shouldn't have become a politician if that's true.

    Begala has said that he thinks Hillary enjoys the work in the Senate and would be wasted as VP but he never said they couldn't work together.

    Do you think if it was the other way around that she should have chosen Obama, lack of chemistry and all?


    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:29:22 AM EST
    you do say things that only people who want to do Obama harm would say.

    I have said it a million times, Obama supporters are his worst enemies right now.


    Not a strike against Obama at this point (none / 0) (#91)
    by lambert on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    After so much else? Nah. Most of us -- I'm guessing -- and certainly many of us really have moved on, just not in the direction that's desired by the Obama campaign. (For me, for example, the primary process is a justice issue, and the DNC and the Obama campaign are rotten to the core. This will persist after the election.)

    I don't know how many people ever took the idea that Clinton would be the VP seriously. How could Obama have done that? You can't smear an opponent as being racist, and spread the rumor they want you killed (the Argus RFK smear), and then turn around and pick them as VP; not even Obama.

    So, since I never took the possibility seriously to begin with, it doesn't bother me that it never happened. Now, if Obama had picked Sibelius, or some other woman, that would really have ticked me off.


    Oh, learn history before attempting (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:52:00 AM EST
    to opinionate about it.  Kennedy's pick of Johnson is the classic example of why Kennedy won, as Obama may not, because he apparently does not have a large a mind or as much of a drive to win the hard way, which is the only way the White House is won.

    And Johnson also was the reason that part of Kennedy's agenda got through Congress at all.

    Biden may be good at that part.  But Clinton would have been a better pick to even get Obama in the White House.

    Obama has shown himself ignorant of history in so many ways.  It is not one of his qualities to emulate.


    huh? (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Josey on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:23:47 PM EST
    >>>and Hillary wouldn't have brought a TX with her anyway.

    True - she would have sealed the deal for those "few" 18 million supporters.
    Obama didn't choose Biden on the basis of Delaware's 3 electoral votes.

    Nominees choose VPs for various reasons.
    Kennedy chose Johnson for southern votes - ditto for Kerry-Edwards and Dukakis-Bentsen.
    Outsider Clinton chose Gore for his insider status - ditto for Carter-Mondale.
    I'm not aware of any Dem nominee selecting a VP to compensate for his lack of experience and qualifications - except Obama.


    For a "former die hard Clinton (none / 0) (#34)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:10:08 AM EST
    supporter" you make me feel worse than any Obama supporter. Get real brodie.

    Yep, believe it or not (none / 0) (#48)
    by brodie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:22:02 AM EST
    until the IN and NC primaries, when I still held out hope of a comeback, I was a die-hard HRC backer.  But never a kool-aid drinking Hillbot -- I always acknowledged her shortcomings.

    And supporting her for the nom and being a Clintonista generally does not mean I support her for a job she's already done and for which she is not a good "fit".

    Much prefer she become a "lioness" of the senate, perhaps ML one day if Reid steps aside.


    Put me in the (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:29:57 AM EST
    not believe column.

    Mer, too. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:42:54 AM EST
    No one who writes the things he does about Obama could have ever been a Hillary supporter.

    Too many Obama supporters tried this tactic after the primary ended.  It was obvious what they were trying to do.  Didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.  It's insulting that they think we'd fall for it.


    the reverse imo (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:46:37 AM EST
    No one who writes the things he writes about Clinton would have been a die hard Clinton supporter.

    Oh, yes, certainly. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:55:04 AM EST
    But he's definitely shown himself to be in the tank for Obama.  Way too much cheerleading to have ever been a true Clinton supporter.  

    You betray yourself entirely here (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:53:55 AM EST
    as no real Clinton supporter would use the language you use.  Go back to training on how to clog blogs.

    Don't think so. (none / 0) (#86)
    by chel2551 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:01:57 PM EST
    Much prefer she become a "lioness" of the senate, perhaps ML one day if Reid steps aside.

    Not enough seniority to achieve that position.


    Actual "seniority" is not relevant (none / 0) (#131)
    by sj on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:19:29 PM EST
    For example, Daschle was elected to the Senate in 1986 and became Minority Leader in 1992.  That's two years less than Senator Clinton has served.  

    Majority/Minority Leader is an elected position.  I don't even venture a guess as to the possibility.


    I think the only think that might help right now (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:51:16 AM EST
    is for the two to campaign together some more. At the event in Unity, the look in their eyes didn't seem to be that of two people who hate each other. Yet I keep reading on blogs that they do.

    I'm so tired of reading and hearing that she isn't doing enough. I think she has done ten events and I know that every email I've received says we must elect Obama.

    If they expected her to elect him, they should have picked her to run with him. I also don't think the average voter knows that Bill Nelson stuck with Hillary and his recommendation of her won't make them feel any better. It just points out that someone who got millions of votes didn't rank up there with someone who didn't even register on the radar.

    Actually Teresa, I disagree... (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:08:34 AM EST
    ...with you on this, something I don't usually do. For me what would work is if they would just leave Hillary alone. Let her go home after the convention and take a break from the spotllight. Let the Biden/Obama ticket woo my enthusiastic support on their own. When they keep bringing up Hillary (since as BTD points out they can't see to get it right) it just pisses me off all over again.

    I don't need to see Donna Brazille talking about Hillary supporters one more time nor do I need to see pundits bashing Hillary 24/7. The latter the Obama camp can't do much about but they can certainly try to control the message from their own supporters and surrogates to stop rubbing salt in the wound. We are only human, much though we would like to be "better than that."


    that would be my first choice too. (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:13:13 AM EST
    I'm just thinking about those on TV and elsewhere that say she needs to do more. I don't know how she could do more.

    She really can't do more.... (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:16:26 AM EST
    Now I think its time for the Obama supporters to get over it....their CDS that is.....and focus on the ticket they have instead of constantly harping on Hillary. It's tiresome but I haven't yet reached the point where I can resist rising to her defense. It feels like purgatory, send me to heaven or to tell, but just let me out.

    For a start, stop talking about Clinton supporters (5.00 / 12) (#43)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:17:10 AM EST
    say I.  That is not the defining characteristic, and it's a self-defeating characteristic, because Obama cannot be Clinton, period.  

    We have said again and again that we are not like the Obama followers who will do as he wills.  We voted for Clinton precisely because we are not the sort to do what the Dem leaders or the media told us to do.  

    Do the work, Obama and Dems.  Define us not as a constituency, and thus of a candidate, but as a demographic the way you have to do with every other group you want to win.  Figure out, shockingly, that we may have a range of issues and may not ba one group but several.  So to keep treating us as one group, as we keep saying we are not in discussions of PUMA, for example -- it's just dumb to keep treating us that way.

    Figure out, as Clinton said, what we want -- all that we want.  It's not hard to do.  We keep saying it.  I've heard the range of our issues come up in interview after interview as well as in many blog comments.  But then back it goes to the simplistic minds of media or bloggers who say again, how can Obama reach "Clinton supporters"?!


    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    Especially after not picking her as VP.

    My own personal issue (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by DaleA on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:14:15 PM EST
    is gay and lesbian rights. After McClurkin, Kirbyjohn Caldwell, Rev Meeks etc, I just don't trust Obama on this. Biden I do trust and respect; he has long been a friend of ours. But I am so angry about the primary process, I probably will leave the top of my ballot blank. Why is my vote in true blue California worth less than one tenth of a vote in deep red Wyoming?

    What the campaign could do, that would get my vote and support, is come out strongly against Amendment 8. We have been left to fight these anti-gay marriage amendments on our own without party support in the past. A strong effort from both Obama and Biden would greatly help this squishy PUMA leaner get with the program. And I know that a lot of older gay men are in my boat right now.


    Truman Commission (none / 0) (#94)
    by lambert on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:13:48 PM EST
    That's what she should do. Use the Armed Services position to rip open how the Republicans stole billions from us. Get them all up, and make them all sweat, all the way up to Bush.

    Ha, how about Kerner Commssion! (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:27:15 PM EST
    Let well-coiffed but empty, ahistorical media heads explode.

    True (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:51:51 AM EST
    But he won't do that.

    Won't campaign together? (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:00:02 AM EST
    Would that point out that he needs her too much? It made me feel better when I saw them together. When she is out there alone, it makes me sad and a little mad.

    Maybe they should go on Ellen together and dance?


    Please, no. He's a horrible dancer (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:27:58 PM EST
    and I won't say why.  But that video makes me cringe.

    Do you think (none / 0) (#111)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:31:39 PM EST
    it's more likely that she'll be campaigning with Biden?

    Or that Obama will sideline her altogether?  I'm curious as to how this will work.  Her recent event for him in FL got good local press and bad press with the NYT.  Whatever strategist on O's part is trotting her out has a pretty important job IMO.


    How Obama handled Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 16) (#17)
    by catfish on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:57:39 AM EST
    did more damage than she could clean up.

    Absolutely. (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:59:36 AM EST
    They need to come up with instances and examples where the VP search not only looked "outside the box" of Washington "insiders" to find the best candidate, but "inside the box" as well.  

    Otherwise, the choice of Biden seems out of place considering Obama's comment a while ago about looking for someone who could help fundamentally change "how business is done in Washington" as a running mate.

    He could also backtrack from the fundamental change theme a little bit, and say that things like the ongoing Georgia situation show "a sad reminder" of the importance of having a lot of foreign policy experience on the team, and that Biden provides just that.

    On the Hillary side, perhaps Obama should also think of providing Clinton with a high-profile task that would replace whatever work she'd have done as vice president.  Like maybe leading the development of a priority plan for Health Care reform.  That way she'd truely be "part of the team" without being part of the staff.

    To expect Clinton, her supporters, and the issues they care about to just "go away" but leave their votes in the ballot box just seems naive to me.

    That's the truth. I can't watch (5.00 / 9) (#33)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:08:50 AM EST
    her work and talk for Obama.  She's working hard at it, but we know that it's because she has to do it -- and we now know that she never can do enough to stop the crap from the Obama camp and hangers-on, anyway.

    Obama has a VP pick now.  If the two of them can't do it on their own and need the Clintons, well, it just reminds me of the SNL skit about Obama having to call Clinton from the White House for help, too.  Is she supposed to be Mommy and help him for the next four years as well?

    It seems strange to me that (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:15:16 AM EST
    after Biden's enthusiastic speech yesterday, he isn't scheduled to make any appearances on behalf of the campaign except at the convention.  Unleash all that energy now.  

    Bill Nelson (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by MichaelGale on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:41:03 AM EST
    is either on my _ list or my hero. I have a very borderline reaction to him. As my Senator, he drove me crazy during th voting for the war and the Patriot Act.

    At the RBC meeting he was exceptional, fighting for Florida and Hillary. His passion about the state and splitting the votes was something I haven't really seen much.

    If you notice, he has not received much press for the election where Wexler, who was willing to give the state away, has been plastered all over the place, even suggested for VP. Could be that he is cognizant that Fl most likely will go Republican and he tends to be careful. Or, it could be that he is under the bus right now and they haven't even asked him for anything.

    Saw him up near the front axle (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:59:34 AM EST
    in a place of honor for his fight for Floridians -- and for the principle of the thing, period.

    I entirely agree with the rest of what you wrote.  It was a great moment in a career of some other sorts of moments from Nelson.

    But heck, he fits right in under the bus -- since we're such a diverse group of every sort that has been tossed here, everyone fits right in.

    I begin to think that the Dems have divided into those under the Big Tent and those under the Big Bus.  I'm a BBD!


    Pretty sure he's a busunder. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:48:05 AM EST
    Threatening women (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 04:53:06 PM EST
    with the loss of agency over their own bodies if we don't do as you command is really, really not going to get the result you hope for. Comments like these are just doing McCain's work for him.

    About felines tame and wild... (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Oceandweller on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:16:32 AM EST
    I am plenty aware some Clinton voters feel they have been trashed, but those people disregard completely the feelings of the other side. just like it takes 2 to tango.
    Yes O. did fight to get nominated, bgut HRC is not the holy saint the pumas worship; have a look how the rest of the press i.e. not american press considers H. Yes , O campaign underlined heavy some blows, but HRC did say things every one cringed ta but HRC voters that is.
    OK, Britain has a different agenda, and rightly so. But when a lot of people who, really do not care or play a role in the gale, hear the very same thing, it gets you pondering isnt it.
    Pumas say they were offended and blightly forget all the offenses and they were numerous they served the O voters.
    I know this reading is mightly unpleasant; but care to red past issues of the Independant and TIMES UK and Irish and you will get a broader picture.
    O cant win without Clinton, Clinton would not have won without O backers. And to this very day, that is how the game is going to be played.
    O must win if HRC wants ever to win...later. If there is the faintest hint of HRC and her followers playing dirty tricks in the O final campaign, SHE IS COOKED for any next election.

    Already, we know that her next election at the senate is not a sure thing. AA do have a long memory like any one else, but in case of over enthusiastic feline rage, the kitten will get heavily smacked in 2012.
    Pumas should remember that vengeance is a two edged sword.

    Thanks for sharing. But, did you happen (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:20:44 AM EST
    to read the post?

    Thanks for the reminder (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:22:05 AM EST
    that just canceled out any advantage won by the Biden pick.  I really don't want to be in any group that thinks and acts as you do.

    That commenter (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:09:56 PM EST
    does not sound like a registered voter, or even a citizen. English is definitely a second language.

    I think Obama has the misfortune of having a lot of people outside the country posting these aggravating and insulting comments.


    Hmmm. Could explain the lack (none / 0) (#112)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:34:50 PM EST
    of understanding of the importance of democratic process.  A commenter not coming from a democracy?

    It has been eye-opening to talk to my grown child, a voter several times now, in the key Obama demographic.  Spends a lot of time on discussion boards frequented from around the world.  Talks of board friends who are "all for Obama" -- but are on several other continents.  And not Americans abroad -- few even have ever come here for a visit.

    But I've seen some of their comments, and they all know just what this country needs.  Interesting, too, that so many come from countries with an appalling lack of democracy.  The sort of countries that turn in 85% popular votes for one candidate.


    We lived for two years in (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:44:42 PM EST
    Saudi. The friends we made who were Saudi nationals learned about our culture through our sitcoms being broadcast there. Think "Murphy Brown" and how our sitcoms are often very cruel sarcastic put-downs. We laugh because we wouldn't dare behave that way, but wish we could at times.

    Outsourcing? (none / 0) (#138)
    by DaleA on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 03:20:20 PM EST
    This is really interesting. Maybe India, straight from my computer's makers socalled 'support center'. Sounds just like the ones I go to for assistance.

    sorry dearie (none / 0) (#143)
    by Oceandweller on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:24:24 AM EST
    ancestors foonding fathers of home state,born in the US; registered voter  ...AND Democrat since 76. And English is indeed my first language;
    it says a lot when your sole argument is to disapparage -your opponent by commenting on the tenure of his litterary achievements and not what is the deep core of his ideas.

    I am ready to vote HRC when and if she deserves it. You dont own my vote.Just like I dont own yours. yOU BELIEVE THAT NO ONE CAN OBLIGE you voting for BO, rightly so. But if so how can you think for one second that if you are free to vote against BHO I am not free to send your candidate to the ropes.
    However unpleasant we have no option but be together united if we want our candidates to win at one time or another. Ugly thruce but thruce none the less.


    One last time (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:28:01 AM EST
    Obama is the candidate in November, not Clinton.

    I tell you what Clinton would have done to heal the wounds had she been the nominee - she would have picked Obama as her running mate. Obama did not.



    You miss the point (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:28:42 AM EST
    This is more about taking one state and nulling it and taking another state and giving him 50%(including 15% of her votes) of the votes to create an outcome. It's about the DNC choosing sides and simultaneously trying to get away with political kabuki and calling themselves "neutral". Yes, how Hillary is treated is part and parcel but it isn't the entirety of the problem. It doesn't help that the DNC has little to no credibility since they have spent 2 years virtually being a rubber stamp and throwing joe anerage under the bus. Anger like that isn't going to go away no matter if you find 50 Hillary surrogates to say Obama and Joe Biden are swell guys.

    We've (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:30:31 AM EST
    already seen your side of vengeance.

    Eg., he didn't pick her.  He didn't even vett her.

    I have a long memory too, and I'm not a Democrat anymore after 20 years.


    And he lied about it (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:01:47 PM EST
    I.e., "she would be on anyone's short list."

    This comment (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:31:40 AM EST
    barely makes sense.

    Perhaps you need to learn to edit.


    No (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by daria g on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:14:14 PM EST
    It's democracy.  And there's more to it - the rules of the Democratic Party, for one, the invention of the Michigan primary results and handing 4 Clinton delegates to Obama for no reason, letting Obama take his name off the ballot for strategic reasons and awarding him delegates anyway.  Stalling on Florida and Michigan until it was too late to affect the process. Demanding over and over and over that Clinton quit (starting after Iowa) despite precedent, insisting that The Math was the only factor deciding which was the strongest candidate for the general.  Fellow Democrats and party leaders caring not a thing and saying nothing about the absurd amount of sexism in this campaign, which wasn't just about Hillary - misogyny is unacceptable, period, and shouldn't have been tolerated much less encouraged (and many blogs sure did).  I credit BTD for speaking out against this, he was one of the few.

    Btw I don't really have time or inclination to research a bunch of articles (that you don't bother to cite either) in three different newspapers in order to find out that there is yet more news media that doesn't like the Clintons.


    Absolutely. (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:20:08 PM EST
    Your post is exactly why I'm sitting on the sidelines wondering what to do. When she decided to run, I expected the anti-Clinton press; but I didn't expect the party to toss away the 90's and the Dem brand completely. I expected misogyny and sexism, but it never occurred to me that the party and almost all its leaders wouldn't at least make some effort to fight back. Instead, they chuckled gleefully and rolled around in it.

    And the MI/FL thing was unconscionable. Not only does it negate our arguments about FL00 and OH04, Dean et all threw away the voters in two states, telling them over and over they didn't matter. FTLOG, he made the R's look competent, reasonable, and fair.

    And can't you picture the next contested primary? Democratic candidates will be pulling their names off ballots right and left and expect the party to protect them from the consequences. Badly, badly done.


    Well, at least you aren't paid (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by lambert on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:18:03 PM EST
    Any post that badly written can't possibly have been from a paid troll.

    So I guess you thought all that up on your own!

    CLUE STICK: It's not about feelings. It's about justice.


    I know it hasn't started yet and there are a lot of exciting things that will happen. I will be watching both Clinton speeches as well as the Biden and Obama acceptance speeches. I think once the convention is over and the media/McCain campaign won't be able to rub every Clinton slight by the Obama campaign into our faces... Most of us may be able to get over the bitterness in time to hold our noses at the voting booth and vote for the lesser of two evils.

    However, if Obama/Biden ticket loses... be prepared for civil war in the party. The DNC is taking a gamble here and only time will tell whether it will pay off.

    Even of Obama wins (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:29:21 AM EST
    and I do plan on voting for him, I think there still will be or should be civil war.  Dean and Brazille and Kerry need to be taken down.  As far as I am concern they have thumbed their noses at the democratic process and at long time democrats.  They need to be confronted no matter what.  As long as Dean and Brazille have power I will not donate one more penny to dems.

    I'm sorry, but I do not understand how (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:44:12 AM EST
    you think the worst parts of the party will be taken down in a civil war if they win, and your vote helped them do it.

    This makes no sense to me.

    It's like deciding to let someone abuse and beat up on you until they're satisfied, and then leaving them.

    Your vote is yours, and you can do with it what you will, but don't think that giving it to them will inspire them to change, or get rid of the people who turned the party upside-down.  If they win, they aren't going anywhere, and there will only be more of what made you angry, not less.


    I so look forward to the end of the convention (none / 0) (#99)
    by lambert on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:16:32 PM EST
    Maybe then I can go cold turkey on the f***ing horse race and start doing things that are creative and interesting.  The discourse is just as toxic from Obama as it is from McCain. The only winner is the Village, and THEY are the "real enemy" everyone keeps talking about.

    But what about Jeralyn's Reservations? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    Where is Jeralyn these days?  She had me convinced.  

    Partying. Try to keep up! (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:46:25 AM EST
    Hard to keep up (none / 0) (#128)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:14:31 PM EST
    awaiting your critique of (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:15:56 PM EST
    Biden's comments yesterday about Obama's self-sacrificing community service choice.

    Another thing: Lynn Shenk is on the (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    DNC credentials comm.  She was a one-term Congress woman.  Then at Grey Davis's right hand.  

    Busy with the convention (none / 0) (#81)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:57:15 AM EST
    I don't believe she has decided yet, but she is not saying no to the ticket.  I think it is a matter of enthusiasm as she has stated repeatedly that TL supports the Dem candidate.

    Threats about not suppoting Obama,,, (none / 0) (#92)
    by Check077 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    I believe when people say that Hillary will not be president if Obama is not elected are truly promoting the collapse of the Democratic party.

    Remember if there is any realignment that could happen it would be with Moderate to Liberal Republicans, Libertarians, Conservative Democrats, and Hillary supporters.

    I would not be continuing threats against long-standing party members, for it might lead to something more worse than you could possibly ever envision.

    Er, that "realignment"... (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by lambert on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:22:24 PM EST
    ... is exactly what Obama is promoting. That's why he threw big portions under the bus, blurred party boundaries with the post-partisan schtick and (IMNSHO) will govern from the center right. Obama's job will be to put a smiling face on whatever "Shock Doctrine" policies are coming down the chute. Funny thing, that's going to be McCain's job, too.

    Threats about supporting Obama (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:41:11 PM EST
    are the problem.  And you're part of it.

    Because you're not over it.  Your opponent is McCain now.  Catch up.


    Yeh, parsing is a lot of his problem. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 12:36:40 PM EST
    It can be the difference A Great Orator and A Great Communicator.

    The Great Orator lost, btw.  The Great Communicator won.