Biden represents a radical departure from everything that Obama has been saying for the past 18 months -- and the messaging that the Team Obama has been doing for the last two months (he's abandoneding the positive "yes we can" change theme that dominated in the primaries, and was going for a anti-washington politics change theme.) That kind of radical departure has to be seen as an act of desperation -- that not only was the Obama campaign message not working, Obama was being defined by the McCain campaign as the embodiment of risk associated with hubris and inexperience.

no one in the media was suggesting that Obama would pick Clinton -- while there was a boomlet at the end saying that he should pick her, she was never reported as being a serious contender.

Thus, there were no reason for people to base their answers to the polls on the assumption that Clinton would be chosen.  

but those kinds of things can be addressed with decisions like picking Biden.

What still remains is related to the primary.  He, of course, embraced Clinton hatred to win.  Fine electoral strategy, if that's all it was.  But his actions since then have given some credibility to the notion that it wasn't just an electoral strategy.

That there is something about the Clinton wing of the party that Obama finds unacceptable.

And on that count, I would put a question back to you.

That awful messianic campaign in the primaries.  Don't know if he's doing that now, because I turn the channel on him, just as I do with Bush, but it's not what I want the Democratic Party to have anything to do with.

His Petulance.  Exhibit A, not vetting nor nominating Hillary Clinton for VP.  I wouldn't have voted for the ticket anyway, because I want divided government this time and a different direction for the Democratic Party.  However, I certainly would have felt more confidence that we weren't getting Bushian petulance.

His affiliation with the Chicago Political Machine including Axelrod.

His complete lack of desire to distinguish Democrats from Republicans.  His arguable praise of Reagan.  I want a fighter.  He isn't.

While I could cite any one of the examples of the recent "flip flops" on his policy proposals. as those who are skeptical of him dont like (you can get a list by visiting a ton of threads on those topics in the past couple of months here), that is precisely why I discount candidates regurgitated policy positions (written by their advisors) as a basis for voting for a leader. That could change anytime based on what election and voter the candidate is courting at the moment, as Obama amply demonstrated.

But more importantly Im hoping someone like you can produce solid evidence that:

1. Obama was a strong leader in his previous elected offices on any specific policy, issue or vision (not myriad cosponsorships which every politician worth his salt gets through the usual horsetrading)

2. Demonstrated understanding/advocacy/campaign for a major progressive or other cause at least as long as he has been in public life. But primarily even before that.

3. If you cant find his leadership contribution in elected offices, how about in his HLR role as editor of that publication or his legal services role in the chicago firm where he was working?

1. Grotesque level of misogyny and Clinton hate from Obama supporters

2. False charges of racism against both Clintons, and me, personally, many times.

3. Health care plan that is not truly universal, and running fake Harry & Louise ads

4. Ugly process violations, including the Rules and Bylaws "resolution" of FL/MI that awarded some of Hillary's votes to Obama, and in violation of the RBC's own sunshine provisions

5. Hillary got more votes from Democrats

6. Professor of Constitutional Law Obama voting to gut the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law by giving retroactive immunity to the telcos.

The frustrating thing for me is that Obama had at least four ways to win me over, just by doing things you'd expect of a progressive in the year the Dems should win:

1. He could have stopped the FISA trainwreck at any point, but especially after being the party leader as presumptive nominee.

2. He could have made his health care plan truly universal.

3. He could have revoted FL and MI.

4. He could have reigned in his supporters.

no, he's comparing data from two different points in time from CNN polls, and adding data from a poll that asked a question that was not (apparently) asked by CNN.

This blog deal in realities, not wishes.

You cam to the wrong blog if you want cheerleading.

They are bleeding support from Clinton voters yet they continue to use as spokespeople precisely the folks that those supporters can't tolerate and they continue to have surrogates issue thinly veiled threats.

I think it's been clear for some time that this is exactly how the Obama camp sees the situation.  They're gambling for the whole smash--win on their own terms and they own the party and dramatically transform American politics.  Lose on their own terms, however, and they all but guarantee a civil war within the Democratic party after November.

When the huge influx of Obama posters arrived, they were so obnoxious, the Republicans were joining our side trying to defend the board!  It was hysterical to watch Republican posters post tons of pro-Clinton stories, etc.  Since the majority of the posters were Republican and only a few of us were Democrats and Independents, it really was funny!    

The VA loss was during a part of the primaries when the Clinton campaign was totally reeling.  I don't really understand the dynamics of VA - maybe the Obama campaign is just counting on bringing out the DC suburbs and urban areas (like PA).  Maybe there's no love for the Clintons there and they couldn't help.  But Hillary Clinton could've turned WV, and possibly TN, blue in this election.  So maybe they could work some magic on the neighbor of those states.