CNN Poll: No Biden Bounce

CNN reports:

In a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll out Sunday night, 47 percent of those questioned are backing Obama with an equal amount supporting the Arizona senator.

Of all the non-Hillary choices, Biden is clearly the best one politically. And even he did not help according to this poll. In discussing polling, too many "analysts" misunderstand the importance of favorability findings. They place great stock in the silly "more likely/less likely" questions pollsters seem to love. Here is the bottom line - Hillary Clinton would have delivered millions of votes for Obama, no one else could:

It may be supporters of Hillary Clinton, who still would prefer the Senator from New York as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee. Sixty-six percent of Clinton supporters, registered Democrats who want Clinton as the nominee, are now backing Obama. That’s down from 75 percent in the end of June. Twenty-seven percent of them now say they’ll support McCain, up from 16 percent in late June.

“The number of Clinton Democrats who say they would vote for McCain has gone up 11 points since June, enough to account for most although not all of the support McCain has gained in that time,” says Holland.

. . . A majority of registered voters, 54 percent, think Obama’s choice of Delaware Senator Joe Biden as his running mate is an excellent or good decision. That number jumps to 73 percent when just asked of registered Democrats. But it drops to 59 percent when narrowed to Clinton supporters. “It's not that there's anything wrong with the choice of Joe Biden. . . . "A lot of Americans don't know who he is, but his favorable rating is 13 points higher than his unfavorables But Biden is not Hillary Clinton, and it's possible that is enough to have moved some of her supporters away from the Democratic ticket, at least temporarily."

(Emphasis supplied.) Obama did not optimize his chances for winning in November when he chose not to choose Hillary Clinton. All the whining and complaining about PUMAS is not going to help that.

Update [2008-8-24 21:19:27 by Big Tent Democrat]: While DemfromCt likes this result in the USAToday Gallup poll (Obama leads by 4 among RVs and 3 among LVs (after leading by 3 among RVs and McCain leading by 4 among LVs a month earlier), I see more support for my view that Obama did not make the best political choice for VP, only the best NOT Hillary choice:

Among the not-fully-persuaded: Many of the voters who supported New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries. Just under half, 47%, now say they back Obama and won't change their minds. One in five, 23%, say they're supporting Obama now but may switch. And 30% say they'll vote for McCain, another candidate or no one at all.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< The Late Campaign | Sunday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    yeah, but... (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by Turkana on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:08:26 PM EST
    there is this...

    ROTFLMAO! (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:10:53 PM EST
    C-Span is Just NOW starting a repeat (none / 0) (#105)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:13:30 PM EST
    of a very, very interesting interview with Howard DEAN. He takes questions and it is amazing!!!

    Thanks (none / 0) (#110)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:14:23 PM EST
    I want to watch.

    That was hilarious! (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by GeekLove08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:45:57 PM EST
    Thanks for that.  But I can't help the feeling that I've been watching a train wreck in slow motion:

    In July,
    Obama spent $55 million
    McCain spent $32 million
    Hillary did NOT Campaign.

    8/20/08 NBC/WSJ POLL:

    Obama 45% vs McCain 42%
    (+3 down from +6 in July)

    Clinton 49% vs. McCain 43%
    (+6 without even trying)

    I am still holding out hope that a miracle will happen in Denver.


    Hillary is amazing (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:47:20 PM EST
    I thought that Gore was polling at over 20% at one point last year - without being a candidate!

    That is gravitas.


    I don't think it will (none / 0) (#98)
    by tlkextra on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:10:24 PM EST
    I just got home from taking pictures as I drove through Downtown Denver. There is a definite feeling of excitement that may work towards the whole unity thing. One great photo I wasn't quick enough to get (Denver drivers can be a bit cranky sometimes) before the light changed - a man with a professionally made placard that read "EUROPE FOR PRESIDENT". I got some other interesting photos too that aren't all about an Obama love fest.

    Well, according to Donna B today, (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by zfran on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:48:30 PM EST
    we'll all come out of Denver unified! She must know, she was in on the lies and deceit. From what I'm hearing from the likes of Susan Estrich, and McCain's female campaign manager (can't think of her name), Greta VanSustern and others like these women, their e-mails are being inundated with very unhappy Hillary supporters and how Hillary is still being treated. I don't find any "unity" there!

    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#196)
    by tlkextra on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:55:12 PM EST
    I'm just talking about the people that are Delegates at the Convention

    If the polls don't change... (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:11:45 PM EST
    ...what will the Obama fans in the media do. They will barely be able to contain their disdain for the voters.

    Blame Clinton silly :) (5.00 / 12) (#11)
    by justinboston2008 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:18:14 PM EST
    If we lose, she will be the grinch who wrecked the election come November.

    They are starting to remind me of... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:22:35 PM EST
    ....when they kept expecting (hoping) for a Bush bounce after Katrina. They finally gave up and resigned themselves to what they labeled Clinton's inevitability. How happy they were when Obama finally got some traction after the Iowa caucuses.

    John King is out of his mind (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:23:06 PM EST
    Stuff like this just inflames Hillary's supporters more. CNN is also still running with the releasing the delegates story even though the spokeperson said nothing of the sort. Just that Hillary would encourage her delegates to support Obama.

    Do they think she is going to hold the hand of every delegate and force them to vote Obama? It won't happen. WTF is going on? Why is CNN so freaked about this vote?


    If Biden could bring in votes (5.00 / 13) (#6)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:11:57 PM EST
    He would be the nominee

    Or he would have at least..... (5.00 / 13) (#9)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:16:32 PM EST
    ...been able to stay in the race long enough to have alienated Obama supporters.

    Yeah, no kidding... (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:24:56 PM EST
    And when it becomes apparent that he can't bring Obama the kinds of votes he needs, it will be too late to do anything about it.  Might already be too late.

    I mean, think about it.  It's not like Clinton finished a distant second, back in Edwards territory.  Obama didn't run away with the nomination - he barely made it over the finish line.  It's like passing over the second-fastest runner for the person who didn't even qualify (yes, I am watching closing ceremonies!).

    I could always see Biden as Secretary of State, and it's not that he would make a bad VP, it's just that this choice may guarantee that neither Obama nor Biden will be taking up residence as President and Vice President.

    Oh, well...


    Secretary of State (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:32:08 PM EST
    he'd be a great one imo. His knowledge is pretty vast here. Alas, it doesn't look like he's going to ever be anything other than Sen from Delaware.

    Biden wasn't picked to gain votes.... (5.00 / 16) (#59)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:45:18 PM EST
    ...rather, Biden was picked to stop the hemorhagging of support for Obama.

    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.

    And the problem was so severe that they had to go with someone with strong name recognition who embodies Washington politics in order to try and reassure people that Obama would pay attention to the 'adults'.  


    Abandonment of "Yes We Can" (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:50:14 PM EST
    maybe he stopped believing it himself. This has not been an easy road.

    Biden (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by pixelpusher on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:23:33 PM EST
    was picked because the purse keepers of the big DC insider money demanded it.  Because the small donors have dried up, and the candidate has run out of surprises.

    And, money, (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:26:40 PM EST
    can he bring in donations?

    Yep, Myiq....that 1% of the votes barely (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:30:18 PM EST
    made Biden a blip on the radar.

    That could be said about every candidate (1.00 / 0) (#75)
    by DemForever on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:54:36 PM EST
    other than Obama

    If Biden could bring in votes He would be the nominee


    Except for Hillary. (5.00 / 5) (#151)
    by Lysis on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:30:54 PM EST
    She brought in more votes and is not the nominee.  Sigh.

    Surprise surprise... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by justinboston2008 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:15:11 PM EST
    He generated so much excitement during the primaries. Who would have thought?

    That said I agree with BTD. Best candidate Obama could have picked using the No Clinton, No Clark rules.

    So unless there's a big bounce (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by misspeach2008 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:18:16 PM EST
    from the convention, Obama has three debates and some campaign appearances to convince the people that they should make him Commander-in-Chief? If he's hoping that McCain makes a huge mistake, Obama needs to know that wouldn't get him the PUMA vote. We already know that McCain is not the "one we've been waiting for". So the mistake would have to be something that would turn McCain's Republican base off enough to vote for Obama, or at least stay home in large numbers. And it's got how many days to happen? Someone's going to write a screenplay about this election and make a fortune. The question is will it be a comedy or a tragedy?

    I plump for farce. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Landulph on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:44:31 PM EST

    Speaking of Convention (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:52:51 PM EST
    C-Span is showing a repeat of the 4 co-chairs for the convention and how things are happening there:  Questions from the crowd about Hillary's treatment, the chainlink fence area for demonstrations, etc.

    It's so much more informative than anything on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc.


    67 days tick tock tick tock (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:11:51 PM EST
    TL should put a countdown on the top of the day...

    Man it sucks to be wrong (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:33:28 PM EST
    Monday is 71 days....... whew, and I thought the campaign was running out of time.

    Madonna comes to mind (none / 0) (#127)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:22:28 PM EST
    "time goes by so slowly for those who wait.."

    I like ur sign on.  Im my Environmental Science class in school, my professor made us read Walden to give us a perspective on an appreciation for the environment.  First time I went to MA I went straight away to WP. Lived up to my expectations.  


    Senator Biden (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:20:23 PM EST
    That's the choice.  I say we move on with it and leave all the post-mortems on Clinton alone.  She's done what she can, she will make her speech at the convention and she can return to her work in the Senate.

    This is Senator Obama's race to win or lose.  After this week, full steam ahead.  I hope that there will be no more talk of Clinton this or Clinton that.  I hope she's not polled or surveyed or whatever. That train has left the station thanks to Obama and the DNC.  

    Biden for President/Barack America 2008
    (their words not mine)

    Very true. (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:44:31 PM EST
    They've done all they can do. And I'm glad for her. She should get a much needed vacation and work on serving her constituents in NY. Bill can continue to work for his foundations. They should just completely stay out of this presidential race. That way when Obama likely loses in Nov. they can say it was on Obama.

    she's working on the HHS travesty (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:19:51 PM EST
    as we speak. I'd much rather she concentrate on that then on pulling Ol' Paint over the finish line.

    What CNN is missing.... (5.00 / 24) (#19)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:23:10 PM EST
    ...is that Obama lost support that he once had from Clinton supporters.   In other words, these are people who said "party unity sure thing!" and over the last 2 and a half months decided not to vote for Obama.

    And no one seems to be asking the question "Why?"

    Its not because 'hillary isn't doing enough'.  And no point has Hillary Clinton communicated anything by complete support for Obama.  

    I'd like to suggest that these are Clinton supporters who were committed to voting for the Democratic nominee regardless of who it was, and who had paid little attention to Obama during the primary season.  Now that he's the Democratic candidate, they are paying attention to what it is they are supporting -- and they don't like what they see.

    These aren't voters that Clinton failed to convince -- they are voters that Obama had, and lost.  This seems quite significant to me....

    I think that while (5.00 / 18) (#28)
    by misspeach2008 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:27:54 PM EST
    Obama and his crew have been rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, the passengers have been quietly slipping away in the lifeboats.

    nice metaphor! (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:46:35 PM EST

    The problem is that obama NEVER takes (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:28:17 PM EST
    responsibility for his own words or actions.  IMO at some level he believes he has done no wrong...

    The only logical explanation given was (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:31:36 PM EST
    Those who just jumped ship were going to vote for Obama if he picked Hillary for VP.

    there is no indication.... (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:52:52 PM EST
    that anyone just jumped ship.   At least not in the data provided by CNN.

    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.  

    However, there is considerable data from various polls (including the one that btd cited) that a significant percentage of voters would have "changed their minds" had Hillary been picked.


    You got it wrong (5.00 / 12) (#139)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:26:40 PM EST
    We won't be voting for Obama in November because we got to know him in November.  We could not not pay attention to Obama's camp demanding that Hillary quit after IA, then after Feb 5 primaries and on and on.  We knew what happened when Obama played the race card in SC and afterwards, like NC and MD. We knew what happened when he wiped his shoulder and his immature attitude towards another candidate.  We knew what happened when he said to Hillary "You're likable enough".  It's not about Hillary, but what I saw is a man who is not ready to be president.  I saw a man I don't want to be president.  That's on top of the fact that Obama is a very unaccomplished state legislator.  So put together a not so likable person with an unaccomplished politician and you get voters running away from him. Hillary supporters know Obama better than other voters.

    Obama (1.00 / 1) (#188)
    by JThomas on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:49:57 PM EST
    never said Hillary should leave the race. Not once. The media did. He  does not control the media. But even the media never suggested she should quit after Iowa,before New Hampshire. The Obama/Clinton race was their golden goose, producing big profits.
    Certain media members started talking about her leaving after obama won the 12 straight contests after supertuesday.

    His surrogates (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:53:01 PM EST
    sure did.

    Ex: (5.00 / 6) (#197)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:55:18 PM EST
    He didn't have to say it.... (4.90 / 10) (#201)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:00:31 PM EST
    ...his actions spoke volumes -- refusing additional debates, refusing to campaign in WV and KY, talking about how bored he was....

    that kind of arrogance didn't merely alienate Clinton supporters, it created new ones because it wasn't just about contempt for Clinton, but contempt for the voters themselves.  

    I think that the fact that Obama's actions in the last two months of the campaign had a profound impact on people --- and that Obama alienated a lot of people who planned on "voting for the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is"


    Explain (none / 0) (#30)
    by Rashomon66 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:28:06 PM EST
    What is it the voters who are skeptical of Obama don't like? Do you have an example?

    N.G.B. (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:30:15 PM EST
    Not. Gonna. Bite.

    FISA (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:31:16 PM EST
    capitulation...kinduva big one to progressives.

    Voting to cover up Bush's illegal activities (5.00 / 9) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:34:25 PM EST
    and eliminating 4th Amendment rights is a very good example IMO.

    Anyway you chose to parse it, Obama did a 180 on FISA from his position and his campaign promise during the primary.


    I don't have that much time (5.00 / 15) (#47)
    by dissenter on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:38:00 PM EST
    But all of my reasons can be traced to: character, arrogance, inexperience and truthfulness.

    In other words, Barrack Obama looks just like George Bush


    His lack of (5.00 / 12) (#49)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:38:14 PM EST

    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.

    What do you think his problem would be with the Clinton wing of the party?


    Me? (5.00 / 14) (#119)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:18:58 PM EST
    Harry and Louise (his poisoning of the healthcare well)

    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.

    I'd go on, but I think it's time for my workout.


    how much time do you want one to waste on this? (5.00 / 6) (#144)
    by Ford Prefect on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:28:23 PM EST
    Before I make a short list here, Im one of those trying to find some reason to vote FOR OBAMA as opposed to AGAINST McCAIN consistent with Obama's "positive, hopey changey" world view of not tearing down the opponent but building his own case to change the world. But todate Havent found one reason why I should vote for this man to elect him the leader of this country and a major world leader and a visionary who has the vision to put this country on the right track in the next 4-8 years and lay the foundation for many years after that.

    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?

    That would at least be a start in justifying his claim to American and world leadership.

    Example: Team Obama even having to ask this (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Ellie on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:35:10 PM EST
    ... kind of question at this stage of the campaign is obviously one thing. It's baffling that supporters or detractors wouldn't know this stuff cold by now.

    Deploying sincerity-turfers to continue the empty, self-help hooey offered in lieu of substantial leadership, straightforward positions and solutions, and courageous, direct talk from the candidate himself is, of course, another thing.


    I can't speak for all voters (5.00 / 13) (#189)
    by lambert on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:50:19 PM EST
    But for me:

    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

    And for me, the final nail in the coffin

    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.

    I see a weak candidate of doubtful legitimacy who's going to govern from the center right, abandoning the traditional Democratic base -- who actually need to make government work. And the cult of "leadership" in the Obama "movement" absolutely gives me the creeps.



    Yeah but (none / 0) (#77)
    by Rashomon66 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:57:52 PM EST
    Most Obama supporters don't like Clinton. Do you think if she were the nominee she would have Obama supporters in her pocket?

    Frankly, I see nothing wrong with Obama's personality. Some of his supporters are arrogant, yes, but personally I don't see it in him.
    Not sure what people mean when they say he is another Bush. Politically that is incorrect. If it because he will win the election despite a weakness, well maybe.
    And about his capitulation from the leftist perspective I really don't see leftists voting for McCain or Nader or Barr or whomever. I think Daily Kos and Moveon is good evidence of this. You can't be much further left than these guys and they love Obama. If anything Obama has to win the moderates. They are the ones leaning toward McCain and he needs to get them.


    We'll never know (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:07:33 PM EST
    if Clinton could have carried Obama supporters since she isn't the nominee being shoved down our throats.

    That is silly (5.00 / 7) (#99)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:10:27 PM EST
    KOS is not far left.
    He's a former Reagan loving republican and became a Deaniac.  He may have some leftist views but he is willing and able to ignore democracy to get what he thinks is good for him.  He has talked down to Clinton supporters...he's a tool of Dean...a paid one.

    Moveon......is an anti war group.  That's the extent of their leftist leanings.  If you think kos and moveon represents the far left, you are in a dream world.


    Hillary would have (5.00 / 7) (#117)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:18:06 PM EST
    1. Absolutely asked Obama to be her VP, even if she didn't think he was the best choice. She said so in February.

    2. Continued to campaign on the issues, health care, ending the war, fixing the economy and taking our government back from the neocons, instead of falling for McCain's "Let's talk about character and smear each other! :D" red herrings.

    3. ASKED for the Obama supporters votes by campaigning in places where she wasn't a sure win, as she did throughout the primaries. She made sure not to attack him personally, just on qualifications and experiences, so she would have had less to walk back than he does.

    Just saying she would have tried to convince them to her side, not demanded it as a right. The CDS people would never have listened, but I think most Obama supporters would have given her a chance.

    Thoughts on this (2.00 / 0) (#154)
    by Rashomon66 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:32:02 PM EST
    I don't see Obama demanding the Clinton supporters vote for him. Where do you see that?

    Anyway, I think there are conflicting views on who represents the Left. From my liberal left position Obama is to the left of Hillary. Therefore Obama needs to win the moderates/centrists. So in some ways his FISA vote, his religious leanings and all the things that bother the left don't bother them as much as his more leftist views bother the moderates. Kos and Moveon not left? I have to disagree. Tell Bill O'Reilly. He paints them so far left as to be Marxists.

    I also think it is pure speculation that Hillary would have chosen Obama. We just don't know.

    Anyway, I have been all over the blogosphere and I can tell you the hatred is spewed by Obama and Hillary supporters toward each other with equal fervor. It's disheartening. Would be nice if the convention heals some of that.


    If you take what Bill O'Reilly spews (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:40:14 PM EST
    as gospel then I feel for you. Moveon and Dailykos are diverse sites with diverse opinions I wouldn't call them far left or liberal. Sure they exist to elect Democrats but that can mean anything, not necessarily liberal.

    Who is left? (none / 0) (#190)
    by Rashomon66 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:52:05 PM EST
    For the record I dislike Bill O'Reilly [although he often more fair than Olbermann].
    My point is who is further left. Or who represents the [true] left out there? Is there a true left? I'm not arguing here. Just curious. Seems to me if an organization helps promote and elect Democrats then that organization at least has to be considered part of the left. Yes?

    They should be considered part of the (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:03:31 PM EST
    left but it doesn't make them far left or even liberal. Who speaks for the liberals? Nowadays, no one. The party leadership is too busy trying to out GOP the GOP. That's why they rubberstamped FISA and keep throwing money into the Iraq war pit. The party leadership gets the vapors when you call Democrats liberal(apparently its an awful terrible very bad word).

    Wrong tab? (5.00 / 6) (#185)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:48:55 PM EST
    ...I didn't say anything about Kos or MoveOn. And not supporting universal health care coverage, using Republican frames about Social Security, praising Reagan and Bush41 while denigrating the Clinton economy and FP, and talking about Dems doing too much regulating doesn't sound very left to me.

    As to the demand, have you listened to Obama campaign's surrogates? "They'll come around." "Where else are they going to go?" "They won't sit out the election because of the Supreme Court." "The women will come home to the Democrats." And of course the famous IACF.

    Senator Obama himself has said... nothing. Nothing to ask for our votes and very little to speak to the issues Senator Clinton helpfully outlined for him on June 7th. This is why we voted for her; this is the president we want. He could have picked up a ton of Clinton supporter votes by talking like a Democrat, like a president who cares about all the people, and who will work for the common good.


    absolutely.... (5.00 / 21) (#136)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:24:57 PM EST
    Most Obama supporters don't like Clinton. Do you think if she were the nominee she would have Obama supporters in her pocket?

    1. Clinton has supporters, Obama has followers.  If Obama had conceded to Clinton, and done as much for her as she has for him, all the followers would have, ...um... followed.

    2. Clinton would have been extremely agressive in courting Obama's followers -- she would never have acted as if Obama's supporters "had no choice", instead, she would have been out (re)building bridges to Obama's constituencies.

    3. Clinton would have asked Obama to serve as VP, and done so very early.

    Obama's (5.00 / 8) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:25:19 PM EST
    supporters were always the least likely to swing their vote. I don't think that Clinton would automatically get Obama's voters but she would be working her butt off to try to get them. She voted against FISA which Obama couldn't even deem possible.

    Obama is another Bush personality wise. As far as issues go, who knows where Obama stands? So far, he's shown an absolutlely fantastic knack to compromise anything and everything away. Obama goes to the table begging "please like me" instead of coming from a position of strength.

    His voting record in IL Senate will drive "moderates" away by the droves imo.


    The polls say otherwise (none / 0) (#141)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:27:27 PM EST
    As a "leftist" who saw not much left (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:38:42 PM EST
    in either of the two top contenders - I am getting mighty tired of both of them.

    Leave it to the Democratic Party to have the wind completely at their back and immediately do a 180 go right back into the wind and - to add insult to injury - pee into it too.

    I am begining to wish that neither Clinton nor Obama ran in this election and that we were limping along with Dennis Kucinich travelling around the country on a bicycle with his mini podium talking about the Department of Peace.  As annoying, horrifying and embarassing as that would be, at this point I don't think it could actually be worse than what I am seeing in this Obama Clinton rivalry.  It amounts to the same thing - a Democratic Loss.

    Oh and people who support the idea of maintaining the integrity of the Constitution of the United States may be "leftists" in your mind - to me they are Americans.  My ancestors didn't fight in the Revolutionary War for a bunch of idiots intent on wholesale destruction of the democracy they fought to establish.


    BTD (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:27:37 PM EST
    I think there were lots of candidates out there could have brought excitement besides Hillary but most of them turned down the VP offer cold like Webb and Warner.

    I guess you could say that Biden is the least worst of the three names out there. I'm not so sure anymore. Maybe Bayh would have been better? I'm thinking that even with him on the ticket Obama wouldn't win IN though. Kaine would have been nothing short of a disaster.

    I'm waiting for the endless loop of McCain ads where Biden talks about how Obama isn't qualified. It seems that Biden thinks John McCain would be a better President than Obama.

    More and more, Biden is looking like a desperation pick. Perhaps that "new" coalition isn't looking so great anymore.

    I think (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:05:04 PM EST
    he decided that he isn't going to carry VA anyway so Kaine wasn't worth the risk. Besides, Obama is having problems with keeping blue states so Kaine may have actually hurt more than he helped. Same with Bayh.

    Like Paul says above, Biden was a desperation pick to staunch the bleeding.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by tlkextra on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:23:02 PM EST
    All the people I recognized at our Colorado caucus were and still are for Hillary, but because it was run questionably, I doubt our votes even were counted. Despite being told there would be a record online the next day - it never happened. One of my neighbors (78yrs) who I was next to at the caucus says her father (104), a life long Dem will be voting for McCain. So don't be too sure, I personally don't think Obama will win Colorado. It has always gone Red, all but once(Clinton), in the last 40 years.

    I do. (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:35:25 PM EST
    I think that Obama's poll numbers show him losing in Nov. They saw that the "hopey changey" thingy was really turning people off.

    Who else could run with Obama and not have their political career ruined? Chet Edwards could lose his seat. Bayh would have a lot of explainin' to do back in IN. Kaine would probably not want to explain to virginians that he abandoned them for a losing ticket. It would hurt a resurgent Dem party in VA.


    I predict that Biden will make several gaffes (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Saul on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:28:03 PM EST
    before the election.  I think it will neck and neck from here on out.  

    "Several" is a ... (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:36:33 PM EST
    charitable prediction.

    I think "tons" is more like it.


    Obama, Pelosi & Dean (5.00 / 15) (#32)
    by facta non verba on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:28:38 PM EST
    have all said:

    They'll come around

    Notice the onus. The onus is on them, the Clinton supporters, not on Obama and the Democratic leadership. Well that's their problem neither Obama nor the Democratic leadership want to do the heavy lifting required to bring the me or the other third of Clinton supporters not into Obama.

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by chrisvee on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:12:00 PM EST
    they appear to be coming around and then passing by. Someone should alert Nancy and Howard.

    They can't (5.00 / 7) (#106)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:13:30 PM EST
    because everyone will then see the emperor has no clothes. The Dem leadership is in a heck of a crux because to fix the problem with 1/3 the electorate they'd have to admit they rigged this cycle and then do everything they could to repair the damage they did by doing so. They aren't going to do that so we're gonna lose. I blame the DNC leadership far more than I blame Obama for this because the writing was on the wall when Hillary Clinton won the bulk of the final primaries and they coronated Obama anyway(rather than have a floor fight.)

    You clearly never saw (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:32:41 PM EST
    the polling on the question, where the evidence is conclusive, Clinton added 3-5 points to Obama.

    But have it your way. Ignorance is bliss.

    As I said (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:54:30 PM EST
    you are unfamiliar with the data and I will not waste my time educating you on it.

    Here's a hint, it was covered on this blog by me extensively during June and July.


    uh no, that's not what he's doing... (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:30:17 PM EST
    You are mixing old date with today's data. You didn't say that!
    That's basically worthless as things have changed.

    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.

    its perfectly valid -- and certainly not 'worthless'


    Yes, she gave him props... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Leisa on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:43:29 PM EST
    you must realize that while Clinton could boost Obama, other VP's are considered shady, as in Biden = Cheney.

    As I posted on another thread, after (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:33:14 PM EST
    the biden announcement, we seem to be in deflated balloon territory....no excitement, no bounce, almost like noone truly cares imo.

    Well, I think that is partially the (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:53:12 PM EST
    consequence of dragging the announcement out for so long, teasing the voters and the media to the brink, and then...pffffft.  Biden.  Thud.

    Like waking up on Christmas morning after dreaming of a new bike, or ice skates, and rushing to the Christmas tree and finding...tube socks and stationery...

    After all that build-up: Biden, who is a poster boy for every single thing Obama claimed to be running against, or to change.

    Biden, who - if Obama is elected - will likely be a one-term VP, which blunts his effectiveness, in my opinion.



    Most Americans... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:20:06 PM EST
    ...are not political junkies like us.  They are only vaguely aware (if aware at all) of how botched this whole thing was.  I mean, someone told the cable networks that the announcement was expected soon... and the cable networks kept telling us for hours on end that it could be "any minute"....but it never came.  But the breathless anticipation of the cable news networks was not something that most Americans were paying close attention to.

    Why no Obama/Biden excitement? (3.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Roosevelt Fan on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:54:12 PM EST
    It could be that people are in such economic hurt right now that no political news makes a lot of difference. Also, the Olympics just ended, so there's that.

    Maybe we should all step back, take a breath and stop relying on polls to govern our feelings. I've paid attention to elections and conventions since JFK's. So much of what is said is hogwash. The media has always loved to bang heads with every little piece of this 'n that, so today with the Internet, we shouldn't be surprised how it's been ramped up a zillion-fold.

    Also, I heard somebody say in a call-in show that the important thing is to just fight like hell and not worry about anything except getting in that White House. I agree. We can't stand more of the neo-con "plan," which is what's in store if the R's win. The rest of the world is abolutely on the edge of their seats because they're hoping against all hope that America is coming to its senses after all these years of insanity. If it had been Hillary, the job for us would have been the same. NO MORE ROVE PEOPLE. NO MORE COLD WAR MENTALITY. NO MORE CORPORATIONS = EVERYTHING, PEOPLE = ZERO.

    If anybody doubts that we need to forget POLLS and just get on with it, please watch the You Tube video of John McCain called "Dazed and Confused." This will only point out how urgent it is that we put grudges aside, prefs aside, hurts aside and DO IT. Let the poll people live in their own world of chaos. We need to be supremely calm in the eye of this storm.


    To me (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:56:38 PM EST
    you suggest covering the sun with our hand.

    This blog deal in realities, not wishes.

    You cam to the wrong blog if you want cheerleading.

    I link to some poll "analysis" in this post that you may prefer.


    Covering the sun line (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:01:20 PM EST

    Politics is a contact sport.  You can "hope" all you want.  I prefer reality as well.  No surprises.


    Sun ... covering??? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Roosevelt Fan on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:07:45 PM EST
    No such thing. Forgive me if I'm simply beside myself wanting to see a new start for us all. My choice was Hillary. I can't have it. But that doesn't prevent me from trying to keep focused on the desired end result. What got me stirred up was/is the constant polling, not that you covered it. It wasn't a critique. Your writing has been very fine as I've been reading it for awhile now.

    While I do feel slightly insulted with the comment about coming to the wrong blog if I want cheerleading, I'll get over it. I just wish that you could have answered me less gruffly. I came to this blog open to ideas other than my own. And, I like to have reasoned dialogue about my thoughts, no matter how opposite they might be to someone else's.

    Perhaps we can start again... get off on better footing?  


    Let's try again (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:12:38 PM EST
    Your comment, which states "that doesn't prevent me from trying to keep focused on the desired end result," implies I am not.

    That is insulting and you tossed it out there without a thought in the world.

    Excuse me, you GET respect when you GIVE it.

    Do you want try again?


    Try again? (none / 0) (#142)
    by Roosevelt Fan on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:27:59 PM EST
    You wrote: "Your comment, which states 'that doesn't prevent me from trying to keep focused on the desired end result,' implies I am not.
    That is insulting and you tossed it out there without a thought in the world.

    "Excuse me, you GET respect when you GIVE it.

    "Do you want try again?"


    I thought I gave you respect in commenting on your writing. Also, I said my piece "without a thought in the world" because it wasn't meant to apply directly to you but to ME. I'm the one who is trying for ME to keep spirits up and keep focused. Also, yes, I was saying getting beyond polls was important generally. Opinion. Only. I suppose I waxed not eloquently because I'm really... human. And no, by saying this I'm not inferring you are not human.

    Look, I don't know what you'd like me to say to show you I respect you. I don't know you. I've read your words and learned and disagreed and been made to think by them. I hope that's enough.

    Sometimes it's almost too easy to see slights -- especially online -- when there really are none. This is one of those times. I'm just sorry I got "off point" trying to explain myself. I know what I mean. Why is it that others don't? (meant as a joke).


    If (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:37:51 PM EST
    If he had to make a "not Hillary" choice, did he have to pick someone who voted for the Iraq war?

    After all Obama's assertions of superior judgement with respect to Hillary Clinton with respect to the war in Iraq, he picks a guy who was head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations - whose job it was to see through the b.s.

    Not only did Biden go along with everything slung his way, he went around promoting the war. His only stated reservation was that he thought the American people had not been "prepared" for a prolonged occupation of Iraq. He didn't see anything wrong with a prolonged occupation, just that we weren't "prepared" for it. What are we - children?

    I will also admit that Biden's behavior during the hearings on the confirmation of Clarence Thomas turned my stomach.

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:46:18 PM EST
    a desperation pick. Nothing more nothing less. It wasn't thought through well enough obviously from all the points you are bringing up.

    My 10th grade history teacher (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:40:42 PM EST
    comes to mind.  Bush41 made him not vote for Reagan back in 1980/1984.  He told us that if a man that had all these principles that Bush41 had in 1980, then chose to run with Reagan, compromised himself to be VP, thus negating his vote for Reagan/Bush.

    As a 16 year old that resonated with me a bit.  But then we could argue "party unity".  I think that line of thinking may, possibly, contributed to the "wimp" factor with Bush41.

    I was responding (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:30:01 PM EST
    direclty to your own comment about a VP choice not making a difference to voters.  I was giving you an example of a Vietnam vet turned (IMO) the greatest history teacher I ever had, that the VP choice did make a difference.

    Wow, so rebuttals to your own points have to be made?  I agree with BTD about ignorance and all that jazz...


    McCain's not going to get a bounce either.... (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:40:46 PM EST
    ...because he's got the very big problem of having to share the stage with Bush and Cheney, and how do you defend that. Otherwise it would be a bigger problem for Obama.

    oh the repubs will give them a (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:01:08 PM EST
    stage for a short period but they'll clear the room fast. the repubs are ruthless and take action when needed.

    A problem (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by daria g on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:01:26 PM EST
    I think Bush has helped McCain a lot by more or less disappearing for.. wow, how long has it been?  Months.  I expect he'll go up there and give a speech that says the surge has worked, that McCain was a leader on that, and then calls McCain a maverick about 50 times (barf).  

    Don't count on that (none / 0) (#159)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:34:20 PM EST
    After all there is a 30% approval rating for Bush right now.  And those 30% will rally for McCain if Bush43 asks them to.  Remember, there are two competing cults of personality right now, and one of them has a leader that is a sitting president.

    That 30%, to them, Bush can do NO wrong.  And that group WILL tow the line for the GOP if asked by Bush43.


    JOV 10 comments per day (none / 0) (#169)
    by waldenpond on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:39:12 PM EST
    Just a reminder... new commenters (less that 30 days) are limited to 10 comments per day.  I think you are at 17.  If you haven't had a chance, check out the comment rules.  Thanks.

    All right (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:46:36 PM EST
    Delete this if you'd like.  I'll come back tomorrow.  Cheers to all.

    Kennedy? (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:44:02 PM EST
    Kennedy reluctantly but sagely chose Johnson as his running mate.
    Johnson put Texas in the dem. column.

    If not for Johnson as the v.p. candidate, we would have had the pleasure of Nixon's company eight years earlier.

    See where they are in two weeks (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:48:15 PM EST
    I don't think the Obama camp expected any kind of bounce over the VP pick. (They had to expect a Clinton supporter backlash). That's why they timed it so close to convention. They're figuring the convention bounce will offset the Biden thud.

    See where they were (5.00 / 8) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:06:33 PM EST
    a month ago.

    Obama has decided he rather not have Clinton as his running mate than lock up this election.

    It was absolutely inexcusable of him and his team.

    Too much is at stake in this election for such pettiness.


    Honestly doesn't make much sense (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:13:57 PM EST
    His MO is to cave on everything else.

    BTD (5.00 / 6) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:16:25 PM EST
    people keep saying that "too much is at stake" in this election. Well, frankly, the party leaders don't seem to think there's a lot at stake and neither does Obama or his campaign. That's a really hard sell when the Presidential candidate and the party leaders act like they have been.

    Why petty? (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Rashomon66 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:16:04 PM EST
    I'm curious why you think Obama and his team were being petty for not choosing Clinton? I know you have said it a lot but do we know for certain that they didn't choose her out of pettiness? I think a lot of people felt she would not have been right for the ticket for many reasons, which may have included the fact that she didn't want it. Also may have been due to the Bill Clinton factor, which they could have been uneasy about.
    What I'm saying is I'm willing to give the Obama team the benefit of the doubt on why they chose Biden as opposed to not choosing Clinton until evidence shows me she wanted the VP spot really badly and they said no way we would rather lose than have you. But the Clintons are getting good Convention spots, which they deserve - but Obama could have given them a less prominent roll.

    For crissakes (5.00 / 6) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:27:01 PM EST
    Is there anyone with brains in the operation?

    Of course it was petty. IF you want to convince yourself, as the Obama camp did, that Clinton was not the best choice politically - i.e giving you the best chance to win, then be my guest. I know that is the M.O. at the Obama blogs, but that sh*t won't fly with me.

    I have had it with this pretend BS. With the favorables/more likely/Indies nonsense.

    The evidence is clear. If you want to deny it, that is on you. I won't play that game.


    Evidence (none / 0) (#177)
    by Rashomon66 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:44:38 PM EST
    Big Tent
    I don't want to deny anything or play a game. I'm not here to fight. I spend more time here than at Kos or anywhere except Washington Monthly. I'll take the 'no brains' quip in stride.

    I would have absolutely loved for Hillary to be on the ticket. I think the election could have been a lock with those two together. But I'm simply taking a reasoned approach as to why he didn't choose her. I am not convinced based on what I have read, heard, and been told [I don't live in an Obama vacuum] that not choosing her was 'petty' or 'hard headed'. I think that is your opinion, which is fine.
    I do know that the campaigns has bad blood toward each other - but so what?
    I agree she would have been the best choice. No doubt. But did she want the second spot? Some have told me that he Bill factor played a roll.
    Anyway, I do agree many Obama supporters hate the Clintons. I'll give you that.


    Evidence of what? (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:49:28 PM EST
    The evidence was clear that Hillary helped the most. That NOT picking HURTS!

    And they did not pick her.

    So either they are idiots or they are petty.

    Pick your poison.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#195)
    by Rashomon66 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:54:49 PM EST
    I'll go with idiots.

    the fact (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:42:54 PM EST

    what we know is that if she said she wanted it that would have been tampering with the situation.

    so she did the right thing even knowing there will be bad people out there who will turn the fact that she never said "I want to be VP" into proof that she didn't want to be VP.

    we will simply never know one way or the other.


    The Bill factor (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:44:27 PM EST
    Obama should wish he had the Bill factor going for him. Polls still show he is a very popular Dem. I sure would want him on my team if I was running. As far as his interference, I've never heard anyone say he's interfered with Hilary in the Senate. I think Hilary can take care of Bill just fine.

    Media Darling vs Media Darling (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:48:53 PM EST
    Check this effusive little nugget:


    Humble pie?  Hmmm...

    the ones leaving the party won't (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:50:03 PM EST
    be back with the current leadership acting the way they are. this is much deeper than obama. he will either win or be gone in a few months. it is the attitude of the dem leadership that is the issue.

    Not like McCain is a traditional republican (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by alexFL on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:04:10 PM EST
    All of this can't be helped by the fact that the republican nominee is John McCain -- the person Kerry wanted as his V.P. 4 years ago.

    It's not like Hillary supporters are talking about supporting Huckabee. McCain is at least somewhat center.

    Biden himself isn't a bad choice for someone other than Obama, he just negates all the narrative that Obama's camp has worked hard to create. Republicans didn't have much ammunition on Obama by himself. Now they have plenty, and its going to all be in Biden's own words.

    Oh (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:13:36 PM EST
    they have tons of ammunition on Obama. His state senate voting record, his associates in Chicago etc. Just because they haven't let it all out doesn't mean it doesnt' exist.

    I guess you haven't seen the Ayers/Rezko ads that are already running have you?


    McCain not Moderate (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Rashomon66 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:01:48 PM EST
    I think once upon a time McCain was more moderate. But he sure is playing the hard-right card now. Do you want to take a chance that maybe he is just bluffing and might be a moderate after all? I'm not buying it - despite what Kerry may have thought.
    I think a lot of Democrats tell themselves they can survive more Bush-like years. Can we? I'd rather not let the Executive branch stay Conservative.

    McCain (none / 0) (#174)
    by JThomas on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:43:36 PM EST
    proudly proclaimed last saturday that he will be
    ''the pro-life president''.

    That is not moderate. That is Huckabee style hard right.

    McCain wants to give 22 trillion in tax cuts to corporations.
    That is not moderate, that is corporatism beyond anything that Bush ever envisioned.
    McCain wanted to invade Iraq in 1998..before any 9/11 justifications. He wants to bomb iran.
    That is not moderate.


    Clyburn is doing his part for unity: (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Firewalker on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:09:10 PM EST
    Hill Leaders Press Clintons for More Obama Enthusiasm
    By Edward Epstein, CQ Staff

    Democratic congressional leaders said Sunday they would settle for nothing less than enthusiastic, unambiguous rhetoric from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former President Bill Clinton encouraging their supporters to rally to Barack Obama 's presidential candidacy and quell talk of party disunity.


    Top Democrats say it's unthinkable that the Clintons won't appear to fully on board behind the ticket during this week's convention and into the fall. But they are offering thinly veiled warnings about fealty nonetheless. The House majority whip, James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, said that in their speeches the Clintons have to "really demonstrate to this party and the American people where they are with Obama's candidacy.''

    Clyburn conceded the danger the convention could become publicly fractured during the nominating speeches and roll call, which could remind the American people how close and at times divisive the nomination fight was.

    Don't EVEN get me started (5.00 / 11) (#108)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:13:39 PM EST
    Clyburn has ZERO credibility to be asking the Clintons for ANYTHING at this point.  Even WJC said they "were no longer friends and he was never a Hillary supporter."

    Right now I would NOT trying to box in the Clintons.  They have A LOT of support out there and deep pocket donors who I bet have just had it with Obama and all the "we're gonna riot in the streets" if we don't get our way.  Insane.


    Link: (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Firewalker on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:14:26 PM EST
    Seriously, someone should also tell them to get Donna Brazile off TV too.

    Do we want to lose?


    You know, (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:20:55 PM EST
    he's speaking the same day Bill is at the convention.

    Clyburn must know by now that Bill is no longer his pal.  If he is still setting his sights on the Clintons, I assume it is because he is being really, really petty.  He should know better.  Really.


    Apparently (5.00 / 8) (#138)
    by chrisvee on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:25:40 PM EST
    the answer to that question is yes.

    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.

    Geez, it's amateur hour.


    The more (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by chrisvee on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:21:17 PM EST
    Obama supporters do this, the more Clinton supporters will rebel. People need to learn some basic psychology.

    Plus, what Clinton supporter is going to care what Clyburn says? He needs to pipe down.


    Words fail me... (5.00 / 13) (#134)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:24:46 PM EST
    except to say that as reprehensible as Clyburn has been, he's outdoing himself now.

    As is Nancy Pelosi, whom I suspect is one of the "Congressional leaders" not mentioned by name.

    What do they want from her and Bill?  Matching "I <Heart> Obama" tattoos?  Blood?

    Sorry - whatever the Clintons do, it will never be enough, and it's time someone told them all to pound sand.


    What they want.... (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by p lukasiak on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:35:52 PM EST
    What do they want from her and Bill?



    Always a true sign of (5.00 / 3) (#193)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:53:34 PM EST
    confidence in one's candidate: teeing up the scapegoats for later.

    Clyburn should go Cheney himself! (5.00 / 7) (#143)
    by RalphB on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:28:06 PM EST
    Who the h3ll is hs to be demanding anything from anyone.  Shameless lying hack that he is!

    Obama's Two Great Liabilities (5.00 / 9) (#152)
    by MO Blue on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:31:06 PM EST
    James E. Clyburn and Donna Brazile

    Uh huh. (5.00 / 11) (#166)
    by Firewalker on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:37:38 PM EST
    Mr. Uncommitted and Ms. Undeclared.

    I am hoping (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:33:33 PM EST
    that Clinton leaves the Democratic Party after November.

    Let the Democrats rot on the stinking corpses of all of their electoral defeats.  Hillary can go form her own foundation for international good works like Bill has.

    Clyburn is a huge reason why I can't stand the Democrats. I hate them more than the Republicans, because I feel I've been betrayed by a friend.


    don't give them any ideas n/t (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:48:33 PM EST
    be enthusiastic. i command you. (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:48:52 PM EST
    i demand more obama enthusiasm from Clyburn himself.

    And don't think (none / 0) (#167)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:38:01 PM EST
    that our good friends at FOX won't play this up. Somewhere out there in the YouTubez is Laura Ingram making the same case (don't shoot me BTD) that BTD is regarding the non-selection of Hillary as VP or even the nominee (castigating of super D's, questioning their reasoning, not adhering for the very existence of Super D's).

    Of course they are (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:43:53 PM EST
    They are not stupid.

    Strangely enough (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:24:39 PM EST
    all of these bad polls make me want to help Obama.  Donate, volunteer a bit, whatever.  But the issues I see are coming from the top, so I'm much less inclined.  I live in NC, not Ohio, not Virginia.  What it'll take to win those states won't come from my phone calls.  

    the polls not so much.... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:33:15 PM EST
    ...they kind of give me an "i told you so feeling" but the times I feel like helping Obama is when he is being bashed by MSM, like after the ABC debate. That's when he feels like a real democrat to me.

    I don't know. He looks unable (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by dk on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:49:54 PM EST
    to handle criticism.  The Democrats I believe in are fighters.

    reverse psychology??? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:39:30 PM EST
    notta bad plan.  I have a friend that is a die hard liberal who once said, "ring a bell and I will feel guilty I'm a LIBERAL!"

    Oh, and btw (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:28:49 PM EST
    shouldn't Obama be studying Clinton's campaign from 1992 pretty hard right now?  Considering we are all wringing our hands over Ohio, I hope the Obama team is memorizing and understanding the dynamics of the last Democratic non-incumbent presidential election victory.

    I don't think they are ... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:55:32 PM EST
    but I posted these two ads as a comparison a few days back, looking long and hard at the differences would be a good place for the Obama camp to start:

    Obama economy ad.

    Clinton 1992 economy ad.


    Thanks, it makes it clear, (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by tlkextra on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:03:02 PM EST
    as I've always noted, that the Obama Camp, despite the myth, are always pointing fingers outward instead of giving answers inward.

    Meh (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by pixelpusher on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:36:38 PM EST
    My initial reaction to Obama was one of interest (2004 convention), but the more I saw him, the more I went meh.  Bland, bloodless, a biography that's all things to all people, but no real record.  I'm continually amused/alarmed/mindboggled that he's been marketed as something just shy of Jesus.

    When I talked to sensible people I knew who were really into Obama, I soon realized that they were all picking out certain pieces of him they liked or identified with ("he's a community organizer!"  "he's black!"  "he's multinational and multicultural!"), but for every person, it was a different thing that turned them on.  Not a good sign.

    Look, I don't know if McCain will continue to run a lousy campaign which would allow Obama to win.  Obama is at best a one-termer.  Why?  Because I just don't think he has the temperament to be president, not to mention he has no real coalition behind him -- his "coalition" is extremely tenuous and circumstantial.  As the economy continues to worsen, his "key demographic" -- the college-educated middle class -- will inevitably suffer the sort of financial stresses that cause people to change their minds about various issues.  There's no way Obama will be able to please a diverging demographic.  The "Obama bloc" is doomed.

    its hard to take Obama and his genuises (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by pluege on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:45:21 PM EST
    seriously. Everything they do point to a plan other than winning in November 2008.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by RalphB on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:08:08 PM EST
    Think they'll start pressuring McCain to drop out?  :-)

    Driving through NE Appalachia (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by kredwyn on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:48:49 PM EST
    (aka PA), there are people who still have their Hillary signs in their front yards.

    Hey, I'm in North East (5.00 / 4) (#200)
    by dk on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:56:19 PM EST
    Appalachia (Boston), and I'll be wearing my Hillary tshirt Tuesday night while I'm watching her speak...and that's the last hour of the convention that I plan to follow.

    Two interesting data points on this thread (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by lambert on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:04:58 PM EST
    No Biden bounce? (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by Nan on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 11:24:29 PM EST
    How can it be?

    Didn't he win like 9000 votes during the primaries?

    Having rinsed myself off... (5.00 / 2) (#235)
    by xdemocrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:44:57 AM EST
    Just wanted to whine about the glib unexamined assumption by Obama/media/others that Bill would have been some kind of problem if Hillary were VP.  What kind of problem, exactly? More sexist bunk, to begin with.  She's a whole, real, separate person. NY never had a complaint about Bill's interference. He's got a busy, international important career of his own. Also, it's like, wives are no problem because men can slap them upside their heads to shut them up.  And what would be so terrible about asking his advice occasionally? Sending him abroad on a mission?  It's all just more shallow poppycock chaff to blur the nasty misogynist frat boy self-defeating revenge.  Sorry, need a second rinse cycle, I guess.  

    "millions of voters?" (3.00 / 2) (#208)
    by diogenes on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 10:06:05 PM EST
    Hillary drew Reagan democrats who preferred her to Obama.  At the start of primary season, no one projected her as the working class heroine.  The same Reagan democrats prefer McCain to Obama.  Putting Hillary on the ticket as veep won't inspire Appalachians to vote Obama.
    It's easy to answer yes 49-43 voting Hillary over McCain as a protest vote against both current candidates.  

    Yeah, not good (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:04:36 PM EST
    Let's hope the deflation isn't permanent.

    Meanwhile, you've got an open bold tag somewhere.

    It is (4.66 / 3) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:18:06 PM EST
    permanent and expect Obama to start declining with the democratic base. He's had months to do it and has failed.

    A poster on another blog (FWIW) said that the Obama campaign really doesn't want Clinton voters. The campaign really believes that they can win with the "new coalition" and doesn't care about working class voters etc. This person claimed to have contacts in the Obama campaign. This person could be full of bs but it certainly has the ring of truth to it.


    That's the big gamble (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:09:55 PM EST
    "A poster on another blog (FWIW) said that the Obama campaign really doesn't want Clinton voters. The campaign really believes that they can win with the "new coalition" and doesn't care about working class voters etc."

    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.

    Bets in electoral politics don't come much bigger than that.


    You see very definite (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:26:01 PM EST
    Myself, I dunno.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:38:49 PM EST
    it's been a downward trend for months now and what has he done to reverse it? Pretty much nothing. I'm like some of those voters up there. I see no problem with Biden for the most part. At least you know what you are voting for with him unlike Obama but he does absolutely nothing to change the dynamics because he isn't on the top of the ticket. VP candidates don't usually change much.

    there's a thought process (none / 0) (#7)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:13:34 PM EST
    that's not understood, or at least understood and not considered important, but it's not the one you just described.  or the one you think you just described.

    Well, (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:20:44 PM EST
    I support Obama now, having voted for Hillary in the Primary. But the "undecided" thing just doesn't suit me. I can't speak for people who made a different decision.

    I see the numbers move up and down, but I can't really claim to know where they'll end up, or why.


    People chatter on the internet (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:41:30 PM EST
    and you have a very specific interpretation of the numbers that could be true or false. The opposite of dispassionate IMO.

    It's funny you mention that (none / 0) (#15)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:20:47 PM EST
    The only other place I used to post about politics (prior to the primaries) was a board that I would consider to be a "Community Board" -- lots of regular, middle-aged folks who liked to argue Gun Control, Immigration, Gas taxes, Business, Real Estate, etc.  

    Nobody (Republican or Democrat) particularly liked George Bush.

    This was a pretty mild mannered board, unlike most of the news boards, and it was not attached to a media website.  

    All of the regular Democratic posters picked Clinton.  The Republicans were split between Huckabee, Romney and McCain.  (Then we had a huge influx of Obama supporters and I finally quit posting there.)      


    One thing I didn't mention about (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:30:41 PM EST
    the other board...

    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!    

    Unfortunately, those were the days of "everybody who isn't voting for the superior black candidate is a racist."  


    BTD (none / 0) (#16)
    by nell on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:20:50 PM EST
    two interesting stories on Mark Halperin's blog that I hope you will cover:

    1. Apparently, Clinton is going to release all of her delegates to Obama.
    2. Ed Rendell blasted the media at an event with journalists and Judy Woodruff suggested that he sit down, a suggestion that was met with applause by all the hacks we call journalists, including Chuck Todd, and Tom Brokaw insisted on responding and basically defended NBC. Go Ed.

    Tell Judy Woodruff to sit down (5.00 / 10) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    heh, that's my Governor (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:26:34 PM EST
    PBS Judy Woodruff?? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:35:13 PM EST
    man THAT'S disappointing.  PBS has chugged the kool-aid, too?

    One less donation during the fall drive then.


    Blased MSNBC (2.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Rashomon66 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:02:54 PM EST
    Rendell blasted MSNBC. But I think few Americans actually watch MSNBC so whether they support Obama or not is sort of a moot point. They do BTW. But I am not convinced the media makes choices for voters. Look at Bush as evidence. In 2004 he was hated by the media and he still won the election.

    Perhaps 2004 in an altenate universe. (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:04:56 PM EST
    ...in my universe in 2004 the media hated John Kerry.

    Incorrect. (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Landulph on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:19:44 PM EST
    Check out Bob Somerby's Daily Howler archives. The media as a whole was just as bad toward Kerry as it was to Gore 4 years previous--witness their airing of the swiftboaters' crackpot allegations and their playing dumb over Kerry's perfectly innocuous "I voted for it before I voted against it" remark. There was only onemajor exception: Chris Matthews had played a leading part in the trashing of Gore but (in his own inept way) was unquestionably pro-Kerry in '04. It wasn't until Katrina that the scales finally fell from the MSM's eyes and they realized the clothes had no emperor.

    Who's Judy Woodruff? (none / 0) (#62)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 08:46:09 PM EST
    Was she the former CNNer (which would be shocking if she did that) or someone else with the same name?

    Pretty disrespectful, and if this gets traction in the media (which are NBC's biggest competitors? FOX? ABC?) then this would raise a lot of anger in Pennsylvania. And if it seems Obama has anything to do with it (obviously does) he's toast there.


    I guess Obama (none / 0) (#81)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:01:34 PM EST
    didn't get all the cell phone numbers he wanted.  

    If I were Obama, I'd be begging Hillary to campaign for me in Ohio.  I'd ship Bill down to Virginia.  I know the disadvantage to choosing Hillary was that she would repel Independents (supposedly).  But isn't it more Reagan Democrats that Obama has to worry about in Virginia and Ohio?

    I think it will also be important to transform Biden's foreign policy knowledge into foreign policy expertise and nail-biter finesse.  I think McCain will be looking to trivialize Biden as an academic with non-executive experience.  Apparently we're going to let McCain roll with the manly man thing...so we have to learn how to play defense when he tries to turn this into a locker room brawl.  It might be too late to redefine the situation, especially since Obama has too frequently played into right wing tropes the last two months.

    Again, if you're going to go after Virginia, it only makes sense (IMO) to put a Democrat with some Southern credibility down there.  That's not Biden or Obama.  Edwards is out.  Clinton is left.  Of course Webb and Warner will also help.

    Clinton 42 (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by justonevoice on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:10:09 PM EST
    lost VA both times and HRC lost VA in the primary.  Losing proposition.  OH, hmm. Maybe.  But after the Big Dawg's comments that "he will address the issues of the race baiting after the election" and the treatment he received, Bill will (hopefully) respectfully decline any campaigning.  He has his own work to do and the world needs Bill Clinton.

    Obama made it clear, he doesn't.


    I'm thinking about (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:18:48 PM EST
    how Hillary won by deploying the entire family throughout SE Ohio.  The small town strategy could work in parts of VA, I assume.  

    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.

    And in reality, yeah, getting Bill Clinton to help the Obama camp might be a tough proposition.


    Quite. (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Landulph on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:22:44 PM EST
    There's no doubt in my mind OH, AR, and WV would be going blue were Clinton the nominee--and with them, the election.

    Clinton can't help him here (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:29:10 PM EST
    Clark might have helped. Webb might possibly. I'd become best buddies with Mark Warner if I were him. Oh and whatever he does, tell him not to put on duck hunting garb. The SW electorate takes hunting seriously and they about laughed themselves silly the last time the DNC dressed Kerry up to go hunting.

    Interesting. (none / 0) (#153)
    by lilburro on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:31:18 PM EST
    I'm sure Clark, Webb, and Warner are way more up for it than Bill Clinton would be anyway.

    What do you think it is about Virginia that makes it a no-Clinton zone?  


    NRA for one (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by cawaltz on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:55:21 PM EST
    They have had a huge hard on for her. Even in 2006 they were calling using the Hillary Clinton boogeyman.

    It's a fairly conservative state, largest military retiree population, rural enclaves where gun shows/shops and politics mix(at least in my area I'm in the SW not the Northern tip).

    Oddly enough before the primary alot of the guys in the gun shops seemed kind of resigned to a Clinton presidency so I think I might have been able to have worked with it if she was our candidate. I don't feel the same desire to pull Obama across the finish line. His chance for my vote expired when he chose Biden(and I was really hoping I could put that problem with ego thing away and pull the lever for him).


    i guess I'm proof your over-generalization (none / 0) (#82)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:02:38 PM EST
    Is not accurate.

    picking biden has helped me make the choice.

    i'm not there yet, but i'm closer.  it could be the difference maker for at least one voter.

    so there.   you're wrong.

    You're banned from my threads (none / 0) (#156)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Aug 24, 2008 at 09:33:26 PM EST
    Do not comment anymore.

    You are welcome to comment in Jeralyn and TChris posts.  


    Your concern is noted (none / 0) (#236)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:52:47 AM EST
    But anyway, I really wish Hillary, like Bill, would find herself too busy to do any serious campaigning for Obama. The DNC and Team Obama intent on dishing out humiliation after humiliation to her and I really wish she would say "Enough!", the way Bill has. Hillary has important Senate work to do and that's where she needs to focus her energies. No other candidate (Biden, Dodd, Kucinich) has been asked to campaign for Obama or had these excessive demands placed on him, it's time for Hillary to simply say "I've done enough; sink or swim on your own."