Most Clinton Delegates Enthused About Obama

A New York Times/CBS News poll of delegates to the Democratic National Convention found:

More than half of the delegates that Mrs. Clinton won in the primaries now say they are enthusiastic supporters of Mr. Obama, and they also believe he will win the presidential election in November, the poll found. Three in 10 say they support Mr. Obama but have reservations about him or they support him only because he is the party’s nominee. Five percent say they do not support him yet.

When Hillary Clinton's name is placed in nomination: [more ...]

Forty-two percent of Mrs. Clinton’s pledged delegates surveyed say they would vote for her. But 43 percent say they would vote for Mr. Obama while another 15 percent have not decided what they will do when Mrs. Clinton’s name is put into nomination.

Most delegates believe Barack Obama will win the election:

[M]ore than 80 percent of the delegates surveyed said they enthusiastically supported Mr. Obama, and about as many (including more than two-thirds of Mrs. Clinton’s pledged delegates) were confident he would win the election.

Clinton delegate Warren Davis sums up the reason most Clinton delegates enthusiastically support Obama:

“Clinton and Obama were close together all the time, and Hillary didn’t make it. It’s just that,” Mr. Davis said. “It was easy to switch because I feel we need to get a Democrat in because the Republicans have really messed up the country.”
< The Convention Narrative So Far | Clinton Calls For Unity >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well lookit that. They're not all PUMAs are they? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:22:07 AM EST
    Contrary to what the media has been talking about all weekend and all day thus far.

    No, they are delegates. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:24:37 AM EST
    They can only nominate a candidate - but they can't elect him/her.  That's an entirely different game.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:26:04 AM EST
    They do each get a vote.  Just one though :)

    Huh? Yes, I know that. (none / 0) (#6)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:25:58 AM EST
    I never heard that (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:42:00 AM EST
    PUMAs were Clinton delegates.  That was entirely unexpected.

    OTOH, the influence and impact of PUMAs is in the polls - both statistical and electoral.  It's always puzzling when people seem to think the impact of PUMAism can be measured in terms of organization and fund raising.  


    PUMAS can't be delegates (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:49:16 AM EST
    I believe a delegate got her credentials stripped for stating she was not voting for Obama. I can't remember where she was from (I wanna say Michigan but wouldn't swear on it )but they did have a meeting and they did strip her credentials.

    Makes perfect sense to me. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:51:22 AM EST
    I'm not saying that it is fair, but it fits perfectly with the New Obama Party of Hope and Change...

    ...and exclusivity and rejection.


    WI and she's in a new McCain ad (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:01:45 AM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:06:05 AM EST
    It's a little amateurish but I like the end. The DNC handed McCain quite the opportunity and he is smart enough to use it. I wish our party could be smart like that.

    That's funny. It sure looks like the Dems (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by independent voter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    are too busy fighting against each other to be "smart like that"

    OMG! WI Dems really PO'd one of their own by (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:08:43 AM EST
    stripping her of her credentials.

    Badly done, that. Ad also.


    drats! (none / 0) (#70)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:03:36 AM EST
    and damn my slow typing!  you got there first.

    Grrrrrrrrrrr ...



    and she's now the star (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:02:44 AM EST
    of a new McCain commercial:

     -- "I'm a proud Hillary Clinton Democrat," says Debra Bartoshevich, a Racine-area nurse, as she looks into the camera. "She had the experience and judgment to be president. Now, in a first for me, I'm supporting a Republican, John McCain."

    Bartoshevich has become something of a minor celebrity in the political world, especially among die-hard Clinton fans. After making her intentions public in June, she was removed as a delegate at the Wisconsin state Democratic convention. McCain paid the lifelong Democrat a visit last month, offering her a ride on the Straight Talk Express during a campaign swing through the state. --


    Gotta admire McCain (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:07:49 AM EST
    he appears unafraid to go out and ask for votes in unlikely places. It's a contrast to a candidate that wouldn't go to WVa because he was gonna get trounced there.

    and who was she replaced by? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:12:37 AM EST
    A different Clinton delegate?  or, an Obama delegate?

    How many Clinton delegates has the Obama camp managed to replace with Obama delegates?


    pay no attention to that man behind the curtain (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:27:51 AM EST
    I am the mighty and powerful Oz.........At least the Wizard of Oz was entertaining. The DNC ....not so much.

    WI (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by jedimom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    It is Debra Bartosohich IIRC from Wisconsin and Mccain has an ad up already with her in it..see youtube dont want to tick off TChris!!

    Colorado (3.66 / 3) (#41)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:51:46 AM EST
    Thanks n/t (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:55:36 AM EST
    The WI Delegate (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:08:10 AM EST
    is a different one from the CO delegate. Her name is Sascha Millstone. It is a different case. Sascha got a lawyer and the CO Dem Party has dropped action against her. Her crime was speaking out against Obama.

    she told a "friend" (5.00 / 9) (#98)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:14:33 AM EST
    that she wasn't sure she could support Obama.  Her "friend" turned her in.  It was all very "Nazi-esque"

    Shades of Linda Tripp? (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:21:05 AM EST
    Wonder if she's on the Obama payroll.  Wouldn't it be funny if she was?

    I wonder who Linda Tripp is (none / 0) (#180)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:35:26 PM EST

    Dear Lord! Is that (none / 0) (#145)
    by camellia on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:44:21 AM EST
    true?  Shades of the Soviet Union!  This is supposed to be the Democratic Party, small d as well as big D.  

    Let wait and see what the polls says (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Saul on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:22:14 AM EST
    after election. I say it will be neck and neck. When it should not be.  

    Indeed... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Mike H on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:24:19 AM EST
    In the privacy of the voting booth, many things can happen.  I'd be pleased, though, if some of the more vicious Obama supporters would start toning down their rhetoric.

    Too little (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:26:31 AM EST
    too late

    Most Hillary supporters will vote for Obama (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:25:35 AM EST
    It's the 30%+ that won't that will cost him the election.

    I believe it is the DNC's actions (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by angie on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:27:56 AM EST
    as well as the actions of the Obama campaign that will cost him the election.

    yep (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MrPope on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:47:14 AM EST
    Rove and Mcain are in a back room giggling thier ()@(#)@ off

    bingo (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by kelsweet on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:08:46 AM EST
    Exactly! (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Cards In 4 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:27:49 AM EST
    Of course most HRC supporters will vote for Obama but why should the goal be >50%.  The Obama campaign assumed, with the help of outlets like MSNBC, that having a D behind his name will make everyone forget things like insinuating Bill's remarks were racist or that Hilary "is nice enough".  Axelrod and co. just assume the wind is at their back nd they will sail into the WH.

    Not 30 (none / 0) (#11)
    by DanR3 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    Article says only 5% won't support him.

    The article is about delegates (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by angie on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:29:19 AM EST
    not supporters.

    You're talking delegates (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:30:56 AM EST
    I'm talking voters.

    Millions of them


    The media try to play this as disgruntled old (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by hairspray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:43:13 PM EST
    women.  But the polls say that it is the men who are turning to McCain.  Time to stop beating up on Hillary.

    That's out of the pledged delegates (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:31:31 AM EST
    Her supporter numbers that won't vote for him are much higher.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#19)
    by DanR3 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:37:12 AM EST
     I know the 5% is delegates. I read the article. I didn't realize we'd shifted to talking about supporters at large.

    CNN is throwing around the figure of 27% of Hillary supporters who won't vote for him (up from 16% last week)

    This is good news, right?


    If you're John McCain (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:39:01 AM EST
    27% (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:40:58 AM EST
    But when the election will be decided within 3-4%, that's a blowout for McCain.

    Ya (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:45:27 AM EST
    It's called the base. I am always amazed the media misses that point

    So Only Disaffected Clinton Supporters (none / 0) (#59)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:59:44 AM EST
    constitute the base of the Democratic Party?



    The Democratic Party (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:04:19 AM EST
    has many factions but yes, Clinton overwhelmingly won the BASE of the party. Check the polls. Having said that, there are other non-Hillary supporters long time democrats that probably won't be voting for Obama either.

    I guess you think the base is made up of former republicans like Markos and Arianna Huffington. Silly me.


    Clinton Won Parts of the Base (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:44:40 AM EST
    Obama won other parts.

    And the part of Clinton's  base who told the CNN pollster that they plan to vote for McCain are a fraction of her supporters in that base.

    The majority of her supporters in that base reported they will probably vote for Obama.

    I wonder if they questioned how many of her supporters won't vote for either. I'll bet that's a larger number than the McCain number.


    the numbers (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:07:24 PM EST
    47% of Clinton primary voters said they will vote for Obama.  23% said they might vote for Obama, but could still change their mind.  30% said they will either vote for McCain or not vote for president.  They didn't split the 30% out to say how many vote McCain.  they should have.

    Nobody said that (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:05:50 AM EST
    Don't put words in other people's mouths.

    Hillary's supporters are 1/2 the Democratic base.  Lose a big chunk of your party's base, lose the election.


    Never Said Clinton Didn't Win Half (none / 0) (#151)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:47:48 AM EST
    I was disputing the implication that the 27% of Clinton supporters who told CNN poll that they plan to vote for McCain are 'the base' of the party.

    Someone did say that above:

     27% (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:40:58 AM EDT
    But when the election will be decided within 3-4%, that's a blowout for McCain.

        Ya (5.00 / 1) (#30)
        by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:45:27 AM EDT
        It's called the base. I am always amazed the media misses that point


    I figure (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by magisterludi on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:41:45 AM EST
    the way the media has always gone after the Clintons, there must be something that the Clintons inspire in many that the corporate powers fear- "dangerous populism", as Condi termed it?

    The Clintons are the closest we've gotten to a more populist vision of America in a long time. That has made them some powerful enemies.


    You have a bad habit lately (none / 0) (#100)
    by tree on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:16:00 AM EST
    of putting words in other people's mouths. Please stop. Its not an honest form of debate.

    Not MY Habit At All (none / 0) (#133)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:38:05 AM EST
    I was responding to a post that referred to the 27% of Clinton supporters who told a CNN poll they plan to vote for McCain as 'the base'.

    Not part of the base, but 'the base.'


    Come on, now you're saying something (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by tree on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:51:44 AM EST

     So now you are claiming that you thought  that "dissenter" was saying that  the 27% of Clinton supporters who aren't voting for Obama are the only ones in the Democratic base? You really believe that s/he said that Clinton supporters who vote for Obama are not the base, and that non-Clinton supporters aren't the base either? I know you aren't that obtuse. You misstated what was said by inserting the word "only" where it was neither said nor implied. I'm not the only one to call you on this. And you've done the same kind of thing to one of my earlier statements in another thread.


    What I Read (none / 0) (#172)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:24:55 PM EST
    was that the 27% who reported to a CNN poll are 'the base'. Maybe Dissenter meant something else. Her/His response to me implies as much. But the initial post was all I had to go on.

    As to the rest of your criticisms of me, it would be far more productive if you tell me how I've misstated statements of yours in the past or point me to the comments, because otherwise I don't know what you're talking about.

    From your comments, it doesn't sound as if you'll believe me when I say this, but I don't want to distort others' positions even (or maybe even especially) when I disagree with them. I'm disgusted by the ongoing rancor and disrespect that some people in all camps are promoting.


    So you are (none / 0) (#181)
    by tree on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:45:26 PM EST
    telling me that you honestly thought that dissenter was saying that ONLY the 27% of Clinton supporters that weren't voting for Obama were the entire Democratic base? Because that is "the base" that dissenter alluded to. It defies logic to believe that was what s/he was saying.  

    I don't want to end up chattering so this will be my last post on this point.  


    That is the gamble the O camp took. (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by hairspray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    Hillary doesn't own anyone's vote.  Certainly not mine. I didn't even start out wanting her to run.  So now that I have seen the DNC in action I am registered as an Independent and it gives me more freedom to chose.  I haven't voted R since I was young.  However, if McCain puts a woman on the ticket like Sara Palin, I might rethink my aversion.

    And not of course (none / 0) (#192)
    by BernieO on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:16:24 PM EST
    anything he has done.....?

    How will these "enthusiastic" Obama/ (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by kenosharick on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:28:39 AM EST
    Clinton supporters react if he loses and she gets all the blame? Once again this morning, the talk on CNN was "What can the Clintons do to elect Obama?" It is never "What can Barack do?" They are being set up to take the fall, and it sickens me.

    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    is behaving like she has a lot to lose if she doesn't appear to be enthusiastically supporting Obama. Yet nothing she does is enough, and when he loses in November, she's going to be blamed. I don't understand why she doesn't just flip HIM the bird and walk away from him. I'm disappointed that she keeps going back for more abuse.

    In her speech to supporters she said the nation (none / 0) (#76)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:05:19 AM EST
    has a lot to lose. It was the whole point of her speech this morning.

    She did not urge immediate shift of votes to Obama--which is why WNYC reporter said some supporters are confused. She's meeting again with her delegates, right? or leadership of same?


    All the kings horses (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:47:47 AM EST
    and Hillary Clinton couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again I fear. The DNC is floudering and worried that their theater production might have an unexpected surprise ending. Democracy is just so darn messy.

    The same way we have reacted (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:30:13 AM EST
    all along to the media.  We ignored them and voted for her, anyway.

    And after the election and its artificial propping up of ratings, they will go down again -- and for some media, far below what they were before, because they betrayed their biases so much.

    So we won't be watching or reading to see what they say.  So, so what?


    Uh, I have a hard time (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:35:00 AM EST
    seeing that as good news for Obama given how close they are in the polls.  In a situation where a few percentage points will decide this election, every vote counts.  But if you prefer your spin on it, more power to you.

    And seriously, can you imagine the pressure being put on Clinton delegates to say they support Obama in Denver this week?  Riverdaughter and Heidi Li, among others,are doing a good job documenting the pressure tactics.  Given the pressure and emotions at the convention, I really don't think you have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that the Obama campaign and their enthusiastic supporters are employing such tactics.

    Looking forward (none / 0) (#29)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:44:47 AM EST
    to hearing Hillary and Bill this week. I believe that they,more than most, realize this is critical that the voters throw the Bush/McCain regime out.
    Bush stole the 2000 election. Then he proceeded to bury hard evidence, as Suskinds book exposes, and decieved congress and the american public into going along with an invasion of a country that posed no imminent threat. We have lost 4148 americans because of this deception by Bush,Cheney and McCain.
    McCain proposes a 22 trillion dollar tax cut for corporations.
    McCain will be a corporatists dream and promises more wars,less jobs.
    If you like Bush and Cheney, vote for McCain and the rape of our country will continue unabated for at least 4 years but probably 8.

    22 trillion huh (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:46:35 AM EST
    Can I have some of what you are smoking

    It is a (none / 0) (#38)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:50:58 AM EST
    fact. Over the next 8 years that is the number that Factcheck.org cited.
    McCain is looking out for the poor,overtaxed corporations. Bush has been too tough on them,evidently. McCain is more radically right than Bush. More hawkish. More corporate.

    That number seems impossible (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:54:21 AM EST
    The total annual budget is about 5 trillion.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#58)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:58:06 AM EST
    My God the Sky is Falling (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:57:10 AM EST
    I may not agree with his tax cut but you show me where it adds up to $22 trillion. Get out your pencil and show me how YOU get that total. I can quote all kinds of things off the internet too. Doesn't make them true.

    I mean seriously dude, that makes no sense since most corporations don't pay any taxes now anyway.


    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:04:49 AM EST
    Bill and Hillary are true democrats...they don't buy into this post partisan schtick that Obama and the gang is pushing.  The Clintons know that some compromise is necessary in a democracy (and of course were beat up for any compromise by the same people who now think dems and repubs should sit in a circle and sing kumbaya and remember what a great American Ronald Reagan was and admire that)

    But regardless, until and unless, the Obama campaign quits making this about what the Clintons need to do to win over women who were denied fair treatment in the party, and start saying "the Obama campaign needs to do a, b and c" to get women voters on board, they are throwing away what should be the easiest win for dems in decades.


    Bush stole the election, Obama (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:33:36 AM EST
    stole the nomination.  Now, why vote for a Bush in Dem clothing?

    Your logic, carried out to its obvious comparate.  So your responsibility to come up with some other reason to vote for Obama.  

    Not why to vote against Bush, because he's not on the ballot.  Not why to vote again McCain, because I won't vote for him.

    Now: Why vote at all, and for Obama?  Waiting. . . .


    I think we need to que up (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:37:49 AM EST
    I'm still waiting for the explanation on the $22 trillion in tax cuts lol

    "more wars" (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:26:20 PM EST
    Apparently Obama believes that the real war is in Afghanistan.

    Does that count toward the "more wars" total or not?


    "more wars" (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:26:33 PM EST
    Apparently Obama believes that the real war is in Afghanistan.

    Does that count toward the "more wars" total or not?


    I just heard on the radio (none / 0) (#193)
    by BernieO on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:22:57 PM EST
    that the delegates get talking points every day. Very Rovian - or Orwellian. I also heard a discussion about the party's western strategy. I have to really wonder about what planet they live on. The West is not heavily populated (except for California, which is not considered "Western".) There was talk about how there is not a lot of racial tension in that part of the country. Big surprise - to the best of my knowledge there are relatively few African Americans living there.
    So as part of the western strategy the VP pick for a guy from Chicago is a east coaster? Maybe they will come out in Stetsons and cowboy boots ala George Bush.

    Can someone explain this>


    Hey, they are all going to a big party. (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:39:21 AM EST
    And they are are enthused but I think the story changes a bit when you talk to voters.  I have a pretty large circle of Democratic friends who don't see it as they were close but he won and that's that.  It is more about how the media and the DNC helped him win, it's about the nastiness, the racism charges, the misogyny and it's about who is not running, but manipulating our Party now.  None are looking forward to watching Hillary or Bill go to that convention to capitulate and grovel before the DNC, the media and the Obama crowds for maybe a little less CDS in the future.  And Biden? Really? Biden?  It looks to many that Obama is just "Biden" his time before being sent back to the Senate to finish his term.  I hope the Democrats can clean up the mess that's been made of our Party but I'm having my doubts.  And, btw, I've been a registered Democrat for 40 years and even all those years from 1968 to 2008 I can't really think of a time I was less enthused.

    The most important part (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    of this poll are these words...

    The poll, which was taken before Mr. Obama selected Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware as his running mate...

    Given the VP selection and the way it was handled publicly and the signs of disrespect that have cropped up since then I wonder what that poll would look like today?

    Joh King said last night, just before he was taken to task off camera by Paul Begala, (they called it a loud fight when they returned to the air), thaty he is in the same hotel as the NY delegation and he got an earful in the gym just listening to them talk to eachother. He said he might have been wrong, there is a lot of healing to do. Begala went on to say that you cannot force people to kiss and make up, even in family.

    What Begala (4.50 / 2) (#34)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:48:04 AM EST
    actually said was that God gave you family so you would not have to fight with strangers. And then said when McCain starts using Hillary to hammer democrats, democrats will circle the wagons around their candidate.
    Begala ended on a positive note for a democratic victory.

    He said that yes (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:53:27 AM EST
    but he also said you cannot force people to kiss and make up. I taped the entire conversation. he said they need an outside threat to bring them together.

    I have yet to see the Obama campaign circling the wagons to defend Hillary from McCain's ad...did I miss it?


    Oh, yeah! (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:25:08 AM EST
    Just like they circled the wagons to decry sexism and misogyny in the media and primary.

    in other words
    Sh-yeah, riiiiight.


    The most powerful argument the Democrats have (5.00 / 9) (#43)
    by esmense on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:53:03 AM EST
    for getting back in the White House in 2008 is how competently they performed the last time they held the White House.

    That's why even though there is no Clinton on the ballot this time around, the GOP is still feeding the media obsession with bringing down "the Clintons."

    Big Tent Democrat, and others, supported Obama in large part because he would be a "media darling."

    But media darling status doesn't do much good if maintaining it requires that you trash, and/or stand by while others trash, your party's most recent and important legacy.

    Plus, when you are associated, as Obama keeps allowing himself to be, with the trashing of and hostility toward the Clintons, you undermine a major argument for why the vast majority of less partisan voters should vote for you -- not because of your (slight) personal resume but because of your party's association with much better economic times and recent record of competent leadership.

    Why does it feel like there should be a (5.00 / 16) (#49)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:54:07 AM EST
    "So, there" appended to your post title, Chris? ;-)

    I would be less concerned with what the delegates are going to do on Wednesday, and more concerned with what the voters are going to do in November.

    First it was the big deal over some not-often seen emotion from Clinton in New Hampshire, with Jesse Jackson, Jr,'s question about where Clinton's tears were for the Katrina victims being the first showing of the race card.

    Then it was Clyburn picking up the card and adding to it with all out, and unfounded, accusations of racism in SC.

    When she started to win, the calls for her to get out of the race began in earnest, and grew uglier and more strident the larger her winning margins were.

    Then there was the debacle that was the RBC at the end of May.

    Then, at the moment when the last primary was called, there were demands for her to concede and get the frack out of the way.

    Then, when she gave a speech suspending her campaign and throwing her support to Obama, she was raked over the coals because it came too late and wasn't enthusiastic enough.

    Then, Howard Dean said there wouldn't be a roll call vote; then he said there might be.  Then the whole thing was cast as Obama graciously allowing it, no - promoting it.

    Now, the Florida and Michigan delegations have had their full votes restored.  I'm so touched by that, I can't tell you.

    At this stage, I don't care whether the delegates' support for Obama is enthusiastic, or if there will be an Obama rep at the side of every wavering delegate to make sure a vote is cast for Obama.

    What matters is what happens in November, and if what Obama and his campaign and the DNC did in the months leading up to election day affect the outcome, all I can say is that actions have consequences and we aren't always in control of that those consequences are.

    do you suppose (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:57:49 AM EST
    Donna Brazile's momma will be dispatched to the convention floor to grab the ear lobe of any ill behaved Clinton delegates and drag them off the convention floor?

    Well, perhaps not Donna's mommy BUT (5.00 / 6) (#97)
    by Brookhaven on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:13:39 AM EST
    Donna B was on "This Morning" on Sunday and when asked what would happen if Clinton delegates acted like this was a democracy (actually the question was what if they said they wouldn't vote for Obama) and MzBee said "they would be thrown out of the convention".  Nice.  Way to go, MzBee.

    Between her disgusting behavior during the primaries as an "uncommitted" (a lesson in how to lie time and again with a straight face) superdelegate as she declared in her "wear out the welcome mat" appearances on CNN, in her arrogant attitude that the Party doesn't need the base, in emails with  Clinton supporters where she trashed all Clinton supporters, her behavior on May 31st at the Rules Committee Meeting to this recent threat to Clinton delegates who won't vote for Obama, she has done more damage to the unity pony and the Democratic Party than anyone, imo, and she's got lots of competition.  


    I assume she means (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:19:02 AM EST
    if a delegates declares they won't vote for Obama in the general election, not in the roll call vote.

    Oh, and that Brazille CNN status.  She was always very careful to describe herself on CNN as "undeclared" not "undecided".

    But, one other thing she said on CNN after the ROOLZ debacle was thta she would cast her vote for Clinton if it would make people feel better about the Clinton delegates from MI that were strippedfrom her and given to Obama.  So, let's just see if she keeps her word on that or not.


    From what I heard, I took it to mean both (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Brookhaven on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:42:46 AM EST
    However, the point I was making was that she said she would have them thrown out!  Just like that.  Snap of the fingers from MzBee.  Democracy can go to hell.  Well, just more of the same as this primary season has shown time and again: democracy has taken a beating.

    Undeclared or undecided, I've heard her refer to herself using both descriptive words.  Point is she's a bold faced liar.

    And, yup, I heard her say that she would cast her vote for Clinton to appease some, but so what?  What the hell does that even mean?  

    That only put more fuel on the fire because she arrogantly kept saying Obama won and HRC lost the primary when we all knew that wasn't the case given both had not garnered enough delegates to win the primary without the Superdelegates of which she is one.  And, let's not forget how she time and again said she would quit if the Dem nomination was delivered by the Superdelegates which is what is about to happen this week.  

    Now, let's see if MzBee keeps her word on THAT!
    That's much more important and necessary as a start to get the Dem Party back to where it belongs before it was hijacked by her and Dean and Pelosi, than if she keeps her "word" about snarkily casting a vote for HRC.  


    what she said or "meant" (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:23:10 PM EST
    "And, let's not forget how she time and again said she would quit if the Dem nomination was delivered by the Superdelegates which is what is about to happen this week."

    was if the supers decided "differently" that the majority of "pledged" delegates.  That was during the primary when people kept claimimg that the supers had a "duty" to vote for which ever candidate had a lead in "pledged" delegates.

    Of course they have no such "duty".  And, Howard Dean should have come out early, often and forcefully to quash those statements.  IN the same manner that he SHOULD have come out and explained over and over agains that there was nothing in the ROOLZ against re-voting in FL and MI and that no one asking for re-votes was breaking any ROOLZ.  period, end of story.


    I think they should appoint (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:23:04 AM EST
    Hillary to Unity Ambassador Trainer.

    Her first student should be D. Brazile(DNC-Clueless).


    No! (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Nadai on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:46:22 PM EST
    What has Hillary ever done to deserve that?

    Well said, Anne n/t (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Brookhaven on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:16:14 AM EST
    angry (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by johnsgirl on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:05:58 AM EST
     very angry at john mccain camp for exploiting our feelings for hillary clinton,while i have not joined the obama bandwagon and i think its inappropriate for mccain to use hillary and her delegates in those stupid ads.As a single mum,hillary stood for something for me and my daughters and i will never forget the day i saw her in person in ohio,to turn her legacy into a spite fest with divisive tactics is sad.
    While i have reservations for obama,we should not allow the republicans exploit hillary who they spent years demonizing.

    I wonder what this poll (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    would look like if they asked the same question of delegates today. I find it interesting that they release this poll and then bury deeply in the story the fact that it was taken before Biden as VP was announced.

    He's stirring that pot (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:12:40 AM EST
    Dean ought to be fired for this election cycle. He gave the GOP this opening by rigging the game because he was too fainthearted to take this to convention.

    It is (5.00 / 8) (#107)
    by sas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:20:51 AM EST
    pretty sad for Democrats that Obama is such a weak candidate.

    Further, it isn't Hillary's job to convince her supporters and delegates to vote for him, it's his job.  She has been more than gracious, and has been preaching unity all over the place.

    He isn't entitled to anything just because he's a Democrat.

    This is just crazy! (5.00 / 8) (#110)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:22:09 AM EST
    Why is Hillary now obligated to drag Obama over the second finish line in this race?  The DNC and the manipulations of the RBC dragged him over the primary finish line and now according to his "fans" and the media Hillary MUST drag him over the next one or it will be more Hell to pay for the Clintons.  I, personally, would like to see Hillary and Bill both appear on a stage somewhere and tell everyone it has been such a tough and grueling year fighting the media, the charges of racism, the misogyny and legions of these "new Obama democrats" that they need to go home and have a rest.  They could wish Obama well and leave the stage.  Leave this lightweight on his own and let HIM try to win it.  After all, he has Biden now.

    I agree... (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:34:50 AM EST
    The media narrative that is developing is that if Obama doesn't make it, it's Clinton's fault.

    Everything is her fault.

    I don't remember another example of such pressure being put on a candidate that was not the nominee to wage war on behalf of the person who got the nomination.

    So Barack has 65% of Clinton supporters.
    He should be happy as a clam about that.
    He's lucky.

    He's the wunderkind.
    Let him win the election.
    Him and Biden.


    lightweight (1.00 / 2) (#134)
    by MrPope on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:38:06 AM EST
    well hillary was a heavyweight with long experience and lost to a lightweight....

    oh wait... her entitlement was stolen by  the DNC, Dean and Pelosi...noone actually voted for OBAMA.


    I'll be glad when this convention is over! (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by rottodamn on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:31:10 AM EST
    Then Dems and would be voters can look to Obama as the leader of the party and stop bringing up the Clintons!

    Hopefully the media will keep the Clinton name out of their mouths. I doubt that will be the case though because the Clinton name mentioned means ratings and money. How many right wing arses have made millions just by writing unauthorized biographies about Hillary alone?!  Too many.

    Maybe the media realizes the election won't be as much fun without the Clintons to batter. Buyers' remorse, but the media sold it, now own it!

    Backfire (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:49:35 AM EST
    I'm beginning to believe that the Obama camp want's the bickering to continue. Maybe they feel it fires up his base. It also keeps issues off the table. If they didn't they could have nipped this in the bud months ago by stating point blank that Hilary would be vital to them in the Senate. I don't doubt that Hilary would have given a great speech about it and then we could have moved on. Instead they decided to play both ends against the middle and the polls suggest it might burn them.

    Some confusion (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:29:23 PM EST
    over how to vote though.  Clinton delegates feel they are being asked to put in their votes in the morning and there was confusion if it was a pre-count to make sure there was balance on the vote etc. or if the votes actually count.  Do they vote for Clinton the first time (woohoo) and then have the big balloon drop (or it's equivalent) for Obama.  

    Overmanaging how to have the votes roll-out for me.  I think the attendees are party loyalists and there to have a good time and overmanaging the vote, I believe could be spun negatively by the media.  I think the party is worrying too much.  Go have a good time, every event has fumbles.

    I'm starting to realize (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:38:11 PM EST
    If anyone gets polled, what you should do is say "Yes, I was a Clinton supporter but now I LUV Obama.  I'm behind him 100%.  Hillary Clinton convinced me that he is the only choice for President."  

    Then when you get in the voting booth, do whatever the heck you want to.  

    When they count the votes in the end, they'll figure it out.    

    Gee (4.80 / 15) (#8)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:26:28 AM EST
    considering saying out loud that you don't support Obama means the Dem party strips you of credentials color me unsurprised. Kabuki theater is alive and well in Unityland apparently. I wonder if Howard Dean will get best supporting actor? The best actress is a toughie. Donna really didn't "sell" undeclared. I'm gonna have to give it to Maddow for her plucky role as Olbermann's sidekick.

    If Hillary stands up (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:33:41 AM EST
    in front of the entire convention and says, "Please do not have a roll call vote with my name in it. Everyone should just vote for Senator Obama. We need to show the world that the Democratic Party is solidly unified. I want you all to vote for Obama!", McCain will be able to add another house to his list of addresses.

    But misspeach (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:43:42 AM EST
    Isn't that what republicans do?  Fall in line and don't have opinions.  We are Democrats - we fall in Love and we aren't feeling it.

    what a wonderful idea (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    THat's right.  Have Hillary stand up and ask for her name to be taken back.  Kind of like, sorry, all that work and negotiation to get my name on the roll call vote, "nevermind" .  I didn't mean it.  

    That will certainly bring all those Clinton supporters into the Obama camp.

    More likely, I think it will HURT Obama if the roll call takes place a a LOT of Clinton delegates DON'T vote for her on the first vote.  That's what her supporters have wanted to see all along.  The recognition of just how close this really was.


    They should have brokered the darn thing (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:53:40 AM EST
    This has been an exercise in absurdity. They chose him so the party could appear united? How is THAT working out?

    They don't seem to understand that (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by dianem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:12:51 AM EST
    As far as they're concerned, Obama is entitled to the vote's of all of the delegates because he won the primary. It simply doesn't occur to them that there is a process and that other people might want their votes counted even if they didn't vote for the winner. It's the same way they treated Florida and Michigan, as if the voter's didn't matter because their states violated the rules. Votes matter to a lot of Dems, even more so becasue the memory of Gore/Bush still stings.

    And that he didn't win the primary (5.00 / 5) (#118)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:26:32 AM EST
    but only won the media beauty contest, which was rigged by the DNC.

    He will win on Thursday, sure.  But he still won't have won the primary, because he could not win enough pledged delegates.  And nothing can change that in the history books.

    And that really ticks him off, clearly.  


    This Has to Be - (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by jamawani on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:50:33 AM EST
    One of the most honest, refreshing, and delicious comments that I have read in a long time.

    Molto grazie!


    That's not what happened. (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by TChris on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:03:30 AM EST
    The delegate whose credentials were stripped vowed to vote for McCain. Not what you want from a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

    The point of your post (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    appears to be that Hillary delegates at the convention will vote for Obama. Considering that the DNC ensured that was the case prior to the convention this seems kinda like pointing out the grass is green.

    Personally, I prefer dinner theater and if the DNC had been smart they would have done a floor fight that allowed both candidates an equal shot. It was the democratic thing to do. Instead they give us a mockery of what democracy really is(can't have any of that messy dissent).


    Seems right (none / 0) (#99)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:15:22 AM EST
    Did they strip Lieberman?  Goodness, I hope so.

    yes, they did (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:20:08 AM EST
    they took his super delegate status away from him

    Some people will say anything to win. (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:31:32 AM EST
    Obama doesn't need Hillary to drag him over the (2.00 / 3) (#166)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:00:27 PM EST
    finish line.  He needs her complete, 100%, unequivocal support, and as the good Democrat she is, she should give it.  
    She has made an enormous effort, given the situation.  However, Bill handed the GOP an attack ad with his response to the question of whether or not Obama was qualified to be President: "The Constitution" lays out the requirements for President."  Jeez, how lame is that?  Halperin announced that the Clintons do not feel that Obama is qualified, and Hillary did not dispute the statement!  Hillary's brother attended a McCain rally without criticism from Bill or Hill. Most importantly, Hillary continues to allow her supporters to promote the idea that Obama cheated to get the nomination.  She could have enormous sway amongst most of her supporters, actually bringing them back on board so they don't get tricked or sucked up by the GOP.  She's done a good job of presenting herself in support of our candidate, and sometime during the convention, while she still has the public stage, she should destroy the GOPs false movement to co-opt Democrats into voting for McCain.  She's partway there, and now she needs to finish the job.  Getting Obama elected is not just his campaign's job, it's the job of all Dems, especially our powerful politicians like Hillary and Bill.  This isn't about Hillary carrying Obama over the line, it's about a party that works together to achieve common goals.

    If Hillary's supporters would organize toward promoting Hillary instead of trying to subvert the Dem party by endorsing McSame, the rest of us Dems would certainly be on board with that.  But to watch the unmentionable groups promote our opponent McCain as if he's a viable choice for anyone with Democratic values is painful and counterproductive.  Hillary's historic campaign should be rewarded by a huge enhancement to her Senate career.  I've suggested in other threads that her supporters push for a seniority jump to Senate Majority Leader, which, even if the attempt failed, would shake up the Senate and force Sen. Reid to promote our issues more.  If it worked, Hillary would be in a long term powerful position that isn't as risky as taking a cabinet position would be.  Plus we wouldn't lose a strong member of the Senate.  Hillary's supporters who still don't support Obama would have incentive to get behind our candidate because electing him would be good for all of us, especially Hillary.  Hillary's supporters have one last chance to demand something besides awarding Hillary the Dem nomination.  

    This convention is an opportunity to put to rest the conflict between Hillary's and Obama's supporters.  Other than candidates, both sides pretty much want the same things.  Watching Hillary's speeches and performances improve all spring was a very inspiring experience for me, and I look forward to seeing her this week take the next step in undermining the GOP's attempts to siphon off Dem votes.

    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:16:45 PM EST
    you say

    "Most importantly, Hillary continues to allow her supporters to promote the idea that Obama cheated to get the nomination"

    so, just when did I miss Obama doing something to STOP his supporters from continuing to claim that the Clintons engaged in race-baiting politics during the primary?

    you also said

    "Hillary's brother attended a McCain rally without criticism from Bill or Hill"

    Did I miss the speech where Obama came out and crticized Michelle for completely taking Bill Clinton's fairytale remark out of context and claiming that Clinton had called Obama's campaign a fiarytale?

    Good for goose, good for gander, right?


    Wrong (2.00 / 2) (#183)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:47:32 PM EST
    Hillary should do what's right because she is a good Democrat.  She shares my values and hopefully yours as well.  She should ensure that the ongoing attempt to force the Dem party to give her the nomination discontinues now, during the convention.  She should do everything she can to ensure that the GOP and McSame do not benefit from any lingering disunity in our party.  Why?  Because otherwise the Republican party will continue it's assault on our values, our economy, our civil rights, our Constitution, and our good name in the world.  We spend $5000 a minute in Iraq, and some rich Texans and Saudis benefit from our efforts.  We don't have the money, so our children's children will have to pay the bill.  Four more years of Republican rule could destroy our economy.  Then what?  

    Winning in November might be our last chance to keep our county and our way of life.  Hillary will do what's right.  She's a good Democrat.  I just wish the unmentionable groups had pushed for advancement of her career, given her incredible performance this spring, rather than continuing the Primary by pushing for the nomination.  It was not going to happen.  Period.  If they were really concerned about our party and our country, they should push for a better direction, not just more divisiveness.  However, many of the sites are actually Republican funded and controlled, hence the goal of continuing the divisiveness.  

    Hillary is skilled enough and has earned the right to lead the Senate.  That should be our goal, not promoting the conflict between her and our candidate.  This isn't about whether or not Obama is experienced or smart enough or competent enough.  It's about the rest of the 50 Million Americans who share values that our party espouses.  This is where we stand up and demand an end to what Dubya and the billionaires who pull his strings are doing to our country.  Obama's not perfect, he's far from it.  But the people behind him, we the people, are what will make the changes we so need.  

    Do you want to take back our country, or do you want to stay mad at what the Dem leadership did in solving the problem of a tight, 50-50 primary race?  Just because your candidate won't be President doesn't mean you can't personally work to take back our country.  You have Obama.  You can try to make the most of that, or not.  Your choice.  But not voting top of the ticket, subverting our party, won't IMO get you what you want.


    you said NOTHING (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:03:47 PM EST
     to address what Obama should be doing to stop his supporters from being divisive.  Is that because you don't believe he should be doing anything?

    All you want to address is what Clinton should do in refards to her "supporters".

    What about what Obama should do in regards to his?

    If you have read much here at all you would know that what is keeping many of Clinton's supporteres from supporting Obama is his SUPPORTERS and their constant Clinton bashing.

    Address that, OK?  It might get you some converts.


    Solving a problem? (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Nadai on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    Solving a problem?

    Wow, the Republicans should hire you.  That's a way better spin on vote stealing than anything they've come up with so far.


    in my humble view, your mindset (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:30:50 PM EST
    is all what hillary and her supporters are supposed to do for obama. hint, hint! it is about obama campaigning to win our vote. it is ours to give or not. so dissing us, irritating us, cajoling us, directing us, informing us, etc won't work. obama needs to address the issues that bother us. as has been said over and over and over, this is more than obama. it is what the democratic party leadership is doing. that has to be addressed or the party in my view will be hopelessly fractured, and it won't be our fault.

    My mindset is that I want to take my country back. (none / 0) (#187)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    That's my goal.  Obama wasn't my first choice.  I'm stuck working within the framework of my party's choices as well.  

    Specifically what do you want him or his supporters to do?  Ask for your vote?  Done, even by Hillary.  Campaign for your vote?  Done.  Vote for and support pro-choice legislation?  Done.  UHC?  He'll probably go with Hillary's plan in spite of his attempts to differentiate his plan from hers during the Primary.  Not ask evangelicals for their votes?  Can't do that because he needs those votes, given the number of Hillary supporters who will now vote for McSame.  Vote against FISA?  I would have like that too, but sorry, that would have ensured our party's loss in November.  Period.  End of story.  You may not agree, but it's reality.  It would have been the most effective tool the GOP had, fear-based ads that portray our candidate and our party once again as weak, ineffective, unable to protect us from

    I'm not dissing Hillary supporters.  I have more in common with you than you'll ever know.  Our major difference might be that I do not trust Hillary Clinton to run our country, and I do not think she would have created the change I think we need.  Obama may not either, but I'm counting on the millions of people behind him to demand and even create change.  

    We'll not likely ever agree on that, but even so, what can you say that Obama can do specifically to win your vote?  Please, no responses saying never, never, too late, he's worthless, etc.  I'm asking because I really want to know what he can do after he secures the nomination, to win your vote.  


    This is something (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Nadai on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:28:12 PM EST
    I see again and again from Obama supporters.

    We'll not likely ever agree on that, but even so, what can you say that Obama can do specifically to win your vote?  Please, no responses saying never, never, too late, he's worthless, etc.

    How can I make it up to you, honey?  Yes, I know I slept with your sister, kicked your dog, pawned your wedding ring for gambling money, and crashed the car driving drunk.  But that's all in the past.  I'll do better, just give me another chance.

    What you and so many others don't seem to get is, there's a point of no return.  We passed that point so far back, you can't even see it in the distance any more.  It's done.  Demanding that we all agree to let the past go and pretend it never happened is itself offensive.


    I'm not your ex-husband (2.66 / 3) (#209)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    and I'm sorry if someone hurt you so bad that Obama re-triggers that for you or reminds you of how someone else was hurt by deceit in an intimate relationship.  Obama didn't sleep with your sister or kick your dog, and I certainly haven't.  I personally think that the primary race was actually pretty mild, compared to cheating, lying husbands, and, yes, racism and sexism were factors.  

    But I'll try again, and I'll repeat my request that no reply with the standard "too bad, it's too late, nothing will work" response.  For those of you who feel that way, fine, vote McSame or leave the top of the ticket blank.  I've already heard that many, many times here at TL.  Please allow others to answer this one particular question instead:  If you are willing to vote for Obama if he does something different between now and November, what is it that you are looking for?  What can he do to win your vote?


    MyLeftMind (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:05:37 PM EST
    Just exploded reading your comment.  You say, "Hillary continues to allow her supporters to promote the idea that Obama cheated to get the nomination".  First point, most Democrats I know think for themselves and know the facts before they post a comment so Hillary does not "allow" us to believe anything.  And Obama, the media, the DNC and that RBC farce dragged his butt over the finish line.  That's cheating.  And now phony magnanimity toward Hillary is supposed to get us all in the Obama camp.  How about this?  Hillary has nothing to do with his support at this point.  He has shown too many of us that he has no core principles and he is unqualified for the position he seeks.  It really is that simple.

    It's reality that allows me to believe Obama (5.00 / 4) (#201)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:31:52 PM EST
    stole votes. When you aren't on a ballot and your opponent is and your opponent wins 65% of the vote and they give YOU 50%(EVEN THOUGH THIS MEANS TAKING 15% OF HER VOTES)that's stealing. 15% of the electorates opinion was ignored to coronate Obama.

    Sorry, "allow" was not the right word. (1.00 / 1) (#198)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:27:16 PM EST
    Whatever.  I wrote a lot more than that, and of course I think most people think for themselves.  If the DNC had done the same for Hillary instead of Obama, I'd be having this same discussion on a different blog only I'd also be fighting accusations of racism on top of it.  The race was 50-50, they had to do something.  It's done, and I'm not going to abandon my party over it, and if you or others do, so be it.  It's just a shame that the result might be McSame winning, because the one thing I'm sure of is that our economy will collapse under the weight of four more years of the US supporting oil price manipulations by the richest people in the world.  

    Hillary does not actively attack the unmentionable groups that allow the GOP to suction off Democrats into the McCain voting block.
    Sounds like you think that nothing Hillary can do would garner votes from her remaining supporters who don't support Obama.  I disagree.  I think she has a huge influence.  She can subvert the unmentionable movement.  If she's a good Democrat and cares about our country, she will subvert it, help destroy it, and demand and end to the GOP trickery that has extended our Primary and the conflict between the Clintons and Obama.  That's what I hope to see this week from Hillary.


    The problem with "complete and..." (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:33:55 PM EST
    ... unequivocal" is that whatever Hillary does will never be enough. I mean, can somebody explain to me how I can verify the difference between "enormous" and "complete"?  

    I mean, what do they have to do to demonstrate fealty? Cut off their little fingers? Commit ritual suicide on live, national TV?

    Again, nothing will ever be enough. Whatever Hillary does, the goalposts will always be moved, so that if (when) Obama loses there's a convenient scapegoat and a media narrative right to hand.


    i am sure (1.33 / 3) (#39)
    by MrPope on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:51:14 AM EST
    I am sure if McCain wins...he will thank the PUMA's during his victory speech for all of there support..then right after announce abortion are offically outlawed.

    I think he'll thank (5.00 / 9) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:52:46 AM EST
    Obama supporters as well for their absurd attitudes on how to win over voters.

    cmon BTD (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MrPope on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:00:04 AM EST
    I just think its sad that people will allow McCain to win over loyalty to Hillary...when Hillary would rather jump off a bridge than see McCain as president

    its really amazes me.... what Hillary wishes no longer means a hill of beans to Hillary supporters... no pun intended


    Third (3rd) time MrPope... (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:04:58 AM EST
    why should we vote for Obama. Not against McCain, but for him?

    Here's one reason: Charlie Savage in Boston Globe (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by byteb on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:21:37 AM EST
    wrote a story last January about the 80 volunteer Gitmo lawyers endorsing Obama. Link below:


    From Savage concerning what the lawyers said in their endorsement statement:
    "The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to "restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community."

    "When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us," they wrote. "Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates."

    Speaking for me only, that's a pretty good reason to support Obama.
    Feel free to disagree.


    Thanks very much (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:24:03 AM EST
    For engaging in a positive way. This is what Sen. Obama and his supporters should be doing every day.

    Good link, but that was a while ago (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:44:20 PM EST
    Obama's good work back then was totally undermined by his vote to destroy the rule of law by granting retroactive immunity to the telcos on FISA.

    But thanks (really).


    What part (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by jb64 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:34:07 AM EST
    of voting for FISA, stroking Evangelicals, picking a running mate that supported the Bankruptcy bill in addition to a police state, don't you quite understand? This has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. People around here have issues with the positions and tactics that the Presumptive nominee have taken. Tell me what substantive difference there is between a Dem Nominee who supports spying on his own people, filling jails with first time drug offenders, turning people who have fallen on hard times into indentured debt servants, and reaching out to evangelical voters in the hopes of creating a new base? This is different from the GOP how?

    Democrats have substantial (none / 0) (#170)
    by byteb on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    and substantive differences on major issues and positions from Republicans.
    To name a few:
    Iraq, healthcare, Iran, the economy, Social Security, international diplomacy, trade, taxes and the federal budget and housing.

    Example 2 (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:19:45 AM EST
    You hurt Obama. Please stop it.

    don'y you think (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:54:30 AM EST
    if presidents had the ability to outlaw abortions, GW would have done it already?

    Give McCain a chance (none / 0) (#54)
    by MrPope on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:57:06 AM EST
    Presidents didnt have the ability to easesdrop on the public without cause either...that sure changed quick

    Please tell me you're kidding (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:05:50 AM EST
    right! Ever hear of Sen. Obama's FISA vote to spy on you even further?

    but, but, but (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:07:28 AM EST
    you forgot Obama had to do that to get elected, otherwise , the nasty repugs would have called him "soft on terrorism".  He doesn't really mean it though...   LOL

    You have no power here! (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:54:58 AM EST
    Now begone, before somebody drops a house on you!

    I've asked 3 times now, MrPope, (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:59:48 AM EST
    why should we vote for Obama?

    thats easy (none / 0) (#63)
    by MrPope on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:00:35 AM EST
    Because Hillary has asked up to.

    Well, then I guess it's a good thing (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:05:13 AM EST
    she didn't ask us to jump off a building, huh?

    Let's try again. Why should I (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:13:05 AM EST
    vote for Obama. What does he bring to my table?

    That's easy. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by chel2551 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:26:26 AM EST
    He's not McCain.

    OTOH, Kerry wasn't Bush, and you know where that got him...

    right back in the Senate.


    Okay (none / 0) (#130)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:35:42 AM EST
    I'll bite.  But I know you will just follow it up with a "how do we know what he REALLY thinks post".  So I'm calling your bluff that there is nothing that would convince you to vote for this guy.  Anything he has said you distrust, and anything he has voted for you doubt.  That being said, things he has done, voted for, and said, would give Dems a reason to vote for him.  You just don't buy it.  Here are some of those things:

    -Fair pay act.  He co-sponsored, signed, and gave a pretty good "speech" on why this is important.

    -Habeus Corpus.  He has consistently called for closing Guantanamo bay and applauded the recent supreme court decision that allowed greater rights for detainees.  He was endorsed by the lawyers fighting for habeus rights, who had this to say about him.  You may notice their praise that he is not all talk and no action, but in fact helped lead the fight.

    -He is pro-choice.  And gave a very clear, affirmative, pro-choice answer in a conservative venue.  You may not like his present votes, but in IL they have the same effect as "no".  And that is what counts.

    -Tax cuts.  He wants to repeal bush's tax cuts on the richest Americans.  Period.

    -Foreign policy.  He isn't a hawk.  He has at least shown some ability to get along with foreign leaders.


    FISA (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    I don't appreciate my government spying on my email and conversations. I find that the most repugnant vote of all. There is no explaining that away.

    You are either a dem that respects the constitution or you aren't.

    Obama doesn't respect the constitution.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    I can appreciate if you are an idealist.  But when we have 2 candidates, both of whom supported FISA, and one of whom I agree more with on the vast majority of other issues, I pick the candidate I agree with more.  The "lesser of 2 evils" approach.  I certainly respect your choice not to.  My point was, on issues where there is a difference between the two, Obama has taken the right side.

    Hawk or nohawk... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:43:22 AM EST
    Who said this, McCain or Obama?

    "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat." And: "Let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation."

    Do you have to think about it for a few minutes?


    No chance not to know (none / 0) (#173)
    by byteb on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:26:57 PM EST
    who said this one about staying Iraq:

    "one hundred years, one thousand years, ten thousand years or until the earth collapses under global climate change."

    Now 'that's' a hawk.


    What did you think when in (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:33:38 PM EST
    the a.m. during the primary Sen. Obama said that Iran was not a threat (in Oregon) and in the afternoon said that it was (in Montana). Is that any better?

    Better than staying in Iraq (1.00 / 0) (#185)
    by byteb on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:03:35 PM EST
    ten thousand years in terms of being a hawk?
    Are you kidding?

    Please look into Sen. Obama's words (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:14:40 PM EST
    Just like GWB he said he would consult with his Generals and go from there. That is his out to getting us out of Iraq. Otherwise, if he truly wanted to accomplish this, or make real waves about it, or truly believe his own rheteric, he would have voted differently on all his U.S. Senate votes. He also chose a veep who voted for the war, which is the reason he gave as to his opposition to Hillary in the primary. There's so much more to say, I'll let someone else say it.

    On the Fair Play Act, (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:15:34 PM EST
    it was introduced by Sen. Harkin. The co-sponsers listed do not include Sen. Obama Fair Play Now, he may have made a speech in favor, and he may say he co-sponsered, but it is suspect to say the least.
    Guantanamo, many support closing it. Tax cuts, yes his plan would repeal anyone making over $250,000, if he can get it legislated. Foreign policy, who really knows. Not even Biden. Pro-choice doesn't always mean pro-woman's rights.
    He says I should consult with my clergy/family before making a decision about my own body. So, I still cannot find that reason to vote for him. Democratic congress yes.

    One more note, please. (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:31:31 PM EST
    I did find Sen. Obama was one of 15 Senators who signed on to the Fair Play Act, however, it was not a great bill, according to some female economists and, Hillary Clinton, who was more against it, sponsered the Paycheck Fairness Act to counter it.

    Hillary Clinton voted (none / 0) (#184)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    Yes on that act and gave a speech on the floor in favor of it.  So I am not sure what you meant by that.

    Obama also co-sponsored the paycheck fairness act.  Keep spinning...


    Hillary came back with the (none / 0) (#197)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:26:38 PM EST
    Paycheck Fairness Act in response to the Fair Pay Act.

    She came back (none / 0) (#203)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:35:21 PM EST
    Because the other bill was defeated.  She still gave a speech in the senate for the other bill which she also voted for.  Obama also co-sponsered the Paycheck Fairness act.

    Different bill. (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by TChris on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:34:58 PM EST
    You are confusing Harkin's 2007 bill with the Fair Pay Restoration Act, which would reverse the Supreme Court's awful decision in Ledbetter.  Obama is a co-sponsor of that bill.

    Obama was (none / 0) (#178)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:33:54 PM EST
    a co-sponser of the fair pay act.

    Guantanamo - he doesn't just support closing it, he has actively worked with the lawyers of detainees to help them get their rights today.

    Pro-choice means voting pro-choice.  And "fair pay" would suggest pro-woman's rights.


    Thank you TChris. If the Acts (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:23:22 PM EST
    got confused I pulled up the wrong one. The post I was answering, I thought, said the Fair Pay Act.
    I agreed Obama's stance is pro-choice vs. pro-life, however, he is not for total reproductive rights as he says I should consult with clergy/family before I make my "free" choice. Please!

    a similar question (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    was asked of an Obama supporter this weekend on FOX.  She was aksed to name three of Obama's accomplishments.  The only thing she could come up with was he was against the war from the beginning.  They tried again, since that is a position, not an accomplishment.  She said "judgement".  Again, not an accomplishment.

    Now, I realize FOX wouldn't hire the brightest dem supporters.  But, you would think after Chris Matthews badgered that Obama supporting pol earlier in the primaries for five full minutes on TV, they woudl have develeoped a list by now to answer that question with.


    Hard to do... (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:40:26 AM EST
    when there ain't no list...

    well certainly the Obama campaign (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:43:50 AM EST
    could make up something credible, couldn't they?  I mean they only need THREE.  He must have accomplished three things somewhere between ILL state senate and US Senate.

    OK - let's see (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:59:28 AM EST
    1. He campaigned for Lieberman, praising his "keen intellect" and urging Connecticut voters to have the "good sense" to return "Joe" to the Senate. This really spiced up his anti-Iraq war credentials.

    2. He voted for the renewal of the Patriot Act.

    3. He travelled on a Gospel tour with Donnie McClurkin.
    Mr. McClurkin is well known for his psychiatric insight with respect to homosexuality. "(Homosexuals) get to the point where they hate being so, having such a lack of character that they make a change,"
    sayeth Donnie.  No wonder Obama was drawn to such a towering intellect.

    That's three isn't it?


    Oh Please (5.00 / 8) (#67)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM EST
    If the republicans really wanted to turn over Roe v Wade they would have done it years ago.  That is only something they drag out every four years to scare the hell out of women and Democrats.  

    Right on.. (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by DET103 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:11:34 AM EST
    ...I would consider them less likely than Dems to do anything about it, it's a wedge issue they will never surrender.

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:10:41 AM EST
    Yeah ,because laws are made in the executive branch. You might try an argument that an elementary school student couldn't annihilate.

    Wait, so what you're saying is... (none / 0) (#22)
    by mike in dc on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:39:16 AM EST
    ...this whole thing might be just a tad overhyped by the media?  That most voters are capable of setting aside grudges and voting based on common beliefs and interests?
    That said, I do think there is a lingering problem here for Obama, but I also think it will be a substantially smaller one, post-convention.  If a few million Clinton diehards cost him the election, I have a difficult time seeing how that benefits Sen. Clinton's future prospects in any way, shape or form.  Sure, you can assign blame to him for not meeting whatever standard they set for him to meet, but it will be impossible for Sen. Clinton to escape the lion's share in the eyes of conventional wisdom(fairly or unfairly, that is the truth). And that will cost her any chance of ever becoming president.  
    However, if Obama wins, Joe Biden will be too old in 2016 to run for president, and the field will be wide open.  It's actually better for Clinton if Obama wins.

    Do you really believe that? (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:41:13 AM EST
    No offense to Chris, but this story is weak tea as a counternarrative.

    Your response is a little unclear... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by mike in dc on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    ...Do I really believe what, exactly?

    That this problem will be lessened after the convention?  Yes, I do believe that.  How on earth could it not be?  Hillary is going to enthusiastically lay out the case for Obama and against McCain.  Obama is going to make his best case for himself.  Lots and lots of public unity gestures.

    That Clinton diehards staying home or voting for McCain in November is almost as big of a nightmare for Sen. Clinton as for Sen. Obama?  Absolutely.  The media is not suddenly going to change its spots.  They are obsessed with this story now, and if exit polls give them a reason to revive the narrative, they will do it at the drop of a hat, and it will not redound to Sen. Clinton's future benefit.  So the diehards are actually more likely(or at least as likely) to do great harm to Clinton's future presidential chances as to Obama's chances(and the prospects of the Democratic policy agenda as well).


    Thanks for (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:53:38 AM EST
    a different angle on the contrived media story that the GOP is hoping will dominate the DNC,Chris.
    Glad that someone is not taking the GOP bait.

    Contrived? (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:00:44 AM EST
    This is where I part company with most of you.

    There is a problem and denial won't make it go away.


    If you think that the (5.00 / 9) (#62)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:00:04 AM EST
    PUMAs, the Denver Group, the JSDN folks are working this hard to get Hillary a chance at 2012, then you don't get it. We'll worry about who runs in 2012 later. This is about taking our party back. If we hurt Clinton's chances of getting elected in 2012, so be it. The next time around we want a more open, more democratic process. That will benefit any candidate who wants to win fairly.

    Exactly.... (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by miriam on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:53:13 AM EST
    What too many are ignoring is the reasoning of those who plan to not vote for Obama.  It's not only his inexperience and personal inadequacies, it's also the methods used to force him upon Democrats, the majority of whom did not vote for him in the primaries.  And it's the threat scenario now being foisted upon us--that if/when he loses it will somehow be Clinton's fault and that of her supporters.  I, for one, could care less who's blamed by the DNC, since they will never admit it was their tactics that brought us to this pass.  What I do care about is getting rid of them and returning the Democratic party to those who consider the country's best interests, rather than those who simply want power for the sake of power (and money).

    If Obama loses the presidency, I doubt the DNC will avoid an earthshaking change. And maybe next time the Democratic leaders might listen to the will of the majority of Democrats and not just to the loudest nastiest voices.  Their main goal was to get rid of the Clintons...no matter what that brought. They assume that with enough insulting and drum beating they can whip us into line. Instead of threatening they should be conciliating...but that is not the Obama/DNC way. And this is what we are being commanded to support?


    this part (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:53:38 AM EST
    "this whole thing might be just a tad overhyped by the media?"

    To which Sen. Obama has power (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:03:43 AM EST
    to stop if so chooses. At least over at MSNBC, however, after Saddleback it was Andrea Mitchell reporting word from the "Obama campaign" etc.etc. so somehow, they choose not to stop it. If it's about her, then his negatives aren't being played up, his veep pick isn't being criticized and his minions can go out and multiply?

    Well, they make it sound... (none / 0) (#106)
    by mike in dc on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:20:46 AM EST
    ...like this is the make or break issue for the campaign, when it's not at all clear that it is.  After all, he's still leading McCain in 101 out of the last 112 polls.  

    It's a BIG issue, not denying that, but it's not as big as they're hyping it up to be.  


    Excuse me (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:23:56 AM EST
    It is the make or break issue of the election.

    This is the only way McCain can win.

    This is why Obama has played dice with this election by not choosing Hillary as his running mate.

    Frankly, Obama's actions on this are inexcusable.


    Of course, that only makes sense... (none / 0) (#190)
    by mike in dc on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:07:09 PM EST
    ...if one completely rejects the notion that picking her as VP is also playing dice with this election.  You seem to be in the minority across the blogosphere in your belief that wouldn't be the case.  

    We'll see who was more correct about this come election day.


    how many DELEGATES support (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:28:24 AM EST
    Obama at the convention is a much smaller issue than how many of Cointon's 18 million voters support Obama.

    Those poll numbers are more important that "delegate support".

    I beliebe the most recent polls say approx 43% of Clinton primary supporters will vote for Obama.  27% are tepid Obama supporters, but may still change their minds before Nov.  30% will either vote for McCain or not vote the top of the ticket at all.

    That's 5.4 million voters Obama has lost.  I guess it just depends on which states they live in as to what effect it will have.


    According to the USA Today (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by cmugirl on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:37:32 AM EST
    thanks for cleaning (none / 0) (#136)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:40:33 AM EST
    up my number estimates for me.

    The post (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by TChris on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:18:39 AM EST
    is not intended as a "counternarrative."  It simply calls attention to a poll that should be of interest to TL readers.

    Excuse me Chris (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:22:26 AM EST
    Of course the story is a counternarrative, not yours, but from the Times.

    A Dem operative (again, not you) will of course try and push this story. But in the scheme of things, it is weak tea as a counter narrative story.


    Not your fault it's a slow news day (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:43:50 AM EST
    apparently, with nothing else to report than that delegates to a Dem convention will support the Dem nominee.    

    Breaking!  College of Cardinals support Pope!

    But as for how many Catholics will be in church on Sunday, we'll just have to wait and see.

    There's usually more news on a Monday morning.  Odd.


    I find the 5% number kinda interesting (none / 0) (#159)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:53:22 AM EST
    Even with all the pressure being exerted on them to still say they aren't sure? That's a puzzler.

    Gawd (5.00 / 13) (#57)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:57:53 AM EST
    I cannot think of any defeated primary candidate who has ever done so much, so soon, in support of the ticket, and I see no reason to think that will change between now and November.

    You would think there would be some gratitude for that.  Instead, all we get are these passive-aggressive threats that go like, well Hillary supporters, you had better all come around or we just might decide to blame you for Obama's loss and deny your candidate the 2012 nomination in exchange.

    Considering everything Hillary is doing in support of the Democratic ticket, anyone who would attempt to hold her responsible for the actions of the PUMAs has to be the worst kind of irrational hater.  And it would sure be a mistake for the most hateful members of Obama's base to assume that, in the event he loses this election to McCain, their opinion is going to be held in high esteem the next time around.


    aren't these the same (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:00:38 AM EST
    people who always say that we can't hold Obama accountable for what "his supporters" do and say?

    Consider this. (5.00 / 9) (#91)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:11:52 AM EST
    Who do you think would be the better choice to invest time in to get them to vote for you: evangelicals or lifelong Democrats who supported a different candidate?

    Yet the Obama campaign seems to spend more time pandering to evangelicals then trying to convince Clinton voters.


    They believe you got no place else to go. (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    That you will fall in line, come around. You have no other choice. You will get over it. Now or by election day.

    And, who knows, maybe Obama believes the evangeilicals are right (not just right politically).


    Hmmm, maybe they should get it in their (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:56:41 AM EST
    heads, we don't have to go anywhere at all. We can all stay home  ;)

    Struck me this morning that had primary vote (5.00 / 7) (#147)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:44:44 AM EST
    totals been reversed, the MCM and party honchos would not be asking Obama to not have his name placed in nomination. They would be demanding that Obama have his vote, his chance at the convention. Conjecture on my part, but I think that's how it would have gone down.

    Think about it. It would be such an insult to a a large voting block in the Democratic Party that no one would tell Obama he ought not have his moment in the sun.

    My hypothetical comment from below.

    Seriously, can anyone imagine the first black candidate who came close to winning the nomination actually being told to remove himself from consideration prior to the convention? I think instead, were that to have been the case, the party and responsible Dems would be urging unity but praising and promoting the strength and diversity of the party, celebrating that two historical firsts were accomplished in the same year, and lamenting that both could not have won.

    And Clinton would have actually given him respect and consideration, imho.

    But, the woman did not come out on top, and women are supposed to make way, give way, and know their place(s). Where ya gonna go, sweetie?


    Well (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:54:40 AM EST
    I think it would be a moot point because Clinton would have named Obama as her VP.

    But even if that didn't happen, I don't think Clinton would have any trouble understanding why a vote might be important to some of Obama's supporters, the same way she understands why it's important to her supporters.  It would have been a no-brainer.


    This is NOT about Clinton (5.00 / 9) (#92)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:12:34 AM EST
    and what she should do.

    This is about Obama and what HE should do.  This is about MY vote, not Hillary's vote or her future.  Too many Obama people have bought into the hype of this being about the candidates and their feelings/futures etc.
    THIS is about US, millions of women, who have worked all our lives for democratic candidates.  This is about us being relegated to the "worker bee" status for the party, doing our jobs...you know, the hard work while the "queen bee" men sat around and strategized....

    Hillary is only the symbol....we are the ones that got kicked in the gut.  Hillary will be fine whether or not she is or is not in politics down the road.  We, the women, who have worked so hard for so long, are not OK.  
    This campaign has shone a light on our own party and what is visible is not pretty.  Many of us knew there were some unsavory things to deal with, but in our hearts we never believed that they would tolerate the sexism, the personal bias and gaming of the election.

    Women are angry and Hillary and Bill's speeches cannot undo what Dean, Brazille, the media and a few others have done.


    You (5.00 / 7) (#140)
    by sas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:42:31 AM EST
    got that right!

    What I learned this election cycle is that the Democrats which I have worked for for years,and who I donated a boatload of money to, are not who I thought.

    The DNC sat quiet while all the media (and some Dems) made sexist remarks regarding Hillary.

    So, I left the party.  Now I'm an Independent and am happy as a clam.  They all have to earn my vote.  I will not fall for the Roe v Wade carrot, or the SCOTUS carrot.

    Everything candidate will be handled on a case by case basis.

    I have also realized that the Dem party is simply not progressive enough for me.  YUou can't be a progressive without being a feminist.  Further, Ralph Nader was right.  The two major parties are essentially the same.


    Point of information. I have this bias for data. (none / 0) (#122)
    by Christy1947 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:29:31 AM EST
    As a basis for comparison and discussion, will someone here kindly post what percentage of women, and what percentage of white women, and what percentage of minority women,  voted for Democratic candidates in the last few Presidential elections? You can't tell if a certain percentage is enough unless you have a basis of comparison to compare it with. The test of a candidate is not that they win every group, or that they win them with 80%, but if they win enough. And there is no basis stated here for what is 'enough' to compare with the existing situation as shown by polls.

    this post has nothing to do with (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:50:40 AM EST
    the upcoming general election in November.  This is only talking about Cliton delegates at the dem convention this week.  Obama doesn't need ANY of these delegates in order to win the dem nomination this week in Denver.  He already has enough when you count his pledged delegatea and the super delegates who support him to win the nomination.

    So, how much support Obama has among Clinton "delegates" at the conventio doesn't say much at all.  Especially if yo don't tell me what "support" they are talking about.  1st Roll Call vote, 2nd Vote, general election?

    If these number are intended to say that this may delegates will abandon Clinton on the 1st roll call vote, I think that will just tend to pi$$ off her 18 million supporters throughout the country.


    You could look it all up (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:50:52 AM EST
    of course, as I've found it online before by googling.  And it's been posted here before.

    I do recall that women have voted more than have men since 1952.  That women have been something like 55% of all voters and even more than that of Dem voters.

    Obama is not quite keeping up with that, last I saw.

    But it's not about women voters, really.  Don't buy the easy media meme, because they are Men With Issues About Women, it seems.  There also has been considerable discussion with data here and elsewhere (see pollster.com, for example) about the fact that because women have been so reliably Dem, it really is the men's vote that has made the difference.

    Gore lost the men's vote.  Kerry lost the men's vote.  And Obama is behind them in the men's vote.

    That must be why Obama has been and continues to so brilliantly cater to the Men With Issues About Women, because he sees that it is about the men's vote.  But it seems that there are lots of good guys who don't have his issues about women and are not being won by the sexism and misogyny.  

    There it is.


    it doesn't matter what message (none / 0) (#163)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:55:35 AM EST
    the obama campaign or media spin. they'd better deal with the reality of what the real poll numbers on voters say and get busy. tick, tick, tick, time is passing. obama spent the last few weeks doing nothing to change the narrative.