Entitled To Your Support

I am the type of Democrat that will vote straight party ticket, from top to bottom, in a general election. They have my vote and usually my support. But I am not all Democratic voters. No politician is entitled to anyone's support or vote.

But what you see projected from the Obama camp and Democrats of late is the notion that Barack Obama is entitled to the support of all Democratic voters. No matter what you, I, pundits and bloggers think, that is not how politics works. If Obama can learn just one thing from Bill and Hillary Clinton, it has to be the ability to fight for every vote. To NOT act like you are entitled to anybody's vote. To act like you believe you have to earn their votes. More . . .

The Obama camp must never project the attitude demonstrated in this article:

Some senior Democrats close to Obama, meanwhile, made clear in not-for-attribution comments that they were equally irked at the Clinton operation. Nearly three months after Hillary Clinton conceded defeat in the nomination contest, these Obama partisans complained, her team continues to act like she and Bill Clinton hold leverage.

Some senior Obama supporters are irritated at how they perceive the Clintons fanned — or at a minimum failed to douse — stories that she was not even vetted as a possible vice presidential nominee. This is because she told Obama she preferred not to go through the rigorous process of document production unless she was really a serious contender, an Obama associate noted.

One senior Obama supporter said the Clinton associates negotiating on her behalf act like “Japanese soldiers in the South Pacific still fighting after the war is over.” A prominent Obama backer said some of Clinton’s lieutentants negotiating with the Obama team are “bitter enders” who presume that, rather than the Clintons reconciling themselves to Obama’s victory, it is up to Obama to accommodate them.

(Emphasis supplied.) Watching CNN, Democratic pollster Peter Hart said something similar, arguing that the "onus is on the Clintons." This is absurd. Obama is the candidate seeking the Presidency. Obama is the one seeking Clinton supporters' votes. the onus is on him and all Democrats who want Obama to win in November.

Railing about PUMAs and the Clintons is exactly what NOT to do. Are you upset that Clinton supporters are not moving to Obama? Keep it to yourself. Think of the big picture. This election is too important. Of course Obama chose to not pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate, and we know that would have fixed everything, except for a very few diehards. Obama chose to not do that.

So the price for that is to suck it up. To placate, court, woo, do what you have to, to get Clinton supporters on board for Obama. It may be that "Clinton supporters are the problem", but it is Barack Obama's problem. And if you want to help him solve it, stop whining about Clinton supporters and start trying to win them over.

The alternative is pouting, holding your breath and maybe losing the election.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< In - Politics Of Contrast, Out - Politics Of Change | Baggage >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Frankly (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by DCDemocrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:32:39 AM EST
    I haven't had the sense that the remaining hold-outs are all that persuadable.

    The ones (5.00 / 15) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:38:56 AM EST
    to which experience matters can not be obtained. Obama simply can't become qualified before Nov.

    There's a large contention that might consider voting for Obama but he's spent a lot of time trashing them. He's wasted the entire summer prancing around and throwing sand in the eyes of Hillary's supporters. It may be too late on that account too. After all, there's less than 3 months to Nov. and he's spent almost three times that amount of time running these voters off.


    Yes (5.00 / 8) (#193)
    by tek on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:10:19 AM EST
    and we have 3 college students who are Obama people.  They just don't get this at all.  They go ballistic when we say we don't feel good about Obama and we don't know if we can vote for him.  

    See, college kids think they've outsmarted the adults and now they're going to take their toys and go home if everybody doesn't give them what they want.  They don't really want the Hillary people, but they are afraid of losing.  They still insist that Obama can win without the Hillary people.  

    Obama wants to form his own, new party without traditional Dems.  He said that all through the primaries--he was going to "realign" the Party.  So, how's that workin' out for ya?


    vote McCain (2.00 / 3) (#154)
    by MrPope on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:53:39 AM EST
    Just Vote McCain and call it day...  sheeshh

    When will Obama supporters (5.00 / 9) (#160)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:57:21 AM EST
    understand that criticizing Obama does not equal voting for McCain. We used to do it all the time! Now every time I criticize Obama his supporters exasperated just tell me to vote for McCain. Geesh. Fightin' Dems. NOT.

    And you would be right about that (5.00 / 11) (#9)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:41:43 AM EST
    A few months ago a commenter here asked the Clinton supporters  what it would take for us to vote for Barack Obama. The Clinton supporters responded with a list of things they would like Obama to do. Nothing on the list was earth shattering, but it would have required Obama to show a little humility. The response from the original commenter was that Obama would not do any of the things we asked for, and he/she was right. He has not. There may still be a few Clinton supporters that Obama can influence, but the low-hanging fruit has already been picked. His last best opportunity to bring her supporters on board was lost with the choice of Biden.

    one of the most telling things here and (5.00 / 7) (#149)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:50:32 AM EST
    i feel sure most hillary supporters feel even if not voiced is that by obama's very refusal to court the 18+ million voters. he shows without a doubt he isn't ready to be president due to poor judgement. he is supposed to represent ALL  of the american people. michelle with her comments and attitude make me very uneasy. obama just as much sad to say.

    I really disagree on that (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:51:16 AM EST
    the remaining holdouts have been told their votes don't matter, not the thing to tell someone when you want their vote.

    AND.......80% of a group (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:55:27 AM EST
    is always persuadable.  Let the earning of the votes begin.  Once the convention is over we are on a different playing field and gears will shift.....or I probably need to say they need to shift at that point as in successful Presidential bids they do and if they don't Obama will lose.

    I think the gist of their argument has been (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Dave B on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:13:09 AM EST
    Clinton voters will come home because:

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  


    Somehow the Obama camp (5.00 / 16) (#120)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:26:31 AM EST
    managed to make themselves a greater enemy than John McCain.

    Impressive, stunning and mind blowing that they could manage such a feat, but they have it seems.

    It is frightening really.


    Yep (none / 0) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:13:53 AM EST
    They have been truly amazing in their ineptness. If we had sigs around here I would use your statement. It is amazing isn't it?

    err no they won't. (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:51:28 AM EST
    More like (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by tek on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:14:47 AM EST
    because of Roe v. Wade.  What Obama underestimated is that 1.  He totally trashed older women (older people, actually) and older women don't have to worry about getting pregnant anymore.  Sure, the ideal is that everyone wants what is best for everyone, but when the candidate shows such a callous disregard, it's tempting to just say, forget it.  It's not my problem anymore.

    And we get? (5.00 / 14) (#59)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:00:21 AM EST
    Obama could fix his health care plan.

    That would move me back to tepid support from non-support.

    FISA would have done that, but Obama went the other way.

    Abolishing caucuses would have done that, but Obama went the other way.

    Revoting FL/MI would have done that, but Obama went the other way.

    And so on. I think what is being missed is that a lot of the angst really is over policy. And every time there's another fail on policy, the difference between the two gets less and less. This post is essential reading (via Avedon)

    Look, I'm sure Invesco's going to be great theatre and all, but...


    Hey lambert (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:06:12 AM EST
    Totally hear you and totally agree with you.  Perhaps it is the optimist in me forever waiting for him to begin to do the "right" thing and wanting him to start this morning so I can vote for him.  I am the mother of a human being who is no longer a minor yet doesn't have her frontal lobes in yet either.....can I seriously "be" any other way right now when it comes to the youthful inexperienced future leaders of America :)

    Invesco (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by justonevoice on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:06:47 AM EST
    Warm up act is Bon Jovi and some other big name, then "The Boss" wraps it up.

    Great theater?  Sure.  For the Democrats.  Great fodder? For the next McCain ad.  For sure.  WHY are they DOING this to themselves?!?


    Yah, but in order (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:06:52 AM EST
    to get to enjoy the theater,  you have to listen to another "greatest speech evah". I'm not sure even Springsteen is worth that.

    i am not watching it. (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:54:30 AM EST
    don't mean to irritate here but i may not watch hillary. i don't care to see the endorsement. i may watch big dog. i love to hear him speak as he touches on everything and doesn't need a teleprompter.

    And if you do not have cable>....... (none / 0) (#198)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:12:44 AM EST
    The regular networks in the NE only get the convention at 10PM.


    Specially when they are being pushed away (5.00 / 6) (#124)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:28:27 AM EST
    And offended at every turn. You seriously believe that if Sen Obama had picked Sen Clinton as VP choice they would be no change in the hold outs and the numbers?

    I'd love to see an all-out effort (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Coral on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:56:01 AM EST
    on the part of Obama and his people to win over the Clinton supporters. As they say, "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down."

    I'm probably going to vote straight Democratic ticket, but the Obama people may just yet convince me to go with the Green Party for president. Just because I am angry at the way they have treated Clinton and her supporters.

    What's more, even if people do vote for Obama - tepidly, as a lesser evil -- imagine if those people or many could be persuaded to support the ticket enthusiastically? I could, if Obama would just make the effort to win me over -- with some healthy praise of Clinton, some red meat on economic issues, and support of women's issues such as choice and equal pay.

    Heck, I might even be persuaded to donate real $. I just turned down someone who came to my door on behalf of the DNC because I am so angry at the way Clinton was treated.


    I think there are many, many (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by joanneleon on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:05:53 AM EST
    who are persuadable.

    Unfortunately, I don't think the Obama campaign will want to learn anything from the Clintons.  I hope I'm wrong about that.


    Hmmm (4.80 / 5) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:37:05 AM EST
    then Obama will lose. Is that what you are predicting?

    We;ve been telling you this for months (5.00 / 22) (#92)
    by goldberry on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:12:21 AM EST
    It's not just that he's not qualified to be the lowest ranking cabinet official, forget about being president.  
    We strenuously object to the WAY he won.  Republicans play these kinds of cheating games to rig an election.  We aren't naive to think that Democrats are incapable of playing rough but the system was designed to produce an Obama win no matter how many voters he had to step on to get his way.  Big states ponied up millions of dollars to run primaries that were null and void before a voter pulled a single lever.  Without FL and MI, it was always going to be an uphill battle for Clinton no matter how many primaries she won.  And with all the outrageous behavior of the Obama machine in the caucuses, the delegate count for Obama was quicky inflated.  
    If it were just his complete and utter lack of qualifications to be president, that would be one thing.  But the fact that he condoned all of the strings that were pulled for him, including the outright theft of delegates for Clinton, told me everything I ever needed to know about Barack Obama.  
    Don't you get it, BTD?  We've been telling you for months.  He can be the biggest DIVA and media darling the country has ever had.  We aren't buying it.  We see what's happening.  If he is elected, there is no Democratic party anymore and your right to vote is just a formality with no real meaning.  That is why we are determined to stop Obama this year.  None of us has a fondness for McCain and the problem is not really one that Hillary can solve.  She knows that by now.  
    This is 100% the responsibility of the DNC.  They only intervened when it was convenient for Obama and never in favor of the voters.  And if Obama fails this fall, the DNC should get the blame.  
    All of it.  

    THIS (4.57 / 7) (#164)
    by justonevoice on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:00:37 AM EST
    comment should be in every editorial and opinion page in the country.  Regardless of party affiliation, votes should count, not some celebrity status.

    BRAVO Goldberry BRAVO!


    I know you believe it (none / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:22:03 AM EST
    I was asking DCDem.

    You've been insistent about his media favorability (5.00 / 7) (#161)
    by goldberry on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:57:29 AM EST
    And we've been telling you that it will not matter how popular Obama is and how much the media loves him.  The jig is up.  We see what's going on and the whole world is watching this week as they have never done before.  People are tuned in.  The Olympics are over.  Summer is coming to an end.  Kids go back to school this week and there's nothing good on TV.  This is the show that everyone will be fixed on because more than half of the voters ended up on the losing team through no fault of their own.  
    It doesn't matter how perception is managed anymore.  People are going to believe their lying eyes.

    The media loves Obama (5.00 / 5) (#181)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:06:59 AM EST
    The voters, not so much

    You've (5.00 / 8) (#179)
    by tek on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:06:29 AM EST
    totally nailed one of my biggest objections to Obama.  He behaves like a petty dictator.  I don't know who he and his surrogates think they are to be ordering people to fall in line.  The fact that they corrupted the primaries to give him the nomination makes it all intolerable.  I don't see what separates these people from the Republican neo-Cons, so why give such people my precious vote?

    The Supreme Court, (2.00 / 1) (#119)
    by DCDemocrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:24:52 AM EST
    health care, the war in Iraq.  What else is their to propose.  Even if people believe Obama does not have the experience to be president, do they believe that McCain, who has lots of experience, will represent their interests better than Obama?

    I don't get it.  I just don't understand how after eight years of this disaster, good Democrats can stand by and let the Republicans renew their lease on the White House.


    I can explain it to you, (5.00 / 13) (#134)
    by echinopsia on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:35:09 AM EST
    but I can't understand it for you.

    Part of it is disgust at what the DNC has done and condoned in this primary. It's no longer the party we thought we belonged to and it no longer appears to value the ideals and constituencies it used to. We don't like the rightward positions the selected presumptive nominee has taken, which are less than traditionally Democratic. We feel that Obama is not qualified or experienced enough to be president, and that he would be as disastrous, if not more so, than McCain, who would at least be held in check by a Democratic Congress.

    All of this has been explained exhaustively. What I don't understand is why it has to be explained yet again.



    I'll take a stab (5.00 / 15) (#142)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:43:45 AM EST
    A lot of people don't believe Sen. Obama is great on the issues. They want someone they recognize as a fighting Dem, not a post-partisan, let's-all-get-along politician. Without the contrast coming from the candidate himself, it's pretty easy for a lot of people not to vote for him.

    And that part about how can good Dems stand by and let this happen? That's exactly how many Clinton supporters felt during the primaries.


    Abso-frickin'-lutely (5.00 / 12) (#194)
    by Emma on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:10:40 AM EST
    And that part about how can good Dems stand by and let this happen? That's exactly how many Clinton supporters felt during the primaries.

    Various people are expressing various iterations of shock, outrage, anger, disbelief, or lack of understanding re:  why PUMAs won't just get on board already.

    I still have all those same feelings every time I remember sitting in my living room and watching the RBC STEAL my primary vote for Clinton and give it to Obama.  18,000 Clinton votes were stolen in Michigan.

    I have all the same feelings every time I remember the heinous RFK smear pushed by Obama's campaign and the denigration of the Clintons as racists by Obama's campaign and his smarmy, chuckling acceptance of the sexim thrown at Clinton by his own personal network, MSNObama.

    I can't understand why some people can't understand why I can't vote for that.  We're at an impasse. What's happened before can't be undone.  Therefore, there's no incentive for me to move closer to Obama.  I can sit here and wait for him to come to me.  If he doesn't?  Too bad, so sad -- for him.


    Have you ever heard of (5.00 / 16) (#145)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:47:56 AM EST
    divided government?  Two parties do push me pull you and neither gets their radical policies implemented.

    The Democrats will win both houses of congress and increase their majorities.  With McCain as president, the Democrats have the power to hold him accountable for everything he does.

    It's not about wanting McCain. It's about thinking divided government is a better choice than electing Pelosi's gift from god.


    IMO you've got it backwards. (5.00 / 12) (#156)
    by rise hillary rise on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:55:01 AM EST
    the real question is, given the state of the republican brand, why is it that the Os don't have the overwhelming support of the party?

    Marketing 101: if the public doesn't buy the product, don't blame the buyers, look at what's wrong with the product.

    Personally I don't appreciate the Os trying to tell me that it's a binary choice: if I don't support BO, I'm for McCain. Not so. BO has yet to earn my vote, or convince me that he would be worthy of it. and now with his pick of Biden, I'm convinced that the Establishment will prevail regardless of who wins. so I'm supporting Cynthia McKinney.


    Me too!!! (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by justinboston2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:02:02 AM EST
    Cynthia McKinney will be getting my vote as well :)

    The democratic process (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:01:32 AM EST
    to your Supreme Court.  Apparently, you didn't notice that it was lost already -- and when these Dems controlled the Senate.  So it would be good to get new Dem leadership before the next nominee from either Obama or McCain, since both have said entirely unsatisfactory statements about women's reproductive rights.

    You consider Obama's comments -- about the Court, Roe v. Wade, women -- and the current Dem leaders' actions satisfactory.  Others disagree.

    It's a free country, as the saying goes -- at least, it is when the democratic process is followed in the country and in the party.  When it is not followed, the Court and far more are at peril.  

    You consider the democratic process less important.  Others disagree.  Different threshhols of outrage.


    Let me explain my position (5.00 / 7) (#170)
    by Nike on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:02:50 AM EST
    My problem is that on these core issues--health care, mortgage crisis restructuring, civil rights, the Supreme Court, and the war--I have NO confidence that Obama will provide strong leadership.

    His job, in terms of winning my swing state vote, is to convince me that he does provide that leadership. His people can complain that those who don't "go along" are "dead enders," but that kind of attack won't get me out to vote.

    Ever since winning the primary, all of his moves and decisions suggest otherwise.

    It's that simple.


    how can (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:07:51 AM EST
    you believe that Obama is any better when he want's to hold hands with the disastrous GOP? Our own candidate doesn't see anything wrong with the GOP, it's only a personal thing about Bush or McCain. He's not talking about how conservatism has been terrible for our country or the fact that Bush and McCain are terrible since they are conservatives. Heck, he praised Reagan and the GOP to the skies. When your own candidate doesn't really think that McCain's ideas are bad then why should you be surprised that lots of people don't think that voting for him will make much of a difference.

    And I can't understand how people (4.81 / 11) (#129)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:30:59 AM EST
    think it's McCain who is GWB3 when it is actually Obama. After all, he voted against the very constitution we all live by with FISA, in the u.s. senate he never once voted to stop the war in iraq, he voted for vp cheney's energy policy, he almost, until talked out of it, voted for confirmation of roberts. His pro-choice stance is convoluted, and oh, both he and McCain don't believe in gay marriage, no health care for everyone, how many more can we add.

    Don't forget (5.00 / 13) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:39:38 AM EST
    that the list of "bitter holdouts" is GROWING, not shrinking.  And the sense of entitlement is only going to cause the list to grow further.

    People, maybe Hillary supporters, maybe not, are taking a closer look and not really liking what they see.

    Democrats want their politicians to run as Democrats. They hate what the Repubicans have done. The unity schtick is distasteful, given what we've seen through the many, many years we've experienced politics.

    I agree, BTD ... (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:41:43 AM EST
    I posted something similar in the previous thread.

    You must work for every vote, and take no vote for granted.

    That's a political maxim which pols ignore at your peril.

    So we are supposed to feel better knowing (5.00 / 14) (#11)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:42:00 AM EST
    that she wasn't even a serious contender? Doesn't do much for me.

    Anybody's short list (5.00 / 16) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:45:05 AM EST
    Of course that is the point, Hillary was not on Obama's short list and Obama's people are pointing to that fact as a good thing that explains why she was not vetted.

    They seem not to understand the import of the vetting story - it was about Hillary not being seriously considered, not the vetting. No one was begging for Hillary to be vetted, but some of us thought she she should be seriously considered, or at the least, act as if she was seriously considered.

    I did not want to draw attention to that point because frankly, at this point, I hope this can be fixed. But not as long as the Obama team has a bunch of whiny babies in it (does the Clinton camp have whiny babies? Of course, but Hillary is not the candidate.)


    I refer to it (5.00 / 15) (#35)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:49:27 AM EST
    as giving Hillary proper respect.  Politics is in large part about appearances.  What would have cost the Obama campaign to make that effort?

    I do not know (5.00 / 10) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:51:29 AM EST
    I know what it is costing them to not do it.

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:45:05 AM EST
    They would have been more than happy to pretend she was a contender, look at her record and possibly use it for ammo in her next senate bid.

    But we're talking about a person who puts himself above everything else.  No way, no how could she have been a serious contender.


    She couldn't be a serious (4.75 / 4) (#71)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:05:57 AM EST
    contender because the likes of Sen. Kennedy (way back when) said no to Hillary, Nancy Pelosi said no to Hillary, Donna B. said no to Hillary, and they were very public about it. I'm sure the Chicago political machine also didn't want the "power" or "influence" of the Clintons. This campaign only knows how to pretend they are already elected, they have shown that they do not know how or choose to fight for the win.

    A revision (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:16:20 AM EST
    from the NYT article yesterday, in which she wasn't vetted because she didn't want to be vetted unless she was going to be the VP.

    So what is the true story here?  Apparently that the Obama people take as their inspiration Tom Friedman - Suck. On. This.


    If the NYT article is true, (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:21:58 AM EST
    then the Obama camp should have said that altho' they wanted her to be considered, these were standards she set and then the onus would have been on her. The Obama campaign, not saying anything and keeping on with the dissing of her, allowed the onus to be on him.

    That wouldn't work either (5.00 / 5) (#186)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:07:54 AM EST
    what the NYT says is that she didn't want to be vetted unless she was a serious contender. Obviously she wasn't. The Obama campaign should have made it look like she was, even to her.

    This stinks no matter how you look at it.


    yup that seems to be the latest (none / 0) (#158)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:56:23 AM EST
    offensive talking point. she didn't win more votes and she never had a chance. yeah right!

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:44:16 AM EST
    have you thought about the fact that they know they are going to lose the election hence the onus on the Clintons? If the Obama campaign was even mildly confident that they could win in Nov. they wouldn't care one iota about what Hillary is doing.

    In the ongoing civil war in the party, putting the onus on the Clintons is a win/win for them when you know that you're going to lose in Nov.

    that's silly (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:46:09 AM EST
    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:51:10 AM EST
    on one level but constantly looking to blame someone else ever BEFORE one vote has been cast doesn't project confidence to me. Does it to you?

    I don't remember Kerry preemptively blaming Dean in 2004. Lots of that when on after but not before.


    no (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:00:40 AM EST
    it doesn't project confidence, but I don't think it means they know they'll lose.

    it just means they know, at the end of the day, they didn't really deserve to win.


    It means, above all, they're AMATEURS (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:14:56 AM EST
    That is the bottom line here.  And who wants amateurs running the country the way they have run this campaign?

    Thank you Big (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by justonevoice on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:45:02 AM EST
    for stating the obvious!  The sense of entitlement is what is the most upsetting.  Assumption is the mother of all f*ck ups.

    I am one of those who probably will not vote Obama.  I will vote for other Dems down ticket, but will leave the top of the ticket blank.  Because of the approach and actions Obama has taken (courting evangelicals,  no firm stand on choice, FISA), the line is TOO blurred between him and McCain.  Right now the only discernable difference to me is that one is 47 and the other is 71.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:47:01 AM EST
    I know you know there are many to her discernible differences but Obama needs to tell these to you in a way you will be receptive to.

    Absolutely (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by justonevoice on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:51:52 AM EST
    All we are asking for is a candidate who, like one governor said, "Obama needs to tell us in 10 words or less at Wal Mart how he intends to improve our lives."

    Nuance works for the creative-class.  But for those of us who are trying to juggle tuition, gas prices and mortgages, hope don't pay the bills.


    Do they think the Clintons hold no (5.00 / 14) (#18)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:45:44 AM EST
    leverage? When Bill is still beloved by most of the country and Hillary got 18 million votes? Yes, indeed. No leverage at all. The problem with Obama's campaign behaving like this is the utter cluelessness that is exposed. They really think they're going to win by blaming the Clintons? They can blame all they want, it won't win them the election.  And this kind of behavior is what makes this Clinton supporter keep her vote to herself. Or give it to Nader.

    I was very surprised by (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:46:49 AM EST
    the 3AM announcement.  it was uncalled for.
    and very telling.

    It was not a deliberate dis (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:47:36 AM EST
    It was a f*ck up.

    Hmm (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:51:48 AM EST
    A fck up that looks like a deliberate dis.  Perception is reality.

    It was a stoopid mistake. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:53:37 AM EST
    I just hope someone in the campaign actually realized it was a public relations blunder and why.

    The whole VP announcement (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:55:32 AM EST
    The choice
    The delay
    The text message

    All a political blunder.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:59:37 AM EST
    and as far as the accident.  incredibly stupid if it was accidental.  to know the story was going to be largely about NOT Hillary and to do something like that.
    but I tend to agree with some pundit over the weekend.  not picking Hillary will go down as one of the biggest political blunders ever.

    Text message not so bad (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:00:07 AM EST
    I don't think they wanted the phone numbers just for fund-raising. I think they wanted them so they can call on election day and remind people to vote. I think that was pretty smart. (Of course people who would sign up for such a text message are less likely to need to be reminded to vote, but still.)

    Now, the delay and the handling of the roll-out generally, that was stupid.


    Sounds like (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by justonevoice on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:01:44 AM EST
    SOP for Camp Obama.  sigh...Let's "hope" they transform their campaign in time.  Hillary and McCain retooled and McCain won his nom (presumptively speaking) and Hillary ramped up big victories towards the end.

    I thought "change" was good?


    you think? (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:55:08 AM EST
    it sure seems convenient.  like Teresa says.
    still hard to believe they would dangle the most important announcement evah for days and days and then accidentally release it at 3am.

    Not an accident (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:57:08 AM EST
    It seems like someone in the Obama camp leaked it to the press and then they had to send it in the middle of hte night. They've done plenty of other things wrong; don't need to criticize them for this one unfairly.

    Another inkblot (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:58:15 AM EST
    For those who would find satisfaction with the 3:am announcment, they found it.

    For the rest, they had plausible deniability.

    It is a pattern with this campaign to do this kind of thing....e.g. the RFK flap.

    So yeah, we'll never know if it was truly a fck up or not.


    You (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:59:08 AM EST
    are forgetting how inept they are. I know there's been a lot of deliberate "dissing" but they have also proven themselves pretty clueless campaigners.

    The Core of the Problem... (5.00 / 12) (#29)
    by bmc on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:47:57 AM EST
    Barack Obama believes in his own entitlement. He can't help himself. He believes in his own destiny, and he resents anyone who questions it.

    Barack doesn't believe he has to "earn" anything. He believes it is his by divine right, and he'll destroy anyone who gets in his way, Democrats included.

    Oh, and Ted Kennedy is in Denver to "pass the torch" to Obama, according to Politico! Wha? Did I miss something? Wasn't Clinton the last Democratic President?

    You can't make this stuff up.

    I do not believe that (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:50:46 AM EST
    But I do know he is projecting that, especially through his surrogate and supporters.

    And his own facial expressions (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:54:16 AM EST
    Pretty hard to believe he doesn't feel entitled.

    Perception is reality (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:26:56 AM EST
    Specially when your opponent is very cleverly playing up this perception. I think enough to cost him the election.

    And through his actions (5.00 / 5) (#141)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:43:20 AM EST
    such as the Harry and Louise Ads, the evangelical prayers at the conventions, picking a vice-presidential candidate who voted to ban "partial birth" abortions, voting for the FISA capitulation bill, gay-baiting to win primaries (do I need to go on, or have I hit just about everyone's line in the sand yet?).

    Yes, Obama's surrogates and supporters are pretty awful, but I don't agree with letting Obama's actions off the hook.


    Entitlement (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Nike on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:11:16 AM EST
    Yes, I agree with the entitlement attitude.

    It strikes me as a particular problem for a Democrat. I expect that this--like the celebrity meme--will be an attack issue from Republicans.


    The numbers for (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by sas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:49:06 AM EST
    Obama are falling.  Why is that?

    It seems that the more people see, the more they know, the less they like him.

    When the kids play t-ball (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Redshoes on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:51:09 AM EST
    it's actually more challenging to teach them to be gracious in winning than for them to learn to accept the loss.  

    As a Edwards, then Clinton and now a resigned Obama supporter I remain underwhelmed by the campaign's commitment core Democratic values and their respect for long-time Democratic loyalist.  

    Whether it's the repeated message to Clinton's former supporters -- just "get over it" (Can you imagine if any campaign taking that approach regarding other forms of discrimination? )

    To the idea that party elders should not have leverage -- how about being mature enough to recognize the value and building on that of their experience?

    One hopes that the powers that be backing Obama come through on their promises of new voters because they certainly aren't doing much to reassure this old one.

    gracious in winning (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:40:12 AM EST
    doesn't seem to be a quality Obama finds important.

    I'm reminded of the two pages in his book where he rips apart and belittles Alan Keyes, his opponent in the US Senate race.  Two pages dedicated to belittling and denigrating a man he had ALREADY beaten!

    Why?  The race had been over a long time and those were two pages he could have dedicated to something else.  But he chose to gratuitously kneecap an opponent he had already beaten.

    And that kinda says it all, you know?


    Plus (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:48:52 AM EST
    that race wasn't exactly a victory over a worthy opponent either.  Obama had almost every advantage in that race except incumbency.

    McCain knew he had to (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by standingup on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:52:41 AM EST
    work to get the support of his base after he won the primaries and immediately set out to do so.  We never heard any of this crap about it being Romney or Huckabee's responsibility to deliver their voters to McCain.  CDS from the Obama camp and his media base will cost Obama the election.  I can't believe they were so blind to this from the outset of the general election campaign.  

    In a world where a candidate (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:54:23 AM EST
    believes it is all about him, then it naturally follows that he does not need to pander to anyone, they will come to him no matter his words and actions. That, to me, has been the attitude of Sen. Obama. Perhaps it comes from not really knowing who he was growing up. Whatever the reason, you see that he has to earn all the votes he can get, I see it, most here see it, but the candidate himself does not. It is so obvious. Those citizens of this country most hold in the highest esteem and we respect earned that place. Sen. Obama would do himself a great justice to study those individuals.

    The more I read and hear (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:59:07 AM EST
    the "entitlement" schtick from the Obama camp, i.e., on the tube, and on the blogs, the more I move to holding it.

    I was ready and willing to quietly vote straight democratic like I always have, as soon as I set aside my frustration over what I viewed and still view as some gaming of the process by the DNC.  But honestly the nasty 'tude, rolling eyes of Donna Brazille; the Howard Dean inability to convinve me that he has played fair; the bloggers who are the most sore winners I could I imagine, I am no longer sure.

    I never disliked Obama but I don't have a lot of confidence in him. However, I could get past that, especially if he had chosen Hillary, the person who tied him.  But apparently the Obamasphere thinks I owe them my vote.  Some of the DNC seem to think so too with their "Where else they gonna go?" nastiness.  

    I have lost so much respect for so much of the process.  But one thing is true. I OWN my vote.  I don't owe it to anyone.

    Fighting the previous war (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by koshembos on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:00:04 AM EST
    The Obama people have invested all their energy in hating Hillary and calling her names. It worked, with DNC support and rigged caucuses, for them. They cannot let go. They still are fighting Hillary instead of facing their new challenge.

    It seems that they don't have a clue on how to campaign against McCain. After all, they cannot call him a racist, their nuclear weapon against Hillary, and they ran out of caucuses they can rig. Despite the collapse of the Bush Republicans and the terible war in Iraq, Obama looks exactly like the similarly clueless Kerry.

    In addition, Kerry was a humble hardworking old style Democrat. Obama is arrogant, not sufficiently smart Republican.

    They won't smear McCain as racist (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:13:32 AM EST
    They'll smear him as old.

    It will be like the primaries again, except that hatred of the old will replace hatred of women. Bet on it.


    which is a brilliant way (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:42:42 AM EST
    of locking up those older Democratic voters (as well as the families who love them) who are already suspicious of this amorphous "Democratic" candidate Obama.

    Do I need to insert a {snark} here?


    I think they lost they smear (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:06:47 AM EST
    when the Obama camp took Biden. He's 66, younger, but not by much!

    very few voters look at the GE as a big picture (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Saul on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:00:45 AM EST
    scenario.  To most voters it is a personal choice of one candidate.  To want them to forget everything and just look at what is at stake if they do not get over the Clinton defeat can happen but very few will IMO.  Many also know what is at stake but since their choice of candidate did not win then many will say well that just tough.  I have said that the unique passion that has been demostrated  in this past primary will be what makes or breaks who wins this GE

    I predict that Obama has a very close chance of losing this election and if he does history will show that his pride was the main culprit.   Especially when he knew that if he picked Hilary the GE  would have been a slam dunk

    Not picking Hilary could be his Waterloo

    Gosh. MSNBC this AM says it's the exact opposite. (5.00 / 10) (#62)
    by karmadillo on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:01:08 AM EST
    The Clintons have to prove their fealty to Team Obama and deliver all the holdouts or people are going to suspect they're up to something, sneaky pols that they are. So, if I understand Politics 2.0 rightly, Obama doesn't have to reach out to anybody by doing that stinky Old School thing of compromising and negotiating. Hillary as VP? Get real. Universal Health Care? Not for you, loser. We'll do as we like and you'll give us your vote anyway and that's the way it works.

    Look (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:06:17 AM EST
    If winning in November is what people care about, then that is wrong.

    On the other hand (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:51:17 AM EST
    if Obama losing to McCain is the desired outcome, then it's absolutely marvelous.  As someone who went from supporting Hillary to supporting McCain, on the day she suspended her campaign, I love it.

    At this point, (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Landulph on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:02:05 AM EST
    I would say that is an open question, BTD.

    i am thinking about getting a (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:01:23 AM EST
    tee shirt saying "MSNBC can sit down"

    The actions of Obama and his campaign reflect (5.00 / 9) (#63)
    by FLVoter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:01:27 AM EST
    very poorly on Obama.  If he cannot treat Bill and Hillary Clinton with respect as a former two term President and First Lady and NY Senator, then how will he treat others he disagrees with if he is elected President?  To me this is a very damaging character flaw on the part of Obama.  As President he will need to rise above the pettiness he continues to exhibit.  Frankly, he has acted petty for so long, I do not know if he can undo the damage he has caused himself.

    okay i'll take the bait (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by justonevoice on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:04:03 AM EST
    yes, you keep on believing that and spreading that kind of information.

    just ONE more less vote for your candidate.  mission accomplished, right?

    Maybe (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:05:12 AM EST
    But primary winners do not have the luxury of whining. They need to win in November

    The dedicated Democrats who voted in the primary (5.00 / 7) (#75)
    by esmense on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:06:21 AM EST
    for Hillary Clinton aren't the problem. The few angry enough, or engaged enough, to cast a protest vote, won't affect the election's outcome.

    It is the new, first time and usually disaffected voters who came out ONLY because Hillary Clinton was on the ticket, and the many, many, more less committed, more disillusioned voters who didn't vote in the primary but would have voted in the general for the first woman and/or the one candidate with a strong association with better economic times, who present a real problem for Obama.

    Now that those two powerful motivations for voting have been eliminated, Obama has to find some equally powerful ways to overcome the disillusionment and apathy that too often keep those (should be naturally Democratic) voters from the polls -- their disillusioned sense that the political system doesn't much represent them and their conviction that there isn't, for them, many significant differences between the parties.

    Many of these voters are women, most are working class -- they are not dedicated Democrats, dedicated media watchers or dedicated voters --  and if the Democrats were honest they would recognize that they haven't, over the last 30 years, in terms of policy rather than mere lip service, given them a whole lot of good reasons to be dedicated Democrats. But their lives WERE better under Bill Clinton. And they do believe Hillary Clinton knows who they are and understands their issues.

    Obama doesn't have a concrete record to offer them -- and so far he not only hasn't shown he understands them, he and his campaign have been convinced they don't need them.

    I think that against McCain -- who has brought his base home and has always demonstrated a strong appeal for middle class and more affluent white, males -- independents, moderate to conservative Republicans AND Democrats -- a Democrat needs the voters mentioned above. He simply can't afford their apathy.

    Exactly (5.00 / 10) (#105)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:19:05 AM EST
    As that truck driver in PA said of the Clinton years:

    "What part don't they like? The peace? Or the prosperity?"

    Obama doesn't speak to that at all.


    If a politician needs the votes (5.00 / 8) (#78)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:07:07 AM EST
    of any group, the savvy thing to do is go directly to the group and ASK for their votes.  

    Obama himself should take the trouble to specifically address Clinton voters and ask them for their help. He needs to show that  he actually values and needs their votes.

    Then he needs to tell his surrogates to stop whining about the awful Clinton Democrats who just won't see the light.

    Letting proxies dominate the discussion with their snarky, disrespectful comments is exactly the wrong way about it.  

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:08:56 AM EST
    we often point out ways that Obama could improve his chances of winning.

    I'm neither invested in Obama winning or losing.  I leave it entirely up to Obama.

    IMO (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:09:37 AM EST
    The people in charge of the Democratic party are believing what the press says.  For years the press has told us independents voters decide the election, what they don't tell us is that for those voters to make the difference you need your base to vote solidly for your candidate.  The problem we have IMO is that McCain is trying to woo his base, Obama's camp seems to be saying that parts of the Democratic base doesn't count.  I've always said that Obama's best point is that he is not McCain, apparently some of his followers are trying to make this difference not count.

    Thank you (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:11:05 AM EST
    for the unity.

    Lack of grace (5.00 / 8) (#94)
    by aquarian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:13:06 AM EST
    The easiest way to win over Clinton's voters was for Obama to be gracious.  Frankly, I might have even accepted his pretense at being gracious.  I don't hold pols to high standards of sincerity.  But, geesh.  At least pretend instead of fanning the dialogue that the MSM is looking for -- Ooooh!  look at the party divided!  At least try to win us over.

    Every time I read about some unnamed Obama associate grumbling about Clinton, I can't shake off the AFLAC duck screaming "A$$hat."  I wish Obama's campaign would understand that as a Clinton voter, I could be persuaded to vote for him, unless they do something really stupid like call me names......    

    This is a subject, and an attitude, (5.00 / 13) (#108)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:20:45 AM EST
    that pretty much makes my blood boil; at this point, my blood must be close to sludge.

    What Obama does not seem to grasp is that this isn't - at bottom - about Clinton.  It's about experience, about policy, about commitment, about respect, about trust, about the willingness to work hard.  It's about knowing that, for me, he is the wrong person for the job.  It's about knowing that sometimes the last candidate standing is still not the right candidate - for me.  It's about realizing that neither Obama nor McCain is the right person for the job.  

    Yes, I know one of them is going to win, but I don't want to help either one achieve that goal.  I will not enable, and for those who say that not voting for Obama is the same as enabling McCain, I say...baloney.

    Back at the beginning of this whole thing, I wanted to like Obama.  I wanted reasons to believe he was right for the country.  I kept listening and watching...and waiting.  Waiting for something besides self-indulgent, quasi-religious revivals that told me nothing about what this man would do for us.  Then, I saw and heard him misrepresent his so-called plans, put out GOP-style Harry and Louise ads that did nothing but put a chill on the goal of universal health care, send out brochures touting his religious background.  Then I saw and heard the bigoted rantings of his 20-years-long pastor and religious mentor, that he attempted to walk away from.  The pattern was - and continues to be - that he didn't know, that so-and-so was just some guy, that it was always someone else's fault.  I've had quite enough of people in high office laying off the blame for things onto others, thank you.

    It goes on and on and on.  His penchant for claiming credit for things he hasn't done, glomming onto the hard work of others to make himself seem more engaged.  His failure to take seriously the chairmanship of the sub-committee dealing with NATO and Europe, and then his glib "I was too busy" excuse for not holding a single hearing.  

    What little record this man has gave me no confidence that he could apply himself to the excruciatingly hard work on the deadly serious issues that are important to me.  

    That's why I cannot just transfer my support - support that was not blind adoration and worship - for Hillary Clinton's candidacy over to Obama.  It isn't a case of "oh, well - Clinton, Obama, no diff" - the differences are huge.

    If Barack Obama were, in my opinion, qualified to be president, it's possible that I would not hold the actions of the DNC against him, but since the DNC helped in obvious ways to foist an unqualified candidate on us, not voting for Obama is also a way for me to express my opposition to the manipulation of the process.

    In the months since the debates, and then the primaries, started, I have seen no growth in Barack Obama, no rising to the occasion of the office he aspires to - and if this process has not changed him for the better, if he has not learned from the experience, I can only assume that he does not see himself as needing to learn anything.

    A disturbing sign which, when added to all the other things that disturb me, adds up to me feeling quite comfortable with my decision not to vote the presidential ballot this year.

    Obama never misses an opportunity... (5.00 / 9) (#130)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:31:21 AM EST
    ... to miss an opportunity, at least when it comes to reaching out the Hillary's 18 million. At some point, you've got to think it's not stupid (that would be "the incompetence dodge") because Obama is not a stupid guy, but exactly what he wants to do. So be it.

    furthermore, our vote is OURS not (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:05:58 AM EST
    the dnc's. we can very well be democrats and not see value in voting for obama. in my view that makes us better democrats than someone who is voting strictly on the obama "appeal".

    if we don't call the democratic leaderhip on their very bad attitude and behavior, then exactly when do we call them on it? after we are sitting in a cage somewhere? after they take more of our rights? after they fail us even more?


    Another thing in the article (5.00 / 6) (#110)
    by wasabi on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:21:17 AM EST
    The article is playing up the tension between Big Dog and the Obama camp.  Apparently  Bill would like to talk about the economy (It IS the economy, stupid!) and Democratic ideas, while the Obama camp wants his speech to stick with the night's main theme centered around what a great CinC Obama would make.
    Maybe now that the Politics of Change is out and the Politics of Contrast is in, they will let Bill do what he does best.

    If this is really how they want to use Bill (5.00 / 6) (#169)
    by esmense on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:02:45 AM EST
    at the convention (touting Obama as CinC)then they are off their rockers -- or much, much dumber than even I, who has been moaning about the Democrat's total stupidity when it comes to understanding and marketing to their fellow Americans for years, have up until this time been willing to concede.

    What they (desperately) need Bill to do is to remind voters of how much better off they were the last time a Democrat was in office.

    They need someone who can powerfully remind the country (and educate those Obama supporters too young to remember) of the dire economic mess (record breaking deficits, high levels of, and rising, business failures and unemployment, out of control inflation in middle class basics like health care and education, record levels of personal debt coupled with high interest rates, etc.) the first Bush left behind and how it took a Democrat to clean up that mess and get the country back on track -- and make the point that ONLY a Democrat can get the country out of the even greater mess created by THIS Bush. Hillary Clinton's biggest reaction line on the campaign trail was that it took a Clinton to clean up after a Bush. No one can make the point that it takes a Democrat to clean up after a Bush more powerfully than Bill Clinton -- because he has the record to demonstrate that point.


    ok that settles it in my mind. (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:07:58 AM EST
    i won't be watching any of this convention. i won't watch bill be used in that manner. that only inflames my dislike for this whole unsavory process.

    Sounds like the Unity Pony (5.00 / 7) (#122)
    by Landulph on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:27:34 AM EST
    is on its way to the glue factory.

    It may be a media creation (5.00 / 5) (#126)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:28:52 AM EST
    that the Obama team has their eyes so far off the prize.  But if they really do feel like the Clintons are holdouts, and need no enticements, and ought to be insulted in the media, then they are in for a disaster in November.  If they can't see clearly that they need to work to get Clinton voters, how are they going to identify the other voting blocs they need to win swing states?  The little people whose cell phones, if they exist, are off most of the day, and don't have email, let alone texting.

    The divide is between (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Notyoursweetie 0 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:40:54 AM EST
    those who lived through "peace and prosperity" AND remember it and those who didn't/allowed the media CDS sway their own perceptions.
    RNC & DNC& media were united in pushing the talking points of the VRWC - old and new.
    And when that wasn't enough to sway the voters, they made up new rules (see RBC, proportional delegate apportionment et al)
    So, now we have the reality based community - who saw what happened in the primaries and why, and the bandwagon jumpers who don't know/care what caused the schism in the democratic party.

    BTD, that was beautifully stated. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by andrys on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:49:28 AM EST
    (That's all.)

    Roll call vote: What would Obama have done if the (5.00 / 6) (#148)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:49:54 AM EST
    Clinton and Obama vote count had come out the reverse of what it is now? (A hypothetical, of course.)

    Would Obama have come out full square for Hillary just days after the final primary, pledging to support her with every ounce of energy, to work as hard for her as he had worked for himself, to do whatever was asked of him by her? Would he have told his voters to back Hillary, long before the convention? Would he have claimed his right to have his name placed in nomination?

    I don't think he would have released his voters; indeed, I think that if he had he would be reviled as a traitor, possibly called a traitor to his race, for giving up what would have been a historical opportunity to show that a black candidate could and nearly did achieve the nomination of the Democratic Party.

    I'm not sure he would have given up his campaigning as early as Hillary did; probably, he would have said that he would await the judgement of the Democratic delegates to the convention, all of them, pleged and super. Because to not do so would have indicated weakness and would have disappointed his many, many supporters. And he would be looking forward to the future when he would run again, being only 46, soon to turn 47.

    I believe he would have given a great Axelrod speech prior to the vote--he would have praised his supporters for sticking with him and would have told them to vote their pledge and their beliefs. He would have begun his next campaign at that moment.

    After the first vote, then and only then would he have released them and urge them to vote unanimously for Hillary Clinton as the party nominee.

    But, amazingly, Hillary Clinton is being told to be the good little woman and get in line and get out of contention.

    Her supporters, especially her female supporters, are being told "get in line" and "where ya gonna go, sweetie?"

    I might be wrong--this is purely conjecture. I just got angry listening to Carolyn Maloney (D-CD 14), a pledged NY super delegate, just now saying on WNYC that of course she would vote for Obama on the first ballot, it's all over for Hillary's campaign, that Hillary was backing Obama, and, she added, wisely I think, that Hillary can do more for the country and the state as the US senator from NY than as the VP.

    What really angered me is she then justifed her change of pledged vote by saying Obama's nomination was a historical first.

    As if Hillary's is not?

    He would never have said that Clinton was "entitled" to his and his supporters' votes. He would have made demands, some publicly, more in private, and leveraged every bit of power he had accrued.

    Clinton was not permitted by the DNC, the pundits, the MCM to do that.


    (NJ delegate now saying delegation is united and will all support Obama. Did not mention whether they would initially vote as the voters directed them to voet. Oh, my. I am getting more and more angry. Asking that Hillary release her delegates prior to vote. Sheesh. No one would do that to Obama were he in her position. Conjecture, but I totally believe that. His maleness requires his be able to get his earned votes.)

    If the roll call vote is the sham (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:03:29 AM EST
    you are describing, we might as well forward the calendar to November on Friday. The campaign will be over, and John and Cindy can begin measuring for drapes.

    The opening salvo of this whole mess (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by janarchy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:51:12 AM EST
    started when Obama bragged "I can get her voters, but she can't get mine." Some of us took umbrage at that and hoped he might rachet it down a notch at some point. He didn't. The sense of entitlement continues.

    As a life long Democrat, I never envisioned a time when I wouldn't vote for anyone, let alone the presidential nominee. I never envisioned a time when I'd be so disgusted with the DNC's antics in general and their pick of a candidate that I'd leave the party. Both have happened, and the blame is squarely on Obama's shoulders.

    I didn't start out as a Clinton supporter, but I was of the 'any Dem will do' mindset. She won me over -- not as the Media will tell you, because she's a woman -- but as she won over the majority of the people of my home state (NY) -- by working hard, by talking to everyone and anyone, by taking no one for granted and letting people know how committed she is to getting the job done. The woman is unbelievable -- I wish more pols had that kind of dedication. Obama certainly doesn't. I've yet to see him work for anything. It's all platitudes and vague shiny words. We've had 8 years of that from Dubya -- we don't need more of it.

    A bunch of you already did (5.00 / 8) (#175)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:05:37 AM EST
    Did you actually read my post?

    "Some people" refused to give us respect.  They gave us abuse instead.

    They picked the fight, not us.  

    Well, now they've got one.

    Please tell Senator Obama, then (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:05:47 AM EST
    your last sentence.  You state it perfectly.  

    You apparently just lack a sense of irony.

    Obama and his geniuses... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by pluege on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:07:49 AM EST
    continue to suffer from what they are 'not yet ready for prime-time players'. It was a huge mistake to let Obama manipulate the primaries to take the nomination - the super delegates failed spectacularly in their raison d'etre.

    We can only hope now that we are lucky enough to overcome the Obama camp's immaturity, naivety, and arrogance and still win in November due to the public's widespread dissatisfaction with the cult of republicanism. But with republican control of the media and their voter suppression campaign, there exists substantial doubt as to whether or not that luck will grace us.

    With every failure is a lost opportunity cost. This election is the lost opportunity to affect real change is the squandering of the widespread dissatisfaction with republicans on a substandard candidate (notwithstanding the opportunity to elect a minority as POTUS, which is real change, but rather in not achieving a mandate for progressive policies, e.g., universal healthcare).

    Have seen this... (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by kredwyn on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:12:29 AM EST
    And I've pointed out repeatedly that votes are earned by the candidate...and should not be seen as an entitled expectation.

    Eh. We've been dismissed for stupider reasons. (5.00 / 5) (#199)
    by echinopsia on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:13:01 AM EST
    Honestly, threatening us with dismissal is not your best option at this point. We've been dismissed as raicsts, as ignorant, as clingy, as closet Republicans, as any number of absurd things.

    We've never had your respect so we have nothing to lose.

    You do, though. It's called an election.

    Hillary addressing supporters right now: (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:14:15 AM EST
    Live on wnyc.org

    Surprising (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:39:39 PM EST
    You say, "I am the type of Democrat that will vote straight party ticket top to bottom in a general election".  Is that even when you don't have confidence in the candidates?  Isn't that what we criticize about republicans - that they just fall in line and never question?  I haven't been here that long but I love this site and love your post most times but here is where we disagree.  The change that really needs to happen in this election may be not letting the DNC get away with their manipulations and all us life-long Democrats need to get very active and send a message that we intend to rebuild our party and restore our integrity.

    Less Ready Than Ever to Chance It (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Mole Hill on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:56:41 PM EST
    Early in the year, I somewhat foolishly believed Obama's message of progressive change. Fortunately, I wised up some time ago, as Obama continues to move harder and harder not to the center, but to the right, in some cases, like with separation of church and state, seeming eager to out-Bush Bush. In some matters, he seems willing to pick up the mantle of some of the worst Democratic sins over the past 50 years ... the party's own version of warmongering. Is moving endless war from Iraq to Afghanistan and Iran really what we want, or good for America?

    I came to trust Clinton not to perfectly coincide with my ideals, but generally to be true to the cause more often than not, and to be a hard worker, working with facts and reality as well as with inspiration. Whether I now support Obama is not a matter of resentment over what happened in the primaries, but I am grateful that Obama showed himself the way he did during that process.

    Would Obama really be a better advocate for progressive ideals than McCain? I used to think the question was preposterous, but I have been getting less and less certain of the real differences between the two candidates. Obama's pitch these days seems to be that he is not so different than McCain on most issues, just a different image. The selection of Biden really takes the cake.

    I don't think Obama would miss my vote -- frankly, he doesn't act like my vote is all that important to him.

    personally (4.73 / 15) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:46:03 AM EST
    I find shaking off 25 years of party loyalty not so easy.   As I get closer to November it's almost like a vertigo.   I think maybe that's what Obama is counting on.

    Unfortunately I still feel Obama is fighting the Clinton legacy more than he's fighting McCain.  I chalk it up to an inferiority complex that is kind of sad because there's no reason why the world can't have two great Dem presidents over the last 20 years.  

    You would think that would be considered a good thing.  

    Party loyalty is meaningless now (5.00 / 20) (#70)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:05:31 AM EST
    It's right there in black and white in the the preamble to Obama's platform:

    A great nation now demands that its leaders abandon the politics of partisan division and find creative solutions to promote the common good.

    You aren't voting for the Democratic candidate or the Democratic Party. You are voting for Obama, as leader, and the Obama Movement as a permanent institutional presence.

    That's what Obama's actions tell you, and that's what Obama's branding tells you. Believe them.


    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:07:37 AM EST
    Not heh (4.90 / 10) (#107)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:20:38 AM EST
    More of a:

    [pounds forehead on desk]

    Because the Obama Movement as a permanent institutional presence means dealing with the OFB every single day for the rest of your life.


    I know (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:11:04 AM EST
    I'm still saying it's not easy to just brush the party off my shoulder like it's a piece of dust or something.

    Think of it as (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:42:32 AM EST
    birdsh!t and it gets easy.

    how can a voter be loyal to a (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:09:27 AM EST
    party that isn't loyal to them? that idea is has no merit.

    Dick Polman (4.55 / 9) (#109)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:20:52 AM EST
    at the Philly Inquirer is projecting the same nonsense too:

    It's no surprise that Bill and Hillary have done virtually squat to boost Obama's candidacy. Narcissists (Bill in particular) have a notoriously tough time yielding the spotlight. But playtime is over. For Obama's sake, Bill needs to park his snit and make a persuasive case at the convention for why he believes (or at least is willing to say he believes) that Obama is ready to be president.

    Obama has already pandered to them enough, giving Bill the mike on one night and Hillary the mike on another night, so it would greatly help the Democratic ticket if they deigned to educate Hillary's bitter-enders on the facts of life: namely, that sitting on their duffs in November would enhance the election prospects of John McCain, and thus imperil the very issues (universal health care, abortion rights, and many more) they profess to hold dear.

    Presumably, the Clintons will keep their followers in check during the "catharsis" episode, when Hillary's name is symbolically placed in nomination. It is in their self-interest to do so. If the images on TV are dominated by angry Hillary fans screaming about sexism, some folks at home might well conclude that this Obama guy is too weak to control his own convention, thus imperiling him further. Hillary, mindful of her own career, would prefer not to be blamed in November if the Democrats lose this race in a cliffhanger.

    If Obama is getting and following advice like this, he deserves to lose.

    Oops (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:21:25 AM EST
    That last line in the block quote is mine.

    Dick Polman (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:45:19 AM EST
    has proven time and again to be a Keith Olbermann type.

    This is a new CW for the MCM--the Narrative is (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by jawbone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:09:44 AM EST
    that the Clintons are spoilers who must be destroyed. Previously, there were other reasons the MCM wanted them destroyed, as we all know.

    Even Nina Totenberg was playing this tune on a Sunday talk show broadcast on NJ public TV on Sunday mornings. Last week, she was parroting the MCM Narrative about Georgia/Ossetia. I am beginning to lose my respect for Ms. Totenberg; I used to think her judicial reporting and commentary was pretty spot on; now I'm wondering if she was just as subject to Village Think in that as in what she now comments on outside her area of certified expertise.

    On this show, as on most, the Mark Penn memo on Obama's background was misquoted--as the MCM Narrative requires. I was deeply disappointed Totenberg did not correct the record. I'd always thought she saw that as her role: speaker of truth, recorder of fact.



    Vote McCain (1.20 / 5) (#159)
    by MrPope on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:56:30 AM EST
    I mean  just say   " i am voting for McCAIN  because he will support my democratic interests"  and call it a day.  

    Please learn what it means to (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    criticize your candidate without flipping out and telling everyone to vote for McCain. Way to convince us! Who's taking their ball and going home now?

    consistant (1.00 / 4) (#174)
    by MrPope on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:05:27 AM EST
    i am just saying that the people here who have never had anything to say good about OBAMA  and attack him non stop....  just vote for McCain and take your chances.

    Don't put up this faux falsetto front that OBAMA can win u over if he does this that and the third...


    But you must not understand how (5.00 / 5) (#183)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:07:42 AM EST
    running for office works. Because Obama still can win me over.  He needs to WIN my vote.  Because you get all upset that we dare criticize him and just like a child say, "Vote for McCain then FINE!" it simply means Obama and his supporters gave up. They don't want our votes and they don't want to earn them.  Too hard to actually do what is necessary to get life-long Democrats to vote for the Dem candidate, I guess.    

    Instead of criticizing people here, (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:09:17 AM EST
    why don't you tell us why we should vote for Obama?

    Many Americans (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:04:31 AM EST
    like divided government.  Divided government supports my Democratic values better than Obama does.

    It's about accountability.  For instance, I don't want Vice President Biden(D-MBNA) to get his desires without adversity in Congress.

    Since Congress is definitely going D, then the best choice is an R in the White House.

    Speaking only for me.


    Filabuster is always there no? (none / 0) (#182)
    by MrPope on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:07:12 AM EST
    Obama (1.00 / 12) (#13)
    by pennypacker on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:43:16 AM EST
    is doing better among female voters then Kerry did. The media driving this story is what is making its worse. There also is a part of Senator Clinton that wants Obama to lose so she can run in 2012.
    Obama has gone out of his way to make Hillary and Bill comfortable and give them a huge role at convention. It is her job to make things easier for him, but in reality she is not.

    Case in point (5.00 / 21) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:45:47 AM EST
    The perfect example of what  Obama supporters should NOT be doing.

    I don't (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by justonevoice on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:59:26 AM EST
    think that they can help themselves.  Cult of personality type of behavior.  I will gladly listen to what an Obama supporter will say, as long as it doesn't come off like they are doing me a favor or being condascending.

    Speak to me like you want my vote and you
    j-u-s-t might get it.


    It is not (5.00 / 14) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:47:16 AM EST
    her job. I love Obama supporters who continually act like he's some pampered drama queen who thinks it's beneath him to actually work for votes. If you think it's Hillary's job, then you are conceding the argument that Obama isn't up to the presidency.

    So you've done a mind meld with (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:47:35 AM EST
    the senator and know this is true?

    She has done nothing except graciously (5.00 / 9) (#28)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:47:45 AM EST
    CAMPAIGN for Obama. What else is she to do? And kindly don't come here pushing conspiracy theories that have absolutely no basis in reality and are completely based on CDS.

    It is not the media (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:48:06 AM EST
    It is the candidate. Quit trying to put the blame elsewhere and make excuses. It makes Sen. Obama look weak. Man up.

    give 'em a break (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:32:39 AM EST
    They're just following their Leader who NEVER takes responsibility and is NEVER, EVER at fault when screw ups happen.

    It's your fault.  Or mine.  Or Hillary's.  Even his grandmother's or low-level staffers.

    But never, EVER his.

    Now drink your Kool-aid and vote for The One.



    There is (5.00 / 8) (#68)
    by standingup on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:04:44 AM EST
    absolutely nothing Senator Clinton could say or do to make me vote for Obama.  My vote is my own and I do not have to give it to any politician simply because he is the nominee of the party.  Do you not understand that very simple concept?  Obama is the only one who can convince me to vote for him and so far he has done nothing to get my vote and plenty to keep me from voting for him.

    you are not alone (5.00 / 7) (#85)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:09:25 AM EST
    there is very little Hillary can do to convince many of her supporters to vote for him.
    Im not quite there yet but I get it.  but I think there is a lot that the Obama campaign can do to stop Hillary supporters and others from voting for him.
    and they are doing it.

    Wow, a "huge role"... (5.00 / 16) (#84)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:09:09 AM EST
    ... for the last Democratic President who was elected and allowed to take office, and the Democratic candidate who got more Democratic popular votes.

    I would expect them to play a huge role. So, in a sane universe, would anyone else. So why is this some sort of gracious concession by Obama?


    You must be (4.80 / 5) (#30)
    by justonevoice on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:48:00 AM EST
    one of those who think that the only two-term elected Democrat who had approval rating in the 60s when he left office doesn't have any leverage.

    Funny, 18,000,000 voters think they have leverage.  BTD asked did he think that because of the holdouts Obama will lose?  My answer is, yes.

    An opportunity blown.  Chance of a lifetime wasted.


    Hillary has no job to do except. (4.70 / 10) (#32)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:48:57 AM EST
    her job as the junior senator from New York. The more Obama acts like it is Hillary's job to shore him up, the more he reminds her supporters that we really don't like anything about this man. He could probably gain a point or two if her thanked her graciously for her help and let her go home.

    I have another question. (1.00 / 1) (#64)
    by shoulin4 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:01:32 AM EST
    In the beginning of the primaries, I was really excited about the all of the democrats who were running, simply because I was ready to see the country do an about-face from the Bush years. Since this will be my first time voting (please don't hold this against me), though not my first time following elections, most of the people who were running were people I had no idea about, except Clinton because of her name and her being married to Bill. Not holding that against her, I'm just calling a spade a spade. I'd go out on a limb and guess that most people (in the beginning) knew her mostly by that association. Anyway, I started listening hard to what all of them were talking about and started doing research. At that time, my top choices were Biden, Edwards, and Richardson.

    Obama wasn't there because, while I liked what he stood for and what he was promoting, I really didn't think the country was ready for him, and also most people wouldn't even take him seriously, or treat him like a toddler because he isn't old and grey-haired.

    Interestingly enough, Clinton wasn't there because I felt that she was acting like she was entitled to the nomination. This put me off very quickly. Since I didn't have any opinion of her either way, this put off didn't sit to well with me. Unlike many people I have heard who had supported her in the primaries, I treated her as a completely different person from her husband (which is the way it should be, of course). I liked her husband. She, so far, was kind of a "meh" on my list.

    So, to wrap up this long-winded post, I submit to you (whoever "you" is), do you think that there are people who didn't vote for HRC for the exact same reason that people aren't happy with Obama right now (I support him, but I'm not all that thrilled with the showboating. The sense of entitlement didn't win me to HRC, and there's no reason why it, coming from Obama, should make me the slightest bit pleased with him either)?

    Entitlement? (5.00 / 8) (#73)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:06:13 AM EST
    That's why she participated in all those debates? Because she was entitled? That's why she had a detailed answer for every policy question tossed at her? Because she was entitled to the nomination and so should be able to just coast through? If so, she's the hardest working "entitled" person I've ever seen.

    You don't have to be (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by shoulin4 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:10:50 AM EST
    lazy to be entitled. I don't disagree that she definitely worked, but I definitely got the sense that she (or her campaign in general) felt that she would've had the thing wrapped up before Super Tuesday.

    You "got the sense" (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:12:56 AM EST
    Oh, ok, then, as long as you "sensed" it, it must be true.

    Ugh. (none / 0) (#103)
    by shoulin4 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:18:33 AM EST
    I guess, then, that if people "feel" (which is, by the way, a sense) that a certain guy has it completely out for a certain group of voters and is deliberately trying to ruffle their feathers because he likes to get up in the morning, twirl his evil mustache, and think "How am I going to piss off the Clinton supporters today," then it must be true.

    You didn't get that from me (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:23:35 AM EST
    Those kinds of feelings are ridiculous unless they are backed up with something. You got something to back up your sense that she was entitled?

    Sure (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:07:07 AM EST
    If you can can come to the realization that what people concluded about Clinton and entitlement was the process of astro-turfing, a campaign put out by Obama and Edwards to create an impression of Clinton that didn't really exist.

    Clinton made profound efforts to reach out to people who were not her natural constituency in the early going.

    Deciding to go to YearlyKos was one of them.

    She didn't have to do that if she thought she was entitled to those votes.


    Even Gravel attended (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Klio on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:30:08 AM EST
    Only Joe Biden gave it a miss.

    Again, (none / 0) (#97)
    by shoulin4 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:13:47 AM EST
    I don't think entitlement = lazy. I also don't think that she was the only one trying to reach beyond her natural constituency. It's just that some people view that as genuine and others as pandering, and that applies to all candidates.

    I can see how you would think that, perhaps (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:17:32 AM EST
    Especially since the press ALWAYS picks a front runner they can later tear down (and that front runner was Hillary, who they already hated from the Clinton years).

    I think the February caucuses were a wake-up call for Clinton, and rightly so. She fired the staff, and started focusing on the town halls with "boring bullet points about policy." She worked like a dog, with far less money than Obama, and won the popular vote.

    That's not entitlement to me.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#125)
    by shoulin4 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:28:52 AM EST
    I'm getting across what I'm trying to get across. It is in my opinion that she was behaving as if she had it all wrapped up in the beginning. I don't think she behaved that way throughout the entire primary season, I think it was just that way in the beginning. After some time and a few contests, she no longer behaved that way, in my opinion.

    Is that why (5.00 / 7) (#196)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:12:05 AM EST
    she agreed to every single debate?

    After all, everyone knows the frontrunner tries to duck debates and that's just the way it is.  We certainly heard that line a lot towards the end of the primaries when Obama didn't want to do any more debates.  But that's not the way Hillary behaved as the frontrunner, at all.


    How about this--the onus is on everbody. (1.00 / 3) (#99)
    by steviez314 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:16:59 AM EST
    Why should it be only on one side or the other?

    It is on Obama to clearly state why his policies are far preferable to McCain's on issues that are important to Clinton voters.

    It is on Hillary to emphasize that those policies are far more important than the anger and disappointment her supporters feel.

    And then it is on all of us to remember why we are Democrats and not Republicans.

    Perhaps (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:19:40 AM EST
    Nah, the onus is on Obama and his supporters.

    Again, there is no "we are Democrats" (4.92 / 13) (#123)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:28:22 AM EST
    (Sorry to repeat, but this meme needs to go).

    Read the preamble to Obama's platform:

    A great nation now demands that its leaders abandon the politics of partisan division and find creative solutions to promote the common good.

    You're not voting for a Democrat, you're voting for the leader of  the Obama Movement. The platform says that, the branding says that, the actions say that. We got in a lot of trouble by not believing the Republicans when they said stuff we thought was crazy. "They can't really mean that," we thought. Let's not make the same mistake again.

    Yet in some ways partisanship must end (none / 0) (#143)
    by steviez314 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:45:08 AM EST
    Nothing but nothing in this country will ever get solved by the partisan politics of 50% + 1 vote.

    Health care, taxes, budget deficits, social security, the war in Iraq, etc. are all issues that will only get solved by reaching across to the other side, cajoling, convincing and cooperating.

    There may be more D's than R's now, but it's still at best 40D-30R-30I.  So there has to be some bipartisanship or nothing long term can be accomplished.


    So Then, (none / 0) (#2)
    by shoulin4 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:35:50 AM EST
    What about those who aren't whining about the Clinton supporters who aren't enthusiastic about Obama, who are on the fence, who won't vote for him unless certain highly unlikely biological events happen in a certain subterranean area took place, etc.? What about those who have simply ceased to talk/mention/debate/care about Hillary Clinton and her supporters?

    Presumably (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:36:38 AM EST
    This post is of no interest to them.

    Can I (none / 0) (#5)
    by shoulin4 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:37:39 AM EST
    reply to this post?

    If you have something to say (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:38:17 AM EST
    Yes, I do, in fact. (none / 0) (#12)
    by shoulin4 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:42:57 AM EST
    I was going to say that, while completely I agree with "if you don't act as the person is describing, then the person is not referring to you" notion, I get the feeling 100 times over that many, if not most, people here view many, if not most, of the Obama supporters in this fashion. So my question is, I guess, what about those who don't act that way? What about those who no longer even mention HRC's name and have their entire focus on McCain?

    one of the problems is - (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:03:18 AM EST
    many Obama supporters, including owners of pro-Obama sites, chanted the "Clintons are racists, evil, vile" meme throughout the primary - and they're still sticking to that narrative while claiming PUMAs should just "get over it" and get onboard.
    Bill Clinton opened the door for Obama and potential for PUMAs to get onboard when the "first Black president" recently declared he wasn't a racist.
    No response from Obama - therefore the false meme continues - while Hillary campaigns for Obama.

    Obama's problem isn't his skin color - it's his character.


    That right there is the problem. (5.00 / 17) (#88)
    by rooge04 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:10:27 AM EST
    We did get over the primaries. But they keep telling us to vote for him and at the same time KEEP saying that Hillary and Bill are racists, power-hungry and evil. While she campaigns for him. It's THEM who are not getting over their CDS.  

    The problem also lies in that they think Hillary can do anything to get us to vote for him. We are not in love with her. We will not do what she wants simply because they will do whatever Obama wishes. It doesn't work like that when you supported someone based on issues and not on their personality.  That's the problem. They love Obama and therefore cannot understand why Hillary voters just aren't doing what she says. Obviously, she's not trying hard enough.


    very good points! (none / 0) (#101)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:18:08 AM EST
    I respect many Democrats who support Obama (5.00 / 12) (#82)
    by bmc on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:08:14 AM EST
    Steve Clemons, BTD, and many other Democrats...just right off the top of my head, who I read and who have my respect, despite their support for Obama.

    They are honest, reasonable, and have integrity in their arguments as to why they are supporting Obama. I have no problem whatsoever with it. People have the right to make their own choices.

    Hillary and Bill Clinton are supporting Obama, doing fundraising events, making speeches at the Convention in support of Obama. I have enormous respect for both; but I'm not voting for Obama.

    It's the denigration of the Clintons by Obama's campaign and by Obama's supporters that rankles, infuriates and outrages a good 20% of the Democratic voters.

    Some of those voters will go with McCain; others will skip the Presidential vote and support down-ticket Dems; some--like me--will go with Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party, or one of the other independent candidates.

    It's Obama's job to focus the message. After all, he is the one who centralized control over money flow, who moved the DNC to Chicago before he was even officially nominated, and who claims leadership of the Democratic Party!

    That means the failures of this campaign are Obama's responsibility. You don't get complete control without being willing to take responsibility for that control. That is the hallmark of a true leader--his or her willingness to be accountable for their decisions. It's the strength of character that proves a leaders' capacity to shoulder the burdens of leadership.

    But, so far, Barack Obama has proven himself to be quick to blame others for his decisions. That doesn't speak well of his character or his leadership, in my opinion.


    What about them? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:49:12 AM EST
    This post is not about them.

    Not talking about it (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:46:06 AM EST
    is fine with me.  Perfectly acceptable.

    This is a media thing (none / 0) (#81)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:07:51 AM EST
    Obama does well with women.  Certainly he would do better, but there is a very loud minority that doesn't think he is doing enough, and the media likes to give them lots of time because it sells.  I guarantee if Hillary won, this exact same story would be playing with Blacks- in fact it would be louder- as race is a louder topic then gender.  There would be for some of us (not me), saying something about how arrogant her approach is, if she only tried harder, we would come back to her.  But that group wouldn't, not because she wouldn't have done anything or wasn't humble in her approach, but because her mere presence as the nominee would embodie our loss.

    Though obviously the Clinton supporters here were not republicans or independents before this race, has anyone looked at this percentage of the Clinton supporters that are voting for McCain and asked if their being for Clinton was unique to Clinton- that is, were they democrats before this primary season?   The number just seems to high.  I can imagine that many of her supporters sitting out, but not going to McCain, that seems weird.

    The difference (5.00 / 11) (#102)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:18:27 AM EST
    Sen. Clinton would have immediately reached out to Sen. Obama's voters. He would have been tapped as VP in the blink of an eye. That's one difference. There would have been none of this pussy-footing around for two months. She would have done it (she and Bill signaled as much) and then gotten on with the task of contrasting the Dems with the GOP.

    Sen. Clinton also had her record and her closeness with the African American community to fall back on. Sen. Obama has no such record to fall back on to persuade those who didn't vote for him in the primaries. And he doesn't seem willing to do what is needed to win those voters now.


    Excuse me (5.00 / 6) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:19:01 AM EST
    You have your defenders here so I will be gentle.

    Are you arguing that the tepidness of Clinton supporter support for Obama is a Media creation? Then, despite your supporters here, I have to believe you can not be taken seriously.

    Secondly, Clinton would indeed have had problems with Obama supporters should she have won the nomination, the difference, imo is Clinton would have chosen Obama as her running mate.


    She would have asked him (5.00 / 6) (#112)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:21:33 AM EST
    the day he conceded.

    Also, in NY... (5.00 / 9) (#118)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:24:45 AM EST
    ... Clinton won over upstate NY, which is not her natural constituency at all, and she did it by working like a dog and pushing policy.

    The same thing would have happened with Obama supporters.

    There would have been none of this demeaning and insulting "get over it" cr*p (which, tellingly, is a phrase that originated with "Fat Tony" Scalia in the wake of Bush v. Gore).


    Did you read the NY times (none / 0) (#127)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:29:57 AM EST
    Breakdown of the numbers?

    I DO NOT think tepidness is a media creation- as the numbers showed the vast majority will vote for him in the fall, but would still RATHER vote for Clinton.  To me that is the definiton of tepid.  I would be tepid of Hillary if she had won (she wasn't my candidate and I was/ am emotionally invested in the black dude).  However, like most Clinton supporters, I definitly would have vote for her, given money and hopefully volunteered- because as a Black Jew where else am I going to go?  However, I DO think the SCHISM between the 2 groups is a media creation.  


    "media creation" (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:34:51 AM EST
    you are wrong. it isnt.

    If only you knew how hard (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:50:56 AM EST
    those of us who are not going to vote for Obama had to work to get media attention, you wouldn't think this schism is a media creation.

    Those ones (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:22:20 AM EST
    who are going to McCain are the ones that think that Obama can't be commander in chief during a time of war.

    As far as if Hillary had won, well she would have been working hard to get Obama's supporters on board. She' wouldn't have felt "entitled" to their vote like Obama apparently does. I think that she would have tried to unite the party and put Obama on the ticket as VP. Obama and his campaign still can't seem to get out of primary mode. He hasn't a clue as how to fight Republicans.


    Most of the Clinton Democrats (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:23:42 AM EST
    I have run into have been with the party longer than the Obama ones. Not surprising Biill clinton was a very good President in most regards it would make sense that there would be some regard within the party for his accomplishments.

    Hillary supporters = women? (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by standingup on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 09:31:39 AM EST
    The first step in solving a problem is to identify the problem correctly and you have failed.

    On this subject...... (none / 0) (#171)
    by vicndabx on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:02:58 AM EST
    C-SPAN has a who's who of Obama's supporters talking about this very issue - JJ Jr, Jim Clyburn, Former Gov. Wilder hosted by Politico's John Harris.

    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#191)
    by MrPope on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 10:09:32 AM EST
    which candidate when elected will reach out to Bill for advice ?

    McCain or Obama?

    I can gurantee McCain will not... Republicans hate the Clintons with a deep passion..you guys tend to forget that.

    There is a former Hillary supporter at the (none / 0) (#206)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:28:03 PM EST
    top of this thread who could learn alot about RESPECT from you, BTD.  You are Obama's best supporter online.

    re: Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#207)
    by Naught Relevant on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:27:03 PM EST
    The way I understand it, most Presidents, at least from I have read, have been willing to reach out to former Presidents.  It may not be a joint press conference, but they do talk.