Can Obama Dems, The Media And The Left Blogs Get OverThe Clintons?

John Harris pens an article titled Can Clintons Get Over It? I think the question is can Obama Dems, the Media and the Left Blogs get over it? Harris writes:

For the next two days, a convention that belongs to Obama will be dominated by the same two people who dominated the Democratic Party for the last generation and who have come to Denver in much different roles than they wanted. She speaks Tuesday. Itís his turn Wednesday.

Look, if the Media and the blogs did not obsess on the Clintons, maybe they would not dominate it. For example, Joe Biden speaks on Wednesday night and Mark Warner delivers the keynote address tonight. Why does the Media think these folks will not dominate the nights? You know why, because as much as John Harris and the Media and the Left blogs wishes this were true:

[T]he Clintons ó whose political personas once stood for youth and the excitement of change ó are cast as sunset figures, two conventional politicians in their sixties being shoved aside by a charismatic young celebrity.

(Emphasis supplied.) It isn't true. If that were true, no one would care what they had to say or even that they were speaking. They could speak as unobtrusively as Clarie McCaskill or Nancy Pelosi. Obama would not have such trouble PRAISING the Clinton Administration. No, the problem is half of the Democratic Party does not see them as sunset figures. And that means Obama can not ignore them and the Media and the Left blogs can not dance on their political graves.

So here is the real question - can Obama Dems get over that? Can the Obama blogs get over that? Can the Obama camp get over that? Can the Media get over that? I think the answer has been no so far. And that stands in the way of Obama locking up this election.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Police Misconduct Leaves Another City in Crisis | The Biden "Bounce" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    {Clap, clap, clap} (5.00 / 15) (#1)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    Thank you!  A sane voice in a sea of irrationality.

    Yes, its the irrationality of the obsession of (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:25:29 PM EST
    ...and resentment towards the Clintons that gives them the spotlight. All Bill and Hillary are doing is being themselves.

    The Obama team was more interested (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Cards In 4 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:34:58 PM EST
    in winning the nomination than uniting the party.  The media seemed to believe that if there was any dirt on Obama the Clinton team would surely dish it out.  The joke is that it was team Axelrod that played the race card and the media acted like it didn't happen.

    This (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by IzikLA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:55:09 PM EST
    This was very well put BTD, thank you for that!

    In this campaign, 'get over it' is a toxic phrase. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:01:19 PM EST
    The first use I know of it was in the Clinton strategy memos in which they argued that the AAs would simply have to get over the disappointment and means of losing and their unions would force them to support her anyway. The Clinton people have contended that they will NOT 'get over' losing the primaries because XYZ and nobody has the right to tell them to 'get over' anything.

    There is some question as to whether the Clintons can 'get over' a passage to others of the torch and the implication of the post is 'fat chance on that'. I find it curious that again this phrase is now being used on Obama supporters, as if they should accept, as HrC supporters need not, having the other side publicly jammed down their throats.

    What I think no Democrat will 'get over' is a loss in November arising from the splitting of the party becasue there is no way the Clinton side will ever be satisfied that she is not the Presidential candidate, and because of the means chosen and prosecuted over time to overturn the results of the primary in support of that view. This side has not done anything to breach that gap and it now appears that there is nothing which would constitute enough 'respect' for their feelings beyond reversing the result.

    The problem this creates is that there is in it no recognition for the similar feelings of the other half of the party and certainly not of Obama supporters, who this side seems determined not to allow any of the privileges of winning.

    It is this assymmetry which creates a terrible problem.


    Again (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    when you have people like Donna B telling HRC supporters that the Democratic Party doesn't need you anymore, well, it's hard to "get over" that.

    Especially since Donna B and Howard Dean have the experience of running such successful campaigns themselves.

    How about they get over themselves?


    You think you are right. They think they are right (none / 0) (#212)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:10:29 PM EST
    What do you plan to do about this loggerhead situation? If anything.

    Oh, please, please get some facts (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by ding7777 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:39:53 PM EST
    Way before whatever phantom memo your saw, Obama himself, on June 23, 2008 speaking at the Congressional Black Caucus, told Hillary supporters to "get over it"

    And let's not forget Maria Shiver message to Hillary's supporters: Do what you have to do, but get over it and get over it quickly

    And as far as "[Obama] has not done anything to breach that gap", well that's your opinion but I think calling the Clintons racists, slow walking the Florida and Michigan recount, telling Hillary supporters to get over it, and labeling her supporters as uneducated low income religous clingers was more than just a breach - it was torpedoed.


    "Phantom" memo dated December 2007 and (none / 0) (#207)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:05:09 PM EST
    widely reported in March, 2008. Look in David Broder's archives for it.

    What are the Privileges of... (5.00 / 5) (#174)
    by santarita on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:14:57 PM EST
    Winning the Primary?

    To my way of thinking the winner has obligations and not privileges.  


    I was about to ask something (5.00 / 3) (#182)
    by tree on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:32:49 PM EST
    similar but you beat me to it. The only privilege that I know that comes from winning the primary is the right to have your name on the ballot in the general.

      Ignorance about what an election is all about appears to be rampant among many Obama supporters,and the Obama campaign doesn't seem willing or able to clue them in. Winning a primary does not mean that everyone who voted against your candidate earlier is now forced to vote for him. H*ll, it doesn't even mean that everyone who voted for your candidate is now forced to vote for him again. All it means is that he gets to keep running and keep working for more votes. There is no gimme here. If Obama and his supporters could understand this one concept, they might have a chance at winning over those who are not impressed so far.

     Now, maybe Obama doesn't want my vote, which is fine with me if that's the case. I don't happen to believe that he really has my interests in mind anyway. But I'm sorely tired of being told I have to vote for someone who seems entirely disinterested in getting my vote. I don't need to feel the love, but I sure am tired of the disrespect and the bullying. Much of the rancor would disappear if they would decide to either 1) ignore me or 2) berate me, instead of trying to do both at the same time. Trust me on this, it isn't a winning political strategy.  


    Christy, you never asked a question (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by tree on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:40:49 PM EST
    above. Brave as I am, I can't find one in your post anywhere. Just a long wail at the mean ole Clinton people, and a lament about not getting your "privilege".

    I did ask you a question, though, which you failed to answer. What ARE the privileges of winning in your view? Crickets...

    As for your question below:

    why Obama supporters, and all the other people you have said harsh things about here shuld have to 'get over it' when you refuse and curse out anyone who suggests you should?

    Number one, I am over it. That's part of the craziness of hearing this over and over again. I get it. Clinton lost, Obama won the primary. Number two, I've never asked anyone to "get over it". If you don't want to get over the primary that's fine by me. Knock yourself out! I have been making suggestions that carrying on about the Clintons and insulting voters that you might need  might not be a winning strategy for the general. But maybe you don't care. Ignore my advice. Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a d@mn. Please go right ahead and be petulant.  


    Be brave. try to answer the question I asked. (none / 0) (#211)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:07:16 PM EST
    why Obama supporters, and all the other people you have said harsh things about here shuld have to 'get over it' when you refuse and curse out anyone who suggests you should?

    Team O has made a (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Xanthe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:21:26 PM EST
    decision they don't need HRC's supporters - so let them worry about it.

    I've said it before - YOU WON.  The media won't let go because there is tension with HRC/TeamO. It's money inter alia.

    I feel your triumph.  Okay?  Besides the privilege of winning - there are accompanying responsibilities - including uniting the party.  So go at it.  

    No doubt HRC will make a good speech  - will you believe her sincerity. We see the party changing, not for the better.  And the Democratic party is our focus.  Will we recognize the party should he win?  He has not assured me but some polls show many HRC supporters will vote Obama.  Proportionality is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

    And - as I've said before - you will be grateful HRC is in the Senate on your behalf as well as ours.


    Amazing what these so-called (none / 0) (#130)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:15:37 PM EST
    experts like Harris pull out of their nether regions.

    It's amazing how many stupid people there are (5.00 / 13) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:20:09 PM EST
    Either that, or the Clinton derangement makes them stupid. I think it's probably the former, though.

    It is an endlessly facinating question (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Faust on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:30:35 PM EST
    What makes us stupid? Why are we blind to simple facts? Why is thinking difficult?

    Philosophers have been scratching their heads about this for a long long time.

    As far as CDS is concerned I think it's more of a symptom than a cause, though insofar as it is part of a feedback loop it has some causal properties.


    The so-called "liberal media" (5.00 / 7) (#122)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:07:57 PM EST
    has played a big role in this. People are constantly given bogus facts on which they base their judgements.

    I strongly disagree with the characterization of the Clintons dominating the party. The party has done everything to run away from both of them. Most people blame this on the impeachment, but I remember being horrified when the right went after the Clintons so viciously long before Monica, first with Whitewater, then the idiotic "scandal" travelgate, Vince Foster, Mena airport, and so on. During all of the party leaders stayed above the fray and rarely defended them. The media actually drove a lot of the scandals. For example it was the NYTimes Jeff Gerth who kept pushing the con man, embezzler David Hale's ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated Whitewater charges. The Times' reporting was what led Clinton to finally ask for the appointment of an independent councile. The media worshipped Ken Starr as nonpartisan which gave him far more credibility than that partison crackpot deserved.

    Republicans strenuously defended Reagan from all attacks, even when it was clear that there was serious, constitution-violating wrongdoing with Iran-Contra. They all bought the "he didn't realize what was going on" excuse and pushed it on the media and public. And they continue to preach about Reagan's fabulous policies and refuse to acknowledge that these policies ran up all the debt that Clinton cleaned up.

    In comparison, the Democrats ignore Clinton's fantastic record. They prefer an inexperienced guy who lies and says Clinton left the lower classes behind, when the opposite is true. It makes absolutely no sense. Clinton proved that it is Democrats who know how to govern, but these fools squander the opportunity to build on his legacy. I guess peace and prosperity just wasn't enough for these idiots.


    There you go again. (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by Iphie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:22:52 PM EST
    Look, if the Media and the blogs did not obsess on the Clintons, maybe they would not dominate it.

    Using critical thought.

    But you know, if the media and the left blogs don't set up the groundwork now, who are they going to blame if Obama loses this thing? (And really, it's not a question of him winning it, it's a question of if he's going to lose it.)

    Tim Gunn (5.00 / 9) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:26:24 PM EST
    On this topic I like to remind people of Tim Gunn".  The level of whining is totally painful.  They cannot stop.  You would think the message would propel them into a new vision of the world.
    Make it work, Obama supporters

    and.. (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by jedimom on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:28:29 PM EST
    and may I add that the only time I ever want to hear caucus again is when Tim tells the designers to go caucus with their models..LOL

    amen! (5.00 / 13) (#6)
    by jedimom on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:27:26 PM EST
    and testify BTD!! Every other piece is about the Clintons and when THEY will 'get over' themselves. The more the media tries to push them out, the more I stubbornly hold onto them, must have been the economic prosperity and peaciness about the 90s that I bitterly cling to...

    I've seen little evidence that (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:27:53 PM EST
    they can.

    The PUMA thing is positively driving them to distraction.

    A lot of people have not noticed that the primary is over or maybe they afraid that it really is.

    Either way, they are ignoring the general election contest against John McCain while indulging their own obsession with the Clintons.

    If they don't pull it together by focusing on beating McCain and if they lose because of their lack of discipline, it will be the "youth" that will be sent packing into the sunset by conventional politicians who know how to stay focused and win.

    Team Obama (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Cards In 4 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:42:09 PM EST
    can't get over it because it would mean pulling out the knife they stuck in the Clinton's backs. They think they were so smart that no one called them on it every time it happened.

    if 1/8th of the attention (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:42:13 PM EST
    given excoriating the Clintons was given to blasting McCain, who knows where we'd be right now?

    But those running Obama's Campaign -- including The One himself -- come from Chicago Politics where Dems beat other Dems into pulverized pieces in an all-out effort to absolutely destroy them and then cruise through Election Day and onto the Inauguration stand without blinking an eye.  

    It seems to me that Obama and his Team's war -- and, therefore, their myopic focus -- still seems to be with the Clintons even as she hits the stump for him, urging people to give him his vote.

    Perhaps someone will tell them this isn't Chicago and McCain is currently kicking Obama's butt with one hand tied behind his back?

    And the REAL shyte from the Republican Machine hasn't even hit the fans!


    This subject has been hashed and (5.00 / 18) (#9)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:29:55 PM EST
    rehashed and apparently some don't want to get over The Clintons.  Honestly, how The Clintons keep on keeping on, I will never know.  They have more fortitude than I could ever hope to have.

    Clintons are outsiders (5.00 / 17) (#15)
    by pmj6 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:38:52 PM EST
    They have always been, and the party establishment has always viewed them as a threat because they stood for change. If the Democratic Congress in the early 1990s gave half the support to President Clinton that Bush got from the Republican Congress in the last 8 years, we'd have had universal health care by now.

    Alas, putting the white trash hicks from Arkansas in their place was more important to the Democratic Party establishment. And now they want Clinton voters without having to promote policies that won the Clintons' the loyalty of those voters to begin with.


    True. (none / 0) (#199)
    by AX10 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:29:32 PM EST
    Which is why I will send not one cent to them
    Let the DNC sink.  They are as worthless as the GOP.

    Indeed. And in Response (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by The Maven on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:49:57 PM EST
    to BTD's questions,
    Can Obama Dems get over that? Can the Obama blogs get over that? Can the Obama camp get over that? Can the Media get over that?
    I think one could also usefully ask whether each group actually wants to get over The Clintons, because, to an unfortunately large degree, this is precisely what defines them.  Going back a year or more, most of these folks weren't yet head over heels in their support for Obama, but the Anybody But Clinton sentiment was firmly in place.  The result seems to be this continuing obsession (and cold shoulder) that is harming our chance to take back the White House.  If only it weren't so.

    You're right! (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by jen on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:54:28 PM EST
    Add to that, they are now completing the set up that began in the primaries -- it is all because of those racist Clintons that Obama lost.

    From today's LATimes:

    DENVER -- The big question of the presidential election, says L. Douglas Wilder, the nation's first elected black governor, is not whether America is ready for a black president. Rather, he asks, "Are the Clintons ready?" ...

    That's f'ng outrageous (5.00 / 4) (#215)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:23:45 PM EST
    Just outrageous.  Now I'm going to vote for McCain.  They've finally pushed me over the edge.

    What Democratic candidate Barack Obama needs, says Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., is for Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton to provide a "Pee Wee Reese moment," referring to the white ballplayer who embraced Jackie Robinson when white baseball fans rained abuse on the pioneering Dodger.

    What utter cr@p.  I am not racist.  I do not oppose Obama because he's Black.  OMFG I'm so f'ng SICK of this b.s.

    Obama backers are frustrated that the Clintons do not seem willing to let go of their 16-year dominance of the Democratic Party,

    Well, f'ng DUH!!!!!

    The tension this week stems in part from the prominence being given to the Clintons -- the former first lady is to speak tonight, a day before the former president -- and the concern that the couple will draw precious media exposure when Obama needs to introduce himself to the nation.

    O.M.F.G.  Obama has had the press camping out in his @ss for 8 months.  He may as well own MSNBC.  What the F*** is he complaining about?


    Post of the.. (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:33:50 PM EST
    Well, month at least.

    The (negative) Clinton obsession is so strange. It was the most shocking thing of the primaries.

    How did it ever happen? I can only conclude that 15 years of rightwing attacks and Lewinsky have turned these people into anti-Clinton zombies.

    I agree that it started with the (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:40:48 PM EST
    right wing who were so upset that the pretty young Hillary was going to change their "wimmen" She tried, but they cut her off at the knees and soon the right wing media and then all media was on the same team.  But what puzzles me is the young who know absolutely nothing of the Clinton years (they were in grade school) who are also so vehemently opposed to them.  Was it people like David Sirota?

    Perhaps.. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:52:19 PM EST
    If you were too young to be in a position where you had to worry as a provider (either for yourself or your family) during the 90s, you might not appreciate the good economic times under Clinton.

    Therefore, it is easier to buy into "the Clintons are evil" conspiracy theories.

    I'm just speculating, but it could be an explanation.


    Thanks BTD for putting it so clearly & simply (5.00 / 11) (#12)
    by davnee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:33:50 PM EST
    The Clintons are not the problem.  The problem is the new generation of the Democratic Party.  They have not figured out yet how they fit (and dare I say what they stand for) and they are the ones that are freaking out about that fact.  It troubles me that the new generation feels they must treat the prior generation (leaders and identifiers) of the party as a cancer that must be destroyed and excised.  Growing and refining the identity of a political party should never be a zero sum game.  It's particularly galling to be assaulted by all this "change" or drop dead nonsense when no one can quite tell me what the heck we are supposed to be changing to.

    This is getting critical (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:47:37 PM EST
    as you stated:It troubles me that the new generation feels they must treat the prior generation (leaders and identifiers) of the party as a cancer that must be destroyed and excised.

    Voters are going to notice or are already aware of this constant use of the age thing. There are alot of people out there over 50 and 60. Prehaps they are not aware that calling us "old" and wanting the younger voters is more important than their base is very discounting. People that "young" do not like to be called old.

    Of course, I did that in the '60's,'70's, don't trust anyone over 30,  but I don't remember the blatant attempt to divide.


    The "new generation" (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:50:30 PM EST
    It's the old generation of the Democratic Party that's a problem. It's the Pelosi, Kennedys, etc. that have done the most to make the Clintons outsiders.  Under normal circumstances the old generations passes the baton to the succeeding generation, that would have been the Clintons.  Instead the old generation wants to skip the Clintons and give the baton to the state legislator from Chicago.  It won't work, and all that will happen is an unrepairable division.  The Clintons are my children's generation who grew up during the Clinton's years.  I've left the Democratic Party and many more will because Obama has not earned his position.

    It's the perfect storm (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by davnee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:02:59 PM EST
    I think we are seeing a perfect storm of the old power base (that hates the Clinton power base and wants to destroy it) enabling this newest generation of Dems to help put the chosen poster boy over the top a few cycles too early.  This might not be so bad if it weren't for the fact that this newest generation's version of progressivism is not one that easily overlaps with the more populist/FDR style progressivism.  There is a lot of libertarianism in the new progressivism (homeless moderate Republicans had to land somewhere), which is fine but isn't necessarily best for the working class.

    There's a saying on the tip of my (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:40:10 PM EST
    tongue...something about forests and trees; oh, well, it'll come to me. ;-)

    I'll tell you what I would really, really, like to see:  Joe Biden saying to reporters, "Hey, I don't get where you guys are all over the Clintons for stealing the spotlight at this convention.  As someone who has a pretty deserved rep for seeking out the media, I can tell you straight up - the Clintons just aren't doin' that.  Look, I know crisis is always more fun to cover, and you love the drama, but seriously, isn't there anything else you guys can spend the networks millions on covering - like me?"

    Will never happen, but it would work on so many levels.

    It's always somebody else's job (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:57:05 PM EST
    It's not Biden's job to get the media in the right track.  The job belongs to Obama and his camp.  It's Obama's fault that the spotlight on the Clintons takes away from Obama. Instead of taking advantage of that spotlight on two amazing people, Obama has made it a liability.  Instead of celebrating two great Democrats, Obama's camp whines.  Obama's smallness is the problem.

    Well, Biden has to have some job (5.00 / 4) (#86)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:27:55 PM EST
    in this campaign, doesn't he?  I mean, at least until he swoops in wearing his Foreign Policy SuperHero tights to save the World from Evil.

    What's kind of interesting to me, is that for all that the Obama campaign is supposed to have the media eating out of its hand, they have really lost sight of the fact that the campaign could be controlling the message.  Instead, they have gone all passive - something that started after Obama claimed primary victory - and allowed the media to decide what it's going to cover.  Sure they still follow behing like puppydogs, but puppies are easily distracted and the Obama campaign has not given them any focus.

    This seems like really bad strategy to me.

    I think the Obama campaign, together with people like Dean and Pelosi and Brazile and the rest of the yahoos who decided it was time to make over the party, is caught in a trap of its own making - something that happens because they never seem to be able to see beyond the moment.

    I think it's a harbinger of what an Obama administration would look and feel like.  


    Is that why wolfson and carville and greg (none / 0) (#121)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:06:36 PM EST
    are putting themselves all over the TV?

    Its one of the "privileges" of losing. (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by tree on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:03:48 PM EST
    Networks hire the strategists of the losing campaign as campaign pundits. The winning campaigns don't get to put their people on as pundits, unless they do it with stealth a la Brazile, Ms. Undeclared.

    One of the few privileges (none / 0) (#185)
    by Xanthe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:40:56 PM EST
    granted the working class -

    Simple (5.00 / 12) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:41:20 PM EST
    Hating the Clintons is better for ratings than is loving Obama.

    I will use DailyKOS as a case in point....see Alexa where you'd think the Obama love would attract more readers than they had LAST August.  What's different? There isn't the daily "what did Hillary do today" posts.

    They're all trying to bring Hillary back, because they know now what they lost.  Maybe even THEY were fooled into thinking it was the Obama love that gave them the ratings.  Now that they know it's the Hillary hate, they want to keep it going.

    TL on the other hand,,,, (none / 0) (#136)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:19:54 PM EST
    Did you see TLs?  :)

    I'm going to have to look at some more sites to check out where it looks like the DKers have gone.


    I'll say it again (5.00 / 10) (#20)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:42:05 PM EST
    The primary beneficiary of Bill and Hillary Clinton's high-profile speeches is Barack Obama.  The purpose is to help him get elected.  These are very simple truths.

    To hear the "what more does she want" crowd talk, these speeches are nothing but a concession graciously offered up by a generous nominee.  As if, if you gave Obama the option of having the Clintons simply sit at home and say nothing from now until November, he would gladly choose that option.  Who could be foolish enough to believe that?

    By the time this all winds up in November, I expect Hillary Clinton will have done more to help elect Obama than any defeated primary opponent in history.  Yet somehow, the blame for the division in the party will continue to be laid at her feet.  What a strange world.

    According to Nancy Pelosi, what, (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:41:03 PM EST
    me worry?

    Asked whether the Clintons' star power could eclipse Obama during his moment in the sun, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "Absolutely, positively not."

    "We are talking about the nomination of the next President of the United States," she said.

     [Excerpt from AP.]

    It doesn't work in reverse (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:44:05 PM EST
    If Clinton won the primary and picked Obama she would lose no voters.

    We can't say the same about Obama if he picked Clinton.

    So whatever equivalency you're after here needs to be reconsidered.

    Based on what, exactly? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Iphie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    Whatever point you're trying to make needs to be backed up with evidence if you want us to buy into your premise. What evidence can you provide that says that Obama would lose voters if he chose Clinton?

    i'm sorry (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:08:44 PM EST
    I heard that from Obama supporters trying to justify why he didn't pick Clinton.

    Perhaps they were wrong.


    The HRC hatred in the country (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Iphie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:27:32 PM EST
    is often wildly overstated. If we learned nothing else from the primaries is that all of those people who supposedly hate her came out to vote for her in droves. I'm sure that there are a number of people who dislike her so much that they would never vote for a ticket with her on it -- I have a hard time believing, however, that those are people who would seriously consider voting for Barack Obama either.

    I think that the people (outside of the media and certain "A-list" blogs) who really do hate Clinton are some of the same 20% of people who continue to approve of Bush -- in other words, they were never going to vote for a Democrat anyway.


    the grumpy Obama folk are not the ones (none / 0) (#137)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:20:49 PM EST
    threatening to vote for McCain.

    We're called (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:46:00 PM EST
    Hillarybillies and members of the dry P*ssy demographic.
    much more complex than just "grumpy"

    This seems a bit of a non sequitur to me. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Iphie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:02:37 PM EST
    Who mentioned "grumpy Obama folk" and what does that have to do with the subject at hand?

    the comment to which this post is a reply (none / 0) (#204)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:02:10 PM EST
    claimed that the die-hard Obamaites were the 20% who were not real Democrats and were going to vote for mcCain. Not a non sequitur. Not a threat I remember obama supporters making either.

    Hillary's chances (5.00 / 11) (#25)
    by Emma on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:46:00 PM EST
    for what, exactly?  She's not the nominee this time.  If Obama wins, she's never the nominee again and, I firmly believe that the new "Democratic" Party will continue its purge and do everything it can to diminish and destroy both Bill and Hillary Clinton.  

    As for "not wearing well for Hillary supporters," hey ya'll already hate me.  You've already told me to get lost.  You've called me the most heinous  names imaginable for 8 solid months.  I got nothin' to lose and making nice gets me nowhere.

    There's nothing to threaten us with -- except calling us unreasonable, wrongheaded, bad girls.  Ooooooh.  Scary.

    Ain't that the truth. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:48:14 PM EST
    Seriously (none / 0) (#75)
    by Nadai on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:18:03 PM EST
    If that was going to make me knuckle under, I'd have done it months ago, back when it hurt instead of just p!ss me off.

    Look (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:47:25 PM EST
    The media have been obsessed with anybody called Clinton for years. Hillary taking part in all the primaries has nothing to do with that.

    I think the whole PUMA thing is unfortunate, and misguided. But this is not Clinton's fault; she has been very clear about supporting Obama. And if Obama had immediately and unequivocally reached out to Clinton voters after he secured the nomination, he would have sucked the life out of it immediately.

    Like I've said many times, Obama is spending a considerable amount of time reaching out to evangelicals. If he can do that, it is comparatively simple to reach out to disgruntled Clinton democrats.

    The buck stops at the nominee.

    Misguided? (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:01:20 PM EST
    If your own party won't stand up for you or what you believe in,
    why should you support them? The basic argument seems to be "that sock in the jaw hurt but the kick in the crotch will be worse. get over it little lady!"

    "No self respecting woman (5.00 / 8) (#63)
    by Iphie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:12:08 PM EST
    should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self."

    --Susan B. Anthony


    Sadly (none / 0) (#98)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:35:33 PM EST
    Most of the things I see coming out of that corner aren't thoughtful arguments that will push the Dems in the right direction.

    I see mostly anger, expressed in the same way that Obama supporters did towards Hillary Clinton and her supporters. I don't think that acting the same way will get anybody anywhere at this point.

    At some level, it does please me that a nominee is being made to sweat because his campaign treated the Clintons with such disrespect. But that's just a reflex for vengeance, which isn't productive in the end.

    Acting like the people you're railing against doesn't help.


    how are we acting (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:39:22 PM EST
    like the people we railed against?

    I've seen the following coming out of the PUMAs: (none / 0) (#113)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:53:06 PM EST
    • assuming a double/negative meaning in something Obama does or says, just because he's Obama
    • assuming a negative story about Obama is true, just because he's Obama
    • assuming something positive about Obama's opponent, because he's not Obama

    Now, I do not like Obama as a candidate myself, but if you replace Obama with Clinton (and he with she), you have the CDS displayed in the primaries.

    I have no way of knowing if this is representative for all disgruntled Clinton voters; I presume it is not. But this is what is most visible.


    But most of us here are not PUMAs.... (5.00 / 8) (#126)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    ...and we don't like John McCain or Republicans. True, many don't like Obama either, but I think most of the posters who supported Hillary at TalkLeft would really like to find a reason to enthusiastically vote for Obama. At some point you just have to face the facts that whatever strategy or tactic you are using on a particular set of voters isn't working and adapt. That is, if you really want those voters. Scolding them, telling them they are not helping, making them accountable for the victory of a candidate they have already told you they are not crazy about is not working. And making them explain this over and over again is also not very effective.

    I wish (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by eleanora on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:52:21 PM EST
    I could give you a hundred 5s for this comment.

    Threatening women with the Supreme Court is particularly distasteful-- "Do what we want or else." Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy.


    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:01:11 PM EST
    I'm going to agree with you, Frank, simply because I'm not sure anyone else will.  At some point "the other guys started it" becomes an unsatisfying excuse.

    The few times I have (none / 0) (#164)
    by standingup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    disagreed with or been critical of PUMA, I have received replies that assume or attack me for being an Obama supporter.  Nothing could be further from the truth but the mindset of some PUMA's is not far from that of the Obama supporters they detest.  

    for the last time (5.00 / 6) (#213)
    by Ford Prefect on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:14:16 PM EST
    The reason someone like me has doubts about Obama and not singing Kumbaya yet, has very little to do with clintons. Unlike the "we are the ones we have been waiting for" crowd, I have no illusions that Hill & Bill are politicians first and other things second. Neither do I have illusions that they are somehow the saviors of the party or the country. Im sure Bill & Hill have enough experience losing and winning and can handle that themselves, having been in politics long enough. Even if not true, that doesnt concern me one bit. Its upto them to deal with their wins and losses. Here is what concerns me about a presidential candidate like Obama:

    1. He has shown no leadership on ANY position he held either private or public, starting with HLR editorship.

    2. He has done no longstanding work (advocacy/legislative/non-profit) for any significant progressive cause all his public life, notwithstanding the community volunteering where again he was just one among the crowd and no leader

    3. He doesnt seem to be sticking to any position driven by conviction as opposed to the poll numbers in the particular election or contest he is currently running for. Just check his pre-primary and post-primary in this election and look at his past positions when he was running for IL senate vs other later positions.

    4. He hasnt shown any interest/dedication to the current job he is given and never really excelled at any of public offices before he runs for higher office. Apparently he was bored in the IL senate, before Emil Jones lined up legislation conveniently timed for his US senate run.

    5. Even now he doesnt display his own interest to study and understand issues in depth as witnessed in the debates

    6. Hypocrisy about the new politics and positive campaigning while constantly maligning the clintons from fall of 2007 with statements like "clinton's baggage", "highest negatives of any politician" and racism accusations from surrogates timed just for SC primary and a laundry list of other stuff. Saying one thing while doing another in such brazen fashion within the same campaign season is never a good quality in a presidential candidate.

    Here is what concerns about dem primaries and the party and its leaders:

    1. Having an undemocratic process where 1.3% of voters have about 15-20% impact on the outcome of our presidential nomination.

    2. Accusing most loyal democrats who didnt vote for the "black" candidate as racists, low information and old f*rts and claiming that they are no longer necessary since they can be replaced with 18 year olds, as if a party that wants to be inclusive of all categories of people suddenly became the exclusive club for high information, spring chicken.

    3. Accusing the dem opponent, who did a lot for minorities for decades and in the whitehouse, as racists and secretly wishing the assassianation of BO. All the while regurgitating disgusting repub talking points from the 90s, no less.

    4. Dismissing using despicable language (beauty contest) 2 million people who took the time and energy to cast the primary votes while probably juggling multiple jobs, family and other pressing commitments, which they obviously thought was important for them to do. This from the democratic party nominee who wants to unite the party, and change the world, for christ sake!! [or Shiva's sake!!. I am a barely practicing Hindu. :-)]

    Lets stop with the TINA [There Is No Alternative] nonsense. If we let TINA dictate our votes we will be facing TINA every election from now on. Because it would become acceptable and expected to accuse candidates who did the party/country good and their voters all sorts of names from racists to idiots, just so you can win the primary. Then there is no price to pay for those who engage in that. and both the party and the country are worse off. Because they can abuse half the party anyway they want and expect you to fold due to TINA. But even if you are ready to swallow that abuse, the candidate as I list above has shown very little ability to lead anything let alone this country and the world. We needed to have nominated a world class leader for half the party to accept the abuse, in the name of doing the country some good. This man has done no such thing.

    In fact this is the perfect time to make serious changes to the party or even engineer an escape from the tyranny of TINA by exploring a third party while half the dems are dissatisfied with the party. If it were a tiny minority, this wouldnt be a viable exercise. But with a near majority dissatisfied and many disgusted, Now is the golden time explore that avenue. Dem party needs some serious jolt in order to reform the party proceses including the archaic and undemocratic primary process and to get rid of the newly minted thugs who declared war on other fellow dems, following the much detested republican playbook from the past 2 elections.

    So hold on the calls to roll over and take some more abuse, while there is a chance to fix these things, perhaps within the party.


    In his first speech (none / 0) (#48)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:02:56 PM EST
    As the supposed nominee he did reach out to her.  And he has done so many times before.  The need is to reach out to HER- he doesn't need to reach out to anyone else in terms of personal feelings about the campaign.  His reaching out to the electorate is done via talking about policies that you agree with.  

    I feel so bad for Hillary, as these "supposed" supporters get on TV and talk about supporting McCain, how he is pro choice, how Obama is a muslim.  In my mind these people are using her name in a completely unlicensed way.


    Ha! Ha! Ha! (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:05:39 PM EST
    He reached out to her in his first speech! More words just words.

    To quote Dr. Phil (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Nadai on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:19:51 PM EST
    The need is to reach out to HER- he doesn't need to reach out to anyone else in terms of personal feelings about the campaign.

    How's that workin' for ya?


    Well, ok (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:29:23 PM EST
    If you don't think it's the job of the nominee to reach out to people who voted for a different candidate, then, well, I have nothing more to say.

    No I am saying (none / 0) (#95)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:33:07 PM EST
    He is reaching out to you by his policy positions.  What else is important for a candidate?  

    If it were just about policies.. (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:37:24 PM EST
    ..then Democrats should have won the last, well, 15 elections in a row.

    People don't vote just based on policies, they also vote on emotions. I wish it was different, but it isn't. And if you're a candidate, you should realize this.


    That is hard to see, given his FISA (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:38:05 PM EST
    vote, wooing of the religious right, and failure to push for universal health care.

    But he isn't reaching out (5.00 / 10) (#111)
    by tree on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    with his policy positions. He's flipped on FISA, and on off-shore drilling, remained silent on Bush's horrid birth control rulings, reached out to evangelicals, promoted more funding of faith-based initiatives, considered an anti-choice politician as one of his top three VP choices, chose a VP with all of Hillary's supposed negatives (AUMF vote, Washington insider,etc.) and none of her positives. He ISN'T reaching out, period.

    The positions (none / 0) (#118)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:02:48 PM EST
    The flip of FISA is a problem
    He has talked a lot about choice, family planning, etc.  He supports everything Clinton does in this regard.  And has worked on these issues as well
    He chose the VP he wanted

    The picture you paint of him I don't think is fair, especially given his positions.


    wrong on Choice (5.00 / 7) (#162)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    Hillary, as we speak, is working hard to stop a sure train wreck the Bush Administration is foisting onto the Department of Health & Human Services re: linking contraception to abortion.

    Hillary is doing all she can in every way trying to turn back this tide.  And Obama?


    Where is the leadership?  Where is the Nominee?  Where does he stand on Choice and if this isn't the perfect opportunity to make it an issue, please, pray tell, when WOULD be?

    again more crickets

    The fantasy of Who Obama Is has always been rosier than the reality.


    I love the crickets thing - (none / 0) (#197)
    by Xanthe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:17:59 PM EST
    I think I'll use a variation:  how about

    Somwhere a dog was barking.


    that's the problem, what Obama wanted, and (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by kimsaw on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:15:47 PM EST
    not what the Party needed. Biden may be a good VP candidate, but the PARTY needed Clinton to stabilize itself for the win. We keep hearing about the voter registration drive and all those new devotees that may or may not bring a win. Obama tossed a guaranteed cushion when he chose not to go after those registered Clinton voters by picking Clinton.  He could have driven for a mandate and now he's just playing to survive. It goes to the question of how he chooses to lead and how he will unify. What does his new coalition stand for if everyone is not invited to the table. I don't really care if McCain has a hundred kitchen tables, if Obama can't invite 18 million Clinton voters to join him at one, Obama  is the one with a big problem.

    Hillary supporters (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:56:16 PM EST
    getting on TV and talking about how Obama is a Muslim?


    That's absurd.  Please cite specifics of when this occurred.


    My question (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:47:45 PM EST
    Is why would any party want to push away their successes? (Especially when they seem to be as rare as the doddo) We should embrace any and all that have devoted their life to the successful promotion of the party. Hell the Republican's still can't start a sentence without the word Reagan.

    Repubs (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by Lou Grinzo on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:03:54 PM EST
    Anyone here care to bet if the Republicans will treat Bush (a.k.a. Worst.  President.  Ever.) better in eight years than the Dems are treating the Clintons now?

    Why would it matter? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Dadler on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:34:00 PM EST
    The entire country, for the most part, treated Reagan like a saint when he died, so I assume in 8 years they will treat Dubya with the same blind amnesia (hmm, that's an odd one).  Let's also remember that even many Dems praised dead Reagan as some sort of American hero, when they just should have shut up and let others play that game of false memory (Obama has talked about admiring him, which makes me ill, Clinton made a speech that made my stomach turn at his funeral).  For Dubya, I'm sure the treatment will be similar his entire life, since he'll get some bizarre credit simply for being President on 9/11.

    Making Bush a saint (none / 0) (#133)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:16:44 PM EST
    is already starting to happen. Newsweek just did a cover story on what he got right. Apparently the gist is that history will treat him more kindly than we think. That is true if the right wing propagandists are allowed to control the message. It is up to all of us to make sure that does not happen. In fact it is up to us to make sure people learn the truth about Reagan, too. The media won't bother but if enough of us speak up every chance we get to point out that Reagan's tax cutting policies drove up our debt and the same thing happened when Bush reinstated them. In between the Democrats under Clinton erased the deficits while the economy boomed.

    We need to make it a point to write letters, call, etc. whenever the media repeats this dangerous propaganda.


    Chuch Todd tried to tell (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by bjorn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:49:13 PM EST
    CM and KO yesterday that this convention was not about the Clintons but CM and KO would have none of it!

    A little more complicated (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by koshembos on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:50:50 PM EST
    The huge success of Bill Clinton in not only bringing peace and prosperity but also rescuing Mexico, Korea and other Asian countries, his great relationship with world countries. His ability to represent white and black, Hispanic and Asian all cause exploding envy in people such as Obama and the Left. The Left in particular hates Bill because he succeeded in his way and not the Left's way. The media hates Bill because he both a Democrat and a Bubba. They hate Bubbba's; it's not cool.

    The hate for Bill from all source resembles hate of Blacks, Hispanic and other held down groups. Clinton hate is pure racism. The Obama camp is a downright racist gang.

    Don't even go there; racism is not reversible. It's there to stay. Hillary added insult to injury. She is 100 smarter than Obama, who has only a mediocre intellect, and her success with large segments of the population in a thorn in his side.

    Obama will never try to get the 50% of Hillary voters who haven't joined him. It's stooping to the level of someone he hates, someone he tries to denigrate.

    The chances of Obama are quite low. His hubris doesn't allow him to do what it takes and he relegates it to Hillary. She tries mightily, she only makes it worse because her supporter can see that he tries to avoid doing it. If he transmit to them that they are below him, why would they support him.

    can't believe (1.00 / 0) (#94)
    by OldCity on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    What I just read...he has a mediocre intellect.  

    The guy went to Harvard and was editior of the Law Review.  Now, you can disagree with the man, you can be upset that he, not she, is the nominee, but, c'mon!

    Obama is smart.  Very smart.  Since we've had an opportunity to see what happens when you elect the "guy you'd like to have a beer with", I think intelligence should be a pre-requisite.

    Over and over again I see really demeaning things written about Obam by HRC supporters that really detract from the message those supporters want to send, because they can't help but attack the man personally.    

    The left hates bill Clinton?  That's laughable on its face.  He was elected twice, once after he lost the Congress...so, obviously they must hate him.

    The Clintons aren't immune from honest criticism any more than Obama.  I would have been perfectly happy had HRC won.  Would have supported her straight away, because she would have been the nominee, and I don't want a McCain presidency.  

    I don't understand the resentment of the guy.  He had a message that resonated with people.  You may not have been one of them, but certainly there were a huge number.  Are all of them worshippers of a defective intellect?  Are they all deluded?  Or maybe, just maybe, they preferred someone other than Clinton.  Last I checked, they're entitled to do so.  and, frankly, lots of them don't remember the Clinton Presidency, or at least not in the way you do.  For lots of them, the Clintons have all sorts of negative baggage. That's what they remember.  And maybe they chose to not want to hear the same cr@p for another four years.  

    And, be honest...read through this site and see how many posters immediately impute some sort of chauvinist overtone to any post that questions their views on HRC.  That's at least as knee jerk as all of the "racist" stuff you hear from Obama supporters, and usually about as genuine. (in other words, it's garbage, and intellectually weak)


    Not 'Sunset Figures' (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:51:45 PM EST
    To this Obama supporter.

    I can't really be an 'Obama Dem' since I am only registered as a Dem by the coercive electoral law in New York state which won't let me fully participate in the process otherwise.

    Maybe because I am 'merely' an Independent who nominally supports Dem candidates at the presidential level every 4 years I'm different from other 'Obama Dems', but I don't think so.

    Everyone I know who supports Obama does so without hating Hillary. Some of us have voted for her for the senate. We don't see the Clintons as 'sunset figures' or as having to 'get over' anything. We're just working to elect Obama because we prefer him, not out of any animus toward Senator Clinton.

    The media likes to fixate on the Clintons and wants to make a froth out of the tensions in the party--even if the majority on both sides is at peace, and is proud of so much talent in our midst.

    The problem is... (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by IzikLA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:09:44 PM EST
    The media's hatred and fixation on the Clinton's does in fact translate to some of the public perception.

    I also have to say that several of the Obama supporters I know, including my roommate and several of her good friends, absolutely detest both Clinton's.  We have discussions about it, heated often, and they have no reasonable arguments, just irrational thoughts and media soundbytes.  While most of us are in our early 30's I hear nothing of any good memories from the 90's.  I just don't get it.  BTD is right, it's an extraordinary fascination.  I have heard the "if he picked Hillary he'd need a white house taste-tester" thing one too many times.  Somehow, someway, Obama and his campaign are the ones who need to get that message in check or they are surely on a losing path.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:13:44 PM EST
    I heard that from co-workers last month.

    Look at the history (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:27:00 PM EST
    No one has done anything like she has.

    She was powerful in the White House
    She left the White HOuse and ran for Senator of NY and succeeded BIG
    She became powerful in the Senate
    She ran for President and could have won if she were not torpedoed


    She stayed with him and broke the cardinal rule _leave him!

    And she awaken sexual compulsion in the media - talking to you Matthews

    One powerful woman. But as we are learning - can't have that.

    Go Hillary!


    That might be overstating it a bit (1.00 / 0) (#167)
    by NvlAv8r on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    She was the First Lady, (and did quite well).
    She was able to use her name recognition from the time of her husband's presidency to get a seat in the Senate with nominal opposition.
    She has done well (except for voting for the war and wrong-headed flag burning amendments).
    She used her name recognition to run for president herself and lost.

    If she was not a former first lady she would not have won her Senate seat.  If she was not a woman, it is doubtful a first term Senator running would have had so much support early on.

    The flipside is: once she was a candidate she was a fantastic debater (the best in all of the debates), her command of the issues was amazing, and she is a great speaker.


    Yuck (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by IzikLA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:57:33 PM EST
    The "she rode on her husband's name" bit?  Please.  Of course she had name recognition after being first lady, but she was influential way before that.  In fact, remember the getting 2 for 1 arguments both for and against Clinton's Presidency?  She was never just some bimbo that stood by his side and was carried along with his popularity.  They did that together.

    And your disgusting assertion that she won her senate seat because she was a woman??  Good job.  Way to bring that argument back up.  Unfortunately it does not help your candidate one bit.  

    But gee, thanks for recognizing what a great candidate she was once she clawed her way to the top.  Seriously.  Thank you.


    Never said she was some bimbo (none / 0) (#208)
    by NvlAv8r on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:05:46 PM EST
    So please don't put up straw(wo)men to knock down.  Sorry, but Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan would not have handpicked her if she was someone who was "influential", instead of a very popular first lady.

    Try to debate without asserting anything about "my candidate".  It is a non sequitor.

    Seriously.  You're welcome.


    Never said she was some bimbo... (none / 0) (#209)
    by NvlAv8r on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:06:45 PM EST
    So please don't put up straw(wo)men to knock down.  Sorry, but Sen Daniel Patrick Moynihan would not have handpicked her if she was someone who was "influential", instead of a very popular first lady.

    Try to debate without asserting anything about "my candidate".  It is a non sequitor.

    Seriously.  You're welcome.


    I understand the anti-Clinton sentiment. (3.00 / 2) (#91)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:30:08 PM EST
    Many Dems feel that Bill Clinton threw away his legacy with his juvenile antics in the Oval Office.  He handed our opponents exactly what they needed to prove Democrats are worthless.  He single handedly destroyed his own reputation and the reputation our party built during his tenure in the White House.  And it's not just the sex, it's the fact that the most powerful man in the free world got his you know what sucked by a young subordinate and then looked us right in the eye (on TV) and lied about it.  My mother used to say, "What, is he a 12 year old?"  

    He actions gave us Republican Rule.  He proved the Republicans right (in their eyes) when they falsely claimed they are the moral majority. If Bill were dead or if Hillary had divorced him, I think she would be so much more acceptable to Democrats.  As it is, there's really no way to tell who she really is without him, and the people who back him.  Can't we just have a strong woman who makes her own way in politics and leads us with strong feminist and Democratic values?  Instead, we have Hillary coming to power possibly because her husband bought the NY Hispanic vote by pardoning Hispanic terrorists.  Yikes.  So here we are with a big portion of the Dem party knowing they can't trust Bill, and thinking they can't trust Hillary either.  That's why she lost.

    And if you really want to know why Obama is so popular, take a moment to think about why long time Democrats, middle aged women, would choose him over Hillary.  Then you'll understand the Yes We Can movement.  It's not just about Obama, it's about what we want for our country and our children.  I might be totally wrong about the Clintons, and I might be wrong about Obama, but I'm not wrong about what many, many Americans want.

    Go ahead, my flamesuit is on.  


    I'm probably a little older than you. (5.00 / 6) (#104)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:38:34 PM EST
    My children are grown. They grew up wonderfully under a Clinton presidency. I even have easter eggs from the Clinton Easter Egg hunts. Because of the Clintons I was able to take family leave whenever my kids were sick. Because of the good economy my husband and I were able to move from the lower middle class to the solid middle class. My kids were able to attend soccer camps and go to Europe during their high school years, things that would have been unheard of for me and my siblings. And Hillary Clinton, of all people, has dedicated herself to the welfare of children for many, many years. She was the candidate, not Bill.

    So when I hear people say that they want something better for their children than the Clintons, it leaves me baffled, I have to tell you.


    oh my god (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:41:51 PM EST
    what horrible lies you have in your head.
    This part of the movement stands for hatred, it's that simple.
    Yes we can hate. that's all i hear. over and over and over again.

    My comment (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by IzikLA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:16:48 PM EST
    Was about irrational Clinton hate, not wondering why Obama was so popular.  Unfortunately, you prove my point more than not.  Bill Clinton gave us the Republican's?  I understand that argument but I'm not buying it.  Look, it's not like he didn't make mistakes but he is still the best president I have seen by far in my lifetime.  People who claim to be Democrats and have a vile hatred for them I do not understand.  Aside from that, Hillary is her own person and I believe she was an extremely positive and influential first lady and senator and I also believe she handled the end of the Clinton presidency with extreme grace.  I respect her for that and for many other things.  

    You are buying into right wing talking points (proved the republicans right about the moral majority?? - Now that is rich) and perpetuating them to prop up another Democrat.  It simply does not wash.  


    Read it a bit more carefully. (none / 0) (#140)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:35:15 PM EST
    I don't think they're the moral majority, they do.  They used Bill's cheating and illegal actions to prove we can't be trusted.  They won because he handed them ready-made material.  He betrayed us, and he sabotaged our chances of keeping Dems in power.  It's not just a minor mistake.  It's an unforgivable, juvenile act that is actually shocking, given it was done by a man in such a powerful position.  Almost bizarre, really.  He destroyed his own good legacy.  

    What you say about Hillary is true, she responded to a bad situation with extreme grace.  But again, when I talk to long-time Dems who did not vote for her, it's the trust issue that comes up.  Americans yearn for politicians we can trust.  Feminists crave a strong woman who has made her own way in politics.  Hillary's biggest problem was that too many Dems didn't trust her.  


    Not how I remember the 2000 election... (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by santarita on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:12:23 PM EST
    Al Gore won the popular vote (and the Electoral College Vote as well but for the Supreme Court interference).  Clinton had left the country in good enough shape so that voters felt that they had the luxury of choosing someone with limited credentials but a good personality over someone who was well-qualified but boring.  Clinton's troubles did cause cause Al Gore to refrain from using Clinton but that was a mistake on Gore's part.  

    The Republicans played a better game of campaign strategy than the Dems.  They found wedge issues like gay marriage in each state so that the religious right would be sure to come out and vote.  Clinton's peccadilloes were at best just additional support for the Republican contention that Dems are not a "Family Values" party.


    Thanks for that (none / 0) (#194)
    by IzikLA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:11:59 PM EST
    That was the other part of my reply I meant to address.

    I have a problem with people accusing Bill Clinton of being responsible for the loss of the following election when I truly believe, as much as I like Gore, that it was a fatal mistake on the part of his campaign to not let Clinton campaign for him.  Despite the controversies, he remained a two-term very successful president with high approval ratings.


    My take (none / 0) (#192)
    by IzikLA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:05:12 PM EST
    On the claims to moral majority meant to imply that the Republicans have done plenty in the last 8 years to make that argument or that assumption invalid.  It was in no way a dig at what You were saying so I'm sorry if I clumsily said that.  The intent was directed at the Republicans.  I find it distressing though that Democrats use that Republican argument against other Democrats, that was what I was trying to get at.  It doesn't mean you believe it but it still is being used.

    I agree 100% that Hillary's biggest problem was the trust issue, but I believe that it came from how it was all framed in the media, that was my original argument and I would stand by that.  She was not perfect, nor was Obama, they each are human and I expect mistakes.  

    Personally, I trust Hillary.  I understand her positions and I trust that she will fight for them.  She actually proved a lot of people wrong in this campaign.

    I am no big Obama supporter but I am looking forward to hopefully getting beyond all this psychotic Clinton fascination.  I have my reservations about him and his ability to win but I will vote for him in November.  I don't want a McCain presidency any more than you do.


    I believe you are absolutely correct, (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:38:45 PM EST
    if my own family's experience is an indicator.  They've said the exact same things about why they dislike the Clintons.  I won't argue about whether this is based on truths or not, your feelings are your own.
    If Bill were dead or if Hillary had divorced him, I think she would be so much more acceptable to Democrats.
    It sounds like you want honesty in your elected officials.  The thing that bothers me is how do folks that dislike the Clintons for supposed dishonesty (i.e. personality) reconcile their support for Obama who, IMO, is no more honest than any other politician?  I mean, he's come out and said he's whatever people want him to be, a pol is a pol.  We as dems were all up in arms about republicans and their moral tack, but just like pols are pols, people are people.  We as party really need to move past personalities and focus on issues.  We win when we do.  If we lose this time around, or even if we win, I hope we remember that.

    Middle (5.00 / 6) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:40:10 PM EST
    aged women didn't choose him over Hillary. Obama's base was and still does consist mainly of latte liberals and AA's.

    PS. Your post sounds exactly like what comes out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth. And that's why people think Obama doesn't have Dems best interests at heart and why he sounds like a Republican.


    I didn't say his base was middle aged women, (none / 0) (#147)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:47:05 PM EST
    I asked readers to think about why long time, middle aged Democratic women chose him over Hillary.  Plenty did, even though his base is not that demographic.  Think about why those women (and men, for that matter) felt they couldn't trust the Clintons.

    Why (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    did some AA's vote for Hillary over Obama? That's kind of a silly argument imo. You are too much into identity politics.

    Fact of the matter is, Obama has shown himself to be completely untrustworthy during the primaries. It's one of the reasons so many voters are abandoning him--his willingness to compromise literally everything away.

    You are thinking that people only are voting on "trust". Do you think that some people might have voted for Obama because they wanted an AA candidate? Or that he was different? Or a variety of other reasons.


    Because (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by standingup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:16:19 PM EST
    they have bought the same media and right wing view points that you have about the Clintons.  You obviously don't see it but you sound very much like a Republican in many ways.  

    I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Iphie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:18:16 PM EST
    But, okay, I'll play. I'll ask you to consider why I* voted for Clinton and over time came to vehemently reject Obama. Your question seems to be premised on the idea that all "long-time middle aged Democratic women" would vote for Clinton. Other than a media driven stereotype of her supporters, why should they? (And is it even possible to be "long-time middle aged"? -- I think your writing is as muddled as your logic.)

    *Based on my education, income, age, geographical location and technological proficiency, I am Obama's ideal supporter.


    That is SO not why she lost. (none / 0) (#123)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:10:02 PM EST
    no kidding (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:14:41 PM EST
    organization.  thats why she lost.  it wont happen again.
    all the Clinton hatred means squat.  never did never will and it will never change.
    I cant wait for a president Hillary just to see their pointed heads explode.

    and may I also just say (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:16:21 PM EST
    I am sick and tired of all the bobbleheads saying all the Hillary supporters are women.
    we are not.  and the fact that I am gay changes not my plumbing.

    Ha (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by IzikLA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    Right there with you!  

    We are not all women, the media continually underestimates her male support.


    thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM EST
    my penis gets so confused sometimes.

    "No, Conan the Destroyer," I have to tell him again and again "we are not a woman even though we voted for and support Hillary.  You are not a vagina, okay?"



    I'm just not convinced she did lose (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:38:18 PM EST
    Unfortunately (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by IzikLA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:21:21 PM EST
    That is obvious to anyone that knows the process.  The Super D's put him over the top.  If she had won it would have been the Super D's as well, they were just too close.  What kills me is this:

    I will never fathom how we, as Democrats, put the candidate over the top who lost NY, NJ, CA, MA, FL, MI, NM, NV, PA, IN, WV, AR, KY, TN, OK, TX, NH, AZ, SD, RI, OH.  Put all the other red states together and they do not equal the importance of all these.  We should have taken our cues right there.


    Sure anti Clinton sentiment can not be denied (none / 0) (#125)
    by Manuel on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:11:04 PM EST
    However, you must admit that significant numbers of Democratic voters hold them in high regard and they draw political power from that support.  They are not going to go away, nor should they, just because the Obama faction wishes they would.  The intersting thing is that only a relatively small number of people take these things personally.  Most of us just care about the issues.

    Where's the lie in what I said? (none / 0) (#129)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:15:28 PM EST
    That a lot of Dems don't trust Hillary because they don't trust the money and power that backs her?  I don't hate the Clintons.  But I don't trust a man that got his you know what sucked by a female subordinate in the Oval Office.  What on earth was he thinking?  Like Edwards and his stupid affair.  Just because we're Democrats doesn't mean we don't expect our leaders to be faithful in their relationships.  Or, gee, maybe just honest.  Get a divorce from your cancer-ridden wife before screwing someone else.  Why are these men running for powerful positions, knowing that their cheating will cost our country so much?  How dare they risk our party's chances, our country's name, our economy, the whole thing, just because they feel like having an affair?  They KNOW when they're found out, it'll be used against them, against US!  I think our President should be better than that.  You don't have to be a prude to expect powerful male leaders to not take advantage of young female subordinates.  At the very least, he should have manned up and said his sex life is his own private business but he's sorry for disgracing the White House by doing it there.  

    Instead, what Bill gave us Republican Rule.  Republicans gave us Iraq.  Now our economy is collapsing as we fight a $5000/minute war that props up oil prices so billionaires can get even richer.  Yes, I want better, and I expect more from our Dem leaders.  And you know what, I think we can have prosperity without creating a Plutocracy.  Is that too much to ask for?  I'm all for prosperity and helping people get out of poverty, but not at the cost of the rich manipulating our government.  There's a reason the 9/11 terrorists flew two planes into the Twin Towers (America's symbol of rampant capitalism) and only one plane toward the Pentagon.  Rampant capitalism will eventually destroy the world, and it's going to take down our country's version of democracy, probably sometime in our lifetime.  

    When I talk to long time Dems about why they didn't vote for Hillary, these are the kinds of issues they speak about.  They crave a leader they can trust.  They want to feel good about their party and their candidate.  They want to believe it's not all a big lie to get their vote, with programs bought and sold to politicians.  That's something that cuts across both parties.  Hillary doesn't represent that for many Dems.  Maybe it's history, maybe it's Bill, maybe it's the mistakes she or her campaign made.  I can see that many of you feel the same about Obama and his campaign.  That's what the big tent is all about, right?

    Maybe the best we can hope for is for Dems to at least agree on what we want to push our party and president to do.


    New Gallup poll today on Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#168)
    by tree on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    Hillary's Stock Still High Among Democrats

    The intense battle for the Democratic nomination between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama seems to have done little to diminish Democrats' affinity for the New York senator. Eighty percent of Democrats have a favorable opinion of her, compared to 74% just before Obama clinched the presidential nomination in early June and 82% before the primaries began, when she still rated as a strong front-runner for the nomination. Her favorable rating among all Americans is 54%, the most positive since just after she officially announced her candidacy in early 2007.


    In any case, Democrats still see a future for Clinton in the Democratic Party. Seventy-nine percent want her to be a major national spokesperson for the party over the next four years as she completes her second term in the U.S. Senate. Just 18% of Democrats would prefer she have a less prominent role within the party.

    Additionally, 75% of Democrats say they would like to see Clinton run for president again someday. Overall, Americans are not as high on a second Clinton presidential bid, with 52% in favor. That includes 50% of independents and only 24% of Republicans.

    Poll shows you don't know what you are talking about.


    There is so much to say about your comment (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by standingup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:11:28 PM EST
    but I will leave it to your last line sentence.  I doubt there is little we would ever agree with about the party or the president given the self righteous tone I hear from you.  

    I'm Not Saying (none / 0) (#89)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:29:12 PM EST
    there is NO hatred/contempt for the Clintons among Obama supporters. Hey, during the heat of the primary season, I was plenty angry with them and her campaign.

    Maybe it's my age (53). It was easy for me to let go of my anger when he became the nominee. But I also know I'd rather elect her than see another 4 years of Republicans. Even after the tensions of the primaries, I would have had no problem voting for her in November, not because I am won over by her as a candidate, but because I think they're both better than the alternative.



    I stand by my theory (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by magisterludi on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    that CDS is a condition pushed by some very powerful people. Anyone who followed the Heritage Foundation -funded Paula Jones law suit and the Arkansas Project could see these people were afraid of the Clintons gaining power and were willing to stop at nothing to destroy them.

    I keep saying, it's the more populist message the Clintons represented that was their target, not the Clintons per se.

    Why do you think O keeps moving to the right?

    Obama's backers (none / 0) (#66)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:13:46 PM EST
    were not behind the Paula Jones lawsuit.  

    How are you so sure? (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by magisterludi on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:15:05 PM EST
    Because the Heritage Foundation (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:20:58 PM EST
    has no connection to Obama.  Pretty simple....

    ODS gives rise to the same type of conspiracy theories that propelled the weird stuff about Vince Foster and Hillary.  


    Oh my (none / 0) (#193)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:09:43 PM EST
    Your reasoning is:

    Republicans supported Obama;

    The Heritage Foundation is comprised of Republicans;  therefore,

    The Heritage Foundation supported Obama


    Come on, you can do better than that.

    Obama is where he is because of a lot of reasons, including the Iowa voters liking his position on the war, and Mark Penn's inane strategy.....


    Because It Was (none / 0) (#153)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:51:48 PM EST
    this right wing front organization.


    AND (oh, my)

    Richard Scaife

    who also promoted the scurrilous idea that Vince Foster's suicide was in fact a homicide that Senator Clinton was involved in.

    If I still dislike her for anything she did in her campaign, it is probably most for sitting down with this despicable monster for an interview before the PA primary.

    I don't hold many political grudges but I still hold one against him and his cronies who put this country through such hell for nothing but their own evil nonsense.


    Really? (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:12:03 PM EST
    So we can talk to Iran, but not to Richard Mellon Scaife?

    Personally I think it shows courage.  What could possibly upset you so much?  Do you think he and his newspaper and his money just disappear if we shut our eyes and ignore them?  Seems like if Hillary can diffuse some of the hatred merely by sitting down for an interview and showing that she's not some monster, more power to her.


    Yup On Iran Nope on Scaife (none / 0) (#183)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:32:58 PM EST
    One can argue there are strategic necessities and advantages for engaging Iran.

    Are you suggesting the same could be said for Scaife? Did I miss his repudiation of his past crimes against the Clintons? If so--if that happened before she sat down with him...no, I'm unreconciled.

    Clinton certainly didn't need his approbation to handsomely take PA.

    She didn't need to chat with Scaife to diffuse the hatred many Repubs  felt toward her thanks largely to his 'monster image-making of her. Her own gutsy campaign more than did that heavy lifting.

    Leaving him out in the cold rather than pulling up a chair at his table would have been perfectly appropriate. Granting the interview ceded dignity to him he doesn't deserve.


    Scaife owns the Pittsburgh (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by tree on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:47:21 PM EST
    Tribune. She sat down with him because she sat down with every newspaper that wanted to sit down with her. She talked policy and answered questions about what she would do as President. Granting the interview was smart and brave and showed her strength.  It was not an endorsement of everything (or anything) he stood for, anymore than sitting down with Iran would mean an endorsement of everything it stands for.  

    Not Really Necessary (none / 0) (#200)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:33:58 PM EST
    for coverage in Pittsburgh since the rival paper's circulation is much higher.

    Pittsburgh Post Gazette

    Circulation     213,352 Daily
                    341,474 Sunday

    Pittsburgh Tribune Review

    Circulation     150,253 Daily
                    185,331 Sunday

    I'm not at all suggesting she was endorsing him by doing so. What I'm suggesting is that by doing so she lent him a dignity and credibility (hers) he doesn't in any way deserve.

    At the core of my reaction to this is bewilderment at why she did this when pragmatically, it really wasn't necessary. In fact, to me it represents a rather extreme version of 'reaching across the aisle.'


    Good grief. (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by tree on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:55:43 PM EST
    She did her job. She gave the Pittsburgh Tribune a sit down interview. She didn't "reward" him, and she didn't seek to "punish" him. In fact, its uncertain how much a refusal to sit with him would have hurt him and not her. I'm sure that the usual suspects would have jumped all over her if she had refused, with attacks along the line of "If she's afraid to sit down with Richard Scaife, does she have the "balls" to sit down with our enemies," etc.,etc. It was a no win situation for her and she pulled it off with grace and aplomb.

    And really, the idea that because his was the smaller circulation newspaper she didn't need to do it? Really grasping at straws there. Maybe you've forgotten, but this was the primary. It isn't winner-take -all like the general. And it was at a stage in the campaign where Hillary not only needed a win but she needed a big win in order to remain viable in the race. Every extra vote she got was very important to her campaign then. Why do you diminish that? Why do you suppose that she could just write-off voters in Pittsburgh that might have been swayed by what she said to the Tribune?

    I think you are judging this on emotional terms instead of pragmatic.  She was being pragmatic even though I'm sure it was difficult personally for her. She didn't compromise her views, and she didn't "reach across the aisle". She simply faced a difficult situation head on. Its one of the characteristics that makes her such a strong politician.  


    I Never Used the Words Reward or (none / 0) (#203)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:01:06 PM EST
    punish to describe my position. That was introduced in someone else's comments.

    Correction (none / 0) (#206)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:04:16 PM EST
    I used the word reward in response to Steve M's use of the word punish.

    Neither of which was what I was advocating. Ignore would be the word for what I was talking about.

    Obviously, we disagree about the significance of this event.


    People like Clinton (none / 0) (#218)
    by jondee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:35:24 PM EST
    will never have the guts to fully expose and come to grips with what scum like Scaife represent as long as they're dependent on some level on people like him.

    He and his minons publicy accused the Clintons of murder and drug dealing yet she somehow "shows great courage" and character by soliciting his newspapers aid? I wonder if it ever occured to Hill to speculate on how many other people Scaife has done that kind of thing to?

    Great courage and standing on principal, in my book would be telling people like Scaife to go f*ck themselves. He represents the same pathology and arrogance of power that led people like Hearst to say "I'll provide the war" in the last century.

    Of course, ours is not to question Hillary; her ways are not our ways.


    Come on now,YOU used it. (none / 0) (#214)
    by tree on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:15:02 PM EST
    I don't see ignoring him and not sitting down with him as punishing him.

    I DO see doing it as rewarding him. That's what I oppose. Sitting down with him granted him credibility he doesn't deserve.

    Can't you at least be honest about something that can be so easily refuted? And if you are going to insist that Steve used the term "reward" first I will remind you that "reward" was Steve's characterization of your earlier statement that

    (g)ranting the interview ceded dignity to him he doesn't deserve.
    And you agreed with him, above, that his characterization was  entirely correct.  So, please, don't try to play games here with what you said.  

    Sorry, but... (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by IzikLA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:24:30 PM EST
    In order to be President you have to be President to all people.

    I disagree with you.  I think it showed strength and conviction and that past grudges would not get in the way of governing or of reaching out to the American people.


    Shrug (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:48:11 PM EST
    the principle that we punish people by refusing to talk to them is, I think, misplaced in both cases.

    I Guess We're on Different Pages on This (none / 0) (#191)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:57:44 PM EST
    I don't see ignoring him and not sitting down with him as punishing him.

    I DO see doing it as rewarding him. That's what I oppose. Sitting down with him granted him credibility he doesn't deserve.

    And if I thought she needed his editorial backing to win PA--cynical political wonk that I am--I would probably grudgingly let go of my grudge and respect her expediency. But she did not. There's the rub for me.


    Then you should give up the grudge. (none / 0) (#205)
    by tree on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:02:39 PM EST
    She needed every vote she could get in PA. She not only needed to win. she needed to win big in PA in order to have a chance at winning the overall primary race. Have you forgotten that? She won by 10. Believe me, if she had only won by 5 or less she would have been in a much more precarious position. Likewise, if she could have won by 15-20 she would have put Obama in a much more precarious position. Every percentage point counted.

    Hey, I Nurture So FEW Grudges (none / 0) (#210)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:07:12 PM EST
    I'll keep this one a while longer.

    By the way, do you understand that what I expressed about Senator Clinton was anger that she did it. No grudge.

    The grudge is against Scaife and his destructive tendencies.


    no they can't get over it- (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Bornagaindem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    The thing that stands in the way of Obama locking up the election is the candidate himself. Hillary would have had the same problem -winning by a small margin. She would have sewn it up though because nothing would have prevented her from putting him on the ticket. She has the confidence that he would not outshine. He does not. And with good reason.

    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:57:40 PM EST
    Hillary supporters are the enemy.
    Just wow.

    sod off (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:16:46 PM EST
    "I would also love to see a post about how bad of an enemy that some Hillary supporters have become to her and the party."

    Your answer is the weeks after Obama (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by rooge04 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:59:14 PM EST
    wrapped up the nomination. The air went out of the media coverage. People GOT BORED.  No one cared anymore. It wasn't a Clinton involved so the media ratings went down, interest went down, and people were no longer as engaged as they were before. When did all this nonsense start coming back to frothy heights?

    Once they made it about the Clintons again: the memos, the Veep, the campaigning, Bill. The media cannot stop. I cannot believe for all the millions of times that they say the Clintons will not go away someone doesn't respond : YOU ARE THE ONES OBSESSED WITH THEM!!!!

    I would have been more than happy to vote for Obama. Before he decided to win the nomination he'd have to tear Bill's legacy and Hillary herself into pieces.   That is when my vote went into question.  And perhaps Obama's people can say something to their dear media: STOP IT. You're doing your candidate no favors.   Every time I hear the media and how they simply will not stop talking about Bill or Hillary I dig in my heels further.

    My hatred for the media and now the left blogs burns bright.

    First you say (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by jb64 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:07:35 PM EST
    It's fabricated, then you basically go straight through every one of the "fabricated" media talking points.

    Sorry hoss if you're disappointed that the coverage aint all about Obama, if you wanted that, he should have dominated the primaries.

    Just to clue you in, if he goes down, he'll be taking  Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, Kerry, Josh Marshall, Markos, Arianna Huffington, and all the other propogandists and fixers and you'll have no one to blame but yourselves.

    One would hope so (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:11:39 PM EST
    But if Obama loses they'll all turn on Obama faster than water off a duck's back to save their careers.

    It's what they did to Kerry.


    If this isn't in the Stoopid Dem Moments reel ... (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by Ellie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:10:26 PM EST
    ... when the party brainiacs wonder when and where it went horribly horribly wrong, it should be.

    On CNN, Funnyman Roland Martin continued with the tired schtick putting responsibility for the SCOTUS on women (Hillary supporters better think about Roe and Supreme Court picks ... blah blah blah blah ...) I guess black folks got over all that voting stuff that was magically resolved, now that the only people that have Obama as a BBFF (black best friend forever).

    Then the toss to Soledad O'Brien, accenting Catholics for Obama. Together, they'll be forging a new Democratic party that gives fertilized eggs a seat of honor at every dang prayer breakfast, no matter the race, creed or color of the encasing fertility pod!

    And now that "Hillary supporters", pesky women / F-word types who stubbornly don't know their place in society and on the political stage, have been re-put in our place, let's have some cool footage.

    Obama shooting hoops and (Black) Athletes for Obama -- who's apparently totally black again -- and can enjoy his rightful place, having put that whole, unfortunate Choice thing behind him.

    I hope this all makes sense to someone cause I'm baffled about how this strategy can possibly succeed, although the advance blame-laying doesn't surprise me.

    Up now: Solegergen. HRC has to be all things to all people tonight and she better. Notably, she better deliver those votes if she knows what's good for her. And isn't it cool that we're open enough as Americans to have TWO historic firsts in this election?

    AMEN to the last sentence. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:15:21 PM EST
    Tracking polls are out (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:15:44 PM EST
    Both Rasmussen and Gallup have bad news for Obama.  I'm not surprised.  Biden and the conventions have moved people away from Obama and into McCain's arms.

    I will tell you something else (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:17:49 PM EST
    there will be no significant convention bounce.
    opinions are hardening.

    Kerry had a negative bounce (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by Prabhata on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:20:19 PM EST
    I predicted three point loss for Obama, but because he chose Biden, a politician from the NE, his numbers might be worse.

    Whoa... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by ks on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:31:48 PM EST
    That Gallup Tracking is eye opening - +2 McCain.  Not only did Obama not get a bounce from picking Biden, this is the first time since Obama became the presumptive nominee that he's trailing McCain in their daily tracking poll.

    More ominously, McCain earned 46 (none / 0) (#99)
    by Lysis on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:36:46 PM EST
    He hasn't topped 45, even when the two have been tied or a point separated, while Obama only dipped down to 44 once.  The point spread always seems to be the focus, but the actual numbers tell a clearer story.

    Too early to call it a trend, but for today at least, McCain's actually gained ground.


    While the convention (none / 0) (#172)
    by RalphB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:13:46 PM EST
    has been a boring snoozefest, last night McCain appeared on Leno and was at his affable, reasonable best.  The audience reaction to McCain was much warmer than I would have expected.  Was good for him.

    I am an individual voter first (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:22:58 PM EST
    I am making a choice based upon the current candidate. He is a candidate that I originally thought was capable of being President. I am not sure now. I have my doubts. It is not because I am a Clinton supporter that I have my doubts. I just thought her the better Presidential choice. But saying that, 'SHE' has nothing to do with my voting choice now.

    My Obama friend says "She lost. Get over it." No, I feel, She lost, YOU get over it. We get accused of not letting go. We have. The Media hasn't. Obama supporters haven't. I have a mind. I live in a Democracy. I can vote for or not vote for whoever I want. And that included Obama if I desire. His last chance to get my vote was with Hillary as his VP. With her there, I felt confident that all would be right with the world. It might not be easy, but it could get done. I have not been bashing Obama nor have I been elevating McCain. I am just a voter who has knowledge and independence. I am not even angry or  sad. OK, maybe sad that my Democratic Party is taking a wrong turn and says Get On the Pony or leave the world.

    The 24 hour news services don't have anything else to report on. The convention is boring and following a peaceful script so they try and create some controversy, some friction. What would the Obama blogs write about if they did not have Hillary? Yipes, they would have to back to the keeping the country honest and investigating ways of their beginning. I wonder what will happen when the days comes when they realize Obama doesn't even like the Big Orange. He just likes their votes and they will have no voice afterwards. Obama does not even like to talk with the Press that much. When will these guys wake up and stop blaming Hillary. Because without her, they have a lot of blank air time.

     As for appealing to me now, it might just be too late. I am under the bus, like the expression or not, and I am liking the company there. There are some pretty cool and very nice people here. We are drinking some wine and sharing a few laughs. We are relaxed and shaking our heads watching the media and Obama blogs go nuts over Hillary. We know better.

    As Far As I'm Concerned (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    the Democrats inhabit a Big Tent and they always fight among themselves.

    I don't think Spike Lee's derisive comments about the Clintons reflect what most Obama supporters feel about the Clintons which I think more accurately ranges from respect/admiration to indifference.

    Just as I don't think most Clinton supporters hate Obama with the virulence so many around here exhibit. I think they prefer Clinton, are not comfortable with Obama, but will, by the GE vote for him just as many of us Obama voters would have voted for Clinton were she now the nominee.

    I don't see the Obama hate (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Manuel on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    I have not seen many comments around here that even remotely approach the level of that Spike Lee quote.  I do think from reading the blogs that there are at least as many Obama supporters that feel that way as there are PUMAs.  It's ridiculous.  Some Obama supporters have worked themselves up into a revolutionary zeal (unjustified in my view).  In the process, as in all revolutions, they want to have purges.

    Axelrod and company (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by BernieO on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:24:25 PM EST
    want to shrink that tent. His western strategy deliberately ignores the poor and working class, including African Americans in favor of "knowledge workers" (which seems particularly odd since those people generally vote Democratic anyway). Since fightin for social justice has been a core principle of the party, dropping it means ignoring a large number of Clinton Democrats who have supported both Clintons precisely because they have always fought, and fought effectively, for the little guys.
    I don't recognize the party they are trying to create. It really seems like a more moderate version of the Republican party. If they succeed I and many like me will have no party to belong to.

    So infuriating (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Dave B on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:28:08 PM EST
    I'm at a loss for words.

    Spike Lee - disgusting hateful words (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:30:45 PM EST

    The biggest sin of the Clintons (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Lysis on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:34:20 PM EST
    Their biggest sin has always been their ability to win ,to rally the people to their side in spite of, rather than because of, the establishment.  

    It infuriates the GOP so used to winning and the Democratic establishment so used to losing.

    I found this gem today (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Makarov on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:36:52 PM EST
    at it sums up how I feel:


    " The television cameras will linger on angry and tearful Clinton delegates in the convention crowd. The commentators will no doubt take this as a demonstration of disunity -- and not a few will, of course, blame Clinton.
    But it is usually the job of the party nominee to build unity once a vanquished rival has conceded and made the right gestures. Unless the loser happens to be a woman"

    I strongly suggest you read the whole thing, if you haven't.

    It takes a lot to admit that (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by vicndabx on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:43:08 PM EST
    someone you have a low opinion of probably knows more than you do on a subject you think you're an expert on.  This is Bill Clinton's impeachment all over again, but this time they're not portraying Hillary as a victim.  All the folks you name are still smartin' that someone from, gulp! the south! can know more than northerners about people politics and uniting americans.  Ego will not let them do it, ego will make it difficult to say mea culpa.

    I still think that (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:50:33 PM EST
    Obama could capture many of the disaffected and disinterested potential voters if he would begin to speak and act like a progressive. What he is doing now is just not compelling.

    Please allow me to address (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by zfran on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    just one of your issues, namely "For the next two days, a convention that belongs to Obama, will be DOMINATED by the Clintons." The powers that be, namely Sen. Obama and his people could have said no to the Clintons and taken the flak or come up with something to explain it. They chose to have them speak and on 2 different nights. Remember, the "presumptive" nominee and the DNC are in charge of their convention. The Clinton(s) could have requested to speak until they were blue, if Obama didn't want it, Obama wouldn't have given it away! And, as long as the attention is on something or someone else, it is not highlighting his negatives.  

    What I don't get... (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    ... is how Obama backers fail to see that constantly talking about showing the Clintons the door cannot help but create the impression of wanting to show Clinton voters the door as well.

    my mother would call that (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
    I agree completely.  I dont think they care very much.

    "Their time is slowly (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Xanthe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:05:01 PM EST
    coming to an end"  -- not so sure.  You may think they are both ancient and should retire to what -- a closed condo community in Costa Rico where they can both watch that setting sun in slow motion (I keep getting emails about these).  The Clintons breathe politics - it's their food and drink.  And Hillary is still a New York senator who could make a difference in your life as well as ours.  Dare to think it.  She will be needed in the Senate -

    Sixty is not all that old in these days thanks in part to the progressive policies of that doddering Democratic Party - the one so many seem hellbent on changing.

    I'd Also Like To Add To This (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by JimWash08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:15:48 PM EST
    Can Obama Dems, The Media And The Left Blogs Get Over The Clintons?

    Not only do they need to get over (bashing) 'The Clintons,' the media and the blogs need to STOP this silly narrative that Hillary HAS A BIG JOB TO DO to get this bitter knitters to fall behind The Chosen One.

    I'm watching Soledad O'Brien on CNN perpetuate this myth (twice in the last 20 minutes, and probably the 5th or 6th time she's done this between yesterday and today.), and I want to reach into my TV set and tell her to STFU!

    That's Obama's job, and only his job now, because he's the presumptive nominee, on the cusp of being officially named the nominee. Not Hillary. Not Bill. No one else.

    just so I understand.... (1.00 / 0) (#143)
    by OldCity on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:39:32 PM EST
    You infer that an achor considers you a "bitter knitter", so that validates your calling Obama the "Chosen One".  

    Why don't you just admit that he can't reach you?  HRC recognizes the downside of electing McCain...she's attempted to steer her supporters to Obama.  However, there's no indication in your post that anything will or would convince you to vote for the man.  Because he's the "Chosen one", apparently, and not your first choice.

    I've always been under the impression that oppotunity cost can be explained to people.  As I've been reading this site though, I'm more and more convinced that there are a whole bunch of hard-core narcississts out there...you're just out there screaming, "Curry favor to me, because I didn't want you!"  Well, he's who you've got.  And, if you don't get behind him, you, or rather, we, get McCain.  And if we get McCain, we get a conservative Supreme Court.  

    So, i just want to be clear, we need to beg you to support the guy that will help us avoid that?  Be honest.  Don't go into some silly fall back about the young, or sexism, or media bias, or whatever.  The result will be a Conservative Supreme Court.  Read your history...you won't be able to blame Congress...the President gets his nominee(s) confirmed in the very vast majority of cases.

    At the very minimum, that should be enough for you.  But you'll not answer the direct question, or acknowledge the consequences of a choice to not support the democratic nominee, if my experience here is any indication.  



    "conservative Supreme Court" (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:47:07 PM EST
    I hear this constantly.
    let me ask you something.  do you remember what Bush and the Christian right did to McCain in 2000.
    it was ugly and mean and I dont believe for a second that McCain has forgotten or forgiven it.
    so a question, what happens when a theoretical President McCain makes a stellar nomination for his first supreme court pick.
    just to stick it to the right.  which I happen to think is at least as likely as Obama making a choice I would be excited about.
    what happens to this argument then?

    I would also mention (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:49:47 PM EST
    that many say we should have a veto proof majority in the senate next term.
    so what is the problem?
    I happen to like the prospects of a democratic senate rising up against a McCain pick a heck of a lot more than I like the prospects of a spinless democratic senate rising up to fight a bad Obama pick.
    and if you dont think he would make one try looking at some of the VPs he vetted.

    Ha, ha, ha. You funny. (none / 0) (#155)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:53:54 PM EST
    Let's vote for McSame because he's going to nominate SC judges we like just to screw his base, his funding sources, and his party.  

    Keep trying Capt Howdy.  


    and btw (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:01:01 PM EST
    Im not voting for McCain.  I just dont see much difference between the apples and the oranges.

    there's no way (none / 0) (#179)
    by OldCity on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:26:36 PM EST
    he's going to nominate a left-field pick for the Court.  

    He's voted with the guy who so famously screwed him 95% of the time!  He's 100% on Pro-life issues (unless, of course, you count wars and the death penalty).  He's against gay marriage...not even sure where he is on civil unions but he's not even for adoption.  So, you should have extremely low expectations.

    And don't make the mistake of thinking that a majority will prevent a successful conservative nomination to the Court.

    There is a huge difference.  Huge.


    as far as I can see (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:32:07 PM EST
    his position on gay marriage is exactly the same as Obamas.
    and I guess my question is, after all we have seen, what makes you so sure Obama would not make a conservative appointment to the court?

    my other thought on the subject is in the previous comment.  I trust the senate to fight a bad McCain appointment far more than I would trust them to fight a bad Obama appointment.


    "his base . . . (none / 0) (#158)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:57:32 PM EST
    . . .  his funding sources, and his party"
    crucified him in 2000 with whisper campaigns saying he was unstable and had an illegitimate black child.

    however you could be right.
    his VP choice could tell us a lot.


    You guys (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:54:56 PM EST
    need a better argument than "he's not McCain" and "McCain is awful." Even Obama's VP candidate doesn't think that McCain is awful. That's going to be a hard sell.

    Once again, you would better spend your time riding Obama to get off his duff and do some work. He has wasted the entire summer even taking TWO vacations.

    PS. We already have have a conservative supreme court. Obama has Cass Sunstein who probably isn't any better than something McCain would come up with.


    I kept posting ways for Obama to reach me (5.00 / 7) (#166)
    by lambert on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:06:03 PM EST
    FISA was one. So much for that.

    Truly universal health care is another. That's fading too.

    This year, policy is emotion, because of the level of economic pain and fear people are suffering.

    Obama just doesn't connect on that. He can, but he has not. Hillary spent the time doing nothing BUT connect on that level. That's what boring points about policy are all about. That was what gave me hope, not this hopey-changey-faithy crapola.


    Careful - nt (none / 0) (#196)
    by Xanthe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:15:47 PM EST
    Chuck Todd (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by Manuel on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:50:33 PM EST
    What's up with him?  Of all the people at MSNBC, I thought he was the least biased during the primary.  Now, however, we have this.  It takes two to compromise.  Hillary may not be doing enough with her body language to unite the party but Obama hasn't exactly gone out of his way.  The convention time is the minimun Obama could have done.  Bill Clinton had a role at the convention in 2004.  Cutting him out this year would have only enraged his supporters.  Hillary, of course, earned the right to address the convention if not a place on the ticket.  Todd is way off here.

    to parapharase a great quote (5.00 / 5) (#157)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:55:03 PM EST
    "it difficult to get a man to understand something when his continued employment depends on his not understanding it"

    Where was the outrage (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by abfabdem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:57:05 PM EST
    when Obama was brushing off his shoulders after she cleaned his clock in the PA debate?  Talk about body language!!

    The Obama campaign should "get over it" (5.00 / 8) (#160)
    by lambert on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    Je repete:

    If I read the poll numbers correctly, Hillary supporters can ensure that Obama doesn't get elected.

    That means they have the power over Obama (and not vice versa)*. The power to destroy a thing is absolute power over it.

    Therefore, the Obama campaign needs to swallow hard, figure out what the Hillary supporters want, and give it to them. A lot of boring bullet points on policy would be good. Fixing Obama's broken health care plan would be an excellent start. IIRC, Biden's reasonably sound on health care. Give him the portfolio and give Hillary a role.

    Honestly, how hard can this be?

    Oh, and at least speaking for myself, I'm not an authoritarian follower. Hillary can't deliver my vote; she can only try to persuade me. Unfortunately, the Obama campaign is imagining that the Hiillary campaign is a mirror image of itself, when in fact it's quite different.

    NOTE * Assuming that winning the Presidency is the goal, and not simply control of the party machinery.

    Radio....all the same (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by onthefence on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:25:46 PM EST
    Same with the Air America and Nova M pundits.  I thought after the Biden announcement I could return - so today and yesterday I turned on KTALK here in LA and between Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, David Bender (who is endlessly substituting for Rachel M) and Tom Hartman...none of them can get over it! They keep trashing Hillary, even if very subtley.  Ugh.

    Mike Malloy is the only one who seems critical of Obama but that's because he's a socialist - and he STILL rags on Hill.

    Seriously, I am over it - why can't they be?

    You ask (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by Bluesage on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:35:55 PM EST
    Can Obama Dems, The Media and the Left Blogs get over the Clintons?  The answer in a word is NO.

    It's not either/or, it's both. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Pegasus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:41:54 PM EST
    Seems to me you're completely correct that the Obama camp, the major media outlets/personalities, and most lefty bloggers need to get over their unhealthy Clinton obsession ASAP.  That's been evident to many of us for some time, I'm sure.

    I do think, however, that there's still some "getting over it" to be done among Clinton supporters (not the Clintons themselves; they've been great).  Not a lot -- I haven't been hearing nearly as much "stolen nomination" nonsense lately -- but some acceptance of what happened is still needed.

    The Obama campaign and those Clinton supporters who are still upset at the outcome of the primaries each have a part to play in the reconciliation.

    But why obsess about the Clinton supporters. (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:50:31 PM EST
    We are the losers. You are giving us too much power. Either you need us or you don't. If you do, then you must make nice, not us. If you don't then what's the problem?

    The way I see it (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    is that Hillary Clinton is the most powerful woman, if not individual, in the country.  Power is something that DC fights over viciously. A part of me is delighted that she just has to stand there and she is worth thousands of words and images for just being herself.

    I know it abusive and disgusting what is said about her but evidently she can handle it,

    Go Hillary!



    you are correct (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:14:08 PM EST
    and I believe she will come out of this stronger still.

    I Think The Media (none / 0) (#40)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM EST
    has the most blame along with some hard line (and vocal) supporters on both sides.

    One of the reasons I don't hang out at Obama sites is that I can't take the unilateral nonsense about Obama any more than I can stand it at Clinton sites.

    But my face to face experience--especially here in New York where almost everyone was a Clinton voter in the primaries--is that there is respect across the lines.


    That's not my experience (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:17:32 PM EST
    My workplace and neighborhood are filled with very angry people who have been brainwashed to hate the Clintons and talk about them as dirty, powerhungry racists all the time. Same for her supporters. They've bought the smears hook, line and sinker, and feel no compunction at all perpetrating them. It's not getting better, it's getting worse.

    Sounds like the Bush crowd after 2000... (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:21:23 PM EST
    ...why so angry if you have "won?"

    Oh pleeeze. Your first paragraph may have (none / 0) (#24)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:45:37 PM EST
    made sense but your second paragraph is so much BS.  You have not been to Daily Kos and a few other blogsites to see what the O supporters have said.  As for Hillary competing after February 20th, that is her right as has been seen by people like Ted Kennedy in 1980.  Read your history and things other than Obama sites.

    Furthermore (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:51:10 PM EST
    What you see with the PUMAs is a counter-movement that has adopted many of the hateful and angry tactics perfected by Karl Rove and the Obama movement that adopted them.

    Eventually, I'll be doing a better job speaking out against the angry personal attacks made by the PUMAs cause that's what I'm all about, but for now I see it as a balancing mechanism.  Not enough sane articulate intelligent people are speaking out against the angry personal attacks made on dem politicians by the likes of Markos Moulitsas, Ariana Huffington, and David Sirota.

    Kind of a quid pro quo (if that's the right lingo) thing going on here.

    When those hatemongers are dumped, then I dump Larry Johnson too!

    For now, all I can do is try to avoid playing my  part in the attacks on Obama and I've backed off a lot of my criticisms of Obama now that he's picked a super smart Foriegn Policy guy to be his VP.  A guy who knows the war might not have been such a bad idea if it was handled better.

    The amount (none / 0) (#36)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    of praise towards the Clintons will be directly proportional to how many Clinton supporters "get over it."  It's really simple.  Say something nice about the Clintons every day, and people will notice you like the Clintons.  And that you share the same values and interests.

    And who BTW thinks Bill Clinton is "conventional"??

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#53)
    by santarita on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    the Clinton fascination will go away after the Convention.  The media is driving the narrative of unusual tensions and splits because it makes for news in an otherwise boring and predictable Convention.  

    Of course there are disappointed people that supported Hillary.  What's new about disappointed supporters of a candidate that came close but lost?  The Convention is the last showcase for that disappointment.  After the Convention, the story goes away or at least is diminished.

    It won't resurface unless Obama loses in November.

    I duuno... (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by ks on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    The Clinton "fascination" has gone on for 15 years and counting.  The only difference now is that the people talking crazy are Dems instead of Repubs.

    Well... (none / 0) (#177)
    by santarita on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    if Obama can't get the media to turn the page after the Convention and get them focussed on him, then McCain has a good shot at winning.

    Your post (none / 0) (#61)
    by IzikLA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:11:25 PM EST
    Really enforces exactly what my post below was referring to.

    This from (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jgarza on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:13:49 PM EST
    a person who as soon as he fond out Biden was the VP wrote a bunch of posts on how Hillary deserved it.  Please.  On a blog that constiantly tries to paint Obama as dissing Hillary.

    you seem to have a problem (4.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    discerning between "trying to paint" a reality and observing reality as it exists and not cheer leading.
    if you want a cheerleader site there are plenty of those.

    So (none / 0) (#102)
    by Jgarza on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:37:37 PM EST
    wait you are going to talk about the reality which is appearently is BTD's umpteenth post about the Clintons being dissed and then turn around and say but other people keep talking about it.  This site talks about it more than any other.

    You are welcome to complain about the Clintons being dissed, and say that is reality that is fine, but don't blame other people for creating a narrative that this site loves to talk about.


    this site talks about it (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:42:50 PM EST
    because very few others do.  and I suspect none that you visit.  if you are suggesting that this site is somehow the majority view I think you need to surf more.

    That statement right there... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:28:28 PM EST
    IMO, if Obama loses, that statement right there exemplifies why. If he loses, I don't think it will be due to PUMA or older women or Hillary, I think it's because of the racial smears.

    I dont remember that (none / 0) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 01:40:54 PM EST
    but it sound like something I might say

    I Want to Vote for Obama (none / 0) (#152)
    by Richjo on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 02:51:21 PM EST
    But every time I hear one of his supporters or one of the members of our famously free press speak I can't quite comitt myself to doing it. I am considering not voting because I am not sure I can trust myself to not get in the privacy of the voting booth and pull that lever for the Republicans.

    Any criticism of the Clintons now is only going to make people like me more likely to vote for McCain. The same goes for PUMAs. I don't agree with them, but I fully understand how they feel. If you want to win over these voters criticize the media, Obama supporters, and Obama himself for his failure to reach out to voters more effectively. The current press narrative is that Hillary lost is to blame for her losing in the primary, and yet somehow Obama is not to blame for his problems in the general, but Hillary is? This type of attitude is the best thing McCain has going for him.