Unity Through The Years

Eric Boehlert writes:

At the Democratic National Convention in 1992, Jerry Brown, who finished a very distant second to the party's nominee, had his name placed into nomination and addressed the assembled convention. . . .Brown "did not specifically endorse presidential nominee Bill Clinton."

[J]ust hours before the 1988 convention began, Jackson's supporters threatened to place the candidate's name into nomination for the vice presidency, which would have created a massive floor fight between Jackson and Dukakis' pick, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas. . . . Jackson did not specifically endorse Dukakis.

Eric leaves out the deservedly lionized (pun intended) Ted Kennedy's actions at the 1980 Convention. Eric points to CNN's Keating Holland's piece, and writes:

Clinton represents the only runner-up to speak at the convention who formally endorsed the party's nominee months before the convention; i.e., all the others grudgingly held out on endorsing their rivals. But not Clinton. Yet she's the one slimed by media venom.

And the Left blogs cheer. The funny thing is that Obama bloggers and Obama supporters cheering this sliming of Clinton are his worst enemies. Boehlert writes:

Meanwhile, let's be clear: Clinton isn't the only injured party here. After the press constructed the phony premise abut Clinton's convention speech, critics then used it, unfairly, to tag Obama as a softie who can't even stand up to a woman. (Gasp.)

That's the obvious damage to Obama. The less obvious is the continued alienation of Clinton supporters from his campaign. But let's face it, most of these people are more interested in attacking the Clintons than in helping Obama win. there is a certain honesty to it that I can respect.

But I 'll be honest too, these Obama supporters, in the blogs, in the Democratic Party (I'm looking at Jim Clyburn and others) and in the Media (I'm looking at NBC) are Obama's worst enemies.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread | Emily's List Gala With Michelle, Hillary and Nancy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    There's just this continued urge to make (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:04:36 PM EST
    Hillary disappear. WWTSBQ has transformed into "get over it."

    Meanwhile, the smart Obama supporters are salivating over the prospects of Hillary speech tonight, which could, IMO, make or break Obama's candidacy.

    Do you think they are hoping it will (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:15:18 PM EST
    lack enthusiasm so they can blame her for a loss? Or are they truly hoping she is enthusiastic?

    I guess it is a win-win for them.


    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:16:18 PM EST
    There seems to be an smattering of both (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:25:13 PM EST
    attitudes.  In the little I've had a chance to watch or read so far I hear a lot of folks who really do seem to appreciate that she has gone above and beyond the call, and want her to do well.  But they are matched by the Sirota types setting her up as the reason their awesome candidate can't clse the deal.

    Perhaps it can (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:15:37 PM EST
    And that would be sad, to have a candidate that is not strong or smart enough to seal the deal, but the runner-up has to do it for him.

    I actually don't think it can seal the deal. The only thing that could would if Obama came out and strongly denounced the accusations of racism against the Clintons, acknowledges Bill Clinton's legacy, and acknowledges that Hillary wasn't treated fairly and there's a way left to go before we can say we've left sexism behind us (he could tie that in with prejudice against his race).

    Sure, he might have to swallow his pride to do that, but it would help an awful lot. It's the kind of stuff that, you know, a president does.


    TheRealFrank...Hillary has done all she (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:18:54 PM EST
    needs to do.  obama couldn't seal the deal in the primary, and it doesn't appear he will if he is in the mix for the GE.  He is not a closer; and I am beginning to wonder if the dems actually want to win the WH....sure doesn't seem like it!

    saw this post this morning (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:07:03 PM EST
    I am sick and tired of Hillary "working her heart out" for the ungrateful Obama who has done nothing to reach out to Clinton or her supporters. While, Obama states that Hillary would be on anybody's vice presidential short list, he doesn't even give her the time of day or even pretend to do so. If Obama wants people to vote for him because of his judgment, I say, that it really was poor judgment not to even consider her and extremely poor judgment to mock her by sending the dissing text message at 3 a.m.

    It is time for Hillary to send Obama off on his own.


    Today, my manicurist, who is Vietnamese, (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by hairspray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:19:27 PM EST
    said in her broken English that she saw Michelle last night and thought she was very smart, but like Obama "they no have from the heart."  Interesting!

    I have said from the get-go that obama (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:31:31 PM EST
    and michelle do not give the appearance of having any empathy or compassion whatsoever.  Tell you manicurist thanks for the confirmation :)

    I think so too (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:19:03 PM EST
    But mayvbe witht he wider audience this speech will have, copmpared to her previous efforts, will finally convince them she is making enough of an effort.  If not, there is nothing she will ever be able to do that will be enough.

    I wish Obama would do exactly as you say, in no uncertain terms.  He is the one trying to get the votes.


    That ship has sailed....she needs to stop, (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:30:15 PM EST
    take the training wheels off of obamb's tricycle and let him go off on his own.  It is apparent to anyone with a brain cell, that he does not appreciate a damn thing she has done.

    Whoa.. (none / 0) (#78)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:50:35 PM EST
    Training wheels on a tricycle?  Harsh! :D

    ....but appropo (none / 0) (#86)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:05:51 PM EST
    Can She? (5.00 / 9) (#17)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:22:47 PM EST
    I think Obama's screwed now (mostly thanks to his own campaign and supporters).  If Clinton gives a humdinger of a speech, which I expect, I suspect that most people who aren't on the O-wagon will only regret more that she isn't the nominee and resent that she isn't at least the VP nominee (the more she supports Obama, the more likely the chorus will grow about how she should've been the VP selection for unity).  If she gives a ho-hum speech, then the CDS will raise its head and it will be all about how Clinton wants Obama to lose and we're off to the races with another round of Clinton bashing and that will alienate Clinton voters.

    I'd feel bad for Obama if so much of this wasn't his own campaign's doing.  I don't want to see McCain as President, but if that happens, Obama and the Democrats are the ones to blame.  They've put themselves into this situation and their only plan to get out seems to be "let Hillary carry us".  But there's only so much one person can do at this point.


    I expect Hillary will make a persuasive speech (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:12:31 PM EST
    then exit the stage quickly - since Obamedia will be timing how long she allows the applause to continue and anything over 5 seconds will be too long.
    But Obama's campaign and stage managers probably have all that timing worked out ahead.

    Sounds familiar... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:14:51 PM EST
    Hillary gets the responsibility, yet no authority.  

    Working men and women everywhere have seen the kind of hollow promotion that comes with a job title, added responsibility, little authority and a token increase in compensation.

    My advice to Hillary is:  Do this exactly once, and never ever do it again.


    I expect Hillary (none / 0) (#79)
    by tek on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:51:47 PM EST
    to make a great speech, she's never done otherwise.  

    re:  the blogs sniping at Hillary and hurting Obama:  these people think they're playing some kind of video game or it's Friday night football or something.  They don't have a clue that this is about electing the most powerful person in the world.  When Hillary gave her very gracious and emotional withdrawal speech, my husband and I were watching it nearly in tears and as Hillary took the podium my 18 yr old Obama stepdaughter blurted out, "Wonder what would happen if Monica Lewinsky walked in right now?"  

    The "youth" are being allowed to behave disrespectfully to adults and they are loving hating Hillary.


    hey man... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Salo on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:30:53 PM EST
    ...Obama's probably on a big slide, so she's graciously trying to help him.

    Not that teh Kewl Kids or Kostapundits care.


    They don't acknowledge the slide - (none / 0) (#66)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:32:58 PM EST
    there's no way they could understand she's helping him because they keep telling themselves that Obama is doing great on his own.

    It is a little weird - but what isn't in this race?


    There Is One Way In Which Hillary Differs (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:06:32 PM EST
    from all the others.  And I don't think it's irrelevant to her treatment.  Part of what people are upset about is that she won't sit down and shut up, which is something only women are expected to do.  

    I cannot recall (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:07:39 PM EST
    any defeated primary contestant who has turned around and started campaigning enthusiastically for their opponent as rapidly as Hillary Clinton.

    By November, I have no doubt that Hillary will have contributed more towards electing the Democratic nominee than any defeated primary contestant in history, excepting of course those primary contenders who were nominated for VP.

    I cannot fathom how the "is she doing enough?" storyline has any currency whatsoever.  It makes no sense.  I am trying to recall any historical narrative about whether Howard Dean was doing enough to elect John Kerry, or whether Bill Bradley was doing enough to elect Al Gore.

    Yet the media obsesses over Hillary's actions again and again and again.  I don't understand how anyone could look at this from the outside and not conclude that it is truly bizarre.

    Entitlement and Privilege (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:16:51 PM EST
    it had completely infected the Village and it's killing our country.  

    There's this idea that Obama is entitled to everyone's support.  Just as no one is supposed to question Pelosi or Dean over how he was selected.  Everyone is supposed to STFU and take whatever our leaders give us and that even includes people like the Clintons (who are a threat to the current leaders).  It's about bending us all to their will, IMO.  Get over it isn't a request, it's an order.  

    Remember, this is the party that approved of tapping your phone, that hasn't done anything to stop torture, that is currently putting protestors in cages so that they don't get too close to the leaders and upset their delicate sensibilities.

    It's about their own privilege and entitlement.  Of course Hillary isn't doing enough, Obama is barely ahead.  He's entitled to win this thing.  If he doesn't, then clearly people failed the party because you can be damned sure the party never fails the people.


    I dunno (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    Is this unique reaction about Hillary or is it about Obama?  I guess I'm not sure.

    Not only is the narrative that Hillary is all about Hillary apparently impervious to any and all evidence to the contrary, but I just can't remember any other candidate in history being told that it was somehow impermissible for them to pursue their own personal ambition.  The more you think about it the weirder it gets.


    The Ambition Part (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:28:15 PM EST
    is linked to misogyny, I think.  Women aren't supposed to be ambitious and ambitious women are, almost by definition, evil.  

    As for the entitlement idea, I think there's become this weird thing in politics (especially Democratic politics) where leverage is a bad word.  You're not supposed to ask for anything or use any leverage whatsoever (that goes doubly if you're a woman).  You're supposed to just go along with the Village's decisions and if you have a problem, get over it.  At least that's how it seems to me.  


    On top of that, the real question (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:42:48 PM EST
    that has bothered me to no end is why they can't just accept her help regardless of whether it is motivated by committment to the party or ambition or both.  The bottom line is they have at least agreed on common cause which is that John McCain should be defeated.

    It is troubling that the Obama camp has not been smart, calculating and dispassionate enough to understand that allying with her is in their best interest right now.


    Impossible Standards (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by santarita on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:27:00 PM EST
    People who think that Hillary is motivated by personal ambition and that that is a bad thing are setting up an impossible standard for an active politician.  

    Yeah, but my point is when Obama (none / 0) (#75)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:31:07 PM EST
    is falling in the polls and McCain is catching up threatening to pull ahead, who cares why she's agreed to help as long as she has agreed to help?

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Claw on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:42:38 PM EST
    I also think that the reason it's so important for Clinton to throw as much support as she can behind Obama is the fact that she did so well during the primary.  It didn't matter that Bill Clinton didn't get the unwavering support of the person who finished a distant second, because she finished a DISTANT second.  Hillary Clinton won the primary by some measures, and came very close by every other standard.  If you're interested in having someone other than McCain in the Whitehouse, you're hoping that Clinton works her heart out for Obama.  I think she will.

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Claw on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 06:44:46 PM EST
    I called Jerry Brown a she.  

    The key is (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Nadai on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:55:09 PM EST
    the word "enough".  Take what someone is actually doing and subtract out what they're expected to do.  If the result is positive, they're doing enough; if it's negative, they're not.

    Clinton is doing far, far more than any other losing primary candidate.  It's the expectation side of that equation that's killing her.  And I firmly believe it's because she's female.

    Women aren't allowed, still, to be ambitious, to put ourselves first, to fight for our own advantage.  We're supposed to put our children, husbands, bosses, co-workers, churches, causes, political parties, etc etc ahead of our selves.  We're not entitled to come first.  And every time one of us has the audacity to put herself forward and make it stick, the howls about what a selfish b!tch she is reach the rafters.  I can't even recall the last time I heard a man described as selfish IRL.  When it's a man, it's self-interest.


    view from outside (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by marian evans on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:22:58 PM EST
    Yep, as a non-US observer, this looks pretty odd.

    1. The attitude to Senator Clinton is extraordinary - it's like watching an outbreak of mass hysteria, there seems no contact with fact, it's all confabulation &/or projection of pathology...Senator Clinton seems to have been made a lightning rod for the gender uncertainties of the US.

    2. Having lived in a variety of different political systems around the world, I have to say I've never been in one where a supposedly "left" party managed to get into power by alienating a large section of its solid base (the working class, older voters, women...votes you can take to the bank). You throw away the voters you KNOW you can get to the polling stations, for the possibility of voters you haven't got there before? In fact, whenever I've seen "left" parties move too far away from their base, they've lost. The goal is to add more to your "big tent", not to tell people to "get lost".

    3. The distancing from the Clinton "legacy" is just bizarre. Hey, as an outsider, I remember the Clinton years with some fondness..people actually LIKED America back then, and wanted them to be engaged on the world stage. Bill Clinton made the world feel a safer place. Let alone the positive economic aspects of the Clinton era. And Senator Obama's campaign wants to distance itself from all that?

    Short circuit in the common sense department, seems to me.



    04 Race (none / 0) (#54)
    by indiependy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:12:43 PM EST
    Umm well Wes Clark dropped out of the race on a Wednesday and by Friday was supporting Kerry. Dean dropped out Feb 18th and was campaigning for Kerry by March. Edwards dropped out in March and immediately backed Kerry. So on that front it's clear there's no new ground being broke here. Also none on the press front, they always obsess over it. Just Google Dean/Kerry, Edwards/Kerry, etc. and all sorts of articles will come up about "unifying the party".

    However, what you won't find is many articles about Clark, Dean, or Edwards supporters refusing to back Kerry, or saying they'll either stay at home or vote for the republican candidate.


    They Didn't Win (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:17:57 PM EST
    hundreds of delegates.  That's the difference.  People who win hundreds of delegates get a convention slot and a vote.  But if you want to pretend there's no difference between Hillary Clinton's campaign and Wes Clark's go ahread (and I like Clark a lot).

    Dean dropped out Feb 18 and endorsed (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Teresa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:31:05 PM EST
    Kerry March 25. Hillary endorsed on Saturday after the last primary. She also did a hell of a lot better than Edwards & Dean.

    Also, their supporters didn't have to listen to sexist crap from the media and some surrogates for months on end. Besides, they didn't have enough supporters to make it an issue.


    Another voice of reason. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:08:13 PM EST
    Give that man a medal for being a sane voice in this madhouse of obsessed media and bloggers.

    Boehlert dared invoke Jackson as a historical (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:12:59 PM EST
    precedent? Big trouble.

    Good to have the historical context.  I hope the MSM picks that up. But they won't.

    BTD....thanks for posting this, but overall (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:16:07 PM EST
    it just makes us Hillary supporters feel worse for her and America.  You get it...so many don't.
    Whatever happened to whatever is good for the goose is good for the gander.  Hillary should have gotten her name on the ballot for a vote with none of the vitriol and b.s..  Once again, I ask what is democratic about the Democratic Party?

    The Obama camp have not learned (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:16:29 PM EST
    the art of making an outcome look like they always wanted it to be the way it turned out even if it really wasn't.

    Jim Clyburn (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Iphie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:20:17 PM EST
    Apparently, Clyburn doesn't believe he has done anything wrong.
    "I never took a position in the primary, even in the South Carolina primary, I never took a position. ... I made no commitments to anybody," he said. "So if anybody got a problem with that, tough. This 68-year-old could care less about how anybody feels how I conducted myself, because I did it in an honorable way and I am proud of it."

    I don't know what is worse -- that he truly doesn't see what he did wrong (and doesn't understand the damage he continues to do), or that he is being disingenuous and doesn't care about the damage he continues to do. But he's got to realize that he certainly isn't helping anyone.

    Sounds like Bush. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by AX10 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:32:53 PM EST
    Saxby Chambliss has more "honor" than
    this left wing POS Jim Clyburn.

    And as (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:05:46 PM EST
    a Georgian, I can attest that you're right. Honestly, both of them are so bad that their punishiment ought to be for them to be chained together for eternity.

    obama could send out a surrogate (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:23:41 PM EST
    to help him realize that he's hurting the cause.

    Exactly. He never did and he won't (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by lambert on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:32:08 PM EST
    Exactly like the misogyny and the false charges of racism.

    They like the result, so it is OK with them.


    when she says (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:22:36 PM EST
    "no one in her position has done more," it's well, it's kind of the truth.  there's, you know, like history and stuff to, like, to back her up.

    even i find myself defending things that should never even have to be defended.

    but that's their game.  emit the blood curdling scream of outrage at astro-turffed lies and then sooner or later you have people spending all their time defending some things that are just, quite simply, true.

    it's like the difference between how Darth Sidious would use the overton windown and how a jedi knight would use the overtone window.

    I have to do a better job of not letting myself fall for it.

    Thanks for posting Boehlert's (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:24:13 PM EST
    excellent piece.  Quite informative.

    MSNBC or Politico (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:27:58 PM EST
    One or the other, I can't remember which now, is running the story that Obama's people are worried that even a small number of Clinton supporters might disrupt the proceedings, and emarasse him.  Good grief!  He wants to lead the free world, and is worried about being embarassed?

    Ironically, they are using the spectar that they might be heckled by Hill's supporters as an excuse for keeping her off the ballot.  Why can't they see that the more they kick her fans in the mouth, the more trouble they make for theirselves.  

    Seems to me that Obama's worst enemies might be Obama and his entourage.

    The continued trashing of Hillary only reinforces (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by BigB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:41:20 PM EST
    My decision to not support this Democratic nominee.

    I'm thinking that is the goal of the media (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:57:34 PM EST
    They can claim they did all they could for Obama, but the Clinton's just wouldn't play nice.

    They get the president their top row wants. These networks aren't owned and operated by people who dream of having a democrat in office raising their taxes.


    not the media (none / 0) (#55)
    by AlSmith on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:12:51 PM EST
    the media doesnt worry about what anyone says about the since they wont even give it notice.

    Someone does have to take the fall. Seems like that is Clinton just because she is around.

    Who benefits is Obama loses? Pelosi I think because there is a powerful tide in politics against having one party control everything, so if Obama wins I think 2010 is her Waterloo.

    The only other person I see as benefiting in scape goating her is Dean. It would clear the 2012 field for him.


    I love the smell of revisionism (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by kredwyn on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:43:17 PM EST
    in the early evening...

    Worst enemies (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by indiependy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:43:50 PM EST
    Clearly PUMAs are the Democratic party's worst enemies right now. And the things idiots continue to do, like Carville with his shoe stunt, McAuliffe leaving the convention after Bill and Hillary speak refusing to stay and watch Obama's speech, Debra Bartoshevich lying about McCain's Roe stance, etc. are hurting the party more than helping any cause.

    Ehm (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:52:35 PM EST
    Several of the things you mention are hardly worth mentioning, and probably even unintentional. You and the obsessed press are the ones drawing attention to it.

    And while I agree that the PUMA stuff is misguided and not productive, it is up to one person alone to convince people to vote for him. Barack Obama.


    you just can't put a sock in it (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:11:02 PM EST
    can you.
    actually, you are the enemy of an Obama victory.

    Put a sock in wanting to win? (2.00 / 0) (#60)
    by indiependy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:19:09 PM EST
    No, sorry I can't be with people that are actively doing whatever they can to diminish the Democratic nominee and encourage a Republican win. That to me is unacceptable.

    Good. Send some memos (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:27:37 PM EST
    to Obama.  Tell him he might want to stop shooting his campaign in the foot.

    Good grief. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:43:44 PM EST
    First of all, the Obama campaign attacked these voters calling them racists and bitter old people. Then the Obama campaign expected Hillary to deliver these voters for Obama. Then Obama said they have no where else to go. Then the Obama campaign attempted sledgehammer unity with the Roe v. Wade argument. They've spent months driving these voters off and were even told they didn't matter. Why do they matter now? Belatedly, and with tanking poll numbers, Obama and his campaign realize that they really do need these voters. It's the eleventh hour for the Obama campaign and just NOW they are doing something to rectify the situation.

    Honestly, Obama has spent more time on vacation than he has trying to get these voters on board. If your are concerned about these voters, you need to tell Obama to get off his duff and get to work. Tell him to quit having rallies and start talking to the voters about issues. No more speeches. Townhalls only. I know he stinks at townhalls but if he is to have any chance he has to do them. Oh, and get him a debate and language coach. He can't seem to clearly articulate his stances.


    Sen McCain sends his thanks (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:38:33 PM EST
    for all you're doing to keep the pot stirred.  Keep up the good work.

    No, the Democratic Party is its own worst (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:00:20 PM EST
    enemy right now.  PUMAs are the result, not the cause.

    Democrats have always been their own worst enemy.  They insist on the same losing strategies every 4 years.  Granted, this year they did so in spectacular fashion, but the PUMAs can hardly be blamed for that.

    Had they not tried to push the base out of the party, maybe they wouldn't be crying in their soup now about how the base doesn't seem to trust them.


    Um, neither Bill nor Hillary has given a (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:02:30 PM EST
    speech yet, so how could McAuliffe leave before Obama speaks?  And if he does, so what?  If the entire GE is depending on Teri staying in his seat for rockstarapalooza, then they're quite unlikely to win anyway.

    Hillary (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by Bluesage on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:45:18 PM EST
    Will never be able to do enough to please all these "new Obama democrats" and will never be given any credit or respect for what she has done.  This is the most disgusting spectacle I've seen in 40 years as a Democrat.  I really am beginning to believe the only way to restore any sanity to our Democratic Party and possibly to our media is for Obama to, not just lose, but lose big. I want Dean, Pelosi and Brazile purged from our Party.  I want never to see or hear from Clyburn or Jesse Jr. again.  I want all these "new" Democrats to take their nasty attitudes and just go away.  

      I know that Hillary and Bill are both very loyal Democrats and love this country but it is now moving into the realm of masochism.  Just HOW MUCH do they owe the party, the media and the Obama's? IMO, they have gone above and beyond what should have been expected of them.  

    One of these days, I am really going (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:59:08 PM EST
    to have to stop listening to political radio in the car...tonight I was listening to the gang at POTUS 08 on XM - they were waiting for the session to be gaveled in, and so, really had nothing to talk about; I came in when one was talking about some really hot blonde who works for XM in the sales department, followed by a little chatter about the Texas delegation being annoyed because the Florida delegation had tackier decorations and apparel.  Seriously.

    So, they decided to talk about...the Clintons.  Scott Walterman was a little breathless about the controversy over Bill Clinton's remarks today - apparently, Bill agrees with those who feel there hasn't been enough pounding on McCain.  Howard Dean pushed back and said there was no need to do that on the first night of the convention - there would be plenty of time (why do I get the feeling that Dean will still be saying this on election eve?).

    Then the commenting turned to Hillary's speech.  Not only did they say that she was going to have to be convincing in telling her supporters to get over themselves, but that her delivery was going to have to convince people she really, really meant what she was saying in endorsing Obama.  It is up to her to bring her supporters over to Obama - her job to do that.

    Then, they talked for a bit about how Obama was really in a tough spot, not having really responded to McCain's attacks, and having painted himself as the post-partisan candidate of hope and change.  Apparently, this will be Biden's job.

    So, unless you are watching C-SPAN and can avoid the endless drivel, be prepared.  These pundits and analysts are sitting back with their arms folded across their chests, daring Clinton to be good and promising that there is no way she will meet their expectations.

    I am just so over it I could scream.

    I heard Izakoff (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:55:19 PM EST
    I heard Izakoff talking about Hillary Clinton. He said she had to be good, but not TOO good.(!) This is so that she wouldn't overshadow the person sold to us as charisma incarnate.

    Her personal energy is so much stronger that the presumptive nominee, and her intelligence is so much sharper, that she will have to be wearing a bag over her head to meet Izakoff's requirement.

    I have never heard the suggestion of dumbing down made to a man about to make a speech.


    I am watching C-Span (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Bluesage on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:14:51 PM EST
    And it is still heartbreaking to see what my Party has become.  If I were to turn to any of the cable news shows I'm pretty sure there would not be a TV in my house that would survive.

    Does Obama even have a job to do here other than dazzle us all with lofty words and a bright smile?  Is it all on Hillary to carry him over his next finish line?  Is it all on Biden to bury McCain under his trash talk?  Biden? Really?  This is turning into a very dark comedy.

    Not a comedy, a horror movie (none / 0) (#85)
    by Camorrista on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:43:23 PM EST
    This is turning into a very dark comedy.

    Actually, it's turning into "Scream, Part Neuf."

    The smell in the air is flop sweat, which in a few weeks will become the stink of panic--that's why so many of Senator Obama's fervent admirers can't stop vilifying Senator Clinton.  

    Their candidate has not had a good week with the voters for quite a while--almost every poll shows Senator McCain, a rival so feeble his brain activity should be continuously monitored, catching up to Obama in places where Obama was supposed to stomp.  No wonder his crowd is terrified.

    For Obama's admirers, nothing bad can ever be his fault.  The constant slippage in his poll numbers--when he goes up, it's miniscule and the bounce never lasts--isn't because of any weaknesses in his resume, or in his tactics, or in his policies, or in his character--it's because Senator Clinton isn't loyal enough, or enthusiastic enough, or adoring enough, or tyrannical enough to coerce her loyalists to support Obama.  (The Obama people have her confused with Indira Ghandi, or Margaret Thatcher, or Catherine the Great.)

    In a couple of weeks, it will be because Senator Biden isn't carrying his weight; the week after that, it will be because Obama's secret enemies on the DNC double-crossed him; the week after that, it will be because the press went into the tank for Senator McCain.  And eventually--as night must follow day, to paraphrase Polonius--evenutally it will be because there are so many, many, many racists out there.  

    He, himself, had nothing to do with it.


    Hillary is doing the right thing (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by aquarian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:48:45 PM EST
    And at the end of the day, the Clintons will have the last laugh.  Despite attempts to silence, marginalize, and dehumanize her, Hillary still stands up and says everything to support the ticket -- She already knows that the Clinton haters in the press and in the DNC will try to take her down because they rabidly do and say silly things.  Clinton is counting on the fact that the average voter, and more important, the average woman voter, is not stupid.  I see the disconnect between the hateful commentary and Hillary's gracious support of Obama.  The longer Clinton does what is expected of her with a beaming smile on her face (knowing that it will never be quite enough), the more insane bloviators ratchet up their rhetoric on how eeeevilll she is -- and the less credible they become.  And yes, BTD, the more they hurt their preferred candidate.

    Sorry to say BTD (4.50 / 2) (#25)
    by AX10 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:30:17 PM EST
    BTD, I am sorry to say that a point of no
    return has been crossed.  The
    villification of Hillary and Bill has gotten absurd and then some.
    It is bad enough that the pundits have decided to force her
    to be the one to unite the party, but we have the so-called
    Huffingon, Kos, Americablog, Air America, The Nation, The American Prospect
    still beating up on her.

    I we heard was that Hillary was a typical calculating politician
    that must NOT be trusted and Obama was the great liberal savior.
    What we see in Obama now is a calculating politician without principle,
    only blind ambition to be the President.  I listened to every left wing activist
    villify Hillary and Bill, but when Obama did everything they accused Hillary of,
    it is alright.  The Nation called for everyone to forget idealogy
    because it was more important to have a Democrat in the Whitehouse,
    even if we do not know where they stand.  This after years of assaulting Hillary and Bill,
    they have the audacity to tell everyone to get in line.  It sounds like the GOP.

    I hear this talk of a Clinton "Dynasty", yet the Kennedy Dynasty backed Obama.
    Two people from working class backgrounds live the American dream and they are
    villified.  The Kennedy's, like the Bush's live off of their patriarchs ill gotten gains
    and all is well.  Yet the Clinton's are evil for unknown reasons.  Perhaps it is because
    they are outsiders, "hicks" that the Washington establishment (as well as
    the so called liberal Kennedy's) cannot stand got into the Whitehouse.
    I assure you, the Kennedy's are no saints.  As we saw last night, Teddy
    made it clear that his support of Obama was meant to keep the
    myth of Camelot alive.

    The Clinton's have more tolerance than I do.  I honestly would have let
    Romney take Teddy out in 94'.

    I am not that partisan.  The Democratic party has lived up to the
    negative stereotypes that the right has made of them.

    I will take a chance with McCain.  He is not Bush.
    He has an energy plan, a proper means
    to end the conflict in Iraq, and he does care for his country.
    I have my Democrats for McCain sign up already.

    Obama's hubris is frightening.  It is Nixonian, if not worse.

    See ccpup's posts.  We agree on most issues.

    Soaring Rhetoric won't cut it when the going gets tough.
    If you can't back up what you say with policy and understanding
    of the complex issues, you will fail.  We got screwed.
    Hillary was not going to take S**T from anyone.  You had the
    one person who was going to do battle for the working people.
    I would not expect the liberal activists such as Kos to give a damn
    less about them, seeing that he and Huffington are wealthy.
    The same can be said about the "Creative Class" and Hollywood.
    I do not want to be told to drive an unsafe subcompact car
    while Hollywood and company are driving Mercedes S600's
    and SUV's.  I really don't want to hear from celebrities about
    politics because they do not understand the issues.

    They can live with the lofty/slick rhetoric of Obama.  They do not
    need the results of strong effective governance.  Example: Obama is appeasing
    the far left with his energy plan.  "Inflate your tires"?!?  WTF?
    The left wingers live in a theoretical world where you do not
    need energy to survive.  This is the same world they have been stuck in since
    the 70's.  It is why they cannot win elections.  They have to take chances
    and stand strong with policies that can be clearly explained to the public.
    They are unwilling to do so and keep on losing elections.  I have no sympathy for

    Last note, I do not believe in abortion, so do not try to guilt
    me with that Roe v. Wade nonsense.  It is going nowhere.

    Clinton's been pretty gracious at losing. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:38:10 PM EST
    soon as she stepped out she endorsed and then campaigned for Barack.  

    Unlike Teddy Kennedy.. (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by AX10 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:41:33 PM EST
    who for various reason I find despicable.
    Recall the 1980 convention.  Talk about feeling "entitled".  Teddy thought his name gave him a right to the Presidency.  Carter beat Kennedy like a drum in the Primary.  Clinton and Obama ended it in a tie.  There is a great difference here.

    McCain 08', a pragmatic choice.


    Given your use of.. (none / 0) (#41)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:50:14 PM EST
    ..traditional rightwing talking points, I suspect that McCain is indeed the choice for you. And I suspect always was.

    If McCain Picks a Female VP? (none / 0) (#19)
    by bmc on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:23:42 PM EST
    I will refrain from venturing a comment on left-wing bloggers' CDS, vile sexism, and misogyny. It has transformed me over the course of this primary, politically.

    But, what if McCain chooses a female VP? I've heard Kay Bailey Hutchinson's name mentioned, as well as others. I wonder how it might impact the general. Any thoughts?

    If John McCain has the smarts (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by sleepwalker on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:32:18 PM EST
    to pick a female VP, this contest is over next Friday.

    they are threatening thursday (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:13:39 PM EST
    that just wouldnt be playing fair would it?
    but I agree with you completely.  and would add that while not as dramatic a pro choice man would have a pretty serious effect also.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by americanincanada on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:39:02 PM EST
    if McCain has the smarts to pick the right woman as VP, it could very well be over on Friday. Not sure if he will.

    I do know that the Obama bloggers and supporters are not ready if he does. They are assuming that McCain is not capable of a head fake and that only the men mentioned so far are in the running. They could be dangerously wrong.


    Those (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:09:32 PM EST
    bloggers have NOT been paying attention. Since July McCain has been running a very sharp campaign. Much better than Obama's.

    Sadly (5.00 / 0) (#51)
    by TheRealFrank on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:10:53 PM EST
    This is all too true.

    Very true (none / 0) (#68)
    by americanincanada on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:39:55 PM EST
    And it was confirmed last week, though they have kept it very quiet and extremely low key, that Sarah Palin has 'submitted white papers and personal information as well as previous speeches on energy, to the RNC and McCain's camp. Not to mention McCain's vetting team has visited Alaska twice already.

    of course I have been told by many bloggers they were simply having a little visit and it meant nothing because Sarah is too inexperienced. Yikes...people are just not thinking. The inexpeienced line could not be used because of Obama's own. Executive experience would be the new line as well as the fact that I can almost hear them saying it least their experience is at the top of the ticket.

    Last night I heard new RNC talking points on Larry King from a McCain surrogate all about energy and reform. It sure leads me to believe that SArah is at least in the top three.

    I am scared and every liberal dem should be as well.


    Energy (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:59:11 PM EST
    is where McCain is going to "split" with his party and try to make it look like he's running to Obama's left.  It makes perfect sense.  First, there's the Cheney Energy Bill - it ties Obama to Bush/Cheney, not McCain and so works against that theme of the Dems.  Second, Obama does have very strong energy ties especially to nuclear and coal (Exelon anyone?), which isn't saying that McCain doesn't, just that it's not entirely wrong to say that Obama has been something of a corporate shill at times on these issues (witness the Cheney Energy bill vote).  Third, it doesn't hurt McCain as much with his base like abortion would because a lot of evangelical Christians and other GOP base members are worried about climate change.  Climate change splits the GOP base no matter which side you take, so might as well take the side that helps you against Obama.

    It's very smart.  I totally agree McCain has been running a better campaign the last month.  If the Dems aren't worried, they're idiots.  It's not like they're so good at winning presidential elections they can do it with one-hand tied behind their back.


    It's not a split at all (none / 0) (#82)
    by Valhalla on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:08:29 PM EST
    The Republicans have been pushing alternative energy and energy conservation for a while as freedom from dependence on foreign oil

    The no dependence riff fits right in with their more warlike foreign policy -- blame other countries for our problems (those awful foreigners!) and also with their patriotism riff -- by (finally) looking into alternative energy, you're helping your country!

    This has a lot of appeal to people who are not necessarily sold on things like global warming, or eye various Green movements with skepticism.


    If McCain picks a female (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:22:13 PM EST
    I'm 90% likely to vote for him.  If he picks Romney or Huckabee, I'll vote for McKinney.

    ...all the while hoping the Congress paralyzes McCain if he wins.

    Either way, it means I'll vote for a woman on the presidential ticket.  I don't like the two candidates, so I have the luxury of voting for a woman.  If Democrats lose, in 2012 MAYBE they'll think, gee, do you think we shoulda supported UHC? and will do so(I know this is wishful thinking).

    And it isn't about sour grapes, etc, etc.  I abandoned Obama as a candidate when I first saw the repulsive semi-religious gatherings he holds.  Prior to that, I gathered from interviews I saw in 2007 that he didn't really seem competent in the issues, and he hasn't tried to learn much since.    He poisoned my #1 issue, UHC, with Harry and Louise.  I won't vote for four years of "a noun, a verb, and you're a racist" whenever he's criticized for bad policies, etc.

    If Obama wins, as impatient as he seems to be with everything he tries, maybe he'll bore of the presidency and will let someone else run in 2012.

    And BTW, I've heard the word "irrational" a bunch lately.  IMHO, it isn't very liberal to decide that someone who doesn't share your point of view is automagically irrational.  More, it's authoritarian, and a not very creative way of thinking, and it's certainly not a sign you put yourself in the positions of others.  It's certainly not a nuanced position and I thought we liberals were about nuance.


    I think (none / 0) (#29)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:32:16 PM EST
    that McCain has done a good job of misleading low-info voters about the fact that he is 100% anti-choice - don't ask me how - and choosing a female VP, even if she shares his views, would probably help that along.  So yeah, it would be something of a problem.

    I think McCain has just been running too much of a hard-right campaign to really be an option for most moderate women who are paying attention, but not all of them are.


    The Other Problem (5.00 / 8) (#38)
    by BDB on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:43:33 PM EST
    is the Obama has been sucking up to right-wing zealots+ enough that it's hard to feel really comfortable that he will do much for women.  So what happens is that when women think both candidates more or less suck on women's issues, they move on to other issues like taxes or war or whatever.  

    Now, I stipulate Obama is better than McCain on women, but he has no record of fighting for women's issues (most recently, AFAIK, he still has not condemned the new HHS regulations on birth control).  He's more likely to do what Democrats have done for 30 years, which is to let women's rights, including reproductive freedom, erode through "compromises" that they declare victories.  Which is not an endorsement of McCain, just an observation that Democrats have been fairly lousy for women even if they haven't been GOP-level lousy and the misogyny  during this campaign makes any appeal based on some sort of advocacy for women ring pretty hollow.

    + It was not a coincidence, IMO, that Obama chose Rick Warren for his first encounter with McCain.  Nor was it a coincidence that the Dems felt free to float guys like Hagel and Kaine for VP while dissing Hillary.  It was quite clear this election season what voters the Dems are after and feminists ain't among them.


    Apparently not (as to your last sentence). (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:52:30 PM EST
    Incoming, . . .

    Does anyone else (none / 0) (#20)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:24:11 PM EST
    think of the Kenny Rogers song "Through the Years" when reading BTD's title?  Maybe they can play that tonight at the convention and dedicate it to Obama....

    Wrong Song (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:30:58 PM EST
    With the way they want to dispose of all those "has been's, I think they should play "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow".

    They will play "Yesterday" (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Teresa on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 04:42:36 PM EST
    Phil Collins (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by sleepingdogs on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 07:13:30 PM EST
    "I Don't Care Anymore"

    (Hat tip to commenter that put that song in a similar thread.  Sorry I don't remember who it was.  I think this song may just be Bill Clinton's new anthem.)


    No! (none / 0) (#48)
    by flashman on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 05:06:27 PM EST
    But it's playing in my head sice I read your post.

    Thanks Alot! :)