The rage the other day was how Obama was showing he knew how to "fight back" because of his attacks on McCain over how many houses he owned. Even Krugman pushed this as if it were a great tactic.

Yet look at the two tracking polls by Gallup and Rasmussen. Essentially, together, they didn't budge an inch.

Sorry Obama people. Winning elections is hard work, and requires at the Presidential level great talent or extraordinary circumstances, certainly for Democrats.

Right now they need to put it into high gear - now - not "after Labor Day" or after September 11th or after October 1st - they need to get it into high gear now.  To that end, they need to create a sense of urgency amongst their supporters and get them out there to help get Obama MORE VOTERS to committ to the ticket.  Telling people it will all be alright is counter-productive.  

For that matter, when does the party itself take off the gloves?

You know there is something wrong when, 19 months after Obama started his run, and two months before the election, the Democratic party is going to waste four days "introducing" Barack Obama to the nation.

In 2004, it was "don't bash Bush" and "let's help America see that we are, too, patriotic and capable of being strong on national security," a plan that didn't work too well.

The party has learned nothing, it seems, and there is no excuse for that.  

I'm betting that Hillary - and Bill - will be the ones to come out swinging against the GOP, and people will look at each other and wonder if the party might not have chosen the wrong candidate to be the nominee.

As an aside, in my paper this morning, a couple of Clinton delegates in the Maryland delegation are reporting irritation with the pressure by the Obama campaign to make the roll-call vote a unanimous one for Obama; it's making some of them more determined than ever to cast their votes for Hillary.  

Then after the convention coverage I flip over to Jay (also a rare occurrence) and who shows up by John McCain just as affable and "reasonable" as can be.  This morning the message is all about Madonna comparing McCain to Hilter and when the pretty people talking on cable are talking about that they're all over HRC for talking the talk but in their opinion not walking the walk.

Doesn't Obama have an surrogates who can get the message.  

wanna win? vote for obama..that'show it's done.

It's translates to "We have leverage."

It's no accident that the Democrats lost the congress during the Clinton admnistration and it surely wasn't an accident that Bush won with a Congressional majority.

All of us can demonize them all we want, but the hallmark of that party is discipline and minimization of intramural disagreements, no matter how significant those disagreements might be.  
The end result is what matters to the republicans.

Essentially, Obama is being forced to fight a war on two fronts...he's fighting for the support of his own party, which is ludicrous at this point (he's also having to reassure every single interest group, also laughable), and he's got to deal with the Republican smear machine, who are often co-opting the attacks originated from WITHIN the Democratic party.

I've heard enough about Democrats who "will never get in line".  My question is, do you want to win?  Obama is the candidate, the other option is McCain.  So, are we going to be sophisticated enough to recognize that governing and preservation of position occasionally requires compromise, or will we sacrifice the Presidency, for God's sake, over inferred "disrespect" or a poorly constructed primary process.  Honestly, for the Republicans, this is a perfect example of their meme that "Democrats can't get things done.".

At this point, it's too late to even attempt to convince some Democrats that the Clinton era was great, but that many, many voters just weren't part of that era.  Those voters don't have the same connection some do...what they remember are constant Republican attacks and the President forced to defend against allegations of infidelity, etc...for those younger voters, that's the Clinton legacy...bitter, bitter partisanship and subsequent endless moralizing by the right.  Those voters are tired of having to defend Clinton at every turn.  because, they're not having to defend his economic legacy and they're not having to defend his foreign policy, they're having to defend his personal choices.  And they're over it...they want their own guy.  At one time, Clinton was a version of Obama...no presence on the national stage, younger, actually.  And, he had his own people.

Now that the polls are close you can't even find these people.  Instead, it's all like "duh, presidential elections are always close."  Argh!

Thanks.  On this day when I annually celebrate the great women (and hardly any good men) who fought for my right to vote, you and the other a**es here with such messages reinforce my voting . . . downticket.

That's where I see real Dems.  Oh, and they're coming to my door and asking me what they can do for me.  Repeat: asking me what they can do for me.

And then they're asking me for my vote.

You could learn from that.  But you won't.

Btw, one came to the door just yesterday.  A millionaire whose uncle is the richest man in the Senate.  And the nephew wants to start his own political career, so he shows me he needs me.  And even his uncle asks me what he can do for me and asks me for my vote.  Every time.

That's how it's done by those without a sense of entitlement, at least not entitlement to my vote.

Thank you, Susan B. and Elizabeth C.S.  I just love it that I've got what they want -- and that even the millionnaires know they can't buy me but have to ask.  Nicely.

However the disaffected Dems, those who objected to being called racist, those concerned with the limited experience of Obama and those who felt that Clinton was unfairly marginalized by his campaign and the media are a whole nother section of the electorate.  If you take those out of the "dead-ender count", then yes you shouldn't have to worry about a thing.  

The Obama Camps 100% DISS of the Clintons is biting them in the left butt cheek and may very well attack the flabby flesh of the right side too if they don't get themselves together...ridiculous.

I sure miss my prosperous life under Bill Clinton and I'll never forget those years, because they truly were some of the best (for me). He surely wasn't the best prez in the history of prez but he was the best in MY LIFETIME.

Bill Clinton/Al Gore (D) (Inc.) - 47,400,125 (49.2%) and 379 electoral votes (31 states and D.C. carried)

Bob Dole/Jack Kemp (R) - 39,198,755 (40.7%) and 159 electoral votes (19 states carried)

my theory is  Baracks color  in a GE  is a 10% disadvantage.

I think Hillary would have has a similar gender anti-bounce

Larry King was touching on that last night...ofcourse the repubs wont admit to it

however sadly  for alot of people  color is all that matters.

I think it's the thing that frustrates me the most when I read the HRC posters.  

Simply put, the rules didn't go in her favor.  But, then again, neither did her early strategy.  Or her campaign organization and her management of that campaign...she's not innoculated from guilt as the CEO of that organization.

If the primary illustrated one thing, aside from the refusal of many to admit that there were a whole host of complaints that either candidate could have made, and that either candidate would have been justified in making, it's that the primary process, as currently designed, is bad.  But in every contest, we play according to the rules in place at the time, and we submit to the referreeing we're given.  If we find defects, we fix them, but not retrospectively.  

Losing this race to prove a known quantity...that there were problems with the primary...seems to be an act of self- immolation.  Since we all know were those problems are, we can fix them.  (Let's face it...many women are inclined to feel that sexism played a role, young people who supported Obama feel that their choice was derided by out of touch oldsters, etc.  Those will just never be reconciled because they're unquantifiable.  Deal with the feelings, people, because you sure, and I know I haven't, convinced either side that one offense is greater.)

The election is taking place now.  As a lifelong Democrat, I'm sick to death of being characterized by the right as a member of a group that can't be trusted to govern (we did lose the Congress during the Clnton years).  Sick of it.  And, the Democrats have a mandate.  So why, what's the impetus to fsck it up now?  Why not win?  Why not fix the intraparty problems without sacrificing the election?

To me, it's really that simple.  I just can't be pursuaded that Obama is the "same as McCain" or that "he's just a politician".  They're ALL politicians, McCain, Obama, Hillary.  They've all made choices with which we disagree.  However, I know that I disagree less with Obama than with McCain.  I know that McCain represents a governmental philosophy that is antithetical to mine.  And I know that a McCain presidency will have long range effects on my life, and not effect that I want to experience.  

So many HRC supporters characterize thempselves as "committed Democrats", yet indicate that they are for McCain.  It's unbelievable to me.  Anyone can cherry pick positions or votes to validate their views, but I prefer a macro analysis.  Obama just isn't a "Republican in disguise".  His overreaching orientation is a traditional liberal one.  Personal dislike of the man should not blind anyone to that fact, especially when it's so easily juxtaposed against the orientation of a man who voted with Bush 95% of the time.