Hillary's Night

Tonight is Hillary Night! Just kidding, although clearly Hillary Clinton will be the dominant protagonist.

It's a done deal, but Jay Cost explains why Obama should have picked Hillary Clinton:

The Democratic Party is powerful because it is broad. It can compete just about anywhere in the United States while the Republican Party cannot. However, its breadth carries with it an enhanced possibility of crippling division. Accordingly, every Democratic nominee should do everything within reason to achieve unity - which, I would note, has been a premise of Obama's campaign. Most nominees need not worry about unity because their act of securing the nomination did not rend the party. However, Obama's nomination has rent it. Selecting Hillary would have been a reasonable step in reuniting it. I think he should have taken it.

(Emphasis supplied.) Precisely.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

< Don't Worry, Be Happy Redux | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Interestingly (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:51:10 AM EST
    If this election doesn't go so well, I can think of no serious contenders for the 2012 nomination other than tonight's two featured speakers.

    And four years ago (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by DemForever on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:57:56 AM EST
    you could not have thought of Obama as winning the nomination.  Stuff happens.

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:02:57 AM EST
    If this thing doesn't work out, I don't see us trying the state legislator route again for a while.  Just a hunch.

    How many dems who have a lost a nomination battle (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by DemForever on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:07:46 AM EST
    have come back later to win the presidency?

    What is your point? (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:15:48 AM EST
    Are you seriously arguing that Hillary would not be  a contender for the 2012 nomination?  That's obviously silly, and why would you even want to go there?

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:48:20 AM EST
    I guess the unspoken qualifier to my post was that it assumes we will still have a Republic in four years.  So yeah, I agree with you.

    But also, I've been through a few elections in my time, and I recall that it always feels like THIS election is the most critical in history and it's the end of the world if we lose.  So I mean, who knows.  I would prefer for Obama to win and make it a moot point.


    You brought up strategies (none / 0) (#47)
    by DemForever on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:20:46 AM EST
    that have not worked in the past

    Although like BTD I expect Obama to win, thus rendering your state legislator point moot.

    Hillary 2016


    Clinton cleaned up Bush's mess (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:30:36 AM EST
    I guess Hillary will have to clean up Obama's.

    What "strategy"? (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:32:18 AM EST
    Are you one of the nutjobs who insists, against all available evidence, that Hillary is pursuing a strategy to lose the election for Obama so she can run in 2012?  Is that what you are on about?

    No, and I think you know better (none / 0) (#171)
    by DemForever on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:04:14 AM EST
    Strategies for selecting the next Dem nominee

    See Gore, Al. (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Landulph on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:18:40 AM EST
    who would indeed have become President without the butterfly ballot and the Men in Black.

    As for Republicans, the list is far longer--Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, and (perhaps) McCain.


    ... the butterfly ballot ... designed by (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by prittfumes on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:10:18 AM EST
    Teresa Lapore (sp), a "Democrat".

    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#52)
    by DemForever on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:21:24 AM EST
    Al proves the point

    Dude, Gore won (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Landulph on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:24:36 AM EST
    the popular vote and would have won the electoral college without voter fraud in Florida. He was thus the legitimate winner of the 2000 election. To say otherwise is GOP cant, and has no place on these boards.

    Probably (none / 0) (#39)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:16:57 AM EST
    just Johnson.  Although plenty have lost and come back to get the nomination.

    Of course (none / 0) (#41)
    by DemForever on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:18:02 AM EST
    Johnson had become President in the meantime

    Quite. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Landulph on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:07:57 AM EST
    In '92, one can't imagine that Paul Tsongas' ambitions were helped by memories of the Dukakis debacle (another Greek-American Bay State neoliberal).

    That's like comparing (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:43:30 AM EST
    Obama to Jesse Jackson.  So racist.  <snark>

    Leeeeeeave Dukakis alooooone.


    When can we expect the (none / 0) (#203)
    by Xanthe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:22:04 AM EST
    video - I'm looking forward to it, CC.

    Funny you say that (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:08:40 AM EST
    When we are watching Obama speech at that convention, EVERYONE in the room was saying that they wanted him to be our canddiate.

    Not true at all (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:13:02 AM EST
    When I saw Obama speak at the Dem Convention in 2004, I absolutely saw him as someone to watch and would have expected him to one day get to this place. But, I didn't know anything about him then.

    Warner is the Keynote speaker (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by stefystef on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:30:44 AM EST
    I felt that should have gone to Hillary.

    No Comparison (5.00 / 7) (#119)
    by Athena on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:45:07 AM EST
    Hillary far outshines Warner as contender for 2012.  Warner - let's get real - is just one of these shiny plastic men with a lot of money and a big smile that suddenly emerge within the Democratic party as the next "big thing."

    I'm tired of them.  We already have the real thing and I'm ready to sign up for her.


    Yeah, He's the Convention Keynote (none / 0) (#73)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:29:22 AM EST
    I feel kind of sorry for him--or anyone in this slot because this convention, unless he comes up with some great verbal pyrotechnics all the buzz about tonight's events before, during and after tonight will surely be about Senator Clinton.

    I wouldn't consider Warner (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:44:15 AM EST
    as much other than someone who's going to become senator.  As for president, he didn't exactly set the Dem world on fire with his testing the waters campaign of 06.  Not a lot of sizzle there in the personality department.  And I think his centrist political profile is a bit out of touch with the times and still too corporatist DLC -- which might be fine for the changing demographics of conservative VA, but it isnt' necessarily a strong basis from which to win over DLC-fatigued libs in the primaries.

    I do hope his speech tonight is more than just about himself, and about how his becoming fabulously wealthy serves as some sort of exemplary storybook tale of how you can achieve anything you want in America and blah blah blah.  

    He's going to win the senate seat easily, so it's time to set aside the personal self-aggrandizing and too-good-to-be-true Hallmark storytelling and use the precious PT speaking positions to go after McCain/Bush -- and preferably with bareknuckled rhetoric that's a little more jagged-edged than polite Pelosi's wet-noodle approach of  "McCain is wrong!".


    Is this going to be the theme? (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by cmugirl on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:56:01 AM EST
    After tonight (or tomorrow when Big Dog speaks), are we going to be hearing about the Clintons from now until Election Day?  I think that's a bad sign for Obama if we are still talking about them.  I wish they could ease back into their regular lives and tell Obama he's on his own.  This is his to lose, and so far, he has not impressed.

    If the Clintons ease back (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:27:31 AM EST
    to their "regular" lives, they will be condemned for doing just that.  No win for them as usual vis-a vis Obama.

    The only folks impressed by Obama (5.00 / 9) (#102)
    by stefystef on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:39:31 AM EST
    is the MSM.  I was watching ABC this morning and Sawyer was drooling all over the Convention and Michelle Obama.  They were saying her speech was "brilliant" and "inspiring" and "amazing".  Her dress was "beautiful", her children "beautiful", like she radiated like the Virgin Mary.

    They couldn't find enough adjectives to suck up to Michelle.

    I can't stomach this crap.  Thanks to the kind folks at TalkLeft, I can get a more diverse opinion of the convention.


    Was that some kind of penance (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:47:53 AM EST
    for the years and decades they trashed Hillary?  And probably Mrs. Heinz-Kerry as well - I don't recall.

    It almost feels like the Media is jumping up and down saying "Look! We like her!  We really, really like her!" as some kind of pre-emptive defense against being called racist or sexist.  It's a bit paranoid of me, I know.  But after everything the Media has pulled from the Clinton-bashing to playing Jeff Gannon to the Bush administration, I put nothing past them.


    You know, I think she (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Xanthe on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:10:13 AM EST
    did look lovely - and it was a pleasant speech.  Brilliant - questionable but it did the job introducing the family.

    But I'd never heard them coddle up to a spouse like this before - poor Theresa - I liked her and her sort of mildly eccentric appearance.  As I recall the press was somewhat unkind to Tipper - as to Hillary                          (you fill it in - we all feel the same way or most of us).


    Call me crazy but...... (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:22:19 AM EST
    ...I thought when they played "isn't she lovely" that it was kind of, well....sexist.

    I am ducking, so go ahead and throw stuff.


    The irony. (5.00 / 16) (#5)
    by dk on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:56:39 AM EST
    The more that Hillary mentions Obama in her speech, the more well received it will be by the MSM/A-List Blogs/Obama Campaign triangle, but the less effective it will be in convincing her supporters (you know, the ones whose votes Obama needs but doesn't have yet) to vote for him.

    The less she mentions Obama, and just talks about why Democratic policies are better than Republican policies, the more effecive it will be for actual vote gathering, but the more villified she will be by the media/Obama campaign/A-listers, which will then help to lose the votes for Obama that Clinton helped to get by her speech.

    You just have to laugh at this point, I guess.

    Exactly right (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Lena on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:04:39 AM EST
    The more HRC has to give speeches that extol BHO's virtues, the more alienated and irked her supporters become. It IS an irony.

    If she prostrates herself on the ground and weeps about her great love for Obama, it'll go even worse for him.

    If the Obama people would just recognize that she has her own power base, and stop trying to subjugate her, they'd probably get a lot more votes.

    But I don't think they're capable of figuring that out, at least not yet.


    Ibana supporters understand the hrc folks. (1.16 / 6) (#91)
    by Christy1947 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:33:42 AM EST
    We understand that many of her supporters have determined that there is nothing at all that would do other than throwing out the primary results and having O concede with apology that would soothe.  As it is, there is much too much Clinton, not the candidate after all, at the convention, and all of that with leaked fights about how the Clintons want still more and are demeaned when they don't get it all. We know now that the results in November are at risk, but so do the Clinton supporters and that is what they intend.

    You really don't care about winning, do you? (5.00 / 8) (#104)
    by dk on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:40:08 AM EST
    "Ibana"? (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:47:38 AM EST
    Carville said Dems are hiding the message.  Now they're hiding the candidate under an assumed name?

    desperate times (5.00 / 5) (#147)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:55:53 AM EST
    call for desperate measures.

    Besides, now "Ibana" can blame all the bitterness from the Primary on his evil twin brother "Obama".  

    Nope, not "Ibana's" fault at all!  It was "Obama's"

    I, for one, think it's a brilliant tactic.  I was getting sick of "Obama", so maybe I'll like "Ibana" better?

    It could work.


    check out Rasmussen today - ouch! (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:05:06 AM EST
    www.RasmussenReports.com - Obama drops 4 pts since yesterday!

    I sorta disagree - (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:55:55 AM EST
    Hillary has been campaigning for Obama for at least 2 months. How many A-list pro-Obama front pagers have said, "OK - it's time to end the CDS and focus our attention on McCain"?
    Even yesterday when Hillary "did not approve" a McCain ad - she wasn't heralded on Obama blogs. The focus was "the Clintons want to dominate the convention" - "enough of the Clintons!" - etc.
    MSM is still controlling Obama blogs.

    Fair enough, (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by dk on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:59:44 AM EST
    maybe I shouldn't have included the A-list blogs in my initial post.  Their irrational hatred of Hillary knows no boundaries.  They won't praise her if she talks about Obama a lot...but they will rejoice in her subjugation to The One.

    Not allowing a real Roll Call Vote (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by athyrio on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:59:06 AM EST
    will be terrible for the Democratic party. and I certainly hope the rumors aren't true about the sham planned for it....Obama's team needs to show unity and you cannot do that if you don't even allow a real roll call....What on earth are they afraid of other than real democracy taking place....Even FDR won on 4th ballot...Geezzzzzzzzzz...Can you imagine how unified folks would feel after a true roll call battle was fought out etc etc...that is what we need IMO...

    Informal poll (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by DemForever on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:04:40 AM EST
    How many folks here not currently planning to vote for Obama would do so if:

    1.  There was a full roll call vote

    2.  Hillary made a compelling plea that if you care about her policies, you will vote for Obama

    3.  Obama expressly said in his speech that he needs and is asking for every Hillary voter to support him

    4.  Jesus said to vote for Obama

    5.  All of the above

    C'mon, fess up

    You had me (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:07:58 AM EST
    up till the Jesus part. No need for him in the political arena at all. One of the many reasons that no, there will be no voting for Obama from me.

    The asking for (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:10:13 AM EST
    our votes would be a start. Also an apology for the way he divided the party would help if it was sincerely made.

    Hillary can not get people to vote for Obama. Only Obama can do that. So far he hasn't even tried. The fact that he expects someone else to deliver votes for him while he lazed around on the beach in HI just makes people even madder. He needs to get off his duff and do some work.


    So if he asked for your vote (none / 0) (#28)
    by DemForever on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:13:22 AM EST
    you would vote for him?  What would it take for you to commit to vote for him?  

    I am really interested to know, given all the water under the bridge at this point, if there is anything he could do that really cause the folks here who strongly supported Hillary to say yes, I have now committed to vote for him.  


    I would (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:22:35 AM EST
    certainly consider voting for him if he would actually get out there and talk to the voters. Quit the creepy rallies. They turn people off. Tell people in 10 words or less how he's going to make their life better. Start talking about what he's accomplished in his life that make him qualified to be president. The judgement argument is a joke. And Biden can't make up for his lack in this area.

    Why should we vote for him? All he's been selling so far is NotMcCain. He needs to do better. And he needs to come clean and get out in front about a lot of his background. I wish he would quit lying about being raised by a single mother.


    Yes, as Jeralyn says, the single mother (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:54:18 AM EST
    on food stamps stuff has got to stop.  Not only is it exaggerated, as he had a single mother for all of two years, but it is perilously close to yet another Republican talking point about all those single mothers having all that sex and then expecting us to feed their kids on food stamps, etc.  And she was on food stamps when he was not with her, etc.

    It's such an exaggeration that it was one of the first red flags that got me looking more into the ObamaBio, only to find more hyperbole.

    Disclosure: My kids had a single mother for 15 years.  And it was hard, but they are proud of me now.  And they're decades younger than the whiner about this who wants to be president.


    OK, I think I see (none / 0) (#62)
    by DemForever on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:25:16 AM EST

    an awful lot of water under that bridge. (5.00 / 6) (#127)
    by rise hillary rise on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:48:00 AM EST
    a close friend of 20+ years and I are close to a falling out over this. I don't share his enthusiasm for Obama, he says to me last night "I feel sorry for you" because I can't appreciate that this is a Great Historic Moment.

    I say, I am sick and tired of speeches, I want substance. I don't have any confidence that Obama is going to push hard on healthcare. I don't see any evidence that he will want to turn over the rocks of the Bush admin and reverse some of the execrable things they have put in place. the Biden pick IMO was a strong indicator that the status quo will prevail.

    we can air the whole list of grievances, but bottom line, BO ain't gonna be apologizing or begging us to vote for him.  they think that they can win without people like me.

    when the Dems took back the Congress in 2006, it was with a mandate for change. did we have any? nope. I'm going to have to hear a whole lot more than happy talk to convince me.


    To me, (5.00 / 10) (#36)
    by Lena on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:16:16 AM EST
    it's not really about HRC. The problem is the dissing of half the party, with a special shout-out diss to women and seniors.

    I think the anger over HRC's treatment could be interpreted as anger with the treatment of certain constituencies in the party, as well as rage over the party's acceptance of misogyny. If Obama's people had an ounce of sense, they'd interpret it this way, because only by addressing this problem will he bring some HRC voters back in the fold.

    Having said that, I would vote for O if he'd adopt her (or Edwards') health care policy, and promised to fight for it. On the other hand, I've never seen him effectively fight for any policy issue, so I'd have to see a sincere and solemn oath from him that this would be a priority, and I'd have to see some examples of his ability to fight on the issues.



    Don't forget Donna B (5.00 / 4) (#213)
    by stxabuela on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:30:25 AM EST
    and her shout-out diss to blue-collar workers and Hispanics.  

    A mandate (none / 0) (#149)
    by Jgarza on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:57:02 AM EST
    is the kind of detail that would be ironed out in congress.  A president really is not going to be able to stipulate something like that.

    A president (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by Lena on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:29:13 AM EST
    sets policy goals for his or her potential term, and sets the tone of his/her campaign.

    On both counts, Obama falls short.


    Not even close.... (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:26:32 AM EST
    what I'd need to see and hear from Obama to get my vote....

    1. A commitment to end drug prohibition, or go down trying

    2. A commitment to cease foreign occupations, or at least the big 2 (Iraq and Afghanistan)

    3. A commitment to reduce the prison population for federal crimes, perhaps a blue ribbon panel review of all federal criminal law and recommendations for immediate repeals

    4. A balanced budget and a freeze on borrowing after year one...at any cost.

    I'd even settle for 2 out of 4.

    Sounds like you are looking for a combination (none / 0) (#77)
    by DemForever on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:29:57 AM EST
    of Kucinich/Perot

    Not that I disagree with any of the positions you have.  


    Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:32:53 AM EST
    unless Obama is invaded by the body-snatchers he's not getting my vote.

    Nader it is...the best match to what I view as the important stuff.


    Well if it's a "sham" (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:16:48 AM EST
    roll call vote, then Hillary is a willing co-conspirator.  

    I'm fine with the plan for tonight as I understand it with Hillary announcing her delegates are being released from their obligation to her and that she's going to cast her SD vote for Obama.  It's a reasonable middle-ground approach.

    Re FDR, you misrepresent the situation in 32.  Back then, Dems had the 2/3 rule -- that vy high percentage, and not a simple majority, being req'd to nominate.  It was changed after that convention.


    There have been roll call votes (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Casey from MA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:12:17 AM EST
    up the wazoo.

    It happens quite often and more often than you seem to indicate.

    This one is legit.  I don't see a sham in the making.  

    If it is, then oh well, no unity, no win for the Dems in Nov, 4 more years of flagrant abuse of executive power by the Reps, potential conflicts erupting in Iran, a loss in Afghanistan, a continuing hotbed of trouble in Iraq.  

    Fun times.


    Democratic Process (5.00 / 5) (#212)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:29:52 AM EST
    For all the people who either don't understand the roll call vote, or don't care that the DNC has thrown aside the democratic process, all I can say is: you will all know what this democracy was when you don't have it anymore.

    Barack Obama did not get the number of pledged delegates required to claim victory prior to convention. SuperDelegates do not vote until convention. The DNC, with Obama, a Constitutional Law Professor, have decided to choose the candidate this time, which is not democratic. If they win, they will know they can do whatever they want and the people of this country will simply go along.

    The roll call vote has already been called nothing but a token formality to appease the winner of the popular vote and her followers. And, the Obama camp is trying to scare us into voting for him because women might lose reproductive rights.



    Ted Kennedy took his campaign (none / 0) (#152)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:58:49 AM EST
    all the way to the convention floor in 1980 - and lost to Carter by a big margin.
    I really believe Hillary doesn't want a full roll call vote for history - with her losing by a big margin.
    Hopefully, the roll call will be cut off after NY votes.

    On behalf of us powerful broads (5.00 / 18) (#8)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:00:02 AM EST
    on this, y'know, Broads' Equality Day, I thank Mr. Cost for the first sentence:

    The Democratic Party is powerful because it is broads.

    I'm sure that's what he really wrote, and some copy editor misread it and messed it up.

    I was actually gonna ... (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:13:15 AM EST
    do a variation on this joke.  And was scrolling down to see if anyone had beat me to it.

    Nice catch, cream.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Faust on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:03:54 AM EST
    Good one :)

    They don't want unity, they want purity (5.00 / 14) (#10)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:03:03 AM EST
    They want to purge all things Clinton from the party.

    yes - Teddy made that clear last night (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:09:01 AM EST
    At least ABC's George Stepha-something admitted Obama is indebted to Ted Kennedy for his nomination.

    Hopefully.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:28:21 AM EST
    the Clinton record on civil liberties, drug war policy, and criminal justice can be purged by the Democratic party...that would be an improvement.

    really? (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:59:53 AM EST
    That is interesting (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by stefystef on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:03:43 AM EST
    The way I see it, the Republicans are starting to close rank (which I knew they would) around McCain.  They may not like McCain, but they hate liberals more.

    Many Republicans know they can't depend or use Bush anymore.  He's not just a lameduck President, he's just plain old lame.  But the Republicans don't want to lose the White House IN ADDITION to the majority in the Congress.  They want to keep one.

    So, while the MSM is goo-goo and gaa-gaa-ing all over the DNC this week, the Republicans are getting ready to make their move.  It was smart of them to use Hillary Clinton's argument against Obama and they will use Biden's past comments against him too.  And Hillary Clinton supporters are not coming over in droves.  

    This is going to get very interesting...

    but Hillary never said -- (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:36:28 AM EST
    she would be glad to run with McCain or against him. Biden was willing to be a VP nominee on any party's ballot. And McCain is already running that Biden quote in an ad.
    And truthfully, after 19 months of campaigning, what has Obama proposed other than an anti-war speech in 2002 to a small group of liberals?
    What issue(s) or specific positions did he highlight during the primary, or now, beyond chants and marketing?
    There seems to be no issue that he hasn't compromised in some way.

    We'll see how much (none / 0) (#63)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:25:48 AM EST
    Repubs will be closing ranks after McCain names his VP.  If it's a prochoicer, we can sit back and watch the intraparty fireworks.

    If it's Romney, there could be another set of party concerns.

    And this is a party that is already -- according to all polls consistent over this cycle -- well behind the Dems in terms of enthusiasm for their candidate.  


    I think that that combination of... (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by EL seattle on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:53:59 AM EST
    Dem. House + Dem. Senate + Dem. Presidency will be a powerful motivation for the republicans to vote for McCain, regardless of who he choses as his running mate, or how much he adjusts his campaign towards the center.

    thank you (5.00 / 6) (#194)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:12:47 AM EST
    A year ago most Republicans had resigned themselves to the loss of the White House this year.  A President with historically low disapproval, the American People angry and disillusioned.  Yeah, they were gonna lose ... big time.

    But then, like a beacon over a hill, they saw their chance.  And his name was Barack Obama.  And Red State Caucuses and open Primaries across the Country saw Republicans en masse voting for The One over the one who could actually beat them, Hillary Clinton.

    So, here we sit only a day or so away from Barack becoming the Nominee.  He's down in the Polls, more and more people are turning away from him and John McCain is receiving surprisingly strong support from Independents and his own Party.

    And it's not because they love him.  No, far from it.  It's because they realize the Dems are stupidly and shockingly nominating the one man -- actually, two if you count Joe Biden -- who could lose the Election in what is by all accounts a "Dem year".  The one man Democratic Primary Voters in historic numbers the Country over said "No, we DON'T want this guy".  

    But the Leadership saw a chance to enact some petty revenge on the Clintons and ... well, here we sit.  Party divided and the Republicans not quite believing how lucky they are.

    They now taste victory where months ago they only saw defeat.  And it tastes surprisingly like celebratory champagne!


    Disagree. In the VP (none / 0) (#198)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:15:05 AM EST
    scenarios I noted, it would be raw or reptilian-brain emotions over McCain's pick trumping the cold hard calculus you cite.

    being here in Denver is so cool (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by athyrio on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:05:57 AM EST
    I spoke with an Obama delegate yesterday at a restaurant and told him I was PUMA and he very quickly told me he had worked for Hillary in 4 states prior to June...He seemed concerned about PUMA and mentioned the emails he has received...Interesting...Was fun to interact, and I just told him I was interested in real democracy and no shams...

    From the AP story (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:05:59 AM EST
    From here:

    The Clinton and Obama camps agreed to limit Wednesday's divisive nominating process for president, allowing some states to cast votes for both Obama and Clinton before ending the roll call in an acclamation for the Illinois senator.

    In one scenario, Clinton herself would cut off the voting and urge the unanimous nomination of Obama, according to Democratic officials involved in the negotiations. They discussed the deal on condition of anonymity while final details were being worked out.

    Do they really think this is going to be salve on the wounds of Clinton's supporters?

    No (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:12:03 AM EST
    it looks bad and only makes people mad. Why is the Obama campaign so afraid? He's giving the GOP another club to use.

    I guess they're afraid (5.00 / 9) (#83)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:31:09 AM EST
    because he hasn't got the Unity he needs and he hasn't got the support/adoration he wants. It's mindblowing to me that the DNC is now pushing for this ridiculous Draconian mindset. It's like Communist China FFS, and really, it's an unbelievable turnoff. The fact that it's not happening and being reported (however pathetically) only makes it worse.

    Dissent IS an American right. After 8 years of politicians p!ssing on the Constitution, you'd think that the DNC might figure out that letting people have their own thoughts and their own voices within the party would be a selling point. Believe me, this whole affair has turned me off completely, no matter how many heart-warming videos, cute kids or cheap theatrics designed to tug at the heart strings they throw at me.


    The Holding Pen (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by Athena on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:05:48 AM EST
    I'm hearing a number of reporters who were in Beijing and now in Denver talk about how much freer they could move around in China than Colorado.

    Chains We Can Believe In.


    but the DNC is run by the very people (5.00 / 5) (#180)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:07:08 AM EST
    who were adamant from the gitgo that Hillary would not be on the ticket.
    When Obama was allowed to repeatedly trash the Clinton administration - when Dean was silent as sexism became the norm - when Clyburn and other leaders began demanding Hillary 'get out' - when Dem leaders allowed the "first Black president" and his wife to be declared "racists" - it was obvious Obama was the Establishment's candidate.

    omg (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by tek on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:20:50 AM EST
    it's like Nazis or something.  We are living in The BRave New World.

    There also have been stories (5.00 / 8) (#64)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:25:57 AM EST
    about HRC supporters being 'discouraged' from wearing t-shirts, buttons and other paraphenalia bearing her name as it takes away from teh Unity. Clearly, the delegates aren't listening but it's unfricking believable that the idea is even out there.

    I hope the Republicans have a field day with all of this. The Democrats deserve it.


    I Wonder If That Hold True Tonight (none / 0) (#103)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:40:00 AM EST
    I would expect there to be zillions of Hillary signs for her speech tonight so banning tee shirts and buttons--which, if true, seems really stupid --shouldn't be a problem.

    Divisive? (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by DET103 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:41:43 AM EST
    A divisive process? Yes, black is white as always with the AP. A necessary unifying step is labeled as divisive when the sham vote will be the most divisive thing of all and if the presumptive is so concerned about the divide, well perhaps he should never have created it.

    Who knew right? (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    I can't believe we've been having a divisive nominating process all these years.



    Well then (5.00 / 8) (#111)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:42:58 AM EST
    color me done with the party. I chose democracy. Until the party can prove to me they understand democratic principles they can find some other sucker to contribute their resources to it(time, money, energy).

    He chose Biden. The Veepstakes are over. (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by beachmom on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:06:12 AM EST
    Why beat a dead horse?

    If experience is what Hillary thought was so important, how can any of you diss Obama for saying, "You're right.  I will pick one of the most experienced Senators on foreign policy the Democratic party can offer."

    I guess, we just are on different sides here, and I don't really know what to say anymore.  It's over, and I foresee Hillary being an effective surrogate for Obama in these next months.

    Nope (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:13:47 AM EST
    Obama is going to have to make the sell himself. Both Hillary and Bill need to step back after the convention and let Obama and his campaign do the work.

    Didn't get the memo, didja, Ga6th? (5.00 / 13) (#34)
    by Landulph on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:15:59 AM EST
    Clintons campaign for Obama = hogging the spotlight

    Clintons don't campaign for Obama = betraying the party

    See how simple it is in CDS land?


    Well, you never know ... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:16:00 AM EST
    ask Thomas Eagleton.

    the 'foreign policy' thingy is a myth (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Josey on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:21:18 AM EST
    Biden was chosen for Obama's lack of experience in many areas - not just foreign policy.
    Obama was always the Establishment's candidate - selected longggg before primary season began.

    Biden Complementary (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:48:38 AM EST
    maybe in important non-policy ways.

    My mom (85) told me he was her first choice in the primaries. (Surprised me, because I thought Clinton was.)

    She was already set to vote for Obama in the GE, but many of her friends were vehemently not. By the way, they also rejected Clinton--lifelong Dems, but I think the gender and race issues got in their way.

    She says with Biden--a guy who resonates with their own lives and the people in their families (Irish Catholic, most of them) they're taking a second look at voting for Obama.

    And it's possible Biden might actually change some minds or win some waverers over among a challenging demographic for Obama.

    For what it's worth, I doubt they will. I think Obama is too big a leap for them. But, at least, they're not voting for McCain, either.


    this may have been covered but... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by jjsmoof on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:01:26 AM EST
    I agree the establishment decided long ago on bama so why does HRC think they'll stand behind her in 2012.  Why is she rolling over now in preparation for 2012 when they steamrolled her.  It would take a major DNC housecleaning (which i'm all for) it just seems 2012 is a pipe dream.  I have to be missing something. I hope i am cuz we need Hillary!

    no doubt (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:22:37 AM EST
    It wasn't my movement that spent the last 8 years making fun of Biden's hair (or lack therof) or his teeth, calling him a corporate vichy dem sell out warmonger enemy of the middle class D-MBNA/BofA, etc. adn then telling him to go f-himself, and even worse.

    Nope.  that wasn't me.  Everyone knows I speak out against angry personal attacks on democratic politicians.


    I think Jay is right (5.00 / 20) (#18)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:07:38 AM EST
    The reactions that I'm hearing from lots of women are fairly predictable - it really is not rocket science. They see no justification at all for Biden's pick over Hillary.

    Hillary was supposedly unacceptable due to Washington insider status. Biden - no difference.

    Hillary was supposedly unacceptable due to AUMF vote. Biden - no difference.

    Hillary was supposedly unacceptable due to corporate ties. Biden - no difference.


    What does Hillary have that Biden doesn't? 18 million supporters.

    What does Biden have that Hillary doesn't? Most women know the answer to that immediately. I won't say the word here.

    This was an obvious gamble by the Obama campaign - they're gambling that they'll get an increase in white, male, bluecollar voters due to their increased comfort with the RayBan-wearing, blue collar, tough guy Biden, and that this will offset any loss of women who think Hillary got the shaft for no good reason. We'll see.....  I have no idea how it will turn out. But I don't get why they gamabled.

    Is there really any evidence (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by Landulph on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:14:06 AM EST
    that blue collar male voters like Biden all that much? Wilmington isn't exactly Pittsburgh, and when was the last time he was seriously opposed for re-election? Similarly, Biden's three bids for the Presidency have all ended in farce. I think there's a real question about his vote-getting power.

    He really (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:18:05 AM EST
    has no vote getting appeal. He might help in PA but nowhere else. For historical reference see Dukakis/Bentsen circa 1988.

    Most people, outside of the media (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by dk on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:33:13 AM EST
    and political junkies, have no idea who Biden is.  Seriously.

    Not Quite True (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by daring grace on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:54:04 AM EST
    I can't speak for the larger electorate. And he never excited anything electorally in me, but i'm finding (much to my surprise) that a lot of my older relatives and neighbors liked Biden BEST in the primaries.

    Go figure. I never believe CW when it pronounces: "Oh, (s)he will bring this group or that group to the polls." So I'll need to see evidence that Biden can rally anyone and who that will be.

    But in my tiny upstate New York working/middle class community, he seems very popular. Like, I said, surprised the heck out of me, because until he was named VP nominee nobody mentioned how much they liked him before.


    And if the Obama campaign is smart ... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:55:32 AM EST
    they'll keep it that way.

    no idea who Biden is (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:01:16 AM EST
    saw a number in the twenties who even knew who he was.  I was surprised by that.  they guy has been around since teevee.

    They seem to think they do (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:05:54 AM EST
    You'd think he was the coolest, hippest guy on the planet from reading the people on my Livejournal list. They're so excited over the prospect of Biden as Veep they're squeeing.

    I wish to hell I was making this up.


    Saw a poll somewhere that (none / 0) (#210)
    by zfran on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:29:05 AM EST
    showed that 51% didn't know who Biden was.

    They (5.00 / 14) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:15:21 AM EST
    gambled because they would rather lose than put her on the ticket.

    well (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:27:09 AM EST
    its good they feel that way.  

    But He's Not Hillary (5.00 / 19) (#50)
    by Athena on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:20:57 AM EST
    I think is was Buchanan last night who said that Biden, who got about 2500 votes in total, has now been told to go get Hillary's 18 million votes.  It was too funny.

    Happy Women's Equality Day, all.  I guess all we're getting is a female almost-President in prime time on American television.  But hey - it's the little things that count.

    Go Hillary.  You don't owe nobody nothing.


    I think this and the debate (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:14:46 AM EST
    will be Obama's last chance. Q Poll says he has a 1 pt lead in OH. That's not good enough.

    Then (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:16:39 AM EST
    be prepared for the worst. Obama obviously has not been preparing for debates and the Invesco field thing is nothing short of a disaster waiting to happen.

    You really have to wonder if (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Landulph on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:22:29 AM EST
    they're playing "chicken." The bogus "seal," the Europe victory saunter, and now this. None of this is actually necessary, and most of it seems distinctly counterproductive, likely to alienate more voters than it attracts.

    Rally and acceptance speech (5.00 / 5) (#201)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:19:25 AM EST
    at Invesco might turn out like the International tour. 0

    I think some are over the rock star appearances.
    I personally prefer a more traditional acceptance speech for nomination for President of the United States. I know younger voters think this venue is cool but I prefer more sophistication and class, not MTV.  


    Maybe Hillary's speech (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:18:34 AM EST
    will give Obama a bit of a bump.  You said it (well, her concession speech) did last time, no?

    I'm sure her speech will be awesome tonight.  I can't wait.  


    It could, yes (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:19:45 AM EST
    But Obama was unable to maintain that lead. Very, very, concerning.

    He needs to put (none / 0) (#54)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:22:19 AM EST
    recognizable people (ex. Hillary) on the ground in Ohio and other important states - good as grassroots workers are, they may not have a lot of credibility among some voters.  IMO...

    No (5.00 / 8) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:24:52 AM EST
    Hillary can not solve Obama's problems. He is going to have to solve them. He is the candidate.

    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by lilburro on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:28:50 AM EST
    has agreed to support Obama's nomination with fundraisers and appearances.  I think he needs to use her and other notable Dems wisely.  But hey, when's the last time we saw Obama in Ohio?

    More than just "in" Ohio. (5.00 / 0) (#166)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:03:00 AM EST
    Ohio will be the kind of battle ground that I expect multi-day tours by both candidates.  Unless either one gets a significant and persistent lead, neither of them can take Ohio for granted.

    This state will be won or lost on the economy.


    But, but, but he's got Hawaiii (5.00 / 5) (#178)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:05:54 AM EST
    Of course, he had it before he spent 10 days there.

    How many days in Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania. . . ?


    ....and West Virginia! (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:12:02 AM EST
    Here's a good question:

    Which state will Bill & Hillary combined make more appearances in than Obama himself?

    The correct answer should be: None.

    We shall see.


    best speech evah (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by jjsmoof on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:07:46 AM EST
    should be short and sweet. Her 'itching her nose' with her middle finger followed up with a brushing off of her shoulder.  Bill comes out on stage and escorts Her out of the building.  

    i can dream...


    There was a time when he was well ahead (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:23:49 AM EST
    in Ohio. He was unable to maintain that lead.

    Obama gambling everything on CO and VA is like Gore gambling everything on FL and Kerry gambling everything oh OH + FL. It could work, but it hasn't yet.

    Ohio needs to stay competitive or the cash advantage is meaningless.


    Whatever happened to (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Landulph on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:26:17 AM EST
    "expanding the battleground"? The 50-state strategy? Remember when that divisive harradin Hillary was the only thing standing between the dems and a 400 EV landslide? Gone with the wind . . .

    I also remember (5.00 / 11) (#79)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:30:19 AM EST
    that Hillary's "significant states" argument was dismissed, but of course she was right. She would have been well ahead in FL, OH, and PA, and the election would essentially be over.

    Is there anyone on Obama's team (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:40:51 AM EST
    in the inner circle who is actually from the West?  This gamble on the West makes me nervous because I grew up in CA and know how quixotic the politics are out there.  Counting so heavily on Colorado makes me super nervous.

    It should make you nervous (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:43:05 AM EST
    Because relying on one or two states to win an election is always dangerous.

    Well it always has, but Colorado (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:54:20 AM EST
    or any of the other Western states besides CA (and that even isn't what I consider to be blue enough to count on) is much more frightening to me especially if Obama doesn't have people from the region in the inner circle.

    I'm sorry, but this explanation (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:54:40 AM EST
    is borderline ridiculous.

    Hillary beat Obama by as much in Pennsylvania as she did in Ohio. And yet Obama is still ahead in Pennsylvania.

    Do you think Obama would agree that he can't win Ohio? If so, what does that say about his electoral prospects?

    Nothing good IMO.


    1 pt lead in OH (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:28:22 AM EST
    but but
    ground game

    I see your hope & change (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:04:16 AM EST
    and raise:
    The Economy

    I don't think Kaine would have (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:29:46 AM EST
    got him Virginia and it would have pissed off ALOT of folks had he been the choice.

    I'm sure his speech will be great. (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by rise hillary rise on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:02:44 AM EST
    no doubt, it will be wonderful, soaring rhetoric, inspiring, all that. and it will surely make all those Obama fans even more enthusiastic for their guy.
    unfortunately, I think that Obama has already won over all those voters. the skeptics on the sidelines, the ones who want more than a string of pretty words read off a Teleprompter, are waiting to see what else he has to offer. so far, not so much. listening to him talk on NPR this morning, he sounded like GWBush, with all those "ummms" and long pauses and not a lot of content.

    Is there going to only be one debate? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:30:14 AM EST
    That makes me very uncomfortable.

    3 presidential (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:38:12 AM EST
    one VP
    I saw a schedule the other day.

    Three (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Lahdee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:38:31 AM EST
    September 26th in Oxford, MS
    October 7th in Nashville, TN
    October 15th in Hempstead, NY

    2 or 3 b/t the Presidential candidates, I think (none / 0) (#84)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:31:33 AM EST
    And considering that (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:37:54 AM EST
    debates don't win elections I'm reassured somewhat, but not a lot.  McCain has always carried himself like a leader, he projects it well and Americans like that chit.  Why aren't they swinging hard on the Repubs?  I know we've only been at this one night but can we drop the rockstar atmosphere soon and go to work?

    they are going to be absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:39:14 AM EST
    pivotal in this election.  Obama knows this.  its why he has been running and hiding from any more than are forced on him.

    add to that (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:48:48 AM EST
    his alleged aversion to doing the work necessary in preparing for debates -- as witnessed by his earlier underwhelming performances -- and I think the Election will be lost with his first string of "uh"s or his first long pause as he reaches for an answer.

    And if he decides to swing out and go negative on McCain during the debate because he's losing ground on the specifics, all McCain has to say in response is "Resorting to personal attacks when you don't know how to respond on the issues is not a luxury a President has when he's in the White House.  The American People deserve better"

    Game over.


    I don't like thinking that Obama (none / 0) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:43:34 AM EST
    believes he has a chance using the rockstar image in an election against someone like McCain.  McCain is not camera shy and he's said plenty of stupid things in front of cameras but he has the ability to say a lot of brilliant things in front of them too and he isn't afraid to say them....with feeling......today.

    I'm sure Hillary will do (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Lahdee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:18:35 AM EST
    her part for unity this evening. After much clucking and hemming and hawing by the bloviators it will be apparent she did what needed to be done. I am not so confident that our nominee can do that. Sure his unity/change pitch is popular with supers and his supporters, but, if the numbers are to be believed, is not resonating outside the convention hall. How can you unite anything without a resonance of respect, and if it seems he can't respect Hillary's voters, if he can't win them over, what's the point? America will see through that in a heartbeat.

    No Hilary Could just be Obama's Watgerloo (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Saul on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:21:29 AM EST
    To most voters it is a personal choice of one candidate.  To want them to forget everything and just look at what is at stake if they do not get over the Clinton defeat can happen but very few will IMO.  Many also know what is at stake but since their choice of candidate did not win then many will say well that just tough and will not vote or vote for someone else.

    I have contiguously  said that the unique passion that has been demonstrated  in this past democrat primary will be what makes or breaks who wins this GE.  Especially if the passion is not used wisely by the nominee that won.

    Hilary is supporting Obama because it's  what her party needs her to do. Plus failure to do that will be looked it scornfully if Obama looses.  But I think deep down inside I do not think her heart is in it.

    I predict that the GE will be extremely close and  Obama has a very close chance of losing this election and if he does history will show that his pride was the main culprit.   Especially when he knew that if he picked Hilary the GE  would have been a slam dunk and to me that would show that he put his pride over the party's complete benefit and the democratic voters.

    This is the whole ballgame ... (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:23:48 AM EST
    Obama is supported by 78% of Democrats while McCain gets the vote from 85% of Republicans.

    If Obama can't get that number up, he can't win, imho.

    Brush-Off (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Athena on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:01:22 AM EST
    His diss of Hillary was also a write-off of her supporters.  18 million cracks in his foundation.

    shoulda, woulda, coulda (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by cawaltz on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:26:17 AM EST
    I can sincerely see his VP decision going down in history as one of the most bone headed ones ever.

    What time is Hill expected to speak?

    most bone headed (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:09:17 AM EST
    I agree completely.  a historically enormous blunder.  and a fatal one politically speaking.

    Hillary speaks tonight (none / 0) (#94)
    by Lahdee on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:36:18 AM EST
    in the 8PM to 9PM Mountain time hour, that's 10PM to 11PM Eastern:

    Hour # 6 8:02 PM - 9:04 PM (LOCAL)
    Gloria Craven
    Laid-off North Carolina textile worker with huge medical bills

    The Honorable Brian Schweitzer
    Governor of Montana

    Hillary Clinton Segment - Video/Remarks
    The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
    US Senator, New York

    Thanks to Jeralyn for the handy dandy DNCC link on the front page.


    90-year old mother's take on Michelle (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:30:57 AM EST
    Loved her.  Mother is diehard Hillary supporter.   Does not like BO at all.  Probably will vote for McCain, but not really sure yet.  Michelle's speech made headway with her.  Never before voted Repub in presidential election.  Asks: "Change to what?"  Great question; captures the very essence of peoples' doubts.  Needs to be answered.

    One would think that a good answer (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:41:43 AM EST
    would be "back to the 1990's".  Remember?  Peace, prosperity, a general sense that things were headed in the right direction?  Budget surplus?  Bill left office with approval ratings in the high 60's.  And they would have been even higher if sex hadn't become involved.

    Anyway, it isn't going to happen.  The dems running the show now don't seem to remember the 90's.  They could be saying, "We want to fix the damage that Bush has done and put us back on the right track - the one that we left in 2000."  Instead, they seem to buy the crazy and incorrect assumption that Bill is a liability.  The only place Bill is a liability is with the Washington mainstream media, who really don't like Bill, never have.  Out here, however, people would love to have the 90's back.


    got this from a relative the other day (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:43:25 AM EST
    thought is was worth sharing.  it is very typical of the comments I hear day after day:

    "Most are threating to vote Republican! That's how bad it is! I don't think I'm gonna vote for any of them, I'm that put out with it!
    Well, Great Grandfather Henry Casey was a Republican they say. Hasn't been one in the Casey's since..... but things may change!"


    that is what I am hearing here also (none / 0) (#138)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:53:54 AM EST
    and I am in Mass!

    Bill and Hillary will, with luck, answer that (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:32:14 AM EST
    Funny that the Clintons would have the burden (5.00 / 10) (#92)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:34:34 AM EST
    of answering that.  Afterall, it has been the mantra of the Dem powerbrokers like Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, Pelosi etc.

    Clintons should not have to clean up their mess and fill in the blanks.  


    Well, it would be better (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:38:09 AM EST
    if Obama could explain it himself, but so far he hasn't been able to.

    In any event, it would be good for voters to hear it from a trusted voice or two.


    Except when undecideds (5.00 / 8) (#110)
    by dk on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:42:14 AM EST
    start asking why, if she is the only person who can explain why Democrats are better than Republicans, she isn't the candidate.

    The Clintons can't close the deal on (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:51:44 AM EST
    the case for Obama though.  They certainly can highlight the issues and challenges, but he has to be the one to show people that his administration would be the antidote to the ails - something he continues to fail to do.  Biden gets that and hopefully he will influence Obama's understanding of what is needed right now.  

    But I have to agree with ga6th that Obama needs to get himself in gear and start talking about what he will do in specific, credible and accessible terms.  No one else can do that for him and expect that they can really bring in those who are not already true believers.

    Less lofty "yes we can" and lots more "here's how we'll do it".  My biggest complaint about him throughout has been his obsession with process to the exclusion of exactly what it is we seek to accomplish regardless of what process we use.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#105)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:40:14 AM EST
    And the expectation that they should, even though they will, after what happened in the primary, remains a sore point that people should navigate around with more skill.

    They should be thanked profusely.  Loudly.  Thank god the Clintons aren't so consumed with their own egos that they will do what it takes to make sure a Democrat wins.

    Yes.  That's the way to navigate around this issue.

    Thank you Bill and Hillary Clinton for saving our candidate's political career.  It became clear to us, unfortunately, he would be incapable of doing it on his own.


    Except (5.00 / 11) (#121)
    by Steve M on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:45:57 AM EST
    the actual narrative we're hearing is that giving prominent speaking slots to Bill and Hillary is some kind of grand concession to the Clintons, as opposed to a good strategic move to help Obama win.

    This from the same people who think the worst thing about Hillary as VP would be having Bill around the White House.  I mean, can you imagine the horror of having Bill Clinton as a free, informal adviser?

    Mind you, I still live in the alternate universe where the purpose of the convention is to help Barack Obama get elected, and that's exactly what Bill and Hillary Clinton are doing.  Don't tell anyone.


    precisely the point (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:52:48 AM EST
    if anyone read what I just wrote and felt a pang of insecurity then they've got the wrong mindset.

    if it helps to win the final game of the world series a confident starting pitcher, even a 20 game winner with a sub-2 ERA says "i just thank god this team is blessed with having the best closer in baseball on it's team."

    I'm really beginning to think people don't get it.

    The whole mindset is all wrong.  From top to bottom.   It's dripping with insecurity.


    No! No! (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:57:41 AM EST
    don't let the super successful former President speak!  He might conjure up memories of the horrible, catastrophic 1990's when there weren't nearly enough wars and gas was less than $1.50 a gallon!

    What Clinton Did (5.00 / 7) (#131)
    by Athena on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:49:47 AM EST
    This ignorant party does not have the class or the intelligence to comprehend that Clinton seized two of the three Dem Pres terms out of the last 40 years!  That's a real wilderness, Dems.

    The only other term was Carter - even he was treated as a bystander last night.

    The GOP treats Reagan like a saint; the Dems have so sense of gratitude or history regarding their own leaders.

    A party full of shame does not have the cojones to pull off this election.


    It is an interesting (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by eric on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:22:43 AM EST
    juxtaposition - Reagan is worshiped and Clinton is dissed.  Why?  Clinton actually had a slightly higher approval rating when he left office.  Why the difference?

    My personal feeling is that the difference is the way the mainstream media treats them.  The conventional wisdom with the insiders is that Reagan was great - that Clinton came to town and "trashed the place, and it wasn't his place to trash".

    But despite was was written and spoken about Bill Clinton day after day, the American people still supported him.

    At this point, it is clear that the mainstream Dem establishment has adopted the media's - not the public's - view of Bill Clinton.  It's a shame.


    I wrote last night (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:31:46 AM EST
    that any post-Convention bounce would be basically making up whatever ground he loses from his Biden pick.

    But now I'm wondering if the Biden pick is more disastrous polling-wise than I anticipated and whatever bounce he gets after Thursday won't be enough to bring his numbers back.

    Don't forget that we have McCain announcing HIS pick for VP on Friday and he may get a solid bounce from that as well so the two bounces may offset each other with the appearance possibly being that McCain gets the bounce after the Dem Convention, not Obama.

    Also, whatever post-Convention bounce McCain gets won't be offset by Obama announcing a VP pick.  Barring any startling news from the Obama Camp, McCain's post-Convention bounce will be allowed to stand on it's own, uninterrupted and unchallenged.

    And the news will be McCain got a bigger bounce than Obama did.

    there will be a bounce (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by AlSmith on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:44:00 AM EST

    If there is any reaction to Biden, it probably not Biden himself but the poor way the announcement was done and the fact that he makes Obama look bad on the credentials front.

    If Obama is anything, he is a good speaker. The ticket will get a bounce because he will give a good rock star speech in front of a rock star crowd and the press will fall over themselves saying how great is was and this is why the English language was invented. Its a given its going to be a good speech. I dont say that to factor it out but to factor it in.

    And the scheduling of the convention next to a holiday may work in O's favor. People will be talking about it during cookouts.

    I think a 5 point bounce is realistic.


    Another excuse, yet again, for (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by zfran on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:00:44 AM EST
    why Obama's numbers are not where one thinks they ought to be.

    "If there is any reaction to Biden, it probably not Biden himself but the poor way the announcement was done and the fact that he makes Obama look bad on the credentials front"

    Perhaps it's just the candidate himself who believes that if he just looks out onto us, we will come, and then his numbers will soar!


    hey! (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:04:00 AM EST
    you forgot the light ... the light that will shine upon us from ... somewhere

    I can't go to him without the light, okay?  I need the light.


    rock star speech (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:01:55 AM EST
    in front of a rock star crowd is a good thing?

    When 48% of people polled in a recent Pew Poll said their sick and tired of hearing about or seeing Obama, a "rock star speech" isn't going to bring them over.

    When most people are wanting specifics about what he'll do as President, a "rock star speech" probably won't answer their questions.

    And when Obama's opponent is so easily able to deflate Barack's balloon by comparing him to "unaccomplished" celebrities like Paris Hilton, a "rock star speech" is the last thing he should be doing.

    But this campaign has always seemed to be hopelessly tone deaf, so I'm not surprised it's considered a "good thing" in some circles.


    Diminishing returns on the 'good speech' (5.00 / 4) (#196)
    by RonK Seattle on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:13:49 AM EST
    ... could turn negative on either the expectations game or the impression that good speeches are cover for missing program content.

    And you realise (5.00 / 9) (#93)
    by janarchy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:34:58 AM EST
    that s/he's referring to Authoritarian thinking and making everyone act in lockstep, and not actual Nazi doctrine, don't you?

    Stop race baiting. (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:46:04 AM EST

    I don't know what Hillary will say tonight. (5.00 / 9) (#123)
    by Anne on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:46:48 AM EST
    I expect she will urge party unity, and try to rally support for Obama.  She will describe him in terms that glow in the dark.  As smart as she is, I expect she will also hammer the GOP and McCain hard, finally drawing some distinctions between the parties.  It could well be the best speech she has ever given.

    I don't blame her for being a good soldier and doing her part to get the yoke of responsibility for getting him elected off from around her neck; it's got to be choking her.  But for me, her glowing description of Obama will ring hollow, because I truly do not think that he deserves the kind of praise she will give him.  What I have heard so far gives me the same feeling I have when I hear Republicans extol the virtues of McCain (or, in the past, Bush and Cheney) - it leaves me wondering how on earth they could possibly believe the stuff they say.

    I'll watch, I guess, but it truly breaks my heart to have to hear her heap praise on someone who hasn't earned it.  In some ways, no matter what she says, I am reminded of what we could have had; that's hard to get past.  

    It'll be interesting to see whether the crowd will be allowed to wave "Clinton" signs, the way they held "Kennedy" and "Michelle" signs.  Seems like she deserves that much, doesn't it?

    She put herself in the position (none / 0) (#162)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:01:52 AM EST
    she's in now -- having chosen very unwisely with her top campaign aides, and failing to heed my early sound advice about bringing in Paul Begala to basically call the shots.  

    So being the loyal Dem and solid pol, now she'll just have to woman up and do what she needs to do.  

    I don't expect her to pull a Ted Kennedy '80 and deliver tepid words of praise for Obama.


    If (Sen) Clinton was using Obama's stupid tactic (5.00 / 6) (#154)
    by Ellie on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:58:58 AM EST
    ... of claiming he was the candidate with the "funny name" [/eyeroll], she'd talk endlessly about being the candidate with the Funny Chest Bumps.

    You know, that millions of voters never ever had nor encountered in public servants without falling right over in shock.

    In all seriousness and as someone who has overcome the alleged handicaps above, I'll just sign off and leave it at that. *

    Boobsie McT!tzulah and her Whirling Tassels Revue

    * except ... except ... bobblehead doofus nonpareil Roland Martin was just blathering on CNN in complain mode about how people shouldn't see the Obama family as "exotic" ... as if their African American experience was that much different that regular folks couldn't relate to it.

    So much for the daily whack at the funny name obstacle that, as just one ginned-up Hardship applying only to Obama always, evah. Now his miraculous ascent to the big spotlight is available for Everyone to relate to and enjoy vicariously.

    I doubt she took it personally. (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:59:35 AM EST
    She's been in the game far too long and has developed the kind of pragmatism and thick hide that she needs to keep from getting distracted by emotional reactions.  Ditto for Bill.  They've both been abandoned and betrayed by fair weather friends and sunshine patriots.  This is politics.  People's loyalties are bought and sold every day.

    not so sure (5.00 / 6) (#174)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:05:07 AM EST
    they have endured a lot but I dont think Bill is used to being called a racist by democrats.

    or HIllary either (5.00 / 5) (#176)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:05:52 AM EST
    for that matter.
    we are in unexplored territory.

    True that. (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by Fabian on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:09:06 AM EST
    Actually, I can't remember other democrats being called racist and certainly not in a national campaign.

    It's as if the Obama campaign was determined to create a Clinton Macaca Moment.  If that was their strategy, it was pure sleaze.


    Ah, the NYT is starrting to see (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:03:41 AM EST
    that Obama is not the one making the decisions and who has been controlling this from the start.  Good to see that you now get that your guy isn't really running the campaign.  Yet he can run the country?

    Btw, the one controlling all this was, of course, the surprise speaker who showed up at the convention last night -- pushing Michelle Obama out of prime time.  That was the only sign I saw of grand Democratic traditions.

    She won because of the strong (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Casey from MA on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM EST
    presence of support.  MA has been Clinton country since Bill Clinton was in office.  We love them both up here as if they were born and raised here.  

    Well of course she won because she had (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by dk on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:14:33 AM EST
    support, but that is just a circular argument.  The reason why she had support is because she has experience and campaigned on issues (and seemed knowledgeable about issues) important to Democrats, unlike her opponent.

    I have no doubt (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by ccpup on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:21:51 AM EST
    that what you say is true.  

    But the political support in the State (via your two Senators Kennedy and Kerry), the political machine was solidly behind Obama.  Therefore, she must have had to run on the issues or something in order to win by the impressive margin she did.

    Either that, or your two Senators were hopelessly out-of-touch with their Constituents.


    Nice to see (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by jb64 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:18:21 AM EST
    that 'ol unity pony being trotted out this morning.

    I hope you Obama supporters realize that not everybody on this site is a dead-ender, some of us are trying to work up some of that old time enthusiasm about the ticket, but this aint helping.

    I don't like Obama, but I didn't like Kerry, Dukakis or Mondale either. To many of us, he is a shallow telegenic whisp of nothingness, no nutritional value whatsoever.

    And maybe that's our problem, and maybe we need to indeed "get over it" and some of us no doubt will. But I will catergorically say right now that my main problem with Obama is the people he attracts.

    The media is playing us all for fools, setting us up against each other. If we lose this election we will ALL be to blame.

    Lowering the bar (5.00 / 9) (#207)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:26:22 AM EST
    What too many Obama supporters don't seem to realize is that I'm not upset that Obama won or that Hilary lost. I'm upset that the Blue Dog Democrat's won and the progressive's lost. Listening to the rhetoric coming out of the Obama camp doesn't reassure that I'm wrong. UHC and war have faded into the sunset. Gay rights are almost an afterthought. And no one is talking about the abusive of executive power. And that's just off the top of my head. These were issues that every progressive blog railed against for 8 yrs and now it's dismissed because Obama is the best we can hope for.

    Comments close at 200, thanks (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by waldenpond on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 11:44:01 AM EST

    so whats the word? (none / 0) (#3)
    by AlSmith on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 08:55:37 AM EST

    So whats the word on the floor?

    Are excessive displays of support being discouraged? Are people being told to 'mute' things?

    Biden doesn't appeal to Clinton voters (none / 0) (#74)
    by Exeter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:29:37 AM EST
    He doesn't appeal to educated women, blue collar workers, or seniors-- the three largest contingents of the Clinton voters, with blue collar workers being the largest. Educated women will vote for Obama regardless of the vp, but somebody like a David Bonior, Jack Murtha, Tom Harkin, ect would have had a better shot at getting the blue collar workers. Biden might be appealing to Seniors.

    Ah, not this educated woman (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:32:27 AM EST
    At this point, not voting for BO.

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#133)
    by Exeter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:51:28 AM EST
    If McCain picked a pro-choice moderate like Christy Todd Whitman, would you vote for him? I think alot of women would.

    He could choose an anti-choice (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by sleepwalker on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:08:21 AM EST
    candidate like Sarah Palin, and I'd vote for him. He could ask Carly, and I'd vote for him. I used to work for her, and I know she'd work for us. If he chooses Lieberman or Romney, he's on his own.

    I think that sums the feelings of many. (none / 0) (#190)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:11:29 AM EST
    which is why I think he will throw the long ball and go for the middle and tell the Rush Limpbaughs of the world to go fish.
    but Ive been wrong before.
    I just think he has a lot more to gain and less to lose if he does that.  I mean, the hard right really doesnt have any place else to go.
    Bob Barr?  I dont think so.

    I have a politcal question (none / 0) (#145)
    by steviez314 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:55:21 AM EST
    I'm just curious what others' opinion is on this:

    Which do you think would be better politically for Hillary:

    a) an Obama win, with HRC running in 2016 (still younger than McCain!); or

    b) an Obama loss, with HRC running in 2012.

    Which scenario gives her better odds of becoming president?

    Neither. (5.00 / 5) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 09:58:57 AM EST
    It's not about Hillary, it's about Obama. The reason people aren't supporting Obama has nothing to do with those issues.

    Absolutely correct (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    My reluctance to support Obama has nothing to do with strategy for Hillary in 2012. I never even considered that as a factor in voting for president this year. Perhaps others have; I have not.

    So, you say her chances are the same (none / 0) (#173)
    by steviez314 on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:04:50 AM EST
    either way.  

    I'm saying nothing about issues or Obama, just presenting 2 scenarios, and asking which one (if either) is better for her chances to become President.


    Jay Cost (none / 0) (#185)
    by Faust on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:09:11 AM EST
    is full of win.

    One of the best bloggers of the year (none / 0) (#191)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 26, 2008 at 10:11:58 AM EST
    And pssst, I think he's a Republican.