Clinton On Why Obama Should Be President

From last night's speech:

We need to elect Barack Obama, because we need a president who understands that America can't compete in the global economy by padding the pockets of energy speculators while ignoring the workers whose jobs have been shipped overseas.

We need a president who understands we can't solve the problems of global warming by giving windfall profits to the oil companies while ignoring opportunities to invest in the new technologies that will build a green economy.

[More . . .]

We need a president who understands that the genius of America has always depended on the strength and vitality of the middle class.

Barack Obama began his career fighting for workers displaced by the global economy. He built his campaign on a fundamental belief that change in this country must start from the ground up, not the top down And he knows that government must be about "we the people," not "we the favored few."

And when Barack Obama is in the White House, he'll revitalize our economy, defend the working people of America, and meet the global challenges of our times.

Democrats know how to do this. As I recall, we did it before with President Clinton and the Democrats.


And if we do our part, we'll do it again with President Obama and the Democrats.

< Overnight Open Thread | "No Way, No How, No McCain" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hillary's right.... (5.00 / 24) (#1)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:37:10 AM EST
    We do need that kind of President.

    But what does that have to do with Barack Obama?

    It is hard to be a "new" type (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:13:12 AM EST
    of politician while the country is plagued with all these old fashioned problems.....chit

    Exactly. And all I can think is (5.00 / 10) (#36)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:18:58 AM EST
    that she was telling him that this is what the 18 million people who voted for her believed she stood for and would work for, the president she would be, and if he wants those votes, he needs to commit to being that kind of president.

    As I said last night, I think that's much bigger than who he is, and how his track record suggests he will perform.

    Hillary reminded all of us what the stakes are, what the issues are, and how hard it's going to be to get things done.

    But Hillary, sadly, is no longer who the new Democratic party regards as its future; that was Mark Warner, who once again repeated and embraced the theme of "post-partisan - it doesn't matter whether it comes with a (D) or an (R) if it's a good idea - not about liberal v. conservative" which is the new vision of Barack Obama's Democratic Party.

    Hillary set the bar, and it may well be that Obama will win, but I don't see him being the kind of president she knows - and we know - we need.


    Obama's vision isn't new (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:24:37 AM EST
    but is based on the DLC model of Centrism that Obamabots disdain.

    And none of them even seem to realize it! (5.00 / 8) (#96)
    by Landulph on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:04:03 AM EST
    I remember last night Rachel Maddow claimed (on NBC) that Obama's nomination represents the rejection of the "Clintonian legacy of triangulation." Really. She must be have missed Obama's vote for FISA, flip-flop on oil drilling, parroting McCain on Georgia, and cozying up to evangelicals--and for that matter, the astonishing number of anti-choice speakers at this convention.

    The self-delusion of pro-Obama progressives continues to amaze me.


    They are not (5.00 / 6) (#104)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:15:59 AM EST
    "pro-Obama progressives."  They are anti-Clinton and Obama's own worst enemy.  

    Wow - amazing that she would day that (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:43:24 AM EST
    the self-delusion is astonishing.

    Anne...obama already has known what (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:12:45 AM EST
    Hillary reiterated last night and has not lifted a finger to implement any of it....she was the good soldier, now she needs to step away.  What she mainly brings to the table when trying to lift him up, is to make him look even more unappealing, through no fault of her own.  He is what he is and doesn't seem to want anything except for people flocking to him without having to lift a finger...oh well...just saying

    Absolutely ABSOLUTELY (4.50 / 2) (#105)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:16:36 AM EST
    I've listened to it twice now and it seems less directed toward voters the second time than directly to Barack Obama saying this is what is and will be expected of you as POTUS. This is what voters expect. This is what voters need if you expect them to vote for you.

    Yes - she set the bar (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    I thought so at the time - she is setting the bar for him as president.  If he does not come through, expect a challenge in 2012.

    Paul (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by facta non verba on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:26:35 AM EST
    you are too funny!

    It was a brillant speech. I am still not voting for Obama. Gallup tracking poll today shows McCain up two points, yesterday he was tied. Let's see one party is dominating the airwaves, gets 98% of the coverage and the other guy gets the bump. Unreal. Unheard of.


    You're ignoring the VP pick (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Cream City on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:56:13 AM EST
    The comment to which you replied did not talk about the convention.  Obama did dominate the airwaves with the VP pick -- the one that took days to roll out, with breathless coverage awaiting it all the way -- in the three days covered in the tracking polls.

    It also covered the time (none / 0) (#153)
    by tree on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:04:48 PM EST
    period of the "brilliant" Obama attack on McCain for not knowing how many houses he and his wife owned. You know, the attack that was going to stick and redefine McCain and the whole election. Yawn.

    Can you make it even (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:24:26 AM EST
    simpler so that I can understand it -

    and thank you for your continuing lectures - so infomative and I don't know - kinda scripted.


    LOL! (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by tek on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:05:39 AM EST

    The real problem for Obama is that HE is Bush III.


    Have to admit I thought the same thing (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:40:34 AM EST
    Try as I might to go along with her. I thought it was the best possbile speech she could have done.  Not sure it persuaded many though.

    As I told a friend on the phone, that is really Obama's job.  My friend was getting all exercised about 'Well, what is she going to do about those McCain ads showing her saying Obama isn't ready?' I said it is Obama's job to convince people he is ready, not Hillary's.


    I heard her say something (5.00 / 0) (#148)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:39:31 PM EST
    about health care "a plan in which everyone is covered"  That sounded like a challenge to him since he has not gone down that path.

    I would argue that (none / 0) (#149)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:44:20 PM EST
    she explained why a (generic) Democrat should be president. Which Obama is notably not.

    All these things all these speakers are saying Obama will do as president don't match up to what he's done as a senator and candidate. Sometimes I wonder if they're talking about some other Obama. Obama's good twin, maybe.


    Hilary (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:46:07 AM EST
    Succeeded in putting the primaries behind her. Now it's completely up to Obama to step up and carry the ball. She set the stage for him. She stressed Democratic values and unity. I'll be very interested in what Obama follows it up with Thursday. I just hope that it isn't another affirmation of God and hope.

    I think Hillary and Bill (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:52:15 AM EST
    are reminding people what Democrat with a capital "D" stands for.

    That puts a lot of pressure on Obama to live up to Democratic brand.  It may not work.  Obama could slide back into ambiguity and vagueness of the Obama brand, but it's worth a shot.  Outside of speeches, the Clintons don't have that much leverage in the party.  

    I admire their dedication.  Perseverance furthers.


    He had better live up to it! (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:58:27 AM EST
    On the other hand, whenever the Republicans aren't in power they sure are trying to jack up the Democrats.  Democrats are always at the top of their game and sure of their brand when the hounds of hell are chasing them :)  Bring on the hounds :)

    She's about the Party - (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:33:12 AM EST
    This am on MSNBC, lots of talk that "she did what she had to do."   HRC is a Democrat and that is her focus - put a Democrat in office.

    Will we hear the word Democrat often from Sen. Obama - this is just me - just me - but he seems uncomfortable with certain demographics of the Party.  He is using the Democratic Party, not a part of it.  Again - just me as I don't want to be negative about him but he doesn't offer me a sense of place.  I'm not coming home with him.

    I believe Sen. McCain offers some Americans a sense of Republicanism - a sense of home.

    And - I don't trust Sen. Obama on issues of economics.  And that's a democratic issue - always has been.

    Leverage with the party operatives - no but things can change.  And the Clintons have leverage with the people - their people aren't all dead yet.  Sometimes democracy works as it should.

    Here in Illinois - from Obama people - we are moving into new territory and he is the man.  (translation:  it's a new party.)  What was wrong with the old party with variations but core values - what is wrong with those values of economic opportunities and a hand up?  Hell, I'll be dead in ten years probably but for my son and my young cousins and their babies - I want them to have access to these old values as I did.  

    Someone said here there is a strain of libertarianism among many of Obama's young supporters -  now, at this time, after 8 years of the cruelty the working class has endured - it's astounding.

    She's about the Party - so am I.  Sen. Obama - we'll see.      


    RE: (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by tek on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:12:52 AM EST
    He is using the Democratic Party, he's not part of it.  

    Best analysis so far.  If you look back at his career, he's had no choice but to run as a Democrat because when there was an open office it was in a Democratic stronghold and the Senate seat was going to go to a Democrat.  He is so affiliated with U Chicago and that place is way conservative.  He struck me as a person who felt completely uncomfortable with Democratic values and ideas because he's really a conservative.  Maybe that's why he was chosen to rip the Clintons, he's not a traditional Democrat so he really doesn't like them.

    But now the problem becomes, if he rejects everything Bill Clinton did, then what exactly is he going to do?  That's been my question all along.

    Of course, I also believe that Barack Obama is a total opportunist so it doesn't bother him to trash Democrats and appeal to Republicans.  Bill and Hillary Clinton reached across the aisle, it's a whole different thing than selling out to get votes.


    Anglachel's Journal has a (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:21:07 AM EST
    moving, sensitive piece up this am about Hillary.  I haven't figured out yet how to link -  sure it's not rocket science but I just haven't looked at the mechanics yet.  



    here is the link (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:01:08 AM EST
    to Anglachel's hillary post

    as to "how to link" TL makes it easy.  

    1. go down to the comment area.
    2. just above the big comment box, you see a whole lot of little boxes with letters/symbols on them
    3. the 4th symbol from the right is the 'link' box.

    so, in order to create a link...

    1. go to the site that you want to link to, and COPY the url of the site
    2. come back to TL, and HIGHLIGHT text in the comment box that you want people to click on
    3. Click on the 'link" box.  A small box will appear.
    4. PASTE the url from the site you want to link to

    You'll see a whole lot of code where the text you highlighted used to be.  That the link, and it will show up as a link when you "submit" your comment.

    thanks - (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:27:47 AM EST
    and it will show up in preview when I check to see if it worked?  Right?

    Is this it? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ding7777 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:07:49 AM EST
    "perfect..." (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:40:51 AM EST
    , he said, as he patted himself on the back... ;)

    I agree with your take. The O campaign (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    was built on changing the gridlock in DC and as Lakoff says, it is the framing that needs to change.  Today a columnist on our local paper says the old party (Which HRC represents she says) is about identity politics and Obama represents the "we are all middle Americans with the same values".  That would be wonderful IF we all had the same values. Bill Clinton certainly stressed that over and over.  Remember him saying we can fix whats wrong with america with what is right in America?  Or our differences are not as great as what brings us together.  Obama had to destroy HRC so he could rule like Bill? Why o why didn't he become the VP to her and then the Prez in 2016? We could have had that leadership for 16 years. Tragic if he loses.

    Excuse me... (none / 0) (#124)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:52:14 AM EST
    Republicanism equals a sense of home? What does that mean?

    Also... you don't trust Obama on questions of economics? Do you trust McCain on issues of economics? Good heavens... I don't trust either of them on issues of economics, but I trust McCain a lot less as my posts over the months have shown.

    McCain has admitted that he knows nothing about economics... so... who do you think is running his economic policy team? Who do you think? You might want to look into that.

    Also look into who is running Obama's economic policy team.

    The members of both economic policy teams are or have been connected with think tanks. Do a little research and then get back to us.


    Austan Goolsbee, Jeffrey Leibman, (none / 0) (#136)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:16:39 AM EST
    David Cutler, academics.

    Robert Rubin - ?? others

    They are centrists - I would have hoped for more imagination and frankly more left leaning policies.  

    So what if one is associated with think tanks?  Depends on the think tank - lots of right wing think tanks out there.

    I didn't say to me but McCain offers a sense of home to many Republicans - (now that I rewrite - many homes as a matter of fact - 6 or 7).  Political parties can be institutions that people passionately identify with.  Part of my personal story is that I am a Democrat.  Besides the sharp edges of politics - there is a sense of home - to me at least.  People express such things differently.

    Thank you for your courtesy - but I don't think I'll get back to you other than this quick note.    


    Maybe it is just me, but obama seems (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:17:41 AM EST
    averse to hard work, when it comes to winning over voters...mindless followers he doesn't have a problem with, working to get a vote is an entirely different story.

    Hillary isn't adverse to hard work. (5.00 / 0) (#131)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:25:22 AM EST
    Why not VP Clinton?

    While I would truly feel uncomfortable with Hillary serving under Obama, I would definitely feel more confident that work would get done.


    It's true....even though the thought is, (1.00 / 1) (#134)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:44:42 AM EST
    shall we say, icky.  If obama was all about what is good for the party, I sincerely believe he should take a step back to make sure we do win the GE.  That is what a loyal party person would do...put ego aside and go for the win.

    Even before the convention (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Cards In 4 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:55:21 AM EST
    it was up to Obama to unite the party.  That's part of running a primary campaign that you know it doesn't end at the last caucaus or primary vote.  It's why you don't tag your opponent as a racist. And why you don't bungle the VP pick.

    The Obama campaign acts like a hurt puppy because HRC isn't uniting the party.  Sorry, they have to quit measuring for drapes in the WH and do their work.


    ABC's George Stephanopoulos (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:02:33 AM EST
    critiquing Hillary's speech: Hillary still didn't say Obama was qualified to be president and when she praised Michelle, Hillary should have "blown her a kiss."

    please tell me (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:33:00 AM EST
    you forgot to put {snark} after your comment.  That's just ... I can't find the word for it!  "Blow her a kiss"?



    C'mon Obama - blow me a kiss! (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:59:48 AM EST
    I dare him to say that.

    No - it wasn't snark - LOL (none / 0) (#145)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:53:44 AM EST
    George Stephanopoulos really said Hillary should have personalized her speech by blowing Michelle a kiss.

    Exactly right (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by pmj6 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:52:01 AM EST
    If Obama is not the one to unite the party, if that task is beyond his abilities, what business does he have being the nominee?

    I don't think (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by mikeyleigh on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:40:23 AM EST
    Obama can carry the ball.  I've told my wife  (who plans to hold her nose and vote for the Great One) two months ago that all Obama needed to do was give me one good reason to vote for him.  Since then, he's praised the SC's opinions on gun control and executions, soft-pedalled his approach to withdrawal in Iraq, supported the FISA bill, and reversed his position on off-shore drilling.  At this point in time, I still see no good, compelling reason to vote for Obama.  And with Cass Sunstein lurking in the shadows, a Supreme Court vacancy isn't a good reason.

    and suggests that it's (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:39:19 AM EST
    religious organizations who should be paid to be charitable.  To offer the social networks Democrats like me believe the government should provide.  Should churches be involved - yes, of course - but from bottom up - from the hearts of their people.  Some funding may be appropriate but why give my tax dollars to a set of religions - allegience should be to us - the people, the government, not a hierarchy of churches.  

    This one really is troubling - and I am a practicing Catholic - though not a conservative one.

    Still, I know he's gathering votes - but this seems so dangerous.  Is it me?  


    And, I keep writing Hillary encouraging (1.00 / 0) (#130)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:24:45 AM EST
    her and Bill to start the NEW Democratic Party, one that stands for what this democratic party should be standing for....it is mindnumbing how low the democratic party has sunk this campaign.
    IMO, Dean Pelosi, Reid, et all want obama in office, so that they really won't have to work...with McCain, they would actually have to do some.

    Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by pixelpusher on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:46:11 AM EST
    I wasn't always a huge fan of Hillary but she totally blew it away last night.  What a skillful speech -- weaving the struggles of women and minorities together by referring to American history that happened in her home constituency (NY)!  So forcefully and personally delivered.  (and speechifying usually isn't her strong suit)

    I just can't see Obama ever topping that.  

    Her speeches are always great (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by rooge04 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:03:46 AM EST
    It's a MSM-lie that she is not good at giving speeches. Every single one I've seen her give has been amazing.

    She has always delivered a good (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:10:15 AM EST
    speech.  Where's the youtube of her glowingly praising Barack America ;)?

    My first thought (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by tek on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:16:05 AM EST
    where did this nonsense come from that Hillary isn't good at speeches?  Just because she doesn't get up and reiterate MLK's words and alter her voice to sound like him.

    That Was A Great Speech! (3.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Cugel on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:48:39 AM EST
    If Hillary had given that kind of performance back in January, she'd be the nominee right now.

    As for those who think Obama won't live up to what Hillary called for:

    Do you think this is a dictatorship? We have the power to demand that the President follow through. Once Obama is in office, the grass-roots lobbying begins.

    That's when the real fight starts, because any President will be surrounded by corporate flacks who would roll-over and die rather than see real change.

    President Hillary would have had the same problem.

    Unless WE start lobbying intensely and keep going, nothing is going to change no matter who gets elected.

    But, at least if McSame is sent packing we have a CHANCE. With him in office, it's just 4 more years of Bush crony capitalism, endless budget deficits and more war. In short, by the time 2012 comes around, we'll be a 3rd world nation, with lots of military hardware we can't afford, and no jobs.


    Um, that, or Obama will destroy (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by dk on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:51:56 AM EST
    the Democratic brand for a generation, so we will be even more powerless than we even are now.  If the Democratic leadership is so corrupt that we can not even stage a remotely fair primary contest, what does it say about the values of the leadership?

    My question:  Is Obama ready to flip-flop to the point where he actually supports Democratic positions, and even if he is ready to, is it even possible at this point for him to do so?


    With all due respect, as I (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:07:24 AM EST
    see your points.  Did you watch the bush presidency?  Did you watch the Democratic congress get tough with that presidency?  Did you see the people power at work?  

    Uhm no (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:28:18 AM EST
    The time for the lobbying is now while we have the leverage of something he needs, our votes.  If he makes it into office, we won't have any leverage for another three years when the next election roles around when we re-evaluate for votes based on how well he delivered on his promises.  

    I'd like to believe that we have that (none / 0) (#155)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:18:54 PM EST
    much power, because now that Obama is it, there aren't many options. If the left wing hadn't been so fixated on destroying the Clinton wing and bringing them to heel, I could be hopeful that a secondary power source would be there to hold the line.  But Nancy Pelosi and gang are all of the same and I am not hopeful.

    I feel heartsick that we lost the chance (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:47:14 AM EST
    to have that president.  I know that I have a better chance of having such a country if Obama is our next president.  Even if he isn't "that" president he will be surrounded by voices telling him we need those things.  I suppose that is as good as it's going to get.  Maybe that's as good as it ever was but I'll never know.

    I don't see him surrounded by the fighters (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:34:11 AM EST
    at all.  He's not now.  He had to let the Clintons speak during the convention; but once the convention is over he can insulate himself from them rather easily.  People like Ed Rendell are fighters, but Obama's not listening to him now, after the ge Ed is just a Democratic governor, not even someone in Congress who has 1 vote's worth of power over Obama.

    well (1.00 / 6) (#13)
    by pixelpusher on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:01:21 AM EST
    To be fair one has to be feel heartsick that Hillary messed up her own campaign and her chance to be that candidate in the primaries.

    whatever (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:03:16 AM EST
    nothing like the self righteous to remind me that I'm living in a freedom of speech democracy.

    See, that right there is the problem. (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by rooge04 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:05:02 AM EST
    One cannot even remotely mention Hillary in a positive light without one of Obama's WORST enemies trying to remind you of what got you so angry to begin with. People like you will lose this election for Obama.

    HUH? (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by pixelpusher on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:30:15 AM EST
    I am not an Obama fan.  But it is true that Hillary did not run her primary campaign very well.  How is that divisive?

    Regardless of the issues within (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by rooge04 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:36:53 AM EST
    her campaign, Obama had his issues too.  Every campaign does. My point is that you only know of Hillary's and speak on them because the MSM kept telling you that her campaign was in tatters.   Pretty amazing campaign, IMO considering that the entire media, blogosphere, and most journalists were personally against her.

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:40:19 AM EST
    I have asked you to remove myself from my threads.

    I am dong this for Obama.

    Please repsect my instruction to you.

    Do not comment any further in my threads today.


    me? (none / 0) (#63)
    by pixelpusher on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:02:50 AM EST
    Are you talking to me?  I'm really confused.  Can you explain?

    Yes you (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:20:43 AM EST
    And now permanently.

    We got some inclination from (none / 0) (#158)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:36:42 PM EST
    some in the media that her campaign was not run well and some of it is true and some not. Hindsight is always better than forsite.  But so far with Obama slipping badly in the polls we have to assume the same amount of infighting and backbiting is going on there too.  How else do you explain that he is not miles ahead at this point? In addition he outspent HRC 4X1 or 3X1 in the big states that he lost.  So all is not great there either.

    charges of racism are serious! (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:12:53 AM EST
    but Obama and his clan cast them about like seeds.
    Obama never stood up to denounce the false charges against the Clintons - because he approved them and benefited from them.

    What if Obama messes (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:14:18 AM EST
    up his campaign to be the president?

    I think some people will be more than "heartsick" over that.


    Suicidal is more like it (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Xeno on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:37:20 AM EST
    The management at MSNBO had better remove all sharps from the building if their candidate loses.

    For Obama's good (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:18:39 AM EST
    I am banning you from my threads.

    good lord (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by pixelpusher on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:08:40 AM EST
    What people post on this blog is not going to mortally wound Obama.

    If Obama needs this sort of "protection," he must be weaker than some of us fear.


    You are now banned permanently (1.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:20:17 AM EST
    I told you not to post in my threads today and you RESPOND to my comment.

    Do not come back to my thread ever again.

    I do not want you and I will delete every single comment you make in my threads.


    Awww BTD I thought she was young. (none / 0) (#159)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:39:29 PM EST
    Give her a break.

    This (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by tek on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:18:26 AM EST
    attitude is why I will never vote for him.   The blame Hillary Obamabots.  Once more, HE GOT DOUBLE DELEGATES FOR BEING AA AND THE RBC TOOK HER ELECTED DELEGATES AND GAVE THEM TO OBAMA.  GET IT?  He still didn't have enough delegates to win.  

    Honestly, if his supporters really can't follow the facts, I worry very much about an Obama presidency.  These people think just like paleocons.


    but (none / 0) (#108)
    by pixelpusher on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:22:30 AM EST
    I'm not an Obamabot.  Read my previous posts on different threads if you don't believe me.  Click on my name and review all my prior comments.

    She did great didn't she? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Lahdee on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:51:21 AM EST
    She supported his major themes, she acknowledged his personal history, she defined what's at stake should Obama not be elected and she urged support of he and Mr. Biden.

    Of course Craig Crawford, suffering from a severe case of CDS didn't feel she added enough of a personal touch. He didn't feel the love and accuses her of providing "No Personal Touch in Clinton's Endorsement."
    I have no idea what speech he was watching, but I'm hard pressed to believe it was the one Mrs. Clinton delivered.

    I wish they'd just say. (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:54:05 AM EST
    "Not enough!  She needed to do MORE!".

    Why paraphrase when you can use the standard narrative?


    At least Keith Olbermann ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by robrecht on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:21:25 AM EST
    who's been impossible to listen to this whole campaign, resorted to a metaphor he can understand, and immediately declared Hillary's speech a "Grand Slam."  Don't know if he screwed it up later, but for once I agreed with him.

    Keith is smart sometimes. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:56:49 AM EST
    Not often enough.

    It is a silly piece from Crawford (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:17:47 AM EST
    and I think it is viewed as such.

    Don't think the piece is silly. (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:54:55 AM EST
    Heard the same sort of things last night. I tend to "tepidly" agree because everytime Hillary said Barack Obama it just didn't seem to roll out. I tended to dismiss it because I loved her speech, her delivery, her overall message, and I believe she did what she had to do, that others, by the way in her position, never had to do. Just seeing Biden's face during her speech said a lot. Suddenly, he became the veep pick and suddenly, she was the enemy. Pretty dumb and childish!

    Well (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:14:07 AM EST
    You are entitled to your opinion.

    To me it is so silly, it does not even merit discussion.


    Then, let's not discuss it. (none / 0) (#109)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:24:13 AM EST
    Wouldn't have worked (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:45:39 AM EST
    Hillary giving an adoring personal endorsement of Obama is not necessary and wouldn't have worked.  Obama doesn't need the people she was targeting to love him, just pull the lever for him.  Hillary knows that the hold outs are practical, care about the issues.  She gave them a reason to vote for Obama even if they don't like him by making it about the issues and bigger picture.  Forget the past and don't focus on your feelings about one man.  Look beyond the candidate to what you have been fighting to achieve for the direction of the nation that will be best for you, your family and your fellow man.  

    I think Hillary did what she could do and the other half of the battle is up to Obama now.


    She could have done more... (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:11:48 AM EST
    ...if she was willing to be dishonest about what she thinks.

    Its to her credit that she made the strongest case she possibly could for Obama while remaining true to her convictions.  

    Clinton's critics demand that she pretend that she has no reservations about Obama -- yet anyone who doesn't have reservations about him is simply not paying attention.  Its possible to give unequivocal support for someone, while still having unspoken reservations about them -- and that is exactly what Hillary did last night.


    If she had been dishonest (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:35:54 AM EST
    she would have failed because she would have lost credibility with the people Obama needed her to reach.  Her critics will never be satisfied but they are either already voting for Obama or will never vote for him.  Of the rest, some might be convinced to vote for him if he can figure out the onus is on him to reach out for their vote.

    Craig Crawford? He used to be a (none / 0) (#156)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:20:56 PM EST
    Clinton supporter and then suddenly disappeared from MSNBC.  Maybe they let him back on if he promised to be good.

    Charlie Rose last night (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:56:50 AM EST
    a bunch of pundits and strategists sitting around proposing what Bill Clinton should do to help Obama! One said Clinton should campaign with Obama in rural areas and small towns (where those white bitter voters live).
    See, it's all about how the Clintons can help pull Obama over the finish line.
    Supposedly, Clinton will not attend Obama's speech tomorrow night. I don't blame him!  Obama "won" the nomination largely by allowing the Clintons to be falsely accused of racism!

    For unity - it's time for Obama to apologize!

    because Obama called them racists, (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:07:31 AM EST
    clinging to their guns and religion.
    Also Obama accentuates his elitism and "celebrity" presidential run by going the Invesco route.

    comparisons (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by pixelpusher on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:29:04 AM EST
    I can't help thinking that Hillary's speech is still going to be in the political memory when Obama's big Invesco fete has been forgotten.  We'll see.  She did so well with her speech, that you can't help but mentally make a comparison to Obama's Big Moment.

    I think it was a huge mistake for them to put up this ostentatious stadium show.


    Definitely Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:48:03 AM EST
    It will play right into McCain'ss elitist and rock start theme. After GWB's fiasco with the aircraft carrier, you would think politician's would realize that some things should be left to Hollywood.

    but Obama wouldn't have gotten this far (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by Josey on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:06:46 AM EST
    without his Hollywood PR and marketing strategists.

    Is joining the Democratic Party (5.00 / 10) (#26)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:08:02 AM EST
    like volunteering for life long servitude or something?

    Geez, Bill Clinton has done his time and has turned the page and moved on to other work.  He's no longer an elected public servant.  He holds no official position in the DNC (IIRC) and yet they want to press him into service?  How about forking over some campaign cash?  (Wonder what Bill's speaking fee is.)

    Pffft.  Let them get Oprah or someone else who is into Obama.  Maybe Jesse Jackson Junior?  (Bwa-ahahaha!)


    BINGO (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jjsmoof on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:25:19 AM EST
    Why does Bill put up with this?  I've been wondering this exact thing for awhile Fabian.

    Because despite the (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:08:13 AM EST
    media with its CDS; despite Bill's flaws (and he is a flawed person like we all are, only his are for public consumption and for men who have screwed up as much him or more, the focus of public derision), this man is a helluva a democrat, a true patriot and brilliant.

    This is why the likes of Dean, Daschle can't stand it.  They can't even come close to the man in the ability to get people excited about doing good stuff for the country.
    And the pundits.  Bill hits every guilt button for them.  These guys who have trashed him publicly for his private life would be dead in the water if their private lives were on display; these guys, especially the KO type, pretending to be progressives, live lives of decadence and then pretend be something they are not.

    Bill may have screwed up in stupid ways.  But unlike the pundit class and some of his colleagues in politics, he was never a sanctimonious hypocrite.


    Maybe Bill "puts up with it" ... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Roosevelt Fan on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:14:58 PM EST
    right at the moment at least ... because of Hillary. He owes her a lot, including the realizing of his own ambitions. And there's that line he has to walk that's almost too fine when it comes to the danger of upending her political future. While in the past he's compromised their personal relationship, last night his respect and depth of feeling for her was quite evident. The camera caught him with eyes tearing up at one point and at another, mouthing (three times in a row) "I love you." For public consumption? Perhaps. But it seemed quite genuine. "Putting up with it" may be something Bill has decided to do... for Hillary.  

    The question (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 06:59:39 AM EST
    is: Can Obama make that same speech? The reports on Invesco Field are not good, imo. Columns like the WH? The hubris is just astounding. He's going to rise up from the ground like Jesus arose from the dead?

    Hillary did a world of good last night. Obama should take notes and follow her lead. We'll see. I'm not hopeful from what I've seen so far.

    Lincoln Memorial (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by pixelpusher on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:02:40 AM EST
    My impression was that the columns were supposed to represent the Lincoln Memorial.  If they are trying to portray Obama as the heir to MLK, that just makes me feel queasy.

    Hillary didn't need a statue of Susan B. Anthony behind her in order to make her point.


    Why is (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:06:05 AM EST
    it that Obama always has to be the next X. This reminds me of George W. Bush who was supposed to be the next Reagan, the next Truman etc.

    My point (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:44:46 AM EST
    being is why all the silly hoopla? It only helps the GOP and reinforces everything that McCain has been saying.

    Obama could have done his speech like all the other speakers.


    What is strikingly absent from (5.00 / 10) (#74)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:18:14 AM EST
    Obama's campaign, and from the man himself, is any sense that he is, in fact, just a man, that he understands the magnitude of responsibility that comes with the office he seeks, and even a scintilla of humility in asking the American people to put their trust in him.

    What really matters here?  Is it where the speech is given, or what the stage looks like?  How the candidate enters?  I have to tell you that when Hillary was speaking last night, she could have been doing so from the back of a pick-up truck in the middle of a field, or from an upended fruit crate in the middle of the Farmer's Market, or in the middle of a city street, and it would not have mattered to the power of her words and her message; it fell away as it should have because the woman delivering the speech did not need a grandiose setting to make her more than who she is - who she is was already big enough and strong enough to be able to stand on her own.  

    Does Obama need the optics of a Hollywood sound stage-movie set to elevate his speech?  Will it mean more delivered from a replica of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of MLK, Jr.'s famous speech?  Does he really want people to be talking about the theatrics - or the words?  

    What Obama does not seem to appreciate is the power of humility.  Do not be fooled into thinking this is about opening up the event to the common folk; this is about making sure that the common folk understand the awesomeness of Barack Obama.

    Finally, I feel compelled to say that your unnecessarily adversarial, confrontational and snide tone detracts from any point you think you are making, and is adding very little positive to the general discourse.


    Anne, again, you have (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:12:36 AM EST
    captured my thoughts. Obama's god-like put on personna may impress some, but it to me is only that, a personna. I want a human-american as my president, I leave the gods to the ancients and to the ages.

    in my business (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:28:31 AM EST
    great actors can work miracles on a bare stage with poor lighting, wearing a t-shirt and jeans and with no props.  

    The less talented actors insist on complex sets and lighting, tons of props,  historically correct and specially made costumes and all their friends sitting in the front row night after night to wildly applaud everything he or she says or does.

    What you often find, though, is the end result is hardly worth the time, expense and great effort.

    In the end, the less talented are forgotten while the Greats have True Power and stay with you forever.

    I suspect the same can be said of Politics.


    the word 'facade' (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:24:43 AM EST
    essentially, it comes down to the fact that these columns signify the artificiality implicit in the word "facade", and reinforces the perception that the "front" or "face" of the structure has no relationship to what is actually going on inside.

    Obama's failure to define himself -- and the McCain campaign's successful efforts to charaterize his as "arrogant" and an "empty suit" rock star -- raise the public awareness of the elements of "stagecraft" being employed by Obama.  "Facades" are supposed to work on a subconscious level -- those non-structural columns in front of the bank are there to project an image of strength and stability -- but the effort to project that image is undermined when you know the columns have nothing to do with the structural integrity of the building itself.  


    There's a reason why colonades are a (none / 0) (#137)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:19:50 AM EST
    common architectural feature in the Western World, and esp. in Washington DC.  It wasn't just a passing fad when they were building them.  It's to claim the inheritance of the 'birthplace of democracy', to establish a connection between a revered past and the present.

    It is the equivalent in non-monarchical societies of constructing a throne on stage.


    So does obama want to look (none / 0) (#157)
    by hairspray on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 01:26:27 PM EST
    like the branch manager at your bank?  Or is it about trying to evoke Abraham Lincoln?

    If you hadn't said that the (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:12:13 AM EST
    columns were supposed to represent the W.H. I wouldn't have suspected that at all. It looks more like something out of Greece. Is the seal going to be out there as well?

    You're (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by tek on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:23:15 AM EST
    not serious?  Columns and rising up from the ground.

    The presidential seal thing was bad enough.  I mean if anyone wants to ask about his judgment,  just look at that fiasco.  Really, Obama looks like he's playing a role in a movie and it's turning out to be a farce.


    That's (none / 0) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:30:58 AM EST
    what the article said. Maybe it was supposed to look like the Lincoln memorial but the first thing that came into my mind was "he thinks he's already in the WH".

    Simplicity is better in (none / 0) (#93)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:00:19 AM EST
    these times.  Besides - he can carry a speech well - why does he need all this stuff? Might it detract from a Democratic message?  but it is his call and the money came from his people (individual and corps) -

    I've (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 12:51:53 PM EST
    seen the pictures they don't help. Greek temple is the way they actually look which isn't any better.

    Hillary (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by sas on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:02:54 AM EST
    showed what a true Democrat is last night.

    She kept true to herself, stating the ideals that she believes in, showing others where our country should go.

    It is truly a shame that she is not the candidate.  The Democratic party is nominating the wrong person.

    She did more than anyone has been expected to do in this country's political history.

    Now, can Obama play the ball she has picked up for him?

    I bet (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by sas on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:04:42 AM EST
    Obama, being Obama, will show he feels he is entitled to what she did - and piss everyone off again.

    I want him to prove us wrong (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:07:29 AM EST
    It is time to prove us wrong just as Hillary proved all of his more "ardent" supporters last night that they were full of hot air.

    They have settled on the appropriate bash. (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:07:08 AM EST
    She didn't say glowing, wonderful things about Obama. They could not fault her message or her delivery, so now it is about if she layered on the Obama love thick enough. This is how the media and Obama supporter-fans will continue to hurt Obama. No one can do enough. That is very dangerous for Obama because it sends out a signal that if you don't adore Obama then you are not a true Democrat or supporter. They have to realize that not everyone will ADORE Obama and that it isn't necessary to do so in order to vote for him.

    All the (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:09:15 AM EST
    positive things she did for Obama go down the drain, whoosh, in less than 24 hours. Amazing, simply amazing. I'm surprised that Obama's campaign doesn't start to come down on these people. Oh, wait, I forgot about how inept his campaign has been.

    we the people vs we the favored few (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:18:26 AM EST
    is of course an important issue, and I hope Obama does believe in "we the people" down to his core. The first test of that core belief will be at the roll call vote. If he has that at his core, we will see an open roll call vote and see the votes shape up as we saw them in the primaries. If we don't see that, then I'm afraid what I will understand as his core belief will be "we the favored few". I can be convinced. Hillary made me keep an open mind. Now it's up to Obama to pull me over the line.

    SO MUCH (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:32:00 AM EST
    of Hillary's speech was directed right straight at Obama... not at us at all. It was as though she was outlining his responsibilities at him and for him since he has not been able to do it for himself. 1, 2, 3, 4... it was an outline. I just wonder... did he get it. Will he measure up.

    That's how it struck me also (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:02:43 AM EST
    It wasn't just about why we have to elect a Democrat, but also about how the Democrat we elect has to govern. If Obama shows, on Thursday and thereafter, that he is the Democrat she outlined, most will have no trouble whatsoever in voting for him.

    Well put! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:28:57 AM EST
    ...and I will feel better about voting for him as well.

    Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:30:51 AM EST
    I agreed with everything Clinton said and implied about what the next Democratic president must do.  I just don't believe he has the will or the ability to do it.

    There's no evidence of him fighting or being willing to expend political capital to fight the good fight.  He's switched his positions on issues so frequently in the last 6 months that he can't be depended on to do what he promises in any case.

    That is the problem with his FISA vote -- not just the willingness to side with telcos over the American people on the 4th Amendment (although the 4th Amend. is extremely important on its own), but his willingness to stand up on important issues, not just when it's convenient, but when it matters.

    Warner, who was the keynote speaker the Obama campaign chose to put up on the podium, spoke yet again of post-partisanship; Clinton, the speaker who they had to let speak, spoke of what it is to be a real Democrat.  So, so far, the message from the Obama campaign is not the message Clinton gave.  That's not terribly encouraging.  Combine that with Obama's suppression of liberal 527s, and you have a candidate who would rather not rock the boat than be a fighter.


    I think Clinton also did a good job (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:57:11 AM EST
    talking about the beginning of Obama's career.  "Barack Obama began his career fighting for workers displaced by the global economy..."  For many people that characterization is going to make more sense than "community organizing," which might resonate with the MoveOn crowd but likely strikes others as nebulous.

    Again - this is one heck of an endorsement.  It's going to be all over TV today too.

    It makes me wonder if, had Obama chosen Hillary as VP, he would have been able to hold off the CDS and remain the media darling.  Last night she really got the respect and admiration of the media...maybe it was a one-time thing.

    Yes, that's what we need. (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:16:47 AM EST
    But I do not see Obama as fulfilling that need.  Guess I shall wait till '12.

    What is WRONG (3.50 / 2) (#56)
    by OldCity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:52:58 AM EST
    with 1/2 of the posters this am?

    HRC is a pro...she clearly enunciated exactly why we should get behind Obama.  If you can't be convinced by the stark choices that she laid out, then your analytical skills need a little work.

    HRC, McCain and Obama have done all the convincing they need to do vis' the ramifications of choosing the Republican versus the Democrat.  

    Both Obama and clinton have articulated pretty clear positions. Any assertion that "we don't know him", or he has to "put in the work" is just a canard.  At this point, he shouldn't really have to do much, not for the Democrats.  You either want the next President to be a Democrat, or you don't.  Clinton was explicit in that regard.  

    She's shown that she understands...and she's not throwing a sop to Obama, or doing what's "expected" or any of those other petty little charges that are consistently thrown out.  She's illustrated the long term ramifications of not getting behind the nominee.  

    If, as so many of you say, she was the better choice, she's the more experienced, she tells the TRUTH...then don't you think that she might be right about the necessity of voting for Obama?  Or do you think she's trying to mislead you?

    I supported her in the primary, but I've supported Obama since it became clear that he was the prospective nominee.  If we're all true to our Democratic values, then we should all support Obama, because the alternative is terrible to contemplate.  I suggest to the more truculent posters that they ight at least show HRC the respect you say she deserves by taking her advice.  (Of course, if you state that she just "said what they wanted her to say", you know, then you are implicitly accusing her of lying to you.  Just an FYI.)

    um, we're not sheep (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:05:39 AM EST
    Do I get a cookie now? snark. Of course she says vote for Obama. Of course any dem party leader will be saying that. And they mean it. What does that have to do with some people hear having issues with the DNC or with Obama? The DNC is broken and corrupt. Some of us don't like that. Obama ran a dirty campaign, some didn't like that. Of course pols are pols. Many can get over that, but not because Hillary says so, and certainly not because there's a D beside Obama's name. He still has to ask for and earn our votes.

    Many of us will (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:15:27 AM EST
    vote for Obama and follow Hillary's lead.

    That said, many of us will NOT support the DNC, support the cheating lying bias of Dean, Brazille and the rest.  We know the difference between getting the dem nom elected, supporting Hillary to make sure she can push the party in the direction it needs to go and letting Dean and friends get a pass.

    When this is over, Hillary will retain a lot of power in the party and with time, those of us who see what happened in this process will work also to get the Dean party out of power.


    Suggestion (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:20:51 AM EST
    This is the wrong approach:

    I suggest to the more truculent posters that they ight at least show HRC the respect you say she deserves by taking her advice.

    You may have been a Hillary supporter in the primary but I don't think you understand her supporters who are reluctant to vote for Obama.  Make the case without the condescension.  Let people have a bit of a chance to digest what was said, their choices and more importantly, don't spoil it before Obama has the opportunity to reach them on Thursday.


    The DNC and the GE are discrete issues (2.00 / 0) (#86)
    by OldCity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:46:19 AM EST
    ...that's what I've been trying to say for weeks.

    You can be as angry as you want at the DNC.  I suggest though, that a McCain presidency is not the proper way to "punish" them.  HRC gets that, and she pretty clearly pointed it out.

    You're not going to change the DNC unless it's from within.  I think that it's possible to get behind the nominee, win the election AND reform the DNC.  

    No one is going to argue that the pary was not well served by the DNC rules on the primaries.  but, electing a guy that has voted with BUSH 95% of the time is not going to effect change in the DNC.  I think it will marginalize the people who didn't support the party nominee.  How can you have standing in an effort to change the party if you didn't even support the standard bearer of the basic principles?  That's essentially what HRC said last night and that's the charge that will be made if Obama loses (please don't bother arguing that it won't be HRC supporter's fault if he loses.  That doesn't matter.  the overwhelming perception of the public does, and, book it, that's going to be the meme.)

    There's nothing left, really, to "get over".  Now it's a zero sum game.  You pick one or the other.  MY view though, is that if you don't support Obama, and vote for him, than you are contributing to a possible loss for the PARTY.  I fail to see how that advances Hillary's causes and legislative interests.  No one needs to be curried favor to any longer...now we must be advocates for a party more than a person.  


    First of all, we don't need your permission (5.00 / 11) (#103)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:15:46 AM EST
    to be angry, nor do we need instruction from you on the proper way to express that anger.  Many of the commenters here have indicated that they will not be voting for McCain, and those who are choosing to vote for him are doing so for reasons that matter to them.  It ill behooves you to keep lecturing people on what our votes mean or should mean or have to mean.

    Second, either you inserted the word "not" by mistake, or you are sadly mistaken that no one is going to argue that the party was "not" well served, because arguing that it was not well-served has been and continues to be a big issue for many of us.  There are many of us who see a very strong connection between the election and the DNC, and believe a loss for which quite a few of those DNC poo-bahs can be held responsible may very well mean they get tossed out on their collective ears - something that would be a step in the right direction.

    As a Democrat, I have standing to make changes, or to argue for changes or to work for changes within the party, regardless of whether I did or did not vote for the person you term "the standard-bearer."  In fact, it is that standard-bearer's "principles" that many of us see as part and parcel of the problem, and giving them a seal of approval is not the way to ensure that they do not take root.

    I don't care if I am blamed for Obama's loss; what other people think of me, or how they choose to rationalize something is not in my control.  If he loses, it will be because he failed - you know, just as Hillary's loss has been blamed on her failures.  It is not my job to protect Obama from failure when he seems indifferent to doing the work he needs to do to get votes from loyal Democrats like me; he ignores me, he abandons the core principles I hold dear and he fails to keep his word at his peril.  I cannot continue to keep voting for people who want the easy, fall-into-line-like-a-good-little-Democrat win; I will not be taken for granted anymore.

    Should Obama lose, it will be up to the Democratic majority, the men and women of the U.S. Congress, to fight for the party's agenda, to hold the line against John McCain, to work and act in the spirit of Hillary Clinton's call to arms.  Are they up to that task?  Hard to predict, and I am not even sure they are up to it even with a Democratic president.

    Am I cutting off my nose to spite my face?  Perhaps, in your view, but your judgment about me does not interest me, and I will not be bullied into voting for someone - again - on the basis of the arguments you make.  I appreciate and respect Hillary's request that we come together behind Obama, but we each have to answer to ourselves; even she knows that, so I would appreciate it if you would also show the same respect to us.


    Don't guilt us out (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:19:30 AM EST
    here.  That's certainly the theme the Republicans will put out.  There may be other fall out.  Implied threat here that if we don't vote for Obama, we're doomed.  

    Not many posters have said they won't vote for Obama.  Many of us will - I am in Illinois so....

    No one needs to be curried favor to any longer - can you flesh that out?  Myself, I wasn't looking for a post in the upcoming administration.


    well... (2.00 / 0) (#125)
    by OldCity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:53:40 AM EST
    I did mistakenly insert a "not".

    The achilles heel of the party has always been an utter inability to sacrifice for the win.  that's why we've won so few national races in recent memory, we're becoming a caricature.  Represent me!  No, me!  No, me!  Don't take me for granted, I have an issue, too!

    It's ridiculous on it's face to assume, as many do, that Obama is some traitor to the party ideals.  It's also not supportable.  Even HRC said so last night.  Many may not like him, or the way he won the primary, but that's not the same.  He's a traditional liberal.  He's also a pragmatist.  I find it interesting that Bill Clinton, possibly the most concilliatory Democrat ever, in a governmental/legislative sense, is hallowed as the gold standard, yet a guy who shows similar pragmatism is vilified.  It's really not consistent, and it's pretty disappointing.  

    I'm not condescending.  I'm pointing out the starkness of the choice.  Are you willing to lose the White House, despite everything that your candidate has said about the ramifications?  At what point do you decide that party matters (not the DNC, but the items that HRC pointed out...healthcare, diplomacy, the Supreme Court, equal pay, on and on and on...)?

    A history of losing and futility is not something to be proud of (vis the "cutting my nose off to spite my face" comment above), it's embarrassing.  Congress is designed to be inefficient; it's the embodiment of Federalism.  Thus, we need the Presidency.  And, if it requires us to "fall in line", well, we should.  Because it's bigger than us and our individual issues.  

    I am not willing to lose the Presidency because some are under the delusion that doing so will result in sweeping change within the party.  For starters, it's just not a realistic view.  You (above) are not going to be heroes.  You're going to be marginalized like you won't believe.  This is a slam dunk year, and the Democrats LOSE because they can't get it together?  Can't you hear that coming?  They didn't even have the foresight to get the White House and then fix their internal issues?  The future of America (it's written in the Whte house, not the Congress) is in their hands and they BLOW it?  

    That's what I mean by "curried favor to".  You don't need to be asked anymore.  None of us do.  We have to make the affirmative decision to win.  It starts with us...we have one nominee and he shouldn't have to beg.  McCain is HATED by huge numbers within his party,  but they are just KILLING to assure his election.  How does that escape so many Democrats?  

    HRC put it best...is it about me, or is it about all of us (sic)?  Well?  


    Well, that represent me, me me (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Xanthe on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:23:30 AM EST
    is what happens in a widely diverse party - and we are constantly assimilating different groups - that is politics and that is really how good politicians forge coalitions and policy - and that with the other side sniping.  Too long we have given in to the other side - maybe if we had taken a stronger stand - we might have won.  But we're always reacting to the Republicans and dancing around the ring.  

    You are asking me to sacrifice - sure - as a working class white older woman - I can sacrifice - I'm used to it - and my son is too.  For the party, sure why not. If a greater good will come to society.  But to me Obama is not representing the party.  Or doesn't appear to want to - misperception, maybe - but politicians are supposed to clear misperceptions.

    Your comments - though smart and forceful - are more of the same - you have no choice, vote for Obama because the alternative is worse.  And many who are uneasy will vote for him.  If I were in a danger state, I certainly would.  sweeping changes may very well come with Obama as well -

    White House/Congress - that is a seesaw - that changes. And maybe we're not winning because we picked the weaker candidate - but that is done with now so we have to go with the candidate we have.  Hey, I get it!

    Sorry I embarrass you - but as I said I'm a good sacrificer.  And now you have guilted me not only as to this election but as to the last two and others - drops head to desk.  

    Curry favor to me - please be realistic about the kind of power people like me have.  and I'm in the currying business not a recipient of - that's how the working class survives. "beg" - who the heck is asking him to beg.  

    Issues - policy - that worries me with Sen. Obama.  Wealth here - migratory and volatile.

    "Since the American evoluton the distribution of American wealth had depended significantly on who controlled the Federal government, for what policies, and in behalf of what constitutuencies."  (Kevin Phillips)  Some of us are not sure about Sen. Obama.  He is new after all.  But as I said I'm a good sacrificer.


    Textbook (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:47:05 AM EST
    example of how to continue to alienate people.  You make many assumptions about me and then follow it up with more condescension.  

    I don't believe you are going to convince many people to vote for Obama.  I do think you have a better shot of continuing to drive the wedge that will keep Obama from getting more votes.  Keep pushing that unity with a sledgehammer and see how far it gets you.  


    Changing the DNC from within has not (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    worked so far.

    Any other suggestions?


    It's up (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:32:27 AM EST
    to Obama to close the sale. Hillary showed him the way but will he follow? It's not looking that way so far.

    I would suggest... (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:35:59 AM EST
    If you can't be convinced by the stark choices that she laid out, then your analytical skills need a little work.

    I would suggest that basing one's decision on the arguments provided by one side exhibits deficient analytical skills.  

    Where Clinton's argument lacked persuasive power is in its failure to rebut the arguments of the other side.  Indeed, this wasn't an "argument" at all, but a sales pitch -- the kind of thing that demands that you NOT take at face value.


    see above, but (2.00 / 0) (#128)
    by OldCity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:22:41 AM EST
    again I ask...

    What did she say that you didn't agree with?  What important thing was she wrong about?

    How much more convincing does anyone need that McCain is a bad choice?  No way I'm going to apologize to anyone who can't see that he's a bad choice and that HRC was right in her speech.

    I just don't know what people want anymore.  You either want the White House or you don't.  What, possibly, could you (in the general sense) hope to gain by losing?  Don't think that it's credibility...the other 18 million that voted for Obama?  The HRC voters that are supporting Obama?  You think they'e going to thank you for showing them the error of their ways?  Never in a million years.  If anyone thinks that they;s been disparaged so far, well, you haven't seen anything.  And, that's not a threat or some attempt to make fun...that's really what will happen.    

    You no longer have the luxury of many candidates.  You've got two.  (Barr just doesn't count)  If you are unable to discern the differences between them and the clear advantages of voting for Obama, especially if you profess to believe in the same things HRC does, then yeah, your analytical skills do need a little work.


    response (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 11:22:48 AM EST
    What did she say that you didn't agree with?  What important thing was she wrong about.

    How much more convincing does anyone need that McCain is a bad choice?  No way I'm going to apologize to anyone who can't see that he's a bad choice and that HRC was right in her speech.

    Hillary Clinton did a good job of telling us what needs to be done, and that McCain is the wrong choice to accomplish those things.  

    What she didn't do was present anywhere near a convincing case that Barack Obama is not also a bad choice.  

    The reason I wound up supporting Clinton was pretty much based on the question of experience and leadership.  At that point, I assumed that Hillary would not take the country where I wanted it to go, but do what her husband did -- fix the country so that actual progress is possible later.   Obama lacked the necessary experience to lead, but more importantly, he was promising something that he'd never delivered in the past.

    Keep in mind that despite those reservations, at that time I still planned on voting for Obama were he to be the nominee.  It took me a couple of months of watching him to conclude that he was a bad choice -- that he exhibited the kind of personality traits (hubris, willfulness, petulance) that combined with inexperience could easily be disasterous.

    Given that I can't support McCain either, under ordinary circumstances I'd probably still vote for Obama out of a sense of party loyalty.  But the actions of the party leadership have cancelled any obligations I felt toward the Party.

    Hillary Clinton failed to convince me to support Barack Obama, because she never addressed my concerns about Barack Obama, and her representations of the Party rang false -- IMHO, the Party no longer stands for any of the stuff she claimed, it merely stands for lip service to those causes -- and voting for Obama would simply reward the Party for its failure to stand for anything other than self-aggrandizement of its leadership.


    Well, one could ask, (5.00 / 0) (#117)
    by suki on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 09:38:50 AM EST
    what is wrong with you?
    Assuming your goal is to persuade others to vote for the Democratic ticket, why would you think the condescending attitude and questioning the analytical skills of other people would help you achieve this?
    If your goal is something else, please excuse the ring...

    Truculent is the word, all right (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by Boia on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:26:33 AM EST
    I supported her in the primary..

    In case anyone takes that remark at face value, OldCity said this not long ago:

    It's hard not to see her as more than a little narcissistic as she continues to talk about her 18 million voters....it would show some graciousness and some dedication to idea of party unity if she agreed to forego a vote.

    For some time now--since he switched his  allegiance to Senator Obama--he has been busier than the proverbial beaver instructing Clinton supporters to just shut up and get on the BO express.  Anybody who won't, he explains, is either a traitor (to the Democratic Party), a fool or an ingrate.

    And, of course, he instructs us to shut up, and explains to us how treasonous, foolish and ungrateful we are (for the Gift of Obama) with exactly the kind of graciousness he demands from Senator Clinton and her voters (snark).  No truculence for him (double snark).

    Ah, well, think of him as the kind of clown who entertains at children's birthday parties.  Not clever, not funny, not endearing, but wearing the silly face and making the stupid noises.


    What else ya got? (none / 0) (#135)
    by OldCity on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 10:50:57 AM EST
    Honestly, what, or who else do you have?  

    There's two viable candidates.  There's no wealth of choices.  You want to castigate me for repeatedly pointing that out, fine, I'll take it.

    But then, tell me how Democrats win the Presidency.  Tell me how, in a year where it's almost impossible to run as a Republican, you're willing (apparently) to lose the Presidency.

    And tell where Hillary was wrong when she enumerated McCain's agenda points and how Obama was a better bet.  

    Once the field is winnowed, all you have is option "A" or "B".  When you walk into the booth, the DNC doesn't matter and the media don't matter, the future does.  You want to take that as conescending, fine.  Sexist, whatever.  But then tell me what your options are.  

    I'm allowed to consider the continued p!ssing in the wind to be counterprodcutive.  I wrote above about the prevailing impression of the Democratic party.  I'm tired of the self-fulfilling prophecy.  I stand by my opinion that anyone who can't look at the greater good is, for better or worse, narccisstic.  

    So, if you have options...let's hear'em.  Who are you going to elect?    


    Also, I will say this again (none / 0) (#59)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 07:59:11 AM EST
    I think the time is right for Obama to have a sit down meet and greet with Hillary supporters and Hillary delegates (you know, the little people).  Do it at the convention.  I think it could go far...

    Well, they say he's flying (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by zfran on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:13:38 AM EST
    into Denver today. Let's see if he sits down with any of the Hillary supporters. My guess he's going over Oprah's house!

    what is the grey light of dawn? (none / 0) (#91)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Aug 27, 2008 at 08:57:41 AM EST
    is that nucular or a meteor or pollution creeping from China?  Just want to be prepared for the incoming disaster.  Fear is such a pretty thing.