Fineman: Obama Camp to Clinton Camp - We Can Win Without You

Howard Fineman writes:

Does Barack Obama think he needs the Clintons’ help this fall? And do the Clintons really want to give it to him? The answer to both questions seems to be a resounding “no.” And this could very well be the reason why a slam-dunk Obama victory in November becomes a down-to-the wire race against John McCain.

(Emphasis supplied.) Fineman quotes a Clinton fundraiser saying:

“It’s not that we’re being dismissed,” she said. “The Obama people are perfectly happy to have our support. But their attitude seems to be, ‘we can win without you.’ And I guess that’s why none of us is going from rah-rah Hillary to rah-rah Obama.”

As I have written, I think Obama is certainly going to win this election -- and that he can win without the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party. The question is why does he want to win that way? Why go for a close victory without the Clintons when you can have a slam dunk victory, a mandate giving victory, with them?

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Bush's Third Term Part 2 | Guantanamo Detainee Found Guilty of Terrorism >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama is lucky McCain is a weak candidate (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Saul on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:23:22 AM EST
    otherwise he would be have a real hard time right now. But who knows.    Maybe McCain's  VP choice will lift McCain up and this election could be a real nail biter.

    If I am not mistaken on previous thread Jeralyn has  said Obama's needs to win this one on his own to have real creditability.

    He's Also Lucky (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by flashman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:30:11 AM EST
    that the Republicans have proven theirselves of governing in a competant way.  If Obama wins, I'll chalk it up to Iraq and Katrina as much an anything else.

    If Obama doesn't win, (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:47:45 AM EST
    I think Pelosi is toast.  She helped engineer his primary victory.  

    The fraudulent elements (5.00 / 11) (#92)
    by miriam on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    of this season's primary can be directly traced to the DNC-and that includes the scurrilous Donna Brazile.  There has to be an earthmoving shake-up if/when Obama doesn't win in November or the party will be in terminal condition.  A Republican president and a Democratic Congress may be the best we can hope for, because opinion polls show Obama's support is weakening at a time when it should be steadily rising.  Apparently people are getting to know him better and don't like what they're learning.  If the Dems insist on nominating a losing candidate they deserve what they get.  The country, however, does not deserve it.      

    Good point (4.83 / 6) (#101)
    by RedSox04 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:30:48 PM EST
    Why is no one in the blogosphere mentioning the fact that whether or not Obama wins, he's underperforming generic Democrats (and Congressional Democrats) by a ton?  Wasn't he supposed to have coattails?  Doesn't appear so anymore.

    The real reason Obama is rejecting Hillary's support, imo, is that he doesn't want to be beholden to the traditional Democratic constituencies that supported HRC.  If his new coalition of young folks, African-Americans, and the Wall Street end of the GOP is enough to win, he can run roughshod over the unions, the working class, etc.

    We've already seen hints of this when he talks about Social Security (as well as the fact that he hired Jason Furman as his top econ advisor-- Furman's well known for advocating the end of SS; lest we forget Furman joins Obama's longtime advisor Austan Goolsbee of the U.Chicago).  They want to reshape American politics into a more market friendly Democratic vision (a new Third Way if you will).  

    The problem is, I think, that this approach is tone-deaf of the lessons we're now learning about the ramifications of Reagan/Bush style deregulation and market dependency.  If Obama wins in a narrow victory with this approach, he will fail in addressing the coming recession, he will fail in solving the mortgage crisis, and we will be looking an economic disaster the likes of which none of us have ever seen.  

    And that's assuming he will win.  The boring, safe choice of Evan Bayh doesn't inspire much confidence (if Kerry were the nominee in 08, I would assume Bayh would be the VP choice as well), and the fact that Obama's not really topping 50% in many polls, and that his support is mostly coming from anti-Republicanism makes me markedly uncomfortable.

    How Obama has let McCain out-populist him so far is ridiculous.  Calling someone a racist can only take you so far as a campaign tactic, Mr. Axelrod, time to find some new tricks.


    I should clarify (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by RedSox04 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    Obama has not, nor will he have, caused the mess.  That was brought about by 3 decades (only briefly interrupted by one sane and somewhat responsible President in Clinton) of Reagan/Bush insanity.

    That being said, DLC-type solutions are not going to work in the coming environment.  Big bold vision is needed, and I don't think Obama has the vision, the courage, the moral compass, or the leadership necessary.  Or maybe I missed the big bold ideas he was talking about.  Oh wait, I didn't because there hasn't been one yet.


    I find it ironic (1.00 / 2) (#126)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:05:15 PM EST
    to see people chastising the DLC on a Hillary blog.  

    I thought his energy policy was fairly bold.  But I don't hate Obama so that may cloud my views.


    Really? (none / 0) (#146)
    by Claw on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:01:40 PM EST
    Obama and Pelosi provoke the same reaction as Dubya?  No matter how much you dislike Obama and Pelosi as DEMOCRATS, you have to understand that they aren't even playing the same sport as George "My opponent fathered an illegitimate black love-child" Bush.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 08:25:34 PM EST
    What about "OMG, she mentioned June and RFK in the same paragraph, she wants me dead! She's a murderer!"


    Or as many Obama supporters have told me with apparently no sense of how absurd they are, "She has no respect for human life."

    Or maybe, as Nancy Giles said, "And Hillary--look, if he gets Hillary as his VP, he's got to hire somebody to be the official presidential taster because you don't know what`s going to be in your food. You don't know what could happen. I literally feel that way."

    Then there are all those American soldiers for whose deaths she is supposedly directly responsible for.

    So let's see - illegitimate black love child or depraved murderer. Which is the worse accusation?


    So when (none / 0) (#155)
    by Claw on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:00:36 PM EST
    Did Obama actually accuse Clinton of wanting him dead?  Or, more importantly, do you honestly believe that under a POTUS Obama we would have had to endure the invasion of Iraq, the cronyism that created the Katrina disaster, the outrageously stupid economic policies, secret energy meetings, outing of CIA agents, destruction of the justice system, the horrors of Gitmo, etc., etc., etc.?  

    When did Bush (none / 0) (#158)
    by echinopsia on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:03:24 AM EST
    actually accuse McCain of having an illegitimate black love child?

    Don't try to change the subject. You said

    you have to understand that they aren't even playing the same sport as George "My opponent fathered an illegitimate black love-child" Bush.

    do you honestly believe that under a POTUS Obama we would have had to endure

    I honestly believe (because he has said as much) that under a POTUS Obama no one will be held accountable for these things.

    Please recall that Obama and Pelosi are determined to let GWB et al off the hook for all the crimes you listed. Meanwhile, here's what Hillary Clinton has to say about that.


    Don't be silly (none / 0) (#159)
    by Claw on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:20:57 AM EST
    Rove was much closer to Bush and most people understand that he orchestrated it completely.  Flyers were passed out.  Did the Obama camp run around passing out flyers?  No.  They issued (whatever they were doing behind the scenes) statements saying that the comments were inappropriate, but that they shouldn't be construed to mean Clinton was hoping for violence against Obama.  
    But that isn't as important as my second question.  Your continued equation of Bush to Obama is simply wrong, and you know it.  Obama is running for POTUS.  He is also (if you can avoid the breathless media coverage) ahead.  He isn't going to say anything to get himself in trouble.  I join you in disappointment over Pelosi, but Bush's dismantling of the justice dept. has probably made it harder to hold his administration accountable for anything.  I don't recall Obama ever saying that no one would be held accountable for their actions.  
    Even if Obama refuses to hold anyone accountable, I think it's worse to commit the crimes than do a poor job of punishing them.

    Not true (none / 0) (#163)
    by echinopsia on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:44:29 AM EST
    The Obama campaign seized upon a ridiculous news story - so ridiculous that the tabloid it appeared in quickly retracted it - about a remark taken entirely out of context. This led to Keith Olberman doing an insane rant on it on national television. The Obama campaign then sent Olberman's rant to other news outlets.

    You're the one who's being silly. Here's the whole story: Clinton Defends RFK Remarks

    Don't tell me what I know. Obama has said that he will not prosecute the Bush administration or its crimes.

    His advisor Sunstien said the egregious crimes should not be ignored, but Obama is on record as saying the Bush Administration has not committed egregious crimes: "I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president's authority," he said.

    So he wouldn't impeach, and he will not prosecute.

    Of course, if you don't believe him, that's another problem. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. If he doesn't prosecute the Bush administration for their crimes, he is just as evil as they are.


    I would (none / 0) (#162)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:26:14 AM EST
    certainly like to think so.

    Of course it was Iraq (none / 0) (#102)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:32:51 PM EST
    Had Hillary voted against the AUMF in 2002, Obama probably would not have even run.  That is the reason why the netroots backs Obama.  

    FYI, I'm not looking for an argument about why Hillary voted for the AUMF or how Obama would have done the same.  I understand the arguments, find them reasonable, but find them irrelevant today.


    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#111)
    by flashman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:58:19 PM EST
    I said REPUBLICANS... are not competant.  What does that have to do with Hillary?

    "Had Hillary . . . (none / 0) (#131)
    by sancho on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:03:59 PM EST
    Obama probably would not have even run" is absolutely the funniest thing I have heard in weeks. Thanks for the laugh, FH.

    GOP Opponent: There is no close victory (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by blogtopus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:26:25 AM EST
    Not when you control a huge portion of the voting infrastructure.

    Then again, if this election has lots of 'improprieties', I can imagine the outrage, nay, CATERWAULING that will occur from the Obama fan base.

    If he does lose to election schenanigans, it will be because the election was close enough to allow it, and that would be entirely his own fault.

    Not to mention karmic in nature, considering what happened in the caucus states, IMO.

    That said, it will be nice to have a candidate who can give as much as he gets when it comes to gaming the system. Go Obama!

    Are you "being Dadler"? (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:46:19 AM EST
    Ya lost me (none / 0) (#28)
    by blogtopus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:53:51 AM EST
    I tried googling Dadler and couldn't find anything, or on this site... I love new terms, what does that one mean (even if snarky / demeaning)?

    Riff on "Being John Malkovich," (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:08:21 AM EST
    a favorite of mine.  Dadler is a commenter here whose main theme is voting machine manipulation.  

    Why? I Think You Answered That Question Yourself (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by The Maven on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:26:47 AM EST
    more than adequately just over an hour ago in your "Oblivion" post:  "Barack Obama, his campaign and his supporters have not been shy to signal their disdain for Bill Clinton and his accomplishments."

    Applying that logic, Obama is almost compelled to try to win without the Clintons, since otherwise there would potentially be the nagging suspicion that he couldn't have done it without their help, and thus his entire presidency is predicated upon Clinton-dependence.  Obama's demeanor -- what many observers have termed his "arrogance" -- would seem to mandate that he prove his worthiness by going it alone.  It could prove to be his undoing in what should indeed be the easiest Democratic campaign in a generation.

    Pettiness ... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:26:53 AM EST
    is the only reason I can see.

    well (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:27:59 AM EST
    I guess its my job to be the tu*d in the punchbowl.
    I do not think Obama will win.  I never really did but in the last week or so I think it has become clear what they intend to do to him.  his list of vulnerabilities is monumental and the ability of the GOP to exploit them legendary.
    I will go out on a limb right now and say in January we will have president McCain.
    most likely with or without Hillary.  but I do think Hillary is his ONLY chance.

    What you said. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:29:44 AM EST
    I once agreed with you- but now (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by kenosharick on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:32:58 AM EST
    think it could go either way instead of the Hillary blowout we could have had. States that were supposed to be Obama landslides, such as Wis. and Colo. have tightened and could go either way.

    Howard Fineman (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:35:48 AM EST
    has had CDS for years.  He and Matthews loved to chortle together over their Clinton hate.  I know why Matthews hates Hillary.  He's been buddies with the likes of Delay and Newt for years and he's basically a misogynistic pig with a penchant for hero worship.  Chris Matthews loves him some manly men.

    Fineman...I don't know why except maybe he wants to keep his job at MSNBC.  Maddow becomes more and more a Hillary hater, Clinton hater every day she spends with the boys of MSNBC.  Maybe she has always hated Hillary...I don't know.  But methinks there is something in the water there...or in their contracts.

    Maddow (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by flashman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:35:29 AM EST
    comes out of the AAR crowd, many of whom have always hated anything Clinton.  

    What's AAR? (none / 0) (#65)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:38:40 AM EST
    AAR = Air America Radio (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:56:14 AM EST
    Win Win Win (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Manuel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:40:41 AM EST
    This isn't as bad as it looks.  If they get together (e.g. Obama pick Hillary for VP or Bill and Hillary are given prominent roles) unity will improve.  If they don't and Obama wins, Hillary can lead the Democratic wing of the Democratic party (it looks like we are going to need that).  If they don't get together and Obama loses, it will be Hillary in 08.

    I like your thinking (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:48:35 AM EST
    and I would add that although I do not think Obama will win the WH I do think he will help us win larger margins in the congress.  
    and heres is another thought.
    the very fact that we have to centrists running in the two major parties (I know I know, McCain is a rabid war monger blah blah - but he really IS a centrist - so much so that his own party has sites up with names like GetDrunkAndVoteForMcCain) means we have won.  or at the very least are winning the culture wars.
    dont worry.  be happy.

    Progressives need to get back to issues (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Manuel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:45:18 AM EST
    Obama in the WH would be an improvement over Bush or McCain but in either case we'll need to step up the pressure on the Dem Congress.

    BTW I meant Hillary in 2012 (wishful slip).


    I think Hillary sees it that way, too (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by miriam on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:25:58 PM EST
    I really believe that's why she quit when she did and why she will not contest Obama's nomination at the convention. With the current DNC crowd against her, she knows it's a lost battle.  But when Obama loses she can lead the party shake-up that must occur and then run in 2012 with new DNC leadership (the best part of which would be the greatly deserved exodus of Donna Brazile).  Both Clintons have long memories and I doubt they'll forget who the backstabbers were.

    Your Freudian slip is showing (none / 0) (#147)
    by dws3665 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:30:29 PM EST
    I think you mean Hillary in '12, not '08.

    The only real chance for a rapprochement (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:44:02 AM EST
    that I can see is way down the road.  If (and unlike BTD I think this a big if), Obama wins,  and then works together with Hillary to pass health care reform, then perhaps bygones will be bygones....

    Hillary as VP would give the Democrats an FDR-style sweeping victory that would give them a mandate for real change...

    Why do we NOt want your second graf? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:47:54 AM EST
    I do want it (1.00 / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:00:40 AM EST
    Why it won't happen....Neither side is breaking its back to make it happen....Well, actually Hillary is fine and if she is secretly pi*sed, you can't tell, and it is clear she would roll up her sleeves as a team player...

    The issue is not Obama v. Hillary but rather Obama v. Bill.   Obama has hinted at this with his campaign's comments about being Bill's unwillingness to disclose his library donors, the statements by Obama to a Hillary fundraiser that the issue is trying to find a place for Bill.

    And, in what may not be a popular view around here, Bill did not help when he hit Obama between the eyes after an Obama mistake.  Bill did not need to go into the racial issue but he did.  Obama made a mistake, and Bill nailed him at a time when it would have maximum effect.

    It looks like a number of people did not get the Team of Rivals memo.  I think Bill could be schmoozed if the effort was made....

    Picking Hillary would be an impressive move by Obama...and just because Obama picks someone else for VP does not mean he is free of the Clintons....Better to have them on your team.    


    schmoozed (none / 0) (#43)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:15:09 AM EST
    If an effort was made?

    I agree.  There are more than just the Clintons who could be schmoozed...
    if the effort is made.

    June came and went and nothing...
    July came and went and nothing...
    And here's August.  More of the same?


    Really? The polls say otherwise (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by goldberry on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:56:04 AM EST
    And the real campaign hasn't even started yet.  
    It looks like Obama isn't going for party unity here.  It makes me wonder why they are scheduling a prayer circle event for after the convention in order to turn the hearts of the "shrieking band of paranoid holdouts".

    Polics as usual? (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:57:50 AM EST
    Power?  Politics is seldom about service.  It's about power.  Power over the party, power over who is selected to move up in the party, money, control....  If Obama can grab power from others to have as his own, why wouldn't he.  It's a rational act for a politician when your goal is acquiring power.

    With lives being lived on the net, if he can break apart the party, why wouldn't he?  Where are the voters going to go?  Both parties triangulate, trying to grab issues from each other to weaken each other and get their own party in power.  It confuses voters.  Where are they going to go?  If he can break apart demographics, why wouldn't he?  Wouldn't it take less pandering?  From a politicians stand point, isn't this a good thing?  

    It seems issues get pushed to the side and politicians are elected based on consultant driven marketing campaigns.  People seem to have more narrow lives by spending time with issues that reflect their views. The campaigns feed on/use this.  Money spent on MTV, use of the internet, viral campaigns.  Marketing of products...seems very modern, commercialized, a sign of the times.  Very good political move?  

    What do I know.  Probably just a crack pot idea.

    not a crackpot idea (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:01:24 AM EST
    Where have the voters gone? (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:17:13 AM EST
    Where will the voters go?

    The pols assume much.  Their assumptions may be in error.


    No longer voters (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:13:50 PM EST
    Here's an concept to go with my whack job theory...... there is no need for voters.  Voters are 'old'  Consumers are the 'IN' thing.  Corporations exist to sell products and make money (and substitute people with machines whenever they can, people are a nuisance that require additional resources to cater to).  The US is no longer a republic, it is a corpocracy.  The govt is selling 'politicians'.  The govt needs to replace voters with consumers.  Pandering to 'voters' takes up time and resources and effects a politicians bottom line.

    I don't know..... the concept needs a lot of work.


    Theory (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by goldberry on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:00:39 AM EST
    The Obama camp and the DNC (the same thing, actually) has ramped up the rhetoric against the PUMA movement.  I think this is another HAKA to demoralize us.  If he makes it sound like he can win without us, we'll get discouraged.  Personally, I don't think this is true, BTD.  I think he needs us very desperately.  But he finds he has two enemies now: the republicans and the people in his own party who almost prefer McCain to him at this point.  He has to make a show of strength.  He has to diminish his enemy in their own eyes.  He has to make us blink and doubt our power so that we pause and let up.  

    making a show of strength (5.00 / 9) (#44)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:15:34 AM EST
    is somewhat difficult to do from a beach in Hawaii.  

    Besides, unlike Obama and the DNC, the Clintons have the American People on their side.  Despite everything thrown at them, they're more popular and more powerful than ever.  Especially Hillary.  

    The majority of Voters know how Obama "won" and, if the anemic -- and, in some cases, downward drifting -- polls are any indication, these voters (in the millions) have little interest in supporting him the way he and the DNC automatically and arrogantly assumed they would.


    According to the latest, the PUMAs have (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:10:38 PM EST
    the DNC in a "dither".

    And, can I just say....I think McCain is playing possum, laying back as it were, until the big attacks start on obama.  I think he has been vastly underestimated.  You know what they say...lull them into a sense of false security and then BAM!


    I mean, really, (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:29:49 PM EST
    it's not like an old guy who's held his Senate Seat for a billion years or so would know anything about running a successful campaign or being a successful candidate, right?

    And certainly not more than a third year freshman Senator who's claim to fame is 11 years as a State Senator.

    Nah, the old guy is toast and we're a shoo-in in November.  No problemo.  Easy as pie.

    (oh so evident snark for the snark impaired)


    Exacimente ccpup.... (none / 0) (#115)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:10:21 PM EST
    Nah (none / 0) (#116)
    by BDB on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:24:12 PM EST
    McCain is a genuinely awful candidate.  I don't know if it's because he's sold his sould to Bush & Co. on torture the last few years or if it's his age or his desperate desire to win, but the zip is gone.  He lacks energy, he's stiff, he's testy with the media.  

    Now, the GOP might decide it's worth pulling to together to win by revving up their smear machine and their voter theft machine, but McCain ain't going to get any better, IMO.  


    Examples of ramped up rhetoric? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Addison on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:29:36 AM EST
    the answer is power.... (5.00 / 8) (#35)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:02:39 AM EST
    the most interesting bit from the (overall execrable) Fineman piece was the stuff about the "1 to 1" fundraising agreement -- I hadn't heard until this point that there was a specific formula.

    The specific nature of the fundraising agreement suggests that the level of support/help by the Clintons is contingent upon some kind of quid pro quo in terms of power-sharing -- and that a full agreement was not reached.

    Thus, I posit that Obama is making a rookie mistake of "projection" -- he assumes that he needs the Clintons to get the Clinton democrats because he sees himself as the leader of a "movement" who has a great deal of control over his supporters.  And since he hasn't reached an agreement with them, he is intent on winning without the support of Clinton democrats.

    But Clinton Democrats aren't members of a "movement" like the Obama personality cult.  They are far more like a simple demographic category whose "needs" are met by the Clintons.  

    All I know is... (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Susie from Philly on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:09:42 AM EST
    Obama's doing exactly what the GOP hoped he'd do - he's keeping it close enough to steal. The only chance he's got is Clinton - or Wes Clark, who's closely affiliated with the Clinton camp.

    Sometimes (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by sas on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:15:01 AM EST
    I think Obama is mentally ill.  It astounds me that he thinks he is invincible, that he, and he alone, is going to save our nation.  He believes that the world knows he will restore America to its best traditions. He doesn't need anyone's help, and he is politically immortal. He cannot be challenged, he cannot be wounded.  Is it arrogance? Narcissism? Mental Illness?

    Am I nuts?

    Don't make things up. (2.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Addison on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:29:05 AM EST
    Obama has said none of those things, you're making them up and projecting them onto Obama simply so you can say what (for some reason) feels good to say about him, which happens to coincide (coincidentally) with the GOP's new narrative. Litany:

    I think Obama is mentally ill.  It astounds me that he thinks he is invincible, that he, and he alone, is going to save our nation.  He believes that the world knows he will restore America to its best traditions. He doesn't need anyone's help, and he is politically immortal. He cannot be challenged, he cannot be wounded.  Is it arrogance? Narcissism? Mental Illness?

    If you want people to critique a fictionalized character sketch you're working on for a novel, it's not ideal to test it out on a political blog.


    It is (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by sas on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:44:30 AM EST
    my impression of him.  You can like it, or not like it, but it is not fiction.  It is what I think.

    oh yeah (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by sas on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:45:53 AM EST
    he did say the part about restoring America to its best traditions.  
    (On his tour.)

    and that he and his group are what (5.00 / 8) (#85)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:59:59 AM EST
    America has been waiting for....NOT ME.  I was hoping for someone who knew what she is doing...

    Sen. Obama in Berlin, Deutschland (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by wurman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:24:43 PM EST
    A few recent quotations from a noted speech:

    I know that I don't look like the Americans who've previously spoken in this great city.

    Now the world will watch and remember what we do here -- what we do with this moment.
    [Shades of Lincoln--"the world will little note nor long remember . . . ."  What "we" (you & me) do here will be remembered; Lincoln, not so much.]

    People of Berlin -- people of the world -- this is our moment. This is our time.
    [Oxymoron: a little meglomania!]

    I know my country has not perfected itself. [snip]
    But I also know how much I love America.
    [Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr.,'s book? Or the Preamble to the US Constitution?]

    People of Berlin -- and people of the world -- the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. Let us build on our common history, and seize our common destiny, and once again engage in that noble struggle to bring justice and peace to our world.
    [my emphasis]

    At last, our global leader is among us.  Know ye the transfiguration of a goatherd's son.

    Even the title oozes with unction: 'A WORLD THAT STANDS AS ONE' . . . yes, perhaps extreme unction for a weary world.  The hubris astounds.


    Personally, I think ... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:17:08 AM EST
    if Obama doesn't name a VP this week, it means someone in the campaign is still arguing hard for Hillary.

    There has to be at least one sensible person in the Obama campaign.  Right?

    She's the only choice that makes sense to name after the Olympics, giving them a huge unity crest to ride up to and through the convention.

    I still don't think this will happen.  But if this week passes without a VP pick, the odds on Hillary getting the nod increase.

    If there is a sensible person (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:26:38 AM EST
    in the Obama camp, they must be very lonely.

    A hotly contested primary almost demands that winner spend considerable time and effort wooing the supporters of the other candidates in order to unify the party and firm up the base.  It's the logical thing to do.

    The other thing to do is to see what the other candidate wants in terms of policy and platform.  Personality is not transferrable, but issues are.

    Maybe Obama figures that all we need is a dazzling show at the Convention?


    Dazzling show? Will there be lasers? (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:29:25 AM EST
    I hope there are lasers.



    And fireworks! (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:36:08 AM EST
    And ponies!  Lots and lots of ponies....

    unfortunately with the lag (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:43:11 AM EST
    in fundraising, I don't think shovels are in the DNC's budget.

    So, the ponies may be joining us under the bus.


    Sparkling, flying ponies (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by RonK Seattle on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:22:10 PM EST
    will the lasers (none / 0) (#149)
    by dws3665 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:35:55 PM EST
    be attached to sharks' heads? (inserts pinky into corner of mouth)

    that 48% of people (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:41:12 AM EST
    who Pew found are tired of hearing about Barack may end up climbing past 50% by the time he finishes his Wannabe Rock Concert in the stadium.

    And if nearly 50% of people are tired of hearing about him NOW, what makes anyone think they're going to want to vote for him and then hear about him constantly for the next four years?

    I think his decision to go the stadium route is going to backfire big time.


    Don't forget the Olympics (none / 0) (#106)
    by Fitz on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:47:37 PM EST
    Obama will have $5 million in ads during the Olympics and the McCain campaign has now announced $6 million in ads for the Olympics. I won't be surprised if most of them focus on Obama.

    I have a DVR so I can skip the ads but I can imagine that a lot the people who have to sit through them will be sick of him before the convention. Also, this is a national buy so everyone, not just voters in swing states, will be bombarded with them.


    it appears as if (none / 0) (#110)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:54:41 PM EST
    Obama and his campaign are still working -- and buying ads -- under the delusion that he's beloved.  Either they never read polls or they've conveniently forgotten he lost most of the Primaries after February and had to be dragged across the finish line by his pals at the DNC.  

    In any case, by the time we get to the Convention, the American People will be OVER Obama and certainly not willing to vote for him and subject themselves to four years of seeing him all the time making Very Important Speech after Very Important Speech.


    If McCain is smart, (none / 0) (#123)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:39:25 PM EST
    he'll make sure at least 1/2 of his ads are ads about Obama.  What better way to make sure the public is really sick of Obama come November?

    Without the Clintons (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:17:23 AM EST
    Well, maybe McCain IS "Bush's Third Term"

    however, without the Clintons, Obama will experience

    "Gore's Second Presidential GE campaign."

    Have people figured out yet that Democrats lose without the Clintons?

    Maybe Modo wishfully thinks the Clintons are irrelevant, but sorry to burst her vacuous bubble, she's wrong.

    I really admire Al Gore. (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by ghost2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:00:00 PM EST
    But leaving him aside, the answer to your question:

    Have people figured out yet that Democrats lose without the Clintons?

    Because democratic party is the one for the have-nots/the working class.  A democrat has to show the intellect to prove he/she can govern, and the empathy to prove that he/she gets it.

    Democratic Party's main problem is that their candidate approach the problems of the people intellectually, not emotionally.  Bill and Hillary Clinton are the exception.  They show you that they've done their homework, they know how to solve a problem. But more importantly, they emotionally connect with the problem.  They know why it should be solved.

    Can you imagine Kerry doing that? Obama? Dukakis?


    uh oh (5.00 / 10) (#49)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:20:25 AM EST
    from a new AP Poll:

    "Barack Obama may be the fresh face in this year's presidential election, but nearly half say they're already tired of hearing about him, a poll says

    With Election Day still three months away, 48 percent said they're hearing too much about the Democratic candidate, according to a poll released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. Just 26 percent said the same about his Republican rival, John McCain."

    I think Obama needs the Clintons and every darn vote he can get more than he thinks he does.

    Not the best news to come out as he leaves for his second vacation in three months.

    Why do you think the McCain "Celeb" ads (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:50:40 AM EST
    are playing so well?  

    "Barack Obama may be the fresh face in this year's presidential election, but nearly half say they're already tired of hearing about him, a poll says

    That big show in Denver is going to push some people over the edge.  


    whenever the French news (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:25:56 PM EST
    plays an Obama ad, they always, ALWAYS follow with either McCain's "The One" ad or his Celebrity ad.

    The Obama campaign's decision to treat the ad with contempt and not respond to it as if no one could POSSIBLY take such a charge seriously is probably one of their first HUGE tactical mistakes.


    Fundraisers have their own "culture." (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by wurman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    Per Big Tent's quotations:
    But their attitude seems to be, `we can win without you.'

    And the response is "Please do."  People with access to large sums of money don't feel any particular "obligation" to donate those funds to any specific candidate.

    Money that does NOT go to the Obama campaign can just as easily, and perhaps far more usefully, go to the DSCC or DCCC or a state party or even some specific candidates.  If the Clintons recommend that "their" money folks shift big bucks to Tom Udall, Mark Udall, Al Franken, Jeanne Shaheen, or Mark Warner then those newly-minted US senators would have powerful affiliations with the junior senator from New York & the former president.

    Yeah.  It's about power.  And large bundles can & will buy it.

    Arrogance (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by Miri on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    Obama is like a movie star who belives his own press clippings.

    He and his cult followers want to "change the map", purge the Clintons and their supporters, bring in new voters and win red states like Georgia and North Carolina.

    This is a fairy tale as they are going to find out in November.

    Republican voters will stay with McCain. You will also see McCain winning a big chunk of the Dem base.

    Big Tent is going with current polling which is meaningless. McCain is a much stronger candidate than it appears. He is seen as better able to handle crisis. People trust him more as commander in chief. That is a huge advantage. As election day nears people try to picture the candidate in the oval office, handling crisis. They are more comfortable with McCain in that role.

    Even I am more comfortable with McCain in that role.

    Obama may (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Andy08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    or maybe not win !!

    What just happened in the Georgia primary is a very bad Omen for Obama... NOt good..Not good at ALL:

    Are Georgia Voters Sending Obama A Message?
    Daniel Halper - 08.06.2008 - 10:11 AM

    Politicians grabbing Barack Obama's coattails should take note: In the Georgia democratic Senatorial primary runoff held yesterday, Jim Martin defeated Vernon Jones by a 60% to 40%. Martin will now face the Republican senior Senator from Georgia, Saxby Chambliss, in November's election. This doesn't seem to bode well for Obama's presidential quest. Jones's campaign hoped to emulate Obama's impressive primary victory in Georgia (he defeated Senator Hillary Clinton in Georgia, 66.4% to 31.1%), but now he's failed to even make it to November's ballot.

    In fact, Jones distributed campaign paraphernalia consisting of a picture of himself and Obama, with the words "Yes We Can!" prominently scrawled underneath the photographs. Also, Jones sent a mass email meant to smear his opponent Martin:

        My campaign has uncovered evidence that my opponent, Jim Martin, did not want Senator Barack Obama to be President of the United States and that Jim Martin voted against Barack Obama in the February 2008 Presidential Primary election in Georgia. [Emphasis not my own.]

    He also used this line of attack in a debate, "You say you support Barack Obama, but you voted against him." In the first round of the primary election, Jones's strategy of cozying up to the presumptive democratic presidential candidate paid off. Although he wasn't able to win the race outright, he came out with the most votes (over 40%) and looked poised for victory ...

    It continues, go to link for more.

    That may be why some of the other dems (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:04:22 PM EST
    running distanced themselves from obama for fear of that same fate.

    This article is complete garbage. Jones' (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:48:31 AM EST
    popularity sunk when he was exposed as a Bush supporter. And anyone with even half a brain knows that voting for BO/HC in the primary doesn't automatically mean they wouldn't support them NOW. Daniel Harper is an obvious right-wing hack. BTW, McCain will carry Georgia, because it's a solid GOP state.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#160)
    by jb64 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:31:03 AM EST
    Jones mostly lost because it turns out he voted for GWB twice. Obama winning Georgia is a fairy tale anyway, and Jim Martin has a pretty good shot against the odious Saxby Chambkiss, where Jones would not.

    not true (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by CHDmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:52:19 AM EST
    I followed your link and read the entire article and saw once again Fineman is saying things that aren't true.
    "And while Hillary has agreed not to have her name placed in nomination, that concession has yet to yield a definitive answer on what, exactly, her role will be in Denver."

     Unless something changed since Hillary's fundraiser last week, when she said (Paraphrase)she thinks having her name on the ballot and letting her delegates vote for her would help unify the party, that isn't true.
     (OT but since he slightly criticized Obama will he be following Dana off MSNBC?)

    I predict a big surprise in store for Obama (5.00 / 8) (#84)
    by OxyCon on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:59:22 AM EST
    It's obvious that Obama thinks he can win without the support of the Clintons and their supporters. Obama's strategy is to blow smoke up his follower's rears, then unleash them on the country trying to register new voters, which he thinks will make up the difference. The reason I don't think this is going to work are threefold: Obama is losing popularity as the nation grows tired of his narcissistic persona; he cannot grow his largest and most reliable base, as he maxed the AA community out in the primary; I think there are going to be alot of doors slammed in the faces of the canvasing Obamabots.

    Seems like any voter gains by obama's (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:15:17 PM EST
    crew will be offset by the number of dems leaving the party as has recently been reported.

    Didn't McGovern try that?

    All it would take is one YouTube of an Obama supporter behaving like they do online, and those doors won't even open. And the McCain campaign, for all its reputation for shambling, seems to get how that kind of virality would work. See under Spears, Britney.

    Reap what you sow, and all that.


    DA...If you have been watching The Daily (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:02:26 PM EST
    Show, the big balls comment falls right into Stewart's schtick...lol

    Not surprising (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Miri on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:05:36 PM EST
    "I think Obama is mentally ill.  It astounds me that he thinks he is invincible, that he, and he alone, is going to save our nation."

    For almost two years now his cult followers and media groupies have told him he is the Messiah and it is clear he has starting believing it.  

    I suspect (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by ccpup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:35:30 PM EST
    January 20, 2009 will be one of the worst days of Obama's life as he knows that back in DC McCain is raising his right hand and taking the Oath to what was supposed to be HIS Office.

    Some have surmised Obama would resign his Senate Seat when he loses.  I'm beginning to believe that's correct.  It's hard to swallow a loss when people have been feeding you the line that you're a shoo-in against the old guy ... so, yeah, go ahead and take another vacation!  We've got this in the bag, Barack.



    There is no way Obama can win without the Clintons (none / 0) (#151)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:15:23 PM EST
    and the Hillary Clinton supporters.

    NO WAY!!!

    And all this ongoing Clinton hate and ridicule of HC's supporters will not put Obama in the White House. Far from it. And deep down the Finemans, tweeties, Maddens, and Obamablogs of this world know it - but they just don't care.


    It's better for everyone if Obama is (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:25:51 PM EST
    obliterated in November. We don't need HIM.

    Check out how Bush treated the press (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:38:11 PM EST
    when asked about his vote for Cheney's energy bill and tell me he is not copying Bush.
    Your delusional hatred of rational thought blinds you to the obvious.

    Well gee (1.00 / 1) (#114)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:06:54 PM EST
    his vote on Cheney's energy bill certainly proves that he is no different than a guy who unilaterally invaded a nation for no good reason, has killed hundreds of thousands of people to push a immoral agenda, believes tax cuts for the rich help the poor, believes that being poor is self-induced, believes that civil rights are for wussies, and has absolutely no intellectual curiousity.

    Yeah, it's my delusional hatred that blinds me.  


    reread (none / 0) (#118)
    by CHDmom on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:54:04 PM EST
    he said how Obama responded to the question about the Cheney bill, not about him voting on it.
     He basically accused the reporter of being a John Mccain shill, because he dared ask a real question.

    OK (none / 0) (#127)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:06:58 PM EST
    So he's no different from Bush because he treats the media with disdain?   Maybe he should provide them donuts and have a BBQ for them?

    You know other ways the 2 are indistinguishable?  They both speak English! And they are both males!


    Both Obama and Bush (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by RedSox04 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:48:56 PM EST
    Basically eschewed serious discussions of policy, and instead chose to run on a relatively empty platform of change, accompanied by a cult of personality.

    At least GWB had one policy we knew he was going to try to implement-- his tax cuts.  I cannot for the life of me think of a single Obama policy that I know he will go to the mat for, nor can any Obama supporter I know.  

    Withdrawing our troops from Iraq?  Not really, he's explicitly refused to commit to any timetable.

    Ending surveillance abuses such as the FISA debacle?  Well, we saw how that one turned out.

    Universal health care?  HA.

    Seriously, can you name a policy you are certain Obama stands behind (i.e. he has put so much campaigning into it, such as GWB did with his tax cuts, that you know he'll push no matter what the political environment is like)?

    Let's come back to reality now (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    Obama has not eschewed serious discussions of policy.  That is patently false.  

    The fact that you are unaware of Obama's proposed policies is an indictment of your own ignorance.  

    You're wrong on his views on Iraq.  FISA is not his policy.  No one was offering Universal Health Care.

    I can name about a dozen policies of Obama's I am absolutely certain he stands behind.  But then I get my information about Obama from primary sources and not skewed blogs intent and pushing an agenda.


    you need better primary sources than Obama website (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Ford Prefect on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:48:17 PM EST
    It is not about "eschewing" policy statements and filling policy papers on the website, when you are running for a higher office (only thing Obama has consistently demonstrated he believes in and pursues while occupying any given office). Any two bit politician can do that. The question is what policies has the "eschewer" shown longstanding leadership in his previous political career and what principled stand he had taken on specific policies and fought for despite political costs. The man is after all running to be the leader of the free world, not a city councilman to hide behind 100s of policy statements on his website as proof of his actual conviction on policy positions. No record of previous long-standing leadership on any specific policy like UHC, poverty, civil rights or anything else noteworthy, combined with politically convenient flip flops within the same campaign season (one position before and one position after the primaries) and 100s of policy papers on the website obviously written by his large advisor gang, dont demnostrate that he actually believes in any of the positions on his website or he would fight for them despite political risks. Thats what we need in a leader not just talking about policies on the campaign trail

    Now if you are not as "ignorant" as we all are and in fact are enlightened enough, all you have to do is to show us on what specific issue or policy has Obama led the pack while occupying IL senate or US senate. You know, doing some actual work to unerstand the issues, policies in depth and vigorously advocating them through actions (legistlative, fundraising, non-profit etc) and words. Dont bother with myriad legislative co-sponsorship, most of which in IL senate were favors that Emil Jones did for him when he became the majority leader by overlooking the folks who did longstanding work on those issues and putting Obama's name on those legislation so he could get elected for the US senate. Obviously ever since he entered the US senate he hasnt had time to do anything but run for higher office and so no leadership there.

    I wont hold my breath and wait for you to list his long-standing leadership on anything.

    You might want to consider primary sources other than DKOS, TPM or Obama campaign website. Sources that actually chronicle his previous jobs. Apparently he even famously said he was bored while at IL senate with actual legislative work. So much for his belief in policies and working for his constituents. Apparently his own advisors believe that (something to the effect of) Rove and co demonstrated clearly presidential elections are much more about personality and not policies and not many care for policies.


    Nice work (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:04:03 PM EST
    I have to applaud this post.  3 paragraphs to say essentially the exact same thing.  He has no proven experience.  Yeah I get that.  Nothing like a long polemic to cloud your point.

    I do like how you deftly moved the discussion from what his positions on issues are to what leadership has he shown.  

    This is a common tactic in debating politics.  Criticize e a politician in one area and then when that criticism is challenged move on to a new criticism leaving the old criticism to wither on the vine.

    So now the standard is proven leadership on a policy?  Is that right?


    what tactic? (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Ford Prefect on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:42:23 PM EST
    Doesnt a guy who wants to be the leader of the world not expected to have shown some leadership on something in the past? If not, Heck I can put a website up for my 16 year old nephew and he is a democrate and so we put a (D) next to his name, he is articulate enough to regurgitate what his advisors tell him his policies should be. Why not elect him (dont answer that he isnt 35. I know) because he has the right policy positions as prepared by his advisor gang? In my line of work or any other line of work I know, you are expected to have shown leadership somewhere before you claim yourself to be a leader. You are telling me, that for a world leader that isnt the standard? Great, just to elect Obama now for a very serious position at a very critical state in this country's history, we should now lower the standards to whatever is in Obama's resume or lack there of? If that is the standard, I have been a more committed, principle based democrat myself long enough (not as old as Obama is, but old enough to be president) and have shown more leadership in my field than Obama has. Then I should be president, I guess.  I bet millions of others would qualify better than me and way better than Obama.

    Who said experience is the only thing that counts? In fact i wasnt talking about experience at all. If he doesnt have the experience as a legislator or anything else,  what outside of politics has he shown serious leadership on? These are the kind of questions people tend to ask and should be asking of somebody who wants to be a world leader, dont you think?

    I have had his supporters point to his time as HLR president. What did he accomplish there? Not an article to his name and that is no way to show leadership in a legal publication/body. What legal leadership did he show in the chicago legal firm? What legal scholarship has he shown during his time in UofC as a senior lecturer? Any scholar has to write peer reviewed research articles and show his new ideas/findings in that field. Obama has exactly zero evidence showing his scholarship. Give me something where I have a way to trust him to be a good leader based on his past leadership not his claims of future leadership, before he wants me to vote for him. He hasnt even shown that he has the cajones to take political risks for a principle/cause/policy. That is not leadership. People dont vote for a guy with a thick progressive policy docket when they vote for a president. But rather a world class leader who has progressive friendly policy positions and proven commitment to at least some of those policy positions. Not just somebody changing those positions based on the current office you are running for.


    Really? (none / 0) (#137)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:25:56 PM EST
    And what makes Hillary or McCain a world class leader?  What exactly have they LED?

    I'm not providing support for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:10:09 PM EST
    But here's a partial list of her accomplishments and her leadership positions.

    Here's another (partial list).

    Because listing everything she'd been a leader on would take hundreds of pages - also see this - about 1:50 all her accomplishments start scrolling up the screen. Watch to the end. I've never seen as complete a list of committees she's chaired, organizations she's founded, awards she's won, etc. And this is still just a partial list.


    here you go (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Ford Prefect on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:49:50 PM EST
    I will give you some examples and highlight the ones that I think are more important because those were examples from a time when neither of them were running for any office and therefore no need to posture and pander like all politicians.

    For Hillary:
    1. Her heroic effort in a) working to understand b) taking on the mother of all battles for UHC when this country was much more conservative bent than it is today and when there wasnt such a healthcare cost crisis as we have today. I dont remember any other dem even touching the issue with a bargepole not even Nadar at the time. She had the cajones to take on the issue and thoroughly research and learn the issue (go look at her congressional testimonies and other speeches she made on that issue) and go to bat on behalf of that issue, even if she didnt succeed. This is what I call leadership, when you take huge political risk for a cause you believe in, irrespective of whether it succeds in the first attempt. You have to give her effort credit in moving the overton window to where over the last decade or so, slowly UHC (even when it is billed as govt healthcare) is at least a position all dems take in their campaigns. She had already worked for children's poor folks health care in Arkansas leading a rural health advisory committee. So this wasnt some newfangled love for healthcare either.

    2.rural and children's health care in Arkansas as the chairwoman of rural advisory board:
    " Her work with that board in developing programs to expand health care in the state's isolated farm and mountain country began a career of committee work on health and education issues"
    "Serving as a fund-raiser and board member of the Arkansas Children's Hospital in Little Rock, she drove a 1979 effort to float an $18 million bond issue. Hospital administrators credit that with beginning the process that has turned what was once a relatively small hospital into a giant establishment that has trained a generation of pediatricians to work in poor rural areas"

    "Mrs. Clinton helped found the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a liberal group modeled after the Washington-based Children's Defense Fund ....helping to increase state financing for early childhood programs like Head Start from about $700,000 annually to more than $15 million"

    3. Her effort to lead the reform process in Arkansas education system:
    "Appointed by her husband to head an Educational Standards Committee that would recommend changes in public school standards, she spent months traveling throughout the state, selling the need for an expensive overhauling of the system through public meetings in every county"
    "Today, Mrs. Clinton's supporters and even former critics like Mr. Johnson credit her with making better education a state priority."

    Now you may or may not agree with everything she attempted like teacher testing. I dont always agree and often disagree with most politicians. But this to me is what a leader does, by going everywhere and selling their vision, even when it is unpopular and getting the necessary public support and legislating on it eventually. As opposed to just going into every elected office and getting bored there or running for higher office without accomplishing or even attempting anything in the current office.  

    For McCain: Well, I am not so much a McCain fan, although I do believe he is a leader and much more so than Obama any day. So it is somewhat grudgingly I have to acknowledge and cite his leadership. But credit where its due whether repub or dem I dont care. I am much more of a cause/principle/country loyalist than I ever was or am a party loyalist anyway. Party to me is only a means to achieve some of these things and I wont hesitate to throw the party under the bus if the party doesnt throws the principles/causes I care about, under the bus

    1. In 1968, After torture and solitary confinement he turned down early release unless others were released as well. Think about it, he turned down a chance to save his own life for a bunch of guys who were co-workers, after what he went through in terms of terrible treatment, before he was famous or running for any office. That I call supreme leadership, character. Unlike Obama who wouldnt hesitate to throw his grandmother under the bus, if it suited his political purpose.

    The rest of McCain stuff is after he got elected. But still he battled his own party and risked his own re-election in 1998 and a possible presidential run in 2000.

    2. His leadership and work on taxing tobacco more and using the funds for healthcare and campaign finance reform went against his party and he was attacked by the tobacco industry and his own party members alike. He wrote "Some Republicans might be vulnerable to the charge that their party is in the pocket of tobacco companies," before seeking his re-election in 98 and his run for president in 2000. That to me is a profile in courage and leadership. The tobacco tax bill didnt succeed the first time around and campaign finance reform is of limited value given what we would like. But both of them have definitely moved the overton window, even with limited success. But hey I will take even limited success in exchange for the cajones to fight for a cause/idea even if I disagree with that leader much of that time. This is what we need a president to do, when the going gets tough and he doesnt have enough support to take up a progressive friendly cause. Contrast that with FISA on Obama's part where he promised to filibuster it. That is a profile in waffling.

    Now you wasted a lot of my time in stuff that you could have researched for both of these characters, based on their work prior to elected office in some cases.


    Do you have any intention (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by tree on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:11:01 PM EST
    here OTHER than insulting other posters? Because simply claiming that you have superior judgment and others' judgments are flawed isn't a valid argument on the issues.

     If you want to name 12 policies that you are absolutely certain Obama stands behind, then go ahead. But remember that simply asserting that the policies appear on his website is no guarantee that he stands behind them. Remember what happened to his stand on the FISA Amendment, and public financing of elections, and off-shore drilling, and whether the surge "worked" etc, etc. Even his vaunted speech against the Iraq war was scrubbed from his  Senate campaign site in 2003 when it looked like it might hinder his election.



    I ridicule (none / 0) (#141)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:53:57 PM EST
    specific posters for their acute case of ODS.

    Equating Obama to Bush.  Suggesting that he never speaks about specific policies. Blaming Obama for everything that has done to both Hillary and Bill regardless of their actual association to Obama.  

    I remember all of his stands.  I understand that he flipped on FISA and understand why.  I don't care about public financing.  And he didnt flip on off-shore drilling.  


    So then post those 12 and stop (none / 0) (#148)
    by tree on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 06:32:20 PM EST
    insulting people. Insulting people doesn't advance your point, in case you haven't noticed. Or would you be impressed if I called you out on an acute case of TLDS? I sincerely doubt it.

    If I disliked TL (none / 0) (#156)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:36:08 PM EST
    I wouldn't post here.  

    I find it a challenge to argue with some people here.  And some people frustrate me.   That's how it goes.  I will fully admit that there are times when I go over the top.  I think most of us do.


    My Own Take on the Obama Campaign (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by BDB on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:29:00 PM EST
    has always been that whatever he accused Clinton of doing or being was what they were (going negative, saying anything to win, DLC charges, lack experience, race baiting, playing the victim).  One of the things he accused Clinton of was seeking a 50% +1 victory in November.  Under my theory, this would translate into being the Obama campaign's plan all along.

    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Miri on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:59:42 PM EST
    "So Barack is behaving like any other potential president in this regard."

    He barely "won" the nomination with help from the super delegates.

    He is acting like Bush after Katherine Harris and the Scalia 5 fixed the election for him. Bush acted like he had won a landslide victory. Obama is acting like he won a landslide primary victory.

    More and more this reminds me of 1976 with Ford and Reagan.

    Despite the "unity" rhetoric (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by denise on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:02:12 PM EST
    I'm convinced that a big part of his strategy in courting young voters was painting the Clintons and the Republicans with the same brush. Everyone who was around 6 months ago heard the boyz saying "Whitewater" "sleaze" and even "Vincent Foster" over & over. It was the first of many things that soured me on Obama. After what the Clintons went through back then, to hear this crap coming from Democrats was beyond despicable. Then there were all the suggestions of racism, which many of his supporters believe despite the plain absurdity of it.

    Now, having whipped these folks up into a frenzy of Clinton-hatred, he can't afford to have anything to do with her. Go over to the Orange place & see what they think of her being picked as VP.

    Fineman (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by Miri on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:06:35 PM EST
    "Fineman...I don't know why except maybe he wants to keep his job at MSNBC. "

    It is because he is a member of the Sally Quinn coctail class, along with the rest of WP/Newsweek crowd.

    These people cheered on Starr in the 90s, lynched Gore during the 2000 election and until recently were worshipping Bush.

    Which only clarifies why I... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by AX10 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    and millions of other supporters of the party will
    not support Mr. Obama.

    The Money People (2.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Addison on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:29:03 AM EST
    Fineman quotes a Clinton fundraiser saying

    Those big-time bundlers -- who've been upset and threatening for a long time, see Ferraro's statement about it -- aren't needed for Obama to win. You (via Howard) are quoting a Hillraiser to talk about regular Hillary supporters/voters. That doesn't make sense. Of COURSE the fundraisers are upset that Obama gets his money elsewhere and they don't get to put on meet-and-greets and galas.

    It is an atittude that (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:39:38 AM EST
    goes beyond that and you want to play dumb.

    the quote is emblematic of an attitude that permeates the Obama campaign and his supporters, in the Media and the blogs. Please do not play dumb, you know exactly what I meant.

    More importantly, you know it is true.


    Non-transferable. (2.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Addison on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:51:04 AM EST
    I think it's perfectly fair to not take a bundler's gripe at face value as the best or most comprehensive take on the situation as regards the electorate. More than fair, it's common sense. The bundler's gripe is not really illuminating in the slightest or -- though you somehow think differently --  transferable to the reasons why some voters haven't come over. Especially when that gripe surrounded by Fineman's other novelistic nonsense.

    To think a bundler's gripe is transferable to voters, that someone saying Obama feels he doesn't need Clinton's well-heeled fundraisers is the cause of some Clinton lesser-heeled voters not coming aboard, sorry, that is playing dumb.

    They are different groups, with different interests, and they have different reasons to complain. It's not useful for you or Howard Fineman to comingle them.


    Yourt opinion (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:53:50 AM EST
    is noted. And wrong.

    Whatever... (2.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Addison on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:59:00 AM EST
    ...if you think some Clinton voters aren't becoming Obama voters because of sheer lack of pampering attention --  as is the case with the bundlers -- then you've got it wrong.

    There are clearly policy issues and, to some extent, character/social/cultural issues at play. You'd be better off discussing those than quoting Fineman quoting a rich fundraiser's abstract gripe about Obama not "needing" Clinton voters.


    All voters want pampering attention (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:03:01 AM EST
    If you think asking for some respect to be shown to the last Democratic President and to a rival who almost equaled him in the primaries, is too much to ask, I say that you are part of the problem.

    Issues issues issues... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Addison on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:05:33 AM EST
    ...pamper the issues not the Clintons.

    Issues? (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:11:20 AM EST
    A good idea.  Loved the fact check on NPR yesterday morning which shot down BOTH candidates' oil and gas policies.

    I found that entirely unsurprising.  Even when they talk about issues, they still manage to do it with a minimum of substance.  [I miss Hillary.]


    I think the way the Obama camp (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:23:00 AM EST
    treats the bundlers is important.  If the Obama camp doesn't care about the well-heeled voters, are they going to care somehow more about the less well-heeled?  Who do you think the average Clinton voter is more likely to identify with when they read this type of press?

    It's fine to view the Clinton bundlers as a passive-aggressive clique.  What do they care?  But viewing the Obama camp as a passive-aggressive clique matters...and could hurt them in the end.


    Why not both? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:53:04 AM EST
    Why denigrate the Clinton legacy?

    Why? Why? Why?

    you have no answers for these questions so let's move on.


    It's not pandering. That's foolish. (5.00 / 8) (#93)
    by rooge04 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:19:18 PM EST
    It reflects to me the Obama supporters I've known and met throughout this thing: most of them are Clinton haters because their Republican parents were. They grew up in the 90s being told Bill was Slick Willie and Hillary was half-man. These kids are liberals but their parents are not. Almost ALL people I know that have Democratic parents still love the Clintons, even if they supported Obama in the primaries or now. It's this odd mix of Republican family and newly-minted "Democratic" young people. It's bizarre. They love Obama but hate the Clintons. Strange it is.

    And you are foolish to think that pandering to 18 million VOTERS is silly.  Obama does that every single time he denigrates the Clinton legacy. It is the VERY reason why me, my spouse, my parents, my in laws, and most of my extended family will NOT vote for him.  He should be pandering to us. But he's too arrogant.  


    It seems that (4.50 / 2) (#45)
    by pie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:16:23 AM EST
    Obama does neither.

    Pamper is a silly word.  After what Obama said about Bill in the primaries, he did have a responsibility to mend fences.  Despite his supposed abiltiy to bring all sides together, he's failed miserably.

    So just how great is that ability anyway?


    As a secondary issue... (1.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Addison on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:36:38 AM EST
    ...why are you posting excerpts from and trusting this clownish article, an article that contains such non-journalistic, Dowd-esque nonsense as:

    Obama says he wants to use his natural diplomatic skills to bring peace to the planet.

    Maybe that's why he's not especially eager to earn extra credit with the Clintons.

    Sure, Bill and Hill can act like spoiled children.

    Sure Obama is cold.

    No wonder Bill is pouting.

    It was the political equivalent of taking your ball and going home.

    I quoted none of those excerpts (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:40:33 AM EST
    And your attempt to red herring my point is very much NOT appreciated. I understand it as you have no answer for the central point.

    Obama gets his money elsewhere? (none / 0) (#150)
    by bridget on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 07:01:02 PM EST
    That's fine with me.

    We just received our very first Obama letter asking for our support and MONEY MONEY and more MONEY. I learned a lot from that letter.

    So I thought why bother?

    Bet he has all these folks like the Gettys falling all over themselves anyway handing him the $2300 checks and then some.


    You know the answer (1.50 / 2) (#108)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:49:17 PM EST
    to the question of why Obama and his campaign are willing to go it alone.  Three words.  William Jefferson Clinton.  

    He has shown himself to be a terrible surrogate and completely uncontrollable.   His unwillingness to be a team player whatsoever is what sunk the Hillary for VP campaign.

    In the Presidential election of 1840 the country was sick of the Democratic Party.  Martin Van Buren's administration ushered in the 2nd worst depression in our history.  Their anti-bank and anti-soft money stances had become wildly unpopular.

    The stage was set for the Whigs to take control of the government.  Virtually everyone knew that the Whigs were sure to win.  And Henry Clay, as putative leader of the Whig Party should have been the man for the job. But when the Whigs held their Convention in late 1839, things were not as clear.  And the Whigs fearing defeat using a common name such as Clay and wanting to enforce their theme of changing Washington selected William Henry Harrison.  

    Harrison, wishing to unify the party, asked Clay to be his VP but Clay, in a fit pique, would not give him an answer.  Harrison ultimately selected John Tyler.  Harrison died 2 weeks after speaking at his Inauguration.  Tyler became the 10th President of the Untied States and one of the poorest.

    This story is illustrative in this case for a few reasons.  First it shows how the change theme has been a powerful force in our politics since the beginning.  Secondly, Clay's decision to be petulant and not accept the VP ultimately cost him the chance to be President.  Lastly because of Clay's intransigence the country was stuck with a poor alternative.

    In this election William Clinton is Henry Clay, causing mischief for his wife and ensuring that perhaps the best option for VP will not be selected.  

    Bill Clinton was a fine President but he has acted very poorly these past 8 months.  

    I have to say (1.00 / 1) (#122)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 02:32:33 PM EST
    while I really don't care much about low rates I would have thought that my post, at the very least, deserved a response if you were going to low rate it.

    Guess heresy, even of the most tepid kind, is unacceptable here.


    OK, here you go (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:09:46 PM EST
    You started off with a demonstrably false critique of Bill Clinton's actions during the primary, then finished up with a long rambling non sequitur about a presidential election that happened nearly 170 years ago.

    False premise, irrelevant argument. So content-free it's not really worth it to refute, so you get downrated.

    Happy now?


    Really? (1.00 / 1) (#135)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:22:34 PM EST
    Demonstrably false?  

    See this is the problem with so many of you here.  You won't even accept the possibility of any fault being assigned to EITHER Clinton.  My critique of Bill could hardly be less harsh and yet it was STILL too much for you to accept.  Hero worship serves no purpose.  

    My "non sequitur" was simply an illustration that this sort of thing has happened before.   It's not like brought up a story about a Billy Joel concert.


    Dude (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:46:06 PM EST
    Way to undermine whatever point you thought you were making. I said your critique of Bill is demonstrably false, not that Bill has no faults.

    This is exactly the kind of thing that destroys your credibility. You completely misrepresented and exaggerated to absurdity what I wrote. Anyone with readon comprehension skills can see what I actually wrote.

    Therefore there's no reason to think what you claimed about Bill Clinton's behavior in the primary is true - more likely it's just another case of you misrepresenting and exaggerating.


    Right (none / 0) (#142)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:56:10 PM EST
    So you make an unsupported claim and an ad hominem attack towards me.  I respond to that attack with some snark and now you justify your unssupported assertion because I responded that way?

    What exactly about my comment was demonstrably false, meaning that it can be empirically proven that my comment was false?


    Unsupported? Ad hom? (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 05:13:08 PM EST
    All anyone has to do is read what I wrote and then read how you misrepresented it. That's supported.

    And where's the ad hominem?


    Demostrably fact (none / 0) (#157)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:37:33 PM EST
    suggests something has already been proven.  Since you didn't even state what it was that I said that was wrong, your claim was unsupported.

    The ad hominem was trivializing my comments.


    You need to look up the meaning of (none / 0) (#164)
    by echinopsia on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:51:16 AM EST
    ad hominem. It's Latin for "against the man."

    As opposed to "against what the man said."

    This is a very common mistake made by uninformed people. If I say your comments are ignorant, that's not an ad hominem. If I say YOU are ignorant, that is.


    Absurd (none / 0) (#129)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 03:41:11 PM EST
    Thanks (1.00 / 1) (#136)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:23:50 PM EST
    for the in depth rebuttal.

    You guys win.  Bill is angelic and can do no wrong and did nothing wrong.  It was all just a conspiracy to keep the Clintons down.


    Wow! For the first time ever I actually agree (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Angel on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:46:53 PM EST
    with something you've written.  

    Oops, you did it again. (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 04:47:02 PM EST
    I guess Clinton (none / 0) (#2)
    by Lahdee on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:25:48 AM EST
    still isn't a post-partisan type of gal, besides what ever would we do with Bill?

    Only Obama is allowed to be (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Fabian on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:06:30 AM EST
    post-partisan.  Everyone else is supposed to be loyal, obedient Party drones.  Or worker bees, for the females.

    Wow Captain... (none / 0) (#8)
    by kmblue on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:29:41 AM EST
    I'm thinking you might be right.

    I would be happy to be wrong (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:36:46 AM EST
    "I desperately need her and Bill" (none / 0) (#10)
    by Saul on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:30:26 AM EST
    I heard him say this on a past news interview.  Forget which station.  He said Bill helped Hilary plenty and he said he needed that same kind of support from Bill going into the GE

    Saying and doing (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:38:21 AM EST
    are two different things.

    Isn't that Obama's Mantra? (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by blogtopus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:44:23 AM EST

    That is almost an Obama (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:33:49 AM EST
    hallmark that extends beyond the Clintons and Clinton wing of the party.  I think that is one vulnerability the Obama camp is overlooking.  The undecideds in the electorate don't need to see the "saying vs. doing" reinforced as they try to choose how to cast their vote.  

    Victory in November (none / 0) (#52)
    by Doc Rock on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:28:35 AM EST
    I am not nearly so sanguine as BTD about an Obama victory--which worries me greatly for the future of SCOTUS.

    SCOTUS worry.... (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:39:17 AM EST
    I hate to break it to you, but you'll be "worrying about SCOTUS" for decades.  Not only are Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Roberts not expected to retire anytime soon, all of them are likely to time their departures so that they can be replaced by Republican presidents.  

    In other words, the "worried about SCOTUS" thing is a red herring, because SCOTUS will be vulnerable for decades to come, and the outcome of this election isn't going to change that dynamic one bit.


    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by flashman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:58:29 AM EST
    You only named the youngsters.

    Ginsberg - 75
    Kennedy - 71
    Souter - 69
    Breyer - 70
    Stevens - 88!


    Nor am I (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by nemo52 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:40:56 AM EST
    From the middle of the primary season, I thought Hillary would be stronger in the GE, even with the media adoration of Obama.

    Sure (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:29:45 AM EST
    it would be nice to win something without any political debt to them.  They are both playing the stare down game and Obama WILL win with or without them.  I want HIll to be on the ticket but Obama is the presumptive nominee and they play by his rules or they don't play.  Seems to me they are asking him to play by their rules and he is not intimidated.  I am still voting for Nader unless Obama picks Hillary (i would overlook his recent capitulations with her as VP).

    I thought (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:58:24 AM EST
    Obama was about ending partisan divisions.

    If he's thinking "play by my rules or don't play," he's more like Bush than he is about post partisan unity.


    I don't know about that (none / 0) (#112)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    i am sure Bill C had a pretty tight ship with regard to how things were done. Anyone running for president has ego and both HRC and BHO are pretty strong minded people.  So Barack is behaving like any other potential president in this regard.  Hillary is still the best choice and based on the frost coming out of both sides it ain't gonna happen.  Competing egos though are very difficult to manage.  Bayh would be a distant 5th in this race if running for Pres as would Kaine as was Biden,  Hillary had 50% of the party screaming behind her, she would best serve this country comparatively so in my opinion.  

    Its so he can marginalize the Clintons (none / 0) (#58)
    by ajain on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:30:39 AM EST
    Not that I think it will work, I just believe he is either driven by deep dislike of the Clintons or he is on some level insecure (I read somewhere that he is unnerved by Hillary's presence - maybe that's Dowd, and if it is don't pay any attention to this aside) and wants to take total control over the party.
    I think he is the odds on favorite to win, but his insistence to push the Clintons away is silly and has costs.  

    We already know about control of the party (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by lambertstrether on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 12:21:35 PM EST
    That's what moving the DNC to Chicago and running all the fundraising past Obama means. It's also what the Obama movement having its own database and funding sources, separate from the party, means.

    media Driven (none / 0) (#161)
    by jb64 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:39:08 AM EST
    I think a lot of this is driven by the media. Sure, there are still wounds from the primary that haven't healed, and the arrogance that comes with winning, but I honestly think this is a lot of "inside Baseball"

    If Obama doesn't pick Clinton for the VP slot, not only will he lose a lot of support from Clintonian Democrats, but from the media as well. The media wants Hillary back in this campaign, and if they can't get her on the ticket, then they will sow the seeds of discontent. Fineman's drivel should be a signal to Obama.