Why Obama Is A Shoo In, And How He Can Win A Landslide

The latest CBS News poll (PDF) tells you all you need to know as to why Obama is a shoo in in this election and what he needs to do to win a landslide. The poll has Obama leading 45-39 over McCain, the same margin he has held now for 3 months. But Obama is not winning by wooing Independents or Republicans. Heck, he is not even dominating Dems as he should. He is winning, and is a shoo in, because the country hates Republicans. Starting with George Bush who has a 25% approval rating.

Obama wins because Dems lead Republicans in party ID by 7 to 10 points. McCain does better with Republicans, 78-11, than Obama does with Democrats, 74-10, while they split Independents 40-40. But there are more Democrats than Republicans now. That is why Obama is winning.

More . . .

And how does Obama lock in the win in this election and achieve a landslide? By closing the deal with Clinton supporters. The polls shows that Obama only wins Clinton supporters 52-19 with 24% undecided. McCain leads among white women by 42-38 with 17% undecided.

Pick Hillary as his VP and Obama will win in a landslide - a 7 to 10 point win. Don't pick her and it will be a 2-5 point win. It is that simple, as it has been since June.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Obama v. McCain on Military Tribunals | Pawlenty Praises Obama's Positive Message >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Interesting (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:02:07 PM EST
    Did it even matter that he didn't identify more strongly with the Democratic brand?

    When the option is Republican (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:05:27 PM EST
    not so much. But enough to keep it closer than it should be.

    By the way (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:12:35 PM EST
    You are an enabler of Obama's take-no-risks strategy!

    On the contrary (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:14:34 PM EST
    I am arguing for the take no risk strategy - which is to pick Hillary as his VP. I am the anti-enabler of the current Obama risk riddled strategy of NOT picking her.

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:18:14 PM EST
    But you keep proving he will win no matter what!

    Is your thesis "Obama will win, provided he picks Hillary Clinton, which we all know he will not do, but he will somehow win anyway"?


    I think he can't lose (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:24:20 PM EST
    I think  Kucinich might have been able to win this election.

    It is a Dem year. If Obama manges to lose this, then he will have to be considered the worst Dem candidate in history.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:27:30 PM EST
    I doubt the history books will be written that way, because of the race factor.

    It's just so hard to imagine McCain winning whenever you watch his campaign, is the thing.  I mean, tire gauges?  It's like watching a local city council race.


    Really? I thought the tire gauge stunt (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:30:04 PM EST
    was good.

    Good for a laugh. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Thanin on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:06:48 PM EST
    Hah! (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:11:18 AM EST
    It was so good that he had to back down and knee-cap his supporters and leave them waving their silly tire gauges in the air.

    I hear they are very cheap on ebay now.

    Net result - McCain made to look childish and ignorant on the facts regarding the benefits of tire pressure.  


    Older people already knew about (none / 0) (#177)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:26:15 AM EST
    tire pressure.  We've already been through this before, remember?  When is Obama going to start addressing the "Drive 55 mph" because that also saves gas -- but I guess he didn't want to talk about that one because it ticks off a lot of younger people.  

    So, in the end, who looks silliest to the demographic Obama needs to reach?  


    Easy answer (none / 0) (#191)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:58:43 AM EST
    So, in the end, who looks silliest to the demographic Obama needs to reach?  



    I thought the (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:28:07 AM EST
    tire gauge thing was a good stunt too.  

    All this stuff makes McCain look more like the "common man."  

    Just remember, when Obama was in Germany, McCain was in a German restaurant.  McCain's poll numbers went up after that and it wasn't because Obama did anything really dumb on his European tour.    


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:32:59 AM EST
    Where I come from, the common man invariably owns a tire gauge.  Down south, Daddy teaches you how to shoot a gun; growing up in Detroit, Daddy teaches you how to check your tire pressure.

    I dunno about anyone else's common man but I thought they all watched NASCAR.


    We all own tire gauges (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:03:46 AM EST
    just most of them don't have "Obama's Energy Plan" emblazoned on the side.  

    Did you know you can get one by donating $25 to McCain's campaign?  


    It is also hard to imagine Obama (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:09:18 AM EST
    spending so much emotional energy on McCain's handing out tire gauges.  

    Agree with your last sentence, which (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:28:59 PM EST
    is why I think the Democrats are in trouble.
    Obama is comparable to the weaker Democrats of recent memory---Dukakis, Mondale, Carter.
    He has an advantage in organizational skills over those, but he is just TERRIBLE without a script, and and the frequent sense of lese majeste if he gets a tough question, really has worn thin.

    Not to interrupt the flow of another great (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by prittfumes on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:51:58 PM EST
    BTD thread, but MarkL, you've nailed it. The perfect term I've been looking for to describe what happens to Obama when he is asked a non-routine question. Lèse majesté. I love it! Thanks.

    Terrible? (2.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:18:21 AM EST
    Compared to who?  

    Bush?  McCain?  Boehner?  McConnell?

    Face it, the man is the best communicator since JFK.  


    That would be RFK (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:00:43 AM EST
    and no he isn't.  The trick to a great communicator is if they can get you to listen to things you need to hear(inconvenient truths) not things you want to hear.

    Also...the main message of any politician should always be "It's all about you - the American people.".  Hillary learned that by heart.  It's not about "we" or "us" because those words have an exclusive subtext via tribalism.  Where there is a "we", a "they" is always implied.  That's partisanship.

    And it's certainly never, ever about "me" or "I".  Those words imply responsibility, to be sure, but they are also as exclusive as you can get.  There's "me" and then there's all the rest of you.  And if I keep talking on like "I" am the only one who counts...then what does that say about the rest of you?

    Granted, people often look to leaders to take responsibility off of their shoulders.  Voters are often a cowardly, superstitious lot.  A truly great communicator will offer to take the burdens of responsible leadership, but remind people there are some responsibilities they are best entrusted with.  

    Look at World War 2.  The public was encouraged and expected to contribute to the war effort on a personal effort.  I'm sure that rationing wouldn't go over well now, but perhaps we could push recycling and neighborhood gardening clubs.  And checking tire pressure.


    Darn it! (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by echinopsia on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:58:47 PM EST
    We coulda had a Kucinich!

    Obama not winning. Bush is losing... (5.00 / 6) (#79)
    by jerry on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:32:20 PM EST
    I think a lot of the closeness of various polls demonstrates that Obama isn't winning so much as George Bush and Republicans are losing.

    There's not many places I can say that these days without being accused of racism.  Which may be why Obama is not winning so much as Bush is losing.

    Charges of bigotry, racism, sexism, anti-semitism are very powerful.  They can be the ultimate distraction and smear.  Because bigotry, racism, sexism, and anti-semitism are terrible things to have in 2008.  And also because who wants to, or who is brave enough, to defend against a charge of bigotry, racism, sexism, anti-semitism, or other *isms.

    Outrageous claims require outrageous evidence.  Sniff tests, and sightings of dog whistles (mixed metaphor alert) are insufficient with such charges.  The American People are right to listen to such charges very skeptically.

    All too often, those of us on the left are way too quick to get out the hot pine tar, the feathers, and the rail.


    Couldn't agree more, jerry.... (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by oldpro on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:52:01 PM EST
    which is why I will never, ever forgive the racism accusations re the Clintons in this primary or the denial and twisting of Ferraro's obviously truthful statement...not to mention throwing the rest of us under the bus.

    Race relation are now so strained socially among Democrats that some of us are avoiding the meetings and social gatherings.

    Reminds me of the aftermath of the OJ Simpson trial...unnerving...no criticism of any kind possible in that atmosphere or this one.

    We have regressed in a very ugly way.


    Question: (none / 0) (#169)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:15:31 AM EST
    How did Bush cause Obama to win the nomination?

    As I recall, it was because he beat Clinton, not Bush.


    Obama won the primary - but the general election? (none / 0) (#192)
    by jerry on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 03:26:56 AM EST
    In the primary he ran against Clinton.

    In the general he is running against McCain AND George Bush.


    You might (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Bluesage on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:01:14 PM EST
    Need to start considering that he will be known as the worst Democratic candidate in history.  Remember it only has to be close for the republicans to pull off another "win" and Obama is wearing very thin these days.  Many, like myself, are thinking we need to work very, very hard for strong gains in Congress and wait for a better candidate in 2012.  McCain can be neutered with a strong Democratic Congress.  God, I can't believe I can even type the words strong and democratic in the same sentence but hope springs eternal. I will be hugely surprised if Obama picks Hillary for VP and I truly don't believe he has a snowball in hell's chance without her.  

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:41:26 PM EST
    he's not going to pick her. Or at least that's all indications. Just today his minions were talking about how Bill was a problem. You have to remember that Obama is running for Carter's second term. What would Carter do? Who would Carter pick? Probably someone like Bayh.

    Actually (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:49:44 PM EST
    I happen to like Carter's pick a lot!  You could do a lot worse than ol' Fritz.

    I happen to like Carter a lot! (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:19:11 AM EST

    Yes, Mr. Mundal (none / 0) (#108)
    by weltec2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:51:13 PM EST
    in his proud Norwegian. His wife Joan is another one who, like Teddy, has been struggling with brain cancer. She had it once before and it went into remission, but I believe they found another tumor. This is old news -- last winter or something. I have not heard anything else in some time. Someone may have an update.

    I remember 2004 (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:15:56 AM EST
    Mondale announced Minnesota's delegate votes at the convention.  I think he had to be prompted to remember who the candidate was.  I just love that guy.

    Since the Carter administration left office, we have been criticized for many things. Yet I remain enormously proud of what we did in those four years, especially that we told the truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace.

    You're thinking of his daughter (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by akaEloise on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:39:28 AM EST
    Eleanor.  She had surgery and chemo earlier this year, and is back on the radio on WCCO in Minneapolis.  

    Oh, thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:43:25 AM EST
    That's good news.

    So, these minions (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:04:20 AM EST
    Are they now afraid they will be held responsible for their bad behavior toward Hillary if they continue the theme that SHE is to blame for all of Obama's problems? They had to switch the blame to Bill?

    He gave Obama some of the most incredible compliments in his interview this week. Bill Clinton has said nothing to dampen Obama's quest.

    That has been the work of the pathetic media talking heads guessing and analyzing what they don't know.


    Well I'm sure that if you're right (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:38:02 AM EST
    transfering their vitriol to Bill will really help them a lot with Clinton supporters.  'Cuz we hate him.  We only like her.  Ha!

    She IS to blame to a large degree. (1.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:22:26 AM EST
    If the Clintons and some of their die-hard supporters would help the effort, Obama would be doing much better.  

    If they had thrown in the towel when the writing was on the wall, Obama would have had that much more time to frame McCain and consolidate Democratic contributions.


    She has nothing to do with it (5.00 / 5) (#180)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:33:28 AM EST
    Obama and his supporters said they didn't need Clinton supporters to win.  

    If he doesn't need us, he doesn't need us.  

    Yeah, Obama would be doing a lot better -- but he says he doesn't need us!  

    Why do anything if you aren't needed?  Let the Obama supporters go knock themselves out.  We've all moved on.  We've gotten over it.    


    If Obama gave me some ligit reason (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:17:30 AM EST
    to vote for him, I might consider it.

    You are right on one point (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Fabian on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:41:29 AM EST
    Obama needs all the help he can get.  

    Absolutely..... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jjc2008 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:02:30 PM EST
    Was talking to my nephew tonight.  He lives in Central FL and is a republican but he has been supporting Obama all along.  He is livid because he knows the racism is going to hurt Obama in central FL.  But he agrees that choosing Hillary would probably give him FL.   And he thinks they are the same on issues and thinks she would be a good fit.

    he "knows" racism will hurt Obama? (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by Ford Prefect on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:52:53 AM EST
    Goodness, are you serious? Obama has the weakest resume of any kind for vast majority of leadership positions on this planet. And yet he won the primary (even if he lost the popular vote by a squeaker) for the presidents position with absolutely no demonstrated leadership on any one issue or any worthy accomplishments or even worthy attempts in all those years in public office. As Axelrod said, they were in a jam prior to SC. And they got out of that jam by aiding and abetting the accusations that clintons were racists (directly by his surrogates). The same clintons who for 20 years courted the AA community and were very close to them only to show racism just on the eve of an important primary where they needed the AA votes, if you can believe this theory. It is really a bizarro world some folks are living in, if they "know" that Racism will hurt Obama. Heck he just wont the primary by accusing other candidates who question his accomplishments as racists. Frankly I think the reason Obama is softening on the polls (most of them anyway) is due to this constant dog-whistling that all his opponents are being so racist toward him by scaring the people that "he has a funny name and he doesnt look like other presidents on the dollar bill" and such obvious victim plays which are getting tiresome.

    If Obama were (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:00:35 AM EST
    white with blond hair and blue eyes and kept yelling "You're against blue-eyed people, aren't you?" I'd feel exactly the same way I do now.  Race has been brought into this race in a serious way because the Obama campaign and his supporters want to keep bringing it into the campaign.  

    Bill Clinton has never been a racist.

    Enough said.  


    and I'm sure that ageism will hurt McCain (none / 0) (#6)
    by HypeJersey on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:08:40 PM EST
    in some places too.  

    Ageism will not hurt McCain as badly (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by clio on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:15:09 PM EST
    as racism will hurt Obama.

    There are lots of people looking for an excuse to not vote for Obama without saying "because he's black," and the McCain campaign is frantically working to give them one.

    Those rather silly ads about celebrity make perfect sense on that level...and that is the level that McCain is mining.

    Surely you realized it was always going to come down to this?  I am not sure that Obama did.  I am afraid he bought his own hype in the primaries.  Always dangerous.  

    I'd be much more sanguine if Democratic candidates were not so skilled at prying defeat from the clenched jaws of victory because, as BTD says, this really is a Democratic year.  It often appears, however, that Obama is so set on proving that he can win his way that he is willing to sacrifice his chances of winning at all.


    Maybe Obama should stop handing (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:30:08 AM EST
    out reasons for Dems not to vote for him. Calling it racism is avoiding the problem.

    I agree n/t (none / 0) (#207)
    by stefystef on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:12:44 AM EST
    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Amiss on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:37:10 AM EST
    IMNSO Obama has only done as well as he has because of his race. I see it as lots of people voted for Obama only because of his race.

    I agree he has bought into his own hype tho and I believe that will be his undoing.


    If Hillary had won, (none / 0) (#174)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:24:01 AM EST
    her gender would be virtually the same problem.

    nonsense... (none / 0) (#208)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:22:38 AM EST
    I'm one of those people who think that racism will hurt Obama in the general -- criticism of Obama's lack of experience and his hubris, while legitimate, resonate differently on a subconscious level because he is black.  And because African Americans vote overwhelmingly Democratic anyway, the advantages of 'positive' racial bias that gave him the nomination will be outweighed by the impact of negative racial bias.

    But Clinton has spent eight years working to be able to transcend gender bias --- when you actually stop and pay attention to Clinton, the reality of her is so at odds with the media's image of her that she overcomes 'expectations', and that includes gender-based expectations.  And while negative gender bias would remain a factor, it would be outweighed by the impact of positive gender bias, as women flock to vote for her.

    Ultimately, it is Obama's failure to address the reality of the American political environment that is at fault, because its obvious that he understood how to exploit positive racial bias, but did not bother to deal with the problems that would be created for him with negative gender bias.  


    Picking Hillary as VP would seal the deal (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by HypeJersey on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:07:34 PM EST
    but calling him a shoo in is stretching it right now when he hasn't broken away from McCain in the polls.  In fact, whenever McCain actually wakes up long enough to do something, he has done Obama some damage by capitalizing on some of Obama's weaknesses.

    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by IzikLA on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:41:49 PM EST
    I just don't buy this shoo-in talk unfortunately.  I keep hearing everyone on TV and in the papers and even BTD telling us that Obama is "winning".  I've heard it over and over again and yet, I'm pretty sure there is only one way to actually win and that's to get the votes in November.  "Winning" simply isn't enough or else Hillary would've won in the end because she was way up in the polls in the beginning.  

    Long story short it doesn't matter if you are perceived to be "winning" until you've actually "won."

    As a Clinton supporter in the primary and a reluctant Obama supporter now, let's not make the same mistake we made in the primaries and take our eye off the ball.


    Absurd comment (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:10:10 PM EST

    True comment! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by RalphB on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:23:37 PM EST
    Nooooo (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:25:55 PM EST
    The Media buyng polls for Obama is an absurd and stupid comment only made by folks deranged by Obama hate.

    Not buying the poll for Obama :-) (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by RalphB on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:28:27 PM EST
    just the difference in now and November.  For me anyway.

    We have entire networks (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:28:36 PM EST
    in the tank for Obama (MSNBO).  You don't think a media outlet would buy themselves a poll?

    No reputable poll (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:00:28 AM EST
    would be for sale even if someone wanted to buy them.  Once is all it would take.  It would come out...become public...end of business.

    Bad plan.

    Not gonna happen unless an outlet pretends to do a poll and broadcasts a fake outcome.  THAT I wouldn't put past 'em....


    Not voting for BO is not hate (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:47:09 PM EST
    It is just not supporting BO.

    Media polls tend to have more outlier results (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:11:49 PM EST
    compared to other polls taken at the same time.  It does not have to have anything to do with 'buying' polls or assertions of that type.

    Gallup has Obama up by 2 today, had him up by 4 a few days before that, and tied a few before that.  Ras has him up by 1 today after being down by 1 for 2 days.  That Quinnepac poll someone mentioned had him down by 2 or 4 last week.  The CBS poll having him up by 6 is nothing like the extraordinary poll (Newsweek I believe) that had him up by 15 pts in June while everyone else had him in the 2-5 range, but media polls do seem to have a lot more variation (even by the same media outlet).  All in all, I don't think anyone can say that 6 pt CBS poll is somehow definitive while all the others are problematic.

    Regardless whether any or none of the polls show an accurate picture of what public opinion is, all the close polls bust up the inevitabililty narrative for Obama, and that's big trouble for his campaign, since (somewhat ironically, since it's what they sniped at Clinton for) that's what they've based their campaign strategy on.

    That's all with the Republicans just getting started.

    So I really don't see 'shoo-in' at all, not at this point.  That could change.  But it's no longer unthinkable that Obama could lose.

    However, I do think Hillary as VP would help him with older (30+) women.  Not with me, but that's a whole 'nother story.


    Media's own polls are paid for by media though (5.00 / 0) (#204)
    by andrys on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:51:36 AM EST
    and they tend to go according to their pwm leanings as seen in the viewing or reading, unfortunately.  I pay no attention to NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, or Fox polls or to Newsweek or L.A. Times. They've been shown to be especially bloated Obama's way vs results by the pollers whose actual business it is to poll, only.  That was really evident in the primaries.

     Note that when a network puts out its poll, it quotes only its own for that day and ignores all the others, no matter how totally different the others are, treating it as The Poll that counts.  They paid for them (bought them) and they're selling them (and themselves) when they talk and talk about their latest poll.  NBC is the most egregious in this.


    How is it not obvious? (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by hitchhiker on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:10:10 PM EST
    Seriously, what is the reason now to pick a cipher like Bayh?  HRC doesn't just bring one freaking state, she brings a wide swath of enthusiastic voters.

    She brings a mandate.

    She brings unity.

    She brings toughness, experience, and uber-wonkness.

    How the heck is this not the obvious choice?

    Obama can never "seal the deal" (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Shainzona on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:16:47 PM EST
    with this HRC supporter.  Never.  Sorry.

    He's afraid of Bill Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:11:30 AM EST
    I think he's intimidated or something:
    Not helping is the fact that Obama has yet to follow up on the tentative dinner plans he and Bill Clinton made at the end of the primary season. "It's personal with him, in terms of his own legacy," says a friend of Bill Clinton's. "And the race stuff really left a bad taste in his mouth."

    He should be ... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by bridget on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:04:31 AM EST
    the Obama campaign and the Obama minions did their very best to ruin Bill Clinton's legacy. They put a wedge between the Clintons and the black community in order to get the votes. Calling Bill Clinton a racist, for heavens sake. Of course, he takes it personal. Who wouldn't?

    thanks for the link

    Bill and Hillary really look amazing on that pic. They looked great in 92, they look so now - a real great looking power couple :-)


    Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:25:18 AM EST
    she also brings Bill.

    and so... (none / 0) (#196)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:20:44 AM EST
    What is your point? State it plainly, please.

    BTD, I thought you had given up. Is the later (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:13:15 PM EST
    announcement making you wonder just a little? I'd love for it to happen...let Obama play Mr. Nice Guy in the White House while Hillary gives them hell. Let her be the bad guy and fighter.

    I have no hope (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:16:36 PM EST
    I am just giving my honest analysis.

    I don't either. It's unfortunate and frustrating. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:19:30 PM EST
    No hope? (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by standingup on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:40:42 PM EST
    Maybe at least a little change we can believe in then?  

    I have a similar thought (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Coldblue on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:40:24 PM EST
    Hillary could be our progressive Dick Cheney.

    It's a perfect solution. He can let her take all (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:48:31 PM EST
    the heat while he stays above it all. He's just crazy not to do this. But, I've given up and I expect an Obama clone as VP.

    I checked on DKos to see if anyone wrote a diary on Hillary's WSJ piece. I found one but it only had 14 comments! The amazing thing, though, was that every single one of them was positive. These commenters love this aggressive progressive Hillary.


    I wish that (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Coldblue on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:01:13 PM EST
    the majority of Daily Kos posters saw it that way. Unfortunately, the blinders take time to remove.

    yeah, it gave me a little hope to see all the (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:06:35 PM EST
    comments were favorable. Wouldn't it be weird if she remains this outspoken and becomes a netroots hero? I'd laugh my butt off. If that piece had been written by any Dem Senator other than Hillary, it would have been on the rec list.

    14 comments (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Little Fish on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:23:54 PM EST
    And yet for a big chunk of the day there was a diary that involved a stick figure drawing that got 500 comments and 400 recs.  Awesome, DK, awesome.

    Also a DKos Diary (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:24:42 PM EST
    earlier today advocating for Hillary as VP. Responses were both positive and negative. Writer professed to have been a die hard Obama supporter who never thought he'd support Hillary on the ticket. I guess some Obama supporters prefer some assurance of getting him to the White House over
    continued cold war & burying one's head in the sand.  

    I kinda like the fact that Bill Clinton is not kissing up.  I think the Obama campaign and the MSM have been operly disrespectful as to matters where praise and admiration are far more appropriate -- they have used him as a red herring, a distraction from Obama's shortcomings.  


    I read dkos (none / 0) (#178)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:29:53 AM EST
    and I have rarely seen anybody strongly opposed to Hillary as VP - except to the extent that Obama should decide free of coercion.  Most people on dkos have moved on since the primaries.  

    Quoting Atrios: "Make it stop." (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:13:24 PM EST
    Hillary is history.  She's gone back to the senate.  Bill Clinton said it, and I think it's true.  She is the best candidate for president, not VP.

    You can stop reading me anytime (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:17:36 PM EST
    Go read Atrios if that is you preference.

    BTD, I like your comments (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:43:59 PM EST
    It's the VP stuff that is old and repeated so many times when we know it's not going to happen.

    Go read Atrios (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:16:51 PM EST
    I write what I want.

    If you have nothing to say about it, there is no rule that requires you comment in the thread.


    I don't read Atrios (none / 0) (#81)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:38:22 PM EST
    I used to.  TL is the best place to be.  I'm sorry if my comment was out of line.  I posted it because every time Atrios posted "Make it stop", it made me smile.  I thought it would not bother you.  Haven't been to Atrios since the PA primary, Eschaton is another boring place now.

    If you told me two weeks ago (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by daryl herbert on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:41:00 AM EST
    that McCain would be up in half of the polls today, I would not have believed you.

    This is politics.  Things happen.  The "impossible" will become conventional wisdom in the space of 10 days.

    If Obama takes enough of a beating, he will pick Hillary to be his VP.  The man has 1 principle, and only 1 principle: win and be president.  If he has to suck it up and accept Hill (and Bill!) in the White House again, he will.  Because he wants to win, more than he wants to stop telecom immunity, or stop the war.


    Then don't. (none / 0) (#184)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:37:00 AM EST
    that McCain would be up in half of the polls today, I would not have believed you.

    The latest polls:

    Gallup  BO 46 - JM 44

    CBS  BO 45 - JM 39

    AP  BO 47 - JM 41

    Time  BO 46 - JM 41


    In that case... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by pmj6 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:18:37 PM EST
    ...why not close the deal with Hillary supporters (you know, people like me) through simple expedient of nominating Hillary? Because, to paraphrase Barack himself, Hillary will get Obama's voters, but I'm not sure he will get hers.

    Of course, this also begs the question why Obama is not leading McCain by colossal margins already, given that the GOP is supposed to be so hated. The answer, I fear, is that the GOP is still the morally ascendant party in America. It sets the terms of the discussion, be it on taxes, the role of government, free market-worship, or national security. The Democrats have not come up with a challenge to that ideology, they only promise to implement it more effectively, more competently. But running as GOP-Lite is a recipe for defeat, and a big reason why Obama could very well lose.

    Alas, this primary season has been, more than anything else, purging the Democratic Party of Clinton influence. Obama was the only candidate who could do it, by peeling off the Clintons' African-American support. So, mission accomplished! What happens in November is secondary, as far as the party bigwigs are concerned.

    Dem braintrust said Obama didn't need HRC voters (5.00 / 11) (#60)
    by Ellie on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:55:20 PM EST
    This drama is unnecessary, according to the likes of Rahm Emannuel, Donna Brazile, Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer et al.

    For months they've banged the drum hard that Obama brought in enough spanking new Dumpling Dems that rendered the Old Dems unnecessary.

    (And by "old" I do mean olllllddddd: like, um, over thirty and stuff except for the 30+ Perfessers and kewl Creative Class, who totally like, um, GET the young.)

    Rahm said we were the type who stayed home knitting (Bitterly!) anyway. Well, it's never been one of my skills, nor staying home a habit.

    They bragged on it. They thugged on it. Now let's see them bring it.


    Dem braintrust said Obama didn't need HRC voters (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:38:22 AM EST

    Google is your friend: try Rahm and knitting (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:11:35 AM EST
    You may catch up on the discussions here by searching the archives. It was discussed here at length.

    No doubt the pro-Obama blogs laughed themselves silly at the racist, sexist and culturally patronizing picture Rahm painted of white female voters.


    In other words (1.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:49:00 AM EST
    No such thing ever transpired.

    Obama won.
    Hillary lost.  

    End of story - no conspiracy theories necessary.


    Hope to Change Facts? Too bad. Brazile's on tape (none / 0) (#198)
    by Ellie on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:08:33 AM EST
    Dispute that Rahm claimed Hillary supporters stayed home knitting on election day.

    On CNN during the Penna primary record as well for claiming that Obama brought in enough new registrants / first time voters, rendering support from "Hillary voters" unnecessary.

    Make the effort to do your own homework. It was discussed here EXTENSIVELY during the week of the Penna primary.

    Brazile, Rahm, Dean claimed Obama was guaranteed to draw these new voters.


    he can close the deal (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:30:28 PM EST
    by adopting a UHC platform, and engage the people that have been left behind during the last eight years.

    A dem. won't win a landslide by running a center-right campaign. See FDR and LBJ. They had a vision for bold change, campaigned on it, and won.


    The way things are going (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Lahdee on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:19:50 PM EST
    in the economy he's looking good. He'd look even better with a strong veep like Hillary or Wesley Clark.

    My two favorites. Nothing has gone right for me (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:21:30 PM EST
    this primary season. I can't wait for football.

    Football is NOW! (none / 0) (#153)
    by nycstray on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:26:16 AM EST
    and we still have baseball and the Olympics :)

    Welcome to Fantasy Island. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:23:38 PM EST

    Large (5.00 / 12) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:24:12 PM EST
    -- Large number of undecided voters (undecideds actually GROWING, taking numbers equally from both candidates).

    -- Large number of undecided WOMEN.

    -- HUGE number of undecided Hillary supporters.

    Too bad they didn't push the undecideds harder, but when the margin of undecided is double the margin of "victory" in a poll, then anything can happen. IMHO, the belief that this poll is evidence of Obama as a "shoo-in" is wishful thinking.

    I agree. (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Grace on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:43:18 PM EST
    Huge numbers of undecided voters means the poll is kind of useless.  

    I believe Obama is a "shoo," but I'm not sure how "in" he is.  


    He is "in" trouble... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:13:58 AM EST
    if he actually gets elected... because once he is behind those whitehouse doors without a cheering audience to smile & wave at... he's going to be expected to actually DO something.

    He's going to be a one term president, and I'm sorry but I'm glad Hillary is not going to be tarnished with his legacy.


    If he gets behind those White House (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:42:28 AM EST
    doors, I fully expect him to start running for his second term almost immediately.  (Well, maybe he'll take a long vacation first.)

    Most of his life he's been running for one office or another.  He never really sits in the seat and does the work.  He's there for a brief bit of time, then it's off to another campaign!  


    Aaaaah yes, of course... (none / 0) (#164)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:58:07 AM EST
    that's what he'll do. My mistake was seeing the Presidency as the end of the race but of course you're right. There will be one more election to win.

    So then (none / 0) (#189)
    by Ennis on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:39:40 AM EST
    He loses if he wins?

    I see.


    The primary polls were so wrong (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:16:13 AM EST
    in the leanings toward Obama that I am reluctant to think these pollsters have figured out how to be more accurate (that, or the voters are lying to them).

    If these poll numbers are as inaccurate as the later polls during the primary that gave Obama a much greater prediction than reality gave him, he's not a shoo-in.


    Undecideds (none / 0) (#133)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:47:48 AM EST
    I'm thinking a lot of those undecideds are really Neithers.

    % of Clinton voters not supporting Obama: 43
    Division: 19% McCain/24% Undecided

    The CBS polls does not have a Neither answer option.

    24% Undecided is pretty much the same percent of Clinton voters who said they wouldn't vote for Obama  or McCain in those two previous polls (June and beg. of July, I think -- one was CNN, I can look up the other one).

    Still, somewhat encouraging for Obama -- the percent of Clinton supports not supporting him has declined.  Those two earlier polls had the percentages at 47 and 38%.

    Although I think not picking Hillary for VP may reverse that.

    Percent undecided among women (all women) is 17%, almost twice that of men.


    Oops, I meant 47 or 48%, not 38. n/t (none / 0) (#134)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:48:41 AM EST
    The problem seems to be (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:26:54 PM EST
    convincing Obamacans that Hillary will not somehow open a pandora's box of PR problems for their squeaky clean candidate.  That the team would survive.

    If a mandate is attainable, it's critical.  I wish Obama seemed more serious about getting things done.  I anticipate that in the fall McCain will lay the burgeoning do-nothing-Congress repuation onto Obama, and that the onus will be on Obama to explain A) why Congress sucks now B) why they won't suck in 2009.  That's a huge challenge.  Shoring up support is actually important goshdangit.

    I think white women will be relatively unshakeable if Hillary is VP.  You're right BTD...it' really stupid that Hillary may not be VP.

    Plus, McCain's people are playing up to (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:34:50 PM EST
    Clinton voters. Even Rush Limbaugh isn't bashing the Clintons because they want to keep us mad at Obama. They would lose that tactic with Hillary on the ticket. It's such an obvious choice.

    If Obamacans (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:45:56 PM EST
    think that they have a squeaky clean candidate they truly are living in a fantasy world. They must have gotten amnesia about the fact that he's a Chicago machine pol.

    Squeaky clean, after FISA? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by lambertstrether on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:49:38 PM EST
    Pas si bete.

    With all due respect, I think for a lot of (5.00 / 9) (#35)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:33:00 PM EST
    people, picking Hillary at this point is too little, too late, and won't bring them on board, especially coming on top of all his movement to the right (faith-based initiatives, abortion), the constant flip-flops (you know they're coming as soon as he says, "as I've said from the beginning") and his betrayal on FISA.

    In the space between the end of the primary season and now, we've had a lot of time to take the measure of the man without reference to Clinton - all on his own, without the ability to monitor her positions and mirror them.  He has no loyalty to core Demcratic values, in my opinion, and even if what he is saying today is better than what McCain is saying, I see no reason to trust that he will even hold those positions if he sees some political benefit to chucking them.

    Pile on the rejection of Bill Clinton, the deliberate accusations of racism, the ego-that-knows-no-bounds, and I'm sorry, but picking Hillary for VP will not do it.

    Sure, I want a Democrat in the White House, but the problem is that I don't see Obama as a Democrat I can trust - with or without Hillary - and I don't think I'm alone in that feeling.

    But Anne, you are thinking as a very politically (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:38:57 PM EST
    informed person. Most voters don't know about FISA, his abortion comments, etc. They just know that they lived better and felt safe with the Clintons and it will make a difference to them. (Not that it's going to happen.)

    I absolutely agree (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by IzikLA on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:50:49 PM EST
    And I actually think a lot of the public expects Clinton to be offered the VP spot.  If/when that doesn't happen, you might expect to see a major shift downward.

    Secondly, if he picked Clinton, he would have a surge of support, an influx of campaign money, and an exciting ticket like no other.  Ever.


    That is something I've been hearing (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:26:11 AM EST
    I'm curious to see if this is bourne out.  

    Not a Democrat I can trust either (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Nike on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:22:26 PM EST
    In some ways, I am not entirely sure he is a Democrat at all. He is certainly not progressive, and at ethical level, I do not see a commitment to what I guess I would call humanist values. I fear that he moved right now just as a pander or to get votes, but because that's more who he is. I think that this is where the base of the party is neither interesting or relevant to his efforts--hence these poll numbers.

    A few days ago they were tied and if you (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:35:45 PM EST
    averaged out all polls, they would probably still be tied....shoo-in?  Guessing no.

    "Shoo-in" per (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:23:18 AM EST
    first google hit is the winner of a rigged horse race.



    Not ever tied in an average (2.00 / 0) (#182)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:34:40 AM EST
    of all polls.  Not on pollster.com or Real Clear Politics.

    Within margin of error, yes, tied as an average (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by andrys on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:23:30 AM EST
    And as most of us know but some would prefer to forget or ignore, Obama had a habit in the primaries of being polled ahead but getting far viewer percentage of votes than polled and often losing by quite a bit when he'd been seen as ahead.

    far fewer (not far viewer) (none / 0) (#200)
    by andrys on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:24:10 AM EST
    BTD (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:39:04 PM EST
    Are you kidding? This is freaking terrible news for Obama. Those internals are deadly. Party registration advantage doesn't do much good when you are losing a huge chunk of your own party and TYING with independents with McCain.

    You are making the same mistake Kerry made in 2004. Banking on disgust with W. and the GOP to carry the day. Has Obama broken 50% in a poll? I certainly don't think I've seen a good one for him since Feb.

    And the GOP has only started turning Obama into a comic strip. If these numbers are the high point for Obama then he's bound to lose in Nov. Obama has shown a very poor ability to fight back against the GOP. Even now he's losing the narrative by taking a vacation. Does his campaign have a clue or is it being run by the same people who ran Ned Lamont's campaign?

    Seconded .... (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by bridget on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:33:21 AM EST
    and I was thinking Lamont, too

    he beat Lieber and was on the top of his game with the mainstream media starting to embrace him - and he had a real chance in the election in fall to get the Senate seat

    then he went on vacation and I never heard from him again ... until he lost. I couldn't believe it.

    P.S. 2004 was a Dem year, too, with a socalled war hero running for President. Then the GOP played the national security "fear" card again ... and that was it then for the Dems. And Kerry.


    Yes.. at least Dukakis was 15 pts ahead (4.66 / 3) (#41)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:39:48 PM EST
    when he took HIS vacation.

    I'd sod off (none / 0) (#77)
    by Salo on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:25:40 PM EST
    the day teh Olympics open.

    But this is better than doing it after the convention.


    Yes, Obama has broken 50% (none / 0) (#186)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:37:40 AM EST
    The latest CNN poll has it 51-44, Obama over McCain.....

    Looking at 2004 (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:39:12 PM EST
    The CBS Bush/Cheney versus Kerry/Edwards numbers showed Kerry in better shape than Obama is now....and I suspect that was with fewer participants prefering Democrats.

    It's too early for a poll to signify shoo-in.


    That's (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:51:56 PM EST
    what I keep seeing. Obama NOT doing as well as Kerry did 4 years ago. Frankly, if he's behind Kerry then it's unlikely that he'll win in Nov.

    It's tricky (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Salo on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:15:01 PM EST
    The GOP presidential campaigns are like the goddamn Roman Legions.  They can lose but they don't do it very often. Obama has looked very second rate for a week or two IMHO. The tire inflation comments will create all sorts of pain.

    You can't really win over indies or professional engineers etc  with that sort of talk.  The boon to the economy from coastal oil exploration would simply be massive irrespective of the time line of production.  Royalties, heavy engineering, Architects, riggers etc would all pump tax dollars into the treasury and boost employment long before the oil is ready for market.  


    So what would that make Bill Clinton? (none / 0) (#131)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:41:22 AM EST

    The material makes a difference (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:41:03 PM EST
    Most of us when buying anything might be impressed with a shiny object, but one then looks of how the product is made and the material.  If it's bad material, a good buyer is not impressed and either buys another product or does not buy at all.  That's why some of us will not vote for BO.  We've looked behind the curtain and found the person to be a poor material for the presidency.  Some will not vote and some will vote for McCain.  Those who think we want another Bush presidency have it wrong.  McCain is not Bush no matter how much the song is repeated.  He even voted against the Cheney energy bill (Hillary also voted against it), but BO voted for it. BO might be closer to Bush than some believe,  Not very accomplished but a snob.

    "McCain is not Bush no matter... (1.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Thanin on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:04:59 PM EST
    how much the song is repeated."

    Which song would that be?  Would it be the "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" song?


    This comment is worthy of DKos, but ... (5.00 / 0) (#80)
    by cymro on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:34:38 PM EST
    ... not TalkLeft. Can we stick to the point of a discussion? If you have nothing to say, then saying nothing is fine.

    You have a point... (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Thanin on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:45:59 PM EST
    but only if you hold Everyone to those same standards.  You start saying that to pro-mcsame people and anti-democrat nominees and then we'll see.

    I am not a moderator, but ... (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by cymro on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:26:30 PM EST
    ... if I am following an interesting debate and someone tries to divert the discussion with an irrelevant comment (as you did above), I will rate it accordingly. I may or may not comment myself; doing so (as I am now) just adds to the diversion.

    But don't expect me to "hold Everyone to those same standards". That would be a full-time job, and I'm not here reading every thread. So nine times out of ten you can probably get away with posting annoyingly flippant comments, if that is your wont. But I reserve my right to troll-rate the ones that annoy me.

    BTW, if you had followed your remark about bombing Iran with an actual response to Prabhata's reasoned rebuttal to your prior comment, I would have been fine with it. What I object to is using a snippy diversion to close out a discussion when you have nothing to say in response. It's annoying, and dishonest too.

    If you agree that the commenter has a valid point, say so. If you don't, explain why. Maybe it's some of both -- it's possible to accept that contrary arguments have merit without negating the validity of your own point of view. The world is generally not so black and white. If all each of us can do here is to repeat our own unchanging mantras we may as well be the sheep in Animal Farm.



    Eloquently written... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Thanin on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:50:04 PM EST
    but irrelevant, since my response is a valid point.  As far as it being flippant, I took the most flippant, annoying part of her/his post and threw it back at them.  

    As to what we're all doing here, if you honestly think the comment section of blogs has any real impact youre very wrong.  FPers do, and are worth the read.  But the comments are really just people wanting to debate/argue positions they've already made their minds up on.  No real consensus ever happens here and almost never does anyones mind change.  So don't act like the comments part is some shrine for fellowship and understanding.


    Shrine? No. (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by oldpro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:23:21 AM EST
    Of course not.

    But at this site I frequently learn something from the comments...something I value and did not know.

    Occasionally that even happens to the bloggers at this site and they graciously credit the commenter with a hat tip when they use it.

    If the comments are useless, why are you reading them?  And commenting?

    Just entertaining yourself?

    Well, OK...fine...no skin off my nose...


    I said almost never... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Thanin on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:39:31 AM EST
    I didnt say it definitively.  And I have changed at least one mind once, or at least gave him something to chew over.  But mainly I was adding some much needed reality in the fact that it is a rare thing indeed, and that my post did make a point and Prabhata was flippant and so I called her/him on it.

    I disagree completely (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by cymro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:32:18 AM EST
    First, Prabhata's comment:

    McCain is not Bush no matter how much the song is repeated.

    ... is not a flippant remark, it is both literally true, and metaphorically true for many McCain supporters. Obviously it is in the Democrats' interest to try to associate McCain with Bush in this election, but that is just a campaign strategy. (And that's why you are referring to him as McSame, btw). I don't object to campaign slogans, but let's at least be honest about their purpose, and not mistake them for actual facts. And if you cannot accept that I am simply stating facts here, then any opinions you may express on this subject are based on basic misunderstandings about election campaigns.

    Secondly, I do not accept that the only point of having comments here is for people to restate their fixed positions. I believe that many commenters want to participate in a discussion, not just win a shouting match. And even if you are right that:

    No real consensus ever happens here and almost never does anyones mind change.

    ... the absence of consensus does not justify anyone hijacking a rational discussion in the manner that I was objecting to. How do you know how many times people's opinions are influenced by what you say? Maybe you will have to re-explain your point of view 100 times, but if you are not willing to take the time to do that, then you can be quite sure that other people will not take the time to consider what you are saying, and you will never convince anyone that you are right.

    Yes, it's hard work, and it takes a lot of patience, but that's life. In the words of Gandhi, you have to Be the change you want to see in the World.

    </sermon #2>


    Actually, I think this website is (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:14:52 AM EST
    interesting because so many of us are Democrats (or were Democrats) and we were supporting Hillary (or someone else, like Edwards, etc.).  

    I know a lot of us have said "Now I'll support McCain" or "Now I won't vote for President" or "Now I'll vote third party" or "Now I'll vote for Obama" -- but I don't view as set in stone because most of us preferred Hillary (or someone else) first.  Things can happen between now and election day that will make us change our minds.

    This website doesn't have a lot of "I'll worship the ground he/she walks on" type voters.  So, it's an interesting group.      


    Well I'll agree with that... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Thanin on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:43:23 AM EST
    My favorite FP posts are the ones that slam cheney or rove or monkey junior himself (bush), because then in the comments you get to see the most divided sides ban together in their disdain for what is truly evil in America today.  Kind of helps us all remember that deep down we still have democratic ideals.

    deep down we still *share* democratic ideals. (none / 0) (#163)
    by Thanin on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:56:51 AM EST
    I think most of us are Democrats (none / 0) (#172)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:21:59 AM EST
    and have been for a long time.  So, calling McCain "McSame" sort of defeats your purpose where it might work with younger Republicans or undecideds.  (I think older people view name manipulation as being disrespectful.)  

    From what I've gathered, a lot of us were the "Steady Eddy always-vote-Democrat" types of Democrats and to see us going elsewhere is kind of unnerving.  


    Ok... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Thanin on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:33:56 AM EST
    Youre wrong again...
    I can respect this approach to the not calling him McSame argument.  Its the telling me that I lose 10 points if IQ in your book that gives me the incentive to continue using it.

    And I dont care for the direction democrats are going either.  I hated the misogyny that proliferated the primaries... of course I wasnt a fan of what Ferraro said either, but thats a whole other can of worms.  And the flip-flop on FISA was stupid and whatever else questionable things Obama has done (which is why Im a Hillary fan).  But I ardently believe that Mc... um, that guy will be vile for this country.  I do not believe the same about Obama.  Thats why I post what I post and fight the fights I do... to no avail generally, but I try.


    Woah, um... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Thanin on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:35:51 AM EST
    disregard the "youre wrong again..." part.  Its getting late and I was getting my posts confused.  Sorry.

    Yeah, I think you are getting (none / 0) (#193)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 04:09:44 AM EST
    your posts confused...

    But seriously, the name manipulation thing is something young kids do.  It's that whole "Brangelina" and "Bennifer" thing.  Old people (over 50) don't really relate to it and don't do it.    

    To call politicians McSame, Nobama, Hitlery Klintoon -- it's all stupid and it brands you as a youngster, or even a brainless Republican since they seem to do it more than anyone else.  

    I know people do it because they think it's clever (or maybe in vogue) but it's really dumb and years from now you'll be saying "Why did I ever do that?"  


    It is as flippant... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Thanin on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:51:19 AM EST
    as my response was, and trying to prove otherwise devolves into an argument on semantics, which is a no win situation.  You believe it wasnt and I believe it was... which proves my point that almost never does anyones mind change.

    Also it wasnt a hijacking of a rational discussion.  And in fact, as youve pointed out, this in itself is a hijacking to the OT, but its an interesting one so Im not complaining.

    Additionally, McSame is actually McSame.  Are the biologically the same person?  Of course not, but that nickname isnt attempting to prove that.  What it does do, in a succinct way, is show that the republican nominee has tied himself to bush to such a degree that he would equate a third term.  You disagree, which is fine.  But it is sophistry to state that any opinion that says otherwise comes from misunderstanding on election campaigns.  Maybe all your political opinions are that disingenuous, but mine arent.


    Wrong again (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by cymro on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:58:31 AM EST
    First, "flippant" means lacking in the proper degree of respect or seriousness, and Prabhata was advancing a reasoned argument, not making a flippant remark. Just because you disagree with her observation does not make it flippant. Your response, however, was flippant, because it did not assign to her argument the degree of respect it deserved.

    Second, the fact that you choose to characterize any possible criticism of your logically incorrect statements as "an argument on semantics" does not prove anything, and certainly does not prove that "almost never does anyone's mind change". It may be true that your mind never changes, but you should not try to use that as evidence of anyone else's state of mind.

    Third, the argument you are trying to make in the last paragraph confuses opinions and facts. It is not an opinion to observe that McCain is not Bush. It is also not an opinion to observe that many McCain supporters do not equate McCain with Bush's policies. These are facts. I know what your opinion is, because you keep repeating it. It is a position that some Democrats believe will help them to defeat McCain, hence the proliferation of slogan's like McSame. But, as Prabhata pointed out, repeating that opinion, or those slogans, does not make them into facts. It is not being disingenuous to point out that to believe otherwise is to mistake a campaign slogan for an actual fact.

    Based on everything you have written, I conclude that you are making this mistake. As a result, you are advancing illogical arguments.  

    On the other hand, despite your statements about my political opinions, you have no idea what I believe about McCain, because my own opinion about McCain has not been the subject of this discussion. This is also a fact, because I have been very careful not to inject my own point of view about the candidates into any of this discussion.

    As it happens, I do not support McCain. But I do believe he is quite likely to be the next President, mostly because the Obama campaign will underestimate McCain's support, especially the support he will get from voters who will pick him him because he is (a) not Bush and (b) not Obama.

    And as Prabhata pointed out (remember Prabhata?) insisting that "McSame is actually McSame" will not make those voters disappear. But since you are not really trying to change anyone's mind anyway, you can probably have fun just chanting McSame! for the next three months.



    Youre wrong again... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Thanin on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:25:00 AM EST
    Firstly, her/his was a flippant remark in that it showed a lack of proper respect for those who simply "sing" that he is fundamentally politically the same as bush.  You can demonstrate that you think it showed the proper respect, but you cannot prove that since respect is an observers reaction to something.  Therefore I will always think youre wrong about your interpretation just as you will always think Im wrong about mine.  And my response assigned the adequate degree of respect hers/his deserved... and of course you disagree.  No consensus will be reached.

    Secondly, you are very welcome to change your mind and agree with me on this to prove me wrong that most wont ever change their mind.  I welcome that in fact.

    Thirdly, you are trying to twist the argument.  I call him McSame because his political policies are in line with bushs.  I never remarked about what McSame supporters specifically believe or state.  So you can disagree with me, and you can say it is a fact that he is not in line with bush politically, but given that he himself has said he votes "90% of the time with bush", that is well enough of a percentage to call him in line with bushs policies.  To say he isn't just because its not 100% or something is splitting hairs.

    And I have made no such mistakes, but I respect your opinion on it.  You craft your statements well and obviously have a good mind.  I just disagree with your conclusions.
    As far as whether McSame will be the next president, I don't know.  But I will continue to argue against him every chance I get.  If you don't like that, well, theres nothing I can do about that, nor would I do anything about that.  Just I do, you can express what you wish here, within the bounds of the site that is.  I will say this though, there isn't a single person here in the comments that will change your mind about McSames winning.  I guarantee it.


    Actually though... (none / 0) (#179)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:32:22 AM EST
    my mind went back and forth at the beginning:

    1. Write in Hillary
    2. Vote for BO
    3. Don't vote at all

    Right now... probably I won't vote at all. But I am honestly... sincerely looking for a reason to vote for Obama. The reason is that I've been voting since I became eligible in the mid-sixties and I feel immoral not doing it. My dad is 87 and he has never not voted before. His dad drilled his voting responsibility into him just as my dad drilled it into me. It's not an easy process. It's not.

    Well... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Thanin on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:39:32 AM EST
    my motivation in this election is to see the republican defeated, so the only honest points I could provide are reasons to vote against the other guy.  Perhaps squeaky or flyerhawk or any of the other true pro-Obama guys could help.

    how about the bomb pakistan song (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ford Prefect on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:17:40 AM EST
    Do you like that better? Look all of them pander. I would have preferred our nomineed did less of the national security pandering. But he did say that, he would go take unilateral military action if pakistanis werent ready or capable of taking care of the Taliban in tribal areas. This is one of the most clueless of empty posturing and pre-emptive action susggestions as there can be, just to show he is tough and he passes the CinC test. Pakistan is not Iraq or Iran. If the US could just bomb their way to get rid of Taliban and their support in the tribal areas of pakistan, we would have done it already under the decider's presidency.

    Why the CBS News poll? (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Saul on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:44:41 PM EST
    Just curious why this one is the one you used.  The Gallup poll shows  only 2 point difference.  Most of the News media are in the tank for Obama so wouldn't their polls be skewed to favor Obama.

    Setting aside the two major tracking (2.00 / 0) (#190)
    by MKS on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 02:40:30 AM EST
    polls, almost every poll shows Obama up by 5.  Time, AP-Ipsos, CNN, Pew and CBS all show a lead of at least 5 points.

    setting aside the polls w/ more historic accuracy? (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by andrys on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:29:30 AM EST
    Yes - CNN's and the mainstream network polls (and Newsweek) -- any media polls - have always shown Obama way ahead, especially when he then lost (primaries).

      Gallup, Rasmussen tend to be closer, but SUSA as a third one of course, most accurate of them all most of the time...

      The media polls probably aren't as well controlled in the sampling and they may have questions that are leading, as is seen in their broadcast questions.


    ... then how is he different from the Republicans?

    Pelosi won't do it (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Prabhata on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:03:20 PM EST
    And so it makes no difference what BO says anyway.

    Why hold republicans (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Lahdee on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:13:58 PM EST
    accountable when you're a shoo in? (Heh)

    OTOH, as a hard core Liberal I find it disturbing that instead of smashing the republicans into little tiny pieces this cycle, we offer them milk and cookies.


    Shoo in? (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by Miri on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:53:41 PM EST
    Big Tent seems to have no memory of past elections.

    Obama is either tied or 5-6 points ahead in the polls. It is August.

    This is a shoe in?

    I suggest BTD check polls from previous elections and compare them to November results.

    You Mean Like 2004? (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by flashman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:00:16 PM EST
    When Kerry was polling ahead of Bush this time of year by 3-5 points?

    ooh...I didn't know that Michelle spent time (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:00:50 PM EST
    with VP candidates today per 360. Oh yuck, it was Kaine with M.O.

    Interesting.... (none / 0) (#118)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:22:24 AM EST
    she is standing too close to the action, will find herself being talked about in the media, again!

    There is a chance he'll lose (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Salo on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:08:33 PM EST
    The GOP machinery is starting to gear up in formidable ways.

    Yet the overall point stands, Obama is a favourite to win this time round.

    Doesn't the Quinnipiac have McCain (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by kredwyn on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:09:31 PM EST
    ahead a tick?

    Just asking cause I tend to think that polls are incredibly fleeting and don't really show shoo-in status 3 months out.

    Different Polls Have Different Results (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by flashman on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:24:51 PM EST
    And it's way too early to tell.  I reject that Obama is a shoe-in.  And if he was, it would be more reason to NOT pick Hillary.  If he believes he can win without her....

    Electoral College landslide, maybe, but... (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Exeter on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:51:48 PM EST
    he is not going to win over 10 points in the popular vote, which I would consider a real landslide.

    Look! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Lahdee on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:54:11 PM EST
    The long missing unity pony has been spotted. Sen. Barack Obama's press office has issued a joint statement with the Clinton campaign:"
    "I love him this much," said Senator Clinton holding her arms apart.
    "And I love her this much," said Senator Obama holding his thumb and index finger apart. "And Bill loves me too."
    Kumbaya MF.

    h/t to Taegan Goddard

    I'll give you a concrete reason why (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:08:40 PM EST
    one can expect Obama to have serious trouble in the GE: he is utterly without humor, as far as I can tell. He can't tell a joke on his own, and he certainly can't take one. People do NOT like a candidate without a sense of humor.
    Remember how Reagan defused the [very legitimate] issue of his age and mental competence with humor. This probably sealed the election for him in 1984.

    I liked (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Steve M on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:10:39 PM EST
    the joke about Bill's dancing ability.  That was a funny line.

    I've noticed this too. (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:02:57 AM EST
    I think people started to really notice it when his campaign got upset over the New Yorker cover -- and now it's really been noticeable with these new McCain ads (and the Paris Hilton one).  Then I started wondering why he hasn't been on SNL and why he doesn't appear to be a favorite with the late night comedians.  (Hillary and McCain have both been on many of those shows multiple times.)    

    Not only does he have a limited sense of humor, he's surrounded by people who think everything is a code word or dog whistle for racism.

    Fun with Obama?  What's that?  He appears to be the kind of guy who not only can't take a joke, he can't dish one out either.

    I think this might be his glass jaw.      


    On the other hand (none / 0) (#148)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:11:31 AM EST
    McCain really is quite witty.  I even find him funny.  I was in hysterics with that ad "The One".  I'm giggling just writing about it.  

    I wish I could believe the Shoo-in (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by blogtopus on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:23:30 PM EST
    But the fact is that Bush is not in this election, no matter how hard we try to tie him to McCain. There are going to be a lot of people willing to give him a try, BECAUSE he isn't (a) Bush.

    Lots of folks are pointing out Kerry's lead at this time in the 2004 election. Obama is not Kerry; he is magnetic and has lots of qualities that Kerry does not. This goes both ways: Obama is missing a lot of experience on his resume.

    My point is this: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SHOO-IN. Not after the 2004 election. Are chances good? Maybe. But there is no way to know what is A) Up the GOP's sleeves and B) In Obama's Closet, but both those factors will become a major part of October.

    Bush should have won (none / 0) (#102)
    by Salo on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:30:57 PM EST
    and Kerry outperformed my expectations.

    The CBS poll says only 52 percent (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:35:15 AM EST
    of Hillary's supporters (men and women)

    19 percent are under McCain's column and 24 are undecided.  These numbers mirror what voters told pollsters during the primaries.  In fact only 46 percent of those supporting BO and McCain say that their mind is made up.  The rest are saying that their support is soft and could change their mind.  I don't see what BO can do to change the dynamics.  It seems to me that Hillary's supporters know BO much better than other voters because they already rejected him and knew they would reject him at the end.  If my logic is right, McCain will get lots of those supporters and some may not vote at all. BO is not a shoo-in.

    One more thing.  BO is not doing very well on the issue of the economy.  In fact his numbers are awful.  Only 2 percent (52 BO and 50 McCain) separates the two candidates that they will (very or somewhat) make the right decision regarding the economy.  The story that McCain is like Bush on the economy is not swaying the voters.  Unlike Hillary, BO has nothing to run on, and the voters know it.  Oops, running away from the Clintons is not paying off.

    52 percent of HRC supporters support BO. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:36:27 AM EST
    Here's what I'm thinking (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:36:17 AM EST
    The polls show a relatively close race.  Even the CBS poll that has him up 6 only shows him up because they've included far more Democrats than Republicans in their polling.  Otherwise looking at the crosstabs, Obama is not doing as well among Democrats as McCain is doing among Republicans and Obama has really fallen apart with Indepedents.  This is starting to be reflected in several polls:  CBS, Rasmussen Tracking, and Zogby.  This is a major problem.  Kerry won independents and Obama is banking strongly on them.  Throughout the primaries, that was his big electoral selling point.  He could win huge majorities of the independent vote.  Well this is not the case right now.  

    With this race essentially tied, the conventions have the potential to make a huge difference.  If the Democratic Convention turns into an egotistical Obama worship fest (and it very well may), it could hurt his candidacy.  On the other hand, if the GOP Convention turns into a Zell Miller, conservatism loving, ball of anger orgy, that will hurt McCain.  

    Both campaigns are really tonedeaf.  Americans tend to dislike extreme egotists with crowds of worshippers who border on psychotic.  Currently, Americans are not in favor of conservatism.  Large majorities want change and want conservatism out.   That's why I find it so strange to me that Obama keeps focusing on himself and McCain keeps pushing conservatism.  Of course I kinda want both to lose so maybe I should be happy.

    worst candidate ever (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Bornagaindem on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:35:04 AM EST
    so based on your logic BTD Gore won and Kerry won because there have always been more dems than repugs.

    By the way Obama is already the worst dem candidate ever chosen. Have you ever listened to him being interviewed with all the ums and ahs and and the avoiding of the questions- he sounds like Bush- just close your eyes and listen. It is clear he will NOT choose Hillary as VP and he will lose in November. However I  predict he and his campaign will claim it is not his fault but rather the fault of (shall I start the list) : Hillary, PUMAs, racists (only the white kind), Bill, Chelsea, the media......

    take 5 points easily off Obama polls for bigotry (5.00 / 0) (#211)
    by pluege on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:43:56 AM EST
    Obama's entire polling advantage over mccain and probably then some is more than likely due to people's reluctance to admit their bigotry in responding to a poll - something they will have no problem succumbing to in the privacy of a voting booth.

    OMG (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by sas on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 07:57:27 AM EST
    another 4 to 8 years of being absolutely disgusted by and despising the president.


    A vacation may be a good thing (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 11:00:04 AM EST
    for Senator Obama at this point, provided he and his family truly vacate themselves  from the campaign for a few days--no photo-ops under a palm tree, no spousal hobnobbing with Mrs. Kaine about their  student days at Princeton, no nothing. Rather, let the MSM fill its time with coverage of Senator McCain. Just stenographic coverage (e.g. volunteering his wife for the, often topless, Miss Buffalo Chip Contest) seems to be the best tactic.  To "help" the MSM in its coverage, the Obama campaign can provide visual and audio assists.  A developing rule for the moment appears to be:  over-hyped media coverage hurts Obama, stealth coverage helps McCain. So, let them be switched. When things cool down, maybe Obama can actually start to discuss some critical economic policies. But,  we still have to wait until after the vp selection and commentary. Not likely to be Mrs. Clinton (defeats the goal of wrestling away power) even though that is the best choice for just about every reason.

    Self interest (none / 0) (#24)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:24:14 PM EST
    Back to my crack pot theory.... A candidate should not pick a power VP if that candidate is trying to consolidate power.  Why should a politician care if s/he wins by a landslide?  The candidate just wants to win.  It is not rational for a politician to want to share power.

    Why doesn't Obama pick Clinton?  Self interest. He will win.  So far, the numbers indicate he has enough money, enough party machine and enough voters (6 pts).  If it's a done deal, there is no compelling reason to pick Clinton.  He doesn't need to make history by having a landslide, he is already historical.  He doesn't need to have a mandate to be held accountable to.  He will do best to stay in the middle so analysts can't look back at his time and show what he didn't accomplish.

    But with all the bad things waiting for a new (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Teresa on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:29:47 PM EST
    President to deal with, why wouldn't you want the best help? I know plenty of iffy Obama voters that are waiting to see if he picks Hillary because they worry about the future and feel safer if a Clinton is there to help. Every single one of them (my extended family) will vote for Obama if she's on the ticket. If she isn't, some are voting for him and some are sitting it out.

    We aren't in a swing state so it doesn't matter but I imagine there are people just like them in states that do matter.


    You're not twisting hard enough (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 09:46:38 PM EST
    You have to pretend you are playing a board game.  I'm trying to argue the side of a 'pure' politician.  A President does not want a mandate because we are in such challenging times.  Clinton is a policy wonk.  She has positions.  She would provide a measure to be accountable to.  

    Now, stretch your right leg up behind your back, stick your big toe in your left ear and play along.


    A politician who learns from history (none / 0) (#206)
    by andrys on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:00:48 AM EST
    knows s/he cannot bank on winning.  ESPECIALLY one whose vote-getting power now is so very weak (vs his own party's general polled lead) when he can only tie, within the margin of error (remembering, if he does, that he lost primaries in which he was polled quite ahead by media polls) a truly WEAK candidate like McCain.

      He can choose to focus on his own vanity (and it's likely in this case) or he can choose to optimize his own chances for actually getting into office.  His choice.  But, for a vaunted unifier, he has shown exactly how divisive he can be, with his rudeness and intentional lack of interest in being 'seen' as asking anyone for help or even help from his supporters in not dropping large plops of disdain on a Clinton, who is a candidate rare in doing support rallies for him BEFORE the nomination is even voted.   His thinking seems to be, "I can do it myself - I'm very popular.")


    Interesting Repub viewpoints on Free Republic (none / 0) (#210)
    by andrys on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 06:40:03 AM EST
    The most interesting one I read last night but didn't keep was someone asking people to stop hammering at Obama brouhaha's because he would get 10 states tops but if they were successful in damaging Obama before the convention, they'd have to run against Clinton.

    The below were written the night before the one I read last night above.
       [ It makes you wonder how heavy the Repub turnout will be
           against Obama. ]

    "To: xxx

    Well, although I never ever ever ever ever would have thought these words could flow from my mouth or fingertips, here's the truth: I would STRONGLY prefer Hillary over Obama. I would STRONGLY prefer Bill over Hillary. I hope she DOES pull something at the convention, and I even hope it works, because if McCain loses to a Dem I'd much rather it be Hillary than Obama.

    Sheesh, what has the country come to?

    [name omitted]

     - oh, absolutely!!! don't feel like the lone ranger - think we all would agree with you - ... obama is by FAR the most insidious danger this country has ever seen. If JSM had to lose to a Dem, I'd LOVE it to be to Hill/Bill rather than Obama. If BHO won, I wouldn't have one good night's sleep
    - ever.

    posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 7:15:33 PM by [name omitted]


    Hi xx, I hear you. I've been pretty much saying the same thing lately. As much as I dislike the clintons, at least we know where they're coming from.

      posted on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 7:44:26 PM by psjones (u)

      In May I was amused to see more than a few people saying that they were amazed to find themselves admiring Hillary and never thought they'd find themselves saying such things as they'd spent 8+ years hating her but she'd shown herself to be a real kickas* person. A few said they might even be able to vote for her (which is why she was probably polling ahead at the time the primaries ended).


    I'm not that confident.. (none / 0) (#68)
    by rjarnold on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 10:07:31 PM EST
    I still give Obama a 70-80% to win.

    I think last week was really damaging for him. Some poll showed that most people think he played the race card with his "dollar bill" comment. And many of his supporters went on TV and accused the Republicans of being racist (because of phallic symbols), and that will turn off a lot of people.  

    And I think that the Republican attacks are going to become a lot more damaging after the convention.

    At least he is more in touch with reality on the issues.

    Turned off? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:48:45 AM EST
    Some poll showed that most people think he played the race card with his "dollar bill" comment. And many of his supporters went on TV and accused the Republicans of being racist (because of phallic symbols), and that will turn off a lot of people.

    I know I have been turned off.  This entire race has turned me off to all charges of racism, playing the race card, etc.  

    I almost wish we didn't have a black person in the race because I don't think I could handle four years of hearing "You're a racist if you don't agree with him!"  

    This is a major issue with me because I live in an extremely diverse area and I know I'm not a racist.  I love and appreciate all my neighbors and I think our differences are what makes life more interesting.  

    I am opinionated and if you want my vote, you better keep your ethnicity out of it.  I'll no more vote for someone because they represent "Black Power" than I would for someone who represents "La Raza."  Race is not the issue.  The issues are the issue.  The Obama people seem to have forgotten this way back in the primaries when they suddenly decided that people like Hillary and Bill and Geraldine Ferraro were racists.  Sorry, but I'm not buying it.  

    Anyway, four years in the White House for the black dude who has a zillion sycophants all yelling "That's a dog whistle" and "You can't say cheese because that's a code word" -- well, that's not for me.  No thank you!  One election season was enough!  

    (P.S.  Why didn't this stuff happen when Jesse Jackson ran for President?  I never remember hearing all this BS about dog whistles and code words.)        


    Good Question (none / 0) (#203)
    by fctchekr on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 05:42:14 AM EST
    Jesse never used race against his opponents. He didn't run a dirty campaign, as I remember it. And maybe that's why he never succeeded. I hate to say it, but the BO camp successfully used racial politics to the hilt; obliterated the Clintons as if Axelrod and Plouffe were doing a Ken Starr and took total advantage of the Republican decline to convert pubs to his world. The problem is I still don't know where that is?

    You did? (none / 0) (#96)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:19:24 PM EST
    I never thought Kerry was a shoo-in.

    I always thought that 2004 (none / 0) (#101)
    by Salo on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:30:02 PM EST
    was a very very long-shot.

    I lost a bet (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:14:07 AM EST
    I ended up having to read Zell Miller's book, ugh.  But I was that confident!

    I do think most Democrats - obviously, there are exceptions - felt like there was just no way we could lose to that idiot.  In hindsight, of course, everyone agrees that it's just so hard to take down an incumbent president in wartime, blah blah blah.  But that was hardly the standard thinking at the time.


    After the debates and a round of Zogby polls, (none / 0) (#128)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:37:52 AM EST
    which I didn't know enough not to believe, I thought Kerry had Florida in the bag. As soon as Florida was called for Bush, I knew the election was over.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#138)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:54:17 AM EST
    It was kind of sobering to be like, hey, we're not winning ANY states we didn't win last time.  And then when they showed that Bush had picked up votes in literally every single county in Florida, it was like a punch to the gut.

    I really believe Bush doesn't get enough credit for running a great campaign in 2004.  I mean, as terrible as he is, and as much as he sucked at the debate, he managed to rally enough people to make his approval rating nose above 50% for just long enough to eke out reelection.  That was the X factor.  People act like it was all Kerry sucking but it really wasn't.  The vast majority of Bush voters voted for Bush and not against Kerry.


    strongly Democratic (none / 0) (#139)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:54:20 AM EST
    districts that had never voted Repug before suddenly voted Repug. I still have KOs Countdown comments on the Florida and Ohio mess. A few people wrung their hands and agreed yes it was currupt but Bush would have won anyway so what is the point of pursuing it. Time to move on. Move along, move along.

    There's a far better case (none / 0) (#143)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:03:23 AM EST
    that the 2000 election was stolen.

    I'm not so interested in what happened in Ohio in 2004, because in  principle I believe that the winner of the national popular vote is legitimate.


    I thought Kerry would win (none / 0) (#140)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:54:28 AM EST
    because Bush was a total complete moron.  

    I thought Gore would win for the same reason (plus Gore was a likeable, experienced politician).  

    Nope.  We got saddled with the moron Bush.  Bush was bad news from the start particularly since anyone who paid any kind of attention to politics knew about the Neocons and PNAC.  


    Well, having already watched him. . .acquire (none / 0) (#145)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:05:46 AM EST
    the Presidency in 2000 over the obviously better choice of Al Gore, I knew not to have much faith that the electorate would turn him out.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#103)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:38:00 PM EST
    I am now convinced that Hillary Clinton could have taken him out. Oh well.

    Oh, I thought that at the time. (none / 0) (#104)
    by MarkL on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:39:16 PM EST
    She was the only one with the name recognition who also knew what it meant to campaign against a Republican for President.

    I had no idea--absolutely none--how (none / 0) (#105)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 06, 2008 at 11:41:53 PM EST
    good of a campaigner she was.

    I think she's probably grown into that a bit this year, but the majority of it was there. She would have wiped the floor with W. in a debate.


    she flinched in 2004 (none / 0) (#111)
    by Salo on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:01:17 AM EST
    and Kerry got petty damned close.  She may well have done better than Kerry.

    I never thought he had a chance (none / 0) (#124)
    by Little Fish on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:32:46 AM EST
    and I told my mom as much one day in September.  She immediately branded me a Bush supporter, which was odd because prior to 04 I was always the rebellious liberal democrat daughter.  

    I never thought of him as a shoo in (none / 0) (#137)
    by SoCalLiberal on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:54:00 AM EST
    But I did think he would win.  

    Ego driven persona (none / 0) (#119)
    by cawaltz on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 12:23:04 AM EST
    The only thing that will convince me otherwise is him putting Clinton on the ticket. Couple that with the fact the DNC and it's disgraceful behavior and I've got my excuse to vote third, sit this one out or perish the thought vote McCain. My two older ones have been responsible for choosing who they prefer on issues(one a week)to make it more interesting(because they lean Democratic as I once did) I've been arguing the GOP viewpoint. I feel like I'm in bizarro world.

    "having to read Zell Miller's book" (none / 0) (#141)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:02:09 AM EST
    You poor man. That must have been just agony for you. Were there any after effects? Did you challenge anyone to a duel?

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:15:06 AM EST
    He did persuade me that the Democrats will never ever have success on the national level again, that's for sure.

    I don't know what happened. (none / 0) (#146)
    by weltec2 on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:06:59 AM EST
    This was supposed to be a reply to Steve M waaaaay up on #115.

    I've been wondering about specific Clinton (none / 0) (#162)
    by Faust on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 01:55:19 AM EST
    numbers. Thanks for posting them.

    I do hope he picks her.

    I read the poll differently, I see a huge risk for (none / 0) (#213)
    by Salt on Thu Aug 07, 2008 at 10:33:28 AM EST
    Obama in the numbers if he dose not pick Clinton, a choice I personally would rather not happen I prefer if she is not the nominee she run again in 12. The number of women undecided is no surprise to me but add that Obama has 27% of voters that say they could still change their minds and what you have to me is a reflection of what I hear from friends two groups, those who truly don't know yet (very few) or won't tell a pollster for differing reasons (many), but you also have a large group of loyal Dems that truly believe the RBC's decision will be righted at overturned and Clinton still the nominee or Obama will dose the right thing in their view and places her on the ticket. The risk IMO is not only no bump coming out of the Convention but a loss once the nomination is official and that will impact additional loses for Nov.