Hillary's race to lose

I don't have a dog in the race, and voted "other" in the MyDD poll. But I gotta tell you, this race is Hillary Clinton's to lose at this point. I wish to be wrong, and see Obama or Edwards get the nomination, but I honestly don't see it happening from this vantage point, and it's very frustrating. The Edwards candidacy was a longshot to begin with, and that he is still in it points toward how sound a strategy (combined with the luck of having Fiengold & Warner drop out), that he laid out; the frustration is more directed at Obama because he has the opportunity to lay claim with what's grown in the netroots this decade and hasn't grasped it at all, and it shows.

It's not about the dumping of Obama by the former contributor to Barack Obama, Steven Spielberg; or the very huge endorsement by Nevada State Sen. Dina Titus of Clinton; or even her latest surge in the polls.

No, it's the fake self-proclaimed "movement" that exhausts me of Obama. I say fake, not because "movement for change" and "building a movement" are such vacuous slogans, but because the continual touting of having such a movement in the Obama campaign email slog is a sure-as-heck signal that there really isn' a substantive movement behind the numbers.

In Obama latest, he sent me an email titled, "What a movement looks like?" His campaign probably didn't notice the slip, but it's an obvious truth--that adding that "?" in the title. Maybe, he thinks, he's in one... maybe not... who can tell?  He wouldn't have a clue, I'm beginning to think-- that the campaign really doesn't know what a movement is made up of and are fumbling in the dark amidst their media-created momentum (which is getting primed to turn on its creation). And who's got Obama's back when the media does turns on its creation? The netroots doesn't; he's never aligned with the existing movement that began with Dean in '02, swelled for Wesley Clark in '03, led Dean to the DNC Chair and propelled the Hackett and Lamont candidacies, leading to the surge of activists voting for Democrats in '06.

I was never under the illusion that Mark Warner would be a 'movement' candidate, but as a progressive and partisan Democrat he would engage this movement and work to win alongside us. And instead of the potential of a candidacy with Hillary that would not help red-state Democrats (to put it nicely), with Warner, we would have a map-changer that could win 40 states. I liked Obama's candidacy for a couple of months after Warner dropped out. I was encouraged by his message, even doing a very favorable post about it that got the Edwards partisans up in arms. Sure, Obama can't win 40 states, but he is not going to be a liability either, so why not.

At the time, I said that I would do a follow-up to the 'message' post-- to talk about the 'movement' that seemed to swelling around Obama. I mentioned it, started writing it, but that post was never done, because I never found anything real about Obama's movement. I looked into Obama's candidacy, very interested, then began to be skeptical, and now completely dismiss the notion that there's a movement behind Obama. It's looks like a better-than-ordinary campaign for a candidate that's personally compelling, and not much more. It is not a movement, but a candidate. It's about Obama, and nothing more. He's got numbers in the same way that Coke or Pepsi have consumers; supporters in the same way that Bono and the Dixie Chicks have fans. But this is partisan politics, and Obama will not survive the rightwing machine's onslaught without a strategy that includes internet partisanship.

And then there's just the part of me that sees right through parts of the game going on here. Since January 30th, I've gotten 17 emails from Barack Obama or David Plouffe hyping it up with the word "movement" in one or another part of each of those emails. Yea, David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, fresh off of directing Gephardt's compelling '04 movement, a principle in the media firm of David Axelrod-- the one responsible for storing up as much Obama cash as possible for as many ad buys and expenditures done through his and Axelrod's media firm. Plouffe is probably a good team player that signs off on being the obligatory signature for the email, but Movement Organizer, heh. Enjoy the 2nd quarter push for cash, it's the only part of the Obama movement that's real.

Maybe I'm completely on the outside here, and Barack Obama, with Plouffe and thousands of others, are really creating an independent feel-good movement. One that has nothing to do with the fighting partisan netroots; so there's no way I would grasp it, much less feel a part of it, and I'll be sideswiped in surprise at Obama's victories. Maybe, but I doubt it. Obama's running a well-funded, traditional presidential campaign that's safely pointed toward finishing a strong second based on his personal appeal. I can see Obama getting a lot of points in the game, but never the lead.

Edwards could still win the nomination, but it looks like a real longshot now, and the fading in the polls nationally is not a good omen. He needed to run a perfect campaign, with no self-induced mistakes, and it's not been that way at all. The haircut, hedgefund, and house as a trifecta of rightwing ammo has hurt his credibility on the signature issue of poverty. I'm not buying into the faux meme that is aimed at Edwards, campaigns are not fair, and those decisions were mistakes that didn't need to happen, especially just when it seemed his campaign was gaining momentum. There's still hope for Edwards if he pulls out a hat trick in the first three states, but that is one hell of a task. I give Edwards credit, because he does understand the terrain for '08 much better than Obama.

It's ludicrous that some point toward the outreach and early partnership that Edwards has done with the blogging community and the netroots in the same manner that a candidate reaches out to an issue base group, and and argue from there that Obama doesn't kowtow to such groups. First of all, that's bs, he does plenty of pandering and is very ordinary in that regard; but more fundamentally, this is the base of the Democratic party's rapid response team. The issue is combating the rightwing machine in unison with Democratic candidates, but you can't partner with a candidate that not inclined to join the partisan progressive movement. In all those emails, Obama has never once even associated with the word Democrat or Democratic, not mentioning either word even once. Edwards and Clinton do. Whose nomination is Obama running for?

There is an Obama that could be the partisan leader that builds with the netroots-blogger movement, but it's not his current campaign; and there is an Edwards campaign that's struggling to remain close to the pole; but here we are, seven months out, and only the potential of Al Gore jumping into the race seems standing in the way of Clinton getting the nomination. Otherwise, get prepared to accept Hillary.

Tags: Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

281 Comments

Uh-Oh

Countdown to Obama fan meltdown, in 3... 2... 1...

Good post, I voted the same way and feel the same way about the current crop of candidates. I wish Dodd could catch fire, but what I wish for more is Gore.

by Alex Urevick 2007-06-14 05:02AM | 0 recs
You do?

So, help us catch fire ...

I know you well enough to know you are a fantastic organizer with a skill-set no one on our internet team has.  We can certainly provide you the keys to get involved in a meaningful way.

I believe you know the other Tim on our team (ye of Philly) -- we should talk.

Tim

by Tim Tagaris 2007-06-14 05:22AM | 0 recs
Re: You do?

Word. See you at Take Back America? I'll be in the capital from Monday-Wednesday.

And wear that Phillies hat with pride- we're coming for the Mets!

by Alex Urevick 2007-06-14 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: You do?

I'll be there.  We'll talk next week.

And it's not a Phillies hat.  It's a "Pinch Penny Pub" hat -- a bar I worked during college that just jacked the "P" and added a small "3" above it and to the right.  

I am, sadly, an irrational Cubs fan.

Tim

by Tim Tagaris 2007-06-14 05:35AM | 0 recs
Boooooooo!

Coincidentally, I am in the process of incorporating a non-profit called "P3" and was going to jack the Phillies P as well. Hmmm...

by Alex Urevick 2007-06-14 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: You do?

Cubs fan?

That makes me want to work for Dodd even more.

Not that there are any opportunities here in the heartland for Dodd work.

phat

by phatass 2007-06-14 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Louis Armstrong's version is the best

Grab your coat and get your hat
Leave your worries on the doorstep
Life can be so sweet
On the sunny side of the street

Can't you hear the pitter pat
And that happy tune is your step
Life can be complete
On the sunny side of the street

I used to walk in the shade with my blues on parade
But I'm not afraid...this rover? crossed over

If I never had a cent
I'd be rich as Rockefeller
Gold dust at my feet
On the sunny side of the street  

by mboehm 2007-06-14 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Louis Armstrong's version is the best

I heard Luis Armstrong has come out in support of Hillary Clinton.    :-)

by georgep 2007-06-14 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: alex are you really going to vote?

i believe that alex is in love with hillary she  only have the women in her rallies "king obama"have men,women,old and young at his rallies and alex if she is going to win then why is she not winning in Iowa. Also alex if she is the winner then why do obama double her in donors he has 100,000 and she has 50,000 how could she be winning in the polls. alex is not looking at the facts alex and the media don't want to see obama get any futher she will not get the backing of white male voters nor black male i hope alex and others who believe like him will see this and respond to this i am  willing to debate this when you are ready "obama will win and the world knows it"      

by edward 2007-06-14 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I am almost afraid to say this here, but I like Sen. Clinton. While I will vote for Bill Richardson in the primary, I would be perfectly happy with a Hillary presidency. While I naturally am not crazy about all of her stances (then again, I'm not 100% in love with the stances of any of the candidates), I think that overall she is the second best (after Richardson) qualified person for the job. Not only is she incredibly smart (yeah, yeah, so are the rest of them), but she has more significant experience in matters of foreign and domestic policy than the rest of the top tier candidates. I like her stances on the issues most important to me personally (healthcare, civil rights, scientific research), and I honestly think that after eight years of loose cannon machismo, a woman's perspective could be very valuable. Hillary has a certain image that goes along with her, but I think that a lot of that is a right wing frame into which I refuse to buy. Her stance on Iraq is not the best, I will agree, but I believe that she will, if elected president, ameliorate her stance. I like Barack Obama, but he seems too green to me to lead the free world. I know this is a completely arbitrary criterion, but his political opportunism irritates me. I do not like John Edwards particularly, as I think his charm is somewhat manufactured. But that's just my opinion, and I respect the right of people to like and dislike whom they please; I only wish that people like me who like Sen. Clinton were not made to feel so pilloried for our stance.

by pennquaker08 2007-06-14 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I also would like to ask: why can we not have an atheist/agnostic president? I know that in reality we are an incredibly religious nation, but even so, why can there not be a top tier candidate who does not make a huge show of his or her faith? Hillary's sob story about how faith helped her get through the Monica crisis and Obama's irritating tendency to drop the evangelical catch phrase "prayed on it" (rather than "thought about it") seem to me little more than deliberate pandering. These religious appeals, whether or not they are genuine, seem largely disingenuous to me. I would offer my primary vote to any candidate who publicly refused to mention private religious beliefs.

by pennquaker08 2007-06-14 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Yeah, I've made that argument myself from time to time--a Democratic "Great Communicator."

But, going back to the initial post, Reagan really was leading a movement.

I don't see that from Obama yet.

by Bush Bites 2007-06-14 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Because this is America not France.

Sometimes we all need to take a peak outside of the netroots bubble... the netroots are not America. America is a country made up of 90% religious people.

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

This I understand. But if even I, a person who is not very religious, can see through the political utility of making an ostentatious show of my piety, then an actual person of faith would spot them a mile away and may even shunt their vote elsewhere. Republicans are going to win the evangelical vote no matter what. The mainstream Christians, Jews, etc. that are left seem sane enough to understand the separation of church and state.

by pennquaker08 2007-06-14 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Of course Republicans will always win the overall evangelical vote, but every individual you persuade to switch counts the same.

Howard Dean appeared on the 700 Club for a reason.  The concept behind asking for every vote is not much different than the concept behind the 50-state strategy.

The problem is, in a political environment where Democrats are routinely accused of being an atheistic secular godless party that hates people of faith, the normal approach of keeping your faith a private matter isn't viable.  You have to be a little bit open about it simply as pushback against all the unfair accusations.

by Steve M 2007-06-14 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

The problem is that many people are prejudiced against atheists, and the Republican party knows it, that's why they encourage those accusations you mention.  Democrats dance to the Republican tune every time they rush to reassure people that yes, they do share in the general supernaturalism, rather than fighting for the social standing of atheists and agnostics.  That is a more fruitful strategy, because when prejudice against atheists lessens, it won't matter so much if the Democratic party is accused of being godless.

by One Hand Clapping 2007-06-14 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: why can we not have an atheist/agnostic presid

We have had and will have. It's just that one has to pretend to be Christian to get elected. I'm atheist, but I would sure as heck start being seem in church if I decided to run for president.

by Cleveland John 2007-06-14 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: why no atheist/agnostic president?

When Americans decide they prefer reality, science and rational thought over mythology, fairy tales, dogma, illusion and superstition, then we'll get a non-believer president.

Americans like "Easy" -- and it's easier to believe that a Magical Omnipotent Hovering Invisible Fairy has a plan for everything and pulls all the strings.

Looking at the dumbing down of this country, I'm not holding my breath that the switch to rationality will happen any time soon.

by Oregonian 2007-06-14 08:17AM | 0 recs
Hillary

The problem with Hillary - for me - has not so much to do with her policies. The problem is: what will she do to the Democratic Party? Can we survive with a public face that is absolutely hated by 48% of the population, before she has even taken office? Can we survive with a public face that alienates the people that Democrats desperately need to win back from Republicans, i.e. white working class voters? Can we survive with a public face that energizes the other side and sets us back to the years before Bush sank the Republicans?

With Hillary:

  • dozens of downticket races will be lost
  • the Democratic brand will be ripped to pieces
  • the white working class will go back to Republicans
  • the conservative movement will rise from the ashes
  • eveything that happened under W will be forgotten

And this is not even mentioning her antipopulist agenda or the dynasty thing.

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

Your grim predictions are, I think, largely speculation. How can you be sure that, if elected, Hillary wouldn't actually do the country proud as president? People can change their minds, and in fact do all the time. For example, would you have thought back in 1997 that gay civil unions would be legal in four states and full marriage equality in one? And this is only the beginning of the long road toward gay civil rights.

by pennquaker08 2007-06-14 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

I hope that you are right, I really do. But I don't believe it... the prospect of a Hillary candidacy is enough to make me sleepless.

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 05:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

It's not the part after Clinton is elected that has people as worried, it's Clinton's down ticket effect during the election that has people, like me, worried.  

My stepmother for instance, who's a Republican in all but name, hates the GOP field but she hates Hillary Clinton even more.  She was a die-hard McCain fan for a while but that love affair faded. Her reasons for hating Hillary are wholly irrational, but you can't talk her out of it.  She has, however, made comments about supporting Obama, and I think she'd support most of the other Democrats in the field too.

What I don't know is who are these people supporting Clinton.  In every informal raising of hands in a gathering of Democrats that I've been to Hillary Clinton comes in third behind Obama and Edwards (who flip 1st and 2nd).  

by LionelEHutz 2007-06-14 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary negatives will go down

She has really come across as likeable, I think, in the last debates.  I'll never forget her interview with David Letterman's mom many years ago. I think a lot of her negatives are driven by a narrative without people seeing a lot of her. If she can sell herself as a person as well as a politician, she'll be the next president.

I agree 100% with the diary. Edwards' mistakes, and Obama's lost opportunities are regrettably fatal.

by magster 2007-06-14 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary negatives will go down

I have watched the two debates anxtiously to see if my perception of Hillary is wrong. I have really hoped that it would be. But no. She came across as very knowledgable but also not very likeable to say the least. I am glad to hear that not everyone feels this way about her.

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary negatives will go down

personally, I'd never smear a Democrat with the Reagan tag. Reagan was officially the most corrupt president in American history with more of his staffers convicted on various corruption charges than any president in history including Richard Nixon. i don't like Obama much, but he certainly deserves better than that.

by basement angel 2007-06-14 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary negatives will go down

I don't know if Hillary's negatives will go down.  I think the populus will always be 50/50 with her.  I already wrote about Obama, if he does not turn it around by late summer/early fall, then this is all Hillary's.  I state this because he is a huge draw, people sincerely do like him, if he turns it around many will come back, a savvy fundraiser.  All campaigns need shake ups, Hillary did it for Iowa, Edwards with Trippi, now Obama need to replace his PR people and Communication people.  If he can do these things, hone the message, control HIS media, perform at top strength in the debates, he can be a real contender.  All the things he is trying to do with grassroots, he can still do, but he needs to tighten his ship.

by icebergslim 2007-06-14 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary negatives will go down

i seriously doubt that hillary's negatives will go down significantly -- but that's really not the point.  the point is that the negative intensity out there is monumental.  a solid core of republicans and independents don't simply dislike hillary, they loathe her with a passion that's irrational.  they tired of the clinton "psychodrama" a long time ago; now they just want to beat one...

by bored now 2007-06-14 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary negatives will go down

But the psychodrama is created by the people who hate her. Hillary Clinton alone is just a person. If they insist on clutching on to the past and reinventing the 90s drama, then that's their problem: not ours. If Hillary is the nominee and she runs on principles with which some of those Independents and Republicans agree, then they will either have to sell out to another candidate with whom they don't agree or reconsider the image they've created of her.

I'm pretty confident she can impress independents. She's too damn intelligent not to.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-14 10:38AM | 0 recs
hillary loses the i-4 corridor to sam brownback...

sam brownback!  granted, hillary may be writing off florida anyway (like kerry did), but it's hard for me to see why anyone would think she'll win independents.  she's polling awful in pennsylvania, too.  this isn't like new york, where she held a town hall in every friggin' corner of the state...

by bored now 2007-06-14 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: hillary loses the i-4 corridor to sam brownbac

It's very easy to see why Hillary would win independents: they're all about the issues. And her stances are an excellent blend of progressivism and pragmatism. I don't really give a hoot how she's polling in Pennsylvania. When the general election comes around and if Hillary is the Democratic nominee, people will have to get off of their undecided butts and think about in which direction they want their country to go.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-14 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: hillary loses the i-4 corridor to sam brownbac

you have a very idealistic notion of independents.  independents are as personality-driven as partisan voters.  in fact, independents tend to be the laziest voters out there.  even if they are interested in issues, they rarely take the time to examine and compare candidates and their stands on issues.  i'm not sure if your statement is naive or just a convenient oversight, but i'd think it will be remarkably easy for republicans to separate independents from hillary (not that we have any indication that hillary wants independents to vote anyway).

i find it hard to believe that you want to argue her case on the issues.  since hillary has been in the senate, she's had one opportunity to show her moral character and she came up wanting.  she was bush's most ardent supporter on iraq!  if the base couldn't get enthused about john kerry because of his flip-flops on the war until late october, how could you expect us to get excited about hillary with all her extra baggage?  and after "hillary-care," it's difficult to believe that even most democrats want her in charge.  she lends herself easily to the caricaturization that democrats want big government programs and huge tax increases to pay for them.

the fact that you don't care about the electoral college, or that hillary would inevitably lose, and quick to write off florida and pennsylvania, tells me something.  it's not about taking back the white house, it's all about hillary...

by bored now 2007-06-15 04:33AM | 0 recs
Re: hillary loses the i-4 corridor to sam brownbac

ou have a very idealistic notion of independents.  independents are as personality-driven as partisan voters.  in fact, independents tend to be the laziest voters out there.  even if they are interested in issues, they rarely take the time to examine and compare candidates and their stands on issues.

I'm not sure where you got your personality assessment of independents, but I'm almost completely certain you have no idea what you're talking about. On what basis could you possibly ascertain that independent voters are lazy? There's a reason why independent voters are becoming more and more important during national elections and it's because the Democratic and Republican parties are losing voters on the issues. They're so fraught with paranoia about upsetting their base that they can't push past their own bread and butter issues. That's lead to the rise of people who consider themselves not interested in either of the parties. But it's precisely because of the issues that many independents are independent.

As for your tirade against Hillary, I find your rhetoric about as flat as 10 day old opened can of coke. Her "one opportunity to show moral character" in your words was her belief in the intelligence she was provided by the President. She's already said that if she knew then what she knows now, she wouldn't have voted. I find it difficult to parse that you would equate her with Bush's most ardent supporter just because she, as someone who's been in the White House, wanted to not play politics on what seemed at the time to be a question of national security. I don't know where morals come into it but if a Democrat supports a member of the opposing party in order to protect the United States, I think that's moral. If you're upset with how the war turned out, you have none other than George Bush to blame.

she lends herself easily to the caricaturization that democrats want big government programs and huge tax increases to pay for them.

Frankly, you're the one lending yourself to that caricature, because, if you actually were to observe her now as opposed to the image you have of her 15 years ago you'd see that she's fairly moderate in her proposals. I could spend half the day coming up with her entire platform and walk you baby step by baby step through why she's a very reasonable candidate who knows her issues, but I really don't care to now that you've shown your true colors. Go ahead and bash her for the image you have of her in mind and refuse to even examine. Fine with me. You could be just another Republican for all I care.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-15 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: hillary loses the i-4 corridor to sam brownbac

my conclusions are based upon not only my years of voter contact and mobilization, but also an intense study of the electorate through post-election analysis, issues canvassing, controlling benchmark polls and running focus groups.

i'm sure you have reasons for your views, they just don't seem to be derived from contact with the electorate...

by bored now 2007-06-21 05:37AM | 0 recs
I rarely agree with you but

I completely agree with this. We have a unique opportunity to build on the progress of 2006 and Hillary, imo, can't do that.

by okamichan13 2007-06-14 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

would be a decent President, all the candidates will, but she has to win it.  If it is Giuliani, it will be tough, but at least we will know it will not be a personal attack campaign.  If Thompson, Fred that is, I can't comment until I see him in action.  But being an "actor" will put him points above the rest.  He will know how to react, speak, body movement, in front of the camera.  Very important.  Romney, not impressed, he would be the easiest with his flip/flopping baggage.

Obama is the one to take Hillary out, if he does not make a move by late summer/early fall then he is done.  We understand the process of involving people in your campaign, but if you do not do the basic fundamentals of running a tight ship, then you do falter.  He needs new PR People/Communication Director.  The one total positive about him is his website, stellar.  One that every campaign "wished" they had.  And another, he has engaged people to the Democratic Party, which is good because we need as many to come to our side as possible.  So, it is for Hillary to loose, and maybe Obama got something up his sleeve, but he need to roll it out.

by icebergslim 2007-06-14 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

I don't think Obama will attack Clinton in any major way. He has a bright future in the Democratic Party and possibly even a shot at VP.

by robliberal 2007-06-14 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

would be a decent President, all the candidates will, but she has to win it.  If it is Giuliani, it will be tough, but at least we will know it will not be a personal attack campaign.  If Thompson, Fred that is, I can't comment until I see him in action.  But being an "actor" will put him points above the rest.  He will know how to react, speak, body movement, in front of the camera.  Very important.  Romney, not impressed, he would be the easiest with his flip/flopping baggage.

Obama is the one to take Hillary out, if he does not make a move by late summer/early fall then he is done.  We understand the process of involving people in your campaign, but if you do not do the basic fundamentals of running a tight ship, then you do falter.  He needs new PR People/Communication Director.  The one total positive about him is his website, stellar.  One that every campaign "wished" they had.  And another, he has engaged people to the Democratic Party, which is good because we need as many to come to our side as possible.  So, it is for Hillary to loose, and maybe Obama got something up his sleeve, but he needs to roll it out.

by icebergslim 2007-06-14 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Yeah, I'm coming round to like Clinton too. From the opposite end, as Dodd is probably my favourite and Richardson is my least favourite, but she's running a competent campaign and whilst there are issues where I think she could improve (Iraq, Penn, healthcare) she's not running against the netroots, which is a good sign when you consider that she's almost certain not to get a majority of netroots votes and she looks to be the most prepared to go up against the Republican machine and win.

by Englishlefty 2007-06-14 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

It isn't her policies that I hate.  And I wouldn't mind a woman president.

What I can't stand is to have that family and all their dysfunction return to the White House and represent this country as if its normal behavior.  

Values that we teach our children were made a sham of by the Clintons: fidelity, loyalty, honesty, law-abiding, love, ambition.

And why should I believe that he won't stray again? Why should I admire her for sticking with him after so many affairs? Why should we put Chelsy through this all over again?

Sure we all have our dysfunctional families, but America's first family should be better than most.

by aiko 2007-06-14 08:19AM | 0 recs
Dynasty

If Clinton gets the nod, and the Republican candidate is formidable, then this will come back to bite us in the ass.  We must be realistic here, a Bush/Clinton has been on the presidential ballot since 1980.  And Bush has totally FATIGUED us all, so do not think this will not be a strong reminder, it will.  Because the other side will be talking about real change, which you can not argue for the elitism aspect of it, and if they come across with a hard message, it will be a divide.

by icebergslim 2007-06-14 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Dynasty

and the Republican candidate is formidable

Luckily that is looking less likely by the day. The only two republicans that have the talent and credentials to endanger any of the Democratic candidates are the current governor of California who isn't allowed to run and the former governor of Florida who, because of his last name, has no chance in hell.

by Ernst 2007-06-14 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Dynasty

At another time it might be right for Hillary.  But the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton dynasty deal goes against the American grain.  Kevin Phillips talks about "Wealth and Dynasty".  We get the same players over and over instead of new blood.  It just strikes me as the wrong time for Hillary.  

The nation needs to somehow start healing after the nastiness and selfishness of the last 30 years. But more of the same isn't going to do it.  You are right.  People are fatigued.  Anything smacking of the failed policies of conservatism and the more benign Rubonomics, need to be put aside.  We need really bold change like single payer healthcare.  The American people are ready for huge change.  I can feel it out here.  A change in direction not just a change in how we treat each other.

by Feral Cat 2007-06-14 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Has there ever been a 1st family that wasn't dysfunctional in some way?

Reality isn't Ozzie and Harriet.  

I'll give the Clintons credit for one thing though, despite all the goings on in their household, their kid seems to have grown up just fine.  

by LionelEHutz 2007-06-14 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Very much. I don't think it matters what the Clintons' marriage is like. They haven't let it harm the upbringing of their child and beyond that it's their own damn business.

You shouldn't elect your leaders to be moral paragons, you should elect the best person to lead. Give me an alcoholic, philandering misanthropist who will makes the lives of his people better any day over a teetotalling, faithful straitlaced churchgoer who will do harm to the people of his country.

Hell, Bush II shows you exactly why private conduct is no indicator of whether or not they're a good leader. Values aren't worth a damn. It's principles that are important.

by Englishlefty 2007-06-14 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

i love your last sentence.

by jgarcia 2007-06-15 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

don't give up on him yet.  he's my first choice too.  make a contribution, whatever you can would be appreciated.  he's absolutely worth it.

https://secure.richardsonforpresident.co m/page/contribute?source=W1017

by CNYAlison 2007-06-14 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I agree, Hillary has the most experience of the frontrunners. And I think Obama's lack of adequate leadership in the senate really doesn't seem to have prepared to lead not just the common voters, but be able to dictate to other politicians of his party on how to achieve certain goals.

Having said that, what good is Hillary's foreign experience? She had plenty of exposure to foreign policies and political games in 2002 and still blundered spectacularly regarding the war. And despite her experience, she took longer than Edwards and others to realize (or, based on what you believe,  admit) her mistake. Can you trust someone who has failed in one of the biggest priorities of this decade? And she doesn't seem to want to break away from the advisers and the DLC types. So there is no eveidence of an independent streak in crucial issues.

by Pravin 2007-06-14 10:20AM | 0 recs
This is why I am giving NO ONE a dime.

Hillary does not need, nor will she ever need, my donation. I don't care who she ends up running against, the fact is she has plenty of wealthy people who can take care of her. She will not need, nor will she ever appreciate, a dime I donate. Plus under her we'll be in Iraq for 8 more years, just so she can prove to the world that girls can shoot guns too.

Obama is a nice enough guy, but I have to wonder if he peaked the day he announced. I'd donate if there was a chance he could Stop Hillary (who will destroy the party and the country beyond the dreams of a Karl Rove) but I still get the impression people support him Because They Think They're Supposed To. Please, Obama folks, prove me wrong.

As for Edwards, well his lovely Johnny One Note "Consultant", Mudcat Whatshisname, made it clear that I, as a person who lives in a city, is not worthy of being in the Democratic party. So f*ck Edwards and his bullshit. He was a joke candidate the first time anyway, why does anyone take seriously what haircut 400 has to say? He can stick it up his hedge fund and his Mudcat.

As for the rest, well, they're a nice enough bunch, but Mike Gravel? Dennis The Menace? WTF?

Whatever. Bush has lowered the bar so low, even a fool like Hillary, who has no principles and no integrity, can actually be president. Maybe its time to move to Australia.

by Schadelmann 2007-06-14 10:29AM | 0 recs
Obama clearly isn't

kissing the asses of the netroots gate keepers, which shows in some of their coverage of his campaign (I'm not referring to Jerome's diary). I think that this post brings up a valid point: perhaps Obama is weaker for not putting out press releases containing the right buzz words for the base. Perhaps he should stop being so damn pragmatic and result orientated and instead offer people pie in the sky-proposals.

For me personally, his independence makes him even more appealing. This independence is obvious from his entire life of activism. He is not a phony who turns 180 degrees when it suits his interests, or a poll driven insider who tries to be folksy and hide her cold and calculated persona.

His independence might cost him the nomination in 2008. In the long run, I would be very surprised if Obama doesn't become POTUS.

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama clearly isn't
dude, you're whistling past the graveyard. It's not a matter of pandering, it's a matter of politics.
Obama is claiming to be a transformational candidate and yet he's running a top-down media campaign that sees grassroots supporters as simply a source of cash.
by Texas Nate 2007-06-14 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama clearly isn't

So how do you explain the unprecedent turnout at all his events? Are these people bought and paid for by the top down campaign?

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama clearly isn't
not at all. those people and their passion and energy show the huge potential that the obama campaign is squandering.
from my investigations of some of his larger events they are self-organized by the people attending -- the austin one in february that drew 20,000 definitely was -- and the Obama campaign is doing little or nothing to capture that energy and build a movement.
Instead of getting their supporters more and more deeply involved in the campaign, they just grab their cash and move on down the road.
by Texas Nate 2007-06-14 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama clearly isn't
I was at the Atlanta rally in early April, with over 20K in attendence. To their credit, the Obama campaign did do a few internet-savvy things:
  1. The crowd was allowed into two separate areas: One closer to the stage, and another behind that one, separated by metal barricades and a walkway. If you signed up online (and were thus on My.BarackObama.com), you got to stand in the section closer to the stage. So people already signed up online got the better experience (being closer to the Man).
  2. The person warming up the crowd kept asking everyone to sign up to my.barackobama.com every time she spoke. She probably repeated herself 10 times in 90 minute timespan, but I'm sure it got them more signups.
So basically they're doing a good job of getting people into their activism network (they do have very impressive numbers). The question then is what they do afterwards with those people to buidl the movement, and I think that falls more into the domain of Field rather than Netroots/Online Communications. I think the biggest innovation of the Dean campaign wasn't fundraising, but the use of Meetup to build a powerful national field program (which still exists today as DFA).
by Luigi Montanez 2007-06-14 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama clearly isn't
although the fatal flaw of the Dean/Meetup strategy was the failure to integrate their Meetup volunteers with their Iowa field program.
Their NH program was much better integrated and if NH had happened before Iowa....
by Texas Nate 2007-06-14 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: that's a myth...

iowa and new hampshire (i was in both) were organized differently.  the iowa operation was a complete failure, with the staff (not only volunteers) badly trained, many of whom had never experienced a caucus before.  only a handful of county directors walked their people through a mock caucus the weekend before.  (most of the presidentials i've worked on did this more than once.  i worked one campaign where mock caucuses were done routinely, monthly starting in november.)

new hampshire was better organized.  they benefited from being next door to vermont.  however, they trained their people on this "what's your story" thing, and it was a failure in winning large numbers of voters.  plus, their paid phone canvass (a buck a supporter) gave so many false positives that they had an inflated view of their support.  in the end, dean failed in asking voters for their vote and the organization was horribly flawed.  it was no way to run a presidential campaign...

by bored now 2007-06-14 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama clearly isn't

I think these people think they're part of a movement and the Obama campaign may think they're part of a movement, but if that's the case then the methods they employ to grow that movement have stagnated. He's not gaining support anymore. If I really wanted to direct a movement, first of all I'd give a purpose other than electing one person. I think as of now it's way to personality driven (which is exacerbated by the fact that Obama apparently does not mention the word Democrat in his emails). Second, I'd work like hell to get some small (or large) group of supporters to hit the streets every weekend or week, not just the one-time shot like they did last weekend. If he wants a grassroots movement, then he's got to ask a lot of the grassroots.

I'd give the same advice to the Edwards folks too in terms of hitting the streets.

by adamterando 2007-06-14 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama clearly isn't

I'm obviously not going to wade any further into this discussion, but I think you're a bit off the mark here.  If there are problems with what they're doing online, I don't think ATM-only syndrome is it.

We're still supposed to talk, Nate.  Ring me up when you get a chance.

Tim

by Tim Tagaris 2007-06-14 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama clearly isn't

will do Tim. have been having technical and illness issues.

by Texas Nate 2007-06-14 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama clearly isn't

Take your time.  I'll be in D.C. next week, so that should work as well.

Feel better,

Tim

by Tim Tagaris 2007-06-14 05:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama clearly isn't

it's not that it's ATM only, it's that there's no bubble up factor, they're using all the tactics of 2004 but without the enagement at the top levels that Dean had.

I dunno, maybe I'm just a crusty old hippy ranting about the good old days of 2003 and missing what's happening in front of my eyes.

by Texas Nate 2007-06-14 05:38AM | 0 recs
Not true...

There are numerous grassroots leaders around the country who are in direct and constructive contact with the Obama campaign.

Just because the Obama blog isn't posting movie poster parodies does not mean they're engaged with their supporters.

by Vermonter 2007-06-14 07:14AM | 0 recs
Media campaign?

How is Obama running a "top-down media campaign" if he doesn't even have ads up and running? He may spend all of his money that way - he may not. My understanding is the Obama campaign had a huge canvassing event on June 9th. Is he on the air with his big media campaign or is that just your opinion of his strategy?

by joejoejoe 2007-06-14 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama clearly isn't

You don't know what you are talking about.

I get more emails and invitations from Baltimore-based Obama supporters then from the HQ.  There are a ton of local house parties, baseball games, canvassing, volunteer opportunites, parties, etc. right here in town.  And our state won't even effect the outcome.

by aiko 2007-06-14 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: VP?

Who was the last Democrat to become President after making a serious run for the office without a stop at Vice President?  It's a long time ago, for sure (pre-Civil War).  The last person to do this (as a Democrat) was probably Andrew Jackson (lost 1824, elected in 1828 and 1832).

This notion that a good losing campaign opens things up for the future just doesn't work. Ask Jerry Brown, who came on like gangbusters in 1976 and then became the Harold Stassen of Democratic primaries.  Ask Ted Kennedy (1980).  Ask Gary Hart.  Ask Jesse Jackson.   Ask Paul Tsongas, or Bill Bradley.

So, if Obama falls short and is offered the VP slot?  Take it.

by David Kowalski 2007-06-14 05:28AM | 0 recs
Re: VP?
Well there was William Jennings Brya....... oh wait.
:)
by adamterando 2007-06-14 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama clearly isn't

Obama shows independence??? Jeeez!  Neocons are guiding his campaign and he's bending over backwards to assist indu$tries and Republicans!

This is what independence looks like - taking on Big Oil, the Insurance and Pharmaceutical industries, supporting fair trade, picketing with union members, helping to place minimum wage on ballots, shoveling with Katrina victims, advocating for the working poor, etc.

Edwards has successfully battled the healthcare industries - which is why he can afford a $400 haircut.  He's also been through the Republican slime machine in 2004 - while Obama's wheelin and dealin is gaining more scrutiny.

There are rarely any Progressive voices on TV - so we knew it would take all of us working together WHILE the media slimed and ignored Progressive candidates and promoted those raising the most money - also deemed "presidential."
I really wish this community would consider working our asses off to elect a Progressive who appeals to farmers and city slickers, millionaires and the poor.

Thanks

by annefrank 2007-06-14 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

In Obama's defense he's been quick at squashing attacks from republicans like McCain on Iraq.  It hasn't helped him in the polls tho, he's been flat for two months.  It might have hurt McCain tho.

A lot of us wish he'd be more aggressive against Hillary, but he's not.  Perhaps he doesn't want to lead this early, but he's got to make a move sometime.

by enarjay 2007-06-14 05:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I think he's running for VP.

by adamterando 2007-06-14 05:22AM | 0 recs
Hillary wouldn't choose obama

no way no how.

by TarHeel 2007-06-14 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary wouldn't choose obama

Why not? If he stays strong and his base develops an anti-Hillary attitude, it's the best way of securing her flanks in readiness for the general election.

He's probably not her best pick, but I see no reason why he wouldn't be up there.

by Englishlefty 2007-06-14 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary wouldn't choose obama

Plus that would secure a LOT of money for the GE.

by adamterando 2007-06-14 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary wouldn't choose obama

Yeah, but she seems like a big CW kind of campaigner, and the CW on this is that you need a Conservative White Guy.  If Rendell doesn't want it as he claims, I'm thinking Bayh or Warner would be shortlisted.

That being said, I think there is a long way to go and either a Clinton screw up or a change of Obama strategy could completely alter the race.  And of course Gore getting in would be a game changer.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-06-14 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary wouldn't choose obama

My candidate is neither Clinton or Obama, but I will support the notion that Clinton will not pick Obama as a VP candidate.   While it sounds like a dream ticket to Democrats (and they are good stories for the media because the Dem party has always stood up for equal rights), one has to consider two things.

1) If the Moderate Republicans and Indies who voted for Bush last time continue to be disenchanted, as indicated in many polls, (you can find them as there are links on this site to them), they will not pick both a woman and an African-American on the ticket.  We may think that's wrong and it sounds sexist and racist, but it's truth of the matter.   I hope that meme is wrong, but I believe it still exists.

2) Second reason, which is really the most important one, is that the election is going to be about Iraq.  No nominee will pick a VP to run with her (or him, because I still think Edwards will pull this out) that doesn't have military experience.  Granted, W's military service was questionable, but we couldn't prove it in 2000 or 2004.  Just ask Dan Rather.   Thus, with the three front runners, none of them has served in the military.  Only one has a spouse who was from a military family (Edwards).   No, I see Clinton picking someone like Leon Panetta.   My own choice would be Webb for John Edwards, but I'm pretty certain Webb prefers to be in the Senate.   I had hopes for Jack Reed, but he voted to give Bush more money, so that squashes him out.   But this argument holds even if Obama becomes the nominee as well.  He will need to pick someone with military experience as well and who knows the possibilities, such as Colin Powell.

All of that said, I think Edwards has the vision for this country, and he can lead it well.  But Jerome's right about one thing, Clinton has the cash to cover up any mistakes at the moment.  Iowa will still vote for Edwards, NH is likely to go Clinton with Edwards a strong second, and the other two up for grabs.  Clinton has bought her way into Nevada (by getting Harry Reid's son to be the Nevada director there), but if the unions break for Edwards, she will have a time on her hands.   SC may be brokered this time.

by benny06 2007-06-14 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Obama's support is somewhat soft.  Softer than either Clinton's and Edwards'.  He risks losing some of that soft support if he hits Clinton hard.  

by georgep 2007-06-14 06:24AM | 0 recs
Not necessarily true...

According to Rasmussen (I think), Obama has the highest (and consistent) level of baseline support.

by Vermonter 2007-06-14 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Not necessarily true...

Here's a WaPo poll from June 3rd:

Do you support (NAMED CANDIDATE) strongly, or somewhat?

Hillary Clinton           53             47  
Barack Obama          43             56  
Al Gore                     60             40  

In February, Clinton's "strong" number was 56%, and Obama's was 60%. So Obama's support has really softened up, and Clinton's is getting a little softer.

Al Gore's support seems to be the strongest, however.

by Kal 2007-06-14 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

First, for a frontrunner with universal name identification, I've been surprised for months that Hillary is only about at 1/3 in most polls.  That is below historic frontrunners like Mondale, Gore, Muskie, etc.  Everybody knows her but never a majority supports her, even among Democrats.

Second, I'm supporting Obama but I think some measure of objectivity is intact as I participate in my 9th Democratic primary process.  For the last few months I've been a little closer to the grassroots than Jerome or most other MyDD'ers and every day, without fail, I'm impressed with the Obama Campaign (Edwards too) and surprised of the astro-turf I see, mostly in the form of endorsements by politicians with thin followings, for Hillary.  It's the classic frontrunner situation -- a campaign that consists of risk-averse but well-compensated pros and politicians looking to climb the ladder vs. a challanger of a new generation with substantial under-the-radar appeal.  BTW - who won the MyDD straw poll the other day, Jerome?

Finally, Obama has something all the consultants, media & bloggers in the world cant spin away.  He was right from the start in opposing the war.  

Sure, it is Hillary's race to lose, of course. She is the frontrunner, but a weak one by the standards of most past frontrunners.

by howardpark 2007-06-14 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

You are wrong.  The polling Clinton receives is quite large compared to previous frontrunners.   You simply CAN'T compare Gore's numbers, as he had to contend with only ONE challenger, Bill Bradley.   OF COURSE you would see numbers above 50% for one of the two.  It makes no sense, is downright silly, to compare that "performance" to an 8-man race, of which four candidates (Clinton, Obama, Gore, Edwards) pull in decent numbers.  

If you look up other contenders, you will see that what you believe to be the truth is actually not correct.  Mondale was not a runaway frontrunner, quite the opposite.  He struggled mightily against Gary Hart, and his poll numbers, as they were, never approached the level you claim here.   The same is true for Muskie or any of the Democrats running for the nomination, going all the way back to the 50s.   The fact is, actually, that Clinton's candidacy is very strong, and, given that this is an 8-man race, the performance is stronger than any of the candidacies I have personally seen unfold in my lifetime.  

In short, your point here is wrong.  If you bother to research into this you will actually see the difference between this candidacy and it's poll performance and poll stability and previous Democratic candidacies, which, by comparison, were much closer, much more prone to jumping back-and-forth between candidates, and typically enjoyed lower poll numbers across the board for one given candidate in a race that was at least a 3-man race at the time.  

by georgep 2007-06-14 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

He struggled mightily against Gary Hart, and his poll numbers, as they were, never approached the level you claim here.

That's true for the period after Hart's upset win in New Hampshire.  Leading up to the primaries, Mondale was ahead in the polls by as much as 50 points, and he won Iowa going away.  Momentum can be a funny thing.

by Steve M 2007-06-14 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Don't compare apples & oranges, timing is very important.  I'm looking at polling months before Iowa & NH.  At this time in 1983 Hart was a blip, Mondale had over 50%, likewise in the 1972 cycle.  Given that everyone knows her name Hillary is very, very weak.

by howardpark 2007-06-14 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Obama has been in the media spotlight as the new democratic talent for 4 years now. his ID is about 90%

Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and has been VP for 8 years.

Edwards was the VP candidate of 2004.

Hart... Hart? Hart who? He was completely unknown until then and had done nothing to distinguish himself yet. Hart never had the history the current crop has.

Clinton isn't weak, it's the rest of the field is stronger then usual.

by Ernst 2007-06-14 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

The figues I've seen on Obama's ID are in the 60's, nowhere near 90.  

by howardpark 2007-06-14 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Oh, please.   He is generally at 90% in most states, high 80s in other states.

by georgep 2007-06-14 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

on Planet Political Junkie or among voters, not just Dems, in states that vote on Feb. 5?  Obama is way, way short of Hillary's name ID and, of course, opinions of Obama are FAR softer.

by howardpark 2007-06-14 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I'm an Edwards supporter. You're an Obama supporter. Doesn't matter at this point. What does matter is that more than two-thirds of the Dems don't want Hillary. That, to me, is the most telling aspect of the polls. Hillary's only advantage right now, as far as I can see, is that the Dem field of contenders is very large, allowing people to split their preferences. But looked at a different way, more than 66% of Dems favor someone other than Hillary. I don't consider that to be a strong position for her.

by grayslady 2007-06-14 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Do you therefore mean we should settle for the one not favored by 75%?

by meliou2 2007-06-14 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

You're deliberately confusing with having candidate Y at the top spot with not wanting candidate X. Your theory works for every candidate. 75% favor somebody else then Obama and 85% favors somebody else then Edwards... And the rest does even worse.

If we follow your theory it becomes clear that almost all democrats don't want to have a candidate at all.

by Ernst 2007-06-14 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

That makes no sense.  So more than 75% want a canddiate other than Obama?  Almost 90% want someone other than Edwards?   What is the point of this nonsensical point, other than to make no sense?  

by georgep 2007-06-14 08:54AM | 0 recs
one question

Let's say Obama had decided to compete furiously with Edwards for the "far left," storm the barricades, progressive reform populism niche. He and Edwards would have been blowing each other to pieces while Hillary would have looked even more unstoppable. Obama would have shot his GE favorables to hell, and the best argument against HRC (electability) would have been thrown away, had Obama competed with Edwards for the niche Edwards is in the process of losing to Gore and Obama.

How would you have felt about that?

by jforshaw 2007-06-14 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: one question

You mean Obama bases his campaign on a political calculation of where he should fit on the ideological spectrum?

Well, I guess that is pragmatic. Don't know how "new" that sort of politics is though.

by adamterando 2007-06-14 05:24AM | 0 recs
It is an argument _against_

calculation. Obama should be Obama, not John Edwards or Hillary Clinton.

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 06:24AM | 0 recs
Give me a break

we are NOT the far left.  Go on and use Republican talking points though to form your argument...

by areucrazy 2007-06-14 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: one question

You don't have to be the leftmost candidate to appeal to the netroots.  You just have to be aggressively partisan.  The netroots will support someone who acts like they're proud of the Democratic brand, who is willing to accurately point the finger at the Republicans for everything they've screwed up without lapsing into the phony language of bipartisanship.  This just isn't Obama's message.

We've got people from all over the Democratic spectrum in the netroots.  On the whole, it's a lot more about whether you're willing to draw a clear line between the two parties, and a lot less about whether you propose to nationalize the means of production.

by Steve M 2007-06-14 06:50AM | 0 recs
Webb, Tester, etc

I agree wholeheartedly.  Look at Senators Webb and Tester, along with many House Democrats, and the Hackett campaigns, especially the Senate race.

by Max Friedman 2007-06-14 07:12AM | 0 recs
Excellent post

Its not about ideology, its about focus

by okamichan13 2007-06-14 08:15AM | 0 recs
I disagree with your well-written post

I think you are simply expressing frustration -- and disappointment -- that Obama has not run a true progressive movement-oriented campaign a la Howard Dean. I understand that, and I feel as frustrated as you do, but that hardly makes this race Hillary's to lose.

Obama is simply taking a different tack -- the "let's get past the partisan rancor" tack. I really wish he'd be more of a fighter (and I do not really have a horse in this race), but I think it is undeniable that this tack will appear to an awful lot of disgusted people. After all, the guy is outraising uber-machine-candidate Hillary Clinton in Q2, and drawing enormous crowds everywhere he goes to give a stump speech. Plus, her potential Achilles heel (not adequately exploited by anyone yet) happens to be the biggest issue in the race, across the political spectrum. How on earth can you say this race is hers to lose?

by scottso 2007-06-14 05:15AM | 0 recs
I agree and would like to add

that this is not a "strategy" from Obama's side. It is who he is. If you read his books, and articles about his past, you notice that he has had the idea of bringing people together since he was a teenager. Some people thought that he was a fire breathing partisan after the 2004 convention but even that speech is "beyond partisanship" in many ways.

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I agree and would like to add

My biggest hope at this point is that it is a strategy, and Obama is just playing (v. clever) political games, but on the inside he's a take-no-prisoners, kick-'em-while-they're down, bring-an-Uzi-to-a-knifefight brawler.

I don't want to see all the Republicans criminals sent away with a slap on the wrist, to return in four or eight years. I want someone who'll drive a stake through the heart of zombie Republicriminals, once and for all. I really, really, really hope Obama will do that.

by BingoL 2007-06-14 07:25AM | 0 recs
I can sympathize

with your desire for revenge but really I don't know if the presidential candidate is the right person to do these things. The last thing we need is another George W Bush, even a liberal one.

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: I can sympathize

What's the relationship to GWB? Was he getting 'revenge' (I prefer the phrase 'legal accountability') from Democratic lawbreakers? And I'd be perfect happy if the President isn't the one who does these things, so long as he or she appoints the people who will, and gives them all the necessary support.

It's not (just) a personal vendetta; it's for the health of the country. I can't think of a more important thing to do. Not even withdrawing from Iraq. If these people aren't punished, they'll lead us into another Iraq, and another, and another.

by BingoL 2007-06-14 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree with your well-written post

the "let's get past the partisan rancor" tack.
That sounds a lot like the same old DLC BS to me (and I'm sure to a good portion of the party's base as well). It shows a stunning lack of comprehension of the right-wing ascension, and a seriously flawed mentality for dealing with a true Revolution.

Yeah, we should just accept the fact that the right starts catastrophic wars, politicizes and/or destroys every section of the government that constrains their power or corporate domination, continues to promote policies that pollute the earth (well, given that he is pushing for more Coal, I can see the lack of clear distinction), discriminates against gays, women, minorities, and anyone else who isn't a rich/middle class white straight Christian man. Where's the middle ground on issues like Evolution, which at least three of the Republican nominees claim that they don't believe in?

This is pure PR bullshit, and Obama's problem with the netroots/activist base is that we can smell fine and call him on his shit spinning/spitting.

by Alex Urevick 2007-06-14 05:40AM | 0 recs
So you are saying that

our front face should be a leftist version of George W Bush? I beg to differ.

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: So you are saying that

Why not? He's wrong, we're right. Why, when faced with the most right-wing Republican party ever, a party with nearly as hateful a devotion to reactionary ideals as the 1850s Democratic party, would you want a leader who'll treat them as a grouping with a fair point?

by Englishlefty 2007-06-14 06:38AM | 0 recs
Keep trying to move to "the middle"...

...and you will quickly discover that the middle keeps on moving to the right.

We all want to "get along", but when one side holds intractible positions, i.e. religion or non-reasonable beliefs, than it is impossible to negotiate.

I can't wait for the headline about Obama's Iraq policy, specifically the part about how to unify that nation, which I'm sure he'll want to be "post-religious" or "post-sectarian".

I'd say this is pretty typical of Obama- nice words with little-to-no standing in reality.

by Alex Urevick 2007-06-14 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree with your well-written post

Movement? Not a movement? There's something 'snooty' about Jerome's assessment.  A movement isn't just about the internet savvy and the bloggers.  Obama supporters cut across age, sex, race, wealth, geography etc.

A movement doesn't have to be hard left or hard right.  Obama supporters are here because we want our voices heard, we want the rancor and diviseness to stop.  

We want leaders who will listen to everyone, who will treat everyone with respect.  Someone who will represent all of the people, not just 51% of the people.

We are passionate about our cause and the one politician we see who 'speaks our language.'  Some try to belittle this as 'kumbaya' or Rodney King 'can't we all just get along' politics, but that's off base.  

Listening to and understanding divergent points of view and then making intelligent decisions based on a bigger picture will lead to better outcomes for our nation and the world.

Barack Obama is a different kind of candidate.  This movement may be based on Barack, but it is also based on the principles he represents.

Two years ago, he never expected to be running for president in '08.  But the hunger for his unifying approach to governance, after these polarizing Bush years, was already a movement in the making that ultimately drew him in.

by CeeCee34 2007-06-14 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose
Aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?  There is so much more that could still happen to change the direction of this race.  The hyped-up pace of this race has everything to do with the media breathlessly hoping to be the first to name the winner and nothing to do with how the race is actually shaping up.
There have been multiple stories pointing out the fact that Clinton's base is mainly among a particular group of less-politically-engaged, lower-educated women who get their news from only one new source and who haven't yet started paying attention the race --- that campaigns haven't been able to reach yet.
I think there is tremendous potential for change in this race: and I don't just mean that Obama maybe / might just / could find a crack, but that Kerry-style another candidate could emerge in the early primaries.  I wouldn't sell Edwards' chances short at all --- for example, I have no doubt that voters in national polls haven't really realized how different a candidate Edwards is now than in 2004.
And then Obama: Someone made the great point in a diary that Obama is the only person in this race running exactly the way he wants to.  Slowly building support (poll average trends still upward), creating a new infrastructure, raising funds, working out an agenda...  He isn't on the attack, that isn't his style, but he's been incredibly successful with his strategy so far... So maybe?
I dunno.  I think we need to regain some perspective.  There are lots of things that can happen.
by psericks 2007-06-14 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose
Another example of how this race could change depends on the now heating-up Republican primary that had seemed for so long to be in stasis.  All of this movement will have an impact:
If Guiliani seems to be headed for the nomination, Democrats might make another calculation than if Romney seems to be surging (in which case Democrats might feel comfortable going to the left).  
Another example:
We probably shouldn't overestimate how stubborn and contrary Iowans can be about rejecting even their own representatives' endorsements.
by psericks 2007-06-14 05:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

LOL - undereducated women support Hillary? LOL First of all, what's wrong with that? They are one of the keys to Dems winning after all. Are you angry that she's going after a constituency that Obama, like every other Democratic male, hasn't bothered to?

And where do you have evidence that more educated people support Obama or Edwards than Hillary? I'd like to see those numbers. Whatever poll that is, I bet you've misinterpreted it.

by basement angel 2007-06-14 04:26PM | 0 recs
Whatever... n/t

by Vermonter 2007-06-14 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Whatever... n/t

Why would anyone bother to troll rate -- or rate down (or rate up, for that matter) -- this comment. It's not my most eloquent response, to be sure, but it said exactly what I felt at the time. That -- at least in the case of Obama -- this diary was largely meaningless and added nothing to the conversation.

But, in case you require more elucidation, I followed up this comment with a more thorough comment below.

by Vermonter 2007-06-14 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Spot on Jerome. I hope the Edwards team figures out a way to "undefine" the definition that has been wrought against them. I do think it is possible to win still when the right-wing machine does its job (Gore did win the election after-all), but it's going to be very very hard.

The nice thing is that Edwards's favorables are still very high and I think the worst is over as far as the haircut bashing goes.

by adamterando 2007-06-14 05:29AM | 0 recs
the endorsements are disappointing

Too many politicians are looking at today's polls and endorsing Clinton for careerist motives.

That said, I am going to keep working just as hard for Edwards. I thought Kerry was out of the running in the autumn of 2003, but I figured I would feel better about the outcome if I did everything I could to support my candidate here.

It is still six months before anyone votes anywhere. Throwing in the towel now is silly.

by desmoinesdem 2007-06-14 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I am voting for/supporting Edwards and will honestly consider voting for a Republican in 2008 if Hillary is the nominee. Aside from being a woman who is unelectable at a national level against an attractive, charismatic, conservative man, she is a Clinton, and if she was not a Clinton her candidacy would be a joke. But the fact that she is a Clinton is exactly why I wouldn't vote for her. Him and Jimmy Carter have sold out the Democratic Party to the South and the Third Way to the point where it is just starting to recover. The Democrats need balls - they need to talk about the shit that Edwards has only begun to talk about - the War on Terror is a joke, poverty is the most important issue facing our country, universal healthcare is long overdue. Hillary Clinton is a sell out who panders to the right to appear strong to compensate for the fact that she is a woman and anyone who denies that is lying. Hopefully her poll numbers decline or God (aka Al Gore) will jump in the race and save us from another electoral defeat which I, sad to say, will contribute to should she be the nominee. I thought 2004 was a lesson to us; guess not everyone got the memo.

by scanman1722 2007-06-14 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Out of curiosity, what Republican will you be voting for?  I don't like Hillary either, but I can't think of a single republican that I'd rather be president instead of her.  

by HSTruman 2007-06-14 06:02AM | 0 recs
Hillary will lead to Democratic

defeat and so you will vote for the Republican nominee? Where is the logic?

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I thought 2000 was a lesson to us; guess not everyone got the memo.

Of course, voting Republican, as you propose, is even worse than voting for Nader.

by Steve M 2007-06-14 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I don't think Hillary isn't left enough for me so I will vote even more right?

That's rather silly.

by Ernst 2007-06-14 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Really appreciate your saying this - it accords completely with what I am seeing. Very depressing, but true.

by janinsanfran 2007-06-14 05:52AM | 0 recs
Right and Wrong

Wrong:
Its still incredibly early and people are still getting comfortable with the non-Clinton candidates.  As they learn more about them and Hillary, her poll numbers will slide, IMO.

Right:
Obama talks about how we need to create a movement if we want universal healthcare or single payer.  I think this is laughable seeing how there is already a movement for universal healthcare and a majority of Americans support it right now.  This is the kind of crap that turns me off about him.

by areucrazy 2007-06-14 05:57AM | 0 recs
IMO

There is passive support but no bigger movement.

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I think you are wrong about the Edwards campaign being that much of a long shot.  Mostly because I think Edwards has the best chance of actually winning in the general election, and god help us if Hillary is the nominee.

by blue south 2007-06-14 06:00AM | 0 recs
Jerome Does Not Get It

You prove you do not get it with one very simple statement:

"Whose nomination is Obama running for?"

He is running to be President of the United States for all Americans. We have just had 6+ years of a President for one party. We do not need another one. You can vilify Republican politicians (and deserve to be vilified), but we need to stop hating people who vote Republican, many of whom are good people and are well meaning (if sometimes misguided). And before you say that bi-partisanship is BS, there is a very big difference between "reaching across the aisle" (working with other party Politicians) and believing as Barack does that there are not Blue states and Red states, but purple states. You may determine that this strategy does not win, but at I believe it is what many Americans are desperate for.

by benb 2007-06-14 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome Does Not Get It

You don't understand the partisaN Republican voter. They respond to kindness by sharpening their daggers. Average conservatives are more dignified though.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-14 09:13AM | 0 recs
OK...

Lots of very subjective statements which don't really line up with the facts...

"Obama because he has the opportunity to lay claim with what's grown in the netroots this decade and hasn't grasped it at all."

Obama just won the MyDD straw poll. He seems to be doing quite well in garnering support. And leads the Internet primary in just about any metric you can name.

"her latest surge in the polls."

Where's the data to support the claim of a "surge"? The polling has been remarkably consistent for months.

"He wouldn't have a clue [what a movement looks like]."

Perhaps it looks like a national canvass day that included 10,000 canvassers in every state in the union -- six months before the first vote.

"...numbers in the same way that Coke or Pepsi have consumers; supporters in the same way that Bono and the Dixie Chicks have fans."

Nice. Yeah, that's not insulting to the over 60,000 people who've created profiles on the BarackObama.com site.

"cash, it's the only part of the Obama movement that's real."

Nice. Way to demean the efforts of 10,000 canvassers.

"Maybe... ...Barack Obama, with Plouffe and thousands of others, are really creating an independent feel-good movement. One that has nothing to do with the fighting partisan netroots; so there's no way I would grasp it, much less feel a part of it."

Mostly correct. Except that many, many members of the "fighting partisan netroots" are supporting Obama. Again, Obama just won the MyDD straw poll.

"...the base of the Democratic party's rapid response team. The issue is combating the rightwing machine in unison with Democratic candidates, but you can't partner with a candidate that not inclined to join the partisan progressive movement."

The Obama Rapid Response group on BarackObama.com is one of the largest and most active groups. And it includes many people who are active throughout the blogosphere. And Obama is actually one of the most articulate critics of our current news media. He was the first to freeze out Fox. He was the first candidate to question the premise of a debate question. If you actually read the Audacity of Hope, you could read that he both respects the dialogue on blogs -- and has a keen sense of how the right wing machine works the mainstream press.

Finally, what if you are right? What if Obama campaign's movement for change hasn't really gotten off the ground to the extent that it could have -- despite the evidence that they are far more successful in this regard than any other candidate?

Perhaps having some of the leading voices in the movement continually putting out the charge that his movement is a fraud (despite the wide-spread support for Obama in the netroots) undercuts his ability to bring more people in. Maybe the continual criticism of the only candidate who can even make the claim of a movement undercuts Democrats everywhere. Maybe the refrain that Obama's supporters are naive -- with the implication that we're all selling out the netroots in some way -- undercuts our whole movement as a whole?

I'd love to have a productive discussion about these things. But, folks keep making the same arguments with no evidence to back them up. Yet, Obama still is maintaining a strong position in the race -- exactly where the campaign would like to be (oh, and of course, national polls at this point are largely meaningless). And Obama's still growing his vastly superior network of support (that, in fact, includes the netroots despite numerous attempts to suggest otherwise).

by Vermonter 2007-06-14 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: OK...

Oh, and by the way...

The subject line of the latest Obama email is actually "What does a movement look like?"

I guess we all see what we want to see.

And it reads...

Saturday's Walk for Change was a beautiful thing.

When I first started as a community organizer, I was lucky if I got five people to show up in a basement with some folding chairs.

On one day, you managed to:

   * organize more than 1,000 events in all fifty states
    * get more than 10,000 volunteers to go door to door in their neighborhoods; and
    * introduce more than 500,000 people to our movement for change

All of these personal stories and conversations add up to more than a political campaign. Together we're building a movement to make politics mean something again and change this country.

Thank you for being a part of it.

Barack Obama

by Vermonter 2007-06-14 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: OK...

Keep in mind Obama's support on this site has really been consistent, Obama won the straw poll because Edwards lost support over the past month.

Obama only picked up 20% of the Edwards 'defectors'.

by enarjay 2007-06-14 06:08AM | 0 recs
Edwards did not lose

support.  Chris stopped the pol half way through because Richardon supporters stuffed the ballot box.  Unfortunately, the polls here need mroe security and need to be all day.

On Dauly Kos, the last two months, Edwards got roughly 40% to 25% for Obama out of 20,000 votes.

In any event, the truth is coming out about Obama.  

by littafi 2007-06-14 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards did not lose

What?! Obama is secretly Kang?

by Ernst 2007-06-14 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: OK...

Yeah the polls are meaningless as I stated before.  How many polls has HRC hit over 40% in?  Obama will outraise HRC for 2 quarters now.  Hardly a sign of HRC's inevitability.  How many people pay attention to this stuff over the summer?  And it is still 6 months from the first ballot being cast.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-14 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: OK...

I have no doubt that there are a lot of people who are passionate about Obama's campaign, so I won't comment on all of that. But as for the MyDD straw poll: that's only representative of MyDD readers, which is not nearly the majority of Democrats. The left wing blogosphere's predilection for Obama will wane if Obama fails to bring up his numbers in actual, scientific polls around the country.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-14 11:05AM | 0 recs
I'd have to agree Jerome

I agree with your take on both Obama and Edwards. I still prefer Edwards as he seems to me the only candidate who's campaign has taken a strong stance for some real change. But how much of that is strategy and how much would translate into real action? I'd suspect a fair amount, but I don't really know. With Clinton we are going to be given more of the same, and those in the party who've made us weak and spineless will continue the path of calculation and corporate interest rather than restoration of this country to what was suppose to be. She breaths life back into the wing of the party that has disdaine for its own base.

The only hope I hold out is for Gore to run. I don't see him as savior. But I do see him as honest broker for change. He is the only one at this point who inspires and excites me. He seems to be the only one poised to knock Clinton of her stride, or for that matter, who aims to knock Clinton off her stride. Unlike Obama, I think he could win and wouldn't be running for the VP slot. I don't see him as the same candidate as in 2000. I liked him then. I admire him now. But I fear he will not run.

I also fear that we lose again with Clinton. She's got the best machine on the Democratic side. But a machine has no heart or soul. It just has purpose. I don't like the purpose her machine brings, nor the excitement it will give to the GOP. I think with her as the nominee, we give the GOP a reason to stand and fight where as they may just have little wind in their sails with Gore or Edwards or Obama.

2004 was so much more enjoyable and interesting. There was passion in my heart for the process. This cycle I just feel like a pawn being set up.

by michael in chicago 2007-06-14 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: I'd have to agree Jerome

Clinton's lifework and strong fight for children, women, the poor, belies your disdain as "no heart and soul."    What makes her appealing to so many is that in comparison to the rest of the politicians she actually appears to care.   I know this goes anathema to a lot of the hate that she encounters here, but that is the real reason she is doing so well.  Money can only go so far, but you have to CONNECT with voters.   She is doing it daily.  The others?  Not so much.  Hit or miss.  Obama's debate performance is so-so, not at all inspiring.  He has literally bombed in front of Democratic audiences.  

by georgep 2007-06-14 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I'd have to agree Jerome

George, I'm mostly with you on Hillary, but don't you think she poses a certain downticket problem?

We know that in 2004 there were certain places, like in the South, like in some rural communities, where the local Democratic candidate didn't even want John Kerry to come campaign for him because he was such a stereotypical Massachusetts liberal.

I'll gladly support Hillary if she's the nominee, and maybe she's the best choice, but gosh would I love to have a nominee who allows us to really get behind the 50-state strategy.  With Hillary and her issues it seems there are large parts of the country she'd just have to abandon as a lost cause, and that will hurt our other candidates.  Tell me what you think.

by Steve M 2007-06-14 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I'd have to agree Jerome

I have looked at a lot of data, and find that not to be the case.  I could be wrong, but it looks like she could be very competetive in races where Democrats have struggled in the past.  For instance, she has polled strongest in head-to-head matchups against hypothetical GOP contenders in Ohio, a crucial state for us, according to Quinnipiac data.     A series of recent state polling conducted by Survey USA showed her very competetive in many red states in a hypothetical matchup against Fred Thompson, more competetive than Obama.

Take a look:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/5/9/20138 /63465

and

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surve yusa_fred_thompson_v.php

It seems to me that she can bring out a lot of women to vote Democratic in this election, more than any candidate in history, because of her gender and focus on women issues.  She is also primed to get more Hispanic voters than we usually see going for us, because of the carryover appeal from the Clinton presidency, which was seen as very Hispanic-friendly, and her current leadership role she has taken on the Immigration issue.   I don't see blacks going GOP in any shape, form or measure, if Clinton is the nominee, quite the opposite.  Clinton enjoys tremendous popularity particularly in the African-American community.  Her best demographic by far is the senior demographic (over 65 yrs. of age,) where she is enjoying a lot of support and crossover appeal.   Those happen to also be the most faithful, reliable voters in both the primaries and General election.  

A lot of recent polling data shows that she is quickly erasing the issues of which you speak.  For instance, today's NBC/WSJ poll has her now leading Giuliani in a hypothetical head-to-head nationally by 5%.  Giuliani had led her by 5% in the last NBC/WSJ poll.   Yesterday's Quinnipiac poll shows a similar picture, with Clinton picking up stronger support against Giuliani in a hypothetical matchup than Obama, and her positive/negative rating flipping around into positive territory by 5%.  The same is true for Sunday's Rasmussen poll, which has Obama as the worst Democratic candidate when it comes to a matchup with Giuliani.  

I think we'll be fine with Clinton as the candidate as for down races.  She is a partisan Democrat and will take the fight to the Republicans, which will bring out our voters to get off their behinds more so than an "I am all to all people, partisan labels be damned" candidate, IMHO.  

by georgep 2007-06-14 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: I'd have to agree Jerome

Your Pollster link actually shows Edwards with a consistently bigger lead in the head to head with Thompson. Even in NY, her "home" state, she only has a 4 point advantage in the spread over Edwards, and both she and Edwards are up +30 points in that matchup.

by michael in chicago 2007-06-14 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I'd have to agree Jerome

I was talking more in reference to the current strongest opponent, Obama.  I have always maintained that in general matchups Edwards has been doing well (aside from a few polls here and there.)   But, that may also be true for Richardson, if he were matched up against hypothetical GOP opponents.  It means little if the candidate is not all that competetive for the primary race at this point.

by georgep 2007-06-14 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I'd have to agree Jerome

She certainly didn't help any of our senate candidates in 2006.

I didn't see her campaigning in VA, MO, TN, OH, MN OH AND WA.

They didnot want to be seen on the campaign trail with her. They did allow her to conduct close door fundraiser's for their campaigns where the press was not allowed.

She had a cup-cake opponent and plenty of money, but was of no help in the democrat's regaining control of congress, especially the senate.

by BDM 2007-06-14 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I'd have to agree Jerome

Thanks for the comprehensive response.  I'll have to give it some more thought, you could very well be right.

One of Bill Clinton's strongest attributes was his affection for the Democratic brand and his willingness to draw a distinction between us and the other guys.  He gets a lot of grief for triangulation and all that, but the fact is, he never stopped harping on the differences between Democrats and the right wing and explaining why our philosophy is better.  If all our candidates treated the brand this way, we'd be much better off.

I haven't watched Hillary's campaign style closely enough to know if she handles this issue in quite the same way, but I know that if she's even half as effective as Bill on the subject then we'll all be better off for it.

by Steve M 2007-06-14 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I'd have to agree Jerome

It's the appearance of caring that bothers me. It seems to me her positions are taken to appear correct, not to lead. She may appear to care, but she hasn't closed that sale yet IMO. Just look at the head to head matchups with the lackluster GOP field. She hasn't made the sale. I believe she will enliven the GOP base in a way few on this side really appreciate.

by michael in chicago 2007-06-14 08:21AM | 0 recs
by michael in chicago 2007-06-14 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I'd have to agree Jerome

I'd like to add another link with lots of matchups: Polling Report's runn down of various polls, with trends, for head to head matchups.

This one surprised me: Quinnipiac University Poll. June 5-11, 2007 shows Al Gore with just as good or better head to head numbers as Clinton. Their latest has Clinton/Guiliani with Clinton +1. It shows Gore/Guiliani as Gore +2.

by michael in chicago 2007-06-14 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I'd have to agree Jerome

No, she has not "closed the sale yet."   It is way too early for that.  But she is doing the best job of all candidates.  Look at the debates.  That is what people see.  She is charismatic, witty, funny, in command.   The others, by comparison, look like the same old  thing we have seen for decades.   The more debates there are, the closer she gets to "closing the sale."  

She is not the perfect candidate by any means.  But none of the candidates are, and in comparison to the flaws of the others she comes out ahead.  

by georgep 2007-06-14 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I'd have to agree Jerome

Well, we disagree on the debate performance and the flaws.

But it's good to see people like you are energized and passionate about a candidate. Keep advocating respectfully and you'll represent her well.

by michael in chicago 2007-06-14 08:51AM | 0 recs
Hillary's a loswer

With 47% of the electorate unalterably opposed to Hillary she's a loser. With only 8% of the dem electorate saying they have made up their mind, this argument that Hillary has it locked up is utterly ridiculous. Let's just recall where the race was this time four years ago, okay! Have we come to the point where we now have a blogosphere punditocracy, where these inflated statements become the norm?

by cmpnwtr 2007-06-14 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Give it a rest. Really. This schtick is quickly growing old.

A "movement" means more than sucking up to self-important bloggers.  Way to dismiss 10,000 volunteers, who will all be back with their friends for ROUND 2, with the existence of a question mark in an email.

BTW, the use of that question mark is called "understatement." The media, and left-wing bloggers may not understand it, but those in the very real Obama movement do.

by thenew 2007-06-14 06:16AM | 0 recs
What's wrong with sucking up

Obama has sucked up to the likes of Lieberman. It woudn't hurt to get some good online support by sucking up to "self important bloggers". As more people get more comfortable online, it's these kind of sites that will become the liberal equivalent of right wing talk radio which is very influential in republican circles.

by Pravin 2007-06-14 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Jerome is wrong in so many ways.

His frustration is that Obama is not tacking to the far left like Edwards by pandering to the netroots...Well,what has that done to Help Edwards actually?

Jerome seems to suggest that Obama needs to adopt a more partisan rhetorics style, but problem is,Obama biggest strenght is his cross-over appeal,not angry extreme partisan rhetorics and by doing an extreme make-over, it would hurt him more then help.His supports comes from all side...In the Latest LAtimes polls,18% of Republicans suggested that they would consider voting for him while Hillary gets only 5%.I understand that this is a democratic party,but the partisan style has never been Obama's kind of thing...If i'm Obama, i would never take that strategy and you only have to take a look at Edwards to not do so..

Also,i seriously doubt that tacking to the extreme left will help Obama...The reason i believe so is because polls after polls have shown that "hard core democrats" will support Hillary regardless because of the "Clinton" brand...The Clintons has the democratic party on a chokehold and the democratic rank and file feels like they owe it to Hillary to nominate it because of Bill...The Netroot is only about 1% of the democratic electorate,and the Clintons knows that they can't hurt her...Therefore,the Netroot can't help Obama beat Hillary,so why should Obama gets more partisan,eleminate his biggest strengh which is that independents and moderate republicans likes him more then the other democats while at the same time, no rank and file democrats would move Obama's numbers?.

Obama is basicly running against 3 people..Hillary,Bill and the entire democratic establishment...

You have to be out of your mind by suggesting that the way to beat Hillary is by tacking to her left...Edwards has basicly flamed out and is there anyone as far to the left then Edwards??..Althought Kucinich is a fringe, but on a very liberal party, he cant even get 1% of liberal to support him..Those anti war votes goes to Hillary and those voters knows extremily well Hillary voted for the war.......

Hillary is still getting support from a nice slice of the anti-war votes...surprising huh??..well, every polls are showing those exact number??..Do you want to know why???..Because the Clinton brand is a powerful brand and eventhought folks hate her war vote, they feel like she's their princess and this is her party.

Remember the Lamont vs Lieberman match up??...The Netroot just couldnt believe why any anti-war liberal would vote for Lieberaman...Well, easy...Lieberman is a powerhouse is CT and eventhought people disagreed with him on the war, they still voted for him because they did so for decades and couldnt even imagine voting against him..Senior Citizens still voted for Lieberman because they liked him..Lamont lost the race because 1/3 of stubborn democrats wouldnt let Lieberamn go.

Now, Hillary Clintons is 10 fold as powerhouse inside the democratic rank and file, and i see something similar developing...YOU WILL NOT BEAT HILLARY BY SAYING SHE'S PRO WAR...THOSE FOLKS HAVE KNOWN HER FOR DECADES AND THEY WILL STILL SUPPORT HER..AND YES, EVEN ANTI-WAR VOTERS WILL VOTE FOR HER.

The only way Obama can defeat her is by creating a de-facto democratic party...I call it, the "Obamocratic party...Those are democrats that arent clintons worshipers and doesnt feel like they owe the Clintons anything..

This group will consist of new voters, young voters, inactive voters that re-activated themselves after hearing about oabama,College students,unregistered African Americans that would love to see a back man in the white house,white folks that feel guilty about slavery and wants to make it up to the black community by sending the first black man to the white house ,and finally,independents + moderate republicans..Polls have shown that Obama is beating Hillary amongs independents on a 2 to 1 margin.

I know this will irritate the netroots because they hate it when a candidate doesnt just pander to the hard core democrats, but i sincerily think that the Clintons grab on the democratic party is too strong to think Obama can go head to head inside her own party that her husband ledm for 8 years.

The Clintons got John Lewis to not endorse Obama in Selma..They heard that he was going to endorse Obama, and quickly made a phone call to him..Now,John is on the fence...The Clintons got steven Spielberg to rethink about supporting Obama and not hold anymore fundraisers for him.spielberg has now endorsed Hillary...The Clintons locked up all the major Latino Lawmakers in California...The Clintons got Kendrick Meeks endorsement(I really felt Obama was going to get that one)...The Clintons got menendez endorsement..

In one words,the Clintons are going for the kill with the help of the entire democratic establisment.

The democratic establishment will coalesce around Clinton and take the fight to Obama and they will get very nasty...Right now, they are trying hard to shut down Obama fundraising, behind the scene...If Im Obama, i would not trust anyone inside the democratic establishment.

Harry Reid son is working for Hillary..The Clintons has a strong lock in this party, so it's foolish to think that all Obama has to do is tack left.

I will soon write a diary on the dailykos about my "obamocrat memmo" and what Obama needs to do to beat her.

by JaeHood 2007-06-14 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Thanks for that incoherent attempt at a strawman argument.

by Englishlefty 2007-06-14 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Does it really matter to many people whether Spielberg supports HRC?  Of course not.  Most of those people have probably maxed out already anyway.  Lieberman won in CT because the Republicans ran a chump who only got 10% of the vote.  When was the last time a Republican candidate got 10% in any race?  Hell, Alan Keyes got more than that against Obama.  One last point.  If Hillary does win, say good bye to the Democratic Party.  It will undue all the gains Dean and Co. have made the past few years.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-14 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Lamont only won the democratic primary by about 4%, meaning a large number of democrats still voted for lieberman eventhought they knew he was pro-war....How bad is that?...The Clinton's brand is 10 fold more powerful then Lieberman in CT...Just tacking o the left will not do it.

Obama best hope to get the support that he's already got inside the democratic establishment, work to see whether he can squeeze out another 5% at the poll, then look for the remaining vote outside the party.

His cross over appeal is very strong..He needs to create a plan to get the independents and moderate republicans to crash the democratic primary.

He needs to make them understand that whoever wins the democratic primary will be president since the GOP field is horrible,therefore, the only way to stop hillary is by cashing the democratic praty primary and vote him in...

The good news for Obama is,the LATIMES polls has shown that voters prefers a candidate that can bridge the partisan line instead of a very experienced candidate...Obama is the bridge builder while hillary is the experienced candidate.

I want people to link those numbers from the LATIMES,...Those are very surprising numbers.

by JaeHood 2007-06-14 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I think it is already been shown, at least in all the polls i've seen, that HRC is the weakest of the three in the general election.  As far as the primary, Lamont won.  It doesn't matter how much he won the primary by.  In the general, HoJo got 50%, Lamont 40% and Schlesinger 10%.  How many Republicans voted for HoJo?  You know why HoJo still ran, right?  It was because the Republicans ran a very weak candidate.  You do remember how Rove and Commander Guy basically told Repubs in CT to vote and give money to HoJo, right?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-14 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: partisanship

I agree with a lot of this . . . Jerome takes Obama to task for not embracing the Democratic brand, but since when does Democrat=Progressive? And this just five posts after Matt's front-pager suggesting that progressives may need to consider challenging a sitting Democratic president in 2012.

I was always under the impression that Democrats and Progressives were a marriage made out of convenience (or more accurately, two sides using each other for sex).

This is, after all, the same party that couldn't be bothered to stand up in defense of basic Constitutional rights for the last six years, let alone oppose an ill-conceived and immoral war of aggression.

It is in large part because of Obama's ability to distance himself from the Democratic brand that he's gained as much traction as he has.

by chass 2007-06-14 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: partisanship

A good question is:  Why, do most of the candidates, have to run away from the party, even in the primary  instead of embracing it?  The Republicans never do that?  They pander to the base at the beginning, and once they have the nomination, they go towards the middle.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-14 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: partisanship

That's an excellent question. I would argue that, in this case at least, the party is not the base, and vice versa. Obama's approach to the base and his approach to the party are two different things; in this case I was only addressing the latter.

by chass 2007-06-14 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: partisanship

I knew you were adressing the letter, it just brought me back to a question I keep asking and get no good answer to.  Republicans run to their base during primary season, yet rarely do the Dems do that.  It's almost like they are ashamed or something.  Or is it fear of the MSM?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-14 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: partisanship

It's because Republicans represent Republicans and Democrats represent America.

BTW. Jim Webb is a former Republican from the Regan Administration.

It's kind of hard to slam Obama the way you are and then citing Jim Webb as the perfect example of a Democrat, don't ya think?

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-06-14 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: partisanship

I am not slaming Obama.  Has HRC embraced the netroots?  She went on FDL once, but that has been it.  I am addressing it to all the candidates(recent past and present).  By the way, Webb was originally a Dem.  He left during the Carter years(because Carter pardoned those who hightailed it to Canada during Vietnam).

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-14 08:44AM | 0 recs
Yes, yes, yes

And this is exactly why, when someone recently posted a diary with
the joke headline "Breaking! Obama to run as Independent," I didn't
assume it was a joke before clicking through.

One of Obama's main appeals for me is that is he doesn't kiss anybody's ring.

This is one of the reasons Obama will make the best president. And it's why
it wouldn't bother me in the least if Obama did break with the establishment
and run as an independent.

by horizonr 2007-06-14 07:34AM | 0 recs
Blog triumphalism

Try a little humility, Jerome, and get out and mix it up a little with some people outside the insular world of the cross-liked liberal blogosphere.

Senator Obama is answering a palpable hunger in the American electorate in the same way that Howard Dean attracted  the energy of the disaffected left.

Obama's campaign is far broader, and is responding to a much wider range of yearnings than just the partisan left, while still remaining fundamentally progressive.

He garners tremendous on-the-ground and financial support from progressives.

Senator Obama is running a Presidential campaign based with a goal of achieving a broad enough consensus that he can actually make progress on key issues.

And this isn't posturing of electability. It's a keen understanding that we will need a broad coalition to make changes in areas like healthcare.

by Aeolus 2007-06-14 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Blog triumphalism

Yup. Exactly

by thenew 2007-06-14 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Blog triumphalism

I agree...Read my post above...i wrote about why the blog-left arent strong enough to help Obama defeat hillary..The "clinton' moniker is too powerful inside the democratic party...Obama will need a broad base to defeat her.

Obama will need to create a de-facto party. the rise of the obamocrats.

by JaeHood 2007-06-14 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Blog triumphalism

"Obama will need to create a de-facto party. the rise of the obamocrats."

He could just run as an Independent.  Or create his own party of one.  It worked for Lieberman, didn't it?  

by georgep 2007-06-14 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Blog triumphalism

I don't think the democratic party would want Obama TO RUN AS A INDEPENDENT.

I believe if he did, the republican candidate would win the general election.

by BDM 2007-06-14 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Blog triumphalism

But, if, as Jerome contends (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) Obama does not make mention of the word DEMOCRAT or DEMOCRATIC in ANY of his emails to supporters, what nomination exactly is he running for?   The primaries are a partisan affair.  The general election is an entirely different thing altogether.  That is how it has always been.   Obama is trying to shun partisanship for the primaries, which is a major miscalculation on his part, IMO.  

by georgep 2007-06-14 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Blog triumphalism

"But, if, as Jerome contends (and I have no reason to disbelieve him) Obama does not make mention of the word DEMOCRAT or DEMOCRATIC in ANY of his emails to supporters, what nomination exactly is he running for?"

The Democratic nomination.

This has been another installment of Simple Answers to Simple Questions.

by Baldrick 2007-06-14 10:09AM | 0 recs
Hunger vs. votes

> Senator Obama is answering a palpable hunger in
> the American electorate in the same way that
> Howard Dean attracted  the energy of the
> disaffected left.

Every 4 years the American public talks, polls, and focus-groups its "hunger" for a "non-divisive", "bipartisan", "centrist" administration that can "take the politics out of Washington".

Then it votes for the nastiest, most partisan, most brutal candidate - the one who runs the ugliest campaign and is most effective at demonizing his opponent.

See Ezra Klein's discussion of this today:

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/0 6/the_political_b.html

sPh

by sphealey 2007-06-14 06:39AM | 0 recs
Netroots Narcissism

I understand that many in the Netroots do not like the way that the Obama campaign is being run, but what I don't understand is why they proceed to make the assumption that this has some sort of larger meaning.

If we as the netroots are fundamentally opposed to the DC-based bullshit know-it-all attitude towards politics, does it really help our credibility to display a new variety of the same?

I think Obama is running Obama's campaign. It may work and it may not, but the point for us is not to try and control it and demand that it fit with our own ideas, but rather to understand it and promote it as (if nothing else) another approach within our party that presents us with yet another option. I cannot see any reason why Obama's campaign is bad for the democratic party, but I can see many scenarios in which it would be quite good. So, I think that instead of trashing it we ought to simply keep abreast of what is going on, and perhaps offer what help we can. Hillary will do what Hillary does, and Obama will do what Obama does - all we have to do is let things play out as they will and when given a chance to have an input (ie - elections), make the best possible decision.

by alipi 2007-06-14 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Netroots Narcissism

Not only that, but it is early!!!  What candidates, besides Richardson, have even gone on the TV with ads yet?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-14 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Netroots Narcissism

and they're awesome ads too.

here's the latest:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UcpGd626n9w

make a contribution to keep them on the air!
https://secure.richardsonforpresident.co m/page/contribute?source=W1017

by CNYAlison 2007-06-14 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: VP?

That was their first runs at the presidency.  He's talking about candidates who run, lose, don't get elected VP, and run again.  Biden, Gephardt, Edwards, etc.

by dbeard115 2007-06-14 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: VP?

How about Nixon?

by gb1437a 2007-06-14 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: VP?

Sure, but he's asking about Democrats.

I don't think it really matters.  There simply aren't that many data points.

by Steve M 2007-06-14 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: VP?

The question was made concerning Democratic candidates, but both Reagan and Nixon had unsuccessful presidential campaigns before finally being elected, and neither served as VP.

FDR ran for VP in 1920 and lost soundly to the Harding ticket.

Whatever.  I don't think it means anything.

by Flynnieous 2007-06-14 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: VP?

You mean Nixon wasn't the 36th vice-president? Damn those martian imposters!

by Ernst 2007-06-14 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: VP?

Nixon was a VP.  

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-14 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: VP?

D'oh!

Oh well.  Reagan wasn't.

by Flynnieous 2007-06-14 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I have never really 'got' the Obamamania. It seems to be more a cult of personality than a Democratic campaign. I had hoped that with all this fervor for him that he would propose some bold actions that would unite the party and move it toward changing the system as we know it. But largely, he has been a play it safe politician that straddles both sides as often as possible and offers policies that don't really cut any new ground. I had especially hoped that his environmental policies would change something. But what he offers are meager improvements in CAFE standards and confusing support for coal to liquid fuel technology. These are not the proposals of a progressive candidate.

In some ways, I think the disappointment with Obama is a result of honest people hoping he would be something that he is not. But on the other hand he certainly gave everyone the impression that this was what he was. So it cuts both ways. Yes, he made a speech several years ago opposing the Iraq invasion. Far out! But since then and especially since coming to the US Senate, what 'leadership' qualities on this issue has he demonstrated until he decided to run for President? Yes, he voted against this most recent authorization of funding. Cool. And he did so because he 'wanted to send a message' to Bush. But his vote was a safe one as it had no effect whatsoever of affecting the actual funding. He did neutralize the criticisms from Edwards that would likely be played out in the coming debate but that is about it. While I am glad that he and Hillary and Senator Dodd voted against the funding, their votes meant very little. And Edwards was right, he did it quietly. And that ain't leadership.

Edwards has made some serious tactical mistakes. He is a true populist candidate which I enjoy thoroughly. And his work for the impoverished is something of great value. His taking of responsibility for the Iraq mess and leading the charge for withdraw is just excellent. But then he does stupid things like spend campaign money for exceedingly expensive haircuts when he is a millionaire and claim that it was a mistake. Yeah John, that was a mistake. But hey... we all make them.

I think that Edwards made his worst two tactical mistakes during the last debate.

It was exciting watching him take on Hillary and Obama about their votes. His speech on leadership was enlivening. But then he let Obama go and get the best of him because suddenly he backed off rather than throw the knockout punch. He should have come back and asked Obama just what leadership he had shown since making a speech back in 2002, just what leadership had he shown in the Senate where what he does has actual consequences. Yes, he proposed a non-binding resolution for withdraw and he voted recently to not to fund the war, but this seems leadership a little late in coming considering he claims to wear the mantle of being the purest anti-war candidate. Aren't you the same Senator Obama that said something about 'not playing chicken' with the troops? Strike one.

Edwards second tactical mistake was his absolute lame answer to what he would accomplish during his first 100 days in office. While I agree that his proposal is important it is not what the rest of us wanted to hear. That left the gate wide open for Hillary who waltzed right in with the right response said just the right way. Strike two.

I have not given up on John Edwards. I like him a lot and believe that much of what he is proposing comes from his heart. And we need a President with a heart in the right place. Only time will tell whether he has learned from these mistakes and is able to not only demonstrate that he can show leadership when it comes to important issues but also demonstrate that he can be a leader of Democrats. Right now Hillary is wearing that mantle effectively.

by DoIT 2007-06-14 06:37AM | 0 recs
About the leadership thing...

Edwards was offering Obama a safe way to attack Hillary and for him to separate himself from her.  The 'voting quietly' jab was really directed at Mrs Clinton, Edwards had in the last breath effusively praised Obama's vocal anti-war stance. Obama either knowingly or unwittingly decided to defend her by taking Edwards point personally. It became very clear to me at that point that Obama had no serious desire to unseat Hillary.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-14 09:42AM | 0 recs
It a "movement"

only in the advertsing world.

This is exactly right, Jerome:

"It is not a movement, but a candidate. It's about Obama, and nothing more. He's got numbers in the same way that Coke or Pepsi have consumers; supporters in the same way that Bono and the Dixie Chicks have fans."

It's not real.  It is not about political change; it's about Obama.  He is African American.  Therefore, he is the change.  Politics like that set back the real movement because they coopt real desire for change into a personal vehicle.

The Democratic Party is facing a battle for its soul in 2008.  I fear it will break apart if Clinton prevails.

In my view, the only one who can defeat Clinton is Edwards.  

by littafi 2007-06-14 06:42AM | 0 recs
5 educated voters educate 100 uneducated voters

"THE OBAMA EDUCATION PROCESS DOES TAKE TIME"

As we know Clinton has 2 women for every one woman Barack has. That has lead to a distraction that makes clinton look like she has it all together.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0 612clintonwomen12-on.html

Barack knows about this situation. Many women will soon be changed as they are educated. Education takes time.

I would rather be with a candidate who has many college educated women who understand the issues than to be with a candidate who has a bunch of non college educated women. And these women are educating those less informed. Clinton can have the uninformed. She can appear to be ahead. But we are educating and this does take time. I will stick with a candidate who has supporters who are educated on the issues than to support a candidate who seeks followers blindly following like
Lemming
The act of following the crowd into an investment (the usa future) that will inevitably head for disaster (loss in any future election as well as lost rights)

PS: Others of us are working to educate in other areas such as the LGBT = http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/CL INTON_EDWARDS_SIDESTEP_ON_CIVIL_UNIONS_W HILE_BARACKOBAMA_STAYS_CONSISTENT

While others are educating to republicans which are coming over to Obama http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 007/06/07/217086.aspx

and Even Barack has wised up on coal which will bring in the enviromentalist

OBAMA on COAL = http://www.heatison.org/index.php/blog/b log_entry/obama_addresses_issue_of_liqui d_coal/

Education takes a little time

Thank God we still have plenty of time.

by DANIELLECLARKE 2007-06-14 07:21AM | 0 recs
does it take a college degree to be informed?
The elitism in this comment, and many like it, is stunning for a supposedly progressive Democratic site. Note the reference to a candidate with "*many* college educated women" compared to a candidate with "*a bunch* of non college educated women." Note also the suggestion that non-college educated women are automatically uninformed. Might you consider the fact that a lot of people without a college degree are better informed about politics then those with a college degree? Finally, you conveniently leave out the fact that Clinton also leads Obama among women who do have a college education. It's just that her lead among that group is not as wide as her lead among those without a college education. So if, by your logic, those women with a college education are going to be educating others, Clinton still comes out on top!
by markjay 2007-06-14 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: does it take a college degree to be informed?
I guess that depends on who is educating them
 and when they do get educated will they stay with clinton?
by DANIELLECLARKE 2007-06-14 08:13AM | 0 recs
Netroots fast moving to irrelevance

These Self proclaimed Netroots leaders like Jerome and other will destroy their movement if they keep throwing out trash like this.  These same people before the first vote was cast in Iowa declared Dean the nominee.

The only consolation is that these people predicted that Dean will win in 2004 and we all know the outcome. That shows the degree of their knowledge of the electoral process. It is a shame that they don't learn.

Obama runs is running is campaigned to win. Jerome does not have a clue what Obama's plan is and take is article with grain of salt. Believe me Jerome does not have more information than you and I on Obama.

by mdiogu 2007-06-14 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Netroots fast moving to irrelevance

Actually I think you had a point there before you brought up Obama. Netroots is kind of irrelevant. They're good at digging up the dirt and killing candidacies, but they're dreadful with pretty much everything else. Bloggers are in it for themselves. They'll backstab anyone for ratings. Am I being too cynical? I really do believe it.

Actually that's why I feel badly for Obama in a way. A lot of his initial boost was from being a netroots candidate. I feel like this post is only one of many here and elsewhere beginning to disavow its darling for something else.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-14 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Edwards pounds the table more (as the old saying goes, that's what lawyers do when they have bad facts and bad legal precedent), and that seems to make a certain element happy.  Yeah, it can be emotionally gratifying, and Edwards is smart enough to know there is some hunger for that kind of red meat within the primary electorate.  Enough to derail Clinton?  Almost certainly not.  Providing ammo for the right-wing machine if he somehow got the nomination?  Absolutely.  Weakening the eventual nominee if it's someone other than Edwards?  Absolutely.

People miss that Obama is excellent at swatting back right-wing frames, and I think would be tremendously effective responding to attacks in the general election.  He's not going to roll over and play dead ala John Kerry.  But even better - he does it from the high ground, so that at least SOME of the electorate will view his smackdowns as compelling and not just another partisan food fight.

And that's what we SHOULD want - not somebody who just picks fights to make the base feel good, but someone who chooses fights wisely and WINS them.  Someone who can win over converts to progressive values without selling those values out substantively.  He's quite liberal policy-wise, but sells those values in a way that strikes people as reasonable and non-threatening.  What in the hell is wrong about that?

I would certainly expect that if a poll come out with Barack Obama only pulling 30% in his HOME STATE primary, a big deal would be made of it.  That should tell you a great deal about John Edwards, and how he served the people of NC in the Senate.  His constituent service was notoriously lousy, and his hesitation to crap or get off the pot really hurt Erskine Bowles in 2004, helping make sure we ended up with the despicable Senator Richard Burr.  Nobody talks about Edwards running for Governor or re-claiming a Senate seat for Team Blue, and there's a reason for that.

People also underestimate how easy it will be for the right-wing to frame Edwards as a phony.  We ran a ready caricature in 2004, and I have no idea why we'd want to go down that road again.

EVERY candidate in the field has short-comings, even Obama.  I recognize that.  What I don't understand is why every Obama shortcoming gets put under the highest-power microscope, and those of Edwrads are sometimes acknowledged, but almost always minimized or blamed on "unfair" MSM attacks.  Tear down the guy who's within 10-12 points of Hillary, and use kid gloces for the guy who's barely in double digits.  Great way to stop Hillary.  Identify with Edwards b/c he's showing more Dean-like personality characteristics, when even Dean himself would likely tell you that multiple styles are effective.  A genuine progressive like Feingold says something positive about Obama and takes a veiled swipe at Edwards (about being easy to toss bombs from the outside), and all of a suddent he's just being "clubby" like those darned Senators are prone to do.

It borders on insanity at times.

by NC State Dem 2007-06-14 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

"every Obama shortcoming gets put under the highest-power microscope"

This is a strong candidate for my next sig line.

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: VP?

Clinton, Carter and Kennedy never made a serious run for President before their nomination year either.  For Democrats it's been one and out (or VP).  Interestingly, it is possible to have a second shot as a Republican:  Reagan (1968, 1976 a loser then bingo in 1980) and Nixon (lost 1960, won 1968 and 1972) proved that.

It simply has not worked that way for Democrats unless the individual served as VP (LBJ, Gore sort of). The one true run has been the ticket for Clinton, Carter, Kennedy, FDR, Wilson, Cleveland, Buchanan, Pierce, and Polk.  Truman inherited the job without a prior run for President and this is probably true for Van Buren (OK, he ran but as Jackson's heir).

by David Kowalski 2007-06-14 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: VP?

Yeah but a lot of that could be pure coincidence too... Just the way the chips fell that particular year.  And pre modern primaries, a lot of the reason falls on who was nominated by the smokey backroom men.  I mean from the CIvil War until FDR, we had a LOT of trouble being able to win National Elections.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-06-14 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: VP?

A Black man or Women have never been a nominee...maybe we should stick to nominating white Guys?

by gb1437a 2007-06-14 08:10AM | 0 recs
Not yet, Jerome...

I think it's WAY too early for you to write this article.  It's only June - the campaign won't really get started until after Labor Day.  Also, Clinton's campaign has serious problems as well.  It seems like she is just running because she's Bill's wife and she can.  No one knows what she wants to do if elected, and the most informed people are suspicious of her stands on Iraq, trade, and other issues.  Others don't think she's electable (which I think is wrong) and others think that she'll torpedo Dem candidates downticket (probably more accurate).  Also, Obama might win 40 states at this point - the Republican candidates are AWFUL, including Fred Thompson (head of Scooter Libby's defense fund).

OTOH, Obama and Edwards both have transformative potential for the Democratic Party.  In a way, the transformation has already started, and the Dems have a HUGE advantage in people who identify with nad lean towards us (16 points I think).

by econlibVA 2007-06-14 06:50AM | 0 recs
40 states for Booktour Obama

Obama winning 40 states???!!!

Name 'em.

At last count the african american representation among US governors was 2% (Mass.)

US Senate was 1%. (Obama)

Harold Ford was sleezed out of a victory by used car dealer in Tenn race.

Now Obama is going to win 40 states!!???

Have you been in any part of America other than your own state?

by demwords 2007-06-14 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Not yet, Jerome...
Sorry if my previous post was a bit sharp in tone.
I agree with you about transformative change. I just don't think
the Obama leap is possible in America at this point. I think Edwards can pull it off...but the media has really locked him out on this cycle with Obama as the new kid on block.
by demwords 2007-06-14 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose
Although I can definitely see where the author has valid reasons (polls,lost endorsements) to doubt Obama's potential placing in the outcome of this race. I agree with those who say this is who he is,a consensus builder.
Of course in this age of partisan politics,uniting America instead of just focusing on your party is viewed as selling out.
There are still people out there who believe in the corny notion that we're AMERICANS first. That being a Dem, a repug, white,black,female,gay,etc are secondary to that fact.
Honestly speaking Edwards morally correct stance on poverty is viewed by many as corny,lip service.
Skepticism can be applied to any theory.
Hillary's aiming for the middle. Obama's shooting for the middle with different tactics.
There are many folks(myself included)who're tired of this polarizing,partisan bullshit. If,God forbid another attack or another Katrina hit. Will it only affect specific groups or will it affect us all?
Under your theory Edwards and Obama will never truly gain traction with their different but the same, one America message. Polarization = gridlock which = ?
by g1967 2007-06-14 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

"In all those emails, Obama has never once even associated with the word Democrat or Democratic, not mentioning either word even once. Edwards and Clinton do. Whose nomination is Obama running for?"

That right there is the crux of the issue and problem.  We ARE Democrats.  Why deny it?  Who is served by this careful parsing out of any mention of the word DEMOCRAT and DEMOCRATIC?   It is virtually impossible for a candidate of the DEMOCRATIC nomination to not mention that word ONCE over many emails to his supporters.   It clearly looks like a calculated move to become the "transcendental" candidate.  

Well, hard-core Democrats have a word to say about that in the primaries, and they clearly aren't liking what they see.   In many ways Obama would indeed be a better Independent candidate, given his constant rhetoric and chiding of Democrats as "too partisan."   He is clearly lacking the partisan fire to be the best DEMOCRATIC candidate.

by georgep 2007-06-14 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

How often does Hillary use the word DEMOCRAT or DEMOCRATIC in her literature?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-14 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Quite often.  But it is not about using the word, but what it actually means in a partisan way.   Let me illustrate using a few of Clinton's recent emails:

"And she said what we all know -- that Democrats are united in their efforts to end this war while Republicans are falling over themselves to escalate it. As she said, this is George Bush's war, and it's time to stop emphasizing our differences and unite to start bringing our troops home."

It is us vs. them.  Partisanship.  Democrats fighting against Republicans.   This is the counteropposite to Obama's rhetoric, which is  about bridge building with the other side, telling Democrats that we are "too partisan" and that the other side is really not "the common enemy."  

Another illustration of that point comes from the email the Clinton camp sent out just yesterday:

"Fairness. It drives the Republicans nuts.

Hillary has a plan to end government of the few, by the few, and for the few -- and replace it with a modern progressive vision of shared responsibility and shared prosperity.

That may sound like common sense to you and me, but to Republicans, those are fighting words. They're gunning for Hillary because they know she's the most difficult candidate to beat.

But no matter how ugly this campaign gets, Hillary is going to keep fighting for her principles. And as long as we are fighting with her, we're going to win back the White House."

It will be interesting to see what will prevail.   Clinton's obvious fierce partisanship and her "taking the fight to Republicans" or Obama's concilliatory outreach and bridge building.   I personally think that the outreach to the other side is naive and shortsighted, and the last thing we need right now for our party.   I guess we will see which of the two arguments will prevail.  I personally think that Democrats will go with the partisan fight and "taking it to" Republicans over the bridge building.  

IMHO, as a party we are ready to assess blame where it belongs, not muddy the waters by giving the other side a "free pass" for all the wrongs that have been committed over these last 7 years.    

by georgep 2007-06-14 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

That is the Karl Rove strategy which they used against Kerry in 2004.

Bush missed an opportunity to provide an election mandate by going after independents and more conservative democrats.

Thus, he got nowhere in his efforts to change social security. He had no mandate.

Whoever we elect, we need a mandate to make change from the voter's not a strategy that eek's out a small victory with no consensus to make change.

by BDM 2007-06-14 08:20AM | 0 recs
What does a movement look like?

Just curious, Jerome.

by Ramo 2007-06-14 06:59AM | 0 recs
Re: What does a movement look like?

Sam Graham-Felsen of the Obama campaign has just posted a really great diary that shows just "What a movement looks like."

Hopefully, it will be posted at MyDD soon, as well.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/14/ 11813/5246

by Vermonter 2007-06-14 07:43AM | 0 recs
He should post it here directly

I think thats part of what Jerome is getting at. He's not calling for pandering from the Obama campaign, but some engagement and discussion would be a good thing.

by okamichan13 2007-06-14 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

hard core democrats are already on board with Hillary...The netroots are foolish to think that the clinton can be overtaken by just tacking to Hillary's left...Very foolsih..Hillary has a strong history inside the democratic establishment, and Obama is facing an uphill battle against her.

Again, the best way to defeat her is by building a movement that goes byond the democratic party...The netroot left arent strong enoug..its been proven that the netroots can be easily tossed aside...Hillary is hated in the netroos but she's doing geat at the polls.

Edwards has basicly pandered to the netroots from the start but his numbers is not moving...Now, Edwards is no longer MYDD favorite looking at the last MYDD straw poll..He's going down in flame and the netroot is jumping on obama's back.

Jerome is frustrated that Edwards is flaming out and he sees that the only option left is Obama...Some MYDD readers are already on board in Obama's side.

by JaeHood 2007-06-14 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

if this was an attempt to get me to give money to edwards and obama it just might work.  

Wasn't lieberman a front runner at some point later than this?  

My guess is that no one really is paying attention at this point.  It's a three way race and we've got things to do for the next 6 months or so.  Like go see SiCKO.  Or send my senator another e-mail asking her to try to stop the war....oh...scratch that...I just checked and my Senator is Hillary clinton.

by onemadson 2007-06-14 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Interesting that you bring up Lieberman.   If I recall, he was the best "general election" candidate, the same argument that is brought up about Obama (which polling data shows to be incorrect, but let's let it stand for argument's sakes.)    Republicans could really like  this one "Democrat," and Independents liked him as well.   Of course, he flamed out, because you NEED hard-core Democrats in the primaries.  

That is what Jerome Armstrong is talking about.  Obama has turned away from those hard-core Democrats, some of it by his very nature, some of it by choice.  Often when he appears in front of them, he kind of bombs.  Either in front of Democratic issues audiences/union settings or during the debates, which are currently watched mostly by 2 to 3 Million hard-core Democrats at this point.

by georgep 2007-06-14 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

We have not even had a vote yet and everybody is picking the nominee and the next president of the US 7 months before the first primary.

I say let the election process play out.

by BDM 2007-06-14 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

did anyone ever say lieberman was the best general election candidate?   Were they on crack at the time?  

yeah, the short nasally sounding jew from the northeast.  We've elected a lot of those in the past to be president.  Sure thing.   They'll love him in the south.

Also, please find me someone saying Obama is the best general election candidate.  If you haven't noticed the dude is black.  Americans don't have a big track record of electing black dudes to be president.  They rank right behind the jewish presidents.  And the women.  Please link to someone saying that the reason we should pick Obama as a dem is that he is the most likely to do well in a general election.  I want to know who to go to for my crack.  

by onemadson 2007-06-14 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

You must not have been reading too many diaries lately.   That is the argument that is made here CONSTANTLY.    Don't really want to give you sources for crack, though, but if that is where you would get it from, you would have a rich bounty right here, by reading a bunch of Obama diaries.   :-)

by georgep 2007-06-14 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

thankfully i've missed those.

Some days i wonder if i'm dreaming and its some crazy dream where the democrats think that hillary clinton is the best person they can find to run for president.   I've always voted for the democrats.  If they choose hillary I will probably get a little taste of that thing we used to call freedom.  Free to no longer worry about what the one party that runs this country thinks.

Got to go, going golfing with Bill and George Sr.  We're good buddies.  

by onemadson 2007-06-14 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

And Hillary hasn't turned away from hard core Dems?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-14 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

yeah, which hardcore dems?  Rupert Murdoch?  

by onemadson 2007-06-14 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Of course not.  She is embraced by hard-core Democrats at this point.  She strikes the right partisan tones for the primaries.  Obama does not.  

by georgep 2007-06-14 09:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

What hard core Dems?  The unions?  Are there hard core Dems that support her?  Sure.  But I think you know what I am talking about.  She doesn't pander(if you want to call it that) to the left, the way the Repubs pander to their base.  Most of the Dem candidates take the base for granted.  What are we gonna do, vote for Nader again?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-14 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I may have been unclear with my snark.  I didn't realize Hillary was courting democrats at this point.  Which part do the hardcore dems like, the pro corporation or the pro war?   both?

Is she better than any of the other democratic candidates on any issue?  (flag burning and video games aside, of course).  

by onemadson 2007-06-14 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I got your snark.  I was replying to GeorgeP(I believe it was him).  I know why people like HRC.  I just don't understand what she's done for Democrats.  After all, one could make a good case she wants to destroy the party(DLC and remember Terry McAuliffe's horrid tenure at the DNC?).

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-14 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I saw Terry McAuliffe on the Daily Show.  That sure helped me understand why the democrats have consistently been spineless losers.   And he is one of the clinton's top people?   Yikes.  I know we are all supposed to respect him because he made a bunch of money but ross perot also made a bunch of money.  

I sure hope i never get in one of those bubbles the clinton's are in.

Remember, it takes a village to raze a clinton primary win.   Make sure your village does their part.    

by onemadson 2007-06-14 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I don't know if McAuliffe has ever done anything besides politics.  He may be able to raise money, but he has no clue how to win elections.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-14 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

on the Daily Show he claimed he made a bunch of loot in private industry and then decided to just volunteer his time for the good of the democratic party.  Perhaps he was lying?  Wouldn't be the first time.

by onemadson 2007-06-14 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Volunteer?  It would be interesting to see his W-2's for the past 20 years then.  Did he accept a paycheck while head of the DNC?  Hhmmm.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-14 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Of course she is.  But that is obviously in the eye of the beholder.  I had put the issues where she leads on in a previous post to mboehm and was not met with resistance on those points.   I am not going to write another big piece like that right now, but will be putting the Clinton advantages into a diary in the near future (probably over the weekend when I have a little more time) to put it up for discusssion.  

by georgep 2007-06-14 10:03AM | 0 recs
You make so many good points

I have watched Obama and the coverage of Obama since the start of the year and just shook my head.  I don't see what the people who are raving about him see.

I don't see how he is different.  I don't see how he is (or will) change politics.  To me it is like the people gushing about him at looking at some mirage that I can't see.  I just see an above average politcal candidate.

I am glad that others are seeing what I see.  I thought maybe I was the nutty one.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-06-14 07:31AM | 0 recs
A New Meme

This is a bit of a tangent but as I was reading comments it came to mind and whether anybody responds or not, you're stuck with having to read it or scroll on by . . .

There seems to be a tension between an argument that candidates need to be more partisan and that candidates need to be seen as uniters.  I think it is a false distinction - it is a matter of setting the table appropriately.

What candidates ought be doing to advance the Democratic agenda is not to bash Republican partisanship but to change the frame.

The frame should be:

"The question is not what is good for the party, but what is good for the country.  That is not partisanship, it is PATRIOTISM"

It is patriotism not partisanship to defend and protect the constitution and to challenge a President who ignores it.

It is patriotism not partisanship to decry an unnecessary war built on lies and to bring our
troops home safe.

It is patriotism not partisanship to challenge an administration that is more intent on increasing its power by putting inexperienced cronies in charge of important government functions instead of making government more effective in serving its people.

It is patriotism not partisanship to want all Americans to have the health coverage they deserve even if it means taking on entrenched special interests.

And the candidate can repeatedly say he or she is looking forward to working across the aisle to acheive these ends.

There it is folks.  Bashing without bashing.  

by Another Day in the Reich 2007-06-14 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: A New Meme

That is a very good post. Our candidates should use the above meme when talking about the issues important to the american people.

by BDM 2007-06-14 07:56AM | 0 recs
Some people are so hungry for revenge

- bloody revenge - that it seems like Hannibal Lecter would be their favourite nominee. Th whole idea of using the presidential candidate as a tool of revenge on the right wing seems a bit nutty to me.

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: A New Meme

""The question is not what is good for the party, but what is good for the country."

That is not how partisan primaries work.  Never have before.  We shall see if it works this time around.  

by georgep 2007-06-14 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose
Hillary has 6% support on here and about that on Kos, exept for the "coordinated" effort by the HRC inevitability team she is very unpopular both on the internet and wiht most real world dems I know, she has her supporters and demograpghic groups but instead of whining about the alternatives perhaps getting behind Obama who has
the mponey and the volunteers to beat her would be a better idea. I think the big problem some netroots leader have is Obama hasn't been payimg them off.
by nevadadem 2007-06-14 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

A great analysis Jerome.

by robliberal 2007-06-14 08:11AM | 0 recs
New Wine in Old Bottle

Trying to make Barack the Howard Dean of this campaign cycle won't work. He's a different candidate. It would be a failure in judgment for the Obama campaign to try to duplicate Dean's campaign. Barack Obama's communication style, his persona, his message is different from Howards Dean's. Both have their strengths in their own unique ways. Dean had a sort of in your face approach which appeals strongly to hardcore partisan Democrats while Obama is more of a conciliator, a negotiator. Dean had a movement of partisan Democrats while Obama is building a strong brood of all temperamental types: hardcore Democrats, soft Democrats, moderates, independents, some Republicans and first time stimulated voters. I was a Deaniac and yet I fully appreciate Obama's style too. This is why Obama for instance has greater appeal among moderates and independents.

Obama will hit his stride in the Fall at just the right time. There are many months left in this campaign season.

by rosebowl 2007-06-14 08:16AM | 0 recs
Hillary Clinton thinks this diary is FABULOUS

That's why it now tops the "On the Blogs" list on the gooey, sticky,
cloying cyber-confection of campaign-sponsored Hillary-love that
is hillaryhub.

Jerome, you might not be riding Hillary's horse, but she's
certainly riding yours.

Nice job.

by horizonr 2007-06-14 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton thinks this diary is FABULOUS

I agree.

by Akonitum 2007-06-14 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton thinks this diary is FABULOUS

What is your point?  Jerome should hold off criticizing Obama because Hillary might benefit from it?

This is the Democratic primary.  Infighting and chaos are the marks of the party, and should be, IMO.  Let the Republicans have their coronations.  

by scientician 2007-06-14 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Though I don't agree with your headline...I certainly agree with your assessment of Obama and his campaign. Basically I think the whole Obama thing was a booktour that took on a life of its own. The Hillary vs. Obama story has taken up the (on)air supply from the other candidates. Edwards is an excellent candidate, hardworker but he has to get a haircut to get in the news. This should really have been a Hillary vs. Edwards. Obama's outsized publicity machine ( book publishing moguls) has muddied the waters. Has it been sucessful? Well a look at the NY Times Bestsellers tells the story.

by demwords 2007-06-14 08:29AM | 0 recs
You're right

It would be ridiculous if Obama tried to act like he was Howard Dean. The New Yorker profile on Obama was very educating. He is not pandering, he has been a conciliator type of person all his life.

by Populism2008 2007-06-14 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: You're right

Most of the Democratic base wants a strong advocate for them not a "conciliator" though.

by robliberal 2007-06-14 08:43AM | 0 recs
What you see an

being a "conciliator," I see as weakness. We need an advocate for change and a leader.  Obama searches for the middle, always following and never leading.

by littafi 2007-06-14 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: You're right

There is already a well established 'middle ground' candidate. Her name is Hillary. Looks like a redundant effort by team Obama.

by lambiel 2007-06-14 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I would guess that was the original strategy of Edwards. He has campaigned in Iowa since 2001 and had hoped he could pull off a win there and then duplicate it in other states. Obama threw all of that out the window which has left Edwards in third.

by robliberal 2007-06-14 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose
honestly it wouldn't suprise me if Jerome becomes
Hillary's netroots "coordinater" in the near future.
by nevadadem 2007-06-14 08:33AM | 0 recs
I think it is improper

for you to attack Jerome Armstrong's honesty as you do in that comment. Isn't it possible that someone who is not bought could be critical of Barack Obama? The personal attacks that happen to anyone who crticizes Obama astound me. Barack Obama is not the messiah. This cult of personality is dangerous.  You should debate, not make attacks on the honesty of Armstrong.

by littafi 2007-06-14 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I think that this post is interesting.  I like hillary too so I welcome the news that edwards is a distant third personally.  

But it is interesting because it complains that hillary is going to win and then complains that Obama isn't embracing being a democrat when really edwards is the one who is out of touch with the democratic base.

by sterra 2007-06-14 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Edwards is out of touch with the Democratic base?  How so?  Any HRC is in touch with the base?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-06-14 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Its his style.  He doesn't really connect to his supporters the way hillary and obama do to their respective elements.

by sterra 2007-06-14 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I'm just happy Jerome had the audacity to step up and spell out his reservations about Obama. I have been feeling his doubts but didn't know where they were coming from.

by howieinseattle 2007-06-14 09:02AM | 0 recs
TMPCafe Counter Point

Nathan Newman has a more positive take on the Obama Movement here...
Obama as Movement Builder

I think Jerome is just being a poor loser. As in ...If my guy doesn't win then nobody should.

by JoeCoaster 2007-06-14 09:24AM | 0 recs
Not necessarily so...

"The haircut, hedgefund, and house as a trifecta of rightwing ammo has hurt his credibility on the signature issue of poverty."

It could have been the Clinton camp and not necessarily the rightwing. Of course, if you consider the Clinton camp the Democratic Party's right wing, you may have nailed it.

by joliepoint 2007-06-14 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Not necessarily so...

I call BS on this post.   Have proof?  No?  Then stop the crap, please.  

by georgep 2007-06-14 09:57AM | 0 recs
Edwards

"The haircut, hedgefund, and house as a trifecta"
most certainly damaged John Edwards.

And so did his war on terror is a bumper sticker analogy.

John Edwards and Barack Obama have taken many things for granted during their campaigns, and you cannot do that and hope to win.  

In my view, based on all I have seen and read about Obama and based on the emailings I get from his campaign, Obama is not a Democrat. He's an Obamacrat.  And his so-called movement is nothing more than a dramataic stirring.  He did good with act one. He's not doing so well with act two. It's not about the money anymore with Obama.  He has enough money to do anything he wants in his campaign.  Right now, it's about Obama, who for all his popularity, has never managed to flesh himself out to the public, beyond being a smooth-talking really nice guy. If he weren't tall and goodlooking, he wouldn't have made it this far.

Without growing deep roots, there is no "movement".  The netroots is a movement and it will continue to grow and affect the political climate for years to come.  Obama was foolish to disregard it.  

I am still reading about the way Obama voted on the immigration bill (Washington Post today).  I expect someone will open a diary about this.  Throw in the Colin Powell meeetings too.  Many months ago, I asked "Who is running Obama?"  And I still don't know.

Speaking of Hillary, she has a movement going on and it's deep and broad and growing.  She has never dissed the netroots, although the whole internet world is relatively new to her.  It's hard to reach out to a site like dailykos when it runs an ad from an angry gay guy and the photo of Hillary portrays her as a demented psychopath.  That ad is running on dailykos right now.  And the text is about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.

I hope when Hillary rolls out her next blogads that she disses Kos.  But knowing Hillary, she won't let it bother her.  It's one of the most disgusting things Markos has allowed on his website.  But then, I have little respect for him anyway.  Stoller, Armstrong, Bowers, Singer ... no problem.  They don't support Hillary either but they are adults, not facetious children.

by samueldem 2007-06-14 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards

I went and took a look and was shocked that ad is running. I am not sure what purpose a fringe ad serves in attacking Clinton. She has strong GLBT support and the only other alternatives if she is the nominee will be the GOP nominee (who could not care less about gay rights) and Nader who will provide a sanctuary for all the Clinton haters.

by robliberal 2007-06-14 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

A side point but you're still all wet about grassroots politics in Nevada. The Clinton campaign has gotten itself organized early and signed up a surprising, and impressive, number of prominent progressive activists, at least in southern Nevada.

But to say that the Titus endorsement is "huge" is to believe the hype. I'm glad Dina sold the Clinton campaign on the idea that she's got an organized volunteer machine that she'll bring with her, but what was distinct about that effort was that so many people, especially the ones who put in serious effort and not just claimed to be doing so, came in on their own from outside organized democratic politics. Thats why I was so frustrated that sites like this paid no attention to her campaign and dismissed it as lacking "true netroots support." Ya'll could have come to the aid of a campaign that would have really changed this state and could have won.

But the people who worked on it were adults then and are adults now and other than the ones with personal political ambitions (which is a good thing) or are truly politically naive (which is a bad thing), none are going to be putting in a lot of effort for Hilary Clinton, believe me.

Some have gone to work for Obama, who has very little visible presence here so far, and some for Edwards, who is only just getting rolling on the ground, and last week he won his first endorsement from an elected official in the state. A first term state assemblyman but significantly, a former state party chair AND a close personal friend, whose campaign for assembly was run by, the head of the local AFL-CIO. Thats a much more organized grassroots political machinery than "Team Titus" ever was.

Richardson was the first to get going here, and he's got some of the people who were closest to Dina working for him.

I don't disagree with the top line of the piece, nationally or locally, but its funny (and actually maddening) to see Rory Reid, who cut Titus off at the knees 4 years ago by using his corporate money to push her out of a county commission race, now claim that Titus volunteers are going to go to work for him on behalf of Hillary.

by desmoulins 2007-06-14 09:33AM | 0 recs
I had to laugh that a Titus endorsement is huge

Notice that all the Nevada-based commenters in this thread are dismissing that. For some reason there is a major disconnect between how Nevada is viewed from afar, and what the reality is.

Titus is a polarizing figure with major weakness in northern Nevada. It wouldn't be going too far to say she is hated in northern Nevada, due to comments made in the state legislature. Check out her percentage in Washoe County last year compared to the four statewide winning Democrats. There was an obvious desire to vote for Democrats, as long as they weren't named Dina Titus. Then at the end of the campaign Titus said if she could do it all over again she would ignore the cow counties and concentrate on turnout in Clark County. Yet in that RJ article she claims she can help Hillary in the rural counties due to her organization there. I thought I was reading a comedy script.

Hillary can only carry Nevada in a general election by cutting losses in the rurals and especially by holding her own in Washoe. I have no idea how association with Dina Titus is supposed to help in that regard. I suggest she concentrate on other states.

There was also an ominous aspect in that RJ article, that Titus is apparently seriously considering a run against Jon Porter in NV-3. She wouldn't beat Porter. It would be like a replay of the governor's race, the base able to nominate Titus without difficulty but Porter is considered harmless and he could define Titus with the familiar negative campaign tactics. That district features conservative independents who would not like or vote for Dina Titus, who already has high negatives.

Otherwise, I was in the same boat as Jerome, certain Mark Warner was a map-changing nominee and easily our best option. Once he dropped out I defaulted back to my '04 choice John Edwards, but without passion or conviction. I simply think he's more likely to earn 270+ electoral votes than Obama or especially Hillary.

It is fairly amusing to see netroots leaders squirm and agitate when they aren't being prioritized. I talk politics all day with people who literally have never heard the term netroots, or posted on a political forum.

by Gary Kilbride 2007-06-14 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I had to laugh that a Titus endorsement is hug

I didn't mean to portray that the endorsement of Titus meant that a following of voters suddenly went to Clinton. What I do know is that Titus was being heavily courted by everyone, in a very big way. What it meant to me was that Titus was signaling that Clinton had NV in the bag.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-06-14 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I had to laugh that a Titus endorsement is hug

But there you go again -- inferring based on how things look from far away. Because only based on the conception held by those who are not here about Titus can one conclude Titus knows "its in the bag." How can anyone have a campaign "in the bag" 7 months before the caucus?

Anyway, down here in the South, Clinton has gotten way out front of the other campaigns in getting their organization together and winning some solid support. Not sure about the North.

But there's 3 points to make about the NV caucus.

One, no one has any idea who's going to participate because there's no history. Do you know how many people participated, statewide, in the 2004 caucus? Fewer than 10,000! And in the 2006 primary, there were 100,000 voters. So its likely to be somewhere in between. So although Clinton's got public endorsements and a field organization already in place, they don't know whom to organize. They're already making repeat calls to homes of possible caucus-goers, as their geographical voter ID overlaps with their constituency voter ID.

Two, the rural counties are overweighted in the allocation of delegates, and in many rural counties, there simply is no Democratic party organization. Most people who are active Democrats in the rurals are very, very worried about Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket.

Third and most importantly, the only way she puts the state "in the bag" is if she wins the Culinary (UNITE-HERE local 622) endorsement or wins a national endorsement from the AFL-CIO, AFSCME and.or SEIU. REally only Culinary or AFL-CIO together has the numbers to gain control of the caucus, as a lot of people expect them to do -- and again, those endorsements will go to Clinton only if she's seen as inevitable on the national level. So a much bigger "get" for Clinton will be local labor leaders, of which she's got one big one already.

by desmoulins 2007-06-15 12:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I had to laugh that a Titus endorsement is hug

inferring based on how things look from far away.

No, I'm inferring based on the political judgement of Titus, who I would bet has a better electoral grasp than you (no offense meant) or me.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-06-15 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

"I give Edwards credit, because he does understand the terrain for '08 much better than Obama."

I agree with this analysis. Which is why I support Edwards over Obama. Edwards understands the war we are fighting. So does Hillary.

From the beginning Obama seemed to me clueless about what Dems as a party are fighting. He seemed to think we just need to get along better with the other side and all this nasty partisanship would go away. Right away I thought this guy has no idea what forces we are up against.

So far Obama has had kid glove treatment from the media as well as the GOP. His supporters are deluding themselves thinking this fawning treatment will continue till election day. If Obama seems like he might win the opposition will go after him with the mother of all swiftboat campaigns. Obama won't know what hit him.

I want a nominee who understands the partisan divide and how we got here. Both Edwards and Hillary understand the war we are fighting much better.

by DonB11 2007-06-14 09:34AM | 0 recs
The partisan divide can and should be

healthy.  What has troubled me about Obama is this

In all those emails, Obama has never once even associated with the word Democrat or Democratic, not mentioning either word even once.

We have had two distinct conversations/arguments from the inception of our nation until now.  Should the few govern or should the wisdom of crowds prevail.  Do you believe in democracy and lateral inclusion or do you believe in a hiearchy? It's got all muddled in the last 30 years as the Democrats drifted into the clutches of corporatism.  It won't be fixed by being nicer to each other.  It will be fixed by standing up for the the freedoms promised in our constitution.  THese are the freedoms that FDR articulated.  Most of all freedom from want and freedom from fear. Freedom to advance and achieve your individual dream.  
Both Edwards and Clinton are warriors.  But Edwards has the ability to start to heal the wounds left by both Bush and Clinton. Hillary's time is not now.  
We want to win the case and not settle out of court.  Go for the trial lawyer at this time in our history like in 1860.

by Feral Cat 2007-06-14 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: The partisan divide can and should be

Agree. Edwards is the most electable in a general election. He is a likable southern populist.

I find Obama's lets all get along message a big turnoff. He seems clueless as to why are fighting.

Obama also has never been in the receiving end of the GOP attack machine. He thinks being concilliatory with the GOP is all that is needed to end the partisanship.

Obama has never really been tested in a battle with the GOP. Edwards won a tough campaign against an incumbent GOP senator in a red state in the year of Monica. Hillary has been battling the VRWC for 15 years.

Edwards can still win. He understand the Democratic base. He can also win in the general election.

by DonB11 2007-06-14 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Hillary understands what we're fighting for? HOW? And what on Edwards's records as a senator tells you that he understands what we're fighting for?

Obama aint perfect; but it is disengenius to say stupid crap like what you just said. Hillary's the establishment, and if she's the candidate you'll see a 4 more years with either president giuliani, thompson or rommey.

by AnthonyMason2k6 2007-06-15 06:04AM | 0 recs
it's the year of the establishment candidate

obama hasn't made any huge mistakes in this campaign; clinton is the frontrunner and if you haven't noticed every 8yrs the establishment candidate wins because the insiders want no risks. bill clinton won because it was mid-cycle in 1992, just 4yrs after HW Bush. barack has the energy of new voters and apathetic voters behind his campaign but hardcore democrats will choose clinton. so barack just has to expand the electorate and gather a repectable % from hardcore democrats.

anyone honest with themselves should know that barack hasn't made any huge mistakes; he's just got a very uphill climb and there are too many candidates sharing the anti-establishment vote.

the campaign must be aware of this and i suggest the take their campaign to the people in the fashion of their recent grassroot "WALK FOR CHANGE". that's the only way an anti-establishment exciting candidate wins at the end of the 8yr electoral cycle.

by pmb 2007-06-14 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

As a sidenote, MYDD.COM is by far the most-cited blog on Hillaryhub.com:

http://www.hillaryhub.com

by georgep 2007-06-14 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

you should diary that.  (i am convinced that matt and jerome are secretly working for her, btw.)

by aiko 2007-06-14 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Awesome! I just noticed it supports rss now!

by bowiegeek 2007-06-14 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

And yet, lose it she will. John Edwards will be the nominee.

by cosbo 2007-06-14 10:06AM | 0 recs
Dina Titus?

What a joke. Who gives a rat's ass who Dina Titus endorses in Nevada? I wish I voted for Mayor Gibson over her so that the fool Gibbons would not have been my Governor.

by LV Pol Girl 2007-06-14 10:40AM | 0 recs
I voted for Mayor Gibson

Lotta good it did me.

The mistake was not getting the netroots and the national party involved in that race from the outset. Gibbons was a known moron and it literally would have changed the state if we could have avoided him, as desmoulins posted in this thread. There was a pipe dream we could oust John Ensign. If you transfer all that senate focus and energy to the gov race we might have Titus as gov.

Admittedly, an emphasis on "might." Gibson could have defeated Gibbons handily, but with Titus you were always fighting her high negatives. I'm extremely worried we're setting up the same dynamic with Hillary, on a much larger and more crucial scale.

by Gary Kilbride 2007-06-14 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I voted for Mayor Gibson

Gary, we've had this discussion elsewhere so I won't rehash but those "high negatives" were not simply a given, an act of nature. Negative impressions of TItus were soft until the barrage of Gibbons advertising in August and September to which she didn't have the resources to respond.

ITs not clear that Gibson, who was in debt by the primary election, would have had money any sooner to respond, and he had a big problem of high negatives with the democratic base so he would have had to spend more to win them back. And he had lots, lots of vulnerabilities that Gibbons would have exploited, including a position on immigration in the primary that was, as it were, to the left of Titus.

My point is that the negative impressions were created.

There's also the issue of miserable performance in democratic base areas, which the state party decided not to work as hard in the field, preferring to go for competitive assembly and congressional districts rather than for the highest statewide turnout overall. Gibson would have likely suffered even worse from democratic underperformance.

For the presidential caucus, I think this does have some implications and one thing Im very pleased about is that the Richardson campaign says its going to focus on some of those underperforming democratic base areas in Clark County -- if we can get more people to the caucus, we can get more people to the polls in Nov.

by desmoulins 2007-06-15 12:17PM | 0 recs
I hope this means you're still on Warner's payroll

by mihan 2007-06-14 11:22AM | 0 recs
Obama, Clark

The "Walk for Change" thing really turned me off, as well.  Gotta love that change.

So can we talk on Clark switching to MSNBC as a strategy?  Instead of floundering behind the pack, trying to get face time on tv, he can be making friends with people over at MSNBC and getting plenty of facetime talking about real issues instead of his hairstyle and sweaters.

If we accept the premise that only Obama and Hillary got anything out of announcing early, could this be a good strategy for an August announcement?

by catherineD 2007-06-14 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

for those considering voting for a rebug if hillary gets the nomination go do it. there are millions of other voters to take your place. GO HILLARY!!!!!

by terrondt 2007-06-14 11:49AM | 0 recs
Obama's "movement" and the Netroots

Some of the Obama partisans here are opining along the lines that Jerome is just bitter that Obama isn't kissing the netroots' asses, and he's building his own movement away from the netroots.  Put aside issues of prominent blogger ego though and think some more on that one.

Over at TPM Cafe, one of the writers discusses some non-internet groups Obama has courted.

This is all well and good, but I think Jerome has a valid point:  why shouldn't Obama's movement include the netroots?  Why snub us?  These are a group of dedicated, activist, progressive democrats and Obama seemingly doesn't care for their support.

And sure, we know that if Obama was the nominee the netroots would get behind him, just like they largely will for just about any democratic nominee (even Hillary).

But when I ponder why Obama wouldn't want more of our support, I don't like the answers that present themselves.  It becomes something perilously like triangulation, that by distancing himself with the highly partisan hoipoi of the net, he'll be more palatable to the mushy middle.

This strategy has failed many times more than it has succeeded, and besides, are we supposed to apologize for the things we believe?  Compromise with the awful Republican vision of America just to win over the people who don't follow politics closely?

It might be strategically sound (though I don't think so) but I don't like the moral message there.

No one would say the netroots needs to be the centrepiece of Obama's movement, and that he should kowtow to our every whim, but he has distinctly avoided doing things that would win him support among us, and that really isn't a good thing unless one thinks we are a bad thing.

The thing is, what is ultimately most important is the results.  We want a President who will make America more progressive and liberal.  Here are a big group of progressives and liberals, and Obama is staying away.  Does that mean he won't actually govern as a liberal?  I don't know, but it's not hugely encouraging as a signal of his policy intentions.

by scientician 2007-06-14 12:16PM | 0 recs
why shouldn't he include the netroots??

Well, let's see.

Obama tried posting a diary on DailyKos some time back. I don't have the link, but it was fairly moderate-progressive, not revolutionary but not bad either, and they basically shat on him.

Then some nobody held their social network hostage for $50,000. Or $44,000, or whatever the fuck it was. The Obama campaign terminated him. The guy bitched and moaned, and the netroots cradled him like a baby who'd been abandoned on the street. Except that he fucking blackmailed the Obama campaign.

Unfortunately, when it first broke, some grasstops like Jerome and Stoller had already gotten pissed that Obama wasn't kissing their ring. They were further incensed that he would commit sacrilege by taking money from the liberal hedge fund and private equity crowd. Somehow this pissed them off a lot more than actually WORKING for a hedge fund, but we've been there before.

Then, having invested their credibility and megaphone in someone who turned out to be, at best, a half-victim/half-fraudster, Jerome and Stoller especially maintained that the Obama campaign wasn't an authentic movement anymore, that it sucked, that it was just using them, blah bitch moan. (Bowers was more apologetic after Anthony's pathetic case fell apart, and that was courageous of him.) And ever since then, the netroots has really been a bunch of rebels without a cause, still pissy at Obama, never convincing anybody else to support Edwards, and overwhelmingly anti-Clinton.

Since then, the Obama campaign has wisely chosen to court constituencies more rational and less egotistical than the netroots. While there are lots of netroots Obama loyalists, they are too scattered to overwhelm the netroots' own egotistical ring-kissing complex and the Hillary campaign's astroturfing. And Edwards' own people have gotten so worked up in a futile struggle against Obama that they are all pining for a retread of 2000, when a smart but wooden pedant squandered more than any other candidate in political memory.

Nice work.

by jforshaw 2007-06-14 02:47PM | 0 recs
Exactly so
by horizonr 2007-06-14 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I guess my reaction is that it's a long season and anything can happen in the next seven months. Obama is still collecting the big bucks, and that's what counts at this point. But I too wonder when he's going to break out from the kumbaya rhetoric and take a stand on something. Part of me says: it's only a matter of time. The other part of me says: maybe he just doesn't have it in him. I'm willing to wait til January for him... but in the meantime, I won't be putting that "Obama 2008" bumper sticker on my car.

by nstrauss 2007-06-14 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

What I find mostly interesting here is this little cyclical game MyDD is playing with Obama supporters. The MyDD contributors seem to be endlessly simultaneously provoking Obama supporters, and complaining about attacks by Obama supporters. We see a MyDD contributor put rather nasty sniping comments about Obama in Breaking Blue; we see a wave of diaries in response; we see MyDD contributors complaining about all of this "Candidate Spam" suddenly clogging up the diary list; and then the very next day or so we see MyDD contributors returning to the same attacks on Obama that set off all these diaries in the first place.

I can fully understand being weary of all this, but maybe Obama supporters wouldn't fight with you quite so much if you weren't going to such lengths to pick fights with them? Just a thought; I'm not quite sure how to break this cycle myself.

Aside from this though what really interests me about this cycle is how as the cycle progresses some of the MyDD people, like Jerome here, seem to almost be basically throwing their support behind Clinton out of sheer spite. What started out as "well, he's not my first choice, but at least Obama's a non-Hillary Candidate" is now becoming "well, I'm opposed to Hillary, but I'm happy she's doing so well because at least Obama's not winning" among certain bloggers. There is no question that Clinton is, as she has been all along, persistently leading Obama, and that the Obama campaign needs to do something about this. But that's not the vibe I keep getting from the MyDD contributors. What I am seeing here is gloating.

And what's interesting here is the source of the gloating. If it were just a simple cause-effect system of (1) blogger gets beset by annoying whiny Obama supporters (2) sick of whining, blogger starts to get take it out on Obama himself... well, that would be not so unreasonable, really. I've often in the past found it hard to avoid that kind of thinking myself. But that's not what we're seeing here either:

It's ludicrous that some point toward the outreach and early partnership that Edwards has done with the blogging community and the netroots in the same manner that a candidate reaches out to an issue base group, and and argue from there that Obama doesn't kowtow to such groups. First of all, that's bs, he does plenty of pandering and is very ordinary in that regard; but more fundamentally, this is the base of the Democratic party's rapid response team. The issue is combating the rightwing machine in unison with Democratic candidates, but you can't partner with a candidate that not inclined to join the partisan progressive movement... There is an Obama that could be the partisan leader that builds with the netroots-blogger movement...

Let us be clear here. When Jerome says "the netroots-blogger movement", he means "MyDD and DailyKos". There are movement bloggers supporting Obama, there are members of the netroots supporting Obama. But those bloggers and portions of the netroots are not part of the particular netroots machine that Jerome helped to build, and so he is not interested in them. It is not enough for a candidate to have a blogging community, a netroots movement. From Jerome's perspective it must be his blogging community, his netroots movement, or it does not count. The goals and values of the movement, the purpose and effect of the movement-- these things are deemed not as interesting as whether it furthers the endeavors of a particular clique of bloggers to build and grow their personal structures for activist politics.

by Silent sound 2007-06-14 02:36PM | 0 recs
Very well said
by horizonr 2007-06-14 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I agree.  Very well said.

It is still very early.  Hell, there's enough time for the Red Sox to blow a 14 game lead AND for the Patriots to go 16-0 before a single primary vote is cast.  Every candidate's support is very soft right now.  I just saw a New Hampshire poll of likely Democrat voters, and only 8% had decided, while 48% had no idea (43% were leaning)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/060 7/4496.html

Each of the three candidates has about a 33% chance of winning, and anyone who says otherwise is relying on either national polls, which don't mean a thing this far out, or on his/her speculative theories, which are similarly useless.  Don't get me wrong, I've got plenty of my own theories for how one candidate might win, because it is fun to think about such things, but I don't for a second think that any of them are likely to be right, except by dumb luck.

I don't know whom I'm supporting yet, as I like all three, but Silent sound nails a key point: the massive egos of some people in the self-described "netroots."  They speak of themselves as both bottom-up outsiders (i.e. roots) but also as obligatory pillars that require cow-towing.  Can't have it both ways.

As for Obama's "lagging" campaign, well, it's a marathon, not a sprint.  I think it is too early to judge what his campaign is and what it isn't.  

by alydar 2007-06-14 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

OK, i didn't read all the other responses, but i've got to say that while there was some truth in the original piece, it's not the whole story at all.  Sure, the Obama campaign always harping about a "movement" can get old, especially to people with lots of experience in the political realm.  However, what you're discounting is that it's people who don't usually pay attention to politics who are receptive to this sort of campaigning.  These are the people who need to feel that they're part of something to actually get out and vote.  

If most of us were to think back to what initially got us interested in politics, I bet 9 out of 10 cases would lead to a movement-type candidacy of a really charismatic candidate.  And that is the promise of Obama.  

Sure, I love that Edwards is talking about poverty, I love Richardson's insights on foreign policy, but come on!  A president needs to have a vision and a level-headed demeanor.  It takes more than great policy.  Obama has vision, he's not a bullshitter, and most importantly--he makes people optimistic about the future.  That's what's going to win the next election for the dems: people's desire for a better future.  

by bluedavid 2007-06-14 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Oh, and one more thing...

Get over it guys.  Edwards doesn't stand a chance.  The only way he'll get ahead is if the front runners have major misfortunes.  Fairly or not, he still reeks of failure.

by bluedavid 2007-06-14 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

I'd sure like to see Obama or Clinton publicly embrace responsible public airwaves policy...alongside the progressive movement that is fighting for national high-speed wireless Internet.

by AdamGreen 2007-06-14 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

As a college student, I can vouch for the fac taht Obama is massively popular among progressives on campus.

I think Obama's movement is really tapping into the 18-24 crowd.

by Missouri Democrat 2007-06-14 09:57PM | 0 recs
The Dem race is still wide open

I disagree with the point that this is Hillary's race to lose.  The danger that all political columnists encounter is that because they follow politics at a deeper level than 99% of the population, they see events and developments that no one else is watching and then draw faulty conclusions.  There is so much time between now and the election, yet to political columnists the race can appear all but over now.

That is not how the public views matters.  Just look at the latest polling from New Hampshire.  Most respondents pick a candidate.  But when asked if they firmly support that candidate 80% say no, they're open to other choices as the campaign unfolds.  Where was Kerry in Iowa in 2003? It was the Dean show.

There are two front runners and two challengers.

Clinton and Obama are the front runners because of their national name recognition and money raised.

Edwards and Richardson are challengers.  Edwards for obvious reasons, Richardson because he's at 10% in the latest Iowa and New Hampshire polls and has enough money to be competitive in both states.

Absent a collapse at the top, I don't see Biden or Dodd entering the picture.  They don't even out poll Clinton in their own states (whereas Richardson does in New Mexico).

Could Clinton start to slip?  Of course, she could.  Clinton's lead in the polls is in part attributable to the view that she is the more experienced candidate.  She gets credit for the eight years Bill was in power.  But will that linkage to Bill continue to propel her in the polls moving forward?  

Right now she's trying to be all things to all Democrats.  It's not a story that she'll be able to continue to play as we move forward and she has to continue to vote on key issues to Democrats.

Does anyone think all of Obama's money is going to be spent on only positive TV ads about himself?  

Finally, Jerome if you liked Warner because he wasn't a classic liberal and had the ability to scramble the map and bring 40 states into play in November 08, a Democratic candidate remains that can do the same:  Richardson.

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-06-16 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's race to lose

Thank you Jerome for you most insightful article. So many of us wanted to believe in Obama, and so many of us did, only to come to the sad conclusion that you have reached.

by ThinLine 2007-06-18 04:44AM | 0 recs
by 51lenovo 2007-12-11 04:36AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads