Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obama's Electability

The Clinton campaign is really grasping at straws these days.

On the Clinton call earlier, Mark Penn said, "We believe that [the Pennsylvania primary result] will show that Hillary is ready to win, and that Sen. Obama really can't win the general election."

He later revised it to say that losing Pennsylvania would raise question about Obama's ability to win.

But it's a pretty strong thing to say.

If this charge were not so absurd on its face it would merit a long-winded takedown, here and elsewhere. However, in short I'd point readers to a couple of things: One, state-by-state polling showing Barack Obama to be at least as strong a competitor to John McCain as Hillary Clinton, as well as national polling that quite consistently shows Obama either leading McCain or tied with him (and running at least as well as Clinton against McCain); and two, the analysis of non-partisan election tracker Marc Ambinder, who doesn't have a dog in this race and generally calls these things fairly and evenly.

Of course Obama can win the general election; it's illogical to generalize from the vote totals alone, as I and others have pointed out. Yes, Obama's Gary Hart-Jesse Jackson coalition is untested in modern general elections, but we live in hyperpartisan times, Democrats have an enormous partisan identification identification advantage, and Democrats are much more enthusiastic about their candidate than Republicans are. There's just no way to justify Penn's assertion from reading a poll.

With this in mind, the most sensible conclusion I seem to be able to infer from Penn's statements are that after the Clinton campaign gets done with Obama he won't be able to win a national election -- in other words a promise from the Clinton campaign to make Obama unelectable.

Don't get me wrong, there is definitely room for the two campaigns to hit one another on legitimate bones of contention or to make the case that their candidate is relatively stronger. And both candidates should be and need to be scrutinized so that the Democrats can put their best foot forward in November. But when a campaign begins lashing out senselessly, as appears to be the case in this instance, it simply must be put to a stop -- for the good of the party and for the good of the nation, which cannot afford to go through the third Bush term with a McCain presidency.

Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic primaries, Electability, Hillary Clinton, Mark Penn (all tags)

Comments

186 Comments

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Let's count the ways that Obama is winning:

1.) Pledged Delegates: (Using AP's numbers, with Obama's count in parenthesis)

Obama: 1,390 (1,411)
Clinton: 1,248 (1,250)

2.) Popular vote: I updated this post with results from Mississippi. I took out the Texas caucuses just to give this the best pro-Clinton spin possible, though I still think the caucuses are a separate contest and need to be accounted for. (Obama ended up winning Mississippi by over 100,000 votes.)

Obama: 13,614,204
Clinton: 12,801,153

3.) Primaries Won: There are 37 total primary contests. All Obama has to do is win three more and he notches the lead in these contests. He can do that easily with just three out of Montana, South Dakota, Oregon, Indiana, and North Carolina.

Obama: 16
Clinton: 12

4.) Caucuses Won

Obama: 14
Clinton: 3

5.) Overall contests Won: It's a 2-1 Obama advantage (includes territories and Democrats Abroad).

Obama: 30
Clinton: 15

6.) Red and Blue States Won (including DC, not including territories or Democrats Abroad):

Obama: 16 Red, 11 Blue
Clinton: 8 Red, 6 Blue

8.) Money Raised (through February)

Obama: $168 million
Clinton: $140 million

So that leaves the Clinton campaign with what, exactly? Big states! Big states! Big states! I addressed that one yesterday.

Team Clinton has nothing except schemes of coup by super delegate, which they apparently think they can do by insulting entire Democratic constituencies and most of our nation's states.

But really, what else do they have? Their campaign is losing by every metric possible.

by PrinceCA 2008-03-13 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

that is four, Prince. Come the fuck on. TR.

by hctb 2008-03-13 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Haven't been engaging in the comments in a while here and one really has to wonder what happened here. I'm not sure who all these new guys are but not reading the faq seems to be a very big problem. Troll rating that comment is beyond absurd. Troll rating leads to comments being hidden. Just because you disagree does not make it troll worthy. Rather more it seems to be troll worthy what you're doing. Amazing, really, how people like you managed to destroy this community in the past year. It's called MyDD - My Direct Democracy for a reason. Clearly you have a problem with other people making valid arguments. I really have to wonder who is the real troll here.

by Sven at My Silver State 2008-03-13 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Yes. People like me are abhorrent. Because you and I have had any interactions for you to make such a judgment. I TRed a post that someone is posting all over the site without any other comment or interaction and you defend that..
I am sorry that this is no longer Your Democracy. That must be disheartening.

If there has been some change in this community that doesn't allow jerks who post without reading the others, or doesn't abide people who are disrespectful of others because they are not in agreement with them, I imagine that is a change for the better.

by hctb 2008-03-13 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Instead of running around and insulting people, you could just have explained why you troll-rated without using abusive language and maybe I would even have supported you. But you didn't.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Marco,

He has pasted the same comment across four threads. I did explain that long before you posted this or your prior comment. You are simply using this as an opportunity to beat up on someonelse.  I dont think that is particularly cool and I do wonder if you would be so vigilant if I was yelling at someone for posting some bunk Clinton numbers or calling them maniacs.

by hctb 2008-03-13 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

If you had left the word "fuck" out, I would give you credit for what you did.

And, I don't feel a need to beat up on anybody, your troll-rate combined with your overreaction to it  seemed unreasonable and you didn't see your explanation immediately.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

What about that post was troll-worthy again?

by marcotom 2008-03-13 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

he has posted the same comment in the last three forums. No edits. Just post, post, post. I asked him to stop. So, I TRed it this time.

I think that posting some prepared comment rather than engaging in discussion is absurd.

by hctb 2008-03-13 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Not worth a TR.  Nobody is forcing you to respond to him.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-13 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

I have seen a lot of people doing the same thing lately, it's simply not enough. Your overreaction still leaves me with the feeling that maybe it was the content that you didn't like.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

I believe I mojo's you earlier Marco and I very rarely like what you have to say. :) I will be more careful in the future but I do think that people posting without being a part of a conversation is pretty troll-like.

by hctb 2008-03-13 03:43PM | 0 recs
This is cut and pasted

from the DailyObama, formerly known as DailyKos.

by jpetty 2008-03-13 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: This is cut and pasted

Hmmm....but is it true?

by JDF 2008-03-13 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: This is cut and pasted

Since this page is generally a Clinton love fest, it's good to see a little Obama realism.

by godemsin08 2008-03-13 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

1) wait until PA. Most of his delegates from Bush-land and those states will go to McCain. So he is not electable.

2) you wrong on popular vote: she is behind only 80000 votes before PA:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l
Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)* - Obama 13,856,984 (47.5%), Clinton 13,776,339 (47.3%), Obama +80,645 (+0.2%) and Obama will be way behind after PA.

3) After losing PA Obama will have a great chance to lose in OR, IN and may be even NC, SD & MT, just wait (I know you can't)

4) caucuses do not reperesent the will of the people as primaries in TX & in VA proved and have nothing to do with electability.

5) Obama won open primaries and primaries with huge black population voted across race line. One exception is his home state.

6) Most states Obama won are in GOP-land, so it has nothing to do with electability

7) where is 7? I say he is not electable

8) meaningles as Hilary proved in OH & TX where she was outspend 5-to-1. Also Hillary raisng money now at very good rate.

by engels 2008-03-13 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Mark Penn?  Is that you?

Can you tell me which candidate has won more contests in the blue states (states that Kerry won)?  You can include faux primaries that Clinton didn't care about until recently.

Since you and Hillary have known about caucuses for a long time (35 years?) can show me some instances of her criticizing them or working to change them prior to this election season?  Since you and her feel they are so undemocratic, I would imagine you guys have been fighting against them for the last few decades.

Can you take a look at the poll averages over at real clear politics and tell me... who, in general does better against McCain?

Can you look at the 50 state survey usa polls and tell me how many states Obama outperforms Hillary against McCain?

Thanks Mark!  Keep up the good work!

by peter peter 2008-03-13 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

The thrust of the comment was that the Democrats must win PA to win the election.  Actually they need to win 3 of the big 4 (FL, OH, Mich, and PA).  If OB can't come close in PA, Clinton has one valid claim for the nomination.

Despite all the statistics of how ahead Obama is, he hasn't made the case he is the most electable.  He has benefited from 12 states with a caucus system which is not the will of the people as a primary is.  

The current caucus system which is mainly in non-battleground states has benefited OB and may give a misleading impression to the extent of his electability. (I think both are electable, but the question who is most electable is arguable and important.)

I compared the smallest 10 caucuses and the largest 10 primaries.  This was before Mississippi. I used Wikipedia for delegate count and thegreenpapers.com for voter count and made a few assumptions here and there.  I think it is close as anyone's and valid for analysis.

10 smallest caucuses:

States: WY, ND, Alaska, NV, Hawaii, ID, Maine, NE, CO, KS (OB won the vote of 9, and most delegates for all 10) (Doesn't count foreign territories.)

# of battleground states: 3 - NV, Maine, Colorado - total of 18 electoral votes.

Total OB and HC votes: 443,583 (OB 280,875, HC 162,875 Difference 118,167)

Total OB and HC pledged delegates: 236 (OB 159, HC 77, difference 82)

10 largest primaries  

States: CA, TX, NY, FL, OH, IL, Mass, GA, WI, NJ (HC won 7, OB 3)

# of battleground states: 3 OH, FL, WI - total of 57, add NJ total of 72, add CA total of 127 (need 270 to win).  Michigan would have been on this list if it had a competitive primary.

Total OB and HC votes: 19,373,950 (HC 9,913,618, OB 9,460,332, difference 453,332)

Total OB and HC pledged delegates: 1635 (HC 732, OB 718, difference 14)  This gives zero delegates to FL.

Conclusion

The smallest caucuses are having a disproportionate effect on the race.  They involve battleground states only worth 18 electoral votes, the voter difference was only 118,167, and OB had a net advantage of 82 pledged delegates.

Compare this to the 10 largest primaries.  The battleground state electoral vote is at least 57, HC won by a margin of 453,332, and only netted 14 delegates (would have been more if FL was awarded delegates).

Not only are the small caucuses having undue effect, but caucuses favor OB as he can organized college students, plus the educated are more likely to favor OB and attend.  In contrast, significant segments of HC's constituency cannot attend for a whole including elderly who have health problems and working class who are on-shift or can't afford a babysitter. Caucuses do not have absentee ballots.

How much of a difference can a caucus make?  In Washington state, OB won 52 delegates (with 67%) to HC's 36 (with 31%) in the caucus with about 250,000 attendees.  A week or so later, Washington had a non-binding primary which OB won 339,165 votes (51%) and HC won 303,151(46%), a total of 642,317 (2.5X the caucus).

A primary is closer to the will of the people than a caucus.

Clinton is likely to catch up on the popular vote, especially if Florida and Michigan redo (as they should and probably will).  If demographics play out, she should be strongest in PA, IN, WV, KY, FL,Puerto Rico, and Mich.  Obama should be strongest in NC and maybe SD. Oregon is probably even.

So it will take the whole cycle to have enough information, but it is clearly too early to crown Obama as the strongest candidate.

by edonyoung 2008-03-13 08:51PM | 0 recs
I don't think he can win the general...

...If he succeeds in obstruction revotes in FL and MI.

The Dems can not win the presidency iif these two critical swing states go red, and they will if they blame him for disenfranchising them from the primary.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-13 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

No Dem will win FL as it is tending Red this year.

by PrinceCA 2008-03-13 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...
And Obama can sweet-talk Michigan. I bet they'll love him by the time the GE rolls around.
by Becky G 2008-03-13 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

the silvery dulcet tones of Obama are going to pay their mortgages, huh?

by hctb 2008-03-13 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

and McCain "the jobs are gone, but we an have more wars" will?

all in all, do you think the people of michigan are gonna look at at McCain and see a solid person? with this recession?

by theninjagoddess 2008-03-13 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

I think that we dont know though I agree with you that it will likely bang Democratic.  I do think that we will have to defend it (no matter the nominee.) This will cost resources that we could devote elsewhere. Still, I agree that we could not ask for an opponent with a poorer economic record.

Not sure any "sweet-talking" will fly in Michigan, though. Every time I have been in MI the democratic supporters went pretty deep into the issues.  I cant recall how many conversations I had about gun control.  That was a pretty big issue in 2000 and 2004 in MI.

by hctb 2008-03-13 03:49PM | 0 recs
View from Michigan

It's a bit strange to see people all over the US discussing what we in Michigan might do given various scenarios. I'd like to offer a little insight from Kalamazoo.

I sit on the e-board of the Kalamazoo County Democratic Party. Many of us tried to get the State Central Committee to drop the whole idea of an early primary and hold a caucus on Feb 5th or 9th. The Governor--a Clinton supporter--and the State chair--an Edwards supporter--wanted none of it. Carl Levin, a great senator to be sure, hasn't been helpful either.

I believe none of the above thought the DNC's decision to strip MI of her delegates was real. We, here on the ground, did. And yes, we were and are steamed about the above parties' seeming determination to drive this bus off a cliff.

However, we are not so stupid that we are laying blame at the candidate's feet. If anything, most people I know are upset with HRC for not removing her name from the ballot as all candidates were asked to do by the DNC when Michigan broke the rules.

For the record, I am a former Edwards supporter and current Obama supporter. Of all the people I talk to in the Kalamazoo area, I know exactly five people who support Senator Clinton and of those, three could really go for either candidate.

One thing I can say for sure is McGramps has tepid support here at best. We're concerned about jobs leaving and the price of bread, not bombers arriving and the price of bullets.

by lucky monkey 2008-03-13 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: View from Michigan

I was in Battle Creek six weeks ago and heard a different story. I am not saying you are wrong. It seems to go with my impression of MI more generally: the politics are pretty localized.  

by hctb 2008-03-13 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

I think you're right about having to defend Michigan. Either Clinton or Obama will have to defend it. Obama will have a slightly easier time, simply because he puts together a better volunteer organization.

But McCain will need to defend most of the west and Texas if Obama's the nominee. That more than matches needing to defend Michigan

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-13 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

That's kind of not the point.  You can't leave voters feeling disenfranchised.  You can't.  Has nothing to do with who the state eventually goes for.  This should be as big an issue in Florida as it would be in Connecticut or Wyoming.

by mady 2008-03-13 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

And will be used against him nationwide.

I can see the adds now:

"Obama was instrumental in denying the citizens of Florida and Michigan a vote in the Democratic Primary, and now he want's your vote. Sounds more like the Soviet Union than the United States. Can we risk electing a president that does not believe in democracy."

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-13 03:12PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

You don't have any proof for this. Why are you pushing this lie so much?

by marcotom 2008-03-13 03:18PM | 0 recs
LOL

That would be the biggest waste of money the GOP ever spent. No sane person would ever conceive of an ad that idiotic. What a joke.

by HatchInBrooklyn 2008-03-13 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

Yes, Ickes had nothing to with it.  Give it a rest already.  It's almost like this is a fantasy of yours.

by rfahey22 2008-03-13 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

I think a lot of those who are a.) Clinton fanatics or b.) Obama haters or c.) angry with the DNC WOULD love to see McCain win this election on some level. Of these groups the only one I understand are those who are angry with the DNC. The punishments were harsh, and doled out in a "cut off my nose to spite my face" manner. That being said, they felt something had to be done. I think re-votes will solve this problem though.  

I do think a lot of people, even supposedly progressive Democrats want either a Hillary or a McCain Presidency because they do not want to deal with the realities of an Obama win. If Obama wins it represents a drastic change in many ways, not the least of which being the way Presidential campaigns are executed. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with that for some reason.

by JDF 2008-03-13 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

I suspect that what you write is true, though I hope it isn't.  I keep telling myself that the echo chamber here blows things way out of proportion and that it represents a miniscule fraction of the electorate.  I know that I would be less allied to Obama if I didn't keep seeing all of the stupid and baseless attacks leveled against him here.  These have done as much to firm up my support as anything.  Some of the recommended diaries are just as bad as anything in freeperville, if not worse.

by rfahey22 2008-03-13 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

agreed.  Some of the comments here are just scary, with no basis in reality at all.  I understand that a lot of people here want Hillary to win, but let's try to be honest Democrats.

by power of truth 2008-03-14 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

The delegates will be seated as is once Hillary drops out and endorses Obama. That's simply a fact. If she does not drop and really wants to fight this in the convention, it's anybody's guess. But I wouldn't be surprised if this ends even before Pennsylvania.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

I wish you were right, but barring some very interesting pressure OR backroom deal it isn't going to happen.

by JDF 2008-03-13 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

The pressure will come, I'm quite sure. Or more hopeful than sure, I admit. But I think it is the only option apart from a convention fight, and I think nobody wants that. Obama is not going to drop out with a pledged delegate lead in his back. So it is up to the superdelegates and the Clinton campaign. And I believe in the end they will do the right thing.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

You have faith Clinton will do the right thing? I certainly don't. I think she feels entitled to the presidency and she will destroy Obama to get there, regardless of the damage to the party.

by godemsin08 2008-03-13 05:30PM | 0 recs
except that Hillary leads McCain

in FL

by DiamondJay 2008-03-13 03:16PM | 0 recs
According To What Poll?

Rasmussen has her down by 6%.

by HatchInBrooklyn 2008-03-13 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...
I really love how the Hillary supporters seem to think that a state filled with retired folk (many Military ) and an active voting Cuban population  are going to pick Hillary over a 73- year old , Vietnam Veteran who is all about posturing  towards Cuba!
I rather take my chances with the new voters, and the students any day.
by xodus1914 2008-03-13 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

Mark Penn is a post and I wish he would go away.  But he's right about this.  Hillary's supporters are pissed I am, my family & friends.  If that fancy suit wins I'll stay home or go independent.  But I refuse to vote for someone who shows no respect for women, elders, single moms etc etc.

by bradydundee 2008-03-13 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

Just what are you referring to? Are you accusing Obama of "showing no respect for women, elders, single moms etc?" If that's your accusation, prove it.

And then compare it honestly to Clinton's disrespect for Democrats in red states, caucuses, and all of the other groups she has dismissed or belittled.

by anoregonreader 2008-03-13 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

LOL - does he kill baby seals and abuse puppies as well?

by Rockville Liberal 2008-03-13 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

i hear he breaks into peoples houses to steal their fried chickens.

seriously.... i hear my dogs freaking out.

by theninjagoddess 2008-03-13 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

Obama was raised by a single mother, and I've heard him say nothing but respectful things about them. You should quit drinking the koolaid.

by godemsin08 2008-03-13 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

I know women, elders, and single moms who are very active Obama volunteers. They feel very respected.

Please, take the time to listen to one or two of his town halls and look at the policies outlined on his website before you go calling him a fancy suit. Or just respect that you don't get to be president of the Harvard Law Review, or a constitutional law professor, as just an empty suit.

You may not like his level of experience compared to Hillary's, and that's fine. But if he's just a fancy suit, what would you have called Bill Clinton in 1992, with far less to his credit?

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-13 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

Once Obama is the presumptive nominee and has a large enough delegate lead he will be able to sit the flawed delegates from the early votes in MI and FL.  Even getting 0 from Michigan.  It won't matter at that point.

by Skaje 2008-03-13 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

Right, because those people are soooo stupid.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-13 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

No, they're not stupid.  They don't want more Republican leadership for our county.  Period.  This whole flapping of the hands about them staying home this fall is b.s. and you know it.  It's just a tactic to try and get your candidate elected.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-13 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

I live in Mi and things here are bad. Many, many people in this State blame our Dem. Gov. Granholm.  They don't look past her. I blame it on Bush trying to keep this State down to turn voters. This State may well go red in Nov. DeVos is alive and well here and working behind the scenes. Our Dems. have got to let this State re-vote. I don't want DeVoss as Gov.

by owllwoman 2008-03-13 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

FL and MI obstructed themselves... Obama is not to blame here.

If they hadn't jumped the gun on the primary season, they could've had a 30% bonus in delegates now, and they would've been hugely important (and there would be no mysterious unresolved questions about what's going on with the race).  This is 100% their doing.

There's also not much evidence that these primaries will effect their participation in November.

by leshrac55 2008-03-13 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

I blame Fl. Gov. Crist for not letting the Dems move the date.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-13 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

The dems were very complicit in this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-loew e/no-seats-for-you_b_91109.html

Pertinent info:

"The bill that would officially move the primary to January passed the State Senate with a vote of 37-2. A week later, the State House passed with bill unanimously, 118-0. In no uncertain terms, this was a bipartisan effort. Then in June, the Florida Democratic Central Committee voted unanimously to support the early primary. The elected officials and party members that make up the Florida superdelegate pool no doubt played integral roles in violating national party rules."

by leshrac55 2008-03-13 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he can win the general...

They couldn't afford not to pass the bill. It included authorization for new voting machines. Without them, Florida couldn't have participated in the General Election; there were time constraints.

There may be some complicity here, but overall, the Republicans gamed the system.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-13 08:50PM | 0 recs
Is it really big news

When a primary candidate's campaign manager says the other candidate can't win in the general election?  Big enough that the election needs to be "put to a stop" because of it?

Well, OK, I'll agree, but if the sun "shocks the world" by coming up in the East tomorrow morning, then the election's back on?  Deal?

In other words, calm down and grab a little perspective.  Campaign managers say things like "my candidate can win and yours can't".  It's their job, it's perfectly normal, and it's perfectly ordinary.

Jeez, if you Obama guys don't have an outrage for breakfast, you're sure to cook one up at some point during the day. . . .

by Trickster 2008-03-13 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign
Did you look at those numbers? Nobody cares. The big states that a Dem can win, Obama or Hillary will win. The ones no Dem can win(Tex) no Dem will win. It's more Clinton trickery to keep bringing up big states. Flim-flam.
by Becky G 2008-03-13 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

Except that Texas appears to be in play right now and despite a close Clinton win there it appears as though Obama would be more capable of carrying it in the fall.

None of this is to say he WILL carry it. But he will compete there and make McCain fight for it. Texas is a big state AND an expensive state to campaign in...it will be a drain on McCain's finances that he won't likely handle well.

by JDF 2008-03-13 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

You know, between Penn, Axelrod, and SUSA it seems we know how this whole thing is going to play out. Why not save some money and voters time and roll up the carpet. Let Hillary and Obama thumbwrestle for the top of the ticket and swear them in April 1.

I mean jeez, everyone is talking like the every card is played an every vote is cast. Tiresome.

by hctb 2008-03-13 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

Well, how does Camp Obama intend to win over the hard core Hillary supporters. Every day we seem to get more of them truly pissed at the Obama folks. Over at The Confluence, Riverdaughter has stated that she will sit the election out if Hillary is not the nominee. This is a rapidly growing pro Hillary blog. The sentimate seems to be that Hillary's people are so fed up right now, they will sit this one out. Polls show something like up to 30% of her supporters will not vote for Obama.

by DaleA 2008-03-13 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

I'd be mad if someone rained on my Coronation, too.

by mikeinsf 2008-03-13 03:08PM | 0 recs
Obama's running as Mr. Inevitable now

That strategy didn't work out so well for Hillary.  Maybe he's got the magic formula, but there are a few stumbling blocks.  For starters he needs to find a graceful way to throw Rev. Wright overboard.

by Upstate Dem 2008-03-13 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

If some Hillary supporters are so shallow as to not support to Democratic nominee, well, I say to heck with them.  When McCain attacks Iran or Syria, they will only have themselves to blame.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-03-13 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

This comment and plenty of like comments is why Obama will not win.  When you tell people in your own primary that you don't want or need their support, when you say we don't need the base of the democratic party to win, you defeat your candidate before he even gets the nomination.  It is really a losing strategy, you should reconsider this tactic, Hillary supporters were not your enemy but you insisted that anyone who did not worship Obama was just another person for you to throw under the Obama bus, this will ruin his chances this fall.  There are a lot of Hillary supporters that feel if Obama is the nominee, thy just may not vote for him, now it may be that they won't vote for McCain either but with the margins that dems win with you cannot afford to lose voters.

by democrat voter 2008-03-13 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign
Nobody's saying they don't need the democratic base of the party, they're just saying they don't need the insignificant percentage of poor sports who say they will "take their ball and go home" rather than support the eventual nominee.
And I am speaking generally, as both campaigns have supporters such as these.  
To them I say:
GOOD RIDDANCE!
by haystax calhoun 2008-03-13 04:55PM | 0 recs
It's Democrat(IC) voter

even your username supports mccain.  so sad.

by Ajax the Greater 2008-03-13 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

Just like it stopped Hillary from winning Texas, for instance? She made it perfectly clear that we were an irrelevant state before the primary. She still won the primary; not the caucus, but the primary.

Be careful who you paint with that brush. The Clinton campaign has told quite a number of states, and all the voters in them, that they're irrelevant and don't matter.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-13 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

No, 30% of them will not sit out.  I would guess that maybe 5% of them, the jerks and assholes, who are too stubborn to see that 3/4 of what you want is better then nothing, might.

Most everyone else will come around.  I mean, look how many Republicans said they'd sit out if McCain was the nominee.  Something like half of them!  And they've come around for the most part.  The Dems will too.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-13 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

See comment above, I don't like being called names, won't make me vote for your candidate either.  Won't win him the WH.  You make a big mistake here.

by democrat voter 2008-03-13 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

You don't really get a lot of respect for playing a victim on a blog. Supporters of both candidates use inappropriate language and go to any lengths in smearing their opponent.

If I would base my judgment of Hillary on her supporters on this blog, I wouldn't vote for her in a thousand years. But I don't. And you shouldn't either.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 04:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

Thanks.  That needed to be said.

by haystax calhoun 2008-03-13 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

Obama's problems are worse than that. Not only will some of Clinton's supporters sit it out some will vote for McCain. It will not only be sour grapes. Some will vote for McCain because they see Obama as too inexperienced. He will have a big problem with seniors and working-class whites.

If Obama is the nominee and he chooses not to put Clinton on the ticket or if she refuses his offer, he will almost surely lose the election. He has way too much baggage that I didn't even know about until recently. I know Clinton got smacked down for saying it, but he really is a roll of the dice.

McCain will get a lot of the working-class white vote Obama is having a hard time securing.

by mmorang 2008-03-13 04:57PM | 0 recs
Riverdaughter said WHAT!!?!?!

ZOMG! We're so screwed! Thank you for telling me that. Dudes, we gotta get behind Clinton now. Riverdaughter!!!! She's got a rapidly growing pro-Hillary blog! If it keeps growing at this rapid pace, who knows, it could become the Biggest Blog EVAR!!!

by Etchasketchist 2008-03-13 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

And what exactly has Sen. Obama done to deserve this? Apart from standing in Hillary's way to the White House, which is not exactly a good reason?

by marcotom 2008-03-13 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

So...because one side throws a fit the other side should capitulate?  This is what we've been reduced to?

by rfahey22 2008-03-13 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

Wow, and a lot of people on Kos say the same thing about Hillary, huh, which blog is larger.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-13 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

The need is for healing. This is not helping.

by DaleA 2008-03-13 04:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

There are a lot of hardcore Clinton supporters true, but only the ones who a.) take campaigns incredibly personally and b.) are not hardcore Dems as well aren't going to come home by November. That won't be a large enough number to make a difference and the whole reason people are suggesting it could be is to scare us.

You'll all get over it once the General Election starts. You'll remember that you care about what happens to the Supreme Court and what happens to our soldiers in Iraq more than you care about the way this Primary went.

by JDF 2008-03-13 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

Please give me the link to the site.

by mmorang 2008-03-13 05:41PM | 0 recs
I can understand that

This was Hillary's year.  Finally, the United States was destined to have a female president.

And then Obama showed up...the freshman senator with no experience and all of his pretty words.  Why couldn't he see that the right move was to stand aside for Hillary and run in 2016?  He'd have the experience and national name recognition, and the path to the White House would be a cakewalk.  Everyone would have been happy.

But no, he was arrogant enough to think he could win this year.  Surprise, surprise, he was right.

Now all the Hillary supporters look at the landscape and figure they might have a different decision to make.  If it comes down to it, do they support Obama, or sit it out so they can vote for Hillary in 2012?  Afterall, that will DEFINITELY be her year, right?

by Boshwok840 2008-03-14 01:16PM | 0 recs
"Rezko...na na na"

"Rezko, Rezko, Rezko". One would think that after all the silly witch hunts the Clintons went through in the nineties, their supporters would avoid using the same kind of unsubstantiated smears on another Democrat.

by mikeinsf 2008-03-13 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

What is left for Clinton supporters? When will they acknowledge the obvious, that Hillary is on a kamikaze mission against the Democratic Party?

Chait:
"Clinton] needs to convince the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to split for her by about a 2-to-1 margin. The only way she can get a split like that is if she can persuasively argue that Obama is unelectable. And the only way she can do that is to make him unelectable. Some people have treated this as an unfortunate byproduct of Clinton's decision to continue her campaign. It's actually a central element of the strategy. Penn is already saying he's unelectable. It's not true, but by the time the convention rolls around, it may well be."

by andrewbellinger 2008-03-13 03:08PM | 0 recs
Don't Assume "Old" Dems will be there

You and Ambinder are assuming that Obama will get the votes of traditionally loyal Democrats, like older voters and women.  Don't assume that.  I'm so angry now that my fundamental doubts about Obama have blossomed into full-fledged opposition, and as a Florida Democrat, as well as a women in my 50's, Obama has simply lost me and many others like me.  He doesn't speak to issues I care about, and he and his supporters have repeatedly said (a) I have no right to have any doubts about him and his positions (I know and have read Austin Goolsbee, and I don't trust him or Obama on Social Security and trade and labor issues),  (b) if I don't like him, it's because I'm a racist, and (c) old people like me don't much matter anyway.  If he continues to alienate faithful Democrats like me, how can you seriously argue that he will have a chance in November?  I will never vote Republican - but I will stay home if I'm sufficiently dubious about Obama and his crew, and pissed off at his dismissal of voters like me.  

by geordie 2008-03-13 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't Assume "Old" Dems

Sitting this one out is as bad as voting for McCain.  It's certainly your right to express your opinion and not vote, but I will be ready to blame peoplke like you when President McCain keeps us in Iraq for 100 years.  Bleh.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-03-13 03:20PM | 0 recs
Stages of grief

Anger is one of them. There are others. You will get over it. I know that me telling you that you will get over it is just going to make you angrier, but trust me, it's all part of the process.

by Etchasketchist 2008-03-13 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Stages of grief

Really?  Who are you to tell me what I will or won't get over?  More importantly, your attitude is exactly what will end up losing this for Obama in November - the idea that you can take millions of Democrats for granted because we have no where else to go.  Well, if I think he'll be about as bad as McCain on issues I really care about - Social Security, for example - why shouldn't I work for a strongly Democratic House and Senate, and say the hell with the White House?  The biggest danger to Social Security is a president who's nominally a Democrat, but actually doesn't support the idea of social insurance (which describes Austin Goolsbee, his chief advisor on it, pretty well) - so perhaps I'd rather have an actual Republican who can be stopped by the Congress.

I've been voting since 1972 - I have a pretty fair idea of what I can get over and what I can't.

by geordie 2008-03-13 04:05PM | 0 recs
I'll tell you who I am.

I'm some guy on the internet. Who are you?

by Etchasketchist 2008-03-13 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Stages of grief

Can you point me to an actual statement by Obama that makes him unelectable to you? I mean a quote, not some hearsay. It is simply a fact that Clinton and Obama agree on about 99% of all issues.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Stages of grief

How about because if people in your demographics sit this one out and McCain wins we lose the Supreme Court of the next 30 years or so... and despite what you say, I believe that is important enough to bring most of your demographic home come November.

by JDF 2008-03-13 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Stages of grief

I've had the pleasure of listening to Obama in a Town Hall meeting, where he spoke at length and passionately about Social Security. I understand that you know Goolsbee's writings better than I do, but I know what Obama's said himself perhaps better than you do.

It's possible that Obama is a stealth candidate for the other side. It's also possible that Clinton is; of the two; the biggest erosions to the social safety net in this country came on Bill's watch.

I certainly feel Obama's policy proposals for Social Security are far more concrete and detailed than are Clinton's. You are of course welcome to differ.

Might it be possible that you believe that Obama is taking you for granted because you believe Hillary Clinton, and that's what she's telling you, over and over? Obama is telling you that everyone matters; the new voters and the long-time voters, young people and old people, AA's and whites and Asians and Latinos and everyone else. But Hillary Clinton is telling you that Obama doesn't think you matter. Who is a better spokesman for what Obama thinks: himself or Hillary Clinton? Which campaign employs a strategist whose stated philosophy of campaigns is to divide people into smaller and smaller groups and pit them against each other, then add up the groups to get 50% + 1? Which candidate's stated philosophy is that we all, every one of us, need to work together to get things done?

As for the millions of voters lost argument... that would be awful and a tragedy. Yet, if that's so, what can you say to the counterargument that there are even larger numbers of passionate Obama supporters who will be absolutely outraged beyond words if he wins the pledged delegate count and the popular vote in fair and open elections and is not the nominee of the party who held those elections.

Speaking frankly, and this is not intended as an insult: why should someone care more if you're upset that your chosen candidate, who has not won more pledged delegates, states, popular votes, caucuses, red states, blue states, purple states, big states, small states, or anything else, does not get the nomination, than Obama supporters should be if their candidate who has thus far done all of those things does not get the nomination?

Why should the superdelegates disenfranchise what amounts to the vast majority of the next generation of Democratic leaders and activists in favor of a candidate who has done less well in the voting?

I don't want you to be upset. I don't want you to pick up your toys and go home. I don't want you to believe nasty things about Barack Obama and his plans for the nation. You can; it's your right. But I hope you'll reconsider.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-13 09:41PM | 0 recs
I'm not sure why you feel this way

I can't think of anything that Obama has done to disrespect women or older people.

I have no doubt some of his more, um, vocal supporters have gotten riled up and said some stupid things - but so have Hillary's.  It's wrong to pin the supporters' worst comments on the candidates.

If he's the nominee, I hope you'll give him another look.  I think you'll find he shares a lot of your values.  

by TL 2008-03-13 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't Assume "Old" Dems

Maybe you should provide some evidence for these claims.  Just because you heard these rumors from someone, somewhere doesn't make them so.  The Internet can paint quite the distorted picture of a candidate.

by rfahey22 2008-03-13 04:04PM | 0 recs
"Old" Dems will be there

And you Ferraro Democrats assume loyal democrats think like you do. They don't. They're loyal democrats.

by EMTP democrat 2008-03-13 04:07PM | 0 recs
We lose then

Well, if this is true were screwed, because Hillary's in the exact same situation with African Americans and young people.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-13 04:25PM | 0 recs
Easy answer

Q.But what exactly is holding Obama back from winning the big states?

A.Hillary Clinton.

She's a pretty good candidate in big blue states.

In the rest of the country she tends to get beat by big margins.

But why worry about these big states? Do you think California's going to McCain? New York?

by Etchasketchist 2008-03-13 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Easy answer

Agreed 100%.

Those Clinton supporters who fake bewilderment on why Obama is not able to win big blue states do not seem to agree with me that Hillary Clinton is actually a very good candidate with a lot of merits. I still like Obama better on the issues and on other fronts and he is still winning in all categories, but one shouldn't discount Hillary Clinton. She is a strong candidate and will be remembered as such.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 03:37PM | 0 recs
Indeed

She's run an impressive, historical but ultimately flawed and inadequate campaign. I think those flaws are mostly strategic and personnel related. My analysis: if she'd run in 2004, she would've cleaned Kerry's clock and saved America from 4 more years of Bush. She'd have served two terms and averaged 65+ approval ratings. But she just waited too long and someone better came along. And even then, she could've beaten Obama if she'd made a few different decisions. All the superficial outrage-of-the-day stuff is not a big deal (although a little tonal modulation and consistency would help her) compared to the structural problems with her campaign. I.E. relying on big, maxed out donations. Not having a plan past Super Tuesday. Not competing in smaller states. Relying on name-recognition and TV advertising instead of grassroots organizing. Clinton supporters should focus on how to over come those flaws in her campaign, instead of trying to drag down Barack Obama or whining about what outrageous thing so-and-so said on the TV or in the intertubes.

by Etchasketchist 2008-03-13 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Indeed
That's it. in a nutshell.
Not planning past Super Tuesday will kill any campaign.
To this note, such arrogance a good president it does not make.
by xodus1914 2008-03-13 08:15PM | 0 recs
Yes, McCain can win here in California and

in New Jersey and in Washington. Californians view our Republican governor and McCain as moderate. He could easily beat Obama here. He couldn't beat Clinton/Obama.

Those big states that Obama isn't winning may not go for him in the general election either.

Why are people ignoring how poorly Obama is doing among working-class whites? That is a very important demographic. Penn is only pointing out the truth but nobody wants to hear it.

by mmorang 2008-03-13 03:59PM | 0 recs
Bzzzzt!

Wrong answer.

McCain will not win California. Arnold is Arnold. McCain is short and ugly and old and nobody likes him.

McCain won't win Washington and he won't win New Jersey.

I know Mark Penn told you something, but that doesn't make it true.

by Etchasketchist 2008-03-13 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, McCain can win here in California and

So if Washingiton is a concern, why would Hillary be the solution? She lost badly there.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-13 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, McCain can win here in California and

Clinton is moving up in the polls and Obama is moving down. I believe things will be clearer for people in 4 to 6 weeks. Lets see how each candidate is doing then.

by mmorang 2008-03-13 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, McCain can win here in California and

Yes, please tell McCain that so he can spend his money there.  I beg you.

by rfahey22 2008-03-13 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Why would The Clintons want to make Obama "unelectable" should he become the nominee?

Because if Obama becomes president, The Clintons (and their DLC) will no longer be sole proprietors of the Democratic Party.

Better to rule a defeated party than none at all.

by Kobi 2008-03-13 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Ya know, that's something I've never understood about Clinton's progressive supporters.  She's DLC.  The DLC hates anything left of center.  It just dosen't compute.  All that said, though, I'd still support her in the general against McCain.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-03-13 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

You make the common error about the Clintons. Bill Clinton was way to the left of the DLC. He was not there first or second choice in 1992, it was Chuck Rob and Paul Songus (or however you spell his name).

The Clintons are progressives. They took the country as far to the left as they could at the time. Ross Perot made things more difficult. They shifted the tax burden from the middle-class to the rich. That was HUGE and it wasn't easy.

You Obama supporters should stop taking a dump on the Clintons. You really are turning a lot of potential supporter away.

by mmorang 2008-03-13 05:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Sorry; having none of it. This was an issue in the party long before anyone on the national scene knew Barack Obama's name. This was a big issue in 2000, when Al Gore ran away from Bill Clinton; this was a bigger issue in 2004. This was a big issue in the 90's, too, when the Democrats lost control of the Congress.

The original Clinton health care plan was in no way progressive (nor is the current one, nor is Obama's in particular). It was a corporatist giveaway.

Clinton's 180 on gay rights in the military was not progressive politics. I've heard it said "it was the best he could do". Hogwash. That's executive order territory. Had he not done that, we wouldn't have drummed out most of the Arabic linguists in the military right when we needed them.

Welfare reform was needed, I'll grant that. But Clinton's was in no way progressive; it was centrist DLC politics all the way.

Signing the Defense of Marriage Act was as unprogressive as you get. How in the world can that be defended as someone well to the left of the DLC? And Hillary Clinton has already stated that she does not want it repealed! In what world is that progressive politics?

The late 90's deregulation effort that Clinton went along with gave us Enron. Remember that all of the necessary legal framework for Enron was set up under Clinton, and a great deal of it by executive order. Progressive?

I don't buy it. "[We] Obama supporters" are just saying what everyone in the party except the DLC and Clintons have been saying for 15 years. This has nothing to do with Obama.

Clinton-style corporatist special-interest-funded politics is not what we need in 2008. We want Clinton supporters, very much. We want them to realize that Washington does not have to run on interparty hatred and lobbyist money.

And if what you're saying is right, that most Clinton supporters are really progressives who support Bill Clinton because they believe him to be a progressive who was stymied by Congress and the situation at the time, you can relax. Obama will win over those supporters. They want what he wants, after all.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-13 09:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Bill Clinton was the chair of the DLC from 1990 to 1991.  I don't think that I need to present any addtional evidence to prove his ties.  Don't get me wring, though, I still really like the guy.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-03-14 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

He had well documented ties to them but he was to DLC's left. The reason for the DLC was to help the Democrats capture the Whitehouse. Clinton made some political compromises like all politicians do, but he got most of the big issues right.

Done Ask Don't Tell, is a perfect example of a compromise. No, he didn't sacrafice a second term for a bolder change in the military. But he did advance the ball on a tough issue. It did not come without a political cost. There was no net upside politically speaking.

by mmorang 2008-03-14 11:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

As an Obama supporter, I happen to disagree with you. The Clintons owe a lot to the Democratic party and vice versa. They will help healing the party and they will not let the us down - even if they will and have come very close to the line, they won't cross it.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam


As an Obama supporter, I happen to disagree with you. The Clintons owe a lot to the Democratic party and vice versa. They will help healing the party and they will not let the us down - even if they will and have come very close to the line, they won't cross it.

The Clintons act as if it's the other way around -- that the party owes THEM.

Remember the strategy of "triangulation"? That was Bill Clinton playing ball with GOP against his own party.

And when did Clinton ever help the Democratic Party? He in fact pushed it to disaster for a decade.

So don't talk about The Clintons doing what's best for the party -- especially when they've been doing what's bad for the party for months in this campaign alone.

by Kobi 2008-03-13 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Look, you are not helping. That is your opinion and so be it. But if you state it in such a way, you will not win the respect of any Clinton supporter and you will continue to play a part in the divisiveness that seems to be celebrated so much on this blog -- with a quick lock at the rec' diaries list, I have to say that Clinton supporters play the main role in this but you are not helping either.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

It is only helpful to The Clintons to pretend that their political skullduggery  -- even against their own party and those in it -- doesn't exist, or that they have any interests other than their own at heart.

It's history that is relevant to today.

by Kobi 2008-03-13 04:42PM | 0 recs
Funny thing about that

For Markos Moulitsas the New Republic has always been the locus of all DLC evil.  Now it's pretty much Obama Central.  Strange bedfellows indeed.

by Upstate Dem 2008-03-13 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

"Better to rule a defeated party than none at all."

Exactly. Just the other day, the Clinton campaign leaked the text of Hilary's pep talk for her senior staffers after the two 24-point blowouts last week:

5 Now are our brows bound with victorious wreaths,
Our bruised arms hung up for monuments,
Our stern alarums chang'd to merry meetings,
Our dreadful marches to delightful measures.
Grim-visag'd War hath smooth'd his wrinkled front;
10 And now, in stead of mounting barbed steeds
To fright the souls of fearful adversaries,
He capers nimbly in a lady's chamber
To the lascivious pleasing of a lute.
But I, that am not shap'd for sportive tricks,
15 Nor made to court an amorous looking-glass;
I, that am rudely stamp'd and want love's majesty
To strut before a wanton ambling nymph;
I, that am curtail'd of this fair proportion,
Cheated of feature by dissembling nature,
20 Deform'd, unfinish'd, sent before my time
Into this breathing world scarce half made up,
And that so lamely and unfashionable
That dogs bark at me as I halt by them-
Why I, (in this weak piping time of peace)
25 Have no delight to pass away the time,
Unless to see my shadow in the sun
And descant on my own deformity.
And therefore since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days,
30 I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasure of these days.

Clinton/Gloucester '08!

by EMTP democrat 2008-03-13 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

So, Hillary saw this from her days at Wellesley, huh?  Is her being a woman the deformity? And Bill is her husband/brother of whom she is so jealous?  Obama is Edward 5? So that makes him Bill Clinton's successor? How has Hillary cajoled the rightful successors from taking power?

C'mon. give me your Hillary as Richard 3 story.  I don't really see it.

by hctb 2008-03-13 04:36PM | 0 recs
Alternate hypothesis

From this statement and many others, I infer that Mark Penn is an idiot.

by Purplepeople 2008-03-13 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Alternate hypothesis

Neither Mark Penn nor Gerry Ferraro were fired. From this I infer Hillary Clinton is another politician who values loyalty over competence.

by EMTP democrat 2008-03-13 04:12PM | 0 recs
Here's Where I think You're Wrong

If you do a little due-dilligence, Obama makes the Clintons look like angels. The picture that Republicans can paint is really amazing.

The polls showing Obama doing well are current snapshots and do not have factored in all the attacks Obama will be receiving from the GOP and their friends. Take an honest look at what the GOP has to define Obama.

Specifically, I'm talking about all the statements from Obama's pastor and mentor, like "We shouldn't be saying God Bless America, we should be saying God Damn America". He also said that the attacks on 911 was America's fault, the chickens coming home to roost. Add to that the fact that Obama has been linked to American terrorists who have set off bombs in America and refuse to apoligize. They will play that and the one of his wife saying she just became really proud of America for the first time. Of course, there's more.

Can Obama win? Sure, of course. But there are good reasons to think he could lose in a landslide. In the last two contests, he has performed poorly among working-class whites. Many polls show McCain competitive in blue states.

Just because it didn't have legs in the primaies doesn't mean it won't be a big deal in the general election.

I think the Republicans have quite a picture to paint of Obama, and it is devastating in its totality. How is pointing the obvious out hurting the party? Wouldn't it be worse not to point it out and lose big?

Are you telling me that Obama's people have never said anything similar about Clinton's chance of winning. I think Obama himself has made plenty of comments about how we need a candidate who can really differentiate themselves from McCain, and not someone who also voted for the war. Why is Clinton held to a different standard?

by mmorang 2008-03-13 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's Where I think You're Wrong

Can I summarize:

1. Guilt by association - that is something neither Clinton nor McCain lack in any way, the question is just who is bringing it up and trying to play it for political gain. I sincerely believe it is a dirty strategy and will not win too many votes in the end.

2. Obama is unelectable because the future as you predict in your biased world-view says so - I like polls better, they are inaccurate but at least unbiased. In my world he wins, in yours he loses, that sums up to zero.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's Where I think You're Wrong

polls are unbiased? To be fair, pretty much everything in the GE has them all in the ME except the SUSA which has +10 states within the ME.

by hctb 2008-03-13 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's Where I think You're Wrong

Polls are unbiased. I didn't say that polls show that Obama is cruising to victory and Clinton is sure to lose or anything like that. But they show a tendency, namely
a) both are electable
b) Obama does slightly better against McCain

They certainly don't support the notion that somehow Obama is unelectable simply because some poster is so deluded in his support for Hillary that he cannot ever imagine that people actually don't see things as he/she does and prefer Obama to Hillary.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's Where I think You're Wrong

There is no different standard - Penn is saying that Obama CANNOT win.  I highly doubt that any of Obama's advisors have made the same claim.

by rfahey22 2008-03-13 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Here's Where I think You're Wrong

"If you do a little due-dilligence, Obama makes the Clintons look like angels."

If you believe that, you're doing something a lot strong than "dilligence."

by EMTP democrat 2008-03-13 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

Until Obama has been tested by the 527's, how can you draw any conclusions about his electability?  My concern is that the Republican smear machine will drive his negatives into the stratosphere, and he's DOA by election day (ala the Dukakus disaster which I had the misfortune to witness first hand).  I don't buy the argument that he's already been tested by Clinton (the stuff they're throwing at him is pretty lame compared to what's coming in the GE).

by dwmorris 2008-03-13 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

So what is coming in the GE?

by marcotom 2008-03-13 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn electability rebutal
If you hold a gun to my head ...
I'd have to say McCain runs an unprecedented hyper-negative campaign because he has no other choice (too old, too many issues with his base, Bush albatross around his neck, more wars - less jobs frame, etc.).  If Hillary is the nominee, she probably wins ugly.  If Obama is the nominee, all bets are off.  Very small chance the country rallies around him and he wins big.  More likely (call me a cynic), politics-as-usual kicks in (driven by the MSM) and he loses in a landslide, fracturing the traditional Democratic coalition for several election cycles.
by dwmorris 2008-03-13 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn electability rebutal

Obama could win ugly too- this is something you don't consider.

He knows how to sling it with the best of them and probably will come the GE.

My guess is they go all out after each other and drive both of their negatives sky high... and then Obama wins because he has shown he is able to tap into new pools of voters- this is ability McCain will not likely figure out by November.

by JDF 2008-03-13 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn electability rebutal

Maybe Obama wins ugly, but once he goes negative he starts to look like just another politician with a really good speach writer.  I just don't see how he can have it both ways.  He also risks hemoraging older voters and latinos.

by dwmorris 2008-03-13 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn electability rebutal

Two groups that he is not strong with anyway? Those who like him, or are die hard democrats will stick all the way through election day, those who aren't he risks losing anyway.

What he can't do is sit still take whatever McCain throws at him.

by JDF 2008-03-13 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn electability rebutal

I'm not so sure McCain is going to run a hyper-negative campaign. I doubt he will bring up race and Retzko, for example. This old guy actually has some principles, even if his views are deeply flawed and dangerous for the country. I happened to watch how he defended Obama against right-wing Hussein-shouting nuts WITHOUT being put under pressure to do so by anybody - heck, he was even attacked by other nuts for doing it!

But anyways, he can't possible win with a positive campaign, so he might go negative in the end. I think Obama can handle that pretty well too. I have no reason to believe he could handle it any less than the Clinton campaign could.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn electability rebutal

I think he will go negative in the end but not in an evil way...the 527's on the other hand are going to do everything they can to smear him (or Hillary)

I had a conservative Republican aquaintance ask me the other day how I could support anyone with the name Hussein and said that they have "proof" that Obama is a Muslim plant. We ARE going to be dealing with these attacks. The key is that we deal with them together, and with dignity.

by JDF 2008-03-13 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn electability rebutal

I dont think McCain has to run a hypernegative campaign--others will run it for him. Or have you forgotten how "swiftboating" came about??

I dont think McCain himself has to run a Willie Horton. It will happen.

by hctb 2008-03-13 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

I don't buy that Clinton has been "vetted."  Who knows what are in her tax returns from the past eight years.  There must be some reason that they haven't been released.

Now, I'm not saying that I wish for more tabloid journalism fodder from either candidate, but it's dishonest to say that Clinton has proven she's impervious to right-wing attacks.  That simply is not a credible measure when comparing these two candidates.  

by rfahey22 2008-03-13 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal
I think there is a difference between impervious and  vetted, RFahey. Clinton has a floor and a ceiling. It is her weakness against Obama but it is her strength as well. I doubt there is some smoking gun anywhere that is going to seem worse than the relentless hammering of whitewater, travelgate, Lewinsky, etc.  He negatives do not have anywhere to go.
Obama's numbers are moving because we are learning more about him. Some we like, some we dont. We already know those things about Clinton. She is a known entity.
by hctb 2008-03-13 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

I agree with your considerations about Hillary, she is a known entity and Obama less so, which gives him more potential on both sides.

But, in fact, her negatives are at 49% and if they even go up by two more percentage points we are in big trouble. It's also called the 50%+1 strategy and it has not served us well in the past.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

The 50%+1 strategy hasn't served us well at the POTUS-level only because we lost.  If Brazille, et al. hadn't blown the 2000 election (esp. mismanaging the Florida recount controversy), we'd be sitting on top of a 16 year run in the White House and a much different world.

by dwmorris 2008-03-13 05:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

Yes, but her ceiling is unacceptably low, at least in my opinion.  I understand that there is a demographic out there that supports Clinton hard-core, for whatever reason, but that is simply not a majority of the electorate.  I think that she would have a much more difficult time winning the presidency.  She would be unable to expand the electoral map and would be forced to wage a campaign that was almost entirely spent on the defensive, clinging to the states that she needed to win so that she could barely cross the EV hurdle.  That's simply too high a risk.  I would rather go with a candidate who expands the map than contracts it.

by rfahey22 2008-03-13 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

You know that this is not true. I will not rehash. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true.

1. Show me evidence of coattails for either.

2. The SUSA poll shows pickups on both sides and +10 states in the ME.

3. They both have weaknesses.

4. She does win a majority of likely voters over McCain. Consistently.

If you want to defend Obama without any consideration of possible weaknesses of his candidacy (i.e. the likely rise of his negatives in the next 10 months), that is fine with me. We can keep talking about Hillary. But, I do think it exhibits a hubris that doesn't serve people well in politics.

by hctb 2008-03-13 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

I agree that her ceiling is low.  But does it really matter against McCain?  He has his own ceiling problem.

The map expanding thesis is just a subset of the electability issue.  Same point.  I don't see how you can draw any conclusions about his ability to expand the map until he has been tested by the Rebublicans.

If he gets slaughtered in the GE, his efforts to compete in the traditional red states will be irrelevant.

by dwmorris 2008-03-13 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

I agree with you DW but I wonder where that leaves us? If we have no reasonable evidence about electability, on what basis should we be arguing about their differences?

by hctb 2008-03-13 04:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

The way I look at it is this.  The Republican smear machine has spent decades and tens of millions of dollars attacking the Clintons.  Hillary has been accussed of everything from murder to being a closeted lesbian (not that I would have anything against that).  Most people that are living above ground have heard it all and have already made up their minds about her vis-a-vis the mudslinging stuff.  Obama still has to go through this.  In addition, the Republicans will undoubtedly give Michelle the special "Hillary treatment" just for good measure.  Bottom line - Clinton's negatives are probably stable.  I don't buy the argument that she hasn't been vetted since 2000.  It just doesn't matter.

by dwmorris 2008-03-13 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

We are in agreement about Clinton.  I hadn't thought about what we look forward to with Michelle-- that is going to suck. (She shows alot of similarities to Hillary in 1992.) She hasn't gotten it yet and they went after Hillary pretty early in 1992. I am really not in the mood for the misogynist media to pivot toward Michelle.

by hctb 2008-03-13 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

This is almost certainly on the horizon for the GE.  I really don't see how they white-wash her big raise, which then opens up other questions about her narrative.

by dwmorris 2008-03-13 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

See, this is something I don't by this "she fought the machine and won" attitude, she didn't by any measure win, she's loathed by nearly 50% of America, and only got elected by running against a nobody in one on the liberalest states in America.

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-13 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn electability rebutal

I don't mean to imply that she won against the machine.  All I'm saying is she's still standing ... and has inspired a reasonably passionate base amoung some demographic groups.  These folks are probably unlikely to leave her in the GE.

by dwmorris 2008-03-13 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

One thing that your analysis disregards is new voters.  I understand that Democrats who were around in the '90s have come to terms with the Clintons, but whether independents and Democratic voters who have come of age since that time (or simply did not participate until now) are comfortable with them is an entirely different question.  Many of the people we may need to rely on in the fall may not even be aware of some of the uglier rumors about the Clintons.  At least, you haven't addressed that issue.  It's clear that Clinton has been vetted in your eyes, but it's possible that other voters' perspectives may be more important to our chances in the fall.

by rfahey22 2008-03-13 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

Uh? I thin nonvoters are aware of the hideous scandal mongering during the Clinton administration.  If you mean young voters-- they were 11 years old at the youngest. Are there any polls of under 25s where a good proportion could not identify Lewinsky? The last I paid attention to was the PCT in 2006. I think you are making an argument about imaginary voters.

We agree that Clinton is far more known than Obama (good an bad) therefore her numbers are more stable. His are not in part because we dont know as much bad or good about him.  

That reasonably leaves some folks gun shy. We have seen alot of candidates go down without many facts.

by hctb 2008-03-13 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

Maybe it's imaginary, maybe not.  The fact is that most people on this website are highly engaged in the political process and things that may register with us are not always the things that resonate with other voters.  We're all handicapping the election from a unique perspective and it is important to recognize that, whoever ultimately wins.

by rfahey22 2008-03-14 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn elctability rebutal

Good point re: the perspective of younger voters.  Don't have an answer accept to say that Clinton should match up well against McCain with younger voters regardless of their exposure to her negatives.  Even with all the baggage, the choice between Clinton and John "more wars - less jobs" McCain should be a no-brainer for younger voters, particularly if they are concerned about the possibility of a draft.

by dwmorris 2008-03-13 09:45PM | 0 recs
Don't you see a difference?

There's a difference between saying: "Obama can't win because he can't win Pennsylvania," and "Obama will be stronger because he'll let us draw a sharper contrast with McCain"?

And the difference is that the Pennsylvania argument is horsesh*t.  There's a weak correlation at best between primary results and general results, for obvious reasons - most Democratic primary voters prefer either Democrat A or B to any Republican.

Tell people that, and they start trying to gin up reasons why there will be a correlation in this case.  And maybe there would be.  But the most commonly given answer seems to be that Obama can't win white voters or older voters.  And that sends a chill up my spine, both because I don't think it's true and because I think it depends on assumptions about the racism of white voters.  It's true he loses a lot of white voters to Hillary in the primary - but how do people know those voters don't think of Barack as their second choice?  Are they just assuming that the reason is race?  I don't think that's right.  I think Barack is much closer to these voters - on issues, on personality, on aspirations - than they are to McCain, and that this will come out in the general.

by TL 2008-03-13 04:18PM | 0 recs
What?!

Would the way he "lays the race card" be similar to how she plays the victim? (YOu know the crying and the yelling at the medai, etc)

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-13 04:19PM | 0 recs
Kos

has turned into a mere propagandist.  

by jpetty 2008-03-13 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos

But really, haven't we all?

by JDF 2008-03-13 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos

Very true and very sad.

I know I'm a big geek, but I really like to read detailed political analysis. And usually I like the perspective the front-pagers on dailykos provide, including Markos himself. But lately it's just emotional whining and melodramatic outrage about this or that.

I would like to see some analysis of what it will take for Hillary to win the nomination. What would a good strategy for her look like? Same for Obama. I would also like to see some analysis of tactics going into the general.

How will Hillary's tough campaign style help or hurt her against McCain? How would Obama's easy cumbyah style help or hurt him against McCain? How will Hillary's gender affect her against McCain, what can she do to overcome any disadvantage she will face because of it? How will Obama's race affect him against McCain, what can he do to overcome any disadvantage he will face because of it?

All this, Hillary's tactics are below the belt and she should drop out of the race. All that ranting is just boring to me.

Happily we do still get a fair bit of analysis on this site towards both candidates and the overwrought rantings are not as prominent.

I am a Hillary supporter, but I like both candidates. I do think that Hillary has more substance and her experience is important as well. Obama's desire to be above partisian politics worries me. I think we need a strong partisian. Still should he come away with the nomination, I'll support him wholeheartedly.

Anyway we can get back to more dispassionate analysis? It really is more fun.

by carrieboberry 2008-03-14 01:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

God this thread is depressing. It seems that if a Democratic primary lasts for more than six weeks the various factions of the party completely forget who is in office, the profound harm that he and his party has done to this country, and the overwhelming need to unite to throw those bastards out for good.

For once, Carville is right: It is just politics. I don't like some of the tone the race has taken recently, but it shouldn't surprise people who have been around for awhile.

but what in the hell are these ultimatums? Geordie, where do you get the sense that it is a war between the elite and the working class? The party has broken over and over again when these kinds of divisions develop. either one of these candidates have the potential to undue the attacks on the Constitution, the bias toward the rich and powerful, the warmongering of the Republicans.

I was initially a Clinton supporter. I have tended toward Obama lately. But I am thrilled to support either candidate to FIX THIS COUNTRY.

I came from the working class and by luck I have made it into the professional class. I just don't see the divisions between them. Most professional class Democrats are staunch supporters of protecting Social Security, rebuilding security for American workers, bringing home the troops and using the vast sums being spent on war to fix social problems in America.

And what is driving this apparent tide of middle-aged women into bitterness and even hatred of Obama? Can't we remember for one minute that this party and no other is giving the American people the choice of the first black president or the first woman president? This should be a moment of glory for the party.

And what of this crap that "it is Hilary's turn?" It is never anybody's turn. Each candidate has to grab the nomination. Hillary seemed for a while to be the shoo-in because, after eight years out of power, the ranks of presidential candidates were thin.

And believe me, I'm reacting to Clinton supporters because some of their comments have stood out. But Obama supporters are just as bad. Hillary has made a few votes that aren't as progressive as they like so they know that she is the Devil (or monster). It is choice between the Democrat and McCain, who is being found out as more of a warmonger than Bush.

Are we really back to gutter of politics where a person can't represent you unless he or she looks like you?  God, the party is like group of ferrets in a cardboard box. It gets bloodier and bloodier, and before long there is nothing left of the box either.

by anoregonreader 2008-03-13 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

by anoregonreader 2008-03-13 04:34PM | 0 recs
I expect better from Jonathan

Jonathan,

I dont understand why are we terming Penn's opinion as one campaign lashing out another? What harm as Penn done by saying Obama can not win GE?

It is Penn's own opinion, not gospel. Who believes Penn anyway?

And didnt Obama say that Hillary is divisive and hence can not win in GE? Is that lashing too? What about when Obama sends out mails to his supporters telling them that Hillary is not attacking him but the individual supporters? Is inciting hatred or divisiveness not equivalent to campaign lashing?

I feel you are just trying to make a case out of nothing. I feel you are just being a hypocrite by your partial "unwanted" outrage.

You are someone who posts on front page so I hold you do a different standard. So I hope I am wrong.

by Sandeep 2008-03-13 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

Amen, brother!  
This campaign has become too toxic for our own common good.  Mind you, I like the advantages that a long primary provides, but the Clinton campaign has mismanaged it, and they are inflicting harm on the party as a result.

If, throughout this campaign, we were able to commit to and maintain a steady level of support for whoever the "eventual" democratic nominee is, then all would be swell.  But I think it's plain for all to see, that this support is steadily eroding, and it's a God damn shame.

by haystax calhoun 2008-03-13 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

The real problem is that Obama has failed to unite the DEMOCRATIC party.  Sure he has gotten young people, latte types and the far left anti-war blame America crowd and the total fawning of the AA community, but he has yet to be able to unite the base of the party.  These voters are needed if the democrats are to win the WH.  It is pure politics.  You Obama supporters live in an alternate universe, where up is down, if Obama cannot unite the party, he cannot win.  He has yet to find a way to appeal to these voters.  Right now Hillary is in this race.  If she were not, then Obama would have to stand by himself.  Without trying to be too negative, he has not been able to do that.

The democrats will have to fight to actually win the WH.  It is not a given contrary to your passion for your candidate.  You do not understand the American electorate.  I have seen many elections, what looks good in March will not actually look so good by October.  It is a fact and right now the Obama supporters do not seem to understand the real facts about America and how people actually vote in the fall.  This country is not so far left as you innocently believe.  Obama is too far left to win the WH.  He pretends to be so bi-partisan but his positions are not, his voting record, what there is of it is not, he is very far left.  This is great right now, but his foreign policy alone will make him basically unelectable this fall.  I have seen this movie before, and it doesn't look good from here.  These down scale voters that Obama is not winning are a very hard nut to crack.  Obama will need them if he has a prayer this fall.  So far, I see no indication that he could win this fall, so in my opinion, Mark Penn is only stating the realities of the American electorate.

by democrat voter 2008-03-13 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

What crock. Hillary is the ticket drag -- Obama is our only hope for winning this thing in November.

by Oregonian 2008-03-13 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam
The MSM is starting to call it out. Little by little the truth is coming out. HRC chances are a pipe dream and they are calling her to pull out.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/1 3/politics/uwire/main3937379.shtml
by PrinceCA 2008-03-13 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

That is the dumbest comment I read yet.  They've been calling for her to quit since before New Hampshire for God's sake.

by wasabi 2008-03-13 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Look, the argument that Obama would have a major problem winning PA if he loses by, say, 15%, is simple.

PA is a classic swing state. This has been true election after election. After both the Democratic and Republican campaigns are waged, whatever polls may have shown in advance mostly becomes irrelevant: the underlying segments of the population return to their usual positions, having been "reminded" of the problems and virtues of both sides. At the end of the day, the battle is hard fought to win relatively small segments of the population.

How hard is it to grasp that if you lose in a major way in your own party in that state, that your chances of winning that state, given how very difficult it is to win over enough voters when election time rolls around?

And it's simply depressing to see people trot out polls from today to demonstrate Obama's supposed viability come November. Look, Dukakis in July was up 17 points in a national poll. Don't you think that on a state by state basis, that would have translated into enormous wins in states that have long seemed out of reach for Democrats? And what happened instead, after being "defined" by the right wing, is that he lost in a landslide.

That no one can even attend to that example anymore is as clear as sign as one might ever need about the willful ignorance of our political punditry.

by frankly0 2008-03-13 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Polling shows Clinton and Obama both roughly tied w/McCain in PA.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-13 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Where is there a history of a candidate losing a genuine swing state in a primary by a large margin, then winning it in the general?

Surely if this something that we needn't at all worry about, you should be able to trot forth one good example after another?

I'd especially like to see examples where they involve the major 4 swing states, OH, PA, MI, or FL.

Thanks in advance.

by frankly0 2008-03-13 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

This really isn't very complicated.

It's a closed primary. Most Democrats seem not to have the bedrock hatred of their second choice that so many Clintonites here do. Also, Obama attracts independent and swing voters. I don't know why you people want to convince yourselves that's a bad thing.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-13 08:42PM | 0 recs
PS

I notice you like to cite Dukakis. That was twenty years ago. Different electorate, different candidates, different issues... Try at least to stay in the last decade when pointing to parallels.

Thanks in advance.

by BlueinColorado 2008-03-13 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: PS

Oh yeah, I'm sure that McCain won't choose to emphasize issues of patriotism, even though Obama has, in the person of Jeremiah Wright, as well as in any number of ways, offered up all the material a Right wing machine might ever dream of.

Because, of course, patriotism today, unlike in the day of Dukakis, is just not an issue. We are a post-patriotic country, I'm sure. And I'm sure all the blue collar Democrats in OH, PA, MI, and FL agree on that point too.

by frankly0 2008-03-14 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

I meant,

that your chances of winning that state are low

by frankly0 2008-03-13 05:29PM | 0 recs
Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Right

Obama is unelectable for a variety of reasons. He's very weak in key states and key demographics. He has loads of negatives that the GOP and the 527s will make an issue of. His records in Chicago and Washington are pitiful.

Oh yeah, he's way unelectable so if the SDs and the DNC are stupid enough to give the nomination to Obama, we're gonna lose. Big time.

Hillary is the one. She's the best choice by far. She gets the nomination, she wins.

by Nobama 2008-03-13 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Right

Then why can't she win the nomination?

by Socks The Cat 2008-03-13 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign

What is holding back Hillary from winning
a majority of the blue states
a majority of the swing states
a majority of the red states
a majority of the caucuses
a majority of the primaries
a majority of the voters
a majority of the pledged delegates?

I thought she was ready on day one?

by peter peter 2008-03-13 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: They are Exactly Right &amp

Yes, and did you hear?  Rezko and Obama are tag-teaming to suppress voters in Michigan and Florida!  One is suppressing each state.  "Some say" that Louis Farrakhan is helping out by systematically killing all of the white voters in Michigan, so that when any revote occurs, Obama will definitely win!

by rfahey22 2008-03-13 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re:Simply Wrong

I don't understand why this is news.  The Obama camp, including Obama himself, was saying months ago that Hillary is not electable in the general, for various reasons.  Mostly pointing to how much she's hated by the media and right-wingers.  So now the Clinton campaign is saying Obama's not electable.  But it's really bad stuff to say because Hillary's camp is saying it, right?  The truth of the matter is that both candidates are electable, and both will be up against both swift voters and the extremely good press given to McCain by the "liberal media."  But both camps will continue to claim they're the only ones who can win in the fall.  That's what happens in primaries.  I'm only surprised you took the bait.

by hearthmoon 2008-03-13 05:56PM | 0 recs
re

Barack "Jesus is Black, God damn America" isn't going to be President of the United States. If he gets the nomination, the Republicans will make Willie Horton look like a tea party

by rossinatl 2008-03-13 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: re

Hey there is a website for racists such as yourself: stormfront.com. Seriously, explain to me how hillary would win a general without the black vote.

by logic is beautiful 2008-03-13 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: re

You do know he never said that, right?

by xodus1914 2008-03-13 08:29PM | 0 recs
nothing Hillary can say that will hurt Obama more

than his radical church and pastor.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4 443788&page=1

by vivelosdiablosdelsol 2008-03-13 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Once the rest of the country sees those videos of Pastor Wright from Obama's church--the pastor that married Obama and baptized his children-- screaming about "Goddamn America" and how this country DESERVED September 11, I don't think he'll be able to get elected to anything.

Those videos alone will torpedo his chance to the presidency. You think I'm exaggerating? Go look at them and imagine what Karl Rove will do. Imagine how middle America is going to react to those videos with John McCain as the alternative. The Republicans will play them 24/7 along with whatever else they have on him.

If you think I'm blowing smoke, then go look at the videos on Youtube. The idea that Obama picked this man not only to marry him, but to baptize his children is just beyond me. This is his church? Talk about judgment.

by cc 2008-03-13 06:39PM | 0 recs
videos of Pastor Wright from Obama's church

You are so right. And what alarms me is that, even if Obama wins the nomination, when the Republicans and neoconservatives really get their teeth into those and the idea of Obama's possible lack of patriotism as exhibited by his 20-year relationship with this man, his wife's comments and his unfortunate flag pin thing and add that up for people, that will be all she wrote. It will a done deal for the winning the Presidency for us. They will rip Obama up one side and down the other.

And regardless of how Obama tries to extricate himself from this guy, I have a bad feeling this is going to stick to him like crazy glue.

Electability? I don't think so. I think when this get's really played, it's a done deal.

by papersunday 2008-03-13 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About BO

Obama's statements about this guy are so incongruent with what's in the videos that it calls into question his statements about other controversies.  I'm frankly a little shocked.  Don't know how he disassociates himself from this stuff during the GE.  Fox will have it on a 24/7 repeat loop.

by dwmorris 2008-03-13 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re:

Ah yes... for the good of the Party, don't you see.....  ha

by wasabi 2008-03-13 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam

Yeah Obama has a great shot at the general, he's so good at rallying working-class Dems, Hispanics, Asians, Seniors, Women Boomers..... oh wait....... uh scratch that.........

by BlueDoggyDogg 2008-03-13 11:35PM | 0 recs
Jeremiah Wright is a huge problem

I think Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a HUGE liability for Obama, not only is he Baracks pastor of 20 years, he is also on his campaign. The question that lurks in me and gives me knots in my stomach is "how can someone sit under a preacher for 20 years and not share his principles and values"

I do not believe you can and I do not see how he can seperate himself from Rev. Wright.  I think this will scare away many whites who will believe Barack harnesses in secret, white hatred like his pastor and will fear he has a secret black agenda.

by netgui68 2008-03-14 04:43AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads