Jerome, the love for Obama is real!! Obamicans will vote for him!! You're such a Clinton shill. There. I said it so no one else has too.

Either way, the shine will come off of Obama. And the media will feed on fresh meat.  Whether before the nomination or after, it WILL happen.

Why no front page piece on how HRC is going to go after the pledged delegates? Or is the death of the party something that doesn't concern you? Seriously.

Duh. The shine will come off.

But remember that people said it would come off after the DNC speech. And then he continued to make great speeches.

Frankly - he's a talented polician, and if he continues to hire great speechwriters...I think he'll have his ups and downs, but he'll be fine.

I find the difference between the judgement and leadership qualities betweens Sens. Clinton and Obama to be rather stark in my view.  This is why I support Sen. Obama and would have a hard time taking him less seriously.

I am saddened by the quality of discussion about both candidates and particularly by the attacks on Jerome.  I certainly everyone can take a deep breath before going off on people who disagree with you.  Everyone is trying to sort through a tough choice.

I think Jerome makes a very good point about the GOP's Obama love. Back in 2000, McCain really did come across as the only appealing major party candidate. Bush was, well Bush and we still had the autobot Al Gore before he freed his mind. I know some of you kids find this hard to belive but a lot of progressives really didn't like Al Gore very much back then.  

At the time McCain seemed like the most honest and real guy in the race by far. I remember my progressive friends getting fired up when he beat Bush in Michigan, sticking it to the hated Gov. John Engler who was pushing Bush big time.

Of course none of us supported him in November.

ha ha...you're delusional, Hillfan. What evidence could there possibly be to support your claim that "it has been downhill ever since" the Rezco non-story momentarily grabbed headlines?  The string of overwhelming victories Obama has racked up since then? In fact, Obama has only gotten stronger since the name Tony Rezco was first uttered on a national stage. As for this PLAGIARISM (note the spelling, Hillfan) nonsense, I expect it to hurt Hillary more than it hurts Obama. It makes her look petty and desperate. If this is the best her team can come up with, they're in big, big trouble.

Obama has done it to himself.

He is FDR, JFK, RFK, MLK all rolled into one.  He is going to turn Washington 180 degree and set it on its head.  Lobbyists will be gone.  Republicans won't stonewall and attack, and filibuster, bi-partidanship will reigh in this new and different era.

Of course none of that is true and Obamamaniacs will be left shaking their heads and looking for the next 'Piped Piper of Change.'

I think Obama's support is more than shine. You want a bubble candidate? Think Mike Huckabee. Bubbles grow when a convergence of short-term forces leads everyone to the same corner. But Obama's campaign is based on much more than short-term events. He's established one of the best political organizations in recent history. Everybody focuses on his rhetoric, trying to make him into Old Fuss and Feathers. But his substantive policy positions are every bit as impressive as Hillary Clinton's, even if he doesn't go through the laundry list every speech.  If Obama were a bubble he would have popped in late 2007 when he was 30 points down in national polls. At that point his DNC speech had already made him famous and he had had plenty of time to screw things up on the campaign trail in the early going (bad debates, Donny McClurkin, etc.). That's when Dean floundered; after fights with Gephardt and Kerry's surge, Dean could not recover. But Obama recovered because he's a good politician. You don't run ahead of Hillary Clinton in a long primary on just shine.

I share Krugman's unease. As Bob Somerby has noted in the past with regard to pols, the press likes to build 'em up, so's they can take 'em down. Why will Obama be any different?

and will attack him for not being a conservative.

Brooks has started already in When the Magic Fades.

How is a 47-year-old novice going to unify highly polarized 70-something committee chairs? What will happen if the nation's 261,000 lobbyists don't see the light, even after the laying on of hands? Does The Changemaker have the guts to take on the special interests in his own party -- the trial lawyers, the teachers' unions, the AARP?

Look who the conservatives want him to take on.  Why would anyone want to take on these special interests?

Edwards was clear about who he was supporting and that getting along with the reactionary forces was not his thing.  Clinton is being clearer that she is working for the middle class.  Obama keeps saying we will find a way to get along.

Brooks points out

Sixty-eight senators supported a bipartisan deal on FISA. Obama voted no. And if he were president now, how would the High Deacon of Unity heal the breach that split the House last week?

68 senators - the Repubs and our DINOs wanted to grant immunity.  The House saved the Democrats so far.  The conservatives are livid that Obama sided with his party and the people rather than the elites.  But most of the time he has gone along with the elites like with the war funding.  The knives are out.  

I miss Edwards clarity.

Of course, it is just possible that Obama might actually be able to handle any swings in media coverage and actually, dare I say, win?  

Honestly, I think there is a (somewhat justified) sense of fatalism in most Democrats who have lived through the Reagan-Bush years that is unfortunate.  Sure, the media will turn on whoever our candidate is.  But it actually is possible to nonetheless beat a candidate like McCain soundly.  Personally, I have every confidence that Obama will handle any "backlash" with skill and will make a strong GE candidate if he wins the nomination.  

Cruise around the conservative blogosphere for their take on the "I was never really proud to be an American until" comment by Michelle Obama.  They are feasting on that, especially because she forgot American post-9/11.

They are going to pummel him, just pummel him on patriotism.  Something that doesn't burden a candidate amongst most progressive but still hits home hard in middle American.

Hey, I'm left of Ghandi on most issues and I've got a list of comments she's made in the pst month that either weird me out or make me mad as hell.  Like telling me my soul needs fixing.  Huh?  You can tell that without even knowing me?

They need to fire whoever is writing her speeches like yesterday.  The Obama campaign is jumping the shark.  Maybe not in time to effect the primaries, but we are gearing up for hell to pay in the fall.

Am I the only one who thinks Obamacan is a lame term? How long before GOP starts making Obama-Nation ads..

From Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:

Superdelegate Support Scrutinized

An Associated Press review of superdelegates and who they are supporting for president "turned up three dozen cases in which they hold positions contrary to the expressed will of their own constituents."

There are 21 cases of superdelegates supporting Sen. Hillary Clinton even though their districts or states voted for Obama. There are 14 instances where the superdelegate supports Obama when their constituents support Clinton.

The review also shows "33 elected officials who are superdelegates and publicly uncommitted in the presidential race, even though their constituents went for Obama. Another 24 are neutral despite their voters siding with Clinton."

The key here is that Obama is not just a bubble. If he had pulled out a win in New Hampshire, you might've been able to say that. He would've ridden a media wave all the way to the nomination. Instead, the Obama "bubble" did burst, there was a round a stories about how he wasn't going to get women or working class voters, and then quickly Latinos with Nevada and Super Tuesday looming, and it was over for him.

Instead, he and his supporters got to work building the best field operation that we have seen in a primary in at least a generation. If Obama wins the nomination, it will be much more about smart political organizing and grassroots volunteer support, than it is about a bubble of media adulation. The Obama campaign has not ceded one single delegate to Clinton without a fight anywhere in the country. He's not ceded any demographic, any geographic region, any political stripe. That's not a bubble, that's a base. The media can say whatever they want; Obama's field operation will continue to grow and help him outperform early polling in every state in the primary and in the general election.

about the republicans, at least not all of them.  We've already had our caucus here in CO yet my neighbor told me yesterday that since Romney dropped out, she is going to vote for Obama in November...she just doesn't care for McCain and she thinks Obama would be good for our country.

Keep in mind, not all republicans are in favor of the war in Iraq, many of them want improvements in public education and health care.  We won't win over any wingnuts but then no Dem candidate would.

Jerome,

Have you seen the latest internal stuff from the Gallup daily tracking poll?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104428/Obama- Gaining-Among-MiddleAged-Women-Hispanics .aspx

I don't know the MYDD view on Gallup regarding reliability, but I doubt it's as unreliable as ARG. Not sure what it means for Wisconsin, but it does show some interesting movement for Obama among some key Clinton demo groups.

One thing I know about Krugman: if Obama gets the nomination, Krugman WILL vote for him in November.  One thing I know about Brooks:  he WILL find a reason to vote for McCain in November.

The media will turn on Obama, after idolizing him.  That's a foregone conclusion.  The interesting question is whether the media will turn on McCain after idolizing him.  Will the "straight talk" schtick continue to get a free pass?

-- TP

I've never understood that particular attack on Obama.  

How exactly would Clinton and Edwards deal with these things?  You don't actually think that they'd somehow be better able to get the Republicans behind them?  Get their plans past a  GOP congress and our DINOs?  

______________ ________

Obama is doing fine bringing in republicans- just like the ones from the Carlyle Group.
www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com
I personally don't want folks like joining the Democratic party- look what they did to the Republicans

Oh, yes, we can't have just anyone join our political party.  That might just help us win office and get our folks in the federal courts, get progressive policies passed. Can't have that!

It bothers me that the rhetoric coming from Obama supports against the Clintons is the exact same that has come from Rush Limbaugh's minions for years. Who's side are they on? Mrs. Clinton isn't just some un-accomplished junior senator, after-all.

I think that Obama has the temperment and the depth to roll with the punches and to not get too freaked out when the shit starts flying. If there is one quality everyone seems to miss when they write their "obama is inexperienced" posts is how cool he is under pressure. He has already navigated a lot of attacks and deftly sidestepped others before they developed. His campaign has been better organized and better coordinated in the message department. All of these things point to him being an excellent leader in the White House.

If only she wanted this so badly that she will vet Obama the way the GOP willl vet him.

But she doesnt.  And thus I feel Obama is set for a letdown when he wins.

Too late now for vetting though.

as this diary says if Republicans can vote in Wisconsin and not join the democratic party?

Why should people who have decided NOT to be Democrats, help select the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE?

I would argue that NEW democrats should have to wait a cycle to vote for our nominee in the Primary. But if they do something to prove their allegiance, like join the party, and they can't just unjoin next year, I'm ok with that.

I don't get Democrats who keep saying higher turnout is fine?

You can get high turnout for anyone and anything. This is supposed to be for Democrats coming together.

The irony is, the Republicans did the same thing.  They got the least republican because of independents and democrats.

What a joke.

These parties need to wise up and have rules that make sense.

Notice the poster talking about the 'love' for Obama being real.

I don't give a good goddamn about loving my candidate. I care are about competency, expertise and the ability to get things done (changed).

I can't believe that the emotional wave of supposed 'change' rhetoric has overtaken simple commonsense. Every candidate wants change or they won't be running. If these two candidates were judged on their merits and Obama won...fair enough.

But this wave of emotionalism, mostly from the 18-26 crowd that has no political memory and therefore only knows the words 'Clinton and Bush', has latched onto a comet that will have a very, very hard time in the general election. Read about the 'Marketing of Obama 2008' to get the story of how the campaign is being marketed and why.

Does HRC, certainly NOT my candidate when this primary started, have a fighting chance? See my DemDaily frontpage on why I did a 180 and choose Hillary. Yes. Especially if we leave the rules of the Democratic Convention in place instead to changing them to favor Barrack Obama.

Amazing and highly disturbing sounds now coming from Dean and Co about 'settling' this primary without a convention fight. A convention fight would invigorate the party, IMHO, not destroy it.

The hateful rhetoric, especially on DKos, towards HRC sounds more Republican than Democratic. This has become a disgusting primary in the last month or so. I predict it will get only worse.

I also predict, especially if Obama gets the nomination, that it will be the filthiest campaign in recent history. By recent I mean the last 100 years or so. It won't come from the GOP directly but from the lunatic fringe that surrounds them.

I want to win in November. HRC has been vetted in every conceivable way. Obama won't even have regular press one-on-one's or press conferences? Remind you of anyone?

I'm sorry. I've wasn't FOR HRC until she was the last choice.

I'm supporting HRC as I don't think Obama has the gravitas and he endangers our ability to win in November. I realize most Democrats take a November win for granted. I don't. I really don't. McCain and the pull of not voting for a Democrat, any Democrat, is very, very strong.

Just as I am a 'Yellow Dog Democratic', a Dem that would vote for a yellow dog before a Republican, so they are 'Yellow Dog Republicans'.

And here's the saddest part of all: Obama supporters who 'love' their candidate won't bother  to read the both link as they can't be 'bothered' with others opinions or facts.

And Jerome, this is for you: I know you are taking some heat. You are the BlogFather of us all. We've  talked, you've set example after example and those that throw aspirations on your service should be ashamed of themselves.

It just shows how bitter and divisive the primary has become on the supporter level. Hell the candidate are doing better at being civil than the supporters.

Keep up the good work, Jerome!

incoming....

Look, I have always been the most partisan of Democrats.  There is, however, something to be said for a candidate who can keep to our agenda while couching his goals in the language of inclusion and optimism.  I don't think it changes those goals, that agenda, but if it inspires trust in someone who might look at this party as somehow full of gloom only and pessimism only, and bring people to the party, I think that's wonderful.  

There are fewer things dividing most Americans than uniting them, but the language we use gets in the way of seeing that too much of the time.  I think the best thing Obama has done is restore to the Democratic Party the language of good possibilities.  We know the possibilities have always been there but the way it's been presented has been criticism only.  Uplifting is a good thing.  

I think it's been hard for the party to find its voice snice the Cold War, since McCarthy, since the entire country was pushed so far to the right that the furthest left of the major parties is centrist.  I think a new coalition based on what needs to be done for all of us needs to be built, and this is a good way to start.  That's why I support Obama.

are because she realizes that Obama will probably be the Democratic Party Candidate. She has decided to make silly and pointless complaints about Obama so that they cannot be used in the general.

I think this proves what a loyal and smart Democrat she is. lets look at them dispassionately.

"he's too popular!"

"the people who like him, like him a lot!"

"his inspiring unforgettable speeches contain inspiration from other wonderful popular leaders in my party that support him too!

"he is winning the race for delegates so I am going to try and use a back door!"

"people who are not democratic party members like him too!"

Although these criticisms are painful to Obama, he understands the loyalty and cleverness of his opponent in using them. I am sure that when President Obama needs her in the future he will not be afraid to call on her for advice.

I'd rather go with a candidate who is flying high and fades a bit than an established, well-known candidate who starts out with half of the country already despising her.

Smearing Obama is a very tricky game, and I think that is why the right is so afraid of him.

A clumsy smear attempt against a charismatic, popular black man like Obama can have disastrous, unintended consequences.  And you know our enemies on the right are not going to be able to help themselves.  There will be ham-handed, racist attempts to smear Obama, you can be absolutely sure of it.  But it will backfire.  If Obama is the Dem candidate and the general election takes a nasty, racist tone I think it will end up being a landslide victory for Obama.  

It isn't just the color of his skin that inoculates Obama from smears.  Obama has an amazing ability to just brush aside negativity and keep on rolling like nothing happened.  And for the most part, he's pretty honest.  He doesn't walk on water, but he's no sleazy crook either.  He's a politician.  The skeletons in his closet don't appear to be particularly scary.

I was for Dean in 2004 and Edwards in 2008. Obama and Hillary are both definitely to my right, so it's not like I'm an Obamabot.  I just think Obama's going to be a lot tougher to beat in the general election.  He's really earning this primary the hard way, getting out and hustling after every delegate.  His team has outmaneuvered the Clinton team at almost every turn.  

It's been interesting watching the blogosphere tear itself apart over two candidates who look virtually identical to me.  These are both centrist, triangulating Dems.  Our progressive dreams are not gonna come true here, regardless of who's elected.  For the progressives, our ship (Edwards) has already sailed.  But Obama is the best choice available now because he understands and embraces the 50-state strategy, while Clinton and her team stick to the failed Kerry strategy.

Everyone knows that the bubble will burst, but the important question is, when? Will it burst before he gets the nomination? During the general election campaign? Or after he wins the presidency?

If he makes it all the way to the presidency before it bursts, what will be the consequences? We have no clue about how he will react to adversity, how he handles genuinely harsh criticism and opposition, and how he would handle inevitable periods of unpopularity, because he hasn't faced anything like that yet. We have no idea how he will react to the kind of rabid hostility that any true "change" candidate always engenders. Will he fold? Compromise on important principles? How can the poorest and least powerful Democratic constituencies be confident that a man who has never been challenged or tested will stand up for them when it really counts?  

Well, we already know that HRC did not stand up with the other 23 dem senators to vote against the conventional flow and for the people with AUMF ,Levin amendment and Kyle Lieberman.
So , we have a track record established that HRC will vote the expedient way.

I will vote for her if she is the nominee. She is light years better than any GOPer.
I think Obama is the better choice but I respect others that feel HRC is the best choice.
We are dems and we do not want more IRaq war, Roe vs Wade overturned, and taxes cut for the wealthy. Right????

This is the first time in my adult life where I will get to vote for someone who will the Presidency: Hillary Clinton.

From Froma Harrop in today's Houston Chronicle:

"Sophisticated commentary now notes the growing creepiness of the Obama campaign: Its aversion to substantive policy discussions. The sermonizing -- 'In the face of despair, we believe there can be hope.' And the messianic bit -- 'At this moment in the election there is something happening in America.' (That would be he.)

Volunteer trainees at Camp Obama are told not to talk issues with voters, but to offer personal testimony about how they 'came' to Obama. Makes the skin crawl.

Centrists generally do not find cults of personality entertaining. The mass hypnosis reminds them of the mortgage frenzy -- all these people buying into a dream and not caring about the fine print.

The Republican Party, meanwhile, has given them a choice. This is despite the best efforts of its right wing to pick a candidate against whom any Democrat would be better. And the more the radicals beat up on the Arizona senator, the more he looks like a contender to moderate Democrats.

Why might this group like McCain? Count the ways. He had the fiscal discipline to vote against the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and the decency to complain that they unfairly favored the rich. He's OK on the environment, concerned over global warming and against oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. He supported tighter fuel-economy standards and opposes torture. John McCain is not an embarrassment."

I don't like Obama.  I think he's run a pretty underhanded sexist campaign against a good woman.  

Why do Obama supporters always see everything in terms of Obama vs. Clinton?

This is a discussion of Obama, the potential nominee. Has nothing to do with Clinton

Mr. Armstrong,

I'd appreciate a post about how your support for HRC is consistent with your book Crashing the Gate.

Or, if it's not consistent, why you've decided to support HRC.

Is that something we can expect in the near future?

Grazie!

There is something foreign about his campaign: He doesn't speak like an American candidate, doesn't run a campaign like an American candidate, his followers don't act like Americans supporting a candidate. This messianic campaign and following has happened in the past in other countries, and it never turned out well. In the past, we were all citizens trying to elect a citizen leader--now we are looking for a god to save us. It scares the hell out of me.

Obama knows how to counter punch that's for sure.

Obama hit back Monday in Youngstown, Ohio, turning Clinton's criticism of his oratory into a biting critique of her past support of trade deals, including the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"She says speeches don't put food on the table. You know what? NAFTA didn't put food on the table, either," Obama said, bringing the Rust Belt crowd to its feet.

I know several republicans or republican leaning independents who LOVE Obama, and will vote for him over anyone running.  They also despise Hillary.  Your theory about why republicans like Obama does not explain the polls showing Obama doing better than Hillary practically everywhere.  People are choosing Obama over a republican candidate not just over hillary.

Of course, that might change, but the evidence is that if the GE were held right now, Obama would be the president.

Deal with it.

At this point I think I'm gonna throw my support behind the candidate whose supporters can stick to the point of a thread without either:

i. telling us how great their preferred is and why they support him/her.

ii. trashing the other candidate and telling us why you can't possibly support him/her.

Because really, at this pont, the endless sniping has gone on waaaay too long...so long that,  frankly, I could care less why anybody anywhere thinks Clinton/Obama is so great/terrible.

Forget about the Rezko thing, there's nothing there, except wondering about a State Legislator's 15 year relationship with a man that owned buildings that didn't have heat for 5 winter months, were abandoned or foreclosed upon, all while receiving monetary and legislative support for inner city development. And for those that were hoping that people would learn a thing or two about Obama's relationship with that Resko guy? Not any more. At least not before the primaries on March 4. The judge, Amy St Eve has moved the start of the Rezko trial from Feb. 25th to March 3rd when jury selection will begin. But its not related of course that she's an Obama supporter. And its definitely not related that she was an Assistant Independent Council for Kenneth Star during the Whitewater Hearings. Oh no, all that couldn't possibly be related.