Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obama's Electability

by Jonathan Singer, Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:49:09 PM EST

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

Display:
Permalink :: 186 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (1.93 / 16)

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.


McBush: ''Doesnt' know that much about economics''
by PrinceCA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:50:02 PM EST

This is cut and pasted (1.50 / 2)

from the DailyObama, formerly known as DailyKos.


by jpetty on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:41:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is cut and pasted (2.00 / 1)

Hmmm....but is it true?


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:16:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is cut and pasted (2.00 / 1)

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


by godemsin08 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:27:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (1.00 / 1)

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.


Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties
by engels on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:27:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:44:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (none / 0)

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 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:51:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 2)

...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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:53:26 PM EST

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 3)

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


McBush: ''Doesnt' know that much about economics''
by PrinceCA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

And Obama can sweet-talk Michigan. I bet they'll love him by the time the GE rolls around.
by Becky G on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (none / 0)

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


by hctb on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:05:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (none / 0)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:49:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

View from Michigan (2.00 / 2)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:16:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: View from Michigan (none / 0)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 11:48:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:41:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (none / 0)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:05:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (none / 0)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:12:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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


by marcotom on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:18:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL (2.00 / 2)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:30:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:20:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:48:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (none / 0)

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 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 11:01:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:17:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (none / 0)

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


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:21:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:46:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:30:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

except that Hillary leads McCain (none / 0)

in FL


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:16:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

According To What Poll? (2.00 / 2)

Rasmussen has her down by 6%.


by HatchInBrooklyn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:34:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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.
A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:09:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (1.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (1.50 / 2)

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


by Rockville Liberal on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:07:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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

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


by theninjagoddess on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:45:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:06:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (none / 0)

Right, because those people are soooo stupid.


by MediaFreeze on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:13:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:16:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (none / 0)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:40:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (none / 0)

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


"we have the most radical president we have ever had, leading our country right now, and he is completely uneducable." - Seymour Hersh
by Lefty Coaster on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:58:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:27:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think he can win the general... (none / 0)

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 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:50:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Is it really big news (2.00 / 2)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 06:54:52 PM EST

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (2.00 / 2)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:01:50 PM EST

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (2.00 / 1)

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.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:24:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (none / 0)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:04:58 PM EST

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:06:43 PM EST

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (none / 0)

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


by mikeinsf on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:08:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's running as Mr. Inevitable now (none / 0)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:18:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (none / 0)

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.


democrat voter
by democrat voter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:23:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:55:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's Democrat(IC) voter (2.00 / 1)

even your username supports mccain.  so sad.


by Ajax the Greater on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:08:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (none / 0)

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 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:59:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (2.00 / 4)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:19:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (none / 0)

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.


democrat voter
by democrat voter on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:25:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:53:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (2.00 / 1)

Thanks.  That needed to be said.


by haystax calhoun on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (none / 0)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:57:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Riverdaughter said WHAT!!?!?! (2.00 / 2)

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!!!


I rock knobs
by Etchasketchist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:20:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:21:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (none / 0)

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


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:57:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (none / 0)

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


by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:22:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (2.00 / 1)

The need is for healing. This is not helping.


by DaleA on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:22:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (2.00 / 1)

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.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:29:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign (none / 0)

Please give me the link to the site.


by mmorang on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:41:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I can understand that (none / 0)

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 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 05:16:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Rezko...na na na" (2.00 / 2)

"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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:07:20 PM EST

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:08:46 PM EST

Don't Assume "Old" Dems will be there (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:17:26 PM EST

Re: Don't Assume "Old" Dems (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:20:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stages of grief (none / 0)

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.


I rock knobs
by Etchasketchist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:23:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stages of grief (none / 0)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:05:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'll tell you who I am. (none / 0)

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


I rock knobs
by Etchasketchist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:08:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stages of grief (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:15:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stages of grief (2.00 / 1)

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.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Stages of grief (2.00 / 1)

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 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:41:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure why you feel this way (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:00:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't Assume "Old" Dems (none / 0)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:04:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Old" Dems will be there (none / 0)

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


by EMTP democrat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:07:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We lose then (none / 0)

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


by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:25:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Easy answer (2.00 / 1)

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?


I rock knobs
by Etchasketchist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:17:39 PM EST

Re: Easy answer (none / 0)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:37:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Indeed (2.00 / 1)

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.


I rock knobs
by Etchasketchist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:01:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indeed (2.00 / 1)

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.
A PROUD Hopium user!
by xodus1914 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:15:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, McCain can win here in California and (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:59:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bzzzzt! (2.00 / 1)

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.


I rock knobs
by Etchasketchist on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:05:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, McCain can win here in California and (2.00 / 1)

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


by Socraticsilence on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, McCain can win here in California and (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, McCain can win here in California and (2.00 / 1)

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


by rfahey22 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (2.00 / 1)

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.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:30:22 PM EST

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (2.00 / 1)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:38:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (none / 0)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (2.00 / 2)

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 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 01:51:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (none / 0)

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 on Fri Mar 14, 2008 at 12:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (none / 0)

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 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:57:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (2.00 / 2)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:40:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (none / 0)


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.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:02:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (none / 0)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:24:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (none / 0)

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.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:42:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny thing about that (none / 0)

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 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:41:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Penn, Clinton Campaign Simply Wrong About Obam (none / 0)

"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 wr