What its all about.

I think we need to take a step back from this contentious primary season and remember what is really important.

All the debates, all this inter-party strife, all the "hit diaries" on behalf of both candidates, all the controversy about race and gender issues, and everything else we've been talking about for the past year...all of it will not matter a year from now. The only thing of true significance is what happens on November 4th, 2008. The only thing that matters is whether or not we will have a conservative Republican running the country for the next 4-8 years, or a progressive Democrat there instead. I don't need to list all the reasons why, but its difference between:

*No end in sight for our involvement in Iraq, or a swift withdrawal
*A Supreme Court full of Alitos and Scalias, or one full of Ginsburgs and Breyers.
*A continuation of Bush economics, or digging ourselves out from it
*Environmental issues on the back burner, or front-and-center
*The status quo indefinitely, or universal health care for all Americans

I had a conversation with a pro-Obama coworker just before the New Hampshire primary. At that time, I was for Hillary but Barack was my second choice, and I was prepared to back him strongly if it became clear it was over for Clinton. But I told my coworker that there was one clear, strong reason why I was so solidly pro-Hillary: My brain and my gut were telling me that she could definitely beat the Republicans in November, and I simply could not say the same thing about Obama. There was just too much we didn't know about him, and the stakes were too high for me to take that risk. That, and the Clintons don't know how to lose.

I see echoes of 2004 in our current election season. Back then, I saw one candidate that could have easily beaten Bush. That candidate was Wes Clark. When it became clear that John Kerry was on his way to the nomination, I saw him as a strong but beatable candidate, and all I could say to the Democrats of Iowa and New Hampshire was "Umm, guys...I hope you know what you're doing here." And sure enough, our hearts were eventually broken. I still firmly believe that if Clark was our nominee back then, he would be our president right now and perhaps coasting his way to reelection. There's no way to prove it, its just what I think.

The point I am getting to is this: It has become clear to me that Obama will not be elected president. If he goes against McCain, he will lose. I've been leaning towards this line of thinking for about about a month now, but the controversy surrounding Rev. Wright has sealed the deal. I'm not sure that everyone appreciates just how deadly this sort of stuff is. His ties to him are deep, profound, influential, and probably unbreakable. To have such inflammatory and offensive rhetoric as "God Damn America!" and "U.S. of KKK A." coming from Obama's spiritual adviser and mentor is deeply troubling to the average American voter and should not be dismissed.

I had an interesting talk with my mom about this a couple of nights ago. She lives in Anson Texas, a small conservative town just north of Abilene (where I grew up). She is deeply religious and conservative (very common for Anson) but is not dizzy with love for McCain, either. As soon as I mentioned something about politics, she immediately wanted to talk about Obama and his pastor. She was completely outraged about it. Despite living in a small town in Texas and not being an avid viewer of cable news, she knew quite a lot about the situation. For instance, she knew that Obama had listened to Rev. Wright's tapes even in his youth at Harvard. Somewhat compassionately, I thought, she said she attempted to look at this in an understanding way but simply could not. I got the feeling that this was definitely the political talk of the town, and if Anson Texas is at all representative of small-town America, this is a big deal and big trouble for Obama. This may be tough for some to hear, but the truth is he might as well be Farrakhan to a great many people at this point. And the more people talk about this, the worse it will get, I believe. So I asked her, as a Republican, who she would choose if the options were only Clinton and Obama. "Hillary, in a heartbeat" she said. This coming from a woman who has HATED the Clintons unabated since 1992.

I take no joy in the downfall of Obama. I will never forget where I was when he delivered his '04 Convention speech. It brought me to my feet and brought tears to my eyes. It was the best political speech of my adult life, and the highlight of it was this section:

There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America -- there's the United States of America.

The pundits, the pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an "awesome God" in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.


These were the words of a future president, I thought. But it is clear that his campaign has not lived up to these words. As soon as I saw his co-chair on national television the day after New Hampshire questioning why Hillary did not cry for Katrina victims, but did cry over her physical appearance, I knew that his convention speech was just words...just a speech. And as soon as the information regarding Rev. Wright and Rezko came to light, I knew he did not have the judgment to be elected by the American people, or even to be the kind of president we need him to be.

But the good news is that we have another Democratic candidate in this race that can and will win in November.

That person is Mike Gravel.

....just kidding. Its Hillary.

If a progressive Democrat as president from 2009-2017 sounds like a good idea to you, I believe the time may be arriving to unite behind a candidate that can win and save our beloved country from the brink of disaster.

Madame President?



Display:


See also: (2.00 / 11)

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/20/ 2322/98517


allprogressives.com
by Scan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:56:09 AM EST

Thank you, Scan... (2.00 / 8)

This is a great diary on why Hillary's our best choice for President. We know the GOP will do whatever it takes to win this fall. That's why we must be READY to take them on. I know that with Hillary, we'll be ready to win. :-)


I agree with Hillary Clinton and sricki (!!), so I fully support Barack Obama for President! :-)
by atdleft on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:36:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Inside the echo chamber... (1.75 / 4)

It's like an alcoholics anonymous meeting, but without any recourse to confession, honesty, making amends, and the only higher power the near failed candidacy of your preferred nominee. The polls adduced here are pure straw clutching. Obama has been subjected to a month of negative fire, and is still standing above Hillary in any metric you can choose. I know you wish it wasn't this way, but some day or other, people are going to have to come round to the fact that more primary voters and states and delegates want Obama than Hillary. It's tough. But it's democracy. It's time to take on McCain.
by brit on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:15:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Inside the echo chamber of your head (1.83 / 6)

The diary is right.  Obama's campaign does not live up to his great speech of '04.  He's a talker, not a doer.  And when he's under pressure  -- which thanks to the fawning media has not happened until recently -- he's not even a good talker.  Finally the truth is reaching the general public.  For some time now, HRC supporters have seen the real Obama:  the use of race-baiting, the lying about Exelon, Rezko, his (non-)role on the Wounded Warrior Act, the phoniness of the whole fairy tale about his position on the war, based on one speech in his ultra-left Hyde Park district, which he quickly back-tracked on when in the national eye.

But then finally came Wright, and now, we learn that his grandmother, who lovingly raised him, is "a typical white person."

He won't ever be President.  The only issue is whether he will pull down the Democratic Party with him.


by PlainWords on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:02:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We'll see ;-) (none / 0)


by brit on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Inside the echo chamber of your head (2.00 / 3)

"And when he's under pressure  -- which thanks to the fawning media has not happened until recently -- he's not even a good talker."

You're right.  His recent honest and courageous speech on racial relations was just a snooze. /snark


by DreamsOfABlueNation on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:29:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Inside the echo chamber of your head (none / 0)

What's courageous about coming out with more words to get yourself out of a hole you dug?


by PlainWords on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:55:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Inside the echo chamber of your head (2.00 / 4)

So your position on this is that Obama, a "talker, not a doer", who has all this nasty stuff that's supposedly a major issue: "the use of race-baiting, the lying about Exelon, Rezko, his (non-)role on the Wounded Warrior Act, the phoniness of the whole fairy tale about his position on the war" plus Wright, is doomed?

The same Obama who's still ahead of Hillary Clinton in all but one poll? The one whose poll numbers are already rebounding, and never took much of a drop except for the brief drop due to Wright?

If he'll never be President, after being under constant assault for a month, then the candidate whose numbers have only slightly improved for the month surely will never be President.

Hard to imagine a worse month for Obama and a better one for Clinton, media-wise. And yet Obama's still ahead in the polling.

I appreciate your fervor for Clinton. I really do. I feel the same way for Obama. But try to be a little reality-based. Both candidates are really pretty good and both are highly electable in the GE. Both of them have some issues; neither's issues makes them unelectable or even particularly unlikely to beat McCain. If one of them can win, the other can win.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:42:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Mojo for this comment: (2.00 / 1)

Both candidates are really pretty good and both are highly electable in the GE. Both of them have some issues; neither's issues makes them unelectable or even particularly unlikely to beat McCain. If one of them can win, the other can win.
I believe that, though I do worry about losing a huge block of "disillusioned" Democratic voters if Hillary wins the nomination. As for McCain, the GE is a long way off and there's plenty of time to show the public who and what he really is and what a disaster he would be a president. If the Democrats can come together in the end to vote for our candidate, we will win.
by Swedie on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:05:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mojo for this comment: (none / 0)

Actually, Obama loses about 25% of Democrats, a much larger percentage than Hillary. The disillusioned ones are going to be the ones on the blogs yelping and screaming. The rank and file democrats apparently aren't that wild about Obama after the Wright fiasco.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mojo for this comment: (none / 0)

Not calling into question your assertion, but can you provide some linky goodness for the %25 figure?
by Swedie on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 04:27:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Inside the echo chamber of your head (none / 0)

I think Obama is unelectable, but if he is the nominee we'll find out for sure which one of us is reality-based.  I have to admit I never would have imagined in a million years that there could be a Democratic presidential candidate I wouldn't vote for.  Never say never, I guess.


by PlainWords on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:03:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Any metric you choose? (none / 0)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080320/ts_n m/usa_politics_gallup_dc


by Al Depansu on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:41:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama just got his first taste (none / 0)

of bad news and his favorability ratings have fallen 17%.

Obama was supposed to get us Republicans and Independents.  Now, they're all going to McCain.  Thanks Obama--Reverend Wright and Obama's tactics will lose us many Democrats too.


by chieflytrue on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:07:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (1.75 / 4)

Whether or not you're being semi-respectful I don't think prematurely dancing on Obama's grave like so many others here is really a smart move.


by Zorro the Greek on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 11:59:12 AM EST

Scan's not "dancing on Obama's grave"... (2.00 / 7)

Where did you get that impression? In fact, he expressed specifically that he's not happy that Obama's in so much trouble now. This isn't about being joyous over one Democratic politician having problems... This is about what we as Democrats need to do to win. We can't keep looking back at "racial division" and continue rehashing past intraparty conflicts. We need to look AHEAD by offering voters real solutions to the problems they're facing now: the troubled economy, the broken health care system to fix, the climate in crisis, the Iraq occupation to end. Hillary's talking about these problems, and she's offering real solutions. That's what we need to win. :-)


I agree with Hillary Clinton and sricki (!!), so I fully support Barack Obama for President! :-)
by atdleft on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

love the way mcmd trolled you for this (none / 0)

school must be out
by brit on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:03:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 13)

we get one shot every four years. and we get four long years to live with the consequences of every missed shot.

this isn't a game. people are dying. opportunities are being missed.

besides agreeing with her on policy, the main reason that i support hillary is because we can only send one person against mccain in november, and she's the most likely to get the job done. if you're supporting a candndate who doesn't have the best chance of beating mccain, you're not fulfilling your obligations as a democrat. winning isn't everything, but it's way ahead of whatever's in second place.


by campskunk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:01:54 PM EST

I think (2.00 / 7)

people do not disagree with your intentions. They disagree that Hillary is only candidate who can win GE.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:15:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think (2.00 / 3)

obama agrees with me.

In an interview slated to air on CNN tonight, Sen. Obama says Hillary is more electable:

"In some ways this, this controversy has actually shaken me up a little bit and gotten me back into remembering that the odds of me getting elected have always been lower than some of the other conventional candidates."

Throughout the interview, he refers to Hillary as a conventional candidate.

New polls from key swing states like Ohio and Missouri show that Hillary outperforms Sen. Obama against Sen. McCain.


by campskunk on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:55:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think (2.00 / 4)

You are taking his words entirely out of context and you know it. But keep doing so if it makes you feel good.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:06:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

erm, (2.00 / 4)

right stating that he is the underdog is the same as saying Hillary is more electable.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:34:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Snap out of it!! He can't win. (2.00 / 2)

He was not likely to win the GE before the Wright affair.  Now, his chances are approaching impossible.  Clinton's chances are less than 50% but she has a decent chance.

It is you Obamabots that are insisting on dragging the Democratic party down with you and your candidate.  State polls in state after state for over a month show that he loses between 20%-30% of Democratic electorate.  His appeal among Independents has declined.  And how large of a percentage of Republicans are going to vote for the most liberal rated Senator who belongs to a black separatist church?


by lombard on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:48:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Polls move (2.00 / 1)

Nobody's voted. Hillary's no shoo-in herself. It's okay for Hillary supporters to crow, "It's over. Throw in the towel" if it makes them feel good on a blog, but it doesn't do anything. The process moves on, the people will vote. We shall see. If Hillary can win the nomination, she'll win the nomination. If she can't, she can't.


I rock knobs
by Etchasketchist on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:43:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Try Obamaton or Hope Monger (none / 0)

"Obamabot" doesn't have any zing to it.  "Obamaton" is better, if you want to imply that we're somehow soulless, mindless caucusing machines because it plays off of "Automiton."

So, if you want to seem more clever or learned, I would ask you to use "Obamaton" when you spread complete and utter supposition and innacurate statements, please.  It's only polite.  You wouldn't want to offend my people's fragile sensibilities.

Among ourselves, in our own insular culture, we use our secret language and call ourselves "Hope Mongers", after the Great Hope Monger In The Sky, Quetzalcoatl.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (none / 0)

it is a well thought out and well written diary.  That being said, my personal fear is that neither can win.  For example, (and I'm from rural PA so I can say this with a little authority) she will win the PA primary, but cannot win PA in the GE without the AA vote.  The same is true of VA.  I'm not bashing either of them.  Just making a point.


by jacen42 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:02:17 PM EST

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 2)

Thats why Obama must lose without insulting AAs first FLA.and Mich must be seated my proposal is to seat them after the second vote at the convention.That gives Obama a chance to win enough delegates on the first two ballads if he can't all bets are off and then Hillary can win put Obama on the ticket and bring AAs into the general.If it goes the other way I have no hope that Obama will put Clinton on the ticket assuring a McCain presidency.  


I've fallen and I can get up
by grab1 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:24:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 4)

I honestly think the only way out of this is for Obama to be VP. I'm no longer an Obama fan, but it would be for the good of the party.


by Pacific John on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 0)

It's not gonna happen.  In fact I think it is going to be very hard for HRC to attract a serious candidate for veep - the dynamics with Bill will be very difficult.


by interestedbystander on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:01:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 1)

I think it is going to be Bill who has to convince a serious veep to get on board.

He has to be the one who says "I am not going to do your job."

It would also help if he would throw himself into a specific project.

If Hillary is elected President we are going to be on truly unprecedented ground in many, many ways and I think it has its good and bad points. But I do believe that a strong Veep and Bill Clinton can co-exist if it is handled properly.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:09:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (none / 0)

I hope you're right.


by interestedbystander on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:14:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Dynamics With Bill" (2.00 / 2)

This comment struck me hard.  Being Vice-President with Hillary is going to be a challenge for anyone.

I wish to hell we could quit creating political dynasties in this country.  One of the biggest drawbacks to a Clinton candidacy is that if she served two terms we would be twenty-eight years with members of two families in the White House.

That is NOT healthy for a democracy.


by creeper1014 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:14:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Dynamics With Bill" (2.00 / 0)

...and 40 years out of a century if you include FDR.

But this illustrates a point: Democrats are better for the country than Republicans are, and any minor downside associated with any four terms of a Democratic "dynasty" are good for the country on balance. At no time should we fall into the trap of comparing four Bush terms (by blood, natch), with four Democratic terms.

The point here is simple: we should choose the candidate who is best for the country, and not rule him/her out on an arbitrary basis. Arbitrary term limits favor the GOP and those who wish to ruin government (ex: CA), the do not favor Democrats or the country.


by Pacific John on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:30:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Dynamics With Bill" (none / 0)

I may not care much for the Republicans, but your post scares the hell out of me. Are we declaring and deciding what's best for America because we're Democrats, and we know better?

Or am I misunderstanding your post?


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:17:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Dynamics With Bill" (none / 0)

Yes, a misunderstanding.

We should let the voters decide, on merits, who the best candidate is, and not invent artificial limits.

If we have learned anything from term limits, its that they empower exactly the wrong people, moneyed interests whose expertise spans elected terms.

Removing a voter's choice, in this case, is a bad idea.


by Pacific John on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:50:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 0)

PJ,
I don't think he has the character to do what is necessary for the country.  It makes me very sad to say but he just seems so egocentric that he would want the Democrats to lose if he cannot be the nominee.  Of course, when he is not elected because he is not electable then it will be Hillary's (somebody else's) fault.  That(and a speech) is his answer for everything.

OTOH, I think Hillary will be the nominee and my "crone-igmatic" intuition tells me she will win without Obama's help.  She has all of the good Karma going for her.  


by macmcd on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:08:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (none / 0)

Your points don't make sense.

Why would Obama step aside now when he has the lead in pleged delegates, popular vote and won the most states.

Oh, things are getting tough so he should quit.  That's not a very smart move, on his part, yes things will be tough.  Hillary had the biggest and most powerful opening hand and she's behind now.  If, and if things change and Hillary wins both the pleged delegate count and the popular vote.  Then, I think you can make the argument about him stepping aside. Otherwise, your being a troll.


by afr114 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:13:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (none / 0)

What about my comment caused you to think I was saying that he should quit?  I was suggesting that he is too egocentric to be able to accept the position of VP on the ticket for the good of the country.  


by macmcd on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:16:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

right. (none / 0)

we need to get past this school yard stuff. i'm a staunch obama supporter who will vote for hillary if she gets the nomination. i think he'd want me to, just as i think that hillary would want you to vote for obama. they are both decent people and good candidates.


peace out
by eyeball on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:29:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (none / 0)

A whole lot of Obama supporters feel exactly the same way about Clinton, that she's so egocentric that she would want the Democrats to lose if she cannot be the nominee. Things like praising McCain vis-a-vis Obama, on an issue on which she herself compares poorly to him, on will tend to make people feel that way.

I don't share it; I think she's honorable and merely still believes that she can win (and she can, though it's a very slight chance).

I find the entire notion that a candidate for President isn't going to be a bit egotistical laughable, really. Of course they have an ego. "The biggest job in the world". The top rung of the ladder? And we're supposed to think that someone's running for it who's egoless?

I find Hillary Clinton a bit more egocentric than Obama, but less so than Bill, who was quite the egomaniac (in an endearing way for the most part, mind you).


by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:48:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (none / 0)

If the Wright thing does enough damage to Obama, I don't know that Hillary will want him on the ticket.  That kind of stuff is radioactive, and virtually permanent.  My Republican brother-in-law (not really, since I can't legally marry his brother) was actually considering Obama, but after this mess, no way, ever...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:37:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (none / 0)

Hillary can win put Obama on the ticket and bring AAs into the general.

My fear, is that if Obama was in a VP slot, he'd drag the ticket down.  If he can't win the nomination, I think it would be chalked up to his anti-American preacher, wife's unfortunate comments about pride in her country, etc.  If the current spate of bad news continues, he's going to be so toxic by the summer that I think Clinton would be crazy to put him on the ticket.


by mlr701 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:34:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm from PA, too (2.00 / 0)

I agree she can't win PA without ANY AA votes, but the question is how far any defection would go.  I think many African American now realize that Wright is potentially toxic.  And Clinton has been careful to attend African American events even though they haven't supported her.  And some high profile AA polticians have been some of her strongest and most vocal supporters.


by lombard on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:58:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 9)

Thanks for the post. Yes, we need Hillary to get us out of Iraq and keep our national security strong.

It bothers me that BO has been so thoughtless about the end game...for him wrestling the nomination from the party is the only thing he cares about. There's no, no, no way he'll ever win the general election with Wright's anti-american hate blaring in the background, with MI and FL completely turned off to the Democratic party and half of Hillary supporters refusing to vote for him because they have been harassed and abused by his supporters. I mean I really don't get what his friggin' strategy is -- maybe the problem is his naivete -- but he'll never win in November with his strategy to win now. So what's the point?


by seattlegonz on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:22:26 PM EST

yeah (2.00 / 1)

that how I feel about Hillary's 50%+1 campaign. Why would not she pay attention to smaller states. What peoples votes there are less? What happened to 1 (wo)man 1 vote bit?


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:36:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah (2.00 / 1)

Howard Dean's 50 state strategy is a beautiful, glorious thing, but it is not going to happen tomorrow.  This long, hard fought primary is actually a good thing for the strategy, since it has built party apparatus where none existed before, but scarlet red states in the South and mountain West are not turning blue for the next several election cycles.  Some of those folks are just going to have to die to get out of the way...


No politician ever lost an election because he underestimated the intelligence of the American public. - PT Barnum, paraphrased...
by jarhead5536 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:42:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah (2.00 / 2)

Texas is a one-point McCain vs Obama tossup, a 10-plus point McCain win versus Clinton.

Clinton's already stated that she considers it a write-off. I don't expect to see her campaign or invest any time here, unless it's for a fundraiser, which doesn't help us at all.

That's probably the difference, to me, between having a Democratic Senator next year and a Republican Senator. It's got impact on which way the state legislature will go, and has implications for the governor's race.

So for me the choice is pretty easy. Obama's the only shot I have to carry my state Democratic. Clinton's going to lose badly here and my GE vote for President will be meaningless.

And, from the view of someone down here, Wright's got no legs. I work among a bunch of Republicans, for the most part, and live around a bunch more.

By and large the reaction has been, even among the most right-leaning: "wow, that Wright's a nut. Good thing Obama's not a nut like he is. Great speech, too! Might not be such a bad President. McCain's still better though, even if he's too wishywashy."

So, from my little red-state corner of the world, Wright's looking about as significant as it's looking in the polls, which just ain't much.

I think it's turning into the ultimate concern-troll issue, and that's about it. I see some easy ways for Obama to absolutely demolish it in the GE.

The stealth-Muslim thing actually had considerably more traction around here. Losing that as an issue is going to net Obama considerably more votes than Wright'll lose him.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:56:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah (2.00 / 0)

Texas Gray Wolf...

If you don't mind my asking, where are you from?

I'm originally from Lubbock but moved over to
SE New Mexico for a long time.  I still have family in both places. Most of them changed to the Republican Party over the years.  

There's not a single one of them who is short of horrified by Rev. Wright.  At least the ones I just saw at a reunion.  And I think it was mostly the GD America comment that made them do what they do so well....clamp their mouths shut, turn off the talk,as soon as they've said that was the worst thing they had ever heard from any American.  

So I'm just wondering how you get so lucky to know such forgiving Texans.  :)


by Cam5New Mexico on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:08:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

erm... (none / 0)

I am sorry are these the same Republicans who have supported and support people who sought endorsements of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and John Hagee.

Cause you know:

Pat Robertson


"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." -Pat Robertson

Jerry Falwell


"(re: 9/11 attacks) "...throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools, the abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked and when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad...I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen."" - Jerry Falwell

Pastor John Hagee


"All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." - John Hagee

....

Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist. - John Hagee

I got more quote from McCain's spiritual advisor, "Rod Parsley" too.

So these Republican at your reunion are outraged at Wright???


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:07:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: erm... (none / 0)

Did you notice that in all those quotes not ONE used the word "America"? They said liberals, the ACLU, and others on what they think of as the liberal side of things, but NOT America. They do that deliberately, because then the people listening won't think they are talking about THEM.

That's where they turn off when it comes to Wright. He implied it was THEM that caused the problems. In fact he SPECIFICALLY said it was them, by saying it was the whites that caused the problems. Not that he's wrong, per se, because the whites have been in control for many years, but people like to think they are not the cause of the problems.

THAT'S where the problem lies.


by splashy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:21:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah (none / 0)

Just curious--if Obama is so popular there, and he had more money to spend on the primary, why didn't he get more votes? And don't tell me about the caucus, there's no reason he shouldn't have won both the primary and the caucus.


by Alice in Florida on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:40:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

erm (none / 0)

well how come Hillary spends money in states with caucuses and can not win almost any??


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:07:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: erm (none / 0)

Because those with families, that don't work 9 to 5, that are elderly, disabled, and have other issues that prevent them from being able to spend hours caucusing, not to mention not wanting to be bullied by others, are the ones supporting her.

Caucuses are only for the young and strong, without families that need them, and that work 9 to 5 or at least can get off evenings and/or Saturdays. They are not democratic at all.


by splashy on Sat Mar 22, 2008 at 03:24:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah (none / 0)

That's funny...BO will win against McCain but he can't win against Hillary? The person who can carry the Hispanic vote is the one who is going to win Texas...and that isn't BO no matter how loud he yells Si Se Puede.


by seattlegonz on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 02:13:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah (none / 0)

And old man McCain can win over Texas hispanics?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:48:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 3)

I think it is imperative at this point for both candidates to reach out to the other.  As I watch, Clinton has done this tentatively a couple of times recently.  She reached out about a joint ticket, Obama rebuffed her.  Yes, I know, she mentioned him as VP, but really, she's in a race - do you think she would have reached out and said, can I be your VP?  Obama should have put a smile on his face and said, well you got half of that equation right, Hillary, we should be on the same ticket.  And you're going to make a great VP.  But he bashed her for saying what she said - period.  Did not reach out as a gentleman.  She has reached out about revotes for Michigan and Florida, and he has stuck to the "rules are rules" mantra.  Rules are rules, unless those rules disenfranchise millions of voters.  How many of us truly wish that we did not have an electoral college to decide our elections after the 2000 debacle?

It's time for Obama to do some reaching out.  Agree to recounts in both Florida and Michigan.  If he loses, but he did reach out, then he will make a great vice president and all will be well.  If he wins, and he reached out, then Hillary will make a great vice president and all will be well.  As I see it, the ball is in Obama's court.


by SandyS on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:22:38 PM EST

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 3)

I don't agree with this VP option. He is tainted and will bring down the ticket if he is on it. GoP will still have the same ammunition. I can't believe that people don't get how damaging this Wright stuff is.


by pm317 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (none / 0)

I agree.  Obama is retroactive and he will do more harm than good being on the ticket.


by tiffany on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:05:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (none / 0)

I don't consider the VP thing reaching out. Sorry. It was patronizing at the very best. The second-place candidate offering the frontrunner a VP slot is not reaching out. If the situations were reversed, Clinton supporters would have gone absolutely ballistic about the sexist notion that a woman should take a back-seat to a man when she's leading.

It was patronizing and offensive, and it was an attempt to get votes on the 2-for-1 plan, which isn't going to play.

That said, I do think she's made attempts to reach out. She's handled the Wright thing pretty well (not blaming her for Lanny Davis right now). The vitriol has toned down a couple notches.

Obama's made attempts to reach out too. He was very gracious towards Ferraro in the speech; that was a bit of an olive branch. He's continued to attack, of course, just as she has, but at least it's primarily on things that are actual issues.

Obama's always said he would support revotes if MI and FL proposed them and they passed DNC scrutiny. I just don't know why anyone perpetuates this myth that he's blocking them. It's ridiculous. MI is being blocked by the Republicans, and they're trying to somehow paint it as Obama's fault. Florida is being blocked by the legislature and has real problems with the DOJ.

I'm for revotes. Always have been. I just don't see a way they can happen, for matters irrespective of either candidate.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:03:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wrong on Michigan (2.00 / 0)

the revote is sunk because Obama supporting Democratic legislators refused to unite with other Dems.  all GOP leaders said they'd go along with the wishes of a united Democratic party in Michigan.  Had Obama called for it, they would have had to follow.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 06:02:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 5)

What this is all about:

a severe, perhaps fatal, flaw in judgment.

The first rule of campaigning is to deal with dirty laundry early, on your terms, so it does not blow up after the primary. This is a hard pill for any politicain to swallow since it means giving up a little bit of early edge, but the consequences of hiding damaging secrets spill over well beyond the campaign to the party and the movement. Imagine how screwed people would feel if the first they'd heard of this was in a 527 ad after Obama won the nomination. The DP would lock Obama in the closet of the basement they locked Jimmy Carter in.

Obama continues the close personal relationship with Wright he started when he in his late 20s or early 30s. Obama knew that this would be unearthed by the MSM or GOP black ops people, and knew precisely how this would play to middle America. He should have neutralized this issue 12 months ago by simply issuing a statement that he was leaving his church over the pastor's intemperate remarks - done, end of story.

But Obama did not neutralize this issue. He left it to blow up in my face and yours. He left it as a time bomb potentially waiting to demolish the DPs chances of taking the White House.

What exceedingly poor judgment.


by Pacific John on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:28:59 PM EST

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 1)

In addition to what you said.  I want to know, Wright's ugly remarks aside, what has Obama done to bring any change (even if it is a tiny little bit of change) to his church in the past 20 years to bridge the racial gap? I personally thought he had gotten an incredible combination of biracial background, he is intelligent, he is successful and whatever he brought to the discussion in his church would be incredibly powerful and positive.  But he failed to do so, instead he indulged Wright.  Inaction on such important moral issues is just as bad as being an accomplice.  He definitely has lost my respect.

Scan, nice post!  I had the same emotional experience watching the 2004 DNC (I almost wanted Obama to replace Kerry as the candidate right then right there.)


by observer11 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:57:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so you never (none / 0)

visited the church, never met its congregation, its pastors, never looked at all the good programs they implemented, but from a couple of video clips you judged that you know everything that Obama did?

Thanks for your drive by judgement.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:13:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: so you never (none / 0)

Let's see:

Obama first denied knowing anything about Wright's comments.  Then he acknowledged that he knew about them and tried distant himself from Wright. If he had ever done anything positive before, do you think he would be hesitant to say it?!  It would be a perfect opportunity to show the nation how he had brought changes to people's lives, do you think he would not seize it? Do you think he is that dumb? No, I bet he'll be really proud to say: "see, I brought change to my church! I bridged the racial gap through my work in my church!" The only reason he said nothing is because he did nothing!


by observer11 on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:31:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Personal Spin Zone (none / 0)

Again: Obama didn't know about the particular sermons in the YouTube clips.  He did know that his pastor was occasionally "controvercial."  The clips go rather beyond "controvercial," don't you think?

It's like you haven't paid attention to anything outside your own little spin zone.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Fri Mar 21, 2008 at 01:50:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 4)

Superb post, Scan.


by JFK464 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:30:14 PM EST

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 4)

Obama is damaged goods now with all this Wright stuff -- he did not have the courage to denounce the man who said what he said. It is not about race but about anti-American rhetoric. It may be fashionable for the ultra-liberals to think they are taking responsibility for their country's foreign policy disasters by such talk. But the bigger picture and perhaps the more mundane picture is to know that the GoP will use this "God Damn America" sermons and Obama's association with the man who said it to defeat him. I am not willing to take the risk of educating the GoP or the elctorate at large about Obama and his loftier persona in the GE. I personally don't believe that he is any different from your run-of-the-mill politician -- you just have to look at his campaign to see that. I am not willing to bet on a losing horse. In fact, if people in power are stupid enough to shove him down our throats despite all that has happened, I will take my allegiance elsewhere.    


by pm317 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:37:06 PM EST

Re: What its all about. (none / 0)

You're right, and then you draw entirely the wrong conclusions from it.

You're right, it's not about race, it's about the anti-America rhetoric. But the questions that it raises are naturally:

  1. Is Obama anti-America?
  2. Is Obama an anti-white reverse racist?

Those are questions he can easily answer; not just answer, but demolish to the point where asking them rebounds on the asker.

Answer those and Wright is an absolute non-issue, below even the level of a Hagee on the Republican side. And they're really easy to address. I could do it, and I'm not a tenth the orator Obama is.

This is all about words, remember? There's not a lot of... heck, there's no there here. This is all about words. Words are what Obama excels at, remember?

This issue already has no traction around me, and I live in a reddish county in a red state (though with Obama as nominee it looks very purple). People just aren't as dumb as you think they are.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:07:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ask your mom (2.00 / 3)

if it's between McCain and Hillary in the GE and she knows that Hillary will clean up the Bush mess and get government working again, getting services and efficiency from our government, would she vote for cleaning up the Bush mess?  McCain could not do it, he'll keep us in Iraq, and keep the bush no-bid contracts, and he simply doesn't have the energy or the resources to make sure things are getting cleaned up.  I think she'll win in November and get many Republican women too, who are as sick of the mess Bush has left as they are of the war.   Hillary is a nice midwestern lady who works 16 hour days and can't tolerate hacks or slackers.  


by anna shane on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:55:39 PM EST

Re: ask your mom (2.00 / 1)

Hillary is a nice midwestern lady who works 16 hour days and can't tolerate hacks or slackers.  

Like Mark Penn? Lanny Davis? Her brother Hugh? Her brother Tony? Ann Lewis?

Yeah, no hacks or slackers on that list.

(My mom is a nice midwestern lady. She's for Obama. Same with her three sisters. All over sixty-five, and two of them live in Park Ridge).


by BlueinColorado on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:27:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 2)

Wonderful post- it's the way we all  need to look at this election-The polarizing between the candidates on the same team-our team- is unhealthy and dangerous.  
The polls will tell the story- shame on the media and the Democratic party for allowing this biased reporting without vetting sooner - The very purpose of  the super delegates is to get us out of this mess-  When the people make a choice without facts and then change their minds- the super delegates have the opportunity to choose the candidate at the end who can win in November.  Eyes on the prize- Way to go Scan!
by Menemshasunset on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:13:45 PM EST

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 2)

If Hillary doesn't win this nomination, then IMO we are doomed in the general election since Obamas plan to win was to "convert" red states...Since the pastor thing came out that now will be impossible...


by athyrio on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:14:18 PM EST

Re: What its all about. (none / 0)

Wright's got no traction down here, in a reddish state (quite red with Hillary as nominee, nice bright purple with Obama). None. The Republicans around here don't even think it's an issue.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:09:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks for the (none / 0)

obituary. Now move along.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:14:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Trouble in Mass. too... (2.00 / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/20/1253 27/885

Maybe one Deval Patrick is enough?


allprogressives.com
by Scan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:32:17 PM EST

Re: Trouble in Mass. too... (none / 0)

Despite Deval's troubles, I think when people up there are facing the cold, hard reality of "bomb, bomb Iran" McCain ascending to the presidency, they will do the right thing and vote Dem.


by Alice in Florida on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:45:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great diary, Scan. I agree with you (2.00 / 1)

that Obama's supporters are not "getting" the gravity of the Wright thing. In middle America, in the places where the election in November will be won or lost for us, Obama is damaged goods now. That will not change. No matter what great speeches he gives, he will always be only a thiry second video away from undoing anything he can say. It is unfortunate, but it is reality. If Obama wins the nomination, we wil lose to McCain, and it's as simple as that. The superdelegate system was put in place precisely for this situation.


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:35:29 PM EST

do you get the (2.00 / 2)

gravity of how much repubs hate Clintons in general and how that will drive their turn out?


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:37:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: do you get the (none / 0)

Do you get the gravity of how angry many people are about Obama's utter lack of judgment and how that will drive their turnout - to McCain??

Do you get the gravity of non-stop campaign ads showing Obama with his preacher America-hating preacher?  Of constant ads featuring Michelle O. talking about how she's proud of her country for the first time?  The Republicans don't even need to be racist for a change because Obama has given them so much other ammo.


by mlr701 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:50:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you made my point. (none / 0)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:00:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sky /= Falling (2.00 / 6)

Come on now.  Obama knew that they would eventually come after him on Wright, and that's why he gave the speech that halted the descent of his poll numbers and gave many people a second look at one of the key issues of our times... one that everyone was afraid to approach otherwise.

Obama may have taken a temporary hit, but people vote on the big issues that you mentioned up top, not about Crazy Uncle Jeremiah.  The reason the Swift Boating of Kerry worked is because it brought people to question his strongest attribute, his military courage and character.  I've got news for ya: the Wright issue, as it would play out in an attack on Obama, is actually a race issue; Obama's race is, no matter what Ms. Ferraro might have said, not his strongest attribute.  In fact, it's a liability for reasons that all of us damn well know.

The Wright issue is only damaging insofar as people question Obama's judgement for associating with this man... but the Republicans don't have a leg to stand on here, between Robertson, Hagee, Fallwell, and Parsley.  If there's one thing we Americans like less than someone who is percieved to have poor judgement, it's someone who is demonstrably a hypocrite.  McCain courted all of those inflammatory prophets of hatred, even after condemning some of them back when he was a "maverick."  The best thing that McCain can do is plead with his 527s not to run ads like this; he has to run on the issues or he's cooked.

The true damage to Obama on Wright is all of you people who are writing off the presumptive nominee out of a mistaken belief that Clinton can still win this thing without tearing the party apart.  

YOU are the ones with the power over Obama here.  YOU can make the choice to not foster ill sentiments against someone based on who they know, not about their own actual beliefs.  YOU are the ones who can put this behind you and swear to get behind the nominee, no matter who it is.  YOU can be the ones who don't write off the Democratic nominee before you've even seen him square off against the Republican.

This diary contains a lot of important factors in the upcoming race, and is, ultimately, proof that, once the last delegate is elected and the last superdelegate chooses a side, we must all set aside the ugliness of the campaign and get behind the leader to win this one for the good guys.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:55:52 PM EST

Re: Sky /= Falling (none / 0)

I think you're in serious denial.

Mojo to you anyway for coherent sentence structure and correct spelling and grammar.


by creeper1014 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sky /= Falling (2.00 / 0)

Denial is a very comfortable place to live.

I learned that on this site. :P


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 03:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sky /= Falling (2.00 / 1)

I think anyone who ignores the polling, studies of response to Obama's speech, reaction to the speech, and the number of times it's been viewed in 2 days is the one in denial.

I know that Clinton supporters wanted this issue to have traction and doom Obama. It hasn't.

It's got no play and no traction where I live. The right-leaning morning talk show hosts are talking about what a great speech Obama gave and how they're glad he's clearly nothing like that Wright guy. The Republicans I work with are praising him (and damning McCain with faint praise, though they'll still vote for him).

A very middle-of-the-road predominately white seminary up in Dallas is honoring Wright in a couple weeks. They reevaluated it after the remarks came out, relistened to the sermons in question, and decided he should still be honored. Reaction has been mostly positive; no one's protesting or rioting.

It's fine to insist again and again that Obama's doomed; goodness knows Obama supporters have said that about Clinton a few times too many. But there just isn't much evidence for it at all.


by Texas Gray Wolf on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:14:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: before I even READ the comments (2.00 / 2)

Thanks

I too am a Clarkie for Hillary!

I need a bumper sticker!

;-)


by CarolinaDawn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:02:04 PM EST

IF Hillary wins the nomination (2.00 / 1)

the manner of her winning it will determine my vote in the fall.

Simply put, the super delegates are fully within their rights to overturn the opular vote, pledged delegate count, and number of states.

I do not dispute that this is fully wihtin the rules.

But that does not mitigate my right to choose to withold my vote from Hillary Clinton under those conditions. Nor does it alter the fact that, if I so choose, I could determine this indicates a decided lack of character, not only on the part of Hillary Clinton, but on the entire Democratic Party.

Since there are only two viable parties within this nation, the path from there would be clear.


Bill Foster would agree, Barack Obama has coat tails.
by Walt Starr on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 1)

Scan,

Outstanding diary.  

I made the same journey from 2004 to now, walking home that cold January night and wondering whether my fellow Iowans had done the right thing in going for Kerry (I caucused for Howard Dean).  

I figured after the convention that Kerry would probably lose, given his wimpiness and Republicans' ruthlessness, though that didn't stop me from working for him.  What impressed me most, though, was the guy who made that dynamite speech at the convention.   "There's the man!" I thought, and then started watching him...waiting for him to spend some of the huge political capital he took away from Boston.  I wanted desperately to believe, and so even did my Republican hubby.

We're still waiting.  Two great speeches in three years is not enough to qualify someone to be President of the United States.   In the end we see no substance...only pretty words and questionable qualifications.


by creeper1014 on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:05:37 PM EST

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 1)

I don't believe Obama is unelectable although I am not as convinced as I once was that he is MORE electable.

What I am convinced of is that we have two excellent candidates who should be doing more to bring this party together and less to destroy it.

As much as I am an avid Obama supporter I think the right choice; at this point, may be Clinton/Obama all the way... 2009-2024 anyone? That wouldn't be such a bad deal would it?


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:12:35 PM EST

Re: What its all about. (none / 0)

Not a bad deal at all. I really want both of these candidates to be President. I've supported a joint ticket for a while now, and realistically a joint ticket would mean Hillary at the top.

I think its the best way out of this situation. Obama in 2016 would be an awesome candidate, even better than now. Hillary is at her peak right now, she's ready to take on the Republicans, ready to lead.

Obama's oratory married to Hillary's determination. Obama's appeal to the young with Hillary's appeal to the old. Obama's appeal to AAs and Hillary's appeal to Latinos and Asian Americans. Obama's appeal to upscale, Clinton's to downscale.

As a way to keep the WH in Dem hands for 16yrs, to heal the divisions in the party, maximise the chances of winning in November the dream ticket is hard to beat.


by liberalj on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:26:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (none / 0)

Actually Obama's soaring oratory is the biggest liability to this happening...for two reasons.

1.) it isn't good for the VP slot to overshadow the top of the ticket.

2.) traditionally it falls to the VP to issue some of the more scathing attacks and I am not sure it fits with Obama's style to issue direct assaults.

That aside though it would be a strong ticket and if they could learn to work together it would be a tough one to beat.


I read the body count out of the paper; now it's written all over my face.
by JDF on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:51:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 0)

I take no joy in the downfall of Obama.

How could you when Hillary remains the one who fell from being the certain nominee?

Obama still has a lead in votes and delegates which all the bean counters say can't be overcome in the remaining 10 primaries.

We're still waiting.  Two great speeches in three years is not enough to qualify someone to be President of the United States.

Well, we're certainly not still waiting on Hillary. Her 2002 speech in support of invading Iraq tells us all we need to know about her.


Hillary: "Her dishonesty is actually honest." -- yellowdem1129
by Kobi on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:15:15 PM EST

Re: What its all about. (2.00 / 3)

It is easy to see how this diary made it right to the top of the recommended list. It speaks an obvious truth with common sense and elegance.

I too broke out in tears during Obama's 2004 convention speech. I thought it was one of the most beautiful things I had heard. But since the revelation of his 20 year association with a spiritual mentor that has exactly the opposite feelings and an almost as long association with a church full of people with similar attitudes I am quite certain that they were just words. Elegant words. Moving words. Even true words. But just words.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:26:47 PM EST

You teared up in 2004? (1.50 / 2)

Great to see you adopt, like the diarist, this sanctimonious tone of premature mourning... but I've looked back over your diaries, and... well others should do so and judge your sincerity here for themselves. I think your apparent grief is just another tactical attempt to blow some embers into your dying campaign.

Good luck with those last gasps.


by brit on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:36:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You teared up in 2004? (none / 0)

Thanks. I really needed a good laugh.


by Fleaflicker on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:51:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Me too. You crack me up (2.00 / 1)


by brit on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:56:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You teared up in 2004? (2.00 / 0)

it's always a hoot when some of the hard-core haters on this site try to adopt the pose of "I was open minded until today..." or "He'd make a great Vice President....", then you go back and read some of the spittle-flecked bile they spew at Obama, and anyone who dares question Hillary Clinton.


by BlueinColorado on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've just read this diary again... (2.00 / 4)

I can save everyone the time. Despite purporting to "step back from the contentious primary season" it's a simple partisan hit piece masquerading as objectivity from a distance TO SUM UP "It has become clear to me that Obama will not be elected president...I take no pleasure from the downfall of Barack Obama" The use of the passive 'it has become clear to me' is a tell tale sign of wishful thinking. And while we have to take it on faith that the write 'takes no pleasure', the big problem is the purported 'fact' Downfall? Still ahead in delegates, popular vote, polls, states. Maybe up is down and down is up in this inverted universe
by brit on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:27:39 PM EST

Well, this thing may be over sooner than I thought (2.00 / 0)

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view .php?id=27266


allprogressives.com
by Scan on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:28:29 PM EST

Re:typical white (none / 0)

yea WHAT the HELL is TYPICAL?

Open mouth, insert foot lately with that dude.

tsk

nawp


by CarolinaDawn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:47:04 PM EST