Jerome, Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee.  The numbers just aren't there for Clinton to win the nomination unless she captures nearly all the superdelegates.  In that regard, she is tearing down the Democratic brand by attacking the assumed nominee.  She should run a Mike Huckabee campaign through the rest of the primaries.  I promise that McCain will use her in advertisements in the GE.

What is it with Obama detractors? Why do Jerome, and the majority of posters on this site, have to constant repeat the refrain:

Your candidate is as bad/dirty as mine.
So much with the new politics.
So much with hope.

Something psychologically interesting is going on here. Talk about a Obamania! There's an opposite effect more prevalent round here called Obamaphobia and its tied up with disgust, fear, guilt over these new tactic he brings, new constituencies he appeals to.

Some people are 'clinging' to the past

Clinton is lending credibility to, and thus strengthening, specious arguments. Yes, Republicans would have run all these attacks anyway. But now they can run the same attacks with "Even liberal democrat Hillary Clinton says...", or "Bill Clinton's right: We need a real leader, not a fairy tale", or "Some of us have a plan to lead on day one, and some of us don't", or "Democrats agree: Obama just isn't prepared to be president".

Meanwhile, we're running out the clock on time to reunite the party and start puring funds into the general. Our presumptive nominee is still spending more time, money, and effort defending himself from his kamikaze primary opponent than engaging his very real general election opponent. Meanwhile, Clinton's tactics are driving up the Democratic defection rate, particuarly among her own supporters. Whatever else one may say about defection numbers, they're undoubtably much higher than they were just a few months ago.

Lastly, while I disagree strongly with this post, it is at least sane. Welcome back.

Nice diary . . . I just wish partisan Obama fans at KOS . . . and partisan HRC fans here would listen to you.

I have pretty much given up on writing Obama diaries. The real battle is DEM v. McCain.

I never believed Chris Matthews thought that Hillary really wanted McCain to win if she loses. Both Obama and HRC WILL rally the base.

Although this is a calmer post than those that marked your return, a simple question Jerome:

"but if Clinton wins by taking the hard road, then more power to her." Please present your scenario where this is possible at this point?

I believe there is such a thing as Republican tactics and Democratic tactics.  Republicans will question your patriotism.  Republicans will try to play different ethnic groups against each other.  Republicans will insinuate that one hates the troops if they do not support the war.  Republicans will use 9/11 as a political tool.

There are certain things that Democrats just do, ways that we just don't campaign against each other.  Clinton has not gone that far, but she is guilty in my eyes of reinforcing rightwing frames in her attacks on Obama's overblown "bitter" comment and by questioning his readiness to be president while simultaneously saying McCain is ready.  That is why Obama supporters get angry at Clinton and her supporters, and hyperbole like "She's a Republican" comes out.

I'll vote for Clinton if she's the nominee, but no one is going to tolerate a MI/FL solution that overturns the non-MI/FL results.  So for her to manage that otherwise she'll have to get 90% of the uncommitted superdelegates and stop the steady flow of them towards Obama, otherwise he WILL pass 2024 delegates by the end of May.

However you cut it, Obama stands a very good chance of being our nominee, and you can't be so cynical as to believe there aren't attacks that should be out of bounds for Democrats to use against each other.

isn't merely encouraging the effort to push Clinton out of the party; he's an active participant, and given his prominence, you could say he's leading it.

It's as if Kos, Reich and their ilk are trying to get Clinton voters to support McCain in the general. I, for one, will remember Kos's post when the term "McCain Democrats" enters the lexicon.

...that this is fake outrage.  

Jerome: like you, neither Obama nor Clinton was my first choice and, like you, I'm willing to support either one of them who gets the nomination.

That said, I'm personally disgusted by the campaign tactics that Reich is referencing.   I don't see why people can't be outraged by something just because you don't see it as that big a deal.

"Please present your scenario where this is possible at this point?"

That's easy:

If the Super Delegates do what you think is right, Obama wins.

If the Super Delegates do what I think is right, Clinton wins.

Jerome you miss the point. When Clinton trumps up the elitism charge, and it is trumped up, she is not just attacking "like a Republican." She is attacking all Democrats, because this trumped up elitism charge is where Republicans turn to every time a Democrat tries to have an intelligent conversation with the public. Lowering the level of discourse in our country is a Republican tactic, and I could go on for pages on what I think it's done to damage our nation. Even in desperation, Hillary shouldn't have gone there.

Well, the old fashioned term for what Senator Clinton is now doing is Clintonian triangulation.

And some rank-and-file Democrats who use the term "triangulation" as a pejorative think it is in part about embracing Republican policies.

Nothing new here. The term triangulation was first used by a top Bill Clinton campaign person more than a decade ago.

You said that Obama would do anything to win the nomination and so would Clinton but I disagree. Everyday you have proof that Obama, while more aggresive than before, will not stoop to Clinton's level.

It was obvious during the debate when he could have attacked her for Bosnia but he quasi-defended her. There have been many opportunities to go for Clinton's throat but instead he's taken the high-road.

This is a major reason why many former Clinton supporters are not supporting Obama - including Robert Reich, who I was able to have dinner with a few years back and did everything possible to attack policy but never the person. Even when talking about Bush. He's not known to attack people and is known as a loyal person. Why would he be supporting Obama over Clinton then? What does that tell you?

---
perezpolitics.com

You know, I agree with you, Jerome, I wouldn't call it Republicanism or call Hillary Clinton a Republican.  However, she is using campaign tactics that are traditionally Republican.  But I do agree with you that Obama is not guiltless here.  Although his mailers about her healthcare plan were factually correct, their imagery was a traditionally Republican one.  The difference is that now, she's grabbing on to these "values" memes as opposed to attacking him on actual economic issues.  It's like that Dave Chappelle joke about the scantilly clad woman, "you may not be a whore, but you sure are wearing the uniform."

I do disagree that this is the worst that I've seen the campaign commentary.  I honestly felt most disgusted during Clinton's "CinC threshhold" meme, where she implied that either she or McCain would be better prepared than the other democratic nominee.

Robert Reich is right!

The elitist argument against the Dems is a tired old Republican line.

saying this for a while.

she has no realistic path to the nomination. we have been saying this since March 5th. we say it and clinton supporters say

YES SHE DOES.

we say back it up with the math, and they stick their heads in the ground. those who try do things like giving Hillary a 20 point win in PA? 30 in WV and PR!? COME ON! and then they give obama like a 5 point win in NC? 5 in Oregon? COME ON

there is a reason NO front page poster on ANY pro-hillary site has done ANY sort of detailed math like Obama posters do. you realistically cannot give her the nomination without doing things like

1) seating FL and MI as is and giving nothing to Obama, (if he had the power to stop re-votes why in the world would he ever allow THIS?)

2)20+ wins? has she EVER done that in a state after Obama has campaigned in it? and what happens when Obama scores his wins?

3) she has NO realistic path to the nomination, I defy anyone to do the math, they won't even those that semi try
give us a try up to a point, usually PA or IN, then they just stop using numbers, and say well wins here here and here will do this, but use no numbers to show it.

I am tired of this, no one wants to do the Math to show how she can win, they don't want to admit Obama will be the nominee, but then they are surprised as hell when the party questions Hillary for attacking the nominee of the party.

does no one remember that since BEFORE Texas and Ohio it was said she needs 60 point wins, that didn't change, it didn't go away because HRC supporters don't want to admit it, she didn't get 60% and Obama will win NC, her margins needed now increased.

and HRC supporters don't even care about delegates anymore, THE way we have done this for YEARS, where was the outrage in '04 when we had the nominee by Feb 5th? or the year before that?

Hillary can't win by delegates so now its a mad dash to find a new way to measure the race so we don't have to admit she lost. HEY I know Popular vote! what about those caucus states we don't know votes for? SCREW 'EM.

but yes maybe Obama will implode, thats why we now get stuff like Hillary blowing up that bitter stuff, or now this crap about did he flip her the bird?

if HRC supporters can't accept it it's not the responsibility of the party to humor them at our chances expense, she can't win, no one can provide ANY meaningful analysis of how she could. so now we are suppose to sit back and let her attack the presumed nominee for 2 months while you all hope he implodes so supes will run to her, while her supporters do all they can to help it happen?

yeah right.

Any who tells you BO wouldn't  have used the cling thing in ads against Hillary if things were reversed is either a fool or a liar.

Look at how he's campaigned so far.  One negative mailer and radio spot after another.

Chicago smack down politics as usual  Reich should be ashamed of himself..

After Watergate, Nixon defenders whined "everybody does it...or they would if they could" in order to deny the political fallout from those deviant actions.  Your logic here, although less overt, echoes some of those themes.

Nobody argues that Obama is not trying to win.  For example, I don't doubt that his campaign has been dragging its feet in resolution of the FL and MI situations--and is entitled to do so, since they did NOT write the rules, and owe their supporters nothing less than to make their case.  But here you have a longstanding Clinton ally turning against her, providing objective verification that there is indeed something rotten about the Clinton campaign, it's NOT just some "Obamabot" delusion.  In the ongoing superdelegate wars, this Reich endorsement is going to provide a LOT of political cover for movement toward Obama from here on in.

Jerome, your professional affiliation with the Clinton campaign denies you the opportunity to claim objectivity on this point.  The Reich endorsement speaks for itself, loud and clear--and you really have nothing useful to add here, except to bemoan a major political blow to your candidate's already slim hopes.

He's basically saying that Democrats who use certain tough techniques against each other, because they offend people like himself, are emulating Republicans.

It's not that the techniques are "tough".  Clinton has used tough techniques before, and that's not the problem.  It's that the techniques she is using now are an extension of the right wing Kulturkampf that the Republicans have used so effectively for the past few decades, and are a staple of right wing talk radio.  The essence of that strategy has been to divide the old, and once very effective, New Deal alliance between working Americans and highly educated liberals.

As applied to someone like Obama, the idea is to convince some voters that the candidate who is working for better and more equal health care, more affordable access to higher education, fairer trade rules that protect the jobs of working Americans, and an end to the war that has destroyed the lives of thousands of ordinary Americans and made us all less secure is "not on your side" because he visits people in snobby, sissy San Francisco and talks about how economic depredations of the right effects the morale and behavior of ordinary Americans; while the candidate whose economic platform consists entirely in making sure the top 5% of wage-earners do not pay higher taxes is "on your side", because he wears a flag pin and stays far away from effete, elite left coast coffee shops.

There is a difference between Republican and Democratic tactics, and it is disingenuous for Jerome to pretend otherwise and pretend that his mind is blown by those that think otherwise.  And what he dismissively calls a "style" of campaigning should not just offend "people like Reich" - whatever the hell that means - but all Democrats.

As a political operative, it blows my mind that people like Reich are now trying to define tactics as being either Republican or Democrat.

You have to understand.  Most people in the democratic party are so because they believe in the principles it espouses.

They aren't in it to win it whatever the cost because they aren't political operatives.  They don't get a payday if their candidate wins.  They only get one if they elect someone who has moral, ethics, and believes in responsibility.

You are the type of person that the netroots is trying to get rid of.  The cynical political operative only in to win who has no morals or principles.  Because all you do is lead to corruption and long term failure.

it's Obama who's run like a rethug, using 90's right wing framing against the Clintons, healthcare and social security.  if anybody needs to be called out for their tactics it's St. BO.  I suggest everybody go read Paul Krugman today who (as usual) lays it all out truthfully.  not only did Obama dis small town folks in his SF panderfest, Krugman proves what he said is fundamentally wrong with econ statistics and more to the point calls out the creep for continuing to tear down the Clinton brand, lumping the economic good times of those years with the Bush 1 and 2 disasters not to mention leveling no criticism at all at Reagan (no shock there, he loves him some Reagan).  if anybody needs to stop the repuke tactics, it's Obama if he ever wants to get my vote.

IMO, the way he is allowing his site to be used now, and I use the word 'allow' intentionally, as kos has frequently purged the site in the past to select for tone or quality.

loud and often. It sickens me to my core when I hear folks saying Hillary is not a Democrat, or Obama is not a Democrat. How fucking arrogant and hypocrtical is that?

Isn't the problem that the attacks are now becomming defining characteristics of the candidate?  Once Obama = unpatriotic becomes standard there is no way to reverse that.  Just as Gore = exagerator, Kerry = flip-flopper, H. Clinton = dishonest and MCain = MAVERICK. The Dem nominee needs time to break down the MAVERICK meme and create the CRAZY meme.

Reich has always been a Fox News Dem.  you know, loves criticize other Dems for not being as pure as he is, particularly using right wing frames about the Clintons to whom he was grossly disloyal.  The BO campaign's MO exactly.  Hillary supporters, people like me and my family are the backbone of the Dem party.  we were loyal Dems when Kos and Arianna were Repukes.  so for them to be deciding these things defies credulity.  stop trying to circumvent the process.  let the voters vote on which campaign's message works for them.  The BO wingnut meme/unity schtick or the strong, proud, fighting Dem of the Hillary campaign.

There used to be a point where you were opposed to Republican talking points. You used to do Ad Watches where you would criticize Democrats using Republican messaging. You need to open your eyes.

People aren't mad at Clinton for attacking Obama. I could care less if she was attacking him on his policy differences. She isn't attacking him on his health care plan, she is saying the he is a liberal elitist (as was apparently Kerry and Gore).

Reich is ANGRY ELF!

Whatever Obama supporters think of Hillary's tactics, (and one can judge some of them harshly), I am still incredulous that so many Obama supporters either cannot see blatantly true facts about his own campaign or willfully deny them:

Do you really think that senior members of the Obama campaign including on the MLK_LBJ remark Obama himself have not insinuated that the Clintons are racist? Can you not remember that John Lewis accused the Obama campaign of race-baiting?

Do you really think that Obama has not trashed the last Democratic President, and suggested that there on the economy there was no difference between it and the present administration?

Do you really think that he did not make the scripted 'periodic' remark?

Do you really think that his campaign has not constantly briefed against HIllary's character?

Do you really think that his campaign did not use Republican imagery to attack Hillary on healthcare?

Do you really think that he didn't do the "Democrat for a day' campaign?

The idea that there is any relationship between Obama's professed ends  of his  new politics and his means (hard-edged, rough politics) is as someone said about something else a complete fairy tale.  What this whole election has showed is how many people struggle to see what is going on in front of their own eyes when someone rhetorically taps into their idealism.  The disillusionment  for those who have chosen to absent themselves from the  nature of politics and the facts of what has happened when all this  ends in tears will be enormous.

I think there's enough faux outrage to go around.  Seems like a while back we were hearing "Shame on you Barack Obama" from HRC as she accused him of taking a page out of the Republican playbook.

Oh sorry, that was taking the 'hard road'.  Similar complaints against HRC is whining.  Sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference.

You omitted his reasoning, which I think is dead on.

I for one support dems because of the etical and tactical differences with the likes of Fox and Rush.  That is substance

"So what's changed? I asked Reich.

"I saw the ads" -- the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago -- "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds. We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign. And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past 20 years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst -- and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."

The Clinton campaign will, no doubt, shrug off the Reich endorsement of Obama. (And hey, who knows, maybe James Carville will get into the act and declare Reich a Benedict Arnold!) They will say that it's unlikely to move any votes, and that, since Reich is not a super-delegate, it does nothing tangible to move Obama even one inch closer to the nomination.

All of which is true enough, as far as it goes. But beyond the bald fact of Reich's support for Obama, the Clinton campaign should pay heed to the reasoning behind it. In his disgust with Hillary's increasingly harsh tactics, Reich is hardly alone. Indeed, the feeling seems to be spreading more broadly in the party with every passing day. It's been clear for some time that Hillary's attacks on Obama were driving up her negatives. You could certainly argue this might be a price worth paying if those attacks were amping up doubts about him. But it's hard to see any logic -- or even sanity -- in the tactic if the result is to drive even people who once regarded Hillary dearly into Obama's arms. -- John Heilemann"

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/hei lemann_robert_reich_to_endo.html

Congratulations Clinton Supporters, Your Chickens Have Come Home to Roost!

After spending years sharing McCain's voting record on national security issues and months complimenting McCain's CIC ability, Democrats are starting to associate her with Mr. McCain's party.

Why should this come to anyone as a surprise?

I just watched a video where Obama mentions Hillary and scratches his right cheek with his middle finger and the audience squeals with delight.  OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, that's so George W. Bush!!!!!  So who's the Republican?!  This whole thing is getting too silly.  Both candidates are Democrats.  Both want to win the nomination, and both are using whatever tactics they think will do that.  Why can't we accept that?  

Jerome, you used to criticize (rightly) Dems who adopt Republican framing and implicitly give credit to bogus bullshit GOP arguments against progressives.  True or false?

So please tell me if the following are GOP frames:

1)  Dems are out-of-touch, arrogant elitists

2.  Dems are faithless and anti-religious
   
3.  Dems are soft on national security, unpatriotic, and unserious about defending the country

These frames are now essentially the centerpiece of Clinton's campaign against Obama.  The most aggravating is her laughable pseudo-claim (and yours) that "I'm not really making this argument, but McCain will, so I'm just bringing it up."

Obama criticizes Clinton, sure, but i can't think of any GOP frame he has adopted even implicitly in doing so.  

Why are Laura Ingraham, David Brooks, Sean Hannity and the rest of the conservosphere congratulating ABC news for holding a really great debate?

Also, Robert Reich did not say Hillary "was" a Republican.  Please read the snip again.  He said her "ads" use "Republican tactics."  

And on this point, I think the reactions of Hannity, Ingraham, Brooks et al. are telling.  

My goodness.
Jerome-
What is the problem?  The HRC tactics are a disgrace to her image-agree or disagree?

The Clintons are destroying their Democratic support,  I defended Bill for 8 yrs. and am now over that also...they will turn into untouchables if they keep this up!

In fact, it strikes me as your "consistent" inconsistency, in that you always seem put off at Obama, but tolerant of Clinton, vis-a-vis campaign tactics, especially in regards to their surrogates. You say in one sentence:

But be honest, Obama would use whatever technique it takes to win this nomination, so would Clinton.

Which you present, and have presented, as axiomatic ... but generally, only as a defense of Clinton.

In the very next sentence...

Please spare us the fake outrage over party credentials. Its a loser.

But fake outrage - over any and everything - is a staple of down-and-dirty campaigning. Certainly it falls into the 'whatever technique it takes," and certainly fake outrage is employed by Clinton every day against Obama.

Now, I find it all nauseating, and I turn away when I need to, but I think many of the sane protestations you hear from Obama-folk here (and I am an Obama supporter, although he was, I believe, my 4th choice, and I aint doin' backflips over him) is that you're being less than even handed - consistently rolling your eyes and feeling disgusted when Obama "does what it takes," but enthusiastically and proactively supporting Clinton when she "does what it takes."

However he's doing it - Obama is kicking Clinton's ass by most any metric. I think - objectively - that suggests he's, well.... an ass-kicker.

If only he could learn how to &%$*ing debate worth a damn.

"We have three terrible traditions that we've developed in American campaigns. One is outright meanness and negativity. The second is taking out of context something your opponent said, maybe inartfully, and blowing it up into something your opponent doesn't possibly believe and doesn't possibly represent. And third is a kind of tradition of distraction, of getting off the big subject with sideshows that have nothing to do with what matters. And these three aspects of the old politics I've seen growing in Hillary's campaign."

Couldn't agree more.  Btw, I think its sad that your understanding of what it means to be a political operative is that all that matters is winning.  But I think in the end, that's what has always tied Clinton supporters to Bill and Hillary.

Kind of amazing that you're still friends but I can understand that, I have Republican friends after all, but tell me...

...will you ever write a book with him again?

Thank you for this Jerome.  I am an HRC supporter and I too will vote for either Dem in the fall. The issues are too important.   But Reich and Kos are doing their candidate and our party no favor by essentially calling Clinton a Republican.  Its untrue, it alienates her supporters, and it minimizes the real danger of Republican attacks.

I will state it concisely.

Jerome, give up.  

Obama is the presumptive nominee.

Whether it's deserved, or appropriate, or warranted, or not, that's the fact.

Stop thinking about you wish would happen, and recognize what has already happened.

Join with the rest of the Democratic party in supporting the next President of the United States, Barack Obama.  You're going to be forced to do it sooner or later.  Why not make it sooner?

"But be honest, Obama would use whatever technique it takes to win this nomination, so would Clinton."

How can you legitimately say that?  What proof do you have of this?

Have we Democrats lost our collective minds?Does anybody here honestly believe that the "Rev Wrght" flap has any REAL substance.  How does a sermons given by a pastor have any REAL relation to Obama and his positions. Jerome you are either blinded by your desire to win the "DEBATE" or just plain stupid. Stop it! Please come to your senses. Clinton is swiftboating a fellow Democrat and De facto Nominee for the Presidency of the United States!