The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I understand that some former Hillary supporters cannot contain the glee that it appears that Obama may lose but this is getting us nowhere.

"a house divided against itself cannot stand"

Barack Obama is having lunch with Bill sometime this week and he already called Hillary to thank her for what she is doing.

So, why all the hate towards Obama?  

Obama chose not to go with Hillary, for whatever reason. Okay, I get it. You want to rub our faces in the dirt to try to prove some point. fine. But, don't think for one second that if Barack Obama does lose you and I or the US wont be affected by the Republican administration.

Tags: Barack Obama (all tags)

Comments

153 Comments

So, why all the hate towards Obama?

You're new here, right?

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-10 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Maybe Obama can help the cause by promising to serve only one term thereby clearing the way for Hillary in 2012.

Hillary 2012

by alvic63 2008-09-10 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

You do realize that if McCain wins, Palin, not Hillary would be next in line, right?

by afr114 2008-09-10 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Yeah, and given the odds, McCain at his advanced age will not survive his first term, which would effectively make Palin the first woman president -- BEFORE Hillary would even have a chance to run again.

Given the choice between Palin pre-2012 and Hillary 2016, I would prefer the latter.

by lalawguy 2008-09-10 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Why does everyone say this?  Does everybody die these days between ages 72-76?  

by BPK80 2008-09-10 04:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Truer words have never been spoken.    What pumas dont realize is if that Obama loses, Palin is the sitting vice-president.   Palin is then the biggest female politician in the country.  Clintons option would be then to run against a sitting president McCain in 2012.    Or run against Palin in 2016 as a two term vice-president.   Palin would then have the experience over Hillary.   To me Hillary and some non-loyal democratic supporters are in the same position McCain was in 2000.    Your best option is to work to get Obama elected and bide your time until 2016.   They dessert Obama and they'll turn Palin into something huge, and they then lose 3 elections.    So if you want to hurt Hillary then dont support Obama and work for Mcsame, and turn Sarah Palin into the second coming.  

by realistdem 2008-09-10 03:20PM | 0 recs
Can't believe I stuck with you through that

trip of convuluted logic!  

by SoCalVet 2008-09-10 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Larry over at No Quarter is a Republican.  I think his original support for Hillary was a scam created with the intention of eventually attacking the party as an "insider."  If after the Palin pick you're a real Hillary supporter backing McCain I just don't get you.

McCain and Palin want to destroy everything Hillary has worked for over the past 30 years.  Support for the two sides is mutually exclusive.  It can't be done while remaining rational.

by Renie 2008-09-10 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Some are just dying for that I told you so moment. Others survive on hate.

by jsfox 2008-09-10 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

And many were never progressives to begin with.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-09-10 01:34PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Being right for most of them is more important then a USSC dragged to the right for the next 20 years it seems.

Sad, angry little people.

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-10 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I have spent a good many hours communing with many of those people.  I found them very dear and reasonable.  I am astonished at their lack of magnanimity.  My assessment of them was that they were much better than this.  I still think they are but they have fallen into some weird, morose group think.

by Beltway Dem 2008-09-10 04:38PM | 0 recs
It's not groupthink...

It is reactionary.

But I'm sure that group of voters won't be a problem...just as I'm sure Obama and his team calculated the Hillary-supporter losses when they were going with the kitchen sink strategy during the primaries.  

by SoCalVet 2008-09-10 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not groupthink...

That's actually a lie - the "kitchen sink fuscillade" was a direct quote from a Clinton staffer describing THEIR strategy.

Distusting.  You remind me of Republicans who used to use the phrase "politics of personal destruction" to describe Bill Clinton's campaign tactics knowing full well that he used that phrase to complain about what they were doing to him.  Did you learn that trick from Sean Hannity?  The phony outrage is just so reminscent of him.

by MeganLocke 2008-09-10 07:23PM | 0 recs
not glee, disguised anger

I'm Irish, I use sardonic humor to cope with tragedy. We have 54 days to go, Democrats have some built in strength in Pennsylvania and Michigan that may prevent Obama from losing.

But if he does blow this I will be deeply angry with Barack Obama and the people around him who sold us this "new, transformative politics" bill of goods, and went on to alienated a good portion of the party with the attacks you see in the comments to this diary. Win or lose I will work to expose and defeat those who permitted sexism to undermine the Democratic party's advantage with women, and with it our ability to achieve progressive goals.

by souvarine 2008-09-10 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: not glee, disguised anger

 I don't hate you or the things you say because of your gender. Honest!

by QTG 2008-09-10 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: not glee, disguised anger

When you acknowledge that the attacks came from all sides, then we can have a serious and productive conversation.

by Strummerson 2008-09-10 02:04PM | 0 recs
Maybe the attacks are invisible.

I'm just not seeing them and I read every comment.  Well, there was one comment saying the Dem candidate was selling people "a bill of goods" and "alienating people" but that was the only one.  If we all just HR that comment then the entire thread will be without attacks.

by GFORD 2008-09-10 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: not glee, disguised anger

Take the mirror out from in front of your computer screen. Voila! The attacks disappear.

by Mystylplx 2008-09-10 02:27PM | 0 recs
Souvarine.

I never liked Obama that much, to tell you the truth.  I was an Edwards donor.  I liked Edwards, and only because I couldn't have Feingold or Clark.  I have posted months ago, if we lose this election, I don't want to ever see either Hillary OR Obama waste our time running for prez again.

But you have to be insane to think that if Obama loses this that people will be mad at him.  The fall-guy won't be Obama. It will be Hillary Clinton.  Some of us have had to put up with sniping from certain people (ahem) ever since Hillary conceded, including a "former Hillary supporter" I saw on CNN just moments ago calling Obama a sexist.  This is not about sexism or equal rights anymore.  

It's pure factionalism. One very entrenched faction of the Democratic Party is/was outraged that it lost a primary that they felt entitled to and can't understand why they lost.

You are right that the party was split, but that split began in 2002 and widened every year that the war proceeded.  If you failed to notice it at the time, you just weren't paying attention.  Hillary Clinton acknowledged this is what killed her in the caucuses.  A lot of Democrats had to build parallel movements and infrastructure to fight Bush because the Clinton wing of the party (and it is a whole wing, shrinking as it may be) was unwilling to stand up to Bush.

So forget about Obama's reputation if he loses.  He's not the one most at risk.  If he loses, the spin won't be about him.  And there won't be a Hillary 2012.

Having said all that, let's get this diary off the rec list, huh?  Diary NOT RECCED.  

by Dumbo 2008-09-10 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Souvarine.

I didn't mention Hillary, and the obsession with Hillary is what is so misguided about this diary. Obama doesn't have a problem with Hillary, she's all for him, he has a problem with some of the voters Hillary was able to appeal to. One group that he is apparently doing poorly with, a certain critical block of voting women, have been consistently dismissed or attacked by his campaign and by his supporters. That is an unforgivable and anti-progressive error, and I agree that it is counter-productive for people to recommend this diary.

The other issue I addressed is tactical, I think Obama's supporters were just naive about politics, but his advisers are not and cynically used new voters naivety but made no real plan for the GE.
 

by souvarine 2008-09-10 03:29PM | 0 recs
Um

Other than registering new voters like mad, you mean?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-09-10 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Um

Registering voters is great. And if Obama wins I'll be embarrassed by my tactical criticisms. Although I don't think Obama will run on transformative change twice, given how close this race is and the problem of incumbency.

by souvarine 2008-09-10 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Souvarine.

Confession time.

I went and looked at Alegre's blog after the Palin pick.  Many people over there were disgusted.  That was a reality check given my initial suspicion that they were all Republican fakers.  It seems that that description was more appropriate for the No Quarter crowd.

Perhaps if we had found a way to listen to the people who feel hurt rather than summarily calling them trolls and running them off they wouldn't have congregated and multiplied.  I know I'm one to talk because I've flashed on them myself more than once in this process.  But maybe instead of getting pissed off because I felt that they were confusing their personal experiences with the political campaign I could have done a better job of listening.  Maybe many of us could have done so.

by Renie 2008-09-10 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Souvarine.

Perhaps if we had found a way to listen to the people who feel hurt rather than summarily calling them trolls and running them off they wouldn't have congregated and multiplied.  

Too late, now. I think the real shocker is going to be when you find out the Dems have lost these voters for a generation.

by hwc 2008-09-10 11:00PM | 0 recs
Re: not glee, disguised anger

"Win or lose I will work to expose and defeat those who permitted sexism to undermine the Democratic party's advantage with women, and with it our ability to achieve progressive goals."

So, you're telling me that you will spend THE NEXT 4 Years fighting about 2008?

Doesn't that seem counterproductive?

BTW, very few people are going to want to go fight that battle WITH you.

Most will be jockeying for postition for 2012?

Just look at HOW FAR the party fought over the voter fraud in 2000 and the SwiftBoat smears in 2004? Did they became the rallying cries in the following years?

I could be wrong, but history is on my side.

Not many want to fight yesterdays war again.

Get on the bandwagon for Clinton 2012, and my take is, she won't want to trash the party, trash obama, spend time looking back.

My take is, she would have her hands full with a continually changing younger demographic who was barely concious when Bill was in office, and probably won't have the committment you do to revisit 2008.

And, don't think folks like Warner are not going to give Senator Clinton a serious challenge.

My take is, IF obama looses, the last thing Senator Clinton's campaign is going to want to dwell on is 2008. She will be getting ready for 2012.

by WashStateBlue 2008-09-10 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: not glee, disguised anger

I will spend the next four years fighting to make sure the Democratic party stands against sexism, yes. The 2008 campaign, primary and GE, has revealed some damaging strains of sexism within the Democratic party. We cannot achieve progressive goals if we allow them to fester, we need the support of women to pass universal health care, expand the rights of labor, etc. I don't see any shortage of people who will fight with me, I know women and men at all levels of the party who are gearing up for it after the election.

What Hillary Clinton chooses to do is irrelevant to that fight.

by souvarine 2008-09-10 04:24PM | 0 recs
Souveraine

IMHO, You may claim you will spend the next four years fighting sexism, but a whole lotta women will spend it running from fakes like you. Because you aren't fighting for any feminism we recognize as the geunine article.  I fought round one, and I am tired of fake feminists who have no judgement and no self understanding using this as a club to enforece their own class AND RACE superiority and arrogance, and who are more interested in having their superiority enforced against the uppity and those in their own class structure level  than they are about what the Republicans are going to do to our beloved country in the next four years, with Palin hooting about how she conned people like you into putting her into the position to do it. Phooey.

by Christy1947 2008-09-10 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Souvarine

I don't know what you mean. I'm working to get Obama elected. I've pointed out pretty specifically the things he is doing that I think are mistakes. I'm working to defeat McCain/Palin, and I've pointed out where I think Obama inadvertently strengthened that ticket. I have no interest in Palin being Vice President, she is inimical to nearly all of my interests, but I am not blind to her political appeal to people who are less liberal than I am. Democrats need many of those people to win, the mindset displayed in this diary pushes them away.

by souvarine 2008-09-10 05:29PM | 0 recs
So what did mccain/palin

say, lie or do today?

What new scandal has popped up about palin?

These are the things we need to focus on.

by kevin22262 2008-09-10 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re:There're still some hard feelings.

I read the comments at pro-Hillary blogs occasionally and you're right, there is unabashed glee at the prospect of Obama losing.  Some of the celebrants are clearly republicans who are trying to fan the flames, and some are Hillary supporters who feel genuinely betrayed and dissed by the democratic party.  Many feel that Obama and other party leaders have tried to force the Clinton's (and their supporters) to take a back seat, in order to establish themselves as the future of the party. There also seems to be a perception that the primaries were "rigged," or that the party leadership pulled strings to try to bring about the result they wanted, namely, an Obama victory.  There are complaints of election tampering in some caucus states(particularly in Texas,) complaints about the fact that pledged delegates were in some cases prevented from voting for Clinton at the convention etc.

And of course, the fact that Obama did not pick Hillary to be on the ticket is seen as a slap in the face, an additional sign of Obama's disrespect.  Because they feel discarded and taken for granted by the party and by the Obama campaign, they want the party to fail.

I don't believe there are many Hillary supporters who feel this way, but that is just a hunch, I can't really substantiate it.  I suspect that the people who claim to be long-time party activists could probably be convinced to vote for Obama if someone made a point of reaching out to them, although I can't prove that, either.  

Just my observations, hope you find it helpful.  I was actually reading The confluence and a few other sites today and i also was struck by the number of people who are gloating over mcCain's bounce in the polls.    

by half nelson 2008-09-10 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re:There're still some hard feelings.

My sense is that you're right--that it's a minority of Hillary supporters. Yet it's, unfortunately, a very vocal minority.

by Mystylplx 2008-09-10 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re:There're still some hard feelings.

There was an attempt to kill Hillary's political career that predated any attempts to kill Obama's.

Obama has done NOTHING serious to attempt to reverse that.

Had he picked Hillary as VP or Chosen to present himself as a member of the Bill Clinton school of presidential politics with all the ass kissing that would have involved he could have made peace.

But he choose not to.

So there won't be any peace.

Its clear that in the reverse the Clintons know how to kiss ass and would have made peace with him in victory even more sincerely than they did in defeat.

Hillary would have picked Obama and talked up his long term prospects big time.

by dtaylor2 2008-09-10 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re:There're still some hard feelings.

Oh puleeze....

That is all.

by JenKinFLA 2008-09-10 02:51PM | 0 recs
Re:There're still some hard feelings.

Uprated should not have been HRd, the post is on topic and while not fully agreeing I do nevertheless absolutely agree that Hillary would have picked Obama for Veep without question.

Also agree there is no point in hashing this out at this time out - we need to get the focus back on this piece of shit economy that McPalin wants to perpetuate for another 4 years.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-10 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re:I'm just curious...

...are you someone who has been active in the party for a long time?  Some of the angriest pro-Hillary people seem to be long-time activists, including a few who posted here during the primaries.  They feel that they've given a lot over the years and in return have been betrayed by the party that they thought shares their values.  It's very unfortunate that the party is losing these committed individuals, and I really hope they come back to the fold.  

by half nelson 2008-09-10 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re:I'm just curious...

No I am a big believer in pragmatic good governance and Obama isn't in the same league as Hillary.

If you don't relate think of Palin.

I hold Obama in only slightly higher regard than you likely hold Palin.  His resume is stronger but not by much.

I hold Bill and Hillary in only slightly lower regard than you hold JFK, RFK, MLK

The reason so many are so angry is because I am likely not uncommon in my valuations.

by dtaylor2 2008-09-10 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re:I'm just curious...

Absolutely true.  Obama & co. rigged the primary process, shoved an inexperienced candidate down our throats, and then tried to pretend that Hillary and her supporters didn't exist.  We were invalidated.  And now it's "ooooh so shocking" that we're not supporting him.  

by BPK80 2008-09-10 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re:There're still some hard feelings.

What you write is spot-on accurate.  There has been no real outreach to Hillary supporters from the party.  And though it's too probably late now, I know I would have responded favorably to some real respect from the party.  Clearly any "efforts" to court us now only seem insincere and self-interested.  "Shut up and vote for him" permeates everything I've seen from the party this summer.  

by BPK80 2008-09-10 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?
"Barack Obama is my candidate and he must be our president."
              --HRC
by fugazi 2008-09-10 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I hope they are gleefully investing in coathangers, as well... after all, that would be the inevitable result of a Sarah Palin presidency...

by LordMike 2008-09-10 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

This is a prime example of comments by sexist pigs that demonstrates why the Democratic Party is losing the support of so many women. I can always go to Canada and get an abortion if I ever needed to so I won't be needing any coat hangers. But no matter how hard Lord Mike tries I doubt he will ever mature into a "real man". I do not respond well to threats and I have never threatened to vote for McCain but I would love to take jerks like him into a room and believe me this Beiach would be the only one walking out, Lord Mike would crawl out crying for his mommy.

by 2maddogs 2008-09-10 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

The problem, friend, is that the "threat" comes not from your fellow Democrats but from the Republicans should they get their way.

When one of us tells you that there are real repercussions and consequences for a McCain administration (more dead soldiers and Iraqis, diminished reproductive rights for women, etc), we are not threatening you with anything.  A threat requires that the person making it have some control over the later harm.

The control ain't mine.  I'm not gonna kill American soldiers, Iraqi civilians, or deny you the right to have an abortion.  John McCain probably will.

We're not being sexist by telling you that McCain would be a disaster for Americans generally, and women somewhat more particularly.  We're being factual, and we're describing MCCAIN, not YOU.

Get over yourself.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-09-10 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

"Get over yourself."

Really, this would make a great campaign slogan for Obama to Hillary supporters.  I'm sure we would respond favorably.  WELL DONE.  

by BPK80 2008-09-10 04:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Ah, you're back!  Wonderful!

Any chance you might make a substantive reply?  Or is that beyond you?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-09-10 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Is this snark?  I can't tell, serious question.  It's like you're trying to imitate the most shrill and condescending stereotypes of the early Obama supporters, but I know that isn't what you're about.  

by BPK80 2008-09-10 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

You're way off base.  The coat hanger comment is accurate - Palin would outlaw all abortions if she had the chance.  And McCain, who probably isn't as extreme, would go along for the ride.

by NewOaklandDem 2008-09-10 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Really as a 45 year old lesbian I do not think that the coathanger issue is a real threat to me. That is what I mean by the sexist part he just assumes that everyone who this diary is addressing do need to keep their coathangers ready. Yep we're all just out there getting knocked up and having abortions and the only thing we care about is getting one at the nearest drive thru. Guess what sexism is a bigger concern to my daily life than abortion. Sexism is one of those "bread and butter" issues to me. It affects me daily, it has affected my ability to earn a living in the past. It has affected my getting promoted and increasing my income. Sexism or Choice, you do not ever want to make me decide which is more important to my day to day life. Guess what I can avoid needing an abortion but everyday I wake up I will still be a woman and sexism will affect me.

by 2maddogs 2008-09-10 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Nice to see you don't mind being unable to see beyond the end of your own nose.

The mistake you're making here is that nobody but you believes that sexism and choice are an either/or proposition.  If McCain wins, choice goes out the window, and sexism goes through the roof.  If Obama wins, choice is safe, and I can't believe you would seriously suggest that sexism would get worse under him than it would under McCain, so what, exactly, would you propose we do?

by Balloonz 2008-09-10 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Well really I only feel that way when "occasionally I get down, and then the claws come out and I lash out". Other than that I spend all my time worrying about "the OJ affect and how a black man will attack a white woman". But when none of those thing are happening I just go about my business "pimping" young family members. But I really hate to talk about it being as I am so "shrill" that I "remind people of their mother in law". Then I just get so obsessed about it I start acting like "Glenn Close's character in fatal attraction".

by 2maddogs 2008-09-10 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Um, OK.  I'm still wondering exactly what you want us to do.  Your response is, frankly, a little baffling, since I can't imagine that any part of my comment suggests that I don't take misogyny serioiusly.

What I'm still wondering about is 1) why you seem to be focusing the ire of a lifetime of received sexism on the Democratic nominee for President, when the very worst that can be said of him is that his supporters  contributed a few month's worth of  offensive rhetoric to a problem that's way, way beyond any one campaign, and 2) what exactly you want us to do about it.

by Balloonz 2008-09-10 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Nobody, No Group is a little bit sexist for a for just a few months. If his campaign is so well run as so many supporters claim is a reason to vote for him, then his high level supporters who hold official positions in his campaign would not be saying these things. Unless they received the go ahead from the campaign. He never said a word to those in the media, such as : hey these folks are crossing a line. No not a peep sorry only the most guilable would buy that these "comments" were not approved by the campaign? "A little bit sexist" is kind of like "a little bit pregnant" there is no such thing you either are or you are not.

by 2maddogs 2008-09-10 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

You STILL haven't answered my question, so I'm going to stop asking it, since you clearly don't have an answer.

As for "you either are [sexist] or you are not," I couldn't disagree more.  Your analogy is false: pregnancy is a  condition that is medically verifiable, about as objective as you can get.  Sexism, as cultural behavior, is far more complicated and absolutely cannot be accounted for quantitatively without sacrificing so much nuance that the word becomes meaningless.  That's the same sort of dualistic thinking that brought us "You're either with us or you're against us."

There are as many different kinds of sexism as there are people.  How would you like us to determine whether or not a person is sexist?  If you've made one misogynistic blonde joke, you're just as sexist as a serial rapist?  Yes, both acts count as sexist, but you can't deny that there's a massive qualitative difference between the two.

As for sexist comments during the primary being a harbinger of greater sexism within the Obama campagin and the Democratic Party, there's truth to that.  But there's no party and no campaign that's immune to sexism, even Hillary Clinton's.  The Democrats are the best we have for now, and while I share your desire to make things better within the party, the least useful time to do that is right before a major Presidential election.  If the rallying cry of defecting Democrats is "The Democratic Party is sexist!", you can guarantee that an Obama loss will set back the cause of gender equality within the party for a long while, especially if "I told you so!" then becomes the defectors' motto.

Your choices: leave the party while maintaining principle (and relegating yourself to political irrelevance), stay in the party but subtly sabotage it (maintaining principle, but wrecking the most realistic chance you have at making things better), or slightly compromise your prinicples by keeping mum for two months (establishing credibility so that after the election you'll have much more political capital to effect the changes you desire).  Right now you seem to be vacillating between the first two choices, but I really think you're better off with what's behind door number three.

by Balloonz 2008-09-10 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Hiderated for the completely unsubstantiated sexist pig comment. Equality cuts both ways.

by duende 2008-09-10 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I'm glad you're close enough to Canada that you can get an abortion any time you want, but the same can't be said for millions of women.  I'm appalled that you seem to have no regard for their safety.

by Balloonz 2008-09-10 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Hey don't turn this around on me. I am not the one telling people that they have to choose between sexism and abortion rights. Because when you put it in those terms " shut up and take the sexism or you may loose the right to choose" you may be suprised how many women and even some men may be willing to gamble on abortion rights falling by the wayside. See some people have in the past stood up for rights that really don't affect us but we believed others should have those rights, now many are beginning to question whether our rights are as important to the party as those of others that we have supported. I will tell you it ain't looking good for the party. Let's just say I am not yet convinced that this "New Party" does represent me and a whole lot of others are starting to ask the same question. Once again I am not voting for McCain, but I am questioning whether the Democratic Party represents me anymore. I keep coming around hoping they will convince me they do, but I'm not seeing it yet.

by 2maddogs 2008-09-10 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Very well said.  These are my thoughts exactly.  I get called a "troll" or whatever merely for saying how I honestly feel on this matter.  I don't want to have to abandon the Democratic party, but it has abandoned me.  There is no choice left.  The party's blithe arrogance astounds me and has even made me re-evaluate my position on issues with which I once thought I agreed with the party and how to prioritize.  

by BPK80 2008-09-10 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Me too but I will vote for Obama in 2008.

The OLD democratic party deserves that.
Black people stood with us on a lot of things that didn't help them.

But after 2008 I will re-evaluate if this new party is for me or not.

by dtaylor2 2008-09-10 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I may vote for him I live in a state he trails by 17%  so my vote doesn't matter. However I will not donate my money or my time. Both of those under the circumstances are more valuable to this campaign than my vote and they will not get them because they don't deserve them.

by 2maddogs 2008-09-10 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I would feel I had sacrificed my self respect if I voted for Obama.  For me, the abusive relationship with this phase of the party is over.  :-)  I think an unbridled Obama presidency is bad for the long term trajectory of the Dems.  I am thinking a bit beyond 2008.  I look forward to a better Democratic party after the repercussions for the Obama malfeasance are meted and fully anticipate returning when this fad has ended.  

by BPK80 2008-09-10 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I admit I got back and forth. It's 17%. Nobody even bothers to spend money polling anymore. Last poll for this state Clinton 48% McCain 48%. Like I said now my vote doesn't matter so I may just    "Go Topless" this year.

by 2maddogs 2008-09-10 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

You're free to decide!

I would love to cast a symbolic vote myself instead, but I live in Pennsylvania.  

by BPK80 2008-09-10 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I'm sorry that you think calling you out for saying something outrageous is somehow out of bounds.  Did you or did you not imply that you don't really care about choice, since easy alternatives are available to you?  Don't you remember when Lieberman defended the idea that medical professionals should be able to decline to perform abortions because the patient could always just go down the road to another hospital?  How is what you said any different?

And you're wrong; nobody is saying that you must either embrace sexism or preserve the right to choose.  What we're saying is that tacitly supporting the very sexist John McCain both ensures that sexism will get worse during his term, and that there's a very good chance we'll lose the right to choose as well.  

Voting for Barack Obama, or even laying off a little on the scathing criticism until after the election isn't the same thing as endorsing sexism.  There will be time for a reckoning after there's a Democrat in the White House, and I'll be fighting right there alongside you at that time.  But right now, all you're doing here is making it easier for McCain to assume Bush's mantle and make YOUR life and MY life a lot worse than they would be under President Obama.

Equality is not a zero-sum game.  Just because the party is starting to take the concerns of ethnic minorities seriously does not mean that the rights of women are being discounted.  Racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, etc. are all just variations on inequality, and gains in one strain translate to gains in all the others as well.  Your heart is in the right place, but your perspective seems a little narrow.

by Balloonz 2008-09-10 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Tell me what you have ever done that I should trust you or your candidate or your fellow supporters to stand beside me after I vote and give and work as you want me to. Was it that the campaign was just "a little bit sexist" as compared to what? Well at least they did not come out and say we should all be kept " barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen"  Sorry I have been voting and donating Democratic since 1980, I just wish they had shown their colors decades ago all that money could have been working for me instead of them.

by 2maddogs 2008-09-10 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

You're obviously disenchanted, and I can't say I dont' sympathize.  The Democratic Party isn't my dream party either, and a number of issues that are near and dear to me have been glossed over by the Democratic Party for decades.  The Democratic Party will NEVER be the perfect party we want it to be.  But here's the thing: the Republican Party isn't simply dragging its heels on these issues (which is what the Democratic Party has been doing, especially since the rise of the DLC), they're working very hard to make sure that what little progress has been made is reversed.  These people hate us, and their greatest joy in life is upsetting us.  

Supporting the Democratic Party is, and always has been, a matter of compromise for progressives.  We're here because as long as the two-party system is in place, we know we're more likely to achieve our goals (however gradually) if we work to reshape one of those parties so that it better reflects our values.  I can't believe it took you 28 years to realize this, but drawing a line in the sand at this moment is profoundly counterproductive to your goals.

I couldn't possibly convince you to trust me or Obama or any of the other Obama supporters, largely because I don't think you're willing to trust us.  Perhaps you should be asking yourself why, of all the candidates in all the years you've seen, it's this one that you find most objectionable.  Do you really believe that Obama is more of a sexist than any of the others?

by Balloonz 2008-09-10 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

"Equality is not a zero-sum game.  Just because the party is starting to take the concerns of ethnic minorities seriously does not mean that the rights of women are being discounted. "

You might want to go back and do a little research on the history of the women's movement and the civil rights movement and the interactions between the two before you make such a ridiculous comment such as that. Obviously you do not know much about the history of either movement and who supported who and who did not support who going back to the ratification of the 15th amendment. Then when you do that research come tell me about why as you seem to think I should "Get in line".

by 2maddogs 2008-09-10 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I'm quite well versed in the history of the equality struggles of women and ethnic minorities, having studied them in depth in graduate school.  I'll resist the temptation to redirect your unfounded accusation back at you, though the evidence would, I'm certain, better support such a claim than the one you've thrown at me.

I'll just say that it's astonishingly cynical and ahistorical of you to suggest not only that a gain in African-American civil rights means a loss in women's rights, but also that history would support that claim.  Instead, I'll chalk up that statement to your demonstrated inability to think of things in any way other than black-or-white dualism.

You've been unfairly hide-rated in this thread, and that's a shame.  But I'm through trying to talk sense to you, since you're clearly not interested in anything other than loudly and repeatedly expressing your irreparable dissatisfaction.  You can't complain that I haven't tried to make the case to you for why your current position is counterproductive, so please stop pretending that you're sincerely hoping that Obama supporters will reach out to you.  I did, and you slapped me away.

Bon voyage.

by Balloonz 2008-09-10 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

It's really a shame that you feel that the only way to get ahead is to it on the backs of other minorities.  The history of the the both the civil rights movement and the women's right's movements run counter to your claim, but you may be some kind of supremacist.

by MeganLocke 2008-09-10 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I do think it's important not to attribute the media's sexisim (e.g. Chris Matthews, etc.) to the Obama campaign. Obama and Hillary agree on 99% of the issues including reproductive rights. So let's keep our eye on the prize.

by fugazi 2008-09-10 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

lol

Yeah dem congress is really gonna pass that law.

by reebus 2008-09-10 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

They will gladly appoint a SCOTUS judge that will outlaw it... you forget that little factoid!

by LordMike 2008-09-10 04:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

The expectation is that the Roberts court would overturn Roe thereby pushing abortion back to each individual state.  Probably only a few of the reddest states would actually outlaw and maybe none would go so far as rape, incest, life of mother.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-10 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

And that's fine with you -- the prospect that a whole lot of women will have no abortion rights? And that in other states we'll be spending our time trying to keep choice? And meantime women will be dying of septic shock from illegal abortions?

by politicsmatters 2008-09-10 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

The thought of an overturned Roe and girls/women subjugated to forced pregnancy or backroom abortions simply because they live in a thuglican state is abhorrent to me.

I was simply commenting that the Court can't simply wave it's magic wand and outlaw abortion across the land as the poster was implying . . . nothing more.

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-10 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

This whole argument is short-sighted. Roe doesn't have to be "overturned."

ALL a McCain administration needs to do is create so many hurdles and restrictions that it might as WELL be overturned. Has anyone thought of that?

I find the notion that McCain would in any way, shape or form be less sexist than any Democrat simply indefensible. We're talking about a man who called his own wife a c*nt and a woman who thought rape victims should be forced to pay for their own rape kits! Seriously, where is the logic?

by Its All So Goofy 2008-09-10 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Oh the horror!

So the worst case scenario is that someone would have to drive across state lines to have their abortion?

by reebus 2008-09-10 11:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Really as a 45 year old lesbian I do not think that the coathanger issue is a real threat to me. That is what I mean by the sexist part he just assumes that everyone who this diary is addressing do need to keep their coathangers ready. Yep we're all just out there getting knocked up and having abortions and the only thing we care about is getting one at the nearest drive thru. Guess what sexism is a bigger concern to my daily life than abortion. Sexism is one of those "bread and butter" issues to me. It affects me daily, it has affected my ability to earn a living in the past. It has affected my getting promoted and increasing my income. Sexism or Choice, you do not ever want to make me decide which is more important to my day to day life. Guess what I can avoid needing an abortion but everyday I wake up I will still be a woman and sexism will affect me.

by 2maddogs 2008-09-10 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

No woman expects to get pregnant through rape or incest either. And yet it happens. Even to lesbian women.

by Its All So Goofy 2008-09-10 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Yawnnnnn...what's going on?  Oh, the primaries still? Huh.  I'm going back to bed.  Wake me when the general election campaign starts.

by mtnspirit 2008-09-10 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

What glee are you talking about?  Are you going to point us toward some phenomenon that shows Clinton supporters are enthusiastically predicting another 4 years of pain and suffering at the hands of John McCain, or are you just making this up?

Why is this on the wreck list?

by Denny Crane 2008-09-10 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

What glee? Try this:

http://www.hillaryis44.org/

And let me add how sorry I'll feel for them when Obama is elected. Seriously, anyone who is celebrating the predictable GOP convention bump knows nothing about politics.  

by fugazi 2008-09-10 03:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I am pretty sure that is a faux democratic website, one that Hillary would not approve or endorse in any way, it goes completely against her views and message.  Don't worry about that site, it and it's members have been certifiable a long time ago.  

by KLRinLA 2008-09-10 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

enough with the hate?  You can probably find some who think Barack has it coming, but that's hardly the majority of her supporters. The dreaded Algere isn't allowing promotion of John on her site. I'm on record for voting for him. why dredge up this stuff, Barack will win or lose on his own at this point, and he's starting to reach out more. he can win all disaffected Hillary  supporters, and on AC there are some very good suggestions as to how to go about this very thing. Why not win them, instead of blaming them before he's even lost.  

by anna shane 2008-09-10 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

She said she didn't want it to happen, yes, but she hasn't stopped the people from promoting him there, Anna.  It happens all the time.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-09-10 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

not true, they're given warnings and then they're banned.  

by anna shane 2008-09-11 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I'm not gleeful in the least. I'm horrified. I'm not thrilled with alot of things about Obama BUT he is our only chance now.  America CANNOT afford another 4 years with the GOP. Aside from my issues with his candidacy during the primary, I was very concerned about electability which was roundly dismissed as stupid@@.  But I don't like cutting my nose off to spite my face & I am horrified by the idea that I might be right.  I have never prayed so hard to be wrong.

by jrsygrl 2008-09-10 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Hillary was routinely disrespected as were her supporters.  We were an afterthought.  "Oh, they'll (magically?) get over it (without any sincere effort on our part to repair the damage, of course)."  

If Obama had won the primary without the help of cronies on the coup of May 31st, I'd be supporting him and volunteering right now.  Instead, I semi-actively support McCain.  My most optimistic outlook is a Congressionally-handicapped McCain presidency, followed by a purging of arrogant party elites (Pelosi, Dean, Obama, Brazile), and a restoration of a better Democratic party for 2012.  

by BPK80 2008-09-10 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

The RBC decision made no difference at all in terms of who won the nomination.

by politicsmatters 2008-09-10 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Sure it did.

by dtaylor2 2008-09-10 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

You're right, silly me.  What would Hillary would have done with 300 or so more pledged delegates anyway?  

by BPK80 2008-09-10 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

The only way "300 delegates" makes any sense is if you're mad that the RBC didn't decide to award the entire states to her.  

Otherwise you just pulled that number out of your ass.  Michigan and Florida do not have 600 delegates, let alone enough delegates for one candidate to WIN BY that much.

That's the funniest part about the RBC decision - actually the second funniest; the funniest is the fact that Clinton supported the original decision to strip them all, and that was just fine and dandy with you.  The SECOND funniest part about it is that allowing the full delegations would have made no difference in the who the winner was.

So, it's not the principle of it, as your favored candidate was instrumental in the original decision, which you support.  And as craven as it would be, it's not because it didn't allow her to win by hook or by crook, which, although it's a point in favor of your integrity, it's a knock on your ability to count.

So I'm sort of baffled.  Whenever this happens, I head over to No Quarter, and there the REAL reason that old time Democrats are so upset is laid bare.

by MeganLocke 2008-09-10 09:40PM | 0 recs
Some math, to help you

Um...

Michigan total delegates = 156
Florida total delegates = 210

Penalty for campaigning in Florida = full stripping of state's delegates.
Proper amount of delegates awarded to a candidate who doesn't appear on a state's ballot (for "whatever" reason) = 0.

You have a hard time finding a 300 delegate swing out of a pool of 366 FL/MI delegates?  What effect on the remaining superdelegates would proper allocation of FL/MI have had?  They would have no basis for anointing Barack Obama, since he'd be trailing in pledged delegates and popular vote.  

I wrote extensively on Florida & Michigan.  Your condescension is misplaced and your facts and "math" are embarrassingly incorrect.  

by BPK80 2008-09-10 11:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

"Hillary was routinely disrespected as were her supporters."

It wasn't Hillary supporters that used to be routinely called "Kool-Aid drinkers".

So cut your bullshit. There's no one that was more repeatedly and casually disrespected than Obama supporters were.

If Obama had won the primary without the help of cronies on the coup of May 31st, I'd be supporting him and volunteering right now.

He did win the primary without needing anything from May 31st. So I'm calling you a liar.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-09-10 10:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

You can insult me and attack me as much as you want but that won't change the fact that I'm a lifelong Democrat now volunteering for and voting McCain in Pennsylvania.  I've reached a lot of undecided voters, many former Hillary supporters like myself, and have been shoring up support for McCain/Palin.  I believe it's in the best long term interests of the country and the party, which I hope to re-join when the most arrogant knaves are purged.  

You know it bothers you because my Demographic is going to be critical in this close election and your misguided attempts to insult us and enlighten us to our "[ERROR AND STUPIDITY!]" are working against your objective of electing Obama.  This venting might make you feel "brilliant" or "omniscient" in the short term, but on November 4th, when the real numbers behind the Bradley-tainted polls materialize into decisive losses in Ohio, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, and maybe even Pennsylvania + Michigan, that good feeling will extinguish.  

by BPK80 2008-09-10 11:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

[quote]You can insult me and attack me as much as you want but that won't change the fact that I'm a lifelong Democrat now volunteering for and voting McCain in Pennsylvania.[/quote]

If you consider him the best choice for your country, and that he represents the direction that your country ought take, that's of course the right thing for you to do.

But your claims about "best long term interests of the country and the party" are as lame as hell, and as stupid as hell, and go against millenia of historical experience.

When you support the sexist warmongering torturing party, you support sexism and warmongering and torture. Choosing the worst of the options moves the center of the political spectrum towards that direction.

You don't get to decide the "purges" that will or won't take place in the defeated parties -- you only get to decide which direction to move the political spectrum towards.

You chose to move it towards torture, warmongering, misogyny and the all-around reaction that McCain/Palin represents. Good for you, if you think that's the direction that America should be headed towards.

And if McCain/Palin wins, the only purge you can expect to see in the Democratic Party is one that'll be directing the party towards the McCain/Palin positions -- because they'll be the WINNERS, see.

So, a post-purge Democratic party (after an Obama defeat) will be more warmongering, more abortion-hostile, more gay-unfriendly, more torture-tolerant.

THAT'S what history teaches us will happen. The defeated moving towards the position of the winners to have a better chance next time. That's what victory means.

"Arrogance" isn't a political ideology that can be purged, unlike what you may feel.

But, yeah, in the efforts to mimic the Republican party, perhaps all the blacks and all the pro-choice people and all the secularists and all the anti-torture people will indeed be purged. Not a development I want to see happen, though. America can't survive two Republican parties.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-09-11 01:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

"But your claims about 'best long term interests of the country and the party' are as lame as hell, and as stupid as hell, and go against millenia of historical experience."

Setting aside your insults and assuming you wrote something a bit more... um... academic than "lame as hell," the known quantity is less deleterious for me than the piece by piece revelation of what Obama's really all about with unchecked reins on the nation.  He changes positions on issues that matter to people like a weather vane (FISA, public financing), and that's if and only if he has a reasonable position to begin with (Jerusalem, Georgia).  No experience but a lifelong history of maniacal self-obsession.  Who writes two autobiographies before they've even reached middle age?  He has some transparently obvious & strong ties to Nation of Islam and other separatist racial philosophies for instance, but God forbid anyone mention that pink elephant in the room since one would have to be "racist" to be wary.  And I don't consider him a friend to the GLBT community.  Nor do I consider McCain/Palin to be the world's friendliest (nor the worst) but at least they're more clear where they stand.  

I don't see an Obama presidency saving more lives than a McCain presidency.  Whatever desire Obama might have to end the war more rapidly (hastily?) may translate into even more carnage if his inexperience renders an incompetent withdrawal.  

When I refer to arrogant knaves, I'm not referring to secularists or Black Americans; I'm referring to Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi.  

Finally and most importantly, Obama's presidency may tarnish the Democratic brand for the rest of my lifetime and leave the country hostage prey to the GOP for the next 30 years.    

by BPK80 2008-09-11 03:32AM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

"Atleast they're clear where they stand".

Your whole post is summarized by this. That better the people that are known to be lying villainous torturers, than the unknown quantity?

Obama isn't the friendliest towards gays, so it's supposedly better to vote for the people openly hostile to them?

"Whatever desire Obama might have to end the war more rapidly (hastily?) may translate into even more carnage if his inexperience renders an incompetent withdrawal."

If you consider McCain better, fine with your support of him. Just as long as you don't imagine fictional purges that will do anything but merely move the Democratic party further to the Republican POV. The Democratic Party is already conservative as it, if it goes further to the right then America will simply have two reactionary parties instead.

if his inexperience renders an incompetent withdrawal.  

Where the hell do you see McCain's supposed "experience"? As a mere function of age?

If so, then what does it say of McCain's "experience" that he chose a VP as inexperienced as Palin?

Nor do I understand what exactly your fear of Obama's "separatist ties" consists of. What exactly are you afraid he'll do to America, if elected? That he'll declare portions of it to be under Sharia law? What exactly is this vague fear of separatist ties about?

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-09-11 05:35AM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I'm not a single issue voter.  Torture from a few years back isn't really a relevant concern for me this cycle.  

McCain knows the ropes.  Obama doesn't.  Palin does her homework; Obama pretends to do it and then improvises a facade of knowledge.  He's an overconfident chameleon.  Palin's experience is only relevant if we imagine that John McCain will pass away in office, a charge that is thrown around flippantly and without apology, while mentioning Robert Kennedy's assassination is "Like OMG the Worst thing EVER."  

The Obamas' palpable contempt for Caucasians, particularly those who live outside of urban enclaves, is worrisome as well.  I have no idea what sort of debts or promises have been made to the Chicago cliques responsible for his ascent.  I also don't know why he makes such a big deal about covering up his ties to Islam.  I could vote for a Muslim or former Muslim, or someone of any faith, but I raise my eyebrows when someone seems to be actively lying about their faith, and constantly lying about who they are.

Obama is radically far left and would have little opposition in Congress.  McCain is hybrid centrist conservative, who strikes me as a real human being, who would have trouble promoting draconian legislation & Court justices w. a potentially hostile Congress.  A failed McCain presidency clears the path for Democrats for many years.  A failed Obama presidency does the opposite.  

by BPK80 2008-09-11 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Palin does her homework;

Creationism in science classes. No abortions to be allowed, not even for rape victims -- who had to pay for their own rape kits when going to the police in Wasilla. No sex ed. Bloating the debt of her town, same as Republicans do elsewhere (who cares about who'll pay the debt down the road).

What exactly is that homework? How to destroy everything you touch?

"Palin's experience is only relevant if we imagine that John McCain will pass away in office"

So basically you're arguing that the VP choice is wholly irrelevant?

Shocking to suggest that the oldest president ever may die in office.

"I could vote for a Muslim or former Muslim, or someone of any faith, but I raise my eyebrows when someone seems to be actively lying about their faith, and constantly lying about who they are."

Yeah, right. That's why you're voting for the Republican candidate, because you're so open minded about the Muslim faith, when the Republicans have made being Muslim reason enough to take you, abduct you, strip you naked and torture you to death in Bagram or Abu-ghraib.

How's that habeas corpus doing?

"Obama is radically far left"

Just a minute ago you were claiming he was an unknown quantity that was compromising too much to the right (e.g. public financing, e.g. FISA).

A failed McCain presidency clears the path for Democrats for many years.

Yeah, right, like the failed Bush presidency supposedly would do? What repeated stupidity -- same nonsense I've heard in 2000 from people that voted for Nader, nonsense I heard in 2004 again.

A failed McCain presidency might just as well be attributed to Democrats in the Congress running interference and lead to the Democratic Party losing control there again.

What a failed McCain presidency will do is damage your country even more irreperably than the failed Bush presidencies have done already.

by Aris Katsaris2 2008-09-11 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

"Creationism in science classes. No abortions to be allowed, not even for rape victims -- who had to pay for their own rape kits when going to the police in Wasilla. No sex ed. Bloating the debt of her town, same as Republicans do elsewhere (who cares about who'll pay the debt down the road).

What exactly is that homework? How to destroy everything you touch?"

You're attempting to tie the views of a federal executive to matters that are entirely state law.  The only nexus here is "if McCain dies (or if Palin rises under him) and she becomes president, and appoints hostile right wing Supreme Court justices that a Democratic Congress rubberstamps and if all of the blue states have evil legislatures that mandate creationism and outlaw abortions even in rape/incest cases AND their governors fail to veto the bills, then we may have a problem."  Too fragile a link, in my estimation.  Kind of like "well we could pick the candidate who's an auto-loss in Florida, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Missouri, and Ohio, but still win if we score upset defeats in Virginia AND Colorado AND New Mexico AND New Hampshire AND manage to not lose Pennsylvania AND Michigan AND Wisconsin AND Iowa with... um... Nevada (5 EV) as our only insurance against any losses."  

You write:

"Yeah, right. That's why you're voting for the Republican candidate, because you're so open minded about the Muslim faith, when the Republicans have made being Muslim reason enough to take you, abduct you, strip you naked and torture you to death in Bagram or Abu-ghraib."

If you've read anything I wrote, it should be pretty clear to you that Republican (and Democratic) scare tactics don't govern my voting preferences.  My first donation ever was to Carol Moseley-Braun, so these charges of close-mindedness etc. are misplaced.  Obama's Muslim roots don't bother me.  What bothers me are the active efforts to shroud them in secrecy.  Does that distinction not make sense to you?

by BPK80 2008-09-11 06:04PM | 0 recs
I think it's anger more than glee

Anger that if he loses it will be HIS fault.  It will be the DNC's fault.  For so many reasons, I cannot begin to list em.  So, I think you may be misreading the "glee" you think you see from Clinton supporters.

by easyE 2008-09-10 05:12PM | 0 recs
yay! another primary rehash!

by canadian gal 2008-09-10 05:29PM | 0 recs
Great pic CG!

God, this diary is like Groundhog Day though isn't it? Still waiting for Bill Murray to realise what love means. How did this dreck made the drecklist?

by duende 2008-09-10 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Great pic CG!

TexasDarlin, nikki and antistipes (troublemaker! ;~)

go figure...

by chrisblask 2008-09-10 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: yay! another primary rehash!

Sorry CG. THey asked why I would not fall in line. I am simply trying to inform them how I and some feel. It is up to them how they use this info, they can shout me down and tell me I am wrong or they can look for ways to attract me to their cause. Let me ask you how well did it work out for the last person who told you what you believed/felt  was wrong?

by 2maddogs 2008-09-10 05:46PM | 0 recs
Yeah, boring, eh?

I've passed out as much appropriate mojo and donuts as I can bear (pun intended), and i didn't even finish the thread...

Hey, check the forum.  Spacey is offline for a while, serious bad juju.  I'm only reading this mess to give out donuts for him while he's gone.

The Moose is Loose, btw.  Love to have you by...

:~)

-chris

by chrisblask 2008-09-10 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: yay! another primary rehash!

Come on canadian gal...we have agreed on so much, and perhaps we still do.  There is no point of silencing people simply on the basis that they are discussing their earnestly held sentiments about the dreadful state of this race.

Frankly, I would expect that more Democrats would be doing some intense soul searching right now.  If not now, there will certainly be more of it between now and the election--and after.

by MMR2 2008-09-10 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: yay! another primary rehash!

Agreed. I would hope that the stone-throwers would do some soul searching and realize that we sink or swim together. Let's all get to work and give our time and money to take our country back.

by fugazi 2008-09-10 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Amen, but they don't care. Let more of our soldiers die in Iraq, let people go without health insurance, as long as they get their fit of pique. Glad we'll never have to work with them again as Democrats.

by ragekage 2008-09-10 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I love it all my post are Hr'd. If that doesn't make me want to vote donate and work for the otherside I do not know what will.

by 2maddogs 2008-09-10 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Obama and 1984 have a lot in common.

They want to revise history and edit out anything negative.

by dtaylor2 2008-09-10 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

They are making me wonder if Obama = Bush? The tactics of the supporters are the same, so what is different between the Obama/Bush campaign?

by 2maddogs 2008-09-10 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

You know what the problem here is?  Respectfully, I only see it from a small but loud group of posters.

You seem to think that what some people you'll never really meet but talk to on the internet POST on a board should change for whom you vote....

Seriously, either you believe in things or you're so incredibly suggestible that I could somehow change the direction you think the country should take.

Have some convictions, and a thicker skin, please.  These issues matter more than any particular person's bruised ego.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-09-10 07:27PM | 0 recs
It is not glee,

its facing the reality that Barack Obama may lose the election for the Democrats which should have been the easiest to win since 1964.

From the start, the party was warned that America is gonna have a rough time voting for a black man named Barack Hussein Obama who many falsely believe to be a Muslim, and this is likely the biggest reason an election with in incumbent Republican with a 20% approval rating and 80% wrong track is either in the MoE, sometimes with McCain leading, and with Bradley effects, this alone may send McCain to the White House. Resistance to Obama was shown in a huge way in the primaries, in swing states in which Dems have a chance to win like PA, WV, KY, OH, AR, MI, FL. Obama either won contests, mostly CAUCUSES in really red states that will never go Dem like ID, UT, WY, AL, MS, SC, in uber blue states like OR, WA and Maine, or in states Dems always should win like WI which went Dukakis, or MN which is the only state ever to vote for Walter Mondale, and his home state of IL. He did win "97% white" Iowa but because it was a liberal Democrat caucus the DKos activists waited for for years. Hillary drove up white working class voters who usually don't vote or come out for Dems, Obama won voters who are gonna vote Dems anyway like college kids and blacks, and college kids usually don't even come out in the general election. Not to mention, in the GENERAL election, Wright could sink Obama, and only didn't in the primaries because blacks and liberals, who don't care about Wright or even LIKE him, vote in the Dem primaries and caucuses.

OK, so Obama gets the nomination. We're resigned to that. What does he do? He runs terrible ads and drives on the same "high" road which John Kerry and Al Gore tried to take and crashed and burned. He barely attacks John McCain, like Kerry did with Bush, and waits until he's getting pummeled to hit back. he lets McCain use humor in his ads, while Obama uses the same one over and over again. Meanwhile, he doesn't extent any hand to the candidate who won nearly as many, if not more votes in the primary than he did. The party is divided, and many women voters feel he or his campaign were sexist. So time comes to pick a VP. He knows full well John McCain could pick Sarah Palin. He also knows picking Hillary would not only instantly unite the party, but heal nearly all the wounds from the primary, and lock the women vote in. Who does he pick? JOE BIDEN, a man who got a few thousand votes in the primary compared to a women who got 18 million! So he bitterly dissapoints many many MANY voters, but he does have a helluva convention. However the failure to put Hillary as his VP not only screws voters over, it allows John McCain to steal nearly ALL of Obama's buzz, and put Sarah Palin, an aesthetically beautiful woman on the ticket, who simultaneously brings a fractured GOP together, while the Dem party still carries wounds. Obama's now shaky electoral college math, which excludes many states Hillary would have put into play, is getting even harder, and with many Democrats possibly staying home because of lack of enthusiasm and angered Hillary voters, McCain has a real shot to win.

Obama could still won despite who he is. But the things he coulda done, attack McCain HARD and pick Hillary as VP, he failed to do and may lose because he was like John Kerry in every way Hillary voters predicted and ignored half of his party and women votes in general, more of which may be drawn to McCain/PALIN. We do not like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory like Obama may do.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-10 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: It is not glee,

Wonder how long your post will last before they try and bury it....

You made too much sense for the Obama crew to leave it up.

by dtaylor2 2008-09-10 06:08PM | 0 recs
i'm glad you like it,

and would love a mojo, if only so I can see hidden comments again

by Lakrosse 2008-09-10 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: It is not glee,

Very good summary. Obama's commercials have been shockingly lame. I expected a post-convention improvement but it hasn't happened. It reminds me of football when a team beats my favorite team, then a week later that same team looks awful vs. someone else. You want to scream. What the hell happened?

It looks like Obama had a game plan vs. Hillary but assumed McCain or any Republican would be a glorified walkover. Actually, it's probably a case of Obama using the built-in far left support based on Hillary's Iraq vote to win the nomination, but now that he doesn't have anything simplistic to fall back on, he's struggling like hell.

I don't know how the last 8 years aren't a simple reference point, particularly in economic terms and compared to the 8 preceding, but Obama seems inept at making the point. Hillary and Bill would have trumpeted it every waking hour, and in commercials all day long.

Like I posted in another diary, if he were a skilled debater I wouldn't be as concerned.

The ultimate joke was the notion he expanded the playing field. I have no idea how Markos or progressive sites in general actually bought into that. I've been posting for months on several sites that states like North Dakota, South Dakota, Indiana, North Carolina, Montana, Alaska, Georgia, and one or two others were out of play regardless of meaningless early state polling. It's lunacy to pretend otherwise. Obama isn't magical and he isn't inventing anything. The states with 40+% self-identified conservatives are going to reject him with a laugh.

by Gary Kilbride 2008-09-10 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: It is not glee,

The last Dem to carry VA was LBJ. VA is now tied. And Obama is now leading in ND, Colo., and Nevada--all red states in '04. Obama has indeed put states into play that have not been for years.

by fugazi 2008-09-10 06:33PM | 0 recs
you missed his point.

McCain has now jumped way, WAY ahead in North Dakota as we expected to happen. Colorado is shaky at best, given its electoral history in McCain's regional appeal along with nevada, both of which alone would not put Obama in the White House. Virginia is also shaky. Whereas Hillary polled solidly and usually out of the MoE in states Dems have had much more recent precedent of winning, like West Virginia, which has only been lost be Dems 4 times in the last 50 years, by McGovern, Mondale, Gore and Kerry, in Missouri and Kentucky which her husband won twice whereas no Dem has won ND since LBJ, in Ohio which her husband also won twice and along with Wisconsin put Jimmy Carter in the White House in 1976, in Florida which Obama is struggling in and her husband won in 1996 and Al Gore won in 2000, and Arkansas which her husband won twice. this is real map transformation. Those states she was doing well in have precedent for going Dem, whereas the Dakotas don't, and neither does the deep south which Obama was gonna win, rememeber? the Clinton swing states had a lot more electoral votes than only CO, NM, and NV on which Obama is betting the farm.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-10 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: you missed his point.

I doubt Hillary woud have carried WV, which is after all only 5 electoral votes. But in any case, Obama puts many more states into play including VA (13 evs), NC (10), CO (9), NV (5), ND (3). Again folks we're WINNING the electoral college.

by fugazi 2008-09-10 08:05PM | 0 recs
can you do math?
Look at the fucking most recent Hillary map map title=.
She put MORE states into play. She very likely woulda carried West Virginia. Democrats have only lost that state four times in the past 50 years, with McGovern, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry. Bill Clinton won it twice, and was one of his best states twice. Carter, JIMMY FUCKING CARTER carried it twice, a state he won twice. Dukakis too. This means while not every Democrat who wins it wins the election, every Democrat who wins or tries to win carries West Virginia. It has a Democratic history and Hillary brought out the Democrats who haven't been voting recently, and stayed home for Kerry and Gore. She, as you can see on the map was ahead outside the margin of error. She put Kentucky into play, which Bill Clinton won twice, and she was beating McCain there most recently by 9 points, in a state Bush won 60% in 2004, 51-42. Bill didn't even win that big there either time. She put Arkansas into play which Bill also won twice, and she also put Ohio and Florida more into play than Obama has, with solid leads there. She also had New Mexico and Nevada, and note North Carolina in there too. She was better in Missouri too. WV, KY, FL, OH, MO, and AR alone are 77 electoral votes. NC still woulda been a stretch, but it wouldn't be easier for Obama, and he'll probably lose NC. her leads in NM and NV were solid. Wisconsin probably woulda come back to her, and Michigan woulda too, but she was winning big even without those states. She clearly put more states into play, and states which unlike North Dakota have gone to the Democrat in recent history.
by Lakrosse 2008-09-10 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: can you do math?

Great analysis and those were my thoughts exactly months ago.  I appreciate the honesty on North Carolina; it makes your assessment more credible and objective overall.  Another important note is that Hillary would be carrying Pennsylvania without spending here.  It would be as solidly behind her as Florida is currently for McCain.  Not having to compete in Pennsylvania is huge because managing the state is a huge demand, it's expensive, highly populated and diverse.  She might make a few visits to Wilkes-Barre/Scranton or Philly, maybe to offset a McCain offense, but everyone would know McCain aiming for PA would be a waste (like Obama aiming for North Dakota and Alaska).  

The Obama electoral map is fragile and it's as weak as its weakest link, which is probably Virginia.  

by BPK80 2008-09-11 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: It is not glee,

Yep.

Really, I want an answer from the hardcore Obama supporters who bought into that crap: What did happen to the 50 state strategy?  Where did it go?  I would prefer they gave an honest appraisal that it was wrong to even consider it (and waste a plethora of time and resources on the idea) in the first place!

The notion that in this polarized of an environment (still polarized culturally despite GWB's low approval ratings), a candidate with such inherent weaknesses could run a 50 state strategy was nothing short of ludicrous indeed.

by MMR2 2008-09-10 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: It is not glee,

So you think Clinton was such a bad candidate that she should have lost OH and PA even though she had both governors help?  That people were just voting against Obama?  Your forgetting that Rush was telling Republicans to crossover and vote Clinton at that point.  MI and FL were not real elections.  

Dkos and MyDD both seemed to be more for Edwards than anyone, after Edwards poor showing Dkos broke for Obama and MyDD broke for Clinton.  And before the primaries it didn't look like Obama was going to do much better than Jackson.

I am not sure in a national election that Hillary would have done any better in a character and identity battle against McCain and whoever his running mate was.  Nearly half the country doesn't like her.  With her as VP we would have potentially lost voters because of bias against Obama and more because of bias against Clinton.  We would have also potentially alienated alot of first time voters, voting because of the message of change and who may have been upset by Hillary on the ticket.  Your giving alot of credit to Hillary and seem to be blind to her negatives.

And while I think Obama has missed some attacks he could have made through third parties.  I like most of his strategy so far.  And alot of his key strengths are not flashy enough to get noticed as much like his ground mobilization and his voter registration.  This election seems to be comming down to voter turnout and counting of provisional ballots.  I think primary supporters of Hillary are looking for a specific type of campaign, one that not all Democrats and Independents would be happy with.  

by Tumult 2008-09-10 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: It is not glee

Hillary Clinton ran an issues campaign, she would never let herself get trapped in a character campaign in the general election. If she were the candidate this campaign would be about health care reform as the key to solving our economic and competitiveness problems. Look at some of the Bill Clinton 1992 video to see how he constantly turned character attacks back to the issues.

Democrats lose character campaigns, that is why so many Democrats are urging Obama to switch focus to the economy and away from personality.

by souvarine 2008-09-10 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: It is not glee

While I agree Health Care reform would help our economic and competiveness problems I am not sure it is a winning campaign issue. You can generate alot of fear in opposition to Health Care reform, even Democrats run from the word socialist.

And Hillary Clinton is nowhere near Bill Clinton, she  cannot output that level of empathy, don't judge Hillary based on what Bill Clinton did.

I don't see Obama as waging a personality campaign right now.  But this type of thing just shows that the way Clinton and Obama supporters view what is going on has a certain amount of blindness and interpretation  differences, which impacted our support of each candidate.

by Tumult 2008-09-10 09:09PM | 0 recs
with the environment of today,

it would have been easier for Hillary to generate fear of NO health care, being that Bush never acted on it. She talks seamlessly about issues as she did in the debates. When she was called socialist by Bill O'Reilly, she had the perfect comeback "wasn't teddy roosevelt then a socialist?" She coulda easily negated such a stupid statement. People associate her with Bill, so yes you can judge her on Bill. She winning the election would yes be based on nostalgia in part, people longing for the pre-Bush days the way some thought Bush in 2000 would be pre-Clinton in terms of "scandal."

and if it did get to personality, Hillary has energy and charisma whereas McCain is old and boring, and only Obama could be losing to him.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-10 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: It is not glee

OK, help me out then. What issue is Obama running on?

by souvarine 2008-09-10 09:32PM | 0 recs
We lose issue campaigns too

Because while we're trying to deal with issues, the GOP is ramping up the smear machine. Frankly, I think Hillary would have been just as vulnerable as Obama (if not moreso) due to the Clinton Rules. We're acting like she could just wave her hand and dismiss the shitstorm that would be thrown at her. I saw no evidence of that ability during the primary.

I mean, look at what's happening now. Obama is trying to talk issues, he's been doing nothing but until recently, and the McCain campaign keeps throwing out random noise. The noise has gotten so effective that we're hammering him to fight back (i.e. stop talking about issues). The same would have happened with Hillary.

We Dems don't choose the narrative. We run reactive campaigns based on a hostile environment. Bill Clinton, in his prime, had the charisma and background to burn through the media screen (nor was that screen yet fully formed). No one since has duplicated that exact stroke of lighting, and that includes Hillary and Barack.

by Neef 2008-09-10 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: We lose issue campaigns too

You can't just switch on an issues campaign, you have to build it into the narrative of your campaign. If Obama had structured his campaign around issues he would be much more successful getting his message out through the smear machine. He is a very good campaigner, he definitely has the skills, but he built a character campaign instead.

Bill Clinton ran a very reactive campaign in an extremely hostile environment, instantly fighting back smears. And yet he set the narrative in 1992. Hillary Clinton is credited with inventing the war room for his 1992 campaign. He was able to cut through the smog and get a clear issue message out using techniques she developed for his campaign.

Most of the primary smears against Hillary had no effect on her Democratic approval, it wasn't until South Carolina that Obama found a message that damaged her favorability with Democrats. She couldn't fight that message effectively without damaging the party.

by souvarine 2008-09-10 10:52PM | 0 recs
"character campaign"?

I don't really see it. His main attack is "more of the same", which ties McCain to the performance of the current admin. "Country First", now that's a character campaign.

Bill campaigned before the VRWC had solidified into the (essentially) monolithic beast it is today. He didn't fight smears any more quickly (that I can recall), but he was charismatic enough to get his message out. He was good television.

Have you seen Biden lately? He's certainly out there pushing back. But until he gets on the local newscast, his efforts are in vain.

Lastly, Obama should never have found a chink in her armor. Put another way, you believe Obama could land a smear, and Rove could not? No doubt he would be trying to drive a wedge between her and blacks, so there would still be things she would not be able to fight effectively due to a "hostage" constituency. (think Obama and lipstick)

I'm not saying she'd lose, of course. But the CW seems to be she'd skate through, blowing McCain away, and I don't think that is supported.

by Neef 2008-09-11 04:50AM | 0 recs
Re: It is not glee,

Pennsylvania had a closed primary.  That means Republicans and Independents could not vote for Hillary.  And she trounced him here, even more decisively than she did in Ohio, a state that's considerably less urban/progressive.  If anything, Obama benefited more from open primaries than Hillary.  Don't forget "Democrat for a Day."    

by BPK80 2008-09-11 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

In my case, it's incredible frustration. I still can't comprehend preferring Obama to Hillary. It's hardly a glee or desire to see Obama lose. I understand all the long term ramifications of November and will vote for Obama and every D I find on the ballot.

You've got to prioritize a solid resume in an open race, and when the economy is utmost concern I don't know how a Clinton isn't the one you want to make the case. Basic handicapping errors are what set me off. Granted, I make them myself, losing 44% of the time here in Las Vegas.

My characterization of Obama thoughout the primaries was an over valued upstart. I'll stand by that. Today a conservative friend was laughing at me in the Stratosphere sportsbook, literally proposing a toast and giddy at the new polling: "We can't beat the Clintons. Thanks for making sure we don't have to."

by Gary Kilbride 2008-09-10 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

MAN you are making me so MAD and we are on the same side lol

The GOP sure can't beat the Clintons.

by dtaylor2 2008-09-10 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

Look, it really is fruitless to rehash the primary season. We have a great nominee who has put many states into play that haven't been in play for years. So let's work to elect him.  

by fugazi 2008-09-10 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

"states into play that haven't been in play for years"

Have you taken a look at the map on the front page lately.  That map looks eerily familiar to past elections, no?

by wasanyonehurt 2008-09-10 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?
The southern states will vote GOP regardless of who the Dem. nominee is. But Obama puts into play some of the border states like VA and NC, as well as ND, NV and CO. Sorry to let the air out of the doom and gloom crowd's balloon, but Obama is winning the electoral vote.  
 
by fugazi 2008-09-10 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

An "overvalued upstart" is exactly right, Gary.  I'm not sure if you've seen this article, but it explores precisely this idea:

Speculative bubbles have come in many different varieties: flowers, railway shares, Florida property, Beanie Babies, comic books, technology stocks, exurb McMansions. Does Candidate Obama qualify? Well, the candidate does sound a bit like a lot of the hot Internet companies back in the late 1990s. Not much of a track record. Lots of media hype. Parabolic ascent. And now a stomach-dropping decline.

by MMR2 2008-09-10 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

From my standpoint, I don't understand how people can look at the Clinton history and think they are the best choice.

I don't understand how people can give Hillary Clinton experience from a time she was a student or working at a law firm.  But are unwilling to give Obama experience for when he was teaching or working at a law firm.

And I have yet to see an electoral map where we are behind.  The Prediction market if viewed as individual races only lists McCain as a 32% chance to win.

I am not sure how a Wolfson-Penn run campaign that had to borrow money in the primaries is suddenly going to be run better in the general.  And I am not someone who was failing in a primary camapaign with a Demographic that favored her would be doing better in a General Election with one that does not.  I am not sure how someone who had to resort to character attacks in the primaries is going to be the victor against Republicans who are in a more favorable situation on the subject of character.  And I wonder how many people would recall that they were happy to see the Clintons leave the Whitehouse even among those that was happy with the Clinton Presidency,  this could have had a major impact on the people that don't see much difference between who is in the White House--at least with McCain they wouldn't be subject to the Clinton drama.

by Tumult 2008-09-10 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I still can't comprehend preferring Obama to Hillary.

For me, it was simple. I thought he had a better GE shot than Hillary, at the point where my Primary occurred (PA). I watched him fight to that point, saw how he dealt with Wright (which should have ended him), and thought he could handle the GOP smear machine.

I realize the popular view among Clinton supporters was that she would either be immune to smears or not smeared at all. I watched the media reactions during the Primary and decided I did not share that view. When Fox started giving her more favorable coverage the other networks, I realized that they would turn on her in the GE, leaving her bereft of even the mild partisan support of the liberal media. I didn't, and still don't, think she would have beaten the odds.

On the issues, Hillary is unparalleled, I thought so then and think so now. But this election has nothing to do with issues, it is a primer on campaign dirty tricks.

by Neef 2008-09-10 10:17PM | 0 recs
he only won the Wright battle

because it came at a point in the primaries where many contests had occured, and the liberals and blacks in the primaries didn't mind or care. Obama won the primaries because he had the blacks in a vice grip, who had a ton of superdelegates in a vice grip, which is why they went Obama.

Second, Hillary may not have been immune to smears, but no one thinks she is Muslim, or in many American's minds the religion of Osama Bin Laden which also means no Koran rumors, no one thinks she doesn't pledge allegiance to the flag, her middle name is not Saddam's last name, and her skin color does not lend itself to racist smears. Her pastor also didn't say AIDs was created by the government to kill "people of color." There is no way she is more smearable than Barack Obama.

She also has more appeal than Obama to Latinos, to white voters, to women, especially now that mcCain has a woman on the ticket, and the blacks woulda come around to her. She was clearly a better candidate.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-10 10:49PM | 0 recs
Re: he only won the Wright battle

Re: Wright, I could rebut by saying it hit at his core acceptability, it ghettoized him, and so was the worst possible attack. But the speech was a brilliant mode of defense, and well-executed. I'm not saying YOU should agree, but I was trying to lay out my thought process.

As far as the Muslim thing, you're right, but you still seem to underestimate the rampant CDS at large. I saw a birthday card in a PA gift shop. On the outside it said "President Hillary". Inside, it said "see there are worse things than getting older". This thing was near the checkout counter.

I would also point out that at this point in the campaign, Barack Obama has not been smeared using the tactics you name. The worst attack so far was "celebrity". I doubt Clinton would have been attacked in an expected way, unless the GOP runs stupider against her than him.

I didn't see "celebrity" coming (I expected the stuff you named), you most likely would have been surprised at the anti-Clinton line.

Anyway, the point isn't to prove you "wrong", since much of the calculus was predictive and subjective. I'm outlining was I see as a rational evaluation process that lead me to choose BHO. It's not an incomprehensible choice.

by Neef 2008-09-11 04:37AM | 0 recs
u missed my point

in that the wright thing did not hurt Obama because the Democratic primaries had been underway, and because the demographics were those not likely to mind Wright. If it had come out now, Obama would have already conceded the race.

Um, whisper campaigns like those about Obama are a lot worse than McCain doing it correctly. It still is a smear. The whisper campaign about Ann Richards was a SMEAR, even tho Bush never said it. If you really think things about Obama don't exist like what you saw at some fucking card store, your head is deep in the sand. All candidates have cards making fun of them, Bush, Reagan included back in their times. Also, the celebrity attack also got at his race.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-11 05:05AM | 0 recs
If you think Wright didn't hurt Obama

you're kidding yourself. That was the single most damaging attack of the Primary, it knocked him way off his stride and probably lost PA.

and yeah, I get that Obama is being smeared. You seem to think that Clinton would be unsmearable, which is just nuts. The CW is that Media sexism/Clintonism contributed to her Primary loss, and you think that would have gone away during the GE, versus Rove and crew? I'm sure McCain would have been "respectful". Yeah.

by Neef 2008-09-11 05:35AM | 0 recs
Obama still won many states

after Wright, which means no it did not hurt him in the Democratic Primary, which is different from the general election, where it did.

I never said she's unsmearable. She lost the primary more because of Obama's race which landed him the love he got in the media and locked up 35% of the party for him, not solely because of media sexism. Look at how well media sexism is working on Palin: its not. Yes the RW and Rove woulda gone after her, but they're after Barack HUSSEIN Obama. I stress the Hussein because having that as his middle name combined with his race, and the idea of him as a muslim is hurting Obama worse without being explicitly mentioned by McCain than any explicit media attack could have done to Clinton.

by Lakrosse 2008-09-11 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

I would call it "Karma" rather than Glee.

We watched the best woman candidate that ever ran for President taken out by a combination of media-sexism, DNC leadership getting on the side of Obama, and a complex system of counting votes (caucuses) to win delegates.

We had 2 candidates both having the opportunity to make history.

Hillary made it clear early on that she would have picked BO for VP.

But when Obama stated Hillary "would be on my short list" - he actually lied (we now know) since he didn't even bother to vet her.

So what are Hillary supporters suppose to make of all this?

Those of us that are members of the Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuits that spent our money and time for 17 months campaigning & traveling for her, only to watch her get knocked down - NOT because she wasn't winning - but because the media and DNC leaders were in the tank for Obama.

Now - the new media "darling" is Sarah Palin.

So - to me it's more about what goes around comes around.

I was sooo ready to jump on Obama's band wagon IF he chose Hillary for VP. That's because I would have accepted that Obama was "the chosen one" by the DNC - but he would have shown us Hillary supporters respect and proof that he wanted to unify the party.

By not choosing Hillary, he snubbed her, us and we are wondering WHY? What reason would he chose a washington insider who garnered only 70,000 votes when he could have chosen the best woman candidate the democrats ever had running who garnered 18 million votes (more than him). He could have made history twice.

Is his ego so big, he couldn't stand sharing the spotlight with Hillary? Is he afraid of strong women? What is his reason - we want to know.

To simply discount us and tell us to "get over it" or "he doesn't owe you an explanation" - right - agree - but then I don't have to vote for him either.

To me - not choosing Hillary is mean-spirited to Hillary, her supporters, and all democratic women that would have enjoyed and appreciated seeing the first woman Vice President, not only be a democrat (instead of a Republican) - but be the Best Woman Candidate that ever ran.

Karma = you get back what you put out, what goes around comes around.....

by nikkid 2008-09-10 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

My thoughts exactly, nikkid.  What goes around comes around.

Obama is paying an unbelievable price for his refusal to pick Hillary Clinton as VP.  I believe both of us argued forcefully before the announcement that this single decision had sky-high potential for Obama to solidify the Democratic base and provide the most dynamic ticket in the history of presidential politics.

Instead of acting courageously, Obama choose the "safe" alternative, and left the door open for McCain to pick a woman like Sarah Palin.  It was a lack of foresight and a lack of imagination that contributed to this--and all Democrats may pay the price because of it.

by MMR2 2008-09-10 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?
And by "paying the price", of course you mean  Obama's winning the electoral vote 217-189.
Honestly, everyone needs to calm down and take a deep breath. Obama is doing fine. McCain had a small but predictable post-convention bump. Now let's roll up our sleeves and get to work.
by fugazi 2008-09-10 08:21PM | 0 recs
McCain's VP pick was pandering

You may not like Obama's pick for VP, but do you like McCain's? McCain's pick was horrible. He picked someone solely for political benefit and not as someone who could help him govern.

I am surprised that people like Palin so much. She is a women, but believes the absolute opposite of Hillary. Palin lies about her record and has yet to speak to any reporter. She is totally unqualified to be VP or president.

The people who Palin/McCain are peeling off are the people who don't care about issues.

I am disappointed with the American electorate who care more about personality than the issues.  

Obama's ideas are very close to that of Clinton's.  If you care for issues, vote for Obama.

by erlin 2008-09-10 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain's VP pick was pandering

The thing with Palin is she is attracting the white working class women voters.

When I went door to door for Hillary in rural PA, knocking on DEMOCRATS doors - I was very surprised to hear how many did not "trust" Obama.

They were pretty much all voting for Hillary (at least the doors I knocked on) and many of the voters seemed disconnected to Obama. They didn't like his name, questioned where he came from. One woman kept calling him Bahama, her husband thought he was born somewhere else....of course the muslim rumors....(this was back in April).

I remember leaving PA thinking - if rural Pennsylvania is any reflection of what the rest of the middle states are like - Obama won't win...(I'm from California - there's no question BO will win here)....

In PA - I also came across many republican women (ex) who became democrats - just to vote for Hillary!! I know the press kept talking about Obama attracting Republicans - but there were alot of women supporting Hillary in PA...I bet these same women are back in the Republican camp supporting Palin....

by nikkid 2008-09-10 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain's VP pick was pandering

They were pretty much all voting for Hillary (at least the doors I knocked on) and many of the voters seemed disconnected to Obama. They didn't like his name, questioned where he came from. One woman kept calling him Bahama, her husband thought he was born somewhere else....of course the muslim rumors....(this was back in April).

And yet any attempt to say that racism was playing a role in the voting was met with total outrage, and in some cases and endorsement.

This is why you will always get a chilly response here - you've thrown your lot in with some real creeps.

by MeganLocke 2008-09-10 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain's VP pick was pandering

Huh? Hillary supporter and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell himself pointed out that racism played a role in PA. You've completely misunderstood the argument.

There are racist Democrats, they were unlikely to vote for Obama, there are sexist Democrats, they were unlikely to vote for Hillary. Neither category are a significant portion of the Democratic electorate, and both are responsive to the right message regardless of bias against the messenger.

What the Hillary campaign was fighting was this notion that the Democrats in Appalachia are racists and so didn't vote for Obama. Her point was that message was important. If it were the case that Appalchian Democrats were too racist to vote for Obama then Obama would have no chance in PA against McCain, but in fact he is doing quite well.

by souvarine 2008-09-10 11:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The GLEE that Obama may lose?

An absolutely wonderful and accurate post.  I share the sentiment.  

by BPK80 2008-09-11 06:25AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads