Tuesday, June 03, 2008

Obama Makes History, But Can/Will he Unite Democrats Against McCain?

The inevitable is no longer postponed. It's now official. Illinois Senator Barack Obama will represent the Democratic Party in the November general election for president against the Republicans' presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain (AZ). For sure, this is certainly an historic event and a major accomplishment for a 46-year-young black man named Barack Obama with just 3 1/2 years' experience in national politics. Nothing should take away from Obama's victory and what it means on a broader scale for Americans going forward. But watching the election night analysis while awaiting the results from the South Dakota and Montana primaries, I can't help feeling that perhaps, when the euphoria of this incredibly momentous occasion in our nation's 232 years settles down, the Democratic Party might be left with an inferior candidate who's going to be facing a monumental uphill battle against a ruthless, more time-tested political machine. One that will, as in the past, do and say anything to remain in power. A gang of thugs that will steal elections if they have to. Will Democrats awaken on November 5th heartbroken, as they have in the last two presidential elections?

As expected Tuesday, Obama won Montana handily, by a 15% margin. But he lost South Dakota by 10%, where he had led in the polls. It should be noted that no matter how hard former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle stumped for Obama in this, his home state, his efforts failed to deliver a win for his candidate. When you look at the long list of names of Obama's key surrogates like Daschle, Tom Harkin, John Edwards and John Kerry--notable liberals who've had their own major political failures--it gives pause as a possible foreshadowing of Obama's own fate come November.

Not to rain on the Dems' parade, but with the primaries over, it's impossible to ignore the fact that, according to her campaign and independent tallies from RealClearPolitcs.com and other sources, Hillary won the popular vote (or virtually tied, without Michigan) and lost the pledged delegate count by just 127. Or that Obama failed to reach the required minimum number of these same pledged delegates to capture the nomination as Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, Dukakis, Carter and others had done before him. And if not for super-delegates, many of whom were so over-zealous and excited by the historic impact of their vote and who couldn't wait to toss their support to Obama prematurely, he would not be the Dems' nominee. It's fair to assume that most of those very same super D's decided way before the race was over that Obama was their date for the dance, and that momentum, the electoral map and overall electability were of lesser concern. That's the only way to explain how their endorsements/votes could come many weeks, if not months, before June 3rd.

Which brings us back to the euphoria. The media and party officials are downright giddy over Obama's victory. About America's victory. MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Tim Russert were practically crying over it Tuesday night as they made the nomination victory call. Again, Obama's ascent is historic, and it does give goosebumps, especially to those of us who can remember the often violent racial turmoil of the 60's and 70's. Indeed, America has come a long way since then. But make no mistake: winning the Democratic nomination by the smallest of delegate margins and practically tying on the popular vote, is a far, far cry from being victorious in November. Obama, and therefore the party, has some very real problems before any real dancing can occur.

To be sure, Obama failed to unite his party. Obama failed to win a majority of his party's voters. Obama won less delegates than Hillary since March 1. He's also had problems attracting enough support among women, seniors, the white working class, Hispanics, Jews and Catholics--all critical constituencies for any Democrat expecting to win the presidency--to allay the concerns of many in his party. And he's now going to face an experienced Republican whose message will be that he's not Bush 3, and who'll cite his prominent breaks with the president and/or the party on the war, immigration, global warming and campaign finance reform as proof. He'll portray himself a maverick; an independent who'll bring about change. He'll highlight his history of bi-partisanship, of working across party lines with Senators like Russ Feingold and Joe Lieberman to "get things done." He'll stand arrogantly behind his decorated war-hero status to attack Obama's patriotism and ability to protect America from terrorists. We'll hear more lies about Iran and Hamas. McCain, his surrogates, the right wing media and the GOP attack machine will lie, deceive and distort the truth and Obama's record at every possible turn. And you can bet they'll shamelessly and recklessly play the race card using the Rev. Wright and Rev. Pfleger scandals. They'll remind voters in every possible subtle and perhaps even not-so-subtle way that he is white and Obama is not. Oh, it's going to get real ugly, all right. Is Obama--better yet--is America up to the challenge? We're soon gonna see just how far America has really come, baby.

Noted Republican consultant Ed Rollins said last week that Democrats are nominating the less electable candidate. "And this is going to present a big opportunity for us in November," he predicted. Let's hope he's dead wrong.

Now despite whatever concerns may exist about Obama, the fact is, he is now the nominee and every Democrat must rally around him and support him in any way possible. He will need volunteers, and he will need money. Click here to donate to his historic campaign so that we can begin to change America. And please email this contribution link to everyone in your address book. No more Bush. No McCain. Democrats, it's time to unite the party as we all know we can and will. Let's pull together and help ensure Barack Obama's victory in November.

Lastly, let it be known that this writer was/is incredibly disappointed with Clinton's speech Tuesday night. She was neither gracious, conciliatory or emotionally rooted in reality. In refusing to concede defeat, she has us all guessing as to just what sort of Rovian shenanigans she has up her sleeve. But the classy thing to do would've been to congratulate Obama on his long-fought victory and vowed to support him in uniting the party so that he can beat McCain in November. Instead, she took the low, disingenuous road yet again and ended up looking more delusional than ever. It's a sad footnote to a once brilliant future.


Unknown said...

Congratulations to Barack Obama. This is an historic moment.
Saying that, it is imperative to fight against John McCain becoming President. Yes, he has foreign policy experience, remember "Bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran?" He has a very strange view of foreign policy! He is a change we don't need.

Anonymous said...

I will vote for Obama, but have doubts that he can win. (So many Republicans crossed over to vote in our primaries that it's really hard to tell if he really is the best Dem candidate).

If he puts Hillary on the ticket as VP, he will have am much better chance.

There is a difference between a Hillary activist saying they will vote for Obama and a Hillary activist who will not only vote for him, but do all they can to get him elected.

If Hillary is on the ticket, many Hillary activists will do more than just vote for him.

Bottom Line: All the racists aren't dead yet. We need to do all we can to try and bridge the gap.

Like I said, I have my doubts that Obama will get elected.

Prius said...

Watching Hillary's speech last evening you know she is telling Obama, to pick her as VP and with HER terms, or it's lights out for him in November. If Obama is so stupid as to think he can win in November against the Republican Crime Machine I have some land here in Florida he can buy. As I have said countless times in this blog, the media is the one that wanted Obama and pushed it to no end. They wanted him because with him they know he can and WILL be beat in November. This has been a set-up from the get go and once again the American people fell for it hook line and sinker.

There are some some very pissed off Hillary backers this morning and they will not vote for McBush but they will not vote for Obama either. I figure they will go to the polls but will vote for senate, house and dog catchers on the ballot and leave the top spot empty. Let McBush get in and really muck things up, then in 2012 Hillary will run and finally get her (our) dream.

Anonymous said...

Ostroy: you're not helping.

You STILL can't drop the bullshit, can you? Obama doesn't have a white working class problem: he has a white racists in Applachia problem. So long as you keep repeating the "white working class" meme, however, you're only adding to the myth. Secondly, you're exhibiting clear sour grapes over your comment that "That's the only way to explain how their endorsements/votes could come many weeks, if not months, before June 3rd." Have you forgotten that Hillary had roughly 200 supers before February? Have you forgotten that the delegate math for Hillary was insurmountable by March? Have you forgotten the reason that the Clinton campaign trumpeted "popular vote" for so long was because they had no other plausible case to make as to why the supers should declare?

This is all followed by this gem: "To be sure, Obama failed to unite his party." Yes, that's HIS fault. In your view, it would have been pure evil for Hillary to stop campaigning really hard despite the inevitable, but it's somehow on Obama to "unite the party."

You are so far up your own ass in denial that you ARE raining on Obama's parade. Hillary and Barack must work together to unite the party, in whatever form that takes. It's not the sole responsibility of either of them.

That said, couched in all the nonsense is legit worry: how electable is Barack, is he going to need Hillary on the ticket, and will they be able to stand up to the smear machine? I think Barack will weather the smears pretty well given what we've seen so far, but the other two questions should definitely give us pause.

Finally, 10:23, allow me to repeat what I posted earlier: if Hillary supporters are scapegoated for an Obama loss in November because they didn't turn out, Hillary will be blamed for it. To this end she will go from heir apparent to persona non grata. Hillary will have a shot at 2012 if and only if it's widely perceived that Obama lost due to some major problem and/or despite a good turnout among ALL Dems. Clintonistas, don't wreck the country over sour grapes. If Obama truly is as flawed as you think he is, Clinton will get her due. But she'll never get that chance if you take your ball and go home.

Unknown said...

The president's first pick is always their running mate.

He shouldn't pick Hillary Clinton. If the best they can come up with is "Hispanics want Clinton" and "Women will be upset" then Pick Richardson as VP and jam the airwaves with McCain's anti-abortion stance 24/7.

Anonymous said...


Let's assume as fact that the media did want to annoint Obama as the Dem nominee. What's more assuredly the case is that the media has been in love with John McCain for nearly a decade.

What was interesting about McCain's speech last night (other than the comment that he looked like cottage cheese in lime green jello adored by literally dozens of supporters) was that he attacked the very crowd that has adored HIM - the media.

What happened? Not just CNN and MSNBC but even the crowd at FOX Noise pounded him.


McCain did not break with the president on immigration and if he touts this fact, the base will desert him.

As for the GOP attack machine, they would have done the same to Hillary. It's a given that they will do and say anything in order to win.

The question is, as a prominent blogger whose affiliation lies with the Democratic Party, are YOU up for the challenge? Are YOU going to do everything you can in order to unite the party?

I don't ask to put you on the spot. I ask in order, like dirk, I believe, in order to re-focus you on the task at hand - specifically, defeating John McCain.

Anonymous said...


Your comadre at Huffington nailed it this morning:


Hopefully she still has time for her "Al Gore" moment.

Sidney Condorcet said...

From now on I'm referring to Andy simply as "Mr. Doom and Gloom". Andy rarely, if ever, cites the prevailing trends that will work in Obama's favor. Mr. Doom and Gloom only highlights the hurdles to be overcome, often giving them far more weight than they deserve. You'll never read Mr. Doom and Gloom discussing Obama's 3-1 or 4-1 financial edge that he'll have over McCain. You'll never read about the Republican losses in red state special elections. You'll never read about Obama's strength in states Hillary wouldn't have put into play in the general (Iowa, Virginia, the pacific northwest, Wisconsin, Colorado, etc...)

Nope, pessimism is all that reigns on this blog. Surprise, as well, that Mr. Doom and Gloom did not chastise Senator Clinton for her less than gracious, nonconcession speech.

We've got 5 more months of Mr. Doom and Gloom's nonsense. On November 4, when we elect Senator Obama, we will rejoice that Mr. Doom and Gloom was proven wrong.

Anonymous said...

We can only hope for an improvement on your stated goal Ostroy, because so far you're not helping.

You open your post with by suggesting that Obama might be an inferior candidate. You close your post with a Republican operative's reverse-psychology narrative (Noted Republican consultant Ed Rollins said last week that Democrats are nominating the less electable candidate.) - a narrative you've pushed and continue to push.

This is hardly trying to "help Democrats regain the White House and Congress" like your banner says.

Anonymous said...

Andy - I like how whenever Obama wins big, people like you say it was "as expected". But when HILLARY wins big, it's "wow! look how much Hillary won by!"

Here's the bottom line. Barack won the smart voters, Hillary won the dumb voters. Period.

I'm GLAD the one with the smart voters won. It means our country is getting smarter, right? That's MY kind of patriotism!!!

The Ostroy Report said...

Sorry to disappoint, by my job...this site...is not to be an unapologetic, unconditional Obama surrogate/supporter. I'll leave that to those that clearly enjoy that role. For so many people who believe in Obama's message of "hope and change," you shock me. I "hope" you realize that simply because you have decided that Obama is the most electable and the most desirable doesn't mean everyone else has to automatically and unconditionally share this opinion....and that perhaps you will therefore "change" this rigid view of One for Obama, All for Obama view. Recognize that others have the right to a different viewpoint without being attacked for their lack of support of Obama, or for "dividing" the party, or such other nonsense that's, quite frankly, appallingly spewed here.

The Ostroy Report said...

Andy - I like how whenever Obama wins big, people like you say it was "as expected". But when HILLARY wins big, it's "wow! look how much Hillary won by!"

Yeah, Anon, there's a good reason for that: No one's been annoyingly calling for Obama's premature exit for the past 4 months. Her supporters have had to constantly show her victories to demonstrate her viability in the face of such unwarranted pressure.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Mr. Doom and Gloom is right. He's not charged with the responsibilty to be an Obama cheerleader. However, Mr. Doom and Gloom's readers no doubt hope that he begins rendering more honest, nuanced, and balanced assessments of the Democrats' chances. Please present us with some of the positive indicators of Obama's prospects as well as the negative. If you don't then you are no more than a Taylor Marsh sore loser, or Republican mole.

Anonymous said...

Look folks: Reality is not doom and gloom. It's reality.

Too many Obama supporters think our country has changed. Well not that much.

Where I live, some sections of the state will vote for Obama, but other sections would never vote for a black guy.

Now, don't call me a racist when I am just telling you reality.

Anonymous said...

What makes Obama supporters think the country has changed?

Heck, Hillary wouldn't get elected because she's woman in many parts of the state where I live.

Sidney Condorcet said...

"Barack Obama would like to remind you of something: He won and she didn’t. It’s about him now and not her. He has made history, and she is history.

Not that Hillary Clinton admitted to any of that in her nonconcession concession speech Tuesday night, after Obama attained the delegate votes he needs for the Democratic presidential nomination

For someone giving indications she would like to be Obama’s running mate, Clinton was surprisingly ungracious. In fact, if you had just awakened from a (blissful) 17-month sleep, you would have thought she had won.

“Because of you, we won together the swing states necessary to get to 270 electoral votes,” she told the crowd in New York City. “I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible.”

But her fighting words only increased the need for Obama to show that he can be strong, tough and in charge. Clinton’s unwillingness to recognize Obama as the victor only increased the need for Obama to act like a president and not like a doormat. And denying her a vice presidential slot may be a way of doing that." Roger Simon of politico.com...

For the last several weeks I tormented by the thought that Obama just has to pick Clinton as his VP. It would be the only way to ensure 95% of her supporters come back on board. The race was just too close to deny her the VP slot. However, after witnessing her pathetic speech last night where she was ungracious and sounded like she was the victor, I do not want her or her husband near the Naval Observatory. I fear that she and Bill would do their best to sabotage an Obama administration or attempt to usurp him in any way possible.

Give her HHS or "health care czar" or allow her to shepherd the health care bill through the Senate. No more than that though. Obama needs to show strength and not give in to the pressure being exerted by the Clintons and her surrogates.

Edwards for AG.
Webb, Rendell, Strickland, Bayh or Richardson for VP.
Biden for State.
Hagel for Defense.
Al Gore for Climate Czar.

Anonymous said...

Andy - if Obama had never taken the lead and was $20 million in debt, you can believe there would have been plenty of people calling for him to drop out of the race.

Generally, candidates don't wait until people are calling for them to drop out of the race - they realize on their own that they lack the electoral and financial resources to justify a continued run.

Candidates also usually step aside when a winner has been elected.

But then we have candidates like Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton......

Anonymous said...


I won't call you a racist because you did not state that you will not vote for Obama because he is black.

Those people you know who will not vote for him because he is black ARE, in fact, racist. Just as anyone who would not vote for Hillary Clinton simply based on the fact that she is a woman is a sexist.

I don't think there are many Obama supporters who are delusional enough to believe that racism does not exist and there's damn near nothing we or the candidate can do about it. But Clinton and McCain have similar problems. Some will not vote for her because she is a woman and some will not vote for him because he's an angry old man.

Despite Andy's protestations, no one called for him to be an unapologetic/unconditional Obama supporter. What most of us who support Obama are calling for is party unity. Continuing the meme that Obama has electability issues while ignoring the electability concerns surrounding McCain (I omit Clinton at this point since she's not going to be nominated) does not serve the interest of the party.

Anonymous said...

What you don't get Andy is that a HUGE portion of the population REALLY REALLY REALLY don't want this kind of politics any more. They're the SAME people who supported the 2000 McCain. The same people who generally like Edwards, the same people who think it was BRAVE what Scott McClellen did with his new book.

But Bush, Hillary, and the new "Green Jello" Mcain want to KEEP it old school. Keep dividing and conqoring. Keep the talking heads on cable spinning into infinity.

Obama's supporters. (MAYBE even more than Obama himself), want to ACTUALLY change the paradigm so that we talk about what needs to be talked about.

Andy PLEASE! Talk about issues. Are there issues that Obama has that you don't like? Bring THAT up. NOT the horse race stuff.

Obama is our canidate. Hopefully he'll be the president. If you have problems with his ISSUES (NOT his electibility), then let's hear it. Let's change it if you're right! That's what we should be doing from now until the convention. We should build a strong platform that really IS about change.

Andy, if you feel some of Hillary's PLATFORM should be on the agenda, then let's discuss that. But the horserace, at least for democrats is over. Now is time to tell and teach (YES!!! TEACH) the rest of the electorate about WHY the democrats should be in charge.

I think that's something we can all agree on, right?

Anonymous said...

I'm not going to scan back to find the post that declared the media support for Obama was a ruse to get McCain elected and that the American's fell for it, That is true from what I observed this a.m. on Morning Joe. I was shocked that CHRIS MATTHEWS the biggest supporter for Obama in the past was telling all the condtions that were going to prevent his winning the Presidency. He had a long list of remedies that he thinks are imperative for Obama to do in order to win. Suddenly Matthews is not the big cheer leader for Obama, but a big-mouthed critic.

Anonymous said...

Rather than Ostroy being Mr. Gloom and Doom, Sidney is "Little Mary Sunshine." Obama cannot win the presidency. And, it will not be because of write racism as some suggest, but because of black racism. They voted 94 percent for the black candidate. Blatant racism. And, his association with the black racist pastor and church have turned away a huge number of whites. That he is the nominee proves white racism is not that strong as of late. His "surge" declined after Wright came into the picture.

Anonymous said...

Obama won't win because of the stupidity and the mysogyny of the Dem. Party. They knew or should have known Wright had ruined Obama's chances but they kept supporting him up to and through the fiasco on the 31st. Their stupidity is startling: Dean - thank God he was never president; Kennedy, Kerry, Carter -- all four losers in the past. And, they brought down the Dems' chances this election.

Anonymous said...

Hillary on the ticket will not make Obama anymore desirable as president. No one will vote for him because she's the v.p. To what end? He will run the show.

Anonymous said...

Yeah -- sure, Let's put that stalwart and loyal Richardson on the Dem. ticket. Then we've have one as prez who has quesitonable baggage; and another as v.p. who is unprincipled and disloyal. What a combo.

Anonymous said...

Hey 2pm anon - Loyal? You care more about loyalty than what's good for the country? THAT sounds like Bush speak.

Anonymous said...

OK 1:06 YOU talk about issues. Tell us exactly what the CHANGE is and HOW Obama is going to accomplish it. I have no idea what he plans. All I heard him do was "echo" Hillary after he followed her in the debates. And, so far his candidancy has caused more division and a revist to old time racism -- this time on both sides. Not to mention the anger of women, too.

The Ostroy Report said...

Says Anon 1:25: "I was shocked that CHRIS MATTHEWS the biggest supporter for Obama in the past was telling all the condtions that were going to prevent his winning the Presidency. He had a long list of remedies that he thinks are imperative for Obama to do in order to win. Suddenly Matthews is not the big cheer leader for Obama, but a big-mouthed critic."

Oh, I get it now, Matthews and others are "right" when they agree with you and "wrong" when they don't! Man, that was simple! Damn this America with this crazy "free speech" thing! Right of dissent? Hogwash!

Gotta love the hypocrisy....

Anonymous said...

Looks like a few folks here missed all those 32,000 people in Minnesota for Obama last night while McCain spoke to a few hundred.

If any of you anons have any interest in putting a Dem in the White House in November, I suggest pull yourselves together and start being helpful. Contribute $$$. Register voters. Make calls and write letters. Get on board.

Regardless of whether you love him or not, we have a nominee and a lot of work to do over the next 5 months.

Since stupidity was mentioned, let's visit the stupidity of anon132. Saying that every black person that voted for Obama did so ONLY because he is black - that is stupid.

Ostroy - it baffles me sometimes the things you choose to respond to. Aside from the ludicrous notion that Matthews has ever been an Obama "cheerleader", anon125 just seems like one of those people who maybe doesn't quite understand the metric of newsrooms: if it bleeds, it leads. Pretty simple. Attacking 125 for "hypocrisy" while you've got lots of other opportunities for engaged discussion here seems below you Andy.

Anonymous said...

I heard Matthews too and I agree with what I thought 1:25 was saying. I thought that Matthews and the Media pushed for Obama so he would be the Democratic candidate and would lose to McCain. I thought that the media all along has wanted McCain and saw the way to get him elected. The Media bashed Gore and Kerry -- why did they suddenly favor the Democrat. Looks suspicious to me.

Anonymous said...

Racism is a live and well in our country.

Obama supporters are very naive.

Get ready for President McCain.

Is it too much for you folks to accept realtiy?

The Dems blew it big time by picking Obama.

Anonymous said...

The Dems only hope is an Obama/Clinton ticket.

Wake up!!!!!

Anonymous said...

"I thought that Matthews and the Media pushed for Obama"

So explain to me why Limbaugh and Coulter kept telling their minions to vote for Clinton?

You people have either been living under a rock, are just plain stupid, or are pernicious trolls just out to make trouble.

Obama was hammered incessantly on Rezko then madrasas then Wright then Bittergate and every point in between. The MSM has made every attempt to knock him down.

And when you look at sputtering McCain with his green wall and couple hundred supporters versus 35,000 people raising the roof in MN while Obama tore Bush and McCain to pieces, a different narrative emerges.

All you little trolls keep pushing your "racism" wagons if it makes you feel better. You probably have less an idea of how active racism is in this country than most of us Obama supporters.

Anonymous said...


I am not a troll. Don't call folks names when you have no idea of what you are talking about.

I live in the real world. I'm a proud Dem. And where I live, no way is Obama going to win.

Where do you live?

So quit your name calling and start doing your homework!!!!

Anonymous said...

Ostroy, c'mon:

I personally am not asking you to even LIKE Obama. However you've stated that it's important to get behind Obama now that he's "officially" the nominee. Let's talk about his ACTUAL weaknesses as opposed to nonsensical memes you keep parroting here. Let's talk about what he needs to do GOING FORWARD rather than bitch about the commitments of the supers. Re-read your post, man. How is anything you've stated there anything other than just bitching?

Obama's weaknesses:

1. Racism (not something he can overcome).

2. Resentment among Clinton supporters (I think he made a good gesture last night, whether or not it was cynical. If you support Clinton's POLICIES at all, you Clinton supporters need to get on board).

3. Worry about change/inexperience (if he mixes the soaring rhetoric with basic "nuts and bolts" talk about the economy, the war, health care and energy, I think he'll make inroads).

I think those are the main problems. He also has some significant advantages that he needs to press, and he needs to keep hitting McCain hard at every turn. All you Chicken Littles are ignoring quite a lot of the fundamental metrics here. I'm not saying it's going to be easy, it's going to be damned hard. But I can't believe you people want to throw in the towel. It's sad.

Anonymous said...


We want to win, don't we????

Anonymous said...

If Obama were smart, he would pick Hillary.

Think about it: What a historic election!

First black man and first woman!

What more could you ask for????

Sidney Condorcet said...

If Obama picks Hillary, the Dems will certainly lose.

Hillary is beloved by 18 million democrats and absolutely hated by Republicans and intensely disliked by most independents.

It would be the "worst of both worlds" as Jimmy Carter called the proposition.

Best that Obama choose a Clinton ally like General Clark, Evan Bayh, Ed Rendell, Ted Strickland...

Plus, her presence on the ticket absolutely ruins his message on the war and his message of change from divisive politics of the past

Anonymous said...

Andy, I like what you write enough to have continuously followed your comments from the beginning. And I do believe it is time for Obama to step into a leadership role, but this takes more than the solitary act of one individual. The rest of us need to step up to the plate behind him and give him the chance to do that.

You have been gradually coming around, and I think there are many others like you, but to make it work, we all have to make it happen and get over our petty differences to achieve the greater good.

Remember, Bill Clinton was not a perfect president by anyones account, but he still accomplished much and still is judged to have been a good president in retrospect. I am sure Obama will not be perfect either, but he will be a far sight better than anything else on the horizon.

Time for Andy to get behind the best we have.

Anonymous said...

Hey 3:15 Right on! But please stop echoing the "no experience" bull. He DOES have experience. 20 years!! If Michigan & Florida count, then being a State Senator should count too, right?

Anonymous said...

For all of you who think Obams is just a speach & a smile, start studying!


And if you DON'T like his plan. SPEAK UP!! This is the time.



Anonymous said...

blkn -- your points are almost too idiotic to respond to. What has Limbaugh and Coulter on FOX got to do with Matthews on MSNBC, a station you obviously did not watch, ever. To a person they pushed for Obama and made cruel fun of Hillary. Obama was their "man" until this a.m. Then suddenly Obama is not "perfect" and a "savior."

Coulter said on FOX, which I watch to see what the other sdie is doing, that she sincerely meant to vote for Clinton because she doesn't like McCain. however, she said she would not vote rather than vote for Obama.

As for "racism" are you talking about racism by blacks towards whites. by whites towards blacks, by blacks toward hispanices, or by hispanics towards blacks?

All it took for Sindey aka Little Mary Sunshine, to become Mr. Gloom and Doom when Hillary was mentioned. How so mercurial.

Anonymous said...

Hillary eats babies...

Anonymous said...


I can only guess you think your comment was funny. It wasn't and you are one sorry, sorry individual.

Sidney Condorcet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Anon551 - the point was about THE MEDIA not just MSNBC. Go back and read the comments. I also challenge you to provide ANY instance where ANY of the MSNBC crew called Obama "perfect" or a "savior". Good luck with that. I'll even help you. Here's info about Obama references on MSNBC where you'll soon discover how idiotic this statement is: "To a person they pushed for Obama and made cruel fun of Hillary".

Gee, and how conveniently you ignored Limbaugh's role in getting out the vote for Hillary since that doesn't fit your little narrative.

For acting so omniscient, you seem to be completely oblivious to how the news media works in this country. They chase ratings and the more dramatic the story, the better their ratings. Acting "surprised" that on Tuesday a news anchor speaks highly of a candidate only to savage them on Wednesday is an ooooooooold maneuver. Get a clue.

As regards "racism" you once again need to go back and read the comments and get a clue about what I was referencing.

Do your own damn howework.

Anonymous said...

if obama has to worry about who mancoulter will vote for...he definitely will lose...of course, he could care less...and if the dem party and dem voters choose to vote for mccrazyoldman...so be it...if you listened to his speech last nite, there is no question that the man cannot be president...btw, if hillary is looking for a job now, tell her to forget the vp spot, cuz.....IVE GOT SOME SHIRTS SHE CAN IRON

Anonymous said...

Really? -- I wouldn't have thought you had a pot to pee in.

Anonymous said...

Obama has chosen Hagel as VP. This will be announced in three weeks.

Anonymous said...

If you can't count the popular vote in michigan you can't count the delegate's Obama was give and YES I DO MEAN given,At the time of the michigan primary all the canadate's of the dem party were in the race.Obama and obama supporters are so angry with the clinton's.That any true victory the former first lady had,they have to strip it from her.These same party people been hollering that clinton should get out,are some of the same people who backed Ted Kennedy's right to take the fight to the floor in the fight against Carter.At the time Kennedy had less than 1000 delegates.Hillary's being hung out to dry because the night obama had enough delegates so clinton couldn't beat his number,she was to fall on her sword and start paying Homage to the great savior.Now what will happen for the dems. to save face, half the clinton supper delegates will have to switch to Obama so Obama can reach the number of delegates needed at the convention,Because according to the rules it takes a certian number,the only place to get them take them from HILLARY.New poll out today shows Mccain over Obama 46% to 45%. Where's this great overwhemling Obama numbers we were promised after Obama was crown the Massiah????

Anonymous said...

I think the biggest question is can Democrats campaign for a week without saying the name "George Bush" ? Democrats have nothing to offer and can't debate without saying the name of a person that isn't in the race.

Can anyone name a more inexperienced presidential candidate in modern American history than Barack Obama?

Anonymous said...

A massive change has taken place as a result of this election. Things that were hidden have become evident and are causing psychological shifts. The extent of mysogyny has become frigteningly apparent. The hatred blacks have for whites has become hurtfully apparent. The racism of whites towards blacks has been restirred. The huge chasm between the rich and the former middle class has been highlighted. The huge number of self-interest divisions have split us even further. And, the general lack of character in so many of our "leaders" has dimmed the hopes of anything getting better. We are not one, united country with all working for the greater good of America. There are going to be shifts in allegiances, and loyalties and a distrust and cynicism we feel for each other.

And, the immediate outcome is that McCain will be the next president.

Anonymous said...

I think that the following comments are the ones we all need to focus on now.

At 2:25 PM, Anonymous bkln said…

Regardless of whether you love him or not, we have a nominee and a lot of work to do over the next 5 months.

At 3:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

Where do you live?

At 3:15 PM, Anonymous Dirk Gently said…
to start with Obama’s negatives and try to make them strengths.

I am a former government teacher and I always taught my students that the first task of a politician was to get into a POSITION that he/she could affect gov't policies.

Anonymous said...


That's pretty easy: George W. Bush, whom I'm guessing you supported. Now, who was the MOST experienced candidate for president in modern history who then won the office: Richard Nixon.

"Experience" only matters if one has the temperament and good judgment to call upon the right lessons learned from the experience. Nixon had experience in spades but lacked the temperament and judgment to apply it properly.

It's my belief that John McCain's personality more closely aligns with Richard Nixon (hothead and grudge-holder) than Ronald Reagan and, frankly, it scares the crap out of me.


If odious conditions in the US were "hidden", that means they already existed, right? They've been playing a part in American politics previous to this election and are nothing new.

What exists right now within the Democratic Party is the aftermath of an incredibly close nomination race and supporters of the second place finisher are rightfully mourning their loss. That's totally understandable.

What cannot logically be deduced from this is that McCain will be the next president. There are 5 months ahead of us. 5 months of contrasting hope, change and a new direction versus, as Joe Scarborough put it, more war and less jobs.

The immediate outcome is that according to the CBS News poll out yesterday, it's Obama +6%

Anonymous said...

As usual Michael likes to state the obvious. Of course they were hidden and now they are exposed and can no longer be denied or swept under the rug, but must be dealt with.

Each of us involved in one of the hurtful revelations will realign outselves to a more comfortable position.

From my neighbors who are democrats I hear that they will now vote for McCain. Just as I heard the blacks in my neigborhood who were in the past for Hillary decide to vote for Obama.

Allegiances and points of view were exposed and could no longer be denied. Things will change accordingly.

If McCain's victory depended on the shifting vote in my town, he would be the next president. They swear to vote for him or stay home.
I grant you this is an unofficial poll.

Anonymous said...


Apparently what I stated was NOT obvious to anon917 who had the sudden revelation people who are mysoginist or racist will vote their point of view.

Perhaps I should have distilled my reply to simply say - no shit?

If you are a Clinton voter and think John McCain is a more "comfortable" position for you, personally I question your true allegiance to Clinton's policies, her personal history, philosophies and beliefs as well as the Democratic Party.

Anonymous said...

May I direct everyone to John Rogers, who as usual nails it: http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2008/06/ask-not-what-your-country-can-do-for.html

9:17: The Clinton camp's assertion was that Obama should get NONE of the "uncommitted" delegates, which is absurd on its face. It's clear that the MI committee pretty much just made up a number to assign, but you're making it out to be a lopsided conspiracy. Get a grip.

Michael's right: Obama's leading McCain in national polls right now. Obama is ahead or competitive in every state he needs to win between now and November. Obama has WAY more money and energy than McCain. McCain's tracking numbers have stagnated or gone down, depending on the poll. And so on. I can't believe some of you are being so petty, self-loathing, and depressive. Obama's in a good position, and WITH YOUR HELP he will be the next POTUS. You may not like him, but do you like McCain better? There's your choices.

Lastly, in my area the opposite is occurring: people who were on the fence or leaning slightly toward McCain if Hillary were to be the nominee will now definitely vote for Obama. But I think this may be about the region: I live in Colorado, where Hillary would have been crushed, but where Obama has a comfortable lead in the polls. The West is like this: with Hillary on the ticket, she had no chance at CO or OR, probably loses NM and maybe even WA: together that's 33 electoral votes. Obama MIGHT pick up NV, where Hillary probably wouldn't have. That's 38. That's the same total as Michigan and Pennsylvania together. Obama's also within striking distance in MT and might peel off two of NE's 5 EV's. Some polls even have him taking ND. So don't think this is all about the big states and that Obama is unelectable. He most certainly is out here.

Anonymous said...

Oh mIcheal, you're so dense. Mysogynists who would not have voted for Hillary but would have voted for Obama, will now not vote for him but will vote for McCain after the "hidden" has become blantantly apparent.

Another bit of ridiculous reasoning was exposed in an article in the NY Times today about black mothers being elated with Obama's status since it will encourage their DAUGHTERS about the advantages they can now hope for.

They don't get it. Sexism discrimnates against black women as it does against white women.

It's the gender stupid.

Anonymous said...

All is not lost. Just heard from a friend that there is a petition on the Internet to sign for Hillary to run as an Independent. That would solve everything. I'm a man, who is not a sexist, and I couldn't be more pleased.

Anonymous said...


Give me your assessment of the possibility/probability of Gov. Brian Schweitzer as VP.

I think he'd be an asset on so many fronts for Obama - not just out West (I think he'd seal the deal in CO, NM and MT, might put the Dakotas in play as well as help in NV) but also in Appalachia (PA, OH, WV, VA).

He's the first in his family to go to college. He chose a Republican as his running mate in MT. He has a 70% approval rating in his state. He does not take PAC money. He's Roman Catholic. His degrees are in agronomy and soil science. He spent 7 years in Saudi Arabia (knows the region far better than McCain can dream of) and speaks Arabic.

Montana's economy is doing well and Schweitzer's WAY out in front of most people in understanding energy independence and, most importantly for working whites in Appalachia, he understands COAL.

Anonymous said...

Michael: Schweitzer would be fantastic, for all the reasons you listed. However by all accounts he's focused on winning the governorship again. At the moment I'm leaning more toward Sebelius or Napolitano, both capable (white women) governors who are quality campaigners and seem to have solid progressive cred on a range of issues. Here are the advantages there:

1. If it's "all about gender" as some claim, this works to Obama's advantage.

2. If it's "all about regions and authenticity" as some claim, then we have governors from two fairly bright red states, one is Obama's mom's state, the other is McCain's state. Symbolism will continue to resonate in this election (alas).

3. This shores up Obama on the "experience" aspect somewhat, and it does so without pilfering from the razor-thin Dem lead in the Senate.

(As an aside: I grew up in a coal region in Colorado, the tech for clean gassification is here now, and we're the Saudi Arabia of coal: I don't think we should give up on it, above and beyond the obvious electoral advantages of touting coal--although I do think we should stop destroying whole mountains for it).

Anonymous said...


The contortions through which you will put yourself and your argument is truly amazing. You must be a gymnast.

Or psychotic.

Anonymous said...

Michael, You're wrong as you often are.

I'm a member of Mensa. If I submit another post I'll simplify.

Anonymous said...


Freely admit that I'm often wrong... just not in this case.

If you were a member of Mensa, wouldn't you know if you were going to submit another post?


Anonymous said...

This report is right on the money but I am tired of folks complaining about Hill. She Could not make a speech on Tuesday about what she was going to do. How would that have looked to her supporters? She would have been booed off the stage. This is Thursday, not a full two days since the results were in. Her advisors have already made her intentions known and they are already preparing for a formal message this coming Saturday. Meanwhile, we have sold our future in order to make history. McCain will be victorious, as Obama does not have what it takes to survive in our current political machine. As an African American, I must say that this decision was very shortsighted.

Anonymous said...

Hillary should not go near that ticket. Obama is on his own and good luck with that. A Washington Post article described how the Obama campaign focused on the caucuses and discouraged re-votes in Michigan and Florida. But the primary is not the GE. They may have won the battle, but can they win the war? It's a whole 'nother strategy and they have pissed off huge groups of voters.

Anonymous said...

4:53 Decisions are made only after intelligent consideration.

Anonymous said...


Please. Go consult your Mensa-furnished Magic 8-ball.

"Outlook not so good!"

Anonymous said...

Just love,love love these Obama fans.They set here and will tell you if you were a hillary support and vote for Mccain rather than obama.You don't stand for what hillary believes.These are the same people that have said along that there wasn't a good thing about hillary and they even claimed her and Bill clinton were racist.I certainly hope they don't think this logic will work against republicans.Because PS they already Know their not getting the black vote.But they will remind every white voter how the obama campaign used race to squash Hillary's chances.And when the republicans run a ad how michelle is only now proud of america and obama says LAY OF MY WIFE,the answer back will be, did your people back of WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON."HELL NO"

Anonymous said...

I agree with 5:59. Obama will be no better equipped to "street fight" than were Gore and Kerry. Obama's campaign has already made some serious mistakes. Not only that, he has promised to be different and to rise above "down and dirty" He can't have it both ways nor can he change his genteel persona.

Anonymous said...

6:08 (#1),

Since you are addressing my comments, there's plenty to like about Hillary. I backed her husband twice and worked for the Clintons. However, I'm one of those millions of "judas" Dems who voted for Clintons in the past but backed Obama this time around. I've also never stated or even hinted that the Clintons are racists.

Oh, and I'm white, too.

What I stated about a vote for McCain being grossly against what Hillary stands for and has fought for in her life is absolutely true.

John McCain does not support women's reproductive freedom. He does not support universal health care. He is not in favor of removing American forces from Iraq within the next two years. He supports Scalia-like judges for the Supreme Court as well as the Bush tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy.

These are but a sampling of the differences, but they are fundamental.

Anonymous said...

There is also a fundamental difference in the character of the two candidates. And tonight on Hannity and Colmes the strategy to expose Obama as a liar has begun. Jerry Springer who is a loud Obama supporters had to admit that he as a resident of Chicago has known for years what Rev. Wright and Pfleger stood for. One didn't have to attend the church to know because Rev. Wright has a reputation and is very well known, as is Pfleger. Even if Obama had not been a member he had to know what Wright preached. They are calling him a liar and an "empty suit."

Do we want another liar in the White House? What CHANGE will that be? I was for Obama niy this is chanhing my mind. I remember the promises Bush made -- compassionate convervative. And all who voted for him knew he was an alcoholic playboy who just made it through school and -- you know the rest. But, people voted for him on the basis of his "promises." not his "character."

Anonymous said...


OK, let's address character:

John McCain admittedly consorted with prostitutes while in the military. John McCain admittedly committed adultery on multiple occasions. John McCain has repeatedly dropped "f-bombs" on fellow Senators in Senate chambers. John McCain called his wife a "c**t" in front of reporters and staff. John McCain, unbeknownst to his own staff, magically converted to the Baptist faith without being baptised. John McCain's conscience was offended by the Bush tax cuts until it became politically untenable for him to adhere to his conscience. John McCain called Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson "agents of intolerance" until he needed their support and that of evangelicals for his campaign. John McCain was against torture, until he was for it. John McCain, champion of campaign finance reform, has two pending cases with the FEC for campaign finance violations. John McCain, the anti-lobbyist, has over 100 lobbyists working for his campaign - including his top campaign staff.

The list could go on and on...

As for lies, just Tuesday John McCain declared to a New Orleans reporter that he had supported every investigative measure and financial support effort for New Orleans in the wake of Katrina. Inconveniently for him, here are the facts:

He voted against two separate investigative efforts into the federal failures after Katrina and also voted against three different financial aid packages for those ravaged by the hurricane.

Neither man is a saint. One, however, represents a different direction for the country while the other represents status quo.

Anonymous said...

Thought I'd share with you all a message forwarded to me from a friend who is a financial backer of Senator Clinton:

Dear (redacted as promised),

I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.

I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.

When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.

I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.

I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.

I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.

In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.

I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.


Hillary Rodham Clinton

Brava, Senator.

Anonymous said...


why is she holding the event on a saturday...when no one will be watching?

i truely hope she is a woman of her word, and will fully back and campaign for obama...and that should include, releasing all her delegates on saturday to his campaign

then maybe we obama supporters will be gracious and help her pay off her massive campaign debt

or, she can take up work ironing shirts to make it back

Anonymous said...

bacci40 On your best day you will not have the financial assets Hillary has that will preclude her ironing shirts. Nor will you have her intelligence, compassion, ability or influence. But what you have done, in your ignornance, is prove what we've claimed: mysogyny rages in our country -- you won't let it drop - and for that reason alone, I and thousands of other women are leaving the Democratic Party. That is no solution, but at least the Republicans don't claim to be "progressive."

Anonymous said...

11:33 OMG McCain had sex with a prostitute. Big surprise. Men have extra marital sex. Whereas that is not exlempary and is considered a sin, it is a "sin", that does not affect my life at all, nor does it affect his capacity as President. (Remember Jefferson and others?) ONama's lie about his connection to the BLT church and the possible mindset he has as a result, is a decided threat to me, the country and Americans.

Sidney Condorcet said...

With the jobless rate going up, the economy growing at a snail's pace, no end in sight in Iraq, an unstable Afghanistan and Pakistan, a resurgent Russia, a voracious China, health care unaffordable to tens of millions of Americans, Obama's huge fundraising advantage, Obama's charisma next to McCain's moribund manner, the historical trends indicating a huge Democratic sweep of local, state, and federal elections.....

Obama will undoubtedly be the next President of the United States. McCain has the poor fortune of being the fool who stands at the beach yelling "Halt" as a tidal wave rapidly advances toward the shore...

Anonymous said...

obama can win without hilliary......he's going to win in november ...IT'S A NEW DAY ! america this is our moment,this is our time !!! there are many who are AFRAID HE MAY BE A DARN GOOD PRESIDENT AND LEADER

Anonymous said...


Men have extramarital affairs. So, this is a given? Do you understand how sexist a comment that is?

The mindset that a committment to one's wife is not sacrosanct does not cause you concern?

Anonymous said...

Michael your thinking is once more muddled. Of course it causes concern that men's committment to their wives is not held as sacrosanct by a huge number of men. That was the point!!!!!!!!!!!

Is it also sexist to say more men are in jail for drug abuse than women? Or, that more men are in jail in general? Or that more men have been president of the USA than women? PALEEZE

Anonymous said...


Your point: Men (specifically, John McCain) have affairs. This is not a "big deal" (your words).

Second point: Obama MAY have a "mindset" that you think questionable.

Your words are your own and they reveal you to be sexist in attitude and prejudicial in your thought process (you focus on the "maybe" of one candidate but ignore the factual character flaws of the other).

I'm not muddled. You are completely lost in the labyrinth of your own contortion.