Planning the ‘inevitable merger’ between the Clinton, Obama camps

I am very glad to see Dean being given ample credit for this. His formidable skills have often been overlooked due to caricatures of his occasionally bombastic campaign style, but he was the right person at the right time for the DNC, and over the next couple of cycles his vision will prove to be somewhere between merely superior and outright prohpetic.

No, this would be major Clinton fundraisers declaring that Obama’s mission is accomplished before the nomination process is truly finished. Which probably means the nomination process is, as a practical matter, truly finished.

mary is such an ignorant liar – a concern troll that does not actually support liberal or progressive ideas that hides behind the clinton candidacy (just like rush limpballs.

Absolutely nothing in this post is about Obama proclaiming anything. It is the rest of the party (including shillary’s fundraisers) that are starting to accept and plan for the most likely outcome.

This thread will be full of all kinds of crap from the likes of mary (and are greg and others actually here sockpuppet?).

The sooner we purge these people from party, the better off we will be. 2008 offers historic opportunity if we are willing to grab the prize and fight for an honest election.

little dick, as much of a dumb ass as you are you can only be a republican plant. but you go right ahead with your purge; most recent polling shows those who identify as ‘very liberal/progressive’ in single digits.

every time you open your childish mouth you harm the cause. you alone are about enough to make me vote anyone but Obama this fall. hell, i’d rather read mary’s posts than – what were you on that thread below, 4 of the first 8? Have no friends so you have to talk to yourself? and you spend all of your days and nights on here but lecture the rest of us about “real activism”? please. for all of your ranting about “trolls” you seem to forget that a good half of the regulars here have made clear we think you’re the biggest troll of all.

trust me little dick, the respected regulars you keep pissing off – Prup, libra, et al – have been here long before you and will be here long after you’ve gone back to pre-school summer camp. we hav real discussions to have that are much more enjoyable without your petty, mindless, annoying, repetitive posts. give it up before you look even more moronic than you already do.

pencil dick – you don’t have a clue, but speak like you are the KING if you want. You think you can key yourself to greatness – but you are just a little bozo on the bus too.

If you feel important, however, show the world – we snicker at the likes of you.

“we”? multiple personalities acting up again are they?

i dont need to key myself to greatness, i actually have a life. sorry if thats a sore subject. and like most of the regulars here, we were likely out party building in the trenches when you were still in diapers (assuming you aren’t still).

but it really pisses me off how witless juveniles like you can come and take over entire threads and fuck up the chemistry and flow of a decent place like a bull in a china shop. clue: your same old obsessive hang-ups in your posts are way, way past their sell-by dates. if we had an auto-kill feature that would allow users to suppress posts by names on a blacklist, you’d be at the top; alas you post so freakin often and so inanely that simply ignoring you is problematic.

in any event, i’ve made my point. lash out in wild witlessness at your leisure. i resolve to not bother anymore. but really, in the meantime, at least try to post something original now and then for the benefit of those who may still not have learned to skip your posts. and keep up the good work on converting those Clinton supporters, you’re a tribute to Obama supporters everywhere.

little minds think alike – hence you proclaim you speak for others.

Mark, not to tell anyone else how to post, especially because I frequently can’t resist responding to trolls myself, but why do you even read little bear? His posts add nothing to the discussion and always raise your blood pressure. Witless juveniles can’t take over entire threads if they’re being ignored. It’s really easy to scroll past him.

Now I will meekly take my medicine, if you want to administer it, for constantly responding to Mary, whose sole purpose is, as I readily concede, to fuck up threads and create a distraction. The sauce that’s good for you, Mr. Gander, is just as appropriate for me. Now that we know who our nominee is, possibly little bear can lay off the Shillary crap and Mary can move on to whomever her new candidate will be. If not, we and the party have moved on without them.

On topic, this post is heartening. Things get so heated in the blogosphere that it’s really easy to fall for the idea that the most inflexible supporters on both sides are a majority rather than a very vocal and impassioned minority. There will be, as Steve eloquently puts it, an “isolated few [whose] goal isn’t to advance a progressive agenda, or to make progress on the issues important to Hillary Clinton, but rather to elevate an individual,” but one or two of them banging pots and pans here doesn’t translate into large numbers in the fall if there’s a genuine effort by the two campaigns to move forward.

With the convention only a month or so before the election, we do have to start as much reconcilation sooner rather than later, and I applaud the responsible party leaders, donors and supporters on both sides who are starting it now rather than thinking it can be done in September.

There is no reconciliation with folks that don’t support a real working-class candidate that stands for progressive/liberal ideal.

Historic opportunity to avoid mistakes from past – can’t bring groups together by proclaiming those that don’t actually support progressive/liberal ideas must be accommodated.

That is how we got into this mess in the first place.

Folks need to get a grip – this is what we are running against in bush/mclame:

On NBC’s “Meet the Press” this morning, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) discussed his 21st Century GI Bill, which President Bush has vowed to veto. Webb blasted the president for this unprecedented action:

No president in history has vetoed a benefits bill for those who served. … The Republican party is on the block here, to clearly demonstrate that they value military service or suffer the consequences of losing the support of people who’ve served. … The president has a choice here to show how much he values military service.

Triangulations with folks that don’t actually support meaningful change and democratic progressive/liberal ideals is not necessary to win in 2008.

The repugs have given us a historic opportunity – let’s not blow it by watering down what we stand for.

I was at the NH Democratic Convention yesterday and part of the program was Unity 08, in which Kathy Sullivan, recently chair of the NH party and chair of Hillary’s campaign in NH, and whoever was the chair of the Obama campaign, I can’t remember right now and am too lazy to look it up, asked us all to pledge that we would support the nominee when he/she was chosen. It was an interesting day, as the party officials tip-toed around the monster in the corner, the lack of an nominee. The closest to a nod to the issue was Howard Dean who said that when he began the 50 state campaign, he didn’t mean a 50 state primary!
In many ways the most interesting part was the long presentation by the training coordinator for the DNC, in which I learned that the correct figure for how many Americans go without health insurance in 90 million, not 45. 45 million is the figure for those who never had insurance during the last couple of years, but 90 million is those who might have had it for a little while during that period, but did not have it consistently. Ouch.

I don’t blame any Clinton supporter for being upset. I do not support her, but I did support Kucinich and then Edwards, so I know what it is like to see one’s choice rejected. Still, I think you are correct that we have to find a way to come together to prevent a McBush presidency. As you suggest, this should be about the progressive agenda and not any one person.

blooming pol – great point on health insurance – need to “hit that home”.

mclame is problaiming its all about “choices” when for almost 1/3 of Americans, its really about access – they have no choices at all and will continue to have no choices under mclame’s proposals.

Mike. For crying out loud.

**PLEASE IGNORE THE TROLL**.

He/She/It is clearly only interested in stirring up trouble. You’re wasting your time, and worse, actually playing that game, by replying. If you must interact with him/her/it, just do as I now do: laugh at the ill-mannered, childish naiveté of those posts that even my 6-year-old would be ashamed of (and grounded for if I caught him at it) and then scroll past them.

What do you say? 🙂

And watch, Mike, I’ll even set an example. See me effortlessly ignore and not reply to the troll’s inevitable flame of this post.

Maria@17: Well said. We all get sucked in by the trolls sometimes, and occasional reminders can help the reasonable people keep perspective.

What I think is interesting about the article is that it indicates that the big players, people who can raise real money and who go to small dinners with the likes of Dean, seem more focused on winning in November than on the cult of personality of Hillary or Obama. That’s a very positive indication to me, and I’m encouraged to see that the manicheanism that’s all to prevalent on boards like this (hi, trolls!) doesn’t extend to at least some of the people who will make a material difference in the Democrats’ attempt to actually get someone elected.

I think Tom Cleaver gets it right. Howard Dean is a man with his eyes on the prize, and that prize is not simply taking the White House in 2008. It is the public repudiation of failed policies and incompetent governance that have resulted from Republican / right wing dominance of the political discourse for nearly 30 years. He, along with Al Gore, has shown what it is to work to make lemonade out of political lemons. I do not know if Dean’s vision of for a “50 State Strategy” will pay lasting dividends or not, but because of shifting demographics, I think he has the right idea.

I have never considered myself to be a Democrat, but I believed strongly that the GWB presidency and its Congressional enablers required opposition. So, I hope the Dems can pull themselves together and vanquish the Republican hydra and discredit the extremist ideology that has dominated that party and failed the American people. The election of John McCain will stifle and set-back the momentum that we all have been working and yearning for. McCain must be rejected.

Two points:
Little Bear exemplifies those folks who can’t deal with politics, except in an ad hominem manner. I suggest that he grow up.
The pockets of disenchanted Hillary supporters are larger than you or the other pundits think. I am quite worried about the general election. In many cases it is folks like little bear who have so alienated supporters of other candidates, while his candidate’s campaign has remained passive yet aware of the behavior of the likes of him. In my small Iowa county, I know many many Democrats who are so turned off by such behavior that they are disenchanted with both the party and the apparent victor.

The pockets of disenchanted Hillary supporters are larger than you or the other pundits think. I am quite worried about the general election. In many cases it is folks like little bear who have so alienated supporters of other candidates, while his candidate’s campaign has remained passive yet aware of the behavior of the likes of him.

Forgive me, but I am a bit perplexed about what this really means for the election in November. Do people really expect the Obama campaign to “do” something about the behavior of people whose “association” with the campaign is merely that of a citizen-supporter?

I did not begin the primary process as an Obama supporter, and I am not convinced he is going to be the “cure all” for what is ails policy and politics in this country. Other than exasperation at the tortured logic of some of Mary’s postings here, I have tended to ignore the intentionally provocative railings of both sides. Since Obama supporters are the most vocal on this blog, Hillary supporters posting or lurking have more to ignore; I will grant that. If folks such as little bear offend or discourage you with their opinions and manner of expression – don’t bother reading what they have to say. They are, after all, expressing a personal opinon – not that of either candidate.

For my part, any “taking of offense” that swayed my candidate choice has resulted from the actual actions and words of Hillary Clinton herself or her closest surrogates, such as Terry McAuliffe (although Terry of late has crossed over the line from offensive to amusing). Once folks like John Edwards and Chris Dodd exited the race, I was open to persuasion by either Clinton or Obama. Then Hillary began to lose me with her gaming FL and MI and her C-in-C “threshold” remarks and her Obama-is-a-Christian “as far as I know” shenanigans. I was very turned off by this. Yet, I have always maintained that I would vote for her in November if the alternatives were staying home, John McCain, or some sort of minor (third) party choice. I have stated ad nauseum here that – for me -this election (like that of 2004) was about the SCOTUS above all else.

I cannot get my brain around how people who support Hillary Clinton and the goals for which she says she is fighting could cede the field to others who either oppose her goals or stand no chance of gaining the White House to advance them. I sincerely cannot understand why anyone would allow comments by Obama supporters – regardless of how obnoxious – to keep them for voting for the best possible (though not perfect) choice to advance progressive goals in November. The next four years in the life of the SCOTUS will likely chart its course for the next 30 years. The more moderate judges on the court are aging and / or ready to retire. [John Paul Stevens is 88; Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 75 and a cancer survivor; the “spring chicken of the group, Stephen Bryer is 70.*] If you think this means nothing, then perhaps you should review the work of the Alito-Roberts-Scalia-Thomas axis in the last term (with an assist from the quixotic Anthony Kennedy). [*Scalia and Kennedy both are 72. Clarence Thomas is 60; Samuel Alito is 58. Chief Justice John Roberts is 55.]

Beyond the SCOTUS, there is the damage that has been done to the DOJ and other agencies in the federal government. I doubt that McCain is inclined to repair this damage. I am not even sure either Obama or Clinton would be able to correct it in four or eight years. But, I feel confident they make a better run at the job than McCain.

So, I am puzzled by Obama supporters who pronounce they would not support Hillary (although because, IMO, he has more claim on the nomination now than she does and I do not see how she can win without subverting the process, I would understand alienation by Obama supporters more than the reverse) if she were the nominee. I also cannot understand Hillary supporters who say they will not support Obama – particularly if they base their decision on boorish behavior by Obama supporters not remotely connected with the actual actions of the candidate or the campaign.

HRC: I won MICH by a zillion votes. She won MICH the way Stalin won his elections. He was the only candidate. HER people voted in the DNC committee not to count MICH or any primaries that moved ahead of NH.
Why? So a small state, with only a few towns, could host a primary that any of you reading this could campaign in. MICH, with 10 million, and Florida with 25 million, would require resources that only the name brands and multi-millionaires could muster, and they MUST NOT BE FIRST, and they wont.
So her insistence on ‘counting the votes’ of states that attempted to ruin democracy by pushing ahead of NH is particularly galling. What is worse, her own people were in the DNC committee and they voted not to count a state that bulled ahead of NH. If they had voted against NH being first, we would have the info published widely. They didn’t.
Thou shall not bear false witness.

I am one of these that will not vote for Obama. I doubt that I could even vote for him if he and Hillary did tag team. I would rather that she run as an Independent with either Harold Ford or Wesley Clarke as a VP running mate. No it is not all about her, it is just that I do not trust Obama. I used to be a loyal democrat, but most of the party leaders have disappointed me. McCain actually does have a few issues that I agree with and he really is pretty moderate compared to most Republicans. I think over all, the Republicans have shown themselves to be a much wiser party during this election. So if Hillary is not the nominee then I will decide then whether to sit the vote out or give to McCain, but it “ain’t over until it is over.” The democrats need to stop being so Wimpy and wait it out.

Correcting a typo:

Now we know that we need to see McCain’s short term memory test results, as well as new tests on whether he has incipient Alzheimer’s.

Subj: A Black Columnist on Obama

Ken Blackwell – Columnist for the New York Sun

It’s an amazing time to be alive in America. We’re in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.

We won’t truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won’t arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He’s not. He’s the next George McGovern. And it’s time people learned the facts.

Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let’s look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial ‘beauty.’

Start with national security, since the president’s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists – something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on ‘the rich.’ How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, ‘All praise and glory to God!’ but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have ‘hijacked’ – hijacked – Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban – ban – on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francis co values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don’t start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of ‘bringing America together’ means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and – yes – they’re talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama’s radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.

It’s time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let’s first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn’t you think Remember–God is good, and is in time, on time – every time

According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:

The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal….the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??

I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet…do it! If you think I am crazy,. I’m sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the ‘unknown’ candidate.

Bruce: Thanks for the link, I got a good chuckle out of it. Yes, they all have been dishonest at times. But the media has really not done justice to Hillary. The media is the MAIN reason why Obama is where he is. I just to like him ok but he is one that the more I know then the less I like. I never did get a good feeling about his wife. I am telling you that Hillary should run as an Indepedent and get Harold Ford, Jr as her running mate. That way we can have an African American and a woman on the same ticket and maybe win. He is more moderate that Obama. I know that Hillary and Obama have some of the same issues but so does she and McCain. On many issues, they all are not very far apart and besides, the President isn’t the one with all the power to make dramatic changes, anyway. But I just can not make myself like OBama when he gives me such a sick feeling every time I hear him or his wife speak.

Look, it’s true that Clinton’s and Obama’s candidacies are unprecidented in American Politics. Also unprecidented is the hit job that Obama supporters have unleashed on Hillary AND HER SUPPORTERS. Even this last directive to “play nice” reeks of tactical advantage: he neither cares about their concerns NOR will he listen to them once their usefulness has passed. He could have called off the pit bulls months ago, but the acrimony he created was serving his purpose.

In my view, should he reach the white house, he will have damaged his presidency already. Who can trust a guy that is willing to foster a tactical division and hatred amongst his own party to further his political interests?

This Is Part Of The Reason Why

There are pockets of angry Clinton campaign supporters who, at least for now, claim they if they can’t have their candidate at the top of the ticket, they no longer care if the Democratic Party wins back the White House. For these isolated few, the goal isn’t to advance a progressive agenda, or to make progress on the issues important to Hillary Clinton, but rather to elevate an individual. If the consequences are awful for the country in general and Clinton’s priorities in specific, so be it.

It is no longer “pockets of angry Clinton … supporters,” as you define the problem. It is far more serious and it is growing. It is Howard Dean’s mismangement and lack of leadership on Florida, Michigan, and the horrendous misogyny – by members of the Democratic Party, some right here; it is the absolute hatred, name-calling, misogyny directed toward Clinton and her supporters online (and elsewhere); it is the ‘dissing of blue-collar working class voters; it is the cavalier taking for granted of older voters, white voters, women, Hispanics, Jewish voters, Catholics (have I missed any?); it is a refusal to have an educated discussion or dialogue with Obama, his surrogates and his supporters about ANY of these concerns; it is the selling of “racism” by claiming that Obama’s supporters are “anti-racist”; and it is something much more basic: the GE map which, if anybody who still has a mind left looks, sees a huge problem for Democrats (and Obama in the Fall).

But, what the hell do “we” know? We’re just a bunch of dumb hicks, women, old white racists, and senile seniors who should just shut up, sit down and and/or hup-to for the Obama Marketing Machine…

I will ask that you please consider running as an INDEPENDENT in the general election. — Go Hillary, Karen, @38

Thankfully — as her own behaviour of the past week and CB’s posting above indicate — she has much more sense than to do as you advise.

Running as an independent would ruin her political career forever. Worse than it did for Lieberman who, for all his butt-licking, is most unlikely to end up as McCaint’s VP and who’ll never be re-elected as a Senator in Connecticut. What’s more, she’d take Bill down with her, if she did that, thus cutting off not just the influence but the speaking fees which had earned them millions. So, don’t count on it… She may have mismanaged her campaign in the worst way, but she’s not *that* stupid.

@45, Think said (without thinking at all; apparently, the injunction doesn’t apply to him/her/it): Subj: A Black Columnist on Obama

If you’d looked past “black” to where it says “Republican Tool” and then gave it a thought, you might not have posted that tripe. All that article proves is that NOT “all blacks vote for Obama”, contrary to what the “Obama is a racist as are his supporters” screechers say. You could have also given some thought to the paper where the tripe appeared — not, precisely, your “liberal media”. Not even your *pretend* “liberal media”.

I am telling you that Hillary should run as an Indepedent and get Harold Ford, Jr as her running mate. That way we can have an African American and a woman on the same ticket and maybe win — Suzanne, @47

Yeah, if all you want is A Woman And A Black For History, that combo would do (but so would Obama and, say, Napolitano or Sebelius. Probably with better justification vis experience). But, to suggest Harold Ford in all seriousness? Pardon me, but you must have lost your cotton-pickin’ mind…

The VP is expected to bring something positive to the table. What does Harold Ford bring? Couldn’t get elected as a Senator — so, very little experience (for those who carp that Obama has less than one term). Couldn’t un-saddle Dean, despite all of the DLC’s support (almost makes me believe in God. Almost) — so, very little influence. And comes from a prominently political family which, as often as not, is associated with bad smells.

For sure, a winning ticket; for Repubs; what Hillary’s negatives didn’t accomplish, his would. Repubs would eat us for lunch and not even burp after. At least, with Obama, they might choke on the d…d lapel pin for lack of more tasty morsels.

You don’t like Michelle? What’s that to the purpose? Why should it affect the way you vote? I don’t like Bill (Willie Wanker and his Wandering Wand), but I’d have voted for Hillary… had she been able to achieve the nomination cleanly and honourably. And Teresa Heinz didn’t race my pulses any either, but I voted for (intelligent, but, God, oh so boring) Kerry all the same.

Because, when all is said and done, this whole thing isn’t about *me*; it’s about my (adopted) country and the course it’s likely to steer in the near future. You — Karens and Suzannes and Marys and Nells — are being *selfish*. As such, you should switch your party allegiance immediately; you’d fit in with the Repubs *perfectly*. And you’d get to hang around with darlings like Debbie Shussel and Ann Coulter and Michelle-not-Obama Malkin and, even, maybe, dear Laura and Babs Bush. Wish you all the joy of that, I do.

An interesting article in NYT on Clinton, gender and the presidential primaries:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/us/politics/19women.html?hp

Karen, @54,

I never suggested *you* should run as an Independent; I was responding to your suggestion that *Clinton* should. Sorry if I hadn’t made that clear; English is not my native language. I think it would be the worst thing for her to do — both for the country and for herself. And she seems to know that, too; like I said: she’s a looong way away from stupid, for all the mistakes she had made during the campaign (which mistakes, BTW, are precisely what made me think she’d not be so “hot” as a President).

And yes, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Or else adopt Little Beria’s modus operandis and start slinging poop all over the place 🙂

Laura W @ 51:
I read your post, and I am struck with the following thoughts / questions:

I have no way of knowing just how “serious and growing” is the number of voters who feel as you do. So, I cannot refute the assertion you make without anything but your “say so” to back it up (I will stipulate that CB did not explain how he concluded that the number of “Hillary-uber-alles” voters is one of “pockets” rather than hordes). Perhaps you would like to share your basis for assessing the size of the problem? Annecdotal information about your personal acquaintences will not be enough.

Can you explain your basis for declaring that Obama / his campaign is ” ‘dissing . . . blue-collar working class voters” or being “cavalier [about] taking for granted of older voters, white voters, women, Hispanics, Jewish voters, Catholics”? Where do you get this? Just for the record, Obama did not design or mandate a caucus system that has often favored him over Hillary. Had Hillary not been so certain of her “inevitability” early in the process, perhaps she would have insisted upon a strategy that would have assured that she was inevitable. I note that she carefully did not begin to advocate for the “enfranchisement” of MI and FL voters until she did not have to worry about alienating Iowa (whose caucus voters rejected her) and New Hampshire voters (who barely re-animated a reeling campaign). Hillary thought the nomination was hers to lose, and she probably was right. She was knocked back on her heels in Iowa, and she has not recovered sufficiently to reclaim the mantle of inevitability. She has had to pull out all the stops to maintain viability.

What makes you believe that the majority of voters- in any of the groups you cite as being cavalierly taken for granted – will abandon the Democratic party if Hillary does not get the nomination? I am white, a woman, over 50, and marginally Catholic. Quite frankly I feel no more neglected by Obama than by Hillary. Oh, I caucused for Obama in Washington state but did not bother voting in the primary because the primary meant nothing for the horse race. The delegates were won or lost in the caucuses. No “buyer’s remorse” for me.

Who has been denied an “educated dialogue” with Obama and his surrogates? Surely you personally do not expect a dialogue with Senator Obama or his more prominent surrogates? [Supporters posting on blog comment threads, which are unbridled, unedited, and annonymous, also don’t count. So if this is the basis for your claim that educated dialogue has been refused, I’m not buying. Anyway, as Hillary and Bill would surely tell you, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”] What are your concerns that go unaddressed – in educated dialogue or otherwise – by Obama and his policies?

What, short of stepping aside for the coronation of Senator Clinton, could Barack Obama do to win your vote?

It’s the old David Brooks problem when he says “most Americans” when it is only his opinion. the polls say it all. Clinton or Obama both beat McCain and either will gwet the overwhelming support of the democratic party once we settle on the nominee. Too much is at stake and we aren’t electing kings and queens but representatives of the democratic party.

Projecting your opinionated stubbornness on the voting public doesn’t change the reality. Dems win in ’08…overwhelmingly.

Little bear must have went to bed…it’s getting to be the little bear carpetbagger report… geez, does that guy ever shut up?

When one person gets it, it doesn’t mean the other person lost it. If one person succeeds it doesn’t mean the other person failed. Some people are so condescendingly bitter. Little bear is the famous “don’t taze me bro”. If he would just stop after his tenth post.

The fundraising is also key because at some point everyone who can max out to Obama will have done so, and many of the big donors likely already have for both the primary and the general. The influx of new money to keep the Obama money machine going will need to come in part from Clinton supporters, who even if they have maxed to her can legally turn around and write another $2300 to him (subject to some aggregate per cycle contribution limits that back when I did fundraising was $25,000 but surely has gone way way up since then).

Thanks for interpreting from pre-coffee Mark to English. 🙂
Really shouldn’t post without sufficient stimulants. But you knew what I meant.

As for the second point, maybe I’m overly optimistic, but I have to think that the overwhelming majority of the $2300 types (to anyone) are fairly political and not neophytes. They are the types that often give a little to multiple candidates for cover in the first place. I think you’ll see quite a few of Clinton’s $2300 donors do the same for Obama between now and November. Obviously the better and faster the camps can work to calm the waters the higher that percentage goes.

They is not an ‘inevitable merger’. I would be so disappointed if Hillary stooped that low. She is already a history maker, as Bill is, and she does not need to go down that path to make a difference in this country. She will be your next president.. If not, may the Lord have mercy on us all. ( For those that do not agree with my religion, please do not take offense). Faith is what drives us all, Each and every one of us has faith. I would like to see an election across the board, the United States, I wonder who would come out with the winning vote. It is not that hard to do people, if these candidates have that much money, they should be more than happy to fund an election that is for the people and FROM the PEOPLE, all people. Not just the politicians that want to be re-elected their next time running. Get real, let democracy take its course Dean, let everyone’s vote be counted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Karen