Nothing is Fated to be Easy This Year

by: Mike Lux

Wed Mar 05, 2008 at 11:10


Oh, well, I guess that if we win in November, it will be the hard way.

It would have been nice to have a long, drawn-out, ugly Republican nomination fight, and/or a nominee easy to beat like Romney.

It would have been nice to have an exciting, historic, healthy, motivating race on our side that got all wrapped up in a nice little bow last night.

Not gonna happen. Bummer.

I still think we can win the Presidential race this fall, as McCain has some real weaknesses and a lot of dynamics are playing in our favor, but it's going to be really complicated and difficult.

I will do a long post later today on my feelings about the Democratic race, but in the meantime, a few quick congrats.

Congratulations most of all to the Clinton team. They never give up, they play to win, and they did everything they needed to do to keep this going.

Congratulations to Chris and all my friends in PA, the new power brokers of the Democratic Party. Now you'll get to feel like I used to feel in my Iowa days. Don't let it go to your head.

Congratulations to the traditional media. You've given Barack a pretty good ride overall, but when you realized this cash cow, ratings-spiking, newspaper-selling race might end, you turned on him with a vengeance. You had a good night last night, as our race keeps going, and you got to announce your hero McCain as the official GOP nominee all on the same night. You've got to be feeling happy this morning.

Congrats to all of you. Now all of us Democrats who care about winning in November, on both sides of this primary fight and those staying out of it, need to work together to figuring out how best to win in November given the current complicated dynamic in front of us.

Mike Lux :: Nothing is Fated to be Easy This Year

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Nothing is Fated to be Easy This Year | 85 comments
Hillary and Nader sitting in a tree... K-I-S-S-I-N-G (4.00 / 1)
"the Clinton team...did everything they needed to do to keep this going"

Did they?

Or is there some kind of mass delusion going on.  Yes it's numerically possible for her to win the nomination - but is she really going to win every single election from here out by 64%?

So, she gets to keep going because she won 3 out of the last 15 elections?

As of today, Hillary Clinton is officially running a vanity campaign.  I just don't see any path to the nomination for her.  Delegates should come out and say that and pledge for Obama because he has a lead - and we should start the campaign against McCain TODAY.

Path. (0.00 / 0)
There is still a path to the nomination for her, it's just that it's an ugly one. See my next post.
[ Parent ]
I see. (0.00 / 0)
Hillary Clinton's path to the nomination is "an ugly one".
But Barack Obama's path is strewn with sweet smelling flowers.
[ Parent ]
Path == the smoke filled room - (0.00 / 0)
...strategy

Clinton's Path to Victory is Through the Smoke-Filled Room
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/po...

[ Parent ]
Ohio, Texas&some news out of Vermont (0.00 / 0)
Thanks, that helps a little (0.00 / 0)
knowing they'd be incarcerated, that is.
[ Parent ]
No congratulations from me. (0.00 / 0)
Congratulations most of all to the Clinton team. They never give up, they play to win, and they did everything they needed to do to keep this going.

If she had pulled off this "comeback" without demagoguery, without smears, I'd join you, but she decided to make it ugly. Her 'ringing phone' ad dumbed down the national security debate, which only helps McCain and, more importantly, hurts the country. Her surrogates flinging "Reszko" around like a monkeys flinging dirt, the cheap and relentless demagoguery on the Canada-NAFTA thing, piling on about Farrakhan. She boosted all of McCain's arguments, shortened her already-shorter-than-Obama's coattails should she pull this out and, if ugly stuff about tax returns and Kazakhstan starts coming back at her, she has only herself to blame.

No Way Out (4.00 / 1)
I wish that I saw a way out of this mess, but I don't.  I am an Obama supporter, my wife a Clinton supporter (2 of our 3 daughters are with me - interestingly enough, our identicals twins split on this issue).  Yet we still love each other and discuss the race in a civil manner.  This morning, she focused on the venom from both sides being terrible for the party.  I agreed, but somberly explained why there's no way out.

After winning popular majorities in TX and OH, Clinton won't back down.  With a substantial and almost certainly insurmountable pledged delegate lead, Obama won't back down.  Neither one of them wants the VP slot, and they clearly don't like each other (I question whether they really even respect each other anymore).

The real message from last night is that going negative worked.  So, Clinton will double down on the scortched earth strategy.  Her message to the supers will be "give me the nomination or else" - and she can play this game of chicken b/c she is fine with either result.  If Obama gets the nomination, but is bloodied up for the general, the Clinton "I told you so" campaign for the 2012 nomination will start the second week of November.  I don't think it's necessarily even a bad faith argument - I think both Clintons honestly believe that the Democratic Party can't live without them.  Perverse as it may be, they think the scortched earth stratgey IS good for the Democraic Party.

Barack Obama will also go negative, to prove that he can "fight back."  I thought his rapid, but high-minded responses to Hillary's attacks were very effective and showed Presidential demeanor.  Apparently the media and primary voters felt otherwise.  I also thought she was completely unhinged during the last debate, but again, the data says it worked.  So, Obama goes negative, and Clinton goes nuclear, feigning "innocence" and unloading with hypocirsy charges and more working of the refs.  And there are SIX WEEKS between the MS primary and PA for this crap to continue.

President McCain.  I guess we might as well get used to that idea.  God help us.

I feel the same way... (0.00 / 0)
People seem to think that Obama has got a free ride in the media, maybe so, but apart from the 'mild' sexist, Chelsea backhanded remarks against Hillary...  I really think that's mild compared to what can come up with her business dealings, the exploitation of her tactics used against Obama to feed the negative sterotype the republicans have of her.  Feigning innocence in the GE ain't gonna work.

McCain just needs to keep a low profile... collecting all the hypocrisy that's coming out of her mouth ready for the GE.

[ Parent ]
Going negative always works (0.00 / 0)
It's like buying things advertised in spam - you'll never meet anyone who admits to it, but enough people do it to make it worthwhile for the perpetrators.  I laugh whenever a campaign pledges to stay above board because it's always one of the first promises to be broken when the race closes in.

As far as Obama going negative, there's a 95% chance that you're right.  I'm holding out hope that he will resume responding to negative attacks the way he responded to the GOP attacks a few weeks ago, rather than handicapping himself by arguing within the frame created for him.

[ Parent ]
I am not buying the "going negative" worked at all (0.00 / 0)
Obama was behind 20 points in both Ohio and Texas two weeks ago.  Even with all of her negative campaigning, she still did not by any means keep that lead.  In fact, if anything, she lost that lead.  Remember it was ten points in a state she was expected to lead(OH) by a wide margin. and in Texas, she held onto her supporters, but Obama clearly gained many, other wise why is he only a few points behind?

Obama's campaign did a tremendous job, and if the Clinton supporter I volunteer with is any indication, the woman that support her are voting for her because she is a woman, period.  They want her to fight, and do not care what it takes.  It is about time a woman hold this position, afterall, but too bad the Dems needed a woman so full of baggage to get to this point.  In the end, it will do no good for her campaign to put down Obama, however.  I hope she can now take the high road and win without more negativity, not just because we are sick of negative campaigning, but we are sick of the war, and the recession and the images of fighting.


[ Parent ]
Who do you think (0.00 / 0)
you're talking to in this forum?  It's not the Obama Boys Locker room.

"if the Clinton supporter I volunteer with is any indication, the woman that support her are voting for her because she is a woman, period."

I don't even have the words for how absolelty disgusting that sentence is.

[ Parent ]
Obama and Clinton supporters (4.00 / 1)
are going to be so polarized by the end of this that I don't see how to avoid a Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket.

In fact, they should commit to that as an incentive to not go over the top negative against the other in the weeks and months to come.

John McCain won't insure children

Good idea (0.00 / 0)
People have been suggesting a joint ticket for a while now, but I never thought about actually getting them to commit to it before knowing who would be on top and who would be on bottom. (No puns intended.)

People will say it's pure fantasy, and maybe so. Still, it would be really, really nice if it could happen. Continue the race, but in a much less adversarial way - it becomes a race not to see who's going to carry the banner in November, but who's going to be in which slot. A friendly competition.

Plus, I think in a way they complement each other nicely. Clinton is seen as more experienced and 'safer', which could assuage some voters who are worried about whether Obama is 'ready' to be president. She also does well with old people and Hispanics, both of whom Obama needs to make inroads with if he is to have any shot in November. On the flip side, Obama introduces an element of change and vigor that is lacking with Hillary.

This would be such a great scenario for Democrats, I think, because they are both such high-profile figures. The general election campaign would be essentially a 2-on-1 fight.

Probably too good to be true.  

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
This is 1960 all over again, all the way down to Clinton going into the convention trying to pull support for a second ballot that is never going to come.
[ Parent ]
Two Possible Courses (0.00 / 0)
As an Obama supporter, I'm of two minds at the moment, both vindictive.

One, the low road: Obama goes after Hillary, pushing for her tax returns, examining her actual, as opposed to pretend, "experience" over the last 35 years.  Bring up every sorry, sordid episode of the Clinton administration by name, not just allusion - whitewater, travelgate, lewinsky, ad infinitum, asking if we really want a return to the bad old days and a continuation of the toxic political cycle of the past four terms.

Problem is, I don't think he'd do it.  Not only because, as he said in his talk last night, "the world is watching," but also because he's thinking long term, which brings us to. . .

Two: the high road, aka, "cold pizza:"  Fight the good fight, here in PA and beyond, if necessary.  If he wins, he wins; but if he loses . . .

Hillary wins the nom.  Almost certainly loses the election because many, if not all, Obama supporters will stay home (telling themselves McCain ain't all that bad) while the Republicans get what they've always wanted: a chance to destroy Billary.  

The good news for Obama is that, after she loses, we are well and truly rid of the Clintons once and for all, what with the stink of general election loser, not to mention the appelation "party destroyer" all over her.  She'd probably even lose her Senate seat next time around, and Bill's reputation will be in tatters.

Come 2012, however, the field will likely be clear for Obama, a la RReagan in 1980.

Problem with this, of course, is the Supreme Court.  But we can all tell ourselves that one-term McCain, not a real conservative, will hopefully appoint a couple more Souters or, dare we hope, JP Stevens-types (yes, he was a repub appointee).  As long as its not another Alito, Thomas, or Scalia, we should be okay.  

Just don't see Clinton winning the nomination... (4.00 / 1)
I don't know why everyone is in such a tizzy about this.

The chances of her winning the nomination are still unbelievably unlikely... there's just not enough delegates left for her to make up that kind of lead.

So, the real problem, of course, is how much damage does she do to Obama in the next few months, and how much worse does the "conversion" rate for Clinton supporters become once he becomes the nominee?

And the lower that rate becomes, the harder it will be for Obama to win in November.

If Clinton somehow manages to pull off enough crap to win this without Obama successfully fending it off, then perhaps she deserves the nomination.  I say this because I just don't see how she could possibly do it.

[ Parent ]
my tizzy... (0.00 / 0)
...is because there's already a lot of anger on both sides of the primary, and she's stoking that anger and weakening the party in a mathematically doomed attempt to win. The delegate fight will only make the Clinton-supporters who think that she was entitled to the nomination feel that much more strongly that she was robbed.

The NAFTA demagoguery in particular will weaken Obama's coat-tails in the GE in the rust belt. More self-serving, short-sighted triangulation that helps the Clintons in the near term and weakens the party in the long run

[ Parent ]
not just mathematically doomed (0.00 / 0)
But totally Pyrrhic.  If you destroy the Democratic coalition in order to secure the nomination, what have you won?
[ Parent ]
working from the assumption (0.00 / 0)
That she really is mathematically doomed.  Taking your word for it.
[ Parent ]
Yeah.,..... (0.00 / 0)
I'm taking a lot of other people's word for it, myself.
[ Parent ]
A redo in Michigan and Florida (0.00 / 0)
one of which is dominated by working class voters, the other by older people, gives Clinton near parity in pledged delegates.  She goes after the supers claiming Obama is weak (and scary).

To fend this off, Obama goes after the Clintons' finances hard--where did their millions come from?  Who is funding the Clinton Library?  Tax returns?  

The demographics from here on do not favor Obama so much.  But reminding people of all the baggage we would get with the Clintons in the WH worked for him before, and it may do so again.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
I doubt it (0.00 / 0)
You're right that Florida and maybe Michigan are generally HRC-type states. But even were she to win both states by 15% (which I ultimately doubt she would be able to do), she would only chip into his lead by 50 or so delegates, which is not nearly enough, everything else equal.  
[ Parent ]
Not True.. (0.00 / 0)
Even if Clinton won Florida and Michigan with a 10-15 percent margin, the dent to the 150 pledged delegate lead is at best 30-40 delegates.  Obama will win North Carolina, Oregon, Indiana, Mississippi, Wyoming and South Dakota, which will probably triple the pledged delegates Clinton earns in Pennsylvania.

Obama will have a 120-130 pledged delegate lead heading into the convention even with Florida and Michigan revotes.  

[ Parent ]
Are you a Democrat? (0.00 / 0)
Have you never been through the primary process before? All these posters on both sides of the HRC/BHO partisan divide constantly whining over negative campaigning are getting too f*cking annoying. It is part of the process. It toughens up our candidates for the GE and prepares them for the slop that will surely be flung their way by the GOP Slime Machine.  
[ Parent ]
prepares them? (0.00 / 0)
1.  Priming the pump for empty smear attacks (Rezko) does not "prepare" our candidate, it just makes TV pundits more receptive to the smear when Republicans repeat it.

2.  Just because past Democratic primaries were undignified shitpiles doesn't mean this one has to be.

3.  Sorry that you find a strong desire for a higher level of campaigning so fucking annoying.  I find it normal and laudable.

[ Parent ]
It's been a vague fluff-fest from day one (4.00 / 1)
Honestly, the stupid 'experience' versus 'change' debate is almost as damaging to our political discourse as a negative campaign will be.  

And it's important to note that previous democratic nominees have recovered from fractious, divisive primary campaigns.  I just wish they'd both save soem energy for actually attacking McCain.

[ Parent ]
the only thing hillary's preparing (0.00 / 0)
is mccain's future campaign ads. "even hillary agrees, obama's (X republican smear here)"
[ Parent ]
Supreme Court is the killer (4.00 / 1)
As a father of 3 daughters, I stay awake at night thinking about that.  I am convinced that if McCain becomes President, Roe not only gets overturned, but ALL fetsues/embryos/blastocysts get express 14th amendment protection, and the right to choose completely goes away.

I'm also not sure Obama sets up for a repeat in 2012.  He would still carry the stench of "loser" and the field would be crowded.  As a "movement" candidate, I think that once his moment passes, it's over for good.

[ Parent ]
Disagree (0.00 / 0)
There is a qualitative difference between the stink on a general election loser (e.g., Kerry, Dole, just about everybody except the new and improved Al Gore and, for some reason, Dick Nixon) and that of a primary season loser like Reagan and now, McCain.  Even Edwards was tainted to a degree by his association with Kerry.  

On the other hand, you can't blame a general election loss on a primary loser; to the contrary, the primary loser can look back and say, "if only you'd chosen me."  That is precisely what Hillary would do if Obama gets the nod this year.  Indeed, I would not be surprised in the least if she and Bill were to try to undermine an Obama candidacy if she were forced out (which is the only way she'll go at this point).  "Some people say' that's what they did with Kerry. But I digress.

The point is, if Hillary succeeds in strong-arming her way to the nomination, then loses, Obama is in a good position to run the "I-told-you-so" campaign in 2012.

[ Parent ]
god yes (0.00 / 0)
Obama needs to go after Hillary's "experience"

Her campaign has arrogated it from day 1, with no basis behind it. And Obama NEEDS to end his own perception of inexperience before going up against McCain

[ Parent ]
dilettantes (4.00 / 1)
Almost certainly loses the election because many, if not all, Obama supporters will stay home (telling themselves McCain ain't all that bad)

And we're supposed to let these people choose our candidate? Any Democrat who won't pledge to vote for our party's nominee shouldn't be involved in the nominating process, period.

pressed the wrong button (0.00 / 0)
That's a reply to ched, one comment up.
[ Parent ]
What about Clinton supporters, then? (4.00 / 1)
Be careful about making arguments about which candidates supporters are disloyal to the party:

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

Also, the sentence you quote is about the general, not the primary. Many Obama supporters in the general will be independents or Republicans, and it makes no sense to complain that they're disloyal for supporting McCain if Obama isn't running. They're not Democrats. Nevertheless, we need them, because obviously we can't win the general with just Democrats.

[ Parent ]
seeing a pattern here (0.00 / 0)
most of the things clinton or her supporters say about obama, are more true of her
[ Parent ]
Glass houses and all that (0.00 / 0)
As the saying goes . . . .

I think we have our answer here

A senior Obama adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Obama's team will respond to Tuesday's results by going negative on Clinton -- raising questions about her tax records and the source of donations to the Clinton presidential library, among skeletons in the Clintons' past.

Politico attributes the following more specific comment to David Axelrod:

``We have not hesitated to draw distinctions between the candidates and we'll continue to do that," said Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. "If Sen. Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we'll join that debate. We'll do it on our terms and in our own way, but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues, as I've said before, I don't know why they'd want to go there, but I guess that's where they'll take the race.''

So there you have it.  He tried to make it positive, but if this is what they want, he's prepared to dish it out too.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

Ad Idea for Obama (4.00 / 1)
Okay, he needs fight back, go negative, prove he can take and throw a punch, however else you want to phrase it. Got it. Going after the tax returns, library records, Bill in Kazakhstan, etc. are all good ideas.

But it seems to me we're missing an obvious complex of issues in which she is very vulnerable. Let's call it the Hillary Will Say and Do Anything to Win/Hillary doesn't think your vote counts meme complex.

An effective ad might use the electoral map as background. When the subject of Clinton not bothering to campaign in, say, Nebraska comes up, Nebraska's spot on the electoral map lights up for Obama. When the subject of Clinton saying one thing before an election in, say Iowa, then saying/doing something else in Iowa AFTER the election is discussed, Iowa's spot 'goes Obama.' When a Clinton quote disparaging the worth of a variety of types of states is shown, all of these remaining 'insignificant' states get lit up. The end result, of course, will be an accurate electoral map that shows the geographical strength and diversity of Obama's victories to date.

It's the flip side of HRC's big-state argument so it also directly takes on this HRC meme.

Me Likey (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
it would be Visually Striking (0.00 / 0)
Kind of the videographic version of the "Insult 40 States Strategy"
[ Parent ]
That would be good text (0.00 / 0)
for the ad: the 50-state strategy v. the Insult 40 states strategy. Remind the SDs and future potential voters that HRC has insulted millions of voters with her scorched earth tactics. Oooh: use the words 'scorched earth' as well.
[ Parent ]
Here are my questions... (0.00 / 0)
...as I couldn't sleep last night.  Were others able to turn their brains off and sleep?

There seems to be a decent chance there could be redos in FL and MI.  What is the lay of the land there?  Who would be favored?  Obviously Hillary won FL before but Edwards was still in the race.  I think FL is pretty diverse but with a lot of seniors and hispanics...probably friendly to Hillary.  MI - decent AA population but also lots of rust belt Ohio types.

Interesting note from last night...a breakdown of the vote based on age in TX last night showed that 65 and under split evenly - over 65 went bigtime to Hillary and made the difference.  It actually gives me reason to contemplate that she can really compete in this important bloc of voters better than he can.  I'm not a Hillary supporter...it's just an observation.

Question number 2.  What exactly happens with the next stage of the Iowa caucuses and Edwards delegates?  What are the possible scenarios?

Interesting questions (0.00 / 0)
Florida seems to me pretty solidly Clinton territory. She would have to be favored here.

Michigan is an interesting mix. It has been much harder hit economically, which might help Hillary. Many of its younger people have moved out, which might help Hillary. As you mention it has a fair amount of AAs. Maybe the question is this: is it more like Wisconsin or Ohio?

[ Parent ]
Demographics may favor Hillary (0.00 / 0)
This is why her people are now talking about a redo.  MI has her working class voters and FL has her older voters.  The black vote in MI might be a factor and the Arab-American vote in MI also might be.  PA also has more older people and fewer black people (to say nothing of Hispanics) than the national average.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
MI/FL (0.00 / 0)
I think at this point they must figure out a way to include MI/FL.  Those are two huge states, MI economically is leading the nation in moving towards 3rd world economic status and FL is a huge swing state plus what happened in 2000.  They simply cannot say those states have no voice.  It's bad enough with all of these supers, add to that denial of those two states to have their vote count....well, that is just royally uncool.

Argue count them as is, do over, whatever, but they must have a voice.  Regardless of how one does the math on this to me it is in a nutshell a tie and they need to be heard.

Also in the general a Dem needs to win both of those states.

What kind of message is that going to give from the Democratic party to say "we're sorry MI and FL, you just plain don't count" in a general.

Especially MI where they are being hit not just with auto, manufacturing but also global labor arbitrage in Professional jobs too. It's ground zero for global labor arbitrage.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
This is a strawman worry, (0.00 / 0)
if there is such a thing.

At this stage everybody knows that something is going to be done. They're either going to redo or the DNC and candidates will come up with some compromise distribution (penalize half, give Obama the MI uncommitteds v. forced half and half distribution v. whatever else might get decided.)

[ Parent ]
superdelegates not PA (0.00 / 0)
"Congratulations to Chris and all my friends in PA, the new power brokers of the Democratic Party. "

Except they won't be. At best Pennsylvania will help Clinton narrow the gap a dozen maybe 2 dozen delegates. That will still put her well behind Obama in pledged delegates since she will lose Wyoming and Mississippi by 20 points. The real power brokers are the governments of Michigan and Florida, the credentials committee, and most importantly the superdelegates. If the latter decide to put an end to this farce by coming out en masse for the current pledged delegate and popular vote leader (Obama) in the next few weeks, this will be over a lot quicker than anybody thinks.

PA can close out the campaign for Obama, though (0.00 / 0)
there's a decent enough AA vote out of Philly to give Obama something to build off of...
[ Parent ]
Republicans (0.00 / 0)
Anything in the numbers to suggest that Republicans crossed the ailse to muddle this up for us?

And no I don't congradulate Team Clinton. They barely squeaked by given that this was supposed to be a blow out fo them. They did it by getting nasty and making it easier for McCain to beat Obama in the fall.


We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

Exit polling says that republicans voting in the Dem primary (0.00 / 0)
supported Obama.  
[ Parent ]
Some Thoughts (4.00 / 1)
I think the thing that should be paid attention to is one polls which showed 25% of voters would consider voting for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee but only 10% of Obama voters would consider voting for McCain if Obama is not the nominee. (Pew Research poll).

That to me shows a huge disconnect between this assumption that Obama will get independents and Hillary somehow wouldn't.

If she sticks to her Progressive/Populist economic message believe me, there will be Republicans who will vote Democratic.  

I really think there is a huge disconnect between the blogs and the real people working 2 and 3 jobs.  These people of course do not have time to sit around and blog, who are looking for answers.  Those are the voters in the big swing states.

I'll bet that Ohio was over trade and that they monitored policy positions in great detail on it.  That state needs major economic/trade/labor reforms.  

Which makes me also wonder on the blogs if they ever get out to see some of these areas and what's really going on in everyday working America.

We now have emergency volunteer Medical Doctors setting up makeshift clinics and they cannot treat all of the people who show up.  Now these are the Doctors who used to go to the Amazon, Africa, the 3rd world.  You know where they are going now, the United States.  And the reason they are doing this in the United States is because many parts of the US are like the 3rd world used to be.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

grains of salt (0.00 / 0)
1.  The anonymity of these blogs means that you have no idea what sort of lives these commenters live, and you should refrain from making sweeping generalizations based on imaginary assumptions.

2. I would take that "would vote for McCain" stuff with a deep skepticism.  Those sorts of questions are totally hypothetical at this point with no real risk or weight.

[ Parent ]
sorts of lives (0.00 / 0)
I think I certainly can make assumptions since I have been blogging a long long time and the physical realities of what I just pointed out.  People being worked to death do not have time to blog that simple.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
do not have time to blog (0.00 / 0)
That makes sense as a stand-alone, but you still don't know about these people's lives.  You don't know their history, their family, their friends, their tribulations past or future.  

It's totally unreasonable to imply that those with free time and internet access don't know what's "really going on"  in "real America," and deeply arrogant to further imply that you know something about "real America" that others don't.

[ Parent ]
deeply arrogant (0.00 / 0)
Uh, some of the comments such as Americans need to give their jobs to China to "help those people" and some of the many comments are absurdly naive and arrogant.

If one stays in a virtual world almost daily for 4 years absolutely you get to know people by their writings.  

Feeling guilty and why you are so hostile?

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
arrogant comments (0.00 / 0)
I am feeling hostile because I don't appreciate it when people imply that I am not committed to the general welfare.  My relative prosperity - which I readily concede - does not make me less sincere in my patriotism or my commitment to improving the lives of my fellow man.  And it doesn't mean that I haven't seen or been through hardship and struggle.

Comments that someone left about China at some point in the past is no reason to cast a blanket aspersion on people like me who find these online forums productive and valuable.  Just because I like this blog doesn't mean I'm not a "real American."

[ Parent ]
I blog (4.00 / 1)
I'm talking about working America, intensive, I'm an activist on it.

So you are assuming I mean "all bloggers" and no, I mean many bloggers.  

The obliviousness to real trade, economic reforms are a case in point.  Right now we have people claiming that NAFTA gate is a plant and so forth.  Well, of course it is not a plant and the reason is it not a plant is if one looks at Obama's detailed plans, his economic advisers own Academic papers, their debates one sees clearly that they are not willing to do what is required for true trade, economic reforms.  Environmental stds. worker agreements are truly token phrases.
Even worse, they now mention labor mobility and if GATS mode 4 is embraced, enhanced we will have a race to the bottom so fast, it will wipe out working America....very rapidly.  That is a much desired, obsessively lobbied for, multinational and especially other nations such as India and Mexico objective, to trade people as commodities via guest worker Visas to enable global labor arbitrage.  

Now Hillary is being challenged on this and so far she's got her toe into the economic waters that would imply she will be the better choice for major and dramatic policy shifts.  But so many bloggers won't even look at this objectively or grasp how these economic policies are hollowing out the US middle class and just how badly they affect most of working America.  

Many bloggers do not look into these details at all and I would say that this is partly because it hasn't happened to them yet.

It's just like STEM Professionals which saw no problems at all with guest worker Visas....until they started losing their jobs and only then did they start paying attention.  

There is very much a lack of There For the Grace of God Go I in this country.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
really, really tired (0.00 / 0)
of the "latte drinking birkenstock wearing" characterization. If I wanted to hear that I'd listen to limbaugh
[ Parent ]
Ya mean (0.00 / 0)
sweeping generalizations like the one upthread that said the only reason women who support Hillary are voting for her is because she's a woman?

Hey, I'll vote for a ban on that kind of crap.

[ Parent ]
Absurd (0.00 / 0)
I've seen this meme parroted by Clinton supporters, and they always leave out the fact that the same Pew poll shows Obama beating McCain by a larger margin that Clinton (Obama beats him by 7, Clinton by 5)!  
[ Parent ]
This is a new poll (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
"real people" (0.00 / 0)
I really think there is a huge disconnect between the blogs and the real people working 2 and 3 jobs.  These people of course do not have time to sit around and blog, who are looking for answers.  Those are the voters in the big swing states.

I never understood why Hillary is perceived to be better for lower income earners. You can make a subtle and detailed argument about how Hillary's economic and health care positions more progressive than Obama's that's not why she won Ohio. She leads lower-income voters because she leads among low-information voters, the "I heard he's a muslim" crowd, not because she has "real answers." We know what her answers have been - NAFTA, "going after wages" on health care, and, of course, voting for not only the war in Iraq, but the kyl/lieberman amendment.

Some real solutions there. But at least she's not a muslim, right?

[ Parent ]
Well done (0.00 / 1)
You just made Robert Oak's point quite beautifully.
[ Parent ]
yeah... (0.00 / 0)
I'm sure Hillary won Ohio, after losing Iowa and Wisconsin, because the hard-working people of Ohio were the first ones to realistically take a look at trade issues. It has nothing to do with race, or lies from the Harper government that got taken back the night of the election, or any "Obama is a Muslim" smear. And Hillary's work in Wal-Mart and her early support of NAFTA? Clearly the signs of a pro-union economic progressive of the highest caliber.

Obama won in most of Virginia, but when you got far west to Appalachia, his support dropped like a rock. Take a look at the black/white split in Louisiana. There's something going on there, and it's not a nuanced consideration of trade economic, and labor (note Obama's huge labor endorsements) policy.

[ Parent ]
Easy... (4.00 / 3)
Why should it be easy?  If you have no moxie and no grit, you cannot face struggle.  Change is struggle.  So wake up.  You have been sold the click your heels option towards change.  Change you gotta work, sweat, fight, lose, sometimes win and get down and do it.  So, stop whining.  We have a healthy battle to keep Democratic issues in the forefront.  The people have to speak.  Voices have to be heard, and from the looks of it, half of the Dems, do not want the "change is easy", they want the change is hard and real.  So, pull up your sleeves and sweat a bit for what you believe.  This is not immediate gratification land.  
immediate gratification? really? (0.00 / 0)
Is that what running a 50 state strategy is about, what an insane ground game and bringing hundreds of thousands of new voters and volunteer energy is?

As opposed to expecting to skate to the nomination, and lowering expectations by saying that change won't come easy

[ Parent ]
She did not expect to skate... (0.00 / 0)
Good start, keep going.  It's a struggle.  No awards or stars yet.  
[ Parent ]
Hillary didn't have a plan (0.00 / 0)
past super tuesday. she didn't start mentioning her website or asking for the small donations until after then. when Solis-Doyle retired, she made a statement that she never expected it to go this long.

She ran her campaign on presumption and name recognition.

[ Parent ]
Asking my question again (0.00 / 0)
Does anyone know who the next stage(s) of the Iowa caucus works?  What are the possible scenarios regarding Edwards' delegates?

Also, it's not what I want to see at all, but I'm actually starting to wonder if the "dream ticket" really might be the answer.  The ticket would win, you've got to be pretty confident about that.  I don't like Hillary and don't want her in the White House, but I want McCain there even less.

What a bummer (0.00 / 0)
Democracy is SUCH a bummer.

People wanting their votes to count.
What an outdated concept.

Here we have progressives telling us who we should all be head over heels in love with, a man who is now telling us how to raise our children - and we didn't follow along unquestioningly.

Bummer.

Now we'll have to deal with issues.
Maybe.

Chris Bowers has written that "Obama is more about placating High Broderism, Tim Russert and the Washington Post editorial board than he is about transformative progressive change. I'll work hard to help elect him, but I also don't intend to delude myself about what to expect when he becomes President."

This is where we were.
Progressives "working hard" to convince us to vote for someone who is not progressive.

So now, perhaps we can start over.

God, I hope not. (0.00 / 0)
   There is no progressive pony in the race.  I'm not going write-in "progressive pony" on my primary ballot.  It's a binary choice.  The question is not which one is a perfect progressive, it is which one is MORE progressive.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
Yeah. (0.00 / 0)
Yeah.

So we're back to voting for the least worst.

If anyone wants to know what a progressive sounds like, listen to Ralph Nader being interviewed.

Progressives hate Nader and love Obama.
They know that Nader is progressive and Obama isn't, but that doesn't change anything.

Many think, including me, that Clinton is far more progressive than Obama.
Listening to Obama lecture parents on how they should raise their children is a sickening example.

At least now, with the mad rush being stalled for awhile, people will have a chance to think about it.

[ Parent ]
Think about voting Nader in 2008? (0.00 / 0)
"At least now, with the mad rush being stalled for awhile, people will have a chance to think about it."



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Think about voting Nader in 2008? (0.00 / 0)
Think about what it means to be a progressive.
[ Parent ]
I see. (0.00 / 0)
   So you will be doing the equivalent of writing-in "progressive pony."  You know, you are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  Either that or you are simply being selfish.  Candidates aren't made to please you specifically.  It's a big country with lots of opinions.  

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
Selfish. (0.00 / 0)
You want me to feel guilty for looking for a candidate who will represent me?
Are you crazy? Has it come to this?

You probably feel the way Chris Bowers does.
He wrote:

"Obama is more about placating High Broderism, Tim Russert and the Washington Post editorial board than he is about transformative progressive change."
He then goes on to say that he'll "work hard to help elect him".

OK. Be comfortable about voting for and working for someone you don't quite believe in.

But statements like, "candidates aren't made to please you specifically" seem crazy to me.

Candidates are supposed to state their positions, and those positions are supposed to appeal to voters. The voter is supposed to feel that the candidate will represent their beliefs and interests. That's why it's called representative government.

Why should I vote for a candidate that doesn't please me? People who are high on Obama seem quite pleased.

I think behind your statement is the belief that Nader is the evil one who gave us Bush. I think this is hogwash. The Supreme Court stopped the counting of the ballots. The media manipulated the results. How many Gore voters stayed home because they thought Gore had won and it was all over?
Gore ran the worst campaign in history. He was running against a nobody.   Hundreds of thousands of democrats voted for Bush - God knows why. Gore chose Lieberman to run with - God knows why. He distanced himself from Clinton - the most popular President in recent history. He came off as a snotty chump. He couldn't even carry his home state. Katherine Harris - you might remember - had a hand in it too.
But it is far easier to aim invective at Nader than to realize the depth of corruption of the electoral process in this country. It is easier to scapegoat the relatively few people voting for Nader because he actually articulated progressive ideas about trade, civil rights, civil liberties, health care, corporate domination of our lives and the link between avaricious corporations, the military and the congress.

So this leaves us with the mantra to hold one's nose and vote for the candidate you think will do the least damage. Or the candidate you think you would like to have a beer with.

You're entitled.

But I think that this pattern hasn't gotten us anywhere.

On a somewhat patriotic note, I think Patrick Henry would agree with me.

[ Parent ]
the ticket (0.00 / 0)
I see a trainwreck on the horizon.  As everyone knows, Hillary cannot go into the convention with the lead in earned delegates.  As we draw near to the end of the process, I think there is going to be a collective realization that our Party can't afford to have a situation where Hillary walks away with the nomination in spite of Obama's lead in delegates.  That would cause a fracture in the Party that could be catastrophic.  We could lose the African-American and youth components of the Party for the next three decades.  Thus, the Party elders are going to push toward a unified Obama-Clinton ticket.  I dislike Hillary Clinton (and the creeps that surround her) intensely, but for the greater good I would settle for that ticket.  I think it's the only way to avoid an ugly fight that hurts us all in the end.
I disagree (0.00 / 0)
Him on the ticket with her on top would be absolutely meaningless.  She would weld 'complete' power over the Party...  She would run the Democrats like Bush, Obama would be pushed out...

This election is an all or nothing for Obama.

[ Parent ]
An ignored Vice-President with charisma/a power base (0.00 / 0)
can make things miserable for the President.  It's just that we haven't had real animosity between the Pres and the VP probably since Kennedy/LBJ.  

Clinton's too smart to just outright ignore Obama completely.  You are right that most of the party apparatus would end up staying in the hands of the McAuliffe crowd, though.

[ Parent ]
one other consideration (0.00 / 0)
I hate to even make the reference to Cheney but objectively he has increased the power of the VP office greatly.  Mabye there would be a way to really power share?  Again, I despise the current administration, but a power struggle between the president and VP doesn't seem to be one of their issues.

One more thought on this...even if you don't like the idea..think what it would do for the party as a whole and down ticket races.

The way this thing is headed, I'm just not convinced there is enough time left to heal the wounds once this is all settled.  I want Obama/Webb.  But if I can't have that, I will take Obama/Clinton.  And if I can't have that, I will take Clinton/Obama.  Just don't give me McCain anything.

[ Parent ]
Yeah... but you are thinking of a normal person... A Team Player (0.00 / 0)
Clinton is neither [imho]

Remember her arrogance when she didn't even try to reach out to the progressives (now many of whom are Obama supporters) at the beginning of her campaign...  The fact she was quite proud to tell us that lobbyist were her special friends -- and where people too! Plus, you remember how much respect, and appreciation she's showing for all of Obama's supporters...  the one's with all that organizational power and money...

So, no I don't think it's even entered her mind (seriously) to consider him as VP... She doesn't need us, nor does she need Obama, imvho I'm convinced that's how her arrogant mind works ---

IF (god help us) she ever becomes our 'Democratic' nominee she will turn round and 'expect' us to be loyal subjects... because afterall -- where else have we to go..?

"...Clinton's too smart to just outright ignore Obama

Hmmm... I believe she has wheeled and dealed her way so far into the inner reaches of the establishment with her campaign that the DLC and her sponsors have already a 'chosen' VP to make sure her DLC/NEOLIB/COPORATE agenda is water TIGHT...  She'll probably fluff and put it out there that she thought about bringing Obama on board... behind the scenes saying to him you haven't got a chance...
and then say she really needs someone with more experience [DLC experienc] and give Obama some offering such as Constitutional Affairs or something ...

Now, I may be wrong... but her track record seems to indicate that she doesn't want to share power nor the limelight.

Plus with those two on the ticket -- could you imagine what the campaign strategy would be like... Mark Penn and Obama's team + Carville leaking stuff to Matalin...  Yikes.

[ Parent ]
If you want to argue that she'll never accept Obama as a VP (0.00 / 0)
then maybe, but I seriously think that she may have no choice come the convention, if she manages enough support to actually eke out the nomination.  

But my main point is that Obama as VP would either be able to make Clinton's life miserable, thereby garnering influence, or would be afforded influence.  I honestly think the latter is much much more likely, as Clinton is much more comfortable as a technocratic insider than she is as a populist waging public battles.  But that's just my impresion.

[ Parent ]
but maybe.. (0.00 / 0)
As a previous comment noted, perhaos all could agree that the unity ticket is a go and we're just playing for who gets the top.  And we redo FL and MI.  It's fair and it keeps the game clean so we can win in the fall.  I lay odds on Obama taking it and I would take that deal.  Anything to stop the SCOTUS from being handed over completely to the far right.
[ Parent ]
I disagree (0.00 / 0)
People are much more likely to vote for Clinton if they know they're getting Obama too, than they would be to vote for Obama to get Clinton.  Pledging to a "unity ticket" would be electoral suicide for Obama.

Obama's message runs entirely counter to having Clinton on the ticket, whereas Clinton would desperately NEED Obama on the ticket to do well against McCain.

Obama doesn't need to ally himself with Clinton, and in fact should take steps to distance himself from any talk of a joint ticket.  Some people are voting for Clinton in the hope they'll get Obama too.  People who vote for Obama are voting just for Obama, and that's how it should be.

[ Parent ]
Not 30 Years -- More like 4 (0.00 / 0)
If Hillary strong arms her way to the nomination, Obama will be back in 2012, at the end of McCain's one and only disastrous term.
[ Parent ]
Maybe not. (4.00 / 1)
Michelle Obama said that we have been given this glorious opportunity to vote for the sage now, but that if we didn't, he would pack up his marbles and go.
[ Parent ]
Nothing is Fated to be Easy This Year | 85 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox