Open Left Endorsement Straw Poll

by: Chris Bowers

Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 20:32


One month ago, the three blogs that form the Blue Majority Act Blue page, Daily Kos, Open Left, and Swing State Project, asked their communities if they wanted to endorse Barack Obama for President, or wait until a later date. While a super majority of the Daily Kos community thought it was a good time to endorse, by narrow margins a supermajority at Open Left and Swing State Project did not. As a result, we controversially we decided to not endorse at the time. However, tonight, in a non-binding, advisory straw poll, I am asking you for a second opinion.

Thirty days ago, I did not view endorsing in the presidential nomination campaign to be a major priority, and basically urged people to vote no in the straw poll. However, that has changed quite a bit, and I am ready to endorse Barack Obama now. Here are just a few reasons why, in no particular order:

  • First, by gaining delegates in March, Obama has become a virtual lock for the nomination. Obama will reach 2,024 delegates, not counting Michigan and Florida, on either May 20th, June 1st, or June 3rd, depending on the rate of superdelegate endorsements. He only needs 42.7% of the remaining delegates to pull this off. By contrast, Clinton needs to win 59.5% of the remaining delegates to reach 2,024 herself, even though she only reached 59.5% of the vote in one state, Arkansas. Once Obama reaches 2,204, he will control both the credentials committee and the majority of delegates on the floor of the convention, making him a lock for the nomination. In other words, unless Barack Obama decides that Hillary Clinton should be the nominee, then Barack Obama will be the nominee.

  • Second, the February 24-25th endorsement vote took place just before the Clinton campaign began arguing that John McCain was more qualified to be President than Barack Obama, significantly damaging the overwhelming favorite for the Democratic nomination. Further, over the last two weeks, Obama has faced a vicious media assault that seeks to drive a racial wedge right down the center of the diverse Democratic coalition. While Obama himself responded beautifully in his speech last week, the continuing primary campaign made it difficult for the broader progressive and Democratic infrastructure to provide effective response. Overall, despite the outcome of the nomination practically being a foregone conclusion, the ostensible need for the party infrastructure to stay neutral presents Barack Obama with a serious structural deficit against John McCain in the general election, since the entire Republican Noise Machine is already gunning for him

  • Third, I have heard that fundraising for congressional candidates is starting to dry up. Partially this is because the Clinton and Obama campaigns are now raising about $2.5M a day online, and there just isn't much left over (and Clinton does not have much in the bank even with the amounts she is raising). However, even in the midst of lower online fundraising for congressional candidates, Barack Obama once again demonstrated his ability to bring coattails in the general election when Bill Foster when the special election for Dennis Hastert's old seat in IL-14. While the lengthy campaign is hurting our downticket campaigns, Obama is providing just about the only coattails we have left.

Here is the choice I think we face. On the one hand, we can pretend that Clinton still has a chance to win the nomination, and that the credentials committee and the majority of the delegates at the convention won't be controlled by some non-Obama power once Obama reaches 2,024. On the other hand, we can face reality that Clinton has no real chance to win the nomination because she further lost ground in March, a time when her own campaign admitted it needed to gain ground. Second, we can pretend that having prominent Democrats and the entire Republican Noise Machine use the same talking points on our presumptive nominee won't damage our general election chances, or we can start to build a united front against these attacks and succeed where we failed in 2004. Third, we can focus on the nomination campaign forever, or we can start to focus our attention on some downticket campaigns, too. From where I sit, the best path we can follow right now is to try and end the nomination campaign as quickly as possible, because Barack Obama is going to be the nominee and we desperately need some big wins in November up and down the ticket.

So, quite a bit has changed for me over the last month. Mike has already endorsed Obama, and I know that Matt is much more open to the possibility now, too. As such, I want to know where you stand. Should Blue Majority endorse Barack Obama now, or should we continue waiting until at least after the Pennsylvania primary? Take the advisory, non-binding straw poll in the extended entry.

update: If Clinton supporters really want me to push down the anti-Obama vote, I will happily split the poll into three options: Obama, Clinton or no endorsement. However, by combining the pro-Clinton and no endorsement vote into two categories, you stand a much better chance of making a good showing.

But hey, if it isn't democratic if I don't have all choices on the ballot, then surely we must seat the Michigan delegation as is.

Chris Bowers :: Open Left Endorsement Straw Poll
Poll
Should Blue Majority endorse Barack Obama now, or wait at least another month?
Endorse Barack Obama now
Wait until at least after Pennsylvania

Results


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
A suggestion (4.00 / 2)
If the campaigns for President are starting to suck air out of the room for down ticket candidates, why not ask the campaigns in their own fund raising to push for the down ticket candidates' fundraising and/or Congressional and/or other needed funding as well. Didn't you push for something similar in 2006? I can't remember, but it's just an idea because maybe the issue is partially one of advertising the need.

That was (4.00 / 1)
The "Use it or lose it" initiative I believe.  The key there was that the money came from very safe democrats, which neither Obama nor Clinton are.  

[ Parent ]
Well here I was thinking less about money (0.00 / 0)
and more about attention. To try to get them to do this in a coordinated way while they have the spot light on both of them.

[ Parent ]
Primary versus GE money (0.00 / 0)
Can one use Primary money in GE?  If not, can they donate that money to support down ticket campaigns that they support?

[ Parent ]
I may be... (0.00 / 0)
I may be mistaken, but I think they can use Primary money until the convention and THEN have to use GE money.  So the loser should donate their money, but the winner can use it to get a big head start.

[ Parent ]
Actually... (0.00 / 0)
It's customary for primary losers to give the GE money back to the donors. Otherwise, I think you run into legal problems. Most of these GE donors are maxed out in the primary. If Hillary keeps her GE money...or gives it to another candidate, it becomes defacto primary money (since she will never be the GE candidate). And that puts people over the $2,300 limit.

[ Parent ]
PS (0.00 / 0)
One added bonus of such a push would be that both campaigns would produce a lot of good will. Given the nature of the campaigns, this would be something they both would want to build up.

But Chris ... (4.00 / 3)
... as a Pennsylvania Democrat, isn't this your chance to play Kingmaker?  Isn't this the golden opportunity to exert the power you've been waiting for so long?

I was waiting to see what the Bowers machine could do.


I sure hope so. n/t (0.00 / 0)


End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
All other character and policy issues aside, Obama is clearly the candidate that can be the greatest asset in pursuing a 50-state strategy and helping to elect 'more and better' Democrats. Plus, it's just a damn good bet that he is going to win.

I agree it is time to shift focus. And I, for one, am all done giving Obama money (well, until the General of course).


"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra


DOWN-BALLOT & OBAMA myths (0.00 / 0)
If you look at the House, as well, we have more competitive seats in states that went Hillary, such as NY, NJ, OH, FL and (likely) PA.

HRC and not Obama will win use a dozen House seats.


[ Parent ]
Last month I voted no endorsement, but I've changed my mind. (4.00 / 27)
I sent Obama $ in the first quarter of 2007, and have been volunteering since Edwards dropped out, but felt a month ago that the interests of the blogosphere were best served by remaining neutral.

I've changed my mind.  We have a clear frontrunner, and it increasingly feels that the goal of the Clinton campaign at this point is to make Obama bleed.  It's long past time for the reality-based community to take a stand.


Here here! (4.00 / 1)
Its time to stand up for a change in the way we treat each other, and this is most likely to happen with Obama as President.

[ Parent ]
Send Clinton a message (and any other Dems who follow her) (4.00 / 9)
The Clinton campaign has placed itself above (and in my mind, apart) from the Democratic Party by siding with McCain and giving him perfect media chances to hurt the Dems in Nov.  

This Clinton campaign behavior is NOT acceptable, and endorsing now, before PA, helps to send that message clearly - in addition to the reasons Chris has outlined an endorsement now. It will also help to lead the rest of the progressive blogosphere and other liberal voices to join in for the good of the overall party effort for the general election.  


[ Parent ]
I can't believe the supers don't see this (4.00 / 6)
  Publicly praising the Republican candidate for ANY election can get you kicked off the Democratic Party Central Committee in any county in America. I know this -- I'm on my county's committee, and it's explicitly stated in the bylaws.

 And here we have the spectacle of one of the party's biggest names (two of them, actually), openly telling the public that the Republican is better than the Democrat in the general election.

 I'm not mincing words; this is treason. And Hillary's supporters shouldn't be tolerating this kind of crap, if they care one whit about the Democratic Party.

 I can't believe someone in the party hasn't pulled Hillary into a room and chewed her head off for this revolting McCain praise. The party's complete submission to the Republicans in Congress makes more and more sense each day...  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
Endorse now, before PA (0.00 / 0)
and I am hoping that the SDs come out in force and do so as well before PA ... because I do believe Pennsylvanians need to see an allied party standing behind the leading candidate and calling clearly for an end to the Clinton's machinations. With a little less than a month to go, it is quite obvious that we have quite enough to concern us with Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary in the last several contests, with the cable news and right wing radio saturating our consciousness with the destruction of Rev. Wright and the ongoing hijinks to bring race front and center as a m ajor issue in this race. The Dems can make it clear that race is not a factor for them, by standing by Obama now rather than waiting to see how he does in PA. Let's not give the Clintons the time to 'spin' a victory they are almost certainly sure to win.  

[ Parent ]
HALF THE PARTY (0.00 / 0)
First, I agree that HRC has no business saying ANYTHING good about McCain.

Second, we don't have a clearly leading candidate--we have a very close race.  Your proposal says to the nearly 50% of HRC voters to go screw.  Guess what, no HRC supporters and we are guaranteed a McCain win...because she and not Obama can deliver "lunch bucket Dems" in must win states such as OH, MI and PA.

So, we need a united Party to face McCain and only by counting all the votes can we get that!


[ Parent ]
not that close (0.00 / 0)
this race isn't so close. She had a relatively good March 4th and came out with a net gain of 6 delegates. Figure in Wyoming and Mississippi and Hillary actually LOST ground in March.

while the demographics look decent for Hillary rounding out this primary, those same demographics, aided by racial divides actually help Obama. One African American/black district, which votes 80+% for obama can quickly make up for two or three districts in which Hillary wins by up to 12 points.

a month ago may not have been time to endorse but seeing how difficult it really is for Hillary to win, seeing how negative she has gotten, seeing how cozy she has become with McCain and understanding that our attention needs to get past this primary in order to have a chance in November makes it an easy choice for me. endorse obama.


[ Parent ]
You know (0.00 / 0)
there are "lunch bucket" voters in states that Obama won too, like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and Missouri, not to mention the fact that HRC only got 55% in Michigan against the strong candidacy of Uncommitted.  Plus, Obama only lost Ohio to HRC by 10, and the new Rasmussen poll in PA has him cutting into her lead there, despite the Wright controversy.

[ Parent ]
MISSOURI (0.00 / 0)
Actually, Obama won stricly on the strength of the urban vote.  He lost all but maybe 4 counties...which is exactly the opposite of how McCaskill won her state.

Besides, I don't your response addresses my deep concern about Obama's ability to win PA, MI, OH.  If we don't win at least 2, we're dead...and Mc Cain is pres.  UGH!!!!


[ Parent ]
Well, it's worth noting (0.00 / 0)
that there are plenty of voters who are working class and live in urban areas, so your point doesn't really make any sense.

Also, can you point to any polls that suggest Obama will categorically be unable to win any of those three states against John McCain, other than those bathed in the false (and flash in the pan) Wright controversy (from which Obama has significantly bounced back, in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, as seen in the Quick Hits section)?  That doesn't even account for the fact that A) HRC is doing poorly in other "must win" states, including Oregon, Washington, and Minnesota and B) Obama is matching or significantly outperforming HRC in a number of other purple states, including Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, and New Mexico.

Pollster.com for Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, and Virginia.

Washington:
http://www.surveyusa.com/clien...
http://www.surveyusa.com/clien...

Colorado:
http://www.surveyusa.com/clien...

North Carolina:
http://www.surveyusa.com/index...
http://www.surveyusa.com/index...

New Mexico (in the midst of Wright - prior polls had Clinton up 5 and Obama up 15):
http://www.surveyusa.com/clien...
http://www.surveyusa.com/clien...


[ Parent ]
Time to strongly encourage HRC to let it go (4.00 / 4)
I have wanted to see a healthy contest within the Dems, too. Now, however, I feel it has gone beyond healthy and productive. Clinton's campaign is hurting the Dems and Obama and has become a distraction from the essential points of the race.  

[ Parent ]
Me too! (4.00 / 2)
To think last month that I did not want to upset Clinton and her supporters for the sake of party unity.  



John McCain won't insure children


[ Parent ]
Politicalinaction.com endorsed Obama in 2004 (4.00 / 1)
We're kind of ahead of the curve.

But in all seriousness, to win in the fall, and raise money for down ballot races, we need to force Hillary from the nomination fight, mend fences, and not waste another $250 million on a contest that has already been decided.  That is $250 million for the general election or for your house, governor, mayoral, or senate candidate.  It is basic economics.  There is a finite amount of money, and if we waste it all beating each other up unnecessarily, we deserve to lose.


How about a third option (0.00 / 0)
Like endorsing Clinton?


I think they will endorse Clinton (4.00 / 4)
...over at MyDD.

[ Parent ]
And the effect of either endorsement (0.00 / 1)
will be about the same.

It will drive the few posters who support the other candidate away from the boards, but have zero effect on the election.  

Does anyone think Clinton will fold up her tent because open left endorsed Obama?  


[ Parent ]
It depend on why you endorse (4.00 / 1)
If the goal is influence, then endorsing is prolly pie in the sky.  If, however, the goal is stating a consensus opinion, then endorsing has value.

In any case, I don't think that Open Left is the only blog involved, but I could be wrong.  And as long as the discourse is civil, I don't see why one cannot post on a blog that has endorsed a candidate that one does not prefer.  I post frequently at MyDD.


[ Parent ]
No they won't if they even dared (0.00 / 0)
to put up a poll Kos'ers would overrun the results

[ Parent ]
Gee What gave it away... (4.00 / 1)
The 50 million Anti-Obama diaries, the 5 pro-clinton diaries, or the angry as hell Jerome Armstrong Naive Anti-Obama front page rantings.  

[ Parent ]
with all due respect ... (4.00 / 3)
Very few people care who or when this endorsement happens.  The ONLY thing that matters is somehow lighting a fire under the supers so they end this Clintonian charade.  Every day McCain skates away from more of his nonsense, and Obama is dragged through more of Hillary's bullshit.

I'm at the point... (4.00 / 6)
  ...where I'm wondering if the supers really want to win this fall.

 Bill Richardson certainly does. Anybody else?  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


[ Parent ]
True... (4.00 / 1)
Although I still think Richardson's endorsement was a bit more... selfish.  I smell a deal... which is cool... Given that one of the ONLY non-douchebag stances McCain has is on Immigration, Richardson will help in keeping Latinos from crossing over to McCain.

[ Parent ]
pointing out the obvious (4.00 / 2)
but this blog, along with endorsements of many others, could sway super delegates, especially when the message is party unity rather than particular issues, on which difference of opinion is understandable.

[ Parent ]
Why don't we start a campaign... (0.00 / 0)
to pledge campaign money to supers who come out and endorse (Obama), and promise to give them not a dime if they sit on their hands watching the Clintons take the party down with them?

[ Parent ]
Endorse Obama now (4.00 / 10)
  I understood all of the arguments against jumping in and endorsing in the past, but the Clinton campaign is now wreaking havoc on the Democratic Party brand. One can agree or disagree with Hillary Clinton on policy matters, but praising the Republican candidate at the expense of the presumptive Democratic nominee crosses a line that no Democrat should tolerate, and an Obama endorsement helps send the message that collaborating with the enemy is not acceptable.

 There's also the disturbing question -- exactly what kind of campaign would Hillary Clinton wage against McCain? Since she's offered no criticism of McCain to date, and plenty of glowing praise, how credible will she be if she tries to shift gears for the general?  And why would anybody vote for her if all she does is echo McCain talking points?

 Obama is the one remaining Democrat in the presidential race. Time to endorse.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn


ENDORSE OBAMA NOW (0.00 / 0)
Master Jack,

How dare you say that those of us--who represent nearly half the Party--are not true Dems, because we believe HRC is better qualified to beat McCain and lead our nation.

IF you are representative of the true OBAMA MOVEMENT, then it's clear that the notion of UNITY is b.s.  UNITY is NOT defined by calling half the Party out as Republicans.  Good way to unite for the Fall (snark).


[ Parent ]
Gee (0.00 / 0)
Your use of caps is really quite persuasive.  I think Master Jack's point, which perhaps marginally too harsh on HRC, is fundamentally accurate - she has constantly and consistently attacked Obama from the right, echoing and reinforcing numerous right wing conventions about Barack Obama and Democrats in general, and so I would suggest that she tone down such criticism if she is as dedicated, committed and loyal to the party as her supporters suggest.

[ Parent ]
Right Wing Memes vs. Obama (0.00 / 0)
Totally agreed.

I've already emaile her campaign to stop it.

I'd also like Obama to stop implicitly calling HRC a racist and a DINO.  Could you help with that?


[ Parent ]
Only when your claims are true (0.00 / 0)
It took far too long for Hillary Clinton to say anything meaningful about Geraldine Ferraro, and Bill has said some truly bad things out on the trail.  If you want more documentation on Hillary's record of pandering to the right wing and decimating Obama and her party, just peruse this diary I wrote on DailyKos that covers some of her greatest hits.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...


[ Parent ]
Now that's what I call a push poll! (4.00 / 1)
But I agree with all of it.

Haha! Push poll indeed! (0.00 / 0)
I thought the same thing.

But anywho:
Time to endorse Barack Obama.


[ Parent ]
A small point (0.00 / 0)
This isn't actually a push poll. A push poll isn't a poll at all, but rather a form of negative, non-transparent voter contacts conducted via telephone.

This is pushing people to vote a certain way, but that actually isn't the same thing as a push poll.  


[ Parent ]
Yes. (0.00 / 0)
Let's endorse now.  End it.  We don't need a terminally wounded Hillary damaging our nominee.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy

What happened to democratic principles (4.00 / 1)
Chris,

You have every right to endorse whichever candidate you choose at any point in the campaign, as does Blue Majority as a larger entity.

I have to take issue, however, with the underlying argument in your post - which is that we are best served by ending the nomination campaign.  One of the most laudable aspects of your work here over the last few months has been the commitment you have professed for democratic principles in the primary process.  In post after post, you have stressed that some things are more important than results, above all the idea that voters should be allowed to speak and their preferences should be accounted for.  

I find those democratic principles fundamentally incompatible with the idea that the process should be wound down when one candidate has a viable, if slim, chance at the nomination and still might end up with the most popular votes.  In the end, if you believe in democratic principles then you need to support the idea of letting all the voters participate in this decision, not prematurely cutting off the process.

I am a HRC supporter but, as somebody who values democratic principles, I would be appalled by a scenario in which the voters, as an aggregate, clearly choose Obama yet Clinton is made the nominee by superdelegates.  What I expect of Obama supporters with shared values is that they respect the right of HRC to make her case to the remaining voters and the rights of those voters to weigh in with their preferences in a meaningful way.  I don't think that's too much to ask, but maybe I am wrong.


John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."


What democratic principles, exactly? (4.00 / 1)
I think you have a fair argument, largely, but I am beginning to wonder exactly what democratic principles are at stake here.  I might be wrong here, but it's an idea that's percolating in my head.  It seems to me that Clinton's path to the nomination is one that depends on the occurence of a drastic scandal -- like a revelation of Obama having a secret second family of Muslims in Idaho -- or total character assassination.  As such, I'm not sure that the possibility of the votes of those of us who haven't voted (I'm in Oregon) throwing the vote to Clinton are reflective of deliberation or reasoning of the voters, but of circumstances between now and June.  If that is the case, is there anything more democratic, or more virtuous, about us having our say?  Is there any more substance to our role in the voting process than the technical fact of whether we voted?  (Something that will technically happen anyway.)

It seems to me that arguments for letting the process continue (apart from party building or those that think a primary is good for us) might all end up being, effectively, arguments to give Obama more time to collapse utterly due to outside events.  And I'm not sure that's a democratic principle I need to get behind, because it's about time and events, and not about the voters.


[ Parent ]
Is a deus ex machina (0.00 / 0)
really necessary?  Clinton's road is obviously very, very tough at this point.  But the idea of her winning PA by 15+ points, pulling off a narrow upset or virtual draw in NC, then sweeping the rest of the larger remaining states and ending up with the popular vote lead (when including FL) is still a possibility that could happen without a major scandal.  At that point, of course, she would need other things to happen with superdelegates, but she would at least be in a position where she had some degree of legitimate claim to a democratic mandate.  Its a longshot, but its a possibility.  And at this point it should be left to the candidates and the voters.  If we believe in democracy, then we need to let people vote and allow the chips to fall where they may.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
I would have no (4.00 / 1)
problem with your far out scenario (although I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that she can take Oregon and I expect Obama to win by at least 10 to 15 pts there) as long as the campaigns start to praise each other each day and attack only John McCain, but the morning briefings are not aimed at McCain and all our wonderful Democratic fundraising at this point is going into tearing down the eventual Democratic nominee.  It is time for Clinton supporters to face some unpleasant facts.  She cannot win the pledged delegate count.  At the end of the day, if she can convince the superdelegates to back her in the face of Obama's lead in pledged delegates, lead in states won, and endorsements from Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, and Richardson, etc. - as well as his support from the most reliable Democratic voting bloc of the past half century - then I will look for the sun to begin rising in the West.  I know losing isn't fun.  I've been involved in a few winning campaigns and a few losing ones, and winning is better.  But there is a time to face reality.  I have seen some politicians who haven't, and they come off as pitiful characters.  Clinton has already worn out her welcome, but she can store up a lot of goodwill by running a positive campaign the rest of the way, or by bowing out gracefully.  This contest is over.

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners -- Albert Camus  


[ Parent ]
If Clinton can accomplish that feat (0.00 / 0)
without attacking Obama from the right and basically doing McCain's job for him - then fine.

But it doesn't look like Clinton thinks that way.


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


[ Parent ]
HRC MUST NOT LEND SUPPORT TO MCCAIN (0.00 / 0)
I am a strong HRC supporter, and have emailed her campaign to STOP saying anything that sounds remotely supportive of McCain.

That said, most posters on this site blythely throw away 48% of the party in the name of the OBAMA.  That's not democratic or productive.  It just ensures that "lunch bucket dems" who support HRC will shift to McCain throwing him PA, MI and OH...and with that, the election.

If pro-Obama folks actually care more about winning in the Fall than their allegiance to Obama, then they should be fighting for:
1.  all votes to count, including MI and FL
2.  a purely positive Dem campaign
3.  the start of anti-McCain advertising NOW.

Thanks.


[ Parent ]
you know... (0.00 / 0)
that the only place I'm able to review positive vs. negative campaign ads is the Wisconsin Project.

in Ohio alone, they claim that over 20% of Hillary's ads were negative while less then 5% of Obama's were negative. Apparently, the SEIU & UFCW ads made up the bulk of those negative ads for Obama.

regarding your #1, I'm over it. They should have either listened to the DNC originally or worked hard from the beginning to structure a re-vote which followed DNC rules.

regarding your #3, once the primary is over, we can move onto this phase. You don't want to look too arrogant by assuming yourself the victor at this juncture do you? He needs to build up that GE warchest now though.


[ Parent ]
To ALEX (0.00 / 0)
You may be "over it" with FL and MI, but the Dems of those states ARE NOT.  If we don't not secur their loyalty we lose in November.  Punish the stats parties, not the people (voters) of those states.

As for starting anti-McCain ads, that is not specific to BHO or HRC, it can be done by the DNC and 527s.

Thanks for responding thoughtfully to my comment.


[ Parent ]
i lived many years in Florida... (0.00 / 0)
so i can sympathize with the situation in that state (which is less dire then Michigan). Again, I would channel my anger at the state leaders that decided to go against something called a rule.

I've said it before, allowing the will of the people would be the best case situation but at what price? if a future establishment candidate can gain victory by realigning the primary schedule, what's to stop him after this mess?

it's dangerous territory that I rather not get into. because I'm not sure what punishment can be handed down to each state that either 1. wouldn't cripple it or 2. couldn't be compensated for by some candidate/group/future political favors.


[ Parent ]
HRC Must Not Lend Support To McCain (0.00 / 0)
Unfortunately, HRC and her campaign continue to extoll McCain's candidacy, thereby guaranteeing that Obama will lose in the GE against McCain.  This is so destructive to the Democratic Party, that she has lost the respect of many Obama supporters and other neutral voters. Obama did not have any control of the Fl & MI fiasco.  That was the respective leaders of the DNC, and the governors and legislatures of both states.  I agree that a compromise must be reached so that neither states are locked out, but please bear in mind that over 2,000,000 voters did not vote at all in either primaries, because they were told the votes would not count.

The posters on this site are not dismissing HRC's supporters.  It seems to me that it is HRC's supporters who have sworn to elect McCain if HRC loses.  What does that say for  our  concern for the nightmare of the economy's financial meltdown, tax give aways to the rich, jobs in the US being moved abroad, the rich getting extremely rich, the poor more than we anticipated, stalemate on Immigration,  the war in Iraq, the soon to be war in Iran, etc.  How can any democrat, vote for another Republican, much less, how can HRC extoll McCain's candidacy?    


[ Parent ]
"lunch bucket" (0.00 / 0)
Is that a new codeword for, like, the working class? I haven't seen it before.

Is the idea that the working class in PA, MI and OH won't vote for Obama because he's more progressive? Or because he's black?

Also, what if I carry my Starbucks thermos in a lunch bucket? Whom do I vote for?


[ Parent ]
What happened to democratic principles indeed (4.00 / 2)
"What happened to democratic principles?"  Good question.  I might have missed a bulletin, but all I hear from Clinton's camp now is "maybe we should change the nominating process to favor Hillary" or "I think the superdelegates should give the nomination to Clinton because she won the most populous states" or whatever.  In other words, Clinton's followers are trying to game the system in the face of the clear choice of Democratic voters.

Again, I might have missed something.  And maybe, in the coming days, Clinton will come out and say "forget all that stuff about altering the rules, I'm going to try and win more votes than Obama".  But I'm not going to hold my breath.

I also wonder how Democratic Principles will be served by Obama and Clinton beating each other up thus helping McCain.  I don't think that would be good for democracy at all.


[ Parent ]
This is democracy? (0.00 / 0)
Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.

He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.

"So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that's how we choose the president of the United States," Mr. Bayh said on CNN's "Late Edition."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03...

How "democratic".


[ Parent ]
What do two wrongs make? (0.00 / 0)
Not a right, as the saying goes.  That the Clinton campaign may be making arguments that offend democratic principles (which I acknowledge they are doing) doesn't mean that it is right for Obama supporters to do the same or that Obama supporters doing so shouldn't be called out.

That's what you're missing.



John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."


[ Parent ]
But Fuzzy . . . (4.00 / 2)
What about the main point, that Clinton's tactic of diminishing Obama by boosting McCain does long term damage to the party?  

Does 'fairness' and adherence to democratic principles really require Openleft to stand mute when Clinton promotes the Republican line?

Isn't there a point where her destructive behavior forfeits giving her candidacy further benefit of the doubt?  

Open Left seems to think we've reached that point.

USA: 1950 to 2010


[ Parent ]
What? (0.00 / 0)
doesn't mean that it is right for Obama supporters to do the same or that Obama supporters doing so shouldn't be called out.

What are you talking about?  What is Obama doing that is undemocratic?  Can you provide any examples?

Barack Obama did not cancel my state's (Michigan) primary.  He is not telling people that if he loses the primary, the rules should be changed to help him or the superdelegates should flout the will of the voters.  As far as I know he isn't even calling for Clinton to end her campaign.  

It's a shame to come close to winning a party's nomination for president and not get it.  Oh well.  We aren't chosing a nominee just for the fun of it, but to take back our country from Bush/Cheney/McCain while it still has only one foot in the grave.  Sorry, Hillary and Hillary supporters, but I care a damn sight more about the fate of my country than I do about Hillary Clinton's ambition.


[ Parent ]
this will only get worse (0.00 / 0)
the more time they have to reframe the remaining contests and continue to push the idea that McCain and Clinton are the only ones capable of leading the country. I just don't understand what it is that they have on these Congressional leaders ... i can understand all the work, organization, the creation of MEdia Matters, that center for Progress, the major funding of progressive networks, the paybacks they feel entitled to for the Telecom Act and for Pharma advertising; I can understand why MSM is favoring Clinton. But what exactly is the power the have over the Dems? How did they get Kennedy to shut up? Gore and Edwards to not endorse? Kerry and Feingold to appear nearly mum.... what kind of clout do these people hold that they are succeeding to allowing this disgraceful treatment of Obama to continue, day after day. I'm sorry. If they don't end this soon, irreperable damage IS done to the party and to their own chances for re-election.

[ Parent ]
DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES (0.00 / 0)
With all respect, many posters here seem to mix up "democratic" with "rules" set by the DNC.

In short, which is more important:  empowering DEMS in MI and FL (as well as the ten remaining states), or sticking with a bunch of silly rules that disenfranchise voters??

I think "democratic" is about the will of the people, not the silly DNC.


[ Parent ]
Liebermann-light (4.00 / 4)
What I expect of Obama supporters with shared values is that they respect the right of HRC to make her case to the remaining voters and the rights of those voters to weigh in with their preferences in a meaningful way.

I respect HRC's choice to continue her presidential bid.  What I don't respect is her and Bill praising the Republican candidate so that the democratic frontrunner looks bad.  That's why she should step aside.  She's no better than Liebermann to me.


[ Parent ]
Outrageous and non-Democratic (0.00 / 0)
Chris, I have incredible respect for your talent - but this poll is bogus and onworthy of TalkLeft. Where can I vote to endorse Senator Clinton?

Is that not an option for members here?

Are you serious about this?

Truly, this is shocking.


Correction: OpenLeft (0.00 / 0)
I was sputtering in shock...

[ Parent ]
Maybe Chris is making clear (0.00 / 0)
That endorsing Hillary is not an option by not making it an option in the poll.
Draw your own conclusions, knowing Chris is as intellectually honest as you will find in a progressive blogger.

[ Parent ]
Kinda mocks the "open" part of the name... (0.00 / 0)
If the premise is the owners of this blog make the endorsement, then just make the damned endorsement - for me, it would count for way more than the sadly opportunistic Bill Richardson. I absolutely respect that.

But don't pretend it's a vote.


[ Parent ]
Damn blogo-caucuses!!!!!! (0.00 / 0)
Only the big-sites matter (except for dailykos, which is like blogger-Illinois).

[ Parent ]
I think the open part of openleft is the vote. (0.00 / 0)
And the left part is the writing.

I think the overwhelming opinion behind the openleft no endorsement agreement was, some time ago, that HRC is deserving of the benefit of the doubt until it is over, until she can play no part in altering the outcome in her favor.

That time has come. And people are ok with that. With respects.

An announcement in New York of long service in the senate, of support for the candidate. And promise to fight for the policies she has advocted, from the floor of the most powerful delibrative body on the planet.

I think our candidate has benefited greatly from this masterclass in electoral pugilism, and thanks are due for this.

That is what I voted for.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Chris is being realistic (0.00 / 0)
Last month, there was a vote on basically the same question. The vote was ~2/3rd for Obama, and many of the nay votes were Obama supporters.  So I think it makes sense to make the question simple. Endorse or not. As I write this, it's better than 90% for endorsing.

Seems like a simple question to me. Would it be different if it was 90% for endorsing Obama, 5% for waiting and 5% for endorsing Clinton?


[ Parent ]
To me - Clinton "mocks" the Left (0.00 / 0)
every single time she attacks Obama from the right.


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


[ Parent ]
In all honesty (4.00 / 3)
I've not been a big supporter of either Clinton or Obama. I was on the MD ballot as a Edwards delegate (he dropped out before the MD primary), but Hillary has, through her own and her campaign surrogates behavior, completely lost any support from me. The term "overweening narcissist" comes to mind and we got one of those in the White House now. Don't need another.

So, Obama it is and I'm glad for it.

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain


Hillary can't win clean anymore (4.00 / 2)
Whilst neither side was going excessively negative, the primary campaign was a good thing. That's no longer true. Clinton knows the odds are against her and that this is her last chance to head the ticket, so she's going very negative, in the hope that this will allow her to win a potentially very vicious convention. That's not good, so an Obama endorsement now seems legitimate.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

Obama has been equal to the dirty fighting... (4.00 / 1)
See Peter Daou's name-calling memo - he's been massively negative since losing TX and OH.

[ Parent ]
Yea Texas, what a big loss (0.00 / 0)
He only lost by negative 4 delegates.  Absolutely crushing.

[ Parent ]
TX VOTE (0.00 / 0)
Delegate count is NOT THE SAME as popular vote.

Talk about preferring rigged rules vs. the will of the people.  What happened to commitment to hearing the will of the voters, or have we forgotten FL in 2000?


[ Parent ]
What a ridiculous analogy (0.00 / 0)
All the campaigns agreed to the rules ahead of time, and all of those rules were followed.  There was also nowhere near the kind of suppression and interference in Texas as there was in Florida in 2000.  I suggest you think twice before you make such outlandish claims, because the evidence is not on your side.

[ Parent ]
RIDICULOUS ANALOGY (0.00 / 0)
I think I expressed myself poorly.

I wan't questioning the integrity of the caucuses, per se.

Rather, I was calling attention to the disparity btw caucauses and primaries.  I have a real problem with a method of voting that makes it very hard for the elderly (night driving), the disabled (access to night drivers), working people who either work at night or can't afford sitters for their kids.

Hope that's more clear.


[ Parent ]
Yes, but (0.00 / 0)
caucuses are still the will of the people as such, and the mutual will of all the candidates, as none of them have expressed any displeasure with the system (except for Senator Clinton's campaign, after it doesn't benefit her).

[ Parent ]
O did I miss . . . . (4.00 / 1)
the part where Obama suggested that either he or McCain would be the best choices for the country ahead of the other Democratic candidate?

That's the only 'equivalency' available to support your argument.   Unfortunately for your argument, this support does not exist.

So, put down your gun.  Come 'ere ya big galoot . . . Big hug.    There, there. . .   You did a real good job sticking up for Hillary.  We were all very impressed.  

Now, c'mon, let's go kick some crazy old grampa Republican ass all the way back to the Magna Carta!



USA: 1950 to 2010


[ Parent ]
Endorse Senator Barack Obama now (4.00 / 2)
I believe it is imperative that we endorse Senator Barack Obama now.  Senator Obama leads the race by all counts (pledged delegates, total delegates, popular vote and state primaries and caucuses won).  Even if Clinton wins Pennsylvania by 20+ points on April 22nd and the majority of state primaries remaining she will still be behind by at least 100 pledged delegates.  The Democratic Party will not survive a delegate fight in Denver.  We must stand behind Senator Barack Obama now.  

To quote from Hillary's Favorite, LBJ (4.00 / 1)
"It's better to be inside the tent, pissing out, than outside the tent, pissing in."

Actually, the progressive movement needs to hold Obama's feet to the fire, to demand that he keep his promises to bring real change.  Hopefully, the next 8+ years will be about working with President Obama and "keeping him honest."  Now, is the time to get inside the tent, even if some of our friends -- and they are our friends -- in the Hillary camp are disappointed.  


Favorite (4.00 / 1)
I thougt Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater supporter in the '60s.

[ Parent ]
South Carolina Kerfuffle (0.00 / 0)
Righto, Hillary was a so-called "Goldwater Girl" in high school.

I was referring to the kerfuffle during the pre-South Carolina primary campaign when Sen. Clinton juxtiposed Rev. King's speechifying vs. LBJ's "real shange."  Hey, it's takes all kinds to build a successful movement and I'd want'em all in my foxhole.


[ Parent ]
She was ... (0.00 / 0)
and a Nelson Rockefeller supporter in '68

[ Parent ]
Why would you endorse Hillary? (0.00 / 0)
McCain/Clinton '08 is more likely at this point given Hillary and her husband's comments over the last 2 weeks.

Only McCain is helped the longer we wait (0.00 / 0)
Just this past week, McCain screwed up AQI/Iran and got a free pass from the MSM because all the attention is on the CLintons and what they will do to win the nomination. Face it, HRC can not win make the case to the superdelegates with pledged delegates, popular vote, or states won. Her only argument to the supers will be that Obama is so damaged that can not win the general election against McCain. Hmmm, how would that happen? Maybe, Obama gets torn apart over the CIC issue, 3am phone calls, Ferraro suggestions that he is an affirmative action nominee, or Bill CLinton questioning his patriotism.

ANd then what. I ask any Hillary supporter to argue how she goes to the convention losing in pledged delegates and popular vote and manages to win by a superdelegate coup d'etat, and then put the party back together. Obama supporters will question HRC's legitimacy; HRC supporters will not question Obama's legitimacy. HRC supporters may believe that she is more "experienced", more qualified, tougher, and a better matchup gainst McCain -- fair -- but they won't question Obama's legitimacy.

There is a big difference between feeling that Obama is the weaker of two nominees (HRC supporters) vs. feeling that HRC stole the nomination (BHO supporters)


Maybe (0.00 / 0)
there is a place for a blog that doesn't hide who it supports, but doesn't make a formal endorsement either.

Now this is 180 degrees opposite of what I wrote in October ON THIS SITE.  But the level of discourse in liberal blogsphere is getting more toxic by the minute.  

At this point the number objective facing Democrats is to unite the party against a VERY dangerous opponent.  If we can help accomplish this task by not endorsing, and maybe we can, than I vote against any endorsement.  


What Hillary wants (4.00 / 3)
The Clinton camp is full of folks who can read polls and count votes.  they know they cannot win in 2008, either in the Dem. Convention or the General if by some slight of hand she can overcome the numbers.  But sh must also know that she has so alienated the African American vote she cannot win the general as well as the rest of us her campaign has offended.  My thought is she is not looking at 2008, but 2012 as she attempts to weaken Obama so that he cannot win the general.  Time to pull out the stops and get her out of the race.

The thought has occurred to me before. (0.00 / 0)
I would love to think that there's no way you could be right, but I don't think it can be ruled out.

[ Parent ]
I don't buy it (0.00 / 0)
If she was thinking about 2012, she'd have dropped out already. She wouldn't be hanging around destroying much of the party's latent goodwill towards her.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
I voted no last time, and yes this time (0.00 / 0)
the race has gone on long enough, nothing more positive can come of it

yup (4.00 / 1)
I'm joining the herd. This feel good Democratic Primary campaign has turned into a nightmare. Time to look to the GE as my opinion of Hillary is about as low as I'd like it to go.

It's Time (0.00 / 0)
It's time to put Clinton out of our misery. She's doing nothing but thrashing about, making McCain look like Winston Churchill by comparison.

Enough!!


Endorse a Democrat (4.00 / 1)
Hillary has clearly joined the Republican party.  She regularly endorses McCain.  She voted for the Bush war in Iraq.  She voted to allow Bush to go to Iran.  She voted for the republican bankruptcy law.  .

Barak clearly has the stronger judgment about the danger of war.  Whenever he speaks about international affairs, he seems to recognize that the world community is listening, and he avoids militaristic cliches.  He can grow the democratic party and change the direction of the progressive movement in this country.

Early on, I was undecided between Obama and Edwards, but voters chose clearly.  If all of that is not enough, it is clear that Keith Olbermann has made up his mind.  Since he is about the only msm anchor I respect, I vote with him.

Terry Brooks, SC


I voted yes (4.00 / 1)
I voted no the previous time, but I am thinking the way Chris is now.

   

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


It's time to endorse--way past time (4.00 / 2)
Not only because Clinton can no longer win without either basically stealing the nomination and dividing the party, or something emerging about Obama, or otherwise happening, so devastating that he has to withdraw. But also, and now especially, because she's clearly praying for the latter while working actively towards achieving the former. There is simply no point for her to continue her campaign at this point in terms of what's best for the PARTY.

This is not about Obama. This is about the Democratic party's prospects for the fall, not only for the presidency, but for senate, house and other important races. Everything that she does at this point to try to effectively steal the nomination not only hurts Obama, but the party as well, and we have to pull the plug on it. Sorry Hillary people, but it's over, and you know it. The ONLY way for her to win at this point, short of something happening with Obama, is for her to steal it, and I can't sit by and let that happen. (And yes, if the shoe were on the other foot, I would absolutely be calling for Obama to withdraw.)

We're well into surreal territory here. Anyone who doesn't see that needs to spend a couple of minutes on TalkLeft. Those people are delusional, and engaging in scortched earth tactics at this point as they put Clinton above party. Enough already. Pull the freaking plug and put this miserable downward spiralling campaign out of its misery--and us out of ours. We have a ruthless band of thugs to beat in the fall and need to concentrate 100% of our energies on that. The writing is on the wall and only the Clinton Cultists can't or won't see it. And, frankly, considering how despicably so many (but not all) of them have acted during this campaign, their opinion means zero to me right now. Let them go on strike if they like. Heh.

Pull the plug: ENDORSE OBAMA.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


Clinton Cultists (0.00 / 1)
Dear Kovie,

You write:  "Clinton Cultists can't or won't see it. And, frankly, considering how despicably so many (but not all) of them have acted during this campaign, their opinion means zero to me right now. Let them go on strike if they like. Heh."

"Let them go on strike..."  You mean 48% of the Party.  NOW WHO"S THROWING OUT THE GOOD OF THE PARTY FOR THE SAKE OF A SINGLE CANDIDATE...with a trivial lead, secured largely throught the stupidity of the DNC re:  MI and FL.

 


[ Parent ]
You perfectly illustrate what I'm talking about (0.00 / 0)
I never said that the majority of Clinton supporters were cultists, just willfully deceptive people you, who are either too dumb to see it, or are deliberately lying and misrepresenting the facts to make their case for stealing the election.

Stupid or not, we have caucuses, we have rules, we have a process. And to whine about how they haven't worked so well for THEIR candidate after the fact is unimaginably disengenuous and pathetic on the part of Clinton Cultists such as yourself, who simply cannot handle the imminent defeat of their candidate and need to make stuff up or spout utter nonsense to justify her continued attempts to score what could only be a phyrric victory at this point.

He leads in popular votes.

He leads in delegates.

He leads in states won.

He leads in crossover GOP and indie voters.

He leads in crossover Clinton voters vs. crossover Obama voters.

She leads among white working class voters, at least 20% of whom appear to be racists (or so the polls showed in Ohio). I.e. Reagan Democrats. Lovely.

The only way she wins the nomination at this point is by making the case to superdelegates that a black man with relatively little national political experience cannot be elected president this year. Which, if she succeeds, will guarantee her a general election loss since a large percentage of the party will not vote for her because of this appeal to racism. Jeez.

And I love how you call Obama voters stupid, and the way that you respect the democratic process. The RULES-BASED democratic process that isn't gamed to favor one candidate.

Ugh. Just go away.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton


[ Parent ]
It's time (0.00 / 0)
Last time I voted to hold off, in part because the organizing that was going on in the ground in primary states seemed to be a long-term benefit to the party and our eventual candidate. Now, Clinton is attracting GOP voters, and worse, the campaign is degenerating into sniping that reduces the favorables on both sides. Registration is closed in PA, so we've already gotten the main benefit from having organizing there. So it's time.

Clinton doesn't have to formally withdraw. She can hold onto her delegates, and if something truly awful happens to Obama, she'll be ready to step up. But she needs to stop trying to make awful things happen (as does the Obama campaign, but they've been less intent on this).


time has come (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't a member until a couple of minutes ago, although I read this site regularly. Last time I hoped you wouldn't endorse. Now, I think it's time.

Interesting that so many people changed their mind (0.00 / 0)
about the need to go for Obama in those two weeks.
Is that feeling among progressive activists an indicator of how SDs might feel ? I am pretty sure it is. Let's watch out for that. How about Obama pulls equal with her among SDs by PA ? That'd be nice

SDs or VOTERS? (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps the drive to endorse Obama now is a reflection of FEAR that HRC will sweep the coming contests, lead in the popular vote and thereby LEGITIMATELY win the nomination???

[ Parent ]
money (4.00 / 1)
Chris-  as a contributor both to Obama and ACT Blue I think the money argument is critical.

I am happy to give to our congressional candidates, as I have in the past, but right now I am so angry that some democrats are still attacking Obama, and giving the Clinton campaign oxygen and media attention that I won't give a dime to anyone but Obama until this is locked down.

And it is having an effect.  I don't know what my total will be by the end of this cycle -- but my anger right now is so great that I may just spend it all on Obama to help him lock down the nomination in the face of inaction by the party leadership.

I am appalled by Bill Clinton's questioning of Obama's patriotism, relevance, experience etc.  I think Hillary's advisors are walking disasters -- my fondest wish is that Mark Penn goes over to John McCain.  Penn of course would just see McCain as another paying client.

In this environment -- that is being allowed to continue so long as superdelegates and even this blog are not getting behind Obama -- it is foolish to think it won't have an effect.

This year my priorities are:

1) lock down the nomination for Obama.

2) Build a coalition to crush the Republicans on the national ticket.

3) Bring about a huge gain in democratic congressional and senate seats.

Without action, by the time we get to item 3, my money will be all spent.


GOAL 2: CRUSH the GOP in the FALL (0.00 / 0)
Dear Tsackton,

We couldn't agree more.

We also couldn't DISGREE more that beating on HRC and preventing all Dems from voting leads us to that goal.  Let's assume Obama has the lead in delegates and votes, he'll win.  So, what is gained by telling the 48% of the Party that passionately supports HRC to go screw...because that's what the message is.

If we want to win in November, we must unite...and insulting every HRC supporter (again, nearly half the Party) is a recipte for one thing:  Pres. McCain.

Please think hard about this.


[ Parent ]
Funny you should mention voter suppression (0.00 / 0)
Mike Connery has posted numerous front page posts here documenting Hillary's attempts at voter suppression in Iowa. By the way, no one is telling Hillary supporters to go screw, no matter what you might think.  I submit to you that it is in fact Hillary's campaign, particularly Mark Penn, suggesting just that to Obama supporters, writing off every Obama victory as completely insignificant, states that "don't matter, and hailing every Hillary victory as a portent of glorious success.

[ Parent ]
RESPECT (0.00 / 0)
No disagreements about campaign operatives--and I don't think Obama's have purity either.

Regardless, can we (loyal Dems, some Obama supporters and others Clinton supporters) begin to talk more productively to each other...to begin healting??  For without each other, the DEM party loses.


[ Parent ]
Of course we can (0.00 / 0)
but you coming in and lecturing "Obama supporters" on how we're at fault, how we're divisive, how we're the ones mucking things up, makes such sentiments seem deeply disingenuous, especially considering that there is no way HRC can win the nomination without having the superdelegates thwart the popular vote and majority of pledged delegates.  That does little for the cause of "healing."  And if you think Obama's advisors are comparable to Clinton's advisors, you are very much mistaken, and voter suppression is a huge line that Obama has never, ever crossed, and Clinton has crossed that line, with no regrets.  That's a massive difference.

[ Parent ]
Endorse now (0.00 / 0)
I voted "no" last time, even though I had voted for Obama in the California primary. Back then, the massive involvement of all sorts of people in the campaign was heartening.

Now, by any fair measure, Clinton has lost. She can't win without cutting the baby (the hope of a Democratic President) in half and killing it.

By endorsing, we might as well amplify the chorus stating the obvious.

Can it happen here?


We are ultimately advocates seeking to promote effective progressive change (0.00 / 0)
This isn't a courtroom requiring perfect objectivity. We are sentencing no-one to any real punishment.

Blue Majority exists to promote progressive change. Though I consider their domestic policies to be different in minor ways, I think Obama has well demonstrated he is looking at foreign policy without the Cold War baggage, capable of seeing that terror groups cannot be dealt with like nations are dealt with, and seeking ways to engage more nations to achieve their and our interests, one of them being the withholding of support for terrorist groups and another in the establishment of ways to meet basic human needs necessary to precede broader cooperation.

In simpler terms, his foreign policy goals represent an evolutionary and progressive change.

Clinton supporters already attack any blogger that's not firmly in her camp excusing her flaws and inventing fresh rules by which she can gain the nomination. Yet as an advocacy effort, Blue Majority exists to make choices at the moment when it seems a case is to be made for the advance of progressivism.

We are at that point, not because Hillary is the devil. We are there because Obama's campaign has been sufficiently effective that her chances of winning are nil. And he's more progressive by far, in a key area where presidential power is paramount.

So what do we gain by waiting any longer? Will Clinton's supporters like the outcome any better if we wait till mid-May? No.

So if Blue Majority can advance progressivism by moving now,  there's really no reason to hold back. Plenty of superdelegates have been weighing in for the past month. No one in the primaries ahead will be denied a vote if we act now. They have their ballot waiting. Ours is being registered now and it's making it clear that a broad majority is saying 'let's do it.'


Go For It (0.00 / 0)
I voted No the last time around because it sounded like the leadership of Blue Majority wasn't really considering endorsing Obama on his merits, but just wanted to get a presidential candidate on the list for tactical purposes. Now it sounds like there's a rationale for actually endorsing Obama, so if the straw poll is as lopsided as it looked when I posted, I see no reason not to go for it.

What are you waiting for??? (nm) (0.00 / 0)


On The Road To 2008: Commentary on issues as we countdown to the next opportunity to change the direction of America

Obama (0.00 / 0)
The last time, I voted for no endorsement even though I support Obama.  No longer.  Hillary has become destructive to the party and progressives.

Another Flip-Flop (0.00 / 0)
I voted No the first time even though I supported Obama because I felt it was too early for the netroots to pick a side in a contest that was still able to go either way in any fair estimation.  And there will still many votes to be held, and at that time the continued primary was good for building local activism and in the balance a good thing for the party in general.

But around the time of the TX/OH primary, things changed.  The clinton campaign went so heavily negative, it was inevitably going to drive up the bar for both candidates.  And McCain locked up the GOP nomination, which allowed him to set about mending fences with his own base without anyone really paying attention.  He cozied up to Parsley and Hagee, has made a trip to Iraq to cheerlead for Cheney's push to expand the war to Iraq, and is positioning himself as a tough opponent for the general while taking advantage of a free pass that comes from his own cozy relationship with the MSM and the focus on the horse race in the Democratic party.

Hillary's own campaign obviously no longer really thinks she's going to get the nomination, and is just trying to kneecap Obama so she has an open road to the nomination in 2012.  They spin fairy tales about ways the superdelegates might give her the nomination, but in fact she's well down the road of making it a prize not worth having and they are strictly for the consumption of the faithful, to keep the money flowing and the pretense of her viability.

There is no gain to anyone but McCain and a 2012 Hillary run in continuing the process.  It's time to end what has become a sad farce.


Correction (0.00 / 0)
McCain is cheerleading a Cheney effort to expand the Iraq war to Iran.

[ Parent ]
I think you should endorse, but... (0.00 / 0)
I think it should happen in a way that is conciliatory to Clinton supporters, rather than this way, which doesn't seem to be, to me.  I think there SHOULD be an option to endorse Clinton  on the poll, I don't think that the poll should have been prefaced with a post to make an argument for endorsing Obama, and I do think that there should be some effort to find out what, exactly, Clinton supporters who are not completely turned off would want in the way of language in a potential endorsement (and policy).

My worry is that a call for unity (in part) on the grounds of inevitability will lead to the people who aren't convinced of that inevitability feeling alienated.


The Obama Doctrine (0.00 / 0)

I heard an interview on Air America today with Spencer Ackerman of American Prospect re an article he has recently written about Obama's foreign policy, specificially his talk of needing to change the mindset that got us into the geopolitical situation we are currently seemingly stalemated in.

Makes for interesting reading. Excerpt: 

Obama is offering the most sweeping liberal foreign-policy critique we've heard from a serious presidential contender in decades. It cuts to the heart of traditional Democratic timidity. "It's time to reject the counsel that says the American people would rather have someone who is strong and wrong than someone who is weak and right," Obama said in a January speech. "It's time to say that we are the party that is going to be strong and right." (The Democrat who counseled that Americans wanted someone strong and wrong, not weak and right? That was Bill Clinton in 2002.) But to understand what Obama is proposing, it's important to ask: What, exactly, is the mind-set that led to the war? What will it mean to end it? And what will take its place? To answer these questions, I spoke at length with Obama's foreign-policy brain trust, the advisers who will craft and implement a new global strategy if he wins the nomination and the general election. They envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering "democracy promotion" agenda in favor of "dignity promotion," to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root. An inextricable part of that doctrine is a relentless and thorough destruction of al-Qaeda. Is this hawkish? Is this dovish? It's both and neither -- an overhaul not just of our foreign policy but of how we think about foreign policy. And it might just be the future of American global leadership.


Yes (4.00 / 1)
Last time I voted no because I was concerned about Hillary supporters.  This time I voted yes because I'm concerned about Hillary.

Voted no last time (0.00 / 0)
but since then the picture has altered considerably. I just can't see Clinton as a credible candidate at this point. On the other hand, Obama has transcended into a new phase of his campaign, and needs to start rebuilding his momentum against McCain quick.

I voted no last time too (0.00 / 0)
I think that the moment is ripe for an Open Left endorsement right now simply because Chris Bowers is a prominent figure here and is well-known in Pennsylvania politics. Thus the endorsement of OpenLeft, while it might not mean much in the broader scheme of things, would mean more now than at any other time in the entire cycle.

Now, I know this isn't just "Chris's Blog", that's not what I'm saying, but Chris is one of the major voices here, and he's rare among prominent bloggers in that he's actually a party officer in PA. Not only that, but he's been very even-handed toward all candidates for the entire race. It would surprise no one if Jerome Armstrong came out for Clinton and it surprised no one that Kos came out for Obama. But Chris, Matt, and almost all of the front-pagers here have kept it balanced. Combine that balance with Chris's stature in PA, and you may have a significant impact if you endorse while the PA race is still relevant (that is, soon).

Really, whether you endorse Obama or Clinton is up to you.


Addendum (0.00 / 0)
But Chris, Matt, and almost all of the front-pagers here have kept it balanced.

Okay, Mike did endorse Obama, and he gave an eloquent case. But my point is that this place isn't (yet) firmly in either camp, and the discourse has been far less nasty than at any other blog I can think of.


[ Parent ]
Matt hyas warmly embraced Obama too. (0.00 / 0)
And Mike and Chris, so whoo else is a frontpager? Paul ?

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Clinton is a DINO (0.00 / 0)
I voted for endorsing Obama last time and there's even more reason this time for all the reasons others have mentioned. Clinton is acting a lot like somebody who would welcome the chance to run as McCain's veep or even run as an independent if she thinks it would prevent an Obama win and give her a chance to win the nomination in '12. Enough already.

Clinton A DINO (0.00 / 0)
This kind of comment is truly destructive to the Party.

Look at her voting record.  She is a liberal-to-moderate Dem.  To compare her to GOP is an insult, not only to her but to the nearly 50% of the Party who support her.

Your condescension to a person who as the support of only 48% of Democratic voters is wholly unacceptable.


[ Parent ]
If she's the awesome Democrat you claim she is (0.00 / 0)
she ought to start acting like one instead of cozying up to John McCain and reinforcing every single right-wing meme on Obama.  She should feel free to criticize Obama, but the way she does it is fraught with Republican talking points and old (and disproven) conventional wisdom that has failed us for the past 30, 40 years.

[ Parent ]
Constructive Campaigning (0.00 / 0)
I agree that right-wing style attacks against fellow Democrates are wrong.

So is Obama supporting (by his presence) calling Bill CLinton a McCarthy.

Neither campaign is pure...far from it...they're both ego-manianical, ruthless politicians.  Thank God, because that's what we need to defeat the GOP.  BUT, please let's stop pretending that Obama is fundamentally different...just more polished.  If he were self-less in his dedication to the Party, he'd be out there DEMANDING RE-VOTES IN FL AND MI...POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!

So, supporters of both candidates need to encourage their teams to cool it...and beat McCain in the Fall.


[ Parent ]
Why should he do that? (0.00 / 0)
You break the rules, you don't get seated.  That was clear as day to all the candidates and all the voters.  

Your point about McCarthyism is way off base, and McPeak's criticism was on point.  Bill Clinton implicitly said that Barack Obama doesn't love his country.  Perhaps we can start up HUAC again to investigate.


[ Parent ]
Before Pennsylvania (0.00 / 0)
The more people, blogs, and supers that come out for Obama before PA, the better the chances of his actually winning there.  Depending on how Hillary's "misstatement" plays out, it could happen.  Long-shot, for sure, but to the extent that it tightens up the PA race (to say, less than 5%), it increases the chances of this thing ending sooner.

Naw (0.00 / 0)
The more work you guys down there in PA do campaigning and getting the voters to the polls on primary day, the better chance he has of cleaning up.  Two weeks ago I said on this board that he had to take PA if he was going to shut Hillary down.  Now it's even more evident that he has to do that.

And he's not going to do it anywhere near as well if people like me drop down from MA and work a couple weekends in Harrisburg or Wilkes-Barre than if you guys there in Philly get in your cars and go talk to the people in your own beautiful state.

Endorse, and then, for the sake of the country and all us folks out of state, get out there and do the convincing.  PA is important for this race, important enough that he's gotta win.  He'll be there for 6 days working with you as well.


[ Parent ]
Get it on, endorse (0.00 / 0)
Last time, Obama did make the 2/3 vote (but not enough?). Now he's even higher. It is overdue.

On twitter: @BobBrigham

THE VOTERS SHOULD COUNT (0.00 / 0)
With the race nearly tied, and neither Clinton nor Obama able to win based on pledged delegates alone, it is INCUMBENT to LET ALL DEMOCRATS VOTE.  

The presumption the Obama alone has earned the nomination is untrue.  He does not have enough delegates.  And, after the next 10 primaries, he may or may not have the popular vote.  

Not to mention that Obama has done everything in his power to prevent re-votes in FL and MI.  This is un-democratic and ensures our defeat in those 2 critical states.

Should ACT BLUE endorse Obama now, I will terminate any participation in ACT BLUE.  I will still give to key candidates, but if ACT BLUE is truly DEMOCRATIC, the VOTES of the PEOPLE must count.

No ending the game in the third quarter, just 'cause your guy is ahead.

Last, IF Obama finishes all the primaries (including fair resolution of FL and MI) with lead in popular vote and pledged delegates, I will enthusiastically support him.


recount (0.00 / 0)
I think the recount thing has dragged on long enough. Those respective states took steps in which they knew their punishment. The voters of those states should be angry at their leadership for moving up the date (as I would have been if I were still a Florida registered voter and without having the option to vote for Edwards). Quite frankly, the disenfranchisement happened as a result of moving up the contest.

we can all agree that the best thing would have been for those  states to have worked within the DNC's rules from the beginning. We can also mostly all agree that having a revote would have been a decent solution to the problem.

Since neither of those two things happened, we'll just have to learn to live beyond MI and FL.  


[ Parent ]
MI and FL state parties (0.00 / 0)
Alex,
It may well be true that the villain is the state parties.  The voters don't care.  

If we basically say "to hell with the VOTERS of MI and FL" because their party leaders were idiots, we lose both states, and guarantee a McCain win.


[ Parent ]
well... (0.00 / 0)
outside a poll that let's voters vent their wishes to be heard other polls that stick to the actual general election seem to say the opposite.

FL may go to Hillary if she somehow ends up the candidate. MI will probably go to either Dem candidate.

I would bet my life savings, that a vast majority of the 1/5 of primary voters who claim they will not vote in the GE are bluffing. Most of those voters will vote for the Democrat, many others will vote for McCain because they see him as the better candidate. Few will sit it out because of this experience.


[ Parent ]
Barack Obama Endorsement (0.00 / 0)
Barack Obama has run an effective campaign that has given many people a voice in the upcoming election.  Bringing in new voters, grass roots money, and showing the cynical, disaffected non voter that each person matters has been life changing.  He needs our support now that he's facing a grueling media onslaught.  Mrs. Clinton has been running her campaign like a staunch Republican.  She does not need our support, she has that of the Republican Right Wing Media.  Rush Limbaugh helped her win over 100,000 temporary republicans in Texas.  Open Left and Chris Bowers' posts have been fair, balanced, and timely.  Let's get more progressives elected and move forward against McCain.  

endorsing (0.00 / 0)
Yes, I agree, it's time for all the blue blogs to poll their readers and start endorsing the Democrat of their choice.  But what does it mean, that Open Left finally endorses?  Does Open Left have any money for radio advertising?  Does Open Left have a state-wide readership of a couple million people or more?  How many readers live between Pittsburgh and the Susquehanna River?  How many live around Wilkes Barre?  Or down by the WVA border?

It's fun and games to finally endorse, but such actions are just echo unless they reach out somehow.

Does Open Left have the money, talent, organization and energy to actually tell anyone outside the blog that it finally came out for Senator Obama?  If not, then so what, bully big deal, who cares.


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox