SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
2012 conventions
2012 election
2013 session
2013 special election
arts
arts and culture
author
ballot measures
basketball
bomb
books
boy scouts
budget
bullying
business
charlie hales
children
clackamas
climate change
coal
college
courts
crime
culture
culture club
democrats
drugs
economy
education
environment
family
film
fluoride
food
gay rights
guns
handguns
health
health care
health insurance
high school
history
housing
immigration
international
internet
kitzhaber
law
legislature
lgbt
literary arts
living
marijuana
marriage
media
medicine
mental health
military
minor parties
mohamed mohamud
movies
music
native americans
news
newspaper
obama
olympics
oregon
our town
parenting
pers
photography
police
politcs
politics
port
portland
portland business journal
president
prevention
public safety
religion
republicans
rnc
romney
rural
salem
sam adams
sandy hook
schools
science
shooting
sports
suicide
supreme court
taxes
technology
television
terrorism
theater
third parties
transportation
union
university of oregon
washington
wildfire
women
see all tags >>
Now what?
This evening's speeches by Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were a study in contrasts. There was the bold pronouncement of Obama:
"Tonight, after fifty-four hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end.... Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States."
And then there was Clinton:
"Now the question is where do we go from here, and given how far we've come, and where we need to go as a party, it's a question I don't take lightly. This has been a long campaign, and I will be making no decisions tonight."
So what's next? There are those who heard a tacit but insistent call for a veep spot in Clinton's speech. And some heard, in Obama's speech, insinuations of a Cabinet nod.
Will you take Clinton up on her call for supporters' advice on what to do now? "I want to hear from you," she said. "I hope you'll go to my website at hillaryclinton.com and share your thoughts with me and help in any way that you can." What would you tell her? Do you want her to fight the DNC's Michigan compromise all the way to Denver? Or concede as soon as possible and lobby for a vice presidential pick?
For his part, Obama ended one race by immediately beginning another: much of his victory speech was devoted to flinging a few arrows at John McCain. And of course McCain wasn't going to be left out: he kicked off the presidential show tonight with his own speech, in Louisiana, full of ever-sharpening attacks on Obama.
So here we are: one almost-over (?) race, and another that is just taking off.
What about you? After a steady six-month fix, are you about to enter Primary withdrawal? What are you paying attention to as we head into the general election? If you were backing Clinton, will you support Obama -- with or without her on the ticket? If you supported Ron Paul -- or Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney -- how engaged will you be in a McCain-Obama race?
For "real" change, or a "real" conservative, are you looking for a third party candidate?
Tagged as: 2008 election · mccain · obama
-
Here are the latest McCain/Obama polls -- courtesy of SurveyUSA -- with interesting matchups based on various VP picks. You'll notice that there is actually a lot of variance -- especially for Obama -- depending on his choice of running mate. You'll also notice that Clinton isn't even one of the choices.
-
My first guess for Obama's running mate is Governor Richardson. Obama is from the north, Richardson is from the south. Obama is urban and urbane, Richardson is rural and folksy. It's a good matchup.
As for Hillary, I expect her to bow out of the race tomorrow, Thursday. I would be stunned if she was even offered the VP spot with Obama. From the Democratic perspective, the perfect spot for her would be as HHS Secretary.
-
I have been worried about the big question: what to do with Hillary. BO can't [pretend she isn't a force, considering the support she has had. I do not want her as VP, but your idea of the head of HHS is excellent, but would this satisfy her? Most cabinet secretaries are rarely in the public view, except for State and Defense. She may be too ambitious for the HHS position. I'm afraid BO may feel obligated to offer her the VP spot in order to win over at least some of her fanatic supporters.
-
I am a registered Democrat who voted for Clinton in the primary. I would never vote for McCain, but Obama is far from having my vote. It would not be the first time that I have left the presidential portion of my ballot unmarked.
What would it take? Obama is an excellent orator and has the "vision thing" nailed. He needs to convince me that he has a clue about how to get things done in Washington. My best advice to him: give us an early indication of the advisors and key personnel that would be part of an Obama presidency. -
I don't understand this line of thinking. It seems that Clinton has done a great job of creating an alternative reality. Where is the evidence that she can get things done? Other than repeating over and over again that Obama can't, she hasn't demonstrated that she can. Give me some evidence. I'm a moderate Republican, but even I can see that Obama has shown great statesmanship and restraint in not reacting to all of the nonsense thrown his way.
-
Mr. Obama is not an "excellent orator." He is an "average orator" in a nation of "below-average orators."
-
Hillary said that she wants to hear from people about what she should do so last night I went to her website and sent her an email that she should concede. It was a long tight race but it's over and Obama has the votes for the nomination so Hillary needs to give it up or she begins looking delusional.
While Hillary is open to the VP spot, she has way too much baggage and could end up being a distraction if she were selected. -
What she really wants is your money. My guess is she's saying in the race to start to pay down her campaign debt. She's loaned here campaign how many millions now?
-
It will be quite interesting to see whether Mr. Obama sells-out on his alleged ?change? and offers the vice-presidency to Mrs. Clinton for the sake of a sure win. I suspect he will. I suspect supporters of both will twist logic and reason, yet again, to explain why this isn?t selling-out.
-
Clinton on the ticket might make her supporters feel validated, but in the long run (both campaigning and governing) she presents a greater liability than asset. It will appear as a co-presidency, with Obama handicapped by another overly activist vice president (ala Cheney). Only this time the VP would come with a loose-cannon spouse to add to the mix. She would offer the strongest asset in her current Senate seat, with greater authority.
Obama represents "NEW, and smart" in the words of my Republican brother (and Obama supporter) to many people-- selecting Clinton as VP would defeat that potential. A good summary of the Clinton years is at Huffington Post, see Nancy Cohen's "post-mortem of Clintonism." -
i HAVE BEEN A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT FOR 40 YEARS. I DO SUPPORT OBAMA, BUT IF HE SELECTS CLINTON FOR VICE-PRESIDENT I WILL BE VOTING FOR MCAIN. WHY DO THE DEMOCRATS MAKE STATEMENTS(IE. STATES THAT VOTED EARLY) THEN BACK OFF WHEN IT COMES TO PUTTING THE CONSEQUENCES INTO ACTION. IS IT ONES WHO CRY LOUDEST GETS THE ACTION?
-
This is just as silly as the Hillary supporters who say that they won't vote for Obama. You'd rather have another four years of the Bush administration?
That said, I don't think you have to worry, there's no way that Obama would put up with both the Clintons in his White House. -
I won't be voting for a Democrat even though I'm a Democrat. I will no longer support a party with standards so low that votes in two large states can be hijacked by the actions of party leaders. That an illegitimate nomination is somehow acceptable. This is totally unacceptable and an abomination. The rationalizations of this have been egregious. Principles no longer matter to Democrats, they will do whatever to win and at any cost. These actions are the equivalent of the cretinous behaviour exhibited by Mr. Bush, sacrificing our freedoms for an alleged and subjective greater good. This is indeed a nation of the lesser of two evils!
-
Scott, I'd be curious to understand what it is you are so angry about. Are you saying that the popular vote CLEARLY shows Clinton as being the winner? Help me understand your perspective.
-
Gee, I'm angry because the Democrats are now almost the equivalent of Republicans. Florida and Michigan primaries were not redone, which was the equitable solution. People rationalize this as the punishment they deserve. What about the rights of voters? This overrides almost everything in a Democracy. If Democratic party leaders don't care about Democracy then I won't vote for them. It is an outrage! The fact that people don't care because they only want their candidate to win---shows the lack of any intellectual hope, for even allegedly liberal Americans. We are a mediocre nation of sell-outs. A nation that is willing to plea-bargain all principles.
No matter what candidate is/was nominated they will be so unjustly. What a legacy! The new Bush v. Gore! -
The fault is with Florida and Michigan. The state parties decided to flaunt the rules. You break the rules you suffer the consequences. Those states could have done a re-vote and chose not to. If Oregon had jumped the gun and moved our primary up I'd be saying exactly the same thing.
But this is really just crying about spilled milk now that Clinton has lost. Harold Ickes, Clinton's own strategist voted in August 2007 to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates. The only person who voted against the rules was an Obama supporter. -
This isn't about Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton. It is about having a legitimate nominee. Something which you, and pretty much everyone else in America, cares nothing about.
-
First of all the popular vote isn't what this contest is about, it's about delegates. Second of all the only way she can claim the popular vote is by ignoring four cacucus states and counting Michigan's vote where Obama wasn't on the ballot. The super delegates were smart enough to see the holes in this argument.
-
Oh really! How ironic! I thought just weeks ago Mr. Obama's supporters were crying out about the popular vote and how that mattered and should not be overridden by super-delegates. What hypocrisy!
-
I'd love to see you provide some quotes from people in the Obama campaign. I doubt you'll be able to find one because they've always been about the delegates. Clinton on the other hand has been grasping at anything that can provide a rationale for continuing her campaign since February.
-
Did I use the word "campaign"? Is this the best you've got?
I clearly remember the media discussing the popular vote and not overriding the will of the people. During this discussion many Obama supporters took part! If you have something to challenge this, let me know.
Is this also what you said when Mr. Gore lost? How we twist things! -
the difference is that obama's campaign has always been focused on the rules of the game. as soon as it became obvious that she wasn't going to win clinton and her campaign started trying to move the goal posts and change the rules. first saying that only big states mattered, then focusing on the "popular vote" though it's only popular after excluding four caucus states and including the flawed vote in michigan.
that's exactly why i'm focusing on what the campaigns are saying. anyone can claim to be a supporter and spout off nonsense. -
There is only one thing to consider-- Supreme Court. And it's not just about abortion rights. If you want a complete set of Scalia-Roberts-Alito-Thomas, then withhold your vote from the only check on this progression.
-
Thanks for pin-pointing the "one" thing we should consider. I would rather consider the principles of democracy and equality---then forgo them to win at any cost. This mentality is exactly the same-kind that Bush supporters use and used. Maybe, you'll advocate prayer next---or wiretapping.
-
Hillary Clinton ran a strong but oftentime a strident and divisive campaign. I believe that she is not the only woman in America qualified to run as a VP candidate. I am actually hoping that Obama will choose another woman as a running mate: Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas!
-
If you believe the blogs she's put the word out that he better not ask another woman to be VP: http://www.americablog.com/2008/06/clinton-campaign-hillarys-not-gonna.html
-
There is a very good chance Obama won't get elected. Clinton should go back to being a senator and push for things like universal health care and other things she said she'd do as president. This would demonstrate her sincerity and set her up for 2012.
-
My support for Senator Clinton was based on an analysis of both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. I found that Senator Clinton by far had what we need going in to the fall to both beat Senator McCain, and turn our country around following a disastrous Bush Jr. presidency. We need a president who can take action immediately, get results, has worldwide respect, and can reach across the isle.
For the first time in my life I find that I cannot support the democratic nominee. Why? He is the weaker of the two final candidates, and frankly despite strong effort I find little substance in his rhetoric.
Unfortunately my lack of support for Senator Obama will be chalked up as either racism or anger for Senator Clinton's loss. It is neither.
It is recognition that Senator Obama is the weakest candidate for the office of the presidency post Bush.
I would like to add the following in response to a comment made by one of the guests in referring to Senator Clinton's candidacy as The Clintons.
I believe that this was a large issue during the primary season which was a subtle way of reminding voters that there was a connection to Bill Clinton, or to imply that a vote for Senator Clinton was a vote for Bill Clinton.
The candidacy was that of Senator Clinton, and Senator Clinton alone. Not of The Clintons, or of Mrs. Clinton, but of Senator Clinton. Implying that The Clintons were running for the nomination discredits Senator Clinton and what she brought to the table. And unfortunately for those who support Senator Clinton this type of subliminal suggestion swayed undecided voters, independent voters, or progressive republican voters from voting for Senator Clinton. -
I understand this point of view; my democratic family is split evenly between Obama and Clinton, with a couple Edwards voters eventually going for Obama. However I would urge you and other Clinton supporters to reconsider-- on one issue only, the Supreme Court. The next president will appoint 3 or 4 judges to the court, and this will have impacts not only on abortion but so many other issues. Labor rights, affirmative action, corporate power, and on and on. Please think about the Supreme Court when you decide whether to vote on the presidency and for whom. Thanks
-
Barack Obama should give Hillary and Bill a pass. Their campaign against him lost my vote early on (I really like aspects of her campaign, but not her sleaze tactics.) They would be horrible to have looking over the shoulder of someone they've called unprepared.
Hillary is really needed as Senate Majority Leader. Harry Reid is a good legislator but has been an ineffectual leader, missing many important opportunities to challenge an unpopular president and collaborative legislature. The Democratic party should maneuver to offer her this position, she has earned it. -
Ok I am just so surprised by intelligent adult who say they will vote for Nadar, that is just throwing the vote away. I believe if we want change no matter which candidate we loved we continue to support our party...that will bring change it is now time to move on to a better USA and to finally get rid of this destructive administration we currently have. It is about moving forward for a country not an individual and I do believe we will see great change this is a historical time for the US let not spoil it with a bunch of sour grapes..Shannon Thompson Portland ORegon
-
How can you actually throw your vote away? Voting for principles you believe in, even if no one is watching and it makes no difference---is quite commendable, admirable and modern. This is change! This is new! This is smart!
-
Sorry for having to point this out, but what about the beginning of the day?
I've heard the phrase, " at the end of the day" about half a dozen times, how about something else? It's annoying.
Thanks -
We'll put a sign on the wall warning guests. Oops! One more time. At the end of the day, I guess it's just a handy phrase.
-
My vote was split early on between Hillary, Obama and Edwards, but I became increasingly disenchanted with Clinton as the race progressed. It seemed there was almost nothing she and her aides would not resort to. How many times did she change her "message"?
The fact that she did not stand up and denounce votes she received from people who told pollsters that they simply could not "vote for a black man" says a lot about the character of her campaign, and ultimately the kind of administration she would have represented. For this reason I cannot support her selection as a running mate. That is not a Democratic party I can be part of . . . and while Obama must now overcome the very real percentage of the population that is racist in order to win the general election, I believe he can succeed. -
I totally agree. She has been disingenuous throughout the campaign. I've never seen Obama say or do anything the least bit unseemly or unstatesmanlike toward her. He has suffered an endless barage of negative media coverage based on Rev. Wright's comments, yet she accuses the media of treating her badly. Geraldine Ferraro makes ridiculous accusations that he's doing well because he's black, and she walks away unscathed. Yet Wright still sticks to Obama. I tell you, as a Republican observer, I'm very shocked by the behavior of Clinton and her supporters. He followed the rules, followed the process, and he won. Even though I don't agree with many of his positions, since I am considerably more conservative on economic issues, I will vote for him because I like his character and statesmanship. I think he presents the best of America to the rest of the world.
-
I think the division, anger and resentment in the Clinton campaign and among its supporters is the greatest threat to the Democrats. Time is of the essence here because the longer Hillary waits to concede and campaign for Obama the harder it will be to address the disappointment and resentment to quell before the elections. Hillary must also placate the call to take the fight to Denver, lest the divisions on the street fracture the party in Denver.
Here's a brief open letter to Sen. Clinton I posted on her website this mornign.
Sen. Clinton,
Please stop running now. You tried to change the rules in the middle of the game and that didn't work. You tried negative ads and other Republican tactics and that didn't work. You fudge the popular vote to claim you had the most votes, and that didn't work. You have lost this primary. It's over. And the lack of graciousness with which you left all Democrats hanging last night made it all the more obvious that you are in it for yourself, not for the country. Please, give this up and get on the campaign trail for Obama. We need to win this. A McCain win will really break our hearts -- if your supporters think their hearts hurt now, imagine the pain we will all feel if McCain wins. -
Listening today, I was struck by the online comments criticizing Hillary for not acting "like past candidates" (all white males) in her response to losing the nomination. While everyone talks about welcoming diversity of women and blacks into the upper reaches of the party, it seems that pundits at least have forgotten what has been emphasized over and over in diversity training in schools and workplaces: diversity means differing ways of expressing oneself, not just different points of view! Are we serious about expanding the process to really include those who 1)weren't raised to follow unspoken white male interaction rules and 2)don't ascribe to those rules (the stiff upper lip, the bow out with what white males call dignified action)? Or is the underlying message: you can join us at the top, but ONLY IF you act like a white male?? From what I see so far, it is the latter.
Cathy M. -
Uh, it's because for the last year shes been talking about how bad the Bush administration is, and how she wants a Democrat elected in the fall. If she really wanted that to happen, now that everyone one has voted and it's clear who the winner is, she'd step aside and allow the campaign against John McSame to begin. It has nothing to do with being a woman, it's all about doing what's best for the party.
-
If that was the case, you could argue Mr. Obama should have gotten out of the race for the "good of the party." Or perhaps, there should be no race at all, so we can do what is best for the party. Do you have the authority to draw the line of "good for the person" versus "good for the party?" Oh, you probably rationalize it like this: Mr. Obama IS good for the party so his brutal campaign was acceptable---for the sake of the "greater good." The "lesser of two evils" yet again!
-
you play by the rules of the game. if you don't like the rules the time to change them is before you start playing, not halfway through the game. as i've said to you over and over once it became clear she wasn't going to win her entire argument has been about moving the goal posts and making the vote about anything but the delegates.
i defended her right to stay in the race until everyone had voted. now everyone has voted and obama has the delegates. the only thing she's doing staying in the race now is distracting from the battle agains mccain. -
The rules were changed just last week at the committee meeting by allowing Florida and Michigan to count halfway. So clearly someone felt the situation was inequitable. I don't care about the "rules." I care about the higher principle of a what a democracy is and that everyone has a say and a vote. Whatever way you wish to twist this with unrelated arguments, information and rationalizations---you can't hide the fact this happened.
-
So, is this what we'll tell the rest of the nation, a nation that doesn't quite think in such tolerant terms and is less willing to submit itself to new experiences -- diversity being a new experience for much of the country (see Kentucky, West Virginia.) (I know you're probably saying: "those are the states Hillary won." Yeah, sure. Among Democrats. What about the really conservative segments of the population there?) Are we going to tell foreign leaders that we have a new way to conduct diplomacy because we're no longer following the "unspoken white male interaction rules." Please, let's be realistic here. This is big time politics, not your local Portland city race. What you suggest makes absolutely no sense.
On the other hand, I am amazed that suddenly we should give Hillary a pass because she's expressing herself outside the "rules" you mention. She spent the last 5 months attacking Obama like any other regular white male politician. -
What was the low point of the campaign so far? When Clinton said that she said things she knew weren't true. I appreciate when people screwed up and humbly admit it, but the message I got from her was that it didn't even touch her conscience.
[BEGIN CYNICISM] I think this kind of "flexibility of character" kinda make it clearer how she tolerates Bill. [END CYNICISM] -
If the photo finish had resulted in a Clinton victory, the hue and cry for including Obama on the ticket would be deafening. The long and invigorating primary season proves that the Democrats have two strong, compelling candidates that, together, tappeal to tens of millions of voters . Frankly, what is the downside of putting Hillary on the ticket? Is it really possible that Obama supporters would not vote for him if she is on the ticket? I think not. But many Clinton and potential McCain supporters will be more inclined to vote Democratic if they stand together against McCain.
-
The Clintons already have a huge amount of power and money, they will still have great influence without the presidency. I was a Ron Paul supporter, I will definitely vote for Obama.
McCain is so out of touch from the average person, he is a very rich man without the daily worry that most of us have.
To vote republican out of spite for Hillary is wrong; the world is watching who we vote for, McCain will be a sign to them that the US has truly lost its soul. -
If you wish to discuss "The Clintons" and reference power and money... it is FAR outweighed by the Bush Clan years before Bush Jr.'s presidency. Their family influence and power extends far beyond our borders and into the middle east.
-
As one of the Keating Five, I don't think McCain should be talking about "his own interests."
-
I would ask all of the Hillary supporters to consider what John McCain's judicial appointments might look like. If you have feminist leanings you certainly do not want more Bush/McCain ultra-conservative judicial appointments. The Supreme Court would be gone forever. John Mccain is NOT a harmless candidate. Please put aside your egos and consider the true consequences of your vote.
-
Absurd! Asking people to put aside their egos after-the-fact. The fact---of a brutal ego driven competition between candidates and supporters. Now lets play nice!
-
Perhaps this is nit-picky, but; since when did "woman" become an adjective? Would one as readily say "man candidate" as some seem to be doing with "woman candidate"? And we are not democrat voters. We are democratic voters. Good luck to both the democratic nominee and, of course, the republic, man candidate, John McCain.
-
I was bumped from one of the on-air calls this morning (and I enjoyed the comments of the callers who were in place of me!) but I think that one of my main points was left unsaid:
The VP pick is determining my vote!
I do not believe this is a 'first name on the ticket' race. Who is running in the VP slot will likely help me make my choice for me. I donated to the Kucinich and Clinton campaigns this primary season and in ranking of presidential candidates I have maintained:
1. Clinton
2. McCain
3. Obama
If Obama chooses Clinton as a running mate I will likely vote for him. If McCain chooses a young, moderate, centrist individual for his running mate - I will likely vote for McCain. If McCain chooses a reactionary, conservative running mate to appease that portion of the Republican party - I will be sorely tempted, for the first time ever, to refrain from casting my vote at all.
Obama on his own is not a 'win' for me and my interests. McCain, with the weight of reactionary right-wing politicos, is not a 'win' for me. I don't think I am alone in looking for someone who can speak to my interests and finding both of these candidates lacking. -
Good to hear your point of view since you didn't get on the air. You have some interesting arguments, but can I ask what would "speak to (your) interests" as far as issues are concerned. I was wondering for instance, what drew you to Kucinich, I have supported him previously in the last 2 elections, but I find no common ground between him and McCain. You might also look into the change of VP role that has recently evolved during the Bush/Cheney period-- it is far more involved and activist than in previous administrations, like their definition of executive power, and their is no evidence the VP will have this kind of power regardless of who is elected.
-
Well, McCain is the only one of the Republican candidates who could capture my vote. I admire the man personally as a veteran and what he has accomplished. I think he's taken his licks, publicly, for his mistakes and found a way to keep on going. I want to believe that he would continue to 'buck the trend' once in office and I believe that if a well-reasoned argument was presented to him he would be willing to re-evaluate his previous position on it, even if it was politically embarrassing to do so. I think he would seek out the opinions of the brightest and best to inform himself on issues and not just stick to 'approved mouthpieces' (mhmmm! I love the smell of a meritocracy in the morning!). These ARE things I could get behind and support him for. I have a sense that if I, personally, made enough noise and was willing to wait outside of enough offices, that I could be HEARD by McCain as a president. (And that if my remarks were well-researched, heartfelt, and clearly stated - that they might just inspire him to consider my point of view.) I wonder, a bit, if he isn't just too old, tired, or established to be able to continue to do these things - hence my remarks about a vital, centrist, running mate.
Kucinich is just awesome. I don't know that more words are needed. :) -
Having recently moved from the extremely Republican state of Idaho, I can tell you that many Republicans will do anything they can to keep a Clinton out of the White House. There is an extreme hatred toward the name Clinton, the same kind of (in my opinion) unjustified hatred that I now see from some Clinton supporters. I am surprised that to give their candidate the possibility of being the 2012 nominee they would let this country suffer through 4 more years of failed Bush policy. I initially liked Hillary. I thought she was an intelligent person and would probably make a good president. But watching her campaign I have lost much respect for her. She played dirty politics - praising McCain at the same time bashing Obama - her 3am commercial - her pushing for Florida and Michigan votes to count even though all the candidates agreed they would not. It seems she wanted to win at any cost, and still does. I would not be surprised now to see her run as an independent, regardless of what she has said to the contrary.
-
I think the country would be better served if Hilary were considered for roles as a US Supreme Court Justice, Director of the Dept. of Health and Human Services or maybe even Director of the Dept. of Education and Welfare. She's incredibly bright and has a lot to offer other than just second banana.
-
it seems to me that the key question is not Obama's running mate but McCain's
If he reaches to the religious right ( huckerbee say) then the game is over and he loses in a landslide.
If he can reach across the Aisle and land a liberal democrate ( lieberman say) then it will be a fight to the finish
Lieberman might be too old given Mccain's age . is there a young lieberman out there ?
d -
Condoleezza Rice trumps all.
-
she is hardly across the aisle . it has to be someone who brings natural demecratic party members with them - Colin Powell would be better
-
Cognitive dissonance, a human way of saying hypocrisy. I'm with Scott. The Clinton campaign has been derided for derisiveness, but doesn't anyone read the Huffington Post or listen to Air America? With the exception of Lionel, they've all drunk the Kool-aid with "b" and "w" words "liberally" sprinkled. How dare anyone in the Obama campaign talk about the Clinton campaign unless they've confronted their own supporters. I worked on the Clinton campaign and I would defend Obama if I thought the person on the phone had incorrect information (ie. that he was Muslim) As Bill Clinton says, "You ought to vote for whomever you want, but first you should know the facts."
Fact: Clinton was the presumptive candidate going into this race, Obama was the usurper, not vice versa.
Fact: If the Democrats ran their campaigns like the Republican (eg. winner take all,) Clinton would have won on Super Tuesday.
Fact: Its not about the superdelegates, or even the popular vote, it's about the electoral college, and the states that Clinton won handily are the ones that will count in November
Finally, I do not consider the Clinton campaign divisive because experience is a real issue and will still be one in the Fall. To me, and perhaps this is cognitive dissonance, the Obama campaign was the one that played the race card by reading race into every comment (ie. starting with the "fairy tale" fiction and ending with the Bobby Kennedy distortion--perhaps Clinton was saying that Bobby Kennedy would have been in the race past June if he had lived.) At the very least, Obama did nothing to dampen the nasty character assassination on the blogs until recently. Now the line is "be nice to Clinton supporters."
Some of us are angry because we take this character assassination, as women, personally. I haven't made up my mind whether I will vote in the presidential campaign. My significant other will not, because he doesn't not admire or respect Obama because of his campaign. As for the supreme court, he doesn't think that Roe v Wade would ever be in danger and if it were overturned, it would be a nail in the coffin of the Republican party.
If Obama looses in the Fall, he has only his self to blame.
(As to the people who have said that Hillary changed message, give me an example. She might have emphasized different things to appeal to different areas since her campaign was based on policies and not warmed-over Bush rhetoric like "Change" and "Bipartisan.)
(As to the people who have asked what has Hillary done; she has sponsored more bipartisan legislation than anyone else in Congress. Ask New Yorkers, who overwhelmingly reelected her, what she did. I don't want to bore you with a list.) -
uh, you're comparing the clinton campaign to obama supporters. the clinton campaign has be derisive as have some of both candidates' supporters, but you'd have a hard time making the argument that obama's campaign has been any where near as divisive as clinton's. the reason she'll never be the vp pick is all the times she's said that mccain would be a better president than obama... hardly the kind of person you'd want as your second in command.
as for the second half of your comment i can sum it up... changing the rules. the primary is all about delegates, it's not a perfect system but you don't change the rules half way through the game. -
There is nothing wrong with changing the rules if they are realized to be inequitable, during, before or after the game. Yes---Clinton supporters motivation is largely that they want their candidate to win, but it doesn't make the logic incorrect. Do you actually propose to us that Mr. Obama and his contingent would not be asking for the same?
-
I'm amazed that no one has yet mentioned Obama's biggest liability, his church.
Obama is a smart, perceptive guy. There is [i]no way[/i] that he didn't know what was going on at that church. [i]No way[/i] that he was unaware of the hate-filled ranting of Jeremiah Wright.
And yet he stayed at that church for 20 years.
What does that say about Obama? Does he agree with the tone and message of that church? If he didn't agree with the tone and message [i]why did he stay?[/i]
Obama's popularity among significant segments of white voters has crashed since Jeremiah Wright's ranting lunacy became public knowledge. Pfleger's equally crazy rant recently didn't help. I don't think that Obama's quitting the church last week will help him, because there's still that 20 year history.
Unless Obama comes clean with the voters about what he was doing at that church and why, I don't think he's going to win in November, nor will he [i]deserve[/i] to win. -
the reason no one's mentioned it is because it's now a non-issue. both hillary and the republicans milked that for all it was worth... and yawn... it's run it's course. just like everyone has managed to get over hillary's [i]mis-recollections[/i] about snipers in bosnia.
ps, and if that's "Obama's biggest liability" then he's in real good shape. -
Your objectivity is excessively suspect. You will apparently say anything to support your candidate of choice. It's pathetic! Yes---it is good you at least recommend listening to the official message of the campaign rather then people like you.
-
Obama's church is a non-issue, is it? Then perhaps [i]you[/i] can explain the precipitous drop in the support for Obama of white working-class voters following Jeremiah Wright's triumphant premier on YouTube.
And you need to get that yawning taken care of. Excessive yawning can be a sign of a variety of serious medical conditions. -
I've noticed that a number of my liberal friends in Portland have not even [i]seen[/i] the goings-on at Obama's church. Here, for your enjoyment, are a few choice morsels:
Rev. Jeremiah Wright:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hwQWuQVE6sw
Some more Jeremiah Wright, expressing his conspiracy theory that white people created AIDS to kill black people:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y2QDpBRFVAA
Father Michael Pfleger guest "preaching" at Obama's church, mocking Hillary Clinton for being white:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_H11x6bMu4Y -
Look, this is one overriding reason why Obama cannot choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate: Bill Clinton. Bill has overshadowed her entire campaign. People have come out to meet him and not her. Bill has been the one to deliver her biggest talking points not herself. A White House with Hillary as VP would be overshadowed by Bill, and this would not be good for an Obama White House nor the American people.
-
Ok - I've had all I can take about Senator Clinton. To all the women, that she stood on the backs of pretending to be the first - as a woman, I am indignant. She has been treated gently by the media and the public. If she had been male - already she would have been lambasted for "dirty Republican politics", for manipulating and creating "creative math" concerning the vote (most women are very good at Real math - thank you" and talk would have been about how she has tried desperately to use her gender to get her way.
Can a woman be President? Of course, Geraldine Ferraro showed us the proof in that. Can a woman be capable, strong-willed yet willing to back down when it's necessary? Yes, Nancy Pulosi showed us that. I could go on......
Senator Clinton lost me the minute she started personal attacks on Senator Obama - and she went down hill from there. Obama has class, and we need that in our country right now. We need someone separate from "politics as usual" and has a true vision of getting this country its glory back. I'm on the fence about a Vice President, but if she's the choice, then I'm going Independant as a protest vote. -
I voted for Senator Clinton. I am in her core demographic: a white 55 year old woman. I plan to vote for Senator Obama in November and I can hardly wait to get my Obama bumper sticker. My vote for Clinton was not an easy decision. I supported Obama since prior to the Iowa caucus. But when it came time to complete my ballot I felt I had to vote for Clinton. When am I likely to have another chance to vote for a woman at this level? I like and respect Sen Clinton enormously even though I really like the promise of change that is Sen. Obama's message. I will have no trouble supporting Senator Obama.
-
Scottmil, love your answers. A breath of fresh air. Logic. You go, whomever. I think Hillary as VP is a nonissue. I don't think either of them would consider it. One of the reasons Hillary may have stayed in the race is to pick up the pieces of the Democratic party when Obama crashes and burns in the general election. Obama was groomed for the role of usurper from the more centrist wing of the Democratic party represented by the Clintons. The fact that Obamas policies are no better (and often not as good) as Clinton's is ironic and telling. The fact that he lost his first election with the label of "elitist" (his opponent was an ex Black Panther) and his other win was the result of his legal team eliminating signatures from his opponent's petitions (a foreshadowing of the rules committee legal rangling) foreshadows his weaknesses and his ruthlessness. His record in the Illinois legislature is due to the speaker funneling bills to him for sponsorship so he can look good. This is all a bit scary to me. The extent the left wing of the party is going to in order to push this guy could backfire in their faces. And his followers are beyond belief! The Rev. Wright is not going to be a problem. His inexperience is not going to be a problem. It reminds me of my time in the Left iin the 70's. We thought the revolution was coming! Spend some time with different people. Test reality. Resist the Kool-aid.
-
[i]The extent the left wing of the party is going to in order to push this guy could backfire in their faces. And his followers are beyond belief! The Rev. Wright is not going to be a problem. His inexperience is not going to be a problem. It reminds me of my time in the Left in the 70's. We thought the revolution was coming! Spend some time with different people. Test reality. Resist the Kool-aid.[/i]
No kidding. I remember the 1960's and 1970's. It was [i]exciting[/i]! The Revolution was coming. Luckily for us hippies, we never managed to pull it off. They pulled it off in China. It was called the [i]Cultural Revolution[/i]. I'm glad for my own karma and the country's karma that we didn't manage to pull a disaster like that off here. -
One more thing: what is the story with this obama means change thing? What is that supposed to mean? What kind of change? Change what? How? Are we talking light bulb here? Does it want to change? Obviously Obama has read Lykoff's book, but change is not a value. It's meaningless rhetoric and as old as politics itself.
-
[i]One more thing: what is the story with this obama means change thing? What is that supposed to mean? What kind of change? Change what? How?[/i]
Again, remembering the '60s:
It was [i]exciting[/i] being part of the "new consciousness." It was fun. The other people were so [i]clueless[/i].
But it turned out that we didn't have what it took to change the entire society. We didn't have a [i]plan[/i], just a [i]feeling[/i].
Same thing with Obama and his followers. It's all a wave of emotion.
Obama's going to have to answer some questions this fall, like what exactly he wants to do. So far it's all airy rhetoric and the excitement of him being the first black nominee. -
Maybe it's just me, but is anyone else concerned about foreign policy that ISN'T centered around Iraq? Granted, Iraq is the issue of the campaign and a rally point for millions, but what about other nations? Quite frankly, I think Obama will have greater capacity to improve our foreign relations, and especially bring more aid (and dare I say CHANGE?) to the struggling nations of Africa. Clinton had the charisma of an ice-box in my perspective, and, sad as it is, charisma is something that has to be acknowledged as a trait of importance when it comes to politics, domestic and foreign.
I'm young. I don't proclaim to know a lot, or have a firm grasp of politics. But like it or not, my generation is going to be running to country someday, and growing up in the shadow of sex scandals, war, and corrupt leaders, we need hope. Clinton doesn't offer the kind of hope we want. There would be change, there would be progression, but we need belief in our system again. We need someone with dreamer-qualities, but with the ability to get things done. -
[i]I'm young. I don't proclaim to know a lot, or have a firm grasp of politics. But like it or not, my generation is going to be running to country someday, and growing up in the shadow of sex scandals, war, and corrupt leaders, we need hope.[/i]
Speaking as an older person who used to be younger, I would advise you that if all you have is "hope," you're more likely to change things in a [i]destructive[/i] way than in a [i]constructive[/i] way. Positive change requires, in addition to hope, [i]competence.[/i].
Be careful what you wish for. Social movements have gone wrong over and over again throughout history, even if they had positive motivations going in. Communism, for example. It didn't work out so well, to put it mildly.
When I was young, I was not into listening very carefully to those who were older than me. My generation thought it "knew better." We wasted a lot of opportunities because of that.
Your generation is going to be running the country someday. Try not to create a mess. Try to think about how [i]deadly serious[/i] all of this is. Try not to get swept up in the emotional waves that roll through society every now and then.
Watch out for meaningless but exciting rhetoric like "We are the change we've been waiting for." -
Comments are now closed.
