Pajamas Media

225 Comments

1. Hyperpotamus:

“For the first time in decades Reagan Democrats were even voting their own best interests.”

Nice. Way to slag millions of people who disagree with you – they couldn’t be Reagan Democrats because they looked at the evidence and came to a different conclusion than you about what is in their best interest. No, they have to be stupid, blind, unaware of where their interest lies. Let me guess – you think of people who don’t vote the way you do as insufficient in some way, right? Bitter, maybe. This is just off the top of my head, but do you see them perhaps as seeking solace in their religion? Clinging to their guns, wild-eyed with fear of the other. Fear of people who aren’t like them. Fear of people who don’t vote the way they do. Ooops!

But it’s different when you do it, isn’t it?

Remind me again – what’s the difference between Clinton and Obama, between her followers and his?

Jun 7, 2008 - 10:23 am 2. emachedé:

Hillary has been ready to terrorize to win and use republican’s arguments.
In the movie DoomsDay: http://cpolitic.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/primaires-democrates-quand-hillary-veut-tuer-les-chances-dobama/

Obama is the winner as Muhammad Ali but it was the first round. The war of the White House is long
http://cpolitic.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/100-photoshop-barack-obama-en-muhammad-ali-pour-son-1er-round-remporte/

Jun 7, 2008 - 10:24 am 3. Tantor:

Have you considered that it was not tactics which did Hillary in but history? She stunk of Bill. Even the Democrats are sick of the sleaze and scandals that follow in the Clinton wake. And they are really quite corrupt politicians.

Have you considered that everyone, EVERYONE, has just had enough of the Clintons?

Jun 7, 2008 - 10:28 am 4. Justin Hein:

Sen. Hillary Clinton ran the second worst presidential campaign in the history of the modern presidency (post-FDR). That is the reason she lost the primary. The only one worse was Vice President’s Al Gore’s race in 2000, and he at least got through the primary!

Jun 7, 2008 - 10:32 am 5. Mark Arnold:

Ms. Clinton did not lose this race on the issues; the policy differences between herself and Mr. Obama were immaterial. She lost because of hubris: she never took him seriously until it was too late. She thought that Super Tuesday would crown her candidacy and she had no serious organization in any of the later primaries. Mr. Obama did. She thought caucus states – the state that gave him his lead – were undemocratic and she essentially conceded those states to him. She never did any serious opposition research on him. The fulminatons of Reverend Wright were there to be found if she’d looked, and if those sermons had been publicized in mid-December, Mr. Obama would have been dead. He ran a brilliant campaign; she ran a stupid one.

Jun 7, 2008 - 10:38 am 6. Valerie:

The person who who “got more votes than anyone in Democratic Party primary history” ran the “second worst presidential campaign in the history of the modern presidency (post-FDR)”. I detect a bit of dissonance between the two parts of that sentence. It is a fact that she got a lot of votes, moreso than all the other candidates, ever.

Jun 7, 2008 - 10:46 am 7. Rob:

That’s what i heard from people in NY (her home state), they were sick of her. Some pointed out that it would be 4 more years of Clinton scandals, of thuggery, of corruption, of sex scandals. I think people had enough. Being tied to Bill Clinton probably didn’t do her any favors (although his presidency was good in certain aspects it was mired by sex scandals).

Jun 7, 2008 - 10:47 am 8. JB:

“For the first time in decades Reagan Democrats were even voting their own best interests.”

Barrels and barrels of ink spilled on how and why Reagan Democrats “vote against their best interests.”

Not a drop on how and why limousine liberals vote against their best interests.

Jun 7, 2008 - 10:53 am 9. Hillary Clinton Updates » Blog Archive » Hillary Supporters Ask: ‘How’d She Lose to This Guy?’:

[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]

Jun 7, 2008 - 10:53 am 10. John:

I detect a bit of dissonance between the two parts of that sentence.

She got more votes than anyone else before her because there are more voters today that in the past. Percentages of the total vote are what matter, not absolute numbers.

Jun 7, 2008 - 10:56 am 11. Brown Line:

How did she lose? Three reasons:

1. Baggage from the Clinton administration. She was saddled with the excesses and corruption of their two-for-the-price-of-one administration. Since they had an alternative that they could stomach, Democrats were free to look at the Clintons objectively and decide whether they wanted four more years of Bubba in the White House.

2. Media Bias. The media has fallen in love with someone new, somebody younger and prettier. It’s as simple as that. The resulting tsunami of stories tilted in Obama’s favor – and the media’s covering up of Obama’s short comings and bumblings – didn’t help Clinton in the slightest.

3. Personal Inadequacies. She’s simply not a very good candidate. She has a pretty thin resume; her few ventures into public policy (e.g., the health-care initiative) have been diastrous. In terms of public presentation, her persona is abrasive, at least on television, and her speaking voice is shrill and grating. The fact is, if she weren’t married to Bill Clinton, at best she’d be a litigator at a second rate law firm in a third-rate state capitol. Sorry, but that’s the truth.

As for all those votes, there are quite a few people out there – and I’m one of them – who voted for her not because we thought she’d be a good president, but because we think Obama would be worse. Which I still think. If she were running against a responsible figure in the Democratic party – say, Al Gore or Joe Lieberman – she’d still lose, but by an even bigger margin.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:05 am 12. John Blake:

Femmers and their ilk who make blanket charges of the “sexism” they so amply exemplify miss a fundamental point: We’d support Maggie Thatcher in a second, but MzBill– never.

How is it that over 18 months her puissant advisors missed the fact that the Madame’s negative polls (voters including Democrats who stated they would not vote for her under any circumstances) kept increasing to over 52%? For all her hubris, narcissistic self-importance, this creature was –and is– perceived as a weasely little fixer, a power-hungry twerp prepared to do or say anything whatever to gain her entitled ends. Exuding contempt, disdain for her constituents, she flaunts a wide-eyed, phony-baloney persona despicable to the nth degree.

This Wife of Bill (aka the WOB) is a Larry Flynt Democrat, comfortable with Hustler’s offer of a million-dollar reward for blackmail releases of her FBI files-under-the bed in 1998. Now that the craven and feckless Boomer Generation is winding down, the WOB in 2012 may come another cropper. She is actively abominated, not as a victimized female but as a devious, unprincipled harridan. No-one but a deluded far-left ideologue would touch her with a pole.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:05 am 13. A. N. Pierson:

Blablabla…. the main reason Hillary Clinton isn’t the nominee is the obvious one. She got cocky and didn’t bother to compete in most of the caucus states early on, virtually ceding them to Obama. By the time she woke up, it was too late. The rest of the above is simply verbiage.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:12 am 14. The Other Steve:

“She thought caucus states – the state that gave him his lead – were undemocratic and she essentially conceded those states to him.”

I don’t think she thought them undemocratic, she just said that out of bitterness because she lost.

Primaries have a lot of low-information voters, people who’ll vote on name recognition only, and that was what Hillary was relying upon. A caucus though are committed Democrats, people who really care and pay attention. She knew she wouldn’t win that group.

I hope that Taylor Marsh and many of the other “supporters” realize that a lot of what Hillary argued was purely for expedience sake. She didn’t actually mean caucus states should not count, or that they are undemocratic, or that voters in the midwest and west ought not count, but a flawed election in michigan should. She was just excusing away why she was losing.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:13 am 15. gordo:

I give Hillary credit for fighting hard to come back after making a number of strategic mistakes. But Ms. Marsh lays out a litany of sexist horrors (cleavage, nutracker, etc) to demonstrate that sexism was afoot in Clinton’s demise, and methinks that is unwise for Clinton supporters, even if its true. Politics is pure hard ball. Every junk pitch, including a spit ball, will be thrown. Don’t whine about it, hit them out of the park. Or take your full cuts anyway – hit or miss, without complaint. Americans will respect that.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:17 am 16. Denny, Alaska:

Had she divorced her serial-philandering husband at some point after 2000, Her Hillaryness would be the Dem’s nominee today.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:20 am 17. PJ:

“For the first time in decades Reagan Democrats were even voting their own best interests.”

Ms. Marsh, I’m a fan of both you and Hillary, but I’m from out there in Appalachia, and I can tell you that this sort of stuff isn’t winning any votes. The pitch boils down to: (1) Vote Democratic because our values are so much better! (1A) If you don’t like our values, don’t vote *your* values, vote your self-interest! You may think Reagan Democrats are dim, but most of them are not dim enough to miss that insult.

Everyone is a values voter, and thank goodness.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:20 am 18. Taylor Marsh:

PJ, so we are clear. I was a Reagan Democrat, so I know from where I speak.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:26 am 19. rosietheriveter:

Tantor…..EVERYONE? There are 18 million americans that would respectfully(or not) disagree!

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:34 am 20. Bill, CA:

It’s quite simple really…
She and her campaign folk bet everything on winning this by February and in the big states. They ignored the caucus states in which Obama racked up win after win. She then went negative (kitchen sink) in a desperate attempt to get back. But it was too late.
She definitely would have won if she (and her campaign which I mainly blame) had had not been so focused on winning early. Her campaign telling her to run as a virtual incumbent, establishment candidate was also wrong for a change election cycle.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:35 am 21. Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg:

“She is the leader of an 18-million-strong army…”

No offense, Ms. Marsh, but she ain’t the leader of ‘jack-****’. That roar you hear is the sound of 17.9 million of those 18 million Hillary voters marching to camp Obama. The other 100k were probably operation chaos soldiers.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:39 am 22. Bill, CA:

Just read some other comments, media bias? please…

CNN (esp Blitzer) is very pro-Clinton. Fox was pro-Clinton (for evil reasons though).

Obama was getting slammed every day on guilt-by-assocation nonsense.

Watch the Stephanopolous “debate” where it was Obama vs. HRC, George S and the other guy.

and sexism, please. the outright racism against Obama wipes that out (and then some()

In short, this election was hers to lose, Penn and co screwed it for her with a dumb strategy and her and Bills kitch sink didn’t help.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:40 am 23. McClatchy Watch:

There are many good reasons why Hillary lost. Here are just a few:

Bogus Sniper claims:

http://cancelthebee.blogspot.com/2008/03/photos-of-hillary-being-attacked-by.html

People exhausted after Bill Clinton’s never-ending soap opera of self-absorption:

http://cancelthebee.blogspot.com/2008/02/secret-service-now-protecting-public.html

and

http://cancelthebee.blogspot.com/2008/06/another-anger-management-moment-enraged.html

and

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Bill_Clinton_claims_he_witnessed_voter_suppression.html

I could go on and on. The point is, Hillary’s loss has very little to do with her gender.

Democrats wanted to move on from the Clintons.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:49 am 24. Anil A. Desai:

Hillary Clinton lost because of the enimies Clintons made while they were in the White House. Also, she is not as left wing as Obama. Democrats absolutely wanted to get rid of Clintons !!! I am sure, now, they are all very happy. I hope Obama does not pick her as VP !!! Otherwise in no time, if he gets elected, he will have 2 Presidents and he will be a Vice President !!!

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:49 am 25. Kathy:

Proportional vote counts and caucuses killed her campaign. She should have won. She would beat him by 10 to 15 points and gain 2 extra delegates. What the hell way is that to count votes?

Stripping Florida and Michigan of votes by Brazille killed her chances.

Her negatives were low when she started but Obama would go state to state on the stump and tell everyone “Hillary is dishonest.” “Hillary is a liar.” “Hillary is a racist.” As time when on her negatives went hire and hire.

Obama is a dirty pol but very effective. He lies and then smiles what he thinks is a sweet innocent smile. He compliments his opponent then stabs him in the back.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:51 am 26. JohnMc:

I have to agree with Mark Arnold. Hill at the starting block believed she had no serious competition and her staff took the early position that Obama would fade due to lack of money in the early going.

Her second mistake was to follow her husband’s game up to Super Tuesday — Ohio, PA, FL, CA as the primary wins. But the landscape changed in the interim. The western states carry more EV’s now. At the same time Obama’s war chest kept growing.

Finally her staff had no plan B when Obama had taken a reasonable lead after STues. Nor did she change her policies to position herself thereafter. So she stumbled from State to State sounding like Obama II.

I hate to say it but to a certain extent the exultations of Pflieger at the pulpit at TCC encapsulated exactly what went wrong with Hill.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:52 am 27. drew458:

If she had divorced Bill as soon as she was NY Senator, I would have respected her. But there is no way on earth I could support anyone who would bring that nightmare man back into the White House.

Sorry Hill. You never stood a chance with that fat albatross around your neck.

PS – the “sexist” angle is pure BS, compared to what comes Condi Rice’s way from scumbags like Hugo Chavez. Hillary should have been ready for any and all of it, and instead went whiney after one of the debates, “why are they always asking me the first question, cuz I’m a girl.” Wrong Answer.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:53 am 28. Martin:

Obama was chaperoned to the nomination by all the big guys, who fawned on TV and rigged the DNC fiasco.

DNC thuggery will be rewarded in November, when the Hillary Democrats go elsewhere.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:53 am 29. Kathy:

She should have skipped Iowa. If she could have gotten a handle on Obama earlier, she would have reacted differently. I don’t think they expected his tactics and the busing in of all those students from Illinois. After all he had the Nation of Islam in his corner.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:55 am 30. Richard J.:

This was a deliberate action by the elders of the Democratic party (Carter, Gore, Kennedy, Kerry, Peloski, Dean, et al) to purge the Clintons and their people from the Democratic party.
Simple as that.
They did not want 8+ more years of Clinton influence in the Democratic party. (If they stayed it would be almost a generation of the Democratic party controlled by the Clintons.)
Hillary and Bill had to go.
Obama showed up and he was the one the Democrat Elders chose.

And Obama barely won – it took the Superdelegates (made up of the Democrat elders) to select him.
Obama lost the last 2 out of 3 primaries by lopsided landslides for Hillary. He out spent Hillary by huge amount, but she go more popular vote.
This was a inside purge of the Clintons.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:56 am 31. John Gattuso:

Hillary supporters who argue that sexism did her in are doing her a disservice and undermining their own argument. If Clinton couldn’t deal with “sexism” in the Democratic Party (arguably a more tolerant, open-minded crowd) how could she beat it in a general election?

A lot of people don’t like Hillary not because she’s a woman but because she’s HER.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:57 am 32. test » Blog Archive » Hillary Supporters Ask: ‘How’d She Lose to This Guy?’:

[...] Supporters Ask: ‘How’d She Lose to This Guy?’ Catherine Morgan wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptDevoted Hillary Clinton supporters [...]

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:58 am 33. Peggy Bryan:

She underestimated how much Obama’s supporters were going to cheat at caucuses. And she won the popular vote.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:59 am 34. Hillary SUSPENDS, as predicted | The Anchoress:

[...] Her supporters ask, how did she lose to that guy?. [...]

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:00 pm 35. Nancy:

To Bill,CA

You wrote: “Fox was pro-Clinton (for evil reasons though).”

Fox is not pro-Hillary for “evil” reasons, it is pro-Hillary for “politics makes strange bedfellows” reasons.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:07 pm 36. Bill, CA:

Martha, YOU are lying!
You said: Her negatives were low when she started but Obama would go state to state on the stump and tell everyone “Hillary is dishonest.” “Hillary is a liar.” “Hillary is a racist.”

You QUOTED HIM…give me a citation for these remarks, or shut the hell up.

And for the record, she did LIE and was DISHONEST about Bosnia, and Obama WAS RACE baited by her and Bill (white, hard working voters, Jesse Jackson etc etc)

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:10 pm 37. Bill, CA:

OOPS Sorry…Martha = Kathy in my previous comment.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:10 pm 38. Bill, CA:

Peggy, no she didn’t win the popular vote. You aren’t counting the caucus states, how UNDEMOCRATIC of you. The caucus states also don’t have the number of popular votes, so its not apples and oranges. I know Hillary appeals to the uneducated, but you are really pushing credibility here.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:13 pm 39. Ian S:

While her campaign was really out-hustled by Obama’s, her fatal mistake was her vote for the AUMF in 2002. If she had opposed that resolution, there would have been no way for Obama to have been competitive this year. She really would have had the coronation she so expected.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:14 pm 40. Madelyn:

Thanks Taylor, for the article. I am pushing for organization that will vote against Obama and work very hard to bring this party down.

While I hear you grasping onto loyalty to the Democratic Party, I see it as a fraud yelling democracy. I appreciate Hillary’s comments also, but many of her supporters were more in command of what constitutes competency and real democratic values. While I wish her luck with her “family”, clearly it is not mine.

No Obama and Bring This Party Down

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:15 pm 41. Bill, CA:

Richard: “Obama lost the last 2 out of 3 primaries by lopsided landslides for Hillary.”

Those primary results were predicted months earlier. The latter half of the race became VERY predictable as a basically stable battle of demographics.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:15 pm 42. Political Mavens » Glass ceiling elections?:

[...] really. The opposite is true. Hillary supporters are left with the question how did she lose to this guy? After all, no one can argue that he is better (if at all) qualified to be commander in [...]

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:16 pm 43. Bill, CA:

oh and I should have added to my reasons, the big one. Voting FOR Iraq and not admitting it was wrong like Edwards did.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:16 pm 44. Bill, CA:

Hey Madelyn,

aaahh Operation Chaos or a traitor to Democratic principles? Either way, don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:19 pm 45. Hillary Suspends Campaign - Obama Gets Booed! (Video) : BigMouthFrog:

[...] Taylor Marsh wonders– “How’d She Lose to This [...]

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:19 pm 46. Taylor Marsh:

Madelyn – Thanks. I’ve got hundreds of emails from Hillary supporters who feel like you. But hundreds won’t be enough. Clinton’s huge voting block is real and most know that the important thing to do is beat the Republicans in November. That’s what we will band together to do. There will also be far more of us standing beside Hillary as she has asked than there are those standing against what she wants and is best for our country. Trust me.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:23 pm 47. Buckeye Tom:

The super delagates decided who would be the Deomcratic nomination based solely on which grieving faction of the party would most likely sit out the general election.

I think they got it right. If Hillary was the nominee, African Americans would stay home on election day.

But Obama is the nominee, and most liberal women will point to the “apparent sexism” of this primary up until fall, but in the end, will be good “party” members, and vote for Obama. The Democrats take the liberal female vote for granted, for a reason.

Clinton maybe be a Senator for life, but she will never “rise again” to the Democratic presidential nomination.

If Ombama wins in the fall, he will obviously seek a second term in 2012. That means Mrs. Clinton would not get another crack at it, until 2016, when she would be 68 years old. Forget about it.

If McCain wins this fall, in 2012 Democrats will be arguing the country is off course. They’ll be looking for a new fresh face full of “hope” and “change”.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:28 pm 48. Hillary Supporters Ask: ‘How’d She Lose to This Guy?’:

[...] Dan Kennedy wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptDevoted Hillary Clinton supporters can’t help looking back with regret today. Could things have turned out differently if the “fighting Hillary” of the last few months had shown up on day one instead of “inevitable Hillary”? [...]

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:29 pm 49. LanceThruster:

The process worked in this case. Hillary ran an incompetent campaign and it showed. As the one-time presumptive nominee, it was hers to lose and she came up short.

“I was against being for Clinton before I was for being against her.” ~ LanceThruster

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:32 pm 50. Bill, CA:

Taylor, if you think Madelyn’s cause is so just that you are thanking her for it, you suck as much as she does.

Hillary was campaigning to represent the Democratic party as it’s nominee, NOT the Hillary party. If you REALLY want to vote for the Repubs in protest you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

As I read in another forum…you poor, Hillary “victims” need to talk to the families of the US and Iraqi dead and wounded, I’m SURE they have NO IDEA how much YOU have suffered.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:33 pm 51. Art:

I remember when Hillary decided to run.I was excited. Then I heard that Barack Obama was going to run also. It reminded me of a scene from the “Will and Grace” TV show. Will was for the gay candidate and Grace was for the woman Jewish candidate. Neither knew anything about the candidate they were supporting.They based their vote on who was more suppressed by society.The episode ends with both Will and Grace dissapointed with their choice of candidates when they actually looked into their politics. then Jack comes in and says that he is voting for the black candidate.”There’s a Black Candidate? they ask. They both run out the door to vote for him. Sad to say that this TV episode from a few years back foretold the future.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:34 pm 52. Art:

I forgot to put my e-mail on my earlier post about the parallels of the ‘Will and Grace TV show”

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:37 pm 53. Hahahahaha:

You are a gigantic moron AND you lost!!!

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:37 pm 54. Hahahahaha:

Taylor you are a disgusting shill. Best of luck with your bitterness hence forth. HA

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:38 pm 55. Taylor Marsh:

Bill, CA – Madelyn paid me a compliment, sir, so I was thanking her for that. I know it’s tough, but try to pay attention.

I will *never* vote for John McCain, which I’ve said a million times in posts I’ve written. All the neocons whispering in his ear have no business being anywhere near the president.

Oh, and by the way, Clinton didn’t get the nomination, but we didn’t “lose” anything. I’ve never been prouder of Clinton. Her speech today was stunning, an historic moment. It validated and revealed why so many people supported her for the nomination, and still consider her and will follow her lead going forward.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:47 pm 56. CPT:

Hahahahaha!!! This is hilarious! I see claims of democrats being the “more tolerant, open-minded crowd” embedded right in the middle of a totally baseless slur of the other side. I see rants about sexism and racism and media bias and stupidity (i.e. “For the first time in decades Reagan Democrats were even voting their own best interests.”)

And this is how you TOLERANT, OPEN-MINDED people talk about your OWN PARTY when you don’t get your way. Complete laugh-riot! Seriously! One must wonder if ANY of you maroons ever look in the mirror before lashing out with claims of bias or bigotry…

Maybe one your more intellectually honest constituents will have the courage to undertake a self-examination and fully understand what “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” (Walt Kelly, 1971), actually means.

If your actions weren’t so astonishingly laughable after losing the game, I afraid I’d be ashamed to call most of you “neighbor”. Okay, six-year-olds, you can take your ball and go home now. Really.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:47 pm 57. formerdemocrat:

and her team decided you couldn’t win the general election being against a war.

This is so close to correct, it’s scary.

You can’t win the general eleciton begin against AMERICA. See … it’s America that is at war. If you’re against the war, you’re against America. The time for debating the war was BEFORE the war.

Now that we’re AT WAR, there’s no room for being against America.

Hillary and her team were correct. It doesn’t matter that she didn’t win the nomination, because that wasn’t the prize. The prize is the White House. And Obama can’t win that.

Because he’s against America. He’s against the war.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:47 pm 58. Nancy:

Hillary had a better chance at beating McCain than Obama does. The Democratic party has shot itself in the foot.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:49 pm 59. Vanessa:

Snoop-Diggity-DANG-Dawg – 17.9 million are going to embrace Obama just because he’s all we got? Puhleeze. Let me clarify: Barack Obama has not been able to close the deal.

For all his much-vaunted oratory and his much-admired “transcendental candidacy” The Great Unifier CANNOT unify the Democratic Party without Hillary Clinton’s help. In 18 months of campaigning, he has not been able to make his case convincingly to HALF OF THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED. Right up to the last primaries. If that doesn’t bother you, it should.

Somehow, you seem to believe that Clinton stepping back is going to magically transform Obama to those 18 million voters as the embodiment of everything they want in a leader.

It will not.

18 million voters saw Clinton as THEIR leader. The majority of them did so for reasons that had nothing to do with her gender. The facts are simple: Obama does not speak to, or for, them. Clinton did.

Your smug assumption that all of those who do not, and will not support Obama are, ipso facto, part of Operation Chaos is short-sighted and false.

Let me assure you, Taylor Marsh is right on target. The blatant – and rewarded – sexism that was directed to Clinton during this campaign was NEVER leveled at Obama with respect to racism. No commentator or journalist EVER commented on the degree of “blackness” of his skin, or whether he is a pretty good basketball player because of his black side. No one EVER discussed the width of his nose, or the color of his lips. No one tried to sell an Obama doll that grins and shines shoes.

Had any of that happened, the outrage would have been vigorous and immediate. As it should.

Yet it was perfectly OK (except to Clinton supporters) that Clinton be dissected on her hips, ankles, hairstyle, pantsuits, and potential for not aging beautifully. It was OK to sell a Hillary nutcracker. It was OK to refer to her a “bitch”, “nagging wife”, “shrewish”, “ball-busting” and more.

Believe me, thre were plenty of men who were disgusted by those attacks, as were women.

You underestimate the high degree of antipathy towards Obama that exists today in roughly a third of the Democratic Party. You denigrate Clinton’s supporters at your peril. You ignore, to your detriment, the very real sense roughly half of registered Democrats have, today, that the Democratic Party only cares about their votes insofar as they need those votes to usher Obama into the White House. You dismiss those who have felt invisible to one Party for 8 years, and who now feel invisible to their own Party – you dismiss those voters with the arrogance displayed by most of the posters here – and you WILL feel the consequences in November.

So go right ahead. Continue to undermine the work to unify the Party that HILLARY CLINTON began this morning.

But then don’t be surprised when the Democrats lose yet another opportunity for the White House. And don’t blame Hillary Clinton for YOUR loss.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:52 pm 60. StatMan89:

“The first viable female candidate for president, who got more votes than anyone in Democratic Party primary history”

Taylor, please. It doesn’t help the unification to keep harping on that bogus popular vote talking point. The rules, for better or worse, were the rules and everyone knew them going in. Clinton dismissed the caucus states and allowed Obama to pile up the decisive delegates. She lost and she helped bring it on herself. Can we get on to McCain now?

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:52 pm 61. Seth Berkowitz:

Let me start, Ms. Marsh by saying that I agree with you that today may have been Sen. Clinton’s finest hour, good enough to start bringing together the coalition we need to win in November. But since you are not completely putting it behind you, and on this of all days are writing postmortums referring the the hopefully next President as “this guy” I will respond in kind. Here are your words:

“Hillary and her team decided you couldn’t win the general election being against a war. That went double if you were a woman. …the core belief was that a woman voting against a war to oust Saddam, especially so soon after 9/11, would not be considered tough enough for commander-in-chief. It crippled her campaign from the start.”

Hillary’s vote enabled Bush to send thousands of American men and women into harms way, to ensnare us in an endless war that would drain our resources for years to come. If you’re saying that vote was motivated by the knowledge that a woman could not vote against a war and still be considered tough enough to be President, than I would say there is your election right there. If she voted against her better judgement and her conscience to position herself for the Presidency then she does not deserve to be President now or ever.

Then she made decision to run the kind of campaign she did these last two months, appealing to our basest instincts in order to save an nomination that was already all but lost, even though this style of campaigning (what some call finding her voice) will inevitably hurt the eventual nominee. That tells me she her selfishness is still running rampant years after that first fatal mistake.

I want a President who is ready on Day One to do the right thing… for America, and not just for her. I want a President who is ready on Day One to surround herself with people who will help her run an effective debt-free campaign that makes me feel inspired to vote for her, not afraid to vote for “this guy.”

Hidden within this list of excuses you’ve authored is every reason why Hillary did not win and also, every reason why that’s a good thing.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:54 pm 62. Bill, CA:

Taylor,

thanks, I acknowledge that you are support Obama now. Hillary made up for a lot in her speech today.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:56 pm 63. Bill, CA:

Oh I missed your comment, yes she did LOSE the nomination race, but sure if it makes you feel better by rationalizing it in that way, fine.

Jun 7, 2008 - 12:57 pm 64. Bill, CA:

Vanesa, you are full of crap.

Obama was the subject of MANY racial attacks, including from Mr AND Mrs Clinton.

You are so delusional it’s scary, its like the Manson family the way you folks are SO emotionally invested in this. It’s pathetic.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:00 pm 65. Mike:

As a supporter of Senator Obama, I’d like to thank Senator Clinton and all of her supporters. This primary has been fairly acrimonious, I have maintained from the start that the most important thing in all of this is what happens to our country in the next four years. EITHER of the candidates from the Democratic Party this year could do a great job as president.

It’s unfortunate that the year the Democrats finally field a good candidate that makes people WANT to vote for them rather than feel OBLIGATED to vote for them, a year where we can finally feel good about voting FOR someone rather than voting AGAINST another.. they field two of them.

I hope we can all recognize this – we have two candidates who overcame enormous odds and systematic biases (sexism and racism) to achieve tremendous gains, and to steer the national discourse about this fall. If you look at the topics the Republicans are discussing, they’re ALL topics brought up by Democrats – healthcare, the housing crisis, the economy, the war…. Where are the Republican talking points? This is happening because of our candidates, and I hope people on both sides will recognize the talents of both of these Senators.

I don’t know what Senator Clinton’s plans are going forward from here, but I’d think she’d make a great Secretary of State. I think her experience with foreign governments and political savvy could be very beneficial in healing the numerous rifts the current idiot has created in the last four years, and I think she’d be a huge asset in trying to work on the Middle East peace process. However, staying in the Senate to work on universal health care with the next administration might be more along the lines of what she’s thinking. No matter what happens, she is a huge asset to the Democrats both in the next four years and beyond, and I thank her for her service.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:00 pm 66. whitepaw:

StatMan89: Jun 7, 2008 – 12:52 pm

You need to understand that Obama and his supporters have much work to do to get our votes… uphill battle .. ad comments such as yours do not help the matter.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:01 pm 67. Vanessa:

Bill, CA – Point of history: John Kerry voted FOR AUMF, too. That didn’t seem to bother Barrack Obama in the slightest when he whole-heartedly campaigned for Kerry in 2004.

Since Obama’s whole case against Clinton re AUMF allegedly goes to judgement, it doesn’t speak well of Obama’s judgement that he supported a candidate who opposed Obama’s self-avowed opposition to the war.

Apples and apples.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:02 pm 68. GM Roper:

@Kathy: “Her negatives were low when she started but Obama would go state to state on the stump and tell everyone “Hillary is dishonest.” “Hillary is a liar.” “Hillary is a racist.” As time when on her negatives went hire and hire.”

I’m a conservative and no fan of Hillary by a long shot, but your reasoning is as fallacious as your spelling is atrocious.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:03 pm 69. whitepaw:

Please — Obama supporters — if you want us to put it behind us — stop telling us to do so. We don’t take kindly to orders to fall in line… Obama has a problem in getting our votes and you need to start paying attention. Frankly — I’d like to hear about why I should vote for him. Tell me what he’s done.. but if you use the words hope or change (and for “change” — please don’t use this word in any other context than telling me how he has actually changed something). If you want my vote — tell me what he’s done.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:06 pm 70. whitepaw:

Vanessa — WOW — what a post – Right on!!!

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:09 pm 71. Buckeye Tom:

Vanessa,

As a conservative, I hope you’re right those 17.9 million people will stay home.

However, we all know the vast majority won’t. They’ll be pulling the lever for Obama in the fall.

The Obama campaingn will simply be;

McCain = Bush
McCain = Bush
MCCain = Bush

And we all know, if you want to get a liberal fired up, the quickest way is to say Bush.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:12 pm 72. Taylor Marsh:

Seth Berkowitz – Again, pay attention. This is what Clinton supporters are saying to themselves, which was the assignment. It’s from that point of view. Surely you can understand that simple reality. No? Not my problem.

Again, for the dense, I’m all in on the fight to beat John McCain. Like Clinton, I will work tirelessly to make Barack Obama the next president. Keeping McCain out of the White House is job one.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:12 pm 73. Bill, CA:

Mike, I loved most of what you said but this:
“I’d think she’d make a great Secretary of State.”

I think the Obliterate Iran comment nixes that. I think Hillary would be an awesome Attorney General, no one wants to get back at those bastards in the GOP more than her. 2nd choice: Health and Services

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:12 pm 74. Vanessa:

Bill – Name one. Just ONE documented instance where either Clinton commented specifically on the color of Barrack Obama’s skin – and related his skin color to his lack of fitness to be POTUS.

Or just ONE documented instance where anyone in the MSM used the color of Obama’s epidermis to ruminate on his ability to run the country.

And thanks for coming out of the gate with a gratuitious attack. I obviously hit a nerve too close to the truth.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:14 pm 75. Bill D.:

She only won the popular vote if you don’t include 14 caucuses. You really illegitamize any other points you make when you say stuff like that.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:18 pm 76. eor:

Stop using the name democratic party–it’s democrat party. Democrats are not democratic–they are socialists. Our country is a Republic–and a democracy. Hence if you are democratic you are a Republican. Got that? (And yes, I only capitalize what I think is important.)

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:19 pm 77. gs:

“What if Fighting Hillary had walked out that very first day, not sitting on a big chair in some cozy room, but into an empty room as if to say I’m starting from scratch and I need you to help me do it? Simply saying: …this is my time, our time, because it’s long past time that a woman took charge. It’s time for a change and nothing says change like the first female commander-in-chief in U.S. history.”

I liked Fighting Hillary, but how authentic was she? Arguably a genuine Fighting Hillary would have challenged George Bush in 2004–and this year she’d be cruising to reelection.

The “my time, our time” rhetoric might well have worked, and IMO that’s not a good thing.

…this is my time, our time, because it’s long past time that a woman took charge. It’s time for a change and nothing says change like the first female prime minister in Israeli (British) history.

I can’t imagine Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher asserting leadership with language like that.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:19 pm 78. Cathy in Ks.:

Clinton ran a “great campaign.” And Bill was an asset to her among those old enough to remember the “peace and proseperity” of the nineties. What happened was a lot of “chicanery” and divisiveness on the part of the Obama campaign.

Obama garnered many of his delegates from “caucus states” – an archaic voting system that is hardly “fair” in our 21st cent. Also many of these were “open” and I witnessed first hand in our caucus site that many of the caucus goers were “faux democrats.” (BTW, I live in a “red” state that has not voted for a democratic presidential nominee since 1964 – the year after JFK was assassinated, so undoubtedly a “sympathy vote.”) I also know just in our county alone on super Tue. that pure chaos reigned on the night of the caucus. A friend who was an Obama supporter said that they waited outside in icy rain and snow for over an hour. When they arrived inside they were simply asked which candidate they were for and asked if they were a registered voter. No proof of identification was required and there were no records to even make sure they lived in the area or even in the state. (Please note Kansas City, Mo. is just a few blocks away and they had a “Primary” all day long on “super Tue.”)

Multiply the above thousands of times in “caucus” states and you have a “recipe” for a very unfair and unjust system. Also many of the “caucus” states that Obama won a large portion of his delegates from are “red” states like mine that will not go “blue” in November, especially now that McCain is the presumptive nominee on the republican side.

Taylor I agree that Hillary being a “woman” had a lot to do with the “misogynistic” statements propagated by the MSM but I think ultimately appealing to “misogynistic thinking” was the “vehicle” the press and Obama supporters used against Clinton. Many in the MSM have disliked and hated Hillary Clinton even when she was “first lady.” She did not cater to them and many in the MSM have held that against her. The Obama campaign knew that history and used it to their advantage.

Next we have the “tacit” collusion with the MSM by the current leadership in the democratic party. They hate all things Clinton because Bill Clinton did what no other democratic president has been able to do since FDR – serve more than one term in the White House and leave office with over a 60% approval rating from the American people. This should be a matter of pride for anyone who calls themselves a “democrat” but methinks there are a lot of envious high-ranking party members who let their jealousy and enormous egos take precedence over pride in others’ accomplishments.

I believe it was the aforementionned coupled with offers of monetary reward and in some cases threats to their careers or even their personhood that has motivated many super-delegates to drift Obama’s way, even as he was suffering devastating losses in the last several primaries or finishing not as well as predicted or some new and even more “embarrassing gaffe or story” was released to the press.

Obama’s “guilt by association” is very troubling to me and many Clinton supporters. When you add in his “gross lack of experience” and what experience there is, is not particularly noteworthy and how his campaign has lied about and distorted the record of one of the most popular democratic presidents in recent history; how his supporters have trashed Hillary Clinton, her family, and her supporters; it will be a “cold day in hell” before many of we Clinton supporters will fall in line for Obama. Hillary Clinton gave an eloquent speech today, endorsing Obama but I and many other Clinton supporters do not have a career in the democratic party to worry about. Our vote is our own and is given to the candidate who truly earns it. We will not be manipulated out of some “false sense” of loyalty to a “party” which no longer seems to need us or care about us.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:20 pm 79. PanMetron:

To Hyperpotamus, who wrote:

“Nice. Way to slag millions of people who disagree with you – they couldn’t be Reagan Democrats because they looked at the evidence and came to a different conclusion than you about what is in their best interest. No, they have to be stupid, blind, unaware of where their interest lies.”

Um… Taylor Marsh was a Reagan Democrat. She’s speaking on behalf of her own. Welcome to the conversation, but who the hell are you? A knee-jerk reactionary apparently.

I support Clinton precisely because I oppose the consescending elitism of Obama. Nice try, but you completely missed the point.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:25 pm 80. Vanessa:

Buckeye Tom-
I think about 2/3 of those 18 million will dutifully pull the lever for Obama in November. (of course, if people like Bill continue to attack Clinton with rabid raccoon viciousness… we’ll see).

However, I DO believe that the Democrats think they have a slam-dunk lock on this thing with Mr. Hope and Change.

Not so fast.

Much buyer remorse from Independents who voted for Obama in the earlier races. And the fact is, McCain gets plenty of respect from moderates on both sides for his record. My (informal) sense of voter sentiment is that McCain = Bush isn’t really taking hold. And if McCain is able to find the right message on the economy and the war (he’s already talking drawdown and increasing pressure on the Iraq government to take over), he has a very real chance of entering the Oval Office on Jan 20, 2009. Plus, he has immediate family in active duty service. So the “he doesn’t care if our sons and daughters get killed” line isn’t really going to play in Peoria.

I DO believe the general will be close. And that the 1/3 of disillusioned Democrats and unknown number of Independents who now feel they were sold a bill of goods are going to make the difference between who wins and who loses. And I also believe that McCain has as good a chance of scooping those voters up, as does Obama.

People like Bill don’t like to hear that. And their response is to sling insults. Which really isn’t winning them any fans…

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:30 pm 81. syn:

She lost because she couldn’t do what her husband could, charm the masses out of their minds to vote for her.

Obama won because he’s a Lightworker who knows how to really lay it on thick.

Shiny Happy People.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:32 pm 82. Brian:

NO way!!! You Obama freaks have called Hillary and her supporters names for months. Now it is time for you to pay the price. There is no way in hell Obama is getting my vote. He has pulled the race card numerous times during the campaign. He and his wife are pathetic Americans.

My family of 12 are voting for McCain.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:32 pm 83. Diane D-R:

Taylor, you have my gratitude and appreciation for the principled stand you have taken, and continue to take, during the course of this campaign. The rest of this message is in response to some of the other posts I see here.

The only reason Hillary “lost” the campaign for the nomination is that the party illegally and in violation of its own rules handed over delegates to one candidate which the voters had awarded to another, further awarded to their favored candidate delegates who, by the rules, should have been uncommitted until the convention, and suppressed the vote in two states over a rules infraction while the vote in three other states which committed the same infraction was honored at full strength.

As to counting caucus votes in the tally of popular vote: how can you count those votes when they are not even recorded in some states, and in none (so far as I am aware) are they certified?

The real loser wasn’t Clinton, who at the very least can look forward to a long and effective career in the Senate. The real loser was the Democratic party, whose leaders violated the basic tenets of democracy in order to effect a particular outcome, thereby leaving the party in danger of losing big time, come November.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:37 pm 84. Bill, CA:

“We don’t take kindly to orders to fall in line”

and we don’t like blackmail from the losing candidate to make her VP.

What the hell has Hillary done? She was married to a president (wow Chelsea and the dog will be running next), she was on the board of Walmart (biggest Union buster in the USA), she was a Goldwater Girl (a damn Republican), the ONE thing she could hang her hat on was Health reform (which I vigorously support) but SHE FAILED!! Why? she was secretive and didn’t bring people (even in the DNC) along with her. She is ALL ABOUT HER.

Her other experience is on the Senate which he has too.

What has Obama done? He planned, ran and managed a fantastic campaign. It was well funded, disciplined and controlled. He kept his cool under a lot of stress, while she cried and cried victim. He is unbelievably charismatic and can bring people in, a very important trait for a President, who can only influence law not make it. He DIDN’T VOTE FOR IRAQ when all around him held their nose and did. He has worked for the people his whole life striaght from college. Her is FAR closer to real people than HRC has been since Bill was President. He is NOT beholden to PAC and other lobby groups like HRC is. He built the biggest grassroots campaign in history.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:37 pm 85. annakarenina:

This wasn’t a political campaign but a marketing campaign. The Big Money Boys ( Trilateral Commission, Carlyle Group, Council on Foreign Relations, etc. ) realized that the Republican brand was bankrupt and needed a new brand to maintain their power. Obama, with his slim to non-existent resume and great verbal skills was a clean slate. Hillary was her own women and would have been too problematical. Obama will win in Nov. because of the enormous amounts of money he commands from very wealthy supporters. ( Please spare me the urban myth that the 400 mil that funded his campaign came from small Internet supporters) Nothing will change. He has no coherent plan to end the war and bring the troops home. His healthcare plan is dependent on negotiating with the insurance companies and Big Pharma. I have heard NOTHING about how he will help a country which has been in Recession and in now slipping into a Depression. As Bush was a puppet of the Military Industrial Complex Obama will be a pawn of the Wall St. Bankers. I won’t vote for McCain but I will cast my vote for Cynthia McKinney.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:41 pm 86. Ten:

You’re sometimes mistaken on things, Marsh, but missing why the running Clinton curse finally failed is amusing (if predictable).

She was never viable Presidential material — the combined Clinton record illustrates what a fraud the clan consistently is. How this carpetbagging opportunist maneuvered herself into position to run at the POTUS, coyly hinting otherwise, is amazing.

But the left bought it. With raves.

Which doesn’t answer the failure question either. That answer lies in the simple fact that as only the second-most viable candidate behind The Obamessiah, Clinton speaks far more to what today’s left is, not just what another observably mendacious Clinton she is.

Perhaps the only thing worse than being a Republican behind McCain is being a Democrat behind the new default candidate while the former leftist heir to the throne licks her wounds to great sympathy.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:49 pm 87. PJ:

Taylor: PJ, so we are clear. I was a Reagan Democrat, so I know from where I speak.

OK, then, what makes YOU a Clinton/Obama Democrat now? Values or self-interest?

Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m guessing values. If you left aside partisanship, would you even *think* of encouraging the idea that people ought to put aside their values and vote according to their self-interest?

I think the Bush Administration, and even more the pre-2006 congressional Republicans, abandoned a lot of the values that attracted Reagan Democrats. And I think that as a result a lot of Reagan Democrats are abandoning the Republican Party. That is all as it should be, but the driving force remains values, and I think you do those swing voters a disservice by implying that their values are for sale.

I’d be delighted to have you explain why I’m wrong, but I think it would be a miscalculation to assume that the Reagan Democrats who were attracted to centrist Clinton were motivated by some sort of self-interest that makes their support easily transferable to the more liberal Obama. I think the RDs’ disillusionment with the Republicans is real and transferable (and values-based). But that’s not the same thing. In my view, unless Obama plans to win without the Reagan Democrats, he can’t afford to blow off their values and count on their support because of their self-interest. And he especially can’t afford to give them the impression that that’s what he’s doing.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:50 pm 88. Thierry Henry:

Ms. Marsh, I first heard about you at TPM and occasionally visit your site to see how the Clinton universe sees things. I do have one nagging question, though. Do you really believe that Obama’s political instincts, organizational/management skills and discipline had nothing to do with his win?

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:51 pm 89. Emily:

As a Hillary supporter, this does not make it up for me. I might not vote for McCain, but I will NOT vote for Obama.

You want to be divisive in winning the nomination? Well, the folks like me that the Democrats screwed over in the primaries will be stunned at how we can react in the General Election.

Come talk to me in 2012. Maybe you’ll have re-thought things by then.

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:52 pm 90. My new WordPress MU Site » Blog Archive » Hillary Supporters Ask: ‘How’d She Lose to This Guy?’:

[...] Catherine Morgan wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptDevoted Hillary Clinton supporters can’t help looking back with regret today. Could things have turned out differently if the “fighting Hillary” of the last few months had shown up on day one instead of “inevitable Hillary“? [...]

Jun 7, 2008 - 1:53 pm 91. whitepaw:

Bill in Ca..

Sure he knows how to run a campaign. But nothing that you have stated convinces me he is ready to run the country. He kept his cool and is charismatic… and these are qualities that a president needs?? huh…???? dumbfounded.. yeah — I want the guy with charisma who never loses his cool in charge.. yeah — works for me..

Oh.. and he didn’t vote for Iraq…?? No — he couldn’t — he wasn’t a US Senator then.. was he. But he did state during Kerry’s campaign that he really didn’t know how he would have voted… had he been a US Senator at the time.

Not beholden to PAC and lobbyists?? Yeah — right… you believe everything he says. There are plenty of responses to this discrediting his claims. believe what you like.

I didn’t ask you to compare what Clinton has done to Obama. Apparently she is no longer an option for me.. I asked you (or anyone ) to convince me why I should vote for Obama… still waiting.. What has he done — besides running a good campaign and being charismatic — and giving good speeches.. still waiting. What has he done?????

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:02 pm 92. Bill, CA:

Vanessa,

Nice strawman arguments. I NEVER said she mentioned his color.

“hard-working Americans, white Americans” – HRC

“Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in 84 and 88 and he ran a good campaign and Senator Obama is running a good campaign”: -BC

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.”" ferraro (Clinton surrogate)

“he’s not a muslim, as far as I know” -HRC

Add ALL the Rev Wright comments. Why? Because up to that time NONE of the white, crazy pastors where being called out.

“Barack HUSSEIN Obama” – obvious racism (not by clintons but right-wing media and some hillary supporters.

“Inadequate black male” crazy Hillary from Manattan last week.

“the vote in the Applachians” where racism was stated by 20% as a reason to vote against Obama

“curious george Tshirts”

“won’t be able to call it the white house if obama wins”

“the 3am campaign, ‘NIG’ and lawn statue”

“the latino anti-black vote” see PR.

“he went to school in a muslim madrassa”

“people like you”

Here’s a challenge for you. All this whining about sexism and anti-democracy, even IF you don’t “bitch” comments etc, WHEN DID OBAMA MAKE THEM? HOW DID OBAMA AFFECT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA?

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:05 pm 93. Bill, CA:

“I support Clinton precisely because I oppose the consescending elitism of Obama.”

How much more “elite” can you get than the entitlement and arrogance clinton showed at the start of this campaign?

I think you are confusing educated with elite. Elite people make 110 million in the last few years, Obama just paid off his college loans. Give me a freakin’ break.

I know Clinton leads the uneducated vote, but you are really pushing it.

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:08 pm 94. Perry Logan:

Obama’s people knew they couldn’t win without using Rovean tactics against members of their own party–thus cutting their own throats, as all but the stupidest Obamites are beginning to see.

See my monograph, “An Idiot’s Guide to Barack Obama”:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/15078

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:09 pm 95. Elizabeth Lora:

Hillary Clinton loss the nomination because the Democratic Party did not want her, they made a pact not to support her but to support Obama because he brought more money and voters to the party. They strong armed her into getting out and they told her that they would not support her if she took it to Denver.

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:10 pm 96. Bill, CA:

“The only reason Hillary “lost” the campaign for the nomination is that the party illegally and in violation of its own rules handed over delegates to one candidate which the voters had awarded to another”

This is so ridiculous it’s not funny. OK I’ll give you the 4 delegates. You still lost by over a hundred. And yes, a Iraq/Mugabe/Stalin election with ONE candidate is so democratic…Hillary pledged to not participate, AND said the votes wouldn’t count so she’s a liar too.

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:11 pm 97. whitepaw:

Oh — Bill in Ca..

So you don’t take lightly to pressure on Obama to take on Hillary as the VEEP? Well…. what are you going to do… refuse to vote for the ticket if she’s the VEEP? Hmmm.. I somehow doubt that….

As far as I am concerned.. I don’t know how I will vote as of yet. At this time, I very much lean towards not voting for Obama… even if Hillary is the VP candidate. I still have no reason to vote for him… I don’t trust him because based of what he has said and done behind the scenes of this campaign (or allowed Axelrod to do). My perspective is that Obama is cut-throat and very duplicitous in nature (great in public… nasty and cut-throat behind the scenes). You all think Hillary is the overly ambitious one with the big ego…. but – NEWS alert — they both have ambition and big egos… and my opinion is that Obama’s big ego, combined with his extreme arrogance… makes him by far the “less desirable” candidate.

I am still waiting for a reason to vote for this man based on his accomplishments. If anyone can shed some light beyond charisma, running a good campaign, and rhetoric, I am willing to listen.

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:11 pm 98. LynneB:

Her speech was awesome, in fact in the past few months I have seen a different Hillary Clinton- not the one that her pin-head campaign managers tried to ‘invent’ early in the campaign. It was that ever changing Hillary that struck me as slightly disingenuous, which is why I decided to support Obama, but now it seems she has taken charge of her own identity and what shows through is a very sincere bright woman. Today I donated $25 to Obama and to Hillary.

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:19 pm 99. Misanthropicus:

It is too early to say that “it was that” or “that” that hobbled Hillary’s march. Yet one thing can be said with confidence – since the Hillaristas were in possession of the Wright tapes in December, they SHOULD HAVE USED THEM immediately, before Obama’s consolidation in the mythical creature that eventually toppled her. (This comes from a card-carrying McCain supporter).
A la guerre comme a la guerre – you’re out there to WIN, not as an inspirational figure for a New-Age support group.
And with the Tennessee ad affair fresh in mind, Hillary’s ineffectiveness in that episode should be a reminder for McCain – politics’ no sport for gentlemen, Obama sure is a Chicago animal, and only crack users would mention the Democrat Party as a repository of chivalry and fair play.

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:23 pm 100. Bill, CA:

whitepaw, thanks for the reasonable response.
As a President, you cannot make laws, to be effective you HAVE to be able to influence the people of the country, the congress, and in the cases of international democracy, the people of the world. Charisma (and statesmen-like oratorial skills) is a big part of that.

Keeping your cool is extremely important, especially at “3AM”.

He is a junior senator, for sure but has more experience than Lincoln had. If experience is so important, should Robert Byrd be President? Sure it’s an argument you can make, but Hillary is a junior senator too, and he has state senate experience as well.

He’s taught constitutional law. He’s been a community organizer. Read his Bio. See the choices he made during his career.

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:24 pm 101. Bill, CA:

whitepaw: i would still vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket, absolutely. I actually supported Hillary until I saw Obama and saw the kind of campaign Hillary started running. She should have focused on HER positives instead of bringing him down. What’s confising this whole issue is the obvious influence Operation Chaos is having. They have operatives and (seemingly HRC support websites, no TaylorMarsh isn’t one of them, but noquarter is)

I agree on the ego thing. I don’t think you can get that far without a HUGE one.

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:29 pm 102. Bill, CA:

By the way, I thought Hillary’s speech was awesome. I wish she’d done it earlier. It was perfect and I applaud her.

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:31 pm 103. whitepaw:

Bill in Ca.. Doesn’t is bother you in the slightest that it has taken Clinton nearly 118,000 votes for one delegate… whereas Obama only needed 108,000 votes per delegate. This is due to the number of delegates awarded in the caucus states where there were many fewer votes. So it is not just about — “the four delegates lost in Michigan”…

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:36 pm 104. army193:

Dam with you and your high horses…it’s time you think of your grand children and not your self…We have no time for blame games the issues that confront us important.

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:43 pm 105. whitepaw:

Bill – I’ve read his bio… He does not have more experience than Lincoln. I did an analysis of this and posted on another site- see details below. Also — He does not have more experience than Clinton who is a two-term US Senator… and certainly less experienced than McCain (obviously).. Obama decided to run for office after just 18 months in his 1st term as a US Senator. He is on record stating both that he would fulfill his complete 1st term before considering a run for POTUS.. and is also on record stating that he would not have the necessary experience to run for POTUS in 2008. As far as the charisma thing.. Frankly, I believe the country needs someone with knowledge of the issues… not charm and charisma … negotiating our foreign policy. And I believe Hillary Clinton has what it takes to be convincing and knowledgeable on issues…Obama is just charm and charisma… McCain.. well.. he is sort of charming… and definitely knowledgeable… so to me this is a moot point (yes… they ALL make gaffes from time to time). Here are the specifics of how Obama’s experience compares to successful POTUS (Kennedy and before):

———–

FDR:

* 2 years in NY state senate
* 7 years – Assistant Secretary of the Navy
* 4 years as Governor of NY

Washington:

* Professional soldier (for YEARS)
* Virginia delegate to the First Continental Congress
* Virginia delegate to the Second Continental Congress
* President of the convention that resulted in the US Constitution

Thomas Jefferson:

* Member of Virginia’s delegation to the Continental Congress during which time he wrote the Declaration of Independence
* Governor of Virginia
* Ambassador to France
* Secretary of State
* Vice President

Lincoln:

* Illinois State Legislature – 8 years
* US House of representatives – 8 years (as opposed to Obama running for president after 18 months of becoming a US Senator).
* Elected again to the Illinois legislature in 1854 and then resigned to run for US Senate – but lost twice

Andrew Jackson:

* American Revolution, War of 1812, First Seminole War
* U.S. House of Representatives – Tennessee (1 year)
* US Senate – (1 year)
* Judge Tennessee Supreme Court – 6 years
* Vice President

James Polk:

* Military – no combat
* Tennessee House of Representatives (2 years)
* U.S. House of Representatives – Tennessee (14 years).. Speaker of the House for 4 years
* Governor – Tennessee (2 years)

Teddy R:

* Military – Spanish-American War
* State legistature … was minority leader
* Assistant Secretary of the Navy
* US Civil Servant Commissioner
* Governor – NY – 2 years
* Vice President

Harry Truman:

* Military – served in WWI
* Judge
* US Senator – Missouri – 1935 – 1944
* Vice President – 1944….. and then the rest is well-known

Woodrow Wilson:

* President Princeton University – 8 years

* Governor – New Jersey – 2 years – with MANY reforms, including:
o A system of direct primary elections, in which the voters nominated the party candidates
o A public service commission with power over the charges and services of public utilities and railroads
o an insurance system to help injured workers

JFK:

* Military service – 4 years (Awarded the Navy and Marine Corps Medal and Purple Heart)
* US Representative(Congress) – Mass (8 years)
* US Senator – Mass (8 years)

Barack Obama:

* State State Senate (8 years… )
* US Senator – Illinois (18 months before announcing his run for POTUS).
Reply With Quote

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:47 pm 106. Vanessa:

Bill, CA: Your statement:
“Obama was the subject of MANY racial attacks, including from Mr AND Mrs Clinton.”

In this country, Bill, race IS color. Or haven’t you been paying attntion?

Are you suggesting that Senator Clinton was NOT winning the majority of white, working-class voters? Because the statistics say otherwise.

Are you suggesting that Jesse Jackson did NOT run a good campaign in ‘84 and ‘88? Because Bill Clinton said he did.

Are you suggesting that a first-year Senator with an exceedingly thin resume would have been treated with the equivalent kid gloves, if he were white? Interesting hypothesis. And wishful thinking.

Did you miss the part of the “60 Minutes” tape where – IN LESS THAN ONE SECOND – Hillary Clinton repiled to the FIRST question “No, of course not!”. Perhaps you missed the 3 more times she answered, in one way and another, No, I don’t think he’s a Muslim. Apparently you did. Or maybe you were, like Obama absent during the sermon. Plus, it obviously hasn’t occurred to you that the question should not have been asked of her in the first place. Or asked repeatedly. What part of “No, of course not!” do you fail to understand?

How was the “3 am” ad a comment on his race? It was an allusion to his unfitness to be POTUS. Unless you were LOOKING to make it into a racist statement. Something which happened all too often during this primary.

Do you think the 20% in Appalachia who gave race as a reason why they would not vote for Obama will be voting for Obama in November? And how is that Clinton’s fault? Was she supposed to go to Super-Tan to show her solidarity with the bro?

He went to school in a Muslim madrassa. That’s just a fact of his history. He was, what? 6 or 7 years old. So? Are you suggesting he conceal or lie about that part of his history?

The Latino anti-black vote. Very real. If you don’t know that tensions exist between the black and latino communities, you again, haven’t been paying attention.

I’d love to continue to refute the rest of your unsourced claims, but life is short, and I grow weary of your rapidly devolving ranting.

I suggest you spend some time between now and November practicing saying, “President McCain”.

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:50 pm 107. sevans:

My, my…it’s fun to watch you people at each other’s throats. As a staunch Republican though, I find it odd that you aren’t talking about the how easily you’re going to win the White House this time around. We Republicans will support our guy, even though he hasn’t anywhere near the charisma your guy has demonstrated. We will hope that his experience will be upperemost in voter’s minds in November and that he will have a chance at winning.

The reality though, is that Obama has electrified hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of young voters who are very likely to vote for him this time around. What’s more those people and many others are willing to put their money where their hopes are, in large and small amounts every month, to guarantee Obama a huge war chest of dollars.

If that’s not enough, the (unwelcome) entry into the race by Bob Barr, as well as the continuing futile campaign of Ron Paul, are going to suck off so many conservative votes that it will likely be the demise of McCain’s bid for the White House. On your side, that will probably not be the case this time around for the old retread, Ralph Nader. I don’t think Democrats are going to make that mistake again.

Will I willingly accept a Barrack Obama Presidency, not on your life. He scares the hell out of me. Those of you who have anything to lose with higher taxes and more government intrusion in your lives; be careful what you ask for. As you people have been fond of saying, he will be your President, not mine. I will however, have to accept him as the President of The United States!

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:53 pm 108. Vanessa:

“He is a junior senator, for sure but has more experience than Lincoln had.”

Barrack Obama is no Abraham Lincoln.

Jun 7, 2008 - 2:53 pm 109. Polly Morris:

Taylor wonderful piece. I feel that all the pundits did America a great disservice for the way the bashed and disrespected Hillary. I can never support Obama because he never not one time come out in her defence and ask Olbermann and Co. to stop this abuse. Now he wants us to be one big happy family. Only in his dreams.

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:02 pm 110. Bill, CA:

whitepaw:
How can you include JFKs 4 years in the Navy,Wilson’s public service commission and insurance system, truman as a judge and military etc etc BUT exclude Obama’s time as a community organizer (after a stellar academic run), professor and expert on constitutional law, and then you minimize his senate experience by focusing on the date he announced.

Again, you can certainly argue about experience. But that doesn’t support the venom and hate and accusations from HRC supporters. about the race being rigged. Stop making it about HIM being not-worthy and she is. He won by the rules. I’m sorry but thats a fact. Hillaries team said categorically that this was a delegate race (before they were behind in delegates), then certain states don’t count (until HRCs team wanted Puerto Rico and “count every vote). She PLEDGED and UNDERSTOOD that MI and FL didn’t count and that she wouldn’t participate (until she needed them) Harold Ickes VOTED FOR the stripping of MI and FL (until they needed them) I mean C’MON be reasonable and acknowledge this.

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:04 pm 111. whitepaw:

Bill in Ca. -

You keep referring to how nasty Clinton’s campaign was — I suggest they were both equally competitive.. and neither more nasty than the other — From my perspective, the media attacked Clinton on many things.. and gave Obama a pass on much. Certainly there were attacks on Obama as well (the Wright thing).. but beyond this, very little. Two of the things that come to mind that Hillary was unfairly attacked on were the claims of racism and the claim that she implied Obama was a Muslim (the as far as I know thing). If interested in this, check out these links.. I also included posts about Obama’s donations to superdelegates and a few other things .. as well as caucus details below these links:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/12/obama-camps-memo-on-clin_n_81205.html

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002

http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/05/obamas-super-delegates-money-machine.html

and one more detail from me about caucuses:

.. Then why do we get such different results when a state holds both a caucus and a primary? Two examples:

1. Washington State — democratic results only listed below:

* All delegates determined by the caucus results…
* total caucus votes are less than5%of the total that voted in the primary.. total caucus votes = 31, 984. Total primary votes =
662,872. OVER 630,000 more people voted in the primary than in the caucus. The delta ALONE is an order of magnitude greater than those that showed up for the caucus…..
* Obama won both (as was expected)… but he won by a 37% margin if one views the caucus results, but only a 5% margin when the primary results are used. Yet, somehow, the caucus is what determines Obama’s awarded delegates. Obama pledged delegates from Washington = 52… Clinton pledged = 26. Obama gets twice the delegates due to the caucus results that represent only 5% of those that voted in the primary.
* Link from the Washington Post if anyone wishes to confirm my numbers: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2…s/states/wa/d/

2. Texas — Democratic results only listed below

* total caucus votes are less than2%of the total that voted in the primary.. total caucus votes = 42, 538. Total primary votes = 2,868,454. OVER 2.5 MILLION more people voted in the primary than in the caucus. The delta ALONE is two orders of magnitude greater than those that showed up for the caucus…..
* Somehow, Obama won more delegates due to the caucus results than Clinton… This is despite the following: 1) Combined primary and caucus votes for Clinton = 1,478,434. Combined primary and caucus votes for Obama = 1,382,703. 2) If you count BOTH caucus and primary votes, Clinton beat Obama by 95,731 votes. 3) only 42,538 people voted in the caucus…this is less than half of Clinton’s total caucus/primary vote lead over Obama…actually 10,000 LESS votes than half of Clinton’s lead!!!
* Obama still won more delegates from Texas… 99 to Hillary’s 94.

* Link from the NYTIMES if anyone wishes to confirm my numbers:
* http://politics.nytimes.com/election…states/TX.html

One comment — There’s something terribly wrong with the caucus system and the way the Democrats award their delegates.
Reply With Quote

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:07 pm 112. Alison:

How did she lose? How about asking the question, how did he win? He won because the mainstream media wanted him to win. Just imagine the outcome of the primary if the whole Rev Wright flap was covered by the mainstream media in Nov 2007, not March 2008. Those Trinity DVDs were available for sale and review all through the primary season, in fact, those tapes were removed once the Rev Wright clips were broadcast in March 2008. Hillary’s Oppo Research team had done a poor job since the whole Rev Wright issue was covered by the right wing talkshows in March 2007. I could imagine Obama could win states like Iowa, MN, WI if voters knew about the relationship between Obama and Rev Wright. Do I think the mainstream media is boycotting all kinds of bad news for Obama for the primaries you bet…do I think Hillary is being cheated here…you bet…do I think Hillary’s oppo research team fails her, you bet…and if Obama somehow losing the general because of more Wright stuff to come out, the Hillary supporters should have the pleasure to gloat – I told you so.

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:10 pm 113. Bill, CA:

Vanessa, you are obviously a Republican, stop baiting us Dems. Vote McCain, I hope none of your family needs an abortion, is gay, is in the military, is of drafting age, is an iraqi, buys gas, can’t breathe underwater, or any other reason to vote Democrat.

If you would vote for the Republicans after the last 8 years, you deserve everything you get.

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:15 pm 114. karen for Clinton:

You ended with this:

“And her supporters all keep one thing tucked tight in the corner of their minds. Next time. Because next time they intend to win.”

That isn’t right at all. We won this time.

The RBC gave it to him. It was clear for months they had selected him and they picked and chosed their statements and changed them to fit how he was doing all along. They railroaded it with their remarks and actions.

Donna Brazile and Oprah sold him.

Enjoy the vetting of the presumptuous presumed hijack predeclared nominee. I know I will even though I’ve heard it all before.

McCain/Clinton – now that second billing works.

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:16 pm 115. Liz:

Hillary lost because that’s what the DNC wanted and they made sure that happened. They have nominated the MOST unqualified person to be President, and that’s why most of us will NOT fall in line, and will NOT vote for Barack Obama. Should I vote for whomever the DNC decides they want, or do I get to vote for whomever I want? The last I heard this is a democracy. My vote will be a write-in for HRC: if Obama can’t generate enough votes for himself, that’s his problem. And if McCain wins, it WILL NOT be Hillary nor her supporters’ fault, but the fault of the DNC and the “party elders” for railroading an unqualified candidate into the position.

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:17 pm 116. Bill, CA:

whitepaw: no doubt the format of a caucus suits Obama’s key demographics. Just like States with older voters go for Hillary and primaries. That’s just the way it is. For what it’s worth I think Hillary would have won with a Repub-like winner-take-all system, but you campaign with the rules as they stand.

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:18 pm 117. Karen:

If Hillary is so bad…..if people hate the Clintons so much…why did she beat Obama in the popular vote?

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:19 pm 118. Bill, CA:

I’ve gotta go now.

Let’s (except for Vanessa who can go back to rushlimbaugh.com or noquarter.net) agree on one thing:

I’ll take ANY of the Dem candidates as P/VP in any combination you like, OVER any GOP admin ever again. WORST PRESIDENT EVER.

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:21 pm 119. Bill, CA:

Let me really make it clear, if winning the next election meant Bill Clinton or even Harold Ickes as VP to Hillary Clinton as Pres, I would STILL vote for them.

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:24 pm 120. whitepaw:

Bill in Ca… (FYI — I am Nancy from Or…Portland… yes — the land of Obama supporters.. I am not blue collar (am an electrical engineer. And… am quite the latte woman.. just clarifying this as there is such a stereotype about us Clinton supporters)..

I am not stating that he didn’t win…by the rules (although I will fight HARD to have these rules changed because they suck).. I am just stating that I still have no reason to vote for Obama. Also — my husband is a university professor… Barack Obama was never a professor… he was a guest lecturer.. It takes much more than a lecture here and there to make a professor… there’s research and full-time devotion to your field in addition to teaching students…How can Obama be an expert on constitutional law — he never even practiced??!!?? Obama was never a professor and is unlikely an expert on constitutional law. Also – from what I have read — he really didn’t accomplish much as a community organizer.. quite different than being a war hero like JFK (not to mention that JFK was in the US Congress and US Senate for a substantial time before considering a run). I didn’t list anyone’s academic achievements — so that is not an issue..

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:25 pm 121. Annony:

Here’s a summary of Obama’s stellar law and advocacy career:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5679210.html

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:30 pm 122. Bill, CA:

whitepaw:
“I am just stating that I still have no reason to vote for Obama.”

How about voting for the party and his policies which are about 99% the same as HRCs?

So you would implicitly or explicity support the next admin being Republican? Seriously?

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:35 pm 123. Bill, CA:

whitepaw: Portland? Love the place, almost moved to Lake Oswego last year… We wtook the kids up there, but the weather scared the wife off. I’d still move there in a heartbeat.

I agree the rules suck too. If my info on Obama’s professorship sucked I am misinformed and apologize.

I full understand HRC supporter’s frustration with the rules etc I am just annoyed that Obama get’s the heat for it.

Peace, I’m really leaving now.

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:38 pm 124. DeeTee:

Actually I have done some searches on Google scholar and I can’t find any scholarly articles by Barack Obama. Anyone have any citations to offer?

Seems very strange.. How can one be an unpublished expert on constitutional law?

I did not pay attention to the early part of the campaign.. I have never found Hillary arrogant .. clearly they under estimated the caucus states… Any examples those who claim that??

I have found Barack’s behavior toward West VA and Kentucky to be quit arrogant.. But I guess the new Democratic party of AA’s, youth and the intellectual elite doesn’t need those states to win…

I do think that the medias treatment of her did not help. The media delivered us GWB and BO.. never underestimate the damage that they do.

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:49 pm 125. whitepaw:

Peace Bill in Ca – I need to sign off too — way too much time on line today!!

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:50 pm 126. Lesser Evil Voter:

Ms. Marsh is correct folks. The fact is, I have yet to have “my candidate” win a democratic primary for president. Back when Al and Tipper Gore were campaigning against rock music lyrics I made a solemn vow never to vote the man. Although the contest was long over when my state voted in the primary, I voted against him. But, I broke that vow in the 2000 general to vote against Bush. I thought Kerry was the worst of the crowd. Still, I held my nose and again voted agaisnt Bush. This election is just too damn important to let it get away.

In previous elections, the disaffections within the democratic party led to disaster.

In 1968, Eugene McCarthy’s folks sat on their hands. Result: Richard Nixon

In 2000, Nader denied Gore an electoral victory.

Hillary’s speech was precisely about these disasters. She talked about the differences there would have been in this country if the democrats had prevailed. Do you really think she was not sincere? Do you really want a Supreme Court that will reverse Roe v. Wade? Are you really against Hillary on every policy position she embraced? Do you really think that she would not have HUGE influence on the policy a united Democratic govenment?

If your support for Hillary had any basis in policy, you owe it to yourselves and this country to hold your nose, squeeze your eyes shut and pull the lever for Obama. Anything else is just a betrayal of everything Hillary fought for. Anything else denies you the right to complain about anything a McCain adminsitration does.

And, if you want to show support for Hillary, I do not see how a “revenge vote” for McCain or sitting at home will help Hillary in 2012. Instead of the democratic party running back, it could just as easily result in her being “blamed” for the loss. Media Clinton-hate won’t go away. Look at how Nader’s support evaporated after it became clear that his voters cost the democrats the election in 2000.

Think about what you want for the country. Take a look at McCain’s last speech. If you say, “yes, I want THAT for the country,” then vote for McCain or stay home. I do not understand people who love Hillary so much that they will vote to destroy everything she stands for, against her wishes and requests.

Bravo, Taylor Marsh.

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:55 pm 127. Max:

“WORST PRESIDENT EVER”

That would be Jimmy Carter. Obama is a lot like Jimmy. Hopefully, enough voters will see that before we go through an Obama administration.

Jun 7, 2008 - 3:57 pm 128. Monica:

It’s clear now, that Hillary would have probably lost the nomination due to strategic decisions made by her campaign based on an outdated model.

I can accept that.

What I can’t accept is the way the media demonized her. I can’t accept the way media painted her supporters. Just because a White person or Latino doesn’t want to vote for Obama doesn’t mean they are racist. As an African American woman , I can’t accept the way I was called a “hankerchief head”, Aunt Jane, house slave, etc for even questioning Obama let alone voting for Clinton.

For me, the coup de grace was that Rules and Bylaws committee meeting and vote. Never in my life did I think I would live to see the day when the Democratic Party who take delegates from one candidate and award them to another. Wait a minute, they simply awarded Obama Michigan delegates (sort of like the Supreme Court awarded GW the presidency). They would not have done that to any male candidate.

I look at the Democratic leaders responsible for the delegate debacle and I listen to the older African American politician leaders who are now rallying around Obama and I can’t help but think, how many of these “leaders” supported (or least didn’t oppose) the nomination of Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and Ron Paige.

Like a majority of the black institutions (the NAACP and The Urban League come to mind), they supported them wholeheartedly and we see where that has gotten us. One brotha chomping at the bit to overturn Rowe v Wade, another brotha responsible for Every Child Left Behind and a sista who is for all intents and purposes a war criminal guilty of crimes against humanity.

I feel that it’s these leaders who are imposing Obama on everyday Democrats. They are risking the White House and 8 years of McCain for Obama, our nation’s first American Idol president. They are betting it all on a vacuous opportunist who didn’t have a full time job until he was 40.

They can have him. I’m leaving the Democratic Party and voting for the Green Party candidate.

Jun 7, 2008 - 4:00 pm 129. whitepaw:

DeeTee — To the best of my knowledge — there is nothing to back up Obama’s claim that he is an expert on constitutional law. I have searched as well. The university in Chicago where he was a guest lecturer claims that they consider guest lecturers to be professors…(at least the law school does)… which is quite the slight to actual professors (as I stated in a previous post – my husband is a full professor at a university and has worked very hard to get there… it is offensive to those who have truly dedicated their lives to the advancement of teaching and research in a particular field to have others be declared experts and professors.. for political gain). My guess is that the university where Obama was a guest lecturer is also supporting him politically and chose to change their law school website in support of him.. if true, also offensive. Note that last I checked, there was an official announcement on the university’s law school website defending their reasons for giving Obama the title of professor… seems a bit odd to me that they would have to announce their policy of what makes someone a professor, specifically related to Obama’s particular situation during his presidential campaign. It is quite different from respected universities that I know, those that only award the title of professor when one devotes their career to the pursuit of the particular field. Just my take..

Jun 7, 2008 - 4:14 pm 130. BabsinPA:

The end does not justify the means. My vote in November will go to John McCain as a protest against the dishonorable DNC and the biased, incompetent media who together have manipulated one of the greatest undemocratic results of an election ever in the history of this country.
I will contribute and campaign for McCain, and do anything I can to keep the inexperienced, race-baiting, arrogant, lying Barack Obama away from 1600 PA Ave. He has earned nothing but my contempt.

Jun 7, 2008 - 4:25 pm 131. warren:

So I guess all the people who voted against HRC are crazy even though this article sounds like it is written by a cult follower

Jun 7, 2008 - 4:35 pm 132. funky chicken:

So Obama the community organizer = JF Kennedy the war hero? wow

Jun 7, 2008 - 4:43 pm 133. Greg:

Keith Olbermann was always an “unhinged special comment screamer”. He’s ridiculous. You just didn’t notice it when he was attacking Bush and other conservatives.
Which is probably why most liberals can’t see a liberal bias in news reporting either. It fits their point of view.

Jun 7, 2008 - 4:53 pm 134. John Gattuso:

Maybe I should have been spending more time in the “Pro-Hillary Blogosphere.” The big rap on Obama supporters is that they’re “Cultists,” but reading some of the pro-Hillary comments here, my mind is totally blown. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid!

Uh, listen here, people: The DNC did not “hand” the nomination to Obama. Obama was ahead in the pledged delegate count from the very first caucus and never fell behind, ahead in the pledged delegate count before the Rules & Bylaws meeting, ahead in the Super-Delegate count, and even if Hillary had gotten everything she wanted, she STILL would have been behind. Hill’s strategy was to get the Supers to over-rule the pledged delegate count. So much for the “Popular Will!”

Maybe it never occurred to you crybabies that people who aren’t older white women have hopes and aspirations too. Get over yourselves!

This business about Barack “cheating” in the caucuses really sticks in my craw. Barack played by the rules and won fair and square and you’d just better get over it. The amount of outrage & anger expressed toward Obama is really way, way, WAY out of proportion to anything he “did” to Hillary. Gee, I just don’t know WHY that would be!

I was an admirer of Hillary Clinton before this election, lost respect for her because of some of the things she did & said during it, but whatever – if she had been the nominee I would have pulled the lever for her in November and pulled it enthusiastically. Now she’s redeemed herself in my eyes and I really have no desire to rehash any of the old battles and grievances. We’ve turned a new page.

Anyone who is considering voting for McCain out of spite even though Obama & Clinton agree on 99% of the issues is either insane or racist (sorry, had to say it!).

Follow your heroine’s lead and get on the Obama train!

Jun 7, 2008 - 5:05 pm 135. PackyJ:

Ms. Marsh (and all Clinton follers),

Even though Hillary has asked you to do so, at what point will you finally decide it makes sense to stop trashing Obama and try and help get him elected?

Your alternative is John McCain, who will be carrying on 4 more years of Bush’s failed policies, and, in same 4 years, the real chance of another right-winger on the Supreme Court to drive a stake through the heart of Roe v. Wade.

You may counter with “but we can support McCain now, and Hillary can run again in 2012 and beat the Republican…”

Perhaps. But that’s a very risky and somewhat stupid strategy.

You admired and support Ms. Clinton. Take her advice now. Support and help elect the candidate whose stand on every issue of importance is virtually the same as hers.

Jun 7, 2008 - 5:13 pm 136. mslater:

I’m not sure what Annony expected from a roll your sleeves up and do associate work job, but it seems that Obama did what was expected of him, and well; all the while writing a memoir which proved popular enough to become a best seller. And laying the underlying ground work necessary to get into the political game which it seems obvious is what he is about. Can we simply look at the man as one who has studied the job, done his homework and embarked upon one of the boldest political gambles in many a year? It might be well to actually study the design of his campaign and how and why it works as well as it does. He was asked in July of 07 when he was trolling in Wall Street why these people who vote with their money on the skills of the people running the companies would support a person such as himself who possessed no managerial skills or background. Obama responded by challenging them to study his campaign in order to learn more about him. You tell me who has run circles around his opponents? Maybe it is best to back away from the emotion and drama and look closely at the candidates and what the election of either would most likely mean for our country.

Jun 7, 2008 - 5:22 pm 137. Syl:

Well, all I can say is that some of us over here welcome Hillary supporters who wish to join us in voting for McCain. I know the partisanship gets rough, but we’re all grown ups.

I, personally, was appalled by the treatment she got by the press and the moonbat Obama supporters. That doesn’t mean I agree with her policy positions, but she would have kept America safer than the Obama phenom.

Jun 7, 2008 - 5:29 pm 138. John Gattuso:

Cathy in KS:

You say the caucuses are undemocratic. I’m not going to really argue caucuses vs. closed primaries vs. open primaries. All of them have their pluses & minuses. Suffice it to say that up until 30 yrs. ago actual primaries were not that important in selecting candidates & that was the system that gave us Abe Lincoln, FDR JFK & other greats.

All the candidates knew the rules going into this & all of them agreed to punish MI & FL but only one (your heroine) started whining & wanted to change the rules ex post facto when thing weren’t going her way.

You say the red states all went for Obama & they don’t count because they’ll vote for McCain anyway. That’s not true but even if it is, BFD. By that logic you shouldn’t count Puerto Rico’s votes in your much-vaunted “18 million popular vote total” because they can’t vote AT ALL come November.

But who expects logical thinking from a deranged Cargo Culter, which many Hillary supporters resemble.

Jun 7, 2008 - 5:29 pm 139. Insane Racist for McCain:

John McCain is a patriot. He’s fiscally conservative. Given the massive federal debt run up by Mr. Bush, it’s time for some fiscal responsibility. McCain will see the U.S. effort in Iraq through to victory. That is the only outcome most Americans find acceptable. I disagree with Mr. McCain on much else, but he is the least objectionable of the two candidates. Lots of Americans feel as I do. Labeling patriotic citizens “insane” and “racist” because our opinions differ only makes the choice that much easier.

Jun 7, 2008 - 5:39 pm 140. whitepaw:

John Gattuso: — Can you perhaps refrain from insulting other’s views.. why is this necessary?? your quote:

But who expects logical thinking from a deranged Cargo Culter, which many Hillary supporters resemble.

Jun 7, 2008 - 5:51 pm 141. Monica:

John Gattuso:

I’m not an older white woman (young, college educated African American). I voted for Hillary and I’m not voting for Obama.

I find your insinuation insulting.

I remember when a friend told me that he was voting for GWB because he wanted “change”. He liked the idea of compassionate conservatism. GW was the kind of person with whom he would like to share a beer. That’s insanity.

Too be honest, Obama reminds me more of Bush than John McCain.

I can’t vote for either one.

Jun 7, 2008 - 5:55 pm 142. John Gattuso:

Dear Insane Racist:

I really shouldn’t get sucked into arguing with someone like you, but here goes:

If you really agree with John McCain on the issues, you should vote for him, and of course that doesn’t make you insane or racist.

But if you are more inclined toward the politics of Hillary Clinton, which Barack Obama shares for the most part, the only reason for you to vote for someone like McCain is if you are mentally ill or you object to the color of Obama’s skin.

Jun 7, 2008 - 5:56 pm 143. John Gattuso:

Monica: Do what you like. It’s your funeral.

Jun 7, 2008 - 6:23 pm 144. mkevinf:

I’d expect Republicans to dredge up the issues from the 90s, but what was so discouraging in this primary were supposed Democrats hurling words like “sleaze” and “scandal” and “baggage” around.
They forget that all but one “scandal” was bogus, the rest the result of a Republican witch hunt and a complicit media. And while Bill Clinton’s liasons with Monica Lewinsky were immoral and unbelievably stupid, Democrats stood behind him 100%, Joe Lieberman notwithstanding.
The good things of the Clinton years were washed away by left wing Democrats in this primary. An asset became a liability, and the pile on began in NH, when Clinton called the notion of Obama as the anti-war candidate what it is: a fairy tale.

I’ll follow Hillary’s lead and vote for the Democratic nominee in the fall. But how very unnecessary and destructive it was to have Democrats denigrate the only Democrat since FDR to win 2 terms, and to have left office with a balanced budget, American respect worldwide, and a majority of Americans approving of his presidency.

Yeah, there was baggage and we knew what it was. But since when did Democrats throw to the curb one of the most successful people in the history of the party? One term Jimmy Carter, and the man who never conceded to him in 1980, are held up higher than the successful Clinton presidency.

We’ll run, IMHO, the weaker candidate and with what I hope will be the help of us, Hillary’s supporters, the Democrats will regain the White House.
Then will come that memorable question: “Now what?”

Jun 7, 2008 - 6:28 pm 145. Insane Racist for McCain:

If I support Senator Clinton’s politics, I could still vote against Mr. Obama for the following reasons: a) he’s inexperienced, b) he’s condescending to working people, c) chrisma is not enough, and d) my gut feeling is not to trust him. Not one of my opinions makes me insane or racist. Granted, my perception might be completely erroneous, but it’s up to Mr. Obama to convince me otherwise. And you, Mr. Gattuso, or not doing your candidate any favors.

Jun 7, 2008 - 6:32 pm 146. John Gattuso:

Whitepaw: Everybody’s entitled to their own views but they’re not entitled to their own facts, and when someone says that the DNC “stole” the nomination from Clinton (when she wouldn’t have gotten the nomination even if they’d given her everything she demanded) I say they’re denying reality.

Therefore the Cargo Cult reference. I say to the Clintonista dead-enders: Stop building airstrips in the jungle and start working to elect OUR candidate, Barack Obama in November!

Jun 7, 2008 - 6:33 pm 147. mkevinf:

Just one more point: Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton have “controlled” the Democratic party since Al Gore won the nomination in 2000. Just as Obama is currently taking control of the DNC, so did Al Gore and John Kerry when they became the party nominee.

The last time a Clinton “controlled” the Democratic party, they won two consecutive terms in the White House.

Oh yes, Bill and/or Hillary “lost” the Congress to the Republicans in 2004. How did that happen? By proposing equal rights for gays, a universal health care plan, and a tax increase that lead to a balanced budget by 2000. Read: by upholding traditional Democratic values.

So as you invest so much in Barry-O’s ability to persuade Congress to implement whatever legislation he might propose, make sure you hold him accountable to do what he says he will do.

Whatever that is.

Jun 7, 2008 - 6:41 pm 148. IronMan:

Taylor,
Have you ever considered your own complicity in this fiasco. For days, weeks, months, you bashed Obama. You stood silent when Hillary broke the Dem Golden Rules, do no permanent harm…Remember “I’ve got experience, McCain, and my opponent has a speech in 2002″, “Senator Clinton is not sure that Obama could pass the commander in chief test”. All of you ignored and failed to criticize when the announced the Kitchen sink strategy. You obviously believed that the ends justified the means. You bashed a fellow dem and demonized him, never thinking that he could be the standard bearer of the party.
Now he is. And now, here we sit with a hopelessly fractured party; fractured by your rhetoric and entrenchment.
While I am convinced that many will return for the election, understand that if Obama loses due to Hillary democrats failure to support; Hillary will bear the blame. And understand that she can never win without African American support, which I suspect she will not get due to her complicity in his defeat. Sit back, watch and know that you at TM.com had a hand in the destruction of the party. Tell me, how does it feel to be a celebrity now.
Spiderman said it best….with great power comes great resposibility

Jun 7, 2008 - 6:48 pm 149. Bill Bradley:

Actually, the pro Hillary Clinton supporters know exactly why she lost to Barack Obama.

She was out-campaigned.

The rest is a bunch of yaposphere chat.

Jun 7, 2008 - 6:54 pm 150. Bill Bradley:

Incidentally, most all Dems will end up voting for Obama in the fall. That is all.

Jun 7, 2008 - 6:56 pm 151. deedee:

There are a few more issues that needed to be included in your article. First of all, the MEDIA played a big part in Obama’s victory. From the moment I began to watch his primary, it seemed that most of the pundits and reporters had “drunk the kool-aide”, if you know what I mean. The Obama worship was grand, and the media had a field day spinning everything in his favor. Many people wonder how it is that Hillary Clinton has such loyal followers. The answer is simple. We were watching the same biased reporters and reading the same biased articles against her. I know I expected more objective reporting and it angered me to see that I had to turn to Fox news or Lou Dobbs (who is now my favorite) to get any fair Hillary reports.
Secondly, the elelphant in the room is the reverse racism that the Clinton campaign had to endure. No one wanted to acknowledge that it exists. But when you get block voting of any racial group, when non supporters are threatened and called “Uncle Toms”, or when you hear the rhetoric from some of Obama’s major supporters, it becomes apparent that the racial divide in this country exists, is large, and will be difficult to bridge. So I, like many others, aren’t ready to sing Kum-ba-yah. I’ll wait to see how the Obama campaign tries to bridge the gap with people who feel as I do, because believe me, they have a lot of work ahead of them.

Jun 7, 2008 - 6:57 pm 152. purplestatewoman:

The comments from Obama supporters embarrass me–and I adore the guy. Frankly, the most important sentence in the post heads the last paragraph, which declares that you’ll work hard for Barack Obama, as will Clinton. If others in the Clinton camp are to follow their leader, we Obama supporters will have to be as gracious and welcoming as Obama is. Respect is an arc that brings together the ends. So is terror of another Republican president.

Jun 7, 2008 - 7:09 pm 153. Syl:

Obama supporters are STILL AT IT. Wexler was on Larry King tonite insisting it’s up to Hillary to bring all the working class and women voters to Obama.

The other nite there was another Obama supporter on LK who threatened that if Hillary didn’t bring those voters to Obama and he loses HILLARY WILL BE BLAMED.

Why isn’t it Obama’s responsibility to do so? Huh? If he can’t reach out to all Democrats he doesn’t deserve to be president. What, he’s supposed to just sit back and insist others do all the hard work?

Obama supporters are Obama’s worst enemy.

Jun 7, 2008 - 7:12 pm 154. john martin:

CNN people have become rude disgusting little people . Their comments are paid for and they are reduced to laughable rejects , hey stupid media heads 18 million people are going to shut you off and I am one of them , You have let your “reporters ” talk about a wonderful person ( Hillary ) in terrible ways , you have been rude and have degraded a person that many people loved for a long time and still do . You may as well work for the Oil people themselves .
I for one do not trust Obama at all . Not one small little bit . He has so much dirt on him ( and I know the media knows this and knew it all along) And yes when Obama black supporters call Hillary a Whore and a lier , I think that is offensive coming from a VERY VERY under educated and factually violent Black america with ” Laughable church going ” People ( That church should pay taxes and it just a hate group ) . Good luck keeping this country going with your pathetic morals and values .
Obama has done drugs too recently for me and it was never talked about in terms OF EXACTLY WHEN AND WHERE AND WITH WHO , and yes it does matter , but in 16 months you did nothing , And I mean nothing( the media ) .
I will be voting for Mccain and will be leaving the party , and I am a very well off , very educated , very world traveled white male . Good luck with your new country because it sure in hell isn’t mine anymore .

Jun 7, 2008 - 7:13 pm 155. daphne:

This is really a shame. I don’t think I can ever get behind
Obama no matter what nice things Hillary will say about him.
Where is the experience, integrity, grit, and political skill we
need at this point in time in a real democratic presidental candidate?
I don’t trust Obama. This is not about his racial origins, but about
his deficits in leadership. Organizing a campaign well and
speaking eloquently are admirable, but so are well-crafted ads
of any kind. I see Obama more as a manufactured media figure,
with glamour, but no real substance. This is leaving aside his baggage
of unfortunate and former associates, whose sudden exit from his world only adds to the existing image of poor judgement and plenty
of smoke and mirrors.
I will either write in Hillary or stay home, thanks. If Hillary is
VP on the ticket, only then would I pull the lever to endorse
this pair. Without her also in the WH, never.

Jun 7, 2008 - 7:17 pm 156. Heather:

Very Simple. Obama ran a CORRUPT campaign.

He “won” delegates by “winning” caucuses.

He “won” caucuses by sending in his goons to shut up or shut out voters. He “won” through the use of Fraud, Theft, Threats, Force, and every kind of Corruption imaginable.

Don’t believe me? Ask the DNC what they did with the more than 2000 complaints, in Texas alone, and with the phone lines jammed.

Jun 7, 2008 - 7:25 pm 157. Letalis Maximus, Esq.:

I was doing fine with you until you got to the part where you said that Hillary was ready to embrace Obama and work hard for him.

Non. Sense.

Jun 7, 2008 - 7:38 pm 158. Sabreen60:

I never saw the “nutcracker” until recently and I slightly remember the cleavage thing. I don’t think a few sexist comments are the reasons, Sen. Clinton lost this race. She said and took for granted that she was going to win. Therefore, she underestimated Sen. Obama. Her campaign staff was incompetent. She became very negative in her comments. She tried to change the rules and the metrics. She’s still saying that she won more voters than Sen. Obama, which is totally subject to whose math you use. Ask Chuck Todd on CNN. There are at least 4 different ways to count the total vote. However, the main statement that really caused me to lose respect for her was the statement in which she said that she had experience and Sen. McCain had experience, but Sen. Obama gave a speech. In all my years, I have never heard a Democratic candidate say a Republican candidate is better than the Democratic oppostion.

Jun 7, 2008 - 7:44 pm 159. Sabreen60:

I meant ask Chuck Todd on MSNBC.

Jun 7, 2008 - 7:46 pm 160. LD:

This is to eor: The D E M O C R A T I C Party has been that since it’s inception. The Republicans took it upon them, for some unknown reason, to rename us a number of years ago. So now run along eor some bridge is missing it’s troll.

Jun 7, 2008 - 7:48 pm 161. Dave:

Hillary did NOT lose. She had the election STOLEN from her by corrupt Obama in collusion with the DNC.

Her only problem was that she ran an honest campaign. Obama had his thugs steal the caucuses which gave him the illegitimate delegates.

Hillary won the People’s Votes. The only honest count in this travesty.

Jun 7, 2008 - 8:00 pm 162. MarkieBee:

Enough with the media bias BS! If Rev. Wright was white his little rants would have received as much coverage as Pastor Hagee and Pastor Parsley’s insane comments did. But the media loves them some angry black man videos, yessirree. Hillary’s Bosnia lie got scant coverage in the media because they were busy chasing down any sniff of another Rev. Wright video or Obama once again telling the truth why poor white trash continue to vote against their own personal interests. He didn’t say it very artfully but there was a lot of truth to it. media bias? Any candidate for president who utters that they would OBLITERATE another country is the height of a bone-headed, naive and irresponsible comment. Did Reagan ever say to Russia, “tear down this wall or we’ll obliterate you?” Nope, because presidents don’t use such inflammatory rhetoric as that. Did Hillary bear any battle scars from the “biased” media because of that? Nope…but we got instead some more Bill Ayers guilt by association crap thrown at Obama. Hillary actually says too ridiculous things – sniper fire and obliterate – and NOTHING. Obama catches hell for weeks because of the words and actions of OTHERS! Fair media scrutiny? PLEASE! Which is worse, Howard Dean’s scream or Hillary’s “I remember landing under sniper fire” comment? A scream or a lie? Which error did the media run into the ground and which proved to be fatal? Obama could have run 60-seconds ads in the top 200 media markets every second of every day featuring Hillary’s sniper fire lie and combined it with other half-truths or full lies from her over the years. But he didn’t. He never violated the maxim of primary politics – do no permanent harm to your fellow party member. Watch the 527 ads featuring Hillary’s “I’ve crossed the CIC threshold and McCain has too…but all Obama has is a speech from 2002″ to spring up by mid-summer. You people thinking Obama is somehow tainted more than Hillary and Bill have some REALLY convenient memories. We never did get an explanation from Hillary we she and Bill pardoned those two CONVICTED Weather Underground members. Remember Hillary supporters, Bill Ayers was never convicted of a crime. But with a stroke of his pen (no pun intended, well maybe) Bill, with Hillary sitting by his side, released two killers. Not much mention of that in the pro-Obama media huh? Hmmm. Chuck Giblet and George Steponpus were supposed to get back to that at the last debate but had to grill Obama some more since they were in the tank for Barack. Yeah right. I don’t remember Hillary ever having to make a speech to the nation talking about the damage that lying about foreign policy credentials does as Obama did on race. Obama doesn’t have any substance? Please, he’s passed two significant pieces of legislation – Obama-Lugar non-proliferation and Obama-Coburn ethics reform – while a U.S. senator. Quick, name me one piece of substantive legislation that Hillary has AUTHORED and passed in her 8 years in the senate. Experience? He has 50 percent more elected legislative experience than Hillary and I just pointed out that he’s been more effective in half the time in the senate. Obama and drugs? Please, that was more than 25 years ago and he owned up to it…he admits he inhaled. That was the point.

Jun 7, 2008 - 8:05 pm 163. MarkieBee:

and to those who think she should have won because more people voted for her in history of primary politics…well, more people also voted AGAINST her in the history of primary politics. CONTEXT, it’s a pretty valuable thing. Come get some. I’m not discounting Hillary’s accomplishments and she recovered well despite Mark Penn and Bill Clinton. But lay blame where it belongs…at Hillary’s feet. She hired Penn and couldn’t muzzle Bill before it was too late and she hired neophyte Patty Doyle-Solis, who bought more donuts than TV ads. Those are Hillary’s faults, not the media’s.

Jun 7, 2008 - 8:10 pm 164. maria:

I think the one mistake she made was Mark Penn. The reality is she never stood a chance the media and the Democratic party were never going to let up on her the female candidate. Neither the media nor the Democrats knew how to go about criticizing the black candidate without being called “racist” (like Bill was over and over) so they pointed both barrels at Hillary. Apparently sexism is acceptable in their world. There was no way Hillary could win, one week Obama defends Reverend Wright and according to the media it was a great decision it showed he was unwilling to throw a friend under the bus, very presidential. Fast forward one week Obama denounces Reverend Wright and the media says it was a great decision seperating himself from his friend the Rev Wright, very presidential. Whatever choice Obama makes is right, whatever speech, it is the best ever. Whenever he mis speaks or changes his position it is campaign fatigue. After all we women should be happy that the big boys let us play for a bit. Every debate when Hillary out smarted, out spoke, out everything, the good ole boys didn’t like it, including those in the media.

Jun 7, 2008 - 8:10 pm 165. Sabreen60:

Dave,

You are delusional. Nobody stole anything. Clinton and Obama signed a pledge to not count MI and FL. But I tell you what. Give Clinton MI and FL and she still will not have enough pledge delegates to win. You are a sole loser and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Jun 7, 2008 - 8:27 pm 166. Sabreen60:

Caucuses are older than primaries in America. When did caucuses become illegal? So those who believe this are saying that those states and the people in them are criminals??? Come on!!!

Jun 7, 2008 - 8:31 pm 167. john augustine:

I am actually glad that Obama has such arrogant racist supporters because they will usher in a wave of real dialog about real race issues and facts . Fact , most Black people in america are not educated . Fact most black people in america know of someone in or have been to Prison .
AND fact 70% of New York and 70 % of California voted for Hillary
and Blacks make up only 6% of California and 70 % of the prisons .
fact 9 out of 10 Blacks voted for Obama and the DNC gives the areas they live in more delegates .
Since when does the uneducated criminals get to pick a leader , and then the country does well after that ?? . How on earth is electing a president that will base EVERYTHING he does on race ( and after seeing his church of 17 years , he will) going to help this country after 8 years of a retarded man ,
Obama will just be attacked about Black this and Black that for the whole time and the media will love it since all they try to do is get people angry so they watch the news shows . Hey Obama take down all those slave owners oil paintings that are on the walls of the white house and paint the building to reflect the new america . Obama will make race the focus of our country and everybody in business that can leave, will leave even faster ( white men to the front of the line please ) to go to new great countries for business like China and vietnam . Oh wait ,,,you have a lots of uneducated black men that are ready to run the country from prison !!!! Well just let them all out and have a do over !! Legalize all drugs , don’t respect patents , have 5 hour work weeks , we are a rich country just print more money and I am sure it will all work out great . Down with the white man down with the white man , all whites are evil , Good job you idiots , I am sure our Meth problems are all but over in this country —-that can barely keep it together now . You all fell into the trap and will push race hate to the main focus of everything we do in this country . I can’t wait for WET TV . I have a better Idea , no TV at all.

Jun 7, 2008 - 8:51 pm 168. Misanthropicus:

RE: Bill, CA:
[...] whitepaw [...] exclude Obama’s time as a community organizer (after a stellar academic run), professor and expert on constitutional law, and then you minimize his senate experience by focusing on the date he announced. [...]

Bill, CA – my friend, my friend! Stop doing those chemicals, my friend, they cause you problems!
Obama’s bio/resume is an impossibly to chart, misty ocean, my worthy Bill CA:
* “Obama’s time as community organizer” – what’s that? Even assuming that c.o is an esteemable dope/rent/curefew/toddler pregnancy/Chumash remains type of thing, we still need testimonials from evicted renters/pregnant toddlers/Chumash remains regarding Obama’s transsubstantion powers. And even we have that, still – it’s a huge leap of faith from having one who’s most important professional success is postponing an eviction to go to the White House, don’t you think?
* “stellar academic run” – Barrack Hussein Obama is nowhere close to a stellar academic run. If you mean Occidental College, well, I pass… (I’m broadcasting from LA). If you mean Harvard, well, he is/was an affirmative action student, his acceptance there wasn’t based on academic abilities or grades, BUT on his exotic bio (which means that he displaced an other, more deserving candidate (no wonder he and Michelle have so good opinions about compensatory policies). A far his Harvard Law Review stint, HLR is a student thing and it’s less than 30% of Harvard Law students that bother to join that crew – do you think that the toilet paper used at Buckingham Palace is better than the one you get at Target? If yes, that sure explains your analytical abilities.
* “professor & expert on constitutional law” – my goodness, he was just a reader or something at Chicago Law, and with his six years of brilliant “constitutional law professorship” he appears in Lexus-Nexus JUST WITH TWO ENTRIES, in one of them being JUST MENTIONED! (Maybe a system malfuction, the Obama in cause being a tire-shop guy). No former student remembers him other than a fleeting figure – yet one who was impossible to pin down, politically/philosophically (an eel, if you get my drift).
* “minimize his senate experience” – how can one minimize ZERO, that’s beyond me.

Jun 7, 2008 - 8:51 pm 169. Dave:

I can’t believe how dumb you Kool-Aid drinkers are.

Do you really think it’s democratic to have thugs go into caucuses to threaten and accost voters, to use force, to throw them out and lock the doors, to steal papers, commit fraud and every kind of corruption imaginable?

If you do, you should move to an un-democratic country because that should not take place in America. But, that is how Obama “wins” elections. And, the DNC covered for him because they have done nothing about the more than 2000 complaints filed, just in Texas alone. And, that was with the phone lines jammed.

Here’s a little audio to entertain you for a minute or so. I know you have short attention spans.

http://www.bartcop.com/141-bombshell-sample.m3u

Jun 7, 2008 - 9:35 pm 170. Dave II:

Actually, Hillary DID not expect the RULES within the Democratic Party nomination process to be so stacked against her…what with MI and FL not counting (and only NOW being seated with 1/2 the delegate count) and the biggest #1 Rule of all that screwed her royally…the proportional delegate count system.

Obama took a big lead with the early caucus voting (which was also stacked against Hillary) and then road that to victory even while he lost big swing state after big swing state.

If the Dems had used the much more ACCURATE and fair ALL or NOTHING system the Republicans use…Obama would be the one giving the “farewell speech”.

But Dems use this type of system because they think it IS the fair one…but it, along with their brainless “super-delegate” hybrid-monster…ends up giving them LOSER candidate after LOSER candidate.

And just as we have and will see “sexism” floated as a cause for Hillary’s loss (it’s not!) we will end up (much more!) seeing “RACISM” floated as a cause for Obama’s loss. (Again, it won’t be.)

The reason is the Democratic Party SYSTEM… organized with caucuses, proportional delegate distribution, and super-delegate “hybreeds” that can vote however they “feel”…so that a charismatic, masterful neophyte, with barely ANY experience, can game the system to win the nomination.

Fortunately, we don’t elect our Presidents that way in November!

Jun 7, 2008 - 9:41 pm 171. Dave:

As Pelosi said, go with the will of the people.

Obviously the People’s Votes are the will of the people. Hillary Won.

BO’s goons and the corrupt delegates helped BO steal the election.

Jun 7, 2008 - 9:54 pm 172. fumiste:

Excellent analysis Taylor! you are truly the best Radio Talk Show Host not currently on the radio. I know you will be on somewhere soon, just keep your independence and sharp mind when the MSM knocks.

YOU ROCK!

Jun 7, 2008 - 10:10 pm 173. peter jackson:

Caucuses are quaint throwbacks to an agricultural time when the entire voting population could easily participate. That’s simply not the case anymore in the vast majority of states.

I have to say—as one who votes mostly Libertarian and therefore without a dog in this race—I actually think better of Hillary now than I did before the primaries. Back then I’d have figured that She would have eaten Obama’s liver by April, but she did not. I think both candidates have demonstrated considerable amount of restraint. As tough as it was for Democrats, it could have all been much worse.

The best comments in this thread were by those who realized that the Democrats rules need to change. They are correct. I think this Democratic primary season is well described by the the explanation given by the late Molly Ivins for the 2000 presidential race: it was a tie, but George W. won on the rules. When you factor in all the arguments from both sides and determine a margin of error, you wind up in the same place. Clinton and Obama essentially tied, and Obama is going to win on the rules.

Close elections suck, period. This isn’t a partisan thing, it’s a democracy thing. The smaller the margin of victory for the winner, the less credibility is awarded to him or her. The elimination of caucuses in favor of winner take all elections should be the DNC’s first order of business following this presidential election. Currently the DNC awards delegates as if the government they were trying to participate in had a proportional representation form of democracy. Our government does not. All offices are winner take all. DNC rules need to be consistent with this reality whether they like it or not. And most of the time winner take all elections tend to make the victory of the winner appear more decisive than it actually was, as does the Electoral College. The more decisive a victory of either candidate appears, the less internal dissension. If either Obama or Hillary had won a victory as decisive as McCain over Romney, the current conflict amongst Democrats, as evidenced by many of the comments above, wouldn’t exist right now.

yours/
peter.

Jun 7, 2008 - 10:35 pm 174. g.j.:

“Obama is a dirty pol”, What? The clintons make Obama look like an altar boy. She lost, be of the chaos and drama that her campaign could not get past. They lost because when she had the AA vote, Bill decided to insult us and then want us to vote for them. Racism and racist remarks aren’t jokes or tools to be used when you want to divide people for political gain. Those remarks will forever haunt them.

There was always a reason they were losing, never her. The main problem she had for me as a voter was that she always talked about why we shouldn’t vote for Obama, rarely why we should vote for her.

The whole campaign was one dysfunctional crew. Then the constant rule changing. I mean they just looked so desperate, so thug like. And these folks have children. And we ask why our young people are having so many problems. Look at who they emulate.

Jun 7, 2008 - 10:52 pm 175. A. Democrat NoMore:

mkevinf-I appreciate what you wrote. You said:”
Just one more point: Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton have “controlled” the Democratic party since Al Gore won the nomination in 2000. Just as Obama is currently taking control of the DNC, so did Al Gore and John Kerry when they became the party nominee.

The last time a Clinton “controlled” the Democratic party, they won two consecutive terms in the White House.

Oh yes, Bill and/or Hillary “lost” the Congress to the Republicans in 2004. How did that happen? By proposing equal rights for gays, a universal health care plan, and a tax increase that lead to a balanced budget by 2000. Read: by upholding traditional Democratic values.

So as you invest so much in Barry-O’s ability to persuade Congress to implement whatever legislation he might propose, make sure you hold him accountable to do what he says he will do.

Whatever that is.”

SARCASM ON: Yes and Gore and Kerry campaigns turned out so well, didn’t they? SARCASM OFF.

One gets a realy sense of DeJa Vu. The Dems didn’t think they could possibly lose to Bush in either election and yet somehow they managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and humiliation from the jaws of embarrasment. I feel a 3-peat coming on….

Our “fearless leaders” Pelosie and Reid have accomplished very little with the Democratic majority. I have never seen such a spineless whimpy lot in all of my life. They deserve to get their collective butt’s kicked out in November and I pray to God that they do.\

Signed,
One of Hillary’s 18 Million Voters Who Will Not Vote Obama in 08

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:06 pm 176. hyphenated american:

Honestly, I find this debate quite interesting. Obama supporters think Clinton’s campaign was racist – while Clinton supporters believe Obama’s campaign was sexist. Way to go guys! Nothing is better than invoke victim status and cry. In fact, this primary election was a perfect match up between two “victim” groups, DNC blacks and DNC women. This was beautiful. Kind of reminds me of a battle between Trotsky and Stalin, or Iran – Iraq war. As Kissinger once remarked – it’s a shame both sides cannot lose. Of course, in this case, both sides, Obama and Clinton can lose.
On a negative side, McLame is a liberal republican, he will most likely be working hand in hand with the DNC run congress to screw up US domestic policy. On a positive side, he will most likely put moderate judges, and his foreign policy seems to be quite reasonable.
If McLame wins – this would slow down some of the liberal domestic policies – which is indeed what any republican wants today. Why? Well, European Union implemented everything that Obama could have thought off – and everything he can think of. It is quite expected that European welfare state will start crumbling in 5-10 years since it is not sustainable. If we can postpone the DNC insanity for this period – we will save US from following Europe in the abyss.
P.S. Am I a right-wing “extremist”? You bet. Do I want the Roe-Wade to be dropped like a hot potato? Sure. But then, I do want the States to implement reasonable abortion laws (through normal legislative process), which should be in line more or less with Roe-Wade interpretation by reasonable people (not ultra-liberal judges).
BTW, someone on this board mentioned that if vote for McCain, we will all drown. Kudos for showing what conservatives are dealing with here – utter insanity or ignorance.

Jun 7, 2008 - 11:36 pm 177. B Meredith:

Markiebee & Sabreen60 – Way to push back on the BS. Sen. Clinton waged a valiant campaign, but she made some strategic blunders that cost her. Caucus state planning, Lack of Super Tuesday Plan B, and Media relations is strategic, and she had pleanty of time to work on that and she didn’t. She is a proud, smart and strong woman, but humility is not one of her strong suits and she could have used some.

My last thought for those who think Sen. Obama still lacks executive leadership, grit and determination. Who would you rather run a start-up company with your money, and which one would you invest in? I would pick the team that won the most states – (opened new territories)and has greater upside in those new states, won equal market share – Votes, , not to mention the one who has generated the most revenue and no debt. If Obama and Clinton are businesses, there is no doubt on which one is a better investment.

Jun 8, 2008 - 12:25 am 178. Rexie:

I don’t know, I think there’s a certain poetic justice that a representative of the Democratic Party’s elite had her butt handled to her because those same elite set up so many strange systems to try to keep the party from becoming too populist. (Or have we forgotten why the whole superdelegates concept came into being?)

Obama, like him or not, played the system better than she did. For someone who’s supposedly too inexperienced for the office, he’s been displaying an awful lot of political intelligence.

Jun 8, 2008 - 1:37 am 179. huxley:

Who could have predicted Obamamania, the irrational exuberance for an unknown candidate with almost no experience and accomplishments?

If the Rev. Wright/Trinity brouhaha had come out a month or two earlier that would have been enough to halt Obamamania and Hillary would have won.

Jun 8, 2008 - 3:07 am 180. John Gattuso:

I find it interesting that now that THEIR candidate has lost, some people are complaining about the proportional voting system in the Democratic party and calling for going to a winner-take-all setup.

Keep in mind why proportional representation was instituted to begin with – it was to break the power of the old party machines and give more power to marginalized groups, Hispanics, BLACKS and WOMEN among them.

Watching the way the system worked this time I was proud of our Democratic Party. Sure it was messy, but everybody got their say. Just contrast OUR conventions with the Repugs. Ours are far more inclusive and representative of America.

A lot of mean things have been said by both sides about the two candidates in this race. Everybody needs to take a break and cool down. By dredging up these old grievances and rehashing them over and over, some of the people here are not facilitating what should be done – to mend the fissures in our party and UNITE TO DEFEAT JOHN McCAIN IN NOVEMBER!

Jun 8, 2008 - 4:32 am 181. Demorcat First:

The fact that Clinton’s supporters (aka fanatics) have to ask why she lost is the very reason she lost. She was not a good candidate from the start, but relied on star power and feminism. She called Obama an empty shrit, when, in reality, it was she who really had nothing to offer but the same old corrupt political machine. Her followers just blindly fell into line without ever scrutinizing her message or her blatantly racist tacktics. They remind me of Bush’s followers: loud, uninformed, and wrong. Obama won because he politically engaged voters and presented them with a refreshing message of hope – one we haven’t seen in 40 years.

Jun 8, 2008 - 4:56 am 182. SAF:

First, its a statistical fact that the candidate who advertises the most usually (but not always) wins. Obama understood that and took a smart approach to raising money and raised more of it than Clinton so he had more fire power. Second, he understood the importance of the caucus states and organized them to win much better than Clinton. Many in this forum and the article itself mention that Hillary didn’t take him seriously and that combined with the two major league smart moves of the Obama campaign made him the winner.

There is hardly any political difference between these two. Obama appears more left but my guess is Hillary would be just as left once she got the reigns of power.

For the sake of the country Obama had better make at least a good president. If not he will be tossed out in 2012 and that will set race relations back decades.

Jun 8, 2008 - 5:06 am 183. John Gattuso:

Another thing I find interesting: How exercised some Hillary supporters are about the “sexist” Obama. Why, he’s so sexist he held a chair for Hillary and called a reporter “Sweetie!”

So how are they going to get back at that terrible misogynist Barack? By voting for John McCain, who called his wife a “Cunt” and a “Trollop.”

Jun 8, 2008 - 5:11 am 184. dvd:

The US population is approximately 302 million people. 24% of which are NOT eligible to vote, due to age.
302- 72.5 = 229 million who actually make up the electorate.

clinton got 18 .x million votes 18/229=7.8% of potential voters. *
Clinton obama combined got approx 36.x million votes in the primaries. 36.x/229= 15% of the electorate, the counted collusion of a vocal minority whose aim is what?
Whose votes in and of themselves; position factions, within the aggregate counts, to grossly engage in largess, at the expense of …..all those who surround them. (this is rationalized under the banner of elitists right, but some of us know better)

229-36.5 = 192.5
192.5 million folks said Neither, or voted republican, or libertarian. The hubris of failed logic which cant properly identify missing information, and ends up encouraging those participating to act outside the actual results, as if nothing were unusual….is just broken.

Someone should step forward and define the logic of perpetuating these kind of results.

We already know Pres. Bush has a 25% approval rating……and congress as a body is struggling to hold 13%.

We have minority rule with a disproportionate amount of power accorded to a minority electorate whose achievements are 75% disapproved or 87% disapproved, depending on the body of your choice.

Jun 8, 2008 - 6:25 am 185. Mark in NC:

Cathy in Ks and deedee thanks for your remarks both hit the nail on the head. I’ll go one step further, most of us that voted for Hillary did so because of Obama himself. The majority of us did not vote for Hillary because we worship her but because Obama is scary. The media and the liberal thugs like Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosky, Reid, Dodd, Richardson, etc. are calling all the shots. All of these Democratic Washington insiders want a president they can control, allowing Caroline Kennedy to choose Obama’s running mate says it all. Wonder how many of these far left wing nuts Obama owes the company store to. These people aren’t supporting Obama because they think he will be a good president but because he can be controlled. It’s personal for these thugs and it’s called greed and control.

There is only one Democrat I will always vote for and that’s Keith Schuler, Representative from North Carolina, unless he becomes a member of the good old Democrat Washington insider bunch of thugs. He stood up and said he would endorse the candidate his constituents voted for in the primaries. That is exactly what he did. The majority of his constituents voted for Hillary and he endorsed her because of it. I’m sure he is in the outs with the old Democrat Washington insider power crazy thugs. But he gained the respect of all his constituents and they will continue to support him, after all, they are the ones that are able to keep him in his job. Most of us have little use for politicians that went against their state and districts vote and endorsed Obama anyway even though he did not receive the majority of votes. Many did this and don’t deserve to be reelected. I think many will get the boot even though they think they are untouchable….we will see. I will vote for McCain because he is a better person than Obama and by far more experienced. The Democratic party has shown too much of a George Bush type reign where dishonesty is the norm and control is the king. Nope, McCain is no George Bush but Obama sure fits that roll to a tea.

Jun 8, 2008 - 7:11 am 186. Dodgeblogium » Hillary Clinton Supporters Ask: ‘How’d She Lose to This Guy?:

[...] campaign for the Democratic nomination. Interesting comments abound below the piece as well. read more | digg [...]

Jun 8, 2008 - 7:14 am 187. twinmom48:

I’ve posted this elsewhere. Clinton supporters need to be in touch with our power. I’m re-thinking my reflexive turn toward McCain – it’s still a possibility – but I want to sit and reflect on OUR candidate – Hillary Clinton – her brilliance,grace, tenacity. When this campaign began, I loved her already. Now, I adore her. She won more votes than any other candidate in primary history. I’m not ready to move on and when/if I do, I want to be wooed.

Kerry, yesterday, said “it will take a few days to unify the party”. I’m getting a better sense of what a loser he is.

Jun 8, 2008 - 7:50 am 188. twinmom48:

Before I forget, I’m not buying what the Obamabots are selling. Remember, caucus results don’t translate into general election votes. And, talking about fundraising advantages, inevitably will shine a light on the obscene amounts of money Obama is willing to spend to “buy” this election. Remember his fundraising advantage and what he spent in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania – he didn’t win. But, thinking people will remember the obscene amount of money spent and will ask TO WHAT GOOD END?

I’m actually looking forward to the next few weeks. Unlike Clinton, Republicans won’t have one hand tied behind their backs pointing out Obama’s exquisite failings.

Jun 8, 2008 - 7:57 am 189. Seth Berkowitz:

“Seth Berkowitz – Again, pay attention. This is what Clinton supporters are saying to themselves, which was the assignment. It’s from that point of view. Surely you can understand that simple reality. No? Not my problem.”

Wow… Taylor Marsh responded to me personally. Nice.

As for inability to “understand that simple reality” you are right, I do find it difficult to distinguish between the parts of the article where you are voicing what you feel and what other supporters feel.

However, regarding what I said… my feeling is that up until today, you were not only a Clinton supporter, but to some extent an Obama detractor. You’ve always put Obama well ahead of McCain, but your site and your own postings have helped nurture some of the feelings we’ve been seeing where lifelong democrats who became so emotionally caught up in Hillary’s quest that they now strongly resent Obama.

And my point is, even before today, even before Tuesday, even before the string of Obama victories in February that made this inevitable, that Hillary’s Iraq vote made her a flawed candidate. And I say this not because she was wrong on that vote (she was, but so were many others) but because she knowingly voted against her better judgement, out of a desire to be President. Anyone who will err that much on an issue that big out of what can only be called personal ambition, is a dangerous person to own that much power.

Your statement about the Iraq vote included the phrase “especially a woman.” Yes, it’s true that our prejudice puts more pressure on a woman to prove herself tough. But in the end, what would have been tougher than voting her conscience in the hope that time might prove her correct?

I don’t want ANY president, male or female who needs to prove how tough he or she is.

This was a key factor in this race, and when supporters dwell on the sexism that was present, they are using a very broad brush to paint an opposition that deserves better.

Jun 8, 2008 - 8:03 am 190. Loquacious Evans:

After reading all these comments by you democrats, it’s possible that “The Messiah” may only win Massachusetts. Hillary’s worst nightmare was the invention of Obama. His worst nightmare is McCain [really a Democrat].

Jun 8, 2008 - 8:40 am 191. hrc supporter:

Will not vote for Obama. He has not showed me anything that I can trust. Change…what is he going to change. Taxing so much that the poor struggles as well? Having Oprah by his side to do her crazy happy dances. Having skeletons come out of his closet while he is in the office? How many more crazy reverends will be coming out on you tube? Having anyone in the office that is not a Bush is a a change. Obama is a change I am not wanting or will vote to have.

Jun 8, 2008 - 8:45 am 192. Blake:

Ms. Marsh–

I respect most of your analysis (not just in this piece, but all of the time), but please don’t reinforce the error that Hillary won 18 million votes. She didn’t. Misstating stuff like that is just going to perpetuate other falsehoods, like that she won the popular vote.

–Blake

Jun 8, 2008 - 9:09 am 193. eor:

I gave up on Democrats a long time ago, for President. I want one who is unabashedly patriotic and sincere. Sticking ones finger to the wind before making policy doesn’t cut it for me. I also don’t like money grubbers like the clintons, traitors like kerry, or scam and fraud artists like gore. If the Dems ever come up with honest people I will vote for them again. They throw away the good ones like Zell and Joe.

Jun 8, 2008 - 9:31 am 194. Susan Nunes:

Since the political winds have changed, Michelle Marshall has decided to go where the wind blows, which is to Barack Obama. I honestly don’t know why anybody gives her the time of day.

She rose to dubious fame on Hillary Clinton’s coattails and spent much of her time trashing Barack Obama. Not that I objected to it; I have no use for the Illinois senator either. But as soon as it looked like he would prevail, Marshall does a 180.

She’s not a “reporter,” or an “author,” or a “talk radio personality”; that’s already been exposed as a charade. Inflating her resume doesn’t give her much credibility in the first place. But lying about her age to a major newspaper puts her beneath contempt.

Jun 8, 2008 - 1:25 pm 195. Dave II:

twinmom48 (and for that matter, other Hillary supporters and disenchanted Democrats…)

Your candidate ran a GREAT campaign! She was relentless and completely forthcoming about her passion and her beliefs, and I for one…(as a Republican who was originally a Hillary basher and detractor), was entirely suprised and awed by what I heard and saw. Convinced? Well…no, but certainly no longer “AFRAID”…

I now believe that if ANY female becomes President in the (not too distant) future…Hillary will be the one!

This election will obviously NOT be the one, though.

Here’s her (and your) BEST scenario:

Obama loses BIGTIME!! His far-left liberal policies go down like a lead-ballon in the fashion of McGovern, Dukakis, Mondale, and oh…Carter’s reelection…

Give McCain a chance. If not supporting him outright, AT LEAST vote for him in the privacy of the voting booth. (Other than listing all the reasons to vote FOR McCain here…I’m just stating this simple one.)

If he wins and runs for reelection…Hillary has her chance now to run against him. SHE WILL BE the odds on favorite by then for the nomination…

If Obama wins…sure..Hillary can still run against an incumbent President from her own party, but what chance does she have???….NONE, zero, zip, nada!

Simply put… OBAMA is your enemy here…NOT McCain.

Obama wins..and Hillary will NEVER become President!

Jun 8, 2008 - 1:32 pm 196. whitepaw:

Dave II — Excellent –I agree with you. HRC supporters — let’s roll!! McCain in 2008

Jun 8, 2008 - 1:44 pm 197. nick werle:

Its the war stupid!

Jun 8, 2008 - 1:56 pm 198. bz101:

whitepaw – you are incorrect on lincoln’s experience. he served ONE term in the house of representative, not 8 years, AND he lost the re-election bid.

He had 4 terms as a state senator and a single term at the national level. Their experience is quite comparable in that regard.

Personally though, I find the experience argument silly. There is a reason for the constitutional requirements. If the founders thought it necessary for someone to have X years of experience, they would have put it in the Constitution. The presidency is an office of leadership and people should vote for someone that can move the minds of the citizenry and move the hand of the legislature. I don’t think there’s any doubt that Obama is the one moving the minds in this election. Hell, the entire vernacular around this election came from his campaign. All the slogans from Hillary Clinton and now John McCain have become endless modifications of campaign themes from Obama. I think that says all you need to know about this election.

Jun 8, 2008 - 2:28 pm 199. bz101:

Dave II — it makes you wonder if that rules were so stacked against Clinton, why she didn’t read the rules before she decided to run? I guess that tells you all about the judgement issue. Maybe she should have also read the classified NIE before she voted for the AUMF. Seems like a trend going on here…

Jun 8, 2008 - 2:31 pm 200. Michael:

The main core of the Dems, did in fact make a huge push for Obama. It’s possible that the outcome would have been different if Obama’s pastor problems were more in the media at the beginning rather than in the middle of the primary race.

Hilary does in fact want to become VP, if he can’t be President. It will be 8 years before she will be able to run again, that’s a long time, and no doubt she will not be as popular in 8 years as she is now. Most likely she will not run again.

Jun 8, 2008 - 3:46 pm 201. Seth Berkowitz:

Dave II and Whitelaw… Your “strategy” (root for McCain because that gives us a better chance of getting Hillary in 2012) is so convoluted that I had to backtrack and read your earlier posts to be sure I wasn’t responding to an attempt at humor.

As was stated in the original article, Hillary probably voted to enable Bush’s war because she couldn’t visualize a woman voting against the war and having a shot at the presidency. I think that is one of those decisions that proves a person’s unfitness to be President. Even if you think the desire to put a woman in the White House is among the noblest of pursuits, is it justification for a decision that has cost over 4,000 American service people their lives?

Now, you want to elect McCain and put us through four more years of bad leadership so that people will be fed up in 2012 and MAYBE elect your candidate then.

How many Americans do you expect to die in Iraq between 2009 and 2013 under a McCain Presidency? 2,000? Are you willing to sacrifice 2,000 of our sons and daughters just so you can elect a President you like?

How dare you put forward such a misguided plan and pay for it with the lives of brave men and women.

Jun 8, 2008 - 4:16 pm 202. whitepaw:

Oh quit with the How Dare You…. There’s no telly what kind of mess Obama will get us into.. He has no track record. People will vote their conscious … and perhaps my conscious will be better for this country than yours Mr elite Seth Berkowitz. Your arrogance overwhelms me — as does Barack Obama’s. You guys need to quit telling me what to do and… I am frankly sick of arguments like yours.

Jun 8, 2008 - 5:35 pm 203. whitepaw:

Meant conscience…twice I believe in my preceding post. For anyone planning to attack me for a spelling/grammatical mistake…

Jun 8, 2008 - 5:38 pm 204. whitepaw:

Oh … and meant no “telling” as well — been a long day……….

Jun 8, 2008 - 5:40 pm 205. Dave II:

Seth and Bz101-
First of all, Hillary is not my candidate…McCain is. I just feel she got royally screwed by the Rules Committee, and I HAVE been impressed by her campaign, but saying that…

Dems need to make up their own mind with what happened in their party. Hillary DID get more VOTES than ANY candidate in ANY PRIMARY in history.

My point was…a vote FOR OBAMA (or really ANY vote against McCain or even a “non-vote”) helps ELIMINATE Hillary as a future candidate! If McCain runs against Hillary in 2012, which I hope she does, I will make up my mind THEN, based on McCain’s past 3+ years.

But Dems ARE making up their mind NOW. They have seen what the party elites did to their candidate, and they are rejecting OBAMA by the boatload!

Check out these links and save them for the campaign (and the convention) ahead…it will get
very nasty indeed as Dems see their party hijacked:

1. http://NoQuarterUSA.com
2. http://HillaryClintonForum.net
3. http://TurndownObama.com
4. http://WriteHillaryIn.com
5. http://WalkAMileInOurShoes.org
6. http://Stop-Obama.com
7. http://ITakeBackMyVote.com
8. Democrats Over Nominating Elitists (http://DONEdems.com)
9. http://LiberalRapture.com
10. Anglachel’s Journal (http://anglachelg.blogspot.com)
11. http://AttackTimelime.com
12. http://TalkLeft.com
13. http://NObamaDemocrats.com
14. The Confluence (http://RiverDaughter.wordpress.com)
15. http://BlockBarack.com
16. http://McCainocrat.com
17. http://Democrats-Against-Obama.org
18. http://SeatOurDelegates.com
19. http://McCainDemocrats.blogspot.com
20. NObama Petition (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Noba ma/?e)
21. Democrats Who Will Not Vote for Obama Petition (http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Dems _Who_Will_Not_Vote_For_Obama/index.html)
22. http://SwingStateBlogger.blogspot.com
23. Blue Dog Coalition (http://www.house.gov/ross/BlueDogs)
24. New Democrat Coalition (http://www.house.gov/tauscher/ndc/about _ndc.shtml)
25. Democratic Leadership Council (http://www.dlc.org)

Jun 8, 2008 - 7:19 pm 206. Seth Berkowitz:

Whitepaw… if you think that McCain will be a better President by all means, vote for him. If you would prefer a guy who is talking about staying in Iraq, privatizing health insurance and not taking on big oil in any way shape or form, go ahead, vote for him. If you want the next two or three Supreme Court Justices to be ardently pro-life, you’ve got a great candidate to vote for.

But my guess is you don’t feel that way. Dave II’s post says, “If he wins and runs for reelection…Hillary has her chance now to run against him. SHE WILL BE the odds on favorite by then for the nomination… If Obama wins…sure..Hillary can still run against an incumbent President from her own party, but what chance does she have???….NONE, zero, zip, nada! Simply put… OBAMA is your enemy here…NOT McCain. Obama wins..and Hillary will NEVER become President!”

So it seems his main motivation for backing McCain is the hopes that Hillary gets in in 2012. And you seem to to agree. I know he refers to Obama’s “far left” policies, but his policies are nearly the same as Hillary’s. In fact, if universal healthcare with mandates is more liberal than what Obama proposes, and that’s their biggest difference.

So instead of calling me elite and arrogant, tell me where I’m wrong here. Do you actually think McCain is going to be a better President than Obama, even though Obama’s policies nearly match Hillary’s and McCain’s don’t. Or are you just backing this plan to get Hillary in four years from now. If that’s the case, then you’re playing a very dangerous game, voting in a guy who is going to give us Bush III in the hopes you get the President you want four years from now.

Oh, by the way, why am I “elite”.

Jun 8, 2008 - 9:08 pm 207. Loquacious Evans:

You’re “elite” because you think voting for a Marxist that makes gaffes as though he doesn’t even have a GED is a good thing. Some of his non-scripted comments make Bush seem like an egghead. But he did drive a stake through the pantsuit which IS a good thing unless he’s stupid enough to pick her for VP. No…can anyone really want to win that badly?

Jun 9, 2008 - 3:14 am 208. bandit:

Sorry – you’re just wrong – way too many Americans looked at Hils sell by date, took a smell and put her back. They took the new shiny looking package without looking at the (nonexistent) contents. If Hil had any for real quality she would have still won but she doesn’t so she lost.

Jun 9, 2008 - 4:58 am 209. Seth Berkowitz:

Oh, so I’m elite because I actually know what the word “elite” means and resist the urge to use it indiscriminantly as an insult.

Actually, I made a gaffe myself, taking umbrage at the word elite, because I thought she had called me elitest. Elite is actually a complement, so basically Whitepaw and Loquacious are just saying that I’m better than they are… thanks!

Jun 9, 2008 - 5:43 am 210. politicalreacharound:

If republicans want to spend all there time looking for evidence that Hillary supporters are going to abandon their ideals and vote for McCain I am all for it. But in the end it is not going to happen. These women will vote for Obama in November. If the republicans only hope is that democrats vote for them after these 8 years well the writings already on the wall.

Jun 9, 2008 - 5:49 am 211. Art:

Howard Dean handpicked the supposedley “Undecided” Democrats on the panel and gave them the power to sway the vote on Florida and Michigan. As I watched it on television, I saw an unexpected familar face on the panel and I knew the fix was in. Yvonne Atkinson Gates, a former Clark County commisioner from Nevada who quit her job on the county commision before the end of her term under huge scandals. To see this woman on that panel making one of the most important desisions facing this country turned my stomach. See for yourself. link:http://nyenevada.blogspot.com/2007/04/former-clark-county-commissioner-yvonne.html

Jun 9, 2008 - 7:17 am 212. DownriverDem:

Sad to say, Clinton lost because she ignored the cacaus states where he racked up delegates big time. I am really surprised the Clinton team didn’t change tactics when they saw this happening.

That said, I will vote for Obama because a President McCain would be a big major mistake.

Jun 9, 2008 - 7:22 am 213. Dave II:

“These women will vote for Obama in November.”

Hmmm…ya sure of that now, are ya???

The political anger out there is palpable. All across the internet women are speaking out…I certainly don’t have to go very far AT ALL to “find it”. Here’s just a few examples I tripped over:

“Fortunately, among American voters, there are tens of millions of us who will always put Country first and Political Party (a distant) second. While we would vote for either Hillary (the American Fighter) or McCain (the American Hero), we would never vote for Obama (the Stealth Candidate).”

“The media is totally out of touch with reality. Life long Democrat here who will absolutely be voting for McCain, and I have plenty of friends in NY who feel the same. Hoping for a 49 state blowout to blow Obama’s ego down to size.”

And finally, another Dem woman who says it best:

“I will be one of the millions of women that will cast my vote for McCain instead of Obama. I may be a democrat but first and foremost I am an American.

And don’t threaten me with Roe vs Wade, I am one of those women that think abortion is wrong yet I voted democratic anyway because I felt the candidate I was voting for had something in them that I could respect.

Not so with obama, I think he is a racist, he has questionable friends, a hate filled filled preacher and church, and a mean, hate filled wife with a chip on her shoulder the size of the Grand Canyon.

It is not my fault that the democratic party and moveon.org have overtaken the party. I think Charlton Heston said it best when he said, “I have not left the democratic party, the democratic party has left me”

Hmmm… “the democratic party has left me”

Next stop, Denver!

Jun 9, 2008 - 10:18 am 214. georgie:

she lost to him because he’s black, and you can’t say anything bad about him or you risk being called racist!~!!!!!!!!!!!!! shame on you America. I thought we were better than that.

Jun 9, 2008 - 11:30 am 215. ApplePie:

There are plenty of long term – and many newer – Democrats who will not vote for Barack Obama for one BIG reason = he is NOT qualified. You can only take party unity so far and we will not vote for an inexperienced candidate PERIOD! Eight l-o-n-g years of George W. Bush should be enough proof. Barack Obama is clearly the first American Idol Presidential candidate and very likely President. So when did the President become the Orator in Chief?

Hillary had experience and judgement. She made mistakes and learned from them. I honestly don’t think we need another 4 years of disatrous “on the job training” – do you??

Jun 9, 2008 - 12:35 pm 216. CAROL:

NO THEY DO NOT; THEY NO HOW SHE LOST, BY MUNIPULATION BY SOME DEMS, SUPERDELEGATES AND ESPECIALLY THE MEDIA….

YES WE ARE WOMEN, BUT WE ARE NOT STUPID////////

Jun 9, 2008 - 5:17 pm 217. CAROL:

ditto:

Hmmm…ya sure of that now, are ya???

The political anger out there is palpable. All across the internet women are speaking out…I certainly don’t have to go very far AT ALL to “find it”. Here’s just a few examples I tripped over:

“Fortunately, among American voters, there are tens of millions of us who will always put Country first and Political Party (a distant) second. While we would vote for either Hillary (the American Fighter) or McCain (the American Hero), we would never vote for Obama (the Stealth Candidate).”

“The media is totally out of touch with reality. Life long Democrat here who will absolutely be voting for McCain, and I have plenty of friends in NY who feel the same. Hoping for a 49 state blowout to blow Obama’s ego down to size.”

And finally, another Dem woman who says it best:

“I will be one of the millions of women that will cast my vote for McCain instead of Obama. I may be a democrat but first and foremost I am an American.

And don’t threaten me with Roe vs Wade, I am one of those women that think abortion is wrong yet I voted democratic anyway because I felt the candidate I was voting for had something in them that I could respect.

Not so with obama, I think he is a racist, he has questionable friends, a hate filled filled preacher and church, and a mean, hate filled wife with a chip on her shoulder the size of the Grand Canyon.

It is not my fault that the democratic party and moveon.org have overtaken the party. I think Charlton Heston said it best when he said, “I have not left the democratic party, the democratic party has left me”

Hmmm… “the democratic party has left me”

Next stop, Denver!

Jun 9, 2008 - 5:20 pm 218. phoenix:

“black and blue” outfit? Where have you been? The outfit was her famous chocolate and teal colors. Black and Blue my ass.

Jun 9, 2008 - 7:26 pm 219. MKN:

Hillary supporters, if you want to convince this voter to support her, I’d like one question answered: Why does she have Sandy Berger on her staff as an adviser, the guy who stole National Archives documents and stuffed them down his pants (and still hasn’t given them back)?

This is just one of many things the Republicans will throw at her in a general election. Too many others spring to mind too quickly: Travelgate, Filegate, shady Rose Law Firm dealings, health-care fiasco, and more. And mind you, these are on HER plate, not Bill’s.

P.S. I’m a “none of the above” supporter, this election.

Jun 10, 2008 - 7:10 am 220. Dave II:

For the “undecided” or “none of the above” Hillary supporters in this election, I link the following column, “What Hillary Really Wants”.

Read it! (The author made the same point I did but much much better.) Read “between the lines” of Hillary’s speech. Notice what she says, and more importantly DOESN’T say. It’s a true EYE-OPENER:

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=652

Jun 10, 2008 - 10:59 am 221. Mandy:

Left out a few things, didn’t you? What if Hillary had conducted a thought-through prepared campaign? What if she had presented some compelling reasons to vote for her? What if she were not a hyprocritical, opportunistic, mendacious neurotic? Or simply: what is she were NOT Hillary Clinton?

Jun 10, 2008 - 2:45 pm 222. always right:

Totally a moot point, either side, after reading through the comments.

Come this November, Dems will just drudge up more dead people!

Jun 11, 2008 - 11:45 am 223. jj:

Taylor, one of the reasons I went to Obama was how embarrassed I was at the VITROL that was spewed from YOU and your loyal lemmings on your website. Have you actually read Obama’s books? Do you know anything about this guy? Do you know anything about the Clintons on the other hand? Hillary and Bill’s racial comments, all the tawdry stuff they did during their white House years, including the pardons and the horrid way they acted during the impeachment, and then Hillary refusing to concede and there you were CHEERING her on. It was one of the most pathetic things I can remember. As a woman, I was so damn embarrassed that she was unable to stand tall and act in a dignified fashion. Who else would have screamed “What does Hillary Want” when they had already lost? Who else would have had the audacity to infer she was hanging around in case Obama got shot? And almost worst of all, who in the world after all she put this guy through, would have had the NERVE and AUDACITY to let Obama know that she would be his V.P. My GOD, you should be so damn embarrassed. You behaved like a child, and you had your heinous female followers spewing the most vile stuff imaginable and yet, you encouraged it.

Really, Taylor, you are a disaster. So was Hillary, and I guess you saw a fellow second rate has been, and just had to jump on her train.

YOu and Hillary both owe Obama a serious apology, and you might want to include all the rest of us Democrats who found your vile website just to obscene to comprehend. I hear FOX is hiring.

Jun 12, 2008 - 4:08 pm 224. Mark in NC:

My decision to vote for McCain has nothing to do with Hillary losing the primary. I voted for Hillary because she is the strongest and most intelligent candidate, my second choice would be McCain. For the first time in my life I see the Democrat party for what they really are. I’ve voted in seven presidential elections, all for Democrats, and always thought they were the most honest and less corrupt party. However, after seeing how the Washington Democratic insiders pulled together to support their candidate of choice sure reminds me of the Bush Administration’s same tactics. I see it as how one party can control the presidency by having a puppet in the oval office to push their personal agenda and the hell with what the people want. The Bush Administration (in my opinion) is the worst of the worst at control and corruption and the strings were being pulled by Dick Cheney and his gang of thugs. Bush is nothing more than a puppet just like the Washington Democrat insiders want their own puppet to do the same. When I saw Senators endorse and give Obama their superdeligate vote going against how their state voted it sure looked suspicious to me. I saw Congress members doing the exact same thing going against how their District voted. These thugs are out for their own agenda and don’t give a diddle squat what their constituents wanted. They come across as so corrupt and greedy they actually think their constituents will continue voting for them regardless. I wouldn’t vote for a single one of them. They totally ignored the people that employed them. We are not all as stupid as they seem to think, they seem to think they can treat their constituents any way they choose and we will follow like a heard of cows at milking time. I do not want another gang of control freaks in Washington. This country is too important to me and facing too many challenges to allow another gang of thugs to take over. Thugs is exactly how the Democrats acted with their superdelegate crap. Their breaking the rules junk levied on Florida and Michigan was beyond ridiculous. The almighty DNC should never have allowed this to get as far as it did. They made their RULES more important than winning an election, seems like breaking the RULES hurt these idiots ego so much someone had to be punished. The voters in Florida and Michigan are the ones that were punished. I just don’t want these people to control our country. Regardless of what Democrats say about McCain being another Bush , he is not and never has been. He has voted more times against the Bush pushed Bills than for them. He seems to vote his own conscious more than any Democrat or Republican. Neither McCain or Clinton can be controlled by either party that is why Washington insiders hate both of them. Huckabee was the only other candidate that was his own person but, unfortunately, I would never vote for him because of his religious agenda. I do like the man though. I’m no longer a loyal Democrat as I once was. Too bad it took me so many years to see through this once great party. I can see what happens when ego greedy corrupt politicians get in Washington for life, they forget why they are there. They form a giant cesspool that needs cleaning and I’d start with the Democrats by eliminating their corrupt caucuses and superdelegates.

Jun 15, 2008 - 7:19 am 225. mrt721:

How?
3 words.
Patti Solis Doyle.
One of the talking heads on MSNBC or CNN
(I was switching back and forth) said
Obama hired her because he had worked
with her family in his early days in Chicago.
I thought, “Hmmmmm”.
Can you say deliberate sabatoge?

Jun 17, 2008 - 2:05 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: