Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for. (read, not what he is looking for) Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, (yes, the woman who was considered inevitable 6 months ago somehow survived) largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not. (yes, enough to put her in second place, with no chance to be nominated)

No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton. (no, maybe older voters identify with the older candidate. blacks can identify with Obama, but the reverse is never true?)

The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Clinton campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the chance for victory has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?

That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.

(absolutely, we all know how successful President Kerry has been, and before that President Gore, and Dukakis, and...)

Krugman, your candidate has lost. Deal with it.

Krugman has a point. That's a big assumption Jonathan; I think you're projecting a bit.

The Unity of Hope is hardly a clear, progressive emphasis. Rhetorically, he's run straight down the centre and there's no reason to think that's not a general winning strategy. I'd feel much more comfortable if he hired some of Edward's writers.

If Obama shares 95% of his platform with Hillary, then why, exactly, is he running now? Other than HRC's vulnerability and the fact that Bush Sux, what is the compelling case for Obama _at this stage in his political career_?

A lot of people, and probably Krugman and a majority of older voters, look at Obama and think of him as unformed, a work in progress, a rookie pol with lots of promise whose national career needs some more time to blossom.

If he's another JFK, he's JFK in 1954, not 1960. He's simply too green now. He needs to carve out some area of expertise, make it his own, and actually LEAD people ina  direction they're not now inclined to go on a particular issue.

As opposed to mining his glamour for easy votes among young, gullible groupie-voters and yuppies wowed by his Lifestory(ies).

Obligatory disclaimer: iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary iamnotforhillary.

blackton - Krugman in talking about economic security has more crisply and precisely articulated the essence of the Democrats' message than anyone I've heard in years. It is a powerful case, but to make that case requires a different approach than posting turgid policy papers on a website. It requires real passion and a gift for making simplicity out of complexity and then connecting the general to the specific situation of individual households-- ESPECIALLY working families.

Obama has not shown an aptitude for either of the above. His campaign has nothing like the powerful, simplifying, focused taglines like "those who work hard and play by the rules" or "insurance that no one can take away from you" or "end welfare as we know it" or "abortion: safe, legal and rare."

Why do you think that is? I don't really know, either, but my judgment of Obama's essential character is that he has the curse of the glib and good-looking person who doesn't quite know where he stands with others, ie a Gatsbian tendency to try to fit a bland and inoffensive, glamorous persona of his imagining.

Older people not impressed by glamour prefer Jay Gatz to Jay Gatsby. The problem that liberals not besotted with the man have with him is this sense that his is a campaign in search of a compelling reason for existence-- other than another chapter in the Obama bildungsroman.

Also strange is the man's apparent lack of interest in bread-and-butter economics issues. Why has he not been out front on any economics-related legislation? What exactly does he believe re free trade-- if he's against it, then why wasn't Goolsbee reined in by the campaign? Or is he doing yet another of his straddles with trademark winks and nudges to his yuppie audience, as Goolsbee suggested?

In a more seasoned candidate, the ability to cater to people who line up on diametrically opposed sides of an issue-- pro-Israel vs an "evenhanded" approach re Isr and the Palestinians; free trade; Black Power and post-racial politics; partisanship vs bipartisanship etc-- would be seen as evidence of political skill. With Obama, it comes across to wiser, older voters as calculating and, increasingly, condescending.  

Time for him to shed a little glamour, spend some political capital and start carving out tough stands that will lose him a few votes while winning the respect of many more voters. Even those who disagree with him on the issue in question.

The easy, obvious first step is for him to propose scrapping race-based aff action in school admissions and replacing it with income-based aff action. He's hinted he favors this, and publicly and volubly urging it would cost him next to nothing while persuading many working-class whites that he does understand the core fact of contemporary US society, which is declining CLASS-based, not race-based, mobility. He might also show the rest of us that he's actually got some leadership chops, or cojones.

Tep's argument, in so many words:  

All the Democrats agree on what a platform should be => Only one Democrat should run for President => Obama is younger/less experienced than other Democrats => Obama should not be the nominee.

Throw in the fact that he hasn't formed the wonderful slogans the Clinton had in '92 (and Hillary "Ready on Day One" has?)  and clearly he's not fit to be President?    How many politicians have "led people where they didn't want to go" before becoming President?  Can you give examples?  Did W?  Did Clinton I?  (Recall he didn't run as a "New Democrat" in the Primaries but, faced with Tsongas, turned populist.)  Did HW Bush, Carter, Nixon, LBJ, JFK, Truman or FDR?  I suppose Reagan moved the GOP rightward against Ford in '76, but he seems the exception.  While we've had Presidents with more experience, I'm hard pressed to find a President who pushed the country that way before he was elected.  The closest I can think is Humphrey taking the Democratic Party to Civil Rights in 1948, but by 1968 he lost.  

By the way, I don't think that "inoffensive, glamorous persona" keeps one from speaking in those wonderful sound bites you admire.  Tony Blair, he of "Cool Britannia" came up with one of the best: "Tough on Crime, Tough on the causes of Crime" as well as countless others.

Actually this was Blair's finest moment Crock:

"A day like today is not a day for soundbites, really. But I feel the hand of history upon our shoulders...."

Even if Obama and Hillary are similar to each other in terms of policy proposals, there remains something to be said regarding the efficacy that each candidate can bring to their implementation.

As for Krugman, I find the guy to be a complete donkey when it comes to intra-party politics.  All shoot from the hip wishy washy baseless assertions formulated with the same confidence given to real quantitative analysis.  That Obama only has "awesomeness" or some intoxicating vague sort of messiahness to bring to the table is simply a consequence of the media's lazinness in constructing a candidate's story.  This angle has been used cynically by people like Krugman to build a straw man that they can subsequently tear down.  

"On health care, both sides have demagogued, though Obama has demagogued worse."  I'm assuming you are criticizing his claim that she would force some folks to buy health insurance they cannot afford.

Question:  If a young, healthy person with a modest income does not need comprehensive health insurance -- and could use the difference in cost between a comprehensive policy and a major medical policy to make mortgage payments on an inexpensive house -- would you say that Obama's claim is unfair with respect to that person?

Tep - I think he's running because the entire power structure of the Democratic party - Hillary is a  the most egregious - is run by a bunch of spineless right wing bootlickers who stand for nothing but sniveling and cowering.  In some ways, they have been much worse than the Republicans, cowards every last one of them.  You wonder why Iliked Spitzer?  I frigging LOVED it.  He was IT in the entire godforsaken country for fierce progressives.  He blew it with his emotional problems, but I stand by his whole take on being a progressive.  

What exactly has Hillary ever fought for except her own hide?  Perhaps Hillary really does think a flag burning ammendment was more important than standing up to a radical, destructive regime, but who really knows? Does anyone know what she ever fought for except to silence Bill's bimbos?  Seriously, after awhile all I saw was the banality of evil in their cowardice.

Obama at least gave a shit enough to vote against these jackasses on things that were hard to vote against, to frame an argument against them and the entire boomer mentality that led to the toxicity of our present political culture.  Remember spine?  Not too many people do.  Hillary Clinton's right wing butt kissing only gets worse every day, her lies more pronounced, the rationale behind her candidacy only more empty.  Obama ran because it is his time - no one else was going to bother being real in any way and good for him.

I like McCain much more than Hillary and will consider voting for him not as a protest, but in earnest - that is if his entire platform makes it out of the silly, embarrassing and in to the real. Hes asking for my centrist vote right now as we speak and I appreciate it.  

No one is perfect so please save your nitpicking goal post moving speeches.

tep,

Obama's reason for running now is that someone had to get rid of Hillary for us and he figured he knew how to do it.  And he did.  And I say thank god he did.  I didn't really want to wake up and discovered that I had moved to Argentina.  Hillary is a woman of no accomplishment, no demonstrated ability, a lousy senator, and for sure a mediocre politician who would have triangulated to nowhere if she had been elected and would have had a hard time beating McCain.  Fortunately, Obama came along and showed us what a lousy politician she is BEFORE she won the Democratic nomination.  I am grateful to him.

Tep, you know full well that the reason Obama ran now is because this, more than any other time, is most opportune for him. you might find his message lame but it has gotten him into first place against a formidable political machine that had countless money and instant name recognition. The only perfect candidate is the one who wins. If we can ever get beyond this train wreck of a primary then perhaps he can pivot away from responding to Hillary's wrecking ball. You want him to run the general election campaign now. It ain't going to happen.

Beyond that, by winning the primaries he has earned the right to lose in November. He is who he is. None of anybodies whining here about his campaign will make the slightest difference no matter how right or wrong we may be.

Hey wandreycer,

I wish I had said that.  You wrapped it all up quite nicely.

dpinkert , I agree but don't get me started. His demagoguery consisted of one ad that was factually true but was reminiscent of 94 (which incidently killed Hillarycare). Like the Republicans won't ever think of that!

wandrey, ever notice how old most of Hillary's supporters are? and that most of her younger ones are radicalized women? Baby boomers are always right about everything, them young people are just foolish. And they claim Obama condescends.

And you are right, McCain puts Hillary to shame. Obama is the only genuine contrast.

And the only person who would make Tep happy in a Presidential race would be Tep. Don't get me wrong, I think he makes a lot of good points but up to now Obama has done a truly extraordinary job making only one gaffe at a private event (he can't possibly retroactively disassociate himself from Wright by never attending that church). Beyond that, what? Oh he met Bill Ayers once 12 years ago. Or was involved in a charity cause with him (and a lot of other people). Was it any wonder why Pc repeated Rezco for months? Obama, compared to the Clintons, is pretty clean.

Goodness, Tep,

I find that I actually agree with a  big chunk of what you said back there.  I don't come at it with the presumptions of inadequacy that you've bring to Barack Obama, but with a clear eyed sense that, good as Obama is, he might be best served by losing this time.  In politics (as the Clintons are proving) you need more than a second act.  You need a whole bag full.  And I'm not sure how many acts Barack has in him at this point.  I think he's tired.  And it might be best (depending, of course on the outcome in Indiana and North Carolina.) if he let himself lose this thing despite being ahead in points.  A true movement can only get stronger over time, and a national politcal figure can only deepen and widen their relationships with the various communities throughout the country (ala Bobby Kennedy between 1964 and 1968), and be more widely and firmly rooted four years from now.  He  could even adopt something of a referee's stance on the President of his own party.  Something like John McCain has done for the last eight years.  But with a movement and an organizaton.  That can raise millions and millions of dollars anytime it wants.  And it has a logo.  And a community service division, working to organize positive social change in communities around the country, called "ObamaWorks".  Also with a logo.  (Kind of cool and retro and NRA looking, too.)

What I can't quite persuade myself, given the alternatives, is that the country would be best served by this.  I believe, with Obama, that the "Now" is urgent.   We've had two terms of James Bucahanan.  We need Lincoln now.  And I don't see either of the other two even having that possiblity (good and appropriate as they may have been in other times and other crises) and I believe, and always  have, that Barack Obama does.  And he is a pretty quick learner.  To be where he is and have done what he has, this guy who was a state senator in Illinois a little over three years ago, is not an empty or shallow acheivement.  Like Colin Powell said..."He didn't know how to run for President before, did he?  And he's done a pretty good job at that."?   It took three hundred and fifty years for this to happen, Tep, and the jury is still out as to whether it's possible yet  He is already historic, but if he wins a nomination that is denied him behind closed doors, I think he's more like Andrew Jackson than Al Gore.  He doesn't go away when this is over.  Regardless of how it turns out.  

But I think you're right.  He needs to explicitly make a case for class based affirmative action.  In his acceptance speech at the convention in Denver.  If he does it now it looks "political" in that narrow, politics as played by the Clintons, sense that would only make things worse.  With Hillary having effectively divided the Democratic party into mutually hostile tribes, now is not the time to turn around and piss on your own guys.  

Blackton,

I am proud to say that I am a very much a Baby Boomer for Obama.  We've made enough of a mess (or rather failed badly at solving much of anything).  Time to give another generation a chance.

And Krugman is an ass.  The most persistent and clamourous of the people whose politics of the perfect kills the politics of the good.  (Hillarycare?  Mandates? Didn't we do this once before?)  And there's that completely inexplicable personal animosity he seems to have toward  Barack..... that poisons everthing he writes.

He's not "inadequate", he's just _green_. And cocky.

wandrey - you make a good case; I see your point. If he's a fighter, great. But other than the war, what has he fought for, and won, in Congress?

As I say, he needs to pick an issue or two, really own it or them, show some leadership and rack up some major wins. He's like a brand that's all logo and advertising and no product.

roi - Fair enough, that's a coherent argument.

blackie - "Tep, you know full well that the reason Obama ran now is because this, more than any other time, is most opportune for him."

Ah, the candidate who's above politics, above opportunism, is running because it's... opportune. Just as he embraced a southside Chicago goofball preacher-on-the-make because it was _politically opportune_ for him to do so.

Do you guys see why I refuse to buy into all the airy nonsense about reinventing politics, post-partisanship, a New Way?

He's a politician-- fine. His record's solidly left-wing-- np. But please, please dispense with the BS about being beyond politics.

vanwurs - yeah, stranger things have happened than you and I agreeing. As to Krugman, well, he's not afraid to speak his mind, and it's a good mind. Sometimes he moves the posts but all in all I think he plays it straight. Listen to the man.

Obama's whole campaign has been about how HE IS THE CHANGE, HE IS THE ONE WHO WILL SAVE US (see Michele for details). Why we would believe this of a man who was a state legislator 3 years ago and whose actual  accomplishments are so non-existent that his supporters cite what he did in law school as a qualitfication for the presidency is completely beyond me.

Krugman has this exactly right. Obama's campaign is entirely about himself. Increasingly it appears that he doesn't even like ordinary people very much.

Yes, he's green and he's cocky. I Don't care. He'll do just fine. I'm re-reading his autobiography at the moment. I read it first in 05, so it's different now. What hits me most is that it's not so much that his life was interesting - lots of people have had much more interesting stuff happen to them. But they were not themselves as interesting, so their autobiographies are much more boring.

That is to say, he experiences something and he gets why it's significant, and is able to relay that significance, again and again and again. This is a person who has the ability to learn the important bits from whatever is in front of him, and he is a quick study. He is green and he is cocky [I prefer "audacious"!] but he has brains for miles. I mean way beyond what she has. And tep, he does not have the kind of cocky that goes off half cocked - you don't hear him threatening nuclear anhiliation of Iran, for example. He's temperamentally much more steady and grown up than she is. Or McCain is, for that matter.

And why now? He's not patient, either. He's been in Washington exactly long enough to know it's screwed, why it's screwed, and what needs to be done. Why should he marinate? I don't want to marinate, I'll tell you that. I think this country is corkscrewing into the ground, and we need to yank it up, and the only hope we have is to get citizens involved. He gets that, and he's doing that.

I'm watching John Adams on HBO [which we broke down and got to see The Wire] and it's meshing nicely with my current hope-y patriotic ferver. Or cockiness, if you like.

I don't think Obama is cocky at all.  People don't expect a 47 year old (black) man to a serious leader so they come up with derogatory terms like that to make themselves feel better.  My thoughts are that the 47 year old part is the toughest for people to deal with, and while I throughly disagree - its not an unfair concern.  WHat is not fair is the glaring, red-light level double standard being applied to Obama because of his race.  Cocky? Please. I won't apologize or hem and haw about that.  That part is very clear.  Somehow Hillary Clinton - the crypto Jane Fonda of redneck feverish dreams - is the savior of old people and bitter blue collars?  yeah right.

It's hard to imagine Sam Nunn signing on with a cocky green person.  This is just silly.  Obvious.

He makes people uncomfortable, that's for sure. He is uncomprising in his impatience with the mess he sees.  That is the best part about Obama - his courage.  Is there anything that doesn't need to be changed about our political culture?  I can't think of one thing.

The rest of  these mealy mouthed Democrats ran mealy mouthed campaigns with mealthy mouthed, around the edges please-don't-hurt-me rhetoric designed to rump kiss and in effect, only makes people disgusted and depressed.  Obama has come in and politely said - nope, need to blow it all up, we need to be America again and I bet you think so too.  Leadership: perhaps we Democrats need to look the word up in the dictionary.  It's been so long since someone has had it, we're freaked out.  Good - freak out MORE.

One of  the most telling components of Hillaryistas is the fierece emptiness of their rhetoric - it's all attacks on Obama because there simply is nothing good or solid to say about their candidate.  I have yet to read a postive, concrete case being made for her by these people - and Ihave challenged them many times and been ignored every time - or a coherent rational for her candidacy.  I have yet to see a "defense" of Hillary on other sites (which is really just a long winded attack on Obama) that didn't harp on Obama's middle name (the third most comon in the world).  It's just embarassing.  Talk about a kool-aid drinking cult.

Obama is not a black slapper.  He doesn't mind leaving you with a chill, which - with our need for back slappers and boot lickers here in the US, makes people reach for names to call him, if they aren't rightly complimented by the respect hes showing you by being real instead.  

He believes in himself and what well organized millions can do. He is thoughtful and honest to an almost shocking degree for a man in politics, especially the sewer of recent politics.  He is a proud progressive.  He can be astringent. He gets tired.  He It is impossible to pigeonhole him which makes the human animal start to whine and growl.

I also admire his ideas for the greening of the economy, adhering to the constitution and fixing the broken intelligence system here in the US.  

This country may not be read to elect a black man, which is sad - but he is certainly qualified and certainly nothing resembling cocky.  That's your problem, not his.

PS I forgot to add Tep, that I'll give you green. Obama's case for running now - before DC leeches all inspiration, initiative and energy out of him - is something I find very honest, cant free and very convincing.  Its fair if others don't.  

I have great respect for professional DC, I worked in it, I'm still close with many working in it now.  Yet "expereince" is much too vague a term for me to be convincing in this case and like I've said, I am not looking for nor do I expect perfection.  

It's my country, ask not and all that.  

Obama is demanding that WE be accountable to our OWN country, both on the left and the right - stop demonzing, stting on the sidelines whining and stop romanticising that govt can save you.  What can you give back?  It's time to roll up your sleeves, pick up and ax and get to work yourself.

Tep,

"If Obama shares 95% of his platform with Hillary, then why, exactly, is he running now?"

Because if they are 95% the same on the issues and he immensely more charismatic why wouldn't he run?  Why would Democrats want HRC in this scenario?  You get 95% of the platform with lower negatives and baggage.

"His campaign has nothing like the powerful, simplifying, focused taglines like "those who work hard and play by the rules" or "insurance that no one can take away from you" or "end welfare as we know it" or "abortion: safe, legal and rare."

Your complain repeatedly that BHO has no substance yet you would be satisfied by having a tagline????  HRC has had 4 or 5 so far and it has not helped.

BHO has the exact opposite problem,  He does not trivialize the issues into soundbites and treats the American people like adults.  The problems facing our country are not going to be solved by ANY President alone.  If there were a simple solution to the recession, would not all 3 candidates be trumpeting them?  If universal health were actually politically feasible would not all 3 candidates endorse the solution?  HRC's mandatory coverage will never become law, but it sure sounds great until you remember that she was not paying people in her own campaign because she did not have the MONEY which makes the mandatory part complicated.

I love reading the blogs here, more so than actual magazine these days, because of the high % of interesting posts, but could someone please explain that if experience in Congress is our benchmark for preparedness fo the POTUS why we don't nominate the longest serving Senator/Congressperson each election.  Could it be that there are more important qualifications like leadership and charisma that you either have or you don't.  If not, Byrd in  08!

Peace

Greg

I become less and less interested in this election w/ every passing day -- if it weren't for conversation points w/ my dad, I'd probably ignore it altogether.  I've never gotten w/ the swooning over Obama -- he's all right, whatevs.   Doesn't seem to have much to sell except himself.  And Hillary -can't- sell herself.  I don't care who wins, I think they should toss a coin and be done w/ it -- I don't feel strongly that McCain is a guy who MUST BE STOPPED.  I'm saying I could live w/ him.  The only thing that could really turn me on is if people could just get over the besotted hero worship and realize that these are two seriously flawed candidates neither one of whom can put away the other -- and say to hell w/ it.  DRAFT GORE...

Wandrey - I hear you, and you're clearly disposed to give BHO's rhetoric the benefit of the doubt. Yes, he's fresh in many ways, and if I were inclined toward Hope instead of sad Experience, I too would look past his flaws and accentuate the positive in the man. Maybe you're right. As I've noted before, I voted for him and will almost certainly do so again in the fall.

As to cockiness, that's certainly a good trait in a young or youngish man seeking to make his mark on the world-- as a writer, an entrepreneur, a thinker. But POTUS isn't charged with remaking the world, especially not in our era, when the world is more than anything else in danger of having the wheels come off it. We need someone who will elevate a few things above all others and then execute those projects flawlessly. Cocky people, especially young cocky people, tend to attempt the opposite: they're all over the map, they can't prioritize, they overestimate their influence on situations and give far too much credence to the power of their own cleverness.

What Obama really needs now, and what the nation needs Obama to have now, is to have his smug faith in the power of his rhetoric thoroughly dashed. To the point where the man feels embarrassed by highfalutin words, deliberately avoids rhetorical elegance for a while, and sets about speaking plain sense to plain people. When you do that, you focus on essentials. You prioritize. If Obama were to start doing that, his message would overnight become crisp, compelling, sharp, powerful.

Maybe he can learn quickly. Let's hope so.

gupta - tell me where to sign up.

Tep,

I am glad you were not advising the founding fathers on what is possible from our country :)

Imagine the arrogance to think they could create a better form of government that represents the people and take on the world's foremost superpower to boot.

Middle management  principles sound much safer.

Peace

Well said, atomic.  We really did have some great candidates -- Gore, Biden, Edwards, Dodd -- any of whom, together on a ticket, would trounce McCain.  But HIllary had her machine, and Obama his Children's Crusade, and so we've come to this sorry pass.

Tep, it's no use.  Don't you feel like a broken record?  It's like trying to talk reason to the true believer, who keeps replying with a non-sequitur.  You say, But he's nothing but talk, and they reply, But He's offering a new vision.  Unfortunately, I think we're past the stage of reason -- what's needed is deprogramming.

The sadder but wiser girl for tep, oh yeah, the sadder but wiser girl for him.

Tep,  no matter how many times you try to repackage your complaint, the more it sounds the same.  You think Obama is too inexperienced and that he is supposed to wait his turn in some imaginary pecking order.

But, let's try and be honest about what is.  George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton are what made Barack Obama possible.  Before W., there was a general sense in the country that a president ought to have some meaningful experience in life if not in politics.  In W., we elected a dry drunk with a history of being nothing more than a fuck-up his whole life.  Ignorant, poorly educated, a failure at everything he touched.  Someone gave him a share of the Rangers where he specialized in backslapping and shaking hands.  By virtue of his daddy's name, he was the governor of Texas where the executive is the weakest in the nation.  His forte seems to have been giving everyone a cute nickname, a talent he then brought to the White House.  

Now, W. is hardly a persuasive argument that experience doesn't matter.  After having been a fuck-up his whole life, he stole the presidency and proceeded to fuck-up virtually everything his administration touched.   The list of his failures, from Afghanistan, to Bin Ladin, to Iraq, to the destruction of administrative agencies, to torture, to fiscal mismanagement and tolerance for corruption in every aspect of government, how much worse could it be?  If people like Chanrobt who complain about Obama were capable of acknowledging the Bush disaster, as in "Look, we elected one guy with limited experience and it has been a disaster; we should learn our lesson," their arguments would have some weight, or at least make some sense.  But when they complain of Obama's inexperience while allowing only that Bush made a few mistakes here and there, they are risible.  At LEAST it seems incontrovertible that Obama is both smart and well-educated.  You don't get offered a professorship at the University of Chicago Law School (not Michigan, of course, but still a very intellectual place) without being both.

But then comes Hillary.  Frankly, it is just painfully obvious that anyone who has to keep intoning "I have 35 years of experience" has none.  Her experience as an elected official is briefer than Obama's and was handed to her on the strength of her name.  She was the wife of the president, the wife of a governor.  She flunked the DC bar and became an insignificant partner in an insignificant law firm in Little Rock, AR.  As a senator she has accomplished nothing other than learning how to kiss the butts of Republicans so they don't say nasty things about her any more.

Coming behind Bush, it is precisely Hillary's lack of anything other than celebrity and a wonky ability to recited policy details (something Obama is clearly capable of doing if it were the least bit relevant to electoral success which it isn't) has made it legitimate to run for president without the sort of life experience that, pre-Bush, would have been thought essential, to the point where no one could have run for president without it and not have been laughed off stage as a nutcase.  

The essence of Obama is that, by most measures that count in politics, he is simply BETTER than Hillary.  Would that have been enough if he had a different opponent?  Maybe not.  But he has Hillary.  She cleared the way for a presidential campaign by an unaccomplished nothing whose celebrity wasn't even earned.  He took a look and said, well, if she can do it, I can sure as hell do it because I bring a lot more to the table in terms of brains and political and rhetorical skill than she does.  And, sure enough, because he is smarter and more capable, he has smacked her silly, so silly that she was driven to fantasize that she flew into Tuzla under sniper fire.

I will take his rhetorical skill, his superior intellect (to hers and to all but a few), his history of making his own way, and his un-suspect progressivism (I have enormous suspicion of hers) any day.  What is the reason for Obama's candidacy now?

Answer:  Hillary Rodham Clinton, our very own Eva Peron.

roid, what can I say, we are going to go around in circles over this thing until the nomination is wrapped up. The only thing I know is that the Democrats have seriously got to shorten their primary season. This has been going on forever already. I suppose Democrats will be scheduling the Iowa caucus for Jan. 21, 2009 just to make sure we get an early enough jump on it.  And probably Jan. 22, 2009 for the 2016 elections.

Tep and others ask what Obama has done.  The better questions is what Hillary has done.  Or better, what has she screwed up.  Two massive failures come to mind.

1.  Through hubris, incompetence and arrogance, she set back national health insurance for at least a generation.

2.  She voted for the war.

Hillary is a horrible candidate.  Face it.  And now her petulance has the potential to destroy the most promising Democrat in a generations.

When it comes right down to it, she is a Bad Person.  She has to go so the Democratic party can move and not destroy itself.

Hillary-slayers, heres a deal: Gore-Obama in 2008. That gives Obama 8 years to grow and develop into a first-rate national pol who has mastered, and owns, a major issue of extreme importance to the core working class Dem constituency.

From Newseek, 4/18:

"Finally, the door is still open for Al Gore, the survey showed. If the battle for the Democratic nomination extends into the party's convention in August, about half (49 percent) of Democratic voters think the party should consider nominating the former vice president as a way to break the deadlock."

www.draftgore.com

Krugman doesn't believe Obama is going to fight for universal health care or anything else.  He's almost certainly correct. The allegedly tiny 5% difference between Clinton and Obama means nothing if one of them is too busy uniting with Ben Nelson and Mitch McConnell to follow through on policy.

Only Tep could complain about Obama not not flattering our prejudices and laziness with meaningless slogans on one day - and on the next day go on about how Obama supposedly has no substance (easily disproved with half a second of thought).   This is what the whole flag pin thing is about - his refusal to substitute sloganeering with the real work.  And good for him.

So he either has too much substance to translate effectively or has none, depending on the day I guess.? Or something like that.  Both arguments are so absurd Tep, I can't even respond to them anymore.  I guess Dick Durbin, Rockefeller and Sam Nunn are all just kool-aid drinkin' fools (please find three more substinative Senators).

You are busted once again for your non-stop goal post moving.   It does amuse me though.  You're actually contradicting yourself at this point.

I certainly don't see Obama as a perfect candidate or a perfect person by any means, anyone who does is a fool.  

But he is stratospheres better than Clinton - much more competent in just about any way you can name, more innovative, manifestly more intelligent and honest in a way Hillary doesn't even remember how to be, courageous.  

And the single biggest toxin in our political culture is the wholesale whoring out of our government to whoever buys themselves a Senator or two  - and he has taken a major stand against that, has walked the walk and is the frontrunner anyway.  Too bad he so lacks substance.  

And as much affection as I have for McCain, Obama is stratosphere's better than McCain too - who is running a poor campaign with stupid ideas.  (But once they unleash Cindy, we'll be in for a real match.  She's a secret weapon, an awesome lady).

PS Tep, if you'd listened a little bit closer to him, you'd know that Obama has made it quite clear that Gore is first up for the VP slot.  I believe his exact words the last time he brought it up were "cabinent level or higher."  Um, that's only one thing.

I think Obama should just announce it - that would fire up his campaign like nothing else.  But it seems like Gore is still thinking about it, still trying to decide whether to give up his statesman role.  Gore has said he speaks with Obama "every other day or so."  That doesn't sound like they are talking about the weather.

Here is the reason Obama hasn't formulated a more detailed economic plan; he can count. The primary is over, he just has to run the clock out. He'd be a damn fool to get too specific and give HRC a new narrative to attack him on. And hell, you think he is too vague with his economic plan, take a gander at McCain. His campaign appears to boil down to: victory in Iraq, suck it up with the bad economy and more tax cuts. Oh, and "I was a POW!" His campaign is a joke.

Jonathan: "I think Krugman is missing a huge factor here. Obama and Hillary Clinton agree on 95% of the policy issues. That's why their campaigns have focused entirely on personal differences."

My own disclaimer: I have been a supporter of Senator Clinton since her election to the Senate in 2000.

With that out of the way: Jonathan, I think there is even a more fundamental factor and point that you are missing. There are some who say that all Obama supporters have been acting over the past several months with a sort of blinders on---and now must come out into the light of day.

Here is what it is: Politics is both about what you say and about what you DO.

The fundamental purpose of this exercise is not a "blood sport" of personalities, but rather to determine who is going to govern wisely and well. And most importantly it is about "connecting." We used to hear this word used more widely in our politics and it seems to have disappeared. What does "connecting" mean?

Simply that voters understand that you care about people like them and that you are going to DO something about it. Politics is about hope and vision--yes indeed. But they must not be abstractions. This is especially true now with the nation in economic peril, a health care crisis and two failed wars.

And isn't it possible that Senator Clinton has won simply because she has practiced politics as it should be practiced? She has presented ideas that meet the needs of people and shown that she in fact can, and will govern on their behalf more effectively than Senator Obama has done. There is something of personality in this--true.

But whether or not you are going to carry out what you say is not a mere "personal difference."

This is not at all trivial but gets to the heart of the matter of what our politics and governance are  about: namely providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity. The Obama team has been acting for months as if it can defy gravity and exist in a cloud of blessed hope and dreams--but now is the time to face reality.

Isn't it long past time for the Obama supporters to stop their legalistic parsings of pledged delegate counts and their hair-splitting demography and come down to earth where real people live in America?

What we need is not some new form of medieval scholasticism but rather a politics that is real and true --that is of the people, by the people and for the people.

Whoever our candidate is, he (or she) must rise or fall in November based on this more than anything else.

The ironic thing is that Krugman is the same guy who repeatedly laments the culture of rewarding those who are wrong but follow conventional thinking vs. those who are  right but in the minority (like him presumably).  Which candidate was right on Iraq and which was wrong?  Which candidate is more likely to continue to make the wrong but politically safe decision?  Putting your neck on the line for what you sincerely believe to be the best thing for the country is a quality that I feel is quite important for a future president to hold.  

Tullius says:

"And isn't it possible that Senator Clinton has won simply because she has practiced politics as it should be practiced? She has presented ideas that meet the needs of people and shown that she in fact can, and will govern on their behalf more effectively than Senator Obama has done."

Uhhh, Tullius?  Senator Clinton didn't win.  She lost.  To Senator Obama.  Perhaps you got the names switched in there.  If not, then Hillarista spin has completely parted company with reality and the new narrative is that she actually won what she has clearly, irrevocably lost.  

The legalistic parsing of which races should count, etc., etc. goes on in the Clinton campaign, not the Obama campaign, because it is Hillary who feels the need to pretend that reality isn't.  The winner of more delegates and votes and the favorite in the polls has no need to engage in such behavior.  The parsing that goes on by Obama's supporters is merely for the purpose of calling attention to the fact that, here in the real world, shorn of Hillarista delusions, Senator Clinton's campaign is over.  She cannot come within 150 pledged delegates.  As described in this careful analysis of the popular vote:  www.observer.com/2008/how-manufacture-popular-vote-victory, Obama has more popular votes and he will still have more primary votes when the primaries end.  As the polls have continuously shown for weeks, Obama does better matched against McCain than Clinton.  He raises more money, registers more voters, and his campaign is far better organized.

Exactly what sort of scholasticism is that concludes that the candidate who is less successful by every metric should be the nominee?

By the way, Tullius, I am a local Democratic party leader in the State of New York.  Since you say that politics is not only about what you say, but what you DO, please enlighten me.  I cannot recall anything that Senator Clinton has done for the State of New York.  I can tell you that, unlike Senator Schumer, she has never been willing to do anything, nothing, nada, to help our local committee (although she does come out and raise a lot of money in our town).  I do recall her voting for the war, the bankruptcy bill, sponsoring anti-flag burning legislation and more or less comporting herself like a senator from Idaho rather than a senator who is supposed to represent me.  She has written two pieces of legislation that were enacted into law but they are so obscure that it is impossible to find out what they are.

So, tullius, tell me.  What has Senator Clinton of New York ever DONE?

And isn't it possible that Senator Clinton has won simply because she has practiced politics as it should be practiced? Second place Tullius is how you refer to won? She can't beat a black guy with the name Adolph McHitler Staling, whoops Barack Hussein Obama.

Jesus, Hillary's campaign is about her, for her, and only about her. "I will fight for...." bullshit. She sucks. What is her campaign slogan this week. If Gore had run he would have crushed her under his big toe and we would be looking at a Gore Obama ticket.

Roidubuloi: "Uhhh, Tullius?  Senator Clinton didn't win.  She lost.  To Senator Obama.  Perhaps you got the names switched in there."

The original article, Krugman's, is referring to the most recent primary--the Pennsylvania primary--and she did win that. And so please read my comments as in reference to the Pennsylvnaia primary--which Senator Clinton did, in fact, win.

I do not claim that Senator Clinton has won the Democratic nomination, which, despite the protestations of many in the Obama camp, has not been won by either candidate as of yet. It takes 2,025 delegates for that to happen--and that is what we are attempting to determine now: who has the support of 2,025 delegates.

And that brings to mind another of my questions about Obama supporters: Why must they proclaim themselves victors when the outcome is yet to be determined?   Though I have heard many say that this is arrogant bluster, I will refrain from characterizing it. Their candidate is in the lead, but he has not won the nomination.

Does no one else find this annoying? You "win" not by chest-thumping assertion, but by doing the hard work of politics and governance day in and day out. And by reaching out to--and connecting with--voters where they live with your message. The Obama camp ignores these lessons of politics to its peril. As such, it is coming to resemble the McGovern and Dukakis campaigns, two well-intended and spirited enterprises which failed to connect with voters.

In America we govern by consent of the governed--not through proclamation.

Proclaiming oneself victorious is not the same as winning.

Tullius, Obama is not saying he won, but people here are. Don't confuse his supporters with him. I know sports metophors are wearying, but he is ahead by 2 touchdowns with 2 minutes to go and he has the ball (with North Carolina being the potential crusher). Obviously Obama has done a far superior job in reaching out to people and HIllary the far worse. She came in with hundreds of superdelegates endorsing her, an organization that guided Bill Clinton through two White House Victories, a huge name recognition and support within the Democratic party, tons of money, and a cache as the first serious Woman candidate for President. And she has blown most of it away, and now relies on Obama gaffes to keep her alive.

Hillary has utterly failed to connect with the majority of the Democratic party, how can she hope to connect with Republicans? On top of that she has seriously alienated millions of blacks who won't bother to vote for her in November. Or will you ignore this message? You think her message of "Blacks are nice but can't win." is going to sit well with blacks?

Maybe Obama can't win, but Hillary is far less likely to win. Her negatives are the highest in the country. And don't ply that nonsense that her negatives are already known. She might have won if she had swept the race, but now a quarter of Dems can not stand her. She is Walter Mondale without even his experience.

If you want to make a pitch for Gore, by all means. But Hillary is a train wreck. And as to Pa. Why is it that if Obama wins black votes it is indentity politics, but not when Hillary wins old white women?

It is both, or it is neither. And if you can't dispute this one simple fact, then all the rationale for Hillary has gone out the window. Hell, at least we know blacks will stick with Obama, maybe old white women might split for the even older and whiter McCain.

Blackton: "Why is it that if Obama wins black votes it is indentity politics, but not when Hillary wins old white women?"

Thank you for this question, Blackton, because it points to another big danger that the Democratic Party and many Obama supporters (hopefully not Sen. Obama himself)  face: we are beginning to practice a politics of groups and fractions rather than a politics of persons.

If we practice the politics of groups and fractions, Democrats will never win a general election and never assemble a governing coalition that can make change. Too many are parsing and slicing the electorate into so many small demographic groups and entities, and then treating each of these entities as though it were some sort of molecule to respond as if by formula.

No, Blackton, we can never win or govern this way--by thinking in terms of "black votes" or "old white women." We have to stop categorizing and type-casting voters. Have we not learned our lessons about stereotyping? Everny person--black, white, male, femaile, hispanic, jew, christian, gay, lesbian, rural, urban--resents being stereotyped and they should.

Once a vote is cast it is neither black nor white, old nor young, male nor female.  A vote is a vote. No one group or faction should have authority to negate or veto.

Each person is first and foremost a person. A nation is a unity of persons.

This is the "E Pluribus Unum" of our politics--and it is what has made the Democratic Party strong (when it has been) and our nation a success. America is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic society, which can only be governed by appealing across all racial, ethnic, cultural, geographic categories.

Voters are persons--not categories or abstractions to be moved about on demographic charts. If the Democratic nominee (whoever he or she may be) fails to grasp this, then we will not win a general election.

"What we need is not some new form of medieval scholasticism but rather a politics that is real and true --that is of the people, by the people and for the people."

Tullius, I always respect you a great deal and am always so pleased to see your name, but I must respectfully ask you - what in Gods name does this mean? Mid-devil scholaticism?  The rules we've used to elect people for generations?  Suddenly midevil because your candidate isn't winning by them?  Isn't this a bit self serving?  

Why is it that you can't admit that Hillary has run a very poor campaign, especially considering how privledged she has been from day 1 (among our most privledge Presidential canidates ever).  Why did she not bother to do the hard work her own husband did to win the caucuses when he ran?  Instead, she complains that anything she loses is unfair.  It's pretty hard to argue that this is something to respect in any way.  WHo is parsing in some legalistic way?  Do you really support her ridiculous arguments for votes in MI and FL?  Aren't you embarrassed for her? How can such cheating be respectable to you?

What it is that Hillary Clinton has done so well and for whom?  I live in NY too and do appreciate the bacon she has brought home for our farmers and have learned from an organic farmer poster here on Talkback that she has been a big advocate of green farming techniques. This is great and I mean that sincerely.  I also know that she has been a great advocate for vets, and as the daughter and niece of Vets, I greatly appreciate it.

But I cannot imagine any competent NY Senator in the last 10 years doing anything less.  

Do you really think the Constitution needs to be ammended to ban flag burning?  Because Hillary wrote and sponsered a bill introducing this tired, condescedning thing (first introduced by George Bush 1 as Boob Bait for the Bubbas) her first year in office.  Do you support the Bankrupcy Bill?  She did.  I have asked Hillary supporters time and time again to name something, ANYthing she has done well, done *courageously* and *for others* as an elected official.  I have recieved no response except to attack Obama.  Of course!

I am not someone who finds her position that being first lady gives her applicable experience.  Every time she has named concrete things, the people involved have all immediately discredited her take on it.  If she got so much experience, why can't she name any?

Why has she resorted to a kitchen sink strategy of racial code works and pretending to be a redneck?  I guess its me that doesn understand how a person of inteligence can really buy her shtick.  It seems like a bunch of unmitigatd hooey to me.  From Day 1.  I also find it bizarre that it is you that clas legalism is being employed when Obama has done nothing but play by the rules and win them.  Hillary and her supporters have been horrible, whining sore losers and impossibe to respect.

PS - I am so fed up with Hillary people infering Obama is all talk because he speaks well and Hillary doesn't. The single biggest factor of political success in our history has been the employment of inspiring and timely political rhetoric.  To put that down because of expediancy is disgraceful.

Tullius,

Proclaiming yourself as winning is not the same as winning either.  Proclaiming yourself as having received more votes when you haven't is either self-delusion or lying.  Not that the Lioness of Tuzla would ever tell a lie.

Even the Clinton campaign, immediately following her mediocre showing in PA, publicly admitted for the first time that they cannot catch up to Obama in pledged delegates.  They argue therefore that the popular vote should determine the outcome (why then do we elect delegates you might ask?  good question).  When Hillary loses the popular vote, as she surely willl (See, www.observer.com/2008/how-manufacture-popular-vote-victory for a thorough analysis), then what is the argument?  Oh, right, that Hillary is more electable even though Obama outperforms her in national polls head to head against McCain and 53% of Americans already have a negative view of her.  She is the most disliked public figure in the US other than George Bush.  I suppose she is electable because she will be the first person in history to win a two-person race with 47% of the vote -- the miraculous election of 2008 in which 47% becomes the new 50% plus.

Innumeracy runs riot.

wandrey - substance, as Tully wisely points out is revealed in actions more than briefing books and website policy PDFs. Obama needs to get some major, national legislation passed that actually makes a huge difference to millions of working families. That's substance. Speechifying? Not so much.

Just remind me about the major, national legislation that Hillary has passed that actually makes a huge difference to millions of working families.  In fact, remind me of any legislation she has gotten passed. She authored two pieces of legislation so obscure that I cannot find them through google,

Here's a decent debunking of the myth that Hillary is a successful senator.   This guy cannot find anything she has gotten passed either.

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../the-curious-myth-of-hilla_b_87613.html

Here's a decent debunking of the myth that Hillary is a successful senator.   This guy cannot find anything she has gotten passed either.

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../the-curious-myth-of-hilla_b_87613.html

Wandrey, everything you say is absolutely right. I saw the second episode of John Adams, where they're coming up with the Declaration of Independence - Adams and Franklin are reading over Jefferson's draft and the three of them are tinkering with it and I was forced to bark, "JUST WORDS!" at the television set.

Tep, why does Obama have to sponsor major legislation in the U.S. Senate for you? Why is that the three hairs of the giant's chin that you need him to go fetch before he marries the King's daughter? If it's negotiating skill you're looking for, look no further than getting cops and prosecutors to endorse mandatory videotaping of murder suspects' interrogations in Illinois. That was effing superheroic negotiating beyond the powers of William Shatner. That was not easy. What are you looking for, skillwise? What? And why is the Obama/Lugar loose nukes legislation not good enough for you, and  the Google Govt. bill not good enough for you?

I'm not even going to talk about Hillary, of course.

Tep - love ya buddy, but you're so full of shit your eyes are brown.  

Obama's campaign alone (buttom up, all money and power from millions of commited people and not corporations and their payoffs - ala Hillarys entire campaign, brilliantly run, no lobbyist money) has done more for the substance of helping working people and families than the last 10 supposed bills claiming to do anything for working families (except EITC).  

Anything that undercuts the prostitution ring we now call the US government empowers people lke nothing else.

The fact that he's he front runner after defying the prostitution ring mentality alone scares the crap out of the corporate welfare crowd who rapes working families more than anyone else.  Wake up Tep!  

Wandrewycerl: "Do you really support her ridiculous arguments for votes in MI and FL? "

Those who wave the Obama banner high are missing a very important point about Michigan and Florida. And again this has to do with their having adopted what seems a narrow and overly legalistic mentality over counting votes.

We as Democrats should be more concerned about the legitimate rights of our party members to cast a ballot that counts than we should be concerned about a favorable outcome for our particular candidate. Millions of Democrats live in Florida and Michigan--and we have done them a grave disservice to establish a system which does not count their votes. The inability of the Democratic Party--and we should understand this to mean our National Committee as led by Howard Dean--to establish a fair process by which all votes can be counted is our most serious failure in the 2008 election.

By not establishing an orderly process for two of our largest states, we have failed our voters and diminished our claim to be a Party that represents the needs of people. This is not an issue that was created by Senator Clinton, and it raises questions that are broader and far more significant than whether Senator Clinton or Senator Obama is our nominee.

Again, an unfair system has been established--and not by Senator Clinton--that disenfranchises millions of voters, and it is a very serious injustice to allow this disenfranchiesment to persist.

It's not too late to do something about it--but time is running out. We as Democrats should come out of our corners and work out a solution. Senator Clinton has expressed a willingness to hold a re-vote and to negotiate some useful way for these voters to have a say. Neither she nor her campaign made the outrageous rules that have led to Florida and Michigan voters not being able to cast legitimate ballots for a nominee.

Do all Democrats--Obama supporters please take note--not recognize the huge injustice to voters in Michigan and Florida that the Party is about to commit? If we are truly a "Democratic" Party, why are we failing these voters?

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the reason is simply that Obama supporters have put on legalistic blinders. The Obama camp and the Howard Dean leadership are trading the substance of democracy for its shadow.

Have we learned nothing about the importance of Florida to our party? Isn't the Democratic Party the party of voting rights? Are the lessons of campaigning for voting rights in the 1960s now forgotten?

In their haste and zeal to declare Sen. Obama the nominee, his supporters are shrinking the Party, disenfranchising millions of voters, and pushing them into the arms of John McCain.

Thanks psantillana - you gave me an idea - thats what Obama's campaign should roll out, some sort of phrase like "THE US CONSTITUTION, JUST WORDS, THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS, JUST WORDS, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, JUST WORDS..."

Or at least have Obama people show up at one of those dreary, hectioring sob sister acts she calls a speech and hold up signs saying those things.  

If she says "just words" one more time, just start a chant:

"US CONSTITUTION, JUST WORDS, US CONSTITUTION, JUST WORDS"

TULLIUS - I'm afraid I don't find your argument persuasive in the least.  You are ignoring the fact that there was always an orderly process in place for these states to vote. And yes, it is too late - the MI legislature itself has voted against a revote, NOT DEAN and NOT OBAMA.  THE PEOPLE OF MI.  

Their Senators - without the permission of the people who voted them in - arrogantly ignored the established process, to their personal peril.  They knew what the consequences were and did it anyway. Imagine them in a court of law trying to argue that they simply didn't like the rules anymore so they flushed them.  I hope they are thrown out of office for it.  But in fact, Dean was right - why should he have to come up with millions of extra dollars taken from a limited GE fund for a revote because these Senators chose to break the rules?  It is their problem, their consequences.  

EVen if somehow this were to come to pass, why should Hillary only be able to get MI and FL votes?  Are you saying the 300,000 uncommited votes in MI, 85% of which were for Obama according to exit polls, should be ignored?  Or again - is a rule overly legalstic if it applies to Obama and not if it applies to Hillary?  That she would even dare say that its 380,000 votes for her and 0 for Obama says everything about her intentions and sincerity.  She could care less about counting the people's votes, give me a break.  If she did, she wouldn't have approved of stripping the delegates in the first place and agreeing to not campaign - which she did.  Her after the fact behavior is blatantly dishonest and unethical.  BTW - I doubt those 300,000 uncounted Obama voters will suddenly vote for McCain, if anything, they will be more energized than ever.  And we are not going to win Florida no matter what and don't need to anyway.  

I said the same thing incidentally when Gore was just t ying to recount only the FL counties that favored him - he blew it by doing that, showed his hand.  It was unethial and I said so at the time.

Since when is following established rules that have been followed for generations with no complaints overly legalistic?  Since it doesn't favor Hillary?  Why does this sound so familiar?  The only reason Hillary and her supporters call Obama's campaign overly legalistic is because Obama has followed the rules and are winning by them.  

Not following the rules or expecting special treatment because your feelings are hurt by them, or you are losing by them is called cheating - imagine trying to argue in a court of law that established rules are a big bummer, lets just ignore them for my client.  I'm not sure why that would be so difficult to accept, except that it isn't personally beneficial.  Like suddenly finding polticial rhetoric shallow.  

Because Hillary is an uninspiring speaker, suddenly words are meaningless.  Can't you see how self-serving this is?  Nothing is ever her fault, its always some outside, unfair force rather than her own poor planning, exaggeration of her applicable experience or poor political ability.  She has no personal accounatblity that I can discern in any way.

Words meaningless?  THE US CONSTITUTION - JUST WORDS, THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS - JUST WORDS, THE BILL OF RIGHTS - JUST WORDS, MLK'S WASHNGTON MONUMENT SPEECH - JUST WORDS.

WandreyCerl: with respect to MI and FL solution: "It is their problem, their consequences."

Here is where we part company, WandreCerl. It is the word "their" in this sentence. That seems like such a little word--but yet it encapsulates an attitude over Michigan and Florida that can potentially destroy the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party should never be the party of "them" and "us."  It should never be the party  that allows a process which takes the vote away from its own constituents without seeking a resolution because of this "them" and "us" mentality. And yet, listen carefully to the arguments that are being made and this is what you can hear. We are becoming the party of our specific group, rather than the party of all the people.

And just how does our Party propose to address Michigan and Florida voters after our Convention? Is our nominee (whoever he or she may be) to go to these states in full campaign mode and say--"Your vote did not count in selecting me as your nominee--but it is going to count in the general election--and so I want your vote now?"

No, WandreyCerl, that approach will never work and will not lead to electing a Democrat as the next President.

Thinking in the "them and us" way, and adopting a punitive attitude toward the voters of those states, as Obama supporters and Howard Dean have apparently done, is a grave and serious error. In your rush to declare your candidate the nominee, you disenfranchise voters, shrink the Democratic Party to a rump group that believes exactly as you do, push millions of Democrats out of the party into the arms of John McCain, and undercut the very basis of the party to be an ever expanding party of all the people.

The voters of MI and FL were disenfranchised by their own elected representatives, with their support, because it seemed at the time they did it like a way to have more influence on the outcome than  party rules allowed.  Now it has turned out to be less.  Including corrupted results in the outcome is unthinkable.  You cannot tell people that they are voting in a beauty contest and then, after it is over, suddenly declare it was actually an election for president and, guess what, here's who you elected.  Thus, the only possible alternative is a re-vote.  The party quite rightly does not want to use limited campaign resources to redress this.  The MI and FL legislatures decline to authorize a re-vote or a caucus.  End of story.

The notion that this will have any impact in the general election is not plausible and has absolutely no evidence to support it.  The only reason that anyone in the party made clucking noises over this was in order not to piss off the poor voters of MI and FL any more than necessary by admitting that nobody gives a damn about the problem them created for themselves by trying to game the designated process.

TULLIUS,

If you can document your opposition PRIOR to the votes taking place that it is wrong to violate the Democratic Party rules for the primary your argument would have more weight.  Also where was the outrage of the citizens of MI and FL prior to the primary saying that it is wrong to break the party's rules.

Actualy TULLIUS, I do appreciate your take on this - you are humane, genuine and I believe trying to be just.  Your candidate is lucky to have you and I frankly think you're better than her.  I don't think cares about voter disenfranchisement one bit, only if it benefits her.  

But your take is hard to square with the facts.  Are the uncommmited 300,000 Obama votes US or THEM?  What is your view on this? Us or them?  

I also have no faith that we will win Florida anyway, Hillary or Obama, and don't care.

PS I forgot to make clear TULLIUS, that I don't think it is US and THEM with the voters of MI and FL, it is the problem entirely of their Senators who chose to break the rules.  I feel for those people and hope they kick their Senators out of office as hey so richly deserve to be for doing this to them.

I also would like to ask in all sincerety - can you please detail Hillary's superior experience as an elected official over Obama?  Or even as first lady, which I personally do not buy for a second, but let's jyst give her the benefit of the doubt in this case - concrete things please.

thank you -

Wandrey - It's a good thing you're not bitter.

Let me try again to clarify for you, and without resorting to distortions and insults. The taglines that Bill Clinton used so masterfully in 1992 and afterwards were not superficial; they encapsulated a few very substantial, well thought-out and well-argued policies which the candidate promised he would deliver upon if elected. He said he would replace welfare with workfare, and did so. He said he would deliver affordable health insurance to every American, but failed for a variety of reasons not all of his own making.

The point, again, is that his candidacy was not about "hope", or about the next chapter in his fascinating odyssey through this world, or about the irredeemable turpitude of his predecessor. It was about a set of well-defined policy choices, well-argued, in ways that left no doubt among the voters as to where he stood and how he intended to govern.

I'm sorry your candidate is failing to grasp the brass ring that's presented to him, but that's not my fault, and your bitterness really is more profitably directed at him. I've given him several concrete suggestions as to how he can turn around his campaign, if only because, as I've said, I want him to succeed. I voted for him, expect him to win the nomination and think he's got a better than even chance of winning in the fall. But he can't succeed if he doesn't start to give his campaign a specific ideological and political focus that goes beyond glamour and speechifying.

Your opinion may differ, but it's not strengthened by dumb ad hominems and playground insults.

t

Tep,

BC promised workfare not welfare and welfare imrproved but did not go away, health care speaks for itself, so the 2 issues you have identified he was batting 500 (with a generous mission accomplished grade for workfare)

BHO has health care and the war in Iraq has his 2 issues that are documented in his campaign, why are these not good enough for you?  

WandreyCerl

"I also have no faith that we will win Florida anyway, Hillary or Obama, and don't care."

This attitude of not caring about whether our Party can contest Florida in a general election is all too prevalent among Obama supporters. Let us hope it is not shared by Senator Obama himself.

Writing off the State of Florida as an intrinsic part of a Democratic electoral victoy is a path to defeat and the "slippery slope" to making the Democratic Party a party of permanent general election defeat.

Whether or not we care about Michigan is also a major indicator of whether we are still interested in creating a "big tent" party or prefer shrinking the party so a narrow group can "win" the nomination.

In 1972 the McGovern party lost both Florida and Michigan and went down to devastating defeat.

Carter, for a time, brought new life to the idea of a majoritarian Democratic Party. He did so in part by winning Florida in 1976. Michigan, Ford's home state, was not part of the electoral victory, but was replaced by Carter's home state: Georgia.

In 1980, however Democrats were trounced by Ronald Reagan--and Michigan and Florida, with the so-calloed Reagan Democrats become solid components of the Republican majority coalition. Dukakis also fared poorly in these two important electoral-vote rich states. It took Bill Clinton to win them both back into the Democratic column, which he did twice.

If all the votes in Florida were counted in the 2000 election Democrats would have won both Florida and the presidency in 2000 and we never would have had the Bush era.

Sadly, our candidate, Kerry was not even competitive in Florida in 2004.

If this history does not teach us that we, as Democrats, must care about Florida, then it is hard to imagine that the Democratic Party will ever be a governing party again.

As go Florida and Michigan, WandreyCerl--so goes America.  Another way of putting this is--if you want our troops out of Iraq anytime soon, we will need Florida and Michigan to do that. John McCain will certainly be working hard to win both Florida and Michigan to his column.

Whichever party gets Florida and Michigan electoral votes, forms a governing coalition. Whichever party does not have them--and you need them both--does not.

Are we intrested in governing, or do we just want to vent? Without Florida we're remaking the Party of McGovern and Dukakis. Excluding them and saying that their vote doesn't count and we will not try to work something out virtually insures our party will become the party of "opposition" for the forseeable future.

Tep - you contradicted yourself so blatantly it was insulting to the intelligence.  

Your problems with Obama often seem to be problems you create, hoops you want him to jump through like a seal pup, with new hoops daily.  You refuse to acknowledge anything positive about him or any of his ideas, his stands on issues, his well defined and easy to understand at a macro level platform.

You clearly don't really listen to him or you'd know that your daily Gore ranting was answered by him a month ago.  Should he cede the lead spot to Gore?  That's insane - he's the frigging front runner. Yes, your goal post moving makes me bitter - I'll own that.

No, Obama is not Bill Clinton - Bill had his time and it fit his unique genius. Obama is Obama. He speaks openly and clearly that the bitterness and distractions of our present political culture must be changed before anything in this country can change.  Millions of people, including some pretty discerning people, not much interested in unicorn theory - ala Sam Nunn, Rockefeller, etc - understand completely.

Just don't vote for the man then if you can't deal with him, but these long drawn out complaints that yes, finally ended up contrading themselves are just a self indulgent bummer.

I still don't know why this FL/MI thing is Obama's fault. He did what he was told by the DNC, the body that regulates these thing, and everyone at the time believed that this was a "beauty contest" as the newspeople put it, consistently and repeatedly. There was no debate or discussion on these matters. And there were Obama supporters in these states who did not vote because they were told it didn't count. That alone should prevent it from counting. You can't have half-assed botched elections like that. It's not better than nothing; it's a rule-breaking, horrible-precedent-setting naked vote grab. It's not Obama's fault that the DNC decided to punish/disenfranchise these states for holding their elections early, and I also do not see that it's Obama's fault for the failure to find a way for them to do it right later, when the DNC softened up to the possibility. Procedure counts, and rules are rules, no matter how you and I might not like them. Particularly when people tangibly rely upon them to their detriment. People need to know that procedure will be followed or they lose faith and don't participate.

And so the pundit-off between my two favorites, Krugman and Chait, continues.  It's a tough one to call on ethos alone, but I have to say Jonathan: he was right on the Iraq war.

gregstolhand  homerun.

Tullius, in all your speechifying you have offered no solutions. There is nothing that your or I can do, the legislatures of Michigan and Florida have spoken, they have chosen not to revote. If they did revote according to the DNC rules, I would be happy. But as to the notion they can blackmail the party for the sole advantage of one candidate is absurd. Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan because the rules stated that vote did not count.

You have no solution, I have no solution because the only solution allowed by rules is now off the table.

So be it. The State Democratic leadership has chosen to disenfranchise themselves. It is their state and their right.

TULLIUS.....

I read your stuff and I am astounded.  It seems we live in some kind of parallel, mutually exclusive universes, you Hillary people and us Obama people.  Everything you decry and blame on the Obama campaign, I see as emanating from the Hillary campaign.  The dividing of our party into mutually hostile tribes is now a fact, and the only campaign that has ever benefited from that is the Clinton campaign.  It has never, ever been in Barack Obama's political interest to leverage greivance, resentment and division.  In the South Carolina primary, he deliberately tried to maximize his support in the black community, because he needed to expand his base beyond the young people and the affluent liberals that made up his Iowa victory. He needed a blue collar constituency to avoid the fate of Eugene McCarthy and Gary Hart and Bill Bradley.  But he did not leverage resentment in order to do it. He channelled hope and the prospect of an historical redemption three hundred and fifty years deferred. The resentment that arose was a spontaneous response to what black folks perceived as the veiled (and not so veiled) racial subtext emanating from the Clinton campaign (do we really need to ennumerate this shit again?  "did he share or sell drugs?","Jesse Jackson won South Carolina too"..."It took Johnson to get done what King only talked about"....ad nauseum)  

But this argument is without resolution.  You will look at night and, to my mind, call it day, and you will claim I am doing the same thing.  We have stumbled into Bizzarro World, and frankly these arguments are pointless and cannot be resolved.  We see different realities.  It's a tiresome and  discouraging discussion and I am heartily sick of it.  I just want this thing to be over.

But I do know one thing.  I will work tirelessly, if this somehow ends up with Hillary as the nominee, to make sure that that she and her husband never get anywhere near the Presidency.  And, if, God willing, she loses that election (if it comes to that) I will give money and support to anybody who runs against her at any level in her next Senate election.   They have made me ashamed of all the times I argued and rationalized and apoligized and voted for them for all those years.

And now she wants "LIncoln-Douglas style" debates between herself and Barack.  What a joke.  Lincoln and Douglas debated the great issue of the day (slavery) in a format that was highly structured and mutually respectful.  Hillary Clinton wants a no-holds barred argument about flag pins, and what old sixties radical he runs into at PTA meetings, and what his pastor publishes in his church programs, and what a bigoted, condescending elitist he is because he used the word "bitter"..... without any rules or moderators. (And I find it real interesting that the Hillary people need to somehow turn Barack into the "elitist bigot".  Are they trying to compensate for something?)  Why in the world would Barack Obama want to engage in televised, public pissing contest with a woman who will throw any brick at him that she can find, and then, if he treats her with the graciousness and restraint that she seems completely devoid of, she will call him a wimp, and if he responds in kind they both end up in a mudwrestling contest and she can say that he's just being mean to women again.  There is nothing of substance left to talk about.  Mandates?  Let's just vote and get this thing over with.  The debate is pointless, the dumb and deaf screaming at the dumb and deaf.  This discussion we have had on this thread  just demonstrates it.  We have come to a sorry pass.  And it once had so much promise.

(And the Michigan election was a Soviet election with only one candidate on the ballot.  No convenient, self serving and pious solicitousness about the "rights" of the voters -who, in both Michgan and Florida, deliberately and knowingly took part in a beauty contest that had no legitimacy and was proscribed by the rules and decisions of the party- make that a real election with votes that count.  Enough with the sophistry already.  Do you people ever listen to yourselves?)

There IS a solution. Gore for POTUS, Obama for VP. Gore's rock-solid with the party's left wing and can easily tack to the center, given his DLC and hawkish pre-2000 record. Unlike Obama, Gore can win FL and is not vulnerable in PA and OH.

If Gore were willing to pledge one term, he'd be able to take bold stands, given a solidly Dem congress, and would position Obama to run for POTUS in 2012, when the economic cycle's at its peak, oil's low again and the country's gotten to know  him better and is more comfortable with him.

What a lot of hopeless nonsense.  Gore for POTUS?  Gore chose not to run.  The winner of the nominating contest, remember, in a two-person race, someone has to win, is not going to turn around and try to hand off to Gore.  

You have are now in low orbit tep.  Watch out for flying Hillaristas orbiting in your neighborhood.  The rest of us, back here on earth, can see that the primary race is already over.  The only possibility for an outcome other than Obama is that he loses NC in an upset.  Short of that, the entire planet earth, not including those of you who have floated off into space, will be able to see that the race is over on May 7.  Better start getting used to it.

roi, you keep me smiling. At least I'm not Goebbels. (Or was it Attila? Mugabe?)

Happy to oblige.

Don't be callin' me Putin-Mobutu, though, or you're toast/

No problemo, dude.