MyDD :: On the VP

On the VP

by Jerome Armstrong, Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:52:29 AM EST

I don't even like to imagine an Obama nomination, but since the numbers are still headed in that direction, on the VP talk, I've got a few thoughts, if its a GE composed of Obama vs McCain.

I do believe the chatter that the Obama's detest everything about the Clinton's and though its the best ticket, it won't happen unless its forced upon Obama by the SD's. It may be, especially if, by August, Obama is on the ropes. With that in mind, here's the options that are being talked about for Obama.

Gov Kaine, or Jim Webb, from Virginia. This seems a long shot with no results. First off, in regards to Webb, the guy hates campaigning, he doesn't seem to enjoy showing up at campaign events and besides, its the economy, and not Iraq, as the main issue. Kaine, while popular, is no Warner, in VA. I doubt either of them would help Obama even compete in VA, which has been pretty much taken off the map recently, with double-digit leads by McCain in the state.

Gov Sebelius, from Kansas. If Warner had ran, I think he would have chosen Sebelius for his running mate early on, and they would have ran as a ticket against Clinton. The reasoning behind Sebelius, for Obama, is that she can play the role of the woman, without being Clinton. That might be a big thing, but other than that, she won't deliver Kansas. Plus, there's something there that the media will binge over the couch-- Obama choosing a older white woman from Kansas, where his now deceased mother is from originally.

Gov Richardson, from New Mexico. This is the one that makes some sense. Obama's only regional strength at the moment, in regards to the '00 and '04 maps, is in the southwest. NV, NM, and CO. Richardson could help some in those states, theoretically. But this ticket of racial change is going to make those white battleground states of PA and OH even more problematic for Obama.

The best VP tickets are those that unite the party, or otherwise bring on new constituencies. Its rare that a VP adds any regional strength, as people vote for the President, top of the ticket, no matter where they reside. Ford would have been strongest choosing Reagan in '76. Carter had have been strongest choosing Kennedy in '80. Reagan was the strongest having chosen Bush in '80. One party united, and the other stayed divided. Mondale and Dukakis probably would still have lost, but its hard to argue they wouldn't have done better with Hart in '84 and Jackson in '88. Since then, we really haven't had a competitive primary. Since then, neither party has really had a primary thats been competitive, delegate wise, after about half the primary nominating schedule.

There's also the opening for McCain, if Obama shuns Clinton, that McCain chooses a woman for a running mate. Sen. Elizabeth Dole is too old and AK Gov Palin is too young; but I could imagine Kay Hutchinson running with McCain, very effectively.

As we roll on in the next remaining contests, we expect a split. Clinton winning WV, KY, and PR; Obama winning OR, MT & SD. MI & FL will be settled, and Clinton will lead in the popular vote.

The hatred of Clinton runs deep among the Obama supporters, but by August, I think it will have settled some, and unless Obama gets much stronger as a candidate on his own, he'll need Clinton more than ever. In the recent LA Times poll, Clinton crushes both Obama and McCain over whom is best on economic issue. In regards to the economy, there's no better brand than the name Clinton in US politics. Its three months away, and things can change, but thats the only ticket that makes sense right now.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Permalink :: 376 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: On the VP (1.86 / 22)

The hatred of Clinton runs deep among the Obama supporters

Why do you think so many people that have defended the Clintons for decades have been so turned off what she's done during this campaign?

I'd also like to ask, when are you going to start trying to heal the divide instead of widening it?

Lost rate and rec for issuing a '1' to a trollish comment. The troll, not so much.

by map on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:57:12 AM EST

Re: On the VP (1.55 / 9)

you just widened it...

by DTaylor on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:58:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome said that Obama (2.00 / 10)

supporters hate the Clintons. You and your friends are proving him wrong...it's Clinton supporters on this board who hate Obama not the other way around.

Republicans = Borrow and Squander

by GFORD on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:14:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton would bring (1.88 / 9)

sky high negatives to the ticket. She is viewed as untrustworthy by 56 percent of the people. She voted for the Iraq invasion, thus invalidating Obama's call for a change in the conduct of foreign policy. She supported NAFTA.
She would be a galvanizing, polarizing figure and a bonanza to republican fund raisers.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:12:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton would bring (2.00 / 8)

All true. Excellent post.

And Jerome's statement about Hillary leading in the popular vote (the latest placement of the goal posts)is only true if you count Michigan a zero for Obama. In Jerome's world, that's fair politics. 44% of the people voted undeclared because they didn't want to vote for Hillary. If Hillary had followed the rules, her name wouldn't have been on the ballot either. Now she gets 100% of the Michigan vote because she said one thing and did another. Let's reward her for doing that!

Lastly, the idea that Obama supporters hate Hillary is presenting only one side of the coin. Something Jerome is well known for doing. At least he was honest in his first paragraph on his feelings about Obama. But he says we're the haters. I guess it's true if Jerome says it, this is his web site and he's going to ban anyone else who disagrees with him.

by crackerdog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:12:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton would bring (2.00 / 1)

Crackerdog writes: " If Hillary had followed the rules, her name wouldn't have been on the ballot either."

How completely false can you be? Don't realize that Obama/Edwards/etc willfully removed their names from the MI ballot? Clinton and Dodd (an Obama supporter now) did not. There was no 'rules' to remove their names: they did it in order to win favor with Ohio politicians and delegates.

This information is common knowledge. And, Clinton is not asking for 100% of the vote, she is only asking for her percentage that she actually was voted.

You should educated yourself before posting completely false information.

by Steven B on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:20:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton would bring (2.00 / 1)

The problem with counting Clinton's votes is that no one else campaigned in Michigan. We've all seen how the dynamics of an election change when candidates campaign, ads are run, campaigners go door-to-door, and phone calls are made.

In other words as people find out about the candidates they change their minds about who they are supporting. We've seen Obama start from behind in quite a few states (more so especially before Super Tuesday) and yet through campaigning he won the majority of the vote.

by marcirish on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:45:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton would bring (none / 0)

I see no point in debating about Michigan and Florida. If Clinton were in Obama's position, these Clinton supporters would be screaming bloody murder about the rules and how unfair it is to even consider those votes legit. In short, they're all a bunch of hypocrites... At least the ones making an issue of Michigan and Florida and suggesting the votes need to be counted as is. I agree with them wholeheartedly that some resolution needs to be reached, those states will be important for Obama in the fall. The delegations need to be seated but they ought to do so such that the results of the bogus elections they held don't impact the final results. That was the agreement before this all started, then Hillary lost and needs a rule change. Too bad.

I'll go a step further, the Democratic Party will be better off when the Clintons finally ride off into the sunset. They were elected in the 90's to get things done and they produced squat*. It's time to give someone else a chance.

* - Sorry but: no health care, a compromise on "Don't ask, don't tell", and a watered down assault weapons ban when they had the congress and a booming economy to back them just doesn't cut it for me. Something is wrong with their approach to governing. I applaud Clinton's foriegn policy but find it hard to believe Hillary would be anywhere near as successful as Bill. She just doesn't have his ability to bring people together.

by crackerdog on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:44:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton would bring (none / 0)

...Except that Obama campaigners DID go door-to-door in Michigan, telling people to vote for "Uncommitted" if they supported Obama. Jesus Christ, this point's been run over on this website itself, but just because you choose to ignore it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

JFC, the comments under this post sure make the site sound like its members imbibed the Kool Aid from DKos.

by BrandingIron17 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton would bring (none / 0)

You are confused, sir.

THIS is the 'Kool-Aid' site.... and looks like you've indulged in your share.

by John Poet on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:04:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton would bring (none / 0)

Hillary is a non-issue and will be forgotten soon enough. Again, I see no point is debating the "Hillary or Bust" crowd. If they prefer John McCain, there's no hope for them, us or the country.

by crackerdog on Mon May 12, 2008 at 11:58:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton would bring (none / 0)

Trying to lump all Clinton supporters under an idea that they will intentionally support McCain is just hogwash. Arguments like this just undermine what is Obama's message of unity.

In general, you and/or Obama can't speak to unity when it is only YOUR version of unity that is allowed. That is borderline fascism, and nothing short.

If you see no point in debating Clinton supporters, then why are you still posting here?

by Steven B on Wed May 14, 2008 at 09:28:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps, but that hatred has evolved (none / 0)

At first I would imagine that very few of us felt that way. After months of seeing our candidate treated like Mata Hari and her supporters treated like knuckle draggers, we've decided that we don't like the Obama movement very much.

by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:09:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Says DTaylor, who's openly voting for McCain. (1.33 / 3)

No one proudly voting for the Republican candidate should be lecturing others about "healing the divide."

John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.

by Shem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:09:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You might ask what drove him to this (none / 0)

If there is a large defection this election, and the Democratic party doesn't make the effort to get the defectors back, the future may be very bleak for the party.

by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:14:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why do you think (2.00 / 3)

that so many Clinton supporters are so turned off by what Obama's campaign has done in this primary to tear this party apart? I will help you out a little bit, the denial isn't helping any.

by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:00:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and should I add (1.00 / 6)

that the 'projection' isn't helping any either. Can I do that, borrow the Obama kids word of the day?

by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:01:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and should I add (2.00 / 11)

Do you work on trying to offend people, or does it just come naturally? It's so helpful when you call a candidate's supporters kids.

by The Distillery on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:04:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Excuse me (1.00 / 9)

I thought that was what Obama supporters liked to be called. I see it all the time, I was just trying to be hip-

by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:06:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (2.00 / 12)

You know better than that. You're merely being disingenuous in this claim. Even if Obama supporters referred to each other as kids (I have never seen Obama supporters on mydd or dkos do this), that does not mean that it would be a reasonable idea to call Obama supporters kids when you are attacking them. I have noticed many Clinton supporters calling each other (and their candidate) girl, but I would never think to refer to Clinton supporters as girls and then try to excuse it by claiming that they call each other that.

linc, didn't you post approvingly on the "Grow up, people" diary only a few hours ago? Admittedly, you did say "you first."

by letterc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:30:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You know what it is all really about (2.00 / 0)

its about Obama supporters here, insisting on winning the battle of who did what and who is really the bad guy. Its apparently obvious that that is the case given the reaction to my reference to Obama supporters as Obama kids. You are being disingenuous if you claim you have never seen anyone Obama supporters no refer to themselves as kids.

My point, to map's hanging assertion that all the bad things that Clinton supposedly did in this campaign are merely the way it is- fact if you will, is that that is one battle you all will not win. It is probably the sorest point- evident by the fact that 8 Obama supporters took it upon them selves to give my quite innocuous comment a troll rating.

by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:30:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You know what it is all really about (none / 0)

Okay, that is fair. I think both campaigns did moderately shitty things, but nothing in this campaign compares to the stuff the Dems did to each other in 2004 or the stuff Bush did to McCain in 2000.

I really can't recall ever seeing Obama supporters refer to themselves as kids, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

by letterc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:40:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me (2.00 / 5)

No you were trying to be insulting, and you know that, same as if people opposing Hillary had called her "girl".

by Aris Katsaris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:42:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There is a BIG difference (2.00 / 0)

I have, on many occasions, seen Obama fans refer to themselves as kids. This isn't about taking upbridge at my comment, this is about Obama supporters here ensuring that they win the battle of who is the bad guy in this primary. Frankly, if thats the motivation, you won't win- you will just 'cleanse' the place like was done the dkos.

by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:46:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is a BIG difference (none / 0)

"I have, on many occasions, seen Obama fans refer to themselves as kids."

I haven't. But either way, as people have tried to explain you it doesn't matter. You don't get to decide that a potentially offensive name isn't offensive just because you've seen people refer to themselves as such.

I have seen many times see grown women refer to each other as girls, but that doesn't give any man the right to call "girl" a woman in order to disparage her.

You fail Feminism 101 if you don't know that. You fail Common Sense 101 if you don't see the parallel with that scenario.

Just say you didn't mean to be offensive and avoid doing it again, rather than argue that it's okay because you've seen a few-self references. That argument fails -- it's the very same argument used to justify the n-word from white racists "blacks themselves use it, why can't I", the d-word word from homophobes "lesbians themselves use it, why can't I", and the girl-word from sexists "women refer to themselves as such, why can't I".

by Aris Katsaris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:13:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and should I add (none / 0)

Perhaps the "Childrens Army" as the media calls Obama's supporters would have been more suitable and kind. Our citizens are dying in Iraq and your highest thoughts concerning this election are your personal offense with being included in a pretty harmless term, "kids."

The over sensitivity reflects more of a need to argue than offering any useful dialog to the discussion taking place.

Jerome has it down and as many of us have been told that the youth are going to take over our party from the boomers and the elders can just die off because they are the most effectively manipulated by the media anyway. Can't figure out why the elders don't support Obama then since the media has been in the tank for him all along, except the bit of jag about Rev. Wright.

This race is not over and the disdain felt for Hillary supporters, which is voiced loudly and crudely, repeatedly on blogs by the Obama supporters, is real and has driven a huge wedge in the Democratic Party.

Just note those calling, not just for a victory by Obama, but for the Clintons to be driven from the party. Many of these nasty comments are coming from youth who don't know enough to run the party or what it takes to run the country but they are so certain that they will take over this party.

NOT. Reminds me of Fried Green Tomatoes and the "I have more insurance." In this case, "We have more money!" Towanda.

I fear no one is going to be very pleased with the results. There is no way Obama can win the GE and sugar coating it will not make it so. So we will endure, yet another, Republican administration and we won't have a country left. Our economy couldn't survive the idiocy of an Obama administration either.

Sadly a lot of the Obama supporters on blogs are former Nader supporters who were intent on nothing more than destroying the Democratic party anyway. Now they are just trying to complete that goal but to attempt to blame it on Clinton.

Not going to work. Go Hillary.

After having said the above I want to add that there are many Obama supporters who are upstanding citizens and friends who simply believe he is the best candidate for the future of our country but the folks who stand out are the troublemakers who focus on nothing else.

PaintyKat

by PaintyKat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 03:43:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why do you think (2.00 / 5)

Tear the party apart? Last i checked it was Clinton supporters throwing the DNC leadership under the bus and threatening to vote GOP.

John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!

by proseandpromise on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:25:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (2.00 / 6)

Because passions got overheated in the primary season. It happened on both sides, it happened in 2004, it happened in 2000, etc.

Let's acknowledge that people on different sides see things differently, and not continue to sling mud at each other.

by OrangeFur on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:00:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (none / 0)

Here, here!

"Not only do I want an elite president, I want someone who's embarrassingly superior to me." -- Jon Stewart, 4/15/08

by JulieinVT on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:20:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Great Post! Sam Nunn is the answer (2.00 / 1)

Best post I've read on this board.

I agree Obama's choices are limited, but I believe there is one solid choice that could upset McCain's plans in a very big way.

Sam Nunn of Georgia. One of the most respected foreign policy and defense specialists in the world. Respected by all sides. A southerner and older and wiser.

VP's typically don't make a difference in the election. The most important objective is to 'do no harm'. Nunn does that AND answers Obama's lack of experience question AND puts Georgia into play (yes, I am quite serious. Alot of those crackers are proud in Georgia and will not bring themselves to vote against him and the black turn-out will be out of sight!)

Obama, this is the choice, no doubt!

P.S. If you win Georgia, you win the election.

by minnehot1 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:04:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great Post! Sam Nunn is the answer (1.20 / 5)

Does he need help in Southern states? Or Northern ones. Sibellius made me laugh. Do you think Michelle Obama would like to relinquish the spotlight to another woman?

by ellend818 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:42:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sam Nunn NOT respected by many! (2.00 / 1)

He's a vile homohater. I would never vote for him.

by Ian S on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great Post! Sam Nunn is the answer (2.00 / 1)

I like Nunn. His social views suck, but he would make the ticket unstoppable. My racist grandma would vote for Obama if Nunn is the VP. Southerners really respect him, and he would balance things out nicely.

ALso, he is old, so Obama would have a good reason to replace him in 4 years. His daughter is also an up-and-comer.

That being said, Sebelious is my top choice, followed by Richardson, Nunn, and then Bayh, Rendell, and Strickland in no particular order.

by rkt on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:08:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great Post! Sam Nunn is the answer (none / 0)

Nunn has real bad LGBT problems

by mikeinsf on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:48:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Campaign theme (none / 0)

throw gays and lesbians under the bus. Been done by Obama since the beggining. We are highly disposable for his supporters. Even suggesting Nunn is offensive.

by DaleA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Campaign theme (none / 0)

Well Obama didn't suggest him--so you can un-bunch your underwear.

It is a fallacy that Obama has been throwing GLBT community under a bus. Earlier in the campaign he lectured an AA church on the problems with homophobia in the AA community.

But by all means, go check out McCain's GLBT credentials.

by Brannon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:12:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Campaign theme (none / 0)

Nevermind, I did it for you. Enjoy!

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issu es/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58. htm

by Brannon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Campaign theme (none / 0)

If you want to talk "throwing gays under a bus", I submit to you DADT and DOMA.

Obama's not perfect on gay issues but he's no worse than Hillary, and ultimately both on our side.

by mikeinsf on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (2.00 / 8)

I'm an Obama supporter and I don't hate Senator Clinton at all. I came into this primary split three ways between Hillary, Obama and Edwards and gradually decided to support Obama but never started hating either of the other two candidates. Hillary is a good person and who wants the best for our country and the world, that's obvious. I personally think that she's run a very poor campaign and picked some very poor advisers but I thought the same about Al Gore too and I certainly don't hate him either. I don't agree with everything that She's said but I don't agree with everything that Obama's said either.

Hate (or love) has nothing to do with my choice of who would be the best nominee for President. I'd be a fool if I let my emotions make such an important choice.

by Gene In PA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:44:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (2.00 / 8)

Clearly, Jerome seems to equate anyone who doesn't agree with his view of Clinton must be driven by hatred. Usually those who hate assume those on the other side must have the same emotional feelings. Repuglicans assume all democrats are driven by hatred of Bush rather than his policies and actions. Its a way of dismissing legitimate debate. So if you are driven by hatred of Hillary you cannot be making rational decisions in opposition to her.

by eddieb on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:57:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (2.00 / 0)

I think most people vote their emotions, your head may say one thing, but if emotionally you're not there, then most go with their emotions. I have a rule when it comes to picking a candidate: If I can not stand to hear them talk, and have the urge to turn the TV or radio off when they're on, then no vote from me. Bush is like that, can't stand to hear him, and I feel the same about Obama, so he'll not get my vote, even he had the Buddha or Jesus Christ on the ticket with him, I will not vote for him. On the other hand, I can listen to Hillary Clinton, she doesn't have the preachy tone of Obama, or come across as a Tony Robbins wanna be, like Obama does. Obama lost me with his Reagan-like speech in 04, where at any minuet I expected to him refer to a "Shining City on a Hill", or some such crap, screw him.

by muggle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:25:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (none / 0)

I'm sorry that you don't like the way that Obama enunciates but do you really think that's a reasonable and defensible argument for picking the leader of the free world?

I want my president to agree with a reasonable number of my beliefs and have the intelligence and skill to implement them.

by Gene In PA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (2.00 / 0)

My BS Meter is very good, and to me Obama is 99% BS, and like I said, emotionally the man makes me want to puke, so no vote for him. If Clinton was to except him as her VP candidate, is the only way he would get my vote, and that's not going to happen. I'll do a write in this time, if he is the nominee.

by muggle on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:27:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (1.00 / 1)

I hope she doesn't accept if asked. Jon Stewart's comment to McCain about asking Hillary would be genial! Now you are talking "change" and bi-partisanship! He won't be running in 4 years and has hinted he would only do one term so she could just walk in the position having had the "experience" that everybody in the MSM and Obama accuse her of not having. I think it's a great idea!

by suzieg on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:48:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (none / 0)

If you think that's a great idea, then I guess you think having Roe v. Wade overturned is a great idea, too. And I guess invading Iran is OK for you, too.

Get over the ill feelings, people. It's time to defeat McCain.

by GingertheDem on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:20:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama supporters' view of Clinton (1.70 / 10)

I've never supported Clinton for the nomination. I liked Dodd, Richardson, Edwards, Obama... but never Clinton. Nevertheless, I had a generally positive view of her until about this April. Note that by then, I was quite sure Obama had won the nomination, so my positive view of her survived the entire time that I was campaigning hard for Obama and viewed Clinton as a real threat to his nomination (roughly, late January until the beginning of March).

It was only about a month after I saw the race as already settled, and was satisfied with the nominee we'd chosen, that my view of Clinton started turning seriously sour.

Normally, I believe that despite the heated contest between Democrats during the primaries, we all get over it. I remember being in just such a heated contest in the most recent cycle, when I was still campaigning to try to elect a Dean delegate in Massachusetts after he'd suspended his campaign (we managed 8% in our CD, half of what we needed). However I never had any doubt that I would eventually campaign for Kerry once I knew he'd be the nominee, and indeed I did, going to both Ohio and Florida in the last couple of months.

The exceptions happen when a candidate continues running long after they've lost, and I don't think we've had as bad an episode of bridge-burning since Kennedy vs. Carter in 1980. This year really does feel different.

In the past month or so, I've seen the Clinton campaign turn their strategy very decidedly towards exploiting a racial divide, I've seen denial of reality, I've seen concerted efforts to tear down the near-certain nominee with attacks that help McCain, and I've seen plain nastiness and meanness that I did not see during the most heated contests of January, February, and March, back when it actually mattered.

My view on Clinton now: I truly detest her. I want her out of the party. I no longer feel comfortable saying "she's a very good Senator". And I feel like I may not get over it because she's gone on too long with this stuff. Having been through Dean vs. Kerry, I have some perspective on the matter, and I know that I did not feel these things about Kerry then, even though I was much more involved and invested (I was committed to Dean starting in early 2002, and started building a grassroots organization for him in early 2003; in contrast, I didn't settle on Obama as my choice this time until about Dec/Jan 2007/08, less than a month before Iowa). I felt he was a poor choice for nominee, I felt it would be hard to win the general with him, I felt that his campaign had done some bad things to us, but I did not hate him.

by cos on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:45:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Blue Jean again (1.75 / 8)

Blue Jean rated this comment a 0. She has consistently gone through every thread I've seen on MyDD recently and downrated any comment she viewed as pro-Obama and uprated any comment she viewed as pro-Clinton, completely regardless of the quality of those comments.

Is there any mechanism on this site for removing someone's ability to rate when they clearly use it in such a ridiculous fashion?

by cos on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:48:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama supporters' view of Clinton (2.00 / 1)

<<My view on Clinton now: I truly detest her. I want her out of the party. I no longer feel comfortable saying "she's a very good Senator". And I feel like I may not get over it because she's gone on too long with this stuff.>>

This part of the self-centered mess jumped out as the saddest part of what I see in this race from Obama supporters. Not just wishing for victory but wishing the Clintons driven out of the party. That combined with wishes that the "blue hairs" or more respectfully, our elders would just die off or that the boomers would get out of the country speak perfectly to the hate of the Obama supporters.

Someone tried to dismiss the hatred by saying it is born only in the mind of opposing haters' minds, but it is born in the words and actions of Obama supporters who post all over the blogosphere and started all of this crap with the spoken intentions to take our party from us and then the unwarranted accusations about racism and every other evil.

A lot of the damage, whether you call it hatred or whatever, is being caused by the Perot and Nader voters who have failed miserably to start effective third party tickets and are so greedy that they couldn't wait to do the 50-state strategy and work from inside the party to make changes, they decided this was the year the Democrats had the most political push so they were barging in to try to get their extreme agendas to either take over the party or destroy it completely.

At times, it looks like the idiots will be successful, but in the end when Hillary wins and send the opportunistic Obama back to Illinois to keep building his bank account and to make a few more left wing radicals and supremacy movements.

Obama is not going to legalize drugs or any of the other extreme moves. Being a wonderful orator is not enough and Obama hasn't demonstrated one iota of leadership. Looks a lot more like the same kind of influence peddling that has been so much a part of the Republican party.

Go Hillary and thank you, Jerome. It is refreshing to read something that contains some level of content and not bold faced, juvenile cheer leading.

PaintyKat

by PaintyKat on Mon May 12, 2008 at 04:07:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (2.00 / 9)

I particularly like that the post starts out:
"I don't even like to imagine an Obama nomination" and ends with "The hatred of Clinton runs deep among the Obama supporters."

What is happening to Hillary Clinton is her own doing and that of her handlers. She lost, and she lost going hard negative on the party's nominee, long after the point where there was any realistic chance of her still winning the nomination.

I don't hate Hillary Clinton -- I just don't think she gets to be president because her husband was, and I fear that she would have to spend a lot of energy defending the Bill's administration and its policies. At this critical moment in history, we need someone who can break with the past decisively, and forge a new path, rather than a third Clinton term or a third GWBush term.

She has her work cut out for her to help heal the party, though pretty clearly the harm she has inflicted is deep and may leave scars. That work does not include being the vice presidential nominee. Why should Obama hand McCain the opportunity of having ad after ad of the nominee's VP calling his abilities, experience, credibility and even his religious affiliation into question?

by Headlight on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:56:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (none / 0)

Why does Hillary need to do anything? It is up to the nominee to heal. And his supporters are doing nothing much to promote healing.

by DaleA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:41:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dunno. You tell me. (2.00 / 3)

Why do you think so many people that have defended the Clintons for decades have been so turned off what she's done during this campaign?

Historically, this has been a pretty clean campaign. Compared to the bitter battle between Teddy Kennedy and Carter for instance, it's been sweetness and light. (Remember? Teddy didn't even have the grace to shake Carter's hand)

For some former supporters within the party, I believe their support of Obama is politically motivated. The Clintons have had a stranglehold on fundraising for years, for one thing, and have been the essential power source. I think many see this as their chance to break the hold the Clintons (especially Bill) have had on the party.

The public perception of negative campaigning by Hillary has been largely media driven, and embraced by those whose enthusiasm for Obama makes them blind to objectivity.

Neither side in this battle has clean hands, but neither has been as extremely negative as portrayed, either.

by Swedie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:30:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (none / 0)

So now Obama supporters are demonstrating "hatred?"

I think you are just posting troll bait.

by agpc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:36:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (none / 0)

Hopefully reality will set in. As long as he keeps talking about "the popular vote" as if it has any bearing on the nomination, it won't happen anytime soon.

by kitebro on Sun May 11, 2008 at 03:51:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (2.00 / 2)

Jerome, I assume you put on your asbestos suit as soon as you posted this. :)

by OrangeFur on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:59:00 AM EST

If Jerome writes something dumb (2.00 / 4)

or offensive, he's not the victim when he takes heat for what he's written.

Team Clinton has this obsession with positioning themselves as the victims.

Guess what? Many partisan Dems don't want to nominate a victim; they want to nominate a winner.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:26:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Jerome writes something dumb (none / 0)

Geez, it was just a joke, predicting that a lot of people would disagree. Lighten up.

by OrangeFur on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:32:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is this a conciliatory post to make up for (2.00 / 6)

the last post?

In any case, you're right about 1 thing. The top four picks for VP are Sebelius, Richardson, Kaine, and Webb. (Sorry HRC supporters, it's just not going to happen.) I'm hoping for Sebelius, and I believe you are wrong. She will deliver Kansas. She's an extremely popular governor in an extremely Republican state.

If we were going by demographics or states picked up, it would probably be Richardson or Kaine. But I don't think that's how Obama will pick his VP. It will be the person who best fits with, supports, and yet complements and enhances his stances. I think that will be Sebelius.

by The Distillery on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:02:27 AM EST

I really don't think HRC (none / 0)

would take the VP spot anyway. And really, its one of the very few ways that Obama can actually win in the fall, so it more of a sorry Obama supporters, it just ain't gunna happen- in a big way.

by linc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:08:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really don't think HRC (2.00 / 3)

That was a good laugh. Thanks. Much appreciated.

by The Distillery on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:18:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really don't think HRC (1.00 / 4)

Agreed. It's really appaling that the most qualified candidate in this cycle should be there for the second spot. Then, she'll do the work. Obama will take the credit for what will work and leaves her out to go in front of the press to take the blame for what doesn't. He can continue to cruise along.

She is really a person devoted to her country, and may do it for that reason. Because she truely cares. But I hope she doesn't. Let him, Daschle, Kerry, and Kennedy work it out.

The press wants to have him? Sure, what's another 8 years of Bush-like presidency? They may continue covering up for all things Obama, as they did for Bush. Sure, the country can go into the ditch, but the millionare pundit will be fine, and their cocktail parties will be smashing.

I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas

by ghost 2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:27:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really don't think HRC (2.00 / 4)

Whew!

And Jerome focuses only on hatred of Clinton?

by deminva on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:14:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really don't think HRC (2.00 / 2)

The hatred of Obama runs deep among Hillary supporters...

by Mullibok on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:48:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That is a mistake your side made early on (none / 0)

You underestimated the distaste that would develop for Obama and his coalition. Your side thought, "Everbody will love us. We're awesome! But Clinton? At least half the country hates that bitch."

by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:20:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really don't think HRC (2.00 / 2)

The press ... or the SD's? I categorically disagree the press is in Obama's bag - if this was any other candidate other than Clinton , she would have been forced out after WI.
Its funny - how the invective flies towards Obama from Clintonistas ... when the venom should be directed to your own candidate .. she was beating him by 30+ points last fall ... had the entire DLC establishment and insiders in her back pocket ... and wore a cloak of inevitability that would have made Harry Potter proud.
What happened?

'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'

by stryan on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:10:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this a conciliatory post to make up for (2.00 / 1)

As a Hillary supporter, I would rather she not be the VP nominee. Sebelius would be a great choice as everyone knows that women are interchangeable.

by MOBlue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:26:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this a conciliatory post to make up for (2.00 / 1)

I trust that was snark and that since you don't really believe that women are interchangeable that maybe Obama supporters who don't like Hilary, but would be open to another candidate who just happens to be female that maybe we don't like Hilary because of Hilary and it has nothing to do with sexism.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:30:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this a conciliatory post to make up for (2.00 / 1)

Because the only reason anyone would pick Sebelius is obviously because she's a woman? How is your comment not sexist?

by The Distillery on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:08:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this a conciliatory post to make up for (2.00 / 2)

Look up Sherrod Brown of Ohio on youtube. He's a hell of a scrapper and he is VERY good at stumping as an economic populist. With the economy in the tank and the Ohio GOP exposed on scandal after scandal in the Buckeye state, he could be an excellent choice.

As much as some Hilary supporters like to pretend that winning or losing the primary contest in a state translates into an identical result in the general, anyone who has been around politics at all knows that's just a silly argument that has proven to be untrue in EVERY general election ever.

Ohio's 20 electoral college votes would make it a done deal. Barack Obama would win the general in a walk. It wouldn't even be competitive.

Also, give it up Jerome. She's not going to get a popular vote lead at any point. North Carolina shut the door on that possibility. It's a false metric anyway.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:28:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm betting you are wrong (none / 0)

The state hasn't elected a Democratic senator since 1936. With a tradition like that, I think it is going to take more than a popular governor in the VP slot under an uber-liberal relatively inexperienced Democrat.

by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:16:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this a conciliatory post to make up for (none / 0)

LOL the Obamatrons are so deluded in this election cycle it's...trippy. Obama runs with a no-name that no one knows anything about (face it, no one but their own states knows them, so that brings even more mistrust/distrust to Obama's capabilities). Yeah, that's really going to win him the presidency with 2 1/2 months to campaign for it. Obama might as well call up Dan Quayle.

by BrandingIron17 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:29:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (2.00 / 12)

I don't even like to imagine an Obama nomination

You should imagine it. Really. And tell us what it looks like.

_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents

by lizardbox on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:03:51 AM EST

Re: On the VP (1.00 / 2)

I keep telling everyone who mentions the race that I'm upset that I'll have to spend another 4 years not watching my president because Obama makes me physically sick! He's another imposter a la Bush - he's like Pelosi and Reid who'll give in to the republicans in other to be re-elected in 4 yrs should he win under the guise that he worked across party lines.

by suzieg on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:54:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (none / 0)

Wow, it's like he should join the DLC.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:31:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama won't have to give in to Republicans (2.00 / 2)

b/c he's planning on gaining seats in Congress, not flipping Congress to the GOP.

Remember, the Clinton administration only became popular after the Dems lost control of Congress and Clinton could contrast himself with Newt and the Congressional Republicans.

Rrrinnggg... Time to change the government.

by Carl Nyberg on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:46:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You might say he Crashed the Gate (2.00 / 3)

Of the inevitable party.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:15:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (1.00 / 1)

I think Obama's strategy has always been to seem GOP and try and pull some GOP votes. That is after all how he beat Hillary with non democratic party member votes.

To that end Bloomberg or Powel are his best bets If he could get them

Looking at his map if he ran with murtha he would cement PA and may get enough carryover to hold Ohio which are his weakest states I think.

by DTaylor on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:04:02 AM EST

Re: On the VP (2.00 / 3)

Not Powel. That man has blood on his hands.

_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents

by lizardbox on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:07:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (1.00 / 3)

EVERYONE who has ever held real power has blood on their hands from one direction or another.

Spend too much money on this, don't have the money for that and someone dies.

Obama's health plan relative to Hillary's will kill far more people than the Iraq war.

by DTaylor on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:10:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (2.00 / 6)

BS. Absolute, utter BS. Not everyone has blood on their hands. Actually, in this race two people do, and one doesn't.

And I have yet to ever hear such nonsense as your Obama's health plan killing far more people than the Iraq war. First, and this is just a reminder, at least 250,000 Iraqis are dead (in addition to our 4000+), secondly, this is really one hell of a point to make from someone who promises not to vote for Obama... You're willing to let your anger allow McCain into the white house and "kill far more people than the Iraq war"?

_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents

by lizardbox on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:14:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (2.00 / 5)

I didn't think your comments could get any more ridiculous - I'm sorry to have been proved wrong.

by interestedbystander on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:50:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (none / 0)

Here's a link to John McCain's health care plan--could you please point out how it is superior to Obama's?

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issu es/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf. htm

by Brannon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:17:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (none / 0)

Powel is an advisor to Obama.

I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas

by ghost 2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:28:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (2.00 / 2)

I have yet to hear that. He could advise all he wants. This man should not be in a position to lead this country. His mistake is unforgivable.

_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents

by lizardbox on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:30:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong. (2.00 / 6)

He is not an official advisor to the campaign. Obama has sought his opinion on matters, and Powell said on MTP that he would give his advice to any campaign that sought it, he is not an actual advisor to the campaign. Advisor is an actual role in which the person effects policy changes. While Powell's opinion is sought, he is not a policy maker in the campaign.

by The Distillery on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:37:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (2.00 / 1)

Colin Powell? Yes, let's nominate the man who chose to remain silent rather than oppose the worse elements of this administration, and then lied to the world to give a veneer of credibility to this disastrous war.

Then when he was out of the administration, when he could take no meaningful action and his opinion meant as much as yours or mine, and only after the nation realized what a horrible mistake had been made, yes, only THEN did he choose his moment to express his opinions publically, to try to save his reputation by sniping from the sidelines, desperately trying switch sides and convince whoever would listen that he had been against the war all along.

Give me a break. The worst circle of hell is saved for those who when given the opportunity to make a difference, do nothing in order to serve their own selfish interests.

by kayebee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:41:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (none / 0)

Give me a break. The worst circle of hell is saved for those who, when given the opportunity to make a difference, do nothing in order to serve their own selfish interests.

by kayebee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:44:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I can't imagine Murtha running with him (none / 0)

If there is such a thing as the Anti-Obama, Murtha might be the personification of it.

by lombard on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:22:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Popular vote question (2.00 / 2)

Will the popular vote totals from four caucus states (WA, IA, NV, and one I cannot remember) ever be released? It's still conceivable that Obama could win the popular vote if the popular vote totals from those four states are included in the popular vote calculation, even if you give him zero votes from Michigan.

It's a shame that his team underestimated his own political talents by not agreeing to the revote on Hillary's terms; she would have only been able to beat him by ten points at most. Agreeing to the revote would have guaranteed him the popular vote win.

by Blazers Edge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:06:39 AM EST

From what I remember, the only logistically feasible option for MI was to be paid for by Clinton supporters. That just doesn't work. So I'm not sure what else he could've done to get a re-vote going.

_____________
PUMA: Perverse Undemocratic McCain Adherents

by lizardbox on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:08:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, it wasn't. States (sometimes combined with Obama surrogates) complained about cost of running a new primary.

Then Carville called their bullshit and said that he will be willing to fundraise from private sources and come up with 15 million dollars for it. He challenged Obama supporters (that is the bundlers and money people) to do the same.

Of course, the response was ... crickets.

Then Carville and Corzine (or perhaps with Rendell) said they would raise all of the money so the states don't have to.

Obama campaing then spinned that this meant Hillary supporters were going to buy an election.

Yeah, that's new politics, hope, and change.

I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas

by ghost 2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:34:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I wouldn't trust Carville either. I don't blame Obama for this one bit.

No McCain in '08

by Renie on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:00:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't blame Obama for this one bit.

Please tell me something I don't know.

I have yet to see what [Obama] has done to take the highest office in the land. He is no Martin Luther King. --Helen Thomas

by ghost 2 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:28:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It was a MASSIVE political miscalculation not to revote.

by DTaylor on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:09:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm in agreement with you again Taylor; Obama's team must have been really worried about that superdelegates would buy Hillary's big-state argument. If they knew then what they knew now about how superdelegates would view that argument, they probably would have accepted the revote.

Obama would have lost by 150,000 votes on his worst day to Hillary in a Michigan revote. He would have an insurmountable lead of 390,000 (it's more if you include the four caucus states); heck, Obama may actually have won the revote.

by Blazers Edge on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:22:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The entire screw up of FL and MI on both sides is just baffling. On the other side from what you mentioned, if Clinton had made clear that FL needed to do a revote from early on, it would have been much more likely, and she would have still won big in a much more heavily attended vote, probably ensuring her a large popular vote majority (still not a delegate majority, but her popular vote would have been much more credible if the margin had been wide rather than a squeaker one way or the other).

by letterc on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:04:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You can go to Real Clear Politics for the popular vote counts under all scenarios, including estimating those caucuses.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/democratic_vote_count.htm l

Until a few days ago, they're were not using the certified vote counts in each state. I and a few other bloggers emailed them and it seems that their numbers have been updated, so it should be an accurate count from here on out.

by The Distillery on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:27:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure what you mean by "conceivable," but RealClearPolitics has Obama up by 736K, without those caucus states. Even with FL and MI, Obama is up by 113K.

By my count, WV, KY, and PR have the exact same number of pledged delegates combined as does NC, and while delegate apportionment doesn't translate directly to popular vote, it seems unlikely that Clinton will run up a popular vote margin in those states that too greatly exceeds Obama's from NC. And then he'll have margins from OR, MT, and SD.

But then again, Jerome writes of the popular vote as if it's an equivalent metric to the pledged delegate count. It's not, for a host of reasons. And it blows my mind that Jerome can, with an apparently straight face, talk about counting the MI popular vote. Soaring hypocrisy!

by deminva on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:28:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Michigan supreme court shot down the idea of a Michigan revote. That is not within BO's power to change and it is not his fault either. To claim otherwise is not consistent with reality.

The Florida state legislature and other Florida state democratic elected officials announced that they would not support another (actually legitimate) vote where they didn't tell everyone ahead of time that the vote wouldn't count. That is not within BO's power to change and it is not his fault either. To claim otherwise is not consistent with reality.

She will never get a popular vote lead. N.C. shut that door for her. It's not a valid metric anyway.

Government derives its power from those that it governs.

by lockewasright on Sun May 11, 2008 at 09:40:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You don't get to pretend four states don't exist in order to manipulate a metric to your candidate's favor, and if we decide not to employ any statistical method to account for those voters' preferences, then it's totally dishonest to try and paint that version of the vote count as a legitimate one, or use it as a legitimate metric for weighing the candidates. She lost, Jerome, so stop acting like someone took your pacifier away and get over it.

by Jay R on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:59:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If she or Jerome really cared, they would be pushing hard for release of all available information from the caucus states. Really working hard to estimate the popular vote.

But they don't even include WA state's beauty contest which was a lot more fair than MI primary. And had the same level of advertised legitimacy.

So it's obvious they don't care about the popular vote other than as an excuse.

by jello5929 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 05:00:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He has the popular vote win. The only way he doesn't is if you count an 'election' where he wasn't on the ballot--and give him zero votes for that election (even when 40%+ voted for 'uncommitted').

The only opinions that matter on popular vote at this point are those of the SD's. If they feel it is fair to count a bogus election where 2 out of the top 3 candidates aren't even on the ballot--then they can. But thus far they haven't found that argument convincing, which is why Obama has a growing SD lead as well.

MI has always been free to hold a revote--there's nothing that Obama could do to stop them.

by Brannon on Sun May 11, 2008 at 06:25:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The popular vote count from WA was released.

WA Caucus results:

Obama 67.51%........21,629 Delegates
Clinton 31.2%..........9992 Delegates

WA Primary Results:

Obama: 51.22%..........354,112 votes
Clinton: 45.67%..........315,744 votes

See the difference? It's a difference that Obamatrons can't wrap their little minds around.

by BrandingIron17 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 11:32:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I caucused for Obama in WA, but didn't bother voting in the primary since it didn't count for anything. See how that works? When people don't think an election is going to count it might just affect who shows up!

by travelerkaty on Mon May 12, 2008 at 12:34:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On the VP (1.90 / 20)

Hey Jerome,

You know what?
You're totally full of shit, saying that "the hatred of Clinton runs deep among the Obama supporters".

I know you're one of the big shots on t