About
A progressive online community for the Granite State. More...
Getting Started
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


The Masthead
Managing Editors

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
NH Progressive Blogs
Betsy Devine
Citizen Keene
Democracy for NH
Equality Press
The Political Climate
Granite State Progress
Chaz Proulx
Susan the Bruce

NH Political Links
Graniteprof
Granite Status
Kevin Landrigan
NH Political Capital
Political Chowder (TV)
Political Chowder (AM)
PolitickerNH
Pollster (NH-Sen)
Portside with Burt Cohen
Bill Siroty
Swing State 2008

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Carol Shea-Porter
Paul Hodes
Jeanne Shaheen
Barack Obama (NH)

ActBlue Hampshire
Stop Sununu
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Bob Geiger
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
RSS Feed

Blue Hampshire RSS

The Good New Days

by: JimC

Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 00:31:21 AM EDT
(I like this.  I said in the earlier diary that Obama has had a strangely charmed election history prior to his presidential run, so in a sense this is his first big test.  Is he up to it? - promoted by Dean Barker)

Buck up, Obamanians.

I share a lot of the frustration expressed in this diary:
http://www.bluehampshire.com/s...

But forget it.  Remember three things:

1. Hillary can still win, under Democratic Party rules.

2. Therefore she has the right to campaign, and her odds of winning are much higher than the 5% David Brooks put it at. I'd put them at an approximate and more or less arbitrary 25%. (Would you have your candidate withdraw, under those odds?)

3. She does not have to "break his back" to win. She has to win a majority of the delegates -- you know the drill. This is an election.

The campaign doesn't just test the candidate, it tests the candidate's message. In my view, Barack faced his greatest challenge last week, and he beat it back with a stirring speech that, if he wins, will be taught in history classes someday.

But the message is, well, off-message lately. Instead of change, and hope, I hear fatigue. I hear, dare I say it, entitlement.

Look at the positive part of the example Hillary Clinton is setting -- not everything she's doing, I have my objections too, but the tenacity.  As she's said, repeatedly, she's prepared to go all the way. OK, that's her right.

Though it's been awkwardly expressed at times, her campaign reflects her message: I will do what it takes to win, and I will never give up until it's over. Do you think that message is lost on superdelegates? It is not.

His campaign needs to reflect his message: optimism, the possibility of change, a different kind of candidate who wants to elevate the discourse. The speech last week was all that.

So throw away your blogger hat, your Mike Caulfield This-is-all-the-same-old-game fedora, and, for gawd's sake, your Draft Gore T-shirt. Tell me why your candidate is different. Tell me how he'll rise to this challenge in a new way. And please tell me soon, I need to know he can face the next challenge, and the really important one after that that lasts four years.
JimC :: The Good New Days
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Good New Days | 33 comments
FWIW on the mettle question: (4.00 / 1)

Poll Shows Obama Weathering Controversy

"The racially charged debate over Barack Obama's relationship with his longtime pastor hasn't much changed his close contest against Hillary Clinton, or hurt him against Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain," according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

"Weathering the episode could strengthen his standing among the party leaders nationwide -- the superdelegates -- whose votes are likely to break the impasse" in the Democratic race.

But both Democrats -- and especially Sen. Hillary Clinton -- "are showing wounds from their prolonged and increasingly bitter nomination contest, which could weaken the ultimate nominee for the general-election showdown" against McCain. "Even among women, who are the base of Sen. Clinton's support, she now is viewed negatively by more voters than positively for the first time in a Journal/NBC poll."

I agree with you on being impressed by Clinton's tenacity, and I do think that sends a positive message to supers.  On the other hand, the way that tenacity is being manifested is (apparently) turning some of them off too.

Obama strikes me as the type of politician who does not revel in the electoral fight.  Ironically, he's got the one of the biggest intra-party struggles on his hands in all of Democratic party history.


Wonder if Sununu's fired now.

Coupla reactions (4.00 / 2)
  1. Agreed, on the 'entitlement' odor. (As usual, my sense of the blogosphere atmospherics come primarily from DailyKos, where Obama supporters have been debating his Veep choice for months.)
  2. Agreed, on the tenaciousness point. Many of the same Kossacks who are angry at Hillary were contemptuous at Gore and Kerry for giving up too easily.
  3. Does she need to "break his back" to win? Is she a 5% shot or a 25% shot? That is far less clear. The Tonya Harding language comes from a party insider. Without winner-take-all rules, impressive victories in primaries don't translate into big delegate gains. She is at a big money disadvantage. The conventional wisdom is probably true: it will come down to the ex officio delegates. And if Obama has a lead in elected delegates, it will take something dramatic to make them buck that vote. (But with all that said, it would mean she needs him to suffer a broken back - not to do the deed herself.)

I don't like the way Clinton is campaigning - in particular, her surrogates such as James Carville. Super-delegates woke to find the Richardson-Judas story on the bed like a horse's head, reminding them of what is in store for them if they vote "wrong."

By standard measures she is waging a very divisive campaign. She goes out of her way to praise McCain and by implication condemn Obama. She is providing sound bites that will be used against him in the general election if he gets the nomination. She is threatening to starve Congessional candidates of money from her supporters unless she wins. These tactics cross a line that most campaigns observe.

But Obama will face this much and worse if he gets the nomination. I won't go so far as calling this a Good Thing. But there is a useful side to this current contest.

DailyKos is not what it once was... (0.00 / 0)
I think you have pretty much the mainstream view of the situation, elwood. But I would try not too put much reliability in the DKos commentaries lately as anything more than a DailyObama campaign site. I have officially dropped off their site last month over the barrage of pro-Obama campaigning by Markos and the rest of the Front Page diarists. I was likely one of the last Clinton holdouts trying to stem the tide of abuse at the candidate. I didn't mind the facts being stated pro or con about the candidates.

I think the Clinton campaign is doing a better job than last month in putting Obama on the defensive instead of playing catch up all the time. I don't see this as much "divisive politics" than simply showing the difference between the candidates. I think both of them are pouncing on words that can be turned around to mean something the candidates did not intend. And both are using sharpened remarks embedded in their stump speeches to make the other candidate look bad. It's all basic politics, but I agree the longer this drags on the more dissatisfaction you will get out of the electorate.

The Carville comment was a cutesy sound bite and nothing more. Obama pounced on it hard, but I can see the reason he said it. Richardson was a Clinton Loyalist and fell from that to being an Obama supporter. Not really a big deal, but as Obama Supporters were making it out as a sign of Hillary's inevitable concession from the race, it came back to bite them when Carville shot his comment back at them.

The Clinton campaign has little reason to bail out of this race. And if Michigan and Florida pull out a miracle before convention time her chances are a lot better than the Obama supporters care to reveal.

We need to simply let the race continue, tone down our overt rhetoric on the sidelines and let the kids play ball. (sorry for the little league baseball metaphor)

Simply saying Play Ball!
Wynter

[ Parent ]
The problem with the Hillary Rodham Clinton (0.00 / 0)
campaign has been, from the beginning, that it's all about her.  She still thinks she's "IN IT TO WIN" and hasn't caught on that the presidency is not a prize like a kewpie doll at the fair.

While her surrogates have displayed some dreadful traits, the Senator's apparent habit of prevarication merits disqualification.  Whatever the rationale for the confabulation about the Bosnia excursion, if
Dick Morris' recollection of the Chelsey the Jogger fabrication is accurate, that was an inexcusable violation of the truth.


First, Dick Morris is not at all credible. Period. (0.00 / 0)
Second, EVERY major candidate for the Presidency is "in it to win" and comes to see the office as a prize.
[ Parent ]
Bold Statement, O' Wizened One (0.00 / 1)
Cynicism is a perspective. It is not an absolute.

I value most of your astute observations, but your over reaching here.

Hannah's point being that for HRC is seems to be more about her and for Barack, it seems to be more about us.

Having served, I can relate to that. Maybe, you cannot.

The giant finds its gait.

[ Parent ]
(0.00) Oh, that smarts. (0.00 / 0)
I deserved that.

The giant finds its gait.
[ Parent ]
Barrack is all about him as well... (0.00 / 0)
thinking anything different is simply a delusion. He has his moments where you can see his impatience on being given the title of democratic candidate to go on to the general election.

His speeches, are just political promises like every other politician. His campaign surrogates and supporters hide most of the tricks and more dirty acts for him. But he is simply acting the part of the martyr in this race.

I like what he says, and think he sincerely means what he says. But he is more than a fine communicator, he is quite adept at twisting the truth. I've seen it in his Ohio flyers and his loose rhetoric about Clinton where he paints her in not very flattering terms. These acts are not that of a saintly character, it is the stock and trade of a standard politician doing anything to get you to vote for them.

And on the flipside, I don't like many things I hear out of the Clinton campaign. But as with everything in this primary I listen through the political speeches with  a political translator of sorts. If you know your being lied to half the time then you try to find the ring of truth in half of what you hear. Obama's camp tries to make you believe that he is 100% truth and that is an impossible trick being that by trade he is a politician. But as I listen to Clinton I hear the truth within the embellishments and political grandstanding.

Anyone expecting anything different in a politician is being naive.

Simply saying "It's only politics, stupid!"
Wynter

[ Parent ]
Sorry, I reject that (0.00 / 0)
I appreciate you commenting, but I do not think the man is a saint, and I am not naive about politicians. But to say that all politicians are lying to us half the time is setting the bar too low.


[ Parent ]
The funny thing about the Hillary exaggerates thing (0.00 / 0)
Is I said months ago this was a Bush v. Gore race, with Hillary as Gore and Obama as Bush.

I said that, in some ways, as a compliment to Obama BTW.

But it gets really interesting because they are borrowing directly -- Hillary the exxagerator, Hillary the stiff person who can't laugh.

And who is Obama -- he's the guy keeping it simple. The likeable guy.

Who's the crybaby over the nomination, a contested contest? Hillary. Obama just wishes she'd stop prolonging this and dividing the country.

It's fascinating to watch, and I'm not entirely sure what I think of it. I suppose if he can use the same thing against McCain, we're good.

But seriously, watch the rhetoric of the Obama v. Clinton contest through the Bush v. Gore prism and it's absolutely fascinating. The media loves it, BTW, because they used it in 2000, 2004, and they are salivating over not having to write new copy in 2008.


[ Parent ]
Someone is going to have to explain to me this 25%... (0.00 / 0)
before I can buy into it.  I think Brooks was pretty spot-on with his 5%.  The only way I see Hillary winning is if Obama self-destructs, and maybe not even then.  We all know Obama is going to end this with a lead in pledged delegates, and even assuming unrealistically huge Hillary wins in the remaining states, she will need to win the remaining supers by a large margin.  We all know this.

So I guess what I see happening, under the rosiest Hillary scenario, is the supers having to choose between Obama, the pledged-delegate and overall-delegate leader, and Hillary, the candidate with (presumably) all the momentum.  Does anyone think that will lead to a clear outcome?  I don't see even that scenario leading to Hillary taking enough superdelegates to win that way.

So where am I wrong?  How do her chances of winning the nomination outright go up to 25%?

Both numbers are arbitrary (0.00 / 0)
She can win under the rules, so the number is not zero.

Brooks, a Republican, put it at 5% to make the point that Clinton is tilting at windmills. I put it higher to make the point that this is not over yet. If she were to win the remaining contests, and claimed momentum and buyer's remorse, could the party be swayed? The real chance is impossible to pin down.

But the Obama campaign cannot presume this is over, nor can we.

[ Parent ]
She won't win (0.00 / 0)
North Carolina or Oregon. According to the talking heads--or at least Chuck Todd, she'd have to win every remaining state with over 60% of the vote to have any chance.

It's unlikely to happen. I can't understand her motivation for staying in and I can't understand why the party elders are letting this go on. When that happens, I begin to think that there is something at work in the background of which we, the plebes are not aware. And background stuff is usually nefarious.

[ Parent ]
I made a promise to myself (0.00 / 0)
... that I would resort to neither a sports metaphor nor a battle metaphor in this diary. If you acknowledge the possibility (and you seem to, though you say it's unlikely) that she can win, then we agree. I disagree on the nefariousness of party elders, but that's for another day.

The unlikely story that is America awaits its next chapter.


[ Parent ]
Clarification (0.00 / 0)
I did not say party elders are nefarious, but that things that go on in the dark often are. A famous quotable person said "Sunlight is the best disinfectant".

Kos  had a goos piece on the threatening letter wealthy Hillary donors wrote to Nancy Pelosi. It's good these things get reported on by bloggers or else there'd be more things we don't know about.

Letting this go on is just helping the MSM and the Republicans as far as I can see. Hillary and Bill Clinton have no credibility with me anymore, even less so their minions like Carville.

There is a remote possibility Hillary can win, but it's not enough of one to legitimize this primary race nor the ugly turn she and her campaign have taken it on. Anything is possible, but we can't live live as if every possibility will occur. We have to look at what is probable, what is likely to happen.

It's possible that GW Bush will wake up tomorrow a changed man, atone for his wrongdoings and stop the war, put money into infrastrucutre and healthcare, etc. Is it probable? Can we base anything we do on that possibility?

[ Parent ]
Actually (0.00 / 0)
this is the post I meant to link to, although Kos's is the intro.
[ Parent ]
Kos had it wrong though... (0.00 / 0)
Markos is more than a bit biased lately in this race. But he was so far out there with his complaint of the SuperDelegate's letter to Pelosi that it hurt to see it.

The SuperDelegate's were responding to Rep. Pelosi's comments where she stated she didn't like the idea of SDs voting opposite to the popular vote or delegate trends in the primaries and caucuses.

This coming from one of the democratic leadership was a challenge to the whole definition of a SuperDelegate. They are not "tied" or "obligated" to vote with the voters they represent. That is something the state's "delegates" are obligated to do (but even that isn't really an obligation but I won't get into that now).

The Supers are individuals that have been granted the status to vote their own mind in the convention. They are not bound by anything other than their own convictions.

Pelosi's comments were an ugly attempt to change that perception before the convention. And she got rightly smacked for it by a group of Clinton Superdelegates.

Kos was simply wrong.. or in a better light he was just "blinded" by his adoration for Obama.

Simply saying,
Wynter

[ Parent ]
Baloney. (0.00 / 0)
You are rewriting or ignoring history.

Pelosi did not say the ex officio delegates are "obligated" to  echo the votes of their constituents or the elected delegates. She said that it would be damaging if they overruled that vote.

That is a very different statement.

And the letter from Clinton's financial supporters did not just complain about the Pelosi statement. They threatened to withhold contributions from Congressional races.  

[ Parent ]
Clearing the way for poaching of pledged delegates (0.00 / 0)
The letter to Pelosi also makes clear:

Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party's strongest nominee.

After watching Bush's War, I am keen on little advancements of agenda.

The giant finds its gait.

[ Parent ]
Sure the numbers are arbitrary (0.00 / 0)
But I'm asking why your number is higher than Brooks'.  You and I both agree that Hillary can win.  I think it's almost impossible, so I'd say the 5% Brooks came up with is a pretty accurate number.

Of course it's rife speculation, so if you want to replace the numbers, change 5% to "pretty much impossible" and 25% to "not likely, but still fairly possible."  I hope that's a fair impression of your views, and if not please correct me.

I think we can presume this is over, because Hillary's presumed "there's clear buyer's remorse" argument is not so much stronger than Obama's "I just won the most primaries, most caucuses, the popular vote, and the pledged delegates" argument that enough superdelegates will support her campaign.  So yes, I presume this is over.

The other point is, even if it's not over, should it be?  I think of the continued existence of the Clinton campaign at this point to be like me dropping my life savings on lottery tickets.  Sure, I could win millions of dollars tonight.  But given how likely I am to lose, and the damage suffered if I continue down that path and fail, is it worth it to go all-out?  I say no.

[ Parent ]
OK (0.00 / 0)
"Not likely, but still fairly possible" is a fair summation of my view. I put the number where I did, for one reason, because it's not like Hillary is walking in off the street. She has broad and deep party support.

And yes, you personally are free to presume the campaign is over.

However, my point is, the Obama campaign cannot presume it's over. The campaign is not over, and saying "It should be over" (or debating whether it should be over) is not a winning message.


[ Parent ]
It depends... (0.00 / 0)
on whether the Obama facade of invitability cracks under the recent Rev. Wright mess. If he truly put that issue to bed with his speech then he should sail to victory. But if he failed to nail down the controversy and the GOP keeps the heat on him then its likely he could take a dive in the PA and following primaries.

My bets are that it won't hurt him, but the public at large is a very fickle bunch of voters. Anything could shut the door to his chances of completing this race ahead.

Hillary is no weak candidate based on her tenacity under fire. It's Obama's race to lose. And I don't mean that Hillary will firebomb his chances. I mean "he" might fumble before he gets to the end. I am sure the GOP has a few traps setup for him to help that out.

Simply saying,
Wynter

[ Parent ]
Her own people have been quoted (0.00 / 0)
saying 10%. How does she get that 1 in 10 chance without breaking Obama so badly she also breaks the party? I have yet to see an argument for that coming even from her campaign.
[ Parent ]
As with Huckabee and McCain (0.00 / 0)
There is the possibility of a collapse of the Obama campaign from some events that she does not trigger.

But the thing is, the more negative her campaign goes right now, the less she is able to step in and and "rescue the party" if such a collapse should occur.

[ Parent ]
From Cheney to Colbert (0.00 / 0)
"her campaign reflects her message: I will do what it takes to win, and I will never give up until it's over. "

How is this different that Bush's m.o.? I get it that people like a scrappy fighter, but when that fight results in a single-mindedness that pushes critical voices aside, we end up with another politician saying "So?" Or a president who so tenaciously marches to his/her own council that he/she "believes the same thing Wednesday that she did Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday."

As a matter of democratic principles, is it possible that too doggedly determined? It's possible for a politician to be so self-interested -- so confident in one's superiority for the position -- that one forgets the job is to be a servant of the people not the master of the nation.

As someone who no longer supports Hillary Clinton, my concern is that she will doggedly fight to get her way as president... regardless of my voice, and regardless of the collateral damage done in the process.



Not as smart as I think I am, but not as dumb as I look.

Question for you (0.00 / 0)
Which thought have you had more often?

"[That Democratic politician] is too determined!"

or

"[That Democratic politician] walked away from the fight too soon!"

Complicated answer, right? But determination resonates.

I'm going to be offline for a while, I have do some work ...

[ Parent ]
We criticized Gore from walking away from a contested election (4.00 / 1)
He thought the divisiveness had gotten too much.

But of course the presumed frontrunner dials up the divisiveness -- just as Obama's team tries to jump in front of Team Hillary's punches.

We should actually appreciate this as well executed Team Obama tactics. And be happy they know how this works. But can the false rage about divisiveness, I think.

And yes, this is my way-the-game-is-played fedora. Someone's gotta to wear it.


[ Parent ]
I don't think the rage is false (0.00 / 0)
But sure, can it. Let's talk about the future.

And you earned that hat, so wear it. But you may need to cross Delancey one of these days.


[ Parent ]
Incidentally (0.00 / 0)
I wasn't necessarily thinking of elections. I was thinking more of issue fights.

But I appreciate you being a good sport about me invoking your name in vain.

[ Parent ]
Second emp's comment that Hillary is the new Bush (0.00 / 0)
This is over.  She's the only one who doesn't know it.  Certainly, after North Carolina, if lightening doesn't strike, it will be over.  We have learned from this campaign that she is willing to assert her own reality (Bosnia, Inskeep interview on NPR, denial about the state of her campaign, on and on) as if it's real, just as Bush does.  We don't need 8 more years of that (though I would vote for that vs. 8 more years of Bush....oops, McCain).

Give Democrats the next 3 months and Democrats will give you back your country.
Chris Dodd weighs in (0.00 / 0)
From "The Page" by Mark Halperin.

Dodd: Well, the solution is, look, we've got a contest coming up in Pennsylvania and one in North Carolina and Indiana very quickly afterwards. In my view, the outcome of those three races will determine - I think the race has been determined, anyway, at this point. I think it's very difficult to imagine how anyone can believe that Barack Obama can't be the nominee of the party. I think that's a foregone conclusion, in my view, at this juncture given where things are. But certainly over the next couple of weeks, as we get into April, it seems to me then, that the national leadership of this party has to stand up and reach a conclusion. And in the absence of doing that - and that's not easy and I realize it's painful - but the alternative, allowing this sort of to fester over the months of June, and July and August, I think are irresponsible. I think you have to make a decision, and hopefully the candidates will respect it and people will rally behind a nominee that, I think, emerges from these contests over the next month. That's my suggestion, that's what I would do.

Q: So you go to the person who seems to be the winner after these most recent contests and you tell the other person to drop out? Is that, essentially, what you are saying?

Dodd: Well, it's more deciding who the winner of this is - I mean, if a person wants to stay in the race, stay in the race. But if you have enough people rallying behind what appears to be the likely choice, and I believe the choice is Barack Obama, and I believe that will be the choice over the next several weeks. Then I think you have to step up to the plate and say, enough is enough. We want this to be over with. We want to get behind this candidate, and we want people to pull together to win that election in November - to build those majorities in the House and the Senate if we can, and then start doing the work on health care and Iraq and all these other issues that demand our attention.


Thanks Dean for the bump (4.00 / 1)
n/t
The pleasure was all mine, and BH's. eom (0.00 / 0)


Wonder if Sununu's fired now.
[ Parent ]
The Good New Days | 33 comments
Powered by: SoapBlox