Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Managing the Obama-Clinton Merger

**********************

UPDATE: According to Talking Points Memo, Former Vice President Al Gore will host a fundraiser aimed at unifying the Obama and Clinton camps.

*********************


The Fix is on his way back from Texas and won't be actively posting again until tomorrow morning.

But, we wanted to make sure you caught a story penned by Post reporter Matt Mosk and The Fix detailing the early attempts at merging the fundraising operations of Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.).

A group of top donors and backers of each candidate gathered two weeks ago in Washington, D.C. for a dinner featuring Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and former Clinton Administration Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin -- a get-together widely viewed as the first step in a larger detente.

"The people there had all picked sides," one attendee said. "There was a sense that there is an obligation to lead by example."

In addition to the attempts to merge the fundraising efforts, there is also some low-level talk about the best way to bridge the rift that has emerged between the two candidates supporters in time to prepare for the general election against Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).

"There's gale-force pressure for Obama to choose a Clinton loyalist as a running mate to heal the party but avoid putting her and her formidable baggage on the ticket," said one Obama ally in Washington. "You hear the names [Ohio Gov. Ted] Strickland, [Indiana Sen. Evan] Bayh, and [retired general] Wes Clark almost constantly, and it's no secret that Jim Johnson and Tom Daschle are purveyors of that wisdom."

Is that right strategy? And will it work?

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 19, 2008; 5:04 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: FixCam Week in Preview: Great Outdoors Edition
Next: Primary Predictions Redux: The Mountain State Primary

Comments

Why does Hillary keep running? I believe it is because she cannot believe she won't be the nominee. Hillary has a past of doing what she needs to do to get what she wants and it has always worked. It isn't working this time and she cannot believe it. I think the fact that she is getting more toxic with each day, is evidence of that.
I am very concerned that she is doing irreparable damage to the party and to Obama. The supers HAVE to step up.

Posted by: flaxponder | May 22, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Why does Hillary keep running? I believe it is because she cannot believe she won't be the nominee. Hillary has a past of doing what she needs to do to get what she wants and it has always worked. It isn't working this time and she cannot believe it. I think the fact that she is getting more toxic with each day, is evidence of that.
I am very concerned that she is doing irreparable damage to the party and to Obama. The supers HAVE to step up.

Posted by: flaxponder | May 22, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Why does Hillary keep running? I believe it is because she cannot believe she won't be the nominee. Hillary has a past of doing what she needs to do to get what she wants and it has always worked. It isn't working this time and she cannot believe it. I think the fact that she is getting more toxic with each day, is evidence of that.
I am very concerned that she is doing irreparable damage to the party and to Obama. The supers HAVE to step up.

Posted by: flaxponder | May 22, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Why does Hillary keep running? I believe it is because she cannot believe she won't be the nominee. Hillary has a past of doing what she needs to do to get what she wants and it has always worked. It isn't working this time and she cannot believe it. I think the fact that she is getting more toxic with each day, is evidence of that.
I am very concerned that she is doing irreparable damage to the party and to Obama. The supers HAVE to step up.

Posted by: flaxponder | May 22, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Why does Hillary keep running? I believe it is because she cannot believe she won't be the nominee. Hillary has a past of doing what she needs to do to get what she wants and it has always worked. It isn't working this time and she cannot believe it. I think the fact that she is getting more toxic with each day, is evidence of that.
I am very concerned that she is doing irreparable damage to the party and to Obama. The supers HAVE to step up.

Posted by: flaxponder | May 22, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Why does Hillary keep running? I believe it is because she cannot believe she won't be the nominee. Hillary has a past of doing what she needs to do to get what she wants and it has always worked. It isn't working this time and she cannot believe it. I think the fact that she is getting more toxic with each day, is evidence of that.
I am very concerned that she is doing irreparable damage to the party and to Obama. The supers HAVE to step up.

Posted by: flaxponder | May 22, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Why does Hillary keep running? I believe it is because she cannot believe she won't be the nominee. Hillary has a past of doing what she needs to do to get what she wants and it has always worked. It isn't working this time and she cannot believe it. I think the fact that she is getting more toxic with each day, is evidence of that.
I am very concerned that she is doing irreparable damage to the party and to Obama. The supers HAVE to step up.

Posted by: flaxponder | May 22, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Why does Hillary keep running? I believe it is because she cannot believe she won't be the nominee. Hillary has a past of doing what she needs to do to get what she wants and it has always worked. It isn't working this time and she cannot believe it. I think the fact that she is getting more toxic with each day, is evidence of that.
I am very concerned that she is doing irreparable damage to the party and to Obama. The supers HAVE to step up.

Posted by: flaxponder | May 22, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Hillary should run as an independent.

Democrats and Obama are doomed in November. He and his twinkies have alienated enough people. His Ultra Liberal policies on government, domestic and foreign policy shows lack experience. Besides, what has he accomplished in his political career. Does anyone know what Obama's accomplishments were as Community Organizer. There is lot of talk of his role but very little details.

It would be even fantastic if McCain and Hillary join and run as independents. Hillary as VP and PoTUS in 2012. That will really shake up the political landscape of this country forever and put the two party system to an end. Elected officials will be forced to become accountable for their actions.

Obambi will not cannot win.

Posted by: Independent | May 22, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

Why do the Clintons continue to run?

Why did Bubba cast everything overboard for an intern?

Why did Hillary doom any chance for health care in the 90's?

The diagnosis?

Sociopathic driven narcissism...it's a textbook case.

The Clintons represent an inability to subjugate their individual drives for the greater common good. Treatment is tough.
Prognosis is poor. External intervention is only protocol.

Reject fear & anger.
Choose hope & dreams.

Llive Free!!

Posted by: Ricky Galileo | May 22, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

I believe that Hillary will be running as an Independant in the end. Her whole plan is to arrive to the Democratic conference and request forcefully to be President or run as an Independant.

Posted by: miamimaestro | May 20, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

I support Obama whom I believe will be the Democratic Nominee. However, regardless who wins the Democratic nominee, I will support that person. I agree with the democratic policies and abhor the republican policies.

Posted by: lclon | May 20, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Bob Baker said: I would urge you to consider your threat to vote for a Republican. Voting for spite seem wrong to me, and if you are really a Democrat you should vote for what you think is best for your Country.
________________________________________

I APPRECIATE YOU POST, HOWEVER, FOR THE DEMOCRATS I'VE SPOKEN TO, SPITE IS NOT THE REASON THEY WOULD CONSIDER VOTING FOR McCAIN OVER OBAMA. They simply would rather have a centrist Republican President, than an inexperienced, deceptive, ruthless and divisive Obama.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Scorpi2000 said: At this point its almost too late to come together as a cohesive political force without both lead candidates pledging a plolitical truce to NEVER TO ATTACK EACH OTHER AGAIN.
______________________________________

I APPRECIATE YOUR SENTIMENT, BUT IT IS TOO LATE FOR THAT. For months, Obama, his supporters, the DNC, the party elite, and the mainstream media have conspired to marginalize the millions of Democrats who have voted for Hillary, and they will now be using every trick in the book to "bring the party together" to further their ruthless ambitions. They want us to forget all about the months of biased press, the biased party elite, the insults, and the race-cards. They want us to forget that the Democratic Party now is the party that stands for disenfranchisement and the rationalization of racism. They will use any method to persuade us to vote for the man who they have preordained as the Democratic nominee. FOR MANY OF US, THIS BS WILL BE FALLING ON DEAF EARS.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

I am a very, very old veteran, and have voted in every presidential race since I was eligible to vote, with the exception of those elections held while I was serving in Europe. In all but one of those elections, I voted for the Democrat.

I have attempted to read the letters from readers of the Post, but ran out of interest after a bit. I am not surprised at the ardor of the writers since this is the most divisive campaign I can remember. It would appear that most who declare a preference for one candidate or the other, seem to base there decision on some purported personal shortcoming of the opposing candidate, rather than differnences on the important issue the country is facing. I can assure that I will vote for whichever of the candidates gains the nomination. Why? Because I have found that the Democrat Party most often supports and promotes my postion on whatI believe are issues of importance to our nation. I will have no problem voting for Obama, whether he be black, blue, green or whatever. I will also have no problem with voting for Clinton, whatever the gender.
I have great faith in our nation's ability to solve our problems. This is a far different country than the one I returned to in 1945, and in most ways a better one. Upon entering the Army I found that black Americans were segregated. White soldiers were housed in barracks, while black troops were billeted in tents. Women were allowed to serve in separate units, but not as full fledged soldiers. Things seem to have improved, but there is stll a lot that needs to be done. I will once again vote the Democratic ticket, because I believe the party represents my interests.
I would urge you to consider your threat to vote for a Republican. Voting for spite seem wrong to me, and if you are really a Democrat you should vote for what you think is best for your Country.

Posted by: Bob Baker | May 20, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

As another Clinton supporter who has been upset for a while over the vitriolic lack of respect shown her by the Obama zealots, press and others, at this point I'm still doubtful that I can bring myself to vote for Obama (although it's certainly possible that in a few months I will be able to - I don't know).

But I would suggest a list of candidates who he should not choose for veep if he has any hope of attracting most of the Clinton supporters:

Richardson
McCaskill
Casey
Kerry
George McGovern (yes you do still matter George!)
Napolitano
John Lewis

And in fact just about any person who jumped on the endorsement bandwagon right after the first wave of Obama support was evidenced early in the primary season.

You can also add to the list any early Obama endorser who Hillary or Bill Clinton worked for or raised funds for in the 2006 election cycle.

Posted by: Paul | May 20, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

I THOUGHT WE WERE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM ..... DEMOCRATIC
The effects of the negative attacks are escalating. The cause and effect factor leads me to believe that if it continues, someone is going to be politicaly destroyed and the other left politicaly wounded.

What makes this more alarming is that its occurring within the same political party.

If the goal of the democratic party PRIMARY is to establish a strong candidate to challenge the republican party. From my perspective THIER aproach cancels out the end objective.

At this point its almost too late to come together as a cohesive political force without both lead candidates pledging a plolitical truce to NEVER TO ATTACK EACH OTHER AGAIN. APOLIGIZE FOR ALL NEGATIVE ATTACKS ON EACH OTHER. AND DEFFEND ANY UNWARRANTED ATTACKS AGAINST A FELLOW TEAM MEMBER. AND ABOVE ALL TRY TO ENCOURAGE THE MEDIA TO STOP THE INSTAGATING.

This can be ended immediatly if the demicratic party leader holds an emergency meeting for the porpuse of settling this dispute behind closed doors. The party and its leaders should establish binding rules of ingagment that govern the conduct of any candidate representing its party. The democratic party should have a vote within the party to establish these rules as party law for the main porpuse of strenthening the party as a whole.

All of these differences should be debated and settled within the party before allowed to be argeued in public.

DO YOU THINK THE PLAYERS OF THE CHICAGO BEARS COULD WIN A FOOTBALL GAME IF THE PLAYERS BEGAN ARGUING AND FIGHTING EACH OTHER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME. THEY WOULD CERTAINLY LOOSE AGAINST A FAR LESSER APPONANT.

WHERE IS THE HEAD COACH? WHERE ARE THE LEADERS OF THE TEAM? DO YOU THINK YOUR FANS ARE ENJOYING THIS ? WHAT HAPPENS IF YOUR FANS GET FED UP AND DECIDE TO PLEDGE THIER SUPPORT FOR ANOTHER TEAM?

DECIDE WHO THE QUATERBACK IS GOING TO BE (PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)

DECIDE WHO THE RECIEVER IS GOING TO BE (VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)

AND LETS GO OUT AND WIN THIS GAME OF POLITICS AS A STRONG COHESIVE TEAM.

THANKS

SCORPI2000

Posted by: scorpi2000 | May 20, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

It seems we just keep on picking on Bill. Okay, what the Obama family??? You know the persons who raised him? I do not see any of his family hitting the trail for him? Why is that? Is he scared to remind America of his REAL roots? Well, I raise this question because we have seen Hillary's entire extended family. Remember Bro. Roger is her brother-in-law!
McCain has showcased his mother...... Hmmm

Obama is so busy bringing in new voters, etc. What about the voters whom are family members?

Everyone is always dumping on Bill C, but
really, what REAL policies can Obama point to that he has enacted? sponsored in Congress? Ok, I know about the community work, he made in Harvard Law Review.... but his scripted remarks will only carry him so far. He must be ready to answer questions spontanously, not scripted.

Will I vote for him? Sure, when Hell freezes over!!!!

I get no emotional feeling from him! So people can continue to carry his banner. I will not be angry with them, because they are expressing how the feel.

Afterall,this is America, where we can express our views publicly.

Posted by: Liz-WashDC | May 20, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

ON Florida and Michigan that is the next big date on the primary calendar - in essence I predict a very big weekend for Hillary on May 31 and then the Puerto Rico primary on June 1.


Obama is in for a big deflation - dont know if he will be derailed but the race will get closer

First, the state legislature is sovereign, why in the world do they have to listen to a political party


Second, taxpayer funds are involved - the parties are essentially ordering a state how it should spend its money


Third, because taxpayer money is involved, Constitutional protections of equal protection should apply


Fourth, the Voting Rights of the Citizens should prevail over any other interests - such voting rights are incorporated into the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.


Again, I challenge the right of the party to be able to choose one state over another , in this case to select Nevada and South Carolina over Florida and Michigan


Again I challenge the right of the party to enforce it


Fifth, the Voters are essentially innocent bystanders in the dispute between Harry Reid of Nevada and Carl Levin of Michigan -

Basically, a penalty is being assessed to the Voters if the Legislature does not grant its authority over elections to the parties.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 20, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

when you get down to it, it matters little who gets in...both parties are corrupted by special interest lobby monies and all politicians want these funds....time for a third party that represents all Americans, not just the privileged few...will it happen? probably not until we get fed-up with the lack of progress in resolving our many national problems...does America have to "take to the streets" to force positive change that is MEANINGFUL...

Posted by: jbk6039 | May 20, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Obama has developed a strategy to con Hillary supporters into voting for him using various ploys, including: 1. The "Supreme Court" card, i.e. if Obama doesn't win, McCain will appoint conservative judges. 2. The "Roe v. Wade" card, i.e. if Obama doesn't win, the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade. 3. The "race card,", i.e. if you are against Obama, then you are a racist. 4. The "real Democrat" card, i.e. "real Democrats" will vote for the Democratic nominee whether they like him or not. 5. The "Hillary would want you to vote for Obama" card, which is self-explanatory.

Obama, his supporters, the DNC, the party elite, and the mainstream media have conspired to marginalize the millions of Democrats who have voted for Hillary, and they will now be using every trick in the book to "bring the party together" to further their ruthless ambitions. They will want you to forget all about the months of biased press, the biased party elite, the insults, and the race-cards. They will want you to forget that the Democratic Party now is the party that stands for disenfranchisement and the rationalization of racism. They will use any method to persuade you to vote for the man who they have preordained as the Democratic nominee. DON'T FALL FOR IT!

Whether you write-in Hillary, if possible, vote for John McCain, or sit out the election, remember that your action or inaction could result in the election of the inexperienced, deceptive, ruthless and divisive Obama.

AS FOR ANY POSSIBLE RUNNING MATE FOR OBAMA SHOULD HE, GOD FORBID, GAIN THE NOMINATION -- I have a great suggestion for the Obama minions -- How about Jesus. Isn't he a Messiah, too?

Posted by: Truth | May 20, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

I give my recommendation of Kathleen Sebelius for VP. She is a popular two term democratic Gov. of Kansas (red state). She opposed the Iraq war from the start, endorsed Obama early in his campaign,(one day after Ted Kennedy endorsed him), born in Cincinnati,Ohio, father was a Gov. of Ohio, had aIt can't get better than that. childhood home and vacation home in Michigan, and is a Catholic white female (60yrs old). She was connected to three states in a great way - Kansas, Ohio and Michigan. It can't get better than that.

Posted by: Paula M. | May 20, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad to note the thread started out on topic, and who knows, maybe it will get back there once the vitriolic antis have thrown all their toys out of their prams.

I agree with many posters that Kathleen Sebelius has excellent credentials. Logically, she would be a superb choice.

However, it was once regarded as a big deal that the Dem. Nominee would be either AA or female, and the conventional wisdom was that whichever won would have to choose a conventional 'safe pair of hands' to 'balance' the ticket.

Are we done with this, or not? If not, then one would suppose AA + female would be a problem. And how big would be the 'insult to Hillary' effect?

I'll bet focus groups are chewing like mad on this, and I do hope the results come out in favor of KS.

I'm sure Obama does not want to choose a male just because he is a 'safe pair of hands'. For one thing, these are a bit thin on the ground right now. The only one I can think of that arouses any enthusiasm -- Al Gore -- is hardly likely to accept second place on the ticket.

Maybe Obama should go with KS and to hell with what the focus groups say.

I do not think Obama should pander to 'the Hillary crowd'. Hillary has many times stressed that she is 'playing to win' -- meaning personally, meaning beat Obama. She even said "You want the nomination? Beat me!"

It follows that if Barack is the Nominee, then he has beaten Hillary.

If you play to win, and do, then you expect the loser to accept his loss, with all its consequences. Right?

Can't resist a remark to the antis! Suppose your team makes the playoffs, gets to the conference game, then, after a brave struggle, is beat by a field goal or two. Do you then root for the team from the other conference in the Superbowl?


Posted by: Rob Bentley | May 20, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Oh hell...this was the icing on the cake for me! At the Edwards puppet show where he threw Clinton under the bus to support Obama..the Obama zombies in the crowd BOOED HILLARY CLINTON. THEY BOOED HER! For what? For passing laws that have helped them for the last 30 years!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ungrateful scum.

I will actively campaign against Obama if he gets the nomination. I don't think he will win the nomination based on how he has lost the states that matter... but if he does I will relish the day that Obama and his zombies find out that this kind of behavior does not go unnoticed! Obama will lose in every single state against McCain.

Posted by: lil | May 20, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

I don't care if the Democratic Party leaders attempt to merge..I don't care if Hillary Clinton begs me to support Obama. I will never vote for him, I have seen who he is and he is not someone who should be President. A better position for him would be a black leader since all he cares about is black issues. I also notice his arrogance and ego and how the media has bias for him which means he didn't earn it, he was handed it. He's in it for his skin color not for our country. Just read the book he wrote. His wife is clearly a racist as well. This is the last thing our country needs when we should be focusing on economics and alternative energy. If Obama get's the nomination, HE WILL LOSE THE ELECTION. I have got to be among millions of Democrats that are outraged at the treatment of the Clintons by members of their own party and the media after the awesome things Bill Clinton accomplished for us.

But since the media is not tallying up the delegates properly (not one delegate has voted yet and they can change their minds right up until then! AND there are enough superdelegates to make Clinton the winner...) they are missing the point that Clinton can still win the nomination and that is what I am waiting for. Clinton is what we need and Clinton can deliver everything she has proposed.

Posted by: lil | May 20, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure that all the RESPONSIBLE American people will vote for Hillary Clinton. I wish the United States of America a bright future in the capable hands of her next President : Hillary Rodham CLINTON. It's SO written. Mark my word.

Posted by: N.M. Nuen | May 20, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Why would the WINNER of the nomination even consider choosing the LOSER as a running mate or any other positio? Hillary has a 20 million dollar debt, much of that to HERSELF [and Bill]. All she wants is for Obama and his incredible million plus financial supporters to BAIL HER OUT! Sorry, "Billary"...maybe you can write another book or something...

Posted by: Beau | May 20, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Normally We are democrats in our family. If Hillary had won the nomination we would vote democratic. We do not beleive in "Obama". He has done nothing to win our support. Even putting Clinton on the "Obama" ticket can not do it for us. We do not vote because of race etc. we vote for the man/woman we feel would do a better job. Now it looks like Mccain will do the better job. I do not trust having our country in Obama's hands!

Posted by: Mzha | May 20, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

"I feel our county was on the right track in the 90's and we went off track because of Bush not because of the 1990's. Frankly I was shocked at just how many Democrats went for this. It makes me think that maybe I am not a Democratic either that or there are more people in my party then I thought who can not forgive him for the BJ."

Yeah, I was kind of surprised by how this worked. The reason I went for Obama initially, was that I felt he would actually be more able to recapitulate these conditions. Nothing against Hillary, but just because of her name, the Republicans would stonewall and filibuster at every turn. Not really her fault, but that's how I saw the situation. People seem to forget how polarizing Hillary was before the primaries actually started. Dems loved her, Reps hated her. Ironically, I think the electability argument actually drew people to Obama more than anything else. I think these negatives would have come up if she were to have won the nomination since Obama hasn't really been attacking her on her equivalents of Ayers and Wright.

The Clinton presidency wasn't a failed one, but it was one that didn't live up to its potential due to Lewinsky. (I'm not placing blame on one party or the other for this whole mess. Just saying that it happened and the nation suffered because of it)

But Democrats like a fresh face. Remember the last Democratic president? Third youngest president and the such. (a year younger then than Obama is now) Also, both Obama and Bill have portrayed themselves as sort of centrist guys. Hillary got tagged as a liberal early on. (Now the roles seem to be switching. Amazing how the right wing still seems to be able to control the narrative, isn't it?)

There was an E.J. Dionne column that cited an interesting poll. Among Obama supporters, I think like 65% of them viewed Hillary Clinton favorably at the start of the primaries. Now its like 40 something.

People's support of Obama wasn't a repudiation of the Clinton presidency. It's just that Obama seemed more like Bill than Hillary. Personally, I think the Clintons had a lot more to do with damaging their legacy than Obama ever could with that South Carolina nonsense.

But this damage is temporary. Hillary will go back to being an effective NY Senator and Bill will go back to his charity work. (I saw one of his talks about this during the gap between Ohio and Texas. Very inspirational. Instilled feelings of hope and change)

But yeah, you're reading the wrong message into this. People didn't flock to Obama out of Clinton hatred. It was that people didn't equate Hillary and Bill. They are spouses. Not clones.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 20, 2008 2:28 AM | Report abuse

Tom J said: The responsibility of Obama is to pick the person he wants. The responsibility of Democrats is to support him in this. Period.
________________________________________

I AGREE WITH YOU WHOLEHEARTEDLY. WHY SHOULD WE EXERCISE OUR INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT AND CHOOSE WHO WE THINK IS BEST FOR OUR COUNTRY. WHATEVER OBAMA WANTS, HE SHOULD GET. THAT IS HOW IT HAS BEEN, THAT IS HOW IT SHALL BE.

SIGNED,

MINDLESS OBAMA ZOMBIE

Posted by: Mindless Obama Zombie | May 20, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

No, of course it won't work.

The responsibility of Obama is to pick the person he wants. The responsibility of Democrats is to support him in this. Period.

Posted by: Tom J | May 20, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

What is the point of writing in Hillary? Does it make a difference or just makes you feel better?
I am serious, I'd like to get an anwer.

Posted by: brk | May 20, 2008 1:34 AM | Report abuse

Dem Attack: Very good post. Prior to Obama's candidacy, most Democrats were of the opinion that Bill Clinton was one of the best, perhaps the best, president since FDR. But, that idea got in Obama's way. He couldn't have the reputation of his opponent's husband thwart his ambitions, therefore, with carefully orchestrated race cards and lies of all sorts, he has systematically attempted to destroy the legacy of Bill Clinton and his administration. This is Obama's modus operandi; he destroys all that stands in his way. Before he is finished, he will have destroyed the unity of the Democratic Party; he will have set race relations back 50 years; and he will have destroyed the Democratic Party's chance to win the general election and with it, America's chance to recover from the terrible reign of George Bush. But, I guess to him, all these concerns are secondary to his insatiable and ruthless ambition. To see how he stabbed his friend and political mentor in the back to obtain his first elective office, go to this link: ***** http://tinyurl.com/2zwwte

Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2008 1:33 AM | Report abuse

It is certainly time to try to bring the two campaigns together, but Obama will probably steer clear of picking a Clintonista, if only to make the point that he is the candidate of change. He has accomplished a lot with that message so far and, despite the seeming rift in the party, few Democrats will swing to McCain in the general election. It is his election to lose, and running like he is the Democratic nominee is exactly the right strategy to pursue.

No to Clintonistas, Yes to a VP with foreign policy experience.

Posted by: ccarter | May 20, 2008 1:16 AM | Report abuse

The reasons that I didn't back Obama is because I disagree with his core argument. He says that the Clinton Administration of the 1990's was part of the failed policies of the past. He's whole campaign is based on discrediting the Clinton Administration of the 90's. What do you think he means by failed policies of the past 30 years.

Bush Sr. Clinton - Clinton - Bush - Bush
very smart to link Clinton in between the two Bush's. He has a better option of Reagan then his own party. Talk about Democrats attacking Democrats

Being that I am 43 years old I remember the 1990's quite well I disagree with him on that point. I don't see how the only successful Democratic Presidency in my lifetime, one in which Clinton won re-election could be considered part of the failed policy of the past so right away I disagreed.

I feel our county was on the right track in the 90's and we went off track because of Bush not because of the 1990's. Frankly I was shocked at just how many Democrats went for this. It makes me think that maybe I am not a Democratic either that or there are more people in my party then I thought who can not forgive him for the BJ.

Also I find this whole idea that the fierce urgency of now a bit suspicious . To me this sounds like a used car sales man. Hurry ,Hurry this deal wont last long Act now before its too late. I don't buy it. I was always taught if it sounds too good to be true it probably isn't. Again I could just be a cynic or maybe I don't even belong in this new Democratic party. I will say this if I have too choose between Obama and McCain I will vote between the lesser of two evil but its going to be hard.

My opinion of Obama will not changes whether Clinton gets the nomination or not.

His whole campaign was counting on Democratic s being willing to disown the Clinton's and people couldn't wait to jump aboard.

Posted by: Dem attack | May 20, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Drossless: What is your point?

Posted by: Fred | May 20, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Whoa - judging by the misspellings and over-the-top invective in the anti-Obama and faux-pro-Hillary posts here it sure looks like you GOP operatives have been hitting the bottle hard tonight! Get some rest and sober up before you write!

Posted by: jt | May 20, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Gee, Fred, and if your candidate appealed to racism and advocated voting for a Republican rather than a Democrat, I know you, as a Democrat educated about the issues and such, would drop him or her like a hot rock, right? No? Oh gosh. Sorry. Thought your were serious about being serious. My mistake.

Posted by: drossless | May 20, 2008 12:18 AM | Report abuse

ANONYMOUS SAID: I find it incredibly patronizing that the elite are dividing up the spoiles and assuming that the masses (voters) will fall into lockstep. How insulting and undemocratic. Guess what everyone. I will not vote for him, period. Even if HRC begged me. Sorry folks, you created a monster.

GREAT POINT! The DNC, party elite and the Obama camp have made their bed. If Obama is the nominee, in November they will have to lay in it.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

I find it incredibly patronizing that the elite are dividing up the spoiles and assuming that the masses (voters) will fall into lockstep. How insulting and undemocratic. Guess what everyone. I will not vote for him, period. Even if HRC begged me. Sorry folks, you created a monster.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2008 11:50 PM | Report abuse

"I am only interest in talking to those Democrats and Independents who have informed themselves about the issues in this electoral process."

I suggest showing them that youtube clip as "proof" that Obama is playing the race card.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

Yikes, having skimmed these comments, I'm pretty sure Republicans will win 2008 and there will be a huge push for a new party in 2012 because the democrats are suffocating under their own establishment, party-bound thinking and fear of change.

Posted by: stu mills | May 19, 2008 11:43 PM | Report abuse

I didn't bother checking in here, because I thought the inevitability of Obama as the nominee would have been obvious to all but the hardiest of deadenders or troublemakers.

Whoops! I'll be back when The Fix takes care of the registration, and the other adults come back.

Posted by: bondjedi | May 19, 2008 11:38 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA SUPPORTERS FYI: Don't feel insulted if I fail to answer your comments. The fact of the matter is that I AM NOT TALKING TO YOU. I am only interest in talking to those Democrats and Independents who have informed themselves about the issues in this electoral process. For months and months I did try to educated/debate with Obama supporters; show them articles to read; try and make the best case for my arguments; and NOT ONCE did any of this discussion change one mind or make one Obama supporter question their Messiah. No, what I found out is that if Obama killed a baby on live television, his cultists would say it was a mercy killing. As DDAWD has shown, they will not, cannot, digest any information which is not consistent with their preconceived notions about him and his candidacy. So no, I feel no compulsion to have a dialogue with most Obama supporters. The time for discussing the issues with them has come and gone. Now is the time to assist in the defeat of Obama, for the sake of our families, and for the sake of this country.

Posted by: Fred | May 19, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

"(3) The "race card,", which we are all very familiar with since Obama entered the race i.e. if you are against Obama, then you are a racist"

See, THIS is what you're supposed to be looking for in youtube clips. Of course, this guy starts off with some nonsense of Obama paying off hundreds of bloogers, so no need to mention that this guy is lying.

But yeah, good definition of the race card. Hope this helps, Fred.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

So I ask you to give an example of Obama or his top brass playing the race card. You present me something that
1) Was not done by his top brass
2) Was not playing the race card

I mean really, are you so dumb as to not even question why the clip was cut off and why the poster would not allow comments? Did that thought not cross your mind for even a second?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2008 11:20 PM | Report abuse

As many of you know, Obama has hired hundreds of paid bloggers to surf the net and spread his lies and propaganda. After reviewing many of these posts, it appears that they have developed a strategy to con Hillary Clinton supporters and Independents into voting for Obama using various ploys, including: (1) The "Supreme Court" card, i.e. if Obama doesn't win, McCain will appoint conservative judges. (2) The "Roe v. Wade" card, i.e. if Obama doesn't win, the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade; (3) The "race card,", which we are all very familiar with since Obama entered the race i.e. if you are against Obama, then you are a racist; (4) The "real Democrat" card, i.e. "real Democrats" will vote for the Democratic nominee whether they like him/her or not; (5) The "baby killer card", i.e. if John McCain wins, he will institute a draft and you will be responsible for the killing of babies; and (6) The "Hillary would want you to vote for Obama" card, which is self-explanatory.
______
It is important to know that although Obama, his supporters, the DNC and party elite, and the mainstream media have conspired to marginalize the millions of Democrats who have voted for Hillary, or who do not support Obama, they will now be using every trick in the book to "bring the party together" to further the ruthless ambitions of Obama and the party elite. They will want you to forget all about the months and months of biased press, the biased party elite, the insults, and the race-cards. They will want you to forget that the Democratic Party now is the party that stands for disenfranchisement and the rationalization of racism, if it results in the nomination of their hand-picked candidate. They will use all of the above-mentioned "cards" and more, to persuade you to vote for the man who they have preordained as the Democratic nominee. DON'T FALL FOR IT! _______

Whether you want to write-in Hillary, if possible, vote for John McCain rather than Obama, or sit out the election, remember that your action or inaction could result in the election of the inexperienced, deceptive, ruthless, divisive, black liberation theology believing, terrorist befriending, race-card throwing Obama. UNLESS YOU DESIRE THIS RESULT, PLEASE MAKE YOUR DECISIONS WISELY.

Posted by: Truth | May 19, 2008 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Can there please be a rule against all this propaganda? So much great, meaningful political discourse is being squelched between these rambling posts that don't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation.

Posted by: Elijah | May 19, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Fred: Count me among those that will never vote for Obama. I have talked with several folks and they agree they will never vote for him, since this BAD stuff has came out about him and his wife, he cannot win in 2008. Hillary can win as I have thought from the beginning, and I and most folks thinks there is yet more BAD stuff that The Media is hiding. As biased as Fox News Channel has been over the years, they cannot hold a candle to the support NBC/MSNBC has and is being given to Obama.

Posted by: lylepink | May 19, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

CHRIS

It is becoming apparent that DDAWD is actually at Obama headquarters


I do not believe it is appropriate for the campaign to conduct itself this way.

The lying and deception which has gone on just today - symbolic of how Obama has conducted his campaign.


The Obama masses out there are a bunch of fools.

I believe the Washington Post should put the Obama campaign on notice about their lack of civil conduct.


.


Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 19, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

who wrote the post at 10:13??


.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2008 10:28 PM | Report abuse

Chris:


I am a little concerned that the Obama campaign is pushing a storyline here and the press is blindly following it - even searching up and down for little items to prove something is "merging" when it isn't.


It is astonishing how the media refused to identify this storyline as coming from Obama's campaign.


In fact, the Washington Post ran an article today which said the opposite - full of quotes and discussion.

So why is the Obama storyline being reported as fact?

I have to repeat my earlier thesis: the white males have been shoved out of the democratic party - the women's groups think they are now in control but they have lost his nomination fight.


well.

The women's groups still think they are in control of the party - AND the Obama people think they won - how do you think that is going to play out ???

It is not going to work - this is not going to be fixed over the summer or this fall - it is not going to be fixed next year when the recriminations start about how anyone could support a candidate as weak as Obama.

One or the other is going to leave the party.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 19, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: I love your last post. So, you've finally seen the light, have you?

Posted by: Fred | May 19, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S RACISM EXPOSED: The problem I have with Rev. Wright's church, is that Rev. Wright, by his own admission, preaches black liberation theology, which is a very racist theology based upon the conflict between the "black oppressed" and the "white oppressor". That is why, for example, Rev. Wright portrays Jesus as black, and his murderers as white, because that is the only way that the story of Jesus will fit with his theology. That is also why so many of his statements are framed as black and white issues (e.g. "rich white people"; Natalie Holloway was a "white girl" who "gave it up" on an Aruba beach; the "garlic nosed" Italians in the time of Jesus who killed Jesus were "white people"). Consistently making the point that Jesus was black and his murderers were white is very much like the bigoted fundamentalist Christians who continually make the point that the "Jews killed Jesus." We all know what that is code for; that means that the Jews are evil, as a group, and responsible for the murder of Jesus. Rev. Wright is guilty of the same type of bigoted rhetoric.
I would recommend to all those interested that they research black liberation theology, and in particular, the writings of James H. Cone. Rev. Wright acknowledges that Cone is one of his theological mentors, and the church's website recommends his book "Black Theology and Black Power." I have the book, and have read it cover to cover. Here are just a few quotes from the book about this theology:

(1) "To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people." (2) "While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism." (3) "All white men are responsible for white oppression." (4) "Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man "the devil." (5) "If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it." (6) "Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community. Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love."

My problem with Obama attending this church for 20 years is that it speaks to his character and judgment. If I were to attend a white racist church for 20 years, and considered its white racist pastor to be my "mentor and spiritual adviser," it would not be unreasonable to assume that I'm a racist. In Obama's case, the converse is also a reasonable assumption.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2008 10:13 PM | Report abuse

37thandOStreet said: Obama is causing a fracture in the democratic party which will never heal - people will leave the party and never come back - the way Obama won this nomination will poison the party for years and years.
_____________________________________

You got that right. Recent polls show that between 28% and 40% of Hillary Clinton voters WILL NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA under any circumstances. I am proud to be among their numbers. If he is the nominee, Obama will be fighting a two-front war come this November; one against the Republicans, and the other against millions in his own party.

Posted by: Fred | May 19, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

Chris:


Message to DDAWD Obama playing the race card was PRE-PLANNED - they planned on picking little things and falsely claiming to be "offended."

I was amazed to see Obama lie about it so many times as he was asked.


What a stupid thing to do.

Chris, the other day, when the Obama people accused the Bush people of PRE-PLANNING those statements - and Bush said that it couldnt be because the remarks were twisted.

OBAMA KNOWS ABOUT PRE-PLANNING ATTACKS -


Obama's campaign is a bunch of liars.


WAKE UP Obama just lied his way to the nomination - quite a feat considering that Hillary was his opponent.

BELIEVE ME YOU DO NOT WANT ANY OF THESE PEOPLE ANYWHERE NEAR THE WHITE HOUSE OR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 19, 2008 10:08 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


Your Obama is a bigger liar than Bill Clinton, we all know how well that worked out the first ime.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 19, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Boutan are you asking for something to be done about Translator???

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 19, 2008 9:59 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


Your comments that the South Carolina staff were not guided and OK'ed by the senior Obama campaign is either delusional or you have to be joking.

Please take your lies to the next Obama meeting.

You have no standing here, your credibility is completely gone.

The best thing you should do is go to your Obama handlers and get an official letter of apology from the campaign.

You have called people out today, and you have been proven WRONG


Be a man, not a metrosexual.


Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2008 9:55 PM | Report abuse

Jan


The same things can be said about Obama - he has no hopes of winning the popular vote or the November election - Obama is dragging down the party by refusing to leave the campaign.


Your logic makes no sense.

Obama is causing a fracture in the democratic party which will never heal - people will leave the party and never come back - the way Obama won this nomination will poison the party for years and years.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 19, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

"he doesn't know the views of his 20-year "mentor and spiritual adviser," Rev. Wright."

Of course Obama does.

As to whether twenty seconds of footage compiled from multiple DVDs is representative of the entirety of Wright's "views" is up to you to decide. Any idiot knows there's a reason why only such a short fragment gets aired on TV.

Also, no idiot expects Obama to know everything his South Carolina press secretary is doing.

But its easy to see that being on my side of the idiot divide.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

HOW CAN ANYONE VOTE FOR THIS MAN? McCain is not as clean as we may think. Consider this:
1 McCain voted against passage of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of 2006. It would provide more than $28 billion for hurricane relief, approximately $2.3 billion for pandemic flu preparations and $1.9 billion for border security efforts. [2006 Senate Vote #112, 5/4/2006]
2. McCain voted against an amendment to provide emergency health care and other relief for survivors of Hurricane Katrina for up to 5 months. [2005 Senate Vote #285, 11/3/2005]

3 McCain voted twice against establishing a Congressional commission to examine Federal, State, and local response to devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina and making immediate corrective measures to improve future responses. [2006 Senate Vote #6, 2/2/2006; 2005 Senate Vote #229, 9/14/2005]
Flip Flop McCain will say anything to get elected.
Mcain support for Iraq war that has strengthened Iran and maintains bushe's policies.
Today again we have the 5th lobbyist being fired, Why? Because McCain does not want us to see what he is really about.
How about the lobbyist Vicki Iseman? How did that die down. Who paid for the Hush Hush.

The reclessness of the Bush and mcCain has gotten us so entangled in a war that is bad for Jews and all
America friends and neighbors.
The willingness of new ideas of negotiations where neither Bush or McCain can come to term with shows stubboness of old men with government as ussual policies. New ideas and better intlligence frightens them. They want the old policies they are accustomed to, old ways of doing things is easier to deal with but hurts a better future for America. They are so accustomed to routines and change is foreign to them. The Soviet Union was broght down by talking, by deplomacy, A new face and younger president with new and better ideas is better able to challenge what lays ahead. We want no one with anger and hate, and forgetfulness
or that may have a haert attack to lead America. We who a better America to the future of our children.


Posted by: Dan | May 19, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

We have had many candidates and many constituents. Those who realize they were not going to win did not drag down the other or stayed in the race to be vindictive or feel that they are getting a bad deal of news coverage or that the presidency should be handed to them.
So America is wondering what in the world is wrong with Mrs. Clinton. H. Clinton is not what this nation needs. Dwelling on white and black issues is not going to make a difference, crying foul or trying to get all to talk the popular votes in her favor is not either. The Florida and Michigan votes will be counted, not in the way she thinks. She just needs to stop such a futile vengeance. We are all just realizing what type of person this woman really is.

Posted by: Jan | May 19, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: One more thing. Your guy has to be the most unaware politician today. He doesn't know that his campaign is playing the race card; he doesn't know the views of his 20-year "mentor and spiritual adviser," Rev. Wright. He reminds me very much of Ronald Reagan, who also had a very convenient lack of awareness and memory. Come to think of it, Obama does read a teleprompter speech better than anyone since Reagan, now doesn't he?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2008 9:36 PM | Report abuse

"Where, exactly, does the buck stop with you Obama supporters?"

With me, its him or top brass. Oh, and it helps if they're actually playing the race card. Neither of those criteria have been met.

Happy hunting!

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2008 9:34 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: So, you're saying that because Obama tried to shove it off on his staff, that absolves him of all responsibility? Where, exactly, does the buck stop with you Obama supporters? You can't have it both ways. Obama supporter are always saying one of Obama's strengths is how he has run his campaign, but when his campaign is shown to have played the race card, then it's somebody else's fault? Yeah, and I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell . . .

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2008 9:31 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2008 9:16 PM | Report abuse

Found it

"Tim Russert: In terms of accountability, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton on Sunday told me that the Obama campaign had been pushing this storyline. And, true enough, your press secretary in South Carolina -- four pages of alleged comments made by the Clinton people about the issue of race.

In hindsight, do you regret pushing this story?

Sen. Obama: Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward. I think that, as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say. And it is my responsibility to make sure that we're setting a clear tone in our campaign, and I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message in case people were not clear that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues."

Anyways, Obama's press secretary releasing a FOUR PAGE document on CLINTON comments on race doesn't really lend credence to the statement that Obama is playing the race card.

And even so, Obama denounces the move by his South Carolina press secretary. Hardly a top brass sort of guy. No wonder the guy cut off the clip and did not allow comments to be posted.

Seriously, its so easy to find this stuff on google. Why lie about it?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

"Words of Wisdom: What did I tell you! What a surprise; DDAWD sees Obama getting busted for playing the race card right before his eyes, and he acts like Obama could have uttered some magical incantation after the clip stops, that would somehow erase all that had gone before. The extent to which Obama supporters cannot digest any information not consistent with their infatuation is downright scary!"

Well, I imagine there's a reason the clip was cut off. I'm just curious what it is. Of course you're going to reinforce anyone who agrees with you with the clip, but the abrupt cutoff is very sketchy for someone who is skeptical.

Doesn't matter, I'm sure I'll be able to find a transcript.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2008 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Chris - can you PLEASE get the f***ing registration FIXed on this site...

All these morons posting their trash under fake names is getting so painful I am tempted to go and use a different blog.

WaPo have a freaking I.T team right? They have staff who can do this stuff?

The Fix community is turning into a joke... and fixing the rego will seriously help get things back on track.

Posted by: Boutan | May 19, 2008 8:59 PM | Report abuse

8:40 p.m. post

"Hey look. My computer plays TV. Cool. I am thinking of watching online reruns of 'The Hills.'

How do you translate 'punk-ass beeyotch'? That will be my new handle."

Posted by: 37th&OStreet Translator | May 19, 2008 8:53 PM | Report abuse

Will it work?

NO.

Posted by: Mandilliba | May 19, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

8:38 p.m. post

"Race. Race. Racism. Bigotry. Nonsense. BS. Crap. Cowardly racism. Ignorance. Gutless punk. Sock puppet. Little baby. Punk-ass bizzatch.

I have no argument. Racism, not reason."

Posted by: Words of Wisdom Translator | May 19, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Actually anonymous poster... I am quite open to Obama critique.

But, quoting a few paragraphs out of Obama's first book is hardly evidence of "deception", and the video link is nothing special. If you actually read Obama's book he is trying to deal with the reality of growing up as a black kid and the sociological impact and pressures that lead many to view the world through such a racial lens.

"Deception" is a strong word, and you need more than a few hack websites and quotes to make such an argument stick.

Posted by: Boutan | May 19, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

bsimon... some intelligent thoughts there on McCain's move to the right.

Hardly surprising though huh? He has to sure up the base somehow, and he can't use religion. Heck, Obama may well get more evangelicals than McCain...

I'm particularly interested to see how mainstream republicans go swallowing a candidate who believes in climate change... so many of them have been convinced that global warming is a lie... and now they have to vote for a guy who is taking it seriously. Will they stay at home in November?

Posted by: Boutan | May 19, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom: Boutan's idea of something constructive is anything which does not shine a light on Obama's deception. That is sure going to limit our discourse quite a bit.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2008 8:44 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom... go crawl back in your hole.

Alternatively, please post something constructive so we might actually engage in some intelligent discussion.

Posted by: Boutan | May 19, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Chris:


I would like to request that you take a look at this clip to refresh your memory of what happened in January

It is clips from 3 separate networks

http://tinyurl.com/6gcstl


Thanks to Fred for this clip

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 19, 2008 8:40 PM | Report abuse

I want to thank Fred again


The Obama people were particulary nasty today in their attacks.


The Obama people got really nasty and personal today, against all the demands of civil conduct.

Obama is a liar - He would love to deceive you into electing him President.

NOW that Obama has lied to the democratic party and made fools out of half the democratic party, he is turning to the entire nation.

Obama just may be a bigger liar than Bill Clinton himself.

Straight out - Obama is lying about his beliefs in BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 19, 2008 8:38 PM | Report abuse


Still waiting for those apologies from DDAWD and BSIMON


The truth is Obama is a liar.

Obama planned all along to inject race into the campaign and then blame Hillary for it - he lied, and he lied again - AND only when confronted with four sheets of his own campaign's memos did Obama have to admit the truth.


I ASK YOU DEMOCRATS, DO YOU WANT ANOTHER LIAR IN THE WHITE HOUSE?

OBAMA IS NO BETTER THAN BILL CLINTON WHO WAS DISBARRED WHILE IN OFFICE FOR PERJURY.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 19, 2008 8:28 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom: What did I tell you! What a surprise; DDAWD sees Obama getting busted for playing the race card right before his eyes, and he acts like Obama could have uttered some magical incantation after the clip stops, that would somehow erase all that had gone before. The extent to which Obama supporters cannot digest any information not consistent with their infatuation is downright scary!

Posted by: Fred | May 19, 2008 8:23 PM | Report abuse

bsimon you have presumed for months that like sheep we will just fall in line. Our pct caucus from march met in my home this week and of the 86 Hc caucus memembers 61 showed up and only 12 said the would support O the rest said they would either not vote for the top of the ticket or for McCain. Your side for months have presumed we would all just come to agree with you. Don t hold your breath.

Posted by: Leichtman | May 19, 2008 8:20 PM | Report abuse

Nice clip. Do you have one where Obama's response isn't cut off?

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom: Thank you. As I'm sure you know, there is much information about Obama's deception and racial politics, if only one looks. I like to use actual video, if available, because it makes it harder for the Obama supporters to blow it off or conjure up some sort of excuse. Having said that, I'm pretty certain that is exactly what DDAWD will do after viewing the video.

Posted by: Fred | May 19, 2008 8:13 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD


I would like to hear your apology after viewing Fred's clip.


Tim Russert says - FOUR PAGES from your staff in South Carolina


Sen. Obama, were you pushing the race issue or not


http://tinyurl.com/6gcstl

Obama wanted to lie, however Russert was holding the four pages in his hands !!!!!

AND DDAWD if you are working for the Obama campaign, we deserve a formal apology from the Obama campaign.


.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 19, 2008 8:11 PM | Report abuse

From Dreams of My Father, " I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE".

Barack Obama

From 'Dreams of my Father', "The emotion between the races could never be pure, even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race (WHITE) would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."

Barack Obama

From Dreams Of My Father: "That hate hadn't gone away," he wrote, BLAMING "WHITE PEOPLE ? some CRUEL, some IGNORANT, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."

Barack Obama

From 'Dreams Of My Father', "There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your LOYALTY TO THE BLACK MASSES, TO STRIKE OUT and name names"

Barack Obama

Posted by: Obama's Conscience | May 19, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

OK FRED Thank you very much for your link at 7:57


It provides valuable support to the discussion all day today.


bsimon and characters, you should watch this short clip - 3 networks a good overview of the issue.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 19, 2008 8:08 PM | Report abuse

A short, very funny video starring Obama:

http://tinyurl.com/528yrl

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: Here it is. The section I am talking about is towards the end. I'm sure won't hear back from you too soon, however, because it will take a little time for you to figure out some excuse for Obama once you've seen the video.

Tim Russert confronts Obama about playing the race card (his "4 pages of talking points":

http://tinyurl.com/6gcstl

Posted by: Fred | May 19, 2008 7:57 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: You're funny. You read an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer about Obama playing the race card, and you argue with me about it. You should really be arguing with the Philadelphia Inquirer.

I presume that you watched the debates. Do you remember in one of them, Tim Russert confronted Obama about his "4 pages of talking points" about race that he had been disseminating prior to the South Carolina primary? Look it up in YouTube, and you will see your candidate being busted on live television. Having said that, I'm sure you won't believe it, anyway, even if you see it with your own eyes. After all, you are an Obama supporter, and your Messiah can do no wrong.

Posted by: Fred | May 19, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

"You read an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer about Obama playing the race card, and you argue with me about it."

Its an opinion piece, not an article. And call it whatever you want, but its still devoid of any factual basis.

As for the youtube link, go ahead and post it. I'm sure a lot of people would like to see. I'll certainly go take a look at it.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2008 7:47 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: You're funny. You read an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer about Obama playing the race card, and you argue with me about it. You should really be arguing with the Philadelphia Inquirer.

I presume that you watched the debates. Do you remember in one of them, Tim Russert confronted Obama about his "4 pages of talking points" about race that he had been disseminating prior to the South Carolina primary? Look it up in YouTube, and you will see your candidate being busted on live television. Having said that, I'm sure you won't believe it, anyway, even if you see it with your own eyes. After all, you are an Obama supporter, and your Messiah can do no wrong.

Posted by: Fred | May 19, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: You're funny. You read an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer about Obama playing the race card, and you argue with me about it. You should really be arguing with the Philadelphia Inquirer.

I presume that you watched the debates. Do you remember in one of them, Tim Russert confronted Obama about his "4 pages of talking points" about race that he had been disseminating prior to the South Carolina primary? Look it up in YouTube, and you will see your candidate being busted on live television. Having said that, I'm sure you won't believe it, anyway, even if you see it with your own eyes. After all, you are an Obama supporter, and your Messiah can do no wrong.

Posted by: Fred | May 19, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

DDAWD: You're funny. You read an article from the Philadelphia Inquirer about Obama playing the race card, and you argue with me about it. You should really be arguing with the Philadelphia Inquirer.

I presume that you watched the debates. Do you remember in one of them, Tim Russert confronted Obama about his "4 pages of talking points" about race that he had been disseminating prior to the South Carolina primary? Look it up in YouTube, and you will see your candidate being busted on live television. Having said that, I'm sure you won't believe it, anyway, even if you see it with your own eyes. After all, you are an Obama supporter, and your Messiah can do no wrong.

Posted by: Fred | May 19, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

Wow, Fred, such a long posting and so much heresay, but no evidence. Not one direct quote from Obama's top men where the race card is explicitly being played. I guess I can stop asking if you have evidence. You've obviously done your research and you have none.

Thanks for the effort. I just wanted to be sure there was nothing out there.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

DON'T PUT OBAMA DOWN FOR THROWING THE RACE CARD. JUST THINK OF ALL ITS POSITIVE APPLICATIONS. If it appears that Al Qaeda will attack America, Obama can just call them all racists, and they will immediately retire in shame. Or, if China becomes a serious threat to our national security, Obama can send Secretary of State Al Sharpton to China, who will then call them all racists. After that, they wouldn't dare oppose us.

Moreover, just think about the potential in the medical field. If mosquitoes are spreading serious diseases, Obama could call them all racists, and boom, they'd be gone. Same thing with cancer and any number of other diseases. Yes, I think that Obama's penchant for throwing the race card could be an unexpected boon to our nation. It would almost be like having Superman as President without the kryptonite.

Posted by: Fred | May 19, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

The woman's groups still want to be in control of the party - don't you get it??


After pushing out all the white males, they either get to control the party or they are out of there.


The black community is happy about Obama however they know the reality now: the score is in - the women want to keep them as a permanent minority and control everything -


The hispanics are lining up with the women, however they are ready to bolt at anytime.

Does anyone REALLY see any of this working itself out?


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 19, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA WAS THE FIRST TO PLAY THE RACE CARD -- Philadelphia Inquirer
Quietly, the storm over the hateful views expressed by Sen. Barack Obama's pastor, Rev. Wright, has blown away the most insidious myth of the Democratic primary campaign. Obama and his surrogates have charged that Hillary Clinton has deliberately and cleverly played the race card in order to label Obama the "black" candidate.
Having injected racial posturing into the contest, Obama's "post-racial" campaign finally seems to be all about race and sensational charges about white racism. But the mean-spirited strategy started even before the primaries began, when Obama's operatives began playing the race card - and blamed Hillary Clinton.
Had she truly conspired to inflame racial animosities in January and February, her campaign would have brought up the Rev. Wright and his incendiary sermons. But the Clinton campaign did not. And when the Wright stories and videos finally did break through in the mass media, they came not from Clinton's supporters but from Fox News Network.
Although Wright had until recently been obscure to the American public, political insiders and reporters have long known about him. On March 6, 2007, the New York Times reported that Obama had disinvited Wright from speaking at his announcement because, as Wright said Obama told him, "You can get kind of rough in the sermons." By then, conservative commentators had widely denounced Wright. His performances in the pulpit were easily accessible on DVD, direct from his church. But Clinton, despite her travails, elected to remain silent.
Instead, she had to fight back against a deliberately contrived strategy to make her and her husband look like race-baiters. Obama's supporters and operatives, including his chief campaign strategist David Axelrod, seized on accurate and historically noncontroversial statements and supplied a supposedly covert racist subtext that they then claimed the calculating Clinton campaign had inserted.
The Obama campaign and its supporters pressed this strategy after Clinton's unexpected win in New Hampshire. Pundits partial to Obama, including Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post and John Nichols of the Nation, instantly mused that their candidate lost because of supposedly bigoted New Hampshire whites who had lied to pre-primary pollsters - an easily disproven falsehood that nevertheless gained currency in the media.
Next morning, Obama's national co-chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., cast false and vicious aspersions about Hillary Clinton's famous emotional moment in New Hampshire as a measure of her deep racial insensitivity. "Her appearance brought her to tears," said Jackson, "not Hurricane Katrina."
Obama's backers, including members of his official campaign staff, then played what might be called "the race-baiter card." Hillary Clinton, in crediting both Lyndon Johnson as well as the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. for the Civil Rights Act in 1964, had supposedly denigrated King, and by extension Obama. Allegedly, Bill Clinton had dismissed Obama's victory in South Carolina by comparing it to those of the Rev. Jesse Jackson in the 1980s. (In fact, their electoral totals were comparable - and in the interview at issue, Clinton complimented Obama on his performance "everywhere" - a line the media usually omitted.)
Thereafter, Obama's high command billowed further race-baiter allegations into the media. Pointing to the notoriously right-wing Drudge Report, Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe accused the Clinton campaign of deliberately leaking a supposedly racist photograph of Obama in African garb, which actually originated on still another right-wing Web site. Finally, David Axelrod trumpeted Geraldine Ferraro's awkward remarks in an obscure California newspaper as part of the Clinton campaign's "insidious pattern" of divisiveness.
Since the Philadelphia speech, the candidate and his surrogates have sounded tone-deaf on the subject of race. On March 20, Obama described his Kansas grandmother to a Philadelphia radio interviewer as "a typical white person." The same day, Sen. John Kerry said that Obama would help U.S. relations with Muslim nations "because he's a black man." Another Obama supporter, Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, called him the first black leader "to come to the American people not as a victim but as a leader." Her history excluded and conceivably denigrated countless black leaders, from Frederick Douglass to Rep. John Lewis. Obama remained silent, refusing to take Kerry and McCaskill to task for their racially charged remarks.
Neither candidate can win sufficient elected delegates in the remaining primaries to secure the nomination, and so the battle has moved to winning over the super delegates. Obama's bogus "race-baiter" strategy is one of the main reasons he has come this far, and it is affecting the process now. But by deliberately inflaming the most destructive passions in American politics, the strategy has badly divided and confused Democrats, at least for the moment. And having done so, it may well doom the Democrats in the general election.

Posted by: Fred | May 19, 2008 7:10 PM | Report abuse

"They will want you to forget all about the months and months of biased press, the biased party elite, the insults, and the race-cards."

Obama has never played the race card. You are lying when you said he did.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2008 7:08 PM | Report abuse

Mud: Choosing Rendell or any other Hillary supporter is not going to sway many Hillary supporters to vote for Obama. All that I have spoken to simply will not vote for Obama, under any circumstances. It is important to know that although Obama, his supporters, the DNC and party elite, and the mainstream media have conspired to marginalize the millions of Democrats who have voted for Hillary, or who do not support Obama, they will now be using every trick in the book to "bring the party together" to further the ruthless ambitions of Obama and the party elite. They will want you to forget all about the months and months of biased press, the biased party elite, the insults, and the race-cards. They will want you to forget that the Democratic Party now is the party that stands for disenfranchisement and the rationalization of racism, if it results in the nomination of their hand-picked candidate. They will use all of the above-mentioned "cards" and more, to persuade you to vote for the man who they have preordained as the Democratic nominee. DON'T FALL FOR IT!

Posted by: Fred | May 19, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Managing the merger - interesting - however the race is not over yet - Isn't there a primary tomorrow in Kentucky?

Obama is risking making the superdelegates feel marginalized - the momentum he gets will not outweigh that risk.

Anyway, democrats have wasted millions of dollars this year on Obama and Hillary - what a complete joke - AND most of that money is gone now - what do you have left - a weak candidate who didnt even get a majority of the votes.


HA !!!!!

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 19, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

mnteng


Get on it - Lets hear what you have to say - I am up for the debate

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 19, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Awesome video:

The same kind of terrorists who support Obama did this:
http://www.frugalsites.net/911/attack/
Never apologize for them.
Never appease them.
Never forget.

Posted by: cyberella | May 19, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Awesome video:

The same kind of terrorists who support Obama did this:
http://www.frugalsites.net/911/attack/
Never apologize for them.
Never appease them.
Never forget.

Posted by: cyberella | May 19, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

If you want someone from the Clinton camp as veep, then PA governor Rendell was very good the one time I saw him on The Colbert Report. OH may be a bigger challenge for Obama then PA, but it is still a big swing state and it could lead to the first vice president in modern history with a personality (Edwards would have been one, but you notice how he disappeared between Sept & Nov of '04). The number one don't in selecting a veep is DON'T pick one that will outshine you. Since outshining Obama is nigh on impossible, Rendell would be the best choice of Clinton's loyalists unless Richardson is still considered a Clinton insider in which case his resume is the most impressive in the Democratic field.

Posted by: muD | May 19, 2008 6:37 PM | Report abuse

If I had any doubt at all, Obabamama and some others on this site have convinced me. If Obama is the candidate I will run like hell, all the way to McCain. It will be the first time ever I voted for a Republican but I can do without that hate in the White House. First it was Micelle Obama and her comments about just now liking America, than it was the Rev. Weight and now Obamamama. And this is just a campaign. What can we expect should this man be elected.

Posted by: Opa2 | May 19, 2008 6:36 PM | Report abuse

WE WISH TO GO ON RECORD AND STATE THAT WE SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA. He is our lord and savior, and he shall deliver the world from sin.

Signed,

Louis Farrakhan
The Nation of Islam
Hamas
The New Black Panther Party
Rev. "GD America" Wright
William "the bomb" Ayers
Al Sharpton
Tony Rezko
Oprah "I used to go to Obama's church but got out just in time" Winfrey

And various other racists, terrorists and indicted individuals.

Posted by: Loyal Obama Supporters | May 19, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Fred writes
"Many, including myself, would rather have a centrist Republican, than an inexperienced, deceptive, ruthless and divisive Obama."


That's a rather harsh litany of adjetives.

Fred, if you were to go back and read The Fix for the past 18-24 months, you would see that I have been pushing for a McCain - Obama race in the general election, on the basis that McCain is the centrist you think he is & that Obama can actually deliver on 'a new kind of politics'. I am still glad at seeing the two candidates we will seemingly be presented with in November, though I have to admit some reservations of the turn to the right taken by McCain. He was once a fiscal conservative, but now argues for making irresponsible tax cuts permanent. He was once a rational realist on our prospects in Iraq, but has now conjured up an imaginary scenario where he - and only he - can responsibly remove our troops from that country by the end of the next president's first term. He is also channeling the bellicose rhetoric of the neocons that brought us this war in the first place. So, I'd like to think he's the moderate centrist that I was rooting for in 2000, but everything he's saying tells me he's changed. Perhaps he'll change back in time to attract moderates & swing voters in November. Personally I'm starting to not trust the guy. For you, I think you're misinformed on Senator Obama & should perhaps consider finding new sources on his background & suitability for the office.

Posted by: bsimon | May 19, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I am a former Obama supporter. When he first came on the scene, he inspired me with his message of hope and change. Then, when I started finding out more about him, his armor started to rust. First, I realized that he was routinely dishonest about many things. He says he doesn't accept money from special interests, but then I found out that he uses the same fundraising method developed by Karl Rove for George Bush, called "bundling." This gets around the PAC rules, but it's still special interest money. He has received upwards to $100,000,000 by this method so far. Also, a friend of mine turned me on to the story of how he stabbed his friend and political mentor, Alice Palmer, in the back to gain his first office. The more I found out, the more he looked like the typical politician, except probably worse. Then, when I found out he attended a racist and anti-American church for 20 years, and considered the racist and anti-American pastor to be his "mentor and spiritual adviser," that was enough for me. Now, I will vote for Hillary Clinton, if she is the Democratic nominee, and if she is not, I will vote for John McCain. Obama, fool me once . . .

Posted by: I've Seen The Light | May 19, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

BARAK AND REVEREND WRIGHT ARE RIGHT, GOD D*** AMERICA FOR SLAVERY AND JIM CROW.

NOW IS THE TIME TO RALLY AROUND BARAK AND MICHELLE AND MAKE THEM PROUD!

HE WILL UNITE THE PEOPLE OF COLOR AROUND THE WORLD TO FIGHT THE WHITE OPPRESSOR. THE WHITE MAN HAS HAD HIS DAY. BLACK PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HELD DOWN TO LONG.

NO MORE SO CALLED ELECTIONS WHERE TYPICAL WHITE PEOPLE VOTE IN RACIST PEOPLE WHO DONT WORK FOR US.

AND NEWS FLASH MERICAN, BARAK IS RIGHT, YOUR TYPICAL WHITE PERSON IS A RACIST.

BARAK WILL APOLOGIZE TO OUR MUSLIM BROTHERS FOR ARRAGANT AMERICAN POLICIES OF HATE AND SLAVERY.

NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY REV. WRIGHT IS RIGHT, ONLY BARAK CAN FORGIVE AN EVIL NATION FOUNDED ON SLAVERY.

REPARATIONS NOW!

Posted by: Obamamama | May 19, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

BSIMON SAID: Certainly true. I am predicting that very few people threatening to switch from Clinton to McCain - rather than voting Obama - will not actually do so. Some months ago, MikeB was a vociferous proponent of doing this (voting for McCain once his preferred Dem was out), but has apparently changed his mind. I think most people who normally vote for Dems will do so again.
________________________________________

I believe that you are dead wrong about this. Everyone I've spoken to about this issue has said that if Obama is the Democratic candidate, they will be voting for McCain. There are groups springing up whose sole purpose is to unite Democrats in their opposition to Obama. Unfortunately, for Obama, McCain is not, no matter how Obama tries to spin it, Bush. Many, including myself, would rather have a centrist Republican, than an inexperienced, deceptive, ruthless and divisive Obama.

Posted by: Fred | May 19, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

WE WISH TO GO ON RECORD AND STATE THAT WE SUPPORT BARACK OBAMA. He is our lord and savior, and he shall deliver the world from sin.

Signed,

Louis Farrakhan
The Nation of Islam
Hamas
The New Black Panther Party
Rev. "GD America" Wright
William "the bomb" Ayers
Al Sharpton
Tony Rezko
Oprah "I used to go to Obama's church but got out just in time" Winfrey

And various other racists, terrorists and indicted individuals.

Posted by: Loyal Obama Supporters | May 19, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

mnteng writes
"It's hard to tell if the polls on HRC supporters voting for McC in the fall will accurately predict the actual vote. I'm sure some of it is sour grapes, but even if it is only half the number from the polls, a 5-10% swing in a swing state could mean the difference between BHO being President and going back to the Senate."

Certainly true. I am predicting that very few people threatening to switch from Clinton to McCain - rather than voting Obama - will not actually do so. Some months ago, MikeB was a vociferous proponent of doing this (voting for McCain once his preferred Dem was out), but has apparently changed his mind. I think most people who normally vote for Dems will do so again.

Posted by: bsimon | May 19, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

"BTW, are you sure engaging WoW is a good use of your time?"

I don't view it as engaging WoW so much as publicly ridiculing his (gender presumed) argument. In doing so, I am amusing myself, at a minimum, which is good use of my time.

Posted by: bsimon | May 19, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

bsimon:

It's hard to tell if the polls on HRC supporters voting for McC in the fall will accurately predict the actual vote. I'm sure some of it is sour grapes, but even if it is only half the number from the polls, a 5-10% swing in a swing state could mean the difference between BHO being President and going back to the Senate.

BTW, are you sure engaging WoW is a good use of your time?

Posted by: mnteng | May 19, 2008 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Scrivener - Obama wouldn't need a VP with strong "national security chops" if he selected a strong Sec of State - maybe Anthony Zinni, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson or Sam Nunn.

Take another look at Kathleen Sebelius - two term Gov. from a Red state, who increased her margin in the second term. She also has the advantage of taking on the health care industry, but unlike Clinton, she won. She is an Obama loyalist with the right gender for the Clinton loyalists.

Posted by: BLee | May 19, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"The women who are not issue-driven by the war are going to go Republican this year."

Unless they're issue-driven by a woman's right to choose. Or issue-driven by a strong economy. Or issue-driven by getting a decent education for their children. Or issue-driven by equality in the workplace. Or issue-driven by competent government.

Women who are not issue driven by the things that impact their lives might vote Republican this year.

Posted by: bsimon | May 19, 2008 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone clicked on the votenic spam-link? Is it worthwhile, or just what it seems to be (spam)?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2008 5:14 PM | Report abuse

Milbrooks27 wrote:

Nancy Pelosi would be my choice, too. She is decent, intelligent, not a partisan hack (and has proven it as the House Majority Leader), would give Obama a big assist in Western states, and would even molify most of the Clinton feminists.
_____________
What are you smoking? Nancy Pelosi is part of the effort to shove Obama down our throats. She is also as left-wing looney as Obama. Talk about polarizing! Putting her on the ticket would cause more Clinton supporters to defect than the 38% and growing that we now have. Please do!

Posted by: HILLarious | May 19, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Wow. The election is really heating up now. And the results from this poll say everything. You won't believe these results!

http://www.votenic.com

Posted by: hillary | May 19, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

Silly Obamabots. It doesn't matter who he chooses for VP. We still won't vote for him. We despise him and all of you!!!!!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Posted by: Clintonistas | May 19, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"The women who are not issue-driven by the war are going to go Republican this year."

LOL!


"I have "issues" with Speaker Pelosi... What am I missing?"

That special buzz that only a hit of crack can give.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"Obama could run with a hand puppet and win."

You could have made a stronger case for this in 2004. I never thought that there would be so many idiots who would have voted for Bush. Never underestimate them.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 19, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Thank's Mark, I had not followed that...something to occupy more time reading and researching. It is, by the way, interesting to see McCain tossing his moderate support overboard so early in this election. I was (honest) planning on voting for him, but his remarks this past week make me think he is as much a moron as Bush and likely twice as dangerous. I can't belive I'm saying this, but I've switched back to the Democratic candidates to see if I can live with them.

Posted by: MikeB | May 19, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

The women who are not issue-driven by the war are going to go Republican this year.

Mark my words.


AND I predict, if the black community is not happy at their treatment, EVEN WITH Obama as the nominee, they may begin to look elsewhere as well.

The best case scenario for a post-racial world - the black community is split between the democrats and the rupublicans and is active in both.


At this point, the black community is taken for granted by the democrats - it is not a good dynamic for anything.

.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 19, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

I should have added to the options for BHO Ignatius' suggestion that a post-partisan D nominee might choose Chuck Hagel.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 19, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Nancy Pelosi would be my choice, too. She is decent, intelligent, not a partisan hack (and has proven it as the House Majority Leader), would give Obama a big assist in Western states, and would even molify most of the Clinton feminists. But, quite apart from being a woman, Ms. Pelosi would actually make an excellent President. She was #2 on my early list behind John Edwards.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 19, 2008 4:34 PM
---------------------------
Man put down the pipe. Nancy & Reid, being head of both houses, have negatives that are close to Bush. Pelosi is a hypocrit for saying she would both end the war and try to impeach Bush & Cheney, she lied and did neither.

She is the one pick I would never vote for.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 19, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, I have "issues" with Speaker Pelosi that go back to her attempt to chose Alcie Hastings to Chair Intelligence and pass over Jane Harman. Hastings was impeached and removed as a Federal Judge by a D Congress before he was resurrected as a Congressman. The impeachment was for bribery and I do not believe he could have obtained the security clearnace that the Chair of Intelligence requires for formal briefings. Why do you think she has proven to be more than an operative? What am I missing?

From among the many candidates for VP that BHO could chose who would be qualified and trustworthy, it would not hurt to choose one who had supported HRC and came from a populous "swing" state. But none of that is required. Today a prez nominee can go
with what suits him/her, first.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | May 19, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

mutzy writes
"What does that say about Hillabee that she doesn't have other strong women around her or advocating for her?"

Senators Boxer & Feinstein from CA are two that come to mind. Madelaine Albright, while not an elected official, definitely qualifies as a 'strong woman'.

I think, mutzy, that you are mistaken in your accusation.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Words of Wisdom


Ed Rendall is probably going to get it.

Ted Strickland really does not want it, he would rather stay in Ohio and govern.

Besides, losing with Obama is not a good career move, so expect Obama to have a difficult time getting someone to take the hit on their career - an old line guy who is not looking to move up would work.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | May 19, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I think putting a Clinton surrogate on the ticket with heal the wounds with prominent Clinton backers, but the money game is secondary. Obama's not going to have any problems with money whatsoever. This is all inside baseball. The run-of-the-mill Clinton voters aren't going to care- any may not know- that Obama's VP was a prominent Clinton backer. It's certainly not going to heal those wounds.

Posted by: chilidogger | May 19, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: | May 19, 2008 4:27 PM - Ah, yes, our very old and senile McCain compatriot Nor'Easter, still supporting bogus garbage like the Patriot Act and still wetting the bed for fear of Arab terrorists parachuting into his yard late at night and "violating" him. What a dweeb!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 19, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Chris I agree with Steph, the scrolling backwards is a pain in the a$$.

I don't think Obama has to do anything or pick a VP to please Hillary, that said it would not hurt to do so to win over her supporters. That's why Clark is a great choice. He may not be that great on the stump but you will find few who know their way around both the war and foreign policy, which is Obama's greatest weakness, outside of the bigotry he will face in November.

Posted by: Patrick NYC | May 19, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Funny how all of the folks from Hillaryland who are mentioned for Obama's VP are MEN! What does that say about Hillabee that she doesn't have other strong women around her or advocating for her? (And I'm sorry but Gerry Ferarro doesn't meet the criteria.)

Obama needs to pick someone who either shares his views on change or by just their presence on the ticket would represent change. A Republican like Hagel would work for the latter. Edwards or Richardson or Sebelius would work. I LOVE the idea of Obama-Gore but doubt that it'd happen.

A governor from Ohio or PA might help get both of those states so it is worth considering....

I'm curious and think Obama will make a good choice -- and that it won't be Hillabee.

Posted by: Mutzy | May 19, 2008 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Nancy Pelosi would be my choice, too. She is decent, intelligent, not a partisan hack (and has proven it as the House Majority Leader), would give Obama a big assist in Western states, and would even molify most of the Clinton feminists. But, quite apart from being a woman, Ms. Pelosi would actually make an excellent President. She was #2 on my early list behind John Edwards.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 19, 2008 4:34 PM | Report abuse

kathy writes
"If senator Clinton is not asked to be Obama`s vice president I know a lot of women who will not vote for him,So you better keep that in mind.It would be an insult if he asked another woman."

I suspect that Senator Clinton understands the myriad considerations that go into selecting a running-mate. I would be shocked if she broadcast some kind of disppointment or offense, should Obama choose another person (independant of gender).

Kathy, would it be OK of Obama selected a man as running mate, and only offensive if he chose a woman? If so, why does the running-mate's gender matter? Or are you saying that if he picks anyone but Clinton a lot of women you know will not vote for him?

Posted by: bsimon | May 19, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Chris:


You are witnessing the fracture of the democratic party after all the white males have been driven out of the party.

Wthout the war issue, the democrats are a coalition without a cause.

The "sameness" between Obama and Hillary is not agreement, it is emptiness.

.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 19, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Good Obama VP choices:

Russ Feingold
Jim Webb
Bill Richardson
Claire McCaskill
Kathleen Sebelius
John Edwards
Chris Dodd

Posted by: Dave | May 19, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: mibrooks27
>>>>Obama could run with a hand puppet and win. <<<<

You need to do some electoral math calculation before you make such a delusional statement.

What an idiot!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama has spent the primary season impressing me by NOT campaigning like Hillary Clinton. It would be a TRAGEDY if he selected one of the Clinton sycophants as his running mate.

If Obama believes this country needs a new direction he should pick a solid progressive.

Posted by: Dave | May 19, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Remember Nancy Pelosi is the highest ranking woman in the government, not Hillary


The democrats are more than willing - they cant wait - to get rid of Hillary....

Posted by: Remember | May 19, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Ok, this has nothing to do with Clinton or Obama, but can I throw out that I hate this new version of WaPo's comment section? It's much more complicated to scroll down and find where the last comment you read was and then go up, than to just scroll down to keep a continuous thread.

Just had to throw that out there.

Posted by: Steph | May 19, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Kathy is right if Obama asked another woman, it would like going to the dance with another girl

Posted by: hi | May 19, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Kathy is right if Obama asked another woman, it would like going to the dance with another girl

Posted by: hi | May 19, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Kathy is right if Obama asked another woman, it would like going to the dance with another girl

Posted by: hi | May 19, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

I honestly don't think it matters any longer. Given the idiotic blather from the McCain campaign recently, Obama could run with a hand puppet and win. Good grief, McCain calls Obama's willingness to talk with our enemies "appeasement" and is on record as proposing to do exactly that only two months ago! McCain still thinks free trade and unfettered corporate greedy is a good thing for this country? What an idiot!

Posted by: mibrooks27 | May 19, 2008 4:20 PM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh would make Indiana competitive for the first time in a generation, and would help in neighboring Ohio and Michigan too. Plus he just has better political skills and qualities than everyone else.

Posted by: Justin | May 19, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

If senator Clinton is not asked to be Obama`s vice president I know a lot of women who will not vote for him,So you better keep that in mind.It would be an insult if he asked another woman.Senator Clinton is very smart and a great debater.

Kathy

Posted by: Kathy | May 19, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

If senator Clinton is not asked to be Obama`s vice president I know a lot of women who will not vote for him,So you better keep that in mind.It would be an insult if he asked another woman.Senator Clinton is very smart and a great debater.

Kathy

Posted by: Kathy | May 19, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

mnteng writes
"I think it will require a lot of work to heal the divisions. It seems to me that it will be almost as much work as campaigning, especially if pleas like the one from Our Only Hope below are not sufficient to get her supporters to hold their noses and vote for BHO. I don't know how it should be done tactically (joint appearances, etc.) but it will have to be a pretty aggressive marketing campaign."

I think the noise being made about 'Democratic divsions' is overstating the case. Once the Dems select a nominee - whomever that person is - they will be far more unified than the Repubs are.

Posted by: bsimon | May 19, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

I do not see how picking a loyalist of the Clinton's is necessary or even wise as a VP pick for Obama. Are these money makers and raisers really going to go over to McCain? No way.

The Obama campaign really needs to consider the female vote and not undercut their message of change. Sibelius is a perfect choice to kill two birds with one stone. It shores up the female vote, and really reinforces Obama's change in DC message. She is from his home state, is a good speaker, level headed, and would make an excellent President herself someday.

The voters who want Clinton, want Clinton; not Clark, not Bayh. Picking a VP from among Clinton loyalists is a symbolic gesture that will go completely over the head of the average voter.

Posted by: Celt | May 19, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

I am mulling between Sebelius and Webb right now. I picked up Webb's new book today, will read and decide who I like better.

Picking a weak VP just to make Hillary happy will not be beneficial to Obama or the party in the long run.
Strickland - problems with the wife
Bayh - synonym for Boring
Clark - military =yes ... great candidate = maybe
Dashcle - NO!

Posted by: Stephen | May 19, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

bsimon:

Sure, I take HRC at her word as well, but I think it will require a lot of work to heal the divisions. It seems to me that it will be almost as much work as campaigning, especially if pleas like the one from Our Only Hope below are not sufficient to get her supporters to hold their noses and vote for BHO. I don't know how it should be done tactically (joint appearances, etc.) but it will have to be a pretty aggressive marketing campaign.

Funny thing on "The World" just now. Apparently, HRC beat McC in a drinking contest 4 years ago -- slammed 4 shots to take him down.

Posted by: mnteng | May 19, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Clinton supporters count too:

While I can understand your frustration at seeing the first serious female presidental candidate lose to the first serious African-American candidate in the primary, I'd like to bring your and all other folks with similar feelings back to reality and explain to your why it would be a REALLY bad idea to support John McCain instead of Barack Obama. Ready?

88-year-old (yes that's EIGHTY-EIGHT) John Paul Stevens is all that stands in the way of a Supreme Court majority in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. If the Republicans get to nominate Stevens' replacement (it's widely been rumored he's been holding out on the court hoping a Democrat will be elected in 2008) then we will have a Supreme Court majority in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. It's really that simple.

Not only that, but we will presumably also have a majority in favor of overturning Griswold v. Connecticut, upon whose reasoning Roe v. Wade was based. Griswold gives unmarried women the right to take contraceptives.

Now, which do you think would be the bigger setback for the feminist movement? The overturning of these landmark Supreme Court cases, or the delaying by a few years of the first female president? And yes, I do believe it will be just a few years. I believe there are compelling female presidental candidates out there besides Hillary Clinton, first among them Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. If she runs for president, not only would I be on the bandwagon, I'd be driving it.

So, back to reality. The die is cast, Obama will be our nominee, now let's put our eyes on the prize and win this thing.

Posted by: Our Only Hope | May 19, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

P. Diddy: I would love to see Governor Sebelius, General Clark, or Congresswoman Harman, personally.

Of all the people in the United States of America, why would be pick Harman*. Are you kidding me? You really like to lose all 50 states for Obama. Be real and go for Bose rather than Harman, if you are a music lover.

* Jane Lakes Harman who represents the 36th Congressional District in Southern California.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

mnteng writes
"What's needed is a sustained campaign by HRC herself to make sure that the vast majority of her supporters will vote for BHO. That won't happen until after the nomination is wrapped up, and may not happen at all."

I take the Senator at her word - that she will work hard for the party's nominee. While I don't understand her motivation for staying in a race that she cannot realistically win, I do expect her to eventually support the nominee - and work to encourage her supporters to do the same.

Posted by: bsimon | May 19, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

Wm Tate writes
"I like the merger analogy. Is it a hostile takeover? Does Hillary get a golden parachute?"

Yes. Maybe.

The taking-over organization will take full control - there will not be significant control retained by the overtaken; in that regard, the transaction is much more a takeover than merger. *HOWEVER* the overtaken will continue to work for the merged organization, particularly in sales & PR. The overtaken have valuable skills, noteably in some critical markets that the overtaker will not want to ignore. After an initially rough period during the complex merge, the newly integrated organization will likely be a juggernaut in the industry - soundly trouncing their only competition for this year's sales - particularly considering that said competition is struggling with brand loyalty, quality, strategic thinking and management issues of their own.

Posted by: bsimon | May 19, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Since the early 90s the guiding consensus of the democratic party has been: Drive out the white males and divide up the proceeds between the women and the minorites.


Throw in few spots for the gay and lesbian community.


NOW the white males are all pushed out, symbolized by the complete lack of fundraising given to Senators Biden and Dodd.

Do you see?


The remaining parts of the democratic party are unable to work together without the white males around.


The women still think they should get 50%.


The black community still thinks there are historic grievances to be compensated for.


The hispanics want lack immigration enforcement, or better yet, complete amnesty.


However, they can not agree on who is in charge -


Their objectives are too incompatible.

You might think they can work together, however get them in a room, all coming from different neighborhoods - they do not work together at all.

The Hillary - Obama split was bound to come up soon and wreck the democratic party.

Look at some of the quotes to day in the Washington Post's own articles.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 19, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse


Given the bitter feelings that have be expressed on The Fix and the following article by Krissah Williams, I don't think any "concession" by BHO to HRC's campaign, short of ceding the race to her, is necessarily going to have HRC supporters lining up to vote for BHO.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/18/AR2008051802193.html?hpid=topnews

Healing the rift with a VP pick just sounds silly. Who votes because of the VP pick anyways? If that were the case, it would have been President Dukakis.

What's needed is a sustained campaign by HRC herself to make sure that the vast majority of her supporters will vote for BHO. That won't happen until after the nomination is wrapped up (after the convention?), and may not happen at all.

Posted by: mnteng | May 19, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

There is a fundamental misunderstanding as to what has gone on this year in the democratic party. When they finally pushed out all the white males out of the democratic party, the women thought they were in control.


The latte liberals and the black community obviously have had different ideas.


The coalition that makes up the democratic party has fractured - this has has happened at the same time they were pushing out the white males.

PLEASE NOTE: HILLARYS's Attempts to threaten potential donors to Senator Dodd in New York highlighted this process - Senator Dodd heads up an important banking committee - it is not unreasonable for him to fundrasise in New York's financial community.


Hillary and the women's groups thought they had it all right when they finally blocked the white males from adequate fundraising in New York.


The democratic party is fractured - and it will not be back - people are leaving in droves.

These are all people who have known each other and worked on campaigns before - now they are sick of each other.

The anti-war people are the last issue holding the party together - once the Republicans figure give Bush his goodbye, the democratic party will be unable to work with itself.


.

Posted by: 37th&OStreet | May 19, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

I like the merger analogy. Is it a hostile takeover? Does Hillary get a golden parachute?
-Wm Tate
http://www.atimelikethis.us/

Posted by: Wm Tate | May 19, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

The choices now should not be about winning the presidential election, but about the other contests on the ballot. If this is truly a "wave" election, then the Democratic nominees will win up and down the ballot. If it is not a wave election, the Presidential election will be close no matter who the nominee or VP candidate is. But if it is not a wave election, the choice of nominee and VP may make a huge difference in House and Senate seats. If Hilary is on the ticket (whether as Pres or VP), huge numbers of conservative Republicans who don't care much for McCain will show up to vote against Hilary. They will vote overwhelmingly for Republicans in all races up and down the ballot. If Hilary is the nominee for Pres, you can add to that the black Democrats who stay home and you have the recipe for a disaster in Congress. No Democrat should console themselves that it is OK to stay home because the Democrats will retain control of Congress "no matter what". Some may even feel obliged to vote for McCain if "their" candidate loses the nomination. But I doubt that ANY Democrat, whether they currently support Obama or Hilary, is prepared to live through another few years when the Republicans control everything. That part of Bush's first term almost destroyed our country. We cannot afford to take any chance of McCain and a Republican Congress finishing the job!

Posted by: taxhoncho | May 19, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

The most important criteria Obama will and should use in selecting his running mate is whether or not he can trust the individual and work with him/her. Someone perceived to have divided loyalties will not work.

I would love to see Governor Sebelius, General Clark, or Congresswoman Harman, personally.

Even though Kansas does have a pretty unusual Republican Party, Sebelius is known for her bipartisanship. I think she has gravitas and a good relationship with Obama, but lacks foreign policy experience of any kind. General Clark certainly has gravitas and foreign policy experience, but perhaps lacks the relationship with Obama. Both are hardly Washington insiders and could effectively carry the "Change" message Obama has branded himself with. Harman is a Washington insider, but nevertheless carries tremendous respect in foreign policy and counterterrorism. No idea what her relationship is with Obama, either.

In the end, while the Clinton insiders may care that Obama selects a Clinton loyalist, the large percentage of Clinton voters/supporters couldn't care less. I think many of those voters could be ameliorated by Obama's selection of a woman on the ticket. So, in order to placate the Clinton supporters and gear up for a fight with McCain, you'd need a woman with foreign policy experience, who has a good relationship with Obama, and who could carry the "Change" message.

Posted by: P Diddy | May 19, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

2nd thought: screw the Clinton arm-twisters; the people they'd vet for VP have too strong an association with the Clinton baggage and all the negatives of their campaign. They would be forever second-guessed as being Clinton hand-puppets. Unless.... Hillary drops out before June 3, and decides she wants to at least have a shot at Senate majority leader, and she needs to consolidate her standing now, before it erodes too far to be a real lever in future national politics.

Posted by: dburck | May 19, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama needs a well versed state governor as a running mate. I'd blow off the foreign policy "experience." That's how we got into Iraq. I'd trust Obama's judgement and having Biden as his Secretary of State. Domestic issues from health care to fuel cost will dominate this election. My personal choice (despite the comment posted above) is Bill Richardson...and a plus, he has the foreign policy credentials to more than hold his own in a debt against Romney (I think he will be McCain's VP choice). Anyone who suggest bilary is cedeing the election to the Republicans. She will do everything she/he can to sabotage the election so they can return (yuck) in 2012...God help us!

Posted by: 210cav | May 19, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, remove Republican Chaffee from the list.

Posted by: dcouzin | May 19, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/clinton-this-is-nowhere-near-over/

"If we had same rules as the Republicans, I would be the nominee right now," [Clinton] said.


Perhaps the Senator should consider running for that party's nomination, if she finds their rules so much more appealing.

Posted by: bsimon | May 19, 2008 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Ticket balancing: Tricky stuff; it had better be someone whose first loyalty will be to their new best friend (Obama)and publically deomstrates it, and not their old best friend, or it'll go down in flames.

Posted by: dburck | May 19, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

If Barack Obama picks someone who was a Senator in 2002, they must be one of these:
Akaka
Bingaman
Boxer
Byrd
Chafee
Conrad
Corzine
Dayton
Durbin
Feingold
Graham
Inouye
Kennedy
Leahy
Levin
Mikulski
Murray
Sarbanes
Stabenow
Wyden
If Barack Obama picks someone who was a Representative in 2002, they must be in the corresponding House list of Nay voters on the war resolution.
Are there any Hillary Clinton supporter's in either list? Democratic legistlators who had the brains plus nerve to oppose the war are overwhelmingly anti-Clinton.

Posted by: dcouzin | May 19, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

IF OBAMA MAKES IT (STILL A BIG IF), HIS VP CHOICES:


Bayh: An unknown vessel, no
heavy foreign policy experience, smirks.

Strickland: Obscure, no foreign policy chops.

Clark: Was a terrible candidate on the stump, bland, a wonk.

Sebelius: Female's a plus, but again, no foreign policy chops, unknown to masses.

Edwards: Southerner, good, well-known, but no real foreign policy experience, a two-time loser and a bit of a dandy.

Clinton: High negatives, brings world experience, Hillary loyalists... and Bill (not a plus).

Chris Dodd: Adds gravitas, experience in foreign and domestic affairs.

Richardson: Great experience but says dumb things.

Biden: See above.

Sam Nunn: Great foreign policy pedigree and a southerner; not very exciting.


CONSENSUS: None of these choices is ideal. If it's Obama (and I still think there's a chance the supers will cede to Al Gore upon an Obama implosion), then Nunn or Dodd makes the most sense, followed by Edwards or, dare I say it, Hillary.


THE IDEAL TICKET: Gore-Obama. It still could happen. Arguably, it must happen for the Dems to win.

Posted by: scrivener | May 19, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Blarg- its not a question of 'needs' its a question of 1) ending the primary and 2) starting the prep work for the general.

Posted by: bsimon | May 19, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Strickland would make a fine choice, and would likely hand Ohio to Obama, while helping in Michigan, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. My personal preference is Jim Webb though.

Posted by: Hilltopper | May 19, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

At this point in the race, why does Obama need Hillary's fundraising operation?

Posted by: Blarg | May 19, 2008 2:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company