Would ANYTHING positive come from Obama being denied the nomination?

[Ken Burch]

We all know it would kill every progressive's interest and passion about this race.

We all know young people would abandon politics again, and abandon them for good.

We all know that the fall campaign would be dominated by HRC trying to "outhawk" McCain(and, thus by her giving up being a Democrat).

What possible tiny bits of good would come of all these dismal inevitabilities?

Why even risk an bland, drab, excitement-free race?

Do we really want to lower ourselves to Nixon Vs. Humphrey yet again?

Don't people here WANT to win the election?

Please don't vote for dreariness and defeat, folks. Don't tell young people and African Americans that they don't matter.

[marylanddem]

1. Well put.

[papau]

35. Perhaps the answer is we win "common man" and election and get real change rather than GOP approved

change - the latest is that Obama will not submit to Congress a health bill - but will just encourage Congress to hold hearings on universal health/

The ins. co. exec's I know are in heaven with Obama - there is no of the fear that they had of Hillary

[bunnies]

2. The Clintons would be happy.

Thats all that matters. :sarcasm:

[crankychatter]

3. it's the war

it ain't about the who wins the race for top dog in the duopoly

it's about which candidate can be best relied upon to do the bidding of the Military Industrial Complex...

Who is most likely to carry forward with the PNAC agenda

This ain't about Clinton's ego, avarice or ambition

It ain't about Race or Gender

[NJSecularist]

4. Would anything positive come from Obama being denied the nomination?

Yes, we would win the White House.

[Ken Burch]

12. Obama is just as electable as HRC.

The fact that she doesn't run dramatically better against McCain NOW proves it. She can't be at the same popularity level as Obama now and be drastically more popular than him later. That simply isn't logical.

[LSparkle]

13. Yes, but how would things CHANGE?

As John Edwards said, replacing corporate Rethugs with
a CORPORATE DEM isn't going to change anything fundamentally.

"Meet the new boss; same as the old boss."

[cyndensco]

80. Seriously,

Please explain how you think hillary could win the white house. I can not, by any stretch of my imagination, understand your thinking...

[MonkeyFunk]

5. You make the mistake of thinking every progressive

supports Obama, and that anybody supporting Clinton is not progressive. That's silly.

[newmajority]

7. Why would any progressive support Clinton?

It's like a chicken supporting KFC.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. She's nearly identical to Obama on policy

so why would any progressive support Obama, if that's what you think?

[Ken Burch]

24. You can't trust someone to be progressive in office

When throughout their previous career they always swung right when things got tough.

And you forget that a candidate who runs against activists having a voice in the party would have to have a natural conservative bias on policy decisions. Only people who support grassroots politics can govern as progressives.

[Ken Burch]

9. That would be because HRC is sharply to the right of Obama on policy

And also because anyone who's campaign mocks idealists and says the country isn't ready for a black president simply can't BE progressive.

Why you've given up your principles to back someone who wants to lower us to the Nineties again is your business.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. But she's not

they're nearly identical on policy.

[cali]

11. not that it's wildly important but most progressives

are supporting Obama. I think the real damage that could be done, is if Hillary is given the nomination if she's 100+ PDs behind, and doesn't lead in the pop vote. That won't happen, but if it did, it would be disasterous for the dem party.

[MattBaggins]

6. Nope but it would leave us

with a candidate who fell behind financially in PA because they mismanaged their campaigns finances. Electing a person who can't show fiscal restraint and responsibility in something as simple as a campaign would be a disaster for our country's economy.

[tokenlib]

8. Political suicide--for an entire party--no good at all n/t

[BzaDem]

10. Yes. We might actually win the presidential election.

This post really highlights the fundamental difference between us. Obama supporters on this board (and people like them) are much more concerned about excitement, passion, and particularly getting THEIR nominee (for once), than actually winning the election. It's pretty clear. Some of them try to defend Obama's electability, but others concede the point (and say things like "well if we are going to lose, I'd rather lose with honor" or some other bullshit like that).

On the other hand, the few remaining Hillary supporters on this board at this point seem much more concerned about winning.

[Ken Burch]

16. It goes without saying that an unexciting candidate can't be more electable.

1968, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004 prove that "vote for us, we're bland,drab and safe" never works.

And there's never been a single reason to think that HRC is more electable(the fact that her showings against McCain aren't dramatically stronger right now proves she can't be more electable later, since she'll bring out all the Nineties talk radio crazies to denouce her and rile up the knuckledraggers).

Also, you and I both know a HRC victory really wouldn't matter. You can't run as a hawk and be a Democrat once in office.

Again, why lower ourselves once more to Nixon vs. Humphrey?

[BzaDem]

55. You and I both know that an HRC victory is FAR better than a McCain victory

even if you refuse to admit it in public.

Because HRC will appoint justices to the supreme court that will be FAR better than McCain's, and these justices will shape the law for the next 20 years.

And Hillary may very well lose. But she also may very well win. That uncertainty is gone if we nominate Obama. There has never been an outcome more predictable than Obama's loss in November of 2008. If you actually believe that Obama's "new politics" (of not criticizing Obama on anything) will actually work, then you deserve what happens when McCain wins. I love the idea of not making elections about personal attacks. It just isn't going to happen in this country unless we make structural changes to our political system. You can bet your ass that Republicans are going to air ads about Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan, and Rezko for months, and that will define Obama. It will define Obama because he is new; no one knows him outside of this election. It is easy to define an undefined candidate. The obviousness of what is going to happen is so breathtaking. My theory at this point is that many Obama supporters realize it, and they don't really care (in that they would rather run and lose with Obama than run and win with Hillary).

[Ken Burch]

56. Structural changes can't come from nominating the more conservative candidate.

HRC doesn't want structural changes on anything. She just wants to tinker slightly with the status quo. And she hates activists and the young, as she's demonstrated by talking about those groups the way Rush Limbaugh does.

If HRC had dropped out after her eleventh straight defeat, we'd have this election locked up. We'd be ten points ahead of McCain and he wouldn't be able to do a thing to catch us. It's only because the nomination contest is still going that we're now in danger of losing, and of losing with either candidate(since HRC has more negatives and is more hated around the country than Obama ever will be).

[SoCalDem]

72. She would be our very own

Bob Dole..

old white folks liked him too :)

[shayes51]

34. I'm with you.

[Liberal Gramma]

63. I appreciate the fact that Clinton supporters want to win the GE

but dividing the party by annointing her with the nomination if she's behind isn't the way to do it. That road leads to disaster, not just for this election but for years and perhaps decades.

[cyndensco]

82. But how would you/she win?

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Universal health care?

Humphrey or McGovern? If memory serves, neither worked out all that well for us.

[newmajority]

21. Universal health care will only happen when someone has the guts to

bring something like HR 676 before the public and, when it has overwhelming public support (as it will), push it through congress as hard as Bill Clinton pushed NAFTA. Only this time the results would help the country, rather than hurt it.

Obama is more likely to do that, because he is more likely to listen to the people. Hillary wants to FORCE everyone into corporate mandatory Romneycare, and that's her "solution". No way out. No incentive to ever get out. Corporate manipulation of health care forever.

Fuck that. The rest of the "civilized" world does it right. It's about fucking time we did.

[lumberjack_jeff]

38. The main attribute of Obama's preferred solution is the fact that it's optional.

I think you're naive to believe that medicare for all is a concept he'll promote. It is 180° away from his campaign promises.

The best we can hope for is "coverage for all and medicare for everyone who wants it", which is the Clinton solution.

[berni_mccoy]

83. Hillary is promoting Mandatory Health Insurance, not Universal Healthcare.

[Birthmark]

15. Well, that's one point of view

I find it a bit self-serving, though.

Again, I think the only way we in November is an open convention. Neither Clinton nor Obama can seal the deal AND unite the party at this point. It doesn't matter who is at fault. It doesn't matter how it makes us feel. That's just the way it is. If Obama wins, a fair number of Clinton supporters will jump ship. If Clinton wins, a fair number of Obama supporters will jump ship. That's just the truth at this point.

The only way out is an open convention and the nomination of a candidate that might be able to pull everyone together. There are many who could probably do so.

[PBS Poll-435]

17. Every time with you. WOW.

:banghead:

"and, thus by her giving up being a Democrat

Because FDR & Truman were Republicans, right?

[Ken Burch]

20. That was the past. You and I both know it will never be possible to be a liberal hawk again.

Being a hawk forces you to be a fiscal conservative. Being a fiscal conservative means you govern as a total conservative. End of discussion.

We know HRC won't be to the left of Bush on economics.

[PBS Poll-435]

22. That was easy....

Being a hawk forces you to be a fiscal conservative

Bush is no fiscal conservative and he certainly is no dove.

[Ken Burch]

27. Why do you still believe liberalism and hawkish foreign policy could even possibly work together?

Why are you still "All the way with LBJ"? That wing of the party reduced itself to Scoop Jackson, who, if he had been elected, wouldn't have done ANYTHING different than Nixon.

Big defense budgets should be left to the GOP.

[PBS Poll-435]

31. Nice try...

So remind me again how Bush/Cheney/Rummy are not hawks again?

They can't be hawks, because they aren't/wern't fiscally conservative...

Right?

[Ken Burch]

36. Fiscally conservative on domestic spending.

Being a big spender on war, or tax cuts for the rich, isn't the same thing, and you know it.

LBJ stopped doing anything to help the poor after about 1966, as he escalated the war. If HRC gets in and bombs Iran(thus dooming us to another endless war on M.E. soil)you can assume she'll get rid of the pitiful remnants of the New Deal and the Great Society.

Having clarified that, I assume you'll concede my point, that a Democratic hawk in this day and age would effectively have to agree to govern as a Republican(as Bill did in the Nineties).

Why on Earth should we settle for that?

You know as well as I that our military involvement in the Muslim world is a pointless, useless failure, costing thousands of lives for no reason.

[PBS Poll-435]

39. No...Bush threw money all over the place.

Remember the "faith-based" bs and the partially funded NCLB?

And Bill Clinton did NOT govern like a Republican.

I am sorry that your purity test blinds you.

[Ken Burch]

44. NAFTA, "welfare reform", a platform that refused to mention the word "union".

Continually cutting social services. Refusing to ask voters to elect a Democratic congress in 1996(we'd have got one if he'd asked). Those were the only important issues. Abortion rights and weak-tea environmentalism were trivial side issues that only interested suburbanites. He was a Republican on everything that mattered. There's no excuse for us ever having another nominee that far to the antiworker, antipoor right.

[PBS Poll-435]

74. You didn't say Republican. You said fiscal conservative.

Bush is no fiscal conservative.

We are in debt up to our eyeballs.

[Ken Burch]

49. And giveaways to ideological cronies isn't the same thing either.

Stop playing word games.

[PBS Poll-435]

76. Games seem to be all that you have.

Fiscal Conservative does NOT mean bankrupting our future.

Like Bush has.

[newmajority]

25. FDR & Truman were dealing with Hitler and Japan

You know... actual enemies who wanted to take over the world.

Not the delusions of a handful of Likud psychopaths, or the fictional boogeyman created by the Bush Crime Family.

[PBS Poll-435]

26. Umm...Ok

I was just disputing what he said.

Can't be a hawk & a Democrat at the same time...

[Ken Burch]

28. You could in World War II, the last just war in history.

We both know there will never be either another just war or a morally acceptable reason to use nuclear weapons, since any use of the Bomb would have to doom us all.

Why would any Democrat in this day in age trust a hawk?

[PBS Poll-435]

37. I don't know if you are speaking for me or what,

But I don't trust hawks in this "day in age."

But that doesn't mean the most liberal President of the 20th Century (IMHO) wasn't a "hawk."

[Ken Burch]

40. FDR was in a different world. I wasn't talking about him.

But those conditions will never recur. The age when a war could serve anyone but the rich is gone, and gone forever. No U.S. troops will ever liberate anyone again. "Liberation" through force is no longer possible.

Our forces should defend our soil. That's enough.

[PBS Poll-435]

43. Of course you weren't talking about him.

That would make your entire argument POINTLESS.

[Ken Burch]

48. Who the hell did you mean, then, LBJ?

He was only liberal because the civil rights movement forced him to be.

And he stopped being liberal after 1966. He decided then that the hopeless war he'd committed us to was all that mattered.

[PBS Poll-435]

73. LOL....the "of course" was sarcastic

You wanted to cherry pick to make an argument.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way.

[EFerrari]

23. I don't see how any good could come of it.

:(

[Straight Shooter]

29. "Don't tell young people and African Americans that they don't matter."

Or you can put Obama in the White House and he'll let you know himself that they don't matter once he drops his congenial mask and starts implementing his policies.

For example, Obama does not believe idealogy should define a president's nominee for the Supreme Court, which is why he came very close to voting to confirm Roberts because he admired his intelligence. An aide stopped him from doing so. That's how out of touch Obama is with the true idealogy of the Democratic party.

See lwcon's post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5680739

Wait and see. Mr. go-along-to-get-along will "compromise" with the GOP and the Supreme Court will tilt further right. Don't count on the Senate Dems to stop a poor choice of nomination, either. It's no skin off their collective noses.

[Ken Burch]

33. HRC's court nominees would be as worthless as Bill's.

Bland centrists who won't rock the boat. No Clinton Supreme Court appointee has defended the powerless. Centrists don't.

[Straight Shooter]

52. You didn't address the subject of my post, which is who Obama would nominate.

Is his bipartisanship display of "working with the enemy" of the GOP just a show, or is it real? If it's just a show, what does that tell you about him? And if it's real, what does that tell you?

I am very uneasy about Obama and his likelihood of authenticating his Christian beliefs just to prove himself, especially after that hyperbolic brochure his campaign distributed in South Carolina where he's photographed in front of stained glass, big bold letters, "COMMITTED CHRISTIAN," blah blah blah, same old beat-your-religious-chest type of rhetoric. I do not have the same worries about Hillary.

As far as being a centrist, their voting records are so close, you can't slip a piece of paper between them. Not showing up for a vote doesn't count.

[Ken Burch]

54. Obama HAD to do the "Committed Christian" thing when YOUR campaign

Took up the "middle name slur" and when your candidate, for no good reason, dropped the "as far as I know" bomb.

Obama was left with no choice after the ugly and false insinuations about him on that issue.

[Straight Shooter]

78. Still no response as to his likelihood of nominating unsatisfactory SC Justices.

I guess Obama supporters will be blaming Hillary Clinton for every misstep Obama takes, just like the right wing blames Bill Clinton for all of bush's missteps.

Incidentally, Obama puffed up the Christian act to beguile the ultra-conservative South Carolinians. He is the man of a thousand faces, whichever one suits him best to wear depending upon his audience.

[Ken Burch]

79. Obama will not nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court, and you know it.

And you also know that the candidate who runs to the right in the primaries will govern to the right in office. HRC can't bash progressives now and then do stuff we like later.

[XLIXLI]

30. Pretty interesting observation! n/t

[Aloha Spirit]

32. YES-- I would visit Denver in August. I hear it's really nice.

[newmajority]

51. Not always.

Last time I was there in August, there was one tornado and thunderstorms every day. This time, there might be a Rush Limbaugh sponsored riot downtown.

[Aloha Spirit]

58. Hey I'm a brawler when necessary, but tornadoes are out of my league ;-)

[zam]

41. I think he has a great shot at winning in 2012 if that happens.

Four years in the opposition against president McCain will bring him a lot of goodwill.

[Ken Burch]

45. If our party even exists four years from now.

Far too many HRC people think beating McCain really isn't that important, if their candidate isn't nominated. Even though I have enthusiasm for HRC, I'll campaign for her. A change in party in name is something.

[Arkansas Granny]

42. Your post is full of speculation posing as facts. This race is going to be

exciting regardless which candidate gains the nomination. I believe that Senator Clinton has the best chance of winning over McCain in the GE.

[Lerkfish]

46. and I believe I'm a pink centaur!

seriously, are you simply ignoring every poll on the matchup differences between McCain and Clinton?

[Arkansas Granny]

53. Actually, I'm looking at projected electoral votes on matchups with

each Democratic candidate against McCain. Senator Clinton gets more electoral votes than Senator Obama. Like I said, it's all about electability to me.

Edited to add link.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/Apr25.html

[Lerkfish]

60. we massively disagree on a scale of biblical proportions.

and I dont' think that will change anytime soon.

I'm so sorry you continue to back a self-destructive campaign.

[azmouse]

61. HRC's supposed electability doesn't amount to squat.

She can't even win the nomination.

[HooptieWagon]

All true. And may I add...

That AA voters (Dems most reliable and loyal bloc) will stay home in significant numbers killing Dems in down-ticket races, and many non-AAs will join them in their disgust. The racist and war-mongering voters Hillary is courting probably won't support her in the GE, and definately won't vote Dem down ticket. Clinton's strategy is a poor one for her and the Party. The only possible explanation is she is deliberately sabotaging Obama/Dean for '08 so party control will revert back to the DLC so she'll be assured the apparatus is in place to ensure her nomination in '12.

[Butch350]

47. YES !!

I'll positively vote for MCCAIN!@

[invictus]

50. Positve only for Republicans and the DLC, negative for the rest of America. n/t

[Lyric]

57. Ahem

We all know it would kill every progressive's interest and passion about this race.

Why do you make the arrogant assumption that all progressives support Obama? I'm about as left-wing as they come, and I support Clinton.

We all know young people would abandon politics again, and abandon them for good.

I'm 28, and my fellow college-student Hillary supporters are 18-28. We're young. We aren't going anywhere.

We all know that the fall campaign would be dominated by HRC trying to "outhawk" McCain(and, thus by her giving up being a Democrat).

Again, you assume that Obama wouldn't do that. Let me introduce you to my friend, Reality. Either Clinton OR Obama will say and do whatever they have to say and do in order to try and beat McCain. Why else do you think Obama pandered to the right-wing homophobes in South Carolina? When it comes to the general, we'll forgive our nominee for saying things that aren't exactly progressive (like we always do) because unfortunately, the majority of *Americans* are not progressive, and THEY are the ones we have to win over.

What possible tiny bits of good would come of all these dismal inevitabilities?

Well they aren't nearly as dismal as you're pretending, but the best thing that will come of it will be a Democratic win against McCain, as opposed to yet another miserable loss, which Obama will undoubtedly bring us.

Why even risk an bland, drab, excitement-free race?

Seriously--are you twelve or something? This primary has been ANYTHING but bland and drab. If given a choice, do you really think that politically war-weary America wants to go through this AGAIN? You seem so terribly concerned about keeping young voters excited, but you also seem willing to brush aside the older voters that we NEED in order to win. If we MUST pander, then it's smarter to defer to the tried-and-true voting veterans than to pin all of our hopes on college students. I *AM* a college student, and most of the other students I know would gladly forget about bothering to vote if it interfered with some social function or party. Not all college students are that fickle, but a lot more of them are than you think.

Do we really want to lower ourselves to Nixon Vs. Humphrey yet again?

A ridiculous comparison. Hillary Clinton is no Humphrey, and Obama sure as HELL is no McGovern. From the way people are here talk about him, you'd think he was a progressive instead of a typical bland middle-of-the-road centrist.

Don't people here WANT to win the election?

Oh yes--absolutely more than anything. That's why I want Clinton and not Obama. Barring that, I'd rather see a brokered convention nominate Gore or Edwards or Boxer or ANYONE who can actually beat McCain, because Barack Obama is not going to do it, no matter how many times you click your heels and wish to be back in Kansas.

Please don't vote for dreariness and defeat, folks. Don't tell young people and African Americans that they don't matter.

I wouldn't dream of doing either of those things. But I can tell you this much--if Obama is nominated and then LOSES, it will do FAR more harm to the "young people and African Americans" than a Hillary Clinton win ever could. You can bet on it.

[azmouse]

59. Oh brother.

You say: "ANYONE who can actually beat McCain, because Barack Obama is not going to do it, no matter how many times you click your heels and wish to be back in Kansas."

Hillary is behind Obama in every category... votes, delegates, money, respect. And you think SHE can beat McBush?!

[Lyric]

66. Of course.

It's probably pointless, but let me share a lesson that Professor Allan Hammock taught my Poli-Sci 102 class last semester.

In American politics, there are six distinct varieties of voters. They are:

Strongly Democrat--will always vote for the Democrat
Weakly Democrat--will usually vote for the Democrat
Independent Democrat--votes Democrat slightly more than half the time
Independent Republican--votes Republican slightly more than half the time
Weakly Republican--will usually vote Republican
Strongly Republican--will always vote Republican

Now the "extreme" categories on either end of the spectrum can be safely ignored--they're going to vote Dem or Repuke no matter what. Yes, it sucks to be taken for granted, but that doesn't make it any less true.

The Weak Dem/Weak Repuke can also usually be taken for granted, so long as there isn't some truly compelling reason for them to vote otherwise. And I mean *compelling*. You saw a lot of these folks on our side switch to Repukes after 9/11, because it scared the shit out of them. I don't think there's enough resentment yet among the Weakly Republicans to make them switch yet, especially since these Republicans hate McCain far less than the Strongly Repukes do, and they like his war record. Weakly Repukes don't hate the war so much as they hate the way it's been managed--and I believe that they'll trust McCain (a war hero) to manage it better than Obama or Clinton could. So--again, both categories are probably safe bets for sticking with their usual preference.

The REAL battleground is for the middle--the so-called Independent Dems and Independent Repukes. I don't meant Independent *party*--just that these people show little loyalty to either party, and generally vote solely based on their own interests and values. They are typically very centrist, and they like their candidates to be centrist too. For the record, this is the reason why we always seem to get stuck with a bunch of moderate centrists as candidates, instead of conservative and liberal firebrands like Pat Robertson versus Dennis Kucinich.

Now, to win the centrist vote, we need a centrist candidate. Obama and Clinton are both centrists--so far, so good. But there's a catch. The Repuke-leaning centrists LOVED Bill Clinton. They are the reason that he kept such a high approval rating even after the Monica scandal. They equate Bill with Hillary, because they remember how Bill used to tell them that Hillary was involved with his decision-making, and they also like Hillary because she's mostly a centrist.

Obama is a centrist too, but unfortunately that aspect of his policy base is getting drowned out by the fact that all of the "Strongly Democrat" voters have decided to loudly support him while attacking Clinton for being "too centrist"--thereby making him LOOK like he's some liberal progressive, even when he actually isn't. When these middle-aged centrists run into Obama supporters on college campuses, what do they see? A bunch of youngsters in Obama t-shirts who rave and salivate over how much more "liberal" their candidate is than Clinton. Basically, Obama's supporters are doing their best to destroy his chances with the moderate voters, and they don't even realize how much damage they're doing--or else they don't care, because they've convinced themselves that "principles" are somehow more important than actually "winning". Principles are great. But principles remain NOTHING but ideas if we don't have the power to implement them. Principles mean jack squat without a win. And to win--we need to appeal to the middle. All I ever hear about on DU is how much of a triangulating centrist Clinton is. And that's right--she IS. That's what makes her so damned electable.

So...on to election night in November.

Hillary takes the Independent-Repukes away from McCain because they like and trust the Clintons (it's the Strongly Repukes that hate them), and maintains the vast majority of our own base--especially the blue-collar voters who will be coming out in droves thanks to the dismal economy that's hurting them so much more intensely than it's hurting the middle class. A handful of truly obsessed Obama folks will pout and refuse to vote, but in the end, most of them will come around and vote Dem.

However, Obama has his hands full just maintaining OUR base, let alone cutting into the Independent Repukes. The Independent Repukes see him as too liberal, and McCain as a safe centrist.

The primaries are not always a good judge of who can win the general, because they do not take into consideration the Independent Repukes. These folks tend to vote in the Republican primary, and they don't hate our candidates enough to cross over and purposefully vote for the one they feel is easiest to beat. Those cross-overs would be the Strongly Repukes--the "Dittohead" contingent--that people like Limbaugh manipulate so well. They're easy to pin because they're the only ones who hate us enough to feel pleasure in disrupting our primary elections.

My prediction is that, with Clinton we win the general, just barely, in 2008, and then we win big in 2012 after a Dem president and Congress get down to business and start fixing the damage. Her negatives are ameliorated by the fact that the conservatives loathe McCain just as much.

With Obama, we never get the chance to find out what he might do. He loses because he can't win the Independent Repukes, McCain takes the Presidency, and he won't even need Diebold to do it--not that we won't hear a million cries of "DIEBOLD!" when it inevitably happens, because after 2000, everyone on our side automatically assumes that we've been Diebolded if we fail to win.

I know you'll likely ignore this, but you asked my opinion. Poli-Sci is my major in college, so I do know a little about how this sort of thing works.

[azmouse]

67. You're right. I'm ignoring it.

Real life isn't a novel.

[Lyric]

69. It's closer to being a novel than to being a one-liner.

But I'm not worried about it. You go on with your bad self.

For the record--a unity ticket would win by a landslide, even without the hardcore "I HATE HILLARY/OBAMA" squad.

Here's hoping for a little sanity and logical thinking in the near future.

[Ken Burch]

89. But HRC won't accept the No. 2 slot.

And you and I both know it can't be legitimate to nominate her if Obama ends up with more ELECTED delegates.

[Barack_America]

62. A viable third party?

:shrug:

Depending how you feel about these things.

I would think that a coalition of African Americans, young voters, highly educated whites and a candidate who can raise a ton of money would be a godsend to those who have been praying for a third party.

[OnionPatch]

64. You just put into words

the basic feelings I've had about this race since it was narrowed down to the two of them. Sure, their policies are very similar. But Hillary has already shown us that she's willing to pander to the right and abandon progressive values when the heat is on. At least we can have hope that Obama will be different. It's really all we have right now, isn't it?

[nichomachus]

65. He wouldn't get the blame for the coming economic collapse

Right now, the economy, as bad as it seems, is being artificially propped up. If a Dem gets in, look for the fascists to kick all the props out from under the economy. By 2010, it will be like 1930 all over again. The fascists will try to blame the occupant of the White House and the MSM will do its best to help.

[barack the house]

68. Plus if you lose young people the party has no future. Women or minrities will have no say in stuff

I'll support the nominee whoever wins fairly.

[cottonseed]

70. X 2.0

Generation X'ers and Millenials unite and say it's our time. Get the hell out of the way to the old guard politcs. Urge Google, Yahoo to buy up some media, get Net entrepreneurs to buy up radio, internet/blogs start to dominate with wireless access and iPhones (and faster universal wireless access). We will not be led by the nose by the press and old political wedge issues as before. It'll be another terrible 4 to 8 years, but things are changing and changing quickly.

[Bucky]

71. While I mostly disagree, McCain is positioned to make inroads into two Dem constituencies

McCain is going heavily into majority African-American communities in his recent campaign stops. If Clinton snags the nom (which she won't), this can pay serious dividends--especially in states where the black vote makes a critical difference in keeping the politics Blue.

McCain also has a good track record of drawing in young voters. He's got a cool, natural patter down and can speak to kids. This is one reason why Republican conservatives don't trust him--he doesn't speak from a script. This is still mostly a weakness as he recently has taken to saying really dumb things--but I'd hate to campaign on the hope that he'll say something so fucked up it'll cost him votes.

Still, I think it's inaccurate to say Clinton's nomination will hurt progressives. She's plenty progressive in a number of issues and can connect to blue collar voters. She'd certainly be pro-union. She's not a Humphrey (and frankly, in my book, being a Humphrey isn't all that bad a thing, anyway).

[Evergreen Emerald]

75. what do you mean: don't tell African Americans they don't matter?

Why would a Clinton win be telling African Americans they don't matter?

[mtnsnake]

77. Oh for fucks sake, Ken, stop flattering yourself

If your first two sentences are true, then those people are the biggest losers on the planet and they are NOT progressives.

[Ken Burch]

90. This isn't about "myself", and I didn't insult you.

HRC people need to accept that passion and a sense of hope matter. Your candidate's whole approach is "shut up and eat your spinach". It's the same tack Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale and Carter in 1980 took. Why stay with what FOUR elections prove doesn't work?

[stillcool]

81. Sometimes people have to hit...

rock bottom in order to change. Maybe countries do too.

[Ken Burch]

91. Dear God...the Twelve Step Method of political change?

:eyes:

[grantcart]

84. A new political party would emerge - its possible that a 3 party system would

in the long run be more beneficial. There would be the Republican Party, The New Democratic Party and the Clinton Party. Just hard to see how Chelsea would keep it going in the future.

[Craftsman]

85. Yes an elitest bigot like Obama does not represent the party

That is very positive

[Ken Burch]

87. Obama's not an elitist or a bigot.

And nobody who sat on the WalMart board has the right to claim to be a populist.

Obama's the progressive, and HRC's the corporate conservative.

[TexasObserver]

86. No. No good can come from Hillary stealing the nomination.

[2rth2pwr]

88. Yes, we would actually have a real shot at the White House.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

92. and the Acdemy Award for best supporting actor goes to Ken Burch

sorry I couldn't stop myself.

[Ken Burch]

93. No, you probably couldn't.

But then again, you support the unpopular conservative candidate so I guess that's just what we can expect.

[DemVet]

94. "being denied"

You write like the Nomination is OWED to Obama.

Get real.

[Perry Logan]

95. We won't have to listen to that God damn Wright tapeloop all day long.

[mattclearing]

96. Agreed. Thanks for this post.

This is like a semi-final that is a more potent match-up than the final. The Dem is going to clobber McCain in the end. People are sick of Republicans, sick of war, sick of bullshit economic policy.

We have a chance to put an actual progressive in the White House, but it seems people would rather have the couple that sold out gays, labor, universal healthcare, welfare, radio, etc.

[Yossariant]

97. Yeah. The Democrats would win the White House --- if you think that's positive..

[LWolf]

98. YES. As long as HRC is denied the nomination, as well.

Should that happen, we might end up with a decent candidate to support in November, and we might have a chance to win.

It would not kill every progressive's passion and interest in this race.

I AM A PROGRESSIVE, AND THE NARROWING OF THE CHOICES TO TWO CENTRIST/CORPORATIST/3RD WAY/"NEW" DEMOCRATS HAS KILLED MY PASSION AND INTEREST.

I not only want to win, I want to WIN. That means that not only does a democrat win, progressive issues will actually get some time and attention.

I don't want to "win" just to put another republican-loving democrat that can be counted on to help the republican agenda along in the WH.