For one, I can say this about Hillary Clinton. In the last couple months I think she allowed her authentic voice to come out. After falling behind and with the economy reeling, she got to talk about the things I think she really cares about and make her stances clear, without worrying about how they would play in the general. When Tina Fey intimated people didn’t like her because she was a bitch, I didn’t agree with that. I think people’s problem with Hillary was they didn’t trust who she was – an authenticity gap. She has since then become more feisty and indomitable, playing to her strengths – and she has done far better, even if it has come too late. Personally, I always liked the fiery Hillary of yesteryear, who wouldn’t bake cookies, a lot more then the inevitable Hillary of the early part of this campaign, whose every consultant-approved statement seemed calibrated, cautious and poll-tested.
In some ways, losing her frontrunner status liberated her to be the candidate she was most comfortable being – a more feisty liberal – and not a wishy-washy DLC centrist. And while, as an Obama supporter, I didn’t always find her resilience welcome, I do think her strengths as a leader have been enhanced by her recent success. Its not often a loser can come out of a race with their reputation intact, even burnished. I think she will.
She certainly has put her husband in the shadows and from now on, it will be Hillary that is the Clinton people most listen to and seek out for support. For my part, I’d like to see her serve a long and distinguished career in the Senate, leading on health care and the other great challenges of our times. There is much still for her to contribute to our country, regardless of whether she ever reaches the White House again.
And the critiques of Obama by Hillary supporters are often spot on – even if I have spent a lot of time trying to debunk them (and likely still will going forward). Obama has certainly not been able to crack the code to success with some important demographic groups and in some important places for the general as Hillary supporters have regularly pointed out of late. But, I would ask Hillary folks to try and think about how Obama can do that and make some suggestions. There is too much at stake in this election for any of us to sit back and wait to say I told you so. You don’t have to love Obama, but I know we all would prefer him to McCain and thus we need to think positive and think solutions at this point.
I recall comments on BMG, post the West Virginia blowout, about how Obama is not speaking to the white working class and that he may be “throwing the general.” I disagreed with them, but I would ask those who feel that he hasn’t addressed this group to suggest ways he can do a better job of it, because there is no doubt he has to sway some of them to stay with the party come November. I don’t think we should just accept that he can’t win their votes when these are the folks most getting the shaft from the GOP’s policies. I’d also be interested in thoughts about why he hasn’t connected with these groups, for in diagnosing the problem therein may lie the solution.
So, Hillary supporters, even if you are unwilling to drink the kool-aid, your insights and ideas for how we can win in November, even with a candidate you didn’t back, would be interesting to hear. Its time to start coming together and we can’t win without you onboard – even if not entirely on the wagon.
<
p>As a former wishy-washy Clinton supporter who took the Hillary stickers off the car only because I thought she could not longer win and who also still really likes both candidates, I do believe that the first step towards victory in November is for Obama to pick Clinton as Veep. I know that’s the subject of bitter debate, but when you step back and realize how good both candidates are, there’s little doubt in my mind that the two of them would be a dynamite ticket.
<
p>Though your post is really directed at the current Hillary supporters, I would add as a question specifically why Clinton has been able to connect with voters a little better on economic issues, particularly since this already is and likely will be the dominant issue this November.
<
p>What is it about what Hillary is saying and Obama is not on economic issues that you think allows her to connect better?
stems from the 8 years of pretty good results. But that was under Bill’s management, and her recent gas-tax holiday proposal doesn’t do her any good economically if she means it, nor any good for trustworthiness if she doesn’t mean it.
I can hear crickets chirping in this thread.
What do we have to do, people, stand outside your bedroom windows with boom boxes playing Peter Gabriel's “In Your Eyes”?
will Say Anything?
But to end the “War, Inc.“, requires restoration of the “Life of the Party“.
Just more condescension, as if some little trick is all that stands between Obama and this bloc of voters. It’s not a photo op or a reference in the stump speech…it’s a life history. A persona. A brand. Obama won’t make magic with some bowlin’ or shootin’ or whatever -in’ verb he chooses to do.
<
p>If Obama shows some pride and some fight…if he shows an interest in winning be doing better than an opponent, not just being better, that would be a good first step.
How's that sound?
What, you think he's not interested in winning?
He IS WINNING!
But as far as your remark about pride and fight, I think you have missed what has happened in this campaign. Just because Obama doesn’t breath fire and brimstone doesn’t mean he isn’t campaigning as hard as the competition. He just makes it look a little easier.
<
p>That is thing with Obama, he is able to stay within himself while slipping the knife in. He is able to raise doubts about the opposition without coming off as negative – so he was able to turn this race into a referendum on change and not on experience. He has responded to challenges with a grace and composure that politicians twice his age and with twice his years of service can only marvel at. That is why so many of them have rallied to his side. His campaign has outhustled the opposition on the ground, outraised em, outthought them and all the while has stayed consistent in message and manner. Obama has been run ragged by this marathon and the fact that he still has any gas in his tank at this stage, after never having run a national campaign before, is remarkable. Hill and Bill have lived this life for years. Obama is new at it and still kept up – a durability that if not testament to his fight and pride – is a sign of how much he wants this.
<
p>An interest in doing better than an opponent? By every objective measure he is doing better – from votes, pledged dels, superdels, money. He cares about winning but also about how he wins – something that matters in actually changing things in this country.
<
p>And yesterday, as he forensically dissected the Republican middle-east policy morass of the last eight years, he showed his willing to fight this race on areas of policy Democrats have for too long avoided. While Hillary echoes Republican belligerency with threats to obliterate whole nations, Obama shows how that self-same belligerency has aided our global opponents, whether its by strengthening Iran through our Iraq invasion or by naively promoting democracy in places where the only true rule is that of the gun and not of law. Pride and fight and guts! If only Hillary was willing to show that at the beginning of this campaign then maybe she’d be taking fire from the president in the Knesset and not the young upstart she hoped would go away.
<
p>I agree that bowling photo-ops are not the way to the heart of middle America. So what is?
have been some of the best pro-Obama comments I have seen on any blog.
languo, you are truly one of the more gifted, less strident communicators on this blog, so thank you for taking the time to craft this message.
<
p>That said, my issue is not with Mr. Obama’s style v. Hillary’s style. I’m not that shallow. Although I’ve certainly raised the gender and bias issues with the media, et al, my concerns also have to do with what I perceive to be a preachers’ charisma wrapped around a thin resume. There is no doubt in my mind that he has gifts. He has run an excellent campaign, exploited every competitive advantage available and meaning absolutely no disrespect (in my (former)Staten Island parlance), he could talk a dawg off a meat wagon.
<
p>Re my concerns have everything to do with what I perceive to be a preachers’ charisma wrapped around a thin resume – I’m young enough to remember supporting people like him with great enthusiasm and vigor and old enough to regret it. This is why am I wary of him; winning campaigns is one thing- and running the country is quite another. In my book, talk is cheap, lanugo. As someone who goes to DC every year on Medicaid and disability issues, has reviewed the national budget – I am all too aware of what really drives the train there, and it is entrenched and powerful. Change? It sounds wonderful but we hear that every four to eight years and Mr. Obama is not above the reality that is DC. His campaign finance reports look just like everyone else’s. You may like his donors better than Hill’s and John’s – but really, what’s the difference? Frame that in the context of the economy tanking, the world at war and then asking voters to take a chance on a man with little DC experience, no foreign policy experience, and outside of his crafted speeches, a gentleman who appears ill-at-ease with the common person. There’s some tone-deafness there that he can’t quite seem to overcome and if he’s tone deaf, how can he help drive policy that will help them?
<
p>I am worried, lanugo, very worried. This is bigger than partisan politics. This is presidential tightrope walking time, and I wanted Hillary in (after John dropped out) because I thought she not only best represented my concerns and issues – and it was the experience thing. I thought she had a deep well of experienced people from the Clinton administration, which I thought would benefit this country. I would like to see jobs and titles being given to people who understand the nuts and bolts of running the country, as opposed to popularity and loyalty; we’ve seen that show already. There is no room for failure and no room for a learning curve.
<
p>The experience thing is going to be a problem, lanugo. You may not agree with my take on the “appeaser” remarks, but I will tell you, the outcry from Mr. Obama this week didn’t help me believe in his experience. When I first heard Mr. Bush’s comments – I assumed he was talking about Mr. Carter, given his meeting with Hamas last month. After hearing from Mr. Obama and the rest of the party – I thought they fell for the oldest trick in the book.
<
p>I wish I had your faith in this man.
<
p>
Is there any reason to believe that Obama is not going to include experienced people in his administration, including many of those same people from the Clinton administration? I also wouldn’t rule out the possibility of Clinton running as VP if she really wants to, which I assume might remove your concerns.
I’m just saying that it takes more than one-liners to overcome a finely crafted public persona a couple years in the making. Clinton periodically tries to show a more “personal” side, but it runs against the mental and media narrative of a nails-tough ice-cold scrapper.
<
p>
<
p>Yes and no. He dispatched J. Wright with adeptness, not raising the usual hue and cry about throwing people under the bus. But negativity is in the eye of the beholder.
<
p>
<
p>There’s no denying that his plan for post-Feb. 5th likely won him the nomination. That was a great move, and hats off to David Axelrod (and Obama) for it.
<
p>
<
p>…in return for their irradiation of Israel. If Obama wants to say that the United States would not take military action in the wake of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, I don’t want him for president.
<
p>
<
p>But more to the point: If Obama wants to move the meter in the states he needs to win, with the voters he needs to win, he needs some black and white. What are some lines that resonate with these voters? “Read my lips…no new taxes”. “From my dead hands”. “Until the last dog dies”. Absolutes…the lone man against the tide, rather than the head of a squad measuring relative changes. Because so often, from Obama, that’s what we get:
<
p>
<
p>I agree that there are few absolutes in this world, and a thoughtful understanding of the grey areas has been missing from American governance for too long. But there are some absolutes. When I listen to Obama, I don’t hear any. This is where the patriotism thing ties in. So many Americans want to believe that some things — motherhood, apple pie, America — are good. Others — oil companies, Osama bin Laden — are bad. I don’t get that sense with Obama. There’s the concern that he’ll think about things, and what he’ll decide is an unknown because it’s all so grey. Even though some things aren’t.
<
p>To win working class voters, you’re dealing with black and white — there’s no “grey area” in being laid off or losing your house or having a bare cupboard. Backing off from thorough relativism could pay dividends. Take some stands, Obama. Give the words “but”, “however”, “on the other hand” a vacation. Try out “always”, “absolutely”, and “over my dead body”. Draw some lines in the sand.
<
p>I think Obama could gain the respect of so many voters if he did this.
For all HRC supporters that have been disenfranchised by the obvious bias the DNC has displayed in this primary contest…
go to this link and join our growing numbers..
<
p>http://www.ipetitions.com/peti…
<
p>She will win the popular vote, has won more congressional districts nationwide 227-186, and is the strongest candidate to beat McCain because she is center-left moderate. If we want to win.. we can not nominate another far left elite
<
p>Look, I’m sympathetic to Clinton supporters. She was the favorite coming in, she was the first woman with a real shot at the Presidency, and she came really close to winning the nomination. And this race has opened up some serious tensions on gender and race, issues that need to be addressed in a constructive manner.
<
p>But pinning Obama’s win on a fix by the DNC? That’s just fallacious (I was going to use much stronger words, but I’m trying to be constructive). Clinton was the establishment candidate coming into this race. She had a huge lead among superdelegates for a long time. And staff like Ickes and McAuliffe helped set the rules for FL and MI (It’s also worth noting, though I can only speculate, that Obama would probably have done pretty well in MI if his name was on the ballot).
<
p>Here’s some background on Ickes et al.
<
p>The closer is interesting too:
<
p>
<
p>I can understand “despicable”; that’s a judgment call about the campaign. But “fraudulent”? The only fraud that occurred was carried out by Clinton’s strategists, who got paid good money to come up with a second-rate strategy.
<
p>I could comment about stuff like “far left elite,” but I won’t.
<
p>If you really think going with a guy who’s known to call his wife the c-word in public (Google for Mccain trollop; I won’t insert or link to the quote here) is suitable revenge for your disappointment, have at it, but I think there are better options out there.
<
p>And you may want to get with the Nader people and see if their play in 2000 worked to their advantage.
of lame and delusional political petitions. And to think its coming from people within the Democratic Party.
<
p>Hillary deserves a lot better than that. She ran a damn good campaign and stayed alive for a long time when the chips were down. She can go out of this race with her head held high. It would be nice to see her dignity preserved.
The bias of the DNC? Gimme a break. The Clintons were the DNC, they had all the big names with em to start. They put the E in establishment.
<
p>But they got outplayed this time – got beat – and now its the rules, the bias, the media – anything but them.
<
p>All the candidates went into the race in full agreement of the rules. Point blank. No complaints. But now, with the inevitable and apparently entitled Clintons about to go down its all a big plot. And I thought the Republicans were the chief purveyors of lunatic conspiracy theories.
<
p>I posted here to get some positive feedback about winning in November. You’d rather lick your wounds and peddle nonsense. Thanks for the help.
…your request is a bit premature.
<
p>No offense…I want the Dems to win in November, too. But I’m still supporting Hillary as long as she’s in it. Once that changes, I’m happy to have this discussion.
and give some good feedback. I just figured since you all seemed to be diagnosing Obama’s weaknesses, often correctly, you all my have some good ideas for how he could remedy some of them and reach out to some folks who have not come on board.
<
p>Its always easy to criticize.
You did post a very thoughtful and appealing call for unity and thanks for that. While I’m not associating myself with the “petition” effort, I do think that the Dean “Administration” at the DNC did very little to try to resolve those two states early on. The Republicans said very clearly at the start, we’re taking half your delegates, end of story. The Democrats fiddled and diddled, to use an old term, and whether it was to help her opponent or not, it certainly had that effect.
<
p>Now, to get back to what is needed on the “unity” front, obviously a lot of people would feel better, if he is the nominee, with HRC as the #2. Failing that, a Rendell, Bayh, Strickland type who was big for HRC also sends a good message. Making some outreach to womens groups, Latinos, etc is also important. The road is there.
<
p>Having said that, unlike the front-runners and bandwagon jumpers who are so prevalent in Washington, we should see what the rest of the primaries and the rules committee bring.
By counting FL and MI while pretending that not a single person voting for Uncommitted in MI was actually voting for Obama? By pretending that no one chose any candidates in Caucus states? If that is what “popular vote” means, how is that a fair representation of what the voters want when you disenfranchise huge swaths of the electorate? Do you really think that anyone not already in Clinton’s camp is going to be convinced by such a biased statistic?
that’s why we are having this discussion.
Barack Obama is basically declaring himself the nominee. But it’s not that easy.
<
p>Someone needs to tell Barack that he hasn’t won yet. The Republicans are just beginning to savage him. Feigning indignity only get one so far in the top job.
<
p>Yes, we will ultimately all unite. But When Hillary wins the nomination, maybe she will consider having Barack as V.P. on her ticket.
Yes, Obama hasn’t won yet, but I assume you are joking about Clinton winning the nomination. I think it is pretty clear that the superdelegates are going over to Obama now despite creaming Obama in WV and the projection that Clinton will win both KY and PR. Unless she can get already declared/pledged delegates to switch (back) to her, she needs to win more than 75% of the remaining delegates when she hasn’t won a single state by anything near that kind of margin. Realistically speaking, the only way she becomes the nominee is if something really bad happens to Obama, and if that happened she would become the nominee regardless of whether she had dropped out of the race or not, so apart from trying to catch up on her campaign debt, I don’t know why she is staying in.
<
p>The fact is that there will be no official nominee until the vote is held at the convention, but I really hope that it doesn’t take until then for everyone in the party to unite behind Obama as the eventual nominee.
in coming up with solutions for Obama’s problems. While we’re at it, why don’t you come up with strategies for Hillary? He’s not my candidate, and the race isn’t over. It’s almost amusing to hear Obama supporters paying lip service to Hillary’s campaign while suggesting that we all start talking about Obama as if he’s the nominee.
<
p>I’m seeing a little too much of Obama supporters exhibiting this faux concern lately, because they need Hillary’s supporters in the Fall. It funny how all I could read for months was what a duplicitous witch she is, hell bent on desatroying the party for her own selfish interests. Now it’s “she’s run a tough race, I admire her, she’ll be a great leader in the party.” What BS. There’s a little too much water under the bridge for that. It reminds me of Obama pontificating about how we should be talking about issues, and not the sideshow stuff, when the Rev. Wright controversy and “bitter” remarks were starting to hurt him. But he was strangely silent about the “tone” of the campaign when his supporters were working overtime to portray the Clintons as racists.
<
p>And statements like “While Hillary echoes Republican belligerency with threats to obliterate whole nations” certainly don’t help. Hillary said “they have to know we can obliterate them.” That’s called deterrence. It’s not a threat to take action. I seem to recall Obama saying he would undertake a military incursion into Pakistan, whether the Pakistanis approved or njot. That differs from Republican belligerence how? As for the bitch thing, I think you’re dismissing it a little blithley. I’m sure a lot of the sexist comments directed at Hillary go right past Obama supporters, but there’s no question that they have been a big part off this campaign. And the difference from the racism is that the sexist comments routinely come from the lips of pundits, newscasters and polticians, with no outcry from the public, while any comment from the Clintons that can be somewhow construed as racist becomes part of the conventional wisdom. Orlando Patterson wrote an op-ed in the NY Times, in which he said Hillary’s 3 a.m. phone call ad implied that if Hillary wasn’t President, a “scary black man” would be answering the phone. WTF?
<
p>I also think Obama supporters are kidding themselves about his grace under fire. He enjoyed an unbelievable honeymoon with the press(that still endures, albeit with less intensity) yet when Gibson and Stephanopolous hit him with questions that, while they may have been trivial, he should have seen coming, he was totally rattled. Let’s face it, he exhibits grace because he tries to stick to situations where he’s presenting scripted remarks to large rallies. When he and Hillary debated policy in Philadelphia (a part of the derbate his supporters seem to want to ignore) she cleaned his clock.
<
p>As I’ve said before, I’ll vote for him as an anti-McCain vote, but I have no enthusiasm for the man. I think he’s a phony, he’s unprepared, and he has the potential to be a disaster. Good luck with your candidate.
A lot of good points here. And I know that we cannot all love the guy, nor accept the late-stage commendations of Obama supporters toward Hillary. I mean what I said about how I think she ran a great race but I know I have been critical at other times. I think she was the best thing about her campaign – if only she trusted her instincts earlier in the contest and not let Mark Penn and others run her as the inevitable incumbent.
<
p>Obama people have been pretty nasty about her at times, me included, and some of that was just heat of the battle defensive stuff, much of which was regrettable. I think Obama stayed a lot cleaner than many of his supporters did and I think he deserves credit for that.
<
p>And look – an anti-McCain vote is the right vote. This has always been about more than either candidate.
Thanks for the great post.. but think about writing in Hillary. I think in MA we can safely execute a principled vote for her without fear of electing McCain. Besides, a strong Democratic Congress/Senate will thwart any attempts at appointing conservative Supreme Court nominations, unfavorable legislation, etc.
<
p>What I admire about Sen Clinton.. she is a Democrat first…and a politician second. She is a class act and is going to call for party unity when the nomination is decided despite the unrelenting vitriol, assaults and disappointments hurled her way this contest by MSM and Democratic foes. She has shown her leadership skills and resolve by the mere fact she is still standing.
<
p>What I find troubling about Sen. Obama.. He has not engaged in debates since he failed. He has not engaged in Town Hall meetings since he has stumbled repeatedly with unscripted comments. He has not talked to the press since “sweetie”. Obama will not travel to rural areas in Appalachia since his own comments about racists bitter small town Americans. He has retreated to friendly turf.
<
p>This is not the character of a leader. It has everything with to do with marketing an image and denying voters the chance to know you. JFK, for example, walked right into W. Virginia, as a Catholic, and got their vote. That is a leader. Obama is no leader. Obama is no JFK