As far as the alleged "it's all about me" business, see, e.g., Boehlert.

Perpetuating toxic myths like this doesn't do much for Party Unity.
 

PLEASE- just let it go already!

What is the point of this post?
 

Since when is "party unity" a goal of Balkinization?

Hillary did a nice job last night, and I hope her supporters move over to Obama now. But who got them so riled up in the first place, even after it was clear she would not get the nomination?
 

With only half of Hillary Clinton's primary voters saying that they would vote for Barrack Obama in the fall and about a quarter saying that they would vote for McCain, the Obama campaign was looking for Clinton to give a speech calling for her voters to rally around Barrack Obama. On the surface, Clinton gave them what they wanted. However, Clinton's convention speech was far more notable for what it did not say.

During the Dem convention, John McCain has been running commercials with clips of Clinton and Obama's VP pick joe Biden arguing during the Dem primaries that McCain was qualified to be President and Obama's only qualification is that he gives good speeches.

McCain's continuation of the Clinton argument that Obama is unqualified to be President is resonating with voters as polls show that McCain leads Obama by double digits as the candidate voters believe would make the best leader and commander-in-chief.

Thus, what Clinton needed but pointedly declined to say to her voters is that she believes Barrack Obama is qualified to be President. Instead, Hillary made an argument to party loyalty, saying that she was a good Dem and would support Obama as the nominee of the party.

The problem with this argument to party loyalty is that the Hillary voters who are planning now to vote for McCain are not loyal Dems. Rather, they are the blue collar working class Reagan Dems who have been voting more often than not to elect GOP Presidents for the past generation. They are swing voters who want a reason to vote for a candidate. Hillary did not give them a reason to vote for Obama.
 

Huh? The Clintons are terrible at winning elections? It seems that prose and facts have almost totally parted company here.
 

"Since when is "party unity" a goal of Balkinization?"

Apparently since about the middle of paragraph 2 of the instant post.
 

Whoa!
The point of my post is a typical lawprof move -- to imagine what the situation would be like if the positions of the candidates were reversed.
As Mary Dudziak points out, all you have to do is check out today's WP, WSJ and yesterday's NYT. You'll clue in to what I'm talking about.
And why would I be saying that party unity is the point of this blog? But it is a goal of the Democratic Party and we outside observers can evaluate how much success they are having. That's all.
 

BTW, or today's LA Times. Check out the analysis by McManus and Abcarian.
 

"...what Clinton needed but pointedly declined to say to her voters is that she believes Barrack Obama is qualified to be President."

Bart, why is it that right-wingers feel compelled to mis-spell Barack Obama's name? Well, at least you steered clear of the "Barack Osama" cliche.

But seriously, I think you are right. It's pretty obvious that McCain will use Hillary's past claims of Obama's inexperience as campaign talking points. Hillary's convention speech was a good opportunity to nip that in the bud. It doesn't make much sense to NOT undermine a key theme of your adversary's campaign when there is a perfect moment to do so.
 

My apologies to Mr. Obama. It is not exactly a common first name. Now I have to go and check for typos on my blog. Thanks for the heads up.
 

My "Since when" comment was so compressed that it appeared to be critical of the post. The post was just fine by me.

My point was that it is worth pointing out that the Clintons stoked resentment among their supporters even after it was clear she was not going to get the nomination.
 

"The point of my post is a typical lawprof move -- to imagine what the situation would be like if the positions of the candidates were reversed."

As I recall, such a move would usually be done in the context of some sort of rule that played an organizing role in the discussion. I didn't catch that organizing element in the original post.

Anyway, there are a couple of real howlers here. First, as Sean noted, we are entering another dimension with this suggestion that the Clintons lack skill when it comes to winning elections. WJC's success speaks for itself. But even HRC only barely lost to Barack -- who since his 2004 DNC speech has been something of a phenom. (Yes, I know HRC enjoyed vast structural advantages ex ante; then again, she was also saddled with a strikingly uninspiring speaking style, Clinton Rules, and...a strikingly uninspiring speaking style.)

Second, the notion that a Clinton 2008 ticket would have yielded a resentment-free DNC is utterly fantastical in my view. Even had Clinton eked it out "fair and square" (that is, without having to rely on legimate "superdelegate" votes), we'd almost certainly never have heard the end of how the Clintons stole the nomination through the party cabal's machinations in smoke-filled rooms, WJC's race-card dealing and HRC's pining for a reprise of the Kennedy assassination in '68.

Even now -- after HRC lost -- we hear grumblings from Obama supporters that the Clintons were "stoking resentment among their supporters" (see above) along with complaints (emanating perhaps as frequently from GOP hacks as from Obama supporters) that if HRC were truly sincere in her support for Obama she wouldn't have failed to say that p (where 'p' denotes some semantic content HRC merely conversationally implicated rather than uttered verbatim). So count me skeptical that we'd be better in the peace-and-harmony department had HRC actually won.

Aside from all that, yeah, we'd be "reading stories" about those awful, awful Clintons. I don't deny that.
 

"Bart" DeHeadUpHisA$$:

It [Barack] is not exactly a common first name.

"... matter of fact, seeing as I only read OpinionJournalOnline, the National Review, and the RW foamer sites, and watch Fox News (who regularly label any indicted or disgraced Republican as a Democrat), I have never seen it spelled correctly -- if at all -- up to this point. Pardon my ignerrence."

Just another example of a RWer not taking responsibility.

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DeGOPflack:

Thus, what Clinton needed but pointedly declined to say to her voters is that she believes Barrack Obama is qualified to be President.

Sorry, I didn't see the "pointedly". She also didn't say that pi is 3.1415926535... and that gravitational acceleration is 32'/sec^2.

But the Big Dog took care of "Bart"'s nonsense, and pointed out that the Rethuglicans said the very same things about him not being "ready" in 1992, but we had the most amasing run of peace and prosperity the next eight years. Of course, Dubya walked in with just the weak experience of the Texas gubnorship under his belt )alng with a strign of failed business ventures), so "inexperience" is hardly a qualifying mark.

What needs to be looked at is the background and experience of teh candidates.

Both Clinton and Obama show this, raising themselves up from humble beginnings and showing true achievement even early in life. They both show an inquisitive and sharp mind, an ability to look at situations as a whole and evaluate them carefully.

This is what Dubya lacked ... in spades. Handed a silver spoon, the proceeded to make a mishmash of all his opportunities. The contrast is obvious.

And for McSame, he's hardly distinguished himself either; a child of privileged background whose signature issue ("Noun. Verb. Pow!") seems to have been the singular event of getting shot down while bombing people on the ground.

Cheers,
 

OK, if you are not impressed with Hillary and Obama VP pick Joe Biden calling Obama inexperienced and unqualified to be President, how about when President Clinton, Dem Sen. Chris Dodd and The One himself argue that Obama is unprepared to be President?

The McCain campaign timed this latest ad to coincide with Barack Obama's acceptance speech from Mt. Olympus at Mile High.

Nice timing.
 

"Bart", indefatigable flogger of the GOP "talking points":

The McCain campaign timed this latest ad to coincide with Barack Obama's acceptance speech from Mt. Olympus at Mile High.

"Mt. Olympus", eh? See here and here.

Hypocrites to the bone and eedjits to boot....

Word to the wise, "Bartster". Stop parroting stoopid RNC "talking points" and you won't look so much like a clueless partisan hack/Ditto-Bot.

Cheers,
 

And I notice that "Bart" has ignored the fact that his favourite preznit Dubya is a complete loser; candidate for Worst Presnit in History (an accolade that may well be bestowed on him by acclamation).

And FWIW, having the consummate DC insiders Cheney and Rumsfeld on his staff did nothing to prevent the disasters he managed to call down on us....

No, we could do without four more years of the last eight.

As Kucinich said, they don't deserve four more years; they deserve 10-20 ... with no possibility of early parole.

Cheers,
 

arne:

Mr. Obama is not viewed as presumptuous because of his Mt. Olympus backdrop tonight. Rather the backdrop merely feeds into his long established rep for self grandiosity.

Mr. Obama cemented his rep for being presumptuous with his rock star tour of the Middle East and the EU culminating in the Berlin rally of his EU supporters. The convention speech's Mt Olympus backdrop was conceived by Brittany Spears' stage manager as yet another rock star back drop before the rock star foreign tour.

Unfortunately, by the time McCain skewered the Obama rock star foreign tour in a series of "celebrity" themed commercials and eliminated Obama's poll lead, it was too late for the campaign to change the rock star style back drop at the convention. Look for video clips from this speech with this back drop to make it into future commercials, especially if the crowd starts chanting or if Obama starts his religious imagery again.

Obama's task tonight is not to give the press a chill up their legs and thrill his supporters. He has the press and his supporters locked up. Rather, Obama has to think about assembling a majority of the electorate to win in November.

Americans like their patrician politicians to be credible leaders while also appearing to be regular guys with whom they could have a beer and shoot the breeze. I know this is largely an illusion, but the customer/voter is always right and you give them what they want.

Bush is most certainly part of American political royalty, but his mangling of the English language with a Texas twang and clearing brush around his mansion/vacation home in Texas makes him look like a regular guy.

Obama's problem is that his approach to speaking was informed by academia and Rev. Wright's sermons - rambling "on one hand or on the other hand" discussions of the issues punctuated with religious imagery. While this may sound educated and inspiring to his followers, blue collar workers and the people they know do not speak that way and it places Obama outside their universe. They want plain talk.

Obama really ought to pay close attention to Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. They could both give wonderful speeches with high flown rhetoric, but they also knew how to speak in plain, straight forward language which connected with every day people. Ron and Bill could also tell self deprecating jokes which made it seem they did not take themselves too seriously. Hell, Clinton refined his technique by studying Reagan's campaigns.

Unfortunately for Obama, I really think he has let the crowds of supporters go to his head and he is probably unteachable at this moment. Thus, you will probably see more of the same tonight. You will be thrilled if you are a fan, but I doubt he wins any new fans tonight.
 

What change? What new politics? What reaching across the aisle?

Did Obama offer anything that here that is fundamentally different from the Gore and Kerry acceptance speeches?
 

Baghdad, no one gives a fuck what a fascist scumbag like you thinks about Obama's speech.
 

"Bart":

Mr. Obama is not viewed as presumptuous because of his Mt. Olympus backdrop tonight. Rather the backdrop merely feeds into his long established rep for self grandiosity.

You miss the point (as always). The Rethuglicans have put up similar displays. You're just parroting the "talking points" that the RNC Mighty Wurlitzer feeds you, without even thinking about it. That's pretty stoopid, "Bart". ANd insulting to us here. We see through it (because we're informed, and can see that it's all a bucket'o'sh*te from your propaganda master, slop aimed at the lowest intellects around).

Cheers,
 

"Bart" said: "The convention speech's Mt Olympus backdrop was conceived by Brittany Spears' stage manager as yet another rock star back drop before the rock star foreign tour."

Straight out of Hannity's show. Get your own material, "Bart". You wouldn't look like such a teat-sucker....

Unfortunately, by the time McCain skewered the Obama rock star foreign tour in a series of "celebrity" themed commercials ....

In your dreams. The Paris Hilton commercial had more effect. The one that she did.

Obama's task tonight is not to give the press a chill up their legs....

That's the moron, "Tweety" Matthews. He also got a hard-on from Dubya. WTF cares?!?!?

Bush is most certainly part of American political royalty, but his mangling of the English language with a Texas twang and clearing brush around his mansion/vacation home in Texas makes him look like a regular guy.

Makes him look stoopid. Waiddaminnit. He is stoopid I think, after the last eight years, people are beginning to see that such is not as attractive as it once was. Not to mention, Dubya's no cowboy; that was a "Rent-A-Ranch" ... as they'd say, "All hat, no cattle". And people are starting to see that as well.

If you need to look for false images, just look to your party, and Dubya, with his cinched up parachute harness and his faux "ranch". You derided a true war hero with purple Band-Aids in a vomit-inducing episode of meanness and hypocrisy ... and extol the manliness of a person whose only 'war injuries' came from falling off bar stools dead drunk. You people are the height of dishonesty and hypocrisy. And I will smile as you are all buried.

Cheers,
 

"Bart":

What change? What new politics? What reaching across the aisle?

Did Obama offer anything that here that is fundamentally different from the Gore and Kerry acceptance speeches?

Yes. Not that you'd notice.

But FWIW, WFT should he "reach across the aisle"? Our task is to turn the current Rethuglican brand into something no one will touch with a twenty foot pole, and then see if maybe the Republican base will come to their senses and elect some real Republicans (like Lowell Weicker, and some of the other New England moderates) who we can actually work with....

Step one is massive investigations into the entire range of criminality, cronyism, incompetence, and deception of the present Republicans.

Cheers,
 

Very awesome post , i am really impressed with it a lot


فوائد الزنجبيل
فوائد الرمان فوائد الحلبة فوائد البصل فوائد الزعتر فوائد زيت السمسم علاج البواسير فوائد اليانسون فوائد الكركم قصص جحا صور يوم الجمعه علامات الحمل تعريف الحب حياة البرزخ فوائد الزبيب

 

True friendship comes when the silence between two people is comfortable.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya