So what does everyone think about the state of the presidential primaries?

[beachmom]

First, I think what Josh Marshall had to say early this morning is a must read:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/181524.php

Final Thoughts

The big headlines tonight are now in focus. Hillary takes three of four primaries, and the two big states. Yet the delegate spread didn't budge. The possibilities seem to range from a high-single digit pick up for Hillary to the possibility of a net pick up for Obama. So, big headlines and buzz for Hillary, but the same stubborn picture on the pledged delegate front.

...

A lot's getting said tonight. And a lot of it is baseless speculation. But the one thing that rings true to me is this: The Clinton campaign got rough and nasty over the last week-plus. And they got results. That may disgust you or it may inspire you with confidence in Hillary's abilities as a fighter. But wherever you come down on that question is secondary to the fact that that's how campaign's work. Opponents get nasty. And what we've seen over the last week is nothing compared to what Barack Obama would face this fall if he hangs on and wins the nomination.

So I think the big question is, can he fight back? Can he take this back to Hillary Clinton, demonstrate his ability to take punches and punch back? By this I don't mean that he's got to go ballistic on her or go after Bill's business deals or whatever else her vulnerabilities might be. Candidates fight in different ways and if they're good candidates in ways that play to their strengths and cohere with their broader message. But he's got to show he can take this back to Hillary and not get bloodied and battered when an opponent decides to lower the boom. That will obviously determine in a direct sense how he fares in the coming primaries and caucuses. And Obama's people are dead right when they say, he doesn't even have to do that well from here on out to end this with a substantial pledged delegate margin.

...

... I don't think a small margin of pledged delegates will be enough if Obama looks like a damaged candidate who seems unable to fight off a determined and ruthless opponent. Just hanging on to the margin he banked in February won't be enough because fundamentally, if neither candidate has it locked by the convention, the super delegates will want to pick the candidate who looks like the general election winner and is the favorite of Democrats at the time of the convention, two qualifiers which are in practice two sides of the same coin.

I don't think the above is a likely scenario. In fact, I think it's quite unlikely. Almost everything remains stacked against Hillary. There's no denying that. But I think this does point to what this debate -- literal and meta -- will turn on over the next couple weeks.

I want to be as even handed as I can be in the Kerry forum, since I know there are some longtime Kerry supporters who are backing Clinton. But I don't care for the Clinton campaign's tactics -- they remind me too much of Karl Rove and George Bush. When it comes down to it, there are two main areas for which people vote for a candidate: their positions on the issues and their character. With Kerry, it was easy, because he had both. I guess 2008 will not be that easy.

There are positive sides for this race to continue: it actually blocks out McCain making his case to the American people, since the focus will be more on the conflict resolution story of the Democrats. It will fire up the Democratic base and organization in the remaining states. It will continue to test Obama's readiness to be a general election candidate.

However, I think last night was mostly a negative development for our party. First and foremost, we are absolutely nowhere near having a nominee, and won't for months to come. Hillary simply cannot mathematically catch up to Obama on the pledged delegate count. I have read some preliminary estimates, and her Big Night will net her delegates possibly in the single digits, whereas Obama was ahead going in by 150 delegates. So her hail mary will be the superdelegates, which brings us to Denver and a very divisive convention. The Republicans don't have to wait like we do. They have calculated that Obama will win the nomination, and are planning on rolling out a full scale negative campaign on him NOW. They will be attacking him nonstop throughout the remaining primaries, and figure they can define him before he will be able to define himself as the nominee. Many people have blamed him for not fighting back on right wing smears; well, he isn't the nominee yet. He needs to defeat Hillary first, and I think some thinking needs to go into how to win a two front war against Hillary and the Right, who have been playing tag team (I am not suggesting collusion, just that they are both attacking Obama, often in a similar fashion), as he is deemed a threat to both of them. Meanwhile, Hillary ran a near 100% negative campaign against Obama in the last week, which will drive up her negatives which are already sky high. The passion people feel is also extremely high leading to a concentrated sour grapes when one of them wins, in (sigh) Denver. There is also the race factor which reared its ugly head in the exit polls from Ohio -- people who named race as an important factor broke for Hillary 3 to 1. Even if you support Hillary, that is an extremely depressing piece of data.

I am worried a bit about John Kerry, especially if it really gets tight on the superdelegate votes. Because Massachusetts went for Hillary, and we have no definitive outcome on this race, what will he do? The situation just sucks all around, and I don't say this as someone who has supported Obama. Rather, it sucks because we have no clear nominee and to get one will be a bloodbath in the party. I would be disappointed but accepting if Hillary had cleanly gotten the nomination. Even with the negative campaigning. But she is arguing to override the pledged delegate count at the convention in order to get the nomination. And I may add, I am fine with a new primary being held in Florida and Michigan where campaigning takes place and all. But even then, she still won't have the numbers and it will come down to a superdelegate count contrary to the pledged delegate count. The only way that would be acceptable is if the Obama campaign were to collapse or some horrible scandal erupted, either scenario of which I doubt will come to pass.

What does everyone else think? And this is the Kerry forum, where I hope supporters of both candidates chime in. This is about out party after all, and the issues John Kerry cares about. We need the Democrat to win in November, and I am really afraid that the divisiveness in the Democratic Party will be the opening McCain, an already formidable opponent with his appeal to Independents, needed to seal the deal for 2008.

[blm]

1. I say Obama should FIGHT IT OUT on the Open Government issue against Clintons AND Bushes.

And since McCain was on board with Bushes it effects him, too. Especially since Keating was also part of BCCI.

He would have the best advocate in the world on that issue - John Kerry, who shouldn't concern himself with protecting Clintons for the sake of the party, anymore. They are evil and are no different than Bushes when it comes to using a party and wrecking it for their own conceits.

[beachmom]

3. "Open government" I would put in the character side of the argument. Now bear me out:

I think that open government is a concept that has a constituency in BOTH PARTIES. Libertarians gotta love open government as do liberals looking for good, clean government. I think you have it right that this issue is the foundation for all other issues, although it is possible to garner some gains in a secret special interests government, it's only that it could be flawed, sometimes fundamentally flawed.

I think Obama should also go on the attack; however, using his strengths with an overarching message of hope. He also needs to deal with being attacked by the press. He had some rough moments this past week, but I hope that he has learned from his mistakes.

Still, BLM, you cannot deny that a lot of Democrats don't care about open government. They don't even know what it is. The results of the primaries has shown that many Democrats are willing to look the other way on the Clintons' past in exchange for "going back to the '90s". So I don't know if this attack will be effective unless rolled out properly within the context of Obama's message.

BTW, I just saw that Hillary is arguing for a unity ticket. Hmmm.

[blm]

4. They'd know what it is if Kerry and Feingold get on the shows and PRESS THE ISSUE and why

closed government led to Bush2, 9-11 and this Iraq war, not to mention the push for war with Iran.

I'd also like to see Obama camp TAP Robert Parry as a spokesperson on THIS ISSUE, or at least have Parry help shape the argument for his other spokespeople.

THIS is the issue to bury BOTH Bushes and Clintons, and Dems have to stop being AFRAID of it.

[karynnj]

7. I think it will take decades before people will be willing to hear those types of truth

In 2004, I thought of Kerry as almost the "stealth" agent on this. He could not and did not run on what he fought against the government on the Contras and BCCI. On BCCI, he mentioned only the international crime part of it. He never spoke of how this foreign bank with terrorist ties had co-oped people in both parties and had extended their tentacles into our banking system. We were and are a very traumatized country - exposing all he knew of the complicity of many administrations - would force people to see extremely unpleasant truths that they could no accept even in a time of strength. Emotionally, rejecting the messenger is just so much easier.

Consider what the RW did with the Durbin comment on torture or even the Kerry comment on people being traumatized when soldiers who can't speak their language knock on their doors in the dead of night. Both those comments were based on well known rather simple facts. The things you speak of are not common wisdom and they are complicated. I remember having a very hard time completely accepting even that the US allowed cocaine into the country to support the Contras. This was in spite of trusting Kerry and distrusting anyone involved with the Contras.

In 2004, what I hoped was that Kerry would win and shift away from that type of foreign policy. I would hope that his Justice Department would meticulously investigate it and issue a report either in the transition period if he was not re-elected or late in his second term. Why that timing? Having changed the policy, the damage would not be continuing and addressing this woeful history would mean no capital to deal with the agenda he had. I really think this is the only way this will end.

[MarjorieG]

10. Something from Parry

Obama would have to connect the idea, again, that whatever policies we both have, nothing happens without lessening the grip on DC.

We have to meet this 35 years experience more head on. Obama and Kerry have mentioned that her people couldn't defend her 3:00 moment.

Can't say more, I'm too upset. I hadn't watched TV news since 2004, and have to go back in hiding. I can't take hearing how she won her base and then some. How race has become important. I so want the Clintons to go away, because no cause is greater to them than their personal gain. All those rallies, debates, newspaper endorsements meant nothing if they could run a negative ad last minute. He ran the Leader ad, while she's running an ugly, shadowy campaign.

From Parry: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/022608.html

According to what's been printed, the conservative Canadian gov't had a hand in intruding in our primary, not wanting to renogiate NAFTA, or move the country Democratic. Do I mention they now have our electronics from Diebold? We'll never know what was said in that interview, but Obama never changes his pitch, even to audiences which like NAFTA.

I hope we can survive with the same hope and ideals.

[MBS]

11. I'm flabbergasted that folks in OH (and TX and RI?) seemed to have bought the

cynical fearmongering and cheap shots.. DEMOCRATS bought this s____, even after watching 7 years of these tactic with Rove/Bushco. Hugely disappointing, and, to use sandnsea's word, baffling.

[karynnj]

13. Don't forget the Demographics in these 2 states ALWAYS had favored Clinton

She was 20 points ahead, 2 weeks before. He never really polled ahead in Ohio and in Texas the amount was small. Those negatives ads did work. I wonder if we've heard the full story on the NAFTA thing - I think the Obama campaign botched it- but if the Canadians created the issue on purpose that's a problem.

[MBS]

27. Excellent reminder, thanks.

On the evening talk shows (Tucker Carlson. . ), Obama's foreign policy advisor was giving the whole story about NAFTA, and the story was, at best, (and I put this euphemistically) a very (deliberately?) twisted version of the truth.

[ladym55]

37. I live in Ohio and I'm embarrassed

Sadly I think race matters here far too much. As my son so delicately pointed out to me earlier this evening, Hillary won the uneducated white racist vote. Hillary had the state Democratic Party machine in her corner, so she had got the best venues, support, etc. that Obama didn't get. Even so, she still needed to turn on the hate and fear in the last few days to pull it out.

I was deeply moved a few weeks ago when I went to an Obama rally. It was multi-age and multi-racial. It was the best of Ohio. Then yesterday we did our worst ... again.

It didn't help that the weather yesterday was horrible. The ice storm in Cleveland (Cuyahoga County) was really, really bad. And it didn't help that the nitwits in Cuyahoga didn't run enough ballots!!!! But of course the local media is playing that down.

[blm]

49. What part of Ohio?

I grew up in Cleveland suburbs.

[ladym55]

55. I live in the Akron area

Although the county party said they didn't endorse a presidential candidate, I noticed that Clinton's events were held at the University, she was at the party's fundraiser, etc. Obama spoke at the convention center, which had no seating for the 6,000+ who attended. State Senator Tom Sawyer spoke at the event and Congressman Tim Ryan was in attendance, along with some city council members. The mayor wasn't there, and I don't think the county executive came either.

[karynnj]

6. If she said unity ticket with the pledged delegate winner as President

I would be more impressed. (It is scary that many superdelegates could come to see HRC/Obama as the only way to avoid a bloodbath - telling Obama that he is young. Thus rewarding all Clinton's bad behavior)

[Inuca]

16. Of course this is not wha she said/implied

Just saw the clip. I think the reason she seems to "like" the idea (while Obama does not, and rightfully so) is exactly what you wrote above, a way to sway SDs, given that she cannot win on pledged delegates. I am VERY upset by the likely implications of last night, this whole thing is turning into a nightmare.

[Inuca]

2. Great post beachmom

I tried to write a bit about how I feel in the BO forum, given my feelings it's better suited for that forum... I feel too demoralized (not to mention not enough sleep from last night) to comment on your throughtful points right now, but I am really looking forward to what others may add to the discussion. It's most definitely a discussion worth having.

[karynnj]

5. I agree with you and think this nomination is already turning into a disaster

I am hoping that part of that feeling is the same as the negative feeling I had on SuperTuesday when HRC won many states I had hoped against logic she would lose. I had set my own expectations (hopes really) far too high. This made a result that I would have never thought possible a month earlier seem disappointing. In February, I had worried that the bar had been set too high. I feared that Obama would lose something - maybe Maine - and it would be declared that he didn't make the expectations set.

That happened again yesterday. Because of Obama's successes, what had been a bar the Clinton campaign had to jump - became one that Obama had to make. Yet he prevented HRC achieving what she said she would in early February. Ohio and Texas were the states HRC declared to be the battle ground because they strongly favored her by their Demographics. Even 2 weeks ago she was up about 20 points. He gained ground - even with Obama being hit by attack ads by HRC and by the right win. The cable media coverage was nearly all negative last weekend was unrelentingly negative on Obama. He also mishandled the NAFTA/Canada thing and in the debates, gave HRC a huge opening. Still, the numbers did not fall to pieces.

Since 2004, if not before, the Clintons have played hardball on this nomination. They spent 2 years creating the idea that only Clintons could win and set things up her HRC. What is amazing is that with all the party support and the media declaring her campaign flawless - when it clearly wasn't - she actually is at this point. Could you imagine where a man or woman of character, experience and creativity (we can think of one easily) would be with that kind of party and media support? It would have ended on SuperTuesday. Obama and his team have done an incredible job. Their organization and ability to get people out is exceptional. I do hope they will go after the Clinton lies in an understated but definitive way - on CNN this morning, she used Bill Clinton's lie that there was no difference between Obama and Bush in what to do on Iraq and she spoke of negotiating to open borders in Macedonia and bringing peace to Northern Ireland. These are all lies. I think the Obama team has hesitated to call HER a liar, but they have to counter this.

With everything, a part of me wishes that that team Obama has were supporting a genuinely experienced candidate, fully vetted with no ethical problems. As to Kerry, I like that he is not saying anything that we know he doesn't believe and that he is responding very well to attacks without any personal animosity or nastiness. He was the most reasonable person that either side had. As to superdelegates, I think he needs to stay consistent to what he said - it is a high ground position. I suspect that the reason Clinton went after him and Kennedy is to create a belief that they have an obligation to vote as their state did. There is no precedent here and that was never the intention. Consider what happens if all ELECTED OFFICIALS vote as their constituents did - that should result in a distribution close to the pledged delegates - though it could be slightly different, but not 100 delegate different.

Given current estimates, if all elected politicians did this, Obama will likely be ahead on pledged delegates plus the elected delegate portion of the superdelegates. Then, who is left? The party insiders. Do we want an election where the pledged delegates are ignored, the elected officials are pushed to voluntarily surrender their king making power - not to the people, but to party insiders - like Terry McAuliffe! (If I am right on the elected officials - actually computing the distribution still favors Obama - arguing that it is not wrong for elected officials to prevent it being the choice of non-elected, non- accountable, party insiders, seems a no-brainer.)

[sandnsea]

8. People continue to baffle me

That's about all I've gotten out of this primary, so far.

[MBS]

9. Ditto ditto ditto!

Bafflement is the perfect word h ere.

Late for work, so I'll only offer a brief reply to all the thoughtful comments on this thread. No time to make this diplomatic. It's obvious that I'm an Obama supporter, and JK supporters who are not are free to dismiss my comments

1) a "unity" ticket is a non-starter, especially after all the nastiness (with more to come, I'm afraid).
Anyone who thinks that a joint ticket is a viable idea is deluding themselves. (In HRC's case, I assume the proposition just a political maneuver, and I take it seriously ONLY in the context of "I wonder what she's up to now).
2) if HRC forces/manipulates herself to the nomination by bending the rules, or bending the superdelegates, or continuing to play dirty, our democracy is finished. To see the energy and hopefulness of people, especially that of the Millenials, thwarted by old-time maneuvers.. I think it would precipitate a real crisis (If she wins legitimately, like beachmom, I"d be most disappointed
3) I think JK has been great.
4) I pray that Obama can do what needs to be done here. His latest email gave me hope that he will.

[whometense]

12. I'm already AT work,

and so don't have MBS's excuse for not being diplomatic. Let's just say I'm biting my tongue.

My first thought last night was for the enthusiasm she mentioned among the millennials - I've seen evidence of that within my own family, from kids who felt really burned by the 2004 election results. My daughter slogged through an ice storm yesterday to cast her ballot in Cleveland. When they called Ohio for Clinton so early (right after I heard Chuck Todd say on MSNBC that they wouldn't have the Cleveland votes counted until something like 4:30am), she immediately texted me saying "WHAT??????"

I've been religiously following the calculations of Al Giordano at The Field, which calm me, as they are based solely on math and remain unbuffeted by the emotional winds, and I'm trying to ignore the rest.

What I think about Hillary's conduct as a candidate - and as a person - will remain unstated in this forum. I do have faith in the truly intelligent campaign Obama has run. I wish I had as much faith in my fellow citizens, especially those of-a-certain-age.

[Mass]

14. The Field has a great analysis of what the Clinton camp did well during this primary.

and some are very pertinent. I

http://208.122.14.138/thefield/?p=838

What Clinton Did Right, What Obama Did Wrong

In the context of that it’s the delegate count that matters and – as we await the fleshing out of the results from the Texas caucuses – last night was at best, for Clinton, a draw in the battle for Democratic National Convention delegates, and may not even be that for her once all is counted…

As the Great Mentioners – Halperin and Fournier, among them – are today emphasizing the very points we made yesterday (that it’s the delegate count, stupid!), the Clinton campaign deserves a lot of credit for what it did right, achieving, at least, a ticket out of March 4 to remain in the contest.

1. The Clinton campaign worked rural areas of Ohio and Texas much harder than the Obama campaign. Bill Clinton worked from Texarkana to Pennsyltucky in smaller media markets and gained lots of local free media and decent sized crowds. And I’ll repeat: crowds do matter, even more so in regions that rarely see them in politics. Since Obama doesn’t have a surrogate of equal drawing power, these are areas that Obama had to go to himself, but with few exceptions, he did not. That was a reversal of his winning strategies in Iowa, South Carolina, and Wisconsin, states that were midsized enough to allow more blanket coverage. For Pennsylvania’s April 22 primary, Obama has to get back to what worked in those places; do a bus tour – or maybe a Lawton Chiles inspired walk across the state in Springtime - in that vast rural spread between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and let his surrogates, including Michelle, shoulder the greater burden in the cities. You know that Bill will be in those places. Only the physical presence of Obama himself can trump that.
...

[ladym55]

38. Amen to you on all points

Hillary's campaign and games are having a serious impact on the millenials. Those kids are already made cynical by the toxic atmosphere they have grown up in the past seven years. Obama's campaign of hope has touched a cord for them. So your daughter (bless her!!!) goes through the awful storm to vote.

My son is voting in his first Presidential election this year. He campaigned for Obama in Wisconsin where he goes to school and drove 500 miles last weekend with FOUR friends to canvass for Obama all day Saturday here in Ohio. His friends were all great and I was grateful to them. What a hopeful bunch ... and they get to see their efforts met with Hillary's hateful spin. What does this tell ALL of them about hope and ideals and doing the right thing?

And I expect that you and I share similar thoughts about Hillary's conduct as a candidate and person ... and I'll be wise like you are and not share.

[Democrafty]

15. Quickly, because I'll write all day if I don't try to control myself:

This is bad for the party. I know because it's turning me off, and I am an AVOWED Democrat for somebody my age. If somebody like me gets fed up, I can't imagine how other younger voters might feel.

This disdain heaped on young voters is really wearing on me. As I've said before, there's been a Bush or a Clinton in the WH since I was about a month old. Next year, when the next president is elected, I'll be 30, so I'm not exactly a child at this point. And while I don't necessarily expect older voters to feel oppressed in the way that I do, I'm shocked that more of them won't consider the implications dynastic politics are having on what's left of our democracy.

And I'm just deeply, deeply saddened by the numbers you posted on Obama's race. Yes, I knew it might be coming, but it's still not the kind of thing I want to have to accept from other Democrats.

[Inuca]

17. Now that I think of it

I am almost in the same boat as you are. I am much older :-(, but I came to the STates in my mid-twenties the year Reagan/Bush wer first elected. ANd I've had more than enough.

[whometense]

18. Maybe not democrats...

Check this out: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/The_Rush_effect.html#comments

It's a similar story in Texas, where Limbaugh has the most listeners of any of these states. Obama won the Republican vote 52-47, but conservatives (22 percent of all voters, up from 15 percent in the Kerry-Edwards primary) went against Obama. For the first time, they were Clinton's best ideological group: She won them 53-43. And Clinton won 13 percent of the people who said Obama was the most electable candidate.

<snip>

What's this mean? Psychologically it's hilarious: Every joke that's ever been told about how the right needs the Clintons to survive is true. Hillary Hatred is the gas, the ethanol, and the rocket fuel of the staggering GOP.

<snip>

Bill Clinton gave an interview to Limbaugh's guest host.

Say WHAT?

[beachmom]

19. Also just saw this:

James Fallow:

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/more_on_the_clinton_obama_and.php#more

(Update: In a live CNN interview just now, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002" line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience" part of that sentence? And I guess with her nonstop references to 2002 she must be talking about Obama's anti-Iraq war speech, not the 2004 convention speech that actually put him on the map.)

I have reached the point of wanting to scream every time I hear about the primacy of "experience," knowing how skillfully the 46-year old Bill Clinton waved that argument away when it was used against him 16 years ago by a sitting President who simply dwarfed him in high-level experience.* But to pose it in a form that is poison for the party should Obama be the nominee??? To produce a clip that the McCain campaign could run unedited every single day of a campaign against Obama? That is something special. (Also, I think she means 2004 for the speech.) If Bill Clinton poisoned the well for other possible Democratic nominees in quite the same way back in 1992, I can't think of it now.

The conclusion of Spinney's (and Gerson's) analysis was that Obama had put Hillary Clinton into a position where in order to win, she had to damage not just him but the party. That is why, as everyone is saying, the big victor today is John McCain, and not just in the obvious way.

This is what got Kerry angry, and it's a comment he calls "as inappropriate as it is insulting". This goes against Kerry's principles as a Democrat -- that you don't denigrate a fellow Democrat in this way. And, apparently, she's going to keep on saying it.

[MBS]

26. oh, yeah.

This is right on. I'm going to go look at the whole piece now.
thanks.

[Democrafty]

23. Thanks a lot for that!

This is a good link to pass around to anybody who might be a little too smug today...

:)

[semie_21]

50. Same boat as well

I will turn 30 next year (a year from tomorrow) as well. And since January 1981, somone with the last name of Bush or Clinton has been president or vice-president of this country. For my sister, she is two years younger than me, someone with the last name of Bush or Clinton has always been president or vice-president during her lifetime. My mom is one of the few older voters that actually considers/understands the implications of dynastic politics. Then again, she is a history and government teacher.

For voters our age, it is incredibly hard not to get fed up with presidential elections. I am an avowed democrat as well and should be going to the Clinton and Obama events that begin tonight and end on our primary day on Tuesday.

Sen. Clinton is speaking at the Jefferson Jackson Hamer dinner tonight in Canton. President Clinton is touring the state tomorrow and saturday. Sen. Obama will be here Monday and/or Tuesday (plans have not been finalized yet). I should be excited since this is the first time a presidential race has not been decided by our primary day since I have been eligible to vote in presidential elections. All I am going to do is crawl under a rock and come up when it is all said and done.

The only thing that could make me crawl out from under the rock is if JK made an appearance on behalf of Obama.

[YvonneCa]

20. What should happen...

...now? I have many (scattered :) )thoughts:

On the electorate:

I am a Democrat who sees excitement in the possibility of a first woman or black President. That we are here in history is such a credit to our entire party...and honestly, I'd be happy with either a Clinton or Obama win. I think both candidates offer particular strengths that are needed now, different strengths.

I say this because I think we are seeing that the electorate is in a different place. They are unsure...and easily susceptible to manipulation of their fears, either by the other party or by the other contender for our nomination.

If, in a drawn-out primary, we take part in that fear mongering (either in playing a fear card, or in making the election about defending against it) we lose control of the debate.

On the debate:

There was a question asked of Obama and Clinton recently, where each was asked to say one thing the other must do to 'prove' their suitability/qualifications/readiness for the job of President. Both candidates basically said the other didn't have to prove anything...and then went on to define why they were the best choice (typical candidate response).

I think they both missed a great opportunity. What Clinton is missing (IMHO) is setting out a grand strategy for our country's future (a la Gary Hart, ASP). I've read both of her books and know she gets this, and would do this as president...but she never talks about it.

Obama connects with people and talks change, and I'm sure he'll have a grand strategy, too...but he doesn't talk about it much either. (Although, in his speech last night, he sounded like he might begin this.)

On the difference between we Democrats and the Republicans:

I don't think we can win in November unless we sell this. We are against pre-emptive war. We are against torture. We understand national security, but think privacy matters. We believe in habeus corpus. We believe in certain values our country has always stood for. And yes, we believe in fair elections. :) We believe it matters HOW we lead and are perceived by others around the world.

We understand that the Republicans have hurt this country and we plan to restore it. We have a grand strategy to do that, and here it is. Educate on climate change and how it helps the economy. Talk about globalization and NAFTA and the revolution to an information age...and why education/retraining is so important to that. Talk about where we want our country to be in ten years, or twenty....and how we get there.

On politics:

If we keep seeing this as just 'politics' and making every decision about this campaign based on that, we will lose again. If we let the media define our party as 'un-organized' and uncommitted, and not sure what we stand for...we lose.

On what happens now:

I don't pretend to know politics, so keep that in mind. :) But I think if we sling mud for the next several weeks...we all lose. The only ways I see to avoid that are 1) if one candidate withdraws from the race, 2) if the two candidates voluntarily join forces now...instead of slugging it out, 3)define an absolute end to this primary, (for example, a mutually agreed to 'freeze' on campaigning for 'x' number of weeks, until the PA primary is over...and then agree to go with the candidate with the higher delegate count).

If both Clinton and Obama lose control of what should be a strong Democratic rational for retaking the White House in 2008...and they will, IMO, if they just do politics-as-usual...then we'd better be ready to say hello to President McCain. Four more years.

I don't think the country can stand this for four more years.

[ProSense]

21. Excellent post! Everyone who opposes

the nasty tactics used by Republicans should be outraged by Hillary's negative campaign. I cannot fathom why some people are pretending that this is just normal politics, especially after years of criticism leveled at Republicans for using them to sabotage the will of voters. This crap is responsible for Bush, and by extention, the Iraq war. It's despicable!

For all the claims about the GE, nasty politics is not going to win over Independent voters. This group will not vote for her in the GE. The whole thing is sickening and she and her team should be ashamed for latching on to the politics of Rove. Ugh!

I posted my thought on last night's results here.

[BlueIris]

39. "I cannot fathom why some people are pretending that this is just normal politics..."

They're pretending that the tactics she is sponsoring are acceptable in order to justify their votes for her. Which is really just a way of rationalizing the prejudices motivating those votes.

[politicasista]

22. Good thoughts

I wrote about some of them here. There is more.

The nomination process is a mess. I was listening to Tom Joyner and Michael Baisden (morning and afternoon respectively) and they had lawyers and voters on the ground saying that Ohio ran out of ballots, the weather was bad in polling areas (i.e. Cuyahoga county--Obama stronghold), and in Texas, the caucuses and polling places were disorganized. (Mike sent his producer to San Antonio to vote and she had to wait in line for 4 hours, another woman called and said that people had cast their votes, but didn't feel the need to go back and caucus).

In the same hour, Tom mentioned that HRC had brought up the idea of a unity ticket, which he thought was the "best of both worlds." Mike had several pro-HRC (black and white) callers say that both BO and HRC are close to their views and said they would vote for either or both in the GE. In addition to race, and the fear mongering ads, I am beginning to think that voters bought into the U-word. "Universal" Health Care. That's what a voter in Texas said that put her in HRC's corner.

Speaking of Rovian tactics, this does not sit well with the politically involved parents, whom have turn so fast on the Clintons. (Out of respect for Kerry/HRC supporters, I will leave the cruel stuff out). They are seeing that this could be very divisive if they take it all the way to the DNC convention. DD says that the Democrats have to be careful this time around considering they came up short twice.

This last word will sound controversial here, but I too am wondering what Kerry and Uncle Ted will do. I was glad when they both decided to endorse Obama (DD noted that it was a bold move on Kerry's part to go against the Clintons). They have been cool surrogates for Obama. I know that they both chose to jump in early, and understand it's a catch 22 situation (either jump in or wait until a nominee is selected). I am not second-guessing them or anyone that chose to endorse. I guess I am just sick of the trashing of good dems because of feeling that they may be on the "wrong" side of this. Not surprising this won't be the end of this anytime soon.















edit for word

[Democrafty]

24. On your last point, there's been some indication

that another round of endorsements is coming up. For better or for worse, I don't see JK or EMK being the focus of a whole lot of attention, unless the Clintons decide to go after campaign surrogates.

[politicasista]

25. I guess I am starting to feel like beachmom now

After reading that vile and vitriolic thread about his MSNBC appearance and supposedly "hating and slamming" the Clintons, I am asking the same question. Why can't people just leave Kerry alone? He isn't running this time (like some of them wished he wouldn't do). Why can't people just leave any good Dem alone?

He was just making the case for Obama. Instead it was taken as a slam on both Edwards and HRC. And even worse, the "I respect his service, but he has lost my respect, no guts, no standing up, never forgive him for conceding soon, irrelevant, etc." I mean things you would find on a freeper site. And unfortunately, instead of contributing some discussion in this primary season, I will continue to avoid GDP and the graffiti posts. (Yes, I know DU isn't the real world, thankfully). I sometimes think that Dems (including Kerry) should not have endorsed any of the candidates because it is a mess right now. (Just look at how it's divided this group) It is a soap opera, not to mention a circus. I apologize for being brutally bitter, but it's how I feel.

[TayTay]

28. I think the good Senator may have endorsed because

he found a candidate he liked and decided that he needed to talk about that. HRC has an argument that her experience and judgment in her life makes her a worthy candidate to be President of the US. Maybe the good Senator from MA is making that kind of judgment based on his years of experience as well. It is possible that he might feel that he "owes" this to the country. Withholding that judgment because it would be controversial is not really in that man's playbook or history.

He did it because he couldn't not do it.

[MBS]

29. nice answer, Tay

especially this

It is possible that he might feel that he "owes" this to the country. Withholding that judgment because it would be controversial is not really in that man's playbook or history.

That's JK, to a T!:patriot:

[politicasista]

31. And he has every right to do that

For the record, I am not second guessing his decision. I am just tired of the bashing, trashing, name-calling and slamming of him and other Dems that endorsed Obama just because they feel he isn't on "their" side.

I understand that is to be expected, but it is becoming tiresome that all of the above including 2004 in general is being rehashed to bash Obama. Whenever the word swiftboating, not "fighting back," taking the high road, or not responding quickly to the smears and Obama are brought up in the same sentence, Kerry's name is mentioned (i.e. Obama shouldn't allow himself to get swiftobated like Kerry did, sigh). I saw a lot of Obama's bloggers at the campaign site bring that up.

As I said, everything is a mess and we won't have a nominee anytime soon. Luckilly, spring break is right around the corner. :)

[Inuca]

40. It is a mess, I agree

:hug: And probably in the process of becoming even messier as they try to sort out the Fl & MI super-duper mess.

[MH1]

30. The short answer:

:puke:

The long answer is pretty much covered by everyone else upthread. The longer this goes on, I think, the less I will be able to tolerate Hillary.

When the debacle of 2000 happened, I said to a friend, "it's going to be tough to listen to the news for the next four years" and he agreed. Little did we know....and now it looks like it won't even end after 8. Hillary is going to do the right wing's work for them, and if somehow she manages to knock Obama out of it, she can't possibly beat McCain...and even if I am wrong there, at this point the thought of listening to her for the next four years feels a lot like how I felt in December of 2000. (Sorry Hillary fans, that's how I feel after all the b.s. attacks and manipulations.)

[MBS]

33. I agree, especially with the short answer : )

But I do think BO will pull it off. As Tay said, it's a kind of gift to him to learn these lessons now.
That said, I've had enough with the lies and the smears, and I'll be very very glad when this is over.

We're all seeing (as if we didn't already know, from 2004) how much resistance there is to change, especially among those who like and profit from the current system. And the last week reminded me that there is still a lot of fear around. All these people will flail for awhile, and it will continue to look ugly.

But I see the joy and commitment of volunteers (most especially JK!!He was almost merry on MSNBC last night) , and the broad smile and calm assurance of Obama, and I think, " He has to win. He has to win for all t hese people"

[MH1]

35. I hope you're right

that BO will pull it off.

I've also noticed how much JK seems to enjoy campaigning for Obama. That seems to me a very positive sign that Obama is the right kind of politician for me to support. :)

[Inuca]

41. I also think that BO will get the nomination in the end

short of something big and completely unpredictable, and based on my understanding of the facts, it is almost impossible for him not to. What I find EXTREMELY worrisome though is the damage that is likely to happen to him as a nominee and to the party as a whole in the process, and the obvious possible consequences. The way things stand right now, I think it is practically impossible for the party (whoever may be in a position to talk for the "party" and is still, officially at least, uncommitted) to put pressure on the Clinton camp to give up. But I hope they may consider putting some serious backroom pressure to stop with the below the belt attacks that may end up giving the presidency on a platter to McCain.

[TayTay]

32. Some of this is not personal, it's branding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eJuhd9xFRg">Where do we go from here as they once sang on Buffy, The Vampire Slayer. (Don't laugh. Great political show. I watched it instead of The West Wing.) Well, HRC, in essence, showed that Obama is vulnerable and has weaknesses. She exploited them. (It's not personal. It's about winning for her. Winners get to be magnanimous to those who didn't win. She figures that the time to undo the damage is after you win. Ah, she's sort of right.)

Obama needs to treat the last week as a gift. His opponent has revealed where he is weak. He now needs to work on his presentation, his explanations and his own media relations. He is not perceived as "tough on terror." He did not fight back when HRC took control of the media last week and didn't answer her "the media loves Barack" thing. He needs to hit her on her issues.

HRC is vulnerable too. The Clinton's have an image problem that can be exploited. They are vulnerable on corruption charges, on arrogance, and on being "all about the money." Team Obama needs to sit down and think about how to re-brand her along the lines of her known vulnerabilities. What did happen with the money and the Presidential pardons? Was there a quid pro quo for the Marc Rich pardon. What did HRC know about it? What other pardons, for people in NY were done to ease her 2000 Senate election? Where did that $5 million come from that she loaned her campaign? People have doubts about the Clintons that center around believability, honesty and personal integrity. Hit them on this because it is an area that has a natural traction with the electorate. (This is not a hard sell. You see the brand, you know that this comes with the Clinton brand.)

Politics is not about being nice. It never has been. There are times when the elections get mean, nasty and serious. There is no way to take this out of democracy, it is a by-product of the process. Sen. Kerry knew this when he endorsed Obama. He knew there would be blow-back. There are 25+ Dem Senators who have not endorsed in the Pres race. Perhaps Sen. Kerry could have stayed out of it. But, is that what he wants? Take the safe route, don't stir the waters, hang back and let others battle it out then endorse when there is no possibility of being wrong, or being courageous. Is that what remaining in the Senate means, hang back and let others decide? Somehow, I just don't see that one in the cards for this Senator. He needs to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA4coDbHLPo">move on by being in the race, taking a position, taking hits from others for his views, growing in his ability to understand and explain positions, and defend his views and those of others. It's what he does.

[Inuca]

42. I both agree and disagree

BO and the campaign did do some mistakes last week, I definitely agree with that (though the NAFTA-Canada thing was almost too good to be true from the Clinton's perspective, but I guess I should take off my tinfoil hat, I do not like hats of any shape or material in any case). They could have handled that + the various kitchen sink components much better. They will probably/hopefully learn very quickly. I liked his comments about the foreign/security experience that I saw played this morning, campaign plane discussion with the press, where he was calmly but very effectively dissecting the "I visited 80 countries" often repeated statement. OTOH, I was not so impressed with the first post-loss counter punch being about the tax release. But maybe it is a first step of a more complex game, you make some very interesting points about financial issues and their implications.

What I do not agree with (if I understood your point correctly, I am not sure) is that the Clinton attacks are part of the acceptable rough game of politics, after which we can all kiss and make nice. Insisting (ad nauseaum I might add) that he does not cover everybody in his health plan is acceptable. Fear-mongering ads, allying with McCain in "experience vs a speech", subliminally playing to the worst kind of lingering fears ("I am almost sure he is not a muslim" - yes,I know, it is not an exact quote, but that's what it boils down to), etc., all these are NOT acceptable.

[MBS]

45. .. what you said. The Muslim quote was even worse . As I

remember, she said something like, "I take him at his word when he says he's not a Muslim". I'll try to look up the exact quote (I'm sure there's a video of it somewhere. .), but she definitely said "I take him at his word"

I agree with you completely: this kind of lie and innuendo is NOT acceptable, especially among Democrats, for Pete's sake

[whometense]

46. Actually, it was not even remotely tinfoilish

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080305.wharpleak0305/BNStory/National/home

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/181749.php

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14797.html

Tangled Friggin' Web
03.05.08 -- 10:28PM
By Josh Marshall

Seems the NAFTAgate leak started with -- surprise, surprise -- the Chief of Staff to Canada's conservative PM Stephen Harper. Only the first hint wasn't about stuff the Canadians had heard from the Obama camp. It was about reassurances the Canadians got from the Clinton campaign. According to a reporter who heard the original conversation, Brodie said "someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Only somehow this evolved into a story about the Obama campaign giving such reassurances.

The Globe and Mail has the latest details.

So was Hillary bashing Obama for what her own campaign had done? Did they both do it? Was it all a set up?

[TayTay]

47. The offending remarks have to be answered

Fear-mongering ads, allying with McCain in "experience vs a speech", subliminally playing to the worst kind of lingering fears ("I am almost sure he is not a muslim" - yes,I know, it is not an exact quote, but that's what it boils down to), etc., all these are NOT acceptable.

That's exactly where it gets hard to deal with and hard to figure out how to fight back. The 'ringing phone' ads are legitimate, imho. It is fine to bring up the whole notion of who is best able to deal with national security. The problem from Obama's point of view on this ad was that he did not answer it, or did not answer it with a counter argument that strongly challenged this assumption and showed that Obama was as strong here as Clinton. That was an issues ad, and it was not, imho, out of bounds.

The second thing mentioned, Clinton seeming to align herself with McCain is really bad strategy. I think she made a mistake here. Clinton's team made a huge deal out of Obama seeming to side with Ronald Reagan back before the SC primary. By saying that McCain is better prepared to be Pres, she is negating her own prior arguments. (Real Democrats don't praise Republicans.) This should be answered. But this is not swift-boating. It is stupid and will do long-term damage to HRC, but it does not take an action or life experience of Obama and use it against him by twisting it's meaning and twisting the truth until it isn't truth anymore. (Ad hominem attacks taken to out-sized and ridiculous lengths.)

The third one is a smear. I think that Clinton should have cleanly said, this is unacceptable. Not just answer that Barack Obama is not a Muslim, but dismiss the whole question as a false argument. This one comes close to swift-boating, to taking a truth of Obama's life and bending it to use against him in a way that makes a truth into a lie. (the "wink, wink, nod, nod, you know what I mean when I say this" of 2008.)

Inuca: how do you think that last one should be fought? Having identified something as "beyond the pale and beyond the usual give and take of hardball politics" how do you answer it, plant the idea in the public mind that this is wrong and negate it's impact? My point is that this can't be done gently. The way to fight back is to hit back very hard. I don't think we have seen this yet from the Obama camp. What makes it stop? How do you end these types of innuendo attacks? The problem is that these attacks work. Fighting them acknowledges them, to a certain extent, but since it's all innuendo, trying to pin this stuff down is like trying to nail jello to a wall. How is it to be done?

[Inuca]

48. You meant "offending"

in a very metaphorical and general tongue-in-cheek way, right :-)? Anyways...:

- AD: who can best deal with national security is definitely a legitimate issue. Using babies to make the point is not (not to mention the IMHO ridiculous "I know the world leaders" also from the ad, but that's a whole different story). I know, it's a blood sport (is this a direct quote from you Tay? I do not remember...), but in my quite likely naive view, certain things are no-no's. Discuss issues, mention experience (even if partially fabricated), don't subliminally instill fear that your babies will vanish in the scary night if you do not elect ME.

- MCCain: I agree, stupid. JK (and others I think) said so much, if I remember correctly.

- 60 minutes pearl: since you ask, and for the little that it is worth: I don't think that it should be answered directly, in the sense that the statement should not be directly mentioned neither by Obama nor by his surrogates, and even less that they should use similar "subtle" attacks. I think that what JK (we have ot stay on topic in the forum, right?) did yesterday is the way to go, when he mentioned (twice?) "rovian attacks". I hope (and am 99.9% sure) that the fact that he mentioned the unmentionable when referring to democrats was done deliberately and not in a moment of inattention, showing how he really feels about this, and forgetting about the usual diplomacy and nice-speak. If it was done on purpose, I think it should be repeated, by him and others (preferably surrogates, the important and very articulate ones). And if the MSM wants to dig further, and find out what is the justification for such a characterization, then exemplify, there should be plenty to chose from (for instance, the "Sen. Obama ONLY has a speech" in a sense falls in the same category of sliming through innuendo, everybody knows there is more to him, you may argue that not enough, but definitely more).

-one more thing: as part of the counter punches, I think that they should come up with very specific talking points about the vaunted foreign policy/national security experience. Insinuating that she most likely only had tea (or coffee, as the case may be) with most of the foreign leaders she met with is NOT enough. I heard some talking head (I think it was Rachel Maddow, but I may be completely wrong) yesterday mentioning that George Mitchell may have something to say about HRC being the pivotal force behind the North Ireland agreements (he may not want to say it, but the facts should be pretty unambiguous) or that some other agreement (forgot what exactly it was) that she claims she was instrumental in settling when she traveled to Bosnia (??) was actually solved one day before she arrived. I do not have all the facts, far from it, but I am pretty sure that there should be enough holes to find in her blanket statements on the subject. And these wholes should be identified, spelled out as clearly, politely and un-snarkily as possible, and distributed as talking points all over the place (and by the way, distribute any relevant information to ANYBODY that has even a remote chance to be contacted by the media; that poor TX guy that was ambushed by Matthews a while back was an embarrassment). And I would love to hear more about her contribution to SCHIP. My information about this is almost exclusively what I read from others here, but I do trust more than the Clinton talking points. Maybe it is time for Kerry/Kennedy to mention something about it. And don't get me started on the "35 years of experience, fighting for .... (fill in the blanks) rights". Go through the chronology, and peel some years and some fight out of there!

Done (for now :-))!

[TayTay]

51. Nice post. Thanks!

The problem with not saying anything is the problem that comes back to the SBVT in 2004 then. If you don't answer it, then people think it's true. (It's not true, but people will think it's true.) If you do answer it then you run the risk of giving it more media oxygen. So, how does it get answered.

Sen. Kerry has said that in '04 he does not believe they put enough money into getting the truth out. So, his answer to this seems to be that you fight back hard. (They did fight back when the SBVT attacked twice before in that year and the attacks didn't get any news traction.) But, that is an answer, not the answer. (I don't think there is any one "the" answer.)

So, we know we need to hit back on these but how? Each type of answer bears risks. How responses are implemented have both risks and advantages. The false campaign against Obama based on the "he's a Muslim" email is a classic "how do you respond" problem. First, what kind of an attack is it to demean someone by calling them a Muslim? That is offensive right there. (My Clinton criticism starts there. She should have stopped this right here and said that it is wrong to slam anyone because of their religion. Being a Muslim is not offensive and so forth. But, sigh, she didn't do that. She never stood up for adherents of this religion who are peaceful, law-abiding Americans, same as any other group.)

What makes that Muslim smear a SBVT type attack is all the innuendo that isn't overtly mentioned in the media but is the heart and soul of the smear. There are debunking sites around that have facts, but is that enough? Should Obama go on TV and give a press conference that addresses this head-on and answers questions from regular Americans? Does that help or hurt?

Again, how do you fight something like this? It's like trying to nail jello to a wall.

[Luftmensch067]

52. It's certainly not going to win her any Muslim votes!

Hello, MI, if there's a do-over!

[Inuca]

53. Good point! n/t

[Inuca]

54. About thet jello thing....

what about what I heard/read who knows where, namely that HRC should know better since she and Obama have been at prayer meetings (breakfasts, whatever...) together? Assuming it is true, it's something that can be mentioned, it does not involve getting down and dirty and wallowing in the same mud, and it should make the point quite nicely.

[Luftmensch067]

44. Tay, I love it!

A two-musical comment. Re Buffy, have we actually CONSIDERED the possibility that it might be BUNNIES?!??! And you've convinced me that what this race needs is...more Sondheim!

Also, you're making a lot of sense here. :-)

[wisteria]

34. Personally, I think this is a bad situation for our party and may have a negative impact in the

general election and the long term progression of our party. I supported Clinton for a brief moment then I came to my senses and realized how bad the Clinton's are for this country and our party. Obama has got to take her out in this primary and he is going to have to stop being a gentleman - she is no lady.

[ladym55]

36. This stays my favorite group

When you are a JK supporter, you respect things like integrity because that is what JK is all about. I have been deeply upset since the weekend when Hillary went over the top vicious ... and it worked. I was never a big fan of Hillary's, but I have gone from being okay about her to irritated to thinking she is completely despicable. I can't respect anyone who would destroy her own party and its chances to succeed for her own personal power trip. If you can't win the nomination on what you stand for in the primary, GO HOME. Don't build up the Republican candidate while taking out a member of your own party.

[Inuca]

43. Very well put

And your "Hillary progression" perfectly describes how my own attitude has changed during these last 4+ years as well.