I'm Speechless This Morning

The news that my political mentor, Jim Hightower, is endorsing Obama hit me like a ton of bricks this morning. And in a really good way.

As many of you may remember, I worked for Hightower in the 1990s on his radio show.  I was uninspired and bitter over the Newt Gingrich era, and Hightower helped give me that inspired hope for a better America we all need.

And now, he's actively on the Obama train.  Hard for me to believe, because I wasn't sure he would endorse in the primary.  It's proof positive to me that Obama is the right choice for progressives.

It's a telling sign.  Hightower's cred as a populist progressive cannot be discounted.  And he understands that Obama is bringing new voters to the fold, something he has always advocated is necessary to create a progressive majority.

I'm making this a short diary, mainly because I'm on my way out the door to go on a weekend vacation.  But I'm speechless.

And I cried a few tears of joy when I read the news.

I'm going to make sure to thank him when I see him again in March.

People get ready...this truly is a movement.

•  tips for a progressive movement

  It is finally coming together...and we are at the front lines.

  Change is a good thing.

  by wmtriallawyer on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:48:43 AM PDT

  •  indeed

    Whether we can draw Independents into the party at a greater number than would McCain is our first challenge.

    Whether cross-over Republicans voted for Obama out of dislike of Hillary rather than support for Obama is another one altogether.  

    However, change is a good thing and certainly Obama's timing could not be more perfect.

    by cabaretic on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:51:34 AM PDT

    •  How much of this is just sheer disgust

      over the Clintons?

      I've been an Edwards guy because I don't think we can stand to have two Americas much longer, but Hillary's constant triangulation on everything from the war to telecom immunity has mortified me.  Ann Coulter has a point (even a stopped clock is right twice a day): there is not all that much difference between her and John McCon, when the rubber meets the road.  Both seem to have adopted the classic Alice Cooper song as their de facto theme: "I Wanna Be ELECTED!!!"

      Let your "yes" mean yes and your "no" mean no, and you will impress me as a politician, even if I disagree with your stance on most things.

      by Bouldergeist on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:33:16 AM PDT

      •  While I won't tie HRC to McVain, Obama offers a

        much clearer contrast, which is what the decision should be about at this point.  In particular, Obama intends to make the GE campaign a referendum about Iraq, which is a morally correct and a practically shrewd move.

        I kinda miss Dems like FDR and JFK who could do well and do good.  While Obama obviously offers a fresh start in many ways, he also has the chance to return the party to his best traditions.  He sure as hell isn't going to be a slave to polls, Penn, and "triangulation."

        1 other interesting point about Hightower's endorsement--his newsletter makes it clear that he's as concerned about the war as he is about economic issues.  Obama's opposition to the IWR, I suspect, played a role in Hightower's decision to endorse.

        by RFK Lives on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:17:14 AM PDT

        •  This reminds me...

          1 other interesting point about Hightower's endorsement--his newsletter makes it clear that he's as concerned about the war as he is about economic issues.

          Progressives need to repeat the idea at every opportunity that the war IS the ultimate economic issue. All economic maladies from recession, energy costs to devaluation can be tied back to George's trillion dollar adventures across the planet.

          by rightiswrong on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:41:44 AM PDT

          •  You mean we shouldn't stay for a thousand years?

            huh.  Who would have guessed?

            by plf515 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:22:32 AM PDT

            •  And we shouldn't have authorized it.

              Another obvious one. When you hit yourself upside the head with a hammer, it usually hurts.

              by rightiswrong on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:29:10 AM PDT

          •  YES! The War is the ultimate Economic Issue

            Thank you for hitting the nail on the head!!!

            The WAR is tied to where the economy is now and how we are able to extricate ourselves from the war will determine how  and how soon the economy will recover!!

            The biggest concern on voters mind is the economy!! We need to do a better job of getting the message that the Iraq war is a big reason for the big economic dislocations we are suffering from. Also going forward that we need to end the war quickly so that the billions spent there can be used to right the economy and to fund the many programs we need to address issues of health care, jobs, education etc...

            Saying this in no way is intended to forget or diminish the many other very damaging consequences of the war, such as the many young men and women needlessly sacrificed, and the fueling of anger and hatred to the US that only strengthens extremism in the world.

            Obama 2008 - his inspiring messages for change and unity are the right ones that will move the country forward!!

            by BreakDownTheWalls on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:00:31 AM PDT

            •  Remember, pallets of bricks of 20's were

              airlifted into Iraq.  They, of course, all ended up in the hands of philanthropic, honorable people.
                500,000,000,000 spent so far
                303.5 million Americans
                27 million Iraqis
                ...

                so every American has spent 1,647 dollars so far on Iraq
                and 18,513 dollars have been spent for every man, woman, and child in Iraq.

                Per household?  (4,050,597 estimated)
                123,500 dollars have been spent on each Iraqi household.

               Think about it.

              by jhop7 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:41:20 AM PDT

        •  I really hope that Hillary is

          asked about her dangerous, corporate/MIC enabling "Kyl-Lieberman" vote against Iran in the next debates.  Was she trying to look like a war-mongering neocon for the general election, is she one, or was she repaying corporate "chits"?  This worried mom of a National Guard SSG really wants that answer!  (he and his friends are those disenfranchised "Independent" voters for Obama)

          by mjd in florida on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:45:35 AM PDT

          •  How did Obama vote on Kyl-Lieberman...

            let me save you the internet search..he didn't.  "NV" next to his name.
            Therefore, Obama is allowed to sit "above the fray" and pontificate on how other people voted.  How Godly of Him? We'll call it "leadership from on high."

            I guess he "hopes" you would not notice.

            God Bless.

            by mostest on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:43:18 AM PDT

            •  So of course by this reasoning

              it's okay that Clinton voted yea for Kyl-Lieberman, right?  Move along folks, nothing to see here.  It's possible to both hold that Obama should have voted and that Clinton's vote is reprehensible.

              by Philoguy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:26:09 AM PDT

              •  No...

                It's "okay" that as a political official she did her job and voted.  Whether it is "okay" or not for her to have voted for the resolution will be up to the NY voters who put her in her senate seat...twice and/or the democratic primary voters.

                 As hard as it is for Obama lemmings to believe some democrats might like that she voted for kyle-lieberman whether it be for strategic reasons are simply they believe that IRAN is DANGEROUS.

                Obama will not be able to "duck" out on tough presidential decisions (therefore he will have to make someone mad at him).  There will not be 99 other presidents...just one.  People  will probably notice.  No?

                by mostest on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:16:36 PM PDT

                •  Clinton needs more than "some"

                  democrats to be elected.  Unfortunately, more and more it looks as if her support is dwindling to "some".

                  by Philoguy on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:22:37 PM PDT

            •  I was going to bypass your "strawman"

              because I am sure that you know that Obama had stated that he was voting "NO", was there for the vote that evening when Harry Reid shelved it for the foreseeable future and then rushed it to vote the following morning after he knew that Obama had traveled to the countryside of New Hampshire.  Why did Harry Reid play this ploy? Could it be because he is a Hillary supporter and wanted to give her plausibility for her war-mongering vote by marginalizing Obama's "NO" vote?  Doesn't Harry Reid's son run Hillary's Nevada campaign?                                                                                                                                                                                                           By the way, I don't need an "internet search" of the facts when it comes to things related to the Middle East.  I have spent countless, sleepless hours attaining them from sources beyond our own lazy MSN.      

              by mjd in florida on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 12:45:12 PM PDT

        •  "isn't going to be a slave to polls"

          As I read your comment, I'm thinking how the evaporation of 20 points Clinton leads overnight in state polls over the last few weeks makes it just so clear how LEADERS can move polls, whereas followers just follow them.

          Obama is a leader and that is the style of politician we Dems have so been craving.

          by nj mom on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:59:49 AM PDT

        •  Is Hightower A Super Delegate...

          ...and if not, why not?

          by Triangulate on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:52:21 AM PDT

          •  B/c he hasn't raised big $ for the party

            by RFK Lives on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:36:24 AM PDT

            •  not to defend the "super delegate" thing...

              which I abhor, but aren't they all either elected officials or party officials? I don't think Hightower is actively participating in the party anymore, is he?

              I could be wrong about both those points, but IIRC Hightower hasn't been in elected office for years, and most recently he has been a writer and radio host. I'm pretty sure that just being a fund raiser isn't enough to be a super delegate.

              Of course, I could be completely wrong about all these points. I'm gonna plead a Joe Klein on this. ("Neither the time..." etc.)

              by snookybeh on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:26:30 PM PDT

        •  DLC is scared of contrasts

          They dont really believe that america wants a true progressive choice. Thats what triangulation is about, its a capitulation to the assumption that your policies are actually not supported by a majority.

          Thats why they prefer 'centrists'.

          by Unseen majority on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 11:17:29 AM PDT

      •  It really comes down to integrity--

        Let your "yes" mean yes and your "no" mean no, and you will impress me as a politician, even if I disagree with your stance on most things.

        I can respect my representatives when I can see that they listen, read, think, vote thoughtfully and stand up for what they believe in, not just what is most expedient politically.

        by cultural worker on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:51:58 AM PDT

    •  Interested in Texas?

      Obama has an easier road in Texas

      Read This Now: http://www.burntorangereport.com/...

      Already he's extrapolated to win Texas by 6 delegates even if he loses the popular vote by 8%!

      That's before Hightower and Obama begin campaigning.

      The fact remains Barack is down 8 points in Texas.  This means Texans who support Barack Must get to work and get to work immediately.  Every Texas who has not yet stepped up should join the campaign today as the national volunteers are loading up our state with Precinct Captains to work their own areas through phonebanking tools, build relationships with neighbors to get votes in the primary and caucus, and work to win on caucus night as well.

      There is no reason why Barack can't win the Popular Vote and Delegate Math in Texas. The fact is this is the "Easy" state compared to Ohio, which has such a huge buffer for Clinton.  With the way our Senate districts are drawn, and the way the delegate math breaks, a little hard work by every Texan for Obama will ensure we at least tie if not beat in Delegates on March 4th.  

      Lets be clear about this, if that happens, the pressure for Clinton to drop out will be unbearable as the party will view a loss in Texas, the Latino Stronghold, the place she went first after losing in Virginia, would end her campaign.

      So lets help make that happen!  Go here and sign up!  Don't be shy, it's the single most important thing anyone can do this election season as a Texan for Obama:  http://my.barackobama.com/...

      by Steven R on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:34:05 AM PDT

      •  Obama keeps winning the red state primaries.

        All of whose electors will go to McCain in the General.

        Clinton has won most blue states, all of whose electors will go for the Democrat in the General.

        by breezeview on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:41:03 AM PDT

        •  Uh oh...

          Looks like Texas might not be a significant state after all!  Hope you enjoyed your 15 minutes of fame.  ;-)

          by SLKRR on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:46:40 AM PDT

          •  stop that.

            you know facts only confuse them.

            beside, Howard Wolfson AND Mark Penn both said that Texas is a firewall, and they will win big there. They wouldn't dissemble, lie, mislead, spin, tell untruths, pervert, or otherwise mangle or ignore facts, now would they?

            by agnostic on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:12:37 AM PDT

        •  I love this strategy....

          ....  well, we won't win them anyway so why try...?  Oh wait, actually I hate that strategy...

          Seriously, Mark Penn counted some 19 states as insignificant yesterday.  Should HRC get the nomination, I'm thinking she would like the people in those 19 states to vote for her...  but telling them they are insignificant is not the best way to go about that...  Why have they not fired this guy yet...?

          Then, you have the unadulterated brilliance of Howard Dean...  which makes Penn/McAuliffe/Wolfson look even worse by comparison.  The 50 state strategy builds grassroots movements in all 50 states.  Yes, there are some states that will be a tougher climb than others, but it is worth trying to build the foundation to win them in the future...

          Red state, blue state, purple state, mauve state, pink state...  cartography by Crayola....

          The blue states may have been won by Clinton...  do you honestly think they could not be won by Obama should he get the nomination?  The point is not carrying states that we can pretty much count on winning...  The point is to COMPETE in states where the naysayers don't think we have a chance!  It helps the down-ticket Democrats... it solidifies the foundation of the grassroots movement to turn the states Democratic... and you MIGHT JUST WIN A FEW OF THEM.

          by Jen K in FLA on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 05:55:45 AM PDT

          •  The point is nobody knows what's significant

            anymore.

            The one thing we know about election 08 is that we don't know what will happen next.

            In this time of change, old school political strategies are worthless.

            Just ask Rudy.

            by crystal eyes on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:05:44 AM PDT

            •  Elections are not just about Red states and

              Blue states. In the last 2 elections we've seen Democrats spending precious time and resources in states like WI and even though we end up winning there that takes away from what we can devote to OH and FL. We may not end up winning VA but we will force McCain to fight for it.

              by Sacramento Dem on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:00:50 AM PDT

              •  That damn Obama, you know

                Just when we get really good at counting red states and blue states, somebody like Obama comes along and screws up the whole accounting system.

                by Alden on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:46:15 AM PDT

            •  Rudy never knew his ass from a hole in the ground

              New strategy, old strategy- more like no strategy

              by nwgates on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:38:05 AM PDT

              •  of COURSE he knows the difference...

                a hole in the ground is something to try to exploit, provided it's a really big hole.

                by snookybeh on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:38:35 PM PDT

          •  Not to mention

            Howard Dean's 50 state strategy helps Democratic stalwarts like us here in Texas avoid utter despair a lot of the time. And now thanks to him we have a shot at getting rid of Senator John Cornyn, who is a complete disgrace and a rubber stamp for Bu$hCo.

            by NogodsnomastersMary on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:12:10 AM PDT

            •  you have got to get rid

              of Conyers.  I truly hate that man.  

              His "explaining" why judges were being attacked/killed - well it rackled me so much that it was my first LTE published.  My emotion must have shown through even here in Florida.

              by bobnbob on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:45:07 AM PDT

              •  Conyers / Cornyn ??? n/t

                Not the same, not remotely...

                by spotDawa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:51:09 AM PDT

                •  one's in congress, the other's a senatwhore.

                  Although Conyers has peed me off too, for not moving fast enough against the Cabal.

                  by agnostic on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:14:02 AM PDT

                  •  They've all been a complete disgrace up until

                    the past few hours!

                    by spotDawa on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:25:20 AM PDT

                  •  Senatwhore? ROTFL

                    I've never seen that before!!!

                    by mkfarkus on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:11:33 AM PDT

                    •  About 7 yrs ago, I

                      included "congresscritters" in a post, on a long dead site. I was banned for being inappropriately insulting to elected officials. I do believe that it is now in the lexicon of most tubes of the internets. I'd love for this one to grow.

                      by agnostic on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:37:38 AM PDT

          •  Any state that is deemed insignificant by Penn

            By Decree will not be granted statehood in New Clintonia.

            I figured I'd clear that up for everyone.

            by rightiswrong on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:46:49 AM PDT

          •  The point is

            making a bankrupt GOP spend money all over the country, when they have to decide between save 40-50 legislators and half dozen governors or help JMC (they don't like him anyway)in the national election, what do you think it is going to happen?

            1. They would have to use Bush and Cheney to fund raise extensively, what do you think their presence everywhere benefits? by remiding people what the election is about

            2. They will have to abandon a lot of increasingly marginal candidates.

            3. They will go into big debts.

            4. How much money or support will they be able to provide McCain, close to zero vs BHO juggernaut

            by IamTheJudge on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:04:23 AM PDT

        •  ...

          Breezeview,

          Explain to us how a Democrat will win the Presidency without taking at least one red state.

          Oh, wait, you can't.  Because that's not possible.  We'll have to win one or two red states.  Hmmmmm.

          Didn't really occur to you, did it?

          by nocore on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:11:11 AM PDT

          •  They are called swing states.

            FL, MI (hmmm), OH, PA, IA, NM, CO

            Lets check those latest polls.

            by breezeview on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:29:24 AM PDT

            •  ...

              No, Breezey.

              At the end of the day, a state is either blue or red. Period. There are no points for second in a general election. The Democratic candidate will have to flip between one and three red states to blue in order to win in 2008.

              I guess I shouldn't interrupt you though.  Every time a Clinton supporter explains to America how the voters of a majority of the states are meaningless, the more it benefits Obama.

              And every time a Clinton supporter explains to us that we shouldn't have a 50 state strategy, the more it alienates Hillary from the mainstream of this community.

              by nocore on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:35:50 AM PDT

              •  OK, I'll play Tell me which Red states Obama

                is going to win.

                by breezeview on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:38:35 AM PDT

                •  She Has 49% Disapproval

                  Poll after poll after poll after poll has Obama beating McCain and has Hillary losing to McCain.  

                  Hillary Clinton has the highest disapproval ratings of any living Democrat.

                  What is unclear about that?

                  by nocore on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:44:06 AM PDT

                  •  NY, CA, MA, didn't seem to disapprove to much

                    51% don't disapprove.  General elections turn on general elecion campaigning, not intramural philosophising.

                    by breezeview on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:48:47 AM PDT

                    •  ...

                      Earth to Breezy,

                      It isn't just Democrats who vote in general elections. It's the whole electorate.

                      by nocore on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:54:42 AM PDT

                    •  So you're "concerned"...

                      that Obama is going to lose those states?

                      To fuckin' McCain?

                      Are you kidding me?

                      While not dispositive, even though Obama lost the dem primary, he got nearly twice as many votes as McCain in California.

                      by Dissentinator on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:59:19 AM PDT

                      •  ...

                        Thank you.

                        The argument being made is so backwards.  Her point is that Hillary does well in the states that we already win anyway.  How is that an accomplishment?

                        It is Obama who is showing that he has the greatest reach into states that we lost in 2000 and 2004 and that we need to win in 2008.

                        by nocore on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:02:53 AM PDT

                        •  Besides all which, there are a LOT

                          of non Dem voters (republicans, even) crossing the aisle and voting for Obama.

                          These folks will NOT vote for Hillary.

                          This has a very noticable impact in "red" states.
                          A lot of independants also will vote for Obama in the GE, so that pulls them away from McCorpse.

                          Few of these indys have polled that they would vote for Hillery in the GE.

                          by murasaki on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:39:01 AM PDT

                    •  Are you seriously trying to tell us that

                      Obama would not win NY, CA or MA?  Seriously?

                      I don't understand that logic.

                      by GeauxGeauxGirl on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:09:25 AM PDT

                  •  Skepticism

                    What is unclear is what those polls tell us about future voting results.

                    If Obama wins the nomination I think it is very uncertain whether Obama will do better against McCain than Hillary.
                    Polls showing Obama has a few percentage points over Hillary when matched against McCain mean very little because for one, the margin is not that great, and second, there are 10 months to go and a lot of time for poll results to change.Certainly we should have learned by now to be skeptical of polls even when done on the eve of voting, and even more so when done 10 months ahead of the election.
                    Obama is very much a blank canvas- how much do voters really know about him and his early background before he entered politics ?
                    Well the Republicans are very willing to fill in the canvas for the voters in the months ahead. That it is Barack Hussein Obama, who spent years growing up in a Muslim country with a Muslim father or stepfather, and who had association with people who will painted in the most negative way. His professed Christianity and identity will be mercilessly attacked.
                    What affairs might he have had ? Can we find a white woman who will say she had an affair so his image can be tarnished ?

                    My point is not that any of the foregoing is true or if true, relevant to his being a fine president. My point is that when so little is known about Barack and his personal life that I would not be so confident about a few percentage points lead over McCain at this point in time, or
                    quote that poll result as a reason to back Barack over Hillary.

                    Having said that, I think Barack, if nominated, will prevail over McCain.
                    But we had all better work to make it so.

                    by blueair on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:52:45 AM PDT

                    •  I think this is BHO's biggest problem:

                      ...only a very few Americans are aware of his middle name, and I fear it might seriously hurt his popularity among the 'low-information' types. There WILL be a high profile campaign to paint him as a terrorist sympathiser with a Muslim dad: "He looks like one of those Ay-rabs..!", etc.

                      There are a lot of very stupid, ignorant, bigots in America in case you didn't know.

                      However... Obama might be able to shrug off all of that, and still win in Nov, esp if McCain and the RWNM overdo it and create a pro-Obama backlash.

                      Also, Barack will have to give the media something more to talk about beside "the Obama movement" "he's a phenomenom" and "unstoppable momentum". Obama must begin addressing substantive policy issues more frequently; there's the danger that people will tire of Obamamania after a few more weeks....

                      We're in uncharted waters here, and I think  - I hope - that's what most Americans want - A major, radical, paradigm-shattering change in Washington.

                      Obama 08!

                      by sean oliver on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 10:30:33 AM PDT

                      •  "...stupid, ignorant, bigots..."

                        the people who are THAT stupid, THAT ignorant and THAT bigoted haven't voted Democratic since the Wallace split in `68. They make up a significant portion of Dumbya's 30% ceiling.

                        by snookybeh on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 03:56:44 PM PDT

                        •  I dunno, you'd be surprised!

                          There are still some Dem and more importantly independant voters like that...

                          by sean oliver on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:58:40 AM PDT

                •  Are there...

                  ...really very many red states anymore? Or are they purple? What is a red state? Ohio? Florida? Virginia? Didn't they all go for Bush last time?

                  by MichaelPH on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:58:34 AM PDT

                •  He'll win at least every state that HRC can...

                  ... by a landslide.

                  by dsinha on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:23:22 AM PDT

                •  first tell me which red states HRC can win! n/t

                  by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:28:33 AM PDT

                  •  OH FL TN NH MI nt

                    by breezeview on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:17:43 AM PDT

        •  I find it so amusing when Clinton...

          supporters brag about Clinton winning "Blue" states (not that Barack has won zero blue states) and discounting Barack's win of Red States as though that is irrelevent.

          They are, in effect, suggesting, if Barack is the nominee he will NOT win the Blue States Hillary won in the primary.

          Pretty ludricous.

          On the other hand, it is NOT ludricous to suggest Barack has a better chance to win at least SOME of the Red States in a general election he won in the primary then Hillary Clinton would.

          I challenge anyone to name a single Blue State Hillary won that would not be won by Barack in the fall if he were the nominee.

          Remember, I said a Blue State.

          by slw0606 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:12:37 AM PDT

          •  Thank you

            This is what I don't get about some HRC proponents.

            Do they actually think there are states that would vote DEM if HRC is running but vote RETHUG if it's BO?

            I guess the theory here is that residual racism in some states would work against Obama. No doubt some exists. But the exhilarating (or is it "ex-hillary-ating"? :) thing that we have all witnessed is the outpouring of previously apathetic young voters coming out for Obama. (And even previously cynical young-at-heart voters such as yours truly.) This should certainly counteract the effects of those who would vote for Clinton but not Obama due to his race.

            by Paolo on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:05:00 AM PDT

            •  If Obama has more popular votes...

              and elected delegates in Denver, but party insiders still select Clinton, all these new voters brought in by the inspiration of Obama may very well say to the Democratic Party-

              Go fuck yourself

              by slw0606 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:32:42 AM PDT

              •  Some, anyway n/t

                by Clio2 on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 08:07:38 AM PDT

              •  I'm actually considering it

                and I've been a lifelong Democrat (other than the 1980 primaries when I registered Republican solely to vote against Ronald Reagan).

                I won't vote for McCain, but I'll either leave the President space blank or find a good 3rd party candidate (not named Ralph Nader).

                If Clinton comes into the convention with the pledged delegate lead and then wins enough superdelegates to take the nomination, I will vote for her in November.

                Best thing would be to do away with the "superdelegates" in the future and go with a "50% + 1" policy...since that seems to be the Clinton campaign's policy in November anyway...

                by Cali Scribe on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:33:21 AM PDT

              •  I think even the Clint-siders...

                (hey, I just came up with that, pretty good huh?) know that, if that happens, they are totally screwed. It would be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

                Honestly, as ambitious as Hillary is, she's not stupid, she's not evil, and I do think she puts the good of the nation and of the party ahead of her ambition. I don't think she'd go along with that kind of a scenario.

                I don't think Hillary is in this race because of a hunger for power, I think she's in it because she truly feels she'd be the best president and wants to lead this country back from the brink. She didn't see the Obama phenomenon (Obamenon? Hey, I'm on a roll) coming, and I bet anything she feels like the carpet has been pulled out from under her. It's close enough that there's still a chance she could go into the convention with a lead, and that could still happen, but I doubt it.

                Unless she either has the lead at the convention, or it's a virtual tie, my gut says she steps aside at some point. She knows that to do otherwise would give her such a tainted "victory" that it would kill her in the general, and would do irreparable harm to the party, and I really don't think she would want that. the only other scenario that could save the day is for her and Obama to reach an agreement for him to be her VP nominee. (And if she DOES eke out a "legitimate" victory, she'd be an idiot not to convince him to run with her.)

                Of course, I could be completely wrong about her. But I doubt it. When it comes right down to it, she's a good person, a good Democrat, and any other year she'd be a terrific nominee and president - except for now. It needs to be Obama, for a number of reasons.

                by snookybeh on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:17:53 PM PDT

        •  not necessarily

          some of those red states can be in play with Obama but not so much with Hillary. Winnning big in Blue States can happen with Obama or Hillary in November. Winning a few red states, now that is big and possible with Obama.

          by wishingwell on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:18:45 AM PDT

          •  I can envision states turning up blue everywhere

            if Obama against Gramps and in places you'd least expect. Kind of like Ray-Gun did in turning traditionally blue states red.

            by rightiswrong on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:56:37 AM PDT

          •  An Obama nomination would also mean

            more competitive races in the red states, forcing McCain to spend more to defend what was once rather secure territory, and it would be much more helpful to downticket democrats in those states.  I don't understand why HRC supporters think that's such a bad thing.

            I respected HRC, up until her campaign started using such faulty logic against Obama.  I thought she -- and her staff -- were smarter than that.  The arguments used so far haven't made me feel that they would be ready to "lead on day one", quite frankly.

            by GeauxGeauxGirl on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 09:15:14 AM PDT

            •  faulty logic...

              I think they've been so blindsided by all of this that they're grasping at anything, really. As I read earlier somewhere (probably here), she and her operation were caught so completely unaware by Obama's popularity and success that they didn't bother setting up any kind of ground game in a lot of states, or at least not as well as Obama did.

              Their heads are spinning right now, they're desperate, and I feel kind of bad for them. Had there not been a Barack Obama, I could have gotten behind Hillary very easily. Not with the same enthusiasm I have for Obama right now, but probably more than I had for Kerry.

              Love your screen name, BTW.

              by snookybeh on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 04:25:32 PM PDT

              •  thanks

                for the props on the name!  And I totally agree with you re: the being blindsided.

                The thing that gets me is that they were so blindsided and thought HRC would roll to the nomination.  It's anecdotal to be sure, but no one I know had HRC as their first (or second) choice as nominee (based on discussions long before this election season).  She might have been the party brass's choice, but she did not in my experience have much support among the people who make up the grass roots.  I would have thought that her campaign would be aware of the lack of warmth for her among the trenches, which could have been rectified with a little effort.

                by GeauxGeauxGirl on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:26:12 PM PDT

        •  But this is a good thing

          As you say, the states Clinton is winning will go to the Democrat - and that includes Obama in the general.

          But he'll have substantial coattails in the redder states that she would not have.  And he'll quite probably pick off a few purple states that would be much tougher for her.

          by jrooth on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 06:50:35 AM PDT

        •  Blue states like...

          Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Maine, all of whose electors will go to the Dem in the general?

          Red states like Iowa, Missouri, and Virginia, whose electors...oh, wait, actually, those are swing states that Obama can pick up and Hillary cannot.

          by RogueStage on Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 07:44:59 AM PDT

          •  Colorado

            by nwgates on