Dear Hillary Supporters - Please join us

We are known as the big tent party.

Given that there is little policy difference between Obama and Hillary (which, BTW, made me a JRE supporter), it is time to unite the party.

If I personally have been guilty (as in my sig line...) of offending any of HRC's supporters, I apologize.  I would also request that anyone who has made any of you angry, also be thoughtful enough to apologize for the sake of party unity.

Before she ran to the mud pile, I thought she would have made a good president.  Certainly better than St. John McSame.  She is a good Senator, and will have a long and productive career in the Senate, unless she screws up enough to piss everyone off.

But let's face facts.  Obama has caught the minds and hearts of voters, and is on the way to be our party's nominee.  He will make a good president, but will need allies, such as Hillary, to show him how to succeed.  

It seems to me that there are only two ways to go.  Unify the party, or fight on to the death.

I truly believe that the latter is a very bad idea personally for Hillary, because, there are two possibilities.

1. She manages to destroy Obama and gets the nomination.

2. She manages to destroy Obama for the general election.

You must see that EITHER of those events will spell the end of her political influence in the Democratic Party FOREVER.  In the first case, she will alienate all of the newly energized voters who have fallen for Obama.  They will probably stay home in November, and even if they vote and she manages to win, they will be less likely to be engaged in the party in the future.

In the second case, she will be roundly (and rightly I believe) blamed for 4 more years of Republicans in the White House. She may even cause down ticket losses for Dems in competitive seats for congress.

So - think about the future of the Democratic party, think about Hillary's legacy, and think of yourself.  

Join us, Obama 2008!

Heed the words of another Illinois politician, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

•  Tips for Unity

  by DrWolfy on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:04:11 AM PDT

  •  One word: No

    It's not going to happen.  I'm an Edwards orphan and have not supported either Clinton or Obama, but you can be sure that the gleeful bashing of Clinton engaged in by you and other Obama supporters over the past couple of months, has been sufficiently vile to turn me completely off Obama.

    You appear to be asking the battered spouse to make nice and be forgiving now that the beatings have stopped (even though they have not; take a look at the rec list).  No thanks.

    by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:22:52 AM PDT

    •  Battered spouse my ass

      She's the bully who picked on the wrong person. What you call 'bashing', Obama supporters call defending him against the despicable tactics of the Clinton campaign. I guess you were fine with the constant accusations of 'mysogyny' by Clinton supporters simply for disagreeing with them. Do you really believe that the campaigns have acted equitably? or is this just willful ignorance?

      by jhecht on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:36:19 AM PDT

      •  I don't think meercat is

        saying that Clinton is like a battered spouse being asked to forgive, but that her supporters on this site are. I like the analogy.

        by StageStop on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:53:01 AM PDT

        •  You are exactly right

          by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:54:39 AM PDT

          •  For the record, VM

            Not all of us Obama supporters are drooly carnivorous wolves. Some of us are smiley former vegans! We hope you'll come to our table eventually and break bread with us. Now, just what do meerkats like to eat? ;-)

            by earicicle on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:31:53 AM PDT

            •  scorpions

              I am very clear that not all Obama supporters engage in bashing others who do not share their views, but I don't see many trying to bring reason to the table when the bashing is going on.

              Perhaps you might want to consider how you might feel about coming to the Clinton supporters' table, should things turn out differently.  I don't respond well to being slapped around and then being cajoled to make nice.  I won't play that game.

              by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:45:22 AM PDT

              •  I'd gladly sit down at the table with you, VM

                But do I have to eat scorpions? I used to be a vegetarian. How about a little tofu molded in the shape of a scorpion? Seitan scorpion? I'm sure we can work out a culinary compromise. ;-)

                I'll confess to having engaged in snark, and yes, my temper has flared. But I've mostly avoided the candidate diaries, too, and I've certainly tried not to bash. And please let me apologize to you, personally, for those who have.

                Scorpions? Really?

                by earicicle on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:56:24 AM PDT

                •  Really really big scorpions

                  It grosses me out as well.  I try to stick to the smaller bugs myself.  I'm sure we could agree on something mutually appetizing.  

                  To be clear, I don't think I've ever seen you bashing anyone, and I am a great proponent of snark.  So snark on and enjoy supporting your candidate.  That's what a primary is all about.  It is a contest, after all.  

                  by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:22:05 AM PDT

                  •  asdf

                    I did go to elementary, junior high & high school with my candidate, so I admit my mind has been made up from the start.

                    That said, I propose a meal of Hawaiian delicacies. I could introduce you to the delights of poke (raw fish and seaweed salad), for example, with perhaps some malasadas (Portuguese fried dough) for dessert. ;-)

                    by earicicle on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:35:29 AM PDT

                    •  Sounds delicious

                      I'm up for that meal.  I don't really have a candidate at this point, but I will vote for the Dem nominee in November.  I do not believe in cutting off the nose to spite the face. We cannot afford four more years of rethuglican rule, and it's still uncertain whether we can overcome the destruction they have wrought, or how long it might take to do it. But it's unlikely I will ever feel the same about dKos, which saddens me.

                      by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:16:10 PM PDT

                      •  I pray time will heal all wounds,

                        including the ugly nose-to-spite-the-face ones.

                        God forbid the "R" wins in November, because that is an error our country may not survive another four years to rectify.

                        Peace...

                        by earicicle on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:27:56 PM PDT

      •  Feel free to call it whatever you like

        I really don't give a damn.  I wasn't talking about the campaigns; I was talking about what has been happening on dKos.  You can turn your insulting language on me all you want.  It carries no weight with me.  

        by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:53:59 AM PDT

      •  Simply disagreeing

        shouldn't make one a racist either.  

        by astoundedstill on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:34:49 AM PDT

        •  Clearly not

          by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:47:20 AM PDT

      •  All disagreements weren't

        rational, respectful disagreements. To suggest that bullying occurred when correctly calling certain behaviors what they actually were is defensive and misguided.

        by astoundedstill on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:53:56 AM PDT

    •  Obama Has Not Battered Anyone

      Please try not to attribute the antics of some nasty partisans with the candidate.

      Barack Obama is a good man who has shown dignity and avoided serious negative campaigning. This site only shows that some Obama supporters don't have similar grace.

      by Mr X on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:52:43 AM PDT

      •  Reading comprehension

        I have not accused Obama of battering anyone.  This is why I generally do not participate in these diaries.  Useless.  You don't want unity; you want capitulation.  There is a difference.

        by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:03:42 AM PDT

        •  I Was Refering to...

          ...has been sufficiently vile to turn me completely off Obama

          I think I comprehended correctly in believing that you have been turned off to Obama as a result of the actions of some other people. I was only pointing out that Obama is not the the guilty party, and is, in fact, rather dignified. I hope that you can disassociate the candidate from the offenders.

          by Mr X on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:55:04 PM PDT

          •  Multiple factors

            have shaped my view of the Obama candidacy, only one of which is the arrogance and vituperativeness of his supporters, which in my view, reflects the tenor and tone of the campaign as a whole.  Yes, Obama the candidate is far more subtle than his supporters, but his campaign cannot be disassociated from the behavior of his supporters.

            by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:27:55 PM PDT

            •  And btw

              Obama is able to avoid negative campaigning himself only because his supporters appear to be more than eager to engage it it on his behalf. I would suggest that works out quite well for him.  If it was not working for him, I have no doubt he could and would find a "subtle" way of communicating that.  Instead, he rewards it, again in quite subtle ways.

              by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 05:33:24 PM PDT

    •  You go, v. meerkat!

      This diarist's insincere unity call rings hollow, and VM has every right to withhold a tip, complete w/lucid and stingy analogy to the battered spouse.

      Diarist HR'd a harmless joke I made--a movie reference s/he obviously did not get--and enlisted some of his/her friends to hide the comment. My first! And then proceeded to threaten me when I tried to engage and explain.

      Whereas I have encountered the illustrious v. meerkat in many a thread, and found a thoughtful commenter, always willing to engage and explore ideas respectfully.

      A rec for you, VM, always! Unfortunately, I expect this comment soon to be HR'd by a pack of wolves.

      by earicicle on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:29:42 AM PDT

      •  Thank you earicicle

        you truly are one of the good guys, and it shows.

        by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:15:07 AM PDT

        •  Your kind words

          Mean more today than I can express, VM.

          by earicicle on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:18:58 AM PDT

    •  I'll never understand

      why candidates get blamed for supporters.  I don't support Clinton not because of anything her supporters online or on television has done, but because:

      a) her Iraq war vote was wrong, wrong, wrong

      b) I don't favor dynastic politics

      c) I don't agree with her health care proposal as it exists

      d) I think her campaign is a microcosm of what her administration might be and, between tactical errors and financial mismanagement, I am wildly unimpressed.

      Ferraro, Carville, WJC, myDD, TalkLeft, Taylor Marsh, notwithstanding, I judge Clinton on her own merits.  I think that's the right way to do it.  If you don't like Obama, don't like him over his own policies and statements, not because of what some person online whom you don't know says.  

      by jazmen8 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:39:56 AM PDT

      •  Please try not to insult my intelligence

        With this tired argument.  You presume too much.

        by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:50:25 AM PDT

        •  Hmm....

          How do my thoughts about my decision-making insult your intelligence?

          by jazmen8 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:21:13 AM PDT

          •  I'm not playing

            by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:24:00 AM PDT

            •  um okay

              One wonders, though, why you are here, then.

              by jazmen8 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:44:36 PM PDT

              •  LOL

                You are so precious.

                by vigilant meerkat on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:50:30 PM PDT

      •  Likewise

        I judge BO on his merits but you have to admit there has been very little, if any, room for a reasonable discussion on different views while the vitriolics about Clinton went to an insane level.

        by astoundedstill on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:12:43 AM PDT

        •  I agree

          which I why I have not engaged in that.  But again, I have to wonder about why supporter talk/behavior impacts opinions on the candidate.  I don't hold HRC accountable for anything other than her own record.  On that basis alone, I have found more than enough to question.

          by jazmen8 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:23:05 AM PDT

•  LOL!

  Because they've been treated so well here?

  Hilarious.  The only silver lining is that the vast majority are Democrats, and they will vote for the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

  by Miss Blue on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:07:20 AM PDT

  •  Miss Blue you have to admit that many of HRC's

    tactics are beyond the pale.  That is where most of the pie fights began here.

    by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:13:43 AM PDT

    •  her supporters would argue

      so has his and ours.

      by nrafter530 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:17:18 AM PDT

      •  We just snipe at you a little bit

        Get down! Incoming!

        by FishOutofWater on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:27:47 AM PDT

        •  incoming

          get over it. keep it out there so we don`t have to focus on policy.

          by DocbytheBay on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:18:12 AM PDT

    •  Of course I do.

      And I rec diaries and comments calling her out on it.

      That has nothing to do with the fact that most of her supporters here have been treated like crap.  Troll-rated constantly, harangued, taunted, and bullied.

      It's been disgusting to watch.

      Of course there are some who've deserved it, but not the majority, and that's who've been treated horribly.

      by Miss Blue on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:18:08 AM PDT

      •  you are correct some did, most didn't

        but those small few....ugg.  Now my head hurts.

        by MadAsHellMaddie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:36:03 AM PDT

      •  But most

        Obama supporters here have NOT done that.  I don't think I have trollrated any comments during this process, and if I have, it was for racist remarks.

        If there were comments I perceived as a lie, then I simply responded.

        I think a few rotten apples on the internets shouldn't ruin what is a good thing here.

        by pooh74 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:25:21 AM PDT

        •  troll rated

          Out of frustration in the midst of a long series of anti-hillary rants i said--why don`t you just take her to the town square and stone her.I was troll-rated by an Obama supporter. I still don`t knaw why.

          by DocbytheBay on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:54:14 AM PDT

          •  You don't know why,,,,

            you'd get troll-rated for suggesting someone kill her?

            You don't belong here.  In fact, I don't think you belong anywhere.

            by Miss Blue on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:54:21 PM PDT

            •  miss blue

              Did I say stone her to death? Do you take everything literally? You know what I was saying. Agame of chess might be a little more productive.You should get on your knees and thak god Obama was able to get Axelrod to sign on. He`s the real brains of the operation.

              by DocbytheBay on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:46:31 PM PDT

    •  You shold consider that perhaps

      some of the more vitriolic and virulent of her 'supporters' may just be provocateurs from the right. I've started to

      by theRoaringGirl on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:27:14 AM PDT

      •  I thought about that.

        Thing is that it is sort of like the time I was mugged and beaten.  There were only five active participants actually beating me, but about 20-25 people cheering them on and none of those people stepped in to help me.

        So it sort of doesn't matter.  Its a reflection of the community at large that anyone gets away with the kind of bullying that has been done on behalf of Obama that I've witnessed on this blog.

        by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:39:20 AM PDT

        •  I am sorry to hear that happened to you.

          It must have really shaken your faith in people in general.

          I voted for Hillary in February.  I have been essentially silent on candidate issues here because it gets very ugly very quickly.  There has been outright hatred expressed and no hide ratings when that target is HRC.  I am sure that BHO supporters think the same thing has happened to them.

          My main wish is that we quit examining the past and concentrate on strategies and good ideas for the memes that may work for the general.  And do this in context of either outcome (BHO or HRC).

          But this idea of unity only if HRC folks support BHO before it is over is kinda silly.

          Neither candidate has a clear path to the nomination and I think we should be able to hold our vitriol through June.  Thats staying constructive and civil for 12 weeks folks.  Can we handle that?

          by dogheaven on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:25:43 AM PDT

          •  I would hope so.

            I am essentially neutral.  I'm voting for "The Democrat" and neither choice is perfect in my mind by a long shot.

            I'd like to see both candidates get back on to policy discussions.  That is the only path to unity that I can see here.  In the past few weeks, I have really come to a place where I am deeply disappointed in both campaigns.  I have lost faith in both candidates' judgment because neither seems to be able to resist the temptation of politics of personal destruction.

            They both seem to have gone down the rabbit hole chasing after ancient history in Bosnia and crazy preachers while Americans are facing some really serious threats to their way of life with respect to the economy, healthcare and seemingly unending and "unwinnable" wars.  They are both "off topic" and that in my mind is creating the divisions we are seeing emerge.  No matter who we supported when this primary started, I think most Democrats were unified by some pretty clear mandates and goals.  Now I think those incredibly important issues are being obscured by petty tit for tat fights over nothing.

            As for the mugging...  It was a fascinating experience.  Terrifying and it took years for me to get over it, but it offered some teaching points - not the ones that most people might have come away with necessarily.  I had never seen people in a feeding frenzy and had had no real experience with violence.  This lady was trying to cut my throat with a broken beer bottle.  I was looking into her eyes and couldn't for the life of me figure out why the hell she wanted to kill me.  I didn't want to kill her - never did - not even afterwards when I emerged from the shock of the experience.  It is a much longer story involving police corruption (they first refused to come and then when they did they destroyed the bottle that the attackers left behind - they also falsified the police report) and then witness intimidation.  The attack was in part inspired by racism as was the police protectionism.  It was a poor reflection all around on the state of that community - which in the end for me triggered more sadness and pity for them than bitterness towards them.

            by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:59:46 AM PDT

        •  BavO!!!!!!!!! n/t

          by astoundedstill on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:38:25 AM PDT

    •  Point proven

      My comment gets TRed.

      Need I say more?

      And the ironic thing is that I have never been a Hillary supporter.

      by Miss Blue on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:42:05 AM PDT

      •  We Can't Keep the Dickheads Away

        I can only give you a rec.

        by Mr X on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:54:43 AM PDT

  •  I am the first to admit

    that HRC supporters have not been well treated.

    I am asking that they put this aside and unify the party.

    Is that such a huge request?

    by DrWolfy on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:14:48 AM PDT

    •  as my professor once said

      "There are only two types of people who hold grudges forever; Catholics and Democrats"

      by nrafter530 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:16:41 AM PDT

      •  And,,,,

        I am both.

        Your professor was a very smart man.

        by Miss Blue on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:18:41 AM PDT

    •  Probably not, but I doubt it can happen

      here on dkos after what's gone down.

      Furthermore, while the spirit of your request is reasonable, you're still trashing their candidate throughout your diary.  And you kept your sig line.  Not much of an olive branch.  More like a bottle of vinegar imo.

      I don't even like Clinton, but the beating she has taken on this blog has made me much, much more sympathetic to her than I ever imagined I possibly could be.  I can only imagine what it would be like if I really believed in her.

      by inclusiveheart on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:46:51 AM PDT

    •  Yes. I can still just about bring myself to

      vote for Obama in the general election because of the Supreme Court issue.  Even that level of positiveness about Obama is getting harder to maintain every day for me.

      And it's not like if Hillary pulled out that I would relax and start liking Obama.  Not happening that way.  I can't speak for anyone else, but I can speak for myself.

      I started out liking 4 of the candidates in the race more than either Hillary or Obama.  I mildly preferred Hillary to Obama over health care and because he has no freaking experience at all versus her having some experience, but not as much as I would like.  Experience is important to me, but not necessarily to others, which is OK with me.  

      It's now 2 months later and I am so disliking his supporters & him that I find it difficult to even commit to voting for Obama in the fall.  It is possible that some of the real aholes here on Kos are Republican trolls with high userids, but it isn't like the general crew has stood up for any HRC supporters or for Hillary, either.

      I'm not asking Hillary to quit, because this is her only chance at a nomination.  That's how the Democratic Party has worked in the past-even Al Gore who actually won in 2000 was not given a second chance in 2004. The big backers told him there would be no money well back in 2003.

      No one harassed Huckabee to quit in the republican party.  It isn't a necessity to be an ahole to your competitor, folks.  Even the Republicans have figure that out.

      You want my vote in the fall, and want me to go back to thinking Obama is a nice looking guy who speaks well but hasn't a clue, which was my opinion 2 months ago, rather than having a far poorer opinion of him?  Here's what you can do:

      Let the remaining primaries run out.  Quit blocking redos in Michigan and Florida.  In fact, instead of complaining that Hillary offered to fund the redos, and it somehow would not be fair if she raised the money for them, Obama & his supporters should volunteer to pay half if Hillary pays the other half.  It's not like Obama has trouble raising money.  Stop alienating the voters of MI and FL who are needed in the general election.  Be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

      Any 'new' politics that I would subscribe to would not be going out of its way to disenfranchis people.  Obama proves to me all his pretty speeches are lies by his actions in the case of the redos.

      Quit sending out surrogates like Dodd & Leahy to command Hillary to quit.  Obama should have the guts to do his own dirty work.  And it's not his call.  It's her call.  You wouldn't like it if the shoe were on the other foot.

      Thanks for seeking unity.  I'll try hard to comply in November.  But you're all making it harder every day.

      My husband and his sister who is a Florida resident, both life long Democrats, are so angry over this, they're both going either not vote or vote for McCain.  They're not the only ones.  The peace-making has to come from Obama on this.

      I hope he is smart enough to see that.

      by LIsoundview on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:18:31 AM PDT

      •  There are so many

        people who did not even vote in nthose states because they thought it wouldn't count.  It's "disenfranchisement" either way.  Those delegates will be seated, dont worry.

        by pooh74 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:28:07 AM PDT

        •  Actually more people voted in the FL primary

          than have ever voted before because there was a property tax proposition on the ballot at the same time.  It was a pretty good sample.

          Michigan, I don't know much about, but I live half the year in FL.

          by LIsoundview on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:39:17 AM PDT

          •  The total #s are irrelevant

            when you don't think it is going to count!  For example, I wouldve maybe voted for Dodd or Kucinich to make a statement, whereas if I knew it would count, I wouldve voted for Obama.

            No, either redo, or 50/50 seat the delegates.  I canunderstand die-hard HRC supporters wanting it to count, but it doesn seem fair for so many reasons...I would feel the same if the tables were turned.

            by pooh74 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:01:45 PM PDT

      •  LIsoundview

        Thank you. You don`t just speak for yourself--you just spoke for me.

        by DocbytheBay on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:05:47 AM PDT

      •  But

        Obama said yesterday that Clinton should not quit and he talked about how he felt his supporters were intense as well but would support her.

        I don't see how it's fair to say that we can't blame her for things her supporters say but he must be blamed for everything that every one of his supporters says or does.

        Re: Huckabee - He spent the remainder of his campaign talking about specific issues, not about his opponent.  Personally, I wouldn't compare Clinton to Huckabee, who had no shot whatsoever.

        by jazmen8 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:30:27 AM PDT

        •  Oh? She has a shot?

          Who knew?  I thought she had no chance.

          Anyone who thinks Dodd & Leahy did that  on their own knows neither of them and is quite naive in the bargain.  I do not blame Obama for Dodd & Leahy's language; they spoke for themselves.  However, I do not think they asked for Hillary to resign without asking Obama first.

          by LIsoundview on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:13:34 PM PDT

          •  Doesn't it seem a bit strange

            thogh, that Obama's comments were the exact opposite of Dodd's and Leahy's.  I think we have to recognize that he's, if nothing else, politically smarter than to call for her to drop out or ask anyone else to do it, recognizing the impact it would have on her supporters.  We saw in NH what happened when her supporters felt she was being pushed out of the race.

            The superdelegates could select HRC as the nominee.  Whether they will or not is another conversation.  Huckabee, however, had no shot at all.

            by jazmen8 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:50:54 PM PDT

            •  though even

              by jazmen8 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:52:37 PM PDT

            •  not a bit strange

              He appears to be a normal politician; nothing new to see there at all.

              Wait!  Wasn't he supposed to be different?  Well not that different.

              by LIsoundview on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:58:49 PM PDT

              •  It's going to be difficult

                to have a conversation if you don't really want to 'have a conversation'.  What does your comment mean?  It's snarky and all, but what does it contribute to the discussion that I was sincerely trying to have with you?

                by jazmen8 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:48:24 PM PDT

                •  Okay I'll rephrase. Conversation is good.

                  It does not seem one bit strange to me that Obama says the opposite of what his surrogates say.  That has been the method used in his campaign all primary season.  And that technique is not unique to Obama.  It has been used by politicians forever.  It is why they have surrogates; to say the things they want said but which might have a negative effect if they said those things themselves.

                  It is politics as usual.  So of course it is no surprise.  

                  However, Obama has made huge claims about his unique unifying effect, his new sort of politics, etc.  Unfortunately, his techniques are politics as usual, and he is failing to unify the Democratic party, let alone being able to succeed at unifying the country.

                  So that's what my comment meant.  I admit, it was a bit brief.

                  by LIsoundview on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:54:44 PM PDT

                  •  okay

                    I see where you are coming from now.  I will say that Obama, while being remarkable in my view, is, above all else, a politician.  I agree that he has repeatedly talked about getting away from 'politics as usual'.  The problem with that, of course, is that if your opponents are playing the old school game and you don't respond, you run the risk of being swift-boated a la John Kerry.

                    I do disagree, though, with the statement that Obama has made huge claims about his unifying effect.  Many, many people have said that about him.  But, in the interest of accuracy, he generally tends to talk more about what we can do that what he alone can do; he uses a lot of 'we' language versus 'I' language--I am far from the first to comment on that.  It is definitely designed to empower the listener and people have clearly responded to that.

                    I wonder if it fair to fault Obama for trying, while sometimes failing to be sure, to engage in a new type of debate, while rewarding other politicians with your support for playing the game as usual.

                    by jazmen8 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 06:27:17 PM PDT

                  •  I can hardly believe that you would

                    grant anyone "surrogate" status that posts on DKOS.

                    He is NOT doing anything to destroy Hillary, that all comes from her direction.

                    What would you want him to do?

                    Say - "In the interest of party unity, you have the nomination?"

                    Puh - leese

                    by DrWolfy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:31:07 PM PDT

                    •  I never said any such thing

                      so if you won't put words in my mouth, I'll refrain from putting words in yours.

                      Also, which dailykos poster are you referring to?  

                      by LIsoundview on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:35:33 PM PDT

                      •  I won't....

                        But - are you saying that because of Obama's supporter harassing of HRC supporters, you will vote for McCain?

                        by DrWolfy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:11:31 PM PDT

                        •  No. I am saying

                          that Obama's efforts to stop people from having their chance to cast their votes in primaries and caucuses, and his cowardice in doing this through surrogates while distancing himself from the position, does not lead me to want to vote for him.  

                          As to whether I would vote for him in the fall, the question would be whether he is sufficiently incompetent that even a McCain, who would further swing the Supreme Court rightward, would still be better with respect to the economy, the environment, and foreign relations to counterbalance that.  Considering that Obama is talking about raising the capital gains tax to 25% or higher at a time of recession, he does indeed show a high level of incompetence in that area.  His voting for Cheney's energy bill and his cosponsoring a coal bill with Bunning assures that unless curbed by adequate advisors that he will be as disastrous for the environment as Bush.  Obama has no foreign relations experience, but his relations with Clinton & her supporters give evidence of how he would treat someone whose interests are different from his own-which gives me some reservations about him on foreign relations.

                          As a side issue, some of his supporters are severely annoying.  While no one can choose their supporters, this is an Obama who has posted at DailyKos to chide the denizens thereof for their attitudes.  If he disapproved, he could conceivably have posted to complain, but it is nothing I would expect of him.  It would be a smart move on his part though.

                          Unfortunately, the politics of intimidation and disenfranchisement do not make the instigator thereof loved by those whom he disenfranchises.  Obama has a lot of work to do to get the party back together in the fall.

                          This cannot be accomplished by reflecting attitudes of elitism (not to mention entitlement) or by calling on the disenfranchised to plead to their candidate to quit.

                          It can be accomplished by several methods I laid out in the parent post, however.  If Obama's nomination is indeed inevitable then assisting MI & FL to revote and letting the primaries ride out to a conclusion is his best hope of uniting the party behind him in the fall.  If he loses in the fall, what the heck good was the nomination to him?  He is displaying a severe lack of vision here.

                          And if he is not the inevitable candidate, and by some miracle HRC is nominated, then he is young enough to try again and will not have crapped in the water enough to foul his later chances.  If he should want it, he could have the VP slot (he probably doesn't).  If he is the defeated candidate in the general election, his chance of another shot is almost zero.  On balance, being relatively polite and cordial to HRC & her supporters would be smart.  The policy he is pursuing, not so much.

                          by LIsoundview on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:47:23 AM PDT

      •  Can you separate your dislike for

        his supporters from your feeling about him.

        Obama has been a peace-maker.  The vitriol is coming from supporters, not the man, and not even surrogates.

        by DrWolfy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:29:10 PM PDT

        •  I do not find him to be a peace maker

          I find him a person who would like to be thought a peace maker.

          I can separate my feelings for him from those for his supporters.  However, I would make a difference between supporters (folks like the Dkos writers for example) and those who are intimately involved in his campaign, say Dodd & Leahy & Richardson.  I call such people surrogates, but there may be a better term for them.

          by LIsoundview on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:20:43 AM PDT

          •  To be clear

            when surrogates say something, I credit the content to Obama or Clinton, but not the phraseology, unless the surrogate is fired (if an employee) or completely becomes invisible in the campaign (if a superdelegate, as you can't fire someone who's a volunteer).

            When people like Chris Dodd or Pat Leahy, one who is my senator, and one who used to be my Senator, behave in ways that are totally unlike themselves, then I definitely believe that the new influence in their lives, Obama, is at the root of it.

            That Madeline Kunin & Pat Leahy are now at daggers drawn is a real eye opener.  That Dodd has said & done things that caused his popularity rating to the lowest point in at least the last 10 years is another shocker.

            Considering Obama began his state Senate career in excluding voters from the pool, it is no surprise that he is doing it again.

            It is one of his least appealing traits to me.

            by LIsoundview on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 07:27:04 AM PDT

    •  Um

      I am asking that they put this aside and unify the party.

      Please ask the same of your fellow Obama supporters.  A little more diplomacy and less condescension would be greatly appreciated.

      Thank you.

      by Plutonium Page on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:30:23 AM PDT

      •  I agree - the bashers have been bad...

        That will be my next diary.  To "give it a rest" already.

        by DrWolfy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 12:27:29 PM PDT

    •  No......

      but I think the request coming from this site will have a lot of baggage to deal with to truly turn any heads.  I'll go with the nominee, but I would anyway.  I don't think if I was disinclined that I would easily get a conversion here.    

      I had stopped coming here for awhile.  I admit it's better but it doesn't seem because of any kind of increased respect for my views or a more honest accounting of  HRC.  It seems to be a tactical move to rally folks behind BO.  I will when and if the time comes but I won't be convinced to abandon support for HRC as part of a strategy to derail her.

      by astoundedstill on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:43:58 AM PDT

•  Hillary has been Huckabee-ized on...

  all the Sunday morning shows.

  by David Kroning on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:07:22 AM PDT

  •  Explain a bit more?

    Do you mean she has been marginalized and the Sunday shows are saying it's over for her?

    Or am I not completely up to speed on the meaning of the verb, "to Huckabeeize?"

    by Loquatrix on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:16:12 AM PDT

    •  All of the shows this AM have concluded:

      Hillary's chances are less than 5% (She cannot win)

      Obama was not damaged by Wright controversy

      This will be over soon by a large movement of super delegates

      Even FOX Sunday concluded this.

      by David Kroning on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:21:00 AM PDT

      •  Fox bailed on her!??!!!

        It's a sad day in the Clinton campaign.

        by lgcap on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:23:51 AM PDT

        •  her LBJ/Cronkite 1968 moment...

          ...but ickier:

          "If I've lost Fox News...."

          by mk on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:17:43 AM PDT

      •  PA

        As I said before, if this is over and she has a less then 5% chance of winning then the dems in PA aren't exactly getting behind Obama which shows how split the party will be in November. I would suggest that it is equivalent to John McCain who was inevitable at a certain point losing to Huckabee in Texas by 5-10%

        by Wiseprince on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:32:36 AM PDT

        •  No.

          She needs to win every remaining race with 65% of the vote.

          She had a 20% lead in the polls a week or 10 days ago for PA.

          If she wins, but gets single digits in that win, Obama wins.  Period.  And the percentage of win required in the races after PA increases.

          Don't pull the Mark Penn stuff here.  Hillary and her apologists may fall for it, but we don't - we aren't stupid enough to have hired him, paid him millions, and keep him on after he lost Tsunami Tuesday for her.

          by sheddhead on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:56:02 AM PDT

        •  No.

          This would be more like Huckabee winning in Louisiana despite being eliminated by all rational approaches to the math.

          In other words: not terribly meaningful just yet.

          by insects8mybrain on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:57:30 AM PDT

        •  Yes

          ok I dissent from the other two, you're right, which is why he needs to either A.) win Pennsylvania or B.) narrow the margin down substantially.

          If he loses Pennsylvania by 20%, it's an embarassement to him. If he loses by 3%, it means the party is beginning to unite behind him slowly but surely. If he wins, he's the nominee, the end.

          by nrafter530 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:27:01 AM PDT

•  Better

  but let me put on my Hillary supporter devil's advocate cap and give me opinion as to what one who is threatening or planning to vote McCain over Obama is thinking;

  Ok, the problem is, those folks really hate Obama. there's a small chance that may be insurmountable, but we have to try. They feel he has divided the party, he has assassinated her character, he isn't qualified or electable.

  Our point is to make the case for Obama now instead of trying to push the fact that he has "won" because that's easily refutable. It's not come August, or even in June, but right now it is.

  I guess my plan would be something to the effect of "If you like Hillary, then you're going to LOVE Obama"

  by nrafter530 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:15:52 AM PDT

•  I just got out of work

  and caught the end of Meet the Press. Russert went over the favorable/unfavorable numbers from the NBC/WSJ poll. I know they're tied 45-45, but the peripherals of that poll look TERRIBLE for Hillary. I don't think she'd take one independent vote from McCain.

  Winning the nomination no longer does her any good, because everything points to her losing the GE. If she bows out soon, there's no permanent harm done to Hillary - she'll be a hero. And she'll go a long way toward ensuring a Democratic sweep this year (again).

  Putting myself in a Hillary supporter's shoes, I think that's what I'd prefer at this point. But I know how hard it is to look at an election objectively when you're IN one.

  by Ivey476 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:19:25 AM PDT

  •  Unless you think

    like them that is was Obama who has destroyed Hillary and not herself.

    Then you'd want him out now and her to stay in and repair herself.

    Yes I understand it's ridiculous, but it's how they think.

    by nrafter530 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:21:30 AM PDT

    •  You're probably right

      The problem here is that the proportional allocation of delegates is a really hard thing to explain. Winning a state the size of PA by 20 points puts a small dent in Obama's lead.

      She's arguing that this is a democracy and people deserve a chance to vote. It doesn't look good being on the other side of THAT argument.

      by Ivey476 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:29:31 AM PDT

      •  all you have to say is...

        there are ten states left. She would have to win each one of them by 60% to win the nomination. The only states projected to fall to her is PA, WV, and some other state (which I can't think of at the moment), and Obama is likely to win seven of those states. The delegate math is against her, and that's why she can't win the nomination.

        by slinkerwink on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:36:01 AM PDT

        •  so she doesn't win

          but at least she held it out until the end and kept her supporters hopes alive. It's going to take alot to get some of them to vote for Obama and pushing their candidate out of the race 3/4 of the way through is not the way to do that.

          by nrafter530 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:44:31 AM PDT

    •  How dare Obama win elections?

      So the Clinton supporters feel that the majority of Democratic voters who rejected her coronation is the equivalent of Obama destroying her? It's not like it's been his campaign that keeps recycling disproven garbage like Rezko, or meaningless nonsense like Rev. Wright, or that he's not really a "professor". It's really getting sickening to keep hearing people pretend that there's some kind of equivalency between the conduct of these campaigns. There is a difference between righteous anger and sour grapes.

      by jhecht on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:51:29 AM PDT

    •  Ummmmmmm

      fanning the racial flames of innocuous comments isn't good and it doesn't reflect the "brand" we are all suppose to embrace.   Mentioning LBJ is not a racial slur but it (and other like it) were ramped up by the press and the BO campaign.  

      by astoundedstill on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 11:18:17 AM PDT

•  If this is Over

  And Obama loses PA then I think he has some explaining to do.

  In Terms of uniting. Listen, Hillary is going to the convention if MI and FL are not resolved. Incidentally, I don't think there are too many Hillary supporters left at this site. They have been mocked and laughed at for too long and most have long since gone

  by Wiseprince on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:30:36 AM PDT

  •  MI is resolved.

    Just not to Hillary's liking.

    by eyeball on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:32:35 AM PDT

    •  No one will accept this

      If what you want is a unified party then I would suggest counting MI and FL. If you think HIllary will be pushed on in June without those states counting AND work to unify the party I think you are living in a dream world. The 28% percent that will not support Obama may grow (contrary to some pundits) if Hillary is treated that way after garnishing 15 Million votes

      by Wiseprince on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:35:29 AM PDT

      •  How is Hillary being treated?

        Is this about the voters in Michigan and Florida getting a chance to vote or about not being rude to Hillary?

        Michigan voters SHOULD get a revote. That state's decision to hold a Jan. 15 primary is a tragedy. But it needs to be acceptable to both campaigns and it needs to be paid for, and no one's figured out how to acheive either criteria.

        by eyeball on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:53:03 AM PDT

      •  HRC owes the party a way to count MI and FL

        that's fair....right now, her stand is a) count MI and FL but b) poach pledged delegates so that "count" doesn't mean much and c) ask the superdelegates to overturn the popular vote anyway.

        IOW, in HRC land, nobody's votes count...unless they are for her.

        I think it's a subset of what HRC Land demands as "fairness": that she get the nom and make whatever tactical decisions she feels like.

        by Inland on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:03:57 AM PDT

      •  the majority of Dems in MI and Fl

        don't think those elections should count.

        by Tanya on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:10:42 AM PDT

        •  Interesting...can you link to a source? n/t

          by slb36cornell on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:16:02 AM PDT

        •  Really

          Do you actually know more than 7 people in FL?

          All the ones I know that are Democrats are totally PO'd about this.

          I'd like to see a like and the poll methodology.

          by LIsoundview on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:23:03 AM PDT

          •  i think CNN polled ti a while ago

            yes they wan ttheir votes to count just not the votes that were held in Jan.

            by Tanya on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:25:07 AM PDT

            •  That would be fine with me

              I think a redo is a better way to go, and is the fairest thing for all concerned.

              by LIsoundview on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:40:37 AM PDT

          •  and BTW half of my

            dominican in-laws live there so it a lot more than 7. but i was using anacdotal evidence it was polled a while ago.

            by Tanya on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:26:53 AM PDT

          •  I think the voters in MI and FL

            should consider electing officials who won't try to bully their states to the front of the line and then try to get their delegates seated in spite of the fact that they essentially cheated by cutting line in front of everyone else.

            As a voter who lives in a state that is not FL or MI, I resent the hell out of MI and FL demanding special consideration when they knew the rules going in and insisted upon breaking them anyway.

            by Mad Kossack on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 04:46:31 PM PDT

      •  Fanning the flames over MI and FL

        I hear Clinton insisting that the Michigan & Florida primary votes be counted even though all the candidates and the voters knew they would not be earning delegates BEFORE THEY VOTED.  It is ridiculous for her to now insist they be counted - and to blame Obama for not joining in that case.  No one wants those who did vote to be disenfranchised, but what they did on that day in January was vote in a straw poll - a non-binding election, and they knew it.  
        Counting those votes serves to disenfranchise those who did not go to the polls because they already KNEW the votes would not contribute to the delegate count to determine the nominee.  It is also wrong to short-change the people of those states of the information needed to make informed voting decisions because - as the candidates agreed - there was no campaigning there that would have allowed the people to learn how the candidates would respond to their local perspectives.  
        There is no ideal solution to this - the Michagan & Florida leadership who defiantly accelerated the primary dates are the only ones to blame, however.

        by Integrity is fundamental on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:13:12 AM PDT

  •  why not take Hillary at her word

    As she said in October of 2007 when she thought she was the "inevitable" nominee and before her only strategy for electoral survival was to seat delegate that at this point have not been legally selected:

    "It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything"

    by Mad Kossack on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:01:05 AM PDT

    •  NH, IA took it seriously.

      It's one of those "Heads I win, Tails you lose" situations.  She was perfectly willing to let MI and FL not count, when she thought IA and NH would and she needed to pander to them.

      And she says, count IA and FL, while she declares in the same interview the right to poach pledged delegates and ask the supers to make EVERYONE's vote "not count."  

      by Inland on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:06:10 AM PDT

    •  But she and others

      ,but not BO, had the courage to keep their names on the ballot.  

      by astoundedstill on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:49:53 AM PDT

•  we WILL all come together in the end... trust me

  the democrats will be UNITED In the genereal election...   do not believe otherwise.  for the other side to be correct about hillary supporters jumping ship and voting for McCain you would have to believe that the vast majority of those supporting Hillary would abandone their core beliefs on issues like ROE and saving SS and ending the war on Iraq and that just wont happen....

  can you really see boomer aged women carrying signs that say WHO NEEDS ROE and 4 MORE YEARS OF WAR...  can you?   well I CAN'T.   and that is becasue it just won't happen :)

  women make up a large core base of HRC's supporters, women who fought for ROE and against war...   are we to believe that loyalty to the clintons is more important to these women that ROE is?   the democrats WILL be united at the end of this primary race...  much to the chagrin of the gop and the rakings seeking msm.

  by KnotIookin on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:44:58 AM PDT

  •  If that logic hold true

    women could flip this primary to Clinton as well, remember N.H. Obama hasn't closed the deal yet.  How many super delegates are women?

    by SharonColeman on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:05:14 AM PDT

    •  i believe it is 25% of the undeclared

      superdelegates

      by Tanya on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:08:30 AM PDT

      •  Thanks, I was just thinking out loud.

        by SharonColeman on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:17:38 AM PDT

•  should post this in a hill blog n/t

  by chiri on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:46:00 AM PDT

•  Six reactions from a former Clintonite

  1. I'm glad to see someone trying to mend fences. We'll need a lot more of this no matter what goes down between now and the convention. Let's bury the hatchet...in John McCain's campaign!

  2. This sounds like a "bandwagon argument" for joining the Obama camp. I've always been skeptical of joining a bandwagon for the sake of joining a bandwagon.

  3. A bandwagon can be persuasive, though...as a former HRC supporter myself (and as someone who has been on the fence between these two for a long time), I definitely felt the pull of Obama's momentum.

  4. Your argument that Hillary can't win without causing some damage to the Democratic Party is probably true. But you can't really argue against her stance that until someone clinches the nomination, we should just let the people vote.

  5. There's little to no incentive for her to drop out before PA. If I were advising her campaign, I'd recommend that she stick it out until then, see what the results are, and see if it gives her any momentum. She does still have a path to victory, even if it is a long shot.

  6. I still like Hillary and still think she would make a very good president. Until this campaign started, I always felt that the hatred of her in some circles was unfair. But plenty of Democrats have grown to dislike her in the past year, and she has no one to blame for that but herself.

  by slb36cornell on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:13:01 AM PDT

•  mmmmmmm

  Before she ran to the mud pile

  This part doesn't convince me of your objectivity.  But I agree at some point we have to unite.

  by astoundedstill on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:21:27 AM PDT

•  How refreshing.

  A topic that's never been diaried before.

  by raatzie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:42:39 AM PDT

•  Wapo Editorial

  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  One proffered justification for ending the campaign now, in fact, is the assumption that we know pretty much how everything will turn out. Ms. Clinton will win Pennsylvania, Mr. Obama will carry North Carolina and so on. But throughout this campaign, just about everything we've "known" has been wrong: Mr. McCain was finished, Ms. Clinton was inevitable, Mr. Obama had New Hampshire locked up. No doubt the Democrats have gotten themselves into a fix with rules that may leave the final decision to unelected superdelegates -- but why is the answer to that less democracy? Why not give as many voters as possible a chance?

  Indeed....why not?