Daily Kos

This is a 'Change' Election, not a 'Throwback' Election.

Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:22:45 AM PDT

cross-posted @ This Week With Barack Obama

Congratulations to Hillary Clinton and her supporters for the win in West Virginia.

Clinton netted 137,410 of the popular vote.

Many estimated that West Virginians would vote upwards or over 500,000 to 600,000, but that was not the case.

The turnout was lower.

Moving on....

Today Clinton will use this West Virginia win for a few fronts.

One, to entice more fundraisers.  Rumor has it that her campaign is deeply in debt and this is one of the reasons that she is still running, to appeal to voters for money.  Simple as that.

She is appealing to superdelegates for another chance.  Her argument is going to be the popular vote, again, with Florida and Michigan.  This is an attempt to hold the horses in the barn for another week.  Will this attempt be successful?  I don't think so.  The reason is that the math is insurmountable at this point.  We all know that Clinton's only argument, again is the popular vote and Michigan and Florida.  My take, Michigan and Florida will be solved and when it is Clinton is still behind in the popular and delegate count.  Note:  We must be clear about Florida and Michigan.  Clinton said these votes do not count, it on record via audio and video.  Barack Obama's name was not on the ballot in Michigan and neither campaigned in Florida.  To seat these delegate as is, will not happen.

Everyone now are listening to pundits.  Pat Buchanan is salivating at the mouth, rallying for Clinton until the earth cave in.  We know the the Republicans, again, would rather run against Clinton versus Obama.  Why?  After the special election in Mississippi last night, the Democrat Travis Childers beat the Republican in a solid Republican district.  You say, "so what"? The so what is that the GOP used Barack Obama and Reverend Jeremiah Wright, attempting to 'link' Childers to the 'liberal left'.  Well, it failed miserably.  Childers won by eight points.  And the GOP need to rethink how to run against Obama.  If they attempt race baiting, this is proof that not only was it a turn off, but the electorate voted for the other guy.  Barack Obama is a transcending candidate and they don't know how to run against him.

For all intention purposes, this is a 'Change' election, not a 'Throwback' election which is why Hillary and Bill Clinton should not be on the ticket.

I don't know if Clinton wants on, but my gut tells me she does.  Remember, the Clintons love the national stage, so why not the second spot.  But it should not happen.

Obama supporters would be livid with Clinton on this ticket.  Barack Obama has appealed to many across the board and his main theme from day one was change.  For that alone, the Clintons are disqualified. 'Next".

If Clinton is offered the VP spot, it is not just her but Bill Clinton, too.  Many are scratching their heads in wonderment about Bill Clinton.  Can he take orders?  Can he stay on message?  Will his wife push 'his' agenda?  And why would any candidate want a former president and first lady breathing down his neck as he tries to govern?  All these questions, alone, is enough to say 'next'.

The fierce language, dog whistle tactics used through this campaign after Iowa makes many pause, even if you are a Clinton supporter.  She has already stated Obama is only good for a speech, he is not ready to be commander in chief, he has not passed the commander in chief threshold, but she and McCain have.  This alone is a 527 ad ready to go nationwide.  Using Clinton's words against her ticket mate and watching Obama have to defend the words that Hillary Clinton used against him.  Again, 'next'.

The Clinton baggage.  I mean the greatest hits from the 90s will suddenly reappear and we are watching clips of memory lane being played, which was part of the reason we did not win in 2000.  Do we need to go there?  Again?  Also, there is much curiosity and suspect about those donors of the Clinton Library and some shady money dealings of the Clintons.  Folks, she has not been vetted for this and neither has Bill Clinton post his presidential years.  For the Clintons to be apprehensive to not release tax records and refusing to give any information about the Clinton Library just makes one wonder if there is any 'there, there'.  'Next'

We need a Vice-Presidential candidate that can bring a red or purple state to the table.  We will win New York.  Simple as that, 'next'.

Hillary Clinton since entering this race has high negatives/unfavorables.  This was from day one and continues now.  She is revered in the Democratic Party, but once you poll outside the party it is a downward spiral.  No one can say any Republicans will vote for her, in fact whatever polling there is must be scant.  Yes, during this primary season we have had the usual 'Rush Limbaugh Voters' spoiling some of these primaries, but in actuality these voters will not vote for Clinton.

Finally, Hillary Clinton on the ticket will revitalize the conservative base of the Republican Party.  John McCain is having issues right now with this faction of his party, with Clinton's name on it folks will come out in droves to vote for McCain, being a vote against Clinton.  We all know this to be true.  Which is why all the republican pundits are swooning over Hillary Clinton.  They want her badly.  They know how to beat her.  

Barack had a bad night last night.  No two ways about it, but remember this is a primary not a general election.  Why?  A couple of things.  As I indicated above in regards to the MS-01 special election, the Democrat won.  This means that the person dragging the Republicans down is George W. Bush.  People are livid and angry and they are turning their guns to the polls.  Recent polling does not bear well for the Republicans, many have the economy as the number one issue and the public turned sour to the Bush Administration and the handling of the Iraq War fiasco.

This is a Democratic year.  People in the end are going to vote on the issues in November, the Bush Administration, the GOP lack of leadership and George W. Bush.

In the end, November will be a referendum on the Republican Party and George W. Bush.

That is why Obama will be competitive and will bring states into play.  He is running a 50 State Strategy, always have from the start.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Democrat, Republican, President, 2008 Election (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 27 comments

  •  GOP official response to MS-01: (9+ / 0-)

    I'm looking forward to a LOT of change, as in "gulliotine" sessions in the back rooms of Congress.

    From the CNN election site

    UPDATE: National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole said in a statement he is "disappointed" with the result.

    "We are disappointed in tonight’s election results. Though the NRCC, RNC and Mississippi Republicans made a major effort to retain this seat, we came up short.

    "Tonight’s election highlights two significant challenges Republicans must overcome this November. First, Republicans must be prepared to campaign against Democrat challengers who are running as conservatives, even as they try to join a liberal Democrat majority. Though the Democrats’ task will be more difficult in a November election, the fact is they have pulled off two special election victories with this strategy, and it should be a concern to all Republicans.

    "Second, the political environment is such that voters remain pessimistic about the direction of the country and the Republican Party in general. Therefore, Republicans must undertake bold efforts to define a forward looking agenda that offers the kind of positive change voters are looking for. This is something we can do in cooperation with our Presidential nominee, but time is short.

    "I encourage all Republican candidates, whether incumbents or challengers, to take stock of their campaigns and position themselves for challenging campaigns this fall by building the financial resources and grassroots networks that offer them the opportunity and ability to communicate, energize and turn out voters this election."

  •  Are There No White-Working Class in States Barack (14+ / 0-)

    won?  

    Are there no blue-collar, white-working class people in Iowa, Maryland, Virginia, Kansas, Washington, Delaware, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, Colorado and the 30+ states that Barack won?

    Or in these 30+ states that Barack won, are there only high-class people of leisure, college graduates and African-Americans?

    •  All lazy, latte sipping elitists in those states (3+ / 0-)

      Not relelvant to the general election...

      •  I know that was a snark but (0+ / 0-)

        It gets under my skin nonetheless to hear folks in WA disparaged by the Clintons as "latte drinking elitists".

        Outside of King County (greater Seattle) we're a red and purple state with simple hard working folk.

        I had a conversation with a gentleman from Ellensburg (eastern WA) last weekend who calls Seattle the Socialist Republic of Seattle.  In fact, many in this state do.

        What I'm saying is, I'm sick to death of Identity Politics and Stereotyping based upon region.

        It just doesn't fit like it used to.

        "What Washington needs is adult supervision." --BARACK OBAMA

        by broui on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:58:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you!!!! (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          broui

          This latte-drinking FARMER in Kitsap County says Thank You Very Much. I live in a swing district, and I'm the PCO of a swing precinct. My precinct is just about exactly half Republican and half Democrat. I drink lattes (like most people around here do) once in a while as a treat, because there are coffee stands all over the place and it's easy to swing by a drive-thru one in your pickup truck or hauling car on the way to the transfer station, or the feed store, or the nursery. The coffee stands often have dog treats for all the dogs in the truck, too.

          My legislative district is currently considered "suburban blue". We managed to elect three Democratic legislators in 2006 because we Democrats worked our tails off to do so; we plain out-worked the Republicans. It helps that we ran a retired battleship commander against a self-styled "prophet of the Lord"; said retired battleship commander has proved to be what he said he was, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, and one of the most able legislators in Olympia. I will be proud to phonebank and doorbell for him again this year. But we have a formidable, quite popular moderate Republican challenger for the open LD representative seat this year, and we are going to have to work really hard to elect our candidate instead.

          If the Republicans around here worked as hard as the PCOs for the Democrats do, we would probably be a red swing district and not a blue one.

          Any Democratic candidate would be well-advised to remember that there is more to this state than Seattle, and that this is really a swing state, not a definitively Democratic one. Once you get outside Seattle and Tacoma, we are really full of conservatives that you'll have to win over if you want to do more than just eke out a slim margin of victory.

          Want to be a living kidney donor? I need one from someone with a bloodtype of B or O. Drop a note at riverheart.livejournal.com.

          by Kitsap River on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:48:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Outside of Appalachia, Obama wins all whites (4+ / 0-)

      but older white women.

      HRC basically remade herself into the Avenging Angel of Appalachia because of the primary calendar with PA, WV, and KY.  

      But outside of rural white appalachians, she's losing appeal.  Even conservative white IN didn't buy into it, and she would have lost there if not for Rush's help.

      In the meantime, if the primary were reheld today in CA, she'd lose. See my sig line.  Somehow, dropping gays down the memory hole and speaking darkly about San Francisco and appearing on O'Reilly and drinking shots and shooting and gas tax panders play really badly in CA.

      Offshore Oil/NatGas is our Strategic Reserve. Save it for when the rest of the world runs out.

      by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:16:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Voters are pessimistic (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    peraspera, trivium, SciVo

    about the Republican party?  They really do like to understate things; mere pessimism doesn't quite cover it!

  •  49 state strategy at best. eom. (0+ / 0-)

    The Democratic party: nominating unelectable Presidential candidates since 1972. (inapplicable within 3 years of Watergate and to the man from Hope)

    by raatzie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:45:07 AM PDT

  •  Well said! (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    icebergslim

    Thanks for summarizing where we stand. The only thing I would add is that HRC is running out the primaries because she believes that Obama will not win in the fall and she can say in four years that she was the one in 2008 who wanted everyone to vote. This is just as delusional as her "inevitability" campaign.

    Keep your eyes on the prize.

    by Better Days on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:05:25 AM PDT

    •  I think it may be more pedestrian than that... (0+ / 0-)

      ...her campaign is deep in debt and she just needs to sucker a whole lot more of those hard working white under $50,000 types out of their hard-earned money to retire the debt.  So again, the Clintons will profit on the backs of the working class, a la NAFTA and China PNTR...

      I want my Two Dollars!

      by Ken in MN on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:13:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Believe it or not, Hilary Duff said it best... (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, icebergslim

    ...the Clintons are so yesterday...

    I want my Two Dollars!

    by Ken in MN on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:11:13 AM PDT

  •  Outside of DKos... (0+ / 0-)

    there is significant support for an Obama/Clinton ticket...so I am sure he will consider it...

    http://www.usatoday.com/...

    Disclaimer:  I will vote and support Obama if he puts Mickey Mouse on the ticket as VP so I really do not care one way or the other...just providing a piece of reality-based information for the readers...

    Obama/Whoever He Chooses '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:21:20 AM PDT

  •  I find it interesting that (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    SciVo

    Pat Buchanan and similar pundits are referring to the low information uneducated voters as Hillary Democrats instead of Reagan Democrats all of a sudden.

    Hillary = Reagan?  WTF?

    Then some idiot on Morning Joe who has clearly never heard an Obama speech all year made a crack about President Obama telling generals with 30 years of military experience that "we have to be out of Iraq in a week".  Say it with me, stump speech fans, "we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in"!

    The pundits are having a hard time making sense of people powered change!

    Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:30:41 AM PDT

  •  No Clinton on Ticket! (4+ / 0-)

    People who don't live in anti-Clinton areas don't understand how absolutely hated she is.  I don't mean, not liked, I mean hated with a passion, with the same visceral hate as many of us have for GWB.

    The conservatives will absolutely come out in droves if she is anywhere near the ticket despite their dislike for McCain.  She is Satan to them, the Anti-Christ, and I'm NOT kidding.  Bill is hated as well but Hillary evokes even more revulsion.  In clearly anti-Hillary areas, voting for a woman would go against their religion as well.  These folks absolutely won't be voting for Obama either, but they must might stay home UNLESS Hillary is on the ticket.

    Obama owes her nothing and if her supporters won't vote for him out of spite, so be it.  I'm sick and tired of Hillary calling all the shots, making the rules and giving the impression that she has her pick of positions.  She has morphed into a redneck in a very short period of time and if anyone thinks "she has finally found her voice" like they keep saying in the MSM, I've got some swamp land to sell you.  She is what she is now because it is getting her votes in the remaining states.  The speculation that if she would have been this candidate at the beginning, she would be doing better is hooey!  She had to be a liberal for CA, NY, MA and others.  It is only working now because of the states left.  The Clintons are masters at being what they need to be at any given time.  This is all that it is.  Yesterday was no "turning point."

    I want my country back
    and a good dream to stand up for . . .
    ~Greg Brown, "Homeland"

    by doghaven on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:37:05 AM PDT

  •  Obama campaign (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    icebergslim

    is smart and has learned a lot from this national contest. So many lessons and so little time. No matter how much ventilating and air space that political journalists give to this reality-shattering idea, it keeps their viewers tuned in.

    I am certain that the Democratic nominee will choose the best VP candidate to suit the big electoral map and  to suit a new administration faced with many big challenges and boatloads of work.

    Given all of that, it ain't a Clinton

  •  I'm tired of Clinton As VP diaries! (0+ / 0-)

    Thanks for posting one that says (for a change) that Clinton should absolutely not be the VP, for a whole host of reasons. I agree with you there.

    Hillary Clinton is not a Change candidate; Barack Obama is. The Clintons, if you listen to what Hillary says about her experience, have had their eight years in the presidency, and don't need or constitutionally get more. Just because you change the first name doesn't mean you change the administration. We had the Clinton administration already (and it wasn't too good for me, either).

    Want to be a living kidney donor? I need one from someone with a bloodtype of B or O. Drop a note at riverheart.livejournal.com.

    by Kitsap River on Wed May 14, 2008 at 08:33:39 AM PDT

Permalink | 27 comments