cross-posted at MyDD and Daily Kos
I don’t have a dog in this primary anymore. My candidate, John Edwards, is out of the race. I would vote for and do GOTV for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the general. I see major drawbacks to both of them as candidates and potential presidents, but I also think either of them have a realistic chance to beat John McCain and run a good administration.
This diary contains some friendly advice for supporters of both candidates going forward.
Join me after the jump for more.
First, for the Obama supporters: your candidate had a great night in some respects, but face some facts. After a week or more of almost entirely favorable media coverage for Obama, Clinton won the overall popular vote yesterday. She crushed him among some key demographics, like women and Latinos in California.
You can talk all you want about how Obama won more states, won more delegates, and has more money to spend in the coming weeks. But does it look good for supporters of the guy who supposedly stands for empowering people to dismiss a popular vote advantage for the other side? Do you want to crow about how Obama can win this nomination on delegates while losing the popular vote?
Also, stop putting so much stock in endorsements, whether they be from celebrities or well-respected politicians. People who are not already on the Obama bandwagon don’t care.
Obama lost Massachusetts and California by clear margins. So much for the Kennedy family endorsements and Oprah’s stamp of approval.
Speaking for myself, it wouldn’t matter if Al Gore and John Edwards endorsed Obama tomorrow (though I don’t know why Edwards would endorse the candidate who keeps mocking him in his stump speech and demagoguing on universal health care plans).
In addition, if you are trying to persuade voters in upcoming states to back Obama, don’t bother sending them that “Yes We Can” video. That’s great if you want to fire up Obama supporters, but for people who aren’t already sold on him, that video just makes him look like the celebrity, media-hype candidate.
Tell your undecided friends and relatives about Obama’s concrete plans for the economy, environment, and so on. If they aren’t already committed to him, rhetoric about how amazing and inspiring he is probably won’t do the trick now. They are probably wondering what this guy stands for and what he would do if elected.
Finally, to repeat a couple of points JedReport made in this diary that every Obama supporter should read, quit bashing Paul Krugman and praising David Brooks just because of their views about your candidate.
Now, some free advice for Clinton supporters. Your candidate had some great wins yesterday in the face of a media onslaught, but Obama beat her 2-1 or 3-1 in a bunch of states. Some of those states are almost certain to go red in November, but others are states we need to hold, like Minnesota, or should be able to compete for, like Colorado.
True, the absolute number of voters and delegates in those states may be small compared to New York and California, but it speaks to how many committed Democrats do not want Hillary at the top of the ticket.
Recognize this reality and explain to your undecided friends and relatives in states that have not voted why Hillary would not be a drag on the ticket.
Also, and this only applies to a small but vocal minority among Clinton supporters, don’t try to dismiss Obama as the candidate who lacks broad appeal and can only win by getting 80 percent of the black vote.
First of all, he has now won a bunch of states with minimal African-American populations. Second, a vote is a vote. Third, if Hillary wins the nomination, mending fences with black voters will need to be a big priority for the Clintons. You should be trying to set a more gracious tone right now.
If I were a Clinton supporter, I would talk more about Hillary’s specific proposals and commitment to Democratic values, and less about how she has so much more experience than Obama. A lot of people, like me, think both candidates have enough experience to be president (even if she is more experienced). If they have doubts about Obama, it’s probably because he seems to shy away from identifying as a Democrat and plays up a post-partisan, “inspirer-in-chief” image.
Hillary can bring progressives to her side if they become convinced that her administration won’t make too many compromises with conservatives on economic, social and environmental policies. A lot of us remember feeling so frustrated that Bill Clinton didn’t go to the mat on some key issues during the 1990s. Hillary needs to persuade undecideds, especially Edwards supporters, that she will not compromise too much.
One reason why I am not an “anybody but Hillary” voter is that I’ve read persuasive diaries about her achievements and her plans for the future. Make diaries like this one and this one your model. Taunting the other side as an empty suit puffed up by the media isn’t going to bring over a lot of undecided voters.
One final word of advice to hotheads on both sides. You lose credibility if you swear not to vote for the other candidate in the general election. Unless you are thrilled about the prospect of two or three more Alitos on the Supreme Court, don’t make dumb threats about staying home or voting for McCain.
Whoever you are, you probably didn’t spend more hours than I did this past year volunteering for your candidate. If I can suck it up and support our nominee in the general, so can you.
That’s all I’ve got for now. Thank you for reading.
19 Comments
Great post.
I think both campaigns have a message problem that’s a turnoff to undecided voters.
Obama’s events and appearances come off as being attended by mindless throngs who don’t care what they’re screaming about or why they’re screaming, they just want to scream. They come off as choreographed, mindless, and mostly, annoying. Obama could give a 6 hour speech on the merits of chocolate milk and he’d still have a mindlessly chanting horde that can’t identify his stance on a single issue but is willing to run that “Fired up, ready to go” chant to death.
Clinton’s campaign seems like it’s on autopilot. It also seems completely dedicated to ignoring the fact that 50% of voters have a negative opinion of their candidate. They don’t seem to have anything to use to prove they won’t be a drag on the ticket in November.
I’m supporting Obama at this point because I think Clinton’s negatives are huge and her potential positives are only potential because she seems willing to say anything to get elected, so it’s impossible to tell what she means. But both campaigns have annoying qualities they need to get over, and fast.
klsnow Wed 6 Feb 3:21 PM
I'll support the eventual nominee, but...
For the most part, I’m just not inspired by either of these two. It’s leaving me feeling pretty flat. I already voiced my appreciation for this post on kos, and the fact that it’s starting to feel like a complete cult of personality over there is making it difficult to participate. So, thank you again, desmoinesdem, twice, for I followed your link here.
tj-iowa Wed 6 Feb 4:38 PM
Ditto.
I’m gradually weaning myself off the Orange Koolaid, looking for something to focus on other than presidential. Thinking about maybe volunteering for Fallon . . . would be my first campaign since (gad!) McGovern.
mwd Wed 6 Feb 4:43 PM
they can use volunteer help
of all kinds, at all levels, even if you only have an hour a week to spare. He’s going up against the whole establishment, and he can only win with an army of volunteers.
desmoinesdem Wed 6 Feb 5:25 PM
that's something for me to think about too.
n/t
tj-iowa Wed 6 Feb 9:25 PM
I wasn't active at DKos last primary season
but my impression is that it was a similar scene, only with fewer registered users.
I find it depressing that a rah rah diary of a few paragraphs makes the rec list so easily at Kos. I know the Edwards supporters were sometimes guilty of that, but the most active pro-Edwards diarists (EENR team, RDemocrat, jsamuel, jamess, etc.) put some real analysis into their diaries.
After the primaries it should settle down a bit over there, but no matter who we nominate, get ready for an endless stream of diaries about how this or that problem wouldn’t be happening if we’d just nominated the “right” candidate.
desmoinesdem Wed 6 Feb 5:28 PM
me either
I started there afterwards. Hopefully things will get back to normal where you can actuallly learn something about issues and movements and even science. There was one great series about the Iowa caucus too 😀
For now, though, there’s too many knee-jerk reactions, searching for hidden racism or mysoginy (sp?), even tinfoil to keep me interested.
The supporters don’t always help their candidates…
tj-iowa Wed 6 Feb 9:30 PM
Some responses to a particular contention in "Memo to Obama and Clinton supporters"
I don’t follow what appears to be something of a commonsense view among bloggers and entrenched east coast media alike that Obama’s coverage has, as you say, been entirely favorable. In comparison to whose coverage? Favorable in what way? To my eyes/eyes, media coverage of Obama has consisted primarily of the perpetuation of sound-bites and non-ideas, most of which set the terms of discussion in a way that advances the interests of his political opponents.
I’m not suggesting that this is happening as a consequence of malicious or even conscious intent. I do, however, think that it reveals the structural fetters that prevent clear reception of Obama’s platform and vision among swaths of the voting public that have habituated themselves to discussing politics in the operational and even Machiavellian terms that are the Clinton’s bread and butter.
For instance: the subject of “experience” as it’s appeared in the media discourse surrounding the Democratic race. You’d have a difficult time convincing me that the media have somehow been easy on Obama in this respect. I have seen this subject tossed around by Hilary, the punditry and reporters alike, and never have I seen it dealt with critically. For instance: (1) rare indeed have been instances in which ANYONE has pointed out just how weird and crazy it is that Hilary gets away with invoking her record as one that bespeaks ‘experience’ that somehow outmodes Obama’s. Do people think that being first lady of the U.S. counts as experience? What about being first lady of Arkansas? In fact, this non-idea is deployed by Hilary merely as a way to invoke the memory of her husband’s administration which, despite lots of us being pretty sick of hearing about it, middle-class, Baby-Boomer Democrats in particular are going to get a warm and fuzzy feeling in their guts at the mere mention of. “Ah…”
What’s even more bizarre about this “experience” trip, and which is NOWHERE to be found in any mainstream or alternative media, is (2) how is it, exactly, that Hilary gets away with half-heartedly appropriating the Obaman mantle of “change” while simultaneously insisting upon the savvy with “dealing with the bureaucracies” that supposedly accrue to her side of the mystical “experience” ledger? Aren’t we pretty far into cognitive dissonance land at this point? And doesn’t this very type of “messaging” based upon dividing up the Democratic base into interest groups, young against old, man against woman, with no coherent vision at the base of it, only the will to win through manipulation, (3) don’t these tactics smack of Karl Rove? No one’s pointing these things out.
So, in contrast to the highly unsatisfactory analysis that one might get from the media I describe, allow me to describe briefly what I – and I daresay many other – young progressive voters (and probably lots of older ones too?) know without so much as a moment’s thought to be the true content of this idea, “experience”, in the Democratic primary: it’s bullshit. It’s a vessel to be filled with whatever meaning it’s in someone’s interest to fill it with. It’s something that serves to make the presidency appear mysterious and “technical.” Thus, it more easily accords with a cynical party machine-type’s notion of what people “in the heartland” think jobs are all about. You know, get out there and get yer on the job training. That’s what the machinery of politics – which has atrophied a hundred times over in the last seventy years – thinks of you and me.
In other words, it’s a way of selling people a false version of change by scaring them away from actually asserting their interest in making government work better. The reason many Obama supporters, especially young ones like me, have grown increasingly impatient with Clinton’s rhetoric is PRECISELY because she’s condescending to her base. Because she knows that someone like me is a lost cause, she’s not even TRYING to talk sense to me, because she knows that if she spoke in the more logical, intelligent and visionary tones of Obama, she would alienate her base.
I’m not claiming that her base is to blame for this, that they somehow want to be condescended to. What I’m claiming is that she is selling them short precisely because she knows that if she drives this wedge between (a.) the conservative and even nostalgic impulses of the certain segments of the populace that pine for the simplicity, stability and myopia of the Bill Clinton years, and (b.) a group of voters that are probably a bit more educated, more interested in innovation, problem-solving, efficiency, and leaving the Culture War of our parents behind, she has this shot of just-about-squeezing-through the nominating process.
It’s a strategy that’s designed to irritate people like me, who view – for many reasons – Obama as the first genuinely smart and inspiring candidate of our lifetime. The more we resent her tactics, the more those to whom her tactics are aimed resent us. It’s Karl Rove all over again. And again and again….
The “experience” issue is one in a laundry list of examples of ways in which the media are in fact not at all receptive to Obama’s message. Were the media structured to receive and translate his message, it would be interrogating the very assumptions upon which the notion is tossed about. It would be talking about how divisive non-concepts like that are examples of political tools that hold back American domestic and foreign policy by keeping us stuck in old resentments, old feuds, old ways of thinking, from the Vietnam War, from the Cold War, from all sorts of historical events that we should be learning from but are instead – because of cheap politics and lazy media – forced to relive over and over and over again.
THIS IS THE CHANGE that Barack Obama is talking about. He’s talking about moving on from these statements, from the bad hangovers of my parents and grandparents. The very fact that Hilary can perform the charade of attempting to associate herself with this very same “change” mantle, and do so without an being MOCKED by intelligent observers, in media and elsewhere, just goes to show you how much the media do in fact take her side without even realizing that they’re doing so: they’re used to this whole thing being the kind of game it’s been for decades. Insincerity, calculation? Oh, that’s fine: it’s just tactics, like a football game!
And next time you see coverage of Obama that is ostensibly “favorable,” THINK HARD about what is actually being said. Barack the “rock star”; his “charisma.” These terms, my friend, do NOT do Obama – an extremely intelligent and visionary candidate who is by FAR the most committed candidate on either side of the field to the restoration of the rule of law in the wform of habeas corpus and the shutting down of Guantanamo – any “favors”.
In fact, they are, like most ostensibly “favorable” coverage of Obama, diminutive in the extreme.
idealtypical Wed 6 Feb 11:30 PM
if you can't acknowledge the media bias
in favor of Obama, I don’t know what to tell you.
In the past two weeks, Tony Rezko, without whom Obama could not have purchased his family’s home, was federally indicted.
Are you going to tell me that the media would not have crucified Edwards, Clinton, or any other candidate over that?
Obama’s own campaign has been branding him as a rock star, charismatic candidate. Did you ever see the ad Caroline Kennedy made for Obama?
The case they are making is all about his charisma. There is no mention of any substantive issue. Obama can make us believe in ourselves again and make us “one nation.”
desmoinesdem Thu 7 Feb 4:48 AM
A clarification
On the subject of the Obama campaign to a large extent courting the rock-star model of adulation — fair enough.
But:
With respect to this point, I think that you’re mistaking my point for being one that can be collapsed into the convenient, media-perpetuated dichotomy of ‘substantive issues’ v. ‘rhetoric’.
My whole point is that what’s most compelling and important about Obama is that he represents a vision of change that comprehends the fact that substance and rhetoric are indistinguishable. The whole point is that rhetoric of GW Bush and now of Hilary’s campaign is itself both an index of and the engine of divisions. Obama’s demonstrated and proposed rhetoric IS the substantive difference.
You’re demonstrating my point yourself! The media, and many bloggers, simply are not used to thinking of things this way, so their and your treatment of Obama’s rhetoric is inherently diminutive or at least uncomprehending. It doesn’t tally-up in the neat categories that the political process has grown used to. And that’s an expression of why the machine politics of Hilary has the advantage.
idealtypical Thu 7 Feb 10:52 AM
Uncomprehending is appropriate if it doesn't make sense
Are you really saying that his ‘rhetoric’ is the ‘substance’ of Obama? I would think he would have to find that more insulting than an accusation that he’s not putting enough details into his rhetoric.
I get that speaking of unity and change is supposed to be different, but I haven’t forgotten that Bush went on and on about being a uniter and whatnot. The rhetoric to get elected was much different than the obnoxiousness we get now.
It might be a bit wonkey, but I’d rather hear specifics (like Edwards statement that he would’ve rolled back Bush’s tax cuts for the rich) over “We can” chants.
tj-iowa Thu 7 Feb 3:39 PM
A response to tj iowa
Re lack of details and policy pronouncements in Obama’s rhetoric:
I can’t disagree with your wish that these details would be laid out more comprehensively; it’s something I wish of all politicians, but that I have seldom seen. Barack is no exception to the rule on this point, but what he is clear about are matters of approach, both when he addresses the many problems that voters perceive and as demonstrated in every speech and written piece he has ever produced. When Obama’s demonstrated key concerns and ethical/practical stances are compared not to an abstract ideal of a candidate who exists the imaginations of smart, concerned voters like you and me, and rather, are compared to the reality of the few genuine choices we have out there, I am compelled to recognize that he is the only candidate I have seen in my lifetime who even comes close to articulating the pervading divisiveness and pandering of our current and entrenched political climate.
Let me put it this way: compare him to Clinton. Whatever emphasis Hilary appears to put on her own “experience,” “know-how,” and ability to “get things done,” I know through the basically divisive approach of her political campaign — pitting some Democrats against others, trotting out slander and innuendo against Obama, investing tons of energy and time into appearing “tough” and “reliable” — that she is not leveling with me the way that I deserve and demand to be leveled with. Obama’s a approach demonstrates his commitment to restoring the kind of discourse and ethics that you and I, as intelligent voters — and whatever they say, the overwhelming majority of voters is basically intelligent — absolutely need in order to have a chance in hell of living under a government that at least accepts its mandate to be responsive to the people.
As far as I’m concerned, a president who takes that — along with a strong commitment to the restoration of the rule of law — is the only chance we have of continuing to live in a free and democratic society well into the 21st century. The only other option — one that Hilary disappointingly is playing to her campaign — is the politics of fear, brinkmanship, and unreason. In other words, more of George W. Bush. Our nation simply cannot endure that. It represents, in my opinion, an ever greater threat than terrorism itself could ever be, and in fact is a kind of systemic terrorism because it removes from the life of the individual any hope of identifying and asserting his own interests, the interests of his or her family, the right to live by the values of his or her own traditions and beliefs. The more than the political process chips away at that autonomy, the less free we have a chance of being.
I respect your respect for John Edwards. I respect him myself, particularly for his willingness and ability to be clear about policy details in his platform, to stand up for the disenfranchised and those without hope in our system. and I believe that he would have made a fine president. The question now, however, is how to make good on the best of what his candidacy represented. If we let Hilary fool us into thinking she has our “best interests in mind” — even if she, personally, does — we’ll be screwing ourselves all over again, letting government pander to us. Letting cynicism and fear continue to control the discourse.
Most of what presidents do is (1) communicate with us, the citizens, (2) communicate internationally, and (3) make appointments. That’s why I am saying that rhetoric is so fundamentally important. I mean rhetoric in a much more complex way that the George W. Bush example you raised. His initial campaign fooled people into trusting him not because of the vision that he articulated in all of its nuances. Instead, he cultivated an image for himself, one that anyone who looked closely enough could see was essentially bogus. “An everyman.” “Someone whom you’d like to have a beer with.” “Compassionate.” “A Texan,” whom anyone who really cared could easily discover was born in Connecticut to one of the most powerful, wealthy, blue-blooded families in the world. His father has been president for God’s sake! It doesn’t get more elite than that.
No, the kind of rhetoric that I’m talking about is: How do you frame the issues? On what basis do you make decisions? Are you out to convince people of something, or merely to sell them something. There’s a whole lot of honesty and intelligence and genuine empathy built into the fabric of Obama’s speeches, his writings, his biography itself. If you haven’t read Dreams From My Father, I highly recommend that you do. Long before he was political candidate of any kind, he wrote with wisdom, wit, depth and candor about his own imperfections, the imperfections of the country he loves, and the kind of country that he’d like it to become. He’s the truest patriot and sincerest advocate for the resurrection of humane, ethical, and efficient politics that we have seen within striking distance of a presidential nomination, and I could not urge people strongly enough to delve deeper into his message: there’s tons of substance there, and a realism that makes Hilary’s supposed policy pronouncements look like the desperate and cheap tactics that they often are.
I’m no hater of Hilary, nor of the Clinton era. Bill Clinton was the right person for a certain time. The best way we can honor that legacy is by supporting his genuine heir, a person who can help us preserve the voices of the full spectrum of people into the 21st century.
idealtypical Sun 10 Feb 5:23 PM
Good post.
You are little pessimistic on Obama and congratulatory to Clinton. I am not so sure it is warranted.
Obama has much better organizational skills than Hillary, who on the other hand relies on special interests, the establishment, and now her own bustling purse. It has been proven that special interests are a negative and in every state Obama has made significant headway despite being a longshot in many of them just a week or two ago. We are beginning to see Hillary take over more of Obama’s message, which is a smart tactic for a front runner facing an insurgent, but it is a little shallow. Hillary did well, but Obama took a much, much larger chunk out of her victory than he would have if Super Tuesday was moved up a week. I am not sure how you can overlook that in your analysis.
Obama had great wins yesterday, as well, and as it turns out, they are more significant wins. I don’t think this will go to a brokered convention. The winner will likely be chosen in the next 30 days.
Obama can do it through his message and winning identity politics. Obama has an edge in identity politics. Hillary currently is pulling in latinos and the poorer, less educated populations, both demographics that Obama could convince to come to him with the time he has over the next month.
I have not seen the total popular vote for the Democratic primary, but he only lost the popular vote by 53,000 yesterday. Whatever the case, the popular vote does not win Presidencies and it might not win the primary. The reason we have the delegate system is so that a candidate doesn’t just have to win a few heavily populated states or regions, but a significant representative proportion of the population. When your message is extremely and you know it will win millions in the Northeast and the Southwest, that should not mean that the lesser millions in the center of the country should have to suffer. A good candidate should be able to pull well from all parts of the country. I think it is safe to say that Obama has done that.
Other than your pessimism on Obama and seeming exuberance over Hillary, it was interesting what you had to say to the respective supporters: stick to policy proposals. However, for the information age, that is a very narrow view of politics. Yes, that should be the most important issue, but often it is not. My message to supporters is to be true to yourself about why you support your candidate: focus on why you like your candidate. If you know your candidate’s policy proposals well, then describe the proposals that interest the person you are talking to. But, the best you can do is to say why you like your candidate, and then back that thought up with a few policy proposals that are especially good.
drinksgreentea Wed 6 Feb 11:37 PM
On your Brooks and Krugman Comment
It is not about what they are going to do in the future. Past performance does not predict future performance. If Paul Krugman is going to be on my side, then he should be on it now. Why does he want to support special interests groups, corporate lobbyists, by continually tearing down Obama’s healthcare plan? Obama is the best candidate to come out of the Democratic Party in a long time – far better than the bought-out Hillary Clinton – so, Paul Krugman is wrong for attacking him on the ridiculously over-hyped mandate difference. I understand that columnists have no loyalty to my opinions, so I should not expect them to agree with me all of the time. The point is that Krugman sounds like a broken record, and it is a waste of a New York Times Op-Ed. Are you telling me that the mandate difference is the most important difference between Hillary and Obama? Give me a break. Hillary is going to do nothing good for this country. We need change, we need someone who does not have a toe in our room and the rest of her body facing special interest groups in another room.
If Obama is not the answer, then our party is broken. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton in 2008.
drinksgreentea Thu 7 Feb 4:00 AM
I'm sure more Alitos on the Supreme Court
would make you feel really empowered.
desmoinesdem Thu 7 Feb 4:35 AM
It's about
the same scenario that it would be for Hillary, except Obama will be in a much better position. A lot of his supporters are people who have never worked, volunteered, donated or come out for a campaign in any way. A lot of Hillary’s are the opposite, and they will be on his side and working with the energetic youth when he is nominated. With enough national time, and if he is the nominee he will get it, I do not think Obama will have a very difficult time defeating McCain.
I am not convinced the Latinos won’t go for him in the next month. The same goes for working-class whites. He has convinced a lot of people wrong who have said “oh he won’t get this group or that group because Hillary already has them”. Well the evidence suggests the people who have said that were wrong. The latino community is much harder to reach than is any other community, unless you have significant name establishment, which Hillary does. With enough time, which he has, he should be able to reach them.
Obama’s negatives? They are few and far between compared to Hillary’s negatives. Not only do Republicans hate her for numerous reasons, she is a symbol of corporatism and greed in politics. Obama had a run-in with one guy that helped him acquire his home in Chicago. Yeah, he also voted present a few times in the state legislature, which is a part of Illinois political culture. It is different from Congress. Are you trying to say that he can’t overcome this and Hillary can overcome all of the scandals of the past? How about all of the Republican hatred for her history, her thoughtless vote for the Iraq war….the list goes on? She will have a much more difficult time overcoming negativity than Obama, ESPECIALLY from within supporters from her party who turn Independent because they are tired of seeing Bush and Clinton on the Presidential ticket. Do we live in a monarchy? aristocracy? What in the world is this – surely it is a poor attempt at Democracy if Clinton is on the ticket again. The whole point of Democracy is changing the people who are in power. Do we achieve that by electing another Bush or another Clinton? The answer is absolutely no.
If Ralph Nader joins the race and Obama is not nominated, I will go to work for him and vote for him over her. I refuse to vote against someone in this election. I feel McCain is a better candidate than Hillary because he is more independent minded and he would run a more open Presidency. He is a more respectable candidate, not by much, though. But, that’s if Nader or another better alternative does not present itself. I will not be voting with any party if Hillary faces anyone but McCain. If the parties can’t figure out how to stop nominating fools, hacks, and puppets, then I do not feel they deserve my vote. The parties can go to he*l if that’s what they want to do. I will dissent and go somewhere better.
drinksgreentea Thu 7 Feb 1:42 PM
your comment reinforces my belief
that Obama is primarily building the Barack Obama movement and not the progressive movement or the Democratic Party.
I suggest you read up on the Supreme Court and the federal bench generally before you decide whether you really want to sit on the sidelines this November. Justice Stevens is almost 90 years old.
desmoinesdem Thu 7 Feb 4:04 PM
Obama could lose the electoral college in a landslide
if he is not able to improve his standing among Latinos and working-class whites in particular. Also, he does worse than Hillary on the question of “understands the needs of people like me.” That suggests the GOP may be able to define him as another elitist Democrat in the Kerry mold.
Say goodbye to Florida if he is our nominee. Lieberman will help McCain with Jews, and McCain will pull significant numbers of Latinos.
Obama could lose Pennsylvania and Ohio to McCain too, and perhaps even New Jersey.
The media have not even begun to cover Obama’s negatives, such as his “present” votes and his connection to the federally-indicted Tony Rezko.
What is your scenario for Obama winning 270 electoral votes against McCain?
desmoinesdem Thu 7 Feb 4:39 AM
Hillary could get struck by lightning and cause Dems the Election
So I encourage people to vote for another candidate who is less likely to get nailed by God’s almighty finger.
drinksgreentea Fri 8 Feb 4:06 AM