You Broke It, You Own It -- Obama Style

Those who are responsible for putting Democrats in the broken place we are in right now with regard to Barack Obama had better own it to the end. Leave those bumper stickers on and wear those campaign pins until the bitter end folks because YOU OWN IT. And people are going to want to know whose to blame.

And as for the superdelegates, just an FYI, we have the list with your names, you will be held accountable on Election Day and beyond, too. This time around, everybody's going to be looking for accountability.

Flash forward to Election Day 08. Can you imagine the backpedaling going on when it comes to explaining how Barack Obama -- the Democratic nominee by math not by sensibility -- loses key states? What will those pundits say? Can they turn to history and defend themselves by saying that Obama won Ohio in the primary? Pennsylvania? Florida? And what about West Virginia? No Democrat has won the WH since 1916 without winning West Virginia and we all know what happened yesterday. What will they use as their rationale as to why they reasonably expected Obama to win those states in the general? Will they be driven mad with their math and just keep repeating that it wasn't their fault -- it was math's fault? (Or will they fall back on the usual suspect and blame it on Hillary?)

Maybe they'll use the argument that Obama was supposed to re-draw the political map. That Obama promised that "all states were in play." And, what if he turns out to be wrong? What if Obama loses those red states (and even some of those key blue states)? Is it possible that after e-i-g-h-t years of George Bush, we will have another Republican in the WH? Is it fathomable that a Republican like McCain could win by a landslide? Right now Jerome Armstrong at myDD has an electoral college estimate with McCain winning 290 to 248.

In August when the Republican attack ads unroll with a screaming, ranting, raving, railing, and dancing like a chicken lunatic Reverend Wright juxtaposed with an angry Obama with an outstretched pointing finger overlayed by Obama's voice saying that he can't disown Wright anymore than he can disown his grandmother, will the superdelegates feel good and justified about their decision to try and kick Hillary out of the race before she won a state like West Virginia or Kentucky? Will those same superdelegates apologize for their bad judgment in thinking a candidate who lost 40% of the Democratic vote in a state primary -- a mere 5 months before Election Day -- should even still qualify to be the best candidate in a general election?

Will those superdelegates admit bad judgment in voting for the candidate that "said" he had good judgment but turned out to have bad judgment once he was aptly defined by the likes of Karl Rove? Because as of May 14, 2008, Barack Obama has yet to successfully define himself to the American people -- he is too busy defining John McCain. (Scary thought: maybe Obama hasn't defined himself yet because he can't. Look at his record. Look at what his colleagues say about him. He rides the middle. He goes this way and that. On the one hand. On the other hand. He himself in his autobiographies even admits to having trouble pinning down his identities -- whether that be individual, political, racial or whatever else.)

Has anyone truly and fairly presented the problem Obama faces by continuously saying "a vote for John McCain is a vote for another 4 more years of George Bush" particularly when most of us don't even know what a vote for Barack Obama would mean? Not to mention the fairly obvious fact that the whole reason McCain is able to run so strongly in 08 is specifically because everybody knows he is NOT George Bush.

A suggestion to Obama: when you are an unknown like yourself with no record to back up your flowery words, you might better your chances of people getting to know you by telling them WHY THEY SHOULD VOTE FOR YOU---not why they shouldn't vote for the other guy. Especially when that other guy John McCain has been in the public eye for years and enjoys a very well-cemented identity.

Just exactly what is David Axelrod's reasoning as to how Obama -- the candidate who "says" he represents change and "outsider politics"-- will fare against the well-documented record of a maverick like McCain who has actually spent his entire career bucking the political system and truly enacted change? Will Obama change his campaign theme? Yikes. Is the Obama campaign strategy being unveiled when Obama states that "a vote for McCain is a vote for Bush"? Because if that is the Obama campaign's idea of a "winning" strategy against John McCain, we are in serious trouble.

The truth is probably that nobody really expected Obama to get this far. Not even Axelrod. So they probably didn't (and still don't) have a cohesive strategy in place for how Obama can beat a guy like McCain. (Heck nobody even expected McCain to make it this far in the race. So, if anyone did think Obama would make it this far, they certainly didn't expect Obama to be running against McCain, that's for sure.)

So how will Axelrod run Obama against McCain? Have any of the superdelegates thought about that?

Clearly, Obama cannot run on "change" since McCain corners the market on "change" and being a "maverick outsider". More to the point, McCain, unlike Obama, actually has the long and very real record proving that he is, indeed, an outsider and a maverick bucking the system. Flatly, Obama does not have that same record or proof.

Will it be the economy? Given Obama's lackluster appeal to the lower-income and working class, I sure hope not. I can see the commercials now--it will not take a lot of effort to get the disenfranchised lunch-pail liberals to identify with a hard-worker like John McCain as compared to the elitist, Starbuck-drinking, RedBull swilling, arugula-eating, Blackberry-carrying Obama.

Of course, another choice would be for Obama to run on age. But that is dangerous for many obvious reasons. What? You don't think being coined as the "youth' candidate is a bad thing? Think again because the winning brand is not "youth" when we are in the midst of a recession and two wars. When the chips hit the floor on Election Day and gas is $10/barrel it will be realism not idealism that delivers the WH. And given the fact that Obama's base is already widely known to be made up of predominantly young voters, half of the Republicans work is already done for them. Yup, they would have an easy walk defining Obama as the choice for the young and naïve.

That leaves Iraq, right? A slam-dunk for Obama, right? Not so fast. After witnessing the defying of logic and the suspension of belief in what happened to John Kerry in 04, anyone who thinks Obama's "speech" about the Iraq war from the cozy confines of a Chicago suburb will assuredly prove that Obama is a better Commander in Chief than John McCain, needs to think again. And yes, I know that the vast majority of Americans are against the Iraq war. And yes, I know the Iraq war has cost us billions and contributed to our recession. And yes, I know that John McCain's words about spending another 100 years in Iraq are repeatedly used against him. But, remember what happened in 04. Logic can be defied. Belief (yes, even hope) can and has been suspended on Election Day.

Remember: John McCain is a veteran. John McCain is a former POW. John McCain is a war hero. Moreover, one of John McCain's sons is currently serving in Iraq. So, if anyone thinks McCain is going to mistreat or misuse our troops -- which include his son, they need to think again. Frankly, Obama will look like a fool against McCain because once again, McCain has his real record, history, and even his family to prove his sound leadership and true patriotism. And Obama merely has his words, hope and the video of his wife sounding unpatriotic which will be used over and over and over again.

And that's why so many Clinton supporters are reluctant to vote for Obama if he becomes the nominee. It's not because they are bitter. It is because they chose Hillary over Obama for two real reasons: experience and definition.

Obama can't gain experience in the next 5 months.

True, Obama can gain definition -- that is if he starts defining himself today and stops leaving his self-definition up to others -- namely the likes of Reverend Wright and Karl Rove.

To me, it's the difference between buying cereal for the picture on the box rather than the ingredients on the nutritional label. Clinton supporters want to know what they are eating for breakfast--they don't get swayed by the fancy packaging that often hides the sugar and artificial additives hiding inside. They check the label. They read the ingredients.

We know what we are getting with Hillary Clinton. We've read the label that has been on the box for years. And, yes, we may not like everything about her, but at least we know what we are getting when we support her. There are no surprises, no baggage left unexamined. Hillary has been in the public eye for years. She has a record that can be followed and seen in plain view. We know who she is. We know that she is a hard worker and a smart fighter who will never give up. And we have a pretty good idea of what she would do as president. Perhaps most importantly though, we know that she wins vital states that have proven to be essential to winning the WH.

But can we rightfully say the same about Barack Obama? He says he has good judgment. But does he? He says all 50 states are in play if he is the nominee. But what if they're not? He says he is a good leader. But how do we know that? He says he is the candidate of change. But what does that really mean? In truth, it's all just a lot of promises and hope that could very well end up short when pitted against John McCain next Election Day.

Comments

[Jillieji]

It's interesting to see the comments of BO supporters as dismissive of the huge block of women voters for Hillary. I am not surprised, considering this campaign. I have read and listened to all the pundits and those here declaring him to be the winner. He is reportedly going to crown himself ala Napoleon on Tuesday night.

Might I remind people that with all 50 states included in this Democratic process, the number of delegates needed to win is 2210. Even if BO gets Oregon, he will be far from that number.

But then, BO's campaign has been all about appearances, and not substance.

[Chitown46]

The only part of this article that makes me mad is she forgets to mention that a unified Democratic party could put a can of soup in the White House this fall. I sure hope we can come back together. I have already given up on the unified ticket but there has too be a way to make all Democratic's come back together. I have been a huge Clinton supporter since the beginning but Obama seems to me like a perfectly acceptable OK wrong choice of words I should say an awesome alternative for Clinton supporters. I will do my best to get my Clinton supporter friends to come around but I cant do it alone.

[deekay]

I'm sorry but I will NEVER, EVER, EVER vote for Obama. I will not be held responsible for this sham. I would rather have stood for something than falling for Obama.

[SuzieG]

Ditto - If he's the nominee, I refuse to be complicit in losing the white house once again! I cannot vote for a candidate with little experience as this: - 2 yrs as a community organizer - 6 yrs in a state legislature that meets 55 days a year and only attended to his functions 143 days in the Senate! The country tried that with Bush, I'm not willing to support our equivalent this time around!

[noonbear]

Great piece. You speak for many of us.

Please hold onto this article. When Obama loses in November, folks will most surely point their sour-grapes, ignorant fingers Hillary's way.

[LeviCro]

wow.. your just NOT a happy person are you.. and boy have you bought into a line of crap... so yeah.. in November when we are celebrating victory.. we will be proud to own it.. we also bought and paid for it.. something the HRC supporters never felt the need to do.... if your not putting your money where your mouth is... maybe you should just be quiet.... please... oh... and try and find a way to be happy... the only person you are making miserable is yourself..­.. I hesitate to use the word bitter... but...... man.. if the shoe fits....

[presto]

If your sole response is to say the writer is bitter you are not getting the point. It is fine for you to disagree but it is not clear why you are disagreeing. Something about money, something about misery, something about bitterness. There were a lot of issues covered in the post but you are not addressing any of them. There are legitimate questions about Obama's ability to pull in the states he has to pull in. They should at least be discussed.

[kanobi11]

Tasteless -

I can understand the rancor Kristen Breitweiser. But then maybe you should study how Hillary ran her campaign. From the get-go HRC has been a tough campaigner and have done a terrific job, but her failure to latch on the nomination is not her fault. The reason why she has fallen behind can be summarized objectively as follows:

1. There were several campaign mistakes, missteps and misstatements after Obama's IOWA victory
2. Mark Penn - The campaign Strategist who was later demoted to a campaign adviser, mis-directed her from the beginning
3. Her campaign ran a popular vote and big state campaign as if she has won the nomination already, Obama on the other hand ran a delegate campaign which is the campaign to get the nomination. Note that popular vote and big state campaign is what you do in General elections, not primaries
4. Planning was bad. They were looking at ending this story by 5th feb., Obama followed through on the democratic 50 states strategy
5. Her fund raising was poor and old fashioned, Barack build a new framework in this regard and kept the money coming in, perfecting the Dean strategy.
7. Her politics w/ the interference of Bill was also Old, full of attacks, etc. That worked pretty well in the 20th Century, this is the 21st Century, the world is now a global village - Things are now different and so also must our politics.

[felinetta]

Kanobi11 -- Thank you and well said. I want to add that we are supposed to be a nation of rules and laws and these are DNC rules. If you do not like them, get active and change them, but not in the middle of an election because things aren't going your way. This is NOT a dictatorship. Like it or not, it is the Math and not the Map as Hillary says now.

[presto]

No one is asking that the rules be changed - although they certainly should be. The rules allow for the states in question to come up with proposals to either allocate the votes they have or hold new primaries. Obama turned down that option. The rules also allow for the credentials committee to re-visit the issue and find a way to seat the delegations if they so choose. There is no rule -breaking involved.

[Shootingsparks]

Yea yea, we get it...Zioni­st Jews dont like Obama...Th­e longer this Straussian powerplay goes on, punctuated with Bush's attack from where he really serves, the Kinesset, just serves to open more Americans eyes to the mess that is Israel, on the anniversary of the start of their slow brutal grind of the Palestinian people.
Screw Israel...
As though Clinton with her total sham campaign, lying about snipers and CAFTA, promising to bomb Iran for Palm Beach...
Not only do we have the right nominee in Obama, but New Yorkers should
RECALL HILLARY CLINTON
she is a traitor to her country

[sirclown]

um... polls show jews favoring obama 2-1. but keep lashing out if that makes you feel better.

[cincyr]

I think I got it. Image vs. substance. The cereal box analogy really helped. Obama supporters have checked the ingredients on the Clinton cereal box and have decided they want a new brand. If Hillary were the nominee, all the Republicans would have to do is ask the voters, do you want 8 more years of the Clintons? Game over.

[noonbear]

Oh, you mean those 8 years when the economy was at a surplus and we Americans prospered heartily? Those 8 years?

This country's collective short-term memory loss is astounding to me.

[Antifish]

It's not this country's collective short-term memory loss. The majority of Obama's supporters were in grade school during those eight years. What do they know?
They'll back the American Idol because the media tells them to. That's how it works now.

[StrategicThinker]

The high percentage shot for Democrats, as modern history has proven, is "SOUTHERN DEMOCRAT."

I know that stupid people this year think it's all about "RACE AND GENDER," because they are surface-dwelling know-nothings, but like I said all of 2004, Kerry and Dean were WORSE GENERAL ELECTION PROSPECTS than John Edwards was.

Last I checked, Kerry and Dean were WHITE MALES, just like Dukakis, Mondale, Stevenson, and McGovern.

[StrategicThinker]

these stupid freaking word limits screwed up my posts. they are posting them out of order, so I didn't even bother posting it all.

Screwed it.

Clinton and Obama are three pointers.

The goal was moved from just being winning to making history in the process. THE RISK WAS INCREASED, because Democrats wanted to TEST AMERICANS to see how far they have come, and whether or not they would vote to make a WOMAN or a BLACK MAN President in November. The problem is the WOMAN is a "CLINTON" first and foremost, which carries so much baggage that 50% have said from the beginning that they would never vote for her, and the BLACK MAN is a three-year first-term Senator named "BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA", who hasn't spent enough time in DC for the "can you trust this guy" charges against him not to stick with a large group of the voters that he will need in November to have any chance of getting elected.

http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/Dukakis%20Time%20cover%201988.jpg

[robbie]

You voted for BUSH? Do you really have any right to complain about Democrats?

[SuzieG]

Yes, because she knows how they operate! Wait till they run the words of Brazile about how the party doesn't need blue white collar workers and hispanics.

[StrategicThinker]

If it's one thing they know how to do, it's to nominate the worst possible Democrat for a General Election, and the one that the GOP most wants to face. Look at Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, Adlai Stevenson (the white version of Obama...a powerful speaker from Illinois).

In a year when you have everything going for you, YOU DON'T INCREASE RISK, you play it safe and just COAST to the Oval Office. But no, the Democrats wanted to MAKE HISTORY, instead of MAKE SURE that they had a Democratic President to CORRECT HISTORY (begin fixing what Bush has destroyed). Now they will neither make it or correct it.

You do not increase risk. If you are playing a basketball game and your team is ahead by 20 points with 10 minutes to do, you don't start FIRING UP 3-POINTERS. What you do is either 1) continue doing exactly what you are doing, because it's working, or 2) you use up as much of the shot clock as possible and take the first high percentage shot that's available to you.

Clinton and Obama are three pointers.

--- POST CONTINUED BELOW ---

[StrategicThinker]

Kristen, I know you know, as well as I do, that "JOHN EDWARDS" was in fact the best chance the Democrats had of actually getting a President in November.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rwa1PxBpzs

That's why the Republicans preferred that Dean or Kerry to BE THE NOMINEE in 2004, as the said, and it's why they wanted Clinton or Obama AS THE NOMINEE in 2008.

I tried to warn Democrats in 2004 that Dean would flame out during the primaries.­..of course I got banned from the Democratic­Undergroun­d and Dailykos over it (as if I cared), but I was right.

Under different email address, I warned them that John Kerry guaranteed a CLOSE ELECTION, which meant that he guaranteed a stolen election. Banned yet again, but who cares, I was right.

I said the Democrats would actually win more seats in 2006 than they would actually pick up because of election fraud...no­w the clueless Nancy Pelosi thinks its a possibility that that occurred.

Now, the Democrats have followed media promotion to the two candidates that the GOP wanted in 2008, a year when the Democrats HAD EVERYTHING GOING FOR THEM. Out of the gate in 2008, I was warning the Democrats NOT TO EXPERIMENT 2008 away, but I knew they were going to do it.

--- POST CONTINUED BELOW ---

[PrdAmerican]

How is this election any different than four years ago when the candidate I supported didn't win the primary, or this election where my first candidate didn't win...did I go pout in a corner and cry foul? No, am I going to do everything in my power to make sure that Obama is elected? Yes. Your overt threats sound nothing more than sour apples....­how pathetic.

I've been appalled by Clinton's campaign. Be it embracing the word "bitch" which I abhore and have taught my daughters to abhore, to laughing and giggling at the thought of having "cajones". Add the fact that Hilliary is where she is at because she is the spouse of a former president. I know plenty of women in their own right who would make great candidates, who don't have a fraction of Hilliary's baggage, and live their lives around integrity, something Clinton has demonstrated she completely lacks. Many women, including myself studied their records, I read their books, and their voting records...­in the end, I decided that Hilliary had far too many negatives, too much baggage, and the upcoming lawsuit regarding campaign fraud did not help either. Add to that, her vote to support Bush with an Iraq invasion, and her subsequent vote to declare Iran a terrorist state made her also in-eligble. Since then, she has demonstrated weakness in foreign affairs with her "obliterate Iran" statement, yet again supports my belief that she would be an utter failure as President.

[presto]

Why is it that every time someone says something you don't like, you attribute it to Hillary? How on earth did she embrace the word "bitch" ? What about the many, many Obama supporters who refer to Clinton as a bitch every single day? Is she saying that as well? This kind of thinking makes absolutely no sense. Hillary has no upcoming lawsuit against her - that was dismissed a long time ago because she had nothing to do with it. You have done inadequate research, consisting mostly of repeating the Obama supporters talking points.

[ishmael]

Gosh - that is vitriolic. Pardon me for favoring Obama, who didn't create this nominating process but participated in it fairly and seems to have - won. It's called democracy. Whatever happens, I hardly think you will be owed an apology or explanation from anyone who cast an honest ballot .

[presto]

This is the lamest definition of vitriolic I have ever seen. What, exactly, do you see in the author's post that could possibly be classified as vitriol?

[vbond]

This is stunning.

My sympathy for your tragedy does not extend to this irrational rant.

I hardly know where to start.

Just two examples:

Do you realize that every single one of the reasons that you suggest Obama will lose to McCain applies to Clinton as well? And Clinton's case against McCain - by your own rationale - is actually FAR worse.

The only reason that Clinton got a pass on her "sniper fire" lie (a lie which she has publicly acknowledged to be a lie) is because she was losing. This was not an association with someone else who lied, this was HER.

Can you imagine the video comparisons of her multiple "sniper fire" recountings (to different audiences and at different times of day) to John McCain's wincing, heroic form, writhing in pain in the Hanoi Hilton?

Next... math.

What you so bitterly dismiss as "math" are the votes of real people who cast their ballots in legitimate primaries or caucuses.

You completely invalidate these real peoples' expressions of political preference because they disagree with your desire. How in the world do you justify that?

Your screed is almost unbelievably rancorous.

It is also almost unbelievably dismissive of reality, the most relevant example of which is that Barack Obama will be the nominee.

Is this how you help to ensure the election of a Democrat in November?

[presto]

This barely qualifies as a rigorous criticism, never mind an "irrational rant". The author, in pointing out states a Democrat needs to win is pointing out Obama's weaknesses. Clinton's case in the same scenario is far better, not worse.

The Bosnia comments are pointless. Politicians embellish. Obama is no less guilty of this than Clinton. The difference, the ONLY difference, is that Hillary's were filmed, Obama's were not. A picture, in the case of political blunders, is worth a million words. She certainly did not get a "pass" on Bosnia. He has gotten passes on Selma, on his father's JFK connection, on his Illinois exaggerations and on his self-promotion of the immigration bill. Bosnia, on the other hand, has dogged Clinton every step of the way. It is brought up on virtually every thread on Huffpo - ad nauseum.

You are right about the math - it is a measure of the real votes of real people - otherwise known as the popular vote. About half the people have voted for Obama. About half have voted for Clinton. What you actually seem to be trying to define is delegate count. That is a different thing and it is one of the measures superdelegates use to make their decisions.

I cannot see anything remotely rancorous about this post. It is an opinion piece and it throws out valid arguments. You are perfectly free to disagree but there is no sane reason to believe the writer is out to hurt the Democratic