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

[juliatours]

I don't think that most women agree with this. They are disappointed, but they are women- and we are stronger than this childish tantrum. All I get from this is that she will not vote for Obama because she does not think that he can win. Where is the sense in that?

I did as you asked Kristen and put my sticker on my car. I ask that you please do the same.

[KateTex]

You're waaaaay out of touch on this one, juliatours. A tremendous number of women (and men) out here aren't simply disappointed - they're really, really angry at the treatment dished out to Hillary Clinton by 1) Obama and his supporters, 2) the Democratic leadership (an oxymoron, it would appear), 3) the bully boyz in the MSM. Obama would be by far the worst running Democratic candidate in the party's history. He'd make Adlai Stevenson look like FDR. I've been voting since the late Sixties. I've voted for ONE Republican in all those years - Gerald Ford. I will be voting for McCain if Hillary Clinton is denied the nomination and I will have tremendous amounts of company. Time to wake up and smell the coffee grounds, sweeties.

[presto]

Why on earth do you characterize this post as a childish tantrum? Is it just because you disagree? Not voting for Obama because he cannot win is a very legitimate reason and it is the only reason some people are still hesitating. To party regulars, it is far more important that a Democrat win than it is for Obama, or any other individual, to win. It is the sole concern of superdelegates.

[cinecity]

If after all these many months Breitweiser doesn't "know" Obama, the problem lies with her comprehension skills. By her argument, we shouldn't have primaries at all - just send up the candidate with the thickest press file, no matter the content.

Why exactly should this woman's opinion matter? She hasn't made a case for anything. All she's done is air a belly full of self-righteous anger and bitter disappointment. She's so bitter, in fact, that she's already trying to assign blame - blame for something that hasn't even happened. How does that help anything?

[presto]

Do you understand that this thread is a showcase for opinions? Whether it matters to you personally or not is completely immaterial. The author made some valid points. Millions of others join her in expressing some unease with how little we know of Obama's political belief system. He has been on more than one side of many issues. No one suggested, evenly remotely, that the thickness of a press file matters. Not sure what you pulled that out of. The thickness of a solid record, however, should matter. A lot.

[broilinginhouston]

Righto, Kristen:

We know exactly what we'd get with Senator Clinton -- Iran nuked to smithereens, flag-burning laws, posturing on video games, pandering to the lowest common electoral denominator through gas tax "holidays" and the like, in other words, the same shit we've gotten from the Republicans.

I have a question for you. What will YOU be doing on January 20 when Senator Obama's sworn in as our 44th President? If you believe half of what you've written here, I suspect it might involve a big steaming plate of crow.

Bon appetit and watch the bones. Those little ones can kill you.

[ibsteve2u]

An awful lot of "What if" about Obama, and not one "What if the Republicans ask Hillary what Cabinet position she intends to give to Eleanor Roosevelt?".....

[presto]

And yet another de-bunked myth raises its head again. Kind of like the Muslim thing. Kind of like asking Obama what cabinet position he intends to give to Ayers. Dragging garbage like that into the conversation makes reasonable discussion difficult.

[BuckarooBanzai]

The numbers are in an the conclusions are very clear. Hillary only wins in Appalachia. A map of counties where she took 60 pct or more matches Appalachia almost exactly. Remember Appalachia extends from Southern New York all the way to Northern Alabama.

We know Appalachian voters, when presented with the choice of of a black man and a white woman will pick the white woman. The 64 dollar question is will they choose a white woman over a white man who was a war hero to boot. That's a risk I don't want to take.

Barak Obama has shown he can bring in large numbers of new voters and do very well in places (the South, the West) where the Clintonistas have bee scared to compete . Moreover Obama has done well with both whites and blacks. Hillary, who had a majority of the black vote last November, has lost it all which has reduced her support by 35pct.

Its very clear. In terms of voter demographics Hillary is the risky choice. When you factor in her chaotic campaign, financial troubles and all the skeletons Bill has collected in the past 8 years (Kazakhstan anyone?), Hillary is the real risk. This is a no-brainer. Obama all the way.

[presto]

And don't overlook the Appalachian sections of California and Massachusetts.

[LionelMandrake]

A quiz I found at http://bigpicture.typepad.com/writing/2008/03/barack-obama-an.htmll)

Question: Name the Presidential candidate:

1) a lawyer;
2) an Illinois state legislator;
3) lost an election to represent Illinois in the U.S. Congress;
4) spent only two years in the U.S. Congress before running for President;
5) risked political damage in opposing a war in which the U.S. invaded a foreign country;
6) delivered a famous speech on national unity as a candidate to represent Illinois in U.S. Senate, elevating his political career to the national level and paving the way for a Presidential run;
7) sought his Party’s Presidential nomination by challenging the establishment candidate, a Senator from New York, also a lawyer, who was widely expected to easily secure the nomination; (William Seward)
8) was viewed by Party delegates as a talented speaker able to attract moderates and newer voters;
9) viewed by some in his Party as a better candidate more likely to secure critical states in the general election as his rivals, especially those with “experience” had accumulated more political enemies;
10) the opposition party was fractured and in complete disarray;
11) March 4th is a very significant date in his political career;

Answer: Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln

[LionelMandrake]

Now, I'm not saying Obama is Lincoln. But even Lincoln wasn't Lincoln before he was elected.
Get over it. Democrats have chosen Obama. I hope you are not one of those who now vow to vote for McCain!
Because the tortured logic evinced by your essay would mean that you could have never voted for, -who some think was our greatest president, -Abraham Lincoln, because he had little to no national experience.
It's time to move on people! And, that goes for all of you diehards.
If you still don't want to move on, then what can I say, go ahead and vote for McCain if you like.
In fact, I dare any and all of you to vote for McCain.
Ignorant Americans have been voting against their interests by voting republican for this long, so why stop now?

[divaatty]

Kristin, if you don't know what a Barack Obama Presidency will mean by now, then you and other Hillary supporters are deliberately turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the a multitude of information that is readily available to you. If you want to know him - read his TWO books. If you want to know his political philosophy and plans for the WH - listen to his speeches, read his Blueprint on his website, listen to his surrogates, have a conversation wtih one of his supporters. If you Hillary supporters really cared about this country then you would try to educate yourselves and stop drinking the hateraid.

[VespaGirl]

Kristen, I'm sorry your candidate is not going to win the nomination. However, if you truly want the Dems to win the White House in the fall then I trust you will do all you can to get Barack Obama elected. If you don't, then you share in the "blame" and all the righteousness you muster over having supported Hillary in the primaries will mean next to nothing. Unless you have some kind of third eye, you have absolutely no way of knowing whether Hillary would beat McCain in November either.

Democracy is about the will of the people, who have spoken, and now we all need to get on board, quit complaining and work hard for the Democratic party. If you're already looking ahead to "blaming" someone, then that is truly pathetic indeed.

[mhoiles]

Thanks Kristen! I was wondering yesterday why Obama needs to pull out his human props when things go badly for him. I have yet to see strength.

You can bet the blame will be layed on whites in the form of racism - the table is being set already. Have you watched MSNBC lately?

[billsmile]

Got my bumper sticker and my pin. You can't miss'em.

If Obama does become President and he turns out to be a great one don't feel you owe me any thanks. I just voted for him because Samantha Power endorses him.

[Bobrobert]

Experience and definition.

Bad reasons.

Change is needed.

Washington in crowd experience is not a positive when it is considered the same "OLD" stuff from Washington.

Definition of Hillary has become - "SNIPER FIRE IN BOSNIA" .

Hillary has been defined - as a liar.

Once defined as a liar their is no going back to being "someone the American people can trust with the greatest office of power in the world"!!!

Hillary has been defined as homocidal - she wants to nuke Iran to prove she is tough - killing millions of innocent woman and children.

Sorry - but voting for someone that has been entrenched in politics for 35 years isn't the type of candidate you vote for to change this country.

Sorry you don't vote for some that is a habitual liar and is willing to kill millions of woman and children to prove they are tough.

Nice article you wrote - it just ignores the values of the voters you ridicule.

Don't forget to vote everyone.

[zjr909]

This article merely states the obvious: Americans are always a sucker for a man in a uniform. And make no mistake: not only will John McCain run on his military record - he need run on nothing else but his military record. Until Americans grow up and stop drooling everytime they see a flag (or a flag pin), the McCains of this world are practically a shoo-in for public office. The only time a military background works against a candidate is when the candidate him or herself questions the validity of such a background, as John Kerry did upon his return from Vietnam. So unless the Democratic nominee can manage to forcefully frame the contest away from the standard military paradigm, neither Obama nor Clinton stands a chance against McCain. The problem is, neither Democratic candidate seems truly committed right down to their toenails to the economic well-being of the middle and working classes, the way John Edwards seemed to be. So they both would have an uphill battle trying to work the campaign out of whatever frame the Republicans cement it in. The American electorate, despite all its economic woes, wants one thing above all else: to be reassured that everything they watched happen in the past eight years wasn't as bad as it seemed to be. And John McCain, I'm afraid, is just the man who can con them into being reassured (with a little help from his friends in the media, of course).

[cheforacle]

Your theory is not supported by evidence. McGovern was a military man as was Carter when he lost in 1980.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

Part II:

If you don't think Mr. Obama has adequately defined himself, then you need to open your eyes and catch up on your reading. His website and his two books provided me with a detailed understanding of the man.

I suggest that the destructiveness is far more a result of your candidate's refusal to face the fact that she has lost her bid for the nomination.

When this season began, we had a slate of at least six excellent candidates on the Democratic side. The deciding factor against Mrs. Clinton was political dynasties. I'm tired of the same families ruling the US. Had she won the nomination, I would have enthusiastically supported her. Were Mr. Obama in Mrs. Clinton's position, I would urge him to quit the race for the good of the party, Mrs. Clinton's chances in the general, and the country itself.

NOTHING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THROWING THE 'PUBLICANS OUT OF THE GOVERNMENT IN NOVEMBER.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

Part I:

"And people are going to want to know whose to blame. "

Ms. Breitweiser, in the sentence above the correct word is "who's" as in shortening "who is to blame".

Such a mistake is indicative of the rest of your article which I find erroneous in a number of areas.

Many have widely debunked your preferred candidate's claims of having vastly more experience, particularly as Mr. Obama has served longer as an elected official.

Your assertions about Mrs. Clinton's wins in larger states are bogus; one simply cannot equate intramural contests with extramural contests. I'll give my example yet again: that Mrs. Clinton won in California does NOT mean that Mr. Obama loses the state in the general election. You're trying to apply probability reasoning to two independent events. How these two candidates fare against one another has no relevance regarding how they will fare against geriatric John.

[ghostwriter5]

Problem is that you are right about NY and California, but it is a different game in PA, Ohio, WV, Michigan and Florida.

PS: the condescension over a typo is really not necessary. there is plenty of that attitude to go around already.

[bellecloche]

Wow, you sound as though you're wishing for a McCain victory just to be able to say "I told you so" to Obama supporters in November. Really classy. However, I agree with your thesis that "We know Hillary," - to some extent. We know that Clinton will...

* not be able to attack McCain on voting for the Iraq War Resolution 'cuz she did, too

* not be able to attack McCain on voting for Kyl-Lieberman and threatening to bomb Iran 'cuz she did, too

* not be able to attack McCain with any of her "get out of the kitchen"/"ready at 3 a.m." militarism 'cuz he'll just wave his military record at her

* not be able to use her "35 years of experience" slogan 'cuz he'll wave his longer resume at her

* not be able to attack McCain on his proposal of a gas tax holiday 'cuz she did, too

* not be able to attack McCain on his wife's tax returns 'cuz he'll ask about her husband's foundation donations

* not be able to attack him on insulting the black community (with his MLK Day opposition) 'cuz that will leave her wide open

* not be able to switch gears from attacking Obama on these things to being a new liberal Democrat 'cuz McCain will simply call her a flip-flopper

P.S. No Democrat has ever won without D.C. or Hawaii EITHER, so if you think the primaries indicate the general, Hillary lost both those contests by

[bellecloche]

52 points.