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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
All you Clintonistas just don't get it, do you? You think this guy is some lightweight, and look what he did to your candidate, who had all the name recognition, former President, Democratic machine and the money at the outset.
He went out and hired a solid, QUIET, dignified team, led by Axelrod, Plouffe and Burton. He built a nationwide network of volunteers who registered 3.5 million new voters, energized the young people, and got 1.5 million people to donate over $250 million. He kept his mission statement simple, never strayed from it, didn't panic when the Rev. Wright issue came up, and he didn't go negative and trash a fellow Democrat like she did (and believe me, he could have said a hell of a lot more if he had chosen).
So, where do you get off saying he wouldn't win a national election? What makes you think she would be the only Democrat to win New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and California? Your logic is all garbled up from your overly emotional state. It is Hillary who would not win the national; you don't know how much her candidacy would unite the Republicans. She has the highest negative rating of any candidate. Ask yourself why that is.
The challenge for all of you is, WHEN Obama becomes the candidate: Are you true Democrats? if not, get the hell out and vote against your interests. That would tell us a lot.
I just want to add: HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't need that kind of experience. And now she would OBLITERATE IRAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is not the kind of woman I want representing me.
I refuse to lose this election again, so we need to push for her to be the independent candidate or churn out a massive write-in campaign? I'm tired of listening to republicans or "Obamicans" tell me that Obama would be a good candidate, since they gave us 8 years of Bush. Frankly, I don't give a damn who they want. I'm tired of demcoratic leaders, like Edwards, Kerry, Kennedy, Carter, Richardson, McGovern et al giving me their opinion on the "best" candidate since they have yet to win a presidential election! They don't know how to win, so it's like taking advice from a lawyer about whether or not you should have open-heart surgery. The media is too busy "catching thrills up their legs" to be honest about his electability.
Enough of this crap already. We either take control of this party because the leaders don't have the balls to do it or we form our own party and finally win the general election. Sorry, we've entertained you as much as we can, but the "movement," can move the hell out of our way. We have grown up things to attend to, like winning an election.
Keep Holding On Hillary! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8Kak6fXTyA
I couldn't actually get through KB's whole post, but I'd suggest that she read Obama's books to see what he's about. She's right that we know what we'd get with HRC -- a few lies, a "my road or the high road" mentality, and a co-president who just can't stay in the background. I qualify my comment that we know what we'd get to the extent that she's been recasting herself throughout her campaign, albeit because she was advised to do so. First, we got the softer, more feminine HRC (see pastel outfits worn at the beginning). After her cry, we got the harder, meaner HRC, who was then clad henceforward in Republican shades like fire-engine red. Now we're getting an HRC who is actually coming to the defense of Obama (e.g., telling her supporters it would be wrong to back McCain) way too late in the day. Throughout the primary season, McCain has come to his defense (e.g., the Wright business) while HRC has sat mum. Regarding HRC's vaunted "experience," most of which occurred while she was first lady: much ado about very little. I'm living in London and the media over here had a good chuckle when she came out and said that she helped broker peace in Northern Ireland. Finally, Obama has worked in the community (I mean at the grassroots level) at age 46 longer than HRC at age 60.
Thank God there are still some adults writing on this site. Thanks Kristen!
Not necessarily! This is a comment from one bitter chick, that's why it does not make any sense.
I agree, the "essay" is opaque and long-winded pro-Clinton rhetoric.
it seems Obama again is the fall guy for the Clintonistas..... HRC's destroyed the Party with her filth and pelf, but Obama must take the blame if the Dems fail in Nov., it would have nothing to do with Saint Hilary's smear campaign and racist, sexist, anti-human (ref: Iran+obliteration) demogoguery.
Hard core Clintonistas have to be as self-delusional as the Clintons themselves.
Sad, really.
Kristen, I almost forgot: here is something from wikipedia about Terry McAuliffe:
"Under his tenure, the Democrats lost House and Senate seats in the 2002 and 2004 Congressional elections, while their Democratic nominee narrowly lost the 2004 presidential election."
This is the guy who ran Clinton's campaign. A sign of leadership is who you surround yourself with; Hillary comes up short. McAuliffe and Mark Penn have been disasters.
Your candidate would never win against McCain. The major flaw in your logic is that you think Hillary is the only Democrat who could win those big states. I'll look forward to you revisiting this ridiculous article in November. Have the stones to do that OK?
Kristen's already throwing all her stones at Obama, she's hoping to stone him to death for her Saint Hilary. Bitter, she is like her candidate.
Stop thinking of your candidate, Kristen and think for once of the American people and this great nation.
We all need a future, not more of the same BS from the Clinton and Bush dynasties.
Get your fricken head out of the sand, girl.
Under his tenure, the Democrats lost House and Senate seats in the 2002 and 2004 Congressional elections,
You know this is what happened to Franklin Roosevelt. The opposition gets fired up when you try to change things. I want to know how Obama thinks he will change things and expect his opposition to roll over.
Oh well.
Best of luck to you but don't be upset if Obama wins.
It will mean you need to rethink a bit I believe.
Don't forget to vote.
:-)
I am already looking forward to hear what you have to say if Obama wins... do we get to watch you walk around, wearing only a sandwich board that says "I Like Hillary" for the next 8 years?
Flash forward, indeed!
Kristen, a Democrat just won a House seat in a District that George Bush won with 62% of the vote in 2004. Maybe this really is an election about change. I know you are disappointed that your candidate has lost, but to say that John McCain represents change more than Barack Obama does doesn't make any sense, in my opinion. I hope that you will recover from your disappointment and add your voice to those of us who are trying to take our country back.
It isn't personal--I would have supported Sen Clinton with my vote, my time and my money if she had ended up being the nominee. This election is way too important for any of us to put our own feelings above what we believe is good for the country and the world.
it is hard to belive but more than that sad to read that a post like this could be written by the same person who just a few years ago took a grievous loss and channeled that into the formation of the 9/11 commission
kristen - we hardly knew ye
one would think you would embrace a President Obama - and make no mistake about it - he will win --likely trounce McCain --
despite your and other really confusing messages of angry Hillary Clinton supporters --
Sen Clinton would never win against McCain -- how did someone who saw the light suddenly go so dark
As soon as the "clintonistas" accept reality and realize that the clinton campaign was outmanuevered, outplanned and outsmarted, the better it will be for the democrats to take the white house. If their bitterness lingers it will only be to their own detriment if they choose to "sit it out" or vote for "mcsame". Do you really want that to happen? So you'd better "get a grip" and THINK about it!
Obama may not win the general election because of a little thing called the electorial college but what his coat-tails will deliver more democratic elected officials at the local, county, state and federal levels than Hillary could ever hope for.
thanks to the Clintons there were more democratic seats lost at the local, county, state and federal levels than while Bill was president than any other president, democratic or republican, in American history.
As far as the party is concerend Obama may be a political sacrifice but the party will end up with the seats that really matter and an increase in democratic voter registrations, more so than even when Bill was president.
You must not bother to listen to any of Obama's speeches through to the end or are caught up deep in a vortex of denial that change can't happen unless you serve it up!
That is one of the most loathsome examples of one-sided, innuendo-driven duplicity I've seen in quite some time. Congratulations.
I bask in your Counterglow...
The flattery! Can't stand.....head will explode....aaarrgh!!!
Thanks. I needed that! Somebody just told me I don't look anything like Tim Russert, except for the head size.
Just Go home Bitter Kristen
Kristen is lobbing rocks again. Now it's the Blame Game, and we all have to play because Kristen says so and she will say who's IT. It's our fault, Obama voters, that Hillary is losing. Well, duh. But Hillary must not lose because it's her turn to go first and she gets more turns than anyone else because Kristen says so, because...well, because Obama is the new kid and it can't be his turn. We are so BAD to want to give a turn to Obama. Someone better tell the teacher, right now!
"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 [sic] to blame."
Isn't it ironic that those who will be to blame if the eventual Democratic nominee does not win the election in November will be those who are too bitter over their preferred candidate's loss and either stay home or cross over to John McSame?
If that is your intent, then perhaps you should hang on to your Hillary '08 memorabilia. Believe me, if the next-to-impossible happens and Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote for her.
What is broken is our country, courtesy of the reign of the Bush/Clintons. Now we need more than a party to fix what is broken, and to preemptively place blame on a potential new President for the sins of the past occupiers of the highest office in our country is not good form.
The army is broken - should that be blamed on Obama?
The relationships with many other countries is broken - should that be blamed on Obama.
The argument seems to be who ever occupies the office is responsible for it and owns it and a wild assumption that the new candidate would fail.
That is a lot of ifs, but what we do now is
Clintons broke things
Bushes broke things
They are responsible for the position our country is in now.
Our army is really broken, so using this logic means if it can't get fixed then Bararck Obama will get the blame - not logical at all.
My son volunteered to go fight terrorists because of what happened to our lost loved ones on 911 including you. He is doing his part, and I'm doing mine speaking out as a 60 year white woman lawyer who has enough sense to know we need to unite and bring our troops home and put them in Afghanistan which is the war theater we should be focused on.
A Blue Star Mom
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
