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

[britethere]

The powers that be know what the Paul V Clinton, Bosnia Sniperfire, Pardon Gate, $ from China, Dubai, Kazakahstan, Abramoff partnerships in Sweatshops, Doug Coe and "the Family" and lots of "Non-Vetted" information the GOP has been sitting on in the case of a Clinton (they have been wishing for ...(see Operation Chaos and Rush Limbah) nomination.

[Ides]

Let me translate:
"HE'S BLACK! DON'T YOU SEE THAT HE'S BLACK!?!?!?!? COME ON, HE'S BLACK!!!! I MEAN, GOD, HE'S JUST...SO BLACK!!!!!!"

I would be confused, too, if the candidate with the highest positive numbers and strongest polling numbers (12 points higher than Clinton in the Democratic Party and 7 points higher than John McCain in the general) was our nominee for president but someone in our party declared this the end of the world. I would be gobsmacked reading this after Hillary pulling down mid 30's for "honest and trustworthy" while Obama is considered more honest and trustworthy than John McCain.

So, technically Barack Obama has voted on more bills, sponsored more legislation in the US Congress ALONE than her and passed just as many laws in HALF the time. But, you know, he hasn't sat in a chair in the US Congress for as long as she has, so that's not REAL experience.

And Barack has won the white vote in as many states as Hillary and the white male vote more often ... but he hasn't won the swing state of West Virginia where 44% of a 95% white electorate said race was important in considering a president and 76% were over the age of 45.

And sure, Barack and Hillary will both lose Hillary's white, lower-income base to John McCain by 7% no matter which one is chosen as president. But, you know, it's different because Barack Obama is black!

[JoeSun]

I know, right? Reading the posts from some of Hillary's more extreme supporters, you'd get the impression that it was Obama who was down by 170 delegates rather than Clinton.

Remember this folks: Hillary was also the more "electable" candidate for Democratic nominee. We all know how that turned out.

Let me address the "electability" question in a way the Hillary folks are likely to understand:

If Hillary can't even beat a one term Senator with black skin and a name that rhymes with Osama, how could she possibly beat John McCain?

[truthsayer]

Hey - maybe the press will start to report the "real" truth about McCain - not the manufacture and false "straight talk" (read: propaganda) that he puts forth. Here is another example of McCain's hypocrisy:

"WASHINGTON — Cindy McCain, whose husband has been a critic of the violence in Sudan, sold off more than $2 million in mutual funds whose holdings include companies that do business in the African nation.

The sale on Wednesday came after The Associated Press questioned the investments in light of calls by John McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, for international financial sanctions against the Sudanese leadership.

McCain, who was campaigning in Ohio, said neither he nor his wife were aware of the Sudan-related holdings."

Oh well, another Republican liar exposed - what a shock.

[Oceancal]

Truth,

All will come out. It's the one with the most questions and no answers I'm afraid that will be looking on in November no matter how many or how loud the pots and pans are banged.

Take the flyover demographic. They have had 20 years of hearing the names of folks like Clinton and McCain. New name, new agenda just aint gonna get it with these folks I'm afraid. They are just not interested enough and this is the majority.

Again, out of all the candidates, who is the least known? Simple question..­.....


OC


OC

[patrickmurfin]

Who will own it? I will. I may not be a Super Delegate, a Washington Pundit or a latte sipping elitist. I may not be a big time blogger, though I operate a little lemonade stand down the far end of cul-de-sac. But I have been a Democrat in the trenches for decades, a Precinct Committeeman for 18 years and currently an officer of the local Democratic Party in a very red county in a very blue state. And by the way I earned my blue collar the hard way and would compare my lunch pail credentials against yours any day of the week.

I, Patrick Murfin of McHenry County in Illinois am proud to own the Democratic Party Barack Obama is building.

If you are wrong, will you be proud to own this silly, childish, churlish temper tantrum?

[nypoet22]

Obama won 16 primaries and 14 caucuses, many by a very healthy margin, which is why he is leading. These are no fluke. Clinton had an early lead in most of those states, but Obama won by defining himself for the people in those states, exactly what you accuse him of failing to do. You have not noticed because you've been focused on your own candidate. However, the reason Hillary has won 14 primaries and a caucus is that she's a tough candidate too. Is it really so hard to attribute her successes to her strength rather than his weakness?

One reason he is winning is he has run his campaign from the bottom up, spreading a positive message on the ground. Another reason is because he has overcome all the mud being thrown at him by remaining calm and running a sound campaign. The attacks have not defined him, but his dignified response to them has.

So, please quit grousing and finish the primary season on a positive note. Whether you choose to accept Obama's nomination or not, YOUR attacks on him are one of the reasons John McCain still has a chance in November. If you want four more years of endless war and crippling debt, by all means keep attacking. But if Obama loses in November and you're still wearing your Hillary pin, don't kid yourself into thinking it's not your responsibility.

In short: YOU OWN IT TOO!

[shrinqrap]

I doubt the author of this deeply CYNICAL, churlish, endless piece understands what it even means tro "OWN" her work.

Mr. Obama has already defeated one "INVINCIBLE" candidate. He only has one to go.

[Mozzer]

Obama was so right. Clinton supporters really are bitter.

[abrxas]

Yawn. Yet another in a long line of harangues by Clinton supporters berating us stupid Obama supporters. You guys certainly are sore losers. I so sorry we stupid.

[ignrnthllblly]

Moreover, Obama did more with his experience than Clinton.

At least Obama has potential (and yes, it IS a double-edged sword). Clinton and McCain however are KNOWN quantities--known unacceptable quantities. If fear of the bloc voting power of uneducated white bigots is so frightening that the party's future must be exchanged for a personality cult, then I renounce my lifetime of support. Unlike the thoroughly defeated Clinton supporters, I will not issue the idle threat of voting for McCain--I won't--but neither will I pretend that Clinton is an appreciable alternative. And I'll own that RIGHT NOW.

[truthsayer]

Really, Kristen, all we have to do is get the MSM to stop shilling for McCain and actually report the truth about his record: Reverends Hagee, Robertson and Falwell - with their "Anti-American, anti-Catholic, The US deserved 911 because of the homosexuals, etc." rantings, Keating 5, no support for Veterans, lobbyists at the top level of his campaigns, land deals for big donors to his campaign, groveling for Bush and Co. for the past 8 years, voting for the war, flip-flopping on the tax cuts (he was against them before he was for them) and many other issues. That was just off the top of my head and not even a complete list of McCains actual record of lies, deception and problems. Maverick? Straight Talker? That's the biggest joke of a reputation any politician was ever able to carefully and deceptively cultivate.

Time to take back our country, restore our standing in the world, give the working people of this country a chance to prosper once again.

The Republicans have shown their true colors: Corporations before Country, Rich people first, preaching moral values while they practice adultery and pedophilia - Hypocrisy at every turn - could there be a more corrupt party?

The Dems may not be perfect, but we aren't the party shoving our "fake" moral values on everyone except ourselves. If the Democrats would stop acting like Republicans, we could get this country back on track.

Again, OBAMA '08 - The US and the world can't wait.

[ignrnthllblly]

First of all, what I would like to say to you right now would be guaranteed to cause my instant and permanent banning here and I will attempt to titrate my comments not in allowance for that possibility but because I am aware of the great personal pain caused you on 9-11. Be that as it may, you need to consider that while your taller soap box may make it easier for you to make your feelings known, it will not confer validity upon them.

He has MORE experience in elective office than Clinton--but I realize that for Clinton supporters "experience" is an amorphous concept that necessitates the study of Eng and Chang's physiology.

You take the short-sighted view that the party and the supers have no obligation other than to deliver a victory in '08. Perhaps--in a year in which the very future of the party DOESN'T hang in the balance. You say I must OWN my support of Obama. I never had any intention of doing otherwise. And if McCain wins, at least I know the Democratic Party survives to fight another day. But if the party flinches so hard in fear of the scary black man and invalidates its own processes, guess who it is that better be prepared to OWN that? And you won't just have an '08 loss to own. You'll not only have to own the PERMANENT place as minority party, but in all likelihood as the THIRD minority party.

[realtalk]

- Over the past 6 years, the Clinton's received $15 Million from a company which represents the leader of the Muslim country Dubai (the same muslim country which was trying to buy 6 US Ports . Bill Clinton was found to have been counselling Dubai on how to handle Congress in regard to getting the sale to go through -- the sale was only killed last year by the U.S Congress, when citizens found out about it and were outraged that the Congress did not realize what a National Security risk it could be to sell U.S Ports to a muslim country). Seems the Clintons were more concerned about earning $15 million dollars from Dubai, than about the security risks posed by the sale of the ports to Dubai.
- The Clintons also received $1.2 million dollars of their money from China, guess what Bill Clinton was over there doing, promoting the CURRENT trade deal we have with China, you know the one that Obama, and Hillary, and every other democrat has been saying is unfair to the American people.
- $800,000 of the Clinton's money came from Columbia. Bill Clinton received the money from the Columbian government for promoting the same trade deal, every democrat, including Obama, and Hillary have been saying they are against.

It seems the Clintons have earned alot of their MILLIONS by working directly AGAINST the interest of the American people. Can you explain why that is okay with you Kristen?

[demfromtheD]

Take a breath Kristen.

Let me ask you something: Do you WANT McCain to win? Because here's the thing: Hillary is done. It's too late. The curtain has fallen, and Obama is your candidate like it or not. Now you claim to be deeply frightened by the prospect of a McCain Presidency, and yet you come on here with a completely irrelevant diatribe that only seeks to throw gasoline on the fire of the absolute fools who claim to be Democrats who say they will vote McCain if Hillary's losing the nomination fight.

THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING. Be an example for your fellow Hillary supporters for God's sake. Do you want to win the General or not?!

And please STOP spreading the entirely false notion that because Hillary won certain states, Obama will lose them. Just because Hillary won states Obama didn't DOES NOT MEAN THEY WILL GO TO MCCAIN! And if that DOES happen, it will be a sad, sad commentary on Hillary Clinton's supporters if they defect for McCain. It will show that they are every bit as spineless as their preferred candidate is alwasy accused of being. It will say NOTHING about Obama.

I understand your disappointment and frustration. But if you TRULY care about what Hillary supposedly stands for, you will swallow your pride, move on, get on the Democratic bandwagon and focus on winning this damn thing once and for all.

[springsm]

You do know, don't you , that until 9-11 and the denial of a special commission to find out what went wrong (and do we know yet?) that Kristin B. was a good republican? I like her and she probably has some good points here, but why can't we go with Obama and help him to surround himself with good, smart and well trained people. I think he is smart enough to do this. Clinton is smart too, but her baggage is just to heavy. I really have hope for something better, but I don't think change in WA DC is going to really happen anytime soon. But just maybe the world will start seeing us as a moral country just alittle.

[troqua]

I'll take John Edwards' judgment over yours, Kristen. Thanks anyway.

[Beamreach]

I'll take ownership if we lose this fall. Can I likewise expect an apology to Senator Obama and his supporters in November if he wins? See you here next November

[rabbitpunches]

Geez, what a scathing editorial!! But what does that say about Hillary Clinton condifering he has beaten her in every metric!!! If Obama is suh a bad candidate Hillary must be awful. Oh well guess we will have to make do with what we have but at least he is better than that Hillary lady!!

[Amminadab]

condifering?

[NorVaGal]

Amminadab: Have you never submitted a typo in any of your posts? Most of us were able to use the context to immediately figure out that the word was CONSIDERING. My respect for you CONTI*D*UES to plunge.