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

[AbbieXHoffman]

Thankfully someone got to post a pro-Hillary blog on this site that explains that Hillary supporters are intelligent, critical thinkers. Obama supporters don't have the market on intellectualism as much as they like to think. You have articulated exactly what I have been thinking all along.

Not to mention this math--forget the national polls that aren't converted into electoral votes. This is the only math that matters--it's takes every poll on the planet and converts them into electoral votes. It's from an independet site that has been around since 2004.

270 is a win.

Clinton 280 McCain 241 Ties 17
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May14.html

Obama 237 McCain 290 Ties 11
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May14.html

Since Clinton is not getting the nod, I WILL CAMPAIGN PROUDLY FOR OBAMA, but it will be a fight and the anit-Clinton people need to stop their insults against Clinton's supporters.

[clevelandchick]

Nobody said Clinton voters weren't intelligent except Hillary Clinton.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

I've seen more disagreeable remarks, insults, and personal attacks from Clinton supporters than from Obama supporters. Further, I've seen NO suggestion that Obama supporters vote for McCain if Obama does not get the nomination nor have I seen evidence that Obama supporters are "anti-Clinton" -- they just seem very pro-Obama.

[clevelandchick]

You're right Kristen. Now we really do know what we're getting with Hillary Clinton after her true colors have come through this primary season. We've seen that she is willing to throw a key Democratic voting block under the bus just to win. That she isn't above using the race card. We see with her infamous 3AM ad that she's not afraid to use the fear card like a Neocon.

We see that she is willing to lie about her own experience and that she isn't smart enough to remember that such things as Google and YouTube exist. We see that she has complete disdain for the grassroots - who is completely responsible for the success Democrats have enjoyed since 2004. We see that she is just as willing to campaign like a Republican to beat a fellow Democrat and that her loyalty does not lie with her fellow Democrats but politicians like John McCain and Joe Lieberman.

Yeah, now after the mask has fallen off, we sure do know what we get with Hillary Clinton.

[HamletsMill]

Spot on analysis, clevelandchick.

It's time to move on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHCL6-GqyRk

[MrMike513]

Kristen writes...

"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?"

Personally, I'm not nearly as concerned about voting for what Obama stands for as I am voting against what McCain and Hillary stand for. I have been voting since 1978, and I have NEVER truly voted FOR anyone. Every single election I have voted for the lesser of two evils. No candidate has ever agreed with all of my views.

When this election began, I knew that I would more than likely end up voting for the Democrat, and at the time Hillary was the frontrunner, so I saw myself voting for her. But as Hillary showed her true self, that of a person who was willing to do or say ANYTHING, or pander to any special interest group, in order to get elected. I came to the conclusion that it did not matter what Hillary's record or experience was, she would probably do whatever benefits her interests the most. This is the same as I would expect from McCain, so I threw my support to Edwards, and now Obama.

HILLARY is the one who cannot win in November, because if she steals this nomination, many of us likely Democratic voters will choose not to vote at all.

[Amminadab]

Steals the nomination?

How is it possible to steal the nomination?

You either get the most delegates to vote for you, or you don't.

No stealing possible.

[HypocrisyAlarm]

If she gets her way with the rules committee, it will be seen as "stealing the nomination". She did, after all, agree to the Florida-Michigan decision when she was the frontrunner.

[BHWolf]

THANK YOU for spreading a true message and the concern of many!

Obama has already shown the American people that he DOES NOT have good judgment, look at his support of Rev. Wright for 20+ years and financial aid; his association with Ayers and Rezko and of course his wife's ANTI-AMERICAN comment.

That comment alone will scare the Dems. into voting for McCain, I know I will be first in line to vote Republican for the first time in my life.

God Bless America and God Help America!

Hillary '08

[dentuso]

is this editorial a joke?

The ONLY thing that makes Obama unelectable, is twits like this, telling other Hillary supporters to scream "Obama is unelectable".

For all those "Democrats" who claim that they'll vote for McCain.. all 35% of them, because Hillary didn't win the nomination:

Let's fast-forward four years. We have four wars going on - Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq. We probably have a draft enacted, because it's expected the we'll be 300-450,000 troops short. Roe v. Wade has been overturned. We have no working middle-East policy. There's no healthcare. Nothing has happened on Social security or medicare. Veterans continue to be treated like crap upon their their returns. We've borrowed another $5 trillion from China, and our economy is at the point of Roman collapse.

If you were to take a poll in 4 years of Democrats who "voted for McCain", I can guarantee you right now that no more than 5% would admit to having any responsibility in the sabotaging of this election.

If you're serious.. and you're going to vote for McCain because you like Hillary more than Barack... if you really vote for more war and a Bush agenda for the next four years instead of voting for the very principles that makes you a Democrat, then I hope like hell you're going to be able to tell the people around you what you decided to do. Again.. I beleive that no more than a couple would admit it then.

[AbbieXHoffman]

"Is this an editorial joke?"

It's obviously a shock to you to see that there are intelligent people that have intellectual substance behind their decision to support Hillary. Perhaps if you spend a bit of time on another site, in addition to the Huf post, and you will see that many of Hillary's supporters are intelligent, informed, young, modern and progressive.

[Amminadab]

Wright makes Obama unelectable.

Ayers makes Obama unelectable.

Michelle makes Obama unelectable.

And most of all..... his hateful supporters make Obama unelectable.

[DietrichMoody]

Pay attention to Hillary Clinton's and John McCain's major weaknesses as you have done Obama's and you might be suprised at how vulnerable, weak Clinton and McCain are. By the way John Edwards just endorsed Obama.

Take Clinton. Do you really think she won Pennsylvania, and West Virginia because of her campaigning, Look at the numbers: HILLARY CLINTON lost 12 points in Pennsylvanis in less than 2 months. Hillary Clinton lost 20 points in Indiana in less than a month. Hillary Clinton lost her leads in Missouri, Alaska, Utah, Minnesota, Virginia, Vermont, Maine, Texas, California, and Mississippi. Obama took more votes away from her in New York than she did from him in Illionois. No more, will people feel guilty voting against her because she is a woman. This is key. Plus, can't trust her maintaining a lead.

Take McCain, people are still voting for Huckabee and Romney over him. MORE TIME IN THE SENATE THAN IN THE MILITARY. McCain has been in the Senate through corruption charges, through bad political advice, and was a Bush Administration enabler. How is he good as National Security when he was a powerful voice in the Senate BEFORE 9/11, contributing to decades of weak national security. What has he done. Independents and moderate Republicans have issues with him. He's too much of an insider and has contributed to destroying the Republican party.

Come fall, please use your observaton towards a very very very weak McCain. Show McCain no mercy.

[23000Days]

Could I throw in the S&L bailout and scandal? McCain is one of the "Keating Five" and was censured for that. That will not be taken lightly by voters going through a similar mortghage debacle today.

[Marrob]

KB, you did it again girl. Great article...­But am going to vote for him if he is the nominee and "HOPE" like hell he wins.

[dentuso]

Marrob,

I understand you're frustrated by Hillary's campaign and apparent loss. I will also salute you for being a real Democrat, and applaud you for voting on principle vs. personal preference in the people who are to represent thiese ideals.

[KenArnold]

Kristin, you have my sincerest sympathy for your loss. I am also deeply grateful for all you did after 9/11. The nation owes you and other 9/11 victims a debt.
I can certainly understand a personal loyalty to your Senator and supporter, and the grave fear we all have of a McCain victory. Nevertheless, your one-sided, biased, fear based "analysis" is too flawed to even attempt to deal with on a point by point basis. For every reason you give that Barack might lose, I can come up with many that would say that Hillary would. Your article appears to be a plea to the supers, as an appeal for victory in November. There is a reason that they - mostly elected officals - are designated as supers - i.e. their political experience (and that of their professional advisors). I expect and trust them to use their knowledge, experience and judgement in making their indivdual decisions about what is best for victory, the party and the nation. You obviously felt a strong need to express yourself to write so much here. I hope it helped. Please, trust the process and join us in the fight to return the country to truth, justice, economic opportunity, rule of law, true democracy, civil and human rights and other Democratic principals, regardless of whom the Presidential candidate is. We must focus on marketing our values and on victory from city councils and school boards all the way up to the white house.

[bigbingtheory]

When Obama wins in a landslide I will be sure to gloat mercilessly towards Hillary supporters like this one. Completely and udderly clueless. Blinded by Hillary worship. All anyone has to do is spend a little time and do some research to allay any fears of his ability to win and lead the country in the right direction. Besides, Hillary would be trounced. I know Republicans who like Obama, I don't know any that like Hillary Clinton. They love to hate and villify her and that would coninue through November.

[mamak]

Hahaha...s­o funny & delusional­.... I bet she is a roomie with Mayhill Flower.

The whole article is like a Clinton supporter coming to terms with HRC losing and BO clinching the nomination. From state-of-denial to complete dementia in eventually having to vote for BO...all her fears and ambiguity is just mind-boggling. I think she gives an inside to how a HRC supporter thinks...h­ow sad....all they see is 'Why Hillary MUST win"......­so much misguided emotion and no logic...wh­at more to say other than "Welcome to Hillaryland"! ...

Obama'08

[dinger]

Kristen,

Please stop.

Sincerely,

Common Sense.

[23000Days]

Excellent zinger, dinger!

[95flhtcu]

Obama has no track record. Yeah, he made a speech opposing the war, when he didn't have a vote. i've never seen where he said outright that he would have voted against the war. In order to keep up he had to win twice as many states as hillary. Large states are not in his court. I think that people also drastically underestimate the racism invloved here by voters. Is he going to be able to get all those college students to the polls? He went from Harvard to a law firm in chicago to pursue politics, and once he got there, he frequently voted "present". Ya think that's not going to come back to haunt him? Not to mention that everytime his wife opens her mouth she puts her foot in it. No one has gotten to the magic number yet but if this was a winner take all contest, Hillary would have already won. I've said it before, I'll vote for whoever gets the nomination. If everyone in obama's camp thinks the supers should vote the way their constituants did, then Kennedy is going to have to vote for Hillary. This isn't going to be the walk in the park that Obama's congregation thinks it is.

[23000Days]

A thousand reasons to be afraid! The sky is falling! It's the wolf! Terrorist are going to kill us all and rape our women and eat our male children! BULL-PUCKEY!
We Obama supporters will take the fight to the repugs with a ferocity seldom seen, because we refuse to live in fear. We are certain of hand and sure of purpose, calm cool and collected, and we'll win in November (already got the primary).
Hillary has prepared us more than amply for attacks on Obama's character and history. Guess what! It's not working anymore. Witness house races in ILL, LA and MS, where the very attacks you present were all used to associate the dem candidate with the EVIL OBAMA.

"but if this was a winner take all contest, Hillary would have already won."
How convoluted is that??? Do ya think Obama would have ran his campaign with the same strategy if the playing field was different? He's a master strategist and knows exactly what he's doing. And unlike Hillary, he's willing to stand by the pledges regarding the rules of the game!

When ya gonna' realize that "win at all costs" is a losing strategy today?

[gurukalehuru]

Obama v. McCain
1. Fresh v. Stale
2. Anti-War v.Pro-War
3. Cool, calm and unflappable v. Old and Cantankerous
4. No senior moments v. senior moments
5. Spotless marriage v. questionable marriage
6. "Politics of Hope" v. "It's always been this way, deal with it"
7. Diplomacy v. Belligerence

With Hillary, we would lose every one of those advantages. Yes, Kristen, if we lose in November, we will feel great remorse and you will be able to say "I told you so."
But we don't think we're going to lose. Please join us. We could use your help.

[RobBob]

I'm not certain what the point of this post is. At the risk of piling on, this little temper tantrum you are throwing here is (1) not possibly going to help Hillary get the nomination in any way, and (2) going to hurt your own reputation for a long time.

But I hope that you will soon get over your pain and accept the Democratic nominee. I truly hope you'll eventually put your anger behind you and help make sure that Obama wins the general election. I absolutely hope that you at least immediately cease your attacks on him: the Republicans don't need any help.

[HumeSkeptic]

It is no secret now that "working class whites" is an euphemism for rednecks and racists. If indeed it turns out that this is a critical voting block, and a Democrat must win this block to win the White House, I for one am not interested in a Democrat winning. Win to do what? Govern like a Republican?

I quit the Democratic party long time ago when these same "working class whites" voted for Reagan, thereby enabling the rise of the Religious Right and marginalization of minorities. I couldn't belong to a party that had these so-called "working class whites". I have never regretted that dicision and, as an independent, I have never voted for a Republican.

I see in Barack Obama a real chance for the Democratic party to re-discover its soul, and for us to take back from corporatists and lobbyists.

Win or lose, I am for Obama all the way. I would be supporting, fighting for and voting for a cause, not just for Barack Obama.

[23000Days]

As usual Hume, you're right on the money.