I just posted this at MotherJones.com....
With Barack Obama's loss in South Dakota and win in Montana on Tuesday night, the primaries and caucuses are over. The senator from Illinois who ran an unconventional movement-esque campaign of and for change is the winner. He has bagged the most voter-determined delegates and a majority of the superdelegates commitments, enough to declare victory. The nation is heading toward a general election featuring a dramatic face-off between a progressive who opposed the Iraq war and a conservative who was a cheerleader for the war. A fresh face versus a Washington veteran. A onetime community organizer versus a former war hero. A 46-year-old black man versus a 71-year-old white man. Assuming the Democratic mantle, Obama declared in a speech before thousands in St. Paul, Minnesota, "This year must be different than all the rest." It will be. And hours earlier, John McCain, delivering a speech in New Orleans, used the word "change" almost three dozen times. But before the Obama-McCain clash throttles up, there is one last item of business for the Democrats: Hillary Clinton must concede.
Can Clinton harbor any hope of nullifying the verdict of the millions of voters who flocked to the primaries and caucuses in record numbers? That would be the political equivalent of nuclear warfare. To do so, Clinton, who spent the end of her campaign positioning herself as a count-every-vote champion, would have to become an anti-democratic renegade, challenging the outcome of the voting and confronting the party leadership, which has signaled its preference for allowing the pledged-delegate count to determine the final outcome.
On Tuesday, AP reported Clinton had told New York lawmakers she was open to being Obama's veep choice--a sign she won't push the button. And in her speech to supporters in New York on Tuesday night, Clinton was conciliatory toward Obama. She declared, "we stayed the course," depicting her hang-in-there strategy of the past two months as a cause, not a political tactic. She made no mention of the superdelegates, dropping her usual pitch for their support. But in a combative tone, she proclaimed, "I want the 18 million people who voted for me to be respected and to be heard." Heard? Respected? In what way? And by whom? By Obama? That was a statement ready-made for interpretation by pundits and analysts. "Where do we go from here?" she asked. She answered, "I will be making no decisions tonight." Speaking to her supporters, she said, I want to hear from you." And she noted that in the "coming days" she will be consulting with party leaders.
In the dwindling weeks of the race, she played it both ways: good Democrat and bad Democrat. The good Clinton ceased her attacks on Obama and stopped questioning whether he was qualified to be commander in chief. Yet, at the same time, the bad Clinton raised questions about the legitimacy of Obama's win. Using fuzzy and misleading math, she claimed she had won more popular votes than Obama. Campaigning in Florida, she noted that its residents had "learned the hard way what happens when...the candidate with fewer votes is declared the winner." At the Democratic Party's rules committee, Harold Ickes, a top Clinton adviser, angrily claimed that four of her delegates had been "hijacked" and threatened that Clinton would appeal the committee's compromise decision at the convention. Ickes' mad-as-hell performance, no doubt, reinforced the view held by some Clinton's supporters that Obama's triumph has come--at least, in part--as a result of unfairness and anti-Clinton bias.
Still, ever since the May 6 primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, Clinton has managed to walk a careful line, keeping her post-primary options open without doing anything that could directly undermine an Obama candidacy in the general election. That allowed her to stay in the hunt--in case something precipitous happened to alter the race. It also permitted her to rack up a few more primary wins and continue to show her strength among blue-collar (or white) voters--which she could point to when arguing to superdelegates that she would be the better candidate to take on McCain in the fall.
But she can straddle no longer. On Tuesday night, MSNBC reported that Clinton wanted a private sit-down with Obama before conceding or embracing Obama as the nominee. Many party leaders--including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid--have said they have no patience for drawing out the race beyond the last primaries. Democratic figures--especially those backing Obama--have in recent weeks deliberately not called on Clinton to abandon her campaign. They have not been eager to force her out. But such courtesy will evaporate faster than desert rain in the "coming days."
It could well be that party leaders--out of kindness, respect, and worry (over whether her supporters will eventually swing behind Obama)--afford Clinton a few days to process her defeat. After all, this historic race was damn close, as so few nomination contests are. But this is politics, not therapy. So the grace period won't be long.
Understandably, the Senator from New York who almost became the first woman to win a major party's presidential nomination has put off this decision for as long as she could. And her performance in the final weeks of the campaign has strengthened her future presidential prospects. Should Obama lose to McCain, Clinton and her supporters could use these late-contest wins to bolster an I-told-you-so argument that would come in handy for the 2012 campaign. But if she does not play nice soon, she puts her future within the party at great risk.
All things come to an end--even tight and historic presidential nomination contests. Wounds are tended to; they heal. Bad feelings subside. Deals are cut, if need be. Political parties can--and do--come together. And heading into what promises to be a damn tough campaign, Obama will need Clinton and her followers. In his victory speech, Obama hailed Clinton and exclaimed, "Let us begin to work together." As a calculating politician, Clinton can probably be expected to do the right thing. But with the Clintons--politicians of unusual fortitude and audacity--you never know. Now that all the party's polls are closed, the moment belongs to Obama. He is the champion. He has made history. He has become the strongest progressive Democratic nominee in a generation. And, for Hillary Clinton, the clock has run out.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
Great Piece and WOWSER what a speech.
Some people poke fun at his making a speech - I thin he makes great speeches.
If Barack lives up to half of his potential we will have more history in the making.
If not, at least I won't want to stick knitting needles into my eardrums like I do whenever I hear Bush.
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 12:02 AM
We all know, based on previous experiences with politicians and their designated positions in our government, that VPs work just as hard, if not harder than the President does.
Hillary ran the white house and our country when her Bill was president and everyone knows that everyone else but Bush is currently running our country.
Martin Luther King said that his 'dream' would soon become a reality, now let us make that needed CHANGE that Obama stated and make an even stronger statement with Hillary as VP.
VP or President, we all need to work together to make these needed CHANGES; the title of one's position is irrelevant, it is merely just a title and we cannot be defined in society by a title. To define someone by a title, whether it is based on position, gender, race, religion or disability, is disabling our ability to work together as a team. In addition, one's title should not serve as a 'labeling' device or for means of POWER over another individual, as this is considered discriminatory.
I am a measly little peon in society and have no desire to claim or be associated by a title. All I care about is equality, justice, freedom, privacy, safety, honesty and civil conversations.
As Disney's popular "High School Musical" states, "we are all in this together..." We need to realize that we all need to work together for a stronger society and until this happens, we are just going around in circles of ignorance.
The constitution states that we are to create a more perfect union, establish justice and insure tranquility....the sooner we all agree to work together, the easier life's journey will become and we just might also begin to enjoy life and each other instead of working against one another...
Posted by: Robin-Jill Driben
| June 4, 2008 1:18 AM
I hope that Hillary becomes the VP. I find that I have grown to abhor McCain because he showed us true sleazy weasel colors in the past year. He demonstrated a lack of principles, ethics and morals which are the purview of the GOP and will so remain.
I am told that not all Republicans are bad. Show me anyone in the GOP leadership who will do what is best for America first, over and above what is good for the GOP? (I don't think such a person exists.)
Posted by: kalpal
| June 4, 2008 5:55 AM
Republicans begin to highlight Clinton’s criticism of Obama
NEW YORK (CNN) – Hours before the polls closed Tuesday in the final two Democratic presidential primaries, the Republican National Committee began circulating a video of Hillary Clinton questioning Barack Obama’s qualifications to be commander-in-chief, and acknowledging John McCain has this important presidential credential.
“Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002,” Clinton says in the one-minute video of CNN’s coverage of a news conference she held on March 8 – the day Obama won the Wyoming caucuses. “I think that is a significant difference. I think that since we now know Senator McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that.
"And I think it is imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. And I believe I have done that. Certainly, Senator McCain has done that. And you will have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.”
The RNC posted the video on YouTube early Tuesday afternoon, just as Obama was on the verge of locking up the Democratic nomination and speculation heated up about Clinton being his running mate.
Tonight, South Dakota and Montana Democrats hold the final two contests of the primary season. Obama is expected to secure the support of enough delegates to claim the party’s presidential nomination as early as tonight, and but no later than the end of this week.
An RNC official tells CNN to expect to see more of Republicans highlighting Clinton’s critical comments of Obama as the campaign now turns to the general election phase.
“We will use it repeatedly,” the official said.
******
HRC made it all but impossible to run with Barack, he didn't pass the CIC test.
HRC will not be the VP.
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 6:27 AM
The Democrats will run a cool, collected, relatively young candidate.
The GOP will run a volatile, fumblemouthed retired Navy pilot.
When did I see this before?
Oh, yeah--1988.
As usual, the members of the "creative class", for all their vaunted intellectual megawattage, can't quite fathom just how deeply loathed they are down here in the humbler ranks of society.
If Obama does lose, it will not be because of the African portion of his ancestry, but because the GOP will have succeeded in painting him as the candidate of detached ivory-tower eggheads, or worse, subversives. Don't underestimate the Mighty Wurlitzer; if it could smear Kerry, a decorated combat veteran, as basically a pinko traitor, imagine what it could do to a fellow who had the poor judgement to hang around with a genuine pinko traitor [Ayers] and a bunch of wacky preachers who preach hate for "Whitey"--when "whiteys" still compose a majority of the voting populace.
Posted by: Ivory Bill Woodpecker
| June 4, 2008 7:35 AM
"...As usual, the members of the "creative class", for all their vaunted intellectual megawattage, can't quite fathom just how deeply loathed they are down here in the humbler ranks of society..."
Ignorance and hatred, just waiting to be preyed upon, for sure...
What dark fear is in YOUR heart?
-T
Posted by: Hajji
| June 4, 2008 8:17 AM
IBW,
I am sure you will help out where you can.
lol
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 8:17 AM
A truly historic campaign season. My best wishes to Obama and his supporters. But your biggest fight may lie ahead of you. Will Hillary fade into the sunset or will she fight for the limelight all the way through the convention?
Posted by: tytandanmar
| June 4, 2008 8:25 AM
The GOP Smear Machine is adapted, exquisitely, to work against urbane, usually Northern, more-cultural-than-economic liberals. The only times it failed were when the Dems ran a folksy populist fellow instead.
The thrice-damned wars were going in 2004, too. The economy sucked for the majority in 2004, too. The Chimperor still either won, or got close enough so that his cronies could steal the election plausibly.
The GOP nearly always screws up the actual process of governing, and yet manages to win elections, due to the enduring unpopularity of cultural liberals of the "creative class".
The "creative class" geniuses who have hijacked the Democratic Party keep thinking "yeah, yeah, but THIS urbane cultural liberal has special qualities the previous ones lacked. HE'LL win!"
Hasn't insanity been defined as doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result?
Posted by: Ivory Bill Woodpecker
| June 4, 2008 8:28 AM
...and what does 1988 have to do with anything?
Posted by: Hajji
| June 4, 2008 8:29 AM
Oh right, Hajji, I forgot. In the past 20 years, the country gained huge numbers of smug creative-class elitists, to the point where they far outnumber bitter working stiffs, which means that the Democratic establishment's strategy should work like a charm.
So yeah, it's totally different from 1988. *snort*
Posted by: Ivory Bill Woodpecker
| June 4, 2008 8:50 AM
The Barack is a elitist?
Running against the uber-elitist McSame?
If Barack is the real deal he will mop the floor with gramps.
1988? - sure everything is the same, always has been, always will be. Nothing changes in the closed mind clouded by prejudice.
1992 (just 4 years off 1988 Bill Clinton won the presidency with a paltry 39% of the "Whitey" vote.
I am sure you are right, the hopelessness of hope . . .
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 9:07 AM
Is there a published "Class Organizational Chart"? My bank account and work schedule suggests I'm a "working stiff", but I do FEEL "smugly creative"...although I AM certifiably bitter, and as always, clinging to my guns and I'm suddenly so confused and filled with SELF-loathing...
Maybe a shot (but not from a bosnian sniper) and a beer will make me more "working class"...I dunno I dunno I dunno....
Posted by: Hajji
| June 4, 2008 9:14 AM
Hope is not for grownups, folks. Ciao for nao.
Posted by: Ivory Bill Woodpecker
| June 4, 2008 9:24 AM
Hope is not for grownups, folks.
Either is childish name calling, Ad Hominem, school yard taunts or stupid shit.
FWIW
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 10:43 AM
Actually, McCain spoke from Kenner, LA, not New Orleans. Kenner is a suburb of NO, home to its airport and to a mostly blue collar population which includes a sizable amount of David Duke's most ardent supporters. McCain is pursuing a strategy to exploit divisions based on race and class, divisions that Clinton had shamelessly exploited in her campaign and even continues to exploit as evidenced by her speech last night. She is a nightmare.
Posted by: wayneg
| June 4, 2008 11:29 AM
Hillary has a very short self-life now.
She can only make one more speech that anybody will tune in to.
End of the week - tops - then she is just yesterdays newspaper lining a bird cage.
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 12:27 PM
Barack Obama should not pick Hillary Clinton as his vice-presidential nominee, former president Jimmy Carter has told the Guardian.
"I think it would be the worst mistake that could be made," said Carter. "That would just accumulate the negative aspects of both candidates."
(GuardianUK)
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 12:29 PM
Carter's right. Now that the GOP is using her own criticisms of Obama against him, the contradictions would be in high relief. If she were truly interested in becoming VP, why does she continually try everything in her power to upstage him? If Obama is to get us beyond the divisiveness of identity politics, there's no room for Clinton on the ticket. (She may be perfect for the Supreme Court though.)
Posted by: wayneg
| June 4, 2008 12:57 PM
Barr chiseling into McCain voter base
Libertarian candidate could nab votes in dissatisfied red states
Bob Barr's Libertarian presidential campaign is poised to play a serious role in this year's elections, with early polls showing him taking away enough votes from Sen. John McCain to give Democrats a chance to win states that should be safely Republican.
Polls in Georgia and North Carolina over the last two weeks show Mr. Barr winning 8 percent and 6 percent respectively of the presidential vote, and in both cases helping keep likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama within striking distance of Mr. McCain in those states — which, taken together, account for more electoral votes than Florida, Pennsylvania or Ohio.
"Barr does throw a monkeywrench in Republican plans in states people otherwise take for granted as Republican states," said Matt Towery, a former political adviser to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and CEO of InsiderAdvantage, an Atlanta-based polling and political analysis firm that conducted the Georgia poll.
http://tinyurl.com/4y7dgr
******
Bob Barr as Perot or the GOP's Nader?
I am surprised he has that much support. Maybe he is getting some of the Paulites? That could be major trouble for McSame.
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 2:03 PM
Barack Obama: Calm in the Swirl of History
He gives the appearance of a strikingly laid-back victor, this presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
On the day before the night he made history, Barack Obama shot hoops at the Back Bay Club in Chicago, and called the odd superdelegate or two. Then he and his wife, Michelle, kissed their daughters goodnight and, with a half dozen of their best friends, rode to Midway Airport to catch a flight to St. Paul to claim his prize. He sat on the plane, legs crossed, chuckling, chatting, giving little hint of what roiled within.
http://tinyurl.com/4eoywp
*****
I think gramps will be a Barack supporter before this thing is over.
I might be a bit too optimistic but . .
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 2:12 PM
Congratulations capt, your guy won the popular vote by .2% He's surely got the Big Mo now...
By every reasonable factor, this year should be a blow-out year for Democrats... war, the economy, climate worries... etc. etc...
But the Dems have now nominated the weakest possible candidate... so it's gotten much more dicey than it should otherwise be...
(The Democrats will still do great in local Congressional races... Hopefully Obama can ride along on their coattails... I won't discount that powerful factor...)
Obama's "inspiration" factor fired up exactly 1/2 of the Democratic party... In the last five months there's been no sign whatsoever that the "magic" has gone any further... He's now counting on Hillary's resentful followers to suck it up and support him on pure party loyalty alone...
Not exactly an "energizing" strategy...
Fudging on "universal" health care sure doesn't do much for Hillary die-hards like me... (and using Republican talking points against her... even Harry-and-Louise clones... sure pissed me off...)
Writing off working class Reagan Democrats is a way risky strategy...
The only way Obama can get Hillary to "concede" now is to make her VP.
Otherwise she'll wait in the wings between now and the Convention (with her 49.5% of the pledged delegates) and give the Super Delegates plenty of time to get nervous...
If Obama's still looking this weak against McCain six weeks from now, she'll be only too glad to step up.
**
The war situation is much more complex now as well. It's not a slam-dunk advantage for Obama anymore...
McCain's challenged him to go to Iraq and get an overdue "update" since the situation there has evolved considerably beyond Obama's basic "get out now" (ca. 2002) platform plank...
Will Obama's core anti-war supporters allow him to finesse his position now? How will they take it if he starts to say that he's going to follow Petraeus' lead?
(Which I think he will inevitably have to do if Petraeus continues to be as successful militarily and politically as he has been in recent months.)
McCain's running mate is going to be another military-type with tons of medals on his chest. Who besides Hillary can Obama get to defend his utter lack of national security cred and his incoherent foreign policy positions?
He'll meet with any foreign enemy approved by the Israel lobby?
He'll look really great on the steps of Air Force One? He'll give wonderful speeches at the UN?
I'm one of those long-time Democrats who cares about substance not speeches. If only one Obama supporter would name even ONE actual accomplishment of actual governance ever acheived by the "magic" one...
Posted by: Diff
| June 4, 2008 3:39 PM
Movie suggestion for Obamans: "The Candidate" starring Robert Redford.
Posted by: Diff
| June 4, 2008 3:40 PM
Oh yeah, he's really great at quoting nearly word-for-word (without attribution) Zbigniew Brzezinski (and others incl. Hillary)...
He's an A+ student. I'll give him that.
I think Obama supporters should just keep playing his speeches back, over and over, wishing, wishing, wishing... The more they just love, love, love him, perhaps the more that love will transfer to the rest of us...
I'm still hoping, hoping, hoping for the magic to work on me...
Posted by: Diff
| June 4, 2008 3:48 PM
Obama was never "my guy" that'd be Kucinich on nearly every issue, then Edwards - then even maybe a Dodd. Why mischaracterize my position? Is that suppose to make some kind of a point?
Please tell me why my preference matters to you so much? I don't know if I should be flattered or just creeped out.
If it does matter at all please get it right by asking not trying to tell me who is "my guy".
I do believe the best candidate won of the last three viable campaigns. I liked BHO better than HRC and make no apologiy for preference - why should I?
I have explained this many times before, I get the feeling you aren't reading my posts?
I predicted BHO winning the nomination and said it when the math dictated the results, nothing special about that. My prediction would have been for HRC if the math supported that conclusion. No big dealio that.
In matters of opinion nobody is wrong or right. The math is just math and my preference effected the outcome by one vote - same as everybody.
So what's the deal - just quit the negative crud directed at me - no reason for it.
(and leave Dennis alone too - he is my guy - HA!)
Thanks
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 3:55 PM
Thirst for change trumped Clinton's experience
WASHINGTON (AP) — On her first campaign visit to New Hampshire in February 2007, Hillary Rodham Clinton was confronted by a voter who demanded she explain her 2002 Senate vote authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
"I want to know if right here, right now, once and for all and without nuance, you can say that war authorization was a mistake," Roger Tilton asked Clinton. "I, and I think a lot of other primary voters — until we hear you say it, we're not going to hear all the other great things you are saying."
Clinton replied, as she would repeat in the ensuing months: "Knowing what we know now, I would never have voted for it."
Her refusal to admit error failed to satisfy Tilton, a 46-year-old financial analyst from Nashua even though he loved her position on health care and capping Iraq troop levels.
(googlenews)
*****
I think the Iraq vote is overstated as a reason for the loss.
Edwards did apologize and some say that actually hurt him. It likely did with any hawkish types and there are plenty of those even in the democratic party.
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 3:59 PM
McCain suggested 10 joint town hall meetings -- one per week -- before the Democratic Convention at the end of August in Denver, attended by 200 to 400 voters selected by "an objective organization."
The Obama campaign indicated it is open to discussing the idea.
"As Barack Obama has said before, the idea of joint town halls is appealing and one that would allow a great conversation to take place about the need to change the direction of this country. We would recommend a format that is less structured and lengthier than the McCain campaign suggests, one that more closely resembles the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.
Plouffe added that the proposal will be one of many items that will be addressed in the coming days.
(LATimes)
*****
I don't think it would be a fair fight - verbally of course.
The Lincoln Douglas debates were 2.5 or 3 hours long. I think Barack is kidding around a little bit, grrrrramps will need a nap about half way through . . .
lol
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 4:08 PM
I wonder why the McSame proposal has:
"before the Democratic Convention at the end of August"
????
The parties have not offically chosen a nominee until their respective conventions.
Why not spread out the dates and run them right up to late October? The "before the convention" and getting all ten in before the end of August just seems weird to me.
Maybe I am missing something obvious.
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 4:12 PM
Obama should absolutely not ask Hillary to be VP. He does not need her and to add her to the ticket would bring about more baggage than he needs. My belief her true intent is not to be the VP nominee, hope Obama loses and run again in 2012. I do not know what makes her think she wil be more appealing to the voters 4 years from now but you know that is what the Clinton's are thinking. If she is VP on a losing ticket, she can no longer claim that she is more electable.
Posted by: tytandanmar
| June 4, 2008 4:18 PM
Capt.
I think McCain is trying everything he can to make Obama vulnerable before the convention. It is no secret he regards Hillary in higher esteem and would actually prefer to run against her. Call me crazy but a 70 year old going against a 47 year old is already 1 strike against him. Of course, I mean McCain.
Posted by: tytandanmar
| June 4, 2008 4:23 PM
I think it's certainly likely that McCain would rather lose to Hillary than Obama. He certainly has a lot more respect for her from their Senate time together and after getting jerked around there by the hyper-political Obama. I have no doubt that he thinks the country would be in much better hands with Hillary as President than with Obama.
Obama is almost certain to decline before the Conventions... and he's the one who'll demand a more controlled format.
And all posters who keep trashing McCain as "McSame" and "Gramps" are not doing your cause any favors. It just shows how out of touch you are. I sure hope Obama's not making the same mistake underestimating McCain's broad appeal to independents as you all are.
Hey, I like Dennis Kucinich too. I agree a lot more with him and Ralph Nader on virtually any issue...
But I'm also realistic, and at election time it's time to focus on the "art of the possible." I love Nader, but think those 2000 Nader voters were disastrous fools.
The "art of the possible" is never pretty. The "new politics" fantasy was hokum when Carter tried it, when Gary Hart tried it, and if Obama's President, we'll likely have to endure another four-year "learning-the-hard-way" Presidency... (like we did with the young Clintons in '93-'96 too).
Posted by: Diff
| June 4, 2008 4:39 PM
T-
If their speeches last night are any indicator - Gramps set in slow motion crypt-keeper mode back dropped in lime Jello from the early bird dinner versus Baracks good (not his best either) - the town hall meeting could be a disaster for McSame.
Aside from that, I think you are spot on. The old guard (including the M$M) will still hang on to the dream opponent.
I think McSame would prefer going against HRC because his internal polling shows her to be a weaker candidate without regard to the esteem for his colleague. (IMO)
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 4:40 PM
"The Candidate" with Robert Redford.
Posted by: Diff
| June 4, 2008 4:41 PM
It will be interesting to see how the general election runs out.
I have read - and think I agree - that there is some election fatigue already and the thing hasn't even started.
If the process ends up turning people off - the candidates will have only small audiences to inspire - that could be trouble for BHO.
If the interest stays intense? Odds are for BHO.
McSame is no idiot and he has the Bush/GOP machine working. This will not be a cakewalk no matter what.
I expect the worse, hope for the best but be ready for anything.
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 4:46 PM
From Roll Call ...
Furthermore, during a Senate vote Wednesday, Obama dragged Lieberman by the hand to a far corner of the Senate chamber and engaged in what appeared to reporters in the gallery as an intense, three-minute conversation.
While it was unclear what the two were discussing, the body language suggested that Obama was trying to convince Lieberman of something and his stance appeared slightly intimidating.
Using forceful, but not angry, hand gestures, Obama literally backed up Lieberman against the wall, leaned in very close at times, and appeared to be trying to dominate the conversation, as the two talked over each other in a few instances.
Still, Obama and Lieberman seemed to be trying to keep the back-and-forth congenial as they both patted each other on the back during and after the exchange.
Afterwards, Obama smiled and pointed up at reporters peering over the edge of the press gallery for a better glimpse of their interaction.
Obama loyalists were quick to express their frustration with Lieberman's decision and warned that if he continues to take a lead role in attacking Obama it could complicate his professional relationship with the Caucus.
(via TPM)
*****
Go Barack!
Joe was his mentor when Barack joined the senate - good times . . . .
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 5:01 PM
I think Obama holds his own against McCain. Especially if conservatives like me stay home and do not contribute. I do not fear an Obama presidency and that is why I will not donate a dime or vote for McCain to stop it. McCain thinks he can win the election without conservatives but he is dead wrong. Look for the news reports of RNC fundraising problems and you will know why.
Posted by: tytandanmar
| June 4, 2008 5:29 PM
Here is a little montage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aMDJP4VxY4
It is a daunting challenge for any politician to go against Barack when being measured on stump speeches and campaign rhetoric.
Issues aside - I expect McSame's problem isn't going to be money when speaking one on one with Barack.
Lack of money will make McSame go to the RNC/Bush and that makes a connection to the old guard that BHO will exploit.
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 5:37 PM
In contrast to Hillary Clinton's "stoke divisions and rally the troops for civil war" speech, Barack Obama hardly spoke of himself in his victory speech in Minnesota. He thanked his family, campaign team and supporters, he spoke of the important moment we find ourselves in and how the issues are larger than any one candidate. And he generously complimented Hillary Clinton.
Continuing the trends of their respective campaigns, Barack Obama took the high road; Hillary Clinton chose the low one. When the Clinton's injected race in South Carolina, Barack gave Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt and spoke of moving beyond our differences; when Hillary ran the infamous 3am ad, Barack continued to insist we act on hope not fear; and in the end, when Barack held out the olive branch, going so far as to say that Hillary's strength and tenacity paved the way for his own daughters, Hillary refused to show grace and help heal the party.
Regardless of what happens from here, Barack Obama's historic night will always be partially shadowed by a woman with an ego too large to do what every other candidate in both parties, including Mike Huckabee, understood was appropriate. Last night Barack Obama won the nomination. He made history. And Hillary knows he offers drastic change from both Bush and McCain. Yet instead of urging her supporters to rally in the name of larger principles, her message was much like another disastrous politician's: screw the pundits, the naysayers, the numbers, the facts. We can still win! Just stay the course.
For Clinton like Bush, it's the war that never ends.
(huffpo)
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 8:12 PM
In Louisiana, McCain Claims He Voted For Every Katrina Investigation -- Except He Didn't
During his press conference today in Baton Rouge, John McCain declared in strong terms that he's voted for every investigation of Hurricane Katrina.
The only problem, as the DNC has been pointing out to reporters, is he voted twice against Democratic proposals to investigate the levee failures.
After a local reporter at his Baton Rouge press conference asked why he voted against forming a commission to investigate the levee failures in New Orleans, McCain insisted that he supported every investigation -- and added that he was "not familiar" with what the reporter was talking about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ng9q4L3_vU
McCain voted against establishing a commission to investigate the levee failures, in a September 2005 party-line vote in which all Republicans voted against the Democratic proposal. He then repeated that party-line GOP vote against a similar Dem proposal in February 2006.
(TPM)
Posted by: capt
| June 4, 2008 10:30 PM
Post A Comment