You Broke It--You Own It, Obama Style; By Kristen Breitweiser

You Broke It--You Own It, Obama Style; By Kristen Breitweiser





"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."

more

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/you-broke-it-you-own-it_b_101673.html

He has no planned strategy for fighting Republicans.

Here we go again!

... for winning the nomination.

What was Hillary thinking??? The freaking nomination was hers to lose...and she lost. Unbelievable.

in case she needs to give it soon? :rofl:

You must be the first to know..

thanks for sharing!

... because first thing tomorrow morning, Hillary is miraculously going to be ahead in delegates, and all of the SDs are going to change their minds and endorse her. Caucuses will be declared unconstitutional, the states that Obama won will secede from the union, and the powers-that-be in the Democratic Party will announce that the ONLY state whose votes count is MI - and tough luck Obama wasn't on the ballot, because Hillary is now the official nominee.

Uh huh, really and truly, that's how it's going to play out. Yup, you betcha!

I guess, you didn't see the memo!

Doesn't necessarily make it fucking so.

Keep dreaming about Super Delegates. Know this, there aren't enough SDs left to give Obama a WIN!

He's stroking you, just like he does all his believers. There isn't a coronation in his future!

And more than likely the SD lead tomorrow. So who is dreaming here?

He didn't win the majority of electoral votes in the states he won, and is behind in the popular vote.

Obama IS nowhere!

B) Your popular vote meme is a fantasy and a laughable one coming from a candidate so concerned about MI and FLA's voters but willing to disenfranchise any caucus state.

C)Obama will be the nominee

But you knew all that right?

Who funds your website exactly? Is it the spam or do you have bigger masters?

Would Hillary's Presidency be as soaked in blood as the company she keeps is?

Payback is a bitch!

We are a battleground state for sure but this "battleground" state has voted for the Democratic Nominee since Clinton in 1992.

Rp

... nor was I in on the talking points conference call.

I keep forgetting that it's over when Hillary says it's over - because it's Hillary's world, it's all about HER. No one else matters.

Silly me.

while I wasn't looking? If she supplanted Dean, does he get to run for VP?
It's the delegate count that says that it's over. Or did Hillary lie when she agreed to the party's rules?

to fix some of these problems that the fervent Hilliarites have.

campaign hasn't even started yet.

Ck the graphics over the last few weeks.. they are tied and in some cases McCain is ahead.

This whole electability argument is pure crap. We NEVER win when that's our criteria. We win when we choose the best person for the job, like we're doing presently.

Broke it bought it :eyes:

I would have 100x over rather lost in 2004 with Dean than with Kerry, knowing we stood by our principles. And I'm willing to be we wouldn't have lost. IWR sunk Kerry just like it would have sunk Hillary.

David

but now I don't have to!

You have spoken my feelings QUITE eloquently.

Thank you!

:yourock:

Kerry, like Clinton, just went along with REPUKE framing.

it was stolen and cheated from him. we know all about your obama race hating site hillary is 44. you and you're kind aren't dems. the hate and bile that come from there is disgusting.
PSSSST tellurian i hear you have that good cialas. yo, i hear you know where to get the quality breast implants. word on the street is you got the hook up. yo call me:grr:

The Clintons were the ARCHITECT of the collapsed Dem party infrastructure.

Give me a break, friend. While I'm a hardcore, longstanding Obama supporter, I find myself compelled to defend the Clintons with a disturbing regularity, and now from attacks by my fellow Democrats/Progressives more often than from the Sean Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world. (And the idiots who take their marching orders from them.)

OK, let's see if I've got this one straight: the Clintons are a couple of sociopaths, utterly devoid of morality, who could recite any work by Niccolo Machiavelli verbatim from start to finish, such is the depth of their ruthlessness and cynicism. Cripes people, am I the only one who finds it disturbing that those Democrats who do not support Hillary (i.e. some Obama supporters) are starting to make some contentions which sound disturbingly similar to the slanders the wingnut gasbags of the world have been tirelessly piling on the Clintons for the last fifteen or so years?

Robert

blm has posted it so many times, over and over, blm can type out countless variations even while sleeping. It surpassed the "spam" level long ago.

Thank you for your thoughtful post, and a belated welcome to DU. :hi:

And maybe Michigan and Pennsylvania as well.

He got clobbered in California. (lost by 9%)

He shouldn't consider California in the bag either, especially the way Obama has viciously attacked Clinton and her supporters.

If Granholm can beat DeVos, BELIEVE ME,
Obama will TROUNCE McCan't.

Maybe Michigan voters are that forgiving.

Or maybe not.

the DNC Took away the delegates. All the candidates agreed to it. the only reason Hillbilly is fighting for MI and FL is because she thinks it will help her. If she was winning she wouldn't give a shit about MI and FL, just like she doesn't acknowledge any of the 32 states that didn't vote for her pantsuit wearing ass.

And if you recall in her "vict er concession" speech last Tuesday, she said
"both Senator Obama and I agree that MI and FL delegates should be seated"
so take that BS somewhere else it's old tire and a ball face lie and you know it!

screw him!

as to believe that Obama "took away our votes".

We KNOW who took away our votes.

The DLC backed Governor, Senator Debbie Stabenow,
Senator Levin, Debbie Dingell and the MDP Chairs.

We ARE forgiving.

We ARE NOT STUPID.

Even the ones that are probably aren't as maggot-shit stupid as someone from the other end of the country trying to exploit our primary disenfranchisement for the selfish advantage of a candidate that participated in the FUBAR.

explain that

..

And not the fact that Obama is a cowardly, dishonest, substance-less crybaby.

and facts that back up all the smears you are throwing out.

I'm sure that we all would appreciate you backing up your accusations.

I clicked on your link.....
just wow :yoiks:

That jeffjolie guy is trying to make Obama into some sort of Mau Mau.

What a bunch of racist fucks.

Clearly all opposition to Obama is now "racist."

What else could it possibly be, other than the fact he's an arrogant, dishonest, spineless, race-baiting, pro-Globalist crybaby.

Nah. It couldn't be any of those things.

:sarcasm:

was meant without any racist intent. :sarcasm:

He's more of a pro-fair-trader than pro-globalist.

You DO know Hillary supports free trade and job offshoring, right?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/HughBeaumont/32

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=5313426

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/538674.cms
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/593175.cms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs
Hillary pushes for more h1-b visas and outsourcing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdrh2Bc95M
Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 2)

Based on her past statements and votes, Hillary Clinton is about as pro-working class and pro-labor as I am pro-war.

is there a comparable site run by Obama supporters that is as hateful and disgusting towards Hillary? I can't believe these people are democrats!!! :grr:

Lou Dobbs for President? What Democrat would actually support Lou Dobbs?

just when I thought they had reached the nadir of douchebaggery! :wtf:

It is fucking sick. I certainly will blame Obama's loss, should that occur, on idiots like you.

This is Hatfields and McCoys at this point. There's a lot of heat over Hillary's refusal to stand down in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds. Certainly some people are going overboard on both sides. But even if Hillary somehow managed to win solely on superdelegates or seating MI (which would be a travesty IMO), I'll still vote for her. Anyone who will "punish" the one for simply beating the other is fucking retarded and only punishing themselves and this country.

I have no problem calling other Obama supporters on their BS when they say something pointless or destructive - doesn't mean I catch every instance or consider every one worth responding to, but then I'm not a moderator.

There has been plenty of 'venom' from both Hillary and Obama supporters. Please! Let's put it behind us and re-unite as Democrats. I support Obama, and I know that this is really easy for me to say, and that my fellow Democrats who support Hillary must be terribly disappointed. (OK, it isn't over yet, but it is very nearly over.) But the fact remains that we can defeat McCain, a biased media which has all but canonized him, and the predictable Republican smear machine only if we present a united front. God help this country if we have to endure what has aptly and accurately been called George W. Bush's third term; i.e. a McCain administration.

Robert

If you can't see that, then I suppose it's pointless to continue.

let her do what she wants to do. if she wants to be a pathetic joke, fine. And if she stays in much after Obmaa reaches the requisite number to put him over the top, that's exactly what she'll be. Enjoy!

turned away from GDP because of the poisonous slurs Obamaites have flung at Clinton supporters as well as ugly filth against Hillary Clinton. Playing innocent doesn't change the truth that Obamamites have been particularly vicious. Obama said quote " I'm a strong believer in civility..."
Maybe his GPD followers should really listen to what he has to say.

He obviously can't be held responsible for the words and actions of everyone who supports him.

whatever you want and not be held responsible for it later? ...Convenient...

Is "holding us responsible" worth hurting the country? Do you really think Hillary's supporters have all been so wonderfully civil? This attitude is vindictive and spiteful, and self-destructive.

that I've seen and had hurled at me from the Obama supporters. I've seen celebratory threads about someone getting tombstoned because they were provoked into saying things that they might not have said otherwise. I've seen allegations that the Obama supporters circulated a "hit man's" list and given their public behavior during celebratory threads and elsewhere have no reason to believe otherwise and that's just for starters. I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this. Just a final thought before I go do something better and then you can go ahead and trash if you want. It won't change a thing.

Some things that have been said here can't be taken back. Some things that have been said can't be unsaid.

This is just a message board. I'm not surprised that there are some serious assholes here. Big deal. I can't believe people are willing to throw the country to the wolves to spite some jackasses on a message board. Again, it's not about your feelings or mine. It's about the future of the goddamn world.

Have a nice day.

Too bad you can't see past your own personal anger.

sick enough of the invectives thrown at them as well as Clinton that some have finally come to GDP to let their thoughts be known. You are a fine believer in civility as Obama claims to be. Not. Calling people idiots is not emulating Obama's civility creed.

statements. Again, the venom here is nuts. Everyone's losing sight of the real goal, a Dem president, choosing instead to harbor resentment against each other. Silly. You must know there has been unwarranted offensiveness on both sides.

you say. I have not blamed Obama for invectives thrown at Clinton or her supporters. Don't put words in my postings, thank you.

and vile about Obama and Obama supporters as Obama supporters re Clinton and Clinton supporters.

For months we've had:

Cultists
Messiah
koolaid drinkers
Obigot
Snoboma
black savior
young stupid Obamatrons
Obamites
Obots

no difference except there are fewer Clinton supporters.

x

If he pulls it out in a landslide it will be much more than racism.

I don't think Hillary will have an impact one way or the other.

:shrug:

Because the Lord Obama is perfect, and can't even be blamed for losing

Your "Goddess of Peace" (but it is only the Obama supporters who are cultists)

your "beautiful" Hillary, (because only Obama supporters see their candidate as perfect)

And its the Obama supporters that are haters?
Hillary is now something stuck to the bottom of our shoes.

It is one thing to call him on the haters comment after his diatribe against Obama, it is a totally different thing to say that Hillary Clinton is "now something stuck to the bottom of our shoes." Attack his comment, not his candidate.

And he still beat Hillary. What does that say about her?

on this party. case you forgot, bleachers, dems don't have very good record of picking winners in pres elections. and if O loses what should have been a gimme for dems, that will say a lot more about the democratic party than it will about O.

If we had, it would have been Hillary in a walk. Of course, if we'd completely ignored the media, we'd probably be making plans for an Edwards/Obama ticket about now.

In the end, Obama turned out to be the best candidate we could have hoped for. When he buries McCain this fall, I expect you'll be one of the first to post an apology to his DU supporters.

Excellent post.

"Senator Clinton, stop talking about everything except delegates because the rules of the game say the person with 2,025 delegates wins the nomination. Quit saying that the winner needs more because of Michigan and Florida or whatever else pops into her mind.

The country is in a cycle of change. Voters are calling out for change. Change is in the air with hopes that this election will be pivotal and the country can pursue another course after eight years of the current administration's policies.

Having a Clinton on the ticket would not sound like change was at hand. Change does not come from the people protecting the status quo or even worse trying to go back in time to protect and defend her husband's presidency in the 1990s."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-guttman/obama-hillary-dream-team_b_101977.html

:eyes:

It's just so damned democratic that he winds up as the nominee. This kind of will of the people shit has got to STOP!!!

jeesh!

what will Obama supporters say if he gets the nom and loses the GE? Who will you blame?

landslide?


Here is the problem with all of these - he can't win scenarios by Clinton supporters.

You have to decide is Hillary Clinton a great or poor campaigner.

Either he beat a great campaigner and will absolutley dominate McCain

Or Hillary is a lousy campaigner and he is our only choice to win in the general election.


But you cannot argue that she just poops around in the primaries but she gets really good in the General.



NOT SO FAST NOW - READY ON DAY ONE

Make up your mind either its going to fast or shes ready for it


which is it?

:thumbsup:

overall, but has lost the completely unrepresentative caucuses.

She beats McCain if both Florida and Ohio, while the Chosen One loses in both Florida and Ohio.

.

Oh, but her supporters can't get out of bed or are working 4 jobs, while Obama's have servants to take care of the kids while the limo driver brings them to the caucus and waits outside. Boo hoo hoo. She screwed up. Through arrogance.

You should've seen all the limos at the Texas caucuses. Kind of weird seeing them all together in one place like that.

to win a primary, the one whose husband used them to go from the bottom of the pack to the top with caucuses came in third in Iowa.


Nobody told her that Iowa was important.


Primaries are for people who think Democracy shouldn't take more than 15 minutes out of your TV schedule.


Caucuses are for people who think democracy is important and that your party is important. Caucuses are for people who feel passionately about unpopular causes like gay marriage or stopping the war and want to not just cast a vote but push the platform of the party. For people on DU to argue that caucuses are undemocratic is the most hilarious bullshit around.

By your logic American Idol is more representative than primaries because people with big fat asses who don't even want to go to the polling place can put down their beer and cheetos and make a phone call.


If this then this.


The reality is that all of the candidates entered under one system and one candidate won and the rest lost.


And only one complained about the rules, the one that thinks this party is all about her.


And the irony is that is was her rules. They greased the rules to make a national primary on SuperTuesday put all of their eggs in that basket and when she lost that she had nothing for SuperTuesday.

Not just a loser a sore loser. Not so fast - Ready on Day One - Which is it? From the campaign that mixes their message everyday.

And why did she lose them?

Nice try at spin. He won both primaries and caucuses. He had the better campaign strategy for the primaries, period. This talk about the general election is just armchair speculation, at this point.

Oh, by the way, thanks for throwing in the insult about the presumptive nominee.

I love how they say "we don't want excuses when Obama loses in the GE..." meanwhile, they have a whole list of why Hillary's losing in the primary, and why her campaign has failed, from Mark Penn, wasteful spending, sexism, yadda, but NEVER the candidate herself.

AT LEAST Obama has the decency to say if I lose it will not be because of racism, but because I have failed to deliver my message. And he gets called the baby, the whiner, they don't even see what bullies they've become, and I can't decide what's driving it. If they hate him that much or if they just hate losing that much.

He's not popular with Hispanic voters, so California is no guarantee either.

How does he plan to win those states in the GE and who will he blame when he loses?

and in a statistical deadheat in Ohio. He's also polling decent in florida, a state he hasn't yet campaigned in.

I know, I know, it's just all so undemocratic when the nominee is chosen by the "the math" - meaning the voice of the people.

Maybe next election, we can just do away with primaries altogether and simply defer to your better judgment. Why should anyone have a say, when you are so obviously the sensible and rational arbiter of such things?

"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."

Well, I guess the SDs will all be switching over to Hillary first thing tomorrow morning, now that they know how YOU feel.

I heard the audio of the talking points for the Hill campers earlier. Today's message: It's the map not the math.'

What a crazy coincidence that the Hill supporters here are all talking about exactly the same thing here tonight.

Nice to see you can obediently follow instructions without question - kind of a "cultist" thing, I guess.

several days. nothing new. it was a time for her to meet, say thank you, ect eet.

There are several threads up tonight with links to Hillary's teleconference with bloggers, encouraging them to post her latest 'talking points' on websites. "It's the map not the math" was one of them.

Suddenly - by SHEER COINCIDENCE, to be sure - DU is inundated with posts parroting that very phrase.

Can't you people even THINK for yourselves? And to think you all accuse Obama supporters of being 'cult-like' in their behaviour ...

some outright lies.

It was great Hillary could meet up with bloggers.--via the phone.

... to repeat her nonsense, verbatim, as though it were fact - in a cult-like, kool-aid drinking kind of way.

Hate to break it to you (and your delusional candidate) but the primary process IS all about the math. Maps don't count.

for the Hillary Blog Squad !!

not updated your self. you are too busy slamming Bill C. in your posts.

... you're always distorting the FACTS. Like going on and on about delegate counts and SDs, and all that other BS the primary process is based on.

When are you going to GET with the PROGRAM, and start agreeing with the alternate universe FACTS, like 'electoral' votes counting, and the 'popular vote' counting* (*some states excluded), and only hardworking white votes being legitimate?

:rofl:

Y'all are pathetic.

she was a Republican until 9/11 and voted for GWB in 2000. Her actions around 9/11 are very admirable but it doesn't mean that her core ideals have changed any, and I don't undertsand why such a recent convert to the Democrats should think she has the right to say who gets the Democratic nomination.

whether you like it or not. Who are you to suggest that she hasn't the right to speculate on this campaign. Fah !

as you well know, if you read her article. I don't care about her opinion - I care about her trying to force her opinion on other people, which is what she is doing with threats like this:

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

"we have the list with your names, you will be held accountable on Election Day"

if she had omitted the first few brow-beating paragraphs, the article wouldn't be offensive, although I would still disagree. As it stands, she sounds like she is trying to bully people into agreeing (or at least not daring to disagree) with her. Which I do find offensive, especially as she has such a short history in the Democratic party and showed such poor judgment in her 2000 vote.

What power does she hold over the will of the people?
It isn't her country. She needs to remember that.

this is what I'm afraid will happen.

It's all over. Sorry. You'll heal.

:rofl:

I had no idea she was doing this sort of stuff.

You got an answer or just more free-floating crankyness?

If your kid doesn't want to answer a question, she can ignore it.

Just one HARRUMPH before you go, you'll feel better.

x

Heya lumpy. Maybe you can explain something to me, one of the many things I don't know.

I ask a simple "when" question in a thread full of people taking whacks at Breitweiser and somehow manage to attract 3 drivebys frothed about an imaginary challenge to her right to do as she pleases. How does that happen?

More to the point, how do you guys get into that "I'm mad at everybody and don't know why, but by God, you're gonna hear about it!" frame of mind?

Breitweiser's idea seems to be that we should begin by assuming we're going to fail with Obama. Seems there's a lot of people that would be happier losing and saying 'I told you so!' than dealing with the uncertainty of trying to win and having to admit that things weren't as bad as they thought.

And, yeah, some people would rather be dead in a ditch than let that other guy pass them.

I can't understand the influence, it's almost svengali-like. She wants to count a phony election. She lies about being shot at. She thinks she's going to turn the entire primary process on its end, making it about popular and electoral votes instead of primaries, caucuses and delegates. And her supporters just lap it up. It's shocking - and embarrassing. How can this country progress when its citizens refuse to demand integrity from its elected officials.

She gets Hillary's meltdown, and subsequent failure, in a nutshell. They didn't think this was gonna be a real fight. (Oh, and like Hillary, the author is a diehard-republican-turned-centrist).

Meanwhile, Obama was building up across 50 states, and continues to keep building, because the kind of change we're working for isn't a change in campaigns, it's a change across all 50 states of the country, a change for every man, woman, and child in america.

Are we gonna own this? Heck yeah. Because the United States will be *ours* again.... and it'll be something we want to own. Until then, the work continues!

Because I'm not entirely sure she is, from her post.

... but will she "own" it?

Will she own her personal obligation to change America?

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

If you voted for him that is.

It is basic journalistic ethics.

and the Bush2, presidency, and this Iraq war.

Wake up, Kristen and realize that Bushes should have been in JAIL by the end of 1994, along with their powerful cronies, and it was Bill Clinton's generous protection of their secrecy and privilege on all their funding of global terror networks (IranContra-BCCI) that abetted the actions of Bin Laden and AQ Khan.

READ the gawddam BCCI report and start asking WHY Bushes and Clintons needed that report swept under the oval office rug.

without women voters, middle class voters, etc?

Obama's campaign has chosen to scorn and ridicule the voters he would need to win if he gets the nom. Does he plan to try to win with his existing base or does he plan to do a 180 and pretend he suddenly likes the voters he's treated so shabbily?

I am very much looking forward to the end of 8 years of miserable repug policies.

Hoping for and expecting the best for all of us...

Have you no shame?

:evilgrin:

Rodeodance, along with others, was given the talking points. They do not question their Great Leader. They simply obey.

Tonight's message to disseminate: "It's not the math, it's the map."

If you want to know what tomorrow's talking point is, you need only check out Rodeodance's posts tomorrow.

Now they are just angling - Hillary for VEEP.

same old same old.

That the math is supposed to be irrelevant? That we don't have a system in place to select our nominee? That whatever that system is, it's ok to subvert it according to the criteria you make up?

I didn't lose a spouse in September 11th, but I lost people.

I respect whatever she's done, but this is total horse shit.

Another loser wallowing in her own bile of defeatism... :crazy:

ok, thanks for letting us know.

Were it true you would have seen heavy SD defections from Obama during the 6 weeks of Wrightopalooza. You didn't. Or SDs would have stopped endorsing after Clinton wins. They didn't. It's been remarkably steady for 4 months now. They want to go with Obama. They don't have faith in Clinton.

bitter ugly threats. Boring predictable. Fuck her.

in the primaries. I do have a problem with people like Kristen making threats and lying. I also have no use for repukes or people who say they support dem ideals but are really only voting for a personality and not for issues- in other words, Hilly supporters who will vote for McCain over Obama. There's no rationality in that. It's pure emotion. And sorry, it is indeed pathetic and overwrought nonsense. In this year, of all years, any REAL dem would vote for the dem candidate.

Says the author:

"We've been through Hillary's baggage". Gee, lying Hillary assures us of that and you believe her, even though we won't know until the oppo is deployed. OK.

McCain, not Obama, is the true "maverick". Another McCain blowjob over the Democrat. Seems like Obama's already got McCain flip-flopping and repositioning himself on Iraq. Did you write this article before you heard the last few Obama-McBush exchanges, Kristen?

'Wright, Wright, Wright...the Republicans are gonna bring this up!' No shit, Kristen. Thanks to Hillary, we know the game plan.

And if Hills was up, they'd trot out the Bosnia lie, and we'd have to hear about all that Monica/Travelgate/Foster crap all over again, plus some new stuff with Bill's speaking fees and Colombia ties and NAFTA flip-flopping. I guess that didn't enter your mind either, Kristen.

'We have a list of your names, superdelegates.' Yeah, all those people who didn't choose Hillary just don't know what they're doing. ANY of them. Something tells me this one probably sent some equally threatening, foaming-at-the-mouth hate mail to NARAL. What a piece of work. Maybe she even posts over here.

I wonder who you'll vote for in the GE, Kristen? You sound really, really angry and vengeful. And we've heard that before.

:eyes:

from Bush's demands of an apology. No, not again, sorry. :rofl:

n/t

geez, rodeo just come right out and say it.

That is a good step. Now they just have to remember that this is not about who wins the Democratic Party nomination, it is about kicking the Republican Party out of office.

Clue up.

can he win

n/t

Huh

entitled to her opinion. And that is what it is- her opinion. I respectfully disagree.

First, while its literally true, its about as meaningful as those comparisons you sometimes hear about some college team not having beaten some other college team in 40 years. Guess what? The folks playing today aren't the same as the folks playing 40 years ago.

Take a look at the electoral college map for Jimmy Carter. He lost California. Do you think a Democrat today stands a snowball's chance in hell in winning the GE w/o California? If Carter had won California, he could've lost West Virginia, Pennsylvania AND Ohio and still have easily won the election. Of course, Carter swept the entire south and even won Texas.

So spare me the comparisons based on a single state's history. They're totally bogus.

If Democrats don't unite behind a nominee, and fail to turn out in November to defeat McCain, blaming the convention delegates would be a bit stupid. Only one of our two candidates can lead the ticket, and either way, a great number of us will be unhappy. The mature among us will settle for our second, third, or nth choice, and vote, perhaps even summoning the energy to rally.

"Sensibility" = "math is hard"

have treated the voters he would need to win the GE?

Are you really that immature to think you can insult fellow Dems, call them names and impugn their motives then expect them to vote for your candidate?

Can you tell us of a time in history when a candidate has been able to pull that off?

...and am in no mood to listen to further attempts to divide us. And complaints about the behavior of a few DUers should already be irrelevant--and certainly will be long before November.

gee that`s a lot of people to blame...how does one go about blaming millions of people...

instead of working their asses off to make sure he is elected it`s easier to write "i told you so" op eds...

diligently to destroy him and sow disunity. They are above reproach.

What's more important, trying to put Obama on a pedestal while insulting Clinton supporters or winning the GE?

so all the people who voted for him are trying to put him on a pedestal thus causing an insult to the people who vote for hillary. interesting.... voting for barack is insulting the people who vote for hillary.

so no one should vote for barack they should vote for hillary and that would insure a victory for hillary in the general election

Other than 9/11 she is still a Republican. I'm surprised she's not supporting Ron Paul.

to fail attempting that which is right. But honestly, I am unconcerned. Al Gore ran on the map the op proposes is best and won (just barely). Kerry ran on the map the op proposes and lost. Kerry got the nomination because he was the most "electable", "experienced", "tough", "champion of the middle class", and a war hero. He tried to get the white "blue collar" vote and lost it, just as every Democratic candidate since LBJ has lost this demographic. These were our voters in the 1960's. It would be nice to have their support, but only electing effective leadership that actually addresses their concerns and delivers improvements will get them back. It is not going to happen through campaign promises, no matter how compelling.

We need, and apparently now have, a candidate that did not vote for the war. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result. We have been running and losing frequently on the same map since Nixon. Were it not for Ross Perot taking 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992, Hillary Clinton would likely be the wife of the former Governor of Arkansas who was once a Democratic Presidential nominee. This map worked once in the immediate aftermath of Watergate against the man who pardoned Nixon, once with an unusually strong third party challenger to the right wing, and once to re-elect a popular incumbent. Otherwise, it has failed to produce favorable results for a long series of "electable" candidates.

It is time for a different map and a different party to emerge. These things are a bit scary by their nature, as new terrain often is. Obama's coalition is the Democratic Party coalition. The places he won in Ohio are the places any Democratic Party candidate needs to run up large margins to win the state, the same with most other states. Obama has demonstrated, by defeating an unusually strong challenger, with 100 percent name recognition, and a quarter billion dollars, that he knows how to find his voters and get them to the polls. He passed the only real electability test a while a go, by winning elections.

gets to tell other people what to think (nobody should fit in this category).

I have all the respect for her that her action deserves (a lot), but I have long learned that you can respect somebody's actions on one thing and think they are dead wrong on another.

I'm not listening.

because how states vote in single-party primaries has absolutely NO RELATION TO HOW THEY VOTE IN THE GENERAL! This is as fuckin' absurd as claiming that because Texas went for Hillary in the primary, it'll do the same in the general. Please, Texas is going red if the Repubs nominate Jack the Ripper.

You might as well say "Hillary should be the nom because she looks best in green", it defies logic.

Now, IF this METEOR lands on Obama,
ITS HILLARY ALL THE WAY!!!

This is why she needs to stay in.

I'm SERIES!!!!1!!!

Get over it already, people.

and for their tireless lobbying that at least got the 9-11 commission even if it was a very imperfect investigation.

But Kristen is all wet on this one. That fame does not a politcal expert make. Still I think Kristen ought to investigate running for office herself. She'd be a fine addition to Congress.

In fact an Obama administration is more likely IMHO than a Clinton administration to investigate the Bush Administration. And an Obama administration may be more likely to open a reinvestigation of 9-11.

A Clinton administration may be very reluctant to reopen any of these cans of worms b/c it may also involve going back and investigation Bill Clinton's administration. Obama would be a clean start. This also gives me pause in thinking Hillary may not be the best bet for majority leader where she could stonewall congressional investigations.

I'm curious what the other Jersey Girls think. Also I note that it seems Kristen broke away from them before or around the time her book came out. BTW, it is an interesting read.

The only way Obama can lose this year is if Hillary's supporters fail to show up in November. So we have already seen this talking point appear several times in a pre-emptive attempt to stave off the blame.

Won't work. A third of the party is not going to forget. If Obama loses this election, Hillary will probably get the nomination in '12. And that third will then stay home.

The irony is this will make Obama = Humphrey and Hillary = McGovern.

I wonder if we will blame the landslide loss in '12 on picking the wrong candidate (as common wisdom says about '72), or will we recognize the same '08/'12 pattern that we saw in '68/'72 and reassess our common wisdom?

these "what if he loses" posts. No wonder they say we Democrats are spineless.

Can't you say the same about Hillary? Why are you holding him to a higher degree of "shame if he loses"?

I know many of you Hillary supporters will be dying to use the "I told you so," line that you'll be voting for McCain or doing your little write-in campaign, so you can try to cause Obama's defeat, so you get to use your line because that little victory would be soooo much sweeter than you know, electing a president who might give a shit about the war, or the poor people in this country. You should be proud and have "I told you so!" buttons made up now.

What do you think it will be called? Hillaryis45? Hillaryis46? Hillaryis47? :P

It's mocking you cupcake. There's a difference.

What if Obama was the nominee, and Democrats and Indies and even some Repubs voted for him, and he became President?