Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade.

I wonder if, after the convention, you'll eventually make a positive post about our party's nominee.

"Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade."

your usual BS.

He is by far one of the strongest candidates in a long time, he has a superb organization, charisma, vision and intellect.

He lacks experience and he is black, those are his dis qualifiers which he will overcome at the end IMO.

As I've said here many times--Obama will NEVER pick Hillary primarily because he's too egotistical to admit that he "needs" her and it would seem obvious.  Second of course is the fact that the Daily Kos/MSNBC crowd wouldn't stand for it because HRC doesn't jibe with O's "message of change".  Oh yeah, like Biden, Bayh, Dodd, and Nunn do. Now we have the Botox Queen of San Francisco floating Chet Edwards-CHET EDWARDS,  Gee, what a brilliant choice.  Let's see, HRC got more votes than Obama and a recent survey had her BEATING McCain by EIGHT points while Obama only tied him. And she thinks an obscure congressman from a state Obama will lose by 10 points if he's lucky would be just peachy. Whether you think Rasmussen is biased or not (I think he's quite fair) eight points is still eight points and this stunning result is for someone who is supposedly such damaged goods. Let's face facts: Obama should be WAY ahead by now considering the mood of the country and he ISN'T.  But the hate Hillary crowd not only don't want her on the ticket, they want the Clinton "brand" debased and humiliated.

Jerome you just can't get over it can you?  Don't be so bitter sugar, life is way too short to be this jealous.

Damn. You, Jerome, sure are no fun.

'Weakest candidate' is ridiculous. He's campaigning so much better than Kerry or Gore did, but the regular GOP attacks (as in, this person is different = foreign, gay, egghead, arrogant, etc) gets added value from the fact that Obama does represent a huge change for America. However, he'll do much better (and is already doing much better) than Kerry in defining himself.

That said, I've never really been against Clinton as VP, and think it could be quite a magical convention if she's picked.

As one of the blogfathers, and co-author of crashing the gates, can't you see the connection?

Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade.... but the party is not fully unified.

The only great disunity I see largely stems from members or former members of this site.

You have a role of leadership here, Jerome, to keep the party unified.

I don't agree with you about Obama's weakness and regret the unwillingness of some of Hilary's supporters to close ranks.  But, I agree with you about how sad it is for Bill Clinton to feel he has to explain he is not a racist.  Whatever weaknesses he had as a politician and a president (and he had many more strengths), he was committed to racial justice and made progress.

It's the weird circular logic that gets me.

Obama is the weakest candidate because he has not unified the party?

Yet if the party were unified he wouldn't be the weakest candidate?

So Obama is a vulnerable candidate, according to the Dems who are on the fence about him, but wouldn't be if those same Dems would just get over themselves and support the candidate that best represents them politically?

That's like one of the members of a basketball team saying "I'm not going to try my hardest because this team isn't that good," all the time knowing that the team would be fine if all the players would just play their hardest.

It's all phony, anyway.  It's August now, and if HRC was the nominee we would just barely be through the first page of Clinton library donors, and the polls would be worse than they are today.

I'm not politically astute enough to determine whether or not Obama 'needs' Hillary to win per se, but I do believe it would be the best choice on a number of levels, particularly the party unification and healing it would engender, not to mention the sudden infusion of enthusiasm it would inject into his campaign by Hillary supporters equal in number to his own.

Due to Clinton's stature, it would indeed require a rare combination of both wisdom and strength on Obama's part to choose her. Nothing against the man, but the stances he's taken on issues since the primary don't reflect that type of depth or committment. I'm waiting for him to prove me wrong.

"Jerome is definitely the weakest Democratic blogger of this decade."

I have rarely encountered someone, blogger or not, who was so unable to get over the results of a presidential primary.

As in every other election since Eisenhower, no veep candidate on either side of the aisle is going to deliver a state or change the election in any kind of dramatic or definitive way.

It has been about a half century since a veep choice really made a difference (Truman/Eisenhower).

In fact, Obama is on target to capture the usual Democratic voter percentage.  Dems have, in recent years, lost about 10% of their voters who cross over to the Republicans after the primary.  I'm afraid Obama's supposed inability to "unite the party" just doesn't show up in the polling.  You can push the anecdotes and speculation all you want.

Jerome has lost the plot, and quite frankly, I think most of us at MyDD are sick of all the naysaying and endless pessimism.

Grow up.

I admit though, that seeing Obama choose the DLC's Bayh would be a theatrical display-- watching the mental gymnastics of his ardent supporters, lest their heads explode.

I'm definitely an Obama supporter but I will not try to rationalize a Bayh pick for vp.  It would be a serious disappointment.  I'll still happily vote for Obama in the fall, but I probably wouldn't donate to or volunteer for an Obama/Bayh ticket.

"...I wouldn't describe myself as 'chafed' if he chose someone else, I'd just still be on the fence about predicting whether Obama is going to win this election or not."

[...]

"If Obama's going to go with Biden, then I really don't get him at all. Biden is as far away from 'change' as you can get, in Democratic politics."

I don't see how you can reconcile these two statements....Senator Clinton would have fitted into the "change" theme? How exactly would Clinton bolstered this?

As for the ongoing "we should have gone with Clinton" discussion - if Senator Clinton was the nominee the Republicans would be having a field day, dipping into Whitewater, her Tuzla gaffe, tying her into knots (as they did with John Kerry) on her Iraq war vote, casting John McCain as the "change agent" given that the Clintons have already occupied the White House for 2 terms, and on and on.

Whether or not Obama was the right choice remains to be seen...I think we should spend more time working on getting him elected and less time second guessing his nomination. Just my opinion.

Obama the weakest? You really ought to back up that little gem with some facts .. maybe a poll or two that shows Obama is weaker than past candidates. But who needs facts. Obama should be doing better ... but with Dem leaning people like you, it hasn't happened ...yet

After this, I don't know why I read this blog. Back up that statement.

That whole post just reeked of pettiness, but this stood out.

Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade.

Bullshit. I love Al Gore, but you do realize he lost when Clinton had the highest approval rating of any president leaving office. Sure, he won the electoral vote, but Obama is still polling better than Gore was at this point.

You also seem to forget the McCain has done a good job of painting himself as a different kind of Republican. It may not be true, but the media believes and many people around the country accept it.

If Bush was up in the polls it would be a completely different election, from the primaries on. It's a stupid hypothetical.

I haven't been on this blog for some time (since Obama won the nomination, really), and decided to stop in to see what was up.  All I can say is that I feel like I'm (or you're) stuck in a time-warp.  

Jesus H. Christ, enough with the hand-wringing.  She didn't win because 1) she never apologized for her Iraq war vote; 2) many of us were afraid that she had more baggage than a Saudi harem, and we didn't want to go back to having to defend the Clintons' indefensible; and 3) she never really ASKED for progressives' votes, when you get right down to it.

Move on!

I think Clinton's strengths outweigh her weaknesses as a VP pick. I don't think Obama is a weak nominee. His floor of support is right at McCain's ceiling, he has the best fundraising and organizing of any Dem nominee this decade, and he'll be able to move the polls by Nov. I am salivating for the debates.

I also think he should pick Wes Clark. That might be his strongest possible pick. Kaine or Bayh would both be disappointments to me, but I think Biden would be a good choice because he's smart and a strong partisan.

Intrade - Democratic VP Nominee, as of 7:46 am ET on Aug. 4, 2008:

1. Evan Bayh 30.1

2. Tim Kaine 22.5
   
3. Kathleen Sebelius 14.5
   
4. Joe Biden 10.1
   
5. Hillary Clinton 5.0
   
5. Dick Gephardt 5.0
   
7. Brian Schweitzer 4.5
   
8. Anthony Zinni 4.0
   
8. Jack Reed 4.0
   
10. Ed Rendell 3.5

Re weakest

Breakdown of prior presidential runs for Democrats in the last 30 Years with Electoral College and Popular Vote Outcome:

Jimmy Carter: 49 electoral votes; 41 percent of the popular vote

Walter Mondale: 11 electoral votes; 40.6 percent of the popular vote

Mike Dukakais: 111 electoral votes; 45.6 percent of the popular vote

Bill Clinton (1992): 370 electoral votes; 43 percent of the popular vote (note Perot was on the ballot)

Bill Clinton (1996): 379 electoral votes; 49.3 percent of the popular vote

Al Gore (2000): 266 electoral votes; 48.4 percent of the popular vote

John Kerry (2004): 251 electoral votes: 48.3 percent of the popular vote

(Note:I don't have time to go through the most damning point- I need to dredge up views about how long it took Kerry to consolidate the base. Dean says it took months. This is based on a direct quote from him.)

Where is Obama:

538: 303 electoral votes; 49.7 percent of popular vote
Electoral-vote: 316 electoral votes
Pollster.com: 46.8  of popular vote

I can find others.

here's what you say: 352 electoral votes.

My point: Your definition of weak is a great headline, but like the MSM its not supportable by evidence. I have no idea what will occur in November. I just question your train of thought based on current data. Oh, and I m not even going into the map changing aspect of the states currently at play or the reality that Bill Clinton at his height structurally was performing the exact same as Obama (except Bill Clinton had Ross Perot, horrible opponent (I don't know what price of milk is) and a recession in 1992, and the power of incumbency and a booming economy in 1996). Final note- no Democrat has won with over 50 percent of the popular vote in 30 years. Obama right now polls from 45 to 51 percent of the popular vote.

Poor Jerome. One of these days he just may take his ball and go home.

Weakest candidate this decade? Have you forgotten John "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty" Kerry?

That Hillary or Edwards or anyone else would be way father ahead than Obama at this point is crazy.

And speaking of bitter supporters, if Hillary had won I submit that many more Obama supporters would be sitting on their hands or giving overgeneralizations to Politico about how angry millions of them are.

Plus, there's that thing about how every single dead republican in this nation would rise up out of the ground for a chance to vote agains Hillary that no one ever talks about, her personal polarization of the gop.  It's a lot larger than Obama's.

This thing would be close no matter who our nominee was.

While I agree with the Biden comments, perhaps he'll also be comfortable with Bayh because he's midwestern as well.  Who knows.  No one gives a crap about VP picks when they hit the voting booth.  Count me in the "He won, get over it" crowd.  He won't need a few dozen overstated Hillary fans to win in November.

He may not know his blindness, and is writing honestly what he thinks is true, but it has been a long long time since he wrote anything helpful, or useful to the progressive movement, let alone the Democratic Party.

Is this enough to have me banned? And if it is enough to have this writer banned is this site worth anything besides tearing down this election cycles major projects?

Just to make sure everyone is on board with facts. While a famous oddly-blind-to-his-own-racism pundit says:

"We have a race that by every measure of every poll is a statistical dead heat. McCain's not supposed to be in this thing, and Obama's supposed to be blowing everybody away and it just isn't happening, at least to this point."

Lou Dobbs (July 17th, Lou Dobbs Tonight)

But in response:

...over at Pollster.com, UMass Amherst Poly Sci Prof Brian Schaffner explained:that "Obama had been tied or ahead in 50 consecutive national polls through Sunday," and that meant there was only a .0000000000000009 chance that the race was actually tied at this point.

Over at Openleft it is written:

Swing State Clusters Tell Story of Potential "Map-Changing" Obama Landslide (+) by: Paul Rosenberg

And I draw your attention to the corner graphic up above under the mydd.com logo, which at the time of this writing shows Obama winning the electoral vote 352 to 189. Pollster.com has Obama winning 284 electoral votes to McCain's 147 and a further 107 in tossup too close to call.

fivethirtyeight.com says Obama has right now a 66% chance of winning.

electoral-vote.com gives Obama 316 electoral votes today, and McCain 198 and a further 24 too close to call.

I am sure with teh google you can find more data to bolster your arguments. Rassmussen has found that in every crosstab Obama's electoral support beats Kerry's at this point in the campaign, in every one.

You can believe whatever you want but facts aren't convinced.

... also had the following quote regarding possible running mates:

"There are a lot of women apoplectic at the discussion of Bob Barr and Chuck Hagel," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women.

Bob Barr?

I guess I've missed the "discussion" that Obama might pick Bob Barr.

Jerome--for once I totally agree with you! kaine!

"Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade."

This needs to be put into a time machine and revisited come November 5th (or whatever the date is the day after the election). I suspect strongly this will look pretty foolish. But if not it will be a sad day, but Jerome will look smart. Wouldn't bet on that right now though.

Congrats Jerome...  you pissed away the last of your credibility.  Thank god Bowers is 50 times better than you at this... his analysis proves just how wrong, biased (biased against Obama... don't want that mistaken for something else which I DON'T THINK you are) and jaded you have become.  You've been bitter since Warner dropped out and it still hasn't let up.

How about tuck the bitterness away, lets win this thing and then you can bitch all you want.  Otherwise, do us all a favor, DON'T be part of the problem and kindly stop posting until after the election or post on topics NOT related to the Presidential election.  You have proven you can't do it without saying things are bad for Obama.  

Dude, as an obama supporter, nothing you said made me mad.  Just, utterly baffled, because you managed to completely contradict your earlier post in which you said you didn't Care whether or not Clinton was VP.

Seriously are you just, lying, or schizo?  

Oh and by the way, Pro-tip!

When you say "In order to understand why I am right, please imagine i am right, and then imagine a doomsday scenario!  Scary huh?!"  You don't convince anyone.

By saying "Imagine Bush had 45% approval rating," you are proving.. absolutely nothing.

Why don't you do real Analysis like Nate over at Five Thirty Eight?

Good lord, Jerome, why do you keep posting if all you can do is make unfound assertions, misinterpret charts (accidentally, and then pretend you knew it all along), and try to talk-down our Democratic Nominee.

BS, you are Partisan enough to support whoever wins.

You don't support Obama.  You pray every day he's going to lose.

Give your site over to someone who isn't considering becoming a freeper.  Good lord.

Look, even Gloria Steinhem has now come out and endorsed Obama.  I will admit, I do have some issues with the older second wave feminists.  Many of them have bordered on homophobic with their tirades against porn in the 80s.  They gleefully joined up with the most right wing of right-wingers like Edwin Meese in the 80s, to eliminate anything that could be considered obscene (something often used by right wingers to gay-bash).

Now, if these second-wave feminists are so pissed that they are going to vote for McCain, it would just be the cherry on top to show that they really don't practive or believe what they preach.    If John McCain is elected, the Supreme court will definitely tilt enough to overturn Roe.  And it might not just be an overturn but an interpretation that uses the 14th Amendment to ban all abortion.   They would probably also overturn Title IX.

I am not doubting that some of these people exist.  Just take a look at the posts by Jeralyn, Armondo and the rest of the anti-Obama echo chamber over at talkleft and you can see that.

Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade.

Jerome, whatever you're smoking, please hook me up with your dealer because that's some powerful stuff.

Obama is the strongest nominee we've put up since either Clinton or Kennedy, depending on whether you think Ross Perot pulled more votes from Republicans or Democrats.

I'm still having a hard time "getting over it".  I want to.  I know the ramifications.....it's bigger than just one nominee... etc. etc.  Sometimes the heart is just stronger than the head.  All of this "seat all the Mich/Fla delegates" talk- combined with Bill's obvious hurt feelings- brings back the hurt feelings in me (not that they had ever really faded).  Rational people can argue both sides to the argument of who was treated fairly- what the "rules" were- and how things should've ended in the nomination.  The real truth is that like it or not- there are many dejected democrats (I know, I'm one of them).  It has a lot more to do with the PROCESS than it does Obama or Clinton.  In THEORY- I should love Obama.  In reality?  Not so much.  I just feel as though his campaign is arrogant and he is inexperienced.  I know, i know- this will piss people off.  I'm just being real.  Does this make me like McCain?  HELL NO!  I'm just completely without inspiration. I feel as though choosing Clinton would help to heal all the wounds of the primaries.  It's his choice- and I respect it- but I just really hope he has the audacity to choose the best VP candidate.
Also- it doesn't help to hear people argue why we should "get over it" or how he "doesn't need us", etc.  I know it's human nature- but better left unsaid. I REALIZE that Obama is a better candidate than McCain- that still doesn't make me like him.  

Why do you never have any positive thing to say about Obama? This post is filled with so many fallacious statements I don't even know where to begin let alone do I even want to take the time to debunk your flawed logic. Contrary to what you are SPECULATING the evidence in fact points to a much different picture than what you have so wrongly painted. I expect to have to point out the bullshit of why Obama is not 20 points ahead to my ignorant Rethugican neighbors, but for you to suggest the same "beltway" right-wing media talking points is disappointing to say the least. I think many would agree that you have officially jumped the shark. I used to look to your posts for informative analysis. But now the shit is smeared so bad on the windshield that even you can not see through your bias blinders. It truly is a sad day for MyDD and for the blogosphere as a whole.

These dairies from Jerome have become pathological ridiculous.  

Reading this one reminds of the day in college when my sober self was trying to reason with a roommate who was shrooming.  

are any indication, you're already deluged with a barrage of emails...contrarian positions are always difficult but an absolute must to prevent a Group Think amongst the Democrats. Conventional logic is Obama is going to win this all hands down (look at the electoral vote chart in MyDD frontpage). The PUMA folks are a handful bunch at Alegre's corner. Obama's campaign are confident that HRC supporters would toe the party line, and would support the top ticket, this November. And it doesn't really matter whether HRC is part of the ticket or not.

Mr. Obama's aides are confident that the passions of the primary season have given way to a more pragmatic view among Mrs. Clinton's supporters and that Mr. Obama would not risk a major backlash from women or other constituencies associated with her if the vice presidential slot goes to someone else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/us/pol itics/29dems.html?_r=1&ref=politics& amp;oref=slogin

Now the contrarian question is Obama vulnerable? And you feel he is a weak candidate. My own understanding is that I don't know. At this point, my main focus is a win at November GE. But a bad VP choice might complicate our efforts more to win. And how small or large are the former HRC supporters who are reluctant to vote for Obama? There are different polls with different numbers. I suspect the polling sample may not be representative of actual status in the ground (positive or negative). So can MyDD do some proactive polling or investigation to find out the reality in the grassroots? We need to know where we can reinforce our nominee's hand..

I don't agree that Obama is the weakest candidate we've had this decade.  I think that title easily belongs to John Kerry. He looks great on paper, but he's a terrible campaigner and he was an awful candidate overall.  Obama has huge advantages over Kerry. It's not even a close call in my book. There's no way Kerry should have lost in '04.  He had every advantage he could possibly have, including a strong running mate.  But he ran a completely inept campaign.

Obama has vulnerabilities, just like any other candidate.  But to say he is the weakest nominee is just bizarre.

Obama will never be able to win hard working americans, white americans.  You can't become president without winning them!

It's just really delusional. Almost mind-numbingly so. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a Democrat or Republican who truly believes Obama is the weakest nominee of the decade.

Thinking about all of the gaffes, the very unclear strategies, the lack of gravitas or speaking ability embodied by Gore and Kerry...and comparing it with Obama...I seriously can't believe you'd make that statement. It doesn't bother me as it does some of your other readers, as if your not getting on board the Obama train will somehow derail it. It's just surprising in the extent of its wrongness.

So we are talking Gore and Kerry. Given the political environment you have a point. You could extend it to two decades and the point would still stand. Gore was running when the conservative movement was near the peak of its power, and while he was not nearly as strong a candidate as Bill Clinton he still managed to win more votes than George Bush. Kerry was running before the country turned decisively against Bush and the Republicans, and even in the midst of a war he gave the incumbent a real run for his money.

Obama is running in the best environment for Democrats since 1976, after the impeachment of Richard Nixon. If you look past the media hype (I was born after Kennedy was assassinated, no Democratic presidential candidate has gotten the glowing coverage Obama has in my lifetime) Obama is not doing any better than Kerry did in a much more difficult environment. Given that it is hard to argue that Obama is a stronger candidate than Kerry, and a similar case can be made for Gore.

Many people commenting here appear to be confusing Obama's skill at handling the media with strength in the electorate. This is the same mistake BTD made when he decided to endorse Obama on the grounds that he is a media darling while Hillary Clinton would never catch a break from the media. But voters are long accustomed to seeing through the media and confounding the conventional wisdom, in the end pundits and reporters only get the one vote we all get.

Jerome, please give it up. You are riding this Hillary obsession into the ground. Obama kicked her ass, ergo she was the weaker candidate. I can't believe you are unable to give this shit up!

I suggest you read upstate girl's diary. The McCain crew ain't real happy about how this is going. If that can't cheer you up perhaps you can contact the Mcain folks and ask to borrow "a Luger and a cyanide pill."

So if Obama is the weakest nominee this decade (laughable statement, at best), what does that make the runner-up for the Democratic Nomination?

Ed. Zachary.

It's front pages like this that set the tone for the rest of the site, drive off many of the reputable and well-liked diarists, and encourage trolls to continue bringing their drivel here.

Jerome -- haven't been here in awhile and I disagree that Obama is a weaker candidate than Kerry, but I do agree that the tide has turned and the quadrennial Democratic existential angst is setting in.  Obama may need HRC to win the election and I think he should select her.  

Obama is a weaker candidate then Kerry?  Only insomuch as he's African American with a funny name and worse middle name who 10% of the electorate thinks is Muslim.  Put Obama in John Edwards body, with John Edwards name(minus the $400 haircut) and he wins in a landslide.

New Gallup tracking poll today:

Obama 46
McCain 43

Jerome,
With thoughtful posts like this, it's clear that you are in line to be the next Lanny Davis, or maybe even a Bob Shrum.

If Obama gets a blowout of around 400 electoral votes, you should seriously reconsider your profession.

for f**ks sake. The weakest candidate I've seen in my lifetime has won the past two elections. I'm not going to take Jerome's opinion with any seriousness nor does it even matter.

Campaigns are nothing more then a marketing/p.r. battle. Pair McCain against everything that is Obama and mcCain loses IMO. That's in regards to engaging the public to speaking to policy...

Not of that matters to the average voter. Those attack ads you see on the airwaves will be the only thing that sticks to many voters. And the election will be decided on who is a better communicator in the end.

I don't know what you mean by the term "nominee", but if you mean it as a substitute for "candidate" then the sentence "Obama is definitely the weakest nominee that Democrats have put up this decade" is the single dumbest thing written in the history of this site.

I know we all like to lionize Gore around these parts (and for good reason--he's a great person), but he was a terrible, terrible candidate. You ask us to imagine what the polls would be if Bush had an approval rating of 45% (implying Obama would be in some trouble). Gore had Clinton's approval rating of 15 points higher and still lost the election! It was a good environment to run in (Clinton's popularity, economy was still soaring--although slowing down) and he found a way to lose it. He also gave a national focus to the one true great Democrat--Joe Lieberman. Good god. Can anybody find one thing they believe Al Gore did well on the campaign trail in 2000?

As far as Kerry, was anybody excited about that campaign? Pedro would have gotten 50 million votes by simply having his name in the Democratic column. We all voted against Bush, not exactly for Kerry.

There are some legitimate issues with Obama the candidate and Obama the legislator. But there is no way that he is a worse candidate than Al Gore. In my opinion he's a lot better than Kerry as well, although I'll acknowledge he had a better environment in which to run than Kerry did.

What a silly piece of shit you are. Small little person with no character. If it wasn't for the other posters there is no way I would still be around. But guess what, you want to have your RedState circle jerk than go right ahead. Ban this account, it doesn't matter. You won't be getting my page views anyway. I am done with MYDD for good. Seriously, why would I come to a site that's owned by the largest douchebag in the blogosphere.

Aside from owning this site.

What do you plan to contribute to getting Democrats elected this year?

We are on the prcipise of what is possibly the greatest victory for the Demcocrats.

We dont believe it now, but many know that the Netroots will be thanked for sparking up so much activism.

Being the godfather of the blogosphere,  I am sure you will be interviewed the day Obama clinches the Presidency and we are guaranteed total control over Congress.

Aside from owning this site, what would you tell the interviewer when asked "What did you do this year to help Democrats win"

Im not perfect, all I have done is donate money to Obama and Brave New Films, plus a little "blogging"
I plan on voulenteering in Virginia (both of us Jerome live close to VA) where I think Obama needs the most votes.  I live about an hour and half form northern VA.

Are ya nuts?  

You say you're concerned about women who supported Hillary, or older feminists more generally, voting for (or being energized for) Obama, and you want Kaine for v.p.?  Really?  The same Kaine who's f***ing prolife?  

That's going to go over really well with feminists of all ages.  

More here:
http://thurgood.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_ archive.html#6923262171741935010

This is about the divided Democratic party.  And this close to the convention, it's a worry.

The Primary has been over for almost 2 months but we are still fighting it on all the leftwing blogs.  That is NOT what the Left blogoshere should be talking about.

The people are hurting, scared of the future and needing some answers, some good ideas, some rallying points to get them on board our agenda.

All this Obama/Clinton stuff doesn't do it.  So why is it all we are talking about?

Obama needs to refocus his campaign on the issues he and Clinton agree upon, the Democratic agenda, which is a fantastic agenda for our country.  He needs to find a way to get on TV in whatever venue  he can get on, to talk, talk, talk about what he plans to do as soon as he gets in office.

And he and Hillary need to do some pre-convention rallies to fire up the party again.  Instead of constantly responding to McCain's latest attack, he needs to raise his voice and start making some stemwinder speeches about his solutions to the troubles that are dragging us down.  He needs to do some interviews where he can talk about energy, health care, jobs, the stuff that matters.

Sure his plans will be attacked by the Repugs.  But since their "solutions" this past 7 years haven been abject failures, he should be able to discredit those attacks pretty easily.

I saw him comment on a McCain attack, where he gently scolded the McCain attack as a distraction from the issues the voters really care about.  A good response but he should have made a pivot to one or two of those voter issues and his plans to deal with them.  Bill Clinton did that brilliantly in the 92 election, always turning those attacks on his character into a focus on the economy and his solutions.  That way he turned the attentions of the viewer from his problems to theirs.

Obama also really does need to be uniting this party.  He needs to bring Hillary AND Bill on board, giving them a reason to be behind his presidency.  They are too big to ignore.

I don't know what's behind the distance between the two, perhaps it shows a deep rift between Clintonites and the DNC, or the Pelosi/Kennedy faction.  But whatever it is, it cannot continue.  Not only Obama's election but his presidency will be crippled by ongoing power struggles. There needs to be some serious diplomacy going on now.