Was saving this for when Hillary was declared VP....

Here is an attempt at an olive branch.

Things I admire and like about Team Obama.

1)  They have passion.  When this election started I had very little passion for Hillary.  I felt she was the most qualified and had the best judgement and thought that would win her the race.  Whatever passion I have for Hillary now is an echo of the early passion Obama supporters had for Obama.

2)  Obama is well mannered.  Obama conducts himself in public in a very christian manner.  I think that this is a genuine attempt by him to be the best person he can be.  This isn't me saying he is a great guy.  This is me saying I sincerely believe that he strives to be the best person he can be and that it takes effort on his behalf and that says very positive things about his life choices.

3)  Obama reminds me of Bill Clinton.  As you all know I love Bill Clinton.  Early Bill Clinton wasn't the polished master he is now and he needed Gergen to bail him out.  But anyone that reminds me of Bill Clinton has a lot going for him.

4)  Obama and Michelle protecting their kids reminds me of Hillary protecting Chelsea.  That carries weight with me.

5)  Team Obama is new to power.  I don't think the things that made me the most angry with team Obama will be repeated.  Many of the people supporting Obama did not have an adult perspective on the world in 1988-1992 in the years before Clinton was president and don't understand how much better than the competent Bush Sr.  Bill was.  Many of them did not realize the effects of withholding support if they lost and I believe they are not likely to do it again.  

6)  Team Obama was largely not responsible for the totally slanted media coverage.  MSNBC turning into Obama Nazis was not Obama's fault.  That Fox really was the least biased network was not Obama's fault.  Obama played mostly fair in a situation that was unfair.

7)  Team Obama gave life to Dr King's dream.  Historically this is massive and if it was the only redeeming feature would probably force me to vote for him even if the rest of this list was empty.

8)  Obama did hold back.  Obama could have gone more negative on Hillary than he did.  Now some of his supporters are evil SOBs (jessy jackson jr) but Obama didn't go negative in ways he could have on legitimate issues with the Clintons.

9)  Obama cares about K-12 education in the ghetto.  This is the most important aspect of getting rid of racism.  Give kids good education and let the Obamas of the world make their mark.

10)  Obama picked a good VP.  Biden doesn't deliver a state.  Biden isn't going to be as good on the campaign trail as some others may be.  But Biden is smart.  I credit Obama with picking  a quality VP even though it wasn't Hillary.

Tags: Hillary, obama (all tags)



Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared
Recommended for the olive branch. All you have to say is deeply appreciated.
And in the spirit of retribution:
Hillary is a tough as nails fighter. And she's going to keep fighting.
Hillary is a true-blue democrat. During the late unpleasantness I wasn't so sure, but she has sold me an then some.
If anything, Hillary comes out of this campaign MORE progressive than she was before, which is good for all of us. And if she decides to run in 2016, she will have been made better by this experience. (No more Mark Penn)
Pat Buchanan is an asshat. (Not specifically about Hillary, but it always feels good to say that Pat Buchanan is an asshat.)
Still like Olbermann, but he overstepped when he did his special comment lambasting Hillary.
And finally, she hit it out of the park tonight, and will be a monster on the campaign trail.
by EvilAsh 2008-08-27 01:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared


and it does feel good to say that Pat Buchanan is an asshat.  Damn good.

by selfevident 2008-08-27 01:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared

Mark Penn was why I could not support Hillary in the primary.  Take him away, and it would have been John....who?

by CLLGADEM 2008-08-27 04:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared

I couldnt support Hillary because of her Iraq war related behavior over the years and the presence of many of the corrupt old guard. Look at a lot of the Clinton veterans right now. All they do is cash in. A lot of them have no real principles. They just hit the jackpot in the 90s by associating with the winning team.

by Pravin 2008-08-27 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared

Hillary's mistake was not going with her own team earlier on.

by Pravin 2008-08-27 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared

I agree with much in both this diary and the comment to which I reply here.  I applaud both.

One caveat, though.  Regarding #6: Please desist from using NAZI so loosely.  I understand that we come from different cultural contexts, so the resonance does not strike us all equally.  But short of government-backed movements committed to actual genocide (Janjaweed anyone?) these analogies, even when understood as hyperbolic cheapen the enormity and viciousness of what NAZIs actually did.  Please reserve the comparisons for truly appropriate parallels.  And they exist, to my very great sorrow and horror..

by Strummerson 2008-08-27 08:33AM | 0 recs
Get on the Bus
Excellent diary!  that is what is needed from all of us.  Move forward, get on the bus, whatever.  We gotta beat the shallow, fake, hypocritical repubs.
Good on ya.
by lqbruin 2008-08-27 01:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared

MSNBC Nazi's and Fox News least biased?!?!?

What in the **ing hell.  

by tqdmcgee 2008-08-27 02:38AM | 0 recs
You're still not on board...

...when you can't tell the difference between MSNBC and Faux News.

by iohs2008 2008-08-27 05:26AM | 0 recs
They both put punditry

before actual news- the difference is one is liberal, one is conservative.  They are both for koolaide drinkers.

by linc 2008-08-27 06:15AM | 0 recs

And are we liberal or conservative?

I couldn't care less about news or fact. That's for after November. I believe in using every trick, fair or unfair, to defeat McCain.

We can sit here and wish everything was like PBS and wring our hands and lose again and again and again. Or we can fight fire with fire.

by iohs2008 2008-08-27 06:51AM | 0 recs
What's the point?

If we win dirty, that will just empower the righteous opposition to us, which in turn builds movements against us, which leads to freaking 1994: Wingnut Conquest of Congress.

If we're just going to be as corrupt as the Republicans, why bother with sites like these?

I'm not saying that we should unilaterally declaw our attack cats... just don't lace their claws with anthrax.

by Dracomicron 2008-08-27 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

"They say that what you mock
Will surely overtake you

And you become a monster
So the monster will not break you"

by Narrowback gal 2008-08-28 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

I believe in using every trick, fair or unfair, to defeat McCain. iohs2008

Hugs to you but no.

That doesn't mean that you don't use the brains your given to fight a good, smart fight.

That's true no matter what happens in life.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-29 11:59AM | 0 recs

MSNBC skews more liberal than the rest of the all-news channels, certainly, but equating the two is simplistic reasoning at best (specious at worst). It still has Joe Scarborough with a prominent show and Buchanan is a regular and taken seriously...and doesn't have a policy of only hiring Democrats...interestingly enough, it also doesn't have an equivalent slogan to "fair and balanced."

Fox has a neutered Alan Combes(probably sic) for the left.  

by thurst 2008-08-27 07:08AM | 0 recs
Don't forget

Howard Wolfson, Geraldine Ferraro, and Dick Morris.  They all get their paychecks from Fox, too.

by Dracomicron 2008-08-27 07:13AM | 0 recs

#7 - what, isn't choice important?  the current balance is 5-4 in favor of choice.  One McSame appointment and women WILL die in back alley abortions.

#9  how does inner-city poverty relate to racism?  Education does relate to racism, but here, the question of education goes to the perpetrators of bigotry, not the targets: jews, latinos, feminist, as well as blacks.

by Al Rodgers 2008-08-27 03:06AM | 0 recs
Re: huh
Woah, nellie, relax. This isn't a fight diary, so scale it back and take the olive branch in the spirit it was given.
Let the diarist find the Obama positives where they can. The important part is that she is on-board, agreed?
by EvilAsh 2008-08-27 04:07AM | 0 recs

There may be one or two things in this diary which some of us may find frustrating (for me, do we really want to trust fox news..."how does he keep up with current events like that?" "don't praise the machine")...but a couple days ago, dtaylor gave me the only troll rating I ever got for an innocuous comment (or at least one that I felt was pretty light)...obviously, this wasn't an easy diary to write and (frankly, I think it) is pretty damned courageous...as was Hillary's speech.      

by thurst 2008-08-27 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes...

Suggested response going forward:

mmmmfffflllll (partisan comments which don't pass the lips or hit the keyboard even if I think them) Now, let's get out there and get the Democrat elected. Period. (mmffll - not to pass the lips or hit the keyboard- I can think it but will not utter or act on it because of the need  to get the Democrat elected.)

by Christy1947 2008-08-27 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes...

that's the first time I've laughed all day.

funny the way you expressed it.


by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-27 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared

Never turn from an olive branch.


by Dreorg 2008-08-27 03:31AM | 0 recs
Olive branches are good

This year has been tough for Democrats...a year when it was all but certain we would win the election with a land slide we have experienced in party fractioning.  Hopefully we can seal the rift before election day. Cheers to you for sending out olive branches.

by netgui68 2008-08-27 03:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Olive branches are good

Well, also we have to remember what the term 'landslide' means in presidential politics. If Obama wins by more than 5% it will be an ENORMOUS landslide, likely somewhere in the 340 electoral vote range.

by EvilAsh 2008-08-27 04:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Olive branches are good

All he has to win by is one electoral vote more than the republicans can steal, and after 2000 we know how much they can steal.

by Christy1947 2008-08-27 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared

#4 is wrong.. he isnt protecting his kids enough from media.. instead they are on covers of too many magazines..

by gladiatorsback 2008-08-27 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared

I'm sure he appreciates the parenting advice from an anonymous poster on the Internet.  They've given two major interviews and appeared on a single magazine cover as I recall.

by LtWorf 2008-08-27 03:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared

Coming from you dtaylor it means alot. Thank you.

by kbal 2008-08-27 04:27AM | 0 recs

Right on DTaylor. Olive branch noted and appreciated. I have already gushed about HRC's speech on several other threads as a return olive branch, but will say it one more time. She nailed it tonight and proved what a class act and big time Democrat she is in every way.

by wasder 2008-08-27 04:44AM | 0 recs
My Problem with Clinton

I've debated even posting this anywhere but this is something that's just bugging me.

My problem with Clinton in this campaign was never that she attacked Obama or that she ran a hard campaign. Those are things that are expected and accepted in any contest.

The commander in cheif comment bad but part of the game. Trying to marginilize his candidacy as a "fairytale" kind of irritating but par for course.

My problem and the thing that's still causing all the ruckus in the Democratic Party was when she and her campaign set their sights on the process. When they turned from attacking Obama which was understandable to attacking the process and undermining peoples faith in the Democratic Primary process.

All the fuss over Florida and Michigan all the whining about Caucuses the accusations of the party elites rigging the contest.

These are the things that the die hard dead enders are clinging too as their rationals for opposing Obama.

Her speech last night while a good speach did nothing to address that issue.

I'm not sure what she can do at this point to undo the damage she and her campaign did during hte primary. Hell there may not be anything more than simply mitigating the damage as she did last night pointing out to her voters how much more important it is to punish the Republican's for what they've done to the party than it is to punish the party for the percieved slights to herself and her husband.

For what it's worth I unlike many others are not concerned about Bill's speech. For all the chattering classes talk about how dissed he feels or him not being fully on board he is a master of his craft and a professional.

While I was not a fan of all his policies in office and had major issues with him during his stay in the Whitehouse. I will give credit where credit is due. He will rouse the troops and squash any lingering questions about where he stands regarding an Obama candidacy.
Hell I wouldn't put it beyond him to have worked out the not reconciled line with Obama just to create more interest in tonights speach in order to generate more interest and get a bigger audience.

Still I do wish the Clinton's could find some way to reassure their supporters that the process was indeed sound and fair that would go a hell of a lot further towards unifying the party than concentrating on issues or attacking McCain would.

by Skex 2008-08-27 04:47AM | 0 recs
Re: My Problem with Clinton

Do you know what an olive branch is?

Thanks dtaylor, and recced.

by hello world 2008-08-27 04:54AM | 0 recs
Condescend much?

He shouldn't be forced to take it.  I thought both the diarist and skex made well-reasoned points.  Why is it so important that we all get along?

by corph 2008-08-27 05:44AM | 0 recs
It ain't important that we get alogn
but some of us like to hug between fights, kiddo
by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-27 06:20AM | 0 recs
Oh, I get it.

The "kiddo" thing as response to "condescend".  Nice touch.

Well, right back at ya gramps.

by corph 2008-08-28 09:19AM | 0 recs
recced for the humor

...and it's only amusing because i'm probably younger than you ;=)

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-28 12:10PM | 0 recs
Not if you were born in '57

'77 here.

by corph 2008-08-29 09:26AM | 0 recs
I was born later than you...

57 is for my city, not my birthdate. (now if only they'd let me get back my original screen name)

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-29 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: My Problem with Clinton

Slex, I TR'ed you but I guess I'll change it, but please do not respond with anything divisive. It's too much like fighting the past...

It's understandable that there would be divisions in the party, regardless of what had happen, especially since Hillary and Barack had targeted different kinds of voters demographics.

The only way to stop such divisions was to have one dominant candidate, instead we had a TIE or TWO dominant candidates!

What makes Hillary remarks and actions a CLASS ACT and full of grace is that she did it under circumstances that could have actually flipped the nomination.

No man that was a politician was expected to do so, not even Ted Kennedy.

If it had been the other way around, I doubt that the same expectations would have been allowed.

Right now, if I --or when I--vote for Obama, like Ed Rendell said, it would be a tepid vote, but a vote nonetheless. And in the end, regardless of what OTHER Obama supporters feel about me not campaigning and volunteering in the election, in the end, it is about the votes.

**Unless Obama actually goes out there and speaks to voters like me, I'll have to leave it at that for now.

by Check077 2008-08-27 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: My Problem with Clinton

While I understand your point, I think that the BEST time to attack the process is when its faults are most apparent.  Once the primary was over (and once the GE is over), the issue about the process will probably fade away, leaving it possible for the same thing to be repeated.

There is a legitimate argument to be made that caucuses are a flawed and undemocratic way to pick a candidate.  I'm not saying I fully agree with that argument, but I do think it is a legitimate beef.

We had two candidates with roughly equal support.  We had a decision handed down to substantively disenfranchise millions of voters in two states when the rules didn't call for it, and they were disenfranchised because of a stupid move on the part of a few who were responsible for setting the primary dates.  Those states' delegates are now being fully seated at the request of the winner, who quite likely would not have won had those two states' votes been counted to begin with.  That doesn't strike me as being quite right.

Now, I'm not saying that I'm bitter about this or would withhold my vote (I wasn't a supporter of Hillary nor Barack) for Obama (I won't), but I think questioning the process in the middle was a reasonable thing to do.  I'm afraid now that nothing will be done before the next cycle.

by slynch 2008-08-27 08:54AM | 0 recs
Gotta disagree here

While I understand your point, I think that the BEST time to attack the process is when its faults are most apparent.

You can point out the flaws in a process when they become apparent, but you really can't change the rules of the game in the middle of the game.

Successful changes to primary procedure have taken place after the fact many times; for example, Jesse Jackson championed and achieved proportional delegate allocation after (I think) 1988.

As long as Clinton still wants to change things, she'll probably be able to get something done; ball's in her court (though Obama has been talking about changing the procedure to reduce the power of supers as well).

by Dracomicron 2008-08-27 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Gotta disagree here

Reducing the supers is a big mistake.

Supers tend to make the outcome electoral college friendly.  And they have a symbolic veto power if a candidate does something massively stupid before the nomination.

Because they get a vote for every member of congress it tends to give democratic districts 2 1 from primary and 1 from representative votes and republican districts only 1.

This tends to make those in districts that we will actually carry able to pick the candidate they like rather than have red states pick someone that can't win.

I would be ok if unelected DNC members were removed though as this was unfair in Hillary's favor and I see your sides point with regards to this.

But I strongly oppose trying to otherwise reduce the power of super delegates.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Gotta disagree here
Personally, I just think the supers need to be REDUCED. They should certainly hold some sway, just not quite as much as they do.
Delegates already have the ability to overturn the will of the voters in the case of a truly horrible candidate. And I don't like the idea that both candidates had to go horse-trading to get the support of the supers, rather than focus on the voters.
by EvilAsh 2008-08-27 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Gotta disagree here

Hillary and Obama basically tied in votes.

Obama supporters point to delegates.

Hillary supporters point to super delegates.

You have FAR less fight on your hands for Obama than you would if there were Zero superdelegates.

The super delegates act as judges and I for one respect their call in a way that I would not respect Texas's call or the call of caucus states in general.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Gotta disagree here
That's understandable, but, all things being equal, I prefer the voice of the voters to the voice of congress and the DNC.
I'm going to stay FAR away from the caucus argument. There are a lot of arguments FOR caucuses (not the least of which is that many states can't afford a full primary), and a lot of arguments against them.
by EvilAsh 2008-08-27 03:18PM | 0 recs
Surely we don't need 800

The problem with superdelegates is that they comprise 20% of the overall delegates, but 40% of the delegates necessary to win the nomination (since you just need half plus one to win the nomination).  

This is just... far too many.  All, or nearly all, of the supers should answer to a constituency to keep the process honest.  You mention removing the DNC supers, and that would eliminate something like 200, I think, and that would be a good start, and perhaps sufficient.

by Dracomicron 2008-08-27 01:39PM | 0 recs
The superdelegates that are elected

make it much more of a horsetrading game than is ideal. I'll give you X if you vote for me, shtick.

Maybe if there's some way we can enforce, or at least loosely set expectations that superdelegates SHOULD do what their districts do?

I would also appreciate a little more transparency when horsetrading is required -- but that is WAY too much to ask from any politician.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-28 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The superdelegates that are elected

horse trading is what politics is.

Horse trading within the party is what makes a president successful.

Super delegates allow the candidate who will actually have more power within the party if elected get a boost.

Imagine if we had an Obama like candidate who was actually hated by the rank and file representatives and senators.  A person for which no support would exist.  Kind of like the first 2 years of Clinton where even with a democratic house and senate he couldn't  get his agenda passed.

Seems you would want to know that before they were elected.  Seems that should factor into your decision making...

Now thats my argument for people who have held office and hold office but I don't think the DNC chair should have a vote.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-28 10:20AM | 0 recs
you win, girl

we don't need another Carter. ;-)

Thinking it over, I will say that the superdelegates bias it towards more of an LBJ than a Bill Clinton... but I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. ;-)

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-28 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: My Problem with Clinton

Enough of rehashing already.

She can't go back and undo that, but the point of the speech is that we all need to eat our own frustrations and angers and instead focus on getting a Democrat in. Mo one here will, I hope, dispute that no candidate is perfect and everyone chews on his or her shoes with more regularity than they would like as Dr. Scholl does not come in flavors.  

But it is now time to put that away and get on with the real business that got us supporting any of them, namely that we all started on this with our various candidates because it would be such a disaster for the Country if another republican got in, and that is still true.

I have my own frustrations and angers. They are mmmmmfffffflllll. (See my comment above)

by Christy1947 2008-08-27 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: My Problem with Clinton

I think you will find that a large part of Hillary's supporters actually don't like the current process.

If I thought there was going to be another caucus determined race or another race where states were robbed of their vote and it determined the outcome there is no way I would vote for Obama.

If Obama was not the first black candidate I would not be voting for him this cycle over that.

You won't believe us till next time it comes up but Florida not counting and Alaska republicans having more say than california democrats on a per capita basis are still not ok.  Nor is Texas giving more delegates to the loser.

I will in future leave the party permanently if this happens again in my lifetime.  As it is I will never in my lifetime give money to the DNC over it.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: My Problem with Clinton
Well, NOBODY liked that Florida and Michigan lost their votes, I don't care WHO your candidate was. I HOPE in the future the state parties won't be so stubborn and this will NEVER happen again. After this primary when the later states were HUGE, I doubt the states will be heavily front-loading the primaries like they did this year.
I like to look at the bright side on this mess of a system. This year's primaries, for all the flaws, was the MOST democratic primary we've had in decades. When was the last time Indiana, North Carolona, Ohio, or Virginia had ANY say in the presidential nominee?
by EvilAsh 2008-08-27 01:47PM | 0 recs
I hope to make sure you have your say

and that we can all hold a roundtable and make something approximating fair (you know, like the roundtable that got us Iowa, NewHampshire, Nevada and South Carolina?).

I think the benefit to this process, this time, is that it pissed off enough constituents that the politicians will have to change something.

I think Dean did a good job of being scrupulously fair (a lot better than carville would have done, at any rate). The DNC as a whole? I dunno.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-28 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared

As maybe one of your harshest critics, allow me to to say well said.

And as way to shake your hand rec'd.

by jsfox 2008-08-27 04:51AM | 0 recs
All peace talks start with a first hello.....

Hi DT.....

You know, I have no problem with you fighting like crazy over the next 69 some odd days...

Call out whom you want, keep screaming Hillary is better qualified, yada yada...

But, when you get the absentee ballot, or go to the voting precint, I want you to think long and hard.

Why you are a democrat?  Which party votes for women's rights. Which party votes for the rights of Children.

Which party votes to help working folks.

Which party says, it doesn't matter WHO you love, you get equal justice under law.

WE are the party that believes what is says on the USSC front wall.

And, I want to realize at the point, there is ONLY one choice you have.

The Party of FDR, JFK, And Bill and Hillary Clinton?

Or the Party of Dick Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush.

I was always for Obama in this race, but I said, I would crawl over broken glass to vote of Hillary or Biden or ANY DEMOCRAT that would have come out the primary.

I know, at the moment, you will do the right thing for your country and for my daughter.

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-27 04:58AM | 0 recs
well said. very emotional.

(did that really need to be expressed so personally?)

I was an Edwards Democrat. Then an Obama Democrat.

But I think a lot of people way back in 2007 expected Hillary to win -- and they supported other people anyway. Not with malice, but with hope. And a good share of that hope had to be that Hillary would listen to us. Odd to think, but true.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-27 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: well said. very emotional.

Sure, I think this IS personal, I agree with many of the posts.

We are seeing a dividing of the hard gone "I'm punishing the party" PUMAs with Loyal Clinton Democrats, who right now JUST CAN'T say they are voting for Obama.

They don't hate Obama and they certainly don't want to burn the party to the ground, they have greviences and need to be heard.

So, it IS a personal decision for them IMO.

And, bringing my daughter into it?

Sure, I am playing that emotional card, but DAMN IT, I go to the USSC 2-3 times a year, and the LAST TRUE LIBERALS on the court, Stevens and Ginsburg will not least 4 or 8 more years.

And, I am not talking about Abortion, the Scalia wing WOULD vote to ban Equal pay laws IMHO.

They think the Free Market is God, and NO RULES at all should apply to it.

It's not just reprpductive rights, it's do we believe there are second class citizens in the US, gay, female, people of color, you name it.

These guys would gladly throw out every civil rights advancement since FDR.

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-27 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: well said. very emotional.

Why are you a Democrat?  Which party votes for women's rights?

Good question WashStateBlue,

That's a question alot of folks are asking.

And that's the thing about women's issues and this primary.

When it came to the VP picks.

Sen. Obama was in a unique position to pick not just a woman, but the woman highly qualified and vetted with actual votes. To over look her and then to choose a man who didn't even make it through the primaries?

That speech last night looked presidential or at the very least vice presidential.

How do you tell THAT woman she's not good enough to be on the ticket? How do you look at her and say she's not a good fit and won't get along? I understand why Sen. Clinton folks and feminists are upset. They've seen this before.

Sen. Obama had a chance to extend his own olive branch, put a highly qualified woman on the ticket, and change history for women.

Instead he over looked the highly qualified woman VP and chose a less qualified male.

He  missed one of the greatest opportunities to further women's rights that I've seen in my lifetime.

That's what I'm going to be thinking about in that polling booth.

And that life time is pretty durn long.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-27 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: well said. very emotional.

Biden is more qualified in some ways and less in others.

Biden has a longer resume.

Hillary is a better politician.

I wanted Hillary and felt Obama screwed the pooch but I don't want to take anything from Biden.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: well said. very emotional.

First off I thought that Sen Clinton was the policy wonk.

But no matter how long the resume, the fact is that Sen Biden didn't even make it through the first week in January of the primaries. He dropped out because he didn't get votes.

Sen. Clinton on the other hand, not only got votes but her win record improved after Super Tuesday. She got stronger not weaker.

With actual votes.

You need votes to win elections.

Not taking anything away from Sen. Biden but in the national arena he couldn't even make it through to Super Tuesday.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-27 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: well said. very emotional.

VP choice is about the fit between candidates, and ability to work together.  If Obama had chosen HRC, the narrative from here to Nov would be all about their relationship, looking for fault lines, and using past quotes to divide.  It would be a huge distraction.

by interestedbystander 2008-08-27 11:30PM | 0 recs
Re: well said. very emotional.

Naw. Besides that would be a whole lot less than the divisions in the party now. Now, you have angry people inside the party not outside.Angry people who are saying they'd rather vote for the opposition candidate than vote for Sen. Obama. That's worse.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-28 02:18AM | 0 recs
sayin' ain't believin'

I'm a firm believer in letting the Hillary partisans lie to the pollsters. It's fun, lets everyone get their frustration out, and if I were in their position I'd do it too, dangnabit!

They'll come back, I believe this... because linfar did. Because people, a lot of people around here, listened, and cared enough about Hillary to believe in her choice for President.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-28 06:51AM | 0 recs
Re: sayin' ain't believin'

So the moral of the story is the larger half of the party gets NOTHING and you think that would bite you in the ass?

Such a short horizon you look at.

If Obama wasn't black I would be voting McCain.

You only get this one pass.

Obama did permanent damage in not picking Hillary.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-28 10:26AM | 0 recs
I don't know what you're talking about...

I'm truly lost. Are you responding to someone else?

It's natural that people's feelings are hurt, and it's natural that some people are going to go for McCain's nonexistent mirage of character rather than Obama's reality. Not many, though.

Why if he wasn't black, would you be voting McCain? (and for bonus points -- no snark -- explain to me whether this is or is not identity politics!).

In eight years, I pray there won't be a Hillary campaign. Better to say, I pray there won't be a Hillary-style, backbiting, lay-with-the-devil to get elected campaign.

I never had a problem with Hillary -- I believed kos when he said she was actually a charismatic, passionate, humorful person. But I had major problems with who she choose to make alliances with. And I believe it was those self-same alliances that cost her the VEEP.

I hope to hell there won't be any need to push aside someone with so much support next time.

I hope Democrats, and our Democracy, can be stronger for it.

(and I hope, by reading to the bottom of this, you ain't yellin' at me for sayin what I feel. I can be ornery too!)

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-28 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know what you're talking about...

Next time we will be ready.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-28 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know what you're talking about...


At the risk of being off topic, who would be your choices for females in the White House? Who would you pair them with? Anyone else?

Do you know if a hopeful has ever declared their VP running mate at the beginning of the primaries?

Just wondering?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-29 01:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't know what you're talking about...

"...I hope to hell there won't be any need to push aside someone with so much support next time..." BlogSurrogate57

What is your opinion of the Electorial College?

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-29 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: well said. very emotional.

Well, Hillary was my second choice, after Wes, Biden was third.

But, what REALLY bugged me, over and over again, I was waiting for the Hillary supporters to make the arguements I was....

That she simply was one of the most, if not THE best qualified.

That NO ONE would work harder then she would.

That whom ever they put up against her for VP, well, in that debate, they better bring Oxygen and a stretcher for when Senator Clinton finishes with them.

But, what I got was

Placate us!

We will ALL go to McCain unless you put her on the ticket!!!!

It was threats, and sure, SOME made the arguments...

But, I saw mostly it seemed load the other way.

Look, I think she should have been picked, but it just didn't get done

I hear how invested you are in the VP pick not going to Senator Clinton.

My take is, the deal could not be brokered.

We may never know really why?

I hear a lot of anger, she was not vetted, he never offered...

I hear, Senator Clinton said, "don't vet us unless I am the pick?"

Which is true?

Do any of us know really why the deal didn't happen?

We may never know, and it's Rashamon at this point IMO.

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-28 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: well said. very emotional.

The majority of the party was silenced.

We allowed outside votes to override the will of the party.

democracy is not placation.

The anti democratic wing of the party won this time.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-28 11:50AM | 0 recs
lets kick some repubs out the white house!!!!!

Dtalyor rulez!!!!

a REAL Hillary Supporter  and a REAL DEM

John McCain is not gonna be happy with this

by wellinformed 2008-08-27 05:13AM | 0 recs
Olive branch accepted wholeheartedly

This helps a lot.

by elrod 2008-08-27 05:33AM | 0 recs

And nice to see.

by vcalzone 2008-08-27 05:37AM | 0 recs
Blessed be the peace makers

It is music to my ears to see us finally coming together! I spent two tough years in Vietnam. War is 99% boredom and 1% total terror! During the Boring time we would constantly argue leading to many black eyes and personal hatreds and rivalies! But, we never forgot who the Enemy was. When it came down to it, we all pulled together fighting our way through the valley of death! After all, we were all brothers and sisters with a common purpose. I owe my life to the same soldiers I fought and bickered with so passionately!  Your dairy gives me more optimism that we will pull together to not only beat McInsane but crush him!

by eddieb 2008-08-27 05:39AM | 0 recs
From a non Hillary fan - She was spectacular last

night. She was amazing and other than the problem of having a strong willed ex-president in the VP house she was the better choice for VP. I totally blame bad consultants, the DLC and John Kerry for Hillary not walking away with this nomination. Yes John Kerry winning the nomination using the old party machine to pull the nomination from Dean and then fail so miserably against a terrible, unpopular president. It convinced me and alot of the net roots   that the status quo needed to change. The Clintons and their close ties to that party machine hurt her in the primaries.  Yet I suspect (and hope) the new and improved Hillary is here to stay.

by KosTexasliberal 2008-08-27 05:51AM | 0 recs
I am utterly lost

as to how Hillary can seem so dynamic and vibrant one minute, and the next seem plastic and fake.

Maybe it's the destressing after the primary, but she looks HOT!

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-27 06:24AM | 0 recs
Not surprised keep her away from Penn and McCaulif

They have the uncanny ability to really screw up. They have turned great Democrats with incredible resumes into homogenized fake politicians that inspire no passion. Remember how well Hillary did AFTER she limited their roles. They wrecked her campaign just like McCauliff wrecked the DNC.

by KosTexasliberal 2008-08-27 07:47AM | 0 recs

I was skeptical when you said that you were reserving your thoughts until after Clinton's speech, but this was pretty good.  Olive branch accepted.

I admit that I was terrified on some level that Clinton would somehow renew her case for the nomination and bring a floor fight with her moment of spotlight, but this was a highly irrational fear left over from an over-contentious primary season.  I'm over it.

Anyway, I do think the evidence is in that Fox is and has been far more biased than the other news channels; beware Greeks bearing gifts, as the old saying goes.

by Dracomicron 2008-08-27 05:52AM | 0 recs
she ain't that dumb


by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-27 06:25AM | 0 recs
Reading PUMA blogs and comments...

...will make you paranoid, won't it? I, too had a bit of an irrational fear that Clinton was actually sociopathic enough to behave as PUMAs want her to. Fortunately, it seems they're the sick ones, and not her.

by kydoc2 2008-08-27 07:17AM | 0 recs
Awesome diary.

As a hardcore Obamist who built a portfolio of angst towards Hillary over the course of the primary, I could not have been more moved by her speech last night. Of all the speeches I've heard supporting Obama to date, none has yet to come close to last night's ringing endorsement. I know Hillary gave Obama some shit for giving great speeches, but, last night, she upstaged him on that front. That's the Hillary I've known and loved.

by Bob Sackamento 2008-08-27 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this

recc'd but, if you think for one minute that fox news was/is neutral, you have to look a little deeper. i do not watch fox news so can't comment on specifics, but if they were playing it neutral it would only be for the benefit of the republican party, much the way rush prodded his ditto-heads to keep the dem race close.

by citizendave 2008-08-27 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this

They hate hillary, they hate Obama.  Basically they didn't have a horse in the race.

MSNBC very much did.

by dtaylor2 2008-08-27 10:13AM | 0 recs
Equal hate is not unbiased...

Their hate for both candidates led them to favor one over the other in order to cause chaos among Democrats.  That doesn't make them "least biased."

by Dracomicron 2008-08-27 10:53AM | 0 recs
while this is true...

any ray of sunshine will do in a storm, and Hillary supporters had to weather how many months of "your candidate should get the FUCK out of the race?" ... from every corner too!

Hell, I was an Edwards supporter, and I didn't need to deal with that much shit!

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-28 06:53AM | 0 recs
Fantastic Diary! I know sometimes it hurts

to admit you're wrong... and that sometimes only by arguing passionately do you get to feel what you like about someone -- just as much as what you dislike.

Kudos to you!

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-27 06:27AM | 0 recs
when Hillary was declared VP....

Well, I'll say the Fox feigned neutrality for Hillary to counter MSNBC, obvious favoritism toward Obama, but, no, FOX NEWS is not neutral.

by Check077 2008-08-27 06:28AM | 0 recs

Wow, first Paul Begala says on CNN last night, regarding his belief that night one of the convention was a waste, "I was wrong, you guys were right", and now this!

I'd write more, but am busy today at work. dtaylor, God bless and welcome aboard.

by John in Chicago 2008-08-27 06:47AM | 0 recs
Thank you..

You succeeded in making a more original and attractive case for Obama than half of us who were his supporters early on made.  Thank you, great diary.

by mady 2008-08-27 06:53AM | 0 recs
Thank you

Now lets go beat John McCain!

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-08-27 06:59AM | 0 recs
Great diary!

I highly rec'd this diary!

by kevin22262 2008-08-27 07:06AM | 0 recs
Hey, dtaylor,

this is a very cool diary. I look forward to working with you.

Highly recommended.

by sricki 2008-08-27 08:18AM | 0 recs


its like all rainbows and sunshine around here.

so who's next. we got brandon and dtaylor, i feel like we can win over the world now.

by alyssa chaos 2008-08-27 08:18AM | 0 recs
Hillary would be proud of you.

dtaylor,this diary could not have been easy to write. Having to exam out motives and feelings is never easy. Your bravery and honesty is something we can all learn from. I am humbled by this diary and happily accept the live branch and hope you in turn accept mine.

by venician 2008-08-27 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when

Very nice diary.

The really ironic thing about the whole Clinton-Obama conflict is that, as the diarist points out, the Obamas and Clintons are so much alike, it's kind of eerie.  

If the campaign had turned out a bit differently and less antagonistically, we might have seen the DNC convention be about Hillary and Bill passing the torch to Barack and Michelle to carry on the message of change that the Clintons successful delivered in 1992.  

My theory is that Bill's supposed anger against Obama in part stems from the fact that both are so damn similar.  From Bill's point of view, he must look at Obama with pride and a tinge of regret, since in Obama he can see himself without his tragic flaws, and in Obama he can see the potential for him to accomplish what he wasn't able to do in his presidency due to the scandals.  

His speech tonight should be very interesting.  

by ProfessorReo 2008-08-27 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when

"the Obamas and Clintons are so much alike, it's kind of eerie."

The most brutal fights are sometimes inside a family.

Yes in any other situation, my take is, Bill Clinton, would be amongst the STRONGEST advocates for Barack.

But, I think, no one saw how hard Hillary worked then he did, so I think, in a lot of ways, he took the loss even harder?

But, I am worried about tonights speech.  

He is a proud man, and a good democrat, but I just think, he is less on board then Hillary.

I don't think this is about him thinking Barack will bypass him, I think, he is so sad that Hillary didn't get it.

I sure hope he proves me wrong.  

by WashStateBlue 2008-08-27 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when
Well, Bill hasn't lost ANYTHING in close to thirty years. It's possible that he's had to re-learn how to lose gracefully and it's tough for him.
I'm glad that he and Hillary took a month off after the primaries (even though the pundits were bitching about it). They needed the time to breathe.
Bill will be fine, his speech tonight will kick ass. And, I hope, he spends the rest of the campaign in New Hampshire, Arkansas, and West Virginia where he is super-popular and can sell Obama in ways and places that Obama can't.
by EvilAsh 2008-08-27 01:56PM | 0 recs
he wants you to think that...

so he can confound your expectations, silly!

He knows how to flip a narrative like nobody's business.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-28 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when

For what it's worth (and it's not much), both Obama and Bill are Leo men. Very proud men who love the limelight. Leo's do not take rejection well at all for pride is their achiles heel.

Okay, now you can all call me a flake. :-)

by Dari 2008-08-27 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when


by interestedbystander 2008-08-27 11:34PM | 0 recs
Re: ok

except for:

"That Fox really was the least biased network was not Obama's fault."

by QTG 2008-08-27 08:46AM | 0 recs
Thanks for the olive branch!

Hillary really moved me with her speech last night. I have had a lot of negative feelings towards her but that's over with. I was very inspired by her last night. Despite that the disappointment is probably still quite raw for her, she put the good of the country first and gave one hell of speech.

by berkeleymike 2008-08-27 09:07AM | 0 recs
don't be so sure

that Biden can't deliver a state.

He is revered in PA and sometimes called Pennsylvania's Third Senator.

by TrueBlueMajority 2008-08-27 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: don't be so sure
True enough, but Pennsylvania was pretty much out of McCain's reach, anyway. He just helps to seal it off completely.
Biden WILL play the attack-dog very well. And he has enough style that he can do it without looking like an ass.
by EvilAsh 2008-08-27 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: don't be so sure

Evil Ash,

I'm sorry if you've stated this elsewhere and I've missed it, but I'm still mystified as to why folks thought Sen. Clinton wouldn't have been able to do the same as VP.

I'm asking for EvilAsh's opinion here folks.

by 12 dogs and a blog 2008-08-29 01:02PM | 0 recs
Re: don't be so sure
Hillary WOULD have done well in the attack dog role, and I believe she still will as she campaigns for Obama (and eviscerates Palin).
However, she might not have been as EFFECTIVE as Biden. Not because of what she would say or how she would say it, but because Hillary has a very high 'untrustworthy' score which was there before the primaries began and went up as the primaries went on. Most republicans and a LOT of independents simply don't trust her. Therefore, it is very difficult for Hillary to attack without raising her own negatives. This happened in the primary against Obama repeatedly. As a VP, this may have hurt the ticket. As she is not on the ticket, she can be more open in her criticisms because her words don't reflect directly on the nominee.
All of this is a hypothetical, as I don't know what WOULD have happened if Clinton had been chosen as VP, or if these 'trustworthy' numbers would have changed when she was backing Obama rather than opposing him.
Personally, I don't believe this aspect has anything at all to do with why Hillary wasn't chosen. I think it was a mix of personal styles, governing styles, and trust that not only would Hillary stay with the message and the priorities that Obama set, but so would Bill.
Personally, I don't think that Bill Clinton has ever shown much aptitude for following someone else's lead . . . ever. He had a damn hard time just letting Hillary run her own campaign.
by EvilAsh 2008-08-31 05:02PM | 0 recs
he... is?

I've never heard him mentioned, and I'm from Liberal Appalachia!

I can see them diggin' him in Scranton, sure.

by BlogSurrogate57 2008-08-28 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared

Fox News less biased?

Other than that, I can rec this work.

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-27 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared

Nice Post.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-08-27 12:08PM | 0 recs
Thanks DTaylor

Nicely done.

And welcome to the team.  

No Way - No How - No McCain!

by vbdietz 2008-08-27 12:36PM | 0 recs
Hillary smacks down the RePUMAlicans!

She said, not on my watch!

Now that we've taken care of her and her whiny supporters, can we please move on to electing O'Biden?

by reggie44pride 2008-08-27 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared

Crikey, I never thought I would live to see the day I heartily recommended one of your diaries, but you proved me wrong.  Sincerely appreciated and recommended, welcome aboard.

Your criticism, which I don't expect to abate completely, and fair enough, will be much easier to bear in future knowing that you are with us this time around.

by Shaun Appleby 2008-08-27 03:15PM | 0 recs
rec'd for unity

I am trying to find something good to say about Obama.  I am still devastated and shocked that Hillary was not chosen to be his VP.  In my mind, it was a done deal.  

Anyway I'll vote for him because he is a Democrat.  So many diarists here do a great job reaching out to Clinton supporters.  But I wish Obama himself would do more.  

I wish Obama would devote a speech or two to women's rights. I want to see that he really gets it.  I heard that his acceptance speech is going to be about the economy----which is something else I'd like him to talk about.  

I still dont understand while Hillary wasn't picked for VP.  It makes no sense to me.  But I'll get over it.

by Sandy1938 2008-08-27 03:25PM | 0 recs
In a year I think your list will be much longer

by Lefty Coaster 2008-08-27 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Was saving this for when Hillary was declared

There are things I object to in your post, but the sheer fact that you have chosen to post this olive branch diary says something.  Recommended.

by Skaje 2008-08-27 08:02PM | 0 recs
Damn impressive.

The Following Users Have Recommended This Diary:

John in Chicago
Sean Robertson
Shaun Appleby
Trond Jacobsen
Beltway Dem
Why Not
Texas Gray Wolf
Travis Stark
tired of dynasties
Captain Bathrobe
Liberal Monk
Bob Sackamento
sweet potato pie
alyssa chaos
C 1
hello world
Aris Katsaris2

by spacemanspiff 2008-08-28 01:42AM | 0 recs
Clintons seal the deal

I was an Obama supporter (since 2004 really) that wanted to see Hillary on the ticket to unify the party.  I now think it worked out pretty well, regardless.  Biden will make an excellent VP candidate, which is an overrated thing anyway - the VP candidate.  Most importantly I think he is well qualified for the job.

If Chuck Todd was right about the undecideds, the Clinton's have likely taken Obama a long way down the path to becoming president.

by NMMatt 2008-08-28 01:58PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads