Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

About that "Clinton For McCain" Group? You'll never believe this, but...

you can go to Network Solutions where you register domain names and see who the noble Clinton supporters are who own this inspiring site:

clintons ffor mccain
Registrant:
Republican National Committee

310 First Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
US
Domain Name: CLINTONSFORMCCAIN.COM

Administrative Contact , Technical Contact :
Republican National Committee
dns@rnchq.org
310 First Street SE
Washington, DC 20003
US
Phone: 202-863-8500
Fax: 202-863-8851
Record created on 15-May-2008

Always nice to know who your fellow travellers are.

I'm sure these registrants have been out and about with posts of the "I'm a lifelong Democrat so it's with great sorrow that I have to say I can't support..." category.

Actually the only part that surprises me about this is that they didn't have "Clintons For McCain" registered back in March or even February after Edwards dropped out. And "Obamas for McCain" registered too just as a just-in-case, cover-all-the-fifth-columnist-bases effort as well.

(h/t to Dirk Gently, melancholic over at the Newly Moved Into House of Gray Turtlenecks joint.)

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

that_site

Just saying that I'm not completely sure which group "that" group might be, on the evidence.

As is well known, anybody can register a domain, and political parties Hoover them up.

NOTE The "Clintons for McCain," plural, looks like the kind of silly autogenerated domain name GoDaddy would produce. I'm surprised Eschaton wouldn't pick up on that. Or not.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

"... the structure of the race looks slightly different than at any other time this year as a result of the relatively high percentage of voters -- 15% -- not favoring either major-party candidate. This includes 7% of voters who say they are undecided and 8% who say they will not vote for either candidate (including 1% who volunteer they will vote for another specific candidate).
..." -- http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/15/...

Don't use one RNC crypto-site as proof of anything quite yet--and McCain is openly courting women, for instance. Bush actually improved among women in 04, compared to 00 -- http://www.now.org/issues/election/elect...

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... if it's not a ratfuck. Not saying it is, not saying it isn't.

Anyone can type anything when registering a domain name. We simply don't know how legit this is. And if it is a GOP operation, how much activity of this sort these characters have been up to? We don't know, as they say, "at this particular point in time."

Are they trying to create a welcoming home to disgruntled HRC supporters, or have they been doing sock-puppeting-type tricks? You're "sure" they have. Why?

I personally know Hillary supporters who are precisely in the “I’m a lifelong Democrat so it’s with great sorrow that I have to say I can’t support…” camp.

Even if this is bona fide evidence of a false-flag conspiracy, and I'd love to hear all about it if it is, there are in fact many good Democrats who feel hard-pressed to vote for Obama. That's a fact. So let's not jump to the conclusion that Obama skeptics we meet are not, in fact, loyal Democrats.

On the internet, no one knows whether you're a dog, puma, donkey, elephant, etc.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

As there's a version on the web.

If this is a gooper ratfuck, they were remarkably incompetent about it. Anyone can type 'whois' and all.

Also, I've never heard of this website before, has anyone else?

Submitted by lambert on

... the reason you've never heard of the URL is that nobody's used it to set up a site.

Political operations Hoover up URLs by the bagful, either for their own purposes, or to deny the use of the URL to their enemies.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

We know this from way back in the Dark Ages of gwb43.com and that long, long list of other .com and .org names they had registered for the 04 and 06 elections. I used to have the list, and we published portions of it here on numerous occasions.

That said, this is the (very lonely) one aspect of the RNC/GWB net operation that is perfectly legal and legitimate. (The part we were investigating at the time was the use of these addresses intermingled with .gov addresses to avoid requirements that all government correspondence be submitted to the Naitonal Archivist, a matter which remains to be resolved, grrr.)

A political party is allowed--and if it were on "our side" I hope we are doing it too--to promote itself and its candidates in any way it sees fit that does not cross the lines of legality.

Hell, this is damn near saintlike by Republican standards; they signed their own corporate name to the registration and left it out in public access for all to see. Maybe Rove is indeed starting to be distracted by the oncoming investigative steamroller....we can dream at any rate.

As for anyone who may fit Vastleft's description as

I personally know Hillary supporters who are precisely in the “I’m a lifelong Democrat so it’s with great sorrow that I have to say I can’t support…” camp.

all I can say is that they are perfectly free to do as they see fit, but that they are ignoring Sen. Clinton's own words. She has suspended her campaign and promised her complete and wholehearted support of the Democratic nominee and asked those who supported her to do likewise.

Submitted by lambert on

there's no "catch." I guess I'm still hung up on this silly "evidence" thing, and I have to admit I'm hard pressed to see what "that group" might mean, or what the point of the post is.

Of course, if the subtext of the post is "that group" is the traitors among us who need to be purged, well and good, but why not just say that?

Personally, I think it would be wiser to make a case based on an appeal to reason, rather than Hillary's suppposed authority, but YMMV...

UPDATE Who cares what the registrar is? If the Republican Party registered www.zuchinnisforlambert.com what conclusion could you draw from it? About as much as you could draw from www.popebenedictforzuchinnis.com if I registered it: That is, precisely nothing in the absence of a site.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... the appeal to authority. Seems a fair argument to me that if we trust Hillary at 3AM, we might value her judgment about whom to vote for. She's not the boss of us, but her recommendation ought to carry some weight.

But I am troubled by the implication that online Hillary supporters are traitors, or really, that they aren't and weren't Democrats at all.

How is being "sure" about this any better than -- to cite something where all of us, as best I can tell, have agreed on a higher standard -- flogging a Michelle Obama video story that's based on hearsay?

Submitted by lambert on

... with no transcript and no provenance?

And in any case, as I keep saying, political parties Hoover up URLs like this all the time. There's probably other ones just like this help by the Hillary campaign, and others held by the Obama campaign. If they don't want to use them to build sites, at least they can play "dog in the manger" with a campaign that might want them.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

And as Lambert has made the point, so what if they did?

How does an above-board registration justify posting FUD about the legitimacy of online Obama-skeptic Dems?

As to being certain it's the RNC, and the only real evidence we can find that it's truly the RNC, is if it shares the NIC Handle with sites that are certain to be the RNC's. Again, I'm not that exercised about the possibility that it isn't an RNC cite, just saying that info put into a domain registration isn't probative. For that matter, BTW, the internets do not make e-mail sender addresses a legitimate fingerprint, either.

jackyt's picture
Submitted by jackyt on

I don't see anything underhanded in the RNC registering this domain name, or in McCain courting disaffected Clinton voters. I would be surprised if the Obama campaign didn't register ClintonForObama.

It is the responsibility of both candidates to woo voters. It is my responsibility to not be "bamboozled", to not fall for the "old okeydoke".

Neither candidate has come close to convincing me he is worthy of my vote, but I have more respect for the person who tries to make his case than the one that turns his back and assumes I'll follow.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

Does any Obama supporter really want to use that particular cudgel this year on anybody?

Submitted by lambert on

0. "www.clintonsformccain"

....

Well, make up your own tenuous logic. I've gotta go....

And yes, McCain gets to appeal to voters, right?

NOTE Now if there's a real site, organized by Republican forces, that the mensheviks or other oppositional, purge-worthy forces have set up, and that actual, credible, Hillary supporters are using, that's another thing. That's a story. That is not this story.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

whaleshaman's picture
Submitted by whaleshaman on

Xan, I would have been surprised if the RNC weren't behind it.

So, did you really believe the RNC wouldn't do that, or is this an opportunity to recycle the "deaf, dumb and blind" campaign meme offered by some of Obama's supporters to explain why I am unable to see The Light?

[Sincere apologies in advance if I misconstrued the intent of your post's content to be sarcasm.]

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

That link is exactly as xan reports. The Republicans have predated on anger, it is all they have ever had.

I took this as a reminder from xan that those pushing the ClintonsforMcCain meme are not our friends and never have been.

it just isn't a very effective way to win over Clinton supporters. The feedback I am getting from a few Clinton supporters indicates an unbelievable level of anger. It is going to take a few months for this to die down.

Obama needs to do something to win over these voters. Other than picking Clinton as VP, I don't know what to suggest.

Obama is the only one who can address this. He has to convince a lot of angry Clinton supporters that he is not running a personality cult.

I think FireDogLake is doing a good job of going in to the specifics of why McSame would be so damaging.

Other than that, the best thing to do is vote and volunteer for women candidates, look for down ballot races that interest you.

Truthfully we would be going through the same thing if somehow Clinton had been able win at the last minute.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Someone pays for a domain and types the owner info. That's it. You could buy a domain and say it's owned by Judge Crater. Doesn't mean he's still alive or that he bought that domain.

If the domain has a NIC Handle in common with known RNC site, then I'd consider it definitive, as I'm pretty sure you'd have to login to apply an existing NIC Handle to a new domain.

Just pushing accuracy here, not suggesting there's any particular reason to think the registration wasn't by the RNC. We don't know for a fact, that's all.

Submitted by lambert on

All there is, is a URL, which the RNC purchased. Since there is no site, there is no "link," because when you click on the URL, you don't go anyhwere.

And? Well, there it gets vague.

As far as this, DCB:

Obama needs to do something to win over these voters.

I agree 100%. My called shot is that it will never happen.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

The original post DOES raise a valuable question for frustrated HRC fans to ponder as they click around: who the heck IS at the other end of the line when I sign up for this stuff?

Perhaps unjustly, I've assumed since June 3rd that every last one of these "Hillary Supporter" online movements is a suspect arm of some RNC operation, and I've stayed away from all of them with no feeling that I'm missing anything. YMMV, of course, and I'm not recommending that level of suspicion for everyone in their daily lives, but you know, sometimes being an "independent" means being independent. :)

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Why does the RNC believe that registering a domain name like this is worth it?

The only way these operations (and it isn't even an operation, it's a URL) work is if there are genuinely disgruntled Clinton supporters to tap into. Otherwise it's just GOP ratfuckers talking to themselves.

It's the same thing about people mocking McCain's attempts to reach out to women voters. Sure, McCain's got a lousy record on women's issues, but pointing only that out conveniently ignores why McCain thinks he can win votes there - that people are angry with Obama. Just as people will ignore why the RNC thinks this site might be worth setting up.

It's much easier to blame the GOP for Democrats' division than, say, the DNC and our presumptive nominee.

Submitted by lambert on

Please check upthread, where I point out that political operations scarf up URLs by the bagful, either for their own use or to deny them to others.

Don't think of them carefully crafting URLs; think of them having an intern type in 500 word permutations and and registering them. And then doing it again and again.

That's why this URL is so lame, because "Clintons" fell out of the permutations. Stupid, when you think about it: Clintons, plural? Bill and Hillary?

Honestly, that I've spent the amount of time on this thread disputing a non-gotcha that everybody can already read about over on Atrios... Well, it's not making my support of Obama any less tepid, let me tell ya.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

You say

Why does the RNC believe that registering a domain name like this is worth it?

The only way these operations (and it isn’t even an operation, it’s a URL) work is if there are genuinely disgruntled Clinton supporters to tap into. Otherwise it’s just GOP ratfuckers talking to themselves.

No, that's not the only way these operations work. Nor are "genuinely disgruntled Clinton supporters" the intended target.

It's a meme generator whose only purpose is to keep alive the Oh My See How Divided The Democrats Are notion in the media. Where it will, drop by drop, percolate into the background chatter for the great masses of low information potential voters.

It's the same purpose Lieberman serves. He provides cover.

And yes, they would be doing exactly the same things against Clinton if she had won. Please stop for just one unemotional minute and think how you would feel just seeing the existence of "ObamaforMcCain" websites, and be told how Hillary was doomed unless she came up with a way to placate those disaffected voters.

Who benefits? Not us, unless you think a McCain/BushIII administration would be an improvement somehow.

Submitted by lambert on

There's no evidence on "that group," since there's no site.

There's no evidence on "these operations" because there's no precedent cited, let alone a link.

And as far as meme generators.... Well, front-paging it on Atrios sure was a great way to bring a halt to it all, wasn't it?

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Sort of like a margarita party, isn't it?

Except from inside the blender.

Submitted by lambert on

I think that's where we're going with this. We Are So Fucked.

Of course, the Republicans are even more fucked, because they're trying to generate a meme from a site that doesn't even exist.

So I guess, net net, we're good!

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

That they have seen the names of domains that the RNC -- or, possibly, a Clinton aide who sent an e-mail to Drudge -- has registered.

I haven't seen the list yet, but I understand that they're racially charged. I'll be posting a major update tomorrow at 9:00AM.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

that is not what xan was suggesting. What I took from it is that there are some very bad people who intend to predate on this. Right now some Clinton supporters are so angry they cannot think. At least, that is how it strikes me.

also, suppose Clinton HAD won, how would we be winning over Obama supporters who were just as angry?

anger turned to bitterness is not empowering. This anger can be empowering only if it is channeled into other causes or down ballot races. Endless ranting against Obama (as oppossed to specific criticisms) is not empowering.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

PUMAs on the internets are fakes.

She's "sure" that some are. Why is she sure? Because the RNC registered -- above board -- an awkward and as-yet-unused (at least as a website) domain name that appears intended to attract disgruntled HRC supporters.

Submitted by lambert on

But if questioning the evidentiary basis of an argument be bitterness...

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

now, do a fucking whois on all of these websites that are part of the "Just Say No Deal" coalition/PUMA coalition....

I bet you'll find one or two that are associated with the GOP....

writehillaryin.com
clintondems.com
hireheels.com
gopumaparty.com
hillarysupporters.com
writeinpartyusa.org
clintons4mccain.com
hillarygrassrootscampaign.com
riverdaughter
hillaryclintonforum.net
womenforfairpolitics.com
donedems.com
pumaparty.com
hillaryunited.com
savagepolitics.com

noquarterusa.net
liberalrapture.com
nowewont.org
shutthefreudup.com
seatourdelegates.com
pumapac.org
petitionforhowarddeantoresignasdncchair
petitionpledgetovoteagainstobama
petitionhillarydontbevp
millionwomenmarch.blogspot.com
obamawtf.blogspot.com
rezkowatch.blogspot.com
pumapac.blogspot.com
clintondem.blogspot.com
fair-reflection.blogspot.com
bluelyon.blogspot.com
comealongway.blogspot.com
reflections-in-tyme.blogspot.com
thatsmeontheleft.blogspot.com
mccaindemocrats.blogspot.com
worstlittlecaucusintexas.blogspot.com
caucusconfession.blogspot.com
caucuscheating.blogspot.com
florida-michigan.blogspot.com
floridavoters.blogspot.com
hillbuzz.blogspot.com
hillaryorbust.blogspot.com
politicaldiscontent.blogspot.com
independentsformccain.blogspot.com
americaforhillary.blogspot.com
whatsuddenly.blogspot.com
tominpaine.blogspot.com
heidilipotpourri.blogspot.com
annienyc.blogspot.com
womenstate.blogspot.com
guerillawomentn.blogspot.com
alwaysforhillary.blogspot.com
panmetron.blogspot.com
typicalpawhitewoman.blogspot.com
politicallizard.blogspot.com
nobamablog.blogspot.com
investigatebarackobama.blogspot.com
its-obvious.blogspot.com
powerofpuma.blogspot.com
noratings.blogspot.com
spiritedpolitics.blogspot.com
hillarygreenmountain.com
floridademandsrepresentation
paresidentsforhillary.com
hillary-clintons-voice.com
walkamileinourshoes.org
misshillaryclinton.com
democrats-against-obama.org
writeinpartyusa.org
knowobama.org
reclusiveleftist.com
givemehill.com
helphillary.org
hillary-wins.com
sugarnspice
bitterpoliticz
insightanalytical
swingcrats.org
perrylogan
paganpower
4hillaryweblog
mudanpoliticalblog
mccainb4obama.com
citizenpressroom
justwatchmeburn.livejournal.com
capitalhillforum.com
hillaryisourchoice.com
dontvoteobama.com
no-obama09.com
stop-obama.org
vet4hill
the28.org
f-u-dnc
hcsfjm.com
lobbydelegates.com
obama-wire.com
obamaunveiled.com
thedailyhill.com
dncboycott.com
democratinexile.com
belltoll.com
slickbarry.com
ladyboomernyc
onevoteonebrick
dems4mccain.org
takedemocratsback.org
changeandexperience.com
elect2009
londonamerican
texasdarlin
hillaryvillagers
edgeoforever
gaffenation
newwavedemocrats
republicanfeminist
bythefault.com
rabblerouserruminations
kirafasrevo

OF COURSE, THAT INCOMPETENT RACE-PIMP THAT YOU SUPPORT HAS BEEN ASTROTURFING THE WEB FOR A YEAR...

But Its OK if you are Obama...right?

Submitted by lambert on

... to use bulk check to go through Paul's list and see if there actually are any real sites that are RNC-sponsored.

Then, we could forward any ratfuckers on to the PUMA people (assuming that they haven't done this already). I'm sure they'd be more than willing to remove any RNC-ratfuckers from their blogrolls.

Anyone?

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

xan's post says what it says, that the RNC has registered a domain with the idea of exploiting this. that is all she said.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

In my fantasy world, she also said:

I’m sure these registrants have been out and about with posts of the “I’m a lifelong Democrat so it’s with great sorrow that I have to say I can’t support…” category

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

I have heard from five separate well-placed operatives...

or, possibly, a Clinton aide who sent an e-mail to Drudge

Right now some Clinton supporters are so angry they cannot think.

To laugh or to cry?

After all the shit that's gone on during the past few days here at corrente (re:Larry Johnson)...

This is certainly a funny turn of events.

Submitted by lambert on

... comes that Mickey Kaus registered www.goatfuckers.com.

Now that would be a story!

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

Didn't get it. =(

LOL.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

So I could not very well be making accusations about said PUMA of any sort.

I didn't even read here for damn near two months. I found this place as offensive as Kos--which I wasn't reading either except for the Saturday morning Home & Garden sidebar blog--and for the same reason. They were pro-Obama to a degree that was just deranged. Corrente was pro-Hillary to a degree that was (even to a former Correntian!) indistinguishable.

My point being that you came up with a lot of your own insider acronyms during this period with which I am completely unfamiliar.

So those wishing to insult, or accuse me of misdeeds or bad intentions, are politely requested to do it in simple, clearly spelled out language so that I may be properly offended.

thank you. :)

off to work now...yes I have an actual money-paying JOB after all this time, so I had best not lose it in my second week. It's pretty much 2nd shift so will not be back until late night if at all today. Talk amongst yer good selves, I am outta here.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

You've failed to notice the adoption of a term heavily used around here and other lefty sites in recent weeks, so whatever that term means (google's pretty expensive to use these days, I know), you're sure your post didn't reflect on that topic.

PUMA means "Party Unity My Ass," in other words folks just like the ones you're implying are (in a substantial enough number to be worth noting) not Democrats at all, they're just Republican plants. You have declined to defend or walk back your implication that you're "sure" of this fact.

You're also making hay about a not-secretly-registered, unused, and kinda crummy domain name. It's kind of interesting to know about (hence I wrote "good catch"), and healthy to bring up lest anyone by fooled by such a site if it:

a) Ever exists
b) Ever gets used
c) Hides its ownership better than the domain registration did

But flogging it as evidence that some group is a significant factor among Nobama voters is obvious over-reaching. That's what you're getting flak for, not because we're so "emotional."

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

So those wishing to insult, or accuse me of misdeeds or bad intentions, are politely requested to do it in simple, clearly spelled out language so that I may be properly offended.

I did do that, and my comment got deleted.

Submitted by lambert on

Calm down.

There's plenty of substance for Xan to respond to,m here. I'm sure we'll all be awaiting it with interest.

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

Corrente was pro-Hillary to a degree that was (even to a former Correntian!) indistinguishable.

But never any examples as to what exactly is being talked about.

CD did the same thing in her "Newbies Suck" (my interpretation of her title) post.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

If people said that Hillary had to win over disaffected Obama voters, I'd say they were right. Because that's what all candidates have to do. It's not up to the voters to fall in line. It's up to the candidate - any candidate, of any party, for any office - to win votes. Obama is no different. If Hillary were the nominee, she'd be no different.

Instead of focusing on a non-existent site with non-existent users and then calling them "fellow travelers" for disaffected Democrats,* perhaps Obama and his supporters would be better off trying to make sure the meme gains no traction because people don't personally know numerous disaffected Democrats who, at the very least, are decidedly unenthused about Obama.

As for the purpose behind the unused URL, I get what you're saying about how they could use it. But so far there isn't any evidence that I'm aware of that they have used it or that many of the on-line sites where Clinton supporters gather are being run by the GOP. Just because the GOP may be looking to push a meme doesn't mean it isn't true. A good number of Democrats are pissed. The Democrats are a divided party right now and, if Obama doesn't do something to win over Clinton supporters, will be even if most Clinton supporters (or really non-Obama supporters since it goes beyond just Clinton supporters) end up voting for Obama.

It's helpful to keep in mind that a lot of Clinton supporters are not hard-core democrats. She had a lot of support among groups who in the past have had no problems swing voting over to the GOP side or staying at home - non-AA blue collar workers, latin@s, and non-college educated white women - these folks are Obama's real problem because the idea they will fall in line, when they didn't in 2000 and really didn't 2004, seems a bit unrealistic.

But, even if Obama manages to get these votes without doing anything to win their true support because the GOP is so weak, it's still bad for Obama and the Democrats. Because it means Obama's support will be very shallow. After the election, that he's not McCain won't matter very much. So it gives him even less room to err because he's never truly won over half of his own party, much less some of the GOP and independents. Which will bode ill in terms of public support for any problems in an Obama administration (Clinton survived mainly because he was able to keep the public's support even as he lost the Village) and, possibly, if things go really badly a repeat of the 1980 primary challenge in 2012. You can bet that if disaffected Democrats stay disaffected and see an opening, they may very well take it. Not necessarily with Hillary (since I don't think she'd do it), but there's someone out there who would be happy to be Ted Kennedy if given a chance.

It also has long-term fundraising consequences for the Democratic Party since I believe what will happen is a lot of Clinton supporters will vote for Obama or at least not vote for McCain, but will do less to help the party generally. Which makes the party completely dependent on the "Obama movement" for money, many of whom do not have a history of donating to the party. So if Obama fails, especially if he wins the election, what happens to party funding?

So when I speak to Obama's need to reach out to the HALF of the Democratic Party that he didn't win, it's not because my feelings are hurt or that I'm emotional. It's because it's good politics and a smart thing for him to do for HIM. It would also be a smart thing for the DNC to do, but I've given up on them ever doing anything smart (and not because they chose Obama).

Obama, his supporters, and the DNC can look for GOP ratfuckers all they want among Clinton supporters, they may even find a few (certainly if anyone should be able to spot a ratfucker, it's the Obama campaign). They can call the unhappy Democrats names and talk about what lousy democrats they are.

OR they can suck it up and do what it takes to try to make sure that he has the support - not just the vote - of as many democrats as possible as he sets out to win the election and, if successful, govern the country.

Right now they seem to be going with door number one, which might still permit Obama to beat McCain, but it's lousy politics for Democrats.

Submitted by lambert on

Thanks. "Every option has an equal and opposite reaction."

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

they are longtime, older, traditional and loyal Democrats who only swung for Reagan for the most part

they are union members and working-class whites and others who have been Democrats forever--they've never left the party, but the party keeps leaving them...

this cycle especially has alienated and insulted millions of actual Democrats---as opposed to Obamacans and his "Democrats for a Day".

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on
& the older women actually run the party on the ground
Submitted by amberglow on Mon, 2008-06-16 16:01.

in every single state and district—they’re the ones you see when you go to vote.

It means the party's just like a (mainstream) church --
you see the ladies of, oh, 40 and up, the same ones over and over and over again, on the committees and in the kitchens and at the bake sales, the plant sales, on the visits to the homebound, taking care of the covered-dish suppers, doing the laundry on the choir robes ... scary thought, isn't it?

As a former Scout mom (and yeah, somebody who used to be in that vacation Bible school volunteer roster), I suddenly understand why PUMA feels so right.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Submitted by lambert on

As I said....

[x] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

...

It's women who run all the on-the-ground things -- especially the Democratic Party.

Many of Clinton's supporters were exactly those women--in all 50 states.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

Right now some Clinton supporters are so angry they cannot think. At least, that is how it strikes me.

Why does it strike you that way? Because they're not coming to the same conclusions you are?

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Why does it strike you that way? Because they’re not coming to the same conclusions you are?

nah
it just strikes me that some Clinton supporters, on and off line, are twisting things around to change meanings. Like what people do when they are really angry and feeding upon their own anger. That is just how it strikes me.

fortunately I am no longer active in the Dem party, quit being active after 2006, so it is not my job to sooth all this anger and win over dissaffected voters. I am really glad, 'cause I have no idea how I would go about it.

Had Clinton won I have no idea how bad the situation in DC would be.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

it's now about refusing lemons/lemonade when it's thrust upon you against your will--and all the various things that can be done-- instead of shutting up and getting onboard.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Tepidly agreeing to vote for Obama, in light of the alternative, without either shutting up or blindly "getting on board."

Essentially, from The Shawshank Redemption: "Anything you put in my mouth you're gonna lose."

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

over a URL to a site that is not a site, link that is not a link but all of which could be interpreted in the most ominous fashion that shows that Hill supporters are at best gullible idiots, at worst, ratfuckers / traitors.

Well, I can see why CD scolded us newbies on our lousy blogging.

I, for one, am glad that at least one of brilliant and mysterious Corrente fellow came back to show us what real good blogging is, with facts and no unfounded assumptions.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

Had Clinton won I have no idea how bad the situation in DC would be.

To say nothing of the mood at the new DNC offices in Chicago.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

obama has moved the democratic national committee hq to chicago.

kind of like baltimore slipping off to indianapolis

details at:

anglachel

and

rezkowatch

a sampler:

"... barack obama starting moving into his "permanent" 33,000-square foot national campaign headquarters on the 11th floor of 233 N. Michigan in downtown Chicago on March 30, 2007... "

march 30, 2007.

where did the money for this come from?

here is david axelrod speaking to ben wallace-wells from an article wells did on axelrod for the nytimes magazine obama's narrator

[ "At the beginning of January, on a sunny day in the middle of the Northeast’s strange extended warm spell, Axelrod traveled to Boston for Patrick’s inaugural. Recounting it for me afterward, he said, “I really thought a lot about this Obama thing, and I thought, You know, these are really the moments you work for, and I thought, how amazing would it be to be not at the Massachusetts Statehouse but at the U.S. Capitol for that.” ]

Jcl's picture
Submitted by Jcl on

Truthfully we would be going through the same thing if somehow Clinton had been able win at the last minute.

I don't think so - because I don't think Clinton would be putting out statements on how she doesn't need Ohio, and the women (blacks, whichever) will come around - no need to court THEM - and so forth and so on. His method of courting our votes seems to consist entirely of reminding us there's nowhere else to go so deal with it, suck it up.

Obama seems to be going out of his way to offend me/my demographic(s). It's like he doesn't want us to vote for him or something.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Historians will have so much fun looking at this election. It's been an eye-opening experience. It would be a comedy if it weren't so darn depressing.

Submitted by [Please enter a... (not verified) on

WHOA WHAT? How have I not heard about this yet? INSANE! Thanks for bringing it to my attention.