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

Denver open thread

D'où Venons Nous / Qui Sommes Nous / Où Allons Nous...

Yeah, I know the circus tent folded last night, but I want to give people a chance to share their new, original, considered thoughts and impressions of Denver, for the party and themselves. Who are we? Where did we come from? Where are we going?

And need I say why the ital words are there?

Just in case: To keep the "___ is teh s0xxor" and "____ rulez" to a minimum, ideally zero. Ditto zombie memes. If you want to vent, go find a chat channel.

No votes yet


DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

I thought it was brilliant. I certainly feel better about Obama, not great, but better. I think the choice of Invesco field brilliant, and replacing the balloon drop with fireworks spectacular. That will be the standard from now on, all acceptance speeches will be in stadiums. McCain in his convention center with mere ballon drop will seem small by comparison.

Submitted by lambert on

I don't miss the balloon drop (though turning delegates into a crowd gives me the creeps).

But I think we need to beware of McCain when he seems "mere" and "small." After all, he won the nomination only after pissing away all his money in round one. The McCain campaign is certainly tricky and slippery enough to turn the lack of grandiose bombast -- stage by Britney Spears's set designer, oh gawd, how could they let that happen [bangs foreheard on desk] -- into a sign of down home authenticity.

Some day, somebody's going to get really brilliant and do a "_____ unplugged" acceptance with a small, intimate crowd of ordinary citizens -- and live feeds everywhere.

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

Submitted by cg.eye on

McCain will have a chorus line of disabled Vietnam soldiers who have survived torture, and they'll quote the news articles from Obama's surrogate press fans accusing McCain of cowardice, arson-by-plane, succombing to brainwashing and treason -- and they'll tell their stories until the RNC audience weeps.

Then his attack dogs will hammer the Democrats as baby eaters to flag defecators.

On acceptance day, McCain will come on, and raise his arms as far as he can, to show the patriotic love he has for America.

*Then* he'll give his acceptance speech.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

I don't know anyone who watched it either. Like political speeches this sort of thing is for insiders and wannabe insiders who need to feel good about themselves. It wasn't working class folks who got thrills up their legs with Obama's speechifying--it was the wealthy and the "intelligensia" and Village who did--and they won't get thrills up their legs from this convention. The show made the cynical people most in need of government even more cynical. They don't need political circuses to feel good about themselves.

hobson's picture
Submitted by hobson on

What are you talking about? According to Nielson, 38 million people watched his speech not counting PBS and Cspan. Supposedly, more people watched his speech than watched the opening of the Olympics. Are you saying the DNC managed to pack 80,000 wealthy "intelligensia" into the stadium? And told them to dress down?

According to NY1 at least a few people weren't what you said.

They said they came because they wanted to be a part of history and when the first African-American Democratic presidential nominee took to podium Thursday, that's exactly what people at Medgar Evers College in Brooklyn experienced.

The speech came on the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech given on the National Mall in Washington, DC.

Submitted by lambert on

The intelligentsia are dressed down by definition.

But seriously -- one reason the corps plastered their logos all over everything was for product placement in front of a huge audience.

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

kangeroo's picture
Submitted by kangeroo on

couldn't watch it myself; even if i could get past my retching impulse long enough to listen, i'm no longer capable of looking at obama without the thought "self-serving megalomaniacal fraud!" simultaneously coming to mind. so sitting through the whole thing would only have felt like a sham. but i did watch both clintons' speeches, which i thought were admirably delivered. a nagging part of me wishes i could heed their call. god knows that if anyone could convince me to vote for someone i despise, they could. but i realized soon after their speeches that even they couldn't do it for me. i imagine a lot of other folks feel the same way. i feel...heartbroken.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

what I did do was check the text of the speech for the word "sixteen" or "16".... as in Obama's commitment to get the US out of Iraq in 16 months.

It ain't there.

Which says all you need to know about Barack Obama, and how meaningful anything he says is.

Try it yourself...

cal1942's picture
Submitted by cal1942 on

Like Paul_Lukasiak I couldn't stand to watch and instead read the transcript.

Obama said he'd end the war responsibly, which brought immediately to mind Nixon's pledge to end the Vietnam War with "honor." And we all know what happened next.

His pledge "to protect Social Security for future generations." is completely open-ended. That could mean anything, including benefit cuts. I wanted to hear 'scheduled Social Security benefits guaranteed as a major priority.'

More talk about tax cuts. Not what the country really needs. That's a phrase we'd be better off without.

A lot of obligatory boilerplate, nicely written. Shots tying McCain to Bush, but without a really hard assault on Republican ideology.

Submitted by jawbone on

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

He doesn't mention some of Hillary's ideas, like capping amount any person must pay at a percentage of earinings, but he did say he would open the Fed insurance program to regular people. The bit about if you have insurance, he'll lower premiums is pretty vague--and does that mean if you're being bled dry but have insurance you can't get into the Fed insurance? And how does this fit with his U of Chicago magic hand of market folks?

Submitted by gob on

No time to critique properly, but two things: one is that the Congresscritters' coverage is a very nice plan with a quite hefty premium (which of course the critters can easily afford), according to one of our local critters. This is just a sound bite that played well when someone trotted it out a while ago and subsequently goes on display whenever somebody wants to sound like they're going to do something.

Other thing: see DCblogger's latest and other posts in the series, and you can easily do your own critique. It's really not that complex.

Policy not party!

Submitted by lambert on

" I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most."

OK, but the real issue is pre-existing conditions. That's a well-known phrase anybody understands. But Obama didn't use it; he said "are sick." That to me means that the real issue is not addressed. WORM, again (see FISA; "Hillary would be on anybody's list; etc.)

And if there's no mandate it won't work. And the platform is garbage that keeps the insurance companies as gatekeepers.

Submitted by hipparchia on

"are sick" is better than "pre-existing conditions" because those of us who have [or had] insurance and get sick still get stiffed [or dumped, or both] by the insurance companies.

Submitted by lambert on

and maybe I'm wrong on the numbers. I thought that pre-existing was the larger population.

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

Submitted by hipparchia on

among the numbers i've seen [you're going to ask for linky goodness, aren't you?] are 45 million uninsured and 50 million under-insured [under-insured being those who have insurance but wouldn't be able to afford the copays, deductibles, out-of-pocket maximums, etc].

also hard to get solid numbers [since nobody is required to report any of it] on how many people get delayed treatment, or denied treatment, or less than sufficient treatment, or just plain get dropped in the middle of their treatment.

Submitted by cg.eye on

Mike Malloy's reading emails and taking phone calls from listeners who are characterizing McCain veep pick as a sign of his lechery.

As in imitating John Edwards/Bill Clinton/generic Southern letch and hollering, "I saw her first!"

Then they criticize McCain for thinking women are so stupid to think they'd vote for Palin, who is obviously a token with her lack of executive experience.


They're projecting, aren't they?

Has everyone forgotten what projection is, or is it so new to see supposed progressive Democrats do it?

Mike J.'s picture
Submitted by Mike J. on

I think the most tragic aspect of this convention (apart from the fact it seemed like a slow-motion seppuku) was the self-abasement of the Clintons. Sure, they gave great speeches, but they gave them in support of someone who is, quite frankly, unworthy of the nomination and of their support. I felt their endorsements were made under duress, and I feel the two were greatly diminished by the experience. I doubt we will see Hillary running in 2012, and even if we do, I'm not sure I can support her again. Her embrace of Obama, the show she put on in support of him, his vile supporters, and the unappreciative party, really made her look like someone in an abusive relationship from which she is unable to escape.

The contrast between the beaten-down Hillary, who was relentlessly spat upon by a huge faction of her own party, and the proud and confident Sarah Palin, who will have to endure no such treatment from the GOP and actually seems to enjoy McCain's admiration and respect (something Obama could never muster toward his rival), was unbearable. I can scarcely imagine what must have been going through Hillary's head as she congratulated Palin on her nomination. It was when Palin spoke of the 18 million cracks in the ceiling that I wholeheartedly went over to the McCain camp.

Submitted by lambert on

Both Clintons came out of the convention in fine shape. The stupid "they didn't do enough" thing is now dead, and anybody who heard those two speeches saw two great politicians at the top of their game. And Bill Clinton schooled Obama on populism.

I think Palin is a smart move and a thumb in the eye for Obama, and I'm happy to see the usual suspects exhibiting their generic hatred in the general, because maybe somebody will figure out the harm they do and slap them around. But I can't imagine voting for McCain because of Palin.

Now, if McCain made a grand bargain with Paul on euthanizing the empire... Well, that would be interesting, no?

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

Mike J.'s picture
Submitted by Mike J. on

The Clintons gave their emphatic support and got nothing in return. Yeah, they put to rest (although that may be a premature judgment--something tells me we'll see that meme return, particularly should Obama lose) the idiotic accusations they didn't do enough to support Obama. Since the accusations were unwarranted to begin with, I see that as no great win for the Clintons.

It would be nice if Bill actually could school Obama in anything. Alas, Bill's speech will have little impact except perhaps giving Obama some pointers on what rhetoric to incorporate in his speeches. I doubt there will be substantive impact on Obama's policies.

The Clintons are also far from being on top of their game. If they were, one of them would have been the nominee. Instead, we saw two defeated politicians putting the best face on a bad situation. They lost their round of the fight over the future course of the party. But our turn is yet to come. On November 4 we'll have a choice between endorsing Obama, his policies, and his methods (that includes "the usual suspects" you allude to above), and rejecting him and the course he is charting for the party. I'll vote for Democrats up and down the ticket, as I always do--except when it comes to the top of the ballot.

As to euthanizing the empire, I will vote for McCain in large part because I believe he's much more likely to end the war in Iraq than Obama. It was Eisenhower who ended the Korean War, Nixon who ended the Vietnam War, and McCain who will end the Iraq War. They can do such things because nobody, least of all the Democrats, can accuse them of being soft on communism, terrorism, whatever else one can be accused of being soft on. The Democrats, by contrast, are utter cowards when it comes to national security matters. They could not bring themselves to confront Bush even after the regained Congress, and they will do nothing to provoke the accusations they are soft on something should they regain the White House. .

Submitted by lambert on

Like searching Obama's speech for 16 or sixteen as Paul did.

I don't think HIllary was at the top of her game until after Feb, after which a combination of caucus manipulation and outright theft, our famously free press, and DNC chicanery handed the victory to Obama.

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

Mike J.'s picture
Submitted by Mike J. on

Yup, this is wholly counterintuitive, yet sadly true. If you look at the Cold War, for example, the relations between US and USSR almost invariably worsened during Democratic administrations, and improved during Republican ones. Eisenhower ended the Korean War, while Kennedy almost got us into a nuclear war over Cuba, waged a campaign of state-sponsored terrorism against Castro, and of course got us into Vietnam from which Johnson could not extricate himself.

Then along came Nixon, who ended Vietnam War, went to China, signed a bunch of arms control treaties with the Soviets (including the ABM Treaty Bush abrogated in 2001), and ushered in the era of detente. But by the end of the Carter administration we were boycotting the Moscow olympics, arming the Afghan mujahedeen, and embarking on a major strategic build-up (Reagan is blamed or credited for these, but they originated with Carter).

Reagan, by contrast, comes in with a strident anti-Soviet message (evil empire and all that), but by the end of the second term he's all chummy with Gorby and the Cold War is practically over. George H.W. Bush merely puts the icing on the cake.

This pattern shows no evidence of changing in the near future. Obama's actions (flag pin, FISA vote, implicit threat to use force against Iran he made at the AIPAC conference, the hedging on withdrawal from Iraq, the promise to expand the Army, etc.) show him to be insecure on national security matters. Historically, that insecurity has translated into unnecessary belligerence on part of Democratic presidents. The fact that Republican presidents, by contrast, were unassailable on national security grounds meant they could safely negotiate treaties, peace agreements, and the like with our adversaries.

So it's not too early to ask yourself, "whom will Obama bomb"? Because, you know, he'll have to prove to "the village" he is "serious" when it comes to national security matters...

McCain, on the other hand, doesn't have to prove anything to anyone. I have much more confidence in his foreign policy skill and judgment than I have in Obama's.

Submitted by cg.eye on

against Clinton was that she characterized herself as a victim?

I might have doubts that Clinton will ever get a shot at the presidency without constant smearing and hatred, but *she* doesn't have doubts about getting what she wants for the people she thinks need it.

That's why she was a fucking role model, or weren't you paying attention?

A fighter gets back up. She always has. Clinton has a huge reservoir of respect from non-Villagers -- you know, those people she represents in NYC, those who voted for her or Bill, those who were disgusted by the constant witchhunts... shall I go on? It wasn't a huge faction of her party that hated her; it was the faction with control over the mike.


Mike J.'s picture
Submitted by Mike J. on

...and a Bush enabler. The whole victim thing paled in comparison.

Yes, she was a fighter, and a role model. But the Obamaoids defeated her in the end, and for good. After such an effusive praise of Obama's qualities, there is little possibility she can run against him in 2012, no matter how badly he does. She effectively foreclosed that option in Denver. At the very least I hope the Clintons extracted a promise of Supreme Court nomination for Hillary, because right now that's her best remaining option.

Submitted by cg.eye on

to their insults, the most powerful of which was their accusations of racism.

They attacked her on every level of her being, then attacked her for crying because her supporters stood by her. Everyone knew the attacks on racism were specious; their racism was exposed because they really didn't care about the fate of black people in this election, as long at they are good proles and vote.

And how in the hell do you see Clinton snagging a SC nomination, if she's so destroyed by accusations of her character? Her stance on children's rights -- her signature issue as a lawyer -- will be seen as radical as approving children making their own porn. If Congress killed her healthcare plan and impeached her husband, then through surrogates resurrected Whitewater slanders, what do you think Blue Dogs Dems will dig up, at the direction of their GOP masters?

She has no options other than being the best damn senator NY has. That just might be enough, at least for her people.

Mike J.'s picture
Submitted by Mike J. on

There's no way Obamoids would tolerate her ascent to the Supreme Court. What was I thinking? Of course, nobody seems to be objecting to Biden's role in helping Clarence Thomas overcome Anita Hill, but having Hillary become his colleague would no doubt be intolerable to them. Glad to know where today's Democratic Party's priorities lie.

In other words, Clinton's defeat is complete and irreversible. The party has finally rid itself of these insufferable white trash hicks from Arkansas. Now, in the process it has rid itself of quite a few voters like me, but that's apparently acceptable collateral damage.

oceansandmountains's picture
Submitted by oceansandmountains on

Hillary is a professional politican. She has relationships (that include both pressures and incentives) with other politicians that the rest of us don't have. You and I are much freer in the sense of being able to scream at the TV, stomp off and zip off a letter to the editor. For her own political future, she can't do that.

I find this talk of a SCOTUS nomination for Hillary really weird. She's far too much of an advocate to relegated to SCOTUS, weighing in on a very tiny number of cases (an even tinier number of which impact public life---Rehnquist and now Roberts aren't about to make the Court do too much). Talk of SCOTUS for Hillary, having been a favorite way of disposing of Hillary for the DKos crowd, is really off the wall.

Mike J.'s picture
Submitted by Mike J. on

You make it sound like the Supreme Court is some kind of Siberia, where unwanted politicians are sent off to die. Yet with every election cycle (including this one) we are bombarded with horror scenarios of what is going to happen to Roe v. Wade should McCain be elected President because, the story goes, he'll appoint a slew of Scalias and Rehnquists. Gee, so I guess it does matter who sits on that bench? And if it does, why not someone like Hillary? Do you think she'd turn it down if offered the position? Yeah, maybe it's a "tiny number of cases" but it's only the authoritative interpretation of the Constitution that we are talking about... Over a couple of decades the cumulative effect of her presence on that court would be enormous.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

The SC *is* Siberia for a natural politician. Yes, I do think she'd turn it down if it was offered-- which it won't be.

I agree with you that she'd have an enormous impact on the Court if she ever got there, but it's not what she does. She's a skilled politician with an enormous capacity to dissect policy, and a brand-new but incredibly powerful ability to lead people. That's what she does and who she is.

Spending her life sequestered from the public and poring over the tiny points of constitutional law in a monk's cell is not what makes her tick, and it would be a terrible squandering of her true gifts.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

under any circumstances I can imagine run against a sitting Democratic president. That's totally ridiculous.

I'm amazed there are still people here who haven't a clue who the Clintons are. They are not and never will be leaders of or even participants in an insurrection. For good or ill, they are party people through and through.

This may be too difficult to get your head around, but they actually believe very strongly that as bad as Obama is, he is worlds better than any Republican, and they will support him to the very best of their ability rather than sit back and let John McCain be president without a fight.

I'm in a totally blue state and don't have to worry about my vote or balance my disillusionment with the Democratic Party and my disgust with Obama against the prospect of a McCain presidency, so I can afford not to have to make the choice the Clintons have.

I thought Hillary's speech was just stunning, and she managed it without really talking about Obama, but about Democratic principles. She lost absolutely nothing in giving that speech. Bill went a good deal further down the Obama road, for reasons only he could ever explain, but his semi-capitulation is honestly irrelevant in this.

I think it's becoming less and less likely that Obama will win this thing in November, and if he fails, Hillary's odds of being the next nominee are extremely high. She's kept her nose clean with the party and she was the obvious class act of the convention.

Mike J.'s picture
Submitted by Mike J. on

You don't like Obama, you'd prefer Hillary, and you understand she could never run against Obama no matter how catastrophic his first (and likely, only) term would be, but you still are going to do everything you can to ensure an Obama victory? So that Hillary can never run again (let's face it, she ain't running in 2016) and Obama gets defeated in 2012 by a reinvented, re-energized GOP?

I guess the whole thing hinges on our respective assessments of McCain/Palin. I simply don't buy into your thesis that any Republican is worse than any Democrat. I used to volunteer on behalf of John Barrow (D-GA), who is basically a DINO. Anti-abortion, pro-war, you know the rest. Now I am in a district in a swing state represented by a very moderate Republican who is none of the things Barrow is. If the two were actually running against one each other, would I ever vote for Barrow? Highly unlikely.

It's the same with McCain. He's an old school conservative, his views have been shaped by military service, and his reputation for independence is well deserved. I trust him and I know what I can expect from him. I cannot say the same thing of Obama. I believe him to be a power-hungry opportunist with no discernible political principles. If that's who you want to be your president, and your party's bearer, that's certainly your prerogative, but I think you'll understand why some of us have made a different choice.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

Hard to tell because, if so, you've put a bunch of words in my mouth and leaped to some false conclusions.

I didn't say *I* would "do everything I can to ensure an Obama victory," nor did I say my thesis was that "any Democrat is better than any Republican."

What I did say was that those are the Clintons' operating principles, which is why she would never challenge a sitting president, as Teddy Kennedy did so disastrously.

For the record, I'm not even going to vote for Obama, never mind do anything to help him win beyond that, and if the grossly misogynistic treatment of Palin from Dem. Party figures continues as it has, I may well vote for McCain in the end because there's a limit to what I'm capable of putting up with before I explode.

The any Dem/any Republican thing is a larger conundrum, but suffice it to say I've only voted once or twice in my life for a Republican, and that was a long time ago before the current insane crowd took over the party so completely. At this point, I have zero respect for or trust in anyone, even the local dogcatcher, who is willing to continue to associate him or herself with the Republican Party after the last 20 years. (I agree entirely that McCain is no Bush, but he's been utterly comfortable making kissy-face with him and the rest of the grotesque GOP establishment, so he doesn't get many points from me. OTOH, I'm not trembling in terror at the possibility he may win.)

Problem for me is, my disgust with the Dem. Party is growing exponentially, so that leaves me with not much to choose from.

So please, don't give me that condescending "I think you'll understand why some of us have made a different choice."

Submitted by cg.eye on

the only difference between 1992 and now is that the Villagers' control of the media and of DNC policy is complete. That's why she lost when she could have won; she accepted their advice to game the primaries, as they told Obama to game the caucuses, then they decided who won.

Mike J.'s picture
Submitted by Mike J. on

I think you are entirely correct, Hillary's defeat is largely due to the fact the establishment has embraced Obama, who is the safe, status-quo, anti-change (regardless of what his campaign rhetoric says) candidate. I don't underestimate the Clintons, but you should not overestimate them either. They contested the control of the Democratic Party and were thoroughly beaten. Their reputations were dragged through the mud and in the end emerged diminished by the experience. This ain't the GOP '76 convention where Reagan, though defeated, was nevertheless loved by his party, and could stage a comeback in 1980 (but only, mind you, because Ford lost to Carter). Hillary does not have the level of support Reagan had, and Reagan did not face the sort of adamant opposition and, frankly, ridicule, Hillary is facing.

So, you can spin it all you want, but all we were looking at were two politicians trying to salvage what they could from the wreckage and putting the best face on a bad situation. The party has turned away from them, the DNC is now in Chicago, and they will have no control over its future direction. I also don't buy the argument she'll be a powerful senator. All of her colleagues endorsed Obama and strongly urged her to drop out of the race. And now they are going to welcome her back with open arms?

Submitted by cg.eye on

in this thread is a burial of the Clintons.

I mean, you talk intelligently about what's ahead for McCain and Obama, but you always bring the subject around to 'wreckage', 'destroyed'. Words matter, and it's as if you can't speak about her in a way the Village can't.

If you actually read the posts responding to you, you would have seen that *I* pointed out the futility of Clinton being nominated for the SC. It isn't because I think she's been damaged as a politician; I think her image has been so solidified by the Village that they can no longer speak of her without derision -- therefore, even if they should find a purpose for her there, their 180-degree spin to liking her again would not work, not on MSNBC, CNN and certainly not FOX.

But also note I said she will continue to be the best damn senator New York State could have, right now, primarily due to her national standing. She fought like a champ, despite her misstep in trusting the Village one damn bit to be fair, either in advising her or reporting on her. I won't dismiss one bit of her strength. In your rush to seize upon the new, I wish you'd stop dismissing it, too.

Oh, I forgot this bit about "welcoming her back with open arms"? Fuck, sir, they still consider Lieberman a colleague. Men indicted and convicted of crimes still get a pat on the fucking back. Did you forget this was Congress?

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

"In other words, Clinton’s defeat is complete and irreversible. The party has finally rid itself of these insufferable white trash hicks from Arkansas."

I truly find this a very, very curious comment. First of all, you hugely underestimate the Clintons.

Secondly, I don't understand what you think they could have done at the convention that would have put them in a better position than they are now-- set back, but in no way defeated. Both of them kept their heads high, gave great speeches, showed what leaders actually look like, and shamed the heck out of the people in the party who've been denigrating them.

They are quite obviously hugely popular within most of the party and well poised to come back if Obama is defeated. I doubt there weren't more than a few at that convention who were shoved onto the Obama bandwagon who at this point deeply regret it. Hillary is in by far the best position of any defeated candidate of my lifetime.

And if Obama by some chance pulls out the November election, she will become a major power in the Senate. (She hasn't the slighest interest in being a SC justice, clearly, so that's not even relevant.)

tnjen's picture
Submitted by tnjen on stronger than ever. And should she run in 2012, the same things that happened this time won't happen again for a multitude of reasons.

PB 2.0 - Supplement the wonk!

Mike J.'s picture
Submitted by Mike J. on

...won't happen if Obama is president. This is only a plausible (but not likely) scenario if McCain wins.

Mike J.'s picture
Submitted by Mike J. on

...guess who gets the blame? I'll give you one hint: it ain't gonna be Obama. The old story about how the Clintons tried to sabotage Obama so that Hillary could run again in 2012 will make a strong comeback, mark my words. The "progressive blogosphere" and the MSM will see to that. And I don't see Howard Dean rushing to take any part of the blame either. As I recall, shortly before Hillary conceded, he said it is the task of the losing candidate (i.e., Hillary) to unify the party. I fully expect him to stand by that statement in the event of Obama's loss.

gyrfalcon's picture
Submitted by gyrfalcon on

What will then be the "bitter enders" (heh) will certainly try to pin the blame on her, or at least some of it, but her behavior has been so scrupulously correct, not to mention downright inspiring, I doubt that will stick much. Barring some other nobody coming out of nowhere with a good line, I don't see anybody on the horizon who would be able to seriously challenge Hillary in 2012 if Obama loses.

And if you imagine Hillary isn't going to be a power in the Senate, I'll give you a hint: Watch her.

There were all sorts of dark suggestions from the Orange and their ilk that she would be shunned when she went back for the first time after conceding, and instead she was greeted like a conquering hero, swarmed by other senators as completely as Obama was when he visited.

Do I need to point out that that would not happen if her Senate colleagues expected her to be a defeated and powerless figure from then on? Um, not.

I think you perhaps don't quite get how professional politicians operate. By and large, they see much of this as a big game and do not, with rare exceptions (apparently Obama is one of those exceptions) sulk and nurse grievances. They get even eventually with people who screw them (watch out, Bill Richardson) but until they can slip in the dagger, they make nice, especially with the people who have power or incipient power. That's what the Clintons were doing at the convention, and that's what the Senators were doing with Hillary.

You and I don't have to play that game (couldn't if we tried, I suspect) and it's just a mistake to think that our feelings of anger and betrayal are felt by the politicians in the same way.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I think this is a case of lightening not striking twice in the same place, or striking in the same place only a few times. I think only Obama could have pulled something off like that, and I couldn't imagine Kerry, for instance, pulling off a stadium appearance like that.

The stadium was neither good, nor bad, it was simply Obama. Conventions are usually built around the nominee, so it's not going to be the same thing twice. Obama's stadium affair does not set any kind of precedent that must be followed in 2012. This is not a "let's see how many bodies we can pack into a stadium" game.

Submitted by lambert on

Ezra had a comment (I'm too lazy to find the link) about coming out of the reconditioned air and fluorescent light of the convention center to the free air and sunshine of the stadium. There's something to be said for that. Thank God the white columns didn't look grandiose on TV, because they sure did in print.

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

Submitted by cg.eye on

are concrete bunkers with some nice furnishings. Delegates had to walk a hell of a lot, on concrete for four days, then walk long distances for food and drink, and for parties at which they really couldn't binge, because of the altitude:

Combined with the vote suppression shenanigans (remember all those states that didn't even get to say *their* witty intros, even though they went for Obama fairly), and they weren't having a wonderful time. Invesco Field got them out, got them dancing, got them pumped by representatives of traditional Democratic constituencies, saying what needed to be said. I think the air did help.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

I was working yesterday (more global warming to help avert!), which gave me time to think about the last week. Here is my conclusion:

The fight is over, the Obamacans and Obamaism lost.

WHAT you say?

Yeah sure, they planned and forced through a ocnvention which seemed to be everything they wanted, The Villagers were all giddy and the shiny, pretty light show really got them all excited, but that is the height of the Obamacan accomplishment. The vast majority of the Democratic party which wanted no part of "uniting" with Republicans in some kind of post-partisan, Kumbaya future, WON.

It should have been evident in how wildly the delegate crowd (both Obama AND Hillary supporters) reacted to Hillary's red meat, Democrats first, policy-driven appeal to support Obama. The only hand-wringing regarding no personal Obama CiC endorsement from her came from the Village. Hillary will never win the Village, but she won the Democratic party back for Democrats. The second piece of evidence is the central role they gave Bill Clinton, the four main moments of the convention were Michelle, Hillary, Bill, Barack. The Obamas were the bread of a Clinton sandwich. I could go on with that analogy but....

The next piece of evidence was Obama's speech. Sure if you search the following words they aren't there: progressive, liberal, union, etc, but the following isn't there either: bipartisan. "Partisan" is only there to combat Republican smearing of Democrat's patriotism. Well I'm down with that! Obama's speech had none of his post-partisan schtick, if very little of the red meat that made the Clinton sandwich so tasty, but the bread is usually bland (oops, I'll stop on that now).

The final piece of evidence however is the reaction to McCain's pick of Palin. Indeed, McCain's pick in itself, was the evidence of the end of Obamaism as defined by post-partisan appeals. McCain could have picked Lieberman and defused that, instead, the Republicans picked Palin because they smelled major blood in the water, and the Democratic reaction was serious fear. At first they went the sexist route, now they are going the "she doesn't represent Clinton's policies" route. They need Clinton policy voters and I call that success. They have admitted defeat, despite what Obama said previously they are NOT sure they can get Clintons voters and I predict you wil see a serious effort now to get them back. Donna Brazille's bullshit about not needing the "old" Democratic coalition has proven an unrealistic failure.

Mission accomplished.


Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

daily democrat's picture
Submitted by daily democrat on

but what sort of environmentalist can use the "red meat" metaphor twice in one post?

and what about the Mission Accomplished motif?? Scary connotations there, eh?

These points aside, I agree with you...the bullshit about the Obama campaign not needing the Clintons was reversed at the convention, at least for its duration.

On the other hand, a real win for the Clinton Democrats would require more than just sandwich filling lip-service; Obamalot would need to recognize that the Clintons don't form part of some past politics to transcend, but part of interrupted arc of positive change that we desperately needed in 1992 and need even more desperately now.

As Anglachel said in a recent post:

For 40 years, since 1968, the American political landscape has been dominated by the most compact, fanatical, ideologically radical party in the West today. They have brutalized their opponents and despoiled the nation. The crises of our nation (vs. some rather pedestrian political screw ups) have been caused by this group that simply does not agree that we should be a democratic nation. This is not "gridlock" - this is political survival. They have over-reached and now is the time to seize a political opportunity.

read more at:

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

If this is winning, I'd hate to see what losing feels like. That we had to force Democratic positions onto the Democratic nominee doesn't show me we won, at all. At most, we broke even. We shouldn't even have to be fighting the "Obamacans", particularly in a year where folks were screaming for a real change back to more Democratic principles.

When we have to pull the Democratic nominee's arm behind his back until we make him say "Democrat" doesn't seem like a win, to me. That the genuine Democrats have to play defense within their own party in a slame-dunk Democratic year speaks to something disturbing.