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

Oh, now it's blackmail

Charlie Cook:

One of the most salient arguments made these days by superdelegates is the fear of what would happen to the party if Obama were to be spurned.

Even if they wanted to nominate Clinton, the fear of damage to the party is sufficient to argue against it. Between the newbies — the young and new voters who are so enthusiastic for Obama — and the black community — who ironically were somewhat late to join the Obama bandwagon after his Iowa win — the fallout from a spurning of Obama would be profound.

Well, splendid. Vote for me, or I take my ball and go home.

Hey, remember when there used to be actual reasons -- however weak -- to vote for Obama? Happy days. Now, it's just a straight power play.

Obviously, loyal Democrats, and women, and working people would never do anything to harm the Party or the "creative class" [cough] or The Precious.

Even if they do throw Universal Health Care under the bus.

I guess that means we have to figure out how to inflict more pain than the OFB's willing to.

Maybe I need to rethink that concept of voting for Obama in the general, and change my sig. After all, the only response to blackmail is "Publish, and be damned." Because otherwise, it goes on and on and on.

NOTE Link via Taylor Marsh.

UPDATE Leah reminds me to quote this from Cook as well:

If this campaign’s events were in a political novel, it would seem so far-fetched as to be laughable. But here we are.

Well, as Elizabeth Edwards pointed out, it seems like a novel because it is a novel:

Watching the campaign unfold, I saw how the press gravitated toward a narrative template for the campaign, searching out characters as if for a novel...

If you haven't read her Op-Ed in the Times, do so now..

No votes yet


BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

A huge mistake by Obama's supporters. A sign of desperation and likely not to work. The risk of losing the AA vote needs to be unstated. The SDs know it's there, but the minute you start threatening it, it makes you look like you're willing to divide the party. Plus, SDs have egos, too, and I can't believe they are going to enjoy being blackmailed any more than voters. And to start it right before Indiana, a majority white state Obama needs to win, is even stupider because I can't believe white voters are going to react well to this.

I also don't think other voting groups, at least as critical as AAs, are going to react well to this. Like white women. Like hispanics.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

that of his voting blocs, only AA are loyal and dependable voters--young people aren't and upper-income people swing sometimes, and certainly you can't depend on party-switchers or INDs at all--they have no established loyalty to voting Dem no matter what, which is opposite to Hillary's blocs.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on


Now, let me think. When was the last time Kentucky went blue in a presidential election. Oh, right, the last time the election resulted in a democratic President.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and Obama pitching his schtick to millenials and trashing everyone older has been another big mistake---once Boomers got the presidency with Bill, they'll never give it up til the Millenials are ready--for the next 30 years it'll be Boomer presidents-- and the older the voter, the more reliable they are, partywise and turnoutwise. Boomers are now entering into SS age, and will be the biggest voting bloc for a long time to come.

koshembos's picture
Submitted by koshembos on

The party establishment had never resisted Bush; the same mind set will bring them to do the same for Obama. They always find the path of least resistance and they never fail to stab the loyals in the back.

The African American community should be considered an important factor, but ignoring Hispanics, Asian, women and blue collar workers is not a sound approach either.

Let's nominate Edwards; it's the only solution that doesn't offend half the party.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

that rank-and-file African Americans will leave the Dems in droves if Obama is not the nominee. Just because the "creative class" [ah-hem] is stupid enough to think the Clinton's are racist, doesn't mean the African-American community is stupid.

Also, the young people who would stay home if Hillary is the nominee probably wouldn't have voted in November anyway since Obama's prospects would be so bleak by then, they'd have little reason to vote. The voters you can count on will still be there.

These threats are as empty as Obama' experience and campaign substance.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Nominate the white guy who dropped out because he kept losing primaries? I prefer him too, but that just wouldn't work, anymore than nominating Gore. It's gotta be the black guy or the dame.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Nominate the white guy who dropped out because he kept losing primaries? I prefer him too, but that just wouldn’t work, anymore than nominating Gore. It’s gotta be the black guy or the dame.

I personally think that Clinton would step aside for Edwards.

I'm sure she's gotten used to the idea that she might not be the nominee -- and I think that if Obama had not been her competition, she might have bowed out. She's stayed in, and worked her ass off, for the last two and a half months because she wants to make sure that a Democrat wins. (Its not like the Clinton campaign doesn't do oppo research, and wasn't aware of how vulnerable Obama was...)

And Clinton is smart enough to realize that if there were to be a schism in the party, her nomination would be worth a lot less. Right now, the only question is whether Obama is lucid enough to see the writing on the wall -- and the problem is that I doubt he is. Only someone completely out of touch with political reality would think he could get away with saying he was surprised by Wright's comments this weekend.

And he's obviously surrounded himself with sycophants -- a presidential candidate can't retreat when he's in trouble, he has to deal with issues head on in an honet and forthright fashion. If Obama had any real political sense, he'd have been doing a 'listening tour' like Clinton did in upstate New York, and would have taken up Clinton's offer to debate, and made all his questions to Clinton about the concerns of working class and rural voters.

But his political instincts suck. Its all about him, not the voters, and when you forget that its really about the voters, the voters will forget about you.

koshembos's picture
Submitted by koshembos on

Just trying to throw a starting point for constructive solutions. Actually, I saw Edwards doing a lousy job campaigning and didn't like it then. Both Obama and Clinton will lose in the general. I blame Obama, but it doesn't help.

If the Democrats want to win they must be creative. We still have John Lewis, Jesse Jackson and may be Bill Clinton has a mystery twin brother or he can change his name to Bill Obama.

Let's try to be creative otherwise it's McOldBushTimeWarScalia.

Historiann's picture
Submitted by Historiann on

Hey, I liked him too and supported him initially, but he's a proven loser at getting actual, you know, votes. He couldn't even carry his own state in 2004 for the Kerry-Edwards ticket, and only came in second after practically living in Iowa for 2 years.

I really admire Edwards and Gore, but I think this idea of a white man riding into town and saving the party is a pipedream, and moreover, if it actually happened, it would be worse than the situation that either Obama or Clinton will face. If one of them is the nominee, they'll only have to make amends to half of the party. If some guy who never ran for President, or who dropped out in February swooped into Denver to "save" us, he'd have a large proportion of both Clinton and Obama supporters to placate. The optics are just bad, and anti-democratic (as well as anti-Democratic). Many of us are very excited about the possibility of nominating our first female or our first African American presidential candidate, and won't want to give that up.

The primary has been good for the party. Registration is up everywhere there's a contested primary. 11 million people watched the last debate. It's only political geeks on the interwebs like us who are wringing our hands and worrying.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

--they should have already impeached and convicted the administration, and stopped all war funding, and ensured the GOP was worse than mud, and not allowed Patriot Act and spying and all these horrors, etc--and they won't do it under McCain either.

Since McCain is actually a colleague, they'll cave even more, i bet.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I'm not even sure Obama is, although right now I think he's a weaker candidate.

The economy is collapsing - food rationing, gas prices through the roof, foreclosures at record rates, a broken healthcare system. And then there's Iraq.

The economy is likely to be the number 1 issue this fall and it's McCain's weakest. He sucks at talking about the economy. Hell, he's admitted he doesn't know anything about it. People might like him - although I have a feeling he isn't going to wear very well - but they aren't going to like what he's going to do for them or, more accurately, to them.

I think Romney would've been a more dangerous candidate. He was entirely wrong, but with his background in business he could speak to economic issues more fluently than McCain and has a resume that at least might suggest he understands the economy.

McCain is a one-trick pony, Iraq, and that's a trick nobody agrees with him on and which is unlikely to be the most important thing in November anyway.

Any time I get down, I simply imagine Hillary and McCain debating on the economy. She'll rip him a new one. She'll do to him what her husband did to Bob Dole, thank him for his service and show him the door.

I have less confidence in Obama, but I also am beginning to think he won't be the nominee. Or, if he is the nominee it will be because he becomes a much better candidate in the next two weeks.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

elections are about, and the media follows--it won't be the economy, bec the media doesn't even really cover it now, and doesn't want to--it's a downer and doesn't have any zing or drama or spectacle...

It'll be good, decent, American war hero, straight-talking maverick McCain who was tortured for our sins for years VS. either evil, castrating, cackling, mother-in-law, b*tch Hillary, or wimpy, elite, "other", unAmerican, unmanly, Black radical Obama.

Imelda Blahnik's picture
Submitted by Imelda Blahnik on

You think Hillary would "step aside" for Edwards???? That she's stayed in the race to make sure "a Democrat" would win? And once she's sure that *some* Dem will win, then TSBWQ?

Uh, not on my planet. Normally you are brimming with insight but on this one....not so much.

She's innit to winnit.

Or am I just really dense and that's snark?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

of elections being about pocketbook issues for me, sadly.

We're in a pattern of Republican decimating govt and then Dems coming in to repair but not making any progress, then Republicans doing it again--and worse--then us coming in to repair it again...

and all during this, we keep falling further and further behind, quality of life and moving up and wages and rights and protections and economy and jobs and infrastructure and common good-wise.

In 88 the economy was terrible and Bush 1 was clueless about it too--didn't help. In 2000, the economy was great--didn't help. All thru the 70s, the economy sucked, and Carter only got in bec of Watergate, not at all bec of the economy.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

of human stupidity.

I believe that was Robert A. Heinlein.

Real ponies don't oink - Patrick McManus

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

she will step aside for the good of the party. Yes, she is in it to winnit, but she understands that having a Dem is more important. If there was a powerful movement to bring in someone to "heal" the party, who had a better chance at winning the GE(that's why she doesn't stop now, she doesn't think Obama can, but believes she will), she could be influenced to step aside. But that would depend on who was brought in to lead the ticket, too. If she felt they weren't a better choice, she'd fight it tooth and nail. And I honestly don't believe there is a better choice than one of the candidates who have endured the primaries.

Kinda OT, but I've seen an increased call for a Unity ticket. Some being pushed by tepid Obama supporters who like the guy, but are starting to feel he can't get elected at the top of the ticket, others by Clinton supporters who think we need to patronizingly appeal to his voters if he loses, and others by Obama supporters who think Clinton supporters can be placated as well.

I'm calling bullshit on this right now. While Clinton has remained open to a Unity ticket, Obama has not. Clinton because she thinks it will heal, and Obama because he already has his VP choice. IMO it's a Red State Dem, like Webb(oh-looky it's a former Republican, that will play well with the Boiz) or Daschle. Possible Kennedy or Kerry, because he is in trouble in MA. But regardless, it's a bad idea. Having Clinton as VP would be rubbing salt in many wounds this primary season has opened, the better qualified woman having to play second fiddle, being expected to do a lot of the hard work(many have said she could take advantage of Cheney's Fifth Branch manipulations, like that's progressive), while the quick grinning popular guy gets the credit? Please.

Plus Obama's entire appeal is that he transcends politics, does the new deal. But a VP's primary role in the campaign is to be an attack dog, something Edwards failed at, IMO, but maybe it's just harder to come off meaner than Cheney. Obama can't do confrontational like that, he's more of a snide remark behind your back kind of guy. He wouldn't be able to do it, and I at least respect his belief that he wouldn't want to be VP to Clinton, but then again, that was when he was flying high, he might sing a different tune come August. But I also believe that many of his CDS supporters would take that as a personal affront, and accuse him of betraying the movement, and abstain from the presidential race as well.

A Unity ticket will not work. I think it should be Clinton/Clark.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

LostClown's picture
Submitted by LostClown on

he would be able to accept the VP spot. I don't see him humbling himself that much.

jeqal's picture
Submitted by jeqal on

Theoretically, I know that Hill should not have mentioned it publicly, but you know, screw that. It was on the table, and a great way to see what people thought, especially on blogs, media and in the emails.
I think that the fact that Obama could not even consider it, but chide it was a bad show.

I think there was a better way for him to handle it that would have been less divisive.

But he is not someone who thinks about anything other than himself.

I don't see him really giving a rat's behind about me or any issue peeps like me have, will have or have ever had.

“Democrats have a habit of falling in love with candidates on the first date.”

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

is if the SDs force Clinton to accept it to get the nomination. If they decide to go with her, I could see them wanting this out of fear with AAs. Any other way, it doesn't happen, IMO.