Corrente

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

Tainted love: how *not* to make Clinton supporters your sweeties

vastleft's picture

Air America Radio host Thom Hartmann sent this out in an e-mail blast this morning (emphasis added):

The issue at hand for the Democratic Party for winning in ‘08 is not losing to McCain but losing to a divided Democratic party. The first thing Obama should do if nominated is put Hillary on the ticket. Will the Republicans have a field day with her on the ticket? Yes! Is their [sic] some bad blood in the water due to some negative campaign strategies on the part of the Clintons? Probably. Can Hillary be a tough fighter able to play tough allowing Obama to stay higher above the fray? Yes!

Thom, here's a book you oughta go check out. It might clarify a thing or two for you.

Even if we pardon the faux pas of prematurely declaring your camp victorious and, thus, in the position to make magnanimous offers, this is magnanimity of a rather shoddy sort.

Why must your peace offering ratify the notion of "bad blood in the water due to some negative campaign strategies on the part of the Clintons," casting Obama's prospective understudy as a naughty, tail-between-her-legs bitch, a tough-tough junkyard dog who will bare her fangs so Obama can remain classily "above the fray"?

Even Richard Mellon Scaife is repentant, yet you insist that the GOP will have "a field day with her on the ticket." Where have ya been, man? For weeks, the talking point has been that Hillary's voters are crossovers sent by Rush. Why must you imply that offering Hillary a spot on the ticket would be a gutsy act of largess, not something she's earned through — among other things — her amply proven popularity?

We've seen the same "let's-be-friends-but-your-issues-are-still-illegitimate" gambit here, where upgrading (downgrading?) us from racists to trash-talkers is supposed to pass for understanding and a segue into "Kumbaya."

Real friendship isn't offered with the back of your hand.

You want to start healing wounds? Don't insist that we never had a right to our concerns. Tell us that you know our tears were never fake and that we're more than likable enough.

Do you actually think we won't notice that you're still treating us like damaged (and damaging) goods?

Us Bubbas may be stupid, but we're not that stupid.

0
No votes yet

Comments

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

The more I re-read Hartmann's message, the more backhanded I realized it was.

Somebody's playing the pipes of peace way out of tune.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

That's what abusers tell their victims.

"We're a team. You and me baby!"

"I only hit you cuz I love you so much."

"That other guy won't care about you as much as I do."

"I'll change, I promise I will."

Sound familiar?

------------------------------------------------
“The Clintons' biggest failure is that they couldn't get their own party to support them.” - Bartcop

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

ways. (and dadburn your nym is hard to type!) 'for the children,' that is. yes, i can see why HRC folks believe she has every right, and should, fight it out to the 'bitter' end. i agree. i also agree she deserves (snicker) a chance to experience life in the next admin, in some high ranking role. what fun that's going to be, not. but anyway, my sarcasm aside, and dammit i keep saying this, why can't we "think of the children?"

and ick, isn't that just right to describe our relations with our political leaders today. we Little People as unthinking children who need a Mommy or a Daddy to tell them what's good, right, what we must do, when to go to bed, how few legal rights we have, lies to pacify us...

but anyway, my point is that lots and lots, practically every last one i've spoken with, of the voting Children in the dem party, and even some out of the party, tell me they want Mommy and Daddy to get along. i honestly believe that would be, if not a guaranteed winning ticket, one that could kick mccain's lying, doddering, warmongering ass in the fall, if as a campaign they could learn to play to their strengths- both have some formidable and complimentary ones. it's the "dream ticket" in that i'm probably just dreaming here; the two campaigns seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and piss off every regular, Little Person supporter in the process. whatever, you all know i've totally lost interest in this subject and i'll go back to my normal 'anything but the horse race' blog reading/commenting/posting.

Submitted by lambert on

I do understand that many feel that a joint ticket is best (modulo the question of who's the candidate for President, and who for VP). I remember one article that explained how to get 16 years of Dem dominance out of it by gaming the XXth Amendment about Presidential succession...

That said, it takes two. And it takes the front runner, which Obama still is, to make the first move. Unfortunately, they've locked themselves into the pledged delegate metric talking point, which is, quite simply, a lie of Bushian, "create our own reality," order, with the press helping every step of the way. It's hard to see how you can negotiate from that premise (though granted I'm not a professional). It gets even funnier when you realize that Obama can't pick another woman, as if all women were interchangeable....

Now, I'm obviously not a professional. But from the outside, it looks to me like the only thing to do is fight tooth and nail every step of the way -- even putting to one side silly ideas like you shouldn't smear fellow Democrats as racists, and you shouldn't leverage misogyny for anti-Clinton votes -- to get the best deal possible in the divorce. Eh?

I think it's also a misconception that what we are seeing is wholly a primary contest. In reality, what we're seeing is the emergence of the Obama Movement as a permanent, institutionalized presence independent of the Democratic Party; that's what the independent database means; that's what the independent registration drive means. From that standpoint, victory in Novemeber is the nice-to-have; control of the party machinery is the have-to-have. That's why splitting the party, and discarding the portions of it that may require government services, is not accidental, but essential.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

dana b's picture
Submitted by dana b on

Lambert,

I was fascinated by this that you wrote:

"I think it’s also a misconception that what we are seeing is wholly a primary contest. In reality, what we’re seeing is the emergence of the Obama Movement as a permanent, institutionalized presence independent of the Democratic Party; that’s what the independent database means; that’s what the independent registration drive means. From that standpoint, victory in Novemeber is the nice-to-have; control of the party machinery is the have-to-have. That’s why splitting the party, and discarding the portions of it that may require government services, is not accidental, but essential."

What you wrote made me stop and think if perhaps the Obama for Prez campaign might actually be a "Movement" afterall. I have dismissed Obamicons as politically incoherent group of people wanting all sorts of things. They manage to stay together by smoothing over their differences with the mantra of "change" and fixating on their (to them) charismatic candidate.

The campaign has seemed to me to be an inflated personal life story (Obama's), not a movement. Since movements and movement politics arise from regular people organized around issues of local, regional and international concerns, the Obama campaign hasn't qualified in my mind as a movement.

But your highlighting of their registration drive and their own database makes me wonder . . .

But I'm still a doubter. Kerry, too had his database during and after the 2004 campaign on which I volunteered. For years I received his e-mails. Until the day he endorsed Obama and I got my first Obama e-mail because of their sharing. I unsubscribed from both right away.

So what I'm trying to say is that a database and a mailing list and even registering of voters are a set of tools, but I don't think they will suffice to creat a movement beyond the excitement generated by his personal story and his personality.

cal1942's picture
Submitted by cal1942 on

Under the wine track configuration the Democratic Party becomes this century's version of the old Whig Party. Elitist, arrogant losers.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

"We need to stay together for the sake of the children party"

Isn't that what the suddenly sweet OFB (who have been abusing us for months) are telling us now?

------------------------------------------------
“The Clintons' biggest failure is that they couldn't get their own party to support them.” - Bartcop

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

actually believe what they're spewing?

I wouldn't know because I stopped listing to AAR months ago: between Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, Ed Schultz and Hartmann, it had become unbearable. Now it's music all the time in my car.

And I cannot believe no one in the media or the Democratic establishment has not noticed the hardening of the Clinton supporters.

Submitted by lambert on

No.

They are just like the rest of our famously free press (with the exception of a few courageous individuals*).

NOTE * For whom a track record over years is essential. Shit, look at K.O. Or WKJM.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

my point is that lots and lots, practically every last one i’ve spoken with, of the voting Children in the dem party, and even some out of the party, tell me they want Mommy and Daddy to get along.

There are different ways for Mommy and Daddy to get along. And there's a difference between "I'll give you a reason to cry" and "Let's go to counseling."

koshembos's picture
Submitted by koshembos on

There several separate issues in the unity ticket.

Let's start from the motivation. In finally dawned on Obama and his skin heads that they split the party. They realize that they angered us enough for us to give them the finger. After all the splitting and spitting they don't want to lose, but they see it coming. Now, Obama downs to all 4 and offers Hillary a candy.

Here is where the second issue shows up. Hillary as a woman knows not to take candies from strangers, especially from mean and nasty ones. Let's face it, VP for a megalomaniac such as obama is more of a punishment than a candy. Hillary's influence will be zero. Her chances in 2012 non existent and if it gets to 2016, Obama will leave the country in a worse shape than Bush. After all, Bush got the country from Bill while Obama start much worse and will go downhill even further.

Now we get to the last issue. Obama is desperate; he destroyed a great chance the Democrats had to just walk into the White House. Now he comes up with a magic solution; he pretends to be Hillary as well. Well guy, we are for Hillary's policies, we may like her, but it's the policies stupid. We are not going to vote for your policies just because Hillary agreed to be VP.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

re: "Us Bubbas may be stupid, but we’re not that stupid."

my uncle the dairy farmer had a slightly different way of stating this.

he liked to say:

"i may be ignorant, but i ain't stupid."

and he wasn't either, not by a country mile.

Submitted by lambert on

Haw.

Deserving of wider circulation. Great headline for some post. For example, a post like that I wish I had time to do, giving Obama's Coronation Speech in IA the full treatment -- he was surely repeating his bullshit about his mandate-free plan being universal, and I bet the rest of the speech is as solid bullshit as that.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

i hope clinton goes all the way to denver and takes the nomination.

there is no reason in my mind that she should not. in fact, a good argument can be made that she has an obligation to the democratic party and to the nation to do so. if she does NOT, then

- the democratic party will have a much poorer chance of prevailing in the fall.

- the nation will have an incompetent president (obama or mccain)

by now, with her fighting spirit burned into the national consciousness,

senator clinton is on the verge of becoming a national heroine (no, i am not being hyperbolic here; i am being accurately descriptive of reality)

she would beat mccain by leagues;

senator obama will just limp across the finish line.

if you have not done so yet,

you MUST go to anglachel's journal (anglachel.blogspot.com) and read her two posts - "legitimacy, not unity" and "equivocal oregon win".

pay close attention to the two comments about what happened to the democratic party in 1972 which appear in that second little essay.

then come back and tell me that clinton should not be the democratic nominee.

Bluegrass Poet's picture
Submitted by Bluegrass Poet on

just made me depressed so I quit listening a long time ago.

I don't care for bloviating from the left any more than from the right. (It's why I like to read here, no bloviating.)

I make an exception of Al Franken's show. It was quiet and considered as well as humorous.

myiq2xu, I haven't even seen the false apologies from the Obama camp yet. Just statements like the one I saw in comments at TalkLeft this morning -- that Roe v Wade would make women come "back to reality."

Nice way to patronize your women.

Iphie's picture
Submitted by Iphie on

And I'm beginning to come around to thinking that McCain may not be that much worse for the country. Not because his intentions aren't worse, but because if McCain is president, we will ostensibly still have an opposition party in congress who will have the support of their base behind them when (if) they stand up to McCain.

The same cannot be said of Obama. We have seen how the Obamanation rears up and attacks anyone who dares question their Precious. The Obamanation isn't supporting a cause, or a core set of principles, they are supporting a personality, and that personality must not be questioned. If our Democratic leadership is so cowed by him when he is a candidate, will they be able to be anything more than a rubber-stamp for him when he is president?

And I don't trust that his will be a progressive agenda. I don't trust anything about him and nothing in his public history could lead me to believe that his beliefs are anything but malleable.

I do not want to see the One Who Cannot be Questioned become president with a congress that is far too responsive to the bullying of the OFB. That sounds like a disaster (or many of them) in waiting.

I will never vote for McCain, but I'm becoming increasingly certain that I will never vote for Obama either. The incredibly insulting "outreach" that he and his supporters are doing is only making it worse.

leah's picture
Submitted by leah on

Look, it is simply outrageous for you to use an image like "skinhead" to describe Obama or any of his followers. Maybe you think it's clever to use a term that is defined by hatred of blacks and Jews, but it isn't.

If you are suggesting some cult factor in the Obama movement, the skinhead trope is still a ridiculous one. That you use it in a comment in which you seem to actually believe that Obama is "on all fours," (oh, you mean like an animal?), when, in fact, he is winning the nomination, just makes you and Corrente look ridiculous.

I'll tell you all why I promise a post and then there is no post. And I do appreciate the puppies, truly I do. I'm working on three posts right at this moment - what impedes me is the degree of nonsense I'm seeing being thrown up in what has become an epic war of Dem on Dem violence, and the I also find the heaping mounds of bullshit added on a daily basis, and I don't mean primarily here at Corrente, but all over the increasingly bloody blogisphere, is so hard to keep current with, that's why I'm having difficulty posting.

And for me, it's important to keep up with it, and to attempt to reason with it.

And then there's the anger. I'm not afraid of anger, there is a place for it in political discussion, but I feel as though we have all begun to drown in it.

Just so you'll know that this is not about over-reacting to my own blog, among the posts I've been working on, one was an attempt to engage Zenophon in a reasoned discussion of the complex relationships between racism and sexism, and the history thereof, one is a sort of open letter to blogs and bloggers who have been highly critical of the critique going on at Corrente, a post that defends this blog and critiques the critique. And the third is my own critique of the dominant anti-Obama critique here at Corrente. And there's a fourth, too, about the way the Clinton-hatred just keeps rolling along, like "Ol Man River." I will try and get something up today.

Corrine, Thom Hartmann is a true liberal/progressive; he's written a series of excellent books, which I can recommend highly. I haven't been listening to Air America since Franken left, so I can't and won't attempt to defend how his support of Obama has manifested itself, and you may have been quite right to give up on listening to him after a week. Just don't assume that means he is some kind of faux-progressive to whom no one should ever pay attention. I understand that is not what you said specifically, but it is implied, and whether any of you realize it or not, there's a whiff of self-satisfaction and assumed infallibility beginning to emanate from here.

I'm thinking especially of the many times I'm assured by various commentators that there is simply no way that Obama can win the general election. I'm not talking about reasoned arguments about why he may not have as good a chance to beat McCain as Hillary, but such arguments are, at best, educated guesses, because none of you can know for sure that Obama can't win, and "megalomaniac,?"

What candidate running to be the President of the US can't that be said about? Obama's going to leave the country in worse shape than Dubya? And then there's this: "Now we get to the last issue. Obama is desperate; he destroyed a great chance the Democrats had to just walk into the White House."

I'm sorry, but that statement sounds nothing less than crazy. Obama is not desperate. How did he destroy Democratic chances? By running against Hillary? This reminds of nothing so much as the constant reiteration by the OFB and the SCLM that Hillary will do anything to win, which, when examined closely, seems to mean, she'll do anything to win, even run for office.

None of this critique is aimed at VastLeft's original post.

Submitted by lambert on

Vehement agreement:

... Among the posts I’ve been working on, one was an attempt to engage Xenophon in a reasoned discussion of the complex relationships between racism and sexism.. [lambert mentally adds: classism]

This is a discussion that must be engaged. It's critical in all senses of the word (including "going critical"). So far as I can tell, this blog is one of the few -- the only? -- to address it, which makes us rare and important. We should all think of the Michael Vick permathread -- veterans will know what that means -- as a tremendous investment by us all in figuring out a way to talk about this issues without spiralling off into total ugliness.

UPDATE It is also better to post immediately, and be imperfect, than to post later, and be imperfect.

In other words, you might consider rising above keeping current with the cut-and-thrust; do what only you can do.

Rise above! Pro-Obama, there's the entire press and most of the A-list, and they're fulling capable of keeping current. As is the "dwindling band of paranoid holdouts" that are Pro-Hillary. All the points will be made somewhere.

As far as "destroy," see here.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

Maybe he has a voice that's better suited to print than radio.

Just don’t assume that means he is some kind of faux-progressive to whom no one should ever pay attention. I understand that is not what you said specifically, but it is implied, and whether any of you realize it or not, there’s a whiff of self-satisfaction and assumed infallibility beginning to emanate from here.

Let me parse that statement a bit.

1. "Just don’t assume that means he is some kind of faux-progressive to whom no one should ever pay attention."

I never made that assumption nor should it be ascribed to me. The man is boring. I don't care how progressive he is, he bored me to tears. Kind of hard to communicate how progressive he is if nobody is listening. Nor does it encourage me to read any of his books, so I'll pass, thanks.

2. "I understand that is not what you said specifically, but it is implied, and whether any of you realize it or not, there’s a whiff of self-satisfaction and assumed infallibility beginning to emanate from here."

What is implied? That he is a faux-progressive? That conclusion can be drawn by analyzing the content of Hartmann's message.

"A whiff of self-satisfaction and assumed infallibility"? From what? That could be the stench coming from the OFB...

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Ditto on your criticism of "skinhead" and "all fours."

I don't see how those images elevate the discussion. And I say that as someone who isn't shy about, say, the Kool-Aid metaphor.

Skinhead of course refers to the sort of people who would go after an Obama in horrifying ways for the basest of reasons. And dehumanizing, degrading talk like "all fours" is no better than calling Hillary a bitch.

As long as we recognize and repudiate talk that crosses lines of decency and fair play, I wouldn't say we're drowning. But we should, as Garp's son reminded us, "look out for the undertoad. "

BoGardiner's picture
Submitted by BoGardiner on

What a TOTAL ass.

I hope to GOD Hillary turns down VP.

"Allowing Obama to stay HIGHER"?!?

That is SO outrageous.

I've been trying to listen to him off and on for months, but this is the last straw. He has truly lost the remaining respect I had for him.

wasabi's picture
Submitted by wasabi on

The VP's job during the GE run-up, traditionally, is to attack the opposing party while leaving the Pres candidate to keep his/her hands clean. I think that's all he meant by that. I think Clinton would be great in that role, although I would hope she'd be at the top of the ticket.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I have been growing increasingly distressed by the democratic party of the last decade. My anger about Obama and his "movement" isn't so much about him, it's about the recognition that the selection of him - and how it's being done - is making me realize something that's been a long time coming - the Democratic party isn't all that in sync with my values anymore. There are individual democrats who are, but the party itself has grown corrupt, self-serving, and completely uninterested in pursuing policies aimed at social justice and helping average Americans.

I finally figured out what I'm going to say to Nancy and Harry and Howard when I write them this weekend. I was a democrat for 20 years for two reasons: 1) the party most closely matched my values, and 2) the party was determined to beat republicans (who do not in any way match my values). I've been increasingly frustrated and angry with the party over the past decade or, if I'm being honest, longer. This campaign has simply made it clear why - the democratic party no longer fulfills either of those two things for me.

I've listened to progressives willing to write off some of the poorest parts of the country as being somehow irredeemably racist and so undeserving of even being asked for their vote. I've watched party leaders sit silent in the face of MSM misogyny. I've seen race baiting against fellow democrats that I never thought I'd see. Party leaders caring more about independent and Republican voters than democrats in the primary. The clusterfuck of disenfranchising two critical swing states (tell me again how the democrats are determined to beat McCain and the GOP?). Progressive voices refusing to push back as the frontrunner tacks right on everything from healthcare to praising Republican deregulation or hold Obama's feet to the fire on any issue. Democrats cheering in droves for the guy who says that the partisanship is equally both sides' fault (tell me again how the Democrats are so dedicated to beating the GOP?).

It's not that Clinton is some leftist savior, she's not. But she at least talks like a Democrat. And, she knows how government works. I cannot believe given the giant clusterfuck that is being left behind, the Democrats think it's a good thing to turn over the Presidency to someone with 2 years in the Senate and 2 years campaigning for the presidency. In addition to my policy beliefs, on some level, I just believe that to be incredibly irresponsible.

And the entire time, we get Congressional Democrats still trying to back door telecom immunity. Still approving enormous Iraq War Supplementals. Still writing sternly worded letters protesting whatever the latest Administration disaster. Sitting mostly silent as Wall Street collapses, taking their corporate checks and hoping it all works out.

Don't get me wrong, I would never vote for McCain. But I believe we're in a battle for our country and I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the Democratic party is no longer up to the task. Some of them are, but the party overall has grown lazy and scared of its own shadow. They are more interested in winning over the corporate media narrative than changing it. All of which makes it a lot more difficult for me to care whether the "party" comes together to defeat McCain or not. Because increasingly, the party is not my party.

Right now I feel like I don't have a party. And I have to tell you, it's kind of liberating. I get to vote for whoever I want without feeling any duty owed or violated. And, hey, who knows maybe the party will finally care again about earning my vote. Because it hasn't since at least 2000.

Come to think of it, I think 2000 damaged the party more than it's been willing to admit. The party got rolled by Rove and Co. and, in so doing, lost a core part of itself. I suspect we're going to see even more upheaval in the party, maybe a complete transformation or dying out to form something new. If so, I don't think it will be traced as beginning this year, I think it began in 2000. It's just this year brought the fissures out.

This was written very fast so I'm sure it's not very clear or well done. I'll try to do a clearer post next time.

Submitted by lambert on

... I wish Hipparchia would write that post on feminism (womanism?) and corporations as fictive persons. The focus of the last NWP was amendments, not office (I have only the vaguest knowledge of all this). That could work....

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by hipparchia on

these two grant proposals and this one bid on a contract for me, and oh yeah, i can has python nao plz?

also, there's still my malcolm x post to finish. they were originally going to be sorta companion pieces. i'm truly torn over which glass ceiling we should smash first.

Submitted by lambert on

surely? Though cryptic when the pros get going I grant.

At least it's legible and fun to write in! Unlike PHP, which syntactically is just hideous...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by hipparchia on

[so far]

i haven't had to do my own programming since fortran was the up-and-coming language [or somehwere thereabouts]. it's less the particular language and more a generalized culture shock, i think.

Submitted by hipparchia on

but then i'm pretty much in agreement with you on all kinds of stuff.

i still don't quite know whether to laugh or cry when i see some far right wingnut try to demonize either obama or clinton for being a lefty.

something you might find entertaining [or not]-- i live in a very religious and socially conservative part of florida and my conservative friends and neighbors are saying they'll vote for either hillary or barack before they'll vote for mccain... because mccain is too liberal.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

you've voice my objections as clearly as can be done.

thanks.

dcblue:

[ I’ve listened to progressives willing to write off some of the poorest parts of the country as being somehow irredeemably racist and so undeserving of even being asked for their vote. I’ve watched party leaders sit silent in the face of MSM misogyny. I’ve seen race baiting against fellow democrats that I never thought I’d see. Party leaders caring more about independent and Republican voters than democrats in the primary. The clusterfuck of disenfranchising two critical swing states (tell me again how the democrats are determined to beat McCain and the GOP?). Progressive voices refusing to push back as the frontrunner tacks right on everything from healthcare to praising Republican deregulation or hold Obama’s feet to the fire on any issue. Democrats cheering in droves for the guy who says that the partisanship is equally both sides’ fault (tell me again how the Democrats are so dedicated to beating the GOP?). ]

the dnc position can be summarized:

we know what's good for the party,

we're going to make it happen,

just shut up and vote for it.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Is that Obama has essentially been running against the Democratic party. Lecturing it on how it's been divisive, how it's not always the party of ideas, on how pro-choice forces needed to understand the morality of abortion, claiming to want to go back to the foreign policy of Reagan and Nixon, saying he wouldn't raise capital gains taxes above Reagan levels. At every turn, he's chosen by and large to use the very media narrative that has been killing the democratic party for at least 25 years. And it would be one thing if he won the primary by simply clinching the number of pledged delegates through the primaries and caucuses, but he isn't. He's run against the party and in return the party leaders are going to put him in charge of the party.

That's why I'm upset. It's not Obama or his movement, it's how weak and pathetic it's revealed the party to be. Just as they've rewarded the GOP time and time again for kicking them in the teeth, they're going to do the same to Obama. We finally have the GOP on the ropes and the party is going ot nominate a guy who uses a lot of their same talking points? What kind of party does that?