Grow Up

There’s been talk that some of you are unhappy about the process used by the Democratic Party to select its presidential nominee. You’re so unhappy, in fact, you are threatening to boycott the democratic process if your candidate doesn’t win as a result of the other candidate receiving more delegates under the system you don’t like.

Well, I have one thing to say to that: Grow up.

A lot of things in life aren’t fair. Do we ever change them by quitting? No, no we don’t.

I imagine that many of you who are ready to walk away from democracy could ever claim that life has been unfair to you. I bet very few of you have ever been faced with real hardship. I’m also sure many of you have never had to really fight for something...and I’m not talking about that time you fought to convince your parents to give you a cell phone.

Listen, there has been far too much blood spilled in the name of this democracy for you to just walk away because things didn’t go your way this time. Far too many people died to secure this democracy and far too many have died to protect it.

This is a free country, though, and you’re welcome to walk away if you want. Before you do, I want you to do me one favor. I want you to step into this field of white stone and tell these sons and daughters of America that you just can’t be bothered to do your part for this democracy.

Too far to travel? OK, look into the eyes of a Gold Star Mom or a disabled veteran. Let them know how unfair you think the democratic process is. I’m sure they could tell you a thing or two about what is and isn’t fair. Oh, and while you’re at it, make sure you thank them for their sacrifices.

Maybe I’m being a little hard on you. Maybe it’s your first time participating in this messy thing called democracy. Maybe I should lighten up.

OK. I tell you what. I’ll lighten up if you’ll do this for me: Put away your blankie, take your thumb out of your mouth, pull up your big boy/big girl pants, get off your couch and go vote. Vote in May. Vote in November. Vote in special elections. Vote in municipal elections. Vote every chance you get. You know you can do it. It’s not like I’m asking you to stand in front of a bullet or drive over an IED.

Comments

Angry doesn't begin to describe how I feel......

...but I will not give up.

This whole mess was fueled by Obama when he said this:

OBAMA: I think there is no doubt that [Hillary Clinton] has higher negatives than any of the remaining Democratic candidates, that's just a fact. And there are some who will not vote for her. I have no doubt that once the nomination contest is over, I will get the people who voted for her. Now the question is, could she get the people who voted for me?

Keith Olbermann played that clip of Obama's interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network back on his show on January 23, 2008. Compare that with what Hillary was quoted as saying on the same day.

As soon as we have a nominee, we will be strongly united because the most important thing is to put a Democrat in the white house starting in January 2009.

I don't support either Clinton or Obama. I will vote for one of them in May and I will make calls, organize, work polls in November for the eventual nominee.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Bullshit, dear.

Cherry picking one of the few decent things Clinton has said in this campaign doesn't even begin to make up for this:

PS. You know I love you

And I'm sorry you're so angry about all this. I'm angry for many of the same reasons, but for some different ones as well. I believe we're teetering on the brink of what the Christianists have wanted all along: self-inflicted end times. A brokered convention that installs Clinton through votes of the super-delegates will be an unmitigated disaster for generations to come. Some have argued that it could trigger a new kind of civil war. That wouldn't surprise me one bit. But the more likely outcome is that millions and millions of people will say "f*ck off" to the Democratic party.

Yeah, right

fear-monger much? Now this will cause a "new kind of" war. Riiiiiight.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

No fear, just fact.

In the interest of clarifying, that "new kind of war" would very likely be a seismic shift in the national Democratic party, with the splitting of the new school (as opposed to the old school) into a third party.

I actually agree with him.

If an African-American goes into the convention with the most delegates and then has the nomination go to the white candidate because of insider "Super Delegates", it will end the African-American dedication to the Democratic Party for a generation.

I am so undecided on this race that I have decided to support which ever candidate ends up with the most pledged delegates come convention time.

I'll vote for JRE in the NC Primary.

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Interesting.

I'll vote for JRE in the NC Primary

I understand why you're doing this. I wonder how many votes he'll get?

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Sorry Robert, I don't buy it...

I have never seen you in Neutral.... If I could say who our person would be, JRE would be in, but you already know that. Our real choice is limited to B, or H. Find the best in one of them and push. John Edwards is not through. We will see him again.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

I never said she hasn't said some

awful things, but you could at least find something that is on topic, OK? The topic is.....the threat to not back the Dem nominee in November. If Obama has been organizing people only to vote for him and then holds out that the threat that his followers will only participate if he's the nominee....well then....let's have a discussion about that.

I wasn't cherry-picking the one good thing Clinton has said. I was quoting what I could find she said ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC.

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

He's exactly right

Now the question is, could she get the people who voted for me?

It's a fact that in open primaries Obama attracts all the unaffiliated and new voters and yes even a few republicans. If you think these will just all vote for Hillary if she's the candidate I think you're a bit delusional.
I don't see any problem with what Obama said there.

Of course you don't

You are one of those dreamy-eyed followers who has most certainly drunk the Kool-Aid, eaten the cake and learned the secret handshake. The fact is, he's supposed to be against politics as usual, but there he goes playing the game. He's implying that his followers are only in it for him....that he's the only way to win in November. It's a type of fear-mongering. He's basically saying, "Go with me or Dems lose big because I'm not going to motivate my people to get behind someone else."

That is bull shit. ....and I have to give a disclaimer....I was in the "anybody but Hillary" camp for a very long time. Don't even imagine that I'm a big fan of hers.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

thanks for belittling me

Do you honestly believe that independents and republicans who voted for Obama in open primaries will just vote for any Democratic candidate? or did they vote for him?
I don't think they will just switch to Hillary if she's the candidate and I can't see how anyone would believe otherwise.
That's all that Obama quote is about.
It would be different if he had said that he didn't believe all registered Democrats would vote for Hillary in a general election (judging by some phone calls we're getting in our local party office he would have even be right on that one), but he didn't say that.

I was teasing you....I happen to know you aren't dreamy-eyed

I've actually seen you in person. Sorry it came across that way. Oh, and yes, I know a lot of unaffiliated voters and a handful of Republicans who would vote for Hillary over a Republican. Sorry, but I do.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

OK, OK...so....your eyes are dreamy

Is it cake or Kool-aid you don't like....cause I know you know that secret handshake.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Someone can look up the poll data.

But, Chris Matthews talked yesterday about a poll related to the question being addressed. The poll showed that Clinton kept more Democrats against McCain, while Obama had more defect to McCain. However, Obama drew more indys and republicans to Democrats.

The question really came down to, what happens after 8 months of negative campaigning?

Nobody knows.

However, everyone that talks about Obama drawing Republicans should know that McCain draws more Democrats than Obama does Republicans. Anyone who uses this as an argument for Clinton should think about the fact that she draws way less indys and republicans than Obama.

One of the pitfalls of childhood is that one doesn't have to understand something to feel it. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

There are at least two ways

There are at least two ways to view Obama's comment (and I don't mean the pro-Obama way versus the pro-Clinton way). One way to look at it is in terms of whether it is accurate or not; the other way to look at is is in terms of whether he should have said it or not.

On the former, Obama's campaign has drawn a lot of independents and a lot of Republicans. If you're inclined to believe that the policies of the candidates are pretty close, then you're left with differences in style. And if independents and Republicans are voting for Obama because they prefer his style over Clinton's style, it is a valid question of whether or not those supporters in particular would vote for Clinton in a general election. And in spite of Obama's statement to the contrary, the same could be said for Clinton's supporters voting for him. She could make the same argument, but she didn't... (either because she knows better than to say that, or because she views the field in a very different way) which brings us to the second point.

On the latter, she clearly said what she should have said... that in the end, we're all Democrats and we desperately need a Democrat in the White House. He could have said that, especially in light of the fact that he's a Democrat and he's running for the Democratic nomination, but if he is truly trying to draw non-Democrats into the fold, he shouldn't say "we should do this because we're all Democrats" because in all of his supporters aren't Democrats.

And that's why this process is frustrating me. I'm an Obama advocate because I think we have the opportunity to get out of this "red state / blue state" mentality. I understand that we, as Democrats, can win under the right circumstances with the red state / blue state rules, and Clinton will get my vote in the primary if that's the battle we choose to wage. But I don't like the "red state / blue state" mentality, and I don't think she gets us past that. Obama gives us the opportunity to redraw those lines and rewrite the rules of those politics (or to at least attempt to redraw and rewrite) in a way that Clinton can't.

But....if they are Obama followers

regardless of whether they have an R, D, I/U or L by their names, then they must be seeking dramatic change from what the Republicans have given us the past 7 years. If Obama doesn't win the nomination, of the two remaining candidates, Clinton is far more likely than McCain to bring about change. That being said.....it doesn't matter who he is trying to attract or what they have by their names....if they have the same goals then it isn't much of a stretch for him to say he will encourage them to put a Democrat in the White House. He didn't say that. He didn't even hint at it. Rather, he left the threat out there that his followers won't support anybody else.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Your point is valid...

But....if they are Obama followers regardless of whether they have an R, D, I/U or L by their names, then they must be seeking dramatic change from what the Republicans have given us the past 7 years.

Your point here is valid if voters are looking for a shift in policy. Both Clinton and Obama represent a greater change from the policies of the last 7 years better than McCain does. For example, any step towards a better healthcare system is a positive step, whether it's Obama's plan or Clinton's plan (especially in McCain's absence of a plan). Democrats will agree on the shift in policy.

But, if voters are looking for a shift in the atmosphere -- in the tactics, in the trench warfare, in the language of politics -- they are seeking dramatic change from what the electorate has been getting for many years. They will view Clinton has a rehash of the earlier Clinton presidency, not for her policies but for her politics. In that case, they'll remember her tactics from her original healthcare reform and view it as more of the same.

Here is where the split occurs... Clinton's lesson on politics (and I'm generalizing) seems to be that we need to fight back with bigger weapons, stronger volleys, better tactics, and more ammunition (same rules, better execution). Obama's lesson on politics, as least until now, has been we need to change the level of political discourse. Policies seem to suffer from politics and to get past that, we need to speak in a different language (different rules). He's at a critical moment in his campaign because, as he learned on Tuesday, not everyone wants to play by his new rules, and if he doesn't play by his own new rules, he can no longer promise the shift in the atmosphere.

You're right here

I don't know if Clinton has better campaign tactics. Her campaign has offered nothing new as far as strategy is concerned. If you love to study campaign strategy, she offers nothing new. Obama wins this one hands down.

I think that Obama still has to prove that he will do what it takes to win. He has to handle missteps better than he has. These two things are smaller hurdles than they once were. The longer he takes the high road, the more latitude I think most people are willing to give him. Also, as long as Obama and his campaign/surrogates deal with facts, it's not an attack. He will have to come out swinging with more finesse to avoid looking like he's stooping to the politics of old, but I do think it is possible.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

dan is exactly right...

...in pointing out that there is a huge desire for a change in tone, and that both mccain and clinton seem to represent a similar way of "doing politics".

to be blunt, that's the source of my anti-clinton bias.

now clearly, if forced, i'll hold my nose and vote for her...but lots of "new" participants won't feel the connection to the democratic apparatus that core d constituencies already have...and it's not exactly fair to ask obama to convince these new participants to support him and a political apparatus they currently distrust, both at the same time.

here's an alternative question: what can howard dean do, in a "candidate-neutral" way, to embrace these new participants, and give them a long-term connection to the d party that lasts beyond this electoral cycle?

a second question: how might dean work with the dccc to move that support "down-ticket", so as to infuence the future makeup of the house and senate?

as party leader, dean has been handed the chance of a generation to change the zero-sum game that is today's political environment...and in my estimation, his ability to bring these new voters into the fold--and to keep them voting--might be the most important part of his legacy to the party...should he choose to embrace that legacy.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

Doh!

I think my original response to this was lost in the void. It was elegant, it was persuasive, and unfortunately for me, it was too long to retype. So, I will do what I should have done the first time -- make it concise.

what can howard dean do, in a "candidate-neutral" way, to embrace these new participants, and give them a long-term connection to the d party that lasts beyond this electoral cycle?

The Party needs to do the same things that the campaigns have been doing for new participants. Educate them on the process, inform them on the platform, and engage them in the here-and-now. These three activities within the campaigns give new participants a "home" -- a place where they fit in and can find people similar to them in opinion, and close to them in geography. The campaigns then go a step further by engaging them in local activities that allow them to interact with others and to be part of the larger cause. This reinforces the commitment and makes the politics personal.

We have this massive outpouring of grassroots support, but our precinct level organization -- the backbone of our infrastructure -- is suboptimal. We need to pull the new participants into that infrastructure; Dean has his 50 State Strategy, Meek has his 100 County Strategy, and now we need the counties to implement a similar N-Precinct Strategy to cultivate new participants into engaged activists. Again, each of those new participants needs to have a "home" within the Party, and after linking them with like-minded people, we need their involvement at the precinct level.

how might dean work with the dccc to move that support "down-ticket", so as to infuence the future makeup of the house and senate?

If you can engage the participants, you should see a natural benefit to the "down-ticket" races. Candidates and elected officials will need to make them same efforts as Obama and Clinton to engage the electorate, but I don't think you'll find much push back from the candidates, especially if you pave the way for them. The Party (at any level) can help build an infrastructure online that facilitates open communication, transparency, and networking for everyone on the ticket.

One of the discussions here on BlueNC that caught my attention early on was on that topic. Neither candidates nor officials should have to "reinvent the wheel" and we could do wonders by institutionalizing the approach.

assuming that much of this new support...

...is younger than the current "average" voter, might we seek to engage thse folks socially?

for example, an organizing drive for a county committee might have a spring bbq, with music as a draw...and a chance to "meet n greet" the local candidates.

asking for donations--and keeping close to those who do so, using the required contact info--would be a great way to identify those who are more committed...and seeking volunteers at such an event would be another.

adding a social element to the "call center" thing could pay dividends as well...and if it was done well, it could become a chance to "meet n greet" other like minded volunteers...making volunteering a "win-win" for the candidates--and the volunteers, as well.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

Absolutely.

Both Ron Paul and Obama's campaigns did an excellent job of connecting the online presence with social reinforcement. Social reinforcement isn't new in politics by any stretch of the word ... the difference is in the execution.

You have to connect (1) the online element (communication, fundraising, and connecting) to (2) the social contact (to reinforce the community and reiterate the call to action) with (3) follow-up communications with another call to action. Make it easy, make it a real experience, and then make it worth sharing.

None of it has to be big... in fact, making it small lowers the cost of getting involved. All of it should be coordinated (but not controlled).

In other words, after the BBQ social, tell the participants about the NEXT event (whether it's a BBQ or a forum) and tell them to tell others. Ask them to forward emails (or call friends) and to bring more people into the community. Keep track of all of this and let them see the fruits of their actions first hand.

However...

I believe there is a fallacy in this line of thinking. It assumes that these "new voters" will easily assimilate into the party structure, even with the tools suggested above.

I believe this is an error.

It is true that some will join the party organization, but the vast majority are dedicated to the individual and the "cause." Once they are faced with "organization," "structure," and platforms that they don't 100% agree with, they disappear into the woodwork for another four years. These voters are important, in that they can get us to victory, but only if it's on their explicit terms. Otherwise we will have "sold out," in their opinion.

I know there are better people than me to coordinate these people; I just can't deal with fly-by-night, individuals caught up in the emotional state of some perceived political messiah. But...I'm more interested in the governing aspect, and it seems these voters are more likely to complain about issues, but then are nowhere around when it comes time to shape and negotiate public policy, b/c that's "selling out" again.

I'm not sure it's fair to paint all of these "new voters" with

I'm not sure it's fair to paint all of these "new voters" with the same brush, Capt. The large percentage that I've spoken with here may have come into the process for a "political messiah", but are very interested in flexing political muscles, and have found that having a voice for the first time (or rather - using it for the first time) feels pretty damn good. I think we're going to see party structure change a bit over the upcoming several years, and it's about time, too.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Political muscle, that's the ticket

i heard a stat in an NPR story today that was focusing on the Obama and Clinton campaigns' voter registration efforts in PA. So far this year (or over the last year) Dem registration is up about 100,000 while Rep registration has dropped 13,000.
Gotta like those numbers. Even only a reletively few don't "disappear", that's still thousands of new energized party members.

Person County Democrats

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

Can we get an Amen

Everyday I deal with exactly this in my local party.

Fair point, but not a fallacy

You raise a fair point. Not every new voter will easily assimilate into the party structure, but then again, not every old voter assimilates into the party structure either.

There is a reason voter turnout trends higher during Presidential Elections and significantly lower at other times. Most voters, whether new or old, need to make a connection with a particular candidate or a particular issue to show up. For many, it is a candidate (or a campaign) that provides that galvanizing stimulus to motivate and direct action.

You sound like you've made a connection with the organization, structure and platform. (Or, perhaps you're just better educated about the importance of these elements than most.) I believe our long term goal should be to cultivate those new voters (or to nurture those older voters) so that they too can contribute to the organization, structure, and platform.

The key question, in my opinion, is whether or not you believe that the party structure as it stands is the best that it can be. I don't think that there is any harm to better engaging the electorate and trying to pull the new voters into the party structure, or where appropriate, changing the party structure to be more effective.

I don't want to rub at this sore too much

right now, because I have a lot of internal (me) arguments to settle before I start running my mouth again and bring Jerimee down :)(plus we have a few elections looming), but this:

You sound like you've made a connection with the organization, structure and platform. (Or, perhaps you're just better educated about the importance of these elements than most.) I believe our long term goal should be to cultivate those new voters (or to nurture those older voters) so that they too can contribute to the organization, structure, and platform.

is overlooking (naively, perhaps) a much more important factor, which can and does have an impact on enticing young (and not so young) people into contributing more than just their vote to the Democratic Party.

When you have Democrats that we (the voters) have put into office in D.C. and Raleigh who blatantly ignore the Party platform, and sometimes (often?) take steps that are in direct opposition to that platform, the Party organization and the platform both appear to be ineffective and (possibly) merely public relations tools.

We've allowed pragmatism to ride shotgun in our quest for seats, but that comes at a cost. We can't expect people to get excited about the platform if we allow so many Democrats to wipe their ass with it (sorry Jerimee).

We need to engage young Democrats and get them more involved. But we also need to engage those other "seated" Democrats, too. Every time they vote the wrong way, send them a copy of the platform. If they don't take the hint, send them the f**k home.

Word.

I hate to use blogese, but seriously dude, you nailed it.

We need to engage young Democrats and get them more involved. But we also need to engage those other "seated" Democrats, too. Every time they vote the wrong way, send them a copy of the platform. If they don't take the hint, send them the f**k home.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

What?!

something about bring me down? When I'm not paying attention yall plot against me?

More seriously, it is my understanding that the NCDP has no mechanism to hold elected officials to the platform. I'm no lawyer, but I believe that for that mechanism to exist the electeds themselves would have to pass it.

If you're not already, you might start prefacing your questions to candidates with "According to our NCDP platform . . ., will you support our NCDP platform by . . .?"

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

That was the ELO usage of the phrase:

"Don't bring me doooown, Bruce!"

:)

More seriously, it is my understanding that the NCDP has no mechanism to hold elected officials to the platform. I'm no lawyer, but I believe that for that mechanism to exist the electeds themselves would have to pass it.

In the realm of politics, influence is much more powerful than tangible mechanisms. The NCDP should not be afraid (or restricted from) using its influence to bring pressure on members who deviate from consensus ideals, and/or encourage and support primary opponents who would better represent the goals of the Party once in office.

I know this goes against the opinions of some here, who believe the Party should be completely neutral about primary races. Hell with that. They have a right and a duty to act on the Executive Committee's behalf, who have acted on the people's behalf, and the platform is the quintessenial guide to what we, as a Party, want for the future.

We need to engage young

We need to engage young Democrats and get them more involved. But we also need to engage those other "seated" Democrats, too. Every time they vote the wrong way, send them a copy of the platform. If they don't take the hint, send them the f**k home.

No disagreement there. There is no sense in electing officials who are not representing our interests and there is no sense in having a majority if we aren't going to use that majority to advance our cause. We shouldn't support them as Democrats if they aren't going to represent us as Democrats. With that said, the final arbiters are the voters within their district. All politics are local. We can get into a different discussion on that though.

I'm not overlooking the importance of the platform (or the organization or the structure). My point is that that voters, both new and old, need some connection to the Party and that the Party should do what it can to foster that connection. If you've been in the Party long enough to select yourself out of the "new" category, then you probably have a more lasting connection (and investment, and commitment) to the platform, in the structure, or in the organization. That investment is a good thing and long-term, that's the fruit of cultivating the relationship. But, a new voter probably isn't going to have the same level of investment.

And as in right now or in the next six weeks, we're going to have a deluge of new voters (and probably a lot of once-in-a-while voters) voting. Let's try to give them a home in our Party. If we can, let's engage them the way the candidates have so that we ease their transition from supporting issues or candidates to supporting a platform. Yes, they should be educated on the house rules (the platform, the structure, the organization). Yes, they should adhere to the house rules. But let's acknowledge that a lot of these voters are running our way because of two presidential candidates (and one very incapable sitting president), not because of our platform (although it is worthy), not because of our organization (although it is too is worthy), and not because of our process (flaws and all).

But, just to be clear, I wouldn't mind seeing us go after both issues. We should make sure that elected Democrats adhere to the house rules too. But I don't think that's something that we can address in the next six weeks (outside of contested primaries).

I'm just a baby Democrat,

If you've been in the Party long enough to select yourself out of the "new" category, then you probably have a more lasting connection (and investment, and commitment) to the platform, in the structure, or in the organization.

hobbling around in my training pants and bumping my head on sharp corners as I try to navigate state-level politics.

Point is, I'm not an insider, with years and years of experience and associations and campaign purple heart medals from 10-20 years of elections, etc.

I'm just like that 20 year-old college kid who is disgusted with business as usual, full of idealistic images of how things should be. And you know what? When me and that kid get excited about something we read or hear, and then we find out that what we got excited about was not real, it was more like tying a ribbon on a frog, we get a little "jaded", if you will.

The difference between me and that kid is, I know I can change people's minds, and I plan on doing it. It's not always going to be pretty, but that's how I've decided to contribute to the Party.

I'll just have to earn my credibility along the way, 'cause I ain't waitin' for 15 or 20 years to earn the right to speak for the Party.

At the risk of making a very skinny column,

I've been a politically active Democrat since before I could vote. The key is staying informed and engaged, and making sure that I have regular contact with others who are informed and engaged (thank you, BlueNC and Moore County Dems.)

Now I'm finally at a point in my life when I can turn around and do some party-building - consciously - and it's one of the most frustrating and at the same time rewarding things I've ever done.

Anyhow - you've got the right to speak, Steve. You don't have to wait. You've got credibility, so just do it. I fully expect you to be a precinct officer next year.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

might i suggest...

...that the problems you point out aren't as much fallacies in a line of thinking as they are the daily challenges faced by anyone seeking to grow a movement...be it a labor union, a religious sect, or a political organization.

the ability to work through those problems determines who wins, over the longer term...which is why parties must engage those who might be temporarily drawn to the party--and to be frank, if you consider the success of consumer affinty marketing, getting 1 or 2% of those new voters to be fully engaged members of the party going forward is a pretty good outcome.

but then again, that 1 or 2% (which seems like a small number) can bring their friends and neighbors along when election time comes...and thus is victory defined.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

Bingo.

Because if we can get them to bring their friends and neighbors to the polls, it's all good.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Oops...

I completely missed your other point:

... if they have the same goals then it isn't much of a stretch for him to say he will encourage them to put a Democrat in the White House. He didn't say that. He didn't even hint at it. Rather, he left the threat out there that his followers won't support anybody else.

Agreed. He does have to play "Good Democrat" and remind his followers, perhaps more than most, that they need to continue to participate and support. But again, it's tough, especially in the middle of the eye-gouging. And I'm no so sure that it's credible, especially if the eye-gouging goes to low blows.

About those "good democrats" . . .

But isn't it consistent with Barak Obama's appeal that he isn't playing by the old rules?

That is, he represents something pretty new, NO? So I'm thinking that he's thinking and his strategists are thinking, "No, we don't have to play nice nuthin'." We are calling some new shots here, folks. Better pay attention.

That is, I would hope that Obama *would*,if he were struggling, make the appropriate conciliatory gestures and indications that his supporters should unite behind the victor in the democratic primary, but WHY on EARTH should he feel he has to do that this week?

It's like that weird lead balloon someone let out recently (Bill) about the idea of Obama being VP. WHY on earth would a sane person in Barak's shoes let THAT idea gather weight?

If you think about that phrase, "good democrat," and you roll it over in your head a little while, you hear those silky voices saying, "You be a good democrat now, you hear?" Hmmm.

I don't think it's all that difficult to imagine Obama's campaign saying "F*** that S***, we aren't playing anybody's "good" anything."

But the idea that in 2008 we have the chance to see a great change in this country's voting base, we have the chance to see MLK's dream realized, we really do, I think, have the chance to see the manifestation of all these promises we've heard for years from high minded idealists -- It's exciting -- and aren't we all ready to be excited and happy?

Barak Obama doesn't have to be a freakin' miracle worker, because the fact of his election by itself will give an enormous portion of our population a boost in morale that no movies or novels could ever promise. That's what I'm thinking about.

Then there is this other angle, which is that the tanking of the economy that Bush set us up for, and the entrenchment of our position in the Middle East that Bush/Cheney dug us into. are, of course, problems that will land in Obama's lap.

And just as anyone else in office would have to take on the chin the consequences of these policies, and somehow put things to right anyway, that same person will have to bear the brunt of all the criticism for anything that isn't perfect within his/her term.

Were Hillary the nominee, and ultimately the winner of the election, any perceived failures or drawbacks during her term would be attributed to her being female.

And likewise, given the massive ignorance that a progressive Republic like ours must factor into every election and every formulation of policy, we have to forsee that any perceived failures or drawbacks during Barak's term would be attributed to his race.

This means that we need to be all the more unified, all the more supportive, and all the stronger for what is ahead.

I think that's not just an obligation but an honor.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
-Edmund Burke

Oh...and I meant to say

I agree on the whole red state/blue state thing. I think her entire campaign is centered around winning the blue states and grabbing one more swing state. I think that is terribly misguided. I appreciate that Obama is embracing Dean's 50-state strategy, but I don't appreciate his unwillingness to motivate his followers to support anyone other than Obama. (I'm referring to the new folks he's bringing to the table....I know a lot of people who already do quite a bit for other candidates/the community and they also support Obama...Not trying to imply all his supporters are saying they won't support the Dem nominee.)

Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

well of course not

they are in a 50-50 battle to be the nominee.

Why in the world would he motivate them to vote for her?

"Keep the Faith"

"Keep the Faith"

Well....I don't think it's exactly 50/50

...and you know I wouldn't expect him to motivate them to vote for HER.....just the eventual nominee. Silly. I quit watching/counting delegates. I will vote in May.....and I'm not going to write in JRE's name....no matter how tempted I am. Personally, I think it is a done deal and unless Hillary really pulls out a few legal miracles in some states I feel certain Obama is the nominee. I'm just not going to sit by and let all these threats of not voting in November get thrown out without calling those folks a bunch of babies.

This mess about an I/U or R supporting Obama not being willing to vote for Clinton simply because of their party affiliation is horse manure. Those people honestly think McCain (3rd Bush term) is better than Clinton? Really?



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

I don't think anyone is saying this

This mess about an I/U or R supporting Obama not being willing to vote for Clinton simply because of their party affiliation is horse manure.

They won't vote for her because they hate her guts, not because of her party affiliation. I'm not saying that's right, but it's true and she's not going to change the often subjective and very negative feelings towards her in the upcoming months. They won't vote at all, or vote for McCain, not because they love McCain, but because they hate her.
I was getting phone calls at our local Party HQ, before Obama had even announced his candidacy, of registered Democrats telling me that they've "been Democrats all their life" but they just couldn't vote for Hillary.

I understand that, but here's the issue:

They won't vote at all, or vote for McCain, not because they love McCain, but because they hate her.

People (like us) who are involved in the Democratic cause need to take steps to minimize this, regardless of how we (personally) feel about her. Democrats who would vote for McCain are even crazier than the ones who want(ed) to vote for Ron Paul, mainly because of the 100 years in Iraq bullshit.

Frankly, it took Jerimee doing something he really didn't want to do (shame me), to make me realize how my comments about Kay Hagan could possibly ruin the bigger picture. Most people here would consider themselves more concerned and informed about politics than the average voter, and we need to act that way, or we could be working against our own best interests.

So...if somebody says they refuse to vote for Hillary, the correct response would be, "I can understand why you feel that way, but ..."

I think that's (kind of) what Betsy's talking about.

You're right

We all have a responsibility to try to keep the eyes on the prize, which is exactly what Betsy's talking about. I agree completely. It's also good to know what we're up against, which from where I sit looks like a very steep mountain.

Then again, any mountain worth climbing is probably steep.

Someone should grow up

Let's forget, for a moment, that if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee it will likely be because the rules of the game changed in the fourth quarter...

I think it's hard to deny that Barack Obama's campaign is fueled in large part by people who have never been engaged in the political process before--young people, first time voters, et. al. It's not the process itself or even the outcome that they're invested in, it's him and it's hard to imagine that they'll turn out for anyone else but him (case and point: this survey of first-time Latino voters for Obama). It's hard to deny that given his constituency and Clinton's high negatives, that Obama's comments are pretty accurate. Now whether he should have said out loud something everyone else knows to be true is another question all together.

Moreover, you can tell those people to grow up if you want to (I'm not sure if telling someone to grow up is a good way to solicit their vote), but let's also be very clear about something else: there's a large group of otherwise loyal Democrats--that is, primarily, African-American voters--who won't vote for Hillary Clinton in November, if she's the nominee, and they'll be completely justified in doing so. And if they don't vote for her, it won't be because Obama didn't work to unify the Party or because they've got sour grapes over Obama's "loss" in the primary; it'll be because the Clinton campaign resorted to the worse kind of politics--with their race baiting and xenophobia--and African-American voters refuse to play plantation politics. Not only will they be justified in not voting for Hillary Clinton, she, and every Democrat who has sat idly by and allowed this to happen, will deserve it.

Someone should grow up, but I'm not entirely sure it's Obama supporters alone.

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

----
There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present, and invoke the security of the comfortable past which, in fact, never existed. - Robert F. Kennedy

Which rules changed in the 4th Quarter?

I'm not hearing that rules will have changed. What I'm hearing is that folks aren't happy that Supers could make the decision. Old rules that simply haven't come into play before.

I'm reading this:

More than four out of five Latino first-time voters under the age of 30 who voted for Barack Obama on Super Tuesday say that if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, they will not vote at all in the presidential election in November.

“It’s like rooting for your team during the playoffs,” said one 20-something first-time voter, a New York Puerto Rican male. “If my team doesn’t make it to the Super Bowl, yeah, I’ll watch the game, but my heart’s not in it.”

For the majority of urban Latino youth, if Obama doesn’t make it to the November election, they’ll watch the returns on television that night, but they won’t bother to vote.

The week after Super Tuesday, my company, Hispanic Economics, was hired by the Obama campaign to conduct surveys of 655 Latino voters under the age of 30 who supported Obama in New York, New Jersey, Illinois and Arizona. Rather than asking whom they would vote for in a hypothetical race between Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama and John McCain, voters were asked, “If Obama is not nominated, and in November it is Hillary Clinton versus John McCain, are you likely to bother to vote at all?”

Also, I'm responding to James and his assertion that the 18-yr-olds he knows will not participate again if they aren't happy with the outcome and how it comes about. That was from another thread here on BlueNC.

As usual, I've picked up bits here and there about this same thing at TPM Cafe, Kos and other various and sundry sites. It's funny that you should bring up African Americans because not once have I heard any of my relatives or friends say they would sit out in November if Obama isn't the nominee. I don't recall reading anywhere that African Americans were threatening to sit it out. It's mostly the younger, newer voters I see referenced.

I see now I can add mind-reader to your many talents.

Now whether he should have said out loud something everyone else knows to be true is another question all together.

Obviously, not everyone else is able to read minds. I guess he does need to say it out loud.



***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

I think the rule change nctodc might be referring to would be

seating FL and MI, and not the supers.

In my experience, with the people I'm working with, Obama's suggestion that some of his supporters will not vote for Clinton is true. It just is. And many of Clinton's supporters will vote for him. I can't help it, it just is.

nctodc is right - telling people to 'grow-up' is not the best way to win friends and influence people. :) You've got a teen and an almost teen. You know how they are. You can't expect a newly emerging, newly engaged voter to see things in shades of grey when they see things in black and white. I'm not talking races, here, either. I think there are levels of development in political engagement that parallel human development. (There's a thesis for you.) Most of the people I'm working with are at the adolescent level - some of them literally, many of them figuratively. I don't expect them to have the wisdom that someone like, say, David Price or Brad Miller has. We have to guide them the way we guide students. That might sound condescending, but I don't mean it that way. It's just how I look at it.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi

Pages