I've always gotten a kick out of the fact that with the exception of George W. Bush, the biggest single criterion to be a Republican nominee for president is that one has to have run for president once before! Democrats do indeed shoot their wounded (although in the case of Gary Hart, it was self-inflicted!). I'm betting that if Obama somehow can't pull this off in November, the 2012 Democratic contenders will be people like Mark Warner and Evan Bayh.

Gore is an exception because he actually did something different, notable and quite visible after leaving office.

It is hard to even guess at HRC's plan because her actions don't fit any rational plans that others have considered. It would appear that, if anything, she gets that this is her one shot and she is going to the bitter end.

Pretty weak historical patch-job there trying to make your point, Zorn. If you're going to include Nixon, you should start your list at 1952 (when he was first elected vice president). Accordingly, you would also have to add Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson to the list of vice-presidents who have become presidents. And you would have to include JFK, who made a bid in 1956, only to come back roaring ins 1960. Anyway, all of this is moot. How many African Americans or women have been elected president, let alone nominated by a major party? This is a year of firsts.

ZORN REPLY -- Kefauver was Stevenson's major rival in 1956 as he was in 1952.... Kennedy was touted for veep.
I don't know if you can count Johnson...he TOOK the veep offer and of course ascended to the presidency when JFK was murdered, so he ran in1964 as an incumbent. Nixon's anomalous because he wasn't the sitting v.p. when he ran (as Gore and GW Bush were).
How can you deny that the GOP treats its losers and also-rans better? McCain got thumped out of the primaries in 2000 and he came back stronger than ever to get the nod this year; where's Bradley today?
Being a losing vp hasn't been a ticket to ride either..
Edwards
Lieberman
Ferraro
Mondale (was incumbent)
Shriver
Muskie
dot dot dot.

Right, but no one has ever come as close as Clinton. She'll run on a I-told-you-so platform. As long as she's not seen as contributing to his defeat by half-heartedly endorsing him or (god forbid) taking this to the convention, she'll be welcomed back by Democrats.

Now we just have to work to make sure that Obama doesn't lose.

Three corrections/comments: What about Dole as a GOP runner-up to George H.W. Bush in 1988? You should count Jesse Jackson as a close runner-up in 1988 (he was closer in 88 than he was in 84). Also, by starting in 1968, you are able to better frame your argument. LBJ was a serious possibility during the 1956 and 1960 conventions. (Back when conventions were more important than primary campaigns). JFK was a strong VP possibility at the 1956 convention. And why not include Adlai Stevenson, who was a nominee in 1952, 1956 and a strong contender at the 1960 convention?

ZORN REPLY-- I'd forgotten about Dole, though he does prove my point that the GOP is nicer than the Dems to loser. JFK didn't "run" for veep in 56...he doesn't count as a comebacker. And I was under the impresssion that Kefauver was the only real challenger to Stevenson in 56.

It seems like a plausible strategy. If Obama loses an election that everyone thinks the Democrats should have won then the party might want to turn to a "safe" candidate in 2012. She is the only proven candidate. She won most of the big states in 2008.

And, by the way, I personally think Obama is about the weakest candidate the Democrats could have put up. There are a number of Democrats: Gore, Kerry, Biden and possibly Hillary who could have beaten McCain going away. Without the "bitter" vote, Professor Obama is going to have a tough time.

Evie, you're right that no one has come as "close" as Clinton, considering she's ahead in popular votes, but will likely end up being edged out of the prize (hmmm...I think I've heard this story before...and Zorn, before you go off half-cocked again the "rules" don't negate a vote, they only mean that those states can't seat a delegate). And God forbid Hillary would be at the party convention with her majority support and near majority of delegates.
But, Evie, really, the rest of your post doesn't come close to making sense. Perhaps you can explain this, or maybe any Obama supporter can, but I have yet to hear why Hillary should even campaign for Obama, considering how toxic Zorn (see VP blog column as the most recent example) and the rest of the Obamaniacs are convinced she is. Hillary = liability, therefore to help Obama, she should sit out the election, right? And how could she run as an "I told you so" candidate in 2012 if Obama wins (as you clearly desire)?
Sorry Obama supporters, you just can't have it both ways. Feel free to wage a race-baiting, innuendo-ridden, misogynist campaign if you feel that you must do so to win.
And feel free to rationalize that you haven't done so. But don't expect everyone to drink the kool-aid.
And perhaps this is the reason - the killing the wounded theology of the Democrats - that the party is constantly struggling when showing some civility within the party would obviously provide greater institutional strength, and ability to actually win the White House more often.
I really have to take this opportunity to observe that most Obama supporters I have met and read on these blogs are among the most disagreeable and smug when it comes to their political preference. And what they fail to realize is that while this plays just fine in their Obama-lovin' echo chamber and in the mainstream media, it is extremely off-putting to Democrats who do not share their idol worship, women who are profoundly offended at the unfairness of it, as well as independents who might want to support the candidate but for the behavior of his supporters. So, you can play the game now of kicking the woman while she's down, then ignoring her believing that her friends and fair-minded people will forget what you've done. But, for my own "I told you so," don't be too surprised if Obama supporters in their zeal and hubris have sown the seeds of their candidate's own destruction.

ZORN REPLY-- Correct me if I misremember, but you're not a Democrat, right? So you're basically coming in here hoping to sow discord with your observations, which, frankly, strike me as phony.
I will not "rationalize" my disagreement with your claim that Obama has run a "race-baiting, innuendo-ridden, misogynist" campaign, I'll call baloney on it. You can say it's true but you can't bring the evidence -- Obama's campaign hasn't been flawless by any means, but it's been gentle compared to the campaign against him.
Why anyone would credit your political acumen after you blast our your nonsensical analysis of why HRC should "sit out" the election I have no idea. You can't be seen as a traitor to your party, otherwise the party will reject you. I've said over and over, if BOB goes down politically, HRC's fingerprints can't be, must not be on the truncheon. If Obama's defeated and his supporters perceive her as the reason he was defeated, that will turn her into an unviable candidate in 2008. Obama has a version of the same problem right now, which is why his people aren't saying what common sense ought to be telling HRC: "Get out of the race, you vainglorious sore loser! You have no path to the nomination that doesn't utterly fracture the Democratic party and all you're doing at this point is delaying the fall campaign against McCain." They're all thinking it, as the sane people within the Clinton campaign are thinking. But how this ends, how the candidates treat each other, is very important going forward.
I have never said that a superdelegate nomination of the trailing candidate in pledged delegates violates the rules. Clearly it doesn't. It violates the spirit of the rules and the concept of a meaningful primary process.
And finally, as to your claim that HRC is ahead in the popular vote, here are portions of an analysis on the AP wire yesterday:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton's assertions that she leads Barack Obama in the popular vote are a stretch, at best.....
The argument is supported only by using dubious math on two fronts: by excluding several caucus states won by Obama and by including Florida and Michigan primary results that the Democratic Party, to date, is rejecting.
Obama is ahead of Clinton by just over 618,000 votes out of 32.2 million cast in states and territories where both candidates competed and where the popular vote was counted in some way.
That total excludes Florida and Michigan, which held early primaries in violation of party rules. Democratic candidates agreed in advance not to campaign in those states. In addition, Obama did not have his name on the ballot in Michigan while Clinton did.
If primary voters from those two states are included in the totals, Clinton edges ahead in the recorded popular vote. She leads Obama by fewer than 5,000 votes out of 34 million cast. That's with no votes for Obama at all in Michigan.
But even if results of the two renegade primaries are accepted, she still has a problem demonstrating she is the vote leader.
That's because no results go into that equation from Iowa, Nevada or Maine. There is no way to count popular votes from those states because their caucuses did not tally them.

You're wrong - I am a Democrat. I'm here to sow unity.

ZORN REPLY -- A DINO, perhaps?

Another hopelessly mixed metaphor from Zorn which I shall attempt to unravel. Of course, the careful reader understands that by "shooting our losers", we democrat's haven't re-nominated a General Election loser since, you guessed it, Adlai Stevenson in 1956.That being the case, Hillary becomes the instant front runner until 2012, and the focus of the institutional and corporate press again red shifts against her, cooling to her, seemingly on cue. This time, I got there first: http://www.blackdahliareader.info/2008/02/mccain-train.html

ZORN REPLY -- Why did you put the words "shooting our losers" in quotes? No one wrote those words. My metaphorical reference, thoroughly unmixed, was to shooting the wounded. I let you research that phrase on your own, Matt.
And my argument isn't that the Dems don't re-nominate their general election losers, it's that they also don't re-nominate their also rans. Look at the chart above, oh careless reader, and see if you can't understand it.
You're turning into a waste of time, Mr. Mezger, mine and everyone else's. You get your facts wrong, your phrases wrong, even your Pig Latin wrong, and you never even seem to realize it.
Let's have a clarification from you in plain English, or let's say farewell.

A single comment cemented the entire personality of Hillary Clinton in my head. My girlfriend and I were at a restaurant, and I assured the waitress that I wasn't flirting with her, that I was just acknowledging her genuine smile with what I hoped was a warm and welcoming smile. She responded by saying that she knew that, and that she could see that my girlfriend and I were genuinely happy with each other. We agreed that you could always tell when someone was forcing a smile.
Then my girlfriend said, "Like Hillary Clinton."
We all burst out laughing.

Senator Clinton is familiar with DC and Senator Obama's major premise has been a change. You are right in that respect. However, Senator Obama is a United States senator. He must have some familiarity or how can he change something he isn't familiar with?

You are also correct when you say Senator Clinton has said both she and Senator McCain have a life time of experience. Let us go back to the Reagan Republican campaign when George H. W. Bush called Reagan's economic proposals "voodoo economics". The two paired together and won resounding victories twice. Unfortunately Bush turned out to be right.

Should Senator McCain dig up "half buried Clinton scandals", it would be to his demise. The Senator was a ladies man himself. All he could then do is fall back on his war hero routine as John Kerry did.

Obama only needs to remember this Aesop fable if he is even thinking of having Hillary as his VP:

The Farmer and the Snake

One winter a farmer found a snake stiff and frozen with cold. He had compassion on it, and taking it up, placed it in his bosom. The warmth quickly revived the Snake, and resuming its natural instincts, bit its benefactor, inflicting on him a mortal wound. "Oh," cried the farmer with his last breath, "I am rightly served for pitying a scoundrel."

The lesson: The greatest kindness will not bind the ungrateful.

Zorn, I placed the quotation marks around "shoot our wounded" in my last post as a correction, marking the way the term of art as actually used by "us", that is: the Democrats. You're not nearly civil enough to be a democrat, as your continuing vile hostility towards me makes clear, nor is spittle-mouth Chris Matthews, though he used to be. New ideas are always trashed by the reactionary journalists like him, in the keep of the insurance industry, and you, a lackey for the World's Greatest Newspaper, and sad hope for their internet future. Really what you got is mealy-mouthed rubbish, there. Your chart? Just so much landfill from the RNC. We're not fooled, Eric. You're a nasty old rock-ribbed Republican in a sheep suit, in my book, your posing for Obama, notwithstanding. You want to ban me? Do it, what's the hold up? I'm sure your approved readers tire of your oft repeated threats. I have done you no harm, at all, yet you've always been put-out with me? It's human nature to reject that which one cannot comprehend, sure, but I think you're a just lazy, spoiled, opinionated, slob under glass, and prone to lash out with your bad temper before you think. IMHO.

ZORN REPLY -- I'm confident that regular readers here will be thrilled not to have to waste their time with you any longer. You've blown every single chance I've offered you to be clear and civil-- you didn't even admit when you were wrong about Pig Latin -- and this final post here illustrates exactly why you've worn out your welcome.
I direct readers interested in your response, if any, to your Web site
http://www.blackdahliareader.info
Good day!

I am again disgusted by the biased reporting. Hillary is ahead in the popular vote and has won most of the states that are likely to result in electoral college Democratic victories. Obama preaches platitudes instead of substance. His experience is very limited. If he had a high level government position in a Hillary Clinton administration (e.g. Secretary of State or VP), he might be ready four years from now and, after demonstrating skills other than rhetorical, could be expected to be ready in eight.

ZORN REPLY -- If you scroll up here you will see an explanation why your "popular vote" claim is full of beans.

Let me begin with a little background. I’m a life long Democrat who came from a working class family although I am a white collar professional with an advanced degree. My first presidential vote was for George McGovern in 1972 and I’ve voted for the Democratic presidential candidate every election since. I have also lived in Chicago my whole life.
When this election cycle started last year I was absolutely convinced that I would vote for the Democratic candidate whoever that would be. I was relieved that the American people would see the end of the Bush era when that candidate won. I was open to most choices and had few pre-conceived notions as I always try not to let others make up my mind. Sadly, things have changed for me. I found that Barack Obama was quite eloquent but said nothing elaborated. He was against the war but gave no details on his plan for an end. His simplistic vision for addressing rising fuel costs was to explore alternate fuels (which by the way is George Bush’s answer). He said we needed to extend healthcare to all but gave no particulars. In fact he has not directly addressed any of my concerns in detail except to call for change. The Jeremiah Wright flap made me question his judgment. I also found him to be condescending and thin-skinned as the campaign progressed. I understood why the Press became infatuated with him but was at a loss to understand why otherwise intelligent folks could not see the faults and lack of substance I saw. At the same time, I believe Hillary Clinton showed leadership qualities that impressed me and possessed a genuine likable quality I never expected (probably due to all the negative press). Additionally, she laid out high level plans to actually achieved the positions she championed.
Still I never considered voting Republican until now. I’m disgusted with the arrogance and meanspirited attitude by Obama’s backers toward not only Hillary but to her supporters. We have been cast as uneducated, rural, and bitter. I am none of these and resent the labels. Additionally, the constant calls from Obama’s admirers for a withdrawal by Clinton so Obama can be coronated as the Democratic candidate, smack as the worst form of disdain toward opposing views. Finally today, you stated (and I have heard others say the same thing) that Obama should not even consider selecting Hillary as a running mate even though she received almost 50% of the Democratic primary vote over Obama. I guess I just realized this morning that the Democratic Party no longer speaks for me. Good luck in fall but at this juncture I’m relatively certain my vote will go to McCain over an Obama / Edwards ticket. He may not represent my views either but I feel he may at least respect them.

Libs like Zorn make me chuckle. Clinton can't be Obama's running mate because he's all about reforming Washington which Hillary isn't. Yet having party hacks and old school pols like Durbin and Kennedy close to his side doesn't faze Zorn one bit.

Quit believing in fairy tales and wake up and smell the coffee. No matter who wins in November the corruption will continue. Just follow the money.

perhaps changing sides,

When you have trouble convincing a lot of people of something that seems obvious to you it is sometimes the case that the problem lies with you rather than them.

To take one example, one reason that people may not be impressed by your pointing out that "He said we needed to extend healthcare to all but gave no particulars" is that they are aware he has a completely spelled out proposal on health care that differs from Clinton's mostly in details. (The one exception being the well discussed aspect of imposing mandates.)

Obviously nobody is required to actually agree with the positions that Obama has taken. But the claim that he does not have spelled out positions is simply nonsense. And to the degree that that is the basis for your decision to make Obama the first democrat that you haven't supported suggests that there is really some other reason at work.

I could be wrong. You could respond to this post by saying, "Oh, he does have spelled out positions, I should go find out what they are before bad mouthing him in this way." But somehow I doubt that will be your reaction to it being pointed out that the heart of your complaint against Obama is verifiably false.

ZORN REPLY -- Yes, Lon, this is typical of many Obama critics -- they assume, as one fellow put it, that because THEY haven't done their homework, that Obama hasn't either. And you do wonder where this comes from. Partisan ignorance is the most charitable explanation I can come up with.

Yes, Zorn, I'm a DINO. An anti-Bush, pro-choice, anti-death penalty, environmentalist, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry voting DINO. Unlike Obama who sings the praises of Reagan, I have stuck by my party, its candidates, and its principles - mostly. I wouldn't vote for Poshard because I felt he was too conservative - and despite his massive shortcomings, I'd say George Ryan was the best Democratic Governor this state has had in 50 years. And, like Zorn, I could never support Todd Stroger (although Obama and Durbin did, in a big way) - not because I supported Claypool, and not because he was selected by a questionable, yet perfectly legal process. Rather because I did not believe that commitment to certain principles is the only thing we vote for when selecting our leaders. Now, Zorn, I wouldn't call you a DINO because you don't support certain Democrats - that's your right and I applaud you for it.
And yet, the intra-party name calling continues, notably Lon's disturbing insinuation that a lifelong Democrat who commented here must have racist motives for not supporting Obama. To that I say, borrowing Zorn's phrase du jour, baloney.
Seriously, gentlemen and ladies, name-calling of people who prefer Hillary to Obama is hardly going to win over converts. You expect force feeding us will produce foie gras? You're likely just to get vomit on your shoes.

ZORN REPLY -- From the very first, P., you were hostile toward Obama and have been unrelenting on the point, to the point that one has to wonder just what point or issue it was that got so deeply under your skin. I mean, sure, the Stroger thing was disappointing. I wrote a whole column on that.
Pols will let you down because to win they have to play the grubby game. All of them do, esp. at that level. Good Lord, look at the Clintons. But it comes down to having to choose among imperfect candidates, in this case candidates who both have quite a bit to recommend them. It's certainly fair and fine and expected to compare the candidates and come away with a strong preference for one and to express that. But really. Just because you prefer the record and positions of one over the other doesn't mean the other one is a sleazy hypocritical crook with almost no redeeming qualities. It doesn't mean you have to selectively apply your standards. If you're a Democrat who holds the above positions, isn't it obvious to you that Obama is vastly preferable to McCain ?

The argument that Hillary is the stronger candidate than barack because she won in states that will likely result in electoral college victories is based on two false assumptions. The first is that Barack won't win the states that Hillary has won (with perhaps the exception of West Virginia and Arkansas). The second is that Barack won't win in the so-called "Red States" that he has won in the primaries - it appears some don't want to acknowledge that the Democrats not only outpolled the Republicans in numbers of people voting in most of those states, but that Barack's (and in some cases Hillary's) numbers were higher than those who voted for McCain. Barack Obama has a very real chance on winning the electoral college votes of a good number of "red states" this year. He is also more likely than not to win the big "blue" states that he lost to Hillary Clinton - maintaining those big electoral college votes.

I would also like to address the Hillary leads in the popular vote fallacy that is being bandied about. The reality is that neither the Michigan Democratic Party nor the Florida Democratic Party held primary votes. The States of Michigan and Florida held primary votes - but not the Party's. In most states, the political parties (private entities) are allowed to piggy back on state run primaries (for state-elected federal offices, state offices, local government offices, etc.) so there is minimal cost to the party for holding a statewide primary. But if the Party's can't hold them at the same time as a State's primary (which could be because the timing doesn't fit the National Party's rules, or because the State won't pay for the election), the State Party has to have some kind of alternative. Florida and Michigan weren't State Democratic Party primary elections - they were State of Michigan and State of Florida pulse-of-the-people Straw Votes - and straw votes aren't counted in primary election results.

When the Michigan and Florida State Democratic parties hold primary elections, then those numbers can be counted - but to date, they have failed to do so.

phocion,

I pointedly did not make any claims as to what it is that would drive someone who is otherwise a Democrat to claim that Obama is uniquely the Democrat that they won't vote for. I suspect that many of them are women who are still saying this in solidarity to Hillary Clinton who will have the sense to change their mind when Clinton makes clear that she is supporting Obama in November as she is already starting to do.
But there clearly are others whose motivations remain a mystery. For example why did you attack Obama for having noted Reagan's ability to move the country politically in the direction that he was inclined. Are you really someone with Democratic values who would not like to see the country moved more in line with Democratic values? That is certainly an odd position to take.
If you have serious reasons for opposing Obama, why would you fall back on such patently dishonest ones as Obama's comment about Reagan?

ZORN REPLY -- Yes, particularly when Bill Clinton said almost the same exact thing about Reagan's political gifts years ago.
I sense there is a good deal of pure backlash in strong anti-Obama seniment from otherwise level-headed Democrats. They're suspicious of the hype and their realism turns into bitterness very quickly.
This is probably where Stosh, with his encylopedic knowledge of my ouvre, will come in with a citation of me going over the top in my Hillary bashing, but I don't believe I've ever argued that Clinton would be a better president than McCain or that she's unqualified for the job or has no accomplishments or credits on her resume.
I don't care for the Clinton's triangulatin' style and I'm STILL angry with them -- him, mostly -- for giving the rascally right so much material to work with in the `90s. But geez.

A real eye opener, EZ. Good work.

Not that your observation would matter to HRC and the colossal egos at Clinton Inc.....

Obama is always bragging about all the Clinton advisers he has on this team even though he can't find one nice thing to say about the first Clinton administration so why shouldn't he have a Clinton on the ticket?

"In the Beginning..."Although supporting Obama for his refreshing optimism and intellect, I nevertheless would have had no problem with Clinton or Edwards or anyone in the race who won fair and square. Edwards gained points for his graceful exit. I can only say I expected more from Hillary. One had hoped when a woman took office she would bring a more civilized perspective--but not Hillary--she got just a down low as any good old time male politician. She should have kept her Chicago roots; she has gotten "dirty" with the best of 'em.

My only point: Hillary: Florida and Michigan deserve to have the voices of their voters heard (even though she pledged to support the party's decision on that matter). But apparently the voices of the rest of the voters and states that have provided Obama with his lead do not have the same value to her as she is more than willing to have the DNC throw out their voices and just pick her because she is "the best". What is wrong with THIS picture? Isn't this the elitist vision of our founding fathers? McCain seems like a decent man but the policies of Bush have to end so even if she pulls the rabbit out of the hat, I'm voting Democratic. No money for her, no work for her no buttons or placards but I'll vote for her--but she better enjoy her "victory" 'cause if she does this I will be ready to work against her or anyone she supports next time. It didn't have to be this way Hillary. You and your husband have sacrificed all the respect and good feelings I had for you both. You would have faired far better by playing and staying fair.

Zorn, I don't know where the AP got their numbers, but from Real Clear politics (pre-KY and OR) the numbers of people who voted for Hillary vs. the number of people who voted for Obama is, drum roll please:

Obama 16,684,752 47.6%
Clinton 16,711,719 47.7%

Which gives Clinton a +26,967 or +0.08% margin over Obama of people who voted their preference in the primaries to date.

And as to the Obama's Reagan quote - it really was a silly dig on his part against the Clintons and a shallow appeal to Reagan Democrats and disgusted Republicans. Here's what he said:

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times...I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

And here's what John Edwards said in response to Obama's statement:

"When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people," former Sen. John Edwards shot back at an event in Henderson, Nevada. "He was openly -- openly-- intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country...He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment."

Edwards added, "I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change."

And as to my which candidate supports my positions, well, neither candidate is anti-death penalty, both candidates are environmentalists, and from where I'm sitting, sweety, Obama (who is likable enough even when he's using an obscene gesture on the sly or having sexist house music blared at a victory party) has been more disrespectful toward women than has McCain.

You're right, though, I am suspicious of the hype, but it doesn't make me bitter - cynical is my preferred term. I am all too aware that politicians have to sometimes get dirty making deals to get ahead. Sometimes they forget why they're supposed to be there in the first place after they've made one too many such deals. This is, what I fear, has happened to Obama.

Let's face it: Obama has had opportunities to promote true change here in Illinois, and he has left us with among the most rampant corruption and bad government in the US. Sometimes, we have to demand good government over policies that we prefer. We made that Faustian bargain with Todd Stroger, and look where it got us. Call it picking on him, or what you will. Still, it's a long road to November. The candidates must both earn our votes.

I expected for someone to intimate that I'm a racist because I refuse to support Obama and yet I'm a Democrat. I will not dignfy that accusation with a reply. I've found this to be typical of the heavy handed tactics of many of Obama's supporters. Today the Tribune bent over backwards implying that everyone in Kentucky was a racist before they even voted. Why didn't the Tribune call the Black voters in North Carolina racists? I guess it's okay to play the race card if you are doing on behalf of Blacks. I also expected to to be called uniformed because I think Obama's positions are not fully baked. Again, the superior attitude from Obama supporters. Sorry folks, you don't speak for me. If you read Meghan Daum's column in today's Trib maybe you will understand why some of us aren't jumping on the Obama bandwagon.

perhaps changing sides,

I made no intimations based on your not supporting Obama. I did suggest it was significant that you didn't seem to care that at the heart of your explanation as to why you didn't support Obama was a false statement which you could easily verify is false.

In general, people who make arguments in good faith care whether what they say is true or false. Again you were not called uninformed because you disagree with Obama, but because you falsely claimed that he does not have a detailed health care proposal. It is not patronizing to point out that you say false things. It would be far more condescending to take it is insignificant that you say false things as if you were incapable of saying true things.

As for Daum's column, that was rather puzzling. As Daum notes, Clinton has described her voters as "hard working, white voters" which she is ok with dismissing it as just poor wording.

On the other hand, some guy that I doubt most of has heard of, use "white" to instead refer to what Clinton has dismissed as elite voters and this is supposed to tell us something significant about Obama? That makes the attempts to tie him to Farrakhan almost reasonable.

And the idea that the Reagan democrats have been ignored in election coverage is truly bizarre. As Daum notes in passing, the West Virginia and Kentucky wins have been ignored because they do not change the dynamics of the race. They are kind of like Homer Simpson dreaming of scoring a touchdown in the closing minutes of the Super Bowl to lose 42-7.

The reality is that Clinton's hard working, white voters have gotten a lot more attention than elite voters, because it is assumed that the latter will go to the democrat in the fall, while there is some question as to what will happen with the former. If Daum thinks that working class white voters are being ignored she has not been following the election very closely.

It is a very puzzling article. Someone that Obama probably doesn't know has used the word white in a way that is offensive along the lines of the way that Clinton herself has been using the word, and so Obama is objectionable?

phocion,

What is the quote from Edwards supposed to show? Do you think that what Obama said is not true? Does the Edwards quote establish this? (I don't think it even claims it).
Is the Obama quote about Reagan true but unimportant? Or is it a secret?
To me, the Edwards quote seems to reveal that while he was in still in the race Edwards was willing to make nonsensical statements if he thought they could be politically effective. Are democrats really supposed to avoid noting that Reagan presided over a major shift to the right in this country that the next president should try to undo, because it can't be done without acknowledging that Reagan accomplished something?
The quote from Edwards is decidedly not his best moment. But why do you take the accurate historical description of politican change in this country by Obama to be shallow, while taking the response by Edwards which amounts to saying that Democrats should never utter the word "Reagan" without hissing as not shallow.
I look at the quotes and I see Obama giving an accurate account of where we are in this country politically, and I see Edwards trying to score a cheap political point. Can you explain why you see it the other way around?
"Perhaps changing sides" claims to resent Obama because he ignores working class white voters. You now claim to resent Obama because he panders to working class white voters. So I am getting somewhat confused as to what basis I am supposed to resent Obama.

The most compelling reason I have to back Hillary over Obama is that she can beat McCain in November and he can't.
Karl Rove (who gave us 8 years of Bush) agrees:
http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/McCainClintonObama051608.pdf

Lon, I get what you're doing and I won't be dragged into a sideshow with you on this - not all Hillary supporters are stupid white people. The fact is, I would prefer a Democratic President. And it is readily apparent that the majority of the people who cast a ballot in the Democratic primaries preferred Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama to face the Republicans in November. In support thereof, I cite the latest figures from RealClear Politics:

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)
Obama: 17,242,495 / Clinton: 17,416,090 (Clinton +173,595)
Estimate w/IA, NV, ME, WA*
Obama: 17,576,579 / Clinton: 17,639,952 (Clinton +63,373)

So, it appears that the Democrats will chose a nominee who has not secured as much support as the number two contender. That might be ok if the nominee would be a stronger candidate than the vanquished contender come November. But we don't necessarily deal with majority rules in the primaries, nor do we in the general. Those are the rules, and I respect that.

However, looking at the race ahead with an actual Electoral College, the polls show Clinton winning that race, and Obama losing. If the election was held today this would be the following outcome:

Hillary 310 vs McCain 211
Obama 242 vs McCain 285
See:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May22.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May22.html

I can deal with Clinton losing the nomination, despite the ugliness shown by Obama, his supporters, and the media in general. But all Democrats should be aware that shoving out the candidate with a better chance in November carries with it the risk of their precious progressive agenda. I'm just sayin'...

phocion:

Your pals at electoral-vote.com are using some poor and outdated polling data. Obama's polling a near double-digit lead in VA, and you can give him back Michigan and Wisconsin too.

Bruce, I don't have any "pals" in the polling industry. But I did at least cite where the numbers came from. They are, in fact, very fresh results (with the exception of Wisconsin). I have found, however, that McCain also leads in Wisconsin as of a few weeks ago. See http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/wisconsin/election_2008_wisconsin_presidential_election

As to your unattributed assertion that Obama leads by double digits in Virginia, the actual polling data reveals Obama losing that state. See http://www.news.vcu.edu/news.aspx?v=detail&nid=2508
Virginia is especially significant because that is one of the few states that Obama's media talking heads have repeatedly claimed he would "put in play" for the Democrats in November.

You see, Bruce, in this system, we don't say "you can give Obama this state or that state." We actually should support claims with data, or they appear to be made by exuberant supporters with a faint grasp of reality. In the future, Bruce, if you have actual information that can be backed up, I would be happy to concede a point, or at least respect that another point may be reasonably made. But without any such support your whole argument appears, as I have demonstrated, dishonest.

Here are a few links, phocion. Results like this would change that map somewhat:

Virginia (Obama +7):

www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9901f8fc-034e-4a1d-ab36-f6e5c918614e

Ohio (Obama +9):

www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=b03c08ab-30b9-463d-8be2-5cb118e05b74

New Hampshire (Obama +5):

www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_presidential_election

Of course, these polls, as well as those you cite, are all very early and thus not very meaningful. The polls won't mean much until the race is down to the final two and the general election campaign actually kicks into gear.

And regarding the popular-vote issue, I notice you are careful to cite the RCP figures that include the "exhibition game" primaries of Florida and Michigan. As I'm sure you know, it was made clear before these primaries that the results would not count, which skewed voter turnout in both states and the makeup of the ballot in Michigan, causing the results to be irretrievably tainted. (The only fair way, aside from the issue of whether the states should be punished for changing their primary dates, to make these states count in the actual selection of a candidate was to have a revote, which unfortunately was not to be.)

Taking into account the Florida-Michigan mess, the need to estimate results in caucus states, and the large number of crossover Republican votes on both sides, ascertaining how many Democrats actually voted for each candidate is impossible. All we can say with any accuracy is that it's very close.

Post a comment