"Obama wrong to spurn Hillary"

What can I say? This article says it all. Obama could not swallow his pride and pick Hillary. Obama could not compromise and now look. McCain has a bigger bounce, and Palin is controlling her own image. This is slowly slipping from Obama hands and if you do not believe me, try reading any news website and see how the different demographics are slowly slipping away from Dukakis or um Obama to McCain's corner.

YOU OBAMA SUPPORTERS...read this article. It speaks the truth and you know it. This election is looking exactly like 2004 and we all knew this was coming.

I will not forgive Obama if he loses this one.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/r ollins.convention/index.html



Display:


Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (2.00 / 3)

Editor's note: Ed Rollins, who served as political director for President Reagan, is a Republican strategist who was national chairman of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's 2008 presidential campaign.
Only the unwise take the advice of their enemies.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:03:47 PM EST

Some would say (2.00 / 1)

Keep your friends close and enemies closer.  

I think Rollins makes at least one solid point.  If Obama had picked Clinton, McCain wouldn't have picked Palin.  Instead he would have picked Ridge, or Romney, or maybe Jomentum, or some other dolt that wouldn't have helped him and probably would have hurt him in his own party.


by RichardFlatts on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:57:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others would say (2.00 / 2)

If he'd picked Clinton, then he wouldn't have needed Palin, because the base would be fired up trying to prevent another Clinton from taking the White House.

He would have been able to pick someone who shored up his economic credentials, and it would've been a wash.

See, I can play that game too.  Stop it.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:09:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This isn't D&D (2.00 / 0)

It is an actual election not a game.


by RichardFlatts on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:13:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're right (2.00 / 2)

You're the one playing mythical match-ups, trying to say that an 8th level First Lady/8th level Senator is a better match than a 32nd level Senator for a 8th level State Senator/4th level Senator going against a 26th level Maverick and a 2nd level Mayor/1st level Governor/3rd level Baby Polar Bear Murderer.

In the real world, we understand that crying over spilt milk is pointless, and the only people who haven't gotten over Hillary Clinton not being the nominee are the Republican strategists who were dying to run against her.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:29:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're right (2.00 / 1)

You need to go back and revisit recent history.  It is a waste of time to rehash but recall late spring early summer when Obama was very close to rapping it up.  McCain and the Republicans did very little to attack him.   They preferred to run against Obama vs. Hillary.  

This is a red state blue state fight and they saw Clinton being tougher in the rust belt and in FL.

Regardless, doesn't matter now.


by RichardFlatts on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:35:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Late spring, early summer? (2.00 / 1)

"Revist recent history?"  More like revisionist history, clearly.

They stopped attacking Clinton in February after Obama won eleven in a row and, for all intents and purposes, won the primary.  That's when Limbaugh proposed Operation Chaos in advance of the Texas/Ohio primaries, and FOX News started going on and on about how Clinton was the best thing since sliced bread after smearing her for years.

Your credibility is completely shot if you think you can rewrite something that only happened six months ago.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:40:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Others would say (none / 0)

There is no doubt that the republican base would have been galvanized and united, had Obama picked Clinton as his running mate. However, the Clintons have beaten them TWICE, despite the republicans' rally against them. The Clintons know how to beat them. The republicans treat the Clintons as "pigs"; these same republicans are well aware of what happens to them whenever they attempt to wrestle with the so called pigs. Remember, Bill beat them twice despite all the vicious mud-slinging against Bill.

If we Democrats want the White House, we have beat the republicans on ideas as well as remind Americans what life could be under a Democratic administration. I have yet to see an ad from Obama camp showing the many homes that are boarded up today and contrasting them with the booming economy of the 90's. Take a picture of the long unemployment lines and show it the electorate through a well crafted ad. We are wasting our time here talking about Palin instead of focusing at the task at hand.


by Actright on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:30:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We don't have Ross Perot this time (2.00 / 1)

What worked in 1992 may not work now.  Obama is galvanizing enough, just being who he is; there was no need to double down with a Clinton VP.

Obama's got a good plan so far, I think we should trust his team of scholars and experts.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:47:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: We don't have Ross Perot this time (none / 0)

I think your "Ross Perot" argument is misplaced. It is the same argument used by the republicans to explain away why Bill trounced them. Bill ran as a change agent just like Obama. The republicans had run up the national debt, unemployment rate was high and people were losing their jobs and homes. Bill got the largest share of the Clinton-Perot-Bush votes. Had it been a Clinton-Bush race, Bill would have won. Had it been a Clinton-Perot race, Bill would have won. Why? People wanted change. Obama has history on his side. He will win if he stays focused and does not get side-tracked by the flavor of the week - Palin.


by Actright on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:01:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Misplaced? Ridiculous (2.00 / 1)

Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996.  Even his weaker showing is more than Nader and Barr combined in most polling;  don't go saying the situations are the same, or that the political climates are in any way similar.

Amusing side note: The founder of HillaryIs44, Alex Rodriguez, was a major backer of Ross Perot in the '90s.  Fun times.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:12:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (none / 0)

No, only the wise knows the ammunition of the enemy. He is exactly right.


by mtg44234 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:06:43 PM EST

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (2.00 / 4)

The ammunition of the enemy is lies... and this columnist is all to willing to traffic in it:

McCain, the maverick who is surrounded and advised by the D.C. establishment, has somehow picked the real reformer who has altered the Alaska political landscape by throwing out the establishment "good old boys" of both parties.
Sarah Palin is not a reformer.  She is just as corrupt as any other Republican from Alaska.  She's essentially a female George W. Bush, except that she has even less relevant experience in government than he had in 2000.

Anyone who claims Sarah Palin is a reformer is a liar, plain and simple.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (none / 0)

Excellent point. The "Maverick" who has voted with Bush 100% of the time in 2008, 90% of the time in 2007 and has lobbyists running his campaign.
What kind of person doesn't know that by now?
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:02:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You'll take advice from anyone (2.00 / 4)

if it suits you, will you?

This is the same guy who predicted the Democratic Party will fall apart if Lieberman loses to Lamont.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:12:15 PM EST

Can this crap (2.00 / 2)

What the hell is the point of this diary? You come here to post a column by Ed Rollins so you can complain about Obama's VP? Give it a rest.


by elrod on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:14:01 PM EST

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (1.00 / 3)

Whatever arguement you want to use, please use your own. I have read you arguement on I don't know how many news websites...all submitted by democratic operatives. McCain is now appealing to those demographics that Obama once was and slowly turning to a Dukakis. God help our party if he loses.


by mtg44234 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:15:46 PM EST

What demographics is he playing to? (2.00 / 1)

His base? He's playing to the same demographics that did not support Hillary either; white independent moderate men and conservative women. Unless he's winning a massive amount of white Democratic women, which he's not, Hillary doesn't help.

The truth hurts I know.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:19:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (1.00 / 3)

The truth hurts and we all know it.


by mtg44234 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:16:19 PM EST

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (1.00 / 2)

Hmmm "White independent moderate men and conservative women." Isn't that the same group that push Bush to victory in 2004? Uh yes it was.

Those demographics are coming back to McCain.

God help our party if Obama loses.


by mtg44234 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:21:15 PM EST

They were always (2.00 / 1)

for Mccain.


"Is there no keeping with class in whom we mingle with anymore?"
by Brandon on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:29:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They never left McCain (2.00 / 1)

they just were holding out. They were never for Obama nor for Hillary.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:53:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (2.00 / 3)

And what are YOU doing about it, besides casting blame.  This game is far from over.  But the song you sing here is the same one that PUMA has been singing for months.  If ever McCain was going to surge, it was going to be now.  Give him a little credit.  He's a crafty old coot.  Now we'll see how Obama responds.

I agree that we'd probably be in a stronger position with HRC on the ticket.  I wanted her there.  But instead of fixating on this narrative of Obama's "pride," I suggest crediting him with making a tough and responsible choice.  Unlike McCoot, he didn't pick solely according to political calculations, but looking ahead to governing responsibly.  

The race is not lost.  There is a good deal of time left.  Every time I've become frustrated with this campaign, they seem to right themselves and make it work.  I've taken nothing for granted at any point.  I don't think Obama has either.  This is the time to band together against a tenacious foe, not sink into defeatist recriminations.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:35:23 PM EST

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (1.00 / 2)

If Obama goes after McCain, as it was leaked he would, then he is done. Palin is the attack dog and has motivated the Republican base. They are here to stay until election day.

God help our party if Obama loses.


by mtg44234 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 02:40:21 PM EST

This is silly (none / 0)

Joe Biden is a strong choice if Obama wanted to go the experience route.  And more importantly he is a good man.  

I think that by not picking a reinforcing pick around change (say a Tester, a Webb, a Kaine) Obama showed weakness and the thugs smell weakeness like sharks smell blood.  

Obama has never cracked 50% in polls.  That is to say, after months of having the stage mostly to himself (or at least absent McCain) he has never closed the deal.   This has given McCain an opening.  But by no means is all lost.

Most/all of McCain's gains have come from rallying his base which was flirting with Obama or perhaps sitting it out.  Now that he has rallied the base, we are in the typical 50/50 election where it will be critical to define the thugs before they define us.   I don't think that we spent enough time at the convention doing this in personal terms, but it's not too late.

Look, it might not feel good to make it clear to the public that:

John McCain is a senile, angry, unstable, out of touch, wife-cheating, back-stabbing, racist.  

or that Sarah Palin is an inexperienced, fundamentalist, toothless piece of trailer trash who has more business  waiting tables at Denny's than she does running for national office.

But my friends, that is what we need to do to ensure victory.  You know that the other side wants Americans to believe that:

Barack Obama is an untested, feckless, Muslim empty-suited communist foreigner

and that Joe Biden is a slippery, jaded, cynical, do-nothing establihsment type.

They aren't hesitating to define our candidates this way.  It's enough.   It is time to sink to that level.


by activatedbybush on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:08:36 PM EST

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (2.00 / 1)

If Obama had picked Hillary, McCain would NOT have picked Palin

although the prospect of seeing Hillary vs Palin in a debate would have been pretty amazing to see.  Hillary would have chewed her up & spit her out without breaking a sweat.


by colebiancardi on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:15:04 PM EST

It is too early to be gloom and doom.. (2.00 / 1)

Right now the task on hand is to make sure Obama wins. We can always talk about "what if" after the elections.


by louisprandtl on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:15:42 PM EST

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (2.00 / 1)

Everyone please remember that trolls, like this diarist, deserve troll ratings.


by venician on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:21:10 PM EST

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (1.00 / 2)

Good comment venician...very professional. I am glad we can talk politics by quoting facts and articles and polls.

God help our party if Obama loses.


by mtg44234 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:27:09 PM EST

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (2.00 / 2)

LOL. As if you are really a Dem. You're just a two bit McTroll.


by venician on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:13:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Cool your jets (2.00 / 2)

That article isn't an analysis, it's a partisan hit-piece. It says this:

The reformer Obama who was going to be the candidate of change is now running with Mr. D.C. establishment.

while completely failing to mention that McSame is now trying to run as the candidate of change. It makes bald assertions about what McCain would have done, without any compelling reason beyond the fact that...well, no reason at all. It includes gems like this:

McCain, the maverick who is surrounded and advised by the D.C. establishment, has somehow picked the real reformer who has altered the Alaska political landscape by throwing out the establishment "good old boys" of both parties.

"The real reformer"? Are you fucking kidding me?

In short, it's GOP propaganda, devoid of actual substance. Thanks for distributing it. Next time you want me to read something, the answer is no.


by Neef on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:30:48 PM EST

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (none / 0)

This is where your argument failed -

Obama could not swallow his pride and pick Hillary

Unless you can back this up with one fact to prove it was pride your entire diary is a waste of time.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 03:50:52 PM EST

YOU OBAMA SUPPORTERS...? (2.00 / 1)

What do you mean by that?  Now that he is the candidate aren't we all supposed to be Obama supporters?  Are you hoping for a McCain victory for some reason?

He is the party Candidate and he deserves a lot better than this


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:02:12 PM EST

Its easy` (2.00 / 2)

The diarist supports McCain because the diarist was only a progressive Democrat long enough to get a user account (or three) on this site.  It's that simple.


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:17:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (1.00 / 3)

Yes, Obama did spurn Hillary and he still has never explained to any of us die-hard Hillary supporters WHY he spurned her. In fact, he has done NOTHING, ZERO, NADA to reach out to clinton supporters - he has relied on Hillary to do it all.

Why would I trust Obama with anything he says ("she is on my short list") when in fact even that is a lie now that we know he did not even vett her.

Obama is denying democratic women the opportunity that mccain is presenting to republican women...

of making history by having the first woman VP.

Hillary is more qualified and more experienced than Palin or than Obama - he had no reason to spurn her and no reason to go for an old washington insider that garnered about 70,000 votes vs a qualified, strong woman candidate that got 18 million votes.

Obama has already made his first big juddgement mistake and has proved he cannot be trusted.


by nikkid on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 04:52:49 PM EST

Cuddles (2.00 / 2)

Poor thing.

Obama did not "spurn" Clinton.  It's really quite sad that you think so.

Why would I trust Obama with anything he says ("she is on my short list") when in fact even that is a lie now that we know he did not even vett her.

He never said "she is on my short list."  He said, "She would be on anyone's short list."

As for the vetting, wasn't Clinton's campaign based on the notion that she was completely vetted?  Wouldn't it have been insulting to vett her?

Obama is denying democratic women the opportunity that mccain is presenting to republican women...of making history by having the first woman VP.

If that's all you care about, the Democrats offered that 24 years before the Republicans; why is it on Obama's shoulders?  As I recall, only Minnesotan women were impressed enough to vote for that ticket.

Hillary is more qualified and more experienced than Palin or than Obama - he had no reason to spurn her and no reason to go for an old washington insider that garnered about 70,000 votes vs a qualified, strong woman candidate that got 18 million votes.

He hand no reason to "spurn" her, and he didn't "spurn" her.  He chose somebody else, as is his right.  You don't even know if Clinton wanted the job, in the end.

Obama has already made his first big juddgement mistake and has proved he cannot be trusted.

How does Obama picking Biden say anything about whether he's trustworthy or not?  When did he give his word that he would take Clinton as his running mate?  She offered in February, and he didn't take her up then; why would he change his mind later?


The pebbles have voted and the avalanche has begun.

President-Elect "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:23:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (1.00 / 3)

hillary 2012


by darwinism on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 05:39:59 PM EST

Re: "Obama wrong to spurn Hillary" (none / 0)

Look, the diarist is a die hard PUMA who is not planning on voting for Obama anyway, and presumably, like all dedicated PUMAs, he or she has been a lifelong Democrat who wants more than anything to see Obama lose.
This diarist even wrote a diary about the fictional "whitey" tape.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/3/11229 /49236

Please use your TU status to dispatch this person to troll heaven.


"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Mon Sep 08, 2008 at 06:15:51 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.