The Democratic Party is in a most difficult predicament.

[kentuck]

============================


And, also, a most historic predicament. It is not an easy or simple decision to decide whether to nominate the first African-American or the first woman to be the nominee of our Party. It is understandable why so many Democrats, including the super delegates, are torn between these two historic candidates.

It is difficult because we do not want to lose the next election. We cannot afford to lose the next election. America cannot afford to lose the next election. It is that important that we make the right decision. We cannot afford to make the wrong decision.

Will Hillary be able to win with her large negative numbers in the polls and the attack machine that is already loaded to attack her once again? She did not win the last war against them. She left the White House. If she returns, the war against the Clintons will return also. That is the fear of many Democrats.

Also, will the American people vote for a black man with a perceived radical, out-spoken wife? Although he speaks in complete and complex sentences and offers inspiration to so many Americans and offers hope to finally unite this nation, can we really take the chance of nominating a black man as the Democratic nominee?

Those are the decisions that we have to make. They are not easy. Can either of them win against the formidable Republican machine? That is the decision we have to make. We should do it courageously and optimistically, with the hope that America will fulfil its promise to the world. No matter who ends up the nominee of our Party, we should support them and fight enthusiastically to defeat the Republican machine. We have no other choice.

=================

I was ordered to post this in GD-P. I thought it might fit into GD since it is primarily about the Party and not any specific candidate? But the mods exercised their reasoned judgement...

[OHdem10]

1. May I say with respect. It has been roundly reported that

Obama's unfavorables are as high as Clintons.
Clintons trending down and Obamas are trending up.

There are many people who believe Obama is the weaker candidate.
This is why they want Hilary to hang in there. It is not just
Hilary.

[kentuck]

2. I haven't seen that poll yet...

Last I saw, Hillary's negatives were over 50%.

[FrenchieCat]

3. Hillary's negatives are solidified negatives.......

at a time when either the media or Barack or McCain or the GOP are attacking her.

Obama's negative, never as high as Hillary's, are soft and flunctating at a time that his is under attack by Hillary, McCain, the GOP and the Corporate media.

The superdelegates are not stupid and understand the difference.

Unfortunately, you don't.

[bain_sidhe]

4. My own decision...

I speak for no one else, of course, and unlike some Obama supporters, I like Clinton, and feel she would be a fine president. I like most of her proposals (which, for the most part, aren't all that different from Obama's), and I know she would work hard to enact them.

What brings me to the Obama side of the fence is this chain of reasoning:

Clinton's support, for the most part, represents the same coalition that has lost us (albeit, narrowly) the election in the last two contests. She could, perhaps, bring in a few of the dis-enchanted "Reagan Democrats," but the question there is, would she bring enough, given that the MSM is presenting McSame as a "reasonable, moderate" Republican. Those of us here know he's not any such thing, but will the so-called "low information voters" know that? Not from the MSM, that's for sure.

I'm under no illusions that Obama would not lose a fair number of the much-vaunted "white working class" to racist qualms. He will. The gamble is that he would bring in enough new, and newly-invigorated voters to replace those lost, AND enough more to win. Make no mistake, that's actually a bigger gamble than going with Clinton. Both of the last two elections could have been won with just a few more voters from the Reagan Democrat crowd, in the right places. So, Obama could definitely lose too.

But!

The consequences of losing are the same with either candidate: Giving the Republicans another four years to destroy this country.

So, I turn my attention to the benefits of winning with each candidate for the deciding factor:

Winning with Clinton essentially leaves us in the same place: a cobbled-together coalition that could easly go the other way the next time. Incremental improvements on the order of what Bill Clinton was able to achieve.

Winning with Obama gives us a chance to change the game, and has longer term benefits for progressive causes, due to the influx of new, young, energetic voters, and the re-invigoration of older, jaded, and currently depressed progressive voters.

So, yeah, if we lose with either of them, we lose big. But, IMHO, if we win with Obama, we win big--or at least, bigger than we would with Clinton.

Again, I know it's a gamble, but I guess you could say that I'm doubling down on hope.

**edited for tyop**

[kentuck]

5. "the same coalition.."

Yep. That says the 50-state strategy is a bunch of crap. Win NY and CA and then hope for the best in FL and OH and if we win by one vote, then all is right with the world.

[bain_sidhe]

8. "50-state strategy"

Actually, it was his primary strategy that helped me feel comfortable with taking a gamble on him. It was brilliant. Only he correctly identified the "game" of the Dem. primary and played accordingly. I'm not good with sports analogies, but here's an attempt: If you look at the G.E. as a football game, and the Dem primaries as a basketball game, only Obama was playing basketball. The rest were all driving for the touchdown while Obama was running around the court making two points here, two points there.

Or, maybe you could do one with baseball (given the season we're in)--everybody else was swinging for the home-run, while Obama was bunting for base-hit after base hit, bringing in the runners one at a time.

I know, and I think *everybody* knows that most of the red-states he won aren't going to go Democratic in the general (which is one of Clinton's major arguments). But we're not IN the general right now. That isn't the game in the primary. Only Obama seemed to have realized that, and devised a strategy to win the game that's being played NOW, not the game to be played in the fall.

That speaks well of his strategic and tactical savvy, and, again, I'm willing to bet on it.

**edited for yet another typo**

[kentuck]

11. But we shoudn't assume that any rube could have won those states...

that he won. He was the better politician and the better communicator. I give him all the credit.

[bain_sidhe]

14. Well, no...

but all those states *were* holding Dem. primaries or caucuses. *Somebody* would have won, and without the kind of attention Obama paid to them, it probably whould have been Hillary, just on the "name recognition factor." But he really went after them, and overcame that factor. That's no small feat, but the greater credit (IMHO) goes to his realization that it was worth doing. That's why it was strategically brilliant.

[WillyT]

6. Hey bain_sidhe... You Should Consider Posting That As An OP !!!

That is outstanding reasoning!!! And I agree completely!

:kick::yourock::kick:

:hi:

[bain_sidhe]

10. Awww ::blush::

G'won witcha

My OPs sink like rocks. But thank you for the compliment!

[Thickasabrick]

15. I loved your post. You are right - it is a gamble - but the payoff

if Obama wins is huge in that all of the young invigorated voters he brought into the system - and more importantly the party will remain. It will change the party - but I think for the better and it has needed some tweaks for a long time.

[bain_sidhe]

17. Not only that

I think the "new voters" will have down-ticket benefits for some time to come, as well.

[K Gardner]

7. Obama "speaks in COMPLETE SENTENCES" !! Has a Radical black wife? Racist b/s flamebait..

unbelievable, but typical of a Hillary supporter.

[kentuck]

9. Unlike Dubya...

He speaks in complete sentences. Obama is the most intelligent and thoughtful person running for President. He weighs every word. He is brilliant. I think that some people may consider Michelle a little "radical". Just my opinion.

[TheDoorbellRang]

12. She's radical because she's not a Stepford wife.

As a feminist supporting Obama, I think she'd be a great role model for young women in this country to emulate.

[JoFerret]

26. "perceived"

Did you miss that?

And for sure that is how she will be perceived by many GOP voters.

I don't have a good enough sense of her myself to judge whether she will wear thin on me or not. (Most do btw so that is not a specific comment on MO.)

[Lyric]

13. Yes, she DID win the last war against them.

Bill left office because his two terms were up. The Repukes did NOT succeed in running them out. Come on, this is basic elementary school civics. *sigh*

[rove karl rove]

16. a huge mess

it needs to be reconciled, this is a very complex fracture - a draftee OTHER than Obama or Hillary should be mulled over - desparate times, desparate measures.

[bain_sidhe]

18. I disagree--not about the mess part

because, yes, it is a bit of a mess. But a "draftee" would just make BOTH sides feel disenfranchised.

Besides, Democracy--done right--IS messy. You've got all these people with all these opinions and for some reason, every one of them wants to be heard. :shrug: go figure.

[bain_sidhe]

19. IMHO, this post needs more recs

I've only got the one, so how about it folks? Can a reasonable discussion about the decision we're facing, without all the name-calling (well, without MUCH of it, anyway) make it to the greatest page?

[BlooInBloo]

20. Racists-by-proxy are my new favorite! Taking over for the colorblind racists! Woot!

[bain_sidhe]

21. HUH?

I don't get your point.

Of course there are racists in this country. That isn't the issue. What do you mean by 'racists by proxy'?

[BlooInBloo]

22. racist by proxy = "**I'm** not racist, but THEY are, therefore we shouldn't vote for a black man."..

It's the new wonderfully creative way white folks have come up with to keep racism going. Hop on board - the train is leaving soon! WOOT!

[bain_sidhe]

23. Ah.

Well, I know that racism exists. I do worry about how many racists there are, and where they are located. I'm just not letting those worries dictate who I support.

If others do, I find that sad, but there's nothing I can do about it except make my case for Obama as strongly as I can.

I can't figure out if I'm on your train or not. I think it's a legitimate worry, but I also think its beatable. However, I don't think snark and sarcasm is the optimal method of fighting it.

[Dems to Win]

24. I will support the nominee

If Clinton is awarded the nomination while coming in 2nd place in earned delegates, the Democrats will certainly lose in November. Clinton has no winning path to the presidency.

Indiana and North Carolina Democrats, your help is needed to avert an ugly controversy awaiting us in Puerto Rico. In the U.S. territory, citizens do not vote in presidential general elections, but they are given a voice in the Democratic primary.

Puerto Rico's Democratic party decided, on March 8 of this year, to hold a primary rather than a caucus to allocate it's 55 delegates. This decision was made after it became clear that in a close contest, the total popular vote -- no matter how skewed a figure, due to the mix of primary and caucus states -- would become an important number in discussions about the nomination. States that had already had their caucuses, in full accordance with the rules established before the primary season began, did not have the re-do option.

Colorado and Puerto Rico have been allocated the same number of pledged delegates, 55. With Puerto Rico holding a primary with an expected turnout of at least a million voters, its popular vote will likely equal the total caucus votes of Colorado PLUS the primary votes of South Carolina, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Utah, combined. Puerto Rico will thus have a popular vote equivalent vote strength of 160 pledged delegates, rather than their allocated 55.

If the perception is widespread that Obama won the delegate count but lost the popular vote, it will weaken our Democratic nominee and cause feelings of resentment among Clinton supporters. Our best hope of winning in the fall is with a strong nominee who was fairly chosen because he won the most pledged delegates and the most popular votes. The large popular vote expected for Clinton in Puerto Rico may make Obama fall short in the popular vote.

If you've concluded, as I have, that our likely nominee, Senator Barack Obama, is worthy of your vote in the fall, I urge you to consider voting for him May 6. I think it is a wise move for everyone who hopes for a Democratic victory in the fall.

Even if Obama is not your first choice now, your vote in his column of the popular vote would be a gesture of hope for a Democratic victory in November. Doing so will help unite the Democratic Party and give us our best chance for a win in the general election.

As a California voter in June of 1992, I cast my vote not for Jerry Brown, my governor and favorite candidate, but instead for an inexperienced, charismatic governor of a small state, Bill Clinton. It was clear that he would be the nominee, and I wanted to add my little boost to strengthen him going into the convention and the fall election.

Thank you for your consideration.

[WillyT]

25. Kicking !!!

Read Post #4 please.

:kick: