It's pretty stupid for a presumptive nominee not to run with someone who would pretty much guarantee a Democratic landslide in the fall, don't you think?
So, why is Obama being stupid?
Why is Obama not happily, eagerly, throughtfully, planfully, excitedly, passionately offering Hillary Clinton the VP spot?
It makes no sense, does it?
He doesn't need 18 million votes?
His ego is too fragile?
He's scared that Hillary Clinton might, periodically, both outshine him and outthink him?
And he just doesn't want to be out-shone nor out-thunk? So he's willing to put the outcome of the election at greater risk to prop up his (male?) ego?
That would be a sure sign of Testosterone Deficiency Syndrome, sweetie. A troubling thought. Makes him look weak. Makes him look like a Schwartzenegger girlie-man. Makes him look like a total, well --- pussy.
Barack Obama needs to cowboy up for the good of the Democratic Party.
He needs to clean up his act.
Obama's current behavior is completely unacceptable. The pandering to the right, screwing up on FISA, backpedalling on choice, calling the Clintons racists, failing to address his sexism, not backing single payer health care, etc. etc.
Wimping out on naming Hillary VP is the worst of his worst, and this failure alone may cost the Democrats the election.
Look how things are shaping up:
In the two months since Barack Obama captured the Democratic nomination, he has hit a ceiling in public opinion polling, proving unable to make significant gains with any segment of the national electorate.Will Obama be getting over himself anytime soon?
While Obama still leads in most matchups with John McCain, the Illinois senator’s apparent stall in the polls is a sobering reminder to Democrats intoxicated with his campaign’s promises to expand the electoral map beyond the boundaries that have constrained other recent party nominees.
That gap between expectations and reality comes as Democrats enjoy the most favorable political winds since at least 1976. At least eight in ten Americans believe the nation is on the wrong track. The Republican president is historically unpopular. From stunning Democratic gains in party registration to the high levels of economic anxiety, Obama should have a healthy lead by almost every measure. Yet, in poll after poll, Obama conspicuously fails to cross the 50 percent threshold.
ABC News Polling Director Gary Langer asked, “If everything is so good for Barack Obama, why isn’t everything so good for Barack Obama?”
Will Obama be growing some cojones anytime soon?
And if not, why not?
.
------
And here's Big Tent Democrat on Another Reason Why Obama Should Choose Hillary as VP.
Here's VastLeftwingConspiracy on the Huge Unseen Elephant in the Democratic Party Room where Unity Pony was supposed to be.
Here's Alegre on why this race is so close when it shouldn't be.
Here's Anglachel on male privilege and the Edwards story: Yes, it is about the f*cking.
And here's Obama backpedalling on choice. Let's do fill the universe with more unwanted children who can grow up to be miserable and/or criminal and/or murderous like Ted Bundy, Osama, and Dirty Bush, eh?
9 comments:
Obama may need those votes, but (as has been pointed out here and elsewhere on both sides of the political aisle) he is exactly so swell-headed from gobbling up his own hype that he believes he doesn't need 'em.
I didn't believe for a second that Hillary would be offered the veep spot by The Messiah. First, he and his camp have spent way too long demonizing her. Second, he's not looking for anyone who's going to outshine him with, you know, substance or actual accomplishment. Third, she's a woman, and we know how much respect Camp Obama has for them, especially when they don't know their place.
By the above criteria, if John Edwards (for whatever reason!) hadn't just verified the unproven stories circulating for ages now, he would've been a perfect Obama veep. A plastic phony who used his wife as a prop even when she was ill, then cheated on her, all the while blasting Hillary at every opportunity? That was money. (See Anglachel's Journal's brilliant takedown of Plastic Man and his ilk.)
Obama seems confident that the media's campaign to convince PUMAs that PUMAs are bitter sore-losers, who are going to vote for Obama in the end anyway, will be successful.
It would be so delicious to see him proven wrong.
Side note: I bipped over to TBogg and found him wondering aloud why the Hillary blogs haven't accused Obama of having Bernie Mac killed yet.
Niiiiiiice. Congratulations, TBogg--Bruce Tinsley must be so jealous of your mad sliming skillz.
hi, billywitchdoctor. love your comments. ;)
Obama won't gain 18 million more votes by picking Hillary, although he'd surely gain some, but do you have an idea of how many he might lose by picking her, or how many the GOP might gain by running against her? Clinton hate is really all they have left, sadly.
Also, at the moment, Obama has about a two point lead over McCain in the aggregate polling, which translates to about a 50 electoral vote victory -- not too shabby.
Cheers!
I respectfully disagree. There's nothing left to fling at Hillary, it's all been flung before. You may not be aware of the depth of intra-party unhappiness with Obama, as you likely don't hang out in that section of blogtopia, but it's there and it's real and it's not going away anytime soon. Not that I can see. If Obama could put his ego aside for the good of the party, he'd have a winning ticket. Hillary has already put hers aside, by supporting him and by apparently being willing to be his VP, which she certainly didn't have to do.
I'm gunshy (calling Dr. Freud!) about calling Democrats wusses, because it recalls Maureen Dowd's serial emasculation of Dems (unless they're women, in which case she masculates them), but the listlessness (despite all the manufactured revival-meeting hype) and gutlessness of Obama's campaign is there for all to see (ditto for "elitism" and other kneejerk charges about Democrats that fit uncomfortably well this time around).
I am continually reminded of Woody Allen's "Sleeper," where all that's left of the leader is his nose, but his ethereal commercials convince people he still exists. Two other movie references come to mind (spoiler alerts!), the end of "The Conversation," where Gene Hackman tears his room apart, board-by-board, and "Around the World in Eighty Days," where the ship's crew feeds the ship itself into its own furnace part-by-part to help Phileas Fogg reach his destination on time. Why Obama thinks he needs to burn the party in order to save it (like Fogg) in this obvious change year is beyond me, since he could just punch his ticket instead of throwing everyone under the bus. Despite The One's preternatural cool, his crazy desperation seems more like Gene Hackman's Harry Caul. And why? Living in fear is making a cakewalk into the horse race it should never have been. (Still, I think it's going to be awfully hard for a Repub to win this year).
Also, an important caveat about that ABC News item. I was properly dinged here for missing the fact that the MSM is recycling an old lie, that the elder Casey was "banned" from the convention for opposing abortion.
Oh, I've seen that section of blogtopia, alright. :)
Honestly, I don't know if Hillary wants the VP slot, or for that matter if Obama will pick her for it. I think it would be a strong ticket, but not without some real negatives as well; I am not convinced of the Obama-Hillary landslide scenario, and I'm sure that there'd be more dirt left to be flung and uncovered -- so on those fronts, I too will respectfully agree to disagree. But on the other hand, at least Obama hadn't already picked Edwards!
1. Seen it, but spent time there?
2. Yes, Edwards. Yikes. And I hear that his flings (plural) have been an open secret for a long time. Not very party-loyal of him. What was he thinking?
I check in on other parts of blogtopia now and then to see what's up, and rarely even post things to see what kind of reception one could expect--the results are usually pretty disappointing. I wish that many people (on all sides) would be more conscientious about giving others a fair shake, but what do I know, perhaps there was a sale on pitchforks and torches...
As for Edwards, I'm sure he wasn't thinking, and then was thinking that it could be buried somehow. And it probably would have been, really, had The Enquirer not gone to some length to uncover it. I wonder what that sort of (or any) diligence might have turned up on other major candidates or nominees, in previous campaigns -- or in the current one. Hey Enquirer, how about that McCain guy, any affairs in his past?
Well, I just spent some time cruising through the way more PUMA-ier than me parts of blogtopia, and it's really red-hot out there. Ouch.
Sounds like everybody knew all about Edwards' affairs. Pretty strange secret to keep for so long.
Post a Comment