Who will (not should) be the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008?

[Philliesfan980]

Man, can Hillary just go away already?

[Young Drachma]

James Carville is gonna fight somebody tonight on CNN. Sorta funny. He's not sure why they're mad that Hillary didn't concede. The whole panel is so confused that they're clearly not sticking for any script.

[Young Drachma]

Here's the text of Obama's speech tonight:

Tonight, after 54 hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end.

Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled. Millions of voices have been heard. And because of what you said — because you decided that change must come to Washington; because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest; because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another — a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.

I want to thank every American who stood with us over the course of this campaign — through the good days and the bad; from the snows of Cedar Rapids to the sunshine of Sioux Falls. And tonight I also want to thank the men and woman who took this journey with me as fellow candidates for president.

At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.

That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning — even in the face of tough odds — is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as first lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency — an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

There are those who say that this primary has somehow left us weaker and more divided. Well I say that because of this primary, there are millions of Americans who have cast their ballot for the very first time. There are independents and Republicans who understand that this election isn't just about the party in charge of Washington, it's about the need to change Washington. There are young people, and African Americans, and Latinos, and women of all ages who have voted in numbers that have broken records and inspired a nation.

All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren't the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard. You didn't do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment — a moment that will define a generation — we cannot afford to keep doing what we've been doing. We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say — let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.

In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically. I honor that service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. My differences with him are not personal; they are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign.

Because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.

It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

It's not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college — policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.

And it's not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians — a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn't making the American people any safer.

So I'll say this — there are many words to describe John McCain's attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush's policies as bipartisan and new. But change is not one of them.

Change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged. I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years — especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in — but start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It's time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve when they come home. It's time to refocus our efforts on al-Qaida's leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century — terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what change is.

Change is realizing that meeting today's threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy — tough, direct diplomacy where the president of the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for. We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That's what the American people want. That's what change is.

Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who created it. It's understanding that the struggles facing working families can't be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving the middle-class a tax break, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation. It's understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was president.

John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy — cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota — he'd understand the kind of change that people are looking for.

Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill, he'd understand that she can't afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and wealthy. She needs us to pass a health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That's the change we need.

Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he'd understand that we can't afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future — an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. That's the change we need.

And maybe if he spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, he'd understand that we can't afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American. That's the change we need in America. That's why I'm running for president.

The other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate the American people deserve. But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon — that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.

Despite what the good Senator from Arizona said tonight, I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I have brought many together myself. I've walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the South Side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools. I've sat across the table from law enforcement and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent thirteen innocent people to death row. And I've worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break; to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent; and to reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.

So it was for the greatest generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.

So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better, and kinder, and more just.

And so it must be for us.

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

[NoMyths]

A stirring speech. Respectful of the process and his opponents, and inspiring in its vision. Here's hoping.

[SFL Cat]

Still waiting for some substance...

[Young Drachma]

He's ad-libbing quite a bit, too.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

He's ad-libbing quite a bit, too.

Wha...did he make another "57 states" reference? I can imagine what would happen if someone like Dan Quayle had said something like that.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Still waiting for some substance...

I find it humorous that someone who holds Reagan in high regard is complaining about a lack of substance in a politician's speech. "The Great Communicator" was originally a put-down assigned to Reagan for his propensity to give long speeches without really saying anything of substance.

[Swaggs]

Semi-serious question: Do you guys think that any of the presidential debates will be held in High Def?

If so, I think the contrast between Obama and McCain could be starkly similar to that between Kennedy and Nixon during their famous televised debate.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by cartman

I find it humorous that someone who holds Reagan in high regard is complaining about a lack of substance in a politician's speech. "The Great Communicator" was originally a put-down assigned to Reagan for his propensity to give long speeches without really saying anything of substance.

If I agree with your premise...then Obama's done an admirable job so far filling Reagan's shoes.

[JonInMiddleGA]

One of the most bewildering political collapses in my lifetime, although hindsight makes some of the mistakes pretty clear.

Rule #1 -- always run like you're 20 points behind ... otherwise you might be.

She failed to close the deal early, much like a heavy favorite who lets a lesser opponent hang around and hang around, and we've all seen that movie before.

If she doesn't end up VP and have him offed, she might seriously consider offing herself because I don't know how you could ever show your face in public after losing to an empty suit whose best selling point seems to be sounding like Dwayne Johnson.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

If she doesn't end up VP and have him offed, she might seriously consider offing herself because I don't know how you could ever show your face in public after losing to an empty suit whose best selling point seems to be sounding like Dwayne Johnson.

Naw...Obama will have Air Force One thoroughly checked before boarding...

[Wolfpack]

Hmm...Hillary as VP. Does that mean that the Secret Service will need to be surrounding Obama when he makes his SOTU speeches?

[billethius]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Still waiting for some substance...

If you're waiting for substance from a politician, you're gonna be waiting a long time. Their only goal is to get elected - actually saying something might hurt those chances. They're all the same....

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Semi-serious question: Do you guys think that any of the presidential debates will be held in High Def?

If so, I think the contrast between Obama and McCain could be starkly similar to that between Kennedy and Nixon during their famous televised debate.

It doesn't even have to be high-def. The height issue is going to be a major negotiating point in the debates. Obama is roughly four inches taller than McCain and I guarantee his folks will work very hard to find a way to keep them apart. The image of McCain looking up to shake hands with Obama is not one they want to see.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Not so fast there, Dems...

Obama certainly can't make the claim that he has decisively whupped her in the primaries...especially since she has beaten him pretty soundly in most of the big states...which are the ones that will really matter in the general as far as electoral votes go.

Yeah, I don't think it was a decisive as the news outlets make it out to be.

What is the deal with the popular vote. I hear that if they counted Mich. and Fla. she may have more popular votes, is that correct?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Grammaticus

Yeah, I don't think it was a decisive as the news outlets make it out to be.

What is the deal with the popular vote. I hear that if they counted Mich. and Fla. she may have more popular votes, is that correct?

I don't think there is a definitive way of counting the popular vote. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, for one thing.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It doesn't even have to be high-def. The height issue is going to be a major negotiating point in the debates. Obama is roughly four inches taller than McCain and I guarantee his folks will work very hard to find a way to keep them apart. The image of McCain looking up to shake hands with Obama is not one they want to see.

Agreed.

I have read that Obama is 6'1 and McCain is 5'7, so, if true, the difference in height would be half of a foot. I think the height, age, and speaking ability is going to be a tremendous advantage for Obama in debates. It is going to be hard for McCain to be combatative without appearing to be a small, crotchety, old man.

[ISiddiqui]

OTOH, the difference in height can be balanced out by the fact that most viewers were realize McCain was tortured and assume his smaller height has something to do with that (evne if it didn't).

[st.cronin]

People said the same thing about Kerry and Dubya. Kerry is at least a few inches taller.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It is going to be hard for McCain to be combatative without appearing to be a small, crotchety, old man.

[SFL Cat]

Touche!

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

People said the same thing about Kerry and Dubya. Kerry is at least a few inches taller.

Gore was also taller than GWB.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't think there is a definitive way of counting the popular vote. Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, for one thing.

Sure, I can see that as a defense, but counting the popular vote is very easy and definitive. But I would say winning more big states and key battleground states and possibly taking the popular vote is not losing decisively.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It doesn't even have to be high-def. The height issue is going to be a major negotiating point in the debates. Obama is roughly four inches taller than McCain and I guarantee his folks will work very hard to find a way to keep them apart. The image of McCain looking up to shake hands with Obama is not one they want to see.

A shrill old powerhungry woman was shorter and seemed to do okay with the height disadvantage.

[JPhillips]

RA: Except she lost.

I don't think the height advantage will determine the race, although it is interesting that it's been over 100 years since anyone under 5'9" has won. I just think it will be a major sticking point come debate time. There will be a lot of negotiation about how they're seen together, whether McCain gets a platform, etc.

[Young Drachma]

Rush Limbaugh on Obama

LIMBAUGH: I gotta give you something else to think about here, Nick, and I know you're on a cell phone. I can hear a little bit of delay, but -- you know, somebody's running Obama. Somebody's behind Obama. This -- there's -- and I don't mean in a conspiratorial way. There's always a mover and a shaker behind candidates. Reagan had his "kitchen cabinet" and so forth. Somebody's pushing Obama, somebody's writing his speeches, somebody has figured out that he was the best guy to get rid of the Clintons. There's somebody in the Democrat [sic] Party that really wants rid of the Clintons.


CALLER: Absolutely.

LIMBAUGH: We know that George Soros is involved with Obama, but there's somebody that's putting the words in his mouth. 'Cause you're right -- when he goes off the teleprompter, he is a different guy. He does not come off as the messiah, he doesn't come off as this great unifier. He has trouble articulating with a bunch of stutters and pauses and so forth. So -- but my point in telling you this is that there must be real animosity toward the Clintons at high levels of this party. To go with a veritable rookie whose only chance of winning is that he's black.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Rush Limbaugh on Obama

Shocking!

[JPhillips]

I really don't understand the way people on both sides see these candidates as being picked by some elite power brokers. Primaries were held and more delegates were won by Obama and McCain. Each candidate has their share of powerful folks behind them, but they don't control the outcome.

On the Dem side the outcome would have been completely different if Hillary had admitted her Iraq vote was a mistake. That's it. To win the Dem primary you had to either be opposed to the war from the start or admit that it was a mistake. Hillary wouldn't say it was a mistake and that cost her a shot at the White House.

[SFL Cat]

Actually, I think there probably is an element of truth to Limbaugh's observation. That is why the Democrat primary has been so interesting. There is a definite element within that party trying to wrest control (or at least the spotlight) from the Clintons. The biggest question is whether the Clintons step down gracefully "for the good of the party" or, if they aren't going to be the guiding light of the party any longer, decide to take the everyone else down with them. Hillary could still do a lot to torpedo Obama's campaign.

[JPhillips]

There's obviously a split in the party, but that;s true in any contested primary. I just don't believe the outcome is determined by powerful, shadowy figures. Plus, any mention of George Soros should be equivalent to Godwin's Law.

[Buccaneer]

I've heard from several of my Florida in-laws, a variety of political persuasions, and they these points, fwiw. Everyone despised the Clintons and feel that it would be a huge mistake for Obama to pick them as running mates as they would elbow him out of the way. They are not for Obama, they like him personally but don't like his ideas and who's behind him. A couple of them (esp. my mother-in-law) used to be big McCain fans but not any more but voting will likely come down to his pick as VP. They absolutely do not want him to pick their governor as they don't believe he is presidential material. Sounds like less-of-two-evils, yet again for them, some will go D, some will go R.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Coffee Warlord

Obama better hire a food taster if that happens.

A friend of mine made this exact point (joke?)

I instead (joked?) that she wouldn't be that overt. It would be something like going outside his bedroom on a frozen night and spraying water or pulling his shower mat out and replacing it with pam. Something a bit more sneaky.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Still waiting for Obama to change his views so they're closer to mine...

Fixed that for you.


Anyway, I think we should probably lock this thread and move on to the General Election thread. Mods?

Or... People Could Lose Posts!

[Buccaneer]

No, I think we can leave it open to talk about the primaries, as we begin to hear more behind-the-scenes stuff.

One of the main things I've been hearing and reading lately is the emphasis on how tough it was for a women candidate to succeed, even against a black candidate. I think they have it wrong in that I believe that a woman candidate could do very well regardless of party - just not this particular woman candidate.

[Autumn]

I think being a woman was part of it, but I also think Hillary was not the best candidate to break that barrier. Frankly, I think the Republicans could have done very well with Condoleeza Rice, I'm glad she didn't run.

[Greyroofoo]

is this thread necessary anymore?

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I think being a woman was part of it, but I also think Hillary was not the best candidate to break that barrier. Frankly, I think the Republicans could have done very well with Condoleeza Rice, I'm glad she didn't run.

I like her, but I don't think she would have done very well. Too close to Bush. Maybe during the next cycle, if she's even interested.

[BishopMVP]

I'm still rooting for Mike Gravel to pull this out.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

No, I think we can leave it open to talk about the primaries, as we begin to hear more behind-the-scenes stuff.

One of the main things I've been hearing and reading lately is the emphasis on how tough it was for a women candidate to succeed, even against a black candidate. I think they have it wrong in that I believe that a woman candidate could do very well regardless of party - just not this particular woman candidate.

Agreed on the first. On the second, that's why I can never take feminists/women studies people seriously.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

One of the main things I've been hearing and reading lately is the emphasis on how tough it was for a women candidate to succeed, even against a black candidate. I think they have it wrong in that I believe that a woman candidate could do very well regardless of party - just not this particular woman candidate.

Err... consider she was, by far, the closest to reach the nomination goal, I think being a woman was played against her. What other female candidates out there have even a reasonable shot of getting this close to what Senator Clinton has done (I think Slate or someone did an article on this and found it may take a generation to find that person)?

And, as we've seen from female leaders who have been elected in other countries, women who get that high have to be probably even MORE cutthroat and mean than a male candidate, in order to show that they'll be strong leaders (Meir, Thatcher, etc.). A strong woman like that will always be tarred with the bitch label, as Hillary had during this campaign and before hand.

Unfortunately, I do think that the same tactics that a candidate needs in order to clinch the nomination will turn any woman in a "bitch" in the eyes of some.

[Dutch]

Thank God Obama beat that bitch out!

[st.cronin]

I think being a woman helped her as much as it hurt her, and my guess is that it was in the end neutral to her chances.

[miked]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Err... consider she was, by far, the closest to reach the nomination goal, I think being a woman was played against her. What other female candidates out there have even a reasonable shot of getting this close to what Senator Clinton has done (I think Slate or someone did an article on this and found it may take a generation to find that person)?

And, as we've seen from female leaders who have been elected in other countries, women who get that high have to be probably even MORE cutthroat and mean than a male candidate, in order to show that they'll be strong leaders (Meir, Thatcher, etc.). A strong woman like that will always be tarred with the bitch label, as Hillary had during this campaign and before hand.

Unfortunately, I do think that the same tactics that a candidate needs in order to clinch the nomination will turn any woman in a "bitch" in the eyes of some.

Interesting logic. Maybe a majority of people just didn't like her or liked Obama more. But I guess blaming sexism takes the blame off her awful campaign.

[ISiddiqui]

Let's think about it this way... what other woman do you think could have come even close to as far Senator Clinton has?

And if you don't think sexism played any role in this race then... wow.

[JPhillips]

I think there was obviously some sexism at work, but it wasn't as damaging to her as her Iraq stance and her poor campaign strategy.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Let's think about it this way... what other woman do you think could have come even close to as far Senator Clinton has?

And if you don't think sexism played any role in this race then... wow.

otoh: Where would she be if she weren't a former First Lady? Being a woman is a massive part of her credentials.

[ISiddiqui]

Quite true (sometimes you wonder what would have happened if she didn't put her career on hold for her husband's political career) ... but that also speaks to a sad reality. How far can a woman get in this country in politics?

[Young Drachma]

This speech she's giving -- Hillary endorsing Obama -- is like a Clinton swan song. But it's evident that because Obama isn't here on stage with her, that it's simply not going to work. It's too much about her and not enough about putting her stamp on him. It's certainly a party barn burning speech and perhaps she's trying to say, smartly, "hey guys, I don't like him either. But this one is for the team."

[Young Drachma]

I take that back. She's doing the best she can and I'm not sure any of us ever saw this speech coming...it's almost surreal.

[Young Drachma]

It would be far better if she told them straight up that voting for McCain is voting against her. She's going to have to go on the road with him to help him, if this is going to really stick. Madeline Albright talked about Seneca Falls today too and about slavery. Seems they traded notes.