Unity? Not so much …

Big Tent Democrat is asking about Unity Tickets. But, we’re talking about a guy who’s still keeping votes from two states from counting in this nomination process.  How unifying is that?

SusanUnPC has an example of what might be in store for us if Obama takes either slot on our ticket — “N.C. GOP releases Rev. Wright ad” — how unifying is this?

And he can’t control himself. Is this unifying yet?

. . . My feelings about the Unity Ticket?  Not so much.

With all the really good possibilities among Democrats why tie ourselves down to last season’s candidate?  How about looking for a VP with a commitment to Hillary’s goals.  Someone who could help shepherd her Health Care Plan through Congress?  There are a lot of things to consider in picking the Vice Presidential candidate and I’m not sure Unity is the most important one.

Dear Obama Supporters: Define “Negative”

I’ve been reading all day about how negative Hillary has been towards Obama. MSNBC had a question from their exit poll asking who ran a more negative campaign in PA and 67% of all voters thought Hillary had. And if the media says it, it *must* be true, right? Of course, it might also be the case that people are predisposed to believe what they want to hear. I was on the ground in PA and I have to honestly say that I didn’t see much negativity from the Clinton campaign staffers or volunteers. They complained mightily about being soaked through while canvassing in the rain. But other than that, zip. But maybe I’m biased.

So, I am giving you Obama supporters a chance to set the record straight. Please define the term “negative campaigning” with regard to Hillary Clinton. Parameters:

1. You may not use an example where the candidate compares or contrasts herself with Obama.
2. The offense must be an overt and deliberate attack on Obama’s personality or character.
3. Outperforming Obama, for the purposes of this exercise, is not considered negative campaigning.
4. The negativity can not have been initiated by a media source.
5. Please back up your examples with citations.
6. Rude, obnoxious or obscene comments will be deleted.

Conflucians, sit on your hands and let the Obama supporters answer this without critiques, responses or comments of any kind. Go to the Open Thread below instead.

Open Thread

So, everyone still hungover? What’s on your mind?

Ponderable: If all of the Clinton supporters are anti-Obama racists who only vote for white people, then what does that make the 90% of PA African-Americans that voted for Obama?

Here’s something amusing: Over at the Big Orange Cheeto, Kos has declared a “ratings amnesty” (no, I’m not providing a link). Yeah, everyone who lost their ratings privileges during the primary war had them restored. So, I logged in and guess what? Still no ratings privileges. I’m shocked, SHOCKED. 😉 That’s ok, I still have a sockpuppet. Go ahead, Kos, try to figure out who I am. Bwahahahaahah!

Ooo, Obama is about to make a fatal mistake.  He’s going to try to court the senior vote. I just heard a giant whoosh! as the cool was sucked from his campaign.  Seniors just don’t have the eye-candy appeal of the Abercrombie and Fitch crowd.  But us old geezers in our 40’s and older (campaigns can age people prematurely) are now Obama’s new target demographic.   That will just kill it for the coeds and DINKS.  I mean, we drink wine out of a box (sometimes).

This is an open thread.

Hunter gets his knickers in a twist and other amusements

Ahh, must catch breath and wipe tears of mirth from eyes. No, I’m not providing a link. Let’s just say that Hunter thinks we are rude for being happy that Clinton won a state last night. Ok, Ok, I’ll wipe the smile from my face.

mwhahahahahahaahaaah!

Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

And then there’s MoDo. (Sorry, no link for that one either) who is so incensed that she is channeling Marvin K. Mooney. I think someone should alert the Suess estate about a possible copyright violation. But she’s simply channeling the editorial that we referenced earlier. They desperately want to get rid of Clinton but she’s like that lady in the bathtub. They think they drowned her but the minute they turn their back, she’s jumped out of the tub and is lunging for them again.

Dear media, give it up. No one is listening to you anymore. You can try and try and try to make her look like the most vicious harpy in the world but for some reason, voters don’t believe it. They think she’s a mensch. And she did it with much less money. Oh, you can try your coordinated attack against her. Yes, the coordination is obvious. You’re all saying how relentlessly negative she was. But it isn’t working. She’s going to take this fight all the way to the convention if she has to and we’ll be behind her every step of the way. The bloom is off of Obama’s rose. You did the best you could. If you insist on yelling your heads off about her, you too Big Boyz, more and more the public is going to think you’re not tethered to reality. The damn voters will do as the damn well please.

One other thing: It bears repeating because we often forget when one of them starts acting rational but:

The media is not out friend.

When it is convenient for them, Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough, Lou Dobbs, fill_in_the_blank, will do what their bosses tell them to do. Do not be lulled into a false sense of security. We have to be on our toes and on our guard for their next sneaky attack. And I have no doubt that they have one all planned out.

Wednesday: Good Morning Starshine!

Hillary wins PA by 10! While the citizens of the Big Orange Cheeto and other places wander amid the wreckage with glassy eyes, clutching their keyboards and moaning incoherently, the rest of us have a lot to look forward to. Well, we tried to warn them but would they listen? Noooo. Now, they’re either going to have to walk it back to look credible or lose even more marbles in their crazy pursuit of ad revenue. Well, that won’t last long.

In other news:

• The New York Times has all the bloody details and a couple of cool maps showing where she won in PA (see the frontpage). Harrisburg went Obama as expected, but surrounding counties went Clinton. It was definitely worth the effort.
• Anglachel sums up the PA primary and the state of the race in a series of posts: Exit Poll Data looks at her support and what it means for Obama (it’s not good), Deal spells it out so that even the Cheeto people can understand it, while Frugality marvels at Obama’s spendthrift ways. Hillary was a miser by comparison. From Deal, she explains what is going to bring us all down in November if we go forward with a weak candidate who can’t close the deal and is afraid to take care of some unfinished business:
  

  I’ve talked extensively about the stupidity, the sheer political suicide of refusing to seat Florida and Michigan. I’ve also talked about what the refusal to revote actually says about Obama’s own calculation – he knows he’s a loser and he’s afraid to face the voters. The Blogger Boyz want to yammer on about rulz and delegates and margins and popular votes and how Obama is such a precious beacon of hope and change…. From a strategic point of view, you don’t want a candidate who gets a nomination by disenfranchising his opponent’s voters because they can take their revenge in the general by voting for the other guy, or just not voting at all. It’s in Obama’s hands to restore legitimacy to this nomination by taking his chances with all the voters.

  Well, who ever expected the Big Boyz to make sense?

• CNN Political Ticker comments on the NYTimes editorial slamming Clinton’s negativity. Apparently, while we political junkies weren’t looking, she attacked him relentlessly. And by that they mean, she ruthlessly appealed to Pennsylvanians and beat him in debate with her viciously flawless performance. Not only that, but did you see her on Oblermann the other night going on and on about stuff she would do about gas prices and Iran? Does the woman know no shame? Displaying superior abilities to lead is just mean. Honestly, I have no idea what the Times is referring to. The editorial almost reads like a parody. Can anyone please explain this to me?  (Update: Apparently, it has something to do with her ad and the Iran statement about how we would totally obliterate them if they tried to launch nukes at Israel.  That’s not negative.  That’s how we operated for some 40 years during the cold war with the Soviet Union.  I think it was called nuclear deterrence or detente of something like that.  Sort of like holding a gun to each other’s heads and saying, “You go first”.  Has the NYTimes forgotten history?  And what is so bad exactly about including images of the depression, bin Laden and Katrina in an ad?  Are we really going to have Care Bears and Rainbows of Hope if Obama is president?  This editorial has to be one of the most bizarre I’ve ever read.  And wouldn’t you know, they stopped taking comments.  Chickens.)