"GOP Leaders Warn of Election Disaster"


YEAH!

Especially now considering that Great "conservative" commentator General Disarray's attempt to defend Americas Values ---- By Gaming Them!

Mock mock mock.

When you promote a grumpy old candidate for POTUS that even the biggest tool mouthpiece for the RNC cannot get behind then you have a very big problem.

I can't wait ... I can taste ... O'Bama and McBush on the same platform. herm

Newt is right! The Repubs have 6 months--more like 4--to get their shit together and broadcast it for the general election.

Draw up a platform that appeals to everyone--like the Contract with America and get busy.

Murphy

People need help right now and the Insulars are still saying no. They are quick to bail out wall street but wont help your cousin kkep his low cost property.

Why would anyone vote Insular again? America sucks right now and it's largely their fualt.

Newt suggesting another Contract With America?

What short memories we all have. Newt was 0-for-8 on the last one: of the 8 main tenets of the CWA, exactly ZERO became law.

And they won't make it. Sorry Murphy. They screwed up. They can't mend it.

"Disaster"

I never thought that would be a relative term.

We may need to even revise the definition to suit the uncontrollable and childish smirk brought to my face (an millions of other Americans) by the reading of such an impending "disaster".

Do you mean that a lib republican will loose to a conservative democrat? Who would have thunk.

"I can taste ..." - HERM

I'm also looking forward to these debates, but for opposite reasons. You're sounding awfully confident. For your sake I hope your right, but McCain's a pretty blunt guy. Assuming McCain takes the gloves off, that is. Sometimes he tries to be too nice.

Do you mean that a lib republican will loose to a conservative democrat?

Yesterday 'Obammay' was a socialists.

The friggin Maytag Man can't fix a spin cycle like this!

r&r, wasn't talking about the big O. I guess you should read the article. He still is a socialist and he is married to one

Parties will or lose because the deserve to. The Republicans deserve to lose, and badly. But it's hard to see how the Dems deserve to win.

Time will tell, though. Six months is a lifetime in politics. But if the Republicans are going down, best to do so with a squishy moderate at the top of the ticket, and in a relatively weak economy where even a hard lefty like Obama would be reluctant to raise taxes.

Republicans won't like it but taxes on the rich will rise before our economy gets any better. We already know Republicans don't have the guts to do what is necessary now we'll see if a Dem does.

"What short memories we all have. Newt was 0-for-8 on the last one: of the 8 main tenets of the CWA, exactly ZERO became law."

Posted by Danforth

He can't just use the same excuse the dems have been giving us since '06?

Gingrich is correct.

However, it should be fairly easy to draw up a platform that beats losing the war, jacking taxes way up, and letting a rascist stuffed suit run the place.

If they can't manage that, then they deserve what they get.

I"m glad they're more realistic about their chances than Hillary Clinton is

It should be a Democratic rout in the fall

8 years of George W. Bush and the Tom Delay's of this world have convinced all but the dumbest Limbaugh dittoheads in the country about that

It's a rope a dope the way I see it. The dems will control both Houses of Congress and the White House. People will expect more from the dems than blaming Bush and Cheney. Dems will actually have to form policies and pass laws that make sense. Surrendering in the Terror War, raisinf taxes, and creating more lib programs will nake our country weaker and ruin our economy. By the time the dems are finished, Republicans will be re-elected and have hegemony for the next 50 years.

LoD if Newty uses the same excuse that You claim the Democrats use then You forfeit Your right to declare Republicans are better than Democrats.

Larry Mohr

One of the GOP's top priorities should be to reform the Census Bureau???

We've been hoodwinked! This must be a story from The Onion.

programs will nake our country weaker and ruin our economy. By the time the dems are finished, Republicans will be re-elected and have hegemony for the next 50 years.

Posted by fwthom


you wish fool. Your greedy ass will have to pay your fair share of taxes. You have been ripping off the govt long enough. Time to pay the piper for a change

Republicans won't like it but taxes on the rich will rise before our economy gets any better. We already know Republicans don't have the guts to do what is necessary now we'll see if a Dem does.

Posted by danni
* * * *

LMAO. Uh huh. What we need is a big stimulus package of tax increases.
I never really understood just how, exactly, raising taxes on people improved the economy. Maybe you can help. I'm supposed to help the economy by . . . saving more? Investing? More capital spending? Hiring another assistant?--no. Sending more money to Washington.

Hmmmm.

"...Either congressional Republicans are going to chart a bold course of real change or they are going to suffer decisive losses this November..."


But I thought this was the government Republicans wanted? You know; the type of government where you and your friends suck billions of dollars out of the treasury every month and stash it into secret bank accounts; Where you send kids off to war - but fail to give them the proper armour and ammo; The kind where you give your friends Cushy Jobs in FEMA only to discover they're out buying Shoes while Hurricanes kill thousands; The kind of government where praying to jesus is the high mark of political achievement - then let school children starve from sea to shiny sea...You know...that kind of government.

It took republicans nearly twenty years to finally get a Republican Government, completely controlling the politics of this nation.

Now they want CHANGE????

Bad Idea. Stick to your plan. You had it right: The Biggest Issue Facing this Nation - and the world- is GAY MARRIAGE.

VOTE REPUBLICAN: CHANGE IS THE NEW MORE-OF-THE-SAME! (tm)


BWAWAWAAWWAA

Fucking morons.

BTW: redneckville: I agree with you on this one!!!! McCain should have gone ballistic on Bushes' ass. But you know lurking behind every Bush family member is a SwiftBoat waiting to paddle out to sea!

He can't just use the same excuse the dems have been giving us since '06?
Well, since he had 13 years, he should be able to use it 13 times as often.

As for McBush taking the gloves off, he'd be toast. He's blunt, but he's flip-flopped on every major issue in order to be the nominee. maybe he can bluntly explain wtf he stands for.

If he remembers....

"...I never really understood just how, exactly, raising taxes on people improved the economy. Maybe you can help. I'm supposed to help the economy by . . . saving more? Investing? More capital spending? Hiring another assistant?--no. Sending more money to Washington...Posted by rightisright..."

Raising taxes on the richest 1 percent who make and own more than 85% of this nation's wealth goes to repairing the country's infrastructure that Reepublicans have been blocking for twenty years(save for bridges to Nowhere, Alaska).

Your position would mean something if throwing their money back into their business or the stock markets is what they were doing.

But noooooo - reality check. The wealthy are buying more land, third castles, humvees to go with their porsches, bigger boats, and - get this - jetplanes, not to mention millions spent on paintings and jewelry here and abroad...

They certainly are NOT putting it back in businesses that would actually help the American worker.

So stop the lies, RIR. Your argument is like bad gas out of a republican's ass: often and forever, but still bad gas.

"LoD if Newty uses the same excuse that You claim the Democrats use then You forfeit Your right to declare Republicans are better than Democrats."

Larry Mohr

WTF, that'd be like saying that poop is better than shit.

"Dems will actually have to form policies and pass laws that make sense."

Posted by fwthom

Don't be so sure. They've already been let off the hook for breaking the promise to "fix" gasoline prices.

Headline should read:
GOP Leaders Warn of Return to Democracy

"Headline should read:
GOP Leaders Warn of Return to Democracy"

Posted by danni

For 48 States.

Republicans...your chickens are coming home to roost..may yer God damn YOU for a change!

One good disaster deserves another...ye shall reap what ye have sown...live by the sword, die by the sword...etc.

You know, its all in the "Book".

Poop IS better than shit at least when I said poop growing up I didn't get a mouthful of lava/Lye soap that I would have if I said shit. You capisce LoD??

Larry Mohr

""...I never really understood just how, exactly, raising taxes on people improved the economy. Maybe you can help."

First off, RisR is lying through his teeth, he understands exactly how taxation can get the economy moving. It has been used to keep the economy humming since the days of Roosevelt. Government taxes the rich and spends the money on infrastructure, wars, schools, it doesn't matter. The point is that it spends the money instead of hoarding it in an offshore account or investing it in China which does us no good here in the US. If wealthy tax payers desire to invest in the US instead of paying so much tax that is their choice but then their investment does the same thing for America that their tax dollars do if they don't invest it. Since business had managed to hold wages stagnant for seven years it will be up to government to hire at wages above the existing private sector wages to force private employers to compete for labor and thus get wages rising so that then we can dig our way out of this recession (depression). Obviously, the trickle down theory, long cheered by the right has been an utter failure as it has been every time it has been tried.

I'm afraid I don't totally capisce Larry.

Shouting "Shit!" has a stress relieving quality that poop could never hope to achieve.

But noooooo - reality check. The wealthy are buying more land, third castles, humvees to go with their porsches, bigger boats, and - get this - jetplanes, not to mention millions spent on paintings and jewelry here and abroad...
* * * *

Uh huh. And who builds the castles and the big cars and the big boats and the jet planes? Who works at the resorts and golf courses and tennis clubs and luxury hotels? A lot of other rich people?

Who got hurt the most after 9/11, when nobody was flying? Rich people who would've gone to Disney World? Or working-class people who work at Disney World?

I remember when the Dem retards got together and passed a big tax surcharge on luxury boats. Then, the luxury boat builders in Connecticut and Rhode Island went out of business, while the rich just bought their boats from the Norwegians or the Greeks.

Still--you guys know best. And the government knows best. I just find it amusing that we can jumpstart the economy by raising taxes on the rich, but not on you. Now why's that, I wonder? LOL. How typical. "We would be so much better off if they would just raise taxes on . . . that guy over there."

"Who works at the resorts and golf courses and tennis clubs and luxury hotels?"

The people who used to work at the factories making the cars, airplanes, etc. and who were making twice as much before they were forced into the service jobs. Personally, I'd rather work at helping to build a better country than in trying to insure some rich jerks weekend is nice. Y'all had seven years of accumulating wealth at the expense of the working class, now it is time to reverse it and rebuild America before it is too late.

Surrendering in the Terror War, raisinf taxes, and creating more lib programs will nake our country weaker and ruin our economy. By the time the dems are finished, Republicans will be re-elected and have hegemony for the next 50 years.

Posted by fwthom


..because we are really strong now. We are so weakened, we couldn't invade Granada if we had to and, of course, we can't afford it anyway because the cost of gas to get there would be prohibitive.

The GOP, as it exists today, has earned every bad thing that can ever happen to it. What goes around, comes around and I hope it lands right on the GOPs (and everyone connected with it) face. These idiots have earned the scorn of a nation but the best I can say is they earned it honestly - probably the only honest thing any of them have done in the past 8 years. THROW THE BUMS OUT!

Wait a second. I thought the rich were buying planes and boats and cars. How many poor people are doing that? How many production workers at Learjet are supported by people like you?
I've no doubt you want to build a utopia, Danni. And how generous of you to want to do it on someone else's dime.

Hiring another assistant?--no. Sending more money to Washington.


Hmmmm.

Posted by rightisright


Of course...that $600 is really going to get us on the right track especially with oil at $125/barrell

"And how generous of you to want to do it on someone else's dime."

AT least I want to do it on an American dime, not send out $600 checks that would bounce if we weren't borrowing the money. Just who do you think is going to pay down the deficit you and your party have created???? Clue.....it aint' gonna be the working class. We're tapped out so I guess it will be the wealthy. Oh darn. Poor babies are going to have to pay taxes again just like real Americans.

You're right, RisR! It's the privilege of us all to work for menial wages building the toys of the rich! Here I thought we should all work together to support a strong middle class. But now you have pointed out to me the error of my ways. The tax cuts the richest 1% get go to providing more low-paying construction jobs and maid, chauffeur, and laborer jobs! Why didn't I SEE this earlier? Obviously I have to support McCain now!

Hey, while we're at it, why don't we bribe more Americans to vote Republican by throwing $600 or 1200 checks at them? Doesn't matter if it adds to our debt! It's all about propping up the GNP through November!

Oh, there's the gutless wonder RightisRight, who ran away yesterday when I pressed him on some of his more moronic statements.

We already know Republicans don't have the guts to do what is necessary now we'll see if a Dem does.

Posted by danni

So what has the democratic congress done? Hold hearings on MLB? WOW.

The Dems can't do much in Congress because there is an asshole with veto power and signing statements in the White House.

"So what has the democratic congress done?"

Everything they could with REpublicans in the Senate setting the record for threats to fillibuster. Oh, these are those same "up or down vote" REpublicans by the way.

You're right, RisR! It's the privilege of us all to work for menial wages building the toys of the rich! Here I thought we should all work together to support a strong middle class. But now you have pointed out to me the error of my ways. The tax cuts the richest 1% get go to providing more low-paying construction jobs and maid, chauffeur, and laborer jobs! Why didn't I SEE this earlier?
* * * *

Interesting. Well, my point was a response to Dumpling, who complains that rich people only buy houses and cars and land--stuff that middle class people build and sell.

Government knows best, though. Easier just to have the middle and lower class work for the government, and tax the rich.

By the way, what's wrong with laborer jobs? I was one. Taught me a lot. Ah well, maybe I'll become more like you, and learn to look at those people the way you do: just too poor and sorry to make something decent of themselves, held down by the rich bastards in the top 1%.

Show of hands: how many people here think your taxes are too low?

Oh, there's the gutless wonder RightisRight, who ran away yesterday when I pressed him on some of his more moronic statements.

Posted by nullifidian
* * * *

You're boring to me. And you were boring to me when you used another username. Too weird to come on here and watch you follow me around, just hoping I'll notice you. Until you have something interesting to say, troll elsewhere.

"... a response to complain(t)s that rich people only buy ...stuff that middle class people build...."

Well, no, Poor People build. Middle classes consume - buy, buy, buy - so upper classes can be rich.

"Easier just to have the middle and lower class work for the government, and tax the rich."

You're coming around, RisR, but I think you still have a problem.

"...just too poor and sorry to make something decent of themselves, held down by the rich bastards in the top 1%."

R, Horatio Alger died years ago. Dishwashers rarely buy the restaurant any more.

"Show of hands: how many think your taxes are too low?"

R, I'm convinced that YOURS are too low. herm

"You're boring to me. And you were boring to me when you used another username."

Posted by rightisright


You're a chickenshit. You insinuated that I was Boyd and then ran away like a girlie boy rather than defending your assertion. Typical cowardly Republican.

Obama is funded to a very great extent by Wall Street. These so called "Free Marketeers" manipulate the bank, stock and real estate markets, systematically impoverishing hard working Americans. Just like S&L fraud with #41, they look to Obama to ignore their latest round of crimes and continue illegal immigration.

Anyone that thinks the Democrats will be our salvation are sadly misinformed. No surprise given the nature of big media.

Gravel, Kucinich, Nader, Paul belong to a small group of honest politicians, with genuine differences of opinion. But, they are all marginalized. Despite our founding fathers best efforts, money has corrupted our duopoly.

I keep hearing you lib losers talk about a rout in the general election. How is Obama going to pull that off.

Hell, he spent the last 2 months outspending Hillary 4 to 1 and has only managed to stay even from that point.

If not for blacks and the way the proportion delegates in the democrat party Obama would be losing.

Damn, Crack, I'm glad to see you are thrilled with your nominee. You know, the guy who can't even get 80% in a (mostly) uncontested primary.


Do you find yourself wondering just how in the hell you ended up with him?

Lets look at this another way. Which of these swing states will Obama win.

Missouri
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Ohio
Florida
New Mexico
Oregon
Minnesota
Wisconsin
New Hampshire

Remember blacks make up 1/3 of the voting public in the democrat party in states like NC but only 15% of the total in the general election. In addition we know hispanics distrust him so where are the extra votes gonna come from.

McGovern had this same problem in 1972 and got his ass beat like a drum.

Bee Swell

Let's see, who was McGovern up against?


Oh, that's right, an incumbent president.

The math in the general election is pretty easy to figure.

Blacks make up 13% of the population and will vote 90%/10% for Obama

Hispanics make up 15% of the population and will vote no more than 55-60%/40-45% in favor of the democrat.

Whites and others make up the remaining 70% of the population and will vote at least 60%/40% for McCain.

Thats about 49.3% for McCain to 48.7% for Obama.

Now what makes it worse for Obama is the math in Individual states. He will have trouble in all the swing states like PA, MO, OH, FL, MI, MN, WI, etc.

Bee Swell

You're a chickenshit. You insinuated that I was Boyd and then ran away like a girlie boy rather than defending your assertion. Typical cowardly Republican.

Posted by nullifidian
* * *

Just what he would have said. Oh. He did.

Still boring.

"Show of hands: how many think your taxes are too low?"

R, I'm convinced that YOURS are too low. herm

Posted by herm
* * * *

I know. But instead of waiting for the government to raise my taxes so you can get more free stuff, wouldn't it be better to get a job? You'd feel better about yourself, besides--maybe you wouldn't be so bitter about everything.

RiR is projecting again.


How is that job search going?

Good. I put in for the afternoon shift at Blockbuster.

So I guess I'll see you on Monday. Do we get paid every Friday? Or every other?

I looked up election disaster in the dictionary. It said, "See 2008 Democratic primary."

No, it said single party disaster

"Still boring.

Posted by rightisright "

Still a coward.

"So stop the lies, RIR. Your argument is like bad gas out of a republican's ass: often and forever, but still bad gas."

Posted by DUMPLING1 at 2008-05-07 04:51 PM

"First off, RisR is lying through his teeth, he understands exactly how taxation can get the economy moving."

Posted by danni at 2008-05-07 05:14 PM

Translation: We must not remind the people how Reaganomics was such a success.

A part of me says, "let the Dems regain control of the government, raise everyone's taxes, then our journey into recession will be assured, and Republicans will sweep into office two years from now".

Just like it took Jimmy Carter to bring us Reagan, Obama wil bring us another Republican hero.

We need to cut taxes...period.

The difference is who we cut taxes for, and it is not for the rich or corporations. Taxes need to be cut for those who consume and spend which is middle and lower America.

At the same time we need to get wages back where consuming can continue for the years to come.

I think you guys misjudge Obama and his intellect.

Obama knows what needs to be done and who the money needs to go to. The current situation of republican swift boating clearly keeps Obama from giving out too much information.

The republican party has created the idea that politician can't say or even be with anyone contrary to what they can distort or the swifting will begin.

The difference is who we cut taxes for, and it is not for the rich or corporations. Taxes need to be cut for those who consume and spend which is middle and lower America.

Exactly. If a $600 one time rebate is supposed to boost the economy, think what a $,2000 or so "rebate" would do more evenly spread out in the course of a year.

Actually, corporations need to have a tax cut too.

Charles Rangle has a great plan, that deserves your support, to do exactly that. The US corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world. It needs to come down.

McGovern also ran against crooks who broke into the Democratic Party Headquarters. Or are the GOP trying to rewrite history again? They keep doing it with Alzheimer's Regan! Forget about the recession his economic policies brought after he was out of office. Forget about the Iran Contra, and forget about arming Sadam Hussein with WMD's that he used on his people.

Better off dead then to vote RED.
Grand
Oil
Party

Republican4ever assumes Reagan was a hero.

Was it "heroism" to break the law and sell arms to the Contras?
Was it "heroism" to consult an astrologer on policy matters?
Was it "heroism" to bring the country into huge deficits?
Maybe it was the daily two-hour naps and the early Alzheimer's and the convenient memory lapses that made him a "hero."

We don't need another "hero."

Good. Maybe the neo-cons will start their own party and go away.

-Viz

I am in the middle of Alan Greenspans book (the age of turbulence - which i recommend). He decribes himself as a republican liberatarian.

He says that you can track the fall of the republican party back to a single moment in time. That being when LBJ signed the Civil rights Act. Apparently the south, who had been consistently democrat, became consitently republican after that moment.

Now the party is hyjacked by the evangelists and they are gettign ready to learn that america trusts evangelists less than politicians. The republicans are fucked and Elvis is dead.

"Elvis is dead."

Posted by Lipzoidial at 2008-05-08 09:12 AM


Damn.
No shit?

So's Goldwater.

It's been downhill since Ike.

Lipz,

Don't count out a good ol' fashioned Fernando Poo incident to reinvigorate the GOP.

Non Serviam.

HC

"The current situation of republican swift boating clearly keeps Obama from giving out too much information."

Posted by moneywar

Dems have been swift boating Obama all primary season. Nice try pretending that only one side does it.

The US corporate tax rate is the second highest in the world.
Posted by rightisright

[citation neeeded]

[citation neeeded]

Fair point, Hagbard.


However, a citation would only prove his comment to be correct.

Corporations are less likely to hire people if their taxes are high. Ours are extremely high, but the same people who jack up taxes and make it necessary for the corporations, who compete globally now, to move jobs overseas to save money are the same ones bitching that all the cushy union wrench-turning jobs are gone. Well...no shit! You taxed them out of existence!

You want jobs...drop taxes. Of course, Dems don't really want jobs, they just want to blame "the rich", the creators of all jobs, that a very low percentage of people (5%) don't have any. They just want the issue, they don't want it fixed. If it got fixed, who would vote Democrat?

"Of course, Dems don't really want jobs, they just want to blame "the rich", the creators of all jobs, that a very low percentage of people (5%) don't have any."

Posted by jonryker

First of all, JR, you should be glad that you're not one of the 5%. That number wouldn't seem so small to you if you were.

And let's not get into what this administrations definition of employment is.

"They just want the issue, they don't want it fixed. If it got fixed, who would vote Democrat?"

Posted by jonryker

Though I disagree, that sounds no different from the GOP with their "issues."

Hagbard,

It is not luck that I am not one of the 5%, except for the fact that I am healthy.

Yes, hard-core GOPers (I'm not a Republican, but a Conservative...there's a big difference these days) do have their little group...small business...and they take care of these people and pretty much ignore the rest.

While this is certainly no nicer or ethical than the Dems taking care of their self-created dependents, it is more useful for the country. Small business creates jobs. That's good for anybody. Just about anything that helps them helps somebody else as well, so the Rep's in my opinion are accidentally more useful than Dems for the country as a whole, because they happen to support small businesses instead of drug-dealers and unproductive people.

When in doubt, you can't go wrong by helping small business. Now, when the small businesses become large, then you can start to have a conflict of interest and things get complicated. Both parties have trouble being unduly influenced by large corporations....they're just in different industries. I don't really detect a systematic difference here, although if I'm gonna give corporate welfare out, which I shouldn't, I'd rather give it to vital interests like oil companies than to big media companies. It is more damaging to the country for big media to be in bed with government than it is for oil companies to be in bed with the government. So, they both score badly on dealing with corporations, but it is very damaging to the country for big media to prefer one party over another.

So, that's why I tend to lean to Republicans more often...not because I think they're better people or even smarter, but because their mistakes are more helpful and less harmful then Dem mistakes, at least during my lifetime.

JR,

If you are for helping small businesses, sign me up, but not at the expense of the workers.

Otherwise, what are the jobs small businesses create really worth?

"But instead of waiting for the government to raise my taxes so you can get more free stuff, wouldn't it be better to get a job?"

Run with that for a moment, RisR. What do you recommend that might include health care for the young? Aren't most "jobs" now moved to boiler factories in Bombay? You are among those who holler "personal responsibility" loudest, RisR. Give me some details. herm

Being an independent, I don't especially care, in general, who wins a presidential election. All I ever care about is that we have what the founding fathers envisioned, a balanced govt. My ideal is that one party control the executive branch, the other party the legislative. At this time, though, after 6 years of one party's dominance and the damage done (inevitable when one party dominates), I think we need 4 years of the other party's dominance, to at least somewhat get the pendulum back to the middle. Then, absolutely, a return to balance. Otherwise, the ruin of our country is inevitable.

"I don't especially care, in general, who wins a presidential election."

All that is needed for evil not just to survive, but to prevail, is for the FYIs of the world not to especially care. When different parties control the executive and the legislative, as now, we have paralysis, except that the good seems powerless to stop the evil. We need not a return to "balance" but a return to democratic principles. Hell, make that Democratic principles. herm

Herm, only in the binary world you inhabit. In the real world, both sides have positives and negatives. When we have balance, the things that both sides see as positives get pushed through while the negatives get pushed into your nightmarish world. A world I most emphatically do not want to live in.

Second, the approval rating of the current president strongly affects his party's ability to hold power.

Third, the electorate seems to suffer from an eight-year itch: parties rarely manage to hold the White House for more than two terms in a row.

This year, all of these factors strongly favor the Democrats. Indeed, the Democratic Party hasn't enjoyed this favorable a political environment since 1964. Robert Erikson, a political scientist at Columbia, tells me: "It would be difficult to find any serious indicator that does not point to a Democratic victory in 2008."

What about polls that still seem to give John McCain a good chance of winning? Pay no attention, say the experts: general election polls this early tell you almost nothing about what will happen in November. Remember 1992: as late as June, Gallup put Ross Perot in first place, Bill Clinton in third.

There's just one thing that should give Democrats pause -- but it's a big one: the fight for the nomination has divided the party along class and race lines in a way that I believe is unprecedented, at least in modern times.

Ironically, much of Mr. Obama's initial appeal was the hope that he could transcend these divisions. At first, voting patterns seemed consistent with this hope. In February, for example, he received the support of half of Virginia's white voters as well as that of a huge majority of African-Americans.

But this week, Mr. Obama, while continuing to win huge African-American majorities, lost North Carolina whites by 23 points, Indiana whites by 22 points. Mr. Obama's white support continues to be concentrated among the highly educated; there was little in Tuesday's results to suggest that his problems with working-class whites have significantly diminished.

Discussions of how and why Mr. Obama's support narrowed over time have a Rashomon-like quality: different observers see very different truths. But at this point it doesn't matter whose fault it was. What does matter is that Mr. Obama appears to have won the nomination with a deep but narrow base consisting of African-Americans and highly educated whites. And now he needs to bring Democrats who opposed him back into the fold.

It's possible that this will happen automatically -- that bad feelings from the nomination fight will fade away of their own accord. In recent decades, Democrats have had little trouble unifying after hard-fought primary campaigns.

But this time the division seems to go deeper than ordinary political rivalry. The closest parallel I can think of is the bitter intraparty struggles of the 1920s, which pitted urban, often Catholic Democrats against Protestant farmers.

So what can be done to heal the party's current divisions?

More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer -- they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal.

Nor is it helpful to insult the groups that supported Mrs. Clinton, either by suggesting that racism was their only motivation or by minimizing their importance.

After the Pennsylvania primary, David Axelrod, Mr. Obama's campaign manager, airily dismissed concerns about working-class whites, saying that they have "gone to the Republican nominee for many elections." On Tuesday night, Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist, declared that "we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics." That sort of thing has to stop.

One thing the Democrats definitely need to do is give delegates from Florida and Michigan -- representatives of citizens who voted in good faith, and whose support the party may well need this November -- seats at the convention.

And to the extent that campaigning matters, Mr. Obama should center his campaign on economic issues that matter to working-class families, whatever their race.

The point is that Mr. Obama has an extraordinary opportunity in this year's election. He should do everything possible to avoid squandering it.

" In the real world, both sides have positives and negatives."

Even in college, For Your Info, I burbled that there are two sides to every question, the right one and the wrong one. What positives in being shot up in Iraq to line Bush and Cheney's pockets? And only the worst righties posting here see negatives in sharing your goodies with the less fortunate.

"When we have balance, the things that both sides see as positives get pushed through while the negatives get pushed into your nightmarish world. A world I most emphatically do not want to live in."

Glad you concede that, F. I see a decided negative in sharing a world with you. herm

I hope they're wrong but it does look ominous.

The modern Republican party has simply abandoned the ideals that gave them power. Ideals like individual responsibility, small government, and low taxes.

They lost power because they deserved to, but the democrats will be worse, and that is the ONLY thing the republicans have going this year.

Incidentally, not that truth seems to matter much on this board.. but HERM, conservatives outgive liberals to charity by large margins over and over. We just like to give it ourselves, not have the government wasting half of it before it gets to the less fortunate.

Herm,
I have opposed the Iraq war since before the invasion. I have considered neocons as vultures since I first encountered them via Wolfowitz and Feith in the 1990s. None of this changed my position that both sides of the spectrum have positives which must be recognized and encouraged. For instance, I spent many years being appalled by our use of the A-bomb before I came to agree that their use definitively outwayed their horror. Most of all, I found that a truly intelligent person realizes that there is a huge grey area in pretty much every issue.

I once discussed the issue of hating Bush with you. I use this as an example of how we view things differently. To me, love is being willing to give your life to save that of the one you love. Hate is being willing to forego your life to extinguish that of the one you hate. I can unequivocally state I hate Stalin. I find the concept of hating Bush a foreign concept. You embrace it.

JonRyker believes that he is invariably right. That even though someone provides him a list of people that do not agree with whatever position he states, that there is unanimous agreement on his position and anyone who disagrees with him is unprincipled and a moron. You believe that only your position is right and everyone else is evil. And must be hated and destroyed. Compromise is a foreign concept to you both. He lives on a different continent from the one inhabitedby reality, you live in a world which is one dimensional and binary. He is dilusional, you are Don Quixote. I see no difference in the two of you. And I firmly believe that you two, and people like you, are the bane of any civilization.

I'm glad we agree that we'd prefer to live in two different worlds.

Herm,
Btw, nothing personal. Just a blog-site rant. I don't know you and even if your real life and blog personna are exactly the same, I could not care less. I merely wanted you to see/feel how even someone who supports probably more than a few of the same positions as you, sees the world you present.

And I do enjoy and am amused by the postings of both you and Jon.

"But the Democrats will be worse...."

Frankly a bit hard to conceive. I've observed that the Right continues to have a very hard time conceptualizing how startlingly bad Bush was and how completely he was enabled by his own.

Just because there's a statistical tendency to revert to the mean Democrats will be better than Republicans have been these last eight years.

"...a truly intelligent person realizes that there is a huge grey area in pretty much every issue."

I just posted Jim Hightower's immortal "the only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow stripe and dead armadillos." Absolutes DO exist, F, whether you indulge or not. For me. killing a human being, in war or prison, is wrong. Forcing women to carry unwanted fetuses to term is wrong. Taxing the poor to enrich the wealthy is wrong. Go ahead, argue with me.

" I hate Stalin. I find the concept of hating Bush a foreign concept. You embrace it."

Far better people than I have editorialized about hating Bush. But it's not the man, being generous with the term, it's what he stands for. And if you cop to hating Stalin, you're just selective in your hate.

You read me wrong on Ryker. I'm not remotely interested in destroying the man (using the term loosely). I do want to debunk every fiction he concocts. He and I are very very different. herm

Jeez! Demolish Iran. Seize their oil. Screw the Iraqis. Seize their oil. Reduce oil prices. Secure election of Republicans. Key action. Reduce oil prices.

"the only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow stripe and dead armadillos."

Only for lazy minds, Herm. And it is the attitude/belief which has caused more damage and death than any religion or "ism". "With me or against me". Riiiight.

Yes, absolutes exist, but only as exceptions which prove the rule that analysis and examination of issues on their own merits is what counts.

Bush is an idealist, like Woodrow Wilson, Carter, Reagan. He stands for nothing, though he does front something. Again, lazy thinking. And, again, lazy use of the concept of "hate". A perfect summation of what is wrong with our world. Instead of learning to think, more and more people prefer one-size-fits-all answers. Re Stalin, yes, I am selective. He was a psycho who firmly believed it was his right and duty to kill whomever he desired, whenever he desired, and acted on that belief. It is my opinion that hate should mean something, be reserved for the truly evil. You and your "far better people than you", right wing and left, have trivialized the concept and made the term worthless. Great job.

Re Jon, the comparison was that you both indulge in one-dimensional thinking and relegating those who disagree with you to the "evil" category. As such, I see no difference between you.

Again, I have no problems with you having positions or beliefs. Nor him. I have a huge problem with the thinking (or lack thereof) involved. And, yes, it is my problem. I prefer you carry on, it provides me much amusement. Almost at the level of Johnson.