The Unity Schtick Is a Bad GE Strategy Too: Clinton Beats McCain, Obama Loses To McCain

In Monday's South Carolina debate, John McCain and who could beat him was a big topic. Both John Edwards and Barack Obama argued they could beat John McCain and Hillary Clinton could not. Sorry Barack, the polls do not support you:
Clinton 46
McCain 42

Obama 41
McCain 42
The interesting finding here is Obama simply does not have the type of solid support with DEMOCRATS that Clinton does. And he runs no better with Independents against McCain than does Clinton. The moral of the story? The Kumbaya Unity schtick is a BAD general election strategy. There is no reason for it. Obama needs to jettison it NOW. It hurts him in the primaries. And would hurt him in a general election against McCain.

More . . .

In a Clinton-McCain race, Clinton wins Democrats 83-11, loses Republicans 74-13 and splits Indies 39-39. Clinton's bond with Democratic base voters is the key to her lead here. By contrast in a Obama-McCain race, Obama wins Dems by only 74-18. He loses Republicans by an even wider margin than Clinton 81-12 and splits Independents 37-37. So the Kumbaya strategy garners Obama LESS Republican votes and no advantage among Independents. It seems clear now that Obama's Unity schtick is an utter failure, both in the primaries and the GE. The question now is is Obama even electable against McCain?
< Obama: I Pushed The Wrong Button On Votes | Mukasey and Bush : Fear Mongering >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Not to pile on (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:32:49 AM EST
    But Obama loses Massachusetts to McCain.
    50%    McCain
    45%    Obama
    6%    Undecided

    I do not believe that poll (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:40:39 AM EST
    Ridiculous finding.

    SUSA is normally pretty reliable (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:43:20 AM EST
    Whether any actually election could ever look like that is a different question, and I suspect the answer is no. But even the prospect makes me a little nervous.

    I do not believe that result (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:46:15 AM EST
    Your right (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:52:16 AM EST
    Out of the same sample of voters, Obama beats all of the other Republicans, and often by double digits.

    I think that poll has meaning.


    I don't believe it either, but. . . (none / 0) (#65)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:19:56 AM EST
    since your thesis in this posting is based on polling.  Does that not also call into question your argument?

    war (none / 0) (#9)
    by diplomatic on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:44:52 AM EST
    There seem to be an awful lot of people who are perfectly ok with another 100+ years in Iraq.  Disturbing.

    McCain (none / 0) (#22)
    by chrisvee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:06:28 AM EST
    Yeah, ITA.  It seems to me, though, that someone could make a pretty effective campaign ad out of McCain's 100 years comment, the 'bomb Iran' song, his birthday cake celebration with Bush during Katrina, his comments about being clueless about the economy, and some of his Bush huggie moments.  I can't fathom how independents could vote for him regardless of who the Dems nominate.

    McCain (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by rebecca on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:32:06 PM EST
    If our candidate doesn't bring it up no one else will.  So if our candidate is running on postpartisanship and bringing people together rather than on contrast do you think he's going to go there?  We had Kerry holding a feel good convention where no one was supposed to go there and the Bush holding a convention where everyone had bandages on their face and were trashing him left and right.  I hope Obama won't be that clueless but I haven't seen where he won't be.  He's rather stumbled along against Clinton.  How will he do against the real pros.  Clinton at least has shown she knows how to throw a punch.

    IOKIYR (none / 0) (#23)
    by diplomatic on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:09:12 AM EST
    the media will have perfectly reasonable explanations and praise for all the matters you raised.  Their darling does what he does because he loves America.

    Including Norman Schwarzkopf. (none / 0) (#55)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:36:08 AM EST
    Obama can change strategy (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by chrisvee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:49:40 AM EST
    It seems to me that Obama can keep the unity message while eliminating some problematic behaviors and effectively solve his problem with core Dems.

    First, I'd suggest that he be very careful not to make remarks that can be construed (through sound bites or out of context citation, etc.) as positive about the conservative movement, Reagan, or the Bush administration.  Most of the remarks that have generated the churn have been ones made when he's speaking to conservative media but honestly, I don't think he needs to make his case to Republican crossovers and indies in that way.  His anti-war stance and his desire to rise about partisan bickering is enough to attract those voters while not pissing off core Dems too much.  He has to make his remarks more bulletproof.  

    The second part of this is a little tougher given that he's running against a Clinton but I think he has to be very careful about the remarks he makes about Bill Clinton and his legacy.  For many of us, those eight years (despite their problems, challenges, and in some cases, failures) are the only bright spot in our adult political lives.  Reagan-Bush I-Bush II have been a disaster for the country on many levels.  I doubt the small core of Bush II supporters who remain will vote for Obama anyway, so run against Bush, not Bill Clinton. Take a page out of the Republican playback and honor folks who should be our Democratic heroes.  Feeding the Clinton hate only generates a backlash that he can't afford.  I realize this is tough thing to ask because since the economy has become the hot issue, Clinton benefits tremendously from good feelings about the state of the economy under a Bill Clinton administration.  But there's a lot of clever political tacticians out there and I have to believe they can find a way.

    Third, I think it would help him with women if he came out hard & very vocally against the misogyny directed towards Clinton in the media.  He wants to cast himself as part of the solution not part of the problem.

    Fourth (and this relates to #3 above) regardless of who started it and who said what, he needs to have a zero tolerance policy for anyone playing the race card (I hate that phrase but I needed some shorthand to refer to the issue).  Things are starting to get very sharply divided along demographic lines and I think he needs to try to blunt that as possible because there are more Dem voters in categories that he's not strongly capturing.

    Obama has a huge advantage because he's a tremendously inspirational speaker.  I've seen a lot of folks that I think of as more rationally than emotionally-oriented go totally ga ga over one of his speeches.  He can still push his core message of change and the power of the individual minus the behaviors above and it will still be effective.  Hey, I think he could deliver Hillary's campaign message but by virtue of his oratorical ability he'd beat her every time.

    I think the Obama campaign is basically suffering right now because of tactical errors.  They can keep their unity 'strategy' but they have to avoid tactics that inflame core Dems.  JMHO.

    Obama's comments on Reagan (none / 0) (#39)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:00:33 AM EST
    were a political blunder, though I am sure that there are fact-checkers who are pulling up equivalent nice things that Hillary and Bill Clinton each said about Reagan, and that most critically-thinking people understand what Obama said and in what context.

    Art Levine at Huffington discusses the new Clinton ad attacking Obama's Reagan comment. Is deliberately distorting another candidate's statement good for this campaign?

    I don't believe Clinton's attack ad perspective on Obama, but even if I did wouldn't the real subtext be that Edwards is in fact farther away from Reaganomics than either Obama or Clinton?


    Clinton Ad (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by chrisvee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:22:22 AM EST
    I don't have a problem with the Clinton ad. Obama deliberately chose to make a couple of historical observations that would highlight why he was a better candidate than Hillary Clinton and unfortunately, he make a tactical mistake by not making it clear what his opinion was about those historical events -- probably IMO because he was trying to garner favor with the conservative media folks to whom those comments were made.  He's getting attacked on that point and now he'll have to clear it up.  I'm not in agreement with the idea that Clinton's campaign tactics are Rovian (or Atwaterian if that's word) or somehow damaging to the campaign or the party.  I think maybe time is dimming memory of Rove and Atwater.

    I was an Edwards supporter in the last general election.  Unfortunately, he is suffering from a couple of things that may be beyond his control to influence.  First, the media is just effectively ignoring him.  Obama is the media darling, Clinton is the media villain, and Edwards is the media cellophane.  Edwards should buddy up with Bill Clinton on the issue of how terrible a job the media does covering these campaigns.

    My second point is one that I want to say very carefully so that I don't offend anyone.  I think Edwards may just suffer from bad historical timing.  I think that the Democratic field this year is fairly strong.  There were at least five candidates for whom I could have happily voted.  YMMV.  Add to this mix the fact that we have our first extremely viable African American candidate and our first extremely viable female candidate.  It's hard not to get excited about making history.  There's a strong emotional component to this election and it works against Edwards.  I think Edwards made a tactical mistake early on by going after Clinton.  He should have teamed with Clinton to take out Obama, then Edwards would have been the 'inspiration guy' running against Clinton.  But hindsight is 20/20 and the race isn't over yet by a long shot so maybe I'm writing his primary obituary too soon.


    After yesterday here, will we see an (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:24:49 AM EST
    analysis of the fairness of the Clinton ad about which Obama is complaining?  Hope so.

    I don't see how that siphons votes... (none / 0) (#41)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:01:13 AM EST
    ...away from Clinton.  At best it limits his loss of voters.

    If he can't attack the Clintons while they're bashing him like crazy, he might as well quit now.

    I think, if anything, he could defuse the race issue by giving a Cosbyesque speech to the black community, and by supporting a gradual transition from race-based to class-based affirmative action.  That reassures the white community that he's not a "typical black politician", while at the same time it likely does minimal damage to his support there.
    He should get to Hillary's left on Iraq, and he should sharpen his critique of the Clintons' support of NAFTA and their corporate ties.  He's going to need to throw a bone to the latinos at some point, too.

    My worry is that, yet again, the establishment/machine politician is going to win the nomination, and go down in flames, yet again.


    cliff notes (none / 0) (#111)
    by diplomatic on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:57:27 PM EST
    Obama has a lot of problems with his campaign.

    Very well said and thoughtful so I recommend your comment.


    Obama can't win in the blogs (none / 0) (#115)
    by diogenes on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:38:21 PM EST
    Not so long ago everyone said that Obama was "too nice a guy" to win.  Now he's too mean to the Clintons.

    where did you read that? (none / 0) (#116)
    by diplomatic on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:51:25 PM EST
    The blogs are against Obama now? There are few places like Talkleft who dare report criticism, but for the most part most of what Obama does gets explained away as benign.  He is the victim on the blogosphere and the media.

    Comment about blogs (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:19:56 PM EST
    Most blogs and blogging is dominated by "well educated" males.  (this could be a stereotype on my part) Hillary has lots of support from lower income people, women and older people.  You cannot think that the blog discussions represent those voices.  TPM etc may be loud, but you don't here the voices.  The last couple of weeks I forgot that and made myself crazy about the "true believer "syndrome.  

    Demographically (none / 0) (#82)
    by spit on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:44:51 PM EST
    I agree that the blogosphere is not particularly good ground for Clinton, and I suspect that has something to do with her relative lack of support here. But you're right to point out that the blogs are not representative of the public, or even the Democratic party. A lot of folks on blogs seem to forget that what they see on the blogs only sometimes bears any relation to what's going on with most people out in the real world. I live in a largely working class/low-income extremely diverse neighborhood, and leaving the blogs to go talk with my neighbors about politics is always... funny, to put it mildly.

    I think the flat-out hatred of her is a bit different, though. There are good critiques of both of the Clintons that can be made from the left -- I'm no fan of their politics, honestly, and have been angry with them since the mid-90's. But the irrational stuff that gets thrown, and the intensity of it, is jaw-dropping even to me. It's actually made me reassess some of my anger -- I'm still not a big fan, but my feelings have been hugely calmed by the seething animosity on the blogs.

    Hmm, rambled myself right off topic. Best go get more coffee.


    One percentage point?? (none / 0) (#2)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:38:06 AM EST
    Even Clinton's "win" is w/in the margin of error.

    A more accurate diary title might be "Obama and Clinton Tie in Head to Head with McCain".

    There is a difference (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:39:05 AM EST
    between 41% and 46%.

    I believe the 5 percent (none / 0) (#13)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:49:04 AM EST
    difference is still w/in the margin of error. In either case, after all the fierce muscularity of Clinton's campaign and the endless mantra that  Obama is the Kumbya candidate, I surprised that there is so little difference in a their percentages against McCain,

    No it is not (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:59:30 AM EST
    People do not understand MOE.

    It does not mean that the result is at the edge of the result is just as likely as the actual result.

    It means that the edge MOE is possible, but much less likely.

    Kevin Drum explained all this a while ago. See if you can find his post.

    Here is a better argument for you - all polls stink. Cuz they do.


    I thought (none / 0) (#28)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:16:17 AM EST
    we weren't supposed to trust polls after New Hampshire. Or do we trust them when they favor our candidates?

    how come it is (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:31:18 AM EST
    When Obama is ahead, it's winning, and when Hillary is ahead, it's a statistical tie?

    It seems to me that in most polls (barring SC) he tops out around 33% fairly consistently, whereas she pretty consistently holds a substantial lead.  Why does no one seem to want to talk about the fact that nationally, she is well ahead?

    And I say this knowing full well that we should not trust polls; however, Obama was the one who brought it up in the first place.  I wonder what his response will be to this latest one, and how he will parse it.  Big "if" here: IF the press actually asks him about it.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:43:02 AM EST
    that this poll finding is ot to your liking.

    More important than the overall though, is the INTERNALS.

    Obama does not have the solid Dem support, not surprising given his kumbaya message, but he also garners no advantage with Independents and DOES WORSE than Hillary with Republicans.

    It is clear that their is much more instense hatred of Hillary in BOTH the Indy and Republican grouops, but Obama's unity schtick garners him NO votes. It loses votes for him with Dems and surpisingly, Republicans.


    There's no doubt that Clinton (none / 0) (#24)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:10:07 AM EST
    benefits from overall name recognition (for both Republicans and Democratic) and the very positive feelings Dems have for Bill.  I could speculate that this accounts for some of the higher polling in the internals.
    I feel that once the candidate is chosen, Democratic support will solidify behind that candidate whether Hillary or Obama. I also think that polls so far out from the general should be viewed with a certain degree of skepticism.
    I also think that given the rotten last couple of weeks Obama has had (both due to his clumsiness and the drubbing Team Clinton has given him), I would have expected the internal polling numbers and the comparison between the match-ups betwn Hill/McC and Obama/McCain  to be much stronger for Hillary,

    Obama might disagree with you (none / 0) (#25)
    by diplomatic on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:12:11 AM EST
    He is not so sure that his voters will embrace any other nominee, especially Clinton.

    The unity talk only applies if everyone unites behind him you see.


    A percentage of Republicans (none / 0) (#30)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:24:26 AM EST
    who voted for George Bush in 2000 actually thought that they were voting for his father.

    Product Loyalty.

    That's the best explanation I can find here about why people like Hillary Clinton. It's not about actual positions on issues, or HER record. Otherwise, they'd spend less time badmouthing Obama and more time actually telling us why anyone should vote for Clinton. Bill Clinton's eight years were in the service of the oligarchy while managing to stumble in and out personal scandals. While guiding the party he managed to lose the Democratic majority in Congress for the first time in decades. He was Republican Lite. What does that make Hillary? Republican Cold Brewed Lite?

    So Hillary must be the new, improved Clinton. How about someone from the big tent explain to us why we should go in?


    I take exception, Bob in Pacifica (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by felizarte on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:13:39 AM EST
    with your comment, "Bill Clinton's eight years were in the service of the oligarchy. . ."

    Considering the almost single-minded opposition to the Clintons in the media (an oligarchic tool--Big Tent D expounded on the GE aspect of MSNBC) that does not seem to be rewarding someone who performed a service to them.  I think that they are more concerned about the Clinton's knowledge of their MO and be able to thwart their goals, or at least slow them down because of their political skills. There are many oligarchic houses in competition with each other, and Bill Clinton has mastered the art of pitting one against the other, just so that policies that benefit the middle and lower class can squeak through.  They hate him for this. And by extension, Hillary.  But the Clintons know enough to take their case directly to the people.

    I say these because for the life of me, I can't understand why people against Clinton would only talk about her "negatives" without any specifics or explanations.  


    Give me some examples of (none / 0) (#91)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:13:22 PM EST
    Bill Clinton pitting one oligarchic house against another so that policies that helped the lower and middle class squeaked through. I want to know what to expect in a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

    Did he pit consolidated media against mega-energy corporations? If so, how did that affect his welfare program that ended up leaving more people in poverty?

    After a certain point, and I think it's long passed, I don't think anyone could expect an explanation of Clinton's positions as being any more egalitarian or progressive than the other two candidates. Whoops, the bankruptcy bill. What's her plan on correcting it? I hope she has a plan, but I haven't heard it.

    Even arguing efficiency (i.e., getting the corporations to run on time or fight each other while the Clintons work their magic) doesn't work if you look at her body of work, or her work during her husband's presidency.


    You posted essentially this same comment (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:27:07 AM EST
    in a thread last night, including a call out to Clinton supporters.  I responded there.

    Your comment last night (none / 0) (#88)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:00:04 PM EST
    didn't seem to be a response.

    You could speculate as you wish (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:04:54 AM EST
    Name recognition was once translated this way by Obama supporter - high negatives.

    you can not have it both ways.


    I never bought the Clinton=high negatives (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM EST
    for Democrats. I think most of the netroots have high, high negatives towards her but not rank and file Dems. I think Republicans have high negatives about both Clintons and particularly Hillary and I think that for those who don't like her..be they Republicans or Democrats...have an irrational dislike that's breathtaking.

    How do explain the dominating (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:07:07 AM EST
    dislike of Hillary Clinton on the left blogs such as DK?  It is breathtaking.  I can't understand why, if the goal is to elect Dems., right out of the gate the piling on happened.

    piling on happened (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:21:48 AM EST
    because she is a woman.

    Let's look at where it all started: when she, as a first lady, tried to reform healthcare.  The rhetoric then was that a woman should not be doing it, and the hate for her grew directly out of that.  Everything stems from the rampant belief then that she did not know her place.

    Remember the cookie baking comments?


    I think the criticism of her work on (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:30:16 AM EST
    health care at the time was from the insurance industry, which was not invited to participate in her group drafting the proposed legislation.  Who does she think she is?  No one elected her.  

    oculus (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:45:04 PM EST
    I totally agree with you that the criticism came from the insurance industry and worked its way out from there via Limbaugh et al, but the NATURE of the majority of criticism was targeted on the fact that she was a woman who did not know her place.  This is where we started hearing codified words such as "cold" and "calculating" and "frigid."  The "who elected her" rhetoric was all about her needing to wear beige and pick out china patterns instead of working on policy.  Historically, many first ladies have had as much if not more input, but they crossed their legs and smiled in public, and no one knew about the power they had behind the scenes.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#92)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:17:04 PM EST
    I don't doubt that there are still some cretins who have trouble seeing a woman in a position of power, but I think it's a big mistake to label every negative reaction or criticism of Hillary as a sexist attack. She's a public figure running for office and stuff happens irregardless of the candidate's sex or for that matter, race.

    I respect (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:07:58 PM EST
    your disagreement, but I want to make my point clear.  I am not labelling every criticism as sexism.  What I stated was that I think that originally, all of this Hillary Hatred did come directly from that: people refusing to accept a woman taking on such broad policy change.  And not just a woman, but the wife or the president.  The insurance lobbies saw this opportunity to pounce and used her sex against her.  If you think that is not true, then tell me how they would have fought back a man.

    There is a codified language of abuse that is being allowed everywhere during this primary.  I will give you one example: In Time just a few weeks ago, Obama's caption in the photo spread said, "Waiting his cue."  Edwards got "Working Class Hero."  Hillary got "Frigid Vigil."

    There are Hillary nutcrackers in stores.  Can you imagine what would happen if there was an "Obama Shoe Shine" doll?  Blood would be spilled.  And, not to diminish in any way the power of our beloved left-leaning blogs, but the only reason the Tweety thing took hold is because so many people were gobsmacked that they were wrong in their Hillary hatred that they were trolling for ANY explanation that would absolve them of being what they were, which was biased and stupid.  Can you imagine the mainstream media picking up on it otherwise?  They were desperate for an explanation, and that one seemed as good as any.

    (and kudos to the left bloggers who fought the good fight.  God, I hate that whiny man)


    I Think That A Lot Of That Has To Do (none / 0) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:02:53 PM EST
    with a real dislike for the DLC brand of politics which has in the past marginalized the more liberal or progressive elements in the party.

    The interesting thing to me is that IMO Obama's Bipartisanship Forever brand of politics does much the same thing. In this primary cycle, Obama has gone to the right of Clinton on most issues and policies, has brought Republican talking points into the debate, has dismissed the efforts of Democrats in the 60's - 90's, has put out a "Committed Christian - Called to Serve" brochure that might make a Republican candidate envious and has had "Cure the Gays" ministers campaign for him.

    If Clinton or Edwards had done any of those things, they would have been completely shredded by the majority on DKos. Yet somehow, all this is rationalized away and completely ignored by many on DKos.  


    DLC (none / 0) (#96)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:37:50 PM EST
    Your thoughts about the DLC ring true.

    Progressives saw how the DLC handled the party, how the DLC backed corporate candidates and seemed willing to let the Democratic Party be a minority party as long as enough of the booty flowed in their direction.

    When Dean took over the party he rebuilt the infrastructure and actually put up candidates that competed throughout the country, the kinds of things that the Steny Hoyers didn't seem terribly motivated to do.

    The Clintons are nothing if not creatures of the DLC.

    Having said that, I don't think that Obama has a much more progressive agenda, and in some areas his positions are worse than Clinton's. I am not sure if either's bundle of positions trump the other's.

    The economy is going to become the top issue this year. We will have the Republican economic nostalgia with the bromides of Ronald Reagan versus the economic nostalgia of the Clinton Administration. During both administrations fundamentally bad things happened to the average American. Reagan's destruction of unions laid the groundwork for anti-working class laws and treaties of the nineties that laid the groundwork for what we are suffering today. On one hand there was an actual bubble of job increases during the Clinton years. On the other hand the Reagan years are far enough away that the jagged edges of reality are all gone.

    When it all hits the fan in 2009 I'd prefer an FDR to an Al Smith.


    well if you honestly believe that (none / 0) (#102)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:05:59 PM EST
    obama is another fdr, then please email him to start talking like him. so far i see major centrist themes from him about bringing the insurance companies to the table and putting repubs in his cabinet.

    fdr was partisan, smart and told these corporations and business what he was going to do. he didn't ask them or give them a seat ahead of the american people.

    obama is progressive? he is not that much different than hillary in his votes and positions. i don't give a dang what he says. i've watched what he has been doing.


    Sorry, I Don't See Anything In His Senate Record (none / 0) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:15:49 PM EST
    or his presidential campaign that makes me think of FDR.

    Mrs. Triangulation (none / 0) (#90)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:07:32 PM EST
    In October, 2005 just prior to the November Senate elections, Matt Bai wrote a piece about Hillary for the NYT's entitled "Mrs. Triangulation". His explanation for the netroots deep dislike and suspicion of Hillary is pretty much found in his title and I think it's as good as any. He has quotes from Markos whose view of Hillary was the same in '05 as they are now. This is one of the more pertinent paragraphs from Bai: "Clinton, on the other hand, wants nothing to do with ideological crusades, and she has thus far resisted the pull of rising antiestablishment forces - bloggers, donors and activists - who are fast becoming today's equivalent of the 60's left. Instead, Hillary (as she is universally known) has navigated with extreme caution through the party's fast-changing landscape, and if she has evolved as a public figure, it is in a way that has distanced her from the party's more liberal base. She has never renounced her initial support for the invasion of Iraq, and has in fact lobbied for recruiting an additional 80,000 Army troops. She has recently taken the opportunity, in much publicized speeches, to denounce unwanted pregnancies and violent video games. And at a time when the new activists brand any bipartisan cooperation as treachery, Clinton seems to pop up every week next to some conservative who has joined her on an issue like health-care modernization or soldiers' benefits."

    how can you (none / 0) (#105)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    denounce unwanted pregnancies?  I mean, aren't they self-denounced by the fact that they are unwanted in the first place?

    But Dems WILL vote Obama (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilybart on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:38:39 AM EST
    so in the general, Dems will not crossover for McCain, so I don't see the problem.

    AND a former boss, rabid republican money guy, is considering Obama. I have heard lots of stories like this.

    You know (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:45:40 AM EST
    the issue is INTENSITY of support. You do not like the poll findings so you choose to ignore.

    More Democrats will vote for Hillary. Heck, more REPUBLICANS will vote for Hillary.

    The effect on Indies is the same.

    People confuse the intense hatred for Hillary in some quarters with that being vote changing.

    Those folks are not voting for any Dem apparently.

    That is my point - Obama is on a fool's errand - chasing votes he can not get and losing votes in the process.


    That's not true (none / 0) (#31)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:29:33 AM EST
    People do not like Clinton. She has run the most repugnant campaign in my long memory. She has little to no appeal among swing voters who aren't aligned to either party.

    I guess if you sling mud you may not see your candidate as dirty.

    If I had a friend or loved one or relative who was despised by so many people, I would at least spend some quiet time trying to figure out why I don't see what so many others do.


    You're simply not objective. (none / 0) (#33)
    by MarkL on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:38:53 AM EST
    This has been a tough campaign, but Obama has been on the low road for months.

    I keep hearing this (none / 0) (#45)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:05:07 AM EST
    but I don't see it.

    Is Clinton's attack ad about Obama's Reagan comment the high road?

    If your argument is that Clinton can lie and fight dirty because that's what Obama does then why not just vote for Edwards? He's the most progressive of the three.


    Please. (3.00 / 2) (#63)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:18:33 AM EST
    I keep hearing this but I don't see it.

    BTD has just shown it to you.

    This poll indicates that, if anything, Clinton has more support among Democrats and Republicans than Obama.  That's what the poll says.

    There are a variety of responses to this information that you could reasonably take but saying "you don't see it" is the same as sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la, la, la, I'm not listening".

    None so blind as those who will not see.


    You'll wear yourself out trying (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:21:03 AM EST
    to respond rationally to this poster.

    bob, take the blinders off. (none / 0) (#106)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:10:13 PM EST
    obama is on the low road. he isn't running a campaign being mr nice guy. he reminds of another politican who used others to speak for him on negatives and then never repudiated what they said. now would could that be?

    Whatever Bob (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:03:48 AM EST
    Believe what you want to believe.

    Which is no answer (none / 0) (#46)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:06:05 AM EST
    Big Tent, you have anything positive to say about what Clinton believes in?

    Why don;t you (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:35:26 AM EST
    make your case about the Clinton positions you dislike.

    And compare them to Obama's positions on the same issues.

    You are irrational Bob.


    I don't support Obama. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:40:22 PM EST
    I find the two of them interchangeable. I support Edwards.

    "people" (none / 0) (#59)
    by mexboy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:58:28 AM EST
    You post: "People do not like Clinton"

    I LOVE Hilary Clinton, so please maybe say; "People don't like Clinton, except for Mexboy."

    Like that you won't be speaking for me, since I am a people.



    Add Stellaa to the caveat (none / 0) (#80)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:14:17 PM EST
    The myth of Hillary is grotesque.  But frankly, watching Hillary in the debates, news and advertising is another thing.  She manages to fight the myth.  When people listen to her, they seem to change.  

    Stellaaa (none / 0) (#86)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:53:16 PM EST
    I agree.  I think that most folks who have this intense hatred toward Hillary have never really listened to her; all the info comes second hand.  Fitting, as you cannot express such vitriol unless you don't see her as a human being.  It's sort of like what they do in the military, where an enemy is dehumanized so that when you kill him, you are not really killing a fellow human being.  You are killing a monster.

    I do wonder, though, what is going to happen if Hillary wins the nomination.  Will HuffPo and DKos backtrack?  Will they support McCain?  And what about Maureen Dowd?  Will she simply explode in a ball of fiery hate?  Hillary supporters (in general) seem to be so careful when they post, and to make it clear that they will support Obama should he win.  This "our way or no way" attitude is very defeating.  Actually, it reminds me of a certain "you're either with us or against it" monkey-boy whose name I will not mention.


    Excellent (none / 0) (#93)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:28:50 PM EST
    Actually, it reminds me of a certain "you're either with us or against it" monkey-boy whose name I will not mention.

    As a self proclaimed party hack I vote the party.  What will they do?  
    I want to see if the spoilers will talk about Nader.  I frankly don't like the threats.  Are we supposed to collapse and change our minds?  Another analogy is the Chicago protection racket in the 30's.

    Frankly, I am getting scared of the true believers and idealist demagogue.  (Well idealist but not really, politician cross dressing as idealist)


    yup, they worry me also. (none / 0) (#108)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:13:34 PM EST
    i am sure they are a very small minority, but i have heard thoughts that repubs were going to daily kos to stir it up.

    some have been possible sleepers being approved to post early and then waiting. i saw comments about that tactic on another blog.

    sometimes i checked the history of couple flame throwers. what i found were a few comments early on or maybe a diary but then a very long time till present when the flame throwing started. it made me wonder.


    they seek her high/they seek her low (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:56:37 PM EST
    Why do I feel like I'm trapped in the Scarlet Pimpernel?

    Seriously, I don't blame any of the camps for using the internet stealthily.  While I think it's wrong, it's hard not to exploit the advantage. It seems to me that more and more, media are relying on the net for their readings on the general population.  So, you have them saying people are in a tizzy about this race thing, or people are in a tizzy about Bill being Bill, when in fact, the average person who gets their news from television or People magazine (which they read on the toilet) doesn't really feel as passionate about the issue.  (Come to think, I wish that I had "peeps" who could go out and start some kind of half-way believable but untrue rumor to prove this point, but alas...)

    Anyway, someone should tell the media that most Americans either don't have time for this crap--because, if they are on the net, they are looking at porn or playing Kitten War  (or, to be fair, doing both).


    you nailed that one! (none / 0) (#117)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:50:13 PM EST
    Maureen Dowd (none / 0) (#99)
    by rebecca on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:47:54 PM EST
    will do as she always does and simply ignore the facts and write up another screed that attacks whoever she's in a snit about on that day.  She's like a pinball bouncing all over the place.  

    But BTD (none / 0) (#7)
    by dk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:43:17 AM EST
    How can Obama drop the Unity schtick?  That is one of the major pillars of his campaign and what attracts a rather significant percentage of his support.

    Like you, I suspect that, deep down, Obama shares Hillary's and Edwards' progressive values (though with the tone of his church talk I think he is inadvertently legitimizing a lot of Christianist bigotry that could cause serious damage to the country if he were President...not that he himself is a Christionist bigot, but he is certainly pandering to those who are...see that South Carolina flyer).

    But, for whatever reason, he chose his political strategy a long time ago, and I don't really see how he could do an about-face without looking like a total hyprocrite.

    Who cares if he looks like a hypocrite? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:47:09 AM EST
    Pols are pols. They are all hypocties.

    I agree with you personally, (none / 0) (#17)
    by dk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:55:46 AM EST
    but the whole basis of the Obama cult is how he is so honest and is practicing a "new kind of politics."  Don't you think that he would lose a lot of his base support if really did that kind of about face and showed himself as a plain old politician?  

    No (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:57:16 AM EST
    Cults follow the leader.

    Perhaps that is true... (none / 0) (#20)
    by dk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:03:01 AM EST
    but it is kinda sad, though.  So much for the reality based progressive movement, I guess.

    cults follow the leader (none / 0) (#57)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:54:40 AM EST
    but they make excuses for him when he goes off message.  Jim Jones didn't start out being crazy.  Neither did David Koresh.  I'm only using them as examples of cult leaders, not drawing a comparison between their nuttiness and Obama.  The fact is that both these men talked about change and unity, and both ended up off the rails.  

    I have said from the beginning that folks do not want to realize that Obama is just a politician like everybody else.  He chose to run AGAINST being a politician.  I will say it again in terms with which we can all relate: eventually, all politicians will screw you.  Do you really have to be kissed first?  With Hillary, at least we know who we are getting in bed with.


    Thank you.....!! (none / 0) (#79)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:10:41 PM EST
    Well said.  The Obama idealist shtick scares me.  Cause if you look deep down not much idealism, but lots of "inspiration".  

    Don't you think the CBN threat will piss democratic base off?  


    CBN comments (none / 0) (#84)
    by chrisvee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:45:21 PM EST
    Obama should hope that the base isn't represented by some of the Hillary-tolerant blogs that I've visited or the answer is a resounding 'yes!'

    CBN (none / 0) (#85)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    I am an old line democrat and going on CBN totally pisses me off....there is no excuse for that as they to me are the most yucky part of the GOP.....the religious right are downright offensive to me and to most of the old line democrats......he is digging a very deep hole...

    He is trying to win (none / 0) (#87)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:56:51 PM EST
    South Carolina.  I don't know if anyone in his camp has told him that there are other states he needs to win as well.

    CBN annoys me, too.  Wtf?  Now they're BFF?  GMAB*

    *Give me a break (tm) Bill Clinton


    With Hillary (none / 0) (#100)
    by rebecca on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:51:12 PM EST
    we will also have the Obama supporters working with us to criticize her from the left.  With Obama they will, at least until some of them become disenchanted, have them working against us as they try to explain away his behavior as they are doing now.  

    it's happening (none / 0) (#21)
    by diplomatic on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:04:54 AM EST
    too much of his "base support" is not traditional Democrats anyway, which is part of the problem for him.

    Hillary's progressive values? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:30:51 AM EST
    Maybe compared to Dubya.

    Actually, compared to Obama. (none / 0) (#34)
    by MarkL on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:39:10 AM EST
    Too bad (none / 0) (#48)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:17:08 AM EST
    that her supporters fling mud instead of discussing issues. Now maybe that would be an interesting story here, how Clinton is more progressive than Obama (and I have no doubt that she probably is, on some topics).

    The problem is that both candidates are far less progressive than Edwards. And Bill Clinton may have run as a progressive but it was he, with a coalition of Republicans and business-prone Dems who gave us NAFTA, GATT, "welfare reform," and media consolidation. Essentially, Bill Clinton may or may not have been the first "black" President but the major legislation during those two terms did plenty of damage to the working class and poor blacks (and Latinos, Asians and whites). So is playing saxophone enough to make up for what happened on his watch? And what has Hillary Clinton done to show us that she is not as amenable to the oligarchy as her husband?  

    Why won't Hillary betray the working class like her husband has?


    Bob (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:24:01 AM EST
    Fling mud? I challenge you to show any mud being flung here.

    Jeralyn has posted clearly that the "mud" - personal attacks re: Rezko, is a nonissue.

    If you mean taking issue with Obama's political strategy or positions, you surely can not be complaining about that.

    You are not being rational.


    Re "Jeralyn has posted . . . .": (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:57:37 AM EST
    This IS an authoritarian blog.  But, unfortunately, the blog does not control the media.

    More from (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:58:59 AM EST
    columnist at Chicago Sun-Times, who plans to vote for Obama:



    Obama v. McCain (none / 0) (#15)
    by dk on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:52:15 AM EST
    I completely agree with BTD on this.  Look, I would imagine that most of the independents and republicans who say right now that they would vote for Obama are essentially the irrational Hillary haters who like Obama in spite of his actual positions on the issues.  But if they succeded and got rid of Hillary, do you really think they would support Obama, with whom they probably disagree on the majority of domestic and foreign policy issues, over McCain, with whom they probably agree on a majority of those issues?  I, for one, don't see that happening, and now it looks like some of the polls are backing this up.

    Like or dislike is emotional (none / 0) (#35)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:45:49 AM EST
    If someone says that she's voting for Hillary because she's a woman, that's emotional. If someone says that she's voting for Hillary because she's better on women's issues than Edwards or Obama, then at least we have some actual thinking going on.

    But Edwards' positions on welfare, on the general class issues facing Americans, are egalitarian and miles ahead of anything Clinton or Obama have been willing to say. So women who "surged" for Clinton in New Hampshire because of the two knuckleheads with the sign, the tears, the Steinem op-ed, or any other of the events that have been claimed to spur the votes for her, were actually voting against their own self-interest.  

    The same could be said about blacks voting for Obama. Edwards' positions on social issues are far more beneficial to blacks, or to the Latinos who are supporting Hillary.

    Of course, this is horse-race talk. I personally don't know if Hillary's negatives are worse than Obama's negatives. Both are worse than Edwards' negatives.

    I can't say that I've seen any serious talk here lately comparing the candidates on issues. Not from the Big Tenters who seem to just want to badmouth Obama.


    You can't be the "viable" black... (none / 0) (#26)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:12:28 AM EST
    ...candidate and run the way John Edwards is running.  You instantly get marginalized as the "angry black candidate for president".   A black Democrat who's fiercely critical and fiercely partisan will get marginalized, even more so than the Clinton campaign has successfully marginalized him now.

    You have to run as the transcendent "high concept" unity and hope candidate.  Otherwise you wind up like Jesse Jackson.  
    Whereas the Clintons are free to play the identity politics card against Obama to win.

    That's just the truth.

    BTD, you have no idea how pissed off the black blogosphere is at the Clinton campaign right now.  You should check out Jack and Jill Politics, Mirror on America, Skeptical Brotha, and Field Negro, just to get a taste of that anger.

    That's the troubling math in this (none / 0) (#37)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:50:12 AM EST
    Early on in the campaign Clinton was doing well with black voters. It appears that her campaign made the tactical decision to attack Obama on race issues, marginalize him as the black candidate, and then presume that blacks won't go anywhere else in November.

    The really troubling part is that it's transparent to African Americans and that, for Clinton, it's working.

    By the way, I have no problem with a candidate trying to bring all Democrats together. Maybe if Clinton tried to be inclusive she'd be more appealing to voters outside of her camp.


    It doesn't work for her... (none / 0) (#38)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:54:02 AM EST
    ...if black voters and young voters are less motivated to vote for her in November.  The only way she can be absolutely sure this won't hurt her with those constituencies is if Obama is on the ticket with her.  And I think that's the last thing they really want to have to do right now.

    She could conceivably (none / 0) (#49)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:19:31 AM EST
    find another black man to run with her, but for whatever gain she would get within the party (and many would find it a transparent move) it would really lose votes with Republicans.

    Just like the white blogs (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:02:29 AM EST
    are NOT representative samples of whites, neither are the black blogs a representative sample of African Americans.

    and therefore.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:23:58 AM EST
    ...you don't even have to bother with addressing or considering their concerns about the Clintons' tactics?



    Wow is right (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:24:16 AM EST
    You really are shameless.

    I discuss the so-called tactics that there is concern expressed about and I find it unconvincing.

    It has bene discussed here a lot.

    Anybody express any concerns there about Obama's tacitcs? No? That is my point.

    Partisans for a candidate are partisans for a candidate. Irrespective of demo.

    My point was about the EFFECT of these concerns.

    Your point was to argue that  African Americans will defect from Clinton in a GE because these blogs have concerns.

    I think even you do not believe that. But if you do, there is no empirical evidence to back that up.



    no evidence YET nt (none / 0) (#73)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:39:15 AM EST

    YET (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:54:56 AM EST
    Concedes my point.

    not really, BTD... (none / 0) (#77)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:02:03 PM EST
    ...because there's a strong likelihood this hasn't fully played itself out yet.  What happens when Obama gets 40+% of the delegates and is shut out of the VP slot?  Will the same number of black voters turnout to vote for Clinton as would have if he were on the ticket?  Will they have completely forgotten about what she did in order to beat him for the nomination?

    One of the typical criticisms that Republicans throw at the Democratic party is that they "take black voters for granted."  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but the assumption that black voters will forgive the Clintons for anything they did to Obama during the campaign, and show up in the same enthusiastic numbers for her as they would have if this hadn't played out this way...

    how is that not taking black voters for granted?


    You find it "unconvincing" ...q (none / 0) (#74)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:43:47 AM EST
    ...because you are predisposed to do so.

    Several of those blogs were on the fence about Obama and sympathetic towards Clinton, until this brouhaha broke out.
    Which you would know if you ever perused those blogs.


    But the polls say... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    Oh, that's right, polls only count sometimes.

    Obama V. McCain (none / 0) (#27)
    by andreww on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:16:10 AM EST
    This poll asks us not to believe our lying eyes.  I know many family members and have numerous friends who would vote for Obama - and is the only Democrat they would vote for.  McCain is a national figure - as is Hillary.  Obama is getting there, but he isn't there yet.  In a general election with the two of them running one on one this poll will mean nothing.  See more on my thoughts regarding McCain vs. Obama here

    Believe in anecdotes (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:01:06 AM EST
    If that floats your boat.

    I'm not really (none / 0) (#61)
    by andreww on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:03:29 AM EST
    sure what you disagree with or are saying here BTD.  Care to elaborate?

    Anecdotal evidence (none / 0) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:20:32 AM EST
    Look it up.

    yes (none / 0) (#110)
    by andreww on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:47:51 PM EST
    i know what an anecdote is.  I thought you were commenting on the article I wrote, not the comment about my friends and family.  But, since that was your point - this is mine.  You claim our eyes our lying, that what we see isn't real, that the differences in the way Obama reaches out are just an illusion. I guess you didn't take the time to read my article which is too bad because I think you would agree with much of it if you stopped hating on Obama for a minute.  By the way, your blog has spent almost all it's time focused on Obama and why you hate him - with the exception of your little apology.  Show me the last post you focused on Hillary in any kind of negative way - or even positive for that matter.  All your energy is being spent slamming Obama.
    You cant tell me that the way Bill is acting isn't at least worthy of questioning how it would affect the party - and the kind of precedent it sets for how our ex presidents should act and the role they should play in the selection process.  Your complete silence on this matter leaves no doubt that you're neutral in any way.  You can lie to yourself and say you are if you like.  But one apology does not make you a neutral party.

    A lot of people would watch... (none / 0) (#29)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:22:03 AM EST
    ...Obama's acceptance speech.  I think his speech would win over more voters than Clinton's would.  I also think Bill will be an albatross around his wife's neck once the general campaign begins.  He's an asset among most democrats, but there's serious antipathy towards him among indies and swing voters, and the media treatment of them would just amplify that.

    There are dozens of different variables involved, to the extent that electability polling at this point is of limited value.

    gee, i wonder why the margin of error was missing (none / 0) (#56)
    by psmatatoes on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:41:24 AM EST
    A one-point difference 9 months before the general election, well within the margin of error, basically means that all this poll tells you is that someone will win in November.

    Obama has brought out record-breaking numbers of new voters, winning some surprising demographics, and scoring support from independents, Republicans, and endorsements from Democrats in conservative states who know he will help Democrats all down the line, unlike Ms. Clinton.  Hillary...has two decades of name recognition, a nuclear-powered political machine, and a beloved former president campaigning for her.  The only place where there's any parity is in terms of cash.  The fact that Obama's done so well in spite of those advantages speaks to his draw and strength as a candidate.

    Ultimately, this whole debate is futile, since they poll so closely as to be indistinguishable on electability.

    saw this on another blog and it is worth repeating (none / 0) (#64)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:19:16 AM EST
    The Democratic Party had better wake up, because here is the BIG difference: the voters who may peel away from the Party should Obama lose are by and large not core Dems. They are mostly disaffected anti-establishment types that spend their political lives flirting with the Naders and Pauls and Perots.

    The people that may flat out rebel and refuse to back Obama are the heart and soul of the party. It's the feminist women and the blue-collar dems and the labor activists and the fierce blue partisans who have KEPT THIS PARTY GOING even in the dark dark times.

    ahtyrio (none / 0) (#89)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:04:45 PM EST
    I think this is an interesting and valid comment that you've quoted.  We have to remember what the goal is here, and that is to unseat the republicans and get our country back.  I hope (haha!) that when it comes down to it, democrats will vote for whomever the majority of democrats choose to run in the primary. A democratic approach, if you will.  McCain will shoot himself in the foot so many times between now and then that it will be obvious who we need to support.  My fear is that we will see a Gore-type situation, where folks don't turn out to vote like they should, then spend the next eight years whining about how he should have won because look at what we got stuck with.

    I really wish there was a law that stated you cannot enter into a blog or any conversation about politics unless you can prove that you voted in the last major election.

    In Australia and New Zealand, you have to vote by law or you will be penalized.  Sweet!


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    in reading some of the polls recently, people are really starting to come around to Hillary, particularly since Obama keeps shooting himself in the foot....for example, when you hear Obama lately all he does is complain about the Clintons, etc etc and really doesnt do his inspire thing with voters and that is killing him in the polls...He has been shown to have clay feet big time.....Someone with such thin skin really shouldnt be in politics...I started out for Edwards, but Hillary was always my 2nd choice, and I have decided to move over to her to help her win the nomination since Edwards hasnt got a chance at this point....

    I really love (none / 0) (#101)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:54:43 PM EST
    Edwards.  I never thought he could win, but I think he'd be a great lobbyist for the poor.  Being part of the system would corrupt him.  Being outside looking in, he can get so much more done.

    Backing Obama (none / 0) (#107)
    by rebecca on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:11:28 PM EST
    I don't think these people will not back Obama.  They will.  They will get out and vote for him.  The problem comes with enthusiasm.  How many will get out there and wear out shoe leather for him?  How many will spend hours phone banking for him?  

    The independents and Republicans supporting Obama aren't likely to be the ones doing GOTV heavy lifting.  But the ones both candidates need are those Democratic groups you mentioned.  The question is how much does Obama realize that?  The primary is the time to be stoking up those people who will be out there killing themselves to get him elected.  Instead he seems to be trying to run a GE campaign in the primary.  


    rebecca (none / 0) (#113)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:02:21 PM EST
    the big question is: how many of them registered to vote by 26 December, because that was the cut-off for the SC primary.

    All other states to this point have had same-day registration.

    I predict Saturday is going to be a hostile, horrible madhouse with people challenging names on voter registration roles and all sorts of charges of malfeasance.

    Wow, that is a big frackin' word for me!


    Neither Clinton nor Obama (none / 0) (#104)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 02:08:33 PM EST
    showed up to fight FISA immunity for the telecoms today. It lost.

    Now it looks like full sail ahead. God bless 'em, now the telecoms and NSA can all listen in on us in violation of the law.

    FISA (none / 0) (#114)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:13:32 PM EST
    would their presence have made a difference?  (haha, "present")