Tsunami Tuesday: Where Things Stand

The Wall St. Journal has an extensive article on where the candidates now stand in the states voting Feb. 5.

Shorter version: Despite Barack Obama's South Carolina win, Hillary is still significantly ahead in the major states.

Mr. Obama heads into the 22-state showdown as the underdog. The Illinois senator trails Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York by large margins in polls in most of the big states voting Feb. 5. And he lacks the time or resources to campaign intensively in many of those far-flung races to close the gaps.....for all of the attention Mr. Obama has garnered since his Iowa caucus victory at the beginning of the month, Mrs. Clinton has maintained her big lead in national polls -- and in polls in the big states with delegate prizes far greater than any state that has voted so far.


Obama had an edge in South Carolina he is unlikely to have on Feb. 5.

The sheer diversity of the states in play -- racially, regionally, geographically -- means that no candidate will have the cash or the leisure to engage in anything approaching the old-fashioned whistle-stop campaigning that has defined the races in most states so far. Mr. Obama had more than three weeks to build on his Iowa victory to chip away at Mrs. Clinton's lead in South Carolina and ultimately to overwhelm her. That will be much harder over the coming week.

The bottom line, as of now:

Mrs. Clinton appears to have the edge going into the coming week. Polling conducted since the middle of January -- after her thin-but-surprising victory in the New Hampshire primary -- shows that she holds a decisive and often double-digit edge over Mr. Obama in eight of the 10 most important Super Tuesday states. These states collectively will deliver more than 1,500 delegates; 2,025 are needed to lock up a nomination.

Here's the chart from the WSJ article:

< Bobby Kennedy, Jr and Sister Endorse Hillary Clinton | Pathologist Cyril Wecht 's Trial Begins in Pittsburgh >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    You said "race" (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:02:47 AM EST
    That must be a racist comment ! ;-) <snark>

    Rush is under fire for saying "spade." (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:46:36 PM EST
    Great news (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by kid oakland on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:06:29 AM EST
    Toni Morrison and Kathleen Sebelius both are endorsing Senator Obama.

    There is a movement towards Obama in endorsements and the polls: including the Mason/Dixon Colorado poll.

    It also look like the junior Senator from Illinois isn't exactly rolling over in New York City, either.

    most of polls before SC (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by teacherken on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:07:23 AM EST
    and some even before Nevada, at least in part.   Thus they may not represent an accurate indicator of the voters mood right now.

    Also, polls tend to be a somewhat lagging indicator, although tracking polls can show movement.

    Finally, and this is from an Edwards supporter, it looks like most of the endorsements now coming out are breaking in favor of Obama, which will feed a real sense of momentum.  Besides the news yesterday of Carolyn and Ted Kennedy and Xavier Beccera, today we hear about Toni Morrison and Patrick Kennedy, and supposedly tomorrow Kathleen Sebelius (who is not only governor of KS but the daughter of a popular governor of OH).   I would suggest that any poll taken before SC is now essentially meaningless absent reinforcement from more current data

    Polls are old (none / 0) (#42)
    by Heather on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:09:39 AM EST
    That was my thought. The Clintons have no where to go but down. They may still win the big states but the final delegate count will be much closer than the WSJ charts suggest.

    This thing is far from over.


    Heather, you are fun (none / 0) (#58)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:12:18 PM EST
    But you are silly. They may still win in the big states kinda means this thing would be over. She is ahead...and that would put here waaaay ahead.

    But have fun...and dont forget to clink some change or paper into Jerlayn's basket today!


    She is (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jgarza on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:34:07 PM EST
    not ahead in pledged delegates.

    Not so sure Obama has to "win" 2/5... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by mike in dc on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:15:17 AM EST
    ...so much as get enough delegates to keep things close.  He has to keep the margin under 200.  Post 2/5, he'll have a very good day on 2/12, with a strong chance of a sweep in VA, MD and DC.

    And I suspect the media narrative will go strongly in his favor moving forward, if Clinton doesn't put this thing away next week.

    The other positive thing Obama's campaign has going for it is that he has planned for a 50-state campaign, whereas there's at least anecdotal evidence that Clinton's campaign has not.  The concentration on 4 states on a day that 22 states vote seems telling, to me.  What if she gets a (narrow) majority of delegates, but he gets a (clear) majority of states?

    I Disagree (none / 0) (#50)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:43:20 AM EST
    I think Obama has to do well in the popular vote in the big states.  I don't think he has to win all of them, but I think he needs to win more than 2.  Otherwise he starts to look like a spoiler.  Turn it around, imagine Obama won 8 of 10 large states' popular votes, but Clinton stayed close in delegates - what would be said about her if she stayed in the race?  That is what should be said about Obama, IMO.

    What we're going to find out February 5th is which candidate can win democratic voters.  Right now it appears to be Clinton, but that could certainly change.  To me, as much as I dislike Obama, the most important thing is the democratic voters and those are the people who should be deciding the nominee.  The most damaging thing to the democratic party is if the nominee loses the popular vote, but somehow wins on delegates.  I will complain equally loudly if Clinton does that to Obama as I would if Obama does that to Clinton.  I thought the focus on delegates in Iowa and New Hampshire made sense because it put those states somewhat in perspective to keep them from swamping the system and deciding the nominee.  We're beyond that now and will soon have a good number of democrats who will have voted.  It's critical that the party listen to them.  

    We have all these new voters coming out to vote - young folks, hispanics, etc. - the worst thing Democrats could do is to make their votes not count.  The delegate counts in Nevada (where Clinton apparently got one fewer than Obama even though she won) and Iowa (where Clinton got one more than Edwards even though she was a bit behind him in the vote) highlight what a disgrace the delegate system is.  I'll say the same thing for Super Delegates, if they get to decide it, they should line up behind the popular vote winner.  It is bad enough when Republicans disenfranchise Democrats, the party has no business doing it to its own voters.  If it does, it shouldn't be surprised if it struggles to get those voters don't show up in November.

    * Of course, the other option is that Clinton and Obama basically split the large states Super Tuesday, then I think the primary goes on.


    Useful analysis. Plus, Obama's "unity" (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:50:48 AM EST
    message might add to perception, depending upon the reality of the results on Super Tuesday, of him as the spoiler -- all about unity across the aisle but not within his own party. . . .

    BDB (none / 0) (#77)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:06:00 PM EST
    I agree with your assessment (both ways, actually).  It would be like when the Culinary Union bosses decided to endorse Obama without taking a vote from the entire union.  Not good for the union.

    I have to agree (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by standingup on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:52:23 PM EST
    And I tend to be to practical to accept a candidate on the basis of faith or adoration of politician's oratorical skills.  I enjoy listening to Obama's speeches.  I believe his legislative record in IL, while not perfect, is impressive enough for me.  But there is no doubt he has been placed on the fast track to the oval office.  I do not find him to be so exceptional that I can overlook the support and funding that has helped to elevate him to a position where he is competitive for the Democratic nomination.  


    Is Obama still ahead in the polls (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:11:17 AM EST
    in Colorado?  If so, please comment.

    They're dead even (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:50:56 AM EST
    According to this

    51% of Dems. want (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:54:50 AM EST
    change.  I can see where this is going.

    wrong! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by cpinva on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:18:20 AM EST
    100% of dems want change, from the greek tragedy masqerading as the bush administration, and the keystone kops comedy masquerading as republicans in congress.

    leaving the republicans in charge, of anything more intellectually taxing than cleaning the commodes, would be a disaster for this country.

    i note the only two states that would appear to favor sen. obama in this poll are IL, his home state and GA, a state with an inordinately high % of african american voters in its population. and even GA could well be a crapshoot for him.


    speaking for georgia (none / 0) (#27)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:36:13 AM EST
    it'll be a crapshoot.  Hillary will split the white vote with Edwards (who is well-liked because of his southern charms).  The rural areas will be key, and from what I've been hearing from folks outside Atlanta, Hillary is going to get a large number of votes because of her performance in the debates and the desire to finally WIN one of these presidential campaigns.  The Clintons have a lot of goodwill down here.  Early voting started today.  I'm gonna vote for Hillary!

    Speaking for Illinois (none / 0) (#32)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:08:43 AM EST
    The Chicago machine will pull it out for Sen Obama.

    Downstate rural IL is Repubs. Downstate Metro Dems do not always get along with the Chicago machine.

    Big question will be in GE.. will IL go Repub or Dem.


    ha... (none / 0) (#34)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:59:05 AM EST
    ... it won't even be close.

    John Kerry won the state by 10%.  If John Kerry wins by 10%, Obama will win the general election in IL by more.  


    Obama in Illiniois GE (none / 0) (#35)
    by sphealey on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:00:14 AM EST
    = Big question will be in GE.. will IL go Repub or Dem.  =

    Obama is generally well thought of by downstate Illinois Republicans in my experience (the actual conservative ones anyway).  I suspect he would carry Illinois at least 60-40 in the general.



    I really Do NOT (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:34:58 AM EST
    want Dems to get confident in winning the GE.

    I feel we need to approach this as a whole different election than the Kerry/Bush election. Comparing % of that election to this one is dangersous. Kerry lost the GE.

    I really want the dem to get out and support their candidate 110% so we can win. We can't afford comfort.


    Poor Hillary. She was born in IL. (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:11:24 AM EST
    Oculus (none / 0) (#3)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:12:51 AM EST
    what part of the country r u from??

    So Cal. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:13:39 AM EST
    ohhhhhhhhh (none / 0) (#6)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:19:43 AM EST
    for some reason I thought you were from NY...do you have a recent poll of calif?

    From J's stats, HRC is 15& (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:23:00 AM EST
    ahead of Obama.  But Maria Schwartzenegger hasn't endorsed anyone yet!

    just how popular is arnold at this point? (none / 0) (#37)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:41:10 AM EST
    I'd say he is popular enough. (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:09:09 AM EST
    He is backing the term limit proposition on the Feb. 5 ballot, so we'll see.  

    thanks, i get mixed feelings when i (none / 0) (#63)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    see him discussed or written about in the media. at one point his popularity did suffer when he was battling the nurses' union i believe.

    He lost big time on ballot initiatives (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:47:54 PM EST
    an elect or so ago.  But I think people have gotten used to him.  Many people think he is a closet Dem.

    closet dem? i have wondered about (none / 0) (#68)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:08:21 PM EST
    that. i recall he is a great admirer of jfk.

    J are you and BTD (none / 0) (#2)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:11:45 AM EST
    going to live blog the florida primary on tuesday night....I am excited about that one and the statistics.....

    Berkeley (none / 0) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:18:21 AM EST
    Will have chili and hot dog party and invited various factions, you all welcome.  

    How fun would that be, you (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:27:11 AM EST
    and I bending everyones' ears about Rezko, seeing glazed eyebals, etc.  But I'm way too far South.

    Eeks... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:31:10 AM EST
    My Rezko obsession, one week of my life.  Still obsessed.  Rosenberg's piece on cultural hegemony, helped me understand the obscure obsession I had with Obama's answer as to why the projects failed. From being a tepid Obama supporter I went full tilt the other way.  I am still angry, but trying to find a way to explain it.  

    Hey, he sd. his campaign will divest all (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:34:42 AM EST
    those donations; it just takes time, you know?  Did you read the piece someone linked to today from the Atlantic?  Clears up why HRC looks extraordinarily pissed at Obama sometimes during the debates.  Why you little, . . . . After all I did for you.  

    ya got a link?? (none / 0) (#12)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:37:27 AM EST
    I was thinking maybe you posted it. (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:48:35 AM EST
    Just read it... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:01:30 AM EST
    Thanks...I want to know who were the Democratic leaders that "drafted" him.  For sure the Chicago machine, but who else.  I think all the Senators that are coming with the endorsements one by one.  Man, this would be a great story.  

    Wouldn't it though. Sounds like (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:09:54 AM EST
    David Axelrod and the aides of various Senators were the sources for the article, but it is quite one-sided.

    Drafters...add (none / 0) (#22)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:00:07 AM EST
    Dick Durbin, Tom Daschle and the anti-Clinton Democrats in Congress (and staff members).  

    We know it wasn't Biden or Dodd.  They must be pissed.


    IOU (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:31:19 PM EST
    One fundamental calculation is that pundits and politicians want to be players, kingmakers. (Blogs too!)  Reporter want to say, I realized his potential, he was on my show when he said this.  For Hillary, it's the opposite.  I think they know that they couldn't have a major role in her success, and they feel resentful.  Therefore, the alternative is that they want to be dragonslayer.  It's really obvious in the attitude of pundits.  It's such a strong psychological pull to two different directions when Hillary and Obama are concerned.  

    At this moment, everyone is jumping on Obama bandwagon.  They don't want to be cut out.  I think he is very good at giving elites what they want to hear.  Even the Atlantic story (with the anectode about the Church of evangelicals) has that feel to it.  Elite feel that he can talk to people.  Ironically, I feel Hillary is more able to connect to actual people (insert screams here).  

    So yes, Daschle, Kerry, and Kennedy want to have the inside track to the Presidency.  One thing Hillary may have overlooked is to cultivate these people, and make them feel like owners in her run.  

    Then, there is the jealousy factor.  I am going to be blunt.  A big reason lots of people didn't run was because of Hillary.  In 2000, I heard rumors that Senators were saying, Bradley is looking better and better everyday.  They resented that it was a very hard thing to wrestle the nomination away from Gore.  Same thing here, they (Daschle, Kerry) are/were old faces, and would never attract the attention and excitement that Hillary would.  Remember these people are very competitive.  They really think they are better than her, and anything that proves the contrary just irks them.


    Remember, it's all about which schools (none / 0) (#127)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:32:45 PM EST
    for the Eastern elite, and especially Harvard.

    Obama is Harvard.

    Clinton is Wellesley.

    (No matter that she was president of her class, received the very unusual honor of speaking at her commencement -- and what she said got a 22-year-old covered in Life Magazine, even then.  It still wasn't the ultimate old-boys-club school,Harvard. . . .  For a great glimpse of it, with excerpts from faculty minutes, read Amanda Cross aka Carolyn Heilbrun's Death in a Tenured Position.)


    wow (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:43:27 AM EST
    shades of Alice Palmer.

    I hope it stops on Tsunami Tuesday.


    Too true -- nice lady, sad story (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:09:27 AM EST
    although the current chapter still is to be written.  But she probably will just let it be.

    Link re Alice Palmer? (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:13:35 AM EST
    This passage (none / 0) (#39)
    by kid oakland on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:57:00 AM EST
    stands out as emblematic:

    Perhaps the ultimate example of hard-won experience is the relationship that developed last year, brokered by an outside ally, between the Clinton campaign and a man who was once a sworn enemy: Matt Drudge, the Internet pioneer. (News of the Monica Lewinsky scandal first broke on the Drudge Report.) In a Democratic primary, news that the Clinton campaign is funneling information to Drudge is potentially explosive--few figures inspire more liberal wrath than Drudge. (When I confronted the mole, she confirmed the connection to Drudge, but first asked for anonymity.) Still, Drudge has proved a useful tool for the campaign in framing media coverage. When it became clear that Obama had raised more first-quarter money for the primary race than Clinton had, the Clinton campaign minimized the damage by preemptively leaking its own numbers to Drudge. "Clinton Blows the Field Away" was the headline on an exclusive Drudge story claiming she had raised $36 million. Only later, with much less fanfare, did it become clear that only $19 million would count toward the Democratic primary.

    As does this (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by standingup on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:40:11 PM EST
    All of this has forged a political culture that is intrinsically hostile to reform. On condition of anonymity, one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn't see him as a "player." The lobbyist added: "What's the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?"



    Re: (none / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:55:20 AM EST
    After Iowa I thought the biggest question was whether Obama would be able to replicate his spectacular GOTV results under conditions where he didn't have six months and tens of millions of dollars to build an operation in a single state, because those younger voters are notoriously hard to turn out.  I was skeptical, but I figured Super Tuesday would be the acid test.  I guess that's the question that's still on the table.

    I Agree (none / 0) (#53)
    by BDB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:56:39 AM EST
    I was very impressed with the way Obama was able to turn out the youth vote in Iowa.  I became less impressed in Nevada where he didn't have as much time.  I thought he also had a good turnout effort in SC, but he also spent a lot of time and money there.  

    One of the things I think might work against him, at least out West, is that I get the sense - based on bits of anecdotal stuff, so take it for the very little that it's worth - that hispanic organizers in California are really committed to trying to put Clinton over the top here.  I think they are determined to be a factor in this election, to show both political parties that they have arrived in electoral politics.  Whether they will succeed or not is another question.  They certainly did a great job in Nevada.

    Given the current anti-immigrant hysteria among most Republicans, greater hispanic involvement could be huge for Democrats.  If Clinton can bring them out elsewhere like she did in Nevada, that's every bit as big a deal as Obama's youth vote.


    that's a very (none / 0) (#17)
    by along on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:57:30 AM EST
    clear-eyed overview. Obama agrees. He said today that he is still the underdog.

    A couple points in the WSJ piece that seem off to me though:

    Mr. Obama had more than three weeks to build on his Iowa victory to chip away at Mrs. Clinton's lead in South Carolina...

    Of course he had to fight for the win, but Clinton's poll lead in SC evaporated before Christmas: pollster SC data

    and this is misleading:

    Mrs. Clinton has maintained her big lead in national polls...

    Since Iowa, Obama has narrowed the gap in the national polls, from a 15-20% deficit to a 9% average gap now.

    another Krugman article (none / 0) (#20)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:50:50 AM EST
    that gives us food for thought as we face more primaries in the coming weeks....

    Krugman (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Lena on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:18:40 AM EST
    seems to really get it. I like this quote:

    First, those who don't want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don't want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s -- a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy -- are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can't bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

    The idea that Obama will somehow get a pass from outlandish made-up scandals and innuendo if he wins the nomination; and that he can unite a large enough bloc as president that he can enact "change" (whatever that is) seems so naive I can't believe that he gets such a huge pass on it.

    And then this:

    Yes, Bill Clinton has been somewhat boorish (though I can't make sense of the claims that he's somehow breaking unwritten rules, which seem to have been newly created for the occasion). But many Obama supporters also seem far too ready to demonize their opponents.

    Ugh. So true. As a refugee from the delusional and offensive spinning on dailykos from Obama supporters, I find the objective scrutiny (accompanied by some cynicism!!! Finally!) to be a breath of fresh air here...


    Civilized discussion here, but at Big Orange (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by magnetics on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:14:41 PM EST
    the behavior of Obama supporters has approached feeding frenzy.  Look, I'm all for supporting your candidate, but in the end, we all have to vote Democratic in the general, no matter who gets the nomination.  With feelings running so hot, I think that simple fact is being lost sight of.

    "No more mister nice guy." (none / 0) (#83)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:40:07 PM EST
    NY State NOW has hit Ted Kennedy where he lives for not staying neutral...the fun is over...

    This will be very nasty indeed.


    NOW (none / 0) (#85)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:44:54 PM EST
    link, please?

    NOW! YOW! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:56:57 PM EST

    Well, I guess this means that NOW! won't be backing Ted Kennedy for a while.  Yikes.  

    I am certain there is going to be media outrage about Obama and calls of rampant sexism.  I'm going to hold my breath until it happens.

    (could someone make sure I don't hit my head when I pass out?)


    Powerful. (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:00:25 PM EST
    And doesn't even mention those "present" votes.

    Payback. (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:07:32 PM EST
    It's not about Obama...this is NOW calling out Ted Kennedy for not staying neutral.

    I'm having a lot of thoughts about this right now but can't write in detail about it yet...too much memory overwhelming the moment.

    Ted Kennedy.  Yuck.  He has risked the compact with feminist women by coming out for Obama...and not only the endorsement but...the content of the speech itself.  I watched it all.  Pretty revolting to attack the Clintons as he did and he deserved the smackdown from NOW.  And they have the ammunition.  It will get worse.  Much worse.


    I Agree (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:11:45 PM EST
    That Kennedy should have kept his mouth shut, but the nastiness of this piece does not help Hillary, it only hurts her.

    trust me as a member of NOW (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:15:34 PM EST
    and in knowing how many women across this nation support womens rights....it will definately help her....dont kid yourself...there are a zillion women across this nation that are sick and tired of sexism...I have experienced it all my life...in the working world....and so have others...

    Haha! (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:21:27 PM EST
    I just called NOW! NY to make a donation, and she laughed and said the phones had been ringing off the hook with donations.

    So, heh heh...I guess the endorsement worked!


    WOrked For NOW (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:28:25 PM EST
    Good for them. But my guess is that it is preaching to the converted. My preference, by a hair, is Hillary. This is not going to win over anyone new, imo hatefests backfire.

    Really Gross If (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:05:27 PM EST
    You ask me. An insult to Hillary as well.

    What is gross? And (none / 0) (#92)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:09:55 PM EST
    what is the insult to Hillary?

    This is not about Hillary or Obama.  This is about Ted Kennedy wanting to play hardball politics and thinking he wouldn't be called out for it.

    He was wrong.


    Duck and cover, kids...


    Because It (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:22:12 PM EST
    Is brings down Hillary by tying that level of nastiness to her. Hate Ted Kennedy all you want, but to suggest that endorsing  Obama is misogyny hurts Clinton. She is a woman but that is not why she is great.

    It is just like turning Obama into the black candidate. Bad and counterproductive.

    Sounds as bad as the Obamamaniacs ranting.


    squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:30:16 PM EST
    I don't agree with you (which is strange, because more often than not I do) because I think it reminds women like me what a hard struggle it has been for us--and Hillary.  Kennedy speaks out against racism, but he never once spoke out against the sexism Clinton faces constantly in the national media.  When she was getting crap from the left and right, he "stayed above the fray."  When race entered the issue (courtesy of the media), he just had to jump right in.

    On that note, I firmly believe that if this was a charge of racism, it would be front page news.  Sexism...not so much.


    Likewise (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:16:11 PM EST
    I usually agree with you. And I partially agree with you this time in that I think it bogus for a party leader to endorse a candidate. In this case I do not not think it is right to call Kennedy a women hater because he is endorsing Obama.

    To drag Hillary into this seems to me a disservice. If Hillary wins it is not because she is a woman, it is because she has what it takes to be POTUS.

    Is either Andrew Young or Joe Lewis an Uncle Tom because they back Hillary?

    Are women that back Obama self hating, because the are not voting for Hillary? It reminds me of AIPAC tactics.

    I have no problem with calling Kennedy or anyone on sexism when they play it out. IMO this is not one of those times.


    It is sexism and worse. (none / 0) (#108)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:34:05 PM EST
    Kennedy chose up sides against the Clintons and specifically against Hillary...the first woman with a real chance to become our nominee.  He sided, publicly, with the anti-Clinton faction in the Democratic Party who drafted Obama to run against her.

    If this doesn't put to rest who is the establishment campaign (Obama and the good old boys) and who the insurgent (Hillary Clinton) then I don't know what will.

    Ted Kennedy miscalculated.  He thought he'd get away with dissing Hillary.  Women who've been through the wars are not going to stand for it from him...not from Ted Kennedy...and he's going to pay.  Bigtime.

    Just awful

    Ted the kingmaker...back in the limelight.


    Dreadful.  Just dreadful.


    Don't Get It (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:46:11 PM EST
    You hate Kennedy but want his endorsement, because you think Hillary needs it or deserves it.

    Sounds convoluted to me.

    Obama needs him more than Hillary does imo.


    No. You don't get it. (none / 0) (#112)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:24:16 PM EST
    I don't hate Teddy.

    I don't hate anyone.

    I don't want his endorsement.

    I don't think Hillary needs it or deserves it.

    I do NOT think this will help Obama...certainly not if he is the nominee.

    Teddy Kennedy in the limelight helps NO Democrat and if you think it does, you don't know your Democratic history.  Try googling for Ted Kennedy's scandals.  Then google for Ted Kennedy and candidate for president and Carter, as in President Carter.

    This is only about Ted Kennedy making a public fool of himself, once again, at the expense of all Democrats who for years have been willing to let sleeping dogs lie.  And if he hadn't chosen up sides against Hillary...if he'd just shut up and stayed off the stage and not tried to be the kingmaker, it would have been fine...

    But no.  His speech today was very revealing...long-winded and at least twice the audience and the candidate thought it was ended...but then he went on...and on...about himself...and legacy...and Kennedys and attacked the Clintons...Hillary specifically.  NOW was not going to take that from him...not after all the damage he did to the party over the years...and the crap women had to put up with as Democrats AND as women, personally and legislatively, thanks to Ted Kennedy.

    He underminded women one too many times...and they hit back.

    Bad.  It will hurt us all.

    And...I am not surprised.


    OK (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:52:34 PM EST
    Thanks for clarifying that. It is good to hear.

    I don't get it how it serves anyone but NOW to turn Kennedy's endorsement of Obama into something about hating woman. Hillary does not need that kind of flaming, nor does the party right now.

    I think that we both want the same outcome. We just disagree on what is the best way to win the GE.



    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by oldpro on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:26:44 PM EST
    no one is served bt this brouhaha.  No one.  Only the coffers of the NY State NOW treasury will profit from this.  But...

    I do not blame them for ripping into Kennedy for his attack on the Clintons and on Hillary.  I blame Kennedy for thinking he could get away with it one more time...essentially, daring NOW or any women's group to do anything about it.

    They took the dare.  The message is essentially the same message Hillary is delivering:  the days of women putting up with this crap are over.

    O. V. E. R.  They will hit Teddy back just as Hillary hit back at Obama in the last debate.  He seriously misjudged the situation.  It's not the first time but it's the first time any faction of the women's movement made him pay for it.

    I wish it hadn't happened.  I wish he hadn't dared them.  I don't wish they hadn't called him out and smacked him down.  Short run, long run...it's all bad and I blame Kennedy and the 'gold old boys' who drafted Obama to take on Hillary who they were sure would win the nomination.

    Now, who is the establishment candidate?  Not Hillary Clinton!


    I See (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:37:57 PM EST
    Your point. The endorsement made me notice and think a but I do not think he makes much of a difference. Bad form for sure. I think Hillary will win MA. For me both are mainstream establishment Dems, with or without Kennedy's blessing.

    squeaky (none / 0) (#113)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:45:43 PM EST
    I respect your opinion, and I don't wholly disagree about the nature of the attack, but my focus was more on reaction to it--basically, it seems from a quick toodle around the blogosphere that cries of "hysterical" and comments about menstruation are being used to combat NOW NY's charge.  More than a few times, I've seen folks using the b-word that McCain loves so much.  And no one is making this reaction a front page story.

    Just reminds me of why we have to fight the b*stards, and as I said, I think it will remind some other women, too.  But then I still have not forgiven favored son John Edwards for his many swipes at her, so admittedly I am sensitive on this issue.

    (ps: John Lewis is my rep here in GA and he has faced all sorts of uncle tom swipes from the Atlanta black elite)


    I Hear You (none / 0) (#116)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:15:48 PM EST
    IMO the NOW piece caused a predictable calculated outcome. It is not so hard to get sexist pigs riled up and spewing.  Lots of donations to NOW I'm sure, but did it convert anyone who was on the fence about HRC? I doubt it, most fence sitters are turned off by negativity.

    How do you think it helped Hillary?


    I think Hillary is helped (none / 0) (#122)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:50:17 PM EST
    because some who might have wavered after the Kennedy endorsement might remember why they love her so much--what she fought against all her life and the good fight she continues to wage for women and children and America as a whole (at the risk of sounding corny).  A kind of "yeah, that's what I'm talking about" moment.  For me, that's what it did.

    Honestly, as far as the net is concerned, with very few exceptions I think folks are fairly galvanized as far as which candidate they support.  The NOW thing will not sway them one way or another, unless the swing is  to a more extreme stance.  

    As for the non-blog-obsessed real world (the happy place in which most dem voters live), I think they'll see the announcement on the nightly news, and it'll mean something or not, but then if Hillary blows it out in Florida, it'll mean something else the next day.  The media is really good at playing these story arcs, and I think they manipulate the mood of the nation as it suits them.  As Kennedy tours the country with Obama, it might keep helping or, as with Kerry, it might not.

    For the most part, Dems want to win, and as much as the Kennedy name means to the party, I feel it's been somewhat cheapened because it's been bandied about so much lately.  Anesthetized, may have been a better way to phrase it.  You hear it so much, it's almost like the Reagan moniker, where you slap it on whoever comes close.  It's sort of like saying a band is the next Beatles.  Uh, no.  I was raised on the Beatles and you, Miley Cyrus, are no Beatle.  

    Most dems just want to win, and they will back the person who looks like a winner because if they are like me, they are sick and tired of losing.  Historically, this has been termed a "bump."  We'll see how Florida plays out.  I think it's very savvy that they held the Kennedy endorsement until now.  Everyone is saying it's because Teddy was mad at Bill, but look at the ground ahead: we are now entering voting for states that do not let independents and republicans vote in democratic primaries.  Politically, a brilliant move--and certain to alienate some of those independents who didn't know they were getting a Kennedy liberal.  Buyers remorse, come to papa.

    Boy, can I ramble or what?!  Did I actually answer your question?


    Where was he called a woman hater? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:38:12 PM EST
    Please point me to it, seriously, as I don't see it.

    I see an organization that was asked by him for support, over and over, and gave it to him, over and over, in return for promises made that he didn't keep.

    That's politics.  When a guy from a union does it to a guy politician, is he a man hater?


    OK I Exaggerated (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:14:39 PM EST
    No claims of woman hate by NOW. I'm busted on that one.

    But the statement suggests that 'NOW' and 'women' are interchangeable terms. Also supporting women and endorsing Obama are not remotely exclusive terms.

    If NOW has supported Kennedy, does that mean that he is obligated to support Clinton?

    BTW-What promise did he made to NOW?

    Promises are cheap for all Pols, or they wouldn't be pols.


    What promises? Did you read it? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 08:44:01 PM EST
    "Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings. . . ."

    I am reminded so much these days of the 1866 convention of the American Equal Rights Association, the post-Civil War abolitionists organized next for what they called universal suffrage, for all -- including women, who had halted their movement to work for the war.  But when Cady Stanton, the AERA president, and other women got to the point of the meeting, the men reneged, removed her as president, and kicked out women.  As one said, "This is the Negro's hour."

    Of course, that only meant African American men. The reasoning was they were subjected to such abuse and brutality, which certainly was true.  But AA women were subjected to even worse. . . .

    So, for the first time, gender -- the word "male" -- entered our Constitution.  And it's still there.  And the 19th amendment countered the 15th, but not the 14th -- not without an ERA.

    Just when will it be our "hour"?  Well, note that even a century and a half later, it's still hard for an incredibly accomplished woman candidate to even get a fair shot at a fair soundbyte.


    dagnabbit (none / 0) (#129)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:24:11 PM EST
    cream, you said it.  Most folks only center on Stanton's later outrage that made her come off as very anti-black, but I have always thought her turn came out of frustration and a deep sense of betrayal.  Understandable.

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#131)
    by squeaky on Wed Jan 30, 2008 at 12:27:06 PM EST
    Kennedy's endorsement is hardly a betrayal to women's rights. He is endorsing a nominee not a gender or race. For him to nominate a woman only because he promised to champion women's rights would make his nomination a worthless joke.

    whats fair for the goose (none / 0) (#98)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:25:59 PM EST
    is fair for the gander

    Maybe (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:17:15 PM EST
    But you run the risk of turning into what you hate.

    Nope, no chance, since I'm not a (none / 0) (#119)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:35:16 PM EST
    politician who made promises to win support and then didn't keep his promises.

    Read the statement.  That's what it's about.  Calling him out for promises not kept . . . and then this.  Warning him the support may not be there again.

    That's how politics is done.  Better done with more grace and better writing than this!  But basically, this is how politics is done every day. . . .


    Didn't Know (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:56:33 PM EST
    He made promises, except to stay out of endorsing a candidate. Either way pols lie that is a given.

    And I do not imagine that you will turn into a politician or a goose or a gander. Just a little overreaction on my part.


    The economist is right on the money again. n/t (none / 0) (#72)
    by ghost2 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:44:08 PM EST
    Nice British analysis.... (none / 0) (#24)
    by dutchfox on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:18:34 AM EST
    by William Rees-Mogg in The Times.

    Is Barack Obama the next JFK?

    Since New Hampshire, Bill and Hillary Clinton have gone over to attack mode.

    This was not in the original Hillary script. She was supposed to receive her party's nomination in a gracious way. The Clintons themselves are street fighters, trained in the tough school of Alabama politics, but they do not fight dirty unless they have to. They know that flushed faces and nasal accents do not suit a presidential image. They were fighting dirty because they were fighting scared.

    From the early days in Iowa there has been only one way in which Hillary Clinton's campaign could be stopped. She had the machine, she had the support of women - though not all women like her - and she had the money too. She also had Bill Clinton, the Big Bertha of her campaign, able to lob huge shells over her head and demolish any opposition.

    However, she hoped not to have to fire the big gun; he was intended to be a threat held in reserve, rather than exposed to action. Against these armaments there was one possibility - that Barack Obama would seize the role of the young hero and that he would be seen by American voters as their young champion.

    Obama likes to have it both ways... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ding7777 on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 06:53:00 AM EST
    People want change...hey, look at me I'm just like JFK

    Twenty, 15, 10  years ago is old, but 50 years ago is great.


    The author must be a fine expert (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by RalphB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:03:32 AM EST
    since he thinks they trained in Alabama politics instead of Arkansas.  

    London Times (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:50:06 AM EST
    owned by...

    Rupert Murdoch.

    I know y'all are shocked.


    that was a good one (none / 0) (#40)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:06:12 AM EST
    you know, one of those "A" southern states

    The Author (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:55:06 AM EST
    Of the Murdoch rag, article wants McCain to win. It is not clear how he perceives CLinton to be fighting dirty. It could be using Bill, but he is too vague about the claim so it stands as innuendo.

    Talk about dirty.


    if you look at the wagering on the campaign (none / 0) (#125)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:57:00 PM EST
    in europe, you'll see hillary way ahead.

    She's been ahead from day one (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by RalphB on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 09:54:24 PM EST
    and I think more of their odds than the pollsters here.  

    polls (none / 0) (#46)
    by tek on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 10:32:23 AM EST
    May this be true. If we end up with Barack Obama it will be the direct result of the media's assault on the Clintons and the Democratic Party's unconscionable favoritism of Barack--actually telling a past Democratic president to absent himself from a campaign and relinquish his First Amendment rights.
    I find it very troubling that so many Democrats are perfectly content to use facist tactics to get their candidate in office, rejecting full disclosure, transparency and fair, open debates.
    It doesn't bode well for the future of democracy in this country. I don't think the status quo Democrats (Obama's backers) can restore our democracy.
    It's interesting, too, that Hillary's backers are truly liberal, progressive Democrats, yet so many liberals insist Obama is progressive.

    I am much more interested in (none / 0) (#48)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:08:57 AM EST
    these two candidates combing their supporters bufore it is too late....that is what it is going to take to win in the fall...all of the negativity cant be good for our party...

    For some of us. . . (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:44:46 AM EST
    alas, it's too late for combing.

    If it is too late to join another (none / 0) (#54)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:58:20 AM EST
    candidate then you were never a democrat to being with ...the whole point of the election is to get rid of the GOP no matter your personal hatred...If you cannot set aside your personal animosity then shame on you....this is all about getting rid of the neo-cons...nothing more and nothing less....

    Not combining. . . (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:03:51 PM EST
    combing.  Some of us have nothing left to comb.

    Ohhhhhhhh...sorry didnt get it but sorry for my (none / 0) (#57)
    by athyrio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:05:29 PM EST
    big typo.....

    Psst, I think it was snark (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:03:45 PM EST
    Ahem, "combing". . . .

    LOL! (none / 0) (#60)
    by Klio on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:20:19 PM EST
    so, are you 1/2 of an argument over a useless comb?

    How do they (none / 0) (#49)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 11:16:47 AM EST
    combine their support?

    I only see that happening when one pulls out of the primary.

    I feel (only my opinion) that the heat of the primary is motivating the Dems. Will we lose that motivation should one person withdraw? The one that pulls out would have to present it for the unity of the party in order to combine the support. Who is going to do that?


    Missouri (none / 0) (#62)
    by bordenl on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 12:57:08 PM EST
    Research 2000 poll came out for Post-Dispatch yesterday: Hillary has a 13% lead. Women favor Hillary by more than this and blacks favor Obama. Otherwise the lead is consistent across the state. McCain is the most competitive Republican candidate against all three Dems.

    Discussed this yesterday with a family member (4.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:16:34 PM EST
    there, in St. Louis, politically active and pretty smart -- teaches public policy and economics.

    He said MO is seen as a bellwether state on Tsuper Tsunami Tuesday, since some of the largest -- California, Illinois, etc. -- are seen as skewed by other factors, such as disproportionate Hispanic vote, home states, etc.  And, of course, MO is in the heart of the country -- although I would note that even though the census bureau puts it in the Midwest, MO is about the most atypical state there is in the Midwest, with its heritage of (legal) slavery and for other factors.

    On the other hand, that does mean Missouri is close to the national norm in terms of race, with 15% AAs there, he said (vs. 12% nationally).  But it is only 5% Hispanic, below national norms.  Of course, we also saw that immigration can be a huge factor in states just beginning to see Hispanics in numbers, such as Iowa -- more significant there, per exit polls, than in states that have been heavily Hispanic for some time (since, after all, those states were part of Mexico first:-).

    As for gender, it is interesting that Sen. McCaskill's endorsement of Obama does not seem to have swayed women.  Then again, she has been a disappointment to many in MO.  Anyway -- some more background re a 2/5 state that has not been polled much, from what I see on the usual polling sites.


    St. Louis City (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by bordenl on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:34:07 PM EST
    is the best for Obama: an 8-point lead for Hillary. I believe that more black voters will come out on Tuesday and he will take the city. It is the county where he has to make up ground.

    As A Resident Of MO, McCaskill's (4.00 / 1) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:51:00 PM EST
    endorsement is a negative and not a plus. She consistently votes with Republicans on the two issues I care the most about, Iraq and FISA. She also votes with the Republicans on immigration. She wants to keep her bipartisanship creds bright and shiny no matter what the costs. Crowing about being ideological allies with Obama is not a recommendation IMO.

    but, but mittens is still hanging on! (none / 0) (#64)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    smile! i don't know there is something about romney that makes me laugh. maybe because his is so shameless.

    Romney (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:13:52 PM EST
    I cannot help but root for Mr Fakey Head.  He just does not give up.  I mean, ya gotta admire that.  And watch him get eaten alive by Hillary in the general election...

    yup, there is something about mittens (none / 0) (#101)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:40:58 PM EST
    you gotta love. he reminds of a hologram in the cartoons. one has to get their smiles from this campaign where they can.

    Per teacherken's warning, (none / 0) (#110)
    by bordenl on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 05:35:38 PM EST
    this poll was taken between January 21 and 24.

    Not enough info (none / 0) (#69)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:18:53 PM EST
    Look this isn't winner take all.  These omfortable leads aren't so big that they'll translate into a big delegate lead for either candidate.  You would have a better picture if you could see polls by district, so you would know how delegates are going.

    I think this thing is most likely going all the way through the spring... Hillary wins in the summer, McCain wins in the fall, the country loses for four more years.

    I Don't Think Obama Could Defeat McCain (none / 0) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:56:05 PM EST
    if he is the nominee. I think Clinton has a better chance of beating him than Obama.

    MO (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    I think McCain will beat himself.  The man does not have a history of being able to stay on point.  "Straight Talk" is not conducive to national politics.

    If McCain Is The Nominee, I Don't (none / 0) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 03:34:27 PM EST
    think the media will let him defeat himself. They will ignore and not report on his major screw ups. They will find hidden meanings in everything he says and they will be positive meanings. Sound familiar. If the media and the Republican machine can sell Bush in 00 and 04, they can sell anything.

    I find it very disstressing and revealing that even after all his gaffs and his 100 years of war, the media was able to keep him alive politically and revive his ailing campaign. Indie are still strongly supporting his candidacy and buying into the meme that he is a different kind of Republican.



    MO (none / 0) (#97)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:23:44 PM EST
    You might be right, but I am somewhat of a Hillary Optimist so I will just keep a wait and see attitude.

    Speaking of Hillary, and risking being off topic, I have seen many folks bashing her for supporting Goldwater, but I just read that when she was a Goldwater Girl...she was only 13.  Is that right?  Can't find anything on her website.


    she couldn't have been 13 (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by CathyinLa on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:49:55 PM EST
    Not if she was a Goldwater girl when he ran for president in '64.

    Hillary was born in 1947.  An impressionable 17 year old?  Not even eligible for voting?

    MLK, Jr. is supposed to have been her moment of enlightenment and evolution.  I don't think she's turned back since.  Certainly not to the degree that you might suspect she's a closet Goldwaterite more than four decades since.


    i have a softer spot in my heart for (none / 0) (#102)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:43:53 PM EST
    goldwater than just about any repub. he did support the environment, women's privacy, and a number of other important issues. when the mean machine of the repubs came to power in dc, he retired with a broken heart according to his widow.

    gee i meant widow not window! (none / 0) (#105)
    by hellothere on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:51:44 PM EST
    i have spent today on the computer and it shows.

    Hillary Was Raised In A Conservative Republican (none / 0) (#117)
    by MO Blue on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:26:25 PM EST
    family. She was a Goldwater girl when she was 17-18 years old.

    She served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans organization during her freshman year. However, due to her evolving views regarding the American Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War, she stepped down from that position;[17] she characterized her own nature as that of "a mind conservative and a heart liberal."[19] IIn her junior year, Rodham was affected by the death of Martin Luther King, Jr.,[8] and became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy.[20] Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students for moderate changes, such as recruiting more black students and faculty.[21] In that same year she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association.

    Certain people just can't get enough of bashing Hillary no matter how far they have to stretch to do it.


    good lord (none / 0) (#123)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 07:52:56 PM EST
    I'm glad no one  is judging me on what I thought or did when I was 17 and still living under my parents' roof (and when I was 18 and wasn't)  I think it says something good about her that even at that age, she was politically involved.  I voted for Mondale at 17, but I wasn't really excited about the prospect of bringing about change until my next vote...for Bill Clinton.  I feel that same excitement now about voting for Hillary.

    Okay, I'll stop before someone calls me a fanatic again!


    I agree (none / 0) (#74)
    by Judith on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 02:50:14 PM EST
    if you compare just about anybody to MLK they come up wanting.

    oculus (none / 0) (#104)
    by Kathy on Mon Jan 28, 2008 at 04:51:04 PM EST
    Ha!  Excellent question.  Doubtful, though.