home

Obama as the Next McGovern?

The TimesOnline says the right wing is set to attack Barack Obama s the ultimate "liberal socialist" in the mold of George McGovern.

LEADING Republicans believe they can trounce Barack Obama in the presidential election by tarring him as a shady Chicago socialist. They are increasingly confident that his campaign could collapse by the time their attack machine has finished with him.

Sample attack:

Obama has the voting record of a “hard-left” socialist, according to [Grover]Norquist, from his time in the Illinois state legislature to the US Senate. He was recently judged by the nonpartisan National Journal to have the most liberal voting record in 2007 of any senator.

“It will be easy to portray him as even harder-left than Hillary,” said Norquist. “Hillary could lose the election, but Obama could collapse. People already know Hillary and she is not popular, but the disadvantage for Obama is that Republicans can teach people who don’t know him who he is.”

More...

I was struck earlier by Obama's statement that the solution to the Florida primary election is to hold caucuses. Of course he would say that, since he does best in caucuses.

So say some, did George McGovern. Especially, like Obama, in red states that are unlikely to go blue in November. That's how the superdelegates came about -- so the Dems could avoid a repeat of that failed strategy.

The new blog Progressive Involvement lays this out.

McGovern, along with Congressman Don Fraser, wrote the rules which governed the 1972 campaign. Four years earlier, in 1968, the Democratic Party had blown itself up in a dispute between the established powerbrokers and the anti-war left. The "McGovern Rules" were mostly about taking power away from "the establishment." In the future, nominees would be chosen in local caucuses and state primaries.

In caucuses, cohesive goal-directed groups can have influence beyond their numbers.  This makes them ideal for insurgency-type campaigns. In 1972, we McGovernites took 9 out of 10 delegates in Ellis County, Kansas--a significant achievement especially when George McGovern was not exactly representative of local sentiment among traditional Democrats.

The McGovern campaign did this in thousands of county assemblies all across the nation, particularly in what are now called "red states." Note George McGovern's "red state" victories in this map of 1972 caucuses and primaries and compare it to the states Barack Obama has won through caucuses this year. This is not surprising, of course, considering that the Obama campaign has adopted the McGovern insurgency caucus strategy, added in internet organizing and fundraising, and, what's more, rallied the same McGovern constituency.

The inference is that by winning the small red states with caucuses, but not the big blue states like California and New York, Obama is likely to repeat McGovern's blowout in the general election.

Here's a map showing states won so far by Obama and Hillary.

Any thoughts on the validity of this scenario?

Update: Comments at 200, this thread is closing.

< New Terror Threat: A FISA Related Coincidence? | Feminists For Clinton >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    So basically... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:31:20 PM EST
    ... according the map and the numbers...

    Obama has won more delegates in "red" states.

    AND he has won more delegates in "blue" states.

    And he has a winning record in both red and blue states.  

    The maps and numbers don't really support the McGovern analogy.  

    Hillary can beat the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:32:53 PM EST
    Obama is good at selling the Kool-Aid, but the swiftboaters & co. will tear him apart. Edwards was right, "he's kind of a pussy".

    The GOP will bring up Rezko, the slumlord and major donor to Obama; and Exelon, which was on ABC News last night, the Exelon to Obama money  and the bill that was subsequently watered down.

    Hillary can fight the GOP and win.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh... (none / 0) (#3)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:32:11 PM EST
    ... AND he has a winning record in primaries, even though there have been numerous comments on this site that have claimed that Obama doesn't primaries.  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but ... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by badger on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:02:31 PM EST
    A lot of Obama's wins are in caucuses, and caucuses more than primaries heavily weight the 30% or so of the electorate that self-identifies as 'Democrats' (or the smaller percent that self-identifies as 'liberal'). Obama has not won any large state primary except IL.

    Which is exactly what happened in 1972. If you had been in my Poli Sci class that year, nearly everyone thought McGovern would win because of the strong opposition to the war. Except the prof, who pointed out that "Not all voters live on this campus".

    Not all voters caucus or spend much time on liberal blogs.

    I don't have any evidence to support that point about Obama one way or the other. Ironically, the superdelegates that everyone bashes should be in a position to make an assessment of how broad Obama's strength is and push the nomination appropriately. That's one of the reasons the system is set up that way.


    [ Parent ]

    Again... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:07:28 PM EST
    ... I know that Obama has a large advantage in the caucus states.

    But he also also won more primary states, more closed primary states, more red states, more blue states, more red state delegates, and more blue state delegates.

    Further... as someone else pointed out, McGovern won MA, CA, TX, and NY.  

    So I really don't see the Obama comparisons.  

    [ Parent ]

    The question is about (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by badger on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:20:06 PM EST
    how deep Obama's support is among potential Democratic voters, and caucuses measure that very poorly. The weaker is support is the easier it'll be for the GOP to define him however they want.

    I assume you mean McG won those states in the primaries, because he only won MA and DC in the GE, and lost the popular vote 60-38. And if McG did win those primaries, it should underscore the fact that Obama's wins in red states (primaries or caucuses) aren't very meaningful either.

    There isn't anyone who's going to tell you that Obama will or won't be exactly like McG in '72, but it's something worth considering, and something a lot of Obama supporters refuse to think about. There isn't an easy answer though, and there isn't much good evidence either way.

    I think the WI primary result might be helpful in looking at the question.

    [ Parent ]

    So, um... (none / 0) (#57)
    by sphealey on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:26:24 PM EST
    So, um.... why didn't Senator Clinton's campaign organize to win in the caucus states?  Why didn't she organize to win big in Missouri - including St. Louis and Kansas City?

    Could it possibly be because she underestimated her opposition?  If so, is that a good trait in a Presidential candidate?

    sPh

    [ Parent ]

    Something tells me that organizing (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:41:28 PM EST
    in St Louis wouldn't have done much good considering the racial makeup of the participants.  Frankly, I'm kind of surprised she did so well in the rest of the state, outside the urban areas.

    Even so, there's no doubt the Clinton campaign made some strategic errors and I think the biggest one was thinking this race would be over early.  That's really bitten them hard.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by badger on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:44:05 PM EST
    But the answer to that isn't especially relevant to this discussion. Clinton winning the caucuses wouldn't prove her viability as a candidate anymore than Obama winning them did.

    On the issue of electability, caucuses are pretty meaningless - they certainly aren't any kind of evidence that, for example, Obama will carry NE in the general election (or even IA).

    Primaries won't prove that either, but at least the represent a broader base and in open primary states include independents too.

    The problem that occurs is when Democratic activists or factions within the party are out of sync with the electorate generally - that's what happened in 1972 (or 1964 for Goldwater and the GOP). Whether that's happening this year is anybody's guess, but I think it's worth considering.

    The evidence for it isn't especially strong. It's mostly Obama's inability to carry large state primaries. I think there are some other factors, but they could just as well be anti-Obama bias at this point.

    What evidence do you have that that isn't the case?


    [ Parent ]

    Obama parlayed his (none / 0) (#66)
    by ding7777 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:38:12 PM EST
    knowledge from being a grassroots Community acivist into caucus building.  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think it was (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:51:01 PM EST
    Obama, I think it was Axelrod.

    [ Parent ]
    From the LA Times (none / 0) (#174)
    by ding7777 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:10:11 PM EST
    The precinct-level operations were to employ theories of community organizing Obama practiced in Chicago before getting into electoral politics.

    more..

    [ Parent ]

    MONEY (none / 0) (#140)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:07:03 PM EST
    She was running out of money and the campaign made foolish decisions on whether to contest caucus states.

    [ Parent ]
    one reason (none / 0) (#182)
    by sas on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:27:44 PM EST
    money

    [ Parent ]
    Just wait when the Evangelicals go after him (none / 0) (#13)
    by felizarte on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:53:05 PM EST
    for "leading a cult" a word that has been bandied about before by people like Krugman describing some of his supporters as "cult-like".  or websites supporting him such as obamaMessiah.com

    With endorsers like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, how does he shake off the "superLiberal" tag.  I can almost imagine McCain winning.  Well maybe the democrats need to learn more lessons.

    [ Parent ]

    the only problem is... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jor on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:16:26 PM EST
    ... evangelicals will not go after him. Obama is much more comfortable with religion than McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Evangelicals WILL (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:19:57 PM EST
    go after him... Roe vs Wade. You bet they will. That's why those states are "red".

    [ Parent ]
    They will too (none / 0) (#62)
    by felizarte on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:33:48 PM EST
    with the rationale that Obama IS the religion.  Remember me when this happens.

    [ Parent ]
    Evangelicals are not Obama's problem (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Prabhata on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:26:08 PM EST
    His problem is people on the right of the Republican party, like Norquist, Rove, and Rush and Coulter.  We think of the last two as irrelevant, but they keep a slime going until it sticks.

    [ Parent ]
    Closed primaries? (none / 0) (#18)
    by magisterludi on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:55:41 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    According to... (none / 0) (#20)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:59:10 PM EST
    .. RCP, Obama has a 9-4 record in closed primaries.

    [ Parent ]
    Here's what Obama has won per CNN (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ding7777 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:25:38 PM EST
    Open Primaries - VA, MO, IL, GA, AL, SC

    Closed Primaries - D.C., MD, LA, DE

    Semi-Open Primary - UT

    Open Caucus - WA, MN, ID, ND

    Closed Caucus - NB, AK, KS, CO, ME, IA

    [ Parent ]

    I'd call Kansas semi-closed or something (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:39:34 PM EST
    Voters did have to register as Democrats at the Kansas Caucus -- but they had to do it on-site if they weren't already on the books.  And we registered nearly half the people at our caucus that night.  It sure FELT open at the time...

    [ Parent ]
    Nebraska=NE (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by phat on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:26:16 PM EST
    And I would call it a semi-open caucus.

    People were able to register Democrat at the caucus.

    phat

    [ Parent ]

    Observation (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:01:35 PM EST
    If you look at each candidates strengths there seems to be an explanation of this.
    Figure that Ill. and N.Y., would probably go to the home state senator Ark kind of fits that category too.
    Then look the States with large black populations. D.C., MD, LA, DE, GA, AL, S.C., VA  they seems to be most of Obama's primaries.
    Then look at states with significant Hispanic population: CA, AZ, N.M., FL. Those are Clinton.
    The rest pretty much fit the caucuses go to Obama and Primaries go to Clinton mold OR were very close elections.
    Most of the small caucus states were uncontested for Obama because Clinton didn't have enough money to advertise there. Also her staff  didn't see the danger of letting that many go uncontested.
    That pretty much takes care of the states that have voted so far.

    [ Parent ]
    Closed primaries (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Prabhata on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:31:14 PM EST
    Obama does not carry the Democratic base, except the black vote.

    Closed Primaries - D.C., MD, LA, DE

    Excepting DE, the black vote carried him to the wins above.  DC, MD, LA have big AA voters, and he carries those voters with 80 to 90 percent.  That's not something unexpected.  The independents and Republicans are giving him the margins to win the white vote.

    [ Parent ]

    RCP... (none / 0) (#60)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:29:29 PM EST
    Ah... you are right.  It called all of the "closed" states closed primaries.

    So the closed primary record is 4 wins for Obama, 4 wins for Clinton, one of which is New York.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's wins do not translate in the general well: (none / 0) (#137)
    by kenosharick on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:04:24 PM EST
    His only wins that will vote Dem in Nov.for sure are: Ill.,D.C.,MD, De., and Wash.= 48
    possible:Mn.,Me.,Ia.,Co.= 30
    Hillary sure states: Ca.,N.Y.,Conn.,Mass.,N.J.,Mich= 137
    possible: N.M.,AZ., N.H.,Nev.,Fla.= 51
    that is Clinton;188  Obama; 78

    She looks stronger this fall to me.


    [ Parent ]

    Oh come on! (none / 0) (#195)
    by Siguy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:42:53 PM EST
    You're saying Obama will lose California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts!?

    You can argue which candidate is more electable, but let's not be ridiculous here and claim he's gonna lose the biggest democratic states because he didn't win their primaries (just like it'd be silly to claim he'll win red Republican states because he won their caucuses)

    [ Parent ]

    Curious (none / 0) (#131)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:57:23 PM EST
    how one day people here claim that Clinton is the true liberal, and then the next they say the Republicans will call Obama a McGovern liberal. What is it?

    Please, Jeralyn, do you give credence to this crap?

    Having been around for the Nixon-McGovern election (it was the first Presidential election I could vote in, and I was the only person on my base I knew who admitted to voting for him) everything about that was different from this. Nixon was much more popular, people still thought or hoped the Vietnam war could be won, and Nixon was cheating (Jonah's mom, Watergate, etc.).

    Obama has run a fairly centrist campaign, for which he's been criticized by the Left. I cannot imagine blue states voting for McCain because Obama was called a McGovern leftist.

    This is really silly.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has the classic (none / 0) (#129)
    by sancho on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:49:27 PM EST
    design of the Triple AAA approved Limo Liberal Loser in the GE. His "I was a Harvard graduate and a community organizer" line plays right into that stereotype (not that being a Harvard grad and a commuity organizer is a bad thing, of course). His recent ranking (by I forget which organization) as the most liberal senator in the senate will be used against him. And who among democrats likes Obama the most? The young or the older, well-off, well heeled Prius driving liberals. That was Mcgovern's demographic. I actually think Obama is a kind of neo-con (and not adamant about Roe v. Wade either) in disguise but he'll be given the McGovern limo liberal treatment in the fall and it will stick, and McCain will be president.

    As for Obama getting Republican votes, that idea is laughable. Many of those are actually canny anti-Hillary votes (beat her now b.c the repubs fear her more in the GE--current doubters will understand later) or meaningless votes in states that will go red in the fall.

    After Edwards, Hillary is the dems' only chance. Typically, the party seems to be doing everything it can to get rid of her.

    How many democratic winners have we had since LBJ not named Clinton?

    Hint: except for Watergate-aided Jimmy Carter, zero.

    Dems almost always pick the loser and congratulate themselves while they do it.

    Obama is likely another instance of this depressing consistency.  

    [ Parent ]

    This is what is also depressing me... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:18:44 AM EST
    How many democratic winners have we had since LBJ not named Clinton?

    Hint: except for Watergate-aided Jimmy Carter, zero.

    Something else to chew on: how many democratic presidents have been elected since LBJ who weren't from the South? Another big zero! I hate to say it, but I doubt he will carry a single southern state. Hillary has a chance with Florida, Arkansas, and Tennessee.


    [ Parent ]

    Obama Supporters (none / 0) (#203)
    by Onetimeonly on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:36:34 AM EST
    Would make the same argument about Hillary. We both want the same thing we just think differently about who is best to make it happen.
    Obama wins independents easily if the national polls are correct, he will also bring the largest AA vote in history. So long as we dont act like children and declare if my candidate doesnt win the primary we wont vote, we win the election, Hillary or Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    A lot of logical breakdowns there (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:33:53 PM EST
    First of all I don't think that the Democrats should EVER choose their nominee based on what the GOP will do.  They will attack whomever the candidate is.

    I also don't understand the logic that says that since Hillary is already known and already has high unfavorables she is at an advantage of Obama.  Huh?  

    And I have absolutely no clue what Progressive Involvement is suggesting. According to the link provided by PI McGovern won the following states...

    California
    New York
    Mass
    Texas

    He didn't win MO, Maryland, LA, or Alabama.  It seems that the only similarity is that they both won the sparsely populated but very large states, thus giving an impression of similarity between the 2.

    Yes he won a lot of the Big Sky Red States.  But he also won the big core blue states as well.  

    Do you really agree that Obama's positions are notably more liberal than Clinton's?  I sure don't. On almost every position they are so close that it is hard to tell which one is which.

    This isn't 1972.  The nation isn't looking to reel itself in from 15 years of liberalism.  They are looking to reel itself in from 8 years of irresponsible Conservatism.  It's time to stop shying away from the word Liberal.  

    Note:I was unable to open the times link you provided, Jeralyn.

    link opens fine for me (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:22:12 PM EST
    No, I don't see much difference between Hillary and Obama on issues -- they are very similar. Neither is a liberal in my opinion. Both are centrists with some progressive views.

    They are our choices this year. I'm dealing with it.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn.. (none / 0) (#56)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:25:44 PM EST
    ... just curious... do you think that there were any progressives running?

    I tend to agree with you, if we are truly talking about liberal or progressive values.

    But I also don't believe that there are more than a handful of true liberals in the Democratic Party.

    Obama and Clinton, from my perspective, are definitely some of the more progressive Senators.  

    And I also agree with you that there is very little different between the candidates on issues.  

    [ Parent ]

    There were no (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:55:01 PM EST
    progressives on crime issues running, that's for sure. Except Kucinich and he never stood a chance.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed... (none / 0) (#85)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:58:45 PM EST
    ... that is why I have a Kucinich sticker though!  :)

    [ Parent ]
    Gravel. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:32:49 PM EST



    Keep your eyes on November, Frodo. Don't use The Ring.
    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#61)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:31:18 PM EST
    I tend to agree with you.  It is almost impossible to get an actual Liberal elected President.  They want too much change in the status quo and most voters don't care for that.

    My point was simply that the GOP will try and paint both of them as crazed liberals when they aren't.

    [ Parent ]

    Bad argument... (none / 0) (#25)
    by frankly0 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:05:09 PM EST
    They will attack whomever the candidate is.

    That has to be one of the worst arguments in all of politics.

    Look, just because Republicans will attack any Democratic nominee does not mean that all such attacks will be equally effective against all Democratic nominees. It's easier to "redefine" an unknown than a known quantity. And some people just have more in their background that their attackers can go after effectively. I'm sure that, beyond the other things that people usually mention, such as the Rezko connection, Obama will be attacked for his powerful allegiance to the pastor of his church, who has heaped praise on the rabid racist and anti-Semite Farakahn; likewise his admitted cocaine use is inevitably going to come up.

    These are things over which Obama's supporters cry out in anger when Hillary's campaign even hints at them. And basically Hillary's campaign has to treat the issues as untouchable, because any mention of them will simply be made to backfire.

    But there's no reason to believe that they will backfire on McCain if distantly removed elements of the right wing attack machine make huge political hay out of them. In fact, the issues are pretty much fair game. Why does Obama continue to go to the church with such a pastor? Would he do so even as President, with the powerful symbolism of his office essentially sanctioning the views of his pastor? How comfortable do Americans feel about a President, who is certainly regarded as a kind of a role model, admitting openly to cocaine use -- a drug that only about 13% of Americans ever use?

    Of course, the cocaine use issue will probably be decried, as it has already been, as "racist" in nature.

    But how well will even charges of racism hold up? Here's how I imagine the Republicans will handle such a charge: "Yes, of course the Obama campaign levels charges of racism against us. That's how they always try to smear their opponents. Look at what they did to Bill Clinton. For years, he is praised as the First Black President. Suddenly, when he becomes a political opponent to Obama, he's smeared by Obama campaign surrogates as a racist himself. They'll level that charge against anybody who criticizes them in any way. Well, I'll tell you, we aren't going to allow those kind of smear tactics to work with us!"

    I just don't see this ending well for Obama or his campaign. Even if he manages to win the Presidency, he will have been permanently crippled by the attacks.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly, frankly0. Republians run on racism (none / 0) (#134)
    by sancho on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:01:05 PM EST
    and win--every presidential election (except for three) since LBJ made it legally ok for black people to vote in 1965.  Running a racist campaign, with a symphony of dog whistles, is what they do. Everything Hillary is accused of doing (but isn't) the repubs will do with impunity. Some good old American straight talk, it will be called, and that McCain is one "heck" of an American telling it like it is, we will be told.  

    [ Parent ]
    Why hand the GOP a silver platter (none / 0) (#165)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:53:58 PM EST
    Sure, they will attack Hillary or Obama.  But, they ran out of bullets for Hillary.  Obama is fresh meat and he will be slaughtered by the GOP.

    [ Parent ]
    I Agree That The Country Is Looking To Reel (none / 0) (#169)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:59:14 PM EST
    itself in from 8 years of irresponsible Conservatism. But Obama is not campaigning on that at all. We is basically campaigning on D.C. is bad and the Dems share the blame.

    [ Parent ]
    The author of this article is a Bush supporter (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by AdrianLesher on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:53:38 PM EST
    The author of this wrote a piece on why she was a "Democrat for Bush" against Kerry.

    Other examples of her wingnuttery are here,  here, and here.

    That last article, by the way, is entitled "Do-or-die Hillary turns bully as Obama starts to pull away."

    Are Clinton supporters so desperate that they're going to start quoting Michelle Malkin against Obama? Talk about embracing right-wing talking points.

    Film at 11! (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:08:40 PM EST
    My God! Republicans plan to tar the Democratic nominee as a far-left socialist liberal? What's next? Accusations that he'll raise taxes and surrender to the terrorists!??!!

    Yes, exactly McCain's accusations already (none / 0) (#161)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:50:46 PM EST
    and to the roars of the crowd.  Watch one of his speeches lately, and you'll see that it already has begun -- Obama will raise taxes, will be soft on terrorists, etc. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Obama may lose (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by cannondaddy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:42:02 PM EST
    But Hillary will lose.  She is already losing head to heads in key states.  Hillary will not be able to overcome the high negatives.  She has reached a plateau of support that will not grow.  

    Wrong. That's only my opinion but it;s as good (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:45:16 PM EST
    as your own.  FWIW.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm just thinking .... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:52:52 PM EST
    I totally get that Obama and his organizers are playing hardball -- that they've got a goal and a plan for getting there.

    What I don't get is how hard-talking by Obama supporters will help his cause.  Is the campaign asking you guys to do this?  Or is it just something you-all fell into?

    What you've said here isn't the worst I've read by far. But it isn't exactly kind, is it? And, I'm wondering (if you don't mind): Do you think that comment is very likely to draw me toward Obama's campaign?

    Honestly, I'm not looking for a fight here.  I'm just wondering what your goal was when you clicked on the POST button?

    [ Parent ]

    I think Obama is a stronger GE candidate (none / 0) (#87)
    by cannondaddy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:02:39 PM EST
    I don't want to see McCain appoint three Supreme Court Justices.

    [ Parent ]
    And you can only communicate that (none / 0) (#108)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:18:56 PM EST
    And you can only communicate that with hard-talking?

    [ Parent ]
    katie (none / 0) (#91)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:05:03 PM EST
    Do you really find that comment more obnoxious that the various anti-obama comments here?  People swearing that they will never vote for him.  People accusing him of being all sorts of bad things.

    Goes both ways and neither side should let the supporters influence their decision on who to vote for, at least not negatively.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm still voting for him if he wins the nomination (none / 0) (#101)
    by blogtopus on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:14:22 PM EST
    Unless something comes along that convinces me McCain would be a better candidate.

    But let's be honest here; that is going to be a HUGE task. I don't care if Obama's supporters may or may not resemble a cult, at least he'll be in the Bluish/Purple territory of my views, not Bright Red.

    I think people claiming they can't vote for Obama will come around if Hillary isn't the nominee, once they see how vicious McCain's campaign is going to attack him.

    That said, I still support Hillary first.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't like it when it comes from either side (none / 0) (#102)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:14:25 PM EST
    I don't like it when it comes from either side -- I HATE hard-talking.

    But, there are whole sites off limits now to Hillary supporters -- sites that used to be a second home to some of us.  Is that true for Obama supporters?

    I can't go to DailyKos, BoomanTribune, HuffingtonPost, TPM -- to name just a few (and Ezra Klein who is fair as a Death Threat aimed at Hillary in the comments of one of his posts).  

    What are the sites off limits to you as an Obama supporter?  Taylor Marsh?  What else?

    The posts at TalkLeft are great.  But the really great thing is that we're all welcome here Hillary & Obama supporters alike.  It's a lot of work for them. And I think the hard-talkers on both sides make it harder.

    But, my question stands -- what do you gain from it?

    [ Parent ]

    Good question (none / 0) (#99)
    by AF on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:12:57 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter, I come here because it keeps me honest.  You all don't let us get away with  silliness like "Hillary can't win."  And I can't answer for others, but I can assure you that the Obama campaign never asked me to come here.

    [ Parent ]
    No that wasn't the question (none / 0) (#106)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:17:57 PM EST
    The question is why the pattern of hard-talking?  Does it come from the campaign? Do you think it's going to draw a woman like me to your candidate?

    This is sincerely meant as a question, not an attack.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't mean that you've hard-talked (none / 0) (#112)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:23:17 PM EST
    Honestly -- It's directed at you as an Obama supporter.  Why is it so prevalent among his supporters?

    I don't mean that you yourself have hard-talked

    [ Parent ]

    I can't speak for other Obama supporters (none / 0) (#118)
    by AF on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:30:03 PM EST
    But I try to avoid hard-talk.  I agree with you that it's counterproductive.  I believe that if other Obama supporters asked themselves what their goal was before they clicked POST -- as you put it so well -- they would realize this.

    [ Parent ]
    (smile) Thank you (none / 0) (#120)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:31:32 PM EST
    Thank you.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know what made me ask this today (none / 0) (#148)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:25:20 PM EST
    I appreciate the depth of answer.

    I don't know what made me ask this today and I doubt that I'll pursue it further.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think it is one sided (none / 0) (#123)
    by cannondaddy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:36:20 PM EST
    See Grandmother comments below.  I'm sorry if my comments seem hard but I don't see the need to beat around the bush and sugarcoat things.  The purpose of posting is the same as Jerylyn's for starting the thread.  Just expressing an opinion in an ongoing debate.

    [ Parent ]
    No need to sugar-coat your opinion (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by AF on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:56:30 PM EST
    But if you're trying to convince other people rather than just "expressing" yourself, a little bit of respect can be very effective.  Obama does it, so can you!

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you for your response (none / 0) (#124)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:40:09 PM EST
    If you think by not hard-talking you're sugarcoating your opinion -- that's great.  But I think hard-talking is bad politics.

    Just my opinion.  And I don't reply to hard-talking -- it's my personal comment policy.  

    [ Parent ]

    High Negatives of Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by felizarte on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:04:01 PM EST
    has been used all over.  I still have to see ONE mention of the specific negative against her.  What is it really?  Being a woman? Being tough? Or perhaps as Tucker says he 'voluntarily crosses' his legs when she is around (in common language a 'ball-breaker?')

    What has she really done to deserve 'negatives'?
    Personally, I really do not care if she is a so-called 'bitch' as long as she belongs or will fight for the majority of the Americans.  

    I believe strongly that Sen. Obama is some king of Trojan horse for many of the present political leaders who know he will have to depend on them for guidance, and that includes some of his 'handlers.'

    [ Parent ]

    On a thread here last week, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:58:01 PM EST
    asked about a 47% number which Obama said wou;dn't vote for Hillary.  Turns out it came from a CNN poll from 2006.  Since then those numbers have all changed but I don't know what they are today because they are meaningless.


    [ Parent ]
    Refering to opinion polls (none / 0) (#95)
    by cannondaddy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:09:44 PM EST
    Secondary information that comes in with pollind data.  Hillary has high numbers of people who dislike and or strongly dislike. So does Obama and McCain. Higher percentages of those people often say they are not likely to disuade from their opinion of Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:06:51 PM EST
    I think Clinton has a much better chance in the GE against McCain than Obama has.

    [ Parent ]
    Polls are 100% meaningless (none / 0) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 07:49:09 PM EST
    until the Republican attack machine gets its hands on the candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Her numbers aren't meaningless (none / 0) (#86)
    by cannondaddy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:00:25 PM EST
    Her numbers are not going to go up.  You're letiing your adoration of your candidate blind you to reality if you think otherwise.

    [ Parent ]
    You're letting (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:04:20 PM EST
    history go unnoticed about polling during candidate selection/primaries vs. public opinion/polling right before the GE.  

    [ Parent ]
    Funny (none / 0) (#159)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:48:59 PM EST
    I would say the same of your statement.

    What we know for a fact:

    1. Sen Clinton has been hammered for years by the Republican machinery and here she is,
    2. Sen Obama has been completely untouched so far and here he is.

    Most GE polls (which are meaningless really): they are about even when compared to McCain.

    Guess which one I would bet on?

    [ Parent ]

    That is doubtful (none / 0) (#96)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:11:14 PM EST
    as long as Democrats unite behind the nominee, they cannot lose. The candidate partisans who say "I will vote for McCain over HRC/Obama" will be the cause of defeat, should it come to that.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    There are enough Democrats to win an election. (none / 0) (#100)
    by cannondaddy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:13:38 PM EST
    United or not you need independants.

    [ Parent ]
    A united party needs less independents (none / 0) (#104)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:16:42 PM EST
    Also you assume McCain has no negatives. I assure you this isn't so.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    I don't assume he has no negatives (none / 0) (#116)
    by cannondaddy on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:27:46 PM EST
    and even said so.

    [ Parent ]
    Links? I haven't seen some of this (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:23:13 PM EST
    on his site -- and frankly, now it sounds a lot scarier than I thought and farther from my political beliefs than I knew.  So I would appreciate links to verify these really are his stands.

    If You Are Factually Stating Obama's Positions, (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:38:39 PM EST
    you have convinced me. You have convinced me to stay at home in November if Obama is the nominee.

    Can you provide me with link that substantiate your claims.

    Biggest Strengths, Biggest Weaknesses (4.00 / 2) (#5)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:33:45 PM EST
    I think Obama's biggest strength, that's he's a new, freash face could also be his biggest weakness because it gives the GOP a better opportunity to define him,  It doesn't mean they will succeed, of course, but I do think too many folks just assume that the general electorate will see teh awesomeness that is Obama and that - more than the GOP - scares me because if you're not ready for the smear and see your weakness, you might wait too long to mount  a strong defense.  A lot of people might have a good impression of Obama right now, but I think it's wider than it is deep - not because Obama is shallow, but because he hasn't been in the public eye that long and so people don't know him that well.  How many folks in the general public have heard of Rezko or Exelon?  And I'm not saying those things as an indication that Obama is some terrible guy, just that because so few people have heard of them will give the GOP more of an opportunity to define what those things mean.  

    My other concern is that while I think Obama does have some good policies, he's run a campaign focused on him - it's been about his ability to bring people together.  This concerns me because his opponent will be McCain, who also is a very personality-driven candidate, he too seeks to appeal to voters because of who he is, and, while I think he's a war-mongering loon, I also think he has one of the most powerful personal stories in politics.  

    Obama beats McCain on the issues, easily, but will this be a campaign decided on the issues?  Obama hasn't run a particularly issue-focused campaign, which doesn't mean he can't in November, but I do worry more about Obama against McCain than I would've against, say, Romney.

    So, while I absolutely think Obama can beat McCain, I can also see him getting beaten by McCain, particularly in critical swing states.

    Good post, BDB (none / 0) (#10)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:39:28 PM EST
    You make some good points.

    There is no question that Obama offers a lot more question marks.  But whether that makes him more or less likely to win in November is hard to gauge.

    I firmly believe that the Democrats will win in November PROVIDED they don't shoot themselves in the foot.  While it is possible that Obama has some dark dirty secret waiting to come out, I suspect that Hillary would have found it by now.  

    I will vote for either candidate in November.  I personally believe that Obama is a safer choice because he won't fire up the Conservative base like Hillary will.  But that could change if something comes out or some 527 simply invents a smear he can't easily discard.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it's a mistake to think that. (none / 0) (#201)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:27:34 AM EST
    I keep shaking my head at this idea that Obama isn't going to fire up the conservative base. Let's get real. ANY democrat is going to fire up the conservative base. They don't give up power easily. They'll use every dirty trick in the book to keep it. Personally, I think they're drooling over Obama. He has an awful lot of vulnerabilities that haven't been brought out in this primary. And the wingnuts will use every single one against him. Go on a few of their sites and you'll find that they have 30 page documents filled with lists of things they can hit him with. They won't pull those out now because they would much rather run against him.

    I am just amazed that there are so many who don't understand how these thugs operate, who think that the primary is going to be the hard part. It won't be. I can easily see Obama losing almost every state in a general. One big problem is that he is not winning the democratic base. In fact, even worse, he is alienating a lot of the base. And when you do that, you can't count on them coming out and holding their nose to vote for you. They may just stay home. Or worse, vote for McCain on the theory that the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know. Thanks to his campaign, no one really knows him.


    [ Parent ]

    And the GOP... (none / 0) (#19)
    by SandyK on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 06:58:44 PM EST
    isn't going to censor itself on race and half of a dozen other things that is being censored by the Dems to keep things "together".

    If folks think Rathergate and the Swiftboat affairs were ugly, they want those SCOTUS justices just as bad.

    If Obama has to control his own party to keep the dirt out, he's not ready for the big league smears that will come.

    We know Hillary can withstand it (probably even thrive in it), and she also brings what Obama can't bring to the table -- experience and a built in government ready to go in action on January 20th.

    Change is nice, but Obama isn't changing the GOP -- they'll change him.

    Hope Hillary becomes the nominee, bank on it.

    [ Parent ]

    You deleted the wrong comment (none / 0) (#139)
    by AF on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:05:39 PM EST
    I am a courteous commenter and I mean no undue disrespect to SandyK.  But when someone complains about the Democratic party "censoring itself on race," repeatedly calls Obama "OBABA," and starts talking about welfare and housing projects -- issues that haven't been part of this campaign at ALL -- I think it is perfectly appropriate to request an explanation.  

    [ Parent ]
    CHANGE (none / 0) (#157)
    by john5750 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:45:54 PM EST
    We all want change from Bush.  Anything would be a good change from Bush.  That doesn't mean we should go for a novice because he is different.  

    We should go for change with experience.  Change that has been proven. Smart change.  That change is Hillary.  She is as far from Bush as you can get, and she can win.

    [ Parent ]

    For what it's worth (3.66 / 3) (#89)
    by Grandmother on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:04:11 PM EST
    I cast my first vote for George McGovern in 1972.  I remember the thrill, the excitement of his campaign. Of course I knew little about what was really going on but he was the anti-war candidate and that was good enough for me.

    Fast forward 36 years later. I'm not a new mom but a grandmother of five. I've watched this ENDLESS campaign from the beginning. I started out admiring Obama and ended up supporting and voting for Hillary.  I've always voted for the Democratic ticket regardless of the hapless candidates on the ticket.

    Last week I changed my voter registration to Independent. No longer will the Democratic Party be able to count on my dollars, time or vote.  Howard Dean has messed up the whole primary season and quite frankly the Democrats, who are notorious for shooting themselves in the foot, deserve to get their collective butts kicked in November.

    I will either write in HRC or vote for McCain in the G.E. if Obama is the Dem nominee. There is a lot that people do not know about him.  Since I practice law in Illinois, I have some idea of what goes on in Springfield and Chicago.  No one gets anywhere in Illinois politics without being dirty.  It doesn't matter if you are a Dem or a Republican.  They all go to jail regardless of party affiliation.  

    Obama has played dirty in the past (ever wonder why Jack Ryan's divorce papers were unsealed?)and he will continue to do it.

    My take is that Rove and Co. will slice and dice him and throw him in the Chicago river. But what do I know?  I don't like his snarky, arrogant "I'm better than you" attitude.  And the Rezko connections, donations, deals can and will be fuel for the fire.  But then I say burn, baby burn.

    Say goodbye to Roe then (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:08:11 PM EST
    I gather you also approve of torture. I can't see how any self identified Democrat McGovern voter could vote for McCain.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:17:01 PM EST
    I don't get it at all.

    100 years in Iraq
    I was again torture until I became a serious candidate. Now I'm for it
    Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran!
    Justice Stevens! Justice Ginsburg!

    This is what Liberals are voting for because of petulance?

    [ Parent ]

    What abotu Roe? (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by goldberry on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:28:27 PM EST
    If it is REALLY important to you, maybe you ought ot let your candidate know that it isn't nice to prematurely age the portion of the Democaratic electorate voting for his opponent. It's not polite to characterize them as old, uneducated women whose time has oome and gone. After all, it's hardly Grandmother's problem if YOU have an issue with Roe.  She might be thinking that you would learn something if you had to fight that battle all over again.  
    As for torture, it must be torture for John McCain to have to kiss up to the rank and file Republicans to get their votes in the fall.  I don't like him and I won't be voting for him but I also might not cast my vote for Obama in the fall if he's the nominee.  I might write in Hillary's name.  
    If that's something that bothers you, I suggest you do something to win us over.  After all, Grandmother has paid her Roe dues.  Now, it's YOUR turn.

    [ Parent ]
    Spare me the sanctimonious comments (none / 0) (#163)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 09:53:20 PM EST
    Don't tell me about paying dues in the past. The battle is still being fought today. I don't need to learn anything new about fighting that battle. Nor does my daughter.

    The reasons to champion it today are the same as it was yesterday. I am not prepared to quit. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever.

    To be so frivolous says more about you and your character than it does about mine.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    Sanctimony or not... (none / 0) (#180)
    by goldberry on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:19:30 PM EST
    ...you need US more than WE need YOU.  It would behoove your candidate to remember that before he consigns us to the wallflower corner of the adult community before many of us even hit fifty.  

    Cream City, I am a contemporary of Obama.  I only remember the struggle for the right, not ever having to live without that right.  But it looks like it is something like that proverbial tree of liberty that needs to be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots.  It's safe with Hillary and she is very electable compared to Obama who is a relative unknown to the Republican electorate.  But in any case, I don't like to be put on the shelf by Obama and the media.  If he wants to win, he will need our help and there is no time like the present to atone for his boorish behavior.  Otherwise, well, I guess he might have to make due with the constituency that he's got.  I might come around and vote for him but I'm not sure that my aunts who were denied a college education simply because they were the girl in the family are going to come around after they've been characterized as dumber tnan a box of rocks and twice as old.  
    Just sayin'

    [ Parent ]

    I totally get what you're saying (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by katiebird on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:31:41 PM EST
    And I'm playing with the idea of not voting for BO myself.  It's a pretty radical idea.  But I live in Kansas, so it's not like my state has EVER gone my way.  Even when a Democrat has won -- Kansas didn't vote for him.  

    So, BO's dismissive remarks about my generation (7 whole years older than him!), my gender & my politics (liberal) have made me wonder about why I should bother voting for him. It wouldn't matter to him.  Not that I'd ever vote for a Republican or a 3rd Party.  Just that I might vote for Hillary no matter who has the nomination.

    (sigh)

    I guess I'm still depressed about that "periodically when she's feeling down" thing...

    He's likable enough.  I guess.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you -- and good to see you (none / 0) (#171)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:00:14 PM EST
    Goldberry!  Yes, we have a few good decades left in us Towandas ("we're older, and we have more insurance" -- Fried Green Tomatoes:-).  I teach the Obama voter target age group, and believe me, they have no frame of reference whatsoever for what it was like pre-Roe v. Wade, pre-access for single women to the Pill (both not until the 1970s, for anyone here too young to recall that the Pill came on the market in '60 but only for married women).

    I will vote for BO if he is the nominee, because Roe v. Wade still matters to our daughters -- and sons.  But I won't be happy about it.  I might have to drag myself to the polls about 7:59 p.m.

    And if he is the nominee, and if he somehow makes it to the White House (I doubt it, with some of what is coming at him not even out there yet, but I've heard it from Illinoisans) -- I predict it will be Carter again.  BO will have four years, max, and then we will have another three terms or more of the GOP.

    [ Parent ]

    Your last paragraph (none / 0) (#179)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:19:28 PM EST
    is why I WON'T vote for Obama (nor McCain).  I predict Obama will be a Carter as well and I think it will be better if we have a STRONG Dem in the White House and I can wait for such a Dem.

    It will destroy Dems to have a weak Dem in this truly tough time in history, and the destruction will go beyond 2008.

    And Obama, with his sexist dog whistles, etc, doesn't seem all that interested in women's rights (e.g. to choose) so I really don't think that electing him will be the magic bullet that will ensure proper SC judge selection that, in turn, will keep Roe v. Wade from being overtured.  I've said before that the Republicans don't want to turn Roe into the Democrats' issue.  Overturning Roe will DEFINITELY get out the vote on the Democratic woman's side.  The SC is supposed to be above the fray, but 2000 proved that they are just partisan politicians who do what's right for the party.  Overturning Roe really isn't good for Republicans in the long run.  So I doubt the SC would ever do it.

    [ Parent ]

    But Jeralyn and BTD (none / 0) (#93)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:09:01 PM EST

    Don't think Rezko would or should be an issue.  My take on it is that it was his own hometown Chicago Sun-Times that did the initial investigation (I read the original article), and I've read blogs/comments in the Chicago area about Rezko being a BIG deal.  So...is it?  I'm glad that a practicing lawyer from Obama's home state  is here to clarify some things.

    [ Parent ]
    who's from Illininois here? (none / 0) (#107)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:18:36 PM EST
    Not me or Big Tent.  I think another blogger at No Quarter misstated that Big Tent is from Chicago.

    [ Parent ]
    never mind (none / 0) (#122)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:34:33 PM EST
    I see it was the commenter, Grandmother.  I hope she continues to comment here. She sounds like she knows what she's talking about.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, see... (none / 0) (#125)
    by BrandingIron on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 08:44:16 PM EST
    ...I'm a huge, huge Clintonista, but I've also read all of the positive and negative stuff about Obama (I didn't want to dislike him, I really didn't) particularly the Rezko deal, and then I finally found this forum which is comfortably Clintonistan, but then I kept seeing comments about Rezko being unimportant.  I've seen comments here and there (they're murmurs from the natives there in IL/particularly in the Chicago area) about Rezko being more serious than the MSM's (aside from the Chi Sun-Times which broke the story) dismissive attitude about it.

    So I hope that the new poster from IL can expand on it...expand my awareness of the issue.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Rezko will muddy the waters (none / 0) (#173)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 10:06:51 PM EST
    although Obama kept this side of the law, from what I hear (I'm near Chicago, monitor its media, know lawyers and others there).  But we certainly have seen before that the truth is not the point; perception is.  And personally, I am not comforted by the thought that my pols managed to stay legal and somehow stay out of jail.  I prefer they aim higher, to get into heaven, and act ethically.  And from all that I've read, the Obamas (she being very involved too, through a committee that was supposed to be serving the public, not private homebuyers) may not have