Sunday Morning Election News

Here's some early morning news items:

Alabama has voted for the Republican nominee every year since 1980.
McCain's double-digit lead emerged even though poll respondents' biggest concern was the economy, an area not considered one of his strengths. The poll results also offered evidence that despite President Bush's slumping approval ratings, the GOP retains a tight grip on the region, at least in national races.

"My expectation is that Alabama and Georgia and maybe all of the Deep South is going to end up in the Republican column, regardless of who the players are," University of Georgia political scientist Charles Bullock said. "If they don't, it's going to be a massive Democratic blowout."

....McCain is well-known for his appeal to independents, about two-thirds of whom would support him over either Democrat, according to the Press-Register/USA poll.

Although Clinton acknowledged that they both could make great achievements, she argued that she could be the leader who could offer real solutions to the country's problems and said that, “I think that the choice is really whether we're going to have a fighter, a doer, and a champion again in the White House. Somebody who gets up every single day with determination, backbone, and yes, toughness. I know some people have said that I am tough. You know what? We need a tough president because we have tough problems waiting for us."

However, when the issue of solving problems came up, Obama said that he was the one to do it and stated that, "What we need is a president who's in the business of solving problems, and we will solve those problems by bringing the country together, and rallying the United States of America around a common purpose."

More differentiating quotes from the dinner:

``It will take more than just speeches to fulfill our dreams. It will take a lot of hard work,'' New York Senator Clinton, 60, said at a Wisconsin Democratic Party dinner in Milwaukee late yesterday.

``Don't tell me words don't matter,'' Obama, 46, said in a speech following Clinton's. ``If we don't inspire the country to believe again, then it doesn't matter how many policies and plans we have.''

< NY Times on "The Cult of Personality" | Avoiding The Issue: Obama, Clinton And The Voting Demographics >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    the Edwards effect (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Nasarius on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:05:14 AM EST
    I think that the choice is really whether we're going to have a fighter, a doer, and a champion again in the White House. Somebody who gets up every single day with determination, backbone, and yes, toughness.
    Unless I'm mistaken, this is a fairly recent shift in rhetoric from Hillary. It's a nice change.

    McCain would be beaten handily (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:26:18 AM EST
    I am not so sure that McCain can be beaten (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by PennProgressive on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:34:45 AM EST
    let alone handily. Please don't get me wrong, I want a democrat  in the White House. I am a supporter of HRC but  will  vote  for Obama and work for the democratic nominee in the upcoming GE, as I did in the past. My fear  is, and perhaps it is not politically correct to say, white males will finally line up with  McCain citing his "courage" and "personal qualities". Many of them will have difficulty in voting for an AA candidate and more so for  a woman candidate. McCain is likely to sweep all southern and other red states. The same states where  Senator Obama won by a wide margin to help him in the nominating process will be won my McCain. HRC may do a little better particularly in big states, but may be we are looking at a McCain presidency. I am finding that many of my democrat and independent friends are already planning to vote for McCain. It depresses me a lot. Please tell me I am wrong.

    IMO A Lot Will Depend On How Things Shake Up (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:48:00 AM EST
    in the Republican party. Focus on The Family and other evangelicals are threatening that they will not vote for McCain. Will they stand by their threat or is this just a ploy to get more concessions? Without the religious right, McCain is very beatable IMO. With their support, he will be much tougher to defeat than many Dems want to admit.

    I agree that he will win the South. If Obama is our nominee, McCain will win the support of those who are looking for experience. The gun issue will probably hurt both candidates in Western states.  


    I think you both (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:54:03 PM EST
    are bringing up almost guaranteed dynamics that will have to be dealt with.  I have doubt in McCain's ability to debate whoever our nominee is well enough though.  I don't like bringing up the aging process and what it does to all of us but it makes things a lot harder than they used to be and he doesn't speak from the heart anymore.  It's very draining attempting to speak calculating yet with sincerity ;)  Perhaps he will better be able to when the nomination is fully locked down but he is expending so much energy locking up the nomination I think that's going to be a tough transition for him.  John McCain eight years ago was formidable.  A lot has happened since then though and so many wild flip flops lately he's a cheap summer sandal rodeo even under mild scrutiny.

    The Dem Candidate Soundly Beat Bush In The Debates (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:20:04 PM EST
    in 2000 and 2004 and Bush was a failure at everything he ever attempted. Not sure any of that really matters in American politics any more. Personally, I think the Dems do themselves a disservice if they don't take McCain very, very seriously.

    True, but 2000 was due to (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:29:12 PM EST
    the blue dress and returning integrity to the oval office.  It was a terrific sale, we must admit that. Sadly America's biggest problem in her own mind back then was that stupid blue dress.  Al Gore kept talking about problems but were those really real then?  Nobody seemed to be hurting too much except for Monica. I don't think Kerry always beat Bush in debates.......did he really?  I can't remember.  And we were at war :( while the nation as a whole hadn't owned up to the fact that we had no right to be there.

    Obama, sad to say, will likely (none / 0) (#66)
    by sancho on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:38:56 PM EST
    unify the religious right. His candidacy will give them a reason to come out. Hate and fear win elections as much, perhaps more than, love does. The republican party is the white male party. Many republican women, though, can be peeled off from McCain, as they exercise their choice in the privacy of the voting booth. And they may not tell the pollsters or their husbands what they did.

    Gary Bauer, founder of Focus on the Family (none / 0) (#82)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:54:59 PM EST
    endorsed John McCain in no uncertain terms Friday. Please don't count your chips before the cards are dealt.

    Sorry, wrong group. Duh (none / 0) (#83)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:55:59 PM EST
    Bauer was head of one of the other groups.

    Forgot Dobson.  Can't keep my right-wing nutjobs straight anymore.  :-)


    The problem with Edwards (none / 0) (#24)
    by solon on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:35:10 AM EST
    is that he may not add anything to a ticket, especially in terms of winning a state in the South. He is certainly a likable person and his work with poverty is excellent. Yet, he was unable to beat both Senators Clinton and Obama this year. Further, he was unable to beat Kerry in 2004 and could not help him in the South as a VP pick.

    I am disappointed Edwards did not do better in 2004 and 2008. But, he is not going to help now.

    A better choice may be Jim Webb from Virgina as he is in a state that may flip. You may also want to consider someone from the important swing states- Colorado, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Florida, Michigan, or Penn. Or, against McCain, the nominee may want to consider a Democrat with military credentials, especially if they were against Iraq.


    I don't know how much credence to give Karl Rove's (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by magisterludi on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:18:28 AM EST
    reported fear of the populist rhetoric of Edwards during the 04 primary, but I think a Clinton-Edwards ticket would be formidable, regardless.

    VP Choice - It will Have to Be Obama (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by cdalygo on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:25:29 AM EST
    For all his talk about not taking it now, he will demand it. He recognizes the Party is not kind to the candidates who lose the nominations or elections (see Dean and Kerry). Frankly, too, he appears bored in the Senate.

    More to the point, it would still present a good ticket. Each brings a different constituency to the Party (at this point). Each understands the need to undercut Republican arguments about party disunity. Each knows that the other compensates for his or her weaknesses.

    Yes, I realize how much they hate each other. But that has not stopped previous shot gun weddings.

    Besides I have selfish reasons for keeping Edwards' time free. As an employment lawyer, I want him in charge of the Department of Labor rather than Attorney General. (Though I would settle for the latter.) He will restore a sense of balance that has been missing for the past 8 years and lead initiatives to help working class Americans.

    Let someone skilled at bureaucratic infighting taking over DOJ. Or better yet, have Hillary reach across the aisle and put Fitzgerald in charge in cleaning it up.


    No. Obama has shown himself (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:22:26 PM EST
    not ready for prime time, not ready to step into the presidency if needed.  I would be very disappointed in Clinton taking him as VP.  There are far better and better-prepared options.

    Edwards VP? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Prabhata on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    I would love it if he was the VP, but I don't think Edwards would take that spot again.  It won't happen.

    I would rather have him as an AG (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:32:44 PM EST
    I hope that Santa notices that I'm being nice.  Daily I make a conscious effort to be so ;)  And if John McCain is president I doubt I'll ever get Edwards as an AG so take note Santa please.

    Hm. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:14:35 AM EST
    we will solve those problems by bringing the country together, and rallying the United States of America around a common purpose.

    I'm sorry, but that's just cr@p.  If I'm not mistaken, there are a very many in this country who are just fine with being in their own little worlds (I point to the previous part of the original post about Alabamans voting red), being who they are, and don't want to be forced to work together.  It's just reality.  Sad, but true.  We need a tough person who will say "Too bad!  This is how the problem's going to get fixed!" not someone who will say "Well, but I said that we should work together..."

    It's like the difference between yesterday's parenting and today's brand of parenting.  Yesterday's parent would've just made you take your medicine so you could get better.  Today's parent lets the child decide when to take the medicine.

    your comment about Obama and sexism (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:18:47 AM EST
    was deleted. Please put it on a thread for that topic if you want to keep debating it. Thanks.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#8)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:21:16 AM EST
    What comment about Obama and sexism?

    mine, not yours. I goofed up. (sorry) nt (none / 0) (#10)
    by katiebird on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:32:59 AM EST
    Keep repeating it (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:19:01 AM EST
    Bradley Effect happened in the General Election, not the primary. All the indies and Republicans, don't count on them to switch. The MSM and everyone applied it to the primary with just Dems. Dems will vote, Republicans will lie that they will vote for a AA candidate.

    Bradley effect (none / 0) (#64)
    by Prabhata on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:32:30 PM EST
    It's not clear that people lie to pollsters.  It appears more to be that pollsters don't have good history to help them analyze the numbers when the candidate is black.  Polling is extremely complicated.  It must have good sampling, the questions have to be rotated and worded to take away biases, and analysis is the most complicated part of the poll.  Except for Survey USA, all pollsters screwed up the Feb 5 CA election.  Gallup and even Field Research, a CA pollster who has lots of experience in CA, screwed up.

    Over at TPM (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:37:34 AM EST
    they have a quote that Penn said: Winning primaries is not a predictor of winning General Elections.  Well, looking at the last two elections, I would guess it's true.  

    What is annoying is that so many people think the polls now have any meaning 10 months out.  People speak about the lame polls that have Obama winning over McCain as if they are fact.  The Clinton negatives myth, is never cast in the light of the Obama negatives.  It's as if he has no negatives.  What does this mean, someone has done a balanced side by side?  NO.  It's all based on false perceptions.  

    About the polls (none / 0) (#73)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:19:32 PM EST
    The more recent polls I've seen measuring negatives have Clinton and Obama almost the same. In fact, in a couple of them, Obama has more negatives than Clinton. Most Obama supporters, however, persist in reporting polls that are 6 months old, which is ridiculous. 6 months ago, a large number of people didn't know anything about Obama at all, so obviously his negatives would be lower.

    sorry, but this is just not true (none / 0) (#80)
    by Tano on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:23:01 PM EST
    Here are summaries of the favorable / unfavorable polls.

    For Hillary


    Also please keep in mind about primaries (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:54:04 AM EST
    Because so many primaries were open to allowing GOP & Indy's vote, the entire process might be terribly skewed. In fact, we might have a very manipulated candidate in the end. The whole idea about a primary is to allow a party to choose a candidate, not allow  the other party to choose a candidate they would like to run against. I don't agree with this process at all. Voting for a candidate in a primary does not hold that someone would vote for that candidate in the main election. Very skewed and needs to be changed. And as for Michigan & Florida. For Florida at least, the delegates should be allowed. Everyone was on the ballot and no one campaigned there. Florida is too important a state to piss off the Democrats there and lose their vote to the GOP.

    Well, this certainly (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:54:55 AM EST
    gives merit to the argument that Sen Obama is winning Southern states that will remain red in the GE.

    As for either nominee, the Dems should NOT take for the stance that we can win this... we will have a fight in the GE. The simple fact is ... if we get too comfortable then we may not see either of these candidated in the White House.

    Unity in the Dem Party is the utmost importance BEFORE we head into the GE.

    Although we need to know the weakness of each candidate, the zealous behavior for one candidate over the other will in the end cost us the election.

    In that....
    Jeralyn and BTD do a great job in letting the "weakness of each candidate" being discussed.

    This will prepare both candidate to develop stategies for the coming election.

    Alabama is a strange spooky state in my (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:56:01 AM EST
    opinion.  Still uses corporal punishment in the public school system even though we have studies clearly proving that it "works" no better than torture does in achieving truthful, positive, life affirming goals.  Having faith gets as much credibility in the area that I live in as having facts does ;)  We went out to dinner last night at a fairly new Japanese Steakhouse.  Best place to eat in town.  I wasn't sure how it would go over here but there is no substitute for good food and kimono tolerance is happening.  It is very hard sometimes for me to live here but I have the net and mailorder so I just mailorder the immediate surroundings I miss and/or feel good in.  While waiting to be seated last night though two men next to us were discussing one's dilemma and the man said that he was praying to God for the answer and then God told him the answer.  I am very spiritual and I do believe there is something out there greater than ourselves though I don't profess to know what that is.  I have prayed before too.  I've prayed for no "good" reason many times when my husband is in Iraq. Our son has twice yearly surgeries to lengthen the rods in his back and everytime I end up in the surgery waiting area talking to whatever God there could be out there too.  Nobody ever told me I had to do that or I needed to do that....I just do that.  God has never answered me.  I don't know if should feel insulted, excluded, obviously a heathen sinner, or just simply sane.  Living here is not easy for me though!

    I know exactly what you mean (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM EST
    I spent 5 years in the great red state of Alabama. I grew up in the deep South, so it is not as foreign to me as to you. Most of my relatives on my mothers' side are good country people (not quite in the Flannery O'Connor sense). Devout and conservative.

    Early in our relationship I had to kick Leo under the table because he was just about to (and did)  step in it with what seemed to him an innocent statement to the owner of a bed and breakfast where we were staying about witnessing history and the civil rights movement. The story has become a family classic.


    My husband is much more politically (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:43:12 PM EST
    astute than when we dated ;)  He also used to repeat locker room talk casually because he thought it was funny way back when he wasn't so smart.  One of our family classics is one Thanksgiving when one of my Aunt's was expressing a disagreement with what was a current NOW stance on something.  Some of the guys my husband worked with joked that NOW was really just a bunch of lesbians so my husband piped up and said, "Well, isn't NOW really just a bunch of lesbians?"  The whole house went silent like a disturbed E.F. Hutton commercial about to get very scary he says.

    I feel you (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by magisterludi on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:34:38 AM EST

    At what price superdelegate votes; (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:01:21 AM EST
    Obama, who narrowly leads in the count of pledged, "non-super" delegates, has doled out more than $698,200 to superdelegates from his political action committee, Hope Fund, or campaign committee since 2005. Of the 82 elected officials who had announced as of Feb. 12 that their superdelegate votes would go to the Illinois senator, 35, or 43 percent of this group, have received campaign contributions from him in the 2006 or 2008 election cycles, totaling $232,200. In addition, Obama has been endorsed by 52 superdelegates who haven't held elected office recently and, therefore, didn't receive campaign contributions from him. Clinton does not appear to have been as openhanded. Her PAC, HILLPAC, and campaign committee appear to have distributed $205,500 to superdelegates. Only 12 percent of her elected superdelegates, or 13 of 109 who have said they will back her, have received campaign contributions, totaling about $95,000 since 2005. An additional 128 unelected superdelegates support Clinton, according to a blog tracking superdelegates
    Capital Eye

    That is nothing compared to what the Clintons paid (none / 0) (#21)
    by voxvox on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:21:21 AM EST
    She bought stuff? (none / 0) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:29:34 AM EST
    Uhh...what are you talking about?

    $800k to a super delegate in Rhode Island (none / 0) (#25)
    by voxvox on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:36:01 AM EST
    She gave $800k to a super delegate in Rhode Island for bumper stickers?

    Anybody criticizing Obama for spending money on super delegates is going to look foolish when all of the Hillary details come out (like this example).  Better get your reverse spin ready.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Kathy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:42:28 AM EST
    She gave 800K to a union-shop printer who printed her campaign paraphernalia.

    I wonder who owns the printer where Obama has gotten his stuff done?


    you are shilling for Obama (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:40:45 AM EST
    And chattering. Please limit yourself to four comments a day. Excess comments will be deleted.

    Correct me if I am wrong (none / 0) (#53)
    by magisterludi on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:42:46 AM EST
    but doesn't BHO sell all campaign paraphernalia and then count these folk as "donors'?

    I think by law (none / 0) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:46:16 AM EST
    you have to do that. But yes...every button is a donor. But some donors that give in blocks, like law firms that work for lobbyists etc. So, it's not that he does not get money from lobbyists, it's that it gets diluted in the individual donations. He still is beholden. CalClean

    No, it's not required at all by law (none / 0) (#75)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:26:33 PM EST
    and Obama doing so has been one of the brilliant tactics of Axelrod's campaign, making it look like from early on like Obama had a great groundswell of donors.  The headaches of doing the sales tax reimbursement to different states at different rates must be immense, though.

    As a Hillary supporter, I hope Ted Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by RalphB on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:06:06 AM EST
    campaigns for Obama every day here in Texas.  The Clinton campaign could use the boost  :-)

    Frankly, no kidding (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:21:08 AM EST
    Any Republican will beat any Democrat in the deep south--unless we nominate Zell Miller or something.

    Voting in the South and everywhere (none / 0) (#67)
    by Prabhata on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:43:11 PM EST
    In the general election, the usual pattern of voting becomes apparent.  Primaries are one sided.  Huckabee did very well in the South.  The South, ID, UT and other red states that Obama won due to AA vote will remain in the GOP column.  Even those who flirted voting Democratic in the primary have the tendency to get into the fold.

    How to do this? (none / 0) (#12)
    by jibeaux on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:53:24 AM EST
    Please put it on a thread for that topic if you want to keep debating it. Thanks.

    ...when you've closed the comments....?

    this one's still open (none / 0) (#26)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:38:27 AM EST
    If Hillary loses the nonmination (none / 0) (#15)
    by ding7777 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 09:55:21 AM EST
    to Obama and Obama loses to McCain in the GE, will Hillary be a slam dunk in 2012?

    ding (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:39:51 AM EST
    Or here's  another  question:  If  Hillary  loses  the nomination  to Obama,  Obama  gets  elected,  but  his  4  years  are  not  exceptional  and he is  unable  to fulfill  promises......will    that  mean  he  loses   re-election   and  Repubs (re-organized and  re-energized)  win in  2012  and hold the  White  House  for   8-12  years?

    Could  Obama  be  perceived  as  another  Carter, as  in   Be nice,  Sing  Kumbaya?     YES

    Will  the  Republicans  resist  and  block  everything  he  wants  to  do, as  they  have in  the  current Congress,  in order  to   paint  him  as   ineffectual  and  Carter-like  to  regain  the  WH  in the next  election?

    A  thousand  times  YES.


    Is it then possible to think (none / 0) (#30)
    by BrandingIron on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:49:37 AM EST
    that the Obama fans will then concede defeat and get behind a Clinton nomination then?  Or would they remain stubborn....

    My guess (none / 0) (#57)
    by auntmo on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:51:44 AM EST
    is  they would  remain  stubborn and  blame  someone  else  for  Obama's  losses.

    But  we  can always   HOPE ,  eh?  


    Hillary will be victorious (none / 0) (#69)
    by Prabhata on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:00:37 PM EST
    Exactly the scenario I fear (nt) (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:27:25 PM EST
    Maybe, BUT (none / 0) (#18)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:02:20 AM EST
    in the mean time we lose ground as Dems. Not worth the gamble.

    If either Hillary or Obama lose the nomination (none / 0) (#34)
    by voxvox on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:58:26 AM EST
    If either Hillary or Obama lose the nomination, and the other loses the GE, I think the other is a slam dunk for 2012.

    I very much doubt it. If Obama is the (none / 0) (#42)
    by tigercourse on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:11:31 AM EST
    nominee and loses the general election, I expect the 2012 nominee to be someone like Mark Warner. Southern, moderate, from a state we very much want to turn blue. Clinton is getting too old, probably wouldn't want to go through another 2 years of hellish campaigning and might have even less support in the future then she does now. The media will still be dead set against her. The blogs will still be dead set against her (they will be pushing for Mark Warner, despite the fact that he is more conservative then any Democrat who ran this year).

    Hillary 2012? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Prabhata on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 01:50:42 PM EST
    Not likely.

    She'd be younger than McCain (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:28:47 PM EST
    is now, and she'd be about the age of several presidents at the start of their terms, I read.

    Face the Nation (none / 0) (#31)
    by Josey on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:51:38 AM EST
    focused on the Clintons' "racism."
    Nothing about Obama's sexist remarks - "Hillary feeling down" and "claws."

    Yeah, if she can pull this (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:02:13 AM EST
    election out when the media is wholly against her, then we know we've got a fighting Democrat for the general election.

    Unreciprocated civility from TeamBO: unacceptable (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Ellie on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 12:34:06 PM EST
    I'm disappointed by how TeamOB's position of non-reciprocity in the face of sports(wo)manship from HRC has increasingly been taken by the media as permission to Clinton-bash freely (SUH!)

    The quoted essay by Kathleen Reardon succinctly expressed the ambient disappointment I had with Team Obama's position of non-reciprocity in the face of  sports(wo)manship demanded from HRC.

    From Silence Is Assent:  What the Democratic Party Apparently Thinks of Women

    Hillary is running against a very popular Barack Obama. To stand up against media demeaning of his opponent takes a level of sportsmanship by his supporters we're willing to teach our children in soccer and baseball but apparently unwilling to expect of ourselves. "I'm for Barack Obama, so I must be OK with despicable attacks on Hillary" is how too many people think. These, no doubt, are the same people who will expect a rush to Barack's side by Hillary supporters should he win the nomination. They'll be saying, "Put it behind us and let's move on. Get over it."

    Not so fast. During a recent radio interview I said that were Barack to win the nomination, he'd have my vote. But with each day the Democratic Party is losing its appeal. And I'm far from the only one thinking this way. Where are senior Democrats calling for civility at least from their own members? How about a letter from them to the corporate media culprits? Where is Howard Dean? Why didn't Ted Kennedy bother to give a noticeable nod to women and their struggle to see one of their own become president before his ecstatic leap into the Obama camp? Wouldn't he have acted differently if he'd thrown his support the other way? Why does it take people outside the party and even opposed to Clinton to decry insults to her body, her face, and her every move?

    I'd like to know, too, if Barack Obama really stands for change, why this Democratic race is more of the same in terms of demeaning women so men might advance. [...] (Silence is Assent: What the Democratic Party Apparently Thinks of Womenby Kathleen Reardon, Huffington Post, Feb 15, 2008)

    I was sorely disappointed to hear Michelle Obama take that line that Bill Clinton was a racist -- well after his comments were shown NOT to be racist -- simply because a momentary opportunity availed itself during her appearance on Larry King Live.

    This wouldn't be an issue with me except that she's part of a campaign that promised a better kind of politics. (Vowing they won't throw their support behind Sen Clinton should she win the primary is a change all right: it's even worse than politics as usual.)

    Since getting a bad case of Dry Powder Fatigue after watching the Dems go into cascading cave-in mode after '06, I decided to be Independent and objective until late in the '08 campaigns. I liked both candidates more after their last debate. Since then, the more I see of BO and his Team at work, the less I like.

    (I'm not familiar with Dr. Reardon's work, here via HuffiPo. but she's also blogging at The Thin Pink Line.)


    Obama won the crowd (none / 0) (#52)
    by Meurs on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:38:58 AM EST
    Watched both speeches and noticed Obama got bigger and louder reactions from the crowd.

    It's a cult (none / 0) (#71)
    by Prabhata on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:04:31 PM EST

    Women really aren't that emotional (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:41:26 PM EST
    in public, not the $100 a plate types at the event.
    And especially in Wisconsin -- at least the majority of the Teutonic, Scandinavian, etc., legacy.  It's just not "Midwestern nice" to be exhibitionist.  Seriously.  I know that is not so of some groups here, but by and large, we just don't do that.

    We are saving our emotions for the polling booth, behind the curtain, in only 48 hours from now.


    Teutonic Legacy? (none / 0) (#79)
    by cannondaddy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 03:10:05 PM EST
    Sounds like a death metal band (none / 0) (#84)
    by cannondaddy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 06:25:40 PM EST
    or a book with a foreword by David Duke.

    Yep, this is Milwaukee -- (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 08:14:40 PM EST
    the most German city in the land.  You wouldn't believe how many people here are part-German, still speak it, etc.  It permeates the city's culture in so many ways.

    Vox Vox is Banned (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 11:45:49 AM EST
    for chattering, attempting to hijack the thread and not abiding by comment limit. S/he has been banned previously under another user's name.

    Vox Vox, don't bother trying to register again.

    Polls? November is what counts (none / 0) (#70)
    by jawbone on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:03:13 PM EST
    May we please choose a winner this time--it's so damn important.

    This column says it's better to choose the person who best represents what you believe a president should do for the country. I tend to agree. Polls can be so misleading--as the author says here, vote for "who you believe will be the best president."

    ...we can toss around poll numbers that claim one thing or another about the general election. But as we've learned this year more than ever, polls can't be trusted (think Clinton versus Obama in New Hampshire last month). And history agrees: In March of 2004, John Kerry was slaughtering Bush in the general election polls; in July of 1988, former Governor Mike Dukakis was trouncing Bush the Elder. If you haven't heard of Dukakis, take that as an indication of just how unreliable polls can be - especially those conducted months in advance.
    With all these persuasive arguments swimming around, we can't be sure which holds the most water, what will occur in the nine months before the election to alter these electability equations, or whose theory will bear fruit come November. As such, Lengle admitted, "Basing your vote on electability is a dicey operation."

    So I beg you: Do not vote for who you believe to be the most electable; vote for who you believe will make the best president.

    http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2008/02/12/Opinion/Nicky.Berman. Trying.To.Find.A.Winner-3202713.shtml

    Losing Alabama (none / 0) (#72)
    by cannondaddy on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 02:09:09 PM EST
    would not be shocking, but what about Oregon and Pennsylvannia?

    AL going to McCain? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Fredster on Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 04:09:02 PM EST
    It's a no-brainer.  I have been here post-Katrina and it's a very conservative state.  I've got a friend here who voted in their primary and he voted for Obama.  I asked him why, knowing his political stance.  He said it was an open primary and he voted for B.O. to "send a message to Hillary".  That kinda threw me for a loop.  Anyway, it will not be a surprise when AL and probably a good bit of the South goes for McCain.