Obama IS The Candidate Of The Establishment

By Big Tent Democrat

Greg Sargent calls this claim by the Clinton campaign strained:

This one is worth keeping an eye on, because we'll be hearing more of it in the days ahead. In the Clinton campaign conference call I mentioned below, Hillary pollster Mark Penn repeatedly said Obama was becoming an "establishment candidate" -- a rather strained effort to use Obama's high-profile endorsements to weaken his insurgent appeal.

When the Establishment Media, Establishment politicans and Establishment bloggers all are for you, that sort of makes you the candidate of the Establishment. Of course Clinton is no insurgent. That would be ridiculous. But at this point, to call Obama an insurgent candidate is equally ridiculous.

< Super Tuesday Post Mortem Open Thread | The Kennedys' Bad Night >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    When the establishment (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:40:35 AM EST
    media, bloggers, and politicians are all coming out against you, what are you?

    In Iraq they call them insurgents ;) (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:44:22 AM EST
    Just a candidate (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:44:35 AM EST
    Damn, I forgot.......politics is our solution (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:45:40 AM EST
    to avoid war and is not war ;)

    Just a candidate (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:00:33 PM EST
    That the establishment wants to lose.

    Problem is cultural, not political, in the information age the establishment can co-opt that which is insurgent in the span of 2 news cycles.  Probably less.

    Insurgency probably no longer exists at all.


    Establishment bloggers?!? (none / 0) (#63)
    by sterno on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:16:52 PM EST
    Okay, let's get real here.  From Wikipedia:

    "The Establishment" is a pejorative term to refer to the traditional ruling class elite and the structures of society which they control.

    Are there ANY left bloggers that are a part of the traditional ruling class elite and the structure of society which they control?  No.  In time, I have little doubt that they will become part of that structure, but there's no way that they are today.  There are "established" blogs, sure, but there's a vast difference between being established and being the establishment.


    I think it (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by athyrio on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:47:35 AM EST
    boils down to blue collar (Hillary) vs white collar (Obama).. The lunch bucket part of the party backed Hillary pretty strongly...

    I'd love someone to explain that to me..... (none / 0) (#52)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:32:50 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's admin was no friend to labor, they expect Hillary's to be different?

    What's the delegate count? (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by scribe on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:52:17 AM EST
    And, when will HRC and Bam both recognize they each need about 80 percent of the remaining delegates (excluding superdelegates) to win a first ballot victory?  

    Thus making further fighting - but not campaigining - a proposition of dubious efficacy.  They should be devoting a lot of attention not only to wooing superdelegates, but also to building the ground game.  First priority among the ground game issues should be voter registration and anti-voter caging work - to defeat things like the Indiana drivers' license checkups which are at the heart of Repug voter suppression efforts.  There's time now to defeat the Repug voter suppression efforts to come, but it has to be done now.

    And, how many delegates did Edwards have when he suspended his campaign?

    And, when will all the Dems realize its likely a good idea to be be spending time and money on commercials reminding people that:

    • Rethug regular Pat Buchanan says "McCain will make Cheney look like Gandhi"

    • McCain is so old, he makes Reagan look young.

    • McCain is so old, he had to take out life insurance to get a loan for his campaign.

    • McCain, the reformer of Campaign finance, is violating the campaign finance law by taking public and private money.

    • If McCain wants to get the Dobson vote (i.e., for Dobson and his ilk to get a revelation and change their pronouncements), he's going to name Huckabee as the VP candidate.  Given his age, that means a torturing, spying-on-you police state with mandatory religiousity imposed by kids weaned on "Left Behind - the video game" the instant McCain gets a little older.  And that distinguishes us from Iran and the Taliban how, exactly?

    It's never too early to start trashing your general election opponent.

    Establishment (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:53:49 AM EST
    Greg Sargent is really getting to be a hack.  As for determining whether or not the "Establishment Media, Establishment politicans, Establishment bloggers" are for you, it's actually not too hard.

    For Establishment Media, just look at whether or not the establishment media is putting out good/bad stories about Clinton/Obama.  From what I remember a study was done (reported by Media Matters), and it turned out the Establishment Media was much more pro-Obama.

    For Establishment politicians, just count the number of major Democratic politicians (say members of Congress and state governors) who endorse Obama versus Clinton.  For Establishment bloggers, do the same thing.  Since TPM is supposedly doing news and has a full time staff to do these kinds of news research stories, it should be pretty easy to find out.  Instead, Greg Sargent has decided it's enough to be lazy and simply mock other people without doing any actual research to back up the mocking.  Maybe he's been hanging around Joshua Marshall for too long.

    BTD has a point (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:54:33 AM EST
    The press hates Clinton, the establishment bloggers hate Clinton (okay most of 'em) and she isn't getting the big time liberal politico endorsements.
    She's getting votes from (forgive me for putting it this way, because I belong to one of these groups) older white women and hispanics.

    Them's the facts.  Or at least some of them.

    What people don't realize.. (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:07:09 PM EST
    The DC establishment never liked the Clintons. There they were, the couple from Arkansas who came into the White House, ignored them and didn't go to their cocktail parties. How dare they!

    Now, that doesn't mean that the Clintons didn't build a network of support within the party over the years. Of course they did. But what people don't understand is that there is a whole different 'establishment' out there who have never liked them.

    And honestly, with Obama being embraced by the most established political family in the whole nation, and several high-profile establishment endorsements, plus the support of the established media, how can you possibly still call him an outsider?

    Obama officially joined the Establishment (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Josey on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    when he declared Bush and Cheney had done nothing that warranted impeachment.


    No other candidate went that far in their opposition to impeachment.
    And still, the Kuch endorsed Obama.


    Drafted to run against Hillary. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:34:12 PM EST
    A newcomer, but not an 'outsider.'  Clean slate with a great story, talent and charisma and eager to do their bidding...Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle.

    The DC establishment "never liked the Clintons" is putting it mildly.  They hated them...as they hated the Carters...hicks from the sticks who didn't genuflect, take advice, hire the establishment pals...and "not our sort."  

    Class warfare now front and center in the Democratic Party.  I haven't been this depressed since '68.


    Yes but how did he get there... (none / 0) (#65)
    by sterno on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:22:22 PM EST
    Sure, Kennedy is embracing Obama.  But it's not like Kennedy groomed Obama, brought him up from Chicago, funded his campaigns, etc.  There's a vast difference between being the establishment and trying to bring somebody into your fold and actively farming somebody and supporting them as an extension of the establishment.

    This is how the establishment is changed.  The establishment's primary interest is self maintenance.  Insuring that it continues indefinitely.  As part of that they will always be compelled to embrace new people and new ideas while silently shifting those ideas to their favor.  In that, both the insurgent and the establishment change.  That's how politics has always worked.


    I know the DC establishment (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:13:21 PM EST
    never liked the Clintons.

    I've never forgotten our beloved David Broder, who said, "They came in and trashed the place, and it's not their place."

    Elitist much?

    To me, the fact that the DC establishment never liked the Clintons is a strong selling point.

    I voted for Hillary yesterday.  I don't get to vote again until November.  Right now, I'm annoyed at the Obamas since they've both seemed to imply they won't support Hillary should she win the nomination, while both the Clintons have said they'll support the nominee, whoever that might be.  I tipped for Hillary over healthcare.

    Excuuuuuuse me (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:35:25 PM EST
    Ted Kennedy, Kerry etc, said they are passing the torch, the torch of leadership.  This is the establishment.  What part of the torch is not clear?  What they were saying, we are the "liberal Democratic Establishment" and we choose him.  Now how is that not the Establishment?  

    Ding, ding, ding. Winner!! (none / 0) (#68)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:38:36 PM EST
    Estblishment Image (none / 0) (#70)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:46:04 PM EST
    Oprah, the plutocrat;
    Maria, the married to a Republican aristocrat;
    Caroline the aristocrat.  

    This is the new populist voice.  Lets go to the Hamptons with our Louis Vittons purses and our Hermes scarves.  


    I'll have to get mine at Goodwill. (none / 0) (#75)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:43:57 PM EST
    established not establishment (4.00 / 1) (#27)
    by s5 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    It's more like she's the incumbent. She's the default name that everyone knows, and as far as most people were concerned, she's just the person you're supposed to vote for.

    Most people just started tuning in a few days ago. I even spent the last couple of days calling voters, and no one knows anything about anything. Obama may as well have been Gravel. I know it's tempting in the blogger pundit community to think of this election as something that's been going on for months, but for most people, it started less than a week ago.

    I'm not sure what difference it makes? (none / 0) (#5)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:46:25 AM EST
    In some ways, it almost seems like the narrative that Obama is the establishment candidate actually hurts Clinton. She's running as the experience candidate, the one who knows how to get things done by moving people in Washington.

    Yet now she wants to say she lost the support of all of those in Washington? I'm confused as to how that helps her narrative.

    I'm not sure her narrative is that (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:49:09 AM EST
    she has lost the support of all of those in Washington.  I think the narrative is that you can't call her "The Establishment Candidate" anymore.  I never thought anybody really could with credibility.

    Still confused (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:51:39 AM EST
    Honestly - not being snarky. I always thought she wanted the label of the establishment candidate - that it gave her the aura of being in the lead. If neither is the establishment cadidate, it seems to sort of take some of that wind out of her sails right?

    Hey, I'm not saying she didn't like the (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:00:42 PM EST
    label.  I think she liked the label until the label didn't work and/or it would do her more good to shed the label.  I don't know any political candidate who eagerly sheds labels that at the moment the voters find attractive.

    My take (none / 0) (#43)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:21:08 PM EST
    and I readily admit I could be entirely wrong, it's her attempt to show that Obama can't possibly be the candidate of change when he is really just another creature of the status quo or establishment.  

    Hopefully this is the first (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by blogtopus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:25:54 PM EST
    of many attempts to open the public's eyes to his hypocrisy. He really needs to know how to take criticism, too.

    I still can't understand . . . (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by IndependantThinker on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:59:05 PM EST
    how anyone who takes, even a cursory look, at his record can conclude he is the candidate of change!

    Being accurate matter (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:52:30 AM EST
    Hillary as Insurgent (none / 0) (#8)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:49:41 AM EST
    Yes, Hillary is definitely the strident outsider trying to shake up the establishment

    She's LIVED in the White House (none / 0) (#10)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:50:45 AM EST
    thats as inside as it gets.

    Hillary as Insurgent (none / 0) (#42)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:17:26 PM EST
    It was an attempt at irony

    The spouse of a former President (none / 0) (#9)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:49:44 AM EST
    is going to have a hard time convincing me they're not an establishment candidate.

    They are both Establishment Candidates (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:51:00 AM EST
    They always have been.

    That has what I have always believed (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:09:39 PM EST
    Either my understanding of what is the establishment is wrong or Obama has been the anti-Clinton candidate for the establishment the entire time.  

    She is a conventional candidate (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:52:03 AM EST
    But she is not the candidate of the Establishment.

    Is there a difference? (none / 0) (#16)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:53:41 AM EST
    Not being a smart-ass here, honest. I'm not sure why she'd want to draw those kind of fine distinctions - seems like her narrative about her campaign always benefitted from the establishment label.

    Totally different (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:13:11 PM EST
    The candidate of the Establishment is the candidate the Establishment supports. In this case it is Barack Obama.

    Is it fair to say (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by standingup on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:26:35 PM EST
    that Obama has had a good deal of support from the establishment the entire time and would not be competitive at this point without that support?  I consider Tom Daschle, Dick Durbin and many of the big Dem donors plus lobbyists who have helped him for a long time to be a part of the establishment.  Am I wrong in that assertion?

    Not wrong. I agree with you. (none / 0) (#64)
    by oldpro on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:20:48 PM EST
    In fact, I would go so far as to say he was drafted by the establishment to send the Clintons packing.  The establishment media, and the 'loser' power-broker Dems...Daschle, Kerry, Kennedy...the lobbyists (ie.Daschle's wife)...all though Edwards would lose to her and they went looking for a candidate.  Found a willing, eager, talented and smart freshman in the Senate who they thought they could sell to the anti-war and progressive/liberal wing to take Hillary out.  Even if they lose the general...pretty cynical undermining of the only 2-term Democrat since FDR.

    Worse...this is class warfare...among Democrats.  Destructive and disgusting.


    I understand (none / 0) (#49)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:28:21 PM EST
    the meaning of Establishment (although, given that Clinton still holds a significant lead in Super Delegates - aka the establishment, its a bit questionable).

    I'm just not sure why Clinton really wants to change the label in midstream like this; my feeling before was that her having it was better for her narrative. Basically, I'm interested in the optics of doing this, regardless of however much the label is warranted.


    So Hillary is the insurgent candidate with (none / 0) (#19)
    by georgeg1011 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:57:07 AM EST
    no machine that helped her win CA, MA and NY.  She is not in the pocket of special interests and lobbyists.  She has been sooo far behind in the polls for months and months and only recently has she pulled close or ahead...she is financially leaps and bounds behind her in fund raising....she doesn't have the backing of established politicians throughout the country... Poor Hillary she has been the underdog the ENTIRE campaign long...Did I get all that right...?

    I am sooo dizzy I can't see straight...I mean, you really realize how ridiculous this sounds, right...

    Exactly (none / 0) (#20)
    by Jack Frost on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 11:57:40 AM EST
    He can no longer claim to be the underdog - especially in light of the media cheerleading him, blogs making his talking points, and people like Kennedy and wooden Kerry endorsing him its mind boggling he's isn't doing better- should he have this in the bag if he was soooo electrifying and "viral"?

    In my opinion (none / 0) (#23)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:02:53 PM EST
    any candidate who is disliked by the press has a lot to overcome.  Dana Milbank of the WashPo admitted to Howie Kurtz on live TV that the press hates Hillary.
    It ain't a rumor, it's fact.

    I give her points for toughness, at least.
    But I'm not saying she's an underdog, either.

    I agree (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:03:31 PM EST
    Hence my support for Obama.

    BTD (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:07:05 PM EST
    I'm flattered you agree with me.  This blog is my last refuge.  All other blogs I used to read have lost any pretense of sanity or civility.  I'm counting on you and yours to keep me informed. ;)

    From today's AP, quotes from Obama:: (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:03:15 PM EST
    Obama Says GOP Will Have Dirt on Clinton
    By NEDRA PICKLER - 14 minutes ago

    CHICAGO (AP) -- Sen. Barack Obama predicted Wednesday that Republicans will have a dump truck full of dirt to unload on Hillary Rodham Clinton if the former first lady wins the Democratic presidential nomination, and said he offers the party its best hope of winning the White House this fall.

    At a news conference on the morning after Super Tuesday, Obama offered some pointed advice to members of Congress and other party leaders who will attend the national convention this summer as delegates not chosen in primaries or caucuses.

    He said that if he winds up winning more delegates in voting than the former first lady, they "would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination when the people they claim to represent have said, 'Obama's our guy,'" he said.

    The Illinois senator won primaries and caucuses in 13 states on Tuesday, while Clinton won eight and American Samoa. Obama and Clinton were in a tight race in New Mexico.

    Obama said he had won a majority of the 1,681 delegates at stake, although The Associated Press tally showed several hundred yet to be allocated.

    Asked about Clinton's recent comment that she would not allow herself to be victimized by the type of Swift Boat-style attacks that were leveled against Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 race, Obama said he had been vetted by his opponent in the nominating campaign.

    "I have to just respond by saying that the Clinton research operation is about as good as anybody's out there," he said.

    "I assure you that having engaged in a contest against them for the last year that they've pulled out all the stops. And you know I think what is absolutely true is whoever the Democratic nominee is the Republicans will go after them.

    "The notion that somehow Senator Clinton is going to be immune from attack or there's not a whole dump truck they can't back up in a match between her and John McCain is just not true."

    It wasn't the only point at which he said he would do better against the Republicans in the fall.

    "I have no doubt that I can get the people who vote for Senator Clinton. ... It's not clear that Senator Clinton can get all the people I'm getting," he said.

    You Won't be getting this Clinton supporter (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:25:59 PM EST
    With that attitude.  Not at all.

    Way to take half the party for granted.

    What a horrible candidate.


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Jack Frost on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:32:09 PM EST
    Clinton was very magnanimous in her speech congratulating Obama on his wins but Obama takes swipes?  I don't get why Obama supporters are so intellectually dishonest in regard to the "unity" meme

    Oops. Didn't intend to post the (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:03:57 PM EST
    WHOLE article.  Sorry.

    It's a bit impolitic (none / 0) (#32)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:07:58 PM EST
    But, however fair or unfair, what he said is basically true right?

    Not reallly (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:11:44 PM EST
    The dirt, such as it is, has already been dumped.

    The reality is THIS argument cuts AGAINST Obama. Not in favor of him.

    The dort to be dumped will be on him.

    Bad argument from Obama. A misstep I would say.


    Kind of whiny too. I thought he won (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:17:13 PM EST
    Super Tuesday.  What's to whine about.  Enjoy your winnings and move on.

    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#51)
    by andrewwm on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:30:47 PM EST
    I'm not saying it's fair, but just look at the Kazakhstan stuff that just came up last week. Clinton may well have been completely vetted and have no more skeletons. But you could say the same about Obama now too.

    Noooo (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:37:20 PM EST
    You can not say the same about Obama.

    IT is silly to even think you could say the same.


    If Obama is the Unity candidate, (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:13:06 PM EST
    why does he say such things over and over again?  Which of his voters does he predict would not vote for Hillary Clinton?  

    Thank You (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:27:45 PM EST
    Excellent question.  

    It's the same old dirt (none / 0) (#35)
    by nolo on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:12:33 PM EST
    They've been flinging at her ever since Vince Foster died.  So what?

    The politics of fear (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:06:49 PM EST
    Desparation? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:07:16 PM EST
    Hah (none / 0) (#39)
    by TheRealFrank on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:13:55 PM EST
    Sure, they will have a truck full of dirt.

    The thing is, with Clinton it'll be old dirt. Old dirt is dry, and doesn't stick.

    With Obama, there is the possibility of fresh dirt that will stick.


    Obama says the Clinton campaign has (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:15:45 PM EST
    tried its best to swift boat him.  Don't think so.  

    Naive (none / 0) (#77)
    by rebecca on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:03:38 PM EST
    "The notion that somehow Senator Clinton is going to be immune from attack or there's not a whole dump truck they can't back up in a match between her and John McCain is just not true."

    This article either puts Obama's naivety on full display or his cynicism in pretending that he doesn't also have a dump truck full of dirt waiting specially just for him.  

    It's the same for his idea that

    he had been vetted by his opponent in the nominating campaign.

    The idea that he can say this with a straight face shows me that he is either unacceptably naive or he's just another lying pol.  I have come to believe from just such naive comments that he's an unacceptably naive lying pol. The more I hear from him the less I want him as our nominee.  Give me someone who truly understands what's going to happen for our candidate.  Not someone who is trying to sell himself as the untouchable one.    


    As to our media... (none / 0) (#47)
    by kmblue on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:26:55 PM EST
    they should be deeply embarrassed, and not just for the way they are covering this election.
    I speak as one who worked for CNN for more than 10 years.
    In my opinion, they've been failing us for some time now.  The least they can do is cover a crucial election fairly.

    i am convinced they don't have the (none / 0) (#60)
    by hellothere on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:54:59 PM EST
    capacity to be ashamed.

    The elites seem to be dead set (none / 0) (#50)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    on ruining the Democratic Party.  Obama is the candidate of the elite, with the advantage of african american support. I really can't stand how full of themselves guys like Kos, and Sargent, and the whole MSM, and elites in DC are.  They are so sure they know what is best.  They are dismissing the wishes of the heart and soul of the Party, women and the lunch box crowd.  It's disgusting.  You can see just how bifercated out society has become.  The elites are totally out of touch with blue collar dems.  They want Obama because for whatever reason he makes them feel good, and they are hell bent on dismissing how rank and file dems are voting.  Some big tent.

    ah geez, talk about Republican frames (none / 0) (#57)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:42:13 PM EST
    ah yes, liberals are "elites".
    Damn, I wish this race were over. The longer it goes, the more people lose all perspective, and start reaching for any rock lying around to hurl at the other side.

    Look at who is voting for him. (none / 0) (#58)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:50:12 PM EST
    His biggest base outside of african americans is voters who make over 100k.

    that does not make one an "elite" (none / 0) (#62)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:11:13 PM EST
    it makes one upper middle class.
    Elites are the people who run things. Republicans tend to run things - like corporations and other power centers in our society, and they try to deflect that by pushing the meme that if someone goes to starbucks and orders a latte, then they are an "elite". So, peasants, vote against the elites - vote for the GOP.
    Thats the frame they push. Lets not play their game.

    upper middle class? haha (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Jack Frost on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:45:23 PM EST
    so you're saying that you don't see a disparity in the way Obama's and Hillary's campaign is covered in the media, blogs, and the "elite" north east establishment (namely the Kennedys)  with whats actually happening with VOTING???  Actually, this primary gives credence to the Republican talking point that 'latte drinking liberals' do exist- and they happen to ignore whats going on in reality.  
    Clinton is still taking huge chunks of the vote in spite of Obama's alleged 'electrifying'  and 'viral' campaign that was supposed to sweep super tuesday (according to MSNBC) , why is that ? and why isn't that reported or resonating with DKos, TPM, etc?  

    Oh please. (none / 0) (#71)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 03:11:26 PM EST
    The Clintons ARE the establishment (none / 0) (#56)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:40:26 PM EST
    so I will grant you this,,,when hillary drops out and endorses Obama, then he will become the candidate of the establishment.

    Fat chance of that happening. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by masslib on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 01:50:33 PM EST
    of course it will happen (none / 0) (#61)
    by Tano on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 02:06:53 PM EST
    or the opposite will happen.
    The party will unite, and lets face it - get really honest here - none of us really knows who is going to win this.

    While (none / 0) (#74)
    by tnthorpe on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 04:42:09 PM EST
    both Obama and Clinton are establishment candidates, neither of them are the sort of authoritarian horror stories being paraded by the repubs as presidential contenders.

     The dems have the historical moment: they can run a campaign that does more than pay lip service to change. They can break the back of the repub coalition. That isn't beanbag now is it? So while everyone wants their candidate to win and all, as far as I can see, either O or C, who after all is said and done aren't all that far apart on policy, could run campaigns that bring about an generational political realignment in November.

    Let's keep our eyes on the prize and out of the gutter and maybe we can make the repubs a marginal party for the next decade or two.

    Hah! (none / 0) (#76)
    by JHFarr on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:02:31 PM EST
    BTD, every now and then you say something sensible, but I swear, on this Obama vs. Clinton dynamic, you are so full of it.

    Take a long break and come back.

    Oh just delete this one and the other one... (none / 0) (#78)
    by JHFarr on Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 05:08:37 PM EST
    My comments, I mean. I stand by what I said, but shouldn't have posted anything. Bah.

    This Is Crazy (none / 0) (#79)
    by LetMeDoIt90 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:59:10 PM EST
    Know matter what it comes down to the votes and if they keep their promises. I just came across "The Leagues" FaceBook page. They ask you to vote for your favorite presidential candidate and your three top issues. After you vote they give you the result of your city. The result surprised me. I thought that my city were complete democrats. Check this out heres the link Apps.facebook.com/theleague