The Reasonable Obama Supporters Of Mississippi

By Big Tent Democrat

Two nights ago, Oculus highlighted this article to me in which some voters in Mississippi demonstrated they have more sense than most blog denizens. For example:

Catherine Cowans is a black supporter of Barack Obama who is disappointed by the Clinton campaign's recent attacks on her candidate. . . . But she doesn't think that the New York senator's jabs add up to an irredeemable sin. If Clinton becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, the 48-year-old hairdresser said, she will vote for her. "I'm not angry at her," Cowans said recently during a lull at her beauty salon in this sleepy Delta city. "I still like Hillary."

And the first exit poll data from Mississippi demonstrates similar feelings:

An exit poll finds Barack Obama voters are a bit more charitable toward Hillary Rodham Clinton than vice versa in Mississippi's Democratic primary. The survey Tuesday for The Associated Press and television networks found that six in 10 Obama voters said he should pick Clinton for vice president if he wins the nomination. Four in 10 Clinton voters said she should pick Obama as her running mate if she wins.

Finally, a little sense from Democrats. Take note Nancy Pelosi. More exit polling data here as it comes in. More . . .

From Mark Halperin:

65 years of age and older: Clinton 56%, Obama 44%

17-29 years of age: Obama 67%, Clinton 32%


Nearly one in five Democratic primary voters called themselves independent and about one in 10 were Republican.


More than half of Clinton voters said they had a favorable opinion of McCain; only about a quarter of Obama voters viewed McCain favorably.

For once it looks like GOP crossovers are going to favor Clinton.


Democratic voters: 53% felt Obama is more qualified to be commander-in-chief, 43% felt Clinton was more qualified to be commander-in-chief.

Democratic voters: 66% said race was not a factor, 33% said race was a factor.

Voters who felt race was a factor: Obama 60%, Clinton 40%.

< Pelosi Damages Democrats | Mississippi Unburning >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Being on the blogosphere (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 04:58:24 PM EST
    I think that we tend to forget that the average person sees Clinton vs Obama as two good friends who aren't getting along at the moment, but think that eventually they'll work it out and things will be okay again.

    That's about the size of it. (none / 0) (#2)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:02:16 PM EST
    And, to be perfectly frank, in this instance the average American is probably right.

    the dark side (none / 0) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:46:25 PM EST
    is that there is real racism and real sexism out there.

    sexism (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:47:30 PM EST
    is that a word?
    you know what I mean.

    I want to see more of this (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by CST on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:02:27 PM EST
    One frustrating thing about this campaign is we forget our similarities are bigger than our differences.  For all those who think Obama is sexist/ anti-female/ whatever - remember, John McCain is RABIDLY pro-life, doesn't believe women should have any say over their bodies.  Also, for those who think the Clinton's are racist - McCain recently voted to extend the Bush tax cuts - one of the most damaging things to the poor of America (white and black, but let's be honest, most African American's aren't swimming in dough).  So before people go all crazy about what's been said by who and vice-versa, where it really counts - policy - they are both far and away better candidates than republicans.  We should feel proud of democrats that we are far enough along that our two main candidates are a woman and a black man, and republicans are still the all-white-male club.

    I agree 100% (none / 0) (#9)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:13:06 PM EST
    It makes me crazy when people on either side say they won't vote for the eventual democratic nominee.  I support Obama but if Hillary is the nominee I will send money, make phone calls, and, of course, vote early and often.

    Truthfully (none / 0) (#21)
    by Daryl24 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:34:31 PM EST
    I only see it on the blogosphere. Rank and file dem voters are proud of their party and think highly of both candidates. Record participation, record tv ratings for political debates and the majority want the fight to go to the end.

    Why the disconnect?


    Why the disconnect (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:37:53 PM EST
    what an excellent question.
    you could probably get an advanced degree by figuring it out.

    when people don't pay close attention (none / 0) (#24)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:38:38 PM EST
    they don't get upset about the minutiae.  In real-life, I'm not even an Obama hater just play one on the inter-tubes.  :-)

    the Obama supporters (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:43:51 PM EST
    are working really hard to make me an Obama hater

    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#25)
    by CST on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:39:26 PM EST
    Although exit polling lately has seen a trend in the wrong direction on this issue.  I guess it would help if campaign surrogates on both sides would stop with the inflammatory comments.

    don't know what to think of those exit questions (none / 0) (#35)
    by RalphB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:55:02 PM EST
    i have a feeling that in the general electorate most people have positive feelings about all 3 candidates, including McCain.  that will change but who knows in what directions once the GE campaigning starts for real.

    Because (none / 0) (#34)
    by JJE on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:54:37 PM EST
    political weblogs, like political punditry, attracts highly opinionated people, and the whole anyonymity thing makes people say stuff they'd never say to someone's face.

    Or worse. I've started saying (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:32:50 PM EST
    things to people who don't blog that I previously never would have sd. to them. They look rather startled.

    If only (none / 0) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:56:08 PM EST
    If it's only on the blogosphere, why do the numbers of people saying they won't vote for the other candidate tick up over time?  Do you think the exit polls are flawed or that people will come together.  The numbers dissatisfied with each other and the number above that don't want their candidate to have the other on the ticket concern me.

    A Solid Democratic Voice (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:05:46 PM EST
    More than I can say for the latte sipping crowd, on both sides.  
    Must be all the independents and GOPers stirring up the trouble....

    Surprise, Surprise </Gomer Pyle> (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:14:20 PM EST
    Democratic voters are wiser than the media, a lot of bloggers, and Democratic leaders.  Oh, wait, that's totally not a surprise.

    Here's hoping that the next President, whoever he or she may be, works to eliminate the embarrassing level of poverty that exists in Mississippi and so many other States.  

    Let's not forget (none / 0) (#15)
    by Lil on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:20:49 PM EST
    some liberal radio personalities.  Some of them have totally trashed Hillary, and I keep wondering how they correct that, if she somehow pulls out the nomination.

    Racial politics. (none / 0) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:04:45 PM EST
    African Americans in Mississippi will happily support a well known civil rights supporting white candidate while white voters there are far less likely to support a black candidate no matter how distinguished and mainstream.

    This simply bears out the polling data discussed at this site last week.

    The white voters of MS (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:05:29 PM EST
    are not reasonable imo.

    Alert the media. . . (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:10:53 PM EST
    Next you'll be saying that about Wisconsin (none / 0) (#11)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:14:36 PM EST
    where people had lots of reasons for what was an Obama blowout.  And I say that from Wisconsin, which could not look less like Mississippi in many ways.

    But we've got some great ex-Mississippians here who head back there often.  I really don't think they turn into entirely different people when they do.

    And without them here, I never would have gotten hooked on Southern food.:-)


    Racism in Mississippi (none / 0) (#14)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:19:08 PM EST
    If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that it's almost as though rich white Mississipians have developed a way to keep poor whites and blacks from uniting against them out of their shared economic interests.  Hmmm....

    psst: (none / 0) (#18)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:27:52 PM EST
    "poor whites" aren't black.

    This is a class issue, as with most of that region.  Has very little to do with race and everything to do with who has the money.


    Race & Class (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by BDB on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:43:36 PM EST
    It's a race and class issue, IMO.  Wealthy Mississippians and corporations keep poor people, who outnumber them, from uniting by using race.  They pit poor whites against poor blacks to keep them from uniting against those in power to demand they change the inequitable economic structure of Mississippi.

    Faulkner knew that (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:46:53 PM EST
    whites voted overwhelmingly for mike espy (none / 0) (#48)
    by english teacher on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:06:41 PM EST
    who would still be representing the second district in congress had clinton not plucked (pardon the pun) him for agsec.  he was very popular with whites and blacks and deservedly so.    

    I don't trust the judgement (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:49:16 PM EST
    of anyone who endorses Haley Barbour.

    i'm just saying whites voted for him (none / 0) (#52)
    by english teacher on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:01:14 PM EST
    i agree with you on the barbour endorsement.  very strange.  but the fact is he was widely supported by whites in the second district.  the point i was responding to seemed to indicate whites wouldn't vote for an african american in mississippi.  

    Exit polls (none / 0) (#13)
    by DaveOinSF on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:18:13 PM EST
    If those early exit polls are to be believed, Hillary is going to do better than expected.  The pre-primary polls had Hillary and Obama neck-and-neck in the 65+ vote and if she's winning by 10, that's great news.

    Expectations (none / 0) (#16)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:22:33 PM EST
    I would be very pleased if she could just hit 40%.

    HRC/Obama or Obama/HRC is not a dream ticket. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Prabhata on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:28:37 PM EST
    I don't see a great benefit of having Obama as the VP for HRC.  She'd be better off with a VP that can switch a purple state to blue.  And the same goes for Obama.  The whole idea of a "dream ticket" is illusory when one looks deeply at the benefits of Obama as VP or HRC as VP.  Besides HRC gains nothing as VP.  She'd be too old to run in 2016.

    Too Old? (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:30:30 PM EST
    She'd be younger than McCain is now.  Although I don't think a dream ticket is likely, I would like her as VP.

    McCain is now (none / 0) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:44:30 PM EST
    um, yeah
    that would be to old

    Yeah, but McCain (none / 0) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:48:35 PM EST
    has that added benefit of being male....

    true enough (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:49:34 PM EST
    imagine the fun MSNBC could have with harshly lit photos 4 or 8 years from now.

    Necessary (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:49:42 PM EST
    but perhaps not ideal....If Hillary is the nominee, she would have jumped over a likely pledged delegate lead by Obama.....Obama as VP (not that he would take it) is one way to hold the Obama supporters....

    interesting contrast (none / 0) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:36:30 PM EST
    in the VP thing from one candidate to the other.
    Obama and his campaign are not making as many new friends as they once were it seems.

    in the real grassroots (none / 0) (#26)
    by desmoinesdem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 05:42:11 PM EST
    most Democrats like Obama and Clinton. It's only at the level of activists and volunteers that you start to see real animosity between those camps.

    I was at my town Democratic meeting (none / 0) (#37)
    by ChrisO on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:04:49 PM EST
    right before Super Tuesday, and I mentioned the incredible hate for Hillary I was seeing on the Internet. Everyone just looked at me puzzled. It's a little bit of an older crowd (as in 40 and up) and they all said they didn't know what I was talking about, and that of course they would support the nominee.

    Call it a bubble... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Camorrista on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:17:00 PM EST
    What's frustrating (to anybody who stays in touch with the universe beyond the blog planet) is to watch the anti-Clinton animosity feed the fantasies of the more zealous Obmama-philes.

    No matter how many polls indicate (repeatedly) that a large majority of typical Democratic voters would accept (and vote for) either Clinton or Obama as their nominee, the zealots insist that (1) hatred for Clinton is pervasive and growing; and (2) "most Democrats know" the battle is over and are furious that Clinton has not dropped out; and (3) if by hook (or more likely, crook) she snatches the nomination from Obama's rightful grasp, a tidal wave of defections will cost Democrats the White House.

    Is there any real evidence for these conclusions?  What is it?  Is it anything more than  the same rancid  anecdotes--"Nobody in my book club will vote for Hillary;" or "My grandmother voted for FDR and she'll vote for McCain;" or "My wife and daughters are feminists, and they swear Hillary is the wrong woman;" or "How she did in New York means nothing, the rest of the country will bury her."  And these, of course, are the milder examples.

    Once upon a time--not so long ago--visitors to liberal blogs prided themselves on being part of the realiy-based community.  What happened?


    Let me reiterate: I said this (none / 0) (#38)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:07:32 PM EST
    this morning, OBAMA HIMSELF on the campaign trail, as part of his Clinton Kitchen Sink segment, DIRECTLY BLAMES CLINTON FOR THE DRUDGE REPORT PHOTO.  This is in direct contrast to what he said in the last debate, and (AFAIK) NOTHING HAS CHANGED regarding that situation.  Nothing new has come out.  I think it goes way over the line.  It was on the Today show today as part of one of his MI rallies.  This is Obama.  He is responsible.  Next thing we know perhaps he'll say Clinton IS indeed pimping her daughter.  

    I will try to find a link to some video or a transcript.  But PLEASE, keep this in mind.

    sort of (none / 0) (#39)
    by CST on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:11:28 PM EST
    He directly blames the Clinton campaign, not Clinton herself.  Still not the best way to go, but given that it was originally reported to have come from someone in her campaign, this isn't THAT far off base.  Still, not a good tactic I agree.

    Um (none / 0) (#40)
    by Steve M on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:15:16 PM EST
    It was originally reported that way BY THE DRUDGE REPORT.  It has never been corroborated.

    If Obama is going to go around repeating everything the Drudge Report says about Hillary as if it's the gospel truth, we might be in for some ugliness.


    Like I said (none / 0) (#42)
    by CST on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:17:34 PM EST
    Bad.  Not as bad as was in the earlier post where it seemed like he was holding Clinton directly responsible.

    Here is the link (none / 0) (#41)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:16:45 PM EST

    This is NOT good.  Totally inappropriate and unbecoming to put that in your rally.  What point is there to this?  Why exactly say this to thousands of people?  


    Transcript -- oh, he is careful and clever (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:23:29 PM EST
    WILLIAMS: On the topic of accurate information and to that end, one of the things that has happened over the past 36 hours, a photo went out on the Website, the "Drudge Report," showing Senator Obama in the native garb of a nation he was visiting, as you have done in a host country on a trip overseas.

    Matt Drudge, on his Website, said it came from a source inside the Clinton campaign.

    Can you say unequivocally here tonight it did not?

    CLINTON: Well, so far as I know, it did not and I certainly know nothing about it and have made clear that that's not the kind of behavior that I condone or expect from the people working in my campaign.

    But we have no evidence where it came from. So I think that it's clear what I would do if it were someone in my campaign, as I have in the past, asking people to leave my campaign if they do things that I disagree with.

    WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, your response.

    OBAMA: Well, first of all, I take Senator Clinton at her word that she knew nothing about the photo. So I think that's something that we can set aside.


    I was also unhappy (none / 0) (#44)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 06:24:54 PM EST
    to see him talking about this again. I think he hurts himself when he does. Most damaging is that everytime he mentions it, the media shows the picture again! I also think it makes him look petty.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#51)
    by Kathy on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:04:17 PM EST
    the pic was on both ABC and NBC news tonight.

    Yeah, I watch both.  What's it to you?