home

If Only Dem Voters Would Listen To Their Betters

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:40:58 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Lambert at Corrente finds more Obama supporter disrespect for the voters:

[C]onsider the situation in Pennsylvania. All indications are that a clear majority of Pennsylvania Democrats would prefer for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee than for Barack Obama to be the nominee. . . . I think if voters better-understood the situation, they'd be much more inclined to vote for their second-favorite Democrat . . . But people won't understand the dynamic unless it's explained to them by credible party leaders.

(Emphasis supplied.) "Stupid" voters actually voting for their preferred candidate, how dare they?

NOTE - Comments closed.

< Obama Advisor Is CEO Of Passport Breach Contractor | Oregon Primary May 20 Could Be a Close Race >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    If Only Dem Voters Would Listen To Their Betters | 196 comments (196 topical)
    Judgement (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:45:41 AM EST
    I guess judgement is just a word.  We have to listen to our betters and park our judgement.  How do you describe judgement or respect it?  

    The Obama supporter, since they are faith based, cannot understand why the Obama charm does not work on a large swath of the American population.  Matter of fact, it has a completely different effect.  Why, cause people are using their judgement.  But, they believe they can beat it into us, cause we don't see it.  

    Yeah well MSM couldn't beat it into me... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:33:18 PM EST
    ...with Reagon or Shrimpy, so I think I'll stay immune, thank you.

    [ Parent ]
    We don't feel it (none / 0) (#55)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:36:35 PM EST
    This is the emote-revolution; instead of saying "I know" or "I believe" or "I understand" it is "I feel"

    "I feel Obama is the best choice"
    "If you don't get the same feeling from listening to Obama's speech..."
    etc...

    [ Parent ]

    Faith-based judgment? (none / 0) (#104)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    There is a story about the sermon at TUCC today--Wright being lynched "like Jesus".  Way to go, Rev. Moss.  

    [ Parent ]
    Where? (none / 0) (#138)
    by echinopsia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:18:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh I have to admit reading Fox (none / 0) (#149)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:25:59 PM EST
    Hope the link thing works



    [ Parent ]

    Sigh, my linkage did not (none / 0) (#152)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:27:14 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/2wkutu

    [ Parent ]
    His Easter sermon was titled (none / 0) (#162)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:33:07 PM EST
    "How to Handle a Public Lynching."?!

    OY!

    [ Parent ]

    Seriously? (none / 0) (#175)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:48:47 PM EST
    For Pete's sake. It just gets worse. And the use of the lynching metaphor reminds me a lot of Clarence Thomas.

    [ Parent ]
    It keeps the image of the Obama (none / 0) (#182)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:54:03 PM EST
    church as a very radical one in the news.  I think that is pretty damaging.  Why the new, younger pastor would do that, I have to wonder.

    [ Parent ]
    After reading the link (none / 0) (#197)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:17:24 PM EST
    I see that Rev. McKinney was quoted and a sermon of his was referenced. Interesting. I do volunteer work around the corner from Mount Zion and have a very good friend who goes there. I'll have to ask her what her take is on all this.

    [ Parent ]
    shorter Matthew Yglesias: (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Nasarius on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:48:07 AM EST
    But there are few indications that they understand the real structure of the race -- that a miracle Obama comeback in PA would mean that Democrats enter May with a nominee and a financial advantage

    If you don't vote for my candidate, he won't win!

    and if you do vote (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by tree on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:57:50 AM EST
    for my candidate, you get a pony!

    [ Parent ]
    You jest, but the Obama precinct captain (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:01:27 PM EST
    at my caucus was giving out "Obama cookies" and let the uncommitteds know that they would only be getting a cookie if they caucused for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't that bribery? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:06:31 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm not sure it is against "the rules," (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:13:49 PM EST
    but it's morally contemptible.

    Regardless, this behavior is yet another example of the gaming that is possible with caucuses.

    [ Parent ]

    IIRC (none / 0) (#88)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:52:06 PM EST
    There've been investigations on gifts for votes.

    [ Parent ]
    Does voter wanna cookie? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Iphie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:07:21 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    cannot snark (none / 0) (#110)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:04:07 PM EST
    it would be too dreadful, but I have to ask, what KIND of cookies?

    [ Parent ]
    Sugar cookies (believe it or not) (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:16:24 PM EST
    with icing in the design of the Obama logo. I felt like I was at a middle school student council election.

    [ Parent ]
    geez, i used to give cookies for (none / 0) (#116)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:08:05 PM EST
    spelling bees. how small!

    [ Parent ]
    I use them for dog training (none / 0) (#193)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:11:32 PM EST
    dog cookies that is, but I don't see any difference. The reward system works well . .   ;)

    [ Parent ]
    What an utterly aristocratic sentiment from Matt. (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:48:12 AM EST
    I'm beginning to understand where latte libel comes from.

    Birds of a feather with Kid Oakland's bizarre argument (from the left!) for term limits.


    My argument (none / 0) (#53)
    by kid oakland on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:35:54 PM EST
    is in opposition to creating entrenched political power in the White House and at the head of the Democratic Party.

    There's actually a long American tradition discussing checks on presidential power that is quite relevant in 2008. I'm not the only person who would prefer not to see:

    Bush. Clinton. Clinton. Bush. Bush. Clinton.

    As an aside, I don't think attacking "latte liberals" serves TalkLeft or HRC well.

    (Neither does a policy that allows moderators to delete substantive and respectful comments with no accountability, as mine have been here at TalkLeft...or users to make ad hominem attacks on some members but not others.)

    In my view, we should all debate and participate on all the Democratic websites and try to do so with respect for each other and the facts.

    Yes, feelings run high and people vent, but all the bickering and baiting and deleting and threatening to delete gets us nowhere.

    [ Parent ]

    Would It Make You Feel Better (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:38:48 PM EST
    If Hillary used her maiden name?  

    [ Parent ]
    KO, have you come out in favor of (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM EST
    counting votes, or are you still pro-disenfranchisement?

    ... Obama is the representative of entrenched political power. What's your point?

    [ Parent ]

    You know (none / 0) (#90)
    by kid oakland on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:53:05 PM EST
    you should ask BTD that question.

    Because with zero linkable evidence he has perpetrated a smear campaign against me here on TalkLeft making your claim.

    Look at my comment history here. Have I said that?

    Sometime after this comment and the "threat to delete", I made a similar extensive, on topic comment regarding the Pledged Delegate, Super Delegate, and the popular vote debate.

    It was deleted.

    I wrote the site management and was told that I should write my comments and save them in a word processor file before I post at Talk Left.

    I am here not because I think that I've been treated fairly, but because I think we have to debate with each other respectfully.

    TalkLeft readers who are fair now that, while we may disagree about which candidate to support, I am someone who makes respectful comments.

    I have not made the arguments BTD is claiming I've made. And, yes, I have been deleted here. Isn't that a bit troubling?

    Should I just pretend it didn't happen? Do any TalkLeft readers who disagree with me still see the point I'm getting at here?

    [ Parent ]

    So do you agree that the FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:56:21 PM EST
    delegates should be seated, barring a revote?
    That would be good news.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:10:18 PM EST
    I have not felt that you have come here to respectfully debate with others.  You show up infrequently with comments that are often simply at attempt to defend or provide a "fact check" for your choice of candidates.  If you want to engage in respectful discussions, why not participate here on a more frequent and consistent basis?

    [ Parent ]
    So legal or genetic association (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:39:50 PM EST
    (a marriage in this case) is an immediate disqualifier?

    So does that mean Obama's blood relation to Cheney disqualifies him? (/snark)

    You can support Obama without this sort of pseudo-logic...which is a skip and a hop away from a  conspiracy theory...


    [ Parent ]

    I was being charitable (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:50:29 PM EST
    by calling it an argument for term limits. Really, you made no argument at all.

    [ Parent ]
    Entrenched power (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Prabhata on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:52:52 PM EST
    My view is that most power changes are the result of party change, not so much individual president.  Most advisers in the Obama campaign are from the Clinton administration.  The difference a president makes within the same party has to do with their agenda and leadership.  And here is where I have a problem with Obama.  What is his agenda?  What direction is he taking the country? What leadership has he demonstrated?  People did not want Gore because he was an insider, but that was in my view part of his appeal.

    [ Parent ]
    Excellent..... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:55:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Entrenched political power? (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by kredwyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:10:53 PM EST
    Is that the new phrase because dynastic arguments don't really work all that well when most of us would probably have voted for the entrenchment via Bobby Kennedy?

    [ Parent ]
    Agh...I missed this dig (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:15:20 PM EST
    Neither does a policy that allows moderators to delete substantive and respectful comments with no accountability, as mine have been here at TalkLeft...or users to make ad hominem attacks on some members but not others.

    So I am safe to assume you support the quashing of open expression and your "home site," and the lack of moderator integrity and consistency found there as well. And this goes without saying your continued contribution at said site must be at least an endorsement of ad hominem attacks on some members but not others, so long as the attackers share your views. Somewhere down the line I've heard some advice dispensed along the lines of glass houses, pots and kettles, houses in order, etc...

    [ Parent ]

    Comments (none / 0) (#142)
    by kid oakland on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:21:58 PM EST
    on MyDD, dkos and one more at dkos.

    Blog factionalism gets us nowhere. I understand the validity of having a clearing-house for people who support one candidate or another...or how people gravitate to someplace. Ultimately, however, strikes and boycotts and bickering amongst ourselves get us nowhere.


    [ Parent ]

    I'm avoiding a certain site (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by otherlisa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:43:27 PM EST
    Several these days. And I've found it really helpful. It's done wonders for my blood pressure.

    [ Parent ]
    Please, don't take me as an idiot (none / 0) (#178)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:49:40 PM EST
    or one that easily swayed...I require more proof than pudding...

    First, might I point out that my issue is with your "factionalism" specifically; not the broader issue. You made the dig in this thread I above referenced.

    I don't invalidate your position, opinion or views by saying you need to get your house in order before you visit ours and condemn us. Sure, the users here have a majority point of view, but we are much more welcoming of debate and discussion (not so much for inflammatory posts), and have many great contributors (flyerhark for example) that do not agree with the majority. We're not mob rule, we're a moderated forum...we all don't agree with one another, but we let that be the only contention and not carry over to personal vendetta. We're not promoters of any organized strike or boycott, and those users here that have discussed it, are by and large doing just that and nothing more.

    Does it sound like I view our community as superior? You bet I do! So I do take umbrage at your dig, I do take offense at the ego you display at coming into our forum and "tsk tsking" us for something you cannot correct in your own forum.

    But let me make this as clear as possible. You are welcome here, and so are your views and opinions...but don't patronize us.

    [ Parent ]

    It seems I spoke to soon (none / 0) (#181)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:52:41 PM EST
    I guess you've abused your welcome...

    [ Parent ]
    Your comment is false (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:57:04 PM EST
    Why you persist in repeating the falsehood that the substance of your comment had anything to do with the deletion of ONE comment by you is for you to explain.

    Your comment was deleted because it insulted me and this site.

    You continue to be dishonest about most subjects. Stop referencing your falsehoods about why your comment was deleted or your further comments on this subject will be deleted.

    Stick to substance or leave this site.

    NOTE - I deleted my previous heated comment to you but I believe every wrod I wrote.

    [ Parent ]

    Hew GE strategy (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:49:10 AM EST
    Insult the voters. Shame the voters. Tell them how stupid they are if they don't vote for our candidate. Well, it's a strategy I guess.

    oops "new" I meant of course (n/t) (none / 0) (#6)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And here I thought you mean SPEW (none / 0) (#12)
    by tree on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:59:39 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama pundits have been disrespectful of everyone (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    They call Hillary to step down ... because the race is turning ugly..

    They oppose FL/MI re-votes .. because this would advantage the Hillary.

    They ask Hillary to release every bit of information like tax return, schedule.. but holding on to their own..

    They question Hillary's 88 country visit as foreign affairs experience.. but convince us that Obama's time in Indonesia when he was 6yr is worthy of foreign affairs experience...

    They call Hillary as divisive, untrustworthy, race-baiter, most secretive, dis-honest.. but then claim Obama to be the Once in a life-time Politician

    .. I can go on and on.. but will spare you the torture and more agony...

    Bottom Line (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:55:45 AM EST
    Any experience Hillary has, is more than Obama can ever have.  It's that simple.  They can try to diminish it, but it's there.  The "street urchin" from Jakarta, story  is just a story.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well in today's rules for debate (none / 0) (#67)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:41:48 PM EST
    giving a speech is tantamount to experience and superior judgment...

    [ Parent ]
    And yes the Judgment - Just Words (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:09:27 PM EST
    Judgment: Question her judgment but hardly providing any confidence about his judgment.

    Just Words: Dismiss other politicians words as just words, but its his own words that are proving to be nothing but "Just Words"

    [ Parent ]

    The obvious benefit of Hillary stepping down (none / 0) (#130)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:13:28 PM EST
    is to allow Obama to seat the FL and MI delegates before this reaches a convention.

    [ Parent ]
    Noblesse Oblige (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Doc Rock on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:59:27 AM EST
    This is the Obama campaign's corollary to "noblesse oblige"?  Like 恩義。How Cheneyesque!

    Yes. So nice of Lord Y to (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:45:59 PM EST
    enlighten the peasants.

    [ Parent ]
    Economically, Clinton is a "sure thing". (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by BlueMerlin on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:00:01 PM EST
    We know exactly what she is going to do.   What Bill did in the 90s and it was good.   The mainstream American is smart enough to prefer a "sure thing" over vague promises.   Who wouldn't?

    Even a partisan Obama supporter must realize that Obama's electoral performances have not lived up to the media and polling projections for him.  

    I don't agree with this (none / 0) (#72)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:44:30 PM EST
    We know exactly what she is going to do.   What Bill did in the 90s and it was good.

    I think she is her own woman...

    Even a partisan Obama supporter must realize that Obama's electoral performances have not lived up to the media and polling projections for him.  

    That is the point isn't it? He never comes close to matching his rhetoric (or in the case of the MSM, their untempered expectations)

    [ Parent ]

    I agree she is her own woman but (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by BlueMerlin on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:57:12 PM EST
    I further believe that she had enormous input to Bill's decisions and policies.   First ladies have more input that most folks realize at the time (but it often comes out decades later in biographies) and Hillary is arguably the most intelligent and well informed FL in history in a true intellectual partnership with Bill.  Therefore to say I  expect the same approach from her presidency as we saw from Bill's is not to imply that he'll be a shadow president "in charge".

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with your assessment (none / 0) (#114)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:06:32 PM EST
    but disagree with your conclusion...because she had influence in Bill's decisions, does not lead therefore to a conclusion that her policies would be a continuation...although there is evidence for similarities (as would be the case with Obama, because of associations like Robert Reich), I think the conclusion to expect an economic policy continuation to WJC's goes against the only evidence available as to how she would govern; her own policy position papers and words.

    [ Parent ]
    Saying her policy/positions (none / 0) (#137)
    by BlueMerlin on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:17:59 PM EST
    are different from what Bill did, or simply that instead of assuming we should go by the papers?

    Any case, I suspect we may be in violent agreement on this one. :)

    [ Parent ]

    Darn it! :) (none / 0) (#140)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:19:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Its "The Clinton Economy" Stupid (none / 0) (#94)
    by pluege on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:55:38 PM EST
    HRC reminding voters of the "Clinton Economy" is an election gold mine for her, both now, but even more so were she to be the dem nominee.

    Like everything other than speechifying, Obama has no props such as this to attract voters. Obama and his adultes are relying on what they think is the strength of his personality. The GOP media will make sure that Obama's persona is thoroughly trashed by November.

    [ Parent ]

    Clintonomics (none / 0) (#125)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:11:13 PM EST
    While better than Reaganomics, is still not in the cards for a Hillary future presidency UNLESS you can come up with the next fraudulent economic bubble to artificially inflate the economy.  

    While we may yearn for a return to some past we remember as much rosier, we must remember the economic boom was the result of fakery and fraud.

    While a slightly more progressive tax policy would certanly help, without a tech bubble or something like it, it won't be NEARLY progressive enough.

    There are NO guarantees about either of these candidates.  None.  We all need to wake up from our dreams of Clinton heaven.  It ain't gonna happen that way again.

    [ Parent ]

    Green energy & bio engineering ... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by BlueMerlin on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:19:25 PM EST
    Just waiting for a little bit of oxygen from the federal government and they will explode.   Also taking from the rich and giving to the federal coffers is proven to work.

    [ Parent ]
    Green energy and taxes (none / 0) (#169)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:39:30 PM EST
    One, if she is the champion of green energy, great, why wasn't Bill?  Second, of course taxing the wealthy at a just rate is good, there just isn't a track record of it in any party for decades.  I hope she does it all if prez, I'm just not counting on it, based on history.

    [ Parent ]
    Different times (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by otherlisa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:58:28 PM EST
    Of course there were many compelling reasons to adopt a federal Green energy strategy during the Clinton years - but hell, if we'd stuck with Carter's energy policies, does anyone doubt things would be very different?

    Now, we are in a situation where only the most obtuse or greedy (read: most of the Republican party) would not see the benefits - the necessity, really - of these kinds of programs.

    The Clinton administration could have done more. But HRC's policy positions and proposals show that she's really thought about this stuff. Unlike Obama. This was my first clue that he wasn't the candidate I would support. His energy proposals early in the campaign included corn-based ethanol and liquid coal (with no measures for carbon abatement). These changed to reflect a more standard "Green" platform, but the only conclusions I could draw from this were either he didn't know about these issues, didn't care about these issues, or was in somebody's pocket and couldn't be trusted to deliver on these issues.

    [ Parent ]

    V.O. Key Jr. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:02:52 PM EST
    "The perverse and unorthodox thesis of this little book is that the voters are not fools."
        -- V.O. Key Jr.

    "The perspective of this book is that, thirty years later, V.O. Key Jr.'s observation is not only sound, but should be the guiding principle of understanding the trends we see in America and around the world.  People have never been more sophisticated, more individualistic, or more knowledgeable about the choices they make in their daily lives."
       -- Mark Penn, Introduction to Microtrends.

    Meet the Press this morning (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by athyrio on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:02:52 PM EST
    says that the Hillary supporters will support Obama in greater numbers than Obama supporters will support Hillary....Ho Hum more propaganda....

    Too bad (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Grey on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:06:17 PM EST
    that the numbers show exactly the opposite, and that Obama, vs. McCain, bleeds almost twice as many Dems as Clinton does, which he then does not make up by poaching Independents and Republicans at all.

    But why tell the voters the truth when you're also calling them stupid for insisting they be heard?  

    [ Parent ]

    Because Russert et alll are really for McCain. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:35:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Exit polls are contrary (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:07:29 PM EST
    to this.  Did they not discuss the PN poll?  I know they like the meme that Clinton supporters are hard core Dems and that the woman vote is elastic (apparently women are emotional and will 'get over it'), but the exit polls disagree. Did they discuss why they felt this to be true?  I didn't watch.

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah but if Obama loses in the GE.... (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:37:07 PM EST
    ...they will turn around and argue that women are stubborn and hold a grudge. Women are being set up as the fall guys in this. Mark my words.

    [ Parent ]
    who will (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by sas on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:54:22 PM EST
    be blamed?

    women or blacks - always the same

    probably the women - as in Hillary is ruining the party crowd blaming women

    where is the "what the hell is he doing running for president " crowd

    [ Parent ]

    you may be right (none / 0) (#77)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:46:06 PM EST
    since women tend to take a brunt of the blame but thus far, the 'other side' is trumpeting the angry white man and that is where they will win the election.

    If the candidate is Obama, then it will be Obama who failed to capture the 'women vote'.

    In reality though, it seems that Obama will be trounced so badly that the blame issue will ultimately be laid at the feet of HRC since she didn't pull out even when she was still mathematically viable. You forget the main premise of CDS is that it always is the Clintons' fault.

    [ Parent ]

    I find it interesting how little understanding (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    there seems to be when it comes to women and how/why they are voting.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess we'll find out if that's true (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:09:27 PM EST
    In November.


    [ Parent ]
    heard that same propaganda on FTNation (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Josey on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:24:05 PM EST
    >>>Hillary supporters will support Obama in greater numbers than Obama supporters will support Hillary

    No need to vote! The media pundits decide the nominees.

    [ Parent ]

    What is is George said on Seinfeld (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:45:46 PM EST
    "its not a lie if you believe it"

    [ Parent ]
    Republicans won't vote foe Clinton or Obama (none / 0) (#81)
    by pluege on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:49:09 PM EST
    It is 100% true that republicans and republican leaning independents voting for Obama in the democratic primaries will not vote for Hilliary Clinton if she is the dem nominee.

    Of course it is also 100% true that they won't be voting for Obama either in the general election if Obama is the dem nominee. All Obama republicans will be going home to mccain in the fall.

    Obama appealing to republicans in order to win the democratic nomination will sink democratic aspirations in November.

    [ Parent ]

    i wonder if these pundits have a (none / 0) (#106)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:03:10 PM EST
    conscience and if it ever hurts them. guess not! i am boycotting cable pundits. no, i actually watch faux now at times and never have before. after the election, probably not again.

    [ Parent ]
    I went to that site (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:03:03 PM EST
    and read the article.  Then I made the mistake of reading the comments.  My head is spinning.  Did you know that Clinton supporters are psycho and unreasonable?

    If it's true that Al Gore is supporting Obama then I'm done with him, too.  I will still respect his work, but I won't look up to him as a liberal leader.  What in the world is wrong with Democrats who actually believe Barack Obama is a strong candidate?

    I made the mistake (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:30:16 PM EST
    of reading the comments, too! I hadn't heard before that Gore supports Obama?

    [ Parent ]
    Regarding Al Gore (none / 0) (#46)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:29:49 PM EST
    Like you, I hope not.  Now, Al may honestly prefer Obama; I am not privy to his mind.  But under no circumstances can Al condone what Obama campaign (and DNC) has done to FL and MI voters' right to vote.  

    So, here is the dilemma.  If Al is going to retain credibility, he could endorse Obama, but call for MI and FL delegates to be seated.  Obama campaign would be crazy to take that endorsement!

    I still have respect for Al Gore, and I believe he'll do the right thing.  He may even make a forceful plea for seating MI and FL delegates.  Wouldn't it be great to hear Al give the party hacks a lecture in voting rights and integrity of voting process?


    [ Parent ]

    Obama's Fault? (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:34:48 PM EST
    I don't know if you have been following BTD on this but he pointed out that HRC was sitting on her hands when she thought it politically expedient. Both have acted in ways that they perceived as self interest on the FL and MI mess.

    [ Parent ]
    He changed his mind on that (none / 0) (#79)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    He had one post taking her to task regarding he seemingly keeping mum...but later corrected when she became vociferous in support...


    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:49:12 PM EST
    He gave her credit for stepping up pressure too late.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure...too late...but that is hardly (none / 0) (#118)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:08:36 PM EST
    what your first position was;

    Obama's Fault? I don't know if you have been following BTD on this but he pointed out that HRC was sitting on her hands when she thought it politically expedient. Both have acted in ways that they perceived as self interest on the FL and MI mess.

    Doesn't quite square with acting "too late" does it?

    [ Parent ]

    What? (none / 0) (#177)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:49:16 PM EST
    No different. I do not see the mess in FL or MI as Obama's fault any more than I see it as Clinton's fault, sorry. Both played it to their own perceived advantage.

    [ Parent ]
    Tangent (none / 0) (#191)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:01:56 PM EST
    I was only pointing out the fact the BTD had latter changed his opinion of HRC on this issue...

    [ Parent ]
    Sort Of (none / 0) (#194)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:11:49 PM EST
    It was one of her biggest mistakes, too late is too late. Better late than never mitigates it a bit but still a huge miscalculation for her.

    [ Parent ]
    I think everybod got it wrong .. but we can make (none / 0) (#198)
    by TalkRight on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:25:47 PM EST
    it right now??

    The rationale is that everybody got it wrong so lets sit and let it pass by.. and the rationale why everybody got it wrong is because everybody thought a clear winner would emerge by Feb and hence subsequently the FL/MI delegates would be seated as per the primary.

    Things did not turn out to be like that... and it is more important to make this thing right because it is important that their voices be heard since they would make a difference in such a tight elections. Had it not been a tight election it would not have mattered because their say would have inevitably been seated anyhow.

    [ Parent ]

    Choce (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jmac on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:07:10 PM EST
    The Republican party swift-boated a genuine war hero because he came home and protested the war.  The swift-boating of Obama will be swift and ugly.  His patriotism is and will be an issue.
      Of course his supporters should vote for him and keep supporting him, but for those who truly like both of them, electability is an issue.  If only 5% of voters showed up in caucus states (except Iowa which had 16%) and primary states have up to 50% voter turnout,  that too should be considered in relation to the general election.
        McCain is going to be tough to beat - the bottom line is who is stronger against McCain.

    Well here is the issue we may have (none / 0) (#87)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:51:18 PM EST
    Kerry was "swift boated" for certain...they took a strength and made it a weakness through lies and distortions

    Obama may in fact be torpedoed through his OWN doing, and legitimate questions raised by inconsistencies, gaps and associations he has not (and may not) adequately answer or address...

    Is that swift boating or raising legitimate points of interest/question?

    The worry is about the latter obviously...nobody is worried about Obama's strengths being turned against him...we're worried about his gaps and weaknesses being brought to light and exploited...there is a big differences.

    [ Parent ]

    Let's recap (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Grey on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:15:14 PM EST
    This is so dreadfully tiresome.  Let's see.  I'm a Clinton voter, so that must mean that I must be "low information, low income and uneducated."

    Except for the fact that I have two graduate degrees, make an very good living and, gosh, I really think one-person one-vote means something, and that every voter should have a say in this and in every election.

    I'm quite sure that, come November, I won't remember being called an idiot and will vote for - oh, wait a minute!  I'm also an Independent, so I guess that means I can write in my candidate of choice (I'd never vote for McCain) and won't actually feel badly at all for not picking the Unity Pony candidate.

    I guess there is a silver lining after all.

    Yes, I must be (none / 0) (#126)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:12:21 PM EST
    one of those low-brow Clinton supporters as well, like the polls like to group me into.  Except, like you, hold two college degrees, make a really good living and think for myself.  And what about this "creatve-class" bullcrap?  WHERE did that come from?  IF that's the case then I am part of that demographic. In my line of work I create opportunity everyday (contract/labor staffing).  

    So as far as polls, voter demographics, those people miss the mark...by a MILE!  Since when did a bunch of college students, the bulk of Obama supporters, equate with wealth?  When I was in college I worked retail and was good to make $8 an hour.

    Give me a break already.

    And as far as the whole unity thing, count me as a Clinton voter who will stay home in November if Obama wins the nom.  He's not my idea of what a Democrat is, especially leaving out FL and MI.  Like Bush, it meets his ends.

    [ Parent ]

    "creatve-class" (none / 0) (#185)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:58:13 PM EST
    Seeing as I've made my living in the creative field for years, I thought they were finally recognizing us as a unique demographic  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    There was discussion of creative class.. (none / 0) (#195)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:13:07 PM EST
    in this thread. Bowers takes it from a book about a core group of cultural leaders who define the world for everyone else (not reality-based you might say, but reality making). I think it is this guy.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess smart voters only vote strategically (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:17:47 PM EST
    And we are not supposed to vote for the candidate that we think would actually, you know, make the best president.

    What do these grand strategists think is preventing Obama from running against McCain right now?  He has all the money he needs, and it even makes more strategic sense for him.  Instead he has spent the last week launching negative attacks against Clinton. He should just act presidential and ignore Clinton altogether.

    There is no reason I can see that delaying the official nomination until the convention has to degrade the race against McCain.

    I'm sure my betters will explain it to me.

    Excellent point. I too am waiting.... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:39:53 PM EST
    ..for that explanation.

    [ Parent ]
    The moment (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by 1jane on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST
    Democrats stop beating each other into oblivion can't come soon enough. The biggest difference I see between two excellent candidates boils down to one word. Cander.

    As long as the trench warfare continues the G.O.P. will dance in the streets.

    Its time for Democrats to come together for the good of our party.

    So we're agreed then (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:39:13 PM EST
    that the nomination should go do Hillary? Excellent!!

    [ Parent ]
    Candor (none / 0) (#58)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:39:03 PM EST
    let's see... honest?  Whose honesty are you questioning?

    [ Parent ]
    So you're voting for Hillary now? (none / 0) (#74)
    by badger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM EST
    That's great to hear - we should unify behind her.


    [ Parent ]
    come (none / 0) (#102)
    by sas on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:01:34 PM EST
    together around who?

    we can't come together unless there is a combined ticket

    if people don't face that, forget it, there will be no coming together

    [ Parent ]

    He can't be (none / 0) (#153)
    by Daryl24 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:27:22 PM EST
    anywhere near the ticket. They might not even be able to give him a pass to get in the convention hall. He's radioactive and imo the meter readings of Apr 22nd will confirm it.  

    [ Parent ]
    and if hillary is the nominee will you still (none / 0) (#113)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:05:28 PM EST
    be singing that song? i didn't think so.

    [ Parent ]
    What do you suggest? (none / 0) (#141)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:21:42 PM EST
    Should we flip a coin to resolve who should be the nominee since the party is presently split at almost 50% for Obama and 50% for Clinton?  The downside of one candidate taking "one for the team" is the possibility of it creating a true divide in November instead of the perceived divide they are concerned with now.  

    [ Parent ]
    Apparently the coin toss was used in Iowa (none / 0) (#189)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:01:03 PM EST
    to break caucus ties. In NV, it was high card draw.

    [ Parent ]
    Sheesh (none / 0) (#158)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:30:52 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wow I'm so sick of these guys (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:41:00 PM EST
    In the end, hopefully the net will always be about seeking truths and MY and other "pundits" will eventually burn their toast.  I hope the net stays open and available to all grassroots and thanks for championing a race about issues BTD.  The more our top Yahoos post about strategy the more I feel like I need a good shower to wash off OrangeState think.

    They think they live in a democracy? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by BigB on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:46:08 PM EST
    Stupid voters!

    Who do they think they are?

    Those ingrates! Instead of voting for who Matt Yglesias, media, and the DNC tells them to vote for they actually have the audacity to vote for who they like to vote!

    Unacceptable! let us send them to Cuba and Russia so that they understand how important the party is.

    Stupid Pennsylvania voters!

    This is basic Strassian, neocon thinkin. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:50:35 PM EST
    The more I look at the Obama machine, the more I find similarities with the Strassian Neocon view of politics.  In this instance I pose this basic Strassian idea:  
    While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical - divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right - the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."

    Strauss Philosophy

    Where did the "u" go? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:50:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It was stifled (4.50 / 2) (#109)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    in a caucus.

    [ Parent ]
    didn't the so called father of (none / 0) (#115)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    the neo con movement come from the university of chicago? and doesn't a number of obama's "advisors" come from there as well. i have to wonder if there is a connection. maybe not!

    [ Parent ]
    Yep... (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:08:57 PM EST
    Way, way too much U of Chicago thinkers behind Obama for my taste.  

    [ Parent ]
    None (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:12:40 PM EST
    He went the Alinsky route. Favoring organizing to empower the people is quite different than favoring empowering a small elite group who must lie and disempower the people in order to maintain power.

    [ Parent ]
    Well...one basic flaw in this (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:32:08 PM EST
    When it came to empowering the people, when the Rezko buildings were failing in his district, gee, Obama supported the donor.  Makes ya think about where his core values fall.  

    An Alinsky devotee, an Alinsky community organizer would never not know that properties in their community were going into default, disrepair and that low income people were losing their housing.  Absolutely impossible.  That is why I don't buy the "community organizer" and Alinsky type.  

    Many of Obama's advisers are from the U of Chicago.  

    [ Parent ]

    Which Ones (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:56:29 PM EST
    Are Neocons? None as far as I know. Sounds like a drive by attack using innuendo.

    And as far as Alinsky, I am no expert, but my understanding is that he would not know necessarily know about Rezko properties because his schtick was to empower the people, step waaay back, and let them take care of themselves.

    No paternalism, but power to the people in all ways.

    [ Parent ]

    more a case of neoliberal (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by otherlisa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:05:59 PM EST
    Goolsbee ("I Heart NAFTA") and...I am spacing on the other guy. They are neoliberal economically. Which has worked oh so very well in recent years...

    [ Parent ]
    There is no Democrat better at (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    talking to voters like Barney than Obama himself.
    If there's any 'splainin' to be done, I'm sure he's up to the task.

    You've been here awhile (none / 0) (#103)
    by waldenpond