If Only Dem Voters Would Listen To Their Betters

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    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..."


    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.  

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


    Sigh, my linkage did not (none / 0) (#152)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:27:14 PM EST
    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."?!



    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.

    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.

    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.

    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!

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

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

    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!

    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 . .   ;)

    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.


    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?  

    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?


    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?


    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.

    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?

    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...


    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.

    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.

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

    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...


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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...

    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.


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

    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...

    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"


    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.

    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.

    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)


    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".

    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.

    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. :)


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


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    V.O. Key Jr. (5.00 / 0) (#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?  


    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
    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.

    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.

    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


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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"

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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?


    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.

    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...

    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.

    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?


    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.

    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...

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    "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  ;)

    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.

    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.

    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!!

    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?

    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.

    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


    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.  

    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.

    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.  

    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.

    Sheesh (none / 0) (#158)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:30:52 PM EST
    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
    It was stifled (4.50 / 2) (#109)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    in a caucus.

    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!

    Yep... (5.00 / 1) (#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.  

    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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...

    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 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    How do I see who rated me a 1 on the other thread.  I reminded digdogboy that Jeralyn had told him to  remove his tag line or he would be banned and someone rated me a 1.  There seems to be an unusual amount of rating going on in the other item.  BTD was getting rated 1 for telling people to stay on topic.

    All of you can rate me 1 or 5 (2.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:28:14 PM EST
    or not at all. Ratings are meaningless in terms of site rules here.

    Have fun with it.


    Click on the comment rating in blue. (none / 0) (#105)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    There are a couple of people (none / 0) (#165)
    by badger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:34:27 PM EST
    - fattymelt and killjoy - who are rating every comment in that thread '1'.

    Probably idiots from one of those sites where mojo is a big deal.


    mark, i am sure that is snark! smile! (none / 0) (#145)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:22:36 PM EST
    pelosi is one who really gets my ire going. (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:59:31 PM EST
    first i hear that they are the "leaders" and we are the i guess "followers". duh, you work for us nancy. then her totally unrealistic comments about the convention and lack of support for michigan and florida makes me froth at the mouth. and that's a good day. now she opines on tibet and makes china angry. lady, open mouth insert foot. i get the impression she thinks she walks on water.

    i mention this because these elist type comments from the dim leadership makes me think we need an overhaul and new blood. you know some who actually understand they work for us.

    The (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by sas on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:17:50 PM EST
    "one" who gets my blood going is Howard Dean and the DNC.
    What a bunch of nitwits for not allowing any votes/delegates from Michigan and Florida to count/be seated.

    I'm not sure I'll ever get over the idiocy of that.  Even Republicans figured out states without party sanctioned primaries had to have some representation, and gave them one-half delegate weight.

    This is what happens when people are promoted to leadership roles who aren't ready.


    that's right! and don't forget brazile. (none / 0) (#147)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:24:58 PM EST
    i sort of think of her as this mouth that never stops or sleeps. but that's my picture!

    I am all for following the rules. The rules (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    allow the FL and MI delegations to be seated and vote. Obviously it is in the best interests of the party to do so.

    They also Better listen (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Sunshine on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:13:07 PM EST
    There is no Fury like a woman scorned, and there will be many women that will feel scorned if their candidate is denied the votes of FL and MI where Hillary won with large margins... Sweet talk will get them nowhere....

    Sunshine (none / 0) (#144)
    by sas on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:22:12 PM EST
    you are so right.

    I never want to hear of the Democratic party saying this nominee will reflect the will of the voters.


    Oh yeah (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by sas on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:31:22 PM EST
    I hear on TV all the time about whether blacks will support Hillary if she is the nominee, and whether working class folks will support Barack if he is the nominee.

    Once in a while, the pundits also mention Latinos - now that Richardson endorsed Obama.

    BUT, I never hear them mention women and the effect of their vote - as if we don't count.
    It's as if we do not exist.
    Or maybe they think we are easily manipulated to vote for whoever the party endorses.

    That minimization enrages me.  I have seen it in Hillary's treatment by the MSM.
    I will not be mollified.  I will not be appeased. I will not forget.

    So just to be clear (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:45:31 PM EST
    the superdelegates should vote for Obama at the convention if he's the leader in pledged delegates, because they're not there to think for themsleves, and we don't need a bunch of party insiders perverting the will of the people. But if they step in to end the electoral process before it is complete in order to hand the nomination to Obama, they're "credible party leaders"? Sometimes it's hard to keep up.

    Actually... (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:01:21 PM EST
    The logic of their argument is why Hillary Clinton still has a very strong opportunity to take the delegate and popular vote lead, despite Florida and Michigan (or win they are sat). National polls measure the great many voters who do not want to be wrong at this point, not just those who want the best candidate. Everyone who voted for Obama in the first 40 states have an entrenched interest in seeing him win--add to this, the elitism of the "creative class" progressives who despise the popular will in Florida, Michigan, and the remaining states. They have a stake in looking right, looking creative, to solidify political power in the Democratic party.

    However, in the 10 remaining contests, those voters must consider what is best for the country and the Democratic party--not what makes them look good two months ago. Hillary Clinton may easily take places like Pa, WV, Ind, Ken, and PR with 20-25% margins. Also, she seems in a much stronger position than expected in NC and Ore. That leaves Guam, Mont, and SD for Obama with small margins.      If the voters in the remaining states decide to fix the problem created by the "creative class"-- rather than end the contest now--they may break for Clinton in numbers that nobody currently expects.  But, it would be for exactly the same reason: the voters in the remaining states better understand the gravity of their votes for the Democratic party.

    I doubt any amount of "talking (down) to" voters will convince voters to endorse the choice of MSM and blogospheric antidemocratic progressives

    Sticking up for the "creative class" (none / 0) (#202)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:07:33 PM EST
    which I still don't quite understand--but, I think I might be one of them.

    We're not all bad. My "creative class" friends and I support Hillary and the voters of Michigan and Florida. However, I doubt we'd willingly label ourselves members of the creative class. We're progressive enough that we try to get around labels.


    I Have Had (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:48:09 AM EST
    Similar thoughts, for several POTUS elections. And WJC election was not one of them.

    As Thomas Jefferson said:

    Thomas Jefferson A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

    Which is why (none / 0) (#35)
    by badger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:17:10 PM EST
    we don't have a democracy in the Athenian sense, where everybody gets a vote on every decision.

    Instead, we have a system which attempts to balance minority rights against majority rule.

    Even Jefferson acknowledged that when he went from asserting that individuals have unalienable rights to claiming that it's the Right of the People to lay  government's foundation upon principles and organize its powers in a way that the people feel will best effect their Safety and Happiness.

    But elections are clearly within the sphere of majority rule as long as they respect minority rights - like letting everybody have a vote and not annointing a candidate before all of the votes are in.


    I'll admit (none / 0) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:58:14 AM EST
    that had he been talking about George Bush voters in 2004, I'd have agreed with him.  I even said it myself.  Voting for Bush was STUPID.  With that in mind...

    So maybe Matt is right...now?

    Or maybe I was wrong in 2004?

    Or maybe I was right in 2004 and Matt is wrong now?

    I think I need another sip of coffee.


    What I know for sure is that telling people that voting for Bush was stupid didn't work then.  Telling CORE DEMOCRATS that they're stupid if they vote for Hillary won't work now.

    I agree with MY's notion that people might take the advice of credible party leaders.  So who are the credible party leaders?  LOL!  I definitely give up on a good answer to that question.  Maybe he thinks he's one ;-).

    Further down (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:07:04 PM EST
    in the article he lists Gore as a credible party leader and seems to be saying all through that Gore is an Obama supporter.  Does Gore hate the Clintons that much?

    There also seems to be a recurring theme in the comments that we'll get a deadlocked convention and then the party can nominate Gore.  Seems to be a prevalent thought among the Obama people.


    Sorry (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:24:14 PM EST
    I don't give people like Matt my clicks anymore so I didn't read it.

    I suspect that Gore is an Obama supporter.  Fine with me.  Like I said, find me a party leader, not a loser.  Yes, he's great on climate change.  He was bad to awful in 2000 on Florida.  Not a fighter at all.  Do you think Hillary would have backed down?


    And BTW (none / 0) (#45)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:29:43 PM EST
    I used to like Gore very much...actually until the last couple of weeks.

    He lost me with his silence about FLORIDA (and Michigan too).  If anyone is about counting votes, I would think it would be him..but he wasn't.

    Now I know who he supports and now I know he'll also do anything to ensure a Clinton loss. (not necessarily an Obama win, though, because I truly believe the man is unelectable).


    I wouldn't rush to that judgement. (none / 0) (#70)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    I don't believe he necessarily agrees with it.  The media will use it to yet again trash Al Gore and the storyline would be that "he is still bitter after 8 years".

    It's not fair, but Gore may work behind the scenes? or wait to let Michigan and Florida try all they can.  In all fairness, I think HRC's campaign should have pushed on this issue with ALL their might, and they didn't.  Let's hope that they have a plan.  


    He Is Above Hate (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:13:05 PM EST
    IMO, but I would imagine that given the treatment he got from HRC and WJC he would rather see Obama in the WH.

    disagree. (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:40:53 PM EST
    Given the treatment Al Gore got from Media and Bill Bradley (and guess in whose camp they are now?), it's likely that Gore will feel disgusted that Media wants to yet again choose the president.

    Plus, would any personal history blind his eyes to the irony of excluding Florida from counting??


    implying doesn't make it so! (none / 0) (#129)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:13:21 PM EST
    they keep that kind of talk up and gore just might embarrass them with a denial.

    Credible (none / 0) (#59)
    by trublueCO on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:39:09 PM EST
    is a point of interpretation. Pro-Clinton blogs will only see credible leaders as those who side with Clinton and Clinton talking points. Pro-Obama blogs will only view people who support him and his talking points as credible.

    I have a feeling that if JFK rose from the grave and threw his support behind Obama, he would no longer be seen as credible by Clinton supporters.

    Conversely, if FDR came out in support of Clinton, Obama supporters would question his credibility.

    If, once the convention has produced a nominee, we can't come back together as a party...our nominee will lose and so will the American people.


    I don't give much credence to endorsements (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:04:09 PM EST
    regardless of who's giving them. Many endorsements from former pres. candidates are due to promises made (political appointment in new administration, etc.) I do get disappointed, though, when big name endorsers give hard-to-substantiate reasons for their choices. Richardson's claims about Obama rang hollow for me, coming on the heels of the Wright fiasco. I think he's angling for VP.

    And sometimes people endorse because they are holding personal grudges against the other candidate.

    But I'm one of those "stupid" people Yglesias wrote about. How dare I base my preference on policy plans and past actions?


    He's already not credible in my book (none / 0) (#123)
    by BlueMerlin on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:10:47 PM EST
    a) Historical analysis has not been particularly flattering to him, public emotion notwithstanding
    b) His family dynasty haven't proven that great either.  It was mostly a big hype job.   Teddy is a partisan manipulative person who has several personal grudges against the Clintons.  

    OK, this is getting pretty silly (none / 0) (#18)
    by Knocienz on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:03:19 PM EST
    The post you cited was nothing other than a "If only voters would think strategically" lament about not having a nominee until very late.

    It is a rare open or political related thread on this site that goes by without several comments about how "Hillary will do better in the General" because of such and such and that to be strategic, more voters (and super delegates in particular) should make Hillary the nominee. That if voters were as wise as they were to see past the media's favoritism then they'd make the right choice.

    Waiting for BTD to call out those commenters for "disrespect for the voters"

    He's also the same guy (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:08:48 PM EST
    who wrote that Clinton won Ohio thanks to the racist vote. Enjoy.

    Your Can't Be Serious (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:25:26 PM EST
    Yglesias was rolling his eyes, with tongue firmly planted in cheek over the MSNBC poll.


    The Crucial Racist Vote

    20% thought race of the candidate was important 79% thought it was not.


    Tongue in cheek (none / 0) (#54)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    and rolling his eyes? Sorry if I missed that.

    Oh wait, I missed it because it's not there.


    Well If He (none / 0) (#66)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:41:16 PM EST
    Was making the argument and not dishing out snark why would the numbers he pulled from the MSNBC poll overwhelmingly contradict his title?

    Because I think he (none / 0) (#80)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:48:22 PM EST
    was referring to this:

    In deciding your vote for president today, was the race of the candidate:
    Category    % Total    Clinton    Obama
    Important    20    59    39
    Not important    79    53    45

    Not Exactly His Numbers (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:04:21 PM EST
    But close enough. In either case it hardly is an argument that this  was even remotely The Crucial Racist Vote

    The 79% number is the indicator of how the voters felt and they were equally dismissive that race was crucial regarding either candidates. (50/50)

    20% of those polled thought race was crucial. 57% of them thought it was crucial for Clinton 43% thought it was crucial for Obama.

    Hardly an argument that this was in any way The Crucial Racist Vote, regardless of how much MSNBC wanted it to be.


    Which is exactly (none / 0) (#120)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:09:06 PM EST
    why MY's post was so deplorable.

    He was calling Clinton voters racist. There was no tongue in the cheek or eye rolling whatsoever. He looked at that 59% number and concluded 'omg they are racists'.


    You are right (none / 0) (#166)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:34:46 PM EST
    Squeaky is wrong, imo of course.

    Wrong (none / 0) (#168)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:39:24 PM EST
    20% of those polled thought that race was a factor. That means that 11.8%  of Clinton voters in the MSNBC poll thought race was a factor while 6.8% Obama voters thought race was a factor.  

    If that is an argument that supports that this was The Crucial Racist Vote I do not get it. Yglesias may be losing his mind because due to drinking too much kool aid but he can't be so far gone to argue that 11.8% is in any way Crucial.

    Please correct me if I am missing something.  


    You Are Correct (none / 0) (#196)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:16:40 PM EST
    I read all the comments, and there is nothing to indicate that the post was remotely tongue in cheek.  Since I do not follow him, I found it hard to believe that anyone could make such an absurdly weak argument with a straight face. Evidentially he did. Unbelievable.

    If That was His Argument (none / 0) (#155)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:28:58 PM EST
    it would be pretty absurd.  Instead of the 59%, one could just as well argue that from the Race is Not Important numbers, 53% were Clinton and 45% were Obama, so Clinton voters were actually less racist.  Of course, a little common sense and knowledge of statistics tells you neither the 59% nor the 53% are the correct numbers to look at in the first place.

    No he was serious (none / 0) (#164)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:34:04 PM EST
    You are wrong Squeaky.

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:59:24 PM EST
    Then unless I misunderstood the numbers he posted, his argument is beyond weak, it is absurd.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:17:53 PM EST
    Yes, if voters were just as smart as MY, they would know better what they should do.

    This is riduclous. What of some "smart" Clinton commenter wrote that if Obama supporters were smart they would realize he is going to get killed in the GE and therefore they should vote for Clinton and thus force Obama out of the race?

    Or wrote that the SDs should think like that? Oh wait, we know what your reaction would be. Who the heck do you think you are kidding with this comment?

    Why do some of you come here and insult my intelligence? I ma heartily sick of it.


    If the voters were as smart as MY, they would (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:20:28 PM EST
    be saying what a huge threat Iran is, and how the President needs an AUMF to as a diplomatic tool.

    I'm pretty sure you've attacked this reasoning (none / 0) (#133)
    by Knocienz on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:17:25 PM EST
    That whole "Other people do it too so it is OK"

    I'm pretty sure that I haven't attacked a bunch of people on this site for thinking that they are disrespecting voters.I wasn't agreeing with Yglesias, simply pointing out that you seem to have stopped caring about the sin as much as which side the sinner is on; you clearly hate Obama supporters (I agree that they tend to be 'bad winners') and attack them for doing the same thing you let slide from Clinton supporters on a site you have editorial control over.

    If you are going to take the title of "Attacker of Obamabots" then that's reasonable; but I was under the impression you were proud of your original "I attack all sides equally for the stupidity" stance.


    What nonsense (none / 0) (#163)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:33:33 PM EST
    Can you cite WHERE I have stopped caring about the sin?

    You are just making it up now.

    You are dishonest and I will engage you no further.

    Enjoy the site.


    Does citing your absence count? (none / 0) (#201)
    by Knocienz on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:51:28 PM EST
    I used the word "seem" for a reason. I was throwing out a data point which you are certainly free to ignore. Specifically, that your anger/annoyance with the Obama supporters has caused you to focus on their behavior

    It is pretty hard to "cite" someone for NOT commenting on something (pretty much by definition) so I'll rephrase for clarity

    IMO every time someone argues that the Super Delegates should rescue the Democratic party from the voters (not to clear up ambiguity if delegates and popular vote were in conflict, but because Hillary would be a stronger candidate despite what the voters say) They are doing pretty much the same thing and I really don't see why one is so much worse than the other.

    Voters and people in general, disrespect one another all the time when they disagree. Sometimes they look for some other power to set the wrong one straight (God, Super Delegates, Party Elites), other times they just lash out and accuse people with comments like "You are dishonest and I will engage you no further."


    The voters are smart (none / 0) (#33)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:14:12 PM EST
    The system that says the smart people have to show up at a certain time, sit around for two hours before they can vote is stupid.

    You miss the point (none / 0) (#69)
    by badger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:42:32 PM EST
    Yglesias' thesis is not about strategy per se. It's summed up in his closing sentence:

    But people won't understand the dynamic unless it's explained to them by credible party leaders.

    The implicit assumption being that Clinton voters should only vote based on strategy and are too stupid to see what that strategy should be.

    Contrast that to the kind of post you're whining about, an example of which is jmac's post farther down the thread:

    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.

    That both acknowledges that voters are free to decide however they see fit and that strategy is an issue, but not necessarily everyone's issue.

    It's the difference between having respect for the process and voters and not having that respect.


    Aghh, yes (none / 0) (#95)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:56:03 PM EST
    the white male property owner argument...

    Remember kids, only SOME of us are bright enough to engage in thinking, and the rest of us should just be told how to vote (assuming we have the right to vote of course, which took another 150 or so years)


    credible did you say? frankly i (none / 0) (#135)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:17:47 PM EST
    see very little of that these days in the dem leadership. they have been nothing but a disappointment since 06. i am sure all of you have seen their poll numbers with the public. and now they are going to try and "force" their candidate down our throats? i see it that way. i don't like it and i think long term they'll have about as much success as they did in congress. hubris and arrogance usually doesn't have positive results.

    Isn't this the Super Delegate argument? (none / 0) (#156)
    by Knocienz on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:29:10 PM EST
    That if Obama wins the most delegates and the popular vote, the super delegates might need to correct for those voters' mistakes if they believe that Hillary is more likely to win the general election?

    Not in my opinion (none / 0) (#174)
    by badger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:48:12 PM EST
    Maybe somebody else holds that point of view. My point of view is that the candidate should be chosen in secret ballot primary elections held in every state, and that the superdelegates exist to resolve the outcome when the primaries don't produce a definitive result.

    Their votes are like the VP's vote in the Senate. Except that in the nomination process, candidates are required to get a majority, not a plurality, which I think is also reasonable given the purpose of the process (and historically has also been the requirement, even before primaries existed).


    This is nothing new. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Iphie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:04:07 PM EST
    We "low information" voters need to have things explained to us. S l o w l y.

    Then we'll understand, see the light and know that He is The One.

    Seriously, "credible party leaders" will explain it to us, so that we can "better understand?" Am I to take that as tacit acknowledgement that Matt is unable to make a strong enough argument for his candidate? He couldn't convince us by the power of his own logic, so he'll bring in the "leaders" to knock some sense into us? By suggesting that we find some other "credible" voice of authority to follow, is he admitting that his is not a credible voice?

    I think this is truly an (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Virginian on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    interesting study in power...

    Many of the netroots believe they have immense new political power. And now that they believe they've attained it, gone is the message of "PEOPLE POWERED POLITICS" and returned is the same message media elites and pols have pushed for many many long years..."power can only be trusted in our hands because we know best...if you understood why this is (though I cannot explain it) you would agree (to give up your power to me)."


    It's been very disappointing. (none / 0) (#203)
    by mm on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:27:46 PM EST
    Chris Matthews was asking rhetorically the other day whether the people of Pennsylvania understand that Clinton can't possibly catch up in pledged delegates.  He's going to make it his mission in life for the next four weeks to make sure they do.

    We're entering the next stage - demoralize Clinton supporters to the point that they stay home.

    The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.


    I think that this cycle proves... (none / 0) (#22)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:06:45 PM EST
    that Democrats are truly afraid of democracy.

    Too many different concepts of where and why votes don't count.

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#27)
    by tek on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:08:39 PM EST
    So where to turn?

    quote of the day. n/t (none / 0) (#75)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:45:58 PM EST
    Slightly OT, but I have a question about (none / 0) (#38)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:19:14 PM EST
    Obama's TV ads in Florida.
    Apparently there weren't just a small number---the airwaves in FL were saturated with these ads for a month before the primary.
    My first question is whether that's true.
    Second, I know that the Obamacans say that this we legit, because these were national ad buys. So.. how many national ad buys has Obama made since Jan. 29?
    Did the Obama campaign flout the rules by buying ads nationally (or regionally) so they could target Florida?

    It's not just Yglesias. Josh Marshall front-paged (none / 0) (#44)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:27:48 PM EST
    what he considers a "sage" comment

    What is shows me is that they finally starting... (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:51:01 PM EST
    ...taking seriously the notion that some Clinton supporters really won't vote for Obama. It wasn't as insulting as it could have been. He's now appealing to our better nature by crediting our "high mindedness" for not supporting Obama as opposed to our bigotry or stupidity. It's a start. I am at the place now where they won't get my vote unless they work for it. Even a couple of days ago I was a sure vote for Obama, but this new wave of Clinton blaming and bashing is just too dishonest for me to overlook. But I will NEVER vote for McCain.

    The Clinton (none / 0) (#148)
    by txchicanoforhillary on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:25:06 PM EST
    bashing and bad mouthing is a sticking point for me as well.  No one brings up the fact that Michelle Obama took a really low blow against Hillary at her "Women For Obama" luncheon in Chicago.

    And if anyone thinks that that doesn't matter guess again. I'm sure that BHO and MO are not far apart in their line of thinking.  She herself said that she "would consider" Hillary if she were to win the nomination.

    I can say that I will not consider BO for the election.  Sad but true.  Like you, I would never vote for McCain.  But I cannot vote for a "democrat" who will bash a party stalwart who has done more for the party than he has almost been alive.


    what continues to amaze me is this. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:22:02 PM EST
    these so called bloggers and pundits like ko think they have this great following and everyone listens for their next uttering with breathless wonder. geez, take a look at their real numbers compared to the general population. joe six pack and single mother mary don't give a darn what they think. they don't want to spend months debating racial issues or how obama's being a victim AGAIN. they want answers to the everyday problems. the disconnect between the elist media and dem leadership has grown even wider in this election.

    The turnaround criticism on Obama supporters (none / 0) (#48)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:30:33 PM EST
    will be totally lost, which is why I think he front-paged it. Easier to paint Clinton supporters as jack****s.

    Is Josh still claiming he's not pro-Obama? (none / 0) (#68)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    Only David Kurtz posted letters critical of Obama on the Wright affair. I can't remember when  I have seen Josh post an unsolicited comment from a Hillary supporter.

    JMM is crap (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by pluege on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:03:48 PM EST
    Marshall is highly overrated. His Iraq invasion support and boosterism until after the invasion should tell you all you need to know about his judgment. In addition to poor analytical capability leading to exercise of exceptionally poor judgment, his Obama worshiping also has demonstrated his propensity to dishonesty.

    At least the commenter holds both sides (none / 0) (#71)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 12:44:17 PM EST
    accountable. But it's just a shame what has happened at that site. If the sentiments had come from JMM himself it would have more power, IMO -- of course, I admit I might have considered it contradictory to everything else he has written recently. One glance at the News column on the right hand side of their page tells you everything is status quo (Bash Clinton) over there.

    I think that comment is right (none / 0) (#157)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:29:23 PM EST
    What is your objection?

    I will take a stab at a response.... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Oje on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:39:13 PM EST
    1. With a two party system, symbolic voting or abstention is a meaningful act. It shapes third-party candidacies and expresses disillusionment with the convergence of both parties. Josh might say the parties are so different this time, how could anyone object. But, many of us believe Obama has run a high personality, low policy campaign that is exactly like Republicans' strategy. Obama is winning by doing to our best policy candidate what Republicans did in the past--and like Republicans, not even disenfranchisement is beyond the pale.  So, even in Democrats' worst years, we still nominated policy wonks as a reality-based and party of governance. With Obama and McCain, policy discussions will be short and minimal. Neither have a strong grasp of economics or foreign policy. The choice between Republican and Democrat will become a rather infantile (to use Josh's word) game of personality politics. Voters might abstain for just that reason.

    2. The U.S. government is resilient. The courts move slowly. The president has limited power to recreate the executive branch in its own image. And, even after 8 years of misrule, our society continues on the leftward trajectory that became evident in the 1990s. The House and the Senate wins in 2006 put into place a balance, if only a weak one (no impeachment). If not for the tomfoolery of the media, foreign policy "experts,"  and the blogosphere, particularly the elements that advocated for war with Iraq (hmm, Josh), I doubt we would find ourselves in the situation we are in today. It is not the American people, but the American "creative class" that ails this country. Voting against or abstaining against their leadership is meaningful.

    3. A backlash against Obama could easily be Born in Flames. Josh Marshall, like Olbermann and many of the strategists in Obama's campaign, have a blind eye to gender inequity and sexism. If anything, the one Democratic group that has the power and the rationale to abstain or vote for a third party are women and gender equity advocates (of both sexes). It is just not possible to overlook the character of Obama's attacks on Clinton and the MSM's willful disparagement of Clinton in clearly misogynistic phraseology. The posters reference to 1968 is ironic, because it was only a few years earlier that the second wave feminist movement came to light out of a fractious and masculinist Democratic party and civil rights movement. Voting against or abstaining against misogyny in the Democratic party is not only meaningful, but essential. Josh's dismissiveness of women as exhibiting "emotional infantilism" speaks volumes, about himself and the characters behind Obama's campaign.

    That is a start.

    OT - Point of Order (none / 0) (#107)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:03:24 PM EST
    What happens to users who spread 1s about indiscriminately?

    They look foolish? (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:08:12 PM EST
    Nothing (none / 0) (#151)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:26:58 PM EST
    Ratings are meaningless here.

    You're twisting MY's comments (none / 0) (#146)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:23:51 PM EST
    He didn't call any voters stupid. His argument is that if more democratic voters were aware of the improbable odds of Hillary emerging as the nominee, then they might see the value in ending the contest now as opposed to at the convention. We can probably assume, fairly safely, that there is a substantial percentage of the democratic electorate that doesn't have a strong preference for either candidate. Those who may have some slight preference for Hillary but who could also happily vote for Obama are those who Matt's argument could reasonably reach.

    Really? (none / 0) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:26:30 PM EST
    He just called them ignorant, not stupid. Sooo much better.

    Do you agree with reports (none / 0) (#159)
    by digdugboy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:30:56 PM EST
    from Clinton advisors that Hillary has only a 10% chance of getting the nomination now?

    Let's assume for the sake of argument that this is correct, and that PA voters are unaware, or ignorant, of this fact. If they were aware of it, do you think that some of the voters might see the value of voting for Obama, even though they may slightly favor Hillary?

    Do you think the democratic party is better served by a fight on the convention floor for the nomination?


    That was a report (none / 0) (#179)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:52:16 PM EST
    that cited one anonymous advisor who supporterd the thesis of the article, and cited others who "echoed" the comment. That's hardly a wholesale admission of defeat from Hillary's team.

    And yes, I will agree that she has an uphill battle. That's what primaries are for. An uphill battle is not the same as an impossibility. And for myself, I see Obama as someone who is used to having stuff handed to him. Arguing that your opponent should drop out in the middle of a tight campaign, and saying that she is destroying the party by having the audacity to campaign  against you, is really weak.

    Again, right now Obama holds a lead of one-half of one percent of pledged delegates. That's hardly a landslide. And as we've seen from the Edwards delegates who jumped to Obama in Iowa (nice to see them representing the will of the voters) things can change.


    I think she has slim to none chances (none / 0) (#180)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    now. I have stated that OPINION. It is not up to me or you to impose OUR opinions on voters. They get to decide, not me, you or Nancy Pelosi.