Post Of The Day

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

I tell you, today is quite a day in the blogs. Look at what Chris Bowers writes today:

Clinton's primary coalition thus far has been largely kept afloat by older Reagan Dems who also tend to be white southern Baptists. And yes, they also tend to be older, as exit polls have shown. . . . I don't care if Democrats never make up any ground among Reagan Democrats ever, as long as we lock up the support of expanding groups like the creative class, white non-Christians, Latinos and Asians for a generation. . . . While Clinton's advantage among Latinos and Asians does not make it a perfect match, Obama's primary coalition is far closer to the coalition we need for an expanding future of the Democratic Party, while Clinton's primary is a lot more like the coalition we have been chasing after for the past twenty-five years or so. . . .

Yep. Except for those pesky Latinos and, of course those older women, and white working class men - I hate the Clinton coalition and I love the way Obama does not make appeals to Reagan Democrats. Why yes, that is what I really love about Obama - the way he is sharply partisan against the Republicans and has not run one of those Unity Schtick campaigns to appeal to Reagan Democrats. Heck never would Obama even say a word of praise of Reagan EVER. And Republicans? No where to be seen in that Obama coalition. Nosirree.

Some things can not be parodied. More

BTW, I think the point Chris was trying to make, that chasing "Values Voters" is futile and stupid, is one I agree with. It was the point of my post What Obama Needs To Learn. It is hilarious that Obama's pandering to "values Voters" has been such a futile failure.

Update (TL): Comments now closed.

< The Crying Wolf Syndrome | Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by plf1953 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:13:25 PM EST
    We (or guys like Ackerman and Bowers) are living in alternate universes.

    Okay wait. (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:14:40 PM EST
    Did I miss something?

    Was there a huge migration of Southern White Baptists to New York, California, Ohio?

    And how come Clinton lost in Georgia - arguably the most Southern White Baptist State next to South Carolina and Alabama where he also won?

    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:21:33 PM EST

    And you know Obama never ONCE made an appeal to Spouthern Baptists, never ONCE appeared with one of those Mega Vangelists.

    And Gawd knows that's where the Reagan Dems are.


    Obama isn't chasing Reagan Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:14:30 PM EST
    he chasing Reagan Republicans! - pushing them to "be a Democrat for a day" then switch back to Republican in Nov.
    This strategy has helped Obama win votes now, but how does it help him win the general?
    Or perhaps when Obama first began the strategy last summer - he thought by now the entire country would have fallen under his spell?

    Reality interrupted. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:15:31 PM EST
    Roast that post, BTD! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:14:47 PM EST

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    I like Chris, I really do, but come on. That was just too much.

    well, you know (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Turkana on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:15:39 PM EST
    she isn't winning "the creative class." think i'll have business cards made with that as my title...

    Yes! I will propose to my curriculum (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:19:21 PM EST
    committee a new course that oughta just bring in all those non-Christians in droves:

    XXX 101: The Creative Class Class

    And shall we all now gather 'round to do a draft syllabus?  Suggest yer readings here, yer assignments, yer midterm and final exam questions -- as well as, of course, the final grading formula to determine who gets to pass The Creative Class Class.


    I think satire sites (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:23:52 PM EST
    such as A-list blogs are the "cookbook" for creative classism.

    Creativity Lesson 1:  How to convincingly embrace things you previously shunned and shun things you previously embraced and actually believe yourself -- now that takes some creativity!

    I'll leave the rest for you.


    Aha. The required text will be (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    Crashing the Cognitive Dissonance Gate for the Creative Class: Convincing Your Audience and Yourself That You Did Not Say the Direct Opposite Yesterday.

    Heh (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:41:26 PM EST
    I can ace that course.

    We gave you a waiver (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:56:45 PM EST
    of this required course, because we want you to be the adjunct instructor.  But being of the creative class as you are, we're open to a more special title to make you feel really, really important.

    But no parking permit.  Plug the meter or take your parking ticket like the rest of us teachers.


    Explosive comment of the day. (none / 0) (#41)
    by katiebird on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:41:39 PM EST

    Another topic (none / 0) (#49)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:45:40 PM EST
    Creativity Lesson 2: Jews for Buchannan and Reagan Democrats for Hillary.

    Another lesson could be "How to Caucus and (none / 0) (#55)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:51:02 PM EST
    Get the Results You Want!"

    To be followed by the next exercise (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:53:38 PM EST
    i.e., Or, If Not the Results You Want, How to Not Report Them to the Texas Secretary of State.

    And assignments will be graded (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:51:26 PM EST
    in no small part on ability to master and demonstrate Reaganesque "communication skills."

    The more I look at Reagan Democrats (none / 0) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:51:29 PM EST
    the more I see them as the "creative class".

    This should be at minimum (none / 0) (#47)
    by Virginian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:44:38 PM EST
    graduate level...18 year olds can handle it IMO...

    Yeh, actually (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:59:14 PM EST
    we find that 18-year-olds excel at resolving cognitive disssonance. They do so by blogging about it, blaming it on their parents and every other baby boomer in sight, and then they feel all better and have a beer.

    Of course, need we point out (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:00:41 PM EST
    that it's from their parents' special six-pack of imported beer that they were saving. So what? Darn boomers and their sense of beer-entitlement.

    Wine (none / 0) (#83)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:04:50 PM EST
    Not a beer, a glass of wine.

    Not where I am in Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:29:29 PM EST
    It's beer, beer, beer.  

    We do lattes, but only with our bratwurst and sauerkraut.


    Hey now...easy...I STILL blame my parents! (none / 0) (#96)
    by Virginian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:12:09 PM EST
    WTF is the "creative class" (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:28:27 PM EST
    I've heard the term bandied about but don't quite know who its supposed to refer to. It rather sounds like an elitist term to me. I've got creative friends, and they aren't a "class" in the economic sense. Can anyone help me out here?

    I'm not sure, but (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:35:00 PM EST
    I may be in it.  One thing though is while I appreciate the fact that Obama's graphics are better than pretty much any political graphics I've ever seen - and he wears great suits - and his ads are good - those things aren't defining issues for me where it comes to my politics.

    Technically, I think Hillary's site is better ... (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:40:25 PM EST
    I'm always getting lost on Obama's site.  I recently had to click through four different pull down menus in search of one of his vaunted speeches. Then do a search.  I still couldn't find it.

    Finally, I googled it.

    But Obama's site is very pretty though.


    User Interface Design (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:22:09 PM EST
    Is more science than creativity. That's why Hillary's site is so easy to navigate: None of those pesky 'creatives' touched the navigation.

    Obama, however, lets everybody hope their way through his site. :-D


    I'm a Web editor (none / 0) (#188)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:04:07 PM EST
    so I spend a lot of time on the Internet even when I'm working (have to go to the source to fact-check and do reasearch and stuff).

    I think Obama's Web site is very poorly laid out and hard to navigate, but I have been informed it's because I am partisan for Clinton, it because I know anything about Web navigation.

    The only thing I would change on her Web site is to add a prominent link to her Senate site.


    Ha! (none / 0) (#158)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:19:48 PM EST
    But he is inspirational.  You had to find your way by inspiration, and perhaps you were lacking in creativity.  

    I swear, they don't want people to pay attention to his positions, they are focusing on personality.


    Bloggers think they ... (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:36:02 PM EST
    belong to it.


    Seriously, it's a blanket term that includes those in the arts and those in other creative professions like graphic designers and such.

    Personally, I hate the term.  Even though I belong to this group.


    Thats not how bloggers are applying it though (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Virginian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:42:22 PM EST
    its is being applied to IT workers, entrepreneurs, journalists (arguably correctly applied there when they just "make-stuff-up"), anyone who reads blogs, etc....

    I'll take your word for it ... (none / 0) (#62)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:52:45 PM EST
    then I don't think I belong.

    Because I actually do make stuff up for a living.

    Phew, that's a load off my mind.  


    It's probably you (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by eric on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:43:55 PM EST
    It's a term invented by Dr. Richard Florida.  Read all about it HERE.

    Basically, it is a class of people that work in "knowledge intensive" jobs in post-industrial America.  If you drive a Saab or a Volvo and drink lattes, you are in it.

    BTW, I am in it and I support Hillary.


    Me too! (none / 0) (#106)
    by otherlisa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:19:33 PM EST
    But I drive a Mini Cooper, does that count?

    I drive a Jetta (none / 0) (#113)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:23:17 PM EST
    I think that is a cross between a mini and a volvo.

    my definition (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by joei on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:51:49 PM EST
    of obama supporters -- the ones who first bought apple iphone before it came out before the price drop and plenty of bug fixes. :)

    Funniest line yet...... (none / 0) (#63)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:53:15 PM EST
    That's a wonderfully clever and ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:54:36 PM EST
    round about way of calling them stupid.

    AACK (none / 0) (#117)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:24:38 PM EST
    I bought the phone a few months after it came out because I was going on a trip and didn't want to bring my laptop for email. Best money I spent in a while -- until Jobs doubled the memory. Eeesh. Now I'm going to wait until it has GPS.

    Aha. Known as "first adopters" (none / 0) (#85)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:06:15 PM EST
    or "early adopters" on the adoption-of-innovation curve.

    This does absolutely explain it.  This is the group that defines cool.  If they buy it, it's cool.

    They were the first to "adopt" Obama and buy the unity shtick, thus making it cool.

    Of course, studies track how fast cool becomes uncool, because it is requisite for first adopters to abandon what they have defined as cool as soon as others adopt it.  A problem for the Obama campaign, there. . . .


    oh, (none / 0) (#162)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:24:08 PM EST
    this cries for a link to Salon article, very snarky and very funny about a young Obama supporter abandoning him since he is now past cool.  

    I am too lazy to give a link. sorry.


    It was Slate (none / 0) (#202)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:43:04 PM EST
    It's not you, it's me

    Why no one pays attention to me?? (none / 0) (#159)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:22:16 PM EST
    whine whine..

    I have said exactly the same thing about his campaign.  It reminds me exactly of i-phone marketing.

    No one knows what they are getting, but everyone wants one.


    No no no.... (none / 0) (#205)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:53:14 PM EST
    I wont let Obama supporters co-opt my iPhone love.  Can't I have anything?

    iPhones are like Hillary - beautiful, practical, smartest on the block.


    Creative Class = Anyone Who Votes For Obama (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:07:27 PM EST
    If you vote for Clinton, no matter what you do, you do not belong to the creative class.

    All that aside, here from a post on Open Left  is a definition of the Creative Class:

    God knows there is nothing wrong with a little old-fashioned working-class populism, as I have advocated many times in my day. But I don't see how it adds any working-class voters to the Clinton cause, and it has great potential to drive your numbers down among what some of us call creative-class voters (those who work in universities, the arts, media, high-tech and in small businesses like architecture, engineering and law firms), many of whom are still wavering as to whom to vote for.

    I think the reason I'm voting for Hillary then (none / 0) (#122)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:26:05 PM EST
    is because I'm a creative person who loves hard science fiction. Larry Niven, Pournelle, Pohl. I wonder who they are voting for?

    Everytime I hear... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Alvord on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:32:21 PM EST
    the term "creative class" it reminds me of that jerk Larry Kudlow on CNBC. He used to talk forever about the "investor class".

    I don't know what the creative class is but it sounds pretentious and I don't like it.


    Interpretive Dance rebuttal to hit YouTube shortly (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Ellie on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:11:01 PM EST
    Where do they get these goofy analyses slash criticisms anyway?

    :: whammy jammy South Asian tone poem ::

    And why do these criticisms so desperately hinge on the votes or support HRC does get as being somehow "wrong"?

    :: tabla solo ending in gong-chorus ::

    Will the Obama votes in the GE be decked out in little outfits from the latest spring lines and HRC's schlumpfing into the ballot box wearing Mom Jeans? Acid Washed Mom Jeans???

    :: refurbished Champ sample ::
    :: fading high hat ::

    (Folding downwards, backwards into a ball and tiny foetal jazz hands.)


    I have no clue (none / 0) (#138)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:46:52 PM EST
    what this means. As such, rated with a 5.


    : returning to the fetal position now :


    I'm not that creative but I loved it. (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:49:10 PM EST
    You're not supposed to have a clue. (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:31:09 PM EST
    It's interpretive dance.

    But you're still supposed to clap enthusiastically.  As if it gave you an epiphany.


    This entire thread (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:17:56 PM EST
    is wonderful.

    Ugh (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:18:02 PM EST
    those pesky Latinos!  Is there any possible way we could construct a coalition that doesn't include them?  (It's a rhetorical question, no points for saying "we could nominate Obama.")

    Chris is a very smart guy but these folks need to get over the idea that a winning national coalition is something you tinker with in Frankenstein's lab.  You don't go around throwing groups by the wayside, saying "we'll just replace them with this group instead!"  You take whatever you can get in this business.

    Maybe once the Democrats win a few more elections I'll feel confident in declaring that we don't need the seniors any more, or things of that sort.

    You just do not get it Steve (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:20:00 PM EST
    It's a "creative class" thing.

    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by plf1953 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:24:33 PM EST
    You know these guys and probably talk to them off-line, or at least, privately online.

    What is going on with them?

    Are they really Kool-aid drinkers, are they vying for spots in the Obama administration, are they trying to become mainstream "journalists," or what?


    Actually I agree with (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:27:33 PM EST
    the point Chris is actually trying to make, that "values voters" are impervious. See the addition to my post. The problem is he took his aim at the wrong candidate.

    You don't expect him... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Alvord on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:34:07 PM EST
    ...to take aim at Obama do you?

    Sometimes he does (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:34:46 PM EST
    But Reagan Democrats ... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:01:51 PM EST
    aren't "values voters."  Quite the opposite.

    They're white, ethnic Northern and Midwesterners.  They usually belong to UNIONS.  

    They're part of the old FDR coalition.  And we do need them back.

    Not just for their votes.  They're good for the party for a whole host of other reasons.


    The definition I saw (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:08:52 PM EST
    was that they're also middle class who feel that the poor have gotten all the breaks (I laugh as I write this).

    (mandates, we don't need no stinkin' mandates!)

    So maybe Obama and Hillary are splitting the Reagan Democrats.


    They're proved pretty darn good (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:09:24 PM EST
    for the country, too, over the long term. Work ethic and all that. Not always good on social issues, but they can be reached. And once with you, they're loyal . . . unlike the "creative class" that has to keep having the newest thing to be cool.

    Loyalty to the 'creative class' (none / 0) (#109)
    by felizarte on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:21:18 PM EST
    it would seem is only loyalty to them and not a two-way street. And yet, it seems so confusing that they do not seem to notice the possibility that whom they have perceived to be' worthy' of them, may not all be pure.

    I like Hillary.  With her, 'What you see is what you get' and to a graphic artists, that is saying everything.


    How can any of what he wrote be valid (none / 0) (#102)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:16:16 PM EST
    when he doesn't even understand who the "Reagan Democrats" were?  You're absolutely right, the Democratic party needs them back in a bad way.

    God (none / 0) (#28)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:33:59 PM EST
    You are SO pesky sometimes.

    And hot-tempered!

    But I freely admit that I am completely uncreative.


    No wonder I voted for Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:18:11 PM EST
    I am a middle-aged Latina! I had no choice!  And thought I made a judgment on the merits!  Not to mention my apparently delusional belief that I was a liberal instead of a Reagan Democrat.
    Silly me.

    I wonder (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by katiebird on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:20:33 PM EST
    where a 50-year-old Portuguese female Web Developer fits in?

    I guess it's my age:  it drove me to her.....


    Sigh (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by zyx on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:51:57 PM EST
    I might volunteer for Clinton if she goes as far as our state primary in May, and the thought of making phone calls terrifies me.  And our state will probably be more of an Obama state.  I have a schtick going on with my stepdaughter about how people will yell at me about calling them at home, and how I'm "probably a bitter woman who is over 50! With short hair!"...and so on.

    Hey, me bitter?  Only when I look at what my retirement funds have done in the last seven years, and a few things like that.


    please do what you can. (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by ghost2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:26:35 PM EST
    drops add up to oceans.

    Plus (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:20:42 PM EST
    you're obviously just not, you know, in the creative class. Whatever that means.

    Absolutely "non-creative" (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:35:17 PM EST
    I am a lawyer -- like both Clinton and Obama.

    I think he's thinking (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:20:37 PM EST
    more about TV demographics than about voters.

    They are getting more and more confused by the day.  

    damn! (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:24:46 PM EST
    i knew it would happen! i spend 30 odd years honing my professional accounting skills, instead of going into stand-up comedy. thousands of hours of classes/study/on the job, etc. had i but taken the easy (and more profitable) way, the material writes itself!

    is there anything these people won't do or say? have they no shame? clinton wins convincingly: she's a hack, a monster, a divisive/polarizing personality. she loses, in states that, for the most part, will go mccain in nov. and..............she's a hack, a monster, a divisive/polarizing personality.

    clinton runs a tough campaign; she's so ambitious she'll do anything to win. obama is a saint, he picks bugs off the road, moves them to the side so they don't get run over. the only reason he's running is because so many millions came to his house and begged him to.

    unf*ing believable. she wins two big states, and a small one, out of 4, she should quit? huh? what "through the looking glass" logic drives these people?

    i have no illusions about sen. clinton, she's hardly the perfect democratic candidate. of course, there's never been a perfect democratic candidate, but i digress. however, when all is said and done, i'll take clinton for $100 alex.

    I didn't get the memo (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:28:22 PM EST
    Am I supposed to support Obama - being an under 40,Catholic, highly educated girl from the birthplace of Reagan Democrat country - Macomb County, MI? I'm so confused - can somebody help me with my identity?

    I think I need a hug (or therapy)....

    See, if you really were in the creative class (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:11:49 PM EST
    you would not need a hug or therapy for your self-affirmation. Having the latest cell-phone would do it.

    Speaking of crazy posts... (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by znosaro on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:29:18 PM EST
    Did anyone read this in Roll Call magazine yesterday? (speaking of voters who said race was important in their decision splitting 54-46 for Hillary)

    "Clearly, this represents white prejudice against Obama because he is an African-American and not the racial solidarity that regularly wins him 90 percent of the African-American vote."

    It was said, apparently, without any irony.  Is there really some kind of psychoactive Obama kool-aid these people are drinking?  I always thought we were kidding about that...

    If there is any racial backlash from non-blacks (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by felizarte on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:54:11 PM EST
    Obama's supporters bear much responsibility for this.  Although Barack carefully cultivated his "transcendental" image carefully in the beginning, once the AA community went all out for him, then pressuring other AA for supporting Clinton out of the goodwill established for decades, this had the effect of making Obama the AA candidate.  The genie is out of the bottle; impossible to put it back in.

    If race as an issue is to be dismissed, there won't be any reason to say: "he will win such state because there is a sizeable AA pool of voters," or "large latino voters," "white males," "white women," etc.

    It is reality and there is no way any group of voters can be wished away.


    Prejudice and Solidarity (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:30:07 PM EST
    This irony brought to you by Active-On. Apply directly to the hindbrain!

    What? Oh my gawd that's stupid. (none / 0) (#51)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:48:04 PM EST
    Ugh...logic just seems to have gone out the window (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Virginian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:30:01 PM EST
    this primary season. A lot of left blogs just seem to base everything off of disjointed logical arguments, false arguments, lies, half-truths, and even bad statistics/data (some just made up)...it is really becoming hard to stomach...more so because as BTD (or others) points out the hypocrisy or flaws in the argument, it is always met with deniers...

    I believe Illinois (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:41:22 PM EST
    is above the Mason-Dixon line. We do have some Southern Baptist.

    This I do not like....

    One of the reasons is that Reagan Dems are still voting, and still on the brink of swinging not only the 2008 general election, but also the 2008 primary for the same stupid, racist reasons that they put Republicans in power back in the last quarter of the 20th century .

    Is he calling all Reagan Dems racist?

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:42:29 PM EST
    He is calling Clinton supporters racist basically.

    It's part of the oddness in some ... (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:48:15 PM EST
    Obama supporters.  The famous "exclusionary we."

    We are the we, but you are not the we.


    and old and dumb (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:58:46 PM EST
    That's how I hear it ... (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:06:10 PM EST
    and beyond being odd and amusing.  There's a tinge of scariness to it.  A tinge of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.

    Psst, don't tell 'em (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:15:46 PM EST
    that, as too many of us have found out to our shock, that Obama is less than three years away from automatically getting AARP invitations in the mail.

    Yep, folks, AARP will find you when you turn 49.  My IRS forms went astray when I moved, but AARP had no problem following me from address to address with assiduity.  And really ruining my 49th birthday.


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:46:56 PM EST
    I got AARP stuff in the mail when I left my part time job teaching horse riding at UCDavis -- they technically retired me.

    I was 23, I believe. Made me laugh really hard.


    AARP is scraping the bottom of the barrel (none / 0) (#169)
    by wasabi on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:33:49 PM EST
    My son who is 16 got some literature from them.

    oh I'm not amused (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:19:14 PM EST
    and I think there is real problem long term for the Party, the none fringe Republicans gave up their Party to their fringe for power lets see what Dems do with the same challenge.  

    Ed Rendell is a good Dem Party leader; hello electoral votes not pledged delegates...ding ding he on CNN.


    Oh snap! (none / 0) (#136)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:44:55 PM EST
    That's strange, cause I was just thinking the same thing.  

    This is how someone described her base today: (none / 0) (#204)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:49:55 PM EST
    The uneducated whites, malheureusement, who make up Hillary's base, voting, and apparently, here online.

    I knew it would be just a matter of time (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by felizarte on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:44:23 PM EST
    before what began as a whisper in some quarters:  ". . . but  emperor has no clothes on . . ." would resonate.  Hillary's wins on March 4 certainly reset the clock and people have a little facts and observations to flesh out Barack Obama as a would be commander in chief, CEO of the most powerful country in the world, and Chief Diplomat.  His image is morphing into a common politician.  If the MSM and the incredible funds at his disposal could not win him Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island, what will?  No wonder his team and supporters are beside themselves!

    This really is the "Post of the Day." (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:48:05 PM EST
    I am LMAO.  Hmmmm....let's see, 50ish white babe, NEVER goes to church, disliked Ronald Raygun and everything he stood for....I could go on but won't.  We are living in an alternate universe.

    Older but (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:23:57 PM EST
    much of the same bio. Wisconsin, army brat, loathed Reagan, left the Catholic Church years ago, always voted Democrat and have always been told I was very "creative". I considered myself a values voter, my values, not anyone else's.

    What am I then? Which nice little round hole are we square pegs supposed to fit into?

     I am an old white woman that voted for Hillary in the Primary but anyone that calls me a Reagan anything had best be prepared to learn a few of the expletives I learned over a long and colorful relationship with the English language.


    Woe is me (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by miriam on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:53:16 PM EST
    I am so ashamed.  I voted for the wrong candidate.  But how was I to know that being economically upper middle class by virtue of graduate degrees, and being a published author, and being a lapsed Presbyterian I was demographically bound to vote for Obama?  The only saving face factor left to me is that I'm reasonably certain I am not alone in committing this faux pas.  

    Well I had zero idea (none / 0) (#71)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:56:51 PM EST
    that I was a Southern Baptist.  You learn something new everyday...

    I Was Really Surprised To Find Out That I Was (none / 0) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:24:30 PM EST
    even religious let alone Southern Baptist. My Catholic mother must be spinning in her grave at my conversion.

    Not real sure how I fit in with being a Reagan Dem since I really, really disliked his presidency. But I though Obama said Reagan was a great transformational president who provided clarity, optimism and  a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:31:49 PM EST
    I've already decided that the Creative Class==the Reagan NeoDemocrats.  

    NeoDems (none / 0) (#135)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:44:12 PM EST
    Great term!

    I Never Knew (5.00 / 11) (#72)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:58:18 PM EST
    This primary season has been a tough experience for me in so many ways. This is going to be long - I need to vent.  

    I'm a 50 yr old woman.  I've been a proudly liberal feminist all my life, and while I admire Hillary and Bill Clinton often found them too conservative for my politics. Perhaps because I knew they were not as liberal as the right made them out to be, I defended them extra hard in the 90's. After all, if they were too liberal for the 'mainstream', then what was I? I was happy and proud to see Hillary elected to the Senate, even though I do not always agree with her, most notably on her Iraq vote.  But during those years when she would be on TV explaining the issues I was very impressed with her ability to answer any question on the fly, and realized I had not known her at all for all of these years. When Obama came on the scene I was as moved by his convention speech as everyone else and hoped that some day he would be the electable liberal I had been waiting for. I was disappointed as a couple of years went by and he seemed like just another centrist, not even trying to get us out of Iraq or speaking out strongly against the constitutional abuses like Dodd did.

    When Hillary announced her run for the presidency I cringed inside because I knew what the press coverage would be like, but waited to see the competition. I hoped in vain for Gore, was glad Kerry sat it out, glad Edwards and Dodd entered, and was very surprised when Obama entered the race so soon after his election to the Senate.  

    Without Gore in the race I really had no preference until the debates started. Once again, Hillary impressed me the most with her intellect and command of every issue, but I was closer to Edwards on the issues and liberal firebrand style. I thought of Obama as having great potential, but clearly not ready for prime time, especially after he pledged to meet with all of those dictators in the first year in office.  I could see the Republican attack ads in my head, and discounted his candidacy.

    Then came Iowa.  Until Clinton lost there, and the ensuing media and liberal blogosphere pile-on, I did not realize the depth of the misogyny in this society, especially among liberals, for god's sake! The liberal blogosphere seemed mostly united behind Obama, even though in my view he is no more liberal than Clinton. It still makes no sense to me, and I suppose it is based solely on his Iraq war stance. At any rate, bloggers and media were not content to fluff Obama, they also had to attack Clinton. I felt I had to defend her in all kinds of forums, and quickly became a partisan on her side. What put me over the edge was the Obama camp's successful effort to paint the Clintons as racists. If such a thing can happen to Bill and Hillary Clinton, it can happen to anyone.  I am quite sure they will never forgive Obama for that. I know I won't.

    Now I see that as a woman past the age of 30 I am put aside as 'old', and possibly even a Reagan Democrat!! Not worthy of the attention or respect of a popular 'young' (only 4 yrs younger than I) god like Obama, and his hipper than hip followers. Imagine my surprise.

    I am seriously rethinking my politics these days, and feel the Dem party is no place for me. I've never thought we really needed a third party, but I am leaning that way now. I'll vote for Obama if he is the nominee, but I'm sorry I have to do it with a heavy heart and not the excitement I would have felt if his supporters could have won without trashing women and the only Democratic political family in recent memory that has won the presidency, and took the heat for all liberals at great personal cost. They deserve some respect for that, not attacks from liberals.

    It really did not have to be this way.

    I'll add... (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:04:31 PM EST
    After reading other comments in the same vein, I left something out - I am a software engineer and always saw myself as a member of the creative class.  Again, imagine my surpise to find I can't possibly any of the things I always thought I was.  

    I'm also quite hot, I might add. Anyone would take me for an Obama-babe.


    It makes more sense (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    When you realize you're not just talking about two candidates and their supporters but two groups of consultants and aspiring consultants fighting over money.

    Edgar, this is too true ... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:15:00 PM EST
    I think I'm just going to put my head on my keyboard now and cry.

    Remember issues?

    Oh, right, we're not supposed to talk about those anymore.


    except for the third party stuff - (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by otherlisa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:24:51 PM EST
    - I could have written this post (though I doubt as eloquently). It exactly describes my progression during this primary season. Gore to Edwards to Clinton, doubts and all.

    I'm not ready to take the 3rd party route but am thinking that advocacy in issues rather than candidates might be the path I'll take in the future.

    I've been lurking here for a while because it's one of the few "progressive" blogs I can actually stomach any more.


    I was referring to Ruffian's post (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by otherlisa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:25:52 PM EST
    Sorry for the confusion.

    Just realized (5.00 / 6) (#145)
    by Foxx on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:55:48 PM EST
    reading this (and thank you), that the painting of the Clintons as racists is Swift-boating.

    Take a war hero and paint him a coward. Take people committed anti-racists their whole lives and paint them racist.


    Dem party (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by wasabi on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:38:10 PM EST
    Please stay in our party.  We NEED people like you!  My story is the same as yours...

    thank you, I will (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    Thanks for everyone being so supportive.  I'll stay a Democrat even though the DNC won't count my Florida vote. Don't get me started on that!!

    Oh, my, ruffian (none / 0) (#164)
    by katiebird on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:28:39 PM EST
    I was slower than you, but the progression was very similar.  Same-ish doubts about Bill not being quite liberal enough.  But fiercely protective of him as he was trashed.  In fact, my first falling-out with NPR was when I realized no one there was defending him at all.  I might as well have been listening to right-wing talk radio for the way NPR reporters talked about the Clinton administration.

    And the Gore, Edwards thing. My first flutter was the debate where Edwards & Obama seemed to gang up on Hillary.  My husband and I were so impressed with her -- the way she handled herself & her answers.

    I really thought/assumed that my support of Hillary would be of the hold-my-nose level of commitment.  But I've been impressed with her more with each exposure.

    I've watched several of her town halls and read through the materials on her website.  And I'm really comfortable & happy with my support for her candidacy.


    Funny about NPR (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:56:22 PM EST
    I had that happen too.  Like a good little liberal I used to wake up with NPR every morning.  Then at some point I realized my blood pressure was rising before I even got out of bed.  So I switched over to XM radio Air America - loved Mark Maron.  then they canned him, and after a few permutations it went to The Young Turks, and I liked them a lot also, for a while.  After Air America let them go I could not stand Bill Press, so I even went through a lot of trouble to hook up my computer to my bedroom speakers (actually, not that much trouble since I am also a Mac user - see?  I really fit the Obama profile) to get their podcast and listen to that in the morning,  Now they are so much in the tank for Obama that I can hardly listen to them either.    So I listen to them until they start going overboard on trashing Hillary, and then switch to Taylor Marsh's podcast!!!

    I realize that some criticism of Hillary is justified, and do not mind that.  But they get into calling her voters ill -informed and stupid, etc.  and deliberately mis-state some key facts.  In Cenk Uygar's defense, I have sent him some letters and he does respond positively and acknowledge errors, which is why I keep listening.

    I did not comment on issues because that was not the topic of the post, but like you I have listened and read the totality of her views and truly believe that she is the best qualified to be president.  That was one of the reasons I was so sad after Iowa.  I felt (feel) like we have a chance to elect a very qualified person who can pull us out of the messes we are in as a nation, and instead we are rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking ship.  After the ship is righted I will be all for Obama or someone else to point it in another direction and get us there.  But you can't steer a sinking ship.  I can't help but think we are making a huge mistake.


    What? (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by CentristDemocrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:59:29 PM EST
    Hi I'm new here, I've been reading for a whie, but this is my first post.

    First, I'm an Asian American, and is there some sort of confusion going on here? The post claimed that they wanted to build a new "multi-ethnic" Democratic coalitient, which includes, Latinos, African, and Asian Ameriacns as well as "progressive whites."

    Well as far as I know, Clinton has crushed Obama with Latinos and Asian Americans, Obama has African Americans who almost blindly vote for him irrespecitve of what he says, and Obama has the far-left and he' essentially 'data-mined' the youth vote.

    But Clinton has 2/3 major non-white ethnicities under her belt, and i should poitn out, that several RAND studies have stated that Latino Ameriacns are going to be 1/3 of the US population in the future, BUT Asian Ameriacns in a few decades will be close to 10 - 12% of the US population, which is what the African American population will be at in a few decades; and Asians have higher-per capita income then African Americans, do not underestimate their influence, which has been virtually invisible till now.

    That being said, it is very disqueiting to see that Barack Obama cannot win convincingly in either the Asian or Latino American groups in most of these primaries. As far as I can tell, that could cost him California and the South-West.

    And your not going to get those voters by ultra-left candidate.... Asian Americans don't support affirmative actions (especially in California) which screws them immensely, both Latino and Asian Americans are usually strong on small-buisness, and both groups would probably find it difficult to support an anti-buisness far-left candidate.

    I don't think the solution is positiong even MORE leftist then we already are. Clinton (Bill) was a moderate democrat, he didn't go bat-butz liberatrian, but he wasn't some sort of central-organizer socialist either. He promoted both Latino and Asian-Americans in his administration and attempted to cater to some of their agendas.

    This is where I see there being conflict... cause far-left "progressives" and African Americans, by-in-large would be diametrically opposed to the postions of Latino and Asian Americans. In some sense, what we're seeing is a conflict between the Old-Leftist Democratic party (African Americans and "progresives" (a la Teddy Kennedy demorat) and the newer democrats who are much more up-wardly mobile and centrist.

    If the democrats can't hold the center, they won't win period. And I think that is why your seeing the schism currently (other then teh fact that alot of people just don't buy Obama's high-handed rhetoric).

    A last note: I'm not sure what the "Creative class" means, but I'm a college graduate and soon-to-be graduate student... I studied Mathematics and Economics and am going to study Mathematics at the masters level. So i'm not an "idiot," yet I don't buy the non-sense kumbaya taht Obama spouts etiher. Yet according to some commentary, only morons and "uneducated" suppors Clinton.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but from what I've seen, "intelligent" people i.e. people who study enigneering, the sciences, economics, CS etc., tend to either be republcians or go right-of-center/moderate.

    The people in university that I see that are "far-leftist progressives" are people who study "communications," "journalism," "art-history," "political science" etc. etc., essentially liberal arts, and subjects that are not very profound.

    So I think it's sort of funny that Obama people claim their more "intellinget" when it's just they're people just end up taking mroe time in their life studying nonsense. Cause I know many respectable people who work in your local garage or plumbers or just ordinary folk, who in my judgemnet, are infinteyl smarter then the "liberal arts" crowd.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:19:00 PM EST
    a lot of this is fair, though I disagree on some points. But I do have to take issue for a second with your description of "liberal arts" stuff. I've been heavily invested in both "sides" of campus, and while I think the hard sciences are a heck of a lot more work, I think in terms of complexity and abstract thinking, everything depends on the curiosity of the student and the quality of their coursework.

    Lots of things in math or physics can make you go cross-eyed, but believe me, that's true in sociology or literature, too, if you're reading and thinking about the right stuff.

    This isn't really on topic at all, FWIW. Just adding my copper coinage.


    I do apologize (none / 0) (#149)
    by CentristDemocrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:05:10 PM EST
    Well, the thing is, in terms of abstract thinking, I can't imagine any other subject that is more difficult and abstract then pure mathematics, excpet maybe pure logic. But yeah yoru right, off-topic. I'll take your point and ruminate on it for a while.

    Please. You had me with you (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:20:57 PM EST
    until the anti-intellectual attack on "the liberal arts crowd."  That does, sorry to say, sound straight from the Bill Bennett-Reagan Dem playbook.

    And I guess you don't know the history of your field of economics. . . .  So maybe graduate school would be good, as you could use a little learning on that.


    no it's not.... (none / 0) (#148)
    by CentristDemocrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:01:26 PM EST
    Economics is (in my university and graduate school) labeled as a Behavioral Science, and it is much more formal and has more rigor then any of the other behavioral sciences.

    Mathematics was in the school of Physicsl Sciences/Mathematics in my undergraduate instition and was also in teh same school of physical sciences in my soon-to-be graduate school.


    oh i see (1.00 / 0) (#168)
    by CentristDemocrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:32:05 PM EST
    Well, then what I meant without going into to much pedantry was people and students who study the fluffy subjects, these people tend to be "hopeless romantics" and ideologues (the kind of people who would support Obama in their naive youth).

    You don't know that the sciences (none / 0) (#171)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:36:52 PM EST
    are part of the liberal arts? Oh my, you must have missed that day in class.

    no my classes were substnative (1.00 / 0) (#176)
    by CentristDemocrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:43:50 PM EST
    No why would my classes specifically mention labels in this matter? In my unviersity, science/math were organized in the physical/sciences/mathematics department. But your correct, I was incorrect in my label, I should have said the "humanities" (i.e. fluffy subjects).

    it's not anti-intellectual (none / 0) (#153)
    by CentristDemocrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:14:25 PM EST
    My commetns weren't anti-intellectual. I respect people working hard with a family in my local garage or the plumber that helps my plumbing in my crummy fore-closure property (which hopefully won't be so crummy after i'm done fixing it up).

    These people are given a specificed problem, they have to think about it, know how the object works, then, they have to actually FIX the problem... otherwise their not paid.

    that's more then I can say for most of the "liberal arts" crowd (which are exactly the people who are supporting Obama in droves -the so-called 'creative class'). When has Art-History helped anything? Same with Communications?

    I should point out, that alot of us, in the sciences and engineering feel this way... so are we not part of "acadmeia" as well?

    I especially can't stand some really really "academic" political commentators either... they DO have a high-minded viewpoint of the world, even though what they do is certainly trivial (again these people are again overly-suppporting Obama, and they are the same ones who are denigrating hardowrking folk).

    I come from a poor hard-working family.... when I went to college I wanted to study something meaningful, it paiend me to think I would drop 20 - 30k on college to study history or learn how to speak.... And i'm pretty satisified with my investment. I just can't really see how people who actually pay for their education be satsified with spending 4 years talking about "feelings." But that's neither here-nor-there.


    Liberal arts stuff (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:38:38 PM EST
    in the way you're using it is not "talking about 'feelings'". Seems to me that you've probably taken a few lower division GE requirements and figure you know all about these fields that there is.

    Logic is a form of philosophical thought. Philosophy, history (including art history), yes even communications, are all reflecting a very complex world of human interaction with other humans or with the rest of the natural world. There's a philosophy underlying both hard science and mathematics, too, that sets the forms of questioning and their methods for finding answers -- very useful, so long as one operates under the assumptions set at the core. But no good for the kinds of questions that something like history is asking -- and if you think history is useless, I'm afraid I couldn't disagree more.

    In terms of arguing about how "useful" something is, it's maybe worth noting that most "useful" discoveries in science come about after heaps of pure research in which the particular "use" is not necessarily clear. One of the ways we've really been screwing ourselves in the sciences is in cutting funding for projects that provide that foundation, leaving companies to help close the gap really only on those studies that lead to something marketable. Over the long haul, we're not funding the stuff that doesn't have a clear "use" yet but that will provide the backbone for future work that might. Usefulness, while it's certainly important, is a very poor guide for the very kinds of explorations that actually lead in the longer run to useful things.

    And yours is an interesting point of view for a math person to take, BTW. Things like knot theory were come up with for the sake of intellectual curiosity. Turns out, they might be useful for modeling proteins, but that wasn't the goal at the time.

    I say all this as somebody who also finds nothing of higher value than people who can fix real practical objects, or who can create either useful or beautiful things (sometimes both) from next to nothing in terms of resources. Those are incredible skills, and while I value academic work, I also think we tend as a culture to undervalue whole other sets of talents that take every bit as much intelligence and creative thought.


    logic. and some such (1.00 / 0) (#183)
    by CentristDemocrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:55:26 PM EST

      the part of logic that really affects mathematics is analytic philosophy/logic, formal models, languages etc. This is certainly much more riogirous then anything foudn in humantiies, it's virtually like mathematics if you've ever taken anything in it (and it has a huge intersection with foudnational mathematics).

       My view is not that pure-research is meaningless... it's that I rsepct plumbers, working people much more then people who study the fluffy "humanities."

       And this is probably what I should have said initlaly, and not 'liberal arts.' That was my error. And of course, I know that pure research is good, I hope to engage in it, I work in algebra and none of that  is useful, except maybe chemistry and some stuff in quantum physics (group theory).

       But it's hard to compare pure reseach in physics or math, or analytic philosophy (i.e hard logic) with History and "Political Science."

       In fact there is no comparsion, one leads to (eventually) signficient earth-shattering results with potential to "change" the world, and the other is digested for the edification of other similiar academics and elitist.



    We're not going to do anything (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:02:07 PM EST
    but talk past each other. And we're terribly off topic anyway, I'll be surprised if this whole thread isn't deleted.

    I think you're completely disregarding the importance of people working to understand why we think the way we do, and how that effects the real world -- which it does, all the time, whether you want to look at that possibility or no. And which is not something that can easily be done via the mechanisms of the hard sciences.


    Yes, we well know this 'tude (none / 0) (#174)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:40:20 PM EST
    of too many in math and sciences in the liberal arts.  Makes it pretty awkward for them, actually part of the liberal arts.  But those are the ones who couldn't fit in a philosophy course to learn logic.

    Really, so much of what you say here is not a Democratic 'tude.  I've leave it at that, because I really don't want to break you in two, but -- you had best do some research and read the party platform and principles before you decide you're a Dem.


    What's really funny. (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:45:52 PM EST
    is that it's not just that us science people think y'all aren't... well, you clearly just aren't as smart as us. No, it's also that biologists aren't as rigorous as chemists, and physicists think everybody else is just playing games (especially engineers).

    I've moved around in all of these departments enough to laugh really hard at it all, when it doesn't make me angry.


    I can agree with most of what you said (none / 0) (#130)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:39:20 PM EST
    But don't forget that intelligence comes in many ways. Einstein had to 'visualize' relativity before he started working on the math for it.

    And some of the most intelligent people in history had plenty of that liberal arts life. See: Goethe, Franklin, Da Vinci, etc.

    And to be frank, I found that most of the math majors seemed to be practically autistic in the way they related to the outside world. They were almost as socially inept as the fine artists who slathered peanut butter on themselves and dove into a kiddie pool filled with toads.



    And the proof of your last paragraph (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:41:26 PM EST
    is, sadly, the posts to which you reply. These are neocon arguments against the greater good.

    I'm not educated enough (5.00 / 0) (#194)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:15:15 PM EST
    to know if you were supporting my view or not! :-P

    Reagan Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:00:31 PM EST
    Per Stan Greenberg (via Wiki)

    He concluded that "Reagan Democrats" no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle-class aspirations, but instead saw them as working primarily for the benefit of others:

    Doesn't that sound a great deal like the folks who say:  "mandates, we don't need no stinking mandates!"


    Creative class=Reagan Democrat


    It's hilarious (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by badger on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:48:16 PM EST
    to see the kind of 20-somethings who used to post about boomers selling out as the "me" generation and voting for Reagan now opposing mandates and cheering for Lugar or Hagel in Obama's cabinet. But I guess if you're the "creative class" instead of the "me" generation it's OK.

    You can't make this -erm- stuff up.


    I wrote something... (5.00 / 12) (#80)
    by Oje on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:02:37 PM EST
    just as a thread closed the other day, so if I may repeat and rephrase it:

    "At least half of the Democratic party and, I suspect, an equal proportion of the netroots will be looking for a new style or voice of reality-based commentary in the coming year. Many Democrats and blog readers now recognize that our high-profile "creative class" bloggers (who embraced the MSM and the Drudgery of right-wing journalism when it suited their preferred candidate) have gender, race, and class issues to work through. The blogosphere needs more and better voices once again."

    During the first Progressive era, professional middle-class reformers often expressed the same kind of prejudicial regard for their own thought and their own kind as Bowers. It was a "creative class" of people who believed that they knew what was best for the lower classes and fancied itself the balance to the upper classes. In truth, their anti-democratic technocracy of, by, and for the "creative class" proved to be an integral lever in the entrenchment of corporate power and the continuing disenfranchisement of laborers and immigrants in a Republican-dominated government (well into the 1930s).

    The same kind of self-regard afflicts our current "creative class" of progressive reformers. I marvel at the progressive netroots embrace of a politician who is clearly the consummate DLC candidate and to the right of their bete noir. Though most working class voters and 3 of the 4 traditional minorities (women, Hispanic-Americans, and Asian-Americans) reject their Chosen One, they soldier on: Obama's coalition sees the necessity of their plans--the "new politics"--while Clinton's coalition labors under the delusions of "old politics."

    In fact, it all simply reflects the most basic political belief of the "creative class:" it is not that the wrong policies have been enacted, it is that the wrong people have been in control. Thus, their campaign strategy is to insist that there are no policy differences between Obama and Clinton (I disagree), and to propose that America's problems can be solved simply by putting the right man in office. A "new politics" of, by, and for the creative class (hence the preponderance of reforms for the middle-class in Obama's platform at the expense of working-class and poverty measures).

    The actions by Goolsbee and Power in the past week further capture the relationship between this "creative class" and Obama. Their comments reflect, in their creative-classist minds, a need to tell the American people one simple thing (since they don't know what is best for them anyway) and an openness to share with their equals (consulates and professional journalists) the complexities of the facts on the ground.

    The problem, though, for their campaign is not that there are complexities to the facts on the ground (Clinton has been open about the difficulties facing Democrats). The problem is that their desire to reduce politics and governance to the simplicity of personality and postpartisanship renders them incapable of speaking about their policies without contradicting their campaign strategy. The "crystal jaw" shatters...

    I've been 21 for 13 years (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by MMW on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:51:55 PM EST
    According to the media I am solidly Obama's demographic, down to being Black. Unfortunately I have a pesky problem of thinking for myself (Ask my husband).

    Might I just say that of all the blogs I've frequented and no longer go to because I've been run off - you guys are the coolest.

    There is a paucity of logical thought or knowledge of history in so many blog comments elsewhere.

    Here it is consistently different.

    At the very least thank you to all of you.


    Yikes, I hadn't realized it, but you are (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:23:29 PM EST
    correct on so much of this -- the new progressives are so much like the ones of a century ago (and might we note that they were Republicans, too).

    You've got me going to the bookshelves to find some of the books by Walter Lippmann, and I bet I will find some of the same phrases they use today.


    Books (none / 0) (#132)
    by dissenter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:39:43 PM EST
    Try Hofstedter. Required reading for the period:)

    Uh, it's Hofstadter, and it's on my shelf (none / 0) (#177)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:45:42 PM EST
    but pretty old, as I had to read it 30 years ago. I just hadn't made the connection between his argument re the status-quo regression of the old progressives with the thinking of the new ones -- thinking they're not status quo. But their belief system about "the other" has been revealed this season. Too pc for "the other" to be AA, so even older beliefs surfaced. As I said, I'm going to get a primary source off the shelf, Lippmann, to get closest to this -- to the elitism of a century ago. I want to make my own interpretation rather than rely on a secondary source, even if Hofstadter still is a classic.

    How 'bout.... (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by Oje on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:16:48 PM EST
    Drift ("Old Politics") and Mastery ("New Politics")?

    Insightful analysis (none / 0) (#147)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:58:27 PM EST
    Reading the more routine discussion threads can get tiresome at times. But the reward is finding an occasional comment like this one shining like a nugget of gold in a big heap of dirt.

    Thank you, Oje!


    Thanks, but too kind.... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Oje on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:20:45 PM EST
    I like the dirt--and the "old" politics!

    Oh well... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Fredster on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:03:45 PM EST
    Jeez!  So they don't want this old-fart, white, Catholic, degreed guy?  Well, I'll just take my vote and my $$$s elsewhere, I guess!

    Haughtiness is the new Blue I guess (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:09:39 PM EST
    word that keeps coming up in this stuff

    This is really nothing more than a marketing (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:11:11 PM EST
    gimmick -- trying to make certain people (insecure people, anyone?) feel superior to others.  

    Part of the Branding (none / 0) (#191)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:11:24 PM EST
    I read a good article last week about how well the branding of Obama has been done, right down to the design of his logo and the fonts on his web site.  I think you're right and it applies also to the type of followers he wants to be associated with.

    This is the best post/comments section I have read in along time, by the way.


    LOLROTF (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:20:13 PM EST
    I laughed out loud at this post. I didn't quite roll on the floor though. You're right, you can't even make fun of something that's just so funny to the core. sadly, I don't think it was a joke.

    But the good news, it made this middle aged, college educated, creative class, white male, liberal to the core, almost left the country when Raygun won, laugh to the point of feeling really good and happy. Which means I'll live longer and continue to support dems who actually like dems and their values. So thanks to Chris. And peace. Especially to all those younger creative class yuppies who think Obama and Leiberman are the wave of the future of the democratic party.

    Creative class usually includes (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by DaleA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:39:21 PM EST
    lesbians and gays. We do have a presence in the Arts. But lots of us are regular people, with actual jobs that pay money. And the few exit polls show over 60% of gays vote for Hillary. The author does not seem to know what he is talking about.

    I have tried to explain (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by desmoinesdem on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:41:43 PM EST
    to some Obama supporters that while he does better among some very important elements of the Democratic base, Hillary has stronger support among other equally important parts of the Democratic base, namely working-class whites, Latinos and Catholics.

    It amazes me that Obama supporters refuse to recognize this fact, or they discount it because those groups are supposedly just racist.

    Talking to Obama supporters is (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by DaleA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:31:16 PM EST
    a waste of time. I have attempted to explain why gays and lesbians stick with Hillary. Lay out reason after reason, using examples going back a long way. They shoot back with DOMA and DADT. Then explain that DOMA was pushed on them, a veto would be over ridden, so Bill signed it. DADT was actually an improvement at the time. Then I point out the other accomplishments for gay people in  the Clinton years. And from Sen Hillary.

    Then they insist that Obama's very mixed record is superior to Hillary's because he is a better person. Absolutely frustrating.


    beer/wine track (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by NYMARJ on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:17:23 PM EST
    Well all I know is that when we went out to dinner last night since I voted for Clinton I made sure to order a beer - imported Belgium - but it was a beer.  Cannot have wine anymore.

    Can't stand the taste of beer (none / 0) (#170)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:35:06 PM EST
    myself, so I rage against the tide by drinking my wine from a box.

    Beer makes me too full (none / 0) (#189)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:07:49 PM EST
    and I need to be able to drink a  LOT to get through the evening these days...so I'm sticking to my wine and refusing to be put in a box (no pun intended) as I type away on my Mac and use my iPhone.

    Just kidding about the drinking - or maybe not.  Maybe I should start a 'Drunks for Hillary' club.


    Does Chris's "creative class" (none / 0) (#5)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:16:03 PM EST
    analysis have any validity at all?
    As someone who is a member of this so-called creative class, I have a vested interest in the answer.

    I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:19:15 PM EST
    What does the "creative class" actually mean?  Are we going to ride an electoral wave on the backs of part-time graphic designers, or what?

    I think it means (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:26:24 PM EST
    that if you pump out the new intellectual property style widget from the mac in your office while waiting to hear from clients on your iPhone, you're way smarter, hipper, and generally more important than those silly little people working their behinds off either building the stuff in your office or selling it to you for eight bucks an hour.

    Many of whom, interestingly, have degrees in art and creative writing, at least if my experience is any guide.


    As I sit at My I Mac listening to my Iphone (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:41:26 PM EST
    I figure I must not be creative since I am not part of that Obama craze.

    Heh (none / 0) (#54)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:50:46 PM EST
    well, I'm typing this as I load things to my iPod (or is it "sync"?), to be fair.

    But I suspect neither you nor I hold ourselves as more creative than anybody, so I'm guessing our lack of extreme ego in that regard must be what really keeps us from being part of the "creative class".

    Sorry. I should stop. The term just gets me angrier than I can express without going into nasty sarcasm.


    I know the Feeling (none / 0) (#66)
    by Florida Resident on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:53:49 PM EST
    The ego involved in the (none / 0) (#67)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:54:03 PM EST
    whole "creative class" thing angers me as well.

    <spewing coffee across keyboard> (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:29:54 PM EST
    This cracked me up.  I know many part-time graphic designers.  As a group, they don't do, y'know, groups.  The Dems would be even more doomed.

    But as the Dems went down in flames, they would do so with some gorgeous flyers and great t-shirts.


    I have a friend (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:32:58 PM EST
    who is a graphic designer.  I've come to realize the term means "artist with a job."

    Heh (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:39:58 PM EST
    I am deleting this because the retort is too obvious and inflammatory JJE.

    Awww... (none / 0) (#44)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:43:27 PM EST
    but fair enough.

    Who are the White Non-Christians? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:45:04 PM EST
    Buddhists?  Scientologists?  Zoroastrians?

    Because if he's talking about atheists and agnostics, I wish he had just said that.

    Who cares? (none / 0) (#56)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:51:08 PM EST
    The whole thing is too stupid for words.  I feel dumber, and less creative, just for reading it. :-)

    Bring in the atheist vote, that's a sure winner.


    Hmmm, that usually tends to mean (none / 0) (#119)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:25:39 PM EST
    Jews. But you're probably correct, as they're just not New Age enough.

    Usually (none / 0) (#129)
    by DaleA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:33:48 PM EST
    this term includes aetheists, agnostics in a catagory called 'secular'. Supposedly this is the fastest growing demographic in the USA. Then there are Jews. Wiccans and New Agers are also a small but growing part of the picture.

    Do They See Any Consequences? (none / 0) (#57)
    by cdalygo on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:51:13 PM EST
    I wonder if the A-List Bloggers who had adopted this stance are starting to see readership drops? Probably not given the crowds to which they appeal.
    However, I know that I quit reading them and (luckily) stumbled on a bunch of new blog sites like this one. Nor do I seem alone in my journeys.

    What's really sad about his post is you wonder who he thinks progressives represent. As others have noted he doesn't care that he cut out most working class whites, Latinos and Asians. He demonstrates typical left-wing hubris that seeks to deliver the "truth" to the masses, whether the masses ask for it or not. (I recognize it because I use to be in my twenties as well :>)

    If Obama win (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:52:44 PM EST
    I think the A-listers will do fine.  That might be why they're now so crazily pushing for him.  They realize if he loses, they're going to crater.

    Kos posted in a comment the other day (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Boston Boomer on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:08:53 PM EST
    that his advertising revenue for Feb. was so low that if he didn't have a "cushion," he would be in financial difficulty.  He explained this by saying that no one wants to click on anything that isn't about either Obama or Clinton.  But I wonder if that's the only reason?

    So where's the cushion (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:27:18 PM EST
    coming from?  Think we need to see his tax returns ;-)

    Yes. Every return since he started his blog. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:29:34 PM EST
    You never know what might be in there.

    Ha! That's funny (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:38:57 PM EST
    I would gladly click on something not Obama or Clinton if I could get to it without being insulted six ways to sunday on his site.

    I used to go there several times a day, and now I never do.  I know I'm not alone. He can rationalize it all he wants, but he dug his own grave.


    Hurrah! (none / 0) (#97)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:13:17 PM EST
    In my world (none / 0) (#78)
    by hookfan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:01:09 PM EST
    them's fightin' words! We old fogeys who've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise children with the education so that they could become latte sippin', wine drinkin', and beer guzzlin' high tech elitist snobs won't take kindly to being kicked to the curb. We vote in high percentages too. Want to see what class war is all about? Then keep this idiocy up.

    Gotta tell ya (none / 0) (#95)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:11:55 PM EST
    There is one big reason why it is hard to imagine consolidating "white non-Christians, Latinos and Asians" with the present Dem coalition, even if we tell the Reagan Democrats to go pound sand now and forever.

    The reason is called "affirmative action."

    In theory, there is a way to keep most of the people mostly happy on this issue, but it is going to take a lot of work and the right candidate.

    Affirmative Action? (none / 0) (#103)
    by CentristDemocrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:17:30 PM EST
    "Affirmative Action?" Asian Americans get SCREWED OVER AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.....

    And Latinos could get screwed if they ever establish a large enough majority....


    It sounds like (none / 0) (#110)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:21:24 PM EST
    you see my point...

    clarify please (none / 0) (#121)
    by CentristDemocrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:25:58 PM EST
    What do you mean? you said Asian/Latino Americans wouldn't get alogn with centrist Democrats becuase of affirmative Actions? That's just not true.

    No (none / 0) (#133)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:41:36 PM EST
    They will not get along, at least not 100%, with the present Dem coalition because of affirmative action.  A key component of the present Dem coalition is African-Americans and that is not likely to change.

    It is going to take a very skilled politician to soften these frictions and bring the groups together.


    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#140)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:47:26 PM EST
    made a start on it with "mend it, don't end it".  Perhaps it could use a little more mending.

    I should probably know this, but (none / 0) (#151)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:13:04 PM EST
    could you please explain the problem of asian-americans and affirmative action?

    Centrist "Dem" doesn't get that at all (none / 0) (#179)
    by Cream City on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:48:14 PM EST
    if you read upthread. Not for Dem principles. Quite confused. . . .

    "confused"? (none / 0) (#197)
    by CentristDemocrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:26:21 PM EST
    Affirmative Action screws Asian Americans in university acceptance. Cause it creates artifical quotas for groups and it costs people who work hard and attempt to be upwardly mobile.

    In many schools in California, you have to actually be FAR and BEYOND the level of performance then even Whites, to be accepted, if your of Asian ethnicity. How this is "fair" is beyond me.

    Affirmative Action isn't a "Democratic" principle.... it's a principle of selecting one group for favor at a cost for others. And you better hope it's not core principle, cause Latinos (who would be majorities in some locales in the future if they arn't already) and Asian Americans wouldn't support something that directly is prejudicd against them.

    Also, where Affirmative Action should help us, upper mangament and executive promotions... it dosn't, in fact, the federal goverment announced several months ago its going to do a (much neeeded) study of whats going on with the fact that Asian Americans don't get promoted to any upper management positions and face a ceiling, despite the fact that affirmative action is suppose to help minorities in buisness as well.

    Not only is the program useless to us, but it actively discriminates against us in things like university entrance.

    It either needs to be discarded or reformed drastically.


    What about racism toward Latinos? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:21:30 PM EST
    Some Texans may have voted against Hillary because of her Latino support.

    I find that hard to believe in TX. (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:30:59 PM EST
    Racism in Texas (none / 0) (#181)
    by wasabi on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 06:48:51 PM EST
    There are some communities (Farmers Branch) that passed laws against illegal aliens (brown people) living among them.  They are in the minority though.  The percentage of Texans of Hispanic descent has been fairly high from the beginning of the Republic.

    you know, this is great (none / 0) (#186)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:00:07 PM EST
    This down to the wire democratic race is just great. For a lot of reasons, but one is that it just might help refine what progressive really is, and it will help shake up the progressive blogosphere a bit. I think during the gov. bush years, it has coalesced around anything anti bush or anti repug. Or really, anti neo-con. But that included a whole heck of a lot of people. Now we may refine this large audience a bit. Getting these opinions out, like Chris', will help people see what a blog is really about and what sort of people make up its membership. All for the good.

    Forget Bowers (none / 0) (#190)
    by pluege on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:07:56 PM EST
    Bowers has been Obama demented all primary season - not worth spit to read. Stoller too. I deleted Open Left from my blog list. I added Talk Left in its place.

    From Kos to OpenLeft to Talk Left (none / 0) (#193)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:14:55 PM EST
    me too.  But I still read OpenLeft. Haven't touched Kos in weeks though.

    And Digby is still my favorite.


    Reagan Dems = Values Voters (none / 0) (#198)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:29:45 PM EST
    BTW, I think the point Chris was trying to make, that chasing "Values Voters" is futile and stupid, is one I agree with.

    I do agree with this also.  I think Bowers is using 'Reagan Democrats' as shorthand for values voters, or the 'pro-life' religious right crowd that left the Dem party for that reason.  Or gave that as the excuse anyway.  I've always pretty much believed it was the racism that drew them - that belief was backed up with interviews with Lee Atwater about the 'southern strategy'.  Which was what made me laugh at Obama's praise of Reagan being able to build a coalition.

    In my mind Reagan Dems were primarily concerned with low taxes and small government rather than values.  Now I think they are going Hillary's way because they see government has not gotten any smaller, and if it is going to be big it should at least work.

    Also more hawkish on national defense (none / 0) (#200)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:35:45 PM EST
    which Clinton is also, though by no means a war-monger as she has been painted by Obama supporters.

    Comments closing, (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 07:43:36 PM EST
    thanks everyone.

    Who knew? (none / 0) (#206)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:19:24 AM EST
    That me 47, white, Hispanic, male, gay, ten year career on Wall Street, executive director of a non-profit, PhD in History and an MBA, was not part of the creative class?

    Thanks Barack!

    Talk of "the Creative Class" (none / 0) (#207)
    by bob h on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:30:25 AM EST
    smacks of self-congratulatory jerkitude.