home

Clinton's Electability Argument From Hillary Hating Sources

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Brad Delong writes:

The best -- what I think is actually the only -- "electability" argument for Hillary Clinton was made by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo . . .

Well, Prof DeLong, I am sure it was inadvertent of Marshall to do this. Bob Somerby points out that in fact what Marshall was doing was forwarding David Sirota's "Hillary Is Evil And Deliberately Appealing To Racists" meme. But it is worth examining what DeLong makes of the theory. More . . .

DeLong writes:

The argument that Wilentz should have made is that this spring's primary results show that white reluctance to vote for an African-American candidate could be a real and important factor this November -- and potentially key in these five states, all of them crucial to Democratic hopes. Superdelegates should therefore make a coldblooded calculation to cater to the prejudices of the American electorate in swing states by choosing Clinton over Obama.

(Emphasis supplied.)Um, why not argue that voters in key states for November are more likely to vote for Hillary than Obama in a general election? Because there is not bile you can spew at Hillary clinton if you do it that way. Let me give you an example of how I can turn Obama's electability argument into a perjorative:

Superdelgates should vote for Obama because the Media and part of the electorate still accept sexism and miosogyny as legitimate. Particularly in states like [take your pick - Western states, Virginia, etc.] Superdelegates should therefore make a coldblooded calculation to cater to the prejudices of the American electorate by choosing Obama over Clinton.

You see how easy it is? Brad Delong is a smart fellow. But he too just engages in Clinton Hate as a matter of course. It is one of the most remarkable developments of this campaign season. The easy resort to Clinton Hate from people like Josh Marshall and Brad Delong. And they sem oblivious to it.

Let me conclude that I too thought poorly of Sean Wilentz's argument that DeLong is responding to. But I also think extremely poorly of Brad Delong's response, as its Clinton Hate is palpable. folks like DeLong and Marshall have sacrificed a lot of credibility in this campaign in my eyes. They obviously do not care of course. But I will point it out nonetheless.

POST SCRIPT -

On the substance, DeLong finally gets to the issue at the end of his piece:

Which Democratic candidate, Obama or Clinton, has a better chance of carrying Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Iowa, New Mexico, Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Missouri and Colorado against John McCain in November?

My answer, as I have described in many posts based on demographics and polling data, Clinton does better in MI, PA, Ohio and Florida. Obama does better in Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, NM, Nevada and Colorado. Obama also does better in Viriginia.

Missouri is a wash. DeLong continues:

And, alas, the arguments that Clinton would fare worse in those states, and that she is less electable generally than Obama, are numerous and distressingly powerful

Noooo, only for SOME of those states is that true. In others - particularly the BIG CONTESTED STATES, Clinton fares better.

But why does Obama do better in the other states? I think DeLong is right on that:

* She is a Clinton, and hence will energize the Republican base against her nationwide as nobody else can.

* The press corps has never given her a fair shake, and as Machiavelli once said, we can never forgive and be fair to those to whom we have done injury.

* Barack Obama is a charismatic, historic figure.

I find this argument specious, almost silly:

* The positions that Clinton has been taking vis--vis Obama in the past month appear to open up major vulnerabilities in the fall. McCain's national security experience in Vietnam trumps Clinton's national security experience in Tuzla, Bosnia.

I s Delong serious? As compared to Jeremiah Wright? Ridiculous.

But I love this kicker:

Now, none of these are Hillary Rodham Clinton's fault . . . None of these are fair. But they do make me believe that flinty-eyed Democratic superdelegates making coldblooded calculations about the national interest are making a better bet on the future if they decide to support Barack Obama.

I see. Beside rewarding all of the things DeLong describes, he advocate rewarding the sexism and misogyny of the Media and the electorate as well. It's ok if it is for Obama apparently.

At the end of the day, sadly and perhaps shamefully for me, I actually agree that Obama should be supported on elctability grounds. But I sooo detest the nasty Hillary Hate that sanctimonious Obama supporters like DeLong will display while feeding the most vile behavior. If they dropped the act, it would be much easier to swallow.

< Brock and Dems Form Group to Critique McCain | How To Look At Polls - Part II >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It's not just Clinton hate, though (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    It's elite hate of the vast unwashed masses, the assumption that the only reason not to vote for Obama is racism.

    Whatever happened to the Democratic Party as the party of working stiffs?  The Republicans are right, the "liberal" elites despise the hoi-polloi.


    I was discussing that (none / 0) (#3)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:32:31 PM EST
    with my hubby recently. The reason the rightwing frames like "liberal elite" take hold, is because there's always a grain of truth to them. A SMALL grain, but a grain nonetheless.

    Many white men will vote for Hillary over McCain because of the economy (the Clinton brand is good for that). Many white men will not vote for Obama because the RW narrative is that he hates America. Obviously untrue, but it's very powerful, especially combined with Wright.

    Neither of these are racial reasons, but they are strong reasons nonetheless.

    Parent

    It could not be (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:28:47 PM EST
    that these voters prefer Hillary for non-evil reasons.

    Unpossible.

    One of the marks of CDS (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:53:54 PM EST
    is the inability to see any redeeming qualities in Hillary or Bill.

    A CDS victim thinks that no one could possibly like or prefer Hillary as a candidate, therefore any vote for her must be the result of ignorance, stupidity, or because of some wrongful belief or motive.

    Parent

    I heard a longtime Democratic operative I know (none / 0) (#20)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:56:56 PM EST
    saying at a bloggy gathering, "Who is VOTING for this woman?"

    He was incredulous that anyone could actually want her to be president.

    Parent

    ME (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:12:57 PM EST
    I am voting for her April 22nd.

    Parent
    Good for you! :-) (none / 0) (#59)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:34:45 PM EST
    You racist pig! /snark

    Parent
    Ditto. (none / 0) (#118)
    by oldpro on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:52:17 PM EST
    At my upcoming county AND congressional district conventions.

    Parent
    And me (none / 0) (#135)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:30:35 PM EST
    in the Oregon primary. People keep giving my state to Obama. We'll see.


    Parent
    You think Oregon might not swing for the O? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:39:43 PM EST
    In another planet (none / 0) (#168)
    by Gio on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:10:39 PM EST
    Where has your friend been hiding? Is not like Senator Obama has big lead...1% of the popular vote and 130 or so delegates more.

    I will also vote for her. Are you a racist or is it reverse racism?

    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:32:35 PM EST
    DeLong's substance is incredibly absurd. He chooses to ignore the data by saying:

    "First of all, there is no sign that states with demographic compositions like the key five -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Michigan and Missouri -- are necessarily hard terrain for Democratic politicians."

    The issue is OBAMA against McCain, not "Democratic politicians" in general.

    DeLong's piece is a ridiculous red herring.

    I like the (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:10:27 PM EST
    not necessarily hard terrain.  

    Right Brad, those states don't have to be hard.  They just are.

    Parent

    In general, DeLong's argument (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by frankly0 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:35:17 PM EST
    is infected with terribly bad faith.

    Look, the argument for Hillary's better electability compared to Obama has always been breathtakingly simple: she appears to fare better by a good distance in the major four swing states: OH, MI, FL, and PA. She does so because of the Reagan Democrats (whom DeLong doesn't even mention, despite their widely known and acknowledged importance), who populate those states in large numbers, and have always been the swing votes in those swing states. If a candidate can't win at least one of those major swing states, and probably two, they have little or no chance to win the general election. Obama looks to have a very real problem there.

    Now you can agree with that argument or not, but if you don't engage it, you are just being intellectually dishonest.

    Fundamentally, this argument turns on the appeal to Reagan Democrats. Reducing that appeal to racialized politics is the product of a hack, not a "scientist".

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#27)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:08:14 PM EST
    If the two candidates left for nomination were HRC and Edwards, he would defeat HRC in OH and PA.  Does that mean that all those whites who now vote for HRC are sexists?

    Parent
    The Democrats lose (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by LadyDiofCT on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:35:42 PM EST
    The party has turned on its own.  Republicans win because they stick together, for better or worse.  We have become our own worst enemy.

    Actually I believe only Hillary can save (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:51:00 PM EST
    the Democrats, now. I thought before that Obama would be ok in the GE, but now I think he is the weakest candidate I have seen in my lifetime----with the possible exception of Mondale. He is
    laughably unprepared for office, to a degree I definitely have not seen in any previous Democratic nominee.
    On top of that, he and his campaign have antagonized and insulted the Hillary supporters to such an extent that rapprochement will take a lot of work---work he seems to have no interest starting on.


    Parent
    no interest (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Gio on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:55:42 PM EST
    You have no idea how disgusted and furious many of Clinton's supporters are at the party "leaders" for their interference with the process. We would have voted for him in a heart beat,but there's now way he will get my vote now. The republicans had the decency to let the process take its course even though there was no hope for Huckabee. They will have no one else to blame,but themselves and the media for their vicious and bias reporting.  

    I will vote for McCain, at least he earned the right to the precidency;it wasn't handed to him. In addition, while I do not agree with him on every issue I admire him and trust him.        

    Parent

    Kerry hands down has him beat (none / 0) (#15)
    by Virginian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:51:48 PM EST
    They've even started insulting each other (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:12:39 PM EST
    By that I mean I just read what Spike Lee has to say about black people who still support Clinton.

    It's not pretty.

    Parent

    Maybe I'd better revisit (none / 0) (#111)
    by oldpro on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:27:02 PM EST
    and review "Do The Right Thing."

    Perhaps I missed the message...or has Obama brought change to Spike Lee?

    Parent

    Spike Lee (none / 0) (#169)
    by Gio on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:29:22 PM EST
    It is no secret that most African-Americans are voting based on race and the ones that feel different about Senator Obama are been attacked.

    Hope,change...with all that hate it is laughable.    

    Parent

    Yup. (none / 0) (#8)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:42:57 PM EST
    Unfortunately we are a lot less authoritarian than Republicans in general. Getting us all to agree on a candidate is not easy.

    But, we should not have given in to hate.

    Parent

    Point of Order (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:41:51 PM EST
    Is Sirota a friend too?

    Not being snide.

    I have some choice words.  Eh.  They've all already been said anyway.

    I'll keep them to myself.

    Back to the topic at hand.

    Did it occur to anyone that the argument that some are voting against Obama because he's black is just as offensive as the suggestion that some are voting for him just cause he's black.

    I mean if one argument is valid -- and we can talk about it -- then so is the other.  And we can talk about the other one too!

    That is unless you're a typical white woman.  They have to keep their mouths shut.

    Hillary is not weak in the West (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:43:03 PM EST
    because of sexism or misogyny.  

    For example, the State of Washington has two women Senators and a woman Governor....

    According to the SurveyUSA's April 8, 2008 poll, McCain beats Hillary 46-45 in the state of Washington, while Obama beats McCain 51-44.

    A February 2008 poll showed Obama beating McCain 54.9-40.1, while McCain was ahead of Hillary 48.6-45.1.

    Hillary's weakness in the West is based on a different phenomenon.    

    So what? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:46:58 PM EST
    That is NOT my point. do you think Obama is weak in Ohio, PA and Florida because of racism?

    Did you completely miss my effing point here?

    Or did you deliberately ignore it?

    I detest this type of comment sometimes. You MUST know the point I am making and you choose to deliberately attempt to distort it? Are you truly incapable of honest dialogue?

    Parent

    It was this point (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:10:36 PM EST
    that I was referring to:

     

    Let me give you an example of how I can turn Obama's electability argument into a perjorative:

    Superdelgates should vote for Obama because the Media and part of the electorate still accept sexism and miosogyny as legitimate. Particularly in states like [take your pick - Western states, Virginia, etc.] Superdelegates should therefore make a coldblooded calculation to cater to the prejudices of the American electorate by choosing Obama over Clinton.

    I disagree with you and do not think that you can turn Obama's electability argument into a "sexist pejorative" with respect to the Western states.  I was making an honest and valid point--backed up by data.  You were the one who was commenting on sexism and misogyny.

     

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:25:46 PM EST
    You do not think I can but you think DeLong is right to turn Obama's weakness into a racism pejorative?

    What a clownish comment.

    Parent

    Please, sir (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:29:45 PM EST
    leave the clowns out of it.  If you cut them, do they not cry and make a balloon animal?

    Parent
    I do not know you (none / 0) (#61)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:36:45 PM EST
    but I love your snarky comments.

    You really make me laugh. :-)

    Parent

    Yep, when this election is over (none / 0) (#190)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:24:59 PM EST
    I hope Kathy still is here or tells me where to find her on the web, because there are days when I just say, "I gotta get me some Kathy snark before I head back into ____" (fill in blank with committee meeting of choice, not that I would choose to inflict any of them on any of you).  I take a break to bring up TL to get reminded by Jeralyn or BTD, too, that there are very real reasons for outrage vs. whatever amendment to whatever motion is being debated in ______ meeting.

    I'm getting quite a list of other regulars to go to here, too.  But the snarky list leads with Kathy.:-)

    Parent

    My original point (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:47:54 PM EST
    was about your hypothetical sexism argument (which I find to be invalid--at least as to the Western states), not DeLong's racism argument.

    But let us agree that Obama does not poll well in Appalachia.  Let's now take a look at this exit poll from the Ohio Democratic Primary.  The question on page 4 of that exit poll shows that the race of the candidate was important to 20% of the voters.  For that subgroup, they favored Hillary over Obama by 59-39.  For the 79% for whom the race of the candidate was not important, Hillary leads by a narrower margin, 53-45.  

    Race appears to have been a factor that some of the voters were willing to admit to in Ohio.  That is of concern.  How little or how much remains to be seen.

    Parent

    Stop right there (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:00:41 PM EST
    You write:

    My original point was about your hypothetical sexism argument (which I find to be invalid--at least as to the Western states), not DeLong's racism argument.

    My hypothetical sexism argument was to illustrate how one can turn an elctoral advantage into a pejorative. It had EVERYTHING to do with DeLong's comment. You can NOPT separate it from DeLong's comment.

    It is dishonest to try and do that. Either that or you entirely missed my point.

    Parent

    And I am trying to de-personalize (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:56:23 PM EST
    this discussion.....

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:58:45 PM EST
    Then try a little honest engagement. If you are not going to honestly discuss my arguments, then what is the point? I am not interested in attempted point scoring.

    Read what you wrote in your first comment and tell me how it addresses my post.

    Parent

    You veered off (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:19:22 PM EST
    into a hypothetical argument about sexism and misogyny that was invalid.....

    You say I cannot decouple your sexism argument from your view of DeLong's racism argument....An invalid sexism argument is not a good thing to leave laying around...especially on this blog where many are convinced that sexism is the reason why Hillary is not winning.  There may be valid sexism arguments but electoral weakness in the West is not one of them....

    You have responded with ad hominem....

    And, in order to comply with your request that I discuss the race issue, I have commented on it by quoting the Ohio exit poll.

    My comments on this thread have been in good faith even if they do not support your overall position....If you do not perceive them that way, there is nothing more I believe I can do to convince you otherwise.


    Parent

    They're both strawman arguments (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:11:51 PM EST
    That's the point!  DeLong built up a strawman and to show what a strawman that was, BTD built up an equally repugnant strawman!  He's not saying it's valid - he's saying the opposite.  But rather than engage the debate (why did DeLong build up a "racist" strawman?), you are swerving into battle with the "sexist" strawman that NO ONE HERE was defending anyway.

    This is just weird.

    Parent

    I wouldn't be so sure (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:34:16 PM EST
    that no one here agrees with the sexist strawman argument....

    I think a lot of people here believe it.  Best to knock that "strawman" down before it gets too far down the road.

    Parent

    really? (none / 0) (#170)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:33:23 PM EST
    Someone was specifically saying that clinton might have problems specifically in western states because westeners are more sexist?   Really?  Than have at it. Take that strawman down!

    Parent
    Maybe that was another plan (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by BarnBabe on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:20:32 PM EST
    For the Obama Camp, they have played this quite well and I can now see their methods quite clearly. But, I suspect that they expected to have already nailed the nomination and wanted to as quickly as possible before some people wearing rose colored glasses actually took a look at the person they were ga ga about. And then they saw the flaws. One big mistake they did make was trying to destroy the Hillary supporters. If BHO is the nominee, I believe he will not be able to count on those he pushed too far.

    Parent
    Not at all (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:32:05 PM EST
    There are many, many polls in the West showing Hillary in trouble....Obama consistently polls ahead of her....as does McCain.

    Hillary is only ahead of McCain by 3 in California according to the lastest PPI poll.  I agree that she would win California but not as easily as Obama and apparently not without campaigning here (Neither Gore nor Kerry campaigned here at all.)

    Setting aside California, I do not recall seeing a recent poll showing her ahead of McCain in any state West of the Mississippi, or performing better against McCain than Obama in any Western state.  If you know of such a poll, it would be interesting to see.  Today's Rasmussen poll shows Obama beating McCain in New Mexico, but Hillary losing to him there.  And Hillary won the New Mexico Primary.  And so it goes across the
    West.

    Sure, it is only April but if one is to go by data rather than argument, the polls are about all we have....

    Parent

    There are many many polls (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:57:01 PM EST
    showing Obama in deep trouble in Florida, Ohio, PA and Michigan.

    Do you want to let Brad DeLong in on that little secret?

    Parent

    The reality (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:46:26 PM EST
    is that both have weaknesses....and it is unclear how much of that would be cured via a bump in the polls once the nominee is selected.

    Going by Rasmussen, who was very good in the GE in 2004, Obama is currently stronger (but still losing by one point today) than Hillary against McCain....

    I think McCain is going to be very hard to beat.  Period.

    Parent

    I think we can also say (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:56:39 PM EST
    that her negatives are not going to get any higher.  His, on the other hand, have nowhere else to go but up.

    Parent
    That is true (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:22:29 PM EST
    too....Obama cannot win without Pa and Michigan....

    Parent
    Inside Blogball (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by lyzurgyk on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:45:07 PM EST
    Although I agree that the Hillary Hate has been an embarrassment to the left and will be a lingering stain on Josh Marshall's reputation.

    As far as the race thing goes, when I hinted at a racial bias to my Hillary-fanatic mom in South Carolina, she pointed out that she would have no qualms about voting for Colin Powell.   And I know she wouldn't.   But she doesn't trust Obama.

    Obama's real electability problem is that for a Presidential candidate, he has very little track record to back up his claims.   That makes him susceptible to attacks that would be shrugged off by others.  


    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:47:51 PM EST
    Obama's real electability problem is that for a Presidential candidate, he has very little track record to back up his claims.   That makes him susceptible to attacks that would be shrugged off by others.  

    Experience really does matter. Yet another non-evil reason that many people prefer Hillary or McCain to Obama.

    Parent

    which experience? (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by diogenes on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:10:42 PM EST
    Saying "experience" an infinite number of times doesn't convert a 1994 Health Care failure, ill-defined actual first lady experience, and seven senate years spent doing as little as possible to upset the 2008 applecart into proof of executive ability.
    As far as executive ability goes, 1994 Health care reform was a fiasco, and Obama runs an INFINITELY better campaign.  Can you imagine the Hillary campaign crew as White House chief of staff?

    Parent
    experience (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by LoisInCo on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:37:36 PM EST
    Failure at attempts to do something is actually not a bad thing. It certainly teaches lessons for the next time.

    Parent
    Also, her constituents in NY apparently (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by allimom99 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:50:02 PM EST
    didn't think she was doing nothing, as they reelected her. Hmmm. She's been very active in the Senate = are you really going to hold it against her that there was a Republican majority until last Jan? Get real. what was O doing? Certainly not the committee job they gave him, because HE WAS TOO BUSY RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

    Parent
    I've been collecting links (none / 0) (#97)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:08:44 PM EST
    on some of the work she's done for NYS, but I haven't got them in any sort of order yet. She has done work for our smaller farms etc  this is a link to her senate page, but I also have many articles about this and her other work regarding agriculture. She's signed on to similar projects in the senate:

    http://tinyurl.com/4yl73s

    and then there's her 9/11 responders work . . .

    Parent

    Boy, that experience argument (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:38:50 PM EST
    really seems to bug some Obama supporters.

    The truth hurts.

    Parent

    Well, what have they got? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:44:36 PM EST
    Judgment?

    Why kind of judgment does it show to start running for President when you're not even halfway through your first term in Washington?

    No executive experience at all, just some time in a state legislature.

    Parent

    Health care (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by abfabdem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:46:58 PM EST
    This is actually one reason I support her.  She has more to prove to actually get health care passed this time since it didn't in 1994.  

    Parent
    campaign management? (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:15:42 PM EST
    Yes, that is exactly the same as governing.  That is what I learned from eight years watching the most disciplined effective campaign in memory run the country.  Because, lord knows, history is going to remember George W. Bush as one of our greatest presidents.

    Wait.  I'm sorry, I meant worst presidents.  Huh?  Maybe campaign management doesn't matter that much after all.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:03:18 PM EST
    I crack up at that 'Obama is running a great campaign - that means he would be a good president' argument.  Hard to make that stick with Exhibit A to the contrary in the White House.

    If only it were true.

    Parent

    Well, in a 60 minutes interview (none / 0) (#137)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:34:55 PM EST
    when asked what he had actually run as far as experience, his answer:

    Harvard Law Review
    Senate Office
    Camapign

    Don't ya feel better now?!

    Parent

    diogenes, factcheck.org/Newsweek (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:59:16 PM EST
    did a great debunking of an email going around that compared the legislative records of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton.

    A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive...

    We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:

    It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.

    It goes from there, but the apples v. broccoli thing is pretty funny, IMO. The article compares the legislative records of both.

    We haven't even gone into all the other stuff she's done.

    Parent

    This is incredibly shoddy for a prof... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Virginian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:51:24 PM EST
    The argument that Wilentz should have made is that this spring's primary results show that white reluctance to vote for an African-American candidate could be a real and important factor this November

    What hackery...so if you happen to be white, and happen to favor a candidate OTHER than Obama in the primary (or general election for that matter) it this wisecracker is suggesting that the logical assumption is a reluctance to vote for an African-American...

    Do we really need to give these folks more bandwidth?

    Yes (3.50 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:53:35 PM EST
    To expose them.

    Parent
    I didn't see Willentz say that (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:04:38 PM EST
    in his piece, read a few days ago.  Pointer to where this argument is made in his essay?  I saw only the  argument about procedural differences between the parties in determining delegate counts.

    Parent
    She is quoting DeLong. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:24:45 PM EST
    She is a he (none / 0) (#100)
    by Virginian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    Virginian like the western, not the queen :)

    Parent
    Trampas (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by MKS on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:39:10 PM EST
    was my favorite....

    Parent
    De Long is not a prof (none / 0) (#166)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:01:30 PM EST
    as far as I know or can find, and this says it's the prof whose thinking is shoddy.  So I want to know where Willentz, the Princeton prof, said any such thing as this says De Long said he said.  (Whew.)

    Parent
    Scratch that, now I found Prof. De Long (none / 0) (#167)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:04:30 PM EST
    is an economist.  No wonder he can't get what a historian says.  We see that split all the time on my campus.  

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Obamacans are already (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jen on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:52:52 PM EST
    convinced that IF O wins the nomination, when he loses the GE, it will be all Clinton's fault. Their thinking will be something along the lines of because she played the race card, she reawakened a sleeping racism giant across the country, that otherwise would have voted for O. If she had only dropped out before TX and OH, the party would have united behind O.

    And it may be PI to mention this, and many will deny it, but there are more than enough people in this country who would never vote for a black man for president. Especially a man with the lack of any experience that qualifies him to be president.

    Obama will either lose the nomination, or he will lose the GE. I'd rather see him lose now.

    Obama should concede the race (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by RogerVeritas on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:08:39 PM EST
    Obama is alienating the broadest segment of democratic voters -women. The why is in the fact of the party operatives for several decades have been women. They supported, they volunteered, they organized the democratic party for years. Now he is slamming the door in their collective face.

    The facts are out there.
    [HREF] http://www.oprah.com/community/thread/48373

    Parent

    I have a couple of friends who are in (none / 0) (#65)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:39:14 PM EST
    the "won't vote for a woman" category. Their wives have pointed out to them that they would "really" be voting for Bill, since every "good wife" does as her husband tells her. And she proved she was a "good wife" when she stood by him during Monicagate. I was appalled when I heard that, the ladies told me about it with great glee. But when I heard that the husbands were going to vote for Hillary, in spite of her being a woman, I shut the hell up. Why ruin a good thing even if it's for the wrong reasons?

    Parent
    Sounds liake they have learned (none / 0) (#183)
    by splashy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:10:21 AM EST
    How to manipulate men that think like that. If you end up living with men that are like that, you HAVE to figure out a way to make them think it's their idea, or that it's all for the men.

    In fact, I have seen men that actually LIKE that form of manipulation. They have respect for the women that are able to get them to do things without them knowing it. They think the women are being clever.

    Go figure...

    Parent

    Obama should concede the race (none / 0) (#189)
    by RogerVeritas on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:13:28 PM EST
    Obama is alienating the broadest segment of democratic voters -women. The why is in the fact of the party operatives for several decades have been women. They supported, they volunteered, they organized the democratic party for years. Now he is slamming the door in their collective face.

    The facts are out there.
    [HREF] http://www.oprah.com/community/thread/48373

    Parent

    One more thing (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:54:35 PM EST
    I think the fact that Obama might lose blue states like NY, MA and possibly CA to McCain, has to be taken into account when advocating for Obama's electability. Hillary will take all the blue states easily, whereas Obama will have to spend precious resources in them and still might not defeat McCain.


    As a NYC'er who remembers the David Dinkins (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by vicndabx on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:14:40 PM EST
    era, I too worry when we have a black liberal candidate vs. a white moderate candidate (cuz IMO that's what John McCain really is despite claims that he's something else).  Rudy Guiliani came in behind Dinkins' supposed failure to effectively deal w/racial tensions after Crown Heights.  Now, I'm not saying a similar situation will exist come GE time, nor am I saying O will been seen as handling it poorly if it does, BUT, as noone has the crystal ball working properly, demographics come back into to the picture here in NY (and probably NJ as well.)  I've seen other posts where it was stated we elect a lot of republicans here, and it's true.  Upstate NY'ers are a totally different breed of democrat.....and there are a lot of them here in the city as well.

    Parent
    I have to admit (none / 0) (#73)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:44:42 PM EST
    that I voted for Giuliani the first time.

    The only, and last Republican I've ever voted for. But there ya go, you are 100% correct.

    However, thinking that Rice adds anything to McCain's ticket in NYC is delusional IMHO. She is the one who was NSA on 9/11. We hatessssss her, precious!

    As long as Clinton is on the ticket, NY goes blue.

    Parent

    yepper as they "sometimes" say in (none / 0) (#94)
    by vicndabx on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:04:37 PM EST
    Syracuse.  No doubt as we say in the Bronx.

    Parent
    I thought the Rice thing was odd (none / 0) (#103)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:17:33 PM EST
    But I was watching the McCain interview on the View and they mentioned it. I do think the right VP choice by McCain could pose a problem in NY. Especially since Obama seems to believe he's got more experience than he does. Lord only knows who he'll pick . . .

    I don't know who they polled, but it sure wasn't anyone I know!, lol!~ Rice is in the gutter.

    Parent

    He won't (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:58:43 PM EST
    imo. No bearing in my discussion at all.

    Parent
    a Fox poll today says maybe (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:24:29 PM EST
    McCain/Rice beats Obama/Clinton and Clinton/Obama

    (yes, I know it's a Fox poll!!)

    NYS has a tad bit of red running through it. Clinton made great inroads up there and worked hard for their vote and just worked hard in general. Will those voters just hand their vote to Obama?? I'm not so sure. After dealing with Clinton and her style for 6 yrs along with her work ethic, what can Obama say to get their vote?

    Parent

    Only here, so far as I know, (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:07:47 PM EST
    has there been an honest and comprehensive discussion of these issues.

    Thanks BTD.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by bjorn on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:44:14 PM EST
    This post is very well reasoned and it is what I expected more from other blogs.  BTDs voice seems to be one of the very few who has been able to keep emotion out of the argument and see things from all sides, and base arguments soley on facts.

    Parent
    I think that all this shows (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:12:54 PM EST
    is they (Obama purists) are starting to sweat about losing, so they are presenting the case for why this might happen, and of course it's not the fault of the liberal elite, it's the great unwashed racists of this country who don't know any better.  You know--low information, uneducated, blue collar, elderly women, etc.

    I predict that as time wears on, we'll see more of this flop sweat coming out in big, dewy globs as they mount their high horses and race away from righteous defeat.  I saw it with Kerry, where they so framed him as so intellectually superior to Bush that no one could identify with him.  In the end, the base stayed home and Kerry lost.

    Now, we have Clinton, who actually energizes the base, and they are the ones who will see an Obama nomination as the most illegitimate, especially if FL and MI are not dealt with in what is perceived as a fair way.  I have said from the beginning that the problem won't be dems voting for McCain--it'll be dems staying home.

    The funny thing is that--as with everything in America--it won't be about race, it'll be about class.  Race will be the convenient scape goat.

    I, Too, Am Not Up to Being Lectured (5.00 / 10) (#35)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:14:31 PM EST
    about prejudices by a group of Blogger Boys who have defended, if not embraced, sexism and misogyny. So I'm right there with you, BTD.

    I also like how even though their racism theory essentially condemns Obama to losing in November, the Democratic party is still supposed to nominate him so that we feel better about ourselves.  Because that's what's important.  

    If that doesn't say a whole lot about their own views on race, and how much of this is about patting themselves on the back for their open-mindedness, I don't know what does.  And it's condescending not only to to working class and rural whites, but to Obama.

    Thanks to guys like DeLong and the MSM, Clinton has become the outsider in this race (the Clintons have always been outsiders with certain segments of the party).  There are a lot of white Americans in the Rustbelt who can identify with that.  After all, they get condescended to and mistreated by powerful, elite whites on a daily basis, too.  There is also a cultural connection between rural and working class whites, particularly in Appalachia, and the Clintons with their time in Arkansas, which is only reinforced by things like this.  

    And, of course, what's never discussed is the fact that a lot of neutral observers (Krugman, Elizabeth Edwards) have praised Clinton's economic and healthcare policies as more liberal and better than Obama's.  But, hey, why would a laid off steel working in Pennsylvania care about that?  

    As I've said before, I have no doubt race is a factor in this election (as is gender), but I have yet to see any proof that it's the deciding factor.  In fact, for all the hand-wringing about Clinton's wins in Appalachian areas and racism, Doug Wilder did better in Appalachian Virginia when he ran for Governor, than John Kerry did against George Bush.  

    Who's sexist? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:15:12 PM EST
    Not me, says The Swamp!  They printed a poll today about which candidate women prefer.  This paragraph was included:

    Meryl Streep was named actress most fit to play the role of Hillary Clinton in a Lifetime movie (17%). Actresses Glenn Close and Diane Keaton followed (both tied at 11%).

    Right!  Women are SO more interested in the movies than the election.  So who gets to play Ometoo?  Too bad Heston's not here--oh, wrong color! Well, I guess there's a superhero in Hollywood that is the correct color.

    Just shoot me now . . . (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:27:33 PM EST
    I knew we still had equality issues, as I've dealt with them often enough, but these past few months have just been one slap in the face after another.

    Parent
    to be fair (none / 0) (#172)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:54:19 PM EST
    I can't remember the show or anchor, but one host asked Obama who should play him in a movie...I think Obama sidestepped the question as I immediately thought he'd say Denzel but he ended up talking about something else--not sure if he ever answered the question:  my attention span when watching Obama speak has grown exceedingly short.

    Parent
    She may not provoke as much GOP hate.. (5.00 / 10) (#41)
    by goldberry on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:17:51 PM EST
    .. as you think, BTD.  My whole family in PA were diehard Bush fans.  I mean, DIE HARD.  They loved Bush with a slavishness that was both disturbing and frightening.  My brother said a couple of years ago that he would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER vote for a Democrat and that presumably meant Clinton triply so.  
    But this year, my mom, brother and sister are all voting for her in the PA primary.  And this is not just Dem for a Day stuff to screw things up for us.  They really think she is the better candidate.  They even like her, BTD.  
    It's weird and spooky and I don't know how long it will last but I think she played her cards right on national security issues with them, something Obama has failed to do.  
    To be quite honest, I think if Hillary is on the ticket this fall, the electability issues will be moot.  There will be nothing like it in our nation's history.  The models will be useless.  A new parameter will be introduced.  That is, we have never seen how a woman runs the country and our curiosity will be piqued.  She's tough, tenacious, smart and experienced.  I think a lot of Republicans are going to jump ship and vote for her.  Many, many more than would vote for Obama.  

    I have long thought (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:28:01 PM EST
    the Hillary hate was over-played by the media; the grossest projection of our times.  If she were as hated as they say, she wouldn't be getting votes.  We wouldn't be seeing these record turnouts.  She wouldn't have people sending her money or showing up at her events.  She is in a virtual tie with him at this point popular vote wise (please, let's not get into that argument and just agree she's pretty darn close).  The point is that millions of people have turned out for her, with millions more to go.

    Remember, this is the same media who helped sell us all on the war.  Are we going to let them sell us on Hillary hate, too?

    Parent

    I think so too (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:41:19 PM EST
    I think the loud-mouths talked it up beyond what it really is.  I work with several die-hard Republicans and they all laugh about hating Hillary - it is a standing joke to them - but they don't really "hate" her any more than any other Dem. She does not make them any more or less likely to get out and vote or to give money to their party.

    I have actually come to believe that it is the Hillary Haters in the Democtaric party that have really been talking this up all these years.

    Parent

    Divisiveness (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:07:32 PM EST
    That's the flip side of claiming she's "divisive" - if all people hate her, really really hate her, then she is not "divisive". In that case she would be loathed.  The fact is that many many people LOVE her - not because she's famous but because she is experienced, likeable, smart, etc etc.  And thus, even though there is undoubtable some small element that does go red, there is also an element that goes hearts and flowers.  A much larger element if her current position is any indicator.

    I think the blogger boys forgot about that and now they can't admit they were wrong.  So she's not still in this because a lot of people really like her, she's in it because she's an angry, bitter, entitled shrew who just can't admit that she should drop out.  Just like some deranged ex-girlfriend (oh - and she's racist).

    Blech to the blogger boys, I say.

    Parent

    I think the best snapshot (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:16:49 PM EST
    we got about how the Obama folk really feel about Clinton and her supporters came via Samantha Power in the now-famous monster interview.  The lines that no one seemed troubled over was the following passage:

    "You just look at her and think, 'Ergh'. But if you are poor and she is telling you some story about how Obama is going to take your job away, maybe it will be more effective. The amount of deceit she has put forward is really unattractive."

    Which I took as a backhand slap at Clinton's "deluded" voters who are obviously just scared little babies.  Why else would they vote for this "monster" unless they were stupid or scared?

    Parent

    Word. (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:17:52 PM EST
    Obama has been pushing the narrative that he is more electable and less divisive than HRC for quite some time. I think that is one reason he and his campaign have been poisoning the well with accusations of HRC's racism - to prove his argument is correct.

    Meanwhile, Obama's inability to get the Reagan Democrats' vote can't be mentioned because it's "racist" to mention it. In fact, any discussion of Obama's possible negatives in the GE is greeted with hysteria almost anywhere but here.

    Obama likely knew the "Hillary is polarizing!" argument was BS from the first, but it gave a lot of "progressives" their License to Hate. And the media, of course, didn't need a Hate License - they've had theirs for 16 years.

    Parent

    John Fout makes a good point... (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:23:41 PM EST
    in this blog from theStreet.com. Quote (first para is a quote from Obama campaign, second is Fout's):

    Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.) has asked voters -- Democrats, independents and Republicans -- to see him as a unifying force, a once-in-a-lifetime politician who can overcome the partisan divide and change politics in Washington. He presents a bold vision.

    Unfortunately, Obama has failed in his first test to unify his own party. His campaign has failed to recognize the results of the Florida primary -- and Michigan -- for political gain over his opponent, a decision that could disgruntle Democratic voters in Florida in November and years beyond.



    Parent
    John McCain knows it too (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by ineedalife on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:54:46 PM EST
    He was on American Idol tonight saying there at least the voters in MI and FL count. He probably picked up a percent or two of the votes in those two states tonight alone.

    Parent
    If the Blogger Boys were in Spartacus (5.00 / 7) (#121)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:55:39 PM EST
    ... they'd be the going, "Spartacus? That's him! Over there, barrel chested guy in the big underpants!"

    Holding Sen. Clinton's passive-attribute of BEING "divisive" against her because she has been a favorite target of hard right fanatics is Repugnant in the extreme.

    Shame on Obama for using that injustice to sell himself. That's a big reason I regard him as a complete fraud on human rights and a really poor choice not just to go up against McCain but to lead in these Repulsive times.

    She's been fighting the creeps that have had cover up front or behind the scenes by spiteful media and wagon circling Repugs, and enabled by self-serving Dems.

    Obama's stated position is that he'll charm the fanatics. Yeah, that's a plan.

    Here's a good gauge: She's still standing. He has yet to take a stand.

    Parent

    He had to tear her down (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:04:24 PM EST
    otherwise, he'd just be the happy guy in the corner.  She had such strong support at the beginning that the only way to cut into that was to vilify her.

    Parent
    Yeah... (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:08:33 PM EST
    Holding Sen. Clinton's passive-attribute of BEING "divisive" against her because she has been a favorite target of hard right fanatics is Repugnant in the extreme.

    I read a great analogy of this once.  Let's say you have a female employee of some company who is being bothered and harassed by a co-worker.  Finally, she says, "Enough!" and goes to a supervisor and the guy is fired.  Six months later, she has a performance evaluation.  Boss says, "Oh I'd like to promote you, but some of the other employees are still real mad you got Bob fired."

    That's what the blogger boys and Obama are blaming Clinton for when they call her "divisive".  

    (And remember - she wasn't initially divisive because of health care or whatever.  It was because she had a job outside the home (unlike Barbara) and she didn't bake cookies (unlike Barbara)).

    Parent

    That was my analogy (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:41:13 PM EST
    Although it's so obvious and fits so snugly I figure anyone else could have come up with it.

    Parent
    very nice! n/t (none / 0) (#171)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:46:09 PM EST
    I personally don't think Barbara (none / 0) (#161)
    by Gabriele Droz on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:19:59 PM EST
    ever baked cookies.  She had some of her maids do that.  She doesn't strike me as a hands-on type, except with words - negative ones.  She excels there.

    Parent
    friends and family in GA (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:32:17 PM EST
    all diehard Republicans and Reagan Dems - voted for Hillary.
    AND they made the decision while Edwards was still in. (Sad that I felt a need to add that.)

    Parent
    Agreed, particularly after 8 years of Bush, and (none / 0) (#53)
    by vicndabx on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:30:56 PM EST
    a review of the post "Contract with America" era.

    Parent
    I see the "none of this is fair" (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:21:12 PM EST
     routine again.    That's what I obsess over.

    No.  The world isn't fair.  Fair is a word used by naive hopeful people.  It's a superfluous expectaion.  Probably dangerous in the world of politics.

    But we strive to make it more so over time.  Do we not?

    That is unless people want to just give up on making the world more fair and vote for Obama.  Because that's the choice that now exists for the Democratic Party.

    Beyond silly (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:22:33 PM EST
    The positions that Clinton has been taking vis-à-vis Obama in the past month appear to open up major vulnerabilities in the fall. McCain's national security experience in Vietnam trumps Clinton's national security experience in Tuzla, Bosnia.

    You rightly mention that as compared to Rev. Wright this is ridiculous.  It is even more ridiculous compared with the foreign policy experience of living in Indonesia as a 10 yr old. Not even Hillary herself is saying that her trip to Bosnia trumps McCain's experience, whereas Obama himself is talking up his childhood experiences as being so great that he does not need an experienced VP.

    I think you misread the Delong piece (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Jorsh on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:33:43 PM EST
    He doesn't push the Marshall analysis.  He states it as the argument that Wilentz should have made.  He then debunks it, citing the Nyhan analysis.  You chopped the quote unfairly IMO.  Here it is in full:


    The argument that Wilentz should have made is that this spring's primary results show that white reluctance to vote for an African-American candidate could be a real and important factor this November -- and potentially key in these five states, all of them crucial to Democratic hopes. Superdelegates should therefore make a coldblooded calculation to cater to the prejudices of the American electorate in swing states by choosing Clinton over Obama.

    Is this argument true? Is it supported by statistical fact? As best as I can tell, no.

    As Nyhan pointed out, there is no visible tendency for Obama to fare worse than Clinton as the African-American portion of the population increases.

    So, far from endorsing the "Hillary voters are racist" argument, DeLong rejects it.  

    But that is the only argument he gives (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:44:47 PM EST
    for Hillary's electability.  He could have made a little more of an effort.

    Parent
    Built a better straw man (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:45:22 PM EST
    Ding! (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:55:00 PM EST
    He sure could have (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jorsh on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:01:50 PM EST
    He definitely erred in lumping all the states together as "Swing States" and not distinguishing OH /PA/FL/MI from the rest.  That's a weakness in his argument, for sure.  But it doesn't mean he's blinded by Hillary hate.

    Parent
    Brad is blinded by something about Hillary (none / 0) (#110)
    by ding7777 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:26:19 PM EST
    My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly.

    link

    Parent

    Translation (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:21:36 PM EST
    "She didn't listen to MEEEEEEE!!!!"

    Parent
    underlying translation (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:25:52 PM EST
    poor little lady got in over her head.  Best leave czarring to the menfolk.

    Parent
    Whoa (none / 0) (#112)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:27:24 PM EST
    Ha! And, the fact that she has been (none / 0) (#120)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:55:32 PM EST
    held in stasis since this time and has learned absolutely nothing, done absolutely nothing, accomplished absolutely nothing, should also be added to this extremely pithy quote from our learned source.

    Same with Obama.  In 1992, he was-according to wiki-31 years old, working voter registration drives and crafting his first memoir, Dreams From My Father.

    My God, the man isn't even old enough to legally be president!

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:40:42 PM EST
    The point is that DeLong assumed that the Hillary electability argument was NECESSARILY voters are racist.

    I think YOU misread me. You entirely miss the point.

    Parent

    No I didn't, (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Jorsh on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:56:08 PM EST
    You are attacking two of Delong's arguments.  I only addressed the first one.  Now I will address both and demonstrate that you have a valid critique of Delong's argument but you have misread him and are unfairly characterizing him as a Hillary Hater.

    Delong presents two potential arguments for Hillary's superior electability

    Argument (1) Hillary's victories in certain swing states show that a bunch of voters there are racist.  Thus Obama is more likely to lose in the GE.

    Your post suggests that you think that DeLong is actually endorsing this so that he can "spew at Hillary".  But in fact he explicitly rejects it.  He says it is wrong and specifically endorses the Nyhan piece that debunks the Marshall theory.  You cannot claim that he is pushing the Marshall theory when he explicitly disavows it and favorably cites a piece debunking it.

    (2) Which candidate has a better shot in a whole slew of swing states.  This is the other electability argument Delong mentions.  This argument has no racial component, and Delong identified it.  So he clearly did not assume that pro-Hillary electability arguments assume that voters are NECESSARILY racist.

    You point out that Delong does not focus on the four largest swing states where Hillary is stronger.  While this is a legitimate point, the fact remains that Delong did note that there is a more general electability question that has nothing to do with race.

    Parent

    Ummm (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:05:33 PM EST
    so your argument is that DeLong proves he is not a Hillary Hater by providing this argument?

    Argument (1) Hillary's victories in certain swing states show that a bunch of voters there are racist.  Thus Obama is more likely to lose in the GE.

    Okaaaaay. If you REALLY believe that then I have nothing left to discuss with you.


    Parent

    He DISAGREED with that argument (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Jorsh on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:14:09 PM EST
    And debunked it, as I pointed out.  Did you even read my comment in its entirety, or did you just fire off after you got to that part

    That you would ignore, even after it's been pointed out to you, that Delong DISAGREED with the "Hillary voters are racist argument", and infer from his concededly flawed swing state argument that he is blinded by Hillary Hate says more about you than him.  I'm not going to bother trying to argue in good faith with someone who's just interested in impugning the motives of a good progressive on such shoddy evidence and poor argumentation.  I was told this was a place where people on either side of the primary debate could argue in good faith and with civility and respect.  Not so.  I won't be back.

    Parent

    Not to jump in here (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:25:03 PM EST
    But i think you are arguing the wrong point:

    DeLong says that HRC's electability argument is a "cold-blooded" argument that white people will not vote for Obama.  That it's dependent on exploiting racist sentiment.  BTD is criticizing this.

    Then DeLong says that he doesn't think it's an effective argument because stats don't show that Obama is hurt by race.  You are defending this point.

    But your defense is besides the point of this threat - DeLong set up a strawman to make HRC's electability argument look racist.  It doesn't matter if he thinks this is effective - his FRAMING is the issue.

    Parent

    You jumped in well (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:28:54 PM EST
    I think my point was obvious from the beginning.

    Plus a comment provides irrefutable proof of DeLong's Clinton Hatred.

    Parent

    Just to add to the point here, (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by frankly0 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:44:26 PM EST
    What you are completely missing is the significance of DeLong's statement,

    The best -- what I think is actually the only -- "electability" argument for Hillary Clinton was made by Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo in a commentary on posts by bloggers David Sirota and Brendan Nyhan. Marshall wrote that he believes that states with a midsize African-American population are especially difficult for Obama to win...[etc.]

    Note the significance of his stating that the ONLY argument for electability is one based on race, when it comes to the swing states. He is reducing whatever appeal Hillary might have over Obama in those swing states to racialized politics. He then says that the evidence is that, in effect, even racialized politics aren't working for Hillary.

    The simple fact that he refuses even to entertain seriously the possibility that Hillary's appeal, and Obama's lack of appeal, to voters in swing states might arise from anything other than race demonstrates his inability to look to other factors that might ground that appeal or lack thereof. And it demonstrates pretty convincingly his Clinton hate, if it is only conceivable to him that voters might prefer her because they were racist.

    Parent

    Well done (none / 0) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:54:10 PM EST
    amusingly (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by boredmpa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:02:55 PM EST
    I've long assumed that was Obama's unspoken  electability argument.

    Snarky yes, but when HRC and Obama have virtually the same NAACP, ACLU, and criminal justice ratings...the voter split seems rather high among AAs.

    I'm just sick of talk about racist white folk voting for HRC.  The question could just as easily be "why are 90+%" of AAs voting for obama in places like texas?  And can HRC win the black vote after losing so much support?

    I wonder if the rhetoric would tilt that way if she were in the lead.  I'm sure it will if she wins the primary. How do you de-racialize a campaign after a candidate has been race-baited?

    Parent

    Strange (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:43:53 PM EST
    I never saw De Long as a HRC hater.  His other writings on her certainly haven't betray any "hatred".  For the most part, De Long has kept out of the primary wars.

    De Long's piece on HRC's early-nineties health care reform effort (something De Long actually worked on) was a fairly dispassionate analysis of what went wrong and it didn't try to pin all the blame on her.  When I read it, it made me more inclined to support HRC because, though it described a colossal failure, De Long's piece showed the kind of hard experience Clinton had gained in struggling over such a momentous issue.  Assuming she wasn't stupid, I figured she must've learned something from that failure.

    In the post you criticize, De Long does not make an argument that media misogyny should be rewarded.  All he says is that it is an (unfair) fact of life, just as racism is an unfortunate fact of American political life.  That is, after all, what makes continued harping on Jeremiah Wright a plausible strategy for convincing automatic delegates that Obama can't win come November.

    Not that anybody is actually making such an argument.

    You are funny (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:54:39 PM EST
    "De Long does not make an argument that media misogyny should be rewarded.  All he says is that it is an (unfair) fact of life, just as racism is an unfortunate fact of American political life."

    Pretty darn funny. He said basically that Super Delegates going for Hillary would be rewarding racism.

    Are no Obama supporters capable of seeing what is wrong with what DeLong wrote? Not even one of you?

    Parent

    Perhaps We're Talking About Different Posts (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:35:50 PM EST
    The one I read was at De Long's web site and was posted this morning.  Re-reading it, the closest I can see his writing relating to your argument that voting for Clinton would be to reward racism is the following:  De Long raises Josh Marshall's variant of David Sirota's -- the electorate is racist, which causes electability problems for Obama -- argument.  De Long then examines the actual data and  shows how it doesn't mean what Marshall and Sirota think it means.  De Long thus shoots down the "racism hurts Obama's chances come November" argument made by both Marshall and Sirota.

    Thus my judgment is that the argument that superdelegates should support Hillary Clinton because Barack Obama is not very "electable" falls to the ground.... I think that Wilentz agrees with me. He... spends little time engaging the real-world issue of electability.... Which Democratic candidate, Obama or Clinton, has a better chance of carrying Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Iowa, New Mexico, Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Missouri and Colorado against John McCain in November?

    In other words, De Long is arguing that, though racism may be a real world phenomenon, it is not a significant factor making Clinton more electable than Obama come November.  De Long is arguing that a racist electorate is not a reason to vote for Hillary Clinton.  As such, he is not making an argument that a vote for Clinton is to reward racism.

    Maybe I missed something.  Can you point to actual language in De Long's piece that you think makes the argument that voting for Clinton would be to reward racism?

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:46:23 PM EST
    You are blind to what I am referring to. It makes you a typical Obama blog supporter unfortunately.

    Sorry, but I can not respect what you think you are doing.

    Parent

    Fine (none / 0) (#163)
    by kaleidescope on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:53:18 PM EST
    I simply asked you to quote some actual De Long language that you think makes the argument you say he does.  If you don't care to do so, WGAFS.

    Parent
    Can you imagine if someone said (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:14:36 PM EST
    Racism is just an unfair fact of life?

    Parent
    Thanks to BTD... (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Amileoj on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:00:30 PM EST
    ...for calling out Prof. De Long's specious, CDS-fueled electibility arguments.  Maybe it's true that those who are making such arguments will never realize or care how badly their credibility is being damaged in the process, but it's important that someone go on record pointing it out.  He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

    This part of BTD's postscript however puzzled me:

    ...Clinton does better in MI, PA, Ohio and Florida. Obama does better in Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, NM, Nevada and Colorado. Obama also does better in Viriginia.

    I should have thought that Clinton and Obama are about equally strong in NM and Nevada--with, if anything, a slight advantage to Clinton, given her (narrow) caucus victories, the likely under-representation of her support in caucus settings, and her greater likelihood of holding the Hispanic vote against McCain.  I would, at a minimum, put these states in the same category as Missouri.

    There are in addition small states not listed by De Long (or BTD), that Bill Clinton won and that HRC could well put back in play for the Dems--Arkansas and West Virginia come to mind.  To my mind, these seem much more likey Dem pickups (with HRC as the candidate) than does e.g. Virginia (with BHO at the top of the ticket).

    True (none / 0) (#109)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:26:10 PM EST
    Arkansas and West Virginia do indeed favor Clinton.

    Parent
    Yes, I live in Arkansas (none / 0) (#184)
    by splashy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:36:30 AM EST
    And here she is "our girl" through and through.

    Well, except for the far NW corner, but they aren't completely against her since she WAS on the Wal Mart board for several years, pushing for more equality for women.

    Parent

    If only electibility matters (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:19:45 PM EST
    If Obama wins the nomination what will we win? A party that is comprised of a great many people that have no integrity, are dishonest to their core and don't care about anything except winning. And certainly do not care about progressive values. Indeed they seem to have no values at all; because there is nothing progressive about misogyny. And women's rights are human rights as Hillary Clinton proclaimed many years ago.

    If Obama wins the nomination I suspect that the Democratic Party will have lost a great many women for a very long time. Many of us will not accept being demeaned by members of our own party in order to win an election. Many if not most of us will never vote for a Republican because they do not share our goals or our values. But sadly, we see that the Democratic Party doesn't either.

    Women are welcome in the Democratic Party so long as we know our place. And that place, sadly, is not at the head of a ticket. Women are welcome in the Democratic Party, as in the Republican Party, only in subordinate roles. I will not, I cannot vote for a party that demeans and diminishes my gender and practices sexism that would gag a conservative.

    If Democrats, if liberals, if progressives are willing to do so then so be it. Just win without me, because it would nauseate me to validate such behavior with my vote.


    sing it, sister! (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:24:36 PM EST
    win without me, because it would nauseate me to validate such behavior with my vote.

    I think the party is in for a rude awakening.  Women have been anywhere between 55-59% of the voter turnout in these past contests.  We may be second class citizens in our own party, but we will not bend to their will.  

    Past presidential elections have been all about the soccer mom and the security mom.  Say hello to the mom who stayed home, boys.  Call us when you want your party to be relevant again.

    Parent

    Ditto (none / 0) (#179)
    by Gio on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:05:49 PM EST
    I will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

    Parent
    I think something important to note here (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by blogtopus on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:33:09 PM EST
    Is that the vast majority of voters don't feel the same way DeLong feels; he is a blogger, thus someone who is likely to feel that EVERYBODY FEELS LIKE ME SO I WILL SPEAK FOR THEM. Anyone with a big enough bullhorn can imagine a crowd behind them, even when they are alone.

    Voters are smart, and they're picking up on the truth of this election: Experience counts when disaster strikes, and we've suffered a major one these last 8 years.

    Experience, not an Experiment.

    'I voted for Clinton twice' is blatant bigotry (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:00:45 PM EST
    This is bigotry as bald and ugly as it gets.

    If Spike the bigot doesn't want to vote against Sen. Clinton, fine, but HRC's not a senseless brainless stump attached to fmr. President Clinton any more than Coretta Scott King is a mere appendage to Dr. MLK.

    Both women have records of service in their own right and have been superb civil rights activists against the bigotry on display here.

    Massah??? Oh please.

    I also find what Lee said extremely offensive... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Nigel on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:48:25 PM EST
    ...but I think he might have been referring to voting for Clinton twice as a New York senator? He has contributed to her Senate campaign before.

    Parent
    You know, I wanted to use logic and give it a pass (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:49:12 PM EST
    ... but Massah barred the door.

    Sexism or racism or both, Spike's being hugely bigoted here.

    Were it just routine @$$h0lery, I wouldn't bat an eye, but he's in Imus country here.

    Parent

    if it was Clinton v Edwards (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:01:09 PM EST
    Spike Lee would be stumping for Clinton.  The idea that reverse racism isn't being applied in this election is bs.  Black candidate and the Spike Lee's show their true colors--race before rationality.  The reason Dinkins, Rangel, Bob Johnson, Maya Angelou support Hillary is because she is qualified, she is a friend to minority voters, they trust her.  That some douchebag like Spike Lee can't see that is willing blindness.  The Sniper story?  Bad news.  She screwed up.  But is that lie worse than any one of Obama's lies?  If you don't want to vote for the candidate that lies...don't vote...ever.  But if you are going to vote, vote for the candidate who is most capable not the candidate who matches your skin color, your gender, or has the most charisma.  Last time I checked the winner from 00 and 04 was deemed charismatic, experienced, a "uniter"...his approval rating is under 30%.  Instead of abusing a McCain with the moniker McSame how bout thinking of who the real Bush clone really is?  Obama may or may not be for the war, although his votes in Congress aren't exactly anti-war---nor are his statements concerning troop withdrawals---but he is campaigning on the same credentials as Bush--Charismatic.  Experience.  A uniter.  A good Christian American.  Policy he leaves up to Hillary to decide the course, to lead the way.  And if he wins?  Then voters deserve the same as what they got in 00 and 04...the guy you want to have a beer with, but the guy who is the least qualified to lead this nation.

    You can do better, (none / 0) (#6)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:40:13 PM EST
    but it's very un-PC to do so. Just say that a cold calculation shows blacks will give Obama the victory, but not enough of them will vote for Hillary, because she is not black.
    I don't actually believe this theory, but it's as valid as what JMM or BD say.

    Black voters have consistently shown.... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:00:44 PM EST
    ....that they will vote for a white candidate. The problem in this election is that IMHO the media and the Obama campaign have pretty much poisoned that well for Hillary Clinton so that the argument can be made that insufficient numbers of black voters can be persuaded to vote for her in the GE if she gets the nomination over Barack Obama. A lot of ugliness has been unleashed in this election by people that should know better. They are going to have a hard time getting everyone to play nice from here on out, no matter how much they'd like to believe otherwise.

    Parent
    A lot of black women will vote for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:52:25 PM EST
    because she has fought the fight the same as they have. And they don't trust someone who sounds like a preacher but has nothing to offer in terms of plans or policies. Remember, it's the black women who are the core of the community and the ones that hold it together. And Oprah's audience is mostly white women, by the way, so discount her influence in the black community.

    The black women I know don't like her much, they think she is too rich and doesn't give back to the black community like she should. I get this from my black friends here in FL. who are mostly working poor or lower middle class economically. Obama is not as popular among them as I expected him to be. I thought it would be an uphill battle to bring them around to Hillary, but it isn't. Most of them are there already.

    Parent

    Women: The Forgotten Majority. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:55:51 PM EST
    As Tina Fey said, this is the year of the B**CH!!!

    Get used to it, boys! ;-)

    Parent

    talking up Jeremiah Wright (none / 0) (#24)
    by diogenes on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:06:34 PM EST
    Since some of Hillary's people are still talking up Wright to the supers as a reason as a reason to tilt to Hillary. Are they doing this because they really think that Obama shares Wright's views, or are they trying to preemptively Willie Horton him to the supers because they think that the McCain people will do the same?

    Maybe they really are repulsed. (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    Not that I ever find this as a valid excuse (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    (the pointing of fingers to other candidates) but I imagine O's people are making the same arguments about whatever thing they can find against Clinton.

    It's just politics.  If neither campaign was doing this, I'd be a little afraid, actually.  I will say that I think O can get away with being a lot nastier about Clinton than the other way around.  Even though he says she's "likable enough."

    Parent

    Still wondering (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Sunshine on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:33:02 PM EST
    I think its because they don't know if he shares Wright's views, at first he would not renounce his views, and then he changed the subject to Race..  When he was asked about Wright and Farakan this week, he changed the subject to anti-Semitism...  This is for Obama to tell us, otherwise we don't know..

    Parent
    diogenese (none / 0) (#66)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:40:03 PM EST
    "preemptively Willie Horton him?"

    Really?

    You imply that people can't even discuss Sen. Obama's vulnerabilities in a General Election without being evil. Is this what you meant?

    You don't think facing up to the challenges Sen. Obama may have in the general election is smart? Same thing with Sen. Clinton. I'm sure Sen. Obama's campaign, as well as Sen. Clinton's and Sen.McCain's are talking about all of her weaknesses, perceived and otherwise.

    Kathy is right. They better be assessing this stuff because to not do it is foolish in the extreme. Besides, it's a great way to plan an end-run around any such attacks.

    Parent

    The Willie Horton attacks (none / 0) (#79)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:48:45 PM EST
    were unfair because Horton was furloughed under a program started by Dukakis' predecessor.

    Horton was not Dukakis "spiritual advisor" for 20 years.

    Parent

    This kind of thing sure worked (none / 0) (#80)
    by abfabdem on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:49:19 PM EST
    against John McCain in South Carolina in the 2000 election.  I just expect it will be unleashed again because it does seem to work (sadly).

    Parent
    Point me to evidence (none / 0) (#139)
    by Faust on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:37:46 PM EST
    That it is openly seperatist. I challenge you. Is perhaps the fact that one of the preachers at the church white good evidence?

    Parent
    The media and Repubs (none / 0) (#40)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:17:10 PM EST
    are pumping up McCain's war/hero record.
    Obama's "GD America!" can't compete with a U.S. soldier held as a POW for 5 years.
    imho

    Is this correct? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:26:49 PM EST
    As the primaries advanced beyond Feb 5 Super Tuesday, the racial divide increased (according to exit polls).

     

    Put Februrary 5 in the equation (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:41:49 PM EST
    that is somewhat true. The reality is the divide became EXTREMELY pronounced in South Carolina.

    I warned at the time that Obama had chosen to become the black candidate.

    Parent

    why do you think the media has (none / 0) (#174)
    by TheRefugee on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:00:31 PM EST
    been so willing to play along with the Clinton as race(ist)-baiter meme?  Is it just trying to show that they are uber-PC?  I mean the media rallied around Imus concerning blatantly inappropriate comments--Bill Clinton suggests that Obama will win SC just as Jesse Jackson had and all of a sudden a lifetime of working with and for blacks is erased in a day's worth of media condemnation of Clinton's assumed race-baiting.

    So I guess the question is: does the media hate the Clintons or are they trying to prove that they don't have a prejudicial bone in their collective body?

    Parent

    It Is Amazing (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:34:28 PM EST
    How bias works, even on people who are really smart on most progressive issues. I am truly shocked by how little self reflection there is in the progressive blogosphere these days and how insensitive many have become in the rush to propel their candidate.

    One thing for sure is that racism and sexism are alive and well. Good thing that most Americans view the murder, lies and torture that McBush/McSame stands for, as much worse than electing a woman or an person of color as president.

    Huge assumption (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:36:49 PM EST
    DeLong also writes:
    Barack Obama has shown a remarkable power to get independents who do not usually turn out for the Democratic primary to show up and vote for him. And he has shown a remarkable power to turn out his base. Both of these would have to vanish mysteriously in the general election before Obama could be called less "electable."

    Would it really be "mysterious" if Independents voted for McCain over Obama?  Considering that Independents are also one of McCain's base groups, I think not. I know that they are probably not going to vote for Hillary either, but it seems to me that he is overestimating Obama's ability to get Independents in the GE.


    Independents Vanish Mysteriously!!! (none / 0) (#128)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:11:43 PM EST

    That didn't take long. Sometimes I scare myself.

    Parent
    oh fer the love of peeps (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:19:20 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton has a slim lead of 48%-45% over McCain, while Obama continues to lead Hillary for the nomination by 46%-43%.

    When she's leading by 3 points, it's a slim lead.

    When he's leading by 3 points, it's just leading.

    !!!

    Parent

    The comments were (none / 0) (#157)
    by waldenpond on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:48:23 PM EST
    typical.... [I can't believe that many people would do that], [relax The ex-braburning generation will not hand the Supreme Court to the Republicans], [Your confidence, friend, is misplaced. Don't count on US voters to stand by Obama. If you do, you do so at your peril], [Are you threatening to overturn the government to the Republicans if your candidate isn't chosen?]

    They looked young......

    Parent

    The opposite of Hillary hate is? (none / 0) (#143)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:46:47 PM EST
    Something that no one talks about, ok just some of the Hillary bloggers:  Clinton love.  Why?  no one seems to explain it, but it does exist.  No one has measured it really cause they don't want to acknowledge it.  What Obama did is manage to break away a chunk of the Clinton love, the AA vote.  That was his strategy from the beginning.  Not that he has promised to deliver anything to the AA voters.  He does not even want to be seen in black events.  Yet, what he did is paint the Clinton's as racists.  It's that simple.  The liberal white boys, helped.  I think Anchangel(sp).  He has not chipped the other.  The "elite", hate to use that word, cause I don't find them to be, white women, intellectuals, fell into the "historic" moment, wanting to prove they were not racist.  I speak of practical experience living in a city with the "white elite", biggest friggin coward, classist krypto racists in the world.  

    San Francisco? (none / 0) (#152)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:04:30 PM EST
    Almost, but just as right (none / 0) (#153)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:26:28 PM EST
    the whole region.  

    Parent
    Thought it sounded familiar ;) (none / 0) (#154)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:33:09 PM EST
    I haven't been there in years, but when I left, the demographics all had their own 'hood in SF. Where I'm at in Brooklyn, we're just one big blend. I'll prob have a bit of culture shock when I move back. But there are worse places to live and at least there is a level of openness.

    My family is is farther out in the BA. I skipped from there to the city the minute I was old enough. Less judgment.

    Parent

    I moved from SF (none / 0) (#159)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:15:47 PM EST
    Now it's almost 60% yuppie.  I was old SF, I loved the old ethnic enclaves.  Now everyone got hit by the hippster and what my daughter calls "whimsical" artiste thing.  The expensive neighborhoods were bought up by the rich techies as pied a terres and are never lived in.  We used to have old rich SF people who gave money to the various groups, but now the new guys are hiding and never contribute to the community.  They are like ghosts.  


    Parent
    Two points: (none / 0) (#144)
    by dem08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:47:40 PM EST
    1. I don't think studying polls or arguments about electability make sense in the long run. Things change. Last April 10th, would many people have argued that Senator Clinton with name recognition and a 100 million dollar head start in Funds on hand would have floundered so much?

    We don't know how people will feel about whoever is running in October.

    2. Hillary is the first candidate in my lifetime whose supporters argue that voters should support her because she is disliked.

    I know that Big Tent and most of you here feel that Hillary, as she calls herself, is the victim of hateful sexism that will cause Obama to be the candidate and women to sit out this election, but running as a victim has distinct limitations.

    Even if Olbermann went off the air and Chris Matthews retired, many people think they know Hillary and dislike her. In Western New York, where I live, despite her ability to win against the Rick Lazio types the Republicans run against her, the every day conversation is that Bush is an idiot and Hillary is someone the speaker hates.

    Sheesh (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:59:26 PM EST
    Talk about completely missing the point or deliberately avoiding it.

    This comment takes the cake.

    Please comment no further IN THIS THREAD.

    Your comment is utterly off topic.

    Parent

    i believe she calls herself that, (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:03:17 PM EST
    I know that Big Tent and most of you here feel that Hillary, as she calls herself,

    because that's her name. i could be wrong.

    Parent

    HILLARY wins OBAMA swing states (none / 0) (#145)
    by timber on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:50:39 PM EST
    I beg to disagree.

    Hillary can win OBAMA swing states like WI, OR, MI, MN--where it seems Hillary is losing now against McCain but Obama is winning.

    Dont forget --these states are also heavily --against the war and Republican issues. Also these states are very angry with Hillary now because of their emotional attachment to Obama,

    So during the GE however, these Obama folks who hate Hillary will vote for Hillary.

    However, in hispanic, and blue collar states like PA, OH, FL Obama can never win it ---because ---well face it Wright, racism, or what not.


    In the end (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:01:14 PM EST
    I don't know how true that is.

    One of the things that Obama's keep-people-distracted-by-race campaign strategy does it keeps people from talking about the very real reasons why he'll be a crappy president, things that have nothing to do with race at all.

    That's why we find the DeLong essay above so insulting.

    People voting for Clinton aren't motivated by race.  At least not any more than people voting for Obama.

    I figure that's what you mean by "what not."


    Parent

    I don't give a fiddle about race (none / 0) (#185)
    by splashy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:43:25 AM EST
    It's about health care in my case. I want a full health care program, not half a program (Elizabeth Edwards framing).

    Not to mention basic experience of how to function in Washington.

    Race is irrelevant to me.

    Parent

    oh my! (none / 0) (#148)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:59:43 PM EST
    piffle! the concept that obama is more electable than clinton is laughable on its face; i have a cat that's more electable than obama, and he doesn't have the rev. wright in the background yelling "god d*mn america!"

    again, the obama campaign is a house of cards, that's starting to fall down. it will collapse utterly in the next two months. should it, by some mysterious stroke of luck, continue on and obama be nominated, he will be eviscerated in the GE, bet on it.

    frankly, i'm not wholly convinced that being shot down and held captive for 5 years as a POW qualifies as "national security experience".

    with all due respect to sen. mccain, he wasn't a staff officer, charged with planning tactics or logistics, he was a flying grunt, following orders from someone else, who did plan tactics and logistics.

    if his legislative actions are any barometer of his understanding of national security, he might want to re-think that approach, since he's been proven wrong for the entire run of the bush administration.

    Wouldn't that be (none / 0) (#175)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:09:41 PM EST
    an excellent video for Friday Cat-Blogging (on some blog that does that)?  Your cat with Rev Wright in the background...wish I was better with a video editor!!!


    Parent
    Simply as a matter of logic (none / 0) (#156)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:43:19 PM EST
    (without having to consider whether any of the facts cited are true or not), I think your argument fails because A-As are a minority and women are a voting majority. Racism and sexism in the calculation of electablity simply don't operate the same way because of that, unless you want to posit that significant numbers of women are misogynists or that they respond agreeably to misogyny.

    The Garden of Allah (none / 0) (#160)
    by Radix on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:16:29 PM EST
    If you haven't listened to that particular Glen Fry song, I highly recommend it. There are a couple of lines in there which I find rather fitting for people like DeLong and Sirota as well as others.

    "There is no right, there is no wrong, only winning." It seems to me, there are more than a few blogs that this is true for. It seems we've become Republicans in the way we Democrats now conduct our affairs.

    The other line is "I'm an expert witness because I say I am."  I don't think I need to elaborate much on this point, just take a look at DeLongs and Sirota's reasoning and BTD's response.

    Remember when the "politics of hate" used to be despised on the left?

    Hate? (none / 0) (#176)
    by Bob In Pacifica on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:30:46 PM EST
    I didn't find anything hateful from DeLong's article. Or Marshall's. It was in response to Sean Wilentz' rather stupid piece that posited that if delegates were winner-take-all in the Democratic primaries then Hillary would be leading.

    But in reality it's not winner-take-all in Democratic primaries. Likewise, Michigan and Florida don't count. Wilentz' article was good in that it characterized a lot of fantasy and denial in Clintonworld, DeLong's wasn't all that great a response.

    As far as how Hillary will do in the fall, I figure she'll do better than she'll do this spring. She can be preparing to lobby President Obama and the Democratic Senate on new healthcare legislation in January 2009.

    sorry Bob (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by dem08 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:42:36 PM EST
    anything critical of Hillary is by definition "hate".

    Look at it this way: nobody in the "old boy's club" would  even tell her campaign about Caucus Rules or apportioned votes.

    Throw in the fact that so many Americans take their Marching Orders from Chris Matthews and Keith Olberman, and even an Obama Supporter like Big Tent is disgusted.

    Hillary is a plucky outsider, with just a shoestring budget opposing the Obama Male Industrial Complex.

    I myself will not only NOT vote in November if Obama steals the nomination that is rightfully Hillary's, I will give up my citizenship and stop eating.

    Parent

    That's not what I wrote. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Radix on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:38:17 PM EST
    Racism charges have been leveled at both Bill and Hillary, I would say that requires a certain amount of hate, wouldn't you? Or is this more along the lines of the first song line I wrote, "there is no right, there is no wrong, only winning"? Either way, rational people should be uncomfortable at this point.

    Parent
    Well yes in fact... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Radix on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:33:14 PM EST
    What would you call it when someone implies some else is a racist?  And that line of reasoning has been applied to both Bill and Hillary.

    Parent
    for the record... (none / 0) (#178)
    by white n az on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:58:54 PM EST
    Missouri is NOT a wash...according to SUSA

    Also, according to SUSA, Virginia is a wash where somehow you feel that Obama is leading...

    Then of course the whole premise is that traditional Democratic carries will remain in Democrat hands and Obama is showing very weak in states like MA which suggests that DeLong's analysis is extremely weak and serves only his point of view.

    Wilentz's discussion was provocative but not necessarily that meaningful in the literal sense but in the ethereal sense, his analysis provided a reasoned argument to why 'superdelegates' should consider Hillary...electability...because the general election is indeed a winner-take-all in all but 2 states if I recall correctly.

    Lastly, on the topic of electability in general, if we start with the 48 state theory, scratch off the whites that won't vote for a black, scratch off the women that feel that Hillary was treated fairly, how is possible to seriously consider that Obama will win?

    I have a horrible feeling . . . (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by nycstray on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:26:54 PM EST
    that if Obama is the nom, we little women will be told in oh so many ways to get with the program.

    I personally do NOT want them asking for my vote. Been down that road one too many times in life. I don't need to be insulted yet again.

    Parent

    I believe that all those (none / 0) (#186)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:17:21 AM EST
    who assume that we little women will get back in line and vote Democratic because we have no other acceptable choice are in for a major surprise if Obama is the nominee. Right or wrongly the rage about sexism is aimed directly at him and his campaign. Live by media bias, die by media bias.

    There are a lot of older women out here who have worked for the Democratic Party for most of their lifetimes. Being told that we are racist if we don't support Obama has all ready alienated some of us.

    Seeing all the misogynistic attacks on Hillary Clinton has alienated others. I believe that all the experts, all the bloggers with their reasonable assertions about what's going on out here in voter-land have underestimated the rage that women are feeling.

    Or perhaps I am overestimating it simply based on my own outrage. And since my crystal ball isn't working as well as I would hope, I will simply state, as my opinion, that having a large number of your base angry is not good for electability
    of a candidate. And I believe that's a part of the equation that is mostly being totally ignored.

    Parent

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#187)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:48:18 AM EST
    I think they are underestimating women right now. (So what else is new?!) What's interesting is, they may have had a better chance of us who are pissed falling in line if Obama actually had some strong clear solutions to the problems we face. And I'm not talking about women's issues, but all issues that face all of us like the economy etc. The only reason I can see to vote for him is to defeat McCain. And that just sucks and really isn't that motivating. But I'm in a 'blue' state, so I'm under no obligation, lol!~ He can assume all he wants about my vote . . .

    Parent
    Godawful picture posted at Huffpo (none / 0) (#191)
    by nellre on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:11:45 PM EST
    I was searching for some info on that hillary hatred thing... and stumbled across this picture.
    Clinton And McCain Vs. Obama