PA Likes Its Annie Oakley

Barack Obama thought he was being funny with his comment about Hillary Clinton acting like Annie Oakley.

Here's the new Rasmussen poll, finding Hillary ahead by 9 in PA. (Questions and Numbers here.) Check this out:

Among voters from households where someone owns a gun, Clinton leads by seventeen points.

As to whether Bitter-Gate had an effect, draw your own conclusions from these numbers about religion and immigration, both mentioned in Obama's now infamous remark:

Clinton leads among voters who say faith and religion are Somewhat or Very Important. Obama leads among those who say such topics are Not Very Important or Not at All Important.

...Sixty percent (60%) of Likely Democratic Primary voters in Pennsylvania say that it is Very Important for the government to enforce the borders and reduce illegal immigration. Among these voters, Clinton leads by sixteen. [More...]

The racial component of the survey:

Clinton leads by twenty-seven points among White Voters while Obama attracts 78% of the African-American vote.

For number crunchers, CQ Politics says that even if Clinton wins in PA, she's unlikely to win more than a 3 delegate lead in the state's congressional districts (53 to 50). But then, that's only 103 of PA's 187 delegates.

The other 84 are 55 pledged delegates awarded on the basis of the statewide popular vote and 29 unpledged superdelegates.

If Hillary does well in PA, she'll get lots of superdelegates, plus her share of the 55 plus her 53. Obama will get 50 plus his lesser share of the 55 plus his superdelegates. I think that will put her enough ahead of him in the state for the superdelegates in other states to take notice.

< SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 14 | Florida Poll: McCain Would "Trounce" Obama But Tie or Lose to Hillary >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Those stupid voters! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:57:59 AM EST
    Why won't they accept Obama's Truth that the things they value in life are only important to them because they are bitter?!

    Thanks for the analysis and the post. :-)

    Why are you being such a jerk? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:22:43 PM EST
    I mean, really?  What are you accomplishing here?

    thank yew.nt (none / 0) (#114)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    It is (none / 0) (#163)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:07:30 PM EST
    And unfortunately for Sen Obama it shows that after spending 4 million a week he has pretty much not managed to change much of anything (18-18-14). You think that is a good result?



    On the duck blind packin' a six-shooter! (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by JoeCHI on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:58:17 AM EST
    Mr. Obama said:

    "...she's talking like she's Annie Oakley!  Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, she's packin' a six shooter! C'mon! She knows better."

    What is clear from Obama's absurd statement is that he knows absolutely nothing about hunting, guns, and blinds.

    One doesn't hunt from "on" the duck blind, one hunts from "in" the duck blind.  Further, the weapon of choice for duck hunters is a 12-gauge shotgun, not a six-shooter.

    I don't know a lot about guns either... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:04:24 AM EST
    ..so it doesn't bother me that Obama is not a gun expert. However, if he didn't know what he was talking about, he shouldn't have gone there. That never works out great for any candidate.

    He is a snob that is my takeaway.. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by TalkRight on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:12:29 AM EST
    He is taunting her as if HE is the lone ranger out there!! He exposed his own expertise about guns and acting like an idiot while trying to make fun of the very same fact about another candidate!!

    .. because she was a woman? And he a Snob?


    He can't bowl either. (none / 0) (#19)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:16:27 AM EST
    However, if he didn't know what he was talking about, he shouldn't have gone there.
    So he does not know about guns and he doesn't know how to bowl, and he doesn't know how to drink a shot of whiskey. I suspect a wine drinker here. Ha. And I know how to do all of the above and like wine too.

    Hell, he can't even shoot his mouth off with style (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:45:48 AM EST
    His foot always seems to be in the way.

    HRC emerges as the straight-shooter in this round.


    Yes, and people are laughing at him (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:12:03 AM EST
    over it. Even a non-hunter like me knows that you don't hunt with a pistol. Especially birds, you hunt them with a shotgun. Nothing makes a candidate tank faster than being laughed at. And people are laughing AT him, not with him. Politically fatal, in my opinion. Keep it up, Obama, we need more laughs in the silly season.

    Didn't anybody in (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by frankly0 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:17:26 AM EST
    Obama's entire campaign who reads his material before he delivers it know enough to get this duck blind/six shooter thing right?

    I mean, haven't they at least seen Elmer Fudd cartoons?

    It does seem a trifle out of touch if this slips by everyone who vets Obama's material.


    Ha! (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:25:23 AM EST
    You get uprated for telling the truth AND using an Elmer Fudd reference in the same sentence!

    A friend of mine got a call from her mom... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:28:12 AM EST
    in OH. My friend hadn't been paying attention to the news (new job), but Mom was was rambling on and on about "something having to do with 'even I know you don't take a pistol to a duck blind.'" My friend was clueless, but she let Mom ramble for a while.

    Once I explained what that was about she just rolled her eyes.

    Not sure how this is going to play out in the GE. But my friend's mom is a Dem...


    Yes, thats surely the takeaway from (none / 0) (#4)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:03:32 AM EST
    those comments.

    God forbid you miss the sarcasm or irony in his remarks.  i.e. that Hillary is suddenly painting herself as some kind or defender of 2nd amendment rights is a stretch.


    I noticed the sarcasm (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:06:32 AM EST
    and the sexism, and the hyperbole.

    All she said was that her grandfather taught her to handle a gun. She didn't say she was shootin' varmints, like Mitt Romney.


    Aaah the sexism. (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:11:14 AM EST
    Sorry I wasn't wearing my magic decoder ring to pick up on that dog whistle when I was watching the youtube.

    Why am I not surprised (none / 0) (#17)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:13:43 AM EST
    that you don't see any sexism in his remarks?

    It's unbelievable to him that she could handle a gun because she's a woman. If John Edwards had said what she said, it would have passed unremarked.


    Totally Agree. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by liminal on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:17:25 AM EST
    The sexism bothers me the most.  She's a girl!  Girls don't drink beer!  And certainly, girls don't know anything about guns; god forbid that they start pretending to know anything whatsoever about hunting and/or respect the important place that hunting has in rural communities.

    I hear that Annie Oakley, like HRC, (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:19:22 AM EST
    periodically, when she's down, launched attacks as a way of making herself feel better.

    Also, people thought she was "likeable enough."


    ,,,yup... the claws come out... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:33:16 AM EST
    ...which is a concern, b/c if "you can't run you're own house, you can't run the White House"

    The sun is over the yardarm! (none / 0) (#119)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:30:09 PM EST
    Shots all around, girls!

    Sure, and everyone was incredulous (none / 0) (#30)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:24:51 AM EST
    at Mitt Romney's stories of hunting varmints . . . why?  Because he was a Blue State Governor with an Ivy League education, who had run a successful investment fund.  He was not credible.

    Equally,  Hillary Clinton, graduate of Wellesley College, Yale Law School, First Lady of Arkansas, of the United States of America, and distinguished Senator for the state of New York.  She has an "F" rating from the NRA, 0% rating from Gun Owners of America, and a 100% rating from the Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence.

    But no,  you're right,  the only possible reason anyone would view her sudden pandering to Hunters and Gun Owners with an element of suspicion is surely sexism.   I don't know if you are one of the commenterson Talkleft who are so quick to claim that the Obama camp are over quick to cast about claims of racism,  but if you are I would hope that you were a bit less quick to claim sexism.


    If this were Obama's only sexist comment (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:28:36 AM EST
    I would agree with you.

    See my remarks above.

    I think the media has been a lot more sexist than Obama in general, but he has definitely made his contributions.


    I guess it depends on your perspective (none / 0) (#49)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:38:12 AM EST
    Reading the periodically comments I can see how they could be interpreted as sexist.  If I was coming into it with a poor view of Obama then that might be the interpretation I would take.  As things stand I prefer to take an innocent interpretation.  It's possible to make bad faith interpretations of each other's candidates words from here till the end of the campaign but I certainly don't think Obama is a sexist,  and I'm trying not to go too far the other way into become a Hillary hater either (such as Andrew Sullivan, or recently John Cole).

    It does indeed, (none / 0) (#61)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:46:04 AM EST
    and at first I didn't interpret them as sexist, either.

    I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt on this issue, especially considering that the media is a big part of the problem. Tweety, MoDo and other pundits constantly slam HRC for her cleavage, her ankles and other female-only attributes.

    Unfortunately, he has gone over the line with the Annie Oakley remark. I can only ignore what's in front of my eyes for so long.


    But to hate her is an Obama-phile virtue, no? (none / 0) (#174)
    by Boia on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:12:40 PM EST
    ...I'm trying not to go too far the other way into become a Hillary hater...

    Unfortunately, to judge by your comments, you've failed, and failed miserably.


    For somebody who writes a lot you (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Florida Resident on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:32:57 AM EST
    apparently read little.  She said her grandfather taught her how to shoot and did not claim to be a hunter.  BTW being from where she is from it would be very natural that her grandfather teach her to shoot it happens all the time in the US although maybe you and Obama are not aware of it.  I taught my daughter how to shoot when she was very young around 13y/o so I find it believable that her grandpa taught her.  And you can be for gun-control and still be for gun ownership they are not exclusive from each other well maybe in the mind of the NRA and maybe yours from what you say.

    You keep mischaractorizing the issue (none / 0) (#73)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:52:20 AM EST
    And, like Obama, you're doing it intentionally.

    Hillary was clearly not saying that she was an avid hunter or that she did not support gun control measures. She was taking exception to Obama's claim that people's interest in guns is born out of bitterness by saying that people genuinely enjoy gun-related leisure activities and cited, as an example, her enjoyment learning to use a gun with her grandfather and going duck hunting.

    That is why Obama's response is so ugly and sexist:  He found the notion of Hillary or any girl "being an Annie Oakely" and using a gun and getting enjoyment absurdly humorous.


    and you're intentionally mischaracterising (none / 0) (#79)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:56:37 AM EST
    Obama's comments to make a bad faith interpretation of sexism.

    Look, JoeA, Obama was dissing (none / 0) (#180)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:02:32 PM EST
    Clinton's own roots -- the churchgoing, gun-toting, but not bitter Rodhams in Scranton, Pennsylvania.  Her gun-toting grandpa was a miner, and people in my parts also know that means his hunting was putting food on the table to last through a long winter.

    And her father went to a state college on a football scholarship, while Obama's father went to Harvard on his scholarship.

    And Clinton went to Wellesley on a scholarship, too.  She couldn't get a scholarship to go to Harvard, of course, since it didn't admit women then.

    You don't have Obama's upbringing correct, either, although admittedly it's hard to do with all the myths that have been spun.  But he went to a private prep school, when she went to public schools, so he's the one with the elitist background and education.

    Gawd, it's tiring to keep trying to get allegedly reality-based people to research the realities.


    Just Like Kerry? (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:36:20 AM EST
    You are diluting the term sexism.

    It would be funny if it weren't so sad (none / 0) (#60)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:46:00 AM EST
    that you get all these accusations of sexism levelled at Obama at the drop of a hat,  but there is outrage if there is any perception of the Obama camp bringing up race.

    Kerry posed as a duck hunter (none / 0) (#66)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:48:02 AM EST
    for photo ops.

    Hillary did not. She merely discussed her own experience with guns.

    It is ridiculous to equate the two.


    I'd make a Hillary in Tuzla and Dukakis (none / 0) (#83)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:58:30 AM EST
    in a Tank joke but I can't think of a good way of linking the two.  Any ideas?

    No (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:07:50 PM EST
    You are the one that suggested Edwards because he is a man, would never get questioned about a gun remark, not me. Kerry is also a man and he was made fun of.

    Had Obama said something like 'who does she think she is Buffalo Bill?' You could have argued that the comment was sexist, but since he was comparing her to one of the legendary women marksmen is hardly sexist. Quite the opposite in fact.


    Kerry was not made fun of (none / 0) (#100)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:09:47 PM EST
    because of gun remarks which were true. He was made fun of because he looked ridiculous and posed in his picture.

    Stop It (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:25:34 PM EST
    You are sounding silly. You said:

    If John Edwards had said what she said, it would have passed unremarked.

    Kerry pandered to gun lovers and was made fun of, and he is a man. I know nothing about Edwards history with guns. If he is a regular hunter and pandered to gun lovers any attempt to make fun of him would fall flat not because he is a man but because he is a hunter.

    The jab by Obama had nothing to do with Hillary's sex, it had to do with the fact that she was obviously pandering, just like he did with bowling etc, and she is no hunter.

    The fact that Obama mentioned Annie Oakley is a very good argument that he admires great woman and is no sexist. As I said had he compared her to a male gun hero you could argue that he thinks women are too weak, or whatever negative you want, to be comfortable with handling a gun.

    I like Hillary and voted for her, but I do not hate Obama or think he is a sexist any more than anyone, man or woman, is a sexist in a sexist (and racist) society such as ours. To single him out as sexist for this remark is absurd and weakens efforts to expose and eliminate sexism from our society.


    I highly doubt (none / 0) (#140)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:56:38 PM EST
    That when Obama mentioned Annie Oakley, he was referring to her feminist credentials.  It certainly wasn't a compliment, the way he said it.

    OK You Are Drunk (1.00 / 2) (#143)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:10:52 PM EST
    It is hilarious to think that Obama invoked one of the two or three  most famous marksmen in American history who is also female, in order to denigrate her because she is a woman.

    Love is blind, as they say.


    YOU need to stop. (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:52:37 PM EST
    He said she was NOT Annie Oakley, not that she WAS Annie Oakley.

    My comment about Edwards stands. If he had made the same remarks she did, he would not have gotten the same reaction from Obama. Obviously.

    I'm not sure what you think you're doing here, but telling people they're drunk isn't going to bring them to your side.


    OK (none / 0) (#176)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:29:14 PM EST
    Obama was wrong to bash Hillary, but it was not sexist it was about pandering, a hypocritical stance for sure. I have no doubt that would have done the same to Edwards, Kerry or any male opponent for pandering to the gun lobby while voting against them, as Obama himself has done.  

    It would not surprise me one bit that if Edwards were the nominee he would get the same treatment as Kerry got.


    Nice. (none / 0) (#155)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:52:14 PM EST
    You're right - Obama was giving props to Hillary and complimenting her.

    How could I have been so mistaken?


    Change The Subject? (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:13:09 PM EST
    You said he was denigrating Annie Oakley. I disputed that.

    Of course he was making fun of Hillary, I never suggested he was not, and I have stated that I think that it was a bad idea, just as I thought it was a bad idea for Hillary to call Obama an elitist. Those sort of jabs should be left to hang around the necks of the GOP.


    Hillary told a true personal story (none / 0) (#187)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:32:21 AM EST
    She did not claim to be a hunter or to have changed her position on guns. She just related a bit of personal biography that a lot of people can relate to.

    I'm Hillary's age, and I was, along with my older brother, taught to shoot by my Dad. In fact, when I was FIVE my Dad bought me a beautiful little .22 with a modified stock. I never really liked shooting and would cry at even the mention of hunting animal. So, in telling the story of my .22, I'm not making any macho or even Annie Oakley type claims -- I'm just relating something about the culture I was reared in.

    That little .22 did get use when my son was small -- my brother has it now and has used it to teach his grandson to shoot. In my family we still have guns -- that mostly haven't been fired in decades -- that were initially owned by my great-grandfather, grandfather and father. None of us are gun nuts or hunters -- but these guns are part of our heritage and family history, and for that reason we hold on to them.


    Quote from "Living History" (none / 0) (#190)
    by pagerd on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:44:26 PM EST
    I have the book on my kindle, so I did a search on Scranton:

    Living History (Hillary Rodham Clinton)
    - Clipping Loc. 225-35 | Added on Wednesday, April 16, 2008, 04:30 PM

    As children, my brothers and I spent a lot of time at his duplex on Diamond Avenue in Scranton, and each summer we spent most of August at the cottage he had built in 1921 about twenty miles northwest of Scranton in the Pocono Mountains overlooking Lake Winola.

    The rustic cabin had no heat except for the cast-iron cook stove in the kitchen, and no indoor bath or shower. To stay clean, we swam in the lake or stood below the back porch while someone poured a tub of water onto our heads. The big front porch was our favorite place to play and where our grandfather shared hands of cards with my brothers and me. He taught us pinochle, the greatest card game in the world, in his opinion. He read us stories and told us the legend of the lake, which he claimed was named after an Indian princess, Winola, who drowned herself when her father would not let her marry a handsome warrior from a neighboring tribe.

    The cabin is still in our family and so are many of our summer traditions. Bill and I took Chelsea to Lake Winola for the first time when she was not yet two. My brothers spend part of every summer there. Thankfully they have made some improvements. A couple of years ago they even put in a shower.

    In the early fifties, few people lived off the two-lane highway that ran in front of the cottage, and there were bears and bobcats in the woods up the mountain behind us. As children we explored the surrounding countryside, hiking and driving the back roads and fishing and boating on the Susquehanna River. My father taught me to shoot a gun behind the cottage, and we practiced aiming at cans or rocks. But the center of our activities was the lake, across the road and down the path past Foster's store. I made summer friends who took me water-skiing or to the movies that were projected onto sheets in an open field on the lake shore. Along the way, I met people I never would have encountered in Park Ridge, such as a family my grandfather called "mountain people," who lived without electricity or a car. A boy from that family, about my age, once showed up at the cottage on horseback to ask me if I wanted to go for a ride.

    When I was as young as ten or eleven, I played pinochle with the men--my grandfather, my father, Uncle Willard and assorted others, including such memorable characters as "Old Pete" and Hank, who were notorious sore losers. Pete lived at the end of a dirt road and showed up to play every day, invariably cursing and stomping off if he started losing. Hank came only when my father was there. He would totter up to the front porch with his cane and climb the steep stairs yelling, "Is that black-haired bastard home? I want to play cards." He'd known my dad since he was born and had taught him to fish. He didn't like losing any better than Pete did and occasionally upended the table after a particularly irksome defeat.

    This isn't a new story. She has more than a passing familiarity with a rural lifestyle, starting from her childhood.


    What A Coincidence (none / 0) (#192)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:42:47 PM EST
    I'm just relating something about the culture I was reared in.

    It was pitched to a demographic that is essentially opposite her voting record on gun control. It was meant to spin her as a gun lover which is not the case when it comes to her voting record.  Obama was calling her out because her record on gun control was just like his Kerry's and Edward's.  She is no Annie Oakley when it comes to gun control. My guess is were Oakley alive right now she would be postergirl for the NRA.  


    It was pitched to people (none / 0) (#193)
    by esmense on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 03:15:49 PM EST
    who could relate to the experience. The message was I know you, we share some values in common  -- even if you may not agree with my position on this issue.

    That's not what he said... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:28:28 AM EST
    Hillary has been talking about her past experiences using a gun this whole campaign and, yes, she was making a point that people usually shoot a gun as a leisure activity (like her experiences in the duck blind or learning to shoot with her grandfather), that they find genuine enjoyment in it -- not because they are clinging to it out of bitterness, as Obama alleged.  And then Obama responded to that by basically saying, "she's so desperate to make political hay out of this that she's trying to make you believe that a GIRL shoots a gun and has been behind a duck blind ha, ha, ha!"  

    The novelty of Annie Oakley was that she was a woman that was highly skilled with a gun-- very unusual now and obviously in her day. Obama was clearly making a sexist point that it is unbelievable that a woman would handle a gun, and if she did, she certainly wouldn't enjoy the experience!


    Effective sarcasm should have a little more truth (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06:30 PM EST
    I realize he was being sarcastic, and couldn't care less if he mixed his old-west and duck hunting metaphors.  If this attempt at humor doesn't work beyond his fanbase it is because the original material he was ridiculing didn't say anything like that.  Clinton never said she was hunting.  She said she was taught to shoot a gun.  Anyone who grew up anywhere near a gun can relate to that.  She was just trying to share a common experience.  That's what politicians do when they are talking with voters, instead of at them.

    Unhinged was the takeaway I got. (none / 0) (#28)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:23:10 AM EST
    Jeralyn - I dont think your math is right (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:02:05 AM EST
    I would assume the 55 are allocated proportionally based on the statewide Popular Vote.

    ie. if Hillary wins 60-40, then she would get 60% of the statewide pledged delegates, rather than all of them.  i.e. 33 to Hillary, 22 to Obama.

    The Democratic contests are all proportional rather than winner takes all.

    right (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:03:51 AM EST
    I'll change that. thanks.

    No surprise in that headline, TL (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:14:27 AM EST
    Any state where a substantial number of schools have 5 days off at Thanksgiving (T-Day Thursday through the Monday following) because the Monday following Thanksgiving is the first day of deer season and nothing gets done because everyone's out going for deer, is gonna like its Annie Oakleys.

    I live in WV (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by liminal on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:27:11 AM EST
    Deer season starts the week before Thanksgiving here, and the schools are out the whole week before Thanksgiving.  Some smaller industrial plants just close down when deer season starts.  And it's not just cultural: hunting season can have a big economic impact on small rural economies.  Hunters travel.  They need supplies, gas, lodging and meals or at least groceries.  They need beer, and maybe they need someone to dress and/or mount their kills.  What with the overpopulation of deer in the Appalachians (no predators = an enormous herd, which presents a genuine hazard on the roads), deer hunting is also a reasonable and necessary aspect of wildlife management.  Some poor families also depend on hunting (or donations of venison) as meat for their families through the winter.  Heck, some smaller cities and towns around here have such problems with deer herds in town that they will sponsor controlled deer hunts (bow hunting only) on forested parklands in city limits.  

    Most hunters I know deer hunt, or turkey hunt.  Duck hunting isn't big around here.


    PA deer season has started the Monday (none / 0) (#69)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:49:05 AM EST
    after Thanksgiving for, probably, 80 or more years.  Probably since before FDR got Thanksgiving to be a national holiday.  No one knows for sure any more.  And, like you describe in WV, it is one of the big "events" - economic, social and otherwise - of the year.  Once one gets out of the cities and into the smaller towns.  FWIW, there's literally hundreds of thousands of people in the woods of PA on opening day.  With deer rifles.  In 2006-07, PA sold over 840,000 hunting licenses....

    As to ducks in WV, that's really no surprise - mountains aren't super-conducive to ducks or duck hunting....


    I've gotten 2 deer in 3 yrs without 6 shooter (none / 0) (#80)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:56:39 AM EST
    With my car. They hit me, I did not hit them. One time it was the thump and the sight of brown at the same time that told me I had gotten one. $1300 damage. Last year on my 2 month old car one got me again. $1100 damage. They are beautiful animals and I love them, but they do multiply.Saw one run in front of a full school bus van a few months ago and barely miss it. Luckily, my Golden was on a leash because as soon as she realized what it was she was gun ho to chase after it right out in morning school traffic. This year, 3 deer hit in my office alone.  

    I'd love to be the auto body guy (none / 0) (#84)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:58:37 AM EST
    in your neighborhood....

    There are several (none / 0) (#115)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:27:46 PM EST
    It is rural NE Penna. Close enough to the big city but far enough to be country.

    Same in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#181)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:13:07 PM EST
    and even in the big city.  They're overrunning us.

    I got hit by a deer when I was in the burbs, and let me tell you, when it's between a deer and a Fiat, both get totaled.  And here, if you don't have a hunting license, you get fined for getting hit by a deer!  Unless someone comes along and asks for the roadkill for fixings for venison sausage, yum, as someone did within minutes.  Thank heavens, as the next new used car was going to cost me enough.

    Wisconsin shuts down for the opening of deer season, too -- while the bars back home make big bucks with "deer season widows" nights for the women who don't go along for the life of shacks in the woods (but a lot do).  And what goes on at those taverns can't be shown on tv.:-)

    Deer hunting with a gun season comes after bow-hunting season, and it's followed by ice-fishing season, while we wait for the warmup for regular fishing season . . . it is a way of life.  And for a lot of Chicagoans who come up north for hunting and fishing, too.  Obama is just tuned out of so much that happens even in his own city.  He is just so not a Midwesterner. . . .


    My problem with all of these (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:20:19 AM EST
    polls is the AA vote for Obama.  They seem to run about 10 pts behind what he usually does.  I keep seeing that and I kind of think.... hmmmm?  Wait and see.  I'm looking forward to Penn now.

    They sure do like their Annie O. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:30:11 AM EST
    100 PA Mayors are set to endorse Hillary today enmasse, so says TPM.

    A Clinton campaign source confirms to me that roughly 100 mayors from all over Pennsylvania will be endorsing her today at noon -- and a bunch of them will hit Obama over the "small town" comments.

    Some twenty of them will be at an event in Harrisburg today, and number of these will pick up the "small town" refrain -- an effort by the Hillary campaign to get local officials who represent these small-town folks to keep the story going.

    "These are the men and women who represent the people Senator Obama so casually dismissed as clinging to guns and religion," a Hillary campaign source says. "These mayors know better."

    Obviously, the endorsements of individual lower-level officials don't mean much in isolation, but the Clinton campaign is hoping that a whole bunch of them echoing her criticism of Obama will add up to a chorus of sorts.

    Hmmmm.... (none / 0) (#45)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:34:20 AM EST
    perhaps the effects of BitterCling have yet to be seen.

    I don't think we have (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:45:56 AM EST
    even seen more than the tip of the iceberg.

    This gaffe by Obama will give people the courage, or whatever you want to call it, to say they won't vote for him without being labeled any of a number of things that fly around when such things are said.


    People like the uncommited Superdelegates (none / 0) (#101)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:11:15 PM EST
    for example.  They need something like this to hang their hat on.

    I had read that many of these had already (none / 0) (#53)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    endorsed Hillary,  and they are "reendorsing" for the cameras.  A publicity stunt if you will.

    I know that (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:46:48 AM EST
    a few of them (not sure how many) have already endorsed but it is still a great stunt either way. it will fit the narative quite nicely.

    I hope they do one of those stages (none / 0) (#67)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:48:41 AM EST
    and line the walkway with American flags like they did when Obama's handful of military folk endorsed him.

    We'll see how the press plays it.  They were all over the handful, not so much over Clinton's one hundred or so military leaders.


    A great publicity stunt -- good (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:14:45 PM EST
    for the Clinton campaign.  That must have taken a lot to organize.  This is the sort of reaction we need to see in a campaign staff that can win.

    Just about now... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:31:39 AM EST
    a week before the election, this is when I cannot pay attention anymore.  It's like watching a tight game and you got to leave the room cause the anxiety is way too much.  One thing  I learned from this election, the polling at this stage gets whacky.  Each side uses the numbers for spin, MSM use them to have something to do and blogs use it to convince the faithful.  

    Maybe during this time we should just play that music when you wait on the phone for service.  

    No Quarter has Clinton (none / 0) (#72)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:50:44 AM EST
    demanding O's records and tax returns.

    When it comes to transparency, the only thing transparent about Senator Obama is his claim to be transparent.

    Well played considering how many of us are writing checks to the IRS today.


    Yes! that's exactly it, Stellaaa - (none / 0) (#82)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:57:01 AM EST
    In football season, this is when I start watching through my fingers, turn the sound off (not usually an option when my husband is also watching) or just leave the room!

    I agree with what some were saying here last night - and that is that whatever internal polling these campaigns have is likley showing that Obama is losing ground and Clinton is gaining it.

    It'a all about perception, and right now, Obama looks weak and scared; if I were a superdelegate, I would be having second thoughts about Obama if what we have seen this last 10 days or so is a preview of how he will campaign in a general election setting, when what gets hurled at him will be exponentially worse.

    Anyone can do well when it's all going one's way - but when it gets hard, that's when we get to see who someone really is.  What people are seeing from Obama - angry, petulant, sarcastic, condescending, defensive - is not pretty.  I'm not sure the support he has enjoyed is solid enough in all sectors to hold up through the primaries, much less in a general election contest.

    But we shall see...


    What was the last high profile endorsement ... (none / 0) (#122)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:36:35 PM EST
    ... since the ones that fed the crest of the momentum?

    The premature triumphalism on rumors of Gore and Carter had to be walked back, (and embarrassingly so) when Carter went on the record and said he wasn't endorsing either remaining Dem.

    Seriously, what was TeamO's last big "get"?


    Only 78% of the black vote (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:48:50 AM EST
    seems low to me.  Not to harsh anybody's mellow, of course!  I think she'll win in PA, but like Stellaaa, I'm on pins and needles and trying not to pay too much attention to polls.

    This is very good and very apt to this issue (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by gish720 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:28:02 PM EST
    oops (none / 0) (#147)
    by nellre on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:16:30 PM EST
    Should have looked first

    I really don't think those numbers (none / 0) (#11)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:07:02 AM EST
    show anything at all about the Bitter-gate controversy or about any movement based on it.

    Ok,  it shows that Hillary leads amongst hunters.  Let me think,  is there any correlation between the hunter demographic and any other demographics that are/were heavily pro Hillary?  I may be completely off base here,  but I would suggest that Hunting in PA might be a predominantly White past-time.  And correct me if I'm wrong,  but that is a demographic that Hillary was doing pretty well with before this all blew up.  

    Without a trendline showing Hillary's support increasing or Obama's decreasing amongst the Hunters, or anti immigrants, or the Religious,  none of this really means very much.

    to new commenter Thanin (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:09:43 AM EST
    we don't allow insults here. Please go elsewhere if that's all you have to contribute.

    Thats not an insult... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:13:07 AM EST
    its a legitimate concern.  Both this place and Daily Kos are only hurting our party.  I don't know about anyone else but I dont want McSame.  I dont want to go to war with Iran.  I dont want another Alito (sp?) or Roberts on the Supreme Court.  This crap doesn't help us.

    Let's both calm down and get it straight (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by scribe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:22:48 AM EST
    On this site, we don't use words that twig the spam filters and/or the p*rn filters ("P*rn" being one of the twig-the-filters words).  That's because a lot of law firms and corporate law departments come to this site for discussions and such on criminal law and justice topics, and their filters will not only preclude the users from getting to the site, but block the site.

    When the site gets blocked, TL then has to go and beg them to let us back in and that takes a lot of her time that could be better used policing the site, looking for articles or representing clients.

    I'm not going to try to list all the words we avoid, but would suggest that if your aunt or grandmother - the one who drinks pink tea from china on a Tuesday afternoon and raises her pinky while doing so - would cluck her disapproval on hearing the word, it's on the list.  Moreover, the same goes for the timbre of an argument.

    We also keep it clean b/c we respect each other, even though we sometimes strenuously disagree.

    We don't indulge in ad hominem arguments.  Such both show the weakness of the position of the person making them, and irritate the person on the receiving end.

    A lot of us are real, practicing lawyers.  We know how to construct an argument without rolling in the mud, as much as we might like it.


    I apprecate what youre saying... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:56:51 AM EST
    though I'm unsure how it applies to my post.  But thank you for the well thought out response.

    You are wrong (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:25:01 AM EST
    we are advocating for our favorite candidates. That's what bloggers do, report, analyze and opine. There's a primary race going on in case you haven't noticed.

    The authors of this site will vote for and support the Democratic nominee, whoever it is.

    Commenters don't speak for TalkLeft. As it says right on the front page,

    bq. TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

    Your comment is off topic. Please read the comment rules. Further replies to it or off-topic comments will be deleted. Do you have something to say about the poll?


    that reply is to Thanin (none / 0) (#37)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:28:38 AM EST
    I'm sorry... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:36:01 AM EST
    that this will be deleted since it seems equally as important, but what you say has influenced your readers to the point where their are Many here who've said they'll never vote for an Obama nomination.  You can claim how you don't have responsibility and use the Blog lable to shield you, but you're part of the press, whether the conventional press acknowledges you or not.  At the very least you understand how you're in a position to influence many many voters, or why even make this a public blog?  All I'm saying is this negativity hurts us in Nov.  And it's always been stupid to slam each other during the primary... theres a reason they call it 'fighting fire with fire': doing so makes it worse.

    I don't know what (none / 0) (#78)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:53:48 AM EST
    "many" means to you.  I have heard it from two people while reading here.  I also don't know what more Jeralyn or BTD could do. They are both objective, articulate, and don't like piling on any dem. with personal attacks or insults.

    If theyre truly objective... (none / 0) (#92)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:04:22 PM EST
    they'll post Obamas positives as well as his negatives.  And if you say Obama has no positives to post, then that shows how non objective you are.  And I've read more than just two comments on how people won't vote for him.

    commenters... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:17:44 PM EST
    are commenters...and voters. Votes should be earned and not expected by either candidate.

    I would suggest that you go back through the archives to look for positive posts. There have been some of both for both candidates. Where Jeralyn has acknowledge that she is a supporter of HRC, BTD has pointed out his preferences as well.


    If their are... (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:25:58 PM EST
    positive posts for Obama, I havent seen one in awhile.  And yes commenters are commenters and voters, so are the people on the Obama network (NBC), or whatever it's called over here.  I don't think we're too far off from the day where political bloggers (or the Poliosphere as I like to call it) are getting as much traffic as network anchors... assuming that day isn't already here.  Even now the lines are blurring.

    So using the line that we're just a blog and have no responsibility to give objective, equal and fair coverage is getting a little thin.  But its a kind of free country, so they're able to do this.  But if people here are going to deride the 'legitimate' press for being one sided, they should acknowledge how this site and DK, along with all the other similar sites, are all on the same road.


    Uh... (none / 0) (#129)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:44:07 PM EST
    If you hadn't noticed, Jeralyn doesn't even suggest that she's an objective voice when it comes to being a blogger who favors one candidate over another...as opposed to someone like Keith Olbermann who ostensibly gets paid to provide viewers with the news in an entertaining (and wishfully...relatively objective) manner.

    I liken the polisphere (as you refer to it) as a form of giant set of op-ed pieces that provide info as well as interpretation and opinion related to that info. Most times editorial pages aren't objective. They are riddled with folks taking info, interpreting that info, and delivering their opinion. Either you or I can agree or disagree with that opinion.

    Here at TL, it appears that civility with regards to that agreement/disagreement is important. And that's kinda why I like reading Jeralyn and BTD (that and I enjoy BTD's presence ::grin::). People disagree here...but it rarely turns into a full-throated mudfest.


    So if... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:04:51 PM EST
    Olbermann, Matthers and the like acknowledged their bias, you'd be ok with it?  And the polisphere is the new media.  Right now its the wild west out here, but the net is the next thing - although as far as I'm concerned, it is the current thing.  

    But moreover, just because they acknowledge theyre bias doesnt mean its a good thing to help tear down another democrat.  I dont want McStooge, do you?


    Actually... (none / 0) (#151)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:32:45 PM EST
    If they did acknowledge their bias, I'd at least know whether or not I can accommodate for that bias when I take in the information they provide. If there're gaps, I'd know what to look for to fill in those gaps.

    As it is, the appearance of "objectivity" allows for them to play their game with impunity.

    For Matthews, that won't change when it comes to McCain. Olbermann, on the other hand, is going to have a rude awakening when it comes to the GE.

    As for taking down candidates? That game started getting played back during the early primaries. I support well researched arguments that point out positives, negatives, both with regards to candidates. I think that a well--and fully--researched diary is a good thing. I don't agree with fallacy ridden or poorly researched diaries (see some of my old diaries at dkos) as they do little but lower the level of discourse.

    I have no problem with diaries and posts that challenge a candidate's policies or assertions...so long as they are well written and factually accurate.

    Ultimately, I don't agree with the idea that people should shut up so as not to hurt the candidate's chances. Right now, there are two candidates fighting for the nomination...and they are really close when it comes to the numbers.

    Tell me, were you at dkos advocating this position when folks were calling HRC names? Were you there when folks were shouting that Edwards should get out? How 'bout when diaries were going up suggesting that Edwards was engaged in illegal activities w/ the union's 527 as a tangent from one of the Obama campaign memos?


    Like I said in a post... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:41:26 PM EST
    that was deleted earlier, do you realize how hard it is to get in the top 10 posts on DK?  Its hard to get much traction saying youre hurting the party when youre commenter #346.  And before all this got buried it was very high on the comments, so I took the opportunity.  I'm actually Pro Democrat.  At this point the name on the ticket is irrelevant.  

    As for the traditional media, even if they acknowledged their bias, thats still a bad thing and not something to emulate.  Though I do agree a well written, objective, fact ridden post is fine, but favoring negatives over positives is my problem.  Ive seen many comments imply theres a war with DK and the like, but when TL sinks to that same level, kind oozes hypocrisy.


    last insult of the dayt (none / 0) (#157)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:52:42 PM EST
    thanin, and now you're chattering. And you have hijacked this thread off the topic.

    Please, you seem like a thoughtful person who cares about the country. I'll ban you if I have to but you won't overtake this blog or insult me or it.

    Read the about page, read the comment policy and if you're only here so as not to be ignored as commenter #349 elsewhere, find another blog.  Or, start your own.


    Well... (none / 0) (#160)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:04:23 PM EST
    like I said, I very much care about what happens in our world, which is why I've spent so much time here.  And I'm not trying to derail, or at least not with malicious intent.  I'll just say that I personally hope we can start focusing on the positive of our chosen candidates and stop throwing gasoline on the other.  I mean we all know how well the republican machine is capable of doing that on its own.

    You, like the other major liberal bloggers in the polisphere have a powerful tool at your disposal.  I just dont want the flames against McSleepy's house to be easily put out because we've already burned down our own.


    I'm a 4 year vet of Dkos... (none / 0) (#159)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:59:25 PM EST
    Have been on the rec list maybe 3 times in that time span. And I wandered off as a TU who never lost her TU status.

    For me, it's about the writing...the valid arguments...and the community.

    For the last several months, being on the Wreck List doesn't make you a good writer...in fact, I've seen some really bad writing get up there because of the popularity factor while good solid writing scrolled off the regular list at a rapid pace depending on what "outrage" was being railed against.

    It seems as though you're intent on trying to take the opinion out of the blogosphere. That ain't gonna happen.

    You're conflating the commentors with the posters...they aren't the same.


    Not trying... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:08:44 PM EST
    to take the opinion out of blogs, just hoping we direct the venom against the Right side.  But I dont want to force Jeralyn to ban me, so I'll leave it at that.

    Objective does not (none / 0) (#113)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:26:05 PM EST
    mean they do not have a favored candidate, it means they present facts.  And there were "many" people here yesterday that called Rep Davis' office and complained about his racist comments toward Obama.  This is not PRO OBAMA, no objectivity, site, like some others.  Jeralyn favors Clinton, but she is not blind in her support.  I think most people that post here see Clinton as a human being with faults, but also the best person, with the best policies, to be president at this time.  Obama supporters often seem incapable of perceiving him as a human being with faults.

    I cant help but notice... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:33:32 PM EST
    how when Obama is mentioned here, most all posts are negative.  If we counted negative to positive posts for Obama, youre going to tell me that theyre even relatively equal?  So of course people have a favored candidate, just like the mainstream press apparently has one.  Does that make it ok that they're bias?

    Why? (none / 0) (#125)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:41:47 PM EST
    If we counted negative to positive posts for Obama, youre going to tell me that theyre even relatively equal?

    Why does this matter?  Is TL held up to an invisible standard of which we are unaware?  This is not a news outlet; it is a blog.  Blogs give personal opinion.  If you are so troubled by the number of negative comments about Obama, why are you here?  What do you get from saying the same thing over and over again about unfairness? There are several blogs you can visit where you can run foot loose and fancy free till your little heart is content.  

    If you really want to get into a counting game, count how many of the top blogs are pro-Clinton.  Hint: you won't need more than one hand.


    My whole point is... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:53:52 PM EST
    this blog, much like all the rest of the Poliosphere which is openly bias only serves to polarize democratic voters.  This doesn't help.  Why do you want to be negative against another democrat when the stakes are so high?  McMoron could win, and when I see the same news being posted on a liberal site as a conservative one, well are you proud of that?

    As for this not being a news outlet, how isnt it?  Just because its on the net doesnt mean its not apart of the media.  Thats like saying TV isnt a news outlet because it isnt its predecessor, the radio.  Basically it reports political news and has a wide audience, same as the traditional news outlets.  The only  difference is you dont need to spend thousands of dollars to get a journalism degree to make a blog.  And thats no real difference.

    Also I'm not trying to insult anyone.  I came here because I think Jeralyn is intelligent and isnt an egomaniac like Kos.  I'm hoping her readers share those qualities.


    Well, instead of doing a count on posts (none / 0) (#142)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    and comments and telling Jeralyn what's wrong with her blog, why not jump in with your own opinions and comments about the candidates?

    You seem like you might be intelligent enough to have scoped out the comments, seen that the discussion is spirited, passionate and partisan - but also respectful and rational - and you are welcome to join that discussion, advocate for the candidate you support, offer other perspectives from a regional, gender, socioeconomic level, whatever.

    Just jump in.


    It just saddens me... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:15:41 PM EST
    that last year there was this great enthusiasm for both of our candidates.  I'd hear things like, 'Wow we could have our first woman pres or our first black pres, what a milestone for our country!'.  

    Now what I hear is business as usual.  She sucks because she said she ducked, or he sucks because he thinks we're stupid gun toting morons.  All this while McMuffen garners support, pulls together the base, and looks forward to an embattled opponent with a polarized democratic base.  This stuff just doesnt help and I just hope the liberal polisphere starts to focus on the positive, because this negative should be reserved for those with an (R) behind their name.


    I don't want Obama to be president. (none / 0) (#154)
    by zyx on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:46:41 PM EST
    I prefer Clinton.  I've read a lot about both of them, and certainly not just at TalkLeft.  It's not high school or college "politics", it's the most important position in the world.  If I don't think Obama should have it, I'm not going to sugar-coat my opinion--an opinion that I have arrived at with a great deal of deliberation.

    That said, I don't think he's really evil, or even bad.  I think, rather, that he is inexperienced and unaware that he is unready for this awesome job.  We've suffered through that for eight years.  I don't want to suffer through more of that, even if the mistake-making, overconfident rookie is on my team.

    Hillary Clinton's chances at this point are not very good, but for another few weeks, I'm going to keep my fingers crossed that they will get better.  If they don't and Obama gets the nomination, I'll vote for him.  But I'll be worried about what that will mean if he wins.  I think I know what a Clinton presidency would mean, and I'm comfortable with that.  I really am unsure what an Obama presidency would mean.  I don't know how he will approach foreign policy, Supreme Court appointments, health care for the uninsured--I really don't understand what this guy is about, except slick campaigning.


    And thats fine... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:53:42 PM EST
    that youre for HRC.  I'm for either myself since I dont want 4-8 more years of bush.  My main point in all of this is, tearing down a democrat just so another democrat might get the nod leaves both weaker against McDeathbed.  Its great to support and rave about your candidate, but with the amazing momentum the dems have right now, shooting negatives at whichever dem at the top of the ballot doesnt help us in Nov.

    Wow you complain a lot! (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by mexboy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:36:39 PM EST
    First of all, I too was excited about having an AA and a woman candidate when this all started.

    The one that changed how I feel about Barak Obama was Barak Obama, not Jeralyn, not anyone on this blog.

    Calling out BO and his campaign on his hypocrisy, on his underhanded tactics (painting BC as a racist-I'm still not over that one)  not shaking her hand at the State of the Union Address etc. Is not only the right thing it is the duty of every Democrat. We need the right President, not just one who calls himself a Democrat.

    You either think we; the readers, are stupid on incapable of thinking for ourselves, and that we need Jeralyn or BTD to decide for us. How insulting!

    Oh yeah, calling McCain a bunch of names isn't clever either. I respect the man, maybe you can lead by example and call him by his name


    Sorry, but I gotta ask... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:02:30 PM EST
    you respect someone who wants to 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran'?  Resulting in the deaths of thousands of children?  Sorry, but if McMurderer is so proud of this as to sing it publicly, I have no respect for him.

    Haha (none / 0) (#178)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:21:59 PM EST
    It's not nice to try to force someone to think like you.  Most people on this blog support Hillary.  There's nothing wrong with that.  She's still in the race, so we're going to continue to support her and talk about why we prefer her to Obama.  Gosh, you act like we have lepracy or something and if we don't stop making contact we'll infect the entire Dem party.  Please.

    I'll vote for Barack if he's the nominee.  I don't want to, but I will.  He's better than McCain, but that's a low bar to set.  I don't know why you think Jeralyn is wrongly influencing us to support Hillary and dislike Obama, but I never thought I was that gullible and I didn't decide to like Hillary because of this blog, I didn't even know these people before I voted for her... I'm sure this blog will support whomever the Dem nominee is so I'm not worried about anything.  I think this Dem split is ridiculous sensationalizing, really.  I think we'll all come together.  I'm willing, anyway.

    We're all adults here and can make our own decisions.  You don't have to help us along.


    Yes I respect McCain as a human being. (none / 0) (#186)
    by mexboy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:42:01 PM EST
    Respecting someone and agreeing with their positions are two different things.

    McCain has devoted his life to serving this country. He was also a prisoner of war and IMO does not deserve the nasty names you call him.

    Aren't you the one who's complaining about tearing down one of our candidates? How can you then be so callous to him?

    And what's the point? Do you feel better by denigrating another human being?

    When you practice what you oppose, your credibility to preach on the subject is in deficit.


    Last time I looked... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:44:08 AM EST
    this was a Democrat blog, so McSenile isnt one of us.  And just because you were captured in war doesnt make you an amazing person.  Also, it sounds like you respect the man he WAS.  I'm talking about the fool who wants to perpetuate a war for oil, causing the deaths of over 4000 of his fellow Americans, and wants to go into another pointless war with Iran, causing the deaths of who knows how many more of his fellow countrymen.  There's nothing to respect here.

    This is pointless (none / 0) (#189)
    by mexboy on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:32:35 PM EST
    ....Oh, I get it now.
    This is an us them game. Yeah, I know that game. It is used to vilify and dehumanize other people so that atrocities can be perpetuated on them. I find your comments about McCain offensive and counterproductive.

    I'm done responding to you since you and I don't have the same regard for humanity. Good luck living with the negativity you generate.


    Why don't you question... (none / 0) (#191)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:06:30 PM EST
    the humanity of those in the bush administration and the possible McBush one.  I havent been responsible for over 4000 american soldiers deaths.

    Oh yeah, I was a true-blue (blueblood?) (none / 0) (#126)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:43:35 PM EST
    Obama supporter before I found TL.
    Jeralyn sure changed my mind with her propaganda though!

    It was easy because you're bitter (none / 0) (#130)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:44:19 PM EST
    and can be persuaded to act against your own self interests.

    Yep...me too (none / 0) (#136)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:49:49 PM EST
    Look, I come here cause it keeps me from lashing out.  All you get at other sites is shilling, put downs and anger.  

    So youre implying... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Thanin on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:55:29 PM EST
    that TL has zero influence on undecided voters?  With that claim you're really short changing this site.

    TL is being responsible. I have no (none / 0) (#162)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    problem with the site, and I bitterly hope that it's influence reduces the Obama cling with other voters.

    Thanin, how long have you lurked here (none / 0) (#183)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:20:29 PM EST
    to be able to talk about what TL says, whether in influences readers, etc.?  Just asking, based on your comment history -- as that began today.  So you have been lurking for a week or more, or reading back through archives here, to be able to speak with such familiarity about this blog?

    My husband who is a fierce defender of (none / 0) (#26)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:22:43 AM EST
    the 2nd amendment (to the point of being obnoxious about it) and who has never been a big fan of Bill Clinton really cannot stand Obama and now is starting to like Hillary.....LOL....This is cracking me up since he is coming to the party rather late....LOL.....

    please give him a Hillary hug! lol (none / 0) (#89)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:01:45 PM EST
    Really? (none / 0) (#38)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:29:25 AM EST
    If Hillary does well in PA, she'll get lots of superdelegates, plus her share of the 55 plus her 53. Obama will get 50 plus his lesser share of the 55 plus his superdelegates. I think that will put her enough ahead of him in the state for the superdelegates in other states to take notice.

    So you think that PA is going to magically convince the unpledged Supers to go Hillary's way, even though she isn't likely to gain much in the way of actual delegates?

    Has this happened in any previous primaries?  Did Hillary get a big swing in SDs after Ohio?   What is so special about PA that it is going to sway a significant number of super delegates?

    The SD's will notice (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:33:05 AM EST
    that Obama has not yet won a single swing state OR a blue state, except Illinois.

    I'm not sure that they will see the writing on the wall after PA, but after the rest of the primaries, it should be crystal clear that she has a broader appeal in the GE.

    IMHO, of course.


    Well that is an argument (none / 0) (#50)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:39:27 AM EST
    that Hillary continues to make.  So far it doesn't seem to be making much of an impact as Obama has continued to gain in SD.

    Unless Hillary makes some big inroads in pledged delegates in the upcoming primaries she will need to get over 70% of the remaining SDs to get the nomination.  


    Obama has been putting so much pressure on SDs... (none / 0) (#55)
    by ineedalife on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:44:49 AM EST
    that maybe most that are going to declare for him already have.

    Wishful thinking (none / 0) (#65)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:47:40 AM EST
    Why do you think that Obama has some special ability to pressure Supers that Hillary doesn't?  

    The remaining Supers are holding out in hopes of a clearer winner.  If it remains as is, they will mostly vote for Obama.  


    The other interpretation I've heard, (none / 0) (#91)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:03:51 PM EST
    and I'm happy with it,  is that the remaining Superdelegates are basically cowards.  They do not want to have to make a decision that will basically piss off 50% of the democratic party.  This would have a negative impact on their fund-raising etc and as can be seen by the slight drop off in Dailykos's readership the phenomenon has had an impact on blogs as well (with many Hillary supporters going elsewhere).   The superdelegates are waiting for someone else to make the decision and take the heat for it so they don't have to.

    IMHO I do believe the Hillary has already taken most of the low hanging fruit open to her,  and that remaining uncommitted superdelegates are more likely to be leaning for Obama,  but hey,  thats just a guess.


    Off topic, but what the hey (none / 0) (#167)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:15:52 PM EST
    Alternatively if they were leaning so far for Obama this would be over. Don't delude yourself folks, these are professional politicians. Not any significant number have gone to Obama. He has his group, she has hers.

    If he loses PA badly it will hurt him. It won't be in any way decisive, if anything it will muddy things up more.

    But don't let wishful thinking blind you: people wait for a reason.


    That works both ways (none / 0) (#132)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:47:09 PM EST
    Clinton has not exactly been leaving them alone to make up their own minds.

    There hasn't been an election (none / 0) (#75)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:53:29 AM EST
    in a while. Thus, at this point, her argument is theoretical.

    Once it is borne out in reality, it will have a lot more resonance.

    And please don't use "the math." The only way Obama seems to be ahead is by discounting the voters and delegates in MI and FL. That's not convincing and is a very poor strategy in the GE.


    Whether you like it or not (none / 0) (#85)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:59:35 AM EST
    The math is the math.

    There ain't gonna be a floor fight.  


    So you are saying that Obama can get (none / 0) (#97)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:07:11 PM EST
    to the magic number of delegates?

    That's the math. He can't.

    It will be decided by the SD's.


    That would be incorrect (none / 0) (#150)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:27:10 PM EST
    He most certainly CAN reach the magic number of delegates.  So can Hillary, but it is much harder for her.

    OMG (none / 0) (#165)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:09:53 PM EST
    he can't do it without the superdelegates. Neither can she.


    Come on now. Do you have a point, or are you just playing gotcha?


    It's not gotcha (none / 0) (#170)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:43:06 PM EST
    You made a claim that was wrong in an attempt to incorrectly characterize the situation.  

    It has been long established that the winner will need the Supers to win.  When all the races are over in June Obama will have somewhere around 1700 pledge delegates and 1900 total delegates.  Hillary will have about 1500 pledged delegates and 1750 total delegates.  There will be about 400 remaining supers to decide the race at that point and they will decide it, most likely, in Obama's favor.

    Eschewing the "math" doesn't change reality.


    No I didn't. (none / 0) (#173)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:10:17 PM EST
    The only math that counts is what the superdelegates decide.

    As you said, it is indisputable that the SD's will decide, but many on this site still dispute it anyway, claiming that it's over and Obama has won and that she can't win.

    You think they'll decide for Obama. I don't.

    Our difference of opinion doesn't make either one of us wrong.


    Sure (none / 0) (#175)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:18:36 PM EST
    But to be clear I think that at least 30% of them will vote for Obama and that is all he needs.

    You are wrong again madamab (none / 0) (#88)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:01:19 PM EST
    Hey Madamab, he won Wisconsin!  By a large margin.  That is a blue state other than Illinois.

    Oh and Virginia is considered a swing state, yes?  He won that, too.

    He won Minnesota too.

    What about Missouri?  Isn't that state usually regarded as a swing state?  He won that one too.

     Oh and then there's Colorado, categorized as a swing state.

    Need I go on? There are more.   You keep making this point and it was untrue the first time you made it and it is untrue now. I corrected you in a previous thread yet here it is again.  I don't know why your post isn't deleted since it is just factually incorrect.   I guarantee that the SDs DO know what states he has won, even if you don't.


    Ah, the dulcet voice of an Obama -phile (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by Boia on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:32:45 PM EST
    ...I corrected you in a previous thread yet here it is again.  I don't know why your post isn't deleted since it is just factually incorrect.

    In case anybody is curious why some of us who don't worship Obama detest some of those who do, this kind of condescension and self-righteousness might give you a clue.



    Those are caucuses, not primaries. (none / 0) (#95)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:06:20 PM EST
    I did indeed misspeak. But caucuses are not indicative of GE votes.

    Wisconsin was a primary (none / 0) (#102)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    so you are again wrong.  Missouri, also a primary.  Virgiana - primary.  In fact, I believe every state I mentioned had a primary. When will you admit you were incorrect?  And again, why does the site let you continue to spread a falsehood.  

    Colorado (none / 0) (#108)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    was a caucus.


    Minnesota was a caucus.


    As for the others you mentioned, you are correct that they are primaries.

    I am using shorthand for Clinton's electability argument, which is well-known here. It's the big-state/swing-state argument. I did get a bit sloppy in my statements, but I am not trying to spread misinformation.


    Ok. (none / 0) (#123)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:39:29 PM EST
    I was coming back to see if I could delete my Colorado primary comment.  It is a caucus.

    Do you think Obama (none / 0) (#109)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:21:03 PM EST
    can win MO, VA, etc in the GE?  I have seen polls that show McCain way ahead of him in both those states.  Hillary is closer to McCain in MO but McCain also beats her in VA.  Things can obviously change, but what states do you think he can win in the GE?

    I don't know (none / 0) (#118)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:29:03 PM EST
    but I do know that an argument to the SDs that Obama has not won any blue/swing state other than Illinois won't work - because it isn't true.  It is impossible to forcast what will or will not happen in the GE at this point.  Too many things can happen.  The polls haven't even done that good a job at forcasting primary results the next week, so I'm sure not going to use them to try to predict next fall.

    Colorado was a primary (none / 0) (#106)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:15:37 PM EST
    not a caucus

    My mother-in-law lives in Colorado and it was a (none / 0) (#128)
    by gish720 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:43:55 PM EST
    caucus for sure...she went to it and told me about it.

    I live (none / 0) (#134)
    by LoisInCo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:49:03 PM EST
    in Colorado and a caucus it was!

    Neither are party primaries n/t (none / 0) (#133)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:48:47 PM EST
    Yes I admitted my mistake (none / 0) (#152)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:33:19 PM EST
    and madamab has admitted hers in saying that Illinois is the only blue state/swing state primary he has won.  

    And I gather you're not in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#184)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:32:53 PM EST
    as I am, and you misread badly what happened here. See my comments about the primary then, and then was months ago.  See comments earlier today as well about whether he would win here now.

    Super-d's will not be looking back to January or February.  They have to look ahead to fall.  They will have internal polling, from the candidates, to test how states that voted months ago will look this summer.


    For me, (none / 0) (#44)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:33:26 AM EST
    PA is special because it has Penn State, Joe Paterno, and Happy Valley...not to mention one of my best friends living there.

    The fact... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Josmt on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:37:35 AM EST
    that Obama can't close the deal?

    That argument does not (none / 0) (#52)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:41:35 AM EST
    help Hillary.  That argument simply suggests that Obama isn't strong enough to finish Hillary.  But that argument also implicitly acknowledges that Obama is in a stronger position than Hillary.  So maybe Obama isn't that strong but Hillary is even less so.

    If you are John Edwards or Al Gore or some other pol who wants to make a last second entry into the race, then this argument would have merit.  


    The thing about PA (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:46:13 AM EST
    is it is fairly reflective of the demographics for the majority of the country.  AAs are a little over ten percent in the nation, as they are in PA.  I think the Hispanic population may be under represented, but I haven't looked into it that deeply so I may be wrong on that count.  Just like OH, it is important for that matter alone.  What this poll shows to me is that the Clinton voters tend to represent a large swath of the demographics that the dems normally have trouble firing up in a GOTV way because they either stay home or vote republican.

    If Dean really wants to grow and energize the party, Clinton seems to be getting those core voters we need to do that.

    And please note that I am in no way discarding the AA vote.  It is, as always, an important bloc for the dems.  I'm just pointing out that demographically, you can call all of these elections by voter turn out.  Extrapolate that to the general population, and you have Clinton's argument that she gets more folks.


    I read a pundit today saying that (none / 0) (#185)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:36:05 PM EST
    the way the electoral college works, a candidate could get 99% of the AA votes in a lot of states and still only take the District of Columbia.

    It was a pundit, so there's that.  But he may have a somewhat hyperbolic point about focusing too much on one demographic group or another at the cost of seeing the big picture, huh?


    I think when they (none / 0) (#51)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:40:40 AM EST
    add PA to Ohio to Florida, it will make a difference. Either Dem will take NY and CA and IL, neither will take most of the small states he won, so if they think Hillary can bring home OH and FL and PA, that could win the election for the Dems and that's a good enough reason to vote for her.

    OTOH, polls are showing (none / 0) (#54)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:44:18 AM EST
    Obama as winning Michigan in the GE, with Hillary losing it.  Not sure that it's relevant to this thread,  but as an Obama supporter it makes me feel better so I'll just say it anyway!

    I've seen you repeat this multiple times (none / 0) (#168)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:16:33 PM EST
    And I have asked elsewhere: what polls? Pollster doesn't show that.

    That is a rationalization (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:45:16 AM EST
    There are simply too many different possible arguments, for both candidates, for the Supers to vote based on electoral strategy.  

    You may believe that to be a compelling argument but  it is unlikely that a vast majority of Supers are going to consider that argument compelling enough to vote for her.  

    Obama is going to counter that argument with his own rationalizations for why he is the better electoral choice.  

    If Hillary doesn't, at the very least, overtake Obama in the national polls there is no way the Supers are going to swing this to her.


    SD and the "right" decision (none / 0) (#57)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:45:42 AM EST
    I think the pressure on the SDs by the party "elites" and by the Obama campaign is unbelievable.  They are intent on an Obama candidacy.  If the SDs vote against it I assure you they will be hung up to dry.  They will be painted first and foremost as racist, then as having been manipulated and taking away the will of the people.  I have little faith in their courage and in their ability to withstand an onslaught of attacks.  

    They will do the "right thing"  in Democratic party circles and support the candidate who will lose.  It's impossible for them to make the politically expedient decision, they will choose the politically correct decision.  


    To me, they are actively looking for reasons (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    NOT to endorse him.  Otherwise, O would have this wrapped up.

    Hard to keep things straight (none / 0) (#71)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:49:58 AM EST
    First the SuperDelegates(AKA the party elite) are secretly pushing for him.  Then they are secretly against him.

    They are a slippery bunch.


    SDs (none / 0) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:53:35 AM EST
    There are SDs, and party elites I call Kerry, Kennedy, etc.  The patriarchy, the ones with the torch.  

    So the party elites (none / 0) (#87)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:01:13 PM EST
    Are the Obama supporters?  

    Yes (none / 0) (#94)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:05:52 PM EST
    Oh, I know - Obama supporters like to THINK Obama is a DC outsider - but that dog doesn't hunt.

    Look (none / 0) (#117)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:28:26 PM EST
    You think Kennedy is not a party elite?  (elite before bitter gate kind of elite).  He proclaimed that he was passing on the torch of leadership to Obama, what does that say to you?  

    They thought they owned the torch.  


    Heh (none / 0) (#137)
    by flyerhawk on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:51:29 PM EST
    Good job with changing the question.

    Sure Kennedy is a party elite.  So is Chuck Schumer.  Diane Feinstein?  Barbara Boxer?  If you are a Senator you are pretty much the party elite.  

    The notion that a Clinton is not part of the party elite is pretty ridiculous.


    I understand (none / 0) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    But I don't think they will get enough to trump the power of doing the PC thing.  They would rather lose and do the PC thing than risk being "painted" badly.  

    So he leads among the heathen... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talktruth on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    Just kidding, infidels :-J.

    Me Too, (none / 0) (#93)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:05:21 PM EST
    my math is she wins by 13 points at least, now maybe more. This exposure of Obama's disparaging another group of voters in PA this time as unsophisticated gun totting bible thumping won't accept someone who looks different voters, has completely exposed his campaign media strategy and the exploitative narrative of grievance he dramatizes again and again as his shield of victim hood he so easily wears to deflect legitimate rejection or criticism of his candidacy or resume.  And the same pathology effectively rallies previously traumatized political sects in the Base who believed themselves victims and powerless to stop the Republican.  It's  a  pattern and its obvious, anyone not enamored sufficiently with Obama or his resume are the enemy, there always has to be enemies for grievance to inflame like the manufactured threat of gays to marriage; after NH it was the racist, after NV brown on black racist, after SC Rezko the RWP's Machine beating down the black man, after Ohio the Archie Bunkers, after Wright the White Women like grandmama afraid of the Blackman when walking down the street, now Rural Voters gun totting bible thumping bigots so where is that majority that would elect an Obama as President?  The story is becoming stale PA polls reflect what the majority know; Clinton is the empowered candidate the SDs will move to her if the Party wishes for victory in Nov.

    Just read Bob Somerby's Dailyhowler (none / 0) (#104)
    by gish720 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:12:09 PM EST
    and it's really good today, covers the elitism as well as the reporters covering this issue.  Well worth your time. MSNBC is bending over backwards to spin this as Hillary has gone too far and there's going to be a backlash...on and on.

    Great news! Being dem=rep (none / 0) (#105)
    by dem08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM EST
    this is wonderful!

    Church, guns, and anti-immigration are winning issues!

    I hope the NRA takes a fresh look at Hillary!

    As a lifelong Democrat, I have just been waiting for the party to embrace these issues.

    Is it too late for Hillary to wear a coon-skin Davy Crockett hat and give a tear-filled eulogy to Charlton Heston?

    What Obama supporters don't get (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:32:32 PM EST
    How come we, the non unity people, get it.  You cannot put down the large swath of Americans you want on your side and that you are trying to seduce into the unity bus.  You don't get it why the unity guy saying this is the height of hypocrisy?  

    This was his strength: One America.  transcending and transformative and not fighting old culture wars and here he went and proved that he is not all these things.  Of course, many of us knew it.  It's pathetic that he stumbled in such shallow waters, can you imagine what will happen in the GE?  


    Obama made one (none / 0) (#124)
    by dem08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:41:26 PM EST
    remark, for which the tape needs a sub-title bar.

    Unlike the sniper fire story, nobody can find any other places where Obama doesn't say that he will fight for the people who lost their jobs.

    He never laughed at them or mocked them.

    I think, as someone who worked in factories, then as a janitopr when the factories closed before getting a degree and teaching now, maybe someone should directly say to the working class:

    "Stop letting the economic system write you into poverty!"

    But it is just stupid to claim that Obama is running against small town America and somehow saying, "I laugh at you!"

    Even Hillary knows that isn't true.


    You just don't get it. (none / 0) (#127)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:43:46 PM EST
    That is exactly what we believe: he is an elitist, career politician who is out of touch with what the average American thinks, and what the average democrat needs.  

    And after this weekend's events, I would think you would know better than to call people who do not agree with you "stupid."


    when someone makes a stupid (none / 0) (#149)
    by dem08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:22:49 PM EST
    assertion it is patronizing to call it brilliant.

    Hillary-bashers are equally funny, but it is Hillary-arious to see Obama's church and his "putting down our core Democratic values" as being reasons to oppose him.

    There has not been any Democratic movement for Universal Health Care since Hillary failed so spectacularly. NY State's Republican Governor did more than the national Democratic Party, when he pushed through coverage for all children under 18.

    The War in Iraq costs us lives, casualties, enormous rehabilitation efforts, and even Billions and Billions of dollars despite Hillary, Obama, Dodd, Biden, and all the other Democratic office holders.

    No Democratic candidate, not Obama, not Hillary, not Edwards argues "All workers deserve a living wage".

    So what Democratic Values does Obama dis-respect that Hilary doesn't? Marc Rich's pardon? Chelsea's Hedge Fund Work? Rezko? The amazing set of neo-totalitarians who give money to The William Jefferson Clinton Library?

    Nobody has an answer for the real job losses of the last 36 years. Not Obama not Bill Clinton, not Hillary, not McCain.

    And Economists often say, like the Post's Samuelson that the people who make under 40 thousand better get used to it and better welcome more and more Americans, because the Economy has winners and losers and some 80% of Americans will fall into the under 50 thousand a year permanent loser class.


    No Democrat in the race (none / 0) (#161)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:06:07 PM EST
    is anywhere near liberal enough for me.

    But the person who I think can help us move forward out of the Bush disaster is HRC. And I am fully confident that she can be pushed to the left once in office, especially given a Democratic Congress.

    I do not know Barack Obama, and what I know, I don't like. So I voted for HRC.


    CHeck up on job creation (none / 0) (#171)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:56:19 PM EST
    In the 90s, thanks!

    That is not true (none / 0) (#131)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    He told us we are one America and goes to a church for 20 years that hates White America, he tells us that he is against lobbyists and take money from lobbyists.  

    He praises the Republicans and puts down the Democrats and their core values.  

    The examples are endless.  


    One remark?! Oy . . . n/t (none / 0) (#135)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:49:34 PM EST
    A must read! (none / 0) (#146)
    by nellre on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    The Solution is Obvious (none / 0) (#179)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:05:49 PM EST
    Among voters from households where someone owns a gun, Clinton leads by seventeen points.

    Sen. Clinton's campaign needs to distribute inexpensive firearms to voters across Indiana and North Carolina ahead of the upcoming primaries.