home

The Inevitable Narrative

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:34:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Matt Yglesias writes:

Now if you'd said on March 5 "looks like Clinton will win Pennsylvania by about 12 points" most people would have said "sounds about right . . . [Obama's likely] failure to fully close the gap was not only predictable but widely predicted weeks ago based on Pennsylvania's age structure, educational attainment, and African-American population.

Of course I agree. I have been writing "demography is political destiny" for quite a while now. It was just as true in Mississippi, South Carolina, Georgia, etc. It will be just as true in North Carolina on May 6 - Obama will win by double digits.

But of course that is also the problem - Obama can not win beer track white working class voters, women, seniors or Latinos. This is why Hillary is more electable in PA, OH, FL and MI. The question is, as John Judis discusses, what does this mean about Obama's electability in November? The "creative class" has never taken this argument seriously, even applauding such idiotic Obama moves like blocking revotes in FL and MI. Instead, the standard "creative class" response is along the lines of Brad DeLong's insulting post. Alienating Clinton voters is seemingly a goal now.

< Finally Someone Worries About Alienating Women Voters | LATimes Polls: Bucking the CW >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Inevitable Narrative | 220 comments (220 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Alienating Clinton voters (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:38:54 PM EST
    is not a goal, IMHO. The elitists are simply so clueless that they think HRC supporters will vote for Obama no matter what.

    If they really realized what they were doing, they wouldn't have done it in the first place. They let their HDS get completely away from them because it was so much fun to call HRC "Hitlery" and snicker about various parts of her anatomy.

    Remember? (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:33:54 PM EST
    When Hillary made some overtures about having a unified ticket, and Obmam scoffed at the idea?  Many in the MSM, and netroots were opining that Obama doesn't need Hillary to win ( but of course, she needed him )  The attitude among his supporters has been that he can win without her and without her supporters.  Just look at the way MSNBC has run a campaign of smear and alienation.  They think they can actually improve their ratings by chasing her supporters away.  In the same way, I think, he thinks he can do well without them.  Remember, he's building a "new and improved" Democratic coalition.

    [ Parent ]
    I know exactly what you're saying... (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:40:37 PM EST
    and I agree.

    Let me revise my statement: It's not that they didn't know they were being horrible to her supporters, it's that they thought we'd vote for Obama NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID.

    So I really don't think they knew they would be alienating her supporters to the extent that they would not vote for the Democrat in the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    They can't conceive that anyone (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:09:28 PM EST
    could actually like Hillary.

    So how could anyone be offended by their bashing of her?

    [ Parent ]

    This is so true, (none / 0) (#120)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:11:08 PM EST
    and I've heard them actually come out and say it, too!

    [ Parent ]
    It's not just Hillary. (none / 0) (#146)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:38:58 PM EST
    Edwards supporters (yes, they're still out there) were treated the same way before he dropped out; and, if he were still in the race, I expect they still would be. Even if they now support Obama they still aren't considered part of the movement and are distrusted.


    [ Parent ]
    I didn't know that (none / 0) (#153)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:46:54 PM EST
    and I'm a former Edwardian myself.

    [ Parent ]
    Some substantial problems down the road (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:57:10 PM EST
    His much hyped new or re-engaged voters seem to think that defeating Bad Monster Lady is the ultimate goal, rather than what's sure to be a tougher fight in the GE.

    There's a lot of back-slapping and snorting going on even among people who have been around enough to know better -- hello? '04? -- all jockeying to to take a pop at HRC along with their new BFFs in the media.

    Prominent bloggers that think they have the power to pull a lever and direct enough voters this way or that are simply deluding themselves.

    And clueless Dems: the SCLM hasn't been neutral much less a reliably supportive pal for decades. (HRC, meanwhile, has already shown she can beat them.)

    Obama, esp. the one we've seen lately, doesn't have the muscle, fortitude or SOLID foundation to go up against McCain, and especially not when journalists bring him treats. (From today's must-read Daily Howler, also quoted downstream.)

    MILBANK (4/15/08): McCain's moderators, the AP's Ron Fournier and Liz Sidoti, greeted McCain with a box of Dunkin' Donuts. "We spend quite a bit of time with you on the back of the Straight Talk Express asking you questions, and what we've decided to do today was invite everyone else along on the ride," Sidoti explained. "We even brought you your favorite treat."

    McCain opened the offering. "Oh, yes, with sprinkles!" he said.

    Sidoti passed him a cup. "A little coffee with a little cream and a little sugar," she said.

    Having asked him all those questions, they brought him his "favorite treat."

    Fournier and Sidoti are professional journalists. Maybe they can engage in this kind of funnin' and maintain their professional perspective. But the journalistic performance of the past dozen years suggests that many in their cohort cannot--that this performance involves some very bad judgment.

    It's a fun ride when all is going your way and you're seeing daily headway in the news and it's one positive return after another -- like a meteoric rise in a soft division in regular season play -- but it becomes dismal when it's an uphill climb with the good news scant and spread over long stretches.

    cf. all the empty seats when a team is "rebuilding" for, oh I dunno, let's be smart and say 4-8 years.

    [ Parent ]

    from the Howler (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    Elections aren't about what we at THE HOWLER may think. Elections are about the values, views, outlooks and reactions of 100 million-plus voters--people who may not see the world in the way we do . . . it's depressing to see how many liberals seem to have no earthly idea what issues may be at play in this matter. This cluelessness has badly harmed progressive interests since the late 1960s. It's depressing to see how widespread it is around the liberal web.

    Howler today is a classic (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:35:43 PM EST
    Here is another excerpt:

    Elitism isn't about what you do. It isn't about how much money you have. (FDR was wealthy.) It's about the things you think and say about those small-town or working-class rubes. Some progressives have shown, again and again, that they simply can't understand this distinction.

    For newcomers to the Daily Howler, he always uses the word 'rubes' to describe how the everyday people are perceived by the media and elites. I admit to being guilty of that small-mindedness at times.  

    I thought Obama was the one who was going to reach out to  more voters.  He certainly did in the Western states.  Why is he effective with red state working class people, and not blue state working class people? He still has not answered that question, and I have no answer for it either.

    [ Parent ]

    Demography as GE destiny (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:53:04 PM EST
    I just posted this in the KY thread, but my question is what was Kerry's share of the white vote in the general?  Can we blithely expect the beer track voters to come home to Obama in the GE?  Or will demography remain destiny?

    Obama demo weaknesses:
    Blue collar white voters
    Rural white voters
    35+ women
    Latinos

    Clinton's demo weaknesses
    Urban (or should it be urbane) and upper middle class whites
    AA's
    Youth

    I'd rather have Clinton's weaknesses.  The urbane whites are likely to come home in the general.  AA's and the youth might stay home.  But they are smaller in number than those in Obama's weak demo groups.

    To be economical (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:55:49 PM EST
    I think I just should have said above:  Which candidate's supporters are more likely to hold a grudge and defect to either their couch or McCain in November?

    [ Parent ]
    That depends in large part... (none / 0) (#23)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:00:18 PM EST
    On HOW the candidate wins.

    If the winning candidate has the lead in pledged delegates AND the lead in the popular vote, especially a large enough lead that FL and MI don't make a difference, then things are easier. If the Supers hand the nomination to a candidate that doesn't have one or the other, then that's going to rankle a lot of people. If they throw it to a candidate who has neither, (difficult to imagine) then that's REALLY going to go over poorly.

    Interesting time to be a Super, that's for sure.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree and disagree (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    Agree to your point when it comes to libs, like women, who prefer Clinton.  If Obama makes sufficient nice with women, a very big if for him based on what I have seen thus far, then they will vote D.  But beer track voters I'm not so sure.  I'm not sure they will ever connect to Obama.  He may have the same problem with Latinos.  And his McGovernesque failure to connect will all be made worse by McCain who is very attractive to these demos in his own right.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama and Women Voters (none / 0) (#85)
    by rose city on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:37:15 PM EST
    Obama has a problem with women voters, 35+. They are most certainly not going to be the easiest voters for him to get back.

    [ Parent ]
    He never lost me and I'm a 60 year old woman (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by 1jane on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:40:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    in statistics, we say you are an N of 1, (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    and who cares?

    In other words, one person doesn't make a difference in these demographic discussions. I am not saying you aren't important, but in examining demographics, you are one case when looking at millions, and the demographics tend to cancel your indivividuality ( as well as mine, and everyone else here's) out.

    Obama's weak spots are poterntially much larger than his strong spots.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, there you go (none / 0) (#98)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:45:51 PM EST
    Unless a demographic group is unanimously against someone, there's no problem.

    [ Parent ]
    Rolls Eyes...... (none / 0) (#204)
    by michitucky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:25:00 PM EST
    PLEASE!!!

    [ Parent ]
    I'm one of them (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:54:52 PM EST
    35+ women voters that is.  And I'm not voting for him in the GE.  But that was already the case before the misogyny from all corners.  I won't vote for Obama, because I think he's too inexperienced to answer the red phone or play hard ball with Congress, strikes all the wrong notes with me with his campaigning, fails to sufficiently convince me that we share values in common, and his moral cowardice evidenced by the company he kept for political gain (Wright) offends me.  That and all the stupid anti-patriot mumbo jumbo like salutes and flag pins don't offend me on their own but simply confirm his liberal arrogance that I find unattractive.  Is the red meat stuff that hard or for that matter that bad that he has to be a priss about it?

    Rant over.  The point is, lots of women in my demographic are more liberal, or I should say differently liberal than I, so if he takes the offensiveness down a notch he can win them back.  The lesson in all this is the danger of painting any demographic with too broad a brush.  Like I did.  And that criticism is fair enough and well taken.

    [ Parent ]

    Not just how...but what happens after (none / 0) (#48)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:15:08 PM EST
    The nominee has to be able to attract not only voters, but also other pols and public figures to campaign willingly and effectively for them.  I think pols are a little more pragmatic than candidate's supporters and more willing to kiss and make up.

    [ Parent ]
    Excellent question (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:55:25 PM EST
    Kerry got 41% of the white vote and lost by 3 points.

    [ Parent ]
    Kerry won Latinos 53-44 (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:57:11 PM EST
    they 8% of the vote and he won Asians and others by 56-44 (4% of the vote).

    He won A-A 88-11.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the numbers BTD (none / 0) (#25)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:02:04 PM EST
    I need to mull those over.  You figure hard times will amp the Dem's numbers over 2004 (although the war was already going bad in 2004), but by how much?  And by enough to compensate for both the unique appeals of McCain AND the unique deficiencies of both possible Dems?

    [ Parent ]
    I am pessimistic today (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:02:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    BTD, have you seen this article? (none / 0) (#38)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:09:33 PM EST
    It's about how HRC can beat McCain and Obama can't. It uses the Electoral College as a model.

    I'm not an expert like you, but I think a lot of people are underestimating HRC's appeal.

    And it does say that McCain could actually win New York against Obama, which I had mentioned a few days ago.

    [ Parent ]

    Pessimism? Are you rethinking Obama? (none / 0) (#53)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:16:49 PM EST
    Or are you down on both candidate's GE prospects right now?  

    I personally think Clinton's GE prospects have improved based on a developing perception of her as fighter for the common man.  But she still might not get to the GE to be able to capitalize on that populist image.  I think the best thing that could happen for the Dems would be for Obama to implode so badly in the next week, on a series of continued duck blind gaffes from his own mouth, that Clinton gains momentum and wins so convincingly over the next several contests that all the pointy heads and most of the AA's come to see her as the legit one for November.  Sadly, I don't think we're going to see that.


    [ Parent ]

    No (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:19:34 PM EST
    I think only Obama can really get his mojo back now - through the Media.

    Clinton will be sooo vilified if she is the nominee that she will stand no chance.

    [ Parent ]

    So the media will forget how much they love (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:24:52 PM EST
    McCain and embrace Obama?

    I'm sorry, but I really don't understand this theory. The media always attacks the Democrat. It has been happening since Carter. It will be no different if Obama is selected.

    I honestly don't get it.

    [ Parent ]

    Even if the media (none / 0) (#202)
    by sumac on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:21:43 PM EST
    doesn't vilify Obama the way they have Clinton, I cannot see them turning on McCain. And here's where I sometimes have a bit of trouble digesting BTD's argument:

    Obama has had nothing but glorified MSM coverage 95-99% of this primary season and he is still virtually tied with the "anti-Christ" (no, I don't think Hillary is the anti-Christ, and yes, I support her).

    How can he (Obama) hope to surpass a candidate who gets equal or better news coverage in the GE?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm beginning to think not so, BTD (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:00:12 PM EST
    although I thought like you do for some time.  But now HRC has been beaten up on the same stuff for however many years by the Republicans, and for the last X months using the same old themes by the Obama forces, I don't think there's a whole heck of a lot more media negativity can do to her.  In fact, I think there's reason to think it might ultimately help her, especially among Republican and independent women.

    Obama can be crushed very, very quickly by something we can't see coming around the corner, like the Swiftboaters did Kerry in.  That kind of thing can be done much more effectively with a candidate who isn't a familiar figure.

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting (none / 0) (#79)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:34:06 PM EST
    We'll see.  I still think Clinton is the safer bet for the GE based on demographics and contrast with McCain.  But the media is the real difference here.  That I can't argue with.  I still can't decide if the media has gone so deep in the tank for Obama because they are pointy headed cultists, rabid misogynists, or because they are corporate shills leading him to McCain's slaughter.  Time will apparently tell.

    [ Parent ]
    They like a new fresh face (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:01:53 PM EST
    and they do hate Clinton.  Without Clinton, Obama would not be getting anywhere near as gentle treatment.  And he will not get it with McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    i hope you're incorrect, (none / 0) (#110)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:59:00 PM EST
    but I fear you are not, BTD.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you underestimate (none / 0) (#43)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:11:32 PM EST
    the passion Obama supporters have for their canidate. They are just as frustrate and unhappy with Clinton as most posters here are with Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I dont think anyone underestimates (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:15:29 PM EST
    his supporters support.  what his supporters underestimate is the effect the attack machine is going to have on his chances to win with everyone else in the country.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you are equally worried (none / 0) (#64)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:21:39 PM EST
    about how Obama's supporters feel about Clinton and her attack machine?

    [ Parent ]
    no (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:26:58 PM EST
    if I understand the question.  I AM worried about the support they would give Hillary in the general.
    I could honestly care less how they feel about Hillarys "attack machine".
    sorry.
    its an idea the absurdity of which will become obvious to even them when they encounter an actual attack machine in the general.

    [ Parent ]
    Bingo! (none / 0) (#73)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:29:00 PM EST
    To me this is a numbers game.  Whose constituencies are the largest and most strategically positioned for a GE contest?  Both candidates have crossover appeal problems among Dems and among the electorate at large.  So both are going to suffer losses among certain Dems and indies and moderates.  I think what Obama supporters fail to realize is that Obama may wind up losing so many Dem voters that he can't compensate for that with indies and R's in the general who are going to get one heckuva good-looking pitch for their vote from McCain.  Clinton is kicking Obama's butt among self-identified Dems in the primaries.  I've got to believe these Dem votes for her would be easiest to defend against McCain in the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    Not by a long shot. (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:17:21 PM EST
    I wish Obama would stop making mistakes and then making mistakes dealing with his mistakes.

    Obama supporters wish that Clinton would just. go. away.  

    There's a subtle difference between the two attitudes.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think Clinton's (none / 0) (#81)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:34:07 PM EST
    supporters here have shown any more respect to Obama than his supporters have shown to her. You may think there is a difference but you are standing on that side of the fence.

    [ Parent ]
    I can't agree with you at all. (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:37:51 PM EST
    I don't think Obama is qualified to be President, but I don't vilify him personally the way almost every Obama supporter does to Clinton.


    [ Parent ]
    the fact that anyone would even say that (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:40:52 PM EST
    only shows how completely unbalanced the discussion has become.


    [ Parent ]
    capt howdy, there's not a (none / 0) (#195)
    by kangeroo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:47:31 PM EST
    whole lot of room for "balance" when your opponent is smearing and slandering you with expletives from all sides at 60 miles an hour.  this is what happened to me in the recent past at dkos.  i literally felt like i was chased out of the room with pitchforks and broken bottles.  i think you make an implicit assumption that everyone is willing or capable of being, civil.  when one side derives great glee from watching the other side suffer, i think you've gone past the point of expecting a civil tea party.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree. (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:45:45 PM EST
    I could spend a day at dkos compiling not just comments but entire diaries that use Hillary Clinton as a punching bag, a scape goat and worse.

    Talk Left won't even allow us to say the kinds of things they say over there.

    [ Parent ]

    Not qualified to be president? (none / 0) (#109)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:58:20 PM EST
    you might as well find an Obama supporter and spit in his or her face. That should be easy as they currently number just over half the dem party.

    For the majority of posts here you would think the dem party should cast him out, that Obama is so immoral and or inept he shouldn't hold any office at all.

    Work to get Hillary elected by all means, but don't focus on dismissing one of the best politicians in the dem arsenal. It is that kind of take down politics that will all but hand the GE to McCain.

    I guy faced off against the Clinton's. They are dem royalty, he is raising record funds, bringing in young voters, and building an impressive grassroot GOTV operation.

    Any dem would be stupid to dismiss or undervalue that.

    [ Parent ]

    He is not qualified. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:03:42 PM EST
    That is my opinion and the opinion of many HRC supporters. He has very little experience and almost everything he proposes is a weak echo of what HRC has already proposed. He loses every debate because he cannot talk substantively about the issues. He is a supercilious egotist with a lot of media support, a way with words, and charisma.

    You feel like we're spitting in your face? Call me when you've spent six months on a big blogger site having your candidate being called every disgusting, vile name in the book for simply having the audacity to run against the Greatest Candidate Evah.

    [ Parent ]

    You may not like what I say, but it (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:04:14 PM EST
    is not a personal insult to say Obama is not qualified. It is my judgment. As a voter, it is my RESPONSIBILITY to make judgments on the candidates.
    I am not calling him x-rated names to make my point.
    I would actually agree that Obama is a good politician, which is a separate question from whether he is qualified to be President.
    He simply does not have the experience, in my judgment.
    You are just making things up with your second paragraph: who is calling Obama immoral?
    Inept? Yes, recently. So what? That's our judgement, and us rubes don't have good judgment, according to Obama. Oh well.

    [ Parent ]
    Well if your opinion is common (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:15:12 PM EST
    with Hillary supporters, and Clinton does win the nom, good luck winning over half the party.
    An underlying belief that Obama had no business running for president, will drive them away in droves.

    Seriously, next time you want to post on how Obama is not qualified for president, just find an Obama support and spit in their face. It will be far less offensive.

    [ Parent ]

    Let me tell you something: (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:20:00 PM EST
    If you told me Hillary was not qualified to be President, I would laugh at you. Why are YOU so sensitive about Obama?
    But seriously, I find YOUR attitude most offensive: you are not giving me the right to judge Obama's abilities. THAT is insulting and elitist.

    [ Parent ]
    Psssst: This is not about you. (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:23:51 PM EST
    I have very substantial reasons for not supporting Obama, which I listed. I also listed my personal reaction to him, which he has earned with his own behavior.

    This is not about you. It's about which candidate I support. Sorry if you don't like it, but I'm not spitting in your face. I'm not even spitting in his face.

    Would that some Obama supporters were so restrained. There's a reason that HRC supporters don't visit many big "progressive" blogs anymore. We are called trolls, liars, Republicans, and destroyers of the Democratic Party just for preferring HRC.


    [ Parent ]

    Right.. it's a lot like what happens with (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:26:33 PM EST
    some fervent Christians if you say you don't believe in Jesus. They take it personally.

    [ Parent ]
    By the way, your tendentious readings (none / 0) (#145)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:38:58 PM EST
    are annoying me. Obama is welcome to run for President. Did I see he can't? No.
    Stop inventing fictitious reasons to be offended.

    [ Parent ]
    It's the way that your remarks (none / 0) (#179)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:16:31 PM EST
    were interpreted that caused the offense, not your specific words.

    It works for Obama, it should work for you!

    [ Parent ]

    Personal insults (5.00 / 6) (#144)
    by huzzlewhat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:37:34 PM EST
    is not a personal insult to say Obama is not qualified. It is my judgment. As a voter, it is my RESPONSIBILITY to make judgments on the candidates. I am not calling him x-rated names to make my point.

    This is the point that I keep trying to make in discussions with my friends. Hillary's primary criticism of Obama has been "He doesn't have enough experience yet." His of her is, "She's a liar." There's a difference in the fundamental nature of those criticisms, and I think it's a very important one.

    [ Parent ]

    Bush won elections. I am very impressed (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:09:23 PM EST
    with his political skill. He still was not and is not qualified to be President. They are separate questions.

    [ Parent ]
    Are you comparing (none / 0) (#126)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:16:12 PM EST
    Obama to Bush. On what basis?

    [ Parent ]
    Are you saying I have no right to (none / 0) (#172)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:07:30 PM EST
    compare Obama to Bush? Are you denying me that, too?
    Oh the pain!
    Actually I mentioned Bush because YOU are the one who extols Obama on criteria under which Bush excelled.

    [ Parent ]
    Right (none / 0) (#190)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:38:50 PM EST
    I compared Obama to Bush? Your post is both untrue and silly.

    If you want to do your part in tearing the party in half, I guess thats your right.

    I am saving my ammo for McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#119)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:10:39 PM EST
    This is a truly classic comment.  Really sums up the arrogant attitude of Obama's online supporters.

    If you say something bad about Obama, you're not just hurting Obama, you're hurting the Democratic Party!  Whereas if you say something bad about Hillary, you're performing a valuable public service.

    Those who do not consider Barack Obama awesome are not required to lie about it, lest they be accused of spitting in people's faces.

    [ Parent ]

    Back to the original question, which (none / 0) (#137)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:25:31 PM EST
    was whether Hillary supporters are as rude as Obama supporters: you equate my calling Obama unqualified with people calling Hillary as b** or w** or whatever... don't be so louche.

    [ Parent ]
    There Is No Objective Standard (none / 0) (#127)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:16:36 PM EST
    In the world that would rate Obama as unqualified to be POTUS. It is an ad hominim attack. You can say that you do not trust him, or that you do not like him but to say he is not qualified is absurd.

    Many also say that Clinton is unqualified to be POTUS. That is equally absurd. That comment comes from the sector that believes a woman is not qualified to be a leader.

    Qualifications refer to an objective standard, not because you personally do not think someone would make a good leader.

    Obama meets all the qualifications needed to be POTUS. That is a fact not an opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:23:23 PM EST
    Sorry, it's an opinion people are entitled to hold, rightly or wrongly.  "A fact not an opinion"?  Do you think that just by saying it, you make it so?

    Obviously that commentor has a different idea of what the necessary "qualifications" are than you do.  That doesn't make his opinion invalid.  There are no stone tablets from God that tell us what the "qualifications" are for the Presidency, we're all entitled to decide what makes someone qualified.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? (none / 0) (#151)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:46:26 PM EST
    OK I disagree that Obama is not qualified. It is hard for me to imagine that anyone could honestly say that either Clinton or Obama are not qualified. Chalk it up to my limited imagination. It particularly bothers me because in the case of Clinton or Obama fanclubbers, it is suggests objectivity where I see none.

    There is no qualification for government but virtue
                and wisdom, actual or presumptive.    --Burke.

    Or:

     n 1: an attribute that must be met or complied with and that fits
              a person for something; "her qualifications for the job
              are excellent"; "one of the qualifications for admission
              is an academic degree"; "she has the makings of fine
              musician" [syn: makings]

    [ Parent ]

    There Are (none / 0) (#157)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:49:51 PM EST
    Laws about who qualifies to be POTUS. Obviously Mark is not referring to any objective standard but his own subjective standard.

    Fine I get it.

    [ Parent ]

    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:54:10 PM EST
    If someone says Obama is not qualified to be POTUS, and you want to come back with the pedantic response that the Constitution only requires you to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years of age, I have to say that's a pretty silly argument.

    Of course he's referring to his own subjective belief about what makes someone qualified to be President.  That's what makes it an opinion.  You may disagree, but that doesn't make it an invalid opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    And you are referring to a standard (none / 0) (#159)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:52:19 PM EST
    which does nothing to differentiate Obama from 130 million or so people. That is a very incisive reading of "qualified"!


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, he is , per the US Constitution, (none / 0) (#185)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:28:22 PM EST
    eligible to be president. Now, whether or not he is qualified is open to discussion.

    [ Parent ]
    Outside of the insular Obama world, it (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:23:48 PM EST
    is commonplace for people to question whether Obama has enough experience to be President.
    That is the first judgment many people give me----Democrats---when speaking of him.
    Your flat assertion that Obama is qualified is a weak argument. He has little experience of the right level; plus, his IL resume is seriously puffed up---he claims credit for bills that others did the work on.
    Is he accomplished? Yes. Is he ready to be President? Absolutely not, no more than Paul Krugman or Ed Witten---and the poor temperament he is displaying recently is yet another strike against him.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't see hillary have more experience (none / 0) (#149)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:44:22 PM EST
    at least not the good kind. Hanging out with Mark Penn for a decade and working on Walmart' boards are not a big plus to me. That said I have to respect her ability to excite and connect close to half of my party. I have to admit she must have something to offer to the party's cause. You don't get to where Hillary and Obama are without having the chops. My opinion.

    Apparently from the Jesus and Bush references here do not want to give Obama supporters and their canidate that same respect. Cool that's your call. I hope Hillary is smarter than that, should she win the nom, or your and my party will be screwed.


    [ Parent ]

    So I can't respect you unless I (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:46:30 PM EST
    pretend that I believe Obama is qualified, even though I do not? And you are lecturing ME about manners?
    By the way, if I were easily offended, I'd take umbrage at your silly mini-bio of Hillary. It's not accurate. Hillary has been fighting for the rights of the weak, sick and powerless for most of her adult life. She has a great record.

    [ Parent ]
    First Off (none / 0) (#161)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:56:23 PM EST
    I am not in the Obama world. And it is BS to talk about Obama's experience in the limited way you frame it as any indicator to how he would perform as president.

    What kind of experience makes a good president? If you have distilled a formula based on prior presidential performances let me know. Other it is an empty talking point.

    [ Parent ]

    You are the one who used the (none / 0) (#168)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:03:47 PM EST
    narrow, Constitutional grounds for qualifications, and you lecture ME about narrow thinking? LOL.
    You know, I can judge Obama's qualifications in  a way that makes sense to me. You agree now that we are talking about opinions, right?
    It is NOT a fact that Obama is experienced and knowledgeable enough to be President---that is a matter for voters to decide for themselves.
    I could give you a host of more specific reasons I don't think Obama is ready, but you won't even accept the legitimacy of questioning him at all.
    There is no point.
    Enough. I don't want to get bitter.

    [ Parent ]
    No (none / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:10:47 PM EST
    My problem with your use of the word is that it suggests some kind of objective standard. I understand now that you are not basing it on anything more than your gut and emotional take on the guy.

    For me the word qualification means narrowing or limiting. Oh well guess I got it wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    Um, no. (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:15:20 PM EST
    My criteria are not my gut and feelings.
    I evaluate his record; I see how little experience he has at the national level; I see how inartfully he speaks on sensitive subjects (re: Pakistan); I see how he shirks his duties in the Senate; I see how glib and unimpressive he is speaking on the issues, especially in comparison with Hillary.
    All you say is that Hillary and Obama have similar voting records. Sorry, but "Me, too Hillary" doesn't cut it with me.

    [ Parent ]
    Nonsense (none / 0) (#176)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:14:18 PM EST
     
    but you won't even accept the legitimacy of questioning him at all.

    Don't generalize because I disagree with your above statement. There is lots to question him on as well as there is lots to question Clinton on. Both are much farther to the right than I am.

    [ Parent ]

    You are correct (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:30:32 PM EST
    He does meet all the qualifications needed to be POTUS - he's over 35 and he's a natural born US citizen.  Other than that, I'm not sure what other things qualifies him to be POTUS.

    [ Parent ]
    no patching will be done here I guess (none / 0) (#150)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:45:48 PM EST
    too many haters.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't hate anybody (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:47:24 PM EST
    But I don't think he's qualified to be POTUS.  Why does that make me a hater? And why should I vote for someone in good conscience that I feel will be inadequate in the job?

    [ Parent ]
    You have no intentions (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:51:44 PM EST
    of patching anything up, or you wouldn't give us a lot of faux outrage about how we're spitting in your face by not voting for Obama.

    Please spare me.

    [ Parent ]

    Like yourself? I agree. (none / 0) (#154)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:46:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Questioning his record and his abilities (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:56:33 PM EST
    ... as he himself has shown in his words and deeds and record of service to date, and finding them insufficient for the job that he's applying for, is not an ad hominem attack.

    It's freakin routine, unless you're one of Smirk's Heckuva Job cronies who bought the position.

    It's a process happens to the lowliest position in civil service and the highest.

    Apart from the vile dreck that Team Obama has pulled, his supporters seem to think this process has never happened before, ever.

    It's routine. It's a campaign.

    Based on what I've seen of his lack of adeptness at handling the mild challenges to prove his worthiness for the office he's trying to claim, I wouldn't nominate him to be Head of Lettuce in the produce aisle.


    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#169)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:04:25 PM EST
    That is opinion. Objectively speaking Clinton and Obama are almost identical in their votes and positions, especially when you compare them to GOP.  They are both mainstream dems.

    [ Parent ]
    You not only don't know (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:09:24 PM EST
    what "ad hominem" is, you wouldn't recognize an actual attack if you tripped over it.  If Obama is the nominee, you will learn.


    [ Parent ]
    There are no objective standards, period (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Nadai on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:39:29 PM EST
    - other than be at least 35 years old, have lived in the US for a minimum of 14 years, and be a natural born citizen.  So by that objective measure, of course Obama is qualified.  So was Bush.  I doubt you think he's qualified in any other sense of the word.

    By my standards, Obama is not qualified.  Yes, those are subjective standards.  By your standards, he is qualified.  And those standards are just as subjective as mine.

    [ Parent ]

    So does GWB. n/t (none / 0) (#132)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:21:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:34:38 PM EST
    That is why it is silly to speak of qualifications. Bush cannot be trusted, is a warmonger, has a horrible record vis a vis policies, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    Seriously (none / 0) (#156)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:49:08 PM EST
    Have you ever applied for a job?  How do you get called for an interview or actually get the job?  I agree it's not 100% based on experience, but you have to have something (unless your daddy owns the company)- otherwise you'd have to, you know, earn it.

    [ Parent ]
    You Hate Obama (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:02:35 PM EST
    OK I get it. I voted Clinton in the primaries. Obama does not bother me any more than Clinton does.  I would vote for him without hesitation and not be worried that he could not perform well.

    I disagree with both of them regarding their positions regarding war and worry that we will be mired in the WOT for a long time. But compared to McCain both are better.

    [ Parent ]

    You are being very offensive and (none / 0) (#170)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:04:34 PM EST
    basically lying. She did not say she hates Obama.
    Get a grip!

    [ Parent ]
    the qualifications: (none / 0) (#188)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:35:09 PM EST
    two arms and two legs, of which one could be inoperable,  Two eyes and a mouth. The ability to read, write, and speak a sentence.  Be able to raise money.  Oh, yes--be a native-born citizen and be (what is it, 36?)

    [ Parent ]
    the fact that there is no (none / 0) (#197)
    by kangeroo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:03:24 PM EST
    "objective standard"--and i'm not even sure what you mean by that--does not make calling him unqualified an ad hominem attack.  i get the sense that you're using "qualified" in the very narrow sense of legally or procedurally qualified to run (e.g., schwarzenegger is not "qualified" under this standard).  otherwise, what you say makes no sense to me.

    as mark pointed out, our job as voters is to judge the candidates.  the fact that there's no universally accepted method for making that (inevitably) subjective judgment doesn't then automatically render everyone, their mother, and their cousin qualified to be president.  i think of voters as akin to a board conducting an interview for CEO--is there a hard and fast rule re: who's qualified in that situation?  no.  does that mean then that everyone's qualified to assume the position?  no.

    [ Parent ]

    btw, my comment above is for squeaky. (none / 0) (#198)
    by kangeroo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:06:58 PM EST
    voting is not a mathematical formula.  it's INHERENTLY subjective.  that doesn't mean anything goes.

    [ Parent ]
    The only qualifications (none / 0) (#224)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:58:37 AM EST
    to be President is that you are a natural born citizen who has lived in the United States for at least 14 years and is over 35 years old.  By that "objective standard" I would guess that most of us here are "qualified" to be President.  But that's a pretty thin resume.  As is Obama's.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree... (none / 0) (#167)
    by IzikLA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:03:22 PM EST
    I don't particularly like Obama after this campaign but the most striking thing I have dealt with (aside from getting blasted off blogs by Obama-bloggers) is dealing with political opinion in my workplace.  I have kept my feelings to myself, but I have other workers that feel completely at ease coming into my office and blasting Clinton with really below-the-belt remarks.  I just do not think Clinton backers have been nearly as outspoken or nearly as rude as Obama's.  That is just my own experience though.

    Additionally, while I may not respect Obama or his campaign right now, I am quite sure that I will vote for him in the GE - and I believe he will be a much better president than our current one.  I just strongly believe Clinton would be better.

    [ Parent ]

    We could (none / 0) (#186)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:30:11 PM EST
    hardly underestimate those passions' we hear entirely too much of them now.

    [ Parent ]
    I think Clinton has a decent youth vote (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:22:45 PM EST
    Not sure that gap is as big everywhere as 'they' would have us believe.

    [ Parent ]
    Curtrently (none / 0) (#95)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:44:38 PM EST
    slightly more than half of the dems who have voted so far want Obama to be the nom. If Hillary does manage to win, and it is possible if she can take down Obama, that will be a pretty big gap. At the very least she will face the same issues Obama would, in bringing the party together.

    Personally though I prefer Obama, I will vote for either in the GE. Four more years of Bush-like policies, will have real consequences, far bigger than my pride.  

    I also think that either should be open to taking the VP slot. As their close to equal support shows, both canidates have a lot to offer, and honestly neither should be dismissed as being beneath the other.

    [ Parent ]

    While I do not have the numbers handy, (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:09:32 PM EST
    you may be correct in saying that slightly over half of the total votes cast to date have been for Obama, but among Democratic voters, she has done better.

    And I think that is a distinction that many Clinton supporters feel has some importance.

    [ Parent ]

    some of us (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:13:48 PM EST
    'more experienced' folks do not want Obama on the ticket at all anymore.  Will 'heap big man' follow her lead, even if she is president?  Let him serve out his time in the Senate, where he can maybe grow up.

    [ Parent ]
    your use of the word "pride" is (none / 0) (#201)
    by kangeroo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:18:02 PM EST
    telling.  i have no problem whatsoever with swallowing any "pride" i might have if i actually believed, truly and honestly, that obama's platform as a democrat wasn't a total sham.  therein lies the problem:  i don't believe that.  not anymore, anyway.  

    i'm starting to think obama is really an independence party candidate in democrat's clothing.  which is just fantastic for those of us who'd like to know, in advance, what to expect under his administration.

    [ Parent ]

    Add to that list (none / 0) (#192)
    by DaleA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:40:50 PM EST
    Other groups where Obama is weak:

    Asian and Pacific Islanders

    Native Americans

    Gay and Lesbians

    Hillary carried these group 2 to 1 or better.

    [ Parent ]

    thanks for pointing that out; (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by kangeroo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:22:04 PM EST
    i was just thinking of that.  really, it's becoming increasingly clear to me that only one candidate here has a truly diverse coalition of democratic voters.  the other is looking more to me like an odd alliance of idealistically noncommittal and intolerant voters with a penchant for surpressing dissent.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary isn't a racist (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by myiq2xu on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:53:57 PM EST
    nor has she been pushing racist meme.

    Falsely accusing the Clintons of racism is the dirtiest low-blow played by one Democrat against another I've ever seen.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:18:38 PM EST
    Could you guys please stick to playing What Obama Really Meant, instead of indulging fantasies that he  actually SAID something completely different from what he actually said?

    If you put Obama's comments up next to Rendell's comments that there are people in Pennsylvania who won't vote for a black candidate, I daresay 99% of Americans would not recognize them as the same statement.  The only place where Obama merely said "there is such a thing as racists" is in your head.

    [ Parent ]

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:43:13 PM EST
    So when he talked about people who cling to their guns or their religion, he was somehow making a point about white people who won't vote for black candidates?  Forgive me if I don't join you on that rhetorical roller coaster.

    [ Parent ]
    Again (none / 0) (#223)
    by pattonbt on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:51:19 AM EST
    I will be generous in saying this, but your statement is a complete and willful misinterpretation of the quote.  We dems should be better than this.

    You just seem to need a wedge issue to ratchet up your faux outrage so that if and when your candidate loses you can blame it on 'the other guy' and not your own candidate.

    Face facts, there was no racism involved or intended in Obama's comments.

    And yes, I agree, the Clintons are not racists.  Anyone who accuses them of such is wrong and should be called out.

    [ Parent ]

    i was just writing something on judis (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:56:33 PM EST
    who will, no doubt, be the next pariah in the shrillosphere. i have a question for you- do you still think obama is more electable? do you think either is realistically more electable than mccain? i think we have serious problems.

    I do not think either is very electable (5.00 / 2) (