The Inevitable Narrative

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.

    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.


    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?


    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!

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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

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

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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
    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.


    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.

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

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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?

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


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?

    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".
    its an idea the absurdity of which will become obvious to even them when they encounter an actual attack machine in the general.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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!


    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


     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]


    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.


    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.


    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"!

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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?

    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.


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


    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.

    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.

    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.


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

    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.

    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.


    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!

    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?)

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:59:30 PM EST
    at this point.

    Already diaried at dk. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:09:18 PM EST
    And the diarist predictably attacked Judis' piece.

    It will be interesting to see what Glenn Greenwald says when he gets back.  


    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:11:28 PM EST
    we have serious problems.
    I go back and forth on thinking Obama would make for better congressional elections and thinking Clinton could win but possibly not be good for down ticket democrats.
    but president McCain is looking more and more likely.
    lets just pray he doesnt pick LIEberman for a running mate.
    if he does (and wins) I am becoming a canadian.

    if he picks condi (none / 0) (#51)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:15:35 PM EST
    he'll have the media's two favorite politicians on the same ticket...

    Condi is going back to Stanford (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:38:43 PM EST
    She made a pretty definitive statement yesterday.  I think she is sincerely trying to get herself out of the running.

    But what do I know. She certainly does not have a good track record on truth-telling.


    better Condi than Holy Joe. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:27:53 PM EST
    i think (none / 0) (#74)
    by Turkana on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:29:04 PM EST
    that's a wash.

    maybe you are right (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:36:24 PM EST
    I just dont think I could bear looking at this vile droopy dog face and listening to that voice - OH MY GOD THAT VOICE - for 4 years.
    Tucker may want to cross his legs when he hears Hillary but I want to puncture my eardrums when I hear Holy Joe.

    Obama could have had women voters (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:00:36 PM EST
    if he hadnt attacked us throughout the blogosphere/progressive media through his Boyz, while whining about the horror, the horror of her daring to compete for the job and actually campaign.

    He seemed like a decent smart guy initially.

    I think he is a decent, smart guy. He's (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Joelarama on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:06:58 PM EST
    just green.  He cannot slough off political attacks against him, and the media bias in his favor has enabled his sensitivity.

    Obama's campaign takes its cues from him.  The "Hillary is a monster" incident speaks volumes about the Obama campaign's inability to separate the political from the personal.


    This woman is voting for Obama (none / 0) (#89)
    by 1jane on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:38:25 PM EST
    I think it was women voters who are (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:09:52 PM EST
    for Clinton is the issue, not women voters who have been for Obama. Though I suspect some of those will continue to peel off due to the heavy doses of misogyny.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:20:42 PM EST
    we know that, dear.

    I think he'll get most of us Dem women (none / 0) (#102)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:52:51 PM EST
    eventually.  After all, we've been voting for condescending men for as long as we've had the vote.

    I urge other women not to let anger over this nomination process cause our troops to stay in Iraq one day longer.  I have no great faith in Obama to get them out, but at least he will try.


    Speaking in my small circle (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:57:48 PM EST
    I don't know a single dem woman who will vote for him right now if he is the nominee. I even try to get my wife to back off a little and constantly point out his positives (which there are many). But every time something new pops up and she just gets back to "can't do it."

    Keep in mind my margin of error is astronomical, I am talking about at most 10 people. :)


    I don't know any that will vote for him (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:16:49 PM EST
    either but I do know some Republican women that will vote for her based on the health care option for their families...

    He'll pick up thos Reagan Dems now (none / 0) (#163)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:57:41 PM EST
    He's decided it's ok to wear a flag pin again, since a vet gave it to him today:



    i no longer believe he'll try. (none / 0) (#205)
    by kangeroo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST
    i don't believe anything out of mouth anymore, quite frankly.  i've said it before and i will continue to say it until someone proves me wrong:  obama is the epitome of an independence party candidate in democrat's clothing.  it explains the waffling, the weird connections with people on both extremes of the spectrum, the prevaricating, the right-leaning socioeconomic policies, the noncommittal answers and votes to very controversial questions, etc.  seriously, can anyone tell me why this explanation doesn't make sense?  because it's the only one that makes everything fall into place for me.

    Reagan Democrats appear (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by bslev22 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:04:59 PM EST
    to be the bottom-line on the electability issue.  Can Senator Obama win Reagan Democrats in adequate numbers, e.g. by almost 50 percent in places like Kentucky and West Virginia?  I think the answer is plain as day that he cannot.  But to say so is seen by the creative class, to which I belong I guess, as somehow condoning racism (which of course condescendingly presumes that Reagan Democrats, who have rejected many recent white Democrats in national and local campaigns, will nevertheless reject Obama only because of race).

    So what we have here is a situation where, fairly soon, the 800 pound gorilla in the room will be a consensus that Senator Obama cannot win.  I know second hand that there are many Democratic supers who acknowledge that they have electability concerns and they are waiting for something to happen.  But something might not happen, as we see that a compliant press is greasing the skids for Obama when he makes meaningful gaffes (such as cling-gate).  And so, in the name of I don't know what, it appears that we could very well nominate Senator Obama even though the professionals among us, as well as junkies like yours truly and I'm sure many of you, just know that he will lose in November.  Just don't tell anybody lest we offend the creative among us.

    I really don't think "Reagan Democrats" (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by Joelarama on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:13:50 PM EST
    quite accurately describes who we are talking about.  In my opinion, most of the Reagan Democrats are now fully Republican, and will vote for McCain, period.

    The people we are really talking about are Clinton Democrats, and older Democrats who resisted the Reagan siren song.

    That is why Obama supporters' vilification of these people is so insidious.  They are not turning off "Reagan Democrats"; they are driving away and pissing off Democrats who happen to prefer Hillary by claiming they are racist, naive, unsophisticated, and uneducated.


    I'd say that a fair (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:15:17 PM EST
    percentage did vote for Reagan. but there's no question that many of them are just as you describe, and yes, it's pretty dangerous.

    Point Taken. (none / 0) (#66)
    by bslev22 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:22:59 PM EST
    I was using "Reagan Democrat" euphamistically but I think inaccurately as you suggest.

    You Were Partially Right (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:40:27 PM EST
    Reagan's democrats are certainly in play this time.  Our candidates are well advised to court them, as well as Clinton's dems.

    I completely agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by AnnC on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:43:25 PM EST
    I believe that many supers will vote for Obama, even though they believe he can't win the GE.  They will be afraid to rock the boat.  If they overturned the "will of the voters" and Hillary lost, they'd never hear the end of it.  If they nominate Obama, and he loses, at least they will have cover by saying it was the will of the voters.  

    Hillary is the first candidate in years (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:20:37 PM EST
    who really understands what turns people off to Democrats. Gore didn't get it. Kerry certainly didn't get it.

    Bill got it (none / 0) (#99)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:48:05 PM EST
    exactly, i agree with both of you. (none / 0) (#209)
    by kangeroo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:36:37 PM EST
    that's why i felt like i was in the twilight zone when i read jonathan singer get indignant about what she alluded to.  do they not realize why they lose elections?  it's wonderful; instead of learning their lesson, they form the obamacan independence party--which incorporates the electorally unsuccessful wing of the former democratic party.  policies under said party?  unclear and constantly subject to change.  wonderful.

    She already has (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:34:06 PM EST
    She won Ohio (like 83 counties) without Cleveland, She won Fla, and she won Mich (even running against several candidates in the "uncommitted" category).

    It's not that he mentioned the existence of rednecks - he was saying that people who don't vote for him are all racist, xenophobic rednecks, which was why he was doing so poorly in PA.

    It's called lowering expectations.

    Speaking of inevitable: (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:11:33 PM EST
    I can't sufficiently express the odium that JMM induces in me with this post:
    And this is one of the SMART Clinton supporters.. snicker

    Transparent hackery.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:13:35 PM EST
    When she tries to win, she increases the chances that he may lose.



    Oh wait! I gave the wrong link. (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:18:07 PM EST
    Above is the link to the Obama supporter, here is the "representative" Hillary email. I'm not saying all Hillary supporters are racists..just all the ones I hear from

    It is racist (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:29:51 PM EST
    to question whether Obama can win white working-class voters in the GE.

    Didn't you get the memo? ;-)

    (I liked your other link too, though - it's so representative of the typical Obaman argument.)


    Good grief, posting yet another trashy email (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:39:33 PM EST
    ... cause, you know, he just HAS to get in his whacks somehow.

    This isn't sensitive, necessarily off-the-record whistle blowing or an impending scoop, but so barely coherent you have to wonder what it's doing there except to show that Marshall's too chickensh!t to deliver the smack himself.

    JMM used to be reliably meticulous with sources and corroboration. I guess that went out the window with this prog-blog wide contest to see who can out-Drudge.

    All I can say is: Worst. Oily Posedown. Ever.


    Even Judis screws this up (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by goldberry on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:13:53 PM EST
    He says that when all is said and done, Obama will have more delegates.  That is only true if Fl and Mi and not counted.  If they are, either Hillary or Obama could finish with more.  
    It's nice to kinda wish FL and MI away so it makes the story all neat and tidy.  But it will result in an illegitimate nominee, one who couldn't win any major or swing states and it will have proven moving up the dates utterly useless.  CA and NJ wanted to have a say in who the nominee was.  That will be denied us under this scenario.  
    I don't think Obama can win when so many of us feel like we can't bring outselves to vote for him.

    BTD I think that HIllary's ability (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:26:35 PM EST
    to win despite overwhelming odds and bad press and the fact that her husband knows how to win, easily out guns the "media darling" status that you keep giving Obama...his media darling status is very iffy in the general....

    I'd encourage you to be gracious in defeat (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:29:33 PM EST
    Edwards will endorse the winner of the contest.
    A good Dem to the end.

    If I were in some hair-razing battle for my life i'd prefer to have Edwards and the old crew around than what passes for personal and fraternal loyalty as exhibited by the likes of Richardson.

    We could have gone anywhere and done anything with Edwards.

    Now we will be fighting for mere survival in November.

    Question (1.00 / 2) (#178)
    by SAINTIXE56 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:16:02 PM EST
    Ok so Clinton gets the blue collar vote and to please the cLINTON VITERS SHE GETS THE NOMINATION, the fact she will have alienate the african americans means nothing. I suppose After all, they are lucky to be allowed to vote ?

    While I Disagree She Has Alienated AAs (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:36:13 PM EST
    because I think it's more a result of the Obama campaign's efforts to smear her and Bill as racists, I don't discount the potential damage to her appeal among African American voters.

    I think, however, she can win a lot of those voters back.  Just as I would expect Clinton to campaign on Obama's behalf if he's the nominee, I expect Obama would do the same for her.  In addition, she still has strong support from many black community leaders including Jesse Jackson,  John Lewis, Waters, Cleaver, etc.  Jackson may have endorsed Obama and Lewis may have switched his support to Obama, but I don't think denotes any hostility towards Clinton.  Although there are a number of black voices claiming they would never support Hillary, polls have shown she still enjoys relatively high ratings in the black community.  Most AAs aren't voting against her so much as voting for Obama.  

    And, despite the recent claims of racism, both Clintons have excellent civil rights records and a good history with the AA community and I think they can build on it and regain some of their strength with black Americans.  Even though she is losing the black vote by huge margins, she hasn't stopped campaigning for the black vote or going to important African American events like the recent State of the Black Union or even the MLK rememberance (although I think of that as a national event not limited to AAs).      

    So while I think it will be work for her to consolidate black support, I don't think it's a lost cause, especially since she's already shown a willingness and desire to maintain her ties to that community.

    She probably won't get out a huge turnout increase among African Americans as Obama might, but I see no reason why - if she works at it and Obama helps - she couldn't pull down at least Kerry numbers.  And she should do significantly better among hispanics than Kerry.  Their turnout in California in the primary doubled their 2004 percentage of the vote and they went 3-1 for her.  In fact, she won the youth vote in California on the strength of hispanic support.


    How has she alienated (none / 0) (#181)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:21:06 PM EST
    African Americans?  What has she done specifically to alienate them?

    What about Uncle Tom (none / 0) (#211)
    by Leisa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:49:31 PM EST
    Did you know that black people (sorry, I will not reduce them to AA) that support Hillary get treated almost as badly as the ones that are Republicans??

    They are called house slaves or Uncle Tom...  So, this has also created a division among black people as well.  

    I am so perplexed and wary of Obama and his supporters fervent defending of him.  My experiences with them have been saddening...

    I use that term because I feel that many Obama supporters are so convinced that they are correct in their choice that they justify treating others badly.  

    To give you an insight into some Hillary supporters, maybe we are hanging in for solidarity.  When you profess that you support Hillary, you are charged with so many unreal things.  My children are even scared enough to ask me to not put a Hillary sign in my yard.  They are afraid that our house will be vandalized and that we will not be safe.

    Is this an overreaction, or are we dealing with a phenomena that was illustrated by a simple middle school experiment.  Do you know of what I am referring?  


    How much did Obama's spreadsheet... (none / 0) (#3)
    by ineedalife on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:44:20 PM EST
    predict he would lose PA by?

    the Brad Delong link is bad [n/t] (none / 0) (#4)
    by jes on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:44:51 PM EST

    Nope (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:47:44 PM EST
    It is correct.

    How (none / 0) (#207)
    by Leisa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:34:01 PM EST
    is it correct?  

    Its too late many women are done (none / 0) (#6)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:46:38 PM EST
    with Obama and Party with Fla and Mich just sealing the deal, there is no one, no one, no Party Leader that can rally this disaffected group my projection is 30ish percent swing of the base and now I hear from my in laws the Jewish vote is not looking good. Very sad but hey, there is something fundamentally wrong with this 2 Party stuff any hoo its not about We the People its about THEM, if it hastens the decline of the flawed process so be it.

    I find it odd (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jgarza on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:53:21 PM EST
    that HRC brought up Al Gore, i seem to remember him loosing, or not winning enough, because of a large amount of liberal defections to Ralph Nadir.  That seems odd now that Gore has established his liberal bone fides, but a lot of this problem had to do with his association with the Clinton's.  She has also shown strong weakness with this subset of voters, that combined with an alienated AA population, could spell trouble.  So Demographics would be at least as much a problem for her.

    That's a theory (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:54:19 PM EST
    So is yours (none / 0) (#16)
    by Jgarza on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:56:21 PM EST
    you are weighting one subset of democrats as more important for a candidate to have then another, but history shows there can be defections in many directions.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:58:26 PM EST
    If your point is that Clinton is not particularly electable, we agree. Obama is not very electable either.

    I think we have two weak candidates now.


    So then is the question: (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by gmo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:04:55 PM EST
    ...who's more likely to rise from a place of disadvantage and beat McCain?

    IMO - that's a case for Clinton as candidate.  She certainly plays the underdog much better than Obama does.

    Though you're probably right -- Obama will be the nominee, so this is a moot point.


    I think it is Obama (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:05:57 PM EST
    He is a Media darling.

    I think... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:11:29 PM EST
    you only see the 'media darling' through the lens that includes a Clinton.

    In the general, the 'media darling' will be McCain regardless who he is running against.

    According to Bob Johnson...Obama has the support of the liberal media



    Does he reall believe that? (none / 0) (#61)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:20:36 PM EST
    I've been amazed at the power of the Mighty Wurlitzer before.  I'm even more amazed that people forget what it's like to have a meme pounded repeatedly into the American psyche.

    We all remember the runup to the Iraq war, right?  And the 2004 Election?

    What has changed since then?


    Obama has the media (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:08:25 PM EST
    but Hillary has the hard-to-get voters--the ones who might not listen to the media. This is a potentially intractable problem.

    Actually (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jgarza on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:11:30 PM EST
    as i stated above Gore lost, or didn't win by enough, because he didn't have liberals and young people.  Part of his problem appealing to them was his connection to the Clintons.  Add in a weakness among AA' turnout and that spells trouble.

    It's just as easy to say (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by badger on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:17:03 PM EST
    Gore lost because he distanced himself from Bill Clinton.

    But if you want me to stipulate that Hillary couldn't win the 2000 election, I'll agree to that.

    The election we're discussing here though is the 2008 election, and it's a completely different environment.


    You have to find some way (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:14:23 PM EST
    to thread the needle. I believe Hillary can bring AAs back into the booth. If she can combine that with her Reagan Democrat strength, she can win the crucial states.

    But as BTD says, neither candidate is a sure bet at this point.


    there are additive and subtractive... (none / 0) (#59)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:19:08 PM EST
    numbers to each of them.

    If you think that the AA subtractive numbers for Hillary are larger than the women subtractive numbers for Obama, polls don't bear that out.

    Obama's weakness in attracting white voters has the potential of being epidemic.


    Actually i think (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jgarza on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:05:59 PM EST
    That measuring GE electability at this snap shot in time is not really a good idea.  I have said that all along.

    When do you plan to measure it? (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    After the election?

    I think polls start to be more meaning full (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jgarza on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:12:25 PM EST
    after the conventions.  This of what the polls said about the primary a year out.

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:18:09 PM EST
    I think we have to look at demographics now. this is not quite like any other race.

    Well i think if you look at (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jgarza on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:21:11 PM EST
    Demographics you have to take into account weather McCain is more appealing to that group, not Clinton, or Obama.

    like the ones (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:17:38 PM EST
    that had Kerry winning by large margins after the conventions?

    Whoever wins the Dem nom (none / 0) (#55)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:17:31 PM EST
    will get a boost in the polls, as Dem voters start to pull together.

    If we are looking at GE match-ups now I think we should take that into account.


    You sure of that? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:53:41 PM EST
    You don't think portions of each candidates supporters will bolt and not look back? I am not so sure.

    heh (none / 0) (#111)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:00:51 PM EST
    heh (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:02:32 PM EST
    other heh misplaced.

    Clinton did not (none / 0) (#171)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:06:41 PM EST
    campaign for Al Gore because the claim then was that WJC was toxic.  I have heard a bunch of people since then say that if Clinton had been turned loose to help, Gore would not have had the election taken away.

    Rumor Has It (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:24:15 PM EST
    Clinton wanted to campaign for Gore in Tennessee and Brazile fought it and won.  I admit that I believe it mostly because it speaks of bad political judgement by Brazile.  Because you can never go wrong thinking the worst about Brazile's political judgement.  She's a one-woman wrecking crew.

    If you want to be truly horrified, read about how she is trying to position herself for DNC Chair (she stripped all of the FL & MI delegates for a reason and it wasn't JUST to help Obama) and, thankfully, how Dean may have outmaneuvered her - here.  For those who can think of no good reason to vote for Hillary Clinton (either in the primary or the general), allow me to suggest that it would be the one thing that could guarantee Brazile will not become the next DNC Chair.  


    I agree with this. (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:28:19 PM EST
    Unfortunately, electibility cuts both ways. (none / 0) (#14)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:55:44 PM EST
    Both candidates need each others supporters to win. There's no way Obama can win if the working class stays home. There's no way Clinton can win without latte liberals and African Americans. And unfortunately, McCain isn't particularly scary as far as Republicans go. I'm not sure we can rely on fear of the other to unite us.

    We may well be hosed in November no matter which one we run with.

    But Obama will be the nominee (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:58:59 PM EST
    He needs to do something about this stat.

    I Don't Know, BTD (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:30:06 PM EST
    I tended to think so, too, a few weeks ago even if I held out hope for Clinton.  But if she wins by double digits in PA and IN, gets even larger wins in KY and WVA, and then closes with, say, a 15% win in PR and there are large turnouts in these states, then even if Obama wins NC by double digits and beats her in OR, SD, and MT, she's likely to be the popular vote leader, even without MI.  That scenario seems much more possible this week than it did a few weeks ago.  And I see no way to unite the democratic party behind either candidate if that candidate did not win the popular vote.  It seems to me that going against the popular vote winner would be a disaster.  

    And, unlike a few weeks ago, Obama's SF remarks are adding to concerns about his electability that I think were being (wrongly) dismissed before he stepped in it.  The demographic problems have long been with him, but this focuses the SDs on them and, not only that, raises questions about whether he can win these voters over.  And, of course, his inability to put this thing to rest quickly, raises questions about how he'll be able to withstand the coming onslaught.  I will never understand why he didn't apologize immediately, instead of going with his I was clumsy but right defense.

    I do, however, join you in your pessimism.  I think Clinton is the stronger candidate in the fall at this point, but I fear the claims that she stole the nomination (even if she wins the popular vote) emanating from the Blogger Boys and Pundits will hurt her.  Despite their criticism of her for hurting Obama, it seems to me they've been only too happy to hurt her chances if she's the nominee (what with the racism smears and the embracing of the right-wing memes).  So while I probably disagree with you on who is stronger, I don't think either of them are as strong as they could or should be. And it worries me about November.


    Or Better Yet (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:48:53 PM EST
    What She Said:

    What could be better, I wonder, for conservatives than the leftwing having bought into every pernicious lie about Hillary Clinton and every bit of misogynist framing used against her in the 90s (instead of, ya know, just discussing her very real limitations as a candidate without all the seething, mouth-foaming hatred), while simultaneously having carried Barack Obama on their shoulders past the usual meticulous vetting and weakness-probing required of a national candidate (instead of, ya know, just discussing his very real strengths as a candidate without all the pretending he has no room to be even stronger), and then having collectively promulgated the total horsesh*t that Hillary now cannot win, just in time for any Obama misstep to be blown up into a potentially candidacy-killing drama under the totally true premise that the left has been careless about its due diligence on its leading candidate?

    Indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:51:19 PM EST
    The Hillary Hatred plays so well into the rightwingers' hands that I can't help wondering if they infiltrated the blogs themselves.

    KKKarl is chortling in glee at how easy it was to manipulate the so-called progressive blogosphere.


    Why are you so convinced? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Klio on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:08:55 PM EST
    Are you relying only on your [certainly correct] media darling theory? Or do you have other convictions?  

    I've embarrassed myself on the intertubes before, so once more won't matter.  Hillary will be the nominee, and she'll offer the vp slot to Obama.

    There I said it. Now I'm reserving the right to say, see I told you! when it comes to pass.


    Obama will be the nominee (none / 0) (#143)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:37:01 PM EST
    The media will insist on it.  The media will go after any superdee who tries to overturn the will of the people and the media will spin that the will of the people is any metric under which Obama gets the nomination.  Simple, yes?

    Heh, read this.... (none / 0) (#219)
    by dutchfox on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:00:31 PM EST
    From a post on American Leftist--
    Mainstream White Media Adores McCain, Cool to Obama
    Perhaps, the obvious explanation is the right one. According to a 2008 survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors ("ASNE"):


    The percent of minority journalists working at daily newspapers grew minimally to 13.52 percent from 13.43 percent of all journalists.

    Meanwhile, according to ASNE:


    In 1980, the U.S. was 80 percent white not Hispanic and about 20 percent minority, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. By 2006, the U.S. was 66 percent white who are not Hispanic and minorities were 34 percent, according to the census bureau.

    Could this possibly explain the fixation of some newspapers with people who persist in falsely characterizing Obama as some kind of foreign outsider, a closet Muslim, someone we should eye warily in regard to his patriotism, while McCain, a man who was captured and incarcerated because he was shot down in Vietnam bombing a civilian light bulb factory, is revered?

    Apparently, if yesterday is any indication, editors are quite comfortable with McCain's desire to remain in Iraq for a hundred years, and to bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran. Obama's suggestions that we withdraw from Iraq, and actually initiate a dialogue with the Iranians? They don't appear to be very enthusiastic.

    You're a great deal more confident... (none / 0) (#39)
    by sweetthings on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:11:16 PM EST
    About Obama's inevitability than most people on this board. And, I suspect, than the Obama campaign itself. The last thing it wants to do is replicate the Clinton assumption of victory.

    Obama is focused on playing hardball right now, just as Clinton was in Wisconsin. I didn't blame her for it then, and I don't blame him for it now. You can't be president unless you win the primary, and if Hillary has made one thing clear, it's that she will fight until the last possible technicality. Heck, that's part of what makes her so popular.

    If we don't get a surprise in PA or NC, then things might get very ugly indeed.


    What should he do (none / 0) (#44)
    by IndiDemGirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:12:16 PM EST
    in your opinion? While the primary battle still wages on, and while many Hillary Clinton supporters don't agree with your statement that he will be the nominee, he can't really do much at all, can he?

    It's too late (none / 0) (#88)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:38:05 PM EST

    It will take a grand gesture (none / 0) (#124)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:15:08 PM EST
    of some kind on his part.  He sure took a step backward with his ridiculous statement yesterday about how he had been restraining himself from attacking her up until now.  

    There is a debate tomorrow night.  Let's see how that goes.


    I don't think Obama can win ANY of them -- (none / 0) (#18)
    by Joelarama on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:56:42 PM EST
    Penn., Oh., Fla., and Michigan -- in the general.

    Then He Will Not Be President (none / 0) (#86)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:37:39 PM EST
    Obama is unelectable in the general election? (none / 0) (#52)
    by OxyCon on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:16:40 PM EST
    Sure sounds like Yglesias is making that case (unbeknownst to him).

    Yglesias is trying to innoculate (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:26:01 PM EST
    against the notion that Obama's bitter 'gaffe' was the cause of his now certain double digit loss.

    He's stating that it was always a double digit loss.

    He clearly doesn't bother conjecturing how with 6 weeks to campaign, outspending Hillary 4:1, that he has been unable to move the needle.

    If I were one of the 'creative class', I would be deeply concerned that Obama has completely capped with white voters and no amount of media favoritism and no amount of financial advantage gets his numbers to rise.

    I think Yglesias makes a grievous error NOT admitting that the 'bitter gaffe' has harmed his guy because all other explanations spell big trouble for his candidate.


    when will SUSA poll the individual states (none / 0) (#69)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:26:53 PM EST
    for an update? Does anyone know? That would be telling indeed!!

    Great argument (none / 0) (#76)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:31:00 PM EST
    What it comes down to is no one should ever be nominated who isn't a white male.

    Well, to paraphrase the Obama (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:26:33 PM EST
    mob, I'd be thrilled to vote for a black guy for president, but not this one.  And I think it's pretty clear the rest of the Dem. Party across the country feels the same way.

    Would that be true for all voters?  I don't know, and I wish I did.  But if Obama were a better candidate who didn't have such an impressive genius for pissing people off and being so stunningly divisive, I think the party pretty much would have backed him solidly, and that would help in the GE.

    But he screwed up all the goodwill people like me had for him initially, and he's done it irretrievably.


    Virginia (none / 0) (#193)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:43:03 PM EST
    The very conservative 9th Congressional District went 9-1 for Clinton.  The interesting thing is that, while this rural, white, conservative district is mostly Republicans, Doug Wilder won a higher percentage of the votes in his race for Governor than John Kerry did against Bush.  

    So while I think the demographics of the candidates are factors, I have yet to be convinced that they are the deciding factor.  Even though I do agree that the demographics of the voters appear to be the deciding factor.  If that makes any sense.


    Fascinating number (none / 0) (#199)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:13:52 PM EST
    I think that result right there shows the cluelessness of progressives (including Obama) who don't understand what Obama said was inherently insulting and terribly ignorant.

    Funny how (none / 0) (#215)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:13:05 PM EST
    that's exactly how I feel about Hillary Clinton and how I view her relationship to the electorate. Maybe it's time for both sides to start considering whether it has anything to do with the real personal characteristics of either of the candidates themselves and instead is just an artifact of the corrosive dynamics of how this primary has played out.

    Oh, yeah, you bet (none / 0) (#218)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:45:28 PM EST
    starting right off the bat with calling people race-baiters.  No question.  With you all the way there.

    If the shoe fits... (none / 0) (#220)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:49:39 PM EST
    Utterly nonsensical reply (none / 0) (#221)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:53:26 AM EST
    You chose to go there (none / 0) (#225)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:30:31 PM EST

    What's the flip side (none / 0) (#84)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:36:28 PM EST
    No one should ever run for president who's a woman that's been attacked too much by sexist pigs in the media?

    That's not the flip side (none / 0) (#96)
    by Alien Abductee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:44:47 PM EST
    That's the same side.

    OK (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:57:01 PM EST
    And understood to be equally unacceptable as your statement should be.

    Despite Obama himself stating the opposite.  That being attacked too much by republicans -- who did attack because she was a woman who aspired to be more than window dressing in the white house -- made you polarizing and thus incapable of uniting the country.


    Judis is a one trick pony ; Marxists everywhere. (none / 0) (#77)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:31:29 PM EST
    He tries to somewhat link BO with Marx.  But, He's also declared what would be required for a Marxist philosophy in America:

    "It is not hard to figure out why American intellectuals have not had a Marxist tradition. Traditions of political theory-whether liberal, conservative, or Marxist-are grounded in a perception of political possibility. This is axiomatic with Marxism, which is a philosophy of political action whose verification rests upon the possibility of capitalism being superseded by socialism."

    And, only the most ridiculous and partisan wingnuts (who like Judis have no basis for their conspiracy theories) are claiming that BO is the gateway to socialism.

    It seems like Judis has been on the look out for Marxists even longer than Kristol (and the Kristol copy cats on Fox and wingnut blogs.)

    His assessment is all about conjecture.  He retells the wingnut story against BO.  Which neglects the reality that  1) There will never be a D where the wingnuts don't have a plan of attack.  2) He implies that Ds are weaklings who can't win against any real competition unless they are pro-life and the rest of the culture war stuff or they are able to convince the public that they are a mommy/daddy that can help them (where the public are the babies in the analogy--isn't this the kind of elitism BO is being accused of, I love irony.)  

    I hope the the HRC supporters are only looking at these kind of arguments out of political expediency, the alternative is that Ds really believe this stuff and they are a bunch of super wimps, that let R talking points blow them about like a feather in a tornado--that's precisely why blue collar folks get nervous about the Ds, imo.  Buck up!

    How can anyone take this guy seriously?  He should go back to what may be his favorite topics: Buckley and Marxists.

    Internal vs External (none / 0) (#187)
    by blogtopus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:31:12 PM EST
    This primary is an interesting comparison of what destroys campaigns. Obama is doing everything he can to lose, yet with the Media at his beck and call, he can do no wrong (and when he does, it usually gets swept under the rug). Hillary is doing everything she can to win, and in a fair match she would have had the nomination by now, but boo hoo the media and the other progressive groups decided they'd had enough of peace and prosperity in the last Clinton admin.

    Question. (none / 0) (#196)
    by Arbitrarity on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:59:33 PM EST
    And, if Clinton is down in both delegates and popular vote, and is handed the nomination by super delegates, would that not effectively alienate not every Obama voter, but also every person who disagreed with the election results from 2000?

    And, uh, purposefully?

    She possibly won't be down (none / 0) (#200)
    by davnee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:16:15 PM EST
    in one category and maybe even both if you count FL and MI.  Do you really want to go to 2000 in support of Obama?

    Probably. The point is (none / 0) (#212)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:52:05 PM EST
    that the left blogosphere and the media have been wringing their hands over that possibility for months now, and not even considering the other.

    nobody's arguing for this, so (none / 0) (#214)
    by kangeroo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:04:50 PM EST
    i fail to see why you bring it up.  nothing is decided yet.  even pledged delegates are in flux, and i consider the popular vote ahead for clinton (which obama has successfully undercut by blocking FL & MI).  if anything, the likeliest candidate to end up wanting an overturn of anything is obama; he's been the most flexible re: integrity of "the rules" or uses of "the math."  and as to the latter, as mathematicians like to say, there are 3 kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies, and statistics.

    party before the storm (none / 0) (#208)
    by pluege on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:36:15 PM EST
    "the creative class" has been partying their Obama victory over Clinton for weeks now. (Its why they're so mad at Clinton for not dropping out - its a bit of a downer on the fun of their great victory party that they haven't in fact won yet.) But partying now  makes sense as it anticipates their idol crashing and burning in the GE. This way they will have at least gotten a 3 month political orgy out of the political season.  

    Alienating Clinton voters (none / 0) (#210)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:48:22 PM EST
    Doesn't amateur sociologist Barack Obama know that voters, when they are disrespected and disappointed by one candidate, grow bitter and cling even harder to the other?

    i'm starting to get the sense that to you, (none / 0) (#213)
    by kangeroo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:52:32 PM EST
    only one constituency matters:  AA's.  let me ask you this:  do you care about latinos, about the poor and working class, the LGBT community, native americans, women, jews, the handicapped, asians and pacific islanders, etc.?  is the electoral world to you simply divided into 2 categories--of AA's (who matter) and everyone else (who doesn't)?  because that's sure the sense i get.

    So you actually think AA's in those (none / 0) (#216)
    by kenosharick on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:21:40 PM EST
    cities will vote for mccain if Hillary is the nom?And you are   TOTALLY trying to paint her as a racist in this post, which is shameful and what the scumbag media did to Bill Clinton. So sad that Barack is going to win the nom by plying the victim and accusing anyone who disagrees with him a racist. I guess it has worked in the Dem party-won't in the general.

    Why is Obama at fault (none / 0) (#222)
    by pattonbt on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:40:08 AM EST
    for trying to win?  This attitude baffles me.  There seems to be some sort of feeling that 'how dare Obama actually try and win the primary'.

    Your statement "Obama can not win beer track white working class voters, women, seniors or Latinos" should actually finish with "as well as Hillary can head to head".  But do not be fooled, he will do well with them against McCain (as will Clinton if that is the case).

    Whats wrong with saying both Obama and Clinton have their own different strong constituencies in the dem party which will both rally to the primary winner as long as the outcome of the primary is considered valid (obviously valid differs for many people - which is the crux of the real argument here).

    And if you look at general election electoral vote tickers right now, neither of our candidates win head to head.  But surprisingly, Obama picks up more EV votes than Clinton against McCain (and that includes now PA for both and OH for neither).  Both our candidates have natural paths to the white house which are slightly different but equally valid.  Clintons is without a doubt the more traditional route, but by no means is it the most assured route.

    There is so much hand wringing here that 'Obama is the doom of our party forevs' that doesnt come close to reality.  Its the last ditch argument (next to the 'Ill take my ball, go home and not vote' one) of those who no longer have a clear shot at the nomination.  Seriously, it sounds weak and desperate.  Sure I am for Obama, but I know full well Clinton will equally trash McCain.  But to imply Obama is somehow not a true dem and will be our unholy demise is ludicruus or the one that he has somehow played unfairly, give me a break.

    If any of you have actually watched John McCain for more than a 10 second sound bite in the last few months you will quickly realize he has zero chance in the general.  Clinton or Obama will blow him away.  No one wants to vote for their crazy, grumpy, angry grandfather.  John McCain will not stand up to the lights of a country-wide televised campaign.  And I stress the sad fact of television and charisma.  While I hate to admit it, how you are on television and your natural charisma is more important than anything else.  Sure McCain gets a break from the press, but he wont from TV and standing next to Clinton or Obama.  He will be toast against either.

    Of course both Clinton and Obama have negatives but to somehow believe Obama's are higher or deeper than Clintons is ostrich territory.  Please stop trying to somehow blame Obama for trying to win the primary.  He did exactly what he should have done, fight for delegates.

    Oh, and blanket statements like "idiotic Obama moves like blocking revotes in FL and MI" are dishonest, and thats being generous.  Stop stoking that flame as if its Obama's to bear on his own.  Each party in the primary has an equal share of blame.  To lay the blame solely at Obama's feet does nothing but continue to stoke this unnecessary internal hatred.  Before this process started Obama had nothing to do with the outcome of FL and MI.  Once they became important again (I wonder why that was?  Hmmmm?  Because someone now needed them desperately?) they were used in a seriously flagrant and disingenuous way by ONE campaign to stoke uncertainty and hatred.  While Obama can be criticized for not being as proactive as possible, to somehow absolve all the other parties (especially the Clinton campaign for  pushing poor solutions which 3rd world countries would scoff at as valid) is erroneous.

    Its the pushing of these one sided arguments that is really the problem.  Once the dust settles and the spot light is one dem on McCain, the spotlight will be unkind to McCain.  He will lose.  And he will lose badly.  Its not overconfidence that says this - its TV and charisma that does.  Never go against the fact that our presidential race is primarily a beauty contest.  Sad as it is, that is probably the biggest truism.

    We here are the few who take politics seriously.  We are the ones who are baffled how people like Bush can be elected - twice.  Thankfully, McCain will suffer from our countries beauty contest stupidity this time.