Will Obama Do As Well As Clinton In FL, OH and PA in November?

By Big Tent Democrat

Obama supporter Publius writes (see also yep, Josh Marshall putting up his hands to cover the sun:

Other bloggers have, however, made the logical jump that Judis leaves largely to implication. I usually leave linking to "Big Tent" Democrat to John Cole, but here's what he said over at TalkLeft (unclear though whether he was talking only for him):

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.

Florida, perhaps, but both Clinton and Obama will have struggles in the other states versus McCain. More to the point, the fact that Clinton is preferred to Obama among this bloc of voters within a Democratic primary is not strong evidence that she'll do significantly better versus McCain in the general.

I should be glad I suppose to get the "Florida perhaps" concession. But I am struck by the strange argument, I have heard it before, that how a candidate does in a primary with a demographic has absolutely no predictive power as to how a candidate will do in the general election with that demographic. Imagine this argument in reverse - Obama will not do better than Clinton in turning out and getting African Americans to vote for him in a general election. Or college educated white males. Or the vaunted "youth vote." If I wrote that I would rightly be ridiculed by these same "Creative Class" bloggers. But let's set aside the obvious unsoundness of Publius' argument. Let's look at polls on the flip.

In the Pennsylvania RCP Average, Clinton beats McCain by 6. Obama beats McCain by 2. If my math is correct, that means Clinton runs 4 points better in Pennsylvania. I believe that means Clinton runs better in Pennsylvania. Am I missing something? And the same is true for Florida and Ohio, where Clinton leads McCain and Obama loses to McCain.

In what demographics does Clinton run better than Obama? Here is how Quinnipiac puts it:

"At least for now, Sen. Clinton's argument that she is the better general election candidate in these key battleground states appears to have some validity," said Brown. "In this survey, her strength among white voters is why she runs better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Obama.

(Emphasis supplied.) It so happens that I think, because of his Media Darling status, Obama remains the more electable candidate. I think he can expand the electoral map in the West especially. But I am not foolish enough to deny what should be obvious to any person able to view this contest objectively - Obama is a much bigger risk in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida.

The "Creative Class" is intent to be the bulwark of Obama Fandom, apparently utterly incapable of discussing the political realities in rational fashion. The reality now is Clinton runs better in Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania than Obama. That is not to say Obama can not win in Ohio and Pennsylvania (he can't in Florida imo), but rather it is to say that Clinton would be more likely to win in those states (just as Obama is more likely to win in Wisconsin, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia, etc.)

Covering your eyes will not make these realities go away.

< Innocent Texas Man to Be Freed After 23 Years | No Mirrors Handy? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I know we disagree on this (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:35:03 AM EST
    you have said in the past that you think Obama will continue to be the media darling (not your exact words) and I think they will turn on him.  If I am right I do not believe that Obama will win most of those states.  I do not believe that he will win PA or OH in any case. NJ is also a possible pick up for McCain depending on how the media treats the race between Obama and McCain.  That is based solely on my knowledge of the people... so discount it.  Still I believe there is a good chance NJ votes for McCain and not Obama.

    They are bound to turn on him... (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:39:05 AM EST
    ...at some point.

    The GOP will point out the free ride he got in the primary  from the media and the media will say:

    "Gee whizzz lookeeesee. the Republicans are right, we did give him a free ride.  Let's gut Obama to make up for our failings.


    yes and they will pretend (none / 0) (#58)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:26:51 AM EST
    it was not planned that way all along.

    Wasn't there a poll out recently (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:44:57 AM EST
    that showed that NY becomes a tossup if Obama is the nominee?  I mean - shouldn't THAT scare somebody???

    Mass...I saw we lose Mass (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:47:15 AM EST
    did I imagine that?

    Some folks think I'm a bit nuts (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:29:40 AM EST
    when I say he'll have to fight for NY, but I'm standing by that gut feeling. Older voters are not just going to vote Obama because he has a D after his name. Nor are some of the other demographics. McCain is not that scary to the average voter from what I can tell. And he has the experience factor that some voters think is important.

    I believe it too (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:51:48 AM EST
    Outside of NYC, NYS is pretty conservative.  Obama will not get the Jewish vote in NYC, but I'm sure he'll carry Brooklyn and the Bronx due to the AA vote, and Manhattan due to the latte liberal vote. Queens and Staten Island would likely go to McCain, as would Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester.  

    Of course, November is months away and anything could happen, but right now I see a lot of Dems here who wouldn't hesitate to vote for McCain, who is perceived as being somewhat moderate for a Repub.  It's ironic that the Repubs, almost by accident it seems, selected the one candidate who is more palatable to some Dems and Independents.  


    I don't see him winning my Brooklyn 'hood (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:04:52 PM EST
    easily. Yes, we are being 'gentrified', but the ratio of latte drinkers to old time Brooklyn folks is still lopsided. We have the Catholic vote, Jewish, working class, senior, Hispanic and women, for starters. Our AA % isn't that high as it's a very mixed area. A lot of the 'younger' vote you see, comes into visit and doesn't live here, it's too expensive for them now.

    He may not win all of Manhattan either. The diversity of NYC may end up being a B*tch for Mr Unity  ;)

    Hillary earned her upstate votes, so that's a vote Obama will have to hard work for.


    No, not your hood (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:11:22 PM EST
    You're in Williamsburgh, right?  I'm sure BO will get the hipster vote, but not the Hasids and Latinos.  He'll definitely get my neighborhood, though - Boerum Hill is a combination of AA and latte liberals.  I believe that Hillary carried Kings County by only about 1,500 votes in the primary.

    I don't see him getting the upstate vote at all.  These are the same kind of folks he dissed with his "bitter" comments.  


    Yup, Williamsburgh. (none / 0) (#124)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:35:05 PM EST
    By Nov, even more of the expensive condo's they are building may be sitting empty.

    I think his popularity could go down in Kings Co if he campaigns here. Or some of those anticipated 527's run.

    I was checking out some of the work Clinton has done upstate and I wonder how well he'll be able to speak to some of those issues, like with the small farmers etc. He'll have some of those issues in the central valley in CA also.


    Obama's experience will be the dealbreakers (none / 0) (#130)
    by thereyougo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:08:08 PM EST
    and notice how the unity hope schtick just won't stick. People will be practical. Its the economy.

    they'll go with the devil they know. Hillary - the better half of one the most prosperous administrations in modern times.


    Here (none / 0) (#33)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:01:04 AM EST
    Well MSNBC seems to think... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:46:38 AM EST
    ...that the Springsteen endorsement is going to make him a shoe in with blue collar workers. LOL.

    Hee! The Ballad of Tom Joad (none / 0) (#19)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:50:54 AM EST
    got lost somewhere along the way, apparently.

    Oh no. Springsteen endorsed Obama? (none / 0) (#20)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:51:00 AM EST
    How did I miss that? When did that happen? I'm heartbroken.:( I love Bruce.

    It was just announced this morning (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:55:50 AM EST
    I love Bruce too, but I think he's wrong on this one.  Still can't wait to see him this Saturday night in Orlando!!!  I'll try not to let this temper my enjoyment.

    I think it's been a long time since he tossed back a shot and a beer in a working class bar.


    Letter to Fans (none / 0) (#36)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:02:21 AM EST
    See BruceSpringsten.net

    This seems to be the money quote:

    He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that's interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where "...nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone."

    I am not sure this was worthy of an AP news item, but that is how I read about it.


    Well that's it in a nutshell.... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:14:46 AM EST
    ...Obama speaks to (insert whatever).

    I just hope that if he is elected president that he actually does more than just occupy a bully pulpit. We need a bit more than that after what Bush has done to the country.


    Jon Bon Jovi still hearts Hillary! (none / 0) (#57)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:23:36 AM EST
    I couldn't agree more. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:49:19 AM EST
    There is a reason the MSM refuses to report on the Rezko trial and all the other negatives we know about Obama. They are sitting on that information until he's the nominee. It's been choreographed already. The fix is in if they succeed in making him our nominee-which they so desperately are trying to do.

    The Corporate owned MSM is NOT a friend of the Democratic Party. That's just a fact.

    Obama won't win any close state in the GE. If a state leans red or is purple, it's McCain's for the taking--with a lot of help from his adoring MSM.


    I don't (none / 0) (#132)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:15:03 PM EST
    honestly believe he could win here in Wisconsin. Not sure she could either. I reluctantly think that our purple state is once again swinging towards red.

    Maybe when Cream comes around she can tell me how wrong I am. I hope so.


    The creative class (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:38:52 AM EST
    ignores these truths at their peril. Obama has a serious white working-class problem.  Covering their eyes will not change this.

    its because everyone is assuming (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:42:12 AM EST
    ONLY that candidate can hold their demographic.

    the question is in the end, for the key demographics are Issues important and thus if their candidate is not there who is the next best choice?

    for Hillary's demographic she is the BEST choice, but assuming she is not in, do they then say, I think McCain is better on Healthcare, and the economy and what not?

    I mean when 1 drops out what do we think all their support goes? do they drop off the face of the earth? do they go to McCain?

    if the people of Ohio can't have Hillary will they say well only Hillary would change NAFTA she is gone lets go with McCain?

    right now people polling are saying they will NOT vote for the other candidate, but I mean if Hillary can win OH over McCain the question is why? is it issues or is it the person,

    if its issues, will people in OH then say McCain is their next best bet?

    and can't things change? doesn't Obama now beat McCain in MI while Hillary loses?

    does that mean if Obama is not on the ticket MI goes to Obama? why were these people polling for Obama? is it the person or the issues?

    will they find a Republican was closer to their stance then Hillary?

    me I don't know, but I think when we have 1 candidate the party with start to unite and the dem will get a bump

    but thats my opinion I freely admit it

    I disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    Wishful thinking will not make it so. Between the defection of HRC supporters based on Obama's campaign and the fact that working-class white voters tend to swing between Republican and Democrats, he's got a serious problem. Those people like McCain. They think he's a Maverick. Latinos trust him on immigration just as well. And he's as much of a neophyte to Economics as Obama is.  

    we know how the Repubs (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    will attack Hillary because the media has shown us. However, none of their screeds will concern her "hate" for America.
    After the GOP and media wrap McCain in the American flag and dare patriotic American voters to vote against an American POW held for 5 years while serving in the American military, their ads of Obama's connection to Auchi-Saddam and Rev. Wright-Farrakhan, plus Michelle Obama's disregard for America will take on new meaning for the nominee that calls voters ignorant for clinging to their guns, God, and racist beliefs and rejecting THE ONE.

    Sure it can change (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:50:20 AM EST
    but now the polls show that Obama does not hold Clinton's demographic in those key states.

    Obama's blogs should be talking about how he is going to work to change that between now and November, not pretending it does not exist. Or worse, that it does not matter because he is going to win enough western states to make up for PA.


    And (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:52:16 AM EST
    FL, MI, OH, and even maybe NY and NJ. How many state are there out west anyway?

    ha. Not enough. (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:58:27 AM EST
    And I hate to break it to Obama, but he's not going to win any of them.  With Ahnold and McCain being tight, he is even going to have to fight for California.

    I've heard that too (none / 0) (#44)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:10:17 AM EST
    Not the Ahnald thing, but that make sense. I remember reading a while back that if Obama was the nominee, CA could be in play because McCain has a good relationship with Hispanics. Don't know if that's true or not, but it would certainly be interesting.

    We always go blue (none / 0) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:21:23 AM EST
    here in CA.  It'll just be without my vote on the top of the ticket.

    Reagan? Bush Sr? (none / 0) (#64)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:32:10 AM EST
    I think of CA as blue (none / 0) (#129)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    because I typically look at the last 4 elections when I am considering red/blue.  Reagan I think got help from celebrity and he seemed like a nice guy.  Seems like Obama would have got the state over Clinton for that reason, but didn't.  CA likes McCain for some reason.

    My prediction for CA as blue for 2008 is based on primary results....25% of Clinton supporters could switch to McCain, some indie support could switch to McCain, Repub turnout could increase 20% and Obama would still get CA.


    I think it will stay blue (none / 0) (#110)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:19:28 PM EST
    but Obama will have to spend more time and money there than he would like.

    I can't speak for citizens (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Grandmother on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:43:34 AM EST
    of Florida, NJ or PA but I can tell you that Obama will not win the State of Missouri.  He will get St. Louis City/County and Kansas City with the possibility of Columbia Mo which is home to the Univeristy of Mo.  He can write off the rural vote which, as Claire McCaskill can attest to, you need to win an election in this state.  

    I have written before there is a wide swath of land between K.C. and St. Louis and it is not pretty for any Democrat (except Bill Clinton won here which ya think would tell the Democratic party something) but especially for one that has the baggage that Obama is now carrying around.

    I just returned from a trip to/from Springfield, MO (home of the Blunt family) and the 200 mile ride is littered with pro gun, anti-abortion, and Jesus Saves billboards. Go Southewast and you get into Limbaugh family territory.  Same thing.

    Without this state, you don't win elections.  

    I Agree (none / 0) (#25)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:54:37 AM EST
    Obama will lose Missouri. Only way to win here is to have the combined support of the typical Democratic strongholds and enough appeal  in  rural counties to squeak out a win.  Obama will not garner enough support in the nonDemocratic counties to pull it off. Prior to being tarnished as a racist, Clinton had IMO a chance of winning here. Now McCain will can put MO in his win column regardless of the candidate.

    And (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:01:47 AM EST
    since he and HRC actually split the number of delegates equally and she won 110 of the 116 counties - that does not bode well for him in MO. (Current polling has him almost 16 points behind McCain there).

    16 points behind in Missouri! (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    I had missed that.  That is just awful for us.

    As Missouri goes, so goes the nation, they say?  It certainly says that there goes the Midwest.  And with crucial swing states here, that's saying about the same -- as add to that the consensus of many pollsters that Obama maxed out the potential AA voters in the primaries, with their terrific turnout, so which states could he take, seriously?

    Ouch, 16 points, in a swing state that he won. . . .


    While Obama Won MO By 10,000 Votes (none / 0) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:45:29 AM EST
    in the primary, he lost in every county other than the typical Dem strongholds. Can't win the general with without winning in other counties.

    His win (none / 0) (#146)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:10:02 PM EST
    in MO was pre snobgate and Rev. Wright. Wright really tanked his numbers in MO.

    Six months ago (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:01:30 AM EST
    I expected the political environment to give the generic Democrat a narrow win in Missouri. Now, not so much.

    Nor Wisconsin, as noted here yesterday (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:05:55 AM EST
    when I linked to our leading AA columnist (okay, just about our only AA columnist) who hit hard at Obama's recent comments, and the bottom line is that Wisconsin would not go for Obama now.  And the columnist has said in other ways that we agree that what happened in the Wisconsin primary was a fluke for reasons that do not reflect well on our state -- btw, that description of the swath of Missouri with "Jesus Saves" and pro-gun signs and such really resonates, as that's what we see here in Wisconsin away from the southeast part of the state, more literal signs that the primary here, where those areas went for Obama, was about something else I shall not bring into this conversation again. . . .)

    CC - could you please provide the link again? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:20:41 AM EST
    Okay -- hope this works (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:27:57 AM EST
    as my computer was balky again, not copying url's for me, but I got it to behave -- or if it doesn't work again here, click back to my comments yesterday.

    You also might want to do so, anyway, to see a bit of the discussion in replies yesterday, including from another local reader here re this columnist and his comments, as he was exceedingly pro-Obama before.


    I don't feel to confident (none / 0) (#72)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:43:58 AM EST
    that Obama would win Boone County (Columbia) where I live either.  Bush beat Kerry here in 2004 and it was the rural vote that put him over the top.  Obama's comments about guns will haunt him in the general.  

    I do know that Obama is all in on Bittergate (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    He's apparently fundraising on the bitter comments now, so there is no going back with an apology.  He has certified that he stands by his comments.  He has certified that he is an elitist.  The only hope he has in the GE is the media spin continues for him that his remarks were just about bitterness and not about a causal relationship between bitterness and religion, hunting and oh yeah that pesky small-town heritage of racism.  Can he sustain that spin in the face of McCain and the 527's and the media love for the straight talk express?  If he can't, the beer track is unwinnable for him (can't say gone because he has yet to win them notwithstanding millions of $$ and a fawning press) and so is the election.

    It's not surprising. (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    It's really just a recast of his strategy to unite enough Democrats around the notion that Clinton was the worst president ever (or at least as bad as Bush)and that Clintons should be reviled in order to win the nomination. That strategy has worked for him so who knows, maybe he can convince enough blue collar workers that they reallly are just are bitter clingers and therefore should vote for him. Republicans have gotten people to vote against their best interests time and time again. Obama is just trying to get people to vote against their own memories and judgments, or so it seems to me.

    Well, as it stands, I actually don't think (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:48:28 AM EST
    we can win in November. I know that's nervous Nellyism, but after being on TV so much in PA, the fact that Obama isn't running ahead of McCain there is really quite concerning to me.

    My belief (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:52:27 AM EST
    is that come around October 10th or so, you will see some maneuverings with regards to Iran, plus lots of "good news" in Iraq.  McCain will look strong on security and Obama will look like a little boy who missed his bus.

    Love that metaphor (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:00:33 AM EST
    Is that the bus that is running over grandma?

    It's running over both Grandma (none / 0) (#42)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:08:34 AM EST
    and me ;-).

    But where's the beef? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:49:24 AM EST
    Hypothetically, Obama could win some states, but there is no track record to judge this on and alot of the poll showing him doing well were at the height of Obamamania and before Wright broke.
    His only significant general election win came against joke candidate Alan Keyes in a fairly blue Illinois. In the medium to large primaries, with the exception of Wisconsin and his home state, he has failed to demonstrate an ability collect votes from a broad electorate -- in fact, losing all ethnic groups outside of African Americans. Even in his homestate, he last 14 counties to Clinton in southern Illinois.

    Clinton, on the other hand, can point to her solid general election margins in swing counties in upstate New York.  And she can point to her winning all of the top ten Democratic states, with the exception of Illinois.

    Plus, as you say, Clinton is clearly doing better in all the key large battleground states.    

    In a word, no. (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:56:58 AM EST
    Older women will be Obama's Waterloo.

    We are angry. We are bitter. We are clinging to our Clariol and deep pocketbooks.

    We will not vote for Obama.  

    Hear hear. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:59:23 AM EST
    I will be bitterly clinging to my couch on Nov 4.

    Amateur sociologist Obama (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:03:53 AM EST
    should know that voters, when disrespected and disappointed by one candidate, become bitter and cling even tighter to another candidate.

    at this point (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:15:41 AM EST
    it would take a severe risk of loss by one of my state reps to get off the couch should Barry be the nominee.  I have no real motivation to vote for Obama or even Chris unless he gets off his ass and endorses Hillary.  

    I thought Chris (none / 0) (#68)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:38:58 AM EST
    was endorsing BHO. In fact, when I saw that I thought, both the guys we put into office. Nice. Not.

    Well, I do have a state senate race (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:42:08 AM EST
    that will get me to the polls -- to vote for a guy over a woman incumbent, actually, so let no one say I vote for a woman uber alles.  As others have said here so well, I vote as I do because the woman who is crucial in the equation is me.  And I know when I see an awful pol, no matter the anatomy, who is the opposite of me on my issues, not only women's rights but many other local issues for us.

    And it is at the state level here, in part owing to this woman, that Roe v. Wade has become almost meaningless where we live our lives, anyway.  The Supremes have left it to the states, so we are left to fight for reproductive rights in the states.  I do not see the Supremes changing that anytime soon, not even with two new appointments to the court that could go our way.  And I do not see the conservatives actually doing away with Roe v. Wade, as they need it too much to keep their voters in line who may not like the economy, etc.

    So what I do at the polls about the presidential race, time will tell.  Just now, based on the above, my conscience tells me to fight for these rights at the state level, while a vote for the DNC candidate seems counter to what my conscience tells me about FL, MI, Brazile, Dean, and Co.  


    Been Thinking About What I Will Do In November (none / 0) (#92)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:59:08 AM EST
    We have a race for the Governors slot this year, so I will definitely vote. I currently think that Obama will get the Dem nomination because the party will not risk ticking off the AA community. Don't really want to vote for Obama and definitely won't vote for McCain. If by some miracle the presidential race is close here in MO, I will probably vote for Obama. OTOH, if McCain is way ahead and I think  he will be, then I will write in Hillary or some other candidate rather than help Obama increase his % of the women's vote.

    I'm in KY (none / 0) (#105)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:13:15 PM EST
    So there is 0% chance I will have to vote for Obama, because there is 0% chance that it would matter.  I doubt I'll vote for McCain either.  Probably abstain or vote Libertarian.  As for downticket, unless the Dems seat FL & MI while it still matters, I'm abstaining there too.

    LOL you two! :-) (none / 0) (#37)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:02:49 AM EST
    Just remember (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:07:11 AM EST
    McCain on Hardball last night reaffirmed his "pro life" position and that he would not consider Tom Ridge for VP because Ridge is pro choice.

    Frankly I am terrified about a host of constitutional issues if McCain is the nominee and gets to name Stephens' (age 88) replacement.


    I have a solution for that (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:53:38 AM EST
    should it occur.  We will simply have to flood our Democratic Senators with phone calls, emails and faxes demanding that they be a Democrat for day to vote down any SCOTUS nominee that is too far to the right.  

    I used to be concerned about what a McCain victory would mean to the composition of the Supreme Court but not as much now that I see a McCain victory as a real possibility.  I am tired of feeling that I am held hostage to a candidate because of judicial nominations.  Time for the other Democrats we elect to stand as strongly for us when their vote is needed for consent and confirmation.  


    Since I don't think (none / 0) (#63)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:31:03 AM EST
    Obama is remotely strong on any women's issues, I do not even trust him to fight for abortion rights, I'm okay with not voting for him.  The fact that he called for abstinence education and the "sacredness" of sex the other day just keeps cementing this in my mind.

    IMO abortion rights are already on life support . (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by FLVoter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:52:23 PM EST
    The time to be concerned about abortion rights was during the confirmations of Judge Roberts and Alito.  With the Roberts and Alito court, in time Abortion Rights will become a State issue.  Roe vs. Wade, that shipped sailed already.  And being in Florida, my vote never mattered to Sen. Obama so it won't matter to him in the GE either.  

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:35:53 PM EST
    and Obama would have voted for Roberts, except that he was told the vote was harmful to his presidential chances.

    CLAIROL??? (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:12:29 AM EST
    I don't need no stinkin' Clairol!!!! I have silver hair to my waist. And I earned every damned one of them. And my pocketbook isn't that big, but what I can spare will go to Hillary. And so will my vote. And Obama should worry about women, we are 56% of the voting public, as I read somewhere. That is a majority, if I am not mistaken. And if he alienates all of us, he can't win, even if all the men vote for him. Heh.

    My pocketbook is big.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:27:49 AM EST
    ...because I have a lot of baggage, apparently.

    The Democratic DC elites (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:17:18 AM EST
    picked the WRONG group to tick off. They want to throw us under the bus? Fine. Just don't expect me to ever vote for another Democratic Presidential candidate again. If I'm expendable this year, I'm not needed in future elections either.

    I'm writing in Hillary's name if she's not the nominee. I live in Illinois, so it really doesn't matter if I vote or not (except for the down-ticket candidates) because Obama is G-d here. I'm also thinking about writing in a name for Senator against Dick Durbin---the man who helped shove Obama down my throat.

    See, they think we will all come together for the GE and sing Kumbaya for Obama. They fail to see how angry we are. November will be a REAL eye opener for them. Can you say "Rude Awakening?" I'm not one to forgive and forget easily, especially when it comes to women's issues. I will remember this election FOREVER.


    Sad to say... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:16:06 PM EST
    It looks like there may be a point at which there are so many people under the bus that the wheels will no longer touch the road.

    Dem tactics used against McCain (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:57:55 AM EST
    are going to make a huge difference in the GE, especially in the swing states. If we go into the general deriding him as "McSame" or "McNasty", calling him a geezer, saying he's stupid or unqualified, and generally trying to depersonalize and dehumanize him in the same way this primary race has gone, we're toast. Neither the public nor the media are going to play along with that.

    We need to slowly tug along the public's perception of him from "folksy straight-talker with medals for bravery" to "honorable opponent who isn't the right guy to haul us out of this mess." And we have to be careful not to base  that on his age, because older people vote. And they especially vote in FL, OH, and PA. A tricky path, and I think Senator Clinton is best suited to walk it. If she's not the nominee, I hope Senator Obama has some other tactics I haven't seen yet. New voters are not going to make up for all the people turned off if we attack McCain the wrong way.

    Funny you mention that (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:10:16 AM EST
    Those are exactly the tactics I have seen seriously suggested on OpenLeft.  Oh yeah, and try to tie the 100 years war distortion to him too.

    Let's hope Obama's strategists are smarter than his fanboys.  But with the internet and the 527s out there independent of the campaign, he is going to have a hard time keeping control of his message. I'm sure his "creatvie class" supporters are not going to put a lot of crap out there.  People seem to accept crap about Hillary a lot easier than they accept it about McCain.


    I agree with this. (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:11:17 AM EST
    To me, this is why Clinton has shown him respect, while clearly stating that he is wrong on Iraq and that she (and Obama) differ from him on many aspects of their policies.

    It's not because she wants to be his VP, as some hysterical Obama supporters contend. It's because she knows how he is perceived and knows she can't fight it with nastiness.


    The blogosphere's and left media's (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:44:49 AM EST
    response to her comment about CIC qualifications made me very nervous. Denying that McCain is qualified just seems insane to me--it's his major strength in this contest. Anyone who denies that looks out of touch with reality and plays into the right's contention that lefties don't understand Security and Defense. I would have been so happy if Senator Obama had just answered the question. "Why yes, I am qualified to be Commander in Chief and here is why" followed by his best resume items in this area, plus the pitch about new ideas and better judgment.

    Then hit her for talking up McCain if you see it that way, but answer the question first. Same with the 3am phone call. McCain is a dangerous and scary guy to have answering that phone, but he is qualified to do so.


    Right, I would say that Hillary was (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:53:11 AM EST
    giving Obama an opening to make his case. Rather than saying Obama was unqualified, she  left it up to Obama to answer the question. It would be silly for her to do anything else! The way she did it left an opening for Obama to say something like "Here's why I am qualified. I have to disagree with Hillary about McCain though.. I'm a little worried about having him as CIC because of X and Y."
    It's possible for two people who are competing for the nomination to cooperate. Hillary understands this; Obama does not.

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:17:35 PM EST
    If they would ever step back and stop looking at everything she does through their 'evil Hillary doing anything to advance herself' glasses they would realize she is smarter than they are about things like this.

    Also (none / 0) (#55)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:21:40 AM EST
    I think it would be a different campaign with Obama than with Clinton.  Clinton-McCain are friendly, so I THINK it would be more civil and more substantive.  McCain has already rebuked Obama in a letter dated February 6 about lobbying reform legislation. (Obama's camp, has of course spun this to not be so bad)


    Here's an excerpt and a preview of things to come:

    "Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your letter to me dated February 2, 2006, which explained your decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussions. I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again."


    "As I noted, I initially believed you shared that goal. But I understand how important the opportunity to lead your party's effort to exploit this issue must seem to a freshman Senator, and I hold no hard feelings over your earlier disingenuousness. Again, I have been around long enough to appreciate that in politics the public interest isn't always a priority for every one of us. Good luck to you, Senator."


    That is my sense as well. (none / 0) (#70)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:41:00 AM EST
    Some Obamans actually think Obama got the better of McCain in that exchange. It's unbelievable. McCain smacked him down quite thoroughly.

    Of course, I do think that the media will be horrible to HRC, even if McCain isn't. But I expect that for either candidate.


    Even (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:50:04 AM EST
    HRC has said that democrats should vote for the dem nominee in November.  If you aren't convinced that Obama would offer stronger nominations than McCain, then you haven't been paying attention.  The republicans have dedicated themselves to nominating judges that will, among other horrifying things, allow the executive branch to do whatever it wants.  Good luck with King McCain.  Even if you think Clinton would find better Justices, saying Obama would be just as bad as McCain is way off target.  
    I actually have a lot of hope for Obama in this regard.  Harvard Law churns out the worst kind of theory-lawyers.  A friend of mine hired a Harvard kid as a summer associate over another kid from a solid state school.  Harvard could quote you SC decisions but couldn't send a fax.  He also didn't realize that he couldn't just poke around on Westlaw all day.  Point being, I think Obama will try to appoint liberal, Harvard-law folk like himself.  
    (The previous Harvard-bashing is mostly just a joke, though the story is true.  Advance apologies to any Harvard Law grads.  And no, I didn't go to Yale.)      

    Obama's greatest weakness is his (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:06:23 PM EST
    amazing ego....I think he bought into his own publicity and that gives him a slight aura of being smug and "above it all"....Count me as another older woman who won't vote for him in the fall...Of course my state (Montana) will go red anyway, so won't matter....I simply cannot vote for anyone that has manipulated the nomination this way...To not count Florida and Michigan is the deal breaker....

    I disagree with only one word (none / 0) (#112)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:21:29 PM EST

    "electability" (none / 0) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:46:25 AM EST
    This is something that has been used in the most devious ways.  They use the national polls to indicated his electability or the perception in the polls that he is more electable.  So, they apply that to the state numbers.  But, they do not in any way allow the inverse for Hillary.  Does that make sense what  just said?  Note the WAPO poll from today.  

    BTD, You should know better (none / 0) (#11)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:48:06 AM EST
    Obama will be the media darling for about half a second after the balloons drop in Denver.  Then the Rezko stuff, Wright rantings, lack of ntional security creds, his wife's stupid remarks, EVERYTHING will be brought down on his head in an instant.  It will be relentless and nauseating.  Irq will rear its ugly head.  There will be car bombings and carnage on the news and vague threats of terrorism.  The instability in African countries of Kenya, Chad and Zimbabwe will be flogged so that people associate black leaders with corruption, violence and economic collapse.  Bittergate will come back to haunt him, small towns will reject him utterly.  John McCain will look like a reasonable moderate and full tilt media fluffing will ensue. On and on it will go.  
    Think about what you're saying.  Hillary was the frontrunner at this time last year.  Her lead looked insurmountable.  But the negativity thrown at her, combined with generous assistence of the media for Obama, has reduced her lead to a tie.  A weaker politician would have collapsed by now.  But it is her strengths that have kept her in the race til now.  Now, imagine what will happen when the contest is between Obama and McCain where they start off almost even, Obama slightly behind.  The media support for Obama is going to disappear.  And intellectually, you already know this.  The media is an arm of the conservative movement right now.  You KNOW what they are up to.  The idea that Obama is a media darling who can withstand the attacks once the media puts his campaign on mute is nonsense.  You know why?  Because there is no substance behind him.  He is a construct.  Hillary  has substance which is how she has managed to survive so long.  
    You are backing the wrong horse.  Please stop telling yourself fibs.  

    You know, it is possible to disagree (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:49:09 AM EST
    without accusing BTD of being in denial.

    Then how do you explain it? (none / 0) (#80)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:50:23 AM EST
    You may not like the analysis but there it is.  This has been the pattern of the election season in the past two go arounds.  It's been very successful because all it takes is a weak politician and the ability of the media to put his campaign on mute so that no defense comes out looking anything but silly and insubstantial.  
    In fact, Hillary is the ONLY candidate who can break this trend.  Most people get their news from TV and that's not going to change this year.  With Hillary, all the crap reaches a threshold level and then that's it.  We don't know what Obama's threshold level is yet.

    Explain why he disagrees with you? (none / 0) (#101)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:09:09 PM EST
    why don't you just read and discuss what he writes, and try to keep the psychoanalysis out of it?

    If a person were sleeping through a fire... (none / 0) (#116)
    by goldberry on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:25:41 PM EST
    ...wouldn't you feel obligated to shout and shake him to wake him up?  
    BTW, if it bothers you so much, don't read it.  BTD is more than capable of telling me to shut up and he has, on several occasions.  

    I disagree with your charactorization... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:53:35 AM EST
    ...of BTD, but I think it is fair to say that the media coverage of Hillary can't get any worse and the media coverage of Obama can't get any better.

    It is only a matter time before the Bill "Kill your Parents" Ayers is brought up in the media. Like Kerry, when and if, he is the nominee the spotlight intensity will increase tenfold.


    I don't know about that (none / 0) (#51)
    by CST on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:17:45 AM EST
    "Like Kerry, when and if, he is the nominee the spotlight intensity will increase tenfold. "

    Kerry won the primary within a week after New Hampshire.  This has been a long, hard fought primary. I don't think you can really compare the two.  The spotlight has been pretty bright lately, the only one who seems to be escaping it is John McCain.


    Facts? What are facts? (none / 0) (#17)
    by JoeCHI on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    Your argument may be true based on the data.  However, there are more important things to consider than an objective analysis of the public record.

    And those realities must be considered only after taking a huge chug of Kool-Aid.  If Kool-Aid ain't your thing, you can also fall asleep and Oprah will have an Obama-pod delivered to your house via messenger.

    Don't worry!  You'll see the facts differently in the morning!

    What about Michigan? (none / 0) (#31)
    by BlueMainer on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:00:14 AM EST

    McCain (none / 0) (#39)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:04:02 AM EST
    Watching the three candidates (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:21:55 AM EST
    elicits reactions from me, which I wonder if others see.

    Obama projects a sense of entitlement to the White House.  Clinton projects having earned her way there, not the same as entitlement (I know antis see it otherwise, but I don't).  

    So does McCain, with his long record -- but what I also see in him is some sense of absolute wonder that he pulled through to this point, after all, so he just seems to be delighted to still be in the running.  And that may be the most dangerous image for Dems to have to counter -- the "happy warrior" again, which won it for FDR?  

    Admittedly, McCain is done with the grueling part of the primary, and Obama and Clinton are still slogging along through that.  And Clinton has a sense of humor, and that chuckle, that does come through to those of us open to see and hear it.  But I don't see that in Obama, as his occasional joking actually seems to really be sarcasm -- and that resonates only with other snarky sorts.

    I fear that I am making that darn "likability" argument here, and I've never been one to go with that.  But the common wisdom is that most voters do.  And maybe I'm becoming one of the commoners!

    Which of the three is coming across as actually "likable" could matter more than "elitism."  One can be really of the elite from birth and still be likable, with the example of FDR again.  Obama is seen as admirable, certainly, as he sure has his legions of admirers -- but is that the same?  And Clinton is admired by many as well, although more by adults who do not reach adulation.  And their "favorables" and "unfavorables," across many polls, seem to be running quite closely now.

    So, especially against the admirable backstory and personality projected by McCain, which Dem will do?  


    Well, even George W. Bush was (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:38:10 AM EST
    not as arrogant as Obama in 2000.
    Bush's campaign succeeded (minus the cheating) by demonizing Gore. He did not make terribly grandiose claims about himself. In fact, as I recall, he was going to be the good-natured uniter who could make government work for the people---much like Obama promises. Obama adds to this by saying over and over, "No one has done more on issue X" than I.
    It's delusional. I seriously question his intelligence for saying things like that.

    Yeh, no one has misused Annie Oakley (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST
    more than him, either.  I agree -- that "no one is better than me on any issue ever" is gonna get him, as it is so easy to caricature.  I think the stoopidity of that phrase really hit me the most when he claimed to be better than anyone ever in the history of humankind in terms of Jewish issues.  So there, Elie Wiesel, et al.!  

    I will be out in the yard this week, at last, in my very Jewish neighborhood, with a lot of walkers -- an orthodox synagogue is down the street, plus it will be Passover.  I think that I will do more than wish a Happy Shabbas this time and engage in some political discussion to see how that line went over.


    The "no one has done more" thing (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:56:08 AM EST
    scares me.  If Obama keeps this up, that's going to make an hysterical attack ad or even worse Leno or Letterman punchline.  Did you hear the latest, today Obama claimed no one has done more to cure cancer, to ensure world peace, to invent alternative energies etc. etc. etc.  I mean he's already claimed to be the foremost warrior against anti-semitism, this from a man who has Nation of Islam people on his own staff.  There are no limits to his grandiosity.  And what is scary is that I think he believes it about himself.  He believes his own hype.  When the worm finally turns (and it will) he is going to be an utter disaster.

    The statement about his foreign policy (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:57:45 AM EST
    qualifications ALONE was the worst comment I have ever heard from a serious contender.
    It's going to be scary once people start laughing at Obama, because he can't take it.

    The only person who was (none / 0) (#115)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:25:37 PM EST
    a more laughable front-runner was Rudy Giuliani.

    The media couldn't protect him from his own foibles no matter what they did.


    Funny how he hasn't said that about (none / 0) (#95)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:01:45 PM EST
    debating.. hehehe

    McCain is the real deal (none / 0) (#97)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:05:17 PM EST
    I don't agree with most of his policies. And I'm not suggesting people vote for a president on personality points.  That was the tragedy of GWB.  But McCain's a tough guy not to like and respect.  I know I do.  A whole lot.  I love his story of survival.  I love his love for his country.  I love his iconoclasm.  I love his ability to say I screwed up, I'm sorry.  And I love his attitude about this race.  Am I voting for him?  Probably not.  But it would be a lot easier than I'd like to admit.  Particularly with Obama as the alternative.

    Voting present (none / 0) (#62)
    by CST on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:30:37 AM EST
    Voting present was something Planned Parenthood, and other pro-choice orginizations ASKED him to do and supported him for.  Maybe, just maybe, young women are voting for Obama because they actually THINK he will be a better president.

    I, personally, do not accept Hillary as a feminist candidate for reasons I would prefer not to get into on this blog.  Others can think differently, I am not trying to persuade on that one.  But it has nothing to do with drinking Kool-aid or listening to Opera (two things I never do).

    Maybe you don't care about young women's right to choose.  Maybe you don't care about young people being sent to die in the middle east.  Maybe you don't care about young people paying for the war in the future.  But don't get mad at us for caring.

    What do you mean? (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:07:37 PM EST
    For reasons you can't state here? Is it the fact that she's pro-choice 100% Naral rating? Or is it that she's the first viable female candidate for President? Or is it the fact that after being bullied to death by MALES she refuses to get out of a race that no other man has ever been asked to do? OR are you hinging it on the fact that she stayed with her husband?  

    And war? Samantha Powers got caught telling the truth that Obama would NOT have troops out immediately. And Obama refuses to get the mercenaries out.  


    We DO care (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:11:04 PM EST
    That's why we think Hillary is the best candidate!

    Do read what Illinois NOW said (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    about those present votes and much else about him, where they know him well.  

    And you agree with him, in his comments the other night, that abstinence is the best bet for your generation, so you won't need to worry about what he does or doesn't do to defend Roe v. Wade?

    As for not "accepting" Clinton as a feminist, well, this accords with what I see -- and I see many of your generation in teaching about this -- as a lack of knowledge about what feminism actually is.

    You can, within the confines of this blog's constraints, give us your definition of feminism, anyway.  That might help us understand your comment, as it just doesn't accord with the records and recent stands of these candidates.


    Don't be too sure. (none / 0) (#107)
    by LatinoVoter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:16:05 PM EST
    There are dueling quotes by Pam Sutherland on who had the voting present idea.

    "He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,' " said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."


    Another quote by her makes it seem like it was their idea but this one clearly makes it seem like it was HIS idea to hide behind "present" votes.


    Oh stop (none / 0) (#131)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:13:18 PM EST
     We do care about the kids in the war or else we would not have fought so hard in 06 to get the Dems elected. How is that going? As for Roe vs Wade. Where do you think the support came for that all these years. Us? Most of the young women take it for granted because it has always been there. I was glad it was there too and I have voted that for way all my life. Now, young women are not willing to take our advice with all our hard earned wisdom, so do not put that guilt trip on us. Why would we vote for someone who sounds as if he might be another GW? So, maybe we will and maybe we won't but we do have some power as middle to older women and we might just use it to send a message. We have been taken for granted and expected to cave as usual. I love men, but we are equals except they do not have to bear the pain of child birth and they make decisions on our reproductive systems. Obama will not be any different or he would not have liked Roberts or Alito.

    I don't mean to guilt trip (none / 0) (#133)
    by CST on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:24:15 PM EST
    I was responding to that specific comment about "not caring about young women".  I am not arguing that you shouldn't vote for Clinton, you can vote for whoever you want in the primary, which is why I won't go into my Clinton feelings.  I am talking about the general election.

    "Now, young women are not willing to take our advice with all our hard earned wisdom,"

    That is VERY patronizing, we can't think for ourselves?

    Obama is VERY different from GW and McCain, if you can't see that, I got nothing, because you must have blinders on.


    A link? (none / 0) (#142)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:28:51 PM EST
    I a pretty sure that the notion that planned parenthood asked him to vote present has been debunked.

    People no longer working for the agency endorsed the vote.  Those still with the agency didn't.

    It could be that it was NARAL and not planned parenthood that I'm thinking of, though.


    You may not care (none / 0) (#66)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:34:39 AM EST
    Others might. Personally, I think the Constitution is worth a sh*t.

    Here is the quote in full.

    Chris Matthews: Would you put a person on the ticket with you like the former governor of this state who is very popular Tom Ridge even though he may disagree with you on the issue of Roe v. Wade and abortion rights? Would you put somebody on the ticket like that on that one issue. Would that stop him?

    John McCain: I don't know if it would stop him but it would be difficult.

    Chris Matthews: But why that one issue? Why is there that one litmus test?

    John McCain: I'm not saying that would be necessarily, but I am saying it's basically the respect and cherishing of the right of the unborn is one of the fundemental principles of my party and it's a deeply held belief of mine.

    Roe would definitely be doomed under McCain and you can bet more "settled" constitutional issues will be over turned.   I am going to keep raising this issue, because I think it important.

    And by it, I mean more than just Roe. Imagine this, a veto proof majority passes a health care bill written by Senator Clinton. Its challenged on constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court with Stephens replacement reverts to Lochner mode, and declares it unconstitutional based upon the takings clause.

    Apparently, (none / 0) (#69)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:39:46 AM EST
    younger women need to learn for themselves what back-alley abortions are. Perhaps they need to watch one of their friend's have to self abort with a clothes hanger and get such a bad infection they die or almost die? Or watch a friend have an abortion under less than safe conditions by some hatchet "doctor?"

    Maybe they need to see what it's like to work in a male dominated workplace and be sexually harassed unabashedly? Or maybe they'd like to live in a world where women were expected to stay home, barefoot and pregnant because the husband wants it that way?

    It's all taken for granted and they will rue the day they let go of what so many women fought so hard for.

    Frankly I find this comment appalling (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:44:00 AM EST
    Because younger women disagree with their respected elders on who to vote for they deserve back alley abortions? Did you really mean that?

    I know what she means. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:54:44 AM EST
    I'm young. But a lot of my contemporaries are voting for Obama. They think being a feminist is being able to choose the better candidate (let's forget for a minute that IMO the FEMALE candidate is the one that fits that profile). They don't appear to be concerned about abortion and Obama's "present" votes. They don't appear concerned about the sexism he has hurled Hillary's way. They don't seem to care at all.  They seem to think feminism is dated. For the old hags.  They think it's funny that Hillary "cried." They have not had to suffer through a workforce of sexism because they're not old enough to have been there long enough.   That's the point I think of the original poster. Maybe if they didn't have it so easy they wouldn't be so quick to throw our greatest female candidate (and IMO candidate in general) under the bus quite so easily.

    Got this joke today that is similar (none / 0) (#134)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:32:39 PM EST
    To make it short. The young guy is saying to the geezer "What did your generation offer? Mine has computers, jet planes, Hybrids,rockets to Mars, etc." The geezer says "Yep, you are right. My generation did not have any of those things so we had to invent them. What is your generation going to do?"

    We were there fighting for the causes, but people take them for granted. Just because a candidate has D next to his name it does not mean we will get a liberal judge. What, you think Casey is going to vote yes to one? Our best chance on this is with Hillary. On this, I know she will not let us down and the judge will probably be a woman too.


    Is that what I said? (none / 0) (#94)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:00:34 PM EST
    I said apparently, they need to "witness""see""watch" those things because they certainly don't seem to respect the hard fought battles of the women's Lib movement. In fact, it's been mentioned that people are "over" all that silly "women's Lib/Feminist stuff" now. WHY are they over all that stuff now? Who is over it? I'm not. This fight will NEVER stop. Women will always be at the bottom of the ladder and younger women don't seem to care about it because they've never had to FIGHT for it.

    Obama is NOT to be trusted with the SCOTUS. He's NOT to be trusted with the abortion issue. He has said he will not "fight" with the Anti-Choice" gangs and I for one do not trust him to fight for MY rights as a woman, especially after watching him and all his MALE cohorts treat Hillary like a piece of cr*p throughout this election. He doesn't respect women AT ALL. He's made that perfectly clear to ME.


    I would say yes (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:31:18 PM EST
    I said apparently, they need to "witness""see""watch" those things

    Who do you think "they" will be watching? They will be watching other young women.

    So yes, you are in effect saying

    Because younger women disagree with their respected elders on who to vote for they deserve back alley abortions

    It may not be what you meant, but it is the end result.


    that is not (none / 0) (#140)
    by isaac on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:22:25 PM EST
    what she said and you know it.  she said younger women need to be reminded how things were and how important this issue is, NOT that they should be subject to such horrors.  obama is too willing to kowtow to the right in the interest of some ethereal bipartisanship than stand up for women's rights as hillary would.

    I stand by what she said (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:33:58 PM EST
    I said apparently, they need to "witness""see""watch" those things

    Maybe you need to re-read and think about the difference between remind, '"Witness', 'See', "watch'" Just words? I don't think so. Are you playing a variation on WVicsanRM?

    Her "reminder" is to witness, see and watch. What do you think they will be witnessing, seeing or watching?


    so much anger at young women (none / 0) (#77)
    by CST on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:48:53 AM EST
    I work in a male dominated workplace (I am an engineer).  And frankly, I find it refreshing.  People are, if anything, more open and impressed that I made it this far.  If anything, it HELPS to be a woman.  Also, consider the fact that currently WAY more young women are going to college than young men.  And young women in cities like New York, Boston, and San Francisco actually make significantly MORE money than their male counterparts.

    Do you honestly think this is what an Obama presidency will look like???  Have you heard of his wife???  Do you really think he thinks all women should stay home barefoot and pregnant???  GIVE ME A BREAK.

    Look, I think the women's right's movement was succesfull, and I am grateful.  I don't think that means I have to vote for the first female president that comes along.  I look forward to voting for others in the future, and I do not doubt that it will happen.


    Women (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:59:01 AM EST
    are still making about 80c to the male $1. Women are still harassed in workplaces. Women still have a hell of a time getting time off for maternity. Women still do not get hired if they have small children. I saw a subway ad with a woman's breast and a man's face in front. It was about bowling. That is quite refreshing isn't it? After 50 years, we're right back where we started.  And Michelle Obama?  Her husband had to approve her first job after they were married.

    The ONLY reason you and so many (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:14:28 PM EST
    other young women are where you are is because we older women fought for you. Do you honestly believe if we left your futures in the hands of men you would have had the education and job you now have? Honestly? Do you think abortion would have been legalized by men had we women not fought for it? Do you really think the men would have willingly given you a high paying/equal pay job without it being fought for by women? Do you really believe sexual harassment would have just gone away if left up to men?

    I know who Michelle Obama is. Yes, I have seen her and she TOO is where she is because of the women's movement. We had to fight and fight hard for everything we have....and HILLARY was a huge part of that fight. Obama was NOT. Obama may not believe women should stay home barefoot and pregnant, but many men still do and if it wasn't for the women's movement, that would be the NORM today. TRUST ME.

    I'm not going back there and I prefer to vote for people who are more willing to fight for me and MY values. Obama isn't that person. Hillary IS.


    as long as you are talking (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:20:17 PM EST
    Hillary v Obama that is perfectly reasonable. But if it becomes McCain Obama, I would urge you to vote for Obama.

    You can urge (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:34:21 PM EST
    all you want. I don't trust him on women's issues. Or any other issues for that matter. I don't have to vote for him. I can write in Hillary.

    Nope. I won't do that. (none / 0) (#118)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    I live in Illinois, so I don't have to waste a vote on him. I'm writing in Hillary's name. Obama is G-d here. He doesn't need my vote and isn't getting it.

    well thank goodness for small favors (none / 0) (#121)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:32:23 PM EST
    Unfortunately, (none / 0) (#125)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:39:05 PM EST
    Mr. Hope has ticked off women all over this country. Not just women in his home state. THAT is going to be a huge problem in the GE.

    Yep. (none / 0) (#148)
    by rnibs on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:17:07 PM EST
    And I live in a state where a few thousand votes makes the difference between it going Dem or Rep, but I'm still going to write in Hillary.

    Good point (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:51:43 PM EST
    He's not going to win Florida anyway, I may write in Clinton myself.

    Remains to be seen (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:25:59 PM EST
    But hey, let perfection be the enemy of better than McCain. Writing in HRC will so help both Hillary, the Democratic party and prevent further erosion of the constitution.

    Do you have a link regarding young women (none / 0) (#82)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:52:36 AM EST
    making significantly more money than men in those cities?

    It wasn't that long ago in NYC that I enthusiastically was told "You make a fine salary for a woman."


    Yup (none / 0) (#90)
    by CST on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:58:12 AM EST
    It's a tad misleading though (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:22:58 PM EST
    One, judging by the salaries, those are lower level positions. When you start hitting the mid to higher level positions, it falls apart.

    Same with age and profession. By their 30's they are making less according to the NYTs article. And making less in general on Wall Street, for instance.

    here's some info on Working Women in general:


    And thie just went up today (how timely, lol!~):



    Some stats (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:52:27 PM EST
    The trend is up. Up 1 cent.

    From the census bureau:

    Real median earnings of men age 15 and older who worked full-time, year-round declined 2.3 percent between 2003 and 2004, to $40,798. Women with similar work experience saw their earnings decline by 1.0 percent, to $31,223. Reflecting the larger fall in the earnings of men, the ratio of female-to-male earnings for full-time, year-round workers was 77 cents on the dollar, up from 76 cents in 2003.

    And the AFL/CIO

    In 2007, women are paid only 77 cents for every dollar a man is paid, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Economist Evelyn Murphy, president and founder of The WAGE Project, estimates the wage gap costs the average full-time U.S. woman worker between $700,000 and $2 million over the course of her work life.

    These figures are even worse for women of color. African American women earn only 68 cents and Latinas 57 cents for every dollar that men earn. Asian American and Pacific Islander American women earn less, too. Their pay inequality is less severe than for women as a whole, but they still earned only 88 cents for every dollar that men earned in 2000.

    Sorry for double-post (none / 0) (#138)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    myr eson for the stats is that not all women live in cities and not all women have salaried jobs.

    And this was an FYI.


    Also big cities (none / 0) (#93)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:59:44 AM EST
    do not an entire country make. Big cities have been more progressive than most of the country for the last 2 centuries.

    True (none / 0) (#98)
    by CST on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:06:21 PM EST
    But I am talking about a trend.  This didn't used to be true about big cities either.  I am not saying it's perfect, I'm saying it's much better.  Also, it's necessary and will only improve since women are coming out of college more than men, employees will HAVE to hire them.

    Do you see the irony? (none / 0) (#137)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:53:28 PM EST
    Also, it's necessary and will only improve since women are coming out of college more than men, employees will HAVE to hire them.
    See there in that quote? It is not that they want to hire them, they will HAVE to. Sounds like WWII and plane production. But even that had to do with no men around. Guess what? Woman could do what the men could. Oh, look, we have a Women President. Maybe Feminism has only re-entered my vocabulary. I wanted Edwards. I trusted Edwards.I don't trust Obama. And bring back the ERA Amendment. Let me roar.....

    That wasn't my sister's experience (none / 0) (#88)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    I work in a male dominated workplace (I am an engineer).  And frankly, I find it refreshing.  People are, if anything, more open and impressed that I made it this far.  If anything, it HELPS to be a woman.

    10 years ago. She ended up quitting engineering after 12 years and being an engineering manager. I hope you are right.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#144)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:34:28 PM EST
    People don't understand how important something is until they have to fight for it -- twice.

    Besides that, if I'm right and an Obama/W.O.R.M. presidency leads to another 12 years of Republicans, how many court positions will the Republicans fill during that time.

    I'm willing to wait four years with McCain, and elect a more competent and more trustworthy to Democratic issues president in 2012.

    I don't want Obama in the White House -- at all.  And I think that if the misogynistic hate that has permeated this election results in a win for Obama, a woman will never run for president again in my lifetime.  That's wrong.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#150)
    by rnibs on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:29:29 PM EST
    I can wait till 2012 too.  

    It's the typical case where you have a highly qualified woman and a younger FAR less qualified man, and oh yes, they want to give the job to the man because they "know" he can do it, despite having nothing to base it on other than their "feeling" that they're sure he can do the job, but not sure if the exceptionally qualified woman with  more experience can.

    BTW, this was my experience in the engineering world.  It's the managers that make the decisions, and the co-workers who don't say anything.  Actually, in my case, several of the male co-workers realized that it was unfair and said so, but it made no difference.  Then ,when the managers promote you a year later, they crow about how socially conscious they are, when they only did it because they'd have a revolt on their hands if they didn't.


    When I was up for a promotion (none / 0) (#154)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:15:07 AM EST
    in an engineering firm, my boss polled all of the men working in the department to make sure that it was OK with them for a woman to get the job.  The head of HR got wind of it, and he was toast, but it was "my fault" that he got fired.

    GE polls are meaningless (none / 0) (#76)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    Until the Dems select a nominee the general elections polls are utterly meaningless, even moreso than polls in general.

    Both Clinton and Obama's numbers against McCain are skewed because the Democrats are still divided.  There are enough people are loyal to their candidate right now that they feel some level of animosity against the other person.  McCain is getting a free ride now because the Dems are still fighting each other.  Once there is a Dem nominee the love-in he is experiencing with some Dems and Independents will evaporate.

    The difference between what is viewed as a Clinton voter and an Obama voter is that the Clinton voter tends to be politically active normally whereas the Obama voter is more likely to be attached to Obama in particular.  So, in fact, it is a reasonable argument to suggest that some of Obama's base will not vote in November if Hillary is the nominee where as it is considerably less likely that a Clinton supporter won't.

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:56:16 AM EST
    Whatever you say.

    Less likely that a Clinton supporter won't? (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:11:48 PM EST
    Just keep telling yourself that all the way to McCain's inauguration.  From reading comments here, even blackmailing women with Roe won't work this time.  And it's about time the people who've been taken for granted and diss'ed stood up for themselves.

    It's considerably (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:26:43 PM EST
    reasonable that Clinton voters (like us who have always been active) can figure out how to skip the Prez vote an vote down-ticket. Your claim of Obama supporters being new and sitting it out also works against you since if they didn't participate if Obama wasn't there, they wouldn't participate. So the claim is that they'll vote for him and not for her. That's fine. But her voters have always voted Dem and this time...they won't. That's where you have the problem. New to politics never voted before. They're not reliable. RELIABLE voters are the base of support that Obama is alienating. Us dependable ones are the ones that may not be voting for him.

    That would be the counter-argument (none / 0) (#128)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:03:07 PM EST
    I really don't know what the right answer on this is and I don't think anyone else does either.  

    As such I think it is an irrelevant argument to make on both sides.


    Fastest flip-flop of the day (none / 0) (#149)
    by tree on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:17:57 PM EST
    From "reasonable" argument to an "irrelevant" one in one post.

    No (none / 0) (#152)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:57:02 PM EST
    An argument can be reasonable and also irrelevant.

    I hav told BTD, on several occasions, that his use of the primary numbers as a predictor for GE success/failure is deeply flawed.  


    And now you are changing the subject. (none / 0) (#153)
    by tree on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:26:02 AM EST
    From you:

    So, in fact, it is a reasonable argument to suggest that some of Obama's base will not vote in November if Hillary is the nominee where as it is considerably less likely that a Clinton supporter won't.

    Then, in response to another poster who argued the opposite, you say:

    I really don't know what the right answer on this is and I don't think anyone else does either.  

    As such I think it is an irrelevant argument to make on both sides.

    This was not the point that BTD was making here, it was yours. One that you admitted was irrelevant. Why make it then?  


    Damn, and I thought the earth was round.. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Boia on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:44:52 PM EST
    So, in fact, it is a reasonable argument to suggest that some of Obama's base will not vote in November if Hillary is the nominee where as it is considerably less likely that a Clinton supporter won't.

    Is this from Leno, Letterman, Stewart or Colbert?


    This is one of the many reasons IMO (none / 0) (#109)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:18:00 PM EST
    that Obama won't win the election in the fall...The media has done a good job of not "harping" on these little discrepancies, but now Obama is denying he met this man when there are apparent witnesses to him even giving this guy several "toasts" at a party just a few years back...How can you not remember this???

    that's funny (none / 0) (#114)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:24:00 PM EST
    Now really, maybe he goes to so many parties at Rezko's house that he can't be expected to remember them all.

    W.O.R.M. He initially said (none / 0) (#123)
    by vicsan on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:34:46 PM EST
    he hardly knew Rezko. He had only done 5 hours of work for him as a client of a church. Then came W.O.R.M.. Now he's going to have to explain What He Really Meant about not knowing Auchi. He's a pathological liar. WHY? He's hiding something. He lies about everything....for a reason.

    She'll have to say that (none / 0) (#151)
    by rnibs on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:41:00 PM EST
    She'll have to throw her support behind him.  It's expected, but there are a number of ticked off people, myself included, who will not vote for him even if she does.  And I expect the same will be true if the roles are reversed.

    A president of people and by the people (none / 0) (#155)
    by John Lai on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 04:13:25 PM EST
    OBAMA has burnt the bridges in Florida and Michigan. He has taken away the opportunity of a revote.

    The OBAMA campaigns suggests to split delegates of both states and I think this is an act of burglary. The result is eqivalent to disqualify all the pledged delegates of both states in the primary.

    If you want a president of the people and by the people, vote against OBAMA.