ABC News National Poll: Obama Favored, Restrictions on Superdelegates Disfavored

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:13:00 AM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

There aren't too many silver linings for Hillary Clinton in this ABC News/Washington Post national poll. (Full poll results here, pdf., Washington Post article on it is here.)

The poll, out today, is a national one. It finds Democrats believe Obama should win the nomination and is more electable in November.

The silver lining: The views of those polled on superdelegates:

Only 13 percent of Democrats say superdelegates should support whoever’s won the most regular delegates in primaries and caucuses – a count in which Obama’s ahead, and seemingly likely to stay so. Instead a plurality, 46 percent, say superdelegates should support the candidate who’s won the most popular votes, a tally in which Clinton still has hopes. And 37 percent say superdelegates should go with their own sense of which candidate they think is best.

In other words, if Hillary does well in the remaining states, and she should, at least in PA, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico, a whopping 87% of those polled don't think it's a problem for superdelegates to vote according to either the popular vote total or their conscience instead of by the pledged delegate total.

More...

Each superdelegate can decide on their own whether to count Florida and Michigan in arriving at their calculation of the popular vote. I think a great argument can be made to count both Florida and Michigan's votes as is.

Not quite as significant, but important, is the majority belief that Hillary should stay in even if she loses PA and that the long race is not hurting Democratic prospects in November.

I think PA is critical and Indiana very important for Hillary. I also think she'll take both easily. North Carolina, South Dakota and Montana aren't going Democratic in November no matter what, so I don't think they matter as much. Same for Kentucky and West Virginia. For example, since 1964, the only time the Dems took North Carolina was in 1976 when they voted for Carter-Mondale. Neither Bill Clinton, Al Gore or John Kerry won North Carolina. Of course, Puerto Rico won't count in November either, but from a popular vote standpoint, a nice win there could be a boost to Hillary.

I think it's too early to call the race. We've got a debate to get through tomorrow night and PA next week. I'm going to wait until after PA and perhaps Indiana before starting my number crunching.

< DNC Party Venues Announced for State Delegates | Supreme Court Hears Case on Death as Penalty for Child Rape >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

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

ABC News National Poll: Obama Favored, Restrictions on Superdelegates Disfavored | 196 comments (196 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Also (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by squeaky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:21:44 AM EST

On better experience she leads Obama by 67-24 percent.

A theme she has hammered on at (5.00 / 3) (#75)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:26:35 AM EST

and staked her campaign on in the early states.

Unfortunately for her voters so far have tended to side with "Change" over "Experience".

[ Parent ]

Short-Term Thinking (5.00 / 3) (#129)
by BDB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:56:26 AM EST

Obama's inability to change the perception about experience is a real problem for him in the GE against McCain. Democrats have been more forgiving here - as they have elsewhere - than the general public will be.

[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0) (#134)
by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:02:10 AM EST

and, long-term, I will put up with almost anything from either candidate as long as I think they can beat McCain in the GE.

My problem is, I really think Obama cannot do it and I am terrified of a McCain presidency. The demographics are just not in Obama's favor. This piece from RealClearPolitics illustrates what I mean.

[ Parent ]

That's Because He's Bradley (5.00 / 3) (#152)
by BDB on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:15:19 AM EST

only with 90% of the African American vote in the primaries.

Democrats don't lose elections because we can't get African Americans, young people, and urban liberals to vote for us (except Gore when some of those young people and liberals voted for Nader because Bradley had helped convince them that Gore was just like Bush, thanks Bill). We lose elections because we don't carry enough of the white vote and the most likely places for us to pick up that vote is with working class whites and women. That was Bill Clinton's coalition.

[ Parent ]

: Yup. (none / 0) (#160)
by madamab on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:25:50 AM EST

Obama should have reversed "I'll get her voters, but I'm not sure she'll get mine." She is the one with the potential to expand the tent.

[ Parent ]

that works both ways: (none / 0) (#176)
by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:41:24 AM EST

Obama's inability to change the perception about experience is a real problem for him in the GE against McCain.

Hillary's inability to change the perception about her being the real change candidate is just as hard too. These dumb little brandingpoints...

Obama has all these dirty industry guys on his energy policy advisors group The BipartisanPolicyCenter like chairs Conoco Phillips, and the CEO of nukepower Exelon are among the 3 puppetmasters pulling those strings...

William K. Reilly, Bush I EPA/ Conoco Philips
John W. Rowe CEO, Exelon Corporation

thats just not change baby.

[ Parent ]

The relentless media attacks (5.00 / 5) (#2)
by Foxx on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:28:05 AM EST

on Hillary and praise of Obama must be having an effect. Otherwise how could people so seriously misperceive both of them?

That will probably change (none / 0) (#27)
by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:24:42 AM EST

by August when the convention is held.

The media is starting to treat Obama like a Democrat.

[ Parent ]

Of course that is the ONLY reason (none / 0) (#33)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:56:15 AM EST

they could hold these views. Poor deluded fools that they are.

Condescending . . . much?

[ Parent ]

: Bias (none / 0) (#92)
by Dave B on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:56:44 AM EST

This view is a clear indication of bias.

[ Parent ]

hate to say it but... (none / 0) (#116)
by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:35:34 AM EST

...if god made 'em into sheep he intended them to be sheared.

[ Parent ]

Pathetic (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:28:31 AM EST

More experience and better leader. All the other stuff is MSM damage. We are going to lose to McCain. Pathetic.

: convenient poll FOR tonight's debate (none / 0) (#20)
by Josey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:38:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
: Very marginal on better leader metric (none / 0) (#34)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:00:30 AM EST

and the Experience argument has worked so well so far for Hillary.

[ Parent ]

The way they presented it on the 6:30 news (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:33:13 AM EST

was first about her leading in PA, and then following up with more voters think he will get the Nom. It was interesting and they didn't spin her out of it. I've noticed their coverage is up and down, but mostly trying to stay on the neutral end. But a dropped out word can really change a neutral slant on certain broadcasts.

We deserve what we get (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:39:04 AM EST

Who's we? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:44:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]

: The one's We've been waiting for! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by marcellus on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:09:04 AM EST

Couldn't pass that up :))))
Good night.

[ Parent ]

This just blows me away (5.00 / 3) (#12)
by Fredster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:45:48 AM EST

I really just can't see or understand how those surveyed see it this way.

I truly believe that if Obama is the Dem nominee we will see a blowout like Dukakis or McGovern. It's not going to be pretty.

Daily barrage of misinformation (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by Davidson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:01:35 AM EST

Hardly any major "news" network presents the stark GE reality that awaits Obama in terms of focusing on the critical GE states the Democratic nominee must win and his profound weakness in those states. People incorrectly think that the national polls are indicative of GE strength.

I don't care for these polls at all because they're desperately trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy: 1. Obama is the nominee to be (when it's still a close contest as superdelegates will likely decide the nominee); and 2. Obama is much stronger than Clinton (when in fact it's quite the opposite).

I wonder how Clinton is doing in the PA media. She needs to combat this nonsense head-on. She must constantly repeat: "Neither Barack nor myself can win on pledged delegates alone. We both need the superdelegates to win."

[ Parent ]

It is hopeful that (5.00 / 2) (#67)
by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:13:33 AM EST

people think the popular vote is the most important metric. But they probably don't know that Clinton can still win the popular vote.

[ Parent ]

Wow: 2-1 (none / 0) (#15)
by Davidson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:05:41 AM EST

I must admit I am completely shocked so many people are clueless. Two-to-one believe Obama is the stronger GE candidate. Wow.

[ Parent ]

some of poll conducted before Cling-gate (none / 0) (#17)
by Josey on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:29:39 AM EST

Poll conducted April 10-13.
Cling-gate posted Fri afternoon April 11.

btw - has Hillary ever run a negative ad against Obama?

[ Parent ]

You can ask that question with (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:12:40 AM EST

a straight face?

Consistently in exit polling, even in races where Hillary won, voters who felt that the race had been too negative overwhelmingly blamed her for it over Obama.

[ Parent ]

You are joking, right? (none / 0) (#36)
by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:08:07 AM EST

How about the commander-in-chief test. Negativity is in the eye of the beholder

[ Parent ]

: Really? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
by Dave B on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:03:32 AM EST

That was a negative ad?
When I think of negative ad, I think of the Willie Horton ad, or the swift boat veteran ads.
Hillary has not run a negative ad directly attacking Obama.

[ Parent ]
: That was a remark-not an ad. (none / 0) (#63)
by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:01:52 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Shocked? (none / 0) (#18)
by nycstray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:30:19 AM EST

Remember, they 'elected' GWB 2Xs.

And even if the elections are questionable, imo, they shouldn't have been close enough to be.

[ Parent ]

Those were Dems (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Davidson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:41:12 AM EST

Democrats believe by a 2-1 margin that Obama is the more electable. That's what shocked me and especially by such a wide margin, when in fact he's an exceptionally weak GE candidate. Mind you, the media hasn't even hit him hard yet.

[ Parent ]

: Reason #1 (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:48:36 AM EST

that I don't want him in the GE - I do not want to have to use the words "Unity" "postpartisanship" in any real life discussion about a presidential candidate. I'll feel slimy, like I'm supporting Reagan the Younger.

[ Parent ]
: Even Maureen Dowd (none / 0) (#132)
by abfabdem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:59:25 AM EST

stuck pins in him today in her editorial where previously she has been fawning. I hope he didn't take her early glowing op-eds too seriously. She disses everyone.

[ Parent ]

I predict that Obama will win (5.00 / 3) (#28)
by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:26:41 AM EST

three or four times as many states as McGovern did.

McGovern won two.

[ Parent ]

: hehe (none / 0) (#120)
by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:37:51 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Respondents blame Sen. Clinton 4-1 for Negativity (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by daryl herbert on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:35:11 AM EST

There are other strong signs of the toll of the long Democratic campaign. The number of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who describe the tone of the contest as "mostly negative" has risen by 14 points since February, from 27 percent then to 41 percent now. Those who say so mainly blame Clinton over Obama, by nearly a 4-1 margin, 52 percent to 14 percent. (An additional 25 percent blame both equally.)

(That's a direct quote from the PDF linked above in Jeralyn's post.)

Is this even a problem? (Maybe.)

Is it outweighed by the extra votes Sen. Clinton will pick up as a result of pointing out Sen. Obama's weaknesses? (Yes.)

Can Sen. Clinton point out that Sen. Obama is just as (if not more so) negative than she is, without going negative in the process? (No.)

Numbers (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Davidson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 03:28:33 AM EST

So 52% of Democratic/leaning voters who believe the campaign is "mostly negative" (41% overall) believe Clinton is to blame. So basically, about 20% of all Democratic/leaning (21.32% to be precise) believe Clinton is the negative one, while the vast majority of voters don't.

Ten bucks it'll get spun as "Half of all Democrats blame Clinton for negativity" or "Four out of five Democrats blame Clinton."

[ Parent ]

Of course, (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by frankly0 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:49:17 AM EST

what one expects is that of the roughly 20% of Democratic leaning voters who believe that, almost all of them are Obama voters anyway.

In general, when you get down to numbers that small in a poll like this, they are close to meaningless from a statistical point of view. I don't know exactly how many voters get counted as "Democratic leaning", but if one assumes it's about 40%, then 20% of that would be only 8%, and the difference between 8% and 2% (as entailed by the 4-1 ratio) in an overall sample of about a 1,000 may not even be statistically significant (I think very small numbers require still larger gaps for statistical significance).

[ Parent ]

Just to be concrete (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by frankly0 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:51:56 AM EST

this result would basically imply that something like 80 voters out of 1,000 thought Hillary was being negative, and 20 thought Obama was.

Somehow it all seems rather less impressive when you think of the relatively paltry numbers backing up the trumped up meme.

[ Parent ]

: And just to make one more point, (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by frankly0 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:00:16 AM EST

what's certainly true is that the claim that by a ratio of 4-1, voters think Hillary is the negative one is completely unsupported by the underlying statistics. As I said, it's probably not even statistically significant that more blame Hillary than Obama, but to act as if the ratio of 4-1 is in any way strongly supported by the polling is complete hogwash.

[ Parent ]

Your head must be spinning! (none / 0) (#40)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:14:25 AM EST

What? (none / 0) (#47)
by Davidson on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:37:21 AM EST

If you're going to harass, at least, make sense.

[ Parent ]

Of the respondents who believe (none / 0) (#52)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:46:43 AM EST

the race has become too negative, and who blame one candidate over the other, they are overwhelmingly blaming Hillary Clinton.

I like your spin on the issue though.

[ Parent ]

If you read all the polls (5.00 / 3) (#69)
by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:16:14 AM EST

presented here yesterday, and then looked to see which polls MSNBC and CNN focused on you would understand why some here are blaming media coverage. The media only covered the LA Times poll yesterday which favored Obama. No one in the media, yesterday, mentioned SUSA which has been the most accurate so far and show Clinton creaming Obama in PA and IN, and Obama creaming Clinton in NC. While it may be overstated by some here, the media narrative is in part responsible for the perceptions in the ABC poll.

[ Parent ]

I'm sure it has something to do with (none / 0) (#72)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:21:54 AM EST

it, I accept that and I know it must be frustrating for Hillary fans and for her campaign. I'm sure she bears some responsibility for how she is perceived as well though.

Equally Obama is having to suck it up that he is the subject of negative and almost coordinated hits from Hillary Clinton and John McSame. Such is life.

[ Parent ]

"hillary fans" (none / 0) (#77)
by sancho on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:33:13 AM EST

strikes me as a condescending phrase. why not "supporters of hillary clinton"?

[ Parent ]

I was using it as shorthand, its alot (none / 0) (#83)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:39:57 AM EST

less unwieldy than "supporters of hillary clinton".

Let's go with Hillary supporters, I hope that's ok.

[ Parent ]

: Probably do to this... (none / 0) (#112)
by Radix on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:24:14 AM EST

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated.
Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

[ Parent ]

Oh poor Obama, Hillary has (none / 0) (#130)
by hairspray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:56:34 AM EST

been so mean. You ain't seen mean yet.

[ Parent ]

You do realize it is VOTERS that are (none / 0) (#136)
by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:03:06 AM EST

finding Hillary more negative, right?

[ Parent ]

Yes, just as it is voters who are (none / 0) (#149)
by Radix on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:09:13 AM EST

finding Obama more negative. Or voters that find them equally guilty.

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

[ Parent ]

I'm referring to polling that demonstrates (none / 0) (#169)
by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:31:34 AM EST

who voters feel is most negative. Not just my own opinion

[ Parent ]

If you're referring to the poll cited above? (none / 0) (#184)
by Radix on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:00:35 AM EST

That polls shows that 42% find Hillary most negative, while 48% don't find that to be the case, yes?

: oops, should be 58%, not 48% (none / 0) (#191)
by Radix on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:05:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]

You are missing it (none / 0) (#142)
by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:06:42 AM EST

Its not frustrating because of what is happening. It is frustrating because there is an alternate reality of coverage that Obama fans don't see, as it favors them. They will notice it if he is the nominee and the minute it happens.

[ Parent ]

Or we could say that (none / 0) (#144)
by Radix on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:07:05 AM EST

59% of those who think the campaign is mostly negative do not fault Hillary for that perception.

: oops, should be 49% not 59% (none / 0) (#190)
by Radix on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:05:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]

ABC -Disney news (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by miguelito on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 05:41:30 AM EST

Where's that grain of salt I just had..

I really distrust national polls... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Rainsong on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:29:13 AM EST

distrust national polls, especially this far out from the GE, simply because they are national, and aren't sensitive enough, eg any big spikes or dips in key states are washed out.

Californians might be a laid-back easygoing bunch, shrugging off Wright and all the rest as no big deal, and will vote for an ashtray as long as its got a (D) next to it. But in other states, some issues are a much bigger deal than others and matter more, not just in who they vote for in November, but whether they vote at all. National polls averaged across the spectrum, aren't sensitive enough to pick that up.

Good point (none / 0) (#31)
by stillife on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 06:38:35 AM EST

I find it really difficult to believe that so many voters are not concerned about Wright. Even my Obama-loving mother finds it disturbing.

One thing that strikes me as odd is the disparity between this poll and others re the numbers of voters who will defect if their candidate isn't nominated. The polls that I've seen have shown significantly greater numbers of Hillary supporters refusing to support Obama than vice versa.

[ Parent ]

I don't hate Obama (5.00 / 2) (#71)
by bjorn on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:20:03 AM EST

but I do despise his fan base at huffpost, dkos, and msnbc. Their coverage has been mean, nasty, and condescending to women in particular. I still have not been able to understand how this man has inspired so much hatred and animus. It seems like it should be the opposite. Why aren't they all unifying and positive at those places?

[ Parent ]

If some large part of it is sexism (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:25:32 AM EST

then you could argue that Hillary would face it to a degree against any male candidate.

Hillary is going to face misogyny against any male candidate.

Obama is going to face racism against any white candidate.

In the white woman against black guy I'm assuming the racist misogynists will just hold out for the GE and vote for McCain.

[ Parent ]

Yes. Since there is sexism (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:33:20 AM EST

we should just accept it and make sure she loses so she doesn't have to suffer through it in the GE. How sweet of you.

[ Parent ]

: Yeah sure, thats really what I said. (none / 0) (#82)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:37:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
: Replace sexism with racism, (none / 0) (#105)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:18:44 AM EST

she with he, and you have pretty much reiterated one of the big pro Hillary electability arguments.
I think it's offensive whichever way you phrase it. I'm naive, but I believe you shouldnt be voting for one candidate, or against another candidate based on sexism or racism, whether ours or our perception of the wider electorates'.

[ Parent ]

Hillary does not condone or (5.00 / 5) (#85)
by sancho on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:42:42 AM EST

encourage racism. Obama tacitly encourages sexism toward Hillary. Likeable enough. Beauty contest winner. Many other remarks of this kind. Given that he is a running an identity politics campaign, that's a flaw, perhaps inevitable, in his strategy. Anecodtal evidence alert: I know many lifelong dems, who are women, who will stay home in November if Sen. Obama is the nominee. They've seen too many less qualified men promoted over them b/c other men are more "comfortable" working with other men.

[ Parent ]

A stretch in my opinion. (none / 0) (#87)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:46:54 AM EST

If I was being equally uncharitable about Hillary's remarks then it would be

he's not a muslim "as far as I know" . . . etc etc.

[ Parent ]

I understand you may see this as a (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by sancho on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:59:53 AM EST

stretch but the point is that others don't and they get to vote or not vote too. Obama supporters--not necessarily you--seem naive to me about how elections work. People may not vote for what you or I think are the right reasons. But they vote. And there are consistent voting patterns in this country's history. And Obama's likely supporters do not add up to a GE victory. I don't see Obama doing much to address this situation. Too often he seems to insult supporters he will need and then his supporters make the problem worse by telling would be supporters their point of view is "a stretch" rather than trying to address their concerns in a sympathetic manner.

[ Parent ]

That is a crappy example of (none / 0) (#137)
by hairspray on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:03:22 AM EST

a newsman (Steve Kroft) trying to twist and turn to get someone to say something that can be construed as an "aha" see she is a racist after all. That is junk and you know it.

[ Parent ]

I agree, I think it's junk. (none / 0) (#150)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:10:18 AM EST

and I think the supposedly sexist utterings of Barack Obama are also junk.

[ Parent ]

Obama (none / 0) (#164)
by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:27:27 AM EST

saying that Hillary's claws come out and that periodically she feels down while shooting six-shooters and calling her Annie Oakley IS sexist. Apparently liberal boys are missing what sexism actually is.

[ Parent ]

: and if Edwards was his opponent (none / 0) (#175)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:40:29 AM EST

in similar circumstances and been opportunistically attacking him for his "clinging to guns" remarks, then he could easily and just as effectively substituted Edwards for Hillary, and Jesse James for Annie Oakley. I don't think he is sexist, I don't think those remarks were sexist or intended to be sexist. I respect that you view them differently, but I just disagree. I know I'm a guy so maybe thats why I dont see it.

[ Parent ]

wait till your candidate is edited (none / 0) (#183)
by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:54:15 AM EST

like that to discredtit him!

You just don't see how many times he kept asking.

By the time he asked her

You don't think hes a muslim do you....???....????

(and dismissed her immediate answer of Of course not)

and kept going till she sarcasticly popped her eyes at him and said as far as I know!

But then the Obama campaign spun that 5th answer into a waffle. That was no waffle. Come on.

She took one second to say Of Course Not!

[ Parent ]

Also wasn't Obama (none / 0) (#147)
by abfabdem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:08:03 AM EST

offering kisses to women at some campaign stops if they would vote for him???

[ Parent ]

hmmm (5.00 / 5) (#106)
by Rainsong on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:21:02 AM EST

That has always puzzled me too, why Obama's base, on the MSM, and on the 'nets, are sooo nasty. My view of Obama was basically neutrality in the beginning, but he has attracted some of the most vicious, nasty people to his cause, both public high-profile ones, and everyday folk. His campaign's dog-whistles and wedging has resulted in a tendency to attract those elements that enjoy hurting others, and were just waiting for a suitable target to come along.

FWIW, just my personal experience, was that I had no problem with Obama until the race card was played around the time of south carolina.

At first I thought, the GOP was playing games, but why would they play it so early in the primary season when their own Party primary race was still in its early stages? Didn't make sense.

Then second question was, why would ANY Dem candidate play the race card? Let alone either of the Clintons? With the Party history and the Clinton history? Didn't make sense either.

So, then I go looking to find out who played it & why, and I find Obama's campaign did it. At first, I was forgiving and saw it as a stupid blundering fumble, from political inexperience, and that would be the end of it.

But everything since, has just escalated my opinion to confirm that Senator Obama is not suitable as a representative of the Democratic Party for presidential office, because I am now convinced he played that race card deliberately and knowingly, and his campaign has been a long series of dog-whistles to stir up some of the lowest of the lowest-common-denominators of human behaviour.

They may not have been strong dog-whistles, but they sure got results. They worked.
Yes, brilliant campaign tactics and strategies. If he hadn't done it, I would never have learned about things like playing "Chicago Smack Down". I genuinely admire the skill, but, I wont vote for it.

Then I looked at his friends. Does he have any "nice" ones? Even if he himself has done nothing wrong,illegal or immoral etc, even if they don't bother me in the slightest - the Rezcos (and the list goes on) of this world, are not very nice people. And, there are plenty of churches in Chicago, couldn't he have found one with a pastor, just a teeny-weeny bit more mainstream to help his spiritual life, or his political career? (A career outside of Chicago anyway).

OK, granted the Clintons probably have a good share of shady characters, and scandals, in their baggage train too, (along with plenty of other politicians high and low), but they also have far larger and longer lists of highly respected individuals in that train, from all walks of life, nationally, and internationally as well. Senator Obama's character references are pretty thin on the ground, like his professional work resume.

At least the national poll did indicate that people could see that Hillary's experience, and her record of achievements on her own, do significantly outweigh Obama's.

[ Parent ]

Corrente/Lambert has (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:36:15 AM EST

a screen capture from a web site I now call "Orange State".

The capture has some of the more colorful nasties toward Clinton that I have ever seen....and the comment highlighted has 41 recs.

Our own AlienAbductee says in the same thread, "shouldn't we try and mend fences with Clinton supporters and this doesn't do that?"

Alien's heart is in the right place, but the consensus of the others in the thread is pretty much, no.

[ Parent ]

: wow. that is ugly (none / 0) (#185)
by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:02:03 AM EST

reallyREALLY ugly.

[ Parent ]
: OrangeState it is indeed. (none / 0) (#186)
by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:02:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Rainsong, FWIW (none / 0) (#139)
by sancho on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:04:42 AM EST

your trajectory on Obama is pretty much mine too. I think we are not the only ones either. Thanks for your account.

[ Parent ]

Hey swing: not condescening much, are you? (5.00 / 1) (#131)
by kenosharick on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:58:23 AM EST

I have spent the last year reading/watching/researching this race and have seen NO hatred towards Obama on a personal level. On the other hand I have never (in 25 yrs involved in politics) seen such personal vicousness towards a canidate as that spewed by Obama supporters towards Hillary and anyone supporting her. I am sick o the lie that there is hatred on both sides when it is nearly all on one side.

[ Parent ]

Then you should tell your (4.66 / 6) (#68)
by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:13:46 AM EST

candidate to be gracious since he's "winning." And for the record, a lot of us WON'T come around. And it's not a matter of "Oh noes we never expected him to win anything!" It's more of "I can't believe he tried to destroy Hillary and Bill with 90s right-wing talking points and character assassination!" And you can think we'll come around all you want. But I guarantee you this: if Obama is the nominee I will absolutely NOT vote for him. I'll never give the DNC $ ever again and I'll de-register as a Democrat. You can take that to the bank.

[ Parent ]

I am leaning that way myself. (5.00 / 2) (#89)
by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:52:31 AM EST

I am so disgusted by the way the Democratic Party has treated Senator Clinton while boosting a non-qualified contender. If Obama gets the nomination it will prove to me that the Dems talk a good game on women's rights, but when it comes to actually backing it up with action they run the other way. It will prove to me that the Dems are more interested in charisma than actual work ethic and accomplishment. And I will change my registration from Democrat to Independent. Let them EARN my vote instead of assuming I am going to vote the way they direct me to. So far, the only candidate who has earned my vote is Hillary Clinton. I will support the Dem undercard locally, but not Obama, not Obama. He would be worse than McCain, in my opinion. Lack of experience coupled with arrogance is not a good combination for the White House. And not one I will vote for. Ever.

And FYI, this is a switch from my previous "will vote Dem no matter who is the nominee". Why did I switch?? Obama. He keeps showing me he is not qualified for the office he is seeking. And he keeps doing and saying things that prove it beyond any doubt. So, if you want to blame someone for losing Dem support and votes, blame Obama. He is the one dividing the party, not unifying it.

[ Parent ]

: That's how I feel. (5.00 / 3) (#97)
by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:03:19 AM EST

I don't feel "Any Dem is better than McCain" I simply think Obama is not. I think he'd be a disaster. And we'd lose every election for a generation if he wins the Presidency. I will not be "coming home" to anyone. And I was still behind Obama when he was first winning. So the fact that he's still ahead has nothing to do with it. The fact that he has perpetuated misogyny, sexism, hatred for the Clintons and has tried to eviscerate our last great Dem President and tie him with Bush sealed it for me. I will not vote for him. He is not qualified. And if a woman had the exact same qualifications as him going into a primary, she'd be more like Ron Paul in level of support.

[ Parent ]
: Yep (none / 0) (#153)
by abfabdem on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:16:54 AM EST

I am still struggling with what I would do in the GE, but these views are also my own. The sexism this campaign has unleashed from within our supposedly "progressive" party has shocked me to the core. I worked my whole life in part thinking it would somehow make things better for my daughters and now I know it is not so, especially as much of the venom comes from younger bloggers. And coming on top of the last 8 years, it just seems like more of the same the right wing has dished out. How is this a campaign of hope and unity? I just don't get it.

[ Parent ]

wow I am sooo tired (5.00 / 3) (#37)
by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:08:36 AM EST

of polls not meaning anything unless they are in Hillary's favor then they show that Obama can't win.

why can't Obama win a GE, is there anything to point to, no its well I know he can't I don't like hiim. the Big bad GOP machine will be mean to him and not Hillary or if they are mean to Hillary apparently only Hillary can stand up to it, though she has done such a great job in the primaries.

just because people don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean they are clueless or need to wake up. you people insult MILLIONS of American each time you say this and its ok? I am sick of it. some of us democrats think someone else will win. this well the GOP will do this or the GOP will do that, doesn't mean crap to us we don't vote based on fear. I am just so sick of Hillary supporters some how thinking its ok to insult everyone who doesn't vote for their candidate.

we are just as awake as you are, we have just as informed as you are, we made a different opinion. if you can't take that and need to call us ALL clueless kool-aid drinkers who need to wake up, 14 million americans? time to reexamine who just might be out of touch.

Um, I didn't do this. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:39:10 AM EST

You did:

call us ALL clueless kool-aid drinkers who need to wake up

I've never seen anyone paint themselves with the broad brush before.

[ Parent ]

oh wow are you seriously (none / 0) (#50)
by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:41:01 AM EST

saying you have NOT seen that?

really? you think I am just making that up huh? maybe you should visit, Taylormarsh.com, mydd.com, hillaryis44.org and just see what they say about Obama supporters.

and in fact the clueless one came from THIS very thread, do a search for the word.

[ Parent ]

I am not Talk Left (none / 0) (#55)
by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:51:29 AM EST

Talk Left is not me.
I am not Daily Kos(thank the FSM!)
Daily Kos is not me.

If I. personally, said that, feel free to point it out to me so I can retract it.

[ Parent ]

I cannot individually call (none / 0) (#59)
by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:56:10 AM EST

out everyone who does it, its a problem and people need to start calling out people who insult others just because they don't like their opinion.

I have been called a kool-aid drinker for 2 months whenever I visit a site that has more then 4 Clinton supporters on it, and its dumb.

I am tired of thinking I have to avoid HRC supporters or deal with being insulted.

[ Parent ]

No kidding. Really? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:46:18 AM EST

There's probably been a dozen diaries, some of them at the top of the daily kos rec list, saying that it is the responsibility of each side to rein in their own hyperpartisans.

Of course, such deliberate and well reasoned ideas get swamped by the next tidal wave of emotion, but some still do try. The progression over there went from "We don't do that here." to having to identify as an Obama supporter to prevent people from attacking the commenter as a Hillary supporter. Now, the state of that community can be found in this diary which would have been universally condemned only a couple months ago. Now, it's a great example of how few people are taking responsibility for upholding standards. A couple months ago, that diary and diarist would have been steamrolled flat in under an hour by dozens of commenters. Community moderation depends on the mores and standards of the community....

That's why I don't go over there so much any more.

[ Parent ]

I should (5.00 / 1) (#88)
by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:49:19 AM EST

NOT have clicked on that link. I want to cry.

[ Parent ]

I'm so sorry! Didn't mean to upset you. (none / 0) (#107)
by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:21:11 AM EST

Should I put in a warning next time?

The Obama partisans are now the community over there. Their standards are the community standards. It's not fair to extrapolate that to Obama partisans in general, but...I think it does say something about what is deemed acceptable in the blog world.

[ Parent ]

I stopped going there (5.00 / 1) (#111)
by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:24:06 AM EST

months ago. I cannot believe what it's degraded itself to. It's not even that people are condemning it either. Before, someone like that wouldn't have even wanted to be part of that community.

[ Parent ]

Unfair (5.00 / 1) (#115)
by magster on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:33:49 AM EST

The diarist was trolled repeatedly, with only 21 comments. Don't be Bill O'Reilly.

(If you want faith in Kos, read the Cong. Schaeffer diary. He's the CO Sen nominee, and he's inadvertantly bringing overdue attention to N. Marianas Islands).

[ Parent ]

: I used to get excited over (5.00 / 1) (#121)
by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:38:03 AM EST

candidate diaries. This primary season seems like a big old "DONATE NOW!" advertisement over there.

[ Parent ]

All comments on that post (none / 0) (#114)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:26:23 AM EST

that express any opinion about it (i.e. most of them) are condemning it, in fact one says they were e-mailing a frontpager to have it deleted.

[ Parent ]

There's only a handful. (5.00 / 1) (#117)
by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:36:05 AM EST

Way back when, that diary would have been pounded into rubble and you'd see more than - what - a dozen recs on the "Please delete" comments. That's how many people are taking an active role in moderating their community. A minority. A handful.

[ Parent ]

I see your point. (none / 0) (#126)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:52:08 AM EST

It is sad that there is that kind of moronic rubbish out there.

[ Parent ]

: I could link to anti- Hillary comments (none / 0) (#195)
by Fabian on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:30:01 AM EST

that are recced to the moon, but there's no point. But if anyone ever wants I'll post the links to the Cindy McCain diaries. Sexism was not only on display, but rewarded. All poor Cindy did to deserve it was to say "I've always been proud of my country.".

[ Parent ]

The diary you link to is completely (none / 0) (#108)
by JoeA on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:21:47 AM EST

gross and offensive. However reading down the first few comments they all seem to be condemning it, so surely that suggests that the community moderation was working?

[ Parent ]

I don't think (4.66 / 6) (#43)
by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:28:35 AM EST

Obama nor his supporters should say a word about who is insulted by anything, actually. He and his supporters have so far insulted: FL, MI, now KY, women voters, older voters, those dolty bitter voters and so many others it's hard to keep up.

Talking about a candidate's GE prospects is actually what we should do. If your candidate is a strong as you so obviously believe him to be, he will win the nomination and then the GE. Good luck.

I still hold that Obama is completely unelectable. And I find ALL polls suspect. Not just this one. The polls seem to go the way of the wind. She's ahead in PA allegedly yet Democrats think he's a better candidate? Did anyone tell that to the people voting for her? I find it suspect that after it comes out that super-ds are worried about his electability, ABC comes out with a poll addressing exactly that concern. I don't trust the media one bit. Not when they say she's ahead and not when they say she's behind.

[ Parent ]

what are we 5? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by TruthMatters on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:39:39 AM EST

the they did it first so I think we can do it? are we really going to list all the insignificant states outside of Illinois that Obama has won?

and all polls are suspect thats fine, Hillary can beat McCain because what? of who she is married to? what else am i looking at to determine her electability? can't use polls, can't use primaries themselves, because they don't mean anything to the GE. so its basically well he can't win because I don't think he can win. oh well in that case lets all get together and see how many people think he can win and how many think she can win, maybe we can have people vote in some way, before the GE and have the majority of Americans choose?

oh wait wait thats right anyone who doesn't vote for Hillary, was too stupid, star struck, kool-aid drinking, party activists, who only think of Obama as a messiah and need to wake up. yeah damn you obama for being an elitist, listen to these people who can just tell us why you are winning.

now someone can some tell me to stop drinking the Kool-aid, because that will certainly prove their point.

[ Parent ]

: Projecting. (none / 0) (#54)
by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 07:50:20 AM EST

That's what you seem to be doing. I didn't call anyone kool-aid drinkers in this thread. LOL. But way to internalize. All 50 states matter in the primary. Like I said, perhaps Obama will be a good GE candidate. I don't think so. But we'll find out in November won't we?
And when you throw a little hissy fit you should probably refrain from calling people 5 years old.

[ Parent ]

Obama did take his name off the (5.00 / 2) (#90)
by sancho on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 08:52:37 AM EST

ballot in Michigan and then, after the votes were counted, cried, no fair, my name was not on the ballot. Meanwhile, he did what he could to get people to vote the "none of the above option." This is a de facto voter disenfranchisement strategy more in keeping with Karl Rove than MLK. He did nothing to support a revote--b/c he thought he would lose. We'll see if these tactics can get him elected in November. Obama has brilliantly exploited the flaws in the democratic party nominating system. All this means is that he might win the democratic nomination. Ask Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern or Humphrey what that means in a GE.

[ Parent ]

He most certainly did not cry (none / 0) (#101)
by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:10:20 AM EST

"no fair" my name was not on the ballot. If you cannot back up that statement with a link to substantiate it, you need to retract it.
Obama has said all along he will abide by the DNC decision. I realize this has benefitted him in the end, just as Hillary has made much noise about the need to count FL and MI votes when it became apparent it would benefit her.

They are pols. They want to win. You can find plenty of factual statements to pick apart without manufacturing quotes.

[ Parent ]

NO he didn't cry. (5.00 / 1) (#103)
by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:13:42 AM EST

He just strategically planned with everyone else to take his name off the ballot because he knew then he'd lose. So good on him. He's a typical politician.

[ Parent ]

I want someone that can win. (none / 0) (#104)
by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:15:35 AM EST

If the primary is any indication (which I do believe it is) that someone is Obama.

[ Parent ]

If the primary is (5.00 / 2) (#110)
by rooge04 on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:23:02 AM EST

any indication, Obama will have major trouble getting swing states like OH, PA, FL and MI. But he'll totally get all the Democrats in Utah, Idaho, MS, GA, and VA. If it's enough to turn those states Democrat then he'd be the most excellent candidate. Somehow I do not see that happening.

[ Parent ]

Given the history of Democratic Primaries (5.00 / 2) (#113)
by sancho on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:25:45 AM EST

since 1968, what makes you think that winning the Dem. nomination proves one will win the GE? Why is Obama a better candidate than Kerry or DuKakis, for instance? What makes you think he will do better than they did? Who in the electorate will vote for Obama who did not vote for those candidates? Which states will he win that these others did not? How does he get to 270?

[ Parent ]

The poster (5.00 / 1) (#123)
by Salo on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:49:45 AM EST

may be new to politics.

[ Parent ]

How is he different? (none / 0) (#124)
by independent voter on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:51:15 AM EST

He knows how to deflect potential problems. He is excellent at changing the dialogue to what HE wants it to be. That is and will be invaluable.
He is defeating a political machine that goes back many, many years and enjoys millions of loyal supporters. IMO, Hillary Clinton is a tougher opponent than John McCain. He does not have high negatives even after some potentially serious blunders. People seem to genuinely like him (I fully acknowledge that does NOT apply to most commenters here)

[ Parent ]

: Obama could not have (none / 0) (#141)
by kenosharick on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 10:06:27 AM EST

"changed the subject" without the help of a fawning media. They have boosted his campaign and given him NO critical coverage. That is about to change; and the Obamamaniacs are in for a rude awakening.

[ Parent ]