By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

It is one polling outfit, but here is the crux of Hillary Clinton's electability argument:

FLORIDA: Clinton 44 - McCain 42
McCain 46 - Obama 37

OHIO: Clinton 48 - McCain 39
Obama 43 - McCain 42

PENNSYLVANIA: Clinton 48 - McCain 40
Obama 43 - McCain 39

68 electoral votes. I believe Michigan will show similar results. 17 more electoral votes. I believe Obama can point to Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon and Virginia in his column of advantage. 55 electoral votes. I stand by my assessment, Obama expands the map, but is the bigger risk in the big contested states. More risk, more reward electorally. I still think the risk is worth the reward. I thought the argument more compelling pre-Wright of course. But I think it survives that.

< Hillary Campaign Chief Sends Memo: Let Everyone Vote | MI And FL Represented On Credentials Committee? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Good for you (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:18:28 AM EST
    for publishing those numbers. Hillary's argument is a lot stronger than most Obamans admit.

    I don't see him surviving Wright, though, but who knows? Maybe no Republican, not even media darling McCain, can be elected in 2009.

    Have you been paying much attention? (none / 0) (#40)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:58:39 AM EST
    Obama's poll numbers suffered for about 1-2 weeks,  and now he is back leading Clinton above the margin of error in the national tracking polls.

    With the general public,  at least in the primary,  the whole Tuzla flap has hurt Hillary more than Wright hurt Obama.  Alot of that has to do with how well he dealt with Wright (i.e. his speech),  and how poorly Hillary dealt with her issues.

    Obama has already survived Wright,  at least insofar as the Primary goes.


    You contradicted yourself (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:00:39 AM EST
    There's no such thing as "the general public, at least in the primary."  Obama may indeed be just fine among the universe of Democratic primary voters.  The problem is the GE and the broader electorate.

    Well I'm responding to what I (none / 0) (#73)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:22:28 AM EST
    think is a delusional belief amongst many Clinton supporters on here who have been gleefully posting that "Wright" had sunk Obama since the day the story broke,  right up to today.  Now,  unless all these posters only mean that it has sunk him in the GE,  which they clearly don't,  then I think many of them have drunk some Clinton Kool-Aid.  The PA and national polls have been trending Obama's way and that doesn't seem to me to be a sign of anything sinking his candidacy,  never mind Rev. Wright.

    I've long felt that the GE (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:25:03 AM EST
    was exactly the problem with this Wright stuff. I specifically said that it was probably too late to take away the nomination from Obama. In other words, a disaster for the party.

    Check my comments.


    Well (none / 0) (#84)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:35:23 AM EST
    I could equally well point to the Obama supporters who crow that Wright is a totally dead issue because Obama gave a speech.

    The Clinton supporters you reference seem to be making the logical leap that if an issue is fatal to Obama in the GE (which this may or may not be), Democratic primary voters would surely recognize that and change their minds about him.  Well, maybe not.


    Check again (none / 0) (#106)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:23:38 AM EST
    The polls are back to virtual tie. Obama may have not crashed from Wright, but I'd say the jury is out whether he has survived the "SD" primaries that look inevitable at this point.

    I think he has the much better shot, but I think its a little premature to declare this over.


    Polls (none / 0) (#134)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:53:20 PM EST
    Some of those polls have included Republicans.  

    So the preference of Democrats alone isn't demonstrated.


    whoops (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:30:51 AM EST
    sorry BTD...still learning the rules here. ;-)

    No problem (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:37:28 AM EST
    We are strict on these things to maintain a modicum of civility and on topic commenting.

    uniting the GOP (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by workingclass artist on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:32:25 AM EST
    Is what Wright does much mre effectively than the old HRC arguments. This is Anti-american, and they will pull out all of the associations that helped Obama build his political career. These are associations he can't effectively distance himself from.
    Wright, Meeks,Chicago bosses,black panthers,Nation of Islam, REZKO,Ayers et, al. by the time they are through McCain will appear as a patriotic saint and Obama will appear as the radical who tore down the party. The GOP want him to be the candidate pure and simple. Obama ran too soon out of misguided call, he will not be able to spin this to his advantage. When up against the GOP machine he will crumble.

    I think Wright (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:32:32 AM EST
    is going to tank Obama.  Clinton won't (or, rather, can't) use the videos, but the republicans will--and I don't mean McCain.  It boggles the mind that dems can't see this.  They are so blinded that they are forgetting exactly what repubs are capable of doing. It reminds me of the Kerry campaign, and the certainty the echelon had that the New England liberal would bring out blue collar workers to the voting booths.

    And perhaps take this with a grain of salt as I have been to Las Vegas about six times in the last five years and never placed a bet, but I would rather back the sure thing than the big gamble.  People are being tortured in our name.  The economy is in the toilet.  Our Constitution is being shredded.  Our civil liberties are being violated.

    I'm not willing to roll the dice.

    Then there's the party drug which must not (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:39:49 AM EST
    be named. I believe that ALONE is enough to make him unelectable, and the only poll I know on the subject backs me up quite strongly.
    That will certainly be a topic if Obama is the nominee.

    In fact, one of the strongest pieces of evidence (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:49:32 AM EST
    for ME that the Republicans believe Obama is the weaker candidate is that they do not discuss this subject, currently.

    I've never thought his being black ... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:51:17 AM EST
    ...was a dealbreaker. There are enough non-racist Americans to elect a black President, and the ones who just won't vote for someone with darker skin are  balanced by people who will go out of their way to do so. But I've never believed that American's would vote for a person who admits to using cocaine. With the younger generation, it doesn't matter. Those of us who grew up since the 70's either "experimented" or had enough friends who did to know that it isn't as character defining as conventional wisdom makes it out to be. But older people take the "War on Drugs" very seriously. It's one thing to smoke a bit of pot, but there is a reason that Bush never admitted to what is commonly accepted to be his drug problem. I don't know if polls have been done on this - it would be considered push polling if they had been, so I doubt any reputable outfit would touch it. But it has to have an impact on "electability".

    Yes, you understand the Bush example (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:54:59 AM EST
    correctly. Usually when I bring up this point, people respond "but Bush used cocaine!".
    Well, he never admitted it, and went to great lengths to keep the story only a rumor.
    There was a poll discussed around the time of the Iowa primary which said that a large percentage of voters ---I think well over half---thought that cocaine use would cost a candidate votes.
    The question wasn't "would you vote for such a candidate", so it wasn't great.. but it's the only such poll I have heard of.

    Well (none / 0) (#47)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:02:06 AM EST
    as BTD has pointed out, the Obama Rules provide that it's racist to bring up drugs.  Unfortunately, that's a rule that I really doubt will apply in the GE, but it apparently works great in a Democratic primary.

    This is my last word on the subject, (none / 0) (#54)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:06:06 AM EST
    and may get deleted, but Paul Lukasiak, in my opinion, has predicted exactly what would happen.
    Voters would be deluged with emails and letters saying that Obama used CRACK cocaine.
    At some point, he has to respond, and say "No, I only used the regular stuff", or something similar.
    It will be ugly, brutal, and it will work.
    Obama is vulnerable to ANY attack on his character because he doesn't have the decades long presence in the public sphere, which would give people a firm view of him.

    That would be a charming tactic (none / 0) (#75)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:24:00 AM EST
    much like the Clinton surrogate suggesting that as he was Black he would face questions about whether he was a drug dealer.

    Um, you are lying. (none / 0) (#83)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:34:44 AM EST
    This is not a personal attack on my part---it's a statement of fact. That is not what Shaheen said.
    If you want to discuss these delicate, unpleasant matters, please do so accurately.

    Thanks for saying that I was lying. (none / 0) (#98)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:56:11 AM EST
    but I never suggested that you were making a personal attack.  I was just saying that it would be a "charming tactic", whoever was to use it.  If Clinton or her surrogates start pumping that out there in a concern trolly way,  oh the nasty Republicans will say this,  then they will get rightly hammered for it.

    I'm sure there will be "Obama is a muslim" type email smears in the GE harping on the subject that you have put forward,  just as I'm sure the VRWC will restart their The Clinton's murdered Vince Foster etc etc operation.  Just because some low-lifes will propagate such rumours, doesn't mean Democratic Primary voters should be making their choice based on what e-mail smears will be around.  If that is your metric we should all have been backing some inoffensive baggageless White Guy like Chris Dodd.


    Sorry.. i HATE this subject. (none / 0) (#103)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:04:20 AM EST
    And actually I believe Shaheen's comment was the SINGLE instance of a Clinton surrogate saying something which was probably racist---the Cuomo and Ferraro and "fairy tale" attacks were just garbage---but Shaheen did not mention race.
    He was also correct, which one is not allowed to say, although it is apparently perfectly acceptable to speculate how Monica Lewinksy makes Hillary Clinton unelectable.

    I'll agree with your points (none / 0) (#108)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:26:21 AM EST
    and leave it at that.

    I don't think Monica has any relevance to the current race,  nor do I think it makes Hillary unelectable.

    I think Obama and Hillary would both start as favourites against McCain,  how much of a favourite depends on whether this drags on to Denver,  or if it gets put to bed after the last primary.


    Yes, this tactic will be used, but don't (none / 0) (#80)
    by demps on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:30:22 AM EST
    underestimate the amount of venom for Clinton, the republican base will be worked up into a lather

    erm, funny Obama rules (none / 0) (#100)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:58:56 AM EST
    What IS racist,  is to suggest that because Obama admitted to some drug use when he was young,  he will be/ or should be questioned about whether he was a drug dealer.  If that's not racist I don't know what is.  Maybe you can point to all the White politicians being asked whether they dealt drugs in their youth?

    Heh (none / 0) (#123)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:51:00 PM EST
    Maybe you can point to all the white politicians who have admitted to using cocaine?  Some of you fail to understand the significance of a flat-out admission.

    The point Shaheen was making is that Obama's openness on the topic is not some sort of unalloyed positive.  Rather, because he's indicated that the subject is fair game to talk about, it's going to open the door to all sorts of other questions.  He mentioned several questions that would be asked, not just the question of whether Obama had sold drugs to anyone, and he didn't use the term "drug dealer."

    Perhaps you take it as a given that the Clinton campaign would never, ever have made this argument against a white candidate who had admitted to using cocaine in the past.  To me it's a given that they would make the exact same argument.  The idea that it's racist is a clever way to take the issue off the table in a Democratic primary, but do you really think that if Republicans start asking these questions of Obama in the GE, we'll be able to shut them down just by crying racism?  As BTD says, for all our sakes we'd better hope the Obama Rules hold true in the GE as well.


    Heck yeah! (none / 0) (#130)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:09:53 PM EST
    I told tons of people during the 2000 elections that George W. used coke.  Al Franken even talked about it in "Lying Liars".  Not sure why it's only off limits for Obama.

    You're right.  He raised the issue.  He's got to be ready for follow-up (and, unlike Obama - so far - Bush actually got this question numerous times on the stump.  Side stepped it but he was asked.)

    Admitting he did it takes away the plausible deniability Bush had.  Sure, he probably did use coke, but his supporters could always argue the point.  Not an option for Obama.


    Sure, and if Bush had admitted (none / 0) (#137)
    by JoeA on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 08:31:37 AM EST
    Cocaine use journalists would have been queuing up to ask him if he was a drug dealer.

    And everyone was asking Bill Clinton if he dealt drugs,  because he had admitted smoking but not inhaling marijuana.   I remember that vividly,  yeah.


    We'll never know (none / 0) (#138)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 09:30:07 AM EST
    Because W never admitted anything.  And it's not like B. Clinton hasn't been mocked for 15 years for that particular answer.....  

    Meh he never denied it either. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:03:42 AM EST
    He lumped it in with his prior to date X, and "youthful indiscretions".

    I think in this case it really does have more to do with race + drugs.

    So I agree with you, but it's not because Bush handled it better. It's because people judge black crime more harshly than white crime.


    Yes he did admit it (none / 0) (#86)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:42:32 AM EST
    After bragging about Jesus getting him off the bottle, a reporter asked Dubya about harder drugs.  Dubya refused to answer the question, and the ONLY logical reason he would have done so is because he used harder drugs.  That the media simply gave him a pass is merely another comment on how incompetent they are.  And how incompetent we are for not demanding better -- be it examinations of candidate real record on issues or the war or whatever. They may give McCain a pass, too, but only if we let them.    

    You have a hard time with simple (none / 0) (#87)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    reasoning. He DID NOT admit it, as you just pointed out. What is so hard to understand about the fact that he DID NOT admit doing it??

    do not recall whether or not he admitted it (none / 0) (#94)
    by demps on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:53:16 AM EST
    but I do believe it was assumed that he had, maybe I am wrong. So is your argument that Bush's scenario significantly differs from Obama's because Obama was honest, or are you contending that most people did not believe Bush had screwed around with drugs and alcohol, or what?

    I believe that the people who would (none / 0) (#102)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:02:11 AM EST
    have been affected by knowledge of his purported cocaine use did not know. If he had admitted it---especially in the primaries---they would have known.

    and the media were complicit (none / 0) (#109)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    in sweeping it under the carpet.

    Oh, wait, I completely forgot about this... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 12:52:06 PM EST
    What I'm waiting for (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:01:52 AM EST
    is what story the right will just make up. With Kerry it was the swift boat garbage.  I expected them go go after his peace activism, but not his actual war record. There is just no way to know right now.  At least with Hillary we know they already tried 'she murdered her lawyer-lover' to no avail.  Not much left after that.

    I too am in no mood to rollt he dice with so much at stake.  We'll get Colorado and Nevada next time.


    Dukakis (none / 0) (#61)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:11:38 AM EST
    I expect it will be a mirror of Dukakis in '88.  Rather than the Gore/Kerry message of "phony", "liar", blah blah blah.  It will be "foreign", "not a real american", "doesn't love the flag."  

    Lame, but a very effective message 20 years ago - much more effective than the Gore/Kerry line where both almost won (well Gore did win, but you get my point).  

    Dukakis went from being way up against GB1 at this stage of the game to only winning 10 states (plus DC).  He was crushed.

    Daily Howler puts forward the idea here.  (Rereading that post, it's crazy how prescient Somerby is - he recognized the problem with Wright before it was really anywhere else in the lefty blogosphere.  Gives him more credence now to me.)


    Well (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:15:55 AM EST
    There's a certain dynamic in the liberal blogosphere that discourages people from bringing up potential problems before they become actual ones.  No one wants to believe you're doing it in good faith; you're accused of being a smear artist, doing the Republicans' work for them, etc.

    I've believed for several months that Wright would be the biggest hurdle for Obama to overcome in the GE, but I pretty much had to keep that opinion to myself before the story actually broke.


    Somerby does make the connections (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:53:03 AM EST
    a lot of people seem to miss. I can see why he gets frustrated.

    I think superdelegates have been put into a corner by so many people telling them how they have to make their decision that they almost have to pick Obama at this point. Any of these arguments against his electability fall into the traps Mark L talks about. Witness Ickes talking about Wright to the superdelegates. How can that topic not come up in conversations about electability?


    The prospect of winning the big 3 (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:35:33 AM EST
    makes me comfortable with my primary vote.

    It's fine to dream about winning the mountain west, but we're up against the wrong Republican to do that.

    I'm being cautious, I know, but this election is just too important to bet the farm on Virginia and Colarado (Which combined wouldn't make up for losing Florida).

    I just don't see Obama winning FL (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:51:47 AM EST
    but apparently Obama believes his connection to Wright and Farrakhan will be surpassed by the masses voting for him.

    Of course he has his own (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:54:47 AM EST
    electability argument. IMO, it's weaker than Hillary's.

    The problem is those cross overs (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:36:03 AM EST
    I suspect that even before the Wright problem that the numbers were skewed. We agree about the open primaries. I KNOW of people who are GOP who voted Obama but have no intention of voting for him in the GE. I think all of these numbers need to be weighed too. In fact, if we review the votes so far, we should probably take out all GOP votes with the exception of the AA votes. Even leaving all of the Indy votes alone, and they are suspect also, we might get a better idea of actual numbers. I know it sounds like I am wishing for miracles, but I truely believe that the GOP has been influential in deciding on who the Democratic candidate will be. Case in point, GOP controlled Legislature in Florida changing the date. The DNC should have never have made that threat knowing that the GOP was in control. What a big mistake. BIG Mistake and voters are being punished.

    I agree 100%. (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:42:15 AM EST
    We know that Republicans vote strategically. After all, they've forced themselves to nominate McCain, who is the only one with even a faint possibility of winning, even though they hate him.

    IMHO, the primary system needs massive reform. First to go: Caucuses and crossovers. Next: All primaries on one weekend, with same day IRV. Finally: No delegates or superdelegates. Will of the people ONLY.

    And they say Obama supporters are the dreamers! ;-)


    Sounds like a plan (none / 0) (#37)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:55:00 AM EST
    Except I would pick 4-6 primary dates. Maybe divide the states up into 6 areas and within that area, they pick from the hat their primary date. Then we would have a good sample of the entire country and work from there. All closed primaries which would force a Indy to make a choice or skip the primary. We know they truely lean in one direction or the other. No DEM or GOP for a Day either. No causus. It might not be perfect but we would have a better idea of who the people really want and not who the opposition wants to run against.

    I'm fine with that except (none / 0) (#135)
    by splashy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:07:49 PM EST
    We should have a week to vote, not just a weekend. That way those that have to work on weekends can get to vote too.

    Latest numbers based on SUSA's latest polls (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:45:01 AM EST

    Hillary Clinton 294
    John McCain 231
    Tie 13

    John McCain 288
    Barack Obama 238
    Tie 12

    Good news for HIllary n/t (none / 0) (#58)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:07:46 AM EST
    I remember that myDD diary!! (none / 0) (#81)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    Follow the link to check out my comments about 80% down.  I've already covered this.  I also have a few other responsive comments before the one that addresses the main topic of that diary.

    Nope, not Wisconsin -- it went red (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:50:45 AM EST
    yesterday in our spring elections, more evidence that the Obama vote was Republican crossover (and the mess of the Clinton campaign with the change at the top only days before the Wisconsin primary).

    Wisconsin yesterday swung to a conservative state supreme court majority with rejection of the re-election of the only Milwaukee justice and only African-American justice -- and after one of the most, if not the most, racist campaigns in state history.  (And that is saying something in the state where George Wallace came in second in a primary, with many a racist whisper campaign since.)

    Remember, Wisconsin was the closest state in 2004 and was blue by less than one half of one percent.  Now that Wisconsin -- one of the most churchgoing states in the country -- has seen the Reverend Wright and who knows what next, I don't think that Obama could do it again.

    I think that Clinton could win Wisconsin, barely (although it long was one of the most misogynist states against women in office, but Bill Clinton was and is well-liked here after good years here).

    But with the Wisconsin to which we woke up today, I think that if Obama is the nominee, Wisconsin will swing to President McCain.  

    Good points... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:06:32 AM EST
    I would add that with WI's large number of hunters that Obama will get banged up in WI more than Hillary on that issue alone. Plus, as in all states, the campaign narrative will change from the "the first black president..." to the "the first woman president..." and that will pull alot of Indy / GOP women to Hillary.  

    Yeh, I forgot to factor gun control (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:26:47 AM EST
    into it, too -- you are correct that it didn't come up at all in the primary but will be a killer in the GE.  Not only are lots of Wisconsinites of the hunting sort, it also is huge for our number-one industry, tourism.  The only thing worse would be talking about taking our Great Lakes water (as Richardson did, also a cause for concern with his endorsement of Obama -- Richardson was almost hated here for saying that he would drain our lakes to water the West).

    Consider that even Russ Feingold has to be on the side of the hunters here.


    Richardson said that? Man, that guy could (none / 0) (#105)
    by tigercourse on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:11:36 AM EST
    insert his foot in his mouth like nobody else.

    Oh. yes. (none / 0) (#114)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:41:46 AM EST
    What a way to declare yourself ignorant on at least a few matters:

    Legality of proposal
    Feasibility of proposal
    Enormous flaming fallout from proposal as the Rust Belt States get out the torches and pitchforks.

    (I'd be marching in that mob.)


    Canada would be marching on the U.S. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:57:44 AM EST
    too, as Richardson also was ignorant of the fact that the Great Lakes water levels are part of long and ongoing international negotiations with Canada.    The fool apparently never looked at a map to see that the Great Lakes are the international border . . . and that the St. Lawrence Seaway matters a lot to Canada as well as New York, Ohio, the Midwest.

    More than a fourth of this country's population is in the Great Lakes region, and even more of the share of Canadians who count on our loverly lakes that are already in trouble -- so Richardson says to lower our water levels even more to water lawns and golf courses in the deserts of the West.  

    He dare not return here.


    Really? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:13:43 AM EST
    One of the most churchgoing states?  I had no idea.

    A majority have to be Lutheran and Catholic, right?  I've been to a few Lutheran churches myself and I have a really hard time seeing Wright going over well with that set.


    At my last count, 14 kinds of Lutherans (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:23:48 AM EST
    in Wisconsin (that was some years ago for an event; maybe they've come together since but maybe not), with lots of Scandinavians up nort' as well as, of course, the preponderance of Germans.

    Mostly Wisconsin Synod, of course, but lots of Missouri Synod and many other sorts of offshoots arguing about angels on the head of a pin or the like.  I previously married into a Lutheran family that had split into different synods and offshoots, and they witnessed at each other at every family event -- and each group knew for a fact that the others would not get to Lutheran heaven.  (There's a joke about that, but I'll spare you.)

    And yes, there are several sorts of Catholics in Wisconsin, including the ones who still cling to the Latin mass. . . .  


    I believe that (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:40:07 AM EST
    a lot of people that think about WI think "Russ Feingold" and thus believe our teeter-tatter red/blue/purple state is far more liberal than it is. Many do not understand that Russ Feingold is not you average politician. He's a law unto himself and the Republicans hate him with a passion.

    I have a Republican neighbor that thought he should have been "strung up" for being the only Senator to vote against the original Patriot Act. I think WI is mostly a purple state from all the partisan bruising.


    And that Russ only won in 1992 (none / 0) (#120)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:25:00 PM EST
    for his first term because of a classic case of when not to go negative -- in a three-way race, when both of his opponents in the primary did so.  And ever since, Russ has enjoyed the power of the status quo in Wisconsin, incumbency (that is the only explanation for our other senator still being there, huh? that is, after he -- the richest man in the senate -- spent his millions on that campaign).

    In sum, yes, we both have been trying to tell folks not to count on Wisconsin staying blue, by any means.  And yesterday's racist results just are so depressing in themselves, plus really are telling about how Obama would do here.  Not well at all.


    Btw, you saw that it was red, red Waukesha (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:27:01 PM EST
    County that beat Butler, the AA high court justice?  And that's the red, red county that went for Obama and told me, more than anything, that the conservative media and blogger campaign for Repubs to cross over to Obama is what we saw in the primary.  That simply wouldn't have worked there, in fundamentalist Waukesha County, after the Wright fiasco broke. . . .

    I agree: Obama is risky (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:52:19 AM EST
    The central premise of Obama candidacy is that because he is Obama that it will not be a traditional campaign and he will win.

    But, the NRA will still dump truck loads of cash into batteground states saying Obama has supported banning all hand guns and that he wants to charge people with a felony if a burglar steals their gun and uses it another crime. The pro-life groups will still run their partial birth abortion ads.  The RNC will still say that he went to a church for 20 years that collaborated and promoted Farrakhan, who said Hitler was a great man and whose organization is a defined as hate group.  And on and on and on.

    The bottom line is that the central premise of Obama's canidacy can't hold in a modern election, and agruably, (if anything,) the premise would hold more true for Hillary because she is so thoroughly defined that ads would not have the same impact.  Obama is a blank slate that so far, with the exception of Wright, has only been defined by positive and non-negative press coverage. Realistically, his favorability rating, which has always hovered around 50, is at a high water mark now and will only go down as the REAL negative ads start hitting in the general.  

    I agree about Wis.- I am from there (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by kenosharick on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    and it barely goes blue. Many people there are livid over the wright issue. It will also end ANY chance he has in Va. or Co. Thinking he can win these states is ignoring reality.

    I really doubt (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:58:12 AM EST
    Obama will take Colorado in the general election.

    I don't understand (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:56:24 AM EST
    why someone thinks that because "they" are not offended by the whole Wright Controversy that no one else will be. Trust me, here in WI there are a lot of church going people that are offended. In fact some are downright pyst.

    I didn't "like" much of what Wright said but when he went into his bump and grind about Bill Clinton I WAS offended.  

    I am a recovering Catholic and haven't entered a church except for weddings and baptisms in 20 years. Even so I don't think that kind of crap has any place in a church. And I think you will find that there are a lot of people that feel the same.

    Add them to those the may damn the government and a particular administration themselves but are outraged that someone would damn America.

    And they will look at the media's favorite candidate, St. John the hero, the straight-talker, Mr. Maverick and they'll vote for him. Democrats in large numbers do NOT hate John McCain. Libs can call him Bush Too but not everyone believes that.

    Add that to all the outrage about MI and FL and you would have in Obama a seriously wounded candidate. Or maybe my crystal ball isn't working well today and I haven't the faintest idea what I'm talking about.

    Expanding the map - not really. (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by alexei on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 06:11:15 PM EST
    I really disagree about Obama "expanding the map".  Here's my reasoning:

    1. Nevada and New Mexico were won by Hillary and both were caucases. Both have big Latina/Latino votes and in a primary, she would have done better.  So these should be counted as Hillary expanding the map, not Obama.  Also, Gore won NM and Bill Clinton won Nevada and New Mexico (1992 and 1996) - both arguments are for Hillary and not Obama. Bill Richardson is at best a non-factor and may even be a negative here.
    2. Oregon has not voted yet - this is been for Democrats since 1988 (yes, even Dukakis got OR).  So, this is hardly "expanding the map".  Note: Dukakis, Bill Clinton (twice), Gore and Kerry carried Oregon.
    3. Wisconsin is like Oregon, Democratic since 1988.  Dukakis, Bill Clinton (twice), Gore and Kerry carried Oregon. I posit that since both Kerry and Gore won close races, I think that this is a hold attempt not an expansion.  This was also where Obama first tried the NAFTA ads against Clinton and she had no rebuttal until Ohio (plus, NAFTA gate came out in Ohio).  Therefore, I think that Hillary would probably do better here now then back in Feb. particularly, since this was also pre-Wright and Obama had big wins a week before in the Potomac Primaries.
    4. Iowa is where Bill won twice and Gore won.  Kerry lost.  I worked this state for Dean and there is a lot of church goers, and Wright won't play well with this group.  I think that with the economy the issue, Hillary would be stronger than Obama against McCain.  This is a definitely a swing state and toss-up, but hardly an "expansion of the map".
    5. Colorado actually went for Bill Clinton in 1992 (economy was the issue) and in 1996, he lost it to Dole (economy was better). This would be an expansion of the map, but, since the only time that CO went to Democrats was to Bill when the economy was bad, I think that Hillary would be better than Obama against McCain.  Remember, this was a caucus and Hillary would have done better in a primary.  A purple state and I think that Wright has ended Obama's hopes in the GE.
    6. Virginia is the true "expanding the map" though, I think that VA is really a purple state and not red.  I grew up in VA and there are a lot of Latinas/Latinos and defense is also big in Norfolk and Tidewater areas.  Northern VA is being hit economically (big population), particularly with the housing crisis.  So, even though Obama had a huge win in Feb, this was after losses and little money for Clinton and pre-Wright.  My gut feeling even though polls aren't showing it yet, I think that Wright has ended Obama's chances here.  As for Clinton - if economy continues especially with housing (her real strong point), I think that she has a chance.  But, I still give McCain the edge. A wild card is the Mark Warner might have reverse coattails for Hillary since he is extremely popular in VA.

    So, to recap, only two states BTD mentioned are really "expanding the map" and one state was won by Bill Clinton when the economy was bad (CO), which bodes better for Hillary.  As for VA, I think that Wright has killed Obama's chances; the economy with housing crisis gives Hillary a chance but, I believe McCain has a good chance to hold, except, Mark Warner might have reverse coattails for Hillary.  

    last night the (none / 0) (#8)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:32:06 AM EST
    vile sometimes (unintentionally) hilarious Pat Cadell said something I thought was interesting on teevee.  he said he was hearing things that made him think the "Bradley effect" would reappear post Wright.
    it will be interesting to see if he is right about that.

    I'd prefer to call it (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:38:04 AM EST
    the Wright effect, because I don't think the main reason people are outraged has to do with racism. I think it's the "God Damn America" part.

    Another portion of Hillary's electability argument, in my mind, is that the Wright videos came out after many of the primaries and caucuses had been held. Is there buyer's remorse now?

    That's the kind of thing that's hard to gauge, of course, but given the reaction to Wright, where 56% of poll participants, including 44% of Democrats, said they'd be less likely to vote for Obama because of the pastor's comments, I'd say the argument could be made.


    I hope you are right (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:40:29 AM EST
    I do not think you are. I think that is the rationalization for what it really is.

    Well, far be it from me (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:47:37 AM EST
    to be a mindreader. :-)

    In any case, I think it's a phenomenon all on its own, because Wright's speech was offensive in so many ways: the insults to Hillary, and the inability to recognize the plight of women in America; the damning of America five days after 9/11; and the angry black man thing which scares a lot of white Americans.

    Just my opinion, of course.


    Put me in your rationalization category (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:57:26 AM EST
    The "God d*mn America," the humping of the podium, the screeds against this country...all went too far for me.  Throw in Obama's justifications, and his "typical white woman" crap (not to mention his recalcitrance on Choice) and I am completely lost to him.

    This is not an issue of racism, it is an issue of common decency.  Extremists from all sides have caused most of the problems we see in America today.  I will not support a presidential nominee who seeks to justify a man who d*mns the United States.  


    "typical white woman" Seems to me (none / 0) (#45)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:01:10 AM EST
    that you are projecting,  Obama never said that.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:08:52 AM EST
    He said his grandmother was a "typical white person" when she made racist remarks.

    Oh, I do beg your pardon (none / 0) (#60)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:09:12 AM EST
    "Typical white person," I should say.  That makes it much more inclusive.  That way, we are all racist rather than just 51.8% of us.  Please forgive my petty projection, which apparently negated every other point I was trying to make.

    "the point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person..."

    I'm not getting into this (none / 0) (#66)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:15:00 AM EST
    but other than you going out of your way to be offended,  I don't think what he said is particularly offensive.  

    I am sorry, but I really disagree with this (none / 0) (#57)
    by demps on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:07:00 AM EST
    assessment. I have more sympathy with the man's anger, and I would never censure anyone for levying their outrage against our country (the civil rights act was enacted only several decades ago, it still struggles with racism,our recent history in Iraq does not flatter the nation, one can go on and on). His words were inflammatory sure, but there is no way I am going to render a judgment off a sound bit.

    A lot of Democrats are very angry about (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:59:28 AM EST
    the Obama campaign's calculated strategy of smearing the Clinton's as racist. This will not be easy to forget in November.

    Forget? Never. (none / 0) (#128)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:39:48 PM EST
    Forgive?  Some will...not all.

    I think you underestimate... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Alvord on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:04:16 AM EST
    ... the effect that Wright's anti-American language has on a lot of people and are too willing to believe people are really, secretly, racist.

    After Wright, Obama gave a speech about racism. He should have given a speech about patriotism. He should be out there re-assuring people he loves his country. It is one thing to be a lukewarm patriot if you are just an ordinary citizen. However the first requirement to be President is an unfailing love of country.


    Loving your country (none / 0) (#63)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:12:45 AM EST
    is different from having an ability to be able to criticise it when it's wrong.

    And... (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:15:31 AM EST
    You can criticize without profanity and inflammatory language.  In fact, it's likely more effective as people will actually listen to your ideas and not just focus on the attention-grabbing flourishes.

    To label what Wright said as ... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Alvord on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:16:07 AM EST
    ...  "criticism" is a slander to genuine criticism. Wright engaged in hate speech.

    I just don't see this, I think it is disturbing (none / 0) (#71)
    by demps on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:21:03 AM EST
    when people think "goddamn america" is hate speech. Also, I should point out EVERYTHING obama himself has ever said contrasts that sentiment, but I would still protect Wright's right to say it

    I love our country, but our venture in Iraq (none / 0) (#72)
    by demps on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:22:03 AM EST
    may well have cost hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. for that, damn us indeed

    "Goddamn America" (none / 0) (#129)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:01:44 PM EST
    may not be hate speech in a casual conversation at home, in your dorm room, or at the corner tavern...we have all become very careless with this kind of language.

    Here's the difference:

    Rev. Wright said it in a church...to his parishioners.  Rev. Wright and his church are IN  THE "GOD-SHOULD-DAMN-THEM" BUSINESS, fer chrissakes.  All churchgoers/believer people know this, and so...it matters.

    To infidels and unbelievers like me, it doesn't mean anything substantive...gods who do not exist have no effect when called on to damn anyone.  What it DOES mean is that some people have a big stake in exascerbating divisive, racial tensions and some people want to ignore it or explain it away.

    As for your suggestion that it must not matter, really, because "EVERYTHING that obama (sic) himself has ever said contrasts (with) that sentiment"...I'll say two things:

    (1)  We don't know "EVERYTHING" Obama has ever said on this subject or any other...and we never will.
    (2)  There is a reason for the maxim:  "Never mind what they say.  Watch what they do."

    What Obama did was choose his longterm relationships (Rezko, Wright) deliberately, for short=term benefit.  Now, as Rev. Wright would say, 'the chickens are coming home to roost.'  As well they should.

    And come the general election, the fox will be in the henhouse and all Hell will break loose.  Then, Rev. Wright will have reason and opportunity to damn something to Hell...and back again.


    the race speech... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Liberty4 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:11:18 PM EST
    I felt the same way about the race speech. I was scratching my head wondering why BO was presenting a speech on race instead of a) HONESTLY addressing Wright (which IMHO he did not and continues to waif on---reminds me of the Kerry "First I was for it before I as against it" logic) and b) that he had the PERFECT platform for a speech on patriotism and love of America---8 American flags draped the man who refuses to wear "that lapel pin"---and he had the world media at his door smothering each other for the best coverage at the National Constitution Center! And instead he gives a speech (which at times I felt was more like a lecture) on race---injecting the issue into the campaign like poison. I truly did not get it, and it turned me off immediately. I wanted to hear him talk candidly about his pastor and the speeches he's heard for 20 years, not his thesis on race in America.

    that may well be true, (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:04:26 AM EST
    I think that is the rationalization for what it really is.

    but it's irrelevant to the issue at hand: sen. obama's electability, post-wright. he could probably survive the rezko thing; the average voter most likely hasn't a real clue what that's all about, it's too complex for a 60 second commercial. "god dam*n america" is pretty blunt and to the point, any idiot can figure it out.

    iowa goes red in the GE. they don't caucus in the GE, that's the only reason he won there. va goes red in the GE too. he'll win the city of richmond (high AA concentration), maybe NVA (more liberal than the rest of the state), but that's about it. in fairness, i don't believe sen. clinton would win VA in the GE either, just do a bit better than sen. obama in losing.

    nevada goes red as well, too close to AZ, makes mccain an almost local boy made good. he loses WI too. clinton could win it, with the female vote.

    when you add it all up, sen. obama is the least likely of the two to defeat sen. mccain in nov., regardless of his success in the primaries. he'll be slaughtered.

    the DNC leadership has proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to be totally incompetent. they should all be replaced, before they permanently damage the party.


    The only thing (none / 0) (#112)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:35:53 AM EST
    that could save a Dem in VA is the fact that there is a very popular Dem running for US Senate and he is running virtually unopposed, so while people are voting for him, they may vote for a Dem for POTUS.

    I think I agree with you (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:05:53 AM EST
    it is an excuse

    the Bradley effect I mean (none / 0) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:06:36 AM EST
    for people voting their racial fears.

    Bradley Effect (none / 0) (#82)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:32:02 AM EST
    A reminder, it had no effect during the primary.  It took effect in the General election.  The primary among dems, there was no issue, Bradley was the clear winner.  

    I think it is more that Dem voters don't want... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:15:14 AM EST
    ...to be racist and they don't want to vote in a way they feel is racist. So, in that sense, when race is front and center, it does benefit Obama and this benefit is real.

    I'm not saying ALL Democratic Primary Voters... (none / 0) (#107)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:26:10 AM EST
    ...I'm saying that there are some Dem primary voters that vote for Obama because this issue of race is paramount. (Just as there are those in the Democratic primary that vote against Obama because race is paramount.) All in all, it is a benefit in the primary for race to be paramount in the primary, but not in the general. As you say, "the Reagan Democrats" will vote for McCain.

    If by "real" you mean Obama gets more (none / 0) (#122)
    by vicndabx on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    votes.....well then yeah.

    So, in that sense, when race is front and center, it does benefit Obama and this benefit is real.

    But if it's meant to indicate some improvement in race relations, I beg to differ.  Sorry, but white guilt does nothing to move this country forward on race.  Particularly, nay, Especially when it's used as a determining factor in choosing a president.  All people should choose their candidate because he or she is the best qualified.  Personal feelings, IMO, should never come into play.  Period.  This a job interview, not a chance to find a hang out partner and feel good about yourself.


    Obama and Nevada (none / 0) (#13)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:34:12 AM EST
    How does Obama point to or expand the map with Nevada? Didn't Clinton win there?

    Obama runs better against MCCain in NV (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:36:42 AM EST
    AND NM.

    Oh (none / 0) (#19)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:38:56 AM EST
    Okay, I get it now. Thanks!

    But Not By Much (none / 0) (#41)
    by The Maven on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:58:52 AM EST
    The most recent head-to-head matchups that I can see for Nevada gave Obama a four-point lead over McCain (45-41), with Clinton edging him out by one point (44-43), and an identical advantage for both Dems in New Mexico, 51-45, though this was prior to Gov. Richardson's endorsement.

    And as much as these come across as head-scratchers, Obama looks to have significant trouble in New Jersey and Massachusetts as well.  My theory is that this shows a potential weakness with white, working-class Catholics, which is why Sen. Casey's endorsement could turn out to be Obama's biggest score of the past few weeks.


    But Casey's Pro-Life (none / 0) (#119)
    by Liberty4 on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:23:24 PM EST
    and I think the "marriage" of that as a good endorsement for BO is tenuous at best. Casey is a conservative Dem and I live in PA and believe his election was greatly aided by his name and that most Pennsylvanians were sick of Satorum. He had just become to caustic and too right-wing for a significant majority of his state's constituency. I was surprised by Casey's endorsement--- especially the timing as I was Richardsons. My feeling was "don't think you are fooling me for one minute"---Richardson wanted to change the narrative from Wright to minimize any further damage, and Casey is supposed to help BO keep PA competitive. Both of these endorsements seemed like "strange bed fellows to me.

    That's odd (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:03:18 AM EST
    Isn't one of Hillary's selling points her ability to bring out a lot more of those pesky Latinos?

    Some pollters sample Latinos/as poorly (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:29:25 AM EST
    without Spanish-language options.  To get a true sense of Latino/a voting trends, it is wise to look first to see whether the particular pollster does this.

    Depends on the definition of "win" (none / 0) (#24)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:43:19 AM EST
    Obama got more delegates, so their campaign considers that a win.  He polls better there in the GE vs McCain.  Like CA, she won the but for some unknown reason, he's polling better for GE.

    Equally there have been PA (none / 0) (#50)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:03:32 AM EST
    polls showing Obama running better than Hillary against McCain (though admittedly not this one).

    Also,  PPP are showing Obama taking the lead in PA against Hillary.  Not sure where they are pulling their numbers from,  but the speculation is that dem voters feel the primary is damaging the party and they are uniting behind who they think will be the nominee.

    Personally I don't buy that, and I think the SUSA numbers showing Obama about 5 points down on Hillary are probably a more accurate reflection of the race currently.


    Has anyone run the November numbers? (none / 0) (#23)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:42:57 AM EST
    I'm way too fuzzy headed to do it right now, but is anybody aware of an analysis of how the general will play out without Florida and Michigan on the Dem side? Obviously we can't know exactly how things will be in November, but we can certainly make intelligent guesses, knowing which states are likely to trend Dem and which aren't.

    Rasmussen (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by cannondaddy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:47:00 AM EST
    has an electoral map.  Dems were looking good a month ago, but it's tightened up a lot as this primary drags on.

    actually, Obama is showing more strength (none / 0) (#32)
    by demps on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:51:53 AM EST
    in Pennsylvania and Ohio against Mccain than he previously did, look at the Real Clear Politics polls, Mccain previously had significant leads on him in those states, particularly when Wright first emerged. The effect does not seem to be waxing, but rather waning. Florida however continues to be a problem. And Clinton remains the strongest in those states of course, which I expected.

    Slightly OT (none / 0) (#34)
    by cmugirl on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:53:35 AM EST
    But the Dems may experience a longer bounce following the convention because of the schedule of the Republican convention (it starts on Labor Day). With a short fall election cycle, maybe this can help us.


    Go to post (about half way down)titled

    Tuesday, April 01, 2008
    GOP Redskins fans face major conflict

    In the end, if the party unites behind its (none / 0) (#43)
    by demps on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 09:59:46 AM EST
    candidate, I would be very surprised if Mccain can remain strong. Right now he is contrasted against candidates of a divided party, and both are being exposed to unflattering scrutiny constantly. In the GE Iraq will reassert tremendous influence, the economy will remain an issue, and in the debates either Clinton or Obama would render him foolish.

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:02:28 AM EST
    Obama will sweep the election just like Kerry!

    Maybe you're right (none / 0) (#62)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:11:51 AM EST
    and the US isn't ready to vote for a black guy,  or for a woman.  Let's just all vote for John McCain and we can start again in 4 years.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:25:16 AM EST
    about "a black guy" or "a woman".
    this particular black guy is starting to carry a lot of baggage.
    perhaps his political skills, which are not insignificant, will be enough to offset the baggage.
    I dont think so.
    I hope so if he is the nominee.  but I dont think so.

    and Hillary is not weighed down (none / 0) (#91)
    by JoeA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:50:42 AM EST
    by baggage?  Good one.

    I didnt say she wasnt (none / 0) (#96)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:54:22 AM EST
    I said he has more.  and that is more dangerous and damaging for the general election.

    not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:32:51 AM EST
    His baggage is new.  People are just now realizing that he has flaws.  If there is an American alive who hasn't been repeatedly reminded about HRC's flaws for 15 years, I'd like to meet that person and urge them to leave their mountain retreat.

    Clinton was accused of murder over a decade ago.  I'm not sure what new they could say about her that would dramatically change people's perceptions.


    Well apparently (none / 0) (#97)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:56:09 AM EST
    22% of both sides intend to do just that.

    Or maybe... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Faust on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    Clinton will sweep the election just like Kerry!

    I am surprised he's still polling (none / 0) (#65)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:14:24 AM EST
    well here in VA. I thought Wright would be a total deal breaker, though VA is the birthplace of the Wilder effect and Doug Wilder had none of the baggage Obama has. There are lots of fundamentalist Christians and military here who would seem to be a done deal for McCain. Northern VA should go for either Obama or Clinton. I think she would have done better in the Primary if there hadn't been an ice storm there that day which prevented gov't. workers from getting to their polling places in time.

    Republicans have been wrong for years... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:46:23 AM EST
    ...and years and years.  Haven't been right about a single thing in this administration.  So let's get some perspective about who Republicans want the Dem candidate to be and how they know they can more easily defeat that candidate.  In the last 8 years especially, the right hasn't shown ANY ability to correctly read the temperature of an oven, much less the American people.  Why we're afraid they are clairvoyant here, I don't really know.  Whether it's Obama or Clinton, tons of sh*t is going to be flung.  Period.  So we can stop wetting our pants and worry about fighting.

    Why we're afraid they are clairvoyant (none / 0) (#92)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:52:52 AM EST
    because they have won 7 of the last 10 presidential campaigns?

    5 of 10 (none / 0) (#110)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:29:12 AM EST
    And if we REALLY want to talk about "winning" this election, we should put much more focus on the way the last two were stolen, at least in terms of ensuring election credibility, vote security, preventing hacking of machines, voter purges, etc.  Instead of our personality cults and miniscule policy differences.

    The truth is, IMAO, McCain is as poor a candidate as the Republicans have had since Ford.  He is not a leader, he inspires no one, can rally no one.  And when he starts going head to head with either Dem nominee, his obvious shortcomings will be magnified.  As for the MSM, it's on us to hold them to the fire.  One very pointed and sharp line of questioning should be the focus of the Dem attack against McCain: as someone who fought in and was tortured in a murderous, pointless war of aggression that was begun by politicians who terribly misread both the past and the present, why on earth have you willfully chosen to continue down the same path forty years later in Iraq?  Why do you seem to have learned nothing, sir?  How can you claim to have experience that matters when you seem have done nothing with that experience but repeat the most horrific aspects of it?  


    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 12:55:05 PM EST
    Are you one of those Obama supporters who doesn't think Hillary Clinton inspires anyone, either?

    I could point to dozens of people I know personally who find McCain inspiring and would look up to him as a leader.  Not all of them are Republicans, either.  He's not a joke.


    Re "worry about fighting..." (none / 0) (#131)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 02:26:20 PM EST
    Yup.  We need a fighter.

    Hands down...Hillary.


    Excellent issue, and what the dems and SD's should (none / 0) (#90)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 10:49:46 AM EST
    really be talking about. We want to win in November. We have two candidates that are each compelling to lots of people. Not necessarily the same people. But the bottom line is neither will get to the magic number. So that means the SD's decide. And this is one of the main things they should consider. I agree that there are good arguments on both sides. I happen to think the Clinton side is more reasonable, but that's me.

    Ok this is where I really have trouble. I am an (none / 0) (#101)
    by demps on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 11:01:49 AM EST
    Obama supporter, and will be greatly disappointed if he loses, it will take a little while to recover, and I often find myself think rather ill of Senator Clinton, but come the GE I will vote democrat regardless. The ISSUES are far too important. How can we justify carrying on in Iraq or maintaining fiscal policy that is disastrous or failing to address the neglect of the middle class and poor, which is what a vote for Mccain accomplishes.

    No guarantee (none / 0) (#126)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:28:58 PM EST
    and no confidence that a vote for Obama would mean anything different than a vote for McCain or no vote at all, resulting in Pres. McCain.

    Trust is the issue.

    Who is Barack Obama, really?

    Anybody know what to 'believe' among the Obama hope and change themes...which meme to believe among the many stated/restated positions on issues?

    Anybody think they know what his real relationships are to Rezko and Wright...both among the longest-standing relationships of his adult life?


    Obama's biggest strength is also his weakness, (none / 0) (#132)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 04:09:18 PM EST
    He's a fresh, new face in Dem politics, which is attractive to new voters, but he doesn't have the long history with Dems that most of our previous nominees have had. Even Bill Clinton was governor for 12 years before running and had done lots of groundwork with the other Dem govs. So in most states, a trusted leader could vouch for him and talk about his working style and record. Teddy Kennedy endorsing Obama was a big help, but Kennedy has only known him since 04, as far as I can tell, similar to his other big endorsements. His limited record makes him a rather unknown quality to many long-time Dems, including me.

    Three yards and a cloud of (none / 0) (#125)
    by MKS on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:16:42 PM EST
    dust only gets you so far.  You need to throw the ball down the field to win.

    And it's a good and right argument (none / 0) (#127)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 02, 2008 at 01:39:00 PM EST
    and I dont agree that the argument scurvies Wright my 86 year old aunt knows about Wright and is not pleased.  And not sure your more argument is needed how much more and why one power Party is not my goal anyway.

    It's interesting to observe (none / 0) (#136)
    by Faramir on Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 07:47:27 AM EST
    Hi, I'm from Asia and it's really interesting to catch up with the politican news in the US these days. From where I'm at, there's a lot of ignorance about the goverments that's taking charge. As long as there's bread and butter everyday, we'll ignore everything else. In the US, it is so robust, and you guys know what ou;r doing! Bravo.

    Fara - http://www.pickmeuptoday.com