A Corollary To Boehlert's Revenge

You might be familiar with my posts on Boehlert's Revenge. I am now adding a corollary to it - when you embrace, encourage and accept the narrative that Hillary Clinton is an atrocious person and public servant that no real Democrat could possibly support, you become open to this interpretation of electoral results:

[T]he implication of Judis's piece is that these voters don't simply prefer Clinton. Rather, they're anti-Obama.

When you argue, embrace, encourage or accept the argument that no one could possibly support Hillary Clinton for any reasons other than racism, you invite the logical conclusion that any vote for Clinton is in fact anti-Obama.

< More On The "Umbrella Of Deterrence" | The So-Called Liberal Media >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Age (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:48:42 PM EST
    differences sure dropped.

    He casually says, Under 40......Obama......

    Over 40....Clinton.

    Wow, that's a big shift.

    The impression has been that Clinton appeals to those on their death bed.


    Obama's hold on the youth vote ... (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    has only been consistent with the 18-24 demographic.

    He's won that group in almost every state.

    But he's actually lost people in their late twenties, thirties and forties in some states.


    I said something to that effect earlier (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    accusing a sizeable portion of the electorate (without really hard data) of racism is not going to do you any favors in getting these people to reconcile to Obama.  The people he most needs to reach out to are given nary an ear from the Obama blogosphere.

    It is a simple but ugly world they live in.  And it is of no cost to them to make everyone else the ugly ones.

    That's exactly right. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:55:43 PM EST
    If you are a white voter, are you going to be happy with the way Obama's painted your voting patterns?

    How does he think people are going to feel?


    The problem with this statement (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:57:36 PM EST
    Is that Obama didn't say this.  Too many times people have taken words out of bloggers or media members mouths and said it's Obama.  Now, bloggers should be smarter than that, but they aren't the ones running for president.  Let's not forget that they are two very different things.

    I knew someone was going to say that. (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    The "BitterCling" remarks clearly referred to the voters of Pennsylvania as racists. Those remarks were in the context of someone asking him why he wasn't winning in PA.

    Obama's campaign deliberately painted HRC and Bill as racists. They admitted it in a memo that was widely circulated.

    I'm not saying Obama is responsible for the way the press interprets results. But you will never, EVER convince me that Obama and his campaign didn't play the race card to get his 90% of the AA vote.


    The 'race card' has... (none / 0) (#213)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:20:50 PM EST
    has been played all along since the post-New Hampshire and pre-South Carolina primary very effectively by the Obama campaign. It has been corroborated on many occasions that Pres. Clinton's remarks were twisted around and misrepresented; yet it still sticks, when they want to win a point. HOWEVER, this subterfuge is quickly becoming an anachronism since we first heard his pastor's statements, his wife's, his OWN "BitterCling", as madamab has so appropriately called it, and see that the shoe is in the other foot, so to speak. Consequently, it is not as important that he said it (whatever it may be) or not, simply because he won't so that he can claim he did not know anything about it, as he has done with all of his associations' reprehensible pronunciations and/or actions.
    The campaign this morning tried with the tacit collaboration of the favorable media, to paint Senator Clinton's win in Pennsylvania as a racist vote on the part of the white voters, but I noticed it wasn't getting enough steam then.
    None of them however, have made a similar claim to the solid block votes of the blacks. 9 out of 10 voters for Obama and this are not scrutinized under the same prism? Why not?

    Obama did say that (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    when he explained to his Billionaire donors why Dems weren't voting for him - because they're ignorant racist gun toting Bible lovers in CA, FL, MI, TX, AR, OH, PA, etc.

    Obama constantly loses the blue collar (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:26:39 PM EST
    and they know this.  Where is the plan?  The attempt to connect?  After every state he doesn't win, someone in the media steps up and says it's because of racism.  If you really thought they were racist, wouldn't that factor into the way you campaigned, where, and how?  The media is happy to say, "let's wait and see if they're racist!  Won't that be entertainment!".  But that's both unfair and politically stupid, IMO.

    you would think (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:48:50 PM EST
    Obama would politiely ask them to stop saying it's because of racism.

    That can't make Clinton voters in Penn feel good about themselves or feel any empathy for Obama.


    Haven't you heard... (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:51:46 PM EST
    they don't need white, working class votes. They just go to republicans anyway.

    At least that's what Axelrod said this morning.


    the Axelrod statement... (none / 0) (#214)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:33:07 PM EST
    should be distributed to as many people in Indiana and North Carolina as possible. It could be a costly lesson to learn for them.
    When you're in the race, you can't count ANYBODY OUT or you lose.

    Obama uses gestures against Hillary (none / 0) (#168)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    and likewise her working class supporters.
    He confirmed his elitism by brushing her off his shoulder and shoes - and got tons of laughter from his supporters.
    The "finger" got more laughs.
    HAHAHAHAHA - Hillary is evil - HAHAHAHA!

    Obama's mannerisms are very elitist and arrogant -like an "inside" joke - and that doesn't sell well among blue collar voters.


    Let's Not Forget (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:27:36 PM EST
    that Jesse Jackson Jr., a principle in Obama's campaign, blatantly and deliberately injected racism into the campaign the day after the New Hampshire primary.

    Throughout this campaign the media have implied and Obama surrogates have placed the blame for any off the wall statements coming out of the Clinton campaign at Hillary's feet.

    If that's to be the rule in this campaign then racism emanting from Obama's campaign must be laid at his feet.  It's not terribly difficult since Obama is rightfully condemned by his own statements.


    Axelrod (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:34:11 PM EST
    came damn close to saying it today with his remarks about white, working class voters. You can't say his campaign doesn't represent him.

    That's called race baiting don't bite is the trick (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:09:22 PM EST
    his intended target I'm sure is to inflame turn out of black voters in NC by again exploiting this raical grievance, again fanning the flames before each southern contest.  I think what Axelrod may be in denial about, is it is now like also a whistle to every other demographic that will engage and beat it to the polls in mass as they did in PA representing the extended Base as well.  We shall see but the campaign code is on display in the Rev Wright videos unfortunately.

    He Came Awful Close To Saying This In His Remarks (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:00:29 PM EST
    during his SF fundraiser.

    I think he said it in those comments. (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    guns, god, racism and xenophobia is the crude interpretation that X% of listeners will hear.

    Part Of The Direct Quote Includes (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:16:21 PM EST
    antipathy toward people who aren't like them

    I thought that was a code for racists. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:19:13 PM EST
    the anti immigrant sentiment I interpreted to mean Xenophobic.

    I thought Catholic (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:22:22 PM EST
    was the code for White. Back six weeks ago, the press kept saying Penna is so so so Catholic. We would laugh and say, we know what they are saying.

    My Interpretation too n/t (none / 0) (#112)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:34:44 PM EST
    I thought he was talking about... (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    Blue collar workers who have the tendency to vote against their economic interests (republican).

    Obama was talking about Dems (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:07:49 PM EST
    in a dem primary. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:19:56 PM EST
    NO. He was saying it (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:08:13 PM EST
    about the white working-class that was voting for HILLARY. He was NOT talking about them and how they vote against their own best-interests (ie voting Republican). He was talking about the working-class voters that were voting for Clinton and NOT him. That's another reason why what he said was so insulting to me.

    Yes (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:18:19 PM EST
    Remember this was a closed primary.  This applied to Democrats only.

    There's no fudging around Obama's "people who aren't like them" statement.

    No WORM can chase that one away.


    it's also disturbing (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    that he painted Clinton a GOP substitute for Frank's theory.

    She's a rival --not the enemy.


    Ahem.. that was NOT what he said. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    He was explaining why people wouldn't vote for HIM over Hillary, prefacing this explanation by remarking that some people would have a hard time listening to a 46 year old black man.
    Enough of that, however. I am all for letting people judge the remarks for themselves.

    Not quite the same point (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by AF on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    as BTD's, I think.

    The Armando Corollary, if I understand it correctly, is not that anti-Obama sentiment is the result of the media's demonization of Hillary.  

    Rather, it is the logical implication of Hillary's victories, if we accept the premise that Hillary is, in fact, awful.

    This Obama supporter denies the premise.


    Thanks AF (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:05:10 PM EST
    I appreciate your honest thoughts, we all do.

    I hate racism of all kinds, it's an easy out for unimaginative people, like all prejudice. Why explain why you don't like someone, when you can just yell epithets?

    Keep on keepin' us honest, AF. :-)


    Let's also not forget (none / 0) (#108)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:31:29 PM EST
    that it isn't just the mainstream media and parts of the blogosphere that have demonized Hillary Clinton.

    Obama's had a hand in that process as well, labeling her as divicive even before the first primary.


    But, BTD, why do they ... (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:53:37 PM EST
    find that more comforting?

    If half the Democratic Party is voting against Obama isn't that just as troublesome as half the Democratic Party voting for Clinton?

    I guess it undercuts Clinton's electability argument, but it even more severely undercuts his.

    If half the Democrats are voting (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:57:23 PM EST
    against Obama now, what will they do in November?

    Very bad argument for the OFB to make.


    Hmmmm... is it okay to be pro Clinton AND (none / 0) (#199)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:44:21 PM EST

    Well, nobody could possibly like her (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:53:54 PM EST
    could they?

    That's an article of faith for the OFB.

    They hate her.  I mean THEY REALLY HATE HER.

    They are so infected with CDS they can't see any redeeming qualities in her.

    So any vote for her must be based on racism, stupidity or some ulterior motive.

    Wouldn't that kind of logic lead us into (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    dangerous waters?  I mean if by implying that the votes for Clinton are anti-Obama does not that prove that he is thus unelectable?  Have the votes if not more of a Democratic Primary Season are Anti-Obama?  Hmm I am beginning to think that it is not kool aid these people are drinking. Also if they really believe that Clinton lead by 20% a few months back they place to much credence to polls that have proven to be wrong time after time when the votes are counted.   Look at the final tallies and you will see that in real Democratic States with large diverse populations Clinton tends to win.

    It proves that they are BOTH unelectable (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:59:24 PM EST
    We don't want to go down that road.

    We may be down that road now (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:01:26 PM EST
    The media (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:17:08 PM EST
    has been bound and determined to make this about identity politics and thus it began. It hasn't helped that early on distintions were blurred and folks were told all our candidates are basically the same. When you are told they are basically the same what are you left with except identity politics. Do you want your historic first to be a white woman or a black male? Sigh.

    They make it easy on themselves. (none / 0) (#141)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:55:50 PM EST
    The historic first would be UHC.

    But they can't really talk about that.


    That would be an issue (none / 0) (#155)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:07:05 PM EST
    and issues are passe'. We lost alot of opportunities for debate on differences and IMO there were more than enough of them philosophically and issue wise that this did not need to break down into identity politics.

    I said it early on at the big Orange, it was a huge mistake to allow the narrative they are all Democrats so therefore they are all basically the same to be disseminated. Yes, they all want better health care but we missed an opportunity when we failed to discuss how each candidate wanted to get us there.

    We fell right into the media trap. Hopefully it won't cost us eight more years because people can't get beyond the idea that the candidate we have isn't someone they want to have a beer with(identity politics).


    That's exactly (none / 0) (#146)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:57:48 PM EST
    what happened.  As soon as Obama announced, the media went after Edwards.  

    Their storyline deliberately became the historic duo.

    That 'little difference among the candidates' crap fed the storyline.

    There were important differences exposed in the details but the media and many in the blogosphere continued to peddle the 'little difference' line.


    So how do we get off this road? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:11:29 PM EST
    Back to the old Unity Ticket idea? One or the other gracefully bows out before July? Pistols at dawn? Coin flip?

    MoDo was doing her best to label both Dems (none / 0) (#215)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:48:02 PM EST
    unelectable, undesirable, and un-presidential.

    Her column was almost a paen to hatred of Dems.

    And it's what she does--even if occasionally she goes after R's, she always comes back to stabbing Big Dems in that back.


    I know this is unrelated but.... (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    "Look at the final tallies and you will see that in real Democratic States with large diverse populations Clinton tends to win. "

    The problem with this logic is, she is not running for president of the large, diverse, democratic states.  She is running for president of the United States.  That includes even the small red ones.

    I realize that may not have been your main point, I just wanted to get that out.


    Granted (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:08:29 PM EST
    We are in it to win it. Bringing the small red states into the good graces of Dem-it-tude is the next big step, and I think Hillary can do that too. :-)

    Problem is that we have only been able (3.50 / 2) (#59)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:08:43 PM EST
    to have Democratic presidents by winning those Large Diverse states with a lot of Electoral Votes including Fl.

    but the only way youdo win... (none / 0) (#93)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:22:23 PM EST
    ...is by winning in ohio and penn and Missouri.

    if you redid Missouri Obama would not win it in the primary.  We also know he'll lose that state to Mccain in November.


    someone call the CDC (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:57:55 PM EST
     to test that kool-aid. It could be dangerous.

    I heard this talking point on the MSM today. Some pundits have been pretty desperate to make PA an Obama win or shift to she can't win, time for her to pull out bit again. But when I heard that new meme I burst out laughing. With a straight face some said votes for Hillary were necessarily anti-Obama. Wow.

    You know, if they keep drinking it, maybe we can just put them in a corner and tell them Obama is president, and the fact that they see Clinton on TV a lot, acting like she's president is really a secret plan Obama came up with. And give them pacifiers. And a nice blanket and some warm milk.

    MSN (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:09:26 PM EST
    always "freaks out" after Sen Clinton wins a primary.

    And now, the aggression toward Clinton supporters will increase.... and there will be visitors to any Clinton Blogs that will harrass the users on the sites.... it hqappens after a Clinton win.

    And I have lost track of how many time I've been called racist.

    I've found the spins after the wins entertaining but really dislike the aggression that starts up.


    What I love is how one gets called a racist... (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:29:54 PM EST
    ...for all intents and purposes and then when you ask "are you calling me a racist?" they either back down or else try to prove to you that you are, in fact, a racist. How not fun that is.

    You could be racist (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:37:10 PM EST
    ....you just don't know that you are racist!

    Heh, I can beat that (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:46:50 PM EST
    According to one of Obama's supporters that I got into it with, it's part of everyone. The whole world is racist. We are born that way. I kid you not. I had to provide her links to prove it was a learned behavior.

    But doesn't her assertion mean (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:50:30 PM EST
    that she herself is a racist?

    So I guess she's voting for Obama because she's a racist and hates white people?

    [head explodes]


    Yep n/t (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:07:47 PM EST
    It's learned behaviour... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:57:17 PM EST
    ...but it appears to be a part of almost all cultures.

    Our brains (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:19:13 PM EST
    are made in a way that makes it easy for us to compartmentalize. It may have helped us survive once upon a time. That said, racism isn't innate. It's a learned behavior.



    Shall we count... (none / 0) (#165)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM EST
    ...the number of times it has been asserted that I am; a) anti-feminist b) "scared of strong women" and c) a low-information voter on this very blog simply because I have not accepted HC as my personal savior?  

    Repent (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:24:30 PM EST
    Seriously, some of the supporters of both camps tend to be a little overzealous IMO when it comes to charges of racism and misogyny. Racism and Sexism are serious charges and calling someone a racist and sexist ought to be restricted to situations where there is proof that there is misogyny or racism and not as an excuse for a loss.

    Similarly (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by eric on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:58:55 PM EST
    I have encountered people who feel that support for Clinton is not only anti-Obama, but it is anti-"the movement".  If you support Clinton, you are perceived to must be against progress itself.

    I've heard that a lot too (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:01:51 PM EST
    as in, you're preventing something historic from taking place. I'm thinking alien abduction is the cause. :-)

    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    Its like having a woman president would be so non-historic.

    my support for Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by kimsaw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:05:47 PM EST
    is based on what I know of the candidates and how they performed. It so much easier to call someone a racist for not supporting Obama, but I find it both insulting and race baiting. I'm not going to feel guilty because Obama can't close the deal or present himself beyond his rhetoric. Clinton wins Dems. because she is one and no one has yet to distrust that point. Obama's problem from the get go has been that he has chosen to blur the lines thinking that its in his best interest but it only creates distrust in actually who he is. He has provided his own contradiction, is he or isn't he a Dem. I don't care one way or the other I'm an independent and his target audience primed for his unity propaganda. He couldn't sell it to me, what made him think could sell it to die hard Dems?

    If this isn't about race (5.00 / 9) (#28)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:59:34 PM EST
    Well OK.  Seriously.  Purposefully speaking, I would like to think it does NOT.

    But if one must, out of sheer morality, be forced to conclude that every black person's vote for Obama has nothing to do with Obama being black (and Clinton being white), then I think it's fair to conclude that every white person's vote for Clinton has nothing to do with Clinton being white (and Obama being black.)

    Identity politics identity schmpolitics.

    Beings a woman and wanting to see a woman president in one's lifetime does not make a person racist.

    Being a black person and wanting to see a black president in one's lifetime certainly does not make a person sexist.

    Uh.  Now.  As far as the made up world of "Progressive" blogs is concerned, the idea that people are anti-Obama is hysterical.

    Obama's only appeal to them has only ever been rooted in anti-Clintonism.

    If you go back to when Edwards was still in the race, and you find bloggers saying "I still haven't made up my mind who to endorse, but I know I won't be endorsing Clinton," then it's only obvious that your eventual endorsement of Obama is made within that context.

    And if you add into the mix the simple fact that Clinton has tracked MORE to the left on a signature issue (health care), the anti-Clintonism becomes even more ugly.

    It has transcended the issues themselves.

    I know I will get cr*p for this but... (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:04:30 PM EST
    "And if you add into the mix the simple fact that Clinton has tracked MORE to the left on a signature issue (health care), the anti-Clintonism becomes even more ugly."

    I disagree.  I think a punitive approach to health care is more to the right.  And before I get killed for this, I would like to add that my mother, who has spent her entire career trying to expand public health care, agrees with me on this. Also, while there are plenty of countries that have a mandate, there are also ones that don't and it works - there's more than one way to cook a chicken.


    A punitive approach (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:12:36 PM EST
    to the war on drugs maybe. Certainly not healthcare. You'll get cr*p for your statement only because it's false. It's absolutely false that it's more rightist to demand mandates.  It's absolutely imperative. And very much LEFTY.

    I won't give you crap (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:15:35 PM EST
    but why do you think it is punitive to require everyone get health care they can afford?

    I hate to dust off the Soc Sec example, but that works for everyone too (at least until Obama privatizes it). People appreciate firefighters, police officers, etc, and they pay for them with taxes too. It's a matter of semantics and appropriate examples; in the end everybody who currently has insurance pays less, and everyone who needs coverage has it without breaking the bank.

    Besides, how much fun would it be to say to a cranky receptionist who says 'sorry, you're 5 minutes late for this appointment, you'll have to come back next month', say to her 'Hey lady, I pay your salary with taxes! You will fit me in pronto!' haha


    I don't think mandates WON'T work (none / 0) (#82)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:18:24 PM EST
    I just think there's more than one way to solve the issue, and it's not the only way, nor the MOST left way.  I do think Hillary's proposal is way better than what we've currently got, don't get me wrong.

    Also, how is punitive loaded?  I didn't mean to offend with that word...


    Obama will reform nothing. (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    NOTHING will be done regarding healthcare.



    And you know this how? (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:28:01 PM EST
    Just to remind you, NOTHING happened with healthcare while Clinton was president either.

    It is a matter of the senate whether or not they succeed, but give me a break, he is running as a democrat, he has proposed a plan, what do you want, a crystal ball?


    CHIP (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:42:35 PM EST
    Except the CHIP program.  That's not nothing.

    Point taken (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    I was referring to the attempted national health care program.  But you're right, it's not nothing.

    what I'd like to find out is of the Dems that (none / 0) (#148)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    were there then how many helped stop the effort by the Clintons to reform health care and if they are still around.

    It isn't enough either (none / 0) (#136)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:51:09 PM EST
    If you aren't a child CHIP will do nothing for you. You are stuck out in the cold.

    Um, (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:57:11 PM EST
    at least HRC TRIED on health care. It was the first time in decades that anyone had attempted universal coverage in America. She was defeated by backstabbing Dems and 600 million in Harry and Louise ads (which Obama gleefully recycled to lie about her health care plan). Even in the face of those odds, she still managed to get millions of children covered thru S-CHIP.

    No one who attacks HRC on health care has a lot of credibility with me. Sorry.


    I just want to make clear (none / 0) (#193)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    I am in no way shape or form anti-Hillary.  I like Hillary, I just like Obama better.  And trust me, its not cuz of the speaches.  Frankly, I don't even think he's that good of a speaker.  I like his policy bits a little bit better, I LOVE the fact that he taught constitutional law (in a time when our constitution is going down the drain), I like the fact that he seems to take time and think about responses.  He seems incredibly intelligent, and I agree with most (not all) his ideas about how to run the country.

    I am not attacking Hillary, or her health care proposal.  I'm saying, lets have a discussion about the merits, pros and cons.


    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:04:32 PM EST
    No kidding?  The CHILDREN'S Health Ins. Plan only covers kids?  Wow.  I wish I'd known that.  /snark

    In any event, the point stands:  it's untrue that "nothing" happened re:  health care in Bill Clinton's administration.  CHIP happened.  CHIP is not nothing.


    Wow (none / 0) (#162)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:12:11 PM EST
    I'm glad I could help you out then. Peronally, I want a President that addresses the healh care needs of ALL the citizens, not just the ones under the age of eighteen.

    That is why I find that Obama mandating (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:16:15 PM EST
    health care for children but not adults IMO is an incomplete plan.

    It a problem for alot of folks (none / 0) (#183)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:27:05 PM EST
    Broach it on an Obama leaning site though at your own peril. You'll get accused of being a policy wonk. ;)

    I want to know (none / 0) (#173)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:20:01 PM EST
    what CST proposes as an alternative.

    The fact that coverage would be mandated is certainly not a right-wing type proposal as CST mistakenly states.  I think CST has right - left confusion.

    I also want to point out that there is a government health insurance plan in Hillary's proposal (also in the Edwards proposal) that is missing from Obama's proposal. Perhaps a reason for Dodd's (D-Insurance Industry) early Obama endorsement.

    That government plan may just lead to single-payer and single-payer should be a goal.

    By the way blogtopus what you're describing is socialized medicine. Not that that is a bad thing.  I personally favor socialized medicine but getting that far is probably not possible at least in the foreseeable future.  Single-payer could be described as Medicare for everyone.


    I am in no way suggesting it is right wing (none / 0) (#184)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:27:12 PM EST
    I think it is somewhat to the right on a very left idea.  Very different.

    I am also not attacking Hillary in any way (you didn't say this, someone else did).

    I am saying, lets have a real discussion on the merits of the plan and admit that there is more than one way to achieve a better healthcare plan.

    I would like a heavily regulated (i.e. mandates on what health insurance companies offer) industry with affordable options for low income residents paid through tax subsidies.


    Um (none / 0) (#188)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:34:54 PM EST
    I would like a heavily regulated (i.e. mandates on what health insurance companies offer) industry with affordable options for low income residents paid through tax subsidies.

    Maybe I'm a low-info voter, but I thought this was exactly HRC's approach.  Am I wrong?


    Hillary (none / 0) (#195)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:39:09 PM EST
    Includes mandates on the buyer.  That's the difference.

    So (none / 0) (#211)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:31:36 PM EST
    in your scenario, if someone decides not to buy health insurance, what happens if they get sick?  Are we going to treat them at taxpayer expense or just leave them to die?

    this isn't feasible. (none / 0) (#220)
    by kangeroo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:36:54 AM EST
    you'd never get this sort of thing through congress, and even if it was by executive order, it would just get pulled by the next republican president.  let's talk about what's actually DOABLE here.

    maybe your point is about being (none / 0) (#219)
    by kangeroo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 02:30:46 AM EST
    economically liberal.  in which case you're not so much left as you are libertarian.  in my mind, the word "punitive" immediately conjures up images of republicans and libertarians.  and if you're an obama supporter (which i'm guessing you are), this is just another indication that obama should get out of the dem primary and run as an independence party candidate.  the last time i checked, dems believe in shared responsibility and shared prosperity.

    Actually she is right of my approach (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:18:12 PM EST
    but I would prefer One payer or socialized medicine.  It's the 40 odd years of public health work in me.

    I'm with you (none / 0) (#176)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:22:03 PM EST
    Florida Resident.

    There's only one way to doTHAT (none / 0) (#65)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:11:26 PM EST
    Regulate the h*!! out of the insurance companies.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#71)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:14:53 PM EST
    But it is possible, and this is exactly what I hope they do.

    Why in hell (none / 0) (#182)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:26:03 PM EST
    include profit making insurance companies? Why add to the cost?

    Good health care should be the right of every American.

    Medicare is vastly more efficient and far less expensive than private health insurance.

    Private health insurers have no reason for being.


    Punitive is a loaded word (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:15:24 PM EST
    We can probably discuss the issue without resorting to such.

    mandates (none / 0) (#76)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:16:50 PM EST
    Mandates aren't punitive.  Punitive measures to enforce mandates would be punitive.  But, thus far, I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe the Clinton will enforce mandates through punitive measures, such as I've heard is done in MA.

    Mandates are necessary to keep the system from going bankrupt.  Go look at Krugman if you want the details.


    If your going to have a mandate (none / 0) (#107)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:30:40 PM EST
    then you are going to have to have punitive measures to enforce said mandate. That said, I think Obama goes too far when he attempts to pretend that Hillary is going to fine poor people or force them to buy health insurance instead of pay for food. She'll subsidize the poor and the rest of us will have to get used to paying for health care insurance in the same way one pays for car insurance or has money taken out of their checks for Social Security.

    That's not punitive (none / 0) (#125)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:45:19 PM EST
    Nothing you've described HRC as doing is punitive.  Subsidizing poor folks is not punitive.  Requiring people to buy insurance, while capping insurance premiums, is not punitive.

    Fining people is punitive.  But you've said that HRC won't do that.  So, punitive is the wrong word.

    Perhaps the term you're looking for is mandatory participation, rather than punitive.


    As someone who lives in MASS (none / 0) (#129)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:48:14 PM EST
    The only state with mandated care, let me tell you, it is punitive.  I have no idea how else they would do it, but I was fined on my taxes until I could prove I bought insurance.

    How else do you mandate participation?


    Right (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    Fines are punitive.  I get it.  In Mass., you're fined if you don't participate, I agree, that's punitive.

    Other measures that are non-punitive:  subsidies to employers to provide healthcare; subsidies to folks to buy their own; tax breaks; capping insurance premiums; paycheck deductions for health insurance; and signing people up for health insurance whenever they a)interact with the government by, for example, getting a driver's license or b) seek healthcare.

    And, yes, more regulation of health insurance companies is necessary.


    Mandates: State vs. National (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:20:30 PM EST
    You cannot extrapolate from a state model the mandates to a national model.  You have to compare nations.  Hillary's model offers three tiers:  one stay where you are, two the Congressional Healthcare options and a third one, like Medicare.  If the healthy people get to opt out, insurance does not work.  You have to understand that this is like SS and Medicare.  We are all in it.  We all pay.  It will not work if it's optional.  It's the last part of the New Deal and Great Society.  It is what all democratic developed nations offer their citizens.  

    Mass (none / 0) (#143)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:56:17 PM EST
    plan does not have a public plan. Hillary has made it clear that her plan will offer a public plan that is based on the Medicare model that people will be able to purchase into. Basically, this forcs te insurance companies to COMPETE if they want to stay in business.

    And (none / 0) (#185)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:31:59 PM EST
    private health insurers would gradually die out.

    And that is a good thing.

    And that's why the insurance insdustry is another big backer of Obama and possibly why Dodd endorsed him very early.


    Can you please name the countries with (none / 0) (#216)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:52:55 PM EST
    successful universal healthcare programs which do not have mandates? Would that be the countries which automatically enroll every person into the socialized healthcare system? Ergo, no mandates required?

    I'm trying to think what countries you could be thinking about.

    Thnx for your info.


    So the 10% of the AAs (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:59:41 PM EST
    that support Clinton are closet racists too or how exactly are they explaining that over in Obamaland?

    Seriously, I wish some of these people would take a step back from the ledge nd realize that charges of racism ought to be serious and limited to people that actually ARE racist not made as broad generalizations for those that disagree with who is best suited to run the Presidency.

    I voted FOR Hillary. (5.00 / 14) (#30)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:59:59 PM EST
    I voted on Super Tuesday and at that time I was not in any way anti-Obama. I am now.  The fact is: I am sick and tired as a woman of color being told that I am in fact, racist AND stupid.  How come we are not calling reverse racism since Obama gets 90% of the Black vote? What makes me so angry is the fact that it is assumed that if one were not racist and/or stupid they'd do the smart thing and vote for Obama.

    Hillary is by far more qualified, more Presidential and more of a fighter. Not to mention her ridiculous level of intelligence and competence.  THAT is why I voted for her. To claim that Clinton voters (all MILLIONS of them) are racist Democrats undercuts not only MY vote as an American, but every single vote Obama got as well.

    That's why I voted for her too (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    She's qualified and she's a fighter.  My husband says I'm supporting her just because she's a woman, which is ridiculous.  After eight years of Bush and Blue Dog Dems, I want a candidate who will fight for Democratic principles.  I don't see that in Obama, who's all about equivocating and reaching across the aisle.  His lack of experience is very troubling to me.

    I don't know anybody who's "against" Obama because he's black.  I'm sure there are voters like that out there, but I suspect most of them are not Democrats.

    Obama's supporters should realize that they're not doing him any favors by playing the race card against Clinton supporters.  It's possible to look beyond the color of a person's skin and make a judgment based on their ideas and experience.


    The fact that she is a woman (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:20:47 PM EST
    is simply ICING to me. The fact that she's amazingly qualified, SO smart, willing to fight, winning over voters and generally being the best candidate of ANY sex or color I've seen in my lifetime is why I voted for her.  

    God Bless (none / 0) (#198)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:42:34 PM EST
    you rooge04. Hammer strikes nail.

    I went from Edwards to Hillary simply because Obama is too conservative and has nothing of substance to recommend him to the office.

    I appreciate Hillary's policies, grasp of issues and strangle hold knowledge of the federal government.

    That intimate knowledge and understanding of the federal government is especially critical at the present given the serious damage done to government agencies by the Bush administration. A ruthless clean-up is necessary and that's part of Hillary's plan.


    I tend to find (none / 0) (#210)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:27:04 PM EST
    that Hillary supporters know A LOT about policy and specifics. Some Obama supporters? Notsomuch. Kinda like Obama and Clinton themselves.

    my favorite (none / 0) (#208)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:11:32 PM EST
    is a friend of mine in CA who is an avowed Obama Supporter, kool-aid stained mouth and all.

    After she let out a stream of vitriol against those in her State who just couldn't "see the light" of this wonderful man -- "What is WRONG with people?", she wailed "Clinton is a seriously troubled woman who is far too ambitious and is only in it to put her face on the money!" --, I revealed my support for Hillary and was met with a blank stare.

    "You just don't get it".  "Get what?" I asked.  "If I have to tell you, it isn't worth it and, besides, I don't know if you'd be good for the Team (as if we were being assigned shoulder-pads, athletic cups and helmets any day now) anyway"

    She seriously couldn't explain why she supported him.  Just that he had an aura that was unbelievable and would bring "Great Change".  I did my best to not smile as a waterfall of nickels, dimes and quarters fell from the sky in my imagination, but failed ... miserably.

    Needless to say, that brunch didn't end well.  She did question my intelligence after 10 years of constantly asserting I was one of the smartest people she knew.  Oh, and she didn't feel comfortable with me having a set of spare keys to her apartment (in case she lost hers, which she does ... constantly), so I gave them back.

    It's just weird.


    and thus by extension (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by tarheel74 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:00:05 PM EST
    all Clinton supporters are white trash racist bigots. Randy Rhodes has already said this.

    Considering Randi (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:04:35 PM EST
    she should not be calling anyone else trashy. Not at all.

    Randi Rhodes: (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:06:08 PM EST
    What Britney Spears wants to be when she grows up.

    The ones voting for Hillary are not racist they (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:02:49 PM EST
    are republicans !!!

    Axelrod: Democrats Don't Win the White Working Class via NPR

    "The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes."

    But wasn't it Obama who was winning the Obamacans?
    Also says it was a "home game" for Clinton except that she has home's in Arkansas, NY, CA, PA, OH.. where ever there are white working class.

    To put down white working class voters (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:08:11 PM EST
    as not being their target, just seems to cement the elitist statements of the past. Isn't the majority of America in the "white working class" catagory....I would think so, but really don't know....

    It Ignores (5.00 / 9) (#94)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:23:28 PM EST
    Bill Clinton's Wins in OH, KY, WVA, TN.  

    And once again ignores the fact that Pennsylvania is a democratic state largely because of these voters.  As we saw last night, the yuppie+AA+student vote is not enough to carry the democratic primary, much less win the entire state.  The white blue collar folks in Pennsylvania vote democratic.  That's why Kerry and Gore carried the state.  The white blue collar and rural folks in Ohio voted democratic for Bill Clinton or at least voted more democratic those years, but did not for Kerry and Gore, which is one reason why they both lost Ohio and the presidency.

    The truth that nobody seems to want to face is that the Democratic Party is a coalition and all parts of it need each other.  Clinton has white women, working class, rural, and hispanic voters.  Obama has the young, urban liberal, and African American voters.  The question is in a general election, which candidate is most likely able to bring enough of the other's base into the coalition to win.  Personally, I think that's Clinton because her base has shown more of a tendency to swing Republican if they don't like the candidate (as many did with Kerry) while Obama's base consists of the more reliable democratic voters.  

    Do I think that mean Clinton will win as many AAs, young folks, and urban liberals as Obama?  No.  He would probably surge these segments, but not enough to make up for the segments of Clinton's base likely to break off.   Meanwhile, I think Clinton could do as well with these groups as Kerry did and will be stronger with hispanics and white working class voters.

    Obama right now is losing the demographic battle and his campaign knows it.  They can spin all they want, but no Democrat becomes President if he or she loses Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida, especially if they have to put resources into keeping NY, CA, NJ, and MA (some match-up polls in Dem states are problematic for Obama, I would expect him to carry all of them, but the question is whether he'll have to spend time and money to do it).  

    And to be clear, the argument isn't that Obama won't carry working white democrats, the argument is that there are a lot of other voters - independents and Republicans - in Ohio and Pennsylvania that look like Clinton's base and if he can't win over more than a third of the democrats, how is he going to attract the needed independents and Republicans, especially since there's probably little growth for him among his base.  There aren't a lot of Republican African Americans or urban liberals to add to Obama's coalition.  


    The GOP fugees (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:26:38 PM EST
    and the rightish but open to Democratic policy are the real key here.

    Obama started with a great deal of appeal to them.  Now, after ayers and Wright, not so much.


    Axelrod is much worse than Penn. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    Penn is a buffoon, but Axelrod is truly vicious.

    Axelrod is rewriting history again. (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:20:32 PM EST
    Once again, it's a Democrat that suffers.

    Bill Clinton WON THOSE VOTERS. That's why he won two terms.


    May I ask Axelrod how do they win PA in the fall? (none / 0) (#98)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:26:47 PM EST
    if the white working class is going to vote for republican, as he suggested?

    They will vote Republican (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:29:25 PM EST
    if Obama is the nominee.

    See how easy that was?

    [head explodes]


    I Can Only Think Of One Word To Describe (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:28:53 PM EST
    that comment. STUPID

    O.K. I can think of a few other words to describe it but they are not allowed on Talk Left.

    Heck, Obama has written off Florida and probably Michigan. Let's just write off the entire white working class too.


    10 million rumor (none / 0) (#132)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:49:53 PM EST
    floating around that the same white class voters might have helped her raise close to $10 million by the end of the day.

    Please give her the boost (none / 0) (#138)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:52:13 PM EST
    Darn it (none / 0) (#163)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:12:15 PM EST
    she got me! Just donated...although I'm being careful not to max out. Saving some for the GE. ;-)

    amount donated for primary does not count towards (none / 0) (#166)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:15:01 PM EST
    the GE donation limit.

    I donated last night. My husband just called (none / 0) (#171)
    by Teresa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:19:27 PM EST
    and said we got an IRS interest check, decent sized, that we were waiting for. He said, send it to Hillary!

    Max out twice (none / 0) (#172)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:20:01 PM EST
    You can max out twice.  Once for the primary and once for the GE.  You can donate $2,300 for the primary AND $2,300 for the GE.  Which is why there's a button to donate $4,600:  the campaign just splits it between the primary and the GE.

    If you're close to $4,600, the campaign's been sending everything over $2,300 to the GE fund, anyway.  Not asking about your finances, just sayin'.  


    NOt a rumor (none / 0) (#150)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:02:48 PM EST
    it is a fact .. 10 million already raised!! Keep the momentum!

    Good God (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:58:33 PM EST
    Axelrod knows how to blow smoke.  

    He knows that's crap.  One tiny example: Gore won 60% of the union vote in 2000.

    The Republican thing is even funnier in light of the Obama campaign's shameful "Democrat for a Day" registration drive in Pennsylvania. Axelrod and Rove.  Birds of a feather.


    Axelrod knows how to blow up coalitions! (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:57:49 PM EST
    And the Democratic Party.

    That comment will find it's way into ads in the general--whether the Dem nom is Obama or Clinton.

    Believe me, that is a gift to McSame/RNC/Rightwads and the MCM will use it as well.



    Who else is out there Axelrod? (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:08:06 PM EST
    Seriously, giving up the white working class already?  Guess those bitter comments weren't just a slip of the tongue, but I knew that.  

    I will remember this quote the next time someone complains Clinton is hurting the Democratic Party more than Obama.  What a disastrous attitude.


    I think it's fair to say that many (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    white voters are against Obama because his campaign calls them racist. Is that racism though? I don't think so.

    I wouldn't (5.00 / 8) (#68)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:13:10 PM EST
    underestimate the damage his nasty supporters have done.

    but .....

    He's responsible for his own coalition.

    When he "flicks off" his shoulder....

    he sends a big message.

    He is responsible.

    So if he loses because he is disrespectful to white voters, he has only himself to blame.


    Makes Michigan an Interesting Study (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    In Michigan the choice was not Clinton-Obama (or Edwards).  It was mostly Clinton-Uncommitted.  So voting for Clinton wouldn't be necessarily voting against Obama.  While voting for Uncomitted was pretty clearly a vote against Clinton.  Hmmm, I seem to recall Clinton got more than 50% of the vote there.

    And I don't know what it means to the Clinton haters that at this moment, more people have voted for Clinton than Obama.  That means people either really like her or really dislike him.  Either way, I don't see that bolstering Obama's case for the nomination.

    Uncommitted (none / 0) (#205)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:05:44 PM EST
    was NOT an anti-Clinton vote.

    I voted Uncommitted because I was FOR Edwards not against Clinton.

    Since Edwards pulled himself from the ballot (as did Obama) I had no other choice. I don't believe in screwing around with a vote in the primaries.

    In the final tally Clinton got nearly 56% of the vote.


    So (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:06:24 PM EST
    how okay would it be for Clinton supporters to make the statement that people that vote for Obama aren't really FOR Obama that they are just members of the he man woman haters club? It's absurd and dangerous to paint people with a broad brush based on flimsy or anecdotal evidence.

    The worst part (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by DaytonDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:06:39 PM EST
    of Ezra's post is the "brutally inhospitable demographics" part. Like say the Midwest? What an electoral map for Obama. He's doomed in the GE and by him I mean of course us.

    Good article in today's Houston Chronicle (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Angel on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:19:46 PM EST
    (www.chron.com)talking about buyer's remorse as it relates to Obama.  It is well worth the read.  It is in the blog called Texas on the Potomac.  You should check it out.  

    Thanks (none / 0) (#179)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:23:08 PM EST
    this was an interesting article. :-)

    Some people will go to great lengths to (5.00 / 9) (#87)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:19:53 PM EST
    analyze Clinton's win in a way that still manages to be a negative, and Ezra's post is a perfect example of that - as are the comments that follow it.

    We are not sheep.  We are not lemmings.  Our reasons for voting the way we do range from the simple to the complex and from the sublime to the ridiculous.  

    This is the first election in which there are two significant segments of the population which are represented by the contenders for the Democratic nomination - women and African Americans, which means that there may be an equally significant element of people voting on the basis of identity.  Is that the best reason to vote for a particular candidate?  Maybe not - but voting for the black man does not mean one hates women, anymore than voting for the woman means one hates black men.

    What I think posts like Ezra's represent are attempts to define, in a very negative way, why Clinton keeps winning in states that are essential to a Democratic win in November.  What never seems to be discussed is the possibility that those who support her are doing so because they believe that she will be best able to accomplish her goals and implement her plans and policies.  That she is the real Democrat in the race.  That she will not start from a position of compromise on issues that matter to us.  That her health care plan is better.  That she understands the issues better.  That she doesn't shirk her responsibilities and excuse her failures by blaming others.

    Substance is important, and I would like to believe that there are a lot of Clinton supporters for whom substance trumps identity.  We don't hear too much about it because we very seldom hear Obama supporters say a whole lot more than "he can bring change to Washington," or "he can bring the country together."  

    The news flash for Ezra and Judis is that the more they attempt to put Clinton supporters in a box labeled "racist" or "bigot" or whatever the pejorative of the day is, the more likely it is that if Obama is the nominee, he will have to get to the WH without the vocal, energized and passionate support of the Clinton supporters.  "Ho-hum" is not a particularly great endorsement for him, and that's what he's going to get if this kind of nonsense keeps saturating the media.

    great analysis (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by tamens on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:08:08 PM EST
    When I was caucasing in WA State's county caucas on April 5, we were chatting about why we liked Hillary, and I came up with the following reason:

    She knows what a government agencies functions are, she knows who the best people are to run those agencies, and in an HRC presidency FEMA won't be letting great American cities drown.  And I'm talking about how under her presidency the AGENCIES themselves will be better.  

    Being hugely impressed with Clinton's abilities does not make one a racist.  Period.


    I am tired of being called an uneducated racist (5.00 / 9) (#90)
    by nycvoter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:20:39 PM EST
    the narrative is getting old, and everyone continuing to call us a "machine" while Obama supporters a "movement" everyone saying we're afraid of change, or a part of the past because we couldn't possibly be inspired by her candidacy will never appreciate why we have so much resentment towards to the Obama campaign and why many of us will at the very least not lift a finger to get him elected if he becomes our nominee.  Now whether we stay home on election day or not, will depend on how much Obama and his supporters can do to resolve this resentment.

    I'm not (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:37:24 PM EST
    a racist.

    I so agree.

    The Obama meme has driven me out.

    I'm not a racist.

    I refuse to allow him or his supporters to paint me as this.

    I will not agree.

    End of story.


    "Machine" (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by americanincanada on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:40:09 PM EST
    The "machine" thing really bugs me too.

    I was told today that the only reason she won PA was being of Rendell's machine. As if getting endrosements was not part of the process.

    I mean look at the "machine" he had behind him in MASS...Kerry, kennedy, Patrick...oh right...never mind...lol


    LOL! I brought this up (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:42:42 PM EST
    to my hubby this morning. MA was tailor-made for him by this premise, but he still lost - and it looks like he would lose there to McCain in the GE as well.

    The only place she had a real machine was NY. She won there. The place he had a real machine was IL. He won there. Everything else is just due to  those pesky voters and that silly democracy thing.


    I would be too (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:47:07 PM EST
    But I just don't understand the purty words that are written by them there smart people. And I hate them all, because they look different than me. So my racist dumb brain protects me from being pissed off at those people.



    Problem with cross-over appeal IMO (5.00 / 8) (#102)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:28:13 PM EST
    is that it is tenuous at best.  As an ex Republican I can tell you that becoming a Democrat is not an overnight thing.  It took me the failure of the Reagan years and the success of the Clinton years with the addition of the total failure of the last 7 years to change over.  And mind you that I happen to have this Liberal streak running through me for the longest of time,  I guess its in the genes.  So I am not a great believer that this people who claim to have seen the light because of Inspirational speeches will necessarily vote Democratic this November.  Also I have been voting Democrat since 2002 while still being registered as a Republican and have never believed in open primaries.  BTW I just became a Democrat 2 months ago.

    wheeee! (none / 0) (#221)
    by kangeroo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:08:37 AM EST
    congratulations and welcome.  i was raised republican myself and became a democrat back in college and have been one ever since.  hmm, come to think of it, kinda like hillary. :)  but it took a lot of empirical evidence, historical comparison, and personal observation as to how the two sets of policies really worked to win me over.  no speech could've won me over (and kept me over) the way facts did.  so i can certainly relate with your skepticism.

    Given the current loss for Obama, he has a (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:34:57 PM EST
    real chance IMO to be a big HERO to the party...He could now announce that he has decided to step aside for the good of the party and throw all of his support to Hillary thereby almost guaranteeing his election in a few years after he has gained more experience which seems to be his weakest area...I know that that is a radical idea, but makes complete sense to me since it is becoming obvious he cant get elected in the general now.

    And pigs might fly! (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:40:39 PM EST
    Obama is not about the good of the Democratic Party.  Obama is all about Obama.

    Well, if he negotiates to be her VP (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:44:43 PM EST
    that will be good enough. Any other way and he loses too much face---you can't expect that of him.

    Unfortunately, (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:56:11 PM EST
    the DNC doesn't seem to have this under control at all.  I know that we follow this a lot more closely than most people, so I hope most of this nonsense is under their radar.

    Obama and Hillary must make their case to the people.  She may not be as "inspirational," but she's obviously appealing to voters because of her knowledge and intelligence.


    Voting against interest (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:39:17 PM EST
    You see this time the working class is getting it right.  They just don't feel the love from the Obama campaign.  One of the buried stats I always see is how many people believe that she would make the better leader, better president and that she is more competent, even when they don't like her.  

    What did this last election tell us, a likeable man without credentials does not a good president make.  The take away from the Bush administration was ineptness.  People are hungry for competent government.  Race, gender , hope, unity has nothing to do with it.  

    Very well put. (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:07:38 PM EST
    Although I love the way HRC drinks a beer, that's not why I vote for her. It's because she is way, WAY smarter than the average bear, and she has a great track record of getting the hard things done.

    Personally, I hear she is charming and all, but as long as she can get the job done, I don't care if she has three heads. Obama has failed to convince me of his basic competence, but I don't know how he could have done so. I go by experience when I'm hiring for a job, not charisma.


    10 Million since yesterday...!!!!! (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:48:24 PM EST
    63000 new donors.  !!!!!!!!

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:57:50 PM EST
    Ten million?!!

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:00:16 PM EST
    I was just on a call with 3100 other people who maxed out and they announced it.  We need to get more.  They asked us to get one other person to max out in the next week.  Hillary was on and she sounded great.  

    Wooo... I just read that. (none / 0) (#151)
    by Teresa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:03:27 PM EST
    Not only do the voters want to vote for Hillary, they are willing to put their hard earned money toward it. I was one of them (but not new).

    What does that say to the DNC?


    WHERE? (none / 0) (#159)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:08:24 PM EST
    Where did you see that???

    Classism Is the Issue (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Kate Stone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:50:45 PM EST
    Much has been made of Barack Obama's glory days of community organizing in poor neighborhoods of Chicago.

    Lost is the fact that Hillary Clinton came into New York to run for the Senate with high negatives, a disgraced husband, and the label of carpetbagger.  She spend a year "listening" to the people of New York and a lot of that was in upstate white conservative rural New York.  She won their votes and kept it the second time around.  She is a master at community organizing.

    To do that well with white working class men and women who are suspicious and doubtful a politician has to connect with them where they are.  She can do that.  Obama cannot.  He is viewed as an elitist by many working class men and women and their refusal to support him is seen as their racism.  I don't buy it.  Class is a great divider in this country.  Obama needs to sit with folks, have a shot and a beer, and quit pontificating. http://katestone.wordpress.com

    She won! She won! She won! She won! (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:50:52 PM EST
    I am ecstatic!  And anyone can call me anything, even a racist and it is not going to take away an iota from my glee.  ON TO 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue via the CONVENTION!

    Invert the corollary (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by eric on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:55:29 PM EST
    and you see the absurdity:  Obama is so bad [pick your negative narrative] that anyone who votes for him much simply be anti-Clinton.

    Now, I don't really like Obama but I certainly realize that there are a lot of people who like him without being anti-Clinton.  But that is how far down the road Ezra and others are - they have accepted the narrative and can't see the results any other way.

    10 million bucks (5.00 / 5) (#156)
    by ineedalife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:07:29 PM EST
    MYDD says Hillary has taken in $10,000,000 which includes 50,000 new donors since yesterday's election.

    Although people may vote against someone, that doesn't cost a dime. But to give bucks? You do that FOR someone.

    Am I anti-BHO? (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:33:42 PM EST
    I didn't use to be. I liked Edwards, Hillary, and Obama. I also liked Dodd and Biden. Even when I was a supporter of Edwards, I was not anti-Clinton or anti-Obama. But now, I am anti-Obama, but not because of the color of his skin or because I am for Hillary. I just do not think he is ready for the big show and by the way he has acted like a spoiled school brat tells me it would be a disaster as a President. If I had been for Hillary all along, then maybe it would be for the woman thing. Now it is. Men say they would like a woman President, not just this woman. And I can say I would like to see a black President someday, just not this black man. Maybe in 8 years he will have grown up and gotten some experience. Then maybe I could vote for him. It is like when you meet someone too too sweet, you know there is a flaw in there somewhere. Hillary's flaws and warts have been exposed. His haven't, even if we have seen some suspicious activity lately.  

    Obama was just above Gravel (none / 0) (#194)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:38:37 PM EST
    in my list of choices.  I didn't think he was ready then, and h hasn't done or said anything to convince me that my first impression was wrong.

    Hmm, well (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:42:30 PM EST
    Looking at Philly alone the results do track race. But how to interpret that is tricky. Untangling identity politics is always difficult.

    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:45:36 PM EST
    But my point is a different one.

    maybe it's a true assertion. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:47:08 PM EST
    you could play around withthe implications of that thought and draw your own comclusions about November.

    Again (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:48:44 PM EST
    My point is a different one.

    I will not speculate as to why people vote in this post.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:50:48 PM EST
    I would think (none / 0) (#13)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:53:10 PM EST
    that it invites the argument that Obama will never get any of Clinton's voters and is therefore unelectable.

    that's my imediate conclusion. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    it's a nice set up for a moral victory in November.

    It's unfalsifiable. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:16:59 PM EST
    You could only know that they are anti-Obama if and when Obama faces off against McCain in November.

    There's no reason to suppose that Obama wouldn't patch things up sufficiantly to hold onto Clinton's primary supporters.  I'd guess that no significant numbers are really anti-Obama.

    Where I think American political scientists are small minded and short sighted, is the possibility that Clinton's supporters are not Obama's problem.  GOP cross overs and refugees are the real X factor for November.

    Democrats normally turn out in high numbers for Primary contests. The GOP normally has a comparatively lower rate of primary participation. we really do not understand where they are going to go. will they be anti Obama or Anti Clinton? will they end up destesting both?

    We have clues that they favoured Obama at one point (but i'd submit that Obama's Wright and Ayers connections will nix that appeal) and were doing so as an anti Clinton cross over. We don't know if they will ever see Clinton favourably, however she has cleverly rebranded herself as a pugilist and political survivor--and a tribune of the common man.

    It's possible that she's got their hard earned respect now, judging form her stas and that obama has steadily piddled away his cross over appeal.  

    Are the GOP fugees going to be antiObama or Anti Clinton?    because the core Dems can't really be anti Clinton or anti Obama unless they are truly lost.


    I'll say. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:46:01 PM EST
    Talk about a potential land mine for the Democratic Party.

    It's quite possible that it is racism. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:46:00 PM EST
    maybe it is a reality.

    two conclusions if obama wins through the primary:

    1. we tempt fate and go for a win that defeats  that racism.

    2. we tempt fate and are defeated by that racism.

    If it exists in outr party, it exists even more strongly outside the party.

    That's a false choice. (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by Joelarama on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:51:56 PM EST
    If Obama wins it will not defeat racism.  And his defeat would not be because of racism.

    Nothing is that black and white, if you will excuse the unfortunate expression.


    A-yup. (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:02:59 PM EST
    If Obama wins, I don't think the racists are going to all be miraculously reformed or emigrate.  Nope, we are stuck with the racists, no matter who wins or loses.  Ditto for misogynists/Clinton.

    I'm talking about November. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:32:52 PM EST
    just to be clear.

    Ditto for that. (none / 0) (#118)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:39:47 PM EST
    Racism is an unfortunate part of the American psyche.  It's not something that can be "defeated".  Fighting against racism is a daily struggle, it is not something that can be abolished with one symbolic victory.

    That's the argument (none / 0) (#126)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:45:45 PM EST
    that seems to be out and about in the press.

    it's a crude argument. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:01:17 PM EST
    but that's what the press tend to trade in.

    They have a hard enough time defining Collective Security.  


    the above post (none / 0) (#6)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:48:16 PM EST
    assumes for the sake of argument that th ewhite electorate is racist enough to be factor in the Dem party and also play a larger role in the wider electorate.

    did college students support Obama in PA? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:14:02 PM EST
    In retrospect, though... (none / 0) (#10)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:51:49 PM EST
    As many supporters on this site have said many times, they are anti-Obama. They don't think he has the experience, they don't like the way he's treated Hillary...etc..etc...and they will not vote for him in November. Heck, many of them point to this fact as a reason why the Supers should choose Hillary...polls show that Obama supporters are more likely to vote for Hillary than Hillary supporters are to vote for Obama, so obviously Obama supporters should take one for the team here, lest Hillary supporters take their ball and go home.

    So is that interpretation really wrong? Or bad? Is there something inherently evil about being anti-Obama?

    difference between voting against and voting for (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:09:30 PM EST
    anti-Obama as it was used in this post (by the referenced posts that is) seems to be about voting for Clinton mostly because you're against Obama. I don't think that's the case with the readers here.

    Most people supporting Clinton on this site are supporting Clinton first and foremost. Some will support the nominee and some will only support Clinton. I think in both cases, the majority of people here are for Clinton first. And only later learned to dislike Obama and his followers. Partly because they were told they were racist, clingy, stupid, hysterical, etc. That is, Obama and his camp seemed to send the message that they didn't want the pro Clinton vote. I think the message was received. :-)


    Keep in mind, and don't revise (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:43:47 PM EST
    During the primary, many of us started out thinking Obama was a very good politician, a great communicator, and, perhaps the future of the party.

    We came to some conclusions about Obama through the course of this primary that we did not have before.

    In contrast, many of the people who have rallied for Obama were prone to view Clinton negatively from the get go.  They had been nursing that anti-Clintonism for a long time.

    If anti-Obama-ism does exist, and I think it does now exist as you just described, it has to be understood that it is a new developemnt.  Not something any of us have been nurturing for the last 15 years for whatever reason.

    It's strictly a by-product of this primary, what Obama has become during this primary, and the behavior of his supporters.

    Just a case in point, Obama is now saying the 90s were a bad time for America.  And yet, long before this primary got to where it got to, Obama was travelling through the south visitting Katrina victims with guess who??  Yep.  Bill Clinton.


    Ok... (none / 0) (#180)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:23:30 PM EST
    But what confuses me is why it's bad to be anti-Obama.

    Your vote is yours. You don't have to justify it to anyone. If you don't want to vote for Obama because he's offended you during the primary or because he doesn't have enough experience or because you just don't like the way he eats his waffles...that's your business. The end result is the same either way: he won't get your vote in November. And that's fine. He's not entitled to your vote. Vote however you please. Not voting for Obama doesn't make you a bad person or anything.

    But there certainly seem to be a lot of people who 'anti-Obama,' for lack of a better term. It's not just that they like Clinton better...they'll vote for McCain before they pull the lever for Obama. Given how similar Clinton and Obama are on policy, (and how different McCain and Obama are) that pretty much means they don't like the man himself.

    Is that wrong? Is that a bad thing? Is the label inaccurate? I don't see how.


    No that's inaccurate (none / 0) (#196)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:40:59 PM EST
    It's not the man himself.

    It's his message.  It's what he's become during this primary.

    Or if you want to revise your statement saying it's the man himself as he now exists, then sure.

    You see, another example, when a well known blogger blasted Obama a long time ago for using a Right Wing frame on the defunding issue, I tried to argue that the well known blogger was over-reacting.


    But why is it so bad to be anti-Obama... (none / 0) (#201)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:54:06 PM EST
    That you feel the need to attach "as his current message defines him." to it? ;)

    Is it some kind of moral failing to not support Obama? I mean, I have no problem saying I'm anti-McCain. There's no way I'll vote for that man in November. And I actually think McCain is a fine American...I'm just not going to vote for him. His policies are almost completely inimical to mine. But I don't feel the need to go into detail about why I'm anti-McCain, and I don't think it's a bad thing. I realize some people will say "You must not like McCain because you don't like rich people!" but let's face it, life is too short to worry about what every idiot is going to say.

    Now I think that BTD's larger point was just to warn against the widening schism in our party, and to attempt to get everyone to calm down a bit. A worthy goal, and one I wholeheartedly support. I'm just not sure it's entirely inaccurate to say that there is a large (and growing) number of 'anti-Obama' Democrats.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#204)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:58:37 PM EST
    I'm just telling you what my perspective is, as someone who could now be classified as anti-Obama.

    This is an excellent point (none / 0) (#14)
    by AF on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:53:27 PM EST
    Unfortunately, the "Armando Corollary" has a grain of truth to it.  

    I have seen this argument on both sides (none / 0) (#17)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:54:13 PM EST
    That people who vote for Obama are anti-Clinton, and that people who vote for Clinton are anti-Obama.  I can't tell you how many articles I've read that tell me I've abandoned women because I was brainwashed or I hate my mother.  The problem is, some of it is true on both sides.  I think the only time you truly see an anti - X vote, is when people start talking about voting McCain over the other Dem.  The reason being, on policy, Obama and Clinton are pretty close (yes there are nuances we could argue till we're blue in the face, but they at least hold similar principles on policy).

    Now being anti-Obama doesn't automatically make you racist, and being anti-Clinton doesn't automatically make you sexist.  Unfortunately, we'd be lying if we didn't think there was a portion of that on both sides.  Obama is not the anti-christ, he is a politition though, just like Hillary, and he also plays political games.  If you can accept it in one, then you should be able to accept it in the other.

    I admit your premise except (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:02:24 PM EST
    That Obama keeps trying to tell us that he is different and in my book that is Hypocrisy.  The other part I can not accept is the demonization of everything Bill Clinton did during his administration suddenly the only 2 Democratic presidents of the last 40 years have become the bad guys and Reagan and Bush I are the good guys?  Sorry that is not politics as usual unless you are a Republican Candidate.

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:10:40 PM EST
    is so not different it's not becoming embarassing.

    What I see is a bunch of people who jumped on his bandwagon, now are embarassed, and want to blame Hillary for their poor personal judgment.

    I don't care, personally.

    She's my candidate precisely because......she's way bigger than this kind of yin-yang.

    Go ahead.

    Blame her.

    You who do just look stupid.


    Who is blaming Clinton? (none / 0) (#67)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:13:02 PM EST
    I seriously doubt these people are embarrassed...

    I have sympathy (none / 0) (#24)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:57:46 PM EST
    for the anti-X vote, since I really can't stand Obama at this point.

    However, I don't have to like a Democrat to vote for him/her in the GE. In fact, being a lefty means that the person you want is almost NEVER the nominee. I've learned to deal with it.


    I read Judis' piece and Ezra Klein's (none / 0) (#20)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    I liked Judis' piece.  Interesting, lots of details, minimal spin.

    Klein's?  Almost pure spin.  [yaaaaaawn]

    Judis' piece suggests that ... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:21:36 PM EST
    Obama may be "The Next McGovern?"  That is, in fact, the title of his piece. And he has good evidence to make this claim.

    Lest we forget, McGovern lost 49 states.


    I kinda noticed that.....;-) n/t (none / 0) (#190)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:37:24 PM EST
    Do people really vote 100% for ... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:03:19 PM EST
    or 100% against a candidate?

    Don't both elements play some role?

    Certainly, Obama's supporters bloggy supporters seem to be partially (entirely?) voting against Hillary.

    Anti and For (none / 0) (#63)
    by Grey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:09:35 PM EST
    I can't and would not interpret anyone's vote but my own, and mine if purely for Clinton.  That's all.

    Patterns can indicate, and be made to indicate, all kinds of things and, true to form, the chattering classes do like to make presumptuous, grandiose pronouncements on What The Numbers Mean, especially if those patterns can be made to look and mean something nefarious about Clinton and the character of her supporters.

    It's so very tiring, you know.  It's sad and disappointing and atrocious and so, so ugly.

    (This part is entirely OT, BTD, but I have to say that, with all of these provoking posts, it's very difficult to limit oneself to about 20 coments per day.  It's a good thing, and thank you and Jeralyn so very much for this space and this level of discourse.)

    Well, (none / 0) (#70)
    by HeadScratcher on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:14:06 PM EST
    In a primary election where racism and sexism accusations are thrown around like rice at a wedding then a mess will inevitably ensue.

    Just look at some of the comments that have been posting on this site which have basically said that Obama is where he is because 1) he's black and 2) Clinton is a woman. Well, duh. And Clinton is where she is because she is 1) a woman and 2) is white (not to mention 3) the ex-first lady of a popular president).

    Haven't Reagan Democrats been described in the past as working class blue collar white workers who are prone to vote against affirmative action and gay rights? And they are the same voters who are now voting for Clinton more than Obama?

    Let's just be honest and upfront about it and then work on getting things fixed.

    I'd venture (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:19:00 PM EST
    that if Obama where white and/or a woman his very thin resume WOULD NOT have gotten him where he is today.

    Besides the fact that most of the accusations of sexism have been absolutely TRUE not to mention more along the lines of outright MISOGYNY not just sexism.  


    he's mainly doing it based (none / 0) (#106)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:30:10 PM EST
    on a prestigeous degree and a witty  loud mouth.

    I'd enjoy hanging out with him and he'd proabably be a good president but--I reckon McCain will beat him in the key battle ground states.

    It may have nothing at all to do with resumes and race.


    But what is wrong with a voter being (none / 0) (#85)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:19:25 PM EST
    anti-Obama? That is perfectly normal politics.
    I am sure that many Democrats are anti-Obama, more than pro-Clinton. So what? That does not make them racists.

    voting against your interests (none / 0) (#92)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:20:50 PM EST
    This is a bit of a tangent, but I think the assumption about people voting for one candidate is really a vote [mistakenly] against another candidate (possibly in Obama campers minds: against their interest) reminds me of the tried and true dem meme that working class and poor voters who vote republican are voting against their interests.

    This seems just as much a mistaken interpretation as the anti-Candidate vote meme. We certainly argue it's against their economic interest. But is it really against their interest on the whole if the candidate talks openly of his disdain for them and how these "little people" need to be show then way [re-educated] and helped, etc. This seems awfully arrogant and patronizing. It's just possible, when someone sees a candidate talking and behaving that way, that person knows from experience having dealt with that kind of attitude, what the end result will be.

    I guess the point of all this is, we need and should always demand a candidate who has some sort of pulse of the people, some sort of connection, so they aren't completely clueless about who they are and what motivates them. That's tough given the wealth and privileged lives most candidates have had, but why on earth dems keep nominating people like Kerry is beyond me. OK, off the soapbox...

    This is has been the MSM narrative... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:28:07 PM EST
    ...for quite some time, including in this NYT piece.  You can't vote FOR Clinton and you can't vote against Obama because of his thin resume.  You can vote FOR Obama for any reason, however, including style over substance and sexism against Clinton.

    the Obama blogs (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    seem a little out of joint today.
    go figure.
    they are spinning so fast they are going to get whiplash lawsuits.

    The Obama (none / 0) (#164)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:14:34 PM EST
    supporters are pretty much conceding that Obama is unelectable with these arguments. If the democratic electorate is racist what does it say about the rest of the country in their minds? Afterall there are going to be even more moderate and conservative voters in a general election, right?

    And the GE (none / 0) (#178)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:22:29 PM EST
    is no caucus.

    And you don't win (none / 0) (#206)
    by tree on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:07:51 PM EST
    by whining for your opponent to drop out, nor by cutting your vote deficit from 20% to 10%.

    So... (none / 0) (#189)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:35:09 PM EST
    ...which of the two candidates pulls the most independents/republicans?

    At this point I wouldn't venture a guess (none / 0) (#197)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:42:01 PM EST
    but if we accept Axelrod's point of Republican voters being white, blue collar, gun owners and religious conservatives you can make a calculated assumption based on primary results.

    Could be... (none / 0) (#200)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:49:14 PM EST
    ...however, I don't think that description is accurate when you apply it to the independents.  They are the key to the GE, not die-hard Republicans.  They're (Republicans)not going to vote anyone with a D after their name no matter who it is.

    Some 1/4 of them may not like McSame, but they will suck it up and vote for him anyway.


    Honestly I have very little to say about (none / 0) (#202)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    Independents since IMO they are usually republicans who don't like to identify themselves.  And if polls and studies are to be believed they tend to be socially conservatives, and fall under the general description of the Republicans.  Look if we are to believe that independents decide the elections then, in the last 10 elections the Republicans have won 7 hmmm makes them sound like a bunch of closet Republicans to me..... Granted IMO really 6 2000 was stolen.

    November (none / 0) (#186)
    by BethanyAnne on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:32:48 PM EST
    I've seen lots of comments in this thread talking about GE behavior from what's happened so far.  And I really think that no one on either side knows who's supporters are going to do what by then.  I don't believe the polls indicating future behavior that far out are in any way useful.  We've got months and months of this internal warfare before we have to deal with whatever false controversy is distracting us then.  *hides under a rock*

    totally disagree (none / 0) (#192)
    by dissenter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:37:55 PM EST
    I've said for months I won't vote for BO. He scares the sh$t out of me. He is unqualified. End of story.  That doesn't make he a racist, an Obama hater or anything else. I just have serious reservations about his judgment, commitment to democratic values, his qualifications and his ability to govern.

    I don't like McCain and won't vote for him. But I will not vote for Obama ever. I am done with the lessor of two evils...especially when I think neither will be even a decent president. I might as well write in a candidate that I believe in and that is what I will do this time.


    hmm (none / 0) (#212)
    by BethanyAnne on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:12:09 PM EST
    I really still don't like the idea of being able to predict what folk will do in large numbers after a long time.  I'd agree that there are outliers like you around.  But, personally I believe that they are much smaller in number than any survey can indicate at this point.  There is so much time between now and Nov.  Tons of things are going to come out between now and then.  Only the true die-hards are certain now and will stay that way.  That's not bad, but I do think it's rare.

    Cognitive Dissonance (none / 0) (#191)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:37:31 PM EST
    Obama has won a lot of votes with the racism charges leveled against clinton.  However, there are cycles in politics and those charges are now starting to have the opposite effect -- coupled with the impossible to ignore media bias where HRC won but should drop out, is bad, etc.

    At this point, the racist implications only help clinton because it reminds people how dirty the campaign has been against her and how biased the media is against her.

    The stock market is up (none / 0) (#209)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:17:03 PM EST
    The stock market is up.

    And my husband joked it's because Hillary's win makes Republicans believe that their biggest fear (Obama) won't be the Democratic nominee.  Of course, if Hillary is the nominee, McCain will definitely win.

    LOL, he was just kidding, but isn't that the kind of convoluted spin we're used to hearing these days from Orangustan?