Um, You Think They Didn't Know?

Ezra Klein treats his readers like rubes:

In mounting a furious -- but basically hopeless -- campaign, however, Clinton is exposing Obama's weaknesses, but not gaining any real advantage from them. McCain's folks, by contrast, might have previously suspected that they should target white, economically depressed states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, but now they have a precinct-by-precinct map of where Obama underperforms, ready narratives to activate in their negative campaigning (they don't have to grope around to create a line of attack), and a media thats now convinced of his vulnerabilities.

(Emphasis supplied.) You gotta be kidding me. Maybe Ezra did not know about the geography and the demography, but I can assure you the Republicans did. Talk about disrespecting your readership.

No endorsement (I have not had a chance to read it), but here is Lukasiak on the election.

< Hillary Raises 10MM Since PA Victory | How's A Unity Ticket Sound Now? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    That's one take for sure... (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:42:18 PM EST
    here's another take from the San Francisco Chronicle

    There's a lot of interesting commentary here including...

    Eerie replay
    Jim Pinkerton, who worked in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, said Democrats "are making an eerie replay of 1972," when nominee George McGovern lost in a landslide to Republican Richard Nixon during the Vietnam War.
    "They're convincing themselves that the youth vote will carry them, like McGovern was convinced the Baby Boomers and the 18-year-old vote were going to elect him," Pinkerton said. "Well, there were a lot more Lynyrd Skynyrd fans than James Taylor fans out there, and McGovern got clobbered, including by young people."

    As for Ezra...he's missing the whole point of primaries in the first place...you have to find out your strengths and weaknesses - otherwise, you end up 'McGoverned'

    It's as if they shut their brains off (none / 0) (#73)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:28:21 PM EST
    I am so disappointed in so many "journalist" that I respected before the primary season. I have trouble with blind devotion. Even if you love your kids there's times and actions that make you want to kill them! They're at the point where he can do absolutely nothing wrong. All the gay blogs support him even after he toured with a gay bashing gospel singer! He says he will repeal DADT but he won't replace it with anything. So the situation goes back to the 1950's again. And yet they march in step. Why are so many refusing to be honest with themselves and their readers?

    maybe journalists are that stupid. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:14:11 PM EST
    Somerby seems to think so.

    They are, especially (none / 0) (#189)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:22:23 PM EST
    a number of "progressive" bloggers.

    Try this one on.

    In a post a couple of weeks back, Yglesias stated that white men represented only a tiny slice of the Democratic Party's demographic and weren't worth worrying about.

    Doing the math tells a different story.  The inescapable fact is that white men are still the 2nd largest Democratic group, second only to white women.

    Yglesias still believes that the middle east will become a bedrock of liberal democracy. I think he's still looking for a pony to make his support for the Iraq invasion look good.

    I haven't noticed if Josh Marshall, who also supported the invasion of Iraq, has made similar long term prognostications.


    If Hillary's campaign is so "hopeless" (none / 0) (#158)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:47:29 PM EST
    as the quote suggests, why then are they so foolishly going after Hillary Clinton and alienating her supporters?  The logic escapes me.

    And, they would leave Hillary (none / 0) (#169)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:53:02 PM EST
    to campaign in the remaining states all by her lonesome because Obama has the nomination all sewed up.  But of couse we all know that neither Obama or Clinton will have enough pledged delegates before the convention.  And nothing is final until the convention calls for all the votes of the delegates.  

    50,000 Hillary first time donors in last 24 hrs! (none / 0) (#182)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:06:57 PM EST
    Folks, I've never seen anything like it -- thanks to you we are breaking every record we've ever had. The number of people coming on our website and supporting Hillary is nothing short of incredible. More than 50,000 people have contributed to the campaign for the very first time in the last 24 hours alone.

    Terry Mc Auliffe email


    Fabulous News! (none / 0) (#183)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:09:46 PM EST
    and sends a big message to the Pelosi Thug Club.

    Of course they already knew this stuff (5.00 / 10) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:43:19 PM EST
    It's how you gerrymander a Congressional map.

    Why are so many people suddenly so stupid about politics?

    I wonder about that too (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by BevD on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    it's as if this is a nation of 18 year olds who have never payed attention to an election before this one and have no knowledge, historical reference or experience in politics.  

    The GOP knows that Obama (none / 0) (#194)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:27:36 PM EST
    is black too.  Bill Clinton didn't point it out to them either.

    They also know that he's inexperienced and has controversial friends.


    he thinks his readership (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:43:38 PM EST
    is bitter and clingy and needs to have these things explained. Snark. But yea, what a preposterous premise. Of course repubs know these things. And did he say Clinton's campaign was hopeless? That's not very hopeful of him. Snark.

    Oooh, two snarks in one post. Do I get a prize?

    Gotta share this . . . (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by abfabdem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    Thank you (none / 0) (#53)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:17:03 PM EST
    I love this and will share it with everyone!

    Wow! (none / 0) (#164)
    by tamens on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:50:23 PM EST
    Thank you for linking this.  

    Obama's unelectability same as it ever was... (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:43:57 PM EST
    ...the media, for the most part, hasn't picked up on it. The only state he shown ANY electability was in Wisconsin, which came at the height of Obamamania and after he won nine in a row.

    But you see... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:11:47 PM EST
    Obama people don't want to find out about his weaknesses until the first Wednesday in November.  They really just don't want to know now.

    The thing is that you can't fix a problem unless you acknowledge it.  If he isn't successfully connecting with a certain group of voters now, he does have time to adapt and fix the problem.  But it is not going to happen if everyone in his realm insists that it isn't a problem and blames other people for exposing it.

    Voting is pretty straight forward.  Either people vote for you or they don't.  At least Obama gets a do over if he is the nominee.  At least Obama knows where he has to work harder - that is unless he and his supporters continue to insist that it is not his fault - if they continue to do that - he can't win and it really is that simple.


    You know. Maybe Obama should just work on his (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:48:05 PM EST
    weaknesses, instead of requiring others not to point them out.

    A much more succint statement on (none / 0) (#220)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:00:29 PM EST
    the subject than I could ever make.

    as an obama supporter, (none / 0) (#57)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:18:19 PM EST
    the only problem is see, is that he needs 298 delegates to win the nomination and i am thankful that i do not need 431.

    Since no superdelegates have yet voted (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:26:45 PM EST
    ... and some caucus states have yet to complete their caucus processes, the actual numbers are much higher than you claim. All the published numbers are just estimates, which could change. That's something to think about, while you're feeling thankful.

    it is difficult to find a single reference (none / 0) (#81)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:36:25 PM EST
    that claims the house of clinton is winning.  if you know one, please forward it.

    the argument within the original post is an interesting one, and one i would take to heart if i were supporting the house of clinton.  however, the premise is electability on the basis of demography.

    this is persuasive if electability were the deciding factor.

    this is not how the nomination is going to be decided.  most super delegates are agreed to follow the fifty plus primary caucus results.  

    if i were a clinton supporter, i would engage the supers more than i would box the obama supporters as misogynist and uppity ivy leaguers.

    especially given the alma maters of the clintons.  


    If electability is NOT the deciding factor, .... (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:19:23 PM EST
    ... then why do we have superdelegates? If all they are going to do is "to follow the fifty plus primary caucus results" then they serve no purpose, do they? A computer could count the pledged delegates; we wouldn't need superdelegates to confuse the count.

    i never claimed that the supers (none / 0) (#132)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:21:59 PM EST
    had to uphold those contests.  i seriously doubt they will go against the will of those contests.  

    either way, clinton will need more than two out of three post june fourth.  that is a steep hill by any standard of deliberation.


    the PA primary was different (none / 0) (#172)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:55:46 PM EST
    than all the others because it reflected Bitter-Cling-gate.
    Voters may be disappointed that Hillary embellished a foreign trip, but she hasn't called voters racist gun toting Bible thumpers for not supporting her.
    And that meme in Obama's own words is here to stay.
    Today John McCain asked the NC GOP to take down their anti-Obama-Wright ad - but declared Obama is an elitist.

    Electability (none / 0) (#143)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:31:34 PM EST
    will guide a large number of the super delegates.  Kerry and Kennedy had no problem going against their state's mandate.  Neither will many super delegates.

    They will make the argument to their own constinuents about why they voted how they voted.

    Which is also why most of them will wait this out.  The picture is coming clear.  It will be even clearer over the next few races.

    Obama is no longer able to claim that he's the darling of the highly educated, for example.

    Take a look at his numbers.  He's losing ground with that group.

    He's not got the media sewed up, either.  It's obvious that the media has found their footing in how to discuss him without arousing the race card threat.

    He's not able to play the race card any longer.  That one will kill him for sure now.

    He went for it in Pennsylvania.  He threw 3 times the money at the state that she did, and she whipped him.  She even made in-roads on his youth group.  (Chelsea is improving.  :))

    He has definite electability issues now to address.


    While the Obama camp is busy explaining (none / 0) (#154)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:44:54 PM EST
    why they are winning even as they are losing, the GOP 527 in No. Carolina is running ads starring Barack Obama and Rev. Wright.  It begs the question of who is really providing the republicans with enough materials to beat up on the democrats?  I tend to agree with a poster who earlier said Obama is looking only at the nomination and not beyond the convention to the GE.

    If the that's the only problem you see... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:42:13 PM EST
    ...then get ready for President McCain, because if Obama gets the nomination and he can't connect better with the white working class, he is going to to get creamed in November.

    if "white working class" folks (none / 0) (#93)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:48:10 PM EST
    vote for mccain, then they will get the government they wished for.  more iraq, more economic incompetence and social injustice.  i respect that choice.

    You know what darlin'? (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:08:41 PM EST
    The stakes are way too high at this point in history to be playing those "take him or leave him" games.  We have serious problems in this country and we need someone to fix them.  If Barack Obama is not willing to adjust and adapt based on what he has learned about his short comings with specific audiences, then he can take a hike as far as I am concerned.  He is vying for our party's nomination and part of the deal is that he needs to want to win enough to try to connect will as many voters as he possibly can.

    Neither of these candidates is my first choice.  The fact is that Clinton is showing herself to be more willing to adapt than Obama has.  The guy just can't bring himself to make statement on economic populism even when the voters' primary concern is the economy.  I don't blame these people for saying they'd vote for McCain - his plans are free market too.  His healthcare plan is about as useless.  What's the incentive for them to risk it on the "new guy" in this scary terrorist world then?  Not much imo.


    i did not blame the either. (none / 0) (#113)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:11:11 PM EST
    i said that i respect their choice.  so, we agree.

    You say that they deserve the (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:20:24 PM EST
    government they get.

    I don't deserve the government they get and if someone can lure them away from McCain, that is the person I'm going with - I don't really care about either of these personalities.  They are interviewing for a serious job and I want them to be capable of pulling it off.

    Why couldn't Obama win against Clinton in PA?  Why?  Because she was "mean"?  Well, McCain will be mean too.  Because she was too specific?  Well, McCain can do that too.  Because the media was "unfair" - cry me a river for all Democrats in this media environment.  Or was it because everyone in Pennsylvania is a racist - which is my personal favorite because everyone knows that people love you more when you call them racist.  But the other one I really think is "special" is the one where they say that Clinton voters are "low information voters" - man - way to win them over.

    Did it ever occur to more than just a handful of Obama supporters that they guy needs to make some improvements in his game or is this another one of those status quo Titanic-like Democratic campaigns that only figures out that they need to turn the ship after they've hit the damn iceberg?

    Sorry but I am very cranky today.  I am actually angry at Obama for not doing better.  That may not make sense to you since I am not one of the dedicated fans, but I am a Democrat and I do think this country would be much better off with either of our candidates than the Republican opponent.


    why did clinton lose the twenty nine contests (none / 0) (#137)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:25:11 PM EST
    that she lost?  does it matter?

    pretty soon, six weeks, someone is going to have the 2025.


    You think she doesn't make me (none / 0) (#219)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:59:09 PM EST
    nervous?  As I said, she is showing an adaptability and flexibility that he has yet to exhibit in this race imo.  That gives her an edge in my mind.

    My point, is that if he is the nominee... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:58:21 PM EST
    ...the first step to recovery of this or any other problem is acknowledgement that the problem exists.

    i understand. (none / 0) (#108)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:03:31 PM EST
    i believe the choice between obama and mccain is a no brainer if you are working class.

    Well, alot of the people we are talking (none / 0) (#208)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:44:04 PM EST
    about are, frankly, racist.

    Ooop... I din't finish that last thought... (none / 0) (#209)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:47:07 PM EST
    A lot of the people we are talking about are racist or they think of McCain as conservative Democrat that is more palatable to them, than one they perceive as a liberal Obama.

    Like the Repub are (none / 0) (#102)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:00:20 PM EST
    going to advertive that! SNARK

    And McCain CAN distance himself from Bush... like he HAS a VOTING record!

    The Repubs want the WH soooo much that they have "as close to an Independent as they can get" as thier nominee.

    They are much more diciplined ... do NOT take it for granted that the Dems will win the GE!


    I guess Obama's "unity" message ... (none / 0) (#136)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:24:44 PM EST
    ... does not resonate with you, eh?

    Like today's SCOTUS decision that police can (none / 0) (#174)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:56:57 PM EST
    stop motorists for any perceived violation and make that the basis of a search of the car and occupants?

    I don't think anyone thinks that is any way to live in the country. But with McSame choosing Roberts type judges, oh my.

    You're pulled over bcz the cop says you didn't signal--or didn't signal in a timely manner? Then search you and your car? Maybe plant something? Like that's never happened.

    Of course, a Roberts loaded court would have no problem allowing the Unitary Executive to arrest at will for "national security" "reasons."

    Way to a police state.


    A President nominates (none / 0) (#225)
    by ding7777 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:07:18 PM EST
    a SC justice - its still up to the Senate to confirm him/her.  

    Does that include (none / 0) (#96)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:53:56 PM EST
    the SD from Nebraska that he just got.  That's in addition to the OK gov.  Hillary also got a Super today from TN.  

    does it matter? (none / 0) (#101)
    by cy street on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:59:22 PM EST
    on the morning of june fourth, obama will need eighty to one hundred supers to cross the threshold.  clinton will need two hundred plus.

    even if you indulge in the demography destiny, electability debate, it will not change this fact.  there will have to be an avalanche of supers to overturn the fifty plus contests.

    pennsylvania will be on the floor with wyoming in denver.  yesterday did nothing to change that.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#109)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:04:50 PM EST
    her road is much harder than his.

    and if the super dees ignore electability (none / 0) (#231)
    by kempis on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:56:24 PM EST
    ...They'll be nominating the candidate less likely to win. Interesting, isn't it....

    yep, that's where he peaked (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by diplomatic on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:01:00 PM EST
    "Well, we'll always have Wisconsin."

    No they did it was on different shows (none / 0) (#77)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    Joe S. morning today and Fox Rove, John King and they even mention only Wisc.. What's happening today I believe is the Creative Class knows their scam advocacies rationales have been exposed as a fraud and the empirical data places that period on the suppose they all been spinning.

    Demographics are political destiny...BTD says well there in ...


    So true! (none / 0) (#110)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:05:39 PM EST
    Your observation is so true.  Wisconsin was the biggest win, and even that state is a bit of an oddity.  But that was when the chanters started really quoting what "his" group was.

    I keep thinking that he's about to lose the educated vote bloc.  

    Looking at the exit polls from Ohio, he's in big trouble.

    He's softening on that group which makes him more than a race candidate.


    diary on DK rec list (none / 0) (#227)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:14:41 PM EST
    claims Obama lost PA because of racism - and blames media pundits - the same ones that have promoted Obama!!
    No doubt there is racism in PA and every state.
    But there's also the possibility those "racists" didn't vote for Obama because he's so low on substance and too whiny and elitist.

    It really boils down to elitism, doesn't it? (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Jim J on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:44:26 PM EST
    The misogyny factor is certainly there, sure, but the utter snooty cluelessness of these Obama fanboyz borders on caricature. They remind me of any number of stock characters from one of the old Britcoms.

    Obama's campaign is essentially America's self-anointed, Ivy League aristocracy circling the wagons.

    did you see Lukasiak's analyses? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:01:36 PM EST
    link is in the diary.
    It's awesome!  hopefully the SDs will see it.

    circling the wagon (singular) (none / 0) (#125)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:16:42 PM EST
    I'm reminded of teh Monty Python Sketch about the Tigetr that bit the British officer's arm off.

    You're exactly right. (none / 0) (#163)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:50:17 PM EST
    And the way they are reacting to the magnitude of Clinton's victory leads me to believe they will be as short-sighted and useless to Obama come the GE.  Do they really think PA works the way they currently claim it does?  They have a capacity to flip flop, so maybe they'll be smarter in the fall.  Whether Clinton has gone negative or positive, Obama has not won the white working class enough for there NOT to be a problem on his end.  Figure it out.  If I were an Obama blogger, that is what I would be doing right now.

    well, you know (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by Turkana on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:44:48 PM EST
    republicans have a long history of not knowing how to mount a negative campaign. or something.

    fwiw- your responses to ezra klein are a bit like cheney's "hunting" expeditions...

    yea, this one is too easy (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:52:05 PM EST
    I'm almost starting to feel bad for the guy. Almost. :-)

    again I refer you to (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:46:29 PM EST
    my cat hiding in the laundry basket, like I can't see his big, bushy tail sticking up.

    Clinton is exposing Obama's weaknesses?  Exit polling from every single primary thus far (except WI) show his weaknesses. Let him talk long enough and Obama shows his weaknesses.

    Give me ten minutes and a graph showing socio-economic realities in any state in America and I can tell you where Obama will lose and where Clinton will wipe up the floor.

    Love the analogy! (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:09:36 PM EST
    And it could perhaps be extended to include some other characteristic behaviors:

    Cats purr and preen themselves when they are the center of attention, but get cranky when they are not getting their way.

    Sound familiar?


    My cats renounce and reject that familiarity! (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:18:01 PM EST
    You don't understand..sigh. (none / 0) (#124)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:15:47 PM EST
    Dogs have owners, cats have staff. And they can be, and often are, one and the same. At least they are at my house..LOL

    My cats are more consistent than Obama! (none / 0) (#159)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:47:46 PM EST
    This is exactly why (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:18:39 PM EST
    doesn't want to do any more debates.

    Let him talk long enough and Obama shows his weaknesses.

    The hopey/changey message is so much more inspiring when it's not subjected to logical scrutiny.


    Also... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:50:29 PM EST
    ...the tabula rasa approach to campaigning can only work for so long until voters start asking for more than audacious hope.  I suspect that one of the things that's hurting Obama at least a little now is the sheer length of this triathlon of a primary season.

    Even Tweety (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:56:23 PM EST
    said Obama's rhetoric is sounding "tired" this morning on JoeScar.

    A rare moment of clarity, i suppose.


    Axelrod didn't plan for primary this long--or (none / 0) (#198)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:33:31 PM EST
    for needing new material.

    I mean, once you're beyond "seeing the light," it's pretty nontranscendental.

    How do you get them on the bandwagon if the ol' light show doesn't work any more?




    Maybe Axelrod should write some new scripts. The (none / 0) (#212)
    by derridog on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:50:35 PM EST
    Deval Patrick ones are getting old.

    I just read (none / 0) (#120)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:14:12 PM EST
    on No Quarter, that Obama's supporters are now chanting "No More Debates!"  

    Check out the one below it.. (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:47:47 PM EST
    About the ads about Obama...the GOP is starting them against NC Dems who have endorsed Obama soon. All about Wright and Obama. Devastating, simply devastating. A few of these ads and he is done in the GE. Done, finished, out of politics. Even Illinois won't send him back to the Senate after the kind of national exposure he is about to get.

    Obama will now look at the floor and sing (none / 0) (#201)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:36:41 PM EST
    "Yes, we can."  

    Someone wrote about trying to persuade some Obama supporters at a caucus by discussing issues, and the Obama group just looked away from her or down at the floor and began singing, "Yes, we can."

    I do not know if this anecdote is accurate--but it is telling.  


    another dimension of their delusion (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:48:13 PM EST
    I just thought of this. OK, so the Obama boyz really thought Obama would win or at least do lots better. So they didn't understand the demographic. Aaaaaand, by their logic, if they didn't understand it, no one else could either. OK, figured that out. Next problem please. :-)

    Unpleasentness avoided (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by wasabi on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:49:29 PM EST
    This whole unpleasantness of the primary could have been avoided if Clinton would have just had the decentcy to drop out after Iowa.

    I am positive that Obama would then have gone on to a challenge-free GE election.

    Those Republicans just don't know how to smear Democrats unless we give them the playbook, right?

    Apparently there are .. . (none / 0) (#35)
    by abfabdem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:07:59 PM EST
    some nasty ads in North Carolina now that are really going after Obama in hopes local Dems running for office who support him can be tarnished in their campaigns.

    Not surprising (none / 0) (#40)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:11:16 PM EST
    If it works, it could scare some superdelegates.

    Do we now hope that (none / 0) (#107)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:02:41 PM EST
    Dems lose races if they don't support Hillary?

    we now hope... (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:15:26 PM EST
    that the discussion of electability is on the table and discussed in a meaningful way because there's little little value to being McGoverned (as discussed upthread)

    Well, it is on the table (none / 0) (#195)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:28:03 PM EST
    so if, in spite these ads, Obama still wins NC by a good margin will that change your view of his electability?  

    Oh please (none / 0) (#203)
    by Regency on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:38:10 PM EST
    Y'know how his campaign said the PA wasn't a victory for Hill because she was gonna win anyway? That's North Carolina for Barack. Please, get real.

    in a state (none / 0) (#206)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:43:04 PM EST
    with blacks representing a very large percentage of registered Democrats that is certain to be a red state in November?

    You need to connect dots for me to make this into an argument because I don't see it.


    If these ads are so potent (none / 0) (#216)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:53:23 PM EST
    as is argued here then won't we see the effect on May 6th.  

    *sigh* (none / 0) (#223)
    by Regency on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:05:24 PM EST
    The ads will be potent because they aren't coming from a democrat anymore. They're coming from the opposition and they will be just a taste of our November defeat.

    I'm sorry... (none / 0) (#234)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:45:14 PM EST
    we are actually referring to different things so we're not connecting at all...somewhere along the way, you morphed the point.

    Heh (none / 0) (#232)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:03:05 PM EST
    These are not pro-Hillary ads.  These are Republican ads designed to hurt downticket Democrats by linking them to Obama.

    No, but the GOP does.. look and see. (none / 0) (#170)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:53:07 PM EST
    NC ad That is what he has to look forward to in the GE. And nothing you can do or say will stop the GOP from taking him apart at the seams. And the entire Democratic Party will suffer for it. Way to unify the party, kids!!!

    One of the NC ads is being run (none / 0) (#190)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:25:03 PM EST
    against Obama himself.  Why would they do that if he is the weaker candidate?  Wouldn't they want him to win NC?  

    And neither side is doing much to unify the party, though I do agree with you that the party will suffer.

    As to the 'kid' comment.  I'm over 40, and though I can pass for 10 years younger, I still am not a kid.  There are intelligent people who support Hillary, and intelligent people who support Obama.  There are politicians I respect on both sides also.


    I believe there is an ad or two (none / 0) (#197)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:31:35 PM EST
    running in LA against the special election Dem.  This one links him to Obama and slams Obama for having too liberal of a health care policy.  Though the Dem has an uphill battle in that special election, we'll get another test of the "power" of these ads there.

    I don't know where you are (none / 0) (#207)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    but LA ain't NC.  That isn't even comparing apples to oranges -- that's comparing apples to diamonds.

    I meant Louisianna and (none / 0) (#237)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:14:16 PM EST
    the special election is in a republican leaning district.  What is the abbreviation for Louisianna anyway/

    Louisiana is the spelling of the state (none / 0) (#245)
    by angie on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:22:53 AM EST
    LA is the postal abbreviation -- I obviously thought you meant LA the city.  Easy to confuse -- I would write La for Louisiana to avoid the confusion, unless I was addressing a letter.

    Obama's supporters (5.00 / 12) (#15)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:53:07 PM EST
    ...can taste the "bitter" defeat that Obama is pulling from the jaws of victory.

    Hillary is winning the most important argument right now - the electability argument.  

    as I point out in my analysis of nine recent SUSA state "November matchup" polls, Obama is tanking against McCain in states that Democrats could/should win, while Clinton is holding her own..

    (blogwhoring alert -- hey, how about a link to that BTD! ;-)  )

    the only argument that the Obamistas are gonna have by June is the "moral" one -- that Clinton does not deserve the nomination because she is a bad person.

    Good Job On The Analysis (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:24:25 PM EST
    Read it on correntewire.

    Meanwhile Obama, his staff and his supporters continue to provide anti-white working class material for the Republicans to use in the GE.

    OBAMA: And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

    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."

    Randi Rhodes: "The Clinton campaign describes Hillary's voters as older, white, and undereducated. Or as we called them in my neighborhood: white trash."

    Tom Edsall, HuffPo , Another White Guy Election showing demeaning picture of white male Clinton supporters Link to T.Marsh with picture

    White Trash (none / 0) (#149)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:38:02 PM EST
    won't work in Penn.

    She sneaked up on him and won nearly the same number of college educated folks.

    BTW, I predict the "youth" are about to discover that it's cool to be for Hillary.

    They love to rebel.  :)


    Can't Find The Actual Data on The PA Exit Polls (none / 0) (#226)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:09:41 PM EST
    today. At times I am google challenged. If I read the data right last night, Hillary actually squeaked out a win in the white youth vote.

    Check (none / 0) (#229)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:35:03 PM EST
    out CNN, which has the exit poll data as well as the actual county breakdown.

    Thanks Found It On CNN (none / 0) (#230)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:48:31 PM EST
    I was right. Hillary won all age groups among white voters. She won the White 18 - 29 group 52% to 48%.

    oh man! (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:45:20 PM EST
    I love TL.  So many intelligent, reasonable people who know their election sh*t backwards and forwards.  Truly a joy to read and so, so nice from the horribly idiotic clap-trap you find on so many other sites.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you!


    It feels like a rear guard action. (none / 0) (#165)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:50:29 PM EST
    The last half dozen refugees from various sites pointing out the blindingly obvious.

    well, coming to TL (none / 0) (#192)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:25:58 PM EST
    from other sites is a bit like stepping out of a dark hole and blinking unbelievably into a blindingly beautiful sun without having someone snap you in the back of the head with a gun and then kick you in the teeth when you're down.

    I mean, c'mon!  Ouch!   :-)


    Heh (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:53:37 PM EST
    For you.

    (((((( BTD ))))))))) (none / 0) (#34)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:06:56 PM EST
    y'er a sweetie to help me make Lambert pay more to his webhost! ;-)

    More mindreading (none / 0) (#18)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    by Obamans.

    You'd think they actually knew her personally, the way they seem to "know" every action she takes is motivated by eeeeeevvvvvilllllll.


    The only argument I hope to have (none / 0) (#33)
    by CST on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:04:56 PM EST
    Is certainly not a "moral" one, but a question of, who has more votes?  If the popular vote is in favor of Obama, he should win, period.  I don't care who voted in what states.  Or an "electability" argument which is based on polls that change every day, and frankly don't mean jack.  Likewise for Hillary, if she wins the total popular vote, she should win.  I just hope its within a Michigan "margin of error" so we don't have that blow up in our faces more than it already has.

    When you factor in (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:25:14 PM EST
    all the votes for the other candidates (1,118,000 through potomac tuesday, not counting caucuses), its unlikely that either candidate can get a majority of the voters.

    I calculated the numbers differently than RCP (used euit polls to apportion the entire Michigan vote rather than give Clinton 327K and Obama noting, and used Washington's primary numbers because the caucus numbers are extrapolations based on estimated number of participants.)

    Obama is up by 69K out of 32 million votes cast.  He's gotten 48.25% to Clinton's 48.03%.

    If one or the other candidate was going to run away with the popular vote, I'd say that should be the criteria.  But neither of them is going to do that, or even get a simple majority of votes cast -- so that, like "pledged delegate count" becomes another metric that can't be considered conclusive.

    The SDs are just gonna have to do the job they are supposed to do, even if it does mean they have to think about it.

    yeah!  Talkleft tells you when you haven't closed a tag!!!


    But there is a possiblity (none / 0) (#103)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    that the Supers will do their job, but not agree with the thinking that Clinton is the stronger candidate.  Today she gained 1 and he gained 2.  Of course they could change their minds. But do you really see someone endorsing at this point that wasn't very sure they were going to support their chosen candidate?

    Just want to (none / 0) (#238)
    by Jane in CA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:13:46 AM EST
    give a shout out to P Lukasiak. Thanks for bearing with all my rather rudimentary questions about the electoral process over on Belgravia Dispatch a couple months back.  You were great, and I wish I had known that you had your own website then.

    Funny that Gregory never came back with that promised explanation of his Obama endorsement, isn't it?  I still check in occasionally, but he hasn't blogged since January 10.  Anyway, I just found this site, and love it.  I was tired of getting beat up for expressing courteous questions/concerns elsewhere.

    Good to "see" you, and great analyis. I've bookmarked your site.


    Still insisting (none / 0) (#180)
    by cal1942 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:05:57 PM EST
    that 600,000 Michiganders be ignored huh.

    Ridiculous. Anti-democratic.

    If Obama's name wasn't on the ballot that's his problem not the people of Michigan.

    Obama pulled his name in a cute stunt to damage his principle opponent.  If it backfires, that's tough.

    Count Michigan.


    No not at all (none / 0) (#244)
    by CST on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:24:07 PM EST
    I said I hope whoever wins the popular vote wins with or without Michigan since it is an argument the two sides will never agree upon.  That way, you can include them or not and still have the same result.

    I am not making an argument about whether or not to include Michigan, I am hoping that's an argument we don't have to make with regards to the popular vote.  That's because I think it is the one issue that could really tear this thing to shreads and I am a wimp.


    Whew (none / 0) (#115)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:11:48 PM EST
    You are so right, and it's a good reason for me to stay away from the so-called Progressive Blogs.  They are so not progressive.

    Oh, my goodness (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:54:36 PM EST
    So Hillary is helping the Republicans now - and we all know how clueless they are about winning elections.  Like McCain's supporters could never have gotten that map if not for the help of That Woman.  Clearly, the writing's on the wall for November: if Obama's the nominee and loses, it's all Hillary's fault.  

    I even hear versions of this argument from pro-Hillary friends, who bemoan the "negativity" of this campaign (which is nothing, IMO, compared to previous Presidential elections) and say that both candidates should focus on beating McCain.  Well, I'm sorry, but it's a bit early for that.  There's a nomination to be won first, and I don't mind if Hillary takes it to the floor of the convention.  I'll never vote for McCain, but I think the DNC could use some tough love.  Howard Dean may want to drive us off a cliff, but I'm not going along for the ride.

    When did everyone become such wusses? (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by sister of ye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:02:30 PM EST
    One of my former favorite bloggers (who finally revealed himself as an Obama supporter) has been beating the "it's gone on too long, it's tiring" drum for months. Well, the voters don't seem to mind, and aren't we the ones elections are supposed to be about, not bloggers or MSM pundits? Sheez, go do something else if you're bored and come back when we the people get things settled, okay?

    Heh. (none / 0) (#36)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    Glad to see you here, sister of ye. I always enjoyed your posts on that Other Blog. ;-)

    Hillary is not tired (none / 0) (#141)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:29:21 PM EST
    And neither are the voters. What happened to good old fashioned stamina? We are not wimps.

    Hillary Looked Radiant In Her Victory Speech (none / 0) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:30:48 PM EST
    last night. Finally watched her entire speech. It was excellent. Hit all the right notes. She and her supporters were and will continue to remain energized.

    This woman knows politics (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:37:37 PM EST
    and she knows that she has this and is working like crazy to clinch it.  Obama is imploding right in front of her (and the SD's) eyes and she's got Ickes working the phones as we speak talking electoral facts and figures and GE electoral reality with those now suddenly nervous SDs.

    She stayed in for a reason and the reason is Obama appears to lack discipline.  The longer this goes on, the more the mask slips, the frustration grows and the desperation in his speeches soars.  Gone are the days of Hope and Change.  Now we have Anger and Frustration.  And bitterness.


    i think it comes down to (none / 0) (#239)
    by kangeroo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:52:54 AM EST
    media saturation and bombardment.  the level is seriously obscene in this primary; i truly think it's the worst yet in campaign history--due in no small measure to the media's success in influencing 2000, and then flat-out manipulating 2004.  they saw what they could get away with then, and you can bet they're not letting a pesky little thing like voters get in their way now.  numerous empirical studies have shown that the national "news" is literally at propaganda levels now.  so it's no wonder that even some of the politically savvier people i know are genuinely and completely unaware of obama's dirty campaign tricks, policy gaffes, etc.  it's appalling to me, to be sure--but given the media right now, it also makes sense.

    Talking head Republican (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:56:58 PM EST
    last night on CNN kept repeating that no one did this to Obama, he did it to himself.  He said the bitter stuff, he has the hordes of fiends, he had Wright etc.  No one did it to him.  Can people give the man some credit?

    Edwards vote (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:58:12 PM EST
    To be honest, I don't think in January it was quite so clear how poorly Obama would ultimately do with white working class voters.  This was a good chunk of Edwards' base and the assumption was that they would never vote for Hillary and would all migrate over to Obama.  This is a case of Hillary WINNING a group of voters who were probably not in her column when this all started.

    Who assumed that (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:04:21 PM EST
    Edwards supporters would go to Obama?

    Was it, perhaps, Obamans? ;-)

    I'm a former Edwardian myself and Obama was always my last choice.

    And frankly, I always thought Obama would have problems with white working-class voters. Possibly due to racism and fear of the funny name, sure, but also because he has no experience! If you're voting on the economy, as the "bitter" folk do, then you're voting for someone who knows how to get you out of Bush's H*ll.

    That someone would not be a 46-year-old first-term Senator of any shape, size, color or gender.

    IMHO of course.


    former Edwardian (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:13:45 PM EST

    Ditto! (none / 0) (#166)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:51:16 PM EST
    and Elizabeth Edwards has said she likes Hillary's healthcare plan best. She should, it's basically John Edwards'.

    Clinton was my last choice (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:15:55 PM EST
    I (and lots of others) started out this campaign being 'anyone but Hillary'.   I was hoping to find a reason to support Richardson, but he turned out to be a dud -- so I settled on Edwards.

    It was only when it started becoming obvious that Edwards would eventually be forced to drop out that I looked at Obama -- and I wanted to support him.   But I looked at his record and what he'd been saying and knew he wasn't ready, and looked at his background and realized he'd be slaughtered by the GOP smear machine if he was the nominee.

    (This, of course, was back when nearly the entire progressive blogosphere had not gone insane (TY, BTD, for not being crazy).  Back then, the Obama zeolots were practically amusing....)


    Edwards early on (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:23:03 PM EST
    then when I saw that he was gonna drop out, I looked at both of them.  Researched, dug into their pasts etc.  I wanted the populist agenda and what we have from Obama is the "anti war" libertarian jive.  

    Right.. I had serious "clinton fatigue" (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:25:45 PM EST
    a year ago. But now? Hillary really has won me over.
    I like her a lot better than Bill Clinton, actually.
    She's a lot more gracious, and seems perhaps even wonkier than Bill.

    I didn't like Hillary too much starting out (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by athyrio on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:32:38 PM EST
    and was afraid of the "clinton hatred" but then I started watching her and wow was I impressed...then I realized that I had never really paid that much attention to her in the past, but just was going on the "rumors"...I love her now and am so proud of her abilities...she is by far the best qualifies candidate amoungst all three of them....Leaves them in the dust...who else could be abused with this much bad media, etc and still come out so well...It is really amazing like she is teflon indeed...

    Sums up my feelings (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by sister of ye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:42:57 PM EST
    Frankly, none of the Dems, including Edwards, did much for me. I couldn't forget his rollover for Cheney in 2004. I thought well of Clinton's intelligence, but bought much of the conventional wisdom about her lack of liberal bonafides.

    Then I did some reading and was convinced. Ironically, I have Obama supporters to thank, because their animosity at my usual haunts led me to new places where I got a broader view. (No pun intended.)


    :-) And (none / 0) (#90)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:46:21 PM EST
    no trolls.

    Double ditto (none / 0) (#171)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:55:44 PM EST
    for me...

    Clinton Fatigue (none / 0) (#117)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:13:56 PM EST
    has been vanquished, hasn't it?


    BTW, I hear that the next great strategy of Obama will be to attack on Bill's "record," meaning dragging up all the crud.



    Ah, I guess that's what the (none / 0) (#126)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:18:07 PM EST
    headline on Obama's campaign NOT bringing up cattle futures, etc. meant---it meant they ARE doing it.
    Has this happened yet?

    I fall into much the same category as you Paul (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:31:02 PM EST
    Spent most of the early primary season "Waiting for Gore. Gravitated to Edwards because of strong domestic policies. Surprised myself in the end voting for HRC because of issues like McClurkin, Social Security on the table, and the final straw right before my vote on 2/4 was the "Harry and Louis" against UHC.

    HRC was actually my first choice, (none / 0) (#63)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:21:49 PM EST
    but then she was Dead To Me after Kyl-Lieberman. I flirted with Dodd, then loved Edwards, then was crushed by his early exit. At that point, I went back to HRC and haven't regretted my choice since.

    I went through the same calculations as you did, though. I'm happy to hear you gave her a chance despite your initial opposition. Very open-minded of you! :-)


    I didn't give her a chance (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:29:18 PM EST
    ...I just went from being "anyone-but-Hillary" to "Seriously, anyone but Obama" and Hillary was the only "anyone" left ;-)

    excuse me for not knowing (none / 0) (#150)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:39:34 PM EST
    do you support Clinton now?  If so, as you decided to support her, considering you had been ABC, have you come to like or respect her more and what changed for you in your thinking on her?

    I am curious because I started out hoping for Gore and when I gradually started supporting her and got to know her better, my thinking about her definitely did change.


    I wanted Gore (none / 0) (#235)
    by Nadai on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:09:28 PM EST
    Every time his name came up, I prayed he was announcing his candidacy.  When he didn't, I gravitated to Edwards - his Two Americas theme really resonated for me and he was the only one talking about issues of economic inequality.  When it became clear that he would have to drop out, I checked over Clinton and Obama.

    I started out lukewarm about both of them, figuring they were both ok but neither one was anything special.  But I'm a good Dem and I've voted for people I didn't much like before, so I did my duty.  I settled on Hillary mostly because of the health care issue, but also because I'm not too big on abstracts like hope, preferring actual policies.  But that was mostly (I thought then) a style thing, and I'd have happily supported Obama if Hillary had dropped out back then.

    But the longer the primary went on, the more I liked her and the less I liked him.  By the time the "progressive" blogosphere went completely insane, I was already firmly on her side.  They and Obama himself made me cast my support for her in cement, to the point that I really don't think I'll vote for him if he wins the nomination, which will be a first in almost thirty years of voting for Democratic presidential candidates.


    Sort of (none / 0) (#59)
    by Emma on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:18:39 PM EST
    a former Edwardian, too, but more of a leaner than a supporter.  I switched after Iowa, didn't wait for JE to drop out.

    Obama is one of my Senators (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by abfabdem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:01:48 PM EST
    and I wrote to him on more than one occasion begging him not to vote for war funding to no avail.  He never took a stand for anything, and I just didn't see how he could be a leader as President when he hasn't shown it as a Senator.  I am also a former Gore girl who was sooo hoping he would run, if only to correct what I still believe was the crime of the century. So I was never for Obama, but I didn't start out being for Hillary either. Yet the more I see and hear of her, yeah, she is awesome.  Her command of the issues in that last debate really sealed the deal for me. Even my Downstate Republican mom now thinks she is very good and in the past she would say, "I hate her." (Though when I would ask why, she could never come up with anything concrete.)  SO my MOM becoming a Hillary fan is really saying something.  If people can get beyond the caricature fostered for so many years by the right wing (and now by the blog boyz), there is true substance.

    That is my Mom, too! (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:46:26 PM EST
    Always voted GOP, hated Hillary, no good reason, yada-yada...

    Now she thinks she's the only hope we have to get on the right economic track. And i didn't even try to influence her (I figured we'd just end up in the old argument). Smack my arse and call me Sally!


    Brilliant (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:58:42 PM EST
    This is a subset of the larger argument that if Obama loses the GE because McCain attacks him on national security or what have you, it's all Hillary's fault.  As if the guy would have been bulletproof as long as no one ever challenged him on anything.

    Can't argue with cultists (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Jim J on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:59:25 PM EST
    They are immune to reason.

    Republican Advertisements (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:01:30 PM EST
    Get a peak at what they are slinging at him in North Carolina: over at Tayolor Marsh check out Ads Hit Obama Hard

    Now I want the fanboys to tell me how "mean" and vicious Hillary was.  

    Fighting Dem all the way.  

    I instantly thought of you (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:12:12 PM EST
    when I saw the one about Obama's senate district.

    All those people trapped in slums, desperate for help, and Obama writes a rec letter for Rezko to build more.

    If Clinton had been running ads like this all along, he would be toast by now.  And I am including the Wright Stuff.


    No one could have predicted (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:13:02 PM EST
    that the Republicans would focus on Wright!

    Oh wait.

    Yes we could!

    And yes we did!

    We have not begun to see the fallout from Wright yet. The Republicans are even using Obama's pastor to go after SC Dems who endorsed Obama.

    Downticket concerns, SuperD's?


    The Funny Thing Is (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:39:10 PM EST
    How often I've read that surviving Wright against Hillary means he's survived it for the GE this Fall.

    The GOP consultant on Larry King Live made it very clear last night that Wright would re-emerge in the GE if Obama's the nominee.  Like that's a surprise.


    In an earlier comment (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by RalphB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:32:51 PM EST
    I said that every Democrat running may as well tattoo "GD America" on his forehead, if Obama is the nominee.  That's the way the GOP does business.  And it usually works, so it's kind of scary.

    They Are Using Obama's Associations With (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:35:52 PM EST
    Wright and Rezko to tar and feather Dems candidates who have endorsed him in NC. Obama will have down ticket coattails alright but maybe not the coattails his supporters envisioned.

    SO? Just cuz they use them (none / 0) (#122)
    by IndiDemGirl on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:15:10 PM EST
    doesn't mean they will work.  They'll find dirt on whoever is the nominee and if they dont' they'll just make it up.  The NC Dems aren't running scared.  

    You don't live in NC I see (none / 0) (#148)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:37:51 PM EST
    believe me, the ads are going to work.  Sure, not so much in raleigh/durham, but there is more to NC then that.  The two Dem candidates who are running for governor (who have both "endorsed" Obama) are not going to win -- period.  Plus, McCain gets a lot of damage to Obama while looking like a Saint for condemning the ads.  The ads haven't even run yet, and NC Dems are running scared and how! -- they canceled the debate to help prop up Obama after his last dismal performance. and btw -- to all those who are new to politics and think HRC has been so negative -- take a gander at the GOP ads in NC -- that is what you call negative.  

    Raleigh resident here (none / 0) (#236)
    by Nadai on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:13:12 PM EST
    If they aren't running scared yet, they ought to be.  There's dirt and there's dirt.  Rev. Wright is in the latter category.

    Ezra's writings are like most BO's supporters (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Prabhata on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:01:42 PM EST
    They ooze fear to be found out that the emperor has no clothes.  That's the whole reason BO's camp has been pushing for HRC to quit. The naked emperor is also breakable.

    i agree, and i (none / 0) (#240)
    by kangeroo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:13:03 AM EST
    also think it very plausible that klein, kos, avarosis, huffington, et al have gotten too drunk off of their own power, seeing as how they've joined the msm in prioritizing self-justification over facts and truth.

    Like Jesus, they have to fulfill the (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:01:59 PM EST
    prophecies. The said months ago that Hillary would make Obama unelectable by staying in the race.

    Yes, if she wins the nomination (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:15:09 PM EST
    it will make Obama unelectable!

    Can't beat that Obaman logic!

    IACF, baby.


    It's more important to be right than to win. (none / 0) (#54)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:17:10 PM EST
    Screw that. (none / 0) (#61)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:19:20 PM EST
    I wanna win!!!

    'sfunny (none / 0) (#62)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:21:10 PM EST
    These are the same (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by BevD on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:04:37 PM EST
    people who have been complaining for years, that the democratic convention is nothing more than a coronation.  Now we have a real race that might well go to the convention floor, something we haven't seen in 28 years, and all of a sudden these people have become nervous Nellies decrying the lengthening nomination process and how much it is going to hurt democrats and help republicans.

    I know it. (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:12:51 PM EST
    Their outrage is hard to take seriously.  They complain when they don't get their wsy and then complain when they do.



    Does Ezra think (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:10:59 PM EST
    this is the first time we've held an election in Pennslyvania?

    Please.  Now they're just making it up.  Well, they're usually doing that, but these bloggers are supposed to know something about how this process works.

    Perhaps is the first time Ezra has (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    thought of PA. Bob Casey sez, give the guy a break---for a novice he ain't bad.

    A novice. (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:15:31 PM EST
    Great.  That's just what we need all right.

    Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Buckeye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:16:56 PM EST
    The not-so-secret weapon for the Republicans winning the Presidency election-after-election is the Democratic party - specifically their judgment picking nominees.  The repubs laughed as they watched the Democratic party (aided by the media) talk themselves out of Hillary Clinton - a candidate that would have won the GE for the Democrats.  The radical left, aided by racial solidarity among AA and a biased media, is putting forward a candidate that will give McCain a 40 state victory.

    GOP and Clinton (none / 0) (#112)
    by Lou Grinzo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:11:10 PM EST
    If I had a buck for every time I heard someone on "progressive radio" crow about how obvious it is that the GOP want to run against Clinton, and then try to spin that as a reason to support Obama, I could buy my own station.

    Honestly, did any of these people grow up with a sibling who pulled that "reverse psychology" trick on them about a million times?


    Dang (none / 0) (#129)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:20:13 PM EST
    Did you just hear Angie Cuoro say that in SF station?  I have not tuned now for months, and bang, she said that.  Along with the Republicans switched to vote Dem to elect her.  Excuse me was not Obama pleading for Republicans to switch?  

    I heard Angie say it. Sigh (none / 0) (#193)
    by santarita on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:26:18 PM EST
    It's so distressing to realize how quickly and unquestioningly the media adopts "conventional wisdom".  In this case, if Republicans are putting up attack ads against Obama then it can mean only one thing: that the Republicans want to run against Hillary.  

    They may have been surprised (none / 0) (#135)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:23:51 PM EST
    that none did a trial balloon on Ayers or Wright.

    wft Dodd didn't go with it?

    Biden ?   My god what is going here?  They want to have this appear in October?


    BTD can you comment on Axelrods comment (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by TalkRight on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:27:33 PM EST
    Ahh, so Axelrod has "unimportant" voters (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:38:44 PM EST

    Well, the Repubs (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:32:54 PM EST
    have been able to win the WH 5 out of the last 8 elections. (Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush Jr, Bush Jr)

    The Dems have won 3 out of the last 8. And Repubs and Clinton have won the 7 out of 8.

    Who do you think needs lessons in how to win the WH?

    The Dems have GE & Primary loosers leading the way. (Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, etc) No wonder they are so aggresive against the Clinton name!! How dare a Clinton actually win a GE when so many have failed!

    Don't kid yourselves. No matter who wins the Dem primary... we are in for a fight.

    Underlying Assumption (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:43:23 PM EST
    that always peeved me.   Don't point out Obama negatives because we got them fooled.  The Axelrod story is working.  No one will look or ask questions cause they feel good and have applied all the right "framing" theories from the Rockridge Institute, Lakoff etc.  Voters are basically dumb and if you just "frame" everything you can trick them.  

    Well, it turns out the theory does not work that way.  The Wright videos unraveled the story of the uniter as did the bitter comments.  The attacks on the Clinton's made voters doubt hid Democratic credentials.  His comments about the her voters being in the bag for him.  The change narrative did not work and will not work.  Voters want real clear change from the Republican agenda.  They want the Democratic agenda,  They don't want abstract change.   We were told he transcended race, yet his campaign accuses everyone of racism.  

    Things started to fall apart.  They needed a quick win and did not get it.  When you run on an artificial construct, it falls apart.  Hillary has a history and a track record.  Obama campaign is the best vaporware campaign.  

    Finally, stop treating voters as if they are imbeciles.  

    I live in Detroit (none / 0) (#97)
    by sister of ye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:54:06 PM EST
    If I were unwilling to vote for black politicians I'd sit home every election day. I've found it a pretty good rule of thumb that the politician who quickly cries racism is the one who badly needs a smokescreen to hide personal indiscretions, corruption, or just plain incompetence.

    Heh (none / 0) (#139)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:26:53 PM EST
    Coleman Young showed the way, now and forever.

    Your perspective (none / 0) (#147)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:36:13 PM EST
    is shared by me.  He chose to run on no record.  The only way that works is a quick win based on emotionalism.

    When she fought back, he fell apart.


    Memo to Ezra Klein (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:09:51 PM EST
    Since 1969, The GOP has been in power for 28 years and the Democrats for 12. There is a reason for that. They are very good at electoral politics.

    And your point only underscores the fact that Obama is going to be a sacrificial lamb come November a la Dukakis. And that's a good part of the reason many support Clinton over Obama. She will win. Obama might win but when you're tied in Massachusetts and trailing in New Jersey, it is hard to conceive of your chances have any basis in reality.

    For what it is worth, Tucker Carlson noted this morning, that GOP had wanted Clinton thinking they could dredge up the past but now they are foaming at the mouth for Obama. He's toast.

    He is (none / 0) (#1)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:40:12 PM EST
    disrespecting YOUR readership, not his own.

    I'm sure the comments are priceless.

    This was the same claptrap they pulled out of their butts when HRC "endorsed" John McCain. As if McCain needed HRC's help to use Obama's lack of experience against him!

    The Obamans believe whatever their echo chamber tells them to believe. The cognitive dissonance, it burrrrrnnnnnsssss.

    Oh - by the way... (none / 0) (#11)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:48:30 PM EST
    Is This Article Worth Clicking On HuffPo (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:52:41 PM EST
    or is it just continuing to advocate that the white working class is racist? Pretty much avoiding HuffPo since I don't want to help generate revenue and don't want to go there for another article on how racist white Dems are.

    Bittergate tells the story, doesn't it? (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Jim J on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:58:03 PM EST
    That's why it had legs: It brought into the open what people had suspected about Obama, namely, that he is an affluent, over-educated, well-connected elitist who considers himself above addressing the needs of working people and the elderly.

    His followers love him because they share that disdain for anyone who isn't Teh Kewl. That explains the core hypocrisy of the Obama campaign, i.e., 'unity' and kumbaya contrasted by the utter viciousness of his actual voters.


    Haydn's meditative wife (none / 0) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:55:21 PM EST
    was worth the trip last night.  That one, man, these people don't even get that they are a stereotype.  I will enjoy this one for a while.

    you don't have to actually... (none / 0) (#25)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:00:42 PM EST
    you can go to davidsirota.com and you will see that he's been writing about this concept since the end of March and this is an I told you so kind of blog.

    I imagine that it will hit the Smirking Chimp site or one of the many others that Sirota also blogs at.


    Thanks For The Info. n/t (none / 0) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:38:50 PM EST
    alternate link... (none / 0) (#138)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:26:06 PM EST
    Jay Carney @ Time evidently thinks this is a very good explanation (Sirota) which also links his new blog somewhere other than HuffPo

    Racism wasn't the reason (5.00 / 11) (#30)
    by p lukasiak on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:03:10 PM EST
    Are there racist Democrats?  Sure. But the fact is that the GOP's Southern Strategy has resulted in very few people in the Democratic Party who won't give an African American politician a chance.  

    Moreover, the same areas where there is the greatest resistance to voting for an AA candicate are those where resustance is highest to voting for female candidates -- both women and AA have to break through a "barrier" of resistance to get to people in these areas.

    It kills me when I hear people say stuff like "its Hillary Clinton country".  Nothing could be further from the truth.   Clinton had to break through the resistance of voters in upstate New York and she did it.  These are the same voters that Obama seems incapable of breaking through to.

    When Hillary campaigns, the focus in on her audience.  The message is "Here is what I will do for YOU if I'm elected president."  Obama's message is "Vote for ME, and I'll change the process in Washington and make things better for you."

    Obama's campaign is really about HIM, its narcissistic.  Clinton's campaign is about the voters themselves.   And that is why he's not getting through to these voters.


    My new talking point (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:22:14 PM EST
    If Clinton wins cause of racist whites.

    Obama wins cause of racist blacks.

    I'd prefer Sirota's "musings" be rejected by everyone concerned so we don't "go there", period.


    maybe you would prefer... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:13:17 PM EST
    Sirota's musings to go away or Ezra's musings, or Obama on 'the bitter people' or HuffPo's ugly visual/written piece on white trash all to go away, but I do think that they're all trying to put a handle on the same people for whatever point they are trying to make.

    The same people who aren't voting for Obama.

    What is obvious is that even 90+% of the black vote + the youth and creative class doesn't get Obama a victory.


    i'd openly call myself (none / 0) (#131)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:21:14 PM EST
    white trash. More accurately eurotrash.

    Actually I Would Like These Depictions To Go Away (none / 0) (#168)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:52:26 PM EST
    The are harmful and counterproductive. If God forbid Obama is our nominee,  this stereotyping of white working class Americans will ensure that we will see John McCain sworn in as president in January 09.

    Oklahoma to Obama's Rescue AGAIN... (none / 0) (#43)
    by SunnyLC on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:12:25 PM EST

    Really, look at what Whitten says...he mentions unity, the middle-class, and small towns...

    Shoring up some deficits in the campaign... but always IMMEDIATELY after a poor Obama showing. The timing seems off...looks SO obvious.  Boren last week after the debate (with Nunn) did the same thing.

    Suspecting a strategy might work this time (none / 0) (#51)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:16:05 PM EST
    isn't the same as knowing it will work. They don't need to be stupid. Just uncertain.  I believe his point is Clinton provides the trial ballons, if inadvertantly, for a McCain run in the fall. Your better argument against this position should have been that it also provides a chance to test Obama against such arguments, and actually inoculate him from the surprise effect of such strategies if the goal is to nominate and help a Democrat win versus help a certain Democrat win.

    you must be joking (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:18:58 PM EST
    Heck, it is better for Obama to deal with them now because there is NO DOUBT, NONE, the GOP was coming with it.

    What has happened to you? You are writing strangely these days.


    Also Clinton Hasn't Been Behind Most of It (5.00 / 10) (#94)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:48:47 PM EST
    Wright - that was classic rightwing media pushing its story into the MSM's bloodstream.

    Ayers - Hannity got Georgie boy to agree to ask about it (I doubt many people had heard of Ayers before the debate, only internet junkies)

    NAFTA/Goolsbee - A Canadian television station broke the story.

    Bitter/Cling - An Obama supporter on the Huffington Post broke the story.

    The only bad story that seems to have stuck a bit that has been really pushed by Clinton is Rezko and even that hasn't had ads and didn't gain traction until his trial started and that was mostly because Chicago media were angry at being stiffed for info (rightly or wrongly).  

    The 3 AM ad and the prepared ad with Osama hiking - I refuse to consider these negative ads since they never mention Obama's name or claim he's unprepared (although I grant you that's implied).  But, seriously, are we to the point where asking the American public to think about which candidate would be best in a crisis is unacceptable during a campaign for the U.S. presidency?  If we are, we might as well swear in John McCain right now.   Because if the only way a nominee can win that issue is by trying to claim it isn't an issue or that it's somehow using fear, then we're going to lose.  Suggesting the person elected president be prepared and able to deal with crises is not some crazy right-wing standard.  


    can't believe i'm typing this .. (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by dws3665 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:51:26 PM EST
    but touting your own level of preparedness, even if leaving implicit your opponent's lack thereof, is NOT A NEGATIVE AD!

    Things like this are the basis for the pearl-clutching "oooh, she's so NEGATIVE" comments from Obama's campaign and blog minions. It's just ridiculous. Comparing yourself to your opponent and saying "I have more of X than s/he does" is not negativity. It is campaigning.


    I am trying to decide whether to go to film school (none / 0) (#91)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:46:39 PM EST
    and I pretty much said what you just wrote but in different way. better to test it now than to find out later.

    seriously? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:19:38 PM EST
    my wife went to MFA UCLA production.

    Make sure you write scripts all the time.


    I am still not sure I am going (none / 0) (#133)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:22:06 PM EST
    They admitted me, but I am a non traditional student. It's nice to know they liked my work,but this is all OT. It just leaves me a bit tired.

    do lots of writing if you do go. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:32:46 PM EST
    With the digital age it'll be more fun than when she went in.

    i've directed 3 shorts (none / 0) (#178)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:59:41 PM EST
    and written several scripts. but thanks for the advice- now we are fully OT.

    Good grief. (none / 0) (#70)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:26:43 PM EST
    The GOP has enough hot air to fill millions of balloons.  Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

    What are Obama's supposed strengths?  They'll attack those.


    I didn't say they wouldn't try (none / 0) (#92)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:47:56 PM EST
    just where to do it most effectively. yes they ahve a million ballons, yes they would have done it anyhow, no that doesn't mean they would know which ballons would work. now they have an idea. but that's good because it also provides chance to change it.

    Um, (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:14:35 PM EST

    If there's one thing I've learned, it's that there's always another sexy-sounding smear waiting around the corner, especially when the media are such willing whores.

    The worst is yet to come, and it will be a blindsiding experience.  Hillary and Obama have each won about half of the dem voters who showed up in the primaries, caucuses aside.  

    Lots of people out there who haven't been counted.
    That would worry me if I were the candidate.


    I don't think the GOP has magical powers (none / 0) (#134)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:23:10 PM EST
    they are quite predictable. I doubt their smear will be that original. The question is in what ways can we identify they can be effective, and what ways they can be blunted.

    It doesn't have to be original. (none / 0) (#140)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:27:29 PM EST
    It only has to be repeated.

    Again and again and again.  It's playing to a low level of inteliigence and high level of emotion.


    i agree (none / 0) (#151)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:40:25 PM EST
    my analysis is that the best way to innocolate is to bring it up early so people become bored.

    The only people who are bored (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:47:03 PM EST
    are those of us on the blogs.

    actually its axiomatic of the american people (none / 0) (#176)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:58:27 PM EST
    that they will forgive anything if they get bored hearing about it. my comments didn't consider the blogs at all. i would argue the opposite is true of blogs. people here like to micro analysis stuff to the point of absurdist reality.

    It's human nature the GOP understands. (none / 0) (#187)
    by magisterludi on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:16:02 PM EST
    They know how to push the buttons that activate the worst of it.

    well but their trick only works if there is no (none / 0) (#199)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:34:31 PM EST
    time. it operates off of short term emotions, not  long.

    Bored (none / 0) (#200)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:36:32 PM EST
    isn't the problem.

    It's reinforcement.


    if you dont allow it to become CW (none / 0) (#217)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:56:01 PM EST
    there is not reinforcement, and in which case- its an issue of waiting it out.

    Obamacons discover decimals (none / 0) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:29:10 PM EST
    Have you guys noticed the tendency to write about the results out in 2 or 3 decimal spaces?  They want to deflate the double digit victory.  

    Yeah (none / 0) (#88)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:44:10 PM EST
    Apparently it is the biggest deal ever that Hillary's 55-45 win be described as a mere 9.4% victory.

    I have to say, I have no idea if Obama is ready to be President, but his supporters sure are ready to start cranking out the talking points on his behalf.  Let the framing commence!


    It's (none / 0) (#173)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:56:30 PM EST
    always easy to tell what drives them crazy.

    A "double-digit" win is the hot-button now.  :)


    Amazed me how quickly the MCM picked up on (none / 0) (#214)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:51:36 PM EST
    the 9 point something expression of Hillary's win.

    Has that been done for any other primary thus far? I can't imagine there weren't some fractions of whole numbers, meaning decimal points.

    Wow. Pretty impressive of the Obama campaign. Got that MCM trained--or at least the MCM is only too willing to go after Hillary.

    Modo showed in her column that she's primed for the Obama takedown. Threw out some new ways to diss him.

    The MCM is not our friend.


    Obama goodbye (none / 0) (#99)
    by yourkidding on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:56:35 PM EST
    As though we needed further proof that the biggest liability Obama has is his rabid fans.
    Klein typically has to find someone else to blame for Obama's defecits & who better to blame than THE CLINTONS.   Pathetic

    slightly off-topic, perhaps, (none / 0) (#114)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:11:41 PM EST
    but has anyone wondered about the ramifications for Obama should he NOT win NC by double-digits?  If he only wins by 5 or 6 or 7?

    SUSA only has him up by 9 and that was before Hillary's PA victory, the new Ad buy she can now afford or whatever Town Hall Events she does in the State pre-Primary.  So, her numbers could easily change.  Not enough to win, perhaps, but enough to take advantage of those new doubts about Obama voters might be having.  

    It's quite possible that Obama's win in NC won't be the blowout everyone is anticipating, especially after the questions people are now posing about his Electability.

    You'd have to cut into the AA vote... (none / 0) (#167)
    by sweetthings on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:52:16 PM EST
    To seriously alter the margins in NC.

    Maybe Clinton's money can do that. It didn't work for Obama in PA, though. Hence the whole Demographic=Destiny meme.


    The Lukasiak Article ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:14:00 PM EST
    is worth reading.  Here's the key graph:

    The advantage in the "electability" argument that Obama held six weeks ago has vanished. Six weeks ago, Obama was doing significantly better than Clinton in these nine key states, now Clinton is doing better than Obama.

    The nine states are: CA, IA, OR, MA, MN, NM, MO, OH, WI.

    As he notes:

    While these 9 states are not representative of all 50 states (no Mountain/Plains or Southern states), they do represent the states that Democrats have to win in order to take the White House.

    The Media Narrative On (none / 0) (#144)
    by bob h on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:32:38 PM EST
    any Clinton victory, including PA, is that "Obama has work to do".  Third Party, anyone?

    Thrid party? You bet. (none / 0) (#155)
    by Arabella Trefoil on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:45:19 PM EST
    I said that Obama would run on a third party ticket back at the Old Place. I got attacked like I never have been anywhere.

    It's all about him. He thanks people for supporting "the cause." He used the Democratic party as a convenient launching pad.

    Thank goodness I see some familiar names here. There are only a few places where you can be a Hillary supporter and have a conversation.


    i feel you, but i can't stand to (none / 0) (#241)
    by kangeroo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:37:18 AM EST
    let him leech off of the democratic brand and then pocket the windfall to boot.  why should he be rewarded for arbitrage?  if anyone should be forced to leave as a third party, it should be obama.  let him peddle his crap elsewhere.

    Broadway Baby? (none / 0) (#152)
    by Tess on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:44:09 PM EST
    Wow! E-mail just sent out by McCain (none / 0) (#153)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:44:11 PM EST
    that sounds like a reply to this thread.  It's entitled Strategy Memo.  It breaks down the PA exit polls in excruciating detail and highlights the point that 55% of PA voters expect Obama to be the nominee.  It lists every category in which Clinton whipped him and talks about the essential nature of the working class vote to previous victories by Dems in PA and OH.  The Cliffs Notes version of the e-mail is "send me money stat because these morons are about to run the guy that we can beat.  The Clinton voters are ripe for the picking.  The Dems don't want 'em.  Send me money and I'll go get 'em."  It's wild.

    I don't know how to link to an e-mail?  Anybody know how I can get the text in here without cutting and pasting?  

    Adding that this is not Clinton's fault (none / 0) (#162)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:49:39 PM EST
    I don't want to hear from whiners that mean ol' Clinton is the one that let the cat out of the bag that this guy is McGovakakis.

    Forward to BTD or Jeralyn--they's know how to (none / 0) (#205)
    by jawbone on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:41:58 PM EST

    I am among the great unskilled with blog posting--so good luck.

    Or, if too terribly long, copy and paste.


    I sent it along (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:04:42 PM EST
    The most powerful aspect of the e-mail is when it rhetorically asks what McCain plans to do about these homeless Clinton voters and the e-mail answers: "While the Democratic nomination continues to unfold, our campaign is actively engaged in listening to voters' concerns and sharing John McCain's message with them."

    That's the language of respect.  'We think you matter.  Here's what we can do for you.  We'd like to have you on board.  Are you interested?'  The Obama campaign has yet to be able to deliver that message.  And based on today's statements by Axelrod, they don't even intend to try anymore.  Crazy!


    I wish that political writers ... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:48:46 PM EST
    would try to write graceful sentences.

    Look at this lumbering behemoth:

    In that scenario, the fact that Clinton remained in the race might make her a likelier nominee than Gore, but it militates towards a campaign that raises her positives and retains her acceptability to the majority of the party.

    "militates toward a campaign that raises"

    C'mon, even a sleep-deprived, greeting card hack could do better than that.

    Funny Thing (none / 0) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:57:19 PM EST
    The exit polls show that she is much more acceptable to Democratic voters than Obama.

    voting against obama (none / 0) (#177)
    by confloyd on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:59:18 PM EST
    Cy if you are still here. I see you said if the blue collars vote for McCain they deserve what they get more more, bad economy and etc. Well, Cy if Obama gets the nomination I will vote for McCain because you elitist will get what you deserve 8 more years of a republican and never will you get another chance to saddle us with a muslim, terrorist, marxist loving candidate again. Your party will not survive and we, the blue collar, typical white, italian, less educated folks will make sure you folks will have no party again! Thanks, at least McCain is a true American, whereas Obama is something else!

    Ezra Klein (none / 0) (#179)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:01:27 PM EST
    is the ripe age of 23. He knows nothing. He may be bright but at 23 what life experience does he have? At that age I was a John Anderson supporter. Biggest mistake of my life. I am sure that when Ezra Klein reaches 46 he too will look back and say "what was I thinking?"

    that's the trouble (none / 0) (#181)
    by Salo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:06:15 PM EST
    I'm rude and crude, but I can remember a few fights that went well and some that were disasters.

    I can also cross reference those memories with history.

    can a 23 year old do that?


    Mistake? (none / 0) (#243)
    by Mary Mary on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:02:21 AM EST
    I wanted Anderson but voted for Carter, and it didn't matter, now, did it? That's the vote I most regret making. :-)

    Worth Repeating (none / 0) (#185)
    by tdraicer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:14:45 PM EST
    "When Hillary campaigns, the focus in on her audience.  The message is "Here is what I will do for YOU if I'm elected president."  Obama's message is "Vote for ME, and I'll change the process in Washington and make things better for you."

    Obama's campaign is really about HIM, its narcissistic.  Clinton's campaign is about the voters themselves.   And that is why he's not getting through to these voters."

    I agree-that sums it up very well.

    I have been (none / 0) (#204)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:41:16 PM EST
    saying that Obama is a narcissist in the vein of Richard Nixon since January. The personal similarities are uncanny. They don't debate well, they can't handle criticism, they have poor judgment in their associates, they both can give great speeches (Obama is better) and they both can point to defining moments in their political career when a speech save their political lives only to unravel later. That's the poit with narcissists, it all comes back to haunt them.

    Look I like demographics too (none / 0) (#186)
    by smott on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:15:14 PM EST
    ...but I do not see how the BO vs. HRC demos necessarily conmpare to the BO vs McCain demos...

    Likein BTD's earlier thread, his breakdown is dead-on for primaries...but for GE...??

    Yes it[s fair to say that BO needs at least 45% of the non-black vote to get over the top...but can we extrapolate his male/female nbrs vs a whote woman to those vs. a white man?

    Even Chris Mathews seems to get it now (none / 0) (#188)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:18:38 PM EST
    I tuned in for the first time in months out of curiosity after PA.  He seems to be trying to be objective and has not uttered a single derogatory remark in the last 20 minutes.

    Wow (none / 0) (#191)
    by thibaulta on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:25:07 PM EST
    Former Edwards supporter, now Obama. Would happily vote for Clinton against McCain, although some of the things she's done in this campaign have really pissed me off. But in the end, none has gone far enough over the line that I would not support her in the general. So what you might say, but I just wanted everyone to know where I'm coming from as I ramble on here.

    The one thing that does give me GREAT pause is Kyl-Lieberman because I think that vote shows incredibly poor judgment -- especially after falling for this administration's lies on the AUMF. But it's not like I would ever vote for McCain, I'd just be less enthusiastic about the Dem race if she were the nominee.  

    I read this blog to keep from getting too stuck in the echo chamber, but it seems to me that more and more, many here are falling prey to the same extremism that they rightly criticize in Obama supporters.

    I'm not a concern troll, but bash away if you'd like. I doubt I'll change any minds, but the stereotype you have (and constantly reinforce) of Obama supporters, like all stereotypes, has some truth but leaves a lot out. I have many friends and family who support Obama and we're neither young nor naive.

    Many here seem to style themselves as the mature seasoned voters who -- in stark contrast to the naive, brainwashed Obama cultists -- understand reality and look at things as they really are (except of course delegate counts). But you are becoming just as blind.

    Using some Obama supporters' passion and the blind spots that develop as a result to justify your own viciousness and wholehearted embrace of Republican caricatures of Democrats is a sad sad thing.

    Read the post below and tell me this isn't a despicable thing coming from a Democrat.

    "It brought into the open what people had suspected about Obama, namely, that he is an affluent, over-educated, well-connected elitist who considers himself above addressing the needs of working people and the elderly.

    His followers love him because they share that disdain for anyone who isn't Teh Kewl. That explains the core hypocrisy of the Obama campaign, i.e., 'unity' and kumbaya contrasted by the utter viciousness of his actual voters."

    It engages the exact Republican frame that we have been beat over the head with year after year ("over-educated, well-connected elitist" -- wait you left out effete, and since when is education something to be denigrated, oh and Hillary could never be described this way, could she?), it shows utter contempt and even hatred for Obama voters while calling us contemptuous and vicious - neat trick ("His followers love him because they share that disdain for anyone who isn't Teh Kewl. That explains the core hypocrisy of the Obama campaign, i.e., 'unity' and kumbaya contrasted by the utter viciousness of his actual voters"), and on top of that it's just flat out ridiculous ("considers himself above addressing the needs of working people and the elderly").

    Well done. Mature, reasonable, impeccably logical - no overwrought cult-based emotion to see here, just reason and electability and high fives for a job well done by Jim J.

    Flame away....

    sure... (none / 0) (#211)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:48:15 PM EST
    just like the mature, reasonable flipping the bird to Hillary the day after the 'debate'

    Not everyone is as calm and composed as you apparently are unfortunately.


    You're right (none / 0) (#221)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:03:49 PM EST
    Some here, including myself, do have a way of expressing themselves that makes it appear as if they are simply falling prey to the same kind of smacktalk discourse that permeates Obama supporting blogs.

    One has this indefensible position of saying "two wrong don't make it right," but I'm always wondering how much time one spent on Obama supporting blogs telling them how crazy they sound before they moved on to a Clinton supporting blog to tell us how crazy we sound.

    And I always have this nasty suspicion the answer is "none," although I have been proved wrong at least once in the past.

    I wonder what you think of Obama himself on the first day of the campaign using the Republican talking point, Lincoln bedroom.  Or what you think of Obama attacking Clinton's health plan the same a republican would attack Clinton's health plan.

    You know, it's a primary, and Republican attacks on Democrats cover just about anything.  So it occured to me after long last it would be impossible for a Dem to criticize another Dem without going back and finding a republican who criticized a Dem the same way.

    So it is what it is.

    Now.  Regarding Kyl/Lieberman.  I think it's one of those things Democrats can disagree on without questioning someone's integrity.  I do think people who voted against it had legitimate reasons to do so.  And I think people who voted for it (including Obama supporter Dick Durbin) voted for it for legitimate reasons.   After reading Wes Clark's and Joe Wilson's (yes, they are Clinton supporters) observations on that vote, I find it hard to be so critical.  Indeed, Obama did support labelling the IRG as terrorists, and I also find it odd that Obama was not advocating one way or the other BEFORE the vote, and did not make the time to cast a vote, and I think it's funny he suddenly became an outspoken critic of that vote when he realized he could turn it into a POLITICAL ATTACK on his opponent.


    I have to tell you (none / 0) (#233)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:08:21 PM EST
    No fewer than TEN Democrats who voted against the Iraq war supported Kyl-Lieberman.  That vote is not the slam-dunk issue you think it is.

    The irony is that the problem most people have with Kyl-Lieberman is that it labels the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization - but Obama can't use that argument, since he co-sponsored a bill that would have done the exact same thing.  Instead he had to come up with a criticism of K-L that literally no other opponent of the bill made.  All credit to him, but it's pure political opportunism and you shouldn't be fooled.


    Axelrod says white WC vote R (none / 0) (#215)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:52:34 PM EST
    Watching Lou Dobbs tonight.  His poll is.. is there gender bias in the media against Clinton? Duh.  

    He was reading a quote by Axelrod... Axelrod says that the Republicans get the white working class vote? WTF

    So far, Obama is a new map, Emanuel says the vote is in the suburbs this year and Axelrod says they don't need the white working class vote.  What?!

    He also want after the NYT editorial.  :)

    Democrats want to WIN the GE (none / 0) (#218)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 06:58:54 PM EST
    Concern about Obama's electability is starting to register.

    An article by Michael Graham published yesterday in the Boston Herald notes that "while Hillary Clinton soundly beats McCain in Massachusetts in the new SurveyUSA poll, 56 percent to 41 percent, the Obama/McCain number is 48 percent to 46 percent, well within the margin of error."

    Some key quotes:

    Barack Obama, meet John Adams.

    Adams noted during the Boston Massacre trial that "Facts are stubborn things." And it appears that, for the moment, the facts have caught up with Obama here in Massachusetts.

    How else to explain the amazing, astounding and unthinkable results of the latest SurveyUSA presidential poll: Republican John McCain is tied with Barack Obama in the Bay State.

    The last Republican to win Massachusetts? Ronald Reagan. The last Republican before that? Dwight Eisenhower. Even George McGovern managed to carry Massachusetts in 1972, the one Democratic holdout in Richard Nixon's 49-state landslide.


    Typical Americans want to know if Obama, a liberal community activist with little political or executive experience, is tough enough to face our enemies in a troubled world. Massachusetts Democrats could not care less - they just want to make sure he's tough enough to take on McCain.

    And because the answer is "probably not," Obama is struggling among what should be his most ardent admirers. Massachusetts liberals like him as a guy, and they certainly support his politics. But they really hate losers. Especially after the last eight years.

    Pretty much what many of us have been saying here for a while now.

    Yes Ezra (none / 0) (#224)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:05:31 PM EST
    as long as Obama hides, nobody will see his weaknesses.

    And BTW, the Penn race also showed Hillary's strength -- core Democrats, Reagan Democrats, people who tend to go out and vote, etc.

    This should show you, Ezra-you-genius-you, that Hillary is probably the stronger candidate for Penn (and most everywhere else).

    Electability through obscurity (none / 0) (#228)
    by CSTAR on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:19:24 PM EST
    A common fallacy in discussions about presidential electoral politics. In practical terms it's the (mistaken) belief among some Democrats that the sooner Clinton drops out of the race, the less likely Republicans are to discover Obama's weaknesses.

    Related to "Security through obscurity": Company X's (mistaken) belief that an adversary A trying to break into Company X's payroll database is clueless and is just as confused about data protection as Company X's CIO is.