How Does John McCain Really Feel About Hillary's PA Win?

What does John McCain really think about Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania win? Here's the memo his campaign sent out today (no link, received by e-mail.)

To: Interested Parties
From: Rick Davis
Date: April 23, 2008
Re: Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Results

The race for the Democratic Nomination will continue.

Hillary Clinton's victory in Pennsylvania last night has extended the primary to the next round of contests (Indiana and North Carolina on May 6) and has maintained the competitive nature of the race.

With her 10-point victory, we should expect her poll numbers and resources to increase in the coming days. Primary wins, especially in the 2008 election cycle, have had a direct impact on the national polling numbers for the candidates and when national polling numbers increase, so do campaign donations.


Since last night, the Clinton campaign reportedly raised $10 million dollars online - enough to make a significant dent in upcoming media buys in North Carolina and Indiana. Barack Obama continues to surpass fundraising expectations and will most likely continue to do so. We need help during this period of democratic turmoil so we can build are resources and be ready to fight when the race begins.

Pennsylvania exit polls tell an interesting story that has implications for November.

Even though Hillary Clinton won this primary, Barack Obama is seen as the front runner among Pennsylvania Democrats and is perceived to be the candidate most likely to win the Democratic Party's nomination.

Fifty-five percent of Pennsylvania voters say they believe Barack Obama will be the nominee in November. And, one-fifth of Clinton's Pennsylvania supporters believe he will be the nominee in November. So, the victory for Clinton is seen as a bump in the road for Obama, even by some of her true believers.

Exit polls reveal why this poses significant problems for Obama if he becomes the nominee.The most important problem: Clinton voters don't automatically become Obama voters after he becomes the nominee. In fact, Obama leaves large portions of Clinton's coalition on the table in November.

Obama only wins 72% of the Democratic vote in a general election match up among those surveyed last night. Clinton shows her broad coalitional strength and wins 81% in a general election match up against John McCain. A full quarter of the Democrats in Pennsylvania are not willing to cast their ballot for Obama against McCain (15% say they vote McCain and 10% say they stay home), however, Clinton loses only 17% of Democrats (10% for McCain and 7% would not vote). This gap of 8-points would be significant in a general election match up. President Bush lost Pennsylvania by 2-points in 2004, when 41% of the electorate were Democrats. That 8-point gap among Democrats is enough to swing the state the other way (8% of 41% is 2.8-points, turning Pennsylvania red). This dynamic is clearly visible in publicly released surveys; an average of April polls show McCain trailing Obama by an average of 3-points (3 surveys in April) and trailing Clinton by 8-points.

The cracks in Obama's Democratic coalition in Pennsylvania mirror what we saw in Ohio, and those cracks could have implications in November.
Hillary Clinton cleaned up with Union households - like she did in Ohio. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won 59% of Union members (Obama 41%). Obama won these voters by significant margins in Wisconsin (+9), but has lost his hold on their vote in both Ohio (Clinton 55% - 43%) and now Pennsylvania.

Clinton did better than Obama with lower income voters.

Our targeting and analysis of the 2008 political landscape puts voters who are on the lower economic brackets at the heart of either party's winning coalition. Hillary won at every income level below $150,000, and Obama only won with the wealthiest Pennsylvania voters. Obama's media foibles contributed to his inability to connect to voters who are suffering the real impact of this challenging economic environment.

This is also apparent in the number of voters who feel Clinton is more in touch with their views. Fifty-six percent of Pennsylvania Democrats say Clinton cares about people like them - again a significant switch from earlier contests. Wisconsin exit polls shows Obama had a 12-point advantage on that measure. By the time Ohio held their primary, Clinton had switched the dynamic and led by 12-points.

Clinton won Catholic voters.

In Wisconsin, Clinton split the Catholic vote 50%-50% with Obama. Again, she changed the dynamic in Ohio and won Catholics by 27-points (63% - 36%). In Pennsylvania, she increased her margins and won by 38-points (69% - 31%). The strength of this coalition bolsters her argument that Obama would have had problems competing in Michigan and will not be able to carry key Midwestern states in November.

Clinton won Jewish voters.

In Pennsylvania, the first state where both candidates competed for a significant block of Jewish voters, Clinton won by 15-points (57% - 43%). Again, the data suggests Jewish voters, a key Democratic coalition, pose a potential problem for Obama.

Clinton increased her margins in suburban and rural areas - without losing ground in urban areas.

Clinton won Pennsylvania suburbs by a 12-point margin and won rural areas by 22-points. And Clinton lost in urban areas by 14-points. This is similar to her Ohio performance. But, it shows an increase in her performance in urban areas from earlier contests (in Wisconsin she lost urban areas by 21-points). Clinton has figured out how to increase her margins among suburban and rural voters and cut into Obama's base of urban voters.

What does that mean for John McCain?

Ultimately most pundits contend that Hillary Clinton still has more than an uphill battle to become the nominee. So, what does this victory mean for John McCain?

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. Senator McCain has an active schedule in the coming weeks. Last week, he gave a major economic address where he addressed short term concerns like enacting a summer gas tax holiday, he proposed a new "HOME Plan" to help those who are hurt by the housing crisis and he is proposing a student loan continuity plan to make sure America's college students aren't hurt from the credit crunch. In addition, Senator McCain has spent this week travelling to places many in our nation have forgotten and where our citizens have felt left behind but where hope, innovation and local solutions are helping to lift these communities up. And, next week, Senator McCain will visit various health care facilities and unveil his plans and solutions to help Americans improve access and affordability to good health care. In addition, the campaign is building our organization and resources for the campaign in the fall.

< Republican Attack Ads on Obama | Who's Stronger in November Against McCain? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    synopsis please? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:01:48 PM EST
    I can't read that much GOP propaganda.

    Hillary is a threat to the GOP (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:05:25 PM EST
    Obama? umm - not so much.

    Thanks! :-) (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:23:02 PM EST
    i wonder why the campaign sent this out (3.00 / 3) (#75)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:55:10 PM EST
    ?  do you think maybe they actually want Clinton to win.  First, she can't win unless Super D's overrule the American public.  Second, there is not an easier fundraising prop than the Clinton's.  Third, no easier way to get the base out than to nominate a Clinton.  Fourth, the fight for independents in the Fall, like it or not, be much easier against Hillary.  

    Oh, give it up. (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by echinopsia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:05:36 PM EST
    she can't win unless Super D's overrule the American public

    HE can't win unless the superdelegates are stupid enough not to do their job.

    It's about electability. He doesn't have it.


    These people are so boring. (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:07:48 PM EST
    The same stupid crap that is debunked every single day.

    If they support Obama, fine, but the talking points are so old.


    RE: (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:46:58 PM EST
    Wake up, people, and stop being afraid of teh Blacks ZOMG!!!111!!!.

    should we talk like you?


    do you really think (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:34:54 PM EST
    the super D's should/would overturn the people. in democratic election.  when Obama will have more states, more votes, and more delegates.



    he doesn't have (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:38:42 PM EST
    more votes. And the number of states won is irrelevant unless you also factor in the electoral power of these states in which case he's in a weaker position. What he has is more pledged delegates.

    If it saves us from losing in November - YES!! (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by echinopsia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:39:52 PM EST
    Your argument would carry more weight (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:34:51 PM EST
    if MI & FL were not being allowed to count (either as is or with a revote).  Until they do, there is no "will of the people."

    Stop chattering (none / 0) (#121)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:20:08 PM EST
    Really, its against site rules, serves no one, and honestly will make everyone just stop listening to you. How does this serve your interests?

    OK we agree to disagree ... (none / 0) (#126)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:29:00 AM EST
    ... so stop arguing.

    the SDs will also consider (none / 0) (#130)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:40:20 AM EST
    Obama's baggage that's emerged since he won more delegates.

    >>>>Obama will have more states, more votes, and more delegates.

    Obama'a elitism in his own words was mentioned by McCain yesterday.


    translation from GOPnese (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:38:02 PM EST
    Hillary can kick our booty but democrats are so dumb we think they are really going to go through with it and nominate this guy! Now, our job is to start emulating some of Clinton's populist rhetoric so we can scoop up her voters in the fall. Can you believe they might really nominate this guy?! At any rate, send money because there's a small chance the democrats might smarten up and send Obama out to pasture (yeah we know their history of making dumb decisions but even a broken clock is right twice a day) . That said, they are democrats. Oh yeah, back to our point send money and Go Obama!

    McCain 08


    I visit (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by sas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:58:38 PM EST
    Republican sites all over the web. (know the enemy)

    They are Sooooooo looking forward to Obama, because they feel he has so many weaknesses.  Chief among them are the usual Wright, clinggate stuff.  More than that, they believe the working class, Catholics, and disaffected Hillary women will go to McCain.  Some disparage Democrats for being so dumb as to not realize he will lose big time.  Or because of such a convoluted process to award delegates, that Dems can't avoid nominating him.

    Clinton?  They don't want to face her.


    true (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:16:48 PM EST
    ...they've already started using Obama as a cudgel and it will only get worse. One of the men who was paralyzed by one of the Weather Underground bombings is alive and well, just wait until he makes an appearance in an ad. The GOP is going to paint the entire party as having been taken over by radicals and Obama's connections will be used as living proof. It's the perfect climate for Reagan's famous, "I didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me," line but this time McCain will be the beneficiary.

    That's not propaganda (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:04:53 PM EST
    that's spot on 100% accurate reading of why Obama can't win in november.

    Here's a short piece on it:

    Clinton's Supporters Hardening Their Views on Obama


    Here's an interesting (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:13:43 PM EST
    comment on how the sexism has changed one woman's mind.



    uhm, hey, y'all (none / 0) (#100)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:13:47 PM EST
    does this letter say anything that we don't already know?  It's not like these are horrible, earth-shattering revelations.  We've been discussing Obama's demographic ceiling since Mississippi, and certainly the exit polling data from PA since last night.

    I don't think there's a nefarious, double-blind republican strategy going on; I think they're just doing what we're doing, which is looking at who would be the better candidate, what their weaknesses are, etc.  


    True, but (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by echinopsia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:18:50 PM EST
    what's amazing is that we see it, and the Repubs see it, but Obama supporters are blind.

    And it creeps me out a little that I'm agreeing with a Republican campaign memo.


    exactly! (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:02:44 PM EST
    >>>Clinton voters don't automatically become Obama voters after he becomes the nominee. In fact, Obama leaves large portions of Clinton's coalition on the table in November.

    It means (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:04:05 PM EST
    Send money, and we'll kick him out of the ballpark.

    new numbers are clear (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:08:20 PM EST
    Obama will be easier to beat in the GE for McCain based on these latest exit poll stats as well as the comparison polls mentioned. I think they're holding their breath for the dems to nominate Obama. I can see McCain praying every night, oh please oh please let the dems nominate Obama. If you do this I'll be really, really good. Snark.

    No way! (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by indymom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:08:47 PM EST
    Did they really say, "build are resources?"

    I saw that... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:26:59 PM EST

    Me too, but ... (none / 0) (#127)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:44:01 AM EST
    ... they are republicans. After all, they elected Bush, so I make allowances for some lack of acuity.

    Sounds to me (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:09:39 PM EST
    like the McCain campaign sees an opportunity to scoop up disgruntled Clinton supporters if Obama's the nominee.

    How is PA the first state with a significant bloc of Jewish voters?  New York, anyone?  

    Philadelphia and (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:33:04 PM EST
    the main-line suburbs have large numbers of well to do Jewish voters. So does Cherry Hill across the Delaware in NJ. The Jewish vote is likely more crucial in NY, FL, IL and CA but it is not in significant in RI, CT, NJ, PA, OH, TX, MD and MI. For Obama it is beginning to be a sum of the parts arguments. His parts can't add up to a whole victory in November. His flaws are now exposed fully. I always thought them self-evident but it is hard to reason with Obama's supporters who think Cinton the devil incarnate.

    As a card-carrying Joooo, (none / 0) (#55)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:34:35 PM EST
    this sounds right to me.

    We don't make up a huge part of the population, but when you add us in to every other group Obama has problems with, well...


    That's a weird thing to say (none / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:21:55 PM EST
    There must be at least a half-dozen states with more significant Jewish blocs than Pennsylvania.

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:46:01 PM EST
    but there are enough to have turned Montgomery County from light to dark blue. Actually, I'm pretty sure that's what happened yesterday.

    BTW (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:01:45 PM EST
    CNN has adjusted its exit poll since last night, and they're now saying that Hillary won Jews 62/38.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:54:08 PM EST
    Isn't that similar to the figures on Catholic voters and white women?  Not good news for Obama.

    I haven't seen any other analysis of the Jewish vote, but I certainly believe from anecdotal experience (living in NYC, being half-Jewish myself with many Jewish friends) that he does indeed have a Jewish problem.  Jews are not a huge segment of the population, but they do tend to actually come out and vote.  


    As do the older Catholic and Senior voters (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:10:41 PM EST
    in my 'hood. I think even if there isn't a high concentration of any one demographic, he will have problems in many areas because they contain several of the groups he doesn't do well with. The PA map and I'm sure many others show that. I think NY may have a high enough number of Jewish voters that it could be an issue for him.

    Yup, similar (none / 0) (#97)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:12:29 PM EST
    Full circle to my other question: is the "creative class" really just lower-middle-aged WASPY men? Other than AAs, I can't figure out what segment of the Democratic coalition is voting for Obama. At least, not in the Northeast.

    Well maybe that's not fair. He wins some votes from every segment of the coalition. But he LOSES most of them, most by double digits. Rather like the states overall, actually.



    That's significant (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:07:54 PM EST
    It's quite a bit larger than the spread I've seen in national polls.

    As a MOT myself I've seen anecdotal evidence of Obama's "Jewish problem" but the numbers never seemed to bear it out.  At the end of the day I believe we're smarter than that, mostly.


    He'll be the hardest sell Dem nominee (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:10:34 PM EST
    in my lifetime.

    I'm going to have a helluva time convincing my grandparents to vote for him. They won't vote for McCain, so they'll just stay home.

    To be blunt, other than AAs, what part of the Dem coalition does Obama have?  This party is in trouble.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:58:32 PM EST
    I expect I will have to blackmail my grandfather by telling him I don't want my daughter to fight any of John McCain's wars.  And my grandpa has literally voted for every Dem since FDR, something is wrong if he's a tough sell.

    I've got people in the family like that (none / 0) (#105)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:21:33 PM EST
    I think they'll end up being pragmatic come election day in November, but there would be no such worry if Hillary were at the top of the ticket.

    probably not since.. (none / 0) (#120)
    by kc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:10:15 PM EST
    they represent only 2% of the population.

    Could be (none / 0) (#17)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:22:17 PM EST
    but I've heard from Jewish people I know here in NYC that the Wright stuff has been circulating in the Jewish press for months.  

    I found out about it much of it in fall (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:29:51 PM EST
    and I'm not Jewish nor do I read the Jewish press.  (My spouse is Jewish, but I had to tell him about it.)  I came across a lot of it just owing to reading the Chicago press, and finding out about  Obama being UCC, which I know a lot about.  So I found the church site and started linking around it, and pretty soon . . . all I could say was yikes, this is not going to be good.  Ditto re Ayers and Dohrn, I read about their connection to Obama many months ago in the Chicago press.

    All just to say that this is more evidence to me that our media just are not doing their job -- either by biasing the news to sanctify one candidate while demonizing another . . . or by just not doing their job in even looking past campaign puffery to actually check out candidates for themselves.  (Another example is Obama's upbringing, as I don't think any media story ever has matched another media story in telling anything like the same story.)


    Media not doing its job (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:37:34 PM EST
    and this is why I've turned to Fox recently.  I think they're rather proud of their new status as the network that is doing its job in this primary campaign.  Of course, I take them with a grain of salt and I know they'll turn on Hillary in a New York minute if she's the nominee, but Obama has gotten such a free pass from the media and Fox is the only network that is getting on his case.  

    I personally don't buy the Fox shtick that Obama is a "far left-wing" candidate - I think he's far less progressive than Hillary - but when he offers his superior judgment as a substitute for experience, then his associations come into play.  This is why I'm interested in Ayers, Wright, Rezko.  


    Lord, Lord, Lord. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:39:35 PM EST
    There is NOTHING that will cause me to turn to Fox News. I would rather watch reruns of Teletubbies.

    I watch (none / 0) (#59)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:43:06 PM EST
    for Schadenfreude.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#63)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:44:44 PM EST
    I'd have to be heavily medicated with single-malt to enjoy it. :-)

    LOL (none / 0) (#65)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:48:51 PM EST
    I'd have to be heavily medicated with something highly illegal to watch CNN or MSNBC these days.  I heard that Obamaman issued a semi-death threat to Hillary tonight, something to the effect that somebody from the DNC should go into a room with her and only one person should come out.  Lovely.  

    Flaw in that scenario (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:37:34 PM EST
    is if that happened, Hillary would be the one walking out of that room.  I'd bet my life on it.

    Oh no he didn't! (none / 0) (#68)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:49:53 PM EST
    Someone needs to adjust HIS meds.

    Does he even have a clue how nutso he sounds these days?


    He's destroying (none / 0) (#70)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:50:47 PM EST
    whatever credibility he had.  I suppose he's apoplectic over her win in PA.  

    and I watch to decrease ... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:07:18 PM EST
    the ratings of CNN and MSNBC.

    I Have Always Believed That They Will Start Doing (none / 0) (#104)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:20:16 PM EST
    their job full time when Obama officially becomes the nominee. Right now they are  pursuing their favorite pass time of destroying the Clintons. As soon as Hillary is out of the picture, they will start to do a similar job on Obama. The closer he gets to  the nomination the more they are beginning to do little jabs here and there. Kinda like warming up the crowd for the big finale to come.

    I think Hillary should send this (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:10:45 PM EST
    to all the superdelegates - it makes a great case for why she should be the nominee.

    As for McCain, I have to wonder if he isn't going to stop hitting Obama so hard, because doing so may boost Hillary, and doing that may cut into his own support.

    McCain (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:25:51 PM EST
    is pulling the Republican signature move.

    He lets his surrogates take the low road with the attack ads, and then, he feigns outrage and demands they take the ads back - after the damage has been done.

    The liberal McMedia falls for it every time.


    Sober (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by koshembos on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:18:52 PM EST
    Sadly, the GOP understands what is so obvious. Obama didn't lose just PA, he lost the general. These are the fruits of the divisive campaign he waged and the tacit approval of hate and racism against Hillary supporters.

    The super delegates must force him to change his ways before we go on to 8 more years of Bush.

    I remember in the 70's when I was a member (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:19:17 PM EST
    and activist in the Republican party.  One thing we use to discuss was prolonged primaries, one old timer use to tell us that if you have strong candidates they can be beneficial because they keep your candidates up front and center for the voters to see. Of course this was before 24/7 cable news.

    Jeralyn, if you aren't watching, catch this later. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Teresa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:21:37 PM EST
    Richardson is debating Carville about the primary on Larry King. Great fireworks and Carville is destroying every argument Richardson makes.

    Richardson said this isn't a coronation (the dynasty thing). Carville pops him back with no it's not, people are voting.

    Fun. Richardson admitted she shouldn't quit but then says we are giving McCain a free ride. That's true for the time being, but what do we do? Just call off the vote?

    Hope and opportunity...that's the ticket says Richardson. Osama, Osama, blah blah.

    He was much weaker defending Obama than (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Teresa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:37:52 PM EST
    he was himself. He was desperate but not effective at all.

    Carville isn't the most liked Democratic strategist anymore but he's a great debater. I've bought a ticket to go to a dinner for him May 15 I hope the race is still on then!


    I wish I'd watched (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:08:45 PM EST
    I used to like Richardson in the beginning of the campaign, but I was turned off by his abysmal performance in the debates.  In particular, he made a huge gaffe in the LOGO debate where he said being gay was a choice.  Giving him the benefit of the doubt, his heart was probably in the right place, but his foot was inserted firmly in his mouth.

    He was disappointing to me too. One of my (none / 0) (#45)
    by Teresa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:22:52 PM EST
    family members donated to him and wants a refund so he can send it to Hillary.

    Ugh, I gave him 50 bucks (none / 0) (#53)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:30:50 PM EST
    way back in October.  That got me on his mailing list and after he dropped out, he came begging for money to pay off his campaign debt.  I'm sure the Obama campaign has paid off his bills by now.

    Me too (none / 0) (#49)
    by bjorn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:26:23 PM EST
    I think I still would have gone with Clinton but he was terrible in almost every debate and I was so disappointed. I still don't understand how he ending up doing a better than Biden and Dodd.

    He cut some kind of deal (none / 0) (#51)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:29:15 PM EST
    with the Obama campaign in Iowa, whereby if Obama supporters would write him in as #2, his Iowa delegates would go to Obama.  That probably kept him in the race longer.

    I so wish... (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:31:35 PM EST
    that instead of covering this, you had gone to the discussion of McGovern which I think is entirely germane.

    John Judis at the New Republic

    Jonathan Chait rebuts him here

    and the first time I saw this concept was Here at the San Francisco Chronicle

    I guess I'm pretty much not interested in letting John McCain (or his campaign manager), Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or any of the Republicans pick our candidates when heck, we do pretty poorly on our own.

    The above memo from McCain's campaign is just fodder for some more concern trolling by Ezra...pointless.

    Now the notion that Obama is putting together a voting coalition of blacks, youth and heavily educated, wanting to end a war...all smacks of McGovern and the result was traumatic. Do we really want a repeat of 1972?

    the GOP understands (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:37:33 PM EST
    what the DNC has blinded itself to: the more people get to know sen. obama, the less he appeals to them.

    were the wisconsin primary being held next week, sen. obama would lose handily. he had the advantage of being almost a "stealth" candidate at that point; no longer. as more data becomes available about sen. obama, the more people realize he's not the best candidate the democrats have for the GE.

    with the exception of his hard core base (AA's), he's lost significant ground in every demographic segment. what was a trickle has become a flood.

    sen. obama will win NC (over 20% AA population, probably 50% of dem votes), but neither dem will win it in the fall, so it's essentially  meaningless as a determinent of either candidate's electability in nov.

    the GOP may be obnoxious, they aren't stupid.

    someone send this to Kos, et al (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:49:41 PM EST
    so they can start yelling at McCain for pointing out Obama's weaknesses.  He will never win the presidency if they keep tearing him down!  They are ruining the party!

    This letter from Rick Davis (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by karen for Clinton on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:11:00 PM EST
    is infinitely more accurate at understanding the significance of the polls than anything I've read in The New York Times, CNN or NBC.

    I've shunned all things republican for decades.

    Now that we have a mutal view on all things obama I find myself lingering over Rush and Fox, often in agreement.  Shudder.

    And the worst part is I cannot vote for Obama, I will not vote for McCain, so I'm going to sit this one out if she doesn't get what she is due.

    McCain will win and all I will be able to say is "I told you so" as the world spirals away.

    I'm glad I'm not alone (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:20:13 PM EST
    in this.  I've been watching Fox lately.  I find that Kkkarl Rove gives pretty good political analysis.  Well, I guess he would - he's the "architect" as they call him on Hannity & Colmes.

    I don't listen to Rush, but I've been watching H&C, Lou Dobbs and sometimes O'Reilly.  Also Joe Scarborough, although he's such a Hillary fanboy that I can't even count him as a Republican these days.  What I find is that the Republican commentators have a better grip on what's going on in this election.  I heard Newt Gingrich tonight say that FL and MI need to be seated.  Hannity is hammering the Wright videos - as well he should, b/c you'd better believe it's going to be a huge issue in November if Obama's the nom.  That dirty laundry isn't going away anytime soon.

    All of these shows have expressed incredulity at today's NY Times editorial about Hillary's campaign taking the low road.  

    The supposedly liberal commentators just want to stick their heads in the sand.  


    This is so true (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:24:12 PM EST
    In fact, Obama leaves large portions of Clinton's coalition on the table in November.

    I am one of them. So is my partner. So are both my neighbors. So are about a third of the people on my block who have come to loathe Barack Obama. Loathe. Detest. Odious. Dulplicitous. Can't Stand. Makes my blood boil. Those are the words we use when we discuss BO.

    I have a friend, gay man in his early 70s. Well off worked for Charles Schwab many years. He has a PhD in Linguistics. He was a moderate Republican until Reagan. Last voted GOP for Ford. Has never contributed to a Presidential campaign. Last night he made a contribution to Hillary. And he will vote for McCain over Obama.

    The Obama folks just don't get the depth of our dislike. And none of us have ever felt this way about a Democrat before.

    Same for McCain (none / 0) (#50)
    by Buckeye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:27:58 PM EST
    Many repubs find McCain repugnant.  Rush Limbaugh hyperbolized that if McCain wins the nomination, it will destroy the republican party.  They seem to be slowly coming home.  Are you sure that months of campaigning from BO as well as seeing him get attacked from the right will keep you home (or voting for McCain)?

    It is interesting... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:44:07 PM EST
    ...that J. Sydney McCain III ran basically unopposed in the PA primary and only managed to get 70-some percent of the vote.  

    I think those that went for the lesser tier candidates are the die-hard 29%'ers that still back Bush and his merry band of thugs.  

    In the end, they'll be pulling the "R" lever in the voting booth--no matter who's name is next to it.  

    It's the ones who are sick of their party and those who control it that the Democrats need to target.


    I think the results in PA for McCain (none / 0) (#77)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:56:36 PM EST
    Probably stems from the fact that he's the presumed nominee, so there's not much of a reason for people who support him to vote for him, which depresses his vote while voters who still support other candidates are more likely to come out in some sort of protest vote.  I imagine his numbers would be higher if he hadn't already won it.

    Wow (4.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:29:01 PM EST
    It takes quite a spinner to claim that oodles of Obama voters stayed home when there was record-shattering turnout at the polls.

    I'm sure Obama's supporters watched him campaigning in PA from dawn till dusk every day and said "I'm not going to bother, clearly he knows he has this thing locked up."


    Actually (none / 0) (#125)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:17:39 AM EST
    his turn-out in Philly wasn't that hot.

    There was quite a few discussions about that.

    He missed the mark.


    I wasn't talking about Obama... (none / 0) (#129)
    by reynwrap582 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:51:15 AM EST
    I was responding to McCain not getting more than 70% of the republican vote in the primary.

    Please... (none / 0) (#132)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:05:22 AM EST
    ...make sure you read the comments before calling someone a spinner.  I know that might be hard for you to refrain from the BO bashing, but it is not always about that.  

    Sometimes it is about the true enemy.  You know--the republicans?  Remember them?


    He's already won? (none / 0) (#93)
    by echinopsia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:09:52 PM EST
    I imagine his numbers would be higher if he hadn't already won it.

    When? Where? How did I miss that?


    Uhh... (none / 0) (#98)
    by reynwrap582 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:13:42 PM EST
    He's the presumptive nominee?  He's passed the delegate threshold?  There are no Republicans anywhere near his count and he'd need to either die or be embroiled in a scandal so big that it would trigger his immediate withdrawal from the race?  You realize I'm talking about McCain here and not Obama, right?

    Sorry. Read too fast. (none / 0) (#107)
    by echinopsia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:22:12 PM EST
    Someone yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Nadai on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:03:48 PM EST
    posted a quote by Bill Clinton: "Democrats fall in love.  Republicans fall in line."

    I suspect that most Republicans (not all) will fall in line come November.  Some will stay home.    A tiny, tiny few will vote Democratic.  The rest will sigh and pull the lever marked "R".  That's what Republicans do.

    I'm not so sure about the Democrats.  I'm not so sure about me.  I loathe Obama now.  I really don't know that I can make myself vote for him if he wins the nomination.  Maybe if I go cold turkey on all political news, especially all political blogs.  Maybe.  But I don't think so.


    A race to the bottom by both parties! (none / 0) (#67)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:49:33 PM EST
    Somehow, I don't think that this was what the Founders intended.  Of course, some fervently hoped that there would not be parties at all.  Astute of them.

    Ah... (none / 0) (#80)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:58:22 PM EST
    ...those elitist, wig-wearin', male founding fathers.  Such Pollyanna's!

    But, you never know.  The R's could very well implode over a thing like immigration.  And if the D's can't win this election, against this Republican candidate, I'm not sure they deserve to survive.  


    That's true (none / 0) (#76)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:55:48 PM EST
    many Republicans dislike/hate McCain for a variety of reasons (conservative views on free speech for corporations and immigration) but they seem to be coming together. And I don't doubt that some of Clinton's supporters who won't vote for Obama now may in the Fall but I will. I'd rather go with the more experienced candidate for starters even if I disagree with him on most things and voting for McCain actually is in my own economic self-interest. He gets rid of the AMT tax which I hate.

    Democrats fall in love (none / 0) (#78)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:57:18 PM EST
    Republicans fall in line.

    Sometimes I wish I were a Republican.  Life would be so much simpler!


    I also don't see the Obama followers as real (none / 0) (#115)
    by thereyougo on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:40:14 PM EST
    democrats in the tradition of Bill Clinton and JFK.
    They're an offshoot of thirty something year olds
    with an axe to grind against Hillary and the party elders.

    I also see them as former Republicans, what do they say about former allegiances? You can take the person out of the party but now I'm asking do you really take being Republican out of the person?  

    This is the youth vote that the Ocamp vests their hopes and candidacy.  Since Obama has recruited online and invested so much on a blog presence it has been the engine that has driven much of the Hillary trashing. How much has he paid them? Judging from the blogs I visit, his mug is on 90%.
    It must be a nice chunk of change.


    Republicans killed the equal pay bill (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:36:13 PM EST
    today in the Senate, 56 - 42. Both Clinton and Obama were in Washington to vote.

    John McCain is against the bill as he states he believes it will instigate too many law suits.

    Equal pay for women - NO

    Those freaking (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:43:23 PM EST
    Republican bastards.

    This is why I will NEVER vote for McCain. He is a right-wing thug and a neocon extraordinaire.


    Please... (none / 0) (#85)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:02:15 PM EST
    ...don't get me started on that man and what is wrong with him!  It's past my bedtime already.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#89)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:04:10 PM EST
    I feel your pain.

    Hillary needs to use this (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:58:55 PM EST
    Every single woman in America should be outraged by the idea that a company can hide the fact that they aren't paying you equally to a male counterpart and get away with it.

    He's so freakin' clueless (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:59:08 PM EST
    "They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else," McCain said. "And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have somebody to take care of them.


    He may want to look at the stats regarding women and education these days. They also aren't being paid equally.

    If we were paid equally, they wouldn't need to worry about law suits now would they?


    I'll gve him this... (none / 0) (#101)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:16:32 PM EST
    '"And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have somebody to take care of them."'

    Given the cost of child-care, it is a burden if you don't have someone to look after the kids.  

    But then, he certainly never, ever had to worry about that.  Or housing or medical care or...


    But if the pay were equal (none / 0) (#108)
    by nycstray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:24:04 PM EST
    more women would be able to afford to go to work.

    And I'm guessing Cindy is pretty out of touch with the basic issues also . . .   {sigh}


    Ye olde Double Reverse Psychology? (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:49:13 PM EST
    They telegraph that they would prefer to face Obama, so that everyone will think that they would actually like to face Hillary... when in fact, they actually would like to face Obama. Anywho, his omniscience, Olbermann, and deputy omniscient Rachel Maddow, of course took the bait tonight and were all "ah-ha! they actually DO NOT want to face Obama!" Good work, Keith. They can't fool you.

    I deserve a big piece of (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by facta non verba on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:50:23 PM EST
    chocolate because I actually watched KO and Rachel Maddow tonight. To them this letter means that the GOP wants Clinton and not Obama as the nominee. Why is everything to them a conspiracy theory? This was a letter to GOP fundraisers.

    I wonder if KO and Rachel Maddow stay up all night and think up bizarre conspiracies. Even before Rick Davis wrote his letter, many other seasoned observers had already said the same thing.

    Memo to KO if numerous people can come to the same conclusion independently then it is not a conspiracy theory.

    The lovely Ms. Maddow (none / 0) (#73)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:52:50 PM EST
    has been SUCH a disappointment. She is so smart and insightful, but that Obama Kool-aid proved too strong for even her big brain...

    Just more evidence (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by frankly0 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:51:28 PM EST
    that the long Democratic "nightmare" of this primary campaign has produced something quite unexpected: the absolutely clear perception in the eyes of most voters that Hillary is the representative of the most moderate wing of the Democratic Party, and the hero of the working class.

    There was a time Hillary would have had to fight the perception that she was a way out-of-touch liberal, because that is the way Rush and friends have spent years upon years depicting her. But Hillary's "brand" has been redefined by this electoral process. Probably the most convincing evidence that a politician is of a certain stripe is who finds him or her appealing. It really becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy after awhile: certain kinds of voters will vote for a politician because those kinds of voters have voted for him/her before. It's pretty clear that that is what's happened at this stage both to Hillary and Obama; the feedback mechanism has achieved nearly perfect stability.

    The beauty of this in Hillary's case is that in fact her policies themselves are very progressive -- indeed, distinctly more progressive than Obama's. Yet it will be very, very hard for McCain or the Republicans to convince voters at this stage that she's out of the mainstream, given the hard perceptions to the contrary now inculcated in the public's mind.

    All of which makes me feel very hopeful if Hillary actually wins (and coming from behind would make it only more a positive in her perceptions). And, of course, if Obama wins instead, all of this turns around to a negative: he's perceived as far out of touch, yet with less progressive policies. In other words, far more risk, with far less reward.

    Mending and not mending (1.00 / 2) (#32)
    by pluege on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:55:25 PM EST
    HRC's support is the entire democratic base except Blacks. Obama's wine tasters and students are an unreliable unknown as far as November is concerned, i.e., they are not reliable, proven democratic base.

    A HRC nomination and Blacks come home to vote dem in November because blacks have no inherent bias against HRC, they just prefer one of their own. An Obama nomination and many of the non-black democratic base stay home for the same reason they're not voting for Obama in the primaries - they're not going to vote for a black man.

    That's not why (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:06:22 PM EST
    the Clinton base would refuse to vote for Obama.  He's insulted blue collar Dems and basically accused them of being bigots.  Many of these more conservative Dems - the Reagan Dems - will opt for the experience of McCain over the thin resume of Obama.

    Plus the sexism (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by abfabdem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:44:14 PM EST
    of the blogger boyz tacitly approved by the Obama camp and his offering kisses for votes.  Yeccch!

    Meh (none / 0) (#86)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:02:39 PM EST
    McCain and his statement on not allowing women recourse when not being paid fairly says enough for me(because the poor, poor corporations might get sued for not paying equally. Duh that is the point.)

    Wait a minute (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by sas on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:10:00 PM EST
    many of the non-black Democratic base votes FOR Hillary.  She's the better candidate.  Don't give me this 'not voting for a black man' crap-
    straight out of the Obama race card playbook.  

    As in, I am so wonderful, and I have all the answers, and I am so perfect a candidate, that  the only reason that one could possibly come up with for not voting for me is because I am black?


    Wow. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:20:57 PM EST
    Could you possible throw some more sweeping generalizations in that?  I haven't reached my maximum daily requirement for today.

    Wrong! It's not about racism (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:06:38 AM EST
    An Obama nomination and many of the non-black democratic base stay home for the same reason they're not voting for Obama in the primaries - they're not going to vote for a black man.

    BTD had a thread earlier today about this ridiculous argument. Why is it that the millions of votes for Hillary still don't convince the Obama fans that people have valid reasons for voting for her?

    We're not supporting her because Obama is black. It's because we want a Democrat to win, Hillary is way more qualified, and we can see from the polls to date that Obama cannot win against McCain. And we don't like to lose, OK!


    Darn Jer are you sure this isn't from an (none / 0) (#1)
    by Florida Resident on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:59:35 PM EST
    pro-Obama pundit?

    I don't thnk an Obaman would come up with (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:20:27 PM EST
    the phrase -- or even allude to -- his "media foibles."  Marvelous, elegant understatement there.  I cracked up; it read like something in a British novel of manners.  "Yes, m'lady, dontchaknow, he did have his problems with, um, media foibles . . . but his telling the lords that the hoi polloi are bitter, clingy, gun-toting haters of all those unlike them is not the sort of thing we discuss in the best drawing rooms.  It's just not done.  More crumpets?"  

    You are cracking me up (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:27:10 PM EST
    The foibles line jumped out at me too.  Playing right into the whole McCain is nobly above it all theme as the 527's tear BO from limb to limb.

    I forgot to add (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by davnee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:28:21 PM EST
    They need someone in the background yelling through their stiff upper lip "Release the hounds!"

    How about (none / 0) (#64)
    by echinopsia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:44:55 PM EST
    We need help during this period of democratic turmoil so we can build are resources and be ready to fight when the race begins.

    "Are" resources? Is there an editor in the house?

    (Besides me)


    This is expected. (none / 0) (#22)
    by ajain on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:32:17 PM EST
    How did you get this email? Looks like an internal email, or email to fundraisers.

    But well, its not a shocking analysis.

    "so we can build are resources"....? (none / 0) (#23)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:32:34 PM EST
    ...to hire a proofreader?

    All your base are belong to us (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:46:14 PM EST
    I can haz delegates? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by stillife on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:24:10 PM EST
    is there a single actual (none / 0) (#72)
    by dem08 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:52:38 PM EST
    Obama quote accusing white voters of preferring Hillary because they are "inherently racist"?

    Is there any actual proof that all these ant-Obama slurs are real?

    "The Obama Playbook" is a catch-all for some posters here.

    Don't any of these type of bald, undocumented posts make Jeralyn and Big Tent uncomfortable?

    You mean besides (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:02:02 PM EST
    the time he said that the reason blue collar white Dems aren't voting for him because they cling to guns, religion and their antipathy to people who aren't like them coupled with the fact that the message of change is being delivered by a 46 year old black man named Barack Obama?  Or the time he said his racist grandmother is a "typical white person?" Really, take your pick.

    I'd realy like to know what a (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:09:48 PM EST
    "typical white person" is? I'd imagine AAs would be rightly offended if I branded them as "typical" and stereotyped them into a neat litle box. Pssssst, Senator Obama white people come from all over the spectrum (different regions and different income levels) and have all types of experiences who happen to make them who they are.......It's insulting to act as if we are a "type" based on our skin color.  

    this is Obama's racial animus? (none / 0) (#133)
    by dem08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:32:03 AM EST
    Do you really think this single remark justifies what posters here call Obama's "Racial Playbook"? Listen to what he said and tell me he isn't a real person who understands how people really feel:

    "The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

    Obama's big problem is that he is a human in an era when people want "On-Message" robots.


    Actually (none / 0) (#94)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:10:37 PM EST
    he's quoted as saying his problem is with older voters.  

    Add ageist to his faults. Live long enough (none / 0) (#124)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:39:08 PM EST
    and any body will get old. Guarantee it!

    Yeah, I know, at 30 you think it's someone's fault if they get old. /snark


    equal. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:57:54 PM EST
    I think Obama and Clinton are at this point, actually, exactly even as far as electability.

    The plusses and minuses of both are at equilibrium, and it's some sort of stylistic or emotional difference (as well as damn stubborness) that's keeping the sides from seeing both as winners (or, I guess, losers, but that's just a self-fulfilling prophecy). But psychology is the hardest thing of all for logic to penetrate.

    Not at all equal. (none / 0) (#87)
    by madamab on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:03:16 PM EST
    HRC's strengths are in the states that the Democratic nominee needs to win.

    Now that the Republicans are starting the Wright/Rezko ads, I'm not sure I can still get behind the joint ticket idea either.


    The Armando Gambit. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:10:58 PM EST
    Well, unfortunately that's where McCain's strengths are as well. And Obama hasn't been hitting Clinton hard on her scandals because that's unseemly in a frontrunner (and, pragmatically, it would lose him votes).

    So, just to steal a page from Armando (the one earlier today, about anti-Obama voting habits, was brilliant, btw) and turn an argument around on itself:

    Logically, you're positing that because Clinton voters would defect to McCain if Obama were the nominee that's a weakness for Obama. But really it just paradoxically signifies how easily PA, OH, and FL Clinton voters could defect to McCain even if Clinton is the nominee (they're ready to defect right now!), should she get hit harder than Obama can do right now.


    doesn't really hold up (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:18:09 PM EST
    what could they hit her with?  Gimme an Ayers, a Rezko, an Auchi, a Wright, a slumlord, an elitist, an arugula-embracing anti-death penalty, fp lily livered stance...something new that the public doesn't already know about a zillion times over, something easy to sell in an ad.

    The great thing about the Clinton brand is that it's presold.  Did you know that Clorox burns if it gets in your eyes?  And smoking causes cancer?  And that drinking to excess can damage your liver?  Yeah, I'm shocked, too.


    Well... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Addison on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:21:34 PM EST
    ...the Obama things you've brought up have been well-documented by our faithful servants the mass media.

    And who knows about the pardons? Not many.

    And frankly, reminders of the Clinton era -- as "presold" as it was -- got Bush elected (and that was with Gore, not even a Clinton!), I'm not sold that they couldn't get McCain elected. At all. I think there's a false lull here engendered by Obama's inability to go completely slanderous on the Clintons because of his frontrunner status.


    Bush was not elected in 2000. (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by hitchhiker on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:41:35 PM EST
    He lost that race when he lost the state of Florida.  It's not HRC's doing or even Bill's doing that Bush was appointed . . . maybe Donna Brazile had something to do with it, though.

    What's she up to these days?  Creating more winning strategies for Democrats?


    do you know what a sure thing is? (none / 0) (#116)
    by angie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:40:56 PM EST
    Yes, Clinton's voters could defect to McCain "even if" she is the nominee -- anything is possible -- but her voters will defect to McCain if Obama is the nominee.
    Big difference.

    It's all about racism that is still rampant (none / 0) (#131)
    by marymansour on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:23:01 AM EST
    For a few bright shining months I thought this country had worked through the issues of race and class.  Uh uh!! Dead wrong on that one. We will probably lose this wonderful man as our leader because the middle class, lower income dudes still hate blacks.  And of course there are those who regard Israel as our 51st state to be defended by Hillary's nukes if necessary.  I,for one,will not vote for Hillary if she gets the nomination. I will either write in Obama or vote for Nader and I have voted Democratic for most of my adult life.  Just call me white, middle class with small income in Alabama.  And sorely disillusioned by all this.