home

Media Elite v. The Voters: NYTimes Says Let Elites Decide, Not The Voters

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:48:21 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Media Elite despises the voters. They are, in the parlance of Leona Helmsley, the "little people," to them. Look at Maureen Dowd's contempt for regular Democratic voters:

“You know, some people counted me out and said to drop out,” said a glowing Hillary at her Philadelphia victory party, with Bill and Chelsea by her side. “Well, the American people don’t quit. And they deserve a president who doesn’t quit, either.”

Dowd's response?

“The time has come. The time has come. The time is now. Just go. ... I don’t care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton, will you please go now! You can go on skates. You can go on skis. ... You can go in an old blue shoe. Just go, go, GO!”

Like Russert, Dowd likes to tout her working class roots, but like Russert, she is now part of the Nantucket/Hamptons summer place elite. Those "little people" called the voters are an irritation to them. More . . .

The NYTimes gives away the game of this Media Elite disdain for the voters:

It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box.

Let the Democratic Party Elites decide say the Media Elites. And decide now. We are sick and tired of these "little people" voters. The contempt is palpable.

< Late Night: Here Comes the Sun | Demography Is Political Destiny >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Media Elite v. The Voters: NYTimes Says Let Elites Decide, Not The Voters | 220 comments (220 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    BUT (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by glennmcgahee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:52:52 AM EST
    That would mean that Donna Brazille would have to leave the party. Go Donna Go, I don't care how. Just go!

    An Obama supporter told me with a (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:22:08 AM EST
    a straight face Brazille is neutral.  

    [ Parent ]
    ROTFLMAO (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:24:09 AM EST
    Wonder if they just are just that into spin or if they are actually that delusional.

    [ Parent ]
    they ARE (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:28:03 AM EST
    absolutely that delusional.  that is what makes them so dangerous.

    [ Parent ]
    Pro-Obama IS defined as neutral! (5.00 / 5) (#60)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:30:39 AM EST
    Objectivity means anti-Obama bias.
    Anti-Clinton bias means clear eyed rationality.

    Since my guy is not in this race, it's a lot easier for me to see the hyperbole.  Clinton supporters have known their candidate was not perfect from day one.  Obama supporters - not so much.

    [ Parent ]

    She IS neutral (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:12:44 AM EST
    Her brain is in neutral.  Permanently.

    [ Parent ]
    This is Good for the Dem Party IMO (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:55:52 AM EST
    North Carolina is next up on May the 6th, and I can tell from seeing all this that--The Democratic Party (not candidate parties) are setting up organization here, the candidates are pulling in volunteers and staff to work for them, and there is in general tons of excitement for the Democratic Party here. North Carolina hasn't mattered in a long, long time.

    So I'm glad that this race has been prolonged. I think it helps our chances. I would like to see this race end after Puerto Rico. There is, in my opinion, no reason for it to go on any longer than that. The SD's should declare AFTER the primary on June 3rd in PR, but not drag this to the convention.

    The excitement is on our side. The organization is on our side. I feel good about our chances in Novemnber.

    Dont dis Nantucket! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:56:48 AM EST
    Renting a house on Nantucket is WAY cheaper than in the Hamptons, by a factor of 10.

    Nantucket is very low key, no Gucci or Prada like Easthampton. I am no elite, as I sit here at my executive assistant job while my husband is home writing.

    Obama People Are Out And Doing The Spin Again (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by awang on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:57:18 AM EST
    Hillary WON! The Obama supporers are nervous. You can see it in those Obama-favoring pundits' eyes. Just days before the primary they kept citing polls that favored Obama, saying that the race was tied. Now they are saying that Clinton was expected to win by 15-20 points. So a 10-point win last night was a disappointment for Clinton...To come up with this kind of twisted thoughts, you know these people are hurting.

     The democratic party has clearly been hijacked by the extreme leftwing. For left-leaning independents, this is very frustrating. The extreme righwing nuts of the Republican party took control of the party and they gave us George W. Bush. The democratic party is in danger of repeating the same mistake--not electing the most capable person into the white house. Our country needs Clinton NOW. There is no time for the empty "hope" talks. In the Philadelphia debate, it was obvious that while Hillary has provided detailed and substantive proposals, Obama spent most of his time describing this country's problems that we already know. He provided little insight on the solutions to these problems. Obama, I am afraid, is quite hollow in terms of his plan to lead this country to a better future. We need to alarm the democratic party that many independent voters could turn to McCain if Obama is nominated. I think this scenario is quite real and it has not been talked about enough in the main stream media. Take a look. http://ivotemccainifobamaisnominated.blogspot.com/ (I vote for McCain if Obama is nominated)

    SPAM ALERT (none / 0) (#203)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:24:12 PM EST
    Awang, you have now posted the same comment nine times. This time you added a preamble to disguise it.

    [ Parent ]
    But, but (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:58:34 AM EST
    those pesky voters are dividing the party!  You see if they'd all just vote how the media elite wants them to, the party would be united....

    exactly! (none / 0) (#16)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:06:56 AM EST
    and these Media Elites' egos are so sensitive they'll twist and turn the facts in order to continue their narrative no matter how out-of-sync and boneheaded it is with regards to Reality or how many, many times they're proven wrong (see:  Super Tuesday, Ohio, PA, et al).  

    Don't the rubes (that'd be us, by the way) know these Elites have political prognostication skills far beyond what those who don't have a By-line posses?  

    Because, really, the By-line knows best, you know?  I mean, right?  Right?

    (evident, obvious snark)

    [ Parent ]

    Maureen Dowd is really over the top here. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Saul on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:00:33 AM EST
    This saying of GO to Hilary is so upsetting.

    Here is Maureen email:

    iberties@nytimes.com

    Making use of that (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:04:28 AM EST
    Thank You!

    [ Parent ]
    That felt good (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:09:10 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My email was undeliverable :( (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:22:54 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    you really expected MoDo (none / 0) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:32:18 AM EST
    to accept mail from little people?


    [ Parent ]
    correction on Dowd email (none / 0) (#67)
    by DFLer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:33:12 AM EST
    In case you missed it:

    try liberties@nyt.com, according to google.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks, resent it (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:20:08 AM EST
    How strange that her email address is "liberties" but she's okay with SOME of the little people losing theirs.

    [ Parent ]
    Try puttling an 'L" (none / 0) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:47:26 AM EST
    in front. I think her email is "liberties"

    [ Parent ]
    my email to her (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:13:01 AM EST
    Ms. Dowd,

    You've just made my day a whole lot easier with your thoughts on Hillary Clinton.

    Before your Op-Ed hit the morning pages, I was dreading the daily house training routine I'm currently going through with my puppy.  Now, thanks to you, he knows exactly where to aim his full bladder of puppy pee.

    And, really, when it comes down to it, it really is the perfect response to bitter, vitriolic, out-of-touch, out-of-sync (and ridiculously funny, in a sad, sad way) hatred, you know?

    (note:  the email was bounced back to me, so maybe it's not the right one?  I'll send the above to the Time anyway)

    [ Parent ]

    OMG!!! (none / 0) (#61)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:31:18 AM EST
    Too funny! I'm glad I wasn't drinking my coffee when I read that.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep (none / 0) (#77)
    by Dave B on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:39:30 AM EST
    My first one got bounced, just got done sending again.

    Thanks!

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#89)
    by Dave B on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:52:38 AM EST
    The one with the L in front got bounced too.  Either it's the wrong address, or they shut it down when emails started flowing in.

    You can email through the NYTimes.  Although it says that the email may be delayed that way.


    [ Parent ]

    Dowd's email (none / 0) (#63)
    by DFLer on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:32:12 AM EST
    I think it's

    liberties@nytimes.com

    missed the "l"

    (according to a google)

    Do cut and paste your letters again....forwards are so unreadable.

    [ Parent ]

    And address it to Ms. Dowdy (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:43:27 AM EST
    with the y at the end.  I heard somewhere that she gets that on mail, and it drives her mad. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Ms. Dowdy, lol!!! (none / 0) (#214)
    by ginamc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:50:42 PM EST
    LOL!!!!!!!!!  yes, she hates Ms. Dowdy.  Well, she loves to dish it out, but just can't take the blow-back.

    [ Parent ]
    Correct email to Maureen Dowd (none / 0) (#86)
    by Saul on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:50:39 AM EST
    is liberties@nytimes.com

    Sorry about that.

    [ Parent ]

    I can't believe I'm writing to folks like MoDo but (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Mark Woods on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:13:54 AM EST
    Here's what I wrote to Ms. Dowd:

    This reeks of haughty elitism and does not demonstrate the democratic values I formerly thought you represented in your satire and comment.

    Have you lost your mind, Ms. Dowd?  

    What would you do with the enormous number of Clinton supporters who, like myself, have worked for and supported with sweat and dollars the Democratic Party for the past 30 years?

    You are biased, admit it, and your writing might improve. Until then, it's dopey stuck-on-the-cult-leader drizzle and utterly dismal.

    We don't share your unrelenting hatred for our esteemed candidate, so why don't you, 'just go?'


    [ Parent ]

    Been a while (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Dave B on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:25:21 AM EST
    Since I wrote a letter.  That felt good, thanks for the address!

    [ Parent ]
    Here is what I sent to (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:17:02 AM EST
    letters@nytimes.com and mdowd@nytimes.com:

    Re: "Wilting Over Waffles" (April 23, 2008): Are you kidding?  By beating Obama in Pennsylvania, Clinton is "emasculating" Obama?  By insisting that voters show her the door, rather than party leaders, she is "emasculating" Obama? Really?  Is that the best you can do?  If so, it is time for you to go.  Just go.


    [ Parent ]
    Correct email to Marueen (none / 0) (#118)
    by Saul on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:26:55 AM EST
    is  

    liberties@nytimes.com

    [ Parent ]

    Okay (none / 0) (#124)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:35:57 AM EST
    I've emailed to her in the past and used that address (and even once got a reply!) but I will send to the liberties address too.

    [ Parent ]
    heh, maybe she got a nice check from (none / 0) (#223)
    by thereyougo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:02:29 AM EST
    Senator Obama? Ever since her column went for free, poor girl must need exta cash.

    That was insulting and uncalled for.

    Why does Ms. Dowdy hate America?

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by ginamc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:30:05 PM EST
    Maureen is absurd, and quite frankly, there is something quite pathologically sick about her.  On Russert's show recently, she called BO the "Blessed Child" that Bill Clinton, the horrible demon, was trying to kill by sticking a knife into his "Heart of Hope."  The woman has lost it.  SHE NEEDS TO GO, GO, GO straight to therapy, she needs to double up on her anti-anxiety meds.

    [ Parent ]
    I can't even begin to describe how disgusted (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:03:51 AM EST
    I feel watching this media spectacle BTD. Many Dem pundits and media personalities have lost their minds, even TNR.  This is a democracy, this has always been about the little people.  I'm ashamed of this whole business lately, thanks for taking this whole charade to task.  When will any of them remember what this is about?

    "when they created superdelegates" (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:03:51 AM EST
    I have not been on line in a few days so I dont know if this has been discussed here but couple of days ago I saw the LA mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, lay out the new Clinton plan.
    he was asked "if Obama wins the popular vote and the  pledged delegates how can you justify giving the nomination to Hillary?"
    his answer was simple.  "because those are the rules".
    simple and true.
    he went on to point out that Obamas people are so interested in following the rules when it comes to MI and FL they should be fine with that.
    yeah!
     

    My understanding is that (none / 0) (#44)
    by frankly0 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:23:48 AM EST
    "when they created superdelegates", what the party actually had in mind was to prevent the primary process from selecting still another George McGovern.

    Who might that be in this election cycle?

    [ Parent ]

    my point (none / 0) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:25:40 AM EST
    exactly.
    they are going for it.  and I am with her all the way.

    [ Parent ]
    You're right (none / 0) (#64)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:32:15 AM EST
    That the rules are the rules, but I doubt superdels would take the nomination from the leader in both pledged delegates AND popular vote.  They certainly won't do it to the first AA to be in this position.  Even many of Clinton's supporters have said she needs the popular vote to make a legitimate argument.  They seem to be kind of split on the question of whether/how to include the FLA and MI votes.

    [ Parent ]
    HRC is ahead now in popular vote (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:52:31 AM EST
    by more than 100,000.  Including FL and MI, of course -- but then, they voted there, and they're pretty popular states, judging by their populations.

    And thus, the super-d's already face the dilemma:  Pledged del's or popular vote?  Let's see, pledged del's points to winning the Dem nomination . . . but popular vote points to winning the general election.

    Put that way, I don't really see a dilemma.  I do see that it will take guts on the part of super-del's.  And that may be the real dilemma, if they're as gutless as the DNC leadership.

    [ Parent ]

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#111)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:21:36 AM EST
    is tacitly acknowledging the FLA popular vote, but according to Andrea Mitchell, even Terry McAuliffe doesn't have the "chutzpah" to count MI because Obama wasn't on the ballot.

    I say, since popular vote isn't an official "metric" anyway, McAuliffe should have as much chutzpah as possible. Popular votes are popular votes.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you might just be wrong (none / 0) (#74)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:35:23 AM EST
    about the supers.  the elected supers have primaries to worry about the UNelected ones dont have squat to worry about except electing a democrat to the white house and if they think Hillary is more electable at the end of this I dont think they will pause for one second before giving it to her.
    I would even suspect they are not taking kindly to the implied intimidation tactics used by Obama and his flying monkeys.
    some could do it just for spite.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:53:11 AM EST
    His flying monkeys?  That's a little risky...I'd find it offensive if someone mentioned Clinton's "flying harpies."  
    To your point: I don't think the supers will do anything out of spite.  I think they will consider the political ramifications of their decision.  I'm willing to give them that credit.  And I think that taking the nomination (assuming that's what happens) from the pop and delegate leader, who also happens to belong to the most reliably dem demographic, might have terrible political consequences.
    I understand the argument for including FLA but I don't think you can include MI...name not on ballot=no way to determine Obama's votes.  

    [ Parent ]
    a little risky (none / 0) (#202)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:23:32 PM EST
    a life on the edge.
    thats me.

    [ Parent ]
    You do (none / 0) (#206)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:39:38 PM EST
    Understand my objection to "monkeys," right?  If you'd like to insult the supporters of an AA candidate, many of whom also happen to be AA, try to pick a term that doesn't have such a long history of being used to demean AA's based on their race.  Thanks.
    Plus, you're only feeding the folks who think that no one could possibly vote for Clinton for any reason other than racism.  

    [ Parent ]
    This has been argued to death but (none / 0) (#212)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:33:26 PM EST
    when people say Obama won the popular vote, not only are they counting Michigan in which Obama wasn't on the ballot, but they're heavily discounting or even ignoring states that held caucuses. So Obama gets zero votes for his wins in
    Iowa, Washing, Nevada, and Maine. Right.

    The argument is a bait and switch. First argue that the popular vote is the gold standard for determining the nominee, the will of the people must prevail, it ought to trump all other considerations. Fair enough. But then we haven't run an election based on the popular vote; we have no idea what the popular would have been if caucuses were eliminated. So use a highly distorted measure of the "popular vote" that ignores or discounts caucus states and counts returns in a state where Obama wasn't even on the ballot, a measure that has very little do with what the results of a primary run using the popular vote would have been. If Clinton wins by this measure, it may satisfy her supporters, but I can't imagine it persuading a large number of super-delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Lil on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:05:08 AM EST
    Less than 12 hours later, the news is talking about how she can not win. Unbelievable, the pressure put on her. The left, center and right have just dogged her and she still is tied, but she should drop out. Give me a break. Let's hope the media keeps some pressure on Obama now, because obviously he seems to have a tough time shooting from the hip when answering questions. TL,Thanks for a place to say this kind of stuff.

    Arrogance. (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:06:41 AM EST
    It's beyond arrogance that after she beats him SOUNDLY they call again for her to drop out!

    Why can't she just step aside and let him win already!! LOL. Since apparently, he has quite a hard time doing it all on his own.

    [ Parent ]

    The "little people" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by vigkat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:05:34 AM EST
    are tolerated only to the extent that they perform in the manner the media elite have deemed appropriate. If the voters start to deviate, then it is time for the media elite to step back in and put things right again.  The little people clearly have gone too far this time.  They went off script.  Their horrendous mistake must be corrected.

    MSNBC (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by BernieO on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:07:03 AM EST
    is singing a different tune. They are saying that this is a big problem for Obama. Not only is Joe Scarborough saying it was a big win Obama has a big problem, even Andrea Mitchell is not denying it. They are all stunned that Obama lost the Scranton area (Reagan/Casey dems)by 50%!! She even counterd Bill Richardson's whining about the negativity of Clinton's campaign by saying from what she saw it went both ways. They all agree that her big problem is money, but that if donations keep rolling in they way they did last night, she should have enough to endure.
    If the media changes its tune, the voters will notice.
    Off to pass out tickets for a Hillary rally in downtown Charlotte next Monday.

    Never thought (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Lil on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:09:34 AM EST
    the voice of Scarborough would be the voice of reason to me. This whole election has turned everything upside down; I even flicked to Fox for about 10 seconds last night, but looking at Rove's mug slapped me back to CNN.

    [ Parent ]
    Scarborough (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:12:44 AM EST
    been the voice of reason for a while on MSNBC.
    strange as that seems.

    [ Parent ]
    He was a politiciian, so he thinks (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:57:06 AM EST
    like a super-delegate does -- as do the wiser ones here.  That's why he sounds sane, because Morning Joe is being reality-based . . . as some blogs-that-shall-be-unnamed-here used to be.

    [ Parent ]
    Did (none / 0) (#152)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:47:12 AM EST
    you hear Scarborough's bit about people that have never campaigned just don't understand what it means when your opponent has outspent you 3 or 4 to 1 and still loses by 10%?

    Having campaigned himself he understands. However I am still in culture shock finding myself agreeing with Joe Scarborough.  

    [ Parent ]

    Do they talk about the ad $ mismatch? (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:18:11 AM EST
    To me that's the real stunner.  Right now the argument that Clinton had a name recognition advantage has been vaporized.  Obama outspent Clinton by at least three to one, although the final number may well be higher.

    If Obama can't win even while spending like a drunken sailor and the media carrying him on their shoulders, when can he win?  What does he need - a hand picked electorate?  Caucuses?

    You don't get those in the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    they actually were (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:22:25 AM EST
    talking about how outspent she was.
    at least on MSNBC.

    [ Parent ]
    There may not be enough money (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:55:43 AM EST
    in the world to buy Obama this win, in the general election.  That's what I'm seeing, that's what I'm thinking that the super-del's have to see -- can the Dems come up with enough money, even in Obama terms, to win?

    And keep in mind that Clinton's cash flow problems are only in the primary, owing to different financial strategies.  She has three times as much as he does banked for the general election, $24 million for her vs. $8 million for him.

    Up against the Repub financial resources, and with 5:1 expenditures still not sufficient for Obama to win, there may not be enough money in the world. . . .

    [ Parent ]

    I think the 10% victory (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by frankly0 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:35:21 AM EST
    hides just how bad the election was for Obama, in terms of his potential electability.

    Apparently, he did far better in the Philadelphia area than expected, racking up huge numbers among AA voters.

    But all that was more than compensated for by his absolutely wretched performance with blue collar Dems everywhere else.

    Kerry, apparently, won PA by only 2%. How does Obama win a state where the swing voters reject him in simply massive numbers in the primaries? Sooner or later the simplistic, rather absurd on its face response from Obama supporters, "losing a primary means nothing about whether one can win the general", just loses any plausibility.

    It looks like the Democratic Party is going to have to find some way to fight its moral purity self-destruction drive, where the Perfect is the ever triumphant arch-enemy of the Good.

    [ Parent ]

    I could be wrong (none / 0) (#113)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:22:43 AM EST
    but I thought that HRC did better in the Philly area than expected, in particular, the Philly suburbs.  Seems like some of those suburban, high information voters like Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Phila. suburbs results (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by joanneleon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:25:02 AM EST
    I live in the Phila. metro area, so I'm familiar with the suburbs.  Here are the results, via CNN:

    County
    -------
    Phila. O-65%, C-35%
    Delaware O-55, C-45
    Chester O-55, C-45
    Montgomery C-51, O-49
    Bucks C-63, O-37

    Except for Phila. county, there were no real blowouts in the suburbs, though some people seemed surprised at the results in Delaware and Montgomery counties.

    The other counties in the state that went for Obama were (central PA) Lancaster (54-46), Dauphin (58-42), Centre (60-40) and Union (52-48) .  All other counties (not sure how many but, a lot, as you can see from the map) went for Clinton, some by very large margins.

    [ Parent ]

    It's between 8-9% actually. (none / 0) (#137)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:06:39 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#215)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    Explain how you get to "between 8-9%".

    [ Parent ]
    Finally scared they might eat a little crow (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:10:38 AM EST
    Someone woke up this morning and decided to do some journalism for a change.

    [ Parent ]
    Today the SFChronicle had a very good (none / 0) (#163)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:15:02 AM EST
    article by C. Lockhart on electability and it was clear that the author has been reading our blog. I still don't know how to post links here.  Sorry

    [ Parent ]
    How to post links (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:14:19 PM EST
    1. Type your full post, including the word or phrase that you want to attach a link to.

    2. In another browser window, or browser tab, go to the page you want to link to, select (highlight) the address (URL) of the page.

    3. Copy the address to your clipboard. In Windows, you do this using the Ctrl+C keys together, or by right-clicking the mouse and selecting "Copy".

    4. Back in the Talkleft comment window, select (highlight) the word or phrase you want to attach your link to.

    5. Click on the link icon above the comment box (4th from the left). A dialog box appears where you can type the URL of the page to be linked.

    6. Paste the link you previously copied to your clipboard. In Windows, you do this either by using the Ctrl+V keys together, or by right-clicking the mouse and selecting "Paste".

    7. Hit enter to attach the link.

    8. Preview your post to see if the link is there. If not, try steps 2-8 again.

    Good luck!

    [ Parent ]
    Media Turn (none / 0) (#213)
    by STLDeb on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:34:32 PM EST
    Do you mean that maybe, just by chance, the media could be dare I say it - gasp slightly turning against Obama?  No, it can't be true (snark)

    [ Parent ]
    Went to a favorite blog last night (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:07:10 AM EST
    and a few posters were still insisting that Hillary wants to nuke Iran.  I posted a few of BTD's posts on deterrence and told them to read them.

    How many think they did that?

    Zippity doo da ;) (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:11:26 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Honestly, (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:13:27 AM EST
    I think some people have lost their minds.

    [ Parent ]
    they seem almost (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:14:56 AM EST
    . . . I dont know, bitter.

    [ Parent ]
    At least someone is funny this morning (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:19:04 AM EST
    Without humor right now I would just wilt and fry.

    [ Parent ]
    don't you mean (rule 34) (none / 0) (#194)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:10:27 PM EST
    wilt and fry

    crispen to a crunchy golden brown before being doused in syrupy goodness and lathered with butter?

    please, oh please, can i be a waffle?

    [ Parent ]

    They sort of have (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:15:12 AM EST
    when you consider that this is supposed to be a democracy and we are to preserve and defend the democracy first ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Even the NYT editorial (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:24:44 AM EST
    bought the Orange interpretation of the "obliterate" quote.

    Uh, yeah, that's what deterrence is, folks: making the other guy think he runs the risk of obliteration if he steps out of line. It's not a deterrent if he thinks, to paraphrase General Buck Turgidson, he thinks he's just gonna get his hair mussed.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you TalkLeft (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Munibond on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:07:36 AM EST
    For calling the NYT and Dowd out swiftly and clearly.  This morning's op ed page should be an embarrassment to the publishers.  I would cancel my subscription if I hadn't already done so at an earlier stage in the nomination process.
    I think this is one of the best places to come to get a break from media bias.  Thx again.

    Maureen Dowd should (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by zfran on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:29:43 AM EST
    heed her own advice and step aside for the sake of other columnists who are more popular and have a better message than her. It is time for her to go. I think she has forgotten this is America and the free will of the "people" still means something. Isn't that the voice we've been longing for since 2000?! I think Ms. Dowd has forgotten that it is because of the Hillary's of the world, she (Ms. Dowd) also has a voice...

    [ Parent ]
    I hope Dowd practices Safer Punditry (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:34:17 AM EST
    I'm afraid to read one of her columns for fear that I'll catch some kind of horrible brain wasting disease.

    [ Parent ]
    Take a bow (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:25:50 AM EST
    for that hilariously to-the-point comment!

    [ Parent ]
    i thought everyone knew (none / 0) (#197)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:13:26 PM EST
    that you weren't supposed to peel the protective plastic bag off of the times until you had it at arms length and safely over the trash can?

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:10:49 AM EST
    and they were insisting that she drop out of the race, of course.

    Funny how some "democrats" want the process to end for other democrats.  This is actually very exciting.  When is the last time the nominee was decided at the convention?  It certainly gets more people to pay attention sooner than October!  How can that be a bad thing?

    Oh, right.  Obama might lose.

    It did happen when I was a baby (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:12:34 AM EST
    I heard it wasn't much fun, police and stuff got called in ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Well, (none / 0) (#31)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:14:35 AM EST
    we live in a different climate now.  We have those cool "Free Speech Zones."  :(

    [ Parent ]
    Obama supporters have hacked sites (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:17:00 AM EST
    and verbally abused the bejeesus out of people, I think some participants at this convention could be a little bit not nice and not willing to stay in the free speech zone to voice their discontent.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess it will depend on (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:23:19 AM EST
    how close it is and what his national support looks like.

    I've noticed that some of his supporters were former Naderites.  They see this as their chance to makeover the political landscape.  But does Obama even want to acknowledge them?  The Far Left is like kryptonite to most politicians, as far as I can see.

    And the bullying and anger is extrememly counterproductive!

    [ Parent ]

    Some Of The Supporters Leading The Charge For An (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:28:31 AM EST
    Obama win at any cost or former Republicans using Republican tactics.

    [ Parent ]
    Winning at any cost (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:30:09 AM EST
    is, of course, what they accuse Hillary of doing.

    Ah, projection.

    [ Parent ]

    Typical Projection n/t (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:46:03 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The Obama spin by MSM pundits is crazed. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by FLVoter on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:16:28 AM EST
    On Morning Joe today Chuck Todd actually compared the democratic nominee race to the cold war.  He said that Sen. Obama was the USA and Sen. Clinton was the USSR.  USA would bankrupt the USSR as in the cold war and Sen. Obama would be the nominee.  I found this analogy extremely distasteful.

    Who Cares (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:22:11 AM EST
    Look the NYT sent a special offer again yesterday to come back, I of course left with Judy Miller WMD lies, guess what the answer is today with that ridicules pansy editorial hit last evening, NO and millions of women join me NO your paper is to strange and wrong to often.

    an old NY friend once said (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:23:53 AM EST
    what good is a ten pound sunday paper with no funny pages?
    always seemed to make sense to me.

    [ Parent ]
    As opposed to LA Times, comics (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:27:39 AM EST
    section, but half the paper in ad inserts.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:26:45 AM EST
    I expect no better from Maureen Dowd.

    I do expect better from the editors at the NYT.  To publish an editorial criticizing Hillary for negativity, the very next morning after Obama gave one of the most negative speeches I have heard in this campaign, represents a level of reality-denial worthy of the Bush Administration.  What is wrong with these people?

    The NYT (none / 0) (#52)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:27:41 AM EST
    did endorse her, didn't it?

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#78)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:40:45 AM EST
    I don't understand the point of your comment.

    [ Parent ]
    No point, really. (none / 0) (#99)
    by pie on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:03:46 AM EST
    Not a surprise that it endorsed its senator.  MoDo is just another, um, voice.

    [ Parent ]
    They did very half heartedly! (none / 0) (#174)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:11:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    it's worse than that (none / 0) (#200)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:20:10 PM EST
    they went live with that editorial at or before around 7 pacific.  There were 100 comments on it (which had to be approved) by the time I checked it around 8.

    It was actually on Tuesday's Opinion page online (everything else was tuesday links).  They usually don't go live til after 9 pm PST.

    They clearly wanted the extra attention and punditry on the shows as it was linked at RCP early in the night as well.  NYTimes must be drinking the ad revenue with all the obamabots on their blogs, and forgetting that those folks will wander away and they will be left with a lower reputation.

    [ Parent ]

    okay, I'll be the first to ask (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ccpup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:27:57 AM EST
    When do the new Indiana and NC polls (post-PA win) come out?  

    I wonder what kind of bump she'll get and how much she'll eat into Obama's soft (some might say waffle-like) support?

    Modo's latest (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:31:55 AM EST
    doesn't strike me as all that positive for Obama, either.

    While Hillary gets a double dose of venom, Obama sounds like a whiny kid from the me generation...entitled to everything he wants the way he wants it...from waffles to the White House.

    Not an attractive portrait at all...who would want to identify with that description?

    Awful.

    That's Because MoDo (none / 0) (#219)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:30:25 PM EST
    Hates Democrats.  She has serious Daddy issues and works them out every election by throwing sexist, insulting crap at the democratic candidate.  Male candidates are too weak, female candidates are too strong, Republican candidates are just right.

    I've come to believe that MoDo doesn't need a NYT column, she needs some sort of psychiatric intervention.  I'm only about 15% kidding.

    [ Parent ]

    Considering (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Lahdee on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:32:29 AM EST
    that 54% of PA voters interviewed by CBS, as cited by Jeralyn, were influenced by campaign ads maybe any NYT verbiage will be lost on the voters. It's apparent they hate voters, but will their hatred affect the voters? Probably not, it appears to me the intention was to give CDS fodder for the blogcannons.

    Poking the supers might be fun too. You're not allowing her to determine the story are you???? That's our job!

    This primary has been the most revealing (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by vicndabx on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:33:19 AM EST
    It has shown us who we are not only as Democrats but as people who claim to be liberal, progressive and open-minded.  Far from the truth it seems, as demonstrated by the endless personal attacks and relentless name-calling.  I'm angry at my party.  I'm sad for my party.  We will never be able to move forward and push a liberal/progressive agenda unless we can first be honest with ourselves.  Watching the coverage this morning, reading articles at the NYTimes (fast becoming one of my least favorite op-ed sites, WTF??!!) I'm dismayed by the willful ignorance of the facts by my fellow dems.  How can we claim to be liberal/progressive when we ignore votes in FL & MI?  How can we claim to be liberal/progressive when we can't say the reason Obama did as well as he did in SC was precisely because there are a lot of blacks who live there who voted for him?  How can we claim to be liberal/progressive when we label one of the most successful democratic presidents in the history of our pary as racist for simply pointing out this fact?  Isn't that what winning elections is all about?  Knowing the constituencies and how they're likely to vote?  How do we get to a point where we WIN, and win consistently if we can't deal with reality?  I'm am so tired of all this crap about Hillary and the pundits saying she believes it's "her time," and she's only in this for personal gain.  Could it be she really wants to do something for the common good of our country?  Can we look at the facts and ask ourselves who is really ready to tackle the issues we face in the World, not just the US?  Who do we want to rely on to understand these issues?  The presidents advisors or the president?  C'mon dems, lets unite around a Hillary/Obama ticket and heal ourselves.

    Sen. Obama's voice (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by zfran on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:33:35 AM EST
    sounded angry last night. Hillary sounded uplifting and genuine. She brought tears to my eyes. Going go to her website to contribute. Go Hillary!!!!!

    The Times editorial makes no sense (5.00 / 7) (#80)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:43:14 AM EST
    given the fact that Clinton clearly prevailed in the race last night.  It was not an "inconclusive" result.  It is obvious that a majority of voters were not "tired of" Clinton.

    The NYT says the Clinton camp "squandered" their 20 point lead.  I don't know, but normally if you have a reasonably capable opponent in an open primary, it is more likely than not that you're going to lose some support when the other guy/gal campaigns against you especially with three times the money.

    Furthermore, my big question is why after SEVEN WEEKS was it not possible for Obama to beat her in PA?  Every other big state contest that she won, one could argue that if Obama had had a bit more time he might have closed the deal.  The thing is that in this case he had PLENTY of TIME and yet he really didn't even come close in this particular contest.  That suggests to me that he definitely has a ceiling and if any of the exit polling is to be believed, that ceiling is largely formed by a lack of support from working class voters.

    Which brings me to my next question which has continually nagged at me since Obama first announced his candidacy which is: Why can't the guy embrace more of an economic populist position?  What is stopping him?  He seems to recoil when anyone tries to force him in that direction and the reality is that in this race at this time in history the economy is a huge issue for most American voters.  Clinton has adapted her campaign to address voters who see themselves falling backwards economically and Obama really hasn't.  His healthcare plan is a joke imo because it is so timid, his responses to serious challenges in this economy also come across as hesitant and timid - like he is always worried what the Republicans will think or say.

    I don't agree with Clinton on a lot of stuff and she gives me pause on a lot of levels, but as my young friend and colleague said to me last night, "She seems like she is going to roll up her sleeves and get something done whereas Obama says nice stuff and everything, but just doesn't strike me as a doer."

    To your last question (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:43:18 AM EST
    Obama is not embracing more of a populist message because he doesn't want to. He's not an economic progressive. Certainly, he is less progressive than Clinton. He's still too willing to rely on "market solutions" to problems that have been caused by overreliance on the market. It's part of his post-partisan appeal, or one might say, his dog-whistle appeal to economic conservatives.

    I'm not saying that Obama is himself a closet conservative.  But there are clearly certain things he's said (like paying homage to the transformative powers of St. Ronnie) and not said (like how his healthcare plan can really be universal when it has no mandates, and how it minimizes costs when it has no mandates) that show how hard he is courting independents and conservatives who are willing to cross racial lines but are still having nightmares about LBJ's "Great Society."

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed. (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:19:39 AM EST
    I knew what he was about when he told Jack Welch in an interview on CNBC that he would consider eliminating the capital gains tax for start up companies.  Wouldn't that have been great for Google?  How many "start up companies" would appear overnight backed by established corporations?  

    The reality is though that he continues to lose and lose big in states that are on the leading edge of this recession.  It will only be worse in the Fall and I have seen the GOP appear to be far more populist and empathetic too many times to think that it won't be a big problem for him if he doesn't get his act together on this front.

    Beyond the election itself, if he is elected, my sense is that he will continue the market forces style of governance BushCult has established and that he will be blamed not only for his own failings, but also for those of the Bush Administration in the end.

    Honestly, the fact that he has been unable to adjust on the economic front does not make me think that he has very good political instincts.  Furthermore, while I think he is a talented campaigner, I really question his ability to engage in the the real day-to-day of governance of this country.  I see little evidence that he has a good sense of what will please and help the voters - he comes off as having a "here I am - take it or leave it" attitude.  His diary on dkos in 2005 struck me as condescending and his campaign, actions and ideas have done little to change that perception I have had of him for some time now.  I am not surprised that some of the voters who are currently facing a tougher life in this economic environment went for Clinton - she at least seems to have developed an approach that suggests that she will respond and adjust to dissatisfaction amongst the electorate.

    [ Parent ]

    I've not been back to DKos in so long (none / 0) (#209)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:21:33 PM EST
    but it might be worth giving Markos the clicks to go back and find that BO diary. As I recall, it provoked HOWLS of protest and hundreds of negative comments from Kossacks who were disappointed in BO's inadequate agreement with their views.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:04:14 AM EST
    believe she ever had a 20 point lead. I think that was from just one rather unreliable poll and has been used to raise the expectations ever since.

    I heard Obama's favorite SD, aka Donna Brazile use that talking point again yesterday before the vote. Anything coming out of that woman's mouth is suspect IMO.

    Didn't bother to watch after the vote because I didn't need to hear why winning is losing if it's done by Hillary Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    This is the real old school politics MoDowd inane (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Salt on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:06:50 AM EST
    Russert this is the generation of the punditry class that need replaced for politics to change for the better, personally I don't accept a word they say nor watch read or listen they are so negative divisive and uniformed spewing biased irrational rants.  I gain no knowledge from their product.

    un ironic (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by AlSmith on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:50:52 AM EST

    This isnt an honest post.

    To start with you know that the SD arent "overturning" anything. There role is to supplement the election result. To may agree with it, but if they just rubber stamped the results there would be no point in there existence.

    If and when Obama loses NC the super delegates are going to look long and hard at it, just as the captain of a ship would steer around an iceberg.

    hillary is winning. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:28:38 AM EST