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

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    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.  

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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)


    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:


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

    That felt good (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:09:10 AM EST
    My email was undeliverable :( (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:22:54 AM EST
    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?

    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.


    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.

    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"

    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)


    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.

    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.



    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.


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


    missed the "l"

    (according to a google)

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


    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. :-)

    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.

    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.


    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?'


    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!

    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.

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



    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.

    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?


    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.

    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.

    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?


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

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.  

    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.

    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.  

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.  


    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.


    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.

    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. . . .


    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.


    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.

    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:

    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.


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

    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.

    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

    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!

    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)

    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
    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.

    they seem almost (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:14:56 AM EST
    . . . I dont know, bitter.

    At least someone is funny this morning (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:19:04 AM EST
    Without humor right now I would just wilt and fry.

    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?


    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 ;)

    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.


    Thank you TalkLeft (5.00 / 4) (#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...

    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.

    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!

    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?

    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 ;)

    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."  :(

    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.

    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!


    Some Of The Supporters Leading The Charge For An (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    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.


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

    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

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


    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?


    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.


    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 / 6) (#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."


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    sorry (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:27:31 AM EST
    being a party activist does not make you an elitist.
    many are low information low income low education Hillary supporters.
    how can they possibly be elitists?

    BTW: Given that the exit polls are SO WRONG (none / 0) (#128)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:44:35 AM EST
    We can't really say that the college educated didn't come out in droves for Hillary.

    In fact, we have no way of knowing who actually came out for either candidate.


    actually (none / 0) (#141)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:20:47 AM EST
    I dont fit any of those descriptions.
    but I am proud to be lumped in with those people.

    10% spread not a big win? (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:44:37 AM EST
    Only someone who has never run for office would think so.

    Ask any senator, congressperson or governor who has ever run a competitive race...they would call it a mandate.

    Are you a Democrat? (none / 0) (#220)
    by ginamc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:37:37 PM EST
    ...or are you just one because BO is running for President.  Excuse me, after all of your pontificating about the "Math,' you really don't know much.  Please.  Do you even know what the magic 2025 is or where it is derived?  It is the number for ALL 50 STATES -- NOT 48.  That is precisely why BO will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER reach the magical mystery number just like Hillary without FL and MI.  Please stop the preaching on issues you obviously no absolutely NOTHING about.

    LOL (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by Lena on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:45:52 AM EST
    I don't think you'll get many takers this morning! The feeling here seems to be a heady mixture of euphoria for Clinton and disgust with the press (and party) in equal measures. Your message, in essence, is what is actually causing Clinton's fundraising numbers to go off the charts today.

    Face it: HRC apparently doesn't need the press or money to win races. Obama apparently cannot win competitive races even when he has both on his side. This doesn't bode well for the possibilities of him winning the nomination or the general election. Hmmm...Somethingfor the superdelegates to consider...

    Go Clinton!!

    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.

    Actually, a lot of "common" people (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:13:43 AM EST
    have accountants. Every small business owner probably has one, some farmers have them. Just because someone has an accountant doesn't mean they are elites, it just means that they do something where keeping the books can be more than they can find the time to do.

    spot on (none / 0) (#221)
    by ginamc on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 05:40:52 PM EST
    you're absolutely correct.  My husband and I have an accountant, for his small p/t business.  obviously, the opinion of someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about the REAL world.

    hillary is winning. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:28:38 AM EST
    she owns the FL & MI popular vote and delegates, giving her a roughly 100k margin over obama. she just trounced him in PA, after he outspent her by at least 3:1, not a compelling argument for him to present at the convention.

    let's be blunt skex, sen. obama has less than the proverbial snowball's chance of winning in nov., regardless of who supports him. his demo will disappear in the GE, swallowed up by all those white, republican voters, and he's pretty much alienated everyone else.

    on top of all that, the right-wingut smear machine 527's will take him apart like a chinese chef de-boning a chicken. being interrupted while eating waffles will be the least of his problems.

    skex, it's not up to you (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:32:07 AM EST
    to decide who is or is not a "common" voter.

    Some people have accountants because they need them. Ever know anyone too disabled to handle their own finances? Ever tried caring for a disabled family member whose finances are a mess? Ever tried handling the business of a family member who has died?

    Ever been serving yet another tour of duty in Iraq with the National Guard and you have to file your taxes? Ever been out of the country on a medical mission and had to do your taxes?

    Ever run a non-profit? Ever run a business, especially one that isn't doing too well? Ever run a family farm?

    Ever had to ask an accountant for help because the tax code is so fncked up and unfair?

    Obviously not. Congratulations. May you never need the help of accountant because your life has taken a hard left turn into disaster.

    Yet another insult---what a great way to win an election. Keep it up.

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:21:09 AM EST
    I totally love the way you conflated pledged delegates with the will of the people there.  Truly an amazing sleight of hand.

    Now that the race has turned into a case of (1.00 / 6) (#57)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:29:51 AM EST
    "How racist is [insert state]?" it probably is time to bring it to a close, imo. Especially now. Sen. Clinton's chances of winning the pledged delegates is essentially over.

    It is now clear that her only hope of winning is that there are enough rednecks who simply won't vote for Obama in the fall to extort the superdelegates into throwing him under the bus. The problem is these people won't own their feelings in public, which was about 6% of PA voters.

    I really don't think the Democrat Party should give in to this ignorance. Simple principle should demand that Clinton drop out, declare her support of Obama and the party, and we all move forward with the clear message that racism will no longer dictate our course. If the country would rather have 4 more years of Bush than a black man, we deserve whatever indignities McCain would bring upon us.

    But that's just me.

    Clinton's chances (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by cawaltz on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:55:11 AM EST
    seem about the same to me as Obama's. Barring a major upset, the superdelegates will get to decide.

    In democracies, people get choices. The DemocratIC party would be ignorant to pretend otherwise. I am sick to death of hearing that Clinton has to drop out so Obama can have his historic run for the presidency. Obama isn't anymore entitled to the Presidency than Clinton is. If he wants it, he's going to have to win it the old fashioned way(through convincing voters and superdelegates.)


    Obama's chances of winning (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by standingup on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:25:59 AM EST
    will be increased when he and his supporters can quit condescending and alienating the "redneck" voters.  Keep it up and you can count on losing.

    I think we should alienate the redneck voters. (none / 0) (#151)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:42:09 AM EST
    It's about time we stood up and told those people their reign is over.

    I'd rather lose on principle that demonstrate that I don't have any.


    as would I (none / 0) (#207)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:55:26 PM EST
    I will not support Obama in the fall because, as is clear from the Huffington Post, he is anti-democratic and anti-unity.

    You do not brand your opponent racist because she's winning and expect to get votes--especially when it's the same party and you have to work with her supporters.  This is the democratic party, and  manufacturing racism is not acceptable here.  Nor is it acceptable for a young generation to be encouraged to think that people like the clintons and of that age group, who fought hard for equality and were for unity speak in racist code.

    So I turn your "redneck" analysis back on you.  
    I do not believe the problem is racism, the problem is ethics, unity, and democracy.  The obama campaign walked off the cliff on all three.  

    There is danger and divisiveness in playing the race card, in spin, labels, and generalizations.  Read the below, and tell me how angry you feel, because it's the over-the-top rebuttal to what has been tossed at clinton by obama supporters and should show you why such comments are bad.

    Note that I denounce and reject the below comment as useless to anything other than a debate on  issues of generalizations and othering.  Do not quote it out of context, unless you're ethically bankrupt.  

    Consider that a [white] marketer exploited AA fears to encourage AAs to vote for a candidate that can't win, has limited experience, and has about the same rating by the NAACP and the ACLU.  If Obama is nominated, he will lose, and AAs will be worse off -- all because the Obama campaign, run by a [white] marketer and funded by [mostly white] young folks ["high information"] branded the more qualified choice as racist.  And not just the more qualified choice, but the better choice if you've known poverty or needed health care.  

    Theres a reason Obama has so much netroots/wealthy [white elite] support, it's because his policies are more suited to the wealthy and less suited to those that have been wronged in our great country.  He isn't winning the blue collar vote because of his policies, and he's only winning the AA vote because of negative campaigning--elites [whites] funding his campaign to destroy the potential for policies that benefit AAs and the poor.

    this makes sense, but its disengenuous (none / 0) (#224)
    by thereyougo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 01:34:54 AM EST
    and actually hypocritical for him to state that his campaign is running on the backs of the little people's 3$ and under 100$ donations.

    I have never believed that.  I think its Oprah money and shes got tons of it.  


    Why must it always be racism? (5.00 / 4) (#126)
    by vicndabx on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:42:56 AM EST
    Could it be those folks simply PREFER a different candidate?  This is exactly what Bill C refers to as the "race card."  It is supporters like you who play it.  If whites don't vote for Obama they're racist - that is just crazy and belies the whole premise of Obama's campaign.  Whites that vote Obama make a choice are enlightened and those that don't all get dumped into a racist box?  Could it be that there are whites who are enlightened but choose Hillary instead?  While I would agree there are some who may not vote for Obama simply because he is black, they are not the majority white voters.

    Why must you deny racism exists? (none / 0) (#149)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:40:37 AM EST
    Nearly 15% of PA whites admitted as much. And that's people who actually had the guts to admit it. How many people are more guarded about it?

    I never said a majority, and I certainly never said all. But in this game of margins, those who do hold his color against him make a difference. Whites are 80% of PA turnout, or about 1.6M. 15% of that is 240k. Her margin of victory was ~215k.

    Do you see how those people matter now?

    They are deciding these elections.


    Sigh (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:10:04 AM EST
    Your math is so fabricated that it's barely worth responding.

    Assuming that everyone who says "race is a factor for me" is therefore racist is just silly.  Even worse is arguing that those who cite race as a factor are just fine when they vote for Obama, but racist when they vote for Clinton.

    Here is a factoid to demonstrate how worthless these polls are as evidence of anything.  Obama won nearly 90% of black voters, just as in every race to date, yet 2 out of 3 black voters told the exit pollsters that race was unimportant to them.  There is nothing wrong with Obama winning a large share of the black vote, in my view, but obviously race has something to do with it.

    Now tell me this, honestly.  When you looked at the exit poll numbers to make this argument, were you even curious to see how many people voted against Hillary based on gender?  She has problems of her own with bigotry.


    I never denied her gender problems. (none / 0) (#170)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:57:25 AM EST
    I addressed the race problem.

    If you say race is important as a white person, and you voted based on race, that is a racist vote. Racist means your view is based on race. When you vote white 'cuz you're white, and you admit it, you admitted making a racist vote. That's just what the words mean.

    The question wasn't was race a factor. The question, as presented by CNN, was, "Was race important to you?"

    If you would like to indict blacks for lying about voting for a black man, that's okay. Again, you avoid my argument. You say you don't mind Obama getting black votes. I don't either. I also don't mind Hillary getting women votes. Those constituencies have a valid reason to support those candidates, imo.

    Now, how is my math fabricated? It's simple math. I can't fabricate it. Do you deny 2.2M voters? Do you deny 80% were white? Do you deny what 80% of 2.2M is? What 15% of 1.6M is? What exactly do you accuse me of fabricating? 180k white people told exit pollers that race was important in their choice of voting for the white candidate. That's what I said. Take those people out of the equation, and it's 51-49 split, which is way different than 55-45.

    Tell me how those numbers are wrong.


    So (none / 0) (#178)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    If you say race is important as a white person, and you voted based on race, that is a racist vote.

    So according to you, white people who vote for Sen. Obama because of his race are racist as well. You know there are people who aren't African-American voting for Sen. Obama because of his ancestry, right? So that would make them, according to your definition, racist as well.

    Regardless, I get your point---it's sh!tty that some people are bigots and will vote based on race or gender or lefthandedness or tinfoil hat style or any other irrational or less-than-positive reason for voting.

    Yes, you're right. Bigotry, like poverty, will be with us always. However,

    "Oh yet we trust that somehow good will be the final goal of ill!"
                  ----Alfred, Lord Tennyson

    You seem to be arguing that you would rather lose political control of the country and face the consequences of that loss than win the White House. That the ongoing or even escalating military presence in Iraq, or yet the start of more pre-emptive wars, is nothing compared to your stated principle.

    If so, I would disagree with your priorities.

    People of color are disproportionately represented in the armed forces. I think getting them safely home and not dead or injured is more important.

    Attacking the sub-prime crisis (and going after the people who caused it), where more people of color were steered to sub-prime mortgages than white people, even though they were eligible for mortgages with better terms is more important.

    Equalizing pay for women doing comparable jobs of men is more important, especially when you know that women of color make even less than white women.

    I could go on. And on. And on. But I'll stop because I've made my point: I don't care if bigots vote for the candidate who will redress these wrongs.

    I don't care who fixes it as long as it gets fixed.

    We can agree to disagree, of course.


    We agree on the issues, of course. (none / 0) (#184)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:44:16 PM EST
    If I thought Sen. Clinton would get elected, I might agree with your priorities, but I don't, and b/c of precisely the same kind of people who are now providing her cushion, which is what I'm really arguing--that most voters are pretty equally divided, but that these race-based votes are supplying the difference. It's the same in the high black population states. The extra black vote is giving Obama big wins. My position is simply that due to history, I'm not upset about that. Just as I'm not upset that women want a woman. When HRC talks about 90 year olds who were born before they had the right to vote, my heart breaks for them, b/c I really would like to see their dream come true. I just don't think it's gonna happen, and Obama has created a sizable gap in delegates and votes on top of winning more contests.

    Because I think sexism will sink Clinton (well, combined with GOP hatred of Bill etc.), I think the party is better off going with Obama b/c of his wins, delegates, etc. I also believe Americans will do the right thing and vote Obama b/c of the issues you mentioned.

    But, we can disagree.


    halstoon, okay...yes we agree on the issues (none / 0) (#193)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:06:15 PM EST
    And agree to disagree on the candidate more likely to win the White House. Here's why (you knew I wasn't going to let it go...):

    I don't think sexism will be as damaging to Sen. Clinton for one gynormous reason: there are more women of all kinds of shades than there are African-American people. Even some Republican and conservative and evangelical and anti-abortion women view Sen. Clinton favorably because she's a girl. Not all, certainly but I think there may be enough crossover to dent the girl-haters.

    Sexism? You bet. Many women (and lots of men) believe a woman ahs to be 2x as good as a man to be considered as good as he is in the same job. Because of this, many are willing to give the junior senator from New York support.

    Conversely, Clinton hate is part of her baggage and she will lose support because of it. But I think she's already done the estimating on this and figured long ago some people wll never vote for her no way, no how.

    But the grit she's showing...you may not like the result to your candidate, but you have to admire how she's fighting. People, even those predisposed to hate her, like her tenacity---that could mean a huge deal in the fall.

    And BTW, I love the turnout numbers. Love them. Big turnout usually spells great news for downticket Dems.


    You present your case well. (none / 0) (#201)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:22:48 PM EST
    I disagree, of course with your outcome, but you do make some salient points. Women do outnumber blacks, and even some conservatives will vote for their sex or for the tenacity or whatever. A lot will not. The GOP base that right now is not so enthused about McCain and don't know/don't hate Obama will be gynormously (I like your word) motivated to keep the Clintons out of the White House. Baptists, Mormons, Catholics, and others who don't believe in the authority of women will come out to stop both her pro-choice position and to enforce the glass ceiling. She wins Catholics against Obama (and I really don't know why, do you?) but I really don't see the Church being behind her in the general, with McCain's Hagee problem notwithstanding.

    Also, while they may not have big numbers in blue states, black people will stay home at this point if she's the nominee. She can't afford that in places like California where McCain is gonna make a big push. Florida as well. Those two states are must haves for her, and losing blacks will be hard to overcome.

    She has tenacity, grit, brilliance, commitment, etc. I think HRC is a good person. Last year I assumed I'd vote for her. Then I saw Obama. He's special. You may not like that b/c of the result to your candidate, but he is. He is a transformational character, someone who has the potential to impact the course of this country like an FDR or Lincoln. He can really change America in fundamental ways. You may not believe that, but I do, and right now there are more of me than there are of you voting in primaries.

    The turnout is driven by both, so we both love the numbers the other side contributes. Take away either side, and we're gonna hurt.

    I really appreciate your style. You actually engage what I say and have thoughtful opinions that you share in a reasoned and clear manner. Thanks for that, and good luck in Indiana. ;o)


    OK, so her entire margin of victory is (none / 0) (#167)
    by vicndabx on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:26:25 AM EST
    made of racists by your math?  C'mon.  I never said racism doesn't exists, go back and read my reply.  Alienating folks who's opinion differs from yours, i.e. the racists you rail against, doesn't make them less racists by the way.  They don't just go away.  Better option it to engage them first and try bring them to your point of view.

    Very interesting. (none / 0) (#171)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:00:28 PM EST
    Because when Obama says we should engage pro-lifers, Christians, and conservatives, he's blasted on here by more than a few people.

    By alienating them we let them know that their views will no longer determine the course of our politics. Allowing them to be the decisive margin in an HRC victory only bolsters their claim to power.


    Clearly we're going to disagree. (none / 0) (#196)
    by vicndabx on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:11:48 PM EST
    I don't agree w/that approach, and don't think it's ever been advocated by the admins of this site.  Some commenter maybe, but they don't necessarily speak for me (nor do the site admins for that matter, although I agree w/much that they say.)

    Again, your premise is wrong because anyone can point to a subset of a total and say they provided the "margin of error."  You choose to focus on a negative subset.  I can do the same w/Obama.  However, this small subset in both camps isn't what this primary race is about.


    Well, make your argument. (none / 0) (#204)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:26:56 PM EST
    My argument is supported by numbers, and it's based on facts people in PA cited in their voting decisions. What I'm pointing to is what people said themselves, not what I am projecting onto them.

    And the small subsets is what the race is all about. Obama can't break through with old white people. That's a subset people are pushing for why he can't win.

    Don't skew the issue.


    From the stories I have read (none / 0) (#179)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:33:30 PM EST
    about the most importamt issues for the PA voter,it was the economy.  And of those many of them recalled Bill Clinon's presidency.  I believe that wanting to a return of good economic times was uppermost on their minds.  Since the O camp has discounted BC's presidency as nothing but NAFTA and welfare reform, I can see why the O camp has chosen racism as the cause for PA voter motivation.

    I don't represent Obama. (none / 0) (#188)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:47:32 PM EST
    So unless his staffers are pushing the same theory as me, please only attribute my thoughts to me.

    I also don't discount anything of what you said about the economy or Clinton. I'm talking about the margins, where Clinton goes from winning by 3 or 4 like the exits originally looked to winning by 10, which is where those 180k people I mentioned come into play.


    About the same number of people admit to sexism (none / 0) (#211)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:31:24 PM EST
    About 15% of voters also say they could not support a female candidate.

    Are all Obama supporters sexist? No. Are there Obama supporters who are sexist? Most likely yes.

    Both sexism and racism play some part in voting -- but neither explains the majority support for either candidate. Not by a long shot.

    I have long been a civil rights activist, since I attended the March on Washington as a teenager, and have supported many African American candidates over the years (cast my first presidential vote for Shirley Chilsolm in the California Democratic primary and voted for Jesse Jackson in '88) -- but I'm supporting Hillary Clinton in this race. Is that because I'm a racist? No.

    If I was a racist I wouldn't vote for either of these candidates. I wouldn't, in fact, be a Democrat.


    Are you really saying (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by litigatormom on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:45:46 AM EST
    that only racist rednecks don't support Obama?  That only racist rednecks won't support the Democratic nominee in the fall?   What about all those high information, progressive voters who absolutely, positively won't ever never ever vote for Clintion in the GE?  Are they all sexists?

    Come on.  There are plenty of reasons not to support Clinton, but the notion that her campaign depends on the votes of racist rednecks isn't one of them.


    What I'm saying is (none / 0) (#154)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:51:07 AM EST
    that 15% of white PA Dems admit to race being important. That's the people who admit it.

    I did this upthread but I need to be more accurate.

    White PA voters = 80% of ~2.2M people = ~1.6M

                      15% of 1.6M = 240k people
       HRC won 75% (admitted) of those = 180k

    So 180k of her 220k margin admitted that they voted largely on race. Do you think it's impossible that another 40k (roughly 2% of turnout) are more guarded about their racism??

    I'm not being hyperbolic or making excuses. I'm pointing out the truth. Racists are deciding these elections in a lot of cases, particularly in the 6-17% chasm that has been pointed out.

    Would you care to dispute my analysis?


    I think you are using correlational data to make (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    a cause and effect argument.  Always a no-no in statistics.

    I'm not saying anything cause-effect. (none / 0) (#190)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:49:18 PM EST
    I'm saying that the 180k people who voted for her w/ race as an important factor correlate to her larger margin of victory than early exits indicated. She would have won regardless. Racists helped make it look bigger than it would have otherwise been. That's a correlative relationship.

    I stand by my original remark,. How the question (none / 0) (#199)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:15:06 PM EST
    was worded is very important to determine which voters actually said or implied that they voted for HRC because they wouldn't vote for Obama because of his race.  There are different ways to frame the question but if you want to assert her margin of victory was due to racist voting (I see that as cause/effect)testing the questions for validity is a major point here.  Otherwise your assumptions are quite weak.

    Was the race of the candidate important to you? (none / 0) (#205)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:32:24 PM EST
    That's the question. What I did was note how many white people answered "yes" and voted for Clinton. The number is 180k. 180k white people voted for Clinton while making race an important issue. You can spin that how you want. What I pointed out is that those 180k represent >80% of her popular vote margin. I know it sucks, but it's true.

    They admitted to race being important (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by eleanora on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:11:06 PM EST
    in this campaign, NOT that they voted for or against Senator Obama because of race. Perhaps some of those responses were from AA's, from Latinos, from Asians, and I'll bet some were from people who are sick of being called racists for voting for Senator Clinton. Perhaps those voters have been watching the media coverage of this campaign where race is constantly touted as the topic, the issue, the deciding factor, especially when analyzing demographics. So they said race has been important, not that it decided their vote.

    Unless you can find an exit poll that asks voters, "Did you vote against Senator Obama because he's black?", I think your numbers do not prove what you think they prove.


    WOW (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:07:43 AM EST
    Is your post offensive.  Plenty of us "rednecks" voted for Obama here in GA.  I think he done real good down here, too.  Good god.  Lower income whites prefer Hillary.  AA's prefer Obama.  Are they being racist?  No.  Are steel belt dems being racist by voting Clinton?  Nope.  There's a party (you may have heard of it) for racists and, really, bigots of all stripes.  It isn't the Democratic party.

    Hey I'm a Georgian who voted for Obama (none / 0) (#158)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:59:54 AM EST
    and I'm really proud that he won our state.

    The 180k PA whites who admitted to voting for Hillary based on race are the reason for my remarks. It's based on facts, not hyperbole.

    HRC has millions of whites who support her for myriad reasons. She has people of all colors, creeds, incomes, etc. But it is an undeniable fact that she has racists in her corner.

    Why is that so hard to accept? And why should the Democrats allow those people to be the determining factor. 180k out of a 220k margin of victory is significant, don't you think?? And those are the people brave enough to admit they won't vote for the black guy.


    I support (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:17:55 AM EST
    Obama wholeheartedly.  But to make the argument that they're voting against him because of his race is silly.  I'm sure there are a few people who wanted to vote against "the black guy," but you have to keep in mind that Hillary won working class whites...as she has in several other midwestern states.  This is her core and it was before Obama became the front-runner.  There's no shame in acknowledging that Hillary won.  And won because the voters in PA liked her more than they liked Obama.  Claiming she only won because of racism is as silly as claiming that Obama is winning just because his supporters are sexist.

    You completely (none / 0) (#172)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:04:48 PM EST
    ignored the #s I presented to you. About 180k people said flat out that race was important to them and they voted against Obama. How else can that appear???

    I do not deny that blue collar whites have been with Hillary. I don't deny that she would have won PA without the people voting on race. I don't deny that Obama has to do better and could do better with his handling of a lot of issues. What I asserted was that a big part of her 10% margin of victory was based on these people. It is you who denies that fact.


    Why do you insist on making (none / 0) (#186)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:46:11 PM EST
    assumptions based on correlational data.  Is this how the O campaign is spinning it?

    How is it an assumption?? (none / 0) (#191)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:50:52 PM EST
    People stated this as fact to a pollster. That is not assuming anything. They said flat out race was important.

    Why do you insist on refusing to acknowledge the facts as the voters cited them?


    Talk about extortion. (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:36:14 AM EST
    If you don't vote for Obama you are automatically a racist?  Keep that up and we'll be ignaugurating "President McCain" come January.

    The suggestion that any voter or super delegate that doesn't get behind Obama is a racist was abhorent to begin with, but is now getting REALLY, SERIOUSLY TIRESOME.  People don't like to be bullied - in their role as voters they are particularly resentful of that tactic.


    See my responses to some other comments (none / 0) (#157)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:56:06 AM EST
    if you're interested in why I say this. After you do, if you still disagree, I'd like to see your presentation.

    Wow, I feel like you called me a racist.... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:45:59 AM EST
    ...because I support Hillary. The simple truth is that I'm sure their are racists who voted for Hillary just as I am sure that their are sexists who voted for Obama. You seem to be implying that the way to move beyond racism is to just shut the whole thing down.

    Unless you voted against Obama b/c (none / 0) (#156)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:55:03 AM EST
    he's black, that's not at all what I'm calling you. If you did, then I most certainly am.

    I explicated it more fully up a few comments, but essentially 180k white people in PA admitted that they voted for HRC based largely on race. That's all but 40k of her margin of victory. I think at least another 40k were too guarded/embarrassed to admit publicly that they voted on race.

    If you care to dispute me, I'd love to see your facts.


    saying race is important is not the same (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:56:44 AM EST
    as voting based on race.

    Exit polls asked about the former, and you are assuming that equals the latter. Your logic would make blacks racists if they didn't vote for HRC because she's white.


    Uh, they are racist if they voted against her (none / 0) (#176)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:13:44 PM EST
    b/c she's white, just like they're sexist if they voted against her b/c she's a woman. The women who vote for her b/c she's female are equally sexist. The difference is that women and blacks are excused to an extent b/c of their history in this country and the historic nature of this campaign.

    Nice try on your parsing, but it's way off. Saying race is important in determining your vote is saying you vote based on that. If you don't vote on it, it's not important. Get it?

    I know what you mean as far as black racism not meaning they hate white people b/c they support Obama. It's true that some white people for whom race was important voted against Obama b/c they thought the real racists would deliver the GOP the White House or try to assassinate him or whatever. That does not change the racist nature of their vote.


    How was the question worded? (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:49:03 PM EST
    I'd like to see your evidence.

    Was Race of Candidate Important to You? (none / 0) (#218)
    by halstoon on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:40:15 PM EST
    See here.

    Now, if we ask "Was Healthcare Important to You?" and 200k people who said yes voted for HRC, we would say that those voters chose her plan over his, right? Or at least they prefer her approach to his.

    It's the same reasoning. If you say something is important, then we look at your vote to see who you preferred on that issue. For race, for those whites who said it was important, 75%--or about 180k0--chose Hillary. For those people, we can reasonably say that they prefer HRC's race to Obama's. For the 60k who chose Obama, we can reasonably say that they prefer his race. Some want a white president, some want a black president. That's all I pointed out.

    People for whom it is important to have a white president voted for Hillary. I can't believe I have stirred such controversy with this revelation.


    I don't care to dispute you because... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:08:58 PM EST
    I don't have the energy. You win. But here's a dirty little secret. Racists vote. And what do you make of the 49% of whites who voted for Obama and said that race was important to them? Did they vote for Obama because he was black? You see you can make almost any kind of silly little extrapolation that you want if you try really hard.

    It's just me (none / 0) (#160)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:07:15 AM EST
    but I don't much care to listen to anyone that calls voters "rednecks".

    There are many reasons for many of us to support our candidate that have nothing to do with race or gender. You insult us all with your post and should be ashamed.


    My response is to (none / 0) (#161)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:08:29 AM EST
    halstoon #57.

    Obama v Clinton (1.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:38:19 AM EST
    Clinton in her home state won by 200k votes.
    Obama in his home state which is also a "home state" for Hill won by 600k votes.

    This is not a "huge" victory.  The fact that Obama outspent her 3 to 1 in her home state means what?  

    Not much to brag about here for the Clinton campaign.  

    I like this race and don't think it should end now.  I want to see how low each one will go to win, or whether or not one will take the high road and tout their "superior" platform.

    The GOP has relied on three things (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:48:06 AM EST
    Their social conservative base.
    Their anti-tax base.
    And loads and loads of money to outspend the Democrats in order to win elections.

    Obama's "base" is soft and some of them are Is or Rs, hardly reliable in the GE.

    He's outspending even the Republicans and barely managing a GWB-style 50% + 1 lead.

    In other words, Obama's lead (-FL, -MI) is not convincing, not solid, not inspiring.

    He needs to do better.  


    I agree (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:53:24 AM EST
    But her name recognition and establishment credentials are very challenging to fight.  McCain cannot beat either candidate so when Obama does win and Hill has to campaign on his behalf it will be a heck of a lot of fun to watch a unified party.  

    And when Hillary wins the nomination (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:34:06 AM EST
    do you think Obama will campaign for her? Or will he find so much work to do in the Senate that he can't spare the time? Given Michelle's remarks on the subject, do you think Obama is actually about uniting the Democratic Party behind the candidate, or just behind himself? My guess is the latter.

    You should send that message of Unity (none / 0) (#95)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:59:48 AM EST
    to the great orange where multiple Unity diaries are getting shot down by recalcitrant, unrepentant commenters.

    You'd think someone asked them to donate a kidney to Obama bin Laden or something!


    I'm hoping typo? (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:21:51 AM EST
    Either you ment Osama Bin Laden or you just directly, and nastily, insulted a candidate.  If that's the case, your comment should be deleted.

    Osama bin Laden has kidney failure. (none / 0) (#148)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:38:50 AM EST
    I thought that was common knowledge.

    Something about a six foot seven inch man hooked up to a dialysis machine?  Remember that old joke about why can't we find OBL?

    So for some readers:

    I was saying, in effect, that you'd think that they were being asked to donate an organ to save a terrorist's life.

    Clearer now?

    I know that might be so 9/11 for some people.


    I don't (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:47:44 AM EST
    Remember the joke you're referring to and I'm well aware of Osama's kidney problems.  That's why I said I was hoping for a typo.  I don't think it's funny to call a Senator and Presidential candidate Obama bin Laden.  Sorry.

    Clinton? (none / 0) (#168)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:42:39 AM EST
    Well, considering what some people say - "destroying the party" - and when they are asked to actually be tolerant and respectful of Clinton and her supporters - oh, dear.  I'm surprised that some of them don't just come right out and accuse her of treason.  

    I'm sorry I offended you.


    Offend me all you want (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Claw on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:13:39 PM EST
    I just don't think it's appropriate to compare either Clinton OR Obama to Osama bin Laden.  

    Must Be (none / 0) (#208)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:04:28 PM EST
    That s/he emulates O'liely and Limbow et al. Must be the devastating effects of cult fever working its way into a normally progressive brain. Rather disgusting whatever the reason.

    The wager offer (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:01:13 AM EST
    still stands.

    If You Want To Toss Numbers Around (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by The Maven on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:25:34 AM EST
    you should note that Obama was born in Hawaii, and didn't move to Illinois until 1985, when he was in his 20s.

    Obama thus won his home state by 19,500 votes.


    or (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:34:50 AM EST
    you could post the % in the interest of being fair and balanced and say Obama won Hawaii by 76% to 24%.

    Wow (none / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:42:13 AM EST
    Because her father was from Scranton once upon a time, that makes Pennsylvania her "home state"?  Come on.

    How many "home" states does she have? (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:49:15 AM EST
    That gives Obama IL, HI, and Indonesia and Pakistan.  He's going to need Pakistan!

    wow Pakistan? (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:00:22 AM EST
    Ignorant or stupid?  Let me see.  I vote both.

    He was talking about his international (none / 0) (#98)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:03:04 AM EST
    experience and mentioned spending 3 weeks in Pakistan.

    Hey, I don't think it's significant - but Obama seems to.


    Don't forget Kansas. (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:34:14 AM EST
    Yes (1.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:51:10 AM EST
    and a 10% win in the state you are from is an embarassment.  Much ado about nothing really.  Care to make a wager with the proceeds going to TL on who the nominee will be?  She is fresh out of home states...

    Red, red Indiana is coming up. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:05:32 AM EST
    That's a questionable state for the GE.  It'll be more important for the delegates than Electoral Votes.  It will be another test of the demographic theories though.

    Not her home state; start with the truth (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:05:35 AM EST
    and see where it takes you.  Or maybe, as the movie sez, you can't handle the truth?

    Alright I concede (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:11:47 AM EST
    Her family is from Scranton and she learned to shoot and do shots there right by the lake around the bend.  Her father and brother played ball at Penn State, her father is buried there etc etc.

    Her family's home state, she won by 10%, in Baracks family home state he won by 50%.  


    Okay (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Steve M on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:40:37 AM EST
    If you want to believe that this election was about nothing more than where Hillary's father grew up, I'll leave you to that opinion.

    You continue to be ridiculous (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:02:04 AM EST
    about the narrative, so let's go to math.

    Obama's entire lead in the delegate vote and popular vote without MI and FL is based on his win in one state, his "home" (for 20 years, anyway) state of Illinois.  If that isn't cause for concern that this could look like the '72 general election -- then there's no use talking with you.  It's just too clear that the party has a problem with him as nominee.

    The focus has to be on solutions, not silliness about home states.  Can you contribute something in terms of solutions?  What can Obama do?


    You speak for the party? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37:47 AM EST
    Because the delegates do, and last count it was 1694 to 1544 which sounds to me as if the delegates have a problem with Hillary.  

    Obama was not on the ballot in Michigan so it is silly to bring in the numbers. FL and Michigan both broke the rules and it was very clear what that meant.

    I am going to vote for Hill no question if she wins the nom, but she will not.  

    Both sides are guilty of smearing and petty politics and it is amusing to me as a lifelong demo that there is so much vitriol espoused over two excellent candidates.  Pathetic.


    I'll take your wager (none / 0) (#180)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:39:05 PM EST
    Proceeds to TalkLeft.

    I bet: Sen. Barack Obama will not be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee in the 2008 election.

    What's the amount?


    25 buckaroos fair? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:40:08 PM EST
    I'll give you 4:1 odds (none / 0) (#185)
    by lookoverthere on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    $25 from you if you lose.

    $100 from me if I do.

    Electronic shake and we're set.


    deal (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:47:17 PM EST
    I have a similar bet with PPJ, he said last year that Hillary would be the nominee and I gave him 4:1 odds that she wouldn't.  So my donation should I lose will be 125.  May the best candidate win, but more importantly may the democrat win in November.

    is eagleton back from the dead (none / 0) (#181)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:39:41 PM EST
    or did he tell novak that obama was the candidate for abortion and acid before he passed?

    where he is also (none / 0) (#164)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:16:14 AM EST
    the Junior United States Senator. That would make a difference too wouldn't it? How much did she win the state where she's  the Junior Senator by?

    250k (none / 0) (#177)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:24:10 PM EST
    not much comparatively speaking

    Aren't the Clintons part of the (none / 0) (#3)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:55:59 AM EST
    Chappaqua/Vineyard crowd?

    And i hate defending Dowd (so this is only half-hearted)

    Are they telling the voters to go away? (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:56:25 AM EST
    The difference is (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by rooge04 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:00:32 AM EST
    that the Clintons aren't the ones telling voters to go to hell. It's MoDo and her ilk.  The voters in these states are GLAD that they get to finally have a say. Over 2 million PA voters voted last night. I'm sure they don't want to count. Or not. It says to everyone that these voters are happy to finally have a say.  Doesn't it discount Obama and his supporters that the elite are telling them that their votes don't matter in the remaining states? Just so he can win.

    It goes back to the old adage: He cannot win unless she drops out.  Apparently, he can't seem to just beat her like he needs to.


    "He can't win unless she drops out" (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Kathy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:13:03 AM EST
    Hasn't that been Obama's campaign strategy in Every. Single. Race. He. Has. Won.

    (through gritted teeth)


    Nailed it, Kathy. (5.00 / 0) (#37)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:18:54 AM EST
    And that will be my message to Supers...exactly that.

    Wonder how that is supposed to work in the fall?  


    Well, McCain will of course concede (none / 0) (#150)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:42:01 AM EST
    the race in August...  That's how it will work.  lol

    And That's What (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by The Maven on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:06:57 AM EST
    makes so much of the cacophony coming from the punditocracy/"creative class" so mind-bogglingly frustrating.  Their argument, boiled down to its essence, seems to be:  Hillary needs to drop out now because the longer she stays in, the more she exposes Barack's fundamental flaws as a candidate and his ineffectiveness in the face of a spirited challenge.

    And somehow that's supposed to make me feel good about his chances in November against the media-beloved McCain and all the right-wing 527s lying in wait?


    It certainly seems to make them feel (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:54:01 AM EST
    better.  The interesting thing is that the more they make these calls for her to drop out, the weaker they make Obama look.

    There was a wreck list diary the day after the Penn debate that made the claim that Clinton should have stepped in and defended Obama from the meanies at ABC.  Now to be clear I thought their questioning was pathetic and reprehensible because it insulted the intelligence of every voter who tuned in.

    But to lambaste Clinton for not protecting him really made Obama look weak - aside from it being a preposterous demand on the opposing team in a tough contest - it came off sounding like he needed his mommy to inervene on his behalf and couldn't take care of himself.  Clinton won't be around in the GE debates with McCain if Obama gets the nod - who will protect him then?  Certainly not the media or McCain - or do they expect her to march up on stage and wag her finger at the moderators threatening them with a time out if they aren't nicer to Obama?  Of course, I was very popular that day when I pointed out how these cries could easily be perceived as Obama's weakness not Clinton's - lol.


    chappaqua? (none / 0) (#75)
    by miguelito on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:37:40 AM EST
    what the frak does Chappaqua have to do with the vineyard?  Now there is a "Chappaqua/Vineyard crowd?"   Really reaching this morning, aren't we?

    Very toney section (none / 0) (#175)
    by lilybart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:13:26 PM EST
    of Westchester, near Bedford and other horsey Ralph-Lauren towns.

    That is what they meant.

    Is there a national politician who doens't have a lot of money and great homes in exlusive places?

    Not an issue for me since they ALL do.


    I cancelled my subscription today (none / 0) (#192)
    by hairspray on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    after Dowd's column.  Time for her to go, by skates, cow or whatever.

    Just got the results of PA primary. (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:26:45 AM EST
    Kudos to Kathy and andgarden who kept the faith.  

    they were not alone (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:30:07 AM EST

    True: but I confess (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:32:05 AM EST
    to losing mine.

    fail to see the need for outrage (none / 0) (#70)
    by po on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:33:53 AM EST
    isn't HRC busy working the phones to woo superdelegates to her side?  in essence asking the Party Elites to back her over him?  

    The race now is basically for the supers to decide, the Democratic Party (in their less than esteem wisdom) apparently not really being interested in the popular votes.  The race is about delegates, and superdelegates at that, not popular votes.

    And the Obama camp isn't? (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:54:05 AM EST
    LOL - everybody including the saintly Obama is "working the refs" in this race - they wouldn't be successful politicians if they didn't.

    Modo's email (none / 0) (#71)
    by ramasan on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:34:12 AM EST
     starts with an "ell"   liberties@nytimes.com

    Mister Rove? That;'s my father! (none / 0) (#105)
    by Fabian on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:07:00 AM EST
    You may call me Madame Rove.

    Media Elites and Non-elite Media (none / 0) (#216)
    by datadriven on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:58:53 PM EST
    Dowd's column shows the same distain for the little people-- the folks who chose not to vote for Obama --that we saw in his Bitter-Gate comments. The same vein was tapped by Austan Goolsbee's when he remarked that Obama's NAFTA remarks "should be viewed as more about political positioning than a clear articulation of policy" and Samantha Power's breezy comments about the very, long timeframe for troop extraction. All of the "Team Obama" incidents are ones where the backstage of politics accidentally lands on the front stage and the voters realize precisely how little the public servant thinks of the public. Akin to when Nelson Rockefeller gave the one finger salute to the public in 1976. Dowd's comments have the same source, but express frustration that the little people aren't behaving when they realize that they're being lied to.

    Unfortunately, the MSM or the blogs do little to frame the election in class terms. For example, what are the distributional consequences of an Obama victory? It would seem to me that MDs/MBAs/JDs would still be able to collect a rent based on their sheet of embossed gilded paper; the white working class would see its jobs outsourced; the black working class would be lectured on Crosby-ite morals while their jobs are being exported (much like his "Cousin Pookie" riffs which seemed to be re-treaded from Shelby Steele's "Shiftless Sam"); and the small but credentialed black upper class might have its opportunities expand. It's becoming increasingly obvious that folks who collect an "advanced degree rent" have little interest in, but a good deal of distain for, those who have a trade. One might call it a hierarchy of "expertise" where the expertise is typically embodied in face-to-face interaction and is hence less prone to export.  

    It seems to me that the Obama primary run has shown the huge gulf separating the media (including The Nation & In These Times, mainstream and right) from the the working class. It is also showing the unionized working class is aware of this rift: it's interests differ from (a) the MSM and (b) the left media, the Dean wing of the Democratic Party, and the "creative class".

    One major problem (none / 0) (#222)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:00:17 PM EST
    is that her 10% win when he outspent her 3 to 1 IS impressive, particularly when she was suffering through the Bosnia gaffe.  

    He came within a few points, ahead by some polls, and then things shook out when she pumped in her ads at the very end.  She hit the sweet spot.

    She got dinged for being negative because of bittergate, but it dang well got Bosnia off the front page.

    Hillary cut into his base.  He's in trouble.