home

The Argument Obama Supporters Should Avoid

TINS:

They just don't get it. . . . [T]here's a big problem with the whole "electability" argument, anyway. Let's . . . say that Hillary is a sure thing, while Obama would likely lose. . . .

I. Wouldn't. Care. Anyway. And neither should you.

I. Do. Care. Anyway. And so should you.

It so happens that I think Obama is more electable than Clinton. But I must say there is really something wrong with the argument that I should not care that, for just one example, John Paul Stevens has just turned 88. I can not fathom how any progressive could write what TINS wrote. I really can't.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me.

< Ruh-roh: Obama Going On Fox | Rev. Wright: Obama A Politician >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I don't even know what to say to that. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by MaryGM on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:36:16 PM EST
    Silly season indeed.

    Yup... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:51:16 PM EST
    and as BTD points out, we need a democrat in the white house, regardless of which is the nominee.

    Parent
    We do not need (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:16:34 PM EST
    a self-centered teenager in the White House--even a dem. teenager.  Luckily, my sitting out an election will have zero effect.

    Parent
    So... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:18:21 PM EST
    you think Jeralyn and BTD are wrong to support Obama, should he get the nomination?

    Parent
    My state will go (none / 0) (#117)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:32:10 PM EST
    Dem no matter who gets the nominaition. Chicago will carry the state for Dems.

    I'm more worried about the down ticket candidates in Down State Repub areas.

    Parent

    Well, a Democrat who did not (none / 0) (#32)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:54:08 PM EST
    have to be talked out of voting for Roberts. Heh.

    Parent
    do you have a link for that? (none / 0) (#41)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:58:06 PM EST
    I remember reading it too, but did not bookmark. Was just over there, and meant to slip in a little piece from the more reality-based progressivosphere, but could not find it.

    Parent
    Link (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:05:58 PM EST
    You can find a link to it in this piece by Kate Harding.  Apparently Obama is so proud of this fact - that he had to have the politics of voting against Roberts explained to him - he posted the article on the website.  I'm linking Kate's piece because that's where I go to get a lot of these kind of links.

    Parent
    The Website = Obama's Website (none / 0) (#63)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:06:18 PM EST
    Good ol shakespeares's sister! (none / 0) (#72)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:11:58 PM EST
    what a great site! How many good new sites I have discovered since becoming thoroughly disenchanted with dailykos.

    thanks, I'm gonna go insert it.

    Parent

    Yes... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:16:57 PM EST
    from the little bit I read following the link, it does seem to be great in rallying the troops.  However, I think her implied method of fighting anti-choice movements is doomed to fail.  This quote:

    "This isn't a "Hey, we just see things differently!" thing. This is a "Hey, we believe in a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and they don't""

    will never change the other sides mind, and thats the only way to really win.

    Parent

    I disagree. (none / 0) (#179)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:39:18 PM EST
    I have a right to make decisions about my own body, just as you do. So do all women and men, and no one's religious or moral beliefs may have any agency over that under our system of government. Fighting for respect for each and every person's civil and human rights cannot be won by saying, "We just see things differently."

    Parent
    I absolutely agree... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:48:53 PM EST
    it cant be done by saying "We see things differently" and leaving it there.  Ive never endorsed ending it like that.  The only real way to win is to say, "We see things differently, so lets figure out why".  

    Now I acknowledge this approach relies on us having faith the other side can change.  But if were able to look past the demonizing and loathing we throw at them, we'll see humans just like us.  People who hold to ideals, regardless of how bad they are, for reasons they believe in.  It is possible to show others a better way to think, and it is possible that they'll agree.  But just bashing them around and shouting at them how wrong they are has no chance of changing anyones mind, as tempting as it is to do.

    Parent

    Sorry I misunderstood, (none / 0) (#187)
    by eleanora on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:02:07 PM EST
    I totally agree with you there. If there's any lesson I've had drilled through my head this primary season, it's that depersonalizing and dehumanizing others is no way to live and no way I ever want to win anything. :)

    Parent
    The thing is... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:58:53 PM EST
    a democrat president, regardless of which candidate it is, is more likely to be talked out of a republican nominee than a republican president.  

    Parent
    I saw that and my jaw dropped (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:36:57 PM EST
    But the fact that it makes the wreck list tells you everything you need to know about that community today.

    Not recc'ed by me (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by magster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:14:06 PM EST
    Not read by me after the 1st paragraph either.

    Parent
    And quick scanning comments (none / 0) (#164)
    by magster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:18:09 PM EST
    I saw lots of disagreement.

    E.G.:  

    Awful, Awful Argument (18+ / 0-)
    Recommended by: akr nyc, Yosef 52, gregonthe28th, jps, highacidity, mrblifil, mcfly, auron renouille, the ac, buddabelly, Magnifico, merrinc, Seneca Doane, Barry in MIA, dewley notid, CA Libertarian, Prince Nekhlyudov, CrustyPolemicist
    We want the person best able to win and be a good president.  If I thought Obama couldn't win, but would excite young people, I wouldn't support him, because the damage that could be done on the supreme court alone would be worth backing Hillary instead.

    This is an awful, awful argument.

    The revolution will not be televised, but we'll analyze it to death at The Next Hurrah.

    by DHinMI on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM MDT


    Parent

    TINS is on a suicide mission. (5.00 / 3) (#167)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:24:21 PM EST
    He is incredibly irresponsible, destructive and divisive on this front.

    He is not helping Obama at all either.

    His attitude and popularity amongst the true believers has always been a huge obstacle for me in supporting Obama.

    I don't like being threatened with ultimate destruction just so someone can get their own way.

    I don't like it at all.

    Parent

    TINS (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by kredwyn on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:11:14 PM EST
    seemed to go 'round the bend just after the Nevada primaries. I'd hoped he'd come back...guess not.

    Parent
    I support Obama (none / 0) (#190)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:23:09 PM EST
    but the title alone was enough to keep me from reading that diary.

    Parent
    Not At All Surprised (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:41:00 PM EST
    They hate Hillary more than they hate McCain.  

    Or, if you prefer, they care more about taking control of the democratic party than they care about the success of the democratic party.  You've said it all along BTD, for some of the Obama folks (certainly not all or even most) it's about destroying the Clinton wing of the party.   Which will reduce the Democrats to minority status even if they keep control of Congress.  But that's okay because it will be their party, even if it's a party that can't get anything done.

    A significant number of Obama's more obnoxious supporters are children.  And I don't just mean the young ones.

    The OFB would rather lose with Obama (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:00:53 PM EST
    than win with Hillary.

    CDS does that.

    Parent

    Clinton Humiliation is the goal (4.57 / 7) (#18)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:46:23 PM EST
    I just read a good post at lancemannion.tyepad.com along the same lines.  He mostly gives an overview of why he wants the campaign to continue, then adds some things Obama supporters ought to keep in mind, one of which is:

    ---It's infuriating the Beltway Insiders.

    They have been rooting from the beginning to see Clinton humiliated.  Way back when, when the show was just getting started and they were declaring that her nomination was inevitable, they were consoling themselves with the hope that Rudy Giuliani would mop up the floor with her in November.  Then they saw that Obama had a chance to give them what they wanted a lot sooner, with the bonus of giving them another Democrat whose humiliation in November they could root for and aid and abet.

    They've wanted nothing more than to be able to laugh at her in defeat and declare that it proof that the country had rejected...Bill Clinton, at long last.

    It's always been about Whitewater.



    Parent
    Insanity (none / 0) (#154)
    by BearerofBN on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:04:06 PM EST
    Obama supporters would make the same argument against HRC supporters. Our party has completely lost its mind on both sides of the primary. And yes many of Obama's supporters are young, many of HRC's supporters are old and are just as big of babies as anyone supporting Obama.
    I also read in an article earlier today that something like 46 % of HRC voters will either stay home or vote for McCain  if Obama wins the nomination.

    Im just saying it goes both ways, Im getting tired of this election. It has destroyed the party and Im seriously doubting a democrat can win if we lose either constituencies aka (Blue collar vote for HRC, or the AA/educated white vote for Obama). Without those main groups the Democratic party cannot win, even if we are running against a weak candidate (McCain).

    Parent

    Unacceptable (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:41:21 PM EST
    Surely derangement has set in for someone to even think like that, let alone admit it in public.

    It's very well thought out (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by vigkat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:45:21 PM EST
    and presented, unless, of course, you're looking for some measurable degree of logic.

    Parent
    Ah! that is always where I make my mistake! (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by ruffian on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:46:52 PM EST
    It set in ages ago with him. (none / 0) (#169)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:27:19 PM EST
    I think he ought to seek counseling or get a job working for the Republicans and I am not actually kidding.

    Parent
    I would agree (none / 0) (#176)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:35:37 PM EST
    with you based on many of the statements I have seen him make about boomers and it's not just ageism. There is some serious anger and intolerance that is disturbing, particularly for a Democrat.

    Parent
    I read it (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by vigkat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:42:43 PM EST
    I could not believe it.  I now understand that Obamamania has altered some critical thought processes in ways that I simply cannot comprehend. It would be an understatement to call it beyond the pale.

    How would you reply.... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:48:09 PM EST
    to Clinton backers who say they wouldn't vote for Obama in November?

    Parent
    I am starting to see their point (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    to tell you the truth

    Parent
    Our point (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:20:20 PM EST
    is that we don't see Obama accomplishing anything if he's elected.  We don't trust him on women's issues in particular.  We are not stupid enough to think that McCain will be a good President especially for women.  But if Obama makes a total mess out of his Presidency, we'll be looking at a long term return of the Republicans to the White House. If McCain fails, we can try for a Democrat again in 4 years.  And, no, we don't expect that it will be Hillary. There is nothing at this point short of having a brain transplant that would get me to vote for Obama- either his brain or mine.  8^)  Whether I vote for McCain or write in Minnie Mouse depends on how much more disgusted I get.  It ain't lookin' good for Minnie.

    Parent
    Replace the Word Obama with Hillary (none / 0) (#175)
    by BearerofBN on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:35:07 PM EST
    And you have the same argument that Obama supporters are making except for the womens rights issue... where the heck did you come up with that?
    Anyways we're all screwed, this mentality is useless. If the primary had ended in February we would be in a completely different place.

    We now hate eachother more than the Republicans. We each blame the other candidate for this. Its like we all make the same arguments just for a different candidate.

    Complete madness.
    I wish we would all wake up and stop the fratricide.

    Parent

    You see this fella here is just doing (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by rooge04 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:45:17 PM EST
    exactly what Obama said to us a few months ago. I was all set to vote for him.  Then came the misogyny and then came the Hillary hate and then came the fact that he is trying still to destroy the Clinton White House.  The fact that he claimed like his little minions all over the internet that he'd GET our votes but she wouldn't get his.  That's EXACTLY what this kid is saying. He's just repeating the word from on high.  

    Parent
    I was (none / 0) (#189)
    by BearerofBN on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:21:46 PM EST
    Replying to a message where the writer declared she couldnt vote for Obama save if she had a brain transplant. I will vote for either candidate, I just hate seeing both sides make the same stupid arguments.
        "The fact that he claimed like his little minions all over the internet that he'd GET our votes but she wouldn't get his. " Im simply pointing out that both sides are making this argument. But Im also not going to insult you like you did me. Im no minion and Im certainly no "kid".
           I also realize Im in the minority on this site with my plea for unity. But you should seriously look in the mirror before you start accusing Obama supporters of withholding their votes if they dont get their candidate.


    Parent
    Have you (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:48:00 PM EST
    listened to Obama?  He is a sexist of the nth degree.  While 48% of African American teenage girls have an STD, he supports abstinence education. He's asking the pro-choice people to understand that the pro-life people have to make heart wrenching decisions?  Deciding to have an abortion is not a heart wrenching decision?  Having a child is "punishment" for teenage sex? Universal health care for children, but not for their mothers? Doesn't let Michelle take a job until he meets with the new boss and approves it?  And I don't want to hear about SCOTUS.  This guy liked the choice of Roberts.

    Parent
    How about (none / 0) (#184)
    by pie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:50:42 PM EST
    getting away from the computer and taking a nice long walk.  Clear your head.

    It'll be okay.

    Parent

    It's hard to tell on the blogs... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:04:49 PM EST
    Her followers were so few until a few months ago that you couldn't vouch for their Democratic provenance.

    MANY who say those things, are trolls of the RW variety.

    Her presence on the net was so small until recently that I can't take much of it seriously.

    Parent

    Hillary's supporters (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:39:28 PM EST
    have had a strong presence on the net for a long time.  We keep getting confused with Republican trolls because Obama's supporters just don't believe that any Democrat could be for anyone but Obama.  CDS is so strong that only the brave would stay at it, but we're still here because we're fighters, too.  The decision not to support Obama if he's the nominee was not an easy decision to make. Only Obama could change my mind, and so far he has made no attempt to win the votes of Hillary's supporters.  As the weeks go by it only gets worse.

    Parent
    Mostly, I think Clinton folks could be talked (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:31:41 PM EST
    down out of the McCain tree.  I think a lot of those people have stuck with Clinton because they care about the country and the party.  The other team OTOH seems to only care about their guy and believe that compromise is evil incarnate - which is so incredibly ironic given their candidate's incredibly middle of the road and compromising positions on so many key issues.

    Parent
    Mostly (none / 0) (#202)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 11:18:04 PM EST
    for me it's Michigan and Florida.  I understand how people can see the issue differently, but for me it's about the fact that I think millions of people are being disenfranchised for a reason that's just not good enough to deprive them of their right (not privilege) to vote.

    Their electeds screwed this up.  In the case of Florida the primary date was bundled with desperately-needed election reforms and railroaded through by the GOP.  And yet, to Obamaborg, that fact doesn't matter.  Neither does the fact that millions Americans got up to go to the polls and vote in elections that have now been certified; that's apparently less important than some intraparty squabble.

    What happens when one of the parties decides certain states can't vote in the general election because of some technicality?  If we grant them this kind of power - to utterly discount votes cast by taxpaying American citizens - it doesn't take a lot to imagine other abuses they might inflict.  And DNC members in general are not accountable to the public (in many states they're elected by members of a state Executive Committee, many of whom enjoy the powers of incumbency to hold their slots indefinitely.)

    And for it to happen in Florida, of all the heartbreaking places.  And for Obama to refuse a pre-funded re-vote because he's scared of the voters.  It's the hypocrisy, too - I can just imagine the outcry if this had gone the other way, Obama had won the states and Hillary were the one blocking a resolution.  Clinton supporters would be called un-American, we'd be compared to the whites under Jim Crow imposing poll taxes & grandfather laws, etc.

    He gets this nomination without a resolution on Florida and Michigan, and damn right I'm writing in Hillary in November, nominee or no.  I just didn't sign up to support a party full of powermad insiders so desperate to skew an internal election that they'll cheerfully violate the Constitution without a second thought.

    (I'll be in Denver on the Florida/Michigan picket lines, also - and there will be some.  Florida and Michigan delegates are coming to the Convention.  I'm thinking that's a scene that nobody wants to see on national television, and you'd think it would be something that Obama would have already considered with his hemming, hawing and heeldragging.  But noooo.)

    Parent

    I would (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:45:41 PM EST
    say that Obama has done a horrible job of trying to expand his demographics so far. It's up to Obama to get Clinton voters to vote for him if he's the nominee. I'm not sure he's up to the job. Secondly, what exactly are you voting for with Obama? He isn't very specific and if UHC is your main goal you could easily vote for McCain because he doesn't offer it either.

    Parent
    Um, are you looking (none / 0) (#43)
    by vigkat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:58:32 PM EST
    for a particular answer?  I'm not sure what you're point is.

    Parent
    this feeling is widespread (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:43:02 PM EST
    I have been seeing it hearing it and posting here about it.
    they dont care if he loses.  as long as Hillary is defeated.  this guy is far from alone.

    Small minded... (none / 0) (#66)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:07:50 PM EST
    people will be like that.  Which demonstrates how important it is that HRC supporters, should Obama get the nomination, continue to vote for a democrat.  Its been pointed out how foolish people can be, so lets not follow their lead.

    Parent
    I am trying (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:28:26 PM EST
    I really am battling with the lesser angels of my nature.
    but I am really really starting to want to see them lose.
    but I am trying.

    Parent
    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:34:30 PM EST
    its hard when the other side acts so horribly. But remember, as bad as they act now, another 4000 American troop deaths in the middle east isnt worth it... something we'd definitely see should McSame win.

    Parent
    Tell Obama to fight for Democratic values (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Davidson on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:39:20 PM EST
    If Obama becomes the nominee he should focus on standing up for Democratic principles (e.g., abortion rights, health care reform, etc.) rather than appeasing the right (e.g., privatization of SS, Harry & Louise ads, moralist rhetoric on choice, exploiting homophobia and misogyny, etc.).  There's no proof Obama would fight for any progressive issues.

    Don't assume that Clinton supporters who will sit out this election have no legitimate basis to do so simply because many online Obama supporters are delusional in their Clinton hate.  False equivocation.  The problem lies with Obama and his polarizing campaign.

    That being said, Obama's GE demise is truly beyond any of our control once the media and the GOP have him in their cross hairs.  It's not as if they even have to smear him, just expose him.  He has no substance or qualifications to stand on once his house of cards falls down.

    Parent

    this is my biggest problem as well (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:58:51 PM EST
    I am not at all convinced that if I stand up for him he will stand up for me.
    in fact all the indicators I see so far say the exact opposite.


    Parent
    If theres that fear about a democrat... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:11:44 PM EST
    you know for sure a republican isnt going to.  Look, I realize how Obama is by no means the perfect candidate; but that doesnt mean we should fold up camp and let a republican, fully endorsed by bush, take over.

    Parent
    A democrat... (none / 0) (#147)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:53:58 PM EST
    is going to be easier to sway towards democratic ideals than a republican.  Also, whether or not Clinton supporters have a reason to sit out this election doesnt mean they are right to do so.  My plea is we look passed wars in the primary because those casualties pale in comparison to actual casualties carried home, draped in the American flag.

    Parent
    But what (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by misspeach2008 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:26:32 PM EST
    makes you believe that Obama will end the war in Iraq?  He's interviewing Republicans for Secretary of State and Defense.  I think that whether it's McCain or Obama there will still be a substantial number of troops in Iraq in 2012.  

    Parent
    With McSame... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:34:05 PM EST
    its a 100% chance.  Also, he'll go to war with Iran.  I dont think any reasonable democrat would give anywhere near 100% chance of either happening with Obama.  And I agree that its sad theres any kind of chance those things will happen, but as I said, with a republican its 100%.

    Parent
    It's interesting to watch so many smart people (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:43:18 PM EST
    march right off a cliff together.  TINS says this:

    Reagan Democrats  . . .  will probably never come back to the Democratic fold in the sorts of numbers that will swing an election to our Party in the years ahead.  That is because their instinctive focus on divisive social issues, their racial resentments . . .  their inherent distrust for government and its efficacy, and their disbelief in the power to effectuate real change through partisan means are directly contrary to the message of the post-racial, structurally focused and fundamentally optimistic Millennials that the Democratic Party should and must adopt going forward.  Reagan Democrats are not the present or future of the Party: new immigrants (especially Hispanics) and Millennials are.

    Short version: old Democrats are small-thinking racist bigots who don't grasp the possibility of real change.  Millennials are smart, optimistic post-racial young gods whose inherent goodness makes it unnecessary to win elections.

    That's really something.  If this kind of attitude pervades Obama's support group, it's no wonder so many regular Democrats turned to Hillary on Tuesday.  They can probably smell the self-righteous delusion from miles away.

    Wow (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:47:40 PM EST
    I guess the idea that Obama is our Reagan and can sell people on the progressive message is dead and buried.

    I'm probably just an idealistic liberal but I happen to think that if you do a good job of running the government, you can restore people's trust in government.  It's not easy, but it's a mission I can believe in.

    This comment seems to be the polar opposite of the unity message: there are people who will never believe in us, and we should just leave them by the wayside and not try to win them over.  And, by the way, I'm already completely sick of this term "Millennials," which appears to be slang for "people with no political memory."

    Parent

    Do you think Obama would agree (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:49:45 PM EST
    with that? Of course not.

    But TINS is looking out for TINS, as always.

    Parent

    if McCain can be blamed (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:53:17 PM EST
    for what the NC GOP does Obama can be blamed for this.
    he as done nothing do discourage this.
    nothing.

    Parent
    The problem is I don't know (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:57:19 PM EST
    what Obama would think about that, and neither do you.  I think I know what he would say, but don't believe there would be any truth in it.

    Parent
    I was wondering what a Millenial was.. (none / 0) (#204)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:58:20 AM EST
    I figured they were people who were born around the Millenium. In which case they are 7 or 8 years old and way too young to vote. I have found out what they are, and my original opinion, above, still stands. They may be physically older, but they are about 7-8 mentally. No wonder they are all Obama fans, after outgrowing My Little Pony they went looking for a substitute, and lo and behold Obama appears. Everyone is happy now. How nice.

    Parent
    Seems To Me TINS Is Saying That They Will Lose (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:55:28 PM EST
    not only this election but elections in the years ahead and he is O.K. with this.  Can't see the coalition he is envisioning coming together this year or in the near future because IMO the numbers are just not there.

    Parent
    Oh, I dunno (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:21:31 PM EST
    I just think it's pretty humorous how invested some of these guys are in the legend they're convinced is being created with their help.  

    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:08:19 PM EST
    Kamikaze Democrats Say:

    get lost you clinging gun and god racists!

    Was this after Pennsylvannia results or before?

    Do our leftwing pundits learn?

    Parent

    TINS (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:24:41 PM EST
    has big issues with boomers. I have seen it in many of his diaries and comments. I certainly don't think (or at least hope) he is fully representational of all Obama supporters or Millennials. This is another nasty screed about boomers that he made in an email exchange with another Clinton supporter, SluggoJD:
    Like this: "You boomers (I have to assume you're a boomer, or at least an older "X"er) are all the same. Lots of self-righteousness, lots of selfishness, not a lot of brains. Lots of trashing all the sexual rules and doing lots of drugs when your hormones were raging, lots of "me decade" selfishness when you were finding yourselves during the 70's, lots of racism and tax cuts when you finally settled down in the 80s, lots of "what's good for the Dow is good for America" and moaning about your own kids' sexuality and those awful video games (shudder!) during the frivolous Roaring 90s, and lots of getting back at those nasty terrorists during the midlife crisis years under Bush II, together with consolidating your housing and 401(K) profits you "earned". Now you'll be demanding your cheap prescription drugs and pensions from a boomer candidate who will do everything to deliver them, while panicking about the value of the houses whose equity you leveraged to the hilt. Color me singularly unimpressed." (Thereisnospoon, Obama supporter? - 1/22/08 in an email to me, available upon request)
    I don't understand the anger with boomers but I assume it is something on a personal level and being displaced politically.

    Parent
    That's OK (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:32:37 PM EST
    At least it's clear and honest.  I've felt from day 1 Obama was evoking this attitude.  He pretty much trashed anyone and everything of the Boomer generation.

    The part that has puzzled me has been why anyone would possible imagine that he could, then, turn around and want our votes?

    I got the message from Day 1.  

    The conclusion was that he thought there was nowhere else to go.  We'd be forced to vote for him.

    I still think that's his strategy.

    Parent

    but Reagan Dems are voting for Hillary! (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:26:51 PM EST
    my Repub family in GA, SC and TX were excited to vote for her primarily because of the Economy!
    And they're not part of Operation Chaos.

    Parent
    There's a non-sequitur in the reference (none / 0) (#15)
    by MarkL on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:45:04 PM EST
    which follows your comment title.

    Parent
    Ah, the Disposable Diaper Dems: just toss it 'kay? (none / 0) (#165)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:18:27 PM EST
    I'm just astounded by how many yoots think it's okay to toss a hard earned -- or any -- basic human right that they don't happen to need at the moment.

    The ones that come most frequently do when arguing about FISA (well, if you didden do anyfing wrong then who cares if the guvmint spies)

    and arguing about Roe v Wade (so cancha get borting somwhere else or just like have the kid and get nannies already?)

    Yes, I've dumbed down the language to achieve better harmony of form and content, as the content is so slack-jaw droolingly dumb I could scarcely believe it in better English.

    Parent

    And THESE are the people who claim to care (none / 0) (#192)
    by lilburro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:58:38 PM EST
    so much about NAFTA???

    What.  A.  Crock.  Of.  Sh1t.

    Parent

    Remember when that site used to hate (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:43:37 PM EST
    greens with a passion? now they've adopted the same philosophy. "Better a Republican wins then a Democrat who I don't love". It's inane, stupid and self destructive.

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:44:04 PM EST
    There is a school of thought that says if you believe, for example, that a black man can't win, it would still be wrong to vote against Obama for that reason, because we'll never get anywhere if people think that way.  Same goes for gender, of course.

    There's another school of thought that says, screw that, I want to win.  I respect both schools.

    Setting that issue aside, of course it's okay to think about a candidate's chances of winning, or we'd all be Kucinich supporters.  (Okay, not all of us.)  In fact, the argument that it's wrong to think about electability is generally a tell that says "my candidate is less electable."

    But look, I don't kid myself into thinking I know for certain who can win and who can't.  I have my concerns about Obama, because he does have certain similarities to failed candidates of the past, but we've clearly never run a candidate with his overall combination of traits before.  So no one really knows.  I only have two simple things I ask of Obama and his supporters:

    1. If we nominate you, please, please don't lose.

    2. If you do lose, you sure as h*ll better not try to blame it on Hillary.

    Too much to ask?  Maybe.

    John Aravosis (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:45:59 PM EST
    and others have already preblamed Hillary for what happens in the fall.

    Parent
    Well sure (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:50:26 PM EST
    I know there are people who will believe, against all evidence, that if Republican attacks on issues like national security have salience against Obama the only reason is that Hillary went there first.  But I'm nevertheless asking these people to bite their tongues in the name of party unity, because I have a hard time backing their candidate if they're not even going to hold him responsible for his own success or failure.

    Parent
    absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:51:39 PM EST
    they have their scape goats all lined up.
    it will never be them who is to blame for the landslide that is coming in November.  it will be Hillary. and to a lesser extent, us.
    if Hillary had never brought up all those inconvenient truths no one else would have.
    the dementia boggles the mind.

    Parent
    Republicans would run the dastardly 3AM ad? (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:03:15 PM EST
    You mean they would dare to run an ad against him to say that they might be the more calm, competent, and reliable in dealing with a crisis?

    I doubt they'd think of that...its just too low and dirty!

    Parent

    They've Been Blaming The Clintons Since 1992 (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    It is easier to blame someone else then own up to your own mistakes.

    Parent
    Blame Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:58:16 PM EST
    Obama lost TX, OH, PA because Hillary wouldn't quit. Obama is used to having no opponent and win the easy way.

    Parent
    That is exactly what I think (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:27:42 PM EST
    He's used to running virtually unopposed, as in his senate race and in all those February caucuses that HRC so foolishly ignored.  When she pushes back hard, he can't take her.  (The one exception to this is Wisconsin ~ and I thought the race was over when I saw those numbers.  He had the base, for that single election.  No more.)

    He'd better figure out how to run against a strong opponent pretty soon if he's going to be our nominee, don't you think?  It's not like McCain will suddenly turn up with a set of sleazy divorce papers to help Obama's cause.

    Parent

    Not completely without reason: (none / 0) (#30)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:52:51 PM EST
    "Every day they run a primary campaign, we run a general election campaign," explained Mark McKinnon, McCain's senior media adviser, as the campaign bus rolled through Kentucky. "And every day we run a general election campaign is a good day for us."
    I agree Hillary has every right toi stay in, and in fact given her strong support in PA and on the day after, can't blame her for carrying on.  But the extended process is going to make it harder for the eventual nominee, who is still likely to be Obama.

    Parent
    But mattt, an extended contest could be a boon (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:06:16 PM EST
    to Sen. Obama if he started campaigning better and stopped stepping on himself. Plenty of free media with ways to get a message out there and connect with voters. And the primary turnouts---how can you not love that?

    I ran across an excellent study about long primary/nomination contests versus GE victory chances. I should try to find it because it was pretty interesting.

    Anyway, Sen. Obama himself admitted the long campaign is toughening him up. So why not pivot the conversation at Sen. McCain. Nothing's stopping him from going on the attack against McCain. And if he can't stand this process, then he shouldn't be the nominee. I'd rather know about all his vulnerabilities now than in the fall.

    Sen. Clinton is far from perfect, but I think her chances of taking the White House and running some long coattails are better.

    But of course, agree to disagree.

    Parent

    Thanks, (none / 0) (#90)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:21:55 PM EST
    for a reasonable and positive post.  I try too, to look on the bright side.  Certainly the mobilization of new Democrats who might have stayed home if their states hadn't been in play in this primary, is one of the biggest.

    But a lot of people are writing McCain off way too early.  Yes he's old and can be tied to the failings of Bush&Co...but he's a war hero, a media darling, and - sorry but it needs to be said - a white male.  Either Dem candidate is in for a very tough fight in the fall.  And JP Stevens, I'm told, is 88 years old.  Iran will (probably) develop or reach the cusp of developing nukes in the next 4 years.  "Peak Oil" is going to wreak havoc on our economy.  And we'e probably already at the triage stage of dealing with global climate change, and well past prevention.

    We MUST have a Democrat in the White House.  Every other consideration is secondary.

    Parent

    mattt, Sen. McCain will have a hard time (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:53:59 PM EST
    staring down Sen. Clinton in a debate. She will cream him, as in turn him into creamed corn, especially on the economy. Did you catch her on Jim Cramer's show a week or so back? Holy crap.

    C'mon, just the idea of CLinton v McCain the Money Smackdown---it has to send a tingle up your leg.

    FTR: the man is a war hero and he has served his country in jobs I could never do. regardless, his ideas are misguided. And attackable. And she will attack. And attack. And a couple more attacks in the space of five minutes, without even mussing her hair.

    And the Republicans are not going to whine about how mean she is.

    Parent

    By this logic (4.40 / 5) (#45)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:59:44 PM EST
    if Hillary is the nominee and loses, it is Obama's fault.

    As long as you're fine with both conclusions in equal measure, I guess I'm fine with that, although this is the reality of how primaries work.  And I don't think McCain is benefiting from this, at all, since he's not raising any money and no one is paying attention to him.

    Parent

    No. (none / 0) (#76)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:14:56 PM EST
    By this logic...if Hillary is the nominee and loses, it is Obama's fault.
    Obama is well ahead, Intrade currently figures the race 81-17 Obama.  He can't be blamed for staying in, if the second-place runner should be some miracle overtake him.

    As I said I understand why Clinton is staying in, given the closeness of the race and her undoubted conviction that she is the best choice.  Good intentions, however, do not absolve one completely of blame.

    Parent

    Ahh, yes (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:17:16 PM EST
    let's run our campaigns by the "wisdom of the market!"

    Parent
    Uh (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:25:01 PM EST
    I'm not talking about Obama staying in at this point.  I'm talking about his decision to trash Hillary's character and the record of the Clinton Administration to get to this point.

    It's politics.  He was entitled to do these things, just as Hillary is entitled to campaign hard against him.  But I will not subscribe to the theory that if Obama is the nominee and loses, it's Hillary's fault, but if Hillary is the nominee and loses, it's all on her.  That's juvenile.

    Parent

    ah, yes, Inttrade (none / 0) (#109)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:30:07 PM EST
    way to make money is bet low on the one you think will actually win.  

    If Hillary's that much lower than Barack, you can bet some smart people are banking on making a bit of a mint when she gets the nod.

    Parent

    Let's stipulate that you're right (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:55:09 PM EST
    That's quite different from what Aravosis has said.

    Parent
    Also McCain gets (none / 0) (#191)
    by MichaelGale on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:36:33 PM EST
    very little of his message out.  All the media, all the time, Clinton/ Obama.

    The media may try to get MCain out front but no ones paying attention.  Except Think Progress of course.

    Parent

    If he is nominated and loses (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:24:08 PM EST
    His webizens will blame it on Hillary and all the racist losers in the Democratic party which will further alienate said Democrats from wanting to stay in the newly created new Dem coalition.  We could continue on being fractured forever.

    Parent
    Fractured (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:36:34 PM EST
    for years to come.  Obama divided the party from Day 1.

    The problem is that once you've dissed an entire generation, then why should we care if that party wins or loses, anyway?

    They certainly won't be taking care of boomers.  Boomers aren't even all that important to them.

    So what's in it for boomers to help him even win?  So the name Democrat gets in?

    Big deal.

    If it represents such opposite principles as what it always used to represent, who cares?

    Parent

    Funny (none / 0) (#185)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:53:06 PM EST
    Because Obama IS a Boomer (albeit near the very end). Interesting how his supporters dis that generation.

    Parent
    I agree with you mostly (none / 0) (#50)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:00:32 PM EST
    I would ask all supporters of either candidate  not to blame supporters of the other in the case of a loss.  I will only blame those who refuse to vote Democratic up and down the ticket.

    BTW: which candidates do you think Obama compares with. Adlai comes to mind for me.

    I think the McGovern comparisons don't work (as does Ed Kilgore, of all people)  

    Parent

    I yield... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by NealB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:44:25 PM EST
    ...to the outcome of the process, whatever it may be. I like Hillary. I like Barack. Either of them will beat McCain and either of them will be better than any President in my lifetime. Either way, we win.

    Why Would This Surprise Anyone? (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:44:31 PM EST
    Destroying the Clintons by any means necessary has been the prime motivation of DKos for sometime.  Goes hand and glove  with purging the party of anyone who is not a REAL DEM (i.e. Clinton and her supporters).

    Absolutely (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by AnninCA on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:37:46 PM EST
    obvious.  Ageism is OK.  Sexism is OK.  

    There is absolutely no respect at all for anybody's actual life records or experience.  Trash away.

    Parent

    A sign of growing concern in the Obama camp (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:44:52 PM EST
    Something like that argument would never even be contemplated if there were not some serious doubts creeping in.

    But how many Obama supporters, if challenged, could really reproduce this argument and defend the idea that a loss by Obama is preferable to a win by Clinton. And how many of those are superdelegates? I find it hard to imagine that many Democratic superdelegates would prefer McCain over Clinton.

    Good Point (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:08:58 PM EST
    Ceding the electability argument - which is amazing since that was a big part of the Obama sell from the beginning - is a huge deal.  And I agree a sign that some are worried.

    Parent
    Perhaps This Is Why The Concession of Electability (none / 0) (#128)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:34:46 PM EST
    at least by some.  Jerome Armstrong looks at recent poll match-ups.  Like Paul L's on-going series at Corrente, it ain't pretty for Obama.

    Parent
    The reverse, of course, is true as well. . . (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:46:34 PM EST
    I had to take some time off from here when I read someone say that Obama really wasn't any different than Bush (in terms of not having to had to work for anything he's gotten) and I was the only one who seemed to have a problem with that statement.

    Both sides, frankly, are getting a bit nutty.

    I can't vouch for commenters (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:48:59 PM EST
    Only for my posts.

    I have been clear on this.

    Heck, my support for Obama is entirely hinged on his superiority, imo, in terms of having a chance to win in November. I do not buy any of the New Politics nonsense.

    To wit, I do not believe anything TINS writes in that diary. But I OBJECT to the argument I highlight here.

    Parent

    Interesting discussion. . . (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:57:02 PM EST
    his superiority, imo, in terms of having a chance to win in November.

    on this topic on Morning Edition today.  Juan Williams was asked who the Republicans consider harder to beat in November and said the in the last few weeks there's been a sea change in their thinking and that he now believes they believe Clinton would be stronger.

    I'm not sure to what degree one can consider Juan Williams statements as accurate assessments rather than an attempt to shape the debate in ways favorable to Rupert Murdoch.

    I'm nearly alone, apparently, in not believing I can say who has the better chance to win in November.  I can make the case for either candidate.  However, I've noticed that you seem to be making the case for Clinton (on demographics) while maintaining you believe Obama has the better chance (on media positioning).

    Parent

    The Media matters most (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:02:14 PM EST
    They would eviscerate Clinton in unbelievable ways if Obama is deprived of the nomination.

    Parent
    you could be right (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:05:37 PM EST
    I expect they will eviscerate the dem nominee whoever it is.
    I trust Hillary to deal with better than Obama.
    based on his performance so far if he encounters any REAL hostility from the press he is going to fold up like a lawn chair.

    Parent
    Does it really? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:13:05 PM EST
    Because more than once (more than once a day, in fact) you've written that "Demographics is Destiny".  Never that "Media is Destiny".

    I see your argument about the media but it's also true that they've already been eviscerating Clinton and she's still standing (although a bit wobbly).  But no matter what the media does, as you've pointed out, if Obama can't bring home the people Spoon is so disdainful of (and isn't that quote so in keeping with Obama's leaked San Francisco statements?) he can't win.  Or maybe in I should say he can't win either.

    Which is a pretty distressing thought.

    Parent

    Both Will Have Problems w/Media (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:22:35 PM EST
    Clinton will get hit harder, but Obama will get hit plenty hard and I don't think has shown his ability to withstand it as well as she has.

    But here's the thing, the Media is part of what's wrong in Washington and part of what needs to be fixed.  Nominating Obama does nothing to undermine their power.  So even if he wins, one of the most destructive forces for Dems remains in place.

    If Clinton wins, it immediately reduces the media's power.   Think how silly they looked after NH.  Now imagine them at the inauguration of Hillary Clinton.  

    Personally, I believe the economy is going to have more to do with how electable the Dem is than any other issue.  If people are unhappy, it's going to be very hard for McCain to win.  I don't care how much the press hates Hillary Clinton.  People will vote for her for the same reason in the general that they voted for her husband and voted for her in PA - it's not about her, it's about what she's going to do for them.   Heck, the latest SUSA poll has her down only 2% in Kentucky to McCain (a state her husband carried).  I'm not saying she'll win KY, I'm just saying Obama isn't the only won who puts some states in play and she's doing it while getting hammered daily by the media.  He's losing ground even while he mostly remains the media darling.  

    Parent

    She is getting compliments on Hardball (none / 0) (#114)
    by athyrio on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:31:45 PM EST
    today...Tweety compared her to Norma Rae...WOW...I am in shock!!!

    Parent
    Deprived? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Davidson on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:48:38 PM EST
    Dear God.  Could that not be dealt with if Obama campaigns for her?  What about all those Survey USA polls that show her doing well in the GE as nominee?  Did those people not factor in this pseudo theft?

    I agree the media will blast her, but she's already withstood the worst of it and, again, all that has to be done is for Obama to campaign on her behalf, which the Democratic party would pressure him to do.  Besides, with many people already dismissing the media's attempts to demonize Clinton (see: ABC/Washington Post poll which shows only about 20% of Democrats/leaning Independents blame Clinton for negativity) and the economy tanking horribly and the war continuing to drag on, the voters will have more on their minds than media hysterics.

    Parent

    hehehe. (none / 0) (#104)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:27:56 PM EST
    She'll cut their knackers off.

    Parent
    do you, like Tucker, (none / 0) (#110)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:30:24 PM EST
    use Hillary as an excuse to cross your legs?


    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:02:50 PM EST
    I work on Wall Street, as you probably recall, and what Williams said is pretty much the consensus view among the Republicans I know.  In fact, I often get ridiculed several times a day because my party is going to nominate this sure-fire loser.

    That's just their opinion, of course, but it's clear that at least in their minds they're seeing a very familiar path to victory.

    Parent

    So am I (4.50 / 2) (#57)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:04:39 PM EST
    I happen to think that BTD is wrong.

    Given the way this nomination process is going, I hope he is right.

    Parent

    I have noticed that seachange at Redstate (none / 0) (#69)
    by dotcommodity on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:09:14 PM EST
    At first they seemed to genuinely liked him (orator) but by about a month ago they were seeing them as about identical (communist libruls), and more recently now they are justhootin it up at the thought of running against Obama!

    Parent
    Lets revisit that for a second (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:00:31 PM EST
    If there are any similiarities to Bush it's in demeanor, what we perceive as a false self-confidence/cockiness, a man who communicates in generalities, platitudes and gestures, combined with a proclivity towards condescension.

    It's an attitude.

    I can't think of anyone who ever said that the objectives of an Obama administration would be the same as Bush.  Ok.  The objectives would be vastly different.  

    Only that he would be as successful at accomplishing those objectives as Bush has been.

    This isn't an argument for McCain, but a disastrous Democratic Administration can lead to 12 more years of Republicans in the white house starting 2012.  It's what happened with Carter.

    And it's also what's wrong with TINS argument (and even BTD won't address this issue head on), he sees the entire world through a realignment that is based on movement cultural politics.

    The idea that a president's performance can have long term impact -- and even supercede a movement -- on the brand of a party is just completely and totally avoided.


    Parent

    Realignment (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Coral on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:31:55 PM EST
    I don't get the "realignment" "Millennial" "creative class" arguments, because they are long on lofty rhetoric and short on concrete examples. As I recall, the Reagan "realignment" resulted from trends that can be traced back to the Johnson administration.

    One was positive: the passage of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts that changed the allegiance of southern whites from Democratic to Republican party. The other negative: the division of the Democratic party along hawk-dove lines with the continuation of the Vietnam War until the helicopters came and picked US embassy staff off the roof.

    How does Obama realign these splits?

    As he is still fighting on the race and war issues.

    The South is still Republican territory. His election will not change that.

    Both Clinton and Obama have articulated positions against the Iraq War. In some ways, Clinton, with her stronger stance on "security" and proposals to draw down troops from Iraq bridges the dove-hawk split more handily than Obama. As a biracial candidate, his election as president would certainly change the way we Americans see race...and the way the rest of the world perceives us. But I don't see an accompanying electoral "realignment."

    Parent

    I've always had a problem with that (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:48:58 PM EST
    and have said so, even here.

    Silence is agreement.

    Parent

    That's a riot! (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Marco21 on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:51:31 PM EST
    My fave part:

    "If McCain and the Republican Party win the Presidency in 2008 despite losing Millennials for the 3rd straight election, it will by a Pyrrhic and short-lived victory."

    Um, no. It will be 4 more years of what we have now.  It took Bush moments to push this country into its downward spiral. How long does this person think it will take McSame?

    Unbelievable. Orange Julius needs to shut down for a  few days. Markos has spiked the mix with some flat-out stupid.

    I dunno how many (none / 0) (#47)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:59:51 PM EST
    new life long democrats would be worth 4 more GOP years?

    I am one of those Millennial, he is talking about, not because I don't like GOP, I am more conservative then liberal, but what I saw since I was 16 of GOP turned me off and now I vote straight ticket democrat.

    if its true that the Millennial generation is bigger then the Boomers, I could see saying having obama lose, but cementing Millennial to the democratic party for their life, is NOT worth Having Hillary Win, but voters like me leaving the party.

    you can disagree but he is right, I could easily see myself leaving the party, I was disgusted with the GOP, and went straight dem ticket in all elections.

    what would happen if the Democrats lose the Millennials, and they don't vote or turn GOP?

    you guys can diagree but to insult him for his opinion.

    that usually when someone votes they vote that way for life, how many LIFELONG democrats will Barack bring to the party? he will only be president at the most for 8 years, they will still be voting democrat 30 years from now, you dont think maybe you might still want those new voters everyone seems not to care about now, in 30 years?

    I dont know if I agree or disagree, but maybe since I am a Millennial I can see what he is talking about. because I have seriously been giving the GOP party second thoughts these days.

    Parent

    I insult the opinion (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:01:12 PM EST
    Because it deserves an insult.

    I can not believe you believe that opinion deserves any respect at all.

    Parent

    why not (none / 0) (#70)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:09:33 PM EST
    did you not hear me I am not a democrat becaus of the platform I am conservative

    I am a democrat because the first time I voted they disgusted me and since then I have just voted democrat

    how many other Millennials is that true for?

    are you honestly telling me we can't survive 4years of McCain but we can handle the GOP getting the next generation of voters?

    maybe because you are to old :-P and are not in touch with the myspace generation, but I mean honestly think longer term then 4 years

    have you seen the excitement Barack creates with the youth are you seriously saying a chance of 4 years of McCain is not worth cementing all these new voters to the democratic party?

    hell forget the white house do you realize what we could do with the DOWN TICKET this year?

    all you guys care about is 1 race, the White House of '08,

    I see no arguments about how Hillary will expand the base, or how democrats in Utah should be excited about a hillary presidency

    Hillary is only good for the White house

    Barack Expands the base everywhere

    hell I live in MN, we could kick Norm Coleman's ass out if the youth vote got excited for Obama, they are NOT excited for Hillary.

    I have never seen you once analysis what the 2 candidates mean to down ticket dems, especially down ticket dems in red states,

    so yes I don't insult the opinion because I think there is some truth to it mostly because I am a Millennial and I am realized that I am having 2nd thoughts about this party,

    so you tell me, is getting the White House in '08 worth losing a new generation of voters for?

    thats how the GOP took control they took the time to cultivate a new base that took them to power, and now its the democrats turn

    but you turn it down because we could lose the white house.

    but you tell me how does Hillary Help the democrat party in Utah? where is the help she provides in Colorado?

    I don't care about just the White House, so yes if Obama lost the White house but brought new voters to the party and help swing some governor races and seats in red states.

    then yes to me its worth it.

    but I await your appraisal of Hillary's down ticket strength.

    Parent

    According to analysis (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:25:35 PM EST
    by the Dallas Morning News, lots of Obama's young voters in TX only voted for him and left the rest of their ballots blank.  Pardon me, but that's no help down ticket.  I've spoken with quite a few young supporters and they don't seem to care a whit about the democratic party except as a vehicle for Barack to become president.  If that's what you mean by help the party out, you can keep it.
     

    Parent
    the NYU kids I know in my neighborhood (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:34:09 PM EST
    here in NYC did the same thing in the Primary, clicking the lever next to his name and leaving everything else blank.  The NYU kids supporting Hillary clicked every lever below her so as to be sure her delegates were seated.

    Of course, Hillary won the State handily.

    And now Barack Obama is, like, so yesterday.  The cool thing is to support Hillary now!  LOL

    Parent

    Millenial Clinton voters and downticket voting (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by Davidson on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:57:16 PM EST
    As a "millennial" Clinton supporter I noted that same difference.  My Clinton supporting friends and I all voted downticket while the Obama ones didn't.  They "forgot" or didn't think it mattered (Obama will be transformation, you see!).  I honestly believe the characterization of Clinton voters being more serious about politics is true.

    Also, Clinton does rather well with people like myself: people in their mid- to late-20s (She beat him in PA, NH, FL, etc. amongst this youth group).  Perhaps it's because we have a better memory of the Clinton years.

    We're not all batsh** narcissists who rag on the boomers.  I happen to admire my parent's generation, to be honest.

    Parent

    Poll of One (none / 0) (#157)
    by CST on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:08:07 PM EST
    This "millennial" Obama supporter voted for the downticket dems!

    Of course, in Mass that ammounted to voting for Kennedy in the senate... I don't even know if he had a republican challenger...

    Parent

    I'm personally banning (none / 0) (#170)
    by ccpup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:28:15 PM EST
    the use of "millenial" as a serious word.  

    When faced with it, I always feel like MadTV's Frank Caliendo as George W. Bush attempting to recite the Pledge of Allegiance and stumbling repeatedly over "indivisible", always mispronouncing it as "end of a syllable" and complaining to Mo Collins' Barbara Bush, when she insists he try it again, that "it hurts, Momma!".

    "Millenial" say bye-bye.

    :-)

    Parent

    I sympathize with that sentiment (none / 0) (#205)
    by CST on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:20:26 PM EST
    But what do we have left?  Gen Y?  That makes me feel like a wannabe Gen X - so not cool.  Echo Boom?  Again, a wannabe boomer name.  I think we need to take a vote or poll on an official name...  I don't really have any ideas though do you?

    Parent
    nope, no ideas (none / 0) (#206)
    by ccpup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:54:26 PM EST
    all my creativity went into that first Post, so I'm now pitifully bereft of any thought, ideas or suggestions.  Would love to say that never happens, but, alas, it's a constant thing with me.  Sputters of hilarity (please, don't burst my bubble by responding with the blinding reality that I'm not funny, okay?) followed by long stares off into space.

    Thank God I'm still cute.  Well, that's what my friends say when I corner them and demand a response.  And, after a few gut-busting drinks and a big, fat check, they agree!

    Um ... er ... what were we talking about?

    :-)

    Parent

    ah I see (none / 0) (#112)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:31:00 PM EST
    if a few young voters in TX did it, then it must apply for ALL young voters in ALL 50 states.

    once again Bill Foster anyone?

    he Took Dennis Hasterts seat, you know what he did when sworn in? endorsed Obama because Obama cut an ad that is credited with helping to get voters out for Foster to win.

    but you must be right. once again I notice a HUGE lack of down ticket talk on Pro-Hillary blogs, I have to go to Pro-Obama blogs for those sort of talks

    I wonder why.

    Parent

    No offense (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:47:19 PM EST
    but I think I could have beaten Dennis Hastert and I don't even live in Ilinois.

    Hillary voters are the ones who will deliver downticket -  they are loyal Dems, who are reliable about showing up and voting - right down to the local judges.  Just like Obama, his youth support is a virtual unknown.

    Parent

    truthMatters, you may find little discussion (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by lookoverthere on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:06:11 PM EST
    on downticket races online. I have had a different experience. And this is especially true away from the intertubes.

    The Dems I've talked with on the phone and at caucuses already know about downticket races. Parties govern, not just candidates. If you want a Dem agenda, you better get the Dems in, all the way down to dogcatcher.

    That's one reason why coattails is an issue---how big will each Dem potential nominee's be? Some polling data from primary contests suggests that some of Sen. Obama's supporters didn't really think about those downticket folks.

    I'm sure there were Clinton supporters who didn't vote downticket, either, but I haven't seen anything to support that. I'd love to see some data from a good source if you have some.

    Parent

    Dallas Morning News (none / 0) (#194)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:08:28 PM EST
    did the analysis of TX voting where quite a good sized percentage of Obama supporters didn't vote down ballot.  They also reported on Clinton's voters and the number who didn't vote down ballot was much smaller.  Sorry I don't remember the percentages or have a link though.


    Parent
    So you are a conservative (none / 0) (#118)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:32:12 PM EST
    ... and you have been voting straight ticket Dem lately because the Repubs disgust you.  Please tell me why they disgust you.

    Parent
    So you changed parties (none / 0) (#139)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:44:59 PM EST
    because one let you down. What is it about the other (Democrats) party that attracts you aside from not being the Republican party? I don't hear you saying anything about the party other than you will vote Democratic if Obama is the nominee.

    Parent
    Millennials (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CST on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:05:50 PM EST
    In general are much more conservative than boomers were at our age.  However I also know a lot of former "republican" millennials who are disgusted with the Bush wing of the party and could be permanent Dems.  I think the conservatism is more economic than social, and frankly, Republicans haven't been very economically conservative lately.  There are also a lot of us (more than the boomers), and we will change things drastically in the years to come.

    However, I would also rather not wait 4 years to see something happen.

    Parent

    not as a proportion (none / 0) (#111)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:30:32 PM EST
    of the population.

    There's no comparison to that egg moving down the snake.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:06:52 PM EST
    History tells us that McGovern's defeat was not, in fact, followed by cementing a new generation to the Democratic Party for life.  It doesn't work that way.

    I understand how bitter and turned off you would feel if Obama were denied the nomination at this point.  What I'm telling you is that you would experience the exact same emotions at watching Obama get thumped in the GE.  You would not wake up the morning after the election and say "that's it, this redoubles my passion to defeat them the next time!"

    Now, at some point after the election you would hopefully come around to that point of view, because we can't ever give up the fight.  But the same is true if your candidate lost in the primaries.  The incredibly passionate Deaniacs from 2004 sure didn't hop off the bus for life.

    Parent

    he isn't going to be (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:17:10 PM EST
    "denied" anything.

    I understand how bitter and turned off you would feel if Obama were denied the nomination at this point.

    he'll either win it or lose it with the superdelegates, just like sen. clinton. to state otherwise is, at best, disengenuous. at worst, it's a total fabrication of the truth.

    Parent

    oh no (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:31:46 PM EST
    you are wrong.
    it will have been DENIED to him.  he cant just lose like anyone else.

    Parent
    my point is (none / 0) (#71)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:10:58 PM EST
    stop looking at 1 race

    what happens in the fall if Obama gets higher turn outs in red states for governor races, and senate races, and state races?

    Bill Foster anyone?

    Parent

    One race? (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:14:44 PM EST
    The Presidency is not some waste disposal board race.

    I can not believe you folks are making these arguments.

    Parent

    its not the (none / 0) (#84)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:18:25 PM EST
    end all be all of the party either.

    do you REALLY think Hillary is going to campaign in Utah or try and expand the base in Wyoming?

    like I said what is your appraisal of Hillary's down ticket strength?

    the basic question here is would you risk the Millennials to win the White house this year?

    Me, and probably because i am one and I realize how weak the democratic grip on my vote has become, I would not risk it. maybe you would

    but like I said 30 years from now those new voters Obama is bringing in, history says they will STILL be voting democrat.

    if they leave the party now and go to McCain the GOP gets a whole new generation of voters.

    but like I said I honestly would love for you to do a post of Hillary's down ticket strengths

    Parent

    Downticket strength is pure speculation (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:19:46 PM EST
    and anyway, if you think nominee Obama would spend a second in Utah, I want some of what you're smoking.

    Parent
    yes I do (none / 0) (#96)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:24:15 PM EST
    because I think Obama would try and expand the base,

    unlike some who will insult opinions they don't agree with and say screw the red states they don't vote for us anyways.

    once again I see talk about Down ticket races on Obama supporting Blogs, I can't even remember the last time there was talk about supporting or raising money for a down ticket dem here,

    its all about Hillary, same thing about MyDD.

    other dems come to try and raise money and support they get like 4 comments from Obama supporters an Anti-Obama diary pops up, its rec in minutes with hundreds of comments from Hillary supporters.

    like I said, MN Senate, we can get it with Obama, he has HUGE excitement with the youth vote here, turnout is key, Hillary not so much.

    but you are right I am young what do I know. we youth voters aren't actually needed.

    Parent

    ok, whatever (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:25:49 PM EST
    You Are better than this comment (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:33:09 PM EST
    No one insulted your views. We HAVE insulted TINS' views.

    Parent
    So if Obama is not the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:47:00 PM EST
    Are you saying that you won't bother to vote Coleman out?  Are you that hung up on yourself?

    It's the me!, me! me! generation.

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:51:15 PM EST
    you have made the point twice now that the Democrats could win the MN Senate seat with the help of the youth vote if Obama is the nominee. And you want the rest of the Democrats to consider how valuable the youth vote is to the party but what I am missing is the youth valuing the party. I am hearing that the support is for the candidate and has nothing to do with the party or down ticket candidates. That is not party building.

    Parent
    I agre with BarackObama (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:20:51 PM EST
    that this Presidential race is as important as the 2000 race, maybe more important.

    It is as close to be all and end all as I can think of.

    Besides, this New Politics nonsense is, to me, nonsense.

    I do not buy ANY of TINS' argument but I strongly object to the argument that it is more important to have Obama lose than to win the Presidency. That is simply ridiculous.

    Parent

    well maybe if you quoted more of it (none / 0) (#105)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:28:04 PM EST
    first right off the back he said he didn't believe it but ASSUME for sake of argument.

    he then said it would still be worth the chance with Obama because we can bring all these new voters to the party.

    now if you don't agree that Obama is inspiring and bringing in ALOT of new voters then ok.

    but if he is, and you really don't think a chance of losing the white house for 4 years is not worth cementing these voters for life?

    maybe I am too young, but I could have sworn I heard the party they first vote for, they tend to vote for the rest of their lives.

    I know thats what happened to me, I should be a Republican, but Bush turned me off, and I use to be an Independent with Democratic leanings now with Obama I want to officially register as a democrat.

    difference of opinions, still don't think you should insult it unless you are prepared to say there is no truths what so ever

    which is kind of hard since I am one of those voters he is talking about.

    Parent

    I assumed it for the sake of argument (none / 0) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:32:29 PM EST
    as he asked. I do not follow your point.

    Parent
    I will bet now (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Manuel on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:28:13 PM EST
    that Obama will not spend any serious time campaigning in Utah or Wyoming this fall.  Particularly if states like MA and NJ become competitive.  And frankly, I'd rather he campaigned in FL but I am afraid he'll write that off as well.


    Parent
    I'll take that bet (none / 0) (#121)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:32:56 PM EST
    because i am pretty sure Obama understands half the support he has is because we seem him as a help with down ticket dems.

    Obama has campaigned in all states, he didn't blow off the caucuses meaning his infrastructure is still there, ready and able to help with down ticket races if the need be.

    Hillary Skipped the caucus states, how much infrastructure does she have in those states?

    Parent

    Massachusetts (none / 0) (#134)
    by Coral on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:37:43 PM EST
    Is my state, and I worry about Obama's ability to carry it in November. If he has to worry about MA, he cannot win against McCain.

    Parent
    You're assuming (none / 0) (#131)
    by cmugirl on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:37:01 PM EST
    That Millenials will stay interested after the election.  At caucuses around the country this year, where they also discuss state and local party business, Obama supporters generally didn't stay around - it was Hillary supporters.  I don't think we can count on Obama's youth support to be strong for the down-ticket races this year, let alone in 2 years from now with no presidential race.

    Parent
    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:31:11 PM EST
    Let's talk about Bill Foster because there seems to be this collective amnesia about the definition of "coattails."

    Obama was able to help Bill Foster win because he is a celebrity.  In fact, in suburban Chicago, he is a local celebrity.  People like him and so his endorsement means something.

    But even if Hillary Clinton were the nominee, Obama would still be a rock star who could cut ads for candidates.  That's not what coattails is about.

    Coattails is about whether Obama's mere presence at the top of the ticket is a big boon to downticket Democrats.  You can theorize all you want about that, but Bill Foster's win says nothing about coattails because Obama was not at the top of Bill Foster's ticket!  I cannot believe the netroots fail to grasp this concept.

    Obama campaigned for a lot of Democrats in 2006 and probably helped us pick up a few seats.  Amazingly, he did this without being on the ticket!  The one has nothing to do with the other.

    If you told me either candidate would win, I'd tend to think Obama would have the bigger coattails.  But the premise of this post is that Hillary, arguably, is more electable than Obama.  Disagree with that if you like, but I certainly won't agree that Obama would have bigger coattails in defeat than Hillary would in victory!

    Parent

    My own opinion (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:42:48 PM EST
    is that Obama is going to have huge reverse coattails in defeat.  All the GOP Wright/Rezco/BitterCling ads run against Obama will attempt to label the whole party as un-American elitist snobs.  It's just too good an opportunity for them to pass up.  For a dem running in a red state, the choices will be denounce your own presidential nominee or get GD America tattoo'ed on your forehead for the duration of the election.  It won't be pretty.


    Parent
    i call it (none / 0) (#152)
    by english teacher on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:58:57 PM EST
    the "banana peel effect".

    Parent
    My favorite version of this (none / 0) (#77)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:15:01 PM EST
    was when Markos used the example of a Kentucky House race (Yarmouth).

    Kos should check the numbers before he writes, or he end up sounding like he agrees with TINS. . .

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:18:59 PM EST
    Really? He used the Kentucky race? That is funny.

    Parent
    It's a double whammy (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:23:01 PM EST
    he uses Bob Novak's analysis to make the case that blacks will stay home if Hillary is nominated, thereby ensuring Yarmouth's defeat.

    Parent
    What Happens If Dissing Working Class And Rural (none / 0) (#123)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:33:30 PM EST
    voters combined with Rev. Wright increases Republican turn out and causes older, conservative Dems to stay home in red states? How does that effect  governor races, and senate races, and state races?

    Parent
    fine everyone is right (none / 0) (#133)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:37:37 PM EST
    my entire point was not to insult an opinion because you disagree with it, and I pointed out I thought there was some truth to it because I am one of those voters he is talking about

    but I am wrong please everyone continue to insult his opinion because you all know better.

    I see a new post is up we can all move there and insult Obama and his supporters for another reason now.

    Parent

    Asking You A Question Is Insulting You? (none / 0) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:54:40 PM EST
    All I did was ask you to consider another possibility but if you CHOOSE to regard it as an insult, I guess that is what you will do.

    Parent
    I think we both know (none / 0) (#163)
    by standingup on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:16:20 PM EST
    what the consequences would or will be in our state for Jay Nixon.

    Parent
    Gee I Really Hope Not (none / 0) (#174)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:35:07 PM EST
    but I fear that might be the case.  In MO we not only have to deal with this, we have that stupid anti-affirmative action ammendment on the ballot that will bring the wing nuts out in droves.

    Parent
    You sound like someone (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:16:26 PM EST
    with no grasp of history.  The opinion is frankly deluded and is similar to the worst junk that came from the Naderites in 2000.  They kept saying that if only everything got bad enough, the people would turn to them to set things right.  That's still moronic.

    Parent
    It goes back further than that (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:18:37 PM EST
    It's an old sage from the anarchists and other failed revolutionaries.

    Parent
    I've have heard this argument (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by Coral on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:45:37 PM EST
    from the beginning of my political life. It gave us Nixon, Bush I, and Bush II, and went very far in destroying the Clinton presidency.

    Before my time, it undermined progressive and social democrats and gave an opportunity to fascism that could have been defeated if the moderate, progressive, and revolutionary left could have been brought together to oppose it.

    Allowing things to get to the point of disaster, NEVER brings forth something good.

    Never.

    Parent

    I only left the argument (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:06:40 PM EST
    at Nader in 2000 because I thought that might be recent enough to be remembered  :-)  Allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good has been common practice forever.


    Parent
    I (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:38:13 PM EST
    don't know how many he is bringing on your end, but I sure know he's losing a bunch on my end, including me.

    Parent
    oh! (none / 0) (#145)
    by wasabi on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:52:31 PM EST
    zing!

    Parent
    Tempted by the dark side? (none / 0) (#93)
    by Manuel on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:23:34 PM EST
    If you are seriously considering the GOP chances are we'll lose you sooner or later.

    As a Clinton supporter, I could make an argument for voting for McCain but I would never abandon the democratic party or the issues I care about.

    I wonder if feelings like yours are what Obama taps into when he speaks of post partisanship.  Is that something the new generation finds appealing?

    Parent

    hmm (none / 0) (#124)
    by CST on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:34:08 PM EST
    I think younger voters are much less likely to have deep party affilliations.  I know a lot of liberal, young voters, who consider themselves independent, because they don't want to be aligned with a party.  So yes, I think we do find post-partisanship appealing, because we align with different views on different issues (not myself, I am a Dem, but I was raised in a VERY political family, so I consider myself an exception).

    Parent
    Ack! You made me look (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Manuel on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:07:48 PM EST
    That whole generational thing sure worked out well in the past.  Didn't yesteryear's hipsters become today's establishment?  In general, people get more conservative as they age.  The body and mind aren't up to taking risks.  Clinton is more electable than Obama because older people vote out of proportion to their numbers.

    You say you want a revolution ...


    MEN (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:34:59 PM EST
    get more conservative as they age, WOMEN get more radical.

    Parent
    Here is a link (none / 0) (#155)
    by Manuel on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:06:05 PM EST
    The good news is that is that if you make it past 60, then you are likely to move back to the left.  The Millenials have a ways to go before they get to 60 however.

    Link

    Parent

    Jerome @ MyDD speaks for me! (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:14:10 PM EST
    >>>There is no doubt that Clinton's electability has issues, but to highlight those, while claiming Obama is unassailable in his electability, can only happen if one ignores reality. [links to Kos diary]

    The problem with this type of Obama supporter, is that they still live in a pre-Wright bubble, in their estimation of an Obama GE candidacy. They are stuck in February and early March, when they saw Obama as the second coming of 50-state campaigner that would move us beyond the battleground days. That's not the Obama of late April.
    http://tinyurl.com/4ea4wg

    interesting to see it laid out like that (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by kempis on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:26:41 PM EST
    I've long suspected that this is thinking behind the DNC's obvious support of Obama. Surely, the party insiders know he's going to get carved up during the election, but they think that running him will be good for their "brand," win or lose.

    Maybe. I think it'll probably only realign the parties, with the recently-re-won Reagan Dems who helped the party take back Congress in 06 going right back to the Republicans. But maybe there are more college-educated white liberals in this country than I thought, the Adlai Stevenson wing of American society is growing, and it will be worth it to the DNC to appeal to it.

    Who knows.

    But it is kind of refreshing to see the beans spilled: a lot of Obama supporters want him to run to be the Millineal Messiah for real. He's going to sacrifice himself to bring the party closer to the sacred image these young "progressives" see when they look in the mirror. Why, it's like having a candidate be your zodiac zign!

    Neither Obama nor the Dems will liberalize SCOTUS (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Ellie on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:29:25 PM EST
    Dems had chances during the Bush/Cheney Dim Ages both before and after the retaking of Congress in '06.

    They could have.
    They should have.
    They didn't.

    Yelling now that if Obama doesn't win (or some variation of SCOTUS fearmongering) is another version of, eg, waving Roe v. Wade every 4 years before going back to the business of usual of not giving a damn.

    BTD, I know you're sincere in your concern from your past work in your fine work blogging about SCOTUS.

    However, Dems and the misogynistic, anti "special" interest fauxgressive blogger-boiz be f*cking damned for their efforts to blow up prescient, hard working, out in front activists and their hard work on this front.

    Reproductive rights (and the full human rights umbrella), eco-issues, franchise and free speech, constitutional integrity: worthy liberal causes all, were marginalized, dumped on, trashed and shredded even at "liberal" sites like dKos.

    If Dems want to be all in on SCOTUS, we'll need fighting Dems, not more Dems and certainly not self-toasting "Unity" Dem fluffernutters like Obama.

    If Obama doesn't win... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Salo on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:37:29 PM EST
    ...his early backers should be banished to the cursed earth.

    Parent
    TINS rant sound very cultish to me... (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Exeter on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:35:55 PM EST
    Polls be damned, election results be damned, and  facts be damned, everyone that does not love Obama the way they love Obama will eventually... why wouldn't they?!?  

    Also. One. Word. Sentences. Equals. Poor. Writing. Unless. You. Are. Hemmingway.

    i'm still waiting (5.00 / 7) (#149)
    by Turkana on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:56:20 PM EST
    for the results of the investigations about hillary's widespread voter suppression and fraud in nevada, as tins and his bro so prominently shrilled, a couple months back.

    i. don't. take. him. seriously. anymore.

    But after PA the suspicion is real (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:01:46 PM EST
    many people have said as much about Obama helping the down stream tickets in red states and the south as a rational for his candidacy the demogrphics out of Pa and Ohio make the probability of an Obama win in Nov slime demographics are political destiny and he dose not have the support of white, working class or seniors and that is unlikely to change.  I'm not a Dem, but I have invested my money. my time, my energy, my faith, and my goodwill for a Dem candidate Hillary Clinton and my expectation is that the most delectable Democrat will compete against McCain to gain the Presidency in Nov. nothing less is acceptable.  Peoples in this country have been excited to participate in this Party Primary but never forget whose government it is, its ours, the people not the Party's and if this Party throws Nov for a try at future expansion an already real suspicion, I am unsure of the public at large reaction to such a scam but I know where it puts me and every person I can impact with my coattails, my activism my fury..  

    Please count me in on that fury! (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by RalphB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:09:44 PM EST
    Only (none / 0) (#200)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:19:36 PM EST
    those truly clueless think that Obama helps in the south. His demographics are largely concetrated in deep blue districts not the more moderate districts. They don't seem to realize that for every AA vote Obama could possibly gain he'd probably lose a white vote. There are districts that have 40%-45% AA's but he puts the reps in a pickle. If they endorse him they will probably lose their seat. If they don't endorse him they will probably lose AA votes.

    Parent
    Its time to get the DNC ring out of our noses and (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Salt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:09:44 PM EST
    demand Mich and Fla be seated and the real Rulz followed and not wait while Dean plays rope and dope and stalls until its to late for a Primary result that has integrity.  Demand Mich and Fla be seated or the States that broke the same rules stripped either or now. It is poodlesqe to sit this out like Dean Brazile victims.  Write the DNC, write your elected officials make it clear to any candidate that it is either sit them all or take the rest out put play the game fairly and with some ethics please.

    Really (none / 0) (#201)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:20:54 PM EST
    Dean should take some leadership on this issue.

    Parent
    so WTH (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Fredster on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 06:10:41 PM EST
    ...Hillary is a sure thing, while Obama would likely lose. . . .

    I. Wouldn't. Care. Anyway. And neither should you.

    So what the h&ll would be the point in voting for him if he's not elected?  What on earth does that accomplish?  My God, the thought processes involved in that scare me.


    Yeah, (none / 0) (#2)
    by mattt on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:36:23 PM EST
    that's whacked.  The key thing is that SOME dem or other MUST win in November.  If I thought Hillary had a significantly better chance I'd be behind her in a heartbeat.  The Obama- and Hillary- echo chambers tend to exaggerate differences between the two dems, but if the distance between them is like that between Earth and Mars, McCain is in another galaxy.

    The difference between the two Democrats (5.00 / 8) (#56)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:04:37 PM EST
    is not in policy as much as it is in the ability to actually plan and execute that policy. Obama is not a worker, he has actually said that he thinks the Senate job is boring and that he is not organized. The policy wonk, the workhorse is Hillary Clinton. And that is the Democrat we need in the White House. Not someone whose idea of solutions is rhetoric and platitudes, and who is incapable of articulating any part or parcel of the policies he claims to have. He refers us to his web site, where his staff will have the policies and plans up. If he is the one actually doing the work and formulating the policies and plans, then he should be able to articulate them. Since he seems unable to do so, the only thing to think is that his plans and policies are done by his staff. That is not acceptable.

    Parent
    Slight Variation (none / 0) (#9)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:43:34 PM EST
    "I. Do. Care. Anyway. And so should you.

    But I must say there is really something wrong with the argument that" if my favorite Democratic candidate should not be the nominee "that I should not care that, for just one example, John Paul Stevens has just turned 88. I can not fathom how any progressive could write" that. I really can't.

    But I keep seeing it from both sides.

    Keep your comments on topic please (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:00:11 PM EST


    Sadly, No! on the electability arguments.... (none / 0) (#94)
    by jerry on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:23:52 PM EST
    We Are All Joads Now

    I think the Supreme Court is of the utmost importance.

    This guy (none / 0) (#120)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:32:33 PM EST
    bases his total Obama electability argument on supposition, what he thinks might possibly happen.

    I base my electability argument for Clinton on the SUSA polls and their electoral college prediction.

    The Other Problem (none / 0) (#146)
    by BDB on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:53:52 PM EST
    is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If all folks like TINS care about is that Obama becomes the nominee, then even if he does become the nominee, they've given Clinton supporters cover to sit home or vote for someone other than Obama.   It's really a kind of last-gasp sort of argument to be making.  While I think Pennsylvania has the potential to change a lot in the race, it's a little bit early for this level of desperation among Obama supporters.

    As I've said before, I cannot in any way help John McCain become president.  No matter how much I may dislike Obama, if he needs my vote to win in November he will have it.  If he doesn't, then I'll see how I feel then.  But I will not sit home or vote for someone other than Obama if there is any chance that could result in McCain becoming president.  

    Guess My Position Is Somewhat Close To Yours (none / 0) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:47:50 PM EST
    I do not want to vote for Obama but I will do nothing that will result in win for McCain here in MO. If McCain is going to win MO regardless of my vote, I will probably write in another candidate rather than vote for Obama. If OTOH Obama has a chance of winning here, he will probably get my vote. Think the issue of Supreme Court justices will come under discussion during the GE and a lot depends on his response since SCOTUS would be one of the only reasons I would consider voting for Obama.

    Parent
    Grow the Party... (none / 0) (#193)
    by mcdtracy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:07:41 PM EST
    I see his point. Obama is growing a new base for the party: younger and willing to work since they don't have money. His power is getting things done without needing big money or special interests.

    This will work against the Republicans because they can't attract young voters.

    Think of the number of people who have said: "My kids (grandkids) are begging me to support Obama... that's never happened before."

    That's what he's talking about. Let's re-invigorate the party with a fresh leader. The old leaders haven't been able to rally support for any other Democrat (Gore? Kerry?). Too little and too late... again.

    That is Koolaid Max (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Regency on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:57:12 PM EST
    So that means we must discount the good work of the party's veterans? We're prepared to lay the destiny of this party at the feet of young'uns and hope they aren't so nerved up by coming finals in November that they don't forget to vote?

    That is both naive and irresponsible. I say this as an eighteen-year old who's oddly passionate about this whole affair. This is not a winning strategy and it is not enough.

    Hillary and Big Dawg are reinvigorating this party with folks that turned their backs on it years ago. We're expanding in places where we can WIN, with people who were always with us idealogically.  We're just gonna throw that out, because we've got us a rock star and we're now the cool party?

    I won't vote for that kind of disloyalty and neither will many, many others.

    Parent

    Check it out.......... (none / 0) (#198)
    by sas on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 09:01:24 PM EST
    According to The Politico's Ben Adler, Obama may have some problems with his targeted demographic - younger voters.

    The article discusses issues with the PA primary, but it will be interesting to see how this dynamic plays out in the General Election.

    The weakness in Barack Obama's support among older white voters appears to have trickled down to younger ones, at least in Pennsylvania, according to exit polls from the state's primary this week.

    While Barack Obama carried voters under 30 years old on Tuesday by 20 points -- 60 percent to Hillary Clinton's 40 percent--he narrowly lost whites in the same age group by four points, 48 percent compared to Clinton's 52 percent.

    Young whites were the only white demographic that Obama carried in close primaries leading up to Pennsylvania's, as he did in the Clinton stronghold of New York, and in states with racially polarized voting among older voters, such as South Carolina.

    Normally Clinton only wins the white youth vote in states she totally dominates, such as Arkansas -- not ones where she won by 10 points or less overall as she did in Pennsylvania.

    You're like a little attack dog. (none / 0) (#203)
    by halstoon on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:06:58 AM EST
    You take a snippet of a long argument and just rail on it. Yes, SCOTUS appointments made in the immediate future matter, but the post was about the next 40 years. You also ignored the opening, in which the diarist clearly noted that the Obama can't win meme is bunk.

     You say you can't fathom why, but if you had read beyond your snippet--and since you can't fathom why he said it I can only assume you didn't--you would have a clear idea why.

    And if you really cared to engage in something more than belittling and smear, you would have engaged the Millennial argument.

    Bad show, BTD. Bad show.