Obama Supporters Harming Obama With Divisiveness

Some Congressional Obama (I know some pretend to be "neutral") supporters seem intent on damaging Barack Obama's candidacy.

I have already mentioned Jim Clyburn's disastrous behavior. Nancy Pelosi has been a disaster for a while now. Now a new WaPo article provides more of the same:

"If you have any, any kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party, perhaps you need to rethink your strategy and bow out gracefully in order to save this party from a disastrous end in November," Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.), an African American Obama supporter, said in an appeal to Clinton.

(Emphasis supplied.) What an insulting, divisive and stupid remark. With friends like these, Obama needs no enemies. They seem intent on making Obama unelectable. More . .

And Clyburn comes back for a second bite of the apple:

"We keep talking as if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter that Obama gets 92 percent of the black vote, because since he only got 35 percent of the white vote, he's in trouble," Clyburn said. "Well, Hillary Clinton only got 8 percent of the black vote. . . . It's almost saying black people don't matter. The only thing that matters is how white people respond. And that's what bothered me. I think I matter."

Is Clyburn intent on making Obama the black candidate? I honestly can not imagine stupider political actions than what Clyburn is doing to Obama here. Is the Obama camp on board with this? Is Axelrod happy about this? I can not imagine he is. Someone needs to tell Clyburn to shut up. NOW. He is killing Obama.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

[Comments now closed.]

< Detainee Abuse and the Question of Fair Trials at Guantánamo | Gerry Spence Opens for Fieger in MI Criminal Trial >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's doubtful Clyburn and Wright (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:30:03 PM EST
    went on a TV blitz without consent from Obama's PR team.

    That would be my first thought, too. (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Iphie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:40:21 PM EST
    Except it's beginning to feel like the Obama campaign is losing control -- of its message and especially of its surrogates. Although, I think it's clear, Wright does not consider himself to be a surrogate, seems to me he's out to rehabilitate his own image and is not too concerned with Obama at the moment.

    I only saw part of Wright on Moyers (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by zyx on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:50:46 PM EST
    Did Moyers ask him, in his soft, non-confrontational way, about Wright's comments about Hillary or Bill Clinton?  I had the impression that nobody bothered to bring up those "snippets" going around the 'net and giving the good ol' Rev a chance to 'splain the bigger context as to how those are not offensive things.

    No, he did not (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:53:06 PM EST
    I agree re: Clyburn (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:55:09 PM EST
    but IMO Wright may have done this on his own, without prompting from the Obama campaign.  

    I think perhaps he realized he's been thrown under the bus and is trying to salvage his reputation.  

    If both Wright and Clyburn are acting under the auspices of the Obama campaign, it's an incredibly boneheaded move.  


    Boneheaded Decisions Are Obama's Forte (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:59:11 PM EST
    What an awful story -- and what I don't get (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:13:44 PM EST
    are statements tossed off like this: "Clyburn accused Clinton and her husband yesterday of marginalizing black voters."

    Uh, explain, please.  How are the Clintons doing so?  By not getting those voters to not vote for Obama?  So what Hillary Clinton needs to do to appease Clyburn, Clay, and their ilk is to get more AA voters away from Obama?  That's their solution?

    Please, someone, parse for me just how the Clintons are "marginalizing" any part of the electorate -- say, in the way that another candidate did by dissing them as clinging to God and guns? -- and then just what Hillary Clinton is supposed to do other than take AA voters from Obama.

    Oh, that's right, she's just supposed to quit and abandon the majority of voters so far who voted for her, her policies, her experience, her judgment, and more.  Take one for the team and all.  Go in a room and not come back out alive.  Uh huh.

    Clyburn, Clay, et al., you are fools with such lack of political logic, common sense, and such claims.  And now it is becoming clear to the country at large what is wrong with AA leadership in Congress, along with Dem leadership at large.  

    You are not the ones anyone has been waiting for.


    It's appalling (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:24:07 PM EST
    the implication seems to be that if you engage in a tough primary fight with an AA candidate (especially "The One"), you are a de facto racist.  IOW, Clinton is marginalizing black voters by not dropping out and yielding the nomination to the Candidate of Destiny.

    Rep Clyburn, and Rep Clay are just trolling KO at (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Salt on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:05:15 PM EST
    this stage just throwing racist bombs and threats to run up negatives for the race and Clinton.  Serious though needs to be given to Speaker Pelosi leadership and her leadership team however for behavior unbecoming their office.  Maybe Representative Hoyer can challenge her successfully come next Congress she really has not delivered.

    Ahh Cream (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:02:32 PM EST
    You are not the ones anyone has been waiting for.

    I am so jealous that I didn't think to say that first. Spot on lady, spot on!


    I would add that... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by sumac on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:04:12 PM EST
    by making these kinds o statements, these supporters are fairly clearly suggesting that if Hillary were to get the nomination, Obama wold not get out there to help her win the election. He would take his ball and go home, leaving the Democratic party in tatters...particularly that group of AA members who may just feel abandoned.

    The desperation in the Obama camp is evident. . . (5.00 / 2) (#243)
    by NotThatStupid on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:41:06 PM EST
    ... in his surrogates, his supporters, and in Senator Obama, himself.

    I've seen enough.

    In the 36 years that I've been eligible to vote in a Presidential election, I never thought that my choice - assuming Senator Obama is the nominee (which I fervently hope will not be the case) - might be between being a minus one for the Democratic candidate (i.e., not voting at the top of the ticket) and being a minus two (i.e., voting for the other party), but those are really the only ways that I could keep faith with my conscience. My country is more important than the party, and he is not ready to lead either one of them.


    It says (none / 0) (#197)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:29:19 PM EST
    Stop it Hillary.  Let him win. We deserve it.

    Wright on PBS (none / 0) (#192)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:22:21 PM EST
    I agree regarding Wright -- I fully expected to conclude from the Moyers' interview that Wright was damaging to BO; but after watching the interview, I was left with the feeling that BO threw Wright under the bus and that the inflammatory NC ad, etc., does take Wright out of context.  Did I miss something?

    Exactly.. its Obama campaign strategy not (none / 0) (#94)
    by TalkRight on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:20:38 PM EST
    just his supporters boneheaded mistake.. we should call this as it is ... its' Obama's political strategy.. you may think it is a mistake.. but it worked during and after SC in a way that it brings the ire on Clinton Camp from party elders (and super delegates.. the people that matter more now going forward). It is a shrewd politics and lets stop calling this a cheap shot by his supporters and call it more of an astute/cheap politics by a politician.

    I hope people and party elders can see through his cheap shots. We all know that it is easy to make a cheap shot on former President and his family by either the party elders or the media that it is to make a correct observation on a black candidate running for a president.


    I agree with Cream (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:31:18 PM EST
    and also add: these guys need to look at the last US census.

    Also, why does no one ever worry about ignoring, disenfranchising, ignoring or screwing over women?


    We're invisible. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:37:20 PM EST
    Once we graduate from the youth group, we are considered invisible until we hit the older/senior group. Hillary is starting to change that and we are getting more notice, but not necessarily notice of the impact we could have.

    we'll have plenty of impact (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:47:08 PM EST
    if Obama steals the nomination.  And of course I mean the impact of our elderly as*es on the couch come November.

    Heh, my elderly behind does NOT (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:59:54 PM EST
    like being taken for granted. He's already counted my vote in his GE win column. Ooops! to him  ;)

    I may get off my behind if some local dems need support. Otherwise my behind will only be going to the park that day. My dog has better judgment and runs circles around him on the Unity schtick  ;)

    I will write Hillary in if I go behind the curtain, and I may go just for that purpose.


    But (none / 0) (#193)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:26:16 PM EST
    I support Hillary & I am an avid Bill fan, but I think Bill's remarks about BO & Jesse Jackson regarding the SC primary fanned the flames of this.  Better for him to stick to the Bubba theme and perhaps foreign policy.

    In SC, (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:46:20 PM EST
    Jesse Jackson is a native son and not totally
    unappreciated.  Ok, so he did not get the nomination.  It is not a de facto insult to compare Jackson and Obama.  What fanned the flames was the deliberate use of Clinton's words to incite anger.  Personally, I would rate Jackson higher than Obama.  It looks to me as if many are pulling out hoary characterizations of Jackson from the days of civil strife.  (But, yes, Andrew Young and others have taken what I believe to be the higher road.)

    I can never understand this statement. (5.00 / 0) (#253)
    by derridog on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:16:43 PM EST
    Clinton said that Obama had run a good race in SC and that Jesse Jackson had also run good races there in the 80s. What is racist about that statement? It is true.

    The only thing that could conceivably be construed as racist about it, is if you think there is something wrong with being compared with Jesse Jackson. In other words, the Right Wing has successfully tarred Jackson, a colleague of Martin Luther King, who was with him when he died, and a tireless worker in Civil Rights, as somehow despicable.   Excuse me, I think that speaking Obama's and Jackson's names in the same breath is insulting to Jackson. Jackson is ten times the man, with ten times the credibility of Obama.

    Oh I remember: the other thing the Obamaites were complaining about with Bill's statement was that it made Obama into the "black candidate," by comparing him to the obviously black Jackson I guess. I'm with Bill Maher on this one, who asked, "Didn't everyone already know Obama was black?"  

    Then there's the fact that Obama has used his "blackness" every minute of the day as a weapon in this race, by twisting the Clintons' words to absurdly accuse them of being racists.  I mean who stood to benefit from this? Certainly, not the Clintons. And why would they suddenly become racists when they had never shown any such inclinations in their whole lives?


    I still haven't figured out (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:31:31 PM EST
    Clyburn's calculation that Hillary could "steal" the nomination in a "backroom deal" when the DC establishment and elites support Obama.

    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Foxx on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:48:25 PM EST
    That whole scare tactic is bogus, I've always thought so too. Her problem is most of them are (not so) secretly leaning to Obama.

    Maybe the backroom deal they're worried (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:58:16 PM EST
    About is the backroom deal that goes on between voters and Sen. Clinton in a voting booth.

    LOL - Bingo! (none / 0) (#238)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:27:49 PM EST
    The AA Vote (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:34:26 PM EST
    is highly problematic for the Party.  Obviously, the arguments that women shouldn't be subordinate to male candidates applies equally to AA supporters of Obama not need to apologize for their support of him.

    I think where I'm at "right now" is that I agree with the editorial today that the Dem party is in better shape than we dare give ourselves credit for.

    We've endured some huge losses.  It's natural to react in a fearful way.

    But you know what?  We DO seem to be the party that is willing to thrash through hard issues.

    That gives me a lot of optimism.

    There's no question that the "race" card is silly given his stats.  90%?  Come on.  Obviously, he's relying upon a race issue.

    But nobody really is complaining about that on the Hillary side.

    OK, so we have to beat him in the middle ground.

    She has to win Indiana.  She has to win PA.  She has to win Texas.   She has to win Ohio.

    I personally think this is fair game, and I am so in the bag for Hillary.

    But she has to give up the AA vote in the primary.

    And she has to earn it in the general.

    I hold Obama to the same hard standard.  

    Earn it.

    Putting all the Race Cards on the Table! (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:07:59 PM EST
    Wow!  this is a very comprehensive analysis.

    DU - 4/26


    that is amazing (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by DJ on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:33:17 PM EST
    why is this not in the news?

    Census Bureau (none / 0) (#220)
    by DaleA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:12:16 PM EST
    The Census Bureau has all the data on ethnic composition by state. Basically, 55% of all AA's live in the south. The remaining% are pretty much in the rustbelt states. In the west, only CA and NV have more than 5% AA population. Hispanics are concentrated in the west and Texas. There are states where the AA vote is central to Democrats. And there are a lot of places where it doesn't matter much. Washington has 3.6% AA, Oregon 1.9%. California is 35.9% Latino, 12.4% Asian, 1.2% Native American, which adds up to 47.5%. These are hard core Hillary supporters who may be tempted by McCain.



    BUT, (none / 0) (#222)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:20:39 PM EST
    But that doesn't say the breakdown as far as percent AA or White in the democratic vote.

    General question (none / 0) (#90)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:17:29 PM EST
    Does anybody have a breakdown of the percent AA vote in each state separately???

    I know this is harsh, and I know they are a large constituency. But it seems to me that even though they are a large part of the Dem Tent, the states that they are the largest percent of the vote are Red states.

    I might be wrong but I am curious to see a breakdown of the Dem vote.

    Also, I believe if Obama is the nominee a large part of the Latino vote swings to McCain because of his well publicized co-sponsorship of the last major immigration bill. Also, it seems to me that their largest numbers are in states that could more easily be considered purple.


    I can tell (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:02:51 PM EST
    you that it is 25% here in GA I think and 33% in MS. AL may be between the two. But yes, you are on point that the AA vote alone will not be enough and that's the thing that Obama's surrogates can't seem to face. Obama would somehow have to split the white vote with or come close to splitting the white vote with McCain to win. Right now I could see him getting about 30% of the white vote in the ge which is about what Dukakis got in 1988 leading to about 40-45% of the popular vote.

    Any more??? (none / 0) (#186)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:10:20 PM EST
    Thanks, also in S.C. about half. Each of these states are solidly RED. Even if all the AA vote for Obama. N.C. has a good size amount also.

    But I can't think of any purple states that have a big AA population. Louisiana is hard to tell now because of all the relocation.

    I actually think the Dems would be hurt a lot more with defecting Hispanics and angry women.

    Seems like Hispanic impacts N.M., Co, Nv, which are swing states 19 electoral votes.

    I also think racism may come into play in some swing states. Ark, maybe Va.

    I am taking swing states from this site:  http://www.270towin.com/


    No (none / 0) (#223)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:22:21 PM EST
    you probably could google and find them. Anyway, yes, purple states are more hispanic. And I agree it would be worse for us to lose them and women than AA's even though I would hate to lose any votes.

    Google (none / 0) (#225)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:31:45 PM EST
    I haven't been able to find them with google.

    (that is why I was asking)

    I am not saying it is not a problem if AA stays home. It could put some states into play. But not many people seem to see the problems that will come up when Clinton's coalition goes into play.


    at least in PA AAs apparently didn't (none / 0) (#163)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:24:40 PM EST
    come out full force for Obama.

    By districts, Hillary got alot of 70% - 30 +%

    I'm not sure what they were aiming but it didn't work obviously


    What Happens Depends on How Candidates Respond (none / 0) (#195)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:28:49 PM EST
    What happens to various demographically-defined Dem voter groups depends on how Hillary & Barack conduct themselves once nominee is chosen.  

    They're Panicking (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:35:55 PM EST
    I'm not sure why, he's still in this race.  Heck, he's still the favorite.  But something has happened since Tuesday, the Obama campaign is spinning madly about electability, lying (saying he has won the working class white vote in lots of states, when it's only been one) and saying incredibly stupid things (Dems can't win working class whites, the vast majority of racists are Republicans (well, that should fit in nicely with his Unity theme).  And then apparently saying that Americans want "straight talk"?  That's the choice of words for such an eloquent speaker? (and maybe it's just the press report, but this appearance makes him seem all over the place in terms of narrative).  

    Then we have these black congress members who seem determined to try to force Hillary out by threatening to split the party.  Not exactly a sign of confidence in Obama's ability to win this thing.  

    I would love to be a fly on the wall up on the HIll because something has got the Obama backers very, very worried.   I have no idea what's going on, but it's very interesting.

    If it's true that the vast majority (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:38:22 PM EST
    of racists are Republicans (and I'm sure it is), then why do they keep accusing Bill Clinton et al of race baiting?

    They have an incoherent strategy.


    One Trick Strategy (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    It worked the last time, they're hoping it will work again.  

    Obama sounds tired even in print.  Maybe that's why he used "straight talk" because I can't believe he'd use that phrase otherwise.  And look at the sentence structure ""I was convinced that the American people were tired of the politics that's all about tearing each other down. The American people were tired of spin and PR, they wanted straight talk and honesty from their elected officials[.]"  Was convinced?  He's not anymore?  Very weird.


    Can't Think Of Another Campaign That Contains More (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:58:29 PM EST
    spin or is more of a prepackaged PR event than that of Senator Obama.

    Now I have felt really uplifted by being labeled an uneducated, low information racist. I'm sure all the people referenced in "Clinggate" felt uplifted too. Good thing I'm hard of hearing (snark) or I might have interpreted  the things Obama says about Hillary on a regular basis as tearing her down.


    what did the Obama camp say? (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by ccpup on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:10:46 PM EST
    I started to read it, but there were so many big words and I got tuckered trying to sound them all out.

    I've been told by those smarter than me -- we have one or two in my small village here in NYC -- that I should be angry, so I'm thinking of getting my pitchfork and setting my torch on fire before heading to the town square to shake things and make angry-like sounds.

    Then it's time for a nap after I come home and slop the hogs.  May wear the fancy overalls for that, as I'm feeling feisty.  But then I do need them for those Sunday Services I cling to so desperately.  And, of course, gotta have my gun.



    Oh, so glad you put the snark label (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:36:06 PM EST
    on this, or I would have felt a little guilty about starting to laugh at the second sentence and spewish soda on the screen by the end of your comment.  :-)

    And hey, MOBlue, you and I are referenced in the Clinggate comment from Senator Obama, as he said it was so of all Midwesterners.  Except for Chicagoans, apparently, like him -- who cling to their church, too, but just don't listen to what the pastor says.    And somehow, that makes him so much better than us.


    I Somehow Thought It Was About Small Town (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:04:48 PM EST
    white Americans. I'm a born and raised big city girl - St. Louis (although some may laugh at that description of SL).

    The funny thing is his description is sooooo not me. Don't like organized religion at all, think guns should be restricted to hunting and sport and love diversity and interacting with people not like me. My motto is celebrate the differences. About the only things that fit is that I'm for fair trade not free trade and I haven't heard an immigration policy yet that I think actually works.


    City girl here, too, but coastal types (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:11:03 PM EST
    such as the Californians to whom he was talking, and the Eastern elite that educated Obama, think that St. Louis and Milwaukee are small towns, y'know.  For that matter, so do Chicagoans.  So he meant us -- even though I never have even held a gun, either, and live in an integrated area, and etcetera.

    I bet it's because we're "beer towns" and not "wine cities" -- although I'm not a beer drinker, either.  But it's where we are, not who we are, that seems to matter to the coastal sorts. :-)


    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#242)
    by nemo52 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:39:56 PM EST
    Small town Buffalo here.  Clingin' away to my chardonnay.

    Hi Nemo. I used to live in Buffalo. (none / 0) (#255)
    by derridog on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:22:35 PM EST
    What's the mood there? Pro Obama or pro Hillary?

    North Carolina (none / 0) (#96)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:21:19 PM EST
    They do it every time a vote is coming up in a state with a large population of AA. I drives up the Obama vote.

    Yes but (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:24:47 PM EST
    That strategy is not going to work in rural NC In fact it will drive up Hillary's vote total in WNC and down East

    Hmmm, (none / 0) (#194)
    by delandjim on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:28:45 PM EST
    I agree with western NC but why in Eastern??  (I am not from NC)

    You think so? I'm in Western NC (none / 0) (#257)
    by derridog on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:24:33 PM EST
    and I'm worried, but we are a college town. The Dem activists and the college students all seem very pro Obama.  The older faculty are pro Hillary, as much as I can tell.

    Maybe they saw the polls coming -- as (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:58:41 PM EST
    yesterday was the report from CNN of "dead heat" polling in Indiana, and today Gallup has the national race all tied up again . . . and after his 10-point margin on the Gallup poll only four or five days ago.  That is a huge drop, and the campaign "internals" often see that coming even sooner.

    I agree they are (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:05:17 PM EST
    a little panicked.  I don't think they need to be, but it would be smarter for Obama to put the full court press on issues rather than have his people out there crying racism.

    "full court press on issues" (none / 0) (#73)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:09:49 PM EST
    uh, wouldn't that require being more specific?  ;)

    And then there is the 5/31 meeting of (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:43:27 PM EST
    the DNC Rules committee to examine if the party overstepeed its authority in totally denying the elections in Michigan and Florida.  According to another thread, there is a possibility of a 50% penalty instead of 100 percent and seating all the super delegates from those two states.  That is definitely bad news for Obama.

    I think that that is the real cause for the seeming panick.


    Perhaps It's As Simple As Fatigue (none / 0) (#56)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:03:03 PM EST
    But the Obama campaign needs to pull itself together.  

    I can't believe I just said that.


    are internal polls better? (none / 0) (#58)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    Why do people believe that campaign "internal" polls are any better or more reliable than others that are more public? Just curious, because I have heard this several times..

    A lot more detailed, a lot more sensitive (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:15:34 PM EST
    so they sometimes can show coming shifts not picked up by polls of smaller universes, fewer questions, etc.  So I'm told by those I know who have been political consultants, conducting such polls -- and so they cost a lot more but are said to be worth it.

    Agree too (none / 0) (#184)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:07:15 PM EST
    I saw the WaPo article early am and thought - Whoa!

    However, I think something else is going on. Somethings pushing this.  


    Well, if we want "straight talk," we (none / 0) (#254)
    by derridog on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:19:31 PM EST
    know where to go.

    The fact that WWTSBQ has been racialized (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:37:18 PM EST
    is indeed very disturbing.

    I don't like where this is headed at all.

    what is WWTSBQ? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:41:08 PM EST
    See (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:46:07 PM EST
    why won't (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:46:45 PM EST
    that stupid b*tch quit

    Short Answer: (none / 0) (#190)
    by cawaltz on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:16:19 PM EST
    because she ISN'T stupid. Hllary knows that it isn't over until the fat lady sings and she may be in the wings but she ain't on stage.

    Is that a calculated message (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by bslev22 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:37:20 PM EST
    being sent to superdelegates that the AA bloc will not tolerate anything less than an Obama nomination?  It's curious that the Clyburn and Clay comments are coming in tandem.  Tough situation for a super, and yet another reason for allowing the voting to continue.

    Possibly (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:38:53 PM EST
    it does seem like they're trying to play chicken with the AA block.

    Tricky waters.


    Very tricky. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Iphie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:46:22 PM EST
    And it seems incredibly short-sighted, as it further stratifies race politically, which would seem to be harmful to the AA community long-term.

    It was pretty short sighted for the (none / 0) (#191)
    by cawaltz on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:18:35 PM EST
    party leaders to encourage the two "historic candidates" to run simultaneously. I can guarantee that the GOP will make a play for AAs if Obama isn't the nominee and they have been waiting for the opportunity forever.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:49:39 PM EST
    Here is how I see it.  The AA block is vocal.  That's a time-honored strategy.

    However, look at the real exit polls.  Voting with your feet is really, really vocal.

    If her exit polls showed even or slightly below?

    This race would be over.

    However, the fact is that in 3 exit polls, her supporters indicate they will not vote for him on a much higher percentage.

    That's the reality.


    If this is true they should (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:06:01 PM EST
     be making the argument in private then.

    Republicans must be very amused. (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:38:45 PM EST
    They are always observing that blacks are taken for granted by Democrats. Maybe this year McCain will have a shot!

    Oh, they're very amused (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:45:16 PM EST
    I caught some Repub woman commentator on Fox (I think) last night and she said from a Repub POV, it looks like the Dems are tearing themselves into pieces.  It actually looks like that from a Dem POV, as well.

    They (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by sas on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:41:19 PM EST
    are not only making it impossible for Obama, but for any other serious black candidate who ever runs again.

    Just how is this to be interpreted by many whites who do not, for reasons other than race, who do not support Obama. That is:

    If you don't support my candidate you must be a racist.
    I do not support your candidate.
    I must be a racist.

    I just don't know what is to be gained by this behavior.

    Unless it works. That is Obama's gamble. (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:42:01 PM EST
    So far, you have to admit that he has succeeded.

    Crying Wolf (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:57:20 PM EST
    He is risking pushing this country back from the 19th Century to the 18th Century, racially speaking*.

    All he is doing is encouraging white people not to even TRY to encourage AA (and perhaps other minorities) to run for president or other important positions. Why not? Because then you're left with the potential for some social dwarf like Obama to abuse the fact that by accident (the same kind of accident that we all have suffered as human beings) he was born black, and that it trumps all other possibilities.

    Racism is a shortcut for explaining why you otherwise dislike a person: If a person is an a*** who happens to be AA, why focus on the race? Just call him an a**.

    The problem arises when said AA thinks you called him an a*** because he's AA. And then you're screwed.

    *As for Gender issues, it appears we are still in the stone ages.

    **Nothing, just wanted to put a couple MORE asterisks in there.


    Ah yes, the asterisk bold tag (none / 0) (#45)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:57:55 PM EST
    Gotta love it

    Willing to Do Anything to Get Elected (none / 0) (#211)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:57:41 PM EST
    Applies more to Barack than Hillary I'd say

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#32)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:52:53 PM EST
    And until the Dems. come out against this sort of thing -- it will continue. Being PC is a powerful and debilitating drug. It will take real courage to talk about this now -- and I don't expect it from any democratic quarter.

    Look at how even BTD is delivering his message -- saying it is 'stupid' and will offend the white vote -- which at best is an oblique way to make his point. IMO, if people really believe that it is unacceptable for a minority segment to hold the Democratic party hostage -- which is what I see these arguments are hinting at, why not come right out and say that?


    Overplaying His Hand (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:00:52 PM EST
    That's the risk.  I think the threat of losing the AA vote is one better left understated by the Obama campaign.  People already know it's there.

    But Super Delegates have egos.  They aren't going to like being threatened.  

    This is horrible.  If I were an African American voter I'd be very angry at my leaders.  Not only are they hurting Obama (whose entire campaign is built around Unity), but they're taking what has been a terrific showing of support and enthusiasm in the African American community for Obama and turning it into some sort of anti-Clinton (or anti-white) movement.  It takes what should be something to celebrate and turns it negative and ugly.  Ick, ick, ick. African American voters deserve better than this.  But then they almost always deserve better than what they get from black and white elected officials.  


    I disagree w/ that a bit. (none / 0) (#85)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:15:37 PM EST
    Note that as it happened in SC, this is being done via surrogates. There's no evidence that the Obama campaign is behind this -- is there?

    Why do you think this will hurt Obama?
    In fact, do you believe there aren't AA's going 'there's someone speaking up for our power, and warning the Clinton camp -- go Obama!'

    It would be interesting to see the AA reaction to see if you are right in the coming days. A true sign that this sort of thing hurts Obama with AA voters will perhaps be in the NC results.


    The Obama Campaign (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM EST
    Was behind it in SC.  Why wouldn't they be behind this?

    Wow.. (none / 0) (#235)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:58:34 PM EST
    That was an interesting read indeed. I guess y'all may be right in that his campaign is behind it this time around too, but is there any evidence of that?

    I do know that Obama's camp did this in SC! Bill Clinton was talking specifically about Senator Obama's stance on Iraq and how it had changed once he joined the Senate when he said that 'Senator Obama having been always against the war in Iraq is a fairy-tale', but I recall Michelle Obama in one of her interviews saying that the Clintons were calling the entire idea of a "black man winning the white house was a fairy tale".

    Point being, no one called them on that, and it didn't hurt him in SC -- in fact, he went on to smoke Senator Clinton there and his entire campaign took off. No wonder he's doing it again (if he and his campaign are behind this time around too) -- since he possibly expects to get a similar bounce again. No matter how much the blogosphere may vent against it, I guess the tactic is proving effective. I agree with you all that as a strategy -- destroying Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton's legacy on the way to the nomination could well end Obama's chances in November.


    BHO needed to serve out his term first (none / 0) (#63)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:05:03 PM EST
    I think if he served six years in the Senate and was effective in that role, he could have run on his merit. Instead he does not have the crucial experience and his biggest draw are the AA voters. Now people are actually allowed to note this out loud as before you were called a racist. Interesting that a campaign uses racism when it is good to get out the AA vote but stays away from it in the case of NO and MLK day. Now these AA people are coming out to speak of it again. Maybe they know that the Super Delegates might not be falling their way after all & so they want to rile up the AA voters. But,nothing riles up the WWC more than seeing reverse racism. Not a good move at all.

    ah, but then he might have voted (none / 0) (#252)
    by angie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:12:45 PM EST
    on something controversial -- we can't have that, now can we?

    I agree, nothing is gained by the behavior (none / 0) (#203)
    by feet on earth on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:44:27 PM EST
    of declaring oneself "I am racist" in solidarity.  I don't like it.  But, from this type of discussions and from the totally unfair "racism" accusation coming from the Obama camp we may learn how to respond calmly and clear-headed without feeling paralyzed.  

    As part of my job I provide equity  and antiracism education and training.  
    I hear  over and over again from good and very well-intentioned white people how they feel emotionally paralyzed and silenced when accused of being racists when they strongly believe they are not.  Whatever help shake out this "paralyzation" feelings can only be a good thing for an honest dialogue on race-relation,  IMHO.  


    Obama is harming Obama (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:43:32 PM EST
    with divisiveness.  Yes, I do believe that Clyburn's comments have the blessing of the Obama campaign.  If they didn't, why the deafening silence?  I don't hear Obama or his spokespeople "rejecting and renouncing" Clyburn.  

    The Obama campaign has its eyes on the prize - the nomination - and is hoping that the Presidential election will take care of itself.  

    This part is particularly ridiculous:

    Well, Hillary Clinton only got 8 percent of the black vote. . . . It's almost saying black people don't matter.

    And why did Clinton get such a small percentage of the black vote?  Couldn't have anything to do with the Obama campaign playing the race card in SC, could it?  Nah...

    If the Clintons are racist, well I guess so am I.  

    we've heard this before - the other way 'round (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by moll on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:53:26 PM EST
    my first reaction to hearing this statement about 'loyalty' was, hey, can we dig into the grab bag full of all those things said about Clinton feeling "entitled" and how she resents Obama running and wrecking her coronation? I remember her being belittled at the suggestion that she somehow feels Obama should have the "loyalty" to the Democratic party earlier in the nomination. And the "loyalty" question hurt the Clintons when they threw it against Bill Richardson, too. Loyalty might be how it really works behind the scenes, but you are not supposed to air it outside where people can see.

    That perception hurt Clinton then and it is going to hurt Obama now. And it hurts ALL Democrats, because to people outside the party it looks like Democrats are all-consumed with entitlements, as if we just don't get that the Presidency is not a thing you get as a prize - it is a thing that MUST be earned, and it is a position of responsibility, not just free lollipops.


    me too! (none / 0) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:55:01 PM EST
    "If the Clintons are racist, so am I" (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    Wow, that sums it up.  Oughta be on t-shirts -- but that would not be her campaign's way.  

    That, of course, would be the Chicago Way, though.


    Clinton Got 10% In PA And IIRC (none / 0) (#151)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:04:27 PM EST
    she has gotten at least that in most primaries.

    Guess Rep. Clay Needs To Hear From One Of His (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    constituents about this. He needs to hear that this is harmful for his candidate and for the party.

    BTW, Rep. Clay is a fantastic rep and always votes straight down the line on important issues like Iraq and FISA.

    Better His Supporters Prove Him Unelectable (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:47:50 PM EST
    It saves us time and energy and they do a better job.  Now, they need an expose of his divisive supporters who are just everyday people.  They have done a great job of making Clinton supporters not want to support Obama, if he is the nominee, at the peril of the America and the democratic party.

    No, No, they're *Wonderful* surrogates (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by goldberry on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:48:06 PM EST
    Why stop them now? They're on a roll.  Besides, there's not much time before North Carolina to whip up emotion in the North Carolina AA community.  
    Let's put it this way, BTD, as long as Obama goes out on the stump and flips Hillary the bird and brushes her off his shoulder, as long a Keith Olbermann can advocate offing is opponent and doesn't get held accountable and as long as Clyburn, Jackson Jr and Lacy pump up the volume and Obama says nothing, it's cool with him.  He's onboard with it.  He approves.  I see no evidence to the contrary.  
    Come to the dark side, BTD.  Hillary is the better candidate.

    after ObamaCo egregious actions (none / 0) (#30)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:51:43 PM EST
    and Obama supporters screamed about Hillary not denouncing the NC GOP ad against Obama.
    Then when she did - it wasn't good enough.

    I do not think she is more electable (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:53:30 PM EST
    even now. Heck, I think neither one of them is electable without the other now.

    The better candidate *is* more electable (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by goldberry on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    And what makes her a better candidate?  Well, her campaign made some mistakes, like not going for the caucuses but winning all of the big blue and swing states except IL and GA by SuperTuesday.  Yeah, there was a miscalculation there.  But let's think about this in terms of natural selection.  That theory says that a successful organism has the ability to adapt to a changing environment.  
    We have seen Hillary do this.  She brought in fresh campaign staff, changed her game plan, broke down that fourth wall between her and the voters, let her hair down and it has been working brilliantly.  And she still runs circles around him in debate.  And what has happened is that she took his best shot and got right back up.  You're missing the message here.  The voters have a lot more respect for her now.  She is not backing down, she is not selling out, she's not throwing any constituency under a bus to save herself, she keeps going and going like the energizer bunny.  She's gone from being the inevitable nominee to the nominee who has earned it every hard won inch at a time.  This primary season has been fantastic for giving Hillary Clinton legitimacy to people who previously only thought she was a smart first lady.  
    So, I think you're dead wrong, BTD.  She is the one to beat and if she's the nominee, McCain is going to have a very tough road ahead.  But against Obama, who has ridden a wave of media orgasm, he will have a much easier time.  Without the support of the media, Obama is an empty suit.  
    And yes, they ARE different politically.  There's more than a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Hillary.  In Obamaworld, the working class and older women are entitled parasites.  That nuch is clear.  And that message is coming through strongly.  
    So, I can't figure out where you're getting this idea that he's more electable than she.  Unless you know some deep dark secret about Clinton that will come out on Halloween, I just don't see how Obama comes out ahead of her in this area.  She's just more presidential and a better candidate.

    That was awesome (none / 0) (#172)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:46:09 PM EST
    and couldn't agree more.  Obama's running on empty, and I mean his experience (less than one term in the US Senate and NO oversight meetings on Afghanistan)...compared to her as a second-term senator WHO KEPT HER WORD that she wouldn't run in 2004.  Obama said he wouldn't run in his first term and has.  That, makes him, a liar.

    Plain and simple.  And I for one will be writing in Hillary's name on my ballot come election day if he's the nom.

    I am a little pissed off that I am referred to as "low information", "uneducated", "low-income"...and now a racist, by those in the 'creative class'.

    Screw them.  I have two college degrees, make over 120K a year and speak three languages.  Obama WISHED he had my vote.  I will never forgive him for his anti-gay stances.  Oh Donnie McClurkin, Bush's boy back in 2004 flying the anti-gay kite, better work harder for Obama to get him votes.


    'kay, just no more Unity Tick talk please (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:20:20 PM EST
    Clinton's made more than her share of calls to her supporters to back any Dem. Obama has only amped up his message -- and had proxies take it to the masses -- to threaten or ridicicule her to fold.

    Obama's idea of Unity is the same as Bush's One Party "non" partisanship: My Way or the Highway. Obama presumptuously called his "tough" campaign against Sen. Clinton his "Spring Training". Oh yes he did. (cf Obama on the Daily Show.)

    I'm sick of hearing that the world will end if yet another unqualified doofus who can't work, wait or earn his bones gets the job and the better qualified female YET AGAIN gets "honorary" second place for being a good little workout partner.

    (Handy tip for working gals: Keep a ream of embossed, satin-finished "blow me" note-cards as a standard response to the frequent veiled threats or helpful suggestions you'll get to step aside or else [fill in the personal or global disaster in the immediate future]. Efficient. Classy. Evil.)


    Senator Obama can't run against McCain (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:44:51 PM EST
    the way he's been running against Senator Clinton. No way, no day are the press or the public going to support him trying to depersonalize and dehumanize John McCain, make him into a racist warmongering liar. That strategy could lead to a complete blowout. What else has he showed us?

    Clinton's got the right touch, the delicate touch needed--we saw that on Olbermann. "We're friends, I respect him, but he's got the wrong ideas for this country right now. More Bush is not what we need."

    And this nasty primary campaign has actually gotten a lot of stuff done that I thought she needed for the GE, but would never get: she looks strong on national security, like a fighter for the working man and woman, and like someone who won't. back. down. Fox News has been building her up just by treating her fairly in comparison to Obama, so now the Fox News viewers see her as someone the "Liberal Media" hates. She's not "the woman candidate" anymore--she looks tougher than Kerry and Gore combined.


    Your assumption seems to be (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:54:02 PM EST
    that his supporters, especially the AA community will not vote for Hillary in the GE.  I do not believe this.  As long as Hillary has people like Maya Angelou, Mayor Nutter, Andrew Young, Magic Johnson, Alice Palmer, Vernon Jordan and many others who can help her campaign, the AA community will support her.  Because despite all the accusations of racism hurled against her and Bill, no one can point to any one word either of them uttered that are blatantly racist.  Obama's camp just decided to use the word racist.

    The only ones who would adamantly oppose Clinton are the ultra liberals who couldn't care less about any other agenda except their own.  And they are always in the minority.  Their support might even impact the Clinton campaign adversely.  Hillary will be able to draw support from moderate Republican women, independent voters and the working class.  She will win because of her wonkishness and getting better at talking in simple terms understood by everyone.


    Your assumption seems to be (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:55:37 PM EST
    that his supporters, especially the AA community will not vote for Hillary in the GE.  I do not believe this.  As long as Hillary has people like Maya Angelou, Mayor Nutter, Andrew Young, Magic Johnson, Alice Palmer, Vernon Jordan and many others who can help her campaign, the AA community will support her.  Because despite all the accusations of racism hurled against her and Bill, no one can point to any one word either of them uttered that are blatantly racist.  Obama's camp just decided to use the word racist.

    The only ones who would adamantly oppose Clinton are the ultra liberals who couldn't care less about any other agenda except their own.  And they are always in the minority.  Their support might even impact the Clinton campaign adversely.  Hillary will be able to draw support from moderate Republican women, independent voters and the working class.  She will win because of her wonkishness and getting better at talking in simple terms understood by everyone.

    It is just a matter of time that O(bama will no longer appear as the MSM "darling" and he only has himself to blame.


    I think you're wrong about Hillary and the GE. (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by magisterludi on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:33:53 PM EST
    I think if businesses start the layoffs as predicted, and more people lose their healthcare and their homes, HRC wins hands down. I myself know too many former GOP women voters who really like her now. I can't be alone.

    And I think Hillary would fillet McCain in the debates while Obama would sputter and stutter.


    Guess they forgot about the other Math- (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:56:22 PM EST
    you can't win the GE with the AA vote alone. Stupid is right. How much longer can this stuff continue before this is irreparable?

    The Obama team (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:57:06 PM EST
    better be studying Wisconsin.  And Clyburn apparently has no common sense?  If Obama only gets 35% of the white vote, he IS in trouble.

    I still don't get why this is Clinton's fault.  What makes her attacks so sharp exactly?  He's been losing the white vote for a long time and her lines of attack have been various.  He attacked her hard in the last few days before PA.  What is she supposed to change about herself that would change Obama's demographic problem?  Because apparently it's her fault that he just doesn't captivate the working class.  

    Wisconsin was a fluke (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by goldberry on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    Obama had a lot of momentum going into Wisconsin and Hillary was nearly broke.  Couple that with a geographical advantage for Obama and he just walked away with it.
    I'm not sure he's going to have the same advantages in Indiana. He's been stalled after TX and OH.  She just won PA and his shine is losing its brilliance.    Time is definitely not on Obama's side, which is probably why his backers want to finish things up toot sweet.

    Even more, Clinton had no campaign (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:34:40 PM EST
    manager then, having just let Solis Doyle go (yes, after Solis Doyle totally blew the great war chest).  Maggie Williams was named only days before the Wisconsin primary.  I'm here, in the biggest city, where we hardly saw a Clinton ad and where a public event for Clinton was planned but never happened because of the campaign disarray.

    And then the blizzard and other nonstop bad weather meant cancellation of so much of the one and a half days she had here that, in sum, she only had one major public event in the state -- and it was in Madison, almost useless, as it is the PC Capitol of the Croissant Lovers and Latte Sippers of the Country, the Land Where Few are from Wisconsin, Anyway.

    Plus, the open primary always is a major sporting event in Wisconsin, especially in the worst of the worst winter on record here (really, we have the records now).  The weather had cleared a bit, and out came the Republican crossover skis.  

    Many media studied and reported the numbers, they just don't get reported nationally (for reasons we can presume).  But one example only is needed:  Waukesha County, one of the reddest in the country, the home of white-flight fundamentalists by the hundreds of thousands, where there are few AAs -- and so few Dems that the party had to advertise for sacrificial lambs to run for office and be slaughtered there.  Yet, Obama won there.  Uh huh.

    Absolutely nothing can be learned from Wisconsin except that, as ever, being there works.  Obama's campaign was at its best then, Clinton's was at its worst then.  It was heartbreaking, with so many hard-working volunteers so ready and willing here but given so little to do -- we couldn't even pry posters and yard signs out of the campaign.  Of course, it would have taken 10-foot posts to get yard signs up above the snows here then. :-)


    Chris Matthews Kept Saying Obama Hasn't (none / 0) (#52)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    won the white vote since the middle of February....said it at least three times.  What does this tell us?

    It tells me (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:07:41 PM EST
    that the tingle has gone out of Tweety's leg!

    Tweety (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:24:33 PM EST
    is working toward his MC-Tingle (for McCain).

    Ahhh, McCain! (none / 0) (#104)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:26:07 PM EST
    Now there's a man!  The straight-shooting, leg-tingling maverick!  

    My friend from PA (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by michellemarie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:57:44 PM EST
    voted for Clinton primarily because of her sound policy positions. However, what sealed the deal was the viciousness of ardent Obama supporters.
    Lol, I love how his campaign is self-destructing because of the very thing they created! I.e., energizing college students who don't know sh*t about the issues and are merely anti-Hillary.

    Waiting for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by DaleA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:01:55 PM EST
    to say something about how terribly Obama has treated 'his good friend' Hillary. Express shock at the language used by Obama supporters. Bring up Randi Rhoades and Olberman calling for Clinton to be murdered. Republicans dream about getting AA votes. They know they can get Latino and white workers to vote for them. Just a little sympathy for Hillary and a lot of shock at the Obama campaign's treatment of women, and they are there.

    Or the (none / 0) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:31:21 PM EST
    other way around if Obama is the nominee. Can you believe that Obama thinks the Clintons are racists? Everything is a racial incident to Obama quoth McCain. It works either way.

    the fact that AA"s (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:04:23 PM EST
    constitute only 12.4% of the total population, and are primarily concentrated in the deep south states of the former confederacy, should be of major concern to the party leadership. these are states that will vote republican in the fall, regardless of who the dem. nominee is. that is a historical fact that you ignore at very high risk.

    no doubt sen. obama, if the dem. nominee, will probably get nearly 100% of the AA vote (were i AA, i would). in the immortal words of dick cheney: so? what he won't get are the working-class white votes. they are a much larger block, by themselves, than the entire AA block.

    in short, his consistent inability to appeal to a broad spectrum of the voting age population, as evidenced by his failures to do so in traditionally democratic states, pretty much guarantees he'll lose to mccain come nov., should he be the dem. nominee.

    fear mongering by his surrogates won't change that harsh reality.

    Fear mongering (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:20:25 PM EST
    is not going to attract voters from the demographics who are not already in the tank for Obama.  Which leads me to the question - why are his surrogates doing this?  Either they're off their meds, or they're sending a not-so-subtle threat to the superdelegates.  

    Either way, it reeks of desperation.


    Evidently Obama Believes His Own Hype (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:11:58 PM EST
    Get the nomination at any cost now and Hillary's supporters will support me regardless how much I anger them now.

    Of course (none / 0) (#170)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:41:06 PM EST
    because to know him is to love him.  I guess some of us just haven't gotten to know him well enough yet!

    Curses! Math unfairly foils Obama yet again! (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:36:49 PM EST
    And forget purely objective stuff like numbers (which, last I looked, didn't have racial or cultural characteristics.

    Doesn't this stereotyping of Clinton supporters as the Cartoon White Racist vote conveniently overlook her support among Latinos, Asian-Americans, &c; among every creed; and throughout every economic group?

    How is she Ms. Corporate Shill but also in the holey pockets of the stoopid lunch-bucket working stiffs?


    in the immortal words of dick cheney: so


    I practically swoon at the raw, unadulterated evil in that clip. (I email that "reply" when someone's in a bunch over a piddling possible outcome.)


    Sounds like panic mode. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ajain on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:06:50 PM EST
    To me it sounds more like the Obama camp's deep vunerabilities have been exposed and that is worrying Obama supporters.

    They are threatening black revolt and trying to cause a fissure in the party if Obama does not get the nomination.

    Imagine if the Clinton forces did the same and actually seeded deep animosity among women voters and made sure that even if they didnt vote for McCain they wouldnt come out for Obama and if that happens Obama loses.

    Clintonistas DID it... (1.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Alec82 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:08:37 PM EST
    ...that was the whole point of the kitchen sink strategy.  She is trying to kill his chances so there is an argument to make for the GE.

     But...and you did not count on this...the problem is that Clintonistas shot themselves in the foot.  She is unelectable now.  Good job.


    Get a hold of yourself (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    You can not insult the other commenters in the thread.

    take it down a notch please.


    Which part? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Alec82 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:13:46 PM EST
    Which part was insulting? Clintonistas? Because Obamamaniacs is used without any edits.  Or instead of saying "you" to refer to the Clinton supporters should I just say "Clinton supporters" much like the comments here refer to Obama supporters?

    I deleted those (none / 0) (#86)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:15:37 PM EST
    I replied to the surviving comment.

    Calm down.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Andy08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:13:04 PM EST
    What's the logic in your comment?

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#98)
    by abfabdem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    McCain - In Iraq for 100 years and no health care.  Hillary - the opposite of those things to name just two. Not sure I buy your unelectability "analysis."

    Clinton campaigned... (1.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Alec82 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:27:02 PM EST
    ...by denigrating Obama voters.  Latte liberals, idiot college students, etc.  

     Just words?


    I remember (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    a certain campaign advisor saying that his candidate didn't need "working class voters"...

    Please give me links to quotes (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by lookoverthere on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:47:58 PM EST
    to support your assertion regarding Sen. Clinton.

    I'd love to see where she called voters any of the names you say she did, especially if there is video.

    Thank you.


    no she hasn't (none / 0) (#188)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:12:54 PM EST
    that is what people on the blogs say about you.

    The really nice thing (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:14:22 PM EST
    about this thread is that nobody has suggested the false meme, which is:

    "Oh don't worry about the A-A vote. Where else are they going to go?"

    We here are the realists, and know that voters have choices other than the Democrat... or the Republican.

    I truly thank everyone for tacitly not denying that people DO vote their anger.

    I'd be embarrassed (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:15:01 PM EST
    to have a bunch of people running around trying to get my opponent to quit an election. His supporters are making it look like they don't think Senator Obama can beat her. Have a little faith, guys.

    Does this message speak to their judgement? (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Boo Radly on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    I now cringe when a BO supporter responses to being asked why they support him and they say judgement.I have a mental visual of Clyburn leading cyborg lemmings off a steep cliff into boiling water screaming racist. Yeah, that'll show the Democratic Party.....the errors of their ways, what the real issues are in todays world - we thought it was the economy, universal health insurance, Bu$hit's war in Iraq, FISA, global warming, etc. Nope, these are not the issues that are pressing. Did any of us know prior to the SC primary that Bill Clinton was a racist? I sure didn't. I know he isn't.  

    I guess since I brought this up I am a racist - now. I have lived my life as a Christian because I want the goodness for all people. How naive of me. Or could BO be so wrong on so many levels?

    I truly abhor the level of "campaigning" the BO camp has used. I really hold the "party elders" responsible for this ugly mess. They were the only ones who had a complete picture - if they even bothered to look.  

    Probably worth remembering... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by CK MacLeod on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:16:40 PM EST
    ...that up until Iowa, African-Americans were far from in love with Barack, and certainly weren't polling as a bloc in support of him.  One thing changed that:  The sense they got that he could win after all (and the allied perception that failing to support him would mean selling themselves out at an historic juncture).  It was only after that the Clintons were portrayed as overplaying their hands in trying to minimize him as a primarily racial candidate, Jesse Jackson redux.  

    There are a lot of problems with A-A bandwagoning - not least the idea that it was a possibly false white validation that "allowed" it.  The point remains that, for the Democrats to avoid a heavy racial backlash and risk losing the bloc vote that has supported them against Republicans more loyally than any other, they almost have to accept Obama, or, alternatively, they need to separate him from the aspirations and expectations of the bloc.

    I've long thought that the Clintons ceded the bloc A-A vote too easily.  One thing Hillary could have done would have been to promote her own positive vision on race relations in the context of a respectful but serious and critical reply to Obama's invitation to a "national dialog" on race.      Don't know if it's too late for that - or if it would be attempted after things decisively turned her way.  Far easier to continue hoping that Obama self-destructs, and that his latecoming A-A supporters, having recognized him as surefire loser, revert to their pre-Iowa skepticism.  

    Personally, I'm one of those who doesn't believe that it's good for anyone concerned for African Americans to be taken for granted as anyone's reflexive supporters, either inside the party or between the parties.  If Hillary pulls this out, she may have to deal with defections, and the Democratic A-A bloc may begin to fall apart.  Indeed, that may be beginning to happen regardless of how this contest turns out.  And it may be a good thing.

    Good point -- a video of Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#126)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:38:36 PM EST
    in an interview then, I came across it recently on YouTube, has her addressing the polling numbers then that showed his share of AAs was only at 47%.  And that's when she rolled out her speech that there "ain't no black people in Iowa," etc. -- when the post-post-racial campaign by surrogates began, to start rallying AAs in states ahead.  It only became more visible after Obama lost NH and headed to NC.

    You have the wrong voting bloc. (none / 0) (#210)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:57:32 PM EST
    "The point remains that, for the Democrats to avoid a heavy racial backlash and risk losing the bloc vote that has supported them against Republicans more loyally than any other, they almost have to accept Obama...."

    The bloc that has been most productive of wins has been the women's vote.  Compare the black bloc's numbers to ours, please.  We are not monolithic in our choices--in other words, we are not blind sheep  following some leader.  But we sure can tell who is going to work for us and our families.


    x (none / 0) (#228)
    by CognitiveDissonance on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:40:35 PM EST
    Thank you, Molly. It really pisses me off that so often we get forgotten when in reality the Democratic Party could not win another election - not even for dogcatcher - without getting our vote. Without women, quite simply, there is no democratic party.

    Obama the "Affirmative Action" Candidate (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by OxyCon on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    Not only are these AA leaders making Obama the "Black" candidate, but by demanding that Hillary Clinton drop out of the race and move aside for Obama, they are making him the "Affirmative Action" candidate.
    Now, I know I pull no punches when I say that, as candidly as I possibly can say it. But that's just me.

    Don't be so sensitive (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by OxyCon on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:22:32 PM EST
    I stand by my comment.
    I am not using "Affirmative Action" in a harmful way, trying to create shock or to hurt anyone's feelings.
    Demanding that Hillary Clinton leave the election now, in order to placate the AA community, does not only paint Obama as the "black" candidate, but it goes even farther, and bestows special privileges onto Obama, which Hillary Clinton herself doesn't possess.
    Stop being so sensitive that these things cannot even be discussed without insults being hurled.
    If this election were between two members of the same race, would candidate A's supporters have any valid argument to make saying that if candidate B doesn't drop out of the election now, then there "will be trouble in November"?
    The shock of being called a racist has long since subsided, being that the very first time I ever criticized Obama, I was called a racist by one of his supporters. Now that I am freed from that shock, I have the freedom to be candid.
    As for my background, I'm mixed race and both my Mother and Brother have darker skin than Obama. And instead of tithing at my Church, each week I instead purchase food staples that I donate to the local Red Cross shelter, the overwhelming majority of which goes to feed himless AA's.

    This was originally in response (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by tree on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:37:18 PM EST
    to a another post(from another poster) that was deleted, but let me say that if I understand your point correctly, then I agree with it.

    ...but by demanding that Hillary Clinton drop out of the race and move aside for Obama, they are making him the "Affirmative Action" candidate.

    The ones making an argument that Obama should get a pass because he's black are Clyburn and Lacy. That argument is not only specious, its also extremely damaging to the black community and to blacks who are trying to make it up the economic ladder, by feeding into a false and racist meme that blacks don't want to earn their success, but want it given to them purely  on the basis of their blackness.

     I know that I benefited from affirmative action myself, but I also know that I was highly qualified and always performed as well as or better than the average man in what was then considered a "male" field. If I or anyone else had tried to claim that I was "owed" the job solely because of my gender I know that I would have fed into a false meme that women are not as qualified as men to do the job, but only get the job because of an unfair sense of entitlement and I would have done a terrible disservice to other women who came after me, by poisoning the well against them. That's the same kind of meme that Clyburn  and Clay are inadvertently feeding into with their statements.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:59:52 PM EST
    it's certainly a concern for me. The bigger problem I see is that people "assume" that voters won't vote for Obama (or that's what his campaign is implying anyway) because of his skin color. Has anyone thought to ask the voters why they won't vote for him?

    Mike S, it is of concern... (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by lookoverthere on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:31:47 PM EST
    many Clinton supporters say they will not vote for Obama, a vastly larger number than the reverse, is of no consern?

    A huge concern.

    Let me say two things, though. First, Rep. Clay's and Rep. Clyburn's positions are that it is Sen. Clinton's responsibility to rescue the party from itself by stepping down from a job she is qualified and fighting for. (And has a chance to win. Granted, it is a smaller chance than Sen. obama's but it is a chance.)

    They're saying that if she does not step down, African-Americans will at minimum stay home in the fall or at maximum, leave the party all together. And they're placing blame for a potential split in the party at Sen. Clinton's feet.

    It would be very easy to make a similar argument to Sen. Obama: women (who make up a much larger portion of the party and the electorate) are angry enough at him and his campaign to refuse to support him in the GE. Since it is his responsibility to stop the party splitting along gender lines, so he should step down now so Sen. Clitnon can win the general election.

    (Please note that high-profile supporters of Sen. Clinton's are not saying this.)

    Doesn't it strike you as damaging to Sen. Obama that his surrogates and supporters demand his opponent give him his victory? Doesn't it make you wonder just how weak a candidate he is? Why does he look to his opponent to solve his problems for him?

    And Sen. Obama has two big problems: winning the nomination and unifying the party so he can win the general election. His supporters here seem to be saying it is up to her to do both for him. By calling for Sen. Clinton to step down, Rep. Clay and Rep. Clyburn have underscored the weakness of Sen. Obama's chances to win the White House.

    Seriously, if you and I were boxing and my side kept yelling at you to lie down and let me win, wouldn't you think maybe I was the suckiest boxer ever and maybe I shouldn't be in the ring? Wouldn't you think that if my people are so nervous, you had a pretty good chance at knocking me on my @ss? Yes, you would.

    I'm using hyperbole---other than that I do suck at boxing---but I think you get my point: neither Rep Clay or Rep Clyburn sound terribly confident regarding Sen. Obama's chance at the nomination or they wouldn't be saying what they're saying.

    Second, yes, many Clinton supporters have said they will not support Sen. Obama should he be the nominee is a huge concern. But is this threat coming from members of Congress? No.

    It is coming from individual voters.

    There is a fundamental difference between Jane Doe saying she won't for Sen. Obama and two members of Congress questioning the party loyalty and smearing the character of a democratic U.S. senator.

    BTD is right. Politically, this is a stupid move.


    I totally get what you are saying.... (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:49:16 PM EST
    ...and let me be very clear, I benefitted from Affirmative Action because it became operative when I was beginning my college career....and I even turned down a really, really good academic position once because it was made very clear to me that I was only being offered the job because of affirmative action and I wasn't  really as good as the fellow they wanted to give it to. But by creating the perception that Obama needs all of these "assists" to get the nomination, his supporters in the party leadership are the ones that are perpetuating the affirmative action candidacy, not Obama himself and not Hillary Clinton. That's my opinion and if someone wants to troll rate me for it, so be it.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#145)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:01:05 PM EST
    I think the comments from the Obama supporters I quote in my post really invite that type of attitude.

    What do you think of what they are saying Mike?


    well sheesh maybe if it's true it's fair to say (5.00 / 0) (#209)
    by moll on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:55:47 PM EST
    The same thing I think of Ferrarro's statements.

    tell me, do you object to the same sentiment(that Obama has an advantage because he's black) when they are made by Maureen Dowd who said in mid-March in the New York Times that Obama admits he wouldn't have nearly as much attention if he were white?

    Do you object to the idea that being black is an advantage when John Kerry is saying it?

    Please explain why it's racist when Ferraro says Obama would not be here if he were white. It seems to be not only obvious but universally agreed that he is where he is because his blackness makes him special and historic.

    Can you name any other senators with similar levels of experience and voting record before making their first Presidential run? Because it seems to me that the big objection to Edwards has always been his "lack of experience".


    Women (none / 0) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:53:41 PM EST
    are saying they won't vote for him if he's nom because of his attitude. It has nothing to do with Hillary. The problem is Obama and his condescending attitude.

    The popular (none / 0) (#226)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:33:40 PM EST
    vote overturned? The problem is that Obama right now is disenfranchising two large states and has refused a revote. This could have been solved long ago if Obama hadn't tried to just sit on his laurels and coast. Right now if he's the nominee, he will probably lose both states in Nov because of this. Dean has shown no leadership either.

    Those are states that neither Obama nor Clinton will win in Nov. That's stating facts not being elitist.

    Obama and his campaign has said things like "I'll get their voters but they won't get mine." Michelle even implied the same thing. Do you think constant put downs of the voters by Obama, his campaign and his surrogates isn't elitist? Yes, it is and his demeanor plays right into that narrative. Hillary has constantly urged her voters to vote for the democratic nominee. I have seen nothing from Obama and his campaign to that extent. That's one of the reasons so many abandon ship.

    It seems that Obama has largely been responsible for a lot of this changing narrative due to his campaign saying they "won" Texas. They made a big mistake and left a gaping hole that Hillary has taken advantage of and given her the opportunity to make the case for the popular vote.

    The fact is that Obama has done a lot of damage to himself yet he blames Hillary? This is another extremely divisive tactic. Did Hillary make him go to TUCC for 20 years? Of course she didn't and that is entirely his own fault. He didn't clean up before running for President and you can't blame Hillary for that.


    As far (5.00 / 0) (#248)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:16:25 PM EST
    as Wright goes, I think a lot of secular liberals don't understand how bad he is. Many people go to church literally for years and never hear g d america once in church. And humping the pulpit? That was the most disgusting thing I have ever seen. There was no excuse for that. Obama is being defined by this kind of stuff simply because he hasn't defined himself. The 527s are already running with it and as far as I know there has been no response from the Obama campaign. I guess they hope that if they ignore it, it will go away. Sigh. Obama seems to have so many qualities of our losing candidates.

    I'm sure some people have left Hillary just like many have left Obama since Wright/Ayers stories broke into the mainstream media. It's just the way it goes.

    Dean said that the sd's can overturn the popular vote and decide based solely on who's electable. I don't know that it's especially a good idea but Obama right now is reeling. And a lot of people did vote for him before they knew his background and his baggage. That's really the fault of media more than anyone person or candidate though.

    Obama has the elitist narrative. Hillary doesn't. I'm sure some people will see it differently but Hillary didn't whine about the price of arugula either. Or have a spouse who constantly whines about money who lives in a mansion. That's the kind of stuff that comes off as elitist and whiny to boot.


    Well Obama Has Specifically Stated That (none / 0) (#247)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:11:48 PM EST
    the SDs should vote based on the primary vote winner unless they have selected him. Then they should vote for him. So please explain how this is different then what Hillary is doing or saying in regards to delegates.

     I could bring up people I know who have changed their minds because they think that Obama has used GOP talking points against Clinton. I could also give you a picture of the Republican Harry and Louis ad that Obama uses that lied about  Hillary's health care plan. I could show you the recent exit poll where approximately half of Clinton's supporters won't vote for Obama. You might want to consider something other than that large number of people are all racist.

    It could be that some of those people didn't like Obama putting them down in SF. Hillary did not tell Obama to make that comment. Obama made that choice. Hillary did not write about that event. One of Obama's own supporters did.

    Maybe some of them were in fact offended by what Rev. Wright said. Hillary didn't tell Obama to choose Rev. Wright's church. Obama did. Hillary didn't run those videos non stop. The media did.

    Maybe they didn't like Obama's typical white women comment. Hillary didn't tell Obama to say that.

    They may have hated Reagan's foreign policy and hated Obama saying that is who he would model  his foreign policy after.  Hillary did not tell Obama to choose Reagan as an example. Obama made that choice himself.

    They may even believe that Obama does not have the experience to do the job.  And guess what, I would bet many of them had that opinion before Hillary ever said a word about it.


    Mike S (none / 0) (#259)
    by IzikLA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:06:11 PM EST
    These are a lot of unsound arguments.

    She never said SD's should vote for her if she were to "lose" or that elected dels "should" change their vote.  She said that they COULD, and that is the truth and a very important distinction that you gloss over to argue a point that makes her sound like she would do anything to win.  This is a very common Obama campaign talking point (good job).

    The MI & FL didn't "count" talking point has been done to death here and if you had done any research or cared, you would know the context of that quote and that Clinton went on to explain in a very detailed and compassionate manner why we couldn't, as Democrats, just write off Florida and Michigan.  In addition, unfortunately it is a close race and the voters in those states now really matter.  If we had a clear nominee by now they wouldn't, plain and simple.

    Regarding Democrats bringing up Wright and Hillary jumping on the elitist comments, I and many other Democrats could honestly care less about Wright's comments or what he said or what he meant or didn't mean about small town voters.  However, these ARE issues that will come up in the General Election, and if Hillary's argument is going to hinge on electability as it most definitely will, then this is all fair game and to the point.  Sorry.


    Do you have a quote for any of that? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:07:34 PM EST
    Or are you referencing blog commenters?

    If you do not see the difference then you are not as smart as I thought you were.


    Mike S., Obama has said he's benefits (5.00 / 0) (#237)
    by lookoverthere on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:20:17 PM EST
    This is from "When it comes to race, Obama makes his point--with subtlety," Sunday, June 26, 2005, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, by Jeff Zeleny, and posted on Sen. Obama's U.S. Senate website.

    Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.

    If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?

    This is in essence what Geraldine Ferrarro said. So if Sen. Obama sees his race/ethnicity as offering him an advantage, why would you argue with him?


    What exactly is it that you think? (none / 0) (#251)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:46:43 PM EST
    There are plenty of overboard commenters here, and if you want to go on a crusade against them I guess that's your right if isn't off-topic.  

    But what exactly is it that you think about Clyburn's comment?  I don't know the history of your thinking, so please expand.  Also I believe the comment you responded to claimed that these comments "are turning" Obama into the "affirmative action candidate."  Not that he is one; rather he would be percieved as one.  I don't really think that is what's happening, but I don't think your characterization is exactly appropriate.  

    Clyburn's comment, IMO, is distracting from Obama's demographic issues with white working class voters.  It does not make sense because if Obama is weak with a certain sector of US population, he needs to work on that, esp if they are part of the Democratic base.  Time will tell how this all plays out, but I think there are more positive ways to address Obama's problem with that demographic, particularly if you think he is the presumptive nominee.


    Party Fears Gender Divide (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Donna Darko on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:37:21 PM EST
    The title of the article should be Party Fears Gender Divide because Clinton supporters are Democrats and we fear a gender divide. The campaign has been much more misogynist than racist. When was the last racial incident? South Carolina and the thug statement? Race doesn't trump gender and, in this election, gender (51%) trumps race (13%). The racial attacks were only against blacks, hence the 13%. There are more Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama because of the rampant misogyny but this doesn't get headlines. Like Steinem said in the New York Magazine piece, it's because racism affects men, sexism does not.

    Running with a bad crowd (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Sunshine on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:41:22 PM EST
    The people that Obama has talking for him, like Clyburn, Wright, Richardson and then the blogs that support Obama talk to the people that support Clinton like they are dirt... They seem to be saying they don't ever have anything to do with us, they might get their wish...  The blogs that support Obama are very nasty to Clinton people and I don't think I would ever be comfortable on their blogs....  If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I think I will be very detatched and I know I will not make any contributions....

    I Think This Is A Visual And Coordinated Effort (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:47:13 PM EST
    by the Obama campaign to push Hillary out of the race. It is just another way to tell the voters and the SDs that the party will lose the African American community if Obama is not the nominee.

    I guess Hillary's supporters should just accept that they are not as important to the party and submit to these dictates.

    Well I just wrote to Rep. Clay. I told him that Senator Clinton's supporters are just as committed to her as Obama supporters are to him and that these actions are counterproductive and will produce the results he fears.

    Now, when my AA member of Congress (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:55:09 PM EST
    comes up for re-election, what am I to do with this message from the Obama campaign?  I voted my member of Congress into office, and I have voted for many AAs before -- but always based on their obvious merit.

    Frankly, now I feel -- for the first time -- that I am being told by Dems to vote for racial reasons first.  Okay, I'm a Northerner, and others in other areas of the country may have seen this before, but it's new to me.  

    I never will do so. And as my AA member of Congress is an Obama super-delegate, I do believe that I will ask whether my member of Congress agrees with the reasoning of colleagues and fellow Obama backers like Clyburn and Clay.

    If so, there's another box on the ballot that I will have to skip.  I will not vote against a candidate because of their race or gender or creed or any other such category, so I refuse to vote for a candidate for any such reasons, either.  

    Want my Typical Problematic White Female Vote? (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:21:34 PM EST
    "... or what? I'm getting conflicting messages from you. On the one hand, given your support of Obama's campaign message I take it as a given that you reject me and my support [&c / what you said.]"

    Thanks! Now all I have to do (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:44:46 PM EST
    is enclose the article with quotes from Clyburn and Clay, address the letter and envelope, lick the stamp, and take a short walk to the mailbox. :-)

    (The staff answers the email, I have found, but some more Luddite members of Congress actually do look at letters.)


    Since My Rep Is Lacy Clay, I Could Refer (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:29:16 PM EST
    to his actions directly. Didn't go at the same way as you are proposing although I think that is effective. Just said that this visual and coordinated effort would be counterproductive and bring about the disaster he fears. Pointed out that the party was every bit as likely to lose Clinton supporters as the AA community if they thought the nominee was selected unfairly. Recommended that they seat FL and MI now and let the voters in the upcoming primaries decide if they really wanted an united party in November.

    More good thoughts; thanks (none / 0) (#233)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:46:28 PM EST
    as we're both in the same Black Caucus/Obama super-del boat with our Congressional members.  So far, mine has kept her mouth shut about this, pretty much.  And that's wise; she is a newcomer who went straight into serious trouble (a son got caught slashing tires at Bush campaign hq here in 2004, what an idjit, and the Repubs made it into the Trial of the Century) and needs to watch her way through this thicket to win re-election.  As I've noted in another comment, it's an integrated district, but I bet she would have the votes.  However, she needs a lot of us typical white people to fund her again. :-)

    I agree with that (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:02:15 PM EST
    But blogs are not congressional leaders.

    Agree with sentiment but wrong on facts (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:05:14 PM EST
    I don't see nearly the vitriol and disrespect even from the most ardent pro Clinton blogs that I see on any typical pro-Obama blog.

    Sorry, but NO comparison. Let's not make a false equivalency where one doesn't exist.

    No need to be insulting (none / 0) (#160)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:18:43 PM EST
    I see just fine. I try to call out the ones that are unfair. But I just don't agree, there is no comparison. There are bad seeds on both sides, but bad seeds on the Obama side is out of control. Let me be clear: I am NOT talking about a lot of Obama supporters on this site (forgetting the regular troll visits). But elsewhere its very very bad.

    Acknowledging this may be the first step towards starting to end it.


    I don't see it that way (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by moll on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:51:40 PM EST
    That might seem true short term (this election), but I am not sure it is. It is definitely note true in the long term.  

    This is happening because there is and has been a real rift between two sections of the Democratic party. The two sides do not understand each other - and oddly enough don't seem to want to. They quite frankly appear to hate each other.

    Ignoring that rift hasn't done us well - it didn't put Kerry in the White House, did it?  

    It needs to be resolved. And it is being resolved. NOW.

    The so-called latte liberals control all the agenda - they have the media, they choose the "official" positions on issues and they choose the candidates. But they don't have enough votes to put those candidates in office. And they just refuse to recognize that fact, and it costs us elections. They shouldn't have run Kerry.  

    Either they need to stop being contemptuous of working class and other "downscale" (or "Truman") Democrats, or the party needs to have a realignment somehow.

    The Daily Kos wants to kick out the downscale Dems and realign the party. The Hillary camp wants the leadership to acknowledge the importance of those groups the upscale end of the party wants to kick out.

    There's why the fighting. It isn't even really about candidates, really. It's about the fact that the Democratic party always relies on women and working class whites to do 100% of the compromising. Now they've gone too far. Will they correct the error in time? Some don't want to (Daily Kos).

    Well said.. (none / 0) (#241)
    by BostonIndependent on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:36:58 PM EST
    But I think you are ignoring independents -- it's not two but three camps that have to be united. Some of us find both camps somewhat infuriating in their tactics and uninspiring for other reasons. I really wanted to vote Democratic -- since I cannot stand Republican policies on several fronts. It has been customary that in primary politics both parties hew to their base -- as Huckabee's success perhaps illustrates, but the contest between Hillary and Obama is just going to make several independents go over to McCain. I do count myself as a Clinton-sympathizer rather than Obama's (because of her policy positions) but it still seems like a long shot, and both candidates are explicitly NOT doing much to bring the party together, and having the discussion that SHOULD be happening -- i.e. how to put together a platform that will appeal to independents and win in November.

    It's pretty obvious... (5.00 / 0) (#201)
    by stevenb on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:42:05 PM EST
    It's pretty obvious that Obama isn't going to unify the nation to become President--his supporters don't want or think they need Clinton's constituency.  

    And, if the DLC continues to elevate Obama as the Dem. choice while simultaneously destroying his GE chances...well, again, the obvious choice here is choosing Clinton to be the Democratic nominee.

    The real question people like Clyburn should be addressing is: if Clinton does win the Dem. nomination, will he and the black vote support Clinton against McCain?

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by DaleA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:43:44 PM EST
    Hillary was a public figure before she meet Bill. Her commencent speech was profiled in Life in 1969. She was on the staff of the Watergate committee. Hillary gave up a promising career to go off with Bill to Arkansas.

    ..but 'no more debates' is not a good answer! (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by moll on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:54:40 PM EST
    Did you intentionally miss my point?

    And I know people like you just don't understand me. I defend both candidates against bs attacks. You obviously only consern yourself with defending Hillary and attacking Obama. To the point that you can't see the exact same argument you make being thrown at you.

    When a campaign is about issues, you don't duck and run when someone brings up a relevant question. You deal with it and then it isn't there anymore for someone to use.  

    Telling people not to talk or fight or campaign isn't an answer and isn't going to restore harmony. That's what the Dems don't get. People talk, even argue, when they want the issue to be hashed out and resolved. The only way to end it is by resolving the issue.

    Resentment doesn't go away just because nobody talks about it. I think it is GREAT that we are finally in a position to talk about things that have been festering like dirty infections within the Democratic party for far too many years. It is the first step toward a strong, unified party. And I do mean a strong, unified party that is really unified - not just half the people have gags on and clothespins on their noses. Political correctness has blocked from giving the necessary feedback and the party has failed to adjust.

    The fact is, Obama and his supporters screwed up, and keep screwing up, by not treating Ferraro's comments seriously, but instead choosing to demonize her for saying something (inadvertantly revealing a huge, gaping double standard). Is he utilizing the fact that he is black? Of course he is. So is that a bad thing? What does that mean? He could have simply treated this question the way you'd treat it if a debate moderator asked the question. Someday, that is what a truly post-racial candidate will do.  

    But Obama doesn't know what to do with a debate question. That's a problem.

    At every point in this campaign, Obama and the DNC have been responding to every question with some variation of "JUST SHUT UP!"

    They don't listen. That's a problem.

    They don't want people to talk. They're afraid of what people are concerned about, and they fail to recognize that the more they try to stick the cork back in the bottle, the more UPSET people get.

    Telling people to shut up is the one way to guarantee they won't buy what you're selling. Basic salesman training 101 teaches that the key is to let the buyer air their concerns - and then you know exactly what you have to say to close the deal.

    If someone says, "he's just here because he's black", the amateur sees an attack. But the pro sees an opportunity, and mentally rearranges that statement into an imaginary request: "...so please tell me why I should believe that statement is wrong. You're not just here because you're black, are you? I want to buy from you, but I'm afraid of getting suckered. So reassure me."

    i'd avoid (5.00 / 0) (#246)
    by Salo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:07:47 PM EST
    discussing much with this chap.

    Questioning Clinton's loyalty?! (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:34:05 PM EST
    "It's almost saying black people don't matter."

    Ahem, could we be anymore blatant? And wrong, imo.

    was this pre-Wright? (none / 0) (#26)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:48:48 PM EST
    The WaPo article implies the donors defected because of the Clintons' racism.
    Entirely possible if mischaracterizations and lies are repeated enough and since ObamaCo racist and sexist remarks against the Clintons aren't mentioned on the TV...

    >>>More than 70 top Clinton donors wrote their first checks to Obama in March, campaign records show

    Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#28)
    by miriam on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:50:05 PM EST
    I believe I read that HRC took 13% of the black vote in PA.  Or was it 13% of black women's vote?  In any event, there are some signs the black vote is beginning to splinter and this should hardly be a surprise.  African Americans are not a homogenous block and some may well see Obama (allied with Wright) as ultimately damaging to them.  This could be why black congressmen have been told to bring these independent black thinkers back into the fold. AA's are now the only reliable voting block Obama has, as young people in PA did not vote exclusively for Obama. North Carolina votes should tell an interesting tale.  A breakdown of them may be more damning for Obama than a loss in Indiana in terms of the "Who's More Electable" argument.

    13% of A-A women (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    10% overall, just like in most every other state.

    Except for, say, Tennessee (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:56:20 PM EST
    I do wonder how Hillary won that state so convincingly, and wonder if she couldn't recreate that kind of win in NC.

    Not a chance (none / 0) (#55)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:02:26 PM EST
    AA vote will be 35-40 percent of the NC Dem. primary vote concentrated in Durham and along I-40.

    Hillary will do very well in Western and Eastern rural counties. It will be under 10 points though.


    Essentially, what Hillary would need (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    to win would be an extremely polarized electorate. Mississippi style. I hope that doesn't happen, and because of the new latte liberals in NC, I expect it would, but even getting close to that would be a bad sign.

    Those NC latte liberals... (none / 0) (#176)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:52:26 PM EST
    A lot of them have moved down from the Northeastern states.  Many from New York.  Just like Florida.  Something to keep in mind.

    Tennessee (none / 0) (#75)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:12:37 PM EST
    TN exit polls

    Clinton Edwards Obama Uncommitted
    White Men (29%) 58% 9% 32% 0%          
    White Women (38%) 73% 4% 21% 1%          
    Black Men (11%) 16% 0% 82% 0%          
    Black Women (18%) 25% N/A 74% 1%          
    Latino Men (2%) N/A N/A N/A N/A          
    Latino Women (1%) N/A N/A N/A N/A          
    All Other Races (1%) N/A N/A N/A N/A

    And for all the talk of the youth vote, on many of these exit polls it comes out as N/A for each candidate.  For whatever reason.


    So... (1.00 / 0) (#80)
    by Alec82 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:14:49 PM EST
    ...TN matters in the GE, but the other states don't?

    Saying one state (none / 0) (#89)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:17:20 PM EST
    Is more important than another does NOT mean that the other state doesn't matter at all.

    Stop playing that game.

    Is the DNC gonna spend the same amount of money in Utah that they spend in Ohio, Florida, Nevada or Colorado?


    That's ridiculous... (none / 0) (#95)
    by Alec82 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:21:11 PM EST
    ...and you know it.  TN was never going to go Dem.  Stick with FL, where you might have an argument.

    TN went Dem (none / 0) (#105)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:26:35 PM EST
    In 1992.  Probably not now.  I'm just sick of you playing your game.

    I can talk about a set of priorities without people showing up and saying just cause I consider one thing more important than the other that must mean I don't care one bit about the other thing.

    It's impossible to discuss anything rationally.

    It means if I say "20% of 2,000,000 > 50% of 500,000", you're gonna say something awful about me instead of dealing with the reality of the situation.


    What about (none / 0) (#108)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:27:59 PM EST
    Utah, Idaho, Alabama, Kansas and the other red caucus states. Are they going Dem. in November????

    If they hold caucuses! n/t (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:32:01 PM EST
    I've heard people say TN is possible (none / 0) (#113)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:31:15 PM EST
    for Clinton, but I bet McCain is polling pretty well there now.

    In any case, I only provided those polls because andgarden referred to them and they are interesting - 1 in 4 black women voted Clinton.  


    BTD, do you know (none / 0) (#43)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:57:42 PM EST
    what the AA turnout was in PA?  Was it lower than predicted?

    I'm wondering if perhaps that was a disappointment to the Obama campaign, b/c they sure seem to reek of desperation these days.


    It was lower on a percentage basis (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:01:19 PM EST
    than I predicted, however most pollsters pegged it at exactly where it ended up. Obama got the turnout he needed in Philly.

    15% AA Turn Out In PA n/t (none / 0) (#159)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:18:07 PM EST
    Didn't she also win the 'smart' vote (none / 0) (#40)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:57:18 PM EST
    in PA? Wright may have hurt his AA vote as not all AA's were down with his preaching style . . .

    Impossible (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:58:38 PM EST
    Howard Fineman on MSNBC today explained that Obama gets all the educated vote, whereas Hillary supporters just haven't read all the books that Obama has.  

    For real.


    lol!~ How nice of him to explain (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:05:38 PM EST
    it for us. Did he speak nice and slow?

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by miriam on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    She won 51% of college educated, affluent voters. Obama won 49% of them.  I thought this was the most interesting statistic coming out of PA, since it contradicts the most often used talking point of the media and Obama supporters.  It's apparently no longer completely true that only we dumb folks vote for Clinton.  

    Obama: Voters Fine, I'm Bitter (none / 0) (#88)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:17:06 PM EST
    Today's Borowitz Report is an amusing commentary on the situation.

    Do you reckon (none / 0) (#207)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:51:07 PM EST
    there's hope for him after all--like about 8 years down the road?

    did you not read the (none / 0) (#133)
    by DJ on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:45:53 PM EST
    race memo on huffington post? and read how all those lies were debunked on media matters?

    well, (none / 0) (#154)
    by soccermom on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:05:39 PM EST
    Facts will only confuse and "distract" him.

    That is rather BS of you (none / 0) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:03:05 PM EST
    in that you have nothing to say about Clyburn et al.

    you comment is bs (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:04:08 PM EST
    women are not obligated to love their abuser.  Now I  know that sounds dramatic but, it is true.  Obama has made many many sexist comments as a call out to the male vote...

    He has been very arrogant and dismissive flipping her off, wiping "dirt" from his shoe.  He is not even qualified to be an adult much less president of the united states.
    In addition he has accused the Clintons of racism, charged we all know are bogus.  And he did it to win votes in SC, and it continues every time there is a primary coming up with a heavily AA population.  To me, dividing this party over race is unforgivable. Accusing the Clintons of racism is unforgivable and I will not reward it.


    I think Clyburn et al (none / 0) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:04:06 PM EST
    are harming Obama. What do you think?

    he actually sounds and LOOKs clueless (none / 0) (#166)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:29:42 PM EST
    at least on teevee. Nice suit though, matches the colors nicely.

    Here's another (none / 0) (#183)
    by facta non verba on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:06:09 PM EST
    take on this story:

    Backlash or Desperation?

    Cylburn and Clay are looking at this race soley through a racial prism and not the broader socio-economic one.

    On DADT and DOMA (none / 0) (#189)
    by BryanNYC on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:15:22 PM EST
    Sam Nunn was the Democrat responsible for thwarting Clinton when he tried to open the military to gays and lesbians in 1993, and he just endorsed Obama last week.

    Hillary Clinton worked behind the scenes with the HRC to prevent the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.

    True, there is very little policy difference between Clinton and Obama on gay rights. But Hillary Clinton has been a vocal and prominent supporter of the LGBT community for many years.

    CBS News lead with race tearing Dem Party apart (none / 0) (#227)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:36:51 PM EST
    Hit on the faves: Clyburn criticizing Bill Clinton for mentioning Obama in the same sentence as Jesse Jackson. (Where has Jesse Jackson gone to, anyway?)

    Great deal of pearl clutching.

    Not likely (none / 0) (#230)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:41:24 PM EST
    The only thing that may happen (very unlikely imho) is that IF SDs start breaking for Sen Clinton behind the scenes they may convince Sen Obama to join a unity ticket as VP. This would actually help stop the divisions in the party, save face for everyone, and probably assures him presidency in 8 years.

    But right now I think the Obama campaign is only focused on sealing the primary, even if it ends up costing him the general.

    No one will drop out (none / 0) (#244)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:42:14 PM EST
    neither one of them would ever drop out. Why should they?  They are in a virtual tie.  It may end up with one having the delegates and one having the popular vote.  Under what circumstances would they personally think they would have no chance of winning. They're politicians, it's all about ego.

    C'mon now, it ain't all ego... (none / 0) (#250)
    by lookoverthere on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:46:13 PM EST
    I disagree with your opinion of Sen. Obama being driven by sheer ego. He's not my candidate, but I'm going to stick up for him on this. I don't like it when people say Sen. Clinton is only in it for her ego, because neither of them is it for themselves only.

    Being a public servant isn't all about ego. There has to be an element of believing things can change for the better and you want to be part of it. I'm not so naive to think it's pure altruism, but I'll grant the junior senator from Illinois my respect for taking on a job most people could never, and would never want to, do.

    Again, I'm not picking a fight. I'm just trying to give credit where I think credit is due.

    Comments now closed (none / 0) (#260)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:20:43 PM EST
    A few notes: I find this entire discussion to be race-baiting which I don't want on TalkLeft. I've deleted some of the more over the top comments.

    Also, to Mike S., who falsely accused another commenter of impersonating someone else, we don't do that here. I checked and the commenter is one and the same who has been here a long time.

    No personal attacks are allowed here.

    I also deleted some attacks on Obama and one on his wife I thought were personal in nature.

    I hope this is the last thread like this we will have here.