home

Clinton To Obama: KY Counts

After all the 50 state strategy talk from Obama supporters, Hillary Clinton is calling out Obama for slighting Kentucky:

Many speakers [at a KY event] noted the absence of Barack Obama. Terry McBrayer, a former state party chair and superdelegate, drew some boos from Obama supporters on hand when he said he contacted a local milk company to put Obamaís picture on a milk carton.

Clinton herself noted she was the only candidate to come, saying it was important "because Kentucky always picks the president." She later said, as she did in West Virginia earlier this week, that Democrats "for too long" have let states like this one "slip out of the Democratic column."

"Too many people felt our party didnít speak to their values and concerns," she said. "Well I believe if you donít stand for hard-working middle-class Americans you donít stand for much. And itís now up to the Democratic Party and our eventual nominee to make that case."

I am sure Robinson, Herbert and Company are outraged.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) Apologizes For Clinton Remarks | Saturday Night: Comedic Relief for Dueling Supporters >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Prediction: (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:07:14 PM EST
    Hillary will win huge in WV, and go on to also win Huge in KY. She will lose OR. The Split decision of OR/KY on the same night will offer the opportunity of a graceful bow-out. However, if there is no compromise on MI and FL, the contest will go on to PR.

    I found my self in (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:12:03 PM EST
    a right wing land, Red State, and they claim Obama has lead in SDs today?  Is that true.  If it is don't tell me.

    Parent
    Tied more or less (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:13:00 PM EST
    Duh!! told you not to tell me (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:14:45 PM EST
    Is that in a sealed envelope form the accounting firm that does the Oscars?  

    Parent
    Price Waterhouse Doesnt' Trust The obama (none / 0) (#142)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:35:12 PM EST
    camp, so they didn't take that job.  :)

    Parent
    She has to win Oregon (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:10:35 PM EST
    or she should make her deal with Obama.

    Parent
    Demographics (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:13:31 PM EST
    No way she wins Oregon.  It's full of California liberals.  You know the kind, they are not "racist" like the other whites, but they moved from California cause of the schools and the "crime".  

    Parent
    They don't take offense? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:36:33 PM EST
    to his thinking they were a Great Lakes state? Or, state #57 of 59?

    Parent
    I was thinking the same thing (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:48:37 PM EST
    Don't the people in Oregon care that he did an obvious cut-and-paste job on the flier he sent out to them? I know I'm a Hillary girl, but even if I wasn't that would bug me enough to not vote for him because it makes it look like he doesn't care.  And yes, I know it wasn't him personally that wrote the fliers, but that is irrelevant. It is his campaign, and he is ultimately responsible. Also, I just don't see how the people in Oregon (and the other states that haven't voted) don't care about him telling WV & KY that he doesn't "need" them --- that would bother me about someone running for President, because it is not because of lack of $ that he is in WV, but because it doesn't look like he will win, so he isn't even trying. Well, then, what would he do as President if a sticky situation with another country arose that didn't look favorable for the US? Just ignore it? Trying despite the odds is a quality I personally want in a President. I just can't understand how these qualities aren't important to other voters as well.  

    Parent
    Seems a lot like voting present to me (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:57:17 PM EST
    Presidents don't get to do that!

    Parent
    They will give her an audience (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:14:58 PM EST
    As we know, there were other demographic groups that would not.

    Parent
    Indiana didn't work that way for Obama (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:54:55 PM EST
    and I see no reason the goal post for her shouldn't move as well.  She should stay in this to the convention.

    Parent
    If the momentum had been in her direction (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:13:13 PM EST
    and last week had gone her way, I think she would have had a 50:50 shot at Oregon. Now I think she has a 10% chance.

    For her, odds probably worth playing, but not great ones. Better than Obama has of even coming close in KY or WV, which is surely why he isn't campaigning there. (Though Hillary campaigned in MS and SC--go figure).

    Parent

    Yes, go figure. (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:15:55 PM EST
    She respects voters enough to ask for ALL of their votes. What a novel approach.

    Parent
    BTD, everytime you say she must win (none / 0) (#15)
    by katiebird on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:13:59 PM EST
    a state, she does.  I think.

    What if she wins Oregon?  Does that put her on a path to the nomination?

    Parent

    Actually not sure it matters (none / 0) (#157)
    by IzikLA on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:14:59 AM EST
    Although he thinks she has to win it and others think if she splits that OR loss with a KY win she has a graceful exit point I think the reality will be different.  

    I think she wins KY by a much larger margin than he wins OR and, as such, the narrative will make it difficult or kind of silly for him to declare winning that night and she will have even more reason to remain in the race.

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#122)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:42:41 PM EST
    Don't the SDs decide regardless? And -- assuming they want to win -- won't they do the only math that matters, which is the EC math?

    Parent
    That was pretty clever. (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:08:15 PM EST
    Terry McBrayer, a former state party chair and superdelegate, drew some boos from Obama supporters on hand when he said he contacted a local milk company to put Obama's picture on a milk carton.

    I always know when something hits home by the reactions of Obama supporters. Of course they booed. It was true.

    But HRC is supposed to stump for busy BO (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Ellie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:15:29 PM EST
    It's been a flog-and-blog complaint in long and short-pants media, aainst the "divisive" quality of Sen. Clinton, that she didn't/doesn't spend half her time and resources ACTIVELY promoting Obama.

    The argument being that this "proves" she's not fair and balanced. (Yeah, I know, I never got that logic either, nor where that standard has been applied anywhere else in political history except in the unique, modern category designed to hamstring HRC.)

    Parent

    The thought that Mommy shouldn't just (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:53:09 PM EST
    clean up after Junior's messes never seems to enter their minds.

    IACF. It's all some of them have.

    Parent

    I get this argument in my own space (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:12:09 PM EST
    The feeling seems to be that I should make Obama's case for him, as well as Hillary's.

    Obama's got our famously free press and half the A list making his case for him. I should climb in the tank with them? Why?

    Parent

    It's rampant even in the Unbalanced Media (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Ellie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:51:30 PM EST
    Gawd knows where that train left the rails, but I'm guessing some hard circuits blew after looking hard the other way at on the record stuff like Michelle Obama's public statements about wanting to claw Bill Clinton's eyes out.

    Those have been defended here by O-bots as being "equal" to HRC's "divisive" character, so what's the biggie?

    I defy these apologists to find any public statement from Sen Clinton as First Lady or on the campaign, which targets anyone in that manner.

    The extent of her "divisiveness" while First Lady was for being an outspoken feminist, for promoting health care and education, and for not being part of the Village Idiots Kewl Klub.

    Not for saying egregious sh!t like wanting to claw past Presidents' eyes out.

    Parent

    You have exposed the (none / 0) (#134)
    by Leisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:07:22 PM EST
    height of hypocrisy in the Obama campaign, the media and the DNC with few words Ellie!

    Parent
    The decision not to campaign heavily... (5.00 / 11) (#3)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:10:13 PM EST
    ...in WV and KY is flabbergasting. As I said earlier here, I'm disappointed. This is not what I expected. And it's not in any Democrats' best interests.

    I think it is between a rock and hard place (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:12:30 PM EST
    for the Obama campaign.

    It shows you how critical IN and NC were.

    If Clinton could have performed better Obama would be in some difficulty now.

    Parent

    But he has to know that he's going to win... (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:19:03 PM EST
    ...pretending like WV and KY don't exist so that he can say he didn't contest them, and therefore the results are dismissible is asinine. Clinton voters aren't going to be the group that is dissuaded from turning up, Obama voters are. And Clinton's only chance -- to the infinitesimal degree that there is one -- is to get a high margin in the popular vote.

    And that's not even bringing up the general election or the good practice WV and KY would bring for Obama in reaching out to this voting block.

    Let's hope WV serves as a lesson. It won't, though. Why would it? And let's hope that the lesson isn't "spend a lot of time in Louisville." Let's hope it's "Eastern Kentucky is who we need." I doubt it very much. If he and his advisors have such a barrier on this, Obama definitely needs Clinton on the ticket.

    Parent

    Um, (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:24:54 PM EST
    I don't think he's all that confident he's going to win.

    It's not like he's ahead by 600 delegates and 2.7 million votes, like Carter was in 1980. And even Carter was still challenged by Kennedy.

    The thought that Obama is somehow inevitable has no basis in reality. The race is a tie and could go either way.

    Parent

    Obama shouldn't be so confident because... (none / 0) (#129)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:54:34 PM EST
    according to the national electoral map, the states that he has "secure" net him 64 electoral votes, versus Clinton's "secure" net her 85 electoral votes, and that is not counting some of the states that are a toss up between the two. Take a look at the link below, it will pleasantly surprise you about the basis for her electability argument. Also, her favorable margin against McCain is almost double to that of Obama's in the predominant state majority.  
    http://www.electoral-vote.com/

    Parent
    His goa l is different imo (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:28:02 PM EST
    It is to kill discussion of the white working class problem.

    If he does not contest WV maybe, especially at NBC, he will avoid a night filled with that discussion again.  

    Parent

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:31:38 PM EST
    ...I guess my main disagreement is that I don't think that discussion will be avoided at all. The only way it could be is if he closed the gap or whatever.

    As it stands the race will be called at poll closing for Clinton and the hacks will have to spend 2 hours talking about something, and since Obama is the presumed nominee they will, of course, talk about his weaknesses (interspersed with a little "this isn't enough for Clinton" stuff, of course).

    That talk won't be avoided, anywhere, until he does better in that demographic. a 75-25 loss won't stall it. Even with Keith manning the station.

    Parent

    Watch and learn (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:35:59 PM EST
    I betcha the main point of discussion will be WWTBQ?

    Parent
    I don't know what WWTBQ means... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:38:47 PM EST
    ...but we'll see. I'll be sure to remind you of our predictions either way on Tuesday.

    Parent
    WWTBQ = Why Won't The B@tch Quit n/t (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:44:22 PM EST
    Ah... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:49:56 PM EST
    ...my only guess was "What would the Barack query?"

    I guess I was wrong.

    And yeah, WWTBQ will be a portion of the night's offerings. But (a) considering the math -- the much hated math -- it's not that unreasonable a topic and (b) I honestly think the media will move on to undermining Obama -- whether they think they're helping, analyzing, or pivoting to the anti-Obama coverage we'll be seeing this summer -- and a discussion of the "poor white" problem will dominate coverage. We'll see.

    Bob Somerby will not be bored after Clinton's out, I think.

    Parent

    And on the math (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:14:42 PM EST
    See here.

    The math that matters is the electoral college match. And the SDs are going to make that judgment.

    Parent

    So, now we wait (none / 0) (#110)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:26:53 PM EST
    to see if Pelosi and Reid will do what's right on this topic. They've been something of a huge disappointment so far.

    Parent
    This Is The First Time In History That A Candidate (4.83 / 6) (#113)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:28:45 PM EST
    has been pressured by members of their party, the opposition and the media to quit before a candidate had officially secured the nomination.

    Talking about the math (without WWTBQ) is not that unreasonable but by the same token neither is talking about Obama's perceived problems with certain demographics. I do agree that the media will start focusing more on Obama's "negatives." Never bought into BTD's idea that Obama would maintain his "Media Darling" status after it was certain he would be the nominee.

    IMO it is a mistake for Obama to declare himself the nominee on May 20th because it will just cause more division. If I were Obama, I would a) use campaign and media events to go after McCain b) focus on tailoring his rhetoric to solicit support from his weakest demographics c) give more details on how he would help folks d) put on a pair a jeans and a casual shirt and spend more time out in small town and rural areas e) gag some of his surrogates and supporters - no negative comments on HRC, eliminate any implied charges of racism and no exclusionary language and f) send Brazile off planet.

    Parent

    Reminds me of Napoleon crowning himself (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:35:55 PM EST
    If he does that, I'm really going to have to reconsider voting for him. That's just egomanaical.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:49:51 PM EST
    ...to be honest I personally don't know for a fact that what you're saying vis-a-vis "first time in history" is true. And I'm way too lazy to try to check that out.

    However, I am pretty certain that Obama won't be announcing he's the nominee, only that he has a majority of the non-MI/CL pledged delegates. Which, I'm sure people will have a problem with (for various reasons), but it is a different thing.

    As for it being like Napoleon crowning himself (opinion expressed not by you, but below), please. It's nothing at all like that.

    As for your suggestions, one would think they were so obvious that they would've been done already.

    Parent

    By the time the spin is done... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:02:49 PM EST
    ... it will be exactly like that.

    Parent
    Eric Boehlert, Media Matters (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:07:08 PM EST
    on calling for candidate to quit. Link

    Parent
    D@mmit MO Blue, I have that one bookmarked (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by lookoverthere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:08:39 PM EST
    and you beat me anyway.

    Parent
    Thanks for the link... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:12:43 PM EST
    ...but to be honest it's the level of subjectivity in this:

    Looking back through modern U.S. campaigns, there's simply no media model for so many members of the press to try to drive a competitive candidate from the field while the primary season is still unfolding.

    ...that makes me wary of this common wisdom. I don't think there's any reason for this discussion to continue, though, since I agree that calls for Clinton to get out by the media are pointless, blustering, and irrelevant, and she's the captain of that boat.

    Honestly, given Obama's lack of campaigning in KY and WV, my respect for Hillary is increasing the longer she stays in. That kind of politics are still not my cup of tea by a long shot -- I think old Dkossers can back be up when I say Obama is my kind of candidate -- but even when (I feel) she can't win she's still campaigning. That's good. That's respectable. And increasingly so.

    Parent

    Re: The unprecedented push to get Sen. Clinton (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by lookoverthere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:07:43 PM EST
    Eric Boehlert from Media Matters.

    And the fact is, the media's get-out-now push is unparalleled. Strong second-place candidates such as Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown, all of whom campaigned through the entire primary season, and most of whom took their fights all the way to their party's nominating conventions, were never tagged by the press and told to go home.

    "Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history," wrote Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. "When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party."

    Just an FYI.

    Parent

    Jerry Brown Had Less Than 600 Delegates (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:42:54 PM EST
    running against Bill and saying voting for Clinton is like buying a ticket on the Titanic...Brown went all the way to the convention.  I would say Hillary's chances are much, much, better than his were.  See a double standard anywhere?  Bueller, Bueller...

    Parent
    See (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:45:08 PM EST
    MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:33:57 PM EST
    has the lowest ratings and it's just his crowd.  

    Parent
    dang (none / 0) (#50)
    by bjorn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:32:44 PM EST
    you are good BTD.  I never would have thought of that in a million years.

    Parent
    Obama may be avoiding small towns (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Josey on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:58:24 PM EST
    where bitter voters live clinging to their God, guns, and racism.
    There was a NYT graphic, which I can't locate now, of the locations the Clintons and Obamas visited in IN and NC.
    The Obamas didn't visit small towns.

    Parent
    Probably No Lattes Available In Those (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:46:03 PM EST
    small towns...

    Parent
    I completely agree. (none / 0) (#32)
    by liminal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:23:38 PM EST
    I absolutely agree with you, Addison.  I am disappointed that Obama has not made more of an effort in West Virginia.  I definitely want to see him reach out to folks in Eastern Kentucky and make a real, direct effort to win their votes.  I do not believe that Obama can win either state come November in the GE, but everything you've said was spot on.  

    Parent
    Bill Clinton won them (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:03:20 PM EST
    and no Democrat has won the presidency without WV since Wilson in 1916.  It can be an important state since that demographic is so important.


    Parent
    Obama didn't reach out to WV and KY (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by stefystef on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:20:06 PM EST
    because he's tired of reaching out to people.
    In his mind, he's already won and doesn't have to "sell" himself anymore.

    The real "Barry" is starting to show.

    Hillary is thinking about the future because people will remember her support of all Americans, all Democrats, to have their voices heard.  The DNC is playing this very badly.

    And it will haunt them in November.

    Parent

    Ummm I'm confused (none / 0) (#109)
    by tnjen on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:23:46 PM EST
    Why would Obama try for E. KY? I'm in E.TN bordering E.KY and have family from E. KY and E.KY seems VERY strong for Hillary.

    Parent
    If they're not going to vote for him (5.00 / 6) (#114)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:33:21 PM EST
    then they don't matter?  We already have a president who feels that way.  He sent hundreds of thousands of them as well as their sons and daughters into a fruitless war.  He cries at their funerals, though only when they're in Arlington (he hates to leave home, don't you know)

    Clinton spoke to the black State of the Union.  She went deep into NC and talked to as many voters as she could no matter whether they were her "base" or not.  She reached out, because she understands that the president is for all of America, not just a subset.

    Parent

    ah ok (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by tnjen on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:15:15 PM EST
    gotcha. And agree, I thought you meant that he might have an advantage there that he was ignoring. I also agree that showing up could go a long way to help him. He really needs to show he's not afraid of  the people here and trust me that's how he's being perceived. He's a snob that's too afraid to come down here and work for us and get his precious little hands dirty with us 'rustic' folk etc. He'd win some over just by coming and answering some tough questions.

    Parent
    Wait (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Leisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:22:18 PM EST
    She was not expected to win Indiana by the Obama circles early on...  She also closed in on the 20+ lead he had over her in NC.

    There have also been some concerns about some district voting reports for both of these states, these errors favored Obama...  hmm, while the found errors are minor, these problems could reveal a systemic problem in many of the primaries.

    The media blackout on the problems with the caucuses will suddenly be exposed if he is the nominee... I am certain of this.  I am opposed to Obama as our nominee for many reasons. The problems at the caucuses alone should worry any American citizen.

    Parent

    Yup (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:13:48 PM EST
    Unfortunately (5.00 / 13) (#14)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:13:56 PM EST
    it's consistent with his entire campaign so far.

    He doesn't care about the white working-class and poor. They're not voting for him, so he's brushing them off.

    You're either with him or against him, apparently.

    Parent

    Yes Obama Could Gain Points For Showing Up (5.00 / 12) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:15:57 PM EST
    and lose points for not making an effort. It reinforces the meme that Obama does not care about small town lower income folks. This will not help him in his GE run if he is the nominee.

    Parent
    its one thing to criticize his decision (none / 0) (#31)
    by seesdifferent on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:23:01 PM EST
    its another to try to imply that he doesn't care about poor people. It's silly and unwarranted, and just destructive. I hope you will reconsider your remarks.

    Parent
    She did not say that (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:26:50 PM EST
    Perhaps you can look up the meaning of "meme" and try reading the comment again.

    Parent
    Obama Has A Major Problem With (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:39:06 PM EST
    winning the votes of lower income non AA people.

    What was silly, unwarranted and just destructive was Obama entertaining his donors in SF with put downs of small town folks and Axelrod further escalating the problem saying they weren't relying on their votes. I hope Obama and his surrogates will choose by their words and actions more carefully in the future. To do otherwise will jeopardize winning in November.

    Parent

    Je repete (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:20:27 PM EST
    "It's not the bitter, it's the cling to."

    The press didn't get this, and the OFB spun toward bitter.

    But it's really the cling to.

    Obama gets a whole speech to navel gaze about his choice of pastor and our famously free press then calls it Teh Greatest Speech Evah*.

    And Obama makes this nuanced, complex decision about where to go to church yet working people "cling to" religion?

    I don't think so. I think working people are fully as capable of making independent moral judgements as Obama is; though our "creative class" might disagree. They don't "cling to" any more than he does.

    NOTE * And then forgets it in three days, and the national conversation on race vanishes down the memory hole too.

    Parent

    I Agree about "cling" (5.00 / 4) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:37:54 PM EST
    Also the "antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment" part of the quote is also left out in most discussions making his statement less derogatory.

    Parent
    how much longer before (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by kangeroo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:38:19 PM EST
    the media says to itself, "ah, screw it," and just starts telling us what to think?  you know, no spin, no narrative--why bother--and just dictate by fiat.  what they're doing these days doesn't seem too far off.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#128)
    by Jane in CA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:51:45 PM EST
    they're already doing that in some circles.

    Parent
    I Would Venture To Say obama Does NOT (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:49:05 PM EST
    come across as someone who cares about poor people.  Ever see any compassion coming out of him?  So, I completely understand why someone would think he does not care.

    Parent
    Innoculation against big projected losses (5.00 / 12) (#34)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:25:31 PM EST
    I think they're gaming the system again like they did in MI.  The Obama talking points on the day after ...

    "We really didn't campaign in West Virginia or Kentucy."

    "We've already locked up the nomination and need to focus on the general election."

    "It doesn't affect the math."

    "These were always Clinton states and we'll win them anyway in the general election."

    Parent

    That's what I think. (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:28:15 PM EST
    "It didn't count because I didn't really try."

    Wow. I'm sure that will be a great consolation when we inaugurate President McCain in January 2009.

    Parent

    Dangerous game? (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:48:11 PM EST
    The emerging pattern is concerning. Not competing in WV/KY. Preparing to declare victory after OR. With the underlying threat that if the party doesn't accept the Obama campaign's definition of "victory" ... we're on a slippery slope to race riots in Denver and a permanent fracture of the Democratic coalition.

    Parent
    Blacks will vote for Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by itsadryheat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:08:38 PM EST
    According to the exit polling recently and some Gallup numbers on what happens if Obama is NOT the nominee, African Americans report to pollsters that they will support Hillary in the range of 70-79%.
    These numbers have held up from the beginning of March, at least, since that was the first time I noticed them.

     I was, at first astonished, since they were so enthusiastic about Obama and so many of his  white supporters were behaving so ...well you know..  But, even with the rough spots, there seems in the polls to be a large residual positive support for the NotObama Democratic nominee among some Blacks and a strong residual feeling for the Clintons among some others.

    With the numbers as possible indicator of limited damage from Obama losing, what do we have as evidence that the potential problem of his losing the nomination is a bunch of riots?

    Parent

    I never doubt that AA voters would vote (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by stefystef on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:27:47 PM EST
    for Hillary.  It has been hype by the Obama camp and their shill to give the impression that the Democratic Party would lose black voters if Obama was not the nominee.

    Well, the Democratic Party may sacrifice the larger voting block of working class whites, Hispanics and even many black voters.


    Parent

    er, we already are on our way to (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:52:25 PM EST
    splitting the party.

    Parent
    SAT tests (none / 0) (#46)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:31:04 PM EST
    So long ago, what was the rule, if you don't know don't attempt the question?

    Parent
    If they really knew him, they would (none / 0) (#156)
    by oculus on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:25:03 AM EST
    vote for him.  

    Parent
    msnbc and Chuck Todd will tell us about the math (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:28:42 PM EST
    that's the idea I think (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:30:24 PM EST
    I Am Sick of Chuck Todd and MSNBC, But (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:52:35 PM EST
    I admire Chuckie Tomato.... :) FTR, I think we had better do our own math, so we don't get bamboozled.

    Parent
    I highly recommend this post (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:42:11 AM EST
    lol...you smooth talker (none / 0) (#161)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 01:09:16 PM EST
    His plan for the GE (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:15:23 PM EST
    is cardboard cutouts of his finest stance in speechification mode set up in every diner with a CD playing "yes we can" in continuous loop.

    That'll get 'em. They won't even realize it isn't the real thing. A little syrup carefully placed on his chin and a half eaten waffle on the table beside him for effect.


    Parent

    and Florida or Michigan (none / 0) (#38)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:28:05 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#59)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:36:49 PM EST
    And then he will demand half their delegates anyways.

    Parent
    yeah, maybe when they are tallying (none / 0) (#149)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:54:09 PM EST
    the vote in november he can come in and demand half the votes cause that's what they wanted to give him in michigan.

    Parent
    He can't relate to them (5.00 / 9) (#39)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:28:06 PM EST
    His advisers are possibly concerned about what he might say. His standard stump speech won't energize the crowds. Besides, he needs to be able to say "of course Hillary won those states, I didn't campaign there".

    Remember, after PA, no more debates. Now, after last week, no campaigning in states where he doesn't have a fighting chance.

    Obama is "winning" this through bullying and declarations. He doesn't need to campaign where he doesn't want to.

    Parent

    Am I wrong? or has everyone forgotten history (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:10:33 PM EST
    Why do I remember that America's plutocrats always found ways to divide the classes with racism and religious differences.  What the Obama campaign is doing is basically following in that path.  If you divide the middle income, the working class, working poor and the poor what do you get?  An easy playground to not get healthcare, worker rights, reform of the legal system, economic justice and tax reform.  

    Of course they are claiming Hillary is the one doing the dividing, but somehow they did not manage to include those folks.  

    I would really love to see Edwards justify supporting Obama.  

    The Creative Class has no class consciousness and or allegiance, they are committed to protecting their privileges.  

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:14:24 PM EST
    ...it seems we finally agree on something.

    Of course they are claiming Hillary is the one doing the dividing, but somehow they did not manage to include those folks.

    Obama is doing a terrible job of reaching out to these various groups right now. All it would take is a few speeches, a little emphasis. But no.

    Parent

    If he had picked up the (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:16:50 PM EST
    Edwards mantle, it would not have cost him anything.  But, this is where we may differ, I don't think he cares about poor people.  (I use poor people because all the other words are just blather)

    Parent
    so who (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by kangeroo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:57:07 PM EST
    does he care about?  i mean, other than himself.

    Parent
    Ted Kennedy is the Unitty Director . . . (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:16:58 PM EST
    Heh... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:34:24 PM EST
    He couldn't even unify Massachusetts for Obama.

    Parent
    I think you're mistaken in this: (5.00 / 8) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:17:00 PM EST
    All it would take is a few speeches, a little emphasis.

    What it would take is a substantive focus. You remember how Hillary tried to emphasize poverty after Edwards dropped out? Obama should do something like that with one of Hillary's key issues. If he could be gotten to, ahem, compromise on healthcare, he might get there.

    Parent

    Addison, I know you are trying (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Kathy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:05:56 PM EST
    but that's the fatal flaw--Obama can't "heal" these rifts with a couple of well-written speeches.

    Going into WVA and KY, meeting these people face to face, shaking their hands--that's how to change minds.  You have to roll up your sleeves and do the work.  You can't sit back and dismiss them.

    Clinton went into NC and campaigned her heart out even though the odds were stacked heavily against her.

    Meanwhile, Obama's rallies aren't as heavily attended at the moment, and I doubt he could draw the huge crowds in rural areas that Clinton is.  Of course, he stopped visiting the rural sections long ago.

    Parent

    Shead The D@mn Suit Pants and Put On Some Jeans (none / 0) (#121)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:42:07 PM EST
    would be my advise when going into small rural areas or to tractor shows for that matter.

    Parent
    Apparently You Didn't See That Pic of obama (1.00 / 0) (#150)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:54:56 PM EST
    on a tractor....try another tack that won't work...he looked so very uncomfortable.

    Parent
    I Did See Obama On The Tractor (none / 0) (#158)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 11, 2008 at 07:00:59 AM EST
    That was one of the reasons I made my comment. IMO going to that type of event wearing a dress shirt and suit pants only emphasizes how much you don't fit in.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Addison on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:45:26 PM EST
    ...that's exactly what I expect Obama to do.

    Parent
    ok, and when the locals start asking (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by hellothere on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:56:52 PM EST
    tough questions, just what will he do? not well would be my guess!

    Parent
    Agree (none / 0) (#160)
    by chrisvee on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:53:26 AM EST
    Obama contrasts poorly with Clinton. She has gone to places where she has to know she's unwelcome just to try to hear their concerns and changes minds.

    Parent
    Edwards did NOT support Obama (none / 0) (#108)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:23:00 PM EST
    Here. Just more triumphalist spin from the OFB.

    When is Obama going to coronate himself, anyhow? I hear there's going to be a party. Will there be balloons? Ponies?

    Parent

    surely there'll be ponies :-) (none / 0) (#139)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:18:50 PM EST
    I think Rev. Wright should go on a milk (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by MarkL on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:10:35 PM EST
    carton. I'm worried about him. I hope he is seen soon.

    I think Obama sent him (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:20:19 PM EST
    and his family on a nice, long vacation in Tahiti. :-)

    Parent
    Check your watch (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:21:33 PM EST
    his 15 minutes may be up.

    Parent
    Until his Fall Book Tour . . . ;) (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:42:29 PM EST
    He ran the clock (none / 0) (#30)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:22:31 PM EST
    My Theory (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Dave B on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:44:53 PM EST
    It may sound like a conspiracy theory, but I believe that the Obama campaign put the Rev. Wright up to going on his shoot his mouth off tour, so that Obama could disown him.

    Call me crazy...

    Parent

    Did it trump the Rezko trial news (none / 0) (#94)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:56:12 PM EST
    ...I haven't heard a word on that event since Rev Wright emerged from his retirement cruise.


    Parent
    Another possible motivation (none / 0) (#100)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:07:53 PM EST
    I've been wondering if the purpose was to agitate the AA community to make sure turnout was high. I'm not convinced that his "denouncements" of Wright are taken seriously his AA supporters because the political expediency is so transparent.

    Parent
    I don't understand this (none / 0) (#162)
    by kayla on Sun May 11, 2008 at 04:27:59 PM EST
    Why would AAs care if Wright was rejected or not?  When Obama said rejected Wright is like rejecting the AA community he was not telling the truth.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:11:17 PM EST
    Hillary /Clinton difference (5.00 / 18) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:18:54 PM EST
    Hillary knew she would get no love from the Black State of the Union, but she showed up.  It was hard but she did  it.  She did not run away.  She also showed up for the MLK event.  Obama did not.  She will deal with the hard things, and not hide.  This aggravates me to no end.  

    Hillary fully understands (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:31:42 PM EST
    in this country, EVERYONE needs their president. She wants to let all citizens know she sees them.


    Parent
    This is what I don't like about O (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:40:58 PM EST
    he follows in the Bush tradition, only some get a president.  

    Parent
    So true (5.00 / 5) (#115)
    by stefystef on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:34:10 PM EST
    and Hillary has gone to many African American functions, even when losing the vote by over 80 percent.

    Now that's bravery and leadership.  Hell, even McCain is going MLK events.  Obama didn't bother to go to Memphis either.

    He has taken advantage of the AA votes, not Hillary.  But it is no those votes that will get him in the White House.

    Parent

    And BTW (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:26:43 PM EST
    I've read that Obama is spending his usual metric as*ton on ads in WV. But we all know that it won't make any difference there.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:29:33 PM EST
    No kidding. That is not smart and the Clinton camp should be prepared to use that as a talking point Tuesday night.

    Parent
    Yup, (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:34:57 PM EST
    See here and here.

    Parent
    I assume wolfson has it revved up for Tuesday (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:36:58 PM EST
    A talking point for the conference call (none / 0) (#63)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:38:18 PM EST
    I'm sure.

    Parent
    So he is campaigning (none / 0) (#92)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:55:13 PM EST
    Just not in person much. It will be much harder to shrug off the loss then.

    So is the swiftboating of McCain beginning? The second article you link to has a bit of McCain "trivia" further down. It asks how many planes McCain crashed before getting to Vietnam (3) and implies he got his command because he was an Admiral's son. I wonder if John Kerry is going to stand by and let his new best bud, Obama, do this his old friend?

    Parent

    Wow... (none / 0) (#155)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:19:58 AM EST
    Now I know McCain's middle name.

    Parent
    The Republican framing (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:29:21 PM EST
    (said after the "bitter-cling" comment:

    "That sentence will lose him the election. He just announced to rural America: 'I don't like you.' Now you can vote against that guy not because you don't like him. You can vote against him because he doesn't like you." - Grover Norquist (ABC News Sneak Peak, 4/11/2008)

    Neglecting these states just "proves" what he's said here.  More fodder for commercials.

    I saw Hillary and Chelsea today!!! (5.00 / 9) (#44)
    by rooge04 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:29:34 PM EST
    In NY. She was amazing and so smart and just spoke off the cuff about everything and Charlie Rangel introduced her and said that why would we ever listen to the media when they are wrong about everything!! I'm still high from it!

    Robinson, Herbert, etc. (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by yourkidding on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:36:32 PM EST
    They would be outraged if they were still paying attention to Hilary.
    They are much too busy preparing for the trouncing that the Repugs will inflict on Obama.

    The 'experts' who are totally in the tank  for
    Obama, will blame the defeat on the 'racism of the white working class'. The worst part of that smear campaign, already ongoing, is that they believe it!

    Does Obama still have time (5.00 / 15) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:43:20 PM EST
    to take his name off the ballot in KY and WVA so he can declare them meaningless, lower voter turnout and try to minimize Hillary's win there?  Or was that tactic a one time only deal?

    He'll have the added bonus then... (5.00 / 9) (#79)
    by ineedalife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:45:37 PM EST
    of demanding half their delegates.

    Parent
    Or 55% of them. (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:51:41 PM EST
    Oh dear. (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:45:59 PM EST
    The very same thought occurred to me earlier today. :-)

    Parent
    Interesting... (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by lilburro on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:46:52 PM EST
    on one hand, Obama does a good job of projecting that he is not your average politican.  On the other hand, moves like this suggest to me he is a much more self-interested politican than others.  It may not be much, but images of a candidate campaigning everywhere, nobly asking for everyone's vote, are comforting to the population.  Maybe the media will blackout his blackout of KY.  But it's odd that the campaigner who went to Montana now won't go to KY for such patently obvious reasons.  I don't think he'll be able to be so transparent in the GE...cherrypicking the United States is smart political strategy, but letting people know you're doing it seems like bad politics.

    It reminds me of Obama's very conscientious election night appearances.  If he is going to lose a state, he leaves it and goes elsewhere.  They've really applied themselves to always seem like winners in the Obama campaign.  And people go along with it because they want Obama to win.  I wonder how good Obama will be at locking down voters in swing states come November.  The GE dynamics are a lot different than his so far mostly well (and stubbornly) designed primary campaign.

    See (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:48:37 PM EST
    Presidential candidates are expected to do this:

    I don't think he'll be able to be so transparent in the GE...cherrypicking the United States is smart political strategy, but letting people know you're doing it seems like bad politics.

    Obama will too, and he'll get away with it because everything he does is good and right to the OFB, and everyone else won't really care.

    Parent

    The McCainstream media (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:49:31 PM EST
    will crucify him for it.

    Take it to the bank.

    Parent

    I'm ignorant (none / 0) (#152)
    by DJ on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:07:13 AM EST
    but what does OFB mean?

    Parent
    Obama Fan Boiz? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Fabian on Sun May 11, 2008 at 08:44:44 AM EST
    My take - not the official def.

    Parent
    It's the Divine Right of the Pundits (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by bridget on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:06:56 PM EST
    Bob Somerby from the DailyHowler does a good job discussing the problems in talking about the white working class yesterday on his blog. Don't miss his piece.

    Excerpt:

    "That said, it looks like we'll be talking about "racial" issues a lot. We think that could be a very good thing. Our general view: Many white liberals have been trained to speak carefully about African-Americans (that's good, for the most part), but not about working-class whites (that's bad). We think the future includes all groups. Indeed, we think that Obama's message."

    It gets better after that. Except for the Divine Pundits, i.e. Robinson et al.

    thanks goodness, for Bob Somerby.

    Sorry, here is the link (none / 0) (#102)
    by bridget on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:09:56 PM EST
    GO HILLARY IN WV AND KENTUCKY! (5.00 / 0) (#141)
    by snucky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:24:45 PM EST
    hillary needs big blowouts in both those states to keep up the narrative.

    I don't get it (1.00 / 6) (#47)
    by Notorious P A T on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:31:13 PM EST
    It's alright for Clinton to say certain states "don't matter" (because they are caucus states, because they border Illinois, etc) but it's wrong for Obama to not campaign in a state he doesn't expect to win?

    Clinton never said that (5.00 / 10) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:34:12 PM EST
    so it is not at all surprising you do not get it.

    Look, let me put it to you bluntly, we do not need folks from Daily Kos coming here to pick fights.

    I do not want you commenting in this thread at all.

    go away now.

    Parent

    I'm banning the Pat person (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:41:12 PM EST
    now.

    Parent
    Actually I came over from Balloon Juice (1.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Notorious P A T on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:39:00 PM EST
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/13/662535.aspx

    "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois?" Chief Strategist Mark Penn said.

    Parent

    Where they enjoy a good sexist joke (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:40:23 PM EST
    Reasoning is the same. Go. Now.

    Parent
    So you lied. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:41:38 PM EST
    It wasn't Clinton who said it.

    And...Penn was talking about the general election, not the primary. Obviously, Obama's electoral map will not include some of the caucus states he won, like Kansas, Utah or Wyoming.

    Nice try though.

    Parent

    BTW (5.00 / 9) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:42:31 PM EST
    "Significant states" does not equal "don't matter."

    But I get the Balloon Juice reality you are working with. Complexity and nuance are not the forte there.

    In any event, run back to Poppa John and whine about how mean I was to you.

    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#54)
    by madamab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:34:52 PM EST
    Nice one. :-)

    Parent
    Obama is weak with the working class (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:37:50 PM EST
    And all he's doing by ignoring these states is compounding his weakness.

    Delusional people will tell you that he can win without the working class.  Those people are wrong.

    Parent

    Exactly what I was thinking (1.00 / 2) (#75)
    by fuzzyone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:43:25 PM EST
    I do think this is a mistake for Obama, just as it was a mistake for Clinton to ignore so many states earlier on.  

    Its absurd for her supports to express this outrage after the way she treated so many states.  Maybe she would be winning now if she had campaigned in a few more states.

    Clinton is going to pay for her mistake by losing the nomination. (For those who missed it Obama took the lead in superdelegates).  

    What, if anything, this will cost Obama remains to be seen.  It does seem to reflect a lack of confidence that he has the nomination tied up, which is hard to understand.  It may be that they have been locked in this tight race for so long they are having trouble shifting gears.  While spending time in WV and KY might bring more attention to the loss I think the cost of that at this point is minimal.

    Parent

    You were thinking a lie too? (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:48:22 PM EST
    I should have started a separate thread (none / 0) (#125)
    by fuzzyone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:47:43 PM EST
    My point was not about the "states don't matter" comment.  Its acting as if certain states don't matter, which Obama is doing now and Clinton did early on.  There were a number of states where she did not expect to win and acted much the way Obama now is.  I think it was a mistake for her and is a mistake for him.

    Parent
    Super Delegates are rushing to Obama (none / 0) (#61)
    by ajain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:37:04 PM EST
    I just find this annoying. I don't see why they can't wait until June 3rd. I mean after that they can go to him.
    They should just wait and let all the primaries end. There will be enough time after that to unite the party and take on John McCain. I mean we shouldn't be getting all over-worked. Besides its all very disrespectful to Clinton and her supporters.

    They've got to jump on the bandwagon before ... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by dwmorris on Sun May 11, 2008 at 12:52:01 AM EST
    the big victory celebration on May 20th. It'll be harder to suck up to Obama after he's declared himself the winner of the Democratic nomination.

    Parent
    I've seen that milk carton before (none / 0) (#90)
    by Step Beyond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:53:41 PM EST
    Obama milk carton picture

    They were already looking for most of the Dems in Florida. :D

    Good one (none / 0) (#124)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:44:35 PM EST
    Thanks.

    Parent
    Oh Please (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:57:24 PM EST
    When your comment has been deleted, do not repost it.