Obama's Problem With Older Voters

Barack Obama's coalition of young voters, African Americans, and higher income white voters is apparently good enough to win the Democratic nomination. But will it win in November? Andrew Kohut discusses Obama's electoral deficiencies with older voters against John McCain:

Interestingly, older voters — many of whom supported Democrats over the years — seem reluctant to support Mr. Obama. Hillary Clinton has carried the vote of people over 65 in 26 primary elections. And looking forward to the general election, the national polls now show John McCain running better against Mr. Obama among this older age group — as well as among middle-aged voters and younger voters.

Furthermore, while Barack Obama’s appeal to young people coincides with their greater inclination to support Democrats, older voters do not show a greater allegiance to the Republican party that might explain their current voting intentions.

What Kohut is saying here is that it is not a question of older voters having more affinity for Republicans and John McCain. They seem not to like Barack Obama and his Movement. In many ways, that is not surprising. That triumphalism of the young voter, the seeming desire to sweep out the old could be taken personally by older voters. This may be a difficult needle for Obama to thread. More . . .

Kohut continues:

In a recent analysis, Pew’s Scott Keeter observed that while the current generation of young voters, who came of age during the George W. Bush years, is leading the way in giving the Democrats a wide advantage in party identification, no particular Republican trend is seen among older voters. . . . [O]verall today’s older voters’ partisan inclinations mirror the national average, which has been leaning Democratic.

This is about Barack Obama and his Movement for older voters, not the Democratic Party:

A look at recent Pew polls finds that the oldest and youngest blocs of voters come to very different personal judgments about Senators Obama and McCain. Fewer seniors, just 43 percent, hold a favorable view of Mr. Obama. Similarly, only 43 percent of voters under 30 have a positive personal view of Mr. McCain, well below his ratings among the rest of the electorate.

Unlike young and middle-aged voters, older voters appear far less captivated by the Obama persona. Many fewer of them say he is inspiring or down-to-earth, while more call him arrogant and hard to like.

. . . The personal and social resistance of older voters to the party’s likely nominee could well keep a Democrat out of the White House and reverse the nationwide Democratic trend.

I wonder what the Creative Class will think about that.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed

< Obama Advisor Resigns Over Ties to Hamas Meetings | LATimes GE Poll: Clinton Beats McCain By 9, Obama Wins By 6 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • The creative class (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by smott on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:42:11 AM EST
    ...will blame Hillary.

    True dat (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by annabelly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:47:19 AM EST
    Look for Hillary voters to become the new Nader voters in terms of the contempt coming from Obama supporters when he loses. They'll claim they are "Democrats" of course, but we now know they are really the Obama party. They'll squeak out another lose come November if they win the nomination. Democrats keep losing because the leadership refuses to learn anything.

    Older voters (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:43:00 AM EST
    definitely know the value of experience and know that there is no substitute for the real deal.

    3 years as a senator is simply not enough experience to be president.

    Kennedy's remark about Hillary not having leadership for the VP position was astounding in its stupidity.  Her experience and command over the issues is precisely why she won the older voters.

    Obama can't win them because he lacks that quality.  It's transparent.

    Now, if he wants to do a bit of pandering?  :)

    Technically one year (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by annabelly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:48:58 AM EST
    Since he's been running for a year and a half by his own admission. His third anniversary isn't even until January 2009.

    Uh, Ted (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Athena on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:08:31 AM EST
    Remember that McGovern lost with the help of a VP from the Kennedy family - Sargent Shriver.

    I advise Ted to stay out of VP advising right now.  


    Speaking of astounding stupidity (3.00 / 2) (#28)
    by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:00:18 AM EST
    Bob Herbert:

    There was a name for it when the Republicans were using that kind of lousy rhetoric to good effect: it was called the Southern strategy, although it was hardly limited to the South. Now the Clintons, in their desperation to find some way -- any way -- back to the White House, have leapt aboard that sorry train.

    He can't win! Don't you understand? He's black! He's black!

    The Clintons have been trying to embed that gruesomely destructive message in the brains of white voters and superdelegates for the longest time. It's a grotesque insult to African-Americans, who have given so much support to both Bill and Hillary over the years.

    (Representative Charles Rangel of New York, who is black and has been an absolutely unwavering supporter of Senator Clinton's White House quest, told The Daily News: "I can't believe Senator Clinton would say anything that dumb.")

    But it's an insult to white voters as well, including white working-class voters. It's true that there are some whites who will not vote for a black candidate under any circumstance. But the United States is in a much better place now than it was when people like Richard Nixon, George Wallace and many others could make political hay by appealing to the very worst in people, using the kind of poisonous rhetoric that Senator Clinton is using now.

    I don't know if Senator Obama can win the White House. No one knows. But to deliberately convey the idea that most white people -- or most working-class white people -- are unwilling to give an African-American candidate a fair hearing in a presidential election is a slur against whites.

    All evidence (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:06:27 AM EST
    points to Obama losing the election. Playing the race card by the Obama campaign has only made the racial divide worse.

    I know, I know, we aren't supposed to talk about Obama's problems. We are just supposed to turn up the music and put our headsets on and tune out everything else. Whatever.


    What Obama Wanted (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by Athena on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:14:47 AM EST
    But I thought that Obama wanted a national conversation on race - why can't that include the current electoral divide that is apparent from the primaries?  Which is what Hillary pointed out.

    Is Obama the only person in the U.S. who is allowed to talk about race?


    I personally (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:19:05 AM EST
    have found that 'national conversation' to be more of a one-way monologue than a conversation thus far.

    Yup (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:24:57 AM EST
    It's almost funny how NOT transcendent the Obama campaign has been on the issue of sexism, racism, and ageism.

    Omigod, can you spell dysfunctional thinking?  :)


    mutlitasking is a challenge (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:27:39 AM EST
    women can do it.  (snark)..

    Actually a monologue that resembles a scolding.  It's basically the victim is allowed to say anything, the alleged offender is not allowed to say anything.  Cause anything the offender says, will be used against him/her.  


    very true (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Josey on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:26:05 AM EST
    and I would never vote for a candidate that has purposely smeared an opponent with false accusations of racism and race-baiting!

    Obama could do the same in the WH and like Rove, leave no fingerprints.


    Purposely smeared? (1.00 / 6) (#113)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:30:31 AM EST
    The Clinton's have done it to themselves... if anything, Obama tried hard to stay away from being a racial candidate...

    But you cant see that... thats very sad


    When Bill said that Obama's surrogates (5.00 / 5) (#118)
    by andgarden on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:32:58 AM EST
    had played the race card on him, he was "committing candor." They had, clearly.

    It's been a consistent theme of the Obama campaign.


    And you are ignoring the (5.00 / 4) (#173)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:44:34 AM EST
    fact that we all saw the race memo put out by Obama on how to stir up racial anger.

    Until that's acknowedlged, then it's impossible to truly discuss this with you because it's obvious denial of the facts.


    Raheem, why do you insist on pushing these (5.00 / 6) (#234)
    by Anne on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:04:31 AM EST
    falsehoods?  I mean, you can come here and throw them around, but there are very few people here who don't know the truth.

    The Clintons (and please note: the plural of "Clinton" is "Clintons") have not "done it to themselves;" they have been in the unpleasant position of going up against a candidate whose surrogates and supporters - with a little help from Mr. Shoulder-Brushing - have made it their mission to take pretty much everything Hillary and Bill Clinton say, filter it through a racial lens and decide it is racist - and that is expected to be the last word on the subject.  

    The Clintons have become subject to the racial version of "When did you stop beating your wife?" - I know that, many of us here know that, and by golly - I think Senator Obama knows that.  I have seen no evidence of Obama making any attempt to rein in the divisive language, and his pathetic attempts to say that she is an admirable woman are delivered as if he must bite his tongue to stop himself from saying what the really wants to say.

    I would be most curious to know what it would have meant for Obama to be a "racial candidate;" I suspect that you think it means he hasn't overtly used race, but he hasn't had to - he's had others who have done that for him.  If you mean that he has avoided going into black communities - which he has - and avoided advertising on black media - which he has - then, sure, he's avoided associating himself with and reaching out to the black community.  My question is why?  Was it so he would not be seen as "too" black?  Was it because he assumed he would automatically get their votes?  Guess that was it, because in spite of pretty much pretending there is no black community, he's gotten 90% of their votes.  Pretty good deal - he got the votes without having the media filled with images of him surrounded by black people.  I don't know, I guess I just never thought "post-racial" meant ignoring an entire segment of the electorate.

    What saddens me, Raheem, is that I have a feeling that the white woman would actually do more to address the needs of the black community than the black man who seems afraid to acknowledge they even exist.

    Please - stop peddling misinformation; it won't sell here.


    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 5) (#133)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:37:13 AM EST
    Is Obama the only person in the U.S. who is allowed to talk about race?



    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:42:21 AM EST
    Rev. Wright is also exempt, don't forget.

    Im sorry (1.00 / 4) (#105)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:29:28 AM EST
    But has Obama criticized Clinton's comments?

    and if you really believe Hillary's intention is to have a convo on race, then you are acting foolish and delusional...


    Sorry (1.00 / 4) (#46)
    by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:09:56 AM EST
    "hard-working Americans, white Americans,"

    That card came directly from Hillary's deck.


    I read today (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:12:27 AM EST
    she apologized for that

    You're (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:12:40 AM EST
    ignoring everything that has happened previously to that like the SC memo. And screeching this kind of stuff is just going to turn off even more voters to Obama.

    what's wrong with citing polling data?? (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by Josey on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:23:53 AM EST
    Hillary shouldn't apologize for saying the white working class won't vote for Obama. The polling data proves it.
    Obama said it himself at a private fundraiser with his Billionaire donors.
    Obama's ignorance and arrogance is knowing he can't get the white vote but continuing to "brush Hillary off" the bottom of his shoe.

    And the white vote doesn't necessarily equal racism - but older white voters who recognize Obama is a media creation.


    The numbers are racist (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:36:34 AM EST
    Even mentioning polling data about racial voting patterns is racist. What's wrong with you, mentioning them? You've trangressed the unwritten law.

    I don't believe what she said came out well (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Burned on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:36:02 AM EST
    I DO believe she is guiltier of using run on sentences rather than playing a race card. It's really no different than the one the media keeps pounding into the ground regarding the black and college educated vote for Obama vs the white, older, uneducated, working class, menopausal, and democratic leaning independent votes for Clinton.
    That is not a description of one type of voter.

    She's right about having a broader base.


    Because of this stuff (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by nellre on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:07:04 AM EST
    That kind of crap is all over the place.
    Last night on CNN it was sickening.

    They say stuff like that and then smugly assure themselves the the HRC voters will return to "the fold" in November.

    We should give them a good scare. If all 15 million who voted for HRC re-registered as independents, do you think that might make it on somebody's radar?


    Defection (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Athena on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:12:33 AM EST
    Interesting idea.

    Not defection (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by annabelly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:44:18 AM EST
    Just voting "present." :-)

    Re-registering is not defection (5.00 / 3) (#261)
    by nellre on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:15:09 AM EST
    As an independent you can vote your conscience.

    By re-registering we'd actually be doing what Brazile, Kos etc. have requested... because we HRC supporters are no long welcome in the party.

    It would be a non-malignant way of speaking out.


    Yeah, that's (5.00 / 5) (#188)
    by frankly0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:48:56 AM EST
    what's absurd about these idiots like Herbert going on and on making up charges of racism and continuing to slime Hillary, even though her chances to win at this time are so very slim.

    They really seem to believe that they can lecture voters into supporting Obama -- the very voters that they themselves argue harbor racist attitudes. They seem to believe that calling out their supposed racism is a great way to "bring them into the fold".

    What they don't seem to grasp is how much voters resent being called racists when they don't like Obama for different reasons. They don't seem to grasp that holding themselves out as morally superior to the voters whose vote you need is not a winning tactic.

    Where's the unity in all this? The transcendence? The ability to bring groups together?

    It's all a disgusting fraud.


    I agree (5.00 / 6) (#221)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:58:27 AM EST
    As my older, white, Hillary-supporting neighbor said to me the other day:  "I never realized they hated me so much." This is a woman who adopted and raised two AA babies that were crack-damaged. She was near tears. The ugly racial bullying in this campaign needs to stop. It has done a lot of damage even in my integrated neighborhood. On the national scale, the horror of it will be felt for decades to come IMHO.

    So much for unity, and my quaint MLK-loving hippie roots.


    Not discussing the issues (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:09:46 AM EST
    such as ageism and the racial divide is irresponsible.  Contrary to the charges that many are lodging that Hillary was irresponsible, the fact is that the numbers speak for themselves.  It's ridiculous to not discuss the obvious.

    That's dysfunctional to expect an entire country to pretend not to see what is obvious.  That's requiring mass delusion for the sake of not making someone ill-at-ease because the topic is off-limits.

    Nothing good ever comes from trying to repress the truth.


    its ok to say adnauseum that black voters (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by thereyougo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:11:10 AM EST
    flock en masse to BO, but Hillary says working class white voters go to her and its dumb.

    The double standard is insulting my intelligence.

    and btw, working class white voters are the emerging new majority seeing as the high information class is shrinking, remnants of what used to be the middle class.


    Bingo! (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:30:34 AM EST
    I've wondered why that hasn't been discussed, frankly.

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#156)
    by pixelpusher on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:42:05 AM EST
    This part:

    working class white voters are the emerging new majority seeing as the high information class is shrinking

    Yes, unfortunately the Obamists (I call them this to separate them from ordinary Obama supporters who don't care about a "movement") are whistling past the graveyard when it comes to this.

    Their numbers aren't growing.  They're shrinking.  But, if they just squawk loud enough on the blogs, they can listen to that echo chamber and believe.  I think this is a fantasy they need to cling to -- that "the world is changing" and that they're "coming into their own."  That pie they're in line for a piece of, is shrinking fast.  And soon they -- the Obamists -- will be fighting among themselves for it.

    This generation, sadly, has inherited the wind.


    Rangel's right about that comment... (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:20:47 AM EST
    ..it was dumb. She was searching for a way to say it that it wouldn't come out so bad, but it didn't work. But to me its really only a sign of the climate we are in for with Obama. Everything will be a "gaffe" with this heightened hypersensitivity. Racism is real, I've seen it and it stinks. But still, working class white people do have a right to be listened to. If they are marginalized and made to feel like the dirty little secret that must not be brought up, then the race card will be played very effectively by the Republican party. Obama supporters can continue to blame the Clintons for that if it makes them feel good. It won't change the  result, though.

    Herbert's column (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by frankly0 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:30:39 AM EST
    is just more of his by now infamous sliming of the Clintons -- reaching all the way down to bringing in Hillary's brother to try to produce a smear.

    Yes, Hillary's comment was very unfortunate. But to call it racist is just to make stuff up.

    What was she trying to say? Merely what everybody who's following the campaign knows: that white working class voters won't vote for Obama. Is there, in that statement, anything that entails racism? How about the idea that they don't support him because they don't believe that he has sympathy with them and their culture, or because they don't believe he has anything beyond rhetoric to offer them, and they need solutions? How about they don't support him for any of a variety of reasons having nothing to do with race, but that, for them, his race is not a positive reason to support him, as it is for blacks, and perhaps even some whites?

    Now I can easily imagine why, on the spur of the moment, Hillary would have said what she did. She's trying to talk about the group supporting her: working class whites. She starts to praise them as "hard working", in the way a politician would. Then she realizes that she has to mention that they are white as well, because, obviously, it's not true that hard working blacks are supporting her. So she blurts out "white". Suddenly, the whole construct sounds terrible, in the way gaffes do. (And in fact her blurting out "white" might have been in response to a sense that if she didn't identify this group as white, then it would sound terrible likewise -- had she not said "white", it would likewise sound as if she did not think blacks were hard working -- I mean, she's talking about "hard working" voters supporting her, and everyone knows that blacks don't support her, so doesn't that imply that blacks aren't hard working?)


    What Will The "Creative Class" Say (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:44:53 AM EST
    about that?

    If they are being polite, they will say that us old folks don't know what we are talking about when we say that Obama has a major problem with seniors.

    Their other less polite responses make seniors even less likely to vote for Obama.

    Creative and old apparently do not mix (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Kahli on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:07:47 AM EST
    Many of the creative class bloggers have pointedly stated that because old voters support Hillary more than Obama, it is proof that Obama is the better candidate. Don't want to be associated with fogies when your new and hip and real.

    Many comments have been made about the sexism and racism of the race, but the blatant ageism has been nearly ignored.


    unless those old fogies pay.... (5.00 / 7) (#92)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:24:56 AM EST
    ...your credit card bills.

    It can't be called voting (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Lahdee on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:28:47 AM EST
    against my best interests, as with the Reagan Democrats, so what's an older Democrat to do?
    I'll concentrate on my local races and keep my powder dry. Heh, dry powder, how ironic.
    You want the older vote 'O' man, move past the instant gratification you're feeling now and jump on the experience express.

    when I used to read DK, Fred Thompson (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by thereyougo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:13:44 AM EST
    was called grampa, which I thought was funny, well he was a grampa, but still.

    In some cultures (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by Kahli on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:18:48 AM EST
    being called grandpa would be considered an honor.  In this election cycle it is meant to be a slur.

    the creative class will deny that sexism and (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by kimsaw on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:22:35 AM EST
    ageism is prevalent among their ranks, just like they offer that Obama is the post racial candidate. They live in perpetual fog.

    The way in which Clinton has been treated by the MSM, Obama, his surrogates is just a replay of the historical right, only the right,now, is at least complimentary of Clinton's expertise.

    The increased number of "below 40" business groups established in struggling communities is evidence of the exclusivity and a new form of discrimination that pits the young against the old. We have learned nothing as a culture. Out with the old in with the new is running rampant. A prime example in the business world is how Home Depot under Bob Nardelli attempted to restructure its business by dispensing with higher paid, older management and skilled workforce. They favored inexperienced up and comers with college degrees only to see their business suffer. They even discarded the qualified plumbers and electrician  whose knowledge generated add on sales for their bottom line. Those folks were traded for inexperience sales staff and capped wages via the GE six sigma formula that did not convert to the realities on the ground in a retail industry. The unity of ideas was not in the cards. Obama and his surrogates do not represent unity if they freely dismiss the white working class.  If he, like Nardelli, is throwing out the old with the new failure can be foreseen. A marriage of ideas is important, the new together with the old balances the movement for change in government practices.  If Obama and the Democrats are truly serious about governing and winning a unity ticket with Clinton is in order.


    They think he isn't ready (5.00 / 10) (#6)
    by goldberry on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:45:14 AM EST
    I talked to a bunch of them in PA when I was phone banking.  They made it very clear to me that they had no problems with his race.  The problem was that they had apparently watched the debate and found him completely green and unready.  More than one told me they wish he had waited.  
    I wouldn't be surprised if this is why Obama refused to do any more debates.  Voters are paying attention this year and they can correctly assess the strengths and deficiencies of both candidates in debate.  Obama loses every single time.  If he had debated before NC and IN, his margins might have been smaller in NC and he may have lost big time in IN.  
    Hillary should consider running ads with outtakes from the debates.

    *nodding* (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:47:26 AM EST
    It's not a race issue at all.  We have excellent sociological data showing that Americans have definitely changed attitudes regarding race in this generation.  

    It's his lack of depth.  What they might now say out loud is that they don't want to see someone that green in charge of our military.

    I think that's a valid worry, personally.


    thats what is insulting to some of us (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by thereyougo on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:16:32 AM EST
    who want to advance this subject.

    there has been successes that AAs can be proud of and society as a whole can take credit that we're moving forward.


    Who can hear seniors (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by kmblue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:45:57 AM EST
    from their position under the bus?

    Best black humor of the day! (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:53:02 AM EST
    I'm afraid (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by kmblue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:55:26 AM EST
    the day is young.
    But thanks for your kind praise. ;-)

    No need to guess (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Pootsteen on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:46:33 AM EST
    Obama proposes that we raise the cap on income to fund the shortfall. An easy fix really. I remember when I had a job with a larger salary, that around Nov my check got a little bigger. Confused, I asked why. I was told that there was no SS withholding above a certain income.

    Obama is NOT for privitization. All SS needs is a little boost in funding and for the GOV to stop using the funds for the war.

    And Social Security (none / 0) (#280)
    by vigkat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:44:21 PM EST
    currently is NOT in a crisis, which is exactly the right-wing terminology used by Obama.  Using Republican dog-whistle framing was not the wisest thing to do, and it did not seem accidental or inadvertant.  

    Is it really permissible to mention (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:47:05 AM EST
    Obama's lack of appeal to older voters?  Just wondering since it has become utterly impolite to mention his lack of support in the working-class white demographic.  

    The "triumphalism of the young voter" is a scary trend and it reminds me oh too well of the 60s.

    Good point (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by annabelly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:58:56 AM EST
    Which I've been thinking about for a while. His campaign has positively resurrected the 60's counter-cultural wars. Kind of turns Andrew Sullivan's thinking on it's head, eh? (not that that was terribly hard to do).

    The weird thing is all the boomers throwing their own generation under the bus. My father-in-law is a perfect example. He's an old hippie and he's voting for Obama because of all the youth supposedly surrounding him. I have a theory that these types of people have never grown up, and still insist (in their minds, anyway) that they were right and they got crushed. Now they are delighted to see their inner-children resurrected and their former thinking finally validated by their children or grandchildren. It's a twisted kind of youth-worship where they are actually worshiping the conjured image of themselves.

    That kind of solipsism is exactly why I have always bemoaned the fact that I am in the generation following the juggernaut that is the boomers. I continue to be trampled by their hysteria and their constant parental wars. They are still fighting their mothers and fathers.


    Children of the Corn? (5.00 / 8) (#47)
    by Athena on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:10:16 AM EST
    Yes, I think it's an electoral version of sneaking a joint at 60 and being cool.  Plus all the parents "led" to Obama by their children?  Creepy.

    I know a lot of older people (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:13:44 AM EST
    like your father-in-law because I live in the Bay Area.   Your description of their "solipsism" and "hysteria" is quite on point and it sounds like you've lived through some of the challenges posed by your times.

    This "older" voter is very disenchanted with the 2008 race and very alienated from the Obama movement.  It will be a grudging vote at best, but I will show up in November to vote for the Democrat.  I will do this only out of respect for the Supreme Court.


    I'd urge you to (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by dk on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:50:35 AM EST
    at least keep an open mind at this point regarding the supreme court argument.

    If Obama wins the nomination, remember that means Hillary will still be in the Senate.  So, the issue then becomes whether you trust Obama to actually appoint reasonable judges to the supreme court (which I do not, given that he has adopted republican talking points on issues ranging from health care to energy policy to women's reproductive rights and gay equality) or whether you trust Hillary to help lead the charge to filibuster egregious McCain appointees.  


    Actually, this is the one area (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:04:58 AM EST
    in which I have no qualms about Obama.  I think he will appoint very good, liberal to moderate Supreme Court justices who won't tinker with women's reproductive rights.

    As for counting on a Democratic senate to filibuster McCain's appointments: no way.  The Dems have shown they have no backbone.


    Heh...that is true (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:19:30 AM EST
    the real hippie dippies, particularly here in Berkeley, are in Nirvana.  I tell you, it's like their middle years when they went corporate and send their kids to private schools, will be absolved.  They will be cleansed.  

    The same mentality.... (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:41:38 AM EST
    ... that all the creative class types like WKJM, Yglesias, et al, are cleansed from supporting the war by supporting Obama.

    The poor bastard is going to be carrying a lot of weight if he ever makes it into office.


    If McCain Tried To (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:50:03 AM EST
    privatize Social Security, the Dems would fight him tooth and nail to it. If Obama tried to privatize Social Security, I don't know if they would be as strongly opposed or as effective in beating back the effort.

    That's what scares me (5.00 / 7) (#18)
    by Davidson on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:51:39 AM EST
    Obama can divide the left like no Republican would dare even try.  Against the GOP, we're united; against Obama, we're divided and conquered.

    Yep n/t (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:53:57 AM EST
    Well, I'm an older voter (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by chancellor on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:54:09 AM EST
    and no, I'm not swayed by the "come to Jesus" rhetoric of Obama and his supporters. Why? Too many elections, too many promises not kept (and Obama's not even making promises we can evaluate). We're cynical, we older voters, because we really have seen more of the game being played. I also think that many of us grew up with a greater sense of civic responsibility-- and by that I mean that we were taught that political and community involvement was an obligation of being part of society, not a fad for the moment, or something you did as a member of a college fraternity to offset the idea that fraternities were all about socializing. We take seriously those politicians who take politics seriously, because we know that our welfare, and the welfare of those around us, depends upon it. Just my two cents.

    I laugh (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:01:33 AM EST
    when they run on change.  Imagine my surprise this year to see people swooning over that old hackneyed platform.  :)

    Lost his bearings (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by nellre on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:57:54 AM EST
    Obama's ageist jab at McCain.
    Sometime bright young folks think old folks have nothing to offer. That's why they're only bright.
    Obama is only bright.

    Bright learns by experience
    Genius learns by the experience of others

    "lost his bearings" (2.33 / 3) (#55)
    by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:13:23 AM EST
    has nothing to do with one's age nor one's faculties. It's about one's capacity to track a course and reach a destination.

    Look it up.


    And fairy tale doesn't mean racist either. (5.00 / 9) (#87)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:24:05 AM EST
    But yes, let's be literal now.

    Oh, snap! (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:39:26 AM EST
    Well said, Maria.

    "Lose one's bearings:" (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:24:08 AM EST

    to become bewildered.

    Or, according to Websters :
    To lose one's bearings
    to become bewildered

    Nothing to do with age...sure, sure.


    Sure (none / 0) (#108)
    by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:29:39 AM EST
    to become uncertain of one's position



    Older voters value experience (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by stillife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:59:21 AM EST
    They've been around the block a few times and lived through many political cycles.  They're not going to be seduced by the "Change" mantra b/c they know from experience that change can be either good or bad.  Democratic older voters are likely to resent Obama's dissing of the Clinton years and invoking of Reagan as an agent of change.

    That said, there are always exceptions to the rule.  My 82-year-old mother is a strong Obama supporter and my kids (18 and 22) are Hillary supporters.  

    BTD (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:02:34 AM EST
    it seems that more and more evidence is pointing to the fact that Obama is simply unelectable. No matter how bad things are for the GOP people simply don't want Obama as President.

    The message here is that the voters that are more likely to show up on election day are the ones that are more likely to vote for McCain.

    I've seen this show before. It was called Bush I vs. Dukakis. I'm not looking forward to the rerun. I guess the best we can hope for with Obama as the nominee that he doesn't literally kill every downticket race.

    I'm not that old (5.00 / 8) (#35)
    by pixelpusher on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:05:54 AM EST
    I'm 40 and I feel the same way.  Am I too young for this attitude?  Don't know, but I am pretty much my aging mother's only source of financial and emotional support and every time I read the ageist crap spewing from the bloggerati, I want to slam them.  And then there are the ones who, when you press them for details about their parents, it turns out they have serious "daddy" or "mommy" issues.

    Look:  If you can't go home and visit your parents for the weekend and have a rational conversation about your issues over Sunday dinner, what makes you think you're qualified to tell a nation of older voters what to do and how to think and how to vote?  Wow, so you're so enlightened that you left your Podunk town and your stodgy Republican working-class dad  behind, and you dread going back for Thanksgiving... well, big fat hairy deal.  Solve your own parent issues before you start projecting them on the entire country, ObamaKinz.

    I've been shocked (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:06:51 AM EST
    at the disrespect shown to older voters by Obama supporters, but I don't know why I keep getting shocked at this point - disrespect towards so many kinds of people seems to be par for the course these days. Sometimes I wonder what kind of role models these people had, I really do. It's just not OK with me to personally insult so many different kinds of people. It goes hand-in-hand with the sexist slurs.

    This morning, on a 'progressive' blog that shall remain nameless, I saw a comment about McCain that was one of the nastiest comments I've ever seen (and that's saying a lot) - including phrases like 'cancer-covered skinny ass', 'feeble deranged brain', 'white-haired death walker', etc. It's just unbelievable out there.

    I'm no McCain fan, believe me, but there's really no need to talk this way or engage in these insulting personal attacks.

    Tonedeafness on so many levels. It's really no wonder that older voters are turned off. I know they don't read these blogs, but I do believe the general attitude ('we don't need your feeble as**s) percolates up through the media and other outlets as well.

    The Obama camp (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by stillife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:13:58 AM EST
    not saying all of them, but many of them, have a dismissive attitude towards constituencies (blue-collar whites, women, seniors) who have not been voting for him.  They don't seem to get that a political candidate needs to court voters, not dismiss them as ignorant, racist or over-the-hill.  

    Hillary has said many times that she's asking us to hire her for the most important job in the world.  I don't get that vibe from the Obama campaign.  It's more like, "If you're not on the bus, you're off the bus!"  Not a unifying message, IMO.


    My mom would straighten you right out (1.00 / 7) (#182)
    by Defeat McCain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:47:21 AM EST
    She is 70, an author, traveled the world much like Barack Obama's mama, a feminist, and she loves Obama. You know its funny how old people should be offended because young people are mean to them but young people shouldn't be mad because old people like Hillary Clinton have gotten more than 4000 of them killed in Iraq.

    Strange. I guess you all were Nixon supporters and Goldwater girls like Hillary when you were younger, so you don't understand the anti-war movement.


    Um.. (5.00 / 5) (#248)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:10:37 AM EST
    Hillary is not old by my definition.

    And I am definitely not old. Certainly nowhere near old enough to have been able to support Nixon or Goldwater.

    But thanks for yet again demonstrating the classless and divisive assumptions about people that Obama supporters are so prone to making.


    I ThinK You Should Change You User (5.00 / 1) (#265)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:17:33 AM EST
    name to ElectMcCain because your efforts here in behalf of Obama are counterproductive.

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#270)
    by annabelly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:21:31 AM EST
    This from the side claiming such former Republicans as Markos and Arianna!

    I swear, I am so writing that neoliberlism post that's been peculating in my brain. Identifying the characteristics will be the first ask. Projection is classic neoconservatism, and so it has a place in the liberal mirror that is the Obamaverse.


    I've noticed (none / 0) (#58)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:13:53 AM EST
    the perculating factor, too.

    Well we've known this since NH but sensitive Dems (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Salt on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:07:05 AM EST
    can't handle factual analysis with out going all weak at the knees and start calling names.  Watching these fools on cable yesterday again with the race card ohh Hillary played the race card and implied threats that she better not...or ya know tsk tsk ...I for one do not want this  nilly weak victim persona in Leaders running this country. Another Teddy Kennedy loser from his good ole boy stable is not good for this country..  If McCain wanted to really change the landscape of politics as usual and break the rancid grid lock the two Parties have on putting out puppets as nominee, he should woo Hillary to his ticket build a real coalition from middle America instead of the from the intolerant wings. The teatment of Hillary and her husbands legacy as well as Kennedy's snaky insulting comment yesterday during this Primary lacking any civility gives her permission to drop the Party and win the White House for us even on a McCain ticket if she choose.

    And that's not just the White House Dems are giving up by crowning Obama instead of having him win the Base it's the return to oblivion what about we American's do not want a Social Justice Liberal platform in power running this country since JFK was killed cant be understood.

    Goodness.. (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:15:29 AM EST
    you're a true radical thinker.

    Boy, wouldn't that be something to see?

    McCain/Clinton.  LOL*

    Try talking about changing partisanship politics against THAT ticket!  :)


    I've seen this topic here before... (5.00 / 13) (#66)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:15:58 AM EST
    Where was it?

    Oh yeah, in the diary I posted here about 30 hours or so ago...


    Obama doesn't just "not do well" among older voters, his numbers are disasterous.

    And the reason should be obvious -- the messaging of the Obama campaign couldn't be more alienating to older voters if it had been designed specifically to piss them off.

    You want to send a subliminal message telling older voters that you think they are worthless?
    Emphasize "new" voters and a "new" coalition.

    You want to have older voters question whether you'd be a good president?  Make "change" your mantra, but make sure that the nature of he "change" is completely amorphous.  Older voters have lived throgh lots of "change" and know that "change" is not a virtue in and of itself.  They want to know exactly what you intend to change, and how it will affect them.

    You want older voters do wonder if you are really on their side?  Use Republican framing like "Social Security crisis" on issues they care about.  

    And if you really want to alienate older voters, treat the working class with contempt and derision.  Older voters created the middle class as we know it -- most of the more senior ones most of them were born into the 'working class', and most of the rest had parents who came from working class backgrounds.  

    Add it all up, add a dollup of identity politics (John McCain is over 70), add a little pandering to older voters by McCain, and Obama (and the Democratic Party) can wave buh-bye to a very big chunk of support that has been key to every Democratic party politician's success since the New Deal.

    You got it! (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:23:48 AM EST
    Great post.....thanks.

    A natural, normal: McCain's Mama scored big pts (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Ellie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:23:49 AM EST
    He scored big by saying he wouldn't kick anyone's @ss for calling him old -- he'd let his Mama do it, and there she was, actually looking like she would, too!

    The problem with TeamObama's haste to write off groups that don't serve the immediate purpose of flattering the "youth" vote or desperate, validation seeking "Creative Class"* is that that kind of shallow trendiness evaporates quickly when the product under it shows itself to be the same crappy old thing, maybe even crappier. (eg, Doin' the Dew!; Drink Sprite, the Ghetto Soft Drink!; Starblechs coffee. Ugh, whoever thought up the genius move of dosing perfectly innocent espresso beans with caramel fakery deserves to be punished by being forced to drink it at the current cost.)

    *I hope they hang onto the term because it's so genuinely enjoyable. Really, Creative Class? That's the best you could do to represent your faction in Teh New Coolness? It's as efficiently self-rebutting as White Supremacist, Compassionate Conservative or Jumbo Shrimp.

    McCain's mom is cute..... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:26:32 AM EST
    ...she made me feel young. LOL. I love David Letterman's mom too.

    The Conformist Class (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by Athena on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:27:04 AM EST
    And the Creative Class has entrenched Hillary-hatred as its animating sensibility - so much so that it's utterly conformist.

    Perhaps many older voters remember this.... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by SunnyLC on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:27:46 AM EST
    "Germany Marks 75th Anniversary of Book Burnings"


    Watch this BBC video and reflect on the pressures being exerted by the Democratic party et al to stop the democratic process of voting in the primaries.

    It's scary...

    PS--I also honor librarians in this short blog post....

    Obama put Social Security in play... (5.00 / 10) (#106)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:29:29 AM EST
    ... in Iowa, IIRC as part of his rightward slide to draw republican voters (it worked) into Democratic primaries, and to differentiate himself from Hillary. Atrios called him on it at the time. Since the entire Village wants to privatize Social Security, putting it in play amounts to opening the door to privatization -- as the blogosphere argued when we all beat Bush on the issue.

    The responses here all boil down to look at Obama's web site. That's just silly. We hold candidates accountable for policies and promises, not websites. So the dogwhistle in Iowa matters far more to me than the website.

    Further, if there's one thing we've learned from dealing our experience with Bush, it's look to the base. While the press was swooning over Bush giving them nicknames and feeding us pablum about compassionate conservatism, they might have looked at the base, seen that Bush's base was and is filled with Christianist lunatics ("God is in the White House"), and reported it.

    Similarly, a consequence of Obama's relatively more youthful base is that, very naturally, they place less priority on what happens when you're old. That's the nature of youth; that's how I was. But that also means that a big part of Obama's base has no reason to push to protect Social Security, and so SS may end up being a lot lower on Obama's list of priorities than some would like. Obama's dogwhistle tells me that; Donna Brazile tells me that; and the contempt and derision expressed toward "aging Boomers" by some in Obama's base tells me that. I don't think the contempt is in the majority, but it's there, I'm sure that others besides me have experienced it, and it should be slapped down hard by other Obama supporters, just like misogyny, but generally, just like misogyny, is isn't. (One of the many reasons Unity doesn't play for me, and possibly for many.)

    So, I'm not sure the Obama campaign feels that it needs to ask for my vote by trying to regain my trust on this, but it would be a classy gesture if he did. Otherwise, "millenial politics" translates, to me, as writing me off.

    Yes (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:34:29 AM EST
    we've become a nation that resents older Americans.

    I am quite sure I've been written off, and I'm in my 50's.

    So it goes.

    But I'm reluctant to give over my vote, too.  That seems to me to be self-punishing.  I'm not sure I can do that.


    To the darling Obama goober trolls (5.00 / 18) (#112)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:30:31 AM EST
    Your 1 ratings of us are a badge of honor.  

    I wear them with pride.  

    Same here (5.00 / 10) (#129)
    by stillife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:36:22 AM EST
    I take it as the equivalent of a "5" from an intelligent poster.

    Hispanics too (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by nellre on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:39:08 AM EST
    California is about 30% Hispanic. Can Obama win CA without them?

    This type (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:39:59 AM EST
    of totalitarianistic language parsing by the left is running people away from Obama by the millions. Keep it up and he'll be lucky to get 40% of the vote in Nov. if he's the nominee.

    Amen (5.00 / 0) (#181)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:46:37 AM EST
    I'm not going to join a group of idiots.  LOL*

    I really am sorry, but this type of rhetorical bully stuff is just too immature for me to do much besides laugh.

    But I'm not going to hop on that bus.  I have too much pride!  :)


    Registering New Voters (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by kid oakland on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:40:02 AM EST
    149 of us in Hayward CA, a working class town, btw, will be registering new voters today.

    There are 70 in Orlando, FL, 21 in Nashua NH, 59 in Albuquerque, NM and 29 in Pueblo, Colorado all pledged to do the same...some are hitting the streets right now.

    I promise we won't distinguish between young and old. We are registering voters in a nationwide program to increase Democratic participation in elections.

    Obama launched and funded this program before the results of NC and IN were known.

    Over 60% of voters registered by Obama in 2008 have voted at the polls. That has made a difference.

    Any Democrat, young or old, should take this effort seriously. Vote for Change is a good program.

    kid oakland (5.00 / 5) (#180)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:46:07 AM EST
    I laud this effort, I really do. And props in general to the Obama campaign's organizational prowess.

    But I wish it didn't go along with statements from the Obama campaign about how people should centralize and not donate anymore to groups like VoteVets and WomensVoicesWomensVotes, etc. A tad creepy to me. What say you on this?


    Do you remember 2004? (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by kid oakland on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:04:25 AM EST
    A dirty little secret of 2004 is that George Bush's totals went UP in every city in the United States except Minneapolis and San Francisco.

    Every other city. Bush won hundreds of thousands of new votes in Democratic core districts in 2004.

    The reason?

    In part, unaffiliated groups did massive, non partisan registration of new voters in big cities in 2004 and those voters were not tracked or helped in any way to get to the polls. Many of them voted for Bush. Many Kerry supporters assumed that the ACT registrants would all vote for Kerry.

    It was not even close.

    Obama understands this. When Obama volunteers go out to register voters that brings those new voters in through that contact point.

    We follow up with them and "ID them" through voter contact (phone / canvanss) and then get our new voters out to the polls. ACT did not do that. Obama does.

    Further, Obama's outreach actively solicits new volunteers.

    Personally, I support Vote Vets and other worthy organizations.

    However, I saw firsthand the lack of coordination and false assumptions of 2004. That hurt us deeply in 2004 in Ohio and Colorado where we counted on votes we did not have.

    Obama is serious about winning this election. I have seen that from day one. Vote for Change is part of that.

    It's May 10th and thousands of us are out there. That says something.


    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#253)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:12:16 AM EST
    Informative. And, again, impressive effort.

    From monolithic (none / 0) (#276)
    by zyx on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:32:39 AM EST
    to monotheistic.

    Try to look at it through the eyes of someone who isn't a true Obama believer.  There were nine candidates for the Democratic presidency not many months ago.  Suppose I think he wasn't the One, but maybe, the Sixth or Seventh?

    Obama's Unity Schtick being about falling in line to hail Obama isn't going to work (except, as far as I can tell, with the very young).  In our party, unity comes down to being okay-ish at herding cats.  


    Some questions on this "good program" (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:50:16 AM EST
    Is the Obama movement suppressing any independent voting organizations, or advocating that they not be funded? If yes, why?

    Is Vote For Change [whatever "change" might mean] data for the Democratic Party, or only for the Obama "movement"?

    How will Vote For Change data be used, once gathered?

    Is the system opt in or opt out? That is, if I register using it, is the default that I am in the Obama "Movement"'s database, or not?

    Will I ever be able to remove myself from the system, once in it?

    Will the data ever be sold? To whom?

    Please don't tell me "look at the web site." I can't hold a website accountable. I want you to tell me.



    If this is lambert (5.00 / 1) (#271)
    by kid oakland on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    from Corrente, it is ironic that you talk about accountability.

    You have written posts about me at Corrente and yet when I try to register and make a comment as "kid oakland" I am blocked from doing so.

    Why is that?

    I choose a different way of doing things.

    First, I explained the problems with non-coordinated voter registration groups in 2004 above.

    Second, I think a diversity of voices in the Democratic party makes us stronger...but that shouldn't come at the cost of our effectiveness on election day. Did relying on ACT's uncoordinated efforts hurt us in 2004? Yes, and I wrote about that at the time.

    Third, voter registration is governed by laws that are strict and clear. Vote for Change will follow them. That is explicitly not the same as donating to the campaign or signing up at the website.

    Your concern about Obama's supporter database is unfounded. Every campaign creates a database of its donors and volunteers. They'd be fools not to. Donations are a part of the public record, by law. With 1,500,000 donors, that's a huge base for Barack Obama.

    Bottom line, if you are concerned about your ultimate privacy, do not donate to a campaign because your donation will be public, by law. There is nothing unique to that about the Obama campaign.

    It has also has nothign to do with registering to vote through Vote for Change.


    Yes it is (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by Burned on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:06:07 AM EST
    Any Democrat, young or old, should take this effort seriously. Vote for Change is a good program.

    So is mine.
    100% of the people that I have gotten to register to vote, actually voted.
    I support Clinton/Obama 08, so that means Hillary is running at 100% of newly registered voters voting if you just count what I've done.

    Admittedly it was only two people, but one was a 50 year old carpenter and the other was a newly minted 18 year old.


    Good for you (5.00 / 1) (#267)
    by MichaelGale on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:17:56 AM EST
    Today I am contacting voters in Florida to raise money to publicize the disenfranchisement of the voters of Florida by the DNC and the Obama campaign.

    We will probably just cancel out each others efforts. But that's politics.


    Why is (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by curryorama on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:45:03 AM EST
    AgreeToDisagree allowed to get away with troll rating comments that he doesn't agree with?

    the solution (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:58:55 AM EST
    is in your own hands. 5-rate any "troll rated" comment to balance the books

    And Bill's office in Harlem (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:48:09 AM EST
    was just a thinly disguised attempt to hide his real self.


    One more reason why I know Obama will lose (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:53:21 AM EST
    Because the only way they have been able to figure out how to deal with their problems is to blame Clinton for their problems, we only know they will be totally unprepared to handle those problems when Clinton is no longer there to blame.

    Obama supporters contributions to this thread is supporting evidence.

    Do you really think that this is helping (5.00 / 3) (#222)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:58:29 AM EST
    your candidate? Keep revving up the rhetoric that Clinton and her supporters are using racial tactics and you will never see Obama in the WH. The more that Obama's surrogates and supporters use these tactics the more people are either going to vote for McCain or stay home. One look at the recent state by state polls should show you that this tactic is counterproductive for the GE.

    How's that (5.00 / 3) (#227)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    unity thing working for you?  You join just to criticize Clinton and expect to get votes.  By the way, your history shows you've made 10 comments and gotten 6 1s.

    How many votes do you think you might have gotten with you very first comment:

    [Its just goofy. What we have here are the stages of grief. Denial, anger, bargaining, grief, acceptance.
    First, denial that Hillary would lose, now anger at Obama's flaws and faults, then bargaining over the terms of defeat. Grieve and then accept it folks. And then lets get to work electing the person who after Hillary most reflects your vision of what this country should be, and there should be no question that it is Barack Obama.]

    Way to represent your candidate.  Ha! Ha!

    Proposed VP (5.00 / 3) (#232)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:03:36 AM EST
    A footnote: Support is growing in Democratic ranks for Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland as vice president. He would bring to the ticket maturity (66 years old), experience (six terms in Congress) and moderation (rated "A" by the National Rifle Association). He is very popular in Ohio, a state Republicans must carry to elect a president.

    By the way... Michelle hates Clinton....
    WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama.

    The Democratic front-runner's wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party's nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility.

    And? (none / 0) (#258)
    by bumblebums on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:14:41 AM EST
    Bill hates Barack.

    So what.


    Democrats Have a Disaster On Their Hands (5.00 / 4) (#235)
    by Bob Boardman on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:04:35 AM EST
    because the Obama campaign has been a fraud.

    Who is kidding whom here? The hatred for the Clintons (and their supporters) is at an all time high in the elite core of the Democratic Party. It's palpable and it's ugly. And Obama has ridden it to the nomination.

    Watch the Obama flip the bird at Clinton and her supporters - and watch the state of frenzy it created in the Obama crowd. Folks may argue that he didn't flip the bird, however, don't tell the Obama crowd that he didn't flip the bird. They saw it and they loved it and they worked themselves into an anti-Clinton frenzy.... it looked like a Reverend Wright anti-American sermon.

    This crowd will not be denied the nomination and this crowd will not be able to win in November.

    Gosh (5.00 / 4) (#241)
    by kmblue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:07:26 AM EST
    Just yesterday, there were several sweet Obama supporters here, all reasonable and stuff, coming here to humbly ask why we didn't support their guy.

    That didn't last long.

    i think (1.00 / 2) (#256)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:13:47 AM EST
    most of them feel attacked here, and hate the immaturity from many posters here. stupid is as stupid does i believe it is called

    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#260)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:15:09 AM EST
    The sample size of 2 that supports your assertions is very impressive.

    @nellre (5.00 / 1) (#274)
    by Cal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:28:33 AM EST
    I have already re-registered as an Independent (after 40 years as a Democrat).  There's a movement afoot and the groundswell has already started.  Dean and that nutjob Brazile can take their "new coalition" and go to hell.  He will not be elected come November, and you can take that to the bank.

    what happended to the older voters thread? (5.00 / 2) (#275)
    by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:30:02 AM EST
    Way back when, Raheem suggested why not start a thread about Clinton's porblem with black voters.

    For the most part, he succeeded in high-jacking the thread away from the older voters isssue.

    An "Old" Voter here, (5.00 / 4) (#278)
    by camellia on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:18:23 AM EST
    really old, and cranky as well.  Apart from that small disadvantage, I fit really well into the Obama demographic -- white, well-educated, financially comfortable, well-travelled -- oops, that last one doesn't seem to be in the job description, does it?   I guess that doesn't count unless it was before the age of 10.  One of the reasons older voters are not enchanted by the Obama magic is that they have seen this stuff before--been there, done that, got the scars, and don't fall in love quite so easily any more.

    As an older voter am I supposed to care only about the issues that directly concern me -- social security and medicare, and the cost of nursing homes?  But I have kids and grandkids, and I care about them and so I care about the problems that they face--the cost of health care, the soaring costs of college, the quality of education, the housing meltdown, the dollar's lack of vitality, the cost of gasoline, the rise of China, and so ad infinitum.  If I want magic and wonderful rhetoric, I can read a book or go to the movies, but if I want practical solutions to the problems which beset us in these waning days of the worst administration ever, I want a leader who knows what those problems are, who can at least acknowledge their existence and tell me directly that she (or he) is willing to TRY to tackle them.

    And please, about "racism" -- I have lived in seven countries, kept house in all of them.  I have worked with people of many nationalities and races, and I don't give a fig whether someone is black, white, green or silver if they can lead us out of this mess.

    I wonder if pointing this out (4.75 / 16) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:40:36 AM EST
    is a blogging mortal sin too.

    I do know that sexism and misogyny are A-Ok on the Left blogs.

    I pointed out early on that (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:45:18 AM EST
    ageist jokes such as one sees on the site that shall remain unnamed as well as the constant remarks about McCain's age is going to offend many older Dems.

    The message I got back was clear.  Only racism is valid.

    Sexism and ageism is not a big deal, and anyone who complains is merely whining.


    Forgive me, for I have also sinned. (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Fabian on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:45:24 AM EST
    The funny thing is, that as a forty something, I am neither in the boomer camp or the youth camp.

    Even a middle ager can see that alienating Boomers is a bad demographic move.


    Thank you! (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:48:32 AM EST
    I have wondered the same thing.  I keep thinking, "If you're this dang dumb to offend the largest age group in the country, then what does that say regarding good judgment in other areas?"  :)

    As a Baby Boomer (none / 0) (#31)
    by stillife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:02:47 AM EST
    and a Hillary supporter (bitter middle-aged woman here!), I have to say that 65-plus are not Boomers.  They would be born in 1943 and earlier.  I believe the Boomer generation started in 1946 or 1948.  

    Correct..... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:05:29 AM EST
    The boomer generation initially was somewhat split between Hillary and Oboma.  She cut into his base with each primary, going deeper and deeper into the boomer group.

    And I suspect (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by stillife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:06:53 AM EST
    particularly with female Boomers.

    Actually, (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:13:00 AM EST
    the women demographic remained stable.  It was the men she convinced.

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by stillife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:14:59 AM EST
    so I guess that means the women were in her corner all along.  The men (who tend to be more conservative and prone to vote Republican) have been impressed by her toughness.

    I'm convinced that (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:26:01 AM EST
    was the key.  And it wasn't the ad, either.  It was taking the heat and not backing down.

    That earns respect.  As it should.


    Apparently it is (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:00:06 AM EST
    since you've already been troll rated for simply asking the question.

    Step into line!!


    wow! (5.00 / 1) (#263)
    by Josey on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:15:28 AM EST
    Rasmussen - Hillary 48-43.
    Hillary jumps 5 pts., Obama down 7 pts.
    Wonder if this is blowback for Brazile's declaration about white voters....



    Should we make a thread about Hillary's Problem... (2.14 / 7) (#27)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:00:07 AM EST
    With Black voters?

    Personally (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:03:52 AM EST
    she polls better in the exit polls with AA voters who say they would vote for her if she were the candidate.

    Now, I'm not sure that would remain firm once the Brazile, Clyburn gang told them that the electin was stolen and prompted them to anger.

    But the Clintons were very popular with minority groups and will be again.  The 90% votes he is getting is, I'm convinced, more out of racial pride than out of distrust of the Clintons.


    but her strong numbers (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by TruthMatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:07:17 AM EST
    with white women is based on............
    gender pride?

    because I sure hope no one is saying black people are voting mostly based on Obama's race, but women aren't voting based on Hillary's sex.


    A lot of women (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:12:10 AM EST
    definitely are excited about voting for a woman in our lifetime.  No doubt about it.  

    I wish we had gotten 90%.  :)

    I'd be doing the snoopy dance right now.  


    do you see a difference between 65% and 95%? (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:12:18 AM EST
    Because I do. One number is closer to 50% and the other is closer to 100%.

    Of course not... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:16:12 AM EST
    It only matters when its a percieved negative against Obama...

    the funny thing is that as of last fall, black voters were split between Obama and Hillary... and were split even early on during this nomination season... but since Hillary has sabotaged herself and stopped courting black voters, now its Obama race baiting and black voters being racist against Hillary...

    but the white women who vote for her, no, they are just voting their interest and what they believe in...


    We'll have to disagree (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:21:30 AM EST
    then, because I saw the memo detailing the steps Obama's staff took to arouse racial anger.

    He played the race card with finesse.

    And that is when he solidified his AA voter bloc.  :)


    Yes (5.00 / 9) (#79)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:22:29 AM EST
    They were evenly split. And that even split began to change as soon as JJ, Jr. and other Obama surrogates began to deliberately smear the Clintons as racists.

    And Hillary did not stop courting black voters - that is a lie.

    Finally, white women are not voting for Hillary in bloc numbers to anything near the extent that blacks are voting for Obama.

    Your comments is simply full of falsehoods.


    actually (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:38:56 AM EST
    Hillary did not stop courting black voters - that is a lie.

    she didn't stop but pulled back effort significantly and the voters noticed.  


    and what should she have done at that point? (5.00 / 5) (#187)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:48:38 AM EST
    it was pretty obvious that she was deliberately smeared and unwelcome. there was literally nothing she could do to further court the black vote. what would you have her do - get down on her knees and plead for them to stop calling her a racist?

    I actually saw it as a sign of respect by Clintons (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:51:26 AM EST
    That once it became obvious the AA community was excited by the Obama campaign they didn't try to turn that around. I mean what would the point? Try to say don't be excited by Obama?

    Also they are smart enough to know it would have no credibility. I believe they left it alone and know that if needed they would support her in the GE.


    And yet Obama is being smeared right now (1.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:51:25 AM EST
    in this thread and by some people calling him and elitest... yet he is out attempting to court white, lower middle class voters...

    Oh, NOW he is attempting. (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:58:00 AM EST
    He should have been attempting to court everyone and not been so selective. You don't come out now and say I love you too. When he was smiling and shaking hands with everyone and making them believe, he spoke his real feelings when he labeled people Archie Bunkers and bitter. Yeah, that is some courting. At least you are reminding us of why we like Hillary even more.  

    when did I say now? (none / 0) (#230)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:02:49 AM EST
    He has always been out attempting to get those voters... how did he win Iowa?

    or Missouri, or some of these other states... lets stop being pedantic..


    Look, he has played a demographic game (5.00 / 6) (#246)
    by annabelly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:09:23 AM EST
    Throughout this primary. Kudos to him for understanding marketing. It just might work. But there a lot of us out that notice this is what he's doing, and we notice it is a business model. We've seen enough of younger/inexperienced CEOs getting enormously wealthy while they sink whole companies. I don't want to see that in the White House. Politics is not religion, and it sure as hell ain't business.

    "Out courting white, lower middle class (5.00 / 4) (#245)
    by chancellor on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:09:19 AM EST
    voters"? That must be why he's campaigning so heavily in West Virginia?

    <snicker> (5.00 / 4) (#254)
    by Mary Mary on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:13:20 AM EST
    Stellar effort he's making in WV right now.

    Did The Voters Notice That Obama (5.00 / 4) (#229)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:02:41 AM EST
    refused to attend AA events? Clinton was willing to go into a possible unfriendly environment to speak to the AA community. While Obama who would have been greeted like a reigning king, refused to attend.

    Who Really Stopped Courting The (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:28:03 AM EST
    AA Community? Hillary has gone to all the AA events and Obama has not. I'll leave you to come to your own conclusions why he has refused to attend these functions.

    True (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Athena on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:29:44 AM EST
    She attended the State of Black America forum - despite some chilliness from the audience - Obama was a no-show.

    ahhhh (none / 0) (#145)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:39:46 AM EST
    that was in february.  

    When Was The Last MLK Event? (5.00 / 1) (#250)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:11:50 AM EST
    Wasn't that in April in Memphis? Hillary attended and Obama did not. Of course, spokespersons discounted her effort by saying that she didn't actually march in the parade to distract everyone from the fact that Obama didn't think it was important enough to attend.

    Raheem, (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:38:29 AM EST
    ...seriously, its almost as if you are trying to bait us. Yes, there are some racist Hillary supporters, but they are not here. I think that I can speak for most posters here in saying that we reject the characterization of the Clintons as racists, but I do not believe that those accusations have come from the grassroots black community. They have come from, in my opinion, certain unscrupulous people (most of them white) that are trying to get Obama elected by any means necessary.

    I am not trying (none / 0) (#213)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:55:35 AM EST
    to bait anyone... im pointing out the hypocrisy... and using her words, and what her motivation is by some of these comments... you may want to believe that Black people cant form our own opinions... but trust me, people are mad at what the Clintons have said and done...

    Mad at her (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:57:47 AM EST
    for saying some whites won't vote for Barack?

    I am mad (none / 0) (#231)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:03:22 AM EST
    At the divisive tone

    So speaking to the facts (5.00 / 3) (#242)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    is divisive?  Where's the outrage at the men who won't vote for Hillary because of her gender?  Seems to me "this" outrage is a political tool, not a sincere commentary.

    What exactly? (5.00 / 1) (#264)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:15:45 AM EST
    During the 90's, what did they do? Are they not allowed to state a fact? That JJ did win SC? That in some states there are more AA voters and in others more White voters? This is not being racist. These are facts. Are we to turn a blind eye and never ever mention these facts or else we are racist? You are probably not trying to bait us but really trying to show us how wrong we are to not accept your facts as the gospel. I have many AA friends and yes they are for Obama for reasons of Black Pride. I did not vote for Hillary because she is a woman.I was able to take that out of the equation. But now, it is personal. Except for Obama's Wright story, and that was Obama's baggage, the media has crucified Hillary. Very unfairly. I did not like that. I did not like it when they did it to Edwards either. Or Biden. I did not like the Race card being used and it was and purposely to neutralize Bill Clinton. Hillary did not say anything. So nice try, but you are not going to change opinions today. At least here.

    Oh I just love that strawman.... (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:34:04 AM EST
    ...I think you've been here long enough to know that the vast, vast majority of posters here have said time and time again that they understand the overwhelming support that Obama has gotten from the African American community. It is a historic candidacy. We get that. So is Hillary's. But women are belittled for being inspired by that, whereas African Americans have not been...at least not here.  And if truth does really matter to you, I think you should admit that.

    Part of the problem is (5.00 / 0) (#151)
    by Defeat McCain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:40:32 AM EST
    that Clinton ran an explicitly gendered campaign. That turned off a lot of men. And younger women don't see what the big deal is. They know they will have a female President soon enough, and its going to be someone who fits their politics better than Clinton's corporate feminism. That is part of the epitaph of Hillary Clinton's presidential ambitions.

    Explicitly gendered? (5.00 / 6) (#163)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:42:50 AM EST
    Well, guess I am too stupid and low information to have picked up on that.

    No, you just didn't read the latest memo (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:45:49 AM EST
    Today's talking point are:

    • Clinton is running a gendered campaign, while Obama is running an inclusive campaign (that only excludes certain states, older, low information, too dumb to vote for him, and other misc annoying demographics that only are required to win the GE).

    • Any use of the word white (or gray or certain shades and luminance values TBD) are racist!

    • It is over, the media said so, so its true, voting is not the way to determine elections, MSM is.

    • IACF (Its All Clintons Fault)

    It's the simple (5.00 / 4) (#192)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:49:59 AM EST
    fact that she's a woman that made it so gendered, so offensive.

    However, Obama's invocation of "okee-dokee" and "bamboozle" were about inclusion.


    never visited her website? (none / 0) (#201)
    by Defeat McCain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:51:46 AM EST
    There are not any official BLACK PEOPLE FOR OBAMA videos on the Obama site. But Hillary's website had women for Hillary ads before Texas at least (the one I saw). I really don't get the grumbling. Women are 55%-60 of every Democratic primary electorate. Hillary should have won this a walk. Maybe its her sisters who aren't that into her.

    And why doesn't Obama (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:54:21 AM EST
    have the "black" ads?  Because he didn't want to be labeled the "black candidate".

    But of course, we still have his "okee-dokee" "bamboozle" invocations that he can bring out when necessary.


    What is a black ad? (none / 0) (#217)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:57:13 AM EST
    Can you point to that? I have never seen that...

    The thing is (none / 0) (#215)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:56:43 AM EST
    I am not belittling that... I am not saying its a bad thing... but one of the posters said that some those who support Obama and are black are racist...

    I wish I could agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Radiowalla on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:30:16 AM EST
    but I think the tide has turned.  If you read Bob Herbert's column in today's NYTimes you will witness an explosion of vitriol that will never be erased.

    Bob's Meltdown (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by Athena on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:45:40 AM EST
    Herbert has totally unhinged himself today.  Hillary won't just fold and let Obama have the nomination without achieving a magic number.  Her audacity.

    Pure Manure1 (none / 0) (#136)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:38:18 AM EST
    "He can't win! Don't you understand? He's black! He's black!"

    That's pure manure!

    Bye, bye!

    (btw, I am on the SC spot, and those remarks have been spun and spun till it they now ready to knit into a fine large loss.  Or maybe cotton candy that will dissolve into nothingness--hardly a good foundation for a campaign or a government.)


    You know (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:42:15 AM EST
    what? These kinds of thing damage Obama even more. They are sending more and more messages out to the public that Obama can't win because he's black. Of course, if they believe that he can't win because he's black then why do they want him to run against McCain?

    The surge of new voters (none / 0) (#257)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:13:51 AM EST
    who Obama brought in to vote during the primaries are not the most reliable demographic to show up at the polls.

    November is far enough away to expect a great deal of lost steam to deflate the enthusiasm.

    I expect Obama will have plenty of no-shows in addition to the many who will not be able to vote for him after the campaign he has run.


    In a general election (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:08:11 AM EST
    I think hillary would do very well with black voters

    I think you are very wrong (1.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:13:56 AM EST
    The SC fiasco, the race baiting all throughout the campaign, calling black people lazy, while claminig she is the white voters candidate...

    She may poll well with black voters if she somehow steals the nomination and destroys the party in the process, but she will not get many black voters to turn out...


    calling black people lazy?? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:17:22 AM EST
    I definitely missed that one.

    Really (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:19:25 AM EST
    "that found how Senator Obama's support among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

    that comment offended A LOT of black people... whether you want to admit or not... it did...


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:22:52 AM EST
    Reality bites.  :)

    The fact is that Obama has a problem with white working class people.  When he's getting less than 30% of those traditional Democrats, it's an issue.

    An obvious issue.


    Reality bites? (none / 0) (#126)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:35:21 AM EST
    I really hope you are joking with that line... because that was was terrible...

    and he is pulling 30% of those right now... and I believe he can pull more once he is the nominee... meanwhile Hillary has irrevocably damaged herself to African Americans... 30% vs. 10%... which is the better number to you to start building up a bigger coalition


    Well, Wright (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:40:21 AM EST
    pretty much sealed his fate.  He tried pulling off the big speech.  However, that ship has sailed.  

    I doubt he'll win that group over by much.

    As I say, that's reality.  Too bad it can't be discussed rationally without accusations of racism.

    I'm honestly not too worried, though.  We have a great tradition of free speech, and no amount of guilt-tripping really is going to silence people from discussion the obvious.

    He dismissed the working class as clinging to guns and religion, and apparently, they are dismissing him with their votes.              


    Hillary did not damage herself (5.00 / 4) (#161)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:42:43 AM EST
    the Axelrod smear machine, the blogs and radio etc, damaged her. It's that simple.  She stands on her record.  Obama in his own district when affordable housing was going under owned by Rezko, blamed the "socio economic factors" for the failure of the housing.  What did he say?  He said poor black people caused it and defended his money guy.  In his own district he did not care what happened to poor black people.  Did not even look.  Not one ounce of regret.  

    Oh, yeah, and he used reverend Wright, then dumped him.  


    Well, Wright (none / 0) (#150)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:40:27 AM EST
    pretty much sealed his fate.  He tried pulling off the big speech.  However, that ship has sailed.  

    I doubt he'll win that group over by much.

    As I say, that's reality.  Too bad it can't be discussed rationally without accusations of racism.

    I'm honestly not too worried, though.  We have a great tradition of free speech, and no amount of guilt-tripping really is going to silence people from discussion the obvious.

    He dismissed the working class as clinging to guns and religion, and apparently, they are dismissing him with their votes.              


    OK - it offended them (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:24:17 AM EST
    But it certainly takes a lot of lying to to go from that quote to stating that 'Hillary called black people lazy.' So, basically you lied when you said that. You just ginned up an interpretation and then pretended it was true. Gee, that's a new strategy.

    Lying? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:33:22 AM EST
    Im sorry, but how exactly did I lie that she offended black people by saying "hard working, white americans?"

    people took that as her saying black people aren't hard working... the same double talk that Nixon used, or some of these southern politicians use right now...


    No... (5.00 / 5) (#125)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:35:14 AM EST
    journalists and white liberal bloggers who have not moved from diversity 101 made it offensive.  

    Exactly... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:36:24 AM EST
    Because you have polled a number of African Americans... you know exactly how we feel... gotcha

    Well...you polled (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:39:27 AM EST
    white people and you know that they all vote against him cause his black.  So, I used the same polling firm.  

    Im sorry (none / 0) (#162)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:42:48 AM EST
    But did I say that white people arent voting for him because he is black? no... even though 1 out of 5 have said that his race is a factor in exit polling in PA and Indiana... most are not...

    in saying that, 80% havent... and I thnk those 80% will turn over once Obama is the nominee...


    I like this spin (none / 0) (#171)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:44:21 AM EST
    I never said all white people are voting against Obama because of race... its what you want to believe and that is fine

    That is the allegation (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:55:37 AM EST
    when a white person does not vote for Obama, must be cause they are racists.  

    I don't like what he did in the community work.  I don't like that he did not stand up for the people in the community her worked as an organizer and then was an elected official.  I cannot trust him.  You don't forget the people you serve.  It's just how I am.  


    I know how I felt (none / 0) (#249)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:10:53 AM EST
    I certainly felt offended.  Hiliary is a great candidate.  What she said was divisive.  But like everything in life you wave to weight the good wit the bad.   Her good statements far outway the bad ones.  This obama supporter still thinks she is a great stateswomen, even though I was offended.

    Why is it so hard to believe that Obama has sexist racist feelings and Hiliary does as well.  They both grew up in this country.  They aren't immune to these things.  I know they are super heroes to some us, but their alter ego's is still one of a politcian.  That being said, defending what she said, just doesn't make sense.  She said it once, it should be noted, we AA who are offended, should tell her it offended us, and my guess is that she would listen to us and correct herself.  If she repeats it over and over again, then in my mind it becomes racist, but she hasn't.


    I agree with this... (none / 0) (#266)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:17:43 AM EST
    Its impossible to not have some disparaging feelings towards another group when living in a country that was founded on it...

    and Im glad you admit her comments were divisive...


    You lied when you said (5.00 / 8) (#140)
    by annabelly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:39:04 AM EST
    she called black people lazy. She never did that.

    Are you being deliberately obtuse? (5.00 / 5) (#146)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:39:50 AM EST
    Why, yes, you are. As I already said, you lied when you stated that Clinton called black people lazy. She did not.

    Now you are trying pretzel logic to pretend that's not what you said, it was merely your 'interpretation'. I won't discuss with you any longer. You are simply another example of what has gone so terribly wrong with this wonderful, historic, democratic nomination. You are helping to turn it into something ugly and hateful, and it did not have to be that way for Obama to win.

    Bye. Go play your stupid word games with someone else.


    You are making it up (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:30:12 AM EST
    Its a smear. You are taking what was said and creating a smear out of it. She never said that. Stop spreading misinformation.

    Let me point out, however, (none / 0) (#141)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:39:07 AM EST
    one could call Obama lazy, given his IL and US Senate accomplishments.  ;)

    LOL* (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:41:17 AM EST
    Let me just eat my waffle!  :)

    OK, my bad now.  


    never? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Defeat McCain on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:43:25 AM EST
    OK. (none / 0) (#183)
    by ChiTownDenny on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:47:22 AM EST
    Some whites haven't and won't vote for Barack.  Nearly all blacks haven't voted for Hillary.  Who will win the others' demographic in November?

    Some logic lessons (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:34:07 AM EST
    She did not say whites, hared working whites, are hard working to the exclusion of others.  Your racist little mind leaps to the : blacks are lazy.  All she was talking about is the whites.  Of course no on can and should praise a working or poor white person.  

    But you know, just dismiss it as a typical white person.  So, Hillary was being a typical white person and maybe those she was talking about were typical white people.  

    See, this is what Hillary did not do.


    If she wanted to say hard working people (1.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:38:28 AM EST
    She would have said just hard working people... their is a reason she qualified the comment with white... but your ignorant little mind can't see why...

    their is a reason why she has stopped courting black voters, but your ignorant little mind cannot see why...

    I dont think she is a racist, but I do believe she will say anything to get elected, and this is an example... and this may be more dangerous than her being an out and out racist


    She made the "white" (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:45:10 AM EST
    qualification because if she said all workers, she'd have been called out for "lying".

    It is a fact that she's essentially getting NO AA voters, whether it's working class or "creative class".

    But I guess her choice was, be called a "racist" or a "liar" -- and then "liar" would have been on every news channel in every form of media, rather than "racist".  Maybe liar would have been better for her.  Of course she didn't know that at the time.

    It was a gaffe at the very worst to actually speak what was TRUE.  Hillary gets hard working white blue collar voters.  That doesn't mean that AA's aren't hard working.  

    Obama makes gaffes ALL THE TIME, to a ludicrous extent.  Obama can say we have 57 states and it doesn't make the news (and we're going to elect him president?)  Hillary says the TRUTH and it's racism.


    The issue is simply a way to (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:52:08 AM EST
    repress ALL discussion.  Brazile made it clear that if you use the term, working class, THAT is offensive because it leaves out AA working class.  Now, if one qualifies to meet Brazile's criticism by using the term white, THAT is offensive as racism.

    This is just all pure 100% BS.

    The real truth is that Obama supporters can't really address the reality, which is that he performs absolutely dismally with a huge, huge portion of the Democratic base.  Unlike Hillary's problem with AA voters, his problem appears to be a lot more difficult to address.

    Since his problem grew as a result of people learning about who he really is, what type of people are his friends, how he handled the situation with his pastor, etc.

    Those problems will not go away.  


    And his problem (none / 0) (#212)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:55:34 AM EST
    is with people, some of which don't have any problem voting for McCain.

    "she will do anything to get elected" (5.00 / 4) (#194)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:50:18 AM EST
    Obama making the big speech and accusing his grandma, the woman that raised him, a racist, is not anything?  Obama's campaign purposefully using the race card is not anything?  Obama not wanting to be the black candidate is not doing anything?  

    Explain to me one thing, how does a man who does not want to be seen as "the black candidate" get all the black vote?  He should have been honored to be compared to Jessie Jackson.  Yet all the white boyz and his campaign treated it like an insult.  

    I never heard of such loopy logic.  All the fuss about one throw away Bill comment, elevated by Obama's campaign to fever pitch.  And the rumor was out:  "Clintons are racist".  All the bashing of Black Caucus members.  The insults to Maxine Waters and others.  That is doing anything.  Insulting the people that struggled in Congress before Obama was even in Indonesia creating his foreign policy credentials.  


    She was quoting the AP (5.00 / 1) (#262)
    by waldenpond on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:15:15 AM EST
    article which specifically stated that he was losing even more of the white working class vote.  Go complain to the AP.

    They were talking about white vote. (none / 0) (#169)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:44:12 AM EST
    Fine Raheem..... (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:41:20 AM EST
    ...then we are all offended in some way or another. What a tangled web we've woven. Now we can all go in our corners and try to figure out a strategy to convince everyone else that we (whoever we chose to fashion ourselves to be) matter more. That's the antithesis of unity.

    The sad thing is (1.00 / 4) (#179)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:46:04 AM EST
    That Hillary is the one who decided to keep this web so she could splinter Obama's appeal in November...

    Nooo (5.00 / 4) (#197)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:51:21 AM EST
    her voters who keep helping her win are the evil ones.....

    I couldn't give a care if you want her out.  People like you have wanted her out since prior to Super Tuesday.

    She's staying in.  Get over it.


    Obama (5.00 / 4) (#211)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:54:41 AM EST
    has done everything to himself. Quit blaming others for his shortcomings. It's become beyond tiresome.

    What? (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by kayla on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:44:52 AM EST

    I noticed the Obama's were playing the race card really early on, and then I noticed that the Clinton camp had taken that route after the Jesse Jackson comment in SC, but then after hearing about the SC memo and hearing accusations every 5 minutes about the Clinton camp playing the race card, I'm getting more suspicious of the Obama camp then the Clinton camp.

    I mean, "Jesse Jackson won SC in '80 and '84.  Obama's a good candidate, he's a good candidate everywhere"

    Isn't he drawing a distinction between Obama and Jackson here?

    Whatever.  It's obvious that many African Americans (and yeah, I'm AA) are offended by some of the stuff coming out of the Clinton camp, but also, many Hillary supporters are offended by the Obama's trying to portray the Clintons (and sometimes Hillary's supporters) as bigoted yokels for the past year.

    So it's hard to even blame it on one side or the other because so many have found offense in places others won't find it.  I think both camps played the race card at one time or another and they both were wrong to do it.

    But Hillary saying "hard working", imo, wasn't a race thing, but a class thing.  Obviously Obama is getting whites, but most of them are affluent whites.  I took it to mean people who are working double shifts and still not making much to put food on the table.  She was using a stereotype to describe those people, I guess, which is where her mistake was.  But Obama better start talking about the economy if he wants those voters.

    I just hope this theme doesn't continue.  Nobody's allowed to mention race without being accused of racism.  It's too much.


    I agree... (3.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:48:29 AM EST
    I disagree with you saying Obama has been calling everything racist (if he did that, it would kill his appeal... he cant be seen as the black candidate)... but I agree that the nature of this election so far shows that America's race problem is far from being completed... my hope is that once Obama is the nominee everyone can support him, or vote against him for his policies... and not because of his race

    He does not do it (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:53:05 AM EST
    his campaign feeds it and his supporters.  That to me has destroyed his transcended image.  

    how about (5.00 / 0) (#207)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:53:38 AM EST
    if people decide not to vote for him because of black racism towards white people? Would that be OK with you? Because, I for one, saw Rev. Wright's comments for what they are - contemptuous of white people and bigoted, pure and simple. Obama is not Rev. Wright, and I will still vote for him, but many  white people have been driven away. Between the Rev. Wright rantings and the Obama campaign's smearing of  so many decent people as racists, Obama has a problem. It's not racist to say that.

    Your troll posts (5.00 / 3) (#225)
    by AnninCA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:59:46 AM EST
    actually demonstrate the problem.  This thread is suppose to be about age and how that is a factor.

    It's really not about the race issue.

    One of the reasons that the Obama campaign has offended many older Americans is the myopic focus on race.  It's obvious that the focus excludes other Americans who also would like to see life improve for themselves.

    Ageism is serious.  The issues facing older Americans are very serious.  

    So let's move on from the obsession with race.


    Myopic? (none / 0) (#236)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:04:35 AM EST
    This is just flat out wrong...

    the problem is that many believed Clinton was the nominee before the race even started... and she has lost (or will lose after June 3rd)... and that bothers many of her supporters...


    Obama's Problems With Hillary's Supporters (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:14:49 AM EST
    and Hillary's problems with Obama's supporters could mean that neither could win in the GE. So yes, Hillary getting the nomination might alienate the AA community. We have seem and heard that for the last couple of months. What has been getting much less attention is the fact that Obama getting the nomination might lose the Democratic Party support in other key demographics.

    Since it seems likely that Obama will be the nominee, it might be helpful to identify these problems and have his campaign try to correct them.  Saying that the only problem Obama has with these groups is that all these people are racists will not solve the problem but will just escalate it.


    The problem with this... (1.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:17:40 AM EST
    Is that Obama has been trying to court those voters, and has made more inroads in her key demographics, than his...

    and Hillary is the one who painted them racists...  not Obama... and I am not saying they ALL are racist either... not even a majority....


    So when (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:25:09 AM EST
    Obama essentially labeled Ohio voters "Archie Bunkers" that was about the accent and maybe the grey hair?  He wasn't calling them racists?

    Again not true (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:30:53 AM EST
    The past few primaries have shown her taking away HIS white male voters, while he really hasn't made much inroads into any of her demographics.

    it doesn't matter. (none / 0) (#131)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:36:31 AM EST
    she has lost.  i feel like TL posters will be the last to admit it.  we should be focused on McCain... hopefully that will happen at some point.

    It does matter, she has not lost (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:37:56 AM EST
    Unless we should now just have the media decide elections. We can save a lot of money that way if you'd like.

    tell me how she wins (none / 0) (#152)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:41:01 AM EST
    numbers are stubborn.  we need to move towards mccain.

    Stop with this BS (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:43:01 AM EST
    She can still win the same way she could before: he can't get the pledged delegate count either. You tell me how he wins, then take that and reverse it and you have your answer.

    But you already know that, don't you? Wanna troll rate this because you don't agree?


    I think the older voters are (5.00 / 2) (#189)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:49:00 AM EST
    I am a boomer, so I do not qualify in the older group and won't vote for McCain. But your statement might have truth in it for the truly experienced.
    we need to move towards mccain.
    although I know you did not mean it like that. Heh.

    I Don't See The Polls Reflecting Obama (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:49:16 AM EST
    making inroads into her key demographics. I definitely didn't feel courted with Obama's "typical WHITE women" comment. Of course when he corrected that to mean "typical OLDER WHITE women", that really made me as an older white woman feel courted.  I definitely didn't feel courted when Obama entertained his SF supporters with his amusing put down of small town people who cling to their guns, their bibles and their antipathy to people who aren't like them.

    Obama and his surrogates talk all the time about his demographic support among the AA community and what the ramifications would be if he was not the nominee. Yet, when Clinton or her surrogates talk about her support among another demographic group, the white working class voter and what the ramifications would be if she was not the nominee, it is suddenly racists. No it was Obama's supporters who chose to  make that into some kind of racial slur. Sorry, I don't buy into that meme.  


    Sorry! (none / 0) (#117)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:31:09 AM EST
    Not so!

    We know it (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:23:15 AM EST
    the point the Ostrich Obama camp does not notice the major groups they are losing, it's like "tomorrow is another day" they will just come along cause he is so wonderful and Bush messed up so much.  Well some of us don't think that will happen.  

    Obama called his own Mama, Grandmother racist (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by Ellie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:44:21 AM EST
    Once someone does that, calling everyone who criticizes him based on his words and actions a racist loses its power.

    I'll bet THAT played well with older voters, NTM so many of the other groups TeamObama and Donna Brazile Dems consider disposable.

    Aside from being sleazy on its own given that both women gave him the means to get where he is now, dissing even bad parents and guardians once they have passed away made him look ungrateful to women who made sacrifices for him.

    After he wore out THOSE soundbytes, suddenly he remade his mom as someone on food stamps? Ugh.


    No Respect (5.00 / 2) (#247)
    by Athena on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:09:58 AM EST
    His mother was an anthropologist; his grandmother was the vice-president of a bank.  But rather than laud them for their accomplishments, he reduces them to vulgar stereotypes for electoral gain.  Shameless.

    He never (1.00 / 3) (#191)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:49:50 AM EST
    called everyone racists... and if you dont get the context of Obama's comments about his grandmom... then I feel very sad for you...

    Wow you know that is offensive right? (none / 0) (#205)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:53:21 AM EST
    "I feel sorry for you?"

    what! (none / 0) (#32)
    by TruthMatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:03:28 AM EST
    are you saying Hillary also has a problem with a key demographic needed to win a GE?

    well obviously black people must all be racist if they go for Obama 90% yet women are voting on issues since they only go to Hillary by upwards of 65%

    once you cross 70% thats when the voting demographic stops voting by issues right? or is it 75%


    Hey, you got it right. (5.00 / 6) (#160)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:42:25 AM EST
    Nailed it. First of all, not ALL women are voting for Hillary and this woman was a Edwards fan first. I started out liking all three and choose Edwards on issues. Then it came to the next selection. I saw the nastiness at the Big O and I did not like what I saw. It was mean, very mean. And I had not looked at Hillary all that much. But when I did, I saw that she was no longer Bill's wife but instead a knowledgeable, tough but warm, compassionate leader.  I listened to Obama many times and got nothing. Sorry, maybe just me, but I felt he was light on substance. Living in Indonesia for a few years as a boy does not qualify for foreign policy experience. He wanted change and hope, don't we all, and yet he didn't really say how he was getting there. And if I was a AA person, I would have to question why he could not even show up in NO or DC to show respect to the less fortunate and to MLK for helping him get to where he is. We know why he was not there. But if you can make it to SF to raise money from the creative class and mock the middle class, it tells me you are not all that concerned about all the people. And that also tells me you choose people for political purposes and thus not any different from the old DC ways after all. So much for change.

    honestly, (1.66 / 6) (#61)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:14:17 AM EST
    why so condescending w/ the creative class last line??

    you'd think at this point, when we have our nominee, you'd try to start posting comments that don't divide Clinton and Obama supporters.  you'd think.  

    It's a return (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:19:58 AM EST
    favor to the "creative class" who thinks the whole world has been waiting for them.

    They are the ones (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by stillife on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:21:43 AM EST
    they've been waiting for.

    I'll second that! (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by kimsaw on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:27:02 AM EST
    The Blogs Rule The World (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:22:57 AM EST
    A relatively small percentage of the population read blogs and yet the divide between Obama's base and Hillary's base has repeatedly been showing up in the polls.

    If TL stopped posting about this subject, it would not make it go away.


    you're right.... (1.00 / 4) (#90)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:24:48 AM EST
    it was just show a level of maturity that other blogs don't.  

    "when we have our nominee" (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:24:50 AM EST
    this is not dungeons and dragons.  the election is not over.  calm down.  

    Creative Class (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by pixelpusher on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:27:18 AM EST
    well I for one am glad to see someone holding up the "Creative Class" as a term worthy of disdain.

    Let me explain.  I live in a rust belt city which has been absolutely besieged by self-doubt and economic pain, and really what I see a lot of is self-styled "creative class" saviors coming in and thinking all our problems can be solved by turning our downtowns into playgrounds for the upper middle class.  You can't run an economy on factories any more, but it's not as if you can run an economy on sculpture, light opera and coffee houses, either.

    In some places this is being done right, in many others it is being done wrong, and amusing cultural clashes have resulted, very few of which the Creatives really understand, for all their creative thinking and college edumacation.

    Now it is nice to be the subject of attempts to "help" but there is also a great deal of condescension mixed in, because you know,  The "Creatives" never do stop thinking they're overgrown college students and never do stop seeing the locals as stupid "townies."  

    Yeah, I want to spend the rest of my working life serving drinks and food to these fly-by-nighters -- sign me right up.

    so yeah, I'm glad someone is using the "creative class" as a pejorative.  It's about time.   Hint:  If the "creatives" want to contribute to rust belt communities, try being a little less like Ryan from "The Office," and a little more like Pam Beasley, or Jim, or even Dwight.


    Here's how to run the economy! (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:42:53 AM EST
    "Create" marketing collateral for the permanent Obama "Movement!"

    AgreetoDisagree..... (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:29:37 AM EST
    ...you'd have a bit more crediblity if you weren't going around troll rating comments that you disagree with. Don't know if you want my personal advice or not, but you're adding fuel to the fire. Many people aren't ready to go where you want them to go right now.  Will they ever be? Some most likely. Others probaby. And some maybe never. But timing is everything and now is not the time.

    Could it be.... (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by lambert on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:34:00 AM EST
    ... because our self-appointed "creative class" has earned every drop of mockery and derision they're getting? Stowers and Boller and their crowd are a small group of Broder wannabes trying to "create their own reality" the way the big boys do, but so far, it's not working out very well for them. Which is a good thing, because the reality they're constructing has no place for me in it....

    Hey why don't you stop troll rating (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:35:40 AM EST
    People you don't agree with to start as unity. That is not the reason for rating people down. I noticed you did this on this thread over and over. There was nothing factually incorrect in things you rated low, you just didn't like it.

    Learn to live with people who don't agree with you, and then we'll talk unity.


    LOL! (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by Dr Molly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:43:46 AM EST
    Pretty ironic, given his blog name, wouldn't you say?

    I missed that completely! Duh! Thanks N/T (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:47:38 AM EST
    Having a nominee isn't the point (5.00 / 2) (#269)
    by esmense on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:20:16 AM EST
    The real concern is what and who that nominee represents, whether he will be a leader for all the people, whether he sees the nation's problems clearly abd correctly, whether he has the skills and experience to solve those problems, and whether he will lead the party and the nation in the right direction, that's what matters.

    Personally, although I have faithfully voted for Democrats I have never voted for anyone simply because he was a Democrat.    

    This election has saddened me because I have come to believe that the party's likely nominee is as much a danger to the nation's well being as his opponent. (The last time I felt that way about a Democrat was Jimmy Carter.)

    I won't vote for McCain -- but his deficits don't make Obama an acceptable alternative.

    If you believe that a candidate, including a candidate of your own party, is doing and will do harm to both the country and the party, if you believe that vulnerable people will be harmed and millions left unrepresented, you can't, in good moral conscience, support him. In fact, you have a moral obligation to speak out against him.

    I wish potentially harmful, perhaps even evil, ideas and bad faith only reared their head on the other side of the aisle, but that isn't always the case.


    and you'd think... (5.00 / 1) (#272)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:24:29 AM EST
    .... that Obama supporters would realize that Obama is merely assumed to be the nominee, that he hasn't got a lock on it, can't get a lock on it, and that the chances are pretty high that Obama's poll numbers by the time the Convention rolls around will reflect the vulnerabilities of Obama that are obvious to Clinton supporters.

    Obama supporters can't seem to recognize the paradox -- the more they push the "inevitability" of an Obama nomination, the less inevitable Obama becomes, because the GOP smear machine won't kick in until the Obama-Clinton contest is settled.


    What did the Creative Class actually created? (none / 0) (#277)
    by feet on earth on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:37:48 AM EST
    What is the product of their creation?  

    This label looks to me like Christopher Colombo and Amerigo Vespucci's "Discovery" of America.  It was here already, you know?


    I know virtually no one on this blog agrees, but.. (none / 0) (#158)
    by barryluda on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:42:18 AM EST
    but here goes...

    While I agree that appealing in the GE to older voters may be a difficult needle for Obama to thread, his focus and strategy has been and continues to be on winning the nomination.  That comes first, before running in the GE.

    Since I like both Clinton and Obama, I'm mostly interested in beating Bush -- I mean McCain.  But while many on here have made an excellent case that Clinton would be a stronger POTUS than Obama, assuming that's true, then the only explanation for why Obama's chances are at this moment so much stronger than Clinton's to win the nomination is that he has run a better campaign.  Not an easy task, granted, given the dumb, strange, even unfair rules that all of our Democratic candidates have had to live with.

    I think everything changes whenever Obama or Clinton wraps up the Democratic nomination.  Even in going after McCain, I think that both Clinton and Obama continue to do so in order to win under the rules of this contest -- mostly trying to win over Super Delegates -- rather than starting to run in earnest to prevent Bush from having his third term.

    In short, the race between Clinton and Obama is not yet over.  Until it is, it's very hard to make an assessment of how effective of a strategy Clinton or Obama and their respective teams might put together to beat McCain under those rules.  Clearly they each will have challenges to overcome to beat McCain.  If the Democratic primary is any indication of how effective of a campaign strategy they'll put together, I like Obama's chances better than Clinton's.  If Clinton is able to pull this out, then she and her team will have pulled our the upset of the century.  In either case, therefore, I like our chances.

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:50:54 AM EST
    looking at the facts, he has done well enough to squeak by at this point. When 1/2 of the party doesn't want you, you haven't really run a great campaign. You could certainly argue that neither has run a great campaign.

    Actually, Obama's campaign to win the nomination has severely damaged his chances in the general election as evidenced by the polls against McCain. He can't assume that Hillary voters will automatically vote for him. They won't.


    Hilary supporters aren't part of the (none / 0) (#208)
    by Radix on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:53:58 AM EST
    "New Coalition", just look at the demographics.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    Acutally, Obama was able to game (5.00 / 4) (#200)
    by Radix on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:51:31 AM EST
    the system, nothing more.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    I think that is a tad unfair (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:56:59 AM EST
    He has come from the position of underdog, ran a campaign that has appealed to a lot of voters (not me mind you, I don't like vague hope in the morning). I still hold out a small sliver of hope that he won't get the nomination, but even if he doesn't it still is impressive.

    Have to give him that. Its a shame that he didn't think about how to win the GE in his approach to winning the primary.


    Not all that impressive really. (5.00 / 3) (#238)
    by Radix on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:05:48 AM EST
    He took advantage of the weakness of the system. Nothing illegal about it though. If we're going to talk about impressive, the fact Hilary was able to garner working class men to vote for her, that's impressive.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    Not difficult at all (5.00 / 3) (#218)
    by Edgar08 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:57:20 AM EST
    When all the dumb, strange, even unfair rules all provided circumstances by which only one candidate -- Obama -- was able to gain some advantage.

    Ferraro (none / 0) (#228)
    by Stellaaa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:01:42 AM EST
    he should thank Ferraro and her committee back in the day, they gamed the system so that it has all this complexity.  It was part of that culture wars generation, that tried to be inclusive.  You know those horrible people that were against Reagan.  

    I don't understand. Am I missing something? (none / 0) (#255)
    by barryluda on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:13:31 AM EST
    Why couldn't have Clinton -- who did extremely well in the "big" states which our rules undervalue -- spent more time and money early on in the small caucus states where it seems Obama was able to gain his advantage under the rules?

    It's not a rhetorical question.  You're saying that the rules favored Obama over Clinton. But in hindsight, Clinton could have (should have) done much better than she did in the caucus states.


    Because (none / 0) (#268)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    Penn believed that California was winner take all... instead of saying that she has ran a poor campaign, its always something else...

    George McGovern (5.00 / 3) (#239)
    by Shawn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:05:58 AM EST
    ran a brilliant primary campaign.

    I'm pretty sure they're both gonna end up (none / 0) (#165)
    by tokin librul on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:42:54 AM EST
    as interesting footnotes (The First Whatever?), while the Pukes use all their wiles--election fraud, vote theft, bad electronics, scant machines, the SCROTUS and the infrastructure of US Attorneys--to install Bombin' Johnnie McBang as #44.

    This has been predictable ever since they BOTH announced...the animosity engendered by their most partisan acolytes will probably poison the well. It ain't just one or two demographics...

    Companies spend billions (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:52:18 AM EST
    every year on change management initiatives because people hate change.  Does this come as a surprise to anyone?  Our politicians know this and LOVE it which is why we have very little change in our gov't leadership.  

    You vote and hire with whom you have comfort with and time in front of voters makes them feel like they "know you".

    The latest polling has obama ahead of McCain nationally.  When the race starts I predict obama will open a 7-9 point lead and maintain it throughout the race.  

    McCain does not represent change from the current policy and economically he is a shell of a candidate.  The policy changes required to "right" the economy are taxation of the upper bracket and reinvestment in R&D, specifically on environmental investments.  It will create new jobs and stimulate the eocnomy.  

    We have been here before, "it's the economy stupid."

    What Obama needs to do is take a page out of Hillary's book and campaign MUCH harder.  she out appeared him nearly 2-1 in the latest races and he can ill afford to let a 70 year old out campaign him.

    If he does not out campaign McCain he does not deserve to win.

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:59:22 AM EST
    where he's outpolling McCain, but he isn't doing it according to Gallup:


    And he isn't doing it, according to state by state polls:


    So I don't know what you're looking at.  Maybe Rasmussen, the Republican pollster?


    cbs (none / 0) (#243)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:07:45 AM EST
    On one key measure, Obama has seen a big reversal since his denunciation of Wright's remarks on Tuesday. He now leads presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the hypothetical fall contest by eleven points, 51 percent to 40 percent. That compares to a tied match-up in a CBS News/New York Times poll that was released last Wednesday

    go to realclear politics (none / 0) (#252)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:12:11 AM EST
    i cannot post a link right now sorry. he is ahead in every poll save for usatoday and fox

    The elephant in the room.. (none / 0) (#209)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:54:11 AM EST
    Why don't we just say what the real Obama problem is instead of saying Obama's problem with this voting group or that voting group. The truth NO ONE is willing to say is: He is Black, and we live in a society where xenophobia is an absolute. Look how WV and KY will break for Clinton, and it is basically getting NO coverage... WTF?  Having said all that, there is an abundance of misogynistic people out there too, especially in the media. I feel they think it is safer to criticize the "white woman" than the "black" man. John McCain and Barack Obama will get a pass in most areas, where as Hillary Clinton is severely scrutinized from her pant suit to a gas tax .... It just is.

    I don't agree with your assessment (4.20 / 5) (#226)
    by Marvin42 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:59:53 AM EST
    I honestly believe there are many people who won't vote for Obama because of his judgment, politically expedient positions (including use and discarding of his church, etc). There is a small portion of the population that won't vote for him because of his skin color, but they wouldn't vote for a democrat anyway.

    MY Assessment... (5.00 / 1) (#273)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:28:00 AM EST
    I am working on a Union construction site in Pittsburgh with over 1200 union workers (Children's Hospital). My union, the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) heavily supports Democrats with our dues money, MILLIONS of dollars in fact. Most of these workers are white working men. Most of the union building trades (construction workers) vote, and I have quietly been polling these guys for months. Roughly 70% of these guys support Hillary Clinton, 20% goes to John McCain, and about 10% go to Barack Obama. Those for Obama were the black men and very few of the white men. These are the white UNION construction workers. The nonunion worker will tilt much more in favor of John McCain than either Clinton or Obama. This is what I hear in my world, working class, suburban/rural type white people. Look at all the county's in any of the last 10 states Hillary and Barack went head to head, he gets the urban vote and she gets the rest.

    Age (none / 0) (#259)
    by thentro on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:14:43 AM EST
    Age has always been the biggest gap between Clinton and Obama supporters. I think the race support "issue" has been created by it. Obama win's "working class whites" under 65, and then looses massively over 65.

    For some reason I can't post replies... (none / 0) (#279)
    by Upstart Crow on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:16:52 PM EST
    but I wanted to say this way earlier:

    Hillary's comment about "working people, white people" was deeply offensive.  She should correct it immediately.  It's pretty obvious what happened.  She said "working people," then recalled that her supporters don't include black working people.  She corrected it to "white people" -- but it was clumsy and inadvertant, and understandably gave offense.

    Meanwhile, this is from a rightwing paper, but is very revealing about what BHO knew about Jeremiah Wright's political opinions -- everything, all the time.

    The reason that it is still relevant is that this campaign is clearly following Wright's 1970s style of bigotry in its sexism and ageism -- and pointing at everyone who doesn't support them without qualification and screaming "racist!"

    I think BHO learned much from his mentor: