The Creative Class' Condescension Towards Clinton Democrats

The narrative of the racist southern and/or working class white voter serves disappointed liberals by giving them a way to cope with rejection, and it serves Republicans by reassuring them that people can still be easily manipulated by racial bias.

A. Serwer, The American Prospect, via John Petty

As an elitist myself, someone who chuckled at the jokes about Bill Clinton's "feeling your pain," it has not been easy to see how the Democratic problem with white working class voters has been endemic. But this campaign season has opened my eyes. BTW, it is not about God, guns and gays. It is about standard of living. It is about respecting these voters.

In denial about Barack Obama's problem with white working class voters across the entire Eastern part of the United States (as well as parts of the Midwest and Western part of the United States), the Creative Class blogs are clinging to the fallacious Appalachian theory to explain Obama's problem with white working class voters. Josh Marshall now takes up the cause:

Obama's problem isn't with white working class voters or rural voters. It's Appalachia. That explains why Obama had a difficult time in Ohio and Pennsylvania and why he's getting crushed in West Virginia and Kentucky. If it were just a matter of rural voters or the white working class, the pattern would show up in other regions. But by and large it does not.

(Emphasis supplied.) This is simply false. By and large it does show up everywhere except the West, Iowa, Wisconsin and Virginia. It shows up everywhere else. And it shows up with women, seniors and Latinos too. More . .

As I wrote last night:

The West Virginia exit polls indicate that he lost white voters 69-28. Astounding? Not really. In Ohio, Clinton won white voters 64-34. In Pennsylvania, Clinton won whites 63-37. Indiana? Whites went for Clinton 60-40. Massachusetts? Whites went for Clinton 58-40. Rhode Island? 63-31 for Clinton. North Carolina? 61-37. And the same in Arkansas, Tennessee, Maryland, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri and so on.

Obama has won the white vote in Iowa, Kansas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Virginia, Colorado, Washington, Idaho, Utah, North Dakota, Nebraska, etc. West of the Mississippi all of them EXCEPT Wisconsin and VA.

West Virginia is not an anomaly. Obama's white working class problem is EAST of the Mississippi. It is not just Appalachia. It MUST be addressed. Calling West Virginia names is not going to solve the problem.

The Obama blogs are in deep denial. I hope the Obama campaign is not. It is fashionable now to have deep disdain, even disgust, for all things Clinton. It is time for Democratic politicians to learn some political lessons from the last Democrat to win the White House. Twice. "Feel their pain." Find a way to connect to these voters. Insulting them is not the way to do that. Heck, it is time to start insulting the elitists like me, Josh Marshall and the Creative Class.

The Obama Phenomenon needs a second act. The Change thing is so five minutes ago. Time to feel their pain.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments closed

< Overnight Open Thread | ACLU Obtains More Documents Evidencing Torture >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Well, God Forbid The Creative Class Sees (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:29:00 AM EST
    themselves as wrong.  They have to have someone/something to blame.

    No kidding (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:02:10 AM EST
    If you don't see it their way, you must be a racist, ignorant, or a victim of manipulation.  How out of touch with realty can you get.  Almost like BHO's San Francisco statement.

    The last time I tangled (5.00 / 6) (#173)
    by joanneleon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:27:30 AM EST
    with a "contributing editor" from the so-called Creative Class, I was told that I was either "intellectually dishonest", or "not very bright."

    No other options for this degreed engineer who spent the last 20+ years working with technology, including internet development, at times with some of the best and the brightest.  I'm either a liar or a moron.  

    You'd think a sociologist would know more about winning friends and influencing people.

    Also, something I've noticed over the years is that the most brilliant people I've worked with were neither arrogant nor dismissive.  They were some of the most compassionate, open-minded people I've ever met, and they had no interest in ruling the world.  They just wanted to work on good projects with small teams of good people.


    No, they dont see themselves as wrong (5.00 / 0) (#182)
    by Leisa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:31:16 AM EST
    but maybe they will condescend and pretend they do.

    I do not think they have it in them to "feel the pain" of anyone they deem beneath them.  Contempt and disdain for the lowly are hard to disguise.

    It is like Obama wearing the flag pin in WV.  It did not seem authentic when he made such a big deal about how he would show his patriotism in other ways...  Unfortunately, voters are asking for substance.  People do not view him as unpatriotic because of the stupid flag pin...  It is a culmination of words and events from him, his wife, his surrogates and Ahmed Yousef just to name a few.

    So, I do not see how saying, "I feel your pain", at this point will connect with these voters.  I do not see how he can credibly re-brand himself now.  I think it will feel condescending.  His disdain for those that disagree with him is impossible for him to conceal.  I believe the damage is done.


    he will feel their pain (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:29:50 AM EST
    in November.  if he is the nominee.

    Exactly. (none / 0) (#189)
    by Lady in Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:35:32 AM EST
    But until then... (none / 0) (#193)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:38:39 AM EST
    The flag pin and a speech should do the trick.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#197)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:40:18 AM EST
    Nice snarkage.

    Great quote (5.00 / 13) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:30:48 AM EST
    From Progressive Involvement
    The narrative of the racist southern and/or working class white voter serves disappointed liberals by giving them a way to cope with rejection, and it serves Republicans by reassuring them that people can still be easily manipulated by racial bias.
    A. Serwer, The American Prospect

    I stole it from you Stellaa (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:37:47 AM EST
    It is now at the top of my post.

    First thing I read today, said it all (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:40:03 AM EST

    I'd take issue with that... (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:51:53 AM EST
    Personally, I think it serves disappointed Obama fans.  I'm more liberal than most of the folks I encounter who are devoted to Obama.  Furthermore, my liberal values actually come from my ancestry in the Appalachian region and definitely do not come from my Minnesota/North Dakota ancestry.  Marshall fails to point out the real reason my ancestors and other Scotch-Irish headed for the hills - it was Protestantism.  It was religious persecution first in their home countries and then again in the "low-country".  That is why it was a miracle that so many people like my Grandparents worked so hard for JFK.  JFK worked hard on them though - that is why he did well in that region.  He found common ground.  Obama could too.

    Not if he fails to visit there he won't (5.00 / 10) (#81)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:58:19 AM EST
    I'm going to say it for the one millionth time. The arrogance of the Obama team needs to go. Less educated, less shcmeducated- these folks education is real world education- not the stuff you get at the university. Their concerns are real and based in what they see and feel on a daily basis. You don't win voters by discounting or denigrating them. The Obama camp had better learn that or get used to losing.

    Numbers (5.00 / 10) (#143)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:14:56 AM EST
    Al least 72% of Americans do not have a college degree.  At least 66% of Americans are white.

    Obama is not enough of a magician to factor out these demographics and win in spite of them.

    Memo to Creative Class: you will not be able to think or buy your way out of the electoral resistance to your candidate.


    Aw- (5.00 / 5) (#144)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:16:03 AM EST

    Went to the Orange and got another dose of bigotry, as a commenter slammed West Virginians for being too stoopid and uneducated and racist to embrace Teh Obama.

    Insult those voters!  Lose that election!  Goooo Team O!


    I actually read a comment over at MYDD that (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Angel on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:24:58 AM EST
    said that Obama let Hillary win West Virginia ON PURPOSE!  LOL  They are in deep, deep denial.  

    I am in 100% agreement with you. (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:17:42 AM EST
    Although, I wouldn't pin this exclusively on the small circle of the Obama camp.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of Democrats who do not believe in a bona fide application of the 50-State Strategy.

    The Obama folks who are supporting him because they think he believes in the 50-State Strategy are going to be sorely disappointed with how he campaigns in the GE if he gets the nod.  I promise that if past performance is any indication, once Clinton is out of the way, he'll be back in the same old Dem mode of campaigning in like three states and acting like the rest of the country doesn't exist.

    And for me that is a global issue that keeps hurting us...  I am still angry that Kerry couldn't find one lousy hour to stop in Alabama.  I called the Alabama Dems during that election and they had nothing to do - NOTHING - I asked if there were any Kerry people reaching out to them or if there were any fundraisers, events or anything else planned.  The guy told me that the Kerry campaign wasn't doing anything in Alabama.  To me that's crazy.  Then everyone gets all pissed off at those states for not voting for them even when they completely ignore and/or insult them.  It is arrogance beyond belief.


    If true that Obama finds difficulty (none / 0) (#180)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:30:52 AM EST
    with empathizing with working class Americans, this indeed surprises me.  Considering his touted roots and multi-cultural, even international/multi-racial/multi-socio-economic  exposure, does not seem to compute with his present inability to communicate with the above-mentioned class.

    Was his earlier narrative somehow "enhanced"? Most people, having been exposed to different circumstances, can't help but be rendered wiser and more tolerant, more understanding and able to empathize with a variety of human conditions.  This is just being humane.  Perhaps someone could shed a little bit more light.


    Honestly, I don't think he is all that (none / 0) (#208)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:48:59 AM EST
    warm and fuzzy as a personality.

    I think there is something of privilege that comes through in his demeanor.  He's a politician and a lawyer though so he has the training to act the part he needs to play.

    Senator Clinton figured it out.  She started out stiff, wooden and guarded.  There isn't any reason why he shouldn't be able to figure it out too.  I think he has become more stiff, wooden and guarded.  No terribly surprising as presidential campaigns are trully brutal, but that's part of the test - seeing if a candidate can come through the ringer resembling something of him or herself at the end - and fit they can effect change and adapt where it is advantageous to their goals.

    It is time for Obama to implement some of the change he talks about...


    His old man a was a Rum runner (none / 0) (#94)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:00:30 AM EST
    so the connection was deeper than anything you might expect.

    His old man was a Catholic though so (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:09:36 AM EST
    the divide was deeper than you may realize.

    A lot of people now don't really understand what it was like then where it came to Protestant mistrust of Catholics.


    The trouble with (none / 0) (#25)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:41:06 AM EST
    starting the fight in Iowa, is that Iowans probably look to NE for their image of the true liberal and thus confuse that with a generally appealing Democrat. Or a democrats who can win a fight in the environs of Penn and Ohio.

    It seems that the Democratic party in Penn and Ohio has it's own ideas about what a Democrat should be.  It's now awed by the plummy accents and college credentials in quite the same way--although i'm not knocking college (I grew up in Oxford)


    I'm guessing here (none / 0) (#37)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    St Louis semed to be a city in awe of New York culturally and the older aspects of NE like Boston.  (Especially the art scene which is a leading indicator of other cultural aspirations)

    No... (none / 0) (#160)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:23:39 AM EST
    ...Iowans do not look to the NE or anywhere else for our image of a "true liberal" We don't really care what the East Coast does or says.  We are perfectly capable of thinking for ourselves, thank you.

    You assumption is insulting and demeaning.  Perhaps you should actually spend some time in the Hawkeye state so you wouldn't make these silly generalizations.  


    I've met a couple of guys from Iowa... (none / 0) (#196)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:39:33 AM EST
    and they definitely had their own opinions about politics! LOL

    That's why I'm not sure of Obama's (or Hillary's) appeal there. They seemed more like Libertarian-McCain voters to me.

    Would love to be proved wrong in November.


    You won't they won't go Democrat (none / 0) (#213)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:54:31 AM EST
    Thank you -- the dissing of our Midwest (none / 0) (#219)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:36:23 PM EST
    can be done in so many different ways, huh?  I take a deep breath and look up the map of the country as Easterners see it, the infamous New Yorker map -- and then I feel sorry for them, thinking that they're the center of the universe . . . when really, they're at the edge of our consciousness.:-)

    All this has happened before. And will happen (5.00 / 18) (#4)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:33:06 AM EST
    again. We do not learn from out mistakes. We barely admit that we made any mistakes. This party is on a mobius strip of failure.

    Almost every single one of the party leaders have thrown themselves into this mistake whole heartely. They will not go away once this election is over. They're still going to be here in 2012,2016, 2020, screwing things up.

    Obama (D-Mobius Strip 8) (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:36:21 AM EST

    Bill has an ability (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:33:08 AM EST
    to emphathise with people, which so far Obama has not displayed.  I believe he does care about people, but he may never be able to show it in the way Bill does naturally, and Hillary is learning.  

    In the GE he is going to have to have Bill out there doing his empathy for him. Guess he should not have trashed him up until now.

    I think Obama is the one who has to campaign his (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by indy woman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:59:16 AM EST
    heart out for the working class voters.  If he ends up being the nominee, it will be immaterial if Hillary and Bill campaign for him.  He is the one who has to make his own case for why the working class voters should vote for him as President.  I am not sure that will change even if Hillary is on the ticket as VP.

    I Don't Think That Anyone Else Is Going To (5.00 / 5) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:06:51 AM EST
    turn this around for Obama in small town and rural MO. Obama after all will be the president that they need to trust to represent them. It has to do with dignity and respect. If you have the perception that someone thinks you are "less than," are you going to trust him to have  "good judgement" or trust him to represent your interests? Also, the views of Rev. Wright and Ayers completely go against their ingrained value system.

    What Bill C. himself said about it. (5.00 / 8) (#134)
    by ghost2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:11:32 AM EST
    "When I said, "I feel your pain", they made fun of me. They said I was pandering.  But, you know, I didn't have the easiest upbringing." (parapharase)

    Bill gets it, and the working class know that he gets it.  For Bill and Hillary, government is still about helping the people and leveling the playing field.  Hillary has turned into a pragmatic fighter (they both know you have to pick your battles), but inside, she is still the idealist she was.

    I am always amused at those who call Bill Clinton a marvelous politician.  You see, Bill has empathy with people, therefore, he can bring the policy points to them.  Elites, on the other hand, pore over numbers, and think masses are too stupid to understand that universal healthcare is good for them.  That is the big difference.

    Aside: I bet you an old elite like John Kerry is still obsessed about ways of Washington, about who gets the credit.  He never seems to connect with people on how the policies affects them. Funny thing is, in his defence of Obama's healthcare plan, he said that him and Ted have about 40 years of experience working on Healthcare.  I thought, "and you have zilch to show for it. You and Ted still want to deny Hillary credit for SCHIP, even though absent Clinton, you never showed you were capable of passing anything".


    The Kennedy's used to have this (none / 0) (#157)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:21:36 AM EST
    gift, but Ted became old Washington along the way. He worked hard for senior citizens at one time. If Ted still had it, he'd be campaigning hard for Hillary.

    Obama's arrogance and elitism (5.00 / 7) (#141)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:14:22 AM EST
    is seen by his disrespect and immaturity in "brushing Hillary off" the bottom of his shoe and coat. And while the audience laughs, Obama smiles and feels good about mocking Hillary.
    This level of meanspiritedness is a bad trait for a presidential candidate seeking to represent "all people."

    Great point Josey.... (5.00 / 4) (#192)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:37:41 AM EST
    ...and this is why it burns me up so much to see the media elites pompously blubbering about how Hillary has trashed Obama while pretending that he has done nothing but sing her praises. The American people saw that too, on YouTube on Fox. Many of them are no longer buying the "he's pure as mountain spring water" argument anymore because they can see past all the spin. So what's left? If they are all "just politicians" then why not pick the one who has proven she can do the job?

    Obama will lose in the general election by a (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Angel on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:34:10 AM EST
    landslide.  I think it's time to start the write-in campaign for Hillary Clinton if she doesn't get the nomination.  

    I've switched to undeclared (5.00 / 5) (#68)
    by nellre on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    If enough former democrats re-register, switching to independent or undeclared... (it would have to happen en-mass) the DNC and the SuperDs might get the picture.

    Done (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:56:19 AM EST
    I've got my pen.

    The write-in website is already up (none / 0) (#151)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:17:47 AM EST
    WriteHillaryIn.com is up and running. IF she doesn't get the nomination, her campaign must notify several states, including FL, that she wants to be a write-in candidate otherwise it's just a protest vote and won't be counted. I would love to see the faces on the pundits if Obama manages to wangle the nomination only to lose to Hillary by a landslide of write-in votes. Lots of Republican women may write her in as well.

    Can't you just see Olberman's or Tweety's face as his earpiece tells him that Hillary Clinton is in the lead? With write-in votes?? I would rather see her get the nomination and go the usual route to the White House, but I'll take a write-in win too. I can also see the headlines in the European newspapers..."America's women ROAR". Heh.


    Working from an often faulty memory, but (none / 0) (#152)
    by alsace on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:19:17 AM EST
    when I tried to research this some time back...
    Unless there is a slate of electors designated by the write-in candidate, the vote will just be ignored. Therefore, I've been keeping an eye on third party candidates who might get on the VA ballot.   But maybe it's different in other states.  

    I'm Writing In Hillary!! (none / 0) (#181)
    by talex on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:31:04 AM EST
    if Obama is the nominee.

    I have the luxury of living in California where a Dem will win no matter who it is. We are a solid Blue State. So I can write in Clinton without fear of tipping the nomination to McCain. I hope millions of others around the country will join me.


    I fear at this point (5.00 / 15) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:34:29 AM EST
    that none of these voters are going to be receptive to the message that Obama "feels their pain." They are already of the overwhelming opinion that he does not "share their values."

    I'm not even sure a unity ticket would work in this case.

    I am off the unity pony (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:49:22 AM EST
    I have heard enough insults about his need a food taster if she was his VP.  yada yada.
    it would not put him over the top and I hope she does not lower herself.

    I finally stepped off it (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:52:00 AM EST
    just a couple of weeks ago.

    Takes a lot to get me to admit that a Democratic candidate is as bad as Obama. But he is, he really is.


    me too (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by Dr Molly on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:23:49 AM EST
    I have shocked myself.

    i have been off the unity train (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM EST
    for awhile. come enjoy the outdoors. the flowers are blooming.

    Too smokey (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:06:14 AM EST
    Too smokey outside today to enjoy the outdoors. But I can see from inside that FINALLY the hibiscus has a flower fully in bloom. The dogs have been ripping off any flowers that started to open up until this point. LIVE FLOWER LIVE!

    I fell of the other day (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Lahdee on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:01:28 AM EST
    But I could be persuaded to get back on if he'd simply stop trying to blow up the Democratic party in the name of new politics.
    Okay, not likely, but his people may read BTD.

    I've concluded (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:19:48 AM EST
    if Obama died of a brain aneurysm, Hillary would be blamed.

    It's too late (5.00 / 7) (#84)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:58:41 AM EST
    If he cared about doing that, he would already have done it.

    I've been thinking about (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:53:36 AM EST
    what it might be like to grow up in Hawaii, even if your mother and grandparents are from Kansas.  Maybe you do not get that real sense of connection with the rest of the country, and it can't help but show through in some way.

    I wish he had tried to estatblish that connection before he ran for president, rather than during the campaign.


    They moved up gradually (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:17:24 AM EST
    they lived on Mercer Island (one of the most affluent areas of Seattle) for several years before moving on to Hawaii.

    He was never raised in poverty, or even lower middle class. His financially comfortable grandparents were always there.


    This contest has been an epiphany for me too. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:34:45 AM EST
    It's like the last piece of the puzzle that explains Kerry, Dukakis, Gore, Mondale, McGovern. And Kennedy's aberant behaviour in 1980.

    Hopefully Obama (if he wins the nomination) is as smart as they say and he can confront the deficiencies of the Ivy-Masschusian-Bigwiggery in the party.

    It doesn't look good though.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by ghost2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:17:12 AM EST
    But please leave Gore out. I have respect for him, and he hasn't yet joined the circus.  The drumroll has so far failed to take him in.

    I never saw Gore as equal to Dukakis and Kerry.  Like Hillary, he cares, and is wonky and passionate at the same time.


    And like Hillary he (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:22:58 AM EST
    was subjected to a similar treatment by the MSM who were enamoured by Bush and the Dem elites who were enamoured by Bradley. See Daily Howler to further note the similarities. And thanks to the MSM and also Dem elites, Gore who should have ideally pushed for a recount in FL backed out because it was the "right thing" to do. And we all know where the "right thing" landed us.

    Me too. (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:30:09 AM EST
    The way I have been sneered at and condescended to simply because I support Hillary has certainly given me a complete understanding of why working class whites don't vote for us.

    I look at Obama who arrogantly expects me to vote for him and plans to bash me over the head with roe v. wade against McCain who is actually reaching out to voters like me, telling me my vote is important and working to get it.


    Those are the guys he's trying to erase (none / 0) (#142)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:14:33 AM EST
    them, and their dreadful Washington ways. Obviously, they aren't listening to his words, either.

    You forgot Carter.


    Denial, BTD, barely (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by kmblue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:34:50 AM EST
    begins to describe it.
    I've been reading around this morning.
    I'm losing hope for any turnaround in their attitude.
    Why is it so freakin' hard for this folks to admit even the possibility that they are wrong?
    Instead, they are bound and determined to head off that cliff.

    "head off that cliff" (5.00 / 10) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:40:01 AM EST
    IMO that is exactly what they are doing.
    I had an epiphany last night.  it was while I was watching Obama condescendingly respond to a question about the so called "dream ticket".
    the epiphany was this: I am not voting for him.

    I had that epiphany way back in February.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Angel on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:49:19 AM EST
    I really really really tried (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:50:16 AM EST
    but Im done.

    If it's Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:25:06 AM EST
    I'm voting for her.

    If it's Obama, I'm officially undecided until November.  A lot of people polling Undecided might also get attention.  Of course, it might get the Republican's attention instead of the Democrats, but hey I can't be responsible for whatever Team O decides to do.


    Denial for MSM maybe (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by nellre on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:51:02 AM EST
    But the voters are still voting for HRC.
    MSM has not been able to usurp the will of the people.

    The Missouri speech (5.00 / 11) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:36:09 AM EST
    frankly showcased the Obama weaknesses.  He was awkward and dull as he was speaking about the things government must and should do for people.  His alleged oratory, falters when he tries to communicated his practical leadership with people.  The hope/change worked for the primary but it's played out and now Obama is showcasing that he does not have the goods for the GE.  He will really show his inexperience.  

    You can see (5.00 / 9) (#46)
    by Nadai on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:50:14 AM EST
    a similar sort of dynamic with Bush.  Whenever Bush is talking about destroying something, he's animated and fluent (fluent for Bush, anyway).  When he's talking about helping people, he's incoherent, mixing up his words and mangling his sentences.  It's a tell - you know he doesn't mean a word of it.

    With Obama, the content is different and the delivery is much better even at his worst, but you can still tell that he's just not interested in details.  It's the soaring rhetoric about abstracts that moves him.  Actual policy is a bore.


    Obama Is Completely Out Of His Element (5.00 / 9) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:50:59 AM EST
    and it is so obvious that it can and will not be ignored. I don't think it is just inexperience. It is almost like he is in a foreign country and does not know the language or customs of the people there. Small town and rural folks are the "other" to Obama just as much as Obama is to them. I don't think that Obama can turn this around because he is just being Obama.

    Remember how surprised he was when the (5.00 / 7) (#70)
    by lorelynn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:55:58 AM EST
    farmer wanted to talk about Burma? I couldn't believe a Democratic pol said that. He is truly clueless about rural life.

    Missed that. (none / 0) (#171)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:26:34 AM EST
    Got a link?

    Here's Something (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by The Maven on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:50:46 AM EST
    I hadn't heard about this anecdote, either, but it was pretty easy to track down.  Apparently it's something that originally came up in Iowa and was remarked upon by Obama last November in New Hampshire.

    Looking at the video, one could either come away with the view that Obama was genuinely impressed by the range of issues he was being questioned about, or that he was poking fun at those wacky rural Iowans.  I watched the clip a couple of times, and if I were predisposed one way or the other, I could easily be convinced either way.


    say what you want about mccain, (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:56:35 AM EST
    i think he does better with the average joe than obama will. and i think that will be important in this campaign.

    Obama in MO (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:01:00 AM EST
    The MO speech was an embarrassment.  He's already lost those voters, as evidenced by their indifference.  They are not interested in his late-developed "plans" to rescue them.  And all I could think of was his disdain for Hillary when I watched him do the best pander of the season - tax cuts for the audience.

    Even the pundits seemed lost when they watched Obama without an adoring audience.  Yes, there are real Democrats out there who are alert and unimpressed.  McCain will get them, easily.


    Only saw brief moments (none / 0) (#127)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:10:10 AM EST
    but, the people sitting right behind him would give just gratuitous applause, or none at all. Maybe they only there because they were told the speaker was going to be someone else.

    He's up in Michigan today.


    I caught a bit of his speech (none / 0) (#201)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:43:04 AM EST
    about creating jobs:  practically plagiarized Hillary's "we cannot keep companies from outsourcing jobs, but we can certainly stop giving them tax breaks for doing it,"

    I was sick.  This guy has no sense of embarrassment; appropriating someone else's plan as his own.


    I hope he's adaptable. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:44:02 AM EST
    Otherwise it's going to be a punishing experience.

    Who'll believe him? (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Davidson on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:17:14 AM EST
    If all of a sudden he starts going for the working class vote, hardly any significant portion of Clinton Democrats will believe him because he never comes across as genuine or even concerned about the working class; people will see it as the political ploy it is.

    Besides, if he starts talking substance, policy, solutions it'll only lay open how inexperienced and unqualified he is, playing to Clinton's strengths.  Remember, there's a reason why Axelrod totally avoided going the conventional routine: Obama can't win.  The only way he could win was being "different."  Thus, he can't win the GE.


    He had to give up the minister (none / 0) (#115)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:05:59 AM EST
    oratory style after Rev Wright or risk sounding too much like a TUCC apostle.

    why is no one talking about.... (5.00 / 16) (#11)
    by Kensdad on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:36:11 AM EST
    the fact that obama has been losing since March?  why isn't that the story?  that he was largely unvetted and unknown when he went on his 11-in-a-row win streak in february.  now that the american public has gotten to know him a bit more, he has lost, TX, OH, RI, PA, IN, WV while winning in VT and NC...

    is it even possible for him to turn things around by the fall?  and why aren't superdelegates very, very nervous about that?  isn't it their job to select the most electable candidate for the general election?  why are they completely abdicating their responsibility?

    You know who is talking about this? (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:40:03 AM EST
    Erick at Redstate.

    The Creative Class is going to be massively disappointed at some point.


    "greatest gift...to the GOP" (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:31:42 AM EST
    thanks, andgarden. I just have to quote some of that:

    In West Virginia, Obama Still Can't Win
     I have to wonder how many members of the MSM will change the "Obama wins" narrative, at least only slightly, to recognize that Obama is, in fact, the weaker candidate in a general election match up with John McCain.
    ....When the sun sets on this election we might have to realize that the media's efforts to set up Obama as the Democrat nominee has been the greatest gift they've ever given to the GOP.



    Perhaps this is the MSM's (none / 0) (#205)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:46:43 AM EST
    SECRET AGENDA after all:  let the weaker candidate face McCain who is their true love.  I think that notion was mentioned several times in previous threads.

    I think they've spent their lives (none / 0) (#179)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:30:28 AM EST
    being massively disappointed.

    They revel in it.

    Their failings are always someone else's fault...and now they've found a candidate who feels the same way they do.

    IACF! works for both them AND Obama, no?


    Power play (5.00 / 13) (#27)
    by nellre on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:42:39 AM EST
    I'm seeing an effort to eject the Clintons from power in the democratic party. Obama is just the crowbar.

    I wish I could be a fly on the wall in some of the leadership meetings.


    the coup (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by Kensdad on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:49:37 AM EST
    is being engineered by the losers:  Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle, Dodd, Richardson, etc...

    We need Shakespeare (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by magisterludi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:59:34 AM EST
    to rise from the dead and write this upcoming tragedy.

    Maybe Brecht? Arthur Miller? (none / 0) (#176)
    by Fabian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:30:08 AM EST

    yup, they sit around yuking it up (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:01:17 AM EST
    planning the demise of the clintons all the while writing the script for their own.

    The really funny thing is that they (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:30:10 AM EST
    are planning the demise of the Clintons while Hillary is running over Obama with a big ole' combine. He is being thrashed like wheat. But he doesn't see it that way, he sees it as being behind with people who don't matter to him. The problem with that is that those people vote, and they won't be voting for him. If they can, they will vote for Hillary. Even if it means writing her in. I am giggling like a kid at the idea that Obama will be the first candidate beaten by one of his own party through write-in votes. Way to go down in history, Senator. Heh.

    Because a lot of people decided (5.00 / 9) (#77)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:57:08 AM EST
    that the primary was over long ago.  Weird.

    The opportunity to campaign in more than five or six states hasn't presented itself to the Democratic Party in years and we are gathering valuable insights as to how to win - problem is that a number of people have no desire to use that information.  They just think they can't lose against the GOP so why bother.  That attitude keeps getting Democrats into trouble.  Many, many Dems celebrated when Reagan was nominated figuring they couldn't lose - we all know how that turned out.


    It's a treasure trove for (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:58:10 AM EST

    He also won (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Faust on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:13:20 AM EST
    Missisippi and Wyoming. Texas was very close. Indianna was very very close.

    This race is now and has always been about demographics (though we didn't realize it till super Tuesday). There have been moments where those demographics have shifted, where one or the other side has made some inroads into the others demos, but really they have been remarkably stable.

    All narratives that do not primarily root themselves in the demographic data, such as the "buyers remorse" narrative, and so forth are simply flights of fancy.

    That does not mean Obama does not have a problem but the "get to know him a bit more" line you propose as the reason for his losses seems hard to support. His losses were completely predictable based on the demographic data. Indeed, Poblano, who has been predicting the primaries purely on the basis of demographics (as far as I understand his method) pretty much nailed W Virginia to within a percentage point.


    Nah, just look at BTD's #s (none / 0) (#190)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:36:40 AM EST
    in his posts over the last few weeks. They show that BHO is losing % in categories as time goes on.

    He can try (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:36:40 AM EST
    But it can't be a contrivance or it will backfire and make things even worse.

    Maybe that went without saying.  How was Bill able to "feel their pain" AND do so without it appearing to be an act of condescension at the same time?

    Because (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by Emma on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:40:12 AM EST
    Bill came from them.  And he hasn't forgotten it.

    The Obama movement (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:45:04 AM EST
    failure.  They subtracted clumps of voters to solidify their coalition.  Now they don't have a clue how to add those clumps again.  They subtracted them by demonizing cause that is what they learned from the Bush years.  Truly pathetic.  

    They are counting on the party (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:53:20 AM EST
    voter who can't vote Republican. They think they've expanded the party demographics so broadly they don't have to worry about the 30% (or more) who really won't vote for him.

    PA showed that youth demographic didn't go to the polls, though.


    And, he never forgot the (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:46:03 AM EST
    diversity of the country the entire time he was in office. He did exactly what he promised he would and the lower and middle classes were included in his policies.

    Bill Clinton... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:49:56 AM EST
    ...and me, low company, the scum of the earth. Signed for drink and plunder.  garrr...

    Worth repeating. (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by ghost2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:24:23 AM EST
    Bill came from them.  And he hasn't forgotten it.

    Very well put.  I took two paragraphs upthread trying to say this.


    Bill connected with people. and still does. (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:44:01 AM EST
    it is an ephemeral quality that is hard to appreciate if you have not seen him in a room in person.  when he shakes your hand he has a way of making you feel like you are the center of his universe and there is no one in the room but you and him.
    it may sound crazy but it is why he won.
    it is the quality Obama does not have and it can not be learned.

    I've seen the dude (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:49:54 AM EST
    In person.  And yes.

    But now we sound like cultists, don't we?  LOL.


    I worry about the counter-cult growing here now (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Jim J on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:54:30 AM EST
    I love this place, but I'm seeing an awful lot of people completely discount Obama's chances in November. Wishful thinking aside, the numbers and dynamic continue to favor any Democrat immensely. People can get as mad as they want about that, but all the numbers, including latest head-to-heads, bear it out.

    Just trying to be objective, I know that's taboo on blogs these days.


    That trend would be a relief... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:57:17 AM EST
    ...and welcome.  It's possible that teh battle has been fought so hard because McCain is a walking cypher.

    the numbers (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Kensdad on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:59:02 AM EST
    show obama winning in a national poll vs. mccain, but not in a state-by-state poll...  when you do that, he loses to mccain.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by Dr Molly on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:28:31 AM EST
    I've never said he can't win in November because I recognize that it is a hugely complicated mix of factors at play, and I don't have any desire to pretend I know what will happen.

    It is so complicated - the racial, gender and class divides amongst the democrats; the strange difference in West vs. East voting patterns; the fact that McCain has some strengths with Independents but doesn't necessarily attract the Republican base; McCain's age vs. Obama's youth - good and bad; and the list goes on. I have absolutely no idea how it will turn out. All that said, I have never felt so detached about what the outcome will be. I have come to loathe Obama, but I've always loathed McCain.


    This was true in '72 also (5.00 / 3) (#204)
    by esmense on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    Democrats were convinced that ANY Democrat would win -- because of the great unpopularity of both Nixon and the war.

    But a candidate who turned out to be truly unappealing, deep divisions in the party created by the primary battles, McGovern's intentional strategy of running against (and thereby alienating) key Democratic constituencies (Big Labor -- with a reform message that was intended to attract independent and moderate Republcan votes) all combined for an historic loss. Many of the same people (Gary Hart) who argued at that time that youth, independents and moderate Republicans (people George Meany called "$25,000 a year men) would allow the party to put together a "new" coaltion in which the traditional working class Democratic constituency would no longer play an important role are still making that argument today, for Obama.

    Maybe their time HAS come. Maybe they are correct that the only thing required to keep women in the fold (in the numbers needed for a Democratic win) is more bullying and fear mongering about Roe v. Wade. Maybe the country really only needs two political parties that serve the interests of the corporations and their "creative class" parasites and hangers on. (Although that doesn't seem to have been doing much good for the majority of middle and working class Americans over the last 30 years.)

    Maybe this time the "new coalition" will win.

    Go ahead and cast your vote for a Democratic party that doesn't really have any reason for being other than to collect fat checks from the affluent and make sure they get their money's worth in terms of legislation.

    I won't.


    Here's the thing... it's not about (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:01:04 PM EST
    "any Democrat" winning, it's about putting the most qualified person in office. We need a President who can clean up the mess this country is in. We don't need a lot of high falutin' oratory, we need WORK. Guess which candidate has proven they can work long and hard. Hillary Clinton. We deserve the best we can elect, not the prettiest, the shiniest, or the newest, THE BEST. So get off the "any Democrat" meme, "any Democrat" just isn't good enough. Neither is Obama. Sorry.

    NOT (none / 0) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:01:12 AM EST
    the state by state numbers.
    national polls are less than meaningless.

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:04:49 AM EST
    That is not me.

    Kerry was pyhsically impressive (none / 0) (#48)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:50:36 AM EST
    when I met him. themn he opened his mouth.

    lol (none / 0) (#83)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:58:37 AM EST
    but no
    I appreciate Bills political skills.  I do not faint at his personal appearances.

    He doesn't even have to be in the room (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:55:54 AM EST
    I can watch him on tv and think he's talking to me.

    Hillary, I hear, has that gift at an even higher level.

    I love that Bill believes she'd be a better president than he was, and is proud to say so.


    "a better president than he was" (5.00 / 6) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:59:35 AM EST
    not only do I agree with that, many of us arkansans have always said this was the case.

    I've met Hillary once and I found a very similar (5.00 / 8) (#91)
    by Angel on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:59:39 AM EST
    quality in her.  She is very pretty in person and comes across as very warm, soothing and gracious.  She would be a wonderful, wonderful president.

    Bill Actually Likes People And Thrives Around Them (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:17:45 AM EST
    He is a true extrovert so it is not just politics. My guess is that Obama is more introverted and has to work hard at being around so many unfamiliar people. He does well when he is up on a big stage giving a prepared performance and the spotlight is on him. He IMO does not do well when he needs to turn the spotlight around and focus on individual people and their problems.  

    exactly right (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:25:40 AM EST
    the aids always had to drag Bill away from the crowds.
    its why he is always late to the next appearance.

    You are exactly right about Big Dog. I've met him (4.33 / 6) (#76)
    by Angel on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    twice in very intimate settings and both times it was just as you said:  You are the most important thing to him at that moment; he looks you in the eye and he responds to whatever it is you say. His charisma is off the charts.  And no arrogance whatsoever.  

    That's Obama's main flaw: arrogance.  


    Michigan is Appalachia (5.00 / 10) (#15)
    by Bob Boardman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:36:54 AM EST
    To those who think that "Appalachia is the problem", I'd remind them of the hillbilly migration to Michigan in the early 1900s.

    If you are weak in Appalachia, you are going to have a weakness in Michigan.

    I'm not sure how you can give up West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan and Florida - and think you have the best chances in the fall.

    Don't forget Pennsylvania. . . (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:38:01 AM EST
    Yup. I'm from Michigan and... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Shainzona on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:53:51 AM EST
    do you know where Michiganders retire to?  Tennessee and Kentucky!

    Yeah (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:38:25 AM EST
    Basically WV was the huge wakeup call.  If the Dems don't do anything about it, and instead throw (per Anglachel) the 'elitist sacrificial lamb' to the alter of the Republicans, we'll all know who to blame -- and it won't be the Clintons.

    And BTW, Clinton won 72% of the voters who voted for Bill's GE election.  They likes them some Clintons in WV!

    It's even more interesting - (none / 0) (#217)
    by liminal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:40:40 PM EST
    - when you look at which counties in West Virginia went solidly Democratic in 2000 and in 2004, and see how well HRC did there.  Mingo, Logan, Boone - these counties went for both Gore and Kerry - sometimes big - and Clinton won big, too.

    She won Mingo by 9 to 1, and she got more votes there in the primary than Kerry (who won the county) won in the general in 2004.  


    Western polls (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by nellre on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:39:22 AM EST
    Polls taken in western states were pre-Wright, correct?
    This could have a Wright component then?

    To me Wright represents the "not like me" part of Obama. It's not the color, it's the message.

    I think it shows up in much of the West (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:39:56 AM EST
    also, or would have more clearly if more of the states had primaries instead of caucuses.  For example, look at the so-called window dressing Nebraska primary yesterday. Almost 4 times the number of Dems showed up to vote, and Obama only won 49 - 46%, as opposed to the caucus where he got 67%.

    Lets not mention (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:41:07 AM EST
    the non existent Latino voter. Oh, they don't even get mentioned.  Apparently, they don't exist.  

    Here's a problem. I think Gore and Kerry (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:43:50 AM EST
    "felt our pain". I just don't think they knew how to express that empathy.

    Obama on the other hand, I'm not sure he cares at all. Where they were stiff or aloof, he's dismissive and condescending. He'd better learn to fake sincerity, quick.

    He has no resume to suggest that he does. (5.00 / 4) (#175)
    by lorelynn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:29:46 AM EST
    Here he worked at civil rights law firm, and didn't use that as a platform to change people's lives. You don't see him tackling social service projects, getting them funded, and changing people's lives. Heck, he didn't even use the resources of Trinity church to make a difference. All that fundraising ability he has was never put to use on behalf of other people. That tells you something big about him. Obama's fundraising ability has been put to use to raise funds for Obama.

    He doesn't DO anything to suggest he cares. That's the difference between him and the Clintons.


    Too bad Obama's campaign (5.00 / 11) (#29)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:43:52 AM EST
    hasn't listened to your advice the way Hillary's has! ;-)

    It was Bill's ability to be perceived as a strong yet understanding man which made him such a popular President with Clinton Dems.

    Obama, OTOH, has consistently shown himself to be both lacking in confidence, and completely insensitive to his own weaknesses as a candidate and their effect on the voters of America.

    For example, 75% of WV voters said that Obama agreed with Wright's views to some degree. It is crazy to think that didn't influence their votes, isn't it? Obama did not have this big a problem with Clinton Dems before Wright, did he? Look at North Carolina's results. She keeps cutting into his demographics. Why? Yes, she's a great candidate, but Obama himself has lost a lot of his luster.

    I predict that his campaign will learn nothing from this resounding defeat, and will go on to proclaim, in their usual tone-deaf and jaw-droppingly stupid manner, that Obama has won on May 20th.

    That will be the final nail in the coffin of the Democrats' hopes in November...unless the SD's do their jobs and stop the Obama train wreck before it happens.

    Wow , if they still declare victory (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:47:58 AM EST
    on May 20 after Hillary's speech last night they are declaring all out war.

    That would truly be jaw-droppingly stupid.


    They will do it. (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:54:17 AM EST
    Take it to the bank.

    My thoughts on this tactic are unprintable here, but let's just say, I'm not a fan.


    Ha. I'm with you (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:56:31 AM EST
    Bingo! (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:05:18 AM EST
    I'm planning to create a greeting card:

    A lovely sketch of Napoleon crowning himself.

    In my book, Obama's never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity (to paraphrase Abba Eban) when it comes to truly reaching out to people not in his "movement" and asking for their vote. (Leaving a message for Hillary on her cellphone after WV instead of making a concession speech, no matter how short... Just the latest example of complete disrespect. And she said nice things about him in her speech, too, so the difference was very obvious.)

    So, I fully expect Obama to go through with the 5/20 thing -- right over the cliff. And it will be war.


    Declaring victory May 20th (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by wasabi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:13:54 AM EST
    I'm really confused about what the reason for declaring victory on May 20th is.  I believe I heard some comentators on teevee last night say that they needed to declare victory with the 2025 number just in case MI and FLA get seated on the 30th and the number changes to a higher total of delegates needed to win.  Once they declare victory (think Bush's cousins call on FOX declaring him the winner in 2000), it's much harder to work against that narrative.  I imagine the Obama team has a list of delegates in their pocket who will dribble in prior to the OR and KT primaries, allowing Obama to hit his number on the 20th.

    I just think it's a crappy narrative and it will really piss off alot of folks to see the delegate count change only after he declares himself the winner.


    Perhaps (5.00 / 6) (#166)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:25:05 AM EST
    it was the only day that the aircraft carrier wasn't booked.

    LOL! (none / 0) (#172)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:27:21 AM EST

    Just wanted to say: (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    Great use of "cling" in your second paragraph.

    As a working class person, myself, (5.00 / 20) (#35)
    by lorelynn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:47:07 AM EST
    I see no evidence that Obama "gets it". You look at Obama's past and he's done very littled for working class people that didn't come from someone else's desk originally. The guy graduates from Harvard Law School, has political ambitions, goes to work for a civil rights law firm, and never leads on a case once he gets there. He never uses that extraordinary platform to tackle a problem and make life bettter for ordinary people. Does that mean there were no civil rights problems in Chicago at the time that needed fixing? What are the odds of that? Instead, he kicks Alice Palmer off the ballot and despite his vaunted post-partisan genius, does nothing for the first six years while Republicans control Springfield.

    You look at Clinton's career - she gets out of law school and  does that internship at Yale Children's Center. She becomes staff attorney to the Children's Defense Fund. She moves to Arkansas and she opens a legal aid clinic. She's appointed to the board of Legal Services Corporation, and she expands the budget by several million dollars during the Reagan years. She finds out the rural Arkansans have limited access to healthcare because there are no healthcare facilities so she's out rounding up federal funds to build the facilities. She sees a limited number of slots for kids in Head Start, so she puts together a home schooling program for those kids. She's got lots of stuff like that in her background - places where she used her education and her access to make life better for ordinary and under-privileged people.

    Obama hasn't done that. That's a very big problem for him. People who accomplish stuff have a long history of accomplishing stuff. People who don't accomplish stuff rarely start in their forties. Personally, I think obama will be the worst Democratic president since the 19th century.

    Watched HRC's speech last night... (5.00 / 8) (#87)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    and as tears were running down my face and my husband's face, all I kept saying was "She knows, she knows."

    She is in this race to put America back on the right track. We are hanging by a thread in this country. Our rights almost gone. Our troops in two endless occupations. Our economy in a recession. Our climate changing for the worse. These things must be fixed or our beloved United States will collapse under the weight of its own aristocracy.

    Hillary knows why it's important who becomes President. The people who vote for her know why it's important.

    I saw some signs behind her last night that read, "We NEED Hillary!"

    Yes, we do.


    Please make this a diary. (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by ghost2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:32:37 AM EST
    and post it somewhere.  Do you have an account on mydd?

    The biggest shame about all this (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Jim J on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:48:05 AM EST
    is that given the underlying dynamic right now, Obama will likely win in the general despite his obvious weaknesses as a candidate and as a person. Dems have just won their third special election in a row in a Bush district. And McCain is not even loved by Republicans, not by a long shot.

    It's a Democratic year if there ever was one. Obama would be a non-starter any other year, but this is a clear anomaly.

    I say all this with dismay.

    That's what they said when they nominated Dukakis. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:49:01 AM EST
    No it's not (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jim J on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:52:28 AM EST
    Come on, now who's in denial? Dems have a 50-32 generic ballot lead. Repubs in deep red districts are dropping like flies. McCain is loathed by the base.

    I know it's a blog and we're supposed to scream at each other all the time, but can we be at least a little bit objective here?


    Do you still think (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    that Clinton Dems are going to vote for Obama just because he has a "D" after his name?

    With respect, I'd say it's you who are not being very objective here.


    Could be a Tsunami (none / 0) (#61)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:54:11 AM EST
    And timing is everything.

    But, Reagan had a huge Democratic House and Senate to deal with and he wiped out Mondale, Bush too. He wiped out Dukakis.


    Yes, it is. The argument was (none / 0) (#82)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:58:26 AM EST
    any Dem would win.  Obama will bring out the base for McCain, and like it or not, most americans view McCain as a moderate.

    Special elections (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:52:47 AM EST
    may or may not be proof of a Tsunami.

    I remember 1992 in the UK all too well to depend on by-election results.


    While good, these special elections are precarious (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by thomphool on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:10:47 AM EST
    Not to say that winning in the MS 1st isn't a huge day for Democrats, it's very important to keep in mind that 107,000 turned out to vote in last night's election.

    In 2004, 278,000 turned out in the general election in the MS 1st.

    In the LA-6th, 97,000 turned out.  Over 260,000 turned out in 04.

    99,000 in the IL-14th.  279,000 in in 04.

    There is an excitement gap right now, that's for sure, and Democrats should be working our tails off for these house seats, but these special elections results should be tempered somewhat.  The general election electorate is going to be very different than these special elections.  It should be a good year for Democrats, but some of these predictions of HUGE house pick ups are overly optimistic.


    the truth is (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:53:38 AM EST
    his "weakness as a candidate" has not yet begun to be explored.  and wont be until Hillary is out.
    he is toast.  IMO he wont just lose he will LOSE.

    The numbers do not favor you (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jim J on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:56:17 AM EST
    I'm the farthest thing from an Obama fan, but all the data and intangibles point to a victory by either HRC or Obama.

    I hope so (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:58:57 AM EST
    We can't afford another Republican in the White House.

    Still, I think he's going to be blown out in the Electoral College.


    exactly (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:09:57 AM EST
    it is 50 state elections.  not one national election.
    if you look state by state, he loses.

    one other thing (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:37:21 AM EST
    I saw last night on CNN that he lost Catholics by almost 20% more than he lost Protestants.
    this is a big problem.

    I put a big (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:00:32 AM EST
    'IT DEPENDS' qualifier upon your statement.

    I saw McCain on the local news.  He was nice, vulnerable, self-deprecating. talking about the ENVIRONMENT.  At the same time, you saw his scars to remind you that he lived in a freaking box for years in Vietnam.

    I said, "oh my, I actually like him."  Then I slapped myself silly.  (And BTW, McCain is definitely a media darling in the Seattle market.)

    But, not everyone is going to slap themselves silly.  Add one or two terrorist threats, coupled with Obama's affiliation with the effete-ocrats, with Wright, with Ayers....oh and add a few voters who are as peeved about this election as I am...and you have yourself a President McCain.  

    Obama only one the Washington PRIMARY (not caucus) by 5%.  He isn't wickedly popular in this blue state.


    WON the primary, one One. More coffee! (none / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:01:23 AM EST
    with all due respect there is no way (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:03:22 AM EST
    obama can win the general. and i don't want to see him again in four years either.

    Don't be so sure (none / 0) (#65)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:54:49 AM EST
    People like a split government - one party in the Congress and another in the Presidency. Because most people don't really trust either party.

    While Repubs in Congress may take the brunt of the Bush effect, McCain may not. The press likes to sell his "maverick" status and that could help him. And while McCain may not be loved by Repubs, when faced with the actual choice they may take what they consider the lesser of two evils. Anything can happen.


    BTD, Obama will lose the GE. (5.00 / 14) (#39)
    by masslib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:48:19 AM EST
    You can not win a GE with the Bill Bradley coalition + African Americans.  He peaked in February.  All the king's horses and all the king's men, will not be able to put Barack Obama together again.  

    Speaking of elitists- I visited americablog (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by kenosharick on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:51:35 AM EST
    to see their reaction to WV.- they NEVER report the results, but are frantically attacking Hillary and screaming about how she is "destroying the party" They are so over the top it is almost funny. I guess allowing people to actually vote is anathema to Obama supporters.

    americablog (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    truly is the eye of the unhinged hurricane.
    I am so embarrassed I every hung out there.

    Conservative backlash narrative (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by 1jane on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:53:30 AM EST
    The 2008 election just might be the first election where the conservative backlash narrative against liberals and elites will find itself in the minority nationwide. Some writers have declared that Obama is a step in the road to a new era of politics in terms of the progressive movement. The era of liberal elites as a negative just might be over in terms of its national political effectiveness. That would be refreshing.

    I would hate to make that the plan (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:03:15 AM EST
    for winning.

    liberal elites at the top of the heap? (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:05:01 AM EST
    not going to happen! what chance they had has been blown. that you would write this following last night leaves me saying wtf!

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:06:54 AM EST
    is not a liberal. If he were, he'd have my vote.

    I really don't get where you're coming from here.


    Hope so. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:55:12 AM EST
    But, maybe not.  The voters are stubborn.

    Bravo BTD (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Lahdee on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:57:26 AM EST
    We can't win in November without those pesky middle class white voters back east.

    "The Change thing is so five minutes ago. Time to feel their pain."
    So true.

    Sheesh (5.00 / 16) (#93)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:00:07 AM EST
    Obama has a problem with non-college educated voters EVERYWHERE, except for African-Americans of course.  The evidence bears this out.  It is indisputable.  Obama has won white voters without a college degree in ONE STATE, Wisconsin.  He even lost them in Illinois!

    Now, it could be that the problem manifests itself more prominently in states like West Virginia because of the educational demographics of those states, but that doesn't make it a regional problem.  It's still a class problem.  It's the same problem that candidates like Kerry and Dukakis had, and I can't imagine how people look at a problem that manifested itself four short years ago with a white nominee and blame it on racism.

    Most Obama supporters seem to want to sweep this under the rug and talk only about how Obama has won the "white vote" in many states.  Well, yes, no one disputes that Obama does very well with educated white liberals, and by the way, that's a group that turns out very disproportionately in Democratic primaries.  But in the GE there's going to be a whole lot of white folks without college degrees, and the Democrats cannot win without being competitive among this demographic.  As we've discussed many times at this site, there is not enough time between now and November to send every voter to the University of Phoenix.

    Denial (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:00:56 AM EST
    is not just a river in Egypt.

    I agree with you that (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:08:19 AM EST
    Obamas electability problems are not only about race.
    probably not even primarily about race.  you are correct, he has exactly the same problem with downscale democrats that Kerry and Dukakis did.
    he is seen as an elitist snob.  which transcends race.

    Which (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Step Beyond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:12:54 AM EST
    also leads to once again the Dem brand being linked with elitist snobs. Each time it will continue to build upon itself so that each successive nominee begins with the label more firmly attached to them.

    The sad part (5.00 / 6) (#155)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    is how people on the blogs just refuse to get it.  They want to argue that Obama came from a non-privileged background or that Clinton has a lot of money or whatever.  At the end of the day, the issue is about what voters PERCEIVE, not about whether you can make some carefully constructed logical argument about elitism.  Gawd, what family is more blue-blooded than the Bushes?  Means nothing if the voters don't see it that way.

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  We wouldn't keep nominating candidates with the exact same problem if it were just a couple people who were confused about the concept of elitism.  There is a deep and systematic lack of understanding in the Democratic ranks, which is what leads us to keep making the same mistakes.  It's just disappointing that people haven't figured it out by now.


    They refuse to understand (none / 0) (#170)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:26:14 AM EST
    Condescension (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by noholib on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:01:21 AM EST
    Please don't blame the condescension on Massachusetts.  Remember, we voted strongly for Clinton in the February primary--despite the ecstatic cheerleading for Senator Obama by Senators Kennedy and Kerry and Governor Patrick.

    And please don't blame all people who make their livings through intellectual or cultural work.
    I assure you: many people with advanced academic degrees do support Senator Clinton. If members of the so-called "creative class" would use their usually critical minds to analyze policies and arguments instead of simply jump on bandwagons and monitor so-called trends, then we would all be in better shape.  

    As difficult as it is to talk about race in a calm and intelligent fashion in this campaign, so is it almost impossible to talk about class in this country.  

    The beauty of traditional New Deal liberalism was that people of different classes, religions, ethnicities, and cultural orientations could unite around the common principles of fairness, opportunity, and economic justice.  I would argue that people of various class and economic positions all have a common stake in a fairer system; an all-out capitalist system not reined in by government regulation in the interests of the vast middle ultimately fails this country and cannot sustain itself.  I know a lot has changed demographically over the past few decades, but isn't it wiser to try to bridge gaps between urban and rural voters, industrial workers and intellectuals, women and men, and so forth, rather than exacerbate them?  I think Senator Clinton gets that on a fundamental level.  I see Senator Obama's supporters fanning the flames of division in so many ways.  Despite all his talk of "unity," I just don't see that in him.  

    Given the disastrous economic policies of the Bush administration, and the eroding standard of living of the middle class in this country, wasn't this the time for a Democratic campaign to focus on economic issues, class, and a vigorous economic critique of the Republicans?  Pity, we've gotten mired in identity politics instead.  To our detriment.

    Hear, hear (none / 0) (#210)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:50:22 AM EST
    as someone with an "advanced" degree myself. And having been a  "creative" worker (can't bring myself to add "class."  Somehow I managed to use my analytical skills on the candidates and it took me about 4 min to tell the difference.

    There is nothing (5.00 / 15) (#107)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:03:10 AM EST
    at all new in any of this. We who are the "Clinton" class Democrats have been aware of the Creative Class/Elite members of the Party's disdain for us for a long time. There were fortunately for the Democratic Party enough of the Truman/Clinton politicians around to keep us on board.

    Many of us did share with the cloth-coat Republicans an affinity for fiscal responsibility and a love of God and Country. We still do. We just didn't think it ought to be shoved down any-one's throat.

    Now that the Obama style Creative Class Democrats have made it abundantly clear that they have nothing but disdain for us it will be hard for Democrats to keep the base anesthetized with drivel long enough to get them to the polls for him.

    We may not be as well educated or as well informed but we aren't stupid. And we don't like be talked down to and treated as if we were so stupid that we didn't understand just what "condescension" is and what it tastes, feels and sounds like.

    There are some genuinely foolish people that will always vote for anyone that has a "D" after his/her name. I ought to know, I was that stupid for 40 years. Perhaps much of the disdain was hidden or else I wasn't paying as close attention as I should have been or maybe I just didn't want to see.

    I see now. And I loathe what I see. I feel incredibly stupid and naive. There are very few Democrats for whom I have any respect these days. Bill and Hillary Clinton top that list. Obama and his surrogates, and supporters are at the bottom.  

    As my working class neighbor recently told a customer at his small garage; "Don't talk down to me bub, I may not be able to afford that fancy Prius you drive, but I'm the only one in this town that knows how to fix the damn thing. Think about that before you talk down to me again." He was still visibly angry at the end of a long work day when he told me about it.

    Imagine that feeling spread throughout an electorate.

    Your neighbor's Unity Pony is on back-order, then? (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by lambert on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:11:40 AM EST
    Mine too.

    I remember Yglesias making great play with a riff on "___ doesn't count."

    Now WKJM is arguing that whole regions don't count.

    David Broder is looking better and better these days. And I don't say that with happiness.


    thank you, great post! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by kempis on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:13:26 AM EST
    my eyes have been opened, too, BTD (5.00 / 10) (#120)
    by kempis on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:07:06 AM EST
    BTD: BTW, it is not about God, guns and gays. It is about standard of living. It is about respecting these voters.

    I'm from Alabama, and I'm a Democrat, raised by FDR, Appalachian Dems. I've been a Democrat since I began voting 32 years ago. I've always been frustrated because a lot of working-class people vote against their own economic interests by going along with the GOP. That, to me, has always seemed suicidal. But I've never before really looked at the Democratic party through their eyes before this election.

    Now I understand. By god, they're right. The "Liberal elites" are about as arrogant and alienating as the insufferable, holier-than-thou religious right. The members of the "creative class" really do think they're morally and intellectually superior to the working class. And that comes through loud and  clear to me now. They approach the working class much like Obama does: an other to be pitied for their ignorance and their "bitterness."

    No wonder the Democrats have such a hard time winning elections. I "get it" now. And no wonder they probably won't win in November.

    The GOP is far, far better at treating the working class with respect. It's a phony, superficial, manipulative respect, but it's at least better than being openly looked down on by people who are telling you you're inferior to them not just economically but in every other way. At that point, your honor ad self-respect is at stake.

    The GOP at least respects the working class enough to pander to them. Democrats will pander to AAs, excusing Reverend Wright lest they offend, but they really do find the working class kind of repellent--a bunch of "ruffians" that MoDo wrinkles her nose about in today's column.

    The Democrats have, since FDR, positioned themselves as the party of economic equal opportunity. But now, ironically, they pretend to be the champions of the very people they actually hold in such personal disregard, and those "ruffians" sniffed it out--long before I did. But I truly understand now why the working class has such difficulty voting with the party that proposes to address its economic concerns.

    I get it. Finally.

    The question is, does the DNC?

    I always thought "liberal elites" (5.00 / 5) (#153)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:19:46 AM EST
    was a BS right-wing frame.

    Now I understand that there is a very large grain of truth to that accusation. And it really, really sickens me.

    If we're not about improving the lives of the less fortunate in America - at least trying to give them a level playing field - then we're just not Democrats.

    I've come to the very, very sad conclusion that Obama - and the Democratic Party elites that support him - are not Democrats. I hope every single one of them is primaried and loses big-time to a real Democratic contender.

    I sure hope HRC can save the party from its elite wannabe destroyers. She's certainly doing everything she can...


    Agreed. (5.00 / 3) (#194)
    by ghost2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:38:46 AM EST
    This primary has been a huge educational experience for all of us.  Who could have imagined the level of sexism in the press? Who could have imagined that a serious female presidential candidate be called names, and the MALE democratic leaders refuse to be offended, and act like it's business as usual?

    This primary has shattered our ideas about the role of gender, race, class, media, and everything else.  Let's pray that there isn't a high price to pay for it.


    Limousine Liberalism (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by davnee on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:48:57 AM EST
    That's what I always called the liberal elitist phenomenon.  It has always grated on me, this idea of helping the less fortunate rubes.  Yes you are helping, but you are lacing everything with condescension.  The Republicans call it noblesse oblige.  (Or they did back in the day of the old liberal Republicans).  I liked noblesse oblige better.  It was more honest in its condescension.  

    Nowadays, the Republicans make a strong cultural connection with these voters, highlighting all that they have in common.  If they share values then that implies an equality of heart and mind between the haves and have nots.  This makes up for the lack of bread and butter - at least if people are not actually starving.  People are starving right now.  Maybe that's enough to get Obama over the top.  But why not run the person that will feed the stomach and touch the heart of these voters?  Is the hopium so important to the left that you'd risk the vast middle?


    Voting against interests: (none / 0) (#214)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:55:06 AM EST
    One thing I learned from my poor-as-Job's-turkey m-in-l.  That is, that she was determined to identify with the monied class.  Being without resources was a temporary thing, you know.  But her people were superior,  This may be a southern thing--goes with losing a war, I guess.  To her, Truman  wasn't top drawer; neither was LBJ.  Reagan pulled her in for awhile, but he sort of lost his shine over something to do with SS.

    Do the blogs push the MSM (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by boredmpa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:08:02 AM EST
    Or the MSM push the blogs?

    I ask because the NYTimes led with an article focusing on racism--even doing the selective data presentation where they said "8 of 10 that voted based on race voted for Clinton" without saying what percentage that was.  It looked like a short-sighted talking point from a think tank or a campaign with a slant.  Another network discussed it as a newer/stronger "problem" of race (as did the times if i recall).  Was this an Obama memo/plan that let him ignore WV without taking a press hit?

    I am not a blogger, I'm not part of the netroots.  I'm here because I can barely stomach the nytimes anymore.  I'm not even a Hillary "supporter"--I'm an idiotic believer in democracy.  And the risk isn't just that Clinton supporters will be po'd the risk is that they and others will tune out/turn off for quite a while.  If I didn't have this blog, I wouldn't be involved at all...and i'm a policy wonk with an MPA.  

    Yes, there is the potential for new sites, new blogs, new coalitions, new businesses.  But lets face it, we're not gonna see new papers/channels and new blogs/sources take time to develop and grow.  The condescension of the creative class and their nodding-head, media elite, co-dependent family is going to discourage democratic involvement.  I don't care how high the turnout is this primary, when people get mocked/hoodwinked in the press over and over they either a) get angry and do something or b) get angry and tune to something else.  I opt for b) because working class don't have the time that college kids do or the money of the "educated."

    Lazy journalists (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM EST
    on TV, Radio etc, rarely do any research of their own anymore.  They pick up the stories and the threads from the blogs.  This is dangerous.   Shallow research and analysis.  It's the same data points churned over and over.  The journalists are being fed campaign planted issues in the blogs.  

    I frankly believe that our democracy is at risk.  


    naive (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by neilario on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:08:47 AM EST
    yup. I think BO and his blogger boy fanclub and fawning media fanz are seriously naive and driven by such an inflated sense of entitlement and ego they really do not see the depth of the fizzure. HRC folks dislike BO at a very committed and emotional level [ intellectual too but that is more possible to sway if its just that]. None are 'coming back' to BO.
    BO thinks he can make a few speeches and all the middle class and other demographics he has lost will fawn over him to. Its just that they dont really KNOW him he tells himself. But it is that they do know him and reject him. this seems to not be an option he grasps. And his blue collar tour is silly.  They see through the rhetoric and are not easily duped. He cannot get the bulk of this vote back if he is the candidate.
    yet in his ego mania he really thinks he can.
    silly silly man.

    Hillary AA supporter (5.00 / 5) (#130)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:10:59 AM EST
    Maybe We Can't
    by Cinque Henderson

    Ninety percent of black Democrats support Barack Obama. So that might leave an observer wondering: What the hell is up with that other 10 percent? Are they stupid? Do they hate their own race? Do they not understand the historical import of the moment?

    I can shed some insight on this demographic anomaly. In gatherings of black people, I'm invariably the only one for the Dragon Lady. I'll do my best to explain how those of us in the ever-shrinking minority of a minority came to our position.

    But, before going any further, let me fully disclose my predispositions. I disliked Obama almost instantly. I never believed the central premises of his autobiography or his campaign. He is fueled by precisely the same brand of personal ambition as Bill Clinton. But, where Clinton is damned as "Slick Willie," Obama is hailed as a post-racial Messiah. Do I believe that Obama had this whole yes-we-can deal planned from age 16? No, I would respond. He began plotting it at age 22. This predisposition, of course, doesn't help me in making the case against Obama, especially not with black people. But, believe me, there's a strong case to be made that he isn't such a virtuous mediator of race. And it's this skepticism about Obama's racial posturing that has led us, the 10 percent, into dissent.

    Hillary won the Youth, College and Wealthy vote (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by OxyCon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:21:22 AM EST
    Clinton Wins West Virginia Primary by Wide Margin

    HE GOT CREAMED... She also won the support of most voters under age 30, a group that has typically voted heavily for Mr. Obama throughout this election. She also edged out Mr. Obama among college graduates and higher-income voters, also groups Mr. Obama has relied on...  Read More

    as per the NYT
    h/t Taylor Marsh

    I highly recommend... (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Dr Molly on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:33:24 AM EST
    to you all the post that is currently up at www.theleftcoaster.com by eriposte.

    It eloquently addresses all of the topics that have been discussed here recently, and I think you all will appreciate it's breadth and comprehensiveness on what is going with Clinton's voters - especially the part about the Clinton base fighting back against the media.

    I'm sorry I didn't provide a link - I happen to be a blogging luddite (still don't even know what a troll is...:))

    Talking with repub. creative-class types (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    (if you count NYC economic over-achievers), I mentioned WVa, cause one had already voiced regret for not voting for Hillary in SC.  I went on to say I had never known how smart she was--all covered up by the mud before.  They interrupted and said that Bubba's intelligence was out of sight, he was so smart.  Almost an offence to ordinary mortals!  The media really has a lot to answer for:  all I knew was a bit of biography and his good record in the WH.  I suppose Rhodes Scholar was a tip off.  But even I, a southerner, fell for the Bubba sterotyping to some extent.  Insidious!

    BTD - Working Class Whites.. (3.00 / 1) (#72)
    by EddieInCA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    ... , or any whites, have not gone, as a majority, for Democrats since 1964. The idea that suddenly Clinton is going to get White Democrats flies in the face of history.

    Additionally, Clinton made it a main campaign point this past week that "No Democrat has won the White House without carrying West Virginia since 1916" Well, as Matt Yglesias pointed out yesterday, no Democrat has won the White House wihout winning Minnesota since 1912. And Obama won Minnesota convincingly.

    Again, my point is not to be argumentative, but, rather, to inject some sense of proportionality to the discussion.

    Clinton's victory last evening was huge. But no more than several of Obama's victories.

    At the risk of being banned, I'd like some members of this board to be more intellectually honest. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. And the fact is that Working Class Whites are not just an Obama problem in a General Election, but a DEMOCRATIC problem, going back over 40 years.


    Cllinton OR Obama - 08 - Dem in the White House.

    The point is that Bill Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:00:38 AM EST
    did better with working class whites than most Dems. Isn't it time to try to solve a 40 yr Dem problem isntead of ignoring it or giving up on it? Obama can learn from both Clintons how to start solving the problem.

    obama doesn't want to learn. (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:06:42 AM EST
    he has no interest. that shows in everything he says and does. he has no interest in the average worker/voter. the faster we get that, the better our decisions will be. sad to say!

    Amazingly (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:01:23 AM EST
    Bill Clinton did.

    Go look at your (1.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Jgarza on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:11:23 AM EST
    facts Clinton never won the white vote.

    He got a significantly higher percentage (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:17:03 AM EST
    than recent losing Democrats have.

    More importantly, he won the white vote in several key states.


    You enforce the point. . . (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:05:19 AM EST
    whites, have not gone, as a majority, for Democrats since 1964.

    Assuming your statement is true (I don't know one way or the other) Presidential electoral history since 1964 has not, for the most part, been notably happy.  Advocating that Democrats pursue a continuation of the last 40 years isn't really a good option in my opinion.

    But even if you assume that the Democrats will never again win a simple majority of white voters it ought to be clear that the magnitude of the loss in the largest single demographic group will be critical in any Presidential election.  If Obama's weakness vs. Clinton with that group translates to an equivalent weakness vs. McCain (something I'm not necessarily convinced of) then his election would be in serious doubt.


    Imagine Mr. Hope the Map Changer (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:11:19 AM EST
    running on the same old assumptions!

    That's old Washington! :D


    If the papers are to be believed. . . (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:23:50 AM EST
    (a big if) then he understands the peril of his situation and is attempting to reach out to so-called Reagan Democrats.

    He's even wearing the flag-lapel pin.


    Larry, Did You By Any Chance Look At The (none / 0) (#195)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:39:22 AM EST
    videos of Obama's Town Hall meeting in Cape Girardo, MO yesterday? Did Obama connect with the audience even wearing the flag pin?

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:05:57 AM EST
    I suggest you take a look at the numbers winning Democrats like Bill Clinton got with this demographic, and the numbers losing Democrats like Kerry and Dukakis got with this demographic.

    Pointing out that we won't get to 50% is not the end of the analysis.  This demographic is a huge chunk of the GE electorate and we need to achieve a certain level of competitiveness.


    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:10:11 AM EST
    last night in WV, IN A PRIMARY, took 72% of the number of voters that Bill Clinton won in the GENERAL election in 1992.

    Clinton is definitely making an impact on working class whites.

    Also, given that Democrats have a problem with the working class, it makes zero sense to nominate someone who has MEGA problems with the working class.


    that problem was handled significantly (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:47:57 AM EST
    better by Clinton last night in WVa than it was by Obama.

      And the earlier large margins for Obama tended to come from caucuses, the merits of which, relative to primaries and GE processes, are not large and much discussed here.

      Add that those occurred before Wright/Rezko/Ayers/Jones connections, which will matter to conservatives.  And Wright is about to go on a book tour.

      The Nebraska squeaker yesterday stood out because Obama won that beauty contest by ~17 points less than he did in the caucuses.  

      As Howard Dean has said, the focus will be on the last 6-8 races and the momentum there, and electability will be the focus.


    BTW (none / 0) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:02:33 AM EST
    It is ridiculous to call for intellectual honesty when you yourself are lying through your teeth.

    Now, do not insult us again. I get in the last shot. Do it again and you will be banned.


    You don't get to choose your facts... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by EddieInCA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:23:42 AM EST
    Clinton got 39% of the White Vote in 1992

    Bush got 40%

    Perot got 20%


    Clinton got 43% of the White Vote in 1996

    Done got 46%

    Perot got 9% So if this gets me banned, for giving you FACTS, so be it.


    Ipso facto. . . (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:25:59 AM EST
    the winning Democratic strategy requires near parity with the Republicans among white voters.  How close to parity do you think Obama will come?  (Real question).

    That's the $64,000 Question (5.00 / 0) (#216)
    by The Maven on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:06:44 PM EST
    I don't know that I've seen any serious commentator suggest that in a general election Clinton would win the white vote (or even white working class vote) outright, but the difference between winning and losing in a whole bunch of states in November could well come down to whether the Democratic candidate is able to achieve 40-45% of the white vote as opposed to 35%.  That's the critical issue, it seems to me.

    I've stated several times... (none / 0) (#188)
    by EddieInCA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:35:15 AM EST
    ...I believe Obama OR Clinton will beat John McCain convincingly. I don't think it will be close. I think the Republican brand, and George Bush, are so tarnished that either candidate will beat McCain easily.

    I believe McCain cannot put together a coalition that will allow him to run a centrist campaign without losing the evangelical vote, which he needs to win.

    I believe McCain cannot run away from the Bush Administration the way he needs to without pissing off the 31% of Voters [who still think George Bush is doing a good job] which he needs to win.

    So to answer your question... enough. I think Obama can get enough of the white vote to easily beat John McCain.

    I also think that Clinton would get enough of the AA vote to also easily beat John McCain.


    Actually you did not answer the question (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:42:24 AM EST
    what is the NUMBER you think needs to be achioeved to win.

    43%? 44%? What?


    McCain yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    was talking about how important it is to save the environment.

    A big issue with evangelicals now, and one reason why the younger ones are leaving the Republican Party is: Saving the environment.

    In addition, McCain's VP pick will be a hard right true-believer - a carefully crafted pander to appeal to evangelicals. (I personally think it will be Huckabee. He is very likeable despite his rightwing craziness.)

    I wish I could be as optimistic as you are. I felt the same way about John Kerry, who, with all his flaws, had a lot more substance and experience than Obama on his best day.



    Exactly (none / 0) (#199)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:41:31 AM EST
    I amazed at the stupidity being revealed here.

    Perot got 20% (none / 0) (#198)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:40:26 AM EST
    And Clinton still got 39% makes MY point you fool.

    Eddie - thanks for the data (none / 0) (#212)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:53:46 AM EST
    Bill Clinton also won blacks that includes the "black working class"
    now voting for Obama.
    Rather than focusing on issues and solutions, Obama purposely made Racism an issue by manufacturing racist charges against the "first Black president" and his wife - after Obama had sat in a pew for 20 years listening to Wright's racist rants.

    The "white working class" rejects his race-baiting and empty "hope and change."
    How can he get the white working class vote?
    How can he put the toothpaste back in the tube?


    that problem was handled significantly (none / 0) (#209)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:49:10 AM EST
    better by Clinton last night in WVa than it was by Obama.

      And the earlier large margins for Obama tended to come from caucuses, the merits of which, relative to primaries and GE processes, are not large and much discussed here.

      Add that those occurred before Wright/Rezko/Ayers/Jones connections, which will matter to conservatives.  And Wright is about to go on a book tour.

      The Nebraska squeaker yesterday stood out because Obama won that beauty contest by ~17 points less than he did in the caucuses.  

      As Howard Dean has said, the focus, for the superdelegates, will be on the last 6-8 races and the momentum there, and electability will be the focus.


    Hum (1.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Jgarza on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:21:44 AM EST
    All about democratic unity.  yet you keep these straw man arguments up.  its guilt by association to the nth degree. An Obama supporter somewhere said something that BTD can skew as being anti working class white voter.

    This is gone from an Obama bashing site, to now obama bashing and feeding a sense of being wronged using almost nothing but straw men.

    Its funny that Clinton blogs accuse obama supporters of attacking them.  Yet its always at Clinton blogs that Obama supporters are insulted, and have been the entire time.

    His black supporters practice "white racism," whatever that means, his young supporters are delusional, his whites supporters, are out of touch "egg heads" "latte liberals."

    You keep whining about how Obama supporters are so awful.  go look at your posts which are almost nothing but name calling of Obama's supporters.

    Really don't know what that means? (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by Dr Molly on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    "His black supporters practice "white racism," whatever that means"

    Um... it means black people using racial slurs against white people. Is that something you can understand?

    You know, like the now blog-ubiquitous 'cracker', 'redneck hick', etc.

    Are you slyly hinting that blacks can't be racist? Load of crap. This is PRECISELY what has driven the white vote away from Obama IMO. It's incredibly stupid.


    I think the Obama campaign (none / 0) (#12)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:36:14 AM EST
    realizes it, look at where he was yesterday.

    But what about the big media message? (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by lilburro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:59:56 AM EST
    He needs to change the message while keeping up the campaigning.  He has focused his message on special interest groups.  I think it's too big of a stretch to make the special interest group issue an entirely populist one (esp when he's claimed that unions are special interest groups).  He's positioned it along a spectrum of corrupt/pure.  He's made it a matter of principle.  He needs something new.  And he said he'd invite insurance companies to the table for the healthcare plan; so can he flip to saying insurance companies are ruining this country?  The latter line is the type of line that works well in traditional Dem circles, I believe.  

    As I said earlier this week, Obama does not get the importance of partisan identity.  I don't think he understands the level of emotion that comes from old Dem blocs winning over Republicans.  Be they working class or gay (his support among African Americans excepted as far as old Dem blocs go - but he isn't campaigning in the old let's us Dems win for once way).  Republicans get a lot of mileage out of being "the party of Lincoln;" to me, Obama doesn't get how the party of FDR and JFK inflames hearts across this nation.  Rousing the rabble, even "taking back the White House" - this is not an Obama line.  


    That shows massive denial (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:10:04 AM EST
    of his problem.

    He is not yet the nominee. He needs to deal with his failure in WV, campaign hard in Kentucky to give at least the appearance of caring about their votes, and stop rudely pretending HRC doesn't exist.

    I have no confidence whatsoever he will do these things, however. He's not ready for Prime Time and he shows it more and more every day.


    Just Going There Isn't Enough (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:32:14 AM EST
    You have to be able to form a personal connection with the people of the region. Go back and really look at his speech in Cape Girardo objectively. Watch the audience. Did he make a connection? Even MSNBC, who is normally very supportive of Obama, did not think so.



    My cousin is a member of the Creative Class. (none / 0) (#218)
    by AX10 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:50:31 PM EST
    He would never vote for Gore because he doesn't like all of this "nonsense" about Global Warming.  Also, he sees Gore as being "dull".  He does not like Hillary because she is no better than Bush (Oye Vey).  He absolutely loves this empty suit named Barack Obama because he's the "new guy in town" and has "great ideas".  When pushed to name some of these ideas, my cousin comes up empty.  He says it's not important.  What is important to him is that Obama speaks well and makes people feel good.
    I loathe the idea of the creative class running this country just as much as I do the Neo-Cons.
    I do not want Obama, PERIOD!

    Oh Please Can The Hypocrisy (none / 0) (#220)
    by ToughOnCrime on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:15:55 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton fans have been blaming their problems on sexism and racism (on the part of Obama's voters despite the fact that the left is perfectly willing to benefit from 90% black support AND promotes black racialist voting patterns by creating majority black districts) for how long? Look, Hillary Clinton has her base and Obama has his. The primary calendar and the system - which includes caucuses - favors Obama and his base. It does not reflect negatively on Obama or his supporters in any way any more than Clinton's support reflects negatively (or for that matter positively) on her base. Claiming that Obama has done anything to marginalize and alienate middle and lower income white voters from the south and midwest is absurd. These voting patterns were evident long before Jeremiah Wright, long before the "bitter small town people clinging to guns and religion" comments (that, incidentally, are no different from similar sentiments that have been uttered by virtually every Democrat ever since Nixon's southern strategy, including Bill and Hillary Clinton themselves, so end the hypocrisy there too!) because we saw Obama losing the majority of the white vote as early as South Carolina, and it was a pattern that continued on Super Tuesday in Arkansas, Tennessee, etc. Back then, the media was discussing the dynamic that whites in states with small black populations were voting for Obama, whites in states with large black populations were voting for Hillary. Hillary was able to effectively counterspin Obama's support in overwhelmingly white states by saying "well caucuses don't matter, because they attract upscale liberals." (Yes, Hillary Clinton has been marginalizing Obama's base of blacks and wealthy liberal eggheads from the very beginning.)

    So quit the nonsense. The working class whites are voting for Hillary Clinton because they like her better, period. What do you want Obama to do, drop out because some people refuse to vote for him, and that he needs to stand aside and go back to relying on a white person to represent and advocate for blacks? What message would that send to blacks? (Keep in mind that plenty of women are making precisely the same argument regarding Hillary Clinton's not only staying in the race, but refusing a VP offer ... I have yet to hear any feminist state that Obama should refuse, say, an offer to be attorney general for that same reason, that it would be going back to needing a white person to put him in a position to help other blacks ... I say that if Hillary wins the nomination she should not choose a black VP or appoint blacks to high level cabinet posts, after all Bill Clinton never appointed a black person to the Supreme Court OR to a high level Cabinet post, he DID, however, appoint a REPUBLICAN to run the Department of Defense however ... did the black community complain about that ... of course not ... just like they still voted for Bill Clinton after that Sister Souljah nonsense, after welfare reform, after the crime bill and three strikes laws, even after a record number of blacks were imprisoned thanks to Bill's tough on crime agenda blacks supported Clinton when practically no one else BUT THE EGGHEAD CREATIVE COMMUNITY LIBERALS would, etc.)

    Look, the GOP is just loving this. As a matter of fact, Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos provided Hillary Clinton with her VERY NARROW margin of victory in Indiana. Keep this nonsense going, and the result is going to be a John McCain president whether Hillary is the nominee or not, because you folks know that if Hillary Clinton becomes the nominee you are going to have to go crawling back to those same black voters and eggheads that you are trashing now.