Clinton Media Call Live Blog

Terry McCauliffe says last night was a fantastic night. There was a record turnout. Clinton won by 41%. We are in this thing. They raised over a million dollars last night. Financially they are in good shape. They feel comfortable about where they are today. A big fundraiser powwow this afternoon. Tremendous enthusiasm for this campaign.

Now ahead in the popular vote.

Howard Wolfson - we had to have a big night in WV, we had it. A stunning 40 point victory. A state where Clinton won in 1992 and 1996. A decisive state. Hillary Clinton will carry WV in November. Obama had more money and more people and more resources and Clinton decisively defeated him. WV said no to all the pundits and people who said it was time for the contest to end.

More below . . .

Florida and Michigan must be seated as the states voted. We do not believe the Dem Party in its political wisdom will not seat the FL and MI delegations. Because it is the smart thing to do but also because it is the right thing to do. The Magic Number is 2210.

Wolfson makes the familiar swing state, big state electability argument.

Bill Sammon - what is Clinton trying to get out of this? Wolfson, to become the Presidential nominee.

Jim Axelrod - Asks about 2210 number. Talks about previous contradictory statements. Wolfson dances. talks about number of voters who actually voted. [Bottom line, the statements were contradictory, but so what? Do we want to win in November?]

Axelrod is very fired up about this. It is pretty funny.

Wolfson finally tells him that Hillary Clinton said the night of the Florida primary that the Florida delegation should be seated. It was a very funny exchange.

Kate Snow of AP - what did Clinton and Obama discuss on the Senate floor? Did they discuss her debt? Wolfson - No discussion of the debt. Just pleasantries.

The Navy denied Hillary Clinton access to Vieques, why does Clinton want to go to Vieques? Wolfson has no idea about the issue.

Minnesota, no Dem has won without it since 1912. Wolfson says caucuses are not reflective of general election results. Points to Washington and Nebraska results yesterday. Wolfson says while it is obviously not a one to one relationship primary to GE, but a result in West Virginia is more meaningful than a win in safe state like NY and Ill.

Anne Kornblut asks what the MS result last night (Childers win) means that Obama is not a drag in congressional races. Wolfson congratulates all involved, but there is a problem when the candidate (Childers) ran an ad distancing himself from Obama.

How big a win in KY? Wolfson not as big as WV. But Clinton will do well. We will compete in Oregon.

MI and FL delegate allocation, what will you accept? Clinton wants full seating that reflects the vote.

NARAL has endorsed Barack Obama. What is your reaction to that? Wolfson is very surprised by NARAL's endorsement. Clinton's advocacy for choice issues is second to none.

I asked about the May 31 RBC process whereby the FL/MI question will be decided. I asked specifically who will be participating. I further asked that since Clinton camp, the Obama camp and the DNC Chair "howard Dean have all said they want the delegations seated is it possible that a faction of the DNC, led by Donna Brazile, could block the seating of these delegations over the wishes of the candidates and ther DNC Chair.

Phil Singer responded that the Clinton campaign is confident that the DNC will act in the best interests of the Party, which is to act in a way that helps the Party win in November, which would mean seating the Florida and Michigan delegations. In terms of the RBC process, Singer was unsure what would happen as the agenda had not yet been released, but that it would be an open and public process that will be seen by the entire country.

That ended the call.

< DNCC Chooses First Group of Credentialed Bloggers | Hillary Picks Up Tenn. Superdelegate After W. VA Win >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Does Terry not know that it's over? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by rooge04 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:26:53 PM EST
    No one told WV!

    Just for the record (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by makana44 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:27:54 PM EST
    Another quote from John Petty

    Hillary is going to finish up essentially tied with Sen. Obama in the popular vote.  Half the Democratic Party supports her.  Treating her like the enemy--read a few of the comments at dailykos or TPM or Huffington Post--and the Obama campaign invites disaster upon itself.  Calling her supporters "racists" and "Archie Bunkers" isn't exactly the most brilliant move either.

    Just for the record, it isn't just the "white working class" that supports Hillary.  With the exception of African-Americans, it's the entire working class--whites yes, and also hispanics and asians.  At least some of the Obama supporters--the triumphalists--seem to enjoy the thought of purging the Democratic Party of these lesser beings and replacing them with "all the new people we're bringing in."

    That would be the path of electoral catastrophe.  It wouldn't even be "winning ugly."  It would be "losing ugly."      

    Check this out . . . (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by abfabdem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:46:48 PM EST
    on today's Ostroy Report:

    When pundits and the Obama supporters use the math to bolster his position, you don't hear much about the pre-March/post-March math. But take a look at these stats: since March 1st, Clinton has won 400 delegates to Obama's 392, and 5,857,517 popular votes to Obama's 5,511,513. Pretty interesting, huh? Kind of changes the whole math myth, doesn't it? Truly puts everything in perspective, especially as argued by the Clinton campaign. Should the super-delegates, as the Obamacans would like, ignore what the numbers behind the numbers indicate?


    what about this: (none / 0) (#69)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Points to Washington and Nebraska results yesterday.

    Could someone recap this?  A poster was talking about NE last night and I am totally lost.  (Been phone banking all morning!)  And, was Axelrod on the Clinton call???


    NE Had a Primary Yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:07:09 PM EST
    But, like Washington, the local democratic party selects delegates through a caucus.  The primary was much, much closer with Obama beating Hillary 49-47%.  Interesting that neither of them got over 50%.

    Here's an interesting piece at MYDD about how it appears to violate the spirit, if not the letter of the DNC rules to count caucuses instead of primaries.


    very interesting.... (none / 0) (#132)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:24:03 PM EST
    I read somewhere that Clinton is now ahead in the popular vote in primary states.  With WA, TX, and NE all showing massive disparities between popular votes and caucus results, I think that any irregularities in the caucuses in those states would be grounds for a very serious credentials challenge.

    Clinton can't challenge the caucus selected delegations based solely on the existence of the primaries, because the caucuses themselves had to be approved by the DNC in advance.  But the fact that primary elections were held in each state (and how many other states that didn't hold beauty contests?) should place a tremendous burden on those states when it comes to the question of ensuring that the rules governing each state's caucuses that were provided to the DNC were scrupulously followed and enforced.

    We all know what a mess Texas was -- and I've heard some stuff about Washington state as well.  Any funny business in Nebraska?


    Ther's still some funny business in Texas. (none / 0) (#203)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:19:23 PM EST
    It has been reported on three occassions and taken to the local caucus regulatory commission (my name, I don't recall how that body is called)that there were blatant irregularities of Obama representatives forcing caucuses in the Houston area to be closed several hours before schedule, denying entry to  long lines of Clinton supporters. The people responsible for the caucusses involved were blatant Obama supporters. Litigation process "seems" to be suspended in air and dismissed as the "heir apparent" to the nomination has been gaining ground.
    Fresh in my memory was the Indiana vote were the mayor held the Clinton vote until publicly pressured and embarrassed by a pro-Clinton Indiana mayor and Wolf Blitzer's CNN in a conference in the 12am call; do you remember that? It was a fortuituos call because I truly believe they were in the process of stealing Clinton's win, which by ALL counts, she was poised to win by at least a 4-6 point margin.
    I better stop here and compile my notes on each of the "dubious" results, and will report later.

    I think "Jim" Axelrod is a reporter (none / 0) (#85)
    by Anne on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:05:41 PM EST
    with one of the networks - CBS, maybe?

    And if you start counting the popular vote . . (none / 0) (#204)
    by jericho4119 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:24:00 PM EST
    . . on May 13th, then Clinton is in the lead by hundreds of thousands of votes!

    This is a contest and like all contests, it has rules.

    Michigan and Florida broke those rules.

    Traditionally, the breaking of rules has penalties.  Regardless of what those penalties turn out to be, the "count the popular vote" arguments that give Obama zero votes in MI (after all, his name was not on the ballot) are beyond the pale.

    There is at least one Obama voter in the state of Michigan and an effort must be made to ensure their vote (or lack thereof, if they stayed home when they were told the vote would not count) is counted.

    It's only fair.


    But is is Kos, Huffington, and Josh Marshall.. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by AX10 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    who have all been disrespectful towards Hillary and her supporters.  It should be no suprise that 90%+ of the netroots have followed their lead in beating on Hillary and anyone who supports her.
    Obama also has no problem accepting the support of Kos, Huffington, Marshall, Moveon, etc....
    So they do speak for him.

    Actually, it does surprise me a great (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:57:04 PM EST
    deal.  At least at DK, commenters and diarists enjoyed disagreeing with each other until this campaign.

    The Obama Movement Is All About Unity (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:08:22 PM EST
    Yeah I'm feeling the unity (none / 0) (#198)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:41:25 PM EST
    HuffPo has now gone (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:00:36 PM EST
    beyond ridiculous. First their headline screamed Hillary wins WV- does it matter. Now the headline screams Why? (with a picture of Hillary in Shadow)
    Is She... Praying For A Devastating Anti-Obama Story?... Convinced She's Finally Hit Her Stride... Physically Unable To Accept Defeat.

    That's the headlined article. The remaining articles are variations of Hillary is racist, looser yada yada.

    And Hillary is expected to be the veep of the candidate whose high profile backers short of branding her a terrorist have branded her everything else.


    So true (none / 0) (#129)
    by joanneleon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:21:10 PM EST
    I took them off my bookmark list months ago when they started going off the rails with their infotainment coverage, but I never dreamed they'd get this bad.

    I saw Arianna on The Colbert Report recently too.  It was pretty embarrassing.  I used to like and respect her.


    Ariana did a book promo at FDL.... (none / 0) (#137)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:28:00 PM EST
    ...and its pretty obvious that absolutely no questions about her being in the tank for Obama were permitted to see the light of day.  So, while FDL is still readable, you can add it to the list of OBot sites -- its commentariate is as bad as DKos'.

    couldn't agree more (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by londonamerican on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:40:10 PM EST
    for me, the real hope and tragedy of this series of primaries is that hillary has managed to put real progressive issues on the table and to connect with the historical bedrock of the democratic party (whose desertion of the party after being talked down to by "creative class" types was what led to years if republican domination starting in 1980) - and at the same time to be vilified by the brilliant party officials and media frat-boys whose "strategy" of systematically alienating working people in favour of "new coalitions"  has led to electoral disaster year after year.

    when the democratic party stopped being the party of working people and instead represented the interests of upper-middle-income and overly-socialised "creative" or "new class" types was when the demonisation of working class people became politcally correct in the party and when the democratic party became uncompetitive on the national stage. telling your traditional voters that they are "uneducated"/stupid, "racist" or "white trash" isn't a great way to win elections, even if it does relieve some class anxiety that the democratic party elites seem to feel.

    this year, we had a chance to reverse that. hillary was actually talking about things that matter to working people, and - amazing for a modern democrat - she wasn't condescending or taking down to them either, nor was she lecturing them on how they could improve themselves by being more like her.

    i can never forgive the sexist onslaught against hillary by the obama fratboys nor the class-based attacks on her voters from  the same sources.

    hopefully, hillary will continue to win as she has done in new york, massachusetts, new jersey, california,  texas, ohio, pennsylvania, indiana and most recently with her incredible 41% win in west virginia and go on doing so in kentucky and puero rico -- and carry the fight all the way to the convention if necessary.

    we now have a chance to build a real progressive politics with a popular base among working people. we cannot afford to give that historic opportunity up!


    the mcgovern path (none / 0) (#166)
    by christinep on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    This talk of "all the new people" that Obama is bringing to the party is exciting at first. Yet, I recall that McGovern thought pretty much the same (as inspired by G Hart) in 1972.  It didn't work...in the years that followed, the youngest of the new went the Reagan way. Everything, of course, is trade-off. For me, it is very risky to trade off seniors who vote, certain women demographics who vote, and Latinos who are voting more and more for the bird-in-the-bush possibility of a larger turnout than ever before of youth who, at most, would merely offset the loss of less than one of the other demographics.  There seem to be a lot of people fascinated by the entry level political math.  What I think would be telling is to see a serious portrayal (with factual backup) of how the "demographics" realistically might fall when the opposition is an older Westerner who is attractive to both older women and to Latinos and who has a heroic biography with some kind of reputation as a maverick. At the very least, any calculus that relies too heavily on a new number of Western states needs to be scrutinized carefully. The reality of history and electoral numbers really suggests that Hillary's swing state argument is quite persuasive. The "everything is new" song has a siren quality; but, will that song merely be a reprise of the 1972 McGovern campaign? In fact, aren't we really talking about a rewind of the classic factions in the Democratic Party? I hope not. But, my head tells me that is exactly what is happening.

    From my own experience (none / 0) (#199)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:49:13 PM EST
    a lot of the 'new voters' are unreliable and could just as easily have gone for Ron Paul, because they just do not follow politics or issues that much.  Many, as Bill pointed out, don't need a President for much other than to make a statement, because the Bush years have really not affected them too much; they just know Bush is bad.  It's just whatever seems cool and trendy.  If you read some of the former A-list blogs you'll find this attitude expressed concerning Obama, that they don't have to feel "uncool," like "losers" or ashamed to support Obama.  Excuse me while my head explodes...

    Did (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Lahdee on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:32:25 PM EST
    the Senator save BO's voicemail?

    BTD, how about bringing up the point (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:33:30 PM EST
    made here last night:  Obama should receive no votes from MI, as he chose to remove his name from the ballot.  Candidate shouldn't be able to cherry pick states favorable to him or her or Clinton could have done the same in, for example NC.  

    And if Obama wasn't doing it for anything (none / 0) (#34)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:47:17 PM EST
    other than pandering to Iowa, NH, NV, ans SC, why didn't he take his name off of Florida as well?

    Florida laws (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:52:10 PM EST
    would not allow any of them to remove their names from the ballot.  The only way to be removed was to effectively state they were no longer a presidential primary candidate.  

    Wrong!!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:14:44 PM EST
    Had he requested to be kept from the Ballot at the same time he took his name off the ballot in MI his name would not have been included in the official candidate list submitted by the state's Democratic Council and therefore he wouldn't had to have signed no affidavit.  Check florida electoral law about the dates involved and the procedures.  This has been a fallacy perpetuated by many the reality is that he did not want his name off the ballot because he was raising funds all the time in Fl and constantly hinting that the delegates would be seated.,

    He tried to take his name of the FL ballot (none / 0) (#43)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:52:12 PM EST
    State law prohibited this.

    OK, I was wr-wr-wr- wrong. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:04:50 PM EST
    (Fonzi impersonation)

    Still, the spin that Clinton agreed to not count Michigan and Florida and is somehow going back on her word is false. She agreed to not campaign in either state, an unlike Obama, kept her promise. She never agreed to not count Michigan and Florida, and, in fact, at the time that Michigan and Florida were penalized, EVERYONE from Karl Levin to DNC rules committee members were saying that Michigan and Florida results WOULD be counted at the convention.  


    it the law.  He had ample time to pull his name off the ballot.

    Better answer (none / 0) (#51)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:55:12 PM EST
    as provided by the Florida Democratic Party website:

    Can a presidential candidate remove their name from the ballot in Florida?

    Florida Democratic Party Chairwoman Thurman, Senator Geller and Representative Gelber submitted to Florida's Secretary of State the names of our Party's presidential candidates for placement on the January 29, 2008 Democratic Presidential Preference Primary ballot. State law allows candidates who wish to withdraw from the Florida primary to do so by filing an affidavit stating that he or she is not a candidate for President of the United States of America. In other words: to get off the ballot in Florida, a candidate has to swear that he or she isn't running for President.

    What it does not say there is that (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:18:27 PM EST
    Obama Edwards etc. could had asked to have their names excluded from the list at the same time they took their name off the MI list.  The law requires no affidavit if your name is not included in the official list submitted by the Party.

    You are correct (none / 0) (#170)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:53:20 PM EST
    Thanks for the information.  I don't know what the Florida statutes state in regards to having an office set up and fundraising in the state but to me it doesn't really matter anyway.  The most important issue is doing the right thing by the voters of Florida.  

    But would they then have been (none / 0) (#172)
    by independent voter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:55:13 PM EST
    eligible to be on the Presidential ballot if they are the nominee?

    list of nominees submitted by the Party for the primaries.  The part of the affidavit is a procedure not written in the law that is administratively put in by the state dept of Florida so that once the paperwork is processed you don't have last moment changes.  Nothing in the Law prohibits participation anyway.  Is just that if you pulled your name after a certain date once the list of names was submitted to the State Dept you had to sign an affidavit justifying your withdrawal by stating that you would not run.  No one can force not to run,

    It is difficult (none / 0) (#38)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:49:22 PM EST
    to respect Senator Clinton's call for MI and FL to be counted as is, and it is difficult to respect the sense of fairness, or intelligence, of anybody who makes that suggestion.

    How anybody can call for unity for the party while seeking to screw Obama so absurdly is preposterous, frankly.

    Obama removed his name from the MI ballot at a time when both candidates agreed that MI would not count. Sure, it was a strategic move. It was a smart move, because MI was little more than a name-recognition contest as no campaigning took place.

    If MI and FL are going to be seated for political reasons, it has to be in a way that achieves some semblance of fairness for both candidates. The rules can't be changed in the middle of the game to give 100% benefit to one candidate and totally screw the other.


    Of course, the fairest, most (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:53:10 PM EST
    intelligent solution would have been to support a complete re-vote in MI and FL.  Didn't happen either place.  I think the cherry-picking argument has some merit.  You don't.  However, I am not assessing your fairness or intelligence.  

    Obama Fought Revote and First Vote (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Athena on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:02:21 PM EST
    Most people don't realize how much Obama fought against a revote in MI and FL.  This needs to get more attention - particularly being done by the UNITY candidate.

    Rank hyprocrisy to celebrate unity on stage while  busy disenfranchising some states behind the scenes.

    For MI, it would have actually been a first vote for Obama - he never appeared on a ballot in that state.  So he was never willing to be tested by Michigan voters.

    Why didn't Obama want to subject himself to Michigan?  And what party nominates someone who was not willing to be on a ballot in all states?


    In MI democrats (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:57:57 PM EST
    who voted in the republican race knowing that their vote would not count in the democratic primary would have been prohibited by state law from voting in a new vote. And the state was barred by a federal judge from releasing the list of those voters. So practically speaking it was impossible to conduct a lawful do-over vote in MI.

    I agree with you that this solution would have been the best. I have no idea what you mean by "cherry-picking argument."


    Cherrypicking: take you name off (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:03:06 PM EST
    the ballot in a state you do not anticipate winning; then claim that state doesn't count.  I'm not losing any sleep over the people DK convinced to cross-over and vote for Romney.

    That's what you consider cherry picking? (none / 0) (#128)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:20:46 PM EST
    That's a stretch. The only reason Obama or Edwards or Biden could take their names off the ballot in MI is because the state wasn't going to count. You're conflating that with somebody taking his name off a ballot while knowing that the result in that state was going to count. That's apples and oranges, my friend.

    False (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:48:29 PM EST
    The judge explicitly said that her ruling meant nothing of the sort.

    MI could have complied with DNC rules by, for example, having voters sign an affidavit that they had not voted in the prior GOP primary.  There is no requirement that their names be cross-checked against a list.

    This is all very clear from the judge's ruling and the DNC rules.  I have read both in detail.


    Candidates who take their names off (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:54:31 PM EST
    a ballot are fools.  Edwards was a fool for doing it too imo.

    Tell that to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:55:39 PM EST
    whose surrogates at the DNC totally screwed Clinton over by changing the rules in midstream.

    Absolute nonsense.


    Obama surrogates like (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:59:54 PM EST
    Harold Ickes? Please name the Obama surrogates whom you believe screwed Senator Clinton by changing the rules midstream. Please detail how they changed the rules midstream. If you are unable to do so, please retract your accusation.

    dawson (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by jedimom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    ralph dawson of NY Obama supporter and RBC member proposed stripping ALL the dels instead of the 50% the ROOLZ as written called for
    Brazile forcefully supported this strawman motion and argued til it passed...

    Why do you call this a strawman motion? (none / 0) (#144)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:32:11 PM EST
    Can you explain what you mean by that?

    Uhhh, no. (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:58:28 PM EST
    they agreed to no such thing as "it didn't count".  Only to not campaign there.

    This issue has been done to death by the facts over and over. Not to mention BHO blocked re-votes.

    Google is your friend.


    And Harold Ickes supported this, correct? (none / 0) (#133)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:24:30 PM EST
    So it's not really accurate to suggest that this decision came entirely out of the Obama camp and nobody within the Clinton camp agreed or was complicit, would you not agree?

    Hey Pal (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by ww on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    I voted in MI. Obama's not getting screwed, I AM. Your view of respect is a convenient one.

    You were not screwed by Obama (none / 0) (#74)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    You were screwed by your state party. Terry McAuliffe, when he was head of the DNC, told MI that they'd lose their delegates if they tried to move their vote up. Howard Dean's DNC did nothing more than Terry McAuliffe's DNC promised Michigan.

    No (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:11:14 PM EST
    McAuliffe threatened them with a loss of 50% of their delegates which is in line with the rules unlike the nuclear option pushed by Dean's DNC.

    Here's a link (none / 0) (#135)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:27:07 PM EST

    McAuliffe threatened not to seat the delegation in its entirety.

    That's a direct quote from his own book.

    Look at his 180 degree turnaround now. Can you trust a person who displays so little intellectual honesty?


    Perhaps you shouldn't trust Dkos (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    as a source and go to the primary source (the book) instead.  It is available on Amazon's Online Reader, page 324 and 325 (hat tip to Jake Tapper):

    "They told me they were going to hold the Michigan primary before New Hampshire's," McAuliffe writes, "which would have led to complete chaos since New Hampshire has a law stating that it must hold the first primary and the DNC had already voted on this issue and settled it.

    "'If you do that, I will take away 50 percent of your delegates,' I told him. (page 324)



    For sake of argument (none / 0) (#173)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:57:34 PM EST
    I'll assume your interpretation is correct. So how do you square what McAuliffe said to Levin with what he's saying now?

    Look (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:14:54 PM EST
    arguing over McAuliffe acting as a DNC Chair then or as an advocate as a campaign manager for Clinton is pointless.  If you are interested in gotchas and want to score points that way, have at it but I am not interested.  I think it was a mistake for the DNC to go further than the 50% penalty in 2008.  

    Look (none / 0) (#207)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:03:02 PM EST
    It's not about gotchas and your attempt to dismiss my point with your disparaging label won't work. McAuliffe agreed that Michigan would be penalized then. His rationale then was for the good of the party, obviously. Obviously there was something behind that rationale then. But it's disappeared now, and as I said at the outset, it's hard to respect somebody's intelligence of sense of fairness when they demand that Florida and Michigan be seated as is.

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:18:55 PM EST
    but I did not label you or anyone else.  I commented to correct a factual error in your statement about McAuliffe's threat to punish Michigan in 2004.  I do not care what McAuliffe is saying today since he is not the final arbitrator and his acceptance of the Rules Committee's decision is not important either.  We can go back and forth about McAuliffe all day long but it is what the voters accept as fair that concerns me.  The difference between 2004 and 2008 is the choice to take away 100% of FL and MI delegates instead of the 50% that are specified in the rules and we could have avoided the entire issue.

    Speaking of trust (none / 0) (#147)
    by tree on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:35:19 PM EST
    Obama was asked during the event about making sure Floridians have a role in the nomination, despite the DNC sanctions and the pledge. Scarritt said Obama responded that he'll "do what's right by Florida voters."

    So, can YOU trust Obama when he displays so little intellectual honesty?


    uh,,, (none / 0) (#185)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:25:49 PM EST
    that was in 2004.  This is 2008.

    Check your calendar.  You'll see what I'm talking about.

    When Michigan and Florida moved up their primaries, the rules were 50% loss.  I don't know what the rules were in 2004, but if McCaulliffe was making threats that were inconsistent with the rules, then that's on him.  And the voters of Michigan should not be penalized for it.


    others (none / 0) (#93)
    by jedimom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:07:54 PM EST
    and the failure to strip the dels from SC NV??
    why???\what about fair application of the roolz?

    Ridiculous argument (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:06:09 PM EST
    Sorry, but how is it "ridiculous to respect" wanting to count the people that went to the polls to vote?  

    I could reply to your other arguments, but they have been discussed her thoughtfully and logically over and over again.


    What is ridiculous (1.00 / 1) (#107)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:12:39 PM EST
    is the unarticulated premise of Clinton's argument -- that the results in Michigan and Florida, after no campaigning and the widely-held understanding that the vote would not count for apportioning delegates, is a fair representation of what the vote would be after campaigning vigorously, knowing that the vote would count.

    So the caucus states (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Evie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:31:07 PM EST
    where there was no "campaigning vigorously" by the Clinton campaign should not count either, RIGHT?

    Look, Obama chose to forfeit the MI contest by taking his name off the ballot. He could have competed, but he didn't.


    You are mixing apples and oranges (none / 0) (#154)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:40:23 PM EST
    There are two classes of states: MI and FL are in one (states that were known ahead of time not to count in the delegate race. The other class includes all other states, regardless of whether they were primary states or caucus states.

    Hillary's campaign team failed her terribly by conceding the ground game on all of these caucus states. But there, she chose not to participate. In MI and FL, Obama was barred from campaigning. I'm sure you can see the vast difference.


    Obama chose not to participate in MI (none / 0) (#213)
    by Evie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 07:14:48 PM EST
    by taking his name off the ballot.

    He could have left his name on the MI ballot to give his supporters a chance to vote for him, just as he did in FL. He chose not to accept MI votes.


    The problem (none / 0) (#174)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:58:21 PM EST
    Is that we quite obviously have a problem on our hands as Democrats.  We have an imperfect election but unfortunately it is the only thing we have to go on at this point.  Unless, that is, a revote was accepted (yes I know the arguments against this) OR we are simply willing to kiss MI & FL goodbye in November.  I'm not, and I hope the DNC is not.

    Look, there are good arguments on both sides of this discussion.  Our goal now should be to find the best solution possible.  This would be an easy fix if there was a runaway nominee with or without FL & MI but the reality of the situation is that there is not, however the Obama campaign and the media would like to spin it.

    As such, we all need to come together with the goal of winning in November and, in my personal opinion, this includes counting MI & FL.  I am happy to disagree however.


    That's not true -- Hillary never agreed (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:07:30 PM EST
    to not count Michigan and Florida. She agreed to not campaign in Michigan and Florida, and unlike Obama, kept that promise.  In fact, Obama removed his name off of Michigan ballot at the same time Edwards and Richardson did, as part of joint campaign ploy to pander to Iowa, NH, and NV and to make Clinton look bad-- a strategy that worked, in part.

    She did not object to the DNC decision (none / 0) (#98)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:09:58 PM EST
    and one of her top surrogates, Harold Ickes, voted for it. Another surrogate, Terry McAuliffe, threatened precisely the same result when he was head of the DNC. If that doesn't conclusively imply agreement, I don't know what possibly could.

    Conclusively imply? (none / 0) (#187)
    by Chisoxy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:29:17 PM EST
    "Im 100% positive I can read your mind!"

    Obama ran ads in Florida, noone else did (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by catfish on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:10:46 PM EST
    Obama ran ads in Florida, they continued to run even after South Carolina primary:
    "Obama says he did not campaign in MI or FLA, but he failed to say a week before the SC primary he took out air time for a campaign ad on the CNN channel that aired in millions of homes, including FLA. This ad also ran after SC before the FLA primary. -"

    He also said in September, before the FL election, he'd seat the delegates:


    Published: September 30, 2007

    TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

    Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.">

    Tampa Tribune September 2007 (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by tree on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:26:34 PM EST
    Obama was asked during the event about making sure Floridians have a role in the nomination, despite the DNC sanctions and the pledge. Scarritt said Obama responded that he'll "do what's right by Florida voters."



    They also say (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:35:24 PM EST
    Hillary is now ahead in the popular vote (counting Florida and Michigan)

    Their real message is she can better beat McCain.

    She is better able to win the swing states

    She is not angling for vice presidency

    I'm listening on the call as well (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:37:01 PM EST
    and just adding to BTD's coverage

    Ask them about 19 states.... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:49:15 PM EST
    Michigan + Florida = population of 19 smaller states. To what logical extreme would the DNC be willing to go to enforce rules. How many states would they shut out... 19? 39? 49?

    I like this argument (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    I hope we start hearing more of it!

    ask them if Obama called Clinton (none / 0) (#79)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:04:37 PM EST
    to congratulate her last night.  I heard he text mssg'd???

    Nah he is too cool (none / 0) (#95)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:08:17 PM EST
    He just Twittered that he was in a congratulatory mood!

    It may be true (none / 0) (#92)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    that Hillary would beat McCain more convincingly. However, just as we as lawyers are trained to respect a jury's decision, we as citizens must also respect the nomination process we've established.

    That is not to say that superdelegates wouldn't be perfectly within their rights to choose Hillary because of perceived superior electability. However, such a decision invites multifaceted peril for the party and for down-ticket races, many of which these very superdelegates will be running.


    A Good Lawyer (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:12:26 PM EST
    Goes to a jury with his best argument, not his weakest.  That's because jurors, like Super Delegates, are not bound to vote any particular way.

    And just as lawyers never ever appeal... (none / 0) (#169)
    by Evie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:53:20 PM EST
    a jury decision, citizens should never ever protest "established" processes that lead to injustice or voter disenfranchisement, right?

    I also don't see how Obama helps downticket when so far, downticket Dem candidates have felt the need to publicly distance themselves from him.


    is this snark? respect what the dnc (none / 0) (#171)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    and dean/brazile have done? when hades freezes over i will. look for a major walkout of the democratic party core voters. did not wv teach obama supporters anything? sigh!

    MI & FL will be seated per Dean (none / 0) (#108)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:12:39 PM EST
    in his interview with SquareState, CO blog picked to cover the convention (one from ea state was picked).

    SquareState: Yes. Now... will the Michigan and Florida bloggers also be sitting with their delegations?

    Governor Dean: Yes.

    Doesn't say anything about in relation to voting %s tho...


    WV: Necessary but not sufficient (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by barryluda on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:38:52 PM EST
    This race will obviously come down to the Super Delegates.  Had Clinton not won big then, as Wolfson said, it would be all over.  But she won, and won not just big but huge, so it's not over.

    The key now is for the Super Delegates to both stop trending toward Obama and for Clinton to start to get at least a few Obama Super Delegates to make the switch to her.  That seems to me very unlikely to happen, but it's possible.

    If it does happen, it'll start with one or two.  I don't know enough about the Supers to know which ones might be inclined to switch from Obama to Clinton.  If that doesn't happen now or soon, I can't imagine any more events in Clinton's control that will make it happen.

    Elected officials from states Hillary won (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    are the targets.

    I think it was the worst loss ever (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:41:37 PM EST
    by a front runner this late in the primary season.

    The Superdels want to abolish (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    their electorate and find a new one in Idaho or South Dakota.

    it's all Daschle's fault.


    Maybe national polling, including (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:40:54 PM EST
    states that Obama previously won.

    quite wrong (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:40:20 PM EST
    she'll be in the competition in that area.

    That's the main point.

    If McCain is forced to spend in states like Florida and West Virginia and Arkansas and Missouri (states where she has been polling well and obama not well) MCcain will be easily defeated elsewhere and proabbaly slip and fall in two of those fights.

    Obama shaping up to be first... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:40:24 PM EST
    candidate in the modern political era to lose the popular vote and still win the nomination. I know, I know, McGovern lost the popular vote as well, but that was in 1972 and before most states switched over to primaries. It is instructive, however, too note that candidates (such as McGovern) that rack up a large share of their delegates from cauceses usually don't make great candidates.

    Can we count the pop vote (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    from Nebraska's "meaningless" primary yesterday instead of the caucus in February (which is what really counted for delegates)? Turnout in the caucus was about 38,000, of which Obama got 67%.  Turnout yesterday was close to 90k, and Clinton got 46% of it (43,372), which was more than the entire turnout in the caucus. Obama got 45,962.

    Mewaning that Obama lost ground in the Nebraska popular vote differential.


    "lost ground" (none / 0) (#111)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:14:27 PM EST
    very telling.

    Switched to primaries? (none / 0) (#26)
    by wasabi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:44:45 PM EST
    What did they switch from?

    From caucuses ... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:52:54 PM EST
    and these were even less democratic than the caucuses of today.

    Caucuses and a hodgepodge of (none / 0) (#40)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:51:04 PM EST
    "party leaders," backroom deals, state party conventions, ect.

    For the old Democratic party . . . (none / 0) (#100)
    by wurman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:10:30 PM EST
    . . . there was a mix of non-primary methods.  The traditional caucus, as per Iowa, was often used.  Some states had a central committee that would announce candidates for the Nat'l Convention who would be voted upon (approved) at a statewide convention.  Some states, in the Old South, would have "slates" of candidates offered up as groups on lists for either caucus or convention approval.  Some states simply had the elected Democrats of that state gather & handpick themselves & their cronies as nat'l delegates.

    My home state had (& sort of still has) a system in which each precinct selects delegates to a combined county & state legislative district convention, which then sends a slate to a congressional district convention (which jibes with the current DNC format), which then sends a slate to the state meeting, which then selects a slate for each congressional district, a slate of at-large & also formally accepts the "party leader / elected official" designations of the DNC--as well as some very distinguished party leaders.

    As this nominating "season" shows, the system is not entirely democratic & may be gamed.

    At my local convention, a move to end the caucus & convention system was made, seconded & crushingly defeated.  The group was soundly against the primary system.

    Two reasons: (1) the "dem-for-a-day" nonsense cannot be gamed in a caucus--the folks do recognize each other at the local levels; (2) the tiered levels of the process allow delegates to change their pledges if a popular candidate dies, is arrested, becomes an ideological millstone, etc.

    Re-doing a primary election, in the event of a ridiculous failure, is expensive, time-consuming, not possible after a certain date, subject to government approval & expenditure & may result in legal entanglements.  [Oh, wait.  I just describe FL & MI]


    Errr polling says otherwise (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:41:04 PM EST
    Clinton beats McCain, McCain trounces Obama in WV.

    he isn't going to give a specific number (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:41:16 PM EST
    because last time he did, they had to spend days defending it.

    HRC (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jedimom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:11:06 PM EST
    I gave another 300.44 to Hill last night
    will keep giving what I can to get her to Denver and the White House

    It seems clear that PR (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:41:57 PM EST
    will put them ahead in the popular vote.

    The thing that they have to emphasize WRT the popular vote is that FL and MI should always be counted under that scheme. The Obama move to delegitimize the popular vote should be called out.

    I agree... he's already gotten (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:53:20 PM EST
    the advantage of handicapping Clinton by taking away two of her best states. Everyone agrees that Clinton would win Florida and Michigan by at LEAST a 500K margin.

    Maybe not the "old" Hillary, (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:43:02 PM EST
    but the new "comeback kid," moxy Hillary would win by a good margin.

    That's really true. (5.00 / 8) (#54)
    by liminal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:56:04 PM EST
    I've talked to alot of people who were iffy about her, but now think she's the strongest Democratic presidential candidate (by which: I mean tough) since... they don't know when, including Bill Clinton.  And these aren't people in my "Clinton supporter noise machine" but are instead people like: the girl in the coffee shop drive through this morning; the ladies at the gas station last night; the Republican-leaning lawyer who thought he hated her;  the woman who takes care of plants in my office.

    Hillary Clinton has managed to win the general election this primary season; I just don't know if she can pull off the nomination.

    (For what it's worth, the lady who takes care of the plants just told me that having HRC as VP would make her feel more confident in Obama as president, and endorsed my idea of a joint campaign tour of West Virginia/Appalachian Ohio featuring Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.)


    I agree - the Clinton brand would do a lot (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    to reassure general election voters who are concerned about his thin resume.

    PS (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by liminal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    I totally didn't solicit her comment about the dream ticket.  She volunteered the idea that HRC as VP would make her more comfortable with Obama for President - all this after I quietly confessed that I'm all hoarse from cheering for HRC last night.  We have never before talked politics.

    I agree with the barista. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:04:43 PM EST
    BO has no prayer, HRC is competitive (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Prabhata on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:43:36 PM EST

    Who's Jim Axelrod? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by flashman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:44:37 PM EST

    Who is Jim Axelrod? (none / 0) (#28)
    by wasabi on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:46:13 PM EST
    Jim Axelrod is CBS News' chief White House correspondent.

    I wonder if he is (none / 0) (#29)
    by DCDemocrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:46:27 PM EST
    any relation to David Axelrod?

    Yeah, Me Too (none / 0) (#39)
    by flashman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:49:34 PM EST
    that's why I asked.

    I don't think they are related. (none / 0) (#56)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:56:20 PM EST
    Could be wrong, but I don't think they are.

    CBS News, I believe (none / 0) (#30)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    MyDD (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by DCDemocrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:45:28 PM EST
    This is an aside, but the Obama people have pretty much taken over MyDD in the same way they destroyed Daily Kos.  I think I will be moving on again out of MyDD.  

    Do What I Do (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:47:55 PM EST
    Read Beeton and Armstrong, skip comments and diaries.

    Even I do the same (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:54:35 PM EST
    I don't feel like responding or posting comments there because some of the commenters are like kids trying to bully their point across by throwing tantrums. Its kind of weird.

    That's what I do too (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    I stopped posting over there - what was the point?  Everyone is shouting and no one is listening.

    I noticed that. (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:14:13 PM EST
    Jerome has banned a lot of them iirc but I think there has been a concerted effort on their part to destroy any blog that has some sort of rational discussion going on.

    Good thing we keep (none / 0) (#33)
    by Lahdee on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:47:16 PM EST
    those carpetbags handy, eh?

    All media got the same talking point (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ruffian on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:56:40 PM EST
    about her statements from last October, for god's sake, about MI not counting. Only reporters like KO who can't think up a quation of their own bring it up.  What an idiotic thing to obsess about at this point in the race. No one but Obamabots care what she said about it in October.  Can't wait to hear the audio of the press conference to hear Wolfson go to town on that.

    I'm surprised that they (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by tree on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:14:37 PM EST
    don't respond by mentioning that in September 2007, in that non-quite legit press conference in Tampa, Obama promised to "do what's right by Florida voters."

    Or is this another example of the Obama Roolz. HE can't be held responsible for anything he said earlier, only she can?


    I'm getting annoyed with the crystal ball reading (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Jim J on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:00:45 PM EST
    Everyone seems to "know" that it's impossible for Obama to win in November. No, you don't "know" this.

    Truth is, by every measure we have right now, he has a good chance of winning. Maybe Hillary has a ten percent better chance, but both are extremely well-positioned for November.

    Republicans are in the most disarray they've seen in 75 years, and they hate their candidate to boot. Come on!

    My point is, what a shame that a weak, transparently non-progressive, obviously prefabricated candidate like Obama will likely waltz into the White House in this slam-dunk year, when we need someone with real fortitude to change course from the Bush years.

    We are going with the best (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:05:34 PM EST
    candidate, who is also the one with the best chance of winning the Electoral Vote.

    Not good sense to run with your candidate who's LESS likely to win.

    Crystal balls have nothing to do with it.


    Per the Green Papers (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by wurman on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:34:29 PM EST
    Green Papers (link)Just some boring stuff for those in the fact-based community where crystal balls are on glass statues.

    "Alternative" Delegate Votes
    (no sanctions)
    Need to Nominate      2,210.0
    B Obama                  1,957.5
    H Clinton                  1,909.0
    (available)                   464.5
    Uncommitted                 55.0
    J Edwards                     32.0
    No Preference 0.0
    Total                       4,418.0

    Quoting myself:

    With a commanding 48.5 vote lead, out of 3953.5 cast, which is an insurmountable lead of 1.226 percent--nearly an order of magnitude (maybe on Lilliput), Sen. Obama will stride, manfully to his rightful place as the Democratic Party candidate in 2008. NOT

    Unfortunately, that fantasy has a long way to travel.  At the convention the standing committees will expand by 161 members each--chosen only from the pledged floor delegates, not from the unpledged PLEOs.  Oooooooh, that will smart when the Rules Committee expands to 186 members with lots of new Clinton folks based on the "actual pledged, credentialed" delegate count.

    Chuck that crystal ball aside & get real.  This is a fight to the finish.


    sigh. (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jim J on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:08:25 PM EST
    Not my point, as I indicated, but I'm becoming accustomed to kneejerk reactions here lately.

    I strongly prefer Hillary, but either is extremely well-positioned for November. Republicans are in total disarray.

    You cannot argue with this, the numbers clearly point to a huge Dem year regardless.


    Huge dem year - yes (none / 0) (#99)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:10:19 PM EST
    Obama winning the white house? Not so much.

    whatever you say (none / 0) (#117)
    by Jim J on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:15:53 PM EST
    You said it, it must be true.

    We are looking at electoral maps (none / 0) (#130)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:21:27 PM EST
    and state-to-state matchups against McCain.

    We are looking at exit polls and what voters say.

    What are you basing your assertions on? National polls?

    I would ask you to remember that at one point, Rudy Giuliani was the "national" Republican frontrunner. Everybody and their grandmother was telling me to be terrified of Rudy Giuliani. He could not possibly be beaten by HRC, they all said.

    He got exactly one delegate.

    Obama's problem is huge and growing. So yes, we are scared that the Dems will lose, and it would not be wise to ignore the possibility.


    And I'm asking you not to ignore (none / 0) (#149)
    by Jim J on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:35:23 PM EST
    the obvious underlying dynamics favoring Dems this cycle, not seen since the '30s. I don't like Obama anymore than you do, but he is odd's on favorite to be both the Dem nominee and your next president. Nobody said you had to like that, it's just what's probably going to happen.

    IMO it's a waste of time to sit here talking about what a loser he'll be in November. None of us knows this, regardless of how loudly you may proclaim it.


    As I have made abundantly clear (none / 0) (#151)
    by Jim J on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:39:40 PM EST
    I'm talking about the massive increase in Dem registration and participation, coupled with the objective data coming out of several recent special elections.

    I say this just for the record, not that I think that will dissuade anyone from smugly parroting the McGovern meme for the umpteenth time.

    You guys are in beginning to be in as much of a bubble as dKos. You bandy about these numbers supposedly proving Obama can't win in November with this air of all-knowing arrogance that is all too familiar to me.

    I don't like it anymore than you do, but he is likely the Dem nominee and likely the next president. I don't see how ignoring this is helping anyone. Believe me, I regret it as much as anyone but as some point you've got to face facts.


    Thanks for acknowledging my wisdom ;) (none / 0) (#139)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:29:49 PM EST
    But more seriously look here:
    Electoral Vote Map

    I have been following it, and Obama is losing ground. Is it permanent? Who knows. My instinct tells me he has lost certain demographics and will not get them back.

    Hey no need to get snarky because we disagree.


    The problem (none / 0) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:19:45 PM EST
    is that the underlying numbers seem to always be good. The problem continually is the messenger. Obama want's to campaign on personality issues not bread and butter issues. He'll never win a personality contest with John McCain. Obama's condescending and arrogant attitude turns people off so they won't even listen to what he has to say unfortunately.

    It turns some people off (none / 0) (#155)
    by Jim J on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    including me, but others not so much. He will end up with at least 49.9 percent of the Dem primary vote. That is no less of a big deal than Hillary getting a similar number.

    This stuff here lately about Obama losing 49 states is just poppycock. There's no way he can do badly in a year that favors Dems so broadly. Go ahead, say "McGovern" 100 times. Doesn't make it so.

    I'm sorry Hillary didn't do well and I hate the media for aiding in her demise. She is clearly more qualified to be president.

    But the facts are the facts and it's almost certainly a Dem year, which means Obama is likely your next president.


    1988 (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:17:12 PM EST
    was supposed to be a Dem year too. We had just taken back the senate. The Reagan administration was battered and bruised from Iran Contra. People were ready to change but I'm sure you know the history of that election. I won't go on. Dukakis even had a 17 point lead on Bush I.

    All it takes is one 527 againt a candidate like Obama who doesn't know how to handle it to end it all.

    It's not about Hillary. It's about Obama being a terrible general election candidate. Heck, he can't even unite the party. Has a "presumptive nominee" ever been shellacked by over 40 pts. in a primary?


    1996... (none / 0) (#177)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:08:53 PM EST
    does anyone remember what a great year 1996 was for the Republican presidential candidate?

    How about how impossible it was for the Democrat to loose in 2000, given how great the country was doing after eight years of Bill Clinton's leadership?

    People don't go to the voting booth and mark "underlying Party trend" on their presidential ballot -- they have to vote for a person.  And as long as McCain can maintain the 'maverick' label, his being a republican won't much matter if Obama can't connect with voters.


    I'm mostly saying that (none / 0) (#179)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:12:35 PM EST
    he's more like Dukakis. Right now he's losing all the swing states. He's having a problem holding some of the blue states. And people yammering about how he's going to carry UT in Nov. aren't helpful.

    Disagree. HRC got 70+% (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    of the Big Dog's general election vote number. But she did it in the primary.

    (backwards....and in high heels!)

    Key-rist (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:19:26 PM EST
    NARAL?!?  Well, as a now former member of the leadership council, they can say goodbye to any possibility of me ever supporting them again.  I wonder how they'll feel about Obama telling folks to give him their money instead of these non-profits?

    This is really a knife in the back.  Why on earth did they not wait?  This is disgusting to me.  It makes no sense.

    They endorsed Joe "another hospital is just (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Anne on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:31:39 PM EST
    a short cab ride away" Lieberman, too, so I no longer put a whole lot of stock in their endorsements.

    Honestly, I wish I knew where this liberal label Obama has came from, because I just don't see it.  


    I guess those "present" votes (none / 0) (#176)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    really were o.k. w/them.

    naral is so letting women down. (5.00 / 0) (#175)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:58:34 PM EST
    but i have been saying that for a long time. when i called to complain about libermann, they asked for money. i laughed and hung up the phone. you support me and i'll support you naral.

    I feel FL & MI should be (4.66 / 3) (#23)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:44:06 PM EST
    counted. It is a very tight race between two nominees who have overwhelming support from their dedicated supporters. In such situations the DNC has to ensure that the process of nomination is as fair as possible. Discounting two big states whose outcome if counted can change the game is not being fair.

    The onus is on DNC to find a just and fair solution to the FL & MI counting instead of hiding behind rulz.

    And Obama was given every opportunity... (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:48:00 PM EST
    ...to agree to a revote. IMHO, he would have done better in a revote and not agreeing to count those votes gave the Clinton campaign a very good issue to use against him.

    Of course they should (none / 0) (#104)
    by jimotto on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:11:41 PM EST
    Hillary was ahead in both states by 20 pts when the campaigns were suspended.

    Since then, Florida, the 4th largest state, had the 8th largest number of votes in a dem primary and Michigan, the 8th largest state, had the 18th largest number of votes in a dem primary.  Michigan had the lowest turnout as a percentage of eligible voters for a primary of any state.  MI and FL are two of only four states that had higher turnout amoung Republicans than Democrats (the other two being Utah and Arizona).  

    Yeah, those primaries were clearly legit.


    Isn't it also obvious then (none / 0) (#150)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:36:16 PM EST
    that turnout increased as time went on during the primary season because the race got so close and interest intensified?  Turnout was near record levels regardless.

    there was an even playing field (none / 0) (#156)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:44:13 PM EST
    there is no question of the legitimacy of those primaries -- there was an even playing field.  Obama chose to take his name off the michigan ballot to pander to Iowa voters, and benefitted from that decision, while Clinton's decision to leave her name on the ballot in Michigan cost her in Iowa.

    I personally think that the smart compromise would be to award both states its "district" and "at large" delegates as voted, but to eliminate the "pledged PLEOS" and all superdelegates from those states.  Voter should not be disenfranchised because of the actions of Democratic Party officials and office holders.


    Does that total include the kind 11 year old... (1.00 / 5) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:51:37 PM EST
    soul's 4 hundo?

    I wouldn't give these crooks a dime if you gave me a dollar.  Pay for the potential priveledge of 4 more years of Iraqi and Afghani occupation, 4 more years of drug war, 4 more years of rising prison populations?  You must be out your mind....  

    And how many more (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    comments do you intend to make about a heartfelt donation of an 11 year old supporter?  I think we know where you stand on the issue after the dozen comments you made about it on the Open Thread.  If you have that much of a problem with it, I suggest you contact the Clintons directly instead of continuing to hijack the discussion here.

    Contact the Clintons... (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:08:13 PM EST
    and what?  Get a form letter stating that if it wasn't for tyrannical drug laws Roger would be dead?

    Point taken though....I'll shut up about it. Till they need calling out on the next embarassment that is.


    What if I gave you ten million? (none / 0) (#53)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:55:46 PM EST
    Then, would you give them a dime?

    No.... (1.00 / 1) (#86)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    money ain't everything, principles are priceless.

    Somebody tell Bill and Hill.


    Please... (none / 0) (#119)
    by smott on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:16:23 PM EST
    ...issue a spew alert when you talk about principles and imply that Obama has them....I'm trying to work here...

    When did I say... (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:30:04 PM EST
    Obama has principles?  If you're voting on principles you'd have to vote third party.

    You Clinton-istas and Obama-bots need to remember that the whole country isn't split into your two little camps or the McCain camp.  Some of us, I'll admit very few, are holding our support for a candidate that is serious about ending foreign occupations, ending the drug war, getting the prison population reduced, granting Americans greater freedoms, etc, etc, etc.


    Why bother here? (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:48:33 PM EST
    It sounds like you don't like anyone and you really don't like politics?  

    this is what corrente (none / 0) (#200)
    by Iris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:53:38 PM EST
    means about Obama's 'movement' being a disaffected third-party movement.  They will abandon the party when Obama doesn't make good on all these lofty hopes.

    Why bother?..... (none / 0) (#208)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:09:22 PM EST
    Good question.

    "Here" used to be quite a different place...I guess I keep hoping we'll get back to discussing and debating issues instead of this pointless (in my view) election garbage.  All 3 of these clowns aren't gonna tackle any of the core problems I'm always ranting and raving about.  Pointless.  

    I love people, I want people to be free to pursue life, liberty, and happiness all over the world.  All people, even Clinton worshipers...even Vush worshipers (whats left of them:)

    But these means I got no love for the 3 stooges running for president, or the two-party duopoly government.

    I hate politics, yet am strangely interested and intrigued by politics.  Plus, as a freedom extremist, I like to keep an eye on things.



    has anyone... (none / 0) (#159)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:46:20 PM EST
    reported this troll/chatterer to Jeralyn yet?  I don't want to clog her in-box with complaints...

    Do you really... (none / 0) (#211)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:21:32 PM EST
    bother the very busy woman in charge here with emails to complain about comments?  Dear lord...

    BTW...Your ahead of me today, 24-19.  Chatter, chatter...


    kdog, go bark somewhere else..... (none / 0) (#206)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:44:34 PM EST
    Really, what are you doing here? "sneaking a peep" of us Hillary weirdos?
    And, why is he allowed to continue blogging here?
    For the past couple of days he's been "surfing" all the TL blogs and putting his two wooden nickles into the discourse! Which he could, but not in a "bitter" way, ha! Your "Leader" (see how politically correct I am not mentioning the noun that would fit perfectly here? You can imagine what that word is can't you?)would be dissappointed with you; you're supposed to be a uniter!

    I've been here reading and.... (none / 0) (#209)
    by kdog on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:17:01 PM EST
    commenting on this once great blog since 2002.  You?

    If it was my house I'd ask all the kool-aid drinkers, Clinton and Obama flavor alike, to go back to whatever blog you helped ruin.  But it ain't my house.  Besides, I get a kick out of some of you, and learn from some of you newbies.

    For the umpteenth time...I'm of the opinion that Obama/Clinton is the same sh*t different wrapper.  Though Clinton worries me a little more because she is more politically competent.


    7 fugures was what he said (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:33:17 PM EST
    Do not know the actual amount.

    OT: Michigan (none / 0) (#131)
    by joejoejoe on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:22:20 PM EST
    Marcy Wheeler had an update on the status of the Michigan delegation that I thought might be of interest.

    What are her prospects for OR? (none / 0) (#6)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:33:28 PM EST

    Mixed (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:44:29 PM EST
    The SUSA poll out yesterday had Obama with a comfortable lead (11%) among likely voters.  But the interesting thing is that, while he led by 20 among people who hadn't voted yet, he only led by 1 among those who had already voted (43% of the likely voters).

    I'd say Obama is up about 10, but who knows?


    Winning OR would be sweet; without it (none / 0) (#31)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:46:43 PM EST
    she probably will not be able to convince SD's to back her.

    I respectfully disagree... (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    only Obama needs Oregon to prove his wild GE electoral theories about the New Democratic Coalition - i.e., the West and the South take the place of the Appalachian States.

    HRC does not need it at all to prove her electability argument. Winning the states she has already won would give her a definitive victory over McCain.


    I'm thinking of how the argument will (none / 0) (#181)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    be played out in public.

    How low can the Obama bar get? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Davidson on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:12:42 PM EST
    All he has to do is win OR after months of being declared the presumptive nominee and his fatal GE problems disappear?  Clinton would win OR if she was the nominee, but will Obama win MI, FL, OH, PA?  Hell, will he even win MA, NJ, NY, CA?  The man cannot win the GE (This is before the media and the GOP go full throttle on him).  Period.

    It's insane that the supers aren't rushing to Clinton.  Insane.


    Is Oregon (none / 0) (#50)
    by Steve M on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:54:52 PM EST
    100% voting by mail?

    Oregon is all vote-by-mail (none / 0) (#57)
    by caseyOR on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:56:21 PM EST
    Yes. (none / 0) (#58)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:56:34 PM EST
    Has been for several yrs.

    Yep... and its a perfect vehicle for (none / 0) (#61)
    by Exeter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:57:26 PM EST
    Obama's GOTV operation. Plus, its a closed primary, which benefits Obama in Oregon.

    Wait (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:15:29 PM EST
    I thought Obama was all about winning over independents and Republicans?  What's changed?  

    Buyer's remorse? (none / 0) (#55)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:56:08 PM EST
    among those who'd already voted.

    OR has only 7 Electoral Votes. Big deal, imo.


    Sorry to ask, but Vieques? (none / 0) (#78)
    by angie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:03:15 PM EST
    as in Vieques, Puerto Rico? The island where all the protests against the US Navy occurred for using it as a bombing range/weapons testing? I thought the Navy left in 2003 -- why would she need their permission to visit? Also, what is your take on why she does want to visit (assuming she does) -- to show solidarity with the people of P.R.? (sorry if I'm showing my ignorance on this).

    It was Chelsea (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Kathy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:14:31 PM EST
    and it wasn't targeting her, but enforcing a law which says you can't campaign on federal land.  LINK

    Not sure why she wants to visit but... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:27:16 PM EST
    ...I think part of the island is still closed off due to landmines, toxic waste, etc.

    Thanks Kathy & Maria Garcia! (none / 0) (#153)
    by angie on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:40:12 PM EST
    at least I was right about it being the Puerto Rico island!

    Is this healthy? (none / 0) (#106)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:12:36 PM EST
    I like Hillary, always have. But is it healthy for her and her supporters to continue to pursue the impossible? She literally needs 95% of the remaining SD's to overtake Obama. These SD's would have to make an abrupt change from flocking to Obama to flocking to Hillary (at an almost 100% clip).

    No one is going to count FL and MI as is. Why do people keep arguing about it? Obama has veto power over these matters. Why would he disenfranchise himself. He's not going to commit political suicide to please some posters on Talk Left.

    The so-called bubba vote: The dem establishment refused out of principle to compete for the white racist vote 40 years ago against Nixon. They chose defeat back then rather than pander to this vote. So 40 years later they're going to join hands with a candidate within their own party who is seemingly appealing to this vote? Are you serious? This has the effect of driving SD's to Obama, not to Clinton. Check the SD movement since Hillary began her "southern strategy."

    He'd rather disenfranchise (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:16:55 PM EST
    millions of voters in FL & MI than "disenfranchise himself"?

    Never mind.


    Thanks. Thought it was just me. (none / 0) (#158)
    by Elporton on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    And here comes the other (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by madamab on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:18:11 PM EST
    Obama talking point bot.

    "Screw the racist bubbas. Oh, and by the way, Hillary is a racist and that's why she gets their votes."

    Your needle is a bit stuck.


    Obama has 'veto power'? (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Dr Molly on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:28:19 PM EST
    Obama has veto power over which votes count? Jeezus.

    I don't which is scarier - that phrase or the one that includes the racist slurs 'bubba vote' and 'white racist vote'. I hope your candidate gets trounced.


    I never said all W. Virginians were bubbas or (none / 0) (#148)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:35:19 PM EST
    racist. But clearly some are. There is a healthier chunk in that state than most other states.

    If you think you can ram the disputed results from FL and MI down Obama's throat you're deluding yourself. In fact, in court the notion that you can count FL and MI as is would be considered too frivolous and ridiculous to waste time with.


    And you KNOW this HOW? (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by tree on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:50:07 PM EST
    There is a healthier chunk in that state than most other states.

    If you can't see your own bigotry and stereotyping, why should anyone value your opinion on anyone else's bigotry? Try "being the change you want to see", before casting stones at people based solely on their ethnic background and geographical location.  


    There is concrete evidence to support this (none / 0) (#168)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:53:03 PM EST
    including many statements from W. Virginians themselves. Reports from the field and phone banking. Reports from pollsters. And get this: COMMONSENSE.

    Ah yes commonsense. (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by tree on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    Many bigots actually justify their bigotry with the idea that its just commonsense.

    I'm sure there are some bigots in West Virginia. I'm sure there are some in every state in the country. I'm also sure that you have absolutely no hard data to back up your insistance that West Virginians are significantly more racist that any other state. I've seen the NY Times report, which BTW mentions Indiana more than it does WV. Its all anecdotal and doesn't prove anything about numbers or percentage. I could give you some fine anecdotal evidence of bigots in Oregon, (or California for that matter), but I'm betting that you think that Oregonians are more enlightened about race just because Obama is polling a lot better there than WV. Prejudice isn't anymore acceptable because it is practiced against Appalachian whites. Its wrong. I understand and can relate to your disgust at racists, but again, tarring everyone because of their race is bad no matter who does it.  

    If you think that Obama is just not getting votes because he's biracial then you are delusional. He doesn't connect. Its not his race, its his attitude and his associations.


    Yes, Oregonians are more enlightened about (1.00 / 1) (#184)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:23:28 PM EST
    race than Appalachians. Californians, too, are more enlightened. That does not make people from Appalachia ogres. But many more of them are more disdainful and hateful of "others" than elsewhere. Many of them have never been out of Appalachia. Racism, often, is a function of lack of exposure to other people and other cultures. Many of them are not educated. While there are extremely educated racists, racism more often than not is a function of ignorance.

    In that caldron, 28% still voted for Obama. Even though, recognizing the hopelessness of the situation, he chose to not campaign there. So there were some people there who didn't make a race-based vote. That said, I think at least 28% voted racially against Obama and in support of Hillary. I will concede that not all of her vote can be categorized in this way. A good chunk liked her personally or prefer her policies.


    Again, you know this HOW? (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by tree on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:14:47 PM EST
    Commonsense??? And where did you come up with your 28% figure? More "commonsense"? Exit polls in California and West Virginia show that approximately the same percentage in both states considered race the most important factor in the primary. (It was 6% in California and 8% in West Virginia). I mentioned CA and OR because I've spent considerable time there. I'm by no means dissing Californians, but to think that they are magically a more "enlightened" group is a fantasy.

    If anything, many of the Californians who are bigots just know how to be more PC about it, either by what they say out loud, or by couching it in acceptable terms, or by displaying their bigotry against acceptable groups, like lower class whites, or immigrants, depending on the social milieu they are in.    

     If you can't understand how people could genuinely find Obama unappealing as a candidate on his own merits it may be comforting to you to think that its all because they are racists but it doesn't help your understanding of the problem, it doesn't win over anyone, especially the one's you are implying are racists, and worst of all, it doesn't allow you to confront your own biases. If you want to help end other peoples biases, and I sincerely think you do, you have to be willing to look at your own biases and at least be willing to consider that just because you assume something about a particular group of people doesn't mean that your assumption can't be dead wrong. And if your assumptions about people lead you to denigrate them and ignore them, then how are you accomplishing anything other than perpetuating stereotypes?  



    28% was an unscientific assumption I made (1.00 / 1) (#197)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:36:56 PM EST
    and I made it clear it was my opinion. Could be more, could be less.

    While we don't have a racial utopia in CA you aren't seriously suggesting that, generally speaking, whites in CA are not more enlightened racaially than whites in Apallacia?

    Please read my comments carefully if you're going to respond.


    Seth, I've read all your comments carefully (none / 0) (#201)
    by tree on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:09:49 PM EST
    I'm simply trying to point out to you that you are railing against bigotry while exhibiting it yourself. You don't KNOW that people are any more racist in WV than anywhere else. It's your opinion. I understand that.  You are clinging to that opinion not because of any facts, but because it is a reassuring stereotype for you. That's what  prejudice is.

    I don't consider CA necessarily anymore enlightened than anywhere else. If you can't see the racism here you purposefully aren't looking. And there's plenty of "California elitism" that exists here as well. I don't know the people of WV  and I'm not going to buy into a convenient stereotype just because it makes me feel superior , 'cuz I'm California cool. I have spent some time in other states nearby to WV and I've met some people with bigotted attitudes but I've also met many more without. Californians are capable of just as much prejudice as anyone else.  And, in case you don't know it, there is a subset of Oregonians who are former Californians who left the big cities 'cus of the "crime, you know". Again, I'm not dissing Californians or Oregonians. I'm just trying to point out that dissing West Virginians  because of your own prejudice about how bigotted you think they are, is counterintuitive and counterproductive and just plain wrong.  


    Well, you've made some reasonable (none / 0) (#205)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:39:39 PM EST
    points here. Absolutely, I could walk into some mountain town in W. VA and find higher quality people with fewer biases than can be found in the toniest neighborhoods in Beverly Hills. I could also find vicious racists there. However, the point you are making is well taken. I've never argued otherwise. I pointed out that 28% did support Obama. While it was a massive blowout for Clinton, still 28% is significant in some fashion.

    I did not mean to imply that W. Virginians are racists. Personally, some of the best people I've met have been among the so-called undereducated white working class. The fact that there are also some who may be vicious racists doesn't diminish my affection for those I've met.


    Thanks for listening to my points (none / 0) (#212)
    by tree on Wed May 14, 2008 at 06:28:16 PM EST
    and I hope you do take them to heart. I understand that you support Obama and want him to win but I think you are still falsely equating a vote against Obama from a white person in WV as a likely racist vote. Obama has trouble connecting with many non-black working class voters because they don't see him relating to or caring about their problems. This is his problem, not a problem caused by his race. It has only been made worse by his "bitter/cling" remarks and his association with a pastor who has said hateful things. His race may influence a small percentage of voters not to vote for him, just as Clinton's gender may influence a small percentage of voters not to vote for him. But in the end, it is the candidate's own qualities and issues that influence the most voters.



    that is rude, racist and a total affront (none / 0) (#192)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:00:57 PM EST
    to all things democratic. how dare you!

    just curious seth... (none / 0) (#189)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    but if someone made the same point about Obama's appeal in the black community, would that be okay?

    Only if those white voters would (none / 0) (#191)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:47:47 PM EST
    vote 80 to 90% for black candidates.

    I do not begrudge women for voting strictly on gender for Hillary. That does not make these women anti-men. They've voted for plenty of men in the past and will do so in the future. The distinction here is that a white racist vote is a vote based on hate.


    please don't speak for women voters. (none / 0) (#193)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:01:46 PM EST
    when we need help, we'll ask.

    The issue with FL and MI (none / 0) (#167)
    by Elporton on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:51:54 PM EST
    for Sen. Obama is that he must choose between agreeing to Sen. Clinton's argument to seat the delegates, which clearly helps her, or to continue to resist any agreement, which helps him now but likely hurts him in the general election.  It seems obvious that he's taking the latter bet, and with it, probably forfeiting 27 electoral votes.

    Why not try this? (none / 0) (#182)
    by Dr Molly on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:16:55 PM EST
    Don't use racial slurs like 'bubba' at all. Kay??

    I'm sure you don't approve of the ones used against black people. So don't use these either.

    You people are so freaking offensive.


    Bubba is a racial slur? (none / 0) (#186)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:28:28 PM EST
    Tell it to the media. The word is used freely.

    So are other offensive slurs (none / 0) (#188)
    by Dr Molly on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:34:08 PM EST
    Stop using it unless you deliberately mean to stereotype, demean, and offend poor rural people. Which, of course, you do.

    yeah, and calling hillary vile names is (none / 0) (#194)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:03:06 PM EST
    cool also. yeah, right obama supporters cheered when he "wiped her off his shoe".

    you would do better to get away from name calling and trying to justify it.


    west Virginians... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:17:05 PM EST
    ...are not bubbas.  The state from Virgina and from the confederacty to join the Union.

    They are also the epicenter of the union movement in the US.

    The battle of Blair Mountain and the Incident at Matewan are part of union folklaw.


    Added to that... (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Salo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:19:28 PM EST
    ....please stop repeating talking points.  Most of the posters here have had a belly full of it at Dkos and MyDD and as such represent a REAL problem for Obama's prospects in November.

    The 88th anniversary of (none / 0) (#180)
    by liminal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:14:00 PM EST
    the Matewan Massacre is May 19.  There's going to be a reenactment there this weekend.  Incidentally, Matewan is in Mingo County, where HRC won 88% of the vote.

    Thanks for correcting the record, Salo.  Many thanks.


    Is it healthy to pick an unelectable candidate? (none / 0) (#124)
    by Davidson on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:18:27 PM EST
    Considering Clinton is appealing to so many "white racists" it completely undercuts Obama's electability argument?  If you want to smear an entire half of the Democratic party as racist or stupid, you better take it to its logical conclusion: Obama can't win.

    Exceedingly healthy (none / 0) (#160)
    by joanneleon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:47:52 PM EST
    for the people and for our democracy.

    Dana Milbank has always been an a** (none / 0) (#115)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:15:08 PM EST
    Please stop the personal attacks (none / 0) (#145)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:33:32 PM EST
    It's against the rules of the blog, and because I am not on the Clinton team, I cannot respond in kind without being suspended or banned.

    I deleted the comment (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:45:01 PM EST
    personally attacking you.

    Thank you Jeralyn. (none / 0) (#164)
    by digdugboy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:48:54 PM EST
    Perhaps you will also consider (none / 0) (#190)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:38:20 PM EST
    deleting this commenters assault on my intelligence and fairness.