home

Some Good Advice For Dems And Barack Obama

Mike Lux at Open Left delivers it:

Some people who agree with me on the need to appeal to [white working class] voters believe that we have to move to the right to win them over. I don't believe that is true. On economic issues, they are far more populist than what passes for "centrism" in Washington, D.C. And while they are more conservative on social issues, I like to remind people that Bill Clinton in 1996- after a term where he pushed for gays in the military, enacted a ban on employment discrimination against gays and lesbians in federal government employment, vetoed a partial-birth abortion ban, and signed two gun control bills- won the highest percentage of both working class and rural voters of any Democratic Presidential candidate of the last 44 years. He won those voters by reaching out to them politically, and by speaking their language. The second best percentage among those voters in this period? Clinton in 1992.

(Emphasis supplied.) With the Creative Class blogs intent on destroying the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, this is timely advice.

Comments closed

< Byrd Endorses Obama | Former Gitmo Detainee To Testify Before Congress >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Indeed (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:07:49 PM EST
    This is why I liked Edwards.  I felt his campaign had the potential to be attractive to the broad Democratic demographic WITHOUT compromising progressive values.

    If you can run on a progressive agenda and still do well with conservative Democrats, you're in a pretty good spot.  Now, obviously not enough people saw it my way, but I think the logic still holds as a general proposition.

    I supported Edwards, too, (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:09:46 PM EST
    but he certainly didn't resonate with enough voters.  The media share the responsibility for that, of course.  

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:17:41 PM EST
    But it's still important to note that he didn't have any particular problem with conservative voters despite running the most progressive campaign.  Indeed, in states like Iowa they were his best demographic.

    People get the idea that because you're a "conservative Dem" you must be in love with abolishing the estate tax or doubling down on the war or what have you.  It ain't necessarily so.

    Parent

    Maybe, (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:32:02 PM EST
    just maybe, it was Elizabeth Edwards I actually liked.

    She's an amazing role model.

    Parent

    I should have supported him (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:14:57 PM EST
    Not that I would have made a difference byt he was running the type of campaign I espoused.

    I just do not like him on trade and immigration.

    Parent

    Edwards ran a terribly disappointing campaign. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:26:15 PM EST
    First time around moderate southerner.  This time unbelieve wild eyed populist.  He showed no growth as a candidate.  Very disappointing.


    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 8) (#37)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:30:32 PM EST
    The media sank his campaign. They didn't want an issues driven campaign. They wanted a cult of personality, historic first, three ring circus.

    We're gonna lose because we allowd them to dictate the terms of the primary. Instead of eing able to win on issues like health care, we're gonna be stuck hearing the MO soundbite over and over.

    The Democratic Party sucks at controlling the narrative.

    Parent

    Well, I watched the campaign closely. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:33:31 PM EST
    And I saw no growth.  I was disappointed.  I expected more from Edwards.

    Parent
    First, (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:46:52 PM EST
    to come out on health care. First to come out on environmental policy and tie it into the economy. First to come up with plan when economy started tanking. Took his education policy from a pilot program that improved graduation rates and education in Greene county. The guy not only gave lip service to unions, which is pretty much expected, but went out there and stumped for them(for all the good it did him). I didn't agree with him on everything but I saw ALOT of growth.

    Parent
    Yup. Edwards ran the issues and forced (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by cosbo on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:36:55 PM EST
    Clinton & Obama to come up specific proposals. Heck, Clinton's support is holding in part because of the Universal Healthcare Plan that she swiped from Edwards and Obama was too much of a wuss to do the same.

    Parent
    great (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:45:01 PM EST
    of course Edwards invented uhc.

    Pfffffft

    Parent

    He didn't invent it (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:50:34 PM EST
    but he WAS the first to put health care back on the table this election cycle. It was a smart move. When 51% of bankruptcies have medical as an underlying cause and 75% of those people HAD health insurance, it stands to reason you have a health care system that doesn't work for Joe Average. The bottom line is that "there but for the grace of God goes I" is on the lips of folks when they read the health care horror stories. Edwards understood and tapped into that.

    Parent
    Iraq was more important (none / 0) (#83)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:51:56 PM EST
    earlier that's for sure.

    Parent
    One thing I have to ask (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:48:01 PM EST
    you say,  
    Heck, Clinton's support is holding in part because of the Universal Healthcare Plan that she swiped from Edwards
     did 1993 never happen?  Since universal affordable and even single payer health care has been a crusade of Hillary's for years now I fail to see when did she swiped it.  If I remember well, and I hope I have not lost my memory, Edwards was not even a senator in 1993 when Hillary started her fight for Universal Health Care from the White House as First Lady.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:49:13 PM EST
    Edwards deserves credit for his health care plan, but many of the important aspects date back to someone named Hillary Clinton from 1993.  These ideas aren't copyrighted.

    Parent
    I onsider Hilary Prescient on Health care (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:59:53 PM EST
    I like to think that Edwards bringing it up again helped her fortify herself for another try at health care.

    I don't think giving Edwards credit for his plan takes anything away from Hillary's previous efforts.

    Parent

    We always lose.... (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by kdog on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:54:17 PM EST
    we meaning "we the people",  because we let the media dictate the terms of every election.  Only corporate friendly D's and R's get airtime...while the third parties, the Kucinich's , and the Paul's get ignored.

    That's why I laugh when people complain the media bias against Hillary...at least the media talks about her as a legit choice.  Now Kucinich and Paul and any third party candidate...they face real media bias.  If it wasn't for the internet or the early primary debates, Joe and Jane Blow wouldn't know these other choices exist.
    So we lose, and lose....and lose again regardless of the letter after the elected official's name.

    Parent

    Repug Hair paTrolls sank him (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Ellie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:06:36 PM EST
    Whom the gods seek to destroy, they first comb out just so.

    That's a Repug for you: they'll cut out their children's tongues before giving a condemned person a decent last meal, but will spot the bullseyed-one a trim and comb out (or -over) for their dead (wo)man's walk to perdition.

    You know, cause everyone can SEE the hair.

    No problem with Edwards' campaign or style. The flying monkey squadrons went after Edwards by air, ground and see HARD AND EARLY because they feared him intensely. (Outspoken, no bullsh!t, and attractive to a wide spectrum of voters.)

    Same with Howard Screamy Dean.

    Parent

    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:22:10 PM EST
    When Edwards' numbers were in the 20s along with the other two, I noticed that all of a sudden CNBC was out on a tear about him first with the hair and then everyday (it seemed) after until he was completely discredited with their audience as "angry" and dangerous and all kinds of really out of line stuff.  It was relentless and their fear was unbelievably obvious.  Of course, few Dems really came to his aid which made it really sad to watch.

    Parent
    Uhm... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:29:21 PM EST
    y'all know that the rumor is that Obama's camp leaked out the info on Edwards' haircut, right?  It was the D-Punjab of their Edwards plan.

    Parent
    way too angry ... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kimsaw on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:51:21 PM EST
    too win over the middle.

    Parent
    and yet (none / 0) (#101)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:01:34 PM EST
    if you look at his demographics.....the middle was exactly who voted for Edwards.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#115)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:09:43 PM EST
    Even if he was right on his opinion of the inordinate influence of corporate entities, he should have not put them on alert and given that much longer time to crush him before he could get started.  It means, he did not know his enemies enough to work out a winning strategy.  It is ironic that the cause of the poor people got derailed by his $400 haircut and that youtube clip of him combing his hair.  That was devastating to his pro-poor message.  

    But he should have stayed in the race and not listen to Joe Trippi. It's good to have advisers, but one should be confident enough to take a chance on his own decision.

    Parent

    I think he could have made it past (none / 0) (#128)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:20:44 PM EST
    the hair thing. I think it is about time the Dems started attacking back on the absurd notion that you have to take a vow of poverty in order to care about what happens to the poor anyway. Is there any doubt out there that Bill Gates, despite his billions, gives money because he cares? How about the Virgn mogul? The guy owns his own flippin' island. Is anyone going to question HIS philanthropic efforts?

    It's all about controlling the narrative and hitting back. Sure the GOP would absolutely love us to run a amart cashier as our candidate, which at the end of the day, is what we would be stuck with if you don't hit back on this type of narrative.

    Parent

    Bill Gates (none / 0) (#140)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:28:21 PM EST
    gives money because he was getting a horrible reputation for making all that money and giving nothing.

    So the reputation thing, coupled with his marrying Melinda (who actually might be something of a compassionate soul) and he started giving...He gives big but it's a pittance to him....not exactly a tithe.

    Parent

    It may be a pittance to him (none / 0) (#168)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:45:59 PM EST
    It isn't to those that went without before he chose to give though. It isn't for the libraries that have benefitted from his endowments or the countries that have been immunized as a result of his giving. I don't think Bill Gates is a sinner or a saint and don't think it is right for me to second guess his motives. I prefer to stick with the facts. The facts are that he is extremely wealthy(and makes Edwards look like a pauper) and his philanthropy has benefitted many who have lived in poverty. You don't have to be poor to care or have a positive impact on people living in poverty. It's wrong to say that if you are wealthy then you can't genuinely make a difference to those in poverty and Bill Gates is a case in point.

    Parent
    I live in Redmond (none / 0) (#183)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:56:27 PM EST
    and know his motives pretty well.  The pressure was high for him to give and he resisted it for a very long time.  

    My only point in saying this was that you said, "there's no doubt that Bill Gates gives because he cares".  

    Bill Gates gives because he was thoroughly trashed in the press for not giving...so there IS doubt.

    Parent

    In fact (none / 0) (#192)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:01:23 PM EST
    The standard line Microsoft would give when charities asked for donations was:

    "Bill Gates is too young to be a pillar of his community."

    Link

    Now Gates finds his charity to be something of a challenge, possibly more challenging than Microsoft, and he's interested in it.  But they dragged him to it kicking and screaming.

    Parent

    His... (none / 0) (#202)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:08:41 PM EST
    ...Federalist Society donations were keeping him all tied up. ;-)

     Seriously, though, they're doing a lot of good now.  

    Parent

    Better late than never, BTD. :-) (none / 0) (#164)
    by TomP on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:43:16 PM EST
    I never understood why you were so averse to Edwards.  It does not matter now.  Your non-support made no real difference, just as my support did not. It all came down to winning Iowa, and he did not.  It MIGHT have been different if he had won Iowa.  But Iowans just were not influenced buy blogs much.   (As of Xmas 2007, Edwards was the clear favorite of readers and commenters of most political blogs, but not of front pagers.  Hmmm.)

    I think you identify why many A-List bloggers could not support Edwards in 2007: "creative class," which to me is another word for yuppies.  I don't think that was your reason, though.

    Whether Edwards won or not, he pushed the party leftward a bit.  For example, on universal health care.  And now we at least get lip service on poverty.  He said things that had not been said by major Democratic candidates for a while.  Not since Jesse or Teddy Kennedy in 1980.
    When truths are spoken (the Two Americas), it starts to demystify power and some can see.

    Got to start somewhere.  

    When the time comes, the "creative class" must unify with the working class behind the Democratic party nominee in this election, or McCain will win.  It takes both sides to unify.

    I think we will have unity.

    Parent

    I don't (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:48:49 PM EST
    Then again, we get what we deserve for not collectively demanding that the media focus on something other on "which historic first you'd rather have a beer with." Someday we'll learn the meda is not our friend.

    Parent
    Edwards (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:23:23 PM EST
    fatal error, imo, was hooking up with Joe Trippi. Trippis somehow manages to turn his candidates into "angry candidates". Other than that I agree. He was getting the center with issues that were pretty far left in some cases. That's your best bet for getting an agenda passed. Obama is perceived as being too far left no matter how many right wing talking points he uses.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:25:10 PM EST
    his fatal error was being yesterday's news in a campaign with two rock stars.  That's the way it goes.

    Parent
    Bingo. Good call. (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by oldpro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:45:56 PM EST
    His fatal error: being a plaintiff's (none / 0) (#84)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    attorney, and very wealthy doesn't match up with the rhetoric, no matter how many times he mentions his father.  

    Parent
    That's absurd (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:29:31 PM EST
    You can be wealthy and care about what happens to others. The idea that you HAVE TO BE POOR to care about the poor is just plain wrong. If the poor were stuck waiting around for the other folks who are poor to help solve the problems they face, they'd have a long wait coming. Poor people don't have that kind of luxury. They are usually too busy working jobs and trying to put "food on the family." The best the can hope for is that every two to four years they can elect someone else to try and help them out a little and hopefully not screw them over too much.

    Parent
    Weath and caring (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by bobbski on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:37:48 PM EST
    "You can be wealthy and care about what happens to others."

    Indeed, see:  Roosevelt, Franklin Delano.

    The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little.
    -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

    Parent

    Indeed. (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Benjamin3 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:43:16 PM EST
    "Elitism" has nothing to do with wealth.  RFK had great empathy with the poor, minorities, etc., and that was his base back in 1968.  In fact, Hillary's base is the same as RFK's base, just minus the African-American community.

    Parent
    Just my opinion. The on line (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:36:26 PM EST
    candidate campatibility poll told me I should have been supporting Edwards all along.  But I questioned his commitment to his rhetoric.  

    Parent
    I agree with your opinion (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:40:52 PM EST
    I also think that Obama has spent his life trying to not be of the middle class.  Obama didn't ask Rezko to buy that land next to his million dollar mansion because he wanted to keep it real.

    Parent
    Most of his growing (none / 0) (#182)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:56:16 PM EST
    came after he left the Senate. That said, everything I read supports the idea that it was more than rhethoric for him. from Hotel Wrokers Rising Tour to spending time coming up with solutions for health care, the guy screamed more than lip service to me. That said, I don't see looking back as constructive at this point.

    Parent
    You are a fine spokesperson. Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:57:47 PM EST
    Yes (none / 0) (#138)
    by Emma on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:27:46 PM EST
    Because being a plaintiff's attorney is somehow not progressive.

    Parent
    I think his fatal error (none / 0) (#158)
    by Benjamin3 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:40:15 PM EST
    was his tactic of running as a white male.  Heh, just didn't go anywhere this year.

    Parent
    He was tied with Hillary for me (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:46:40 PM EST
    as first choice -- well, Elizabeth Edwards was part of my support for her spouse -- until he ganged up  with Obama on Hillary Clinton.  I already was unsettled by Obama's religiosity, early on, but that really triggered my watching both Edwards -- as he ought to have been with Clinton on health care, poverty, etc. -- and Obama on gender issues.  (By that, I really mean gender issues, many issues, not just sexism.)

    So both John Edwards and Obama began to drop fast for me.  Elizabeth Edwards is still fine with me.:-)

    Parent

    Think back (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:08:29 PM EST
    to the Reagan years and then go forward from there.  I'd say the country, as a whole, did fairly well for about eight of those years - the Clinton presidency.

    To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

    And after eight years of Bush, we need someone who knows how the game is played, someone with experience working in DC.  

    That would be Hillary.

    That would certainly be Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:12:51 PM EST
    and I hold out no hope that Obama and his folk listen to anyone but their own chosen advisors at this point.  What indication have they given at any point in this process that they are nimble enough to adapt?  Need liberals?  Trot out Kennedy.  Need the white working class?  Trot out Edwards?  Need women?  Have MO say it wouldn't make her vomit if Clinton possible was hinted at as perhaps being the VP.  You can't slap a Band-Aid on a hemorrhaging wound.

    Thank goodness Clinton is still in this to win.  Rise, Hillary, Rise!

    Parent

    It's Too Late (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Athena on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:00:19 PM EST
    Obama cannot redeem his image with many of the Dem voters who have rejected him.  Plus - he casually blew off campaigning in KY and WV - and that will be remembered.

    Parent
    Why anyone is still listening (none / 0) (#14)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:15:46 PM EST
    to Donna Brazile is beyond me.  No one at a any liberal blog had anything good to say about her before all this started.

    Parent
    I remember (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:24:53 PM EST
    people regulary trashing Brazille, and rightly so imo before she started defending Obama.

    Parent
    The enemy of my enemy (none / 0) (#69)
    by oldpro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:47:26 PM EST
    is my friend.

    Parent
    yes, they manage to turn a blind eye (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by Lisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:32:33 PM EST
    toward a lot, these Obama supporters

    That Kentucky ad where he's surrounded by a halo of heavenly light looking skyward with a beatific look on his face under a cross saying he's "doing the lord's work" - so much for separation of church and state.  I mean, not only is that kind of grandstanding in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus, even people who have not dabbled in corrupt south side politics, people who have led relatively blameless lives, would be embarrassed to portray themselves this way.

    Progressive?  Ha.

    Someone said the Obama supporters are viewing it like a video game they are h*ll bent on winning at any cost.  It's got nothing to do with principles.  It's all about annihilating the opponent.

    When the screen says "Game Won", and the adrenalin rush ebbs, there will be the rudest of rude awakenings.

    Parent

    The saddest thing (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    is watching fools go on about the "Bush-Clinton-Bush era" as if the label means something.  They have no clue.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by chrisvee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:45:46 PM EST
    all those years felt exactly the same to me, too.

    ::sigh::

    Parent

    what I like is the Obamabots telling (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:53:05 PM EST
    us that Obama has never equated the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.  Well he sure did in the Economy when he spoke in SF about the Clinging And Bitterness

    Parent
    Obama, Kennedy, Kerry, & Co. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Lisa on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:44:58 PM EST
    all went after Bill Clinton, astoundingly foolish as that was (Bill being the only Demo to win the presidency in the past 28 years, unlike Kennedy, Kerry, and soon to be Obama)...

    Here's the junior senator himself, Obama going after Bill:

    "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest... they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

    Parent

    Oh Yes He Did Equate Clinton (none / 0) (#135)
    by talex on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:25:51 PM EST
    to Bush:

    "I don't want Bush-Cheney lite..."

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/us/politics/27clinton.html

    Parent

    Every SD vote for Obama (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by jackyt on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:43:07 PM EST
    is an SD vote for the status quo.

    All these guys getting in line for Obama turned their backs on Hillary's Universal Health Care Plan in 1994, and then trashed her for failing. Their bread is buttered on the side of Big Pharma, Big Oil, and all the other Bigs. They see no problem ratcheting down the standard of living for working Americans while ratcheting up the profits of the Bigs.

    In this entire campaign, has any one of these endorsers committed to working to enact either candidate's agenda in the next Congress. If so, I missed the memo.

    Hillary is the candidate of change, and it scares the big guys skinny. What if it turns out the misogyny has all been a red herring? What may really be upsetting them is that she is TOO honest, TOO dedicated, and TOO effective at "working across the aisle". What they are really afraid of is CHANGE!


    Parent

    We had a good economic run under Clinton... (none / 0) (#107)
    by kdog on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:05:14 PM EST
    I'll give him that.

    However on criminal justice he was fairly awful.  On civil liberties...not so hot.

    I'd much prefer someone who despises how this game is played, and won't play it.  That leaves out the D's and R's.

    Parent

    Speaking their language (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by ruffian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:08:34 PM EST
    is exactly right.  You can't fake it. Can you learn it? Like, by November?

    Again, I must say: (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Jim J on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:11:09 PM EST
    The Creative Class is essentially uninterested in Democratic victories per se, because that means they have to rub shoulders with the working class and PC users. They would rather lose without the working class than win with them.

    They are Republicans in terms of tax brackets, and that is where their core allegiance resides. They are only Democrats because Republicans now cater to less-educated whites themselves.

    More good advice for Dems (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by angie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:12:32 PM EST
    can be found here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/roves-latest-el.html Seems everyone knows that Clinton is stronger against McCain in the fall, expect Obama & co.

    oh, those f-ing jerks (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:14:05 PM EST
    NOW they vet him?  NOW they look at how unelectable he is?

    Jeralyn is going to need a bigger horse for her usual election night graphic.  The answer to her question of who is the biggest horse's a*s is going to be "all of the above."

    Parent

    Anyone without their head shoved (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:20:00 PM EST
    firmly up their horse's a** knows that Clinton is a stronger GE candidate.

    But of course, the qualifier I've given firmly rules out much of the DNC and their minions.

    Parent

    Now (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by chrisvee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:44:23 PM EST
    that the media has helped to select our candidate, they're more than happy to point out why we shouldn't have trusted them to do it. :-)

    Parent
    Major Garret (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:11:37 PM EST
    and Brit Hume just reported on the coming announcement from Obama tomorrow. Brit laughed when Major finished saying that it was just a milestone that they've crossed, and Hillary hasn't, that they are celebrating. Brit laughed, and Major clearly thought the cameras were off him when he laughed. The absurdity must be really difficult to report with a straight face.

    Parent
    HAH! (none / 0) (#175)
    by MonaL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:49:11 PM EST
    I heard on MSNBC this morning before work, "Does Barack Obama have what it takes to be Pres. of the US?", an ad for Hardball later in the day.  I yelled at the TV, "NOW YOU'RE ASKING THAT QUESTION?!"  I was infuriated.  Then I calmed down and realized that it was a rhetorical question.  I stopped DVR'ing Tweety's show so I'll never know the answer. *sigh*

    Parent
    Instructions-How to Link (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:22:54 PM EST
    Links are great so others don't have to type in the address.  Here is what works for me and others found it useful.....

    1.    Type a word 'clinton' (or any word)
    2.    I have the article I am going to link to open on my tabbed browsing. I copy the url address that is at the very top of my screen.
    3.    Highlight the word 'clinton'
    4.    Click chain link button above the comment box.
         Note: mine is blocked so I must press my shield, select unblock and press the link button again.
    1.    Paste in the url. (the letters http are already in the box so make sure you override that)
    2.    Press preview to make sure you see you word in blue
    3.    Press post


    Parent
    Thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by angie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:32:21 PM EST
    I didn't know about having to have the other article open on the browser or that I had to highlight the word. I'm trying it now. Woo hee! Look at me! Clinton

    Parent
    CNNs ticker has it too (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:26:09 PM EST
    I haven't been at CNN in a couple of months but someone wrote they actually had some neutral items.  When you mentioned this, I peeked.. sure enough...

    Clinton cites Karl Rove as reason to stay in

    Ha!

    Parent

    Karl Rove and I (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by andgarden on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:38:21 PM EST
    apparently are in agreement about the map. Go figure. . .

    Parent
    Does your future include a gig at Fox? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:43:39 PM EST
    Karl Rove (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:25:12 PM EST
    and Kristen Breitweiser agree

    Link

    If that isn't proof of some cosmic universe shift, I don't know what is.

    Parent

    This rings true: (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:31:57 PM EST
    A suggestion to Obama: when you are an unknown like yourself with no record to back up your flowery words, you might better your chances of people getting to know you by telling them WHY THEY SHOULD VOTE FOR YOU


    Parent
    This from a commenter that I found (none / 0) (#162)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:43:05 PM EST
    interesting..
    Obama openly admitted in his book that he hates white people.He said "I developed a hate for his mother's race"
    his mother is white.
    Why hasn't anyone mentioned that before? A man who admits "hate" for his mother's race, white, and then calls other people racist?? And now he wants to be President? Didn't the DNC read his books?? Did they think no one else would?? I don't want a president that hates me because of the color of my skin any more than a black person does. Hello, DNC?? anybody home??

    Parent
    Obama heading down, HRC heading up (none / 0) (#203)
    by Cream City on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:11:31 PM EST
    and we have seen that for three months now, since he peaked in Wisconsin on February 19.  Uh huh.

    Parent
    The creative class doesn't get (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:14:46 PM EST
    working class folks. Issues matter to the working class. Affordable health care with no exceptions matters. Relief, however small it is, from gas prices matters. A wage that pays the bills matters.

    I din't expect Obama and his camp to pull this demographic because they just don't get that. Instead of attempting to understand what drives working class voters, it's so much easier to disparage them. I wish the creative class lots of luck. It's pretty apparent, they're gonna need it, from where I am sitting.

     

    Agree And Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:10:14 PM EST
    Issues are very important but first you have to establish a rapport with us so that we are willing to listen and trust you to implement policies. Treating people with respect and indicating that you value us for who and what we are has to come first IMO. Also, a candidate needs to have the ability to talk with us and not talk at or down to us. Solutions and how they can impact our lives rather than pie in the sky rhetoric. Of course, it would be very beneficial if you, your surrogates and supporters don't call us lower class, uneducated and racists at every opportunity. Words won't matter much after you established that negative narrative.

       

    Parent

    Maybe all us wage-earning slobs.... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by kdog on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:17:59 PM EST
    should go on strike for a week, and see how creative the creative class can get doing the grunt work.  They'll be looking on ebay for Mexicans:)  I know sure as sh*t my boss don't know how to work the UPS software.

    Sheeet CA, I'm so disillusioned I ain't even worried about healthcare or gas or my wages so much anymore...all my worry is reserved for my liberty.  If I die starving in a ditch with no health insurance so be it...just let me die free.  Which leaves me ambivalent about the Clinton/Obama/McCain stooge-fest.  I'm voting for somebody serious about liberty.

    Parent

    Voting their interests? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by JohnRove on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:15:05 PM EST
    In 1992 the working class was looking at the fruits of the Reagan/Bush economy.  In other words they were probably getting foreclosed upon or getting laid off or they knew someone who was getting laid off.

    At the end of the 90s the economy was booming so these people could focus on trivial crap like the "hidden gay agenda" or "where their immortal soil was going".  Now thanks to Bush II the working class has some real concerns again, anyone who speaks to these concerns should be able to talk to the working class.

    The crux of the problem is (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:26:20 PM EST
    Obama hasn't. Heck, throughout this campaign we all got to hear how NOT IMPORTANT issues were. Affordable health care for everyone......that's a non starter in Congress. Gas tax holiday........Let them eat cake.

    It's all about personality. Instead of voting for President, we're voting for Miss or Mr. Cogeniality......again.

    Parent

    Non-mandated health care (none / 0) (#46)
    by JohnRove on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:33:53 PM EST
    Obamas health care plan in some ways is more politacly appealing, anytime you ad the word mandate it makes people a little scared of the plan.  Obamas education plan also should be very appealing working class parents as the cost of higher ed has gone through the roof.

    Either Obama or Clinton would have been better for the working class than McCain.  Most people can see that and will vote accordingly.

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:44:53 PM EST
    Funny how when Hillary takes the "more politically appealing" route she gets lambasted as a panderer.

    My concern is that if Obama doesn't even want to spend the political capital to fight for something like universal coverage because mandates might be politically unpopular, he's not likely to have the political courage to fight for anything else that's tough.  If all we're going to take is what the other side is prepared to give to us, it's not going to be a very productive presidency.

    Parent

    opening up the federal system (none / 0) (#95)
    by JohnRove on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:58:06 PM EST
    As I understand it Obamas plan is to make it so anyone can get the same options as federal employees, I am sure that is an over-simplification but if that is the plan it would be very good for most people.

    The problem with mandating insurance is that it does not do anything to control costs, it just forces people to buy the product.  The health care system is kind of a mess right now and probably needs to be looked at from many angles, including the problem of overtreatment, mandating health insurance seems to ignore thise problems.

    Parent

    If you really wanted to have this discussion (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:04:02 PM EST
    on their healthcare plans, then you would research hers before firing against it.  She has controls on costs.  Clinton's plan (which came out before Obama's) has always been to either let people opt into the federal employee plan or keep their own plans.  No insurance company would be allowed to exempt previous conditions and none of them could reject people.  The cost control plan is central to her program, and where folks cannot afford it, she has subsidies.  Clinton knows this because she was one of the driving forces behind S-CHIP, and helped extend it to even more families.

    The problems with not mandating insurance have been reviewed by many healthcare experts.  You have to have mandates to keep controls down in order for the system to work.

    Parent

    Cost control (none / 0) (#121)
    by JohnRove on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:12:22 PM EST
    The cost problem as I see it comes more from overtreatment, in other words I think it would make sense to look at some of the procedures doctors are performing and ask about all those spinal fusions and the like. Plus, all the prescriptions meds that are consumed at this point.  I wonder if these meds really benefit people.

    Most people who follow health care thought Hillary Clintons plan was very good and I will assume they are right, it is too bad that she didn't spend more time explaining why her plan was superior to Obamas.  

    Parent

    Completely wrong (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:04:33 PM EST
    Because of risk pooling, requiring everyone to buy in is the ONLY way to lower prices, unless you're just going to have the government get into the price-setting business.

    Obama's idea that the prices will magically get lower if we let people decide whether or not to buy in is not based on any sort of economic logic.  It might sell better as a political message, but it won't get us universal coverage.

    Even total in-the-tank Obama supporter Ezra Klein, the top progressive healthcare blogger, concedes that mandates are the only way to go.  There's no real dispute about it.

    What astounds me is that more people don't pick up on the dissonance of the meta-message.  We can change the world, says the Obama message, we can transform the country and bring about a whole new kind of politics.  But persuading people to accept mandates as a path to universal health care - no, no, that's just too unthinkable!

    Like I said, the real point is how little political courage Obama's plan displays.

    Parent

    Obama Health Care. Jim Cooper anyone? (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by nycstray on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:15:49 PM EST
    This is completely backward (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:17:41 PM EST
    Without a mandate community based rating is not really possible, so prices will not drop.  You have to have everyone in the system, including the young and healthy, to spread the risk and make lower premiums possible.  

    Clinton's plan also has more cost cutting measures than Obama's, as well as, a public plan which would be open to everyone.  

    Could be too late to worry about that now, but it's a lack of political courage on Obama's part which causes quite a bit of concern.


    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:54:05 PM EST
    All I can think about is the fac that my family might be stuck in a donut hole because Barack Obama doesn't have the balls to say every American needs to have health care coverage because every American can and will be sick during their lifetime.

    Parent
    That dog won't hunt (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:00:39 PM EST
    We keep hearing what a communications genius Obama is -- almost as good as a motivational speaker -- and yet we also hear that a true universal health care plan would make people "a little scared."

    So what does Obama do? Instead of fixing his plan, and using his Wondrous Oratorical powers for good, he leaves the plan as is, broken, and then runs Harry & Louise ads smearing Hillary for doing the right thing.

    Nice try, sweetie.

    Parent

    well don't you know that insurance (none / 0) (#184)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:56:38 PM EST
    companies simply must have a seat at the table even if it is yours or mine. but now obama's family? that's another story!

    Parent
    More advice to us from Obama (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Saul on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:17:32 PM EST
    Lay off my wife.  His campaigned did not care if they trashed Bill.

    Or Chelsea (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:21:38 PM EST
    My questions are;
                                     How come the more I hear him the less I his proposals?  Is it good communication when the listener can not understand what you really stand for?  Or is it that doublespeak is now considered good communication?

    MSNBC says (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:41:31 PM EST
    that Obama has given Presidential answers because he has given himself wiggle room.  Ha!  Presidential now means saying nothing you can be held accountable for.   This was quite a while ago and people wonder why I stopped watching MSNBC months ago.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by blogtopus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    I for one would like a candidate that doesn't need to have 'Teh Greatest Speech Evah' every time he needs to explain something he couldn't in EVERY SINGLE STUMP SPEECH he's had for over a year.

    Parent
    Should have said (none / 0) (#41)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:32:14 PM EST
    less I like his proposals

    Parent
    Obama doesn't need to change a (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:33:46 PM EST
    thing, according to Stein at Huff Post.  Oregon's demographics will confirm Obama does appeal to the working class non-AA voter.

    Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:42:05 PM EST
    Obama has won white voters without a college degree in exactly one state, Wisconsin.  He even lost that demographic in Illinois.

    Is Stein predicting that Oregon will become the second?  Or is this based on wordplay where Oregon becomes a "white working-class state" because it has white people with jobs, and therefore the overall result in the state somehow counters Obama's terrible record with this demographic?

    Parent

    You'll need to read it and draw your (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:46:35 PM EST
    own conclusions, as I am most definitely not a demographic devotee.  Stein seems to say, hey, look at the average income, demographics, % of mfg. jobs.  Conclusion:  OR is much more like KY, PA, and OH than KY, PA, and OH are!

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:51:02 PM EST
    Funny way of putting it.

    I think it makes a lot more sense to compare apples to apples by looking at how white voters without college degrees have voted in each state.  Trying to argue "this is a white working-class state" and "this one isn't" strikes me as so much sophistry, not that I don't expect to hear that style of argument ad nauseum after Obama wins Oregon.

    Parent

    on the plus side (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:54:49 PM EST
    looks like all those tertiary educated voters just got promoted.

    Parent
    So will MT (none / 0) (#116)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:09:55 PM EST
    and SD I expect.

    Parent
    This quote (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:33:46 PM EST
    identifies Obama's exact problem:

    [Bill Clinton] won those voters by reaching out to them politically, and by speaking their language.

    Obama can't do that, and will never be able to do that. No politician is more deficient in the "common touch" than Obama, and that's not capable of remedy. He's adored by the elites not despite his failure to have a common touch, but because of it -- because he suggests to them their own sense of superiority.

    It has been unhappily noted that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

    the worst, huh? (none / 0) (#144)
    by contrarian1964 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:31:24 PM EST
    No politican is more deficient in the common touch?

    "No" politician? I mean I can understand that some people don't think Obama is charismatic.  (His personal favorables contradict that heavily, of course)  

    This is just the mirror image of those Obama supporters who say nobody likes Hillary.  It's silly.

    Parent

    Read more carefully (none / 0) (#161)
    by frankly0 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:42:55 PM EST
    I'm not saying that no voters like or admire Obama.

    I'm saying something quite specific: that he utterly lacks the common touch -- more so, I think, than any other politician I know of (even Kerry and Gore did a better job on that score, though it was hardly their strength).

    Parent

    go back to past campaigns. (none / 0) (#190)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:00:04 PM EST
    i use the campaigns of the kennedys due to the their success and the fact they reached out. bobby was seen with all groups, aa, latino and the poor in applachia. jfk got out in wv and shook hands. he did what needed to be done. he talked about religeon and said that the state and religeon should be separate. what has obama done besides compare himself to them? the answer is not much!

    Parent
    Obama's express insensitivity (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:39:04 PM EST
    toward "bitter" white working class voters ensures that he CAN'T EVER 'win them over'. Pandering won't help. Obama doesn't understand, when all else is gone, people who have nothing, still have their DIGNITY and PRIDE. They can't be bought off. Pride and dignity are priceless. Hillary understands that about the working class.

    Obama just doesn't get it. Remember, a couple of weeks ago, he was talking to a group of such working folks and he said something like: 'When you lose your job, it's not just your job, you lose your dignity too'. The crowd was silent as the tomb. See what I mean? He. Just. Doesn't. Get. It.

    well (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:47:43 PM EST
    duh.  Too bad it's too late.

    Too Late... (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:47:49 PM EST
    After 22 years in the Democratic party,  I just re-registered Independent today.

    For PA voters link:   http://tinyurl.com/4gy8f

    What this party leadership or lack of, I should say, Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Reid, Hoyer etc. makes me sick. First they took impeachment off the table, then did not de-fund the war, they shut down FL and MI .... swing states of all things. Brazile should be very aware of the FL fiasco. Now the sexism and TOTAL lack of r-e-s-p-e-c-t. for the whole Clinton "wing", makes me even sicker. I hope Obama loses and all of the people I listed are replaced. I will vote McCain, but will vote Dem down ticket. The DNC however, will NOT get a dime. I have had it.

    Hillary 2012

    Leave Pres blank, don't vote McCain (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:51:00 PM EST
    that is what I am going to do if Obama is the candidate. And I am going to write the DNC and tell them so, and why. Then I am going to re-register as an Independent. I will vote the Dem down ticket. I cannot bring myself to vote for Obama, but I cannot vote for McCain. So, I will not vote for either of them. If the Democrats don't want to treat women with respect, they can do without my vote. Simple.

    Parent
    NO, I thought that too (none / 0) (#207)
    by Mrwirez on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:27:57 PM EST
    I am not leaving it blank. I am pulling it for (R). The nose/spite/face argument is not valid with me. My feeling is the very liberal, and "CREATIVE" class?? (I am a union trained craftsman and resent the label of creative. I create more with my two hands everyday at work than some of these "creative" dems do in a life time). I have had it with the whole lot of them. Nancy Pelosi from San Francisco?? You kidding me? Thats where bittergate came from. I will not only not vote, I am trying to render Obama a crippled for good. That "O" camp shows NO respect to anyone... women, workers, older people, rural people and specifically the last two term Democratic president America has had in... HOW LONG?? My hero WJC. SCREW OBAMA and Oprah, and the liberal "creative" wing.....   Blah

    Parent
    Question (none / 0) (#87)
    by CST on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:53:08 PM EST
    If this is what you are mad at the DNC for:

    "First they took impeachment off the table, then did not de-fund the war, they shut down FL and MI .... swing states of all things. Brazile should be very aware of the FL fiasco. Now the sexism and TOTAL lack of r-e-s-p-e-c-t."

    How does that translate to a vote for McCain:

    Obviously not interested in impeachment, clearly intends to fund the war.  Sexism (where it counts, in the votes - fair pay act; and on the campaign trail - "how do we beat the b*tch?").  And the Fl "fiasco" which was caused by the repub. legislature.

    If you don't want to vote for Obama, that's your call, but a vote for McCain seems a little backwards based on your logic.

    Parent

    Burn the village (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Manuel on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:08:49 PM EST
    in order to save it?

    Not that I advocate it, in fact I don't, but a vote for McCain could send a message to the Democratic Party to take a more populist approach.


    Parent

    Maybe (none / 0) (#160)
    by CST on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:42:10 PM EST
    Seems like cutting off the nose to spite the face to me.

    That's what I don't get.  I understand being mad at Obama, he and the DNC have screwed up a bit this campaign.  I don't understand going over to McCain.  This is the same man that said (in response to the fair pay act) that women don't need to sue for equal pay, they need "training".  How condescending is that? Especially since the woman in the supreme court case was clearly "trained" for her job just fine.

    I mean, THIS is his voting record:

    Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)

    Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)

    Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)

    Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)

    Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)

    Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)

    Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)

    Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)

    Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)

    Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)

    Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)

    Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)

    Rated 0% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)

    Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

    THAT is the answer to Obama?????

    Parent

    It can be (none / 0) (#198)
    by Manuel on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:05:14 PM EST
    if one thinks Obama will be ineffective.  Just a little bit up thread, someone was arguing about the Gin index during the Clinton years as proof that Hillary was not progressive.  If Clinton isn't progressive, Obama is even less so.  Given a choice between a fake Republican and a real Republican, one may be better off with the real Republican.  With a likely Democratic Congress, it may be the thing that nakes the party change its attitude and fight for its values instead of rolling over.

    Again, I don't advocate this but I can see the logic of the argument.

    Parent

    in no quarter today is an article by (none / 0) (#193)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:02:01 PM EST
    larry on the democratic party. i suggest it as mandatory reading. he is worried about the demise of the democratic party due to a lack of real leadership. so am i!

    Parent
    vote McCain! (none / 0) (#148)
    by contrarian1964 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:32:45 PM EST
    So you're ready to say goodbye to Roe V. Wade when you vote for McCain?

    Parent
    Haven't you heard? (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:43:14 PM EST
    The Roe thing is so yesterday

    The new talking point is that if you don't vote for Obama you're an "irresponsible progressive".

    Parent

    Ah (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:43:30 PM EST
    Uterus blackmail!  It really deserves its own wedge on the Obama color wheel.

    Parent
    Maybe that color wheel... (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:56:46 PM EST
    should be shaped like a uterus with fallopian tubes - make it interesting.

    IMO - Roe isn't going anywhere.  Bush got his majority on the Court, and they had a ready made case to go (South Dakota) - guess what? Roe is still here. It's been whittled away to appease the conservative base, but if they really wanted it gone, don't you think it would have been the first case the Roberts / Alito court heard?

    All the Republicans have to do is mention Roe in a mailer, and BOOM!  That's instant money in the coffers.

    Parent

    Man (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by Emma on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:46:43 PM EST
    I was ready to say good-bye to Roe v. Wade every time the Republicans hacked off a piece and the Democrats stood by and helplessly waved their hands (or handed the Republicans the machete).  I'm all psychologically prepared to see the last few tattered bits of Roe v. Wade get buried.

    If the Democrats were dedicated to protecting a woman's right to choose, they would protect it Every. Single. Time. it was threatened.  With or without a Democrat in the White House.  This threat "No vote for Obama -- no Roe!!!" is all just hand-waving and posturing.  

    Maybe it's time to find another approach to protecting abortion and other reproductive rights, one that doesn't depend on nine people appointed by one person and approved by 100 people.  Maybe there's a -- dare I say it -- more populist and progressive way to do it.  And maybe we'll never find that way until a) Roe is absolutely dead and/or b) we stop letting ourselves be blackmailed into voting for any Dem in the world because "OHMYGOSH! You have to protect Roe!"  No.  No I don't.  That's not my job.  It's Democrats' job, with or without a Democrat in the White House.  They better hop to it if they really want to save Roe.

    Parent

    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:47:35 PM EST
    And I will blame it on the spineless Democrats who refused to block Supreme Court Justice nominations that made it happen.

    Parent
    in case you didn't know it that (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:02:52 PM EST
    threat means nothing to us. we have seen it given away in chunks for decades. next!

    Parent
    Hillary not getting the nomination (none / 0) (#149)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:33:25 PM EST
    is the trigger for me.  I have become angry.

    Parent
    The Rockefeller Republicans (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by Petey on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:07:16 PM EST
    "Some people who agree with me on the need to appeal to [white working class] voters believe that we have to move to the right to win them over. I don't believe that is true. On economic issues, they are far more populist than what passes for "centrism" in Washington, D.C."

    Yup.  And thus the source of my love for Johnny Edwards and my lack of enthusiasm for Obama.

    Obama is the worst of all possible worlds - economic royalism in a package of symbolic liberalism.  I mean, if we wanted to run Mike Bloomberg as our candidate, why didn't we?

    Heh (none / 0) (#152)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:34:23 PM EST
    I remember kos deriding Bloomberg and I remember going to the site to see how kos handled Bloomberg's soft support of Obama. Crickets.

    Parent
    tell you what at least he understands (none / 0) (#196)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:04:11 PM EST
    economics! that is a start. of course i'd have to look long and hard at him which i haven't.

    Parent
    My Epiphany (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:07:27 PM EST
    I think everyone should listen up and take my epiphany to heart.

    I had this epiphany on the Obama blog, but it was so concises and perfectly formulated that I even got some recommends from the Obamaclub gestapo.

    What it comes down to is how we think about voters.  We have books like "What's the matter with Kansas?" and "Don't think of an Elephant."

    These books talk down to voters.  We think they don't but they do.

    Here's the epiphany.

    "What's the matter with Kansas?" is the Democratic Party going meta while the folks in Kansas say "Nothing's wrong with us at all, what the F is wrong with YOU?"

    Which is why for all his warts and conflicts of interest some folks really should reconsider Mark Penn and his attitude towards politics that began with an assumption made by V.O. Key.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._O._Key%2C_Jr.

    In his posthumous work, The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting 1936-60 (1966), he analyzed public opinion data and electoral returns to show what he believed to be the rationality of voters' choices as political decisions rather than responses to psychological stimuli.

    Time to start thinking.

    Clinton won cause Clinton never thought for a second something was the matter with anyone!!!!

    Ok.  Good.

    Btw, this is why Obama will lose.  He oozes contempt for anyone not already indoctrinated into his intellectual thought processes.

    The democratic party chose the wrong candidate.


    Right (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:12:50 PM EST
    Just respect people for who they are.  There's such a diversity of people and lifestyles in this country, it's what makes it a great place to live.  You have to be willing to be a President for all of America.

    Parent
    Bravo (claps wildly) (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:14:02 PM EST
    Well played, sir!

    Parent
    You're on to something (5.00 / 4) (#139)
    by chrisvee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:28:08 PM EST
    I've thought that Obama has two communication modes: inspirational and meta/academic.  Inspirational is short on details but high on rhetoric; it's been pretty effective in appealing to people who feel very alienated by the current political process.  Meta/academic is where he gets into trouble IMO. If you're part of the group making the observations, this mode appeals.  However, if you're one of the subjects of the observations, this mode irritates and offends beyond belief.

    Obama needs a third mode: empathy.  And he's not going to get it by providing his personal biographical narrative.  It's not about him; it's about us.  Until he gets that and starts hearing what we think is important and showing us he cares, understands, and can effect change, he's going nowhere with working class voters or seniors.  Clinton (although naturally reserved) has gotten there by transforming her wonky mode in  a warmer personal style over the course of the campaign.

    Parent

    Reminds me... (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:59:06 PM EST
    ...of that "San Francisco liberal" tag the conservative activists like to use to tar Democrats.  A very old culture war tactic: Anarchy, acid and atheism all wrapped up in one little tag (oh yeah, and sexual perversion).

     Democrats are far more inclusive, as a rule.  Liberal bloggers and activists might mock ultraconservative states, but the vast majority of Democratic politicians know better.  No one campaigns against someone having "Alabama values" in their campaign.  

     That's about where our agreement ends, I suspect.  
     

    Parent

    dang, give this lady a doll. she (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:05:14 PM EST
    hit the target fair and square!

    Parent
    Hill has earned 435k more votes (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:11:47 PM EST
    than BO since the beginning of March.

    Dear Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:29:19 PM EST
    There is no Rule that says that working class people have to be conservative. Believe it or not there are actually working class people who are liberal. There are working class people who are moderate. There are working class people who are conservatives. This may come as a shock. Some working class people are women. Some believe that a woman has the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. Some working class people believe that who you chose to marry is your own d@mn business. Some working class people don't own guns or go to church regularly.

    This working class person thinks that Obama has already moved too far to the right and going farther in that direction will not gain my vote but only make me doubt that he that will protect my values.

    I think the original working class (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:33:30 PM EST
    organization, the Wobblies, would be considered rather revolutionary in almost any era.  

    Parent
    Stop calling them the Creative Class (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by makana44 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:33:33 PM EST
    Using Richard Florida's definition of the Creative Class, virtually all bloggers are members of the Creative Class. Therefore, referring to Creative Class bloggers and non-Creative Class bloggers is a non sequitur. Unless, of course, it makes you feel better about yourself. I'm sure the Stollers and Kos' out there like to think of themselves in such a self aggrandizing manner.

    Certainly Obama seems to have a lock on AAs and kids. And Clinton seems to have a lock on white blue collar. But the rest of the electoral universe is a whole lot more diverse and multidimensional than your tendentious, repetitive references to Obama supporters as the Creative Class warrant.

    Of the few hundred people in my personal social sphere the vast majority of them fit within Florida's definition of the Creative Class. Yet certainly more than half are Clinton supporters.

    I think you ought to stop throwing that term around so freely, unless it is your assertion that bloggers like Jeralyn, Taylor Marsh, Anglachel, Lambert, vastleft, bringiton, riverdaughter, Tom Watson, Motherlode and others fall within a different class than thou just because they support a different candidate?


    Stop calling them "kids" (none / 0) (#178)
    by CST on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:52:46 PM EST
    I know we are young, that doesn't make us kids.  We are old enough to die for our country, and kill for our country.  We are old enough to make the decision about who we trust to send us to die or not to die.  We are not "kids".  We are "young adults" and to suggest otherwise is condescending and demeaning.  Just because we weren't alive when Kennedy was shot doesn't mean we are uninformed about what is happening TODAY.  Most "young adults" I know spend a lot of time informing themselves about the "issues".  We just have different "issues" that we care about.  Our "issues" tend to be - Iraq, the removal of our constitutional rights (habeus corpus, torture, etc...), and the environment.

    On these three, to me and many other "young adults" I know, Obama is the stronger candidate.

    Parent

    "And they are, quite literally, dying!" (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by bridget on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:37:51 PM EST
    Open Left - I never go to that site.

    I don't read what any of these bloggers over there type. People like Bowers et al. who lack sense of history re everything they write. History starts with Dean, I guess. And now Obama ;-) The nineties are onehundredthousand years ago. Basically they don't have a clue what the Clinton admin was all about. What Bill Clinton was all about.

    Well, I thought I would give this piece a try since BTD started the post with an OL article.

    I read a few paragraphs and against my better judgement even started to read a commenter's post. Eeeeeks! It's always the same. Totally useless and bad for one's health on top of it. See sentence above.

    BTD (4.20 / 5) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:33:10 PM EST
    you are right about the working class. However, it is also the reason Obama will lose against McCain. Obama looks at working class voters as a sociological experiment. He has trashed them many times just like he has trashed women. The GOP will remind them everyday about his statements about clinging to religion and guns. Obama is in a bubble and just doesn't know how to do it.

    Kerry was more appealing to them than Obama and where is President Kerry? He's in the same place Obama will be next year: back in the senate. These types of candidates NEVER win elections for the same reasons. Are the party elite ever going to get it? I don't think so. Obama will be the candidate that spent the most money to lose. After the GOP gets done with him, he'll be lucky to get reelected in IL.

    i proposed someone who started off in (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:07:56 PM EST
    night school and worked themselves up to what success they may have today. if it weren't against the law i could think of some immigrants i know who love america and work very hard. but that's me! at the very least they'd have an appreicate for what america means, what education should mean and the importance of every vote counts.

    Parent
    You last line is a strawman. (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by HelenK on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:04:54 PM EST
    "With the Creative Class blogs intent on destroying the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party, this is timely advice."

    Markos is an ex-marine and lots and lots of the diaires are about  healthcare horror stories and real people with economic problems etc...the diaries are not about the best lattes in Denver.

    You paint a picture of bloggers in a dark back room plotting to destroy the "clinton wing" and I am not evern sure what the Clinton wing is. I hate to use a tired phrase but that is just tin-foil hat time.

    Wouldn't it be a good thing if we opened up the party and attracted new voters so every election isn't the same fight over two states??

    Um, if you don't think Markos's (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:09:37 PM EST
    ambition has been to get rid of the Clintons, you haven't been paying attention.
    Same goes for the other people behind Obama's rise: Daschle, Durbin, Kerry, Kennedy.

    Parent
    Also, if Obama is supposed to be the candidate... (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:58:49 PM EST
    of the future, why does he have so much support from those establishment people from the past?  Kennedy is as inside as one can get.

    Parent
    Look (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:10:37 PM EST
    there are plenty of progressives who argue that if we could just get rid ourselves of those pesky working-class voters with their racism and culturally conservative beliefs, we could finally have a real progressive party.

    Check out this post by BTD if you think it's just a strawman.  Do not make the mistake of believing that because you want an open and inclusive party, everyone else does as well.

    Parent

    I did check it out (none / 0) (#173)
    by HelenK on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:48:02 PM EST
    and the original link is from Chris Bowers and something he wrote on Open Left.

    I have never read Open Left before this moment and I don't think one guy's opinion is all progressives, not at all.

    I do get annoyed with the working class that won't vote for their own concerns, but I always meant those who vote republican when they need help with healthcare, college and fair treatment by corporations. I always thought with the right message we could get those people. And some years some of them actually vote DEM.

    I get annoyed with them, but I WANT them in the party because if you actually are a liberal, a progressive, you want to make their lives better.

    On the other hand, isnt' it getting OLD to make every Presidential election about Ohio and Florida??? With the old coalition, that is what every election comes down to.

    Parent

    Wanting to make OTHER people's lives better (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by lilburro on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:59:13 PM EST
    is exactly the sentiment that drives this party to failure presidential year after presidential year.  It shouldn't be others' lives - it should be the lives of those in our party.  The Democratic Party can't parade around offering solutions to people it blows off as clinging to guns or religion, or being unreliable, or normally voting Republican.  Act like the working class is an important part of the party (hopefully, the basis for the platform) and maybe they actually will be an important part of the party.  Turning the working class into the noble savage we are trying to uplift doesn't win votes among the less wealthy classes.

    Parent
    The Dem party is always (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:24:57 PM EST
    open to anyone who wants to participate.  Obama talked about unity, but has done little to make sure that happened, and his supporters certainly haven't.  They treat people like the enemy (you're with us or against us).  

    Got news for you: we've been voting for democrats for a long time.

    You can't open the party to some, while closing out another substantial loyal voting bloc.

    The Obama campaign is not a party of Big Tent Democrats.  That's a losing proposition for all of us.


    Parent

    welcome new voters to dem party. Of course! (none / 0) (#181)
    by felizarte on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:54:53 PM EST
    but don't cast out other voters for the sake of the new ones. Build on/improve/renew/expand policies that benefited the people like those under Bill Clinton instead of relegating it to the trashbin.  

    That to me is the sincere laying of foundation to unite the party.  The democratic party is supposed to be the Big Tent Party.  Obama has shown that he does not have the instinct for welcoming varied groups with varied thoughts, into his circle.  He and his supporters must stop acting as if though he were a divine gift to the party and mankind.

    I am reminded of a suggestion I made many, many years ago to the wife a authoritarian leader.  She seemed to relish sycophants trying to sell her husband as having some kind of divinity and I said:  "As a god, he would be a very insignificant, diminutive god and will be an utter failure.  But as a human being, people will recognize that he is an outstanding human being." Needless to say, I did not earn any points for that suggestion.

    This is basically the success of Hillary Clinton.  A mother, wife, daughter, friend; very hardworking, smart and knows how to get things done.  And she is tough, resilient, at peace with herself and what she is trying to do.  Her words do not seem to be disconnected from her heart and brain.

    Parent

    hehe, the problem with all the new (none / 0) (#204)
    by hellothere on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:12:51 PM EST
    young voters is that in just one presidential cycle they often become older, established much more conservative voters who want to know why the promises weren't kept. now that is sorta of amusing when i think about it. the new voter is the same as the old voter democrats.

    Parent
    Obama's victory will depend on (none / 0) (#8)
    by ajain on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:13:53 PM EST
    His skills of communication.

    Fortunately he is incredibly talented in that department. If he can talk to them the way Hillary has managed to, there is no stoping this guy.

    Exactly!! (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:15:47 PM EST
    He can do it if he just DOES IT!!

    Parent
    I used to say I'd be happy (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:24:23 PM EST
    to vote for either one of them.  Since February, I've done a 180 on him.  His refusal to debate has been a huge turn-off, and her willingness to take on all comers, her resilience, and her knowledge about the issues have blown me away.

    There's no comparison, and I do not want him to get the nomination.

    Parent

    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by masslib on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:27:06 PM EST
    If he screwed up his courage (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Fabian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:25:18 PM EST
    he might be able to.

    I've heard people make excuses "Oh, he wouldn't have gotten those votes anyway."  "Obama wasn't going to win in that state," and "That state will go Red in the GE.".

    The goal of the primary is to win the nomination.  But it's also an excellent time to practice for the GE, to try out new messages, different memes, a variety of strategies.  Obama had the media in his pocket.  A hotly contested primary - they were obligated to cover whatever he did, where ever he did that.  Media darling, nothing!  He had his own media entourage.

    But Obama just avoided taking on the less than receptive audiences, for whatever reason.  Blew a lot opportunities there while McCain was already out touring the country, reaching out in unlikely places like the Rust Belt.

    Obama doesn't seem to have a strategy for winning voters who rejected him the first time around.  And Mister "Change" has competition.  The Republicans aren't stupid.  They know that the best way to win elections this year is talk change, change, change or otherwise Bush will drag them all down.

    Parent

    Hmm... irrational exuberance, IMO. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:27:13 PM EST
    Obama's not a leader.

    Parent
    He IS the one you've been (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:53:42 PM EST
    waiting for.  

    Parent
    And we're still waiting... (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:03:06 PM EST
    [rimshot, laughter]

    Parent
    Not me. (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:09:08 PM EST
    Like Rove said (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by RalphB on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:23:44 PM EST
    If we're the ones we've been waiting for, then why the hell is change so late?


    Parent
    Speak for yourself, kid.. (none / 0) (#199)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    this woman has been waiting for Hillary, not some wet-behind-the-ears, arrogant know-nothing who happens to be half-black. I have been waiting for the first woman President, not Obama. I don't care what color the first woman president is, but I do care that it be a woman. So, Obama may be what YOU have been for, and if so I am sorry your standards are so low, but he isn't what I have been waiting for. No matter what you think.

    Parent
    Um, we've been waiting for that (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:20:46 PM EST
    since this started.  I was never drawn in by the "hope, change and unity shtick.  It's been downhill from there.

    What can he possibly say now to change my mind? He'll now switch gears to appease the rest of us?

    Appeasement will not work, Mr. Waffler.

    Parent

    Cruel, but honest. (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Fabian on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:26:40 PM EST
    Like I said "Better Than Bush!" is hardly a rousing campaign slogan.

    Parent
    Didn't we try that strategy already? (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by cawaltz on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:36:19 PM EST
    Heh. It's sad to hear the Obama supporters resort to "If you don't vote for Obama, then you want McCain." Apparently the creative class hasn't got the memo "the I'm better than the other guy" strategy isn't a winning strategy. Kerry tried it, how'd it work out for him?  

    Parent
    That (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:44:32 PM EST
    is their whole strategy of party unity. You better vote for Obama or you'll get McCain. Frankly, McCain just isn't that bad to me. While I'd prefer someone other than McCain Obama just doesn't do it.

    Either one are going to drive the country further into the ditch.

    Parent

    He's talented at swaying people (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:23:00 PM EST
    who fall for his technique.  I don't think pragmatists tend to be swayed easily.

    Parent
    As long as he has a week to prepare and a (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:31:41 PM EST
    teleprompter, he may be able to do it....uh huh, yeah right.

    Parent
    Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln... (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:45:38 PM EST
    ... how was the play?

    I can't count the number of opportunities Obama has had to ask for my vote -- and he hasn't.

    I finally concluded that the reason he's not asking for it is because he doesn't want it, and that the Obama Movement is about seizing control of the Democratic Party machinery, and not about winning in the fall at all.

    Parent

    self centeredness (none / 0) (#153)
    by contrarian1964 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:35:40 PM EST
    So it's all about "you?"  Are you saying you want to be pandered to, or are you saying that you just can't stand Obama? Because this "he never asked" thing is silly.  He expects, I think, that you read or listen to his speeches and form an opinion.  What does he have to do for you? Come to your house?

    This is petty.

    Parent

    For someone "extremely talented" (5.00 / 5) (#93)
    by Cassius Chaerea on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:56:21 PM EST
    he seems to have an awful lot of people angry at him.

    Just sayin' .

    Parent

    I still hold out some vague hope for Hillary, (none / 0) (#13)
    by ajain on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:15:08 PM EST
    But I dont see any real way she can win.

    Parent
    she can do it (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:22:39 PM EST
    so long as we don't give up.  She is out there every day fighting the good fight, speaking to the middle class, telling them that she will make sure their voices are heard in Washington.

    Obama can't change his message because to talk about these things invites scrutiny into his record.  He can't point to any hard stands he took or a history of fighting for the disenfranchised.  And, what's more, he has shown absolutely no wish to do so.  He thinks he can make Teh Best Speech Evah on various topics, trot out poster children for a certain demographic he is losing, and he'll have it all wrapped up.  That's not how it works.

    Clinton: I will fight for reproductive rights as I have for the last 35 years.  You can see what I did during X, Y and Z as proof.

    Obama: it's a wrenching moral choice, I'm not sure when life begins, we need to have the sanctity of sexuality again.

    Too little, too late.

    Parent

    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:02:20 PM EST
    ... it's hard to fight the OFB, the press, and the Donna Brazile's of this world, but it has to be done.

    Parent
    The problem - one of them - is that the media (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Anne on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:00:20 PM EST
    has totally bought into the Obama-McCain match-up, and is cutting Hillary out of the coverage, so she is now getting the John Edwards treatment.  Obama is acting like he's the nominee, and that's the way he's being covered.  Shoot, the other day, listening to the radio in the car, there was talk about how Hillary wasn't attacking Obama like she has been and the nitwits were surmising that this was Hillary's way of "gracefully" bowing out without "officially" dropping out.  This is the media, controlling the message.

    Right now, husband is watching the news, and I am upstairs on the computer waiting until it is over, because I feared that if I did not remove myself from the room, I would have launched something at the TV and broken it (and since Bones and House are on tonight, that would not be a good thing!).

    It makes me just want to spit nails when I think about how I was so looking forward to escaping from George Bush's out-of-control hot-rod and becoming a passenger in a nice vehicle being driven by sane people who would help us get to a much better place.  Instead, I find myself watching another out-of-control vehicle being driven by idiots who are too stupid to know that they are headed for a different kind of cliff, but that they are going over it regardless.  And the place they will end up is not going to be "better."

    Parent

    Let's Hope (none / 0) (#18)
    by The Maven on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:18:14 PM EST
    that this timely advice doesn't fall on deaf ears.  I fear, however, that anything perceived as being in any way a "concession" toward acknowledging the legitimacy of even a portion of Clintonism will be met with yet another distasteful brush-off.  For far too many Obama backers, it's their way or the highway; there is no middle ground.  At some point, one can only hope that they come around -- soon -- to realizing that certain groups will be necessary to their success in November.

    obama Does Not Take Advice Well And Is (none / 0) (#33)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:26:32 PM EST
    saying he will have the needed delegates by Tuesday...

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080519/ap_on_el_pr/obama_milestone

    Party (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:40:03 PM EST
    splits in half. I've been listening to Operation Turndown on the radio today and an Obama campaign manager called in and gave NO reason to vote for Obama. It was all about threats that they were going to blame everybody else for Obama's loss instead of making Obama take responsibility for his own actions.

    Parent
    Threats? Code Orange! ("threat mode") (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:48:50 PM EST
    See here.

    The Obama campaign needs to figure out how to get on the same page. First, Obama's telling everybody to be "nice," (that's Code Blue, "Stark Reality" mode) then his campaign guys are issuing threats.

    C'mon. A hyper-competent campaign knows message discipine!

    Parent

    Threats Are What They Do Best, As You Can (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:12:56 PM EST
    see if you are ever on DKos or HuffPo...It is vile over there.  I posted that Operation Turndown Post for today on Portland and Louisville Politics site on Craigslist.  Speaking of...they have some pretty rabid obamaphiles on there too.

    Parent
    Party Like It's 1993 (none / 0) (#54)
    by kaleidescope on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:43:05 PM EST
    Mike Lux is right, of course.  This is a variation on "What's the Matter with Kansas."  It's difficult to make this kind of appeal in the primary, especially early-on, since it sets the media against you if they in any way think you're serious.  What do you think happened to John Edwards?  

    Talking about class in American politics -- especially to the elite media -- is like cutting a loud fart at one of Sally Quinn's dinner parties.  Witness Johnathan Alter going on about the "nonsense" of Hillary Clinton making appeals to the working class.

    But once a candidate is well on the way to the nomination, so that he or she can't simply be eliminated by media narrative drying up his or her funding, then you actually can talk about class.  Which is why Hillary Clinton was able to do so later in the campaign.

    The problem that people like me have with the "Clinton wing" of the Party is that talk is all they ever did.  I remember very well the populist appeals Bill Clinton made during the 1992 election -- his promises to invest in people, to build infrastructure to provide jobs, to train lots of folks.  It was very smart politics, at least in the short term.

    But once he was in office, what did we get? The only two things Clinton ever pulled out all stops to get passed were NAFTA and WTO.  The other big economic feather in his cap was welfare reform -- part of the Republican agenda.  We got Ron Brown, Mickey Kantor, Terry McAuliffe, Robert Rubin, Mike Espy.  Tommy Boggs had a direct line to the White House while Ron Brown was head of the Commerce Department.

    When it came to union-backed anti-scab legislation, Clinton gave it tepid support and sat on his hands, letting it die in Congress.

    Economic inequality advanced apace during the eight years that Clinton was president.  The Gini index of inequality went from .454 to .462 while Clinton was president.  As the Washington Post put it:

    During the Clinton years, however, every income group showed real income growth.
    But the rich got much richer. It was a good time, the 1990s, to already have a million dollars.

    What we got was populist rhetoric covering for strategy cooked up by people like Dick Morris.

    The only problem I've ever had with Hillary Clinton as a candidate was the people she surrounds herself with -- Mickey Kantor, Terry McAuliffe, Mark Penn.  People who are the exact opposite of any real populist impulse.  And it is they -- not the Clintons themselves -- who are the wing of the party we really should jettison.

    They establish their influence in the party by exploiting the anti-democratic impulse to accept large donations from the very wealthy -- the real base of the Republican Party.  And they -- the Terry McAuliffes and Mark Penns -- use this money to win primaries and get their candidates to be the Democratic standard bearers.

    A foundation for democratizing the Party should be that no candidate can accept more than $100 from any one person for spending on achieving the nomination.

    For a blog as concerned about democracy within the Democratic Party as this blog is, I would expect the Mark Penn-Terry McAuliffe big donor approach to electing our nominees to be an issue.

    Kaleid, where's the rest of the lecture? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:46:56 PM EST
    Surely you have more education to offer all we 'low-information voters' at TL.

    Parent
    Do you (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:47:10 PM EST
    realize that Obama isn't really a grassroots candidate? If he was, he would have more appeal across all demographics which he doesn't have. Obama harks back to the Mondale/McGovern wing of the party.

    Parent
    My Post Wasn't About Obama (none / 0) (#136)
    by kaleidescope on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:25:57 PM EST
    And it wasn't really about Hillary Clinton either.  It was about the Democratic Party and where we go within the Party after the election. Mike Lux is right that Democrats can gain back lunch bucket "Reagan Democrats" if they make explicit appeals to economic populism.

    Part of the problem of doing that is the media.  The other part is within our own Party.

    The "Clinton Wing" of the party is, to a very real extent, the DLC.  These were the people who did Howard Dean in partly because he had the temerity to raise money from the masses instead of at $1000 a plate fetes.  

    Try getting serious about economic populism -- or economic democracy -- when you have a party dominated by plutocrats.

    Parent

    Are you (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:47:01 PM EST
    aware that Howard Dean was a member of the DLC? That he campaigned against Ted Kennedy in 1980?

    Howard Dean had the same problem that Obama is having, namely that he didn't get out in front of things before they exploded on him. His statements about IA to canadian television for one. The scream was stupid.

    Parent

    HoHo (none / 0) (#194)
    by kaleidescope on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:02:41 PM EST
    Yes, I knew that Dean was a DLCer.  His economic and environmental politics while governor of Vermont were not especially to my liking.  The Vermont EPA was known, among my friends, as the "Expedited Permit Agency."  

    But Dean's run for the Democratic nomination -- for a while at least -- was a real threat to the control the big money boys had over the Democratic Party.  And they treated him that way.

    The scream wasn't really stupid.  Dean was yelling into a microphone so he could be heard over the noise of the yelling, cheering crowd.  The networks deliberately turned down the sound of the crowd to help make Dean look ridiculous.  It worked.

    And part of the reason the media did this was because, to them, Dean was a threat to elite control over who gets to be nominees.  As Mayor -- Big Dick -- Daley said, "You can vote for whoever you want as long as I get to pick the candidates."

    What did you think of Dean's "elitist" comments about how dumb and undemocratic caucuses -- like Iowa's -- were?  Do you think that was really stupid too?

    Parent

    So it's not really populism (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Edgar08 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:50:02 PM EST
    if the rich aren't getting poorer.

    Parent
    Right (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Steve M on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:52:39 PM EST
    but this is how the anti-Clinton narrative goes.  "Yes, folks, you made more money in the 90s, but you don't really know how bad you had it!"

    Parent
    Despite Penn (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:56:56 PM EST
    and McAuliffe, Hillary is winning primary contests and voters because she APPEALS to them in a way that Obama doesn't and never will: she'll be ready for the job from Day 1 and isn't afraid to take it on.

    Don't diss her surrogates.  Talk about her and her abilities and qualifications compared to his.

    You'll lose the argument every. single. time.

    Parent

    I Don't Care About Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#157)
    by kaleidescope on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:38:18 PM EST
    She's had quite enough written about her in recent months.  By the standards of the U.S. Senate, she'll continue to be a progressive and effective senator and I wish her well.

    Clintonism as a political concept -- which is much more the product of Bill than Hillary -- and its influence on the Democratic Party is another matter.

    Why should the Democratic Party allow the Republican base to decide who our candidates can be?  It isn't Hillary Clinton was is responsible for this process.  It is what you call her "surrogates" -- the wealthy elites who try to dominate who gets money to run for office as Democrats.  

    Parent

    are you making a joke? (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:07:12 PM EST
    Because Obama has as many if not more wealthy donors.

    And the Clintons were some of the poorest inhabitants of the White House in the last century.  They did not make their wealth until afterwards, and, as I recall from those tax returns Obama and Co were demanding, they give a higher percentage of their income to charity than most people in their tax bracket.

    Parent

    Hee! (none / 0) (#205)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:15:06 PM EST
    It is what you call her "surrogates" -- the wealthy elites who try to dominate who gets money to run for office as Democrats.  

    You jokester, you.

    More and better democrats?  We have some good ones now.

    Some of te ones we're electing are former repubs.

    I'd rather see someone who's committed to the democratic party platform we used to celebrate.

    Parent

    Look back at your previous post.... (none / 0) (#73)
    by wobbly on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:48:24 PM EST
    ...about Michelle Obama and acknowledge that our candidates are a lot smarter than their "supporters".

    Even their spouses, children, and superdelegates know what to do now, and they are, in fact, doing it.

    There's a WHOLE LOTTA FENCE-MENDING going on upstairs...

    Let it play out.

    Don't get in the way.

    "Don't get in the way..." (none / 0) (#78)
    by lambertstrether on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:50:34 PM EST
    Double shot? Cinnamon?

    Hey, elitist, or what?

    Parent

    It's precisely because (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by pie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:58:46 PM EST
    people are getting in the way, that we still have a contest.

    WAY.


    Parent

    An true elite would not ask for cinnamon (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by HelenK on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:06:11 PM EST
    that is for people who get their "lattes" at Dunkin Donuts.  snark intended

    Parent
    Edwards (none / 0) (#74)
    by chrisvee on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:48:36 PM EST
    was doomed from the start.  It was his bad luck to run in a year with two 'historic' candidates.  While I liked a lot of his policies, my biggest concern about Edwards was that I didn't necessarily see him with a track record to prove he could implement his ideas or clean-up Bush's mess.

    He's definitely charismatic, though. I saw him at a rally in PA when he was running with Kerry and he was fantastic.  They still didn't win my county, though. :-)

    Except... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Alec82 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:50:41 PM EST
    ...Clinton ran to the right in 1996.  

     Lux is painting a portrait that is just slightly skewed, in my opinion.

    Bill and the Working Class (none / 0) (#130)
    by henry on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:21:46 PM EST
    I have mixed feelings on this. I think Bill Clinton did exactly what he is arguing he didn't.  He threw the working class a bone - V-Chip - here and there while simultaneously cutting their welfare net and passing horrid trade policies.

    I think the real Bill Clinton in this race is Obama himself. He is running the exact rhetorical nothingness campaign that Bill himself ran. 92 was the last time Iv voted for a Dem. Like, BC, if Obama gets elected he will have no mandate and his only accomplishment will come with making deals with the right. We need to remember that BC had a privatization scheme on the table in 96, the same guy whose advising Obama BTW, that was only stopped because of this famous intern.  

    My point is the author's right. I think in many ways Hillary's base is much closer to FDR than BC or BO. Chelsea's right too, mom will be better that either of those bozo's. I am a Nader guy, but Hillary would certainly give me pause in November.  When she talk with passion about working folks, and American jobs she carries an authenticity that even Mr. Hair couldn't pull off.

    the V-chip? (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:27:27 PM EST
    Are you kidding me?  All the working class really needed for a "bone" after the decimation of the Reagan/Bush years was to be able to block out television shows that they didn't want their kids watching?

    Oh, dear.

    Parent

    They make it too easy 8^) (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by samanthasmom on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:54:05 PM EST
    Kathy, (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by henry on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:54:40 PM EST
    It feels like you twisted this around. I think the working class needed much more there the bones they were thrown.

    Maybe my perspective is a little twisted while I tend to like Hillary, I really can't stand Bill. And quite frankly, when she distanced herself fropm him ideologically, she was a much more attractive candidate. Two examples.

    On the stump Hillary talks about the student loan program and the insane interest rates. She is right on this, the other side is those consequences are a direct result of the "reforms" in the 1990's. Hillary has also taken a righteous stand on NCLB. The precursor to this act with all of its consequences was being pushed by Bill through the 1990's. You notice Bill never says he is against NCLB, only that Hillary believes...

    My point is Hillary has had a tough road because she has had to run against both Obama and her husband. There is a reason why most of Bill's cabinet has joined Obama's team. This is not a critique of Hillary but an affirmation that she has stood by the working class rather than the DLC establishment.

    What is interesting to me is Hillary has emerged not as a Clinton Democrat, but an FDR Democrat. I guess it just shows how far down the Democratic Party has gone. Like Hillary's tears, they most likely would ridicule FDR as using his "walking sticks" for political gain.  

    Parent

    Do you (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:49:17 PM EST
    realize that welfare was one of the reasons that the working class abandoned the Democratic party? It was a wedge issue that the GOP used effectively. If you want to campaign on that issue then you certainly don't understand about the working class at all.

    Parent
    he lost me at (none / 0) (#206)
    by Kathy on Mon May 19, 2008 at 06:17:20 PM EST
    "like Hillary's tears."

    Fer the love of peeps.

    Parent