home

Some Good Advice For Dems And Barack Obama

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:02:11 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

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 >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Some Good Advice For Dems And Barack Obama | 205 comments (205 topical)
    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 ]
    We always lose.... (5.00 / 4) (#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 ]

    Yup. Edwards ran the issues and forced (3.66 / 3) (#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 / 5) (#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 (4.33 / 3) (#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 ]

    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


    [ Parent ]
    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


    [ Parent ]
    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 / 2) (#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 / 2) (#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


    [ Parent ]
    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


    [ Parent ]
    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 / 4) (#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 / 2) (#129)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 19, 2008 at 05:21:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I keep hearing how Obama is good at communicating. (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Florida Resident on Mon May 19, 2008 at 04:31:40 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 / 6) (#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