New Rural Battleground States Poll: Hillary Better Against McCain

Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, in association with the Republican media firm Greener and Hook, recently completed a survey of rural voters in 13 battleground states, on behalf of the Center for Rural Strategies. The results:

  • Hillary - McCain: tied (46% each)
  • McCain - Obama: McCain by 9 (50 - 41%)

The message the Republican pollsters have for Republicans:

The competitiveness reflects the on-going national problems facing the Republican brand, as well as the deep economic anxiety that is particularly acute among rural families on one hand, balanced against doubts about Obama’s values.

Among the key findings:

A fair number of voters believe McCain, while sharing their values, is not sufficiently sensitive to their economic problems; significant numbers of rural voters indicate Obama understands their economic problems, but does not share their values.

Poll details:

It surveyed 682 respondents between May 13th and 15th, 2008 from rural parts of the battleground states of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Florida, Virginia, Colorado and Nevada. The survey carries a margin of error of +/- 3.75 at a 95 percent confidence level.

All of those polled are registered voters. 93% of them voted in 2004 and 93% say they are certain to vote in November. The remaining 7% say they will probably vote.

58% of the voters had attended some college or post-graduate school. 35% were Republican, 35% Democrat and 29% are Independent. 37% attend church every week. 89% are White, 4% Latino/Hispanic and 2% African-American. 52% are women and 48% male.

Full poll results are here (pdf); The poll memo is here (pdf).

< Congress Should Not Fear to Change Feres | Kentucky Demographics and Voter Stats >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Conservatives (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:50:55 PM EST
    vote their "values".  Time and time again we have seen the Republican party frame issues to a degree where large swaths of people vote against their own interests.

    If they see an opening it's right here.  They will wedge Obama's lack of patriotism, rather compare, to McCain, a man who was a POW, his grandfather has a naval station named after him and a forebearer who fought in the American Revolutionary War.

    That kind of narrative will pummel Obama when Ayers, Wright and that whole cast of characters from Chicago is trotted out before the national audience in the fall.

    hell, a lot of Democrats are offended (5.00 / 9) (#2)
    by MarkL on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:54:35 PM EST
    by the Ayers business. I know I am.

    I'm with you too. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by AX10 on Mon May 19, 2008 at 11:58:29 PM EST
    How the H**L can Obama say that he is a close friend of an admitted terrorist?
    That says alot about who Obama really is.

    Well, that's another thing: he (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:00:08 AM EST
    misleads about the closeness of the relationship, as well.

    Hmmm (1.00 / 5) (#17)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:14:54 AM EST
    And you know this how?

    Even assuming some how you could intuit this, why is this a problem?  It is one thing to disapprove of someone's past actions, criminal and otherwise.  However, if you consider yourself a liberal, progressive and/or even religious, one would hope you would believe in the ability to rehabilitate and redeem yourself.  Apparently you have no such charity, which is surprising given that you frequent a blog and respect its founder who has undoubtedly represent far more heinous individuals than Ayers and who has probably become friends with many of them.


    Um, I suggest that you actually (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:17:16 AM EST
    read something about Ayers before you comment anymore. The problem with Ayers is precisely that he is NOT rehabilitated or redeemed. He is unrepentant, and says he would bomb again! If you cannot see the problem with Obama letting  a man like this help launch his political career (which is a fact) then we are not on the same planet.

    WHOA (5.00 / 7) (#28)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:21:54 AM EST
    I am not so arrogant to presume who Ms. Merritt keeps company with.  I also don't think its any of my business, OR YOURS, to know who she defends.

    See what you get when you make assumptions?  I am a secular humanist/atheist so your religious angle is DOA.  I am not a liberal but i do espouse some progressive ideals, and some, I am way against.

    Wow, I think you gotta pair trying to pass judgement on defendants that Ms Merritt works on behalf of.  I sure hope she reads your post.  I would love to see what she would say to you.

    Guess that touched a nerve about Ayers though.  Think that's something?  Just wait until the R's 527s launch into it.


    Why Obama is a liar and a phony, Part 83249752 (4.72 / 11) (#90)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:46:07 AM EST
    Within days of thugging an endorsement from NARAL by telling his supporters not to give money to interest groups, just his money-burning campaign, Obama made a flagrant play for the support of hard right evangelicals. WTF?

    This shallow megalomaniac is hoovering the coffers even of those that do the desperately needed service of protecting constitutional rights. He burns through money like it's his superpower. He repels tried and true voters that have kept Dems in it even when our elected reps & sens repeatedly sold us out and let us down. (Full disclosure: I'm done with that. I'm an Indy now.)

    I learned my lesson. Any con artist who sells himself as being all things to all people is sure to be someone that NO ONE can rely on.

    His personal, objectively indisputable record of discarding people shown to have contributed considerably to his success is disturbing. (Jeez, the way he keeps reloading his dear departed mom on the bus so he can throw her off again is nauseating. Just please, Obama, bury her before she's featured in an episode of Ghost Whisperer.)


    Okay... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:49:28 AM EST

    These Obama actions fm last week are inexplicable (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:09:16 AM EST
    Particularly in the context of rural (allegedly "values" voters).

    How does courting these two opposite, mutually exclusive stances exist on a candidate's slate without casting serious doubt on his claim of being above "old" politics?

    (It's older politics, actually: dirty Chi-machine politics.)

    (Stop what? Correcting revisionist truthiness? No can do. Look away, do that hamster thing, but please don't ask others to accept debunked zombie talking points as fact.)


    This wasn't directed just at you... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:13:01 AM EST
    If you see my post further down, you'll see that I've called for everyone to take a step back and breathe.

    For some reason, there're are far more mean spirited exchanges going on than there is solid information being provided.


    Well downrate the ones you consider objectionable (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:49:05 PM EST
    Challenge the ones you believe to be short on facts, or ignore the ones you consider to be static.

    Telling "everyone" to STFU is a waste of time. Perhaps you need to cool it.


    Gee thanks for nothing... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:26:37 PM EST
    I left Dkos to get away from the high concentrations of static.

    I came here because the static was dramatically less...and the level of conversation appeared to be on a more in-depth level.

    Forgive me for asking that this place not devolve into another vitriolic place too.

    BTW...I only asked for folks to calm down a smidge and breathe as it seemed that the shots and countershots were happening almost automatically and not "STFU."

    Have a nice day...


    Well, you have the option of participating or not (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:32:26 PM EST
    Within exchanges themselves, downrating, or ignoring. I suggest that applies to everyone too.

    Asking everyone ELSE to stow their opinions EXCEPT YOU is the equivalent of "STFU everyone after I vent".

    Not fair, not golden. And your welcome.


    I didn't ask you to stow (none / 0) (#148)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:46:00 PM EST
    your opinion. I didn't ask anyone to stow their opinion...

    But this place is also about being civil, right?

    And lately...the civil seems to disappear quickly.

    Nothing is gained by going around calling Obama a megalomaniac any more than it would be by others calling HRC monster and b*tch queen.

    Not calling for STFU. Not calling for Unity. Not calling for hugs and kisses.

    As I tried (and failed miserably) at dkos, I was trying to point out that vinegar s*cks for attracting bees.


    But He Won't Say That...He Insists They Were (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:06:05 AM EST
    just on a board together and more such untruths.
    The problem is that there are so many gullible members of the electorate.

    Really? (1.00 / 7) (#11)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:12:02 AM EST
    Using your metric, how do you feel about Jeralyn?  I have no doubt that Jeralyn, like many attorneys, befriended clients whose PAST actions are far worse than Ayers.

    I was unaware that Obama was (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:13:37 AM EST
    representing Ayers as his lawyer. If you have information to that effect, please share. If not, your comment is insultingly irrelevant.

    Ayers wasn't a client (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:13:49 AM EST
    of Obama's.

    I don't think Obama spent much time being an attorney, did he?


    obama made time to represent Rezko's (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:22:58 AM EST
    interests while a state senator.  You remember Rezko's tenants suing him to get some heat and obama helped throw some of his very own constituents under the bus....whadda guy!

    Coming soon... Obama worked for Ayers (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by ig on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:33:30 AM EST
    Obama is the worst possible candidate. Almost any other candidate would be even with McCain, not down 9 points.

    He claims he was a constitutional lawyer (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by cpa1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:00:53 AM EST
    If he wasn't a lawyer, what the hell did he do?  Network?

    Herein lies the problem, Obama has done nothing and he is nothing but a historian.  Here is a posting by Barack Obama in 2005 regarding the nomination of John Roberts.  It's very interesing and you can see him covering every base, or every inch of his ass. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/30/102745/165/500/153069

    He is more like an Alexis de Tocqueville than JFK or Bill Clintn.


    Obama/ Roberts/ Tocqueville (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by noholib on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:59:24 AM EST
    Please don't insult historians,
    or social theorists like Tocqueville.
    Obama is neither.

    Please don't insult (none / 0) (#127)
    by mikeyleigh on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:27:30 AM EST
    Tocqueville like this.  It's easy to understand what he believed, what he felt was important, what he valued from perusing his writings.  You can't do that with the Obaman's.

    Really, attorney-client (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by RalphB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:14:50 AM EST
    is absolutely nothing like Obama's relationship with Ayers and Wright.  You're gonna have to do better than that.

    No I do not (1.00 / 5) (#23)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:17:46 AM EST
    I too have represented a "convicted" terrorist.  While I never condoned what she did, I grew close to her and her family over the course of several years and consider them friends.  It is astonishing that self-proclaimed liberals on a blog like Talk Left could take such a conservative approach to crime and punishment and so publicly smear anyone for their associations with people who have paid their debt to society and earn the right to be judged on their subsequent actions.

    Shameful how quick some are to cast aside their principles just to score cheap political points.  Assuming they had any principles to begin with.


    I repeat: look at Ayers complete (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:19:51 AM EST
    lack of repentance. He is a moral monster.
    Obama's association with him is poison for the GE.

    Quit regurgitating the talking points (1.00 / 4) (#33)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:24:29 AM EST
    Ayers has maintained consistently that he never said that the Weathermen should have planted more bombs.  His comment, which you are taking out of context to score political points, was that he should have "done more" to stop the Vietnam War.  

    Ahem: (5.00 / 6) (#37)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:27:41 AM EST

    ''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''

    The first part is quite damning, regardless of whether the second is being read out of context. He shows no repetence. It is beyond insulting for you to insist that this man has been rehabilitated. He has not. No civilized person should consort with him, although people are free to choose their associations, and I am free to judge them for those choices.

    What goes around comes around (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by cpa1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:57:18 AM EST
    Taking remarks out of context is what Obama lives by like he took Bill Clinton's remarks in South CArolina out of context and faxed them over and over and over and over and over and over again to the media.

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:44:12 AM EST
    Ayers has a freaking PhD in EDUCATION. He is a professional communicator. He wrote what he wrote for the New York TImes, the biggest venue in the country. I am sure he proof-read every detail many times. He was communicating exactly what he wanted to say.

    After 9/11 he spun his remarks, probably to save his job at the U of C.


    He didn't repent even after (none / 0) (#123)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:49:58 AM EST
    the Oklahoma City bombing, an event in the finest tradition of the Weathermen. Possibly even inspired by their activity. And just a year later he was holding fund-raisers for Obama in his home. The Republican advertisements will write themselves.

    You do (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by RalphB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:23:59 AM EST
    Unless you don't mind looking like an idiot.  Ayers and Dohrn did not pay any debt to society and have not recanted their actions.  In an interview with the NYTimes published, ironically enough, on 9/11/2001 he specifically said they should have bombed more.  That's not a redeemed person, that's an immoral SOB.

    That is totally false (1.00 / 2) (#35)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:26:31 AM EST
    Ayers has always maintained that he meant he should have done more to stop the war, not to plant bombs.  Moreover, demonstrating your lack of understanding, Ayers was never convicted of any crime.

    He was not convicted of a crime (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by RalphB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:32:13 AM EST
    because of FBI screw-ups, but he did admit his culpability.  That's all it takes for me.  IMHO he's a pathetic scumbag who is unrepentent.  You have no common sense, so I really don't care for your opinion.

    His rich daddy's lawyers (none / 0) (#121)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:46:35 AM EST
    got him off on a technicality. But he admitted he did it and doesn't regret it.

    If you really are an attorney (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:26:34 AM EST
    I feel that comments toward Ms Merritt are incredibly cowardice and unprofessional.  You say you represented a convicted terrorist.  I started law school but didn't finish, but isn't it your JOB to defend your client with vigor and passion and using all your litigant skills?

    Who are you to come in here throwing around principles?  Last time I checked I certainly didn't go and try to bomb federal buildings NOR would I carry on association with someone who did.

    IF that's YOUR metric, then YES, I am better than Obama.  Seven days a damn week!


    You need to re-read (1.00 / 3) (#50)
    by SpinDoctor on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:37:20 AM EST
    My comments were not directed at Jeralyn, whom I respect, but rather to AX10.  My suspicion is that Jeralyn respects Ayers for his accomplishments as a school reformer.  Further, the point I was making to AX10 that there is nothing unconscionable about an attorney or community organizer being friends with an innocent war protester who once held radical positions.  We do a terrible disservice by lending credence to these guilt by association charges that are all to common with Republican campaign tactics.

    "innocent war protester"???? (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:39:19 AM EST
    Outside of the courtroom, Ayers is not innocent in the least. He confessed his terrorist acts---in fact, he is proud of them.

    I don't buy it (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:42:16 AM EST
    You are an attorney.  The language you choose is your tool.  You made presumptions about Ms Merritt and now you want to back-peddle because you were called to the carpet.

    Running for POTUS even your dog catcher and mail man will be scrutinized.  So spare me the guilt-by-association line.  For all the high-mindedness fair-thinking people have, Joe Six Pack and the republicans will paint a picture not of a "radical" who was high-spirited, but an American terrorist who wished he could have bombed more.

    Wonder how Obama and his Ayers would bode in a place, like, I don't know....Oklahoma City?


    And if you ran for POTUS (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:33:02 AM EST
    your life, family, and friends come under scrutiny. That includes folks like Ayers who have no problem being incredibly public about their past and how they feel about what they did back then...now.

    Ayers knows that there are people who aren't going to like him for his actions then, his lack of repentance now, or the visual of him stepping on the flag. He knows that he is under political ramification scrutiny.

    And some people will not vote for Obama based on his choice to be friends with Ayers.

    If you don't like it, don't run for higher office.


    This was discussed last night (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by otherlisa on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:13:49 AM EST
    The attorney/client relationship is something very different from a voluntary association, particularly one that helped launch a political career.

    My Principles Are Not Being Cast Aside (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:15:30 AM EST
    I don't support terrorist tactics regardless of what underlying cause the terrorists uses to justify their actions. Has absolutely nothing to do with scoring political points. What Ayers did is no different than what Eric Rudolph did or what terrorist are doing now in the Middle East IMO. To me there is no justification for blowing up innocent people. There is no way I would condone his actions no matter how liberal I am. Being liberal does not equal supporting illegal activity in my world.

    Personal associations do matter and are far different than a lawyer and client relationship. So that dog won't hunt.

    Also, association with Ayers is a political liability and will be used against Obama in the GE. To think otherwise is naive. You may think that Ayers is a great friend for Obama to have but I seriously doubt that the majority of Americans will view him in the same light as you do. That is all that matters as far the GE is concerned.    


    what MO Blue said (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by kempis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:23:52 AM EST
    Ayers, because of his fairly recent professed lack of regret for setting off bombs, is going to be a political liability for Barack Obama. A serious one.

    I'm sure Ayers has done some good things in education, and I'm sure that Reverend Wright has done some good things in ministering to his community. None of that absolves either for his other, less-than-good words and actions if he does not express regret. And the problem with BOTH of these close associates of Obama's is that neither has expressed one iota of remorse.

    Obama therefore looks like a guy whose judgment is clouded--or who will set aside his own principles for his political advancement, which is probably why he cozied up to these two key figures in Chicago politics--Ayers in part ironically because of the network of old wealth and Daley machine power his prominent father's firm was plugged into.


    Did your client (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by ricosuave on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:48:35 AM EST
    help launch your political career? Did you serve on a board with him?  Did your client give choice quotes like "we didn't do enough" when asking if he would bomb again?

    Nobody here is complaining that Obama represented nasty people as an attorney (yes--there is some complaint about the work he did for Rezko, but that is part of the overall Rezko package and not just his representation).  I don't think anyone here even knew that Ayers was a client of Obama's (and I don't even think that he was a client of Obama's).  I think people are talking about the fact that Obama attended a political event at Ayers' home early in his career and served with him on a board.

    Maybe you don't think that is much of a connection.  That's fine.  And maybe you don't think that Ayers' attitude on his former crimes is a problem.  That's fine, too.  Some people on this blog agree and some disagree.  But those are legitimate concerns for people to express, whether they meet your litmus test for liberal or not.  

    Some (even self-proclaimed liberals like me) are legitimately troubled by the parade of characters tied to Obama (Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Exelon, Financial Services Companies, etc.).  Others may be fine with some or all of them, but fear what these associations will do in the hands of Republican ad-makers.

    Also many feel like this statement from you

    Shameful how quick some are to cast aside their principles just to score cheap political points.  Assuming they had any principles to begin with.

    describes Obama's political history to a tee.

    Try To Focus....This Isn't About Jeralyn And (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:18:40 AM EST
    you would do well to get back to your shift at Huffpo and stop trying to stir up trouble here.



    lol (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:52:29 AM EST

    Love it pssst!!


    Can't Help It....just so irritating! (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:02:20 AM EST
    yeah (none / 0) (#75)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:06:49 AM EST
    no sh1t...esp that alex82 poster.  ugh.

    uh huh...perfect obama follower, arrogant and (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:13:39 AM EST
    condescending...and there is another one on here sez he/she is a Hillary supporter, but I don't believe it.

    guess those (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:24:41 AM EST
    paid bloggers are supposed to crack the whip and get us to tow the party line.

    Ain't. Gunna. Happen.


    Those Paid Bloggers All Know What They Can (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:12:17 AM EST
    do and where they can go....you are correct...ain't gonna happen.

    You are arrogant and abusive beyond belief... (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:24:07 AM EST
    ...and you couple this with personal attacks.  You are lucky that your candidate has far more rational advocates; with the likes of you she would lose in a landslide.

     Jeralyn, BTD, feel free to delete my comment.  You have started to attract trolls for Senator Clinton.


    Oh please (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:30:46 AM EST
    My comments are pale in comparison to other sites on the level of "abusive" and "arrogant".

    If you find some commen.tary undignified that's your problem not mine.  I find myself quite at home here at Talk Left.  Have I been reprimanded by Jeralyn?  A few times.  But I respect her site.  Hell I even donate to it because I feel that hers is the best one right now for Clinton supporters.

    But spare me this whole indignant holier than thou thing you have going.  Like I said, if you were on MY blog, well, the commentary would be a lot different.  And I will leave it at that.

    Goodnight sweetie.


    You arrogance... (1.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:03:36 AM EST
    ...blinds you to this fact:

     Even if Senator Clinton wins the primary she will be dependent on our support as well.  Just a reality, my friend, as your preferred candidate in an Obama match up likes to say.  

     You can donate to TalkLeft, you can attack progressives that don't agree with you and you can call your critics "indignant."  You have stated that you will vote for Senator McCain if Senator Clinton is not the nominee.  Talk"Left" is not your territory by any stretch.  

     And yes, when you engage in abusive personal attacks you are being arrogant.  Some of us have been working on behalf of the Democratic Party for over a decade.  You've said you are going to vote for Senator McCain.  You don't get to tout anything after that.  You're a Republican in sheep's clothing.  You can't be anything else if you don't care about Democratic policies.


    Oops. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Fabian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:46:46 AM EST
    You were doing so well until you mentioned "polcies".

    Obama is the master of the biographical narrative, not issues and policies.  That's exactly why I and others have problems with him.  We only get to elect the people on the ticket, not of all the unaccountable "advisors" who "help" him.


    Not to be mean (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Grace on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:09:30 AM EST
    but you are making the Democrats seem almost like the Moonies.  

    Voting outside your party occasionally doesn't mean you aren't a Democrat.  And being a Democrat doesn't mean you are mindless.  


    So (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:27:27 AM EST
    you've been working on behalf of the Democratic Party for over a decade? Well I've been working on behalf of the Democratic Party for over 4 decades. And now my party thinks that what I think or believe doesn't matter.

    My party in the form of the DNC thinks that it can disenfranchise the voters of two states and I'll go along with that. MY party is not the party that I fought for and believed in for most of my life. And it has taken a candidate like Barack Obama and his supporters to educate me as to just how important voters like me are to the Democratic Powers That Be. From liars like Donna Brazile to every Obama supporter that thinks the rulz are more important than the voters of two states I see Democrats that don't believe in democracy.

    I will not vote for Obama and I will not vote for McCain. And no amount of insults will change that.
    Validating the behavior of the Obamacrats in this primary and the undemocratic behaviour of the DNC with my vote would be against all that I believe and hold dear. If you don't like that, tough. You are not the keeper of my conscience.


    some of us have been Democrats for 30+ years (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by kempis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:28:55 AM EST
    And we're leaving the party in part because of the message, delivered loud and clear by Obamites like Markos, that we're no longer welcome in the Democratic party.

    Obama supporters see Hillary supporters much the way adolescents see their parents: old and embarrassing.

    So it's time for you kids to stretch your wings and win one on your own. Good luck.

    Personally, I'll vote for Obama, but I'm damned if I work for him. And if McCain wins, maybe it will help to slap some sense into my former party's leadership--but I doubt it. Losses under Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry didn't--and now we're back to building a "coalition" that out-Dukakises Dukasis's.


    kempis (none / 0) (#149)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:17:21 PM EST
    I LOVE that statement:  "spread your wings and win one on your own."

    Obama supporters will capitulate and fold quicker than a $2 card table.  Guilt ridden liberals and a bunch of college kids with WAY too much time on their hands do NOT make for the kind of stock you need to be able to handle the rigors of a presidential mano a mano.

    Name calling and race baiting don't count either.  The R's will LOVE that kind of contest.  They will destroy the Obama camp.


    Part of the beauty of America (none / 0) (#136)
    by befuddled on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:09:42 AM EST
    is that even the lowest scum have, in theory, a fair chance at equal protection under the law. That means that sometime, somewhere, an attorney is going to have to take on cases that involve such scum. Also, sometimes the scuminess might not be evident when the attorney takes the case, but then they have a professional job to do. As a nurse I used to take care of murderers, child abusers, etc. Does that make me bad? Do you want to be in the position of being unable to get any kind of help until your motives and personal life have been totally examined and stamped "Approved" by ... whoever...Donna Brazile?  

    character (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by moll on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:06:03 AM EST
    That's not just "values" - that's what I would call "character".

    Character is important. It bugs me when people act like it's wrong to measure character. It's how we're hardwired to judge other people. If you don't trust a fellow, what good does it do if your candidate promises anything, if he isn't going to deliver it?

    Obama has a big character problem because people don't know what he really stands for.  

    It isn't just whether someone lies or wears a pin. It's about the signals someone sends off about trustworthiness.

    The Bosnia sniper fire story fed into the "ambitious" narrative, which was bad for Clinton.
    Obama gets a free pass on his own 'sniper fire' comments (for instance Selma), because it doesn't feed a narrative the way Bosnia does. But his problem is just as serious or even more so, which is that we don't really know who he really is.

    With Clinton, at least we have some information on what we can expect. But Obama? He is about image - which makes it particularly of concern if that image is subject to conflicting messages.


    IMHO Obama's free pass (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by RalphB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:12:21 AM EST
    has an expiration date that coincides with this securing the nomination for real.  I predict we'll see media about how could the democrats nominate someone who "this and that".  It could be really brutal.

    I am not seeing that expiration date in sight. (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by AX10 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:40:07 AM EST
    Obama has gotten much better press than Bush ever did.  Not only is he given a free pass and every pundit to prop him up, but even the comedians do not dare touch him.  At least the comedians went after Bush (and with avengance).

    In America (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:15:28 AM EST
    image is everything.  heck if a trainwreck like Britney Spears has enough credibility to earn 775K a month, why would the electorate NOT fall for Obama?

    He's a product put together by the DNC, Madison Avenue and Oprah Winfrey, Inc.  Those three surrogates have propogated the candidate we see before us today.

    Glib sells.  Look at what glib brought us since 2001?  Now, Americans are being fooled, YET
    AGAIN, by the Democratic version of Bush43.

    Conservatives have their own image problems right now (Senator Vitter, Senator Craig, Mark Foley) but since they are not running for president, all the wad will be spent on showing Barack as the "Ayers-Wright-Rezko" liberal/elite candidate to the conquering/returning war hero.

    Yes...image is EVERYTHING in our culture.  Couple that with the 24-hr news networks, and the image is ingrained into the collective thought process.  (ex.=Republicans:strong on defense, Dems=weak on defense).

    After the R's paint Obama with the image they think best suits him, all bets are off.  And all his cries of racism will mean nothing in the general.  Check out the righsphere blogs:  they WANT him to make the contest about race. They are BEGGING for it.  


    We have both of their policy stances... (1.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:24:59 AM EST
    ...which is mostly what I care about.  Policy, not personality.  I don't even care about so-called "experience" when that experience is, well, bad.  See, for example, Senator McCain. All the experience in the world couldn't get me to vote for the war monger.  I certainly know what he stands for.

     The Bosnian episode was not about ambition.  That is a charitable characterization.  It was about the potential to be labeled as the "lie to win" candidate.  Obama was going to be characterized as the radical candidate no matter what happened.

     The narrative of Clinton supporters is understandable, but it does come across as bitter to both Senator Obama's supporters and those who don't really care who the nominee is, as long as they're supporting centrist (or day I hope center-left) policies.  If the situation was reversed Senator Obama's supporters would be just as turned off, just as threatening to defect to McCain, etc.    

     If the problem was Senator Obama and his policies, I would expect Senator Clinton's supporters to be promoting almost any alternative to Senator Clinton.  Gore, Edwards, etc.  They're not, which leads me to believe that this is a personality and demographic issue.  If that is what you care about above all else, you shouldn't even be voting.  At least, not in the Democratic primary.        


    Obama's false resume is the (5.00 / 12) (#40)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:28:51 AM EST
    biggest lie of the campaign. He has virtually no political accomplishments, and those which are most touted, from the IL legislature, are not his work.

    Obama's name was attached to them... (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by AX10 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:42:28 AM EST
    in order to fluff up his one page resume.

    It Wasn't Unlike Someone Doing obama's (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:03:44 AM EST
    homework for him....

    Lately, it seems, presidential ... (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by Robot Porter on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:56:31 AM EST
    campaigns are doing a lot for the "thin resume crowd."

    No wonder young people like Obama so much.  He's a perfect role model.  Accomplishments are irrelevant.  Just pad and puff up your resume, and you can get any job you want.

    This, combined with Bush's model of drink yourself into a stupor until you're 40 then get daddy to arrange a job for you, sends a terrible message to people both young and old.


    All right... (1.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:39:55 AM EST
    ...let me take the bait.  Name Senator Clinton's major legislative achievements.  Show me the ones that were dependent on her, and not on the support of fellow legilsators.  And show me the major ones that made a dramatic impact on people's lives.  Show me her version of McCain-Feingold or similar signature legislation.  Show me her principled votes in opposition to the Bush administration.  Show me that apart from her presence in the federal as opposed to state legislature that she had a great impact.  Then the narrative about her resume might be bolstered.  As it is, it rings false.  Time in the senate is simply not enough.  If it had been, there were plenty of other accomplished Democratic senators far more deserving of the nomination, if that is the metric that matters.  



    That's a separate question; moreover, (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by MarkL on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:45:57 AM EST
    she has a record outside of the Senate.
    She has passed more bills per year than Obama, though.
    What I'm talking about is Obama taking credit for a set of bills which were the work of others, to pad his resume. These signature bills were passed during his last year, when the Dems were in control andcould actually pass their bills.

    That speaks... (1.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:56:17 AM EST
    ...to his unity meme, but to little else.  Her record outside of the senate did not include any elected positions.  You cannot point to those experiences and also discount his without being called out.  

     Passing more bills per year is irrelevant.  The GOP passed plenty of bills.  Quality, not quantity.  I think you must agree with that, whatever your thoughts about Senator Obama.

     Saying "that's a separate question" is just as deflective as you accuse Senator Obama's supporters of being.  Turning to her "outside the senate" record is deflective as well.  She's running on her political experience and accomplishments, as is he.  If so then she must point to something apart from "time served" in the senate.  

     You opened the door.  Now provide the examples.  


    Actually it's your turn (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:02:57 AM EST
    Mark's comments were that Obama has no resume.  You 'took to bait' is not true.  You merely brought up the usual Obama supporter of 'but, but, but Clinton' without ever addressing Obama's severe lack of accomplishment.  You have spent considerable time on this site and have seen the resume debates.  Use the search tool.

    yup, come on let's hear about (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by hellothere on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:59:02 AM EST
    obama's legislative experience. however you can't use those bills where he just attached his name in order to build up his resume. also just how many important committee meetings did he hold? what countries has he visited on fact finding missions. we are waiting!

    Some links... (5.00 / 7) (#83)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:22:00 AM EST
    When it comes to researching the candidates, I've found that Thomas as a primary text (Congressional Record) is the way to go. Unfortunately, the links to searches there do not stay active.

    So you'll have to do some digging through the various files.

    But if you're interested in an overview of her time in the Senate, it looks like Wiki has done a pretty decent job of culling together the various pieces of legislation and other initiatives.

    The Wiki bio for her is also pretty decent when it comes to covering her time as the First Lady of Arkansas as well. She seemed to do quite a bit with various health initiatives in AR.

    I did a lot of research on all of the candidates early on. There's a lot out there, but I prefer to do my own digging.


    It is Obama who needs to prove or document (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by felizarte on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:14:24 AM EST
    the things he cites in his resume; not Hillary Clinton who is already well known and vetted.  But it seems that with Barack Obama, "the more you know him, the less you like him."

    It doesn't matter to me anymore.  I am not voting for him anyway, and not even Hillary Clinton can persuade me to vote for him if he is the nominee.


    Same here (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:26:06 AM EST
    At least McCain has a resume, even though I don't agree with nearly everything he's done.  But we know who he is.  Obama, I don't trust because I just don't know enough about him.  I am one of those who used to like him until I started paying attention.  There's no there there.  No way I am voting for Obama.  Maybe I'll just write in Edwards.  

    Alec82 you said: (none / 0) (#129)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:31:22 AM EST
    Name Senator Clinton's major legislative achievements.  Show me the ones that were dependent on her, and not on the support of fellow legilsators.

    You show me any legislative achievement by anyone in the Senate that did not require the support of fellow legislators. Please at least try to make your case without spouting such nonsense.


    Let's Look At Some Of Obama's Major (none / 0) (#139)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:19:42 AM EST
    achievements for a moment. Obama voted for Cheney's big oil give away Energy Bill. Obama voted against placing a cap on interest rates. Obama personally introduced and was a major proponent for a liquified coal bill which Gore publicly stated was horrible. He only backed off of support when he determined it would be bad for his presidential run.  

    Obama's campaign has been a personality based (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Serene1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:41:28 AM EST
    campaign, whereas Hillary's has been an issue based one. Obama's themes were all some vague promises of hope and change for the future with superior judgement.

    His past is however extremely contradictory to his hope and change theme. He has just two years of senate record with no outstanding work during the same. His senate win was very controversial and not straightforward. He has still to take a stand on any issues and as per nytimes he refused to take a stand mostly to avoid leaving a paper trail. From all accounts he appears to be the guy who will never challenge the establishment or status quo.

    Let's not get into a debate now on who is a democrat and who is not and whether or not I shoud vote in a Dem primary because of my non pro Obama stance.
    I thought Democrats were not toe the line party but a party which celebrated diversity and individual thinking.


    It's not a campaign... (none / 0) (#138)
    by NotThatStupid on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:14:31 AM EST
    ... it's a movement. A personality-based movement. Any student of history can think of numerous cult-of-personality movements from the not-too-distant past that resemble Senator Obama's run for the nomination. As Eric Hoffer notes in The True Believer, there will always be people who are susceptible to the siren call of mass movements because of numerous factors (I won't go into all of them -- it's a short book, and I heartily recommend it).  

    Suffice it to say that, at least for me (and without getting into Godwin's Law territory), his mass rallies and his winning 90%+ of a significant electoral demographic are frightening, not reassuring, statistics.

    The greatest issue I have with him is his utter lack of moral courage (as proven by his relationship with Reverend Wright), something absolutely required in a president, a commander-in-chief, and a leader of the party.

    I will not vote for him. He is not qualified, and if a man doesn't have a backbone by his age, he never will.


    Confidence (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:57:20 AM EST
    I agreed with Carter on policies.  Reagan was a better president.

    Why do we assume that just because we agree with someone on a set of policies that they will execute that set of policies in a competent manner?  

    Experience is a big part of it, and one should have a reasonable amount of confidence that a president will do a good job.

    I am not convinced Obama will.  The more charitable thing I can say is that I am more confident that Clinton will make an impact on the things I care about.


    I voted for Carter too (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:31:54 AM EST
    What a HUGE mistake.  First mortgage rates went to 16%, then my dear friend's husband was held in Iran for 444 days, their marriage dissovled, and then we all had to wait in line to buy gas, day after day, and I had to have gas or I had no job.  His whole term was a nightmare.  Carter, the nicest man in the world, who really, truly, meant well, was a horrible President.  I fear Obama could be worse.  I really do.  He has no clue how to manage anything in Washington, or the military, or the world.  

    Obama got greedy and impatient.  He should have waited until he had more experience and some proof that he really could change anything for the better.  Until then, I cannot vote for the man.  NO WAY.  


    So then... (none / 0) (#68)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:01:49 AM EST
    ...all of the attempts to suggest that Obama was a Reagan Democrat should be forgiven, because he was a better president than Carter?

     I mean, come on.  He was not a good president.  Not remotely.  I doubt either Clinton would agree with that.


    Obama has no experience whatsoever (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Serene1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:10:37 AM EST
    and that is quite scary.

    Both Hillary and McCain have experience and hence it is easy for us to measure the candidates based on their experience (quality not quantity). In Obama's case there is no experience to measure the quality of his leadership. Whatever little experience he has is mostly tainted. His win to the senate is not what one would expect from a Presidential candidate preaching about the new way of doing politics.
    His senate record since is dominated by not taking a stand. Is that Change?
    He has also been not averse to helping out his wellwishers - Is that changing the way Washington works?


    Not for me to say (none / 0) (#78)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:10:30 AM EST


    America thinks Reagan was a better president.  But my point is that doesn't mean America agreed with all of Reagan's policies, and if you were poll all of those Americans on policy you might end up with a president more like Carter.

    What does that mean?


    A personality and demographic issue? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Grace on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:41:37 AM EST
    Excuse me?  

    You wrote:  "If the problem was Senator Obama and his policies, I would expect Senator Clinton's supporters to be promoting almost any alternative to Senator Clinton.  Gore, Edwards, etc.  They're not, which leads me to believe that this is a personality and demographic issue."

    Gore and Edwards are not in the race.  The only choice now is Obama.  "Any alternative to Senator Clinton" would include Nader, McCain, Ron Paul, Bob Barr...  Some of us have said that we are voting for McCain and Nader, though I don't think anyone is voting for Bob Barr.  Some people are simply planning to abstain from voting.  I will happily recommend voting for McCain since I don't think he'll be nearly as bad as Obama, and that's taking into account he's a Republican.    

    No one really seems to know what exactly Obama's policies consist of.  That's because Obama talks in imagery, not concrete.  Obama also offers up a cream puff light resume that could be printed on the head of a pin -- and still have room for the Lord's Prayer.  These are not "personality and demographic" issues.  These are credentials issues.  Obama doesn't have the right credentials to start off with.  On top of that, he doesn't have a concrete plan.  His "hope and change" platform only makes me Hope that he would Change.  I would love to vote for the Democrat, but my party failed me and left me with someone who is not qualified to be president.  

    Although he has never mentioned wanting to be president, I would vote for Snoop Dogg before I would vote for Barack Obama because Snoop Dogg runs a successful conglomerate.  Aside from a political campaign, what has Obama successfully run?  


    You don't care about experience?!?!? (4.00 / 4) (#41)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:31:37 AM EST
    then you must have voted Bush (if you were old enough).

    Tell you what:  next time you get on a plane, hopefully the person that worked on it, was not some inexperienced mechanic but one that has received a lot of training prior on smaller craft and worked his or her way up to larger aircraft carrying lots of people.

    Remember that when you are buckling your seat belt on your next flight.

    Experience:  it will keep you in the air and it will get you to the ground safely.


    You're being absurd.. (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:43:59 AM EST
    ...and it shows.  If all that you care about is experience, then vote McCain.  He has far more experience in elected positions than your "do no wrong" candidate.  Really, if you are honest and not a self-serving promoter of a cult of personality, you should have voted for Senator McCain in the primary.   He was more experienced and that is all you care about, right?

    gee thanks (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:55:48 AM EST
    for telling me who I should have voted for. Golly, I guess I AM that total low-info, downmarket, great unwashed voter that the Obama types don't want to sully their hands with.

    Thanks for the edification, "sweetie".  Do you need me to iron your shirt?  Crack your nuts?  I have a copy of Fatal Attraction we can watch together?


    You belittle my point about experience... (1.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:00:05 AM EST
    ...and then you turn to sexism when I ask whether or not you would actually be consistent about voting for the most experienced candidate by any measure? Pointless to debate you.  If I remember correctly you'd vote for Senator McCain if Senator Clinton is the nominee.  So what's the point?

     That is a weird way to approach this election, and it approaches irrationality.


    you got it wrong sweetie (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:04:45 AM EST
    I said I would vote for McCain IF Hillary isn't the nominee.

    If commenting to me is pointless, then move on.  get it? moveon? as in dot org? as in we love obama?

    OOOOO if you were posting at MY blog.......grrrr!


    Sorry, function of rapid typing... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:20:27 AM EST
    ...but replace is with isn't and my point remains the same, as does the hollow nature of your comment.

    Yes, Obama supporter talking pt 327 (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:04:51 AM EST
    If you don't vote the way I do, you are irrational.  yawn.

    I'm not voting Obama on a fck'd up package deal (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:03:17 AM EST
    I picked a package deal of pathologies that have put me solidly behind HRC because evidently I'm just THAT crazy, yet innately frugal too, which attracts me to booklets of savings.

    So after Obama instructed his multitudes to astro-troll HRC supporters with 'nuff niceness, I've been informed by the bearers of Psycho-Caca that my vote for HRC (and "failure" to support Obama) proves that I am:

    1. a victim
    2. a racist
    3. ignorant (of current facts and culturally / historically)
    4. sexist
    5. old
    6. white
    7. really really racist
    8. delusional
    9. mean

    ... and that's just today. You should see what I was yesterday! Phew.

    Don't you all (none / 0) (#134)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:49:17 AM EST
    agree that this poster is skirting our site rules, egging on replies to comments that include statements that are provocative--and more importantly not factual.  like his last paragraph.  And the next to last one:  the members of the Obamanation sure do like the word 'bitter' (and sad),  Sure does good work for Obama's campaign.

    txpolitico (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:20:41 AM EST
    hey, wanted to say this in the last thread.
    i'm from texas. houston as kid and schulenburg as teenager.
    my brother is a VC in houston. these are houston country club folks.
    he says 6 out of the 10 partners and associates want to vote for
    hillary. what the fr*ck are we doing?!!!!

    I live in Austin (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by RalphB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:28:27 AM EST
    and have talked to quite a few life-long republicans here who have told me they would happily vote for Hillary.  Obama will never see one of those votes, ever!  We appear to be throwing an election.

    Remote Chance (2.00 / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:03:30 AM EST
    Texas has voted GOP for almost thirty years, and it does not look like that state is going to change anytime soon. But who knows? One thing seems for sure is that Hillary and Obama are equal against McCain.

    According to recent Rasmussen polls: Clinton McCain is 43-49, Obama McCain 43-48.


    Fort Worth here (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:32:53 AM EST
    and I have converted a few R's to the Hillside.

    They are dumbfounded at the Obama situation.  They were also embarrassed for the Dems at our completely chaotic caucus situation.


    What do your R friends see as happening? (5.00 / 5) (#87)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:32:11 AM EST
    I  used to completely demonize republicans. My girlfriend told me i was being fanatical and that any absolutism was dangerous. I'm paraphrasing but that's the gist. (example: we got into a fight about a CSPAN focus group of republicans...I said they were all racist and greedy...sound familiar?)
    Rambling, sorry. This primary has totally turned my little perspective of things inside out. when i began to see how my own liberal friends said things like, "I just don't like her" with no substantive reasons why and the gradual bonfire building on Dkos for the witchburning...and what it has become now even among the so called elders of our own party. My god - the liberals are just as nasty and misogynistic as anything i thought the republicans were capable of. And I also understand how they feel clubbed incessantly by the racist label. So that is why i ask, what do your R friends see happening? My R friends have gently asked if I understand why we are called hypocrites and why they hate the media and I have to answer that yes, i do get it.

    Your girlfriend is right... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:46:23 AM EST
    fanaticism and absolutism are dangerous.

    same here (none / 0) (#106)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:38:32 AM EST
    When I was venting to a republican friend about how horrible the media has been to Hillary, and how mean and nasty DailyKos has been, her response was "Welcome to my world".  Hhhhhmmmm............definitely made me stop and think.  Republicans have to put up with Olberman and Mathews and Kos everyday.  

    Hello, I really AM a Liberal and everyone hates me (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Ellie on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:53:08 AM EST
    Dems blame me for all their woes. Repugs, their churchy friends and corporate overlords drag my @ss out whenever they need a straw (wo)man to beat on.

    Every degradation of all that is good and pure in the world has resulted from The Liberals.

    Fauxgressive never=were "Liberals" -- Repuglies making a buck off the Bush era like the Cheetoh Blog, HuffyPo, TPM star The Unnamed Emailer and so on -- are so in the tank for Obama they're tossing liberal causes and groups on the bus faster than a white bus employee can say, "Rosa Parks!"

    How can you tell who the real Liberal were in the Bush era? People who never let others shame them into stripping that label off themselves and change it to [progressive, centrist Dem, moderate Dem, grassroots Dem blah blah blah] just because "Liberal" became a Repug term for "anyone we hate this week.

    I've always been a Proud Liberal.


    Sorry, Liberals have put up with Limbaugh and FOX (none / 0) (#142)
    by LibOne on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:31:08 AM EST
    "News" far longer than the Obama lovefest over at MSNBC.

    Not rural (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:54:08 AM EST
    I am a suburbanite, I am not religious, but I am concerned about both Ayres and Wright.  They both make me uneasy about Obama.  His angry wife isn't helping me feel better either.  What's she got to be so darn angry about?   It looks like America did pretty well by her, Ivy league schools, married to a Senator, great job, beautiful children.  What the heck is her problem?  We have enough angry people in Washington without putting one in the White House.

    Why couldn't Obama have just let Hillary run and wait his turn?  He's been in Washington about a minute and half.  No one knows anything about him and he has sooooo little experience.  I worry about who he would appoint to important jobs like State department and Defense and others.  


    Why didn't Senator Clinton... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:14:48 AM EST
    ...wait her turn? Why didn't we nominate someone with as much experience as Governor Clinton had in 1992?

     To me saying "wait your turn" to a candidate who has been in an elected political office since 1996 is pretty condescending.  

     Also, if that is your concern, you have no need to go on the attack on his spouse.  

     I wonder: in 1992 did you think it was fair when Senator Clinton was attacked? If no, then I don't see why you feel it is OK in this primary.


    Yes, campaign surrogates (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:41:01 AM EST
    are fair game.  IF they are out giving speeches, we can comment on the speeches.  If she doesn't want us talking about her, she needs to get off center stage.  

    Again, I ask... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:50:26 AM EST
    ...why shouldn't she wait her turn?

     Awfully evasive.


    Who says she hasn't? (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:59:28 AM EST
    She seems to have a pretty impressive lis of accomplishments. At least, she didn't have to put her name on the accomplishments of others to have a list anyways.

    She has done her time (none / 0) (#150)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:44:33 AM EST
    16 years in Washington!  I'd say she has pretty good idea of how things work in the White House and on Capitol Hill.

    One thing we have to learn (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:45:19 AM EST
    is not to frame it like this :

    Time and time again we have seen the Republican party frame issues to a degree where large swaths of people vote against their own interests.

    Their values are their interests.  Just because we think  they have the wrong information about our favorite candidates' values does not mean they are voting against their interests.

    I know you don't mean it that way, but it is partially that kind of patronizing attitude that they vote against.


    Many Democrats (none / 0) (#132)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:41:04 AM EST
    have spoken about conservatives for generations just as they are now talking about Hillary supporters. I noticed it a long time ago and tried to get friends and associates to tone down the nastiness. You don't get people to your side of an issue by insulting them, attacking their beliefs and continually implying that they are stupid if they don't agree with you.

    We are just seeing for the first time the very tactics used against some good people that just happen to be Republicans/Conservatives that don't agree with us. Sure I think they're wrong. But I sure as he11 ain't dumb enough to call them "trailer trash" or other common lefty insults used against conservatives.

    Ever wonder how many of us would be all that upset about the "tone" and the "nastiness" if it was still being directed against members of the other party and not us? Inappropriate behavior is always inappropriate behavior no matter which direction it's aimed. Sorry if that sounds self-righteous but I'd rather try to bring people over to my way of thinking through civil discourse than think I can do it by condescension or insults.

    Unless of course they honk me off and then the gloves come off, the temper flares, and I tend to respond in kind.


    deep economic anxiety acute among rural (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by moll on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:08:25 AM EST
    the deep economic anxiety that is particularly acute among rural families on one hand,

    I wish the Dems would take this more seriously.

    Hillary has (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:16:57 AM EST
    hence her stunning victory in WV and the one she will score with tomorrow.

    Also, all those voters in PA and OH.  SHE'S paying attention.


    Makes one wonder (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:18:01 AM EST
    if they are so trusting, they really think the Republicans won't do a major campaign against the Democratic candidate of change and hope,

    or if the party leaders are "in on it".

    It just seems Obama is so obviously a losing choice...not just for the GE, but if he's going to be the kind of president he was Senator, the democrats will have 4 years in office followed by another 16-20 out.


    One of the epiphanies I had in this campaign is (5.00 / 10) (#13)
    by Serene1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:13:34 AM EST
    that Dems are as bad as Repub's when it comes to rural voters. I always thought Republicans exploited the rural voters preference for "values" cynically. But Dem's are so disdainful of the rural voters that it is shocking.

    I also understand slightly why the Dem elites are so anti Clintons. I think at the back of their mind most of these elites feel that the Clintons are not one of "us".

    Bingo on the one of "us" bit (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by RalphB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:17:16 AM EST
    That's been true since Bill was elected and didn't kiss up to the DC elite.  Note Broder's remarks during Bill's first term that "the Clintons came in here and trashed the place, and it wasn't their place".  What a load of crap.

    Henceforth... (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by AX10 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:48:06 AM EST
    The "Boston Brahmin" Ted Kennedy's belligerent endorsement of Mr. Obama.  The indsiders want to keep the club exclusive.  Obama is a nothing.  He will be beholden to the party elites.  The Clinton's don't own these thugs anything.

    Boston Brahmin?? (none / 0) (#140)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:20:22 AM EST
    Don't use terms you don't understand.  The Kennedys are as far as it's possible to get from Boston Brahmins.  Please.

    wow. me too. (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:33:33 AM EST
    see my reply to tex above. it's been a milestone on my walkabout. i get how the republicans see us now. it ain't pretty.

    Rural voters (none / 0) (#99)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:05:13 AM EST
    Won't vote for democrats because they feel like democrats look down their nose at them and make fun of them.  That's what]h my cousins in OK, AR, VA, TN and KS say.  They've got no use for democrats because democrats got no use for them.   More amazing, they ALL voted for democrats up until the 1990's!  Now we can't even talk about it.  Kerry was the last straw for some of them.  They couldn't stand him and liked his wife even less.  Maybe they shouldn't care about the wife of the candidate, but they do.  And guess what?  They can't stand Michelle Obama even though some of them think Obama 'might be ok' but they would never vote for him over McCain.  These folks just cannot identify with the over educated elite who have never had a real job.  We would do so much better if we could run more real people like Bill Clinton.  At least he could talk to normal people like a normal person.  Obama can't.  Clinton didn't sound like he came from Yale, Obama just screams "I'm from Harvard".  Most Americans can't identify with that kind of person.  We've got to ditch these elitists and nominate real people, imo.

    Some of those rural (none / 0) (#130)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:34:04 AM EST
    states overlap with the southern states that Johnson 'gave up' when he 'signed on' to equal rights with MLK.  I am proud of Johnson*, who also was stuck with a rural persona.  And Texas, btw, straddles south and west constituencies, just below AK.  And if you ever visit the Alamo, check out the number of TN men who died there.  Davey Crocket among them.

    *I know LBJ is tarred with Vietnam, but everyone in this country owes him a debt for what he did for America.  And when he 'got it' that Vietnam was a quagmire built on a dumb foundation, he opted to give up the presidency.

    Do Democrats tend to bury him with shallow honors because of Vietnam--or because he lost them the Solid South on his route to justice for all.


    Being that I am from TN and TExas (none / 0) (#151)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:51:48 AM EST
    I know very well how much those folks loved Johnson but they loved Davey Crockett even more.  

    Did  you know that Davey was a 1 term Congressman who lost his re-election bid? He said to his constitutents:  "You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas." And of course he did just that.

    LBJ changed the face of poverty more than any man in our country's history.  


    I think it is a kind (none / 0) (#124)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:21:59 AM EST
    of resentment.  "They won, but they are not even as good as we are."  Bill could have been one of them, of course--with his scholastic creds--but he didn't take elocution (losing accent) lessons.

    economic v. values (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:22:28 AM EST
    I think that McCain can fix his perception problem with rural economics a lot more easily than Obama can fix the perception that he doesn't share these voters' values.

    Obama has been trying to shift that perception of value sharing since 2006 with that speech about accommodating religiousness.

    It's 2008...almost 2 years after he began this "Operation Unity" form of triangulation.

    It seems to me that it shoulda started working by now...but he's encountered quite a few personal speed bumps that have undermined those attempts.

    People can't identify (none / 0) (#100)
    by SueBonnetSue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:14:14 AM EST
    With Obama.  He uses words that are too big, he's always in a tie, seems rather elite, seems very rich, he doesn't seem all that Patriotic, he's got a weirdo preacher (and Obama gave him buckets of money), his wife has what appears to be a great life, with lots of money and beautiful children, yet she's always angry.  Most Americans aren't like the Obama's.  Most Americans can't identify with them at all.  I have no clue why Black people vote for him since he's nothing like 98% of blacks work hard, don't have buckets of money,  aren't married to angry women, and never went to Harvard.  

    Obama just doesn't seem like 'one of us'.  Bill and Hillary can pull that off, and so can McCain (although his wife is a bit standoffish, but not angry.)  Obama better get down off that pedestal, and drag his wife off too, if he expects to win anything.  


    That crazy Barack Obama (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:00:40 AM EST
    whatta tool

    Hey y'all...stop...breathe... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:07:31 AM EST
    go for a walk around the block...go pet the cat/dog/hamster/gold fish...grab a glass of water...

    Some of y'all are kinda weirding me out with the ever spinning argument counter argument counter counter argument...all in this really weird pattern.

    Please...take a break from the fight...

    Most people are value and economic voters (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Prabhata on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:08:26 AM EST
    As an exiting Democrat, I think BO and McCain are uninspiring on economic and value issues.  I'll vote my protest vote against the Democratic Party.  That's the ticket.

    Hillary does have some rural support (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by nycstray on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:38:13 AM EST
    that has been going out and campaigning for her.

    The travelers are part of a larger "Travelers for Hillary" group made up of more than 100 farmers, wine growers, rural and economic developers from upstate New York. The group has already toured Iowa, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina and Pennsylvania on behalf of Clinton.

    I haven't spoken to all 'my' farmers* yet, but it does make me happy to see support for her on this issue. You can find out more about her efforts here.

    *about 80-90% of my food is from local farmers depending on time of year. Beef and pork from one ranch, produce from another farm, poultry and fruits from 2 other local sources. Dairy, yup local. I need to find the grain grower at the farmers market so I can mill my flour from local grains . . . that's the cool thing about NYS. We've got it all and it's becoming more and more available to us locals :)

    On a side note, if anyone is looking for local food sources, check here for starters :)

    And (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:48:33 AM EST
    we'll only have the DNC to blame. The election was theirs to lose, and I think they're on their way to losing it.

    I guess this is interesting (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:00:31 AM EST
    but the coverage just isn't that useful. It mingles regions and doesn't cover complete states. And as we all know, winning in November is about winning states.

    If Obama takes this info to heart, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by eleanora on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:07:02 AM EST
    it might help him win some states with large rural populations, though. I know my state of Montana is just dying to send a message to DC that we are horrified by the Patriot Act and the trashing of the Constitution, but we'll probably go McCain in Nov because of some of these other issues.

    Russ Feingold (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:08:30 AM EST
    would have been the candidate to sell to your state. Alas. . .

    He's the only Dem (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by eleanora on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:15:12 AM EST
    who would been serious competition for my primary vote for Hillary, even though I liked all the other candidates in Jan pretty well. But his commitment to our constitution and laws and truly principled stand on the Patriot Act are just a shining example of what Democrats should be. I like Hillary better on a host of other issues, but I would absolutely cheer to have a chance at having President Feingold.

    Senator Feingold... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:28:41 AM EST
    ...would have had my vote in a heartbeat.  

    And mine (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by RalphB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:34:39 AM EST
    we finally agree on something.

    at last (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:34:52 AM EST
    we agree.  Doesn't hurt that Sen Feingold is purty!

    feingold has character! (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by hellothere on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:02:56 AM EST
    i always enjoyed watching hime in committee meetings when he was passionate about something. he also cares about the constitution. bless him!

    Feingold (none / 0) (#112)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:04:50 AM EST
    Also plays the "Dems are too weak to stand up to republicans" card at times.  So it's no surprise the netroots loves Russ.

    I do not.



    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:49:32 AM EST
    would not have had to think twice.

    to win states, you have to win rural support (none / 0) (#135)
    by kempis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:57:21 AM EST
    And "rural" no longer means spread-out farms. I suspect that included in "rural" is the "exurb" demographic that Republicans keyed in on and Democrats have neglected too long.