That's what we should be talking about. The media reaches millions of people and they give a kind of permission to everyone, that it's okay to be dissmissive and disrespectful of a serious contender for the race...

I did not recognize any of the voices.  One of them, not Mark, sounded like a weasel.

[T]o the loathed minority of people like me, who don't particularly love or hate either primary candidate, [. . .] MSNBC [is] as unreliable as it was in the run up to the war. [. . .]  [S]ince their friendly Democratic bias seems to stem from an idiosyncratic, personal basis, they are not behaving with any more journalistic integrity than they ever were, it's just that their corruption is benefiting our side this time.

I mean, I'm assuming she is exagerating, but when she writes that she is in a minority because she neither loves or hates either candidate, isn't that basically another way of implying that all of Obama's supporters hate Hillary, and vice versa?  Now, I can well imagine that Digby, like BTD and others, gets a whole lot of hatemail, so I can totally see why she would make this kind of comment.  

You guys don't get it.  They're winding you up to the point that you don't even have good reasons for supporting him or not supporting her.  

It's all emotion.  And the rest of us want something more than that after Bush.

. . .is a longtime friend and associate of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, having known him since the presidential hopeful was a community activist. In September, the Obama campaign brought Pfleger to Iowa to host one of several interfaith forums for the campaign.

Their relationship spans decades. Pfleger has given money to Obama's campaigns and Obama as a state legislator directed at least $225,000 towards social programs at St. Sabina's, according to the Chicago Tribune.

Tapper is the guy that gave Obama cover after Obama was called out for exaggerating about weapons shortages in Afghanistan.

How many chances do we give Obama before we just admit that yes, he is who he seems to be?

This duck is quacking and walking, my friends. He associates with people that reflect his beliefs.

To not accept and understand this, is to acquiesce to the takeover of the Democratic Party by a candidate (and organization) that does not reflect Democratic values.

Or this one...

As for Catholic priests, look in the g*damn mirror.  Again, what a joke.  Please, tell me how awful white people are, when you stop colonizing non-whites and stop abusing the weakest of the world.  The ones you made weak by applying strict codes of goodness that basically equalled white man = great!  As for apologies, I recommend Father Pfleger tell them to Hillary Clinton in a tiny room, alone.

Does it take a certain Audacity to Hope that Obama will somehow repair all the damage he's done before November? Yes, yes it does. That's not what I imagined he was talking about in his book, though.

The "I can reach across the aisle" candidate is, however, flatly turning down McCain's offer to go along and teach him something about the area and the progress that's been made.

Head Scratching

I know I'm not alone in the League of Mostly Nonaligned Bloggers in being rather puzzled by Clinton supporters. I don't mean all people who supported her, but the ones who are still pushing for her candidacy. As far as I can tell they want her to be the candidate and really just don't care how that happens as long as it does. At this point only a drastic rule change combined with a massive shift in support from superdelegates even gets her close to the nomination. In another words, cheating combined with the smoke-filled room residents overturning the outcome of the primary process.
I never really cared all that much about who won this thing, but at some point Obama became the only one with a legitimate path to the nomination. I just stare and scratch my head and wonder what it's all about. I appreciate that there are people who don't like Obama for whatever reasons and prefer Clinton for whatever reasons. But he, you know, won?

In a quick phone interview with me just now, prominent Hillary supporter James Carville diverged from the Hillary campaign message on several key "electability" questions, saying that he thinks Obama "will" win the general election.

Carville, surprisingly, also seemed to downplay Obama's problems with non-college whites -- a cornerstone of Hillary's electability claim -- saying that if Obama gets the same level of non-college whites that John Kerry did in 2004, he "will" win the general.

Asked if he thought Obama would beat McCain, Carville said: "I think he will. I think Democrats will win in November...There's a crushing desire for change in this country. No one has seen a party or brand held in such low esteem" than the Republicans.

Carville's repeated suggestions that Obama "will" beat McCain contrast with the core Hillary message -- repeated frequently by Hillary advisers -- that Obama merely "can" win a general election, while Hillary "will" win it. Carville's comments also suggest that with the fall contest looming, it's becoming tougher for prominent Hillary backers to sustain any argument that doesn't show full confidence in Obama's chances against McCain.

Carville stressed that he thought Hillary was a better bet against McCain, but reiterated his confidence in Obama. "Hillary would be a stronger candidate, but I think he'll win this thing," Carville said.

Asked about claims that Obama has a problem with non-college whites that could hamper his electability, Carville said that thanks to changes in the electorate, to win Obama merely has to match the performance of Kerry, who underperformed with that group.

"I would argue that if he gets what Kerry got he will still win the election, because the dynamics have changed," Carville said, pointing to likely larger turnout among young voters, African Americans and other demographic changes. Carville joked, however, that he'd be loath to see Obama fall below Kerry's performance.

Cept shge has almost no chance.

The rest of us laughed.

Guess I am not sane, then. Did I get that one right?

If I'm not sane, I don't care and I reject treatment, thanks.

Lets put it this way... in 2004 in Ohio, those with no college at all constituted 34% of the electorate, and Kerry carried them by 55-45%.  

Those with some college were 29% of the electorate, and Kerry lost them 48% - 52%.

The 2004 electorate was 86% White in Ohio -- there is no education/race breakdown in the available exit polls.

In the Ohio Primary, Kerry lost the 'no college at all' vote by 65% to 33% and they made up 30% of the electorate.  The "some college" group was 32% of the electorate, and Obama lost them 52%-47%.  Whites made up 77% of that electorate.

Kerry could not have done that badly among the white "non-college" cohort in Ohio, regardless of what the definition was.  

So I'm not entirely certain that Carville wasn't delivering a poisoned pill dipped in sugar here, because if you look at the number from west virginia -- which was 96% white, Obama got only 20% of the "no college at all" vote, and 24% of the "some college" cohort.

I think virtually all of us are happy to obey the rules and intend to, but there's a built-in Catch-22 here that it's very easy to stumble into unknowingly.

ie.  I was just reading down the thread, decided to respond to #171...my answer popped up # 227 or some obnoxious over-200 number...as will THIS  ONE!

Given the treatment Hillary's supporters have taken on blogs, cherry picking email subjects from annonymous senders is a bit too rich.

I don't read his site anymore.  Did he get outraged over the Friday's non-scandal?

It so happens that many many commenters here who are Clinton supporters say "he'll lose." but I do not believe for a second that represents a substantial number of Clinton supporters GENERALLY.

For example, my e-mails generally accuse me of being a paid operative of the Clinton campaign due to the fact that I represent Wal-Mart as an attorney.

I do not believe that is the general basis for why people hate me. Personally, I like to think it is due to the fact that I am pretty honest and effective in arguing my points that do not always favor Barack Obama.