home

Yep, "Turnout Is Heavy"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:42:09 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

It is the time of day for the standard "turnout is heavy" stories. Political Wire has two:

Turnout Very Heavy

Charlotte Observer: "Long lines were reported this morning at some polling places across North Carolina in the state's first significant presidential primary election in two decades... Longtime N.C. political observers say that 1.5 million voters may participate in the historic Democratic primary."

Indianapolis Star: "More voters have turned out in the first half hour than usually turn out in a half day... Republicans appeared to be crossing over in droves today in Marion County and suburban counties."

The Republicans in Marion County part is interesting. The "It's Rush Limbaugh's fault" contingent is no doubt revving up.

Chuck Todd, once a respected voice, now on MSNBC declaring "campaigning over" today. I guess West Virginia, Kentucky, Oregon, etc., do not matter. Chuck, what happened to you man?

By Big Tent Democrat

< TalkLeft Appreciation Days | DNC To FL And MI: Drop Dead >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Yep, "Turnout Is Heavy" | 267 comments (267 topical)
    It must be bad news (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:46:20 AM EST
    people voting, people participating.  Obviously the coronation and Hillary quitting would have been the right path.  

    Sickening... (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Exeter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:12:17 AM EST
    ...all those people voting and in MAY no less! I just feel so bad that MSNBC has to come in tonight to cover it, although I heard they were all going to be wearing matching "Bros before Hos" t-shirts, so that might lift their spirits; )

    Parent
    There is a case to made (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:28:53 AM EST
    that this prolonged process is a problem for Democrats.

    If you read this site and kos for example, you will see people claiming that they won't vote in NOV if their candidate doens't win.

    I am not saying Hillary should have dropped out, but this process may be democratic in that lots of people are voting, but the repercussions may sink us.

    I hope we can all come back together to defeat McCain, who again, today or yesterday, promised more Scalias.

    Parent

    the Clinton supporters... (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:38:58 AM EST
    ...who say they won't vote for Obama aren't saying that because of the primary process, they are saying that because they are becoming more familiar with Obama, and don't like what they see.  But those flaws would have been exposed anyway by the GOP.

    The Obots who won't vote for Clinton haven't learned anything new about her, they are all just exhibiting cult-like behavior when they say they won't vote for her.

    Parent

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:43:42 AM EST
    So Clinton supporters who don't like Obama don't like him because he is bad and has flaws.

    but Obama supporters who don't like Clinton MUST be robots or in a cult because they haven't learned anything new and they couldn't possible dislike her before this primary or due to anything else they've learned in the process...

    right...

    Parent

    That would be correct. (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    Very astute of you.

    Parent
    vicsan....I like your style and your predictions (none / 0) (#118)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    on the other thread...go Hillary

    Parent
    Back atcha! (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by vicsan on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:23:52 PM EST
    I am so fed up with BO supporters. I've never witnessed such obnoxiousness in all my years of being involved in politics. I'm beyond being gracious to them. I tried.

    Keep the faith! Hillary WILL WIN  both NC and Indiana! I feel it in my bones! Go, Hillary!

    BTW...love your screen name.:)

    Parent

    Thanks...Me Too....And Together We Will (none / 0) (#254)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:33:44 PM EST
    celebrate tonight with all our other TL buddies.

    Parent
    One reason (5.00 / 6) (#110)
    by BigB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:53:40 AM EST
    I will give you some reasons whi I support Hillary and why I will not vote for Obama (when this season started out I found both of then equally attractive):

    a) Obama's lack of experience and accomplishments, and his ambition.

    b) His campaign and his supporters playing the race card against Hillary and her supporters.

    c) Obama using right wing talking points against Hillary starting early in the process.

    d) The nastiness of Obama's online supporters. I started noticing this in November even before the primary started heating up.

    e) The trashing of a decent progressive Democrat by the so-called progressive blogs and other left-of-center columnists.

    f) The nastiness of CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and other outlets towards Hillary.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 5) (#145)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:06:54 PM EST
    In addition I get PEEVED when people tell me it's just PASSION that will subside once the HEAT of the primary is over.

    I don't base my political decisions on PASSION and don't think anyone should. The fact that Obama bases his candidacy on catering to PASSION is one of my problems with him -- Brother Love's Traveling Salvation Show -- ICK.

    I don't like any of the candidates all that much.  However, I think Hillary is the best of the three.  She is the one of two D candidates who you can count on to rarely say anything head-slappingly stupid (Bosnia being an exception).  Obama, on the other hand, has to hide from media to salve his gaffe-prone-ness.

    Two things will happen if we nominate a candidate who is prone to head-slappingly stupid gaffes:

    1.  He will lose.
    2.  He will win and kill the Democratic brand for decades.

    Republicans can get away with nominating politically stupid candidates because they TRULY have the media at their beck and call.  Dems can't.

    And yeah, add all your reasoning to mine.   I have a feeling the "don't blame me, I didn't vote for him" stickers will be all the rage this season.

    Parent

    number 3 (5.00 / 7) (#156)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:13:12 PM EST
    you forgot one...

    3) he will lose and kill the Democratic brand for decades.

    its McGovern all over again, only worse -- Obama is truly out of touch with the average American voter, and the GOP is going to exploit that to the hilt against the Democratic Party if Obama is the nominee

    Parent

    yup (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:56:31 AM EST
    the level of antipathy toward Clinton from Obama supporters is simply disproportionate.   Clinton supporters don't feel that way about Obama -- they just see him as not ready, and not electable.

     

    Parent

    Clinton Derangement syndrome (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by noholib on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:06:26 PM EST
    There's a term for this irrational hatred: Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
    Jeff Weintraub has posted about this several times on his blog: jeffweintraub.blogspot.com

    Parent
    Too much democracy killing democracy (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by angie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:02:14 PM EST
    credit to John Stewart.

    Parent
    Such A Typical Obama Supporter Response (3.00 / 2) (#105)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:51:37 AM EST
    If you go on the blogs, you will see that obama supporters are the ones who when they aren't calling HIllary names, are repeating over and over again that they won't vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.  And yes, some Hillary supporters have said the same if obama is the nominee.  We will just have to wait and see what transpires, but I have more confidence that Hillary's supporters will do the right thing.

    Parent
    Do the (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:20:54 PM EST
    right thing? The right thing by who's definition? I will make my choice whether or not to support Obama, if God forbid he is the candidate, based on things that are important to me.

     Just mindlessly voting the party line as I have done for 40 years is no longer what "I" consider doing the right thing.  

    Parent

    voting (none / 0) (#178)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:24:01 PM EST
    Just mindlessly voting the party line as I have done for 40 years is no longer what "I" consider doing the right thing.  

    for McCain would be very hard to justify if you support Clinton.  not voting for Obama is a independent decision (although not voting is an action).

    Parent

    A. I don't (5.00 / 4) (#215)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:51:32 PM EST
    have to justify my vote to you or anyone else.
    And B. I did not say I would vote for John McCain. That would never happen.

    I will vote because I always vote because I was taught and believe that voting is a civic duty. In order to do that duty it is also my duty to make as informed a decision as possible.

    If I can no longer vote for a Democratic candidate I will write in someone, vote down ticket for Democrats I feel are worthy of my support and go home satisfied that I have done the best I can for what I believe and what I can live with.

    Parent

    Right on (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:01:30 PM EST
    I have said I will NOT relinquish my vote.  I will simply write in the names of candidates who I feel have earned my vote.

    Good for you Marge!

    Parent

    What is your point (1.00 / 1) (#120)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:57:26 AM EST
    I didn't say anything about the Obama blogs.  I was pointing out the hypocricy in the statement.  P.S. scroll down and you'll see I called an Obama supporter out for something similar.  I am not commenting on what people say on blogs, I was responding to the comment as written.  But sure, I must be such a "typical Obama supporter" for decrying hypocricy.

    Parent
    "Typical" (none / 0) (#256)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:39:55 PM EST
    is Obama's word, not Hillary's.  Hope you're not bitter about it.

    Parent
    I wasn't referring to Hillary (none / 0) (#259)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:46:27 PM EST
    I was referring to the post I replied to.  And yea, I'm bitter.

    Parent
    I'm not bitter...at all (none / 0) (#268)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:56:47 PM EST
    Of course I am disappointed at times that a lot of my fellow citizens don't see the policy greatness I see in HRC.  Her plans for health care, energy and jobs are those that I feel would benefit our country the most.

    Here is your opportunity to discuss how BHO will get the country back on track.  Since I have done my homework on the candidates, I would love your perspective on BHO's policies.  You have stated that you want to be able to debate and make headway for Mr. Obama.

    Here's your chance.  Tell me how he would get us out of Iraq.

    Go.

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#226)
    by kayla on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:08:28 PM EST
    You sound a lot like Barack Obama.

    But really, I think this long primary season is good, especially for Obama.  He's getting his excuses together for the GOP when they start attacking him about all those weird friends he has.  Also, the first time Wright came up it was only stopped by Bosnia and the second time it was stopped by the gas tax holiday issue.  Hillary's mistakes are really helping him.  It isn't the other way around, because, y'know Obama never makes mistakes.

    Parent

    Prime example. (none / 0) (#166)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:18:25 PM EST
    Here is a prime example of an angry Hillary poster who sounds like he/she wont' vote if Obama is the nominee.

    Can you deny the animosity in your words? I am an Obot? I know Hillary, I live in NYC. There is nothing new to know except her new positions on issues.:)

    just saying it looks like a bad irreparable split at this point

    Parent

    Don't assume (5.00 / 4) (#181)
    by dissenter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    That if this process had not played out I would have voted for Obama. I would not. I think he is totally unqualified. Wright, Ayers, Rezco, etc sealed the deal. This guy is amateur hour and he hangs out with pretty bad characters. I have no idea who BO is or what he really thinks or stands for. When you have a blank slate you have to look at other things - like who has influenced him. What do I see -  slumlords, crazy religious people and domestic terrorists. Add that to the freelancing NAFTA dude and the foreign policy expert who doesn't have enough sense not to call a sitting senator and a former first lady a "monster" on international television. This guy doesn't have creds or commonsense.

    But that is just me. Of course, I am in a swing state.

    Parent

    my animosity... (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:29:53 PM EST
    is toward the media and the Obots.  If you display the kind of irrational loathing of Clinton that Obots do, then you're an Obot.

    Obama has run a nasty, dishonest campaign, but I don't hate him for it.  That's politics.  Its the people who act as his enablers that are the real problem.


    Parent

    Ditto (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:32:30 PM EST
    Everything you said could be replaced with Hillbot instead of Obot.

    Parent
    so, your response is (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by dws3665 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:51:42 PM EST
    basically to say (twice):

    I am rubber, you are glue.

    Very astute.

    Parent

    that is the level (5.00 / 1) (#252)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:24:21 PM EST
    of conversation here if you are not a Hillary cheerleader.

    I am called an Obot, a cultist, lilybRat, lilyBark, comments consist of Woof Woof.....

    Parent

    Most of em have retreated (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:38:05 PM EST
    to a few sites on the net and have sworn off confrontation with obama fans. why must you invade the place looking for a fight?

    Parent
    Ditto (1.00 / 0) (#199)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:32:06 PM EST
    Everything you said could be said could be replaced with Hillbot instead of Obot.

    Parent
    Who cares what SelfHelp the O paTroll is slinging (4.20 / 5) (#230)
    by Ellie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:23:29 PM EST
    Really, where on Goddess's green earth did you get the notion that your idiotic psycho-caca will sway support to a candidate who doesn't deserve it, hasn't earned it, and is too bored and self-centered to make a case for himself?

    No one voter has to justify his or her vote to anyone. If you don't know that you don't know diddley.

    Take up your personal issues with Hillary or supporters with your own counsel. (She won me over AFTER Obama lost me on his own insults and questionable actions.)

    I think a good starting point for your cure is believing that astro-trolling this pap holds any sway.

    I mean, OOOOOOOOOOH, an Obama troll stomps around demanding answers. Please. If you wanted to be useful, explain again how someone winning "the contest" of Guam or winning a red-forever state with Dems for a Day is equal to straight up winning "the contest" of PA.

    Parent

    proved my point (none / 0) (#264)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:19:38 PM EST
    the anger flies off the page!!

    Parent
    If Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:39:33 AM EST
    is forced out of this race before the convention, I will not only vote for John McCain, I'll campaign for him.

    Parent
    Now if that's not a cultist view... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by mbuchel on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:25:57 PM EST
    I don't know what is.

    So I guess health care, Iraq, the economy, the environment, education, torture, limitless presidential power, and any other issue aren't as important as making sure that we give our Democratic circular firing squad every chance to succeed even though it is clear who will end up with more delegates (even including the primaries that Hillary was against before she was for in FL and MI) when all is said and done.

    Get over it.  She isn't as strong a candidate for President as we all thought AND ran a lousy campaign.  She's a decent Senator, would be an excellent Supreme Court Justice, but in this race for President, she got beat fair and square.

    And one more thing.  Primary races end all the time before every last state has voted.  Once someone has "effectively" clinched, they end.  We have reached that time.  It's over.

    So go have fun with that Supreme Court for the next 30 years while you go campaign for McSame.

    Parent

    Obama doesn't stand a chance (5.00 / 2) (#214)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:51:19 PM EST
    against McCain, either way.
    Given his ludicrous posturing, with false claims of expertise, there is no way he can pass the CIC threshold now. No one will trust him to lead the armed forces or conduct foreign policy---nor should they.

    Parent
    Electability Arguments (none / 0) (#244)
    by sar75 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:01:10 PM EST
    ...on both sides are utterly unconvincing.  Both Obama and Clinton have strengths and weaknesses, but there is not one set of polls or arguments that prove decisively that one is more electable than the other.

    But to say that one or the other has no chance against McCain not only belies the available polling, but it fails to take into account the enormous - really truly massive - structural advantages that any Democrat will have in November.  From the economy to gas prices to unemployment to the war to the environment, Dems win on every issue.  The Democratic candidate only needs to run a competent campaign and they should win handily.

    Once we have a candidate, he or she will receive a nice healthy bounce, leaving McCain in the dust for the remainder of the campaign. The fact that this old crank can't break 45-47% in this environment (and this is the golden period of his campaign - when he's all alone and not the object of attack) and is consistently bested by both Democrats in head to head polling speaks volumes about the weakness of his candidacy.

    So, I support Obama, but will gladly campaign and vote for Hillary (because I care about actual issues and would never ever abet a McCain victory - shame on anyone who calls themselves a Democrat and progressive who would). But I'm confident that both candidates have excellent chances in November and am, frankly, sick of the idiotic "he doesn't have a chance" or "she doesn't have a chance" against McCain arguments.

    Remember, folks, we're all on the same team in November, or we should be.  And again, anyone who abets a McCain victory doesn't deserve to be called a Democrat or a progressive.  

    Parent

    We have just as much to worry (5.00 / 2) (#229)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:16:55 PM EST
    about the SC with Barack "I-heart-John-Roberts" Obama.

    Parent
    What I said was (4.00 / 0) (#231)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:26:22 PM EST
    that I would campaign for John McCain if Hillary is FORCED out of the race before the convention.  No one asked Ted Kennedy to withdraw.  If Barack Obama is the nominee of the Democratic Party, I will not vote for him, but how I "not vote for him" depends on how this plays out.  I could stay home.  I could write "Hillary" in.  I could quietly vote for McCain.  Or I can plaster my lawn with McCain posters and call all of my neighbors.   Sort of my version of "taking it to the streets of Denver". Obama has not "clinched" the nomination. When he has more than half of the delegates, including Florida and Michigan", then he is the nominee. Until then, the race continues.  I happen to disagree with Obama on many of the issues you mention and would not want his policies enacted in the name of the Democratic Party.  I also trust that McCain's nominations to the Supreme Court will undergo more scrutiny than Obama's would so I have no more trust in Obama's choices than McCain's.  Obama liked Roberts until he was told he shouldn't. Obama says he doesn't need my vote so why do you care how I cast it?

    Parent
    Well......I love to claim that, too, when I'm mad (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:41:10 AM EST
    I'm now officially Independent.  That's because I'm mad at Dean and Pelosi.  :)

    Really that mad!

    However, I agree with most real political analysts.  Those who are mad are a small percentage.  Those who may switch might have switched anyway.  Based on their own interests, not on much else.  And the rest of us are making "threats we don't intend to carry out."  :)

    Parent

    I have never (4.00 / 0) (#123)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:58:17 AM EST
    had a lot of party loyalty, so to speak. I've always voted dem, tho. I've volunteered and given money and been involved, but it was about the policies, not the party, for me.

    I think Obama is a bad candidate, true. I don't know if it would be better to have a veto-proof Dem Congress with a weak Rep prez rather than a naive and pliable dem prez controlled and cajoled by the elitists in his own party.

    Parent

    Lucky you (4.00 / 0) (#155)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:13:07 PM EST
    I've built an entire political identity around having voted straight Dem for over 30 years.

    LOL*

    Talk about getting some humility this season!  

    I so looked down on Independents in the past.  Truly, I was snooty as heck.

    And here I am today.  Independent.

    Parent

    My voting habits (none / 0) (#225)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:08:15 PM EST
    do sorta belie my claim of independence in the past, but  my sensibilities have been knocked around A LOT this go-round, fersure.

    Parent
    yeah...think Alec Baldwin Who Was Going To (none / 0) (#125)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:59:19 AM EST
    move to France if gwb became president.  He's still in America.

    Parent
    If A Long Primary Process Is A Problem For (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:54:33 AM EST
    the democratic party, then sobeit.  In 1980, 1984, 1988 and 1992 when the race went all the way to the convention, no one was saying these things.  This extended primary should be making the democratic party stronger, not ripping it apart, like the msm and ill-informed people are parroting.  It is bunk, pure and simple and the sooner people realize it, the better.  I will say, however, that after this election, the democratic party would do well to revamp their process.

    Parent
    I think the rise of 24/7 cable (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:21:45 PM EST
    has made it a different world.

    With all the so-called 24/7 "news" with so much time to fill and ratings to get for shareholders, the petty gotcha games have escalated way over what the three networks could have done in the olden days.

    CNN has been around for awhile, but in the beginning they did NEWS, not round the clock opinion and "debate."

    I really think it is much worse and I think that overall, 24/7 is bad thing for America.

    Parent

    Those campaigns had (5.00 / 2) (#239)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:46:52 PM EST
    grownups involved. This one doesn't. The thing that gets me about this campaign is how very juvenile some of the attitudes are, especially from Obama supporters. And that is from personal experience, no one that supports Obama that has spoken to me, including my own sister, have been able to state or explain what his policies and plans are. My sister told me, "If you can't open your eyes and see THE TRUTH, then you shouldn't vote!!" I kid you not, she said that to me in an email, caps and all. And this is a person who has been politically involved for years, at the local level especially, and should really have known better than to say something like that. And she has children old enough to vote, which is scary too. I mean, the whole tone of the Obama campaign has been like the campaigns for Prom King and Queen in high school. More "neener, neener, neener" than policy discussion. It demeans the Democratic Party and it demeans the voters by assuming they haven't grown up at all since they were sophomores in high school. Most of us have, thank God. And that is why Hillary will win. The grownups are going to take back the Party after the children get finished with their tantrum. Hopefully, we have the votes.

    (Yes, that was a poke at Mr. Hope. Heh.)

    Parent

    Then the DNC can fix it next time (5.00 / 5) (#141)
    by Nadai on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:06:26 PM EST
    For me, here in NC, I finally got to vote in a primary where it actually meant something.  I'm sick to death of Obama supporters whining about how bad it is that everything wasn't wrapped up before now and my vote rendered just as irrelevant as it usually is.

    Parent
    Gradulations On Casting A Vote That May Decide (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:16:07 PM EST
    the nominee. In 04, my vote in Feb was pretty meaningless since the nominee had been determined by the early states.

    Can't believe that many in the Democratic Party are against allowing people to participate in selecting the nominee.

    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:23:29 PM EST
    Good for you!

    But next time - let's have a national, CLOSED, primary day. No caucuses, no date jockeying and no Republicans or Independents.

    That way, everyone's vote counts.

    Parent

    That's more of an argument... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:11:42 PM EST
    as to why the democratic primary process needs to be completely overhauled, absolutely nothing to do with the candidates.

    There's plenty of time for the GE, don't let the MSM fool you.  Most undecideds/moderates (yano, the people who actually decide elections) don't start paying attention until October.  If anything, this long Primary campaign will enhance Obama's skill set at campaigning and air out the dirty laundry early on to inoculate it's effects in November.

    Unless you would have rather had the Wright thing explode mid-October, of course.

    Parent

    My take is that (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    Pelosi and Dean have been caught playing power politics.

    That's all.

    The truth is that if they hadn't done this?  This would still be the bonanza year for Dems.

    BUT.....they screwed up.

    And now, nobody wants to give them money.  Obamamaniacs have to give to him.  They are trained.

    Hillary supporters are too mad to send them money.

    They are screwed.

    Parent

    the problem (4.00 / 0) (#164)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    ....the problem is that while people "don't start paying attention" until October, they still absord a great deal now -- especially when they don't know a candidate.

    That is why the Wright mess is such a disaster -- when people start paying attention, "Wright" will already be there.

    Parent

    I suspect. (4.50 / 2) (#77)
    by sweetthings on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:39:47 AM EST
    We'll heal. Passions are ultra-high right now, but assuming this thing ends sometime in June, there should be enough time for the supporters of whichever candidate loses to come around.

    Plus, every day this goes on BTD's unity ticket idea looks better and better.

    Parent

    we won't healing anytime soon. (none / 0) (#249)
    by hellothere on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:12:51 PM EST
    and there won't be a unity ticket.

    Parent
    The replies to your post (none / 0) (#126)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:59:54 AM EST
    proves your point.  Enough said

    Parent
    People were saying that (none / 0) (#130)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:01:52 PM EST
    before anyone ever voted.


    Parent
    You could say the thing about anything, though (none / 0) (#258)
    by Exeter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:45:39 PM EST
    Everything has repercussions.  The system is what it is.

    Parent
    I can see it (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by lisadawn82 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:46:58 AM EST
    The press is definitely prepping their talking points for later in the day.  

    I can see it now, Senator Clinton only won IN because of Republican crossover voters.  She'll lose IN in the GE.  Senator Obama is the real winner today.  Even with the Republican help she still couldn't reach the required +35% win that she needed to help catch up in pledged delegates.  That means she really lost IN in addition to NC.

    It;'s already started (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by CanadianDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:50:48 AM EST
    From the Indystar.com which is linked from the wire post you find this..
    Ward-Bopp voted for the Democrat she liked, but Jim Adams, 36, voted for Hillary Clinton to keep the race going beyond Indiana. He's a McCain backer and enjoys watching the Democrats fight.

    I mean there might be some truth to this 'Republicans want the fight to drag on' meme?

    Parent
    There may be. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Marco21 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:53:18 AM EST
    Still, most Americans overwhelmingly want a Democrat in the White House this fall. It's the "long campaign is destroying our fragile party" BS that's completely false.

    Parent
    It is not completely false. (1.00 / 2) (#73)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:39:04 AM EST
    I wish it were, but there is so much animosity between hillary and obama supporters, I do worry about the outcome.

    And it is obvious if you read threads here and at kos or others that we are at each other's throats.

    Parent

    And who would be (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:44:58 AM EST
    responsible for that?  The candidate who has said that if he is the nominee, she will work for Obama with all of her heart, or the candidate who has said that he would get her supporters, but she would not get his and did nothing when his supporters booed? We're doing fine here.  Why not go over to HuffPo and preach unity there?

    Parent
    Misspeach...my guess, as usual lilybart is just (none / 0) (#129)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:01:34 PM EST
    here to stir the pot with her faux "nervous nellie" facade.

    Parent
    Don't guess, ask. (none / 0) (#184)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST
    There is no way out of this, with things so close, but I do actually worry about this ugliness.

    Yes, I support Obama because I have hope for the ugliness to decrease. No need to tell me I am wrong!

    Parent

    seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:35:18 PM EST
    the idea that you think that Obama can make the ugliness decrease, given all the ugliness that has arisen because of the way that he has campaigned, should give you pause.

    I mean, how can you think that Obama is going to unify the country, when he's gone out of his way to exploit racial divisiveness throughout this campaign?  

    Parent

    Do you any examples (none / 0) (#206)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:42:32 PM EST
    of his racial divisiveness, other than his actually is Black?

    Don't bother.

    Parent

    Your own post is a perfect example (5.00 / 2) (#223)
    by tree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    of divisiveness.

    If you'd bothered to read you would have found myriad posts here pointing out exactly why some here consider Obama's campaign to have been divisive, and absolutely none of them have been "because he is black". But you think its a perfectly fine retort to accuse people of bigotry just because you are too lazy to read our posts, or too close-minded to listen. Very divisive.

    Parent

    No no no (none / 0) (#250)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:19:46 PM EST
    I am not accusing or anyone of bigotry. I just don't  think that Obama himself has engaged in race-baiting, as you claimed.

    The only "bait" I can think of is that he is black.

    Parent

    Really (none / 0) (#260)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:54:09 PM EST
    So when Obama accused Hillary of disrespecting MLK before the South Carolina primary, that wasn't race-baiting?

    Parent
    You mean when he said: (none / 0) (#261)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:04:15 PM EST
    He was "baffled" by what he called Clinton's "ill-advised statement (made in New Hampshire on Jan. 7) about Dr. King, suggesting that Lyndon Johnson had more to do with the Civil Rights Act."

    It was an ill-advised statement, if only for the fact that it was politically toxic.  He didn't call her a racist by any means, and this certainly isn't race baiting.

    Parent

    Uh (none / 0) (#262)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:12:39 PM EST
    it was politically toxic because Obama decided to make a political stink about how she had supposedly disrespected MLK.

    You have your cause and effect backwards.  Obama could have taken the high road and said, of course Hillary wasn't saying anything bad about Dr. King, but he just couldn't resist the chance to demagogue her remarks with South Carolina coming up.

    Keep in mind this was at virtually the same time that Obama's campaign co-chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., went on national TV to make the incendiary argument that "Hillary didn't cry over Katrina."

    Parent

    Why diminish MLK (none / 0) (#263)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:15:59 PM EST
    on his day even if she is right that Gov had to do something and LBJ had the courage to do so.

    But it was the people marching in the streets that forced the Gov's hand and made it impossible NOT to take action. That was MLK.

    Nothing about race.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#265)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:25:51 PM EST
    There's "nothing about race" in the black candidate accusing the white one of disrespecting MLK before the South Carolina primary.  God, tell me another story.

    Parent
    google (none / 0) (#218)
    by dws3665 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    sean wilentz and see for yourself, lily.

    Parent
    That doesn't look (none / 0) (#251)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:21:35 PM EST
    like Obama race-baiting. It looks like he objected to Hillary's use of Wright to smear him.

    doesn't matter

    Parent

    I won't vote for Obama (5.00 / 9) (#92)
    by dissenter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:46:12 AM EST
    It really doesn't have much to do with DKos. I believe John McCain and Barack Obama will both be disasters and if there is going to be a disaster it might as well be McCain. I am a lifelong Dem. In fact, I've never voted for a republican.

    I don't think Obama is democrat so it makes my vote easier. Obama tells me I should vote my interests...well a higher payroll tax is not in my interest nor is his ideas on social security or health care. Since he was a Roberts fan I doubt I can count on him on judges and I live in a pro choice state. Frankly, I can't see a whole lot of difference between the two on other issues.

    As for the war. HE IS LYING. There is no way to quickly get people out of either war zone. It won't happen. Since I spend a lot of time in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I would prefer someone who doesn't put us all on alert every time he wants to make a political statement and that is exactly what happens with Obama.

    Parent

    moi aussi (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by jedimom on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:26:40 PM EST
    me too
    I have no faith in his SCOTUS appt after all we pro choice dont understand the wrenching moral decision faced by prolifers, Obama told us so. He wants to raise my payroll taxes up to 30%, he will raise capgains to 28%
    I have heard him tell Bartiromo on CNBC his payroll tax lift starts at 72k earnings, not 98 as he tried 'waffle' on the ABC debate..
    nothing about Obama makes me feel my kids would be safer or we would do better economically
    when he began running Harry/Louise ads I knew he wouldnt get us to universal healthcare either
    his 1000 stimulus is a taxpayer deficit builder but he wont support tax waiver for summer to help truckers who pass it on to food prices which hurts us, he is funded by Excelon which loves hi gas it makes nuke power more likely
    if they cut FL MI out of the process Obama is illegitimate nominee and I wont support him, period

    Parent
    I didn't see the blog animosity (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by magster on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:05:23 PM EST
    spill over into our county Dem convention this last weekend here in Colorado.

    Very respectful, lots of mingling despite the loyalty shown by each group of supporters.  The real world is a lot different than the blogosphere. It was a very hopeful (though painfully boring) day for Democratic unity after the nomination process ends.


    Parent

    Thanks for story (none / 0) (#189)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:28:13 PM EST
    Very nice to hear some good news about people getting along!

    Parent
    That is nice to hear, (none / 0) (#233)
    by Leisa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:28:36 PM EST
    that was not the case in TX.  Maybe it is because we have that crazy Texas two step process and it was fraught with problems...

    I wonder, how can a candidate win the primary and loose the caucus as happened in TX?  

    I think that this result clearly demonstrates the problems with the caucus system as a means to decide on the nominee.  The GE will not be won with this voting method, so how is it even relevant?  

    Parent

    It's the assumption that... (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by jackyt on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:26:17 PM EST
    the LESS hate-filled bunch should capitulate to the MORE hate-filled bunch that is most troubling. Ya give in to a bully and all you get is whapped up the side of the head!

    SPOILER ALERT: I still have this inkling that, if he loses the democratic nomination, Obama will pull a Joe Leiberman and use his shiny new machine to run on a third rail... with Bradley, Bloomberg, et al, goading him on.

    Parent

    look, we could have (4.66 / 3) (#108)
    by sancho on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:52:50 AM EST
    nominated obama for the '08 election after his '04 convention speech and he'd still have an uphill fight to win this november. the af-am voters consistently vote democratic and will in the fall. af-ams hate republicans more than other core dem. groups. i cant speak for what the so-called educated latte liberals will do--at least nader is not in the race.(oh, i forgot, he is.) and if we really want to be brutal about it, we can recognize that many states (like mine, florida) have well established (and horrible) practices for throwing out large numbers of the af-am vote anyway. i'll take my chances with working class dems, af-ams, hispanics, some latte dems, the crossover republican women who hate the mccains and respect hillary, and also the fundies who might stay home if mccain is the nominee but will come out to vote against obama and his "anti-maerican" preacher.) that's a winning coalition, imo, and it belongs to hillary not barack.  

    the nom. process is a chance to save the dem. party from its terrible leadership. let it go on.

    Parent

    I have to confess that the 2004 speech.... (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:04:05 PM EST
    ...didn't leave me breathless. It was the best speech at that particular convention, but I'm old enough to remember some speeches that had me up on my feet hollering.

    Especially Cuomo's 1984 speech. (His 1992 wan't too shabby either) and Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988. (1984 convention was a great one for oratory if nothing else.)

    Parent

    Actually I enjoyed Rev. Sharpton's speech (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:11:45 PM EST
    more in 2004.  But then I like them fiery spirited speeches.

    Parent
    Me Too n/t (none / 0) (#168)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:18:55 PM EST


    Parent
    I always enjoy Sharpton, but.... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:25:01 PM EST
    ...he wasn't on primetime in 2004 as I recall.

    Parent
    Of course he wasn't the DNC didn't want to (none / 0) (#198)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:32:03 PM EST
    alienate anyone.  You know he is controversial, opinionated, outspoken, and sometimes a bit off keel.

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:21:33 PM EST
    I feel I'm the only one who isn't wowed by Obama's oratory skills.

    Parent
    You're not alone (none / 0) (#248)
    by vigkat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:08:05 PM EST
    Every time I have heard Obama speak, and that includes 2004, I find my attention wandering (and as an attorney, I am well trained to stay focused). Perhaps it's because he's not really saying anything on which I can focus my attention.  Just words.

    Parent
    To be honest (none / 0) (#217)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:51:54 PM EST
    I thought Bill Clinton's speech in 2004 was fantastic.  There is no one better at articulating the difference between the parties and why electing Democrats matters.

    If you go back and read the speeches, the contrast between his message and Obama's is actually quite striking in hindsight.

    Parent

    At each other's throats (none / 0) (#104)
    by wasabi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:51:23 AM EST
    For a long time I thought this animosity was primarily fed by the tone of most blogs and therefore really limited to a small percentage of the electorate.  Blogs just don't reach that many people.  However, to see the high numbers of people willing to sit on their hands or vote for the other party in the GE as seen in recent polls indicates this has gone well past the online skirmishes.  I think a unity ticket really needs to happen for the Democrats to pull off a victory in the fall.

    Parent
    My Fed ex guy didn't know about primaries (none / 0) (#193)
    by lilybart on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:29:16 PM EST
    today, so maybe it is only a small percentage of hard-core blog readers that now hate one another so much!!!!

    Parent
    Bloggers and online... (none / 0) (#220)
    by Marco21 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:00:52 PM EST
    posters like you and me don't indicate a groundswell of bad will this fall, despite how frenzied the back and forth can get.

    Polling suggests more Americans want a Democrat in the office than a Republican. Last one I read at MyDD was by a 20 point spread.

    If this party can't get it together after the unforgivable crime of a long season and every state getting a vote, we don't deserve to survive.

    Parent

    However (none / 0) (#228)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:12:28 PM EST
    many exit polls indicate that a high number of primary voters won't vote for the other primary candidate if theirs doesn't win.


    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:54:01 AM EST
    there are Republicans who vote for Hillary for honest reasons and those who vote for Hillary for malicious reasons.  The same is true for Obama.

    Based upon which category of voters the media chooses to seize upon, they can easily create or reinforce a narrative.

    Parent

    avise to republicans (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:03:34 AM EST
    be careful what you wish for

    Parent
    Heh. Heh. Heh. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:07:05 AM EST
    Wouldn't it be nice if THEY were the ones that shot themselves in the feet?

    Parent
    Never forget (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:16:17 AM EST
    how badly Democrats wanted to run against that old fool Reagan.

    Parent
    And McCain is more loved by Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:18:03 AM EST
    already than Reagan ever was.


    Parent
    I noticed that Operation Chaos... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:21:19 AM EST
    became a talking point a bit before the PA vote.

    Parent
    I remember that. (none / 0) (#148)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:09:44 PM EST
    My parents were all excited about how Carter was going to crush him.

    Then came the hostage crisis. And the president I call the Root of All Evil was elected.

    What if Bush/Cheney bomb Iran? Do people think Obama is going to beat McCain then?

    Although it is totally illogical, I think they will go with the "safe" Republican with experience in that instance.

    I hope I am wrong.

    Parent

    Limpbaugh may want this (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:08:41 AM EST
    he hates McCain

    Parent
    No, it's 'cause. . . . (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:18:45 AM EST
    he's always had a crush on Hillary.

    Parent
    Think about this, if Limbaugh et al had (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:22:09 AM EST
    much power over the republicans constituents would McCain be the nominee?

    Parent
    So do many so-called conservative pundits (none / 0) (#39)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:17:46 AM EST
    like Joe Scarborough.

    Doesn't matter. They are sheep, not cats. They are easily herded and led.

    Unlike Democrats. ;-)

    Parent

    any more it's all about him... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:18:00 AM EST
    I suspect that he's trying to be more of a power broker inside the party with this move.

    What's fascinating is that even when the change over isn't attributed to him, he claims that it's Operation Chaos.

    Parent

    Yep! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by felizarte on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:17:40 AM EST
    Be interesting to know how many republican women crossed over.  It could be that they are thinking, "why wait till November to vote for Hillary?  Vote now and make sure she makes it to November."

    Maybe Rush does have a 'little crush' on Hillary after all.

    Parent

    honestly (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:08:06 AM EST
    I dont see how anyone could doubt what Hillary would do to McCain in the general when her hands are no longer tied.
    I hope they go back and talk to Jim Adams and others after she cleans McCains clock next fall.


    Parent
    Most of them are crossing over to vote (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by rockinrocknroll on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:12:40 AM EST
    for each candidate (some will say Hillary, some will say Obama) because they think he/she will be easier for McCain to beat in Nov. When they vote for Hillary it's "her baggage" that they think makes her unelectable, for Obama it (was) that he's so inexperienced (it's probably much more than that now). The sabotaging seemed to be done equally to/for both of them. I only heard the 'we want the fight to drag on' theme from a couple of people.

    I worked the polls in Texas, and although I didn't solicit their opinions, many of the voters felt compelled to share their strategy with me.

    Parent

    highly motivated crossover voters? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Fabian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:40:56 AM EST
    If I would have crossed over to the dark side, I would have picked Huckabee.  I was dying to see how the the GOP would have dealt with a Religious Right candidate.

    Parent
    more concerned... (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:18:08 AM EST
    I'm far more worried about the "Republicans who vote for Obama because they know he'll lose in November" contingent myself.

    Parent
    Pick your poison (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:19:59 AM EST
    Exit polls have shown that, since Ohio, Republicans and indys have split down the middle mostly.

    Parent
    does the media or press ever mention (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:27:47 AM EST
    Obama's "Dem for a day" that he's promoted for the past year??  where he pushed for Repubs and Indys to vote for him in the primary and assured them they could reregister and vote Repub in Nov.
    And yet, Obamamites claim "Limbaugh broke the law."

    Parent
    In Penn (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:30:47 AM EST
    he had an ad, and it was posted here.  

    Parent
    To be fair. . . (none / 0) (#66)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:33:54 AM EST
    Republicans who switched over to vote for Obama and then switched back can still vote Democratic in the fall.  It's not unreasonable to expect that there are may be (or at the time may have been) some Republicans who wanted to support Obama both in the primary and the general, but wanted to remain in the Republican party.

    Parent
    my post is based on info on Obama's fliers (none / 0) (#128)
    by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:01:10 PM EST


    Parent
    or (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:50:43 AM EST
    it could be that Hillary Clinton has gained momentum and Obama has sustained some damage. It isn't like a national poll doesn't support that. I think we're tilting at windmills when we attempt to guess why she wins Indy.

    Parent
    I know too many (5.00 / 12) (#6)
    by Leisa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:51:25 AM EST
    Republican women that support Hillary all the way.  This is being ignored by the media.  You would not believe some of the Republican women that I know that will vote for her in the GE if she is the nominee.

    Let's hear more about these women in the news.    

    Parent

    Me too..... (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:55:27 AM EST
    ...Some women that I share a "non-political" interest with have come out for Hillary though they are extremely Republican. In the last election we agree to not discuss politics because they hated Kerry so much and we feared our friendship would be too severely tested to survive. But I've gotten emails from a bunch of them saying..."you won't believe who I am voting for." And I can assure you that they are not doing it to game the system. They really want Hillary to be president.

    Parent
    Things you'll never hear on the MSM (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by lisadawn82 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:55:39 AM EST
    You are so right.  

    Parent
    me too (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by jedimom on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:04:05 AM EST
    I too know many GOP women who want to vote Hillary, they see my button and several have me lean way over so they can whisper they are going to vote for her in November..

    so cute and such a big factor that the media totally overlooks

    Parent

    Seriously... (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:32:56 AM EST
    The number of formerly republican women that i have met supporting Hillary is remarkable. And some of them (my mother included) used to despise her.

    This weekend my sister pulled me aside at a family cookout, wide-eyed, and informed me my redneck (self-described) bro-in-law watched Hill on Fox (of course) and was sincerely won over. SHE couldn't believe it.


    Parent

    Or if Obama does well at all (5.00 / 10) (#11)
    by Cream City on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:54:47 AM EST
    the turnout is all Obama voters.  

    Older women -- and too often, any women except pretty missing women -- are invisible, after all.

    Parent

    Heavy turnout (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:50:27 AM EST
    is predicted to favor Obama, according to traditional thinking.

    I personally disagree.  

    But most important, it underscores how RIGHT Hillary is that this long process is benefitting not only the Democratic party but all of America.  People are engaged.  They are excited.  She's right.

    Pelosi and Dean are so dead wrong on this it's laughable.

    They are looking like voter repressers and "Old Style Washington" more and more every primary election day.

    GO VOTERS!

    Win or lose, this has been way fun!

    Oh my goodness, (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:03:48 AM EST
    you are so right!

    We should all be happy about the excitement this primary has caused. I'm calling it "As the Democrats Turn." More addictive than any soap opera!

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#9)
    by blogtopus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:53:46 AM EST
    Plus, she really knows the system now when she tries again in 2012 [/snark]

    Parent
    heavy turn out? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:56:52 AM EST
    are these closed ballots?

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#46)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:19:32 AM EST
    in indiana, anyone can vote

    in NC, its dems and "non-affiliated" only (no GOP voters)

    Parent

    High turnout is good news, whoever wins. (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:56:28 AM EST


    AP article on heavy voter turnout includes (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:59:24 AM EST
    includes a description of Clinton a "wealthy d inside-Washington veteran, . . ."

    Does this make Obama a poor outside-Washington newbie?

    lol (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by CanadianDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:02:02 AM EST
    Does this make Obama a poor outside-Washington newbie?

    Isn't that the record he is running on? I haven't been co-opted cuz I know nothing!! Nothing*!!!

    -Sgt.Shultz reference.

    Parent

    Of Course It Does (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:05:54 AM EST
    The media has spent more than a decade painting the Clintons as some backwoods rednecks beneath decent society.  Now that Hillary is attracting working class voters (like Bill did) and that could help her turn the election around, she's a rich New Yorker incapable of relating to the working man, she's just bamboozling them so they think she's on their side.  You know with proposals like UHC and such.  

    Because at some point our media became convinced that rich people are not allowed to care about poor people.  Perhaps it's because they don't care about poor people.

    Parent

    He does like to be outside D.C. (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Cream City on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:13:50 AM EST
    as much as possible from the start.  Missing votes, missing meetings, not calling meets of committees he chairs.  Surprised he didn't need a nametag when he did get to the floor.

    But he is a Senator, and he is a millionaire.  The media are so stoopid with their memes, which they just jump on the bandwagon for and don't even come up with themselves.  What do they do with their time?  It can't take so much time to just come up with complete sentences.


    Parent

    What a joke -- Clintons were and will always (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by Exeter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:19:42 AM EST
    be considered Washington outsiders.

    Parent
    So true! (none / 0) (#134)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:03:30 PM EST
    Which is, in large part, why I've always been a Clinton Democrat.  

    Still got that bit of rebel inside of me.

    speeding away in my red Miata, the symbol of the Independent these days  *haha

    Parent

    Any Dem w/ populist ideas who has wealth (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by jawbone on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:04:24 AM EST
    is maligned by the MCM, which somehow has forgotten about Roosevelt, Kennedy, LBJ, and, on a lesser scale, Jimmie Carter.  

    Roosevelt was called a traitor to his class for taxing the rich. But, somehow, the MCM can only see that Repubs are, by rights, rich, if they are rich.  Dems are somehow "wrong" for being rich.

    We deserve a better MCM.

    What is funny is that in beginning when (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:05:35 AM EST
    we complained of all the Republicans crossing over we were told that that was good for party building.  Now that Hillary is winning it is bad.  Sounds like your typical Double-Standard.

    funny how that works isnt it (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:27:41 AM EST
    yes I remember well being told how cynical I was for suspecting rebublicans were voting for Obama because they thought he would lose.
    seems the shoe is on the other foot.

    Parent
    Just Asking (none / 0) (#121)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:57:28 AM EST
    Is there reason to believe that Hillary stands to win the Republican cross-over vote in Indiana
    and independents in No. Carolina, or is same too much to expect or too uncertain???

    Parent
    Looking at the SUSA Indiana poll (none / 0) (#200)
    by tree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:32:07 PM EST
    Clinton leads 49-46 among Republicans, but her lead among Democrats is much much bigger at 58-39, and she's trailing Obama with Independents 46-52. It looks like she'd do better without any crossovers. link

    SUSA North Carolina     doesn't have any figures for Repubs, and Obama is leading by roughly the same among among Dems and Unaffiliated.

    Parent
    Wouldn't it Depend (none / 0) (#236)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:39:55 PM EST
    Thanks for the info; but wouldn't the overall effect depend on the turnout of Republicans vs. Independents?

    Parent
    Operation Chaos (none / 0) (#242)
    by diogenes on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:58:03 PM EST
    If crossover voters personally prefer one candidate to another, that is good.  If crossover voters are working for Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos", and would vote for the WEAKER CANDIDATE AT THE TIME in order to extend the Democratic primary season, that's bad.

    Parent
    I think the early vote totals (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:15:38 AM EST
    will be big determinants. Both should favor Obama as they were pre-Wright. I'm really curious to see the turnout numbers in the counties where Bill Clinton campaigned in NC.

    early voting (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:24:43 AM EST
    early voters should favor Obama, because Obama supporters see themselves on a mission, and are less likely to be "habitual" voters -- the people who show up at the polls because that's what they do.

    I also think that white turnout is going to be heavier than expected -- the arrogance of the Obama campaign has probably motivated a lot of people to show up and cast a vote not so much for Clinton as against Obama.

    Parent

    I'm pretty sure that early voting (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:17:49 AM EST
    was NOT pre-Wright.

    Parent
    A lot of it was -- I saw numbers (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Cream City on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:45:36 AM EST
    from NC of the early voting pre-Wright.  The debacle occurred only days before the early voting deadline, but early voting had gone on for weeks by then.

    Parent
    Wright broke a while ago. (none / 0) (#57)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    The early voting will have been done right when it first broke.

    Parent
    Nope, see comment above (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Cream City on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:46:19 AM EST
    and check date of Wright debacle.  How time flies.

    Parent
    Look for MSNBC to label it as 'Heavy Flow' (5.00 / 7) (#36)
    by blogtopus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:16:33 AM EST
    Likely to cramp Hillary's plans in this election period.

    Is your middle school (none / 0) (#174)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:22:50 PM EST
    on a half-day today?  Does your mother know what you write when she's not around?  This is really poor.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#212)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:48:53 PM EST
    he is making fun of MSNBC's reputation for misogyny, not engaging in it himself.

    Parent
    Still not appropriate (none / 0) (#227)
    by misspeach2008 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:10:44 PM EST
    And very middle school.  Right up there with Obama's "when Hillary is feeling down periodically"

    Parent
    Please (none / 0) (#253)
    by blogtopus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:29:34 PM EST
    Here you go: Satire.

    Did not mean to put your knickers in a bunch, but my comment was really intended to poke fun at MSNBC, not offend you. Sorry you didn't feel the same way.

    Parent

    John Kerry (5.00 / 11) (#56)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:26:07 AM EST
    is on arguing that Obama is not an elitist.  Not the best person to make that argument IMHO.  

    Wow (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:28:49 AM EST
    I'm inclined to agree with that vastly understated comment.

    Parent
    "not an elitist" (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:34:14 AM EST
    First and only test, someone who is not an elitist does not need apologists or others to explain they are not an elitist.  The minute that happens, the person is an elitist.  

    People either know you are an elitist or they don't.  It's just one of those things.  The more time you spend telling people you are not one, the more you are, cause you just don't get it.  


    Parent

    What I find funny (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    is all the people who are scrambling to come up with a new definition of "elitist."  You know, the ones who are like "Hillary went to Yale, she has a lot of money, therefore she's got to be elitist!"  They don't get that it's an attitude.  There are elitists in trailer parks.

    Parent
    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:54:48 AM EST
    but I wrote a post about that yesterday.

    [shameless blogwhore, please delete if too OT)

    Parent

    dragging out the kids... (4.66 / 3) (#98)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:49:29 AM EST
    has anyone else noticed that Obama is now using his kids as props in order to establish his "non-elitist" credentials.

    There was the 'family picnic' over the weekend, and the 'rollerskating' episode (yesterday?)

    Parent

    No doubt MSNBC. . . (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:06:48 PM EST
    will quickly come out with a story accusing him of "pimping" his children.  Right?

    Parent
    This comment is just plain wrong (1.00 / 0) (#122)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:57:54 AM EST
    I really think it is tacky to suggest the guy is just spending time with his kids to score political points. I hate it when supporters don't use facts and pretend they have some crystal ball that allows them to see into the candidate's head. There are plenty of fact based reasons to attack Obama why result to unsubstantiated slurring.

    I didn't like the "pimping Chelsea" comnent and I don't like this one for the exact same reason. It's natural for kids and parents to show pride ineach other and want to support each other and spend time with each other. Let's not make it an area to core political points please.  

    Parent

    this is a new tactic... (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:05:55 PM EST
    the Obama's weren't using their kids as props up until very recently.  They (rightfully, as far as I am concerned) made the effort to keep their kids out of the spotlight until now.

    Its one thing to include your children in your Christmas message, or show them in your "bio" ads.  But when you start using them on the campaign trail because you are trying to 'rebrand' yourself as a 'regular family guy' and not an elitist, that's something else entirely...

    Parent

    Now, now. Michelle Obama sd. (none / 0) (#196)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:30:22 PM EST
    the kids get to campaign as a special treat.

    Parent
    I think the comment (none / 0) (#137)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:04:58 PM EST
    is right.  The kids have not been part of the campaign until he needed to show he was just a regular guy.  It was a political move.

    Parent
    Because I'm just like you (none / 0) (#133)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:02:59 PM EST
    ...see I have kids too.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#207)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:43:43 PM EST
    They're cute kids.  I would use them too.  It doesn't bother me.

    Parent
    Monsieur le Windsurfer (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:57:15 AM EST
    n'est pas un elite!

    [LOL]

    Parent

    wrong (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:34:04 AM EST
    he is the very very bestest person to make that argument.

    Parent
    Obama to Kerry. . . (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:36:46 AM EST
    "John.  Don't help me."

    Parent
    "and I should know... (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:34:24 AM EST
    ...I'm a Brahmin fourth dan."

    Parent
    LOL* (none / 0) (#84)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:42:42 AM EST
    That's funny!

    Parent
    Who could make the argument better than Kerry? (none / 0) (#190)
    by TomLincoln on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    "It takes one to know one, and I telll you Barack Obama is no elitist."

    Parent
    "Republicans appeared to be crossing"... (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by akaEloise on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:39:28 AM EST
    And the reporter can perceive this how?  Because there were Buicks with faded W stickers parked outside the polling places?  Because the men standing in line to vote were wearing white pants before Memorial Day and the ladies were wearing gloves and hose?   Because they had the Rush Limbaugh sample ballot tucked under their arms?  Or is there actual evidence of registered Republicans changing their affiliation to vote in this primary?

    It's one thing to say, if it's true, that a particular part of Indiana voted heavily Republican in the last two or three or four election cycles, and a large number of people in that area are voting Democratic today.  It's another thing entirely to assume that a) the people who are voting Democratic today are the same ones who voted Republican in 2004; b) that having voted for Republican candidates in the past makes those people Republicans; c) that they are all planning to vote Republican in the general election and they're trying to get the weaker opponent nominated.  

    It was a typo. . . (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    Because the men standing in line to vote were wearing white pants before Memorial Day and the ladies were wearing gloves and hose?

    The reporter meant to say "it appears that Republicans are cross-dressing."  It was the guys wearing the hose.

    Parent

    Oh, honey, don't you know? (3.66 / 3) (#127)
    by lookoverthere on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:00:57 PM EST
    Some people can tell just by lookin.

    It's called GOPdar.

    Parent

    This is why I spend entirely too much time reading (none / 0) (#170)
    by honora on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:19:35 PM EST
    TL. lol

    Parent
    Not true! (none / 0) (#99)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:49:41 AM EST
    Even some Democrats wear white pants before Memorial Day!

    But loved your post.

    Parent

    Must be those Country Club Democrats! (none / 0) (#131)
    by Fabian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:01:55 PM EST
    Heh.

    Went to see Gore Sunday.  The crowd was dressed in Columbus Casual.  The best times to see people stylin' in Columbus is the MLK Jr Breakfast when the black ladies break out their best and the Pride Parade when those "ladies" dress up.  Otherwise, it's comfort over style every time.

    Parent

    There were about two people voting (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:58:30 AM EST
    while I voted in my empty precinct in downtown Durham.  This should be a huge Obama precinct, but I wouldn't put much stock in that it was empty.  That place is always empty when I vote.  

    I'll take it as a good sign (none / 0) (#213)
    by stillife on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:49:41 PM EST
    for Hillary.  

    Back in 1992, I knew Bill had won when I went to vote in my liberal, latte-drinking neighborhood and the lines snaked around the block.  That had never happened before, in the 6 years I'd lived there.

    Flash-forward to 2004 and my new neighborhood, a mixture of latte-liberal and AA.  I got a bad feeling when I went to vote and the polling place was empty, but I allowed myself to be persuaded by Zogby polls - never again!  

    Parent

    I'm Mad (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Sunshine on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:14:57 PM EST
    And I cannot understand why the Obama supporters and the media think that they can treat your candidate the way that they have and then you are going to support theirs....  Americablog and Dkos have been so nasty and unfair that it make you want to vote for McCain and I'm sure that some will for this reason... Then there is Dean and Pelosi that are so scared at what the black vote will do that Dean won't even reveal what the are going to do with MI and Fl until he makes sure that it won't offend Obama... Then there is the media that when some talk of Hillary they say the word "she" through closed teeth and a snear on their face, they say this is not sexism but they don't say "he" the same way...  Then if Obama gets the nomination, here they'll come grinning and wanting your vote....   One this is for sure, I won't be donating to the fund and I'm not sure they will get my vote...  I may just go down the ballot and vote for the women only..  

    What the nastiness (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Danbury on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:19:00 PM EST
    of Obama's supporters on all of these blogs tells me is that his talk of change is meaningless.

    Parent
    This comment is addressed to (3.66 / 3) (#136)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:04:47 PM EST
    those here who vow they will never case a vote for Obama if he is the Dem. nominee.  Please read AP article about McCain's speech yesterday to the religious right.  Here is the pertinent excerpt:

    Despite the controversy["gang of 14"], his actual record is very conservative, particularly on social issues like abortion, gay rights and gun control. However, he said once, in 1999, that the landmark Roe v. Wade decision allowing abortion should not be overturned.

    But that was a blip in an otherwise unbroken record of opposing abortion rights for women. McCain has repeatedly voted against federal funding for abortion; he has opposed federal Medicaid funds for abortion even in cases of rape or incest.

    He voted to require parental consent for abortion and voted to criminalize anyone but a parent crossing state lines with a minor to help get an abortion. McCain also supported a ban preventing women in the military from getting abortions with their own money at overseas military hospitals.

    He also has cast conservative votes on judges. In fact, McCain has never voted against a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court or federal courts, the Democratic National Committee pointed out.
    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by dissenter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:10:03 PM EST
    Was for Roberts before he was against him. I don't trust him. I live in a pro-choice state. Colorado will never go anti-choice no matter who is in charge.

    I'm sick of being threatened with the Supreme Court. It won't work any longer. It is hard for me not to send money to NARAL any longer. Until they can guarantee me the cash won't go to Obama though that is going to remain my policy.

    Parent

    Blackmail (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Emma on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:29:05 PM EST
    doesn't work on me.  Abortion rights are gone if Obama is the nominee.  He'll bargain them away for "unity", unity on judges, unity on unrelated legislation, it won't matter. I just don't believe for a second that Obama cares about choice.

    Parent
    Can we cross that bridge... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Marco21 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:12:12 PM EST
    if and when we come to it?

    Season isn't over yet.


    Parent

    That is a practical suggestion, but (none / 0) (#157)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:13:42 PM EST
    so many have already carved their intentions into stone.

    Parent
    People should speak their minds (none / 0) (#161)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:15:15 PM EST
    If anything all it does is prove how divisive the Obama campaign has been.

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#175)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:23:16 PM EST
    Thought John Roberts was a super choice for the high bench until someone told him it would hurt his presidential chances.

    How is any different than McCain?

    Parent

    Because Obama voted "present" (none / 0) (#187)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:27:04 PM EST
    in IL state senate on matters designed to restrict abortion access.

    Parent
    Dems had their chance; BO's more of the same (none / 0) (#240)
    by Ellie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:49:37 PM EST
    They're the ones who should be made to answer for the hard right.

    A good way to earn back the trust of women is to stop flogging us about rights we have to keep RE-EARNING because of out-front right wing impediments and back-door Dem deals with our persecutors.

    Spend thirty five years affirmatively ensuring rule of law and then your ploy will past the laugh test. I'm done with this party until I see some meaningful action.

    I'd rather fight an enemy who honestly hates my guts honestly than support a fake friend who's been stabbing me in the back all my life and asking me to pay for my persecution.

    Pre-blaming women for the repellant actions of others is just slimy.

    Parent

    I say it's time for the younger women (none / 0) (#245)
    by nycstray on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:01:21 PM EST
    to step up and start earning their rights. I'm frankly tired of it and they (not all) sure don't seem to appreciate the effort. These issues will effect THEM and THEIR children, not me.

    How often do you hear Obama speak to gender issues? Or for that matter, even say the word? If he gets to the WH, his supporters better be ready . . .

    Parent

    "Younger women" and others (none / 0) (#246)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:05:54 PM EST
    ("creative class" and those w/a college education) may get their wish for Obama as President, so I guess they will have the opportunity.  Maybe they don't think it matters?  Who knows.

    Parent
    Except Bill supporters (3.00 / 0) (#146)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:08:44 PM EST
    "And Clinton supporters are not running around cult-like in packed arenas freaking out and bursting into tears."

    Bill can still make em faint :).

    I am not trying to defend Obama bloggers.  Then again, I don not equate Obama supporters to Obama bloggers.  I know a lot of Obama supporters who never blog and they are not nearly as vitrolic as those you see online.  And there are some pretty racist and terrible posts in the other direction too online, which is why I come here for civil discourse.

    Obama bloggers=supporters (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    Hello???

    Parent
    not quite (1.00 / 1) (#224)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:07:40 PM EST
    Obama bloggers = small vocal percentage of actual Obama supporters, not representative of the whole.


    Parent
    Obama Supporters Were Very Vocal During (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:53:22 PM EST
    the JJ dinner in N.C. Their lack of courtesy and good manners were on display for everyone to see and hear during that event.

    Parent
    You must (none / 0) (#238)
    by Leisa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:46:00 PM EST
    not have seen the pushing and yelling on the streets.  Yes, some Obama supporters outside of the blogosphere have behaved just as badly in person.

    I have read accounts of one group of Hillary supporters getting assaulted.  I know of one case where a woman was pushed into heavy traffic.

    There are also reports of illegal campaigning at polling places by Obama supporters.

    I have also had my share of being called obscene names publicly by Obama supporters because I support Hillary.  It seems to me that anger and rage is what unites some Obama supporters.  I will not be a part of that.  Ever.

    So, these are some of the reasons why I am weary of Obama supporters and Obama himself, as these have been problems for MONTHS and he has done nothing but encourage this behavior.  His own wife has done it herself...  what did she say once? Something like "how can you run the White House if you can't run your own house?".. (in referring to Bill's indiscretions and I do think she said this before the first primary votes were even cast)  

    Sorry, the I think the ugliness of this campaign started in Obama's house.

    Parent

    ok fine (none / 0) (#243)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:59:04 PM EST
    All Obama supporters are terrible, none of them are any good, and no Hillary supporters have ever done anything wrong.

    Parent
    your blanket "rant" (none / 0) (#255)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:34:42 PM EST
    just substantiates how Obama and his supporters cannot engage in debate.  get pissed off, stomp your feet...

    my gosh you people are SO hyper-critical.

    Parent

    I have tried to engage in dabate (none / 0) (#257)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:42:04 PM EST
    And have been called a troll or a robot or naive and stupid, or my statements have been so misconsrued that I don't even recognize them anymore.  So yes, I think I am entitled to the occasional rant, I wouldn't be the first one here to do something of the sort.

    For the record, I spend a lot of my time in the real world trying to convince my Obama supporting friends to vote for Hillary if it comes down to her winning.  So no, I don't really appreciate being lumped together with Hillary haters...  I also don't appreciate hypocricy or a double standard being applied by either side, and I will call it out as I see it.

    Parent

    Msnbc reported... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Marco21 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:49:49 AM EST
    from the ground Republicans crossing over to vote Obama to smite Hillary. the rpeorter only mentioned a couple people but Operation Chaos/Dem for a Day may be cancelling each other out.

    The only good thing to come out of that DFAD (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by blogtopus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:52:04 AM EST
    Is the the look on people's faces when Obama loses all those states he won in the Primary. I think the tantrum factor will even supercede the 'it was rigged by Hillary' cries.

    Parent
    Ahhh... ye olde anecdotal evidence... nt (none / 0) (#32)
    by Exeter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:15:03 AM EST


    Parent
    and you'd believe MSNBC... (none / 0) (#210)
    by jackyt on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:46:52 PM EST
    Why?????????

    Parent
    Operation Chaos (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:02:26 AM EST
    heh, that's really worked in the past.

    BTD... (none / 0) (#31)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:14:10 AM EST
    The "It's Rush Limbaugh's fault" contingent is no doubt revving up.

    You imply (don't know if that was your intention) that Dems shouldn't have a problem with republicans intentionally voting for Hillary per Rush's push?  Personally, I have a problem with anyone voting for someone they don't actually support (whoever the candidate).  

    I doubt there's been an election in history (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:15:15 AM EST
    where people haven't practiced strategic voting. If there had been a little more of that in 2000, Al Gore would have won Florida, and we'd have ben spared the nightmare of the last 7 years.

    Parent
    I see a difference between Rush (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MarkL on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:17:04 AM EST
    encouraging Republicans to vote in the Democratic party versus Obama's campaign encouraging Republicans to vote specifically to cast a vote against Hillary. Do you see the difference?

    Parent
    i disagree (none / 0) (#45)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:19:30 AM EST
    with both.  and don't see a huge difference to be honest.  both approaches are incredibly destructive.  I have no problem w/ republicans voting in an open primary for the candidate they truly support (unfortunately that is not the case in these primaries as of late and why i support closed primaries for just democratic and independent voters in nomination process).

    Parent
    The point (5.00 / 9) (#49)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:20:08 AM EST
    is that it is nothing more than excuse-making.

    Undoubtedly there are some Republicans voting for Hillary because Rush told them to, and some Republicans voting for Obama because they think he would be the weaker candidate or because they simply hate Hillary.

    If a Republican is genuinely considering voting Dem in November, that's great.  If they're not, then I have no interest in their vote, but I have no idea whether more of those people vote for Hillary or Obama, and neither does anyone else.

    What we deplore here is mostly the obnoxious double standard where Republicans who cross over for Obama are proof positive that he's expanding the party, while Republicans who cross over for Clinton are nothing but mischief-makers.

    Parent

    Actually from my viewpoint having switched (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:35:02 AM EST
    parties in February.  Most Republicans who will vote Democrat in Nov. voted Democrat in 2006 during the Congressional elections and probably in 2004.   The reasons for changing over from Republican to Democrat voter, not necessarily switching parties, are many but the years of neo-con administration has a lot to do with it.  People like myself see a McCain victory in November as an extension of the Bush administration that's why I gasped when while watching the news I heard Obama say that Bush was not part of this election.  When I voted for Kerry in 2004 I did it for basically two reasons first and foremost I thought he was the better candidate and secondly I would vote for anything but Bush.  In November hopefully I will be voting for Hillary Clinton, but if Obama is the nominee I will most probably will be voting for him not because I think his a good candidate or would make a good president, I still think that kerry would had made a decent President, but because McCain scares the hell out of me.

    Parent
    Kerry would have made a better President (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:42:37 AM EST
    He turned out to be a fairly good candidate.

    A mile better than Dukakis or Mondale or McGovern, but ultimately his biography from Vietnam lead to a Jekyl and Hyde  Warrior/Protestor identity for the General election.  That opened the door to confusion about who Kerry was.

    Parent

    Kerry just completely left me (none / 0) (#86)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:43:55 AM EST
    cold.  I voted for him, but I just never "got" the guy.

    Parent
    looking back... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:50:23 AM EST
    ...without beer goggles, he does strike me as a very odd character.  

    Howvere Dean would have been crushed, Edwards would have suffered worse than Kerry.  Clark was not a real politician yet.

    So what was left?

    Kerry.

     He was able to hold together about 48% of the electorate in the Dem bracket.  No mean feat in 2004. But yeah looking back he now seems a bit odd.

    Parent

    I disagree (none / 0) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:43:56 AM EST
    I think he was a disaster.
    for the same reasons I think Obama would be.
    afraid to get his hands dirty.


    Parent
    49 state loses are disasters. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:47:13 AM EST
    I didn't say he was a winning candidate.

    In Retrospect we may as well have tried with Edwards at th top of the ticket.

    Parent

    I never (none / 0) (#209)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:46:52 PM EST
    liked Kerry but voted for him with nose held tightly as I had done so many times in Presidential elections for 40 years.  

    But when Kerry refused to fight for the votes in Ohio I knew then and there that the Democratic Party would never, ever, get another nose-holding vote outa me. I was enraged and I hold a grudge.

    If I can't vote for a candidate I'm not voting for them. In spite of my absolute contempt for most of the Democrat Party I still would never be able to vote for McCain. Some lines I will never cross.

     

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:28:53 AM EST


    Parent
    I imply (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:28:19 AM EST
    that is is utter BS from people who were thrilled when Republicans were crossing over to vote fo Obama as a vote against then inevitable Hillary.

    I call them dishonest hypcrites.

    Parent

    I'd personally love to know... (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:39:22 AM EST
    ...what GOP crossovers were really thinking in Iowa and NH when they voted for Obama.  Obama, did win the Dem vote there so the cross over was now the decider of course, but I suspect it was a decisive element in th eRocky Mountain vote and the Chesapeake Primaries.

    I'm inclined to think it was an anti-Clinton effort.

    I find it hard to believe that there are going to be very many crossover voters for Obama post-Wright.

    Parent

    i believe (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:40:08 AM EST
    it's utter BS to suggest that the recent support from Rush, Kristol, Fox, Buchanan, Mellon Scaife is anything more than utter giddiness of uniting once again against the Clinton's.  leveraging false support of the worst kind.  There is NO true republican support for Clinton.  

    Parent
    Buchanan is actually... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:45:43 AM EST
    ...an anomaly. He really prefers Clinton. he probably doesn't want a black president or even a black nominee.

    The rest are playing games--but they were also playing games when they buttered up Obama in the fall. Your hypocritical stance in self evident.

    Kristol Brookes etc knew how much wright and Ayers would damage Obama as far back as Jan 2007.

    Parent

    Awww.......I like him (none / 0) (#106)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:51:51 AM EST
    I don't think he's racist at all.

    I do think he's a conservative pragmatist.

    But not racist.

    A bit politically incorrect at times.

    Parent

    I think he crosses (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:56:41 AM EST
    over the line into racism at times when he talks about immigration, and about Israel and Jews.

    Parent
    I think he's racist. JMHO, though. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:06:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Immigration is even (none / 0) (#147)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:09:19 PM EST
    a debate topic among Latinos in my area.  

    We're just getting killed in CA by this issue.

    Killed.  

    And I don't mean......philosophically.

    Schools.....hospitals.....state budget.....

    Bush has killed CA.

    And I might add my own private opinion here.....we're going to kill you, too.

    because how goes CA in the economy IS important to the rest of the country.

    Just my 2 cents.

    I stay out of the Israel debate.  I think I'm pro-Palestinian with a heavy dose of realism that they are being used as a football.

    I think I fall into the category of most Israelis, actually.

    I don't think a "hard-line" stance on either side will solve the issue.  

    Sometimes, we just have to keep picking away the feathers, one by one.

    Parent

    Did you see Ybarra, uncommitted (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:29:12 PM EST
    CA Super-D's comments in LA Times yesterday?  He sd. he isn't budging until Obama or Clinton talks about the Latino vote and what the candidate will do to solidify it for Dems.

    Parent
    I enjoy his commentary (none / 0) (#114)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:55:37 AM EST
    but he's probably anti-Obama specifically.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:45:54 AM EST
    you seem to be unable to distinguish between the Republican establishment and actual individuals who vote Republican.

    If you think there aren't lifelong Republicans whose first vote for a Democrat would be for Hillary Clinton, you're simply wrong.  You need to meet more people or something.

    Parent

    "no true republican"? (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Fabian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    That's an ironic meme considering that various "conservatives" and "republicans" were running away from GWB by the expedient of declaring him not a real conservative or even of, gasp!, calling GWB a Liberal!

    People choose what party to belong to.  The party does not get to choose who gets in.  GWB is still a Republican, just as Joe Lieberman was a Democrat for the longest time.  And no matter what Some People think, Hillary Clinton is a Democrat.

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#94)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:46:59 AM EST
    Maybe the pundits are just trying to mess with the process, but it's absurd to say there is NO republican support for Hillary.  What about all those republican women?  I mean even Ann Coulter seemed to acually, ya know, kinda LIKE her

    Parent
    It's obvious that (none / 0) (#111)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:53:51 AM EST
    she's likeable enough. All the personal accounts of her suggest she's well liked and respected.

    It's quite possible that you might hit it off with Ann coulter socially for all you know and that Kennedy might personally rub you the wrong way.  Friendships and respect are funny things.

    Parent

    CST, that's a terrible thing to say (none / 0) (#115)
    by lookoverthere on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:56:16 AM EST
    I mean even Ann Coulter seemed to acually, ya know, kinda LIKE her

    I never realized how cruel you are. Do you have a baked potato for a heart? ; )


    Parent

    Since I did not suggest that (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:47:22 AM EST
    I call you out for your red herring.

    Stop the BS.

    Parent

    this is exactly what they want you to think (none / 0) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:48:11 AM EST
    good going

    Parent
    Only true Republican support for Obama, right? (none / 0) (#100)
    by rooge04 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:50:12 AM EST
    My Lord how many different ways must this be explained?

    Parent
    i think it is entirely (none / 0) (#204)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:38:47 PM EST
    fair to state that Obama is more likely to have republican support than Hillary (quite possibly the right's most despised person - how quickly forget... taking candy from a baby apparently)

    Parent
    DKOs Romney push (none / 0) (#51)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:21:29 AM EST
    in Michigan, did you complain about that pre-pubescent stunt?

    Parent
    in fact (none / 0) (#53)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:23:58 AM EST
    i did.  

    Parent
    Good for you (none / 0) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:25:45 AM EST
    cause I found that really and truly disgusting.  Since the Democratic Party people were telling voters to go vote in the Dem ticket.  

    Parent
    What would you say about a blogger (none / 0) (#139)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:05:50 PM EST
    Who urged Democratic voters to do that in Michigan?

    Parent
    Rezko side rests (none / 0) (#149)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:09:59 PM EST
    no witnesses.  I guess we may have a verdict before the primary is over.  Could be good news for Obama or really bad.  

    Gutsy, and/or Rezko's (none / 0) (#159)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:14:45 PM EST
    attorneys are loath to put him on the witness stand.

    Parent
    NC and IN thread (none / 0) (#151)
    by jackyt on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:11:07 PM EST
    I'd love to see a thread today that is limited to on the scene observers in these two states. I usually love the perspectives represented in the open threads, but today I'd really like to get a picture of what it's like, on the ground, in these two states. Is that possible?

    MSNBC's Chuck Todd... (none / 0) (#158)
    by northeast73 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:14:13 PM EST
    ....is a first rate MORON.  

    He talks endlessly about the "impossible math" while failing to mention that Obama will not reach the needed delegates either.

    How he became a political analyst is beyond me.  He cannot even discuss politics without relating it to sports analogies....just another "frat boy" at MSNBC.

    I have an instinctive distrust. . . (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:17:14 PM EST
    of people with two first names.

    Parent
    What's up with that (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by lisadawn82 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:29:46 PM EST
    My name is Lisa Dawn.  

    Parent
    Sorry. . . (none / 0) (#211)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:47:24 PM EST
    didn't say it was rational.  No offense meant.

    Parent
    what about people with two last names? (none / 0) (#237)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:40:33 PM EST


    Parent
    My grandfather (none / 0) (#247)
    by lisadawn82 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:06:58 PM EST
    changed his name when he got married from Albin Downorowicz to Alvin Dawn God bless his soul.  In boot camp is was much easier to stencil Dawn on my shirts and pants than Downorowicz.  He was a big old Pollock if you couldn't tell by the name.

    Parent
    It's human nature (none / 0) (#167)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:18:53 PM EST
    It's my lie and I'm sticking to it.

    Really, what can these guys say at this point that doesn't kill them professionally?

    They were careless, bought Obamamath, didn't hold out a bit......

    They are stuck.

    Parent

    Election day fun: Who is the progressive (none / 0) (#180)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:25:43 PM EST
    Maybe you guys already have seen this.  Do a side by side comparison of Obama and Hillary on the Progressive meter.  

    MSNBC (none / 0) (#186)
    by Saul on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    has really turnout today for Obama.   All the moderators  in their interviews pick topics to criticize Hilary.  Have yet to see an interview that ask questions that is in favor of Hilary or that they supports Hilary in any way, by any of the moderators that have come on the station since 10 this morning. It is blatantly  obvious their in the tank for Obama.  Almost like a plot that said let see if we can convince people to go vote today for Obama and not Hilary.  Like a cheering squad.

    I wonder if the MSM would have been able (none / 0) (#188)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:27:32 PM EST
    to say when I was a registered Republican and Voted in 2006 that I was a Republican giving a cross-over vote for Democrats?  I mean with the Puertorican Flag stickers the Ragae music in my cd player and my AFGE Local 2408 t-shirt.

    Just Got E-Mail (none / 0) (#197)
    by mmc9431 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:30:25 PM EST
    From Huffington! A reliable source no doubt. Heavy turnout show how Obama is trouncing Hilary in NC. The AA voters are angry at her for the "staged" Wright event.

    What ever happened to progressive community. In the last six months I've watched an unbelievable decline in honesty, integrity and objectivity. I've come to the opinion that we may be the real losers in this election. Too many of us have become the very thing we fought.

    I think (none / 0) (#203)
    by dissenter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:36:56 PM EST
    The same thing that caused the total collapse of the progressive movement in the 20th century. It collapsed under its own weight, rigidity and dogma.

    Parent
    i'll never be what i once was (none / 0) (#205)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:39:30 PM EST
    regarding politics.  i could have been an obama guy six months ago.  maybe i was, but then all of the freaking nutjobs took over and obama's blatant hypocrisy came out.  but really, the folks i once trusted i'm learning are no better than anybody else.  god help me, but they've really pushed me away.  i'll never be a mccain/bush, but i'm not sure how much i can identify with the obamanuts i see running around here either.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#208)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:44:31 PM EST
    if she's trounced, she's trounced.

    And I know how to lose.

    I'm going to wait to see the returns, however.

    But if she worked as hard as she did, with good momentum, and she loses big?

    OK.

    Then I'll move on.

    I didn't like Kerry either.

    Parent

    Trying (none / 0) (#221)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    to keep the morale up I guess. It seems that they've conceded IN.

    Parent
    I think HuffPo is (none / 0) (#266)
    by stefystef on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:39:15 PM EST
    BS-ing people.  My family is in NC and they do not think Hillary got Rev. Wright to come out a couple of weeks ago.  No one with half a brain thinks this.  Plus, I just read that the turnout isn't all that, big but not earth-shattering in NC.
    http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/2835547/

    More in Indiana, but since it's an open primary, it makes sense that Hillary went on Fox.  I think she's getting alot of cross-over voters, not just Operation: Chaos/Rush Limbaugh stupid.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/us/politics/06cnd-campaign.html?ex=1367812800&en=051d0ec355cfc 290&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

    Some "memo" from Drudge Report is saying that the Hillary camp believes that Hillary will lose NC by 15%.  This is BS too.  Again, Drudge trying to get involved in the Democratic primaries with false stories and claims of inside information.

    Adrianna Huffington, former Republican shill herself, claims that McCain told her that he didn't vote for Bush.  Of course, McCain is denying it, but again, it's blogs trying to influence the outcome of these primaries because they are SCARED THAT OBAMA IS LOSING MOMENTUM.  

    And you know what?  They are right.

    Hillary '08-  She's The One

    Parent

    More Chuck Todd-isms (none / 0) (#232)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:28:10 PM EST
    "Meanwhile, in Indiana, don't underestimate the Chicago media market effect in the negative for Obama. Why? Local Chicago TV has been as obsessive -- if not more -- than the national media. No national media outlet, for instance, has asked their news helicopter to hover over Rev. Wright's house. How many Northwest Indiana households saw THAT?"

    =========

    "Interestingly, however, Clinton seems to be on the upswing in North Carolina, and Obama seems on the upswing in Indiana. Yet both are likely to win on their "home" demographic courts. So what would the Vegas lines be today? Our guess: five points in each state, which should already be considered a perception victory for Clinton. But given the closet superdelegate support Obama seems to have, he's been given the benefit of the doubt with some if he simply wins North Carolina by, well, about five points. You'll know it will be a mediocre to bad night for Obama if his campaign has to talk about who won the most delegates tonight, rather than by how much they won each state."

    ============

    (This is my favorite because it's so outlandish)

    "When was the last time Obama introduced a policy initiative that forced a debate? Now, part of the reason is that Clinton has been much more adept at finding issues they disagree on, while she hugs anything he introduces proactively."

    Link

    Huh? (none / 0) (#234)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:33:54 PM EST
    That last part seems to contradict itself.

    Parent
    GE is more like attemtping to corrupt the outcome (none / 0) (#267)
    by Salt on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:44:59 PM EST
     the outcome of the electiong.  It appears they are more 527 then media company and should need to operate under different rules this is propaganda advocating one candidate.

    Yep, "Turnout Is Heavy" | 267 comments (267 topical)