home

Obama Surrogate Joe Andrew Flip Flops: "A Miracle If Obama Comes Close In Indiana"

You gotta love the newly all important Obama surrogate Joe Andrew. Sunday, just 2 days ago, he was giving a Joe Namath guarantee that Barack Obama would win Indiana. Now I am watching him on MSNBC (the Obama News Network, as Chris "Tweety" Matthews admitted) claiming it would be a miracle like parting the Red Sea if Obama comes close in Indiana.

Andrew, the DC lawyer/lobbyist, is a hoot. This is an Open Thread.

More...

By the way, MSNBC (the Obama News Network) is having a conniption over the fact that Michigan and Florida need to count. But we all know the Media is in the tank for Obama.

Jonathan Singer contends Barack Obama will not seriously contest West Virginia and Kentucky. Which makes sense. He is down 29 in West Virginia and 34 in Kentucky.

Dem voters want race to continue.

By Big Tent Democrat

Comments now closed.

< FBI Raids Special Counsel Bloch's Offices and Home | Mapping Indiana >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Now we know (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:15:43 PM EST
    why Andrews did not get any contracts from the Clintons.  

    You can thank Joe Andrew for Bush... (3.50 / 2) (#71)
    by Exeter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:40:28 PM EST
    As head of the DNC, his "early intervention" strategy of going exclusively after Bush in the spring of 1999 -- a full eight months before the Iowa caucuses -- was horrible strategy. It caused the GOP to rally around the guy that was being attacked by the dems and it gave Bush the early annoitation as THE GOP candidate. Plus there was so much over-the-top ridiculous noise generated by the DNC attack team at the time that when the real campaign started against Gore in 2000, the media, for the most part, tuned out and gave Bush a free ride and thought the Dems were once again screaming that the sky was falling.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:59:31 PM EST
    I don't think McCain would have been the more beatable candidate in 2000.  If Andrew helped Bush get nominated, that was probably the right call.

    Parent
    Honestly? (none / 0) (#154)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:26:14 PM EST
    I don't think that McCain woulda dropped attention on Afghanistan to "pre-emptive" strike Iraq.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:29:54 PM EST
    you may be right, but it's 20/20 hindsight to say "at least if we were going to get a Republican, we might as well get the better one."  We had no way of knowing 9/11 and Iraq would happen.

    Also, it's worth remembering that many of the big-time neocons - Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, those guys - were actually not Bush supporters in the 1990s.  Back then, McCain was the neocon candidate!  So actually, he might have been just as likely to go along with the whole crazy PNAC thing.

    Parent

    It is 20/20 hindsight... (none / 0) (#194)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:29:11 PM EST
    With this WHouse, Cheney was the real PNAC mover when it came to getting the "Iraq Idea" through the door.

    Parent
    Who knows how it would have worked (none / 0) (#196)
    by Exeter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:42:33 PM EST
    out, though. Maybe Bush would have had a prolonged nomination battle. Maybe if Andrew hadn't cleared the field for everyone except McCain, maybe one of the other candidates would have emerged to challenge Bush. As we have seen on both sides of the aisle, alot can change the year before Iowa caucuses.

    Parent
    sheesh (none / 0) (#105)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:58:32 PM EST
    I figured I had enough reason to think he's a goof from what he's said and done this week alone.

    So it is all his fault Gore lost.  Learn something new everyday.  :-)

    Parent

    I think you can thank (none / 0) (#129)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:11:26 PM EST
    teh american people who voted for the worst president in modern history.

    Twice.

    Parent

    Gore won in 2000 -- that's been proven (none / 0) (#197)
    by Exeter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:44:19 PM EST
    time and time again. If the supreme court would not have intervened, he would have won.

    Parent
    Ouch (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    Deep Mole? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:25:10 PM EST
    Joe Andrew (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:16:33 PM EST
    Is becomming the Mark Penn of the Obama spin campaign.  Rediculous statements that make no sense and only end up hurting your candidate... great...

    Awww (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:16:53 PM EST
    Isn't hypocrisy cute?

    Mr. Andrew has definitely (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by bslev22 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:18:08 PM EST
    provided some comic relief in the last few days.  He really is quite the piece of work and seems to be enjoying his 15-minutes of fame.

    Diebold hires Andrews for 50-state strategy! (none / 0) (#151)
    by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:25:19 PM EST
    LOL
    Oakland Tribune, Aug 2005 -  http://tinyurl.com/4d8vbd

    >>>With a phone call and a retainer, Diebold CEO Walden O'Dell has launched former Democratic National Committee chairman Joe Andrew on a 50-state ambassadorship for electronic voting.

    Parent

    And he was so successful that every (none / 0) (#177)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:45:21 PM EST
    state went back to paper and pen.

    Parent
    Turnout not so heavy in NC (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:18:17 PM EST
    http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/2835547/

    "State elections director Gary Bartlett said turnout was "steady ... not tremendously heavy." "

    When I voted (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Nadai on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:05:32 PM EST
    at 7:15 this morning, I was the 45th person at my precinct.  My parents voted at 7:05 and they were 30th and 31st (same precinct).  So not jammed, but not slow, either.  I usually get there about 7:30-7:45 and I'm usually 20-something-th.

    Parent
    My friend (none / 0) (#13)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:20:07 PM EST
    working in NC in a predominantly aa neighborhood (her own) says that she's been surprised by the turn-out.

    The day is long, though.  We shall see.

    Parent

    No one's going to listen. . . (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:36:56 PM EST
    to KUSA polling predictions if you actually start collecting data!

    Parent
    How dare you question KUSA's integrity! (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:50:35 PM EST
    this was unsolicited opinion that backed up KUSA's unsolicited opinion, which made it vitally important and imminently reportable.

    I'm just doing my job, man.

    KUSA still holds: Clinton by 9 in IN and 3-4% in NC.  Chaos ensues.

    Parent

    high or low? n/t (none / 0) (#18)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:21:25 PM EST
    Woops (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:28:31 PM EST
    Should have been more clear--low turnout.  She's worked just about every race possible over the last 20 years, so she knows about voter turnout and what to expect.  She knows the patterns, the usuals, etc.  She says there have been a lot of older aa's that she's known for ages, but that the station just hasn't seen the influx they were expecting.

    And, again, she lives in a predominantly aa neighborhood, which is where this polling place is.

    I have to say, this really fits in with the KUSA model that predicted depressed aa turnout because of the recent Wright controversy.

    Parent

    except AAs have voted early (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:32:16 PM EST
    in huge numbers

    Parent
    That (none / 0) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:44:12 PM EST
    I think is the crux. Obama got AA's to the polls early so there probably won't be much turn out in those areas today. Also on another blog, a guy from Chapel Hill said low turnout there too. Perhaps Obama was hoping to bank enough votes to win.

    Parent
    okay (none / 0) (#81)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:46:37 PM EST
    I found this article, which states:

    nearly half a million people had already cast early and absentee ballots as of Monday - more than half the total number of voters who cast a ballot during the 2004 primary.

    Are all of those dem ballots?  The gubernatorial race is extremely tight right now, which has not been a factor post-Tsuper Tuesady.  Could some of those 500K ballots be republican?  How do we know the ethnicity of the voters?

    These extrapolations just don't work for me.  I'm not going to just assume that 500K early votes mean Obama is going to sweep.  He may very well, but I don't think this is enough to go on right now.  

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#136)
    by nell on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:13:57 PM EST
    Survey USA found that based on their polling, AA turnout among early voters was 40 percent and Obama has a 16 point lead with early voters. Not sure what this means, but if Hillary can take the lead with voters today by getting HUGE turnout in rural areas so that rural voters were underrepresented in the polling, she may have a real shot to make it close.

    Parent
    Early voter polling= exit polling (none / 0) (#140)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:15:56 PM EST
    they lie.  We went through this in PA.  

    Parent
    Exactly. They lie. (none / 0) (#143)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:20:29 PM EST
    I had this image in my head of some woman with the phone in the crook of her shoulder, glancing over at the ballot that just came in the mail, and saying, "yeah, I voted already."

    Oddly enough, I had her making hamburger patties while she did this.  And she was wearing bedroom slippers with her heels hanging over the back.

    Parent

    North Carolina Reports Race of Early Voters (none / 0) (#149)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:24:14 PM EST
    Like eleven other Southern states, NC has to track race of folks voting.  They make the early voting data available on a website.  As of May 3, 40% of early/absentee voters were black, 60% were women.

    Parent
    don't count on it. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:31:12 PM EST
    But it would be a measure of how you can't go agianst your own Clergy and hope to win.

    Parent
    there are some loyal Clinton AAs (none / 0) (#146)
    by thereyougo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:21:47 PM EST
    they don't forget. Obama IMO, seems like a passing thing to them and they trust the Clintons. Obama showed disloyalty when he didn't claim his people as much in front of crowds,and didn't see him show up for invitations from some of them.                    

    One that stands out, is Tavis Smiley and another prominent group (I can't think of the name at the moment, which Hillary did show up)in the AA community.

     KUSA's preds. could hold water. Subconsciously I think the AA community saw through Obama especially after he disowned the good reverend the 2nd time.

    Were it me, I'd be deeply offended that Obama sold his soul to the devil like that.

    Parent

    i vote in what should be a strong AA voting place (none / 0) (#22)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:22:05 PM EST
    and i was one of three people voting.  

    but honestly, i have no idea what to make of this.  i won't begin to say this is good for one candidate or another.

    Parent

    primary voting is a habit (none / 0) (#39)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:28:36 PM EST
    If Indiana always does it so late the habit may not be fully formed.

    Parent
    I agree with those... (none / 0) (#111)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:03:50 PM EST
    ... who say that a lot of AA's voted early.

    Every state has had record turnout so far (except Michigan, maybe?). These two probably won't be different.

    Parent

    I'm not sure if that's good or bad for Hillary. (none / 0) (#14)
    by sweetthings on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:20:17 PM EST
    Wasn't turn out today supposed to counter early voters going for Obama?

    Parent
    Bad (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    Depends (none / 0) (#24)
    by dissenter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:22:43 PM EST
    On who is turning out.

    Parent
    Yes and no (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:25:09 PM EST
    the evidence is that Obama has already gotten his base out. That means that HIllary needs lots of white indy crossover. Obama's negative ad might have kept them home.

    He tried this in PA.

    Parent

    but i thought (none / 0) (#37)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:28:10 PM EST
    that obama didn't practice those negative politics of old?

    Parent
    He doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:51:13 PM EST
    he's just pointing out the truth, even it that means having to trash Hillary to do it. Only Clinton's ads that stick to policy and make no reference to Obama are negative.  HA!

    Parent
    I'm still waiting for my pony, alas. (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:29:59 PM EST
    Doo Dah parade! (none / 0) (#83)
    by Fabian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:47:31 PM EST
    The Unity Pony Patrol!

    Parent
    Does the Obama Network mention that (none / 0) (#125)
    by bridget on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:09:54 PM EST
    their fav candidate runs a negative campaign AGAIN

    and tells wrong stuff about Hillary's policies which Krugman had to correct?

    Haven't watched it for months.

    Parent

    heh (none / 0) (#41)
    by CanadianDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:28:53 PM EST
    Republicans.

    Parent
    Seriously (none / 0) (#26)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:24:13 PM EST
    why do folks assume that early voters all went hugely for Obama?  If we've learned anything from polls, it's that the people who are asked these questions have been known to lie.

    You could just as easily make the argument that long-time, more experienced voters tend to vote absentee to avoid the rush, which would go toward Clinton's demographic.

    Add in the depression of aa voter turn-out, and you've blown it out of the water.  Then throw in that they only gave a "percentage" of early votes, and weren't specific beyond that and...

    The fact is, we won't know until we know.  

    Parent

    You ask (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:26:32 PM EST
    why do folks assume that early voters all went hugely for Obama
    Because SUSA sez so. Because the Sec of state for NC sez that black turnout was huge in early voting.

    No, I don't believe that Hillary got a substantial chunk of the black vote.

    Parent

    It's interesting (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:29:24 PM EST
    that the Secretary of State would know such a thing - my first reaction was like, "do they sit there counting black people as they come to the polls?" - but then I realized they're actually required to collect that information under the Voting Rights Act.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:32:20 PM EST
    those are mailed in ballots, though (none / 0) (#63)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:36:22 PM EST
    and you don't check black or white on the ballot anywhere.  I suppose you could take note of the area in which the voter lives, then extrapolate from that, but it's still hit or miss, because many neighborhoods in NC are mixed.  They're not segregated to the extent of Watts or Harlem.  (Yes, yes, Andgarden, I know that the south is evil...)

    At any point, I am dubious about these sorts of predictions based on mail-in balloting.  And we all know from FL '00 that the sec of state is hardly a partisan position.

    Parent

    Early voting in NC (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Nadai on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:51:50 PM EST
    isn't all mail-in ballots.  There are early voting locations you can go to in person and cast a vote.  It ended last Saturday, but I think there was a two-week period when they were open.  I'm not certain of the whole timeline; I always vote on election day.

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#70)
    by dissenter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    Don't they count the ballots after the polls close? How would they know who voted? Also, I will not discount the possibility that many AA would lie to pollsters. AA Hillary supporters are probably lying to their friends. I can't tell you how many people have lied to me claiming they voted for Gore lol

    Parent
    It's supposed to be in the voter registration (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:45:43 PM EST
    data.

    I'm not particularly comforted by throwing out information that disagrees with my preconceived notions, but others feel differently.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#93)
    by dissenter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:50:57 PM EST
    But let's say I live in NC and I ask for a mail in ballot. They send it to me. I vote and send it back. The Voter office has it but if they don't count the ballot before the polls close how do they know who returned their ballot. Also, if it is like CO there are lot of drop off places. Nobody is checking off your name as you hand it in.

    I would be interested to know what the percentage of ballots that are requested each election but are not returned.

    Parent

    Easy answer to your question (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    In Washington state, our absentee ballots come with 2 envelopes.  Voters put their ballot inside the anonymous envelope, put the anonymous envelope inside an envelope containing their name, address and signature.

    Mail ballot.

    At destination, voting official checks off that the ballot has been returned, then puts the anonymous envelope containing the ballot in a bin to be counted.

    So yeah, they know who has voted, and probably know the enthnicity of that voter.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#84)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:47:31 PM EST
    I am not sure how they do it, to be honest.

    The information is important because, for example, let's say North Carolina proposed to do away with early voting for the next election.  Under the Voting Rights Act, the federal government would have to determine whether that would have a disproportionate impact on minorities, and they can't do that unless the state collects the data in the first place.  But I'm not clear on how the data collection actually happens in the real world.

    Parent

    North Carolina (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by BDB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:26:45 PM EST
    is one of eleven states that have to track voters by race under the Voting Rights Act.  See here.  There's also a link at the link I gave where you can download the info on who has voted as of this morning.  As of May 3 - 40% black, 60% women.

    Parent
    And the SBE in NC (none / 0) (#91)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:49:50 PM EST
    is Dem dominated.

    Parent
    Pretty sure SSN (none / 0) (#128)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:11:18 PM EST
    was required in my state to get registered to vote. Plenty of information available via that.

    Parent
    Must sign for one's ballot (none / 0) (#100)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:55:18 PM EST
    Registered voter rosters are used at the polls, aren't they? I always have to sign my name on my line to get a ballot. I'm sure my SSN tells them everything they could ever want to know about me. Not too far to stretch between my voter's registration and other government records, I would think.

    Parent
    ever think that the SOS (none / 0) (#153)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:25:31 PM EST
    might no the demographics of districts?  if turnout is high in a heavily african american district, it is safe to assume there was heavy african american turnout.  

    pretty simple.

    Parent

    If true, that gives extra weight to (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:21:19 PM EST
    Obama's early voting lead. It could make Drudge right, amazingly.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:31:17 PM EST
    The turnout reports, heavy, light or steady, never mean anything ever.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:33:15 PM EST
    Comforting [for a Clinton fan]. (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    as with the weather report, (none / 0) (#97)
    by cpinva on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:52:19 PM EST
    The turnout reports, heavy, light or steady, never mean anything ever.

    you're better off looking out your window. :)

    Parent

    Wouldn't this info, if correct, indicate (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:30:57 PM EST
    the AA turnout for Obama might be lower than predicted?

    Parent
    Not if he already banked it (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:32:57 PM EST
    and it looks like he did.

    Parent
    Do we know how many early votes (none / 0) (#78)
    by bslev22 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:45:43 PM EST
    were cast?  I understand that predictions for the overall vote in the Democratic primary are that as many as 1.5 million people will vote.

    Parent
    as of 6AM (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:48:07 PM EST

    Absentee Mail Ballots Returned: 24,900
    Absentee Onestop Ballots Cast: 471,006

    http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/

    Parent

    Thanks! (none / 0) (#101)
    by bslev22 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:55:42 PM EST
    So that is only about 15% of the projected vote (none / 0) (#117)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:06:05 PM EST
    If they are estimating 40-50% turnout on the Dem/unaffiliated side and 20% on the Republican side, the early vote is a lot less than SUSA was reporting. So the 40% AA component in it has much less impact.

    Parent
    Frankly (none / 0) (#119)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:06:50 PM EST
    I still believe SUSA's vote projection.

    Parent
    1.5 mm are expected to vote today (none / 0) (#118)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:06:17 PM EST
    If Obama already has 500K votes in the bag, he's got a landslide.

    Parent
    KUSA you have a responsibility (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:13:56 PM EST
    DON'T PANIC.

    Parent
    He's not goint to get every early vote!! (none / 0) (#121)
    by bslev22 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:08:11 PM EST
    Using the power of SUSA (none / 0) (#124)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:09:07 PM EST
    more like 200,000 in the bank.

    Parent
    KUSA, hold firm (none / 0) (#130)
    by RalphB on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:11:30 PM EST
    in those predications.  He led big in early voting in TX as well, but that didn't work out so well for him.

    Parent
    Don't worry (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:14:14 PM EST
    KUSA is Zoby-esque in their arrogance.  They have successfully predicted every election thus far within an MOE of +/- 1%.  Even when they were wrong, they ended up being right.

    Parent
    Why is it different in SC (none / 0) (#133)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:12:43 PM EST
    Little old white ladies do all the early voting in California, what is the basis of it not being the same in NC?  

    Parent
    OOPS NC (none / 0) (#138)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:14:43 PM EST
    I thought a quarter of the likelys voted early (none / 0) (#82)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:47:04 PM EST
    And of those 40% AA. That is only 10%. Obama's math requires 35% AA. So will the lower voter day turnout take it below the extra 25% he needs?

    Parent
    Voting steady; turnout may set record (none / 0) (#69)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:39:06 PM EST
    http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/1062464.html

    "Democratic turnout could reach 50 percent, assuming voters continue to show up at the same rate they appeared at the polls this morning, said Gary Bartlett, executive director of the state Board of Elections. Republican turnout is likely to be in the range of 20 percent, he said."

    The same guy here is quoted here

    Parent

    Haha! (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:18:26 PM EST
    "Newly all important"  This is why we love you, BTD.

    Who has the inner progressive edge? (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:21:06 PM EST
    From Progressive Involvement

    Who is the true progressive in the race?
    See progressivepunch.org, which ranks all the candidates on a variety of issues.  On 17 issues related to poverty and aid to the poor, Hillary gets a 99% score, Obama scores 96%--both stellar, in other words.  On corporate subsidies, Hillary scores 100% and is ranked first among all Senators in trying to get corporate America off welfare.  Obama criticizes Hillary for her corporate ties, but managed only a 78% score on this issue.

    Why people believe she is not an elitist.  

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:31:34 PM EST
    That's very interesting!

    I'm of the belief that it's silly for Democrats to be fighting for a windfall profits tax on the oil companies when we could accomplish the same thing by just eliminating some of the subsidies they don't need.

    Parent

    Progressive Punch (none / 0) (#112)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:04:17 PM EST
    is a great site. You can use it to evaluate the score of any of your Congresscritters.

    I lurve HRC's overall score (91%), and Obama's is very close (88%). It makes me feel a bit better about him and what he'd do as President.*

    ***Disclaimer: I don't think he can beat McCain. Maybe he can run again in 2016 after HRC takes McCain down and becomes the first woman President. ;-)

    Parent

    Interesting look at the pollsters (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by fuzzyone on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:22:11 PM EST
    Interesting look at how the pollsters have done so far.

    Not surprisingly SUSA is the champ.

    Warning:  This link will take you to that horrible orange place.  Believe it or not there is still interesting stuff to be found there.

    Not on an election day!! (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:23:48 PM EST
    You couldn't pay me enough (none / 0) (#134)
    by bridget on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:13:07 PM EST
    to go to the Orange place

    Parent
    Praying for gas prices to drop (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by eleanora on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:24:43 PM EST
    "Lord, come down in a mighty way and strengthen us so that we can bring down these high gas prices," Twyman said to a chorus of "amens".

    I got this from a friend who thought it was funny, but it just goes to show how people are hurting. The part about the lady who commutes to work at a food bank was pretty striking:

    "The cost of food has gone up... quantities we get from the food bank have gone down. The cost at the gas station has gone up and that means I spend more money to get here," she said after joining the prayer for gas prices to come down. "

    My local food bank is begging for donations right now. Hard times mean people can't afford to give as much as they used to.

    The cure for high prices... (none / 0) (#43)
    by sweetthings on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:29:24 PM EST
    Is high prices. Or so the economists would have you believe.

    That said, given that gasoline demand is fairly slow to adjust, I suspect prices are going to have to go a LOT higher before they go down...if they ever do.

    In related news, I've started carpooling to work. It's working out ok so far.

    Parent

    so (none / 0) (#60)
    by CanadianDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:33:01 PM EST
    the high prices have helped you conserve fuel and lessen your GHG emissions?  Consuming less and lessening demand then creates a supply surplus and lower prices, or perhaps alternative sources which introduce competition in energy and lower prices?

    Parent
    You make it sound so pleasant. (none / 0) (#90)
    by sweetthings on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:49:42 PM EST
    They've helped me. How kind of them.

    It's more like they've forced me. And no, there won't be any supply surplus, because any drop of gasoline I don't use will be happily used by someone else, in China if not here. I'm under no illusions that I'm accomplishing any kind of greater good, here.

    But sadly, there's really nothing to be done but pay up. It's going to worse before it gets better.

    Parent

    Wasn't this the (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Iphie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    guy who was supposed to change the subject from Wright and get us focused on more positive Obama news? I know he's a super delegate, but he really seems to be a scraping the bottom of the barrel super delegate.

    He's getting his 15 minutes (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    I think he's up to 20 (none / 0) (#46)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:30:25 PM EST
    what a tool...a useful tool for Clinton!

    Parent
    Wright got more coverage last week than (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:32:21 PM EST
    Clinton did.

    Parent
    Heyyyyy (none / 0) (#103)
    by Nadai on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:56:53 PM EST
    Maybe he's a Clinton mole and only claims to support Obama.  You know that Hillary - there's nothing she won't do to win.

    The sad thing is, I'm snarking, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to hear that someone at the Great Orange Satan put forth the argument seriously.

    Parent

    Does (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:48:57 PM EST
    Obama have any good surrogates? Seriously. John Kerry trying to explain how Obama isn't an elitist? The guy from texas who couldn't state what Obama had accomplished.

    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:55:59 PM EST
    seems to be taking your strategy BTD. He's going to throw everything into OR.

    He's certainly favored there (none / 0) (#106)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:59:22 PM EST
    wait until they see the next week of news (none / 0) (#127)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:10:20 PM EST
    Ayers has been simmering.  Should be boiling by Thurs/Fri, which will take us nicely into the weekend.

    Parent
    He still should saturate the airwaves in KY and WV (none / 0) (#120)
    by magster on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:06:55 PM EST
    because he can.

    Parent
    Reports (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:22:14 PM EST
    are that he's begging for money.

    Parent
    Doubtful (none / 0) (#152)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:25:28 PM EST
    He has a huge cushion of cash.

    Parent
    What's this? (none / 0) (#159)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:29:32 PM EST
    Can we be treated to another trip to Billionaire's Row and Obama's gaffe machine?

    Parent
    A few weeks ago... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:08:17 PM EST
    ... they were very confident about Indiana.

    I don't want to hear things like "we always knew winning the electoral vote was going to be a challenge" in November.

    Get ready (none / 0) (#126)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:09:58 PM EST
    We're going to be hearing lots about the "movement for the future" around October or so.

    Parent
    "movement of the future" (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    reminds me of the movement you get from eating a lot of fiber.

    Parent
    Haven't you already used that?! ;-) (none / 0) (#141)
    by andgarden on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:17:14 PM EST
    Oh, you kid. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:21:38 PM EST
    This movement? (none / 0) (#167)
    by Josmt on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:37:18 PM EST
    We have always been at war (none / 0) (#132)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:12:40 PM EST
    with Eurasia.

    Come on, get with the program!

    /swigs more Kool-Aid

    Parent

    In the tank? (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by halstoon on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:54:19 PM EST
    So the in the tank media has been leading with Wright every day for weeks while ignoring Hillary's black panther and Communist connections and McCain's religious backers b/c they love Barack?

    Obama has had to answer over and over, "Why don't white people like you?" b/c the media loves him, while Hillary never gets asked, "So, why did black people totally abandon you? After all, you were beating Obama among AAs in 2007?"

    The media loves Obama so much. It's a good darn thing they don't love him more.

    Crikey! (none / 0) (#183)
    by kmblue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:57:07 PM EST
    Did you see Olbermann last night?
    He was very seriously asking Dana Milbank (of the WashPo) if Hillary wasn't Risking Everything by running such an Unscrupulous Campaign against Obama.

    And Milbank was nodding his heading, saying, well you know, the Clintons are like that.

    I was rolling around on the floor, laughing.

    Gimme a break.

    Parent

    Further (none / 0) (#185)
    by kmblue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:01:01 PM EST
    I believe the question Teh Media has been asking Obama is "Why can't you get the blue-collar vote?"

    And a darn good question it is, too.

    Parent

    NBC does not equal "the media." (none / 0) (#193)
    by halstoon on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:22:12 PM EST
    NBC equals NBC.

    They love Obama. Fox hates him and have decided Hillary is just dandy.

    CNN? They can't decide. They actually do give both sides a reasonable platform.

    So it's not "the media." It's NBC.

    Last I checked, Hillary is backed by the cable news winner, and The Obama Network is in last place.

    So should you guys really still be complaining?

    Parent

    Off the top of me head (none / 0) (#199)
    by kmblue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:59:48 PM EST
    Dana Milbank Washington Post
    Eugene Robinson WashPo
    Rachel Maddow Air America
    Young Turks Air America
    Richard Cohen WashPo
    Bob Herbert NY Times

    I could probably list a few more, including some blogs that shall not be named.

    Parent

    And every day they ask her "Why won't (none / 0) (#188)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:05:11 PM EST
    you effing quit this race already?!?!"

    Parent
    What an idiot! (none / 0) (#1)
    by tree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:15:20 PM EST
    Laugh of the day!

    Like I said. . . (none / 0) (#28)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:24:29 PM EST
    two first names.

    Parent
    What about two last names? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:26:14 PM EST
    I think that is okay (none / 0) (#40)
    by DJ on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:28:49 PM EST
    but then I have a lot of that in my family.

    Parent
    I don't know. . . (none / 0) (#73)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:42:49 PM EST
    never thought about it.  You mean like "Worthington Smithers"?

    Parent
    Remington Steele (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by angie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:45:58 PM EST
    Anything (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Nadai on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    connected to Pierce Brosnan wins my approval.  :)

    If he's endorsed Obama, please, please don't tell me.

    Parent

    Mmmmmm, (none / 0) (#150)
    by madamab on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:24:43 PM EST
    Pierce Brosnan.

    One of my absolute fave actors - just for the gorgeous factor. ;-)

    Parent

    OPEC (none / 0) (#2)
    by BethanyAnne on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:15:43 PM EST
    So, what do folk here think of Hillary's idea to break up OPEC?

    Very interesting (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:19:21 PM EST
    A lot of good Dems seem to be on her side on this one, so I suspect I'd agree.  But I think you're being a little glib by saying she would "break up OPEC."

    Parent
    Well, Steve (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:21:19 PM EST
    give this poster some credit.  She didn't start right out with the whole "nuclear option" theme.  OPEC's just getting the toes wet.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:24:15 PM EST
    I am confident that the blogosphere will now declare its undying allegiance to OPEC, since Hillary dared to criticize it.  You know how it works - Republicans sometimes have good ideas, but Hillary Clinton never does.

    I just read the first couple paragraphs of a Kid Oakland diary in which he proclaimed that Hillary is "running to the right of Joe Lieberman."  Strangely, I didn't manage to read any further.

    Parent

    I may require smelling salts (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Fabian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:38:14 PM EST
    to revive me if Kid Oakland ever writes anything honestly praising Hillary.

    He wrote a decent, but indifferently received Unity diary after PA and then shot right back to the top of the Rec List with more attacks on Hillary.  

    Parent

    I'm prepared to be disgusted (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:42:11 PM EST
    By their "make nice" efforts if Obama wins.


    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:45:32 PM EST
    I am tired of the schizophrenic way that bloggers like Kid Oakland morph back and forth from "Hillary is evil" to "gosh, we're all Democrats here, why can't you be more civil towards Obama."  They think they can smear Hillary and her supporters day in and day out, and then bring up Roe v. Wade and everyone will magically fall in line.  Kinda reminds you how the Republicans try to manipulate their base with the wedge issues, actually.

    Parent
    I did something very dangerous today (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Fabian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:55:07 PM EST
    I compared The Blogs to The Religious Right - on DK.  Fortunately, the comment is buried is Hidden Comment land.

    But honestly, it's easy enough to see how The Blogs are both useful(votes, $$$) and a liability to a campaign that needs to woo voters outside of the internet.

    Parent

    heres the (none / 0) (#48)
    by CanadianDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:30:47 PM EST
    paradox, Clinton says McCain has good ideas...does this make the prog's head explode?

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:31:35 PM EST
    When?  What about?

    Parent
    huh? (none / 0) (#35)
    by BethanyAnne on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:26:48 PM EST
    I'm confused.  Were you assuming that I was posting in bad faith?

    Parent
    It's just incredibly revealing (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:02:26 PM EST
    that she's busy coming up with solutions while Obama is using his time to criticize her!  

    I have a quote in my office I love: "Those who say it can't be done should not interrupt the people who are doing it."


    Parent

    off the top of my head (ouch!), (none / 0) (#142)
    by cpinva on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:17:47 PM EST
    since OPEC is comprised of sovereign nations, not US firms, i seriously doubt the application of the sherman-clayton anti-trust laws will have much weight with them.

    since those nations produce an item that can't be duplicated elsewhere, and there is high demand for it, i also doubt the efficacy of the WTO's being called upon to intervene.

    i'm pretty certain sen. clinton is aware of this, so i suspect something else is going on.

    one thing that would impact OPEC's decision making would be a viable alternative source, of either oil or energy. it so happens this may well be the case in brazil (i think), where it's believed that two or three fields, containing something like 6 bill. barrels of recoverable crude have been discovered. it may be more, i read the article a week or two ago.

    if this turns out to be true, it would apparently dwarf the known reserves of all the OPEC countries combined. that's some serious competition.

    Parent

    I Am So Glad That Backstabber Is On obama's (none / 0) (#4)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    side...they must really be loving him about now.

    what Obama supporter isn't a (none / 0) (#86)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:48:11 PM EST
    backstabber.  The motto of the campaign.  With us or against us -- sounds like someone else.

    Parent
    I figure I miss out on a lot (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:16:32 PM EST
    Because I don't ever listen to what they say "two days ago" anyway.


    Wise man said (none / 0) (#21)
    by Salo on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:21:42 PM EST
    never take the word of man with two first names. His father never loved him.

    Heh (none / 0) (#45)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    Sounds like someone got a phone call in the last couple of days.

    Jeralyn (none / 0) (#47)
    by lobary on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:30:34 PM EST
    Late last night I watched your recent bloggingheads appearance with Ann Althouse, and I want to commend you for your poised, reasonable, and classy responses to Althouse's statements. She made a few comments that I found offensive.

    if I remember (none / 0) (#62)
    by CanadianDem on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:34:00 PM EST
    correctly Althouse has been praised and quoted here often?  So please respect her.

    Parent
    Andrews is spinning. He knows the reality... (none / 0) (#50)
    by AX10 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    is that IF Hillary comes close in North Carolina, it is a victory for Hilary.  Hillary has the most to gain today and Obama to lose.

    not sure about this (none / 0) (#148)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:22:29 PM EST
    if for some reason she loses indiana too, she's out.  SD's will flock.  I think she has a lot more to lose imo

    Parent
    Huffington article has a heading (none / 0) (#55)
    by gabbyone on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:32:13 PM EST
    that says...."Obama wins North Carolina" by
    Michael Carmichal. It's over....Obama takes early voting he states.  Did you ever want anyone to be so wrong.....as this guy?  

    It must be true (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    Because its at HuffPo. And I read the piece, its a thoughtful and very well argued piece of reasoning...

    Ouch, ouch, I am in pain just holding it together to write that! Some comedy is just not worth the price.

    Parent

    The surprising flip-flops this season (none / 0) (#75)
    by angie on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:44:58 PM EST
    hasn't been from the pols, but from the supporters -- before Obama supporters praised him for not being a pol, now they're defending him by saying "but he's a pol!"

    Media (none / 0) (#76)
    by Leisa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:45:02 PM EST
    I think the media is in the tank for Obama also, but many of his supporters and bloggers are not seeing it that way.  One slight or even an appearance of a slight does not go unnoticed.  I see that some of Obama supporters and surrogates have a Major chip on their shoulder...  they will react to almost any perceived slight and make it a conspiracy.

    Neither side's (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by BethanyAnne on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:51:42 PM EST
    supporters are particularly rational right now.  I could offer evidence of some things on this site that I've found quite offensive and irrational towards us who like the MUP, but I'd be troll-rated. :(

    Parent
    We're not (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:01:50 PM EST
    On the TeeVee.

    Parent
    Show some spine! (none / 0) (#108)
    by Fabian on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:01:48 PM EST
    Besides, for every comment you could quote, we could pull up ten highly rated, even worse comments from Daily Kos or elsewhere.  Not that I'd want to engage in that kind of race to the bottom...yeuch!  

    Parent
    please do bethanyanne, (none / 0) (#114)
    by cpinva on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:04:43 PM EST
    i promise not to "troll-rate" you.

    however, there is one requirement: the evidence must be of a factual nature; your being offended by something doesn't, in and of itself, make it offensive. believing sen. clinton will win doesn't qualify as irrational, in any world.

    since jeralyn and BTD do a pretty decent job of enforcing the posting rules, with regards to truly offensive ones, i'll be interested to see what you come up with.

    Parent

    Here's a few (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:20:54 PM EST
    "Obama supporters are like Drunks"

    "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. "

    "younger women need to learn for themselves what back-alley abortions are. Perhaps they need to watch one of their friend's have to self abort with a clothes hanger and get such a bad infection they die or almost die? Or watch a friend have an abortion under less than safe conditions by some hatchet "doctor?"" - referring to young female Obama supporters

    Just a few examples

    Parent

    How about: (none / 0) (#156)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:26:48 PM EST
    "I am so sick of that arrogant f*ckball!"

    I may talk tough, but I do have feelings, and I think it was very unkind of you to leave me off your list.

    Don't you know who I am?!

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#158)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:29:11 PM EST
    I couldn't find them all, the post would be too long.  Plus, I usually think you are funny, rather than just ranting about how evil Obama supporters are.

    Parent
    Oh, make no mistake (none / 0) (#163)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:33:51 PM EST
    I am so in the tank for Clinton that I've started to grow gills.

    Parent
    I never said you weren't in the tank (none / 0) (#170)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:40:49 PM EST
    I have no problem with loving Hillary, even hating Obama doesn't really offend me.  Really, I only get mad when you attack ME (cuz I'm selfish like that, similar to Obama in that way). But having a sense of humor about it all helps soften the blow.

    Parent
    Ha! (none / 0) (#160)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:29:40 PM EST
    But I backed it up.

    Saying "No" five times really did = "yes."

    Listen.  If you look at the media and think it's not pro-Obama, I don't know what to say.

    The only way I can explain it is the way I did.

    Every anti-Obama thing said is your proof, and every pro-Obamma thing said just wasn't said the right way, nor was it ever good enough.  So there's your proof of anti-Obama media bias.

    That's how I looked at the world when I was three sheets to the wind, anyway.  Only it wasn't about Obama or politics of course.  Through that haze where everything bad is magnified and everything good, no matter how much good is said, just isn't good enough.

    So it seemed an accurate way to describe that situation.

    OK.  Lets remove the pejorative "drunks".  Take that out of the statement.

    The phenomenon I'm describing, do you think it's accurate?


    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#165)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:37:01 PM EST
    There are some Obama supporters out there who are irrational.  But to make blanket statements based on what you read at DailyKOS, etc... is rediculous.

    I think the media USED to be pro-Obama, but since they've been harping on Wright so much it seems significantly less so now.  I also think Obama supporters have a right to be upset about that coverage the same way Clinton supporters had a right to be upset about her coverage early in the campaign.

    And no, I don't appreciate you calling me, my mom, my sisters, and many of my friends drunks.

    Parent

    Well if they can see what you see (none / 0) (#173)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:43:14 PM EST
    Then they aren't.

    For instance if they can see that saying "no" 5 times means "no", then fine then I concede the point on making generalizations.

    The Obama blogs, the folks who I was talking about, should not reflect on you and your own.

    Parent

    In all fairness (none / 0) (#187)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:02:17 PM EST
    I may have called myself a drunk on an earlier post...

    I do need to lighten up a bit, this primary is killing me and I have been on edge and completely unproductive all day.

    Thank God it's 5:00...

    Parent

    Just to add here (none / 0) (#186)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:01:58 PM EST
    I'll make the assumption you have never nor will you ever make a generalization about Talk Left or Clinton supporters.

    Isn't that nice of me to make that assumption???!!!!


    Parent

    I try not to (none / 0) (#189)
    by CST on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:06:25 PM EST
    My Grandma is a Hillary supporter and I have the utmost respect and admiration for her and others like her.


    Parent
    You'll never list them all (none / 0) (#169)
    by mffarrow on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:38:34 PM EST
    The scorn and mocking hatred of Obama and his supporters on this site makes it hard to read the comments on almost any TL post these days.

    But things are bad everywhere.  It's not just here.

    Parent

    I know (none / 0) (#174)
    by BethanyAnne on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:43:52 PM EST
    and I feel the same way.  But somehow it's written off as "we were mean to them on DK", and so mean here to us is fine.  We did it worse and first.  Frankly, I don't post much at all anywhere; I almost always just lurk.  But anyone who can't see the condescention (sp?) and meanness here isn't looking.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#178)
    by mffarrow on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:48:28 PM EST
    Lurking is definitely safer.  :)

    Parent
    kk, here ya go (none / 0) (#171)
    by BethanyAnne on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:41:14 PM EST
    A few off the top of my head:

    backstabber

    educated

    punks

    I don't have much more time for this; at work.  But these are 3 things that I found offensive.  I didn't immediately find the bit that I was thinking of, where MarkL talked about Obama flipping Hillary off.  I found that just nutty, and maybe it's gone now.  But these 3 seemed pretty offensive when I read them, and they are still up.  I try not to go here too often anymore, because I just get a torrent of "Obama supporters did it first and worse!", and that's just waaay too jr. high for me.  But sometimes the initmation that Hillary's supporters are all sweetness and light, and TL is a calm rational place for discussion gets too much.

    Parent

    I wouldn't go THAT far (none / 0) (#176)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:45:20 PM EST
    But TL is certainly a lot better than any Obama blog on this issue.


    Parent
    The difference (none / 0) (#139)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:14:54 PM EST
    is that Hillary supporters don't propagate false smears (e.g. the doctored video and the phony "voter suppression smears).

    The other difference is that "troll ratings" here don't mean anything.  At DailyKOS, if they don't like your opinion regardless of if it's rational or not, they gang troll you then you're auto-banned.

    See the difference?

    Parent

    I should have said (none / 0) (#175)
    by BethanyAnne on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:45:03 PM EST
    banned by a moderator.  Cause that's what I actually suspect will happen.  That's the difference I see, and it's not all that much, really.

    Parent
    My post was about the media bias for Obama (none / 0) (#182)
    by Leisa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:55:33 PM EST
    and how I see Obama supporters responding to any perceived slight to Obama.

    I will take your bait though...

    Have you been called a racist or other unreal names here for supporting one candidate over the other?  Do you find people here manufacturing or promoting untrue stories?

    I think what you see here may be extremely frustrated people that have tried to have reasonably fair discussions about very valid concerns with Obama supporters.  I have come across very few people that support Obama that I can have a reasonable discussion on the issues with.  They usually start name calling, story telling or shouting...

    I have yet to see a Hillary supporter physically assault anyone.  I can not say the same of Obama supporters.  So, I think that the odds of rational behavior coming form a Hillary supporter are greater....  I do not agree that it is equally bad...  nope.   That has not been my experience.  

    Parent

    Obama supporters are like drunks (none / 0) (#123)
    by Edgar08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:08:56 PM EST
    Every joke they tell is the funniest ever.

    Just a look can mean the gravest of insults.

    Every positive statement for Obama.  In the end, it just wasn't good enough.

    When you exist in a world where saying "No" five times means you said "yes" well then it really doesn't matter if you said "No" or not.

    This is the hazy lens through which they view the media.

    Parent

    Frankly, as surrogates go today (none / 0) (#88)
    by magster on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:49:30 PM EST
    McCauliffe really overdid the Hillary likes to drink thing.

    I do not like Joe andrew (none / 0) (#98)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    Not because he flipped. Heck, John Lewis flipped.

    But because of the way he flipped.

    Parent

    Andrew is just a number to me (none / 0) (#116)
    by magster on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:05:38 PM EST
    LOL (none / 0) (#89)
    by snucky on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:49:32 PM EST
    ANDREW IS NOW MR. BACKTRACK. HE IS SO FULL OF IT.

    hows Tweetys body language (none / 0) (#157)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:27:30 PM EST
    can you tell if he has seen any exit polls yet?


    I dunno (none / 0) (#164)
    by Kathy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:34:35 PM EST
    but when he got out of his chair a while ago, all the foam was gone from the seat from him clenching his butt so hard.

    Parent
    btw (none / 0) (#162)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:30:33 PM EST
    since this is open.
    I say Newt say something very interesting last night.
    he said MI is already having a primary in August and all they would have to do is add the dem names.
    is this true?


    Yes (none / 0) (#172)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:41:24 PM EST
    Michigan is having its primary for Senate, Congressional, and state offices on August 5.  Now, as far as adding the presidential candidates to that, obviously it would be complicated.  Under the DNC rules all the primaries are supposed to be done by June.

    Parent
    but the point is (none / 0) (#179)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:51:20 PM EST
    they are already having a freaking election.
    what is the big deal?
    I did not know this.
    I am flabbergasted.

    Parent
    Good question (none / 0) (#192)
    by Steve M on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:14:53 PM EST
    I assume nobody thought it was a reasonable idea to leave the thing up in the air until August.

    If it becomes clear at some point that this thing is literally going to the convention, people may change their minds.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton in Charlotte today (none / 0) (#166)
    by Josey on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:37:02 PM EST
    Schuster just criticized Hillary because (none / 0) (#168)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:38:17 PM EST
    she didn't know that there's no reverse on a indycar. Huge mistake! How will she recover?

    No reverse? (none / 0) (#181)
    by kmblue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:54:39 PM EST
    How do they park 'em?  :-)

    Parent
    Sideways? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:59:41 PM EST
    Obama shaking hands and interupting (none / 0) (#190)
    by nycstray on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:11:09 PM EST
    diners while they are eating their breakfast . . .  lol!~

    Easy to tell if Sen. Obama is winning or (none / 0) (#191)
    by FLVoter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:14:37 PM EST
    losing.  Just turn to MSNBC and look at their faces.  If their faces are downtrodden and upset, then Sen. Clinton is winning. If she is winning big they will all begin to say no matter if she wins both states she just can't get the nomination.  Some heads will explode. All the more fun.  For the PA primary I muted the tv and watched all the MSNBCs pundits faces.  It was very enjoyable.

    BTD, am I allowed to say that Kurt Andersen is ... (none / 0) (#195)
    by cymro on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:30:47 PM EST
     ... a wanker? If not, just delete this comment.

    My opinion is based on the article you linked above About That Crush on Obama. That article is -- ironically -- itself a classic illustration of just how far out of touch the MSM elite is with the rest of America. What a self-obsessed pseudo-intellectual twit. If the Democratic party believes it has to represent people who think like he does, it's no wonder the Republicans can run circles around us at election time.

    How depressing.

    Andrews (none / 0) (#198)
    by AnninCA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 04:48:53 PM EST
    is a bit of a joke, eh?

    Little late to manage expectations now.

    I'm impressed that people want the election to go on.  I think we all feel that we've come this darn far, let EVERYONE vote, dang it.

    Joe Andrews (none / 0) (#200)
    by Andy08 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 05:11:08 PM EST
    doesn't sound too smart... I'm surprised he was chair of the DNC... Was he any good during his tenure? I don't remember anything memorable about it..