Why Did Obama Do Worse in N.C. Than Virginia?

TwinMom at MyDD has an interesting diary up comparing Obama's win in Virginia to North Carolina:

Obama won Virginia by 28 points and North Carolina by 14. What's different, given the similar voter demographics?

Using exit poll data here and here from the NY Times, TwinMom shows the percentages of white men, white women, black men and black women voters were very similar but the results were not:

  • In Virginia, Obama won 67% of White Men. In North Carolina only 40%
  • In Virginia, Obama won 45% of White Women , in North Carolina only 33%.
  • In Virginia, Obama won 93% of Black Men and 85% of Black Women. In North Carolina, he won 91% of Black Men and Black Women.

The conclusion: [More...]

Obama lost ground among all but black women:

White Men (-27)
White Women (-12)
Black Men (-2)
Black Women (+6)

What to take from it:

In fact, Obama's showing in NC last night is CONSIDERABLY weaker than his showing in neighboring VA 3 months ago. In my opinion, we should all be asking WHY and also wondering about what this decline in numbers means in terms of the GE?

NC and VA make an excellent, nearly ideal side-by-side comparison in terms of demographics. These 2 contests clearly show a significant increase in support for Sen Clinton and a marked decrease in support for Sen Obama.

The voting demographics:

White male: VA 28%, N.C. 27%
White female: Va 35%, N.C. 35%
Black Male: VA 13%, N.C. 13%
Black Female: VA 17%, N.C. 20%.

Comments over 200, now closed.

< Demographics | 2209 is the Delegate Number, Not 2025 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Is it complicated? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by robrecht on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:34:28 PM EST
    Isn't it simply Obama's elitist remark about small town people clinging to guns & religion and all the hype about Rev. Wright?  And Obama's relative inexperience in extricating himself from these political liabilities?

    Elitist (3.00 / 2) (#149)
    by WorkinJoe on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:13:14 PM EST
    First off, Obama is not an elitist.  His "bitter" remarks were part of an adult conversation in explaining how the Republicans were able to siphon off votes from people in economic levels that would seem, on face value, to be better served by Democratic policies.  Obama simply stated that because Washington DC's economic promises are never delivered to workin' Joes, they often fall back on issues like gun control, or religious issues such as gay marriage or abortion to cast their vote.  

    What is refreshing about Obama is his willingness to speak to us as adults.  Listen closely to his speeches.  Quit taking the Republican approach of picking a single word or phrase and letting your blood pressure rise.  Actually try to understand what's being said.  He's a very straight forward guy and has a chance to be a great president.


    This: (5.00 / 5) (#171)
    by Nadai on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:20:49 PM EST
    His "bitter" remarks were part of an adult conversation in explaining how the Republicans were able to siphon off votes from people in economic levels that would seem, on face value, to be better served by Democratic policies.

    is an out and out lie.  He was "explaining" why he wasn't doing better against Clinton in Pennsylvania.  It had nothing to do with the Republicans.


    I thought the comments (5.00 / 9) (#178)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:22:22 PM EST
    were a gross misread of Frank's Kansas thesis.

    Frank was attacking Dems for abandoning populist rhetoric and economic policy.

    The Dems offered a slick internationalist cosmopolitan multiculturalism, freetrade liberalism and the cruelty of the freemarket. Coupled with affirmative action, prochoice, PC language restrictions,  these are policies designed to appeal to fairly well heeled upper middle class voters.  Not factory workers or manual labourers.

    Frank was saying that the working class were abandoned by self-rightcheous liberals in favour of cultural battles.

    Guess what?

    liberals have done it again. And Obama embodies that liberal habit.


    I'll agree with the "gross misread" (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by debrazza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:00:50 PM EST
    I think Frank himself wrote the same thing in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

    Oh, I just love (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by lilburro on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:01:30 PM EST
    being spoken to as an adult.  Heaven knows Hillary doesn't speak to me as an adult.  Why, she expects me to keep track of funds I've never heard of, of the structure of her plans!  She wants to expand my vocabulary to include words like "mandate"!  

    Having an adult conversation means including the people you're talking about.  Which Obama didn't exactly do when badmouthing the working class in front of SF royalty.  


    Is there something wrong with SF? (none / 0) (#232)
    by debrazza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:05:41 PM EST
    I think if we want to rid the old "San Francisco Liberal" canard, we should not believe that ourselves.  As somone who lived in the Bay Area for many years, I will tell you that I don't think there is much at all "liberal" about San Francisco.  Unless you think a gross disregard for a massive homeless population while simultaneously being the home to some of the richest people on the planet "liberal".  There is nothing "liberal" about the inequities of wealth in that city.

    Hmm, one sec. (5.00 / 2) (#243)
    by lilburro on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:23:21 PM EST
    Did I write the word "liberal" anywhere in my comment above?  No, I did not.  SF I'm sure has problems that belie its pop culture image, but there's no changing the fact that Obama said his bitter comments in front of a **wealthy** (from your POV, unrepresentative) audience, in San Francisco.  What you're saying, IMO, underlines the problem in Obama's comments - SF isn't all wealthy+liberal people, though that is who Obama stood in front of when characterizing the small town PA voters (in other words, when he chose to represent them to the SF fundraisers).  We don't know the real SF.  Well, Obama doesn't know "the real" PA.  And perhaps, we don't know the real Obama.  But it's hard to trust the gross generalizations of a Pres. candidate hobnobbing with his rich fundraisers in SF.

    Obama may've gained a little cred in opposing the gas tax holiday.  But he's demonstrated at best a great tone-deafness towards the enduring class issues of our society and the language we use to describe them (ex. unions = special interest groups).  If the Dem party is to stay on the right side of socio-economic issues, it needs to maintain a respect for the hardships of our workers past, present, and future.  Presenting these people as disposable doesn't cut it for me.  Search through the exit polls; across the country there are plenty of white working class voters plugged into the Dem Party, apparently not yet clinging.  We should be able to keep these people in the GE.  

    SF still has a certain cachet, as does say, Seattle.


    This seems a little bit silly. (5.00 / 2) (#242)
    by wurman on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:22:03 PM EST
    Sen. Obama was wrong & does not know what he's talking about.

    Economic policies in D.C., & the fact that nothing trickles down to working stiffs, has nothing to do with a person's positions on god, guns, gays & abortion.

    For the people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade, a candidates view & votes will be the first & singular over-riding factor in voting.  This issue crosses all economic lines & often works in tandem with the god thing.

    People who perceive themselves as religious fundamentalists make that their most important factor in assessing a candidate; it is not something they cling to after something else happens to them.

    The anti-gay thing & the same-sex marriage gambit are tiresomely worn out: it is a basic, front-of-the-line position for the people who fear & loathe homosexuals; it is not a by-the-way issue.

    Anyone, I mean anyone, and especially a political candidate, who thinks that the 2nd amendment is some sort of fallback position of smalltown folk who feel left out is just plain, flat-out too silly to be in politics.  For the voters who are passionate about firearms, it is their foremost issue.

    Finally, many of these factors tend to fall together for people.  As most observors KNOW, god & guns & gays are basic tenets of a very huge group of voters.  Anti-abortion beliefs thread through those groups too.

    The religious conservatives & social conservatives who hold those views do not do so because some factories got closed & the people can't find new, well paid jobs.  

    What an utterly banal, ridiculous comment that was by Sen. Obama.  He has no concept of who those people are & why they won't vote for him.  And he grew up in Kansas--go figure.


    Elitism (3.66 / 3) (#158)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:16:45 PM EST
    is very different from adult conversations.  Mature adults, in fact, don't discuss people as though they are a "category."  Mature adults also recognize that they must apply the same principles to themselves as to others.  For example, if I am spiritually inclined, I would never suggest that someone else's beliefs are motivated out of some "lower" motive, as he did.

    I very much disagree that he talked to the group as adults.  He and the wine-sippers were clucking over those slobs in PA who don't know any better.

    We all got the message.


    You contradict yourself... (none / 0) (#209)
    by sander60tx on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:41:06 PM EST
    You say that "mature adults" don't speak of others as if they are a category, then you go on to call a certain group of people "wine-sippers."  Of course, you never said you were a "mature adult!"  Only that Obama wasn't.  I think that misses the point, though  The whole post is talking about categories of people and how Obama support among those groups has varied over time.   I wonder how much of that comes down to "likeability."  I wonder if those of us who identify with a particular candidate have an easier time excusing their flawed behavior (or not even recognizing it at all).  It's much easier for me to excuse Clinton than Obama, because I view him as a hypocrit and but I never felt that she portrayed herself as anything other than who she is, baggage and all.  

    Bingo! (none / 0) (#216)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:49:52 PM EST
    I did, indeed, not claim that mantle.  :)

    The longer people (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:36:03 PM EST
    have to get to know them, the worse he looks.

    He does not wear well. n/t (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:57:45 PM EST
    I agree n/t (none / 0) (#229)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:04:01 PM EST
    The worse he looks? (1.00 / 0) (#237)
    by joharmon86 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:15:56 PM EST
    Illinois knows him very well and Obama destroyed Hillary in Illinois despite the fact that Hillary is FROM ILLINOIS. It is her HOME STATE. Obama won white women in Illinois and seniors because they know him.

    NC voters LIKED the gas tax holiday (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:37:37 PM EST
    idea (says she, after paying $64 to fill up her 4-cylinder car).

    That is a problem (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Leisa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:38:09 PM EST
    when a candidate is fresh...  Voters know more about him now than they did three months ago.  I think it could get worse for him, as it appears that the media really have not covered the problems with his candidacy (and I am not talking about Wright).  Even now it does not seem that the media is doing it's job as ignore issues that are very important in a democracy.

    And That Is How We Ended Up With gwb As (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:42:28 PM EST

    all things being equal (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Turkana on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:38:19 PM EST
    the story of last night would have been clinton doing better than has been expected in both states. a month ago, obama would have won north carolina by 25-30, and indiana by 8-10. but all things are not equal, and clinton simply couldn't afford another bad post-election news cycle.

    Sooooo infuriating. (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:39:33 PM EST
    Until you realize that "one month ago" (none / 0) (#19)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:44:52 PM EST
    is totally arbitrary. You might just as well set the timeframe to six months ago, and note that compared to that Hillary underperformed. The timeframe is arbitrary and pre-selected to show a specific result.

    What matters is not that selective, rhetorical use of timeframes, but yesterday, and the consequences of yesterday.


    Hope you won't be offended if I (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:46:42 PM EST
    don't agree w/you.

    Innocent reason? (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:42:06 PM EST
    She campaigned there.  She also got excellent endorsments. Obama's appeal and newness wearing off in general. She got a bump out of Pennsylvannia.

    Other Reasons:

    Wright, Ayers, Bittercling, disconnected attitute about energy prices.

    Also the media are starting to attack him and various GOP moles like IWF's Michelle Bernard are starting to see their plans reach fruition.

    to know him is to love him less!

    For the first time in the Rasmussen poll (none / 0) (#18)
    by maritza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:44:49 PM EST
    Obama has higher favorabilities than McCain and Hillary.  The last time this has happened according to Rasmussen was March 10th.

    Favorables? (none / 0) (#26)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:46:34 PM EST
    Hasn't he always had higher favorables than Hillary?

    Yes...Her Unfavorables Dogged Her (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:53:12 PM EST
    constantly.  Being smarter, more experienced, and a problem solver are a liability now in our bizarro world.

    Because of his negative campaign tactics, (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:55:53 PM EST
    yes. His campaign's non-stop bellowing for tax returns, earmarks, library donations, etc. was intended to send the message the Clinton's were hiding something illegal, underhanded, or tainted with unsavory relationships. It worked on two levels: they established a cloud of untrustworthy over the Clinton camp, and they got their supporters to say, "so, what about Hsu" every time the topic of Rezko, Ayres, etc. comes up.



    because of his negatives (5.00 / 0) (#153)
    by delacarpa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:14:22 PM EST
    I don't think that Clinton knew Hsu" for 20 years and that is the difference

    Yes but his favorabilities (1.00 / 0) (#68)
    by maritza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:56:49 PM EST
    are now higher than McCain's according to Rasmussen.  This is the first time this has happened since March 10th according to Rasmussen.

    What matters to me is how I feel about him. nt (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:05:46 PM EST
    A quick glance through the exit poll data (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:43:14 PM EST
    doesn't indicate too many other determining factors besides race.

    Obama simply lost massive support among white voter.

    Virginia does have more college graduates and more people making over $50,000, but the margins between education and income groups aren't close to those between racial groups.

    It appears the losses were more concentrated among those making more than $50,000, but I don't know how to compare that, given the different costs of living.

    What a depressing election. Has the Democratic Party ever split in such an obvious demographic way before in a presidential primary?

    a factor besides race . . . (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:47:52 PM EST
    issues vs whining.

    Obama spent a lot of time defending against Wright and whining that Hillary was being a big ol' meanie and pandering politician. She talked issues, so that may have swayed some 'practical' voters to her.


    I hear it certainly played a role (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:18:47 PM EST
    in the Triangle where people want to be able to say what they learned was more than just a series of words strung together with way too many uh's, and um's.

    Starting a sentence with "well, look" is really condescending. I never hear another word after he starts that way (which is frequent)...the rest of the sentence goes something like "blah, blah, blah, blah".


    Obama WILL win the white vote in Oregon for sure (none / 0) (#25)
    by maritza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:46:28 PM EST
    over Hillary.

    And he won't (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:48:03 PM EST
    in Kentucky.

    But (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:51:19 PM EST
    didn't you know?  OR is higher on the Ladder of Enlightenment than KY so it doesn't matter.

    See? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:59:09 PM EST
    Just look at the comment below mine.  Someone posted the same thing but actually means it.

    I just went to Wikipedia to check on OR demographics and learned that they had a law on the books until 1925 banning AAs from living there.


    Funny :) (none / 0) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:20:36 PM EST
    What's the point? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:49:39 PM EST
    He also won the white vote in Raleigh/Durham. Nobody is saying he can't win among some groups of white people. The question is why he did much worse in NC than in VA?

    Maybe, as Steve M says, the two states are just different, just as Oregon is different than California. Or maybe something has happened in the last few months to cause it.


    funny (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by moe21885 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:05:51 PM EST
    I can just hear you crossing your fingers and whispering "pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease" as you typed that last sentence.

    That's not really necessary... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:23:58 PM EST
    ... is it?

    What about in FL, MI, OH, PA, against McCain? (none / 0) (#36)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:48:51 PM EST
    It means nothing to me (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:43:49 PM EST
    North Carolina is more like a cross between Virginia and Tennessee.  Different kind of state.  There's lots of diversity among white voters.

    The longer Obama campaigns (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:46:10 PM EST
    the more obvious it is that he hasn't said anything at all about what he is going to do to make life more comfortable for the middle and lower income people in this country. The Clinton's both talk non-stop on the importance of addressing issues that are important to those demographics.

    At some point his supporters are going to have to explain what it is about his policies that keep them wanting to cast their vote for him. I can't think of anything he has said that makes me believe his motivation is anything more than a self-serving need.

    I had the same impression last night (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:48:18 PM EST
    listening to him say we must all come together now.

    I talked to a young woman outside (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by BernieO on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:08:55 PM EST
    of a polling place in Charlotte yesterday. She said she had decided to vote for Hillary after going to both Barack and Hillary speak at events. She heard Barack first and felt he did not really say what he planned to do, but Hillary offered a lot of proposals. This woman teaches kindergarten in a very low income area was really impressed by Hillary's proposal for pre-K ed and by her opposition to No Child Left Behind.

    That young teacher's story is telling (none / 0) (#235)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:11:38 PM EST
    and not uncommon from people who honestly and objectively look at what Obama is saying (or not saying) instead of his fancy speeches.  

    This is very telling for the future of the Democratic Party.


    Don't worry---the good stuff will trickle (none / 0) (#49)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:53:34 PM EST
    down later.

    Like Reaganomics? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:02:34 PM EST
    How Reaganesque! (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Fabian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:03:55 PM EST
    You all know how Obama admired Reagan's ability to bring people together.  Like a flock of gullible sheep - IMO.

    Remember Reagan (none / 0) (#141)
    by BernieO on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:11:23 PM EST
    rhapsodizing about the "magic of the markets"? The guy explicitly expressed that he was a magical thinker and Americans went for it. Bet those people who lost money in the S&L, dot-com, etc. don't think the market is so magical now.

    They intend to use (none / 0) (#175)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:21:42 PM EST
    the Supreme Court boogey man and McCain to attempt to scare people. Welcome to the Democraic Party, he same as the Republican prty but without the bullocks of them.

    One other factor (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:48:35 PM EST
    Chaos version 1.0 was designed to Stop the Hillary Express! It worked. Chaos version 1.0 was decisive in the Chesapeake primary.   (does Rush enjoy high listenership stats in Virginia and Maryland?)

    Chaos 2.0 looks to be a damp squib in comparison. Intended to drag out the Dem race a little bit longer to cover McCain from scrutiny.  Also a last chance to torture a Clinton and give kerry talking points.  Is he having some revenge on Clinton for the muffed Iraq joke he told in 2006?

    the lopsided win of white males in Virginia looks like the clincher for Obama's selection.

    I predict (none / 0) (#179)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:22:30 PM EST
    he'l lose them in the General.

    I thought there would be several (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:51:24 PM EST
    SD's announcing for Obama today.
    What.. they only announce when it looks like he's going to lose a primary?!

    No, they announce (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:22:38 PM EST
    when they think they will get the most national attention for their own names. It has nothing to do with Obama.

    Who said that? (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by maritza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:54:50 PM EST
    This process continues to go on.  Obama will probably get 3-5 superdelegates a day over the next month.

    There were several. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:56:28 PM EST
    Again, he'll lose (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:53:20 PM EST
    big in Kentucky, which has a small AA community.  Right next to Illinois.

    So what is the reason?

    I'm sure it's that Wright brought real issues into play that will not work with moderate and conservatives.

    The reason is (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by independent voter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:02:19 PM EST
    when you are struggling in life, low wages, low education, limited prospects, it is not uncommon to look for a group of people that you can feel superior to. It is very sad, but I have seen it over and over, lower income, less educated whites are more likely to buy into stereotypes about minorities, and look down on them.
    I know this is in some part a generalization, and I'm sure some of you will want to point out all the people you personally know that do not fit this mold....but as a whole, it is reality in America in 2008. Maybe President Obama will be able to change some minds during his term in office. I sincerely hope so.

    That's elitist (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:09:05 PM EST
    BS talk for calling an entire state racist.  LOL*

    What's very sad is if you honestly believe this.


    All the more reason (5.00 / 0) (#134)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:09:21 PM EST
    that we need Hillary as president.

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:14:48 PM EST
    I have found that well-off, educated, successful white people tend to be more polite about what they say on the issue of race.  Other than that, I'm not prepared to generalize.

    And super succesful ... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:32:12 PM EST
    ...educated rich men like Kerry and Daschle have delusions that a man who's black can stop Muslims from being upset at America...and thus stop them from sending fanatics to blow up American troops stationed in the Middle East.

    rubbing it in (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by coolit on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:00:50 PM EST
    and celebrating at another's misfortune is typical of Obama's supporters.  

    I feel so attacked by his supporters that I am really starting to agree that he is creating a new kind of politics:  

    It is the kind of politics that is sleek, stylish, and cool without any substance.

    It is the kind of politics that convinces the media that it is hopeful and refreshing (in sound bites) while doing the opposite).

    It is the kind of politics that calls someone racist  who it knows is not racist.

    It is the kind of politics who says someone is trying to "steal the election" when they are just competing hard.

    I don't want this kind of politician as my president.


    American Idol (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:19:20 PM EST
    presidents with no substance have one big advantage.  They really don't do a lot.

    I say, focus on the down-ticket.  Let's take back the party, but let's do it inside out.

    In short, let him be a figurehead.

    In the meantime, I've caught the politics bug.  There are tons of positions in Congress out there, and it will be interesting to see if we can replace some of these power-grabber types with some really solid people.

    I know they are out there, just waiting for a break.


    Do you want the (none / 0) (#115)
    by independent voter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:06:24 PM EST
    politics that says it is OK to stay in Iraq 100 years?
    Do you want the politics that wants to invade Iran?
    Do you want the politics that extends the Bush tax cuts and expanmds them?

    Mourning is fine, and expected. Keeping a grip on reality...priceless


    Another (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:07:25 PM EST

    Where are they coming from?
    Guys, if you are so sure of Obama,
    for God's sake go to the beach or something.


    That's the problem. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by coolit on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:11:43 PM EST
    Obama and his supporters are so mean and disingenuous that I am starting to doubt absolutely everything he says.  Left is right, up is down, clinton is a racist, obama doesn't play the 'old kind of politics'.  What can we believe?  

    Yeah, I wish I wanted to vote for him.  I wish I trusted him.  It's not my fault that he has completely alienated me.  Why do you fault me for the things he has done?


    McCain will be lucky... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:11:45 PM EST
    ...to see the end of his 70s.

    100 years...could just as easily apply to Obama or Clinton. Noone is plannning to evacuate the middle East last time I checked.


    Nope (none / 0) (#183)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:24:02 PM EST
    That doesn't mean I'm voting for Barack though.

    What's the explanation going to be... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:00:56 PM EST
    ... when McCain carries North Dakota, Idaho, and Utah and Obama carries Vermont, Maine, and Connecticut?

    There are so many possible explanations that you can't just say that racism is the cause.

    Racism is the nuclear accusation. You have to be have rock solid evidence before deploying it. Just because one state likes Obama more than another doesn't mean the folks in the second state are racist.

    huh? (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by moe21885 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:01:35 PM EST
    Jeralyn, are you trying to suggest that Obama has a "white problem"? This is ridiculous. North Carolina might superficially resemble Virginia in a demographic sense, but the two states are incredibly different from income and class perspectives. NC has one bastion of creative-class liberalism (the Research Triangle) while Virginia has, by my count, at least three (Northern Virginia, with 3 million people and the most educated county in the country, the city of Richmond, and Charlottesville).

    It's clear that Obama does not have a problem with white people, as you recklessly and disingenuously assert. He won Colorado, Iowa, Wyoming, and Connecticut, not exactly the most diverse states in the Union. He does, however, have an Appalachia problem. County-by-county results from NC affirm this. Luckily for the Democratic party, we've not won Appalachia in a Presidential contest in decades, and it doesn't factor into any Democrat's path to the White House.

    The encouraging thing, though, is that demographic shifts in Virginia and North Carolina are taking power away from the Appalachian regions of those states, which is why they are in play in the fall.

    Things change. That is the point. (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:05:26 PM EST
    Ignore the movement in demographics at your peril.

    what movement? (none / 0) (#136)
    by moe21885 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:10:09 PM EST
    I'm saying that the same bloc of voters who won't support him in WVA and Kentucky, and who didn't support him in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Tennessee, also didn't support him in North Carolina.

    A white Dem primary voter in NC is more likely to fit the "Appalachian" profile than is a white Dem primary voter in Virginia, which explains the differential in the exit polling. There has been NO movement.


    Appalacian regions? (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by trillian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:09:02 PM EST
    He didn't win the white vote in California either.

    Has it ever occurred to you that he's not getting their votes because he is not addressing their problems....like the economy for instance?


    yawn (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by moe21885 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:18:55 PM EST
    This meme of Obama as "substanceless" is getting played out, guys. He's addressed the economy. I'm not sure how he's addressed it any less substantively than Hillary has.

    Hillary had two big strengths going into this race: 1) "Machine" Democratic states, like MA, CA, NY, and pretty much every traditional blue state besides IL, where Obama had support and 2) "Reagan" Democrats in Appalachia. It is not particularly surprising when she wins states in either of these categories, just as it is not particularly surprising when Obama blows her out in areas where AA's dominate the primary vote.

    Here's the difference between the two: "Machine" Dem states will vote for the nominee in the fall. Bank on it. Powerful local parties in the states I mentioned will rally behind Obama just like the one in IL would have rallied around Clinton.

    Now, I'm willing to concede that Obama, for whatever reason, doesn't connect with Appalachian Democrats. I don't see this as a problem, however, as most of the states they are in are trending blue anyway.

    We all just need to stop the hand-wringing.


    Actually (3.00 / 2) (#217)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:51:39 PM EST
    You might want to wake up and pay attention. There are ALOT of people here that have been lifelon Democrats that WILL NOT be voting for Obama. His slash and burn, scorched Earth primary strategy will likely cost him the GE. I sure hope that the number of nw Democrats registered will more tham make up for the ones he has disenfranchised in order to secure his win. Creative class indeed, more like the idiot class. The Democratic pary has managed to screw up an election cycle that should have been a sure thing.

    thanks for your reasoned, measured response (none / 0) (#224)
    by moe21885 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:59:05 PM EST

    Just because you don't like (none / 0) (#238)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:17:52 PM EST
    the reality doesn't mean it isn't reasoned or measured. The least popular GOP President will be leaving office. We managed to pull off 6 seats in 2006 because so many people fell out of love with the GOP. Their party was fractured and damaged. Meanwhile our presumptive nominee LOSES to McCain electorally. Oh and according to Donna, working class and Latin folks are so 2006.  

    Oh yes... (none / 0) (#197)
    by trillian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:31:13 PM EST
    Machine Dems, like Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle....

    As for his "addressing" the economy, he basically told lunch bucket Dems to suck it up because $30 savings in gas wasn't worth it.


    wow (none / 0) (#207)
    by moe21885 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:37:39 PM EST
    I didn't realize that defenders of the Great Gas Tax Pander of 2008 still existed. I won't even get into that. Be secure in the knowledge that even if the disastrous idea made it through Congress, there would be no actual decrease in gas prices. Inelasticity of supply: look it up.

    And since Hillary won the state that Kerry and Kennedy represent, this should give you a sense as to how much the endorsement of Senators means. In those states, it's all about on-the-ground pols at the mayoral level and below. Hillary had a clear majority of those endorsements in MA at primary time, which is why she won.


    Rasmussen (none / 0) (#225)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:00:30 PM EST
    did a poll on this and it is popular with only 42% against it. Once again Obama has no clue on what works for the working class.

    Goodness (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:09:09 PM EST
    Has it really been "decades" since the 1990s?  How time flies.

    Well, Clinton... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:29:32 PM EST
    ... last won Kentucky, West Virginia, and Tennessee in 1996. So that was 1.2 decades ago.

    Does that count as decades?


    lose the insults and name calling (none / 0) (#184)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:25:03 PM EST
    or you will be gone from here. I posted another writer's analysis. Feel free to disagree with the writer's conclusions, methodology, or premise. Do not call me names and make false accusations.

    One and only warning to you.


    I'm sorry, but (1.00 / 0) (#201)
    by moe21885 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:32:49 PM EST
    no one called you any names. The commentary you posted is clearly counterfactual and conveniently leaves out significant demographic differences between the two states, differences that explain the exit poll differentials, in an effort to paint Obama as having a racial problem. Your reposting of it indicates at least a modicum of agreement, which is why I addressed my comment to you.

    And Wisconsin! (none / 0) (#212)
    by WorkinJoe on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:44:30 PM EST
    Obama carried Wisconsin by 17 percent and the Badger State is heavily white.  Of course, WI is known as a progressive state with lots of clear thinkers and good-lookin' people!

    Well, then, explain why the same fine folk (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:03:28 PM EST
    here in my state of Wisconsin who so fell in love with Obama turned around and only weeks later ran off the state Supreme Court the first AA justice ever here?  And with a disgraceful campaign that Willie Hortoned him and worse.

    You either still really don't know what happened in Wisconsin in the primary (and I have relayed the media reports and voting data and more here many times so won't use up bandwidth again) or opt to ignore it.  Bottom line, you would be wise to not use Wisconsin as evidence for your argument, because to do so suggests ignorance, untruthfulness, or simply naivete.

    Oh, and Obama now is losing in Wisconsin (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:05:29 PM EST
    to McCain by four points, per a new Rasmussen poll.

    As Wisconsin was the closest state in 2004, with less than half a point margin for Kerry, Obama would turn Wisconsin from blue to red.  And wouldn't that be just a great thing for the Democrats downticket here?  (Uh, no.)

    This is important (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by chancellor on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:20:37 PM EST
    Kerry and Edwards had to work their butts off to nail WI. Madison is very blue and Milwaukee is reasonably blue, but the rest of the state only has blue pockets. Remember, right next door to Milwaukee is Jim Sensenbrenner's district, and he's a total Repub nutcase. I know everyone thinks that because Russ Feingold proclaims himself a progressive that he is a liberal voter. Not true. Russ votes to represent his state, meaning he scores about a 77% versus 96% for Hillary on progressive issues. WI is a purple state.

    Russ can be such a conman. (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:37:05 PM EST
    Massively inflated reputation.

    I lived in Madison during Reagan v Mondale (5.00 / 0) (#188)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:26:26 PM EST
    I did phone work for Mondale and it was amazing the number of split-ticket voters. Reagan at the top and the liberal Democrat Kastenmeier for Congress. I have a feeling that is Obama's fate as well.

    Cheesehead Input (none / 0) (#166)
    by WorkinJoe on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:19:43 PM EST
    As a Cheesehead, I don't have any concerns about Obama carrying Wisconsin.  When McCain has to start speaking side-by-side with Obama, people will see the differences in policy.  

    Except (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:25:57 PM EST
    Obama doesn't talk policy.  He talks biography.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#213)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:45:03 PM EST
    Policy? (none / 0) (#189)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:27:28 PM EST
    Baaahaaahaaahaaaa, you mean the stuff that Obama supoorters have decried as not important throughout the primary? Watching this GE would actually be fun iof it weren't for the fact that I'm predicting the next four years ar going to be some of the worst fo average AmericansWhether it be Obama or McCain because one thins bad policy is good and theother thinks that policy isn't important.)

    Silly Rabbit (5.00 / 2) (#223)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:58:51 PM EST
    A president's job is to provide inspiration not enact policies.

    To all those who called HRC's supporters racists (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:20:10 PM EST
    show same guts and go tell this group of Hillary supports that they are Racists.
    They are women, they are black and they are angry big time at people like you, the party and Barok Hope Obama (BHO).

    I go hung out there for a good dose of disinfectant and a lough  when people like you infect me.


    How about agreeing (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST
    to ignore the posters who are here just to aggravate?  I kept trying to answer one of them--turned out that comment was deleted before I could get my (then) irrelevant answer in.  I'd like to read some enlightening stuff, not rants--how ever disguised.

    Ignoring them... (none / 0) (#200)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:32:26 PM EST
    ... is a good idea.

    Partly because if you respond, you look kind of silly after Jeralyn and BTD delete the original comment. :)


    Do you know what's really ironic? (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by coolit on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:28:18 PM EST
    I actually would have voted for Barack before Clinton "drew the election out."  I would have just numbly pushed his button in the booth.

    Now, we have had a real chance to see something about both of them.  We have learned what of person they each are and what kind of campaign they would run.  We don't have idealistic books, we have concrete evidence of the type of things they are willing to do to win.

    Only now have I actually reconsidered that automatic D vote.

    I'm sorry but I wouldn't have (none / 0) (#246)
    by BostonIndependent on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:48:54 PM EST
    I always saw right thru him. My wife is in love w/ him (she spends far too much time w/ the Kossacks -- LOL), but what the heck.. as I tell her, we get to cancel each other out this election.

    Very interesting look at the map (5.00 / 0) (#204)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:36:05 PM EST
    This is from the North Carolina State Board of Elections.


    Obama won the state, but Hillary won most of the counties especially in the West and costal.  

    Can Obama bring over the traditional democrats when Brazille says the "old" coalition isn't needed anymore?  That's the question of electability.  Are those who changed parties going to stay Dem or just did it for the primaries?

    I highly doubt it.

    Clinton didn't have a strategy past Feb 5? (5.00 / 1) (#248)
    by Prabhata on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:58:45 PM EST
    If you look at the news around Feb 5, HRC was predicting that nothing would be final until June.  The way I see it.  First Clinton, after being accused of racism in SC did not know how to go about campaigning in states with high AA voters.  In SC Bill Clinton took the fight to the AA voters, and the racial bating from the Obama campaign went into full swing accusing him that he had said the Obama campaign was a fairy tale.  The other accusation, which Obama called "unfortunate" was that HRC had dissed MLK.  And there were other instances.  HRC's camp didn't get her footing until TX. In TX and after TX the Clinton camp decided to contest just with the White voters. That lead to a decrease in the White votes going to Obama. Second, HRC's base is very different from Obama's.  Her base, working people who cannot take off work or are too tired, or don't care enough, are not likely to go to caucuses.  A perfect example was Washington.   She campaign vigorously in that state, but often she would ask people in the audience if they were going to caucus for her, she mostly got: "I have to work".  Unless we understand the dynamics that are in place for the Democratic nomination, we cannot understand why the Democratic Party has lost so many elections.  The cards are stacked against candidates that don't do well in caucuses.  IA may be a great state to do retail campaigning, but the caucus system will select those who organize and get supporters that caucus. By the time the working class has an opportunity to vote, the nominee has been chosen.  The candidates representing the Democratic Party, like Dukakis, and Kerry are flawed. Obama is more flawed than HRC, but the best candidate, Edwards, never had a chance. For the first time I understand why others don't participate in a process that doesn't give a voice, and if HRC is not the nominee, I will join those who don't participate.

    Is this website going to become pro-McCain (1.00 / 0) (#73)
    by maritza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:57:37 PM EST
    for the general?

    Only if you keep talking (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:59:14 PM EST
    I see no possible (none / 0) (#96)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:02:09 PM EST
    reason enough people will choose Obama.

    commenters do not speak for TalkLeft (none / 0) (#142)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:11:24 PM EST
    and you know that. You also know that both BTD and I will vote for the Democratic nominee and repeatedly urge everyone else to do so as well.

    One more comment like this and you will have to leave.


    Since I just found 3 more (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:21:08 PM EST
    of Maritza's comments with insults, she's now banned too.

    Either follow the comment rules or go elsewhere. I am not going to read every comment on this site. When I find a repeat offender, or even a singular particularly egregious one, they will be gone.

    Commenting here is a privilege, not a right.


    You go Jeralyn. (5.00 / 0) (#211)
    by alexei on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:43:20 PM EST
    I am not pro-McCain; I am pro-Hillary and anti-Obama.  I am incensed at the so-called leaders of the Democratic Party; but, I can't see myself voting for any Republicans.  I will also not be voting for Obama, I will write-in for Hillary if he is the nominee.  I believe that the majority of posters are not pro-McCain but think that Obama is unelectable; which is also how I believe.

    the effects of campaigning (none / 0) (#1)
    by Steven Donegal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:32:28 PM EST
    Before we all draw macro conclusions about electability, blah, blah, blah, may I point out that Hillary actively campaigned in NC and didn't really campaign in Va.  I suspect that has a lot to do with the differences.

    It is more than that. (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by alexei on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:07:38 PM EST
    Although I agree, the more you see Hillary, the more you "love her" and she is a fantastic campaigner and candidate, Obama has painted himself as the "black candidate" in order to consolidate the black vote and win in these states.  Yes, Hillary has won back the working and middle class whites because she gets it and worked for it; but, Obama does not have that appeal and his share will continue to decline dramatically.  

    Wright, bitter/cling and his outright fight against universal health care and the gas tax holiday, reinforces that disconnect.  Obama will not be able to retrieve this vote; Brazile with her totally stupid, arrogant and yes, elitist remarks, acknowledges this reality.

    Remember, these are mainly Democrats voting in the election (these are also the more dedicated voters) and he is being rejected by an overwhelming majority of whites.  Imagine in the General Election, where there are so many more voters and a much less liberal lean.  He will be crushed by McCain and they know it.  Why do you think McCain put out the gas tax holiday and why do you think Clinton jumped right on that and out maneuvered him and took that issue away and made it her own?  Obama was left flat footed again by both and he used the tired old "left" arguments that cemented in the minds of these voters that he is out of touch and doesn't care about them.

    I just saw Hillary's speech and she is the fighting Dem that we have been waiting for and I intend to help her.  Forget about the pledged delegates and the math.  It is all about winning the popular vote, forcing Dean/Obama and the DNC to accept the FL and MI election results and convincing the SDs that having the best nominee who can win in November is their job.

    I intend to continue to donate, make phone calls, write letters and what ever it takes to try to make this happen.  I cannot stand by and let the Democratic Party do a self immolation and bring down the Country by nominating the next George McGovern (quite fitting that he switched to endorse Obama's unelectable campaign; perhaps, Obama may be the first to not get any states and carry only D.C.).

    I'm in this all the way to the Convention!


    Painted Obama (1.00 / 0) (#194)
    by WorkinJoe on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:29:01 PM EST
    Obama has "painted" himself as black? Duh, Obama IS black.

    Obama took the adult stance on this gas tax holiday nonsense.  How is Hillary gonna pass this break from federal gas taxes by summer?  How is she gonna get Bush to sign it?  How is she gonna get Bush to sign the oil company windfall profit tax bill by this summer?  Why didn't she bring this up last summer when gas was hitting record highs then, or is she only raising this as a pandering ploy in an election?

    Our national debt is more than $9 trillion.  35 to 40 percent of our federal taxes go to paying interest on this national debt.  This is the one thing that pisses me off more than anything--seeing a third of my taxes going offshore to China and Japan because politicians spend like drunken sailors.  Cutting the gas tax simply runs up the deficit.  Obama had the cojones to point that out rather than pander for votes.


    You're worried about taxes (5.00 / 2) (#219)
    by hookfan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:54:41 PM EST
    I'm worried about food on the table and heat for winter. Big difference. Now that Obama is the presumptive nominee what is he going to do about it?Criticizing Clinton doesn't solve that problem. Nor does criticizing McCain.

    Poor excuse (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by frankly0 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:13:59 PM EST
    I thought the claim at the time was that Obama just didn't have the "name recognition" of Hillary. I doubt that Obama had much time to spend in VA himself.

    Now you're saying that people just didn't know Hillary enough in VA, and that's why she did so poorly?

    Really, you guys will use any excuse to get around the 100% obvious implications of the difference between VA and NC.

    Let's face it, if Obama had to start the cycle or primaries at this stage instead of February, he'd be toast.

    The only reason Obama was considered to have a good night last night is because he was perceived as so far ahead that he can limp across the finish line first just by not losing too much ground.

    If he were dead even with Hillary, his failure to take his neighboring state of IN would be considered a disgrace, and his winning in NC by only 14 pts with its enormous number of AAs, while losing the white vote by huge margins, would be considered a disaster. These are two states he would be expected to win by landslides -- especially NC, with his built in advantage. The identical result would be a death knell for his own campaign.


    Agree about effects of campaigning (none / 0) (#17)
    by imhotep on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:44:47 PM EST
    but would also like to know the income demographics of VA and NC.  We know HRC does better among low-income.

    I thought we knew (none / 0) (#2)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:34:10 PM EST
    The exit polls showed Wright hurt him.

    Just not enough to keep Hillary's own momentum alive.

    State to state comparisons. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:36:49 PM EST
    Despite similarities in superficial demographics North Carolina is, in fact, not Virginia but a different state.

    But what is a state except (none / 0) (#11)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:40:48 PM EST
    an arbitrary line of demarcation?

    NH and VT. (none / 0) (#20)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:45:10 PM EST
    If TalkLeft has demonstrated anything (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:04:50 PM EST
    in this coverage, it's the political reality of demographics. They are not superficial, they are not meaningless. Being in a similar region of the country (but a different state) produces little general difference. It's not like comparing the USA to China; it's more like comparing Estonia and Latvia.

    Again, NH and VT. (none / 0) (#147)
    by Addison on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:13:11 PM EST
    One exception does not destroy or contradict (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:32:58 PM EST
    a general trend, which is what I was talking about. And, in the spirit of delightful comparisons, consider global warming: temperatures do not steadily and constantly increase, rather they are in a state of flux working towards a general increase of temperatures. Similarly, demographics predict the trends in voting patterns. Not every voter will fall into that category--nor will every state fall into that category--but it is reliably predictive of outcomes.

    Could it be simple? (none / 0) (#24)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:46:11 PM EST
    We have seen that the further south you go the less likely the whites are to choose a black candidate over a white candidate?

    Northern Virginia around DC is also pretty urban.

    But like the other poster, they are different states, can't compare


    No (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:01:48 PM EST
    Obama just frankly can't relate to working class whites. He didn't even try to get their votes. He uses the strategy of every Dem loser and that is to go to the cities and skip the rest of the state. He tried by talking about his background but he just came of as elitist trying to pretend he had a middle class upbrining. Michelle sounding angry and entitled didn't help either.

    North Carolina was (none / 0) (#14)
    by maritza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:42:32 PM EST
    affected by Wright happening so close to the primary.

    Perhaps a month from now, it wouldn't have been as much as a factor.

    But the bottom line is this, if Hillary gets the nomination after Obama has the most pledged delegates, the popular vote, and the most states won at the end of this process, African-Americans will totally feel disenfranchised.  

    I think that blacks will feel that the Democratic party turned their backs on an African-American candidate who essentially has reached the marks set for the nomination.

    African-Americans would leave the Democratic party.

    That's okay (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:45:44 PM EST
    I expect 20% of disenfranchised whites to leave the party.

    The Democrats are screwed regardless.


    Disenfranchised? (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:48:12 PM EST
    Because they don't have a white person to vote for and that means they are disenfranchised? That is a very strong accusation. You are saying they are being deprived of the vote because they are racists.

    This everything is (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:55:56 PM EST
    about race is getting old.  Some if us don't really care what color the guy's skin is.  We don't like his resume.

    The post was about (1.00 / 0) (#86)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:00:22 PM EST
    20% of the voters being disenfranchised. What else could the poster have meant but they are deprived of a vote now because they won't vote for a black candidate. THAT was the discussion. And the whole demographic question is coming down to race. The good news is that the younger the demographic, the more likely they are to vote for black guy. Race is also generational.

    HILLARY WON (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by chopper on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:09:20 PM EST
    It doesn't matter what the DNC or Obama does to try to block FL & MI votes and delegates, the fact remains HILLARY WON FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN.

    Even though Obama spent $1.3 Million campaigning in FL, and campaigned in MI too.  Hillary didn't.


    I don't speak for (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:21:30 PM EST
    Teresa, but she didn't say that 20% of the people felt disenfranchised because they refused to vote for a black man.  You did.  

    They are deprived of a vote (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:33:37 PM EST
    because your candidate has deemed them not important enough to have a say in a close primary. It has nothing to do with being deprived the opportunity to vote for a white person. Don't be a dolt.

    How are whites being disenfranchised (none / 0) (#31)
    by maritza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:47:53 PM EST
    if Obama won?  He has the most pledged delegates, the popular vote and the most states won even if you count Florida and Michigan?

    By not counting (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:49:23 PM EST
    FL and MI, and to his credit he won caucus states, but they disenfranchise tons of voters.

    They will be counted (none / 0) (#44)
    by maritza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:51:58 PM EST
    According to Howard Fineman, he said the Obama campaign will make sure that Florida and Michigan delegates will be seated.  That will be arranged on May 31st.

    I wouldn't worry about that.


    After they don't have any influence n/t (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:53:54 PM EST
    50/50 (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:54:09 PM EST
    is not counting.  That's just letting them wear the party hat.

    Seated does not equal (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by BernieO on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:01:35 PM EST
    having their votes count

    now, he is ahead in every metric.

    Now... (none / 0) (#58)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:54:50 PM EST
    But it's not over.

    Amen . n/t (none / 0) (#84)
    by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:59:28 PM EST
    But certainly not like she can't change that ... (none / 0) (#151)
    by alexei on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:13:54 PM EST
    dynamic, because of course "the math" is not so much of an issue.  

    Try this (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:52:59 PM EST
    F L O R I D A
    M T C H I G A N

    Ah, well, how can you count Florida (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:54:43 PM EST
    and Michigan, since they are disenfranchised now?

    And Obama didn't want revotes to enfranchise them.

    There's the crux.  And amazingly, the majorities of the populations of Florida and Michigan are -- wait for it -- white.


    Florida voters could make the claim (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:55:02 PM EST
    Also the net gain Obama received from Idaho is the same as the net gain Clinton received from Michigan, Florida, Nevada, NH, Pennsylvania and Indiana combined.

    A couple of thousand Idahoans have had as much net impact on the nomination as millions of other Dems i diverse bedrock states. It's manifestly disproportionate and anti democratic.

    It's worse than a Rotten Borough or Old Sarum.


    Don't be foolish (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by chopper on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:05:17 PM EST
    Most states won is a foolish argument because, while Obama was gathering pebbles Hillary was gathering boulders.

    Hillary won all the 8 biggest states, except for IL, Obama's home state.


    Voters are disenfranchised (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by Ellie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:11:20 PM EST
    Selectively purging voters to make it look insurmountable for Sen. Clinton is appalling. He should be ashamed of using Bush league tactics. I want to hear his PERSONAL explanation to MI and FL voters of why his team lobbyed to purge them and blocked a revote. (Maybe he can write the best speech ever on disenfranchisement.)

    Obama only crosses the finish line by earning the votes and hitting the real magic number, not by thugging his rival off the track, throwing dust in people's eyes and doing a victory dance.


    No one has done more for disenfranchised (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by leis on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:25:49 PM EST
    voters than Barack Obama.

    No one has done (none / 0) (#236)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:13:01 PM EST
    more TO disenfranchised voters than Barack Obama.

    Wright (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:47:25 PM EST
    left permanent damage.  It's not going away.

    Frankly, I Am Not Caring How The AA Bloc (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:47:27 PM EST
    feels right now.  They showed no compunction in throwing The Clintons into the drink and acting as if they had never done a thing for them as part of the electorate.  And, obama sure didn't mind bashing the Clinton administration and lumping it in with gwb's administration in an effort to pander for votes.  This may be harsh, but right now, I feel like this has become a bit of a race war.

    I think that goes too far... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:52:24 PM EST
    I think most AA's still like Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. It's just that they have an AA candidate to vote for.

    Some AA leaders have been irresponsible and incendiary (including, at times, Obama himself), but I think the average AA voter is still okay with Bill and Hillary.


    Not according to the "pundits". (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by alexei on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:22:53 PM EST
    In reality, the AAs did throw the Clintons under the bus.  The AAs have voted the ultimate for identity politics; over 90% votes to Obama, a man that has done diddle squat for their community and reject the life work of the Clintons.  

    Well, this white boomer woman supports Hillary because she is by far the best candidate and it is icing on the cake that she is a woman.


    But threatening (none / 0) (#88)
    by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:00:34 PM EST
    to have "blood in the streets" etc. is just plain wrong.

    No one said anything about blood in the streets (none / 0) (#170)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:20:47 PM EST
    let's not be so dramatic.

    yes they did n/t (none / 0) (#244)
    by echinopsia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:32:22 PM EST
    I Had A Hispanic Candidate I Could Have (none / 0) (#177)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:22:00 PM EST
    voted for, but he was not the most viable candidate.  I prefer someone who is the better candidate when I cast a vote.

    You got that right. (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by chopper on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:12:24 PM EST
    Obama, the great divider.

    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#215)
    by lily15 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:46:43 PM EST
    Therefore, since they started it and made race the issue, they shouldn't be surprised when some of the party responds in kind.  Obama has only brought separation and disunity.  He's the destruction candidate and many of his supporters are thugs.  They shouldn't be surprised when the people they attacked and smeared fight back. And it is a reasonable reaction. Obama's values, as exhibited by a preferance to win dishonestly and smear the Clintons as racists, are strikingly similar to Republican values.  It is ultimately a balancing act.  Further, I believe, the vote count was held back so Hillary would be deprived of TV coverage.  Nasty.  

    Oh please. Don't blame the voters. (none / 0) (#55)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:54:11 PM EST
    The AA's are welcome to vote however they please---and so are the rest of us.

    Yes, but those in leadership (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:56:52 PM EST
    in the AA culture had a responsibility, I think, to speak truth to power and not let charges of racism be flung at the Clintons.

    Frankly, they also ought to have done so because the wholesale charges of racism also delegitimizes use of those charges in actual cases of discrimination.


    I agree with you that far. (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:58:06 PM EST
    By the way, it sure looks to me like Wright and Obama bamboozled the voters, now---does it look that way to you?

    Not to me (none / 0) (#91)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:01:17 PM EST
    because it's left him permanently damaged.

    I've heard that kicked around.  But no.  I don't believe anyone would be that stupid.


    Really? It makes sense to me. (5.00 / 0) (#116)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:06:42 PM EST
    Wright was going to be an issue for Obama. By making  some personal attacks on Obama's character, he gave Obama a chance to repudiate him publicly---a chance that Obama did not have previously.

    Obama (none / 0) (#241)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:21:49 PM EST
    did have the chance to repudiate Wright.  He just didn't take it the first time it was offered.

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#104)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:04:23 PM EST
    John Lewis spoke up.  It's just that no one listened to him.

    You might also recall that Jesse Jackson wasn't exactly offended by Bill Clinton's infamous comment about him.


    Of course, it is their vote. (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by alexei on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:36:44 PM EST
    But, to vote in a monolithic block because of identity and to abandon those that have worked their lifetimes to help is wrong!  The AA "leaders" that pushed the Clintons are racists meme (that's you Jesse Jackson, Jr., and that's you Clyburn and that's you, Obama) are much more culpable. That said, it doesn't let the voters off the hook.  Yes, I know there are a myriad of reasons, some quite silly, that people use to vote; but, voting for someone that looks like you is not IMOP, a good reason.

    I say it again, it is icing on the cake that Hillary is a woman.  I support Hillary because she is by far the best candidate and the one I know will fight for me and the issues that I care about.


    Wright? Not... (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:49:23 PM EST
    that Hillary is campaigning on a platform of solutions, like gas prices, and wanting to better the lives of middle and lower income Americans vs. Obama's pessimistic "that won't work" stump speeches and no interest in even suggesting he will work toward finding something that will?

    "and the most states won"? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by just victory on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:54:01 PM EST
    "if Hillary gets the nomination after Obama has the most pledged delegates, the popular vote, and the most states won at the end of this process, African-Americans will totally feel disenfranchised."

    Could you explain to us how winning the "most" became a criteria? Does that mean that winning the two states of Utah and Alaska is better than winning California because it's only one state?


    4000 Alaskans (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:59:21 PM EST
    and 10,000 Idaho caucus goers have had more net impact on the selection than Pennsylvannia, Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, Texas etc combined.

    Lots of close seconds and expensive ad wars that failed to defeat her state by state.


    From your lips to Guam's ears! (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by Ellie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:17:45 PM EST
    What a bogus metric that is.

    I laughed out loud when Bill Richardson whined (on a bobblehead discussion) that America wasn't Monaco. Uh, under Obama Roolz, one "contest" equals another -- at least until HRC gives up the substantial votership she earned.


    Yes, and anyway, the point is which (none / 0) (#59)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:54:52 PM EST
    states have the greatest area, as the Republicans explained in 2000 and 2004.

    Ah, the most-square-miles-won-argument (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:59:27 PM EST
    no matter if many of those square miles are populated entirely by cacti or cows.  They don't vote, of course, but let's not let that get in the way of the Obamomentum sweeping the land (well, at least sweeping the pundits and cable folk, albeit that their IQs look to be lower than those of cacti).

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:00:34 PM EST
    I welcome our new cacti overlords.

    But the cacti bloc is the future (5.00 / 0) (#233)
    by lookoverthere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:09:44 PM EST
    of the new Dem Party. They're expanding to include plant life now.

    Didn't you get the email? I swear I sent you the email.


    Hillary probably has the most... (none / 0) (#66)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:56:17 PM EST
    ... counties won.

    No. (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:57:01 PM EST
    African-Americans would leave the Democratic party.

    They'll be relieved.

    He's not the best qualified candidate.


    LOL, they can join me then when I register as (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:13:33 PM EST
    ...an Independent. Political parties can kiss my rump roast.

    So tired of all this (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:13:12 PM EST
    How many democrats really care about the snubbing of FL and MI? Who knows how the pundit banter would have gone if those two state voting totals and delegate counts had been included from the very start?

    The party, IMHO, is broken beyond repair. It's been coming for a long time, but the entire format of the nomination process has been made to look idiotic. Superdelegates are using their vote as a self-serving platform to get their faces on national news with their unknown names being tossed around at dinner tables for a day, and George McGovern is getting prime time attention with his "expert" opinion. My good heavens.


    Amen (none / 0) (#220)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:56:07 PM EST
    to the way SDs are using their power.  There are a lot who are very respectful, though.  Those are the ones I'm wanting to see pushed up into the leadership positions.

    Get the noisemakers out.


    I agree... (none / 0) (#22)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:45:55 PM EST
    But that's also not the crux here. We're not arguing that this should affect the nomination; we're simply trying to understand what's going on.

    That's a rather serious and blanket accusation... (none / 0) (#51)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:53:51 PM EST
    ... isn't it?

    lillybart is now banned (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:08:19 PM EST
    for calling people bigots. You are replying to a comment that has been deleted.

    BTD has already done so. (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:55:04 PM EST

    Portland Oregon (none / 0) (#72)
    by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:57:04 PM EST
    is the most liberal place I've ever visited.  Also has the most coffee shops outside of Seattle if that demographic matters.

    Oregon is also a very rural state (none / 0) (#80)
    by maritza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:59:14 PM EST
    too.  It isn't just liberal.

    Speaking for me only (none / 0) (#76)
    by debrazza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:58:14 PM EST
    But why are black voters not seen as real votes?

    They are a constituency in the Democratic coalition, just like women and working class voters and working professionals (college grads) and it is necessary to win those voters to win.

    Hills was doing well with that constituency for a time until some things did happen that created a perception of hostility to black voters. And after that, not only did Hills not even bother to make an attempt to reconcile with a constituency that has been extremely loyal to the Clintons over the years, she went the other direction.

    I really think that if she gave her own "race speech", it would have been really effective.  But my black friends tell me that it didn't have to be this way and it really didn't because she was winning the black back in December.

    As I keep reading over and over that Obama would not be winning this without Black votes, it reminds me of 1992, when the Republicans said that Bill wouldn't have won without black voters.  And the underlying assumption is that black voters are somehow illegitimate.  And the Republicans, who feel that way, instead of trying to win Black voters themselves have tried by various measures to engage in campaigns to disenfranchise them.

    That is all I am saying and I think we would be wise to think a little more carefully about how we talk about and describe our constituency groups.

    That's not the point. The point is that (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:00:27 PM EST
    black voters are the strongest Dem bloc. Whoever is the nominee is going to get their votes.
    White voters---especially male---have been a problem area for the Democrats for years. They are switch hitters and need to be wooed to get their votes.

    I thought women were (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:05:08 PM EST
    the strongest Dem block.
    Don't worry, we're used to
    being ignored. ;)

    Women are too fickle.. sorry, hun! (none / 0) (#123)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:08:02 PM EST
    I used to be problematic bitter, clingy and olllld (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by Ellie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:25:13 PM EST
    But then yesterday, panel butthead Stephen Toobin declared that women were also "grouchy".

    Now I really don't know what to wear.


    Just don't wear anything with cleavage n/t (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:43:19 PM EST
    white male voters (1.00 / 0) (#101)
    by moe21885 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:03:40 PM EST
    had no problem voting for Obama in every state without a strong Appalachian region. It is in those regions that Obama is having issues. NO Democrat would have won these areas in November, and he won't either. He'll go to the White House without them.

    This place is sounding dangerously like Rove-land, where the angry white male is the key voter. It's just not the case.


    Penn (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:08:28 PM EST
    West Virginia and Ohio are polling dem if Clinton is the nominee.

    Also a great deal of that white support has withered away since the exposure of Obama's association with militant's like Wright and Ayers.

    Iowa was a massive confidence trick perpetrated by the press censoring out info that would damage Obama's post-race narrative.


    Tell that to John Kerry. (none / 0) (#105)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:04:45 PM EST
    Note, I said nothing about "angry" people.

    2008 != 2004 (none / 0) (#118)
    by moe21885 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:06:58 PM EST
    much more at stake this time

    Are you (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:10:15 PM EST
    kidding? There was much more at stake in 2004 than there is in 2008 imo.

    I think every election... (none / 0) (#176)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:21:52 PM EST
    ... feels like the most important election ever. In retrospect, maybe not so much.

    Time is what you make of it. Obama keeps talking about defining moments and fierce urgencies of now, but it's only a defining moment if we do something to define it. I can't see anything he's proposing that would define this era--you know, the way Ronald Reagan defined his, according to Obama.


    Well (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:30:52 PM EST
    I just don't see the urgency in 2008 to put a dem in office unless we can get a good one like Clinton. Obama just doesn't cut it. Frankly, I'd rather hand the election to McCain who won't solve the problems than Obama who won't solve the problems either. Let the GOP take the blame if Obama is the nominee.

    My sentiment exactly! (none / 0) (#214)
    by alexei on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:45:15 PM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:31:22 PM EST
    Well, you don't know that it's not the end of the world until after the fact.

    Frankly, while I feel this next election is very important, to the best of my recollection I felt much more agitated about the 2004 election at the time.  I guess I feel a little better after having taken back Congress in the meantime.


    I remember polls... (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:40:03 PM EST
    ... asking people whether this election is more or less important than previous ones, and people always say it's more.

    2000 was clearly important, I think. The difference between Al Gore and George Bush was incredible.

    You're right that having the Dem Congress makes things better. While every election is important, it's not clear if this one is more important than most.


    Only in hindsight (none / 0) (#240)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:19:28 PM EST
    The main reason we lost in 2000 was because, after the relatively peaceful and prosperous 90s, most people felt like it really wasn't that important who got to be President.  Thus it was fine to decide it on the basis of trivia.

    Because of what happened between 2000 and 2004, the 2004 election was viewed as much, much more critical.


    I think (none / 0) (#218)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:54:10 PM EST
    that controlling congress does ease the pressure. And I had a burning desire to kick the GOP in 2004 but not so much this year unless we have someone who I think is up to the job.

    Well, yes. Your point? (none / 0) (#128)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:08:28 PM EST
    Clyburn says that if Hillary gets (1.00 / 0) (#124)
    by maritza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:08:17 PM EST
    the nomination after Obama has the most pledged delegates, states won, and popular vote, African-Americans will not vote for Hillary.

    Always (none / 0) (#193)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:28:56 PM EST
    worthy of discount when one person tries to speak for an entire demographic. There's limited credibility in that.

    Things? (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:03:44 PM EST
    Hills was doing well with that constituency for a time until some things did happen that created a perception of hostility to black voters

    Yes, things, did happen...things like Obama's very deliberate race baiting...things indeed.


    I think there is a difference of opinion (none / 0) (#222)
    by debrazza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:58:43 PM EST
    So I refused to put a label on whether what happened actually happened or not.  For my black friends, what they perceived was real.  I also do not believe that the Obama campaign intentionally engaged in race baiting either.  I just think what did happen was some miscommunication and I think there was an opportunity to reconcile, but I think the Clinton campaign at that point decided to just write off black voters in general.  My black friends all point to an anonymous quote from the Clinton campaign where they said "now he is the black candidate".  They say it reveals their intention to "ghettoize" him.  I don't know what the truth is, but I would have preferred that Hills did more to be conciliatory.  I think that would have helped a lot.  Instead she did things like say it was a "historical fact" that hispanics won't vote for blacks.  And while that may be true, a conciliatory reponse would be to say "i hope it's not true".  That is my only point.  Different people have different perceptions and I am not going to engage in a blame game.  I am going to say though that it is generally a good idea to try and clear things up when there is a perception out there like that, but no attempt was visibly made and I think that created other perceptions as well.

    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#230)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:04:45 PM EST
    that some people feel that way. However, Obama has pretty much implied that everyone who doesn't vote for him is a racist.

    It's absolutely been horrible all the racial stuff. Anyway, don't you think that Wright did more to hurt Obama than anything the Clintons "might" have said? Also with Obama getting 90+% of the AA vote, it makes him the "black candidate." In a way, you could say that AA's voting for him in those numbers did a lot to damage him. If he had gotten more white votes and less AA votes then he would probably be better off than he is today.


    Hillary Attended All The AA Functions (none / 0) (#231)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:05:36 PM EST
    Obama did not. Draw your own conclusions.

    Every single one of them (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:10:17 PM EST
    and faced chilly receptions and spoke from her heart.

    Obama didn't attend AA events and functions (5.00 / 3) (#245)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:32:29 PM EST
    because he is taking the AA voters for granted, just like the Democratic Party did for many years.

    I'm sorry that so many AA voters think it's okay to be ignored by another black man.  It shows how well the Obama camp has played the race card.  To be black and speak against Obama is the same as speaking against the race.  This is a load of crock and insults me as a black woman.  

    Hillary has had the guts to face everyone who criticizes her, puts her down, insults her, fears her.  Hillary has the bravery it takes to lead a country in crisis.  But as usual, Americans vote against their best interests.

    That says alot.


    Once Obama (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:05:39 PM EST
    pulled off the confidence trick that he had no radical or militant baggage (Wright Ayers never mentioned by CBS, NBC or ABC) in Iowa, he proved he could get white midwesterers and GOP corss overs to vote for him and be the post-race candidate.

    his entire Unity candidacy is based around the myth that he is post-racial.

    At that point he locked down the AA vote for keeps. She never had a chance, even though she kept at it by turning up in every black forum or precinct she could visit.

    Once wright and Ayers were mentioned and investigaed by  the press Obama lost that appeal among white Democrats and cross over GOP.

    Now we are stuck with a lemon.


    Hopefully (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:09:23 PM EST
    we aren't stuck with that lemon.

    Nobody is saying that. (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:16:10 PM EST
    Not even close.

    First of all, the charges of racism against the Clintons were manufactured and spread by a complicit media, blogosphere, and Obama campaign. To me, it was the one of the lowest campaign tactics I've seen.

    If I thought for a minute that Clinton appealed to racism, I'd drop my support of her immediately. That kind of behavior has no place at all in American politics, especially Democratic politics. Nothing justifies it.

    Second, to say that Hillary Clinton hasn't continued to reach out to the AA community isn't true either. She did make a race speech--in New Orleans, at the State of the Black Union event, which Obama skipped. Among other things, she said that the state of the union is not strong until the state of the black union is strong. She also gave speeches on Martin Luther King's birthday and at the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of his assassination. Her campaign manager is an African American woman. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones was her second most prominent supporter in Ohio, after Gov. Strickland.

    Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton have been what they've always been--champions of the causes of everyone, including and especially African Americans. That Hillary has gotten only 10% of the black vote, on average, is largely due to the favorite son voting of African Americans.

    There's nothing wrong with that, of course. The history of this country is such that that's completely acceptable and respectable. Nobody should be discounting the legitimacy of the black vote.

    To those of us who support Hillary, though, it kind of hurts a little, because she's a strong candidate who'd be a great president, and she's the one to take the consequences of something that has nothing to do with her.


    OR is (none / 0) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:58:18 PM EST
    a dukakis state. Tends to have more latte drinking whites than some other states.

    No, there can't possibly be another reason, (none / 0) (#78)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:59:03 PM EST
    in your universe, for those "typical white people" not to vote for Obama.

    Why is this website so important to you... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:07:23 PM EST
    ...that it matters?

    Guess the troll post I was responding to.... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:19:39 PM EST
    ...is gone.

    Eek! (none / 0) (#165)
    by pie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:19:41 PM EST
    I just saw Dick Morris on Fox.

    He looks like a sycophant in a royal court

    New Petition (none / 0) (#191)
    by chopper on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:27:49 PM EST
    Sign petition saying you won't vote for Obama and leave a comment.


    VA (none / 0) (#247)
    by cannondaddy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:44:28 PM EST
    was not contested because the Clinton campaign had no post Super Tuesday strategy.  He perfomed as exactly as I predicted in NC.

    Hillary CAN wound Obama (none / 0) (#249)
    by dem08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:59:23 AM EST
    but she cannot help herself.

    The TimeFrame argument is a good one:

    One year ago, Hillary was the total Front Runner.

    Despite all her money advantages, and political advantages, she trails a novice.

    We probably have two weak candidates, but we don't really know because the way we Democrats talk, and the way the Media talks, we shoot ourselves while they give the Republicans an all-access BackStage Pass.

    If Obama and Hillary were not the candidates fighting it out, we would be hearing about other weaknesses:

    Let's assume it was Biden vs. Edwards. All we would be reading about is how much Edwards huge home and expensive hair-cuts hurt him among voters.

    Hillary has two walls: one, her supporters like Talk Left, who really love her; and one her detractors, like me, who do not love her.

    Obama does not do well among many categories of white voters. But Obama can certainly do better among white voters because he has in the past.

    In Democratic Candidate vs. McCain, the Democratic Candidate will do well.