There Will Be An Election In November

This may come as a surprise to some people, but there will be an election in November. To read some blogs, you would think that Barack Obama's almost certain victory over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination means Obama advances straight to the White House. In case they did not know, it does not work that way.

One blogger says that it is silly to discuss Obama's failure to connect with white working class voters because:

Demographic and socio-economic differences between the two states,* plus the effects of Clinton’s ugly “kitchen sink” campaign, are not considered. [*For example, 31.7 percent of Virginians have college degrees, while 23.4 percent of North Carolinians have college degrees. Obama tends to do better among college-educated voters.]

I am curious if the blogger expects those voters without college degrees to suddenly get them by November and thus solve Obama's problem here. But I especially wonder if the blogger expects that Republicans will not campaign against Barack Obama. Or if they do, whether their campaign will be so much nicer than the Clinton campaign.

The reality based community? Not so much. Not anymore.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

< How Bad Was Mark Penn? | VoteBoth >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • A win based on the back of a matchbook! (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Cream City on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:29:57 AM EST
    That's it.  That's the plan:

    I am curious if the blogger expects those voters without college degrees to suddenly get them by November and thus solve Obama's problem here.

    Watch for Obama's campaign to be handing out matchbooks advertising those mail-order degrees, so that everyone can finish college this summer and graduate in August and suddenly become Obama voters by November.

    Makes as much sense as anything we've seen in this campaign.  

    What you have Paper but got stupid on the 'Net? (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Ellie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:37:50 AM EST
    I love the self-elevating flattery from the Oboiz that they're voting smart and bigotry-free for Obama and Why Won't The B!tch Quit!

    Hey, I'm not the one who mistook that sexist spew about HRC tossing the kitchen sink and hurling china as Obama's foreign policy platform.


    Yeah baby! (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Steve M on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:09:04 PM EST
    We can call it the University of Phoenix Strategy.  Onward to November!

    I'm actually IN the "Creative Class"! (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by otherlisa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:02:17 PM EST
    I work for teh MOVIES, you know!

    But, child of divorce, saw that one's standard of living could change in a heartbeat and it wasn't necessarily anything I could personally control.

    Maybe those sorts of real life experiences explain why some of us "high information" voters appreciate a candidate with a grasp of issues and policy and the ability to follow through.


    Naw (none / 0) (#8)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:34:54 AM EST
    Those without college degrees probably are thinking like Obama - this is it- they probably are too stupid to realize that there is an election in November, so they won't be voting anyways. Maybe that's what Axelrod and Brazile meant when they said they don't need them - they aren't voting!

    question... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:38:10 AM EST
    Are they now claiming they can garner all the college edumacated voters, the Indie and Repub?  That's a leap if they are.  Do they get it?   They got all the college educated people that tend to vote for Obama and all the AA's .  

    I have a college degree (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:46:07 AM EST
    I have a white collar job. I enjoy classical music and rock. I enjoy art and museums. I enjoy history and business. I have a Ameritrade account. But I am also a over 45 average white woman. And Catholic to boot. So, I guess the college degree and intellect do not count if you voted for Hillary. Then I am the AWW.

    I Don't Fit (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Athena on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:48:41 AM EST
    I've actually had to defend my support for Hillary because of my advanced degrees.  I guess I appear to be too smart to support her.  LOL.

    Underevolved (none / 0) (#60)
    by Athena on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:54:32 AM EST
    And to add - the reaction of those I work with is that one mus be crude and underevolved not to recognize the greatness of The One.  Which only makes me stand firm and fight back.

    You've described me (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:03:09 AM EST
    except scratch the Catholic part.  

    And I can see the forest for the trees, just like you.

    Something tells me I'm going to really hate being right.


    Same here (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:07:25 AM EST
    only I have a Master's degree and am a Jew. I never knew I was so low-information, racist, stupid etc. until this past year. The things you learn!

    Come me in (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    since I have advanced degrees in history and my Jewish wife is a professor of English at an eastern PA university.  And like so many Hillary voters, I never knew before this year just how ignorant, racist, and I might add, how immune to Kool-Aid I truly am.

    Hey that's (none / 0) (#167)
    by mikeyleigh on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:03:30 PM EST
    supposed to be Count me in.  Maybe I am as dumb as the Obamans say.

    Worse than that (none / 0) (#179)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    I didn't notice the spelling error. The brain read it right though so I am ok. Heh.

    I should mention (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:12:38 AM EST
    that I was a welfare brat a and a foster child, so I know that there's more to survival than hopey-changey.

    Obama is running his campaign for those who've never had to really struggle, the self-actualizers.  That isn't the Democratic Core, that's more the Republican core.


    Bad Catholic (none / 0) (#182)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:21:12 PM EST
    I am one of those Pro Choice Catholics who question the whole thing and they rarely rarely see me in church. But if I am there, I know what to do.

    On its best day, the McCain Campaign (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:30:05 AM EST
    will not be as nice as Clinton's was on its worst day.

    Sometimes you wonder if these people were born yesterday.

    Some of the voters were (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:46:57 AM EST

    On it's best day, the McCain campaign (none / 0) (#13)
    by jimotto on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:38:10 AM EST
    will not be as competent as the Clinton's campaign on its worst day.

    Please see (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:41:30 AM EST
    Karl Rove

    Republicans Are Horrible At Governing (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:48:42 AM EST
    but they have campaigning at the national level down to a science.

    For the past two presidential cycles I heard nothing but overconfidence on the part of Democrats. No way Bush can win was the mantra in 2000 and 2004. No matter how it did it, Bush was sworn into office both times.  


    All those things that were SO OFF LIMITS (none / 0) (#157)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:56:48 AM EST
    for Clinton to discuss during the primary, will suddenly become valid campaign issues in the general. Selective memory by the Obama blogs and supporters want to ignore the fact that even a extremely aggressive McCain campaign will be mild in comparison to what the Republican 527s have in store for Obama.

    Mo Blue (none / 0) (#203)
    by DFLer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:16:28 PM EST
    I don't understand your post. Could you expand, please?

    like: what was off limits, INYO? race stuff?
    more on "selective memory" also, if you don't mind.

    Mo Dense


    No worries!! Obama will win (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:31:00 AM EST
    with his coalition of rich, educated white folks and African Americans.  Hispanics, white-working class voters and their ilk are not necessary. Just ask Donna!

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by nell on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    go to noquarter. They has an email exchange between Donna and a woman named Alice, which ends with Donna writing "Message to the base: stay home."

    yep, the rest of us are fired (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:51:28 AM EST
    from the new Democratic party. Hmm, I guess we could just go start our own party. Let's call it the old Democratic party. Wonder if we could get Clinton to run for president in our party. :-)

    What could go wrong? (none / 0) (#218)
    by lambert on Thu May 08, 2008 at 09:07:14 PM EST
    Yeah, that one always gets a laugh...

    Of course (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:31:48 AM EST
    the Republicans are going to be nicer. It's only that mean old white lady who means to win at any cost who doesn't know that everyone is supposed to be nice to Obama. /snark

    That's part of my frustration with the Obama camp in general. There's been so much whining and finger pointing whenever anyone is critical of him -- are they all that naive and/or delusional that they think the Republicans won't make mince meat of him? The previous examples of Gore, Kerry, Ford and Cleland (for a start) seem to mean nothing and they were (in my own opinion) far better candidates for their offices than Obama ever could me.

    If the Republicans were not afraid to eviscerate a triple amputee war veteran, they won't be afraid of Obama, even if McCain keeps saying he wants to be above the fray. It won't stop the 527s. It already has started. And if they think that the Republicans are going to treat Obama with kid gloves because he's black, they've got another thing coming.

    It's going to be very very ugly very very fast.

    Oh my God... (none / 0) (#197)
    by ByronOfNewJersey on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:44:19 PM EST
    ...I think I died and went to heaven...on the internet!  I agree with all of you, just couldn't find the best place to start.

    I'm half-white/black
    I started out as an Obama supporter.
    I didn't fall for Hope/Change...any real Democrat knows we have to beat the Repugnant ones completely out of any office, at the local, state and fed levels.
    I'm so happy to see how many people see what I see: The general ignorance of the Obama voter.
    Every last one of them thinks, not only is it over now, not only is there no need for a Presidential election, but they seem to think that even if he is elected, thats it, its all over.  

    They obviously don't even know about the 3 branches of government, which includes congress.
    Why are they acting this way?
    Also, is anyone surpised that Mr.High and Mighty has not pushed to have  Fl and Mi's votes counted?  
    Its true, MI did it to themselves, but in both cases, its the DNC/RNC rules that are disenfranchising the voters.   Shouldn't he be taking the high road, and calling on both committees to count the votes?


    Welcome (none / 0) (#213)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:13:04 PM EST
    I know exactly how you feel. I'm sure many others here do too. It's a good place to double check that reality you know hasn't up and died after all.

    The sad thing is people I know who are not Net-based feel the same way. They're not happy. They can see through the (would-be) Emperor's New Clothes and don't understand how the main stream media is seeing things in an entirely different light.

    I can't even talk to friends of mine anymore because they've drunk the Kool-Aid and their ideas about 'facts' and 'policy' are just rhetoric. The level of disdain and elitism from the other side is mind-blowing and they really dont have an f'ing clue. Pretty words and cheap sentiment aren't going to win this election. But somehow they think it's already won...


    Grab a pitchfork, Byron! (none / 0) (#214)
    by bodhcatha on Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:18:27 PM EST
    You are among friends, welcome.

    Obama's primary win (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:32:03 AM EST
    What they don't get was that it was not a win.  It was a strategic maneuver within the Democratic party parameters.  
    1.  Took away with the race card game the AA voters.
    2.  The Caucus Strategy.  
    3.  Shutting out Fl and Mi took away Hillary big state momentum.
    4.  If you looked at the numbers, it was a squeeker.
    5.  He never got above X % on the white vote.
    6.  The Dem primary rules were played, and played well, that does not translate into a GE win.  
    7.  His race transcended and unity guy has been broken.  

    The caucuses, esp. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MarkL on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:33:41 AM EST
    WA state is the example which proves that Obama's caucus victories cannot be taken as representative of the voters' actual preferences.

    Sham (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:35:40 AM EST
    Playing the Dem primary win game does not translate to GE win.

    he hacked the system (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:57:31 AM EST
    There was a good analysis I referenced some time ago that showed how Obama hacked the system. He found a flaw in the democratic primary process whereby he could win all the republican states and really nothing much that would be needed in the general, and of course hacked the caucus system in a way it wasn't designed for. Very clever indeed. But it will be a hollow victory precisely because he didn't win democrats or their base, but instead won with people that either won't vote, won't vote for him, or don't add up to much of a sizable voting block.

    I bet they wish (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Step Beyond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:36:07 AM EST
    they could take away Florida's general election vote as well. If only they could find some rule to hide behind.

    no (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by po on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:39:08 AM EST
    that's the Supreme Court of the US' job.

    yep (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    Tons of people talking like winning a closely contested primary counts as a general election win.

    Only a handful of people will even admit that McCain and the GOP will be formidable opponents in the general election.

    It is like the experience of the past eight years suddenly evaporated in people's minds.  They are going to befriend Republicans, sing kumbaya and Obama is going to be the happy hopey pied piper that leads the snakes out of DC or something along those lines.

    Fantasy is "funner" than reality I guess.

    Thing is that I'd like to win and that will require a bit more reality to be thrown into the mix.

    Here's a thought experiment: (none / 0) (#23)
    by MarkL on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:42:24 AM EST
    Who do you think is the better candidate for the GE, McCain or Bush? Isn't McCain far superior in all aspects except for his age?
    Yet Bush won twice. McCain should be considered a large favorite in November, especially against Obama.

    It will be tough for either of our candidates. (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:18:51 AM EST
    The issue I have is that the Clinton camp seems to understand that fact far better than the Obama camp does.

    It is all about being realistic.  The Obama devotes have no capacity to understand why anyone wouldn't be automatically in love with their candidate which is why the accusations of racism roll so easily off their tongues and those overly simplistic answers to complex questions handicaps them where it comes to actually solving the problems their candidate has.  They just write people off.

    Clinton, on the other hand, has had to work for her support in a way that I just don't think Obama really ever has.  She seems to understand that votes are earned.  In my mind, that gives her a real advantage Obama hasn't thus far proven he offers.  The latest declaring victory idea is emblematic of the Obama camp's arrogance - which seems to be getting worse - not better.


    That's (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:34:48 AM EST
    a point I keep making too. McCain has way more appeal than Bush ever did. He is plain spoken, doesn't come off as arrogant and a certified war hero. Even most Dems concede that if he had been the nominee in 2000, Gore would have lost in a landslide. Of course, the GOP screwed us over there by nominating a complete idiot and then the MSM pushed him. Ugh.

    And the thing is (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:42:09 AM EST
    I can see his appeal. I watched him again on Jon Stewart last night and he's....nice. Affable, capable of laughing at himself, comes over as a mild-mannered older uncle/grandfatherly type who seems to know what he's talking about. His policies, of course, are anathema to most of us here, but the people who are being ignored/derided by the current "Democrats" don't care that much. They are more conservative, more middle of the road and they want someone they can relate to who listens to them rather than just ignores them or worse looks down his nose and mocks them.

    If I didn't know as much as I know about McCain, I'd seriously consider voting for him too.


    The way (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:20:36 PM EST
    I see it is that McCain may have no economic appeal to these voters but neither does Obama. That being said, I'm willing to bet these same voters are the ones that give McCain strong numbers on national security and will therefore vote for him based on that issue alone.

    You can vote Independent (none / 0) (#208)
    by MichaelGale on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:25:10 PM EST
    and vote for Democratic candidates for local and state.  If the Democrats win the Senate and increase the House, they have the power even if it is MCain.

    Oh I know (none / 0) (#215)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:02:33 PM EST
    and I probably will. At this point, I will be voting Dem and/or Indy down ticket and no one for President unless there's a 3rd party candidate who I can feel good about wasting a vote on like Gravel. I dont know if I can actually write-in Hillary in New York State. It's just that like him or not, I can see McCain's appeal to conservative Democrats and swing voters. At this point, I can't see Obama's appeal at all.

    And the Iran thing is in the news again (none / 0) (#36)
    by DJ on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:47:59 AM EST
    That is going to be a big player in the fall.  

    They hate Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by lefty lawyer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:41:18 AM EST
    so much, and think she is so evil, that they can't fathom the notion that the Republicans will be worse.

    It's more facile than you think.  Remember, "Clinton's not a Democrat."  So I guess that makes her a Republican.  And so is McCain.  So they're the same.  So whatever she dished out to Obama will be done precisely the same way by McCain, with the same results.

    Starry-eyed, naive creative class triumphalism.  Yeesh.  This campaign has yet to start and already they know the outcome.  Those must be some mighty powerful Magic 8-balls they're working with.

    Looks like us bitter Clinton dead-enders are going to have to do the dirty work and the heavy lifting in this campaign, 'cause it looks like the Obama folks are too busy polishing up their resumes.  Campaign?  What campaign?  Didn't we already win?


    I don't think it is that personal (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:47:22 AM EST
    I think that the campaign cycle was all about the GOP "winning at all costs strategy." Only problem is that WE aren't members of the GOP. We aren't used to marching in lockstep. This is going to backfire big time. As someone said there is no amount of time that will heal people being called racists or being told that their demographic isn't nearly as important as another. I hope I'm wrong but I'm bettng I'm not. In 4 years time the Dem party will be lamenting the loss of "Clinton Democrats."

    It May Take Years For The Party (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:06:39 PM EST
    to get back the "Clinton Dems." Somehow they think their new coalition can make up for this. IMO this coalition can only work in the primaries and only if you run a minority candidate that gets 90% of their own demographic group. Don't see how it works in the general when each minority because a small faction of the population.

    I think they will be be back to (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:54:05 PM EST
    the "Clinton Dems" in December. They will be looking at the dismembered, eviscerated and probably catatonic candidate they foisted on the Democratic Party and wishing they had gone with someone who knew how to fight and win instead of orate and crumble. Then they can resign and we can get some Dem leaders that care about winning elections more than they care about paying off old scores. Of course, we will have 4 years of McCain to get through first. But I am sure that if there is still a country here in 2012, Hillary will still be here to clean up the mess.

    Attitude (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by pixelpusher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:51:18 AM EST
    This attitude can only come from the children of a generation that was born on third base and thought it hit a triple.

    They used to say that about George W. Bush, but these people have attitudes consistent with a generation that was raised since infancy in a culture bankrolled by easy credit and the illusion of wealth.  

    Yo!  Having a college degree doesn't actually make you more intelligent, boys and girls.  It only gives you a ticket out of a waitressing job (although, increasingly not so much).  I've got a college degree too, but you don't see me strutting around like the cock of the walk, because I've been out in the real world for 20 years.

    But most of these kids are two or three generations removed from that and they really have swallowed this "college makes you smarter and better and shinier" b.s. hook line and sinker.  Obama just plays into their fantasies of superiority.  It's all just the same old American exceptionalism, it's just clad in a dashiki.


    So smart they can't see BO's speeches are cribbed (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ellie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:58:39 AM EST
    Obama's speeches are like a cheap cut'n'paste term paper he downloaded for five bucks at website.

    Be the change you want to be in the world? Um ...


    Hightower (none / 0) (#204)
    by DFLer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:23:03 PM EST
    "born on third base and thought he hit a triple."

    my favorite quip from Jim Hightower of Texas.

    I like the way you have expanded coverage...interesting thought. Of course, this country is full of wonderful kids walking the talk, as well. Are dashikas making a comeback?


    I thought that was Ann Richards (none / 0) (#206)
    by Nadai on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:25:06 PM EST
    said about George Bush the First.  Am I wrong?

    yes and no (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by DFLer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:12:30 PM EST
    Wrong about Richards. Right about George the First.

    "At the Democratic National Convention in 1988, Hightower gave the keynote talk where he quipped, "George Bush is the kind of guy who wakes up on third base and thinks he hit a triple."


    So here's a version for George W (none / 0) (#219)
    by DFLer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:47:15 PM EST
    How about:

    " George W never made it past the third inning without being bailed out by the bullpen, and thinks he earned the Cy Young Award"

    (okay..needs some honing!)


    Thanks! (none / 0) (#244)
    by Nadai on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:17:16 PM EST
    I've always loved both Ann Richards and Jim Hightower.  I bought Hightower's book "There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos" just for the title and loved it.  It's been years since I've read it; I should pull it out again.

    "They" think we'll come back (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by zfran on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:42:19 AM EST
    For a candidate that says he "transcends" race and wants to "change washington" (where have we heard this before), some of his "followers" are vitrialic, mean-spirited and just the opposite of who he says he is. Why should we come back...to once again vote the party..sounds like a communist form of government..we don't care about you but vote for us anyway.

    After everything that has happened (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by MMW on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:01:55 AM EST
    Drinking the koolaid, is no longer enough. They're main-lining right now. Wait till they start taking the IV drips.

    I'll say it (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by AX10 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:17:51 AM EST
    Obama sounds like Bush when he talks about "changing" Washington.

    1916 (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:44:33 AM EST
    was the last time a democrat won the white house without winning West Virginia. The Obama camp does seem to have their heads in the sand. With the current atmosphere and approach of their campaign, I don't see how Obama could ever win FL, OH, PA, WV and many others. And of course he can't win most the states he won in this primary including NC, SC, GA, etc.

    On top of that, the attitude towards Clinton and her followers, and especially the attitude towards women in general and their issues (e.g., he hasn't decided yet when life starts), I don't see how he wins those voters over. So we have them counting out MI and FL, counting out Clinton's constituents, counting out blue collar workers, and counting out women.

    This is going to be a very sad general election.

    FL, OH, PA, WV - don't matter to Obama (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Josey on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:05:32 AM EST
    The primary is about delegates and it doesn't matter which states they represent.

    In the meantime, Obama tries to improve his cred with white blue collar voters by visiting bowling alleys and skating rinks - while making offensive gestures toward Hillary including "brushing her off" the bottom of his shoe. (the crowd laughs and cheers)
    Obama is so intent on demonizing Hillary that he can't see his actions equal Elitism.


    Obama's cool: No FL MI PA but Guam is a lock (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by Ellie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:52:05 AM EST
    He won all those "contests"!!! All those Repugs came out because he Hoped and Changed Them!

    It's a faith-based candidacy (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Exeter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:45:42 AM EST
    Despite clear and overwhealming evidence to the contrary, all the left blogs, and the MSM has FAITH, and nothing more than FAITH, that Obama will win in November.

    With the exception of Wisconsin, he has never shown a significant ability to attract white, working class voters. And this is in the Democratic primaries-- he also has NEVER won a signigicant general election. There is NO evidence-based argument that he can win in November.

    It was that particular part of his candidacy that (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:50:10 AM EST
    made me feel icky. I've had enogh of "fath based."
    The Lord helps those who help themselves. I want adetailed plan that I can evaluate a candidate on, not a platform speech.

    Good term (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:06:54 AM EST

    I saw from day 1 that the chickens have come home to roost for my generation, in part, because I think a lot of us neglected any type of spiritual path for our kids.  Really.  I do.  Those supporters are so hungry for faith, they will take it from a politician.

    That's a deep need, there, in play.

    However, in the GE, different story.  Most general voters do not look to politicians for inspiration.  LOL*  


    dead right (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by pixelpusher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:13:22 AM EST
    Those supporters are so hungry for faith, they will take it from a politician.

    You're absolutely right, and I also think I see that impulse most strongly in red-state Democrats who are rabid for Obama.  They have been raised in an atmosphere where the Christian right has been unchecked, that the only thing they've absorbed about politics is that it's about fervor and faith.  Maybe that's why a lot of these red-state Dems appear to have substituted Obama for Jesus in their own politics.

    I am in New York and I know Obama supporters, and while they believe Obama is "self-evident," you don't see that same creepy religious fervor as you do with the red state Dems.  That's possibly because there is no real religious right active in New York State politics.


    Interesting observation (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by AnninCA on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:19:38 AM EST
    I know in my real life, Obama supporters are not nutcases in my circle, anyway.  And they are super-respectful to Hillary supporters.

    A lot of them were conflicted, to be honest.

    But yeah....none of the rabid stuff.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:22:44 AM EST
    I saw from day 1 that the chickens have come home to roost for my generation, in part, because I think a lot of us neglected any type of spiritual path for our kids.  Really.  I do.  Those supporters are so hungry for faith, they will take it from a politician.

    I don't think it's faith at all. I see it as a direct line from all my friends who brought their kids up without any sense of winning and losing, who spoiled them and coddled them and gave in to every little thing without consequence so they believe they're entitled to everything all the time. There's no hard work, there's no struggle, there's no sense of accomplishment. It's going to be a really painful lesson for them in the Fall when Obama loses and they dont get their way. I expect there will be non-stop tantrums but this time, no one's going to give them their toy, no matter how loudly they scream.


    More than tantrums (none / 0) (#145)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    I think it will be more than tantrums. I think we're headed for race riots.

    sadly (none / 0) (#150)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:49:05 AM EST
    I think you are correct

    no (none / 0) (#156)
    by pixelpusher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:55:58 AM EST
    I hope you're not talking about blacks starting something... that is a bit much.

    What worries me though is the possibility that poor blacks will be worse off than before having put their hopes in this guy, feeling like it's him or nothing... I mean, the race baiting the Obama campaign did with the Mickey Kantor lie was terrible, just terrible, and I think in future months people will see the obvious that that's why his black turnout was so very high in IN and NC.

    That said I do not resent AA's for wanting to support a black man for president; I just don't agree he's a very good candidate.  He's not the best black Democrat they could have found - not even the best black intellectual.


    Obama can't win without Hillary's supporters (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Sunshine on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:47:53 AM EST
    and many that say that they will not vote for Obama mean it... We have got to really get behind supporting the Democratic candidates running for congress, senate and governer because we could end up with a split government and to keep some of McCain's Bush projects from going through, we need 60 senators....    

    You need by my count (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:55:45 AM EST
    45. Only 22 are worth anything. The rest will lament that they can't get anything done without a SUPER DUPER majority of less than 90. I swear the Senate Dems have whining down to an art form.

    I only have some college experience (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by OxyCon on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:48:52 AM EST
    But even I can figure out that there aren't too many more AA votes left for Obama to grow his strongest base of support. And that this is a severe handicap for him come November, especially considering how well Hillary Clinton did in this primary, even though Obama owned the AA voting block.
    How about the "eggheads"? Are there enough eggheads out there to help Obama beat McCain?

    Maybe the Obama campaign can hand (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by MarkL on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:50:11 AM EST
    out a few million diplomas by mail in time for the November election.

    I love (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:18:37 AM EST
    Begala's reframing of the 'creative class' meme.

    Nope! (none / 0) (#92)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:08:08 AM EST
    Stevenson lost--he was the egghead with the hole in the sole of the shoe.

    Honestly...why I would not vote for Obama (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:49:38 AM EST
    The cult scares me.  I see the dictatorship they created here on the Net and the MSM.  Giving them power, is a scary thought.  I would rather have McCain.  Say what you want, but I do not want the mob to have power.   Obama is fueled by the mob.  All mobs, wether they are with me or against me scare me.  They really remind me of the Stalinists and the French revolution guys.  Frankly, I don't think they care about democracy or fairness as much as the neocons did.  

    Finally, if the MSM brought us and supported the neocon dictatorship and now they are pushing the "change" dictatorship, I want nothing to do with it.  

    and... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:47:57 AM EST
    And the methods are getting increasingly bullying and thuggish.  

    They aren't the change anyone has been waiting for.

    I'm a Jungian.  When you see something strongly expressed, look for the opposite beneath the surface.  "Hope. Change. Unity."  


    stop making me think! (none / 0) (#205)
    by DFLer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 02:36:28 PM EST
    Wow, Jung Crow...what an interesting thought. I have to go research this idea, and think about it. Thanks

    wow (none / 0) (#55)
    by CST on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:53:33 AM EST
    A cult, dictatorship, stalinists????  Last I checked, no one has had their heads cut off yet like in the French Revolution.  Take a deep breath, Stalin killed 20 million Russions, you sure you want to compare excited college kids and overzealous bloggers to THAT?

    Well...I am using my judgement (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:57:04 AM EST
    and I think from what I have seen of this mob, I do not want them in power.  I have a, as Obama says, "DNA" reaction to fanatics.  This set of people is neocons, the liberal version.  Sorry, I don't do fanatics.  

    really good point (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:03:49 AM EST
    You know, you've hit on something Stellaaa. The scary Obama following we see, and how they treat the core of the democratic party and Clinton and her followers, is rather unsettling. They do remind me of neocons, just with slightly different agendas. But you've got a great point that those sorts of people, even if they might be closer to us in policy directions (don't know for sure of course), they still are a bit scary. I'm not sure I want them in power either.

    Lakoff/netroots (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:13:58 AM EST
    What they did is they picked off the neocon tool box and techniques.  They all got jealous that they kept winning.  They see the world as winners/loser, no gray areas.  They come from hate, what they don't like.  often times rather than true concern.  They demonize the enemy and dehumanize.  I have a real problem with that kind of mentality.  

    they remind me of the French Revolution too (none / 0) (#220)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:06:29 AM EST
    They demonize the enemy and dehumanize.  I have a real problem with that kind of mentality.

    Dehumanization is the real point at which atrocities become possible.


    Obama is not a Liberal (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by santarita on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:22:31 AM EST
    Clinton and he are both centrist but he is definitely centrist-right and she is to the left.  And he is developing his own potent political moneymaking machine, that will equal existing machines.  So, more business as usual but under a new brand.   Why left-leaning blogs have supported him is a mystery.

    ummm (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by pixelpusher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:02:22 AM EST
    Do you not know how Stalinism got started?

    The ideas behind it were dreamed up by excited college kids and pamphleteers (the equivalent of today's bloggers).

    Intellectuals think they never, ever have a role in thuggish movements.  But they're the ones who provide the schemes and the sense of moral superiority that the thugs later pick up on.

    Also, disaffected "smart/spiritual people" are the very ones who are the juiciest targets for any cult.  Ask any cult expert.


    Gone too far (none / 0) (#101)
    by CST on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:13:49 AM EST
    I cannot believe you are comparing Obama to Stalin.  This is not Russia.

    Intellectuals often play roles in all movements, thuggish or otherwise.

    Those crazy college kids also helped bring us the civil rights movement, how quickly we forget...

    I don't care if you support Clinton, or even McCain, but try to be rational rather than adopt the extremist language you decry from the other side.


    Clarifying for you (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:17:37 AM EST
    The problem with the way you are looking at it, is immediately you think Gulags, cleansing etc.  It's not that, it's the mentality of dehumanizing the opposition in the name of the "good" that you are pushing.  The methods and techniques are not the same extremes, but the core purpose is the same.  Dehumanizing your opposition and exaulting your side, never finding fault.

    I personally, love democratic/social/capitalism, sort of messy no one is absolutely right and no one is absolutely wrong.  I can handle messy world.  


    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by pixelpusher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:38:45 AM EST
    Obama is not Stalin.

    Obama is nothing.  But when he's been used up, the same people who have been building up Obamism will build up the next Stalin.  

    Wherever young intellectual white men with a grudge go, only trouble follows.

    "Young intellectual white men with a grudge" = most of the big-time bloggers we know.


    Young Intellectuals (none / 0) (#155)
    by CST on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:54:42 AM EST
    A few things "Young intellectual white men with a grudge" brought us in the past (with some help from other groups as well):

    The Constitution

    The Revolutionary War - A war to be sure, but few people will argue against it today

    The Civil War - The North Side

    Vietnam War Protests

    Civil Rights Marches

    I swear, every election I feel like all of a sudden an education is a bad thing...  Young people are not the enemy here.  We are occasionally misguided, but we aren't a cult, and we don't all think with one mind, and we aren't holding any grudges.  This needs to stop being an "us vs. them" fight - regardless who started it.


    LOl (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by pixelpusher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:59:46 AM EST
    Yes, young intellectual white guys are responsible for ALL good things.  It's YOUR COUNTRY, we might as well give it back to you, huh?

    Those same young intellectual white guys were the masterminds of Native American removal and slavery as well.

    And your contention that "young intellectual white guys" brought us the civil rights marches "with some help from other groups" is BEYOND IDIOTIC.  Narcissim without bounds, not to mention historical ignorance.  Words fail me.  


    I just had to laugh too, and the first (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:27:17 PM EST
    thought that popped into my head when I read the Civil Rights listing was "Well, I have heard Lyndon Johnson called a lot of things, not all of them nice, but I have NEVER heard him called a "young, intellectual white guy". And he, combined with Martin Luther King's activism, was the one who got the Civil Rights Act passed. LBJ shoved it through Congress, using old-time politics.

    Right (none / 0) (#196)
    by CST on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:40:26 PM EST
    Because "marching for civil rights" is the same thing as "signing the civil rights bill"....

    For the record (none / 0) (#172)
    by CST on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:08:29 PM EST
    I am not a "young intellectual white guy".

    Also, I am not saying they did ONLY good things.  I am just saying, they did some good things too.  With helps from other groups, yes, obviously they weren't the only ones marching for civil rights, I am just pointing out that they were part of the demographic.  You were demonizing them, so I felt I had to defend, you weren't demonizing the other groups so I didn't mention them.


    um ... (none / 0) (#221)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:18:09 AM EST
    I feel like all of a sudden an education is a bad thing...

    Nobody ever said an education was a bad thing.

    The problem with intellectuals comes when they are divorced from the real world. Playing intellectual games might be stimulating and fun for the intellectual, but maybe not so much fun for those who actually get stuck with the results if those ideas turn out to be not so good.


    I agree with you. (none / 0) (#116)
    by AX10 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:22:06 AM EST
    We saw what the right wing mob did for the past 8 years.  The left wing mob will not be much better.
    McCain is something to think about.

    This (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Faust on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:50:05 AM EST
    I am curious if the blogger expects those voters without college degrees to suddenly get them by November and thus solve Obama's problem here.

    Made me laugh. I imagined Axelrod having discussions with many university presidents about pushing a special crash course graduation program over the summer so 5 year college students can get their degrees in the fall.

    The Obama degree program (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:57:05 AM EST
    I dont think I want my degree in Unity and Change.

    forget the election (5.00 / 7) (#46)
    by pixelpusher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:50:42 AM EST
    Does anyone seriously believe Obama can be a successful president?

    I mean, seriously.

    The guy has an unsuitable temperament for the demanding life of the presidency.  He doesn't even like to mix with the press on his campaign plane, for crying out loud.

    Does anyone really believe his electoral "coalition" (read: Fan Club) is going to hold together during a bad recession?  Even the African American voters will be at each others' throats, the poor and the middle class ones, as they realize what a token and sham this guy is.  Can you imagine the Rev. Wright sermons we will hear when poor blacks finally realize the primrose path their middle-class friends and family have led them down?

    Meanwhile, in Collegetown, the professors will still have jobs and the students will be in hock.  The young people, especially, who are so used to having everything handed to them, are going to take a hard fall when they realize that hey, there actually ARE haves and have-nots in this country, not just the "young" and the "old," the "high-information" and "low-information" voters, or the "educated" and the "uneducated"!

    I have no, none, zero confidence in this guy.  He's probably going to retreat to Camp David and tell us all to make sure to study his next book which will "explain" what he's trying to do.  Many of the faithful will study and quote from it as if from Chairman Mao's red book, but more and more people will realize what a bad product they've bought.

    At least he can probably swallow (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MarkL on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:52:47 AM EST
    a pretzel without choking.

    It seems that more than half of the Democratic (none / 0) (#121)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:25:15 AM EST
    primary voters believe that Obama would be a better president than Clinton according to primary results.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by pixelpusher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:40:07 AM EST
    and, what, 75% of Americans supported the Iraq war at the outset.  Your point?

    If You Look At The Exit Polls, Clinton Got (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:13:34 PM EST
    more votes from Democrats than Obama.

    I want to be around when reality comes (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:52:52 AM EST
    home to roost for the reality based community.

    I'll be watching the GE, the next admin guilt-free (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Ellie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:26:48 PM EST
    Did my due diligence supporting the party, the blogs, taking back Congress and the Liberal causes that have always been my top priority.

    Watching this train wreck of the Bush / Cheney era, Dem double-dealing and fauxgressive blogger hubris will easily replace those "ripped from the headlines" L&O / CSI reruns I watch when I make dinner.

    No matter what the outcome is, I'm fine with it. In fact, they can more efficiently eat each others' faces off now that I'm out of the picture as their preferred straw (wo)man.


    Ha! (none / 0) (#91)
    by Emma on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:07:41 AM EST
    It never will, as long as there's a Clinton to kick around.  Someone named Clinton is the best innoculation against reality there is.  And if there isn't a handy Clinton, they'll invent one.

    they have their talking points all lined up (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:53:52 AM EST
    it will be all Hillary fault for ever bringing up those unfortunate truths.

    If Pennsylvania is Close (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by datadriven on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:57:22 AM EST
    and Obama is the nominee I'd vote for McCain. If it's really close I'd max out my contribution to McCain's campaign and probably send money to a McCain 527.

    I never voted for a Republican before, but the campaign against the Clintons has been positively evil and it has been maliciously and cynically waged by both the MSM and some supposedly Left groups on behalf of a candidate who has a surplus of both Orwellian "Hope" posters and positioning ambiguity. Frankly, it's made me think of voting selectively down-ticket Republican.

    The campaign has, however, been clarifying. I dropped my Move-On membership. I'm not giving money to DCCC and I've just returned from the waste transfer station after dumping 25 years of back issues "The Nation" and somewhat fewer bundles of "In These Times".  

    Occassionally (none / 0) (#125)
    by AX10 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:28:47 AM EST
    I have voted for Republicans down ticket.
    In some local elections and for the state legislature.  I liked the people and knew they were moderate and will do a good job.  Yet I felt guilty about voting for them because I am a Democrat (with an independent streak).
    After this election and watching the party elites and left wing activists such as kos/moveon/huffingtonpost/air america vilify Hillary, I will have no guilt when I do not vote for a Democrat in the future.
    Seeing half the party gang up on her is why I cannot support half of the party anymore, including Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin, Claire McCaskill, and John Kerry.  I never supported Ted for anything though.

    same (none / 0) (#222)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:23:12 AM EST
    If Pennsylvania is Close
    and Obama is the nominee I'd vote for McCain.

    Same here in Ohio. I am not at all good with Obama. Even if he could win it would be a disaster. But I am really concerned about downticket: I really don't want to lose the dem congress.


    Edwards/third party opportunity here (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:00:52 AM EST
    Look, this is the best chance for a real, lefty populist party.  Not that they will win, but they can start.  The country is split in 3.  We just don't know the sizes.  

    excellent comment (none / 0) (#85)
    by pixelpusher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:05:21 AM EST
    "The country is split in 3.  We just don't know the sizes."

    Just wanted to repeat that.


    Word that (none / 0) (#127)
    by smott on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:32:35 AM EST
    Changed my affiliation to Independent today and wrote HRC asking that she think about doing the same.

    Maybe a four way split-- with the Huckabee-types (none / 0) (#166)
    by datadriven on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:01:26 PM EST
    Where Huckabee's followers will go? I believe that if Obama is the nominee he will dramatically dial-up his explicit faithiness in the fall. I fully anticipate a autumn barrage of anti-choice codewords in a desperate effort to win over Evangelicals in Colorado and Virginia. This will be another stick in the eye of Hillary's supporters.

    John Anderson and Ross Perot both showed the degree of political alienation in what the press has labeled the "white working class". Perot, in his 1992 run, quickly put together a political party which pulled its voters from the middle of the political spectrum-- pretty much where Hillary currently finds a foothold.

    With the electorate so highly mobilized, Perot's 18.9% (1992) could easily be surpassed by a third party this year.


    just tell me when/where (none / 0) (#223)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:24:47 AM EST
    ...I'm newly liberated

    Line in the sand (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by nell on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:01:35 AM EST
    The line has been drawn in the sand.

    Too much abuse coming towards Hillary and her supporters from the media, from the DNC, from the Obama campaign, and from Obama supporters. I refuse to reward this behavior, I just refuse. Howard Dean was on FOX a week ago talking about discussing Wright is racist. Let me just ask, where was the good Dr. Dean when the media was discussing Hillary's thick ankles, cleavage, or the fact that her husband is responsible for all of her accomplishments? We BEGGED him to speak out against the sexism, and he did nothing. Nothing. Now the DNC and Obama expect me to support him? Forget about it. I will never reward this kind of abuse.

    I will stand with Hillary until SHE decides it is over, and until that point, I hold out hope that she can pull this off. I hope she takes this all the way to the convention to send the message to little girls and little boys everywhere that girls do not have to sit down, shut up, and play nice just because the boys tell her too. No way.

    amen! (none / 0) (#225)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:27:29 AM EST
    I will stand with Hillary until SHE decides it is over, and until that point, I hold out hope that she can pull this off. I hope she takes this all the way to the convention to send the message to little girls and little boys everywhere that girls do not have to sit down, shut up, and play nice just because the boys tell her too. No way.

    I hope her supporters don't just sit down, shut up and play nice when the boys tell them to....


    Take it like a man! (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Chimster on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:04:33 AM EST
    or woman as the case may be. That's the feeling I'm getting from Barrack's campaign as well as the entire Democratic party. You're either with us or against us. I'm just now starting to feel like I'm being steamrolled by the party I supported for most of my life.

    Why would I not vote for Obama? It's not about Obama. It's much bigger than him. It's about my party. If BO and the DNC don't count FL and MI, and they try to abruptly end the process now since she's behind in delegates, then I'd say my party is corrupt, or at the very least short-sighted. If I vote for Obama, then I'm saying "it's ok to disenfranchise. It's ok to steamroll. It's ok to ignore half of the party." Thus, the madness of the Dem party will not have learned anything and it will not have progressed.

    And as much as I don't want to vote for McCain, I don't want to support the party that threw me under the bus either. So, what's the answer? I have no idea. I really don't.

    why not (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by pixelpusher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:07:34 AM EST
    Why not just not vote for president this year?  I'm not.

    Don't vote for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:09:49 AM EST
    if it makes you feel dirty. Vote for a 3rd party candidate you can agree with on something or put a write-in vote for Hillary if your state allows it. I'm still trying to figure out how to do it in New York State where we still have antiquated mechanical voting machines that haven't changed since I was a kid. (At least there are paper trails and they're more accurate/sane than the electronic ones!)

    you're voting for more than the candidate.... (none / 0) (#226)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:29:34 AM EST
    If I vote for Obama, then I'm saying "it's ok to disenfranchise. It's ok to steamroll. It's ok to ignore half of the party."

    Isn't it true that their attitude this year is based on the fact that good loyal Dems don't need to be courted, cuz we've always been so reliable, they can count on us to vote for even the stinkiest candidate?

    Just imagine their attitude next time around if we don't set them straight.


    What's fascinating is that electoral-vote.com (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Anne on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:06:39 AM EST
    has the electoral vote count as:

    Clinton 291    
    McCain 236
    Tied 11

    Obama 264
    McCain 263
    Tied 11

    A real head-scratcher, isn't it, that while the media's theme since Tuesday night has been that (1) Hillary is finished, she cannot get the nomination, the party elders want her to get out, she's dividing the party, and (2) Andrea Mitchell is holding When-Harry-Met-Sally-how-to-fake-an-Orga$m tutorials for her comrades in smarm, the actual head-to-head electoral vote matchups have Obama losing to McCain.

    Reading my paper this morning, I learned that "an absence of public events on her schedule had prompted news media speculation that she might be preparing to quit the race," but that "Obama, meanwhile took a day off with his family in Chicago."  Yes, he takes a much-needed day off after one win and one loss, and she might be getting out of the race after one win and one loss.

    Oh, and Clinton didn't win Indiana, she suffered a near defeat.  Just so you all know what the message is: a win is never a win for Clinton.

    I simply cannot comprehend what is wrong with these people - I truly believe they do not realize that winning the nomination is just the beginning of the fight - not the end.  And they do not see that all the while the media have been playing nice with Obama, they have been hiding a 2x4 behind their backs that is going to make frequent and painful contact after the convention.

    My inner voice is hoarse from screaming in frustration.

    Andrea (none / 0) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:28:00 AM EST
    Mitchell wants a McCain presidency. The only reason I think that she supposedly wants Obama is that he's a sure loss against McCain. No other reason I can come up with.

    ha (none / 0) (#227)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:35:07 AM EST
    I simply cannot comprehend what is wrong with these people

    Who, the Obama supporters, or the DNC/media?

    The media is manipulating things into shape for the fight McCain needs to fight.

    The Obama boys are imagining how the new Democratic party will look. It's going to be great. They're the only ones in it, and they win every election - so they own the country!

    Changing of the Guard http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=5650


    Craig Crawford (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:26:30 AM EST
    f Democratic superdelegates truly want Hillary Rodham Clinton to quit the nomination race, why don't they just publicly endorse Barack Obama and get it over with? There are more than enough of them to make up the difference needed to give him the winning majority.
    Until she officially loses, Clinton has no reason to drop out. And if this fight goes all the way to the convention floor because Obama doesn't have the required number of votes on record to formally claim the nomination, the blame falls on wimpy superdelegates -- not her.
    Ever since losing the Ohio Primary two months ago, the Obama campaign has been fanning the vapors that a victory-clinching mass of superdelegates are waiting in the wings to endorse him. Now would seem to be the time to prove it -- before Clinton wins lopsided majorities in upcoming states like West Virginia next week and again revs up her momentum.
    If the argument to Clinton is that she must leave the race for the good of the party, then the same case can be made to superdelegates who hold the power to force her out by giving Obama the victory right now.

    I believe (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:37:39 AM EST
    it's because they see the handwriting on the wall.

    Barring live girl or dead boy, Obama is going to win the nomination with the help of the media and the DNC tipping the scale.

    The SD's realize that he's not going to win the general election with the weak coalition he has -- eggheads and AA's --  because he and his friend Donna have p'ed off too many of the core Democrats who are now irreparably out of the fold and moving themselves to Obama is only going to p-off more folks. And none of the SD's want to be the first to board his sinking ship, but they're all going to do it eventually.  Titanic, here they come!

    Kerry-Kennedy should never have run their manufactured candidate just for the sake of beating the Clintons. What they've done in the process is damage their own party -- for decades.


    If the creative class... (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Marco21 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:26:59 AM EST
    believes Clinton really through the kitchen sink at Obama (laughable at best considering Wright crawled out of Barack's own drain) what do they think McCain is going to toss? Hint: the entire kitchen and the surrounding house.

    I am feeling conflicted because (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by kenosharick on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:29:35 AM EST
    in a way I think that I will enjoy watching the repub machine rip into Obama. And the "obaamaniacs" will be stunned after having beaten the "evil Hillary" that they do not waltz into the WH. Does this make me a bad person?

    Nope... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by michitucky on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:44:52 AM EST

    It's called (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:46:25 AM EST
    "schadenfreude". I think we should all start learning the words to the song from Avenue Q and sing it en masse when Obama loses in November.

    Sad but true. I never knew I could be so vindictive.


    Avenue Q (none / 0) (#164)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    Gary Coleman - now that he isn't running for Governor??!!  



    This Isn't About November (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by BDB on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:32:53 AM EST
    I wish it were, but it isn't.  This is about the old party structures trying to hold onto their power as the demographics in the United States change and as women start to get better organized to exert political influence.  Go back and look at what Donna Brazile said and notice that hispanics were lumped in with working class whites as the "old coalition."  What a great tell because she's dismissing not only white voters, but the fastest growing voting bloc in the U.S. as "old".  Think that's a coincidence?  Think Clyburn trying to fire up the binary black/white racial divide one more time is a coincidence?  I don't.  The power structure is changing and the white male establishment (as exemplified by the old Senate warhorses like Kennedy and Daschle and the young male blogger wannabes) and the African American establishment is trying to find a new coalition that keeps them as important and in power.

    I explain more of what  I mean - here.

    Read your piece at Corrente and you may be (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by vicndabx on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:13:08 PM EST
    on to something.  As was pointed out by other posters, old establishment dems didn't go about building the new party the right way.  They willfully allowed too many negative themes to fester w/o pulling them back.  Someone else is gonna have to step up and rebuild the big tent.

    I just received an e-mail from a Clinton delegate (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by wasabi on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:34:59 AM EST
    Here's one of the problems, folks...

    I just received an e-mail from a friend who is a Clinton delegate to the state convention.  She was invited to attend a Democracy for Texas meeting to discuss the platform for the state convention and plans for the national convention.

    Here are part of her comments:

    "When I arrived there were about 60 Obama delegates. I was the only Hillary delegate. By the time the meeting started at almost 7:00....there were over 130 Obama people and 2 Hillary people. The Obama people were less than friendly and in fact when I spoke to one lady, she looked at my button and said, "oh, I can't talk to you......you're Hillary." Then this man standing next to her said, "yeah, but we'll talk to you in a couple of months."  I responded, "wow, I thought we were all democrats."

    "This was without a doubt the most degrading experience I have ever had in 25 years of political experience. I am totally astounded of this behavior, not to mention highly disappointed with the disrespectful treatment. I was totally ostracized because I was Hillary.This type behavior will not easily win them our votes in November or for that matter support at the national convention. They need to get the "big picture" here."

    "I  am a die hard democrat and have worked tirelessly for 25 years for democrats. I have never in my life seen anything like this behavior.  I know if the situation were reversed the Hillary people would have welcomed everyone, not just the like minded. All I could think about was Ann Richards and how disappointed she would be in democrats acting so rude."

    Ann Richards (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    Would have personally come to Obama after his little "flciking finger" move and kicked his a$$ so far up it would have been between his shoulders.

    But that's just my opinion...


    Sounds like we need (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by lilburro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    a latte distribution drive!

    It's not (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:12:50 PM EST
    so bad that a blogger thinks these things are unimportant. They are clueless. I was clueless in 2004 so I can give them some leeway because it's much easier to stick your head in the sand.

    The larger problem is that the Obama campaign seems to think this. That's what's deadly.

    Right now I think Obama has no chance of winning the general election. Hillary, if she should pull it out, has less than a 50% chance of winning the election. I pretty much think the DNC blew it with the schedules and the punishment. We have a whole system that is not designed to select the strongest general election candidate.

    Working class voters are 2 smart to buy BO hooey (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Ellie on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:58:33 PM EST
    The Oboiz and in the tank media are really rolling in the self-flattery here and rubbing it all over each other.

    Obama is a poor choice of candidate, of leader, and he can't come up with a solid position or answer on anything.

    He smears with one side of his mouth and flatters with the other. He's luring supporters into this notion that he's The One to usher a hip, new, elevated politics by giving them the gift of condescension (once we get that f-cking racist wh!te b!tch, stupid @ssholes, poor people [and other unnecessary inferiors] out of the way of course.)

    And he's going to show those politicians in Washington a thing or two ...

    Maybe the people who don't support him can actually see through that crap.

    I wonder if the Donna Brazille's (none / 0) (#7)
    by zfran on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:34:37 AM EST
    of this country realize that some of the voters they need in Nov. are getting poorer and poorer due to among other things, jobs, jobs, and the lack of jobs! The more the party chooses to "release them" the less votes they'll get and perhaps, the more John McCain will get. At least John McCain remembers the depression, perhaps some have forgotten to look to the past the see what the future holds unless we are on this journey together. The more Sen. Obama talks about himself and what's in for him, the less we are together. I'm joing independents.

    I think the Independant party pool (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:39:36 AM EST
    is growing by leaps and bounds. It was at something like 30% before this campaign cycle. You know what is funy though. Obama has been courting "Reagan Democrats." Methinks in 4 years time Dean is going to have to worry about courting "Clinton Democrats" the very same people they are thumbing thir noses at now. Th party is going to be very sorry it chose to discount the working class who adored "Bubba" and felt he knew what it felt like to be them.

    But Donna said (none / 0) (#210)
    by MichaelGale on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:48:10 PM EST
    "I am wealthy", right before she tried to get out of her "don't need to rely on blue collar workers anymore" remark.

    She is the one:  "drank more beers with Joe Sixpack than any white person"..

    Good Lord.


    joe sixpack cracks me up (none / 0) (#228)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:54:09 AM EST
    I want a pair of matching t-shirts: typical white person for me, joe sixpack for my hubby

    thusfar (none / 0) (#11)
    by po on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:36:30 AM EST
    about 40% of Clinton supports have stated that that they wouldn't vote for Obama.  That leaves 60% who will.  Take those Clinton supporters that will likely vote for the nominee whomever it is (along with those that said they wouldn't, but in the end will) and combine them with the people who already support Obama and I'd venture to guess that these equal more people than will actually vote for, forget about being jazzed about, Bush III a/k/a as McCain.  

    And if Hillary and Obama are sol close on so many issues, and the GOP, a la McCain, is so far off, I cannot fathom, save for spite, why anyone who claims to be a big D democrat would vote for McCain.  But, spite and, dare I say it, bitterness over slights, real or perceived, are powerful things.  

    Great... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:40:46 AM EST
    based on electoral college maps, tell us where those people are.  

    PS.  maybe some of us go beyond issues why we would not vote for Obama?  Maybe some of us care that he has no real life experience in any job?  Maybe we care about healt care and don't want our chances squandered?  


    If you think that (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by eric on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:54:30 AM EST
    adding 60% of the Clinton voters to the Obama voters equals more votes McCain will get, you truly are delusional.

    By my last check, Obama and Hillary both got around 16 million votes.  Subtract your 40% from Clinton, and you get 9,600,000.  Add them up and you get 25,600,000 votes.  Guess what?  In the last election Bush got 62 million votes!  You aren't even half-way there.

    There is an entire country out there that you people are going to have to reach.  Better get busy!


    You also fail (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by hillaryboy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:58:45 AM EST
    to acknowledge support that Obama gained early on may not still be there for him in November.  

    bingo (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by DandyTIger on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:11:26 AM EST
    This is a good point. I think if many of the previous primaries where held a week or two ago, you would see Clinton winning in VA and a lot of other places. The tide has turned. Unfortunately for the democratic party, it turned a bit late in the game and Clinton peaked a bit late. But make no mistake, the tide turned. Obama has very little chance of winning the general.

    You miss the point (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:00:38 PM EST
    You miss the point, sport.  We think BHO is a man of weak character, who changes his spots and loyalties to fit the times.  We don't trust him. It's his character.

    He doesn't have experience "leading" anything, and we don't believe he can push through anything he allegedly supports.

    Moreover, we've been insulted and abused. I would no more come back to the Dems this fall than I would come back to a man who has black-eyed me and broken my ribs.  Roses the next day don't cut it.


    My vote this fall... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:01:12 PM EST
    will be for Chewbacca.

    I do not see the relevance of your comment (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:39:19 AM EST
    then delete it (none / 0) (#21)
    by po on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:42:04 AM EST
    you have before, no reason why you wouldn't again as I typically do not tow the "party" line here.  the relevance to me was that you were talking %s as was I.  flame away, i've got a hearing to go to

    I'll go one better (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:45:58 AM EST
    You are suspended for the day. Comment no further.

    Re: But in the end they will (none / 0) (#24)
    by wasabi on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:43:43 AM EST
    You said "Take those Clinton supporters that will likely vote for the nominee whomever it is (along with those that said they wouldn't, but in the end will)and combine them with the people who already support Obama and I'd venture to guess that these equal more people than will actually vote for, forget about being jazzed about, Bush III a/k/a as McCain."

    I don't know how many people will not vote for Obama out of spite.  It may turn out to be a very small percentage.  I'm worrying about the people who don't think Obama is very qualified, and see John McCain as a reasonable alternative.


    Well, Obama is NOT qualified. That's the (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by MarkL on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:46:23 AM EST
    problem. Of course many people will consider McCain as a safer alternative.

    John McCain (none / 0) (#30)
    by po on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:46:08 AM EST
    IS NOT A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE.  Just look at what he's had to say about Iraq and his preferred nominees to the Supreme Court.  Case closed, unless you like what's been shoved down your throat the past 7 years.

    Excuse me! (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by wasabi on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:52:19 AM EST
    I didn't say I'd vote for McCain.  I just happen to know alot of people that do not see Obama as qualified and do in fact like McCain.  He has the media driven image of being reasonable and bipartisan.  For alot of folks, that what they want.  That, and experience to do the job.

    Point is. He may not be to you. (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:55:20 AM EST
    He may not be to me. But to all those working-class white voters Obama can't seem to get? HE IS. McCain is well-liked in those circles. You know, the circles where Hillary is currently top dog?  That one.  

    And quit trying to scare anyone into voting for Obama.

    Let's see:
    1. Call the Clintons racist.
    Doesn't work
    2. Call people bitter
    Doesn't work
    3. Call Clintons racist again
    Doesn't work
    4. SCOTUS, McCain, OH MY!
    WON'T work.


    What's funny is (none / 0) (#82)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:04:11 AM EST
    many of the people I know who I used that last tactic on in 2000 went ahead and voted for NADER anyway because, you know "Democrats and Republicans are all just the same". Well, now it's going to be used against them, isn't it?

    big if (none / 0) (#229)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:57:48 AM EST
    And if Hillary and Obama are sol close on so many issues, and the GOP, a la McCain, is so far off,

    They're not close on the issues I care about.


    a different choice in the GE (none / 0) (#27)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:45:46 AM EST
    Right now people are choosing between two democratic canidates who are close on the issues. Assuming Obama wins the nomination, the voters that perfered Hillary to Obama will now have a completely different choice... Obama or McCain.

    McCain holds radically different views and positions than Hillary, on every major issue voters are concerned about. Obama does not, and his democratic views, and the team he assembles around them should win those voters over.

    That is assuming that most of the working class white supporters of Hillary support her liberal positions, and not just a person. I think most do.

    Just my opinion.

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:48:49 AM EST
    Good luck in November. Obama will need it.

    The flaw in your reasoning is that many of us (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by MarkL on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:49:24 AM EST
    do not agree they are close on the issues; more significantly, we feel no confidence at all that he is committed to core Democratic principles.
    If Edwards ran a dirty campaign and beat Clinton, I would still vote for him, because I believe he is on my side. Obama? He is a corporate stooge.
    His history of giving the farm away to insurance companies, his ties with the  nuclear industry, his support of corn-based ethanol, his rhetoric on SS --those are not signs of being a Democrat.

    Issues are passe' (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:53:04 AM EST
    in Unity land. So is policy.

    I find it very funny that you (none / 0) (#83)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:04:30 AM EST
    think Obama does not hold democratic views. I assure you the republicans do not share your opinion.

    Oh, but we already know (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:10:34 AM EST
    the repugnants stand on issues.  The trouble is, we are not sure Obama even HAS a stand on the issues.

    But but but (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by janarchy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:13:43 AM EST
    he doesn't NEED to stand on the issues. He's got hope and change and inspiration! Somehow, those nasty little issues things will just take care of themselves and bow to his will because He's The One! /snark

    The target of his campaign (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:16:01 AM EST
    is the latte lovers who've never had to struggle (and he brings along the AA's because otehrwise they'd have to vote for that "racist" woman).

    He's very much targeting would-be Republicans.


    The issues (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:50:51 AM EST
    Barack and Hillary are close?  How do I know that?  All I heard was 'me too.'  But Obama does not like issues, desk work--he as much as said so.  And there are a significant number of people who do not take his 'issues' on faith.  There is a certain smell of maple syrup (waffles) about him,  And would he throw me 'under the bus'?  In a heartbeat I suspect.

    Ahah...the rub is this (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:53:56 AM EST
    You assume it's about the issues.  Obama made the election about the person.  So the GE will be about the person.  His candidacy was never about issues.  Cause, he will change his issues on a dime and give you 9 cents change.  

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Davidson on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:58:40 AM EST
    Obama has made every possible personal attack against him legitimate because of his utter lack of substance and his completely personality-based campaign.  In a battle of personal narratives, guess who beats a manly war hero?  No one.

    Not even the economy will bail him out.  Why would voters trust Obama to know what he's doing?  The man is simply not qualified to be president--at all.  No amount of screaming, "Community organizer!" will help.  He has even neutered the biggest advantage Democrats had: the Clinton legacy.


    GE match ups (none / 0) (#99)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:13:31 AM EST
    suggest otherwise.

    I am not worried about the GE if Obama gets the nomination. I would say the same if Clinton was picked as well. The GE numbers are good for both, and will uptick once the nomination process is over. McCain is a horrible gaffe-prone canidate, who has yet to pull the republican party together around him.


    Obama is the (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:16:57 AM EST
    walking gaffe.  Do you every wonder why he almost never does press conferences?  Do you buy the "he's too busy" nonsense?

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:37:43 AM EST
    and that's why he'll lose. In a personallity and character based campaign McCain will win hands down.

    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Steve M on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:05:04 PM EST
    This is EXACTLY why people like myself and BTD have been urging Obama, since day one, to make his campaign about the radical difference between Republican and Democratic ideologies.

    Yet he hasn't.  If anything, he's helped blur the line.

    There seems to be this delusion among some people that every voter understands that the Republicans are wayyyyy over here, and the Democrats are wayyyyy over here.  But most people don't think of it in starkly ideological terms.  I happen to think we would win the battle if it were framed that way, but Obama has consciously chosen not to do it.


    "He can win because he's AA" (none / 0) (#54)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:53:30 AM EST
    Seems like Clinton tiptoed pretty close to saying that today.  I'm wondering to what extent this is part(not all, but part) of the subtext of Obama's "problem" with working class white voters.
    Is the unstated part of this argument that a white Democratic nominee would win over more working class white voters, and that an AA nominee, no matter who, would leave too many of those votes on the table to win in November?

    I'm not trolling, I asking if this is a legitimate concern for anyone here.  If so, why not be upfront about it?

    I think the argument is Obama specific (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:56:36 AM EST
    You seem to be arguing all black candidates are the same.

    Yep. (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by liminal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:34:23 AM EST
    It's about economics, not race.  

    You can appeal to working class voters in two ways:

    1. Cultural ties;
    2. Straight-up economic issues.

    Bush won working class whites with an explicitly cultural appeal.

    Obama wins working class blacks with an explicitly cultural appeal.

    Bush could not win working class blacks with his cultural appeal, because he sounds tone deaf when he speaks to African-Americans and because he does not understand the true economic pressures they face in order to appeal to them on economic issues.  

    Obama cannot win working class whites with cultural appeals.  When he tries, he sounds tone deaf and looks silly.  Really: why go bowling in Altoona, when he can't bowl?  Why not head down to Manchin Park for a pick-up regular guy basketball game.  Contrary to popular opinion, working class white folks DO play basketball.  In WVa, the state HS basketball tournament is always a HUGE, HUGE draw?  The ads he is running in WV are so generic that they seem like ads in for a generic presidential candidate in a big screen movie.  

    And, he and his inner circle clearly do not understand the economic pressures facing working class people sufficiently to make an economic appeal.  You can read it in the tone deaf way he attacked Clinton's gas tax proposal.  When minimum wage is $5.60/hour and gas is $3.89 a gallon it should not be difficult to make craft a message that respects the real struggles of ordinary people in a reasonable and responsible way - but he's had weeks and months, and can't seem to figure that out.  


    I'm arguing that the subtext is... (none / 0) (#98)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:13:26 AM EST
    ...essentially that Obama's ethnicity will cost the Democrats votes in the fall, because some white voters who might otherwise be on the table for them may not vote for him because of underlying racial antipathies.  

    When 10-30% of white voters in exit polls are saying race was a factor in their vote, and those voters are going overwhelmingly for Clinton, I don't see how that argument is Obama-specific.

    It's nice how you try to twist this around on me, though.  Very lawyerly.  
    With respect to whites harboring antipathy towards African-Americans, yes, I would argue that for them, all African-American candidates are the same--people for whom they won't vote.

    I think this argument is an inherent part of the "Obama has a problem connecting with non-college-educated working class white voters" argument, and that part of the argument is not only divisive but morally bankrupt(which is why it's not openly stated by the Clintons or their surrogates, though it seems possible to me that they do happen to believe Obama's ethnicity is part of the reason he can't win in November).

    Are there things Obama can do to improve his standing with working class whites?  Of course, but at some point there are simply going to be folks who won't vote for him no matter what, for a reason he has no control over.  He will simply have to replace those particular votes with support from somewhere else(probably higher turnout by a different demographic group).


    I think you added that subtext (none / 0) (#135)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:36:21 AM EST
    As far as I remember, in the 2004 race, Edwards made this argument against Kerry.

    Nah.... (none / 0) (#158)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:57:12 AM EST
    ...this subtext has been around for a while.  

    Obama<>Kerry.  Single mom, never really rich until recently.  Time in community organizing, etc.  

    But I thought you said Kerry won 47% of working class white voters in 2004, and only lost by 3?  If Obama, a more charismatic, likable and eloquent candidate, wins that percentage or near it, he'll beat McCain by more than a handful of points, due to increased youth and A-A turnout, and a slight uptick in the percentage of the Latino vote won.


    Obama's problem (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by pixelpusher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:03:47 PM EST
    is that he's an academic who comes from academic parents (or parent, since his father wasn't around).

    That's how he equates with Kerry: not because of his family's wealth or lack thereof.  It has to do with the academic culture he was raised in.  That's what makes working-class voters feel like he's an alien.

    And let's ignore the fact that he attended a not-cheap private school in Hawaii.  He has more in common with Kerry than you think.


    Well, thank goodness... (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:25:12 PM EST
    ...that his Wellesley/Yale-educated multimillionaire rival who can't figure out how to work a cappucino machine doesn't have that problem.

    Hillary Does Not Have A Problem (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:39:58 PM EST
    talking to working class people despite her education or her money. Also, no one is better in this area than Bill Clinton.  Hillary talks to them and Obama sounds like he is lecturing them. He looks and sounds completely uncomfortable in that environment.



    Then why... (none / 0) (#212)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:57:04 PM EST
    ...does she lose so many working class white males in the hypothetical matchups with McCain?

    r u kidding hillary is great w/the working class! (none / 0) (#231)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:28:54 AM EST
    well not only that but Hillary takes the time to understand what is important to us, and she talks to us about the issues that matter to us.

    Obama isn't willing to be our leader. He's not interested in our problems, he doesn't have any respect for us or our culture. I feel like his whole appeal is supposed to be based on some identity thing that excludes us because we are ok with the identity we've got.


    rolling eyes (none / 0) (#230)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:19:49 AM EST
    ...essentially that Obama's ethnicity will cost the Democrats votes in the fall, because some white voters who might otherwise be on the table for them may not vote for him because of underlying racial antipathies.  

    well, if you really want to believe that white people are just racist, I suppose nothing is going to talk you out of it. But I have yet to see any real evidence.

    I knew a feminist who automatically assumed that all men were woman-hating pigs. And you know it might be true, because she confronted them on their inadequacies and they never asked her for dates after that....


    I think (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Lena on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:15:55 AM EST
    the reason he can't win white blue-collar voters is because "Hope you can believe in" sounds more like a spoof of a campaign slogan than a plan. I mean, the first time I heard that, I literally thought, "is this a joke?" And this slogan is emblematic of his feel-good, pat-yourself-on-the-back campaign which doesn't even begin to plug into the economic problems of the working class.

    Kerry, Mondale, Dukakis all seemed to have the same problem connecting with the working class voter too, so I don't think race is a significant part of his problem.

    He can't speak to the economy. He doesn't seem like a hard worker. He hasn't addressed women, seniors, blue collar workers in any sustained way. In fact, he and/or his campaign surrogates have spent time dissing baby boomers, women, and white blue-collar people.

    I suppose it's easy to say that those Dems who won't vote for him must all be racist. But racism isn't the reason I won't vote for him. It's his abject failure to stand up for women, the poor, the working class, and even his own pastor and grandmother. This doesn't fill me with confidence that he can stand up for any principle, let alone people that he can't connect with (blue-collar, elderly, etc.).


    Those are fair criticisms to some extent... (none / 0) (#115)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:21:20 AM EST
    ....but all of those things are correctable.  Are you asserting that racial antipathy towards the African-American candidate in the race was a completely insignificant factor in all of the primaries thus far?  Because the exit polling, anecdotal reportage and experiences of canvassers don't bear that out.

    Are you suggesting (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by nell on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:35:43 AM EST
    that sexism has nothing to do with these outcomes? Becuase then you would have to argue that white working class folks are racist (but not sexist), and that African Americans and liberal elites are sexist (but not racist). There are some in the Dem party who are racist and/or sexist, but they are likely to be both, and they are likely to have already migrated to McCain. Clinton wins working class white voters because she speaks about bread and butter issues constantly. Obama wins the liberal elites because he talks about hope and changiness cosntantly. These messages appeal to different constituencies, and these are the groups they are carrying.

    Then why hasn't he corrected them? (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by liminal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:38:38 AM EST
    That's the question, particularly now that nearly every image maker and media mouth has crowned him the nominee of the Democratic party.  Why are his supporters dismissing the working class people he's not yet reached instead of trying to figure out how to reach them, and trying to understand the straight-up legitimate critiques of his campaign and his approach so that he can not only win in November, but legitimately knit the Clinton Democrats back into the party he hopes to lead in November?  

    I believe (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Lena on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:48:20 AM EST
    racial antipathy HAS played a role in the response to Obama -- but then, sexual stereotypes have also played a role in the voter's response to Clinton. Who knows how much of either affected the campaigns? Still, I have no reason to believe that the problems Obama has with white working class Democrats isn't mostly self-inflicted. For example, as a white person, I'm no racist but Obama totally lost me by March*.

    liminal has a great post above talking about cultural/economic appeal, and how Obama falls short in each in addressing the white working class.

    * to be fair, the Dem party as a whole has also lost me with their spinelessness on the issues since 2006 and their inability to stand up against sexism. The 2 together were just too much, unfortunately, and so an Independent is born, after 22 years of being a Democrat. It feels weird.


    Oops (none / 0) (#151)
    by Lena on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:49:07 AM EST
    ignroe the bolding. I too have fallen victim to the power of the *

    Then why (none / 0) (#207)
    by Nadai on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:48:48 PM EST
    for the love of God hasn't he corrected them?

    You want it to be racism because that makes it not his fault.  And sure, there are racist white people who won't vote for a black man.  But he's getting 40% or less of the working class white vote.  That's not racism.  That's him.


    no (none / 0) (#232)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:41:30 AM EST
    but all of those things are correctable.

    Isn't it getting a bit late to start correcting?

    Are you asserting that racial antipathy towards the African-American candidate in the race was a completely insignificant factor in all of the primaries thus far?

    Ever heard of Ockham's Razor?


    change "can" to "can't" nt (none / 0) (#57)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:53:52 AM EST
    You mean (none / 0) (#75)
    by OxyCon on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:00:03 AM EST
    "typical white people", right?

    What about Clintons Problem with Blacks (none / 0) (#61)
    by FrankinTexas on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:54:36 AM EST
    The same argument can be made for Clinton with Black voters.  There is no way she can win the GE without strong support in the Black Community and her support in that area has dropped steadily thru the contest.  

    Hmmm...every Republican since (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:56:34 AM EST
    1952 has managed.

    And QUIT the right-wing TP. (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by rooge04 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:57:08 AM EST
    It's HILLARY Clinton or CLINTON...not THE Clintons.

    Perhaps her decline in support can be... (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by santarita on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:33:16 AM EST
    attributed to the rise in support of Obama by the same community?

    And the scurrilous charges of racism leveled against her?


    Clinton (none / 0) (#169)
    by pixelpusher on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:05:03 PM EST
    didn't have problems with blacks until a black candidate was pushed forward.

    But there is one now, so too bad for her.


    Yes, there will be. (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:56:47 AM EST
    And if Obama is the nominee, well...far be it from me in Nov to say, "I told you so."  

    Are the college degreed people AAs? (none / 0) (#72)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:57:42 AM EST
    If that's the case, then the analysis is valid because they will vote 100 percent for BO.  Otherwise, even if he gets 60 percent of the 31 percent, it's 18 percent.

    I won't vote for McCain (none / 0) (#104)
    by zfran on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:16:01 AM EST
    however, unless someone tells me differently, the only way to show the DNC my vote changed is to re-register as Independent, withhold my vote (perhaps entirely) or vote for Ralph Nader. The Dems are supposed to be a "party of the people" and since women are "people" I feel so disenfranchised..time to wash those Dems right out of my hair!!

    Please (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:50:25 AM EST
    don't vote for Nader. Don't inflate his ego any more than it already is. Surely there are other names on the ballot or just leave it blank. That's what my husband has now decided to do. I got him to cast his first vote for a dem for president in 2004 but he says he will not vote for Obama under any circumstances. Of course, living in GA makes all this very easy. After all, Obama isn't going to even be close to McCain's numbers down here.

    Sounds as if the Obama (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:18:13 AM EST
    assume all the highly-educated voters will vote for Obama.  

    Last Time I Looked, Some Of Those (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by MO Blue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:45:28 PM EST
    highly educated folks were die hard Republicans. They used their education to make a lot of money or had money to begin with and they are bound and determined to keep every penny of it.

    I'm highly education and not (none / 0) (#113)
    by zfran on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:19:42 AM EST
    voting for Obama. I'm also pretty smart and I'm still not voting for Obama.

    that's I'm highly "educated" perhaps (none / 0) (#114)
    by zfran on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:20:26 AM EST
    my fingers aren't when they type!! lol

    One thing is for certain (none / 0) (#119)
    by katmandu on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:24:29 AM EST
    Hillary is the most moderate of the candidates.
    That is what I like, and I would vote for her.
    I am a moderate Democrat.  If it comes to a
    choice between Obama and McCain, I will vote for
    McCain.  He is more centered than Obama who is
    very liberal. Scarily liberal unfortunately.
    There are many people who vote for a president
    because of their political views, not their party.
    We do not follow the party blindly.  
    I predict a win for McCain because the
    conservatives have no other choice, and the
    moderates like McCain.
    Also, the democrats disenfranchising two entire
    states will not work in their favor.  They are
    not punishing the state gov't, nor are they
    punishing the local democratic party.  They are
    punishing the voters.  Bad bad move.

    Elitists, I tell ya.... (none / 0) (#120)
    by vicndabx on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:24:39 AM EST
    The whole premise of either not needing traditional dem segments or "don't worry, they'll come back into the fold" is, IMO, based on the idea that the DNC and O figure all us non-supporters don't really know what's important  when making a choice for president.  They think we cling to strawman issues.  They don't know that yeah, there may be one or two social issues that matter, but these are less important than real, practical matters, e.g. the economy, jobs, world politics, etc. and the candidates grasp of these issues and their plans.  It is this side of the party that the rest of the non-democratic primary voter is made up of.  Bad news, that chicken will be coing home to roost the next election.

    The time has passed (none / 0) (#174)
    by Sunshine on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:11:54 PM EST
    It's too late for the Obama people to make nice to the Clinton people,,, And they don't show any signs of wanting to make nice... The longer this goes on from Obama, his people and the Obama blogs and supporters the more votes he is going to lose... It's kind of funny watching them commit slow suicide....  Do they think they will get a lot of Republicans and Independents?  

    Just a general comment (none / 0) (#178)
    by Sleeper on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:13:39 PM EST
    I know Clinton supporters are disappointed that her odds of winning are slim at this point, but...I think some of you need to take a deep breath and listen to yourselves.  Voting McCain or writing in Clinton?  Look at the last seven and a half years.  Look at the wreckage BushCo has made of this country.  You really want to risk that his heir gets four years to continue?

    I've bounced from Edwards to Clinton to (somewhat hesitantly) Obama, because despite each of these candidates' flaws, they are worlds apart from McCain, who wants to continue and expand our war on the Middle East, who doesn't want any kind of health care, who wants more Bush tax cuts.  And anyone who says that Obama would be identical to, or worse than, McCain is out of their minds.

    I know I'm going to get slagged for this.  Sorry.  But we need you guys.  We all need to rally together to punish the GOP for what they've done to our country.  I sincerely hope many of you learn to manage your disappointment with the outcome, as I have, and work for the greater good of removing the Republicans from the White House.

    While I appreciate your comments (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:20:44 PM EST
    Please understand that the bottom line is that Obama  has shown us nothing that tells us he will be any better than McCain. Now, I won't vote for McCain, but I also don't think all the highly educated and informed people here and who are Hillary supporters are all "out of their minds."

    Add to the fact that his campaign has shown utter disdain for many of us, and your theory holds about as much water as telling an abused wife to come back for more because her husband is really sorry and won't do it again.

    Obama has had a year to make his case to us, and yet, as time goes by, more and more Hillary supporters and Independents are telling pollsters that they could not vote for Obama.  I thought the more we got to know him, the better we'd like him? That's what he told us. But the opposite is true and is being played out.  The more we know about him, the more we can't stand him.

    He is a danger to our party and possibly a danger to our country.


    And I appreciate your civil response. But... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Sleeper on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:35:20 PM EST
    I just don't know how you can say that.  Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq (too slowly for me), McCain wants a permanent occupation.  Obama wants to broaden public health care (not far enough but an improvement), McCain doesn't want to do anything.  McCain wants more Bush tax cuts and to abolish the estate tax for the wealthy.  Obama voted against torture, McCain grandstanded to wring a meaningless concession from the White House before voting for torture.

    And forgive me for saying this, but the "utter disdain" comment...I just cannot fathom that.  Comparing Obama to an abusive husband?  What?  I was a Clinton supporter and voted for her here in NJ, and I have to say I never ever felt utter disdain from friends who supported Obama.  Do you mean demographically?

    I'm sorry.  I guess I just don't understand the loathing for the man.  It's only understandable, to me, in the context of his not being your candidate of choice.  And I'm positive that many of the really hardcore Obama supporters would be saying the same things, given an opposite outcome.  And they'd be equally mistaken.

    Anyway.  Thank you for the polite response.  I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye on this.


    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:45:08 PM EST
    Well, his Middle Eastern expert specifically said that we should not believe what he says on the campaign trail will translate to his foreign policy. I realize all politicians do this, but this is blatant.  Another of his experts is on the record saying he won't remove troops for a couple of years at least (caveat - I don't believe any of them when they say they are going to get them out soon).

    I haven't seen a great deal of original thought with his plans -they all seem to be watered down versions of Hillary's after she announces them.

    He doesn't appear to be a hard worker and he gets bored easily. I don't want someone to say on April 13, 2009, "You know what, I'm bored now.  Think I'll write my memoirs." I want someone who will fight for me, and I just don't get that feeling from him.

    He keeps calling out Hillary for honesty, but we're still waiting to see his Illinois State Legislature papers and his tax returns from the 1990s. He has had 17 different stories about his relationships with people of dubious character. He's running on biography and anytime you want to hear specifics, you are told to go to his website to read white papers that some advisor wrote.  If the man can't be bothered to know his own plans, then we may as well let George Bush stay in the WH.

    The final straw(s) were when his campaign painted the Clintons as racist, when he said Hillary's supporters would vote for him, but he didn't know if his supporters would vote for her, the sexism that has come from his campaign, and from him, and anything that comes out of his wife's mouth (I know, not relevant, but it's cumulative. on top of that, he has shown himself to not be a very nice person - he's snide and smarmy, arrogant, and looks like he can't be bothered with the "little people".

    Hillary was not my first choice (I admit, Richardson was - on paper). But as I got to know her policies and saw how she's out there campaigning, it really won me over.  I know politicians say things they don't mean, but the fact that she takes the time so when she's in Detroit, she can talk to you about the auto industry and a plant that closed in Wixom and how it affected the people there, or when she's talking to Generals and Admirals and can intelligently talk military strategy, or when she can talk to the board of the Indy Star and discuss everything from Indiana jobs, to China and poisonous toys, to trade, to agriculture - she completely blows me away (and Obama can't stand anywhere near her in comparison).

    We've had 8 years of someone who did the job while getting on-the-job training.  We can't afford any more.


    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:25:01 PM EST
    just isn't qualified to be President and that's important to a lot of voters over 40. He has no record of accomplishments to run on and is running an entirely movement and personality based campaign that creeps a lot of people out.

    As far as health care goes, I would be better off voting for McCain on that issue. His tax credit works better for me than Obama's half baked plan does.

    I'm not sure Obama won't expand the war in the ME either. I wouldn't doubt that if he somehow made it into office that he wouldn't cave to the neocons. He has shown absolutely no spine so far.

    It's up to Obama to get Clinton supporters to vote for him. He isn't doing it.


    Re: Obama (none / 0) (#187)
    by Sleeper on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:40:56 PM EST
    I agree his resume is thin, it was what made me hesitant to consider him in the first place.  As far as accomplishments goes, you only have to look at his presumed opponent's resume for contrast.  McCain has reversed himself at least once, sometimes twice, on pretty much every position around.  For tax cuts/against them/for.  Pro-Bush's war, then against his strategy.  I guess for me the war is the overriding issue, even though we like to pretend it isn't all that important anymore.  McCain and his advisors want to stay in Iraq, send more troops to Afghanistan, bomb Iran, bomb Syria, bomb the West Bank.  He's said so upfront.  Obama has at least said that he wants to withdraw over a timetable, as Clinton and Edwards also said.  I think you have to back the guy who at least agrees with you out loud, and then pressure him like crazy once he's in office not to go back on his word.

    This (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    is the constant refrain of the Obama supporters:
    Vote for him because McCain is really, really bad.

    As far as waffling and flip flopping goes, Obama has nothing on McCain on that account. He was for single payer before he was against it. He was against the war before he started funding it. He said he wasn't qualified to run for President before he decided that he was qualified.

    If you want to vote for a candidate based on some speech that he made years ago, I have no problem with that. Do you trust Obama to be commander in chief? That's a question that a lot of voters are probably going to have a problem with.

    Obama's own advisors were advocating staying in Iraq.

    Obama won't listen to anyone when he's in office. Obama will do what's best for Obama and no one else. That was his history even when he was in the state senate in IL. And it's one of the problems I have with him. What's best for Obama may not always be best for the country.


    Re: This (none / 0) (#209)
    by Sleeper on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:38:27 PM EST
    >the constant refrain of the Obama supporters:
    Vote for him because McCain is really, really bad.

    And how is that a bad argument?  Neither McCain nor Obama were my first choice.  But one is clearly better than the other.

    >He was for single payer before he was against it. He was against the war before he started funding it.

    I wish either Obama or Clinton, or both, had had the courage to go for single-payer.  And Democrats in general, not just these two, infuriate me for continuing to fund the war.  But the equation changes with a Democratic executive branch.

    >Do you trust Obama to be commander in chief?

    I trust him more than someone whose entire identity in politics is based around military service and who's been an enthusiastic warmonger.

    >Obama won't listen to anyone when he's in office. Obama will do what's best for Obama and no one else.

    Okay, now you're being silly.  All politicians have a streak of self-interest.  I don't see any evidence that he's been egregiously self-serving in politics (largely because his resume is pretty thin to begin with).


    silly? (none / 0) (#233)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:52:33 AM EST
    >Obama won't listen to anyone when he's in office. Obama will do what's best for Obama and no one else.

    Okay, now you're being silly.  All politicians have a streak of self-interest.  I don't see any evidence that he's been egregiously self-serving in politics (largely because his resume is pretty thin to begin with).

    Obama owes a heckuva debt to whomever kept him propped up so long. I mean - someone gave him money and helped with connections. Obama has done remarkably little and yet suddenly finds himself one step away from the most powerful political office in the world. This is not because he took extraordinary actions to make this happen. It is because someone is helping him.

    That's a real problem for me.


    Re: silly? (none / 0) (#238)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:41:18 PM EST
    >Obama owes a heckuva debt to whomever kept him propped up so long.

    Kind of like a certain Senator from New York whose name recognition and support came almost entirely from who she married when she first ran for office in 2000.  Does that invalidate her too?

    >I mean - someone gave him money and helped with connections.

    Well, over a million donors had something to do with it I think.

    >It is because someone is helping him.

    "But who?....WHO?"

    So a vague feeling that Obama isn't entitled to the nomination seems to be the heart of the issue here.

    I wish he had more experience as well.  It was what made me reluctant to support him in the first place.

    But we're supposed to be living in a country where anyone can be president, regardless of life experience.  We have doctors and actors serving as senators and governors, for crying out loud.  And Obama has been in elective office for 11 years now.  Would there be much difference in terms of relevant experience in a state legislator from a big state, i.e. Illinois, vs. a governor from a small state, i.e. Wyoming?  Governor is a bigger and more prestigious title, yet Illinois has 24 times the population.

    Sometimes opportunities arise and people who dare to can take advantage of them.  I remember when Obama announced he was running that I was annoyed, that it was too soon, that he would make an excellent candidate down the road but that it was too early for him to hope to win.  Kind of like Al Gore's run in 1988.  Well, he knew better than me, it seems, because here he is.


    If this has been raised elsewhere, (none / 0) (#190)
    by Rhouse on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:00:10 PM EST
    please forgive me.  I keep getting the impression that Obamas' people think he's a lock for all degree carrying voters.  It just seems to me that they don't think that anyone with a college degree would vote Republican and therefore they claim the vote of any and all college degrees. (not worrying about the people connected to them.)

    working class whites are way too smart (none / 0) (#194)
    by dem08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:34:00 PM EST
    That is why they are called "Reagan Democrats". They know real from fake.

    And they definitely won't switch from Hillary to McCain just because McCain was a War Hero and the Republicans will say her husband was a Draft Dodger.

    Reagan Democrats are way too smart to vote against their self-interest. When McCain offers them permanent Tax Cuts, rather than the Tax Holiday, they will cite pro-Hillary Blogs and Hillary's Position Papers to counter his argument that McCain will be "putting more of their money back in their hands".

    They will. The Reagan Democrats are never fooled. And their love for and of Hillary Clinton goes way, way back. Really. The War hero? Well, he is no Hillary!

    If you cannot tell, I think people overstate the wisdom of any block of voters when they vote as a block & I think it there is no direct connection between choosing Hillary over Obama in a Primary to choosing Hillary over McCain in the General Election.

    I do agree that Hillary has exposed Obama's weakness with white voters. I don't see how that has increased her support, but the Election won't be about things we are talking about in May, it will have its own rhythum and scope.

    wow, lets play bash the hick some more (none / 0) (#234)
    by moll on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:14:35 AM EST
    The Reagan Democrats are never fooled.

    I didn't vote for Reagan (I was too young, but even if I weren't, I wouldn't have) but I can certainly understand why others did. It wasn't like the Democrats were offering a better deal or anything.


    I've been screaming this for weeks. (none / 0) (#200)
    by Left of center on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:54:37 PM EST
    My analogy was that Obama supporters moved the goal post up to the 50 yard line and now they're celebrating at mid field as though they've actually accomplished something.

    I was using "you" in the universal (none / 0) (#216)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:10:04 PM EST
    sense. As in "one". The "you" in that sense means the Obama campaign and the ones who are dismissing half or more of the Democratic base. It was not a personal attack. Sorry you thought it was.

    Disappointment abounds (none / 0) (#224)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:25:35 AM EST
    ...so I understand if tempers are frayed.  I didn't think it was truly a personal attack since we're strangers, so, no harm done.

    I'm just worried that the groundswell of passion that two great candidates have helped generate and channel will lead to unproductive, pointless internecine warfare within the Democratic Party.  I mean we just have to face facts, Obama, for all his faults, is going to win.  I ask you to think of the 14-year-old boys today who will end up losing a limb or dying in an IED explosion in Iraq or Afghanistan, or Iran, or Syria, in 2012.  I ask you to consider the women in places like South Dakota, Mississippi, Florida, Montana, Nebraska, who will die of botched abortions should a McCain-nominated justice, or two, tilt the Supreme Court against Roe v. Wade.  I ask you to consider the people who will die over the next four years from medical neglect because they have no health coverage.  I ask you to remember warrantless wiretaps, and Enron, and Scooter Libby getting away with treason, and Guantanamo Bay, and New Orleans.

    The Republicans need to be hurled from power as forcefully and decisively as can be done.  If we have to deal with starry-eyed college kids who think Obama is like really cool in order to accomplish this, then I can live with that.  I ask everyone here who fought passionately for Clinton to at least consider what the GOP will do with a third Bush term.  Thanks.


    I beg to differ on the (none / 0) (#235)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:59:04 AM EST
    "two great candidates" meme. Obama is not a great candidate. He is unqualified for the office of President. If he weren't black and full of BS he would have been laughed out of the race by now. Anyone else with his resume would have been thought not to be seasoned enough for consideration. He is being touted as a candidate based primarily on one speech given when he was a state senator. He has not lived up to that promise, either as a Senator or as a candidate. We have one great candidate, and her name is Hillary.

    If you think for one minute that Obama gives a damn about women's rights, health care, consumer rights, or anything that has to do with ordinary people and their lives, you need to look at his actions, or lack of them, regarding the housing his friend Rezko put up for the people in Obama's district. He did nothing, said nothing and continued to accept donations from Rezko after he had defrauded the state of Illinois and Obama's constituents were living in unheated slums. This is not a person I would trust as far as I can throw one of my horses..that is to say, not at all. Obama will say whatever he needs to to win the campaign. Do not trust him to be on your side when he gets into office. His record shows otherwise.


    Re: I beg to differ on the (none / 0) (#236)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:56:57 PM EST
    >Obama is not a great candidate. He is unqualified for the office of President. If he weren't black and full of BS he would have been laughed out of the race by now.

    ah.  So we're reduced to screaming about affirmative action, then.

    It's really difficult to know what to say, here.  I can't believe a Democrat in 2008 would just come out and say what you just did.  You're entitled to your opinion, I guess, but...wow.

    >We have one great candidate, and her name is Hillary.

    And referring to your candidate by her first name isn't really indicative of detached and rational judgment.

    And there's a lot of the boilerplate complaints about Rezko which, so far as I know, has turned out to be nothing.  Obama's Whitewater, if you will.  I'm waiting now for the mentions about flag lapel pins and Jeremiah Wright.

    I suppose you and a lot of others here on TalkLeft, which I'm increasingly seeing is unswervingly pro-Clinton and anti-Obama at all costs, may vote for McCain this fall.  That's certainly your right.  But for the life of me, I don't know how anyone who shares the Democratic values and vote for McCain out of spite.  Because that's all it will be.  Spite.


    Ok so you think that if a white Senator (none / 0) (#239)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:43:14 PM EST
    with Obama's resume would be considered a viable candidate? Go ask freshmen Senators who have come up from local politics and see if any of them think they are qualified to be President. Even Obama said he wasn't qualified. Of course, that was a whole year before he announced his candidacy. He must be a really fast study to have qualified in a year while traveling abroad instead of doing his Senate grunt work. And about Rezko, my point was that Obama's recommendation helped him get the money to put up those slums. Slums that Obama's constituents were living in. He had a responsibility to those constituents and didn't live up to it. It would not have involved much, driving or walking a mile and talking to some of the people who live there. That is what a community organizer does, and it shouldn't have been too difficult for Mr. State Senator to trot himself down there and find out what the living conditions were. After all, the housing was put up by his friend and contributor. Doesn't it make sense that Obama would want to see it?? At least, it makes sense if he cares about anything other than being elected. A concerned and involved person would have gone down there and raised hell when he saw the conditions. Obama did neither. He continued to take contributions from Rezko. So my conclusion from that, among other things, is that he cares about being elected, not being in public service. Hillary, and that is the way her name is on her campaign posters, does care about public service. She has given yeoman service to the public for most of her adult life. And her record of public service blows Obama's out of the water. Completely.

    Re: (none / 0) (#240)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:12:34 PM EST
    >Ok so you think that if a white Senator with Obama's resume would be considered a viable candidate?


    See, right here is where you lose me.  And millions of other Americans, I suspect.

    Clinton supporters need to stop whining about affirmative action.  You guys are starting to sound like Republicans.  Pointing fingers and saying Obama's only winning because he's black, and obviously he's being helped out because black candidates couldn't possibly get this far on their own, is only doing your candidate a disservice.

    It was campaigning like that that led me to change sides in the first place.

    >She has given yeoman service to the public for most of her adult life.

    Being First Lady of Arkansas for 12 years and First Lady of the United States for 8 years, while maybe allowing her to bring attention to worthy causes, doesn't really constitute public service to me, I guess.  It's not an elective office and it's almost entirely ceremonial in function.


    You didn't mention his neglect (none / 0) (#241)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:45:54 PM EST
    of his constituents in Chicago. I don't care that Obama is black, I care that he is not qualified. I am just saying that if he were white the Dem establishment would not have backed him due to his scanty resume. His orating and his race are what got him noticed. And they are what are carrying him, not any ability or record of accomplishment. We need a President who can do more than talk. We need one who knows how to get things done. Obama doesn't get things done. His Illinois state senate record was doctored for him by Emil Jones who put his name on legislation he didn't work on. He has said he finds the work in the Senate boring. So why is he qualified for President?? Charisma? Sorry, that's just not good enough.

    Hmm. (none / 0) (#242)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:27:21 PM EST
    >I don't care that Obama is black,


    >his race are what got him noticed. And they are what are carrying him

    Oh, okay.  Thanks for clearing it up.

    I know this isn't typical of Clinton supporters so I won't make any broad judgements.  But you might want to work on that stump speech.


    I am not running for office, (none / 0) (#243)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:38:07 PM EST
    but you still haven't addressed his neglect of his constituents and his inflated resume. You just keep harping on the racial aspect. The thing is that it's ok for him to get most of the AA vote because he is black, but not ok for someone to say that his being black has a lot to do with his being the candidate backed by the DNC. And they are backing him, very unsubtly. They are supposed to back ALL Dem candidates, but I suppose that Obama's hope and unity shtick means that if they back him only, then it's the same as backing the other candidate too. You just won't address his weaknesses, will you? Well, you will see them addressed by the GOP in all their gory glory if he wins the nomination. I hope you enjoy it.

    Re: (none / 0) (#245)
    by Sleeper on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:05:00 AM EST
    >You just won't address his weaknesses, will you?

    I would suggest you read some of my other comments.  To sum up, I was an Edwards supporter, went to Clinton after he dropped out, voted for her in NJ, and now am supporting the almost certain nominee of my party.  

    I'm not blind nor naive.  I know Obama was a Chicago politician.  I'm from New Jersey, which is perhaps the only Democratic stronghold more corrupt than Chicago.  But Obama has not been charged with anything, not convicted.  Nor is he under the cloud of indictment, nor is anyone talking of his being investigated.  No rumors, nothing.  There's just no there there.  I'm sorry if his thin resume bothers you, it's not exactly thrilling to me either.  But he won.  And he seems to me to be a man of conviction.  And he'll be a vast improvement over Bush.  And he can beat McCain.

    I know this was supposed to be Clinton's year, but she lost.  She threw everything she had at him and she almost made it, but she lost.  A year ago I never, ever would have thought she could have lost.  But she found just the dismal team necessary to do it.

    >Well, you will see them addressed by the GOP in all their gory glory if he wins the nomination. I hope you enjoy it.

    Yet another vote for McCain.  sigh.  I hope the Iraqis will some day find it in their hearts to forgive us for continuing to reward the party of conquest with the White House.


    He won his seats in both Senates (none / 0) (#246)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:10:57 AM EST
    by eliminating the competition. That is not what I would call a clean win. If he is such a good candidate why did he need to run unopposed, or nearly unopposed?? If he had ever had to fight for a win instead of getting rid of the other candidates, then I would consider him as a viable candidate. So far he hasn't shown me anything but arrogance and oration. That is not enough, not nearly enough to qualify him for office in my view. I am sorry your standards are so low. I prefer the candidate who is qualified to do the job and who will work hard to get it done. That candidate is not Obama.

    And I prefer (none / 0) (#247)
    by Sleeper on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:28:27 PM EST
    ...the candidate who gets nominated.  A write-in vote may give you a few minutes of righteous vindication, but it doesn't do a hell of a lot in practical terms.

    I would have liked to see Clinton get the nomination.  But I don't see it happening.  So we have to move on and focus on the bigger picture.


    And another thing (none / 0) (#237)
    by Sleeper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:00:08 PM EST
    I mention the consequences of a McCain Administration: war across the Middle East, the health care crisis exacerbated, our civil liberties further diminished, corporate scandals, etc.

    Your response: Rezko is a slumlord.

    Really?  So that makes it okay to vote for McCain?

    Come on.