home

How To Solve The Problem

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:30:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Ok, I know I have not convinced many Obama supporters that there is a problem, but I am going to spitball some ideas on this.

I think Obama needs to latch onto some populist issues that appeal to that group. The best one I can think of is one I completely disagree with - the anti-trade movement. The whole anti trade schtick is wrong on policy. But it makes for great populist appeal and contrast with Republicans and with John McCain. I know Obama trotted it out in Ohio but he has not stuck to it and he never was very convincing arguing it.

More . . .

I also think he needs to address the "toughness" issue. Obama ridiculed some of Hillary Clinton's language on foreign policy while basically echoing her policy views. I think he needs to talk tougher too. It's stupid I know,but politics is stupid.

Finally, one very good aspect of Obama's speech in North Carolina Tuesday was the patriotic, American Exceptionalism talk. More of that please.

A few quick ideas for your consideration.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments now closed

< Obama As Electable As Kerry? And That's A Good Thing? | Ed Kilgore For The Unity Ticket >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    How To Solve The Problem | 265 comments (265 topical)
    Unsolvable problem? (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by kmblue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:33:27 PM EST
    When Obama spoke at the SF meeting, and was trying to justify his lack of appeal to working class folk, I had the impression he was looking at those folk through a high-powered microscope.
    This is his biggest problem.

    Bill Clinton has always been the best at making voters feel that he understood them and their problems.

    Hillary, not so much, but she has learned how through disciplined effort.
    Obama can wow a crowd, but he can't touch their hearts.
    McCain has that war hero, "I'll keep you safe" thing going for him.

    I'm sorry to say I think Obama will lose the GE because many voters believe he doesn't care about them.

    You Are Correct. I Have Never Seen One (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:56:14 PM EST
    ounce of compassion ooze from obama.  And for those who think he should pick some issues and spout them, forget it.  He is not about working hard and really doesn't care about the issues, as far as I can see.  He has one goal...to sit his arrogant a$$ in the WH and pander to those special interest friends of his and DNC lackeys who helped get him there.  Hopefully, it will not happen.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not true... (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by OrangeFur on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:59:21 PM EST
    Who hasn't bemoaned the price of argula?

    [ Parent ]
    The problem with lack of compassion is (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:43:22 PM EST
    We know if he suddenly started with that, we would be suspicious. I think the SF told us all about him and it was not a complement. And it will be there for the Republicans to exploit also.  Now we know he would be faking it. So I am thinking BTD might be right on focusing on a issue. The ones he suggested are not on my target list. But Iraq and health insurance are. I hate his plan. When he comes around on that, we might talk.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't That What (1.00 / 1) (#70)
    by squeaky on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:59:39 PM EST
    Hillary's detractors say about her?

    Guess it is the lowest common denominator line of attack.

    [ Parent ]

    I stopped seeing her like that (5.00 / 6) (#85)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:02:52 PM EST
    after Bill was called racist.

    I was like wtf? Bill is teh salt of the earth.

    Hillary Clinton dare I say it, probably had a mad crush on MLK. Her heart and head as illustrated by that LBJ MLK comment suggest MLK had her heart and LBJ had her intellect.  Racist?  Unlikely.

    [ Parent ]

    I like that (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by bjorn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:04:24 PM EST
    it seems to fit...I wish someone had made that point when she first said it!

    [ Parent ]
    Definitely Not Racists (1.00 / 1) (#126)
    by squeaky on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:13:48 PM EST
    Although Bill should have not taken the bait and slammed back with the JJ remark. That revealed his weakness under attack, in that he needed to have the ultimate crushing comeback. Not racism, but a really stupid thing to say. He should have kept his trap shut.

    [ Parent ]
    nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:31:09 PM EST
    His comments were nothing.

    Same crap as they pulled on Ferraro.

    [ Parent ]

    Disagree (none / 0) (#205)
    by squeaky on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:34:25 PM EST
    Ferraro's comment seemed racist to me. Unfortunate, not that I ever thought much of her.

    Also Hillary's LBJ comment was accurate and it never seemed remotely a put down to MLK to me.

    [ Parent ]

    Of course you say that. Please explain why Obama. (none / 0) (#224)
    by alexei on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:42:41 PM EST
    agreed with her saying "he would not be here in the Senate if he wasn't black"?  A paraphrase, so please  but essentially what he said.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah btd give bad advice (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:59:48 PM EST
    Obama comes off phoney as hell when he starts on any populist stuff.  he's a pampered Princeling and it shows.

    I suggest he go back the the arc of history concept.  Something transcendent.  He does that better.

    He should be David Slaying Goliath or Orpheus playing his lyre or Perseus on Bellepheron.

    The nuts and bolts stuff does not suit him.  

    [ Parent ]

    Uprated (none / 0) (#92)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:05:01 PM EST
    for the Greek mythological references.

    You slay me, Salo. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    Obama only wins if he embodies (4.50 / 2) (#116)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:10:26 PM EST
    an Homeric epic.

    He can't win by reading laundry lists and making it sound like Shakespeare.  Only Bill got to do that magical trick.

    [ Parent ]

    I am reminded, with all talk of California, (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:16:40 PM EST
    of something someone said about Grey Davis.
    they said the only way he could win was to fall down a well.

    [ Parent ]
    The working class (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:19:46 PM EST
    doesn't read Homer.

    They read Louis L'Amour.

    That's why Bush beat Gore.

    [ Parent ]

    Homer Simpson (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:22:50 PM EST
    maybe

    [ Parent ]
    Oh Captain (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by kmblue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:26:02 PM EST
    My Captain!
    You made me laugh again!
    Not easy these days.
    Take a bow, you animal. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    that one was so obvious (none / 0) (#186)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:29:28 PM EST
    I am suprised no one beat me to it.

    [ Parent ]
    I totally disagree. I know many working class... (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by alexei on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:40:33 PM EST
    people who have read the "classics". For example, I worked in surveying and as a construction inspector and worked with many construction workers.  We had great discussions on classical literature, biographies, science, history, etc.  This is a "typical" put down of working class Americans and frankly, it is insinuating the terrible and hateful slur, "white trash".  I am sick and tired that it is ok to denigrate white people because of their economic and job situations.

    BTW, the Homer Simpson comment is even worse.  I can tell you that I have spoken with many of post graduate degreed who love that show.

    [ Parent ]

    the illiad (5.00 / 2) (#234)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:46:42 PM EST
    is a thumping blood curdler.

    I particularly liked the duel between Hector and Achilles-- where Achilles armour was bouncing off good killing spear throws. Hector starts getting horrified that his best ain't cutting it. Total abject horror that the better man in every sense was going to lose.

    It must a have been a "penny dreadful" in it's own day.

    A good song ruined by PhDs.

    [ Parent ]

    It's written by such folks, I believe (none / 0) (#237)
    by Lysis on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:49:11 PM EST
    The Simpsons is absolutely brilliant, or at least it was during its nineties peak.  I didn't get a good chunk of the jokes until I was in college.  I remember being in my Contemporary Philosophy class and going, "Oh.  That's who Wittgenstein is."

    [ Parent ]
    They liked Saving Private Ryan (none / 0) (#188)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:29:30 PM EST
    The Illiad is a battle on a beach too. Lots of skull crushing and snapped limbs.

    Same narrative structure too.  Hanks and Hector die.

    [ Parent ]

    Nothing new (none / 0) (#196)
    by kmblue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:31:42 PM EST
    under the sun!

    [ Parent ]
    I don't agree (none / 0) (#227)
    by spit on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:43:49 PM EST
    I think he's already got most of the folks he can get with that "trajectory of history" kind of thing.

    Now, I don't want to see Obama out there duck hunting, either -- he's got to avoid looking too blatantly pandery. But he's got to show that he really sympathizes with the working class, particularly outside of urban areas (I think he's probably got the urban vote pretty well at this point). He can't do that with Odysseus, IMO, when most of the working class is doing a more Sisyphean gig. There's "Legendary and cool", and then there's its close friend "Out of touch" -- the problem being that "Out of touch" is a favorite, well worn narrative against us that has worked for quite a while with a chunk of the suburban & rural working class, so it's easy to set up again.

    He's got a sense of humor, he should use it more. He needs to get more specific on economics, make himself look better than McCain early on that front. And he needs to move away from the gigantic university crowds, IMO. I want motivated youth voters, but he's got to show that he can relate well to more different kinds of folks well outside of that scene.

    [ Parent ]

    I didn't suggest the Odyssy (none / 0) (#236)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:48:53 PM EST
    I just want to caution against stuff that is clearly out of his character.

    [ Parent ]
    On that, we totally agree (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by spit on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:54:18 PM EST
    The worst mistake Democrats usually make is trying to mold our candidates into personae that they simply cannot convincingly portray.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama has unsolvable problems which can cost (5.00 / 4) (#191)
    by bridget on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:30:35 PM EST
    him the GE but his nom is secured his supporters say?

    What is wrong with that picture?

    If you ask me, Obama should step down if he can't solve his own problems. Clearly He is the wrong candidate. He had all the opportunities in the world to win me over but it only took one debate to find out what he is made of.

    Just from following the debates - and he lost every single one to Clinton IMO - there is no doubt in my mind that he is not up to the job as Bill was in 92 and Hillary is now in 2008. They both instilled confidence in their voters and there is a reason for it.

    Obama doesn't know to solve his problems because he lacks the knowledge, discipline and ability to define, articulate AND solve policy issues. To witness him hemming and hawing and backtracking, to ask for more time for an answer he should have at the ready but couldn't finish anyway because he didn't know how (remember the driving licence question which he still couldn't answer after two more weeks?) ...

    There is something wrong with this primary campaign and it's Obama.

    But it's not over yet.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by kmblue on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:33:08 PM EST
    and when he had one tough debate,
    he stopped debating.
    Sorry Obama, but that alone
    should disqualify you for the toughest
    job in the world.

    [ Parent ]
    ..And we should believe his (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by zfran on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:35:33 PM EST
    message because we think he really believes it, he's pandering for our votes, he's statesmanlike, or just because he says so???

    Right. (none / 0) (#9)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:41:04 PM EST
    Because the gas tax wasn't pandering by Clinton or anything.

    At least I sure hope she didn't actually think it was good policy.

    [ Parent ]

    Have you ever heard... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:06:31 PM EST
    ...that "honesty is the best policy"?

    think about the contradiction in that brilliant observation.  "It's not personal it's our policy" says the oblivious Jobsworthy.

    Policy is inherantly fake.  How can honesty be policy?

    [ Parent ]

    Anger (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:40:01 PM EST
    Sorry, there is core anger.  And I am not talking about us.  They did exactly what McGovern did to the party, and I was part of it, back in the day.  

    They created a coalition that subtracted not added along the way.  What do I mean?  Well, in order for him to win, he did the nuclear thing on race.  White people are not gonna want 8 years of being accused of being racist.  Look, if they could accuse the Clinton's, Joe lunch pale is saying, they are gonna make his life miserable.  Obama has nothing to pander to these people.  He played the race card and now it's gonna bite him and bit him hard.  He will lose California because of this and some of the other big states that have the same demographic.  

    HAHAHA (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:45:29 PM EST
    Are you serious?  Obama is going to lose California?

    Wow.  The Obama hate around here is amazing sometimes.

    [ Parent ]

    You just watch. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:48:13 PM EST
    California is not what you all think it is.  

    [ Parent ]
    I lived there... (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:49:59 PM EST
    ... for 8 years, and it was just two years ago.

    I am pretty sure that I know what California is.

    And I can guarantee you that he will not lose California.

    [ Parent ]

    I lived here and for 40+ yrs. (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:52:21 PM EST
    I know the state really well thank you.  California is not a slam dunk.  

    YO.  Agree to Dissagree....don't tell me what to discuss.  

    [ Parent ]

    didn't. stella. relax (none / 0) (#54)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:54:26 PM EST
    just stated the obvious.  it is a fact that there are better things to discuss.  

    [ Parent ]
    You see...it's about tone (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:59:00 PM EST
    that certain tone that Obama supporters have, that is why you will lose the election.  You all ooze that tone.  

    [ Parent ]
    correct stella (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:00:59 PM EST
    I cant wait until they start trying to tell the great unwashed what is "suitable" for discussion or what is "irrational".


    [ Parent ]
    I can't quite put my (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by eric on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:09:10 PM EST
    finger on the source of "that tone", but I sense it as well.  Sort of a combination of youth, naivite, and arrogance.

    [ Parent ]
    Entitlement (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:24:12 PM EST
    it's that entitlement they keep trying to make stick to the Clinton's.


    [ Parent ]
    Entitlement (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:25:55 PM EST
    thats as good a word as any

    [ Parent ]
    in the UK (none / 0) (#211)
    by Salo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:36:09 PM EST
    yung dumb full of c*m.

    [ Parent ]
    tone (none / 0) (#231)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:44:25 PM EST
    I do find it ironic that Clinton supporters attack Obama supporters for their tone while using a tone dripping with condescension and attitude.

    Don't get me wrong - both sides have had AWFUL attitudes and tones at many different points.  But it very clearly goes both ways.

    [ Parent ]

    I lived there of 15 years (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:54:10 PM EST
    helped get Boxer elected and I disagree.

    [ Parent ]
    Boxer is at risk (none / 0) (#80)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:01:03 PM EST
    and Arnold will run against her and he may win.  California is unpredictable.  The race thing is a big issue.  Hispanics vs. Black., Asians vs. Black etc...etc.  Dems are non monolithic and racial politics is a big deal.  Not that I agree with it, but you cannot deny it.  

    [ Parent ]
    I seriously doubt (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by spit on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:00:20 PM EST
    he will lose california, and I've lived here all my life.

    That said, I also think that "living in CA" doesn't necessarily give all that much insight unless you've lived in a heck of a lot of different parts. Because let me tell you, the politics here in the central valley are about as different from those on the coast as one can imagine, just as a single example -- I joke with people that we actually live in the midwest. And the population out here is growing,  BTW.

    We're a complicated state, politically and especially regionally.

    Just had to put in my copper coinage, because I've lived here 29 years and I sure as heck don't know what California "is".

    [ Parent ]

    Agree... (5.00 / 0) (#98)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:06:07 PM EST
    ... that California has a widely diverse population, from very conservative rural (or Orange County) voters to wildly progressive academic types.  

    I get that.

    And I still don't think there is a chance in hell that Obama loses California.

    [ Parent ]

    It's unlikely for him to lose here (none / 0) (#121)
    by spit on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:12:37 PM EST
    but I wouldn't underestimate the chances of McCain vastly outperforming his party here.

    At the same time, I basically agree that Obama is almost certain to take CA, and probably strongly, in the end.

    And if we're both wrong, CA is the least of our worries, I suspect -- that'd be a landslide scenario in which CA would be pretty much moot anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with the last sentence (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:14:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    you don't get it. i live here now (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:20:06 PM EST
    and i can tell you don't understand CA.  we have a moderate republican governor.  in the 4 decades before bill clinton, CA chose the republican presidential candidate 9 out of 10 times--even in the "watergate election" of 1976.  this is yet another example of people failing to appreciate--even glibly taking for granted--the nature and magnitude of how bill clinton expanded the electoral map.  conversely, these same people fail to grasp the way in which obama will shrink that map.

    [ Parent ]
    So true (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:28:37 PM EST
    Bill Clinton was the only democrat in my lifetime to take the state of Arizona on his second term, as well.

    I always watch election returns, and have never thought California was a "given" in any race. WA, on the other hand, hasn't gone Republican since Nixon (v. McGovern).


    [ Parent ]

    No... I get it. (none / 0) (#164)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:24:16 PM EST
    Really.  I get the landscape in California.  I get that you have a moderate Republican governor.  I get that they have chosen the Republican candidate 9 out of 10 times.  I get it.

    I also get that Bill Clinton expanded the map, but I don't think that has much to do with California.

    And I still don't think that there is a chance that Obama loses in California.

    [ Parent ]

    yes, your intuition is what counts. (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:42:34 PM EST
    not decades of electoral history and not hillary's and mccain's advantages over obama with the fastest growing demographic group in california.  nope, your hunch is what we should go on.  m'kay.

    [ Parent ]
    No. (none / 0) (#235)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:48:22 PM EST
    It has nothing to do with my intuition.

    It has everything to do with the fact that while California has voted Republican over the "decades," it has become a reliable Democrat state.

    Sure - a moderate Republican Gov.  But it is a moderate repub. gov. who got elected because of an AWFUL Democratic Gov on top of running against very lousy Dem candidates, on top of the added advantage of being a celebrity.

    It also has to do with the fact that the polls agree with me.  

    But go ahead and write it off as intuition.  

    [ Parent ]

    Davis was not awful (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:53:03 PM EST
    He was a stalwart Democrat.  Why use Republican talking points against him?  Enron and the power stuff brought him down.  Arnold promised a check to every Californian and they voted for him hands down.  

    Then there was Angelidis the perfect "late" democrat.  Great guy.  He lost when he should not have lost.  

    [ Parent ]

    reliable? well we'll see. (5.00 / 1) (#253)
    by kangeroo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    but just remember that polls don't mean jacksh*t this far out before november, and republicans have gained on dems in both presidential elections since bill clinton left office.

    [ Parent ]
    Ummm.....no. (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by oldpro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:39:51 PM EST
    In politics and elections, nobody can guarantee anything...except maybe Jeb Bush in Florida...

    California can't be trusted.

    Governor grabass.

    Prop. 13

    Class war everywhere...east, west, north, south.

    [ Parent ]

    Ummm.....no. (none / 0) (#212)
    by oldpro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:36:21 PM EST
    In politics and elections, nobody can guarantee anything...except maybe Jeb Bush in Florida...

    California can't be trusted.

    Governor grabass.

    Prop. 13

    Class war everywhere...east, west, north, south.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama will win California. (none / 0) (#31)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:49:54 PM EST
    better things to discuss.

    [ Parent ]
    how about this (5.00 / 4) (#178)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:28:25 PM EST
    you discuss what you want to discuss and we will discuss what we want to discuss.
    k?

    [ Parent ]
    Okay, how about New York? (5.00 / 2) (#229)
    by miriam on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:44:11 PM EST
    Do not for one minute think NY is automatic of Obama.  Western NY is Republican territory (until recently when it began to shift, mostly due to Clinton), and there are large voting blocks, like Jewish New Yorkers, that are already showing signs of moving to McCain if Obama is the nominee.  And again, seniors, who are the single most reliable voting block.  If they stay home...

    [ Parent ]
    I would ... (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:49:38 PM EST
    ... put money on Obama winning New York also.

    You can all ridicule me in November if Obama loses California and/or New York, but I am quite confident in saying that will not happen.

    [ Parent ]

    heres clue from the last thread (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:53:12 PM EST
    CA has a republican governor and dems only win statewide there with the votes of Hispanics.
    seem the breakdown of Obamas Hispanic supporters?


    [ Parent ]
    I know... (none / 0) (#78)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:00:51 PM EST
    ... who the Governor is.  And I know the Hispanic breakdown.

    And I still say that there is no chance of Obama losing California.  I would put money on it.

    [ Parent ]

    stick around (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:02:00 PM EST
    I may take your money

    [ Parent ]
    The problem isn't ... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:24:52 PM EST
    only a loss.  If McCain continues to poll close in NJ and MASS, and starts pulling close in CA, even Obama's fundraising will be drained to its limits.

    This another reason why Hillary remains the better GE candidate.  Not only does she remove the threats in these states, but the states where she's weak have cheaper media markets.

    [ Parent ]

    NY could get iffy also (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:29:29 PM EST
    Lots of red support for Clinton. She won her re-election with 67%. Obama doesn't swap well in that area. We have a lot of typical working class whites also . . . Rural is another issue for him here plus other groups he's not as strong with . . .

    [ Parent ]
    I want in on that action too (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by ruffian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:06:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Me three! (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by nycstray on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:30:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Don't bet the farm (none / 0) (#153)
    by oldpro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:20:52 PM EST
    this isn't Las Vegas where you at least have a tgeeny, tiny chance of winning.

    Here?

    None.

    [ Parent ]

    wow yourself (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by DFLer on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:05:59 PM EST
    Just because some poster says that they think Obama will lose CA, doesn't mean they HATE Obama. It may just mean they are wrong.

    AND, the indictment of all "around here" with Obama hate is just overreacting.

    [ Parent ]

    If you say so. (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:08:44 PM EST
    But I have been reading Stellaa write about her Obama hate for months.

    It isn't anything new.  And there is a lot of Obama hate around here.  That also is not new.

    [ Parent ]

    So go where there is some Obama love (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Florida Resident on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:12:31 PM EST
     I quit going to HuffPo because of the Clinton Hate.

    [ Parent ]
    Because... (none / 0) (#141)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:19:37 PM EST
    ... I have been around here longer than many of you, and for the most part I like this place.

    Sorry you don't want me around, but I will probably be staying.

    [ Parent ]

    Fine. Stay. (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by oldpro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:28:41 PM EST
    Just stop exaggerating.

    Yes, many of us are critical of Obama the candidate, of his campaign's origins, its reason for existance at all, its behavior toward the Clintons and their experience, yadda, yadda...that, however, does not equate to hate.

    It is extremely rare (and then removed) that Obama criticism here is despicable, personal, mean-spirited, unsourced, an outright lie...unlike some other venues I could name whose treatment of Hillary's candidacy can have no excuse or defense whatever.

    Do not make things up.

    [ Parent ]

    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#206)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:34:37 PM EST
    It is extremely rare (and then removed) that Obama criticism here is despicable, personal, mean-spirited, unsourced, an outright lie
    Yea... fair enough, and that is why I stay.

    And that is also why I don't visit some of the other places that you won't name.

    But I still think that there is a decent amount of Obama hate around here, but we will just agree to disagree on that one.

    [ Parent ]

    No, not hate (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:20:00 PM EST
    its not trusting, not respecting, not believing...  Hate is vague and oversimplification.  I hate fennel, but with politicians there are things about them that through looking at their character and behaviour that I find that I do not care to support.  

    So, please don't reduce my opinion to some high school emotion.  

    [ Parent ]

    It's not personal, it's politics (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:20:01 PM EST
    Obama has kicked a President, First Lady/sitting U.S. Senator/candidate that many of us hold in really high esteem. He has not hesitated to attack the great things they have done for this country, called them liars, thieves, and racists.

    The Clintons gave us 8 pretty great years amidst the republican messes of the past 3 decades. We can't just brush off our shoulders, scratch our cheek, and hand him another pillow.

    [ Parent ]

    he has worked so hard (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:13:17 PM EST
    to build it up.
    why should we "deny it to him"

    [ Parent ]
    No, not hate (none / 0) (#140)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:19:35 PM EST
    its not trusting, not respecting, not believing...  Hate is vague and oversimplification.  I hate fennel, but with politicians there are things about them that through looking at their character and behaviour that I find that I do not care to support.  

    So, please don't reduce my opinion to some high school emotion.  

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe Your Hate Is Not HS (none / 0) (#161)
    by squeaky on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:23:22 PM EST
    But your love sure seems so. I have never read one criticism about Hillary from you, seems like a HS crush to me.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe that's because Stellaaa (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by oldpro on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:31:09 PM EST
    doesn't bother with petty, unimportant criticism, so popular with nitpickers these days.

    [ Parent ]
    Squeeky of Fromm fame...!! (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:38:13 PM EST
    Once again you are wrong.  I see Hillary's life experience and her bumps and bruises, that is why I support her candidacy.   I support her because of her faults.  You choose to minimize my support for her by calling it a crush, the other minimizes by not supporting Obama as hate.  Both, trivialize how I came to this point.  

    Frankly, I don't care what you think, but just pointing out to you two the limitations of your observations.  

    [ Parent ]

    that is fair... (none / 0) (#222)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:41:21 PM EST
    ... for the most part, though I never diminished how you came to support Clinton.

    I would just argue that your tone about Obama would make many think that you hate the guy, or at least strongly, strongly dislike him.

    [ Parent ]

    I do not support (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:43:36 PM EST
    his candidacy for the Democratic nomination or his candidacy for president.

    [ Parent ]
    Is it really necessary to answer anyone's (none / 0) (#45)
    by Joelarama on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:52:49 PM EST
    comment with a subject line like "HAHAHAGA"?  If you paid attention, this commenter always adds a lot to arguments.

    [ Parent ]
    California has a huge latino population (none / 0) (#258)
    by nellre on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:10:48 PM EST
    Obama may lose CA.

    [ Parent ]
    stop making things up. (3.00 / 2) (#46)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:53:00 PM EST
    white people have voted for obama (you don't win wisconsin, iowa, wyoming, etc.).  he won 40% of the white vote two days ago.  this is a tough campaign against a tough opponent but to suggest that white dems won't vote for him is suggesting the results are purely driven by african americans (demographics don't suggest this).  white dems aren't racist are they?  they'll support him come november.  just like black dems would support hillary over mccain.  comments like yours promote irrational thinking.

    [ Parent ]
    are you guys (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:57:12 PM EST
    going to try this stuff in the general?
    that will be some show.
    I am starting to look forward to it.

    [ Parent ]
    Race issue (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Lou Grinzo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:22:36 PM EST
    To me, the race issue is not whether white Clinton supporters will vote for Obama, but what percentage of white Republicans and even Independents will vote for him, especially after the Republicans and their 527's (plus FOX, et al.) have made sure the entire planet has memorized every scary phrase that Wright has ever uttered.

    Rove and those of his ilk have to be laughing themselves silly.  The Dems get an experienced, well known woman that their base hates and a charismatic, inexperienced black man to run against each other, and then almost tear themselves apart and nominate the black man.  Honestly, does anyone here think that the Republicans won't push the racism angle harder than we've ever seen in a national race?  If Obama is the nominee, I expect a tidal wave of racist garbage from the Republicans, right up to election day.

    What is The Cost of Energy?
    [ Parent ]

    Props to BTD (5.00 / 10) (#8)
    by Palomino on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:40:07 PM EST
    Maybe a little OT, but BTD has been a beacon throughout this primary season--a voice mildly for Obama that is also a voice of reason, fairness, moderation, sanity, pragmatism, empathy, and goodwill. What a rarity. As a Clinton supporter, I can't praise, and thank, BTD enough.

    amen (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:46:26 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    agreed (none / 0) (#40)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:51:42 PM EST
    he is also the recipient of praise and compliments on other left blog sites. All well-deserved.

    [ Parent ]
    Yup. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Eleanor A on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:24:45 PM EST
    I remember not agreeing - at all - with his tone back on DK....but he's a changed man.  

    [ Parent ]
    He needs to walk back the Clintons are racists... (5.00 / 11) (#10)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:41:07 PM EST
    ..stuff. I don't know how he can do this but he has to. Right now a lot of non-Obama supporters I know are thinking that Obama as president means 4 years of not being able to say a bad thing about him because they will be accused of being racists. I'm not saying they are wrong or right, but we all know what's been going on. This is an uncomfortable position for a lot of people. By repudiating the racist smear against the Clintons he will send a signal to these voters that this isn't how things will be. But will  he be candid enough to do this? Much of this has been done by surrogates, not him so it may be easier for him personally to try to "stay above the fray." It's also complicated by the fact that these tactics have benefited him in the primary; but they will be disastrous in the GE. Therefore, it's really necessary. He started this conversation on race and he needs to advance it further than where he's left it.

    said the same thing above (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:46:47 PM EST
    Will not get white vote, if he could paint the Clintons as racist, white people don't want that stuff over their head.  I tell you that is how he will lose California.  There is no magic bullet.  

    Please pay attention, it's not a "racists" vote, what the Obama campaign did with the anti Clinton stuff is totally destroy any chances he had with white people.  

    [ Parent ]

    I agree. (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:07:03 PM EST
    Obama will lose California the exact same way and for the same reasons that Phil Angelides lost that state's gubernatorial race in 2006. it won't be close -- when you're challenging the present status quo, the last thing you can do is project a profile that's all meringue and no filling. He'll will win in San Francisco and Marin counties, maybe break even in Los Angeles County, and lose decisively everywhere else.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Trickster on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:48:07 PM EST
    This would help him a BUNCH.  If "the first black President" is now a big slobbering racist, think how regular middle-of-the-road honkies feel?  Obama is SCARY to them.

    It would make me feel better about supporting him, too.  Because first principles are first, and people are first principles.  I'm not ABOUT to turn my back on the Clintons in favor of the guy who participated in demonizing them.  Supreme Court be damned; that's an outcome, not a first principle.

    But it's not really about issues.  It's about identity.  And as little as I care for Obama, I think I could offer him a really winning tip: play more basketball.  On TV when possible.  When the fancy speeches have punched all the tickets they're gonna punch, basketball is his ace in the hole.

    [ Parent ]

    Clarification (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Trickster on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:51:38 PM EST
    When I say SCARY, I don't mean in the "typical white grandma seeing a scary black person across the street" way, I mean in the white middle manager with an unsatisfactory black subordinate who needs to be fired way.  In other words, the fear is of being branded a racist, with all the opprobrium and outright danger that entails.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, this is a must (5.00 / 6) (#91)
    by ruffian on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:04:25 PM EST
    He lost working class whites when he or his supporters painted  the Clintons as racists. We know that if it can happen to them it can happen to any one of us.

    [ Parent ]
    This is so key (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by davnee on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:20:40 PM EST
    I've heard more than one person express in frustration the fear of waking up everyday to another accusation of racism.  It's an exhausting prospect to think that you are going to be held hostage for the next 8 years.  This is the dirty downside of identity politics.  It's the constant fear that you will do something wrong even though you did not mean it.  We never get past thinking of people who don't look like us as the "other."  First we treat "others" too cruelly, then we overcompensate by treating "others" too gently.  Then you get frustrated because you are still trapped in us and them, only now not by ignorance and bigotry but instead by guilt and good intentions.  And you know what they say about good intentions paving the road to hell.  This phenomenon is of course no more Obama's fault than it is Clinton's fault.  But I've lost respect for him because he has played this game to his political advantage during the primary. Now let him suffer the political costs during the GE.  Republicans don't do guilt.  And now they have plenty of examples to prove that guilt doesn't pay, because you are going to get accused of being evil anyway.

    [ Parent ]
    The mayor of Gary (none / 0) (#250)
    by BarnBabe on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:55:52 PM EST
    That sent a message of how things will be done. And it was not a very pretty sight. And what could anyone really say. Obama could have called him and said, get those votes in NOW. Because he did not, it left me wondering.  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think he can until (3.66 / 3) (#102)
    by leftygogo on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:06:50 PM EST
    Clinton starts dialing back the hard working white people line of attack she is pushing right now.

    "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

    This the kind of statement that I would expect from a southern republican, not a democratic canidate.

    [ Parent ]

    This isn't an attack on a group of people.... (5.00 / 6) (#122)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:13:06 PM EST
    ....it isn't even an attack, but rather a description of what she perceives as her base of support. She isn't accusing anybody of anything.

    [ Parent ]
    Ladies and Gentleman Exhibit A (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by davnee on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:29:19 PM EST
    of Obama's problem.  You have just wonderfully illustrated the point.  Your suggestion is that recognizing the interests of the white working class and playing to their needs is inherently racist, or that it is inherently racist to identify the size and scope of that demographic in comparison to the size and scope of other demographics when identifying your loyal base.  In an ideal world, Clinton would just say working class, but since black working class voters are opting for racial pride (perfectly legitimate) over their shared economic interests with white working class voters, she can't claim them as her base.  I wish she would have been more careful to include Latinos in her statement, but since they have not been a significant demographic in recent primaries, she does not have recent evidence of shifts in their allegiances.

    [ Parent ]
    I hit post before finishing (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by davnee on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:35:20 PM EST
    by saying that Obama is trapped in his own deployment of race in this election.  He can't connect to these voters in part because he has already used them as his designated fall guys to cover for his own deficiencies as a candidate (i.e. weak on empathy, weak on Americana, and weakest of all on bread and butter policy points which is most important).  Is it too late for him to make nice and to listen, hear, and respond to white (and Latino) blue collar needs?  You better hope not given the size and the scope of that demographic.  But if he is strategically blowing off WV and KY to delegitimize their vote, that's not a promising start.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama won't win ? (5.00 / 3) (#190)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:30:31 PM EST
    because of Clinton?  

    It's all Clinton's fault.

    [ Parent ]

    So it's okay (none / 0) (#259)
    by kayla on Thu May 08, 2008 at 05:13:00 PM EST
    For Obama to say that he's not getting the white working class vote because, and I paraphrase, "I'm a 46 year old black man named Barack Obama." but not okay for Hillary to say what's pretty much a fact?

    Really?  Please stop with the double standards.  It doesn't work.  

    [ Parent ]

    For me it's health care. Not his, though. (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Teresa on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:41:25 PM EST


    Obama is a Madison Ave. (5.00 / 11) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:43:03 PM EST
    candidate through and through.  He got this far through cheap, meaningless slogans.  He won't change that.

    Had he done what you suggested prior to Super Tuesday, he might have truly won by now.  

    The fact that he didn't tells you a lot.  If he can't reach out to the base during a primary season, what makes anyone think he will do it in the general?

    He thinks his current strategy is a winning GE strategy.  He's wrong.

    See, women know through experience (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 03:56:33 PM EST
    that men like Obama do not change.

    You can believe and hope and dream all you want.

    He is who he is.

    [ Parent ]

    woo! (none / 0) (#90)
    by mindfulmission on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:04:24 PM EST
    So if I made a comment about how women were so emotional and changed their opinions based on emotion, would my sexist comments be allowed?

    [ Parent ]
    Did I say all men? (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by madamab on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    No.

    My comments were not sexist, they referred directly to men like Obama.

    Typical distortion and false equivalency. Such a boring tactic.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm a man ... (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Robot Porter on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:28:55 PM EST
    and I know men like Obama don't change.

    [ Parent ]
    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#95)