Barack Obama Is Electable, But . . .

While Barack Obama has the Problem, there is no doubt he is electable. Heck, any Dem would be in this political climate. Paul Krugman explains why:

First, votes are affected by the state of the economy — mainly economic performance in the year or so preceding the election. Second, the approval rating of the current president strongly affects his party’s ability to hold power. Third, the electorate seems to suffer from an eight-year itch: parties rarely manage to hold the White House for more than two terms in a row. This year, all of these factors strongly favor the Democrats. Indeed, the Democratic Party hasn’t enjoyed this favorable a political environment since 1964.

But being electable does not mean he will win. Krugman recognizes the problem:

There’s just one thing that should give Democrats pause — but it’s a big one: the fight for the nomination has divided the party along class and race lines in a way that I believe is unprecedented, at least in modern times.

Ironically, much of Mr. Obama’s initial appeal was the hope that he could transcend these divisions. At first, voting patterns seemed consistent with this hope. In February, for example, he received the support of half of Virginia’s white voters as well as that of a huge majority of African-Americans.

But this week, Mr. Obama, while continuing to win huge African-American majorities, lost North Carolina whites by 23 points, Indiana whites by 22 points. Mr. Obama’s white support continues to be concentrated among the highly educated; there was little in Tuesday’s results to suggest that his problems with working-class whites have significantly diminished.

That is "the problem." Krugman puts it succinctly:

[Obama] needs to bring Democrats who opposed him back into the fold.

Krugman advises the following:

So what can be done to heal the party’s current divisions? More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer — they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal.

Nor is it helpful to insult the groups that supported Mrs. Clinton, either by suggesting that racism was their only motivation or by minimizing their importance.

After the Pennsylvania primary, David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, airily dismissed concerns about working-class whites, saying that they have “gone to the Republican nominee for many elections.” On Tuesday night, Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist, declared that “we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.” That sort of thing has to stop.

One thing the Democrats definitely need to do is give delegates from Florida and Michigan — representatives of citizens who voted in good faith, and whose support the party may well need this November — seats at the convention.

And to the extent that campaigning matters, Mr. Obama should center his campaign on economic issues that matter to working-class families, whatever their race.

Good advice.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Why Did Obama Vote for a Bad Tort Reform Bill? | Meanwhile In West Virginia . . . >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Older white voters (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:07:48 AM EST
    to be more specific.  I think he should highlight his income tax break for retirees.

    You mean (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:15:12 AM EST
    for reasonably high income retirees.  Many retirees, especially ones on SS or other fixed income, don't pay income taxes.

    But, of course, the creative class retirees are a different story, I'm sure ;-).


    Older Voters Have Heard Campaign Promises (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:25:00 AM EST
    for decades and know that they often do not become reality. A campaign promise weighted against inherent dignity, the feeling that they are valued, may not do the trick.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#37)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM EST
    Trying to out-tax cut a Republican is a pretty dangerous game.  It's not like McCain will insist on soaking seniors for every dime.

    In my experience, the problem seniors have with Obama seems to be more visceral than based on policy.  It's sort of an arrogance thing.  I don't know what he's supposed to do about it other than kiss babies.


    Taxes (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:37:48 AM EST
    Trying to out-tax cut a Republican is a pretty dangerous game.  It's not like McCain will insist on soaking seniors for every dime

    But he's not offering anything at all for them.  His "middle class" tax cut is just a repeal of the AMT.  That's really an upper middle class tax cut.  I know I've never earned enough to pay the AMT.


    Heh (none / 0) (#105)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:19 AM EST
    I'm pretty confident that McCain would be more than happy to propose a tax cut for seniors at the drop of a hat.

    I have (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Nadai on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:39:00 AM EST
    something else he can kiss.

    He might try... (none / 0) (#210)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:26:13 AM EST
    He might try refraining from ageist comments about his opponent having Alzheimer's because he says something BHO doesn't like.  

    I'm sure that sent a chill through everyone over 65 across the country.  

    It's hard for him not to come across as arrogant when he is arrogant.  But I really hate all these passive-aggressive digs towards the weak, the poor, the old, and the female.  Or his tolerance of these comments from his campaign people.

    I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the man who sat in Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years feels free to use hate speech when he wants to.

    But it's not the party I signed in for.


    Good Luck (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:09:29 AM EST
    Will not work
    In terms of the 'Iron Law of Institutions', the Obama campaign is masterful.  From top to bottom, they have destroyed their opponents within the party, stolen out from under them their base, and persuaded a whole set of individuals from blog readers to people in the pews to ignore intermediaries and believe in Barack as a pure vessel of change

    Stoller and the other members of the cult, are in glee for the destruction of the opponents.  

    Sounds like somebody is still a preclear ; ) (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Exeter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:26:35 AM EST
    Stellaaa - source? iron law of institutions? (none / 0) (#84)
    by noholib on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:45:51 AM EST
    what's the source please of this quote?

    source is Stoller @ Huffington (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by sarany on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:14:13 AM EST
    Matt Stoller writing at Huffington yesterday:

    link to Huff entry

    I find this thinking frightening.  If this revolution hinges upon Obama as personality, we could be in for real trouble.  What if Obama begins to believe in his own hype?  How will he take care that he doesn't?  It's all too easy to dismiss the non-belief of non-believers as proof they are _______  (fill in the blank with your own experience of how Obama supporters, surrogates & pundits have dismissed and written off a huge number of Dem base supporters).


    one pull quote (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by sarany on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:20:17 AM EST
    I would amplify this and point out that it's time to get ready for a party that is being taken apart and rebuilt as the Obama movement.

    ugh. I'm afraid I need to stop reading the blogs so I can do more than just VOTE for Obama.  It would be nice to feel good about him as our candidate, and WANT to work for him, talk him up and so forth.

    But I need a little break from the worshipful tone and the cavalier dismissal of longtime strong & passionate Dems.


    The Roman emperors (none / 0) (#177)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:54:17 AM EST
    FDR Lincoln all had cults one way or another.

    JFK is clearly an imperial cult.

    Reagan certainly is.

    We have just ended the Clinton Cult years.


    are you kidding me? (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:35:21 AM EST
    I've have never heard anyone talk about FDR, JFK or WJC in the same slavish, cultish tones that I've heard in reference to BHO. No one I know (including my relatives who were all alive and well during the FDR years) thought he could walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead or just fix everything because he was, yanno, FDR.

    I lived through the Reagan years and while I did have friends who were enamoured with him to the point of getting glassy-eyed and nuts, nothing ever reached the fever pitch that is the Cult of Obama. Nothing.


    don't put cult in my mouth (5.00 / 2) (#221)
    by sarany on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:40:11 AM EST
    I was never ever the least little bit cult-blinded about Bill. Not when he was running, not when he was in office. I was pretty darn disappointed by his policies and his self- (and Dem party) destructive behaviors.  And believe me when I say that I am not wearing blinders about Hilary either.

    Bill, maybe, gets some adulation from masses of people. Not Hilary, not never.

    I've seen them both in person, and I can see his appeal.  She's good, she's really good, but he has got Charisma with a capital "C."

    However, there is NO comparison to make between what we are seeing with Obama and anything I've experienced, other than maybe, The Beatles or a religious leader.

    And, while I could be wrong, could be overreacting, I am really concerned.

    Show me a leader that allows him/herself to be so focused upon, so adored, and basks in it as I perceive Obama does, and I see (potential) dangers.  I hope he knows enough to keep a grip on who he is, and who is isn't. In a situation like this, we have to rely on him to keep checking reality.

    The best thing about this Primary, at least I hope, is that Obama can honestly begin to claim to have EARNED the nomination, whereas it was looking like an easy stroll a couple months back. And that would be bad prep for the GE and bad for the sense that he was annointed.

    He needs to get a grip on his supporters, surrogates, stop basking and earn our respect and support. I want to see hard work, the courage to fight, state his convictions and stand by them.

    If he wants to win by more than a slim margin, or avoid LOSING by a slim margin, he'd better get my strong support, and as many of Hilary's supporters as he can manage.  He's got work to do and he'd better get over himself and get to it.

    And he'd better call his supporters to heel before they do any more damage.


    Obama long ago (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:53:18 AM EST
    fell for his own hype.  Are you kidding?

    What! (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:10:10 AM EST
    More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer -- they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal.

    That's crazy talk, I tell you.

    Clearly, a great many Obama supporters on the blogs haven't figured out that calling the Clintons racist is not really the way to win over Hillary's supporters for November.

    Axelrod's attempt to minimize Hillary's win in Indiana by claiming she only won because of Limbaugh supporters is another example of poor judgment.  Why does it matter at this juncture?  If you want unity, you will just have to stop twisting the knife at some point.

    I've often joked that Obama's plan to unify the party involves unifying it around the principle of hatred for Hillary.  I'm starting to wonder if it's really a joke.

    Works for Republicans, doesn't it? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:12:37 AM EST
    So instead of Guns/Gays/Bibles/Taxes the O-Team will run on Hillary/Bill/Chelsea/....?

    No, that's not a joke. (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by mm on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:54:58 AM EST
    I've often joked that Obama's plan to unify the party involves unifying it around the principle of hatred for Hillary.  I'm starting to wonder if it's really a joke.

    If anyone's been paying attention, that's been his campaign from day 1.

    He keeps talking about how we all have to get past the divisivness of the 90's.  My answer is that most of the country already had.  He's the one that seems obsessed about the Republican attacks on the Clintons.


    That is no joke (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:20 AM EST
    The attraction people have to negativity and division actual can and do build coalitions...

    Nothing can bring groups together better than by dividing them.  One group being superior.  The politics of division.  It works.  That is how things like the Holocaust happen. (I know, extreme example, but true...)

    Anyway, the irony is the hope and change man has using that tactic to build his coalition...  Why do people not see that?  


    No joke at all (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:47 AM EST
    He would not have run at all if he did not have this plan of attack against Hillary.  She's the only Dem he had a chance of beating.

    OK, I exaggerate (none / 0) (#111)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:57:46 AM EST
    I mean he had the best chance of beating her.  But I really don't think he would have run if she had not run.

    Axlrod's Rush rant was just (none / 0) (#237)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:08:16 PM EST
    feeding the MSM so it could help him sway the SD's with the "Obama really won Indiana" narrative

    Thank you , Mister Krugman (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:10:46 AM EST
    I'll wait and see what the reaction from the Big O is.

    Just got back from there and it's another round of eggs-actly what Krugman advised against:

    More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer -- they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal.

    Nor is it helpful to insult the groups that supported Mrs. Clinton, either by suggesting that racism was their only motivation or by minimizing their importance.

    I agree with Krugman.  As for anyone who doesn't think the blogosphere has any real impact, I suggest that the Media does take at least some cues from the largest and loudest blogs.  Perhaps not particulars, but in overall framing.   Constant harping on "divisiveness" does not help Obama in the least.

    Meanwhile, the other side of the page (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:10:53 AM EST
    writes a nasty editorial essentially accusing Hillary or race baiting and demanding that she not move to seat the FL and MI delegates. It was classic CDS.

    What a schizophrenic editorial page.

    I love3d the condescending attitutde (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:16:38 AM EST
    They believe she has the right to continue. Oh you believe do you? What a crock.

    One imagines (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:18:59 AM EST
    that the people on the ed board who voted to endorse Obama are now getting their revenge in the most petty way possible. NYT Editorial board to Democrats: "Don't count the votes!"

    The editorial was insane (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by suisser on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:50:26 AM EST
    " Mrs Clinton must drop her plans to seat the delegations from FL and MI"     while
    "Mr. Obama could do more to reign in his anonymous campaign aides" ???????

    What has happened to my once esteemed NY Times?


    As one of those alienated by the Obama haute... (5.00 / 13) (#7)
    by jeffhas on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:12:57 AM EST
    may I just say that I am not sure I will ever allow myself to vote for THE ONE.  As much as he is to blame for this sense of arrogance, his supporters have done even more damage.

    As a lifelong Dem, to look upon the landscape of what was once the most exciting year in Presidential politics, I now find myself wanting to bury my head in the sand at what has become of the Party... no not MY Party, not even OUR Party... just THE Party.


    His supporters have done incredible damage (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:15:49 AM EST
    Gosh (5.00 / 4) (#97)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    If you support Obama, it seems to me that it's pretty necessary to pursue unity whether Clinton's supporters choose to acknowledge things or not.

    There has been a bitter argument throughout this primary, where the Obama supporters believe Clinton used race-baiting tactics, and the Clinton supporters believe Obama falsely accused the Clintons of racism.  Gee, does it help Obama at this point for his supporters to continue pressing their case on that issue, or would unity maybe be a little more likely if they would just let it go?  

    Unfortunately, Obama's blog supporters appear more fixated on trashing Hillary Clinton than on winning the election in November.


    Steve, Thanks for your answer (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:06:33 AM EST
    last night on the Michigan Compromise Unfair to Hillary thread.  My 5 yr old had trouble sleeping and my husband needed help with something for work so I didn't get back to the computer until late, and comments were closed.  

    I wanted to say that I agree with your analysis of the Mich primary, Obama's strategy, and the need for some solution to be found.  So, there's some hope if this Obama supporter can agree with you the HRC supporter, yes?

    Know this is off-topic, but I had no choice.


    Just an observation... (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:14:59 AM EST
    but most "love fests" don't happen over night. And they don't happen without lots of olive branches being extended from the nominee and supporters.

    So if you're just going to assume there will be a love fest cause it's always happened that way...and you don't do anything to create the ground work for it...

    Don't bet your pony on it.


    You are underestimating the depth of the division (5.00 / 4) (#156)
    by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:36:17 AM EST
    It will take more than words.  It will take actions, starting with the items proposed by Krugman.

    Obama is the nominee (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:53:47 AM EST
    If your goal is fingerpointing, then Obama will lose.

    difference between fingerpointing... (5.00 / 11) (#130)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:15:47 AM EST
    ...and facing reality.

    Obama's entire campaign was premised on promoting the idea that any criticism of him was 'dog-whistling', and demanding that no one notice that were it not for identity politics, he would not even be in this race.  Anyone who pointed out the latter fact was immediately branded a racist.

    Obama exploited identity politics to the hilt -- and pointing it out isn't finger-pointing, its truth-telling.  

    When the response of the Obama campaign to Bill Gray's assertion that it was "outrageous" to say that Hillary Clinton's remarks about MLK and LBJ were somehow racist was "no comment" but "people have a right to make up their own minds", the dark underbelly of the Obama campaign was exposed for all to see.

    People DON'T have the right to throw around scurrilous and baseless charges of racism.  That's called libel and slander, and simply because Clinton is a "public figure" does not make it any less libellous or slanderous.  By making it clear to Obama supporters and the media that it was perfectly acceptable to the Obama campaign to portray the Clintons as racist, Obama "enabled" every race-pimp and Clinton=hater in the country.  


    Wish I could give you a "10." (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:28:14 AM EST
    nostalgia (4.00 / 1) (#248)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    Is anyone else feeling a lot of nostalgia for the good-old-days when we would call the progressive blogosphere a "reality based community" without irony?

    I think Obama has to take resposibility.... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:26:42 AM EST
    ...for his supporters. It seems like he will be the nominee so why does HRC have to apologize to your team. You are the ones who need us now. Do not assume you can "shame" us into support. We should not be taken for granted, we are voters who count every bit as much as the Republicans he wants to woo and the Democratic coalition that brought him the nomination.

    Are you a New Yorker? (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:39:57 AM EST
    By the same token, Hillary will need us to vote her back into the Senate. So maybe, inline with your thinking, I'll hold what she in the campaign against her.

    Do you know how Obama is playing in Upstate New York? Do you know how HRC is playing there? At the moment, I have absolutely no worries about her being voted back in 2012 if that's what she wishes to do.


    Arrogance? (none / 0) (#255)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:30:57 PM EST
    Why, because I know more moderate Democrats and even Republicans in Upstate NY than you do and know how this whole thing is playing out? They love HRC. They won't be handing her walking papers any time soon. Sadly, the arrogance is from people like you who think the Obama wing of the party (and I use that term lightly) are in the majority because you scream the loudest and try to play bully. We're not buying the clambor.

    Go ahead its no skin off my nose.... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:14:48 AM EST
    ...I like Hillary and all, but I do what I do on my own behalf, not hers.

    Hillary will have no problem being re-elected (none / 0) (#243)
    by Iphie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:20:08 PM EST
    from NY. Any argument to the contrary is beyond wishful thinking and is not borne out by any evidence available here NY. She has delivered consistently and strongly for her constituents around the state; Obama's smears are hardly enough to dent her support here.

    It sounds like gutter fighting on the Obama side (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by hairspray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
    while they act so holier than thou.  Hardly tit for tat.

    How about some documented examples? (none / 0) (#202)
    by hairspray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:15:06 AM EST
    It is a common meme but often not explained.  And please don't use the Bill Clinton remark about Jesse Jackson also winning South Carolina in '88.  That is more race baiting by the Obama campaign who have done an excellent job.

    No, it really doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:01:13 AM EST
    Time does not "heal all wounds."  Grievous wrongs have to be acknowledged, confessed and sincerely repented before there can be any prospect of genuine healing.  It is not up to the guy who won through slimy means to decide when the wounds are healed.

    Both sides have . . . (2.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:39:38 AM EST
    but you are right that it incumbent upon Obama to reach out and unify the party.

    And (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:46:05 AM EST
    he isn't going to do it. He's just assuming that he's going to get Hillary's voters without trying. He hasn't got a clue.

    Well, for more cynicism (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:20:43 AM EST
    the DNC moved the convention so that the nominee would speak on the day that MLK gave his "I have a dream" speech.  Funny how they did that, isn't it, given that their candidate imagines himself the MLK incarnate?

    So tell me you won't get chills down your leg from that and vote for Obama ;-).


    Whose History Matters? (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by Athena on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:24:37 AM EST
    I'm tired of the narrative framing Obama as a historic figure and Hillary as a distraction.

    On the verge of a female President within 100 years of women "getting" the vote?  That is history.

    But the good thing about history - it's all about memory - and I won't forget this season soon enough to win my vote back.  


    Actually - my little fantasy is that the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Anne on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:27:51 AM EST
    knows that August 28th is my birthday, and all this Obama nonsense is just to make Hillary's nomination one of my best birthday presents ever.

    [what the heck - might as well dream big!]


    The "new" (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:40:00 AM EST
    Democratic party...  we have all been accused of not being Democrats (and worse) because we support Hillary.  We have been told we do not matter...

    The "new" Democratic Party surely is not my party.

    I will vote in the fall, but Obama has a big bridge to build if he wants to unify the party and earn my vote.   The Uniter's change we can believe in has become unbelievable.

    I will not be quiet and be a good girl.  I feel like Democracy has been soiled to benefit Obama's campaign.  That is unforgivable to me.

    He is still not the nominee, so, let's stop talking about it as if he is inevitable.  The only thing that I a certain is inevitable, is that he will not win the GE.  


    Over at Hullabaloo, (5.00 / 8) (#80)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:45:01 AM EST
    the lead post by tristero is about the "Obama Party". Now we don't even belong to the Democratic Party anymore, it's the Obama Party. Yeah, that's gonna bring a lot of us Hillary supporters on board. NOT!

    And turkana is trying his best to effect some conciliation with his posts at the left coaster and gets comment after comment about the vile Hillary.

    How does this get fixed? Can you honestly expect to bring people together when they hate each other's candidate worse than they hate the Republican?  I am not overstating, I do mean hate.


    Not sure (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:30:23 AM EST
    Hillary supporters have had 8 years of Republican rule and GOP rulz, media consolidation under Conservative control, and constant bashing of their values. They wanted something different this year, and instead they got Obama, who basically co-opted the media control, the GOP rulz and the talking points and CONTINUED to lump it on Hillary supporters.

    Can anyone blame us if we're a little incensed? We're basically looking at another 8 years of GOP mob rulz; no wonder some of us are looking to take our chances with McCain than to stain the Democratic Party for a generation by electing a useless suit who will solve NOTHING when we need it the most?


    How does this get fixed? (none / 0) (#176)
    by Coral on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:53:32 AM EST
    Maybe Obama can issue as strong a denouncement of his overzealous supporters as he did of Rev. Wright. After all, they, too, have become caricatures of themselves. :)

    It should have been electrifying. (4.66 / 3) (#16)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:16:56 AM EST
    Of course, it should have come on the heels of a Year of Change as the Democratic Congress fought Bush/Cheney to a standstill, exercised rigorous oversight and began purging the corrupt and venal from our government.

    Someone asked who I thought Obama's VP should be.  Nancy Pelosi, quoth I, because they'd be two of a kind.


    She has a ton of progressive bills passed (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:29:18 AM EST
    in the House, awaiting a clotureproof Senate to be signed by a Democrat.

    Although she apparently said some mean stuff, I am much more inclined to overlook what the press selects as "the quote" because of how Clinton has been similarly parsed and skewed by the other side...


    "off the table" (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:44:50 AM EST
    Why would any leader give up one of the gravest responsibilities they have?  Even the mere threat of impeachment could have been used to good effect.

    Justice delayed is justice denied.  


    Nancy Pelosi (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by joanneleon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:32:54 AM EST
    This is exactly who I think of when I watch what's going on with the Obama campaign.

    She thinks she knows better.  She capitulates.  She is an authoritarian who doesn't listen to the people.  In the process of doing things her way, she is not upholding the Constitution.  She is allowing the Bush administration to get away with murder, gambling with the lives and well being of people in this country as she places her bets on 2008, discarding the promises of 2006 and abusing the mandate given to her by the people.  She's betting the farm.  

    This is exactly what we will get with an Obama administration -- a group of people most interested in consolidating power and doing things their way, because they think they know better.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.  Real change?  Hardly.  


    Democrats DO NOT DISENFRANCHISE!!!!! (none / 0) (#253)
    by beebop on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:22:58 PM EST
    More than anything else, this is the deal breaker for me.

    Too many people marched and died.  He gives them lip service, but doesn't honor their fight.  Rules when it comes to standing in the way of people voting?  GET REAL!  The cider house rules are the metaphor for those rules that you feel you have to oppose because you feel they don't make sense.

    How is it that we can send our envoys to the ends of the earth to guarantee free votes for third world nations and then ACT like a third world nation within the Democratic party?

    The two things this party has always stood for was inclusion and the working class.


    Too late (5.00 / 19) (#9)
    by nell on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:15:10 AM EST
    I have hardened more in the past week than at any other time during the primary season. I am sick to death of the way Obama has been hailed as a can-do-no-wrong second coming, despite his relatively few accomplishments, while Hillary, a decent Democratic woman who has worked her whole life on behalf of issues I care deeply about has been vilified by the media, by the DNC, by the Obama campaign, and by Obama supporters. His arrogance in declaring victory on May 20th is just stunning, STUNNING.

    When Howard Dean made it a point to say that talking about Wright was racist (a claim I disagree with) on Fox News about a week ago, criticizing them for their coverage of this matter, but NEVER once stood up against all of the blatant sexism in the media, he lost my heart and my allegiance to the Democratic Party. So many women called begging him to say something to stop the women bashing in the press and he did nothing. The party no longer stands for the things I care most deeply about - equality, civil rights, and providing opportunities to lift up all Americans.

    This goes beyond Obama's campaign, though they are responsible for much of the division with their disgusting playing of the race card and use of right wing talking points against key Democratic issues, it goes to the heart of the Democratic Party.

    hardening... (5.00 / 9) (#112)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:59:10 AM EST
    I don't think that opposition to Obama is "hardening" so much as Hillary supporters finally focussing on Obama.  Clinton's campaign has been almost relentlessly positive -- when you go back and look at the campaign, its been all about her being a better choice than a generic Democrat -- and she stayed overwhelmingly positive despite the relentless attacks on her from September onward.

    Its only since the 3AM ad that she has made her "better than" argument specific to Obama in the same way that Obama has been contrasting himself to her.  And while Clinton supporters were well aware of Obama's deficiencies as a candidate, they weren't focussed on them -- we know that Clinton is so much better than Obama that we assumed that it was self-evident.

    And it is self-evident to most voters -- and while most of us accepted the fact that Obama would benefit from "identity politics", Tuesday night we were struck with the hard reality that Obama hasn't merely benefitted from identity politics, he's exploited identity politics.

    I don't know if Obama adopted Jeremiah Wright's attitudes, but I think its obvious that he's learned the fine art of using the legitimate frustrations of the African American community for his own benefit and advancement from Wright.  


    Well said, Nell...... (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by kc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:19:46 AM EST
    I agree with you and so do my friends.  We live in Florida to boot.  I have written (e-mail and snail) to Dean many times to speak up about the treatment of Hillary - gotten no reply.

    I have been a Democrat and voted since McGovern faithfully, sent money, and worked on campaigns--no more. The Democratic Party, in my opinion, was to speak for those without a voice and support equality. This 'new coalition' makes me sick--sounds like repub. lite.


    I'm not angry or hardened... (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Rainsong on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:03:30 AM EST
    I've been voting Dem since Carter, but now nearing 50, I'm out of anger at the Party, Obama or his supporters. I am just soooo over it, as my Gen Y daughter would say.

    I will support Hillary to the end of her choosing, as it may be my last opportunity to see her in high-profile, then look forward to spending time with family in Florida. A really nice quiet change to be in a 'safe' state, even if a red one. Not as much campaign hammering in the safe states, and will be nice not to go through the "battleground" 24/7 this year.

    I never understood the big chunk of Americans who don't vote, but this year? Not having a dog in the race, is very attractive. Six of one, half-dozen of t'other. No choice to make between bad and bad.

    My family, are all looking forward to joining the Great American Apathy Party in the fall. Maybe we can watch from the sidelines, way up the back, and see if McCain is going to make a play to take California, or if not, which other states he might try to take.

    I would if I was him, with Florida nicely tucked away as a safe GOP state, thanks to the Democratic Party leadership who just handed it over, gift-wrapped, as a done deal before the primaries even began. Thats one big ECV state the GOP doesn't have to defend too hard, opening up more resources for a good try at somewhere like California.


    Look, this is the scary part (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:16:02 AM EST
    the he could win.  An Obama win means none of the social and economic reforms.  Secondly, the mob is the scariest  aspect.  And like Jeralyn pointed out last night, the crowd he will bring will be marginal, ossified DC types, Daschle etc.  

    Also the Bowers article yesterday about the Creative Class, BTD you need to give that one a hard look.  That it is a nightmare.  

    That is part 2 to this (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:18:11 AM EST
    "Obama Worst Enemies, His Creative Class supporters"

    Seriously (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:20:57 AM EST
    I do not want to give power to those people.  They have adopted all the characteristics of their oppressors : Stockholm Syndrome.  

    Bowers and Stoller (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:19:44 AM EST
    have gone above and beyond in projecting the cult image in the last few days.

    He cannot win (5.00 / 11) (#36)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:26:01 AM EST
    not just because of Ayers and Wright, but because folks continually discount McCain as an opponent.  Pay attention, folks.  McCain may be under the radar right now, but he is reaching out aggressively to Clinton's voters.  Obama's latest salvo seems to be aimed at presenting McCain as senile and old.  How do you think that is going to work with baby boomers and the early-bird dinner crowd, who see themselves as aging and don't particularly care for those stereotypes?  Some arrogant young guy telling them that the 60s don't matter, that they need to step off the stage because it's Obama time?

    McCain will appeal to the same bloc of dems that Bush appealed to, without any of the baggage.  At the very least, they will vote for him because he is more experienced.  Go look at Obama's resume again--if you can find it.  Clinton hasn't been able to really go after Obama because she won't do that to a fellow dem.

    McCain will have no such qualms.  


    The DNC (5.00 / 6) (#100)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:53:06 AM EST
    and many of Obama's surrogates seem determined to insult the most reliable voting block in either party. Us old coots vote dammit! Maybe because many of us have nothing better to do, or more likely because many of us, myself included, were raised that voting was your civic duty and a small price to pay for living in a democracy. (Please space me the Republic lecture.)

    And if I hear "new young voters" one more time I will implode. It's as if a family was bringing home a new baby and decided that it would be best for all concerned if they kicked out the first born to make room for the newbie. Not good for families and not good for political parties either, IMHO.


    Clinton went after his experience (4.00 / 1) (#88)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:47:26 AM EST
    quite a bit in the begining.  She only stopped because it didn't work.  She also tied him to Hamas and Ayers the same as McCain has, so I don't really think your "she won't do that to a Dem" statement has any basis in fact.

    Obama should be careful about being perceived as attacking McCain's age.  There will be plenty of others who will be doing that whether Obama wants them to or not.


    excuse me... (5.00 / 7) (#120)
    by karen for Clinton on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:07:12 AM EST
    When did HILLARY tie him to Ayers or Hamas?

    Give me a date and quote please.

    Didn't he tie himself to all his own connections?

    Didn't the media bring up all of them all on their own?  

    She did not bring up one thing about Wright except to say, long after it was well known, that she would not have attended that church for long.

    And as for his experience, she ran on HER experience and he attacked HER of having none.

    And people think we can unify?  Nope, we are not as low information as they assume.  However it has appeared to me that I am consistently correcting his supporters who are filled with disinformation about her.



    Ayers was in the last debate, I think. (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:27:20 AM EST

    George opened the question up, but then Hillary said it needed some thought...Obama wanked on about how her hubby "pardoned two members" of the Weather Underground (he pardoned one, commuted the sentence of an other).

    Hamas in the same debate (none / 0) (#154)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:34:29 AM EST
    I think that both are subjects Obama should be expected to answer to, but not from a fellow party member.

    ya know what (none / 0) (#230)
    by karen for Clinton on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:54:02 AM EST
    There has been media coverage for months about ob and Ayers and the Hamas connection to the church. She did throw it back at him but she didn't ask the questions.  He can't sidestep the truth of how deep those ties are forever.  There are way too many people who know what is going on for it to be hidden in plain sight for long.

    Do his people who are calling for her to get out of this contest comprehend that the moment she is no longer there as an alternate he will be ransacked and left for dead in a barrage of attack that will be relentless?  As long as they are both in the contest they are not going to be hammered too hard by opposition forces.

    He got a slap on the wrist from her and plenty of kind words as well from her to him.

    Remember what the NY Times did to McCain the day after he became the presumptive nominee?  They said they published the story when it was ready, and that may be true, but the timing was everything wasn't it?  They didn't come out with the story till it was in the bag.

    When Obama's in the bag it'll be a blitz.


    Hamas in the same debate (none / 0) (#157)
    by cannondaddy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:36:47 AM EST
    (and Farrakhan again)I think that these are subjects Obama should be expected to answer to, but not from a fellow party member.

    the missing explanation (none / 0) (#254)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    here is that when many progressive blogosphere types say 'unity' they mean unity in sticking your head in the sand, insisting that this 'won't be a problem' because Obama is going to change reality...

    It's a lot like Karl Rove citing 'the math' in 2006 as a fake-out right up until the end to try to shore up confidence.  It is a sort of stockholm syndrome; they abhor Rove but have learned their lessons well.


    No... (none / 0) (#135)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:18:51 AM EST
    That was the Mittster...

    Clinton did contrast her experience to Obama (none / 0) (#185)
    by hairspray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:01:31 AM EST
    and it is questionable whether it worked, certainly not with the younger crowd, but I think it did work with older people.  But believe me when McCain starts asking voters whether they think a person with the equivalent of 5 months experience in a corporation should be promoted to the CEO there will be a stark contrast.  The 3 am phone call which drove the MSM ballistic will be mild compared to what the GOP will do.

    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:16:52 AM EST
    This is what we do not need.

    BTD, I hope you'll delete this too (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:28:29 AM EST
    I doesn't make any sense out of its original context.

    BO never (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by neilario on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:20:05 AM EST
    the problem with any attempts at BO trying to bring people like me 'into the fold' is the way he has acted and treated our candidate for so long. because this has never been an issue campaign, sadly, but BOs manipulation has been all around the heart... this has been on an emotional feeling playing field entirely - one reasons for so much passion on both sides. so, there is no intellectual argument to weigh to say - oh well, ok i will ' come to obama'. the dislike/ hatred/ resistance many people feel towards him is viseral and solidified.  and of course he really doesnt want us or care about us  and isnt a good enough actor to pretend otherwise. so he has no avenue of appeal that will resonate.

    he will loose precisely for this reason. and if he steals the nom i am one who will happily watch it. and reluctantly help turn MA red i guess... i will never give the priviledge of my vote to someone who does not ask for, deserve or respect it

    out of the fold, more like (5.00 / 11) (#54)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:34:21 AM EST
    The biggest thing that the Obama camp has underestimated again and again is the fury of Clinton's base, namely women like me.

    I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday about the calls for Clinton to bow out "gracefully" (implying she's being ungracious by not, I suppose) and she told me about her grandmother, who was one of two Jews allowed to go to a very exclusive private school in Manhattan (hey, Andgarden, did you know that racism isn't just for the south?)  Anyway, her grandmother was valedictorian, and the school principal came to her and said, basically, "you know, you're not really the 'face' of the school.  We'd appreciate it if you didn't make the valedictorian speech because, really, X [the salutatorian, a blonde, blue-eyed beauty] is much more representative of our student body."

    And my friend said that every time she heard crap from the Obama camp about how Clinton should leave for the good of the party, she donated a hundred bucks to our girl.

    It's not even really about liking or hating Obama anymore, it's that a lot of women have had the same crap happen to them that Clinton is getting, and it's making them absolutely furious.  So many people are clutching the pearls worrying about the aa community.  They should worry about the very real rift that is occurring between the sexes.


    Women are 50% +1 of the voters... (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:38:26 AM EST
    Interesting fact, don't you think?

    Harumphhhh. That kind of stuff still happens. (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:41:33 AM EST
    My daughter, 5 years ago and in a "fine and diverse"  suburban MD high school faced a similar situation. Traditionally, the senior class officers (all of them) speak at graduation, not the student council officers who represent the whole school. My daughter, who was class secretary, got bumped from the program by the principal in favor of the student council president (a pretty blonde girl and no doubt a fine person, that isn't the point. Well for some reason, all but one of the senior class officers were "of color" and they picked my daughter (the lone Latina) as the one to bump. Up until that point, she always told me I was paranoid about racism, but that opened her eyes. She stood up to the principal and got her speaking spot back.

    There's a great scene (none / 0) (#257)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:51:19 PM EST
    in the movie "Ben-Hur" that I think is relevant here.  Insert "Obamabot" for Massala and tell me it doesn't sound familiar:

    Massala: "The emperor is watching us, judging us. All I need do is serve him.  And all you need do is help me serve him.

    Juda: "You speak as if he were God."

    Massala: "He is God...the only God.  He is power, real POWER on earth!"

    soon after:
    Massala: "Either you help me or you oppose me. You have no other choice.  You're either for me or against me..

    Juda: "If that is the choice, then I'm against you."

    I disown and disavow this comment. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:21:13 AM EST
    And the commenter too, for good measure.

    It's becoming more clear every day (5.00 / 11) (#27)
    by joanneleon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:21:55 AM EST
    that the Obama campaign truly does not care about losing the demographics that they continue to insult and dismiss.

    At first, I thought it was just a relative few of the loudest and least helpful Obama supporters who felt this way, with a goodly number of Republican trolls thrown in, who knew that the only way they could win this race was to divide the Democratic party.  But now we're hearing the same things from Axelrod, netroots leaders, and the media.

    Krugman is yet another former thought leader who has been vilified by Obama supporters, so I strongly doubt they will listen to his advice.  I'm afraid that their campaign has two problems.  One, they (strongly) don't understand the groups of people that they are losing, and second, they really don't give a damn about them.

    They expect (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:23:19 AM EST
    to be treated as liberators. But first they must take care of the dead enders. . .

    no cakewalk (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:51:08 AM EST
    that's for sure.

    Can we call them NeoLibs now (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:42:21 AM EST
    and get it over with?

    And tear down that statue of Bill Clinton. (none / 0) (#166)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    It does kind of seem... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:25:08 AM EST
    ... that the Obama campaign and (especially) it's online supporters are doing everything in their power to assemble a new Silent Majority that will oppose him.

    was watching McCain last night on FOX (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:28:57 AM EST
    it was pretty unbelievable.  his solution to the health care crisis is to give people a $5000 tax break.
    is he serious?
    does he understand that could be wiped out by two complete physicals?
    we are going to have to try to lose this year.
    further, if we cant win this year we do not deserve to win period.

    The (4.80 / 5) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:44:54 AM EST
    healthcare issue becomes moot imo against Obama. He's not really strong in that area and he's pretty much destroyed our chance for universal health so I don't think it'll be an issue most people will be voting on.

    unfortunately (4.50 / 2) (#91)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:49:26 AM EST
    I think you are correct

    Obama could win against a far right wing nut... (5.00 / 9) (#47)
    by Exeter on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:30:12 AM EST
    But McCain is a known brand and, fair or not, is considered by most independents and conservative dems as solidly in the middle.

    it's less important (none / 0) (#261)
    by dws3665 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:17:08 PM EST
    what voters think than it is that he is the 'can do no wrong' candidate in the media's eyes. i am eager to see the meltdown in the creative class when the pro-McCain media start sniping at him the way they have done at HRC.

    One (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    thing Obama would do that would help is not try to declare "victory" before everyone has voted. It ticks people off even more.

    Today MSNBC headlines say that Obama is sure he'll get Clinton's voters. Well more arrogance. You don't assume that you're going get her voters you ask for their support.

    Obama's electoral problems are worse than just uniting the base. He's hemorraghing independents too. Pretty much with the evidence we have on hand he is unelectable.

    Donna Brazile is responding to anyone who was bothered by what she said to "don't vote" or "stay home."

    BTD, he's not going to apologize for what he's done nor is he really going to even try. He thinks he's got some new coalition and doesn't want the rest of us. Well, you know what? McCain is reaching out to us. He realizes that we are an important bloc of voters.

    Link, please. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:43:28 AM EST
    I know he said months ago that he was sure he'd get Clinton voters, but today's headlines, where?

    Also, the only way he's sure to get Clinton voters is if the ticket's Clinton/Obama (he might get all of them, then).  He would probably get less if it was Obama/Clinton.


    go to (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:52:38 AM EST

    Donna's comment (none / 0) (#214)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:32:40 AM EST
    is somewhere over at NoQuarter. Seems she got into an email discussion with someone and it culminated in her telling the base to stay home.

    You are correct (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:44:17 AM EST
    Obama is in the Obama bubble, just like Brazile; elsewise, she would have never made that ludicrous statement about the winning coalition that is comprised of a scant 13% of the population.

    I think we'll see as these next elections roll out just how much a problem Obama's class gap is (and it is class, it's not race, which people fail to realize because of the color of O's skin; if he were a white man with these limited demographics, he would be laughed out of the national arena)

    I know that KUSA has a really bad track record on these things, but I don't think it's going out on a limb to say that these next three primaries: WVA, KY and OR, will show us who the nominee is.


    In many ways, (5.00 / 13) (#55)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:34:44 AM EST
    the attitude of the Obama campaign toward Hillary supporters appears to be essentially identical to the attitude that Bush and crew had to the Democrats: we have our base, and that's all that's really important; we don't need you; we don't have to listen to you; "unity" means your coming into perfect agreement with what we dictate; you better see things our way, or you're going to be in trouble, and out in the cold; if you don't come together and do things our way for the larger good, it's your problem and your fault.

    In short, the claims of the Obama campaign that they are interested in "unity" look to be every bit as phony as those of Bush's.

    The difference (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:38:29 AM EST
    is that Bush behaved that way toward the fringe.  Obama is behaving that way toward the base.

    Oh, and just one further way Obama's (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:48:37 AM EST
    campaign and Bush are alike:

    We won 50% +1 vote, and that's all we need. Any win, no matter how slim, means you are completely irrelevant unless you do exactly as we say.


    You're either with us or against us (none / 0) (#258)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:00:27 PM EST
    They have absorbed Bush's messianic worldview:

    From the movie "Ben-Hur" that I think is relevant here.  Insert "Obamabot" for Massala and tell me it doesn't sound familiar:

    Massala: "The emperor is watching us, judging us. All I need do is serve him.  And all you need do is help me serve him.

    Juda: "You speak as if he were God."/p>

    Massala: "He is God...the only God.  He is power, real POWER on earth!"

    Massala: "Either you help me or you oppose me. You have no other choice. You're either for me or against me..

    Juda: "If that is the choice, then I'm against you."

    Now Hillary is being slammed (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:35:44 AM EST
    for pointing out "the problem" in public.  They say she is playing the race card.  Even Charlie Rangel is upset with her.  To me she is doing something that Obama said he would do.  Telling the country things we may not want to hear. The fact is that we are divided along racial and class lines.  It is crazy to pretend otherwise.  Many, like me, are ready to leave the party.  Obama, Clinton, Dean and Co need to get out in front of this.  Krugman's advice is sound.  I would add the following.

    Let all voters have their say.

    After all voters are done have SDs declare.

    Either Hillary or someone from her camp (Clark?) should be the VP.

    Reform the election process.


    Well (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:40:12 AM EST
    She needs to be more careful with her words IMO.

    But criticizing her choice of language will not make the problem go away.


    I wish she had phrased it better.... (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:47:35 AM EST
    ...she was struggling for words when she said it which usually means that it comes out not quite right. I know what she meant but one is not allowed to be sympathetic to white people in this climate. Ha, I'm starting to feel a little sorry for all you white people who are not in the creative class. Even though I have been kicked out of the party, I'm still allowed to speak on behalf of my identity group, lol.

    She said the exact same thing (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:52:22 AM EST
    every pundit on CNN said Tuesday night.

    But it's all her fault.


    Well (none / 0) (#155)
    by Nadai on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:34:31 AM EST
    not really, I'm afraid.  Her wording absolutely sucked.  I love Hillary, but that comment - ouch.  I really think she should publicly address it, explain what she meant, and offer an apology.

    Manuel (none / 0) (#213)
    by Iphie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:32:36 AM EST
    Did you see a direct quote from Rangel? If so, can you post a link? I live in his district, and if he needs some pushback against his Obama supporting constituents from a Clinton supporting one, I'd be happy to hand deliver a letter to one of his local offices.

    Here is a link (none / 0) (#244)
    by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:21:14 PM EST
    But it is the Daily News so take it with a grain of salt.  I see other news articles where he continues to be supportive.

    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Faust on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:36:08 AM EST
    I JUST read that article.

    So I came here to see if BTD had commented on it as it seemed like something BTD would have written. Sure enough.

    Anyway, I agree, it was a good article.

    Krugman has been Cassandra for a long time now (5.00 / 9) (#61)
    by chancellor on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:36:58 AM EST
    When he was one of the only national journalists to speak out against the Iraq war, he was revered by the blogging boyz; but now that he hasn't joined the Obama worship club, he's villified by those same blog owners. Consequently, I don't expect that the people who most need to heed his advice will do anything of the sort.

    Basics (5.00 / 9) (#71)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:41:40 AM EST
    These people are bullies.  They lack the basic skills of manners, diplomacy and political seduction.  It's the new way of our culture Hobbesian "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."   This is why I don't believe the unity ploy.  Unity for them is you are either with us or against us.  

    Bingo. (none / 0) (#259)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:02:19 PM EST
    Except unlike Bush I think they actually believe it.

    Donna Brazile has to go (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by A little night musing on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:41:45 AM EST
    Obama, assuming he is the nominee, has to realize how she's alienating so much of the support the Democrats need in November.

    I personally would never vote for McCain under any circumstances, and I would not sit out a presidential election (I learned from a young age that voting was a "religious obligation" ;-)), but comments like the ones quoted in this post are making me feel increasingly as if I'm an abused partner coming back for more abuse.

    Isn't there some way to be glad about the younger voters and so on that Obama is attracting to the primaries, without implying that I (an older white woman) am worn-out and unnecessary and should be put out to pasture? If I were Latina I'd be feeling even angrier.

    If the Unity shtick is to mean anything it's got to include stalwarts like me who have been feeling taken for granted by the Democratic party for a long time anyway.

    Obama's got to own this problem. I'm waiting...


    And now "age-ism" enters the arena... (5.00 / 9) (#75)
    by sander60tx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:43:16 AM EST
    This is from the US News Political Bulletin (received via e-mail):

    On CNN, Obama was asked "to respond to Mr. McCain's saying on the campaign trail that Hamas favors the Democrat for president." Obama said, "For him to toss out comments like that I think is an example of him losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination. We don't need name-calling in this debate." The Boston Globe reports that the McCain camp "issued a strongly-worded response" to Obama's remarks, "arguing that by using the words 'losing his bearings,' it was 'a not particularly clever way of raising John McCain's age as an issue.' ... 'This is typical of the Obama style of campaigning,' said the memo from senior adviser Mark Salter. 'We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record, and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is.

    Sound familiar?  It reminds me so much of the "periodically when she's feeling down, [she] launches attacks" statement.  I guess now he is going to alienate old people too.  

    Oh good G-d. (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:45:27 AM EST

    And this guy thinks he's going to win the Presidency of the United States, shooting his mouth off like that.  Man, is he in for a rude awakening.

    A little taste... (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by A little night musing on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:48:59 AM EST
    A little of what Obama would face in the GE.

    This is one of the reasons I said a few days ago that he still needs seasoning. He hands his opponents things like this comment and then does not seem to be able to deal quickly and gracefully with the response. It will be interesting to see how he responds to this one.


    One of the things that disgusts (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:55:41 AM EST
    me most about Obama becoming the nominee is that we, as Democrats, are not supposed to get upset, and ust bite our lips, when he pulls the same stunts on McCain as he did on Clinton -- such as making transparent denigrations of McCain because of his age. And God only knows how many times the Obama campaign will make up charges of racism that will be unfounded.

    And if any Democrat raises a problem with them doing this, we'll be accused of being Republican trolls, instead of, well, having a conscience.


    Yeah, charges of racism against (none / 0) (#152)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:33:00 AM EST

    McCain are gonna work, all right.  Didn'tcha know he has an illegitimate black child?

    No, wait, that was Rove's rumor.  John and Cindy adopted an Indian girl from Mother Teresa's orphanage.  But no, McCain's RACIST.


    Round 1 (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:25 AM EST
    goes to McCain.

    It's impressive (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:07:57 AM EST
    to say that the terrorists are rooting for your opponent, and have your opponent somehow come off as the uncivil one in the exchange.

    These guys know what they're doing.  Imagine if the Republicans were anywhere near as good at running the country as they are at campaigning.


    What helps (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:27:46 AM EST
    McCain is that he has the press on his side. It's like we've always said:
    Once the press thinks Hillary is gone they'll start propping up McCain. It's inevitable.

    The press has already started (none / 0) (#181)
    by KevinMc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:00:33 AM EST
    I was watching CNN yesterday and they referred to McCain as a senior statesman and war hero; in the same report they referred to Obama as simply a Liberal Senator.

    Yes (none / 0) (#194)
    by wasabi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:07:21 AM EST
    Wouldn't that be something to behold... If only they could run the country as good as they can run an election.

    Mc Cain's people ... (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by kc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:43:31 AM EST
    learned from the Dem. primary.  Obama's people, so quick to pounce on Clinton remarks as racist, sent a message to the GOP. McCain turned the tactic back on them quick.

    You know, it is really odd... (none / 0) (#162)
    by sander60tx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    when I find myself rooting for McCain.  No way I would ever vote for him, but I might enjoy watching him expose Obama for what he really is (a hypocrit). Unfortunately, that might mean 4 more years of Republican rule.  We REALLY need to work very hard to ensure that democrats increase their majorities in congress (which will hopefully help minimize the impact of a McCain OR Obama presidency).  That said, I am very excited to see Rick Noriega, in Texas, within a few percentage points of John Cornyn.

    By the way, the RNC has launched a new website called Can We Ask? in which people can post questions (text or video) about Barack Obama.  It is interesting to see what kinds of questions people are asking.


    When I read that... (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    I started looking at the exit polling number for older voters.

    I was so shocked by what I saw that I was up until 4AM, writing what appears in the diary section here, "Obama's OTHER Forgotten Demographic--Older Voters".
    Obama's problem with "working class whites" pale in comparison to how he is tanking with older voters.  And while Brazile and Axelrod may shrug off "working class whites" because they are a dependable part of the "old coalition" ignoring Obama's lack of appeal among older voters can't be done.  

    And the problem is that pro-Obama talking points are antithethical to attracting support from older voters -- not the least of which is the subliminal message sent to the "old" every time the word "new" is used to "sell" people on Obama ("new voters", "new coalition").  Add to that, the emphasis on "change" as a virtue unto itself -- older voters have been through lots of "change" and don't see it as a virtue but as a risk -- the right-wing framing on Social Security, and the disparagement of the working class (there was no huge "middle class" in American until these people came along -- they emerged from working class roots and created what we now call 'the middle class), and it almost appears to be a deliberate strategy to alienate older voters.


    I saw this last night (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:20:18 AM EST
    and I was impressed by the McCain campaign's response.

    What's fascinating about it is that the Obama people and media commentators have been wailing non-stop for months that everything Clinton or her supporters said about Obama would be used by the Republicans against him if he was the nominee.

    Well, guess what, kids?  If this is any example, it's going the other way-- Obama's scurvy tactics against Hillary are being held up by the McCain camp as negatives for Obama.  Hah.

    I find myself wishing the Hillary campaign had responded to Obama's slurs the way the McCain people have:

    "We have all become familiar with Senator Obama's new brand of politics. First, you demand civility from your opponent, then you attack him, distort his record, and send out surrogates to question his integrity. It is called hypocrisy, and it is the oldest kind of politics there is."


    Stuff A Sock in Donna! (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by beebop on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:17:35 AM EST
    My suggestion?

    Why ever thought that dragging McGovern out of his crypt doesn't get it.  One more man telling Hillary to pull out doesn't make one bit of difference to her supporters.  None of them have ever tasted victory and their credibility (McGovern?  Really?) is just enough to make you split your sides laughing.

    Pull Donna Brazile off television.  Take away every electronic device she owns.  Send her to the Virgin Islands if necessary.  She is DemoPartyPoison of the worst possible dosage.  "Undeclared?"  Right!  She has defined the "new Democratic party" as not having any place for the old Democrats.  She may just get her wish.  

    how is brazile's logic different than... (none / 0) (#140)
    by tonedef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:23:55 AM EST
    Clinton's or begala's?

    When has either one of them (none / 0) (#212)
    by Radix on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:30:04 AM EST
    said we don't need a particular groups vote?

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    Talking Sense (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Coral on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:31:59 AM EST
    BTD -- You and Krugman are the only ones in the media (from the blogs, to newspapers, to TV and radio) who seem capable of talking sense these days.

    Maybe someone will listen.

    Race (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:34:07 AM EST
    I think Krugman is right.  But what the Obama campaign has done is that by "framing" (god I hate that word) the Clintons, the Clintons for god's sake, as racist, this basically will freak the average white person.  Why, well, they will live in terror of the being accused  of racism.  What Obama was offering was relief from that, but his campaign using race in such a destructive manner, they destroyed their message.  Now it is about race, particularly with Donna's comments and Axelrod's comment.  

    What they really fail to understand. (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by Radix on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:49:12 AM EST
    Most of us have heard the argument about AA's feeling cheated or denied if Obama were not to the nomination. We don't fault folks for saying such, given American history we can understand these sentiments. What is missing is the fact that in 99% of all ethnicities and countries, since time began, there has been another group of people that have been "second class", I speak of women. Long before we made people of different pigmentation second class there were women. For you Obama supporters out there, it is time to realize and acknowledge, as every bit as legitimate as AA sentiments in this regard, the sentiments of women, they fall along similar lines. As BTD points out, demographics are everything. I would suggest taking a look at the "white working class" demographic and breaking that down along gender lines. We can't win if the Lady D's stay home, we have zero chance. Let's not forget the percentage of women Republicans who crossed over and voted for Hillary, there were more of them than men doing it, wanna guess why?

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah    

    Too late! (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:42:47 AM EST
    Sorry.  I can't be wooed anymore.

    HBO broke my ribs and sent me to the hospital.

    Roses the next morning because he wants something from me now won't help.

    I know that trick.  When he has his way with me, he'll break more bones.

    Contempt speaks much louder than promises and policies.


    "Heck, any Dem would be (5.00 / 2) (#205)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:20:06 AM EST
    in this political climate."  yes, any DEM would be.  so isn't it just oh-so-convenient that at this, the one juncture in years that we have a chance to move the country to the left, the one time in too long that we have a real shot at a popular nationwide mandate for progressive policy change--we get a candidate who hijacks our brand and pushes it to the right.  awesome.

    Yeah, we read now, too (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by beebop on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:00:55 PM EST
    A party that sees racism where none lurks but has no problems with sexism when it hits them in the balls has no moral ground to stand on.

    It's not just (none / 0) (#263)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:18:27 PM EST
    that they don't care, it's that they don't even see it.  Probably because so many of the 'creative class' cringe when they hear the word sexism because  they have been conditioned to distance themselves from the dreaded "feminism."  Sorry, Obamanites, but even my grandmother is disgusted, and she never burned any bras.

    Hillary supporter speak deux (5.00 / 1) (#252)
    by beebop on Fri May 09, 2008 at 02:05:37 PM EST
    What the Obama "he is the one you've been waiting for" forget is that for a great number of us who are older and have supporteed the Democratic party significantly longer, SHE is the one we were waiting for ...

    Obama isn't going to give up (none / 0) (#19)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:19:13 AM EST
    his campaign of personal attacks - he'll just switch targets from Hillary to McCain.

    "comments like that I think is an example of [McCain] losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination"

    But (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by nell on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:21:51 AM EST
    at least McCain can call him out on it in a way that Hillary can't. Yesterday Halperin's the page featured a memo from the McCain campaign highlight Obama's hypocrisy on saying one thing and doing another with these very personal attacks. They also put the press on notice that they wouldn't be standing for the favoritism and BS that has been going on for so long.

    Baaaaad idea. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:23:50 AM EST
    I may have my doubts about McCain's soundness but his opponent is best advised to attack him on the issues, not ad homs.

    Its almost as if Obama (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by ding7777 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:30:19 AM EST
    prefers to run on personal issues instead of  policy issues

    ad homs are how he beat Clinton. It might (4.00 / 2) (#38)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:26:26 AM EST

    No (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by nell on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:27:50 AM EST
    because Clinton couldn't call him on it the way McCain and the RNC will. They will make his life a living hell if he goes down this path with McCain. The Republicans don't care if he cries racism everytime he is questioned. In the memo they also said that it is a pattern with Obama to just dismiss legitimate questions about issues with these kinds of personal, disrespectful statements and they said they would not let him get away with it. We will see who is the real media darling.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#102)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:54:42 AM EST
    In that case, Nell (none / 0) (#224)
    by Iphie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:44:46 AM EST
    I suppose his decision to behave as though this is already the GE and focus his attacks on McCain could be a really good thing -- let McCain and the RNC call BS on the race card while Hillary is still in the race -- give the SDs a taste of what a GE contest will be like while they still have an opportunity to come to their senses and support Hillary.

    That was with the Clinton Rules. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:29:49 AM EST
    No Clinton, no Clinton Rules, no free pass from the media.

    Plus - it's against the whole Hope!Unity!Change! theme.


    Except It Is Now (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:51:34 AM EST
    Hope!Change! and unity be d@mned. We don't need them.

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:31:34 AM EST
    Considering that was part (and only a small part) of Obama's response to McCain's claim that Hamas is rooting for Obama to win the election, I'd say McCain still wins the "inappropriate personal attack" award for that exchange.

    But who cares (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:32:47 AM EST
    it will stick on Obama the way he stuck racist on the Clintons.  

    Probably (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:38:28 AM EST
    It is an artifact of how poorly Obama responded to that particular "Hamas" attack, something that gives me great concern for the GE campaign.

    There was a front-page diary at MyDD about McCain's attack.  Obama's response?  Crickets.  And yet the comments were full of Obama supporters proclaiming, "Man, I can't wait to watch Obama go after this guy in the general election!  He'll really trash him for attacks like this!"  I was like helloooooo, the attack has ALREADY HAPPENED.  Is Obama sitting there thinking "gee, I'm still involved in the primary, so I guess I won't respond to John McCain saying the terrorists are rooting for me"?

    Instead, he said nothing until he was finally asked, in an interview, whether he wanted to say anything about that attack, and out came a pretty good answer that included the "losing his bearings" line.  But because he waited so long to respond, now the Hamas line isn't the story, it's Obama's response that's the story.  People simply won't get that he was responding to an attack that was even ruder, because he handled it so badly.


    It's the John Kerry approach (none / 0) (#229)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    Instead, he said nothing until he was finally asked, in an interview, whether he wanted to say anything about that attack, and out came a pretty good answer that included the "losing his bearings" line.  But because he waited so long to respond, now the Hamas line isn't the story, it's Obama's response that's the story.  People simply won't get that he was responding to an attack that was even ruder, because he handled it so badly.

    I am surprised Obama didn't go windsurfing in the midst of things. Apparently the whole swiftboating thing did not teach his campaign any lessons whatsoever. At this point, however, I'm beyond caring. I'm kind of looking forward to seeing Obama get savaged by the GOP. What will the Creative Class (which I should be a member of but am inexplicably not, perhaps because I am capable of seeing through b.s.) do then? Keep crying "He's (McCain) being meeeeeeeeeeeeean to us?"


    clinton supporters- help me out (none / 0) (#28)
    by tonedef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:22:11 AM EST

    Polls indicate that upwards of 40% of clinton's supporters will vote for McCain instead of Obama, though he is anti-choice, etc, and though, for the most part- he shares Clinton's policy positions.

    I'm asking this sincerely- what has Obama done that has been so antagonizing and alienating to Clinton's supporters?

    I'd really appreciate specifics.

    If anyone has a moment to answer, I'd really appreciate it.

    You've asked this question at least once before (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:25:08 AM EST
    and I think it is off topic here. But assuming you aren't just looking for a fight, one of the things I found deeply antagonizing about Obama's campaign was the "Embrace the Change" concert tour. You can read about the particular event that sent me over the edge here.

    This was the first major thing for me, too. (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:41:19 AM EST

    The second was the race-baiting and painting the Clintons as racist.  It's appalling, disgusting and COMPLETELY out in left field, because the people doing this crap don't know a THING about Hillary Clinton (or Bill's for that matter) and what she's done for blacks her entire life as a political activist (starting in HIGH SCHOOL).  It makes me livid to know that these ignorant people--including the black community/monolithic 90% black vote for Obama--are doing to trash (and/or backstab) the Clintons.

    Come on now. (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:37:50 AM EST

    If you'd said this months ago before most of the states voted, I MIGHT have believed you.

    But it's official.  The black vote is monolithically behind Obama in crazy 80 to 90 percentile numbers in every state that's voted already.  It's not racism, it's facts.

    Prove me wrong.  I dare you.


    Why do you think they are voting on race? (none / 0) (#211)
    by wasabi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:26:56 AM EST
    Maybe, just maybe, Clinton offers the working class better policy options.  Maybe that is why they are voting for her.  Why do you think it is for racial reasons?

    defense of marriage act (1.00 / 2) (#113)
    by tonedef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:59:52 AM EST
    Are you familiar with it? Or, who signed it?

    You're not addressing my point (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:03:26 AM EST
    Say "well, Bill Clinton sucked!" isn't good enough.

    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#118)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:05:37 AM EST
    Since we're dredging up history, who was the first sitting First Lady to march in a Gay Pride parade?  Want to take a guess?

    Read Krugman (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:25:09 AM EST
    Y'know - the linked article?

    Try that - we are supposed to be discussing it.


    The race baiting (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:28:54 AM EST
    was the clincher for me.  Polarizing our country around race, inflaming hate, for the sake of winning a primary is amoral.  He'll never get my vote ever.

    And the "creative class" and their scary credes means that while I was saying I'd vote for a 3rd party candidate, I'm now going to vote for McCain.  Obama and his wierd A-list blogger following are scarier than 4 more years of Republican rule.

    You're welcome in advance;-).


    The fear ... (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by Rainsong on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:15:01 PM EST

    I thought I was just paranoid, but its the fear that Obama, through his supporters, has raised in me.

    For a long time, I thought it was just the frothing on the internet, and yes, I understand the blogs aren't representative of the general world...

    but they are.
    I have felt fear in my workplace in conversations touching on it. I have stood in line in a store, waiting to make my purchase, and overheard chilling hate speech in casual conversations. I have family and friends who have had bricks thrown at their cars, or otherwise vandalised, for their Hillary bumper-stickers. Its on almost every news channel, morning noon and night, local or national. Obama and his "new politics" scares the beejeebus out of me.


    Did You Read The Krugman Quotes In The Post? (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:32:53 AM EST
    It clearly points out two of areas that has been so antagonizing and alienating to Clinton's supporters.

    yes I read the krugman (none / 0) (#73)
    by tonedef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:41:49 AM EST
    Yes- I did read it- I don't see anything that Obama did that would be so antagonizing. Is it that Obama's people said they don't need white support? That's what has caused you to want to vote for McCain? He who will put justices on the SCOTUS that will overturn roe?

    Yes, I asked this before, and no one really answered. You guys clearly despise him, but I don't know what he's done. I know what I'd say HRC has done, I have a story in my head as to why people have such problems with her, but I don't know what Clinton's supporter's stories are. I really don't.

    Please educate me. Krugman refers to reasons for uneasiness, but not antagonism and disdain.


    Gee (5.00 / 9) (#86)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:46:14 AM EST
    If Roe is such a problem, why didn't you support the woman who is unambiguous on supporting women's rights, and instead the man who has been completely wishy-washy about it.  Obama supported Roberts fer-gawls-sake.  

    Your Roe argument holds no merit at all this time, as you support the person who is weakest of the two Democrats on Roe.


    he did not support roberts (2.00 / 1) (#114)
    by tonedef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:01:14 AM EST
    check your facts- he voted against roberts.

    McCain will be much worse on hcoice than Obama, will he not? yet many, many (on here even) say they'll vote for him. I'm trying to understand why.


    Originally (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by Nadai on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:24:09 AM EST
    he planned to vote for Roberts, saying that if he were President, he wouldn't want his appointees overturned on ideological grounds and that he admired Roberts' intellect.  He changed his mind when his chief of staff pointed out that if he voted for Roberts, he'd be held accountable every time Roberts made a conservative ruling and that'd be bad for his career.  That mattered to him, so he voted against confirmation.

    Sorry (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:41:21 AM EST
    I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you knew the history of his Roberts non-vote.  I won't do that again.

    No, he didn't vote for Roberts, but as someone else replied to you, he declined for political expediency.

    I'll add that he then went on to write a big long post on DailyKOS defending Democrats who voted for Roberts.

    I have no confidence that the man supports women's rights.  And the Bowers Coalition is dangerous.  I'll take the devil I know, rather than the amorphous blob that is Obama. Thanks very much.


    Lose (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:36:42 AM EST
    the supreme court argument. There's some discussion about Obama wants to support a judge who thinks roe was wrongly decided.

    Link please??? (none / 0) (#121)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:07:17 AM EST

    I wanna see this discussion!

    You mentioned McCain being anti-choice. (5.00 / 9) (#87)
    by dk on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:46:51 AM EST
    The problem is that Obama has made the following comment:

    "The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization so it has not always been the case, has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it..."

    These are factually incorrect, sanctimonious, right-wing talking points.  This alone makes me pretty determined not to vote for him (though the gay-baiting strategy that won him South Carolina is what really clinched it for me.  I understand that some will vote for Obama because he is the lesser of two evils, but I refuse to vote for someone who gay baits to pick up votes, period).

    As long as we have a democratic majority in Congress, it may just be better to have McCain in for four years and then, in 2012, find a Democrat who believes that women's rights and gay rights are human rights.


    defense of marriage act (1.00 / 2) (#115)
    by tonedef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:02:11 AM EST
    fmailiar with it? What is decreed- who signed it??!!!

    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Nadai on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:26:10 AM EST
    Is he running again?  I thought the Constitution didn't allow that.

    I Don't Remember Hillary Signing That Act n/t (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:29:42 AM EST
    Why wouldn't I vote for Obama? (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by befuddled on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:50:08 AM EST
    Easy. I'm an independent. I don't have any party loyalty. I can vote for the person I like. I like Clinton for many reasons, but the topic is, Why not Obama, and all the reasons are in old threads here.
    Basically, it's him. I don't like anything about the way Obama's campaign has been run, especially the use of memes to spread libel and misinformation and manipulate preferences. For instance, harping on the idea that one of his core demographics are "educated" and "more intelligent": Who is going to go for the person that's been represented by default as the opposite? That would be a tacit admission that you were "uneducated" and "less intelligent." I have 5 degrees, four with heavy emphasis on psychology and one in research methods, and it's obvious to me every trick is being used by all sides. I think Obama's side is using more and dirtier tricks, but to advance the argument I'll call it a wash for now. Then we have to distinguish the candidates not by the trickery criteria but by the social results. Again, I can see nothing but wasteland in the Obama direction. My personal social result today is that I can't look at the news anymore. I already know who I will vote for, Clinton or McCain, so why gnash my teeth over the malarky. (And I live in Arizona--I had such hopes that this year we could have a Blue Moon and a Democratic upset. I think Clinton is the only one who could pull it off.) I'm going to develop a video game--it's a more realistic world on your hard drive than on TV news.

    For me (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by Nadai on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:18:09 AM EST
    It was a gradual movement from lukewarm support to utter loathing.

    The first thing that bothered me was the he didn't have much of a record and he kept talking about bipartisanship.  I don't much trust words without provable deeds to back them up, and I have zero interest in making nice with Republicans.  Make that negative interest - I want to see them crushed.

    Then came the Donnie McClurkin thing.  The fact that Obama picked McClurkin at all angered me; the fact that he allowed the man to turn a campaign rally into anti-gay tirade and never really slapped McClurkin down for it infuriated me.

    Then add in all the snide little sexist asides - tea parties, "periodically, when she's feeling down", etc.  I'm a 48 year old woman and I've heard this sniggering crap all my life, always couched in semi-disavowable words that everyone, nevertheless, knows exactly what they mean.  And coming from someone who wants my vote for President?  Uh, no.

    So by this point, I'd decided not to vote for him in the primary, but was still planning to do so in the general if he won the nomination.

    The Obama blogs, the general media, and Obama's own complete indifference to the misogynist frenzy put paid to that.  I firmly believe that his people participated in a lot of this, that it wasn't just his supporters and non-affiliated Clinton haters in the media.  Certainly it isn't all his fault, or even mostly his fault.  But there's enough blame to attach to him to make him unforgivable to me.

    I still won't vote for McCain; I don't vote for Republicans.  If Clinton isn't on the ballot in November, I plan to write her name in.


    "You're likeable enough." (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by Iphie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:09:33 PM EST
    One moment that I can point to when I thought, Wow. Obama's kind of a d*ck. I realized at the time that it was a small, off the cuff statement, and very well could have been a mistake. Looking back at it though, it encapsulates so many of the attitudes and behaviors of his and his supporters that we have since seen demonstrated in much greater detail. It was arrogant, dismissive, unnecessarily unkind, and showed his willingness to pile on the personal attacks that he supposedly abhors. If he really wished to decry personal attacks, he could have said something about Hillary that demonstrated warmth and support for Hillary and attacked instead the premise of the question. Instead, he was snide and I think, gave us all a glimpse of his character.

    I should point out that at the time, Edwards was still in the race and was the candidate I supported, so my reaction wasn't that of a Hillary partisan, it was of someone who was disgusted by his complete and total lack of grace. He's a hypocrite and he reminded me of Bush.

    It was one small thing, but it was an indicator of things to come, and it has pretty much been downhill since. If his disagreements with Clinton had been about policy, it would be much easier to to imagine supporting him in the future. But it hasn't been, and the derision aimed at Hillary is also aimed at every one of her supporters, and I do take it personally.


    Clinton Supporter answers (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by Boo Radly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:23:40 PM EST
    I personally feel that 40% figure is possibly too low. And, I know Repugs who will vote for Hillary but not BO.

    I am not the most politically savvy voter by all means - that is the only label I am giving you, except to say my life experiences have come from the middle to upper level status. I have always had a great interest in politics and a life long Dem because that D mean something to me - they stood for ideals that I care about. I began this primary season with high hopes and really investigated each candidate. At no time did BO ever become a possible for me because there was no data to make a decision on up to the end of January when I could no longer tolerate a political site with so many of his supports spewing trash. One of those ideals that attracted me to the Democratic Party was tolerance of all people - race, creed, color and monetary status.

    Everything I have learned from Jan. til now  shows me the D party has left the reservation - BO, in my opinion, is being positioned as a tool - a political eunch for the use of old style D's in office who have sold out to corporate America. The fervor - insanity, totally obscene acting out by most BO fans and the level of incompetence and immaturity of the campaign, tells me this is a train wreck. The media shilling for BO tells me where the money is and the reason for the candidacy - the media will switch back to all McCain if Bo is nom. They would rather have two of the  same to be safe than a real Dem. His(BO) resume is vaporous for a reason.

    I will not vote against my issues nor my principles. I accept that the Democratic Party that supports this candidate is against everything that matters to me. They continue to make this crystal clear each day. I am not swayed by accusations of being a racist(right, just like Bill and Hillary are), not being a "real" D(like them are? ha ha ha). I will continue to support, donate to Hillary. If she is not the nominee because she has been treated in an unfair manner(FL/MI seated and given full credit for votes placed) or just not the nominee  - I will not vote for BO.

    Not too long ago, I felt the Rethugs were an abomination. I now truly feel the D party is worse, much worse, because, unlike the Rethugs, who we all know what they stand for, the D's pushing BO are practicing duplicity. What good did the election in 2006 do for our party or our country? Has any legistation been done to correct the damage by the present administation? Who said "impeachment is off the table" and why?  The lesson learned by the "elders" of the party seems to be, let's elect our own very own Bush and keep the status quo.  

    BO has personaly demonstrated a lack of knowledge on issues and has no polices or definite plans for the economy, health care for all, ending Bush's war, etc. etc.  He personally uses grostesque dog whistle hand gestures to "excite" his base, he race baits, he whines constantly that he is a victim of the mean Hillary - that is why he can't discus his plans, he and Michelle have voiced the most arrogant attitude I have ever heard politicians in a free country state and with no apology, even a rather Kiss my <beep> tone and both display immaturity(that must be a comfort for his younger fans). That tone was there from the beginning. No one is more responsible for BO's unelectability than BO - he is what he is.      


    One last post (4.75 / 4) (#42)
    by misspeach2008 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:28:31 AM EST
    before I ride off into the sunset.

    Your name says it all!


    I hope (none / 0) (#117)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:03:36 AM EST
    it's a really beautiful sunset misspeach, with glorious golds and and reds fading into lavender and blue at the horizon. Politics can be and all to often is ugly, enjoy a beautiful sunset! I'll miss reading your delightful comments too. Be well.

    where? (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by tonedef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:45:34 AM EST
    I got very, very few answers. I want specifics!

    I'm sorry if you feel this puts you out! How many other Obama people have asked open, honest questions, trying to understand the contempt?

    Okay- you say Obama people said the Clinton's have run a racially charged campaign. Distorting what hte clintons have done, I presume. Can you point to specific examples? Maybe even from Obama himself (we now have a doozy of one from HRC from a few days ago).


    As a new commenter (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:50:49 AM EST
    you only get 10 comments per day. Use them wisely...

    You want? (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:07:58 AM EST
    I got very, very few answers. I want specifics!

    Why should anyone here care what you want? What are you going to do next, stomp your feet if everyone doesn't rush to accede to your demands?

    The reasons many of us detest Obama have been discussed many times at this site. Not our job to catch you up.


    okay, I'll leave (1.00 / 2) (#131)
    by tonedef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:16:41 AM EST
    I thought- perhaps mistakenly- that we were all democrats if not leftists- and I thought we could work together- as we do need each other to advance a democratic agenda.

    But okay- I give up. I thought some of you would jump at the chance at answering an open question about the villainy of Obama. I was wrong. The paranoia and defensiveness on this site was striking (not from all). Sorry to bother you.

    Thanks- I'll check back in from time to time.


    There's tons of villany about him, you just aren't (none / 0) (#136)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:19:16 AM EST
    reading these pages.  If you did, you'd see how he voted wrongly towards the interests of people he's supposed to be helping and how he just generally sucks with his record of either voting with the special interests (CAFA), caving to the special interests (Braidwood comes to mind), or just plain doing some really dumb stuff ("hitting the wrong button" in the Ill. State Senate).

    if you are a leftist, (none / 0) (#260)
    by dws3665 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:14:01 PM EST
    why do you support Obama?

    Here are your specifics. (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by BrandingIron on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:17:10 AM EST

    Sean Wilentz's article on Obama's race baiting.

    Obama's Campaign Co-Chair, Jesse Jackson Jr., race-baiting about Clinton's tears not going to Katrina victims.

    Pressuring Black Caucus Members to back Obama based on color.

    Turning this into something it was NOT.  Obama surrogate Donna Brazile along with JJJr. pushed the meme that Bill's "fairy tale" comment was a racist comment.  Same goes for Hillary's LBJ/MLK comment.

    Want more?  I'm sure I can dig up more for you.


    thank you (none / 0) (#170)
    by tonedef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:47:59 AM EST
    Seriously- thank you.

    So- clinton supporters will vote for mcCain because they feel that OBama's campaign has framed HRC's campaign as racist?


    soon is too soon (none / 0) (#183)
    by beebop on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:01:00 AM EST
    There wouldn't have been the disproporationate number of African Americans supporting obama had they not portrayed the Clintons as racists.  The fact that Jesse Jackson himself said Bill's comments were not racist received near zero play.  Axelrod and the MSM needed to make this racist.  It was the only way to get him the votes.

    defense of marriage act (1.00 / 1) (#125)
    by tonedef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:11:11 AM EST
    The embrace the change-  I don't know all the details- but it sucked that Obama had a anti-gay guy working on his campaign.

    But- the DOMA!!!!!  politics sucks and force fair-minded people to do some terrible things- like the defense of marriage act- signed by none other than Bill Clinton.

    I agree that the MLK comment controversy wasn't fair. The cocaine thing- I agree not fair.

    I'm not tring to be a jerk! I go to one website you another and I never understand where you all are coming from. thanks for the info. sincerely. I'll check out Bob Somerby's blog.


    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#217)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    signed DOMA and a lot of Dems voted for it in order to fend off the growing GOP clamor for a constitutional amendment, for God's sake.  Similar thing with the flag-burning bill.  A piece of legislation can be overturned the next year, a constitutional amendment can't.


    The more Obama supporters show up here with the talking points, the more I wonder who the "low-information voters" really are.


    You want specifics and.... (none / 0) (#175)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:53:22 AM EST
    ...I want a new car for Mother's Day. You can't always get what you want.

    This person is an annoying troll. (none / 0) (#192)
    by shoephone on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:06:08 AM EST

    TalkingPointsMemo links to Peggy Noonan's WSJ (none / 0) (#129)
    by kindness on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:15:13 AM EST
    Op-ed titled "Damsel In Distress" with their own post titled "Never Thought I'd Say It".  TPM is unhappy to say "It's so bad even Peggy Noonan is making sense, painful as that is to say."

    I don't know that I've ever agreed with anything Peggy Noonan has said nor most of the WSJ's Op-Ed's.

    We live in interesting times.

    Still don't agree with Noonan (none / 0) (#161)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:39:10 AM EST
    Is TPM proud that he does?

    A lot of this is up to us... (none / 0) (#159)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:38:46 AM EST
    As long as the level of vitriol seen so frequently at this site is levelled at him, his climb will be uphill.

    No doubt Obama needs to mend some fences.  But we on the blogsphere could help by giving the guy a little breathing room.  We are all Democrats, are we not?

    The reality of this situation is that John McCain was always going to be a tough candidate to beat, in that he appeals to swing voters.  Hillary Clinton would be starting out behind now too - and the attention we've seen to things like Wright and the "bitter" comment would have been focused on some trumped-up Clinton controversy.

    Time to stop focusing on Obama's perceived weaknesses and put that attention to McCain's instead.  

    I know that a lot of people here gave their heart and soul to the Clinton campaign, and I admire their dedication.  But we have a job to do.  

    Answer to your question (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:46:17 AM EST
    We are all Democrats, are we not?

    Actually, no we aren't, according to Bowers and Brazille.

    Also, given that you're an Obama supporter, it's on you to convince Hillary supporters.  It's not for Hillary supporters to just roll over and support your candidate.


    I could care less about Bowers or Brazille (none / 0) (#179)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:58:41 AM EST
    They don't speak for anybody but themselves.

    And frankly I'm not going to bust my ass trying to convince you of anything.  I'll presume that if you supported Hillary Clinton you share more of my values than not.  If you think a McCain presidency is acceptable, perhaps that's a bad assumption.

    Ultimately you'll have to decide for yourself whether you want to carry on holding animosity towards Barack Obama.  If so, that's both your right and a shame.

    I can only tell you this - I was not in love with Hillary Clinton for a good portion of this primary either.  But if she were the nominee, nobody would have to have convinced me of anything.  I'd work like hell to elect her.

    But if you want to sit on the sidelines waiting for somebody to convince you, that's you choice.  I'm pretty sure my efforts are better spent picking up the slack left by those who probably aren't really open to being convinced.        


    Michelle said it all ... don't you remember?!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by beebop on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:03:58 AM EST
    When Mrs. Obama said she'd have to "think about" supporting Senator Clinton, that was the kiss of death.  No one closer to the candidate than his wife, wouldn't you say?

    A lot of things were said in this primary (none / 0) (#198)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    Remember "the commander in chief threshhold"?

    Again...you can choose to remain angry if you want. And when McCain puts a conservative or two on the supreme court - you can live with the results.

    Your choice.    


    Tired of raising thresholds ... (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by beebop on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:39:58 AM EST
    I have been called so many unkind, unchoice, unDemocratic things by Obama supporters since the field began to narrow that in all honesty, I don't care what you think of me or the millions like me.

    Suffice it to say that the Democratic party is rebuilding the Republican party with all of the poll workers and party faithful being tossed to the side.  

    I hope you can live with that!


    I don't see how you sustain that argument (none / 0) (#228)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    Obama's coalition was built by grass roots activism.  If there is a sense that the old gaurd is being pushed aside, I think that's true to a certain extent.  I also think it is a good thing. Time moves forward and the party establishment needed some shaking up.

    But I'm an old-timer myself and I've never felt anything less than valued by the folks in the Obama campaign.  

    There is nothing "republican" about the Obama campaign.  It is made up of a lot of progressives who share more ideals with you than not.  I am sorry that you've been the target of some ill words this campaign, but so have I.  Feelings get hurt when you have so many people so passionate about their candidate.  


    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#231)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:54:10 AM EST
    I appreciate that the "new party" is built on the young and the strong.

    For myself, I want a party for the weak, the old, the infirm, the single mothers, the immigrants, the children and the dispossessed.  

    One of my "core values" is the fight against hate speech.  I don't see how Obama can support that.


    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#234)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:04:33 PM EST
    I think you conflate the activist base with those they stand up for.  But no matter.

    I have no idea what you are talking about regarding "hate spech" - but I suspect that a few months away from the blogsphere would help.


    If you think ...... (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    our vitriol is the problem, then nothing any of us can say will change your mind.

    Well right now - it is the problem (none / 0) (#200)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:14:47 AM EST
    Yes there was far too much vitriol levelled at Senator Clinton during this primary.  That's a shame - and I said so throughout the campaign.

    But we are where we are today, and we need to unite behind the likely nominee.  So yes...the vitriol towards Obama is the bigger problem at this moment.  


    It's a bigger problem for you..... (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:21:12 AM EST
    .....and for Obama. It's not a bigger problem for me. I haven't been particular bitter towards Obama. I haven't been spreading smears about him. I was fully prepared to vote for him, but now I strongly disapprove of many things his campaign has done and that his supporters have done on his behalf. I need to be won back. That isn't a problem for me, its a problem for Obama is he cares to have my vote.

    Well it is a problem for you... (none / 0) (#235)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:06:02 PM EST
    ...if you aren't comfortable with a McCain prresidency.

    If you are, then c'est la vie.


    The point is I am uncomfortable with either one... (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:43:39 PM EST
    ...for different reasons. I am not obligated to make the choice that you prefer.

    What???? (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:49:06 AM EST
    Who's "we," white man?

    "we" = Democrats (none / 0) (#236)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:07:52 PM EST

    but i didn't think that (none / 0) (#262)
    by dws3665 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 03:37:21 PM EST
    Obama's new coalition needed to include some of "we."

    You know, I agree with you about the horrors of a McCain presidency, and I will never vote for him. But you simply can't have it both ways.

    You can't scream "unity! onward against the evil McCain" and dismiss the divisive and unhelpful comments of your candidate and some other DNC/blog Obama stalwarts. They are, in essence, turning their backs on Clinton's supporters and voters, yet you think we should just go along for the ride in the interests of avoiding McCain.

    Well, the ends do not always justify the means.


    Oh my (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by kmblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    A faint Unity Pitch.
    Wow, you need to work on that.

    Nah (none / 0) (#203)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:17:18 AM EST
    No more pitches from me.

    We're all big kids here.  If you want McCain picking the next Supreme Court justices and running our Middle East policy, you'll sit on your hands.

    Your call.


    Back to threats (5.00 / 2) (#209)
    by kmblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    I think I like that better
    than phony Unity stuff.

    Not a threat at all (none / 0) (#222)
    by AdamSmithsHand on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    That's the reality of the situation.

    Do what you want. You will anyhow. If you feel comfortable with a McCain presidency, do nothing.  But spare us the petulance.  Nobody's impressed.


    D. Brazile's, your with us or against us, so what (none / 0) (#160)
    by Salt on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:38:48 AM EST
    is I believe a sincere held belief at the DNC and part of the overall strategy where the DNC skewered the momentum of the race to Obama, publicly discarded the Clinton economic legacy as a historic success and sent their last failed Party nominee John Kerry out to notify early on this Base putting them on notice that as the old guard that they had no rights to the Party's future and demanding they step aside for a Party leadership that knows their interest..   The problem for Nov. isn't Party Unity those that remain or join will coalesce, IMO the problem is still an Obama nominee, whose leadership ability, platform of grievance, record of accomplishment, lack of judgment, and failure to bridge the gap with the majority of Party's non fringe base has not changed.  
    What Nov hopefully brings, is not just the swing of the discarded vote to another candidate, but a major break, hopefully to the middle away from the strangle hold of Party's both now controlled by their wings and both without mandates from their own majorities.  What American's can not allow, and hopefully will not allow, is another 4 years of Governance by a Party with a majority in all three branches ruled by an ideological fringe and IMO they will not.

    Your man should have thought (none / 0) (#196)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:10:56 AM EST
    about 4 years of McSame before he himself and DBrazile though the dem. base under the bus.

     I'll  be nice to those who are already there:
    Nice to meet you Granny  
    Hello Reverend, how are you doing?


    Someone asked for this in another thread (none / 0) (#180)
    by blogtopus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:00:00 AM EST
    read this yesterday... (none / 0) (#187)
    by kc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:02:29 AM EST
    on rezkowatch (I know, alittle to Nat. Enquirer), but stuff that I didn't know and some appeared sourced. It ties some parts of the Obama campaign to the Dean campaign--don't know if this is accidental or not. Would like to know what you all think.


    Obama Needs to Prove He... (none / 0) (#188)
    by santarita on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:03:24 AM EST
     he is a leader and not just the political equivalent of a rock star.  He can do that by calling off his dogs in the media world (Keith, Schuster and Schultz, I'm talking about you) and in the blogosphere.  He is responsible for the tone of the campaign.  

    And he needs to talk about issues concretely and not just how he is going to change the tone and work with the other side.  He needs to stop the pandering to the right wing.  

    He needs to stop with the hypocrisy about the purity of his campaign financing.  There is too much money from too many special interests funding his campaign.  He needs to acknowledge the rather large loopholes in the current laws and suggest reforms.  The money is pushing him to the right and he knows it.

    At present, I think his hypocrisy and hubris will make what should be a cakewalk against McCain into a nailbiter.

    BTD, when I read Krugman earlier today (none / 0) (#190)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:03:38 AM EST
    I thought:  you two definitely are on the same wave length.

    Cindy McCain??? (none / 0) (#193)
    by thea2b on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:06:12 AM EST
    I cannot believe how many people on this blog are so angry at the prospect of losing a tough fought contest that they will vote for John and Cindy McCain!!??? First off as a woman you should be absolutely disgusted at the fact the St John called her a C&#T in front of witnesses. Secondly, after his first wife stayed home and took care of the kids, with the candle lit waiting for poor John to get out of his POW stint (which by the way was self imposed by his ignorance and incompetence) He found a younger, prettier and oh so rich (drug addicted) wife to bankroll his political aspirations and dumped his wife and kids at the curb. Oh I almost forgot to mention, this was after she had a debilitating injury in a car wreck (sweet guy that Johnny boy) I somewhat understand the anger, but cannot understand the willingness to vote for someone who is soo against all the things you believe in. Choice, corporate ownership of the country, tax breaks for the wealthy, and staying in Iraq as long as Haliburton and McDonnel Douglass need us to. I mean if you want to stay home, and opt out, that is your prerogative. But any woman who votes for john McCain is a total trader to her gender (and IMO all fair minded people) my .02

    People (none / 0) (#218)
    by nell on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:37:50 AM EST
    have the right to vote for whoever they want to vote for.

    I so betrayed when Howard Dean refused to stand up against the sexism in the media but was too happy to say that it was racist to talk about Rev. Wright. Why didn't he stand up for women bashing in the press if he was willing to stand up for what he perceived to be racism? Women BEGGED him to make a statement and he did nothing.

    So don't talk to me about how I will be a traitor to my gender if I refuse to vote for Obama in November. The DNC did not stand by me, they did not stand by women, and should I choose to vote for McCain in the fall, I won't bat an eye. Why should I stand up for the party that refused to stand up for me?


    You cannot believe it? You better (none / 0) (#250)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 09, 2008 at 01:42:35 PM EST
    Because it ain't The ONE

    Some of us will volte McCain
    Some will wright in Hillary
    Some will stay home
    Some will vote Nader because of Matt Gonzalez as VP

    You see, lot's of choices, but Not the One


    Obama will have big GE problems (none / 0) (#204)
    by pluege on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:20:01 AM EST
    working-class white males are not Obama's only problem, I think the majority of women - including the black women that overwhelmingly chose race over gender are generally pretty pissed at the way HRC has been treated by the media and by Obama. It is going to take a powerful amount of sucking up to women for many to get over it and all I've seen so far from Obama is typical arrogance and condescension.  

    The general calculus as to why HRC was a better choice for the GE:

    A) most Obama supporters would vote for HRC in the GE.

    B) many HRC supporters may not vote for Obama in the GE because they are either racist or very turned-off by Obama and hence far less likely to 'get over it' for the GE.

    I've been beating this horse... (none / 0) (#215)
    by sar75 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:33:31 AM EST
    ...for weeks here and elsewhere. The structural advantages favoring the Democratic candidate this year are just so overwhelming as to make a McCain victory all but impossible.  The fact that we also have two candidates who are vastly more compelling than Kerry almost assures a victory.

    If people drive to the polls with $4 gas, 6+ % unemployment, 80% saying we're on the wrong track, and Bush's approval at 25%, there's no way McCain wins. Clinton or Obama win in their sleep.

    this is what obama banked on by (none / 0) (#240)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:14:12 PM EST
    hijacking the dem brand.  what he doesn't realize yet is that even that won't be enough to vault this impostor into power.

    It is actully laughable (none / 0) (#238)
    by thea2b on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    The "we will vote with our vaginas" quote. And what is it that is speaking/voting now?

    Hell hath no fury?

    Well not for this one, I will vote for the candidate that best mirrors what I would like to see for the future of this country.

    And that will be Obama

    Um, that's nice (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by janarchy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:23:50 PM EST
    Some of us are tired of the abusive language, treatment and general tone of the race coming from the Obama camp. Feel free to revel in your Unity. Some of us ain't buying that crap any longer.