home

Meanwhile In West Virginia . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:38:30 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Hillary Clinton will blow out Obama 66-23:

Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 57% to 27% among men (43% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 72% to 20%. Clinton leads 70% to 19% among white voters (93% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 91% to 3% among African American voters (5% of likely Democratic primary voters).

But West Virginia is a state that does not count to the Obama Movement. It has those white working class voters that the Creative Class is trying to purge from the Party:

Cultural Shift: Out with Bubbas, up with Creatives. . . . Obama has all the markers of a creative class background, from his community organizing, to his Unitarianism, to being an academic, to living in Hyde Park to shopping at Whole Foods and drinking PBR. These will be the type of people running the Democratic Party now, and it will be a big cultural shift from the white working class focus of earlier decades. . . . Culturally, the Democratic Party will feel pretty normal to netroots types. It will consistently send out cultural signals designed to appeal primarily to the creative class instead of . . . the white working class.

More...

(Emphasis supplied.) Wow! Obama's Creative Class supporters are really his worst enemies now. Thank Gawd so relatively few people read the blogs.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

Comments closed.

< Barack Obama Is Electable, But . . . | Is It Bad To Compare Obama To Kerry? >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Meanwhile In West Virginia . . . | 232 comments (232 topical)
    Just a question on Obama's supporters (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by thomphool on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:46:12 AM EST
    I keep hearing some say, "Judge Obama on the candidate, not on the nature and tone of his supporters."  If the underlying logic of the argument for Obama's campaign is that the way to change politics and effect change for good on policy is to create a chorus of unified voices and a movement for change, isn't it completely fair, even necessary to judge Obama's campaign by the tone and tenor of his supporters?

    This is REALLY starting to worry me as we head towards the fall.  Obama, more than most campaigns, is opening himself up to his supporters being used against him.  I'm just picturing the ads right now  juxtaposing Obama talking about "the movement" and the wave of support and contrasting it with the actual words of supporters, and it's frightening.  BTD is right, the relative low reach of most of this stuff is fine for now, but all it takes is one well placed use of this for it to come back and hurt Democrats in the fall.

    not really becuase (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:51:14 AM EST
    how do we define which supporters? just because Bloggers support a candidate should we judge the candidate by them? because Hillary has plenty of Bloggers she wouldn't want a photo op with.

    I mean which supporters should reflect on a candidate? only the paid ones? the ones who volunteer for the campaign?

    should Hillary be judged by her supporters that feel she should be President because Obama is a racist Muslim who will destroy the Country?

    once you say you judge the candidate by their supporters where do you draw the line? because every time I get grouped with Daily Kos, I then group all of you with Hillaryis44.

    [ Parent ]

    The logic of Clinton's campaign wasn't a movement (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by thomphool on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:49 AM EST
    The logic of Obama's is.  It's not to say that it's one size fits all in tone and tenor, but if the most vociferous supporters take on the tone of Bowers, et al., I'm scared.  

    [ Parent ]
    What's Kind of funny (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by talex on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:21:12 AM EST
    about Bowers et al is they are embracing their sacred creative class (talk about elitist!) - throwing the poor White guys off the bus - but embracing the poor Black voters.

    I don't think it is racial because after all
    Bowers is a White creative class guy. What it is all about is who votes for Obama. In this case Blacks are worth more than Whites because of how they vote.

    But in his post Bowers takes it a bit too far by calling the White guys Bubbas who don't shop at Whole Foods.

    Talk about living in a bubble! Talk about elitist!

    [ Parent ]

    You hit the nail right on the head (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by OxyCon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:45:46 AM EST
    For the Bowers, Stollers and D-Day's, they like to eat food from "Whole Fooods", but they themselves have thrown the guy who grew their "Whole Food" out of their really kewl new party.
    And to them the AA vote is just like Steven Colbert's "black friend" Alan...they help assuage their racial guilt.
    If only we had a modern day Shakespeare to riff on this stuff.

    [ Parent ]
    Great comment (none / 0) (#225)
    by talex on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:01:59 AM EST
    regrading Colbert's "black friend" Alan.

    I guess one could think of "The White Man's Burden" too.

    But do we hear these White Creative Class Obama huggers saying anything about NOLA or improving inner city schools?

    The truth is that when examining Obama and his spotty record and his overt embrace of Republicans and some of their ideology - people like Bowers who call themselves Progressives have sold themselves out.

    [ Parent ]

    my question is whats the standard? (none / 0) (#55)
    by TruthMatters on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    obviously I doubt anyone here thinks ALL supporters should reflect on their candidate

    so which ones? because obviously whatever standard you place on Obama I will place on Clinton and we both know Hillary has bad ones just like Obama

    so before we play this attack the candidate by their supporters, what standards would YOU want me to use for Hillary?

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not going to engage in this (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by thomphool on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:09:40 AM EST
    I'm not going to engage in the tactic of the way of responding of to criticism is turning it around and discussing the faults with Clinton.  The fact is, Clinton was to a large extent judged in the MSM by the tone of some of the most vile of her supporters.  Outside of the LBJ comment (which she was correct about, btw) the entire racism charge stemmed from judging her campaign by what her supporters said.  If this happens to Obama in the fall, we're screwed.  Frankly, I don't care what standard you use.  That's your prerogative and it's going to be the prerogative of the media what standard they use to judge Obama's supporters.  

    I'm trying to be constructive and identify a problem that Democrats have to deal with in the fall.  If we are the one's we've been waiting for, we better be on our best behavior to show people that it was worth the wait.  I'm concerned that the chattering class is actively undermining their own goal.

    [ Parent ]

    They are in a habit of blaming clinton (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:21:46 AM EST
    for everything.

    It's very sad to see them continue it.

    [ Parent ]

    I suppose decency (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:11:04 AM EST
    would be a primary standard.  How many Jefferson-Jackson dinners has Clinton been booed at, only to be followed by Obama, who said nothing to the boo-ers?  How many debates, how many arena speeches, has Obama attended where his supporters childishly boo her, and he's either smiled, smirked, or just waited for it to end and said nothing to denounce such rudeness?

    I'm talking about concrete examples where Obama was himself faced with this type of behavior and condoned it by saying nothing.

    How is this different from McCain chuckling when a woman asked him how he planned to beat the b*tch?

    So, I would ask you to hold Clinton to this standard of decency.  For all she's decried as breaking the party in two, she has consistently said that Obama is a good person, but he's just not qualified.  She has consistently said that she would support him if he won the nomination.  She has consistently said that the party will be united.

    Obama's just started humming that tune (as with everything, he follows Clinton's lead)

    [ Parent ]

    Don't Recall Seeing Obama Ever Address (5.00 / 5) (#179)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:41:16 AM EST
    the behavior of his supporters in regards to Tavis Smiley. Tavis received death threats, his family was harassed and he had to leave his job on he radio because of the abuse of Obama supporters. The only comment I remember Obama making about this, is that he would talk to Tavis.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Not trolling- but need to respond (none / 0) (#195)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:47:11 AM EST
    He has talked about tavis in the black media, mainly radio.  Very good discussions. No attacks.  Unfortunately (but for good reason), we as Black people are so afraid of black people stepping outside the accepted discussion.  This fear has occured I believe, because conservatives(mostly) get a black guy to repeat their conservative nonsense so they can say, see we aren't racist for believing X, Y or Z (the same thing happens with women's rights see abortion and title 9)

    [ Parent ]
    Did Obama Ever Tell His Supporters Black Or (none / 0) (#227)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:02:58 AM EST
    white to stop the attacks on Tavis? I have listened to Tavis Smiley on the radio and on TV for years. There is no way Tavis should be put into the same category as the black conservatives and anyone who is familiar with Tavis and his work should darn well know that. What exactly was Tavis crime? He criticized Obama for not attending a black function.

    Sorry, unless Obama denounced this type of behavior as completely unacceptable, my comment still stands.

    [ Parent ]

    To be fair . . . (none / 0) (#152)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:32:43 AM EST
    I have seen Obama scold those booing Clinton at his events and tell them that they should commend Senator Clinton for her service and for running a strong and historic campaign.  

    I haven't seen every speech, but he has complimented her in every single speech I have seen him give since the beginning of the campaign.

    [ Parent ]

    To be fair (5.00 / 5) (#194)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:46:38 AM EST
    I have seen Obama wiping his shoulder and his shoe to signify brushing Clinton away like dirt off his shoulders.  

    I'm torn between why this bothers me so much: because it's childish?  Because it's sexist?  Because it's arrogant?  Because it invokes a rap artist who calls women b*tches and wh*res?

    Myriad reasons, and most d*mning of all, this is from the candidate himself, not a surrogate, not a blogger boy, but a 47 year old father of two who is seeking the democratic nomination for the presidency.

    [ Parent ]

    He did that in the context (none / 0) (#218)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:57:43 AM EST
    of comments about how he thought negative attacks upon him should be dealt with.  He was suggesting that they should not be responded to.

    If you want to criticize him for his musical preferences . . . I can't argue with that.

    [ Parent ]

    OH PLEASE. (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:00:18 AM EST
    He has done NOTHING but call her character into question time and time and time again.  

    [ Parent ]
    He has said (4.75 / 4) (#170)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:37:52 AM EST
    she had bad character and poor judgment.

    He has portrayed her and Bill as racists and 93% of AA's are now voting for him because of it.

    You think he has been decent to her?

    [ Parent ]

    Lie (1.00 / 2) (#183)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:42:03 AM EST
    He has never said she has bad character.

    [ Parent ]
    Truth. (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:45:44 AM EST
    He said she would do ANYTHING to win.  No matter the cost. He has attacked her character time and time and time again. He has called her a racist, He has called her a liar (Bosnia??), he has painted Bill our great Democrat as a Republican-lite that inherited a good economy. He has disgusted me.  The only way I would ever vote for Obama is if he got down on both knees and BEGGED both Clintons for forgiveness for the way he has painted them. And even then, I probably still wouldn't.

    [ Parent ]
    How can one a campaign (none / 0) (#214)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:55:56 AM EST
    without painting onesself as being the candidate with superior judgment and character?

    And while I don't agree with those who suggest the Clintons are racists, some of their statements have lent themselves to charges of a racial undercurrent.  I am not AA, so I cannot judge those who reacted negatively to those comments.

    He has not been kind to her.  But I have never seen a campaign this close, with this much passion be run so positively on both sides (and I say that at someone who has been greatly angered by rhetoric from the Clinton campaign).

    [ Parent ]

    If I was King of the World . . . (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:04:38 AM EST
    deal with realities, not what should be please.

    [ Parent ]
    If the creative class which I call the (none / 0) (#220)
    by thereyougo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:57:54 AM EST
    Kindergarten class, are OK with Obama throwing them under the bus when they urged him not to go to Fox news, and the other times it served Obama's purposes, then this bunch's 15 mins. of fame will be over soon enough for lack of cred. They'll become the fringe group that look their noses down on Hillary's supporters now.

    Ironic that.

    As someone said, they'll only be relevant in their own minds. I 2nd that emotion.

    [ Parent ]

    Supporters to be Judged by (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by Rhouse on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:00:42 AM EST
    should include Donna B. and her fabulous e-mails.  They show such caring and concern for all parts of the Democratic party.  Oh but wait, since I'm an older voter from PA I can't be a Democrat, and if I was a woman, well then just send me to the ninth circle.

    [ Parent ]
    Should we? No (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:03:58 AM EST
    Do people do it? Yes.

    [ Parent ]
    Two words... (none / 0) (#209)
    by lectric lady on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:53:00 AM EST
    Donna Brazile

    [ Parent ]
    It is not all blogs (none / 0) (#213)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:55:06 AM EST
    You only mention the blogs, but when Donna spouts it out on CNN, it has gone beyond blogs. The funny part of that is most of the bloggers do not even realize they are not part of the new order being put forth. They are really members of a community and a movement, but in the end they will be left out when their agenda is not inacted. This is all about getting elected. And in Indiana, when Lake held up those votes. He did not want Hillary to get a chance to be able to raise more money and have a victory speech in prime time. This was very apparent also. People noticed without the help from the blogs but the mayor is a supporter also. So, blogs and TV and goofy mayors and MSNBC are all supporters. Even now, Obama does not want the rest of the country's votes to count. He does not want Hillary ending with support from PR. He would prefer not to see WV or Kentucky. So I have to judge him for his supporters and history and his demeanor. And at one time I thought him a good candidate until I examined the flaws. Too many for me. Sorry, guess I am in that Hillary group and proud of it.

    [ Parent ]
    It's all on the net (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:19:13 AM EST
    Its all on the net. If I were Rove i'd be nexus lexusing Dkos for the juicey comments.

    [ Parent ]
    Who is the leader? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:20:31 AM EST
    The tone of supporters echo the tone of the leader.  Sorry, I have heard his speeches and have watched him closely.

    He claims to be above petty, personal attacks.  That has been demonstrated to not be true.

    He complains that being attacked and distractions keep him from discussing issues that are important in his stump speeches.  Well, that is what he is choosing to talk about instead of what he plans to do.  He chooses to highlight negativity of Hillary instead of discussing issues in a meaningful way most of the time.

    Effective leaders control the tone of their supporters.  When SD's come out to support him, he should ask them not to personally attack Clinton as one reason for supporting him.  

    There are several problems with his leadership that indicate to me that he cares only for a certain coalition.  He does not seem to care about many Americans and their needs.  It is all about him.

    I think that is the tone he has set.  Many of his supporters follow the leader.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama suggests certain things (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:25:51 AM EST
    his surrogates reinforce the suggestions and th efans act out.

    That's the basic structure.

    They are still acting out on Clinton though. It's sad.

    [ Parent ]

    I certainly see that!! (none / 0) (#149)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:31:08 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama has played the Victim Card (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:44:30 AM EST
    quite successfully.
    He's repeatedly stated "people in Washington thought we couldn't win" - ha!  
    He presents himself as an "outsider" - while the Washington establishment has promoted him from the gitgo.
    A newbie naive senator would never run without the backing of the Washington establishment.

    [ Parent ]
    His supporters (none / 0) (#43)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:59:47 AM EST
    Must, MUST be curtailed. This will become a definite problem in the fall. We're trying to win over voters, not push them away.

    [ Parent ]
    You have it backwards. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:19:57 AM EST
    sadly.

    [ Parent ]
    I try to do that (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:20:38 AM EST
    But when Open Left is writing what it is as are the other Obama sites, it is becoming near impossible to stop it.

    The problem is mollifying the supporters of Clinton here.

    I wonder that Obama supporters are not getting that.

    [ Parent ]

    That's what i don't understand about 'em (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:24:47 AM EST
    I'm cool with Obama, although I get extremely critical.

    But I also realize what the Clinton supporters are going through. Terrible amount of pain seeing someone you are loyal to get beaten.

    One thing I like about the Clintion supporters is that loyalty.

    You'd think Obama fans would realize that vigorous energy should be embraces and redirected against the GOP.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup. Well said. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:39:23 AM EST
    I think for some it is hard because that energy is still directed at Obama.  

    For some it will be impossible, just as it will be impossible for some Clinton supporters to support Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    I am a part of the creative class (5.00 / 5) (#202)
    by BigB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:50:01 AM EST
    And I don't like the ideological purge that is taking place in the Democratic party right now.

    The Obama wing of the party needs to be stopped before it ruins the Democratic party.

    This is what we went through during the McGovern campaign and Middle America deserted us and it took Bill Clinton to bring them back to the party.

    The parallel to the late 60s and early 70s is eerie.

    On the other hand, this may have to work out on its own. Maybe the party needs to face the electoral consequences of the Obama wing alienating the rest of us.

    [ Parent ]

    Excellent comment (4.66 / 3) (#223)
    by eric on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST
    and one that shows an appreciation for history.  I am also part of the "creative class", at least as it is defined, and completely agree with you.  I hear comparisons to Adlai Stevenson and Obama, but I do think the better comparison is McGovern.

    Listen people, you can be a professional, shop at whole foods, drink PBR, and not be condescending or feel superior.  I am happy that many of the up-and-coming urban professionals are not turning into me-first Republicans like happened in the 80's.  But I don't want them to be me-first Democrats either.

    [ Parent ]

    Listen to yourself (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by eric on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:21:08 AM EST
    isn't it time to start working FOR something rather than AGAINST?  If Obama really does have this thing wrapped up, wouldn't it be smarter to make some friends?

    [ Parent ]
    media pundtis have placed responsibility (none / 0) (#199)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:49:02 AM EST
    on the "loser" meaning Hillary to "bring the party together."
    ha!
    She's been much more unifying than Obama.
    But Obama and his bots will continue the "beat the bitch" meme until he's officially the nominee - unaware of the permanent damage they're creating.
    They can't seem to stop.


    [ Parent ]
    I refuse to uprate those comments. (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:41:52 AM EST
    That's just my choice.  I learned something about standards from Daily Kos before they became what they are now.

    I learned one thing this primary season.  I've learned whose judgement I can trust and who will throw logic, objectivity and rationality to the wind when they jump on the bandwagon.  Ann Coulter used to be my standard for use of logical fallacies, ad hominems and overall bad, over wrought writing.  Now she has plenty of competition on the leftblogs.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has deliberately distanced himself (none / 0) (#139)
    by chancellor on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:28:44 AM EST
    from some of his strongest supporters--AAs, blogosphere, Move-On--because, right now, he needs their votes. However, I predict that this will come back to haunt him in the GE, assuming that he's the nominee. Many voters may know nothing about the blogs, but, thanks to the traditional media, a lot of them have heard of Move-On and the (IMO) incredibly poorly worded ad run by Move-On in the NYT. There are some inflammatory stories that never die: the General Betray Us and the Kos comment about mercenaries, for two. McCain's campaign, and the news media, will hitch those to Obama like gum to the bottom of your shoe. Obama is trying to run as the Bloomberg candidate, but he'll end up being painted as the Nader candidate--too scary for typical Americans. Even though Obama has deliberately avoided being seen to court even the AAs who are so heavily supporting him, as well as Move-On and the vast majority of the blogosphere, his inability to deal with this type of support now, rather than later, will be the source of his "swiftboating" in the campaign by the Repubs.

    [ Parent ]
    The main assault on him (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:37:01 AM EST
    will be the fiction that he presents about being post-racial and post-ideological.

    Dreams from my Father, Wright and Ayers will explode the myths that he has had to create to appeal to Iowa and the rest of middle America.

    His speech in 2004 directly contradicts many of Obama's written steaments in his autobiography.

    [ Parent ]

    Just a question about the nature of Obama support (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by thomphool on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:47:42 AM EST
    I keep hearing some say, "Judge Obama on the candidate, not on the nature and tone of his supporters."  If the underlying logic of the argument for Obama's campaign is that the way to change politics and effect change for good on policy is to create a chorus of unified voices and a movement for change, isn't it completely fair, even necessary to judge Obama's campaign by the tone and tenor of his supporters?

    This is REALLY starting to worry me as we head towards the fall.  Obama, more than most campaigns, is opening himself up to his supporters being used against him.  I'm just picturing the ads right now  juxtaposing Obama talking about "the movement" and the wave of support and contrasting it with the actual words of supporters, and it's frightening.  BTD is right, the relative low reach of most of this stuff is fine for now, but all it takes is one well placed use of this for it to come back and hurt Democrats in the fall.  

    So what? WV is racist (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:50:04 AM EST
    And they don't deserve to be part of the new Democrat Party that Obama and the "creative class" are building.

    Away with them!

    Why is WV racist and NC not? (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:04:42 AM EST
    Obama gets 92% of blacks and that's not racist???

    Obama as played the race card almost perfectly.
    Almost.

    But 92% of less than 12% of the population will not get Obama in the White House.  And there are WAY more "Bubbas" than so-called "Creatives".  The Bubbas will be going to McCain.

    Now is that racist, or just the facts?

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't you know? (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:09:05 AM EST
    Only white people can be deemed racist.

    [ Parent ]
    I do believe (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Lil on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:26:03 AM EST
    that white racism is different than when in reverse. Issues of privilege and which goups have traditionally been part of the dominant/powerful is at play here. Racism is more than an individual acting like a jerk to someone of a different race. It is so much more and it is systemic and a pattern of coercive control and is about who has power and who doesn't.  

    As a white person, I try to be am ally to people of color. My aggravation has been that people of color have not reciprocated (by and large) by being an ally to women by fighting misogyny/sexism, not to mention being an ally to gays or any other typically marginalized group.

    OT, That said, I just sent money to HRC. Miracles can happen, I say with fingers crossed.

    [ Parent ]

    "who has power and who doesn't" (none / 0) (#175)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:39:30 AM EST
    so if Obama is elected does that mean they can be racists too?


    [ Parent ]
    of course not (none / 0) (#184)
    by Lil on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:42:20 AM EST
    Identity politics doesn't always mean it is racist. Of course anyone can misuse power.

    [ Parent ]
    AAs (none / 0) (#198)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:48:11 AM EST
    are fast becoming a "pseudo-minority". Emmanual Todd's Apres L'Empire illustrated how what he termed as the "Anglo-Saxon" anthropological system--creates in groups and out groups. In years passed blacks were definitely an out group.  Various European ethnics groups at one time or another were also out groups but were assimilated. Catholic Irish and Italians most famously.

    With the advent of America' wars in the Middle east and South Asia the system found a new out group to turn into a boogey man  (possibly immigration hysteria has deemed Latinos to be an out group now.)

    So yeah you might find Aas adopt some interesting habits now.

    [ Parent ]

    AAs are a minority (none / 0) (#182)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:42:03 AM EST
    under enormous pressure.  

    Latinos are displacing them economically and demographically, and are on the thresh hold of geographic domination of the South West.

    Also one interesting thing about 9/11 is that blacks became much less feared by whites and the Arabs and South Asians became the racial boogy man.  Ironically 9/11 made it more likely for a black man or woman to become president.

    [ Parent ]

    Only people with power.... (none / 0) (#216)
    by kdog on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:56:16 AM EST
    can be racist...a racist with no power is simply prejudiced.

    [ Parent ]
    Battle (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:10:34 AM EST
    Bozos vs. the Bubbas.  

    [ Parent ]
    I hope this comment is deleted. n/t (none / 0) (#16)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:52:12 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Lighten up (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:53:41 AM EST
    It's obviously snark.

    [ Parent ]
    Why? (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:02:36 AM EST
    Bowers' comment is reflected n that comment.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't! n/t (none / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:54:53 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It is the "Bubba" camp that... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:50:06 AM EST
    will put McCain in office in November.

    I'm sorry that the Democratic Party has decided to abandon the BlueDog Democrats who have kept this party going though the Reagan years and these Bush years for the new "strange" the so called "Creative" Class that brings the same kind of liberal/leftist thinking that drove many away back in the 80s.

    Like my mom said, the Democratic Party is on a suicide mission.  And I refuse to aid them in this endeavor.

    Hillary Clinton-  Still. The. Right. Choice.

    That is why Dems lose in the fall. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by DJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:32:13 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Riiiight. (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by rooge04 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:34:55 AM EST
    Real Dems that don't believe in universal healthcare and that are for tort reform and that praise Reagan!

    New Dems! Yay!

    [ Parent ]

    Neocon mentality (5.00 / 7) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:50:13 AM EST
    I see so many parallels.  They won, but they destroyed the Republican party.  They created an unlikely coalition based on vague notions and ideas of a "movement".   The "progressive boiz" were so envious, all they could do is imitate the Kristols et. al.

    Stellaaa (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:53:49 AM EST
    I was just quoting you on the other thread.  I think you're so right on this.  The dem party is going to be completely redefined going forward.  The core values-working for the middle class, fighting for social justice-are being slowly picked off.

    How many more idiots can we absorb before the brand becomes diluted?

    [ Parent ]

    sorry (none / 0) (#128)
    by CanadianDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:26:34 AM EST
    but as an outside observer I see it as quite the opposite....the equivalent of the Repub warblogger class was stopped from taking over the dem party and leading the the way of Malkin.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by eric on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:55:11 AM EST
    it's almost like they envision themselves the intelligentsia or something.

    I do not believe that they share the same devotion to Democratic Ideals that I believe form the basis of the party.  Inclusion, equality, fairness.

    These people are practically planning a purge.

    [ Parent ]

    I comment about core (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by eric on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    Democratic Ideals, inclusion, equality, fairness, and you respond with:

    there are more of us than you, so we win.

    Do you not see the problem with this?  How old are you?


    [ Parent ]

    What You Fail To Realize Is Now That (none / 0) (#211)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:53:50 AM EST
    Obama is going to be the nominee, we, the Clinton supporters don't need you, but Obama does need us.

    [ Parent ]
    You joined today (none / 0) (#234)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:12:56 AM EST
    just to make these kinds of comments?  What do you think you're proving here?  That you can p!ss off even more people?  Yesterday BTD was trying to get discussion going on a unity ticket etc trying to bring the party together, and you come drop this garbage?

    Oh yea, I forgot to say welcome.  My guess is you aren't new, just a new name, the same old same old anyways.

    [ Parent ]

    You are so right (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by DJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:15:26 AM EST
    And hopefully after four years of McCain the Democratic Party will rediscover itself and be the better for it.  It's a shame though that more than likely we have lost the best presidential candidate we have had in my lifetime.  I want better for my children.  

    [ Parent ]
    Amen, Friend (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by flashman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:37:44 AM EST
    And let me also point out that the party is missing a historical opportunity to win back the coalition that made it once viable.  The so-called "Regan Democrats", working class, union people, rural Democrats, etc.  They were ready to defect back to the party, till the party told them that they aren't needed anymore.  How long will it take before they give it another chance?

    [ Parent ]
    That's what is so counter intuitive (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:50:45 AM EST
    about Obama's campaign.

    The idea for 2008 was IMHO was to recapture the Reagan Dems.

    Obama probably can't do that.

    [ Parent ]

    honestly (none / 0) (#144)
    by CanadianDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:30:28 AM EST
    it's disheartening to see such venom from people who didn't get what they wanted.  Instead of wallowing in (and almost seemingly enjoying it) 'McCain will win defeatist' rhetoric why not get up, stand up and continue your battle from within the Dem party, represent the views and ideas you hold dear, just because your pol apparently has not won doesn't mean take you ball and go home.

    Stand up for your beliefs and forge ahead, it does no one any good for you to throw up your arms and say 'as well they'll learn after 4 years of McCain'...that not only imperils your country but your own desires as well.

    [ Parent ]

    Once again... (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:34:07 AM EST
    Obama's platform does not reflect our beliefs.

    He has divided the Party among racial lines.

    He has not asked for our vote.

    Why should we support him?

    Telling us to suck it up will not work.

    You do not understand the problem.

    [ Parent ]

    The NDP is not my party. (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by DJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:35:32 AM EST
    I've always considered myself more of an independent anyway.  Almost always vote Dem though.  And no, it's not because  I didn't get what I want.  It's because I will not support and encourage the extreme behavior encouraged by the Obama campaign.  My resolve strengthens when I see it on the right and when I see it on the left.  I support Hillary because she can get it done.  Obama is just a corporate suit.  
    But thank you for your concern.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:51:27 AM EST
    I just don't see how this kind of blow-out will be ignored by anyone with a brain in their head (and not in their a*s...)

    People are going to start asking, "if he is winning, why does he keep losing?"

    KY is arguably a swing state.  It's not Utah.  Clinton has a chance there.  Taylor Marsh had a quote from Mr Potato Head yesterday that came before IN/NC, wherein he said that if Clinton won IN, Obama was in trouble.

    I think that dynamic hasn't changed.

    Clinton has a chance in KY (none / 0) (#19)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:53:17 AM EST
    like Obama has a chance in TX.

    [ Parent ]
    She Actually Could Win Kentucky (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:02 AM EST
    Her husband did twice and she only trails by 2 in the latest SUSA poll.  Her numbers there are much better than Obama's numbers in Virginia despite how I keep being told that he doesn't need Ohio or Pennsylvania because he's going to turn states like VA blue.

    [ Parent ]
    There are a lot of Bubbas in Kentucky (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:58:23 AM EST
    and many of them would be happy to vote for the new and improved Hillary Clinton.

    There are only two reasons she might lose: latent sexism and single-issue abortion voters.

    [ Parent ]

    Please don't confuse the issue (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:01:33 AM EST
    with facts.  We need hope, people.  That's the only way we'll get change.

    Utah, GA, AL, NC, SC and the Dakotas are swing states.

    KY is just something republicans use for a warming sensation.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, I think Obama actually has a slim chance at (none / 0) (#39)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:58:40 AM EST
    TX.  But TX is a red state.  Same for Clinton in KY.  Hardly worth debating anyway as we are drifting off topic.  I just question classifying KY as a swing state.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama has no chance in Texas. n/t (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by DJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:18:03 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I am in Fort Worth, Texas (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:29:52 AM EST
    and he has ZERO chance to win here.  Fort Worth gave Bush the second largest plurality in the nation behind Orange County, CA back in 2004.

    Prescott Bush lives here, so do the Bass Family and a ton of other rich, conservative Repubicans.

    Obama will win Austin, but that's about it.  But then again, McGovern could win Austin. 4,526,917 people voted for Bush here in 2004.

    Doubt that Obama will get to that number...or even half of it.

    [ Parent ]

    Hey I'm in FW too! (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by DJ on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:38:06 AM EST
    can you think of any place in Texas other than a few spots where he could win?  There is not a chance.  Our neighbors didn't talk to us for several months for having a Kerry sign in our yard!  

    [ Parent ]
    I can tell you where he will LOSE (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:42:29 AM EST
    big time:  the Rio Grande Valley and south TX.  They carried the state for Clinton.  Robbstown, which is a small town outside of Corpus Christi, had 9000 people show up to see Clinton.  

    Old school Latinos and Dems remember her and Bill from the 1970s.  Those guys know what's going on with the purge.  They will not vote for him in the fall.

    I know a DJ here in FW...he's a political consultant.

    [ Parent ]

    Naw (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:00:25 AM EST
    Hillary has more of a chance to take KY AND TX than Obama would but neither state will be won by a Dem.

    [ Parent ]
    Which was my point. n/t (none / 0) (#54)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:01:56 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Why Are We Calling KY Red? (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by flashman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:45:43 AM EST
    In that last 4 elections, it swung twice blue and twice red.  That's the very definition of a swing state!

    [ Parent ]
    Rasmussen declared Obama has won (none / 0) (#226)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:02:22 AM EST
    and will soon discontinue daily tracking polls of Hillary and Obama.
    Today - Obama 50, Hillary 42


    [ Parent ]
    Balony! (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by flashman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:11:04 AM EST
    That makes me rather angry.  RCP average has the spread Less Than 1%

    But more importantly, it shows the polls tightening in recent polling.  I reject any tomfollery about this being over.

    [ Parent ]

    If only your opinion (none / 0) (#22)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:54:30 AM EST
    mattered to me.  Or, dare I say, anyone here...

    [ Parent ]
    Come on Kathy (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:01:12 AM EST
    All we have is our opinions. No need to be nasty.

    [ Parent ]
    sorry (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:03:53 AM EST
    since Tues, the new trolls have made me feel a bit like I'm being nibbled to death by ducks.

    [ Parent ]
    Kathy . . . (none / 0) (#83)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:11:01 AM EST
    while I haven't participated that much here, I have been here since BTD's first days here.  I'm sorry you think I am a troll.  I am opinionated and I do support a different candidate.  But I do try to be respectful here.  My response to your comment was an attempt to be reality based and suggest that no Dem will win either state.

    [ Parent ]
    I was talking about trolls in general (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:16:24 AM EST
    though I have to admit that I find your recent post about how we Clinton supporters need to just accept the reality that Obama has won, and get over it, extremely condescending.

    I am not a child.  I can do addition just as well as anyone else.  If this race were over, then Obama would be the clear winner.  The SDs have not moved toward him for a reason.

    The last time I checked, the dem party was the party that demanded all voted be counted.  Perhaps you should wait to unfurl your Mission Accomplished banner until after the primaries are completed.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm beginning to wonder about my addition... (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by sweetthings on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:21:29 AM EST
    Because this whole 'it's over' meme is really taking off this time. Rasmussen has just announced that they are ending their daily tracking poll for the Democratic nomination, since it's effectively been decided. They will focus on Obama-McCain polls going forward.

    Did the 50-Super wave materialize when I wasn't looking?

    [ Parent ]

    Please forgive my (none / 0) (#97)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:18:01 AM EST
    exuberance.  I mean that.  I am anxious to move on to the GE so we can try to repair the divisions in the party and I do believe the race is all but finished.  I did not mean to offend.

    [ Parent ]
    thank you (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:24:15 AM EST
    and, again, I'm a bit hot-tempered because of the recent influx of trolls, especially since Tuesday.  

    And I don't accept the "inevitable" theme.  Two weeks ago, Obama was supposed to take IN and NC by huge margins.  All those elections proved to me (and I daresay BTD) was that Obama is in deep crap because he's losing large swaths of the voting blocs he needs for the ge.

    The only way to "heal" is to have a clear winner who is perceived as having fairly won the nomination.  Without FL and MI decided, and without these last primaries being held where voters get a say, then we don't have that.  These calls for Clinton to drop out so that Obama can win are just insulting to me.  Even Huckabee, who was three zillion delegates behind, was not railed against for destroying the party.

    Let all the votes count.  The biggest thing that is splitting the party is people saying that the party is splitting.

    [ Parent ]

    Here' s some history for all of you (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:23:40 AM EST
    This guy, named Bill Clinton, won Kentucky twice back in the 1990s.  Maybe I am being a politically optimistic, but it wouldn't be a stretch for him to go there and maybe make some inroads for Senator Clinton.

    And here's another tidbit:  Obama called NC a swing state.  If that's true, then that goes for Texas, since the last time NC 'swung' for a Dem was Jimmy Carter.

    OMG I am SO glad I am not part of those high-fallutin' creative class types.

    [ Parent ]

    He is not a troll (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:17:56 AM EST
    I have known him forever. You want to see more Obama supporters like him.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you my friend. (none / 0) (#116)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:22:36 AM EST
    But Kathy is right that I could be more sensitive towards Clinton supporters right now.

    I do try but I am still half in advocacy mode and half caught up in the exuberance of a succesful campaign.  

    [ Parent ]

    Totally (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:25:47 AM EST
    Obama kicked some major butt out in Utah and Idaho.  Can't wait to see those turn sapphire blue in the fall.

    Meanwhile California is going to be up for grabs.  

    [ Parent ]

    Nice. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:57:11 AM EST
    Peace and good health to you.

    [ Parent ]
    Bill Clinton won Kentucky. Twice. (none / 0) (#41)
    by madamab on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:59:16 AM EST
    It's a possibility.

    [ Parent ]
    Yikes (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by eric on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:51:41 AM EST
    that is scary.  Out with the Bubbas?  These people are too-the-core elitists.  They sure do think a lot of themselves, too.

    The worst part is that they seem to be betraying the core Democratic value of fighting for the lower classes.

    These people have been leading this "netroots" phenomenon for years now.  Has this always been their goal?

    Least of all Obama himself ... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:51:52 AM EST
    who has made his disdain of the left blogs all too clear.
    Thank Gawd so relatively few people read the blogs.

    It's one thing that gives me hope. Leaving aside the frenzied and irrational Hillary-bashing, what most strikes me over at AgentOrange these days is how much bad advice is being proferred to Obama.

    I keep thinking to myself: Do any of these people actually want to win in November?

    trying to purge from the Party: (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:52:03 AM EST
    you know what
    this could be the only area the succeed in completely.

    The last time the purged the party (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:08:20 AM EST
    we had Reagan and Bush for 12 years and a Republican Congress for 12 years.

    So much for the elite taking the Democrats to the promise land.

    [ Parent ]

    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    Thank Gawd so relatively few people read the blogs.
    MSM (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:55:26 AM EST
    Few people read the blog, but I think the MSM use them.  As the MSM saves money and gets rid of valid reporters, the garner much of their "news" and attitudes from the blogs.  I don't think lots of people read them but they do get impact when the MSM in their laziness, spreads their venom.

    [ Parent ]
    It's true (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:27 AM EST
    and I can remember a time when that was very useful. Now it is just destructive.

    [ Parent ]
    I hope to God (