home

Krugman A Must Read Today: What Obama Must Do

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:48:19 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Big Tent Democrat wrote about this earlier, but I want to add my thoughts. Paul Krugman's column today, Thinking About November, is excellent. If Obama is the nominee, he says there are a lot of reasons Democrats should sail to an presidential win November. Then he says there is one stumbling block and opines 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.

In other words, [More...]

Mr. Obama appears to have won the nomination with a deep but narrow base consisting of African-Americans and highly educated whites. And now he needs to bring Democrats who opposed him back into the fold.

Among his solutions is one you read all the time in the comments at TalkLeft.

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.

He also has an accurate warning for David Axlerod and Donna Brazile:

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.

And about Michigan and Florida:

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.

Let me just add, they need to count the delegates from these states in the vote and pledged and superdelegate totals before the nominee is chosen.

Krugman concluded:

The point is that Mr. Obama has an extraordinary opportunity in this year’s election. He should do everything possible to avoid squandering it.

On a related note, I'm getting a lot of e-mails asking whether TalkLeft will begin advocating against McCain once the nominee is chosen. The answer is, of course. We have always said that we will support whoever the Democratic nominee is. Any Democrat is light-years better than McCain.

There is no nominee yet. There is a "likely" nominee. But it's not a done deal and Hillary is still in the race.

Anything can happen and so long as she remains in the race, I'll keep writing about why she's a great candidate and why I think she's the better candidate to beat McCain.

Should Obama become the nominee, not just in the opinion of the media, but in reality, then I'll start concentrating on defeating McCain. It's not time yet. The problem that Krugman describes is one worthy of consideration before the nomination is decided.

< Ted Kennedy's Divisive Rhetoric | Reveling In The Demise of Their Relevance >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Krugman A Must Read Today: What Obama Must Do | 314 comments (314 topical)
    Right on! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by mg7505 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:52:41 PM EST
    But I wish Krugman had been more forceful in calling out Axelrod and Brazile.

    That would've undermined his point... (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:56:08 PM EST
    ...about the need for unity, though. You can't violently call people out, say it's for unity's sake -- or insult them and say you're a protector of party decorum -- and expect that to fly.

    Parent
    And even then (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:12:36 PM EST
    It's not like Axlrod or Brazille would consider the advice anyway.

    Parent
    They would beat (none / 0) (#23)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:16:36 PM EST
    him out of his job a Princeton.

    Parent
    In Other Words, Krugman Sees The Same (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:54:29 PM EST
    problem most of the informed, logical electorate sees as the problem for obama.  I really can't see how he is going to overcome this obstacle.  Sorry, obama people, but we need Hillary more than ever.

    Krugman.. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri May 09, 2008 at 04:58:07 PM EST
    Hits it squarely on the nailhead.  mh7505, I agree.  Someone needs to slap a muzzle on those two (at a minimum).

    Jeralyn, FWIW I had no doubts you would be working for the Dem nominee once there is one.  I've been a fan of your blog for a long time, though only an occasional poster.  Once my "stimulus" check arrives and I can spare a little cash, I'll certainly be making a contribution.

    In 3 words, Dems: Join Or Die (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:00:16 PM EST
    It's really that simple.

    And it's that grave.

    And, if the egomaniacs who think themselves in charge don't get that, they need to smell the coffee now or get out of the way of those of us who do.

    er no. (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:17:10 PM EST
    be more clear.

    Parent
    uh, i'm not joining when the people (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:18:29 PM EST
    asking are 3rd party hijackers.  i'd like to get the hijackers off the plane first, and then resume course toward the white house.

    Parent
    Right, and besides, if Democrats (none / 0) (#211)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:35:07 PM EST
    control Congress they should have the spine to protect reproductive rights against any McCain SCOTUS appointees.  Two good posts from Reclusive Leftist come to mind:

    http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=913

    http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=845

    Sen. Barack Obama had hired Pete Rouse for just such a moment.

    It was the fall of 2005, and the celebrated young senator -- still new to Capitol Hill but aware of his prospects for higher office -- was thinking about voting to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice. Talking with his aides, the Illinois Democrat expressed admiration for Roberts's intellect. Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn't want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds.

    And then Rouse, his chief of staff, spoke up. This was no Harvard moot-court exercise, he said. If Obama voted for Roberts, Rouse told him, people would remind him of that every time the Supreme Court issued another conservative ruling, something that could cripple a future presidential run. Obama took it in. And when the roll was called, he voted no.

    Maybe that's why he doesn't want to be dependent on the 'old coalition' anymore?

    Of course all this calls into question why so little has been achieved by this year's Congress, and part of the reason was that we showed them we'd vote for Lieberman no matter what policies they signed onto.

    We need to draw a line & show them that it won't work anymore.

    Parent

    tell it to the Obama camp (5.00 / 4) (#153)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:00:00 PM EST
    their the ones who keep saying they don't want us women, Latinos or the working class.

    Parent
    er, no... (none / 0) (#281)
    by chrisblask on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:36:59 PM EST
    Sorry you read it that way, but the women and latinos I work with in Obama volunteer groups don't feel the same way (I can speak for the working class myself - highschool dropout here, though mowing grass to put myself through college may disqualify me?).

    In fact, I can bring you representatives of any demographic you want to talk to who are avid Obama volunteers.

    If there is any perception that the Obama camp is exclusive of anyone, I apologize on behalf of the entire 600,000 volunteers for making you feel that way.  It is certainly quite the opposite of every intent of the entire campaign.

    -cheers

    -chris

    Parent

    Facts (5.00 / 7) (#9)
    by Athena on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:05:58 PM EST
    Why can we talk about how women and men vote - but not how the races vote?  The attacks against Hillary for her fact-based observations are nothing new - she gets blasted just for existing.

    I took a break from TL yesterday (5.00 / 11) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:08:02 PM EST
    And my world didn't fall apart, so I think it's worth pointing out there will be some who will continue to criticize Obama even after he becomes the nominee in reality.

    My impression of him certainly won't change.  Not initially, although I like to say there are some things he could do to change my impression of him (disown his supporters who are hateful towards Clinton), but anyway, I digress.

    Bottom line is what becomes of those of us who continue to criticize Obama after he becomes the nominee?  When criticizing him will be more tacitly defined as support for McCain (even if it's not!)

    At that point, I don't expect I'll be posting here anymore.

    It's not a huge thing.  What TL loses in Pro-Clinton folks they'll gain in Pro-Obama folks who will then regard TL as a Pro-Obama blog.

    Don't go Edgar! (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:16:13 PM EST
    I always appreciate your heartfelt comments. I don't know what Jeralyn would say, but I would hope she is open to all viewpoints here even after the nominee is decided.

    Parent
    A lot of what I'd have to say (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:40:37 PM EST
    Would put any blog dedicated to defeating McCain in a difficult position.

    I already have some of my comments deleted.

    Things can change.

    Most of this is up to Obama.

    And if TL wants to open this blog up to newly minted Independents who no longer have any real loyalty to the party, then that's kind of a choice that can be made as well.

    Time marches on.

    My honest opinion is that McCain's competent execution of ideas I do NOT support would still be better for the country than an incompetent execution of ideas I do support.

    This argument of mine will have a different meaning in the General Election, and one would have to respect that it would not be welcome everywhere.

    Parent

    My thought is (none / 0) (#275)
    by Dave B on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:25:57 PM EST
    I could possibly vote for Obama in the fall, but I could not stick a sign in my front yard like I have for the last 26 years.  I could not go door-to-door asking for people's vote.  And I could not bother my friends and relatives asking them to vote for him.

    It's possible things could change over time, but honestly I cannot see it.

    Parent

    I'm willing to give Obama a chance... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:18:01 PM EST
    ...to persuade me to vote for him. But I get what you are saying. However, I'm hoping that TalkLeft will continue to be a place where Obama's campaign can be assessed fairly and openly. I refuse to believe that blind loyalty to Obama is the only way to oppose McCain.

    Parent
    Blind loyalty to anyone is bad (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by chrisblask on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:36:57 PM EST
    The thing I notice most is that the insults against supporters on both sides are essentially identical.  These are stupid things to say whomever anyone thinks they are supporting by saying them.  Given that - short of an unprecedented political event of some sort - the Democratic candidate will be Sen. Obama, it is time to stop this nonsense. If Sen. Clinton's supporters cannot shake the insults against Obama and his supporters then they may as well campaingn for the Republican candidate.

    I know that this is a cool-down period and emotions in Sen. Clinton's camp need time to work out, but the time is quickly coming to beat Sen. McCain and Progressives need to keep that in mind.  

    There has always been a specific and open dialogue among all of the Obama groups that I have been part of to lay off publicly insulting Sen. Clinton or her supporters.  Even among us it hasn't been observed to the letter, and among independent commenters (iow - folks not part of any volunteer group) there have been lots of harsh things said, but I've been here a few hours and have read a large number of blatant insults against (by implication ) myself and Sen. Obama.

    MyDD.com has moderated back to a mostly Democrat site (as opposed to an insult-Obama and supporters site).  I hope that those of you on this site can heed your own words and moderate the knife throwing at members of your own party.

    -thanks

    -chris

    Parent

    I hope (5.00 / 12) (#123)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:44:45 PM EST
    you're posting this same post on DailyKOS?  Or is it only the Hillary supporters who need to cool their rhetoric.

    When Bowers and Brazille makes nasties about how they don't really need the working class and latinos, are you making big long posts about that too?

    When Teddy personally insults Clinton and thereby here supporters, do you get outraged about that too?

    Didn't think so.  If you're all about unity, you need to steadfastly look in the mirror.  It's for the winner to give the others a reason to come into the fold.  If you give no reason, we don't come.

    Parent

    There have been many (none / 0) (#187)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:18:15 PM EST
    diaries over there asking that the Clinton bashing stop.  There was one just this Wedensday.  Some people listen and change; others don't.  

    Yes, just this morning I saw a "Clinton is a racist" diary.  I didn't read it because although I do support Obama, I do like Hillary and think she is a good Democrat.

    The good news is that diary was gone juat an hour later.

    Things are improving -- they need to improve more -- but there is so movement in that direction.

    Parent

    my observations (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:33:43 PM EST
    indicate otherwise. If there is any movement there at all away from the constant lies, smears, and hatred, it is only when they begin to feel a little less threatened that she might win. As soon as she's dead, they'll stop. Otherwise, they'll continue.

    Parent
    I agree. They still feel threatened... (5.00 / 3) (#260)
    by Rainsong on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:05:55 PM EST
    As soon as she's dead, they'll stop.

    Actually, I would give them an extra 72 hours to finish abusing her corpse before they stop.

    I remember when one of the media pundits (can't remember which one, or which network, now, so many of them) said that Clinton reminded them of everybody's first wife outside the courts. And I felt chilled to the bone - they reminded me of every husband who escaped being convicted for DV, by saying "she made me do it".

    Parent

    Plus (5.00 / 1) (#283)
    by otherlisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:42:03 PM EST
    Now they are slowly waking up to the fact that if Obama does get the nomination, they might need our votes.

    Such hypocrites.

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#295)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:33:20 PM EST
    It was Mike Barnicle on CNN - I can still remember the disgusting grin on his face when he said it and all the guys on the panel snickered. Like you, it gave me the chills. Or something.

    Parent
    Sadly I agree with (none / 0) (#253)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:02:48 PM EST
    your last comment to a point.  I have seen some there really try to tone it down or call out others.  Of course, I do ignore the "Hillary evil" diaries so maybe I don't realize just how many are stll there.

    Emotions run high on both sides and the feelings are still strong.  It is too soon to let it go and move on.  

    I talk to my five-year old about the Golden Rule, I guess I figured adults would be beyond learning that lesson.

    Parent

    Personally (none / 0) (#305)
    by Nadai on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:02:04 PM EST
    I prefer a slightly different rule - Do unto others as they have done unto you.  Turning the other cheek is a good way to get slapped twice.

    Parent
    that is good news (none / 0) (#199)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:28:53 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#304)
    by Nadai on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:00:09 PM EST
    I read two of them the other day, both on the Rec List.  And both filled to the gills with Clinton hate, almost none of which was slapped down.

    If that's what the reconciliation diaries look like, God alone knows what the rest of them do.

    Parent

    Hi, Chris (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:45:16 PM EST
    I think you're right: we need to keep our eye on the ball here.  The goal is to defeat McCain in November.  He is going to be a tough candidate, and he won't pull punches.  That's why I feel very strongly that I must keep doing whatever I can to advocate for Hillary Clinton.  She's more qualified, more able, and a more seasoned politician.  She also represents the wing of the democratic party that I am in tune with: fiscally conservative, socially responsible, keeping an eye on the working class while trying to help raise them up.

    Those are incredibly important things to me, and why I am one of those liberal elites who constantly votes against my own financial interest (you don't even wanna know what I saved in taxes this year, and I'm at the 41% mark)

    Anyway, thanks for bringing that up.  It's really galvanized my resolve to keep fighting the good fight.  We have to win this thing.  Too many lives, too many future lives, are at stake.

    Rise, Hillary, Rise!

    Parent

    Good for you, Kathy! (none / 0) (#233)
    by chrisblask on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:46:54 PM EST
    Fight the good fight, believe what you believe and do so openly.

    I may not agree with you on candidates, but this cycle I do on party.  Funny that I could say much the same about Obama, so I hope (should he be the candidate) you can study his positions and come to the same conclusions about him.

    It is my hope that Dems can stop using words (not yours, but others have commented on my comments <gazes at navel.. ;~> with them) like "hate" all the time about each other.  I have gone as far as writing a short article on topic (The R Word).

    Fight for your candidate.  When this is all over, I hope we can fight together.

    -cheers!

    -chris

    Parent

    You don't even realize (5.00 / 8) (#128)
    by rnibs on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:47:04 PM EST
    it when you're doing it.  You're being condescending to HRC supporters and you think it's all our fault.

    Parent
    I completely disagree with you. (5.00 / 9) (#133)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:50:03 PM EST
    ...sorry, I just do. I don't see the reactions by both camps as identical. I'm simply not convinced. I feel greatly dissed by the Obama campaign and its surrogates, more and more each passing day. It's pointless to go over the list or to engage in any comparisons, but the feelings are real and "oh snap out of it" isn't going to change that. The one mistake that I think the Obama camp has made that is the most serious is the assumption that Clinton supporters passions and ideals are shallower than theirs, and therefore it would be easier for us to put aside our poor little hurt feelings and jump on board for the good of the party.

    Parent
    That was wonderfully said Maria... (5.00 / 5) (#259)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:04:54 PM EST
    There is and was a vast difference in the way Obama and Hillary supporters behaved.  I am tired of being belittled and my character assailed for being a Hillary supporter.

    I do not think I will get over being called a racist and a dumb menopausal bit*h for a while...

    For us girls that were tomboys and ran faster than the boys at school and had to play sports with boys because we did not have an athletic program for girls, this derision feels all too familiar and is infuriating...

    Parent

    all those years (5.00 / 3) (#269)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:12:34 PM EST
    taking the PE teacher's van to meets and having to change in the boys locker room!!!

    God, these girls today have no idea what the pre-Title IX world looked like.  It's as if they have to go back before they can move forward.

    Parent

    Sorry, as I comment below I can't (none / 0) (#252)
    by chrisblask on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:02:39 PM EST
    control the inflection my words are read with.

    I have a lot of experience with this phenomenon so I'm not offending by folks mis-reading my intent and being offended, but I find there is nothing for it but to speak regardless.  Either I have ill intent or I do not, and nothing I can say is ever likely to convince the most easily offended.  This can be taken to the philisophical extreme and it can be demonstrated that there is no way to absolutely prove good intent.

    I'm sure that most posters here who are coming from the other side of this particular pond don't mean to offend, either, and I take it as my task to moderate my emotional response to those comments and try to seek a rational discusion.

    We'll just have to talk like adults (which my oldest child is starting to realize is not all that different from the schoolyard, sometimes... ;~) and see if we can exchange ideas.

    -cheers

    -chris

    Parent

    I'm not offended by you. (5.00 / 2) (#263)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:08:28 PM EST
    I'm really just trying to explain how I feel. I am fundamentally offended by the Obama campaign pretty much from the top down. Look I don't love anybody more in this this world then my husband and children and they support Obama. If they can't convince me to support him, I doubt you can. It's up to the candidate himself. I've said that all along.

    Parent
    Where are these sites where they support (5.00 / 10) (#139)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:53:30 PM EST
    Obama and don't insult Clinton? I haven't found them. MyDD certainly allows nasty comments about her. I don't think anyone here needs a lecture about behavior except maybe from our Moms. Strangely, it is always Obama supporters who think we do.

    Parent
    It's not that easy (5.00 / 7) (#175)
    by dianem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:14:55 PM EST
    The people who have insulted us include some of the most prominent members of the Democratic Party. This would probably not matter if I really believed in Obama, but I don't. I started out as a committed Democrat, an Edwards/Obama/Clinton voter who argued passionately that we should vote for whomever eas the nominee. I have now pledged not to vote for Obama and have just signed a voter registration application to change my party affiliation from Democrat to Independent.

    I'm not just sick of Obama. I'm sick of the entire American political structure, where the media define the narrative and party leaders follow along like sheep, qualifications take a distant second to personality, and people call for unity while stabbing their opponent in the back. It was bad enough when the Republicans controlled the debate, but seeing Democrats parroting their behavior like sufferes from Stockholm Syndrom is too much. I'll climb back on the train when it's going somewhere I want to go. Meanwhile, me and my ball will be just fine at home.

    Parent

    exactly! (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:33:02 PM EST
    Obama has run a very dirty campaign and I've yet to his "unity" in action. I could never ever vote for a candidate that smeared good people by falsely accusing them of racism and race-baiting!
    Actually it's scary - and when Obama is president he could do the same thing to "other" opponents and like Rove, leave no fingerprints.

    McCain is not neocon radical Bush and will have a Dem congress to keep him in check.

    Parent

    I became Independent long ago for the same reasons (none / 0) (#277)
    by chrisblask on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:28:11 PM EST
    ...but believe both in Obama as a candidate and moreover that it is time for a Dem in the white house.

    My own biases I state as often as possible (I just did). I just spent six years in Canada where folks just love to tear apart America and Americans, and I find that this system is the best I've ever seen.  Sometimes it helps to step outside the box and look at it from the outside...

    I know I'm going to get my nose cut off for saying this, but I have to ask: When it has been widely acknowledged that Sen. Clinton has (but has now reversed) stated that McCain would be better than Obama, how is it that Sen. Clinton's supporters see the Obama campaign doing the same thing?  Sen. Obama has had to spend the last two months consistently coming back to talk about his pastor (and before that convince people he is not Muslim - 13% still think he is [good grief]) - is this not a Rovian attack to have to defend against?  Is it your belief that the Obama campaign (and Sen. Obama himself?) have been the sole purveyors of dirty fighting and that the Clinton camp has never crossed a single line of purity at any point whatsoever?  Inflection will no doubt not be my friend, again, but these are honest questions I would love to hear honest answers to.

    I honestly don't think it has been an evenly awful fight, but at this point what does it serve to even debate that?  All I hope to hear is whether the perception is 100% bad vs. 100% good or whether there is any perception in your view that any of the tacks taken by your candidate's camp have been in any way less than purely angelic, and in my candidate's camp anything less than purely evil?

    Were my candidate to lose the nomination I would likely not put much/any effort into the campaign (or maybe I would change my mind after a break) - but I would not be switching sides at this point.  Either there is a difference in political choices or there is not, and I'm just not that cynical.

    When you get truly cynical there's always Canada to the north, where on average no-one gives much of a damn about anything if it means they have to actually do anything about it.  I leave it to my Canadian wife to fully expand on that thread (and oh, she can), but suffice to say I choose (as does she) the enthusiastic chaos of America over the satisfied ennui of Canada any day.

    -best

    -chris


    Parent

    Clinton never said that McCain was better (5.00 / 1) (#296)
    by dianem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:38:10 PM EST
    That's what I have such a big problem with. Obama's people said that Clinton said McCain would be a better President, but she didn't. What she said was that she had passed the experience threshhold. McCain had passed the experience threshold. But Obama needed to prove that he could cross that threshold before he could be President. It was just a variation on "Obama isn't experienced" which is what Clinton ran on and what McCain will run on and what many of us who don't support Obama feel.

    The Wright attack was Rovian. Literally. It was probably directed by Rove. Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with it. Nothing. Clinton had nothing to do with most of the attacks on Obama, but his campaign and his supporter's blamed her for every one of them, and even attacked her for daring to say that Obama didn't have experience, which is a simple truth. Remember how they made a fuss over the 3 am ad? What is wrong with a simple ad saying that your candidate is going to be ready to answer the phone in the middle of the night? You would have thought that Clinton had assaulted Obama's character. Obama "threw the kitchen sink" at Clinton, at the same time as he professed to be the "unity" candidate who was above politics and being attacked by an unscrupulous politian. Clinton was defined by his camp as unscrupulous, race-baiting, selfish, and willing to destroy the Democratic Party in her greed.

    The Obama camp is not completely evil. Obama is not completely evil. I suspect that he is a good person who has put his trust in some very ruthless people. He has poor judgment in associates, but that kind of flaw is correctible with time. But right here, right now, I see a man who will do anything to be President. He never stood up to say that Clinton was not a racist. He never stood up to say that "shuck and jive" was not a racist reference. He never stood up to any of it. He let it happen, and even joined in on occasion. I won't vote for that kind of politics. It's Republican politics, and I won't reward it in Dems any more than in Republicans.

    Parent

    Oh... and I know a bit about Canada (5.00 / 1) (#301)
    by dianem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:52:32 PM EST
    I'm married to a Canadian. I know exactly how they feel about the U.S., and how they feel about their own government. And I will probably move there eventually. They have a great political system, where the minority parties can actually influence policy by creating coalitions. It creates problems sometimes, but also results in a much more representative system than the U.S. "winner take all" system. They respect individual rights more in Canada, and believe that the government exists to serve people, not as an entity in itself.  Good governance is part of the Constitution. Canadians have a higher quality of life than Americans. My husband is by no means anti-American, but even he recognizes that their government serves their people more effectively than ours.

    Parent
    So will I (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:38:22 PM EST
    But I have to keep in mind that I am voting for President of America, not leader of the Democratic Party (I am an independent).

    Bush is a graphic example of what incompetent leadership, surrounded by ideological syncophants, can do us.

    Right now in my gut I think McCain will be a better leader in general, and a hell of a lot better in a crisis. (Hillary would be even better IMHO.)

    I may not agree with McCain's ideology but if he can convince me that he is the right-center pol he started out as, it might work. After all I have my Dem. congressperson and Senators to keep him in line, RIGHT? :-)

    In the end I do think the candidate that connects with people in their guts is the one that wins. Obama has a heck of alot of catching up to do.

    Parent

    Please take me with you Edgar (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Cate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:24:41 PM EST
    I have been in love with this site since I abandoned Salon to the Obama supporters. I will NEVER support Obama - so, before you go, may I ask you to leave some breadcrumbs for the brokenhearted to follow?

    Parent
    Hold on, y'all (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:32:18 PM EST
    One thing I have learned is that TL is very fair so long as you abide by the rules.  I think BTD has proven that he'll call any candidate on their BS, and Jeralyn has never banned Obama supporters who manage to be polite and contribute to the discourse.    I may be wrong, but I think that we will still be welcome here.

    The question--for me at least--is if Obama manages to get the nomination, I don't know if I'll have the stomach for being involved at this level.  I think I'll just go off to Europe and hide for a while.  Especially if he gets the nom by bullying and disenfranchising. And it'll freakin kill me to see my girl out there pushing for him, mostly because I'll always know she is the best chance we have. It'll just be too painful.  But, as y'all know, I have not given up.  As long as she keeps fighting, I will, too.

    Meanwhile, I appreciate my friends here, and, as I said, I can't imagine that the things that have drawn us to TL, the core values of BTD and Jeralyn, will change in any way that pushes out those of us who are here.

    Parent

    Take ME with you!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:33:41 PM EST
    I am thinking Prague, London, Madrid... ;)

    Parent
    Amsterdam and London (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:39:44 PM EST
    maybe Germany, but only because BMW World is now open in Munich!

    Parent
    I will hide in my garden (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:34:55 PM EST
    like ladies of a certain age are known to do.  I will perfect my eggplants and figure out who to work with real manure.   I will start using real chemical pesticides to annoy my Obama neighbors.  I will wear a hat and read novels from the 19th century.  

    This year started with sort of a personal epiphany, I thought, man 40 years since 1968, something big has to happen.  Instead all that I heard is a trashing of the "cultural revolution", of the social changes and a break down of what I thought were the political alliances.  

    Now we are looking for nobility, creativity and tokenism.   The Democratic party has been coopted by new ageist  who have divided the world into those they "hate" and those the "adore".  All past is bad and should be denied, all empty promises for an unknown future at to be embraced.  


    Parent

    I have a house in Greece (none / 0) (#189)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:18:31 PM EST
    right outside of Athens near the beach and an apartment in Athens. Just saying ;-)

    Parent
    Pou? (none / 0) (#214)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:35:49 PM EST
    Boula? or voulagmeni?  

    Parent
    Voulagmeni! n/t :-) (none / 0) (#220)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:38:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Huh....nice spot. (none / 0) (#224)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:42:29 PM EST
    Do you ever go to that taverna on the square for lunch...wow, great food.  

    Parent
    is the Pope Catholic (none / 0) (#279)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:30:59 PM EST
    not to get more OT then we already are -- but don't you LOVE the food in Greece -- the fruits and vegetables! I drool just thinking about them. Also, the seafood -- I've become totally spoiled -- I can't eat any seafood in the states anymore because after tasting the freshness of the fish in Greece I can't go back.

    Parent
    You can stay at my home in Paris (none / 0) (#219)
    by themomcat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:37:36 PM EST
    if I can visit you in Athens. My husband and I have duel citizenship with France and the US. As I am near retirement, we may just be commenting about this from a café near our home.

    Parent
    I accept! (none / 0) (#222)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:39:43 PM EST
    Paris je t'amie.

    Parent
    wow, (none / 0) (#242)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:52:10 PM EST
    we CLinton supporters seem to be a well-traveled, cosmopolitan bunch.  Obama's four years on the mean streets of Indonesia not withstanding, it seems very interesting to me that those of us who have seen a bit of the world--literally and figuratively--are standing up for our girl.

    (And, I've got a pokey little place in Pimlico a friend is using right now, but I've already told him he's out come November)

    Parent

    I don't drink latte (none / 0) (#276)
    by themomcat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:26:13 PM EST
    but I do enjoy my glass of good wine. LOL. I have been around the world to some pretty exotic and dangerous places. I guess I would be considered an Obama supporter if I hadn't started out dirt poor but educated (single, worked my way through college, with a child, work in Emergency Medicine around the world and in some of the poorest areas of NYC) and a boomer. I am that educated wealthy, white class they think supports Obama.

    Parent
    And more heartbreaking (5.00 / 2) (#271)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:18:23 PM EST
    of all is that she would be carrying water for someone far inferior to herself.

    Parent
    Can you help me understand your view? (none / 0) (#126)
    by chrisblask on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:46:06 PM EST
    Hi Kathy,

    The "bullying and disenfranchising" I don't get.  I assume you refer to FL (where I live) and MI, not sure what the bullying is (I can think of Carville threatening the SDs after Richardson, but am missing the bullying from the Obama camp). My biases are clear, so I hope you can give some examples so we can try to discuss.

    I've heard the argmuments for FL on both sides, and having been whispered to by Sen. Clinton's supporters at the polls on Jan 29 I have a very hard time with seating FL delegates as writ (to explain, I stopped at the Dem table outside, signed a local petition and had gotten as far as saying I'd voted for Bill Clinton when the two leaned in and said "don't worry, there is a huge effort to get out the Clinton vote and we have it on good authority that the delegates will be seated".  I told them I supported Obama and was shocked by their statement and they shunned me immediately...).

    I hope you do not vote for McCain (either explicitly or by abstaining).

    -best

    -chris

    Parent

    My view (5.00 / 11) (#150)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:58:20 PM EST
    comes from what I hear and see the candidates and surrogates do. The blogs are nasty, but they were not solely responsible for framing my impression of Obama.  What I saw from him was flicking "dirt" of his shoulders when he talked about Clinton, calling her "desperate" and saying "she'll do anything to win", trashing Bill Clinton's legacy and outright ignoring the good he did for the party, lying about passing an energy bill he did not pass, bashing Walmart while taking royalties from his books being sold there (and forgetting, I suppose, that 84% of all American households shop at Walmart, which is political stupidity), saying that people like me on the pro-choice side do not realize that abortion is a "moral, wrenching decision," praising Bush's abstinence policy and talking about the "sacredness of sexuality," and, lastly, I think what I find truly offensive is the fact that he sat in a church while his preacher humped the pulpit to illustrate a sex act, all the while deriding both Bill and Hillary Clinton.  Oh, and I guess I should throw this in as well: as a woman, I have an intrinsic, gut reaction to a man stepping in and trying to take a job away from the more qualified, better prepared woman.

    All of this came from a man who was seeking my vote for the nomination of the presidency of the United States.

    And he won't get it.

    Parent

    I heart Kathy (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:12:06 PM EST
    ditto to everything in her post.

    Parent
    This is what bothers me (none / 0) (#236)
    by PaulDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:47:57 PM EST
    Oh, and I guess I should throw this in as well: as a woman, I have an intrinsic, gut reaction to a man stepping in and trying to take a job away from the more qualified, better prepared woman.

    Kathy, I respect that you are disappointed in the likely outcome, but you can't be serious in your feeling that the nomination was something owed to Senator Clinton and that Obama stepped in and took it from her.  

    I have long suspected this assumption of entitlement was in play in a lot of Clinton supporters and I find it highly disturbing.  

    Parent

    this is what gets me (5.00 / 3) (#257)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:04:41 PM EST
    I am not saying that she was owed the nomination, I am saying that SHE EARNED IT.  She worked her a*s off.  She has devoted her entire life to dem ideals.  She has withstood the slings and arrows of the republican attack machine for years.  She has taken vote after vote, on the record, and has chaired committee after committee to push democratic ideals.  I don't know if you've noticed, but our country is in serious trouble.  She is the most qualified, the most prepared and the most obvious choice.

    Can you tell me ONE THING Obama has taken a stand for that has caused him any political heat?  One issue, one VOTE on the record, where he knew he would get sh*t for it and he did it anyway because he thought it was the right thing to do?

    He has less than one full term in the senate.  He turned a blind eye to the buildings in his community--that he represented as a state senator--that were no more than rat-infested slums.  He took credit for passing bills that more experiences state senators had been toiling over for years.  He had trophy positions on board after board to pad his wallet and he still had to ask his buddy Rezko to help him buy his million dollar mansion.

    I am saying look at their resumes and tell me who is more qualified.  Jesus God, even Bush ran a state for a few years (no matter how badly).  This guy made one speech.  The most impressive piece on his resume is that he is running for the nomination.  He tells us he was a community organizer, but where are the people he helped? He tells us he got fp experience in Indonesia, but he couldn't even bother to convene a meeting while he was in the senate because he was "too busy campaigning."  Have you seen what Clinton's been doing while she's been campaigning?  The woman is on freakin' FIRE.

    If they'd replaced Jack Welch with a charismatic young man from the mail room instead of giving the job to the most qualified candidate, would you say that the more qualified candidate had a sense of entitlement?  That he felt he was "owed" the job.

    This "entitlement" crap just boggles the mind.  Why is being more qualified and more experienced a bad thing?  When did it turn into "entitlement" when you're simply the more capable applicant?

    Parent

    Sorry about that (5.00 / 1) (#266)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:09:17 PM EST
    When someone has earned something, and is the best choice, I suppose you could say that they are 'entitled.'  But it's because of that, not because she thinks she's part of a 'dynasty' as is the OFB fantasy. This is of a piece with Obama's unsubtle grouping of the "Clinton and Bush years" together as something bad we have to move away from.  In other words, it's partly about the Clenis.

    Parent
    Thank you, Kathy (none / 0) (#286)
    by chrisblask on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:54:20 PM EST
    for your honest response.

    o  I think the flicking was in reference to the "moderators" of the debate that focused so much on whether "your pastor loves America as much as you do"...

    o  I'd love a reference to Sen. Obama saying Sen. Clinton was desparate and would do anything - I know that has been said by a lot of pundits but I don't recall those words ever passing Sen. Obama's lips.

    o  Sen. Obama is also pro-choice, so again I'd appreciate a reference to that as well.

    o  All religion stikes me as odd (raised born-again myself, no use for any of it), no offense intended to anyone who can practice it without forcing it on others.  Frankly, I'd love to see this country grow up to meet its original principles of not requiring adherence to a given religion as base qaulifiers for public office...

    o  The gender thing I have to call you on.  The true equality that we have approached in my lifetime (getting there) means that all have equal opportunity - not that any have extra advantage.  I believe that Sen. Clinton's gender acts in her favor, Ms. Ferraro believes Sen. Obama's race acts in his favor - I think the two of us may disagree on both those points.  In any case, I would be disappointed if either got significant advantage from any other that.

    I don't want to hog all the oxygen on this thread or site, but if you or anyone want to debate/share/fight over anything you can always email me at chris@blask.org.

    -cheers!

    -chris

    Parent

    Chris, several posters here (5.00 / 7) (#198)
    by tree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:28:22 PM EST
    have related personal stories of bullying from Obama  supporters at the various state caucuses and I believe there are numerous complaints from Texas. Also, you apparently missed the bullying of John Lewis, who was threatened with a well-funded challenger if he failed to toe the line and switch his allegiance to Obama. Several other black legislators mentioned the same kind of bullying coming from the Obama campaign.

    And then of course there has been the constant demands that Clinton step down "for the good of the party" even when she is winning primaries handily and even though no other trailing Democratic candidate in history has ever been hounded to quit the way that Clinton has, despite the fact that no other primary season has seen such a close race.

    And implying that Clinton voters are racists is simply a form of bullying. Vote for our guy if you don't want to be considered a racist. And the fear tactics over Roe are bullying tactics. I could go on but I think you get the point.

    For all the criticism of Clinton supposedly believing that she was entitled to the nomination when the campaign started, I've seen a much greater sense of entitlement from Obama and some of his supporters. They think he was entitled to win the nomination just because he was ahead, and believe that he is entitled to all the Democrats votes in November without having to earn them. I don't want a President who doesn't understand that he(or she) has to EARN the vote. Its not a coronation. Do you get it now?

    Parent

    I never thought that dual US/Can citizenship (none / 0) (#237)
    by Rainsong on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:48:56 PM EST
    that my dual citizenship would ever need to be used.

    I've voted with held nose over poor quality Dem candidates before, but I was never frightened of them actually winning.

    Parent

    I want to (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by rnibs on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:48:27 PM EST
    go with Edgar too.  I'll be too sad watching the train wreck coming in November.

    Parent
    Yeah, I left Salon too... (5.00 / 1) (#265)
    by NWHiker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:09:12 PM EST
    This place has been wonderful.

    I won't vote for McCain or Obama in the fall. I honestly don't think I'd vote for him even if Clinton were his VP.

    I will vote downticket, though.


    Parent

    aww, jeez my heart just about choked up there. (none / 0) (#90)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:34:02 PM EST
    stop it!  you're killing me.

    Parent
    Edgar (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by kenoshaMarge on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:34:39 PM EST
    I feel the same way. I'll miss TalkLeft even more than I miss BuzzFlash when I left there. But I have some principals that are too important to me to abandon. To support Obama now is to validate all that has happened in this campaign and I cannot and I will not do that.

    I will also never vote for McCain. I do not believe him an evil man. I just don't believe he should be president.

    Parent

    I actually like McCain, but he's not the person (none / 0) (#132)
    by chrisblask on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:48:52 PM EST
    for the office.

    But abstaining from your vote is +1 for McCain.

    Please keep that clear in mind.  It's our children's fuure we are talking about, and the next four years will either be Bush years or not.

    -cheers

    -chris

    Parent

    Has anyone else noticed (5.00 / 7) (#167)
    by kmblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:08:01 PM EST
    the steady trickle of Obama supporters here today,
    asking us why we don't support their guy, and professing wonderment as to why not?

    They always seem to end with the same warning and/or threat though/vote Obama or you are responsible for a McCain presidency!

    I'm sorry, but I find this offensive.

    Parent

    me too (5.00 / 3) (#179)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:16:14 PM EST
    they come here knowing almost nothing about us and then try to bully us and blackmail us into voting for their guy, when the fact is I honestly believe this premature "crowing" of Obama is just that -- let the rest of the states vote, seat MI & FL in a meaningful way and then see where the nomination stands. Sure, Obama is "closer" to the nomination then Hillary is at this point in time, but as I posted yesterday, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. It ain't over til its over.

    Parent
    Sorry, I guess its very hard not to offend (none / 0) (#213)
    by chrisblask on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:35:20 PM EST
    But this is a Democrat site, I gather.

    I understand that the inflection with which written words are read can entirely change the meaning, but "bully" and "blackmail" are words I could not have imagined being read into what I wrote.  I have no control how anyone reads my words, but I certainly know what I mean when I write them.  

    I have read in a few short hours my candidate called a liar, empty-suit, and race-baiter, and I have not responded in kind.  My Democrat party membership expired long long ago, but I find myself supporting the Democrat cause moreso than many who profess hard-left ideals.

    My thoughts on Nov are pragmatic.  I have been part of a group dealing with a lot of "if XXX is the candidate I'm voting McCain" threads for some months.  Not surprisingly, at present most of these comments are coming from Sen. Clinton's supporters.  At some points they have been more prominent from Sen. Obama's supporters.  Regardless who they have come from I've had the same thing to say.

    My goal here is three-fold:

    1/ as a Dem site this is a place where I can help elect a Dem in Nov.  I think it is time for that, as other comments of mine explain.

    2/ the Dem party needs to come together, and I hope to provide some effort to that end.  Like MyDD, this is a polarized site that serves as a good litmus for how that procedure can be achieved.

    3/ I strongly believe in Sen. Obama, and I want to find all of the possible attacks against him and - ironically - the best attacks have been crafted by Sen. Clinton's supporters.  Either her supporters will provide those attacks to Republicans so they can be used in favor of Sen. McCain should Sen. Obama be the nominee, or, better yet, these same people can provide assistance to Sen. Obama should he be the Dem. nominee to help counter these same attacks and put him in the WH.

    I imagine I will spend a fair bit of time reiterating these statements, but there they are.

    -best

    -chris

    Parent

    I'm sorry (5.00 / 3) (#231)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:46:32 PM EST
    but that's only because I can't think of a way to phrase this without sounding very rude:  We are not here to please you.  This entire thread, you seem to have taken on the tone of lecturer, and it's just become very puzzling to me what you hope to accomplish here.

    I was raised a dem by dems who were active in my state's party echelon.  I worked on Carter's gubernatorial and presidential elections. My father was a delegate from our state.  I voted in my first presidential election at the age of 17.  I wore out six pairs of sneakers canvassing for the dem party of GA during my wayward youth.  I am one of the core supporters of this party, one of the strongest arms of the movement, and I am so disillusioned with them now that I am going to make sure I'm out of the country for a presidential election--the first time I have ever done this in my entire life.

    If you are truly concerned about this party and this country, you should be asking yourself what has happened to me--and others like me--that I am ready to turn my back on an organization that has, for almost 40 years, been a vital part of my identity.

    That is the crux of the problem here.  The import of this is something Obama and his supporters fail to grasp at their own peril.

    Parent

    Sorry, I *am* a lecturer... (none / 0) (#320)
    by chrisblask on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:48:24 AM EST
    both by inclination and profession.  I'll try some point-form for a change of style.

    o  I don't ask you to please me.  That's not your responsibility.

    o  No point asking myself what happened to you and folks like you (how would I know?), better to ask you.

    o  On one of your points from another thread - you make the point that Sen. Clinton has "earned" this nomination.  I read your reponses on that, and I still have a hard time with it.

     - almost all folks who earn the right to run for President are never elected.

     - the same argument could (would have been?) be made if Sen. Edwards was where Sen. Obama is now.

     - all I can agree to is that she earned the right to run.

    -cheers!

    -chris

    PS - Jeralyn, I assumed the site would limit my postings, kinda feel I'm over-limit for a newbie so I'll stop here.

    Parent

    The problem is (none / 0) (#307)
    by Nadai on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:13:40 PM EST
    that you come here with no reservoir of trust.  You do not get the assumption of good faith just because you haven't called Clinton a b!tch.

    You are an Obama supporter.  I look at that fact, remember that 90%+ of the Obama supporters I've "met" online have been utter a$$es, and slap a label on you reading "Watch Him".  If it turns out that you're reasonable, hey, I can always relabel you.  I've done it before.  But that's where you start.

    And when your posts are mostly about how we all have to come together behind your candidate or we'll all go down in the McCain Apocalypse...  Well, let's just say I'm not reaching for my Sharpie.

    Parent

    Well, perspective shapes perception, I suppose (none / 0) (#322)
    by chrisblask on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:44:30 AM EST
    It is possible to say similar things - though I have to assume that your 90% is an emotional not statistical number.

    I could cut-n-paste here until I was blue in the fingers the extreme things posted as comments on blogs or diaries on democrats.org and mydd.com from supporters who share your camp (I won't lump them with you) that would/should make your hair curl. I've been called everything possible along the way, and my candidate has been slandered without restraint (which I have seen here as well).

    But I never assume this represents accurately the supporters of Sen. Clinton in majority.  It represents the most vociferous and volumatic.

    Anyway, I am not one of those who even believe that Republicans are evil freaks of nature, so I'm not likely to think you folks are, either.  Fairly certain that if we met on a plane we'd have much the same civil conversations as I have with any other person, sure you care about children and puppies and clean fresh air (and to the surprise of most Dems, the Republicans I know do, too).

    My hope beyond any of this political stuff is that we can somehow reach a stage where we understand what we share (most every important belief) and for the first time in my adult life get past the cynical ennui and acidic divisions we create for ourselves.

    We will see.

    -best

    -chris

    Parent

    DemocratIC, not Democrat site (none / 0) (#323)
    by splashy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:42:53 PM EST
    DemocratIC Party.

    If you are a Democrat, you should know this.

    Parent

    Obama and the DNC (5.00 / 2) (#244)
    by themomcat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:53:43 PM EST
    will be solely to blame if McCain wins in November. This election is the Democratic Party's to lose. By pushing the least electable candidate, they will lose in November. No one else is to blame, not Hillary or Bill Clinton, not her supporters. The loss in November will be squarely on Obama, the DNC and the so-called elder statesmen of the party such as Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd and company. But have no fear, they will blame us anyway, how Republican.

    Parent
    Mee too, (5.00 / 1) (#264)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:09:02 PM EST
    Since Tuesday...  Yuck, it feels fishy to me.

    Parent
    On top of that (5.00 / 1) (#273)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:20:43 PM EST
    they frequently manage to get in a few insults.

    Parent
    I am tired of them (5.00 / 1) (#308)
    by AX10 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:17:00 PM EST
    They are lost when we say we don't support Obama, and then they wonder why we call them a cult.

    Parent
    Why offensive? If they are rude or baiting (none / 0) (#200)
    by IndiDemGirl on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:28:59 PM EST
    ok, but not all are doing that.  I've lurked here for a long time and have been commenting for several weeks.  I'm an Obama supporter.  I've found people here friendly, and even shared a laugh with one or two.  I haven't been banned (obviously) or deleted or deemed a chatterer.

    I enjoy coming here because I LIKE hearing from intelligent people who see things differently then I do. It makes me re-evaluate my perceptions of Obama.  I haven't changed my feelings - but I have thought about them and tried to see things from your "HRC supporters" viewpoint.    

    Maybe some others O supporters are trying to understand what you think.  Certainly you must be frustrated that some don't see that HRC is the better candidate.  Well, some Obama may feel the same way.  


    Parent

    IndiDemgirl (5.00 / 2) (#230)
    by kmblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:46:16 PM EST
    I don't mind the questions, though I do get a bit annoyed when they are asked over and over by different people, who are then advised to do a little searching of past posts.

    It's the near constant threats about Roe v. Wade, and "see how you like President McCain!" that tick me off.

    And you are a very courteous poster, for what my humble opinion is worth.

    Parent

    Indidem- I tried engaging people (5.00 / 1) (#310)
    by kenosharick on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:32:52 PM EST
    intelligently and with politness at americablog and was EVICERATED and called every dirty name in the book (being called a repubican was the worst)because I support a different Dem. This behavior is rampant among Obama supporters- very rare among those supporting Hillary. The viciousness of his campaign and supporters led me to probably not marking the top of my Wisconsin ballot.

    Parent
    I'm afraid that's not correct, Chris (5.00 / 4) (#209)
    by Beth on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:34:40 PM EST
    "But abstaining from your vote is +1 for McCain."

    First off, my *actually* voting for McCain is +1 vote for McCain. My not voting at all is in no way mathmatically identical.

    Secondly, Obama is not automatically entitled to my vote. Goddess knows, as a liberal gay woman, I'm not enamored with the Republican party, and I might still vote for Obama simply because of judicial appointments.

    But he's said or done nothing to inspire my confidence. He made it clear months ago that he's more concerned with appealing to homophobic black ministers and their flocks than he is to me. And his minions and spokespeople have been dreadfully misogynistic at times.

    He decided to pander to particular demographics at the expense of alienating others. 5 months ago, while I liked Hillary, I was legitimately undecided between the democratic contenders. Now I'm not - Obama's campaign (and his supporters) have helped make me a devout Hillary supporter.

    At this point, I'm not particularly inclined to vote for him. I'm not sure if I'll vote for any presidential candidate if Obama gets the nomination. But Obama will have several months to win my support.

    If he can't, then that's his failure, not mine.

    Parent
    Chrisblask et al (5.00 / 6) (#227)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:44:56 PM EST
    It's clear you are sincere.  I can see that you are.  But you are also not very smart.

    Do not come in here and preach to us.  We're not interested in hearing the same old platitudes from you.  Do not speak to us as if we were children. We do not need to be told what the consequences are of not voting for The Precious if he manages to get the nomination.  Do not patronize.

    I don't know who pushed what button to send a whole cadre of you over here to proselytize in such simplistic and condescending terms, but it's as tone-deaf as the rest of the Obama campaign has been.

    You are not helping your candidate or the Democratic Party, all you are doing is further antagonizing us.

    Your candidate and his campaign and his supporters cannot spit on half of Democratic voters and expect there to be no consequences.

    Parent

    gyrfalcon (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by kmblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:51:58 PM EST
    I never rate comments because I'm lazy.
    But I must applaud you because you said it
    much better than me.  Take a 10!

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#255)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:04:08 PM EST
    When did you get here? Three months ago and now you are telling people to bugger off because they are not what TL is about.

    Hilarious. You seem no different from those you castigate. It is just that you belong to different opposing fan clubs.

    TL is open to all points of view but it is slanted to the left of center and Democratic. Your position is the one that varies with TL but it is tolerated. Not a bad example to follow, imo.

    Parent

    I hope you did (none / 0) (#282)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:39:39 PM EST
    not just direct that at gyrfalcon.  I did not get that impression at all.  

    Plus, I am not sure how long anyone has been here... or what you meant by that.  

    Parent

    Yes It Was (none / 0) (#288)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:58:07 PM EST
    In response to this:

    Do not come in here and preach to us.  We're not interested in hearing the same old platitudes from you.  Do not speak to us as if we were children. We do not need to be told what the consequences are of not voting for The Precious if he manages to get the nomination.  Do not patronize.

    Many of the long time TL commenters must chuckle at the line

    I don't know who pushed what button to send a whole cadre of you over here to proselytize...

    Because a whole cadre of Hillary fans descended on TL a few months ago. I am not sure if proselytizing is how I would characterize the recent flock's comments, but it comes pretty close. I guess it is more like a fan club than a church.


    Parent

    Ok squeaky (none / 0) (#291)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:09:30 PM EST
    You own this place, not us refugees.

    However, I find it rather condescending for this new wave of Obama supporters to suddenly play nice and naive.  

    The tone here has changed since Tuesday and I am do think gyrfalcon was correct in the assessment of some of the Obama supporters sudden appearance and need to convert.  I do believe that is called proselytizing...  

    Your words made me feel unwelcome here, and I want to let you know that...

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#298)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:42:39 PM EST
    That my words made you feel unwelcome here. That was not my intent. And just because I have been commenting here a few years certainly doesn't mean I own the place, far from it; I am just a lowly commenter like you. What it does mean though, is that I have some perspective regarding the ebbs and flow of traffic here over time.

    And whatever uptick or wave as you call it of Obama supporters to TL, it is nothing compared to the wave of Hillary fans that have descended here in the last few months. That is not a bad thing.

    It took a while for me to realize that TL has become a schoolyard for exKossaks to both work out their feelings of rejection from kos and cheer for Hillary. I never got the fanclub cult thing, but I now have had a big taste of it here. Not my thing although I support Hillary.

    Hope you stay when TL gets back to regular, but it may be boring for you. Most of the Hillary supporters seem single issue commenters, so I expect most to leave after the nomination. But I sincerely would love for you to stick around and add to the various interesting dialogues about politics and crime.


    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#311)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:37:46 PM EST
    I have been here as a Hillary supporter.  I was exhausted when I arrived and was appreciative of the intelligent and civil discussions here.

    I do not view myself as part of a fan club or cult as I am sure that many Obama supporters feel the same.  I do feel strongly that Obama is not ready to be POTUS  for a number of reasons.  First, I think he needs more time or seasoning to define himself and decide who he is for himself.  He does not have strong convictions that time and experience hone.  He has good ideas, but I believe that they are half formed and too childlike and simplistic to be practical.  I also feel that the majority of Americans need more time to familiarize themselves with him and be sure of who he is before they will hand him the keys to the White House.  His record voting and his associations bode ill for him.

    I could go on, but most of all, I hope that you understand that I have felt that Democracy has been abridged in this primary and I am acting as a concerned citizen.  I see Hillary's negatives, and the source of them.  I was an adult when she was First Lady.   Her negatives are far less troubling to me than the troubling issues I see with Obama.  

    So, here I am.  Trying to wade my way through.

    BTW, my background is in education.  Specifically special education with an emphasis on behavior modification.  I have been a behavior mod teacher and as a result of my interaction with families I have had to deal with legal issues in regard to their care.  I am concerned about laws that affect children that have been abused and that deal with gang violence and drug offenders.

    Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position with me.  Discourse like this is why I am still here.


    Parent

    I wanted to show my support for your commenary. (none / 0) (#309)
    by AX10 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:20:37 PM EST
    "Your candidate and his campaign and his supporters cannot spit on half of Democratic voters and expect there to be no consequences"

    Right on!

    This is why they are called "elitists".
    Obama's supporters are condicending.  They speak down to us.  It's this same attitude that lead to the massive 72'/84' losses.

    Parent

    Well said. (none / 0) (#312)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:21:34 PM EST
    I composed a note to ChrisB.. before I realized I didn't want to waste my time. You said it well.

    I can't resist a dig though. WRT> his 3/ upthread-- isn't that oh-so much like a typical Obama supporter -- they must trawl through the net to find what arguments are being made against The One. My goodness -- what zeal. God knows they are not finding such arguments in the MSM -- and they get this bizarre sensation whenever they try to think -- ever since He asked them all to look into that pen like thing he was holding .. <FLASH>
    ...

    Parent

    you ask (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:40:44 PM EST
    Bottom line is what becomes of those of us who continue to criticize Obama after he becomes the nominee?  When criticizing him will be more tacitly defined as support for McCain (even if it's not!)

    You are welcome to comment and state whatever point of view you hold. If your criticism of Obama is not support for McCain, say so.  You don't have to agree with TalkLeft.

    No one said we won't be criticizing Obama going forward. I'm sure BTD and I will disagree with Obama's strategy for beating McCain going forward from time to time. I may disagree with him on issues and if I do, I won't hesitate to say so. I doubt there will be an issue where I agree with McCain over Obama, I can't conceive of one. So criticism of Obama going forward doesn't mean support of McCain. I've disagreed with Hillary on issues too.

    Parent

    Hey, Jeralyn! (5.00 / 3) (#130)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:48:29 PM EST
    Stop with the defeatist talk!  Our girl isn't out of this thing yet!

    Parent
    I'm not defeatist (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:52:26 PM EST
    I was answering a question about what happens if Obama is the nominee. I've been getting a lot of emails from readers (particularly those who don't comment here) asking the same thing. I'm trying to answer them.

    Hillary is still in this race and there is no nominee. It's vital that WVA and KY, Mont and SD voters come out in full force.

    The superdelegates don't cast their vote until August. They are free until then to remain uncommitted or to decide and change their minds. There's a lot of variables here and the media's crowning a nominee doesn't make it a reality.

    Parent

    add Puerto Rico (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:53:10 PM EST
    to my list. Oregon has yet to vote as well.

    Parent
    I fell like we should descend (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:00:36 PM EST
    en masse in OR.

    P.S.  What I meant in the open thread was NORML.  Also, your explanation of why you blog and what you blog was very eloquent.

    Parent

    okay, phew-- (none / 0) (#183)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:16:41 PM EST
    I thought we'd lost ya!

    Parent
    Daily Howler (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by nellre on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:08:40 PM EST
    THE DIVINE RIGHT OF PUNDITS! Krugman has some decent ideas. Robinson has a sense of entitlement

    Also took note of this. An excellent read.

    Krugman is right on, (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:19:02 PM EST
    apparently Ted Kennedy does not read the NYTimes.  Robinson is on RaceO8 calling Clinton a racist.  I wanted to blow up the television.

    Parent
    Isn't it amazing!?!?! (5.00 / 3) (#247)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:54:42 PM EST
    For how many decades has the demographic division clearly separated whites and blacks? Until this year, never was anyone declared a racist because they addressed the demographic identities, and, even this year, only the Clintons are condemned for this.


    Parent
    I just don't get (5.00 / 11) (#13)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:11:16 PM EST
    all these articles about Obama's weaknesses, which act as if he has already been given the nomination.

    We still have a chance to get out of this.  We have a stronger candidate who is the original, not some Chicago-styled knock-off.

    I've been phone banking for Clinton all week and it's been weird, because Wed/Thurs were all about convincing people to still go out and vote, that it wasn't over, and today was all about a lot of women being very, very ticked off about what they are seeing in the news lately, and saying they would vote for Hillary even if she dropped out.

    People underestimate how many bridges Obama has burned with women.  Of course, these guys have a lifetime of underestimating women.  

    don't leave out the men, kathy. (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by hellothere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:19:46 PM EST
    the anger is also there. remember they have mothers, sisters, and daughters. i am being told by a number of men who talk to each other that the men(non aa) are turning against obama in record numbers.

    Parent
    you are right (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:25:59 PM EST
    I have been mostly calling during the day and have gotten a lot of women.  Some men, though, and they are for the most part still really, really angry about Wright.  This is WVA I've been calling, so that gives you an idea about what the temperature is.  The press may have moved on to something new, but they haven't forgotten.

    (anyway, I'm not allowed to go off script and say what I want, which is, "yeah, the f-er really p-ed me off, too!  Look down your garlic nose at this, you racist a-hole!"  ...I'm trying to be ladylike for our girl....")

    Parent

    Geez Louise! Obama has not won this because... (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:28:33 PM EST
    he or the media says so.  I have been talking with people who should be Obama supporters and they aren't (here in VT).  I spoke to young people who believe that Hillary can win.  So guys, stop this stuff.  My god, approx. 130 pledge delegate lead (without Fl and MI) and no chance of winning with the pledged delegates, does not make one the nominee.

    The SDs have said that the pledged delegate lead is not the determining factor.  It is who can win against McCain and who would be the best President.  Now, who has been saying that?  And, why haven't the SDs closed this down if Obama is the presumptive nominee (why wait to show his huge weakness with white voters by not declaring before WVA and KY).  

    Obama needs the SDs just as much as Clinton does.   When the SDs decide to nominate, they will go in mass to seal the deal.  I will be calling WVA, OR, KY, SD, MT and PR to ensure a Clinton popular vote at the minimum.  It is the height of desperation that he is not campaigning in WVA.  He hopes to say that he would do better if he did and he didn't go there because he is the nominee, that is the perception he hopes will stick.  

    The job of Clinton supporters is to drive this margin of victory up in WVA, KY and PR.


    Parent

    Absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Cate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:40:43 PM EST
    I wish there was someway to calculate "buyer's remorse" among people who voted for him so blindly in the early primaries. My husband (a once-staunch Republican who has lost a lot of faith in his party) was actually saying he liked Obama -then cam Wright - and he switched to HRC. Now he says he's back to supporting McCain if Hillary doesn't win the nomination.

    I've said this before, he can't be alone. These already-pledged delegates - can enough of them have the strength to change their support to make a difference at the Convention?

    Oh, and I believe Hillary will fight right up to the Convention and I'm right here behind her!

    Parent

    shifting because of Wright (none / 0) (#137)
    by contrarian1964 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:52:44 PM EST
    If your husband blew away from Obama that easily, then something about Hillary could have also blown him off.

    Really, ask him specifically, what about Wright did it for him?  Does he think Obama is mean and hates the U.S. like Wright?  Or does he think Obama is nutty?  Or stupid?

    If he thinks McCain is a viable choice under ANY circumstances, I think no Democrat would get his vote in the end.

    Parent

    THAT easily? (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:23:35 PM EST
    dude, I am a liberal who loathes how the GOP continue to attack Dems for not being "patriotic" enough based on a whole lot bs and I am 100% behind criticizing this country & burning the flag BUT to imply that Wright was not a good reason to turn away from Obama is just balderdash. There are too many posts on this site for me to relate all the offensive lies he said about this country and the Clintons, but I will sum it up as: the man is the same in my eyes as Farrakhan or David Duke. Furthermore, Obama flat out lied to the American people when he said he sat in that church for 20 years and didn't hear those things or even know that Wright held those views. Now, I understand all pols lie to a certain extend, but stupid lies like that are just unforgivable.

    Parent
    So Now (none / 0) (#218)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:37:22 PM EST
    You must be able to empathize with how it feels to be a patriotic Republican, and how they get bent out of shape by those who criticize the war while soldiers are dying and all that BS.

    The line you draw with Rev Wright seems arbitrary to me though. Political dissent is like apple pie and that activity should be welcome even if you disagree with the message. To call Wright unamerican or unpatriotic because he dislikes what he sees in american foreign policy or internal race relations is no different from the way GOPers slandered those who oppose their right wing policies.

    So now you must know how it feels to be a Republican and sound like one.

    Parent

    Yuck Fou (5.00 / 3) (#235)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:47:44 PM EST
    Delete me -- but this twerp needs a thrashing -- how dare you tell me I sound like a republican. Who are you? How you no shame? (well, obviously you do not) but take a step back from the kool aid &  open your ears, chump, Wright is offensive and no amount of WORMing can change that. Even your savior Obama said it at his latest disavowal of Wright. Furthermore, I don't condemn Obama for Wright's views -- I condemn him for lying to me.

    Parent
    Fine (none / 0) (#261)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:06:58 PM EST
    If you are offended and disagree with his positions. But to call him unpatriotic because you do not like his message is GOP 101.

    Parent
    Are you a moron? (5.00 / 2) (#268)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:09:46 PM EST
    That, btw, is a rhetorical question.
    I said two times now I didn't condemn Obama for Wright's views -- I condemn him for lying to me when he said he didn't know Wright held those views. Heck, I didn't even say Wright was "unpatriotic" -- I said his comments were offensive -- as offensive as anything I've ever heard come out of David Duke or Farrakhan's mouth -- and I stand by that.

    Parent
    OK But (none / 0) (#280)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:32:27 PM EST
    Why do you preface your comments about Rev Wright with GOP talking points that you loathe, and then, qualify that position with  caps (BUT). The implication is that you see Rev Wright in the same way as a GOPer.  
    I am a liberal who loathes how the GOP continue to attack Dems for not being "patriotic" enough based on a whole lot bs and I am 100% behind criticizing this country & burning the flag BUT to imply that Wright was not a good reason to turn away from Obama is just balderdash.

    As far as Rev Wright goes, I do not have a big problem with him. Although he is doing Obama no favors and that is for sure. It was smart of Obama to distance himself though because Obama has never promoted himself as one to represent any one group over another. To be seen as a special interest candidate that represents AA interests over any other would be certain political death.

    Parent

    are you serious? (none / 0) (#317)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:23:48 PM EST
    Do you really need this explained to you? YOU are the one who said that it was a weak excuse to turn away from Obama because of Wright -- I was answering YOU -- that it wasn't a flimsy excuse because as liberal as I am even I found Wright's comments offensive; therefore, I can certainly see how someone who isn't as liberal as I am would find it a strong reason to turn away from Obama. That was the inference you should have understood from the "BUT." Frankly, I don't know why I am bothering to explain this to you, because if you actually think I started my post with "GOP talking points" instead of condemning those talking points (which was clearly what I was doing) you are probably incapable of understanding that not everyone takes such a liberal view on these things as I (and you claim, you) do.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#319)
    by squeaky on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:02:45 AM EST
    YOU are the one who said that it was a weak excuse to turn away from Obama because of Wright -- I was answering YOU

    Certainly not in this thread. You must have me confused with another commenter.  

    Parent

    someone should do a poll.. (none / 0) (#315)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:53:41 PM EST
    In all the States Obama won pre-Wright and pre-tough-debate.. and see what the results show. Perhaps Senator Clinton should commission such a poll.

    The fact that this has not happened shows who is driving this election. Sorry I'm so cynical, but the MSM and the Democratic party seem to have decided to.. as someone put it "forcibly birth a myth".


    Parent

    Actually, Sen. Obama will be in WV on Monday (none / 0) (#152)
    by chrisblask on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:59:25 PM EST
    And the Wright issue is troubling to see Democrats use.  I had always thought D was the party of freedom and equality, crucifying (pun intended) someone because of their church seems kinda off topic for Democrats...

    As Sen. Obama has said repeatedly, all y'all and your candidate should campaign until you all decide you're finished.  Sen. Edwards has effectively disagreed.  I disagree - I think from here on out every gain for Sen. Clinton translates into a gain for Sen. McCain.  But it is Sen. Clinton's choice, and thankfully you are all free to make your own.

    -best

    -chris

    Parent

    Yes. (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:04:34 PM EST
    Yes. We are.  Each of us can make up our own mind.

    How nice of you to acknowledge that.

    It's not over yet, so Hillary is free to continue.

    This is a democracy, isn't it?  This is the way the system works.


    Parent

    Sure thing. (none / 0) (#182)
    by chrisblask on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:16:35 PM EST
    I detect snark, forgive me is I misread...

    All I can say is that if anyone reading this is a Democrat (I am not) then they should think about their beliefs rather than their emotions.

    For my part, I think it is time for a Dem in office (I'm an right-center-indie who believes in changing things out regularly).  Sen. Clinton was the obvious choice prior to Obama - and while I liked (and voted for) Bill Clinton my opinion of Sen. Clinton is not at all as positive.  Nevertheless, I have extreme faith in Americans and our system and I was planning on voting for her as far back as this time last year.

    It will be the hieght of irony if actual Democrats elect a Republican by act or inaction in Nov while Indies like me are voting for a Democrat...

    -best

    -chris

    Parent

    STOP (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by kmblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:32:01 PM EST
    with the lectures.  ENOUGH, I beg you.

    Parent
    I believe (5.00 / 6) (#243)
    by nell on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:52:25 PM EST
    in core democratic principles like universal health care and civil rights. But I also believe in treating women with respect and dignity. What this election has shown me is that sexism is alive and well in the Democratic Party. I have seen it from party elders (see Dodd, Chris; Leahy, Patrick; Kennedy, Theodore), the blogger boyz, the press, and even Senator Obama himself (because you know, all Hillary was doing as First Lady was drinking tea, and she only calls him out on his anti-universal health care BS when she is "periodically feeling down").

    Howard Dean went on Fox news and blasted them for talking about Wright - he said it was racist. Now, I happen to disagree with that, but even if you accept his premise, where was Howard Dean when women BEGGED him to speak out against the Hillary/women bashing in the press? Where was he? Dean and the DNC didn't stand up for me, and I will not stand up for him or the party.

    Enough is enough. I will not reward this kind of behavior and clear abuse of women. I have principles and I won't abandon them for threats of Roe v. Wade or whatever else you throw at me. Women's rights are human rights, and until the DNC  and the chosen candidate start standing for these rights, they will never have my vote.

    Parent

    Well said, Nell (5.00 / 1) (#297)
    by stxabuela on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:41:45 PM EST
    I'm a post-menopausal woman, and I've been a Democrat for 40 years.  I remember Women's Lib and the failed fight for the ERA.  I don't just read blogs, I have been a volunteer with the local Democratic Party for 26 years.  I always thought the Democratic Party stood firmly behind me on the issue of women's rights--until this year.  How long do I, as a female, have to wait?  How long will sexism continue to be tolerated?  

    I have no party any longer.  I feel as if I have been duped for decades.  Ya basta!  (Enough already!)  I am no longer voting for a person simply because he/she has a D behind the name.  EARN my vote.  PROVE that you share my beliefs.  I've waited long enough.    

    Parent

    I bet you (none / 0) (#232)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:46:49 PM EST
    used to write to Playboy forums, too.

    Hilarious.

    Parent

    Obama said Wright was fair game (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:26:47 PM EST
    and discounting Wright's views, Obama lied to America when he claimed he didn't know Wright held those views. That is not criticizing Obama with Wright's views, that is criticizing Obama for lying to us.

    Parent
    It's not because of his church (5.00 / 2) (#256)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:04:15 PM EST
    "And the Wright issue is troubling to see Democrats use.  I had always thought D was the party of freedom and equality, crucifying (pun intended) someone because of their church seems kinda off topic for Democrats..."

    Personally, I don't care if the beliefs/values/words of Rev. Wright were spoken from the pulpit or from a basement or from the treetops - they were still disgusting and bigoted. And, for me personally, it wasn't the anti-American stuff so much as the racially divisive stuff and the sexist stuff said against Hillary. It all just flies in the face of the unity appeal Obama had. A complete contradiction of his platform. It's not about his religion. It's about his values.

    It's tedious to talk to those who act as if they don't understand why so many people would have a viscerally negative reaction to Wright's hateful and divisive rhetoric. It's pretty simple - no one wants to be held in contempt or be subjected to hateful characterizations.

    Parent

    So true (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:33:19 PM EST
    I am a young, white, gay (with a black boyfriend), educated male and I am ticked off too.  I shop at whole foods, eat arugula, drink wine and even I am feeling put off.  What does that say about the truly rural, white working class out there?  Color me very worried for November.

    Parent
    to bad Krugman is one of "us" (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:12:01 PM EST
    and no one takes him seriously anymore.

    The UnAssimilated! (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:22:04 PM EST
    I don't think I shall ever "come to Obama" nor will Krugman.

    It's funny because there is a narrative that goes "Krugman will come over to Obama when Obama wins the nomination.".  This is the same narrative they use in general, that all good little Dems will fall in and march dutifully behind Obama.

    It doesn't ever occur to them that Krugman is a policy wonk, not a personality wonk.

    Parent

    Or the Left Behind.... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:26:21 PM EST
    ....if you prefer end of days metaphors.

    Parent
    If only the Rapture was real! (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:38:38 PM EST
    I'd be praying every night to tell God which ones to take.

    Please.

    Parent

    Hey maybe that is who we Clinton supporters are (none / 0) (#142)
    by honora on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:56:18 PM EST
    "The Left Behind".

    Parent
    Absolutely spot on! (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by rnibs on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:57:30 PM EST
    We're the UnAssimilated.  And you gave me a good laugh when I needed one.

    Here's to a fellow Unassimilated voter.  Here, here!

    Parent

    the wheel goes round. after 11/08, (none / 0) (#47)
    by hellothere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:22:30 PM EST
    he will be a prophet don't you know.

    Parent
    and Hillary is going to look a lot better (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:25:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Superdelegates don't vote until August (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:15:26 PM EST
    This nomination race isn't over

    you are correct my friend. (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:18:28 PM EST
    hope (you will pardon the expression) is not dead

    Parent
    It isn't just hope. (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:36:47 PM EST
    Obama is in desperation mode and is trying to win the perception game.  Ask why haven't the Supers endorsed him yet?  If he truly was the strongest candidate against McCain, had a winning coalition and would not harm the down ticket Dems, do you not think they would have ended this now?

    Look at the exit polls: Obama will lose about half of the Democratic Party, he will lose whites big, Hispanics big, Jews big, Catholics big, Seniors big, women big, independents probably big and really only carry three groups which are distinctly in the minority; young vote (the largest but still not nearly large enough), AAs (already near max. capacity in the Primary and they are only 12% of the nation's population) and white liberals (although, once Obama tries to tack more conservative, there will probably be a move to Nader).  This is not a winning or a new coalition, it is essentially Dukakis/McGovern.

    I believe that the Dem SDs really understand this and will not throw the Party to an historic defeat.  Of course, I have been bitterly disappointed before, so here's hoping there is sanity in the Dem Party.

    Parent

    I think a lot more people have been lost (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:19:17 PM EST
    Than just the demographics everyone talks about. Let's add a lot of educated white women I personally know (can't imagine its isolated), some people like me (educated liberal "elitist" long time party supporters). I think other groups are not being counted yet, but I have a fear they will be when Nov comes.
    one other thing (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:23:29 PM EST
    I believe if Obama is the nominee there will be a significant "Bradley Effect".
    in other words the Obamas may continue to think everything is rosy until election day.


    Parent
    Oh I don't think so (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:25:01 PM EST
    I expect a rapid and non recovering drop starting end of Aug. I think by election day it will be clear that democrats will win very few states...

    Parent
    I am not so sure it will be that clear in advance (none / 0) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:26:52 PM EST
    it may be clear enough but I think there will be a lot of fibbing to pollsters.

    Parent
    I am. It is clear now. He has one demographic... (none / 0) (#125)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:45:45 PM EST
    that has a history of voting heavily for Dems and that is the AAs.  This group is at near max. capacity and are only 12% of the population.  The youth vote will be stronger than it has been, but it still will not be up to the other reliable Democratic demographics.  The liberal whites will be disappointed in Obama's hard right GE strategy and will have significant defections to Nader.  He will lose big and possibly even bigger than McGovern (no states won and only win D.C.).

    The stunning in every many demographics (whites, men, even indies) is telling.  Since when does the nominee not campaign in a state?  He has no campaign events in WVA because he is trying to make the meme be that it doesn't matter.  Again, Obama has no strategy for the GE except bad; that is every thing he does to try and win the nomination reverberates badly for him in the GE.  With this trick, he can definitely write-off WVA (a state won twice by Bill and Gore lost and if Gore had won, FL wouldn't have mattered and Gore would have been President).  One cannot continue to give away states to their opponent and expect to win.


    Parent

    your response ignores the facts preceding (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:31:40 PM EST
    your implied cease-fire.  god, it's like japan saying immediately after pearl harbor, "what're you getting all worked up about--can't we all just get along?  we have bigger fish to fry here."

    the only thing Obama has promised (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:37:02 PM EST
    on your list is getting out of Iraq -- not UHC, not the middle class (yeah, he's said that, but his vote for tort reform and against a cap on credit card interest rates belie his words). true, he does say he will "rebuild America's standing among our allies" HA! The guy hasn't even been to Europe (shades of W) -- I'm sure he means well, bless his heart, but the "old world" can tell a novice when they see one, and they certainly will not respect him -- especially one who says he will sit down with despots with no preconditions.

    Parent
    Getting out of Iraq (5.00 / 2) (#245)
    by hookfan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:54:01 PM EST
    isn't clear either. Remember Powers? And don't forget voting for refunding whenever it came up. Obama never put the money where his mouth was.

    Parent
    how about the fp advisor (5.00 / 2) (#262)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:08:11 PM EST
    for Obama who met with Hamas?

    Oh, he's fired him now, but what message was this advisor sent early on that it was okay to meet with Hamas?

    The hubris is absolutely shocking.

    Parent

    that's funny. obama doesn't give (5.00 / 4) (#241)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:52:08 PM EST
    a CRAP about health care.  if he did, he wouldn't be siding with the health insurance companies' position against hillary.

    and he doesn't care about iraq either, except as a convenient, self-serving way to pander misleadingly to unsuspecting anti-war voters.  he's demonstrated no meaningful commitment to rebuilding the middle class, and frankly i think he'd fail miserably at rebuilding america's standing--which is in shambles right now and requires the strong, steady, and capable hand of an experienced leader.  

    obama is an empty suit.  he fails on important policy values, on commitment to those values, and on ability to carry any of them out to fruition.  in fact, throughout his campaign he's actively and deliberately undermined fundamental party principles--including commitment to the working class and to interracial unity--in many ways.

    don't tell me obama's on my side.

    Parent

    Sorry victor9000 (5.00 / 4) (#267)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:09:44 PM EST
    the objectives are not the same.  The Obama group wants to shrink the middle class by ignoring all those pesky worker types.  If you don't feel they're a worthwhile constituency then you won't champion their needs.

    Tossing aside an important constituency like blue collar workers does not rebuild the middle class it shrinks the middle class. Blue collar workers are not just the constituency of a given political party they are a vital constituent of the nation.

    Inasmuch as health care (assuming you mean UHC) is concerned Obama's proposals actually don't include UHC, confirmed by his backer John Kerry who said that UHC is a non-starter in the Senate.

    The idea that both candidates have identical programs is one of the great myths of this campaign.

    Indications are not just that the Obama group dismisses workers. Obama's own economics team consists of free market, free trade ideologues who would be comfortable working for conservative Republicans.  At least one of those team members, Jeffrey Liebman, is an advocate of Social Security privatization. The soul of any candidate is revealed by their chosen policy team. Policy gave Bush away in 2000 but too many people put surface personality above clearly stated policy. We ignore those important details at our peril.

    For myself, I will not be a party to dragging the Democratic Party farther to the right.

    Parent

    That is an excellent analogy... n/t (none / 0) (#215)
    by Rainsong on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:36:35 PM EST


    Parent
    That's a very pretty theory (none / 0) (#300)
    by Nadai on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:52:23 PM EST
    but, so far at least, the facts have not borne it out.

    Parent
    I can't do it. (5.00 / 6) (#119)
    by chopper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:42:18 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but after the way Obama has lied about Hillary's character, lied about her plans and programs, tried to make the Clintons racists, is trying to steal her FL and MI votes and delegates, had his thugs steal the caucuses through threats and violence, and condoned various other election fraud schemes I just cannot vote for him.

    I may write in Hillary Clinton on the ballot or I may stay home, but I will not vote for him.

    I possibly could have overlooked his own lies and corruption, but what he did to the Clintons is unforgivable.

    Obama has already shown us (5.00 / 4) (#146)
    by Foxx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:57:44 PM EST
    who he is.

    This emphasis on words as important, on the part of intelligent people like Krugman, puzzles me. Never mind what he has done, if he just says the right things, everything will be ok. Same thing with Wright. Never mind if he sat there for 20 years, if he denounces him now it will be ok. Very weird mind set.

    There is nothing Obama could say that would bring me round. Many things he could have done, a long time ago, but nothing now.

    They haven't, of course.... (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:03:22 PM EST
    .... handed the election to McCain. Not yet. They need to take responsibility for risking doing so, and seek to prevent it. Obama will not win the election without at least a healthy minority of working class white and hispanic voters and senior citizens, and his surrogates need to stop acting like he can, and like he wants to.

    Is there any reason to continue this? (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by debrazza on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:06:21 PM EST
    The constant whining is driving me nuts.  Obama sucks, his supporters suck, he is not a uniter, he is a fraud, blah, blah, blah.  It is getting really tiring reading all of this.  Yeah I wished Hillary won.  But the fact is she didn't.  Now we can try to hope that we can get her on the ticket as VP, because that will be equally as historic.  Or we can sit around moping like this.  It is silly.  And I also disagree with Krugman's article as well because it continues that moping.  Let's buck up, get over ourselves and look to support the policies we believe in to ensure that an Obama administration happens so that we have an administration we can try to lobby to make his centrist/corporate policies more progressive.

    People want to vote for McCain or not vote at all, well then we will get the country we deserve.  I for one care about the right to choose.  I for one care about the poor.  I care about the environment.  I care about war.  And I care about health care.  While Obama does not have the precise positions I would like, they absolutely opposed to the positions McCain holds.

    So it is up to everyone here to really sit back, think and make a choice.  Will it be hard for Obama to win in November?  Certainly, but it will be a lot harder without our help.

    You wished Hillary had won? (5.00 / 2) (#272)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:19:04 PM EST
    When exactly were you a Hillary supporter cause just going over your last 20 points or so you seem to clearly support Obama.

    Parent
    Who gets hurt (5.00 / 3) (#168)
    by nellre on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:08:25 PM EST
    If Obama gets the nom and loses in November who gets hurt?
    The vulnerable. Because McCain will chose one, two or even three Supremes.
    And this conservative court cares little about the "little guy", or the minorities, or gay rights, or women's rights... progressive concepts of civil rights.

    I wholeheartedly agree. (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Adept Havelock on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:15:25 PM EST
    It seems that some (and there are plenty of Obama supporters who act the same way IMO) who put "teaching the party a lesson" ahead of hanging on to roughly 40 years of social progress.

    It's not just Roe v. Wade, but civil and worker rights protections, access to the courts, limitations on an out of control executive, and many other issues that are at stake.

    Granted, I really don't care which candidate is at the top of the ballot, as I believe both can win and intend to vote for whomever gets the nomination.  My main concern is preventing a generation or more of a hard-right SC.

    For me, a Democratic legislature is no insurance.  Not after I watched Clarence Thomas get appointed.

    JMO.

    Parent

    well, look at it this way: (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:29:47 PM EST
    some of us are very afraid of this new, elitist wing of the dem party that is trying to take over.  We see Pelosi, Kennedy et al being extremely ineffective and letting repubs run the show.  We see Dean backing anti-choice candidates just to get a dem in a slot (no matter how bad a dem it is).  We hear Brazile saying she doesn't need us, and Kennedy saying our heroes are ignoble.  

    In short, we see certain parts of the Obama faction as poison to our party, and we feel like staying home (should he win the nom, which is not in any way certain at this point), is the only way to send a message that they are horribly off track.  We are saying that after distancing themselves from Gore, after giving us John Kerry, we are not going to take it anymore.  The message we want to send is that we want a strong, fighting dem to lead our party FOR US, not for power, not for prestige, but for core dem values that effect us every day of our lives.

     What's more, we see it as potentially more toxic for the party to promote an ineffectual dem who trashes the dem name for decades.  Has anyone thought ahead to what an Obama ge loss by landslide will mean for the party?  We'll be back to Carter days where we are no more than a joke.

    If we have to wait until 2012 to get the right person in, the right leader for the party, then so be it.

    Parent

    Talk about elitist? (none / 0) (#284)
    by debrazza on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:50:10 PM EST
    I am not meaning to pick a fight here, but you complain about the "elitist wing" taking over, but then you criticize Dean for backing candidates that are not pure.  That seems elitist to me.

    I personally believe that the best way to ensure a long term Democratic majority is to have a party with a great diversity of ideologies, but all fundamentally brought together by some over-arching mission, which I believe is to social justice.

    What killed the Republican party was exactly their demands for party purity, their demands for their members to follow their leaders in lock-step in a 50%+1 strategy.

    Your trade off between "the right person" and having a party generally in control of the policy apparatus to promote a more progressive agenda shows that you seem more interested in purity instead of promoting a specific policy agenda.  That to me seems elitist.

    I just call them like they see them.

    Parent

    Obama's WV Spin? (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Chimster on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:20:07 PM EST
    Do we know how Obama's campaign has been responding to his anticiptated poor performance in West Virginia? From a hypothetical potential-nominee perspective, shouldn't he be doing closing the deal? If Hillary Clinton blows out Obama 66-23 what will his excuse be? Just curious.

    He's responding by saying (5.00 / 5) (#217)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:37:08 PM EST
    that he has already won the war, so why bother with the individual battles.  Just give it to him already.

    Speaking of giving it to him, from your friendly neighborhood republicans, asking all the questions we have been asking, but unafraid of getting shouted down as racists, low-information idiots for doing so:

    Yes we can.

    Parent

    They'll blame (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Left of center on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:39:40 PM EST
    bitter white people again.

    Parent
    WV didn't want a pony? (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by RalphB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:45:37 PM EST
    it would be as good as whatever they'll spout.

    Parent
    The WV spin, from a BO supporter (none / 0) (#294)
    by chrisblask on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:33:07 PM EST
    Sure thing, and spin it will be because we will in fact lose WV. :~)

    "The demographics in WV align perfectly with Sen. Clinton's campaign at this point in time - note the western tip of NC.  This demographic block is solidly in Sen. Clinton's camp and it should be no surprise that she will do extremely well there.

    "Of the remaining six contests, it is likely that the popular vote and delegate count will be split just about 50/50.  At that point all of the American people will have spoken according to the rules laid down by the Democratic party, and the results will show who the winner is."

    ----

    Something like that.  Not in itself intrinsically different as any spin a competitor puts on a loss. (see WI, IA, etc...).

    Along the way FL and MI will likely be resolved, and there will be no remaining votes to count.  It looks very like the SD battle will also settle in that period.  While I leave anything open to possibility, it seems extremely likely that all that added up will have more delegates, SDs, and popular votes for Obama.  If the party decides to overturn all that it certainly can, but it seems like a silly thing to do.

    -cheers

    -chris

    Parent

    16th post. First day. (5.00 / 1) (#302)
    by kmblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:52:54 PM EST
    Just sayin, Chris.
    What are you doing?

    Parent
    Replying to old comments, at this point ;~) (none / 0) (#325)
    by chrisblask on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:08:03 PM EST
    Sorry, life interevened.  Most of my blogging time was spent at MyDD and DKOS in between.

    What I was doing when I first came here is what I do - seek out folks who's opinions are counter to mine and talking to them.

    Not always a way to get popular when you walk into a room, but I've come to accept that it's the way I am.

    I'd go on to argue that it is healthier than breathing your own air, but I also understand the need for common pools of memes to swim in.

    Parent

    Obama is phone banking in WV (none / 0) (#316)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:01:45 PM EST
    Telling voters NOT to vote. There's a diary on mydd by TexasDarlin (I think) on it.

    It would be exactly like his campaign to do this sort of thing.

    And in OR -- Obama supporters are taking over other people's absentee ballots, offering to "help".

    Yea, Right.

    So what I sense is that while the media narrative etc. is for a Clinton victory in WV, I wouldn't count on it. Thus far, Obama's campaign and the DNC machine narrative has been effective when HRC's campaign is not directly spending money against the expectations game.


    Parent

    Krugman can smell a phony a mile (5.00 / 5) (#207)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:33:39 PM EST
    away. I'm sure he knows, just as we do here, that Obama will take none of his suggestions. What Krugman proposes is antithetical to Obama's campaign. He will continue to move right after the nomination, and continue to speak out against divisive left wing interest groups---Votevets, for example.
    The subtext of Krugman's articles is "there we go again"---just as in 2000.

    Without passion (5.00 / 0) (#285)
    by lily15 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:54:02 PM EST
    it will be difficult to win.  The Democratic Party was united behind John Kerry.  Passionate against Bush.  But no such passion exists for Obama from the Clinton half of the Democratic party...Rather, many of us have contempt for the Democratic elite who have rigged this nominating process.  Despite Hillary's mistakes with Mark Penn and Patti Solis Doyle, she was regaining steam and Michigan and Florida should have been allowed revotes.  This nomination has been stolen...and rigged.  That is very difficult to sanction. And the current rhetoric coming out of the Obama campaign doesn't help.  It solidifies the contempt.

    TalkLeft continues to push the notion the idea (4.00 / 4) (#65)
    by halstoon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:27:23 PM EST
    that Obama has a working-class white problem w/o even acknowledging Hillary's crater-size problem with blacks and educated whites. If one is a problem for him, then surely the other are obstacles for her. We may not win with only 'African Americans and eggheads' but we certainly won't win without them, and right now Hillary has almost no African Americans and about as many affluent whites as Barack does poor ones.

    Imagine an election for class president where 14 white kids and 6 black kids vote. One kid wins 8 white kids and 1 black kid. The other kid wins 6 white kids and 5 black kids. The teacher determines that the kid who won 8 white kids will be class president despite losing the class election 11-9. Would that teacher keep their job?

    This is how the Clinton camp is arguing. They want the teacher to make them president of the class despite losing the election.

    Obama has won. Hillary will take her wins in WV & KY and thank her supporters for a great ride. She'll go down in history as the best candidate to ever come in second place. Harping on Obama and white people is just going to damage her reputation; you can already see it. When Pat Buchanan is your biggest supporter on TV, you've got problems.

    Just my honest opinion.

    70%-plus of all U.S. males (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by Cream City on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:40:33 PM EST
    do not have college degrees.  Most of those thus are working-class.  AAs are 12% of the population, so AA males are 6% of the population.  Minus those AA males with college degrees, and the result ought to suggest that working-class white males are a vast demographic.

    Far, far more than AAs or women (since women vote more but are far more diverse, i.e., they do not vote so monolithically as AAs), white working-class males have been the swing demographic that has defined many elections -- and this primary season.

    Parent

    I don't dispute that AA's and degree holders (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by halstoon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:00:28 PM EST
    outnumber working-class whites. The fact that they are in fact such a small portion of the population actually points to just how much of a canard this is; if Barack didn't have average people supporting him, he would not get anywhere near the nomination.

    Bush beat Kerry by 3 million votes. There are at least 3 million black people in America, and they would be just as likely to stay home as any Reagan Democrat.

    In Ohio, the decisive contest, the difference was 120k votes; there are no doubt 120k affluent whites and any demo AAs who would be just as likely to stay home as any mill worker.

    Pretending that AAs won't vote GOP or stay home just b/c they're historically loyal is not only wrong, it's arrogant. Making the nomination about a group which IDs itself by its love for Reagan is also unfortunate; after all, when Barack did speak favorably of Reagan, Hillary called him non-Democratic. To now argue that Reagan Democrats are the most important constituency in the nation is just a bit too hypocritical.

    Parent

    nobody's pretending AA's won't vote GOP. (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:35:19 PM EST
    but policy-wise, voting for hillary would still be to their advantage.  not so for many hillary supporters; many of us dislike obama's policy stances and frankly feel like he's deliberately discarded many of our party's fundamental values.

    at such a critical juncture when dems have a rare opportunity (i.e., sufficient popular will) for real progressive policy change, it feels like obama's telling us to beg for what we already have--not to mention failing to offer anything of added value.  it's a huge slide backward and i won't reward it by coming forward and begging.  

    to top it off, i don't want to see him to ruin the dem brand for a self-indulgent four years just so we can end up with 12 more years of bush wannabes thereafter.

    Parent

    What policies do you just find abhorrent? (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by halstoon on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:56:20 PM EST
    On UHC, he believes the same, just has a different method. Across the board, really, he seems to believe as Hillary believes--to the point he's called a copycat--but with a different method or some slight difference.

    What is that he believes that you would rather see McCain be president--either by voting directly for him or by withholding your support from Barack?

    Parent

    Why should I vote (5.00 / 1) (#250)
    by themomcat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:00:56 PM EST
    for the carbon copy (Obama) when I have the original (HRC)?

    Parent
    no. repeating obama's talking points (5.00 / 4) (#258)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:04:43 PM EST
    will get you nowhere with me.  on UHC alone, if he really believed in it, he wouldn't be (1) siding right now with the health insurance companies' position against hillary, (2) pushing the same kinds of failed experiments pushed by the GOP for 40 years that got us into the health crisis we're in to begin with, and (3) using the same ugly tactics the GOP used in the 90's to derail her proposal--especially at a critical and rare juncture when we finally have a sufficient popular will, no thanks to him, to get it passed.

    Parent
    Well, I certainly do dispute that. Again (none / 0) (#303)
    by Cream City on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:55:27 PM EST
    Degree holders are less than 30% of whites, and less than 25% of AAs.  Again, that adds up to less than a third of the population.  Obama's got a lot of college students, the future degree holders.  

    And to equate Bush's margin of 3 million with the population of 3 million AAs is just boggling.  It would take visuals to map out why.  And it wouldn't be worth it; you're doing your own math and much else that just doesn't make sense on a political map.

    Parent

    McCain Vote (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by mmc9431 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:43:33 PM EST
    I don't believe that many Dem's will vote for McCain to spite Obama. I think they'll just stay home. Hopefully for the Dem'd, many Rep's feel the same way towards McCain. Maybe it will balance out. But it is a serious mistake to write off the working class in this country. We already have one elitist party and it's the Reublican's.

    Parent
    D voters will be educated about McCain (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by contrarian1964 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:55:03 PM EST
    The Obama (or the HRC, if she were to win) campaign will educate Democratic voters about McCain.  

    That process has barely begun.  Tens of millions have no idea how conservative McCain is.  

    Parent

    Worse, he's not even that Conservative (1.00 / 1) (#165)
    by chrisblask on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:07:12 PM EST
    but he's willing to play one on TV.

    I like the guy personally, but he's prostituting himself to fools like Hagee.  His only path to the WH today is to go hard-right, and right-center Indies like myself won't touch that with a ten-foot pole.  The Right is self-destructing, and only the shear-factor of Obama skewering Dems can give them a win in Nov.

    My personal opinion is that the vast majority of Sen. Clinton's supporters are sincere.  But it is hard to imagine what more Republicans could do to damage the Dem frontrunner.

    It is good to see Sen. Clinton stop the attacks. I hope her supporters can bring themselves to follow her lead.

    -cheers

    -chris

    Parent

    Dear Chris (5.00 / 5) (#193)
    by kmblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:22:24 PM EST
    You won't have to imagine it.
    McCain is already reaching out to the folks the new Obama Party has abandoned.  I imagine he will gain quite a bit of ground between now and November--while Donna Brazile continues to insist Hillary supporters are vulgar, uncivil, and not needed.

    Parent
    That's your problem... (5.00 / 0) (#238)
    by wasabi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:49:39 PM EST
    "But it is hard to imagine what more Republicans could do to damage the Dem frontrunner."


    Parent
    I'll use my last post of the day to correct (none / 0) (#169)
    by chrisblask on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:08:33 PM EST
    that:

    "Obama-skewering Dems".  The hyphen (or lack) can change the meaning....

    :~)

    -chris

    Parent

    you lost me with this (none / 0) (#313)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:40:33 PM EST
    It is good to see Sen. Clinton stop the attacks. I hope her supporters can bring themselves to follow her lead.

    I will not pay attention to your posts here as your relevance as a reasonable Obama supporter has been disproved by your words.

    I have not witnessed anyone attack you here as Hillary supporters have been attacked elsewhere.

    Here is a Feb 14 blog that was on Obama's site.  (Beware, some people love to save these things...)


    Post from The Gospel According to SHAE:
    Hillary vs Obama: The Slavery Perspective
    By ShaeSmith - Feb 14th, 2008 at 8:22 am EST

    Also listed in: 4 groups

    Comments |  Mail to a Friend  |  Report Objectionable Content
    ______________
    Tags: hillary, obama, slavery
     Field Slave/Obama Supporter:
    "I seen a way to freedom and power. C'mon go with me. I figured out a way to the promise land - that place Martin and Malcolm spoke of. There's hope and possibilities out there for us. There some white folks I know say they gon help us get there. The time is now - right now. Come On..."

    House Slave/Clinton Supporter:
    "Massa Clinton been good to us. Git on 'way from here Obama. You gon cause problem fo us all!! Didn't Massa Clinton give you food and shelter all these years. Where you gon take us? You never been nowhere but right here on dis plantation wit us. This here fine living. We don't know where you trying to go. They gon kill you. Then how us gon survive? Aint no white folks gon hep you. Get on way from here Obama. Gon now...git"

    Looking at from this historical perspective . . . who was right????

    Have a nice day

    Parent

    Don't kid yourself (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by Mrwirez on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    I will vote straight Dem except for president. It will be
    1 - Hillary (if applicable)
    2 - Blank
    3 - McCain

    Parent
    And pray tell who are the most likely defectors? (5.00 / 0) (#127)
    by davnee on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:46:23 PM EST
    Why that would be Reagan Dems (swing voters by definition).  A-A's and latte sipping whites are more likely to come home to the party despite bruised feelings because they are not swing voters.  I grant you Clinton faces challenges as well, but hers are far less severe, not for the least reason that there are more blue collar whites in this nation than any other demographic group!!  And you can kiss suburban indies goodbye after Wright.  You know the voters allegedly only Obama could get.  They've been breaking HRC's way lately.  Obamba will not be expanding any coalitions.  He'll be lucky to limp over the finish line.

    Parent
    Imagine a shareholder protest vote (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by boredmpa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:11:53 PM EST
    No one is going to like this comparison, BUT....

    There are less than 5 AA CEOs in the Fortune 500 and less than 10 female CEOs.  Now imagine a bunch of "eggheads and AAs" decide band together to place an AA with little experience and a crappy record on the fundamentals as a CEO.  And imagine the other candidate is a qualified minority as well.

    How will the rest of the shareholders and employees will react?  What about the folks with a lot invested in the organization over years and years?  Pretend it's a career organization like Ford Motor Company.

    Many of the shareholders will bail.  Others will stage a counter attempt.  Other employees will move to new organizations.  If there aren't enough options in the market, they may stay but reduce their involvement.

    Whatever they do, everyone will watch as the new guy either gets somewhat lucky because of the market or fails miserably.  If he succeeds, risk analysis suggests that he will succeed at a lesser level than the qualified CEO because he doesn't have the experience and record on the fundamentals.  He will also be undercut as an executive because his appointment will clearly be the result of affirmative action over another qualified minority.  

    There's no way to spin it otherwise and pass the sniff test. (other than playing to misogyny, which as been successful)

    That's why the party is screwed come Nov. It is the same as an internal takeover by shareholders with an explicitly anti-organization, anti-success agenda.  All the other shareholders want the best qualified candidate, that happens to be another minority candidate, and that's clearly qualified.

    -----

    And for the record, Hillary doesn't have a serious viability problem with AAs -- she has experience and a record with a 95+ rating from the NAACP.  If Obama is out, she can heal the wounds that were manufactured by his campaign without serious problems by simply appealing to her record.  


    Parent

    correction (none / 0) (#181)
    by boredmpa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:16:26 PM EST
    This isn't affirmative action, affirmative action implies preference for a minority while selecting between equals and making sure to correct for institutional bias in the ranking/rating/evaluation system.

    Obama is not as qualified as HRC, so i'm not sure what word to use.  But I shouldn't have used affirmative action in this context.

    Parent

    one problem with your thoughts (none / 0) (#72)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:29:41 PM EST
    AAs and eggheads are far less likely to vote for a republican than the other demographic.
    most of the people they are alienating really dont have that much of a problem with McCain.

    Parent
    reagan dems (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:36:35 PM EST
    swing voters, swing state voters...you know, those people who actually decide the elections.

    No one is dismissing aa and egghead voters.  Look at where Kerry and Gore lost.  Who pushed Bush over the edge both times?

    Parent

    pushing Bush over the edge (5.00 / 4) (#108)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:39:18 PM EST
    what a nice thought to start the weekend with!
    thanks

    Parent
    What is your unity plan? (none / 0) (#134)
    by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:50:12 PM EST


    Parent
    It's not TL pushing that meme (none / 0) (#201)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:29:33 PM EST
    its the exist polls (see AP's out just today), the Obama campaign itself (Axelrod said Obama didn't need them because they vote Republican anyway, despite their voting for Bill Clinton), and Donna Brazile reinforced that statement last Tuesday.

    Parent
    Different Take (2.75 / 12) (#17)
    by 1jane on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:13:19 PM EST
    Krugman's opinion just doesn't hold up. The number of people who look at McCain with his backdrop of old white men and then look at Obama with every race, sex and class mixed together as his backdrop is the kind of America most of us want to live in.

    Krugman's opinion is a thinly disguised effort to divide people and plays to media exaggerated sterotypes. The more antagonism generated the faster we will be sitting in chairs watching McCain's inaugeration on January 20, 2009.

    Look for the party uniter to beat McCain.

    McCain's backdrop (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:14:39 PM EST
    Won't be old white men.


    Parent
    Party uniter?? (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:17:26 PM EST


    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:20:46 PM EST
    could it be less unified?

    Parent
    Ha, I'll look for him to unite the party first. (5.00 / 8) (#38)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:19:51 PM EST
    ...standing in front of a backdrop of carefully staged diversity is not unity.

    Parent
    I recommended your post (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:20:41 PM EST
    Because it made me say, WOW!  Just WOW!

    Parent
    When will the uniter be coming? (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:20:56 PM EST
    And who will it be?

    Parent
    Define "old" (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Cream City on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:22:11 PM EST
    and if it includes boomer males, check their numbers.

    Then you may see the problem.

    Or, of course, you may not.  Too many today do not.

    Parent

    I'm still looking for this "Uniter" (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:23:14 PM EST
    that you speak of.

    Haven't seen him/her yet.

    Parent

    What is your unity plan? (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:35:05 PM EST
    Krugman (and BTD) have prsented theirs.  What do you think Obama (and Obama supporters) should do?

    Parent
    There may be a diversity among Obama supporters, (5.00 / 12) (#94)
    by Anne on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:35:14 PM EST
    but Obama has done nothing to unite the party.  Nothing.  In fact, his graceless victory lap - I forget, is this the third or fourth time he's done that? - is only keeping the divisions alive.

    If there are any media-exaggerated stereotypes, please look no further than the "the Clintons are racists," smear, which is wholly false and which Obama has done nothing to debunk - mainly because I believe it all started with his approval.  Karl Rove would be so proud!

    The antagonism you sense is in large part due to the ignorant comments of people like Ted Kennedy, who seems to have lost his understanding of the word "noble," apparently believing, like Obama does, that nobility resides in trashing a fine individual, and for what? - for the sake of getting closer to the WH than he ever dreamed he would be?  That's just so small.

    Finally, day after day, I read the comments here from Obama supporters, which offer nothing that could ever be considered helpful to uniting the party - with a few exceptions.  And I do mean "a few."

    I have said for a long time that Obama's message is 180 degrees away from his actions - something thar is eerily and sickeningly reminiscent of the "compassionate conservative" who has been in the WH for the last 7 1/2 years.  I have seen nothing from Obama that convinces me that he has any intention of, or interest in, putting his money where his mouth is.

    If you're looking for the champion of division, Krugman isn't your guy.

    Parent

    Obams's backdrop is contrived. (5.00 / 4) (#151)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:59:18 PM EST
    Even more so than another campaign.  Obama has is NC victory speech in a coliseum, has invitation only and showcases whites behind him.  The coliseum Obama victory crowd was dwarfed in the cavernous chamber.

    It is all perception now with Obama; a desperate move to try to stave of Clinton.

    Parent

    isn't it amazing what the (none / 0) (#174)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:14:22 PM EST
    right props and corrupt media manipulation can buy you?  amazing.

    Parent
    HA (5.00 / 2) (#248)
    by wasabi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:55:57 PM EST
    "The number of people who look at McCain with his backdrop of old white men and then look at Obama with every race, sex and class mixed together as his backdrop is the kind of America most of us want to live in."

    Problem is that you think that is what the rest of America finds attractive.  I think alot more people are far more concerned with meeting their mortgage payment or rent, feeding their family, keeping their jobs, than what the backdrop in a political rally looks like.

    Parent

    Also regarding FL and MI (1.00 / 2) (#10)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    You say:

    Let me just add, they need to count the delegates from these states in the vote and pledged and superdelegate totals before the nominee is chosen
    .

    The Michigan Dem party as a whole, is READY to seat MI, at 69 to 59, right?  

    It's Hillary that blocking it, because she thinks it unfair.

    However, once you get into the issue of fairness - is it fair that you even COUNT Michigan, if Obama wasn't on the ballot?

    A more overriding priority, is that Michigan gets seated.  But it seems as if Hillary is saying "seat MI my way or else I don't really care if MI gets seated".

    Stop lying (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by Davidson on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:12:56 PM EST
    Good Lord.

    Obama chose to take his name off the ballot, something that the DNC did not require him to do.  Obama chose to block the revote even though the DNC had approved of the revote plan.

    Clinton is right to be upset with a grotesquely unfair MI seating plan because not only does it give Obama all the "uncommitted" delegates but also some of her votes/delegates.  So it's not her dictating anything, unless you think basic democracy is a vice.

    God.

    Parent

    Don't take this the wrong way (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:17:04 PM EST
    And I agree he took his name off, but there is no reason for name calling. There was no lie in the parent post, you may not agree with it, but it is accurate. You could point out he took his name off for political reasons and should pay a price for it now.

    Parent
    What name calling? (none / 0) (#35)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:19:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Sorry Phrased it badly (none / 0) (#39)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:20:34 PM EST
    The title was "Stop lying." jcsf isn't lying in his post.

    Parent
    He's not exactly being honest either (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:28:42 PM EST
    Taking away Hillary's EARNED votes is not fair or truthful. She earned 55% of the delegates, but that plan takes away from her

    Parent
    If it is remotely favorable for Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Fabian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:17:53 PM EST
    then it must be grotesquely unfair for Obama.

    That's the Obama narrative for MI and FL.

    Memorize it.  It will save you a lot of time.

    Parent

    What did I lie about? (none / 0) (#42)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:20:56 PM EST
    His name wasn't on the ballot, which is what I wrote.

    Parent
    Why was his (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:25:25 PM EST
    name not on the ballot?  Because he took his name off the ballot.  He didn't participate in the election.  Therefore, at minimum he shouldn't get ANY of Hillary's delegates.  

    He disenfranchised the voters of Michigan by taking his name off the ballot for something they did not do.

    How ya like them apples?

    Parent

    You know why his name wasn't on the ballot (1.00 / 4) (#67)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:27:53 PM EST
    He and Edwards were going along with the DNC request.  As Hillary said she would do, then ended up not doing.  Remember, Hillary was in full support of the DNC request, when Iowa was on the line.

    So she was in full support of that "disenfranchisement", until it no longer worked for her.


    Parent

    Now that is dishonest (5.00 / 7) (#70)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:28:53 PM EST
    They were doing no such thing, there was NO REQUEST to remove names, just not to campaign, which everyone abided by.

    Show me where there was a request to remove names. Or don't spread misinformation.

    Parent

    Yes please show us that request because... (5.00 / 6) (#83)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:33:01 PM EST
    ...I can't tell you how many times I've heard that claim the past few days...that the party asked candidates to take their name off the ballot. If that was the case, why didn't all the candidates take their name off the ballot? Even Donna Brazile doesn't make this claim and you know she would if she could.

    Parent
    The DNC did not ask them to take (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:30:32 PM EST
    their names of the ballot.  They signed a pledge not to campaign.  Obama and Edwards were pandering when they decided to take their names of the ballot and there was a very organzied Obama effort to get people to vote uncommitted to embarrass Clinton because she was the only top candidate on the ballot.  This is all very well known. You must live at Huffpost or Dailykos.

    Parent
    NOW You are Lying (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by Cate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:31:25 PM EST


    Parent
    The DNC (5.00 / 6) (#82)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:32:22 PM EST
    requested that they didn't campaign in the state.  There was no request to take the name off the ballot.  That's why Hillary and Dodd were still there.  Do you think Dodd lacks integrity too?

    Taking names off the ballot was a strategic effort by the Obama campaign to score points in Iowa.  There was no requirement via the DNC that they take their names off the ballot.

    If anyone is telling you otherwise, they are mis-informing you.

    Parent

    You didn't lie. But it is dishonest (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:33:03 PM EST
    to use a fairness argument about MI when Obama made the choice about being on the ballot.

    Parent
    There is no fairness argument for MI (none / 0) (#102)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:37:40 PM EST
    Really, there isn't.  All we can do is figure out the best way to split the baby.


    Parent
    actually, no--there IS a fairness argument. (5.00 / 6) (#140)
    by kangeroo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:53:55 PM EST
    it's called, your candidate knowingly and intentionally took a gamble by pandering to iowa--and was rewarded handsomely for it with not only a victory in iowa, but also all that that has historically implied:  critical subsequent momentum, media coverage, and viability.  he benefited big time from his pander.  and ya know what?  now he gets to pay the price.  deal with it.

    Parent
    The point that I have made many times. (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:04:21 PM EST


    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#52)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:23:48 PM EST
    That is the whole point.  Michigan is EXACTLY, not an exercise in democracy, because the three main popular candidates were not on the ballot.  So how could that election reflect the will of Michigan voters?

    Parent
    It did reflect the will of the people (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:26:14 PM EST
    As presented by nominees who were on the ballot. Its not the peoples fault he removed his name, he did it for his own reasons. Consequences my friend. And Hillary is right, if you seat Michigan reflect the will of the people who voted. Why is anyones guess of what the voters want better than the results at hand?

    Parent
    Consequences is correct (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:29:27 PM EST
    The DNC initiated a process of consequences for MI, that Hillary was in full support of - up until the vote in MI.

    Parent
    You can't have it both ways (5.00 / 6) (#79)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:31:42 PM EST
    Either Obama faces the music and gets no delegates if MI is seated, or MI is left out and we decide they are not important to Obama's chances in Nov. Don't try to use one standard for one side, but not the other.

    I agree with Sen Clinton: stick to what happened, and let the "winner" risk alienating a whole state for a measly 4 delegates he doesn't need anyway.

    Honestly I think MI/FL just underscores how much the Obama campaign has tunnel vision about winning the primary without any foresight about the general election.

    Parent

    My opinion is that (none / 0) (#93)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:35:06 PM EST
    The primary is won.  Feel free to disagree.

    But "both ways" is exactly how Clinton is trying to have it - the MI delegates are seated her way - or she won't agree to it.

    You justify that.

    Parent

    Oh dead g-d (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:37:04 PM EST
    I thought you were interested in an honest discussion, my mistake.

    Its not Hillary's way, it is HOW THE PEOPLE VOTED.

    Parent

    That should be DEAR!! N/T (none / 0) (#100)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:37:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Again, (none / 0) (#104)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:38:24 PM EST
    Not a real, representative vote.  

    Parent
    Listen a little intellectual honesty is a good (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:39:38 PM EST
    thing. Please, I ask you nicely. Don't just say the same invalid thing over and over. It was very much representative of the will of the people who voted. And the choices the candidates made.

    Parent
    I complete disagree with the 1st part (none / 0) (#117)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:41:18 PM EST
    It was very much representative of the will of the people who voted

    That simply is untrue.  And assigning blame to Obama, for taking his name off of the ballot doesn't make that statement true.

    Parent

    Not blame (5.00 / 5) (#121)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:43:36 PM EST
    Again consequences for actions. He chose to remove his name, this is the consequence. He did get real advantage from it in Iowa, so it was probably a wise move. But now the consequence part comes in.

    Fair election, certified results. If he wants to blow off Michigan it is in his power. Let's see if he can figure out how to be a general election candidate now.

    Parent

    Marvin, save your breath (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:58:00 PM EST
    this is like arguing with a wall -- anyone who doesn't understand that 55% voted for Hillary and no one voted for Obama and exacerbates their argument that "allowing" the people who voted for Hillary have their votes count, is not worth reasoning with.

    Parent
    You are correct, eternal optimism I guess N/T (none / 0) (#158)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:02:49 PM EST


    Parent
    It not untrue. (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:16:15 PM EST
    It did represent the will of the people who voted.

    If people favored either Obama or Edwards, Hillary would not have won.  The uncommitteds would have taken the day.

    They did not.

    Parent

    It is not untrue. (none / 0) (#185)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:17:27 PM EST
    It did represent the will of the people who voted.

    If people favored either Obama or Edwards, Hillary would not have won.  The uncommitteds would have taken the day.

    They did not.

    Parent

    If that is so, than why isn't Obama ... (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:10:20 PM EST
    counting these states, thus starting the healing process in those two states?  Instead, he even wants to take four delegates away from Clinton as well as take all the uncommitted.  That is the nominee - he needs to continue to flame the fires and alienate Clinton supporters and MI and FL voters by squeezing every last delegate even though he has the nomination?  I don't think so, this looks more like he needs every vote and delegate he can get to change the perception.

    Parent
    And Obama (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:26:47 PM EST
    should have thought of that and he shouldn't have deliberately taken his name off the ballot.

    Don't you think?

    Parent

    it was calculated (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:27:49 PM EST
    so they can do exactly what they are doing.


    Parent
    Just Making Up Numbers (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by flashman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:14:48 PM EST
    Is that the correct way to honor MI voters?  Where do these numbers come from?  How do they relate to the will of the MI voters?

    Parent
    He Never Ran in Michigan (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Athena on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:23:22 PM EST
    Obama has NEVER submitted to a vote in Michigan.  

    No matter what happens now - he at best would be the nominee of 49 states.

    Parent

    So if Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Evie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:21:03 PM EST
    had taken her name of all the caucus states ballots, can we ignore those too?

    And if all GOP-controlled legislatures moved up their states' primaries/caucuses, can we not count them too?

    Hillary is saying that the VOTERS should decide. Not the DNC. Not the state government. Not the state party leaders. The actual VOTERS.

    Parent

    Voters cannot decide (none / 0) (#55)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:24:29 PM EST
    If they don't get a chance to vote for the popular candidates.

    Parent
    Um (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Evie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:30:55 PM EST
    who took away their chance by taking his name off the ballot?

    That such tactics should be rewarded is ridiculous. Otherwise, Hillary could have taken her name off the ballot in all the states where she trailed. Because surely those contests would then be illegitimate, right?

    Parent

    Hillary was in full support of such tactics (1.00 / 4) (#85)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    Until she wasn't.

    The main issue of course, is that the vote was setup as to not be a good democratic vote.  And the whole process was responsible, including Hillary.  

    Parent

    we know about Obama's tactics (5.00 / 4) (#223)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:40:05 PM EST
    Oct. 2007 - IowaIndependent

    Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.
    http://tinyurl.com/2quujs

    Parent

    The ISSUE (5.00 / 0) (#234)
    by Evie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:46:56 PM EST
    is whether the actual choices of the voters who voted mean anything to Obama and the DNC. Playing with names and ballots and delegates does not honor the voters' choices.

    And Hillary never supported taking anyone's name off ballots. The subject was taking away the voters choices by taking names off the ballot.

    If CHOOSING to take your own name off the ballot means that you get rewarded, then Hillary should have taken her name of all the ballots of the caucus states, right? Because their results would be illegitimate and we'd get to split their delegates 50-50, right?

    Parent

    Here's where your argument leads.. (5.00 / 5) (#156)
    by tree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:01:13 PM EST
    Gore wasn't/isn't on the ballot in any state either. He chose not to put his name on the ballot, just like Obama chose to remove his name from the ballot  in Michigan. No one got to vote for Gore, even though he is still a popular choice for President. If, as you insist, a vote isn't valid because a popular candidate isn't on it by his own choice, then NOT ONE of the states has had a valid vote.

    Parent
    And Gore should get the majority of the delegates! (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:11:40 PM EST


    Parent
    The popular candidates? (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:20:11 PM EST
    That's funny.

    Obama removed his name from the ballot in Michigan.  He couldn't do it in Florida.

    He would have like to though, so y'all could believe he would have won there.

    Parent

    It's unfair to Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:24:19 PM EST
    We know that 55% voted for Hillary. We don't know what percentage would've voted for Edwards who was polling around 10-15%.

    Why does one candidate get all the uncommitted delegates and at the same time take delegates away from Hillary that were earned?

    Parent

    I will agree that (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:31:22 PM EST
    The MI election was unfair.

    Yes.  

    And invalid.  

    As such - the duty falls to the elected representatives of MI, to come up with a plan for the ballots (would have been best to have a revote, but too late for that now).  

    And they've come up with a plan.  Why does Hillary block it, if the FIRST priority, is seating the MI delegation?

    Parent

    Obama (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:33:58 PM EST
    blocked a revote in Michigan.

    Parent
    Elections approved by the state are not invalid (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:37:29 PM EST
    I wonder if there were any liquor referendums or tax proposals on the ballot have they been declared invalid? He chose not to participate

    And primarily because it takes delegates away from her that were earned by her at the ballot box

    Parent

    answered multiple times (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:31:45 PM EST
    see my post yesterday. 69/59 is stealing.

    Parent
    The election itself is stealing (1.00 / 0) (#87)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:33:36 PM EST
    because it wasn't a valid election.

    Parent
    So you keep saying (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by Marvin42 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:35:40 PM EST
    But it doesn't make it true. People show up, people vote, its a valid election unless ballots were stolen, or people were intimidated.

    You don't seem to get it (or don't want to get it). Because DNC said the delegates don't get seated it does not mean that peoples vote became invalid.

    Parent

    Then why did the (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:39:06 PM EST
    secretary of state in MI validate the results, same in FL.  They were both valid elections and the results have been properly certified.  

    Parent
    The ONLY (5.00 / 1) (#274)
    by Evie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:23:25 PM EST
    reason you have for saying the MI election wasn't a valid representation of the people's will is that Obama's name wasn't on the ballot.

    But he TOOK HIS OWN NAME off the ballot. Cheap political stunts should NOT be rewarded by stealing some of Hillary's votes to give to Obama.

    If he's not willing to give MI voters the chance to vote for him, then he does not deserve their votes.

    Parent

    Of course it was -- except to Obamans (none / 0) (#118)
    by Cream City on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:41:43 PM EST
    and doesn't that make you wonder, even a wee bit?

    Parent
    Then let's agree to disagree (none / 0) (#122)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:44:11 PM EST
    A contest where Obama and Edwards supporters - Clinton's primary competitors - had to vote "Uncommitted", and a contest where candidates didn't get a chance to campaign - isn't much of a contest.

    Certainly not a democratic one.

    Parent

    MI and Fl (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by mmc9431 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:56:23 PM EST
    My biggest problem with that whole fiasco is that after the 2000 election, when the votes were ignored, the progressive community was outraged. As everyone should have been. Now they are taking the same route. There should never be any question about the votes in the country that sees itself as the beacon of democracy.

    Parent
    Again... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by pie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:23:23 PM EST
    slowly.

    Uncommitted. did.  not.  beat.  Hillary.

    Concerning those who stayed home?

    They obviously didn't want to make a statement either.  

    Parent

    Taking their names (5.00 / 1) (#321)
    by Evie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:16:01 AM EST
    off the ballot means they FORFEIT the contest. It's simple. You have to COMPETE to win.

    What undemocratic is taking away votes that were ACTUALLY cast and re-assigning them based on some arbitrary measure just because you don't like how the voters actually voted.

    Parent

    JCF (none / 0) (#131)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:48:40 PM EST
    you have 16 comments on talkleft today, four more until midnight.Then you need to come back another day.

    Parent
    I realize my two cents... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:02:50 PM EST
    ...is stacked on a mile high pile of pennies but:

    That division of delegates makes no sense at all. It's no more based on the vote totals than the 50/50 split. Or, for that matter, any arbitrary split you can think of. Now that Edwards endorsement of Obama is fairly certain the delegates should just be split based on the Clinton/Uncommitted numbers, with the MI popular vote factored in or not, but perhaps not viewed as a deciding factor (which it isn't, since it's fairly clear the SDs aren't going to overturn the nomination based on the popular vote if it includes FL and MI anyway).

    No arbitrary delegate divisions.

    Parent

    Michigan and Florida (5.00 / 1) (#278)
    by Sycamore on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:30:36 PM EST
    Like the governors of those states said, once the Florida and Michigan votes are cast and certified those votes owe to count. Every vote counts, whether they go to Obama or Hillary, no exception.

    The party bosses in Washington, DC can create their own rules to advance the Obama cause but it's just the way it is. Every vote owes to Count!!!

    The DNC has a very screwed up rules to begin with. They design a very complicated proportional system that will certainly prolong the Democratic Primary election and now that we have a close contest, they want to stop it in the middle by forcing Hillary out. That's insanity!!!

    Additionally they schdule a convention in August and now that we have a close race, they want to hurry up the process on the guise that Democrats need time to prepare to fight the Republicans therefore the contest owes to end soon.

    If that's what they truly wanted then why didn't do a winner takes all contest like the Republican did. And why didn't they schedule the convention in April or May instead?

    And why do we have these clowns at the DNC promoting one Candidate over another? Where's the objectivity here. Donna Brazille still undecided?

    Parent

    Michigan (1.00 / 2) (#107)
    by eagleye on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:39:07 PM EST
    Hillary isn't fooling anyone by claiming that she is sincerely concerned about the disenfranchisement of the voters in Michigan.

    Imagine that Obama had come out ahead in the Michigan primary--  would she still be arguing righteously that those votes are sacred and need to be counted?  I don't think so.  She is on record as acknowledging that MI wouldn't count-- until she fell behind and needed to make up ground somewhere.  And her own advisor Harold Ickes is one of the people on the DNC Rules Committee who voted to penalize Michigan for advancing its primary up in the schedule.

    The math is brutal for HRC (link below), and the best thing she can do now is acknowledge her defeat and help us beat McCain in November.  Raising issues of race isn't helping her or the Democratic Party-- she is only raising the toxicity level of this primary.

    http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/5/8/04415/00688

    I think you are projecting a little (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:40:37 PM EST
    bit.  You and people like you are the ones who are dividing the party.

    Parent
    I thought the race was over (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Manuel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:57:53 PM EST
    Why are you still going on about Hillary?

    Parent
    Relax, eagleye's a drive-by... (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by Camorrista on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:44:44 PM EST
    Before you get involved in a discussion with Eagleye, keep in mind he's only stopped by a couple of times; his purpose is to roil the waters, and in case you think I'm wrong, here's an earlier sample of his "thinking:"

    HRC showed herself to be a conniving, transparently self-serving politician with that move.  And she was not being politically astute, either.


    Parent
    "toxicity level" (none / 0) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:40:43 PM EST
    save the watch.
    the wallet is already gone.

    Parent
    Demography is not destiny in the general election (none / 0) (#6)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:04:15 PM EST
    Once more - take the example of Lynn Swann.  If demographics were destiny, he wouldn't have gotten all those white lower middle class Republicans, in the red areas of Pennsylvania.

    But he did.  

    Yes, it is a concern - but it is NOT destiny, as other factors can, and in many cases will, trump.

    BTD, you still haven't even acknowledged the rather obvious fact that an intra-party competition, where both candidate seem to have similar views, is a radically different election than one for the general.  I get your point, but how come you don't put that point in perspective?

    Did Lynn Swann (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Evie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:14:47 PM EST
    win?

    Parent
    Anyone notice (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by tree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:05:40 PM EST
    You can compare Obama to Lynn Swann but if Bill Clinton compares Obama to Jesse Jackson he's called a racist?

    Parent
    And Obama isn't failing with (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by tree on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:07:25 PM EST
    white working class because he's black, he's failing because he personally doesn't have a clue how to appeal to them.

    Parent
    dont you think it's always (none / 0) (#178)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:15:47 PM EST
    Far more easy to argue that one's weaknesses are always the result of someone else's prejudice?

    Parent
    I think Obamamites (none / 0) (#228)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:45:23 PM EST
    would call the Clintons racists if they selected vanilla rather than chocolate ice cream. All those different flavors and they chose vanilla!!
    Yup - just proves they're racists!

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#7)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    Jeralyn - not BTD.

    Parent
    Didn't Lynn Swann lose by 20 points? (none / 0) (#24)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:16:49 PM EST


    Parent
    no a close second (none / 0) (#30)
    by Salo on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:18:14 PM EST
    just like Obama against Clinton.

    Parent
    Lynn Swann (none / 0) (#157)
    by lilburro on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:02:20 PM EST
    won Republicans...because he's a...REPUBLICAN.

    He also used to play for the Steelers.  

    Parent

    Lynn Swann was in the mainstream for those... (none / 0) (#188)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:18:30 PM EST
    white Republican voters.  That is why he got their votes.  Obama is perceived by the liberal white Democratic voters to be in their main stream and he has gotten the majority (but not the overriding one) of that demographic.  No the middle and working class white vote has fled from Obama in the Democratic Primary (these voters are still significantly more liberal than the GE voters).  So he has lost this group who has proven that they will vote Republican and he will do even worse among other whites in th GE.

    Hispanics, Asians, women, Catholics, Jews, seniors, etal are also not voting for Obama.  You cannot shed these demographics and hope to win.

    Parent

    Lynn Swann was a football player (none / 0) (#192)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:21:45 PM EST
    he has appeal that crosses demographics. ;)
     

    Parent
    Well, ... (5.00 / 3) (#206)
    by dws3665 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:33:16 PM EST
    Obama is a bowler! That should count for something!

    /snark

    Parent

    It's not over yet (none / 0) (#135)
    by chopper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:51:24 PM EST
    Hillary will definately win WV and KY.

    The popular vote is a virtual tie.

    More corruption is coming out about Obama - his money laundering scheme in Chicago (NYT).

    Hillary is way ahead in the Electoral Votes, the ones needed to beat McCain.

    The superdelegates would be fools to give it to Obama who the GOP will destroy, when they could give it to Hillary who has the experience, knowledge, record of accomplishments, maturity, character, military endorsements, and can beat McCain.

    Nickel and dime... (none / 0) (#149)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 05:58:04 PM EST
    ...sorry to nickel and dime, but Clinton is not "way ahead" in the electoral vote. Surprisingly enough, according to the electoral vote counter on MyDD -- a somewhat pro-Clinton site at this point -- Obama has 265 and Hillary has 276. Obviously the crucial 270 number falls right in the middle there, but given the past few weeks and the inevitable rise of both of their numbers an 11 point EV difference isn't a trump card.

    Parent
    270 votes neede to win, Hillary won (none / 0) (#246)
    by chopper on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:54:34 PM EST
    Obama 265 and Hillary 276.  You missed the point. It takes 270 to win, Hillary has 276, that means she won.  Obama's 265 are worthless.

    This is the general election we are talking about, not some stupid DNC rules.

    Obama is hanging on a limb with his DNC
    pledged delegates. He will never get the delegates needed to win.  He has more than Hillary, but he didn't reach the 2200 or so needed to declare victory.  He never will, it's impossible, Hillary is too close.

    Hillary has exceeded the magic number to win the electoral votes in the general election, beating McCain and Obama.

    Parent

    I noted that exact thing in my comment... (5.00 / 1) (#251)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:01:38 PM EST
    ...so did you choose to ignore it, or did you not read my comment before responding?

    It's my feeling that both numbers will go up once there's an agreement on both sides as to whom the nominee is. I missed no point.

    As for this:

    He will never get the delegates needed to win.  He has more than Hillary, but he didn't reach the 2200 or so needed to declare victory.  He never will, it's impossible, Hillary is too close.

    That is untrue.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#177)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:15:34 PM EST
    Hillary is well ahead in electoral votes, while Obama is well behind.

    electoral-vote.com

    Parent

    If Obama is such a great uniter, (none / 0) (#184)
    by Left of center on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:16:43 PM EST
    what is all this talk about RE-uniting the Democratic party?

    Inane... (none / 0) (#254)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:03:33 PM EST
    ...if Hillary's such a good fighter, why isn't she going to win?

    Both sides can play games with words, and it's equally inane either way.

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#287)
    by Leisa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:57:28 PM EST
    unbeknownst to you, as you appear to believe the spin, Hillary has fought fair and asked legitimate questions that will be issues this fall.

    Obama and his campaign, in time, will be exposed for not so fair and questionable tactics... That is why he will not win.

    Hillary has held back, contrary to what others may say.  

    The narrative and tone has been set for the GE if Obama is the nominee.  He will not be able to use the same tactics with McCain.  He loses out of the gate, and it is his own doing...

    Do you even have any idea of how Obama treated McCain in the Senate?    Obama's arrogance and disrespect made him very few friends across the isle...  This will be interesting GE if he is the nominee.

     

    Parent

    ...if Hillary's such a good fighter, (none / 0) (#289)
    by Left of center on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:59:29 PM EST
    why isn't she going to win?
    That's easy, because 93% of blacks support Obama over her for completely non racial reasons*

    Parent
    Maybe... (none / 0) (#290)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:05:02 PM EST
    ...she should have fought for black votes then. I don't know what to tell you. Your comment is just as useless in application as those that dismiss Appalachian voters as racist, and so that's why Obama can't win them. Both may be true, I don't know, but it's useless. It's a situation, a real situation with real consequences, and it must be dealt with. You can't complain about Obama "not" uniting the party without accepting that Hillary "didn't" fight for black votes. It's nonsensical.

    Parent
    What did Obama do to win blacks? (none / 0) (#292)
    by Left of center on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:24:05 PM EST
    Besides being half black? Thank you, you've made my point.

    Parent
    And you've completely missed mine. (none / 0) (#293)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:29:30 PM EST


    Parent
    If your point is that if the (none / 0) (#299)
    by Left of center on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:49:57 PM EST
    general election comes down to race then Obama has absolutely no chance then i get the point.

    Parent
    Interesting point (none / 0) (#306)
    by dmk47 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:05:10 PM EST
    In South Carolina, Obama and Clinton split the black vote 78/19. In North Carolina, Obama got 91 percent, Clinton got 7. In other words, Clinton's black support declined by almost two thirds after South Carolina. I've done the spreadsheet work on this: if Clinton had maintained a fifth of the black vote in the primaries since Super Tuesday, she'd have netted upwards of 600,000 popular votes. In other words, she'd be even or ahead, not just according to counts that include FL & MI and exclude four caucus states, but by any count. And there's no reason she could have done that. Her SC performance came after Mark Penn and Billy Shaheen started talking about cocaine, after Obama won Iowa and legitimized himself as a candidate, and after Bill's now infamous comments.

    And by the way, the steepest decline from one big multiple primary day to another in Clinton's black support was a 44.6% drop from TX/OH to NC/Indy. In other words, exactly the bookends of the Wrightmare.

    There's a lesson here. You can't win the Democratic nomination without some black votes, and even if you've "lost the black vote" by some measure, you still need to contend for it. 0 percent is worse than 5 is worse than 10 is worse than 20. Those are difference-making distinctions.
     

    Parent

    How about White Voters? (none / 0) (#324)
    by northeast73 on Mon May 12, 2008 at 09:51:19 AM EST
    Obama was winning them back in February (see Virginia)

    And since the, Rezko, nafta-backtaling, Wright, Bittergate, Michelle's big mouth, the bad debate performance...

    ...he has LOST white voters.  Or another way ofputting it....all but the black voters.

    Parent

    Sounds like the old (none / 0) (#314)
    by delacarpa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:47:04 PM EST
    You think! The old one will win it anyway to my disheartment.

    Krugman A Must Read Today: What Obama Must Do | 314 comments (314 topical)