Hillary's Take on the Electoral Map

From tomorrow's Christian Science Monitor: Hillary Campaign Advisors Wolfson and Garin say it's not that Obama can't win in November, it's that the data shows Hillary has a better chance:

At the top of the ballot, current state polling data show that Clinton would defeat Sen. John McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee, by 42 electoral votes, while the same polls show Obama losing to Senator McCain by 8 electoral votes, they said.

The Clinton strategists also came armed with charts looking at 20 House districts where freshmen Democrats won but which also voted for George Bush in 2004. Clinton defeated Obama in 16 of those 20 districts. Their argument: Clinton would help vulnerable House members more than Obama. Asked about the breakdown of endorsements from those 16 freshmen, Wolfson said that five had so far backed her and four, Obama.

As for how long she's staying in :[More]

"We do not believe a nominee will be chosen unless or until somebody gets to 2,209 [delegates], which is the number including Florida and Michigan. So if that has happened by June 3, then someone will be the nominee. If that hasn't, then the nomination fight continues," Howard Wolfson, Senator Clinton's communications director, told a Monitor-sponsored breakfast on Friday.

We are not oblivious to the environment in which we are operating. But this is very much like a tennis match," Clinton's chief strategist, Geoff Garin, told reporters at the breakfast. "Sometimes, even when people are down two sets to love and down a couple of games in the third set, they end up winning by the fifth set. So Senator Clinton goes on with the same energy and commitment."

Since the race is ongoing, and superdelegates can change their mind up until they vote at the convention in August, here are the voter registration numbers (pdf)for West Virgina.

Seems to me the critical thing now for Hillary is voter turnout. Obama is brushing off W.Va. and KY and hoping people won't turn out, thinking their vote doesn't matter. Their votes may matter. They matter in the popular vote total and because we don't have a nominee yet, no matter how many pundits, pollsters and journalists think we do.

It's over when one candidate drops out or delegates are counted at the convention in August: pledged, unpledged, add-on and superdelegates.

As for the current state of electoral votes, from my earlier post, with Obama winning N.C. but losing W.Va., I don't think he gets past 265 votes in November. He needs 270. With Hillary winning W.Va. but not N.C., her total is 317.

Remember, as to this latest month of primaries, Indiana, Kentucky, Montana and South Dakota will go Republican in November no matter who the nominee is. Only W. Va. and N. Carolina are battleground states. Oregon will go Democratic whoever wins.

The real question is who has a better chance of taking Ohio, PA and Florida? Together those three states have 68 electoral votes. N.C. has 15, W. Va has 5. Together, Colorado and N.M.have 14.

Comments now closed, 1:35 am

< Friday Night Open Thread | Obama Advisor Resigns Over Ties to Hamas Meetings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    RE: West Virginia (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Faust on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:49:45 PM EST
    I think you'll find Cost's recent piece quite excellent:


    well, I'll be (5.00 / 12) (#16)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:59:08 PM EST
    What happens to "It's Over" if Clinton pulls a 40-point victory in West Virginia on Tuesday, then follows it up a week later with a 30-point victory in Kentucky? If these states turn out in the same margins that states since March 4th have averaged, that would imply a net of about 290,000 votes for Clinton. That puts her within striking distance of a reasonable popular vote victory. "Over" will be over as we turn our attention to Puerto Rico.

    Who's been asking this very same question and getting crickets?

    Me, that's who.


    No crickets here. I completely agree. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:19:05 PM EST
    Drop Out After Winning? (5.00 / 9) (#29)
    by Athena on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:19:56 PM EST
    Every time Hillary wins, it's time for her to drop out.  It's Pavlovian.

    The One cannot be seen losing to Hillary.  Of course that doesn't mean he should actually go to WV and compete for votes.  I guess that would be demeaning.


    It means that WV doesn't count (5.00 / 9) (#34)
    by hookfan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:31:25 PM EST
    because Obama didn't fully campaign there. Ya know, just like Florida. Pffft

    He can't relate to them, (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:21:58 AM EST
    His elitist arrogance would be in such contrast to the people, he wouldn't be able to engage them with his rhetoric.

    The last couple of times I've seen clips of his "appearances" show that he's bought into the rock star hype and can't even hide his over-confidence.


    And Michigan (5.00 / 4) (#180)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:32:36 AM EST
    where he strategically pulled his name off the ballot to taint a sure Clinton win.

    Watch the Obama group and media foam at the mouth denigrating her win in West Virginia and once again calling for her withdrawal. Quick, before she has another huge win in Kentucky.

    So predictable that none of the text will be a surprise.


    It shows lack of compassion (5.00 / 6) (#45)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:43:47 PM EST
    It shows the general public that he cares not for our fellow citizens who have had some hard times, but only for the AA and elite voters out there. It is almost like Bush ignoring the problem in NO. Not the same devastation of course, but the fact that there were a lot of less fortunate Americans who happened to be black. Reverse the people and who have the same fallen on hard times in many areas of these states. You saw on AI with Billy Ray Cirus the number of children who did not have enough reading books in the school. Many people are struggling in VW and Kentucky. He choose to ignore them. GW II.  

    He doesn't go to WV (5.00 / 11) (#46)
    by Rhouse on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    to compete for votes, because it would legitimize the votes that she will get.  This way he can claim that they don't count, (remind you of anywhere else), until his people can negotiate for over half the delegates
    bitter snark.

    I've always said this! (5.00 / 6) (#78)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:13:06 PM EST
    And it's funny (well not quite) but NO ONE EVER mentions this!!  

    I want to know when people expected she should drop out while still being respectful to her hard fought campaign and the voters.

    After her wins in OH, TX & RI?  Or after her big win in PA?  Or how about after she narrowly won IN, the state that Obama himself called the tie-breaker?  

    And now, she is looking ahead and most likely thinking, well next up is WV, KY, PR.  There are more voters in those states/territories than OR, SD & MT, and she can probably keep it close in those states.  What reasonable explanation does she have for dropping out?  I mean, once you actually get over all the excessive chatter of the media and Obama's campaign and supporters?



    I know! I know! (5.00 / 7) (#118)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:46:37 PM EST
    This is too easy:

    What happens to "It's Over" if Clinton pulls a 40-point victory in West Virginia on Tuesday, then follows it up a week later with a 30-point victory in Kentucky?

    She should drop out, gracefully, for the good of the party.

    [rimshot. laughter]


    That's not fair, Lambert (none / 0) (#166)
    by ChrisM on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:20:43 AM EST
    that was too easy! :-)

    How can so-called experts (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by kenosharick on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:52:52 PM EST
    that lead the party install Obama as the nominee?They KNOW she had a good chance to win and he has little barring a Mccain meltdown. I will be surprised if he even gets 200 electoral votes. He will not win a single Southern or Mountain West state despite the delusions of many. He is looking weak in the Midwest (forget Wis,Iowa;and Minn if Pawlenty is a Veep nom). He iseven looking weak in Mass- if that does not convince the supers then they are destroying our chances in Nov. on purpose and I will feel no guilt over writing in Hillary on my ballot.

    that's not what's happening (1.00 / 2) (#10)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:54:30 PM EST
    he's not being instilled.  he's winning more votes.  

    your question would be better directed toward all of those "educated" voters that are so big for obama.


    oldnorth- i did not say "instill" (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by kenosharick on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:02:15 PM EST
    I said INSTALL, and that is EXACTLYwhat the supers are doing with ONE candidate!!! Contrary to what the media and Obama kool-aid drinkers seem to believe- he CANNOT win withut superdelegates either.

    my apologies (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:06:50 PM EST
    for misquoting you.

    but the gist is the same.

    having supers overturn such a wide pledged delegate would really be installing.  it is well within the rules and might lead to the best chance for a victory in november, but at this stage in the game, it could be devastating for the party and race relations in this country.


    and race relations may continue (5.00 / 11) (#30)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:20:46 PM EST
    to get worse as long as a candidate can't even cite exit polling data without being called a racist.

    Race relations (5.00 / 10) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:41:27 PM EST
    in this country are being ruined by Obama as we post. The press by pushing the idea that anytime anyone mentions anything about Obama that it's racist is causing huge amounts of resentment towward him from every demographic group in the country.

    You mean race relations are being (4.00 / 1) (#145)
    by chrisblask on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:03:21 AM EST
    ruined by the press, no?

    Unless I miss your intention, it seems that any "first viable black candidate" would end up causing the same media conversations whomever that person was.

    This is precisely the same as Sen. Clinton on the gender issue.  Whomever was the "first viable female candidate" would end up causing the same media conversations about gender.

    I've heard entirely too much of both issues for my tastes, and I would be much happier if the demographics of race and gender didn't align so well with the race and gender of the two Dem candidates.  But it is no surprise and not intrinsically the fault of either candidate that this is the case - its primarily an artifact of the situation.

    Supporters of both candidates don't help the situation imho by constantly bring up accusations of race and gender bias (my own thoughts on this to Obama folks).  But, again, I suppose this is also to be expected in the circumstances.

    One thing I am really looking forward to is the second time we elect a black and/or female president.  We are better than the conversations we can't avoid having this time, but next time these will all be - with any luck at all - non-issues.  The votes cast for both candidates has already proven this, but I'll save that argument for primary post-mortem discussions.




    before you get ahead of yourself (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:52:39 AM EST
    we haven't elected either an AA or a woman President yet -- despite the premise that if Obama gets the nomination he automatically gets handed the keys to the WH.

    A wide pledged delegate lead??? (5.00 / 11) (#62)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:01:14 PM EST
    Since when is approx. 130 a wide lead?  Hillary does have a decent chance to have that "lead" in pledged delegates be under 100 and she has a good chance to win the popular vote. And this is without counting the two disenfranchised states of MI and FL.  You count those, and she practically tied in the pledged delegates and close to the popular vote lead now.

    What is damaging is this continued race baiting by Obama, his campaign and surrogates.  This is disgusting.  What would be a disaster is having Supers select a candidate before the voting is completed and MI and FL counted and is installing Obama as the Dem nominee (yes, it is within the rules).  If this should happen, you will have a mass defection from the Dems including me, a lifetime Dem and further evidence that the election process is rigged.


    In proportional representation, it is a big lead (1.00 / 0) (#127)
    by debrazza on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:52:52 PM EST
    And, the pledged lead is closer to 160 at the moment.  And even if she does bring it under 100, what does that mean?

    I've donated to her in the past, but I won't donate now because the contest for all intents and purposes is over. And judging by the news that fundraising is suffering at the moment, I think most people think it is over too.  It is just good money going after bad at the moment as long as there is a general consensus among automatic delegates that the pledged delegate leader will get the nomination.

    The popular vote is also out of reach without getting the extra 300k votes from Michigan and Michigan will not get seated that way.  As someone that has been following Michael Barone's popular vote analysis closely for a long time and as someone who has read Jay Cost's piece, I can tell you that it just doesn't add up without Michigan getting fully seated and getting those free votes and that is not going to happen.  And it is even less likely to happen now that the campaign has rejected the compromise proposal.

    They are going to push the case at the rules and bylaws committee, but it just won't happen.  We'll likely get FL seated as is, but not Michigan, particularly since Michigan does not support seating their delegates based on that vote.

    It is great to be optimistic, but we should also be realistic as well.


    re: should also be realistic as well (5.00 / 0) (#172)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:23:34 AM EST
    Obama in the GE is being realistic?

    I just don't see it . . . .


    Accepting that Obama will win (3.00 / 2) (#207)
    by debrazza on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:29:59 AM EST
    the nomination is realistic.  Are you still donating to the campaign?  I know I am not and I gather based on the reports about fundraising that there are tens of thousands like me.

    If we are not putting our money where our mouths are, then yeah, the competition is for all intents and purposes over.  The pledged delegate contest was effectively over after Wisconsin.  The popular vote count was lost through the combination of North Carolina and Michigan's compromise proposal.  And the expectations game was lost on Tuesday as well.

    Right now, the campaign is about nothing more than the campaign itself.  I accept that and think its great.  But that does not provide a path to the nomination no matter how much we wish it to be so.

    Who would be a better general election candidate right now is effectively moot and just not relevant anymore.  It is a primary contest we are in.  While it is a valiant effort to show based on polls who the superdelegates should select.  If this was just about who polls better, then they should just forget about having primaries at all and just poll the winner and we could have all saved ourselves all this time and money.

    I for one prefer to focus on what can be done, not what I hope should be done.  And that includes first doing what we can and supporting what she can do to get on the ticket or negotiate a strong position out of this circumstance and then focussing on our party beating McCain and picking up House and Senate seats.

    I am not donating another dime to any Presidential campaign now, certainly not to Obama (I am sure he has enough anyways).  But once the dust settles, I will look around and see about how I can donate to the right lower ticket races to ensure that we can build a strong Democratic majority even if Obama cannot win in the fall.


    I'm staying with her (5.00 / 0) (#213)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:40:34 AM EST
    She's more than just running for the nom. And I respect that and understand if she doesn't get there, what the bigger picture is as far as her run. It will have impact for the future of women.

    And yes, I'll be working my tail off for down ticket dems. But not the ones on the Unity Tour. I'll also be looking to support women who reflect her run.

    And I will write her in in Nov if need be. Obama's already counted my vote. She hasn't, but she's earned it.


    And (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:19:17 AM EST
    your reason for not counting Michigan's popular vote is what?  Or Florida's popular vote.

    We hear pledged delegates but seldom popular vote.

    Rules or no rules the votes did take place. I know, I was there, I was one of those voters.

    The votes can't be ignored.  Those 2.3 million voters are the 800 pound gorilla in the room and it's not going to go away and rules have nothing to do with that fact. If SDs do ignore the popular vote in MI and FL they are complete fools compounding an imbecilic decision by the DNC that in fact broke DNC rules.


    Don't you have to count the [popular] vote (none / 0) (#216)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:45:10 AM EST
    to get delegates? And in the GE, the state?

    If we don't count the [popular] vote, aren't the other 2, null and void?


    The reason the popular vote in MI will never (none / 0) (#221)
    by debrazza on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:50:01 AM EST
    count is because the results will be voided the minute the compromise proposal to seat the delegation is accepted.  That is why the campaign refused to accept the compromise proposal despite the fact that the proposal was made will the supporter of the full party in Michigan.

    If you look at Cost's article and read between the lines a bit, basically the only hope is that the rules and bylaws committee will seat the delegation as-is, award Hillary the 300k popular votes and then leave the remaining delegates uncommitted, which we could then also pick up.

    The fact that Michigan proposed a compromise seems to indicate that there is no appetite for doing this outside of the campaign.  And I doubt the party will go against the recommendation of the state party and seat the delegation in a manner more favorable to Hillary no matter how much we would hope for that outcome.

    Florida on the other hand has an extremely strong case of the delegation to get seated as-is and the state party there is firm in their commitment to make that happen.  So the momentum is there for that solution to happen in our favor as the voters determined.

    But the point is, without both the Michigan and Florida popular votes, there does not seem to be a way to catch up in the popular vote without a lot of wishful thinking about Oregon turning in our favor.  But they have already started voting over there, the last polls give Obama a 10 point lead and the large population there could wipe out half of the popular vote margins we could rack up in both Kentucky and West Virginia.  That basically leaves everything to Puerto Rico and he is building institutional support there and by the time they vote, the meme that Obama is the nominee (which is basically already indisputed in the media) could be too difficult to overcome.


    No she doesn't (none / 0) (#214)
    by flyerhawk on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:41:12 AM EST
    She has absolutely NO CHANCE of being fewer than 100 delegates behind without Florida and Michigan.

    Zero chance.  Can't happen.  There are about 200 remaining pledged delegates left.  That would require her to win 70% of the remaining delegates.  There is no way that can happen.  


    The lead (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:13:59 PM EST
    in pledged delegates isn't very much.  As Schweitzer said today 'it's close' and please come to Montana.

    Forget the tallies that add on superdelegates, their votes can change in an instant. The talk that Obama is all but nominated flows from the media.  The same media that declared Clinton finished before New Hampshire. Even after she won a huge popular vote victory on Super Tuesday they said she should drop out. The NYT even dissed her solid win in Pennsylvania after being outspent 3 to 1. Hillary may well have the popular vote lead entering the convention.

    It would be devastating to the party if Obama were handed the nomination.  His agenda is just plain wrong for the party and as a result, wrong for the nation.

    It would be easier for Obama if Hillary were to quit in the ninth inning but I have to ask why is he entitled to that presumption.  That argument is arrogant.

    And what about race relations in this country? What is your criteria making that judgement?


    Of course Schweitzer wants to have a contest (none / 0) (#210)
    by debrazza on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:34:50 AM EST
    in Montana.  This process has been a fantastic party building exercise which is exactly why it should continue until the end, even though Hillary's chance of winning is remote.  Stopping the process now would make no sense at all when there are still just a few weeks left and the opportunity for more states to have their say.

    Do I expect anything to change in terms of the outcome? No.  But the money both candidates will spend will be a great investment in building the party even if it allows McCain to run unopposed for another few weeks.


    bless your heart, (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:37:54 AM EST
    but democracy is not about time tables.

    Did you read what I wrote? (none / 0) (#231)
    by debrazza on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:21:30 AM EST
    My gosh, I am starting to feel like this is a ridiculous exercise.  I want her to keep running.  I think it is good for her and good for the party.  Do I think it will make one iota of difference? No, not at all.  Find one thing I wrote about "time tables"?

    I am sorry that I am "aping" Obama talking points or whatever, but quite frankly, the gig is up.  And as I wrote before, the most important game that we lost has nothing to do with delegates or votes.  It was about perceptions and expectations and that died the moment Russert opened his mouth and Time put him on the cover.

    For me the contest is over. Too many superdelegates said that they would blindly support whoever won the most pledged delegates.  That will be Obama.  The media has already declared Obama the winner, they aren't going to change their minds now.  And no matter how much we would wish it so, they are not going to award us 300k votes for Michigan and Obama 0 so we can win the popular vote and make that claim to the nomination.  And worst of all, we need superdelegates to break to us 2-to-1 to win this thing.  And for every superdelegate that commits to us, we lose another and another 5 commit to Obama.

    Forgive me for looking at things through a stark lens or through "Obama talking points", but the reality is, the "Obama talking points" have prevailed and we are not getting the narrative back.  In reality we lost the delegate count a long time ago and it is only through the masterful communications team that we have been able to persist through winning every news cycle since the end of February to maintain our lead in the perceptions and expectations game.  But that is gone now and while the campaign goes on, the contest is effectively over.


    Palomino (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:56:35 PM EST
    Great post.

    The old conventions were terrific. Came up with better candidates too.

    Two months is plenty long enough for the head to head battle.  Given today's communications capabilities the whole campaign can turn in one news cycle.  Allowing more time permits more dirty tricks and more time to mine meaningless filth. It also allows political consultants to make more money.


    Except for one fact (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:56:45 PM EST
    That is EXACTLY what the supers were created to do. there would be no need for them to just go with the "leader".

    They were created to save the party from itself. They were created to stop the party from nominating someone who could not win in the general election.


    Didn't Ben Franklin say (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:03:35 AM EST
    that people weren't smart enough to elect their own leaders?

    Man, the Democratic party needs babysitting?  Glad I'm an independent now.


    what do you think the electoral college (none / 0) (#194)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:54:19 AM EST
    is all about? The founding fathers were, obviously, much smarter then they get credit for, imo.

    A question Old North State (none / 0) (#50)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:48:42 PM EST
    And this has nothing to do with your opinions, but since you have only recently joined the discussion here, I really don't know you that well. I hope this does not sound condescending because I do not mean it to be, but are you in the young group voting bloc? Just curious.

    i'm a north carolina native- (none / 0) (#59)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:00:11 PM EST
    living in Durham

    30 years old.


    Thanks for answering-This is why I asked. (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:38:26 PM EST
    I was noticing the typing and lack of capital letters. I had to laugh because my nephew and geek neighbor and his friends all do that too. They text a lot and skip the Caps. Us older gals had nuns.  Heaven forbid we didn't capitalize President or Mom. Ha.! I fall in the over 45 group. We started on typewriters. Heh.

    capitalizing is just extra work for the pinkys (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:41:33 PM EST
    no need for that. :)

    Ever tell a nun that? Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:48:09 PM EST
    Yeah, I know what you mean. Back in the early 90's, we stopped using the periods too in addresses. It was suddenly not Post Office Box or P.O. Box. And not Rd., it was 'RD'. I remember another Accounting Manager asking a AP person about it. When she got the reply, she said that was being illiterate. The AP person then asked if they could join my staff. I said yes and got a wonderful employee and friend.

    Really? (none / 0) (#217)
    by flyerhawk on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:46:50 AM EST
    So can you tell me the last time that either party had multiple ballots at the convention to determine a nominee?

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:17:42 PM EST
    If we let the voters vote completely and he still has more actual votes (no not caucus delegates), then I will agree with you.  And yes, this includes counting MI & FL because people did vote (I know it's hard to believe!) or at least having allowed a revote as proposed.

    And remember (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:23:41 AM EST
    Obama opposed re-votes in MI and FL.

    The electoral vote is a powerful argument (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by athyrio on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:54:07 PM EST
    and one that must be listened to...They are kidding themselves if after all the favorable pundits and all the democratic party powerbrokers on his side, Obama still can't put it away....Why not? Because the Democratic voters are independent and have their own minds and don't wish to have the news media make that decision...The more they complain about Hillary the stronger she will get IMO....

    Most dems think he will help down ticket races (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:37:57 PM EST
    Hard to tell at this point if that's true.

    1.5 million people voted NC Dem. Presidential primary. About 1.4 million voted for governor and 1.3 million for senate. There was almost a 100,000 and 200,000 vote drop off between him and the winning senate and governor candidates.

    So yeah a lot of his supporters are showing up and voting for him but they aren't following through by voting down ballot.


    Dallas Morning News (4.83 / 6) (#150)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:06:26 AM EST
    reported this the day after the primary...how a lot of Obama supporters didn't grasp the concept of down-ballot.

    Maybe some of those upper-echeleon creative class types can hold tutorials on how to mark a ballot to those creative-class wannabe's?

    FTR, the Morning News also reported that this wasn't happening with Clinton voters.  Gee, maybe we're not low-info after all!


    Yep (none / 0) (#142)
    by phat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:01:43 AM EST

    i am starting to seriously question (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:01:53 PM EST
    how electable hillary would be if she got the nomination.  at this stage in the game, what kind of african american support do you think she might be able to get?  

    oldnorth (5.00 / 8) (#71)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:08:19 PM EST
    I think you're a bit out of touch with things on the ground.  There are plenty of aa's who would vote for Clinton.  Maybe of my friends say it's like watching two of their best friends argue, and it'd be nice if they'd just make nice.

    The hardcore supporters are never going to change, but most people in the aa community, like most people in the real world, do not glom onto blogs and get riled up about things the way we do.  

    Do you think the average Joe knows what Kennedy said today, or knows who Krugman is?

    But, let me say again, making these sweeping statements about race, and saying that Clinton should drop out because it will heal the nation, is rather naive.  Our history is much more complex, our struggles much more insurmountable, than any one person can take on.


    i don't know... (1.00 / 0) (#82)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:15:29 PM EST
    i live in a heavily populated african american city and i walked around on wednesday and saw the pride in so many faces.  especially the older african americans out there wearing their obama gear and i voted stickers.  tuesday was truly one of the great days in the lives for many african americans in this state.

    like it or not, lots and lots of african americans are upset with the appearance of racially divisive tactics supposedly used by the clintons.  if obama were to lose the nomination at this stage, it is undeniable that a huge portion of the arfican american community would take it extremely personally and i find it very hard to believe that they'd be too excited about voting for the white people that "stole" the nomination from them.  

    honestly kathy, i think i'm very much in touch with how this would play out.  the bitterness would reach new highs for this day in age and the more i think about it, the less likely i could see african americans turning out in any numbers for hillary.  what would be the point?  they would feel like they don't have a voice given that they were so convinced their candidate won, but then had it taken away?


    All the more tragic (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:26:24 PM EST
    that Obama is such a flawed candidate.

    And please provide quotes in full context of Hillary or Bill playing the now ubiquitous race card.


    don't need to (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:28:01 PM EST
    the perception is out there already.  i didn't say it was fair, but it exists and that's enough.

    Only on the convenient level (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:36:45 AM EST
    it made it easier to vote for Obama if there was a reason NOT to vote for Clinton. People of all races know the Clinton's are not racists and they know none of their comments deserved the spin.

    It's easy to recover from disappointment when you have 2 months to think about it.


    the trouble with the AA vote argument (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by zyx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:37:58 PM EST
    is that AAs live, for the most part, in deep red or deep blue states, not electoral swing states.

    Their Democratic votes are important in many Congressional races.  But in Presidential races?  Maybe if Florida goes Dem.  

    I don't mean to sound cynical (although I am do have a bit of a cynical nature).  I think I empathize with how the AA community feels--my BFF of 25 years is AA.  But she and her pro-Obama family live in Texas.  Their votes aren't going to elect Obama any more than they elected Kerry.


    Philly, Cleveland, Cincy, Kansas City, St. Louis (none / 0) (#116)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:44:07 PM EST
    Detroit.  These are all in swing states that can be lost by african americans staying home.

    You've got OH, PA, and MO there (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by RalphB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:49:34 PM EST
    Obama won't win Ohio or Pennsylvania against McCain and I doubt he'll win Missouri.  So what's your point?

    what's your point? (1.00 / 1) (#124)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:52:27 PM EST
    i'm demonstrating how losing the african american vote does not help hillary's electability argument.  just because obama has an electoral college problem doesn't mean hillary doesn't.

    My point is in your own argument (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by RalphB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:58:30 PM EST
    you have 4 states where all the AA vote did not even allow Obama to win a primary.  Winning against McCain will be harder when the GOP votes for him and some percentage of the Democrats which support Hillary.

    In other words, your argument doesn't demonstrate squat that is helpful to the Obama cause.


    Except (none / 0) (#136)
    by americanincanada on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:59:08 PM EST
    that republicans have been managing for years.

    They are there (none / 0) (#137)
    by zyx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:59:15 PM EST
    in those states, but not in large numbers.  I am not denying that.  Ohio and Pennsylvania, 10-12%.  I grant it, I concede it, I admit it.

    Do you feel all better now?


    What About The Women? (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Blue Jean on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:39:24 PM EST
    Who are proud to vote for Hillary, only to have their voice taken away?

    What about the Men (none / 0) (#174)
    by Arabiflora on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:24:40 AM EST
    Proud to vote for Edwards, only to have their voices taken away??

    Politics ain't beanbags, get over it.


    Yeah, men are so disenfranchised (5.00 / 6) (#184)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:39:40 AM EST
    PUH-LEASE! That breathtakingly stupid argument might work with the 20 year olds, but you got the wrong crowd for that one here, bub.

    what a shame (5.00 / 7) (#112)
    by RalphB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:39:41 PM EST
    but of course, women and other Hillary supporters won't mind that their candidate got totally screwed over.  They'll just go along to get along.  NOT THIS TIME!  

    The DC and media elites have shoved enough losers down the throats of democrats over the years.  I think this is one too many.


    And AA's aren't the only minority to be considered (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by hookfan on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:58:38 PM EST
    I wonder how Hispanics are feeling about all the racism accusations being thrown at a woman? remember they support Clinton by fair margins. I wish someone would pole them to see what effect this is having in their community.

    Since you want to know, as an Hispanic... (5.00 / 5) (#212)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:39:44 AM EST
    I will tell you, that the treatment of Mrs. Clinton by Obama himself: dismissive language, "you have to take her down", brushing his coat off and cleaning his shoes from her after the Penn. debate, and other very disrespectful, condescending statements, have all resulted in my development of great antipathy towards him.
    We as a people have great and fond memories of both Clintons, and are very much in their camp. Mrs. Clinton especially has a long-standing friendship with Dolores Huerta, one of, if not the most respected and admired of our leaders, co-founder along with Cesar Chavez.
    As we have shown throughout this campaign, our support is real, we are the largest minority in this country, and although I do not speak for all Hispanics, I know that our reaction, if she were not the nominee, would be to either sit this one now or vote for John McCain, and places like California, New York, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, would run the risk of losing to the Republicans.

    I'm an ardent Clinton supporter (5.00 / 5) (#117)
    by IzikLA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:45:36 PM EST
    And I still agree with a lot of what you say.  I do not agree that they used racially divisive language, but because the media pushed that story everyone ate it up and the reality remains the same: that lots of people FEEL this way, whether it is actually TRUE or not.  

    The thing is, the hurt feelings go both ways.  Hillary Clinton wanted to make women's history.  We all expected her to do it.  She truly took her time to build a career that would be formidable and earned the knowledge that she now has an amazing grasp of.  Obama came along and seemingly took that away.  I'm not willing to say that's his fault or anyone's really, but you should understand that that is how a lot of people will feel.  I am neither black nor female, but this is even how I feel and that must say something.

    I really truly believed that a Clinton-Obama ticket made the most sense but that lots of political democrats wanted to push the Clinton's out.  What people forget and one thing that lots of the actual voters loved about them (including the African American community) was that they were actually the washington outsiders.  And, in turn, they actually figured out how to make Democrats win again.

    The irony is that Obama has become the insider with the Washington support he now has.  They want him in and they want her out, simple as that.  And the media?  Well, old habits die hard about the Clinton's and it has just been too good of a story.


    perception is reality (none / 0) (#123)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:50:50 PM EST
    in this game.

    i never said i agreed with it, but it is what it is.

    they said that the two candidates going at it would hurt their chances in the fall.  i didn't believe it until this race baiting crap popped up in a major way and now i think both candidates really will have big trouble with each other's bases in the fall.  

    the winner is going to have to make some serious amends.  i fully expect obama to start pushing major women's and blue collar white people's issues to the forefront just as soon as hillary is completely out of the picture.  he better.


    If so, (5.00 / 2) (#240)
    by Evie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:33:10 AM EST
    then it's not just 'perception', but reality that Obama is an elitist, inexperienced candidate without any record or substance, who is leading solely based on empty rhetoric and identity politics of AA community.

    And if he only starts pushing issues because Hillary is out of the pictures, then he will justifiably be seen as pandering. How sincere could he really be if he's waited this long to bring it up? Why did he wait? Why isn't he pushing these issues NOW?


    My hope and belief (none / 0) (#239)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:49:23 AM EST
    Is that Hillary Clinton's strong support for, and prior support for her, within the African American community would remain if she did somehow become the nominee.  Simply stated, Barack Obama just does not have that past base to fall back on.

    Admittedly, Obama has broken ... (5.00 / 5) (#173)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:23:42 AM EST
    away from the two-candidate race with more pledged delegates and within five super delegates of Clinton. Nonetheless, it is undeniable that this has been achieved primarily with the black voting block (90-93%), without which he would be the struggling candidate in this race. His dilettante reticence to accept a viable solution to the Florida and Michigan problem, further assures him the "inevitability" of his presumptive nomination.
    Aided by the patronage of the so called Liberal press, and the very astute tactics of his campaign advisors, surrogates, and anti-Clinton deputation to prey on the "racial remorse" of the post Civil Rights non-black population, have been able to use that which they denounce everyone of using "racist" undertones, statements, implications, and posturing in order to effectively squelch (stifle) and avoid any debate of the real issues that besiege the American people. By doing so, Mr. Obama avoids legitimate queries altogether, does not have to answer or defend his positions, and can write his own script.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#93)
    by Raheem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:24:44 PM EST
    Their are a few African Americans taht would support her... but the number that she would need in a GE to supplant McCain would not materialize...

    that and the young voters who will not vote for her... she would lose...


    first off... (5.00 / 6) (#121)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:49:57 PM EST
    you seriously underestimate the amount of geniune support and respect that the leadership of the African American community has for Clinton.  Obama's exploitation of identity politics had resulted in a lot of these leaders being renderred invisible by the media --- eveb wheb black leaders have been critical of Obama, its as if they don't exist -- but any black leader who criticises Clinton gets his 15 minutes of fame..and then some.

    Unless Obama were to withhold his support from Clinton in a fit of pique (something that is certainly within the realm of possibility, given what I've seen of him) Clinton would probably get the same vote margin she'd have gotten if Obama hadn't gone the racist-baiting route.

    Secondly, Clinton never depended upon the "youth vote" to win in November -- and her primary campaign has been focussed on winning in November.   Unlike Obama, who has what is essentially a "coalition of the willing", the Clinton strategy is, and always has been, to recreate the same coalition that elected Bill Clinton twice -- and Bill Clinton did not depend upon "new voters" to win.  


    Clinton does have her own youth vote (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:51:38 AM EST
    not as large as his, but not as small as the media and friends would like us to believe. Some of Obama's youth vote will transfer to her. And Bill has his Global work now in colleges. Check out his recent New Orleans efforts. And then there's the ever wonderful Chelsea.

    I wouldn't write off the youth if she gets the nom. I'd add it in as it may trump Mccain's  ;)


    Something needs to be realized (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by DaleA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:33:03 PM EST
    55% of all AA's are in the south, in states we can't win even with 100% AA voting. In two whole time zones, Mountain and Pacific, the AA share of the population never reaches 10% in any state. Only in Nevada and California, is it over 5%. There are some states where the AA vote is crucial to Democratic victory, but only some. Check out the Census Burea website for quickfacts by state.

    YES INDEED (5.00 / 6) (#186)
    by Eleanor A on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:41:23 AM EST
    I'm in Tennessee and can't believe the local bloviating by people convinced Obama can win here - despite the fact that we can't seem to elect Dem Senators with huge AA turnout in Nashville and Memphis. (We have a Dem governor but he's very right-leaning and corporatist...we've never elected a woman, black, etc.)  

    It's just laughable for folks to even suggest Obama's in the universe with having a coalition that can win the general.


    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#226)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:12:51 AM EST
    won the Tennessee primary by a comfortable margin.  Won't win Tennessee in the GE but given the primary results it would seem that Obama has even less chance.

    and don't forget (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:49:32 AM EST
    the GOP doesn't give two figs about the AA vote -- in fact, they go out of their way to not even appear to want it (remember the GOP debate at that AA college sponsored by BET -- what, 2 candidates showed up?). Call the GOP racists and they will just shrug their shoulders and answer "So?" ala Cheney.

    Oldnorthstate (5.00 / 5) (#177)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:26:56 AM EST
    Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful posts here.

    I think Hillary will ultimately be able to get a fair amount of AA support back.  The vast majority of the AA community knows very well she and Bill are not racists or even race-baiters.  These folks are very, very savvy politically, IMHO.  There will be massive disappointment if Obama is not the nominee, no question, and for good reason.  But Hillary and Bill will, I think, make the AA community a very high priority, and they will be helped by most black leaders in this country, if she's the nominee.  Most of her AA supporters have been intimidated into keeping a low profile, but most have remained loyal to her.  THey will come out of the closet, and most currently Obama-supporting black leadership will help, as well.

    OK, probably with the exception of Jesse Jackson, Jr., who really was the one who started this whole racist thing to begin with.

    Becaue the Clintons have and have always had a genuine commitment to the AA, I think she would have a much easier time with them than Obama would have with us old white ladies. :-)


    They should really check out the work (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:55:40 AM EST
    the Clintons have done. She's gotten over a million dollars for a major Harlem church's community programs, for example. I think their history can be revisited in the GE just fine as far as their commitment to AA communities is concerned.

    They should (none / 0) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:43:30 PM EST
    listen to it but will they? I think they really want McCain to win in Nov. if they continue to push Obama.

    I don't (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:21:10 PM EST
    think they WANT to lose in November, but the battle to control the direction of the Democratic Party takes precedence over all else.

    It's like fussing over the turn signal while the car goes over the cliff.


    No, Toonces! No! No! (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:50:29 PM EST

    --Obscure Boomer Reference


    lol!~ (none / 0) (#185)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:40:13 AM EST
    did I just age myself?! :-P

    I'll repeat a question I posed yesterday: (5.00 / 3) (#11)
    by seeker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:10 PM EST
    Is there a surprise Hillary is expecting soon?  Neither she nor Bill are stupid or masochistic.  Given the debt, the media, and everything else afflicting the campaign now, its hard to imagine them continuing unless their prospects are better than we think.

    Am I being delusional, or might they know something we don't?

    Pure determination (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Faust on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:58:50 PM EST
    It really isn't 100% over. Therefore: they fight. I think it's rather impressive. In any case the Cost article I listed above is a good analysis of her current best case scenario re: popular vote totals.

    #11: that's my suspicion. (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by wurman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:50:05 PM EST
    I think Sen. Obama is headed for a meltdown.

    The other camp knows this & keeps waiting for one of the right wingnutz or a talkshow host or a fundagelical to drop the dime so that the Clinton's do not look as if they personally smeared the worthy opponent.

    I also don't think that Sen. Obama has been actively vetted by the system--his US senate campaign was against a fill-in, late date carpetbagger who didn't have the resources to find dirt & dish it.  I doubt that his IL state senate races drew enough attention for the Chicago journalists to even do a police record check.

    Also, as many commenters notice, repeatedly, the lame stream media give Sen. Obama a pass.

    It's mindful of the Bu$h xliii drunk driving ticket only becoming public 3 or 4 days before the election--competent investigative journalism should have found it months earlier (& 3rd rate muckraking dirtbags certainly would have found it), but no one looked.

    If the GOoPerz actually perceive Sen. Obama as "The One," they'll put their best bloodhounds on it & we'll read the details soon enough.


    They (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:00:29 PM EST
    already have a 1000 page dossier on him, Michelle, his state senate record and his associations.

    Some wingnut said tonight that the GOP will be doing the four corners attack on Obama:

    1. Ayers
    2. Wright
    3. Rezko
    4. Michelle

    They said that he'll be easy to beat because he's running on personality not issues. They are saying that he can be easily defined negatively due to his dubious associations that will puncture his balloon.

    Michelle is his biggest weakness, imo (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:03:13 PM EST
    The more people see her, the less they like team Obama.  

    She's (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:08:24 PM EST
    pretty bad but in all honesty she's not nearly as damaging as the others. Associations with people like Ayers could seriously cause voters to believe that Obama is a danger to national security.

    Google Michelle (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:18:04 PM EST
    She's on video on the net.  The sessions where she has called America mean, etc.  I always thought she was a 527 all on her own.  She looks angry.  I remember watching her on c-span, she was mad and shaking her finger.  With all the statements she has on tape... I don't know.....The Repubs actually said they aren't going to miss Bill Clinton, now they've got Michelle.

    True enough (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:03:04 AM EST
    Hannity had a panel tonight discussing their joy at having Obama as the presumptive. Without taking a breath, Hannity ran down a very long list of topics they can easily, and substantially attack Obama on. The whole panel agreed that the democrats are giving them the weakest opponent with Obama.

    Michelle has so much bad video out there. Easy for them to montage the angry side of her, but they've got so much on him they wouldn't have to even suggest her flaws.


    They'll use Michelle to pull Hillary women (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by nycstray on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:59:55 AM EST
    over. Heh, we might become visible/relevant again.

    Is it true... (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:59:34 PM EST
    I've seen references to Obama attending a fundraiser for him hosted by Ayres -- but can't find a "reliable" source for the story.

    If its true, this campaign really is all over.  Its one thing for Obama to be in the same room or on the same board as Ayres -- but its something entirely different (to channel the Right wing noise machine for a moment) to allow an unrepentent anti-American terrorist bomber to actively solicit funds on your behalf with your co-operation.

    If that story is even close to true, there is no way that Obama gets elected.  


    His first run at the Illinois State Senate (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:04:30 AM EST
    was the Ayers fund raiser.

    and there is more to that board (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:11:20 AM EST
    he & Ayers sat on -- the board was created by Ayers' family & Ayers hired Obama to be on the board, for which he was compensated -- so, basically, Obama was "working for" Ayers -- I read this on noquarter.

    The irony ... (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:10:24 AM EST
    is that the Republicans are going to give Michelle their special "Hillary treatment" that they perfected during Bill's tenure.  It will be painful to watch, but the poetic justice is undeniable given what the Obama campaign, its partisans, and the MSM have put Clinton through this cycle.

    And (none / 0) (#229)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:19:57 AM EST
    Michelle's personal attacks on Hillary.

    There's already a curiously ad-like video (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by befuddled on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:14:16 PM EST
    on YouTube about the Weathermen, Ayers, Obama --cut to McCain. It was well-done. Then I noticed how many more there are in the same vein. They haven't had many hits yet, but altogether they paint a cloudy future. If I were Obama I'd take my multi-million dollar data base and move to St. Thomas right now.

    I think Ayers (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:39:06 PM EST
    is gonna be the next big focus. He is GE poison. Ayers is referred to  as a "terrorist" by the GOP machine and that's not an unreasonable label.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by wurman on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:28:35 PM EST
    However my take is that somewhere there's another rat out there scurrying around & soon to be found.  It's not on the list--yet.

    I could be very wrong & way off base, but there are just several "known unknowns" (to steal from Donald Rumsfeld) out there that seem to appear in a momentary fleeting glimpse & then slip back out of sight.


    Drudge, Worldnedaily, Newsmax, et al... (none / 0) (#167)
    by mulletov cocktails on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:21:09 AM EST
    I have a very strong feeling why the right wing echo chamber continues to throw either old talking points about HRC or merely parrots the mainstream media about Mean Ol' Hillary being in dire straits and reamaining fairly quiet about Obama,

    (Hint: It's not because they think Barack will defeat them in the GE.)


    Does Drudge like Obama? (none / 0) (#193)
    by Chimster on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:53:31 AM EST
    I guess that's a personal question only Drudge can answer. But seriously, I haven't seen any "gotcha" posts about Obama on the Drudge Report in a long time. What gives?

    To quote Sun Tzu (none / 0) (#203)
    by mulletov cocktails on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:18:00 AM EST
    "Subtle and insubstantial, the expert leaves no trace; divinely mysterious; he is inaudible.  Thus he is the master of his enemy's fate."

    Waiting (none / 0) (#233)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:24:00 AM EST
    in the wings ready to pounce. First Drudge and the GOP want rid of Hillary.  If that's successful they have dry powder for Obama.

    How about TX caucus affidavits? (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:52:31 PM EST
    Nuclear, for sure, but so?

    Heh (none / 0) (#201)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:10:54 AM EST
    Oh great, now I can't get that image out of my mind.  :-)

    I would hope. (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:54:55 PM EST
    But I believe that Hillary thinks there is a chance of winning and I think she knows that for women, it is a reflection on all women. Not to give up and be a doormat. I am more proud of her than ever no matter what happens. You Go Girl!

    She said something yesterday . . . (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:00:55 PM EST
    about standing up and saying she thinks she's the best one for the job and how hard it is for women to do that. She knows exactly what she represents.

    I agree - prospects probably better than we think (5.00 / 5) (#148)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:04:37 AM EST
    We already know that the Clinton campaign had damaging opposition research on Obama that they voluntarily elected not to use (the Rev. Wright videos).  Accordingly, it seems reasonable to assume that there might be other bombshells that they are aware of but aren't sharing.  As you say, that would explain their willingness to continue in the face of seemingly grim odds.  In addition, it's almost certain that the "Republican attack machine" has more information than the Clinton campaign (they're better funded and have more experience) ... so it's anyone's guess what's coming.

    For the "Hillary will do anything to win" crowd ... the Clinton campaign was on the brink of collapse three times (NH, Super Tuesday, TX/OH) and they didn't push the Rev. Wright story.  So the idea that they would have already nuked Obama if they had something is bogus.  He hasn't been vetted until the Republicans have had a chance to thoroughly work him over.


    Yeah, they know something... (none / 0) (#223)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:02:07 AM EST
    But they are not the only ones privy to it: the delegate lead is ballooned because of the Black voting block: So. Carolina 29%, Ala. 14.4%, Georgia 35.5, Illinois 31.9%;Louisiana 47%, D.C. 51., Maryland 24%, Va. 27%, Mississippi 24%, No. Carolina 19%.

    They shouldn't even bring up any mention that (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by SunnyLC on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:58:18 PM EST
    Obama can win....I know it's nice to say, but they shouldn't go there. Focus on HER chances alone against McCain. Don't enable Obama at this point. It's not necessary.

    Tightrope walk (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Faust on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:01:06 PM EST
    More than ever they are on a tightrope. With the media now going full on "Obama presumptive nominee," anything negative on Obama has a much higher chance of backfiring now. Thefore, they couch their arguments accordingly.

    Can you imagine if she said (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:06:16 PM EST
    outright in public that he'd lose?  She answered the muslim question from Steve Croft eight times--emphatically--and they still gave her crap.

    I'm sick of her being held to a double standard.  MO says she wants to scratch out Bill Clinton's eyes.  Obama indicates that Clinton is dirt on his shoulder.  The media tries to force out a viable candidate for the democratic nomination.

    Again--why is the standard different for her?


    Decoy (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:09:14 AM EST
    ....maybe Obama is a decoy. The democrats are going to make the Republicans think he's a shoe-in until the convention gives Hillary the nomination. The Republicans have a library of attack ads ready for Obama and have to scrap all and scramble for the money and material to go against an opponent they weren't ready for.



    if only the Dems were smart enough (5.00 / 4) (#162)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:19:04 AM EST
    to think of that -- but they aren't.

    its self-defense (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:11:55 PM EST
    its not enabling, its pre-planning in self-defense.

    If Obama is the nominee, when he loses in November there will be a lot of blame-shifting... and Hillary will be a prime target.  She's been making this exact same argument to the SDs in private and to journalists 'on background' all along -- but by making it public while she'll still be blamed for weakening Obama, she'll be able to at least say that they KNEW that he had problems with the EC map months before the nomination took place -- and that she's not to blame for people's decision to go with Obama.


    Chances of winning (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:34:19 PM EST
    Today at the office, (We don't discuss politics much if you catch my drift-& all middle age white collar)the one English guy started the conversation asking who can win the GE. His wife voted for Hillary in PA Primary. Immediately our VERY GOP CFO said "I was sure the Democrats were going to win the election this year after how bad Bush was, but you know, I really believe we have a great chance against Obama. I think McCain can beat him. There is no way that Obama can win the Presidency. McCain is old, but if he gets the right VP, then he takes the whole thing hands down."

    So my electoral map says PA will turn red. Not one person said they would vote Obama. They were talking about McCain though but were not as excited as they were about Hillary in April.

    The (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by sas on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:36:21 PM EST
    word tonight is that Obama volunteers are calling W Va voters and telling them that it doesn't make any difference if they vote or not, because he has this thing wrapped up....trying to suppress turnout.

    If you are able, please go to Hillary's site this weekend and help out by making calls.

    I wish someone would record one of those calls. (none / 0) (#56)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:57:29 PM EST
    They have to tell them they are recording but that would make nice headlines indeed.

    does that apply... (none / 0) (#88)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:19:40 PM EST
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but its not illegal to record calls -- its illegal to do anything with the recordings publicly.

    And does that apply to unsolicited nuisance calls from political campaigns?  

    Making such calls is probably a criminal offense (vote suppression) and I don't think that criminals acts get the same 'privacy' protections that non-criminal conversations.  


    depends on whether (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:02:15 AM EST
    you are in a one party state or two party state. W. VA is a one party state so it's allowed for a person to a conversation to record a conversation he is party to. Federal law is one party, some states are two party.

    Really? (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:31:10 PM EST
    Not according to this.

    The federal law makes it unlawful to record telephone conversations except in one party consent cases which permit one party consent recording by state law. What that means is a person can record their own telephone conversations without the knowledge or consent of the other party in those states that allow one party consent.

    It's important to understand the difference between what has become known as one party consent and two party or all party consent. One party consent simply means that one party to the conversation must have knowledge and give consent to the recording. Two party or all party consent means that every party to the conversation must have knowledge and give consent to the recording.

    I think they could do it then (none / 0) (#115)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:41:40 PM EST
    So we need some of those recordings.

    Depends on the law of the state. (none / 0) (#222)
    by oculus on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:50:50 AM EST
    In CA, unless exempt (specified in the statute), one person cannot legally record a phone call unless the other party agrees unless specified excepetions apply.

    Local news (none / 0) (#157)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:13:53 AM EST
    can't the Clinton campaign office(s) notify the local news channels of the scam and have them do a blip on the news telling the people these calls are not legit?

    Or, if the local news channels were to get a flood of calls from citizens asking to verify the information they are getting from these callers, they might do an investigation on their own.


    Well (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by sas on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:41:29 PM EST
    Obama didn't start with nothing.  After saying he would not run for Pres in 2008, something changed his mind.  Big money people, and some party insiders encouraged him to do so, otherwise we are led to believe that he actually has the ego and chutzpah to think he might be qualified with no previous experience - in which case we are in real trouble with someone with that personality running the country.

    For eight years already (none / 0) (#57)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:58:12 PM EST

    BTW (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by sas on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:43:16 PM EST
    I agree on PA turning red if it's Obama.  Formerly solidly Democratic to the core, Western PA, will vote for McCain.  It'll more than offset Phila.

    A shiny new electorial map to go along (5.00 / 9) (#52)
    by Radix on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:49:26 PM EST
    with our shiny new progressive coalition. For all this talk of a new coalition for the Democrats, this new coalition is striking similar to our old coalition. What Obama's supporters fail to realize is we've always enjoyed the majority vote of the "creative class", youth vote, AA's and urbanites. We can also add the womens vote to this as well, at least we used to anyways. Even with all the afore mentioned demographics in our favor we still continued to lose. The reality is when we've won we've had the "bubbas" on our side. Now Obama expects to win without, not only the "bubbas", but the ladies too?

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Nor Latinos (5.00 / 6) (#54)
    by Buckeye on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:53:24 PM EST
    Sounds about right on (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:59:38 PM EST
    I was thinking the same thing. We were a big tent, now we are two tents.

    A guy goes to a psychiatrist.... (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:55:36 PM EST
    "Doc, I keep having these crazy dreams. First I'm a teepee; then I'm a wigwam; then I'm a teepee; then I'm a wigwam. It's driving me crazy. What's wrong with me?"

    And the Doctor says "Relax. You're two tents."


    LOL! Two tents indeed. (none / 0) (#66)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:04:33 PM EST
    pup tents (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:09:23 PM EST
    no its not... (5.00 / 8) (#106)
    by p lukasiak on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:37:34 PM EST
    For all this talk of a new coalition for the Democrats, this new coalition is striking similar to our old coalition.

    no its not.  I don't think there has ever been this kind of "coalition" -- one where you're a 'key constituency' if you support the candidate, and if you don't support the candidate, you are de facto not a 'key constituency'.

    The Obama campaign has two massive --and interrelated-- flaws

    1. Obama's campaign is based on his personal appeal, and that appeal is limited to a relatively small group -- and he has demonstrated no ability to adapt his message in a manner that appeals to those not part of his "natural" constituency.  In essence, he brings his base, and his success in November is dependent upon Democrat Party loyalty and anti-pathy toward the GOP this year.  

    2. its messaging alienates key constiuencies -- any campaign whose primary electability argument is "new voters" and "new coalition" is going to raise questions about the importance of the concerns of "current voters" and members of the "current coalition".  

    Because his messaging to the traditional Democratic coalition has been so poor, depending upon "party loyalty" isn't going to work.  What you see when you look at Obama's primary numbers is pretty much it in terms of people who will vote FOR Obama --- every other vote he gets will be a vote against McCain/the GOP.

    I agree to an extent. (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Radix on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:18:35 AM EST
    The Dems have enjoyed, as I pointed to, five basic demographics, the youth, the latte drinkers, urbanites, AA's and women. The reality that Obama only appeals to only 4 of the five traditional Dem groups is clearly a weakness, your point is well taken. We can plainly see this "New Coalition" is nothing more than our old coalition minus a major demographic, women. What should be painfully obvious, to even the most casual of observers, we couldn't win with our old, numerically superior, coalition, so how our we going to do it with an even weaker coalition? In order to win, we need the so called Reagan Democrats, the bubbas. No other math works for us. Anyone who doesn't understand this is clearly delusional. The delusional comment is not directed at you, it's directed at some of those in the Obama camp who fail to grasp this very simple reality.

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

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

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah


    Does anyone else see the (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by mg7505 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:11:07 PM EST
    Democratic paradox?

    Obama > Clinton
    Clinton > McCain
    McCain > Obama

    A fine mess we've gotten ourselves into. Too bad we can't just focus on beating McCain -- it goes to show you that the Dems set their sights on beating the Clintons. They might just succeed, and a fat lot of good it'll do us.

    Kudos to Hillary for staying the course -- with FL and MI plus blowout victories in KY and WV, she could win this thing. My sole comfort right now is that the conventional wisdom is heavily against her; reality is always a different story.

    Okay I had given up - NO MORE (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by bjorn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:28:24 PM EST
    This piece and the stupid things prominent Obama supporters have been saying have convinced me it is not time to throw in the towel yet. I am back in and will contribute tonight.  What the hell, like so many of you have said, if she keeps going, I keep going.

    I am talking about California (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by kedarbhandari on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:35:28 PM EST
    Lets hope Obama wins VA,WI,MO and even KS ( odds are 1/zillions) to me each day it looks like CA may go for McCain. I work in the silicon valley just outside of SF. Gore carried the district very easily and so did Kerry.I dont see that kind of enthusiasm amongst my peers and people in general for Obama..
    In 2000 almost 100 percent wanted gore,in 2004 we all remembered those roaring 90's and went for Kerry.Being one of the most affluent part of the US I sense people's anxiety over Obama presidency.
    I have worked since last 10 yrs with dem supporters and lifelong democrats 9 out of them wont vote for Obama in GE. Arnold being a very popular figure here it's not very hard for working class people to flock to McCain.What may happen to Obama team if CA goes for GOP? he has to win KS, ND, SD,ID, GA, MO, WY, VA,AL, MS, AK, LA, NE etc. Isnt he being the nominee based on the results from those never dem voting states?

    yes, I think Arnold is McCain's secret (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:40:46 PM EST
    weapon.. and not just for California.

    The GOP (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:07:40 AM EST
    already has their first ad attacking Obama, and it's a doozy. he is in real trouble if he is our nominee. We will be totally screwed.

    Can we ask? YES WE CAN.

    Better now than in September (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:23:17 AM EST
    I think it's good news that they're starting to unload early.  The sooner Obama's electability is stress tested, the better (since the party can still make a course correction in August).  The idea that he was "vetted" by campaigning against fellow Democrats is a joke.

    whoa... (none / 0) (#164)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:20:03 AM EST
    saw the video.  talk about setting urself up.  Man, uing his own words against him. K-LASSIC GOP tactic.  

    I wonder what the Super D's think if they are seeing these ads?


    I know (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by americanincanada on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:23:13 AM EST
    I was floored. And it was clearly sanctioned and paid for by the RNC. Yikes. If I was a superdelegate I would be scared to death and endorsing Clinton tomorrow.

    Like the ad (none / 0) (#175)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:25:48 AM EST
    It could be pretty effective.  I can't wait to see the real ones they put out later.

    Ouch. (none / 0) (#179)
    by NWHiker on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:31:06 AM EST
    That one hurts. Especially the Empty at the end.

    The Bluegrass State (5.00 / 4) (#169)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:21:59 AM EST
    is in an awesome position to actually influence the election like never before.  You high-tail it out to yonder and vote for our girl Hillary.

    This Texan would shore 'preciate ya!!!

    Obama's high water mark (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:33:21 AM EST
    These polls reflect a best case scenario for Obama.  He hasn't been worked over by the Republican attack machine (just a few warm-up shots across his bow).  Losing by 8 is the projection if the election were held today.  I think he's going to get slaughtered in November after the Republicans drive his negatives into the stratosphere.

    Yeah, Wolfson is providing best-case for Obama... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Ytterbius on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:43:54 AM EST
    That's a joke.

    I'm sure they're ... (none / 0) (#190)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:51:18 AM EST
    discussing the softness of Obama's numbers (at least offline).

    jeralyn, i was with you, up until here: (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by cpinva on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:41:21 AM EST
    Only W. Va. and N. Carolina are battleground states.

    NC hasn't been a battleground state in over 30 years, it won't be one this year either. it will vote, overwhelmingly, for mccain. this isn't even a point worth wasting valuable time (time we'll never recover) discussing.

    sen. obama's victory in NC was fueled totally by the AA turnout, representing roughly 1/3 of the dem primary electorate. they only represent 1/5 of the total electorate in NC. dems represent less than 1/2 the registered voters in NC. regardless of who the dem nominee is, mccain will win it in the GE. i'll put cash money on it.

    actually, sen. obama stands less than the proverbial snow ball's chance of winning any of the states of the old confederacy. if i had to bet on him or the snowball, i'd go with the snowball, better odds.

    unfortunately, as i've noted elsewhere, sen. obama's constituents, in states that actually had democratic primaries and not caucuses, would prove his candidacy's death knell in nov.

    as BTD has so cogently noted many times, "demographics are destiny". sen. obama's demographics are so narrowly construed, compared to the total population, that he's painted himself into a corner.

    add the less than savory characters known as his "friends and mentors" toppling out of his closet, and karl rove's pool boy could 527 him to death.

    as for race and gender being raised in the primaries, sen. obama or his minions flashed the race card, early and often (gee, sounds like voting in chicago, doesn't it?), not the clinton campaign or sen. clinton herself. i challenge any obama supporters to prove otherwise. this isn't a timed test, we can wait.

    the campaign, contrary to the "conventional wisdom" (and i use the term wisdom in its loosest sense.) is hardly over, i don't recall hearing a fat lady sing yet.

    if sen. obama and the DNC powers that be are truly concerned that a continuation would permanently harm the party, he could always drop out, and save us and the DNC tons of grief.

    but i would never suggest such a thing, it'd be unseemly!

    pogo was right: "we have met the enemy, and he is us!"

    Exactly (none / 0) (#224)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:03:42 AM EST
    as BTD has so cogently noted many times, "demographics are destiny". sen. obama's demographics are so narrowly construed, compared to the total population, that he's painted himself into a corner.
    The fact that he's running in the Democratic primary obscures this fact.  
    as for race and gender being raised in the primaries, sen. obama or his minions flashed the race card, early and often (gee, sounds like voting in chicago, doesn't it?), not the clinton campaign or sen. clinton herself. i challenge any obama supporters to prove otherwise. this isn't a timed test, we can wait.
    They're STILL doing it at the same time that they try to blackmail us onto the bandwagon.  TPM has a post up about "dismay" at the "direction of Hillary's campaign" that links, Glenn Reynolds style, to Joe Conason accusing the Clintons of "playing the race card."  Now is this not just a tad Orwellian?
    Was Hillary channeling George Wallace?

    ...the Clintons probably understand the essential evil of racism better than most white politicians. They have certainly done more than most of today's white politicians to combat that evil. That is why, as they contemplate the conclusion of this campaign, they deserve better from themselves than to encourage doubt about their decency and character.

    Acknowledge that the Clintons are the last people in the world who could be accused of racism while saying that they 'played the race card' and are creating 'doubt' - classy.  Is it racist to mention white voters that are hard working (working class) especially given Obama has garnered so much AA vote?  I think not.  

    Lanny Davis (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:47:13 AM EST
    was great on CNN the other night.  TPM has heavily edited the video, so who knows how much it's distorted, but take a look:


    wonder how MSM will cover WV (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by DandyTIger on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:18:41 AM EST
    and then KY. What if they ignore it. They will sound even more "elitist" than they usually do. I second an earlier sentiment that skipping WV and KY is a big mistake. It comes across as elitist. A snub. As if he's above us poor rabble in WV and KY. I guess he's avoiding the clinginess. Or maybe he's afraid to be around these people like he's afraid to debate Clinton. This dismissive attitude toward Clinton and to the people still be counted is really ticking me off. Gosh, he doesn't seem to be winning me over.

    WV ALERT (5.00 / 2) (#241)
    by karen for Clinton on Sat May 10, 2008 at 04:52:08 AM EST
    "Obama is brushing off W.Va. and KY and hoping people won't turn out, thinking their vote doesn't matter"

    They do matter.  There were rumors of reports on the Hillary Clinton.com boards late last night of robo calls or people calling (not sure which) telling people the election was over and to not vote. And telling them not to send money to Hillary in WV.

    The Clinton campaign is seeking volunteers to call voters in WV and set the FACTS straight.

    First, Wolfson lied (3.66 / 3) (#8)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:53:39 PM EST
    He said Obama could win but then provided electoral data that said he would get less delegates than McCain... uh, that's losing.

    Second, Clinton's arguments are popular vote and who can win in the GE.  Clinton demonstrates she can win in the GE with polling data.  

    The last polling data by Rasmussen in FL was 04/10; PA 04/24; and OH 04/08.  All of the polling for the three is old 4/23-29.

    If other pollsters follow Rasmussen's lead and refuse to poll her, she loses one of her arguments. cr@p.

    they will poll again (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:06:43 PM EST
    when Clinton wins WVA and KY, and the other pollsters start taking OR seriously.

    He had to say he could win so they (3.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:48:36 PM EST
    wouldn't hit  her with that "damaging his electability"bs.

    electibility (1.25 / 4) (#1)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:44:05 PM EST
    doesn't matter any more.

    what matters is giving every state a chance to participate and letting the winner win.  

    also, the longer this goes, the more we'll see the right pounce on some of the left's accusations of clinton racism.  it is getting ugly.  hillary needs to attack mccain now and nothing else.  she can't win the nomination but can do good if she says the right things.  she must be very careful to avoid riling anybody else up and allowing outside forces to use her words to further divide the party.

    Obama seems incapable of being (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:49:18 PM EST
    gracious. In my opinion, had he campaigned respectfully against Hillary in the last month, he would have done better.
    But no, he had to try to "obliterate" her.

    He could have even condem (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:18:35 PM EST
    what happened in Indiana with the Gary mayor.

    She can win (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:53:35 PM EST
    and saying it's not possible is simply not reality.  She is a brilliant woman, married to another brilliant dem.  If the math were impossible, if the election was over, then she would be gone.

    Further, the SDs have made it clear that they are waiting for something to happen before choosing one candidate over the other.

    She can rile up whomever she wants.  People aren't "allowing" her to stay in the race out of kindness.  She has earned the position she is in and has every right to continue aggressively seeking the nomination.

    Unless folks want to make the argument that Obama should tread carefully around Clinton's reputation, then I find the suggestion that she should not "rile" anybody else up a tad condescending.

    Old North, I know that you are one of the good guys, but let me repeat this: Clinton has not given up for a reason.  She is not running out the clock--she is sprinting down the field.


    Kathy... (5.00 / 6) (#151)
    by p lukasiak on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:07:33 AM EST
    do you find it the least bit odd that when Clinton was (supposedly) campaigning as the "inevitable" nominee, that no one seemed to mind if there was criticism of her?

    It seems to me that back last summer, when Obama was looking like a flash in the pan, Edwards was going nowhere, and Clinton's numbers kept going up that no one was saying "gosh, we don't see how anyone could possibly be the nominee except for her, so we really need to watch what we say."


    i'm all for her staying in the race (none / 0) (#14)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:58:42 PM EST
    i think it is great that every state will get a chance to participate.  i truly believe that everybody benefits from that happening.  it does bother me, however, how racially charged this has become.  i know it isn't fair but i also know that the deeper we get into the racial politics, the more harm is being done.  

    make your case and attack mccain...and be smart about it.  in time the playing field will even out, but that time is obviously not now when racial discussions are at the forefront.  there are two ways to go and taking the path that further exacerbates the tensions is probably the wrong one, imo.


    But, OldNorth (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:03:33 PM EST
    why do you think taking Clinton out of the equation will mean that race will no longer be the issue?  

    Why does Hillary Clinton have to sacrifice her life's work, her dreams and ambitions, in order to help pave the way for a lesser qualified candidate?  Because he's black?

    I find your arguments as flawed as John Kerry's assertion that simply because Obama is black man, he is the better candidate and that he will heal the world.

    Don't you see how hollow this rhetoric is, and just as damaging in its own way to open, honest discussions about race?


    It is racially charged because that is the how... (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:10:52 PM EST
    Obama operates.  He should not be allowed to continue to smear white Dems, who have worked on Civil Rights all their adult lives, as racist.

    So, yes she should talk about her base, which has been impugned as racist, no education, low information, fogies, etc.  Obama is the one dividing the Country.  


    please stop the race baiting (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:30:10 PM EST
    whichever candidate you support. It's not allowed here.

    I'm sorry about my phrasing. (none / 0) (#83)
    by alexei on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:17:22 PM EST
    I was referring to the pattern of the campaign including these: the SC Memo, the Jesse Jackson Jr. interview about Katrina, the Clyburn talking points the Senator from PunJab, and the latest flap about Clinton being racist using exit polling.  

    I will abide by the rules.  Please note, an upstream comment was made before I read this. I apologize in advance but contend that is not may intent and I will tone my language down.


    you guys can troll rate me all you want (none / 0) (#105)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:35:49 PM EST
    (despite the appearance of abusing the system) but the fact is, the electability argument just isn't going to fly with the public.  especially now as the race divisions further, hillary is losing out and just about any chance she might have had a winning the african american vote were she somehow to take the nomination.

    like i said, she needs to focus on mccain.  continuing to talk about white people will only further piss off the african american community and really make that community go crazy if somehow the white man screws them over again and takes away their nominee.  


    you are new and at 19 comments (none / 0) (#126)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:52:34 PM EST
    You are only allowed 10 per day until you have been here 30 days. And since you are a chatterer, after that only 30. Please read the comment rules and come back another day.

    where i come from (none / 0) (#139)
    by oldnorthstate on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:00:28 AM EST
    it is tomorrow...

    but i'll leave and stop raining on you all's parade


    "on you all's parade"? (1.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Chimster on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:10:32 AM EST
    An odd time to use southern slang on your very last post to get a dig in. Your writing style sounds familiar but your name doesn't. I wonder if someone who writes like you will be on here tomorrow but with a completely different name. Hmm.

    As a(n almost) life long Texan, (none / 0) (#206)
    by mulletov cocktails on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:28:44 AM EST
    I'm pretty sure it's y'all; my dad was stationed in Italy (the country not the city)  for the first few years of my life.

    What, you think the Republicans won't notice? (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:04:55 PM EST
    You think that Obama will put the race card back in the jar in the GE? Maybe he will as he has the AA vote all locked up now. But if you exclude part of the Democratic Party that HIS SIDE AND HE have declared not needed, you lose that part and he is never going to get the Republican vote anyway. Thus, lose in November.

    No she should attack both - the are both (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:13:44 PM EST
    Reagan lover, not for Universal Healthcare, not caring for social secutity, etc.

    They both should be kicked hard: they are both democratic principles' enemy.


    the solution to the racial divide is (5.00 / 4) (#141)
    by jackyt on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:01:07 AM EST
    for Obama to apologize to the Clintons for his own race baiting behavior, and to make it crystal clear to everyone representing his campaign, officially or otherwise that he will loudly and publicly denounce anyone who tries, in any measure, to paint the Clintons as racists.

    I'd like to (none / 0) (#243)
    by oldpro on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:46:30 AM EST
    order a case of whatever the h@!l you're drinking!

    Apologize to the Clintons?

    That is NOT the 'Obama you can BELIEVE in!'


    thank you (none / 0) (#225)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:08:46 AM EST
    for stating it so plainly.

    Let's See (5.00 / 10) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:03:36 PM EST
    Obama and his surrogates continuing to attack Hillary is O.K. but Hillary should just attack McCain. Riling Obama supporters is forbidden but putting down Clinton's supporters is just fine and dandy. What else is new? These have been the Obama Roolz throughout the primary.

    I'm just fine with what Hillary is doing. So we have agreed to disagree.


    she's not "allowing" outside forces (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Josey on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:32:30 PM EST
    to divide the party. Unless you mean by her continuing to stay in the race.
    Obamabots and the media are ramping up the Hillary-hate and charges of racism to smear her more and drive down her numbers in future primaries.
    Consequently, Hillary supporters are repulsed by their thug-like behavior.
    And the beat goes on...

    This isn't just Hillary they're demeaning, but a message to ALL women.


    Yep (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:06:51 PM EST
    It is not Hillary that is excluding people in the party, it is Obama. Hillary has wanted and embraced every voter there is. She has been the unifier.

    Obama and Friends are doing a fine (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:42:33 PM EST
    job all on their own dividing the party. Quit throwing it on Hillary.

    Maybe spend your energies getting the Obama surrogates to stop being such sexist a-holes :)


    Obama's (5.00 / 6) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:45:57 PM EST
    the one that has divided the party. He's made it black vs. white by playing the race card. Anyway, he's set it up perfectly for McCain to win in Nov. Obama can either lose now or lose in Nov. It seems he would rather lose in Nov.

    I think he wants to win now (none / 0) (#74)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:09:30 PM EST
    but he will lose in November. Win the battle but lose the war. Heh.

    Meaning she can't talk about (none / 0) (#2)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:49:14 PM EST
    The problem.

    Who can?  Without riling things up?


    it is a problem to be sure (none / 0) (#5)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:52:50 PM EST
    but the more hillary talks about her base, the worse it gets.  ideally, african american elders will speak out and acknowledge that in order to achieve true equality, there needs to be a level playing field in the arena of racial discussions.

    Whatever that will mean (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:56:36 PM EST
    So far all it's meant is Clinton can't order a cup of black coffee without someone in the Obama camp standing, screaming and pointing like Donald Sutherland at the end of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

    i agree 100% (none / 0) (#17)
    by oldnorthstate on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:59:50 PM EST
    but no matter how much we scream, it won't make a difference.  there's got to be a better way.  sadly for our candidate, it isn't going to be now.

    It better be (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:04:33 PM EST
    Or he truly is unelectable.

    Republicans won't care if camp Obama calls them racist.  It will backfire.

    And Obama will lose!


    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:11:22 PM EST
    It is only Democrats that worry about that.

    they're living in a bubble (none / 0) (#227)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:17:11 AM EST
    My grandmother called me up the other day.  She is a strong Dem, fervent Hillary supporter and watches the MSM.  She's never read a blog in her life.  And she's furious what the media & Obama fans are doing to Hillary.  She is thinking of voting for McCain if we decide to piss away our party to coronate Obama & have a feel-good moment.

    If now now, when? (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by RalphB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:27:32 PM EST
    Never as long as people don't speak the truth out of fear of alienating someone.  I'm getting really sick of people cowtowing to Obama and his supporters.

    those who think (5.00 / 10) (#38)
    by Kathy on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:34:24 PM EST
    giving Obama the nomination will assuage white guilt, or heal racial wounds in this country-or the world, for that matter-need to ask exactly how this rapture will occur.

    I don't need a best friend.  I don't need a messiah to part the sea or lead me out of the desert.  I don't need a salve for my wounds.  I need a president.


    It won't, because (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:17:39 PM EST
    those fine DC people who have encouraged him will leave him as a symbol as they pull the rug out from underneath him and become Cheney. He is a follower. He might state his opinion, but in the end, it isn't happening unless someone else wants it to happen.

    So say we all! n/t (none / 0) (#165)
    by janarchy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:20:12 AM EST
    No but spelling does (none / 0) (#156)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:11:35 AM EST

    Or you could also spell that:

    H-i-l-l-a-r-y R. C-l-i-n-t-o-n


    The race... (1.00 / 0) (#36)
    by eagleye on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:33:10 PM EST
    One of the things the superdelegates are looking at in this race is Hillary's performance vs. Obama in light of where things stood when the raced started.  She had every imaginable advantage-  $100 million in the bank, 96 committed superdelegates, a very famous and popular ex-President to campaign with her, major name recognition after two terms as First Lady, lots of connections in the Democratic Party hierarchy, and a very visible position as a Senator from NY, the second largest state and the media hub for the nation.  She has basically been running for President for the past four years.

    Obama had nothing to start with.  His claim to fame was a speech given at the Democratic Convention a few years ago.  Yet he built an incredible movement and beat Hillary in every metric.  So if you're a superdelegate considering who to support, you have to wonder how Hillary would fare against the GOP machine if she can't handle an upstart candidate like Obama in the primary.  At this point she has been reduced to hoping that if she somehow overtakes Obama in the popular vote, the SD's will honor the popular vote over the pledged delegate count.  That's not going to happen, and her refusal to accept reality and do what is best for the Party is making her even LESS attractive to the superdelegates.  Look at the number of SD's who have bailed out on HRC and are now backing Obama; not a single one has gone over to her side. It's sad to watch, but Hillary Clinton is going out ugly, and this didn't have to happen.

    Going out ugly!!! (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by Buckeye on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:45:09 PM EST
    After the WV and Kentucky primaries are held, she will have won 7 out of the last 9 contests.  She also has a valid argument to count MI and FL.  She can win the popular vote and prove that she has a stronger coalition for the GE than Obama.  Obama has done nothing special.  He has had the media behind him, racial solidarity among AAs, and radical left-wing, upper income, prius driving, KOS blooging, Maher watching, white libs.  He built the same coalition that McGovern, Dukasis, Stephenson, etc. built and will lose with it.

    Obama's had every advantage (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:23:58 AM EST
    in this primary, in terms of money, media treatment, surrogates, endorsements....and the best he can hope for is to eke along the finish line with half the party.  That doesn't bode well.

    He had nothing?! (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:48:45 PM EST
    he was doing just fine getting bankrolled.

    he's been running (5.00 / 6) (#135)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:58:41 PM EST
    since his speech in Boston at the Dem. Convention in 2004 when the media started calling him the first possible AA President.

    His speech was good, But what did he say? (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by BarnBabe on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:19:43 AM EST
    So many speeches were not. But, I was thinking, possible VP candidate in the future. You know, climbing up the ladder to the top job. Getting elected to the Senate and serving some time there first. Get some experience and learn on the job training. I had no clue he would leap frog to the main job. He wasn't even a Senator yet.

    You got me (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:05:32 AM EST
    I was in the convention hall and heard the speeches live. I wasn't that impressed with Obama's speech, but it may have been because it was a boring night and I couldn't make out the words, only gauge the reactions. It also was not a big night: the other speakers were Dick Gephardt and Ron Reagan.   This blogger was impressed with Obama's speech. And, that's the night the media crowned Obama so what do I know?.

    At the  blogger breakfast in Boston, Obama came and spoke. I met him and thought he was kind of aloof. I've never been a Howard Dean fan, but my post of the breakfast is filled with comments by him and not one word of what Obama said.

    Compare my reaction to hearing Bill Clinton,Wes Clark, John Kerry, Hillary and John Edwards.

    And no, I wasn't cheerleading. I thought Joe Lieberman was awful and I couldn't believe the reaction to Joe Biden. (Pelosi was just ok and Feinstein was not.)


    Please correct me if I'm wrong (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by RalphB on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:13:42 AM EST
    but I remember the speech as being pretty much boiler plate, with very good inflection.  It could have been given by anyone and may have been for all I know.  :-)

    It is "y'all" not "you all" (1.00 / 1) (#208)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:33:36 AM EST
    I don't believe OldNorthState is a Southerner, as no self-respecting Southerner would ever say "you all."

    Actually I am a southerner (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:26:46 AM EST
    and I tend to write "you all" and say "y'all."  So go figure.

    I'm with you guys (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by otherlisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:34:14 AM EST
    I saw the speech and didn't think it was anything special. "My God is an awesome God!" All that religious stuff leaves me cold.

    I should add (none / 0) (#198)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:06:34 AM EST
    that while I couldn't make out the words, I did have a copy of his prepared speech.

    She can't say much because (none / 0) (#91)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:23:24 PM EST
    the media wants her out whether the people do or not. If she says she likes her toast light, it is against Obama. I mean, you are wrong. Why didn't he get out after NH? Let the people of the ENTIRE United State vote. What's your hurry?

    Movement? (none / 0) (#97)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:27:34 PM EST
    Uh yeah.... that 'movement' for 'change'... uh ok, I'll play...let's ask one more time, What exactly is this monumental movement of change that no one has ever seen or experienced and how exactly is he going to accomplish that monumental movement of change?

    Knocks me out (none / 0) (#238)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:37:07 AM EST
    that so many people never ask about the content of change.  They end up projecting.

    I predicted this (none / 0) (#64)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:02:21 PM EST
    on my blog if HRC were to go to the GE:

    She would take:
    WA(11), OR (7), CA (55), NV(5), NM(5), OK(7), AR(6), MI(17), OH(20), FL(27), WV(5), ME(4), NH(4), VT(3),RI(4), CT(7), MA(12), NY(31), PA(21), NJ(15), MD(10), DE (3), HI(4), IL (21), DC (3)


    Sorta off topic (none / 0) (#68)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:05:12 PM EST
    But this is what I see for McCain:

    MT(3), ID(4), UT(5), AZ(10), ND(3), SD(3), NE(5), KS(6), TX (34), IA(7), MO(11), LA(9), IN(11), KY(8), TN(11), MS (6), AL (9), GA(15), NC(15), SC(8).
    Electoral total of "certain" red states=184

    McCain would need then 86 electoral votes. He could pick those up easily with Florida(27) (if Obama runs) and Michigan(17) (if Romney runs...and this would be kind of a long shot), Pennsylvania (21) and Ohio(20), again, if Obama runs. States like Nevada(5) and Arkansas(6) would put him over the top if Obama is the nominee as well.

    And here's my Obama prediction in the GE (none / 0) (#70)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:06:55 PM EST
    WA(11), OR(7), CA(55), CO(9), NM(5), MI(17), VA(13), ME(4), NH(4), VT(3), RI(4), CT(7), MA(12), NY(31), NJ(15), MD(10), DE(3), WI(10), HI(4), IL(21), DC (3)
    Electoral Total=248

    I am being optimistic in giving Obama Wisconsin and Colorado. Wisconsin has been pretty good about going Democrat, and he did well there. There is a lot of animus against the Clintons in Wisconsin, so I won't put that in her column. Colorado Democrats have made major inroads there. Obama beat Hillary decisively there. I don't think she could carry the state though. He could take it. Arkansas would go blue because she's a Clinton. Obama won't carry it.

    don't think either dem. will win colorado or VA (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by ChuckieTomato on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:55:46 PM EST
    Colorado is dubious (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:04:50 AM EST
    While Obama is strong, Republicans are stronger state wide. And if McCain picks Romney who won the Repub. primary here by a wide margin, forget it.

    I will defer to you JM (none / 0) (#158)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:15:11 AM EST
    because you live in CO.  And I agree with you, that if ROmney runs with McCain, he could def lose CO (along with Michigan)...and...

    Chuckie (none / 0) (#140)
    by txpolitico67 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:00:38 AM EST
    you might be right.  again, I was going from primary results and from things i read and heard about in those states.  I really do think that BHO could carry CO though.

    just don't see colorado, VA or NC going dem. (none / 0) (#200)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:10:40 AM EST
    Don't know much about Colorado but it doesn't seem like a very hospitable state for democrats. And even FDR couldn't win VA or NC

    Dem Leaders avoid Blame if Hillery drops out (none / 0) (#89)
    by downtownted on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:20:22 PM EST
    Political climate is such that no Democratic Presidential Nominee should lose the November general election.  Lots of discussion here that enough voters could desert Obama (maybe because they were never going to be Obama supporters) to elect McCain. There is a reason for calling many of these voters Reagan Democrats.
    Dem political leadership skips most criticism if Hillary drops out. But the heat will be unbearable if they should be so out of touch that they pick Obama over Hillary and he loses. And Dem leadership has a lousy history as far as being in touch with Presidential voters.

    BTW (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by BarnBabe on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:31:35 PM EST
    As noted, there is a lot of discussion about voting for Obama here, but we are such a minute portion of the general public and just happen to blog. Our opinion is a smathering of what the rest of the USA thinks. But we already know what Republican think and if even half of the Hillary voters are thinking the same thing, no President Obama.

    Bingo. (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:29:14 AM EST
    My guess is the only place that ad is running (none / 0) (#181)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:33:02 AM EST
    is YouTube.

    It's over a minute and a half, and they can't afford to put that on TV unless they trim it down.

    The Haka video (none / 0) (#188)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:44:28 AM EST
    did you see it?  I think it was on Riverdaughter's web site today.

    Here's the powerpoint (none / 0) (#219)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:49:27 AM EST
    that Hillary is distributing to House members.  


    Great post by Jerome at MyDD (none / 0) (#234)
    by otherlisa on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:26:33 AM EST
    Relevant to this discussion - check it out...

    comments now closed. (none / 0) (#237)
    by Jeralyn on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:35:05 AM EST

    And she is correct, putting up another Kenndey (none / 0) (#242)
    by Salt on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:29:48 AM EST
    nominee who dose not have the Base behind him and as a result will likely be shot down in Nov is a waste of Party capitial and really old politics as usaul.  My guess until Dems wash Teddy and his guys out of your hair you will not win the White House, now of course that may be what he wants he couldn't make it himself but if the Presdient is from the other Party he still top dog so plan on another moment Kerry Kerry Dukakis defeat if you can not turn this back to Clinton.