CNN Projects Obama Wins Wisconsin

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:23:06 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Wisconsin '08 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Based on exit polls, at 9:22 pm, CNN projects Obama wins Wisconsin.

Hillary is speaking now from Youngstown. She's talking about the loan she made to her campaign. "If we pull together we can do this." She's asking them to go to her website where she has her issues posted. She's not mentioning the page also starts with a contribution request. But, she says, "With your help" we can win.

She talks about why she's better equipped to be commander in chief and that she's stood up to say that women's rights are human rights. She's ready to end the war in Iraq and the era of cowboy diplomacy. One of us will provide health care for every American. It's a right not a privilege and I won't rest until every American is covered. Theme of the speech, "One of Us has a plan."

CNN puts Obama on next to her, he's going to speak at the same time. They are going to cut off Hillary to go to Obama.

Analysis and updates below:

First thoughts: The economy. Wisconsin has a thing about NAFTA and Obama owned that issue and pushed it. It trumped health care and really must have resonated with the voters, particularly the white males.

McCain's speech: Direct attack on Obama's inexperience.

Queston: Will Hillary's major donor base start drying up now? Will her supporters keep giving via the website?

I'm signing off for now. I have nothing good to say so I think I'll just say nothing for a while.

< Wisconsin Primary Results: Live Thread One | What Now For Hillary? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

CNN Projects Obama Wins Wisconsin | 71 comments (71 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Hillary constituencies are falling apart. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by jor on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:28:19 PM EST

The demographic break downs are terrible for hillary. She is barely keeping white women with her, 53%-45%. My guess is, if you take out older white women -- they split women down the middle.

there's hardly any (none / 0) (#4)
by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:29:35 PM EST

Hispanic women in Wisconsin, I bet she keeps them as well.


: sure, she can keep... (none / 0) (#8)
by jor on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:32:16 PM EST

... older hispanic women. But the general trend for hispanics from gallup has been, the gap is closing. Especially among younger hispanics. And when you consider the gap in texas closing, that provides two independant peices of evidence that her support with hispanics in general is in trouble.

a 55-45 win (none / 0) (#10)
by Nasarius on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:33:20 PM EST

Is hardly catastrophic or unexpected. That's what CNN has at the moment (56-43, with 5% reporting).


It's all about momentum (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Coldblue on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:33:45 PM EST

I'm sad to predict that the Democratic nominee will be Obama.

I don't relish the thought of 'President McCain'.

Not a Surprise (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Seneca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:41:04 PM EST

For all of the whispers about a Clinton upset due to Demographic reasons or the latests barbs thrown against Obama, this was no surprise.

Obama outspent Hillary, spent more time there and, for some reason, does well in the midwest. Period.

Predicted spin on the blogs, networks tomorrow, all nonsense: "It's over for Hillary," "Obama out of reach," "Clinton closer than expected," "Meaningless win in small state," "Huge win with diverse constituencies," blah, blah, blah, everyone play the game where we all take different sides and light rhetorical fireworks...(sigh)

18-24s 11% of turnout (none / 0) (#34)
by Ben Masel on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:48:32 PM EST

Grand Theft Auto vote.


Wisconsin (none / 0) (#51)
by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:09:38 PM EST

has same day voting, and you can use a student ID.


: And the going rate on a student ID (none / 0) (#66)
by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:48:46 PM EST

is even less than for a driver's license. (My kids finally 'fessed up that they had them and how much they paid. Of course, inflation had hit, so it was far more than mine cost me in Wisconsin eons ago.)

Here's how I see it (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by tnthorpe on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:55:28 PM EST

The dem primary season is turning out much greater numbers than the rep, not because we have 2 crappy candidates, but 2 potentially very successful candidates. Look at the diff between rep and dem turnout on the NYT frontpage. At 7% it was 2-1 dem.

My reading is that there's both excitement and anxiety, but this notion that if one or the other of 2 largely similar candidates loses it's doom for the party is garbage. I think folk need to stop whining about the anticipated rep smear machine and start preparing for it. The candidates need to lead here, since the party seems like an ant colony run amok. Any progressive or dem who fence sits during what is sure to be a seriously ugly GE simply because their candidate wasn't the nom is being worse than negligent.

The opponent is McCain and his war mongering, authoritarianism, disregard for the poor, and embrace of the worst elements of the Bush facist cabal. I'll take either Clinton or Obama over him and his derelict party any day.

Well said... (5.00 / 2) (#79)
by ROK on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:19:38 PM EST

and I think that this attitude is what the Dems need right now.

If you live in TX,OH,PA,KY,IN,NC,WV,PR,SD, or any of the remaining states, I encourage you to try to bring the Clinton campaign back. She is qualified, does care, and will fight. I just ask that at the end of the day you not sacrifice a win in November over a loss in March or June or August.

Well put.

Nice, very nice. By and large (5.00 / 1) (#80)
by hairspray on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:19:39 PM EST

the comments have been very pro Hillary, but when Obama has been criticized it hasn't been mean or hurtful the way Hillary has been trashed on dkos for example. A good reason to stay away from that toxic environment. If Obama wins this I will support him and be happy for our win. There is a touch of arrogance I perceive in him and it worries me a lot. As the nuns used to say "pride goeth before a fall". I want a Democrat in the WH and I wanted JRE or HRC. But I will settle if I have to.

He sounds like (3.00 / 2) (#43)
by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:58:25 PM EST

a televangical preacher.

The problem (2.00 / 1) (#44)
by Lena on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:02:16 PM EST

for those of us who just don't understand Obama's draw is that it's hard to imagine that a significant proportion of people beyond those who are already attracted to Obama will ever vote for him.
And once the tide turns in his media coverage (as it will, definitely!), some of his soft supporters will start to wonder what they saw in him too.

But as a Clinton supporter, I haveto add this: even if Obama wins the nomination and somehow manages to beat McCain... Obama simply isn't a fighter. Nothing in his legislative experience shows a willingness to sacrifice, take risks, be a leader. Health care reform is lost. Compromise with the big money interests is in.

We could have accomplished so much after Bush, and now if Obama runs the table in the primaries, we're looking at a McCain presidency, or, at best, the presidency of Obama - an inexperienced unity guy who reaches across the aisle and introduces all the regressive Republican ideas into the Democratic party. Wow, what progress we've made!

I can only hope his "new kind of politics" and "unity" spiel is just an act to draw in idealistic young people. And I just hope he has some progressiveness in him... I have't seen it yet though (especially in healthcare), and I'm not holding my breath.

While I agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by tnthorpe on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:11:33 PM EST

on the missed progressive opportunity here, I don't think you can say Obama isn't a fighter when he's winning primaries against Clinton in her own home demographics. She's no pushover and she's no quitter either. He's simply running a campaign with a lot of fight in it that she hasn't been able to counter effectively.

As for the problem of corporate compromise, I see that as an issue with both C and O, though her health care plan is superior.


This is fighting for himself now (none / 0) (#65)
by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:46:27 PM EST

vs. fighting for the issues. I don't see him doing so, based on his record and what he (and/or Deval Patrick and/or David Axelrod, whomever) says.


: my take (none / 0) (#91)
by tnthorpe on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:01:10 PM EST

is that Obama is an imperfect candidate who, if he wins as looks increasingly likely, will need to be pushed hard by progressives. No matter what any of the candidates say now, any legislation needs to get through Congress, so the election is only one part of a long, arduous process.

Just the Opposite (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by Seneca on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:14:21 PM EST

Clinton would be the do-nothing president because the country would be so divided that she would have neither popular mandate nor political capital for real change. It would be a replay of the last Clinton presidency: dogfighting, bitter ideological disputes, nothing gets done.

What Obama understands is that progress requires consensus. As the last great Republican said, "A divided house cannot stand." With a Democrat-Independent coalition, Obama will pass solid liberal legislation and guarantee the success of the democratic party for 8 years to come.

Finally:
Read a poll - they show consistently that Obama beats McCain and that Hillary loses to McCain. If you have some other empirical fact to back up the assertion that Hillary will do better against McCain, please enlighten us...


Re: The problem (4.50 / 2) (#69)
by Will on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:14:16 PM EST

"Obama simply isn't a fighter. Nothing in his legislative experience shows a willingness to sacrifice, take risks, be a leader. Health care reform is lost. Compromise with the big money interests is in."

Are you unaware of the fact that Hillary is taking money from lobbyists, and Obama isn't? And what has Hillary done in her short legislative career, besides cooperate with the Bush administration? For anyone who is a Hillary supporter to complain that Obama is "big money" is just absurd. Are you not aware of her career at the Rose Law Firm, representing corporate interests and sitting on the BOD at WalMart? THAT'S where most of her "35 years of experience" is - and if her campaign was honest the way Obama's is, maybe she'd play up the fact that she was the first female partner there. But no, instead, we get Bill telling us that Hillary "could have" gone and done corporate law. That's what she did . . . I mean, this Orwellian approach honestly reminds me of Bush/Rove tactics.

Look - I want to be able to vote for Hillary if she becomes the Dem candidate. I voted for Bill in my first Presidential election, and voted for her for Senator. But her campaign has been based on so much B.S., I just can't believe it, and honestly, it's hurt my opinion of Clinton's presidency. Not being honest about the bulk of your experience is just one example.

Another thing I can't believe when I read these comments from Hillary supporters is the claim that there's something "bad" or "unfair" about Obama being a likable, leader type of candidate. They're running for PRESIDENT, folks . . . not city comptroller or some job where you could get by with a "C-" personality like Hillary's. People just don't like her very much - and that's evidenced by the fact that a black guy with a funny name has beat her in 10 or 11 states in a row.

Stop whining, and start admitting that having leadership skills is a pretty important part of running for President. Is it a "popularity contest"? YES, that's exactly what it is . . . and that's why the Democratic Party cannot nominate someone who 47% of the voting public hated before Super Tuesday, and half the Democrats hate now!

PS - One more thing . . . Obama has a whole platform on his website, and in a lot of areas, he's got really great policy ideas (see technology, open government stuff, etc.). No more whining that he's "all talk" if you have an internet connection.


: blah blah blah (1.00 / 2) (#72)
by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:40:52 PM EST

You forgot the big one, nuclear power. (none / 0) (#78)
by hairspray on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:10:26 PM EST

We are just now turning to alternative energy and Hillary has been very strong in her plans to invest heavily in these areas. If we get a president who kinda..likes nuclear, it will overtake the new startups. We will get a push for new plants to replace our aging plants and NP will sop up most of the government infrastructure money. Because the big power industires have the clout to lobby heavily there will be no turning back when that happens.


A few things (none / 0) (#82)
by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:45:38 PM EST

about these demographic results (based on exit polls, of course, if they're accurate).

He didn't win the working class in Wisconsin; Clinton did. He cut into her edge in that group, but not as much as Dems will need; they're the backbone of the party. Ohio will be another test of that -- and then we will hope that they come over to whomever is the Dem nominee.

As for splitting Catholics, she won most of them. And everyone who runs for anything in Wisconsin splits Catholics! Do you know how many there are here? This is right up there with Massachusetts and always has been, with the still-strong French legacy here -- Wisconsin was in Nouvelle France for almost as long as it has been in the U.S. -- and then the massive Irish emigration here, and then the massive German and Polish emigration here (some of it Lutheran, lots of it Catholic). So with all those ethnic splits, Catholics always have been split, anyway, on everything here.

Some of your other breakdowns aren't being seen as solidly reported yet here, although they have been by national media. A bit more data, with more returns, will be worth waiting for to get a better sense of what can happen in Ohio.

But a big difference between the two very similar states is that Obama enormously outspent her in Wisconsin -- as he has everywhere -- and got well ahead in the ground game here, and that was very good strategy. But she has been on the ground for some time in Ohio now, so you had better donate a lot to him fast, so he can keep outspending. It is making a major difference; it is how he can continue to win -- with his supporters' help.


We have the real exit poll now (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:37:33 PM EST

I am deleting your reference to Drudge.

I deleted someones comment (1.00 / 1) (#32)
by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:47:05 PM EST

saying as fact he is one win away from the nomination. Readers can post their opinions, but not present them as fact when they arent.


: and I deleted comments (1.00 / 1) (#36)
by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:49:21 PM EST

calling Obama names for starting his speech when Hillary was still speaking. While I agreed with the sentiment, the language was inappropriate and name-calling is not allowed.
Repost without the insults and names. Just say you thought it was wrong of him to do.

I am so upset by my homestate (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by kenosharick on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:41:26 PM EST

that I may need to throw up. This means Texas and therefore the nominaion is lost. Hello president mccain. The worst part is that he will name 2-3 supreme court justices.

he says (1.00 / 2) (#56)
by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:20:42 PM EST

immigrants and gay people aren't "people like us"

OMG did he really say that?????? (none / 0) (#58)
by athyrio on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:22:45 PM EST

I am not? (none / 0) (#60)
by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:26:11 PM EST

I knew I was different. Hoorah...I am not like Obama.


He's (none / 0) (#67)
by tek on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:50:05 PM EST

not an immigrant?


: he said it in the speech (none / 0) (#86)
by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:13:53 AM EST

he called them people not like us

No, that's not right, you really need to correct (none / 0) (#90)
by dmk47 on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 09:15:51 AM EST

He said that some people try to divide us by saying gays and immigrants are different, and that's wrong.

These are 180 degrees different in meaning, and it's really a scurrilous charge to have floating around.


Ouch (1.00 / 1) (#76)
by bordenl on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:57:15 PM EST

According to NYT exit poll this big win is all independents, 63%-36%. The two candidates split Democrats. Also Obama did not win voters with under $50,000 income by that much.

This was called too early (none / 0) (#1)
by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:28:05 PM EST

Not disputimg it just too much faith in exit polling I think.

I agree; it may tighten (none / 0) (#42)
by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:56:39 PM EST

as we don't have much upstate yet. Remember, it's almost Canada up there and can differ from downstate Wisconsin.


Yep, it's not tightening -- but the map (none / 0) (#83)
by Cream City on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:47:34 PM EST

county by county, especially far from Milwaukee, is proving quite interesting.


: I absolutely could not predict (none / 0) (#89)
by Cream City on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 08:11:25 AM EST

what was going to happen, and that was weird here -- it shows that this was not like campaigns before.
Re county by county results, I don't mean quite what you see -- yes, you see that she won less populated counties on the border, but also a bloc in the center. (And an odd border one that he ought to have won hugely but didn't is the county on the border due north of Chicago; I have to see more on that -- as it is a strong union area.) What I meant, though, is that I can see the huge crossover of Republicans gaming the open primary, as they often do when they already have their candidate. No way that Waukesha County, where no Dem even can wind dogcatcher but yesterday turned out 2-1 for Dems, will be with us in November, for example. And there are many others that, for us here, mean little to no coattail effect for local races. That is not good; we need to win legislative seats, county exec seats, etc., too.
Weather was not what we call "Dem weather" -- it was cold, it's still icy all over from the storm, it kept down the elderly vote, re local reports. But overall turnout was very good in urban areas like Milwaukee and Madison, which is where he won; between them (and their burbs) alone, that's 40% of the state population. Whether there were record highs, I don't think so, from local media reports last night -- but they still may be looking through past numbers to see. Wisconsin tends to have high turnouts, though.
So now I go check my morning paper for far better analysis than mine -- and you may want to do so, too; see jsonline.com. And probably look for the bylines of Gilbert and Umhoefer; they're the best, although Borowski, Walters, and others may be on this with analyses in their areas of expertise.
Bottom line: a huge win for Obama, no question, because Axelrod again exploited the type of race it was -- an open primary -- just as he did so well with caucuses. But I see a lot of concerns for Dems come the fall and for years out, as I had hope to see evidence of the end of GOP control. Instead, I think they may have controlled a lot of yesterday's win, crossing over, only for a day.
If he really converted Waukesha County, one of the reddest counties in the country, pigs would be flying overhead here. Nope, only snowflakes.:-)

Come on Obama, win me over tonight. (none / 0) (#5)
by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:29:45 PM EST

I hope he speaks as a Democrat and not a uniter tonight. Bash McCain and the Republicans and I'll feel better.

I'll get the video highlights tomorrow (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by andgarden on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:34:11 PM EST

I wouldn't count on the tone changing, though.


Is that from Grease? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by oculus on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:36:35 PM EST

I don't understand (none / 0) (#15)
by cannondaddy on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:36:33 PM EST

rooting for partisanship.


: McCain (none / 0) (#33)
by Nasarius on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:47:57 PM EST

If Obama doesn't change his campaign strategy, we'll have the moderate maverick versus the nonpartisan uniter. The media will treat McCain as a highly experienced, widely respected war hero, while Obama is charming but otherwise unknown.

We do have a unique opportunity for change. But only if our presidential candidate actually runs on issues, and is willing to consistently and forcefully argue for Democratic policies and against Republican policies. Obama will lose a campaign of personalities in the GE.

Obama 60% in rural Dane County (none / 0) (#6)
by Ben Masel on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:31:18 PM EST

2nd CD, outside Madison.

: He's leading in (none / 0) (#46)
by badger on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:04:17 PM EST

suburban Milwaukee counties (Washington, Ozaukee, Jefferson, Waukesha) and in the Fox River Valley (Outagamie, Brown, others). I'm surprised by all of those. The returns are still early, but still surprising.
Clinton doesn't seem to have much of anything to offset the Milwaukee/Madison vote.

You know, I prefer to watch these (none / 0) (#7)
by BrandingIron on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:31:30 PM EST

results come in. The counties are just BARELY reporting in.

"I, for one, (none / 0) (#13)
by hvs on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:34:12 PM EST

welcome our Obamaniac overlords."

Egg on my face tonight: I actually thought she'd win because I never heard a convincing argument why she shoudln't.

: Me too (none / 0) (#47)
by badger on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:06:30 PM EST

I expected at least a closer race and maybe a Clinton win.

That makes me mad too. I read she had (none / 0) (#22)
by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:41:07 PM EST

new stuff in tonight's speech and I wanted to hear it.

Disagree (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:41:52 PM EST

Hillary was on for a while.

He cut her off on purpose (3.00 / 2) (#38)
by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:53:50 PM EST

He knew she was doing a new speech with a teleprompter which she usually doesn't do and he purposely started when she was at the beginning. Cheap shot. Reminds me of his "You're likeable enough Hillary" comment. He has that side to him and I don't like it.


: Bravo for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Tano on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:57:52 PM EST

After her calling him a plagiarst, not congratulation him in the beginning of her speech, and then starting her utterly dishonest riff on "who is he going to deny health care to", it was absolutely appropriate of him to cut her off. You wanna play hardball?

: I agree Jeralyn and I expect the Clinton (none / 0) (#45)
by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:02:25 PM EST

campaign to be highly PO'd. This arrogance is the problem I have with my family when I tell them they must vote for him. They won't vote for McCain, but I'm not at all sure they will vote and they never ever do that.
Maybe time will heal these feelings.

: Is there etiquette on this? (none / 0) (#64)
by AF on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:32:46 PM EST

I mean, usually campaigns do whatever they can to gain a tactical advantage. Particularly if he was anticipating new "contrasts," isn't it fair game to try to keep them off TV? It's not like he forced the stations to switch to him.

Well my TV got muted (none / 0) (#28)
by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:43:18 PM EST

I can't stand this guy. It's getting close to hate.


BTD, she was barely through thanking (none / 0) (#30)
by Teresa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:46:15 PM EST

people. She had a new speech tonight and wasn't more than five minutes into it.


: Manners don't matter so long as the great one (none / 0) (#37)
by RalphB on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:53:46 PM EST

gets his way. Dumb rules.

20,000 (none / 0) (#27)
by andreww on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:42:45 PM EST

people in houston.

: population of Houston: 2 million (none / 0) (#39)
by Jeralyn on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:54:50 PM EST

Walworth county Obama 4344, C 3128 (none / 0) (#29)
by Ben Masel on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 08:45:31 PM EST

OMG (none / 0) (#48)
by americanincanada on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:08:14 PM EST

"I am not a perfect vessel."

Lord...rolls eyes

: Speaking in tongues again? (none / 0) (#61)
by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:27:23 PM EST

Heard on another thread that the (none / 0) (#50)
by athyrio on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:08:31 PM EST

evangelicals think he is the antiChrist...Of course those folks are amazingly stupid usually but this cult thing won't help him....I think Huckabee is tho lol.....

You don't listen to me... (none / 0) (#55)
by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:18:15 PM EST

I found this connection between Oprah and the Course in Miracles, which is basically this cult new agey religion where Christ spoke through this woman in NYC. There are lots of threads in his language that can match. It's sort of eerie...the leader of the Course, Marrianne Williamson, big connections with Oprah, has this whole thing of her journey in finding Obama. Really creepy. Just wait and see. The whole thing is based on Miracles. Lots of "Hope" and "we are the people" etc..etc. I think that is the source of the creepy feeling we get about the whole thing. Non evangelical, but religion non the less.


oh wow that will explode for sure then (none / 0) (#57)
by athyrio on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:21:09 PM EST

New Age stuff (none / 0) (#59)
by Stellaaa on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:25:26 PM EST

Is sort of the anti Christ to the evangelicals. They really hate it for being anti christ, I hate it cause it another corporation usually, fronting as a religion. Check out some of her youtube videos. Oprah is devoting a whole year program in her radio station for the Course. (Personally, we lost two family members to this....whatever it is)...

My Journey to Obama


: Oprah sounds like she has flipped too (none / 0) (#62)
by athyrio on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:27:27 PM EST

Did he say that?! (none / 0) (#63)
by americanincanada on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 09:31:25 PM EST

What did he say about us gays?

No, he didn't say that (5.00 / 1) (#71)
by oudemia on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 10:25:05 PM EST

The actual quote:

I know how easy it is for politicians to turn us on each other, to use immigrants or gay people or folks who aren't like us as scapegoats for what they do. But I also know this. I know this because I have fought on the streets as an organizer, I have fought in the courts as a civil rights attorney, I have fought in the legislature, and I've won some battles, but I've also lost some, because good intentions aren't always enough. They have to be fortified by political will and political power.

That's (none / 0) (#81)
by americanincanada on Tue Feb 19, 2008 at 11:27:16 PM EST

not much better. Horrible phrasing...


that's what he said (none / 0) (#87)
by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:14:37 AM EST

immigrants or gay people or folks who aren't like us


: Wow (none / 0) (#88)
by squeaky on Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 07:44:09 AM EST

He said:

I know how easy it is for politicians to turn us on each other, to use immigrants or gay people or folks who aren't like us as scapegoats for what they do.
IOW "the other", whomever that may be from any given perspective, should never be scapegoated.
I am surprised that you have read this as an anti gay or anti immigrant line. I read it as the exact opposite.