He casually says, Under 40......Obama......

Over 40....Clinton.

Wow, that's a big shift.

The impression has been that Clinton appeals to those on their death bed.

If half the Democratic Party is voting against Obama isn't that just as troublesome as half the Democratic Party voting for Clinton?

That's an article of faith for the OFB.

They hate her.  I mean THEY REALLY HATE HER.

They are so infected with CDS they can't see any redeeming qualities in her.

I heard this talking point on the MSM today. Some pundits have been pretty desperate to make PA an Obama win or shift to she can't win, time for her to pull out bit again. But when I heard that new meme I burst out laughing. With a straight face some said votes for Hillary were necessarily anti-Obama. Wow.

But if one must, out of sheer morality, be forced to conclude that every black person's vote for Obama has nothing to do with Obama being black (and Clinton being white), then I think it's fair to conclude that every white person's vote for Clinton has nothing to do with Clinton being white (and Obama being black.)

Identity politics identity schmpolitics.

Beings a woman and wanting to see a woman president in one's lifetime does not make a person racist.

Being a black person and wanting to see a black president in one's lifetime certainly does not make a person sexist.

Uh.  Now.  As far as the made up world of "Progressive" blogs is concerned, the idea that people are anti-Obama is hysterical.

Obama's only appeal to them has only ever been rooted in anti-Clintonism.

If you go back to when Edwards was still in the race, and you find bloggers saying "I still haven't made up my mind who to endorse, but I know I won't be endorsing Clinton," then it's only obvious that your eventual endorsement of Obama is made within that context.

And if you add into the mix the simple fact that Clinton has tracked MORE to the left on a signature issue (health care), the anti-Clintonism becomes even more ugly.

Axelrod: Democrats Don't Win the White Working Class via NPR

"The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes."

We are not sheep.  We are not lemmings.  Our reasons for voting the way we do range from the simple to the complex and from the sublime to the ridiculous.  

This is the first election in which there are two significant segments of the population which are represented by the contenders for the Democratic nomination - women and African Americans, which means that there may be an equally significant element of people voting on the basis of identity.  Is that the best reason to vote for a particular candidate?  Maybe not - but voting for the black man does not mean one hates women, anymore than voting for the woman means one hates black men.

What I think posts like Ezra's represent are attempts to define, in a very negative way, why Clinton keeps winning in states that are essential to a Democratic win in November.  What never seems to be discussed is the possibility that those who support her are doing so because they believe that she will be best able to accomplish her goals and implement her plans and policies.  That she is the real Democrat in the race.  That she will not start from a position of compromise on issues that matter to us.  That her health care plan is better.  That she understands the issues better.  That she doesn't shirk her responsibilities and excuse her failures by blaming others.

Substance is important, and I would like to believe that there are a lot of Clinton supporters for whom substance trumps identity.  We don't hear too much about it because we very seldom hear Obama supporters say a whole lot more than "he can bring change to Washington," or "he can bring the country together."  

Lost is the fact that Hillary Clinton came into New York to run for the Senate with high negatives, a disgraced husband, and the label of carpetbagger.  She spend a year "listening" to the people of New York and a lot of that was in upstate white conservative rural New York.  She won their votes and kept it the second time around.  She is a master at community organizing.

Don't both elements play some role?

Patterns can indicate, and be made to indicate, all kinds of things and, true to form, the chattering classes do like to make presumptuous, grandiose pronouncements on What The Numbers Mean, especially if those patterns can be made to look and mean something nefarious about Clinton and the character of her supporters.

It's so very tiring, you know.  It's sad and disappointing and atrocious and so, so ugly.

Just look at some of the comments that have been posting on this site which have basically said that Obama is where he is because 1) he's black and 2) Clinton is a woman. Well, duh. And Clinton is where she is because she is 1) a woman and 2) is white (not to mention 3) the ex-first lady of a popular president).

Haven't Reagan Democrats been described in the past as working class blue collar white workers who are prone to vote against affirmative action and gay rights? And they are the same voters who are now voting for Clinton more than Obama?

This seems just as much a mistaken interpretation as the anti-Candidate vote meme. We certainly argue it's against their economic interest. But is it really against their interest on the whole if the candidate talks openly of his disdain for them and how these "little people" need to be show then way [re-educated] and helped, etc. This seems awfully arrogant and patronizing. It's just possible, when someone sees a candidate talking and behaving that way, that person knows from experience having dealt with that kind of attitude, what the end result will be.

And my husband joked it's because Hillary's win makes Republicans believe that their biggest fear (Obama) won't be the Democratic nominee.  Of course, if Hillary is the nominee, McCain will definitely win.