home

AP Tracks N.C. Voter: Why She Voted For Hillary

The AP and Yahoo News, as part of a polling project, has been returning to the same undecided voters over the course of the past year, in an attempt to analyze how their thinking changes during the course of the presidential campaign.

One of the North Carolina voters the AP followed is Meribeth Howlett, a clinical researcher. She recently made up her mind and just voted absentee for Hillary. She explains her reasoning, which I think is spot-on:

"OK — I made a decision, but I should say up front that I'd be happy to vote for either Hillary or Barack. However, I voted for Hillary Clinton. Yes, I've been on Web sites and found the two to have plans that are remarkably similar and so it came down to a more philosophical decision, who do I BELIEVE will do a better job. Because Barack Obama identifies himself as the best candidate to be an agent of 'real change in Washington,' I was expecting to see some details outlining innovative plans to achieve change, but I did not see anything that stood out as greatly different from what Hillary proposes.

More...

"Hillary has deep roots in D.C. and that has pros-cons. I am viewing it as a positive in that I believe she understands how to navigate the system to make changes (as well as knowing what won't work). Another plus for me is that she has spent more time than any of the candidates researching the health care issue and can build on what she learned back when her husband was president.

Howlett adds:

"I will confess that I'm saddened that I'll be lumped in the polls as just another middle-aged white female voting for Hillary since it has absolutely nothing to do with gender or ethnicity."

< Immigration Rallies Focus On Getting Out the Vote | Thursday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    She Made An Informed, Well Thought Out (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:24:47 PM EST
    decision based on facts!

    She's a Clinical Researcher. (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by goldberry on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:02:49 PM EST
    It's what she does for a living.  Indeed, it's hard for me to believe that many scientists would vote for Barack Obama. Geeks are more likely to be Clintonistas after the data is evaluated.  

    What's sad is that to like Clinton is to be totally uncool.

    Parent

    I like Clinton. (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by magisterludi on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:12:57 PM EST
    I am quite cool. Ask anyone.

    Parent
    I am extremely uncool (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:03:32 PM EST
    and I like that about myself ;-)

    Parent
    You Can Only Believe You Are Uncool If You (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:52:17 PM EST
    buy into the obamaholics b.s..  Real cool people are those who dare to be called uncool.  :)

    Parent
    I was uncool (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:36:32 PM EST
    I was uncool until I found out that it was cool to be uncool.  Now I'm just confused.

    Parent
    cool? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jackyt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:19:36 PM EST
    I'm an ex-pat living in Canada where cool (temperaturely speaking) is a synonym for chilly. I much prefer being uncool!

    Parent
    Sadly (none / 0) (#84)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:57:34 AM EST
    some may because many are confused by politics and may well opt to buy into the phony 'change' schtick.  They may see the unity pony as some mount to efficiency not recognizing that it's code for sameo sameo.

    Parent
    change the premise (none / 0) (#97)
    by diogenes on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:26:07 PM EST
    If their policies are both the same, then why vote for the Democratic Nixon (smart but widely disliked and viewed as divisive and dishonest with character flaws) instead of Obama?

    Parent
    False Premise (none / 0) (#100)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:01:51 AM EST
    their policies aren't the same. That has been a slovenly observation from the start.

    Hillary Clinton is no Democratic Nixon.  Nixon actually did have serious character flaws, Hillary Clinton doesn't.  So far as the disliked, viewed as divisive, dishonest is concerned the only way these factors exist (in some quarters) is because of the work of the GOP and the mainstream media. That sentiment is not universally held as the votes of millions have shown.  We would hope that well educated people would show some skepticism and examine the actual record.  One little tipoff, a  clue that the GOP and mainstream media are full of it would be her overwhelming victories in two Senatorial elections in New York state. Sensible people would have to ask how she could have won resounding victories in a state as media heavy and diverse as New York if she was indeed divisive, dishonest and of questionable character. Particularly how did she win over Republican counties that were formerly hotbeds of CDS.

    Why take a risk on an empty suit like Obama whose careless disregard for the consequences of his public decisions demonstrate a fundamental incompetence and his career record of taking credit for the efforts of others reveals a profoundly flawed character.

    As I said. people who are confused by politics.

    Parent

    Hillary as Nixon (none / 0) (#101)
    by diogenes on Sat May 03, 2008 at 10:18:55 PM EST
    Half of Republicans liked Nixon too (after all, he won the nomination three times). Hiding Rose Law firm records was Nixonian.  Hillary picked a safe state to carpetbag from as a senate candidate.  New York Democrats reelected "Senator Pothole" (Alphose D'Amato), a Republican, for years.  Hillary is good at getting government money for upstate NY (at the expense of the rest of the country-zero sum game).  The woman in the article herself said that the candidates' positions were largely similar.


    Parent
    Note this. (4.40 / 5) (#4)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:31:49 PM EST
    Because Barack Obama identifies himself as the best candidate to be an agent of 'real change in Washington,' I was expecting to see some details outlining innovative plans to achieve change, but I did not see anything that stood out as greatly different from what Hillary proposes.

    In her self description, she forgot 'low-info voter'.  (/snark)

    Parent

    Matbe we're "low-info" voters (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by echinopsia on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:45:36 PM EST
    Because Barack has provided a very low level of information?

    Parent
    Classic (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:52:05 AM EST
    I believe she was very clinical when she said "I was expecting to see some details outlining innovative plans to achieve change."

    The statement is a dispassionate way of saying there's absolutely nothing there.

    For me that summed up Obama 'from the start.'

    The real audacity of the Obama campaign is the hope that enough people can be conned into believing that someone without substance, experience, understanding or knowledge could actually navigate and alter the hazardous shoals of Washington.  To believe in Obama is to believe in alchemy.

    Parent

    Change, what kind of change (4.66 / 3) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:52:19 PM EST
    People want change in policies.  From the RNC to real Democratic policies.  People want competence, that is change.  People want leadership, that is change.  They are not looking for change, just in itself.  They are smart enough to go beyond the "washington as usual" change bit, cause they are practical, to change Washington you have to be of and part of Washington.  

    Parent
    Change (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by ghost2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:41:54 PM EST
    CHANGE was always a code word for "I am not Hillary."

    That was all.  

    Parent

    Gee, a clinical reearcher votes for Hillary (5.00 / 12) (#3)
    by hairspray on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:31:39 PM EST
    based on careful analysis.  Must be another low information voter!!

    I've often thought (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by dotcommodity on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:36:55 PM EST
    the older women thing is really because so often its older women in the jobs where you have to read the fine print. Research...also librarian, Insurance claims adjuster, HR manager etc: find and look out for the loopholes.

    Parent
    What an excellent point... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:33:27 PM EST
    that Obama does not propose the type of change one would expect from his rhetoric.

    This disconnect leaves me to wonder if Obama will use illusion to govern.  The viral marketing of his campaign seems like the selling of a product in America today, and the media seems complicit in the overall process.

    Both candidates are in the pocket of the corporations.  Obama does not instill great confidence in me that his consensus approach will accomplish much except more of the same.

    At this point (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Salo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:41:35 PM EST
    I don't see how he wins the election.
    So, it's almost academic to discuss what he'd do. he's lost cross over GOP support.

    Parent
    I could see how any of them... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:48:51 PM EST
    could win or lose.  I have no clue of what will happen.  Yet the more times passes, I'm becoming less impressed that he is ready.  I understand why people support him, but disagree that this way will work, and it's not going to bring the change being touted.

    Parent
    That's true (none / 0) (#25)
    by Salo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:55:55 PM EST
    the situation could change.

    Parent
    He could win as VP (none / 0) (#28)
    by dianem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:58:10 PM EST
    And if he did, then he would have a huge advantage in terms of being President in 8 years. It's better than losing it all when he loses the Presidential election. How many times have people who lost Presidential elections come back to run again and win in recent years?

    Parent
    Even for VP (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Salo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:02:19 PM EST
    he's a bloody liability.  Dems are underestimating the fallout from the last few days.

    Parent
    mabye pre-Wright (4.00 / 0) (#34)
    by angie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:01:53 PM EST
    but not now -- and yes, I know VP candidates aren't usually attacked, but the GOP will make an exception if Obama is GOP -- I can see the ads now: tagline "Can we trust him to be a heartbeat away?"

    Parent
    They can't do that (none / 0) (#41)
    by dianem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:08:12 PM EST
    The GOP cannot afford to suggest in any way, shape, or form that a President is likely to die in office. They're running a partially disabled, 71 year old cancer survivor. If McCain has one major negative, it's not his politics (people think he's moderate), it's not his temper (people like "spirit"), it's his age. Obama would be no more vulnerable than any other VP. He might be a slight negative, but he would draw in a lot more voter's than he would turn off, and his running as VP would reduce much of the resentment against Clinton from Obama supporter's should she win the primary.

    Parent
    Repubs don't use the same logic we do -- (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by jawbone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:04:59 PM EST
    They can call a Purple Heart winner cowardly, flip-flopping weakling--and beat that Dem with AWOL Bush.

    So, indeed, they do no use the usual logical approach.

    They could certainly tie Clinton to Wright via Obama.  Along with any Dem they want to put into the stupid ads they've already put out.

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Benjamin3 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:11:42 AM EST
    In fact, they will attempt to paint the entire Democratic Party with the Wright brush:  The Democratic Party has been taken over by radical, America-hating, far left liberals, who are out of touch with mainstream America.

    Parent
    Right-probably go after the downticket Dems, (none / 0) (#99)
    by jawbone on Fri May 02, 2008 at 04:37:33 PM EST
    especially those in their frosh year.

    This really is not good.

    Parent

    you might be right (none / 0) (#43)
    by angie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:17:03 PM EST
    I hadn't thought about it that way -- I keep forgetting McCain is 100 years old.

    Parent
    The GOP will hit BO because he's a heart beat (none / 0) (#48)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:47:49 PM EST
    away.  The GOP will find just the right words to get the message that they don't want a VP that cannot be trusted.  It will need defending him.  HRC has enough to defend without having to carry another burden.  BO adds nothing to the ticket. Zero.  Just look at the maps from electoral-vote.com.  HRC does need any electoral states from BO.

    Parent
    Except for all those kids and black people (1.00 / 0) (#60)
    by dianem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:08:16 PM EST
    90% of AA's voted for Obama, as well as millions of newly minted young Democrats. Many of them will stay home if Clinton is the nominee. There may be a way to convince them to vote for her, but it's a longshot. With Obama on the ticket, it's not so much of a longshot.

    Parent
    exit poll from PA shows (none / 0) (#67)
    by dotcommodity on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:49:47 PM EST
    Clinton actually won 52% of white kids 18-29, although Obama won 60% of all kids - who made up 12% of voters: 8% White, 3% Black, 1% Hispanic.

    I havent checked other exit polls, it is surprising how often they tell a different story than you hear

    Look at PA for college postgrads...Clinton!


    Parent

    Typical conventional wisdom (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by RalphB on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:56:01 PM EST
    it's conventionally wrong   :-)

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#71)
    by Benjamin3 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:16:25 AM EST
    turnout among the youngsters was only average in OH/TX/MS and PA.

    As far as the AA community, I think Hillary would win them back.  When you look back, she has done NOTHING to alienate them, and has never given up on their votes.  I can't see rank and file members of the AA community voting for a Republican.  The only problem is how many would stay home.

    Parent

    If Obama ends up (none / 0) (#78)
    by onemanrules on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:15:52 AM EST
    with more popular votes, more pledged delegates, and more states won and the superdelegates give HRC the nomination why would you think HRC will get the AA community back. The whole democratic party will lose the AA vote and rightfully so. She may not have done anything to alienate them, however they will protest big time. There is no way Obama would run for VP, why would he, he is winning and considering what states are left he is going to win. Like it or not unless he mugs somebody its all over.

    What's the saddest thing though is in a year when democrats should easily take the white house (I hope when it's all said and done it still happens) we are fighting over two canidates with each side calling the other schmucks. I think the new DNC slogan should be "Democrats--We eat our own young"

    Parent

    You speak of AA as if (none / 0) (#91)
    by felizarte on Fri May 02, 2008 at 07:12:20 AM EST
    they are so different from all other Americans.  And you think that as democrats, they will not vote for the democratic nominee just like the majority of democrats? After the parties choose their nominees, they have the same choice as anyone else:  McCain or Clinton.  Tough choices for all Americans.  But all Americans will make their choices one way or the other.  

    Parent
    The GOP (none / 0) (#88)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 04:49:47 AM EST
    support was a game the primary scam encouraged and abetted by Obama.

    Parent
    Hilary is in the pocket of corporations? (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Arjun on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:47:31 PM EST
    News to me. Is that why she's in favor of the gas tax that will strip oil corporations of a percentage of their profit above a certain level? Oh and I suppose the insurance companies had her in their back pocket 15 years ago when she first started pushing for universal healthcare.

    Parent
    sorry typo (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Arjun on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:56:34 PM EST
    I meant to say gas tax holiday. She would suspend the gas tax but instead tax windfall oil company profits and close loopholes that benefit oil companies.

    Parent
    As well (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 04:45:39 AM EST
    as Hillary's inclusion of a government run medicare type option in her UHC plan.  Sometimes called the nose of the camel under the tent.

    That option forces private insurers to compete with a government program.

    Obama's options are all private insurer.  Maybe that's why Chris Dodd (D-Insurance Industry) endorsed Obama early on when he, Dodd, was one of the a-list blog liberal heroes de jour because of his FISA theatrics.

    And maybe that's why Obama is the top benefactor of insurance industry contributors.

    Parent

    Then follow the news... (2.00 / 1) (#26)
    by citizen53 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:56:11 PM EST
    because the very Democratic Establishment is named Clinton.

    The only candidates who survived are the corporate candidates.

    We Democrats, in my view, could have done a lot better than what we have.

     

    Parent

    I believe you meant "Kennedy, Ted" (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by angie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:00:16 PM EST
    and the rest of the DC elites who hate the Clintons for NOT being "one of them" and winning the WH twice anyway.

    Parent
    I don't know what news you are watching... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Arjun on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:01:03 PM EST
    but your unwarranted assertion ignores the fact that everything she stands for as a candidate prioritizes the common man over the wealthy corporations.

    Would you care to provide examples to back up your claim?

    Parent

    Nah (4.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Salo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:05:43 PM EST
    That's what she's morphed into.  

    She appears to be comfortable doing it though.  And Mark Penn's removal  obviously got in the way of her getting that way quicker.

    I don't quite trust the brilliance of the conversion though.  She's a better candidate than Obama but she not a natural populist.  She understands populism better than Obama though.

    Parent

    Morphed in to? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Arjun on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:30:09 PM EST
    When was this conversion? Was it in 1994 when she first brought up universal healthcare, before it was popular or politically feasible?

    And that Barack Obama...He is such a nice guy. He voted for the Cheney energy bill and he didn't even make the big corporations buy him off. He did if for free. What a great guy.

    Parent

    Bush's style is to govern through marketing (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:41:23 PM EST
    Do we want a president that is like Bush, but on the left?

    Parent
    Wow! (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by GOPmurderedconscience on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:34:15 PM EST
    That was quite impressive.

    A voter who makes a rational decision is actually rare and she touched on something I have been saying to my friends.

    For all his talk about "change", "fundamental change", "transcendental change", Obama doesn't have a single revolutionary proposal on anything. To the contrary, some of his policies are surprisingly timid.

    I would vote for him if he is the nominee, although his supporters are doing their darndest best to get me off of that line of reasoning.

    It's what most voters who really evaluated Obama (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by jawbone on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:07:24 PM EST
    say --what kind of change? How make the change come about? Change for change sake doesn't necessarily help: Bush has created more change than more presidents, all the the detriment of the nation and the world.

    Her questions are exactly why I'm for Hillary.  Plus some things I learned about her that have made me think she'd be d*mn fine as president.  Not perfect, not do everything I want, but very good.

    Parent

    Well, the latest Research 2000 poll (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:35:09 PM EST
    gives Hillary 66% of the White vote. That's approaching deep south numbers. If she picks up the late deciders, as she has tended to, this could be a single-digit race in NC.

    I don't think this is what Obama meant (5.00 / 7) (#12)
    by diplomatic on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:40:31 PM EST
    by "changing the map"

    This primary is just unfortunate.  It didn't have to be this way.

    Parent

    It had to be this way (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:49:53 PM EST
    He sat in that church because he needed the support of that community, but in a general election is a burden that he cannot shake off.  It's the tail of the same coin.

    Parent
    Obama had to do 3 things to beat (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by hairspray on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:31:38 PM EST
    Hillary. 1) Peel away the AA voters who generally loved the Clintons 2) challenge her experience and 3) deny the Clinton financial success of the '90's.  Both #1 and #3 have been played very dishonestly.  Peeling away the AA vote by the race baiting of the Obama campaign is one of the reasons I loathe him and his campaign.

    Parent
    Me too . . . (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Benjamin3 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:21:35 AM EST
    I think it's one of the most vicious things ever done by one Democrat to another - and the media happily went along with it.

    It's what seriously divided the Party.  Then, constantly trashing Hillary's record as first lady and Bill's legacy hardened me even more.

    Parent

    hairspray (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:04:07 AM EST
    another 'me too' from me.

    Loathe is the operative word.

    Naked, deliberate racism, trashing a Democratic administration, blatant elitism (I'm not talking about his clueless and impolitic remarks about rural Pennsylvanians.  That also angered me)clearly demonstrated by the Roberts confirmation, complete disregard for the consequences of his decisions, taking credit for the work of others, demonizing a fellow Democrat, Hillary Clinton, out of his own mouth.

    Parent

    Me Three! (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by felizarte on Fri May 02, 2008 at 07:17:38 AM EST
    and the character assassination of Hillary Clinton.  And the general mendacity of his campaign e.g. "I do not take money from the oil companies" implying that Hillary does; "and lobbyist" even when he knows he has, etc.  

    Parent
    He gets (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by AnninCA on Fri May 02, 2008 at 07:54:22 AM EST
    by with it because he won't let the press near him often.

    Parent
    I'm drinking a toast to Meribeth (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:37:38 PM EST
    We need a lot more clinical researchers in this country, for all kinds of reasons.

    Don't take the Kool-aid, that's ours. n/t (5.00 / 10) (#11)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:40:12 PM EST
    Heh..way to go (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:42:30 PM EST
    Humor always is the best cure!!! Thanks. Made me laugh.  

    Parent
    You and Cream City in one day!!!!!! n/t (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by 1jpb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:44:25 PM EST
    Ha! Don't worry, it's all yours. (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:52:04 PM EST
    Good one though - have another sip for your booster shot!

    Parent
    Hey 1jpb (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:54:45 PM EST
    I didn't get a chance to respond to you yesterday on one thread because it had closed by the time I could get back to it.  Just didn't want you to think I was letting you win ;-)  We'll agree to disagree another day!

    Parent
    Huzzah! to Meribeth (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by themomcat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:40:40 PM EST
    and hopefully to many more like her.

    Parent
    Meribeth or that guy Joe Andrews (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:41:06 PM EST
    Meribeth waited.  Made a decision using information and not some deranged notion of the party being ruined.  

    Parent
    And I'm guessing Meribeth isn't a full-blown (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by Anne on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:07:23 PM EST
    attention hog, looking for a piece of the media spotlight, either.

    I am more convinced than ever that the superdelegates getting to be part of the nominating process is insane; I truly believe these are some of the most low-information voters around - I am embarrassed for them when I am not disgusted with them.

    The larger the group of Joe Andrew-type Democrats gets, the less proud I am to be a Democrat, and I cannot tell you how angry that makes me.

    Parent

    What I'd like to know is... (none / 0) (#63)
    by jackyt on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:32:50 PM EST
    Since Andrew lives and votes in Maryland, and he was, ostensibly, a Clinton SD at the time of the primary there, who did he vote for?

    Parent
    The SD's need to be asking (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by themomcat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:39:05 PM EST
    why Obama has not been able to close this race. And they need to start looking at national polling that reflects the GE and the real decider..The Electoral College vote.

    Change you can BELIEVE in? (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Josey on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:58:45 PM EST
    apparently NOT for a high information voter like Meribeth.
    "Believe" is the key word - she believes Hillary "understands how to navigate the system to make changes."

    she made a fairly rational choice. (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Salo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:00:20 PM EST
    It's interesting that she understood her vote could be typecast by sex.

    Also note the lack of any distinction on the IWR vote.  That's not going to be a winning issue in November. It only worked in the primary. Even then it wasn't the decider.

    Great post (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by facta non verba on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:03:44 PM EST
    Thanks! I love hearing from the voters.

    what sen. obama lacks in (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by cpinva on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:43:40 PM EST
    in experience, he makes up for in unoriginality. many of us "low-information, non-creative class" voters noticed this some time ago. contrary to the common democratic "wisdom", we don't have two good candidates; we have one excellent candidate, and one with delusions of mediocrity.

    it would seem that beyond the aura of sen. obama's facade, there's no there there. as that aura fades, rational people are taking notice of that void.

    sen. mccain is simply bugf*ck crazy. apparently, that's what passes for a "maverick" these days. i look forward to the first GE debate between him and sen. clinton, that will truly be a show!

    the good news is that the undecideds (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by thereyougo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:09:24 PM EST
    are going for Hillary. Yay!

    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by caseyOR on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:50:21 PM EST
    I, for instance, would never vote for a Republican woman. Granted, all things being equal between two dems, one male and one female, I would choose the female. But note the all things beinh equal which is just not the case with Hillary and Barack. Hillary just outshines him on the issues that matter to me.

    Good post.... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Addison on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:56:14 PM EST
    ...honestly, depending on one's view of the Clinton era, there are two right ways to vote this year. There are two passionate, at times over-the-top, streams of thought. This was a great post because it showed one of them. The other viewpoint (pro-Barack) isn't as well represented here, but this was a good, rational, non-sectarian post.

    This is why (4.88 / 9) (#2)
    by pie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:28:04 PM EST
    Obama needed to wrap it up weeks ago.  After the initial glow wore off, people wanted more substance.

    The more they see, the less enthusiastic they are.  He may still pull it off, but he's certainly not doing anything to help himself.  Instead it's her fault that he's not doing better.

    Check this out gang.... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by sas on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:35:38 PM EST
    electoral maps  dated May 1   (wish I knew how to create live links)

    www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May01.html

    (Obama 243 - McCain 269 - Tied 26)

    and then check

    www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May01.html

    (Clinton 291- McCain247)

    Parent

    I didn't realize it was that bad (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by dianem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:03:34 PM EST
    I've been pretty sure that Obama couldn't bring it home, but this is ridiculous. And this doesn't seem to be a Clinton-leaning site. How could we have let this happen? How could the party have let a man become the front runner when he is clearly unqualified and has as many negatives as Obama?

    Parent
    well unfortunately (none / 0) (#75)
    by onemanrules on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:52:46 AM EST
    he is going to have to bring it home because unless he kneecaps somebody with a tire iron he is going to be the nominee. By the way, if you think he has a lot of negatives, I would like to introduce you to Hillary Clinton.

    Parent
    Wait until the GE (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:58:14 AM EST
    if Obama is the nominee the GOP and MSM are going to eat him alive. His negatives against McCain spell disaster.

    Parent
    Check the charts (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by dianem on Fri May 02, 2008 at 10:39:28 AM EST
    Even though Clinton is in the middle of a long bad press cycle, she beats McCain in the general election. Obama loses. The reality is that if Obama is our candidate in the general election, we will be calling John McCain "Mr. President" come January. If the Dems are willing to sacrifice this election, then they have to choose Obama.

    Parent
    what long bad press cycle (3.00 / 1) (#98)
    by onemanrules on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:03:17 PM EST
    is she currently in? Now that she isn't the front runner she is receiving the same press positive press coverage that Obama got early. HRC isn't getting hit at all in the news I've been watching (which is considerable) no mention of Penn and Bill supporting the Columbia deal, no more mention of Bosnia, no real mention of anything bad for her. Same coverage that let Obama get momentum early in the process when the press did beat up HRC. In case you haven't been watching the news recently, Obama has been getting beat up like a red headed step-child. Thats why Hillary is making a late push. By the way the GE vote is in November, not May. If we went by polls 6 months out Hillary would have won just about every state by 20+ points. The reality of this whole thing is that even though HRC has some momentum now, it's way too little and it's too late.

    Parent
    What (4.50 / 2) (#85)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 04:09:24 AM EST
    onemanrules completely misses is that Hillary Clinton has been vilified and demonized for most of sixteen years and is not only still standing but has momentum.

    People like onemanrules said Hillary had no chance when she first ran for the US Senate.  New York media and the polls showed her with high negatives, way behind and with no chance at the start. The media said she would never get beyond a support base of 42%.  She was simply hated in Republican upstate.

    She got over 56% of the vote and carried some upstate Republican counties.

    When the people of New York were actually exposed to Hillary Clinton they found she was much different than they had been led to believe.

    If Hillary is nominated (if the nation gets lucky) she'll be alone on the stage and may get up to 300 electoral votes.

    Parent

    Even if he's able to flip the states tied (4.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:39:47 PM EST
    He does not reach the 270 electoral votes

    Parent
    Here you go (none / 0) (#29)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:58:22 PM EST
    1. Type the word 'clinton' (or any word)
    2. I have the electoral map open on my tabbed browsing and I copy the url
    3. Highlight the word 'clinton'
    4. Click the chain link button above the comment box.
         Note: mine is blocked so I must press my shield, select unblock and press the link button again.

    1. Paste in the url.
    2. Press preview to make sure it worked
    3. Press post

    Clinton

    Parent
    Cool...But Reading Your Directions Made Me (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:54:45 PM EST
    tired...I, too, am so computer illiterate.  Thanks for the lesson.

    Parent
    More detailed Linking instructions (none / 0) (#69)
    by cymro on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:40:37 AM EST
    I posted this about a week ago. Here it is again:

       1. Type your full post, including the word or phrase that you want to attach a link to.

       2. In another browser window, or browser tab, go to the page you want to link to, select (highlight) the address (URL) of the page.

       3. Copy the address to your clipboard. In Windows, you do this using the Ctrl+C keys together, or by right-clicking the mouse and selecting "Copy".

       4. Back in the Talkleft comment window, select (highlight) the word or phrase you want to attach your link to.

       5. Click on the link icon above the comment box (4th from the left). A dialog box appears where you can type the URL of the page to be linked.

       6. Paste the link you previously copied to your clipboard. In Windows, you do this either by using the Ctrl+V keys together, or by right-clicking the mouse and selecting "Paste".

       7. Hit enter to attach the link.

       8. Preview your post to see if the link is there. If not, try steps 2-8 again.

    Good luck!


    Parent

    You do it (none / 0) (#86)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 04:33:02 AM EST
    this way:

    See the list of allowed HTML under the comment box.

    the URL is bounded by the CITE strings from that list.

    Precede the url with http://

    Parent

    being a woman no doubt has beig affect (1.00 / 1) (#56)
    by pluege on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:25:25 PM EST
    "I will confess that I'm saddened that I'll be lumped in the polls as just another middle-aged white female voting for Hillary since it has absolutely nothing to do with gender or ethnicity."

    this is self-serving drool. Subconsciously, being a woman no doubt had an awful lot to do with the decision. I'm not sure there is anything wrong with the basis of the decision, only the self-delusion is troublesome.

    So nice that you understand the voter (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by RalphB on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:57:51 PM EST
    better than she knows herself.  heh.

    Parent
    ESP? (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:31:41 AM EST
    pluege has the gift of extra sensory perception.  How wonderful.

    Interesting that you can't imagine anyone making an informed decision without degenerating into a crass form of blind selection based on identity.

    pluege should explain to we low information types why probably 10% of African Americans will vote for Hillary Clinton.  Why possibly 30% of white people will vote for Obama or why many white men will vote for Hillary and some white women will vote for Obama.

    While there is doubtless some or even much identity voting in this particular primary, pluege's smug comment reveals the troublesome tendancy in some people to consider ONLY identity voting.

    Parent

    check these maps (none / 0) (#23)
    by sas on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:53:52 PM EST
    check it out gang.....and spread the word.....

    electoral maps dated May 1

    http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May01.html

    (Obama 243 - McCain 269 - Tied 26)

    and then check

    http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Clinton/Maps/May01.html

    (Clinton 291- McCain 247)

    Middle aged white woman losing faith in Hillary (none / 0) (#73)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri May 02, 2008 at 01:31:08 AM EST
    You all make good points here, but I'm just not convinced Hillary's understanding of how to "navigate the system to make changes" is what we really need. No question she's an experienced insider, but I'm pretty fed up with insiders who get things done that are not what I want to see done. Her "gas tax holiday" proposal is a great example. It would do nothing for our country except encourage people to drive more, which would actually result in higher gas prices. Plus, it's one of those taxes where you actually pay for your usage. Gas taxes pay for roads; the more you drive, the more you pay. It's a very progressive and user-fee type of tax. Hillary matches up with McCain on this one. Her Washington insider solution is a non-solution. I don't know, it seems to me both Hillary and McCain are using it as a same old same old attempt to buy favor with voters.  

    I took a look at Obama's response, and even tho he's taking a beating because of Wright, he said a gas tax holiday wouldn't help our country, which it won't, and that we needed more sensible policies that changed our dependence on foreign oil. Well, duh, isn't that what we really want? I don't feel like I'm a cool aid drinker, but this is the kind of fundamental difference that really stands out to me. And for Hillary to say that the ongoing close race is not hurting our party, that's just nuts! I certainly don't expect her to quit, or Obama for that matter, but to not see the damage, or worse, to just claim to not see the damage, well that's definitely old school and one of those many things that could be and should be changed.


    The only people (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:23:59 AM EST
    who are saying that the extended primary is bad are those who want HRC to drop out of the race, like the very shrill Obama supporters and the corporate controlled MSM that want to see McCain win the WH.
    AS to your concern about the temporary elimination of the gas tax, Obama supported a similar measure in 2000 when he was in the IL Senate and gas prices in IL went over $2/gal. So what is the difference now? HRC has proposed that the tax loss be made up by taxing the oil companies and reducing their government subsidies. She also has proposals for creating jobs by using green energy initiatives. What has Obama proposed? He voted for the Cheney energy bill that HRC voted against.
    I am a white 60 year old woman with post graduate degrees and by anyone's definition..wealthy. I have worked in Emergency Medicine for nearly 30 years and I am married to a cardiac/thoracic surgeon. I have made the choice to support HRC over months of indecision up to the day of the primary. I firmly believe that she is this countries best choice to defeat McCain and get firm majorities in the Congress.

    Parent
    All sales taxes (none / 0) (#80)
    by themomcat on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:32:22 AM EST
    are regressive. They hurt the lower classes more than the rich. HRC's proposal for the short term is not that bad. It won't bring the price down all that much so long as the oil companies don't take advantage and raise prices. Congress needs to regulate speculators, like hedge funds, better because that is where the basic problem lies. There is no oil shortage. There is a shortage of refinery space and the myth that ethanol is energy efficient. It takes over 100 gal. of oil to produce 100 gal. of ethanol. Where is the savings?

    Parent
    Hillary's Gas Tax Proposal (none / 0) (#81)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:32:06 AM EST
    has the pay go provision. In other words, there would be no loss of revenue to pay for roads etc. It is a temporary one time break during the summer (3 months). It is also frankly a brilliant political move against McCain. McCain initially proposed the tax break. No matter what is said by pols and political junkies, the average person would appreciate paying less at the tank. If Clinton were the nominee, and said we are going to give people a break and make the big, bad oil companies pay for it and McCain says no we should add it to the existing debt or reduce services to pay for it, who wins the public opinion argument?  

    Parent
    Repubs in Senate won't make big oil pay gas tax (none / 0) (#102)
    by Newt on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:15:02 PM EST
    Hillary's proposal to make big oil pay gas tax would never make it through the US Senate.  49 Repubs to 51 Democrats means she can propose something like this and look good to voters, knowing it would never be approved.  And that's the crux of the matter, because Hillary could have a huge impact on the rest of the elections this fall.  

    This year we have the unprecedented opportunity to fire all the Bush-policy rubber-stamping & obstructionist Republicans in Congress and replace them with Democrats who can get us out of Iraq, enact true election reform, and get big business out of our government. We might even get a handle on health care, equal rights and immigration issues on the way. Many conservatives are so uninspired by McSame that they'll either support Obama or just skip the vote. Meanwhile, new voters motivated by Obama can help us elect 10-15 new Democrats in the Senate. Unless Hillary is still running, of course. If she manages to win the Democratic nomination, she will inspire conservatives to vote as no one else has ever before. Right-wingers don't just dislike her, they actively despise her! They'll vote in droves to ensure she doesn't win the Presidency, especially during a time of war. Clearly, Clinton herself is the Republicans' best GOTV tactic, even more so than their anti-gay and anti-choice strategies that have spurred their followers to vote in the past. While at the polls, they'll also vote for all those obstructionist Repugnant Senators we'd like to fire. Compare that to the millions of new voters that will be at the polls if Obama wins the Dem nomination. That's gotta be scaring the financial interests that back people like Bush, McSame, Clinton and the Senators who keep giving tax breaks to the super rich and voting to "Stay the Course" in a war without end.  

    Parent

    If You Are Concerned About America's Energy Policy (none / 0) (#82)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:45:51 AM EST
    then you might want to research the Cheney energy policy which Obama help pass by voting for it. Don't think you will think find it to your liking.

    People like having their vote make a difference for once and are exciting about voting in the primaries yet to come. The prolonged primary season has resulted in a large increase in voter registration and record breaking turn out at the polls. The only people who think this is hurting the party are Obama's campaign, his surrogates and his supporters.

    Rev. Wright would have been in the news even if the primaries were not still going on. Obama would still have problems with the same demographics and he has been ham fisted in addressing those problems to date.

     

    Parent

    Thanks, here's more (none / 0) (#96)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:54:28 PM EST
    Thanks, I'm apalled that Obama voted for that bill. Any ideas on why he did that?  It doesn't fit with the rest of his policy statements.

    I think people like me thrilled to see our party engaged again. The increase in voter registration and turnout at the polls is great for us, but I will tell you that here in Oregon, many of the newly converted Republicans who just signed up for our party are actually stealth voters who intend to vote for Hillary. That's not just a story out there; I could name you 40-50 of my neighbors and colleagues who are doing exactly that. They're not sure they can beat Hillary, but they want to run against her, probably because they know she'll engage their base. Their side is pretty lukewarm about McCain, and they have a lot to lose in the US Senate if their voters aren't checking Repub all the way down the ballot. But one thing I'm sure of is that conservatives don't just dislike Hillary, they despise her with a passion.  If you think the Howard Dean scream was used effectively against him, wait until the "Hillary cackle" is played over and over in mainstream commercials. I've seen a lot of their email material also, and it's really effective stuff. They are rabid in their hatred of her, and their passion/hatred will bring them to the polls in droves.

    When I compare that to the millions of young and AA voters who may vote green or even just skip the vote if they feel their candidate got cheated, it's a huge dent in our ability to fire Repub senators who've been rubber-stamping Bush policies. I don't think we have much of a problem if Hillary can actually win the rest of the popular vote, but if rank and file Democrats feel that superdelegates are being bought off by political deals with the future Clinton administration, we've got big problems next fall.

    I guess my point is not that the prolonged primary fight is inherently bad, but that if half our party feels they got cheated, we're going to lose our momentum and probably lose the biggest chance I've seen in my lifetime to take back Congress.

    Parent

    Take a sedative? That's exactly what I mean. (none / 0) (#95)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:33:08 PM EST
    Democrats eat their own. Why does a spirited debate have to play out with you insulting me? I think a gas tax holiday is a bad policy idea. Yes, it will garner some votes, but it also stimulates more use of gas, which likely will increase the price of oil and further our dependence on foreign oil. Hello, even many experts have weighed in with that opinion. Just because you don't agree with me (or them) doesn't mean you should insult me.

    And a spirited debate?  Donald, I was in Hawaii last spring when the Legislative reps holding a public forum on civil unions for gays (HB908) decided to wimp out and shelve the issue rather than take a stand for equality for all our citizens. After hours of testimony with gay parents practically pleading for equal rights for their families, Tommy Waters (Dem) and the rest of the Judiciary committe voted to shelve the civil unions bill. You're a Democrat mover and shaker in Hawaii. What did you do to support a spirited debate?  

    I understand why some of you are pissed off with Obama supporters, and now I see why they're pissed off with you. Just remember, some of us in the middle are actually looking for honest answers. And we're not going to take a sedative or get bought off by bad public policy like a gas tax holiday.


    Parent