home

Stupid Line Of the Night

Via John Cole, who loved it, Ron Reagan said:

If Appalachia was a country, Hillary Clinton could be President.”

It is funny how Appalachia keeps growing for some Obama supporters. It now encompasses not only West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, and parts of Pennsylvania and Ohio, but also California, Arizona, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Texas, Oklahoma, New York, Rhode Island and Florida.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Hosting Provider Says Sites Down Wednesday AM | Who Had the Bigger Win Tonight? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I hate stupidity (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:33:54 AM EST
    I really do.

    Stupider (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:39:28 AM EST
    I think Toobin's Chelsea fantasy is stupider.


    Parent
    Gergen (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:45:09 AM EST
    Hillary has to clean up the Wright issue and tell people she does not want them to vote for her if they are racists.  

    Parent
    that was the worst pundit idea tonight (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:18:08 AM EST
    That she should have told the voters of Kentucky that she didn't want their vote if it was race-based. Did he suggest Obama tell white men not to vote for him if it was gender based? of course not.

    I usually like Gergen, but that was silly.

    Parent

    Maybe Obama could kindly (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Iris on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:07:06 AM EST
    tell the likes of Andrew Sullivan that he doesn't want their race-based votes, too?

    Parent
    Gergen's smear is beyond contempt. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:18:04 AM EST
    'Hillary should tell people not to vote for her if they are racist'! I doubt Gergen's bright idea will get much air, since the corollary is so obvious.

    I tell ya, for the time being, FOX is easier to watch than CNN, where we see party leaders stab one of our own in the back - repeatedly. (I don't mean that Gergen is one of our own.)

    Parent

    Edwards said something like that in a debate (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by felizarte on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:48:14 AM EST
    and look what happened to him.

    Parent
    I heard what Gergen said and I (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by kimsaw on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:02:21 AM EST
    immediately wondered if he would ask Obama to tell his AA supporters the same thing. Of course it was after I stop yelling at the tv. I used to have a lot for respect for David Gergen's opinion, now I wonder when his logic left him.

    If Obama wasn't bi-racial and just another white guy would the AA community be voting for him in such great numbers? Has any pundit thought that working class whites were moving toward Clinton on the same basis that AA moved to Obama? I'm not saying racism doesn't exist, I'm just saying the street runs both ways. Do they even ask AAs the question in exit polling if race makes a difference to their vote? It's identity politics for them against the racism of whites.a minority of whites I might add. The great media gods have spoken, it is the way they chose to examine and frame the outcome. Evil white folks, like evil terrorists is there a pattern here?

    I also wondered if Gergen would ask Obama to stand up to the blatant sexism- I know stupid question demeaning a woman is not the same as racism after all is just Hillary Clinton. Does this stuff only happen in the greatest country on earth?

    Parent

    on balance he is (none / 0) (#81)
    by Salo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:29:59 AM EST
    the best candidate that community has yet to produce.

    I doubt they expected the guy to win and are probably chuffed to  bits that he managed to do so well.


    Parent

    Anyone remember Obama paraphrasing (none / 0) (#27)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:42:35 AM EST
    MLK and telling the AA's to

     "not vote for me because of the color of my skin, but because of the content of my policies".

    Parent

    what polices? (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Iris on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:08:20 AM EST
    Me too (none / 0) (#69)
    by ruffian on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:58:42 AM EST
    Maybe because I had already heard all of the other jaw-droppingly stupid and insulting  talking points before.

    Parent
    CNN's Jon King: HRC can't win by TRADITIONAL MATH (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Ellie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:41:18 AM EST
    As if this MI-FL scenario occurs routinely and Sen Clinton is using formulas and algorhythms that no one has ever conceived before.

    As opposed to Obama's widely recognized Traditional Math. (????)

    Parent

    I also hate people that can't read a map. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Salo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:20:54 AM EST
    Cartophobics don't see that she's winnning the general election battleground.

    How dare she wini the general election battle ground!

    Parent

    I think the funniest line was from (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by athyrio on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:35:12 AM EST
    Kathy, when we were discussing PR as being part of
    Appalachia, she said Juan Bob, which made me laugh so hard my dog looked at me like I had lost my mind LOL.....

    So Multonomah (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:37:31 AM EST
    County is going overwhelmingly for Obama.  Does that mean all Portland residents are sexist?

    and I thought the Appalachian trail was long (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:40:02 AM EST
    apparently it's a much bigger trail than I thought.

    It's obvious what they're doing of course, trying to pretend that Clinton's big blow out wins of late are some sort of anomaly from Mars. It's really sad. And I don't think it's clever politics/propaganda anymore either, I think they actually believe this stuff.

    And of course part of that meme is to denigrate a whole lot of people in this country. People I like. People that vote. Americans.

    I think they're delusional. But if they're right and they find some new coalition of groups they can win with that doesn't include blue collar workers (and generally the poor), then I won't be a member of that new party. I don't think they're right. Either someone will wake up and try to win these people, or they will have the most amazing blow out in the GE. Kind of like what we see with KY and WV. And if so, then what?

    USA: now means United States of Appalachia? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:18:23 AM EST
    National Geogharpic says (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MichaelGale on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:30:57 AM EST
    Appalachia includes: Mississippi, AL, GA, TN, NC, KY, W.VA, VA, OH, PA and NY.

    I am originally from PA, Southwest and I thought that area was the Allegheny Mountains.  

    Lordy, lordy.  Who would have thought we would be arguing about mountains in a presidential election.
    We have all lost out minds!

    Parent

    Technically the Appalachian Mountains (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:38:48 AM EST
    or Appalachian Range, of which the Allegheny Mountains are part of, stretches some ,500 mi from Alabama to Québec.

    Parent
    shoud have said 1500 miles (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:39:34 AM EST
    Hey! What's with leaving NJ out? We've (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jawbone on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:42:31 AM EST
    got a part of the Applachian Trail going through a wee bit of far northwest NJ, so?

    Can we be part of Applachia too?

    Parent

    I wonder (none / 0) (#30)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:43:46 AM EST
    If Appalachia will extend to Puerto Rico? Now that would be impressive.

    Parent
    You might be a redneck if you like (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:47:32 AM EST
    maduros fritos?

    Parent
    And New York? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Evie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:44:29 AM EST
    Oh, and OK.

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:50:58 AM EST
    What these idiots who say (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:49:22 AM EST
    "fu*ck Appalachia" don't seem to understand is that weakness there doesn't just mean losing WV and KY. It means that you'll be weak in Pennsylvania and possibly unelectable in Ohio.

    But never mind--Obama's gonna win Georgia!

    And when you add (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:19:30 AM EST
    Florida to PA and Ohio as probable Dem losses in November, how do they win?

    Parent
    PA I'm backtracking on (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:29:03 AM EST
    I think Obama CAN win it. He's perhaps even favored now (SUSA says so). But I think Ohio is out of reach, as is Florida. So his only hope is to sweep the west, and I don't think that's much of a hope at all.

    I think Hillary would win all of the big three swing states.

    Parent

    Told you so (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:30:30 AM EST
    But you realize that what we're looking at (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:32:43 AM EST
    is Kerry's map minus New Hampshire and plus Iowa. New Mexico is a reach--again--and so is Ohio.

    So much for a big win.

    Parent

    Actually, watch that house delegation map (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:46:23 AM EST
    because I see Obama potentially winning NM, CO, and IA, and losing NH. 269/269 is a real possibility this time.

    Parent
    yeah that 269 draw keeps showing up (none / 0) (#75)
    by Salo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:10:03 AM EST
    in a lot of my scenarios.

    The map will break one way or another though.   Obama hasn't really been attacked systematically yet.
    And there's plenty we really don't know about him.

    Iowa in my humble opinion will slip into red soon enough.


    Parent

    Actually, if I can remember from (none / 0) (#54)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:32:52 AM EST
    the years I lived in western Pa back in the 70's and from what friends tell me this has not changed that much.  People in most of Pa can identify with the Appalachia, middle to low income working class worker.  These people take their civic duties seriously, they exceed most places in serving the country in the military and they vote.  They also have good memories, go to church wether the economy is good or bad, and they hunt, fish, and target practice for the same reason they skate or play football FUN not just to cling.  So expect a barrage of subtle ads and sound bites and be careful of any kind of gaffes specially thinking that because they are in Pa they forgot that they are part of the Coal Mining (Appalachian) heritage.

    Parent
    I don't think he will win PA (none / 0) (#55)
    by MichaelGale on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:33:55 AM EST
    If stupid were a planet ... (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:20:09 AM EST
    John Cole and Ron Reagan could become its Gods.

    Balloon Juice (none / 0) (#46)
    by Iris on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:04:09 AM EST
    has been practically unreadable for some time now.

    Parent
    Appalachia... (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:28:48 AM EST
    Is one darn big region.

    Who knew?

    Appalachia the beautiful (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Evie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:43:10 AM EST
    From sea to shining sea!

    Parent
    I'm thinking about a new bumper sticker (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:59:12 AM EST
    "Appalachia...It's a State of Mind"

    Parent
    Crowley stupidity: Clinton 'knows her place' (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Ellie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:37:12 AM EST
    Can you believe it? Crowley used that phrase. Apparently it's a victory in itself that this crazy ride that was never supposed to go this far.

    Indeed, earlier we saw clips of feminism's newest impassioned advocate, Barack Obama, prais the MORE QUALIFIED CANDIDATE for inspiring his daughters to respect women like Hillary. (Yep, te one who give him a Spring Training workout before the real men duke it out, but should stop running and lets him pass her.)

    Crowley added that evidently she's continuing this all but dead run to keep up a plucky appearance for the women who have supported her. (The 'little people' as it were.)

    If the Reagan Jr. quote gets traction (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:01:39 AM EST
    it will only strengthen support for Hillary in Appalachia and beyond; particularly in other working class rural areas that can identify with the concerns of the people of Appalachia.

    The Obama boys just don't understand: they can't SHAME this demographic into voting for a candidate who, evidently, finds them shameful.

    It appears that the boys have no functional concept of the dignity, pride, and defiance, that goes along with belonging to a demographic that has been subject to long-term ridicule. Meaning: women, the poor, the elderly, the less than college-educated, rural dwellers, ethnic minorities, et al. Put us all together and Hillary has a MAJORITY of the electorate.

    I'm sure Obama feels his own pain; but when he declines to condemn his camp's contemptuous treatment of other oppressed people, he demonstrates that he does not have the requisite empathy to feel the pain of others.

    That will be his undoing: if not in the nomination process, then in the GE.

    of course (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Salo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:12:53 AM EST
    these hicks great grands grands won all sorts of battles in the revolutionary war like King's Moutain and Saratoga.

    effing dangerous hicks.

    Parent

    I wouldn't be so sure (none / 0) (#64)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:28:25 AM EST
    "The Obama boys just don't understand: they can't SHAME this demographic into voting for a candidate who, evidently, finds them shameful."

    Apparently not. According to Gallup, most of Clinton's demographic (all but women over 50) is moving in Obama's direction:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/107407/Obama-Surge-Fairly-BroadBased.aspx

    Parent

    What's happening (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:38:52 AM EST
    is that the media has told them he's won.  Now they're jumping on the bandwagon.

    People do that.

    Note also that in the same poll, Clinton beats McCain by more than Obama does.

    Parent

    Well if people do that - (none / 0) (#70)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:21:51 AM EST
    - then that kind of undermines the Clinton campaign's argument that she is more electable than Obama and that her demographic groups are beholden to her. Apparently both Obama and Clinton are electable once a winner has been decided and people "jump on the bandwagon".

    "Note also that in the same poll, Clinton beats McCain by more than Obama does."

    In the Pollster aggregate, McCan beats Obama by less than he beats Clinton by. It's only around 1 percentage point though (statistically insignificant), so I think it's fair to say they're running about even against McCain.

    Parent

    At this point, polls are meaningless (none / 0) (#72)
    by esmense on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:42:54 AM EST
    I prefer the state by state trends. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Salo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:14:19 AM EST
    It was sad to see Obama lose Missouri and her win it.  

    That demo represents the likely loss of ohio and iowa.

    Parent

    PsyOPS (none / 0) (#67)
    by tnjen on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:43:49 AM EST
    That's just a bit too convenient. Not that the sanctity of a private poll has ever been violated and/or weighted to sway public opinion.

    Parent
    If you have a problem - (none / 0) (#71)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 09:22:39 AM EST
    - with the way the poll was conducted, could you specify what it is?

    Parent
    HRC win? GloBo: If a meteor hit or something maybe (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Ellie on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:18:06 AM EST
    Gloria Borger describes Clinton's chances of winning the nom race:

    She has a 'real math problem ... if a meteor hit [she stopped herself from mentioning Obama directly] um, or something maybe'.

    (Single quotes because the transcript's not up.)

    GloBo that's good... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:23:43 AM EST
    Right up there with MoDo when it comes to Hillary. There are some other Dos aren't there? Can't think of them now. Nightcap.

    Parent
    This from the man (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by janarchy on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:25:26 AM EST
    who also referred to all white working class voters as "knuckleheads" and demeaned them on his Air America show last week. He also insisted that no one he knew, no, NO ONE!! EVER!! said HRC should drop out of the race etc. I actually had some respect for him prior to this primary season but like so many other people, it's all gone now.

    I'm so glad I am living in Appalachia too -- the Long Island branch.

    The "unity" coalition failed, big time! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:58:08 AM EST
    What a bitter notion to cling to to say Obama's failure to deliver is somehow Hillary's fault.

    Appalachia (5.00 / 6) (#49)
    by storm crow on Wed May 21, 2008 at 04:50:30 AM EST
    After the  GWB's victory in 2004, many  on the left were wondering why people in Appalachia voted against there own economic self interest and for GWB who cares absolutely nothing about them. this statement by Ronnie jr. is a perfect example why. Why on earth would anyone vote for people that call them fools, or morons. The republicans may not have higher views of the people in Appalachia but they are certainly better at pandering to them.

    Appalachia, could very well be a prime democratic voting block. Poverty is absolutely soul crushing in places, easily on par with some of the worst inner cities  in  America. Drug use and alcoholism are rampant. These are our bed rock issues, and we might gain more traction in Appalachia if we approach the are with an open hand, rather than a sneer.

    Amen (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by tnjen on Wed May 21, 2008 at 05:31:03 AM EST
    100% correct. Respect, and the lack thereof, is the number one problem.

    Parent
    It's tricky (none / 0) (#78)
    by Salo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:15:36 AM EST
    Given the local industry of coal and military service, they would always suspect enviromenalist types and North Easterners.

    Parent
    Here is an article (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by facta non verba on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:06:41 AM EST
    that touches why Appalachia extends beyond Appalachia, it is about the socio-economics prevalent in Appalachia but still sizeable outside Appalachia

    Charles Blows Skirts The Appalachia Issue

    Apparently (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by chrisvee on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:47:38 AM EST
    Appalachia is now a state of mind.

    Stupid Act of the Night (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by melro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:03:35 AM EST
    For stupid act of the night it was CNN's Wolf Blitzer and John King almost tripping over each other running to this big board with a U.S. map, as early results for Oregon were coming in. Wolf is shouting something with urgency like there was some sort of countdown to blast off for Obama the star, as King frantically drew a big arc across the states with a marker and started adding up the delegate count that will give Obama his 2026 delegates, sans MI and FL, which is really stupid to ignore. (I'm from Michigan. Fat chance we won't be seated. With record turnouts here, Hillary's popular vote will get a good boost).

    I swear they were spitting all over each other. I would have given anything to see one of them trip and fall down.

    That was funny (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:56:43 AM EST
    They could not get over the marvels of their own technology. They've been using that board for 5 months now and are still amazed at the way it lights up as the votes come in.

    Parent
    "roll on the Democratic slaughter... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Salo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:16:40 AM EST
    ...in november" says Wolf and Co.

    Parent
    Disgraceful (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by BDB on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    You know, I remember a time when democrats travelled to Appalachia because that's where people who were struggling and needed help lived.  Robert Kennedy.  Lyndon Johnson. Bill Clinton.

    Now so much of the party and its supporters are willing write off, mock and generally insult people who most need good government all in the name of trying to elect a candidate who claims he wants good government.  Well, call me a cynic, but I don't think a movement that makes fun of and insults some of the poorest Americans is dedicated to helping those Americans any more than the Republicans are.  It's a disgrace.

    I've been a democrat for 20 years because of two things 1) they generally refelct most of my values and 2) they want to beat republicans.  I see very little evidence that either of those two things will remain true if the Obama movement takes over.  They do not represent my values and the nomination of Obama will show that the party leaders do not care about putting forth the strongest candidate in November.  

    Ah, well, I can always re-register as an independent.  Then maybe the party will care about my vote again.

    Show me the source for the Reagan quote (none / 0) (#10)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:51:59 AM EST
    and then, maybe, I'll believe it. Was it Ronald  Reagan, the dead POTUS, or his son Ron?

    President Reagan was barely cogent during his last four years in office. By the end of GHW Bush's first term, Reagan was clearly suffering badly from Alzheimer's Disease. By the time Bill Clinton became President, Reagan wouldn't have had the presence of mind to know who Hillary was.

    The line is too dumb, even for Reagan, even in his 'prime'.

    It was Jr (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:54:42 AM EST
    He also thinks there was only one name on the MI ballot.

    Parent
    A shame (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 12:56:04 AM EST
    The son always struck me as smart.

    Parent
    Clearly, not smart enough (none / 0) (#14)
    by bridget on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:19:05 AM EST
    I bet he thinks he sounds witty and smart to the Obama gang and folks like Cole. And he is right.

    I liked him when he still had integrity. But he is not the only one who has lost it or never had it in the first place.

    Parent

    He is a nice guy and (none / 0) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:20:35 AM EST
    pretty smart. I used to like doing his show when he had one on MSNBC. He was pretty good during the 2004 elections.

    Parent
    that was not only NOT a nice line (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:29:53 AM EST
    demeaning to a significant part of the country and offensive, it was quite stupid.

    I know a lot of people who I have called out are your friends, but you'll excuse me J, they have NOT been nice people in this campaign.

    I can not live with myself if I stand silently by as they engage in their hateful speech.

    Parent

    Many people will begin to seem sane again (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:30:46 AM EST
    after this primary is over--I hope.

    Parent
    I'm not so sure... (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:40:12 AM EST
    and even then, I'm not sure I'll be able to look at them without remembering the words and such from these past few months.

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:43:13 AM EST
    More clever than smart, it seems (none / 0) (#42)
    by Cream City on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:52:05 AM EST
    young Ronnie is.

    Parent
    he's a liberal (none / 0) (#82)
    by Salo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:31:26 AM EST
    which is good. it's just that he's invested in seeing obama win now.

    it's natural.

    Parent

    With all due respect - (none / 0) (#32)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:57:25 AM EST
    This argument doesn't make any sense to me. The point being made is that Obama doesn't do well in Appalachia, not that he's never lost any primaries elsewhere.

    And that in turn doesn't mean that he won't do well in those other states in the GE - witness, for example, the example of PA that was already mentioned above. He is now polling 8 points ahead of McCain there.

    With all due respect (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:09:30 AM EST
    the quote does not say if "Appalachia was a country, Obama could NOt be President."'

    It say "if Appalachia was a country., Clinton could be President."

    Appalachia and Clinton were the targets of the ridicule as you MUST know. It was a stupid offensive remark and it is shameful that anyone thought well of it.

    Ronald Reagan, Jr seems to have no sense of how Ronald Reagan Sr was a successful politician.

    For example, you think he would have liked if I said, "if Ronald Reagan had not kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, he might not ever be President."

    the comment was ESPECIALLY offensive coming from the son of a man who race baited his way to the White house.

    It takes an idiot to not see how offensive and inappropriate THAT comment form THAT PERSON was outrageous.

    Unfortunately, idiots are not in short supply in the blogs these days.

    Parent

    BTD, I heart u sometimes. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:20:46 AM EST
    Why don't you tell us what you really think :)

    Parent
    Thank you BTD (5.00 / 6) (#44)
    by tnjen on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:16:33 AM EST
    :)

    Appalachia has been continuously exploited, abused, attacked, stereotyped, and intentionally impoverished since the Spanish decided to take a walk through the neighborhood. Ever since LBJ left, the democratic party has abandoned it and some quarters of the party have decided to make us their electoral and cultural scapegoat. It shames me, that more often than not when I hear negative and/or hateful things said about Appalachia it comes not from Republicans but from my fellow Democrats that reside outside the region.

    The Democratic Party's greatest moments have come when it has stood with those in our society that have had the least. My great-grandfather was Native American and Appalachian, and he had two things on the wall -- a picture of Jesus and JFK (a lot of poor and disenfranchised had and felt the same across the country). He wouldn't allow anyone who was Republican into his home because of what he saw both parties standing for. IMHO, Hillary has stood for the least in our society and fought for us for years and that's what "Appalachians" are voting for not race. We remember FDR, JFK, and all the other great democrats that fought for the people and we want them back.

    Parent

    I take your point that - (none / 0) (#45)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:51:44 AM EST
    - it was especially offensive coming from the son of a man who race-baited his way into the White House.

    Something I meant to ask on your other post re. MI and FL, but the comments there are now unfortunately closed:

    You mention that 2.3 million voters in FL and MI are not being counted, but doesn't the Clinton calculation re. the popular vote exclude approx. 240,000 of those voters? Is it realistic to pretend there are no Obama voters in MI? The rules committee may well decide to include MI and FL, but in trying to fashion some kind of compromised result out of a spoiled election (which is what happened in MI), I can't see them doing much less than giving the uncommitted share to Obama. It would be hard for the Clinton campaign to argue that those should be excluded when at the same time they are arguing that all votes should count (even if that is their implicit argument in claiming a lead in the popular vote).

    The Clinton camp's calculations leading to an alleged lead in the popular vote also exclude 4 caucus states, with all voters in those states not counting. Yes, it is difficult if not impossible to calculate the popular vote in those states, but to exclude them from the calculation is likewise inconsistent with a call to count all votes.

    Parent

    RE: Michigan votes (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by melro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:21:10 AM EST
    I'm from Michigan. I am sure we will be seated. We have it divvied now 69 delegates to Clinton, 59 to Obama. Obama likes it (no kidding, and Clinton's camp refuses to comment right now.

    I don't think the divvying is fair. There were record turnouts here to vote. Everyone was told repeatedly on the radio, on TV, and in the papers that Obama and Edwards names were not on the ballot, however, any voter could put their X next to the OTHER box and write their candidates name in. Obama supporters could have, should have taken their opportunity to come out. Whining and making excuses for it now is a little late.

    A savvy, experienced politician would have his/her name on all ballots, especially knowing the whole story about NH jumping out of line first and Howard Dean doing nothing about it while penalizing FL and MI. Senator Levin knew what happened. Evidently so did Clinton.  

    And yes the powers that be can divvy the delegates in MI, but they can't touch that record popular vote now can they? Looks like zip to Obama for actual votes because his supporters in MI can't either write his name, spell his name, or comprehend how to fill out a normal ballot here that usually allows write in's anyway.

    Parent

    Record turnout in MI? (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimotto on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:47:43 AM EST
    It had the lowest turnout of eligible voters of any state that voted this year.

    And there was no write in option.  Michigan discards any ballots with write ins on them.  Only way to express a vote for someone not on the ballot was to vote uncommitted.

    Parent

    Can a Michigander please clarify write-in votes? (none / 0) (#84)
    by jawbone on Wed May 21, 2008 at 11:52:58 AM EST
    Were they possible, would they be counted? Two conflicting opinions above. One mentions ads urgin write-ins; others have said ads said vote uncommitted to vote for Obama or something. What was going on?

    Messed up mess!

    Thnx.

    Parent

    Here you go (none / 0) (#87)
    by jimotto on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    Record Turnout in MI (none / 0) (#88)
    by melro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 07:29:30 PM EST
    This is where I read about Michigan's 3rd highest voter turnout on record after voting: http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127--183671--,00.html.

    Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, Uncommitted, and Write-in was on every ballot. Voters were URGED to vote uncommitted by MI DNC instead of using the OTHER box and writing in names of those candidates missing from the list. Just like Obama, Edwards, Biden, and Richardson were never commanded to pull their names from the ballot. They did it on their own. Four candidates stayed on the ballot, four candidates pulled their names.
    However, there is a law here that for write ins to be counted the candidates needed to file  paperwork to do so by a certain deadline. None of them chose to do so. Another bad choice by Obama.

    I was on a PAC in my MI voting district for 4 years. The paperwork for write-ins is simple. If my memory serves me, the candidate simply needs to turn his/her intent to run, and his/her affiliated party to the county clerk a number of days before the actual election. The local papers announce it and give a background of the candidate. This is for a district. For the state, I would assume the candidate would file their paperwork through the Secy. of State.

    There was more than one way to get on the ballot here in Michigan and around the DNC, who in my opinion screwed up by not reprimanding NH in the first place.  

    Parent

    Why should the uncommitted got to Obama (none / 0) (#59)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:56:39 AM EST
    why not leave them uncommitted that is what they were in the ballot as.  

    Parent
    Uncommitted in MI (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by melro on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:37:19 AM EST
    I just posted a blog to an obvious Obama supporter here in MI. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Our ballots always allow write ins. That's how Pat Paulsen, Al Gore, people's dog's names, and a variety of other write ins end up on some ballots. Our news media here told voters over and over about marking OTHER and writing in either Obama or Edwards name. Evidently there were a lot of first time green voters voting for their green candidate that missed that info.

    By the way, thank you FL from here in MI for supporting Hillary.

    Parent

    Because Obama was not on the ballot (none / 0) (#62)
    by minordomo on Wed May 21, 2008 at 08:21:01 AM EST
    Look, it was a spoiled election - all the candidates (including Clinton) agreed not to campaign nor participate, the voters were told the election would not count, half the candidates were not on the ballot. As of this point and according to rules agreed to in advance by all candidates, the delegates will not be counted.

    Now, there are good arguments for counting them in some form - 1. to keep or regain the good will of the voters in those states in some form (and in that regard the DNC's actions in imposing this penalty weren't particularly bright, to say the least) and 2. to ensure that everyone's votes are counted.

    Both are good arguments, and the second argument is the one pushed most heavily by the Clinton campaign. But pretending the "uncommitted" votes were literally for "none of the above" when there is nothing to indicate that that is the case amounts to saying that there are no Obama voters in Michigan - this in light of the fact that Obama and Clinton run about even against McCain in Michigan (see www.pollster.com). So in arguing that the voices of Michigan voters should be counted, it makes no sense to then argue that 100% of Michigan voters who favor Obama should be silenced.

    It's not ideal for Obama either, as he always has benefited from campaigning in a state, and he did not have that benefit here, but for the sake of closure and in absence of a re-vote (which would have been the best solution IMO), giving the uncommitted approx. 45% to Obama makes the most sense.

    Parent

    first of all the agreement was not to (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Florida Resident on Wed May 21, 2008 at 10:47:58 AM EST
    campaign.  There was no agreement not to participate so stop with that fallacy.  Secondly it was Obama's camp that did not want a re-vote.  So now we reward him for something he did not work for by giving something he did not earn.  Sorry your logic does not make sense.

    Parent