home

Ignoring "The Problem"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:42:03 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In the Left blogs today, it is considered a mortal sin to point out that Barack Obama has trouble connecting with white working class voters. It is a mortal sin to point out that in the South Carolina campaign, the Obama campaign fed the narrative that the Clinton campaign was race baiting. Indeed, the Left blogs themselves led the charge with this smear, notwithstanding the fact that it was utterly illogical. In South Carolina, the last thing the Clinton campaign would have wanted was African American voters rallying to Barack Obama.

In February, Obama was able to nimbly straddle appealing to African American voters while maintaining a broader appeal. Wisconsin and Virginia appeared to be watersheds, where Obama won both the white and African American voters (he has consistently lost Latino voters.) But from Ohio on, it became clear that Obama would not be able to sustain that. Jeremiah Wright was the biggest reason why. More . . .

The Problem remains unresolved and a deep concern for November. Discussing that concern is a mortal sin according to the Left blogs. I for one will not play the ostrich. I will consider the problem and ways Obama can solve it.

Atrios writes:

What the Clinton campaign is doing is saying that Obama has electability problems, and using their support from white voters as evidence of that. That's a wee bit problematic, and not just because it doesn't follow logically any more than the other electability arguments such as Obama can't win the election because he can't win the primary in big states.

Why is it problematic? Why does it not follow logically? Atrios does not explain. On the contrary, it make perfect logical sense. African American voters have been a staple of the Democratic coalition. While no constituency should ever be taken for granted, there seems to me no doubt, all things being equal, that holding white Democrats is more of a problem than holding African American Democrats. There is a long history on this issue.

What was exciting about Obama was he really appeared to be one of the first African American candidates where this would not be an issue. Since Ohio and especially since Jeremiah Wright, that was not so clear. Indeed, it remains a major concern.

That is a reality. And pretending it is not one will not make it disappear. The reality based community, if it ever existed, exists no longer.

Barack Obama will almost certainly be the Democratic nominee. I hope the professionals in his campaign are not going to be as silly as the Left blogs have proven to be on this issue.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Now That It Is "Over," About FL And MI | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Ignoring "The Problem" | 355 comments (355 topical)
    First off (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:44:26 PM EST
    He can and should duct tape Donna Brazile's mouth shut. Either that, or say that she is part of the McCain campaign since her comments only drive folks over to McCain.

    Donna Brazille conflict of interest (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:48:22 PM EST
    Flagrant same old politics.  Her self interest above the party as a whole.  She needs to either quit from the DNC position or CNN.  

    Parent
    Hear hear (5.00 / 11) (#32)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:54:50 PM EST
    Last night, before I went to bed exhausted from a long day that had started at 5 am, I posted on another blog that as disappointed as I am in the party's treatment of Clinton, I would vote for Obama in the fall (assuming he's the nominee) because McCain scared the cr*p out of me.

    I missed Donna Brazile's performance last night, but watched the clips and read the transcript this morning, and was appalled.  Brazile is a one-woman vote destroyer. She had me reconsidering my position and wondering whether to simply abstain or write-in in the fall.

    She is a menace. Yeah, Donna, "words matter." And your words lose Obama votes every time you let them pass your lips.

    Once he shuts Donna up, Obama needs to do more than talk the Unity talk.  He needs to actually do the hard work of making the demographics that Brazile so smugly dismisses feel that their votes are valued. Which means he has to stop talking unity and actually address the issues that working people of all colors care about, and not just refer people to his website. He needs to reassure people that he really believes in universal healthcare, and not just a simulcram of universal healthcare.  He needs to reassure working people that he's not going to go all Bush on us and privatize Social Security.  He needs to get his thinking straight on foreign policy, and talk about exactly how he's going to get us out of Iraq. He's got to stop clothing himself with the vaporous cloak of post-partisanship, and take actual positions.

    And he's got to stop his supporters from hectoring, lecturing and condescending to the rest of us.

    That would make a start.

    Parent

    Yeah people have said he needs a.... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:58:57 PM EST
    ...sista soulja moment. Well he can start with the nasty fanboys and Donna Brazile.

    Parent
    that would go a long long way with me (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:59:59 PM EST
    I am not holding my breath.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 8) (#54)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:59:41 PM EST
    I couldn't believe she mentioned Hispanics as one of the groups that we need to move past obsessing over.  How do we keep putting these people on TV as our spokespeople?

    Parent
    Well, she is the idiot (none / 0) (#250)
    by mikeyleigh on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:37:16 PM EST
    that ran Al Gore's campaign.  I know Al won the popular vote in 2000, but maybe it wouldn't have been that close were Ms. Brazille as smart as she thinks she is.  Or perhaps she had already started re-inventing the Democratic party and didn't tell us.

    Parent
    A threshold issue (5.00 / 11) (#67)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:01:37 PM EST
    How could I forget? {{slaps head}} Obama has to stop screwing around with the disenfranchisement of MI and FLA, and stop trying to take advantage of it.

    Last night he proclaimed he was within 200 delegates of clinching the nomination.  That is, he is within 200 delegates of the so-called "magic number" of 2025.

    But that number is not magic. That number, 2025, is only a majority of the delegates if you assume that no delegates are seated from FLA and MI.  None. Not one. Obama has to get off his arse and agree to seat the FLA and MI delegations according to the primary results (with the uncommitted votes in MI going to a bona fide uncommitted slate), or at the very least, he has to agree that he needs 2209 votes to clinch the nomination.  What he cannot do is use the exclusion of MI and FLA to his advantage by lowering the number of delegates he needs to be nominated.

    Parent

    He can't address issues (5.00 / 2) (#289)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:50:22 PM EST
    The only thing holding his coaltion together is the fact that he is not saying anything that offends any of them. These are people who disagree about everything. Obama has become the golden child because his message is so vague that everybody thinks he is on their side. If he actually breaks down and makes committments, then he is going to alienate a big chunk of his voter's.

    Parent
    the "only thing?" (none / 0) (#304)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:59:21 PM EST
    They said that about Reagan and JFK, that they just talked about nothing.  Most voters don't want to hear detailed policy proposals.  

    You are making all kinds of assumptions about Obama's coalition, and I think all of them are untrue.  

    His message isn't vague to me at all.  It's crystal clear.  It's just not what you specifically want, that's all.

    Parent

    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#320)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:05:55 PM EST
    What do you think his message is?  

    Parent
    Why? (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:11:12 PM EST
    She told the truth. That's their model of what the party should be.

    "Get over it!"

    Parent

    I think "Get Over It" (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:15:55 PM EST
    is quite anathama to my own personal principles.  I have no problem with inviting in new voters.  I have no problem with hoping to persuade Independent voters.

    I have a big problem with doing so at the expense of core Democrats.

    And that's what's happened this year.

    Like it or not, the truth is out there because we have voters and information.

    Traditional Democrats asked for Hillary.

    Obama wins.

    That means, the problem BTD poses is very legitimate.

    The candidate who won isn't the choice of the party.

    Parent

    Irony, AnninCA... (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:27:02 PM EST
    Check the link?

    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:45:30 PM EST
    holding white Democrats is more of a problem than holding African American Democrats. There is a long history on this issue.
    Bingo!

    I don't know what Obama is going to do about this. . .

    BTW (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:46:54 PM EST
    one of the most nefarious things the left blogs have done is to argue that all things are not equal because black people now hate HIllary Clinton.

    Parent
    The smearing is beyond Rovian (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:50:41 PM EST
    Axelrod and the blogs created one of the most disgusting campaigns, concluding with the Kantor video.  I really hope they are taken to court for this.  The Kantor sham played big on radio and flew in the AA rumor mill.  That is why the dramatic drop.  

    Parent
    That is one of the many reasons (5.00 / 7) (#102)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:27 PM EST
    Obama quickly lost whatever credibility he had with me a while ago. Proclaiming himself above the "old politics" and then engaging zestfully in the oldest political strategem in the book: demonizing his opponent by mischaracterized her words.

    Admit it, Barack. You're an old school Chicago pol. You're pretty good at it.  Embrace it, and then do what pols have always done: build a real coalition, not a faux unity pony personality cult masquerading as a political movement.

    Parent

    Who Matters?? (5.00 / 9) (#152)
    by Athena on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:17:54 PM EST
    Only certain voters count now - and even if they comprise electoral minorities!  And no group is "entitled" to the nomination.  

    Why is no one offended that the first female candidate to come this close to the Presidency is now treated as a bystander in our democracy?

    Look, boys, using a bizarre combination of race-baiting and grievance politis, you've managed to get yourself one more male nominee.  What a breakthrough!

    Parent

    Preach It Athena....The Tactics Of The obama (5.00 / 5) (#220)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:30:21 PM EST
    camp are loathsome; and that coupled with the dumbbells at the DNC is creating a catastrophe waiting to happen in the GE.

    Parent
    He's (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:22 PM EST
    going to try to suck up to Hillary supporters, and hope they will forgive his racist, vile campaign.

    Some will, some won't.

    Parent

    Nothing he can do... (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:52 PM EST
    with the Wright/Ayers/Bitter/Inexperience definition out there waiting for him, he'll spend all his time defending his patriotism against a war hero.

    Parent
    Not so simple (none / 0) (#194)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:25:36 PM EST
    A war hero who is 71, who is "off position" on the war compared to Obama, a war that is increasingly unpopular.

    If Wright were as deadly as the posters here claim, why didn't Obama get crushed yesterday?

    It's normal to exaggerate your nonfavored candidate's weaknesses, but there is evidence aplenty that this is not as big a deal as many posters here seem to think.  

    Parent

    I think they'll use Ayers more than Wright ... (5.00 / 3) (#284)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:49:16 PM EST
    If Wright were as deadly as the posters here claim, why didn't Obama get crushed yesterday?

    Well, if you take AAs out of the equation, he did.

    Just wait til the Republican ad machine gets warmed up, and social conservatives are added to the mix.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#290)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:50:50 PM EST
    Wright will be "old news", but Ayers will be fresh meat.

    Parent
    Because a third of the voter's were black... (5.00 / 1) (#293)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:52:37 PM EST
    ...and they went 93% for Obama? Because the mayor of Gary Indiana bused in students from high schools to vote for Obama? Most of those students won't be in high school in November. And blacks won't represent a third of the electorate.

    Parent
    It will be about increasing the distrust of (none / 0) (#221)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:30:21 PM EST
    Obama's intentions in the WH. They'll pick an unpatriotic narrative that works and gives evidence is unpatrioticness with evidence of his associations. Whatev. The whole point is to keep him on the defensive and they have the ammo to do so.

    Parent
    The opposite is also true (none / 0) (#235)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:33:39 PM EST
    Sure. And Obama has the ammo to keep McCain on the defensive.  Economy, Iraq, etc.

    I'll take that combo platter any day.   The "flag" is a good issue for GOPers in a year when the economy is strong and there's no widespread anti incumbency sentiment.


    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#239)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:34:49 PM EST
    are forgetting that there's a war going on.

    Parent
    Nope. (none / 0) (#255)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:38:37 PM EST
    Have you looked at the polling on the war?  It's pretty bad, and it won't get better.  Iraq is a loser for Republicans.  Look at the recent primary races.

    Parent
    You (none / 0) (#269)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:42:26 PM EST
    are forgetting the rest of the war. What about Afghanistan? The one that Obama couldn't even be bothered to hold a meeting over?

    History has shown that "strong and wrong" beat "weak and right" every time. in 1972 only 20% of the populace approved of the war in VN. the candidate against the war lost in a landslide. And that's with a draft going on too. Obama has no economic appeal hence if it's him vs. McCain the election is going to be framed around patriotism.

    Parent

    You are also not factoring (none / 0) (#261)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:39:51 PM EST
    an "October Surprise" in Iran

    Parent
    the past doesn't always repeat (none / 0) (#274)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:43:44 PM EST
    You are assuming that such a surprise will play exactly as Sept 11 did.  You are assuming that no Dem ever can properly "play" such an event.

    People have become very cynical about Iraq, about 9-11, since early 2005.  Otherwise, Giuliani would have been a much stronger candidate.

    Parent

    Uh (none / 0) (#285)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:49:19 PM EST
    We've already moved 4 fleets into the Persian Gulf and the saber rattling has begun.

    If you don't think something to do with national security will happen in the fall to make news, you have not been paying attention. (Remember all the "orange alerts" during the 2004 election season that took bad news off the front page for Bush and raised his popularity ratings).

    Parent

    We haven't yet (none / 0) (#334)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:12:40 PM EST
    If we end up at war in Iran, it will be after Bushco has convinced (with the help of the media)a healthy segment of the population that Iran poses an immediate risk. The Dems will not resist the charge, because they will be too afraid of looking like they are weak on terrorism.

    I'm expecting an attack sometime during the next President's first term, but the terrorists might do it a bit earlier in order to ensure that Republicans win the election.

    How's that for cynical? <sigh>

    Parent

    DK diary on Rec list - linked from TPM (5.00 / 2) (#328)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:10:10 PM EST
    The Clintons are RACISTS!!  simply because Hillary's campaign mentioned her white vote in NC last night re electability.
    Obamamites charges of racism have been so successful - they'll probably use it against GOP/McCain in the general.


    Parent
    think Republicans care about being called racist? (5.00 / 2) (#337)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:13:53 PM EST
    Obamamites charges of racism have been so successful - they'll probably use it against GOP/McCain in the general.

    umm, aren't the AAs already voting for him?

    who else is there? He has already gotten all the mileage he is going to get out of that tactic.

    Parent

    He's going to have to work extra hard (none / 0) (#18)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:50:26 PM EST
    in the traditional so-called border states (OH, PA) to win the poor white vote. But I really don't see him having any problems in the Mountain West, Midwest, or PNW with the white vote. He cleaned up with whites in WI, IA, NE, CO, WA, AZ, NM (latter two he lost because of the latino vote - he won the white vote)

    Parent
    PA and OH are crucial to winning now (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:52:45 PM EST
    especially because FL is probably out of the picture.

    I think we need to recognize that the idea that Obama was going to fundamentally change the November map is dead. Obama has to win with the 2000/2004 map, and he's going to have a hard time doing it.

    Parent

    I know (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:13:24 PM EST
    PA - the voters in most of the state will not go to him, no matter what.  (Maybe some in the Southeast, but beyond that the story is written.)  
    We cling to religion, guns, and those without jobs have lost their dignity, you know.

    But we know who we don't like.

    Parent

    Sadly true (none / 0) (#206)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:27:44 PM EST


    Parent
    And who doesn't like you n/t (none / 0) (#231)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:33:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Maybe... (none / 0) (#56)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:59:48 PM EST
    But on the other hand, Obama wins big among whites out west that Clinton doesn't win. CO, NV, WA, etc. I'm not saying that PA and OH aren't issues, but let's consider the problem in the proper context:

    He has trouble with poor white voters in states that have >10% black populations.

    Parent

    Can you draw an electoal map for me (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:05:07 PM EST
    that does not include either PA, OH, or FL, where the Democrat still wins? I can't picture one, frankly.

    Parent
    Add in VA (none / 0) (#100)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:14 PM EST
    CO, NM, and NV. If  you check out the electoral projections of OpenLeft, etc. they build strikingly different coalitions but end up with about the same number of EVs.

    Parent
    You think he's going to win VA? (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:12:54 PM EST
    I don't. There was a time when that was possible, but it was pre Rev. Wright.

    NV and NM are McCain's SW neighbors, and will be very difficult to pickup IMO.

    It's time to remember that we're not running against Mike Huckabee.

    Parent

    Hey, I'm just going (none / 0) (#146)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:15:58 PM EST
    by the latest H2H polling. If you've got better information, let's see it.

    Parent
    I'm looking (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:20:11 PM EST
    at this. I tend to compare it to this.

    The differences mean something.

    Parent

    That is just not realistic. (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:14:57 PM EST
    You are counting states that will not go for Obama against McCain.

    This is what I mean.

    Parent

    This is McCain's home territory (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by esmense on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:26:27 PM EST
    Plus, CO, NV and NM are all states that have only begun to "swing" Democratic very recently and in large part because of the Hispanic vote. No Democrat can consider these states a sure win against a traditional Western conservative, with stronger than usual support among Hispanics, based on how he performed in the Democratic primary.

    In 1972 McGovern won every Democratic primary in every state West of the Mississippi. He didn't win one of those states in the general.

    Parent

    If Obama takes CO, NV, and WA (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:03 PM EST
    in the GE, I will eat my old mittens that I wore in CO.

    Obama wins big among white Democrats out west.  Not the same demographic at all as white Republicans.

    Even if he does, those 3 states total 25 electoral votes.  OH alone is 20. PA another 21.

    Parent

    He does much better than Clinton (2.00 / 1) (#109)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:08:00 PM EST
    in head to head polling against McCain out West. I think he's got a very strong shot there, just as strong a shot as she's got in OH and PA...

    Parent
    so now the working joes/janes in (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:35:58 PM EST
    the states that voted for hillary are just "not important". i mean really obama has the latte gulpers, the unreliable young vote and the aa vote. you are kissing the catholic, hispanic, older, blue collar voters goodbye. and yet you insist obama is in "fine" shape. dang it, where is that koolaid? i could use a gulp today myself.

    Parent
    Maybe in polls so far (none / 0) (#161)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:19:39 PM EST
    But we'll agree to disagree about your conclusions.

    Anyway, we will find out soon enough for sure.

    Parent

    In case you haven't noticed (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by litigatormom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:11:19 PM EST
    NV, CO and WA don't have a lot of electoral votes. PA, MI and FLA -- THEY have a lot of electoral votes. It's all well and good to expand the electoral map. But trading in big states for small states is not, IMO, a winning strategy.

    Nor is trading in traditional Democratic voters for an undefined mass of "new, younger" voters who may well have registered in places like PA for the first time to vote for Hillary, not Obama.  A voter in the hand is worth two in the bush.

    We can't give up any part of the Gore/Kerry map. We have to keep it, and expand from there. The stupidity of the DNC in putting MI up for grabs, and keeping FLA in the red column when it had a real chance to go blue, is nothing short of staggering.

    Parent

    making it all about racism is already backfiring (5.00 / 2) (#307)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:59:34 PM EST
    He has trouble with poor white voters in states that have >10% black populations.

    Just keep trying. You can make it about racism if you try hard enough. Because we all know that making unproven but insulting generalizations about white people isn't really bigotry because, well, they're white, so it's ok.

    But we know who does and doesn't really have issues with skin color.

    Obama loses Ohio because he is an affront to our values. Unlike him, we have some.

    Parent

    Western votes (none / 0) (#298)
    by christinep on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:57:38 PM EST
    Caution about counting on the emergent Democratic west.  Remember that McCain runs well with Latinos...and, that means that the Nevada, Colorado wish may not come true. That is especially so when you count in McCain's ties with the West.  Being a Coloradan, I'd like to believe in the western map--and, I've championed it before--but the Western likable McCain can be quite strong in those states.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    So you think he could win those states?

    A) You left out Michigan and Florida

    B) WI can just as easily go for McCain

    C) AZ?  Seriously?  McCain will clean up there

    D) NM?  Might get some white vote, but will lose the Hispanic vote.

    E) CO?  Maybe - but there's also an anti-affirmative action measure on the ballot.  Have to see how that would play out

    Parent

    Responses (3.00 / 0) (#77)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:03:17 PM EST
    A) Florida is gone for Obama, but Kerry could have won without it. Clinton might have an outside shot there, but I think FL is definitely lean R no matter who the nominee is.

    B) Obama's way up in head-to-head polling there. Granted, it's early, but the upper midwest just seems nuts about Obama.

    C) Obama won the white vote there, that was the only point I was making

    D) I don't know if he'll lose the hispanic vote, but he'll certainly be in danger of bleeding some of that to McCain. Whether that makes up for the larger number of whites he wins there relative to Clinton is hard to say

    E) Head to head polling shows CO is basically a lock for him while Clinton's got no chance. It's one of the biggest swings in H2H matchups that favor Obama.

    Parent

    Maybe (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:08:42 PM EST
    But how do you account for the very real possibility of losing CA, MA, NJ, NY, MI, FL, OH, PA, MO,etc?

    Sorry, CO, VA, and WA aren't going to make those up.

    Parent

    Texas? Get real, please. (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:21:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Seriously? (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:22:23 PM EST
    You think he'll pull Texas to blue? Really?  I lived there for 6 years and I can tell you - NO WAY.

    And yes, losing CA, MA. NJ, NY, MI, and OH ARE very real possibilities - those are states that have lots of McCain support - they like him there.

    Parent

    This native Texan (none / 0) (#278)
    by mikeyleigh on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:46:52 PM EST
    says there no way Obama wins the Lone Star.  This transplanted Pennsylvanian also says Obama won't win PA.  It ain't going to happen.  Throw in the combination of the Jewish vote (an Obaman problem) and his stance on seating the Florida delegation and oops, there goes Florida.  And Ohio?  Not bloody likely.  What states out west are going to make up that many electoral votes?

    Parent
    CA is not a sure thing considering (5.00 / 0) (#229)
    by CE415 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:32:46 PM EST
    about 20 % of the electorate is Latino. He'll do well in SF, very poorly in the central valley and LA is a problem with the large Latino population. Maybe they will just stay home and not crossover. There''s also a lot of seniors here, and a lot of  not so well off white worker types.

    Parent
    The Latino vote (none / 0) (#315)
    by christinep on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:03:43 PM EST
    Please do some research on the Latino vote.  McCain does surprisingly well in that area. Of course, Clinton does the best with that demographic; and, Obama still comes up short.

    Parent
    Have you checked the latest H2H polling? (2.00 / 1) (#141)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:15:11 PM EST
    He's doing better than Clinton in most of those. He does much worse than her in the fringes of the border states, the border states, and the deep south (except where the black vote is 30-40+, and VA).

    Parent
    But according to everyone (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:19:28 PM EST
    He's not running against Clinton - he's running against McCain in those states.  How do the H2H's look with that matchup?

    Parent
    where on earth (5.00 / 2) (#195)
    by kempis on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:25:41 PM EST
    are you getting these numbers? Hillary's been beating McCain, who's been beating Obama in OH and MO. Kerry barely won PA in 2004, and I don't think Obama can win it against McCain. And some of the polling out of New Jersey has been pretty scary for Dems, too.

    And whenever people argue that Obama can win VA and NC, I wonder which VA and NC they're talking about because the ones in the USA are pretty reliably red. Ask Jim Webb, who barely beat George "Macaca" Allen in the VA Senate race in 06.

    Picking up low-electoral-vote states in the West is in no way going to compensate for the loss of the electoral-rich border states. There is no way that Barack Obama can win the red states and the border states.

    While folks are celebrating his nomination, they might as well go ahead and start getting some practice saying this: President McCain.

    Parent

    Okay, seriously... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:23:15 PM EST
    ...CA and MA are not going to vote in McCain.  Nor NY and I doubt he has a shot in hell in NJ.  MI is a real possibility, but I doubt it, given the state of the economy.  MI is always a squeaker, though, and he did win the primary in 2000.  

     I do think that Senator Obama needs to reach out to white working class voters, but I think that can be done.  I'm less concerned with them than I am the elderly white voters and Hispanic voters, particularly the latter, who are not reliably Democratic and who appreciate McCain's stand on immigration.  But those voters were always going to be a problem, whether it was McCain or Clinton.  

    Parent

    think again (4.00 / 3) (#329)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    I do think that Senator Obama needs to reach out to white working class voters, but I think that can be done.

    I am a white working class voter, and my family originally split 50-50 Clinton-Obama, with me the oddball going for Edwards.

    So just keep talking about how racist Ohio is. Please.

    Obama has nothing to offer the working class in Ohio or Pennsylvania. I don't believe he'll get us out of the war, and I believe he'll be an even bigger disaster economically than McCain would be. Those are the only two issues that could move us. He's offensive culturally, sneering at our bowling and mocking us for being poor enough to care about $30.

    It isn't going to happen. I know the working class and anyone who believes Obama can win them over, just doesn't.

    And anyway, it has become obvious that "Obama can win them over" is just a mantra used to justify ignoring our feelings. You think people are going to let the DNC get away with that? We make our feelings known and you dismiss us by saying "oh they'll come around" - as a way to get out of actually treating us with, you know, respect, which quite obviously Obama's people feel we most emphatically do not deserve. How dare we assume that just because there's more of us than there are AAs, our votes matter as much as AA votes do?

    But surely you don't believe that is really true?!!?

    Parent

    It will undoubtedly happen (2.00 / 0) (#207)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:27:51 PM EST
    His campaign has certainly proven that it is very, very strategically capable.  

    My view on the Clinton campaign is that the candidate performed very well, surprisingly well - I say that as a Bill Clinton fan - but the HRC 08 leadership team was far weaker.  They underestimated Obama.  Penn was a disaster.

    Parent

    CA (none / 0) (#254)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:38:33 PM EST
    has a very popular governor there who backs McCain (what is his name again? I can't remember...) McCain is also popular with Hispanics (you know, some of the people that Dems don't need to worry about?)

    Last I saw, McCain was within 2 of Obama in MA. Obama is a clone of the governor, Deval Patrick, who is extremely unpopular there (and another creation of Axelrod).  See herefor a good analysis of what the country might have to look forward to with President Obama.

    NY is mostly red outside of NYC (and Sen Clinton is very popular there, so there could be some residual hangover)

    I'm from Michigan and know how McCain is seen (and if he puts Romney on the ticket, that's the ballgame).

    Rasmussen today still has Hillary leading McCain in a nationwide poll, while Obama is statistically tied, even AFTER expectations were high of him winning in NC last night. LINK

    Parent

    reply (none / 0) (#266)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:41:55 PM EST
    Arnold is not very popular here.  You're mistaken - CA voters are cynical, not conservative, except in the central valley and rural areas.

    Patrick is not as unpopular as you may think - what do you think his approvals are? Just curious.  What do you think Arnold's approvals are?  

    No way Obama won't win MA.  MI will be challenging, however.

    And there are other polls on GE matchups that contradict the ones you cited.

    Parent

    Patricks (5.00 / 1) (#275)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:44:18 PM EST
    latest approvals are 56% disapprove, 41% approve. he's been a disaster as the gov. of Mass. Ask posters who live there. Some of them say he's going to have a primary opponent or the GOP will take back the governorship.

    Parent
    thanks (none / 0) (#297)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:56:36 PM EST
    Hmm. Interesting.  Not remotely convinced that's going to cost us the state in November, however.

    Will Spitzer's hooker cost us NY?  Not realistic.

    It's like CA - voters are cynical, and saw through an unlikeable candidate like Angelides who made pander-ous promises.  

    Parent

    Spitzer (none / 0) (#312)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:02:28 PM EST
    didn't have the same campaign manager, nor used the exact same words and plan as Obama.  Patrick and Obama are pretty much the same candidate. And if it isn't playing in deep blue MA, my guess is they won't want to see the sequel.

    Parent
    Well the problem (none / 0) (#332)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:12:02 PM EST
    is that Spitzer got in trouble with a prostitute. Deval got in trouble because of incompetence. Perhaps the voters of MA really don't want the same incompetence in the WH?

    Parent
    California.... (none / 0) (#292)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:51:59 PM EST
    ...is unwinnable for Republicans.  Just can't be done.  Unless they dramatically change their policy positions.  

     We are talking about the same governor who has vowed to fight against a marriage amendment initiative, right?  Of course he endorsed Senator McCain, there's no one else in the primary he could endorse without inviting the ire of the independents who put him in power.  And let's not forget who his wife endorsed.  

     I'm originally from MI as well, and I doubt that Romney as VP could salvage his chances there.  Certainly not as worthwhile strategically as selecting Crist, although there are problems there as well

     California is simply not in play.  

     

    Parent

    I can't trust... (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:03:33 PM EST
    ... the results of caucus states. They're not a good predictor of what the larger voting population is like.

    I don't particularly like the idea of flattering one group of voters because they're less loyal than others. But Democrats need a message pitched to the working/middle class of all colors. That's what the party is about, isn't it?

    It was one thing when we simply lost the white working class vote through indifference. These days it seems as if we're actively trying to alienate them.

    Parent

    He won the white vote before (5.00 / 2) (#276)
    by vicsan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:45:15 PM EST
    those white voters knew anything about racist Rev. Wright, Ayers, Auchi, Bitter people who cling to guns and religion and are racists, typical white people.

    This typical white Midwesterner isn't voting for him. I'm not the only one who has seen the light.  Trust me.

    Parent

    And? (none / 0) (#48)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:58:23 PM EST
    After the Wright controversy he's still way up in the polls in Oregon. And in Oregon, he actually wins the poor white votes, with Clinton doing better among rich whites. And he's ahead in the lone SD poll too. So I don't think Wright hurt him at all out west.

    If you've got some contrary evidence, I'd love to see it.

    Parent

    contrary evidence (5.00 / 6) (#147)
    by kempis on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:16:27 PM EST
    ....is at just about any recently-updated polling/electoral map site.

    But I've given up trying to present contrary evidence. In Obamaland, Wright and Ayers are not problems, Michelle is an asset, no one perceives Obama as an elitist, and those purple states are all going to turn a lovely shade of blue in November.

    Stay tuned for contrary evidence in November.

    I'd be priming myself for nyah-nyah-nyah, but I can't take much delight in thinking of President McCain appointing more "Scalitos." This country is hanging by a thread after Bush, and Nominee Obama will just hand the shears to the GOP.

    I'm as disgusted as I was the morning after election day, 2004.

    Parent

    Come on now... (none / 0) (#87)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    that's without the 527s playing up ALL and I do mean all his  negatives. The GOP knows how to wins elections. They are very very very good at using words and phrases against us. Obama will be a cakewalk to them.

    Parent
    he's disengenuous. (5.00 / 1) (#347)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:20:49 PM EST
    He knows that Obama's performances in the cuacuses were based on core activists---and that was pre-Wright.

    Parent
    Atrios's posts on this were depressing to read and (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by jawbone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:46:02 PM EST
    see there. He seems to no recognition of what was done to the Clintons by the Obama race-baiting charges, based on no to thinnest pretenses.

    As is written, sheesh.

    The comments, as far as I read, are running amok against Hillary and her supporters.

    Not fun.

    Excellent post. (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:46:25 PM EST


    What happened to the dialogue about race? (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:46:43 PM EST
    Well, lets have it.  Lets recognize the schism and see how the leadership puts together the coalition.  Denial will mean losing.  

    Well we all know (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:51:52 PM EST
    The only dialog that matters to the Obama campaign is the one that ends with branding everyone who doesn't support Obama a....

    That's the discussion they've attempted to have.

    You simply can't be opposed to Obama for any other reason.  Like maybe an issue.  Or maybe something else even.


    Parent

    I agree....if the leadership did the following (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:57:36 PM EST
    it would help:

    Get Obama to select Ed Rendell or someone very similar to be his running mate;

    Ask the Clintons in a very public way to help him campaign (especially with white working class), and thank them for all they did in the 90s to help the working class;

    Tell the world that the Clintons are not and never were racist and did not run a racist campaign;

    Get Stephanie Jones-Tubbs and other Black women pols who supported Clinton to have some kind of prominent roll in his campaign going forward;

    And finally, as one of the first commentators mentioned, grab hold of an issue and make it his own (frankly this is the hardest because he has no track record of fighting for anything).

    Parent

    Good advice (none / 0) (#117)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:10:44 PM EST
    but I personally hate it when a winning candidate asks everyone else to come together without specifics as to why we should.

    Anything Obama says now about how great the 1990's were and how the Clintons did a lot for everyone, including black people... well, he can go shove it. After everything he's done, I can't imagine he'll mean it sincerely, and I won't take it as such.

    Time, not false apologies, is what will eventually get me over it.

    Parent

    fair point (none / 0) (#164)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:20:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Come together? (none / 0) (#165)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:20:04 PM EST
    No

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#282)
    by kenoshaMarge on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:48:39 PM EST
    the problem with having  a conversation about race is that many  Clinton supporters, myself included, are a bit gun-shy because we've been called "racists" so many times in the past few months.  

    One problem that all the cries of racism has done, IMO is diminish its effectiveness. Obama supporters have used their "racist" card to great effect thus far and in doing so have alienated a lot of white voters.

    To some of us old lefties that is about as vile an epithet as you can use. Now its been used so much that while we still don't like it; it doesn't sting like it used to.

    If Obama is the nominee, and I fear he will be, and his surrogates start calling "racist" every time anyone opens their month people simply will not care. I won't. They called me a racist, and it wasn't true so why should I believe them when they call someone else a racist?

    Add in the rancor I feel about having Hillary and Bill Clinton tarred as racists. I find that unforgivable and don't bother saying that Obama didn't do it, because he could have stopped it. And he didn't.

    Then there's the old "crying wolf" problem. Many people will be so tired of hearing the continual arguments and discussions about race and tune out the candidate along with the divisive racism arguments. IMO some white voters have done that all ready.

    Parent

    Is Obama losing white voters... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by zzyzx on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:49 PM EST
    ...or is Clinton winning them?  The answer to, "Why is it problematic? Why does it not follow logically?" is that we don't know that.  We know that many voters prefer Clinton to Obama, but we don't know if they prefer Obama to McCain.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:04:22 PM EST
    there is a clear reason why Obama would end up as the natural choice for black voters, if I can say that without getting jumped all over.

    There is not a clear reason why Hillary Clinton, of all people, should suddenly be the crusading champion of the white working class.  It's not like this has been her political base historically.  So when she wins them by a wide margin, it's partially a reflection of her hard work, but also a sign that Obama is having a problem winning his fair share.

    It's not helpful to contrast traditionally Democratic groups like blacks with other groups which don't necessarily have a strong affinity for the Democratic Party.  There's a lot of groups out there that we can either win or lose depending on the type of campaign we run.

    Parent

    Strange (none / 0) (#119)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:11:10 PM EST
    perspective there, Steve.

    Clinton Democrats are unpopular with the Washington in-group precisely because we're for working class whites/Latinos/etc.

    That was what was the rub in Washington.

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#151)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:17:39 PM EST
    That was true for Bill.  I'm really not so sure the same was true for Hillary before she managed to seal the deal quite effectively in this campaign.  Not all of us can be Bill Clinton.

    Take a look at Hillary's numbers with the white working class in the early primaries and contrast them with the numbers she's getting now.  Huge, huge difference.

    Parent

    the very definition of working class! (none / 0) (#155)
    by jackyt on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:18:21 PM EST
    I have never, ever seen anybody work harder or more effectively than Hillary Clinton. I'm sick of hearing about "working class" as a euphemism for "underclass". It seems to me, the Democratic Party has been usurped by the "bullying class" and the "pull yer arguments out of yer *ss class"

    Parent
    Nail, Meet head (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Claw on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:38 PM EST
    Exactly right.  Clinton does better with white voters than Obama.  This doesn't mean he can't win them in the GE.  
    Were Clinton the nominee, I believe she'd turn out more white voters than Obama, while losing some AA's.  With Obama it is exactly the reverse.  I think either will win in November.  I don't think it's a mortal sin to discuss this; it's actually a discussion we need to have.  I do think we should remember that these are dems choosing one dem over another.  The idea that all white, dem voters will go McCain or stay home just doesn't seem very plausible.  
    Heck, Obama got 40% of the white vote in N.C. and, if I'm not mistaken, 35% in Indiana.  
    Again, the fact that white dems have a dem they prefer to Obama does not mean they won't vote for Obama in the GE.


    Parent
    has Obama held a press conference today? (none / 0) (#142)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:15:24 PM EST
    to denounce Brazile's divisive remarks on national TV last night.
    No.

    Parent
    Yes, (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:14:18 PM EST
    you know. After every primary we hear about the exit polling that says that some percentage of Clinton voters will not support Obama either by staying home or actually voting for McCain.  Last night those numbers topped 50%.  Even if only 1/3 of them actually mean it (and some us really do), Obama is looking at a large bleed from the Democratic base.  He has had his head in the sand over this for months.

    Parent
    Even at that (none / 0) (#29)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:54:07 PM EST
    it's a problem that is only really within a few states - OH, PA, and most of the deep south. Granted, OH and PA are key states. But it's significantly narrower problem than why can't he win white voters.

    Parent
    Obama couldn't get white voters (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:37 PM EST
    after he called them ignorant gun totin Bible thumpin racists.
    To counter that - enter the bogus "white n****r" Kantor video that was widely circulated in Indiana.
    Obama has run a very dirty campaign by labeling the Clintons as racists!
    Much worse than anything Rove has done.


    Parent
    You are thinking (none / 0) (#69)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:01:59 PM EST
    about BACK THEN.
    This is NOW.
    Sorry to use caps, but
    I feel strongly you are living in past primaries.


    Parent
    He's still way up in (none / 0) (#85)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:04:38 PM EST
    OR and in SD. Reverend Wright wasn't as big an issue as you seem to think it was, or at least it isn't affecting voters out West. Obama actually does better with poor whites in OR than among rich whites btw.

    Parent
    Which western states (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:35:02 PM EST
    had their primary AFTER Rev Wright exposed?

    The issue of Reb Wright is so much bigger than those clips; it's about honesty, secrecy, disdain, and getting nothing from Obama to explain his involvement in that.

    Hillary Clinton is NOT the one dividing the democratic party! It's the aggressiveness of the Obama campaign, the chanting of his supporters and the MSM that she is single-handedly destroying the unity Obama is trying so hard to shepherd in. Obama complained that Hillary didn't stand up for him on previous issues he was dealing with, yet he stands idly by while these ridiculous accusations fly across the airwaves and internet.

    He expects too much if he thinks those, and so much more will just dissolve.

    Parent

    I didn't even (none / 0) (#105)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:40 PM EST
    mention Wright.
    As far as I'm concerned, he's a non-issue.

    Parent
    Prepare for the shock of your life in Oct/Nov N/T (none / 0) (#176)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:22:00 PM EST


    Parent
    And for that matter... (none / 0) (#99)
    by zzyzx on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:00 PM EST
    ...Kerry only won 45% of the white vote in PA and still managed to win the state.  If you look at 2004's exit polling, you'll see that Democrats rarely win the white vote in the states that we win.  

    Parent
    and would he have won if (none / 0) (#180)
    by jackyt on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:22:29 PM EST
    that percentage was reduced to, say, 35%?

    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Faust on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:00:42 PM EST
    I think this is what Atrios was saying. It's clear that Clinton has no problem getting these voters over Obama. But will McCain?

    There is data for this, however. In my opinion, and I invite someone to give an argument otherwise, is that the good data for the "problem" argument comes from McCain vs Obama/Clinton polls in November far more than the information provided by the primaries.

    I don't see how the primaries tell us anything other than that certain demographics favor Clinton over Obama and vice versa. The question is what will happen to those Clinton favoring voters when McCain is pitted soley vs Obama. We have some data for that, and it does indicate a problem.

    Having said that, November is a long way away. There will be time to remedy this problem. Of course to remedy it it will need to be acknowledged.

    I do think that the problem is somewhat murky at the moment though. Until there are only two candidates running for president it will be hard to see how deep the problem goes for sure.

    Parent

    huh? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:12:23 PM EST
    >>>There will be time to remedy this problem.

    Smearing the Clintons as racists after their lifetimes of being admired and respected by Blacks?
    No - it's Obama who has proven he'll do anything to win - even via character assassinations.

    The Big Tent is now the Small Tent - and still no apology from Brazile.

    Parent

    Ostrichland (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:48:26 PM EST
    There are none so blind
    as those who will not see.

    We all saw Brazille's nuclear meltdown last night when Begala dared to suggest Obama (and the Party) had a problem.  We've seen the same thing post Primary results right here at TL, from Obama supporters who stubbornly refuse to address reality.

    Solutions?  The only one I see is a Unity ticket.
    Help me out here.

    They ignore and (none / 0) (#242)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:35:53 PM EST
    will continue to ignore the MATH that the number of Clinton supporters who won't vote for Obama has consistently climbed.  I remember writing about it when it was 10%, no one cared. 12% nope, 18%, nope, 20%....'oh, they're just saying that'. 22%....   'oh, they'll come back' ... 25% 'you're not a real democrat'... 27% 'traitor'... 35% 'Scotus'.... 40%.. 'unity, must have unity'

    That pony isn't just dead and it is no longer a matter of the dragging the dead pony around... the pony is dead, it's been beaten soundly with a stick, buried deep, dug back up and brutally picked over, left out to bleach in the sun, has now had it's bones ground to dust and the results are about to be blown away by the wind.

    Someone better get a vacuum cleaner out quick.

    Parent

    All of this has left me... (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Maise7 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:49:39 PM EST
    to think of leaving the party and registering Independent. I have said from the beginning that I would vote for Obama if he were the nominee, but now I'm not so sure. What has disappointed me the most is the once staunch supporters of the Clinton's, are now those who call them racists. Most of the left blogs I loved have gone crazy. I have never seen the venom from Hillary supporters towards Obama that I have from the Obama supporters towards Hillary. MSNBC, a channel I always watched, has turned into Fox News. What does that leave me, CNN? I have always loved talking about politics and now I want to just abandon it all. My husband will be thrilled! ;)

    Sorry, I just needed to vent. I am just saddened by all that's happened. And everyone wants to blame Hillary. I think it's so so wrong on so many levels.

    I just pray to God I'm wrong and Obama will win the GE. Because at this point, I really believe Obama can't beat McCain.

    Sigh....

    Welcome to the independent club (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:00:45 PM EST
    The new home of old democrats! ;)

    Parent
    I am now comfortable being an Indy (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by FLVoter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:26:07 PM EST
    and am relishing my emancipation.

    Parent
    This is the statement everyone should make (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:24 PM EST
    I have decided it.

    It doesn't hurt anyone to change party affiliation.

    It doesn't mean you won't vote for Obama either.  That's a decision that can be made when the time comes.

    For now, anyone who feels the DNC has behaved improperly during this primary should change their affiliation soonest as circumstances allow.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:18:34 PM EST
    and it is the biggest "ouch" I'm wiling to tackle on a personal level.

    HUGE pride issue here.  I loved being a straight Dem voter.

    I see now that is going to have to be a bit like loving being cute when I was younger.  :)

    Hey......gotta go with the flow.

    Parent

    That is how I feel. (5.00 / 1) (#286)
    by AX10 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:49:34 PM EST
    And I'm only 27.  I have worked for the party since I was 13.
    I am angered and saddened to a great degree by how the party has acted over the past 8 years and now within he primary process.

    I am an independent.
    I always thought the Democrats were more openminded and diverse than the GOP.  Come to find out they are controlled by the left wing nuts.
    Independent is the best way to go, as my mother always says.

    Parent

    Oh man, you read my mind! (5.00 / 6) (#273)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:43:21 PM EST
    Seriously, I was posting the same thing on different sites.  I thought to myself, I'm sick and tired of the Democratic Party committing "suicide" every election cycle.

    I thought we'd finally get it right with Edwards, but we let the MSM pick the candidate that make them "hard"- Obama.  So we lost the best candidate.  Then I saw Hillary really remake herself and her strength and superior intelligence gave me hope that the Dems would finally get it right, but oh no.  These Dems who pretended to be supporters of Bill and Hillary helped the Obama camp to bring them down while keeping Obama pure and clean.  Hypocrits, the whole lot.

    I am leaving the Democratic Party for good after this primary season.  The fact that 90% of a group votes for a candidate purely on race (and as an AA, I'm telling you it's purely race, nothing to do with policy or experience) and no one is willing to call it what it is- racism- tells me it's time to leave.

    I'm so sickened by the way Hillary has been treated and no one will call it sexism, that I'm almost done with this.  I'm sick of CNN, MSNBC, all of them.  And I have no respect for any of these news pundits anymore.  Enough of the den of vipers.

    Barack Obama will not get my vote in November.  If I can't write Hilary or Edwards in the ballot, I will not vote for the first time in 25 years.  McCain will beat Obama.

    Sometimes, a society gets the government it deserves.

    Parent

    He's not good (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:49:56 PM EST
    With issues.

    Not his forte.

    He's fine on issues. (2.00 / 0) (#226)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:32:08 PM EST
    He knows that "issues" don't win campaigns upfront - narratives do.

    A subsegment of Dem voters are always focused on issues as the center of their desired communications from candidates.  Most voters out there, however, are not.

    Obama communicates more like Reagan or JFK.  Both were effective, and spoke in broad themes.

    Lakoff was the most popular explainer of this phenomenon.  Liberals are too often policy literalists.  

    Parent

    JFK knew the issues too (none / 0) (#268)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:42:17 PM EST
    Obama does not.


    Parent
    disagree (none / 0) (#281)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:47:36 PM EST
    I'm genuinely curious as to what you think.

    If you can, please cite specific examples of
    a) how you "know" what Obama knows
    b) precisely what you are asserting he knows

    Parent

    Meetings without Preconditions (none / 0) (#301)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:58:45 PM EST
    When JFK was asked if he'd be willing to meet with Kruschev without preconditions what do you think he said?

    Parent
    reoly (none / 0) (#313)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:02:49 PM EST
    I have no idea what any human being other than me "can" do.  

    I would expect that he will

    But voters don't clamor to hear about issues; they want empathy, ,they want themes.  Reagan, JFK, Bill Clinton all proved this.

    Obama's campaign - I expect - will pivot and handle this balance very well.  They'll feed issue communication to those audiences that need it.  They'll give narratives to the audience that needs that.

    This is all about tactics....so many critics are campaign rhetoric literalists.  

    Parent

    White, Asian, Latino Working Class Voters (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by catfish on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:52:10 PM EST
    To signal out "white working class voters" says we need to court the bigot vote. And truly, in CA, Asians went for Hillary.

    California not a sure thing... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:54:00 PM EST
    I would not bet that California is blue.  

    Parent
    Nor MA. Nor NY. (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:56:03 PM EST
    Too many should-be reliable Dem states will be in play if Obama is the nominee. Even if he wins there, he will have to spend valuable time and money campaigning there.

    HRC will not have a problem in any of them.

    Parent

    Nor West Virginia (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:28:10 PM EST


    Parent
    Very true (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:23:31 PM EST
    The western states are frequently blue only because of the greater metropolitan areas; all points inbetween are red. San Fran and LA are the blue areas. But, if Obama truly lost 50% of the Hillary supporters, California goes red.

    Parent
    GOOD GRIEF! (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:44 PM EST
    Talk about elitist, head-in-the-sand garbage of the kind we need to run out of the Dem. Party and back to the GOP.  White working class voters are not by definition "the bigot vote."

    GAH!

    Parent

    Good job at the unity (5.00 / 1) (#264)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:41:16 PM EST
    thing.  White working class are bigots again.  Spend much time with Donna Brazile?

    Parent
    Fabulous topic (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:52:57 PM EST
    and I thank you.

    For me, as a white woman, the excitement about seeing someone "different" and who "looked like me" was expended in this very active engagement in Hillary's candidacy.

    All of us are human.  Only so much "steam" to go around.  I'm spent.

    So he's a "ho-hum" for me.

    I'm admittedly, not African American.  I've not felt one twinge of anger toward that voter bloc's enthusiasm.  I get it.  Must be exciting as heck.

    I just don't feel it.

    Since I don't "feel" it, I'm into the technical stuff.  That's just another way of saying, "I don't relate to him."

    LOL*

    But now I'm into my own solutions.  I'm too competitive by nature to stay into "loss and grief mode."  That's not for me.

    I'm into thinking about the Congress.

    Who cares who he presents or even McCain.

    We get a real strong Congress?

    We can still accomplish the goals that Hillary was laying out.

    I never was all about Hillary as Hllary.  I was jazzed by her ideas.

    I'm still wondering what he will actually do as (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by jawbone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:56:09 PM EST
    prez!

    And I have never seen the light or had the epiphany.

    Parent

    For me? (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:57:52 PM EST
    He's a suit.

    And I got excited by Hillary's ideas.

    So that's where I'm going to turn my own energy.

    I WANT that.  In the worst way.

    Parent

    I really, really, (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:15:49 PM EST
    wanted universal health care.

    The tragic thing about this primary is that we found out that the Democratic Party establishment doesn't. The bigwigs could have made it an issue, but they didn't. It turns out it's just a talking point, not something we really believe in.

    Hillary turned out to be wrong when she said that it was a core Democratic value. It should be, but it isn't.

    Parent

    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    But that was bold of her.

    It still may come to be.

    She's got great support for that one idea.  

    I think I've caught the politics bug this season, but I'm of the mind that this isn't about HIM anyway.

    I'm going to get involved about the ideas.

    Screw the figure-head.

    I'm convinced.  He's a suit.

    He couldn't persuade me if he bought my breakfast and talked to me one-on-one.

    I'm a Clinton Democrat and will die one.

    But I'm willing to turn this loss, like Hillary would, into a turn.

    I'm going to focus on individuals in Congress.

    I don't care if the president is McCain or Obama.

    Doesn't matter.

    What matters is getting in some new life into Congress.

    And we could still accomplish the plan she laid out.  It's brilliant.

    And who cares who the author is.

    Let's just get smart about America.

    Parent

    It's really amazing... (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:33:15 PM EST
    ... how utterly alienated I feel from the Democratic Party today. To think how excited I was in November 2006 and just in December 2007.

    I know what our party stands for, supposedly, but I have no idea what, if anything, we're willing to fight for.

    No wonder as people get older they get more cynical, or realistic, about politics.

    For the sake of the person who next calls me asking for money for the DCCC or DSCC or DNC, I hope I'm feeling better about the party then than I am now.

    Parent

    You know (5.00 / 1) (#258)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:39:33 PM EST
    I'm even more connected with the true ideals.

    That's what has amazed me.

    Hillary was my "ideal."

    But I'm not afraid to lose.

    What's interesting is how bedded I am to the ideals, not the personality.

    Screw the presidential election.

    I'm into the principles now.

    Parent

    Good for you. (5.00 / 2) (#270)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:42:31 PM EST
    I guess my sense of loss is that my party, to which I've devoted a lot of time and dollars of late, isn't as much into my principles as I thought.

    Then I wonder--why did I ever think a group of politicians would ever care more about anything other than winning?

    Parent

    Clinton must not drop out -- she must go through (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by jawbone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    the rest of the primary states and remain a viable candidate. Not sure how that's done, but she must no concede. Unless FL and MI are included, and, through SDs he wins outright.

    I'd suggest the SDs keep their powder dry.... Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosis know all about how to keep powder dry.

    Who knows what will come out about Obama during the next few months?

    I agree (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:58:46 PM EST
    HRC needs to stay in.  I'm still hoping for a convention fight, myself.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by BigB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:03:34 PM EST
    If it gets to that, she should suspend the campigan and not endorse Obama until the convention.

    This is what Jesse Jackson did to Dukakis in 1988 an Kennedy did to carter in 1980.

    Parent

    I don't understand (none / 0) (#116)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:10:32 PM EST
    What purpose does that serve?  Please explain.

    Parent
    It helps keep her viable (5.00 / 1) (#248)
    by BigB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:37:07 PM EST
    The DNC is at the end of August and that is 4 months away. Obama is an unknown commodity and who knows in what position he will be by the end of August.

    Parent
    Still confused (5.00 / 1) (#283)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:48:51 PM EST
    Doesn't suspending the campaign make her unviable?

    Parent
    I think we'll reach a state where... (none / 0) (#211)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:28:13 PM EST
    ... Obama will be the de facto nominee. Hillary may acknowledge it in a speech, or she may essentially say it by not campaigning between June and the convention.

    She may end up as our insurance candidate. If Obama is so damaged by the general election campaign against the Republicans, then there may be a discussion at the convention.

    Parent

    And I think this problem (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by rnibs on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:54:56 PM EST
    cuts into the theory put forth long ago that he'd have long coat-tails.  I don't think he will now and he won't win the GE either, imo.

    Brazile was talking about the "younger" Dem party now, but having the younger vote didn't help McGovern, and I don't think it even helped the party in the long run.  It took till Bill Clinton to really get a Dem in the White House despite the way McGovern was supposed to draw young voters in.  (I know that Carter was there, but the poor guy got trashed while in there.)

    I think a lot of the young voters that McGovern supposedly brought in got dis-heartened and decided politics wasn't that important.  I think having Obama lose the GE will not get us these new young voters, but make them feel the same.  I think getting a winning candidate like Hillary in there is the best way to strengthen the party in the future.  People like winners.

    He should endorse Hillary's heath care plan... (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:55:04 PM EST
    ...it should be incorporated into the Democratic platform. But I won't hold my breath.

    It's like Krugman said - he can't (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by MMW on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:02:38 PM EST
    because he has no credibility on it after his Harry and Louise ads.

    McCain - whether he is a maverick or moderate or not is defined. It is very hard to knock down that definition. Half (an exageration-Iknow) the creative class in 2004 were calling for Kerry to pick McCain as VP.

    Anybody here is free to tell me, honestly how you overcome that. McCain spoke to the press when he had no funds, was being written off as a joke and polling next to last. Obama is out front and can't do a press conference.

    Parent

    I had said in an (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by zfran on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:55:48 PM EST
    earlier post that Sen. Obama won with his demographics in NC and Sen. Clinton won with hers in IN. The problem lies somewhere in the middle, which the DNC has not, seems unwilling to address maybe for fear of alienating people (altho DB has done quite well in doing this). Well, I am  insulted and hate to be lied to. I am not AA, however, I am a woman who feels insulted and someone should tell Howard Dean, Donna Brazille, Barak Obama and the like, that we, women, are no longer chattel. We make up our own minds and have the right to vote as we choose, and not to be demeened. For a candidate who wanted to run a transcending race, he sure was racial!!. And, oh yeah, I have been proud of my country during my lifetime.

    All these people built up these issues (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by MMW on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:57:04 PM EST
    They didn't just pick it up one day. They had credentials on it to back it up. Obama has flip -flopped on every issue publicly with sound bites and you-tube videos.

    It's not that easy. He had at least two years to build a good platform. Now he's the unity candidate against Mr. I-have-worked-with-Dems-on bills-that-have-passed-and-I-am-known-as-the-maverick-for-making-the-tough-calls-and-going-against-m y-own-party-ps-I-spent-5-years-as-a-POW. This comment seems to be more head in the sand, not facing up to reality.

    Look at the current race, at what Obama, Clinton, the Dems, have all done and said then look at me and tell me that Obama can re-brand and run with senior care, or immigration, or veterans issues against John McCain who holds the either the same views or is a senior and a veteran.

    Limbaugh is now backing Obama (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ajain on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:57:29 PM EST
    I just find that amusing. I dont know what his motivation is, but I honestly believe he is the weaker candidate who will almost certainly be the nominee.

    I am now going to go wallow. I am deeply upset, but am coming very very slowly to accept the inevitability of Obama nomination. Having said that, I have this outside feeling that she can pull out a popular vote win. Lets see. I dont know. But still. I am slowly and steadily preparing myself, but lets not stop donating to her campaign.

    Your favorite doesn't always win (none / 0) (#139)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:14:40 PM EST
    I believe he is the stronger candidate.  You disagree.

    But my favorite candidates in competitive primaries have been these:
    Hart
    Babbitt
    Bill Clinton
    Bradley
    Edwards.

    I'm used to losing.  After leaving Edwards this cycle, Obama is a 'win' for me.  

    The point is, this happens in politics.  It's always a compromise.

    Parent

    Are you paid by a campaign? (5.00 / 2) (#271)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:42:36 PM EST


    Parent
    My favorite (5.00 / 1) (#316)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:04:31 PM EST
    almost never wins either. I'm used to it too.

    But the way Obama is winning, by insulting and dismissing core Democrats and core Democratic values, is unacceptable to me.

    If he can't win as a Democrat, then he isn't one. And he's no better than John McCain.

    Buh-bye Barack.

    Parent

    It is not about issues, it is about respect (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by BigB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:57:49 PM EST
    Hillary supporters feel strongly that they are being disrespected by Obama, his supporters, and the Democratic establishment.

    His "cling" comments, Michelle Obama's lectures on "mean" America, Wright's sermons, Donna Brazille's remarks yesterday on CNN about Hillary's supporters being part of the "old coalition" all add to this feeling.

    I for one have long believed that Obama's online supporters and AA supporters have caused him enormous damage and contributed to the split in the party.

    There are Obama supporters on this blog now who continue to be condescending and insulting towards Hillary and her supporters.

    Stopping this nonsense will be a very good place to start.

    The damage (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:52 PM EST
    is done.

    That's a given.

    The new Democratic Party has booted out Clinton Democrats.

    No question about it.

    Frankly, I'd still like to see her concede because I do not want to watch the bashing.

    There's nothing to be gained by any more of that behavior except deeper hurt feelings.

    I'm not at all into pain.  :)

    Parent

    Cheesy coming - Sorry - Hillary Clinton in PA (none / 0) (#222)
    by MMW on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:30:45 PM EST
    said something to the effect that - in the coming weeks she may stumble and fall, but as long as we don't give up on her, she'll get up and she'll continue fighting - Let's just take her at her word. I'd hate for us to be treating her like she needs to do twice as much. The goal posts keep moving and we keep moving too, I think the trick is to go towards the goal posts, not have her have to make up ground with us too.

    IN was the tie-breaker - she got it. Now it's either OR or that she should quit outright now.

    Is it the media that's defeating us or us? When do we fight for our convictions? If there is no fight now - the media wins - and they do the same everytime.

    Its great to have a hero, a leader but we should put up a fight as well.

    So can we quit the defeatist jazz now? Don't get me wrong - I know how you feel. But I personally need to believe in her.

    Like I said sorry for being cheesy but it's been bugging me all day.

    Parent

    Hillary isn't my God (none / 0) (#230)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:32:58 PM EST
    and never has been.

    I repeat:  Her ideals are mine.

    I can find another path to those.

    Obama doesn't offer them.  That's clear.

    But I'm not about to abandon my own beliefs because of this primary season.

    That would be way goofy.

    Parent

    They're not so different on substance (none / 0) (#251)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:37:21 PM EST
    Obama is very, very much like Hillary on most policy proposals, with a few minor difference here and there. McCain on the other hand, is colossally different from both.

    And remember, campaign proposals are gone on january 21.  The slate is clear.  Campaigns are about tactical positioning.

    Both Obama and Clinton are liberals.  Both believe in using government to improve the lot of broadest range of people possible.  If you think Hillary won't enthusiastically endorse Obama when this is over, you'ree mistaken.

    I think you're mistaken as to how "different" you seem to think Obama is.  

    Parent

    Another brand new poster (5.00 / 1) (#257)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:39:19 PM EST
    today.  Interesting tone of the new people.

    Parent
    what arguments? (none / 0) (#343)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:17:57 PM EST
    Can you counter his arguments?

    what, that Clinton eats babies and makes baby Jesus cry? No. It's a faith-based initiative, there's no reasoning with it.

    The reality is that Obama is a very liberal progressive candidate.

    No, he isn't.

    Go read his plan for America and tell me that's not good solid progressive ideas he's also got a solid voting record on the same.

    No on both counts. Anything good he has said, he has elsewhere 'taken back'.

    He's a good candidate

    No, he really isn't.


    just because he's not your prefered doesn't make him the devil.

    No, his behavior is what earned him the hatred he now enjoys.


    Parent

    If (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:18:29 PM EST
    you forgive, they will have learned nothing.

    You would be like an abused woman who stays in a bad relationship because it is the only relationship she has.

    They will take you for granted, and keep being jerks.  They will have no incentive to give you anything.

    Parent

    Well when you have a problem (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:58:08 PM EST
    We all know what the first step is.

    My guess is they know all this.  They also know it's a problem.  And they will set about trying to figure out how to solve this problem without admitting it was ever a problem.

    I think they will fail.

    Pure and simple (5.00 / 9) (#49)
    by lentinel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:58:25 PM EST
    The "black vote" started to go Obama's way only after his rancid campaign began to infer and even state that both Clintons were racists. They characterized Bill Clinton's statement that Obama's reputation as an antiwar candidate was a "fairytale" as racist. They characterized Hillary Clinton's statement that it took aggressive legislative leadership to realize the ambitions of Martin Luther King as racist. Chumps, coupled with the goading of the racist media, bought it. Michelle Obama, a real piece of work, chided black people for not "getting it".

    Yes. This is a problem. This is racist garbage.
    I haven't voted for a racist, or one who profited from racism, since I started voting - and I'm not about to begin to do so.

    Bull (1.00 / 2) (#91)
    by po on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:13 PM EST
    Re: "The "black vote" started to go Obama's way only after his rancid campaign began to infer and even state that both Clintons were racists."  This is just such nonsense.  AA "started" going his way once AAs figured out that some white Americans (in say Iowa, NH and other states) would vote for an AA candidate.  The reason there is The Problem is large part due to white racism.  Believe or not, but we haven't really come a long way baby on that score.    

    There are many stories out there where white folk think Obama is a Muslim, unpatriotic, eats babies or something equally stupid.  These impressions can be dealt with once he's the nominee.  In the end, if Obama is the nominee, white, working class Democrats can vote for the AA candidate or they can vote for the white one.  If they choose the latter, they reap what they sow and, imho, aren't really very good Democrats, nor are they very patriotic as McCain will only further the decline of America's standing at home and abroad.  But, hey, he's white so he's got to be good, right?

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:20:27 PM EST
    Allow me to distance myself from your argument that people who vote for McCain aren't patriotic.  The sort of Democrats I know don't throw around that particular accusation so loosely.

    Parent
    Or they can not vote. (n/t) (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:24:07 PM EST


    Parent
    He should start (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:00:24 PM EST
    by going to Hillary's website to see what he already hasn't copied.

    If he wants to appeal (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:01:20 PM EST
    to white working-class voters, that issue has to be the economy. They trust HRC on the economy, and it's one big reason why they prefer her to Obama.

    However...those voters also vote on national security. That's where Clinton has the unbeatable edge on Obama over McCain, I believe, simply because she voted for the AUMF. Obama is seen as too liberal on the war, plus he has too many radical associates. In contrast, McCain has been lionized as a war hero, and he has a lot of experience.

    I don't think Obama can peel many of those voters away from McCain no matter what he does, which is why I think he's doomed in the GE.

    Sigh.

    Gerry Ferraro (5.00 / 11) (#66)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:01:28 PM EST
    Obama's problem isn't that he doesn't appeal to white voters, it's that the only people he does appeal to are African-Americans, out of legitimate racial pride, and affluent white liberals and students, for related but less coherent reasons.

    The rest of the party (including not just whites but every non-AA minority group) evaluating the two Dem. candidates side by side, overwhelmingly prefer Hillary.  If Obama was the same guy with the same paper thin resume and the same lofty but empty rhetoric but white, he would not be getting the votes he does have and he would simply not be in the race.

    His problem is not with white voters, it's with voters period.

    Let me see... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Dadler on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:04:05 PM EST
    Both Reagan and Bush II had resumes even MORE paper thin and they're white.  I am not an Obama supporter, but this sh*t has to stop.  This party is eating itself alive.

    Enough.

    Parent

    Uh (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:15 PM EST
    Both Reagan and Bush were governors of major states.  Compare him to John Edwards or something.

    Parent
    they had both been multiple term governers (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:49 PM EST


    Parent
    WRONG (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:51 PM EST
    Being a two term Governor is worth a lot more than anything Obama has done. I am not saying they did the job well, but they were definitely qualified by modern-day standards.

    Parent
    Whoooooa. (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by wurman on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:20:17 PM EST
    Saint Ronny Raygun had been governor of California for 8 years.  He was stupidly effective at implementing a rightwingnut, idiot conservative agenda.

    I despised Saint Ronny & still do.

    But his resume was far thicker & deeper than Sen. Obama's.

    Parent

    I love that all of you... (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Dadler on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:29:49 PM EST
    ...state the absolute OBVIOUS, as if I didn't know they had both been governors.  Brilliant.  A resume is more than a list of jobs, it's also about performance.  Any liberal among you who wants to claim that Reagan or Bush were either politically or intellecually more qualified than Obama, be my guest.  You'll be a fool.  Reagan's resume included a corrupt stint running the Screen Actor's Guild, as well, just as Dubya's includes running every shady business his daddy handed him into the ground (and only avoiding being expelled from Yale because of his name).  And I'm sure the references Dubya and Reagan would give us far outdistance Obama's, since we all know his only reference would be Rev. Wright.  

    Be serious, people.  This is just depressing.  And I will vote for Hillary HAPPILY if she is the nominee, understand that.  I am not an Obama man at all, but I find this entire argument about experience absurd. Hillary's political resume includes one job.  One.  
     

    Parent

    My oh my. (5.00 / 4) (#263)
    by wurman on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:41:10 PM EST
    A resume is not based on the vague notion that someone did things that YOU don't like, or don't approve, or think were stupid.

    A resume is based on the person doing something.

    My disgust with Saint Ronny is monumental, but partly because he succeeded at fulfilling so many disastrous republikon ideals.  And he was clearly a known quantity to those who nominated him for president & those who elected him twice.

    I'm coming to a better understanding of Obama supporters here, no doubt.

    Parent

    Wasn't Ronald Reagan also at (none / 0) (#219)
    by FLVoter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:30:12 PM EST
    one time the President of the Screen Actor's Guild?

    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:23:18 PM EST
    but Bush I campaigned on having the longest and best resume for the job. Reagan had two terms as Gov. of Ca. and had spent numerous years discussing ideas and foreign policy. Obama is the least qualified candidate in a very long time.

    Parent
    I said Bush II and as for Reagan.... (none / 0) (#288)
    by Dadler on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:50:21 PM EST
    Here is how Reagan got into politics and what his resume says about him, from Gore Vidal's "Ronnie and Nancy: A Life in Pictures":

    In late Octover, Goldwater was unable to speak at the big $1000 a plate fundraiser at the Ambassador Hotel in L.A....Holmes Tuttle asked Ronnie to pinch-hit.  Tuttle sat next to wealthy Henry Salvitori, Goldwater's finance chairman.  Tuttle suggested that they run Ronnie for governor of California in 1966.  Salvitori didn't think you could run an actor against an old political pro like Pat Brown.  But when Ronnie went national with The Speech on television, Ronnie was in business as a politician, and his friends decided to finance a Reagan race.  To these new-rich sunbelters, polticiants and candidates, even Ronnie, were an inferior breed.  "Reagan doesn't have great depth," Salvitori admits, "but I don't know any politician who does.  He's not the most intelligent man who ever was, but I've never met a pol with great depth.  I don't know of any politician who would be smart enough to run my business, but Reagan just might."  There is all is in one nut's shell.

    And, of course, his "business" was the state.  Reagan was a private governor.  He worked solely for those who put him into office, no others.  

    Parent

    So? (5.00 / 3) (#303)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:58:59 PM EST
    Reagan did have 2 terms as a gov. under his belt when he ran for Pres. The GOP started today with Obama has had 143 days in the senate. The pundit said she had leftovers in her refrigerator older than that. They are already starting to ridicule his lack of experience. It sells well with anyone over 40.

    Parent
    I hope you aren't comparing Obama to.... (none / 0) (#135)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:13:49 PM EST
    ...those guys. But actually Reagan, like him or not, was a 2-term governor of the largest state in the nation. Bush had a crap resume and look what we got.

    Parent
    well said! (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:04:28 PM EST


    Parent
    singer's post at mydd, (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Turkana on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    however well-meant, also ignores the facts that 48% of the voters said wright mattered, and that obama keeps overcoming these issues because of demographics. clinton has her own electability issues, but to ignore obama's is simply foolish.

    Wright in the moment (none / 0) (#153)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:17:59 PM EST
    The salience of the Wright issue at this moment was as a factor for these anti-Obama partisans.  I think thats what the poll shows.

    The national polling on Wright is strongly indicative that it has been far from fatal for him.  

    Bush is a much bigger albatross for McCain than Wright is for Obama.

    Parent

    the national polls are mixed on the wright effect (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Turkana on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:29:04 PM EST
    but since wright emerged, obama has not broken through on his demographic problems.

    Parent
    There's a line that can't be crossed (5.00 / 8) (#78)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:03:25 PM EST
    before losing support to a level that can't be reversed. Obama has done this with so many people.

    Americans who love the Clinton's, truly love and respect the Clinton's. To watch his campaign attempt to paint them as racists, and take Hillary's efforts to bring some relief to the middle and lower income levels and reduce that to political posturing while he didn't have ANYthing to offer is just barely scratching the surface of all the mistakes he made. Much the way he claims he understands the difference between Sunni and Shiia (unlike Bush), he clearly didn't take the time to understand the bond between a large percentage of democratic Americans and Hillary Clinton.

    He stands in front of crowds, and in his typical demeaning tone he says, "well, look, of course people will all come together and vote for me in November". He gives no apology for the damage he's done, he gives no hint that he needs to work hard to earn the respect back from those who he has lost, and he shows no sign of caring if they don't return. He is the one who represents a sense of entitlement, not Hillary. In fact, it's become normal to watch every accusation his side lobs against the Clinton camp is truly a flaw they possess and need to deflect.

    Look, I have no animus toward the Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Dadler on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:18:24 PM EST
    But when I hear you talking about some "bond" you have, I get as nervous as I do when Obamaniacs start talking about him in messianic terms.  Certainly, the Clintons enjoy enormous popularity, both her and abroad -- where respect was given, unlike with Bush, who doesn't deserve any.  And we need that kind of leadership to help restore our international reputation, which may not at this point be repairable.  But either of these to candidates is going to do that.  Without a doubt.  And Obama has just as much support as Clinton (who, apparently, also didn't take the time to understand how deep AA support would run for Obama, no matter her past record with this demographic), the party is divided, and right now both sides seem content to stay divided.  A recipe for disaster is looming, unless the partisans on both sides agree to unite when the nomination is complete.  When I hear either side saying they won't vote for the other, my stomach turns.  

    You don't like Obama.  Okay.  And beyond that, what?  Because, frankly, the election is ALL about "beyond that", on both sides of the Dem aisle.

    Parent

    I can absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:21:41 PM EST
    tell you what my own issues are.

    I have built my own life based on my accomplishments.

    When I see people's true records being trashed?

    That's not OK.

    That's dangerous territory for America.

    That turns us into American Idol, and it is unacceptable.

    When I saw Pelosi, Kennedy, Dean, etc., trashing Ferarro and Clinton?

    I knew, that's bad stuff.

    Really, really bad stuff.

    Parent

    It's not a matter of not "liking" Obama (5.00 / 2) (#325)
    by esmense on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:07:19 PM EST
    I genuinely do not believe he has the experience, ideology or temperament we need in a President at this time of national crisis. Many of his supporters, it seems to me, are in a state of deep denial about the real state of the nation. They appear to think that "symbolic" gestures (the election of the first black president, no matter how inexperienced and untested) are all that are needed to set things aright.

    Like many here I have serious doubts about whether he can win the general election. But, more important than that, based on everything I have learned about him in the course of the campaign, I am convinced that he is not ready for the job he is competing for. I think, for the party and the nation, an Obama win in November will be a much bigger disaster than a loss.

    When McGovern lost in '72, the Democrats still made gains down ticket -- and that limited the harm Nixon could do.  I think the best outcome for the Dems with Obama as the nominee would be gains in the Senate and Congress -- McCain forced to deal with a Democratic congress, and limited in his court appointments by a Democratic Senate, would not be ideal. But it would be better for the Democrats and the country than having another (but much less experienced) Carter type failure in White House. Especially now when the stakes are so much higher than they were in the late 70s.

    Parent

    Beyond that (none / 0) (#196)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:25:52 PM EST
    We don't think he's qualified, and if elected, could harm the Democratic brand for many elections to come.

    Parent
    Nor has he apologized to all he women (none / 0) (#249)
    by CE415 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:37:14 PM EST
    he has insulted by his very sexist campaign.

    Parent
    The discussion is forestalled. (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by wurman on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:04:57 PM EST
    Nobody wants to use the racially bigoted terms that are necessary to openly discuss what seems to have taken place.

    Oh well, let's all sing "Kumbaya," have a Coke & a smile, pray for hope, change & unity as we ignore the dying donkey in the living room.

    Whatever was wrong with peace, love & understanding?

    Wait.  Now I remember.  Reality.

    Racism is always a monologue (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:11:23 PM EST
    Usually, it's the victim ranting or the racists ranting.  Real discussion is never permitted, cause everyone paints the other in the small box.  That is why the pablum of THE SPEECH was so contrived, no one has interest from either side for a real discussion.  They just want to hide and ignore.  

    Once again, race was used to subvert the issues of class in America.  Thank you Obama.  

    Parent

    From another perspective. (5.00 / 4) (#236)
    by wurman on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:34:08 PM EST
    Shirley Chisolm, Member of Congress, New York--12th District (b. 11/30/1924, d. 1/1/2005).

    -Of my two "handicaps" being female put more obstacles in my path than being black
    -I've always met more discrimination being a woman than being black.
    -One distressing thing is the way men react to women who assert their equality: their ultimate weapon is to call them unfeminine. They think she is anti-male; they even whisper that she's probably a lesbian.
    -The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says: It's a girl.


    Parent
    BTD (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Iphie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:58 PM EST
    It's not just white middle/working class voters that Obama has a problem with, it's middle class voters of all stripes with the exception of AA middle class voters. It's an important distinction because the issue is being framed as black vs. white, when in reality, Obama has problems with the great majority of middle/working class voters.

    This isn't true (none / 0) (#118)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:10:50 PM EST
    What about his wins in WI, MN, IA, CO, WA, ME, VT, CN, AK, etc. etc. ? And his expected wins in OR and SD. Keep in mind that in these states he typically wins with the biggest margin for him being with poor whites.

    Parent
    I can explain OR (none / 0) (#217)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    Portland.  Eugene.  Corvallis.  Small towns like Ashland.  

    How are those towns different that the cities and towns that exist in PA and OH?

    I'll give you a clue.  The answer is not that they are less racially polarized.

    The answer is that the Democratic Party Community in Oregon is essentially one giant college town interested in ideas.

    The Democratic Party Community Community that exists in states like PA and OH is a workforce interested in solutions.

    Parent

    Well, if that is true then why are the (none / 0) (#148)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    Obama folks painting the picture in racist terms then?

    They can't seriously believe that guilting, insulting and bullying people into voting for their candidate is going to be a successful strategy can they?

    Parent

    But it does follow logically that anyone (5.00 / 3) (#112)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:09:02 PM EST
    who was white and working class voted for Clinton automatically assumed to be a racist?

    You can't have it both ways.

    This has been my problem with the Obama camp pretty much from the begining.  They have two sets of rules.  They accuse people of being racists and then insist that discussing the potential realities of the racism they claim to be so prevalent is - what did Atrios call it? - " a wee bit problematic.  Yeah it is.  But Obama's camp takes no responsibility for their role in creating the problem.

    The problem with the Obama campaign as I see it is this:  The campaign for the White House is secondary to solving the problems with race relations in this country and defending a crazy preacher as some sort of "statement" about religious freedom.

    I was just looking for a Democratic President who was going to want to win this race first and make in roads on the global problems with practical and smart solutions after having won.  Instead, it looks like we have a candidate and a large group of true-believers who are willing to lose this race if their candidate is required to make even the slightest adjustments in his confrontational style.  Yes.  Confrontational.  Passive agressive as it may be - there is an unmistakeable in-your-face quality to this campaign as it takes shape.

    They're over there at the big orange debating the question of whether or not they could see fit to be nice to Clinton and her supporters.  Shaking head.  Its kind of pathetic really.  But I guess if you buy into the notion that you can be a Democrat and get along well with Orrin Hatch and that crowd, you're going to buy into the notion that you can insult, attack and attempt to completely demoralize a whole group of voters and still expect them to be loving you when you need them.

    I think we are in real trouble for the general election.  Maybe that will change, but unfortunately that would require that Obama change and that is apparently verboten.  It is a classic catch-22 and classic Dems eating their own with zero understanding of the long-term consequences.

    The problem is (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:12:20 PM EST
    that the intial states he won non-AA support were caucus states where he had great organization and states that voted early before folks began to want more substance from their candidate.  Other than with the true believers or AA vote, he doesn't wear well.  The Hope and Change message has a short window.  Also once the Ayers pictures, Rezko stuff, cousin, etc. come out and are looped 24/7 (have no doubt they will be) and anything else the talking heads/a.m radio crowd can come up with he will lose all but the most committed.

    Thank you for talking about a subject (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:22:02 PM EST
    that is very important.

    I feel that this will be a major problem for Obama.  It will not be the AA and eggheads who will put him in office alone.  Already, white working class and middle class voters are feeling put out and the fact that no one is dealing with the racism behind the AA vote for Obama (please, if Hillary got 92% of the white vote, people would be screaming RACISM, on cue).

    And can assure you that the Republicans will exploit this during the General Election.  McCain is already reaching out to conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans.  The very voting block Hillary was trying to reach and elitist snobs like Kos criticized her for reaching out to.

    Of course, when Obama invokes Reagan's name again, those liberal loopies will proclaim him a genius again.  Oh, hypocrisy, they name is DailyKos.

    Please read the comment above (none / 0) (#205)
    by jcsf on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:27:41 PM EST
    Link is here.

    Demography is not political destiny - just ask Lynn Swann, who won the white dominated areas, lower class areas of Pennsylvania, because he WAS a Republican, and the Republican identification, trumpted the racial identification.

    Parent

    So now (5.00 / 1) (#308)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:00:42 PM EST
    white Republicans who voted for Lynn Swann aren't racist but white Democrats who voted for Hillary are?  IMO the racist white vote against Obama is not his biggest problem.  It isn't those voters he needs to reach.  In fact, if they are a sizable block, which I don't think is true, he will lose the GE.


    Parent
    Not what I'm saying (none / 0) (#326)
    by jcsf on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:08:02 PM EST
    Saying that, other things being equal, in terms of policy. a person will vote with whom he feels most comfortable with.  In this case, that would be Clinton.

    But those voters ARE reachable, if other concerns trump who one is more comfortable voting.

    The insanity of the GOP - Iraq, never-ending debt, a contempt for healthcare, these are things that, better policies will convince voters away from the GOP, no matter the "cultural" aspects.

    Parent

    I've said this before (none / 0) (#225)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:31:44 PM EST
    the racist white vote and women voting on gender more than offset Obama's advantage among African Americans. Obama has never explicitly appealed for the black vote. On the contrary, he has said it is proper to try to earn the vote like every other candidate. Hillary, on the other hand, has appealed for votes based on her gender. The black vote for Obama is not a racist vote. These voters have voted for plenty of white candidates in the past and will do so in the future. The racists voting for Hillary, on the other hand, are people who will never vote for any black candidate.

    By the way, people like you never complained when 80 to 90% of the AA vote went to white candidates.


    Parent

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#259)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:39:41 PM EST
    The racist white vote.

    Women voting based on gender.

    And not one black person voted for Obama cause he's black?


    Parent

    You've (none / 0) (#245)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:36:33 PM EST
    been ignoring Obama's campaign constantly calling everyone racists then.

    Parent
    while there is a problem (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    And now a comment actually on the topic of the post :-) While there is a problem, even if the obamablogs have head firmly stuck in sand, Clinton should be in the race and running hard. Because as long as that problem persists, it's clear that Obama has a serious electability issue. And what's worse, is he and his supporters don't appear to be working hard to solve that problem. Which makes me nervous yet again about the November prospects. Are they going to act this way with other problems that arise when running against McCain. Avoiding debates and keeping your head in the sand, very sadly, may work fine in the Democratic party primaries, but it won't work in the general. If they don't wake up now, then we might as well fold up the tent and give up the party.

    avoiding debates? (none / 0) (#256)
    by indesq on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:38:52 PM EST
    Come on.  These two have had more debates than most people do with their spouse.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#280)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:47:22 PM EST
    Not substantive.  You can't count the ones with 15 people on stage where no one gets to really say anything but soundbites.  She even offered him a debate with no moderators so no one could claim "bias", but he ducked that too.

    Parent
    you'd think Obama would denounce Brazile (none / 0) (#262)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:40:12 PM EST
    divisive and racist remarks last night.
    But that would indeed be out of character for him.

    Parent
    BTD (5.00 / 6) (#234)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:33:38 PM EST
    Obama opened a pandora's box that can't be closed. He decided that the way to win was to mainly rely on the black vote in the primary. If AA's had split their votes it would have helped him more.

    He failed to define himself and hence he is being defined by all the events surrounding himself. AA's voting over 90% for him mean that he is now the "black candidate." Wright's statements mean that he has "anti american beliefs." Obama doesn't tell the voters what he believes in so it's left for the voters to decide who he is by those events.

    Frankly, I don't see how he wins in Nov. He's run his entire primary run as if he was running for a senate seat on the south side of chicago.

    I think if Obama is the nominee, then we should start looking at 2012 to win a presidential race. We should hope that he doesn't pull down too many lower ticket races.

    Thanks For Your Integrity & Honesty BTD!! (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:34:33 PM EST


    One concrete thing he could do for unity (5.00 / 1) (#324)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:07:12 PM EST
    is to modify his health care proposal to accomodate Hillary and Edwards.  Unfortunately, he may have painted himself into a corner on that one and would leave himself open to pandering charges.  Are there any other policy positions where he has more flexibility?  Here is where the lack of differences in plans hurt the Democratic party.

    Obama cannot fix what he broke (5.00 / 1) (#350)
    by Prabhata on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:24:49 PM EST
    Wright is the other side of the same coin.  BO used race baiting to split the Democratic support for HRC.  It's obvious to me that BO kept the relationship with Wright for his own ends. It's clear that BO has used race for its gain and it will be race that will doom him.  Schadenfreude.  I will not forgive BO for tainting the Clintons with racism and splitting the Democrats with the race card.

    I knew JFK. JFK was a friend of mine... (5.00 / 1) (#358)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:06:03 PM EST
    ...and leftcoastliberal, Obama is no John F. Kennedy.

    People will hear McCain out...that's the damage (5.00 / 2) (#362)
    by lily15 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:23:42 PM EST
    I know I will.  I couldn't imagine this scenario earlier..and thought like many here that I would have no trouble supporting Obama.  But his evil campaign, especially the attempted destruction of the Clinton brand, the only brand that rescued the Democratic party from the abyss of Carter, Dukakis, Mondale, Kerry and unfortunately, with Brazille at the helm, Gore....is almost calculated.  I still contend there are moles in the party.  And I absolutely recommend Lambert's take at Correntewire.com  It is brilliant and incitefull...hostile takeover.

    Many people want to punish those who have done this to the Democratic party...because the disgust is so visceral.  It certainly has damaged African Americans in the long run if Obama loses in a landslide.

    But again, many of  the common sense and national defense Democrats will hear McCain out and let him make a case.  They would never have done that with Hillary.  And McCain was part of the gang of 14 against asshat Bill Frist.  All depends on who his VP is and how he runs his campaign.  Not saying I will vote for him.  But  creating an opening is a feat all by itself.  And if the October surprise is national security, and I believe it will be absolutely, Obama is finished.  The Republicans have one big card left...and George Bush can play it without ever thinking twice...so don't think he won't.  There will be an incident.  Already we have been told about Iranian boats shooting at naval destroyers.  They are building the case.  Only Hillary could have handled it.  The Democratic elite deserve to be destroyed if this comes to pass.  It was predictable.  And it is clearly the DNC that screwed Clinton, knowingly.  This will come home to bite them in the ass.  I was relieved when McCain was the nominee because I saw this coming.  If they foist Romney on McCain, I will really be worried.  

    We will see how smart the GOP is at crunch time.  But there is no doubt in my mind that the unprincipled Bush gang will not hesitate to use national security...their only play.

    The lefties have screwed us and many will not support them and cushion the blow when the fur starts flying.  We already know that many of the Democrats who went with Obama also supported retroactive immunity for the telecoms.(Rockefeller was the leader on this issue)  Lambert is right.  The Democratic Party may not be worth saving in this state.  I never thought I would say this.
    And I hope I am wrong.  We have been bought off..and the morons are happily singing off the cliff.

    Will this lefty blog support Obama (3.00 / 2) (#355)
    by maritza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:51:07 PM EST
    if he is the nominee or will it continue to bash Obama all the way until November.

    The SC analysis is off. (1.00 / 2) (#260)
    by 1jpb on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:39:45 PM EST
    The WJC comments were after the damage was done.  And, it should be noted that HRC supporters (e.g. Rendell) agree that he was wrong to make theses comments.

    And, it was always to HRC's advantage to make this race break down on racial lines, it's simple math.  BO has tried to avoid being the boutique candidate of black folks, this characterization only helps HRC, as I'm sure HRC, WJC and others in that campaign realize.  And, Wilentz was wrong.

    And, I don't care for all this hand ringing about how we should worry that racists won't vote for BO.  After looking at everything I see no reason to believe that voters driven to shun BO out of racism, even though they would supposedly support his candidacy if he were a white man, will tip this election against BO in November.  Usually I wouldn't comment about this because it makes no sense.

    But, in this situation I want to comment so that I can encourage all HRC supporters to urgently do what they can to support their candidate if they're worried about this issue.  You must contribute as much as possible to HRC's campaign, she really needs the money.  YOU should contribute now!!!!!!!!!

    Look (5.00 / 1) (#352)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:28:47 PM EST
    You're not going to convince anyone that the Clinton campaign forced Obama to argue, before the South Carolina primary of all things, that Hillary had disrespected MLK.

    You're not going to convince anyone that the Clintons forced Obama's campaign co-chair to go on national TV, before the South Carolina primary, and say that "Hillary didn't cry over Katrina."

    You're not going to convince anyone that the Clintons forced Obama's South Carolina press secretary to put together a four-page memo of racial allegations against the Clinton campaign.

    You can argue all you want that Hillary was the only one who had anything to gain from racializing the primary, but all these things still happened.  You cannot just wish them away.

    Parent

    It would have been to her advantage... (none / 0) (#277)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:46:45 PM EST
    ...to break down the election on gender lines. Dividing the party on racial lines would not benefit Clinton, because she wants to win an election, not just the primary. But Clinton did not "gender bait". Obama's campaign made some rather obvious sexist comments, and she ignored them. She also resisted the opportunity to respond to Obama's campaign's race-baiting.

    I'm not worried about racists not voting for Obama. I'm worried that he has not communicated an effective method to the people of America, and that the only people who will reliably vote for him will be those who vote for him because he is black and they want to send a message.

    Parent

    your analysis that indicates (none / 0) (#331)
    by 1jpb on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:12:01 PM EST
    BO is only successful because he's black explains why there have been so many black nominees for the D party.

    Make sure you donate to HRC, she needs your help.  And, all other HRC supporters must donate immediately; she needs you to donate, not just type in blogs.

    Parent

    In what way was Wilentz wrong? (none / 0) (#346)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:19:01 PM EST
    Only the SC comments mentioned in the Obama campaign talking points memo came after SC.  The others were in the runup to NH where race baiting made no sense.  It is a shame that the majority of AA voters fell for this political trick though it is understandable.

    And please cut out the concern trolling.


    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#9)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:47:33 PM EST
    he only loses the white vote in the states that have at least 10% black population. He cleans up in all white demographics in the Mountain West and PNW. His problem in these areas is the Latino vote.

    So, I'd modify your problem to be "he has problems picking up the white vote in racially polarized states, particularly poor whites".

    I'd speculate that this is because of the long tension between poor whites and blacks (formented by rich whites) for jobs, etc.

    Whatever the reason (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:48:28 PM EST
    those states are crucial in November. (PA, OH, etc).

    Parent
    all states are crucial (none / 0) (#115)
    by po on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:09:41 PM EST
    but in the end, whatever states the nominee wins that gets them to the magic electorial college number is fine by me.  Historically Democratic states can go crazy just as easily as historically Republican states can come to their senses.  However he gets there, he gets there.  And the idea that just because HRC won Indiana (or whatever other state you want) by whatever she won it by means that Obama can't win it to McCain is nonsense.  

    Parent
    No way (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:53:49 PM EST
    See.  The white folks in those states who voted for Clinton weren't thinking about an issue, weren't thinking about solutions.

    They were racially polarized.

    Now.  Can I say why 96% of the black population supports Obama yet?  I bet I know why.

    Parent

    For the exact same (none / 0) (#35)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:55:28 PM EST
    and symmetric reason. There's a long history of racial tension between the two groups and it's no surprise that it would show up in voting patterns. If you've spent some time analyzing politics in the deep south this point is exceedingly obvious.

    Parent
    Well as long as you're willing to be (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:00:12 PM EST
    Equally daft towards AAs too, I guess I have nothing more to say.


    Parent
    If you are counting caucus (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by bjorn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:00:17 PM EST
    states then I think your analysis is wrong.

    Parent
    WI, VT, OR, NM, AZ (none / 0) (#124)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:11:44 PM EST
    weren't caucus states. He won the whites there, and handily.

    Parent
    Wow you are simultaneously (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    Way in the past and in the future. Did I pass out and miss OR?

    Parent
    Oregon (none / 0) (#202)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:26:37 PM EST
    OR hasn't voted yet.  Why are you here again?

    Parent
    Not accurate (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by BigB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:02:17 PM EST
    Except Wisconsin, those states he "cleaned up" are caucus wins where only the extreme left shows up.

    Look at primaries. Other than Wisconsin where else did he win majority white vote?

    Parent

    AZ, NM, VT, CT, CA, OR (none / 0) (#129)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:12:48 PM EST
    to name a few.

    Parent
    Correction. He cleans up in the (none / 0) (#15)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:49:34 PM EST
    white democratic voters in these states. Most of these states are still solid republican.

    Parent
    Not (none / 0) (#21)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:51:56 PM EST
    CO, IA, WI, MN, NM, CA, OR, or WA. Those are all blue or potentially blue states where he will or has won the white vote. The only ones of those he lost he lost because of the latino vote (which is a separate issue, but not what BTD is talking about here).

    Parent
    Please (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:44 PM EST
    don't use caucuses to make a point. Caucuses tell you nothing.

    Parent
    Only half those (none / 0) (#134)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:13:27 PM EST
    were caucuses. He wins all the whites in primaries out West too. Look it up.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#213)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    unfortunately he can't win enough white votes to win those states in Nov. because he's going to need hispanics too who don't seem too enamored of him.

    Parent
    Then divide it in half (none / 0) (#154)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:18:04 PM EST
    WA, the state I understand, is only blue because of the greater Seattle area, with plenty of excessively wealthy pockets that are red. Eastern WA is solid red.

    If Obama really can't regain 50% of Hillary supporters, he doesn't have a "given" win in WA.

    Parent

    Latino vote (none / 0) (#25)
    by bigbay on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    is particularly important in Nevada and New Mexico

    I'm guessing Romney will be on ticket because he has shown the ability to do well in the west, and there are a whole lot of Mormans in Nevada. He also did well in Colorado.

    Parent

    No doubt (none / 0) (#39)
    by andrewwm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:56:59 PM EST
    He's got to address his weaknesses with the Latino community, clearly.

    But, if Clinton were winning, you could ask the reverse question out west and ask why can't she win white voters west of the Mississippi?

    Parent

    Again... (none / 0) (#125)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:11:48 PM EST
    I wouldn't project anything based on caucus results.

    Parent
    That must be very comforting to you (none / 0) (#145)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:15:57 PM EST
    to be able to dismiss all lower-income white Democrats as racists.  But it's garbage.


    Parent
    I agree with everything you said (none / 0) (#28)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:54:04 PM EST
    except one.
    its more than just Wright.

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:59:53 PM EST
    IMHO it was Wright, plus the backlash to the race card played against the Clintons.

    Parent
    bitter was important. (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:02:50 PM EST
    I think

    Parent
    bitter was important. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:02:43 PM EST
    I think

    Parent
    More than that... (none / 0) (#191)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:24:34 PM EST
    ... it's a sense that Obama simply doesn't know them and doesn't care about them.

    For way too long, Democrats have believed that we can win their votes by throwing pennies (or $100 dollar bills) at their feet, while displaying an obvious indifference or outright contempt for their values or way of life. We mock their religion, or their guns, or what we think is their provincial nature, and then wonder why they don't vote in their self-interest.

    Obama's comments in San Francisco were a highly unfortunate crystalization of this, but it's a sentiment that was widely shared before. In recent memory, only Bill Clinton has shown that he obviously knew and cared about the lives of these folks.

    Every time we use the phrase "creative class", or "flyover country", make fun of country music, talk about joining Canada, circulate spurious emails about the IQs of various states, etc. we add to the perception that we think we're better than they are. Surprisingly, they don't like that.

    Just a hint to the elite Dems: calling them racists for behaving that way isn't going to solve the problem.

    Parent

    He's going to deploy his secret weapons (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:57:04 PM EST
    The Clintons

    Seriouslyq (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:00:15 PM EST
    Do you think Bill will do anything for Obama?  I think the Clinton Foundation will suddenly require a lot of Bill's attention should Obama get the nomination.

    Parent
    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#132)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:13:13 PM EST
    owes Obama nothing. If there's a debt between these two it is more than an apology from Barack to Bill; he needs to publicly apologize and boast the greatness of the Clinton administration in economy, foreign affairs, etc. throughout the remainder of the campaign. Obama has gone out of his way to dismiss Bill Clinton's presidency while he brags the greatness of Reagan's.

    Hillary has plenty of work to keep her busy in the Senate, as well. I don't believe anyone expects her to campaign for him.

    Parent

    Wrong (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:21:58 PM EST
    You do not understand the first thing about the Clintons and how they think.  They will both campaign their butts off for him if he's the nominee, whether he courts them or not.  They are for the Democratic Party and for helping the people of this country, not their own wounded pride.  They are pros.

    If, as somebody pointed out here, Hillary could go to the Senate and work closely with all those jerks who tried to impeach her husband, and if Bill could become best buddies with George Sr., they are a different kind of person than you have any idea.


    Parent

    I think it's (none / 0) (#227)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:32:25 PM EST
    true of HRC.  I think after HRC is out, Bill no longer has a dog in the fight.  And I think he'll sit on the sidelines.  

    And don't tell me what I understand or don't understand.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton is not going to sit out (none / 0) (#241)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:35:35 PM EST
    a history-making election.  He will be out there - maybe not as much as he was for Hillary in the primaries, or would be in the general, but he will be out there.

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#247)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:37:02 PM EST
    I can see that point, though I'm not sure I agree.  Bill has lots more outlets for his ambition than the Nov. race.

    Parent
    I certainly do (none / 0) (#224)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:31:17 PM EST
    In an odd way, it is the best way to preserve his legacy that Obama tried to trash. Bill and Hillary will both see that.  

    Chelsea might find better ways to spend her summer however.

    Parent

    My friend (none / 0) (#265)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:41:20 PM EST
    at work thinks that Bill will not campaign for Obama, but Chelsea will follow her mom's lead and be out on the trail.

    It's just funny how people see the same people so differently.  I too think Chelsea will have better things to do.

    Parent

    I think I was just hoping (none / 0) (#330)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:11:12 PM EST
    Chelsea has some fun at some point.  She may do whatever Hillary does.

    Overall though I truly expect a big Clinton presence in the GE, even if Hillary is not on the ticket.


    Parent

    Ha. (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Although, listening to John McCain (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:14:29 PM EST
    speak on CNN this morning (probably tape of a campaign speech) I was quite surprised at how addled his speech is.  He repeated phrases to attempt to match up nouns and verbs, but it didn't help.  This should worry even hard and fast Republicans, not to mention folks who state they will never vote for Obama.

    Parent
    Obama isn't much better without the (none / 0) (#189)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:24:10 PM EST
    aid of a teleprompter and McCain is one of the quickest wits on the Hill - able to deliver piercing blows - even at his age - better than anything I've seen out of Obama in an extemporaneous format.

    Parent
    McCain (none / 0) (#210)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:28:13 PM EST
    will get great soundbites out of debates with Obama.

    Parent
    Romney was on the attack this morning. (none / 0) (#228)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:32:40 PM EST
    Going directly after Obama.  He was impressive in that role.

    But Obama is going to be buddies with the Republicans so I guess I shouldn't worry right?  McCain will probably like Obama so much that he'll concede before the election! yeah right.  that's the ticket.

    Parent

    Wright's rantings: (none / 0) (#46)
    by democrat1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:58:04 PM EST
    I can not believe Obama did not hear Wright's unpatriotic rantings for the last 20 years.  He knew them all along and he must have agreed partially with his views if not 100%.  He wanted to disown them only when they start to hurt his own aspirations to become POTUS.  There is no way I can vote for this racist scumbag. At the same time I can not vote for a republican because I am against republican ideology.  Probably I vote for Nader this time.

    Then you are voting Republican (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Dadler on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:02:04 PM EST
    That will be the effect of your vote.  It's your right, but know that's the reality.   And I say that respectfully, since I'm a partisan of neither candidate.

    Parent
    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:12:14 PM EST
    People here seem to think McCain is an acceptable alternative to the "evil" Obama.

    McCain is another Bush.  There's no reason to think otherwise.  Kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye immediately if he were to win.

    Parent

    Guess what, I'm post menapausal! (none / 0) (#150)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:17:21 PM EST
    Just kidding, but only barely.

    Parent
    Yeah, they don't seem to realize, (5.00 / 1) (#321)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:06:01 PM EST
    we are past they blackmail point. I say let the youngin's fight for Roe v Wade and other gender issues. Us 'old' folks are tired and, quite frankly, now unaffected by some of the issues. I get my equal pay by working for myself at industry standard rates  ;)

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#319)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    that's whatcha get for nominating someone we can't vote for.

    Parent
    Of course he knew of them. Maybe he even asked (none / 0) (#81)
    by jawbone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:03:38 PM EST
    Wright to take one for the team and get kind or ranty and extreme at those weekend appearances to Obama had another chance to "denounce and reject."

    Since the first go round hadn't really settled things with the electrorate.

    That may tin-hatty--but he knew.  I've read he took tapes of Wright's sermons to Harvard with him. C'mon!

    He asked him to not appear in person at this announcement to run--bcz he knew what had been said.

    Parent

    Unpatriotic???? (none / 0) (#317)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:05:06 PM EST
    Your implicit argument that criticizing America, cursing America, or ranting about the misdeeds of America, is a GOP/Fascist meme.
    If that is your vision of where we need to be, I am surprised that you ever considered voting for anyone other than a right winger.

    Rev Wright has more patriotism in his little finger than most Americans and that is a fact.  

    Parent

    Valid point, but.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dadler on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:59:22 PM EST
    ...that was/is also the demographic most likely not to vote for him because he's black, Rev. Wright or not.  Racism has always been stoked in the working classes most heavily, to divide and conquer.  In the south, poor whites (often no better off than poor blacks) were still fed the racial superiority line and ate it up, because, hell, they may be poor and white and have no future, but at least they're superior to those blacks.    

    Connecting or not, Wright or wrong, this is the area where racism was always going to rear its ugly head most in this election.  His trouble with this demo is certainly a troubling issue, a big one, and one that is going to be difficult for Obama to fight, but he'll have to if he gets the nom.  And voters themselves are going to have to work harder, be more self-critical, wade through more muck.  If they don't, if they simply choose to vote by impulse, that's their right, but it's also a terrible manner in which to engage in democracy, and inferior results will usually follow.  Now, it could be argued that it's safer to run Hillary, but then you realize that flies in the face of everything progressive politics is supposed to be about.  

    All that said, we still have no reason, none, to believe our votes are being accurately counted and recorded.

    Dime store sociology` (none / 0) (#201)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:26:34 PM EST
    "Racism has always been stoked in the working classes most heavily, to divide and conquer.  In the south, poor whites (often no better off than poor blacks) were still fed the racial superiority line and ate it up, because, hell, they may be poor and white and have no future, but at least they're superior to those blacks."

    Southern poor whites do not vote for Democrats, period.  They vote for Republicans.  They are not in play in this election, and have absolutely zero relevance to Obama's inability to get non-AA votes in the Democratic primaries.

    Parent

    elementary arithmetic (none / 0) (#55)
    by jackyt on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:59:47 PM EST
    The reason that African Americans are labelled a minority is because there are numerically less of them than there are of European Americans.

    The reason AAs account for such a disproportionate percentage of registered democrats in states like North and South Carolina is that the REAL white racists long since jumped ship and crossed over to the republicans.

    So what I'd like to know is: in each of the states where the AA primary vote is overwhelming, what is the ratio of AAs to EAs in the general electorate, and how does the number of AAs compare to the number of registered republicans?

    short version (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:01:45 PM EST
    those states are mostly in the south.
    and democrats are not going to win them.
    period.

    Parent
    point well made (none / 0) (#294)
    by jackyt on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:53:24 PM EST
    Thanks!

    Parent
    Obama's winning issue (none / 0) (#93)
    by jackyt on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:17 PM EST
    Heck, if he'd take on the issue of equal opportunity for AAs, women, Latinos/as, and other undervalued constituencies, it'd be a start.

    He'll take on Race, Religion and Region (none / 0) (#181)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:23:00 PM EST
    but I really doubt he'll add gender to that list in a believable tone since he hasn't so far. It's been a tad obvious.

    Parent
    I agree... (none / 0) (#101)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:18 PM EST
    ... but it's too late for that, isn't it?

    People and the press are naturally distrustful of anything that politicians propose for the first time during a campaign.

    The economy/health care thing worked for Clinton because she has a long history of that, dating back to Bill Clinton's administration. Edwards, too, has been working on poverty since 2004.

    I don't think most people can name a signature issue or set of issues for Obam. Even I can't, other than maybe changing the tone in Washington, which is amorphous and unclear at best. And it's too late to discover his life's mission now.

    At this point, what you have is what you get.

    The danger is.. (none / 0) (#170)
    by BigB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:20:59 PM EST
    The republicans are also busy trying to fill the blank slate. And they have achieved initial success.

    Parent
    McCain is not a blank slate. (none / 0) (#193)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:25:29 PM EST
    That's why he can do things like that. He is the most beloved media darling in America. Every story about him is positive. Nothing negative makes a cycle for more than a couple of days. They completely ignore his flip-flopping, or point to it as a sign of his Maverick-ness.

    Obama should have picked an issue when he was truly a blank slate. But now, he has shown too much of who he is to the voters.

    And frankly, the majority are spectacularly unimpressed.

    Parent

    Honestly... (5.00 / 1) (#252)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:37:38 PM EST
    ... while he's flip-flopped here and there of late, he did take stands against his party in the past.

    One instance that struck me was when I watched Shut Up and Sing, the movie about the Dixie Chicks. After they were booted off Clear Channel radio, McCain held a hearing about it and grilled the Clear Channel folks about it. He was very sympathetic to the Chicks.

    This was at a time when support for the war was high and there was no benefit for a Republican to side with the Chicks. But he did it.

    Don't worry. I don't have any illusions about him or his policies. But the reason he can tack right while still maintaining his image as a maverick is that he has a history.

    Parent

    Hmm (none / 0) (#103)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    I think it is important to talk about Obama's problem demographics and what he can do about it.

    I don't think it is especially helpful to rehash the history of who was or wasn't a race-baiter.  I agree completely that the history has been written in a disgracefully false way, but it's water under the bridge at this point.  Why reopen that can of worms?

    When did the can of worms get closed? (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:19:49 PM EST
    Candidates often "move on", but that doesn't necessarily mean that the voters move on with them.

    Parent
    In the context of responding (none / 0) (#162)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:19:44 PM EST
    to posts that posit that this discussion is a continuation of Clinton race baiting, I think it is important that the origination of that false smear be confronted.

    Parent
    Okay (none / 0) (#339)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    but I don't think that debate will EVER be resolved, unless someone has a Lee Atwater-like deathbed moment.  At best, all you can do is note your dissent from the accepted narrative for the record.

    In other words, my point is that if we can't discuss "the problem" without first coming to grips with the way race got brought into this primary, then we'll never get to have the discussion because the threshold issue is just too controversial.  Both sides think the other side is completely blind to what went on.

    Hopefully, there's a way to talk about this in a more forward-looking manner without resolving the question of how we got here.  Let's think about this: how much of Obama's problem with the white working class is attributable to the fact that this primary became racially polarized (passive voice intentional), and how much of it is attributable to the fact that he simply never persuaded the working class that he "feels their pain" in the way Hillary was able to do?

    I'm not sure either issue is solvable at this point, but it seems like a useful question.

    Parent

    But it does follow logically that anyone (none / 0) (#113)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    who was white and working class voted for Clinton automatically assumed to be a racist?

    You can't have it both ways.

    This has been my problem with the Obama camp pretty much from the begining.  They have two sets of rules.  They accuse people of being racists and then insist that discussing the potential realities of the racism they claim to be so prevalent is - what did Atrios call it? - " a wee bit problematic.  Yeah it is.  But Obama's camp takes no responsibility for their role in creating the problem.

    The problem with the Obama campaign as I see it is this:  The campaign for the White House is secondary to solving the problems with race relations in this country and defending a crazy preacher as some sort of "statement" about religious freedom.

    I was just looking for a Democratic President who was going to want to win this race first and make in roads on the global problems with practical and smart solutions after having won.  Instead, it looks like we have a candidate and a large group of true-believers who are willing to lose this race if their candidate is required to make even the slightest adjustments in his confrontational style.  Yes.  Confrontational.  Passive agressive as it may be - there is an unmistakeable in-your-face quality to this campaign as it takes shape.

    They're over there at the big orange debating the question of whether or not they could see fit to be nice to Clinton and her supporters.  Shaking head.  Its kind of pathetic really.  But I guess if you buy into the notion that you can be a Democrat and get along well with Orrin Hatch and that crowd, you're going to buy into the notion that you can insult, attack and attempt to completely demoralize a whole group of voters and still expect them to be loving you when you need them.

    I think we are in real trouble for the general election.  Maybe that will change, but unfortunately that would require that Obama change and that is apparently verboten.  It is a classic catch-22 and classic Dems eating their own with zero understanding of the long-term consequences.

    Actually I think that we're done for the GE. (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by cosbo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    Obama has a problem without ANY of the GOP attack ads to come. Imagine after they start hitting.  

    Parent
    Aw, the unspeakable (none / 0) (#114)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:09:13 PM EST
    I believe after NH, the Obama team panicked and went with the race card. It is ashame because up to that point, he was just another candidate who happened to be black. I use to point out that he is both but then South Carolina came and he was the AA candidate. The AA's hero. I can understand it but  I truly wish it had not gone that way. Then Wright came along and fear that this might be the agenda of a Obama administration caused doubt about him. Especially with the division of solid Democratic voters from the AA and 'Creative Class' voters. Noted today that McCain is quietly courting those blue collar and middle class voters. He might not get me, but I know a lot of people he will get. Maybe there finally is room for another party in the future as the new Democrats apparently do not want or need us. Well, except in November.  

    BTD, the countering argument is (none / 0) (#130)
    by jcsf on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:12:53 PM EST
    That people are expressing their PREFERENCE, especially in South and South-like states, and a preference for white lower class is to vote for the white person, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL.

    I get your point - I do - and it is a worry to me as well.  

    But let's get a scope of the limits of this issue, if possible.

    1. The demographic issue, is an issue, but is lessened, if the policy issues vary widely. Basically, if policy differences are very large, demographics is NOT destiny!

    For example, African Americans most certainly did not vote for Lynn Swann, in Pennsylvania, the way that they voted for Barack Obama in Pennsylvania.  Conversely, Lynn Swann did very well in Republican dominated areas - the middle of Pennslyvania, white working class - where one would think Rendell would have killed Swann, had it been demographics alone.

    So - what about Pennsylvania?  A black and a white candidate, in two different elections, gets you VASTLY different results.  This PROVES that demographics is not destiny.

    Correlation is not causation.  

    latino voters (none / 0) (#149)
    by sarany on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:16:43 PM EST
    am I misremembering that both the Dems and Repubs have been intensively courting the Latino vote?

    It seems to me this is a huge Obama vulnerability as well.

    (Didn't read the thread yet. Apologies if this is already being discussed.)

    Yes, you are right. As a Hispanic I (none / 0) (#348)
    by FLVoter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:21:23 PM EST
    can definitely say he has a very big problem. Based on my hispanic family and extended family, Sen. McCain will not have this problem.

    Parent
    Atrios = no dummy, at least in economics (none / 0) (#168)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:20:20 PM EST
    He's got a graduate degree in Economics, as well as the respect of a lot of Economics bloggers who are Econ professors.

    And you just dismiss him because he doesn't share your choices?

    Blanket condemnations are rampant here.

    You guys need to get a grip (none / 0) (#172)
    by indesq on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    I've been involved in politics for a very long time.  I have worked in campaigns at the grass roots level in union halls, and at high end fund raisers for DLC folks like Bayh.

    The election we went through in indiana was unlike anything i have ever seen.  For every obama mailer i received, i got two clinton mailers with obvious falsehoods about her record.   There were bomb threats at the obama field offices in three of the democratic cities in Indiana (somehow that has not been reported) and over 600,000 voters were purged from the rolls in Lake County indiana.

    The tradition in politics is that the loser embrace the winner for the good of the the party as a whole.   If they do not, they ruin the party's chances in the fall.  I'm a little perturbed at the visceral anger i see on the blogs.     Obama is winning and will win, the race is over and she blew it on super tuesday.  

    If you honestly believe that Mccain  will be supporting better judges and legislation in the criminal justice arena than Obama will, then you are simply not paying attention.   Who's husband executed a mentally retarded man during his election in order to keep his electibility?   Which candidate has said the drug war has been a failure?  Which candidate actually drafted legislation and got the opposing party to agree that all confessions to police be recorded?

    For a blog that is supposed to be about liberal criminal law issues, it sure hasn't had any discussion of those issues in this election cycle.

    And, if anyone thinks that the most honorable reverend wright cares about anyone other than his own ego, you have to be nuts.

    How does this respond (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:23:26 PM EST
    to the substance of the post? It does not.

    Parent
    This must be (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:29:19 PM EST
    an Obama supporter,
    trying to heal the wounds. ;)

    Parent
    Brand new poster (5.00 / 1) (#287)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:50:10 PM EST
    They are out in force today.

    Parent
    what are the false claims about Clinton's record? (none / 0) (#187)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:24:03 PM EST
    Could you link to the DNC announcement that Obama has won the primary?

    Parent
    I'm against the death penalty (none / 0) (#233)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:33:25 PM EST
    but Hillary is not Bill, for crying out loud.

    And as for "Who's husband executed a mentally retarded man during his election in order to keep his electibility"-- are you aware that the man was not mentally retarded when he committed his crimes but only became so after he was imprisoned as a result of a brain injury?  I didn't think so.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#349)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:22:33 PM EST
    Unity talk!

    Parent
    The (none / 0) (#174)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:21:46 PM EST
    only solution I see is a unity ticket.

    leadership and judgement (none / 0) (#177)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:22:00 PM EST
    is what it will take for Obama to reasonably and fairly seat MI and FL and to properly work to win over the "old coalition". I for one can be won over. I'm very angry at the pro Obama bloggers and some surrogates, and definitely the MSM, but I'm leaving the door ajar for Barack. But it's up to him to show leadership and quality of character by bringing the FL and MI votes home to the party. He must also set the tone and have his followers follow that tone to win over the Clinton supporters. I think it can be done. Given what I've seen of Obama and his campaign, I don't think he personally has it in him to do it. But I'm open to it.

    Watching Clinton and seeing how she keeps the door open and always says she'll do what she can to have a dem win in November is a good example for Obama to follow. But he must do a lot more.

    One more thing. For Obama to get my vote, he has to come out and unequivocally say when he thinks life begins or better when the potential for life begins. If I don't know he's pro choice, then I see no reason to pick him over McCain. Or at least, to bother to vote for either.

    Obama won't get my vote (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:25:20 PM EST
    I can tell you this.  If they will allow me to write Hillary's name into the ballot, I will.  Or even better John Edwards.

    I'm tired of the Democratic Party handing us flashes-in-the-pan and passing them off as viable candidates.  The McCain camps WANTS Obama as the opponent.  It is what they have been planning for.  Obama will be easy to dispose of once the Republican Machine goes into full gear.  Hillary is stronger and smarter than Obama and the Republicans know it.

    The name Obama will be "mud" by November.  I already see the train wreck that is coming up.  And it ain't pretty.

    Parent

    So how has he managed to defeat Clinton? (none / 0) (#186)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:23:43 PM EST
    He's obviously managed to cobble together many more constituencies than she has, which means if he's weak among some groups, she too is weak, if not weaker among other groups.

    The only way for Hillary to prove that she is more electable than Obama is to actually defeat him. She cannot credibly argue electability when he has defeated her in virtually every category, including campaign management and management of finances.

    You cannot argue that white working class would abandon Obama in November without also arguing that AA's, young people, educated whites, western whites, etc, would abandon Hillary in November.

    How did he win? (none / 0) (#199)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:26:23 PM EST
    By working around the crucial swing and democratic states and picking up big delegate leads in the red zone. Utah, yeah, that's gonna go D. Georgia too!

    Parent
    AA would not have abandoned Hillary in Nov (none / 0) (#209)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:28:10 PM EST
    That is a falsehood made up by the Obama camp (Axelrod et al) to scare Democrats into supporting Obama.

    Like Reagan took away white voters from the Dems, you will see this exodus again in November... it's already happening, even in states like Massachusetts.

    Parent

    This is not apartheid South Africa (none / 0) (#253)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:38:02 PM EST
    what is your point? That a black candidate shouldn't run because some whites won't vote for him? So what? And may I remind you that Obama has millions of dedicated, often rabid white supporters. I don't exactly think that daily kos is overwhelmingly AA in its membership. Sure it's only a blog, but it's a big one and just a microcosm of Obama's support.

    Parent
    Nobody (5.00 / 1) (#310)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:01:49 PM EST
    ever said he didn't have white supporters. He just doesn't have enough. Getting 1/3 of the white vote in a general election is a ticket back to the senate for Obama in Nov. if he's the nominee.

    Parent
    He got a much better start (none / 0) (#244)
    by DJ on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:36:27 PM EST
    in the early caucus states and developed a large delegate lead.  This was due in large part to his successful organization and Clinton's poor organization.  Then add in the SC race baiting and his lead became overwhelming.  Much the way he won his previous elections.  Not because of good policy, just knowing how to work the system to get elected.

    Parent
    I mentioned campaign management didn't I? (none / 0) (#272)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:42:47 PM EST
    Also had foresight and planning. Some supers have cited these attributes as what they want to see in a president.

    But in actuality, Clinton was the one with a massive head start of about 16 years. Everything was set up for her. She even started out with over 100 SD's in her corner. She had the fundraising apparatus, the name recognition. I can go on and on. Obama defeating her is actually staggering considering all her advantages and the head start she had.


    Parent

    By getting 90%+ of the black vote (none / 0) (#267)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:41:59 PM EST
    Black people are a significant portion of Democratic voter's, especially in red states where many whites have abandoned the Democratic Party. Because many of these states use caucuses and all of them allocate delegates proportionally and because of Florida and Michigan being excluded, Obama was able to get more delegates without actually getting a significant majority of Democratic votes. If states held their primary elections according to general election rules, Obama would not be winning. He lost most of the big states.

    Parent
    That is a massive logical leap (none / 0) (#345)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:18:14 PM EST
    that does not hold water.

    The Clinton Dems vote for Clinton or McCain, not Obama. Or did you miss that 52% of her supporters would not vote for Mr. Hope? Who do you think those were - the die-hard Democrats?

    AA's will vote Democratic in November. They do so reliably, election after election.

    However, the Clinton Dems are mostly Independents or right-leaning Dems.

    Guess which group is bigger?

    Parent

    Then why worry, Seth? (none / 0) (#203)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:26:48 PM EST
    As Brazille says, whatever Obama's got,
    he don't need us.

    She used the word, 'just' (none / 0) (#215)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:29:08 PM EST
    Go read Brazile's quote and look at the word "just."

    I'm not even a Brazile fan, but she's getting hammered here for specious reasons.

    Parent

    I know what (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:31:12 PM EST
    she said, exactly.
    And it was damaging to all Democrats, IMHO.

    Parent
    I have seen and read her entire tirade.... (none / 0) (#237)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:34:24 PM EST
    ...taking in or leaving out the word "just" is hardly the point.

    Parent
    in comments on the Atrios piece (none / 0) (#246)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:37:00 PM EST
    >>>You'll see that Obama doesn't have to win over any significantly large numbers of Clinton supporters in order to exceed Gore and Kerry's results. The increased turnout plus just mediocre Clinton conversions equals a Obama blowout of McCain.

    That must be why (5.00 / 1) (#291)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:51:46 PM EST
    as a Clinton supporter
    I'm not feeling the love! /snark   ;)

    Parent
    that's what they're saying? (5.00 / 1) (#295)
    by kangeroo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:54:04 PM EST
    i think they're delusional.  i think any new voters who were ever going to get all excited about obama have mostly showed up in the primaries--when the media coverage has been dramatic and he's had his huge wave of support.  i think the rest of the GE electorate are going show up in november in the same proportions as they normally do--thereby cancelling out his gains.  they are really going by wishful thinking here.

    Parent
    I think you're on to something (5.00 / 1) (#306)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:59:29 PM EST
    When Obama has to start talking details of plans, it's not really going to fit in with the rock star /revival theme his campaign has waged to date.

    And look at the outrage of the young Obama supporters when the MSM barely criticized him over Wright?  Do they think his every word won't be challenged come Sept 1?

    Parent

    Right. On the blogs, they'd (5.00 / 1) (#299)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:58:03 PM EST
    almost prefer not to get votes from the grubby Hillary supporters. Good luck with that.

    Parent
    Over and over again (5.00 / 1) (#311)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    they say they don't need us.

    I'm beginning to take them at their word.

    Parent

    That's (none / 0) (#300)
    by sas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:58:22 PM EST
    the way it goes, buddy.

    you know why they're ignoring the (none / 0) (#305)
    by kangeroo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:59:22 PM EST
    "problem"?  it's because they don't think it's a problem.  i think lambert has this right:

    The Obama campaign as hostile takeover
    Submitted by lambert on Wed, 2008-05-07 09:37.
    Department of the Unattended Bag

    Think of it all as a hostile takeover, not yet accomplished but well on the way. Steps as follows:

    1. OFB are noisy shareholders generating buzz

    2. Investment bankers (the funders) supply the capital (teebee!)

    3. Loss-making divisions -- working people, the poor, the old, anyone who needs government to work -- are downsized or cut loose; Donna Brazile was sending a message to the backers; it's just business.

    4. Assets -- remaining reputation of Dem Party -- are stripped to repay the investment bankers (coal, nuclear)

    5. The shell of the Party is sold to a bigger fool

    6. All the players get good jobs in the Village and sleep the sleep of the righteous!

    If the metaphor is right, there is a real difference between Hillary and Obama -- Step #3.

    UPDATE Bottom line is that the Old Coalition thinks of political parties as a vehicle to achieve certain policy ends; maybe with the necessary degree of corrupt lubrication, but still. The investment bankers (and by extension the leaders of the New Coalition) think of political parties in exactly the same way that they think about everything else: As financial assets. Period. The financier's world view could be not unrelated to the curious vacuity of Obama's rhetoric, which has all the conceptual depth of a brochure for a "complex," "innovative" financial instrument. And we know how well that worked out. For us, anyhow.

    Right. Kiss Social Security goodbye. (none / 0) (#318)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:05:20 PM EST
    Of course, Obama will say he is "saving" it when he kills it.

    Parent
    Ever notice how Obama talks about... (none / 0) (#340)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:15:51 PM EST
    ... "retirement security" but not Social Security?

    Why would that be, I wonder?

    Parent

    If we discuss "the problem".... (none / 0) (#314)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:03:19 PM EST
    ....can we also discuss to what extent Obama is not responsible for the inability to "connect" with a subsection of those non-college-educated white working class voters?

    Why would you want to do that? (none / 0) (#322)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:06:02 PM EST
    Is Obama the "It's not my fault they didn't vote for me" candidate?

    Parent
    It's one thing... (none / 0) (#338)
    by mike in dc on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:14:25 PM EST
    ...to better attune one's message and approach to working class whites, in order to better connect with them and win more support.  It's another to attribute all of the reason for all of the  lack of support coming from that demographic to Obama's failure to "connect".

    Some of those folks(far from a majority, but also far from an insignificant number), bluntly put, wouldn't vote for any African-American candidate. That comes out in exit polling, it comes out in man in the street interviewing, and it comes out in individual anecdotes from canvassers. That's the elephant in the room that everybody wants to hint at but nobody is willing to discuss candidly.

    It's fine to assert this is "overstated", but it's not okay to pretend it doesn't exist.

    Parent

    Right right (5.00 / 1) (#344)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:18:11 PM EST
    So the answer then is they're racist, even if it was a problem there'd never be a way to solve it.

    I bet you there's more to it than that, but if you think that's the best that can be done there, fair play.

    Parent

    Despite the problems (none / 0) (#323)
    by chopper on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:06:56 PM EST
    Hillary is doing pretty damn good considering Obama & the DNC are trying to steal her FL & MI votes and delegates, Obama sent his thugs into the TX caucuses to steal the primary votes and delegates Hillary won, IN had booths set up at polling places to help you vote for Obama (isn't that illegal?), and Obama is constantly lying about Hillary and her plans and programs, besides all his own lies - he didn't hear the anti-American preacher, then he did, he keeps running lying ads saying he "doesn't" take lobbyist money, Rezko gave him a small sum of money, then Rezko gave him $250,000, he barely knows Ayers, the terrorist bomber, but he worked for him for several years and Ayers helped him start his campaign, their wives worked together, and the Iraqi billionaire who gave him millions for his campaign, etc.

    It sounds like Obama's campaign is financed by indicted crooks, terrorists, and Iraqis, with Chicago thugs running the caucuses.

    good one Chopper, except (none / 0) (#342)
    by onemanrules on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:17:48 PM EST
    it doesn't hold water. Even counting Michigan and Florida as voted (which isn't going to happen) Obama would still be ahead in popular vote and still ahead by around 100 pledged delegates. To make this argument anymore is mute. Find a new talking point. They are going to seat the delegates at the end of the month anyways according to reports.

    Parent
    voters gaming "correctness" (none / 0) (#327)
    by pluege on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:09:27 PM EST
    look, this is a PRIMARY. Few take it seriously. Only the political junkies go bananas over it and the MSM turns it into a big national infotainment game.

    When it comes to primaries its exactly the same as surveys, people will say or do anything they think is the "right" answer when there is no price to pay. Many racists will gladly vote for a non-white in a primary, if for no other reason than to feel better about themselves. But when it comes to the actual vote for president, racists will not vote for Obama.

    Its just like LIEberman voting for cloture on Alito and voting against Alito's confirmation. He gets a big attaboy from NARAL while putting an anti-choice judge on SCOTUS. Its called gaming the system.

    The only real question for democrats since it got down to Obama-Clinton is whether or not there are more racists or misogynists voters in America. For a while (Dec-March) it surprisingly looked like more misogynists, but not so much anymore. Its clearly looking as if there are sufficient racist in American that if Obama is the dem nominee he will not win in November.

    Who are these "left" blogs ... (none / 0) (#333)
    by lambert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:12:26 PM EST
    of which you speak?

    Just asking....

    The real reason Obama (none / 0) (#335)
    by onemanrules on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:13:21 PM EST
    didn't get a large share of white blue collar workers is that he was/is running against Hillary Clinton. Believe it or not she is a powerful canidate. WBCW's, of which I am one, remember Bill's presidency as good times and that transferred to HRC. I don't in any way believe Obama won't get more than enough of us in the fall as we all think about how gas was $4.00+ gallon going to vote and another 500 troops were killed since today, and how groceries are bordering on unaffordable. I guess if us WBCW's like all that then we will vote for McSame. I look for Obama to get a VP to help with this also.

    For what it's worth, Rasmussen has a new (none / 0) (#336)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:13:51 PM EST
    poll showing Obama losing Wisonsin to McCain. Clinton loses to him as well, but her position has improved since the last poll and Obama's has eroded.

    Thanks to BTD (none / 0) (#351)
    by pluege on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:25:09 PM EST
    refering to Atrios' unusual detour into nonsense, BTD writes:

    Why is it problematic? Why does it not follow logically? Atrios does not explain.

    exactly. I didn't have the energy to comment directly to Atrios.

    Atrios (none / 0) (#353)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:34:57 PM EST
    imagines himself some kind of genius.  The reality is that he's just as big a doofus as any other A-list blogger.

    Why Obama will lose to McCain (none / 0) (#354)
    by chopper on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:44:23 PM EST
    Obama's voters mostly consist of Blacks (a sure thing), youngsters (whose minds aren't fully developed until mid-twenties), and the elite (the wealthy who don't need Clinton's Greatest Economic Expansion in History, and don't care if anyone else ever gets ahead).

    The Black vote is a constant; but the kids don't vote as much as seniors, and may be losing interest; and there's not that many elite who don't really care about the economy anyway.

    So, in November Obama may lose some of his narrow base along with some of Hillary's voters because they will go to McCain, the hero, rather than Obama, the totally inexperienced Black guy who lied and cheated his way to the nomination.

    The DNC has been bought (none / 0) (#356)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:53:22 PM EST
    Check out Mark Halperin's Time blog: "Obama-DNC Fundraising Deal", if you haven't already seen it.

    What this means is that the DNC has ALREADY BEEN TAKING money from Obama's campaign to fill its coffers for weeks now.  The superdelegates are not free to choose the best candidate. They want his Rolodex and they want his fundraiser.  The DNC needs to pay the electric bill for the convention.

    The election has been bought.

    This is the man who is going to bring us "unity" and "change."  But he cannot give us one example of anything he has led, any change he has successfully initiated.  He's a first-term senator with no qualifications to speak of.  

    He doesn't appear to like campaigning.  He doesn't appear, really, to like working very much.  He's photogenic, and a pretty good motivational speaker, with a teleprompter and a script.

    He'll be the candidate all right.  Tell me how he's going to win.

    The "grand gesture" (none / 0) (#359)
    by Coral on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:08:59 PM EST
    Speaking as an alienated, lifelong Democrat who has often, if not always, voted for a Democrat I considered less than my first choice, I would like to see Obama reach out to Clinton supporters and to working and middle-class whites, Latinos, and Asians.

    As unhappy as I am about the fact that Obama is sure to be the Democratic nominee, I am open to a bit of pandering and sweet talk. Especially on economic issues and on what it will take to pull the party together. I'd like to see him make some kind of a "grand gesture" of reconciliation and friendship to Clinton. That would go a long way with me.

    Agreed, Crow (none / 0) (#361)
    by just victory on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:17:38 PM EST
    It'll be Grandpa Simpson vs. JFK. This is so delusional.

    Upstart Crow: Yes. This is not going to be the usual coming together. It went way too far and I will be sitting it out as well. Time for boundary setting.  

    If Kerry considered McCain, could McCain go Hill? (none / 0) (#363)
    by lily15 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:29:14 PM EST
    It would be a winning ticket...a real unity ticket.
    4 years of McCain followed by Hillary?  I could go for that.  Wish they would talk and put arrows in the hearts of the villagers and the Obamabots.  If Kerry could ocnsider it, why couldn't Hillary and McCain?  Unity. Isn't that what everyone wants?  Real post partisanship?  McCain could pull it off with Hillary.

    If Kerry considered McCain, could McCain go Hill? (none / 0) (#364)
    by lily15 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:30:18 PM EST
    It would be a winning ticket...a real unity ticket.
    4 years of McCain followed by Hillary?  I could go for that.  Wish they would talk and put arrows in the hearts of the villagers and the Obamabots.  If Kerry could ocnsider it, why couldn't Hillary and McCain?  Unity. Isn't that what everyone wants?  Real post partisanship?  McCain could pull it off with Hillary.

    October surprise (none / 0) (#365)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:31:05 PM EST
    The October Surprise will be Jeremiah Wright's memoir, which is due out this fall.

    I suspect Wright will remember very well what opinions of his Obama agreed with.

    Comments are closed (none / 0) (#366)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:32:46 PM EST
    please stop posting here.

    And why wasn't Heath Shuler endorsement aired? (none / 0) (#367)
    by lily15 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:35:24 PM EST
    That's why this is a set up.  No mention of Heath Shuler endorsing Hillary.  Cheats deserve what they get.  Not seating Florida should never be tolerated.

    This "concern" is manufactured (none / 0) (#368)
    by joharmon86 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:21:42 PM EST
    THE REALITY IS THAT HILLARY CLINTON, FOR OBVIOUS REASONS, APPEALS MORE TO WORKING CLASS, LESS EDUCATED WHITE VOTERS THAN OBAMA DOES TO THAT CONSTITUENCY GROUP. That doesn't mean he "can't" get their votes. It means that Hillary has more support among that demographic among democratic primary voters (though there are some Republicans, Independents, the Limbaugh effect, etc.) than Obama. There is no evidence that he can't get their votes; there is only evidence that Clinton does better. This is really a fallacy.

    Ignoring "The Problem" | 355 comments (355 topical)