Entrance Polls Show Sharp Divisions In Dem Party
If you look at the entrance polls of the Nevada Dem caucuses today, it's striking how starkly the vote is breaking down along racial, ethnic and generational lines.
Among Latinos, Hillary is beating Obama, 64%-24%.
But among blacks, Obama dramatically increased his lead over Hillary from earlier in the contest, beating her 79%-16%
Meanwhile, Hillary beat back what appeared to be a stiff challenge from Obama for the female vote, beating him 52%-35%
And the vote broke down sharply along generational lines, too. Hillary beat Obama handily among both the 45-59 and the 60 and older set, while Obama won by sizable margins among voters aged 18-44.
Comments (94)
crazymonk wrote on January 19, 2008 4:38 PM:Just got back from caucusing in Reno, Nevada.
If you don't think the slimy emails going around has an effect, you're wrong. At the caucus, an elderly woman with a Clinton sticker yelled at me: "I won't vote for a Muslim!" I spoke with another person who asked me about his Muslim background -- I told her it was a falsehood but I later saw her in the Clinton corner. Very depressing.
This will pose big problems down the line for the eventual nominee. They will need to close that divide before the general election race heats up. If not, we'll be in trouble.
Keith wrote on January 19, 2008 4:43 PM:Greg:
You seem surprised. Cynically speaking, the Clintons did what they had to do to win this race by playing on identity politics. They made it about women in New Hampshire. They made it about race and unions in Nevada. Coupled with her undoubted backing of the Nevada Democratic Machine (let's not forget the debate in November in Vegas (where they boo'ed Edwards and Obama everytime they spoke).
This victory was expected. I'm just glad to see Obama stayed close. Edwards, frankly, needs to close up shop. But after South Carolina. Otherwise, given the racial politics at stake, Clinton will win South Carolina as well.
Fish Bone wrote on January 19, 2008 4:46 PM:Tom, I think those kind of sharp divides are natural in a primary where you have your first viable woman and African American candidates.
I personally believe the party will unify a bit once a candidate is decided. I just hope both campaigns can keep the attacks to a minimum going into super Tuesday.
It's a disappointing showing for Edwards and it's hard to see where he goes from here.
Shii wrote on January 19, 2008 4:46 PM:If you don't think the slimy emails going around has an effect, you're wrong. At the caucus, an elderly woman with a Clinton sticker yelled at me: "I won't vote for a Muslim!" I spoke with another person who asked me about his Muslim background -- I told her it was a falsehood but I later saw her in the Clinton corner. Very depressing.Ugh. Who is distributing these e-mails anyway? markg8 wrote on January 19, 2008 4:56 PM:
"Who is distributing these e-mails anyway?"
I'd say anybody who wants to see Hillary as our nominee. That'd be about 1/3 of the Dem party and every Republican in the country.
markg8 wrote on January 19, 2008 4:58 PM:Thumbs down btw for the everybody responsible for turnout on our side in NV if these number hold up. Add all of ours together and we haven't got 2/3 of what Romney pulled in alone.
Bill R. wrote on January 19, 2008 5:03 PM:The primary season marches on. Nevada doesn't represent the U.S. If Hillary (God forbid!) does manage to get the nomination she will need to persuade Obama to be on the ticket or she's toast, and so is the Dem party. Here in my state(Oregon, a Blue state) she runs behind McCain. Obama runs at least even or better than McCain. By now a good part of the AA citizenry are justifiably incensed at the Clinton machine and would just as soon sit it out unless Obama is on the ticket.
SLKRR wrote on January 19, 2008 5:09 PM:@markg8:
Those numbers in the table are not voters, they are state delegates. The number of voters is reported to be over 100,000 on the Dem side.
dan wrote on January 19, 2008 5:11 PM:Only 27% of voters were under 44, which accounts for Obama's loss.
Matthew wrote on January 19, 2008 5:15 PM:Greg,
What about the culinary union vote? Apparently rigging the caucus didn't help Obama. If, as they say, this would give him a 5% bump, then he loses by over 10%.
demwinger wrote on January 19, 2008 5:25 PM:I'm sick and tired of the Hillary attacks.
it seems that many men on here have a problem with a woman. there is something to this.. i believe its a level of insecurity.
unfortunately for you women dominate the democratic primaries and if this gap continues Hillary will keep winning primaries. so get over it and unite already.
Tom wrote on January 19, 2008 5:29 PM:Here's an interesting stat I found.
Obama actually won among Non-white women 51-43%.
But he lost badly among white women 55-31%.
hoppy wrote on January 19, 2008 5:29 PM:Greg,
It is time to start running a running tabulation of delegates won, for both parties. In the end, that is the important number. I'm not sure how you include the super delegates, but, if possible they should be in the totals.
Yeah, the deepest division is those who approve of campaign race-baiting vs those who disapprove of campaign race-baiting. LOL.
Indy wrote on January 19, 2008 5:38 PM:As usual, the Baby Boomers screw things up for the country again.
hadenough wrote on January 19, 2008 5:38 PM:The question nobody [certianly not tpm] is going to ask is why did the union management go with obama? The rank and file wanted nothing to do with him. So what was that about?
Dan wrote on January 19, 2008 5:40 PM:The party will not unify behind Hillary Clinton. She is a divisive, polarizing figure that turns off a large portion of the electorate. Both she and her husband have publicly lied to the American people which should automatically disqualify them from getting anyone's vote, but we have a lot of voters who seem to want to perpetuate a political dynasty and business as usual.
Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 5:43 PM:"As usual, the Baby Boomers screw things up for the country again."
Tough to fight demographics. I like Obama, but I can't see him peeling large numbers of elderly from Clinton, who is, after all, one of their own.
Fish Bone wrote on January 19, 2008 5:44 PM:Dan, please don't project your own feelings onto the entire Democratic party. As an Edwards supporter, I will absolutely rally behind Clinton if she wins.
These Obama supporters who say they will stay home if Hillary wins need to pull their heads out of their arses. Sounds like Nader saying there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican nominees.
Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 5:48 PM:When history is finally written on these elections, which side will you say you were on?
WWW.IVOTEDHISTORY.COM
"Sounds like Nader saying there is no difference between the Democratic and Republican nominees."
Well considering the tactics the Clinton campaign has been lifting from Rove's playbook...
JO wrote on January 19, 2008 5:54 PM:My impression is that only Democrats can participate in Nevada caucuses, and there is no on-site registration, or re-registration, for Independents. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but if that is the case, it's no great surprise that among registered Democrats Clinton wins, whereas if independents are allowed to vote, Obama wins. This may be a path to the Democratic nomination...but no one can win the election without strong Independent support--an area whwere HRC is lacking, so far.
Note 2: I wonder how much of the phony Muslim nonsense is disguised racism by another name.
Finally, did anything HRC said or did in Nevada (or Iowa, or NH, for that matter) change anyone's mind about her? The moving average of polls shows Obama steadily moving up, Clinton declining, Edwards about steady at a low number.
lombard wrote on January 19, 2008 5:55 PM:demwinger wrote on January 19, 2008 5:25 PM:
"I'm sick and tired of the Hillary attacks. it seems that many men on here have a problem with a woman. there is something to this.. i believe its a level of insecurity."
Well, don't count this man among them. I think she is very good candidate and will make an effective president if elected.
Maybe there is a tad of mysogeny in the anti-Hillary reactions here but I think that factor explains very little. Obama is a movement type candidate and many (not all) of his supporters have been seized by a romantically idealized faith in his candidacy. So, when Hillary beats him she is not just beating their preferred candidate. She is beating their prophet and they begin to start screaming for Jihad!
Tom --
How could this be true?
"Obama actually won among Non-white women 51-43%."
From the top of the page---
Among Latinos, Hillary is beating Obama, 64%-24%.
Among Blacks, Hillary is losing to Obama, 79%-16%.
I know Latinos are a much larger part of the population than African Americans in Nevada. What's the other non-white color that Senator Clinton is losing? Green?
lombard wrote on January 19, 2008 5:59 PM:Fish Bone wrote on January 19, 2008 4:46 PM:
"Tom, I think those kind of sharp divides are natural in a primary where you have your first viable woman and African American candidates.
I personally believe the party will unify a bit once a candidate is decided. I just hope both campaigns can keep the attacks to a minimum going into super Tuesday.
It's a disappointing showing for Edwards and it's hard to see where he goes from here."
Not a single word to disagree with in that very fair minded post. Thanks!
I believe I speak for a great many who think that Hillary and Obama are the two best candidates that the Democratas have mounted in a long time. It'd be a shame if the inevitable bruises sustained in extended primaries caused the Democrats to lose sight of the goal: beating the party that the US electorate usually favors: the Rebublicans. Even with these two great, epoch-making candidates, I wouldn't bet the ranch against the Republicans.
fletch wrote on January 19, 2008 6:01 PM:matthew-
What about the culinary union vote? Apparently rigging the caucus didn't help Obama. If, as they say, this would give him a 5% bump, then he loses by over 10%.
How many of those "union members" were eligible to vote?
Fish Bone wrote on January 19, 2008 6:04 PM:"Well considering the tactics the Clinton campaign has been lifting from Rove's playbook..."
In my opinion the attacks coming out of the Obama and Clinton camps have been equally slimy. I don't like it on either side but you need to separate campaign tactics from policy.
Since you are invoking Rove, do you really think that Clinton is going to emulate Bush?
Again I will support any of the Democratic candidates but it seems to me that Obama is running on a platform of capitulation. I really don't need any more of the Bush-style bipartisanship, aka do what they say.
lombard wrote on January 19, 2008 6:05 PM:"As usual, the Baby Boomers screw things up for the country again."
Do you mean the same ones who raised you and put your through college?
Oh, I forgot about all of those fantastic accomplishments from Generation Y. They rank right up there with the WWII "greatest" generation.
CallMeADreamer wrote on January 19, 2008 6:05 PM:"As usual, the Baby Boomers screw things up for the country again."
"Tough to fight demographics. I like Obama, but I can't see him peeling large numbers of elderly from Clinton, who is, after all, one of their own."
Well, this white female boomer Obama supporter disagrees with both of you. As more people begin to see the tactics of the Clinton campaign I think they will come around to supporting a true progressive. (Save your breath and check out his web site if you think he is vague on where he stands on issues.)
I have always been an "anybody but Hillary" person. They keep proving to me why I felt this way from the beginning.
We will see what happens on Feb. 5th
lombard wrote on January 19, 2008 6:09 PM:David wrote:
"Even with these two great, epoch-making candidates, I wouldn't bet the ranch against the Republicans."
Thanks, David, sober appraisals are always most welcome! You can be sure I would never bet the ranch against the Republicans, particularly if the Republican is McCain. We should always think of ourselves as the underdogs right up until election day.
TPM:
Is there any way Obama could refuse to be the VP for the Clintons?
That is, will the party bosses (and Clintons' friends, like Rangel) force Obama to be Clintons' VP?
Will it hurt Obama's future to say no to the Clintons and the party bosses?
Has any one thought of this?
Personally, I think Clintons will not want Obama as a VP because of the overshadow it might create. They would prefer someone like Richardson? He will not be a threat and will be a useful tool for any mishaps?
What do people think?
hello_world wrote on January 19, 2008 6:10 PM:Divide and conquer. The Clinton's are playing the game very well. Very depressing indeed. This loss for Obama isn't the end by any means, but it does indicate that the road ahead will be a tough an rocky one.
Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 6:10 PM:Well, let her win the nomination to lose the general.
lombard wrote on January 19, 2008 6:11 PM:"I know Latinos are a much larger part of the population than African Americans in Nevada. What's the other non-white color that Senator Clinton is losing? Green?"
That may be true but the exit poll (the only source of information we have) showed the voting blocks to be about dead even.
How could this be true?"Obama actually won among Non-white women 51-43%."
I know Latinos are a much larger part of the population than African Americans in Nevada. What's the other non-white color that Senator Clinton is losing? Green?
Actually, Latinos and African-Americans each made up 15% of the total vote. Asians were an additional 3%.
It's the Surname, Stupid wrote on January 19, 2008 6:11 PM:I really dislike that the simpletons here assume that if you aren't voting for Hillary, it's because she is a woman.
It's because she is a *Clinton*. Wake up, America! As someone who voted twice for Bill, it's time to flush the system out with a new set of politicians. The arrogance of entitlement is all over the Clintons which is exactly why I will vote down any family that has already spent 8 years in the White House. In 20 years, I've never voted GOP for the POTUS, but Hillary will force me to do so (unless they nominate Huckabee).
The Clintons are pulling a '72 Nixon: this election is all about them to the detriment of their own party.
Well, let her win the nomination to lose the general.
www.ivotedhistory.com
RobK wrote on January 19, 2008 6:12 PM:Unfortunately, Hispanics hate blacks even more than whites hate blacks.
That's a fact.
This country will never heal.
Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 6:17 PM:JO wrote:
"...that among registered Democrats Clinton wins, whereas if independents are allowed to vote, Obama wins."
His margin among independents has narrowed from the Iowa win. Check out the NH and Nevada voter polls. He wins them but she holds her own. I would also add that it takes a particularly motivated independent to attend a caucus.
Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 6:19 PM:"Do you mean the same ones who raised you and put your through college?
Oh, I forgot about all of those fantastic accomplishments from Generation Y. They rank right up there with the WWII "greatest" generation."
No, I mean the ones who gave in to conspicuous consumption in the 80's, couldn't get universal health care passed in the 90's, and got us into a war in Iraq in the 00's.
The ones who still think it's 1965.
anon wrote on January 19, 2008 6:19 PM:Interesting that really all the Hillary vs Obama contest comes down too is old fashioned interest group politics. It's a crying shame there isn't say, a third candidate in the race, who might actually be running to represent the people and not just one slice of them isn't it?
It's the Surname, Stupid wrote on January 19, 2008 6:19 PM:"Unfortunately, Hispanics hate blacks even more than whites hate blacks.
That's a fact."
I never realized how true this was until I spent some time in Southern California. Latinos and Blacks form antagonistic blocks against each other with the Latinos feeling that the Blacks don't pay enough attention to the family unit and the Blacks pissed off that the Latinos are growing as a political force (because of their larger families) and passing the Blacks by.
Desider wrote on January 19, 2008 6:20 PM:Ha ha ha, women make up half eligible voters and now seem up around 55% of actual voters, and it's "identity politics" to acknowledge them? While catering to various beer-chugging, let's-go-to-war-laddies themes aimed at good ol' boys isn't "identity"?
By the way, over 65 female:male ratio is 1.4:1.
Fish Bone wrote on January 19, 2008 6:20 PM:"Personally, I think Clintons will not want Obama as a VP because of the overshadow it might create. They would prefer someone like Richardson? He will not be a threat and will be a useful tool for any mishaps?
What do people think?"
I think it's highly unlikely that Clinton would select Obama as a VP and equally unlikely that Obama would select Clinton.
Either one will probably go with some type of "safe" choice. I think Edwards would be great but I also think he's an unlikely selection and I doubt he would accept it.
"Do you mean the same ones who raised you and put your through college?"
As a child of a baby boomer, that made me chuckle, very true.
Well, so much for my talents as a soothsayer. I was predicting Obama to beat Clinton by ~4% and to beat Edwards by ~10-15%. Instead, Obama beat Edwards by ~40% but lost to Clinton by ~6%. It will be interesting to see how the delegates shake out of this, however. When do the delegates from these elections meet to vote for the delegates to send to the convention in March?
mschu wrote on January 19, 2008 6:46 PM:I can see Clinton offering the VP position to Obama, but I can't see it working the other way around.
The reason why he won't is because a significant number of his supporters, including some who have posted here, take the "anybody but Clinton" position. The rage against the Clintons in the Obama camp is as strong, if not stronger, than many Democrats feel against Bush. In fact, Obama's campaign strategy has been to lump the Clintons and Bush together (using generational politics) and run against them as basically one and the same thing.
Tactically, this has been a mistake. Historically, people 55 and over have the highest rate of voter participation. And while bring out younger voters in greater than historic numbers is wonderful and to be desired, trying to do it with angry generational appeals that could alienate older voters by signaling you do not take them and their issues seriously, can lose you more votes among older voters than you could hope to gain among younger ones.
Obama is a very appealing politician with a great future in front of him. If Hillary wins and he doesn't get the nomination this time around, I really do hope he will run as her VP.
But, if he loses, it will be because of serious tactical and conceptual errors in his campaign -- errors that I blame on Trippi and Axelrod.
Greg DeLassus wrote on January 19, 2008 6:48 PM:What about the culinary union vote? Apparently rigging the caucus didn't help Obama. If, as they say, this would give him a 5% bump, then he loses by over 10%.
Actually, one of the great ironies of this race is how close Clinton's supporters came to shooting her in the foot. It is now clear that Clinton carried those casino-site at-large caucuses handily. If her supporters' lawsuit had succeed, she would actually have lost votes. Good thing that democracy won out in the end.
Fish Bone wrote on January 19, 2008 7:02 PM:Nice post mschu, I agree with most of your points. I would just say that even if Obama is not the candidate for president or VP, his political career is far from over. He has a lot of years ahead of him.
Going back to the previous post about VPs, there are several in the senate that I think would make fantastic vice presidents but I would hate to draw any Dodd, Feingold, etc out only to be replaced by a Bush Dog dem. We need a few experienced senators to take a stand against Reid and his cohorts.
N.R. Murray wrote on January 19, 2008 7:03 PM:No surprise that Hillary got the "anti-Muslim" vote. After all, she's on board with Bush for the Crusades.
independent thinker wrote on January 19, 2008 7:04 PM:Let’s not lose sight of the fact that the deligate count out of Nevada is probably 13 for Clinton and 12 for Obama, not exactly and landslide. And putting aside super deligates for a moment, Obama and Clinton are TIED when we tally up the deligates they have erned so far.
And even with super deligates we are a LONG way from the magic number of 2,025.
Anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 7:06 PM:Matthew wrote on January 19, 2008 5:15 PM:
Greg, "What about the culinary union vote? Apparently rigging the caucus didn't help Obama. If, as they say, this would give him a 5% bump, then he loses by over 10%."
I see Bill Clinton's distortions about this issue have been effective. I suppose if you have an ex-president wagging his finger saying "they think they're better than you!", you'd have to take him at his word.
Since Bill was railing at the horrific unfairness of the at large caucuses, will he disavow the results since Hillary carried 6 of the 9?
Indy wrote on January 19, 2008 7:07 PM:Why on earth would Obama weigh himself down with the Clinton baggage? It sank Gore in 2000, and it would sink him in any future presidential races.
Obama does not need the Clintons. At all.
Martin X. wrote on January 19, 2008 7:23 PM:The Clintons have fully embraced the Rove/Atwater fear and smear political playbook. And let's face it, that crap works and they're good at slinging it.
Both directly and via surrogates, Hillary's campaign has suggested Obama is a cocaine dealer (what do we really know about his drug use...), a Muslim sleeper jihadist (he attended a madrassa and his middle name is Hussein!) and even-- gasp!-- a Gipper-lover (he said Reagan inspired people!). I'm sure it's only a matter of time until we see some version of the anti-Harold Ford "watch out white women!" commercial that played so big in the 2006 Tennessee senate race.
Is it any wonder Hillary has such a commanding lead among voters with a high school diploma or less?
Fish Bone wrote on January 19, 2008 7:24 PM:"Why on earth would Obama weigh himself down with the Clinton baggage? It sank Gore in 2000, and it would sink him in any future presidential races."
Um how much did Bill campaign for Gore? Do you really think Gore's association with the Clintons lost him the election?
I was not a Hillary supporter prior to Edwards falling into oblivion so I'm still trying to get a handle on this Clinton hate. Do you really buy all that nonsense that Bill Bennett and Tom Delay spew?
Peter wrote on January 19, 2008 7:28 PM:Obama needs to hit Hillary on her perceived strength: experience. While he can question her claim of 35 years (doing what exactly?), the approach of this AP story titled "Obama's Thin, But Varied Record" is probably the way to go.
Dear mschu,
You are correct. The Obama campaign has exploited generational resentment and disrespect for prior history in trying to whip up support of younger voters. You can hear these sentiments expressed regularly by Obama supporters on these and other pages.
And you are correct that this was a serious tactical error. Maybe the next time he runs for president (The safe bet is this nomination is all but over in another month), he will have learned that lesson.
Because many of his supporters have no respect for history or tradition, they fail to understand that American voters tend to crush McGovernite movements.
"No surprise that Hillary got the "anti-Muslim" vote. After all, she's on board with Bush for the Crusades."
Can we please stop with the anti-Muslim, racist meme? I live in the heart of east-Dearborn, 1 mile from west Detroit. The political decisions out here are not made on the basis of race or religion.
Please stop generalizing and projecting your own world view onto the rest of the country.
Laura wrote on January 19, 2008 7:41 PM:mschu,
I'm not sure how you concluded that the Obama strategy was to lump the Clintons with the Bushes. I haven't detected that so far, so I'm wondering how you picked up that impression.
I'm an independent and have been my whole voting life. I recoil from ideologues because I find that rigid orthodoxy can result in narrow-mindedness and communication styles that inflict unnecessary insults at anyone who doesn't fit their narrow ideologies. And I find identity politics to be insulting to everyone involved. It pisses me off when people presume they can label me and then proceed to condescend to me. Ick.
After observing the Clintons during the last couple of months, I'm remembering all the things that made me dislike and distrust them back "in the good ol' days." Part of it is their ease with lying and deceit; and of course, Bill's behavior can frankly be classless, (but who's more classless than GWB, right?). Mostly, I dislike their brand of identity based politicking.
I'm wondering if that's really where the "lumping together" of Clintons and Bushes comes from? A lot of independents are drawn to Barack Obama because of his tone. Maybe people who, like me, are *really* turned off by the identity politics, the insult trading that goes on between ideologues, etc., may be driving this "lumping together" that you detect. I wonder if it's less an Obama campaign strategy and more a reflection of the nature of many independents.
I started the primary season thinking I'd vote for whichever Dem got the nomination, no matter what, because the Republican Party has loaded the federal courts to a dangerous level with right-wing ideologues. But now I'm rethinking it. If McCain gets the Repub nomination and Hillary gets the Dem nomination, I'll probably vote for McCain. Sure, his rhetoric is the same sickening neo-con crap as the Bush-type Repubs, but he's in reality a moderate. And since he'll have to deal with strengthened Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, he will sensibly govern from the center.
I just don't think I can take the stomach-turning, sleazy drama of another Clinton administration.
I'm wondering how many independents out there are of like mind?
Fish Bone wrote on January 19, 2008 7:53 PM:Let me just expand a little.
I live in a community that used to be polish, then black and now predominately muslim.
So what we have is a melting pot of Muslims, blacks, whites and Christian arabs. When you cite numbers that you purport to support your stereotypical views, please take pause to think about the fact that there are real people behind those numbers with real concerns.
I have two black neighbors, the family across the street is Iraqi Christian, and the proprietor of the store I stop at every morning is Mulsim.
All of these people have diverse opinions on politics. To suggest that it's a herd mentality is ludicrous.
Keep in mind the fact that a particular segment of society may have voted for a candidate because they have done more for the causes that matter to them rather than racial bias.
mschu wrote on January 19, 2008 7:55 PM:"Obama does not need the Clintons. At all."
Well, he may need her to help heal the generational and gender divisions discussed in the post we are all commenting on.
Hillary we know runs very strongly with women, who trust her, and her experience, on the issues that are important to them. I think that will prove true with Moderate Republican and Independent women, too. I also think as the primary goes on we will see that she continues to do unusually well in the Hispanic community too. There are cultural reasons that make female leaders and female power a little more easily accepted in that community. Some of the most enthusiastic Hillary supporter I have know have been Hispanic men.
"You are correct. The Obama campaign has exploited generational resentment and disrespect for prior history in trying to whip up support of younger voters. You can hear these sentiments expressed regularly by Obama supporters on these and other pages."
And you are correct that this was a serious tactical error. Maybe the next time he runs for president (The safe bet is this nomination is all but over in another month), he will have learned that lesson."
"Because many of his supporters have no respect for history or tradition, they fail to understand that American voters tend to crush McGovernite movements."
Gee, first Obama supposedly plays on race, now Obama supposedly plays on age.
Isn't it interesting that it is Hillary's campaign that keeps saying she is change because "at least she is a woman"?
Clinton #1 certainly didn't have a problem running against the ultimate resume president while he didn't have a single lick of national experience(unless you count a 40 hour national convention speech in 1988 for Mike Dukakis). Moreover, Clinton #1 said experience wasn't the be all end all, and he kept pushing a picture when he was a young guy shaking JFK's hand. Just the sort of thing that the Clintons hate when some else just a JFK comparison.
So it's okay when the Clintons (aka the Baby Boomers) run on generational issues but not other? No wonder you guys always said don't trust anyone over 30.
How typical of the most self-indulgent generation this country produced.
"...Hillary gets the Dem nomination, I'll probably vote for McCain. Sure, his rhetoric is the same sickening neo-con crap as the Bush-type Repubs, but he's in reality a moderate."
Keep telling yourself that as you rock yourself to sleep during the bombing of Iran.
I have yet to see any justification from anybody for voting Republican over X Democratic candidate.
Obamaisdirtynotviable wrote on January 19, 2008 8:10 PM:He's gonna be indicted before the november big show if he's anywhere near the ticket. Edwards has been vetted, or else the media ignoring his popular statements would be blasting that all over! And Hilary's been vetted. I just don't like her campaign contributers--and I REALLY don't like Obama's contributers. His PR operatives are super dirty DALEY CHICAGO (Read BOSS, by Mike Royko, youngsters!)
and he's less than honest, to say the least, about whom he's accepted money from, and why. He's pro dirty coal plant technology, pro nuke. And he distorts issues of history in this country. He's even dissed the anti war movement--a period he did not live through in this country. And Oprah's racist and unfair for not letting other candidates go on her show. Shame.
"I think it's highly unlikely that Clinton would select Obama as a VP and equally unlikely that Obama would select Clinton."
As much as it will griddle her guts to do it, I expect Hillary to offer Obama the VP slot. Obama brings a bunch of people into the mix that she can't get on her own. She might hate him now, but she wants to win more than anything. Once the election is over, Obama will be shunted off into the traditional meaningless VP role. He'll take it because he can spend the next 4-8 years preparing to run again.
Laura wrote on January 19, 2008 8:21 PM:dirtynotviable,
Wow, that's the first I've heard about Obama supporting dirty coal plant technology. What about the dishonesty and contributors you're worried about? Do you know where we can read up on this stuff? Which newspapers can we search for articles on this? Chicago? Let us know so we can inform ourselves.
doObamakidsplagiarizetheirpapers? wrote on January 19, 2008 8:25 PM:First you've heard? He supported the coal gassification stuff in so il. He's pro nuke. I used to support the guy. Then I researched his and michelle's rise in chicago politics. There's a little paper in Chicago--actually two: The SunTimes and the Tribune. And there's Mother Jones, and The Progressive, and In These Times. READ!
It ain't about rock star stuff--look at his campaign donors. He is less than forthright and very clever abouta ll this stuff.
VOTE FOR EDWARDS!
A reason to vote for Republican X over Clinton?
Do you remember the 90s?
Name me three pieces of progressive legislation that Bill Clinton passed? For the life of me, I can only recall the Family Medical Leave Act. Maybe you can count the raise of the minimum wage. And yeah, he did raise taxes - but for what end? He didn't use that money on any progressive programs. No he cut welfare, set back universal health care (and yeah the repubs were set against it but so were the dems in congress because both clinton alienated them.
What was the state of the Democratic party after eight years?
Less dems in congress, in state legislatures, in governorships.
Clinton was the best republican president since Eisenhower. But he was no progressive. And I just don't think his wife will be either.
So yeah, I'd vote for a Republican if only to keep alive any sense of the Democratic party as I think it can and should be
Just my two cents
JO wrote on January 19, 2008 8:36 PM:And the winner of the Nevada caucuses was ....
MIKE BLOOMBERG.
Democrats should not minimize the extent and depth of the animus towards HRC--by Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. A Hillary nomination would be a big green light for Bloomberg representing a Third Way for those who are disaffected by the Republicans but who won't vote HRC under any circumstances. Bloomberg obviously thinks there are enough of those to blow through a few million of his billions. Watch that space.
Fish Bone wrote on January 19, 2008 8:37 PM:"So yeah, I'd vote for a Republican if only to keep alive any sense of the Democratic party as I think it can and should be"
That makes no sense. You pointed out things you did not like under the Clinton administration with no comparison to Bush Jr., Senior or Reagan.
The question remains, do you think Romney, Huckabee or McCain will do better for you than any of the Democratic nominees that you don't support?
Laura wrote on January 19, 2008 8:38 PM:Fishbone,
You really don't see McCain as a moderate? (not in rhetoric, but in reality--when analyzing his votes over the years?) I mean, he has sounded absolutely asinine over the last year, but I assume that's because the Republican Party has gotten so ridiculous, one can't run for a Republican primary at this point without adopting the ridiculous party positions. I mean they ALL sound absolutely f*ck nuts!
But don't you think he'll understand he has to govern from the center with a Democratic congress? He's smart and he hasn't just fallen off the turnip truck (just a very slight jab at his age).
Fish Bone wrote on January 19, 2008 8:42 PM:Bloomberg is a joke. He has very little support or name recognition and no policy positions. He will probably bleed more votes from the Republican side than the Dem side.
Dobbs and Bloomberg have this fantasy that everything that's wrong with this government is partisanship. If we just all kiss and make up everything will be rosy. Ironic coming from the "anti-establishment" folks.
Fish Bone wrote on January 19, 2008 8:48 PM:Laura,
I used to view McCain as a moderate. Hell, I voted for him in the Michigan primary in 2000 and at that time probably would have voted for him in the general election if he made it.
I don't know where he stands now and his foreign policy positions scare the hell out of me. Aligning him with Lieberman makes me even more concerned.
I agree that many of his current stances on social and economic issues are partly due to him wanting to win the Republican nomination but I think he is an genuine foreign policy hawk and that scares me.
Hilobamawillmeanarepubwin wrote on January 19, 2008 8:59 PM:Why do you think big media loves those 2 so much?
Edwards needs to go to the convention and FLIP those delegates for the sake of the working class. Obama's a wealthy brat. So's Hilary. And look at their campaign contributers. Shame. I think this could be a big upset year. If Edwards doesn't make it, I'm voting Green.
Now that the Clinton camp has successfully smeared Obama with e-mail that allege he's a muslim and managed to paint him as "the black candidate" they have won Nevada by a much smaller majority than has been predicted for the past year and we're hearing that a;; of us Dems who support Obama need to unite behind her candidacy because we're petulant children if we don't. First, there's plenty of time left to go. Second, I, and many dems I know, refuse to support the continuation of a Democratic dynasty that gave us NAFTA, so-called welfare reform, and go so far as to support anti-union WalMart by sitting on it's board. And lets not forget the cowardly Iraq vote. I'll certainly be abandoning the Democratic party (after 20 years!) if HRC is the nominee. I'm sick of the dirty political tricks displayed by the clinton camp in this short primary season. Clinton as our nominee will only energize the GOP base and destroy downticket dems. Say hello to 4 years of a possibly lost demo congressional majority and more 90's style bickering and fighting.
Fish Bone wrote on January 19, 2008 9:07 PM:"If Edwards doesn't make it, I'm voting Green."
I'm also extremely disappointed that Edwards didn't do better but I still find this argument ridiculous. "My candidate didn't win so I'm gonna take my ball and go home."
You're not making a statement when you vote for a sure loser in the general. You're registering a vote for the other party. I voted for Kucinich in MI but I wouldn't vote for him in the general if he was a 3rd party candidate.
ghoombahds=obama operative? wrote on January 19, 2008 9:08 PM:What's so bad about being Muslim anyway? It's like the protest against the smear is a smear in and of itself! VOTE EDWARDS A REAL PERSON FOR THE COMMON FOLK! (Kucinich would be a great veep!)
Obama and Oprah wasn't about branding Barack, a product of a Hawaii (expensive) apartment as 'black'?
Call David (O Selznick) Axelrod!
But I expect HilObama to really sell us down the pipe further. Edwards is the true populist. And that's not a dirty word. FDR was a populist. If Edwards isnj't on ticket, I'll work for a democratic congress-because America unfortunately won't vote for Hilary or Obama. And their campaigns have axelrodded each other very badly. It's a shame. No, I won't vote green for prez. This time. It's all very sad.
Al-Obama wrote on January 19, 2008 10:46 PM:I think there's about to be another hat thrown into the ring. Did anybody catch the speech in Ca. by Bloomberg today. He basically said he would hold off a decision till after super Tuesday. Better get out your constitution and check whether or not the vp has to be an American citizen. Him and Arnold are kind of birds of a feather. Then again, if Hillary gets the democratic nomination, an Obama / Bloomberg ticket with Arnold at a top cabinet post wouldn't be a bad combination.
BLOOMBURG! wrote on January 19, 2008 11:15 PM:If Hillary wins the nomination and Bloomburg runs, I will vote for him. And I've voted straight-ticket democrat in every election I've voted in.
Hillary's race-baiting sleaze train needs to stop.
obamas the race baiter wrote on January 19, 2008 11:37 PM:but the repugs will make your hair stand onend. Cointelpro style infiltration of democratic forums like this one remain a possibility. Bloomberg and obama and arnold. way to go, guys. Are you Klan?
anonymous wrote on January 19, 2008 11:39 PM:Hillary, if nominated, will lose for the obvious reasons including, but not primarily, many Democrats like myself who simply will not--under any circumstances--cast a vote for her. I am disgusted by the whole "let's elect a woman" brainwashing bullshit. It's a perversion of what our political system should be.
Obama, if nominated, will lose because they will attack all around the periphery of the issue but never openly because he is black and it will work. Combine that with his obvious naivete and you have a man who, if nominated, will be completley unable to handle the onslaught of the Republican smear machine. Obama has sold his soul for campaign contributions (just as Hillary has) and is now so compromised he couldn't possibly do anything effective for average Americans on the issues of Healthcare, the war, the economy or anything else of great import.
So, all you fools who want to be a part of "history" be fully prepared to be a part of history in the sense that you backed candidates who are not just weak, but extremely vulnerable in a general election and whose ability to win in November is very, very unlikely. When we lose this historic race that couldn't be lost, maybe then all you morons will remember that it isn't the package, it's the policies and the ability to implement them that counts. Neither Obama or Clinton promises anything but more of the same capitulationist Democratic policies. If either were nominated and somehow accidentally won the general, the cynicism that would arise from their failures would gut the Democratci Party for another 50 years. I'd rather lose this time round so you people can learn your lesson instead of going through that.
your'renotadem--admitit wrote on January 19, 2008 11:48 PM:Are you a republican? I'll vote for anyone but th eparty that let september 11, gleefully, they did--and then committed war crimes and let armed thugs roam iraq. i just want a really different change in energy policy, legal rights, you name it. edwards and kucinich are clean. the other 2 are not. Neither Hil nor obama are my pick at this point, but I'll work to get a truly democratic congress in so that they can tell all the dirty money givers to shove off. good night all you little republicans./
Edwards is clean wrote on January 19, 2008 11:52 PM:Obama ducks the questions
Suddenly, our open senator is acting like a dissembling pol
April 25, 2007
BY CAROL MARIN cmarin@suntimes.com
Barack Obama tells us he is the messenger of a new kind of politics.
Open. Transparent. Different.
But put the pedal to the metal and ask Illinois' junior senator new and serious questions about his radioactive, federally indicted, former friend Antoin "Tony" Rezko, and suddenly this gleaming presidential hopeful and paragon of new politics behaves just like any other dissembling, dismissive Chicago pol, ducking the discussion while pretending not to.
The story behind the story of this week's Sun-Times' reports on Rezko, the power broker slumlord, and Obama, voice for the voiceless, is revealing.
For five long weeks, Sun-Times' investigative reporter Tim Novak called, e-mailed, requested, practically pleaded with Obama's press people to provide information about the senator's relationship to Rezko when it came to the development of low-income housing in Chicago. In an abundance of fairness and an excess of solicitousness, Novak sent a list of questions.
For five weeks, no answer.
Jointly, on behalf of both the Sun-Times and NBC5 News, Novak and I sent Obama's campaign requests to interview the senator for both print and television.
Again, no answer.
Until Novak began his digging, the most we knew about the Obama/Rezko nexus was the revelation that Rezko, a major Obama donor and fund-raiser, had helped Obama enlarge the property surrounding his South Side mansion by having Mrs. Rezko simultaneously purchase an adjacent lot and then sell off a strip of that property to Obama. At the time, unless Obama never read a paper or watched the news, he couldn't help but know that Rezko was already under federal investigation. Rezko was ultimately indicted.
"It was boneheaded," the senator confessed when questions were raised. And that was that.
But Novak's reports this week raise new questions about just how much attention Obama, a self-described activist, was paying to the critical issue of affordable housing in the district he used to represent as a state senator. It again involved Rezko, his longtime patron, who had 11 failed or failing buildings in Obama's district.
Though Obama says he, himself, did a mere five hours of work, the 12-person law firm where Obama was a junior partner did significant legal work for Rezko's company which, by 2002, was being sued by the city, state and a bunch of banks for defaulting on loans and doing a downright awful job of providing decent housing. Taxpayers and lenders have lost up to $100 million while Rezko's firm made about $7 million.
There is no suggestion that Obama or his firm did anything illegal. But here's a guy who, according to a recent Tribune profile of his wife, Michelle, was so scrupulous about the details of life that he actually went with her on a job interview just to make sure her potential employer was up to snuff. Too bad he didn't give Rezko the same treatment.
Instead, Obama and his minions this week gave us the treatment for having the audacity to inquire.
More than five weeks after receiving Novak's questions, the Obama people at last sent a partial written response. It arrived exactly five hours before the Sun-Times went to press.
That's OK -- any answer is better than none. But what about that interview?
Here's a candidate who these days is on camera more than many TV anchors, whose staff is putting out press releases faster than IHOP cranks out pancakes, and yet, the senator just didn't have time, his staffers claimed, to stop and talk on Monday even though he was in Chicago giving a speech at which, conservatively, there were 30 reporters and 15 cameras.
We didn't know it then, but while Novak and I were staking out the senator's big, black SUV parked outside, he was giving a quiet private interview to the Tribune about the wrongheadedness of the Sun-Times' story.
Meanwhile, an Obama staffer, sent to watch us, nimbly Blackberried our movements to someone inside.
Suddenly, bodyguards pulled the SUV down into a parking garage, grabbed Obama, and with wheels squealing, sped out and away.
Maybe it was the image of that getaway, played on the 5 o'clock news, that finally persuaded Obama to hastily call a news conference to which Novak was not invited but managed to find out about anyway.
Obama said while the new allegations about Rezko were "deeply troubling," none of it had ever been "brought to his attention."
So why all the gymnastics to avoid the conversation?
Especially for a candidate who is "open" and "transparent" and "different"?
Being boneheaded is not a crime.
But if it was, charge Obama with a second count.
vwcat wrote on January 20, 2008 12:00 AM:I am a woman and a lifelong democrat. I will not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee.
I find the tactics of the Clintons to be reprehensible. I now find that both Clintons make me nauseous.
I could have unenthusiastically voted for Hillary if she was the nominee if she ran a fairly decent campaign. But, with the way both Clintons have acted, especially Bill, I certainly will not call myself a democrat if she is the nominee.
I have lost all my respect for Bill, especially. I find him to be selfish, destructive and odious. I can't stand to look at his face on tv anymore.
I use to like the guy but, now I cannot stand the man.
This is what the Clintons are doing to our party.
And those who refuse to accept this, wait. If Hillary is our nominee and she is trailing badly behind the republican, don't look for alot of democrats to support her after the way both Clintons have acted the past few months.
They have turned many democrats away from them and possibly away from the party.
My guess is that if they continue the way they are, the party will split apart and the Clintons will be cause of it. And those who turned a blind eye to it.
WAKE THE HELL UP PEOPLE... if HRC gets in.. (McCain likelihood she won't) Bill has first place for VP... Get with the program people!!!
Any match-up with a Clinton in a Democratic Party is: let's bring the Bush-lite administration IN....
Both campaigns are engaging in politics as usual as they try to game the system. A couple weeks ago Sen. Obama proudly announced that he had more Clinton advisers than Sen. Clinton had. This was not true, but if he is taking about changewhy does heneed Clinton advisers?
Politics is a stressful business. These candidates have been at this for an entire year. The voters are the ones who chose them. We rejected Dodd, Richardson, and Biden, all of whom were the most experienced candidates. Sen. Obama showed by his behaviortoday that he is not yet ready for the White House.
Prior to this all the candidates who lost whether they thought it was fair or not, they congratulated their opponent, and moved on. He is acting like a spoiled child. He needs to get over it.
These candidates need to tone down the rhetoric, and speak about the issues. Whoever wins the nomination should place the other on the ticket. Folks keepsaying that they will never vote for Hillary, but somehow she keeps winning.
Sand wrote on January 20, 2008 2:43 AM:Lady Eagle... My take -- Obama by having to assert his 'moderate' Clinton advisor credentials has seen how 'dumb' the democrat electorate are.
His 'Clinton' advisors are way more 'mainstream' than HRC's previous 'Clinton' advisors are... Between the two I would go with Obama...
Also, shame the 'rhetoric' couldn't have been directed at Bush and the republican party over the past seven years eh!
Billary really is Bush Lite, as Obama says--I'm not voting for the Clinton circus this time around, I won't get fooled again. NAFTA, Pardongate, whatever the meaning of 'is' is, Rwanda, the cave-ins to the insurance and banking industries, etc., tell me that Billary is too corporatist, and works against the interests of the American Working Class. The Clintons messed up Gore and Kerry the last two elections--now they want to wreck the Democratic Party and the country to satisfy their all-consuming need for the limelight. If Billary, the Corporate Shillary, gets the nod, I'm voting Green all the way, no matter what. Democrats, why are you committing political suicide? How can you be so dumb as to let the Clinton circus back in the door?
kyle wrote on January 20, 2008 9:37 AM:not to mention the laughable antiwar position. Clinton vastly increased arms exports during his term. The US went from 16% of the global arms exports to 63% by the end of the 90's. US arms are used in nearly every world conflict being waged.
But I guess you could say it helped the economy.
colonpowwow wrote on January 20, 2008 10:29 AM:"But among blacks, Obama dramatically increased his lead over Hillary from earlier in the contest, beating her 79%-16%"
Congratulations. Well played race card over the last few weeks by "The Uniter Not a Divider."
Mission Accomplished.
Edwardsisabetterchoice wrote on January 20, 2008 6:12 PM:Obama is as much as a corporate sell out as Hilary and Bill are--and all the DLC can go to hades. But Edwards--Edwards' 80 page platform book--download it--has steered Obama and Hilary to success. That and the fact that the corporate media fears him--and should. All the hatred toward Bill Clinton--hey--defeating a witchhunt with the parsing of the word 'is'--that's brilliance. But, not, the NAFTA situation, the arms selling--Clinton was too much of a 'uniter'--DOES THAT PHRASE SOUND FAMILIAR? We need a dem to go in with scorched earth policy. so what if he's not technically a green? He's as good as a green, in my book.
Angry_American wrote on January 20, 2008 8:20 PM:A thought for consideration.
If Hillary Clinton is behind the ""Barack Hussein Obama" robo calls, then it is deeply troubling. If she is unaware of the calls being conducted by memebrs of her camapign staff, or outsourced to loyalists who would engage such behavior, she has demonstrated the very thing she holds forth as her forte: executive leadership and managerial skills.
If the calls were made by the Republican Party, or operatives of Karl Rove - and we do have some track record history here with the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" attacks against John Kerry in 2004 - one has to wonder WHY the emphasis to derail Obama's efforts versus allowing the Democratic Party voters to sort it our internally. Major mischief, or sabotaging with deliberate intent - Hillary will divide the Democratic Party (as you article notes) and bring out the Republican voters like mad dogs in search of dripping red meat.
So, TPM what do you think of this?
