An Uncommitted Super-Delegate With Nice Things To Say About Hillary
The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has an interesting peek inside the thinking of an uncommitted super-del:
Barack Obama needs to "demonstrate he can connect with blue-collar, working-class people," says U.S. Rep. Mike Doyle."Up to this point, I don't think he's shown that yet. That causes me some concern," said Doyle, a Forest Hills Democrat whose 14th District includes much of Pittsburgh....
"I told him I wasn't real pleased" with his approach and that "he can't win campaigns in Western Pennsylvania on television," Doyle said in an interview. "You have to go out there amongst the people, and I felt Hillary was outworking him in Western Pennsylvania, and she got a result for it."
Before Pennsylvania, the super-dels were moving over to Obama, though not in the numbers that the Obama campaign was hoping for. And one thing the Pennsylvania outcome has clearly done is put off any wholesale movement of supers for at least ten more days.
If Obama wins both Indiana and North Carolina, there will be some serious super-del movement, but if she posts strong showings in both states, they'll continue sitting tight -- and the contest will drag on.
His campaign better clue in to the fact that he does need to carry blue collar voters to win in the fall.
April 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have they clarified this comment yet?
Many people have shown that it is simply not true. Bill Clinton won them in 92 and 96. In fact, Obama was supposed to build on our coalition, not give up on votes.
April 25, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
by 1 percentage point.
April 25, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
And because ROSS PEROT was running and siphoned those votes away from the Republican candidates.
April 25, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Luckily. Then Bill was able to carry them on his own in 96. He may not have won if it weren't for good ol' Perot. This shows how seriously we need to go after every vote.
I don't like it when Clinton dismisses the fifty state strategy and I don't like it when Obama dismisses the white working class.
April 25, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Explain how making health care universal and college more affordable the centerpieces of you domestic agenda is "dismissing" the white working class.
April 25, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get a grip. It's Hillary Clinton who says Obama dismissed the white working class. Axelrod's saying that the white male working class has not consistently delivered their vote to the Democratic party is not dismissing them. fior chrissakes. And the same day Axelrod mentioned this FACT, Obama was talking about how he feels he needs to do better with white working class voters.
April 25, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
"This is not new that Democratic candidates don't rely solely on those votes."
If people feel "dissed" because a candidate isn't relying "solely" on their votes, they need to get over themselves. Or, more likely, stop buying into Clinton/MSM spin that leaves out that key word.
April 25, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it absurd? We're getting to the point where discussion of political realities (read: facts and figures) can get spun as opinion commentary and/or strategy. This country has been so dumbed down it couldn't have happened by accident. Someone had to plan it.
April 25, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe the White Working Class Voter is a well defined cohesive group of voter that votes for a limited scope of issues. Many in this group have had diverse experiences and vote very differently that others in the group. I think the voters in PA and Ohio may even be somewhat different; this may account for the differing percentages of the votes for Clinton and Obama in those two states. I think a more significant factor is age as that often determines how a person views their world. Younger White Working Class Voters may be more willing to retrain and relocate while older displaced workers may tend to be more angry, hopeless, and become entrenched in their misfortune. Sen. Obama may do very well with White Working Class Voters in demographics differing from those of Ohio and PA. I think it is much more complex that Hilary would like us to understand and it is in her interest to have us believe that PA White Working Class Voters are representative of the entire White Working Class Voter universe.
April 25, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
HOW DID THIS ONE GET AWAY FROM US?
Send the White Guilt Squad over to Doyle's office and get this turned around!
Thanks
D. Axelrod
REMEMBER: Donate your spare "Change We Can Believe In" to help ease the suffering of Harvard student loan deadbeats.
April 25, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
When it comes to the general election, we need every vote we can get. Bottom line, we can't afford to ignore or give up on this portion of the electorate. We have to be able to convince the white working class that our policies are in the best interest of the nation.
April 25, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democratic Party needs to pay attention to getting independents to vote for them in the fall. I think Obama will get the independents, a few of the Republicans and a whopping big amount of the Democrats--along with about every person under the age of 30 who can be dragged to the polls in November. McCain is old, tired, and supported Bush through eight disastrous years, that are now going to culminate in one of the worst economic messes of my almost 60 years.
Now you seem to believe that Hillary will keep the party activists that she managed to insult recently by "blaming" them for her losses in the caucuses. Or independents who simply don't like or trust Hillary--as polls have shown for some time. And that she will have the money and the activists to win. Prove it.
All of this is opinion. Obama is winning this nomination and if the superdelegates want to "bet" the party's future on taking that win away from him--so be it. We'll all be saying Prez McCain next January if Hillary is the nominee.
April 25, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
And not to mention, if Hillary is the nominee, the Republicans and the media will have two targets to attack: Hillary, and Bill.
April 25, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I concede that they both have electorate issues. I highly doubt the activists she "insulted" (I guess disagreeing with someone is now insulting. What happened to disagreeing without being disagreeable?) will vote Republican or stay home in the fall. They may not love Hillary, but they will vote for her or suffer under McCain. That's not going to happen.
Obama will not be winning the nomination when the contests are over. Hillary will have had more people vote for her, I project.
Bottom line, neither candidate will be winning the nomination without superdelegates.
April 25, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look it. It's not the popular vote that matters.
But let's just say it is. The only way Clinton gets more votes than Obama is if you count her votes in Michigan while ignoring the "noncommitted" votes, and, including Florida. That's now. After North Carolina, you'd probably have to start dropping whole states from the popular vote in order for Clinton to receive more votes.
Do you really want to have to do such a tapdance for your candidate? Seriously? Doesn't this bother you that the definition of "winning" for the Clintons changes from week to week?
April 25, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just don't buy your predictions. I think she will carry the popular vote including FL, not MI, and with reasonable projections for the caucuses that don't have a tally.
If she is ahead in the popular vote then that is definitely a valid argument to present to the superdelegates. After all, Obama wants them to follow the will of the people.
I could be wrong on my prediction, but we'll see.
April 25, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, don't buy my predictions. But doesn't bother you that her campaign has to make such tortured arguments to get superdelegates to flock towards her?
And btw, the agreed upon metric isn't the popular vote. It's pledged delegates, as Terry McAuliffe and everyone in the Clinton campaign argued back when Clinton had more delegates. That was the agreed upon metric. Delegates. Now they no longer matter. The contortions are stunning.
April 25, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, delegates are the agreed upon metric. Pledged delegates and superdelegates will combine to give someone the magic number.
Superdelegates, as Obama has said, should follow the will of the people. Are you saying that the popular vote is not the will of the people?
April 25, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Provide your numbers.
April 25, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're wrong there. I, for one, feel that in terms of domestic issues, it's Congress that really matters and the president is less important than the representatives I pull the lever for. But, in terms of foreign policy, the president really does set the course and here is where I don't see a lot of light between Hillary Clinton and John McCain. He's already back-tracking on his "100 years" comment. Soon he's going to renege on his "there will be other wars." I don't say I'll vote for him because, to me, he's just too tainted by the way he's carried the water for the current administration. But I'm not going to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because she's a Democrat. I've tried to convince myself I should, I have to, I will. But, it is, above all the disastrous warmongering of this administration that I most abhor, and, next to Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton is probably the most hawkish senator the Democratic party has. So, for my part, when Hillary Clinton stops demonizing Iran and Syria, give me a call. Also when she retracts her "obliterate" Iran threat. Let me know when she retracts that, and says she thinks it's time to start talking to the Iranians, clearly says it as Obama does, and I'll think about voting for her.
April 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Beg to differ, another reader, but the crap she's piling on William Ayers offends me. I don't have a soft spot for the Weathermen. I was there and I thought they were over the top and, curiously, a bit dumb. But the guy's more than okay now. He teaches, he sits on charitable boards, he promotes the concept of peace. And she's setting him up for today's equivalent of crosses burned on his lawn.
Ditto the Clinton campaign's spin on Rev. Wright. It feeds the hatred and keeps the controversy alive and this man -- who's a damn sight better as a human being than Hillary or Bill Clinton will ever be, and far more courageous -- has already been threatened. He's got the old time burning cross on his lawn now.
And when it comes to what she had to say about MoveOn, well, I don't judge that hoo ha ha as equally evil as cavalierly destroying the lives of other human beings, but it's just so cold-blodded and calculated.
Plus she's frigging hawk. Her posing for the electorate in those big boots is enough to make not just me but Jesus puke.
April 25, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What about the African American vote? I don't see them voting for Clinton if the super delegates overrule the vote of the people.
April 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton carries the popular vote, they won't be overruling the will of the people. Unless you don't believe in one person, one vote.
April 25, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Popular vote isn't the metric used in this primary. If you use popular vote by ignoring the votes in the caucus states while selectively adding in votes from Michigan and Florida then yes I'd call that overruling.
One person one vote -- doesn't count if you live in a caucus state eh? Or if you live in Michigan and want Obama to be your next president?
April 25, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about? The popular vote includes the people who voted in caucuses. For those that didn't tally, Real Clear Politics has projected an estimate of how many voted. They're not being ignored.
April 25, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Projected an estimate" certainly sounds like some sort of polling. And this is necessary because....
April 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a Democratic Party event and is not governed by the principles outlined in the Constitution. So one person, one vote does not apply.
This is a delegate game. Remember that. The popular vote is helpful in apportioning/awarding DELEGATES. I didn't make the rules, just telling you what they are. At least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that.
When she was winning (or thought she was winning), Senator Clinton acknowledged that reality. Only when it became clear that she could not overcome his pledged delegate lead did she start casting about for various arguments.
April 25, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are absolutely not tallied in the numbers that most people read about, and I'd definitely like to know the metrics Clear Politics has used.
April 25, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The candidtae with the lead in pledged delegates is not the metric used either. It's the first candidate to 2,025. Pledged delegates go with the votes of their states, super delegates vote their conscience and are not a rubber stamp of who has the leade. Since you are so into playing by the rules, if Hillary reaches 2,025 first she is the rightful nominee.
April 25, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. It's about delegates. If she can convince 3/4 of the remaining super delegates and win the remaining 9 contest, she very well could reach the magic number first.
Or in Obama's case, if he can maintain his lead in pledged delegates and pick up about a 1/4 of the remaining supers, he's got it locked up.
But popular vote, the number of kittens petted or whatever crazy metric the Clinton campaign wants to throw out is irrelevant.
April 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Super delegates can change their votes at will. If they come to the determination that Obama is less competitive than Hilalry in the general election, they can switch and vote hor Hillary. Especially if she continues to rally support despite all the calls for her to drop out and the meida declarations that the race is over. The superdels are there so we don't set up some kind of kamikazi mission nominating a candidate that cannot lead us to the white house in the fall. This goes against all the conventional wisdom that voters are resisting the urge to jump on the obama bandwagon as the presumptive nominee. Not to mention FL & MI have not been factored in yet. Hillary's getting stronger and Obama has yet to step up to the plate and make a convincing case to a large block of dem voters that he is the best candidate to be president.
April 25, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
hillary is getting stronger?
how?
because her negatives keep going up?
because she wins pa. by 9 when she was ahead by 26?
because 60% of the people dont trust her?
because she wants to use nuclear weapons to obliterate 80 million people?
duh
April 25, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you are getting outspent 3-1 on ads, if everyone in the media is telling voters the race is over and she should drop out "for the good of the party", if Howard Dean and pelosi and Harry reid are trying to do everything in their power to tilt the scales Obama's way and you still can't pull out a victory as the frontrunner - your campaign is not gaining momentum and she gets new life. As Kanye says, That that don't kill me, can only make me stronger :)
April 25, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect to Mr. West, Hillary's already dead. Do the math. Her supporters are just in denial. All a part of the grieving process...
April 25, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's getting stronger? That's interesting.
It's worth noting that in every state - yes, every single state - since Super Tuesday, Obama has made significant inroads into Clinton polling leads, or increased the leads he held. Three examples of the first statement: Clinton led in TX by 20 points four weeks before the primary; she won by 4 points. Clinton led in OH by 20 points four weeks before the primary; she won by 4. Clinton led in PA by 26 points 6 weeks before the primary; she won by 9. The only state where she didn't see her margin cut in half or worse was Rhode Island.
A completely reasonable inference from these statistics: the more voters see and hear Clinton, the less they like her. Polls released today show her down 16 in NC and 3 in IN - where she has the most popular politician in the state in her corner.
Throwing the kitchen sink - and the bathroom sink, the shower assembly, the #3 cast-iron tub, the Ginsu knife set, and the armoire - does not indicate strength. It indicates desperation. So, too, does changing campaign managers, chief strategists, and campaign message (about 4 times).
April 25, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
CORRECTION to my previous post:
I said Clinton won OH by 4. She won OH by 10, of course.
I apologize for the error, though the numbers still support the conclusion in the post.
April 25, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. Well said.
April 25, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
And how do you handle "popular vote" in the states that have caucuses? Polling? What? Prove this assertion that you keep making. Numbers by state.
April 25, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's where it stands right now.
link
April 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
How sad this is. Estimates for 4 states with causeses and Hillary only "wins" the popular vote if Michigan and Florida get rammed in, even though these states didn't follow the rules and then couldn't arrive at a plan to re-do the elections.
Hillary wins if we all accept changing the rules after she finally realized (after Super Tuesday) that she was losing.
And this is acceptable under what sort of ethical standard? The Clinton standard--the one where we all argue about the meaning of "is" or something equally absurd?
You must be a real joy to have around when you start losing at a card game. Is there some reason we have to pad the corners for Hillary? I only do that for toddlers. She's in the big leagues and needs to accept her loss.
And so do her supporters.
April 25, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
caucus votes have already been folded into the overall vote total in Texas for the purpose of apportioning delegates.
The popular vote in Texas is: poll vote + caucus votes = already done; totaled in together and that's that.
Obama won Texas.
April 25, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So has it not occurred to anyone that Obama is doing a hell of a lot better job of cutting into Hillary's demographics than Hillary has of cutting into Obama's? No one wins the presidency without both candidates' groups.
April 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bear in mind Ross Perot took 18.9% of the vote, most of that from Bush. Skews the numbers quite a bit.
April 25, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ross Perot, and Ross Perot again is how Bill Clinton won. He never came within smelling distance of 50% of the vote count. Bill Clinton would have lost in 1992 if Perot was not in the race.
April 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess you missed the "solely" in Axelrod's comment. They're not dismissing that segment of the vote; they're saying you can't build your whole campaign around it (or around states like OH and FL, if you have alternatives).
April 25, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Clinton better clue in that she needs independents, college-eduated voters, the youth and African-Americans (across all socio-economic levels) to win in the Fall.
April 25, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
And her campaign better clue in that she's lost the black vote completely, not only for herself, but potentially for her party for years to come.
April 25, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find that highly doubtful. She has many high profile black supporters still. This portion of the electorate may be voting overwhelmingly for Obama now, but that's just as women are voting overwhelmingly for Clinton now. They will support our party in the fall. Democrats will vote for Democrats.
Clinton/Obama 08
April 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you are deluding yourself. Her high profile supporters have gotten her ZERO wins in the African-American community and frankly her tactics have done more to alienate African-Americans than you can possibly imagine.
But go ahead, take the African-American vote for granted. At least Obama is making in-roads with women and blue-collar workers. She's gotten beaten by the same or greater margins amongst African-Americans, the youth, college-educated and independents.
April 25, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe African Americans are smarter than most of the hysterics on here who claim Hillary's racist. They will vote their interests--Democrats. Under Bill Clinton's term, the average african american household saw their income increase by thousands a year. That won't be forgotten come the fall.
And in the interest of party unity--Clinton/Obama 08
April 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
One thing the Clintonistas cannot get past and must face facts:
Blacks will stay home in droves if Obama is denied the Democratic nomination.
For all of our sakes, let's hope it never comes to this.
April 25, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm one of those African-Americans. And I get so tired of being reminded of what the Clintons did for African-Americans with no demonstration of just what they did for us. Can you name one, just one program, specifically designated for African-Americans that the Clintons expended considerable political capital on?
April 25, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed, and that is no doubt a big part of the reason why the Clinton's were so well liked among the Black community until so recently. As I am sure you know, however, good will can be squandered and it seems hard to deny that the Clintons are squandering their good will. The recent tracking polls done in PA by Quinnipac show that Sen Clinton's favorable ratings among African Americans have plummetted from 74% in late Feb to 52% a week ago. Just in the last few weeks (from Apr 13 to Apr 21) her favorables among African Americans dropped 6 pts. Meanwhile her unfavorable ratings among African Americans have rocketed up from 15% in late Feb to 42% a week ago. Once again, just in the last few weeks (from Apr 13 to Apr 21) her unfavorables leapt 12 pts. To suggest that Obama's sizable lead among African American voters simply indicates fondness for him but not antipathy towards her strikes me as a rather obvious instance of whistling past the graveyard. Her problems with this indispensable part of the base are just as real and bode just as ominously as his problems with blue-collar white voters.
April 25, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
how much of that was due to unfair attacks like calling Hillary a racist for acknowledging the contributions of LBJ to the Civil Rights movement or calling bill racist for saying obama's claim that he's been consistently against the iraq war is a fairytale? If the game is using race as a tool to divide people, the Obama folks have been playing the game expertly. Anytime Clintons mention race in any way, they are attacked and unfairly so.
April 25, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does it matter? Another Reader's point was that, while Black voters might not be backing Clinton now, they would back her in November if she got the nomination. I was bringing actual data (instead of wishful thinking) to the discussion to suggest that his contention was not accurate. For all I know, the drops in her favorability ratings among African Americans could be the result of unfair attacks, but that is beside the point in the present discussion. The reason why her favorables are tanking and her unfavorables are surging is less important than the bald fact that her favorables are tanking and her unfavorables are surging.
April 25, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, I totally disagree. The problem has been for decades that folks are not voting their economic interests. And you seem to think this is going to change because of Hillary? Yeah, right.
April 25, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love how not one Obama supporter acknowledged that we need to carry working class whites. Just attacks. Nice.
I thought you were the ones arguing Obama's broad appeal and ability to connect with all voters.
Can't admit they made a mistake by pushing this line of thought? Oh well. Your loss.
April 25, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's getting working class whites, and he's going to get them in the fall. Clinton got more of them in PA.
You simply say "Clinton will get the AA vote", but offer no reason why Obama won't get the working class vote. AAs will return to the Democratic party, but working class voters won't?
And pardon me for the attack. Apparently, disagreeing with someone is now an "attack".
April 25, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No attack. Provide data. You keep failing at this.
April 25, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
He needs some of them to win, and he'll get some of them. But let's be real here: most of the blue collar workers in Pennsylvania who voted for Hillary have no intention of voting for a Democrat in the Fall.
April 25, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah! Seniors and women neither. God damn them.
April 25, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't Obama win Doyle's district?
April 25, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about Sen. Clinton having to show support among independents??? Young voters??? (7 to 3 for BHO according to HArvard poll), AA? SHE CANNOT WIN - and why does he need to prove himself while Mr. Sargent carries her water?
April 25, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are missing the point, it is okay to attack Obama endlessly as unelectable just because Democratic blue collar workers tilt slightly toward Hillary, but when she has similar "problems" with other important groups it isn't an issue, because the media loves Obama and hates Hillary so much.
How's that double standard for you?
April 25, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
WORD!
April 25, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, I am not convinced by your argument. This is over. "Strong showings" by Hillary will prevent nothing. Only victories by Hillary will stop the flow.Hell, her PA victory didn't even stop the flow, why would "strong showings."
April 25, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
White voters are more important than black voters. Didn't you get the memo? President Clinton wrote it.
April 25, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ooo, ouch.
but yeah, that's what they are saying.
April 25, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton needs to demonstrate she can connect with blue-collar, and white-collar, African Americans.
Up to this point, I don't think she's shown that yet. That causes me some concern.
I'm not real pleased with her approach. She can't win campaigns in this country by demeaning African Americans. You have to understand that African Americans are actual people, and not a monolithic group voting solely on race. I feel Obama understands this, and gets results because of it.
April 25, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Greg, you really are dense. Pennsylvania went just as planned for the Obama campaign as they squeaked out a less than double digit loss. They knew they were going to lose and the wholesale movement cannot come after a loss, so it's onto NC and IN. The supers are already in the tank for Obama, and that you found one who isn't is really quite missing the overwhelming amount of information out there.
Fun watching you track down the lone undeclared super who isn't an Obama supporter. This thing is over after May 6th or June 3rd.
April 25, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
As you said, "If Obama wins both Indiana and North Carolina, there will be some serious super-del movement".
So I guess that means "strong showings" just ain't gonna cut it.
April 25, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"His campaign better clue in to the fact that he does need to carry blue collar voters to win in the fall."
And it's pretty clear that he'll be able to do that, in the fall, according to the PA results. But no one's really talking about that analysis in the Times yesterday that indicates that while Obama lost those voters to Hillary, those voters are going to stay with him in the fall.
And can we put to rest the "The Republicans are going to be terrible towards Obama, so therefore, side with Hillary" theme, once and for all? They're going to shred her.
Clinton supporters (and Paul Krugman? I'm talking to you) seem to be under the impression that because Obama has refrained from bringing up any number of shortcomings in Clinton that Republicans will do so as well, in the fall. Talk about drinking some tasty Clinton Kool-Aid!
And the hilarity out of the Clinton campaign just continues unabated. She's run a crappy campaign, has run out of money multiple times, has the highest negatives of any candidate, isn't winning the popular vote unless you do some "new math" (as the Times amusingly phrased it this morning), is behind in pledged delegates, and has the albatross of Bill Clinton around her neck. And the superdelegates should support her because she's such a strong candidate?
It's like living in La-La land.
April 25, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Paul Krugman has morphed into a Clinton concern troll. He's about two notches away from becoming Taylor Marsh at this point. It really is amazing. Joan Walsh is right there, too, and Eric Boehlert, sadly, isn't far behind.
April 25, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know what the hell has happened to Krugman.
But this is all based on that completely insane and totally bogus notion of "electability".
I guess it just goes to show that economists really don't have both feet on the ground. They live in some other plane of existence that doesn't relate well to real life sometimes.
April 25, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, it has nothing to do with being an economist. People who are heavily invested in a campaign tend to buy into its worldview to a much greater extent than they realize. I'd like to think that if I was writing in the NYT, I'd be a little more introspective than that and not damage my reputation by repeating obvious spin like the "big states" stuff, but I can't be sure.
April 25, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Krugman like Hillary is a policy wonk and a progressive who believes in the power of government to have a posiitove impact on the lives of people. He actually cares about the foreclosure crisis and universal healthcare (and has for a long time). Why can't you just acknowledge that he supports Hillary because of significant policy differences with Obama? Krugman is a progressive. Why must you demonize people who disagree with you based on solidd facts and reasoning rather than Maureen Dowd's illogical rants against Hillary?
April 25, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem I have with this argument is that a 'strong' showing is not enough. She has to win in NC. Everyone is focusing on Indiana where the race is tight but the focus should be on the other state (see Skocpol in TPM Cafe). She needs to show she can close the deal in a state that is favorable to Obama, the argument so far has been that she has not because she has not campaigned strongly in such states(this was the excuse in Virginia and Maryland). NC has more delegates than IN and if she can't take him in his turf then what kind of 'electability' argument is she making for herself? I would say she has to win both primaries to have a rationale for staying in and Indiana is not the one that should 'count' most.
April 25, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
on a related note: a friend of mine from CIA told me some good travel advice if you're ever in Guatamala or Congo. A common torture technique is to strap you face down, smear peanut butter in your anus, and then let a hungry rat loose. Now your instinct will be do tighten up to keep the raat out. THIS IS BAD. The rat will claw his way in anyway, and you'll just get a bloody scarred anus. THE TRICK IS TO RELAX. Let the rat in up to his neck, THEN YOU TIGHTEN UP AND SNAP HIS LITTLE NECK.
You'll thank me some day.
April 25, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another fun Saturday night at the Casa de Mila.
April 25, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg --
This is vile.
April 25, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is he getting paid by the Clintons?
'Cause saying that Obama didn't spend enough time in small town Penna is worse than spin, it's a lie.
I'm sure they would have liked him to completely abandon Philly, but, really?
April 25, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama wins both Indiana and North Carolina, the election's over.
April 25, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know guys, if you think Greg is misrepresenting something or mistaken in his assertions, the best way to convince him otherwise is to make a good case that makes sense and is illustrated by data and example.
Calling him names is certainly not right, unhelpful and I would even argue counter-productive.
April 25, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I call this an argument.
Carthage posted it.
April 25, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agree on the civility, but Deadalus called him 'dense'....that's about it as far as I can see...
Greg is thicker skinned than that, I am quite sure.
April 25, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Clinton has an excellent shot at Indiana, but wonder at the impact of the state holding an open primary. Now, if she can pull a near win, tie, or even win in NC, that'd be news and really get the superdelegates attention.
In NC though, unless she can break Obama's 90+% race-based Black voting block, I don't see how she can do it. Even if she could trim this down to 75%, Clinton would still need nearly 70% of the White vote. As White voters do not vote as a racial group this is unlikely. Maybe she can get close as character issues are going against Obama.
Again, I wonder what impact Indiana's open primary will have on results? Other than mention of it, I do not see any analysis.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 25, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Like I said. La-La Land.
April 25, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blacks are a "voting block" (read: stupid), but White working class, "salt of the earth" types, they exercise independent judgment, and vote their conscience.
What a load of crap.
April 25, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's the Tweety Matthews talking points. Only white people are "regular people."
Lala land, indeed. The green bag on haid must be too tight.
April 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that African Americans were voting racially when they voted for Bill Clinton. Oh yeah, the "1st Black President"....that's the ticket.
April 25, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard a bit of Laura Ingraham's show this morning. It was all Reverand Wright and Obama. Some Democrats might not agree, but for the Republicans, Obama's the nominee.
April 25, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see it differently. McCain is trying to bring down Obama, now, so he can face Clinton in the general. Same with Rush and crew, and Fox.
Take him down, now, so they get the easier opponent in the fall.
The fact that the Clinton campaign is
April 25, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's exactly right.
April 25, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that I agree that she's the easier candidate to beat per se, but if her establishment campaign overrules the will of the Dem primary voters via last minute shenanigans (i.e., polualr vote vs. pledged delegate count), then they know they'll have a candidate who can't count on 51% of the voters she would need to win the general.
I don't think the Republicans think they can win unles one of our candidates commits fratricide against the other. And right now, Hillary's the one holding the gun. And Rush Limbaugh is daring her to pull the tirgger.
April 25, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you're right, but look at it through Republican eyes:
We've got our nominee, but who are we he going to face? Upon whom should we train our enormous guns? The math favors Obama, so in all likelihood he'll be the noiminee. Let's attack him now and if it prolongs the primaries great, and if Hillary miraculously topples him, more the better.
I think they see the odds are with Obama and they're softening him up early.
April 25, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is actually good news for Clinton as it will give focus to the reality of claims that Obama is not electable. Do folks really want to defend Obama's hate & racism, his trumped up experience, and his lies now through sure defeat in the fall?! I don't think so.
BTW, Wright is returning to defend his 20 year association with Obama. His statement that Obama is lying about it as a politician is priceless.
Even more, Fannie Flono writes in today's Charolotte Observer that Obama's church and pastor are not typical of Black churches. Even though she tries to explain away Obama's continued association, I think the message is clear and maybe folks will reflect upon their own church and realize just how out-of-step Obama is.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 25, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel tremendously sorry for those innocent babies.
April 25, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, Rita. So do I.
April 25, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama's hate and racism..."
In the interest of intellectual honesty, you really ought to say what you believe. I'm quite certain you don't really believe this. It simply serves the interests of your morally bankrupt candidate. What does that say about you?
April 25, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can I shed light to this supposed blue-collar "problem" for Obama.Any short comings Obama has in this demographic (and frankly it has not been that monumental)are offset by his huge attraction of other demographies namely African Americans (where Hillary posts lamentably),new voters and of course Independents. The problem here is not that Obama cannot attract blue collar voters BUT that someone somewhere has postulated that that is the case and then this gets carried around and blown into a problem.We have to look at the bigger picture, which frankly demonstrates that thei blue collar argument is DEAD!
April 25, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
I've been saying that from the start because I've seen it with my own eyes.
The old Democratic coalition was bringing out less than 1/4 of the registered voters. I know what it is like in Dallas around the elections.
Primary night - this whole city was alive with voters who ordinarily just ignore the whole thing. I've never seen so many people turn out to vote in my life. Literally thousands of people lined up in one precinct after another.
The old coalition of union (and they sucking wind since Reagan)white working class Americans (and how many of them are left, really - we don't manufacture anything any more,) has done nothing but lose us election after election after election.
We either bring these new voters into the party or we are as dead as the Republicans.
This is the 21st century - something needs to change!
April 25, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an African-American man, let me explain somethings to Obama's non-Black supporters:
How are you liking your brief glimpse into how things work for Black people. It's rough ain't. Constantly having to prove something that you thought was already proven. Having to put up with ridiculous argument after ridiculous argument. Never actually hearing people say what is really on their minds.
Obama is bringing us all together.
Notice how the goalposts have wheels now? What began as a race for delegates has, poof, suddenly morphed into a race to secure the white working class vote.
He wasn't supposed to get this far. He wasn't supposed to be viable. He's wasn't supposed to put us in this bind. So more whoops have to be fashioned that he has to jump through to keep the obvious from being stated, namely: A number of people will not vote for him because he's Black, period.
Does this mean he can't win. Nope. For the simple reason that no one knows how many anti-Obama votes you need.
April 25, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Michelle Obama has been telling us from the start, the goal posts have been moving from the day Obama won Iowa. They will keep on moving until Hillary has wrested the nomination from him and then she and the bastards in the media will go on and on about what a fab comeback kid she is. Then they will send Bill out to woo the black churches and act like all's ok. More okeydoke.
April 25, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I LOVE SPORTS ANALOGIES DON'T YOU!
When my head is vacant of relevant political rationale, which is pretty much all the time, I just fall back on my "goal posts" analogy and you goofs repeat it! Where would Barry and I be without empty headed latte liberals!
Sincerely
M. Obama
April 25, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to co-sign this. Reminds me of when the PGA altered the course at the Masters.... Or when the NBA implemented the goal tending rules (Chamberlin)
April 25, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for stating what should be obvious to all of us. And I say this as a white, 58-year-old female.
If Hillary wants to remain viable as a candidate, as someone else said, she has to win North Carolina.
April 25, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, as a white man married to a black woman, I have already gotten far more than a brief glimpse of this phenomenon, but I certainly endorse you point. None of the inane arguments against which we are expected to mount rebuttals would ever be given a passing thought if Sen Clinton's opponent were a white man.
April 25, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
MY EXPERIENCE BEATS YOUR EXPERIENCE !
As a white man married to 534 women, none of which I recall their racial profile, is it possible that my experience is superior to yours and therefore you should just wank off?
Just asking
Warren Jeffs
April 25, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg says,
But if she posts a strong showing?
Why is it that any
This is the latent voice of white privilege talking. You don't realize it, and it's not racism, but it IS an expectation that someone not like you has to prove themselves according to an ephemeral and unmeetable standard, where the person who is like you pretty much gets to do whatever they want and be rewarded for it.
I'm so sick and tired of this ridiculously unreasonable expectation. Hillary can say or do anything and it's ok, but Obama, hey, he has to be more perfect than God or he's "unelectable." Why does Obama have to prove himself next to a candidate that can barely keep her campaign funded, much less run without imploding every 3 weeks? In what universe is there ANY way that can mean Hillary is a viable alternative to Obama?
Only one that doesn't see her foibles, and insists on magnifying every one of Obama's, regardless of how irrelevant.
April 25, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
A middle paragraph got cut off somehow -
Why is it that any
April 25, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, let's try this one more time.
Why is it that any <10% loss for Hillary is a "strong showing", but Obama has to completely destroy Hillary to be granted a win? He lost by 9.2% in Pennsylvania, a "strong showing" by your standard, and yet this is being spun as some sort of massive victory for Hillary. It's hypocrisy.
April 25, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel ya.
It's the same fucking unfair set-up it always is and it sickens me, too.
April 25, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama could walk across Lake Superior, then ascend into heaven and it still wouldn't be enough for some people.
Because nothing he does will ever make him perfect enough for some people.
But once he's elected, maybe some of that will get corrected..
April 25, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correct, yet again.
April 25, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Furion, Hillary told us that she's the one being held to a higher standard....
April 25, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reverse untruths are double plus ungood!
Errr, sorry - was channeling 1984 for a moment. It starts whenever Hillary claims the opposite of the truth and then accuses Obama of it.
April 25, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
And see this excellent reader post:
Flashback 1992 - Superdelegates Have Serious Doubts About (Bill) Clinton: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/1992-flashback-superdelegates.php
April 25, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Looking at the breakdown of the states...
I am guessing NC for Obama by 15.
Indiana for Obama by 6.
That's my 2 cents. :)
April 25, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's probably about right. Incidentally, that completely wipes out Hillary's 10-12 delegate gain in Pennsylvania. But you know, it was a huge win and keeps her in the game. [rolls eyes]
April 25, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who is this Greg dude? Do the Ripley's Believe or Not people know he can talk out of his ass?
4-23-08 Added Gov. Brad Henry (OK) for Obama.
- Added Rep. John Tanner (TN) for Clinton
- Added DNC Audra Ostergard (NE) for Obama
4-24-08 - Added Rep. David Wu (OR) for Obama
I'm really, really getting tired of people shilling for Clinton. This campaign is just so over. There never has been a "wholesale movement" of supers and there never will be. It's not the way it's done. There are only 300 or so supers left and 65 of those are Add-ons. That means there are only about 240 undeclared supers. Obama picked up 3 to Clinton's 1 in the two days after PA. They will continue to drip at a similar rate until June, when there will probably only be 100 or so left undeclared.
Don't believe the hype. Clinton's hope to be the nominee is as dead as fried chicken.
April 25, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
The contest will drag on?
*banging head on desk and sobbing*
April 25, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
scoot over - I need some room to bang mine, too.
April 25, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! Don't hog all the desk space. [bang!]
April 25, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
HEAD BANGING IS B A C K !!
Please use caution becuase the potential for shock to your pea sized brains could result in a dissapation of your white guilt and without that Barry would be hopeless. Instead try just pounding your fists in your pillow, like when that one night stand never calls back.
Thanks!
Axel Rose
April 25, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the article is worth reading, and Doyle makes a decent point. It isn't enough to flood the airwaves; retail politicking means a lot to working class voters, especially when they are inclined to look at a candidate suspiciously. TV isn't going to coax them out of their provincialism (I can say it, but Obama can't), but face-to-face contact will.
Regardless of the math, delegate lead, etc, we all want Obama to be the strongest possible candidate in November. Its great that he's got the youth, African American, and suburban votes going for him. But shouldn't he try to acquire the skills to connect with more populations as well?
I hope Obama's listening to people like Doyle --not because they are trying to steal the nomination from him (which everyone is understandably fearful of) -- but because they are pushing him to be better himself as a candidate
If he can master the learning curve to really connect with the working class vote, imagine the progressive platform he'll be able to push through once he takes office.
April 25, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
one thing the Pennsylvania outcome has clearly done is put off any wholesale movement of supers for at least ten more days
If you can see into the future, Greg, why don't you just tell us who wins Indiana and North Carolina now?
April 25, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Furion of Hussein,
I think far fewer people will not vote for Obama because he is Black than Black people who will only vote for him because he is Black. The demographic identity is incredibly strong in the Black community. It is interesting in contrast that Women, who actually make up a majority of the electorate, are less concerned with demographic identity. Imagine if they were to instead vote by their demographic identity? Same with Whites who also do not as a rule vote by demographic identity. If they did, again Obama would have no chance whatsoever. It is these latter two points that have me marveling at Obama's audacity to diss women and Whites with rudeness and stereotypes. Add to this unpatriotic associations via his church, Rev. Wright, Rev. Meeks, and terrorist Ayers, plus his own wife, one has to appreciate how little demographic identity Whites and women cling to. This is real progress and something to be celebrated, even if the results are not welcomed. It is also why, should Obama fail, that he will fail and lose on character and not on demographics like race and gender.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 25, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty damn sure you don't know any African-Americans and if you do, you haven't shared your interesting little theories with any of them.
It's ok when African-Americans vote overwhelmingly for white candidates. It's only when they vote for an African-American that they are deemed to be doing so solely on demographics.
But here's the rub, there are very few policy differences between Clinton and Obama as they relate to working class voters. If that's the case, why aren't working class voters breaking evenly for them? Is it because working class white voters in those states are voting on race/demographics? Wait, let me guess, of course not. She's one of the "people" and he's an elitist. Or some other bullshit right?
Yeah, it's funny how the rules and explanations change to suit the argument folks are making. White working class voters aren't voting for him because of racisim. It's a sad state of affairs, but there it is.
Just one other thing, every time you post, you underscore precisely what Reverend Wright was talking about. Every time.
April 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why?! Start with Obama's inexerience, his racism, his hate, lack of patriotism, association with terrorists, and, importantly, his lies, misstatements, and ommissions. People do not like being lied to, even by a politician. Obama has proven he is not the new voice of hope and change but instead is simply an inexperienced wanna-be political hack with serious character issues. That is why he can't close the deal.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
So your answer is to string together a bunch of declarations not supported by any objective fact, other than your own biased opinion.
I'd take you more seriously if you had even a modicum of intellectual honesty, but you don't. You've invested in this notion of Obama that the Clinton campaign is spinning and therefore anything that fits into that narrative, you swallow and regurgiate.
April 25, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except those who enjoy Clinton's misspeakings, uh, misstatements, uh....lies.
Clinton is apparently an experienced, established political hack with serious character issues (check out her favorability ratings -- only GWB is lower). Why hasn't she closed the deal yet? -- She's been at it longer.
April 25, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an African-American supporter of Senator Clinton, I can firmly attest that there are black people who call you a "sell-out" of you vote for Sen. Clinton based on policy. I have had people sit next to me on the train while I'm wearing my Hillary pin and say why am I not supporting a black candidate to make history. And I exp,lain why I believe Hillary is superior on health care, foreclosures, economic policy, etc, etc etc. I don't vote because of someone's color or gender. That said teh number of people supportig Obama because he is balck and expecting other people to do the same is not insignificant.
Are you really telling me that 90% of blacks are against universal healthcare? 90% of blacks oppose a freeze on ARM rates and foreclosures to keep people in their homes? The policy differences between Hillary and Obama are not insignificant.
And blacks in a democratic primary for president have never been so solidly behind a democratic candidate. Why? Because he is the first black candidate with a chance to win the election. That's great, but the future of this country is way too important to me to vote becuase of color. For you to deny that there is some race based voting within the African American community is simply put naive.
April 25, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
90% of blacks might well be against bullshit, and in this election they got a clear lens to see things through courtesy of Bill and Hill.
Freezing ARMs is the second worst idea that's come out of Hill's mouth, after nuking Iran.
Her "universal" plan is not only a fabrication, it's dysfunctional. Come to MA and tell people who are paying a fine and still NOT getting health care how her plan would help them.
Need I go on?
You only listen to what Hill tells you about her policy. That's not an "informed" decision.
Do you also buy everything that's advertised on TV?
You might want to see what people who know their stuff are saying say about Clinton and Obama:
http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=9595dd85-2990-431d-9c6f-bf9c7eadac42
April 25, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
First , I do not listen to what Hillary "tells" me about her policy. I actually have opinion sand reasoning of my own, unlike many Obama supporters who just spout sill talking points like:
"Freezing ARMs is the second worst idea that's come out of Hill's mouth, after nuking Iran."
First, Hillary's been making this argument for a long time and had people actually listened, the money wasted in the bear stearns bailout would have been put to use helping actual homeowners aty in their homes AND preventing the further disruption of the housing market. Every time the ARM rates rise (not due to market fluctuation - just preddatory subprime raises due to the contract), more homewoners are forced into foreclosure. Freezing the ARM rates temrporarily would help to stabilize the market and allow people a chance to save their homes. Obama is perfectly content to HOPE that lenders do the right thing in rengotiating with homeowners and incentivizing them to do so by having homeowners calim bankruptcy. Hillary recommends direct intervention in the form of the federal gov't buying loans for qualifiying homeowners and renegtiating terms with homeowners directly.
Obama is opposed to universal healthcare with a mandate. He proposes universal access. Mandates hillary said she may enforce through automatic enrollment through jobs (like FICA taxes for social security) and automatic enrollment triggers through the IRS for those who are self employed (just like they have to pay FICA taxes on a quarterly basis). This is not like the MA plan that charges a penalty if you don't buy halth insurance which means you lose money and are STILL not covered. It is mandated healthcare - everyone must be covered. It is made to be affordable and all independent fair analysis including by the kasier fdn says hillary's reduces costs more and covers more people than Obama. It costs an extra 20 billion, but that extra cost is nothing compared to the cost being driven up by irrespeonsible uninsured people who won't elect the admittedly more expensive policies offered by Obama. Please if you can find someone to dispute these basic facts who is not aligned with Obama's campaign, I'd be happy to take a look. But even Obama is no longer claiming that he offers universal healthcare anymore. It is universal ACCESS which is really just a band-aid not a long term solution.
So I do know my stuff and I choose my candidate based on their policies - I don't choose my policies based on my candidate. Please don't assume that Hillary supporters are like Obama supporters that just lick up every little talking point with no independent thought.
April 25, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is not against universal healthcare. This is one of those bullshit Clinton talking points. The 15 Million that they claim won't buy insurance when it's afforable, will buy it if you um, mandate it. Of course, she never explains how she's going to, um, ensure that they adhere to the mandate, but that's just a pesky little side fact.
Freezing ARM rates isn't going to happen EVER. It would be disasterous for the financial markets and would, in all likelihood, be unconstitutional. It's a nonsense idea and Senator Clinton KNOWS THAT. Yet she pushes that nonsense out because it SOUNDS good, knowing full well that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO DO.
And funny enough, I recall that a certain Bill Clinton did pretty damn well with African-Americans in his Democratic Primary races. But I wouldn't let that fact trouble you.
So yeah, there are policy differences between the two of them. Nothing major though. The difference, frankly, has been her tactics. She was WINNING the African-American vote up until two things: (1) Iowa demonstrated the white folks would vote for a black man (albeit a half-white, black man, but still) and (2) the change in her campaign's tone/tactics in the run-up and aftermath of New Hampshire.
April 25, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do get me wrong, I don't think any vote is monolithic. There are always exceptions. I appreciate and respect your position and that you have to take grief for it.
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 25, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama's audacity to diss women and Whites..." Spoken like a proud member of the KKK circa 1955. Except for the "diss" part. That's a BLACK word matt.
April 25, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excuse me, but how has Obama dissed women? It seems I may have missed an opportunity for manufactured outrage . . . *SIGH*
April 25, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
OBAMA IS BLACK !!
They told us he was a Uniter from Indonesia when that nice Mr. Axelrod bused us to the polling station! Who do we see about our ballots?
Sincerely
Helen Keller School for the Blind
April 25, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you REALLY sure you want to open that door?
Tell me - why does Hillary consistently get the majority of the white female vote?
Obama didn't have the kinds of massive margins with AA's that you see until the Clintons insulted them in South Carolina. Social groups who have long been disadvantaged tend to have long memories.
Aww, you didn't even post any examples. You're falling down on the job.
This is moral bankruptcy of the highest order, even for you Matthew.
April 25, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Matthew Weaver's world, there are blacks and there are women. There are, apparently, no black women.
The existence of black women would make Matthew Weaver's badger head explode.
April 25, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So a Pennsylvania superdelegate has doubts about supporting Obama. Kind of a dog-bites-man story, don't you think?
April 25, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree completely. And one again let me reiterate, Obama doesn;t need to win white working class voters. He only needs to win a portion of them. LBJ was the last democrat to win this group.
But Obama is going to pick up moderates, independents, and some republicans.
The 50 state strategy will benefit the entire Democratic party...not just Hillary's White House Ambitions.
Could Hillary win in November? Probably. Could she damge democrats down the ticket in many, many states? Absolutely.
And that's the truth.
April 25, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama lost a lot of clout with the republicans and independents with the Rev Wright, small town comments. His argument that he is a uniter has been seriously damaged. He could have made that argument in january. It does not hold the same sway now. There are many Obamacans and indpendents that voted for Obama before those things happened that would gladly take back their votes because they contradict the essence of his argument of unity and against polarization. But as Rev Wright says, Obama is a politician so he has to speak as a poltician. Slogans mean far less than action and Obama's performance in key swing states against McCain like OH, PA, MO have been seriously damaged.
April 25, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
That might be true if it was true, but it happens to not be true.
So, you're wrong. The only way to gage that is the polls and they showed overwhelmingly that Wright didn't resonate and that a majority think Hillary unfairly attacked Obama.
So, what you said isn't true.
April 25, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink