The rumors that are being whispered by the media and the Obama surrogates these days are taking on the status of urban legends. Oh, sure, the stories may have changed somewhat but once upon a time, they really happened. Like the babysitter that got a phone call from the serial killer who was calling from upstairs. {{shivver}} Or the kid who died from eating a Halloween apple with a razor blade in it. (I think this one was put out there by the Mars candy company)
Are the rumors real or merely self serving? Let’s go inside the mystery and find out if they are truth or fiction:
1.) Hillary has been in discussions with Obama’s campaign, begging to become his VP. “A friend” of the Clintons has been spreading this rumor all over the place. Here we have the first evidence that this rumor is untrue. What kind of “friend” would spread a rumor that would make Clinton look desperate and stupid? It would make her supporters nervous and doubtful that she was sincere about winning the nomination. It might make them stop donating to her campaign or support her altogether. Besides, why would a person with Clinton’s qualifications want to make a lateral career move? Well, it turns out that Howard Wolfson put this rumor to bed yesterday. There have been no such discussions. He didn’t say, “I am not aware of such discussions”. He said there weren’t any. Period.
2.) Hillary has been horribly and inexcusably negative on her opponent. We see this trotted out during primary nights on the cable news channels. There is always some poll where voters are asked who has been more negative. It’s always Clinton. How do we understand this when our lying eyes tell us something different? Well, there was a recent column by John Judis in The New Republic recently where the following was actually written down for posterity:
Clinton’s second great political mistake lay in how she dealt with Obama’s challenge. Sometime in December, having realized that Obama was going to be a genuine rival for the nomination, she and her campaign decided to go negative on him. They did the usual thing politicians do to each other: They ran attack ads taking his words somewhat out of context (Obama calling Reagan a “transformative politician”); they somewhat distorted old votes (voting “present” in Illinois on abortion bills); and they questioned old associations (Obama’s connection with real estate developer Tony Rezko).
John McCain and Mitt Romney were doing similar things to each other—and Obama did some of it to Clinton, too. But there a was difference between her doing this to Obama and McCain’s doing it to Romney—a difference that eluded Clinton, her husband, and her campaign staff. My friend David Kusnet, Bill Clinton’s former speechwriter, explained the difference to me by citing what ex-heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson had once said about Muhammad Ali. “I was just a fighter,” Patterson had said, “but he was history.” Obama, too, was, and is, history—the first viable African-American presidential candidate. Yes, Hillary Clinton was the first viable female candidate, but it is still different. Race is the deepest and oldest and most bitter conflict in American history—the cause of our great Civil War and of the upheavals of the 1950s and ’60s. And if some voters didn’t appreciate the potential breakthrough that Obama’s candidacy represented, many in the Democratic primaries and caucuses did—and so did the members of the media and Obama’s fellow politicians. And as Clinton began treating Obama as just another politician, they recoiled and threw their support to him.
Is this true? Did Clinton go unfairly negative on Obama? The answer to this is unfortunately yes. See, while we weren’t watching, standards were recalibrated to adjust for the African-American candidate. There is no need to do this for the female candidate because it is expected that if she wants to play in the big boyz game, she will have to demonstrate that she can be beaten to a bloody pulp and still remain standing. This is a universal truth. It’s like gravity. The African-American male got the right to vote before females did. We are only following precedent. Plus, we must acknowledge the collective guilt that we Democrats share regarding the status of African-Americans in America. If it weren’t for Republicans pushing through all that civil rights legislation back in the 60’s, we would still be living with segregation. We must atone for our sins, therefore, Hillary is absolutely forbidden from saying anything negative about Obama. This includes saying something about him that is true because that might make him look like just an average politician and that would be negative.
She must also not compare herself to him as this may reveal him to be wanting in some capacity and that would be mean and prejudicial. Some people would say that this gives Obama an advantage that Hillary doesn’t have, that he starts off with a handicap of sorts. But this comes too close to saying that he is benefitting from affirmative action and that just shows that you are a bigot.
3.) It is unfair to Obama to not get all of the uncommitted votes from Michigan and some of Clinton’s votes as well. If we were to follow up on the preceding urban legend, we would see that this is probably true. Since Obama is starting off with a handicap, it only follows that he would receive all of the uncommitted votes and some of Clinton’s as well. To genuinely correct for the historical inequity, Clinton should give him all of her votes and a note of apology for being a member of the slave owning class even though her ancestors weren’t slaveowners and some of them were impoverished themselves while Obama’s ancestors were never slaves. Obama is a symbol and a conduit through the color of his skin for the African-American community. He is their redeemer. So, she should just hand over her votes without complaint, get out of the race, beg him for forgiveness and “follow him wherever he may go”, sort of like the song.
But it turns out that “uncommitted” is an official designation under DNC RULZ. The change of these RULZ to accomodate Obama was not finished in time for the primary season so this is an unfair condition under which he must operate this year. There is no reason why the Rules and Bylaws committee has to give him the uncommitted delegates but they probably will anyway as a way to compensate him for Hillary running against him in the first place, his candidacy being historic and all. This may not be fair to the voters but with sensitivity and diversity training, they will come around.
4.) After those of us who have a visceral dislike of Obama have been reeducated, we will fall in line and vote for him in November. We don’t really mean it. This is probably true but it is uncertain whether they will be able to make enough orange jumpsuits and build the detention camps in time.
For those of you following the Friday Fast, here are the recommendations. Save your breakfast, lunch and dinner money today and send $10 to Hillary’s campaign and a second $10 to America’s Second Harvest.
Filed under: Presidential Election 2008 | Tagged: I will follow him, John Judis, uncommitted, urban legends







heh.
I wake up in the morning and find that you have crystallized my thoughts so succinctly and perfectly. I will never fall in line. As we also know, affirmative action often pushes aside the better qualified person for the position or contract.
Good morning Riverdaughter!
I think this might be your best post evah! You are incorrigible. You have dared to say aloud things that many of us have been thinking.
I’ll bet that “friend” of the Clinton’s who has been spreading nasty rumors about Hillary wanting to be VP is someone like Dick Morris.
(nodding) Good Morning Riverdaughter, These are good — especially your succinct and easily followed (even by me in my pre-coffee state) explanations.
Michelle Bernard, one of MSNBC’s new “political analysts,” said recently:
“There is no way the super-delegates can take this away from Barack Obama. There will be race riots in the street.”
On the other hand, Michelle, “Hell has no fury like a whole bunch of women scorned.”
Twandx,
She really said “race riots?” Wow, they are really getting desperate now.
Long-time lurker, here. Just had to commend you on your writing. You are really talented. I’m a former orange-site, tpm, amerblog, etc. lurker. What a haven this site has turned out to be. You have been able to put into the written word what so many of us are feeling through this never-ending (yeah!) process. You get it exactly right. Thank you.
Do they not see how all of this is damaging to Obama. This idea of entitlement, and it can’t be “taken away” portrays a weak leader to America. Basically, you have a bunch of white people sitting around the table making a hiring decision and they start saying “you know, we should really give it to the black guy because that will make our company look good and make us feel better about ourselves.”
Here is another . Supposedly the DNC is sending a letter out on Hillary’s behalf. The Obamabot is crying foul.
http://crawfordstake.blogspot.com/2008/05/wtf-dnc-hrc-campaign-mailing.html
How did you put it yesterday, riverdaughter? Something like voter assisted political suicide? Yes, indeed.
When I was a little girl I got taunted and called a n!@#$% lover because, inspired by the speeches of Martin Luther King and Lyndon Johnson, I declared my unshakable belief in racial equality and social justice for everyone.
Fast forward forty odd years, now, apparently I’m a low information, ignorant racist.
What happened? I didn’t change.
Finally, incredibly, it’s not hinted at anymore, but actually OPENLY ACKNOWLEDGED IN PRINT, that :
The media as a body OPENLY supported, without declaring, one candidate over another.
They consider the first black President as history but not the first woman
They believe Clinton is evil at core because she challenged the first, and only, historical candidate.
My. God.
Welcome, Long-time lurker! Isn’t this place nice?
That DNC mailing is so bogus. Who knows when Hillary or whoever actually wrote that. It smacks of appeasement to her supporters.
A commenter at TL post a list of uncommitted superdelegates with their e-mails, copied from Huffpost. Is there a way to send them the contrasting electoral college maps for Obama and Clinton vs. McCain?
Uncommitted Superdelegate emails (a partial list)
budmail@mail.house.gov
gabrielle.giffords@mail.house.gov
sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
McNerneyInfo@mail.house.gov
mike.honda@mail.house.gov
samfarr@mail.house.gov
congressmanjimcosta@mail.house.gov
bob.filner@mail.house.gov
susan.davis@mail.house.gov
mark.udall@mail.house.gov
john.salazar@mail.house.gov
james.marshall@mail.house.gov
rahm.emanuel@mail.house.gov
nancy.boyda@mail.house.gov
dennis.moore@mail.house.gov
william.jefferson@mail.house.gov
charlie.melancon@mail.house.gov
don.cazayoux@mail.house.gov
Michael.Michaud@mail.house.gov
rep.sarbanes@mail.house.gov
steny.hoyer@mail.house.gov
christopher.vanhollen@mail.house.gov
john.olver@mail.house.gov
niki.tsongas@mail.house.gov
john.Tierney@mail.house.gov
edward.markey@mail.house.gov
collin.Peterson@mail.house.gov
gene.taylor@mail.house.gov
travis.childers@mail.house.gov
rush.holt@mail.house.gov
bob.etheridge@mail.house.gov
congmcintyre@mail.house.gov
tom.udall@mail.house.gov
charlie.wilson@mail.house.gov
rep.kaptur@mail.house.gov
zack.space@mail.house.gov
dennis.kucinich@mail.house.gov
dan.boren@mail.house.gov
robert.a.brady@mail.house.gov
jason.altmire@mail.house.gov
rep.doyle@mail.house.gov
john.spratt@mail.house.gov
jclyburn@mail.house.gov
lincoln.davis@mail.house.gov
bart.gordon@mail.house.gov
nick.lampson@mail.house.gov
jim.matheson@mail.house.gov
alan.mollohan@mail.house.gov
senator@ksalazar.senate.gov
senator@jbiden.senate.gov
senator@tcarper.senate.gov
senator_harkin@exchange.senate.gov
webform@landrieu.senate.gov
senator@cardin.senate.gov
webmail@baucus-iq.senate.gov
senator@tester.senate.gov
webmail@reid-iq.senate.gov
webmail@lautenberg-iq.senate.gov
senator@brown.senate.gov
senator@rwyden.senate.gov
senator@reed.senate.gov
senator@webb.senate.gov
webmail@kohl-iq.senate.gov
Thanks bostonb — I posted a link to a pdf of ALL super delegates in last night’s thread. I’ll try to match your list with names.
I think it would be good to get the email of (at least) elected SuperD’s who’ve committed too. Because I think they should be told that there’s a growing movement to vote against anyone who’s endorsed BO or continues to endorse him.
I plan to be polite in my email to endorsers. But I at least want to find out what about him and his past makes my Governor (Sebelius) think he could even handle the job.
RD– sorry if that list takes up too much space. I’ll delete if you want me to.
Katie– I wonder if that list could be cut and pasted (using bcc’s) right into e-mail forms.
This is where the VP rumour came from: http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1248
But I don’t think it would’ve been a good fit anyhow — that job’s a bit of a dead-end, their operational styles clash completely, and it’s looking pretty clear that they’re not fond of each other. Clinton’s better suited to the action of the Senate.
I wouldn’t say Clinton’s Obama attacks were inexcusable, but I would say the were ill-judged in that they backfired. Which is not a blanket condemnation, just that Clinton and her advisers either read the room wrong or had no other avenue.
Edwards pulled his name off the ballot in MI, too. Obama’s not the outlier behaviourally, Hillary is. Giving her all her delegates and binning the “uncommitteds” would be hugely controversial, given the number of times the candidate herself stated she understood they didn’t count.
And that’s definitely how Obama plans to take over the world: line dancing! Billy Ray Cyrus for VP!
Well, We can forget Joe Biden and Dennis Kucinich. They already endorsed Obama. I have no idea why they are still listed as uncommitted. Lautenberg is one my my senators but he’s an old dude and I have no idea what his issue is. Menendez came out for her. I’m going to guess that Lautenberg does too eventually. A lot of the rest are senators from conservative or Republican states like Salazar, Webb and Landrieu. Harkin has pretty much let his feelings be known. He sounds like an Obama guy to me. Rush Holt is from Princeton but Princeton is a funny town. Students may love Obama but many of my friends there who are professionals prefer Clinton. NJ went for Clinton by 10 points. He might be in a bit of a pickle in the fall.
Nice to finally see acknowledged the change I’ve seen in the MSM since December of last year. The reason for the change ( I guess this was the change we can believe in that Obama has spoken of ) they give floors me, and the audacity of them writing it in a way that they think condones the action, shows how delusional they really are.
I can’t begin to express the thanks I have for this site and for the work those that write the articles here put into it other than to say thank you all.
BostonB,
I wrote a web app that does personalized bulk email. I’ll take a look at it to see if it could be modified.
If I could fix it to make the email settings personalizable, then people could plug in their own email settings and message text and send individual messages to the list.
And with this 3 day weekend — maybe I could actually do it?
Remember when Ferraro said that race was an advantage for Obama this cycle, and the MSM and Obama camp made a big deal out of it, saything that she was being racist?
Then, not a few weeks later, Kerry tells a reporter that Obama will restore the World’s confidence in the US because he is AA, and electing him shows the world that we are not racist.
These two views of Obama’s race are two camps I think a lot of Democrats are falling into this election. In the Ferraro camp are people who recognize that Obama’s race is really helping him in the Democratic primary. He has gotten to %90 AA support, and the media has been treating him with kid gloves. Maybe they really want to help him get elected (I shudder at that thought), or maybe they are scared of being called racist too.
The Ferraro camp, however, also sees the destructive race-baiting the Obama camp and MSM used against us. This has been a deal breaker for many people. It is only one of many reasons, though, why I won’t vote for Obama. Democrats should NOT reward a politician who uses such tactics.
The Kerry camp, however, sees Obama’s race as a way to purge the guilt they feel for America’s history. I have read so many posts for Obama supporters, who really think that electing Obama is going to heal race relations in this country, or, like Kerry expressed, that electing an AA will somehow make Foreign nations respect us more.
Thinking that simply electing Obama helps advance the cause of civil-rights is really elitist, and out of touch. It will have about as much real effect on the AA community as their long fight to remove the confederate flag from SC capitol.
Fortunately, my congresswoman Betty Sutton belatedly endorsed Hillary. Still waiting for Sherrod Brown.
Ella: why were Clinton’s “attacks” ill-advised and why weren’t Obama’s Harry and Louise ads? Here’s the point: she’s been rather gentle with him. The primary season has been mostly positive but if she does *anything* than puts him in a negative light, she gets creamed while he can “brush the dirt off his shoulders” and {{crickets}}.
Now, put aside your preference for a minute and ask yourself if this were a contest between Biden and Dodd whether the media would come down so hard on one candidate for the same things.
If you are an honest person, you will answer no. If you are not an honest person, I will have to carefully consider whether you should check out the spam bucket.
riverdaughter– Can I be you, when I grow up? Please.
In reflecting that we might have been discouraged by the dirtiness of political discourse of our previous blog haunts, we know now that the discouragement was rewarded w. a gift. A gift of this blog and the talents and insights of RD. We love it.
“Ella” certainly seems to be achieving “her” objective of redirecting many conversations on this site.
“Obama’s not the outlier behaviourally, Hillary is. ”
THIS, ella, is a totally false piece of information. And frankly almost qualifies you for the spam filter.
There is no way Donna B could have swayed all those votes to Go Nuclear on the Florida and Michigan delegations if those DNC members believed they were meant to be permanent.
Those Rules committee members are long time Democrats and I’m SURE it never occurred to them that we could hold a convention without Florida and Michigan.
I AM POSITIVE that they originally believed that there would be re-scheduled primaries for those states.
Two things messed up that plan.
FirstObama and Edwards (as you mention) GAMED the system by removing their names from the Michigan Ballot. I think this was a direct slap in the face to Democrats everywhere. And showed that THOSE TWO were willing to do anything to win. Include messing with the validity of elections.
Second, the voters (bless their hearts) actually voted in record numbers. This gave the primaries a weight and validity AND rendered them important.
However do to the Election-Gaming of Obama & Edwards (thank God Edwards endorsed his crony & not Hillary) — Obama had a ready made excuse for whining about the Michigan results. “I wasn’t even on the ballot,” he says. Phooey. He was on the ballot. He took himself off.
That decision should be on him. Not the voters of Michigan.
And absolutely not on Hillary.
Ella, there are many, many other things wrong with that last comment of yours. But, you don’t deserve my attention
I spit on you.
Whaaa! I took my name off the ballot, because John Edwards told me to. Now i want ALL the votes that went for Uncomitted. Hillary is evil because she actually wanted people to vote for her. Whaaa!
He took his name off the ballot. Why should he be rewarded? Sounds like entitlement to me.
riverdaughter,
This is really an amazing piece of writing. Do you never sleep? I don’t know how you (and the rest of your crew) do it. Everyday I come here to and am completely armed for the rest of the day to fight the good fight.
What I wanted to say – even before I read your post, is
“Shirley Chisolm, Jesse Jackson, Carol Moseley Braun, Al Sharpton”
Why is this time so much more important? Is it because he’s been “working it” for so long? Is it because ever since the 2004 convention, the press has been all over him like flies on honey? Is it because of the $$ ? Is it Harvard Law? What?
Last night I asked about his standing in his law school class. I did that because I had heard from a commuter friend of mine, that it was very low. That may not mean much – look at Gonzo. But look at the problems because of him. (And Bush – ‘nough said)
Since we have almost survived the absolutely worst. president. ever. , I now am determined to get the best possible president for my country.
This is a historical year. I am here to make history with Hillary. Not the “first serious Black” candidate. If the other AA candidates weren’t serious, why did they run?
Also, what Sweetie Sue! said.
(I’m off to work where the Confluence is also my homepage.) Later
haddwag, tonva and others… hi! Thank you for choosing the Confluence. You have great taste!
Can we ban Ella? She is really a nuisance.
She is totally intellectually dishonest, and keeps repeating the same things from thread to thread.
(whispering) I might be taking this all to personally. I’m still shaking with rage at Ella for her audacity.
riverdaughter Are we doing Friday Fasting today? I haven’t had breakfast yet….
honora: When you are able to snatch the pebble from my hand, you will be ready, grasshopper.
So the media has been doing what we all saw them doing and one finally tells us why. We all knew that poor little Obama was being handled with kid gloves and must never, ever be subjected to any ill treatment.
What utter hogwash! Who gave the media the right to make that decision?
Every time I calm down and try to see things in a rational manner some twit says something so outrageous I get pi$$ed off all over again.
I will NEVER vote for the Obamcrat Misogynist Party. And if Hillary Clinton descends to taking a VP position I still won’t vote for Obama and I will lose all respect for her. I do not, will not accept that a “woman’s place is second place”. I’ve had that $hit shoved down my throat my whole life and here is where I draw a line and say NO MORE!
riverdaughter: I think Clinton’s tactics were ill-advised simply because they were badly received. Part of an advisor’s role is to assess the audience and then guide the strategy. The attacks weren’t anything politically new or outrageous, and Hillary certainly wasn’t out of bounds trying them — they just were very badly received, it hurt her candidacy, and so were probably the wrong move overall. I wasn’t a voter when the Harry and Louise ads were running, so they didn’t affect me, but I have heard many others say Obama’s variation was a low blow. I don’t have the original to compare to, so I don’t know.
I don’t think the media coverage has been level. Obama came in as the golden boy, Clinton came in as a mix of an incumbent and a figure the media resented, and a lot of the coverage has been based more on storyline than on what’s actually happening. We don’t have a truly unbiased media source in the country, and it sucks.
katiebird: the mention of line dancing makes you spit on me? Why?
Ella: Clinton’s attacks were “badly received” because the Obama campaign launched a concerted effort to depict typical political language and tactics as unacceptable when directed towards Obama. (They were kind enough to put this in a memo to the media, so there’s no question of whether or not they did it.) So in a strict sense you’re right, but it’s a meaningless sense because it absolves the people who corrupted our political process and it gives them the power to set self-serving norms that (being self-serving) they don’t follow. You might was well say that Andrei Sakharov’s criticisms of the Soviet system were “badly received,” as evidenced by the fact that he was punished.
So we should just hand our elections over to the media, and let them decide for us without the messy business of campaigning and voting.
Again, ignore inappropriate behavior. She is just at her computer laughing that she is angering any of us.
But, to Hillary’s credit, it’s the messy business of campaigning that has allowed the voters to see past the media’s caricatures of her to the real person, and to understand that she’s the tough fighter we want on our side.
A friend from Massachusetts told me that she and I were suffering from BITS – that is “Bush inspired Tourette syndrome”. This is where, upon seeing him or hearing him, we scream obscenities and say outrageous things.
OK now I have it with Obama. What shall I call it – OITS? Maybe I can just use BITS again – Barack Inspired Tourette Syndrome.
Because as soon as I see him ….out they come.
Oh no….another 4 $%*&@$#*!!@* years….?
plural- I think it will be called “Presidential Idol” and of course we will get to vote. The voting will be just like in Michigan and Florida, after the fact and of no consequence.
Rich: Fair point, but are you saying the media corrupted the political process or Obama’s team did? And all campaigns try to frame their message favorably and rig the game in their favor, but is that just a way politics works or unethical? I tend to think it’s just politics at work — and plenty of challengers have unseated their rivals by grabbing hold of the discourse and running it, which I think Clinton was able to do a few months ago.
Ahhh, Ella. But if John Judis is correct, the audience has been conditioned to see her “attacks” in a bad light. The truth is that no campaign has ever been waged where the candidates haven’t compared themselves to each other. There was nothing overtly negative in Hillary’s campaign and spreading the rumor that there was is just propagating the conditioning the media has been working on us all year long.
So, think carefully before you write your next comment. We do not allow for the propagation of media or Rove driven psychological warfare on this site.
Thanks again riverdaughter for hitting the nail on the head again this morning.
I saw nothing untoward about anything Hillary has said about Obama. She has handled the Precious One with kid gloves. He and his followers have no concept of what is coming. It will be a bloodbath.
My disgust is for the AA party leaders who either took part in the whole SC race baiting, people like Clyburn, Jesse Jackson Jr., Conyers, but also for all of the black leadership who went silent when all of it was going down.
There was not ONE prominent AA leader during that time who came out to defend the Clintons from those attacks.
The Clintons have worked their entire lives to adavnce AA causes, and should absolutely be above reproach when it comes to charges like these.
I will not forget the fact that so many AA leaders fell silent. Their desire to rush through an unqualified candidate because they really really want someone who looks like them to be president is horrible, but what is unforgiveable is that fact that they threw such a long time ally to the wolves to achieve it.
The joke is on them, however. They have spent all their politcal capital on the empty suit, and when he loses, they’ll be coming back for a hand-out giving us the old “Okie Dokie”.
“Again, ignore inappropriate behavior. She is just at her computer laughing that she is angering any of us.”
Ben, I’m really not. A lot of the posters on this blog are from MA, as am I. They’re the women I grew up with and work with. I’m not laughing at anyone, and some of the posters here have helped me a lot in understanding the fervent Clinton supporters I’ve known for years. I don’t get a charitable read here a lot of the time, but I don’t write my posts to taunt or get a reaction, and when they elicit something like “I spit on you” it’s a surprise.
riverdaughter, I agree with you! Much of the audience had been conditioned, and so what were normal political comparisons came across as attacks. Some of the stuff Clinton’s said has struck me as negative, but generally I think she’s been working within the boundaries.
Obama’s team got the narrative faster. They established the ideal of a high-minded campaign and then portrayed any punches as knifings. They were lucky to get to the high ground faster and lucky that the story stuck.
Riverdaughter: you just keep kicking ass. Not to trivialize this issue in any way, but I am reminded of the Seinfeld episode when George wants to befriend an AA to prove that he’s not racist: “Look, I have a black friend, I’m not racist.” The humor of that episode derived from irony and from the utter lack of self-awareness on the part of George, who seemed to believe that that was really all it would take. Similarly, people like Kerry seem to be saying that having an AA candidate or nominee will prove that racism no longer plagues our society. But there’s no humor in the real-life situation.
Katiebird: if you could do somesort of plug-in, that would be awesome.
I’ve been drafting letters in my head to our uncommitted Senator Reed and to Patrick Kennedy, our rep. who supports Obama, but I put the second one on hold when news about his father broke. Advice from you wise Conflucians: would it be terribly tacky and inappropriate to write to him at this time?
All the “progressives” hated the MSM last year. Now that they are friendly to their candidate, they have legitimacy.
If Democrats continue to suck at the breast of the MSM, they will continue to lose. The minute Obama is declared the nominee, watch the worm turn. Obama supporters will find out that getting in bed with them and feeding their narratives because it suited at the time the worst decision they could make.
Every day I marvel anew at Hillary’s courage. The “Judis syndrome” hasn’t just been confined to the press; it seems to be prevalent among the politicians, as well. I was thoroughly disgusted yesterday to read the comments by Gov. Paterson about Hillary seeming “desperate” in her efforts to have the votes of FL and MI counted, but then going on to say he still supported her. What an insulting and spineless remark. Thank goodness the voters aren’t as easily cowed as the press and the politicians, all of whom seem to be trying to “fix” our election. I couldn’t be more disgusted.
Jules, I hope what I wrote is adaptable. It was done as a very quick and dirty way to get specific information out to a huge number of people quickly.
So, it will require a fair amount of editing. On the other hand — it did work…. So we’ll see.
On the letter thing, I think I’d probably send Patrick Kennedy a note about how much his father has meant to you over the years (if true) and wait a while before sending him something political. This can’t be a good week for him.
The narratives never come about through “luck”. The MSM fashions them with deliberate purpose. Obama benifitted from them because they want Obama to win the nomination. You will see how “lucky” he is setting the narrative when the nomination is set, and they start campaigning for McCain.
Any politician colluding with the Media is either going to lose or is a Republican.
MAWM:
Don’t forget Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Cleveland. She was right by Hillary’s side through the worst of it and is still there with her.
katiebird: Thanks for the advice!
ben,
sorry, I forgot about her. She was drowned out, though, by the rest of the disloyals.
When did BIden endorse Obama?
Kerry has been fundraising for Lautenberg. Have a bad feeling about this one.
Generally speaking, ppl on the list who are dependent of the Black vote will respond to the not-so-subtle threats that have been in the air since January or so.
Take a hard look. The major endorsers for Hillary in the past month have been ppl who are term-limited (Easley) or ppl who don’t depend on Obama supporters for their re-election (Carney, Shuler, etc). The others are reacting to threats to their seats by organized groups like ColorofChange, netroots, etc. Occam’s Razor.
The issue is that certain constituencies of the Dem party (dominantly white male affluent netroots, Black voters) are more organized than others.
Henry Dubb-I’m assuming that half the surveys have a letter from him and half from her but don’t know that as a fact. Mine had hers.
Webb recently said that he’s not endorsing. Both would be great presidents etc. He’s smart!
Ella-Edwards and Obama pulled their names off together to try and humiliate her- thinking uncommitted would get more votes than her.
Hillary did the right thing by giving voters their right to vote for someone-JE and BO didn’t. Pulling one line out of context is not going to win your argument here.
This is why I say we need to refer to it as “The supers are nominating Obama” because the game is basically tied, with Hill winning the last 3 months. The difference between them in pledged delegates is small. She has the pop vote. They could(and should, IMO) be nominating Hill. One of the most annoying things about this primary is the media and certain bloggers acting like BO is immensely popular even though he peaked in February and she’s won more votes.
NOTICE…the Daily Kos Orange they are wearing in that video.
Joan, I think they pulled their names off because the DNC asked them not to legitimize the advanced primary. When they pulled the names off, they had no idea that Hillary wouldn’t win Iowa and sweep the rest of the primaries. At the time, that was the media narrative — a Hillary coronation.
Though keeping her name on the ballot was totally valid and a good political move, I think the nobility has been attached to it long after the act itself.
They took their names off the MI ballot in order to campaign for “uncommitted.”
Bo has posted excerpts from the most amazing, must-read article at Corrente:
http://www.correntewire.com/u_k_s_new_statesman_america_is_experiencing_mccarthyism_like_derangement
No, Obama and Edwards took their name off the ballot to pander to Iowa voters, and to delegitimize the election in MI.
There was a campaign by Obama camp to get their supporters to vote Uncomitted. There were mailers, radio ads, and church mettings.
If Obama really didn’t want to campaign in MI, why did his camp tell voters to vote Uncommitted?
The fact that Obama now wants all the Uncomitted votes is one of the most disgusting AntiDemocratic moves in this campaign
{{ sigh }} I’ve been studiously ignoring “Ella,” but now I must ask, is there any reason for him/her to be here other than being one of the 400 hired guns? It’s not going to work on me, that’s for sure. Back to *ignoring* now.
RD– My rep, Ed Markey is on the uncommitted list, but I’ve already written to him about this a couple of times. I’m guessing he actually supports Hillary anyway, as most in MA do.
This quote sort of says it all:
“…the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever… “
Mawm, I seem to recall that even John Conyers was telling his constituents to vote Uncommitted as a way of voting for Obama. But Uncommitted is still Uncommitted. In KY, 2.5% of the votes were Uncommitted. Is Obama entitled to those, as well?
Katiebird @ 8:16AM,
ooooooooh! Katiebird, you are my idol. I am not worthy! Keep that spit a-comin’ girl.
Don’t you know? All Uncommitted votes from all states should be counted for Obama. The people who voted uncommitted just haven’t been exposed to him enough. Everyone knows that when people get to know him, they vote for him.
Katiebird,
I forgot Friday Fasting. I haven’t eaten breakfast yet either. I’m off to donate to Hillary now.
Wow, thanks for that post Melanie. I had no idea how deep this plot went in the Obama campaign. Karen Hughes has met her match with some of Barry’s campaign people.
Didn’t John Lennon sing a song about women once? Something about women are the something or other of the world. Can anybody help me out on this one? It’s just on the tip of my brain.
Yes, he did write that song. Sugar did a great post about it.
Will Clinton Win the Popular Vote? from Philly Inquirer through RCP
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20080523_In_most_inclusive_count__Clinton_has_the_numbers.html
article snippets
“But could Clinton take over the lead in all of the popular-vote tabulations? Quite possibly. In Puerto Rico’s last major election, two million people voted. Let’s assume that turnout for this historic vote – Puerto Rico has never had a presidential primary before – will be equal to or greater than that turnout.
If Clinton were to win Puerto Rico by 20 points she would pick up at least a 400,000-vote margin. This would allow her to swamp Obama in the popular-vote counts, which include Florida, making her the leader in four of the six permutations of the popular vote. At that point, Obama would be left clinging to the least-inclusive count, which he now leads by 441,558 votes (551,780, including caucuses).
To understand how razor-thin this majority is, consider that if the Puerto Rico turnout is slightly larger than we have imagined – or Clinton’s margin is slightly greater – then Clinton would finish the primary process leading in every conceivable vote count. With two million voters, a 28 percent victory would put Clinton over the top even in the count, which excludes Florida and Michigan and includes estimates for Obama’s caucus victories.
It is this looming prospect which explains the tremendous pressure Obama partisans and the media are putting on Clinton to drop out of the race. They want her gone now because they understand that she has an excellent chance of finishing as the undisputed people’s choice.”
“Partisan voters almost always come home after their candidate loses. The problem arises when a candidate’s supporters believe that their guy (or gal) didn’t lose. Expect the chorus calling for Clinton’s withdrawal to grow louder over the next week, with people insisting that she has no “path to victory.”
Clinton’s path is both obvious and simple: Win the popular vote and force Barack Obama and his cheerleaders to explain why that doesn’t matter.”
Lets hope for huge turnout and huge margins in Puerto Rico. Anyone know the buzz there?
Why would FL and MI not count? If she holds the pop vote with those two she’s the people’s choice.
CNN is reporting Hill is in “formal talks’ to run with BO. No named source.
Melanie,
The votes in FL and MI do count. They are legally certified. It’s only the delegates that are being frozen out. The media can ignore the actual popular vote totals until their collective heads expode. Superdelegates can still consider the popular vote. And of course, if they ignore it, the voters will punish them.
Katiebird and RD,
Is there any way to post reference info on the site? A good example is the lists of superDs – it’s good to have and I’m always looking around for them. There’s more stuff but that jumps to mind.
Any way to do that?
Thanks, Elixir
Here’s more fuel for the Clinton as VP fire
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/politics/23veep.html?_r=2&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Puerto Rico can make her popular vote argument stronger.
I’m getting annoyed at all the VP “rumors.” Its another version WWTSBQ.
I think those VP rumors are another attempt to suppress the votes for her.
Kenosha Marge – I think we both are women of a certain age because I, too, will never vote for The Precious including if Hillary is in the second spot on the ballot. I, too, have experienced a lifetime of more competent, able, talented women taking the back seat to a legion of less qualified boys (and Barry is such a snotty, petulant one) that I cannot make myself go along once more with such injustice.
The misogyny that has characterized this campaign – including BO’s dismissive, rude, sexist behavior towards HRC – has brought to the consciousness of so many of my women friends and acquaintances the myriad of similar slights we have experienced over the years but repressed in order to function out of necessity in a sexist society.
I was angered by Taylor Marsh’s broadcast on Wednesday when she argued without backing it up with any stats that “a lot” of women will return to the fold and vote for BO in November if he is the candidate because Democrats are better for women’s issues (pay equity, abortion rights) than Republicans. (She also said this in front of a reporter for the Washington Post who was writing a piece on Marsh!) I don’t know about “a lot” of other women, but I will never vote for BO nor will any of my women friends and acquaintances. We are split between voting for McCain or not voting for president but voting down-ticket in the hopes of electing a veto-proof Democratic congress – which hopefully will be more receptive to progressive causes than this congress has been.
BTW, Kenosha Marge, 10 of the happiest years of my life were spent on 140 acres in Mineral Point, WI where I had a prairie seed nursery. Bliss. I’m now a bit south of you over the border in IL just north of Chicago where I daily plan my escape back to the country.
Ben and Mawm,
And don’t forget Shiela Jackson Lee of TX who endured the booing and vicious taunts of O-bots because she stood by Hillary, her long-time friend and supporter.
Also, Jesse Jackson Sr. defended Bill after he compared Obama’s win in SC to Jackson’s in 1988. After all, they had similar numbers.
Melanie,
I think that these rumors about Hillary “begging” to be VP are coming from the Obama camp. They make Hillary look bad, feed into the narrative that she has already lost (which she hasn’t), and the O-bots know they can’t possibily win without Hillary anyway. What they don’t get is that even if Hillary is on the ticket as VP, they will still lose. Obama is unelectable, and should not even be considered for VP.
Boston:
on your email list Jerry McNerney is almost certainly sticking with the environmentally progressive policy maker, over the one who is just a front for more dirty -biparisan- Republican energy lobbyists, per Grist.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/14/221425/110
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/
I have called him, and his staff seemed very clued in to which is the eco candidate.
I helped him defeat dirty Dick Pombo here in the Bay Area, and he is all about good solid policy on renewables.
I think MI is a special case; unique even. People before me have brought up BO encouraging his voters to write in uncommitted. I am under the understanding that he did this because if they wrote in “Obama” it would not be counted (for anyone).
I remember I asked here before about FL: well what about the people who did not go out and vote because they thought it would not count? The response was essentially, too bad for them; they should have gone out and voted anyway. Of course that is not a perfect answer, but I think it is the best we can come up with at this point.
The question I am getting at it is: it is likely that a large portion of those “uncommitted” votes were BO supporters doing what they could to vote for him. Obviously, some of them were voting for people not BO or HRC. While I am uncertain about what is actually the best way to process them I think simply throwing them out because they do not read BO would be a mistake.
BostonBoomer: I’m a 28 year old white working “her”, with no employer and no gun (and as I keep saying, the internet does not work that way, you haven’t been assigned trolls). I’ve been posting here because a lot of hard-core Clinton supporters have abandoned the Democratic blogs. When it started to look like Hillary was going to press on to the convention despite CW math, I decided to get a better idea of how the other side thinks. Many of your posters here have been very helpful in that, and I hope they know that I appreciate it.
On the other hand, cheerleading about spitting on me – what do you even say to that? I thought I was talking to people like the people I grew up with: tough but fair. I was mistaken.
Enjoy your Memorial Day Weekend, all.
I’m both tough and fair, Ella, but I didn’t grow up in MA. I’m one of those {{ shudder }} midwestern Scotts-Irish redneck hillbillies, with a some French Candian added in. Katiebird reacted the way she did, and I cheered her, because you lied.
Revote Michigan Aug. 5th or keep the current results. No way should MI votes be thrown out.
48 + 2 = legitimacy
How did I lie? I’ve asked and not gotten an answer. To spit on someone who truly doesn’t know why and then not to explain is not tough or fair.
Ella,
bite me
Your contrived indignance is laughable.
Ryan,
BO took his name off the ballot. He does not deserve votes that were not cast for him. Period. To do otherwise is completely UnDemocratic
Even if she leads in the PV after Puerto Rico, I still want Michigan to be revoted or counted as is (Florida too if necessary). Everyone should be able to decide who the nominee is.
Ella, Here’s a Link to WordPress, it sounds like you’ve got a lot of things to say and should probably consider posting to your own blog.
Confluence is not an open forum for every drive-by sweetie-troll.
[EDITED] To be clear, you lied then lied about lying. Further comments will be deleted by blog administrators.
“I decided to get a better idea of how the other side thinks. Many of your posters here have been very helpful in that, and I hope they know that I appreciate it.”
Liar. Your purpose is to come here and spread your false statements. Take your Obama propganda and concern trolling back to DKos.
It seems a little late to insert the “tough but fair” comment into the thread by an Obama supporter like Ella. Where was the fairness to any of us who posed a question or critique on other blogs that did not find us dripping in insults and blather as a result? We had no choice but to flee. Tough maybe, but our fairness vanished soon after the racist label was applied to anyone who was not onboard the Obama Express.
The only positive I can see happening with the”Sweeties” making it onto this blog as they can see with their own eyes the level of information that is available and delivered by the bloggers and posters inhabiting the Confluence.
Unlike the shrillness and nonsense spewed out to either condemn or elicit our support, the tone here displays the passion, intelligence and respect for what we believe in.
Boston:
OK- I see 3 eco congress people to pressure here:
rush.holt@mail.house.gov
Rep Rush Holt fought the good war against the War on Science, my story on this at the evil orange place: (I didn’t know it back then, forgive me: but an inspiring read:)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/25/103457/239/260/294672
and had far the best papertrail voting bill after our last voting travesty in 2004.
edward.markey@mail.house.gov
Ed Markey is a huge asset on renewable energy, heads up a House renewables committee and is from MA, where MIT is making all the good future Clinton supports happen.
bart.gordon@mail.house.gov
Rep Brad Miller took over Rush Holt’s Science committee: leave comment here
http://sciencedems.house.gov/contact/tipline_form.htm
when Holt was going to challenge (R) Elizabeth Dole for the Senate seat…hey! wow ! !
Bob Dole (R) is Elizabeth Doles hubby!!!!
And HE is one of the Republican lobbyists (ethanol) who is on the board of “energy advisors”putting up our slenderly resumed pretty boy for Republican (sorry, I meant to say Bipartisan) New PoliticsTM puppet.
How about them apples!
I’m new here and grateful I have found many who feel as I do, but would like some feedback on this trend I am noticing: Some pro Hillary sites are adjusting their messages and saying if Obama gets the nomination they will be working against McCain. So basically working for Obama. I respect and accept their positions but don’t get it;
As I’ve stated before I can’t forgive and forget the unfair, sexist, biased treatment Hillary has received. I don’t accept the premise of having to support a party at all costs.
It astounds me how after all that has happened we are expected to fall in line and support someone we genuinely feel is not qualified, someone we don’t respect. I am inspired everyday by Hillary, how she continues to fight on. I can’t imagine the pressure she has been under and yet she soldiers on. It fills me with sadness when I see some of her supporters waiver, (recently: Begala, Carville, Paterson) now I know it’s just politics
but I don’t accept it. Maybe it’s what they have to say, just like when Hillary says we must all come together. I know Hillary has no choice but to say that, as it is I see the threats held over her head everyday for just being a fighter. I mean they have been telling her to get out since Iowa! If that day comes and Hillary is not the nominee I know the only coming together of my friends and family is going to be to vote AGAINST Obama!
The scare tactics of the DNC will not work on us. Hillary has been cheated and demeaned every step of the way. Some in her campaign initially failed her, but yet she endured in spite of it. Cokie Roberts articulated it best in her recent article, stating the obvious for all those who have not had the Obama Kool-Aid “How can it make sense for Idaho, Kansas and Louisiana to have a bigger impact on choosing the Democratic nominee than Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio?”
The DNC and Obama camps held up Michigan and Florida as long as they could to block any opportunity for Clinton to get a fair shot. They had decided Obama would be their nominee and that was that. Nothing makes sense… Well, blogs, sites, pundits, politicians, etc can talk about unity till green but when I step into that voting booth come November I will be voting retribution and justice!
Pat,
thank you.
This is all part of the Psychological warfare.
They keep introducing the same debunked talking points.
Obamabots is definitely an appropriate term. They act just like robots who are programmed to say something. It doesn’t matter what we say. They will keep posting the same old BS.
If it isn’t part of a coordinated campaign to demoralize us, then these people live the most empty lives I can imagine. They just want to come and crap all over people.
Ella,
You are a liar. You are lying about your motivations for coming here for one thing.
If you get really disgusted at all of us, will you come back for more?
What I read above is a little disturbing to me and am interested in knowing if anyone else is experiencing the same vibes:
Did someone mention that Taylor Marsh is backing off a little in her interview with a newspaper that the women voters would more than likely back down in November? Is she softening up something here beforehand? I have followed her blog and her devotees number in the thousands and from what I see are loyal and absolute Hillary supporters. The appear overall to offer one or two lines each of support through their postings and she attracts at least 400 a day to each thread. Unlike this blog, which allows data, statistics, opinion to flourish, her followers almost come off as one line head bobbers.
My question is: Is she setting up a task to lead them to vote for Obama in the eventuality that he captures the nod? They appear more cultish in their support of TM and unlike here, where we respect Riverdaughters point of view, we all may not agree entirely and are free to express it. Just a thought. It scares me a little when I hear the rustle of appeasement particularly coming from her blog since I think she has an opening to the Clinton campaign.
Denise W,
I have not seen anyone around here say they would work to help Obama. In fact, a lot of us would vote McCain. Some say they would write in Hillary, or stay home, but I have not seen a lot of people saying they would work for Obama.
Personally, I will vote AGAINST Obama and any down ticket Dems who endorsed him.
If he clinches the nomination, I will be unveiling a new web-site I’m working on. It is devoted to defeating the Obama coup of the Democratic party. In it I outline:
OPERATION POISON COATTAILS
It will essentially be a voter guide for people who care about saving the Democratic party from this Obomination.
Our vote is the only real power we have, and with it, I will be telling the DNC what I think of the direction the party is taking.
Re: Michelle Bernard – We do realize that she’s a conservative pundit and rightwing shill, right? She has her own motivations for pushing a BO nomination/talking points. Probably salivating over a McCain presidency as we speak.
Fasted yesterday, though not by choice. Have a glorious day and a big beautiful weekend, and may all your kidneystones be little ones.
It appears the poor dears still don’t get it. As long as Obama’s heading the ticket the reactions will remain the same. Although, I believe they actually do understand this truth and are just desperate for something to change that outcome. Tough.
I just need to make a point on the voting statement.. yeah, African Americans were essentially granted the right to vote in 1869. But please.. by 1940 only 3% of African Americans were actually registered.. states in the south had Whites Only primaries.. and African Americans, right up until the 1960s, were VIOLENTLY discouraged to vote.
So while technically yes.. women weren’t granted the right to vote until 1920. They weren’t being lynched 40 years ago for wanting to do so.
Mawm,
Thank God! I’m with you and others who feel the same way. As Pat said some of Talor Marsh’s comments worried me a bit, but I was encouraged by some who felt as we do and said they would move on to other blogs that feel strongly against Obama- No Quarter, Men for Hillary, etc.. I just can’t see how some can say ” Alright let’s move on and group hug for Obama ! ” puke
Pat,
She has stated vary clearly that she wants a Democrat in the White House. She says over and over that she supports Hillary, and if she is the nominee will make the case “For” her. She also states, however, that if Obama is the nominee she can’t make the case “for” him, but will vehemently make the case “Against” McCain.
She thinks a McCain presidency would be disasterously worse than an Obama one.
I disagree. I believe an Obama presidency would be much worse than a McCain. Divided government worked in the 90s. We had a Republican congress and Democratic president. Unless a President is going to excercise independent judgement, as I believe Hillary would, one party rule is really dangerous.
I believe Obama would sign just about everything Pelosi and Reid put on his desk.
Also, his support of Israel is weak. Taylor Marsh thinks he supports Israel enough, but I look at who his advisors are and his past associations and that group is filled with people who side with Hamas and describe Israel as apatheid oppressors.
Obama is scary to me, and he will be the death of the Democratic party as we know it.
I know the Hillary-for-VP idea is unpopular around here, but the way I’ve got it figured out Hillary is going to be on the ticket either at the top or as VP *if* she wants it. There’s no way to keep her off, although I’m sure Obama would dearly wish it. It’s her call.
Upstate, good clarification.
True sadness of this election cycle is all that will get forgotten with this primary. In order to advance, he had to paint Clinton as racists. To get to GE he will have to the same to voters who refuse to “follow him” into November.
It’s rapidly losing its meaning (even if he wins) because it gets dumbed down to ‘non-Obama” supporter.”
“Statistical commentary” of the other candidate’s piss poor political judgment.
UpstateCNY,
Do you know that Frederic Douglas argued that women’s rights were not as important as AAs?
His sexism caused a split with Susan B Anthony, who at the time argued that civil rights were human rights, and that to favor one group over another was just as bad as the racists Douglas was battling.
There is a long history of AA leaders throwing women’s rights to the wolves.
Ella,
You are no statistician. The sample size is too small for you to claim any observation is an outlier. Try again.
Question:
If 5 people jump off a bridge, does that mean the other 2 have to as well?
Denise W, I, too, feel disappointed by those blogs that are saying we should be Democrats first once the dust has settled. At this point, for me, I feel that the Democrats have shown me the door. When they are no longer defending the dignity of women, when they no longer want to fight to count every vote, then they are no longer the party of justice and equality, no matter how their spokespeople try to spin it. I’m counting on The Confluence to remain a haven for independent voices that refuse to be bullied by the DNC.
Hillary joining the ticket as VP would, in my mind, be akin to hoping aboard the Titanic. When a “bon voyage” from the docks would suffice.
The VP talk is part of the psychological warfare.
If Clinton wanted the VP, there is NOTHING Obama can do about it. She has enough delegates to insist upon it.
All the VP talk is coming from the other side and MSM. They are trying to get us to think she is caving.
Ella,
Reread what Riverdaughter said to you. If you really wanted to know why we left the O-blogs and started our own blogosphere 2.0, you would have kept quiet and listened to us instead of inserting your incessent, conscending lectures into our threads.
Mawm:
“All the VP talk is coming from the other side and MSM. They are trying to get us to think she is caving.”
Well, of course. They’ve know the stronger candidate when they see HER. And yet they continue their haka. Oh well …
They want to suppress her votes and increase his in the last remaining primaries because they fear her claim that she has more popular votes.
Grayslady,
I see The Confluence does have independent voices and am glad for it. I for one remain committed and loyal. I believe in Hillary, in her message, and like Mawm believe an Obama presidency would be a horror -worse than a McCain. At least with a divided government we would have balance. Pelosi’s and her crew are a disaster that I refuse to be a part of
Edwardian- I agree “bon voyage” from the docks would be Hillary’s best move if it came to that.
The VP slot is being pushed by the talking heads and Obama surrogates. They know his weaknesses and are trying to change the subject by portraying Hillary as desperate.
I would not be concerned with Taylor Marsh. She has said again and again that she will not vote for McCain, although most of her commenters say they will. I don’t see any reason why either of those things should change. AFAIK, she’s a straight shooter (although her comment section is a fever swamp of links to newsmax and worldnet daily to the extent that I mostly don’t read it anymore).
I’m personally about where TM is in that (1) I believe in one candidate remaining, and that’s Hillary, and (2) I think a McCain presidency would be an historic tragedy. Not because of things like the SCOTUS: the dirty truth is that the SCOTUS is lost until the conservative majority starts to die off, and that Roe has effectively already been overturned (the standard has gone from “state regulations must not impose an undue burden” to “abortion procedures must not make Justice Kennedy feel icky.”) Mostly because he is by temperment and experience exactly the *wrong* man for the social, economic and military situation in which we find ourselves. Dr. Strangelove and Mr. Hoover, if you will. It could be argued that Obama less wrong, but in terms of moving the Democratic Party’s center of gravity towards the interests of socially liberal wealth – and believe me, I’ve got no problem with socially liberal wealth – he could very well be Dr. Hoover – because that’s exactly wrong for our situation too.
Of the three remaining candidates, we have only one that is the right man for our time, and her name is Hillary. It’s hard to make a compelling case to vote for either of the other two and I will make no guarantees either way.
Damned emoticons! Somebody fix this thing!
Great post!
I have been particularly puzzled about why those who support Hillary are called low-information voters. It seems to me that that label is more appropriate to those who have bought the other candidate. It takes more research to dig beneath the shiny image that the media is selling. I was insulted by the Axelrod ad campaign–lame cheerleading and sloganeering. Pseudo-guru stuff. I expected the high-information, discriminating voter to laugh him off.
I still don’t know why he is running for the office. Light resume and a vague mission statement–”change.” His political life has been lived in the midst of influence peddlers. Did he ever see the need to pass a tip on to Patrick Fitzgerald, or was exploitation of taxpayers business as usual?
Hilary knows how government works at a deep level, studies policy, and has spent her lifetime working for the American family. Her track record in New York is solid. She has an integrity that is palpable. The reason she has endured is that she does have a mission–and it is health care for the people. When the crowds go away, she is still Hillary. Her core purpose has never faltered.
Putting someone into a job for which he is not qualified has no benefits for that person (look at the face of W. these days), nor for the country who needs a leader. It is beneficial for the corporate interests that paid for the ride.
BTW, I read that Obama’s white family owned a few slaves.
Good morning to all!
I just confirmed that won’t be able to go to the FDR march in DC because of daughter/school/babysitting, etc. – but I will be there in spirit!
I’m definitely not having all this TV hoopla now on the “Obama VP Star Search.”
WS is right, it’s a WWTSBQ/Haka dance.
And this whole ado over “Obama’s run is more historical than Hillary’s, so get over BS” is BS.
Lowering the bar so Obama’s candidacy can make a lot of guilt-ridded white people feel better about themselves is actually RACIST. So the only way an AA can win is if he/she is coddled and babied to death by the DNC & media?
THE FIX WAS IN A LONG TIME AGO.
UpstateCNY, Please don’t try to swamp our conversation. We’ve got a search box at the top of the page. Feel free to use that.
Ella, here’s why:
This blog was created as a haven for those of us who felt we had nowhere to go. We were ridiculed and demeaned for our support of Hillary. We had no choice. We came and regrouped and an outlet was created that joined the people here from across the country to at least express not only our support of her, but our frustration at the process which appears more and more to be gamed.
Look at the commentators. Men, women, gays, LGBTs, white, black, Hispanic, older, younger, in between. Some have extensive travel in their backgrounds, some are provincial like me. Some are highly educated, others not so much. What we have in common is that we are all political junkies. We love the process. We love to discuss. We love the debate.
Most of us on this blog have bookmarked other sites: NYT, Boston Globe, Washington Post, LA Times. We have other blog sites as well. We do not just come to this one site to babble. Note how others link to sites for more information. We consider ourselves to be well informed and we have a passion to share that information. We love to be challenged.
Look again and you will see people who were original supporters of other candidates. Some even for Obama. I can only claim that I was with her from the beginning. Her policies, presentation, knowledge, tenacity, strength, has kept me in her corner and always will.
Most of us have studied the issues and not bought into the hype of “hope” and “change”. We demanded answers and so far Obama continues to fall short. His election borders on sheer fraud if all votes are not counted. We cannot accept that. That is what we are fighting for.
Please understand that we are not here to insult you but you will be taken to task if your facts are not supported. We are not open to supporting a candidate who we truly feel in our hearts and minds is unprepared to assume the highest office in the land. And I hope in rereading this thread you will begin to see the people behind the screen names. We count.
Upstate,
I love you, and I agree about what was done to black men who wanted to vote, but it’s not a competition. Women were chattel in the West up until quite recently in historical terms. Men tend to use rape to punish women for getting too uppity, but murder of women is also quite common.
I’m older than you, and I was already an adult before women could get credit in their own names. A married woman could only get it through her husband and single women hardly at all. Maybe if black men had worked in solidarity with women (many of whom are also black) and refused to accept the franchise without everyone included, we would be in a better place today.
The same thing is happening with the hate crimes laws, as garychapelhill pointed out recently. Parts of a rights coalition can’t be thrown under the bus. We are all in this together and we need to stand strong in solidarity if we want to defeat the corporatist media and politicians.
I move to divide the question. The party has failed us (and failed women especially, something I can’t discuss in the first-person), and while it’s not (yet) my choice, I am all for people registering as independents and meaning it. Obama is just a hack trying to be president, and politics being a nasty business I can’t completely blame him for seeing an opening and going for it…I blame the people who create and enable the opening. In November we may have the choice of said hack and John McCain, and while many people here are already building their narratives of why McCain would be better (or less bad) for the country than the hack, I can’t agree.
Ooops, did I reply to the wrong UpstateNY? I wondered what that “C” was for. If you are a different commentator, please ignore the “I love you” part of my message. I thought you were our long-time commenter. These duplicate names are getting confusing.
Wow Pat! That was an awesome post. That’s a definite mission statement.
Well said, BB!
This black, “happy” voter appreciates your longstanding support for civil rights and equality for ALL. And together we equally reject an Obama nomination.
UpstateCNY: I am a Catholic but the church does not influence my right to free will. The church does not speak for me on many issues and my vote is my own.
“These duplicate names are getting confusing.”
BB, I’m thinking that’s intentional.
he did it on purpose to muddy the waters. can we get rid of him or her? it’s bad enough they want to come troll this site, but to try to impersonate one of our own is too much. his argument is inflammatory and irrelevent to this election. If he was really concerned about voting rights/civil rights he would be arguing to allow the FL/MI votes to stand
SM: Thanks. I think it captures most of what we Confucians feel. We do matter and we have been shortchanged.
correction, sorry:
dotcommodity, @10:49 am Said:
Boston:
OK- I see 3 eco congress people to pressure here:
“Rep Rush Holt fought the good war against the War on Science”
Not Rush Holt, Brad Miller!!! I always mix them up.
Rush did do the paper trail, but it was Brad miller who fought the good war against the War on Science.
Anyway now its Bart Gordon there now
so email to him.
Just as I was reaching for my hat and coat, some well-needed civility crept into the discourse. Maybe I’ll stay a little longer.
“If he was really concerned about voting rights/civil rights he would be arguing to allow the FL/MI votes to stand.”
Now Gary, that’s taking it too far! I just want St. Obama to be crowned “prom king” of the DNC. [snark]
Pat — that IS a wonderful comment.:
Thank you for saying this with such clarity. This IS a haven.
CB, on May 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 am Said:
“particularly puzzled about why those who support Hillary are called low-information voters.”
My thought:
Its those who are not subject to brainwashing: mostly on cable teevee:
1. Older Hispanics (language barrier + apparently (my daugher has Sp news on all day to pass her Nursing Sp class) far more substantive news programming)
2. The poor (can’t afford cable)
3. The older/wiser partisans (won’t pay for propoganda: me)
4. The too busy (3 jobs to survive – take a read of the websites)
I’ve done a little housecleaning. More will be done if necessary.
Gary, I deleted your comment because the one’s you referred to are removed.
katiebird: And I met you along the way!
{{gary}} I will, I know the last couple of days have been rough. And that’s been hard on our regulars.
Katie, guess we should expect as much. They wreak of desperation and fret.
So… sitting for 20 years listening to hate speech, having them over for dinner, marrying you, baptizing your children, using a title of your book in honor of his teachings, etc, etc is the same as some nut who endorses you? It took 20 years for Obama to reject Wright. We all know he finally threw him under the bus ( after throwing his white grandmother) because it was politically convenient. Only in Obama land
(nodding) so true, edwardian, so true. I just posted a comment about that very fact on the new thread…..
Oh, brother, here we go…. What do they do, send one after the other trying new “techniques?” Here’s something I said to another O-troll recently. If you want to know what makes us tick, take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth. That’s an old AA saying–blunt, but true. If you just want to lecture us or derail our threads, you’re wasting your time and ours.
Ella:
I am the original Obama supporter, went so far as being a District Team Leader for my city.
I have voted in every election I can remember and I have only voted Republican once and that was for a Judge who helped women. I am a poverty law advocate in mainly women’s issues.
I was swayed by Obama’s speech at the convention and thought he was the real deal.
I have one question, if Obama has never run on race and is the candidate who never wanted it to be an issue. Why were the first 10,000 calls I was instructed to make to only black voters? We did not even get call sheets with names of white voters until three months after I joined the campaign. So again I ask, why?
dotcommodity,
Thank you! Ed Markey is my congressman, and he is excellent on the environment. I’ve already written to him twice about my concerns re: FL and MI. I may do it again soon. But I’m guess he he supports Hillary anyway.
Kim, Ella has been banned (at least for the day) for lying and rudeness. So she won’t be able to answer (at least for today).
Pat,
Thank you. Your comment really says it all for me.
bb: And I met you along the way too! We Commonwealther’s know a good thing when we see it.
Not only did Obama not tip off Fitzgerald about influence peddling, he influenced on behalf of Rezko and his former boss Davis (at whose law firm Obama did the about 4 hours of work on a case that he told us on TV was the extent of his Rezko connection). You can see a copy of the letters yourself. Imagine if Hillary or McCain had done this!
MYTH # 12:/ “Obama never did any political favors for Tony Rezko.”*
Asked if he had intervened on behalf of Rezko or Rezmar with any government entity, Obama replied, “Never. No.”
But, as Illinois state senator, Barack Obama wrote two letters on Illinois state letterhead to state and city officials supporting Tony
Rezko’s bid for $14 million in state and city funds to construct a building (in spite of the fact Rezko already had a long record of
incompetence in the construction field). Rezko got the $14 million in grant money, which included $855,000 in development FEES for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama’s former boss. The two letters can be viewed at:
http://media1.suntimes.com/multimedia/obamaletters2.pdf_20070612_17_11_03_906.imageContent
I really would like the answer. It totally disillusioned me.
Just read an article that states Obama tried to get his name of the Florida ballot as well, but the laws there would not allow it.
Is it really possible that he knew he would lose and by removing his name from the ballot, no one would know the real numbers, thereby making him appear to be ahead. Did he actually plan for all this?
I love edwardian’s comment:
“Hillary joining the ticket as VP would, in my mind, be akin to hoping aboard the Titanic. When a “bon voyage” from the docks would suffice.”
Seems more like voters who are “spoon fed” and not critical thinkers than low-information. “We are the ones we have been waiting for.”
“You’ll never go broke underestimating the taste of the American public.”
(Axelrod’s guiding principle.)
Political metaphor of the day, and perhaps the only genuinely useful political item on (or via) cnn.com:
http://www.newsnet5.com/health/16363548/detail.html
Riverdaughter and fellow Clinton Revolutionistas,
THANKS SO MUCH FOR EVERYTHING YOU’RE doing here! I am hoping to hook up a lot of my female friends – they feel so disenfranchised, so voiceless, and so let down – they’re watching MSM and think it’s really over. We have to turn this group back ON. And we have to be visible – right now we’re under the radar. I’ve been sending letters to NYT, WaPo, LA Times, and other outlets condemning them for what they’re doing. It’s amazing that Clinton and her supporters point out the sexism, and their response, disguised as coverage, is ‘oh hush now, sweetie, and get in line.”
I talked with a couple of women last night, and one was a shut-down Clinton supporter, and the other voted Obama because she thought, honestly, that they were just going to give it to him, and we’d have to ‘wait our turn’. I was FLOORED. If not now, when???? It was 40 years since Shirley Chisolm. Why do women have to wait??? Why is that the assumed course?
We gotta’ turn these shutdown Clinton supporters back around. They feel so hopeless! I hope you don’t mind if I send herds of ‘em this way!
GREAT IDEA! Clean those closets!!
http://paganpower.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/walk-a-mile-in-our-shoes/
Kim:
Can you verify the claim that Obama used all african american roll sheets. From what i’ve seen they rarely differentiate racial identification. I’m not calling you a liar, but i’m dubious of your claims.
The NY Times piece touting Hillary for the VP slot based on info from the always anonymous “friends” is sexist to the core. I can’t believe Taylor has it posted as a headline at her site with no commentary on the article’s content. The article claims that even though Hillary continues to aspire for the Presidential nomination, Bill has other plans for her. Like Hillary is a child, or a puppet, that Bill controls. The stupidest paragraph says (with my commentary):
“Yet anyone who knows the Clintons is well aware that, at times, they come to politics with different motivations. [WTF does this mean? Those nefarious "different motivations."] Both of them want to return to the White House [And how does the reporter know this information? So, we're supposed to believe in another sinister twist of events it's not Hillary running, really, it's Bill?]; Mrs. Clinton, of New York, also enjoys being a senator [Hello?], while [What does the following clause have to do with her enjoying the Senate?] Mr. Clinton, according to associates, sees the vice presidency as perhaps her best path to becoming president someday if she loses the nominating fight. And Mr. Clinton has his own ideas [oh, please] about his wife’s best interests — even if she sometimes does not share them.” [Oh, I forgot Hillary is a woman, meaning mindless. Good for Bill for catching this problem, and offering his own, much better ideas.]
Can you imagine this type of sexist drivel being written about a man?
Thank you wonderful people on this blog. You’re amazing! I particularly like the way you handle those trolls, very elegant indeed. Their only purpose seems to be to put your argument off track. Keep blocking them! Have to inform you that obamania is no less fervent this side of the ocean. Today to my horror my favourite radio station, usually reliable and serious, had a chapter of a translation of the man’s autobiography as the selected audiobook! When the whole world seems to have their blinkers on and follows the messiah and his ‘change you can believe in’ (’democraZY!) – this and other similar blogs are truly havens in a brainless world. Keep up the good work, I’m so happy to have found you!
aaarrrrgggghhhhhh —-
I was just listening to Thom Hartman on AirAmerica (I know AA is a bad habit) and the hourly news report was talking about the vets bill that HRC and others were in DC to vote against…and oh yeah, Barack the Peacock was on Capitol Hill and in the building but was too busy getting photographed TO VOTE.
SKIPPED A VOTE – AGAIN…
DIDN’T TAKE A STAND – AGAIN….
WHY DOESN’T ANYONE CALL OUT THIS EMPTY SUIT???? Most employees who don’t do their job GET FIRED… how can a US Senator continue to not show up to do their job????
I really think this whole meme claiming that Hillary wants to be the VP is just another media haka to give Obama the nomination. They found out that their WWTSBQ didn’t work, so now they are trying something they think is more conciliatory to her supporters. They just really don’t get it. To so many of us, Hillary being his VP is the same as women forced to train an unqualified man to be her boss. In other words, it’s a big slap in the face. Clinton as VP is a ticket I won’t vote for. Period.
As far as Obama’s money goes, I have no evidence at all, so there is nothing to this but a hunch.
I have always been suspicious about Obama’s fundraising. I had heard the MSM narrative that Obama’s support was from ordinary people giving contribution < $100, and Hillary had fewer donors giving bigger contributions.
Needless to say I didn’t trust the medis narrative on that one. Then I heard that according to FEC rules, people contributing under $200 still have to be reported to the FEC, but campaigns do not have to make their names and addresses public.
It dawned on me that there might be a loophole there that would make it easier to hide fake donors. The FEC wouldn’t have time to check each person who made contributions totally < $200, but by not having to make public those names and addresses, it makes investigations by journalists and citizens impossible to conduct.
A week ago, I came across a statistic that said 95% of ALL his donors donated < $200.
It could all be legitimate, but knowing the way his campaign has conducted itself by trying to suppress votes and intimidate caucus goers, I would not put it past him to do it.
I imagine, if they are doing this, they call it the Oprah pipeline.
“Yet anyone who knows the Clintons is well aware that, at times, they come to politics with different motivations. [WTF does this mean? Those nefarious "different motivations."] Both of them want to return to the White House [And how does the reporter know this information? So, we're supposed to believe in another sinister twist of events it's not Hillary running, really, it's Bill?]; Mrs. Clinton, of New York, also enjoys being a senator [Hello?], while [What does the following clause have to do with her enjoying the Senate?] Mr. Clinton, according to associates, sees the vice presidency as perhaps her best path to becoming president someday if she loses the nominating fight. And Mr. Clinton has his own ideas [oh, please] about his wife’s best interests — even if she sometimes does not share them.”
And they call this a “news” story? It should be on the opinion page.
Europecalling,
Welcome to The Confluence. Hope to hear more from you.
NEWS ALERT!!!
HILLARY CLINTON JUST EMPHATICALLY DENIED ANY, ANY, ANY TALKS FO BACKDOOR DEAL ABOUT VP.
NO NEGOTIATIONS ARE GOING ON WHATSOEVER.
SHE SAID IT’S A WAY TO DEPRESS HER VOTES AND AS OF NOW, NOBODY HAS THE NOMINATION.
SHE SAID SHE BELIEVES THIS CHATTER ARE COMING FROM HER OPPONENTS’ CAMP.
She’s right now talking to the editorial board of the Argus Leader
Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. Not only has Obama skipped finishing the nominating process, he’s skipping the election. Believe it or not, kiddies, President-Elect Obama is preparing for the transition:
blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obamas_running_mate_hunt_jarre.html
…and obviously skipping the senate votes.
Which was excerpted by BoGardiner on Corrente. I can’t find his post anymore so here’s the link to the original:
http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-clinton-vote-usa-media
Don’t vote for McCain who’s a sexist jerk. Sit on your hands for the presidential. Vote for down-ticket Dems.
We need a green FDR equal rights party!
Nathan:
Dubious? How many campaigns have you worked on? Why would I lie? It is easy enough to pull call sheets by race, and many other demographics, like sex and age. These call sheets were taken from the voter registration records and in South Carolina, you can request they be pulled by district, age, precinct, sex and yes, race.
It is the main reason I pulled away from the campaign.
MABLUE —
Thanks for that!!
Oops! The first sentence should read:
Please, read this superb article which was excerpted by BoGardiner on Corrente.
kate, i’m sorry, but I think obama is more of a sexist jerk than McCain. Do not tell me to sit on my hands either. that’s a load of crap. I will vote for whoever has the best chance of beating Obama in November(if he’s on the ballot). If that is McCain, he gets my vote. And I will vote against any downticket dem who endorsed him as well. This is a battle for the heart of the party. OK now i’m really going to the beach
GO HILLARY! Give to ‘em!!!!!
I just watched a big chunk of Hillary’s interview.
This is clearly not someone thinking about anything but the nomination.
She repeatedly reminded the journalists that none of them had the number of delegates required to clinch the nomination, in spite of what Obama and his surrogates say.
She asked SD to check the map carefully because poll after poll, she clobbers McCrazy, but Obama loses. She named some States she would carry, but he couldn’t.
She said the whole chatter about VP was to cut off the process.
And now we are in a position to ask whether McCain might beat Barry in California:
latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/can-john-mccain.html
MaBlue, thanks for that link. I watched a bit of it, too, and she was so calm and collected. No matter how tough the question, she handled it just right.
Thank you, MABlue. Hillary is just impressing more and more – as if it were possible to be any more astonished at the lady’s prowess and strength. I mean, I thought that’s what we wanted from a potential commander-in-chief.
MABlue,
Are you going to DC on 5/31? I’m assuming you’re from MA. I’m from the Boston area and am seeking transportation. Let me know. Thanks! elixir
BTW, MABlue, I agree. Hillary is not acting like someone who’s ready to fold up her tent and go home. No. She’s “in it to win it” as they say, and I agree. The Obamanation is scared and all the chatter is to distract from the obvious – she has the popular vote and she has the electoral vote. Two out of three, I’ll take it.
Absolutely, she is just what we want.
They are running this VP story to try to keep her voters from showing up in the final primaries. They fear her maintaining her lead in the popular vote.
“Shirley Chisolm, Jesse Jackson, Carol Moseley Braun, Al Sharpton” Why is this time so much more important?
Those candidates weren’t so enticing because they were actual African Americans.
I’ve bought the line… even used it… that Obama is an empty suit. No. He’s actually a White Elitist Male in a Brown Suit. If you are an Over-Advantaged Powerful White Male, he is just the person to make you look, oooooh, so enlightened without you ever having to worry about a challenge to your entitlements.
And for my money, I’d give him all the uncommitted votes ONLY after he legally changes his last name to “Uncommitted”. Barack Uncommitted, hmmmm, it seems appropriate!
Did anyone watch McCain on Ellen? There was a snippet this morning on another chat show and talk was on gay marriage v. civil unions and gay rights. McCain maintained that while he was against amending “marriage” act to include gays and lesbians, he is in favor of states recognizing gay couple’s rights to enter into a legal “contract” — ie “civil unions”.
Naturally, Ellen disagreed and there was a bit of an awkward pause or two, but he continued to “respectfully” disagree with her personal stance on the issue. And then Ellen broke the tension by saying: “So can I expect you to walk me down the aisle?” She’s hilarious! Lol!
I have a suggestion for a Hillary running mate: Alegre over at MyDD. She posts and although there are some supporters still out there, she gets clobbered every time. Her willingness to stand on principle deserves a round of applause. Alegre is as strong as Hillary.
ps: I think that Ellen Degeneres is one of the nicest people in the world. And so funny too.
elixir:
I’m not sure about the DC trip yet. I’m thinking about combining it with a job related trip I have to make to DC.
On the electoral front:
Hillary now has a 10pt lead on McCrazy in NH, in addition to leads in NV, WV, NC, NM. These are all States BO is losing.
Nice going DNC.
How Sen. Clinton keeps her cool is much to her credit. If it were me, I’d have long since taken a bat to some of those “elitist” bobbleheads. But then that’s why she’d make for a better “leader of the free world” than myself.
DcDemocrat, sadly, I urge you not to get too excited about the LATimes poll. They have been majorly in the tank for Obama all along, so it may well be that they have a poll showing Hillary behind McCain. They have had a pattern of inaccurate polling and polling that tends to overstate Obama’s support, so I am not willing to believe they would tease an Obama loss until I actually see it.
Current electoral map
Electoral Votes: Clinton 315 McCain 206 Ties 17
JJ: There’s absolutely no way that Hillary would lose California. The fact that they cite Latino voters as a problem points in the direction of only one candidate.
The suggestion that there might be race riots, while it is not true, is not going to help Mr. Obama. How did they think white folks would react to that?
“The suggestion that there might be race riots, while it is not true, is not going to help Mr. Obama. How did they think white folks would react to that?”
That’s exactly Michelle Bernard’s motivation. She’s a rightwing conservative shill — BIG time.
Hillary as VP? Even if it were to become true at some point in the future, it would not get me to vote for Obama.
He’s inexperienced and unprepared for the job. Having Hillary on the ticket doesn’t change my opinion of his skills or leadership ability.
He would still be in ‘charge’ and I don’t see anything on his resume that makes me believe he is ready for that role.
MABlue that link isn’t working.
Oh jeeeeh. I go to lake Ontario with son and niece for the day and when I come back I find the Confluence in full Starship Trooper mode? I see we have a lot of new arachnoid Bugs. Yikes. Remember the whole goat testicle thing? Please, do not feed the Bugs. They are relentless and given a chance will suck your brain in search of “information”
BB: I know you love me. Yo tambien te quiero (I love you too!).
Nathan, it is incredibly easy to target who you call. I am not sure if you have ever canvassed, but the canvassing lists each campaign makes come directly from the voter rolls, and the campaign can target them however they want. The information that is available includes name, address, phone number, age, gender, and sometimes race, though that may depend on the state. It is INCREDIBLY easy to target by race. Also, remember that many areas of this country are incredibly segregated still. By focusing on selective zip codes, you could easily target by race.
I have volunteered only for Senator Clinton and have never experienced such targetting and I cannot say what happens in the Obama campaign, but know that it is very easy to do and perhaps smart politically (though very cynical) to go for whatever votes you think you can get.
oceancitygirl:
He would still be in ‘charge’ and I don’t see anything on his resume that makes me believe he is ready for that role.
That’s what so many of his surrogates, not to mention the DNC, fail to acknowledge. Those who aren’t the least bit impressed by Obama and his campaign, aren’t gonna reconsider because of his choice of running mate. And every attack ad, calling into question his judgment and lack of experience, will reinforce all of his shortcomings. Isn’t someone’s book due out this fall? Just sayin’.
MABlue,
there are a lot of wierd polls of late.
I think it shows that MCain is actaully pretty dang weak even with Obama at the top. SDs see that Hillary would kill him.
SUSA just had Obama beating MCCain by 9 in OH as well as beating him in PA. These are different than most other recent polls except for PA where it looks like he might be stronger than I thought after the butt whoopin’ there.
Of course Hillary is much stronger in all these esp PA, OH, FL which is VERY important to winning the EVs.
I was surprised that Obama pulled ahead in SUSA in OH though, SUSA also has him ahead by 7 in VA. That’s really hard to believe.
I can tell you anectdotally many GOP pollsters are telling the strategists either is going to beat McCain but HIllary would destroy him.
But I’m certainly off the MD and IL only concept at this point for the precious one. States like MA, NJ, and even PA seem to have little interest in McCain even versus the empty hope suit.
IT could very well be that HIllary would win Kerry states + OH, FL, NV, AR and maybe even NC, WV, and NH. i.e a landslide Kentucky style.
But from what I have seen Obama is likely to take IA, CO, while risking to MI and no shot in FL. PA seems to be coalescing to him though.
Hillary’s argument is better as “he can’t win” than “why risk it?…I’ll win easily”? But the SD are certainly getting conflicting polling of late as to the “he can’t win” side.
With recent Obama leads in polls for OH, PA, IA, CO, NM, VA and NH the case is harder to sell as “he can’t win by as much”.
If Obama is lucky the electorate might actually take a corpse over a Rethug this year. That’s about where I am if she can;t get it, though I understand those that think otherwise.
This is before the DNC campaign shows McFlipFlop runs against MCCAin Fiengold and runs against MCain Kennedy etc. If Hillary was such a flopper she’d be crucified in the media. The DNC will do it to McCain even after convincing the country its BUSH 3. Americans just don;t like the flip flop as an honesty threshold.
HIllary would bury McCain. But as weak as he is they seem bent on risking Obama and possibly going down like “the titanic of hope”.
That OH poll was not good news coming from SUSA, they have been pretty good this cycle.
Happy memorial day everyone.
I don’t know. I have a feeling the LA Times poll will be bad for Hill, which is nuts. But typical of the LA Times. Ras(I think) had a poll out yesterday with BO with a slight lead over JM, but Hill crushing him 54-38.
That’s in CA, I mean.
You were talking about the Latino vote, Obama was on making a speech when I went out for lunch targeting the Cuban vote.
Cuban, Chicano, Puerto Rican and Central American vote are very different animals.
Oops!
Sorry here is the link about the electoral map
Hope it works.
I can’t help but recall how sure we were that the 2004 “Anybody But Bush” meme would be enough to retake the White House. How’d that work out?
I don’t know how anyone could think a Democrat, whose candidacy has alienated so many factions within the party, could stand any real chance in a general election.
and as tough as it is for Obama and the working class, I think MCain voted against raising the minimum wage about 8 or 9 times I think.
that is something that voter will get bitter toward him about.
in ‘08 the GOP is in trouble as special elections are revealing one after the other. But the DEMS seem too stupid to take the Hillary EV layup staring them in the face.
As I said, we said the same with Kerry in 2004. With Obama, we haven’t even begun to see what the GOP machine will rachet up to fire up their base. So far he’s been the ‘gift that keeps on giving’ – Wright, Rezko, Ayers/Weather Underground, Bittergate.
Heck, even Farhenheit 9/11 wasn’t enough to get Bush out of the White House.
And with Obama being the viewed as the blank slate, it’s much easier to portray him every which way. McCain, much like Hillary, came into this campaign cycle with high negatives and an image formed with most Americans. They’re only starting to formulate an opinion of Sen. Obama.
How come Hillary keeps winning all these primary and all these counties, but SD for those districts keep coming out for Obama?
Could it be that there is a backroom deal to deny Hillary the nomination?
“Could it be that there is a backroom deal to deny Hillary the nomination?”
Yes. The supers are nominating Obama.
Edwardian,
that stuff might work but I can tell you for a fact the GOP does not think it will. The reason is their base has shrunk so much they can fire it up at will and get blown away anyway by Clinton and squeaked by Obama.
I have seen GOP polling predicting either Clinton or Obama will win Indiana. Indiana! THey call this scotch neat polling as they have a few.
They will swiftboat that’s all they have and they know it. With Obama they have inexperience and the biggest gifts so far; FL and MI. I only go by what I see and they are not confident at all.
Hillary would destroy McCain but the thought htat Obama has little chance is not what the GOP stratetists are pondering at all.
Like I said, heard all this before in ‘04 with a similar candidate.
LOL – ironically this song in the video is from “Sister Act!”
And, lest you forget, last presidential election, the Dems were presenting a for greater united front. You honestly see all those needed to fall in line actually happening by Novemeber, if Obama’s given the nomination? Again, there wasn’t this level of division in 2004. Methinks short of him trotting out draped in swastikas, McCain’ll maintain the greater advantage.
Like I said, heard all this before in ‘04 with a similar candidate.>>>
I haven’t and I’m married to a GOP pollster. In 2004 they won OH and FL on gay marriage. The margin by the stark reality of numbers, AA “evangelicals” in north FL and OH.
I understand your view but its a lot harder to defeat an incumbent President than you might think. Especially with mission accomplished.
and he’s not the candidate yet.
Interesting to see how that would play out without significant portions of Dems participating in your favor. But Barack certainly thought so several months ago. He was sure he could secure Hillary’s supporters in a GE contest. Okie dokie.
Bully Pulpit,
Indiana will never go for a Democratic candidate for prez unless the election is an overwhelming landslide. Last time it happened: 1964, LBJ in the shadow of the Kennedy assassination.
What’s the latest on Steve Corbett’s “Operation Turndown” — anyone?
…and they knew they would win OH and FL on gay marriage just like McCain already knows he will win FL on Castro and Iran/hussein with Obama running.
You are correct that Obama has a lot to mend and that all of it will not be mended. I can tell you that the GOp would plan to strip enough AA vote if its the other way around too.
Given where it stands, it’s actually easier to take OH, WI, VA, NC, and MI as McCain/Powell and even McCain/Rice polls reveal if it’s “given” to HIllary.
I call that sad but true type of polling. But that’s what they get paid to do.
I don’t know, Hill’s electoral map has Indiana weak GOP. I think that’s why she and now BO apparently have considered Bayh for VP.
Actually, Hill’s electoral map is pretty neat. Lot’s of weak GOP in there.
Oh boy, Hill screwed up in that interview. She mentioned RFK’s assissination in reference to nominees not being decided early. Dumb error. Wish she had not done that. It’s the last thing she needs right now.
MABlue, I can’t make the link work to the electoral map.
Mawm, I love your idea about Operation Coattails, I look forward to your new site, and I can’t wait to participate.
All this garbage from Obama’s PR Department (the media) alleging Hillary asked to be Obama’s veep nominee is not only to depress the vote, it’s also to stop donations to her. We must not let it work.
I’m at the point that I simply do not believe anything about Hillary Clinton reported by the MSM. They have done nothing but lie about her since 1992; and it has only gotten worse as time has passed, and they have been unable to destroy her. It must really gall them that she only gets more popular as their attacks against her get more shrill and less and less credible.
And as for the concerted effort by the Obama camp to convince Hillary supporters to stay home should he get the nomination rather than voting for McCain. Nice try. Really. But I will use the same criteria in this election that I always do — I will vote for the best available candidate. If the choice is between Hillary and McCain, I will vote Hillary. If the choice is between McCain and Obama, I will vote McCain; and I will also vote against any downticket Democrats who helped give Obama the nomination. Stick that up your yeehaw, Howard.
Sorry, MABlue, I got interrupted as I was writing my comment; I see you have already fixed the link. Thanks.
I agree Indiana should be like Wyoming for the GOP. It’s not this year.
GOP polling points to a disturbing trends in Indiana.
Some public polls also reveal it.
SUSA (4/30) Obama 48 McCain 47
SUSA (4/30) Clinton 48 McCain 45
Indianapolis Star (4/20) Obama 49 McCain 41
Regardless of their accuracy these results should not “even exist” in Indiana. I certainly agree with you on that. They do exist and are supported by private polling I have seen.
But more troubling for the GOP is what they say. Indiana! no way only in a landslide! Probably won’t happen in IN; but what does it really say about PA, OH, NJ and the like?
They are more worried than you think facing either is all I’m saying.
Riverdaughter, this was a truly rolling on the floor laughing post — the vid clip was perfect — quite the giggle maker. Thank you.
Just some random thoughts for Friday:
1. Was David Shuster taught to talk with a coat hanger in his mouth?
2. Was Claire McCaskill a cheerleader in high school?
3. Will Donna Brazille have to wear a sandwich board to declare her allegiance to Sen. Obama?
4. Is there really a difference between preconditions and pre-planning?
5. There is a reason Richard Morris goes by Dick.
6. If democrats are democrats in the red caucus states, what are democrats in MI and FL?
7. If living in a foreign country as a child gives one foreign policy experience, W should have been a whiz-bang at foreign intelligence since his father was the Director of the CIA.
8. If Sen. Obama gets the nomination in Denver, there will be a new meaning to the term mile high club.
9. When Ariana Huffington is looked upon as a bastion of left thinking, Dr. Dolittle will be doing brain surgery.
10. Does Tweety sit on the edge of his seat because of tingling in his leg.
11. How do Bradley, Dodd, Kennedy, Kerry, Daschle, Hart, and Byrd represent “new” thinking?
12. Does Chuck Todd bake cookies in a tree during his off hours?
13. Will Cuba be the 58th state?
14. Why doesn’t John King’s magic fingers leave smudges when he gets dressed?
15. Since Sen. Obama runs for higher office every three years, what will he do in 2011?
Bully Pulpit, with all due respect to your GOP-pollster hubby, the McCain/Obama electoral map at the site MABlue linked to showed Obama behind 272-242 with 24 ties.
As several commenters have pointed out, we all thought we could beat Bush about this time in 2004, and that didn’t pan out, so I say we go with the strongest candidate, you know, the one actually capable of being President, which is Clinton, and make our best case to the electorate.
And as for all this GOP BS that they are so worried about their chances, it reminds me of the way a wily old football coach will try to lull his opponent into complacency by talking down his own team and building up the opposition. Truth is by the time they get through with Obama, even his granny may not vote for him; and, unlike with Kerry, they won’t even have to lie.
Riverdaughter,
You could sell the Brooklyn Bridge!
upstate,
i just made another contribution because of that attack on Senator Clinton for simply citing history. i, too, will never give up or give in.
Anyone who thinks that the Civil War was fought on race is obviously either dishonest or ignorant, and should be ignored. Since said person also thinks race is the oldest and deepest division, ignoring the self-evident fact that sex is, his credibility is non existant.
Messy Marcy
LOL
it’s really not a dirty profession it;s just numbers
yeah the puplic polls and these ge electoral “predictors” are not very good at all. At least not this early in the game.
Private polling can use 5 to 6 times a sample size. (3000 vs 600).
Super Tuesday had Obama “polling ahead ” in only 3 states.
IL, GA and MN. That’s it.
Of course some had Obama winning CA late if you count that one. With early voting that was not even possible just like NC.
Despite electoral predictors based on public polls the Clinton camp really downplayed all the caucus states because of the private polls and the lack of work there. Forget the media and misogyny as root causes for a minute(though they are) Penn killed the elected delegate campaign by not understanding the process very well. This numbskull thought she would “winner take all” of the California while Obama flipped two or three dinky caucuses to basically erase California.
If those reports are true, that’s malpractice and leaves us with this math dilemma despite the obvious best candidate against McCain.
Point is if you used the public polls on the super Tuesday states clinton would have won all but three.
I agree Clinton will have an easier electoral victory and should be the nominee for that reason. Obama might as you say not even get a vote from his granny. LOL He certainly will have to deal with winner take all and not enough AAs all over the so called “reshaped” map.
It is resahped. Since Obama referred to Hillary as Annie Oakley I’ll give you the running pollster joke for her shooting ability…and its straight from Annie get your Gun
“Anything you can do I can do better
I can do anything better than you.”
That’s what the polls say. She IS Annie Oakley.
the wily old football caoch analogy cannot explain why the GOP just lost Hastert seats in IL, a solid red seat in LA and a solid red seat in MS. Private polls do and they are worried big time about the seats as well as the WH.
The only one who tells it like it is in MSM is scarborough. Both on Clinton vs Obama and what the GOP is really saying in close quarters.
gotta run have a nice M-day.
I won’t support Obama because I think the only thing worse than him losing the GE would be him winning the GE.
I have no image or idea of what Obama intends to do as president. Right now, the only analogous character I can think of is Chauncy in “The Incredible Lightness of Being” (Peter Sellers, Shirley McClain – sometime in the last century). I’ve been assured he’ll surround himself with “good” people. Fine. But who will be driving the train?
Resuscitating the Dem brand after 4 years of watching “Nero fiddle while Rome burns” will be next to, if not, impossible. We’ll have to start a third party just to replace the one we let get away.
Oh, and have a great weekend!
get lost renee
Gary, looks like she already is.
“Renee”, watch the video (Argus Leader link above). She does *not* say that she is waiting for Obama to get assassinated. She first mentions her husband’s and then RFK campaign going through June. Stop smearing Hillary with distortions. Don’t the obamabots have numerous blogs where they can vent their Freudian psychodrama rage? Not here please.
I will not vote for an unqualified candidate whose major appeal seems to be that he’s “cool”. Didn’t we already have that for 8 years?
I’m voting for substance; that means Hillary and if not her then maybe McCain
. Not Obama. I am not sitting this one out.
Thank you Riverdaughter for a great blog. I’ve been lurking for a while, but had to jump in now! My fiends and I thought we were alone in Obamaland until I googled “Obama sexism” and found you.
oops, friends, not fiends
although we can be fiendish….
Hello Robin, welcome in fiendship and friendship too.
[...] sort of Obamafacists. Renee from Crawford’s Take recently wrote how her post was blocked from River Daughter. I go to this site daily and have always found them fair. While it is a site for Clinton supporters [...]
Hello,
I am pretty consumer illiterate so I am not sure I am following comment rules. But your wonderful writing about Hillary as VP and who is spreading rumors prompts me to write. Last week (Sat, May 17), I caught these two men on tv half-way thru their broadcast. They were having this discussion on Hillary being VP and one of the men actually said she would be “castrating” Obama. I was so shocked and unprepared, I turned them off. But I’ve dug up the tv guide up, gotten the name of the program, Beltway Boys, and the channel, FOXN. A few minutes ago I Googled them and discovered the transcript of the broadcast; in their editing disclaimer for clarity, they had changed the word to “emasculate.” And they make further references to other male attributes regarding Hillary. I am still angry and insulted. I think I will print the transcript just to have it in case the network deletes it. I love your work. There is so much sanity in the posts. You are wonderful teachers.
Oops! I meant ‘computer’ illiterate …however, with as little shopping as I do, I think my subconscious is telling me I’ve become consumer illiterate, too. I’m on a serious Friday fast.