• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    William on Dana Loesch says the quiet par…
    riverdaughter on I am not a general…
    riverdaughter on I am not a general…
    riverdaughter on I am not a general…
    lililam on I am not a general…
    Propertius on I am not a general…
    William on What Will the Midterms Tell…
    lililam on I am not a general…
    Propertius on I am not a general…
    Propertius on I am not a general…
    Beata on What Will the Midterms Tell…
    lililam on I am not a general…
    lililam on I am not a general…
    Beata on What Will the Midterms Tell…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on What Will the Midterms Tell…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Rationality Is A Process, Not A Conclusion (Nuclear Weapons Edition)
      A lot of mistakes come from assuming rationality means “thinks the same way I do” rather than “reasons from premises I might not share.” Left than 1/1000 economists predicted the financial collapse, because they reasoned from assumptions like “the market is self-correcting” or “housing prices never go down.” (Sometimes both at the same time, which is rarely […]
  • Top Posts

Afternoon Open Thread

It’s a cold and chilly day here in Central PA. Not very “May” like. Days like today make me feel like I’ll never be warm again. We’re going to dinner in about an hour. In the meantime, here are some things to ponder.

Emily’s List founder, Ellen Malcolm, wrote a piece for the Washington Post this morning called Quitters Never Wiin. And it’s true. The Obamaphiles seem to be counting on a strong, persistent demand to get out of the race as the best way of forcing Hillary out. But so what if she doesn’t? Then what? Well, it only means that Obama has to wait longer to wrap it up or not wrap it up at all. And we’re behind her all of the way.

Following up on Anglachel’s and Bringiton’s math, I’d just like to point out another little detail that works against Obama. In the primaries, we see him winning decisively in two scenarios: the state is sparsely populated, has a lot of Republicans and runs caucuses OR the state has a critical mass of African-American voters. In the case of the latter, African-Americans are voting for Obama in overwhelming numbers. They now represent a block for Obama. But even with a block, the difference in delegate counts between Obama and Hillary is pretty small. That means that even with almost every African-American in the country voting for Obama, they can just barely swing it for him and with FL and MI, they can’t even do that. So, what’s going to happen to Obama when that 12% of the population that is concentrated in the greatly non-discriminatory Democratic party now is diluted by independents and the more racially picky Republican party in the general election? They AA population is no longer a critical mass, methinks. Forget ever carrying North Carolina.

This is an open thread.

65 Responses

  1. I just want to repost something someone posted on the last thread because it has me spitting mad:

    Mr. Obama’s aides said they would highlight Mr. McCain’s opposition to abortion rights to try to stem the flow of disaffected women who backed Mrs. Clinton in the primaries and whom Mr. McCain’s aides said they would aggressively court.

    http://www.nytimes. com/2008/ 05/11/us/ politics/ 11strategy. html

  2. Happy Mother’s day!

    I have never been prouder of of the Progressive Blogosphere 2.0, especially Conflucians. You guys kept the battleship going through the macabre spectacle of the last week.

    In the meantime, I have taken some time to recover while working on my farewell to the Democratic Party and to the “progressive” movement.

  3. As usual, I’ll say, if abortion rights were so important why didn’t the Democrats support the woman who was unambiguous about the issue. Instead they support the man who is wishy-washy.

    Until the Democrats give Democracy back, all other issues fall by the wayside. We can’t let the perpetrators of this corrupt election win.

  4. Exactly, Teresa.

    Hey all, please read and rec this diary:


  5. Teresa234 — and if abortion rights are so important, then why aren’t Democrats supporting the person holding the larger lead vs McCain?

  6. We cannot let them win. Abortion is a carrot they will try to wave.Given that Obama is weak on this issue, that blows my mind.

    They are also going to wave the Supreme Court carrot. Remember to vote down ticket Dems – Clinton supporters especially, , and we have nothing to woory about.

    Oh – be careful what progressive movement you join – make sure it is feminist.

  7. Obama is a strong pro-choice candidate and McCain is staunchly pro-life. If Obama wins the nominee he plans to emphasize this to his advantage. What is inflammatory here?

  8. MABlue: nice hearing from you.

    RD: please, tell your bro to take good care. Also, thank him on our behalf.

  9. Just got an e-mail reply from a NC superdelegate I e-mailed. He told me he was staying “uncommitted” b/c he’s looking at the same math I am, re: Penn, Ohio, and Florida (where, so far, only Clinton wins). He’s using this site as his “math” watcher:


    ~sigh~ This tells me that he’s probably for Clinton, but doesn’t want to come out against the “popular sentiment”

  10. Thanks UpstateNY.

    You guys did a sensational job staying on the battlefield.

  11. Just came from Taylor Marsh. There is a post where Morning Joe people are talking about the remaining contests.

    The guy who said Hillary was pimping Chelsea says that since Puerto ricans cannot vote in the GE their vote should not count towards the primary (popular vote argument). Terry (sp?) something says they are citizens so their vote should count.

    Is this another way to dismiss Hillary supporters?

    I am not too impressed.

  12. UpstateNY: The guy who said Hillary was pimping Chelsea says that since Puerto ricans cannot vote in the GE their vote should not count towards the primary (popular vote argument). Terry (sp?) something says they are citizens so their vote should count.

    I expect a Latino backlash if this nonsense continues.

    LULAC is already suing re: the discounting of Latino-dominated districts in TX. Then you have the FL situation … now they’re saying PR doesn’t count?

  13. Upstate: Surprisingly bad politics from whoever you’re quoting from Taylor Marsh. Puerto Ricans indeed can’t vote in elections, but the Puerto Rican disapora in the 50 states certainly can vote, and they probably wouldn’t like what that talking head had to say.

    Of course, I’m at least somewhat sympathetic to that line of thinking. Democrats in states that have no chance whatsoever of going Democratic in November probably shouldn’t have a vote in our primaries! Obama is getting to nomination on the shoulders of the Democrats of Utah, Alabama, and other fine folks who are, unfortunately, political zeroes in November.

  14. I was asked by an obama supporter if i was now going to get behind the annointed one.
    ” I don’t know”, i answered.
    “What about Roe V. Wade!!!?”
    “Well, I’m part of the dry p*ssy demographic so why should i care…you guys don’t need me, remember.”
    “But what about younger women and protecting their right to choice?!”
    “I thought feminism was over and all had been taken care of…that’s what you guys said when we tried to point out the sexism”.
    “You’re a racist”.
    That’s all they got folks.

  15. wow, Rich, so I’m a political zero? that makes me sad. I’m not blaming you, I know it’s true 🙂

    at least you called us fine folks. we don’t hear THAT very often down here in ‘bama

  16. capt, I hope there are other Super D’s thinking like that one.

    Good for you for writing.

  17. Ryan,

    Obama is not a strong pro-choice candidate. He’s very wish-washy. Maybe you should read his book “The Audacity of Hope.” Obama wants to “reach out” to anti-choice people and let them know that we understand that abortion is a “moral issue.”

    But beyond that, it is insulting for Obama to think women are so stupid that after all his sexist dogwhistles and out and out misogyny toward Hillary, he can buy us back with a little bamboozling on abortion rights. I don’t trust the man on any issue, but certainly not anything pertaining to women’s rights.

  18. Obama will go whichever way Michele directs him.

  19. This situation just illustrates that HRC/BO have more in common than anything else. I do not see anything wrong with acknowledging that the pro-choice/pro-life is a “moral issue” because for at least one side, it is.

    From 02-07 McCain received a rating of 0% from NARAL and Obama received 100 in 06/07. Clinton received 100% from 02-07. This is compared to what, a last minute e-mail from NOW? Though an excellent organization they are far from impartial (having openly endorsed Clinton). The facts are pretty clear on this singular issue.

  20. @Ryan: No one in their right mind should trust Obama on any Democratic issue because he has never fought for any such issue when push came to shove. He could have the best voting record, but it never required him to stick his neck out, let alone lead the charge.

    When you combine his political cowardice, naked opportunism, and the fact his base is deeply misogynistic, there’s nothing but big red flags concerning Roe.

  21. Ryan, Obama was planning to confirm Roberts, saying he admired Roberts’ intellect and if he were President, he wouldn’t want his nominees overturned on ideological grounds. His own chief of staff had to point out to him that this wasn’t a moot court exercise, and if he voted for Roberts, he’d be held accountable for every conservative vote Roberts made, which would be bad for his career. Well, that he cared about, so he voted against Roberts’ confirmation.

    I have no faith that Obama would appoint judges I approve of, especially with his professed desire to make nice with the Republicans.

  22. I don’t know how I should take this, but Obama does say he was sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts.. I don’t know. I have not seen him willing to stand up and fight for much of anything. Who knows who he would appoint in the interests of post-partisanship and non-ideological “new politics” only for us to find out later that yes, the nominee was a lot more conservative than we thought.

  23. captsfufp,
    “Just got an e-mail reply from a NC superdelegate I e-mailed. He’s using this site as his “math” watcher:


    Good God, looked at that site – for sore eyes!

    I guess I assumed the superdelegates were these superintelligent beings perusing sites like the electoral votes based on state by state polling matchups between Clinton/McCain v Obama McCain

    these are summarised in the big picture which changes from day to day, but tells a clear story:


    Only Clinton would win in the GE. Obama would lose by 20 to 30 points to McCain, Clinton would beat McCain by 20 to 60 points, in electoral college votes, how the WH is won.

    Unfortunately Rasmussen polls are part of these state by state polls, and they have called off their polling. Why?

    Because its over. Yes, stupids.

    The pundits have spoke and Obama must be voted for by the Superdelegates, or they are overturning the will of The People. (Except Kennedy and Kerry, of course)

  24. NYT Caucus Blog via Taylor Marsh: Rahm Emmanuel calls out Ted Kennedy for his remarks about Clinton: “The gratuitous attack on her is wrong and uncalled for.”

    Personally, I’ve never been a Rahm fan, but I’m glad to see that at least one person in the Democratic party understands that remarks like Ted Kennedy’s drive a stake right into the heart of the party. Compare this to John Edwards’ recent appearances on the news shows where he has effusive praise for both candidates. Even for those endorsing candidates, the Edwards approach should be drilled into all of them.

  25. Ryan – why are you here now? I don’t believe I’ve seen you here before.

    And don’t think you can suck up to us by saying how much our candidates have in common. You see, we don’t like Obama, we don’t trust Obama, and we know he is not ready to be President.

    Are you an Obamabot who is trying to make nice to us now that you need our votes?

  26. Oh, and, captsfufp

    I had a similar reaction when I called Rep McNerney who I campaigned for and my Senator – Barbara Boxer, both of whom really know their way around good Democratic clean energy policy, and their staff – while officially noncommittal on their behalf, seemed to lean Clinton to me.

    So I’m cautiously hopeful that the half of the supers not speaking out quite yet will hold out for us being able to have not just a Democrat, advocating for actual Democratic policy, but the only one who can beat McCain.

    McNerney was in the Wind power business: if I were him , I would really want to know why a supposed Democrat like Obama won’t extend the Production Tax Credit more than 5 years, per his plan (which halts windfarm development every 5 years) when the Democratic congress is trying to extend it 10 years!

    Clinton plans to make it permanent, (which is how Europe is going green now) per her clean energy plan.

    (both plans at their sites)

  27. The recent NC polls are Rasmussen April 10, which has Obama and McCain tied 47-47, and Research 2000 April 28, in which Obama trials 41-50.

    Darryl at Hominid Views gives him a composite 5.2% chance to carry the state (along with a 19.4% chance in SC!) — but the older polls will age out soon, and he’ll be all donuts in the Carolinas.

  28. Obama if elected could not change the makeup of the court away from its conservative bent. I don’t expect any of the five conservative justices to leave in the next twelve years. It is true that it would be better to have a non-conservative justice to replace Stevens, who is the most likely to leave in the next four years. But that argument always militates in favor of a Democrat. However, what if Obama wins, gets one appointment (for Stevens), and picks a reasonable moderate; but is an insipid and unpopular president, and loses to a real right-winger next time, and the latter gets an extreme conservative to replace Ginsburg? How are we better off?

    And as for Roe, I realize I’m not a woman; but I do not think that Roe would be overturned, even if the court went 6-3 conservative. I don’t think there is any stomach for it; or that Roberts (who said it was settled law), would push for it. In any event, after decades of Republicans running the country (except for Clinton’s eight years), I think it’s pretty silly for Obama to think that he’s going to win back disaffected women by threatening them with loss of abortion rights. And as said above, a Democratic majority in the Senate could pretty well stop an anti-abortion justice from being appointed. Nonetheless, expect Obama to use some of the hundreds of millions of dollars which he is getting from somewhere, to push this scare tactic.

  29. P.S. If Obama was so concerned about this, why was he all set to vote for Roberts’ confirmation (until an advisor warned him it wouldn’t look good); and why did he vote to stop a filibuster on Alito (a filibuster which Hillary supported)?

  30. captsfufp — Tell your superdelegate contact that this is where he should look for the best of the maths:
    … and specifically the latest analyses for Obama and Clinton.

  31. @grayslady: Where was he when all those vicious, bigoted attacks were being launched by the media, the Obama campaign, Obama himself, and other top Democrats? Oh, right: silent.

    Don’t trust this recent effort to sweep everything under the rug. Remember where they were when it counted? Either quiet on the sidelines or enthusiastically approving, if not engaging in it themselves.

  32. Mothers Day Message to Ryan — Even with Roe v Wade in place, organized abortion antagonists have been extremely successful in eroding the availability of abortion in practice. This is where the battle lines are drawn.

    Obama has been extremely successful in recruiting support in practice from organized abortion antagonists. Just as he did in capturing the Harvard Law Review presidency, he’s the Zamfir of the Dogwhistle, and he’s got bargaining chips for everyone.

    If his history is any guide, and if his expressed philosophies of law, government and politics mean anything, his SCOTUS appointments will be centrists (at best) replacing liberals, and he will move the Court to the right.

    With or without overturning Roe, Obama’s Court and Obama’s Congress will continue the stepwise erosion of reproductive freedom.

    Obama and Clinton are NOT birds of a feather where choice is concerned.

  33. Ryan, it is not about what rating they recieved from such and such group. Hillary is outspokenly pro-choice and for womens rights. She has made women’s, families, and children’s issues, the focus of her adult career. Obama can not hold a candle to the woman who dared to say in China women’s rights are human rights. I find it so funny that the folks who thought the better qualified candidate was so objectionable, are now trying to say really they are exactly the same. See Obama’s meager voting record. See he’s like Hillary,.

  34. Kiki- No offense…it’s a structural thing. For admirable but perhaps nonsensical reasons, the two parties give delegates to the states based upon the size of the state, not based upon its actual importance to the national party. This gives, for instance, Massachussetts Republicans a say even though there’s no chance of any Republican candidate winning there in November…and likewise, on the Democratic side, for a bunch of states, 50-state-strategy dreams notwithstanding. This year really brings the issue to the fore, because perhaps for the first time, a candidate is getting towards the nomination overwhelmingly on votes and delegates from states that will not go for that party, and not nominee, in November. This is doubly problematical because primary voters in that kind of situation (i.e. the minority party in their state) don’t feel any real burden to support a candidate who can win in their state, because none of them can; instead, they’re “free” to support a candidate who gives them rhetorical gratification, or whom they imagine can win in other states, or just out of sour grapes.

    Obviously it’s not viable or even desirable to disenfranchise Democratic voters in Republican states, and this year there is zero chance the superdelegates will be receptive to this kind of argument, but I’m hoping that in the future we can at least look at some mechanism to give greater weight to Democratic preferences in states that actually have some prospect of going Democratic. I don’t know if this will ever happen, even a little, in part because of the racial aspect in the South (we’d be “relatively disenfranchising” the majority-black Democratic parties in states that have been republican based upon White political flight since the 1960s), but it’s something to ponder.

  35. Davidson–I hear you. Between the so-called “A-List” bloggers, the tv and print media, and the Obama surrogates, it would take an army of PR types to quell the sexist and derogatory remarks. Still, I’d like to believe that someone in D.C. is paying attention to how millions of Hillary-supporting voters are infuriated by these types of nasty comments.

    Rahm is one of only 4 Illinois SDs who has not declared for Obama (or for anyone, yet), and, as an Illinois voter, I can tell you that the IL Democratic party has pushed offensively (IMO) hard to support Obama. Maybe no other public figure will step up to the plate, but I still think it took some courage for Rahm to call out the “almighty” Teddy Kennedy, and I’d like to see more of it.

  36. Obama on the courts requires taking Obama at his word. He wanted to vote for Roberts. Roberts is a conservative judge who is not keen on “regulation”. Obama has stated he thought the GOP had good thoughts on “regulation”. If you look at the conservative judges, “anti-regulation” is almost synonymous with “anti-choice/pro-life”.

    Obama also votes “present” or accidentally presses the wrong button on important issues. That convenient response is not something that gives me much confidence. I’m genuinely undecided and need a positive affirmation about Obama, not anti-McCain fear mongering.

  37. @grays: But they’re only doing it now after the brutal damage has been done and when they’re trying to get your vote (I’m not voting for Obama come hell or high water). I just hate how all of a sudden there are some Democrats who are, like, “Oh, right. Misogyny and viciously smearing Clinton is now wrong.” Again, after the death blow has already been leveled at her historic campaign, our GE chances, and women and girls everywhere.

    Too little, too late.

    Oh, and Emmanuel is part of the Chicago machine. He’s for Obama and has been for a while. Have you read his brother’s outrageous rants at HuffPo? Disgusting.

  38. I suspect Rahm is one of the few THINKING democratic officials who, at the very least, recognizes the Dems ticket back into the WH goes thru Sen. Clinton and her substantial well of supporters. She’s definitely earned it.

  39. ok, this video is pretty funny:

  40. ronk,
    The thing about the hominid views analysis is that it is despite a 6-7 month pro-Obama media narrative. Places like CO haven’t had any real negative ads on Obama. That changes things dramatically. We are already seeing Obama losing ground in places like Nebraska, the Carolinas and the Dakotas (as if he ever really had a chance there). I expect CO to follow suit after a few months of bashing Obama as well as NM.

    Basically, Obama loses despite never having to face a hostile press. You have to be really high on the hopium to think Obama will make it even close. (And remember the blogger boiz were saying that they support Obama because he would most likely have a “blowout”? Ha.)

  41. Gary,
    Are you watching Survivor?

  42. I haven’t read anything yet. I just wanted to wish everyone a Happy Mother’s Day before the day was out…

    RD, I hope all the best for your brother, his wife and children, you and your family.

  43. I have cancelled my copy of Time Mag. I have tipped my piggy bank to donate to Hillary. I have given up watching cable news. I am avoiding the pro Obama blogs. I am lighting candles. This better work since I am reducing my life to this blog!!

  44. The abortion rights argument really gets me going. I care deeply that we women have the right to decide when to have children.

    I won’t give up all my other rights – to fair and equal treatment – to be able to *hope* that the right to control our bodies doesn’t *change*.

    I really thought the days of femine slurs and hate were numbered, but I see they are alive and well. I am so deeply disappointed. Ignorance was truly bliss while it lasted.

  45. oh, btw, the video I posted a link to above was one I saw on TGW. it’s KY superdelegate Terry McBrayer saying he’s arranged to have Obama’s picture on a milk carton, because they can’t find him in KY…..pretty funny. some boos in the crowd but lots of cheers…Hillary’s there on stage with him

  46. Obama to be trusted with picking a Supreme? Nah.
    To quote Dan Quayle, “I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy- but that could change.”

    Besides, which Supreme were you thinking was going to kick off?

  47. OT
    I’ve been in the sewers of Chi-town (well, virtual Chi-town). Anybody here any good with the Larry Sinclair/ Donald Young/Nate Spencer/Larry Bland stuff?
    In particular, I need date for death of Nate Spencer.
    Also need confirmation that Larry Bland was a member of Trinity.

  48. I’m just back from West Virginia campaigning for Hillary. Just some notes:
    * Most of the people I met – and I met a LOT of Hillary supporters in public places, don’t necessarily match the demographic of old hicks, racists, etc. Most of our volunteers were fairly young, and both men and women.

    * I saw the belligerence of Obama supporters, yet again. This was VERY very disturbing. I had FOUR black families/groups SCREAM “Obama, Obama” at me, in my face, and not even in jest. And given that I’m not even white, it’s not like they thought I was being racist – they just thought physically intimidating me was the acceptable, ok thing to do. And we weren’t in a secluded place, or being intrusive – we were outside a large, crowded mall.
    Funnily enough, two months ago in Texas, we had to stand up to both, Obama supporters as well as Republicans who hated the Clintons. Now in WV, the Obama supporters were even more bellicose in their victory (like their leader?). I actually had a few Republicans say they admire the woman for her guts in the face of adversity. One man, out walking his dog, actually said “she stands for everything I believe in, y’know, her strength and human spirit and self-determination. I always thought Democrats were liars and thieves – for the first time in 55 years, if it is Hillary Clinton vs. McCain, I’ll have to think seriously about the Democrat”. (Of course, he seemed like he meant every word of it, and promised to donate, even asked for a Hillary sticker – but since he put the sticker immediately on his dog, I don’t know what to think :-))

    * A lot of Hillary supporters I met are the opposite of ‘low-information voter’: they’re more well-informed than the average Obama voter I meet around home, in fact more so because they’ve actively avoided heavy, heavy pro-Obama media biases and actually sifted through to the data and policies. Many of them could intelligently argue the pros and cons of, say, universal healthcare.

    * Most of them started out pro-Obama, or ambiguous, like I did. Through the last few months, they shifted away from him, as they saw how he ran his campaign (direct quote: Barack Obama talks about how he will bring people together, in direct contradition to the campaign he’s been running – I’ve never felt so unwanted as a Democrat in my life, or more looked-down-upon. I thought this was the party that looked at every human being as equal). And they saw nearby Obama supporters who seemed to have forgotten the rules of public discourse and how human civilization has cultivated the art of polite disagreement.

    * Me, personally: I’m one of those people who would rather “bathe in urine” than vote for Barry Obama. I’d be VERY reluctant to support an Obama/Clinton ticket, or even a Clinton/Obama one. I do believe Obama’s popularity is in line with typical American high-school camps – the nerds vs. the kewl guys, and this country needs to embrace wonkishness and move beyond superficiality if we’re ever going to get ahead.

    * In many ways, Barack Obama is not very different from what George Bush was in 2000 – and he may very well win, like Bush did vs. Gore: the same combination of easy charm, ‘Bring change in Washington’ platform, low content but high faultin’ rhetoric of ‘middle-of-the-road’ policies, etc etc. the rhetoric in direct con tradition to the past history of the candidate – George Bush talked about cleaning up the White House, and Barry has never done anything to prove he can bring people together or fight the good fight or ‘change’ anything – people, processes, or policies.

    * As a self-respecting human being, I cannot support a misogynistic, Jay-Z quoting, race-baiting candidate and his campaign.

  49. And I know this is a “sore” point…but isn’t the whole POINT of superdelegates exactly the situation we are in now?

    Where are the Party elders who put these people into place and why aren’t they explaining that this is what they are SUPPOSED to do? I think my ol’ NC governor, Jim Hunt, was one of those people who helped institute superdelegates (I may be wrong). As I understand it, the point was to place elected and party officials in a position to prevent a non-electable candidate (read McGovern-esque) from being nominated by particular sects in the party who may not represent a general electorate.

    Well, pardner, here we are! I know it’s a hard argument to make emotionally, b/c it turns into “overturning the will of the voters” even though it’s not. But there are alot of logical arguments that never seem to win.

    But if the DNC people would have the testicular fortitude to explain the proper role of the superdelegates, we’d be in a better place. I feel like the day after Election Day 2000 when we were told that Bush was the “winner” and Gore was trying to “steal” the election…why wouldn’t Gore just quit??!! ~sigh~ I swear I have so many 2000 talking points that I can just repeat this year without changing too many words.

    Something about history and “doomed to repeating itself”…

  50. open thread, so I’m just wonderin’……what in the world is Maureen Dowd’s problem? it seems like I used to like her (perhaps in a previous life) but lately she is so weirdly hateful.

  51. I see Dowd as sort of.. the loudest and most obnoxious expression of what is probably conventional wisdom around there about Hillary, eg, contempt, WWTSBQ, she’s a monster.

  52. Unfortunately Rasmussen polls are part of these state by state polls, and they have called off their polling. Why?

    I believe because Barry has been sinking in them for weeks…if he was doing well , they would continue them .

  53. angelasmith, can that stuff stay OT?

  54. angela smith: you can get death certificate information for anyone if you know a full name, city and approximate year is helpful to be sure you have the right one, it’s public record.

    You can search the social security database http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/ssdi.cgi (sorry it isn’t a link…) I tried it using “Nathan” for a first name and got only one recent result and that was from Texas…

  55. Maureen Dowd is a sick puppy. The little girl that nobody liked in school. The constant girlfriend. The lady who never had a wedding planner. A dried up, overpaid, mean spirited hack who sits at her computer exposing her neuoroses for all the world to see. The NYT needs a complete housecleaning over there and she could use a new broom.

  56. “from being nominated by particular sects in the party who may not represent a general electorate.”

    And more importantly, with so many open primaries and caucuses, from being nominated by Republicans. They’re supposed to ensure that the Democratic nominee is the choice of Democratic voters.

  57. (posted on Taylor Marsh). I wish I had written it.

    But first, I really must thank the brilliant, indomitable, Hillary Clinton for standing so tall in face of the hatred directed towards women in this society. Her example WILL make a difference. There are men and women who would never have considered a woman to be presidential material who are now in awe of her! She has grown in our estimation. The more we see of her the more we admire her.(There has been a downward spiral with the hope/change (TM) ad campaign’s product.)

    There are woman who cannot overcome their own internalized dismissal of their second sex. Some who have not even tried.

    I think of two who have been gratuitous in their belittling of Hilary who have a larger voice than they deserve: Anna Huffington whose Huff Post had such potential, but sold out as a fluff piece even before it had Hillary in its cross-hairs, and Andrea Mitchell, who has been lying about Hillary since Bill’s first campaign, snipping a bit of Hillary’s comment about she supposed she could have stayed home giving teas to cast her as dismissive of women .

    What was left out was the context and the conclusion of the sentence. Andrea Mitchell (Mrs. Alan Greenspan) confronted Bill at a restaurant after the White Water nothing “broke” (selected lies from the beginning) in the New York Times. How did Hillary’s being a law partner affect the campaign in this regard?

    Bill told Andrea to ask Hillary directly. Hillary replied that she could have stayed home giving teas (typical First Lady behavior–which would have been expected in Arkansas), but she wanted to help women have choices at different times in their lives–work or stay home as was appropriate for them.

    What Andrea broadcast was that Hilary supposed she could have stayed home having teas, which was an insult to all women at some level, right?

    It does seem that a lot of young women who are jumping on their boy friends’ Obama truck think that they will never confront the “glass ceiling”–that that is so their mother’s life.

    Here’s the letter:

    Dear Super Delegate:

    At each turn in this historic election, I hear someone—a chairman, a pundit, a super delegate, an elected official, a reporter posing as an unbiased journalist, a line of people proclaiming to have the American democracy and my interest at heart—tell me by words and actions that I, a woman in my thirties with a degree from The University of Michigan, do not count unless I vote for Senator Obama. I am told the Democratic Party is making way for a new coalition, and I need to get in line or leave.

    I voted for Barack Obama as my Senator in Illinois with excitement and quiet pride. Since his run for the highest office in America, he has lost me, slowly and painfully, each time he and his public supporters chose division over unity, misleading words over promises of higher standards, sexism over human decency, race baiting and charges of racism over honest and open dialogue, misogyny over fair and equitable treatment for all, disenfranchisement over democracy, hypocrisy over personal integrity, and condescension over humility. If these choices are representative of the hope and change Senator Obama and his coalition seek, then I reject them all.

    My vote alone may not matter much, but multiply my one vote by a force of untold, silent number who feel as I do and you have a far-reaching and solid base that will never forget the transgressions Senator Obama and his public supporters deployed and inflicted on us in this election.

    The Democratic Party may have always unified in the past, but it is unlikely it will this time. To accept the transgressions displayed in this election would be akin to giving permission to repeat them to whatever end. I cannot do this and will not vote for Senator Obama as President. My vote, which is not transferrable, belongs to Senator Clinton, who has earned it.

    Should Senator Obama be the nominee against Senator McCain in the general election, I will write Senator Clinton’s name on my ballot. Should Senator Obama go on to lose the presidency, then the super delegates and the DNC must ask themselves why did they put forth an unelectable candidate who believes in dismissing Michigan, Florida, working-class whites, women, Hispanics, Asian Americans, and the counting of all votes.

    Lessons are repeated until they are learned. But until then, how much will have been lost?

    I ask you kindly to consider giving your support to Senator Clinton and make her our nominee. She will win and restore the Democratic principles that have been tarnished and lost over the past eight years. Senator Clinton is committed and will never stop fighting for America. She has the experience, perseverance, tenacity, and courage to be President of the United States of America.

    Thank you for your consideration.


    A Voter

  58. Evening All,

    Just hanging out till Tuesday, waiting for the other shoe to drop. BTW, Pat Johnson, you are evil in a good way!

    Sisterhood is powerful, just watch Ann and Nancy Wilson shred, doing “Crazy on You” (Heart). Goosebumps all around – you’re welcome.

    Hope that link worked…

  59. From Politico, on that story (Novak) about Michelle nixing the possibility of Hillary as VP –

    He dismissed it with a flit of his hand. He nearly didn’t say anything, but then offered: “My wife does not talk to Bob Novak on a regular basis.” Communications director Robert Gibbs suggested afterward that the article should be set aside “in case of a toilet paper emergency.”

    D’oh. Isn’t Gibbs kind of asking for Novak to really go after them..

  60. there’s no way in hell i’m voting for obama now. i’m convinced that obama’s a 3rd party candidate in the midst of a hostile takeover of the democratic party–and i’m finding commenters out there who are on the same wavelength.

    from derridog at noquarter, re: the media:

    The question that bothers me is why they want her out so badly. This likely means that the corporations don’t want the Clintons because they know how the government runs and historically have put the brakes on corporate greed. But the other question is: do they want Obama because McCain can knock him out easily or do they want Obama because he’s their guy -they put him up to this because he’s in their pockets and they want to take over the Democratic Party and knock all the progressives out of it and leave us with only easily ignored third parties.

    I think the latter.

    from chancellor at talkleft:

    [A]s I see it, this year, the will of the voters is going to mean less than the power struggle going on within the Beltway Dems–aided and abetted by some in the blogosphere. The Mountain States are seen by these “new coalition” Dems as representing the best opportunity to counter the Southern Strategy of the Repubs.

    As best I can tell, there are many in the Dem party who would like to write off the South entirely as an electoral strategy. This would mean being able to throw out the influence of the Carters, the Gores and the Clintons. Of course, they can’t do this without replacement states to make up the votes. What they’re hoping is that they can cobble together enough Libertarians in the Mountain States and the border states, such as Virginia and Missouri, to re-draw the electoral map. Obama is the candidate that they chose to draw these voters into the Dem fold.

    The problem is that the big electoral votes are still in states where the voter demographics favor Clinton. IMO, the neo-Libertarians will do anything to stop Clinton in order to execute the first part of their strategy–including taking a loss in the GE, as long as they think they can pick up the congressional races. They’re trying to prove a point here, IMO, whether or not it means winning back the White House. There’s also a problem in that Libertarians are not Democrats, so we are seeing a fight not just for votes but for values. . . .

    My guess is that they believe it’s now or never, and that due to the state of the economy, the Iraq war/occupation and Bush’s approval ratings, this is the time for the coup.

    BTW, I do believe it is an attempt at an internal coup. IMO, the comments by Brazile were a slip-up in her anger–we weren’t supposed to know that we were being told to go to the back of the bus and stay there, at least not until November. However, now that the plan is out there, you have people like Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller extolling the virtues of the new, neo-Libertarian party, formerly known as the Democrats. Maybe they think we’ll change our minds once they tell us how wonderful everything is going to be under the new order. It’s Animal Farm redux, best I can tell.

    if obama gets the nomination, i’m now certain that i’ll be voting for mccain.

  61. RichinPA: (we’d be “relatively disenfranchising” the majority-black Democratic parties in states that have been republican based upon White political flight since the 1960s)

    I would argue that it’s less ‘White flight’ in recent history and more the creation of more majority-minority districts in the South by the Bush I Justice Dept. It was actively encouraged after the 1990 census. Anytime you have the GOP standing for minority rights, it’s time to be suspicious.

    13 new majority-Black seats in states ranging from SC to VA were created (including Clyburn’s seat in SC). The political cost was the creation of additional ‘bleached’ districts — i.e., hard-core Republican. If you’re a GOP Rep in a bleached district, you have zero incentive to cooperate with your CBC neighbor.

    This contributed to the ’94 takeover, to the tune of about 12 seats. You don’t hear about that in the “it was all Clinton’s fault” diatribes online.

    In states like MD, the opposite is true. The Black population is allocated across as many districts as possible to maximize Democratic control.

    This is why I roll my eyes at the ‘unity’ spiel. Both parties created the polarization by gerrymandering/redistricting to their benefit. It’s not about us — and the notion that we’re supposed to fix this by throwing more money at the party is a con.

    There’s a lot that’s not being said during this primary. If you’re wondering why the SDs appear so extraordinarily passive, it’s because the chickens are coming home to roost.

    For decades, the Black population has been shuffled around, reallocated or localized according to the needs of White politicians, not the needs of Black voters. The moment Obama started getting 80%-90% of the Black vote and putting the pressure on reps like John Lewis, the writing was on the wall. White D senators/reps/govs are dependent on the Black vote in MD (Baltimore and PG), VA (Richmond), NJ (Newark), NY (nyc), MO (St. Louis), OH (Cleveland), PA (Philadelphia), CA (LA/Oakland) and the list just goes on. Even Ben Nelson in NE relies on North Omaha for his margins.

    Heck, during the ’06 midterms, Obama was sent around from state-to-state to ‘energize’ Black voters on behalf of the D’s. It was not to appeal to White voters in swing states like MO, LOL.

    My opinion is that the silly statements about the healing powers of a newbie senator are largely due to fear. As I’ve mentioned before, even House Majority Leader Hoyer’s seat is vulnerable — it’s majority-Black voters in the primary (district is about 1/3 Black overall).

    I have mixed feelings about this overall. Part of me enjoys seeing the old White men of the party pissing their pants. The real problem is that Democratic Party has taken both women and minority voters for granted for too long.

    On the flip side, they will just take their power back on the backs of women. I already see it happening in my state. For a long time, Black voters have been signaling their displeasure by staying home/voting GOP — Bush I vs Dukakis in ’88, or the 2002 gubernatorial election that gave us a rare GOP gov when the Dem picked a White male ex-Republican for the ticket. In ’06, defection to the GOP for Michael Steele was an open topic of discussion (he got a 25% Black vote share in the end). Dems started getting nervous, so they’re giving up treats here and there. We’ve had five women give up their state-level seats due to death, illness, etc — the new reps are appointed by the Dem party. In each case, the seat has flipped from a woman to a White or Black man.

    That’s what we’re seeing on the national scale. Obama is an opportunist who is exploiting the long-standing structural exploitation of Black voters by the Democrats. The Democrats are passing the buck to women.

    Don’t hate on Black voters. The reason this primary is fraught with emotion is because women/minorities have had so few opportunities for political power. This is 100% the fault of party elders.

    At the same time, Dems shouldn’t be surprised if women vote GOP as payback. It’s their own fault.

  62. […] more thing: Commenter Chevalier was in WV over the weekend and filed this report.  It sounds like Obamaphiles are getting a bit testy.  They don’t sound at all like Kid […]

  63. first time to this site…so glad you guys are here! great posts. also wanted to make sure that folks know about savagepolitics.com

    we have great articles and independent minded folks, 95 percent of which will NOT vote Obama in November.

    just trying to get the word out because I feel bad for the taylor marsh crowd if Obama’s the nominee. TM’s already telling people that voting for mccain is nuts, so I feel bad for her posters and want them to know about other safe harbors if this fraud gets the nomination.

  64. jjmtacoma,
    thanks for the lead. I will give it a try.

  65. Thanks for the site. I feel less damage would be done with a moderate and a Dem. House than with Obama.

    How is it possible that the DNC would select Obama when it is a KNOWN FACT that he will LOSE against McCain and Hillary will win? How can they possibly be interested in having a Democrat for President? They can not honestly believe he could win. This is really disgusting! I place the blame at the feet of Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson, Brazile and Dean. Their plan to try to shove Barack on us because they think we would fall in line. They better wake up because there is NO WAY this lifetime Dem. will vote for him. His arrogance and immaturity seem to be BUSH in lefty clothing.
    I have HAD IT with radicals!! I have HAD IT with ex druggie Presidents!! I REFUSE to vote for Barack and his cabal of shady criminals, racist radicals and unrepentent terrorists. This is ALL ABOUT SEXISM. It is sickening. The only one I see playing the race card is OBAMA and his supporters, but I see SEXISM on EVERY channel out of both men AND women.
    I have learned a lot in this primary, I have learned that reverse racism is being actively taught in churches like Trinity, something I did not know previously and I learned that sexism is alive and well amongst the younger generation and they are a bunch of pushy, illmannered jerks who are just as bad if not WORSE than Bushies.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: