Hells if I know. You tell me. (In other words, this is an open thread.)
Advertisement
Comments (219)
Well, it was probably the NAFTA kurfuffle.
Certainly the NAFTA kerfuffle was a big deal (a mega-kerfuffle?) in Ohio, but probably not so much in Texas. So how to explain Texas? Maybe she's just a better candidate than the man-whose-middle-name-we-mustn't-pronounce.
.
By the way, NAFTA is just a signifier for free trade, which is hugely unpopular (as it should be) everywhere but along the coasts. Neither Clinton nor Obama offer any really hope of killing off NAFTA or the WTO. And McCain loves them. So we between-the-coast folks all still massively screwed, no matter what.
However, the entire bruhaha had implications beyond NAFTA. It landed a huge blow on Obama's credibility. In that sense, this is not over. The negative attacks will continue to undermine the image of honesty that Obama had until recently maintained.
Calls by Obama supporters, echoed in the media, that she had to win big or drop out motivated her base. That's not the only reason, of course, but I think that Obama's supporters do need to realize that Clinton can inspire passionate support as well. Supporters of both candidates should probably agree that this primary is going the distance and any call by one side for the other to drop out is likely to backfire.
In response to destor23:
I think you're right, that her base is passionate and motivated. This is a good thing for her, and makes it palatable to me (Obama supporter) to see her soldier on. But it's only a temporary lift, as the campaign will now hinge on how well her tactics will hold up. It's going to swing back to being about who she is as a person, not what reproductive organs she happens to have.
I just saw a clip of her comments that frame her argument going forward, and I see vulnerabilities.
The talking points seem to be nothing suprising, as she's been hitting this for a while:
-- two wars abroad
-- recession at home
-- don't pick the newbie, pick me because I bring experience and scar tissue.
The problem this formulation gives me is two-fold. It's essentially a negative way to frame the messages -- be afraid, vote for me. And, it's also not much different from the way the Republicans have been governing for the past 8 years. McCain might be a bit more of a happy warrior, but he's already appealing to fear and anxieties. In this respect, I don't see much difference between the basic world-view of the GOP and Hillary Clinton. It's why she can justify and rationalize going negative and, I would submit, taking liberties with the truth. While all tight campaigns produce similar tactics on all sides, she seems to revel in it.
Again, world view.
I think the challenge for Obama is to respond on a couple of levels. One is to show that he's not a wimp that'll cave under the pressure of attacks from a campaign that clearly doesn't feel constrained in its methods. Fine. I'm sure the Republicans will do the same thing (same world view), so it's not all bad.
But he's also got to respond with some grace under fire, and show that while he knows how to smack her in the face when required, that he hasn't lost sight of the inspirational elements of his candidacy.
I do think her base -- women, basically -- are very involved right now, and the subtext of the contest is definitely how we'll balance out questions of gender and race. For a large number of women, the idea of a woman president is almost more important than any other consideration, and this is leading to some selective vision when it comes to THIS particular woman. Obama has the job of painting a picture of her flaws now, just as she's done to him. I suspect a lot of women will be interested in this process, too, because she's not universally loved by women.
I don't agree with one meme that's out there, that she's been vetted and we already know everything there is to know.
What we know of her is heavily influenced by the caricature that was successfully superimposed over the real Hillary Clinton by the GOP propagandists. There were elements of truth in the caricature, though, as there are in any good caricature. What will happen in the next 6 weeks will be a battle to redraw the image of Hillary Clinton, and to peel away the caricature and to redraw the blank bits with some new, updated perceptions.
For instance, Rhonda Crhiss Lokeman of the Kansas City Star wrote this morning (syndicated column; not online yet):
"Clinton demands accountability but won't provide it. Obama released his tax returns; she won't. this financial disclosure helps voters make informed choices.
"Clinton touts her White House experience, but in Ohio, she claimed she can't provide records from those years because the Bushies won't release them. The Bushies, no fans of transparency, claim the clintons aren't being truthful..." and so forth.
Oh, yeah, there's a lot to learn, and relearn, about Hillary. She likes to play the tough survivor, but she's in for some rough play on new disclosures. The Clinton "experience" rests of a solid foundation of bad judgement and questionable character flaws.
How she has run her campaign so far, with the perception that her attacks were much more unfair than his in Ohio and Texas, for instance, also will be fair game. And women will have to make a decision between the abstract desire -- quite understandable and genuine, in my view -- to prove the point that a woman is capable of being president, and the concrete reality of who Hillary Clinton is, and what kind of president she would be.
But you're right: challenging Hillary's right to run with any whiff of condescension or misogyny is going to drive her base to extremes of loyalty. What Obama has to do, and what I think is actually going to happen, is to push back against the false personas and hypocrisy she's been hiding behind, and to make the case that who she is as a human being is a legitimate cause for concern.
This is an important issue to fully air, and for that reason, I'm not crushed that we're now coming to my state, Pennsylvania.
As Rhonda Lokeman, in a previous column lays down a challenge to other women:
..."Some female supporters strongly believe that as a woman, you have to vote for THIS WOMAN. Behind all the testosterone-charged chatter on cable news is the murmur of our own “Va-Jay-Jay Monologue.” If you’ve got one, you must vote for Hillary or else you’ll betray your sex.
If you don’t back THIS WOMAN, beware! The secret society of the sisterhood of the traveling rants is coming for you." (Secrets of the blah-blah sisterhood: http://www.kansascity.com/279/story/492990.html
The "murmur" is what's buoying Hillary up, in large part. There's a quiet kind of female triumphalism going on, very different from the male kind, but no less obnoxious because it's no less sexist. It's what saved her butt in New Hampshire, and now in Ohio and Texas, in large part.
But now we follow the traveling circus and continue the great national discussion. It's a process, folks, and we're getting closer to the truth of things.
I think your analysis here is very good. I think you've been especially observant in identifying the importance of world view and the fact that Hillary Clinton's world view is not dissimilar from that of John McCain or the GOP. Obama needs to make this central to his message going forward.
I also think you've definitely hit on something with respect for the female vote. To relate to this anecdotally, my mother is a life-long Democrat. We discuss politics frequently. At the end of the day, she picked Clinton over Obama. She is a very intellectually honest person and she freely admits that it is because she's a woman and she knows that she will probably never have another chance in her life to vote for a woman with a viable chance of getting into the White House. But to be clear, the final decision had nothing to do with the merits of either candidate. I think that as an independent, empowered woman the draw for her to come down on this as she did is very strong.
Unfortunately, neither her interests or the interests of the electorate at large are best served by electing a woman simply because she is a woman, just as my interests are not necessarily served by electing a man.
Because her boneheaded comment about McCain bringing a lifetime of experience to the White House happened too late to have an effect against her.
Isn't that a reason she didn't not win, not a reason she won? (I'm semi-serious about this)
Unfortunately, it's a reason Obama didn't not lose ;)
I think I see what you didn't not mean.
That's not what she said but whatever.
I think it's immaterial to this discussion, but that is in fact what she said:
As an aside, doesn't EVERYONE bring a lifetime of experience to whatever they do? (Or perhaps nobody does?)
I think you're right. They do. And that is what her ad and speeches are about. 3 AM. Lifetime of experiences. What kind of experiences do you want the person to have had who answers that phone?
Only a sitting President, running for re-election can claim to have actually answered one of those calls. We don't have one of those this time. So we ask: Based on what you know about their lives, who do you trust?
That isn't going to go away. As Rachel Maddow said on Countdown the other night - that's what you say when you are making a pitch to be McCain's VP - not when you are running for the Democratic nomination. I think, and hope, that that talking point, which she repeated - it wasn't just a casual remark - was not lost on the superdelegates.
I don't know that it was so much that Hillary won, her supporters were certainly motivated, but I actually think that it was more of a case that Obama lost.
Can you explain what you mean?
I've considerd preparing a post on a related subject after all of the election coverage has died down, so I don't want to shoot my wad, but...
He's been basically using the same rhetoric for over a year and it never changes. I know a lot of people who are tired of hearing it, who can essentially recite his speeches before he gives them and because he doesn't delve into specifics, it sort of paints him as a one trick pony.
The '02 speech should definitely be put onto the back burner because that's the past and we all know that he said something, somewhere. Also, by constantly using it as one of the only examples of his "good judgement", it sort of insults all of the others who voted the same as Hillary and the huge majority of regular people who would've voted the same way at the time. I mean, Al Gore gave a similar speech that was televised on all of the cable channels around the same time, but he was roundly criticized as being some kind of nut by the pundits, so why should we care what some nobody from Illinois said and why won't he speak more about the how of getting out?
Once again, the constant references to a speech that nobody heard and how it makes him so much better than everyone else is getting old.
Also, when he actually started getting hard questions from the media, I haven't seen the press conference, but Sam Donaldson called it like a deer in the headlights. He really hasn't stood up to the recent change in the media approach and he comes across as arrogant in his approach and with a lot of his rhetoric.
And finally, though I know that there's only so much he can do about it, but I'm sure a lot of people have been put off by his supporters and the media coverage.
There's been all the calls for Hillary to drop out, even though she has roughly an equal number of votes and both candidates have an almost equal chance of securing the necessary delegates from the upcoming primaries. Heck, when Bill Richardson said something about one or the other stepping aside if their opponent has a significant lead in delegates, everyone took that to be directed toward Hillary, while Obama's delegate lead hasn't been that large and a lot of his delegates have come from small states, whose votes count for just as much or just as little as the larger states.
And in addition to all of the media stuff about "moving the bar" and Hillary should just go, I remember that after the last round of primaries, Hillary spoke from El Paso and there was a young mariachi on the stage. The next day and for some time afterward, the blogosphere had a lot of laughs at the expense of that kid. They thought they were laughing at Hillary, but I'm sure some of the insulting behavior trickled back to some of the Hispanics in Texas.
I could go on, but the short version is along the same lines as what I said in response to M.J. Rosenberg; To a large extent, Obama has failed to widen his base.
I think it's because Obama is a secret Muslim and now everyone knows it.
Without a doubt Hillary won because she finally turned ugly, nasty and negative and that resonated with low information voters and bigots.
The 3 AM ad, the business with Canada and NAFTA, which may have been stirred up behind the scenes in concert with a conservative Canadian Government, saying such things as that even McCain was better suited to lead the nation than Obama, playing the race card in a retarded state like Ohio (and before you start calling me names, my son lived there for a few years and when I visited I was always struck by how much Southern Ohio was like the South, not the Midwest, deeply conservative and ill-informed) bringing up Rezko again, Saying Obama was not "to my knowledge" a Muslim, etc. Add to that Obama's taking the high road and not really effectively countering her dirt.
Unfortunately, or perhaps in the long term, wisely, Obama did not sling enough mud back at her. For every mention of Rezko he could have said Uzbekistan, Clinton Library, Norman Hsu, Webb Hubbell, and on and on and on and on. With her years of "experience," Clinton is so much dirtier than Obama could ever hope to be and everyone knows this. There was also a lot of hay to make about the experience meme, since a very good case could be made that Hillary's experience was largely negative. Voting for the war, voting for Kyl-Lieberman, handling health care reform so poorly that it got put off for 15 years, (thanks for that.) If Obama wanted to, he could paint Hillary as the poster child for everything that went wrong the last 15 years. Lobbyist money, corruption, lying, disastrous wars and a bankrupting foreign policy, undue influence of corporations and special interests, etc. But he didn't. Or at least, not enough.
Hillary's managed to win these races without moving the delegate meter all that much, but in the process has done a lot of damage to whomever the nominee will actually be - even if it's herself. It was a very selfish, win at any cost, party be damned, mean spirited strategy and it worked in the short term.
I, for one, have lost a tremendous amount of the respect that I had for Hillary, and I'm not happy about it. It might make me very reluctant to vote for her in November, but I'm assuming that I won't be faced with that choice.
I think this last paragraph is key. I certainly relate to these sentiments. For me, Hillary Clinton crossed a line when she suggested that McCain would be a better president than Obama. Intra-party battles are fine, because the fight is all in the family. But going beyond that -- betraying the family in public -- is beyond the pale.
Okay, then, yet another Obama-bot weighs in with the genius observation that Clinton appeals to "low information voters and bigots."
Or, maybe it's Obama that primarily appeals to "low information voters and bigots" who don't want a woman in the White House unless she's under the President (literally).
Maybe ... just maybe ... your collective arrogance and snide attitude toward voters who choose the Other Candidate has "resonated" sufficiently to produce a kind of harmonic effect among the opposition, resulting in a power overload and the Obama coil fried. Result: you just got your ass royally thumped by Grandma Spankenheimer. Picture yourself as one of the walkon bad guys in a Jean Claude Van Dammit movie.
Honestly, I don't know where you lot came from. I hope you're returning soon.
Thanks.
mp
Because the bloom is off the rose.
Because the bloom is off the rose.
That's the best explanation I've read yet.
"Because the bloom is off the rose."
Yep.
And the thorns are still on the stem. Ouch.
That may well be the case Ellen! It may also account for the feverish way in which the Obama camp has been trying to pressure Clinton and the party to end it by having her withdraw. In all the talk last night I only heard discussion of him having more delegates, never that he has a scenario under which he has enough elected delegates to actually be nominated.
Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thought in clear form.
Albert Einstein
Obama missed his calling: he should have been an actor. McLaughling group ran a synchronized clip of Patrick Deval and Obama: same language, same gestures. Much more effective when Obama did it than when Deval did it but it sure shot holes in Obama's image of authenticity and sincerity.
When Obama has to think on his feet as in the debates he doesn't do very well. He needs a script.
I think that is why the 3 a.m. ad resonated so well for Clinton.
I think it's because Obama is a secret Muslim and now everyone knows it.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? And who really gives a crap if he is?
I guess I just don't understand *why* a person's religion is such a big deal when there is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. I mean, God Forbid we ever elect someone President who isn't a Christian. Whatever happened to freedom of religion?
Plus, I just don't get where this Muslim thing comes from with Obama. Are people just assuming it because of his name? If so, that is about the dumbest thing ever.
It was said sarcastically.
Lighten up.
Thank you.
Obama can now run against the two-headed dinosaur of Hillary and McCain. She's opened herself up for examination by going so negative. I can't wait to have a look at her tax returns and info about Bill's library. Oh, and exactly what are the tough decisions she's been making at 3:00 am? She's got a paper thin, Senator pothole record and little more. THIS is the fun part.
I'm not exactly sure how or why it happened, but I do know the results, and I think Alexander Cockburn put it best:
"The Clintons have never confused their own political fortunes with those of the Democratic Party. In 1996 and 1998 Bill Clinton refused to release campaign surpluses from his own war chest to help elect Democrats to the House and the Senate. Obama's campaign has most certainly rallied blacks and the young to the Democratic Party. These new recruits will surely melt away as they see the party machine grind the politics of hope in the dirt.
McCain couldn't have hoped for a better day."
Blacks as new recruits to the Dem Party? I thought they were part of our base. Rally. Black turnout in Texas was same as 2004. Hispanic? Way up.
When Obama chose to run it was clear that one way he could win -- and possibly the only way -- was to peel away significant portions of the black support the Clintons had earned. A lot depended on how he did this because there was always the possibility that Clinton would win and would need black enthusiasm in the fall. Obama and his campaign chose to make false claims of racism against the Clintons. Obama has always put his own political future above all else.
One could argue that Ohio and Texas both have larger percentages of folks without college or advanced degrees, add to that the fact that for 20% of Democratic voting Ohioans race was a factor...her negative ads played well with these constituencies.
We normally have a nominee at this point, but I think what we're seeing is November-style coverage of a race that's not a November race. Momentum is of course important, but the winner-take-all style reporting on the majority vote in a state is misplaced. Whether or not "Clinton wins Ohio" is no more material than whether or not "Obama wins Wisconsin" -- it's all about margins and delegate math, unless (as I fear the Clinton campaign may) there is a concerted attempt to argue that momentum and "big states" should trump delegate majority.
In short, essentially nothing happened. Hillary may have picked up a delegate, she may have lost a delegate.
(Full disclosure -- I am a mathematician).
Truthfully,
Nothing. The delegate count has not even been altered either way.
Let's keeping our head on the ball people. Nothing happened.
150-162 delegates ahead. Still.
"Nothing happened."
Obama lost.
Her NAFTA demogoguery, her surrogates harping on Rezko, dumbing down national security, trying to pile on with Russert's idiocy about Farrakhan. She decided to get ugly.
I hope her supporers won't start getting all whiny now if the "negative coverage" shifts from stories about her campaign to stories about her and her husband's own ethical problems. She set the tone. She can't complain now if Obama comes back at her in kind.
She will, though. Count on it.
If hypocrisy were a felony, Wolfson et al would be in jail.
Obama's biggest mistake was believing his own press and acting like the presumptive nominee. Dismissing Clinton out of hand was dumb, dumb, dumb.
His second biggest mistake was not pressing Clinton on her tax returns. Bill Clinton's financial affairs are a legitimate campaign issue and should be addressed before the convention. No October suprises, please!
Rush Limbaugh. Remember Howard Stern and Sunjia?
Once again, the Democrats are about to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory.
mjshep, I totally agree with your analysis. I've always been reluctant but willing to support Hillary - reluctant because of her war vote and her general pandering (flag amendment, Kyl-Lieberman). But I've always said, "but in the end, I'll work my butt off for her". Actually, now, no. I'll still hold my nose and vote for her, but when I got her triumphant email this morning, I nearly threw up, and quickly sent a donation to the Obama campaign. Her tactics have been repulsive, and I'm grateful that Obama hasn't sunk that low, even though he's going to be urged to do so in order to show that he's "tough". In my mind "tough" isn't dishonest and sleazy. It's one thing to go after dishonest and sleazy Republicans in the general election; it's another to go after someone who you might have to support. I'm appalled, and depressed.
Well said. Thanks. I sent money when I got up this morning.
I think the contrast between the campaigns has never been more obvious. The last thing we need is another administration that thinks like a cornered rat and channels Karl Rove.
I think, and hope, that Obama will continue to do exactly what he has been doing. At some point, the superdelegates have to notice that the country wants to try government by people who think like civilized adults.
Two recommended reader threads are devoted to whether the Clinton campaign "darkened" Obamas skin color.
Talk about sleaze.
You're soaking in it.
Thanks, I always agree with someone who agrees with me.
How's this for pandering and judgment?
Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. --U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman.
Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is considered a rising star in the party, was the keynote speaker at the annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner.
Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
Some at Thursday's dinner said that while they were pleased with Lieberman's success in bringing Obama to Connecticut, they still consider Lieberman uncomfortably tolerant of the Bush administration.
Obama wasted little time getting to that point, calling it the "elephant in the room" but praising Lieberman's intellect, character and qualifications.
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.
What are you talking about? She lost.
She was supposed to win big if she had any chance to retake a delegate lead down the stretch. Ohio's delegate lead will be canceled by the net gain Obama gets in Texas. The primaries look like a draw and it looks like a more substantial win for Obama in the caucuses, enough to cancel out Ohio.
To catch up in pledged delegates Clinton needs to not just win Pennsylvania, but Mississippi and North Carolina by 75% margins.
If you are playing the big state game, then fine. But this is not a general. The big state strategy that works in an electoral college based winner take all model does not work in a nomination.
Wyoming counts, Mississippi counts, North Carolina counts.
If you consider this like the media does, entertainment that gets eyeballs, then there still is a race. In reality, it is largely over.
Hillary Clinton made it clear this morning, she is now running for the Vice Presidency with the deciders being the super delegates.
He was joking...
Check it out. Even Andrew can't get his reply to thread.
BTW, I dance on the virtual grave of the rating system, but mourn the loss of private messaging.
I worked the polls in a Dayton, Ohio suburb. Of those at my polling station--there were a total of 3 African Americans out of approximately 400 voters--and that probably reflects the racial mix of the area--white, upper middle class, average age probably 45-55. The interesting thing was the number of voters (approximately 10%) who had voted Republican in the last election that switched parties to vote for the Democratic Party in this one. I overheard one Republican say that he should switch parties to vote for Hillary Clinton--because "we can beat her". There were a minority of Dem's switching to Rep's--and the ones that I observed (I had to process their paperwork for party switchers) were middle class 40-50 year old women.
The County went for Obama 54% to 45%. Super Delegate Dayton Mayor McLin said that she would vote how Dayton voted--so I guess that means Obama.
I think that bad weather in Northeast Ohio might have played a significant roll in making Clinton's win in that state larger than it otherwise would have been.
I saw today that Obama doesn't think he needs to change his approach at all. This worries me. He may see this as just that Hillary won a few states well suited for her and that his march to the nomination continues unabated. But she opened some real cracks in his candidacy. The bottom line of all her attacks was whether he's both prepared enough and tough enough to be president. He needs to fight back hard. It's not old politics to fight fire with fire. It's reality. Take off the gloves, Obama, or the party may actually decide she's better able to win in November.
I think the gloves may actually be coming off.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8843.html``We have not hesitated to draw distinctions between the candidates and we'll continue to do that," said Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. "If Sen. Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we'll join that debate. We'll do it on our terms and in our own way, but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues, as I've said before, I don't know why they'd want to go there, but I guess that's where they'll take the race.''
I guess we'll soon see how low he'll go.
The end result will be "they are BOTH slinging mud" and lost will be ethical decent Obama and the rovian attack dog that is Hillary.
That is the biggest problem I have with this whole thing. Obama wanted to run an honest ethical campaign. We are democrats. We are supposed to draw distinctions in policy between each other, but realize they both need each others supporters for the GE. Obama understands this and has run a decent ethical campaign.
Hillary is a RINO when it comes to campaigning. The republicans are not our opponents in this elections cycle. Everyone is to her - it is a big right wing, left wing, media, newspaper, blog, sexist, racist conspiracy against her, she complains. She has torn down what little hope we had for coming out of the darkness of the last 8 years. I am ashamed to see her part of the democratic party let alone the presidential nominee. She is anthemic to everything we have stood against for the last 8 years.
I want Obama to win. I want the fundamentally new direction he will take us in. If he gets down in the mud with her it will be heartbreaking. I hope he can pull it off.
Here is my take: First of all, although I totally think it is ridiculous, Obama being a "Muslim" is a very real threat where I live in CA, most republican county in the state. People believe this, and no matter how many times Obama refutes it, it has stuck. Second, the hand over the national anthem, has somehow mushroomed into he will not say the pledge, another ridiculous yet damning rumor. Thirdly, my mother, 82, is convinced he will be killed during his presidency, and no matter how many times I point out that Ronald Reagan was almost killed, somehow this is a huge concern of hers, and yes, she watches Fox. Finally, and this, in my opinion is the biggest reason, the media turned on Obama big time, between Renko, NAFTA (which they should have turned right back on HRC for) and stupid comments like Clinton can win the big states of CA and NY, which is ridiculous, as these "BIG" states will totally support Obama over McCain. Footnote: Her whining about Florida and Michigan resonates also, as most people have NO clue what really happened there, they do not have the time to be well informed.
If you saw 60 minutes in Ohio, a man didn't know if he would vote for Obama or HRC, but he "heard" that Obama didn't know the words to the national anthem. Really, who does, I know the first verse, let's get serious. But this stupid stuff, untrue, is believed. I personally want one of them out soon, McCain going to keep hitting on Obama and HRC is too, I support Obama, and since the delegates cannot be obtained by either party at this point, I think Howard Dean should step in soon and push for Obama, as he has the most.
The media. Obama may have bought plenty of ads but he could not counter the barrage of negative media ads.
Hillary's free press included:
Flattering BS on SNL for herself
Unflattering BS on SNL for Obama
Negative messages in the majority of Obama stories
Rezko focus
Nafta-Canuk story
Rush Limbaugh telling repubs to vote for Hillary
Rush Limbaugh laughing with a caller about Obama resembling Curious George
HRC saying Obama wasn't a muslim as far she knew
She won by playing hardball. One way or another she will die for it. Either as a nominee or as a candidate. I contemplated voting for her for awhile but now I could never do it. I wouldn't vote for Obama if she was the VP candidate at this point. Same goes for her with Obama as VP. I'd vote for Nader and get a student visa ready.
TM
Take a look at the Texas totals for the primary vote and the caucuses. That's what a stolen election looks like.
Texas Governor Rick Perry is a Republican. Wonder who he gets along with. Could it be, oh, say Charlie Black and, you know, Mark Penn?
In Ohio they dumped their new voting machines not long ago because they failed all testing. They went to paper ballots. Silly me, I thought that might be a good thing until I went to BlackBoxVoting.org, and learned that they would not be counting at the precinct levels, but trucking the ballots to a central location. Mayday! Mayday! So control remains entirely in the hands of the board of elections, currently controlled by Governor Strickland, one of the more rabid and vociferous of the Hillary supporters. There are any number of ways to steal an election, but the first thing to look at is who's in charge of the board of elections and how bad they want to win.
I'm not saying Ohio was tampered with, far be it from me to even imply such a thing. And Texas? Do you think Rick Perry would stoop so low? And even if he did, do you think the Republicans would condone it?
I think the relative demographics predictors of the race have become pretty much settled, and the demographics lined up for Sen. Clinton yesterday. From Openleft's great compiling of exit poll data:
Gender And % H O
White Women 35% 58% 37%
White Men 27% 44% 49%
Black Women 12% 17% 81%
Black Men 8% 12% 86%
Latino Women 7% 69% 30%
Latino Men 6% 58% 40%
I can't find how Ohio broke down in terms of demographics, but I bet those numbers take care of much of the explanation, and will explain most of the rest of the way states break down the rest of the way.
So is it Okay to play hardball? Clinton is just throwing the kitchen sink. “I have to take him at his word that he’s not a Muslim,” as if there were something wrong with being a Muslim. Wink, wink: Muslim is code for being what? Like maybe being, you know, a terrorist. That’s the innuendo. And all this playing right into the Us versus Them hysteria. Then there are the unfounded claims around Obama’s house deal. The attacks on his patriotism over whether he wears a pin or where he places his hand during the anthem. His rhetoric being elegant but hollow – like all those ministers who have that special color – wink, wink. You know, black. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran-McCain and Clinton are “experienced.” Also, we’re not wink, wink – you know, that special color. Black. And the NAFTA/Canada scandal. Is it likely that Obama would have said something that two-faced, being the thoughtful man he is, just before Ohio? Not very likely. And all this like an unexpected meteor shower, all happening miraculously on the eve of Ohio and Texas. What an extraordinary coincidence. And the sudden not so subtle shift in the Main Stream Media: charming pictures of Clinton. Her remarkable appearances on Saturday Night Live and Jon Stewart – all part of the media, I mean, meteor shower, all miraculously on the eve of Ohio and Texas. All joining together, turning like birds wheeling in flight, to keep the man of color from taking the prize.
Yeah, well, people have been warning you that this would happen.
The thing is, this is just the beginning, and rather than claiming how "unfair" it all is (hum, sounds familiar) or blaming it all on the MSM, this is where you need to step it up a notch. Rather than just being angry, get smart. Find out the truth, use it to counter the spin, come up with well reasoned arguments, rather than sophomoric bile. Admit the truth in the allegations, but dismiss the actual spin where it exists.
This is the hard part. Can you go the distance? Can Obama?
I think he can, but it won't happen without some real support. It's easy to back a candidate when everything is going their way, not so easy when the going gets rough.
Oh he'll change. The tax return issue is going to show up.
(PS, for any who follow my link: His atrocious spelling is mostly intentional. That's alt.slack for you.)
I forgot to mention the STUPID FLAG LAPELS. There is NO way I am sticking a hole in my expensive suit, yet I hear this over and over. I am starting to really dislike even seeing a flag, and that is so sad.
Oh, and Michelle Obama, can we just keep taking swipes at her, because the NY Post is doing to again today.
The bottom line is this: The entire American media, including the so-called "New Media", have written Clinton off. She won because the American people (you know, the voters?) have not written her off.
So-called "conventional wisdom" is neither conventional nor wisdom. It is just a way for self-important pundits and bloggers to feel good about themselves. Clinton hasn't defied "conventional wisdom". She has simply shown that all the media blow-hards don't have a clue, and that all their narrow little biases aren't worth a thing.
ever hear of sarcasm?
Sarcasm? What's that?
One of the complexities of this primary season is the fact that for the last couple of weeks McCain has been campaigning against Obama as if he will be the nominee, so Ohio and Texas voters have been able to get a review of the general election. If there is any "buyer's remorse" at work, I think it was fed by the Obama-McCain back-and-forth on Iraq. Obama's citing his stance against the war from the beginning is attractive to Democratic voters chosing between him and Clinton, but I just don't think it plays as well against McCain.
Add to that the increasing attention to the Rezko story, and the unanswered question: Why did Rezko buy a side yard for Obama's house? Obama has not come up with an explanation for that yet.
In short, I think Obama's electablility in November has been put into question and voters yesterday responded.
it's hard for me to believe that nobody here has written that perhaps she is a good politician and knows what she has to do to win.
That's why I like her in November. She knows America and knows what she has to do to win.
Get it... She knows!!!!
so does McCain, unfortunately. I heard his speech last night and he's getting old enough to have that Reagany tone to it. And he knows it.
I would think that after Kerry people here might realize that nice guys finish last in this stuff.
Speed kills. Bu tin this case it was how fast can you out yell or out whisper. In both states there were back and forth kitchen sink slams Obama did well to dodge it all and respond. The problem is the media, not in the usual evil media, but in saturation or depth penetration of call and responses.
Bad news and dirty politics saturated and penetrated quickly throughout the media such as local news, but the parry and response had a lag.
Now couple that with who the lag and penetration impacts, the uneducated poor, look at Ms Clintons numbers in those demos and it accounts for nearly 65% of the number she "won" the popular vote by in both states.
Now the other two anomalies %5 for the rush impact, most easily demonstrated in the ohio race, look at Clermont county where the amount of Democratic ballots cast for the primary was double the number of registered Democrats.
Cleremont is a bastion of Republicanism in previous cycles and those republicans in that one county broke for Ms Clinton huge and accounted for nearly 10% of the over all popular vote laed she took in ohio.
And lastly you can guarantee there was a 15 - 20 % surge in her base for her last chance stand as well as a slight anti Obama sentiment coupling that movement.
So all in all:
65% uneducated poor who heard the slams but did not get penetration on the Obama responses
5% percent rush effect.
15-20% Clinton Base/Anti Obama surge brings you pretty close to 90% of the couple hundred thousand popular votes.
Kind of a squeeker to hang your hat on if you ask me.
I think the basic nutshell reason is that the Democratic voting public is not quite ready to assign Barack Obama to the job.
They like Sen. Obama, but they don't KNOW him well enough (perhaps the opposite of Sen. Clinton's situation?). That leaves them available to court some suspicions about him, even if they don't entirely accept them. They want to see more of a contest over a longer time-frame.
I think that explains more than NAFTA, more than Resko, more than negative campaigning, more than anything either candidate may or may not have done.
I agree with every single "reason" mentioned in these posts; all were factors, but STILL Obama is holding tough in the delegate race. This convinces me to do everything I possibly can to help him in PA. I am sending a contribution, attending an organizational meeting for supporters tomorrow night in my district, e-mailing friends, and I will do more. Senator Obama has said "we" are the hope he talks about. Are we or not? Let's get to work wherever we are.
Ooops...above I ment "preview of the general election", not "review".
I think a number of factors were in play.
First, consider how much ground Obama gained in Ohio in just
2 weeks, gaining 10 percentage points, and even more in Texas.
I think the large blue collar and women vote was hard to overcome in Ohio. Obama needs to concentrate on gaining these votes in a state like Pennsylvania. In Texas, the Hispanic vote played a large role in Clinton's victory there. I think her going negative must have been a factor, but it is something that, to me, makes her unappealing. Unfortunately, I think Obama will need to go negative to have a significant win in Pennsylvania.
CMR
The margin here in Ohio surprised me, but I think it was just the economy, really. Some of the statistics I've seen since moving here last summer about what's happened under Bush are simply amazing -- 80% of manufacturing jobs disappearing in some places. You read stories in the business section about this or that company's strategy to survive, and then find out they had 3,000 employees 10 years ago and now have 150. So I think a lot of people -- especially the less-educated, blue-collar people that tend to be Clinton supporters -- simply associate the Clinton name with the good times of the '90s and voted that way, like it will be that simple.
For me, I can deal with Hillary okay, it's those advisers of hers -- Penn, Wolfson, Ickes, McAuliffe -- that make me want to vomit. But it looks like six more weeks of nausea now.
And to msn -- as Presidents Gore and Kerry can tell you, the big state strategy doesn't work in generals either.
Right on, re: Gore and Kerry.
The big state strategy will eventually doom the party because it decimates red state Democrats.
Gregg,
Instead of placing the sole blame on the heads of the politicians, why not direct some of the outrage at the the owner's of all these businesses that decide to pull up the stakes and leave places like Ohio? Sure, the government should probably try to step in at some point and do something, but ultimately it is the businessmen who are the true enemies here; yet they seem to get a free pass for some reason...
Gettysburg,
I didn't put the blame on anybody. I'm just saying people here are freaked out about what's happened to all their jobs. More than once, I've gone into my local Kroger and EVERY SINGLE checker and bagger was a middle-aged male. That's not normal (although maybe it's the new normal).
Gettysburg,
Well, for one thing, you don't get to vote for your boss. I'm not saying it's a rational way of looking at it. I'm just saying people here are freaked out about what's happened to all their jobs. More than once, I've gone into my local Kroger and EVERY SINGLE checker and bagger was a middle-aged male. That's not normal (although maybe it's the new normal).
Gettysburg,
Well, for one thing, you don't get to vote for your boss. I'm not saying it's a rational way of looking at it. I'm just saying people here are freaked out about what's happened to all their jobs. More than once, I've gone into my local Kroger and EVERY SINGLE checker and bagger was a middle-aged male. That's not normal (although maybe it's the new normal).
Comments (219)
Well, it was probably the NAFTA kurfuffle.
March 5, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly the NAFTA kerfuffle was a big deal (a mega-kerfuffle?) in Ohio, but probably not so much in Texas. So how to explain Texas? Maybe she's just a better candidate than the man-whose-middle-name-we-mustn't-pronounce.
.
By the way, NAFTA is just a signifier for free trade, which is hugely unpopular (as it should be) everywhere but along the coasts. Neither Clinton nor Obama offer any really hope of killing off NAFTA or the WTO. And McCain loves them. So we between-the-coast folks all still massively screwed, no matter what.
March 5, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
However, the entire bruhaha had implications beyond NAFTA. It landed a huge blow on Obama's credibility. In that sense, this is not over. The negative attacks will continue to undermine the image of honesty that Obama had until recently maintained.
March 5, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Calls by Obama supporters, echoed in the media, that she had to win big or drop out motivated her base. That's not the only reason, of course, but I think that Obama's supporters do need to realize that Clinton can inspire passionate support as well. Supporters of both candidates should probably agree that this primary is going the distance and any call by one side for the other to drop out is likely to backfire.
March 5, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
In response to destor23:
I think you're right, that her base is passionate and motivated. This is a good thing for her, and makes it palatable to me (Obama supporter) to see her soldier on. But it's only a temporary lift, as the campaign will now hinge on how well her tactics will hold up. It's going to swing back to being about who she is as a person, not what reproductive organs she happens to have.
I just saw a clip of her comments that frame her argument going forward, and I see vulnerabilities.
The talking points seem to be nothing suprising, as she's been hitting this for a while:
-- two wars abroad
-- recession at home
-- don't pick the newbie, pick me because I bring experience and scar tissue.
The problem this formulation gives me is two-fold. It's essentially a negative way to frame the messages -- be afraid, vote for me. And, it's also not much different from the way the Republicans have been governing for the past 8 years. McCain might be a bit more of a happy warrior, but he's already appealing to fear and anxieties. In this respect, I don't see much difference between the basic world-view of the GOP and Hillary Clinton. It's why she can justify and rationalize going negative and, I would submit, taking liberties with the truth. While all tight campaigns produce similar tactics on all sides, she seems to revel in it.
Again, world view.
I think the challenge for Obama is to respond on a couple of levels. One is to show that he's not a wimp that'll cave under the pressure of attacks from a campaign that clearly doesn't feel constrained in its methods. Fine. I'm sure the Republicans will do the same thing (same world view), so it's not all bad.
But he's also got to respond with some grace under fire, and show that while he knows how to smack her in the face when required, that he hasn't lost sight of the inspirational elements of his candidacy.
I do think her base -- women, basically -- are very involved right now, and the subtext of the contest is definitely how we'll balance out questions of gender and race. For a large number of women, the idea of a woman president is almost more important than any other consideration, and this is leading to some selective vision when it comes to THIS particular woman. Obama has the job of painting a picture of her flaws now, just as she's done to him. I suspect a lot of women will be interested in this process, too, because she's not universally loved by women.
I don't agree with one meme that's out there, that she's been vetted and we already know everything there is to know.
What we know of her is heavily influenced by the caricature that was successfully superimposed over the real Hillary Clinton by the GOP propagandists. There were elements of truth in the caricature, though, as there are in any good caricature. What will happen in the next 6 weeks will be a battle to redraw the image of Hillary Clinton, and to peel away the caricature and to redraw the blank bits with some new, updated perceptions.
For instance, Rhonda Crhiss Lokeman of the Kansas City Star wrote this morning (syndicated column; not online yet):
"Clinton demands accountability but won't provide it. Obama released his tax returns; she won't. this financial disclosure helps voters make informed choices.
"Clinton touts her White House experience, but in Ohio, she claimed she can't provide records from those years because the Bushies won't release them. The Bushies, no fans of transparency, claim the clintons aren't being truthful..." and so forth.
Oh, yeah, there's a lot to learn, and relearn, about Hillary. She likes to play the tough survivor, but she's in for some rough play on new disclosures. The Clinton "experience" rests of a solid foundation of bad judgement and questionable character flaws.
How she has run her campaign so far, with the perception that her attacks were much more unfair than his in Ohio and Texas, for instance, also will be fair game. And women will have to make a decision between the abstract desire -- quite understandable and genuine, in my view -- to prove the point that a woman is capable of being president, and the concrete reality of who Hillary Clinton is, and what kind of president she would be.
But you're right: challenging Hillary's right to run with any whiff of condescension or misogyny is going to drive her base to extremes of loyalty. What Obama has to do, and what I think is actually going to happen, is to push back against the false personas and hypocrisy she's been hiding behind, and to make the case that who she is as a human being is a legitimate cause for concern.
This is an important issue to fully air, and for that reason, I'm not crushed that we're now coming to my state, Pennsylvania.
As Rhonda Lokeman, in a previous column lays down a challenge to other women:
..."Some female supporters strongly believe that as a woman, you have to vote for THIS WOMAN. Behind all the testosterone-charged chatter on cable news is the murmur of our own “Va-Jay-Jay Monologue.” If you’ve got one, you must vote for Hillary or else you’ll betray your sex.
If you don’t back THIS WOMAN, beware! The secret society of the sisterhood of the traveling rants is coming for you." (Secrets of the blah-blah sisterhood: http://www.kansascity.com/279/story/492990.html
The "murmur" is what's buoying Hillary up, in large part. There's a quiet kind of female triumphalism going on, very different from the male kind, but no less obnoxious because it's no less sexist. It's what saved her butt in New Hampshire, and now in Ohio and Texas, in large part.
But now we follow the traveling circus and continue the great national discussion. It's a process, folks, and we're getting closer to the truth of things.
March 5, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your analysis here is very good. I think you've been especially observant in identifying the importance of world view and the fact that Hillary Clinton's world view is not dissimilar from that of John McCain or the GOP. Obama needs to make this central to his message going forward.
I also think you've definitely hit on something with respect for the female vote. To relate to this anecdotally, my mother is a life-long Democrat. We discuss politics frequently. At the end of the day, she picked Clinton over Obama. She is a very intellectually honest person and she freely admits that it is because she's a woman and she knows that she will probably never have another chance in her life to vote for a woman with a viable chance of getting into the White House. But to be clear, the final decision had nothing to do with the merits of either candidate. I think that as an independent, empowered woman the draw for her to come down on this as she did is very strong.
Unfortunately, neither her interests or the interests of the electorate at large are best served by electing a woman simply because she is a woman, just as my interests are not necessarily served by electing a man.
March 5, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because her boneheaded comment about McCain bringing a lifetime of experience to the White House happened too late to have an effect against her.
March 5, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that a reason she didn't not win, not a reason she won? (I'm semi-serious about this)
March 5, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, it's a reason Obama didn't not lose ;)
March 5, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think I see what you didn't not mean.
March 5, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what she said but whatever.
March 5, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's immaterial to this discussion, but that is in fact what she said:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Clinton_on_Obama_and_McCain.html
March 5, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an aside, doesn't EVERYONE bring a lifetime of experience to whatever they do? (Or perhaps nobody does?)
March 5, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right. They do. And that is what her ad and speeches are about. 3 AM. Lifetime of experiences. What kind of experiences do you want the person to have had who answers that phone?
Only a sitting President, running for re-election can claim to have actually answered one of those calls. We don't have one of those this time. So we ask: Based on what you know about their lives, who do you trust?
March 5, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
That isn't going to go away. As Rachel Maddow said on Countdown the other night - that's what you say when you are making a pitch to be McCain's VP - not when you are running for the Democratic nomination. I think, and hope, that that talking point, which she repeated - it wasn't just a casual remark - was not lost on the superdelegates.
March 5, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that it was so much that Hillary won, her supporters were certainly motivated, but I actually think that it was more of a case that Obama lost.
March 5, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you explain what you mean?
March 5, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've considerd preparing a post on a related subject after all of the election coverage has died down, so I don't want to shoot my wad, but...
He's been basically using the same rhetoric for over a year and it never changes. I know a lot of people who are tired of hearing it, who can essentially recite his speeches before he gives them and because he doesn't delve into specifics, it sort of paints him as a one trick pony.
The '02 speech should definitely be put onto the back burner because that's the past and we all know that he said something, somewhere. Also, by constantly using it as one of the only examples of his "good judgement", it sort of insults all of the others who voted the same as Hillary and the huge majority of regular people who would've voted the same way at the time. I mean, Al Gore gave a similar speech that was televised on all of the cable channels around the same time, but he was roundly criticized as being some kind of nut by the pundits, so why should we care what some nobody from Illinois said and why won't he speak more about the how of getting out?
Once again, the constant references to a speech that nobody heard and how it makes him so much better than everyone else is getting old.
Also, when he actually started getting hard questions from the media, I haven't seen the press conference, but Sam Donaldson called it like a deer in the headlights. He really hasn't stood up to the recent change in the media approach and he comes across as arrogant in his approach and with a lot of his rhetoric.
And finally, though I know that there's only so much he can do about it, but I'm sure a lot of people have been put off by his supporters and the media coverage.
There's been all the calls for Hillary to drop out, even though she has roughly an equal number of votes and both candidates have an almost equal chance of securing the necessary delegates from the upcoming primaries. Heck, when Bill Richardson said something about one or the other stepping aside if their opponent has a significant lead in delegates, everyone took that to be directed toward Hillary, while Obama's delegate lead hasn't been that large and a lot of his delegates have come from small states, whose votes count for just as much or just as little as the larger states.
And in addition to all of the media stuff about "moving the bar" and Hillary should just go, I remember that after the last round of primaries, Hillary spoke from El Paso and there was a young mariachi on the stage. The next day and for some time afterward, the blogosphere had a lot of laughs at the expense of that kid. They thought they were laughing at Hillary, but I'm sure some of the insulting behavior trickled back to some of the Hispanics in Texas.
I could go on, but the short version is along the same lines as what I said in response to M.J. Rosenberg; To a large extent, Obama has failed to widen his base.
March 5, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's because Obama is a secret Muslim and now everyone knows it.
March 5, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Without a doubt Hillary won because she finally turned ugly, nasty and negative and that resonated with low information voters and bigots.
The 3 AM ad, the business with Canada and NAFTA, which may have been stirred up behind the scenes in concert with a conservative Canadian Government, saying such things as that even McCain was better suited to lead the nation than Obama, playing the race card in a retarded state like Ohio (and before you start calling me names, my son lived there for a few years and when I visited I was always struck by how much Southern Ohio was like the South, not the Midwest, deeply conservative and ill-informed) bringing up Rezko again, Saying Obama was not "to my knowledge" a Muslim, etc. Add to that Obama's taking the high road and not really effectively countering her dirt.
Unfortunately, or perhaps in the long term, wisely, Obama did not sling enough mud back at her. For every mention of Rezko he could have said Uzbekistan, Clinton Library, Norman Hsu, Webb Hubbell, and on and on and on and on. With her years of "experience," Clinton is so much dirtier than Obama could ever hope to be and everyone knows this. There was also a lot of hay to make about the experience meme, since a very good case could be made that Hillary's experience was largely negative. Voting for the war, voting for Kyl-Lieberman, handling health care reform so poorly that it got put off for 15 years, (thanks for that.) If Obama wanted to, he could paint Hillary as the poster child for everything that went wrong the last 15 years. Lobbyist money, corruption, lying, disastrous wars and a bankrupting foreign policy, undue influence of corporations and special interests, etc. But he didn't. Or at least, not enough.
Hillary's managed to win these races without moving the delegate meter all that much, but in the process has done a lot of damage to whomever the nominee will actually be - even if it's herself. It was a very selfish, win at any cost, party be damned, mean spirited strategy and it worked in the short term.
I, for one, have lost a tremendous amount of the respect that I had for Hillary, and I'm not happy about it. It might make me very reluctant to vote for her in November, but I'm assuming that I won't be faced with that choice.
March 5, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this last paragraph is key. I certainly relate to these sentiments. For me, Hillary Clinton crossed a line when she suggested that McCain would be a better president than Obama. Intra-party battles are fine, because the fight is all in the family. But going beyond that -- betraying the family in public -- is beyond the pale.
March 5, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, then, yet another Obama-bot weighs in with the genius observation that Clinton appeals to "low information voters and bigots."
Or, maybe it's Obama that primarily appeals to "low information voters and bigots" who don't want a woman in the White House unless she's under the President (literally).
Maybe ... just maybe ... your collective arrogance and snide attitude toward voters who choose the Other Candidate has "resonated" sufficiently to produce a kind of harmonic effect among the opposition, resulting in a power overload and the Obama coil fried. Result: you just got your ass royally thumped by Grandma Spankenheimer. Picture yourself as one of the walkon bad guys in a Jean Claude Van Dammit movie.
Honestly, I don't know where you lot came from. I hope you're returning soon.
Thanks.
mp
March 5, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because the bloom is off the rose.
March 5, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
March 5, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Because the bloom is off the rose."
Yep.
March 5, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the thorns are still on the stem. Ouch.
March 5, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
That may well be the case Ellen! It may also account for the feverish way in which the Obama camp has been trying to pressure Clinton and the party to end it by having her withdraw. In all the talk last night I only heard discussion of him having more delegates, never that he has a scenario under which he has enough elected delegates to actually be nominated.
March 5, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thought in clear form.
Albert Einstein
March 6, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama missed his calling: he should have been an actor. McLaughling group ran a synchronized clip of Patrick Deval and Obama: same language, same gestures. Much more effective when Obama did it than when Deval did it but it sure shot holes in Obama's image of authenticity and sincerity.
When Obama has to think on his feet as in the debates he doesn't do very well. He needs a script.
I think that is why the 3 a.m. ad resonated so well for Clinton.
March 7, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's because Obama is a secret Muslim and now everyone knows it.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? And who really gives a crap if he is?
I guess I just don't understand *why* a person's religion is such a big deal when there is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. I mean, God Forbid we ever elect someone President who isn't a Christian. Whatever happened to freedom of religion?
Plus, I just don't get where this Muslim thing comes from with Obama. Are people just assuming it because of his name? If so, that is about the dumbest thing ever.
March 5, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was said sarcastically.
Lighten up.
March 5, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
March 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama can now run against the two-headed dinosaur of Hillary and McCain. She's opened herself up for examination by going so negative. I can't wait to have a look at her tax returns and info about Bill's library. Oh, and exactly what are the tough decisions she's been making at 3:00 am? She's got a paper thin, Senator pothole record and little more. THIS is the fun part.
March 5, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not exactly sure how or why it happened, but I do know the results, and I think Alexander Cockburn put it best:
"The Clintons have never confused their own political fortunes with those of the Democratic Party. In 1996 and 1998 Bill Clinton refused to release campaign surpluses from his own war chest to help elect Democrats to the House and the Senate. Obama's campaign has most certainly rallied blacks and the young to the Democratic Party. These new recruits will surely melt away as they see the party machine grind the politics of hope in the dirt.
McCain couldn't have hoped for a better day."
March 5, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blacks as new recruits to the Dem Party? I thought they were part of our base. Rally. Black turnout in Texas was same as 2004. Hispanic? Way up.
March 5, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
When Obama chose to run it was clear that one way he could win -- and possibly the only way -- was to peel away significant portions of the black support the Clintons had earned. A lot depended on how he did this because there was always the possibility that Clinton would win and would need black enthusiasm in the fall. Obama and his campaign chose to make false claims of racism against the Clintons. Obama has always put his own political future above all else.
March 7, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
One could argue that Ohio and Texas both have larger percentages of folks without college or advanced degrees, add to that the fact that for 20% of Democratic voting Ohioans race was a factor...her negative ads played well with these constituencies.
March 5, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
We normally have a nominee at this point, but I think what we're seeing is November-style coverage of a race that's not a November race. Momentum is of course important, but the winner-take-all style reporting on the majority vote in a state is misplaced. Whether or not "Clinton wins Ohio" is no more material than whether or not "Obama wins Wisconsin" -- it's all about margins and delegate math, unless (as I fear the Clinton campaign may) there is a concerted attempt to argue that momentum and "big states" should trump delegate majority.
In short, essentially nothing happened. Hillary may have picked up a delegate, she may have lost a delegate.
(Full disclosure -- I am a mathematician).
March 5, 2008 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truthfully,
Nothing. The delegate count has not even been altered either way.
Let's keeping our head on the ball people. Nothing happened.
150-162 delegates ahead. Still.
March 5, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Nothing happened."
Obama lost.
March 5, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her NAFTA demogoguery, her surrogates harping on Rezko, dumbing down national security, trying to pile on with Russert's idiocy about Farrakhan. She decided to get ugly.
I hope her supporers won't start getting all whiny now if the "negative coverage" shifts from stories about her campaign to stories about her and her husband's own ethical problems. She set the tone. She can't complain now if Obama comes back at her in kind.
March 5, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
She will, though. Count on it.
If hypocrisy were a felony, Wolfson et al would be in jail.
March 5, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's biggest mistake was believing his own press and acting like the presumptive nominee. Dismissing Clinton out of hand was dumb, dumb, dumb.
His second biggest mistake was not pressing Clinton on her tax returns. Bill Clinton's financial affairs are a legitimate campaign issue and should be addressed before the convention. No October suprises, please!
March 5, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rush Limbaugh. Remember Howard Stern and Sunjia?
March 5, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, the Democrats are about to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory.
March 5, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
mjshep, I totally agree with your analysis. I've always been reluctant but willing to support Hillary - reluctant because of her war vote and her general pandering (flag amendment, Kyl-Lieberman). But I've always said, "but in the end, I'll work my butt off for her". Actually, now, no. I'll still hold my nose and vote for her, but when I got her triumphant email this morning, I nearly threw up, and quickly sent a donation to the Obama campaign. Her tactics have been repulsive, and I'm grateful that Obama hasn't sunk that low, even though he's going to be urged to do so in order to show that he's "tough". In my mind "tough" isn't dishonest and sleazy. It's one thing to go after dishonest and sleazy Republicans in the general election; it's another to go after someone who you might have to support. I'm appalled, and depressed.
March 5, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. Thanks. I sent money when I got up this morning.
I think the contrast between the campaigns has never been more obvious. The last thing we need is another administration that thinks like a cornered rat and channels Karl Rove.
I think, and hope, that Obama will continue to do exactly what he has been doing. At some point, the superdelegates have to notice that the country wants to try government by people who think like civilized adults.
March 5, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two recommended reader threads are devoted to whether the Clinton campaign "darkened" Obamas skin color.
Talk about sleaze.
You're soaking in it.
March 5, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I always agree with someone who agrees with me.
March 5, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
How's this for pandering and judgment?
Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. --U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman.
Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is considered a rising star in the party, was the keynote speaker at the annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner.
Lieberman, Connecticut's junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
Some at Thursday's dinner said that while they were pleased with Lieberman's success in bringing Obama to Connecticut, they still consider Lieberman uncomfortably tolerant of the Bush administration.
Obama wasted little time getting to that point, calling it the "elephant in the room" but praising Lieberman's intellect, character and qualifications.
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.
March 7, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about? She lost.
She was supposed to win big if she had any chance to retake a delegate lead down the stretch. Ohio's delegate lead will be canceled by the net gain Obama gets in Texas. The primaries look like a draw and it looks like a more substantial win for Obama in the caucuses, enough to cancel out Ohio.
To catch up in pledged delegates Clinton needs to not just win Pennsylvania, but Mississippi and North Carolina by 75% margins.
If you are playing the big state game, then fine. But this is not a general. The big state strategy that works in an electoral college based winner take all model does not work in a nomination.
Wyoming counts, Mississippi counts, North Carolina counts.
If you consider this like the media does, entertainment that gets eyeballs, then there still is a race. In reality, it is largely over.
Hillary Clinton made it clear this morning, she is now running for the Vice Presidency with the deciders being the super delegates.
March 5, 2008 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
He was joking...
March 5, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check it out. Even Andrew can't get his reply to thread.
BTW, I dance on the virtual grave of the rating system, but mourn the loss of private messaging.
March 6, 2008 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I worked the polls in a Dayton, Ohio suburb. Of those at my polling station--there were a total of 3 African Americans out of approximately 400 voters--and that probably reflects the racial mix of the area--white, upper middle class, average age probably 45-55. The interesting thing was the number of voters (approximately 10%) who had voted Republican in the last election that switched parties to vote for the Democratic Party in this one. I overheard one Republican say that he should switch parties to vote for Hillary Clinton--because "we can beat her". There were a minority of Dem's switching to Rep's--and the ones that I observed (I had to process their paperwork for party switchers) were middle class 40-50 year old women.
The County went for Obama 54% to 45%. Super Delegate Dayton Mayor McLin said that she would vote how Dayton voted--so I guess that means Obama.
March 5, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that bad weather in Northeast Ohio might have played a significant roll in making Clinton's win in that state larger than it otherwise would have been.
March 5, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I saw today that Obama doesn't think he needs to change his approach at all. This worries me. He may see this as just that Hillary won a few states well suited for her and that his march to the nomination continues unabated. But she opened some real cracks in his candidacy. The bottom line of all her attacks was whether he's both prepared enough and tough enough to be president. He needs to fight back hard. It's not old politics to fight fire with fire. It's reality. Take off the gloves, Obama, or the party may actually decide she's better able to win in November.
March 5, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the gloves may actually be coming off.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8843.html ``We have not hesitated to draw distinctions between the candidates and we'll continue to do that," said Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod. "If Sen. Clinton wants to take the debate to various places, we'll join that debate. We'll do it on our terms and in our own way, but if she wants to make issues like ethics and disclosure and law firms and real estate deals and all that stuff issues, as I've said before, I don't know why they'd want to go there, but I guess that's where they'll take the race.''
I guess we'll soon see how low he'll go.
March 5, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
The end result will be "they are BOTH slinging mud" and lost will be ethical decent Obama and the rovian attack dog that is Hillary.
That is the biggest problem I have with this whole thing. Obama wanted to run an honest ethical campaign. We are democrats. We are supposed to draw distinctions in policy between each other, but realize they both need each others supporters for the GE. Obama understands this and has run a decent ethical campaign.
Hillary is a RINO when it comes to campaigning. The republicans are not our opponents in this elections cycle. Everyone is to her - it is a big right wing, left wing, media, newspaper, blog, sexist, racist conspiracy against her, she complains. She has torn down what little hope we had for coming out of the darkness of the last 8 years. I am ashamed to see her part of the democratic party let alone the presidential nominee. She is anthemic to everything we have stood against for the last 8 years.
I want Obama to win. I want the fundamentally new direction he will take us in. If he gets down in the mud with her it will be heartbreaking. I hope he can pull it off.
March 5, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is my take: First of all, although I totally think it is ridiculous, Obama being a "Muslim" is a very real threat where I live in CA, most republican county in the state. People believe this, and no matter how many times Obama refutes it, it has stuck. Second, the hand over the national anthem, has somehow mushroomed into he will not say the pledge, another ridiculous yet damning rumor. Thirdly, my mother, 82, is convinced he will be killed during his presidency, and no matter how many times I point out that Ronald Reagan was almost killed, somehow this is a huge concern of hers, and yes, she watches Fox. Finally, and this, in my opinion is the biggest reason, the media turned on Obama big time, between Renko, NAFTA (which they should have turned right back on HRC for) and stupid comments like Clinton can win the big states of CA and NY, which is ridiculous, as these "BIG" states will totally support Obama over McCain. Footnote: Her whining about Florida and Michigan resonates also, as most people have NO clue what really happened there, they do not have the time to be well informed.
If you saw 60 minutes in Ohio, a man didn't know if he would vote for Obama or HRC, but he "heard" that Obama didn't know the words to the national anthem. Really, who does, I know the first verse, let's get serious. But this stupid stuff, untrue, is believed. I personally want one of them out soon, McCain going to keep hitting on Obama and HRC is too, I support Obama, and since the delegates cannot be obtained by either party at this point, I think Howard Dean should step in soon and push for Obama, as he has the most.
March 5, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The media. Obama may have bought plenty of ads but he could not counter the barrage of negative media ads.
Hillary's free press included:
Flattering BS on SNL for herself
Unflattering BS on SNL for Obama
Negative messages in the majority of Obama stories
Rezko focus
Nafta-Canuk story
Rush Limbaugh telling repubs to vote for Hillary
Rush Limbaugh laughing with a caller about Obama resembling Curious George
HRC saying Obama wasn't a muslim as far she knew
She won by playing hardball. One way or another she will die for it. Either as a nominee or as a candidate. I contemplated voting for her for awhile but now I could never do it. I wouldn't vote for Obama if she was the VP candidate at this point. Same goes for her with Obama as VP. I'd vote for Nader and get a student visa ready.
TM
March 5, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Take a look at the Texas totals for the primary vote and the caucuses. That's what a stolen election looks like.
Then take a look at how Texas counts the votes:
http://verifiedvotingfoundation.org/article.php?id=6529
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Texas_Voting_Machines_Rig_an_Election_with_1_Password
Texas Governor Rick Perry is a Republican. Wonder who he gets along with. Could it be, oh, say Charlie Black and, you know, Mark Penn?
In Ohio they dumped their new voting machines not long ago because they failed all testing. They went to paper ballots. Silly me, I thought that might be a good thing until I went to BlackBoxVoting.org, and learned that they would not be counting at the precinct levels, but trucking the ballots to a central location. Mayday! Mayday! So control remains entirely in the hands of the board of elections, currently controlled by Governor Strickland, one of the more rabid and vociferous of the Hillary supporters. There are any number of ways to steal an election, but the first thing to look at is who's in charge of the board of elections and how bad they want to win.
I'm not saying Ohio was tampered with, far be it from me to even imply such a thing. And Texas? Do you think Rick Perry would stoop so low? And even if he did, do you think the Republicans would condone it?
March 5, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the relative demographics predictors of the race have become pretty much settled, and the demographics lined up for Sen. Clinton yesterday. From Openleft's great compiling of exit poll data:
Gender And % H O
White Women 35% 58% 37%
White Men 27% 44% 49%
Black Women 12% 17% 81%
Black Men 8% 12% 86%
Latino Women 7% 69% 30%
Latino Men 6% 58% 40%
I can't find how Ohio broke down in terms of demographics, but I bet those numbers take care of much of the explanation, and will explain most of the rest of the way states break down the rest of the way.
March 5, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
So is it Okay to play hardball? Clinton is just throwing the kitchen sink. “I have to take him at his word that he’s not a Muslim,” as if there were something wrong with being a Muslim. Wink, wink: Muslim is code for being what? Like maybe being, you know, a terrorist. That’s the innuendo. And all this playing right into the Us versus Them hysteria. Then there are the unfounded claims around Obama’s house deal. The attacks on his patriotism over whether he wears a pin or where he places his hand during the anthem. His rhetoric being elegant but hollow – like all those ministers who have that special color – wink, wink. You know, black. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran-McCain and Clinton are “experienced.” Also, we’re not wink, wink – you know, that special color. Black. And the NAFTA/Canada scandal. Is it likely that Obama would have said something that two-faced, being the thoughtful man he is, just before Ohio? Not very likely. And all this like an unexpected meteor shower, all happening miraculously on the eve of Ohio and Texas. What an extraordinary coincidence. And the sudden not so subtle shift in the Main Stream Media: charming pictures of Clinton. Her remarkable appearances on Saturday Night Live and Jon Stewart – all part of the media, I mean, meteor shower, all miraculously on the eve of Ohio and Texas. All joining together, turning like birds wheeling in flight, to keep the man of color from taking the prize.
March 5, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, well, people have been warning you that this would happen.
The thing is, this is just the beginning, and rather than claiming how "unfair" it all is (hum, sounds familiar) or blaming it all on the MSM, this is where you need to step it up a notch. Rather than just being angry, get smart. Find out the truth, use it to counter the spin, come up with well reasoned arguments, rather than sophomoric bile. Admit the truth in the allegations, but dismiss the actual spin where it exists.
This is the hard part. Can you go the distance? Can Obama?
I think he can, but it won't happen without some real support. It's easy to back a candidate when everything is going their way, not so easy when the going gets rough.
Hang in there.
March 5, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20commence.html?_r=2&scp=2&sq=Milestones%3A+Hillary+Clinton&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSsgwajStCo&feature=related
I wont even say anything. Make you own conclusion.
March 5, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not that I have a LOT of acquaintances in Ohio, but so far, the only one who writes about voting for Hilary was a lifelong Republican:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.slack/tree/browse_frm/thread/d8eaa94c62fcc34c/a59dfb9e2cbcadf0?hl=en&rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Falt.slack%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fd8eaa94c62fcc34c%2Fa59dfb9e2cbcadf0%3Fhl%3Den%26#doc_a59dfb9e2cbcadf0
March 5, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh he'll change. The tax return issue is going to show up.
March 5, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
(PS, for any who follow my link: His atrocious spelling is mostly intentional. That's alt.slack for you.)
March 5, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot to mention the STUPID FLAG LAPELS. There is NO way I am sticking a hole in my expensive suit, yet I hear this over and over. I am starting to really dislike even seeing a flag, and that is so sad.
Oh, and Michelle Obama, can we just keep taking swipes at her, because the NY Post is doing to again today.
March 5, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
The bottom line is this: The entire American media, including the so-called "New Media", have written Clinton off. She won because the American people (you know, the voters?) have not written her off.
So-called "conventional wisdom" is neither conventional nor wisdom. It is just a way for self-important pundits and bloggers to feel good about themselves. Clinton hasn't defied "conventional wisdom". She has simply shown that all the media blow-hards don't have a clue, and that all their narrow little biases aren't worth a thing.
March 5, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
ever hear of sarcasm?
March 5, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sarcasm? What's that?
March 5, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the complexities of this primary season is the fact that for the last couple of weeks McCain has been campaigning against Obama as if he will be the nominee, so Ohio and Texas voters have been able to get a review of the general election. If there is any "buyer's remorse" at work, I think it was fed by the Obama-McCain back-and-forth on Iraq. Obama's citing his stance against the war from the beginning is attractive to Democratic voters chosing between him and Clinton, but I just don't think it plays as well against McCain.
Add to that the increasing attention to the Rezko story, and the unanswered question: Why did Rezko buy a side yard for Obama's house? Obama has not come up with an explanation for that yet.
In short, I think Obama's electablility in November has been put into question and voters yesterday responded.
March 5, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
it's hard for me to believe that nobody here has written that perhaps she is a good politician and knows what she has to do to win.
That's why I like her in November. She knows America and knows what she has to do to win.
Get it... She knows!!!!
so does McCain, unfortunately. I heard his speech last night and he's getting old enough to have that Reagany tone to it. And he knows it.
I would think that after Kerry people here might realize that nice guys finish last in this stuff.
March 5, 2008 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speed kills. Bu tin this case it was how fast can you out yell or out whisper. In both states there were back and forth kitchen sink slams Obama did well to dodge it all and respond. The problem is the media, not in the usual evil media, but in saturation or depth penetration of call and responses.
Bad news and dirty politics saturated and penetrated quickly throughout the media such as local news, but the parry and response had a lag.
Now couple that with who the lag and penetration impacts, the uneducated poor, look at Ms Clintons numbers in those demos and it accounts for nearly 65% of the number she "won" the popular vote by in both states.
Now the other two anomalies %5 for the rush impact, most easily demonstrated in the ohio race, look at Clermont county where the amount of Democratic ballots cast for the primary was double the number of registered Democrats.
Cleremont is a bastion of Republicanism in previous cycles and those republicans in that one county broke for Ms Clinton huge and accounted for nearly 10% of the over all popular vote laed she took in ohio.
And lastly you can guarantee there was a 15 - 20 % surge in her base for her last chance stand as well as a slight anti Obama sentiment coupling that movement.
So all in all:
65% uneducated poor who heard the slams but did not get penetration on the Obama responses
5% percent rush effect.
15-20% Clinton Base/Anti Obama surge brings you pretty close to 90% of the couple hundred thousand popular votes.
Kind of a squeeker to hang your hat on if you ask me.
March 5, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the basic nutshell reason is that the Democratic voting public is not quite ready to assign Barack Obama to the job.
They like Sen. Obama, but they don't KNOW him well enough (perhaps the opposite of Sen. Clinton's situation?). That leaves them available to court some suspicions about him, even if they don't entirely accept them. They want to see more of a contest over a longer time-frame.
I think that explains more than NAFTA, more than Resko, more than negative campaigning, more than anything either candidate may or may not have done.
March 5, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with every single "reason" mentioned in these posts; all were factors, but STILL Obama is holding tough in the delegate race. This convinces me to do everything I possibly can to help him in PA. I am sending a contribution, attending an organizational meeting for supporters tomorrow night in my district, e-mailing friends, and I will do more. Senator Obama has said "we" are the hope he talks about. Are we or not? Let's get to work wherever we are.
March 5, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ooops...above I ment "preview of the general election", not "review".
March 5, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think a number of factors were in play.
First, consider how much ground Obama gained in Ohio in just
2 weeks, gaining 10 percentage points, and even more in Texas.
I think the large blue collar and women vote was hard to overcome in Ohio. Obama needs to concentrate on gaining these votes in a state like Pennsylvania. In Texas, the Hispanic vote played a large role in Clinton's victory there. I think her going negative must have been a factor, but it is something that, to me, makes her unappealing. Unfortunately, I think Obama will need to go negative to have a significant win in Pennsylvania.
CMR
March 5, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
The margin here in Ohio surprised me, but I think it was just the economy, really. Some of the statistics I've seen since moving here last summer about what's happened under Bush are simply amazing -- 80% of manufacturing jobs disappearing in some places. You read stories in the business section about this or that company's strategy to survive, and then find out they had 3,000 employees 10 years ago and now have 150. So I think a lot of people -- especially the less-educated, blue-collar people that tend to be Clinton supporters -- simply associate the Clinton name with the good times of the '90s and voted that way, like it will be that simple.
For me, I can deal with Hillary okay, it's those advisers of hers -- Penn, Wolfson, Ickes, McAuliffe -- that make me want to vomit. But it looks like six more weeks of nausea now.
And to msn -- as Presidents Gore and Kerry can tell you, the big state strategy doesn't work in generals either.
March 5, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on, re: Gore and Kerry.
March 5, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
The big state strategy will eventually doom the party because it decimates red state Democrats.
March 5, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gregg,
Instead of placing the sole blame on the heads of the politicians, why not direct some of the outrage at the the owner's of all these businesses that decide to pull up the stakes and leave places like Ohio? Sure, the government should probably try to step in at some point and do something, but ultimately it is the businessmen who are the true enemies here; yet they seem to get a free pass for some reason...
March 5, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg,
I didn't put the blame on anybody. I'm just saying people here are freaked out about what's happened to all their jobs. More than once, I've gone into my local Kroger and EVERY SINGLE checker and bagger was a middle-aged male. That's not normal (although maybe it's the new normal).
March 5, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg,
Well, for one thing, you don't get to vote for your boss. I'm not saying it's a rational way of looking at it. I'm just saying people here are freaked out about what's happened to all their jobs. More than once, I've gone into my local Kroger and EVERY SINGLE checker and bagger was a middle-aged male. That's not normal (although maybe it's the new normal).
March 5, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gettysburg,
Well, for one thing, you don't get to vote for your boss. I'm not saying it's a rational way of looking at it. I'm just saying people here are freaked out about what's happened to all their jobs. More than once, I've gone into my local Kroger and EVERY SINGLE checker and bagger was a middle-aged male. That's not normal (although maybe it's the new normal).
March 5, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink