Really? Has cultural liberalism's fondness for talking down to, taking for granted, and condescending to working class voters been "ameliorated"? You need to spend more time with the Obama freaks over at Kos and other sites (Daily Show too). The condescension is very much alive, which is precisely what has made Hillary Clinton's campaign -- a strategic disaster from day one -- into such a bear to knock out of the game. The arrogance with which Hillary's blue collar voters are dismissed as non-thinking "low information" voters supporting Hillary either because they've heard her name or are racist, is as fierce as it ever has been.

Posted at May 19, 2008 12:05 PM in response to Where Does American Liberalism Stand Today?

What makes you think the huge increase in Dem registration is "due mostly to Obama"? I'm serious, I don't think that's accurate. Where's your data backing that up? Everything I've seen suggests it is due more to Clinton's support among marginal Dem demographics than to Obama's.

Posted at March 26, 2008 1:08 PM in response to Poll: Twenty-Eight Percent Of Hillary Supporters Would Back McCain If Obama Wins

No I don't think this is accurate. While it is true Hillary has done a little better overall among Dems, it does NOT follow that her supporters are disproportionately so-called "core" Dems. In fact, the evidence suggests that her Dem supporters are disproportionately of the non-core variety, whereas Obama's are more "core". Look at the demographics. Clinton wins big among Latinos, blue collar moderate whites, and apolitical women. Those are classic non-core groups who don't always vote, and when they do don't always vote Dem. Obama wins big among African Americans, liberals, and in college towns and big cities. All reliable Dem core constituencies.

You've got it backwards.

Posted at March 26, 2008 1:06 PM in response to Poll: Twenty-Eight Percent Of Hillary Supporters Would Back McCain If Obama Wins

I've been around many Hillary supporters, and although I can't prove it, I'm willing to bet the house that this has been true all along and is not some sort of "sore loser" phenomenon. People here seem to assume that all the Hillary supporters are just hardcore Dems with sour grapes. In truth, an awful lot of them are precisely the marginal voters and sometimes-Dems that the party has been trying to attract: Latinos, blue collar Reagan Dems, and apolitical women. They're voting in the primaries BECAUSE OF HILLARY. Why is it so hard for people to believe that a whole lot of folks are excited about her candidacy and have a hard time transferring that excitement to Obama? Spend a little time among those three groups listed above, and you'll learn a little something.

Posted at March 26, 2008 12:57 PM in response to Poll: Twenty-Eight Percent Of Hillary Supporters Would Back McCain If Obama Wins

Ah yes, the 21st Century version of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." Oh, with a whole bunch of footnotes (note to all: Even Ann Coulter has footnotes).

Actually, I'm not going to argue that the authors of this book are anti-Semitic, because I haven't read it (although until someone complains about the influence of the pro-Ireland lobby -- and check out the immigration statistics if you doubt one exists -- I'm a little unimpressed with the counter-argument.) The more important point is ... what's the point? So you argue AIPAC has too much power. Tell us: How is that power exercised? I was a congressional aide for a long time too. I had many meetings with AIPAC, and we had a lot of Jews in our district. They have no more real power than any other large-ish lobby ... $5,000 PAC contributions and a message that is only heard by maybe 5% of the population. Tell us too: What would you do about it? I think Exxon-Mobil has too much power. I can't think of much that would work in terms of decreasing it. Can you? And if you can't, what's the point other than to bash Israel? Why aren't you bashing, oh I don't know, China or Russia or or that matter Sierra Leone for human rights violations.

This is why Jews particularly sensitive to anti-Semitism, like survivors and children of survivors, see persecution here. Whenever Jews band together to try and defend themselves and stick up for their rights, like in creating Israel or giving to AIPAC, they get bashed.

By the way, I completely agree that Israel should settle with the Palestinians along the lines of the Clinton plan, give up those horrible settlements and move on. So do most Israelis and so did the Israeli government at the time. It was Arafat who turned it down.

Posted at September 7, 2007 3:37 PM in response to Walt-Mearsheimer's Best Seller: Why the Hysteria?

Chill everyone. You've got a twenty on one going here and it's not pretty. It's been blatantly obvious for some time now that when Naderites say things like "the system is broke and no one is representing us," it is really some distorted expression of disappointment in their own lives. I've known -- and liked -- many such folks and it's not even very well hidden. Supporting Ralph is a very personal thing based on everything BUT politics, and is rather pathetic. Luckily, not nearly enough do it anymore to make any difference. Just ignore him, as the Dem candidates are (rightly) doing.

Oh and Green Party does not equal Naderite. Far from it.

Posted at August 1, 2007 7:24 PM in response to Obduracy and Slime

No. You guys are all missing the point. My problem with Obama (and I suspect I'm not alone) has nothing to do with his lack of presidential experience. It's about his lack of POLITICAL experience.

I have no doubt he'll be an excellent president: He's smart, he has character, he will have good advisors. I'm much more worried about him getting there. Here's the relevant fact about Obama that worries me: He has never even BEEN in a competitive general election, let alone won one. At least Lincoln won a tough U.S. House race back when nearly all of them were competitive. Obama's State Senate district was noncompetitive (and he was unopposed for reelection). He lost his U.S. House primary. And his U.S. Senate general election was against a laughingstock of a candidate, Alan Keyes, who didn't even live in the state.

It's like hiring a general to run a war who has never been in one. How's Obama going to react when the Shermanesque national Republican machine hits him? We don't know. Maybe he'll be a junkyard dog, maybe he'll be a shrinking violet. Either way, that's an awfully big risk to take. Meanwhile, we have as options someone who has been through the worst political slime ANYONE has ever been through (Clinton) and someone who learned his lesson 4 years ago and is clearly much less naive now (Edwards).

I've got to tell you, from where I sit early indications aren't promising for BO: His emphasis on "new politics" and "bringing people together," is classic for "I want this to be a clean election," which is "Democratic" for "I'm a sucker."

That's my worry. Forget about the rest.

Posted at April 22, 2007 1:25 PM in response to Obama on Experience. But Why Do Presidents Need It?

I dunno ... this "history" seems too recent, so fresh, to be relevant (snark). Why don't you look for parallels in, say, the famous 1890 election or something?

Sheesh. You do realize, don't you, that the 1968 elections were 40 FRIGGING YEARS AGO, don't you? The vast majority of American voters weren't voting then, many not even alive for that matter.

When will you baby boomers stop acting as if your youthful political experiences inform anything and everything that happens in the United States in perpetuity? As my daughter is fond of saying ... what-EVER. Get over it. It was a different time and place, and probably as distant from our reality today as it is possible to get.

And from what I can gather from history, the Kennedys were not progressive warriors but opportunistic, family-obsessed, arrogant misogynist elitists, not unlike the Bushes, who did very little concrete for the country either as senators or presidents. And Nixon wasn't such a bad president either (look at all the progressive bills he signed, especially environmental ones). Yeah, there was that Watergate thing (which seems so quaint and minor now -- breaking into a campaign headquarters and covering it up ... probably happens all the time these days) but mostly his sin was just hating 60's liberals, which frankly doesn't seem so awful to me now either (and yes, I WAS alive in 1968).

Posted at January 18, 2007 9:44 AM in response to Please, No Repeat of '68

You know what, I have no idea (obviously) what he did, but knowing a lot of people with the same sort of background as Lamont, my guess is that he did almost nothing. Vacations are vacations to the landed gentry, and Lamont is really not a political animal (much to his everlasting credit).

Posted at August 19, 2006 8:05 PM in response to Where's Ned

TV, TV, and more TV. Local events are nice in primaries (though even there they are of limited value), but in a general election fight with, what, a million and a half voters to talk to, TV is the only real way to do it. Take the criticism personally all you want, be the "little guy standing up to the beltway idiots", whatever. We're just offering some objective reaction. Fact is, Lamont has pissed away his momentum by not IMMEDIATELY going on the air with a defining ad or two. If he needs to go dark for money reasons, the couple weeks around Labor Day would have been a much better choice. Not right after the primary.

What I'm afraid of is that Lamont is going to try and win with an "outsider" campaign that is "people powered" and "based on issues." Pul-leeze. That and three-fifty will by you a grande latte. His only path to victory runs through about $10 million of his own money (or $9 million of his and $1 of everyone else's). Cynical, of course. But true, by every historical model you can muster.

Here's the problem: Even though Lamont won the primary, he (amazingly) has a net negative approval rating, considerably worse than Lieberman's. And he has a 70% name ID. That's very very bad. He needs to turn that around fast, and the only way to do that is with some good ads.

Posted at August 19, 2006 8:01 PM in response to Where's Ned