I spent years defending her against what I thought were Republican talking points -- she's conniving, she's manipulative, she has no moral center. Then, she voted for this war so she would look tough enough to run for president.

Well, I have to give it to Republicans!

Posted at February 9, 2008 4:50 AM in response to Gender Panic !!!

Oh, gosh, I read over this again (I am a sensitive soul!), and I had to comment even further!

1. What is a Gump's? Is it a fancy store out East? Or on the West coast? I have to assume so -- I've lived my entire life in Kentucky, Indiana and Illinois.

2. Congratulations on your couple of degrees! I have only one, from Indiana University, a great state school!

3. In my other response, I meant to write, "They are the ones that make up Hillary's base!" Whoops! Maybe I should get my next degree in copy-editing!

4. Gosh -- I have never dichotomized the world into "tired old broad v. young thinker" before in my life! I have never heard anyone else do it. . . it's weirdly gendered.

5. The elitism dripping from the Obama camp? Really? From all those nice old black ladies who are so thrilled to get to vote for a black man? From all those nice old white ladies who were so thrilled to vote for Obama in Iowa? From all those Idahoans (so scorned by Linda!) who caucused for him in the snow? Really, the Idahoans -- 70% of them going for Obama! -- were the elitists?! That's so weird!

Goodnight!

Posted at February 9, 2008 4:34 AM in response to Just Do The Math

Oh, I just can't help myself!

I guess I am defensive. I'm from Kentucky, I went to school in Indiana, and I just think you underestimate the need to engage red-staters. Yes, perhaps we won't win Idaho in November (although, with an Obama nomination I think we could scare the Republicans into spending some money defending Alabama and Louisiana and Georgia), but what a lost opportunity it would be to nominate Senator Clinton, who will likely only reinforce Republican dominance in such states. Obama, on the other hand -- I think he could begin the process of purple-izing even Idaho.

You say:

"My point being that Idaho is not among them, and, therefore, all the chatter about "he won the majority of STATES" is meaningless."

Might I suggest some meaning!

1. Obama's organizational prowess bodes well for the general election campaign, and it's that organizational prowess that has garnered his superior tally of state victories.

2. To win much-maligned Idaho, Obama had to pull in independents and Republicans. He'll have to do the same if he wants to win Ohio in the general election -- I think we can all agree that if John Kerry had been possessed of the same appeal, we might not be having this conversation.

3. Let's face it -- every state victory is a sale made. Obama made the sale in Missouri, he made the sale in Alabama, he made the sale in Colorado. He didn't make the sale in California, but I bet you he could have if there had been a couple more weeks between South Carolina and Super Tuesday. That's why a state like Idaho is, I think, telling -- practically every democratic voter in the state had a chance to kick the tires and they liked what they saw. On the other hand, you have to wonder what information all of those Californians were using to drive their votes. Newspaper endorsements? Candidate web sites? Anonymous e-mail smears? The point is that winning more states means that Obama was able to make more sales than Hillary.

Finally, Linda, you betray yourself: "or maybe this is what the discourse becomes when someone suggests an alternative to the coronation of BO?" Oh my gosh! The coronation of BO? Oh, that is rich! The first thing that turned me off Senator Clinton was the smell of heir apparency. Senator Obama's campaign has underdoggedly struggled it's way to parity with Clinton's, with the main stream media only too happy to parrot the baseless charge of inexperience every step of the way.

Posted at February 9, 2008 4:17 AM in response to Just Do The Math

LongTimeFem -- Oh, but I dearly wish what I had said about low-income, low-education voters wasn't true! They are the ones who make up Hillary's bas!

True story -- I was canvassing in Iowa for none other than Senator Obama (I mean, I don't think I have to hide my allegiance!), and in a blue collar, I was told more than once that, "I'm voting for Hillary because that means Bill will be back in office!"

The Clintons are a widely recognized brand. You don't have to watch a lot of political television or read your newspaper to know who they are. And listen, I grew up on a small Kentucky tobacco farm -- I'm always pretty amused when I get accused of being an elitist, but it really doesn't change the fact that Obama has a tough time pulling votes from blue collar dems -- unless, of course, he has the time to meet them face-to-face, as he did in Iowa, where he scored his most impressive victory against a large field of candidates. I hope that's what happens in the coming contests!

Honestly, I think that the routine of calling someone an elitist just because he points out that low-income and low-education voters tend to favor a certain candidate is not just silly, it's indicative of our very American determination to ignore class, a habit that is carried on at the cost of not being able to do very much to help the poor and the under-educated, because god forbid you discuss their existence!

Posted at February 9, 2008 3:36 AM in response to Just Do The Math

Yes, I share your fears, but at the same time, if anyone can bring more people into the family of informed voters, it's Obama. Just look at Iowa, where his personal magnetism and his excellent field operation helped to double the caucus attendance -- no mean feat when it means bringing people out for a 90 minute meeting on a weeknight! Since Iowa, there hasn't been the time for an operation similar in scope and intensity. But, I believe something similar could be accomplished if we could have Obama for the nominee.

Posted at February 8, 2008 9:59 AM in response to Let's Begin

. . . like what a I saw, I meant to say, you see. . .

Posted at February 8, 2008 1:06 AM in response to Just Do The Math

Oh, stop the nonsense, I want to get off!

Linda, do you truly believe that New York and California might not break for Obama were he to become the nominee? Really? You think Clinton would stand a better chance in Florida? Really? Because she won a primary in which Barack Obama didn't participate? Really?

Right now, Clinton's engine is fueled by her celebrity. Low income / low education voters, who are not as politically literate as higher income, more educated voters, are more likely to vote for a known quantity, especially in states like California where it's more difficult for the Obama campaign to saturate the electorate with television and direct-voter contact with both the candidate and with canvassers. On Super Tuesday, Obama mined delegates in Caucus states where the results were decided by more engaged citizens. I celebrate the fact that these caucus states gave more power to better informed voters.

But I assure you, Linda, if Senator Obama becomes the nominee, he will be introduced to the nation through the media frenzy that will attend the nomination of the first black major party candidate, and he will have the financial resources to introduce himself to the voters of Ohio, Florida, and Michigan. For the politically engaged, it seems like Obama is already a celebrity, but the truth is that most of the country is just now getting to know him. And the more people get to know him, the more they like him. That's what happened in Iowa, that's what happened in New Hampshire, that's what happened in Nevada, that's what happened in South Carolina, and that's what happened on Super-Tuesday. In every case, he defied month-old expectations (though the defiance was often under-reported because he couldn't defy week-old expectations of a surge). Imagine if there had been a month of campaigning between South Carolina and Super Tuesday, and Obama had been able to spend more time in California and Missouri, had been able to introduce himself to more voters? If he were to become the nominee, his national profile would increase so significantly by November that your analysis of primary voting patterns would be rendered moot.

Linda, honestly, I am a fan of yours. I am a fan of your brand of feminism, even. Yes, back to work! I agree! But I have been turned off by your insinuations, and the insinuations of some other feminists, that Senator Clinton is a victim of some "vast men's-wing conspiracy."

Yes, there's still sexism out there. But wait! There's also still racism out there! And which campaign has used identity prejudice against its adversary? Wait a minute! It's the Clinton campaign!

Can you make a case for Senator Clinton on her merits as a candidate? I don't see too many feminists trying to do that. Can you give me a good rationale for her vote on the war? Can you excuse her campaign's attempt to "Jesse Jacksonize" Senator Obama? Can you tell me why it was OK for her to misrepresent Senator Obama's statements about Reagan and Republican ideas? Can you explain to me why her failure to deliver health care reform is such great preparation for delivering health care reform? Can you tell me why the records of her two "terms" as first lady ought to remain behind closed doors?

You see, Linda, I have taken a look at Senator Clinton's record and I have thought long and hard about her character. I am deeply disturbed by her vote on the war because, while more than twenty Senators voted against the war, I believe Senator Clinton's presidential aspirations drove her to support it (think of that -- knowing full well that thousands would die, probably without just cause, and going ahead and voting for the war because you feared you would look too weak to win).

My distaste for Senator Clinton is an indirect product of my deeply-held feminism. I didn't look at her as a woman candidate. I looked at her as a candidate, and I didn't like what I see.

I think given time and education and exposure, voters in Ohio and Florida will come to a very different conclusion about Barack Obama.

Posted at February 8, 2008 1:00 AM in response to Just Do The Math