I agree with Steve LaBonne. Supporting candidates just because they are Democrats is no longer working for our country. We need to support the candidates who will support us. And that means more than standing up for issues. Those of you who throw out laundry lists of issues as the rationale for supporting Obama just don't get it. We must care more about the values that candidates demonstrate than the issues that they pay lip-service to. Case in point: the FISA bill that has gotten Obama into hot water with Kos and many other progressives is an instance where he showed that he was not willing to stick his neck out to protect our 4th amendment rights. This is a big red flag to progressives that perhaps Obama does not share our values. If he won't fight for us in the Senate, we won't fight for him in the fundraising arena.

The silver lining in all of this is that the 2008 election will have succeeded in an important basic mission regardless of how much more money Obama raises between now and the election, and regardless of whether he beats McCain. The fundraising success that Obama has enjoyed through the primary process, when he was undeniably the darling of us 'radical' left-wingers, sends a message loud and clear that politicians don't have to become the servants of corporations and other special interests in order to raise enough money to compete in elections. Obama has shown that if you can appear authentically liberal, there is plenty of money that middle class liberals can give to a campaign through small internet donations. This will encourage many politicians to consider weaning themselves from their corporate masters, and will also encourage many people to consider careers as honorable politicians who would otherwise shun the profession out of distaste for the need to raise money from the very powers that oppose the progressive movement.

Steve LaBonne is correct in his comment above regarding where to send our political donations. The best thing we can do is give money to candidates who we trust to fight for the progressive agenda, at all levels of government. And keep them on a short leash. When candidates demonstrate that they do not share our values, as Obama is doing lately, then we turn down the money flow and they will get the picture. If we really want change in our government, we have to care more about the behavior of the politicians than what party they identify with.

Of course Obama will be a better president than McCain. But now is the only time when we have any leverage over him to influence his behavior. He can count on all our votes, be he has to demonstrate that he deserves our money by supporting our progressive values.

Posted at July 11, 2008 12:46 PM in response to Obama Campaign Slams Story Reporting $30 Million In June As "Way Off"

Geography is not everything in determining the attitudes of white Americans toward black Americans, but it is still significant. Mr. Coates, you seem to obscure the North/South formula by showing the contrasts between Wisconsin and Ohio, and between Virginia and Pennsylvania.

I have a one word answer for you: Appalachia.

Obama has done very poorly in the Appalachias, and those states with large populations in Appalachia are where he has had trouble. Pittsburgh is bordering on the Appalachian mountains, and Obama lost the entire western (read: Appalachian) side of Pennsylvania. Obama lost Ohio because of southern Ohio, especially southeastern (Appalachian) Ohio. Obama won Virginia because the vast majority of that state's population is around the D.C. area, far from the mountains.

This is why Obama will get blown out in West Virginia and in Kentucky. He has no chance in either of those states. Too many hillbillies. And the hillbillies like to vote for Hill and Bill Clinton.

Posted at May 12, 2008 5:53 PM in response to The Myth Of The Black Racist Voter

I agree with you, and I think she expects this to be a win/win situation for her once her spinmeisters have a go at the results. If the bill were to succeed, she would have a demonstration of her (supposed) ability to "get things done" in Washington. If the bill fails, she will tell the public that they must make her the president to stop these do-nothing Congress critters. Then she will ask the public to pressure the same Congress critters to use their superdelegate votes to make her the nominee in August.

Posted at May 2, 2008 3:57 PM in response to Hillary Will Introduce "Gas Tax Holiday" Legislation

I may sound like the devil's advocate for saying this, but I think most of the remaining "undecided" superdelegates are probably favoring Obama and waiting for him to put Senator Clinton away with some more decisive victories close to the end of the primary process, so that they can avoid the accusation of trying to "fix" the election before citizen voters have had their say. Hillary is already trying to claim that Senator Obama and DNC Chairman Howard Dean are colluding to disenfranchise the voters in Florida and Michigan. By rolling out the final superdelegates slowly, Obama can keep a sense of momentum without making himself a target for further "disenfranchisment of voters" accusations. I suspect he will keep rolling them out 2 a day until he is caught up with Clinton, and hang there with a tie until she drops out or until the final contests are over, at which point the endorsements will start coming around 5-10 a day until they are done. Hillary is probably keeping a few in her back pocket as well, and now releasing them to try to counter Barack's momentum. We'll see how long she can keep this up.

Posted at April 29, 2008 4:43 PM in response to Superdelegates to blame for enabling destructive campaign

Excellent point.

Posted at April 29, 2008 4:32 PM in response to Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) Endorses Clinton

You asked to be corrected if you are wrong. Well, here it comes. . . . you are wrong. This business about delegates being "released" after the first round of voting is pure nonsense. No delegate of any kind is bound by anything to vote for anyone, in the first round or any other. "Pledged" delegates are called 'pledged' because they have expressed the strength of their support to a candidate as a part of being selected to be a delegate in the first place. There is no binding contract. If a pledged delegate selected through a primary or caucus is powerfully affected by the revelation of some campaign scandal or blunder, they could change their mind and vote for a different candidate at the convention -- yes, in the first round.

This is exactly what Clinton is trying to accomplish by going after Obama. She is hoping not only to woo undecided superdelegates, but also to "flip" as many of the so called "pledged" delegates as possible. Is it a workable strategy? That depends on the level of commitment from each individual pledged delegate. We won't know until the convention, which is one reason why Clinton may never concede defeat, preferring to go into Denver hoping for a big surprise among the votes of the "pledged" delegates.

The irony is that the remaining superdelegates are more likely to stick with Obama than are pledged delegates who might be sensitive to the Wright issue or "bittergate". The superdelegates who are elected officials are probably reticent to back Clinton because they sense how much she is hated by so many, and it will hurt their own chances for reelection to be on the same ballot with her.

Posted at April 24, 2008 12:43 PM in response to The Morning After: Super Delegates, Do Your Job!

It does not matter whether or not she held elected office at the time. What matters is that, once again, she has been shown to be a total hypocrite. A cold-blooded, two-dimensional politician rather than an empathetic leader. That's what matters.

Posted at April 17, 2008 6:30 PM in response to He Said, She Said

There are some very important states in the "open-primary" category. Missouri, for instance, was an open primary and is considered a bellwether for the general election. And Obama won there. Virginia was an open primary, and Obama won in VA by a huge margin despite that Clinton's campaign is headquartered there. Vermont was an open primary, and is a solid blue state. Indiana will be an open primary -- care to belittle it in advance?

Beyond these examples of important open primaries, there are other states that Obama has won which are "purple" states where independent voters could decide the election in November. These include Washington state and Colorado, and yes, even the Dakotas, where voters have been electing Democratic party Senators in recent elections.

Both candidates have won some solid "blue" states, and some solid "red" states, and some "purple" states. Supporters of one candidate trying to say that the other candidate has won only insignificant states is so much hogwash. It's the most obvious form of sour grapes. No different from how the Clinton camp tried to act simultaneously outraged and indifferent to Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama.

The most ridiculous of all of these arguments is the "big state" argument, wherein Clinton supporters try to point to her wins in California and New York as really important, as if to scare other Democrats into believing that without Clinton on the ticket, these most solid of the Democratic states would be in danger of flipping Republican in the general election. How absurd.

Posted at April 9, 2008 10:29 AM in response to Obama Outspending Hillary Almost 3-1 On Pennsylvania Ads

Actually, we spent a lot "abroad". When you buy something made in China or any other country, the dollar's weakness affects the price of that product. Americans who go down the street to buy basic necessities are very much affected by the strength of the dollar. You need to read some basics of economics.

And the "dumb hicks from Arkansas" as you put it, are not worthless Americans (although clearly you think they are). They are someone's father/mother/brother/sister, etc. And plenty of people from all over America are enlisted in our military risking their lives for oil profits. It's immoral and ineffective. Our military presence in Iraq is not a solution to the problem. It IS the problem.

Pull your head out of your butt.

Posted at April 1, 2008 10:40 AM in response to The Republicans Have Handed Us Their Kryptonite

The cult of power where Hillary worships hasn't been discussed much lately, but it is pretty shocking.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

Posted at March 25, 2008 1:50 PM in response to Hillary: Wright "Would Not Have Been My Pastor"