On Electability, Racism, & Endorsements

About a week ago I wrote a post called Obama's Fate and in part wrote, let me just say that anyone who accuses skin color as some part behind the reasoning will find themselves banned--there is zero tolerance for accusations of racism.

That begged for clarification, and was misunderstood by some. It probably didn't help matters that I mixed it in with recognizing Obama more for what he is, a person with both a black and white parent, and the global idealism that represents. I should have made it more clearer what I was trying to say. It wasn't a statement that issues of racism couldn't be discussed on MyDD, nor was I meaning to say that anyone that posted something about racism as an issue that Obama would have to deal with, would be banned. It was intended to mean that for anyone who would bring up doubts about the electability of Obama (the reasoning I was doing in that post), they would be able to do so without having to deal with accusations of racism.

I've had to ban a number of people here who had made such accusations against other posters, simply because they argued, for one reason or another, concerns over Obama's electability. Hopefully that clears things up a bit. I really don't believe, as far as Obama goes, that his having black skin is an electability problem. I'm not saying it's got no political downside at all, there's going to be political downside for any nominee based on their gender, skin color, accent, region... just that it's not (and the polls, fwiw, solidly find this too) an issue for 2008.

Anyway, hopefully the intention is clearer now. And just for the new folks here, the offense you'll be banned for here is making personal attacks on other posters (which the above falls under). Other than that, this progressive site tries to hold a libertarian principle of discourse.

Oh, one other thing, newspapers are dead, and their endorsements don't mean squat. The whole "John Edwards got 2nd because of the DMR endorsement in '04" was a revisionist attempt by the media to explain why they were so misled into reporting that Dean would win Iowa (think Yepsen), when it was really just that they were terrible predictors who had no clue how to look at momentum or read polls, plenty of which was to be found that pointed to Edwards doing well before the DMR endorsement-- which meant very little at the time.  All that said, the counter by Obama's team in getting the Globe endorsement out just before the DMR for Clinton happened, was great political coverage that equalized the storyline.

To date, Wes Clark's endorsement of Clinton is the overall most important one in my mind, simply because went to bat and looks the role of VP candidate in waiting. The Leonard Boswell & Bruce Braley endorsements of Clinton and Edwards seem pretty important, but largely inconsequential. Really, the two endorsements that swamp all others are from John Kerry and Al Gore. Either of those would get a lot of notice-- who knows, maybe they'd help persuade someone too.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)



Somewhat disagree

I don't think the endorsement per se for Hillary is that big a deal, but the way it was written will bolster Hillary's "experience" narrative against Obama -- as that was the central point of the endorsement.

And I do think the Boston Globe endorsement is less consequential because Obama really needed the Iowa endorsement. If he loses Iowa, he is in rough shape. And all the Boston Globe endorsements in the world aren't going to help him.

We shall see..

by GregNYC 2007-12-15 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Somewhat disagree

disagree a bit obviosly I would rather have had the endorsement but Obama's doing great in NH now with the indies in the game, now he can kind of back off a bit in the Iowa expectations game. Tonight when asked about they said it's not surprising wer'e not an editorial board candidate and wer'e not the establishment candidate. Last night Bill Clinton said Iowa would be a miracle to win, now no one will listen to that nonsense.

by nevadadem 2007-12-15 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Somewhat disagree

Tonight when asked about they said it's not surprising wer'e not an editorial board candidate and wer'e not the establishment candidate.

- And then they got the boston globe endorsements and praised it.

Isn't there some sour grapes and hypocrisy there.


by lori 2007-12-15 07:50PM | 0 recs
Except bolstering her experience ...

... narrative is not likely to be what she needs to win Iowa. "Is the person most likely to bring about the changes you want to see" is the narrative she needs to establish, and since she comes across as the one who will aim for the least dramatic change, she needs to work very hard to argue that she will at least win 100% of what she goes for.

by BruceMcF 2007-12-16 06:38AM | 0 recs
Kerry wouldn't mean shit


by nevadadem 2007-12-15 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry wouldn't mean shit

It would in NH!

by Astraea 2007-12-15 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry wouldn't mean shit

I think alot depends upon who receives the endorsement. An endorsement of Hillary seems less likely to matter, because she is the default nominee in a sense. The others (especially Obama) have more to prove, more doubts to contest, and just more uncertainty in general. Endorsements from institutional folks like Kerry gives voters who may harbor doubts a bit of assurance. That's why I think endorsements like Z-big are important (to the extent anyone knows about that one). Kennedy and Gore, likewise, good really help Obama.

I would say something similar for Edwards. I don't think there is the same uncertainty with him (since he has been on the national scene for a while), but any institutional support for him could boost general voter confidence.

Gore might help Hillary, on the other hand, just because he is seen by some as a moral warrior of sorts; accordingly, his support might help Hillary in the trust department. However, many might not see a Gore endorsement for Hillary as particularly meaningful, since he was part of the Clinton admin.

But, really, who the hell knows. I can't imagine an endorsement affecting my decision regarding whom to support. Least of all a newspaper's editorial board.  

by DPW 2007-12-15 07:22PM | 0 recs

was asked about that:

Q: Do you feel some obligation to endorse the wife of your former boss?

GORE: Uh ... no. I have friendships with her and with the other candidates, and they're all on equal footing at this point as far as I'm concerned.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/4/19222 0/0425

by jello 2007-12-15 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry wouldn't mean shit

when is obama going to appear with zbig at a forum? after he wins iowa?

by jello 2007-12-15 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry wouldn't mean shit

'cuz you know Z-big draws the crowds...

Man, I love calling him that.

by MNPundit 2007-12-16 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry wouldn't mean shit

who cares about crowds? i want to hear these two banter.

by jello 2007-12-16 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Kerry wouldn't mean shit


by jello 2007-12-15 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability

The timing of the Boston Globe endorsement was not coincidental.  At least we know which newspaper is staffed with paid pamphleteers.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-15 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability

Ain't it lovely?  

Thanks guys for proving us with a split story line.

by General Sherman 2007-12-15 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability

In Iowa, there sure is no split story line.  Nationally, perhaps.  Iowans will hear about the DMR endorsement, not so much the Boston Globe thing.  

by georgep 2007-12-15 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability

Well, yes. This I know. I'm speaking nationally, where there is a split storyline.

I would have loved for Obama to get the DMR.

But having Hillary get it, and not John Edwards, is the second-best scenario for Barack.

The DMR endorsement is not going to sway anyone towards HRC--she's topped out.

I'm 100% sure--as are you--that Hillary camp is looking at this the same way as I am.

by General Sherman 2007-12-15 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability

Hillary is clearly not "topped out."  But, if you want to believe that, go right ahead.  I kind of like that narrative and theme of Clinton being maxed out, having nowhere to go, is dead in the water.  Obama is expected to win Iowa, and win it big.  I doubt he wins it at all, but even if he does, it would be by a smidgen, which at this point would be less than his supporters and the media are making his advantage out to be.  That could well be a problem for Obama, even if he wins it in a tight race.  The question would quickly become:   "What happened? By 1% only?  I thought he was ahead by 9%?"  That would then bring about comments that Obama was from neighboring Illinois, had a regional bonus of sorts, etc.

The rule of thumb is that in a knotted-up race you don't want to be the perceived frontrunner.

by georgep 2007-12-15 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability

Well I would argue that the DMR endorsement doesn't allow Team Clinton to lower expectations as much as they would have liked---though they still are happy with the endorsement, especially that it did not go to Obama.

It won't matter by how much a margin Obama beats Clinton by, not even if it's a "smidgen." It will still provide Obama with enough momentum to take NH and then SC. (BTW, I think the same thing holds for Clinton winning Iowa)

Yes, Obama has the Iowa momentum, but a victory in Iowa will still be a strong rebuke to the HRC "inevitability" narrative.

Iowa is everything.

by General Sherman 2007-12-15 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability

You're not giving Iowans much credit for broader awareness.  Caucus-goers are more likely to be engaged and knowledgeable- it's not a primary.
And that is also an argument for the endorsements not meaning that much- which is probably true.  Having said that, they can't hurt.

This site feels different when you're not around.

by mboehm 2007-12-15 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability

What the?  When the Tampa Tribune or St. Pete Times endorse a candidate, that will be noticed by most in this area.  There will not be as much awareness of endorsements issues by the Atlanta Constitutional or even Miami Herald.   It is simple logic, but I understand that those of us who spend many hours online believe that everybody else is the same way, when many just aren't that tuned into outside events (especially something like another state's newspaper's endorsement.)  

by georgep 2007-12-15 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability

I don't give Iowan caucusers much credit for broader awareness, they did pick Kerry after all.

by MNPundit 2007-12-16 07:28AM | 0 recs
I have to disagree

I have to disagree with a blanket statement that newspaper endorsements don't mean anything.  In a tight three-way race, in which Clinton very much needed a shot of good news, I think this is very helpful for her -- and even more so for the fact that the content of the endorsement closely matches Clinton's own arguments.  I expect this endorsement, and the language from it, to be played up quite a bit in advertisements and mailers in Iowa.  Even if it shifts momentum a bit, it could play a big roll.

by markjay 2007-12-15 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to disagree

All that said, the counter by Obama's team in getting the Globe endorsement out just before the DMR for Clinton happened, was great political coverage that equalized the storyline

Something Obama did right!1 I didn't think you had it in you....it does help with the national media.

by nevadadem 2007-12-15 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to disagree

I agree that was an astute political move, either by the Obama campaign (if they helped orchestrate the timing) or by his supporters at the Boston Globe.

by markjay 2007-12-15 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to disagree

yep and nothing dirty or untoward about it, they didn't know who was getting the DMR but if they knew they had the Globe and was asked for timing this was perfect. The national stories are playing up both and McCain. I was wrong about downplaying McCain's good night all the national publicity could help with fundraising and national poll #s buiding more buzz.

by nevadadem 2007-12-15 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to disagree

you act surprised. he's done more than one thing right.

by jello 2007-12-15 07:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to disagree

Prove that a newspaper endorsement meant shift in a campaign.  Newspapers were relevant 20-25 years ago, now not so.  Iowans are not going to shift their perception because the DMR says so.  As people in New England ares will for Obama.  This is just establishment.  Period.

by iamready 2007-12-15 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I have to disagree

I think it's probably true that a blanket statement is off a bit, but not too far off. Unless a newspaper really goes against the grain and bolsters a non-insider candidate, they don't mean anything beyond firing up supporters (which is not inconsequential).

A DMR endorsement of Clinton won't have much of an effect, imo, because voters have certainly already factored in her established, insider position in their estimation of her. A little reinforcement of that position (as the DMR endorsement is) doesn't do a whole lot for her.

A Globe endorsement of Obama is only marginally more useful because Barack's slightly less "insider," so some institutional support is helpful to him. But that's really not too big a deal, either. The folks who would really pay attention to newspaper endorsements have already decided long before newspapers endorse.

by BriVT 2007-12-16 02:29AM | 0 recs
Re: I have to disagree

Clinton did need a shot of good news. Alternatively, an endorsement of one of the other top three would have hurt her badly. So, it is very helpful, indeed. And for me, a great relief. I want to see her win.

by Coral 2007-12-16 03:56AM | 0 recs
ignore the elephant in the room

whose more likely to have retained the habit of reading the paper?

a) old people
b) young adults
c) those inbetween

if the dmr endorsement was no big deal, the clintons wouldn't have lobbied to go after it like they did.

by jello 2007-12-15 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: ignore the elephant in the room

the heading is unrelated to the post, btw

by jello 2007-12-15 07:43PM | 0 recs
I disagree about the Newspapers, at least for the

It's not scientific but I noticed today, looking at mailboxes & trying to find street adresses in New Hampshire, a high correlation between Denoctatic voting households on my walk list (really a drive list) and the bright green Boston Globe delivery boxes vs. the households not on my list, presumably Republican, which take the Union-Leader and thier blue boxes.  And gosh, in Iowa, the Register does matter and I would have given my left nutmeg for an Obama endorsement.  The Register still circulates in all 99 counties and it does set the agenda in many a rural cafe.  

Sure, newspapers are less influential but the death will be slow.  Senior citizen votes matter too, and they are still ties to dead trees and some of the great things about newspapers.  Dying sure, dead, not for awhile, and I'm grateful they aren't dead yet.

by howardpark 2007-12-15 07:39PM | 0 recs
they matter somewhat

but a candidate like Hillaary is helped least by these things.  Who really is undecided about her and would be swayed? It helps stop the bleeding if she uses it right and stops going negative.

by nevadadem 2007-12-15 07:43PM | 0 recs
if Obama because of the Globe

 and Shaheen backlash starts opening a bit of a lead in NH don't be surprisesd if he starts lowering Iowa expectations a bit, although I don't think he'll say it will take a miracle for him to win.

by nevadadem 2007-12-15 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree about the Newspapers, at least for

For the undecided voter the DMR endorsement has to help.  But for a voter who is choosing between Edwards and Obama, its not going to help because they wrote off Clinton already.  

I always liked the CLintons even though I considered them dishonest, but I gave them a pass because they were fighting the GOP.  Now that they are showing themselves as nasty and dishonest toward demoncrats, they deserve no pass.  And so when I look at Clinton I see what the GOP saw in the 90's and most still see.  I think that is also what Iowans see and they have turned away from Clinton.  I was surprised at how lightly attended one of her recent rallies was.  If you saw her at the DMR interview, she looked absolutely awful.  So visually she is also less appealing.  Truth be told, she needed Oprah, someone to vouch for her humanity.  Obama needed the DMR endorsement to vouch for his competence.

by Javier Doval 2007-12-16 01:13AM | 0 recs
Re: I disagree about the Newspapers, at least for

Truth be told, she needed Oprah, someone to vouch for her humanity.  Obama needed the DMR endorsement to vouch for his competence.

Well, you're right in a way.  Recent endorsements have played to the two candidates' strengths.  The Oprah endorsement reinforces the idea that Obama is attractive, entertaining, and personally appealing, whereas the DMR endorsement and the endorsement of Iowa Congressman Leonard Boswell reinforce the idea that Hillary is experienced, competent, and professional.  Let's see which persona is more appealing to Iowans as a presidential candidate.

by markjay 2007-12-16 04:02AM | 0 recs
I've been thinking about writing a diary

about electability arguments and what is "fair" versus "sleazy."

On Friday I ran into an acquaintance who asked me if I had a candidate. I said yes, I'm a precinct captain for Edwards. He is supporting Obama because, he said, Edwards doesn't have the money to beat Hillary in the February 5 states.

I said that I thought Edwards has a much better chance of winning the election than Obama, but before I could go on to say that Obama's never been through a tough campaign, that Edwards does better in rural areas, etc., he interrupted me to ask, "Why, because he's too black?"

It really bothered me--I felt that right after he made an argument for Edwards not being electable, he tried to put me on the defensive, imputing a racist motive for my suggesting that Obama is less electable.

It got me thinking about political correctness in the context of electability arguments.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-15 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I've been thinking about writing a diary

it's difficult and Edwards himself has trouble making the electability argument for that very reason.

by nevadadem 2007-12-15 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I've been thinking about writing a diary

I think that's unfortunate and unfair.

by General Sherman 2007-12-15 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I've been thinking about writing a diary

Exactly what tough campaign has Edwards come through where he's been a winner?  People would make this argument at the beginning of the season and then I would watch Edwards with the $400 haircut thing and the seeming unawareness that someone was filming him during what became the I'm so Pretty video and I thought, my God, these are rookie mistakes.  What did he learn in 2004?  I don't see anything in his campaign that shows me the seasoned toughness of someone who has gone through it.  

Obama on the other hand, learned greatly by losing an election.  He has been through the rigors of Chicago politics, which are not genteel.  The idea that he isn't ready for a tough national campaign is certainly not backed up by the way he has held his ground and played this thing near perfectly against the Clinton machine, which is a lot more together at this point than the Republicans.  What in Edwards campaign so far show's he is?

by Piuma 2007-12-15 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I've been thinking about writing a diary

at a florida democratic convention a few years back, edwards opened his speech by bragging how he won people magazine sexiest politician cover. he wasn't being modest or self deprecating about it. he was thrilled. you have to wonder about someone's sense of self awareness for him to think that wouldn't raise eyebrows.

by jello 2007-12-15 08:14PM | 0 recs
Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

senator in a red state.

Obama defeated a joke senatorial candidate in a blue state.

Several times Obama got opponents struck from the ballot, but I don't think that's going to work in the general against the Republicans.

Obama has gotten way more national media attention than Edwards, with a much better ratio of favorable to unfavorable coverage than Edwards. Yet polling still shows Edwards doing better against Republican candidates than Obama. Even after months of the media harping on meaningless crap like expensive haircuts.

Does that suggest anything to you? What is going to happen to Obama's numbers when the mainstream media turns on him?

By the way, if we scrutinized how much Obama spends on clothes, shoes, or whatever, I'm sure we could find something embarrassing.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-15 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

yet polling still shows Edwards doing better against Republican candidates than Obama

paul begala, this week, said national polling is worthless at this stage.

by jello 2007-12-15 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican
who had that diary that showed edwards net worth $55 million?
obama was $1. something million.
by jello 2007-12-15 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

This is low and unwarranted.

And Edwards clothes closet is not one to question?

And this red state is a crock.  He did not even carry his own state.

What legislation has Edwards past his time in the senate?  And this polling against GOP almost a year before the election?  Those numbers are fantasy.

Have your man present is position to fight on and beyond February 5th.  No one has yet to answer this question, because there is no answer.

by iamready 2007-12-15 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

Obama is personally very thrifty.  Its his wife who likes, and deserves, fine things.  They are a stunning couple.

Edwards and Clinton's electability argument has featured a subtle reference to race.  For example, they both refer to the south as if to say there are whites who won't vote for a person of color.  On Hardball Edwards said people tend to vote for people who have an accent like his.  I would prefer they come right out and say its about race.  At least then there can be an honest discussion.

In such a discussion I would say this.  Any democrat will have a tough time in parts of the south.  I find race a diminishing factor; its mostly about ideology and social issues.  Also, whites in the south have always treated biracial persons differently than blacks.  Its always been part of the social and political structure.

by Javier Doval 2007-12-16 01:24AM | 0 recs
Whites treat biracial differently in the South?

Not in the South I grew up in. You might want to learn what an octoroon was, and how they were treated as a matter of law.

HRC and Edwards may very well be saying the South won't vote for Obama, because he is black. I am not sure that I would disagree that there are large numbers of white Southerner who won't vote for Obama, because of his skin color. Southern ideology and social issues? I suspect if you dig deep enough into those ideological and social issues you will find race.

Would any Democrat do much better? I think you are  right that they wouldn't. Florida would be the exception to that rule.

by molly bloom 2007-12-16 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

Argh. This kind of head in the sand attitude does nothing but make me think that Obama supporters must live in another country or something.

There is a little bit of spin going on here w/r/t clinton and edwards but a lot of truth. Fact of the matter is, none of them are going to carry the deep south. It's a complete write off right now. Having said that, going into denial of reality as to how things really are right now is wrong headed. Obama would do the worse down here. I live in a deep red district where Kerry got 30-35% of the vote. Obama certainly wouldn't break 30% maybe even not 25%. Now I'm not saying that anyone is going to do well in my district either. Denise Majette ran for GA senate in 2004 and she didn't even pull the numbers that Kerry did. As a matter of fact Kerry probably carried her a few points. We do have a few blacks who have won statewide offices-atty gen and labor commissioner but that has only happened recently. And the Dems tried to get them to run for Gov. but no one wanted what was sure to be a loss.

Obama is a win/win for the GOP in places like GA. They can vote against him because of his race but claim that they aren't racists and say that they voted against him because he wasn't qualified or didn't have enough experience.

Bi-racial people are still considered black fyi. Bi racial people have never been "treated differently." They have been treated just as bad if not worse than blacks sometimes.

Race is still a defining feature down here. Yes, it is less so but still it is enough of an issue to make Obama lose.

Anyway, the concern among some is the border states. Clinton carried KY but Obama loses by double digits.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-16 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

Denise Majette ran for GA senate in 2004 and she didn't even pull the numbers that Kerry did.

could be because she used to be a republican and wasn't trusted by her constituents.

by jello 2007-12-18 12:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

You really don't want to face facts do you?

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-18 03:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

is that true or not about majette?

by jello 2007-12-18 03:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

It's not true. She was a judge appointed by Zell Miller and Zell Miller encouraged her to run. And all this was years before Zell Miller endorsed Bush. So don't try to say she was a Republican to make excuses. She wasn't. She ran again in 2006 and lost.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-18 05:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

 i read up on her when she ran against cynthia mckinney. she pondered whether she should run as a republican or not.

by jello 2007-12-18 06:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

That's because McKinney had become such a liability that even the Dems in her district didn't like her. She may have considered it because she thought she couldn't win in the Dem primary which ended up being wrong. McKinney is considering running as a green party member right now. Thankfully both of them are gone from GA politics but if you think that McKinney would have done better than Majette in a statewide race, which is what you are implying, then you need a big dose of reality.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-18 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

perhaps i worded that wrong. it was majette who was the former republican. mkinney would never consider running as one.

i wasn't implying anything. i simply have no tolerance for republicans cloaking themselves as democrats.

by jello 2007-12-18 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

found it:

(APN) ATLANTA - Denise Majette's announcement yesterday that she is running for State School Superintendent has displeased many Democratic party leaders throughout Georgia, sources tell Atlanta Progressive News. Majette, a former Republican who has no education experience, will face Carlotta Harrell in the Democratic Primary.

http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/ne ws/0038.html

by jello 2007-12-18 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

Yes and she won the democratic primary, did you realize that? LOL. And went on to lose statewide once again.

by Ga6thDem 2007-12-18 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards defeated an incumbent Republican

It's not clear the press/media will ever really turn on Obama. The cast people into roles for their convenient narratives. Obama has been cast into a very favorable role.

McCain, the "straight talking moderate," has been just that in the media narrative since 1999, for instance.

The narrative is the very lens the candidates and other political figures are seen through. Hard to write stories about stuff you don't see.

There is a little variability here and there as interest needs to be maintained. But the central theme is returned to soon enough.

The media highlights and foregrounds the facts that validate their narrative. Every time you read a candidate is "finding their voice" ask yourself if that voice is not just the voice the script has written.

by demondeac 2007-12-16 06:01AM | 0 recs
Chances are...

that Obama (or Edwards or Clinton) is going to run against a joke GOP candidate this time too.

(I know, don't get too overconfident, but the GOPers all seem fatally flawed).

by magster 2007-12-16 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: I've been thinking about writing a diary

In the end, Edwards must propose a plan of his intentions on February 5th and beyond.  So far, nothing.  Clinton and Obama has offices and have been building in these states for months, nothing to be dismissive about.  1/2 of the country will vote on February 5th, and to reach these folk it will be massive TV War.  Does Edwards have the money for this?  Because if you do not want Clinton, then the viability issue is squarely on the table.  Look at it the way it is.  His acceptance of public financing has put him in a dangerous position, as he is close to cap.  The money is issue is real, if he had not taken it he would be the one with the boost.

by iamready 2007-12-15 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I've been thinking about writing a diary

You've been saying he's close to the cap for the better part of two months.  Stop attacking my colleagues and candidate unless you want us to treat you and your candidate the same way.

by Vox Populi 2007-12-15 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I've been thinking about writing a diary


Gee.Let me play devils ad for a second. I know that's wrong to presume that this was what you were going to say as an excuse. But in his defense, when all you hear from people who are supporting John Edwards is "Obama can't win the South. America is too racist" and it's coming from Edwards supporters all over the blogosphere. (Please don't make me look it up)

Then you have John Edwards making subtle hints on the campaign trail telling people to gather around and close their eyes and imagine all three of them campaigning and then suggest, "See? I can campaign anywhere and the Obama can't", yeah, your gonna think race has something to do with it because that's all you hear.

Take John Edwards most recent comment. "The last two Presidents talked Like this" pointing to his face , not his mouth, but his face. on Hardball. So, please. You may be all shocked that someone would think you were going to respond that way. But please don't pretend that others haven't been making those subtle arguments.

by BlueDiamond 2007-12-16 05:56AM | 0 recs
Case study of what jerome is talking about

Edwards referred to a southern accent.

YOU are the one implying he meant his face not his mouth. YOU are the one injecting race into the matter-- something YOU have been doing for months.

by Rooktoven 2007-12-16 06:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Case study of what jerome is talking about


It's all about "perception" period. You can tell 10,000 people that they are wrong just because they "perceive" it to be the opposite of what you think, but that doesn't change the "perception".

by BlueDiamond 2007-12-16 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: I've been thinking about writing a diary

Take John Edwards most recent comment. "The last two Presidents talked Like this" pointing to his face , not his mouth, but his face.

his obsession with his hair, his people magazine triumph, his trading on his face -- now tell me this man isn't a narcissist. that's why the haircut story got such traction. because it revealed  a truth about an essential quality of his character.

by jello 2007-12-16 07:10AM | 0 recs

The DMR is still an institution in Iowa and carries a lot of weight in the state (more so than many papers in larger metro areas.)   As tight as this race is, this seems like a somewhat important nod.  

As for race, it seems that Obama is helped more than hurt, overall.  To bash someone as a racist because they oppose Obama for any reason is downright asinine.  Did that really happen?  I missed all of that, apparently.

by georgep 2007-12-15 08:05PM | 0 recs

agreed on the DMR although it hurts Edwards alot more than Obama, he has to deal with other candidates supporters talking about how they "unendorsed him" ect... Obama  will live or die on his ability to get out alot of indies, young people and even a few repubs to the polls and hope some of thier enthusiasm rubs off on people. I read a good article but I can't remember where about the "parking lot gap" where Gephardt supporters surronded by exitement for Edwards and Kerry got sucked in. The Obama plan for the caucus is to create a party like atmosphere that others really can't create drwing in loose and other nonviable's supporters.

by nevadadem 2007-12-15 08:14PM | 0 recs

If this paper carried so much weight, why has their selection been wrong since 1984?

by iamready 2007-12-15 09:22PM | 0 recs
After Harold Ford's close race in 2006...

"I really don't believe, as far as Obama goes, that his having black skin is an electability problem."

Harold Ford, who was a shitty candidate if there ever was one, put to bed a great deal of this notion, IMHO.  In a strongly southern state he made a solid run at a tough seat against a vicious opponent.

I can't imagine Obama being a worse candidate than Ford.  Likewise, the national environment is far nicer to a black president than the environment in TN was toward a black Senator.

by jcjcjc 2007-12-15 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: After Harold Ford's close race in 2006...

I agree.

And, Harold Ford does like white women.

by General Sherman 2007-12-15 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: After Harold Ford's close race in 2006...

I think the power of that ad has been tremendously misinterpreted.  The ad was about sex, not race, and really was about hypocrisy. Ford ran as a devout Christian, a born-again running around the state handing out cards with bible verses on them.  And then he goes to a party thrown by Playboy, and bragged about it.  There was a disconnect between what people expected his Christian values meant and his behavior, and that's what gave the ad impact and lasting value.  It eroded his base which was looking past race.  

by Piuma 2007-12-15 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: After Harold Ford's close race in 2006...

Very true...and still, he almost pulled it off.

by General Sherman 2007-12-15 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: After Harold Ford's close race in 2006...

looking resentful and wearing a long face when he gave a speech at a rally a few days before election day, didn't help.

by jello 2007-12-15 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: After Harold Ford's close race in 2006...

We also almost pulled off 2004, but we didn't.

I'm not interested in almost. I want to win.

by sinclair 2007-12-16 06:57AM | 0 recs
hail edwards

a winner would be leading the pack after campaigning, what, 5, 6 years in the state?

what kind of winner has to wait for the contender to trip in order to find an opening to slip in under the tent? edwards' successes have come from others failing. he didn't even battle them. he only came out ahead because of others self-inflicted wounds. what kind of a "winner" is that?

by jello 2007-12-16 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: After Harold Ford's close race in 2006...

The press made that ad about race.  They placed that blonde winking and asking Harold for a call a thousand times (literally).  But, it is ironic that sense Harold has a white fiance it probably made sense to use a white female.  That is how twisted the race issue is in our country now.  Some people are clinging to it while a lot of people are moving on.

I've said before though.  If Ford had been married that ad would never have been made.

by Javier Doval 2007-12-16 01:29AM | 0 recs
Re: After Harold Ford's close race in 2006...

If Ford had been married that ad would never have been made.

why? republicans never allowed the truth to stop them before.

by jello 2007-12-16 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: After Harold Ford's close race in 2006...

Sex and race ... and religion ... are used very adroitly in Republican attacks on Democrats.

I agree that the times have changed a great deal, but as Democrats we need to be prepared for the onslaught of Republican attacks, be they coded or blatant.

However, white politicians have been subjects of attacks that are racially coded -- for example, Dukakis and the "Willy Horton" ads.

Even Edwards will get hit with this kind of attack if he is our nominee.

by Coral 2007-12-16 04:09AM | 0 recs
Re: After Harold Ford's close race in 2006...

It was about both race and sex.

by molly bloom 2007-12-16 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: After Harold Ford's close race in 2006...

The ads worked against Ford because they were TRUE! Ford responded arrogantly instead of fighting back.

"Yeah. It's true. I like Foot Ball and I like girls"

Which , in the minds of voters, confirmed everything in the negative ads.

That's why he lost.

by BlueDiamond 2007-12-16 05:59AM | 0 recs
Re: After Harold Ford's close race in 2006...

nobody accused you of being gay, harold.

by jello 2007-12-16 06:42AM | 0 recs
Re: After Harold Ford's close race in 2006...

Ya know?

He was so obsessed with defending his heterosexuality, that he confirmed everything else in the ads because he didn't deny them.

Taking money from the Porn Industry

Attending Play Boy Parties


by BlueDiamond 2007-12-16 08:43AM | 0 recs
I just read some of the comments at the DMR

blog, I wouldn't want to be in charge of their circulation dept come monday.

by nevadadem 2007-12-15 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: I just read some of the comments at the DMR

now you've got me curious.

by jello 2007-12-16 06:45AM | 0 recs
Kennedy V. Kerry

Where Iowa is concerned, a Ted Kennedy endorsement might be a bigger get than Kerry's.

by BigBoyBlue 2007-12-16 03:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Kennedy V. Kerry

Yeah I was gonna say, I'd put Ted's right up there with Kerry and Gore.  And I'm still not sure Wes Clark is all that big of a deal... not saying I dislike the man, but I don't think he is as well known as some people on MyDD think he is to the average citizen.  It certainly isn't BAD to have him, I just don't see evidence that his endorsement will make a difference.  Now as a VP, then his importance shines through.

by yitbos96bb 2007-12-16 04:25AM | 0 recs
DMR Endorsement

This is great news for the HRC camp and I for one am happy with endorsement. I think it will help immensely with undecided voters, despite the factthat many are trying to downplay the endorsement. The DMR carries a lot of weight in IA, this fact cannot be disputed.

by lonnette33 2007-12-16 05:07AM | 0 recs
What About HRC Supporters

Jerome said he has banned people here that made the argument that anyone qnestioning Obama's electability because of his race is racist.  What about the Clinton supporters.  Some of them constantly meet any criticism of HRC, including her unelectability-with charges of sexism?  Or, "Is it ok if Your a Clinton Supporter?"

by Andy Katz 2007-12-16 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: What About HRC Supporters

No that is not what he said. He said he would ban posters attacking other posters by insinuating they were racist to point out some conservative voters will vote based upon race.

by molly bloom 2007-12-16 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: What About HRC Supporters

To clarify: the fact that I think there are voters who will not vote for  Obama because of his skin color, is NOT a reason for Democrats to vote for or against Obama.

by molly bloom 2007-12-16 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: What About HRC Supporters


Honestly. I think he was talking about people who might accuse him of being racist because of some of his recent attack Diaries against Barack Obama. But he made it general to include everyone who opposes his nomination. However , while some  of the accusations of racism against those who are not supporting Barack Obama , have been unfair , many of them have not.

by BlueDiamond 2007-12-16 06:02AM | 0 recs
Re: What About HRC Supporters

ioiycs? i like that.

by jello 2007-12-16 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: What About HRC Supporters

jerome strains to appear reasonable now, when his slams against oprah were anything but. if he's going to blame oprah for bush having become president, how about extending equal time in discussing the different ways the clintons have enabled and provided cover for republicans?

by jello 2007-12-16 06:14AM | 0 recs

Other than that, this progressive site tries to hold a libertarian principle of discourse.

heh, that's a good one jerome, tell me another.

by jello 2007-12-16 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability,

Newpapers are dead?

Are all those papers with the sports, weather, and news that I find on the bus just written blogs by some guy calling himself the "Seattle Times"?

I think trying to limit personal attacks on this blog are noble. I think it is self defeating because if you do that, you are recognized as that kink of person, and your arguments are weighted as a whole when you are trying to get another point across. I think trying to discuss race and gender as it pertains to electoral votes is a worthy discussion based in reality. Some people are not going to vote for a woman. Some will not vote for a black. But some will vote for a woman or black because they are a woman or black, and to deny that is censorship.

I am white, I support Obama. I do this because he can beat Hillary, who I think is just a moderate Republican at heart.

Hillary was a Goldwater Girl, a Republican for Nixon in 1968, and only after meeting Bill did she become a democrat.

There is nothing in her voting record to suggest she is a liberal at all. She supported the war, and continues to defend her vote for the war in Iraq. She helped an administration weaken the social safety net. She voted for the Patriot Act....twice.

Look at her voting record. Her experience. There is not a dimes worth of difference between her and Arlen Spector, or most other Republican Senators.

by busdrivermike 2007-12-16 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability, Racism, and Endorsements

On race and electability, I tend to do the same thing I do with all electability arguments ... look at how things stand in Ohio.

And in Ohio, its pretty simple ... to the extent that there is any downside because of race, it'd almost certainly be offset ... and with an honest Sec'y of State possibly more than offset ... by greater turnout among African Americans. After all, the large majority of the racist vote is already locked into the Republican base in Ohio.

The concern is more on whether there is a Republican who is willing to pretend to be against extending the NAFTA model in order to attack Senator Obama for supporting its extension in two out of three cases that he has had an opportunity to vote on.

Huckabee's the only one I am worried about being able to beat Obama in Ohio in the General Election ... and since the Republicans have never taken the White House without Ohio, that means Huckabee's the only one I am worried about having a prospect to beat Obama in the General Election overall.

by BruceMcF 2007-12-16 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability, Racism, and Endorsements

The biggest endorsement story in the last week or so really is the DMR and the Globe both endorsing McCain.  It's as if the rational wing of the Party is trying to steer them past all the jokers and back to a sensible choice, (as if singing bomb, bomb, bomb Iran is sensible).  In terms of a Republican perspective, he appears to be the only one who may have a chance to be a unifying candidate for them.  

by Piuma 2007-12-16 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability, Racism, and Endorsements

Yes and when McCain is the candidate and we run Obama against him, the choice of Obama will look like the Audacity of Dopes.

by sinclair 2007-12-16 07:14AM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability, Racism, and Endorsements

Or it will look like someone who opposed the war from the start and someone who has wrapped himself in the war.  It will put the war back in front of the issues, where it belongs, and there will be a clear difference between the Parties.  It won't be one of nuance, or of realizing a mistake. It will be someone who had the foresight to see where it would lead and opposed vs. someone who championed it and would do it again in Iran.  I welcome that matchup of McCain vs. Obama.

by Piuma 2007-12-16 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability, Racism, and Endorsements

if obama wasn't so selfish, he'd recognize he was making everybody conflicted and uncomfortable, bow out of the race and allow the democrats to put up a real candidate who'd have a real chance win the general.

by jello 2007-12-16 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability, Racism, and Endorsements

This is the silliest post of all.  The GOP said Clinton was selfish for not resigning over Monica. Did you agree with the GOP?

by Javier Doval 2007-12-16 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: On Electability, Racism, and Endorsements

sarcasm, javier

: )

i support obama.

by jello 2007-12-16 08:19AM | 0 recs

I would also put Ted Kennedy up there with Gore and Kerry. But I couldn't imagine Kennedy and Kerry endorsing different people.

I could see the MA Senators endorsing Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or Dodd.

Gore might wait until after Iowa.

by Kal 2007-12-16 07:14AM | 0 recs
DMR endorsement

A thought occurred to me here.  Could the DMR endorsement be counterproductive?  

The DMR endorsement brought out Hillary's strengths, experience, longevity, inevitability, status quo.  

But, if we are truly in a change election cycle, are these attributes now weaknesses that can be exploited by the other candidates?

Also, I think that the MSM endorsements still matter. Bloggers are still a very small minority of people.  (look at how our straw polls are so out of line with everyone else). The fact still is that the vast majority of people still get their news from the MSM.  
Bloggers however, have put themselves in the position of (a)driving the direction of news, and (b) responding rapidly to error riddled reporting with fact checking, which changes the strength and validity of some reporting.  

by NvDem 2007-12-16 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: DMR endorsement

watching reliable sources, somebody mentioned dmr sponsored gop debate put the iraq vote off the table. did they really? what kind of newspaper takes the iraq war off the table?

by jello 2007-12-16 07:35AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads