Nothing to see...

I was so mistaken. I thought the slide of Obama vs McCain that's happened the last half of this month actually could be understood without having to spell out more than one of the lopsided results without claims that it was cherry-picking.

Here's six more, from the past few days, besides Missouri's poll out today where McCain is bothering Obamamania by a margin of 50-41, that show that mighty Red State power of Obama at work:


Arkansas (rasmussen)
Obama      27
McCain     43

Alabama (susa)
Obama      35
McCain     62

Missouri (susa)
Obama      39
McCain     53

Kentucky (susa)
Obama      28
McCain     64

Ohio (susa)
Obama      43
McCain     50

North Carolina (susa)
Obama      42
McCain     51

We're gonna be working over the coming month to instituting some measures to make it more difficult to have an account here at MyDD. I'm sure there's many places on the web where people that having nothing better to do than attack other users will be welcome, but not here.

These are just red states, of course, Obama is doing fine in blue states like CA and NY and others... And yes, he can turn it around, this is only March! But this is not a cheerleading blog for either of the candidates, its a political junkie site that doesn't flinch to relay the reality of what's happening. If you can't deal with that and discuss it like an adult, you don't belong here.

And yes, Clinton's numbers, in most of these states are poor as well (though she's ahead in that Ohio one), but haven't tanked as bad as Obama's have the past two weeks. Yu can go to the link and see her numbers. The point of the post though, was to show that Wright has done damage to Obama. Much deeper than anything previous that has been done to him. This isn't "concern trolling", it's reality. Obama didn't deal with Wright correctly (if he possibly could have), and its hurt his standing vs McCain, especially in Red and purple states. If you want to ignore it, go someplace else.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

335 Comments

Re: Nothing to see...
As I have said. Once Hillary has quit. The polls will tighten.
Obama v McCain at this stage is meaningless.
Obama is fighting a two fronted war.
by KathyM 2008-03-26 05:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

It is not meaningless but you are correct. Once  Hillary is vanquished Obama will pivot to the right. Mark  my words.

Do you know for sure who Obama is and what he personally stands for?

by dMarx 2008-03-26 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Oh for crying out loud...

Have you EVER seen a presidential campaign before?

What you've just asserted is essentially a basic FACT of how ANY Democratic candidate operates (the GOP candidate does the reverse).  Swing to the party's ideological wing for the primary, swing towards the center (rightward, for a Democrat) for the General Election.

When it happens, please don't fash yourself.  It's kind of like watching the sun rise in the east; oh, look, it's happening again!

The question will then be... as it is now... from where will they actually govern?

This election's an exception on the Right, because, due to the collapse of some candidates and the generally weak and anemic litter of candidates the GOP had to start with, they've selected McCain, who has a severe problem... his base (the right) doesn't trust him.  So he's having to run right, hard, to try to shore up the base... at the very time when a candidate ought to be able to start distancing him/herself from the ideological wing.

by ogre 2008-03-26 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I think it is going to be hard to move to the right, especially against McCain who is running as a solid centrist on economic issues and on the right on social issues. As for the war, well that is his trademark and he is all in, as they say in Vegas.

Moreover, it is very easy to depict Senator Obama as a liberal (look at his 2007). I think Senator Obama needs to talk about the economy and the economy, and the economy, and oh again, the economy. He needs to talk about it ad nauseum. And oh yes, he needs to find a serious answer to the question that McCain and his surrogate have begun asking which is: what would you do if there is a war in the region after we withdraw our troops?

by likelihood zero 2008-03-26 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Hillary's NOT quitting.  Get used to it ;o)

by alegre 2008-03-26 06:24PM | 0 recs
Quit or not...

Sooner or later, reality will set in.  Right now, the betting's against her.  I'm not talking blogs.  I'm talking in-trade (slightly worse than 1 in 5 for her to be the nominee) and roughly the same at U of Iowa's trading site.

That's not a done deal.  But I know damned well which odds I'd prefer to have; 80% or 20%....

by ogre 2008-03-26 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Quit or not...

The markets don't know squat...or do you not recall what happened to the Big BEAR last week ?

by SevenStrings 2008-03-26 09:44PM | 0 recs
HRC may not QUIT, but she'll FAIL regardless.

by VT COnQuest 2008-03-27 02:08AM | 0 recs
Exactly

The fact is that McCain has gone literally weeks without any concerted attack by the Dem candidate. And even when he makes the kind of mistakes that would paralyze a Dem candidate for probably a weeks worth of news (al Qaeda/Iran) the press sits back and wags their tail until he pats them on the head.

Once this is a two person race, the American people will realize this is a choice between a Dem and Bush III. Bush is at around 30% approval nationwide. In order to solidify the conservative wing, McCain will have to attach himself to the least popular president in modern history.

We will be fine. I tend to believe that the people who are claiming that Obama is done for, are doing so b/c they realize at the end of the day Hillary has no chance to win this primary election.

by highgrade 2008-03-26 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

Bush fatigue is definitely in favor of whoever the Dem nominee is. However, in regards to Obama, the Repugs have yet to bring out the long knives.

If they can't make people love Bush III, they will paint Obama as an America hater, a crook, and a liberal.   Here is how that works, Rev. Wright, Rezko, and gay marriage.  Have fun.

by dMarx 2008-03-26 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

A liberal? I guess we should stop being liberals then, to prevent Republicans from winning.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-26 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

Yeah... at some point, we're going to need to stop apologizing for who we are. If we can't do that during an election where even our centrists are often to the right of public opinion, then I don't know when it could possibly happen. I think a full generation of Democratic voters has been taught that they have to lie about what they believe in order to be trusted by the public. It's no wonder the Republicans have kept beating us.

by vcalzone 2008-03-26 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

I have no problem being called a liberal, or a progressive.  It puts me at odds with a lot of people in this neck of the woods.

I also have observed that as more of these same people became disillusioned with Bush, the Economy, the war, and all of the many other things that is slowly turning their lives upside down and propelling them to serfdom, these people are asking me for my political opinions more & more, and they're listening.  

by NvDem 2008-03-26 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Exactly

You know, I used to think the press would start taking a closer look at Obama once the race narrowed. Never happened.

The Republicans had to give the green light to go after Obama before the press pulled a full Monica on him. I expect more of the same, McCain worshiped over, Obama excoriated, if they can get Hillary out.

by souvarine 2008-03-26 07:06PM | 0 recs
But there is a New Metric this round

The Internet is going to affect this race like no other before it.  There is too much You Tube and viral messaging for the MSM to ignore.   The Obama Campaign has managed to tap into this new metric in a big way.  I believe that it is a large part of the reason that Hillary campaign is playing catch up, she just looked at it as a big 'ole ATM.  

Obama used it to build grassroots organizations in a whole lot of places, they prospered and then he prospered as the movement he built started buying into the campaign with cold hard earned cash.

Lesson: ignore the internet at your own peril.  There's way too many people doing the fact checking on every word uttered for lies or exaggerations to pass by un-noticed.  They find them and pounce. Too juicy for the MSM to pass up.

by NvDem 2008-03-26 08:13PM | 0 recs
Have some faith, will you?

Once Clinton stops trying to kneecap Obama, his numbers should go up.

So relax.

The media might love Barack even more than it loves McCain.  To hear the Clinton supporters ramble, it's definitely true.

So McCain's main advantage will be nullified.

by Dracomicron 2008-03-26 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Have some faith, will you?

 The 50 state plan is to lose all 50?
by gunner 2008-03-26 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Have some faith, will you?

50 states?

Is Obama going to allow Mi and Fl to re-vote?

by pelican 2008-03-26 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Have some faith, will you?

It's not Obama's call.  

Let's see if Mr. Armstrong, great arbiter of all truths that you must accept or get lost, is truly as unabashedly neutral on his refusal to flinch in relaying the reality of what's happening.

Any conclusion, oh great touchstone of truth?  It's actual.  It's factual.  I just wonder if you will favor me with your permission to accept it as truth while visiting your website.

by lockewasright 2008-03-26 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Have some faith, will you?

Ha!  That's a great one.  I like that.  50 state plan.  Lose all 50!  What a concept!

by phillipinthecolony 2008-03-26 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Have some faith, will you?

I think the media's love affair with Obama ended with the Rev. Wright 'flap' (completely made into a flap and sustained as a flap by said media)

by nmonster 2008-03-26 09:05PM | 0 recs
The media likes winners

Obama ensured the media's love would continue when he made his speech in Philadelphia.  Only the conservative media is still worried about Wright at all; everyone else is back to loving him.

On the other hand, Dan Abrams gave Clinton 4 strikes to Obama's 1, and Countdown spent the first 20 minutes wondering what the hell Clinton was doing lying on tape like four times in recent memory.  Everyone loves the sniper scandal because they have tape of Clinton being either sleep-deprived for months or blatantly lying.

by Dracomicron 2008-03-26 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Those appear to mostly be states that are either battlegrounds or solid red.  It's not a very honest sampling.

by Dracomicron 2008-03-26 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Yet we should use these deep red states to determine who the Democratic nominee should be.

Oh yeah but the blue states will vote blue no matter what!  I forgot!

Who cares what the Democratic voters of the blue states want!

Obama has won such states as Utah and Idaho by wide margins!  Thank goodness we have a candidate willing to employ a 50 state strategy!

Guaranteed, Obama, should he be the nominee, will not step foot in most of the states that will have ultimately handed him the nomination.

by jaydub799 2008-03-26 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Who cares what a majority of Democrats want?

I count now that I live in CA, and should just have... what, been a Repug while living in Utah?

Charming.  

California's voted Republican in my lifetime, and Texas has voted Democratic.  If you think that the status quo is anything like fixed, you're delusional.

by ogre 2008-03-26 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Funny,  I used to think that Utah would vote Democratic before Idaho.  After Larry Craig, I'm not so sure, may see it this cycle.

by NvDem 2008-03-26 08:18PM | 0 recs
Idaho's new sig line

"Tap dancing towards Democracy"

by ogre 2008-03-30 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Quite the guarantee you have made. I guess using the word guarantee automatically makes you right.

by x 2008-03-26 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

"Yet we should use these deep red states to determine who the Democratic nominee should be."

Last time I checked, we claimed to be a national party.  If you want to tell Democrats in Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, etc., that they shouldn't have a say in choosing the party's presidential nominee, go right ahead.

by KTinOhio 2008-03-26 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

You want to add them to the Democrats in Florida and Michigan?

by souvarine 2008-03-26 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Apples and oranges.  Those states didn't ignore the DNC's explicit instructions.

by KTinOhio 2008-03-26 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Guaranteed, Obama, should he be the nominee, will not step foot in most of the states that will have ultimately handed him the nomination.

You have no idea how the 50 state strategy works, do you?

by Dracomicron 2008-03-26 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

We'll see.

If the Democratic Party's nominee goes to Utah, Idaho, Wyoming (just naming a few states that come to mind) during the general election campaign, I'll eat my hat.

by jaydub799 2008-03-26 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

On making it more difficult to have an account.  I imagine there are a lot of new ones just recently.  It would be interesting to see those stats.

Is there a way to see user id like at the great orange satan?

by Dave B 2008-03-26 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

The only way I've been able to see a UID is when reviewing a comment rating.

by Coldblue 2008-03-26 06:00PM | 0 recs
You are 5958 n/t

by Coldblue 2008-03-26 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: You are 5958 n/t

Ah, I see.  And you're 2305 I think?

by Dave B 2008-03-26 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Maybe new accounts could be labeled as such. That way we can know to be a lot harder on actual trolls as opposed to real posters.

by vcalzone 2008-03-26 06:43PM | 0 recs
Glad to see you plan to clean up the riff-raff

That will essentially make this the same kind of junkpile for the left as redstate or instapundit are for the right.

by zadura 2008-03-26 05:53PM | 0 recs
Hillarious!

Where are the Clinton/McCain numbers for the same states?

And you do realize you are basically proving the point that Hillary's kneecapping strategy is hurting our chances in November? Right?

by Travis Stark 2008-03-26 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillarious!

Just as bad, if not worse. That wasn't the point.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-26 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillarious!

Was the point that we should now rally around the presumptive nominee, Obama?  I agree.

by The Animal 2008-03-26 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillarious!

Do you have a point? I mean Obama's a bit wounded, okay but if Hillary is worse (as you yourself admit) then other than arguing that were going to lose in Novemeber regardless of whop wins the nomnation I don't really see you point (though the link was interesting-- Hillary trails McCain in WA, and Minnesota 2 Obama is up outside the margin of error-- man she'as a horrible canidate).

by Socraticsilence 2008-03-26 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillarious!

Do you have a point?

Um, did you actually read the diary?  The point seemed quite clear to me.  Feel free to agree or disagree.

by Denny Crane 2008-03-26 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillarious!

Just as bad, if not worse. That wasn't the point.

Then let's just concede the election to McCain and save everybody a lot of time and money.

How about Hillary gets out, endorses Obama and works like hell to get him elected -- allowing Obama and the Democrats to start targetting McCain with broadsides?

Sounds like a plan to me.

If Obama loses fair and square after Hillary works hard for him, I will be the first person to donate money to her 2012 campaign.

If not, I will be the first person to donate money to her primary challenger in 2012 -- or to Rudy Giuliani if he runs against her.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-03-26 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillarious!

LOL! Yeah the point's that Obama can't win, not any actual facts about whether Hillary would ever do better.  

Have you told us whether you will support Obama in the general if he does get the nomination?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-26 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillarious!

Your stated point was that Obama supporters need to learn to cope with reality--because this is a reality-based site. The words weren't complicated and Obama supporters understand English just as well as everyone else.

If you're sitting there wondering how all of us Obama fanatics could be so vapid as to not grasp your point--let me fill you in.

The reason that noone has directly acknowledged your stated point is because noone believed that the goal of your post was to lift the wool from our eyes. From where I sit, your beef is entirely manufactured. Obama supporters have a different point of view, but it's a severe stretch to call us all delusional. For example, we're not the ones sitting on a candidate who has, at best, a puncher's chance to win the nomination.

Obama supporters (including kos) have roundly acknowledged the setback caused by the Wright controversy. We've been following the polls just like everyone else, starting with the dive at the beginning of the controversy and the bounce after Obama tackled it head-on with his speeches on the subject. Maybe you've had a different experience--but I doubt it.

I think you're upset. You've been beat up to the point that you're tempted to take your ball and go home. That would be a shame, because I don't think we can win in November without Senator Clinton's core. And, I think we need to show that the netroots can have passionate internal disagreements, but still find a way to heal in time to do the right thing.

by Brannon 2008-03-26 10:08PM | 0 recs
sweet

tighter account rules!!!

Let the anti-Hillary purges begin!!

by kindthoughts 2008-03-26 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: sweet

We're fine with banning anyone that shows the lack.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-26 06:04PM | 0 recs
Look first to the beam in your own eye

Jerome, you've gone from having a bias, to blatantly shilling for Hillary, to outright dishonest concern trolling, all while pretending to be just a bystander who is just out for the good of the party and the progressive movement.  And your reaction is to attack the people who call you on it.

Yes, the Wright thing hurt Obama, for a while, then he recovered.  Now people who weren't going to vote for him anyway have a new excuse to feel better about it, so what?

Hillary still has no viable route to the nomination that gives her any chance at winning the general.  Her only hope of ever being president is to kneecap Obama and make sure she can run again in 2012.  She's willing to accept all of the bad things that would result from a "third Bush term", including the stacking of the Supreme Court with 2-3 more right-wing justices (goodbye Roe v. Wade), and an almost certain widening of the war into Iraq, just so she gets another shot.

And you're too smart not to realize this, or to not remember that Hillary represents everything you used to think was wrong with the Democratic party.  So trying to figure out why you're pursuing this course is fair game.

Jerome, you have to know you're reaching the end of your credibility string.  Your only hope of retaining relevance at this point is tying all of your credibility to Hillary, then acting as the "fair arbiter" when the DLC moves to purge the DNC and hamstring the netroots.  I don't have to know what delusional power fantasy you've been sold to be able to tell you're no longer playing for our team.

So ban me, if you think that accomplishes something.  But here's the thing: The netroots is not the websites, it's the people.  And the astroturfing shills you've become the champion of are not the future of the netroots, but merely the next bit of roadkill as it rises to power.

by APoxOnBoth 2008-03-26 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Look first to the beam in your own eye

You should go to Vegas with mental prowess like this. You can read Hillary's mind as to her motives and aspirations.

by usedmeat 2008-03-26 08:37PM | 0 recs
damn

by kindthoughts 2008-03-26 11:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Look first to the beam in your own eye
Banned - for using logic and commons sense. You have no place here.
by Rockville Liberal 2008-03-27 03:23AM | 0 recs
Who are you planning to ban?

I thought the whole principle of netroots was that these communities are self-monitoring. Trollers and abusers of the system get weeded out by the community. People who, as you say, argue just for the sake of it get tired. But people who argue? Isn't argument the point? How do issues get aired except in debate and argument

I come to this site because I like to hear different points of view. I've been coming on and off since 2004. With two powerful candidates and a protracted primary, it's no surprise things should get testy and sometimes personal. But a test of a true democrat is how to respond in times of crisis.

One of the best things about MyDD is that there is a clash between two different candidates and their supporters. If opposing voices are weeded out, on EITHER SIDE, you'd be creating a virtual intellectual ghetto, an echo chamber, all the things DailyKos is accused of being since Edwards dropped out.

It's been a long two months, it's only been two months. Keep the faith. Let the community regulate itself. Isn't that what you've always argued?

by brit 2008-03-27 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: sweet

exactly.

raising the gates.

by alex100 2008-03-26 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...


The numbers will tighten after the Dem convention- as Obama has shown, he is a decent campaigner, knows how to make a speech and he'll sell in the general, especially once McCain's negatives are established.

Remember, McCain:

1) Wants to stay in Iraq for 1,000 years

  1. Supports Bush econ policies
  2. Has an anger problem

If as much effort went into taking McCain down (say on #3) as has gone into this Wright thing by Clinton backers the numbers would look better for both Obama and Hillary.

And Jerome... if you say the words McGovern and Obama in the same sentence, remember that in the internet age sometimes wishing WILL make it true.

by Bob Beard 2008-03-26 05:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

waahhhh Hillary knee capping!!  You're all as fragile as the Obama campaign itself.  Now you are blaming Hillary for Obama's cancerous relationship with Wright.  These guys are bringing down the Democratic party and must be purged in order for us to have a chance in November.  

by atomic garden 2008-03-26 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Silly comment.  I might remind you that Obama's "fragile" campaign has stood up to attacks from left, right, and center throughout what has been arguably one of the longest primary seasons in US History.  He's now battling both Clinton AND McCain simultaneously.

Oh, and he's winning by virtually every rational metric.  Not so bad, actually.  Maybe "fragile" isn't the proper adjective in this case.

by fogiv 2008-03-26 06:20PM | 0 recs
Funny...

Wright's the guy that the Clintons sought out for the great meeting when Bill apologized and sought forgiveness... and Hillary sat with Wright during that.

No doubt purely an accident that he was selected at all, and purely a coincidence that she sat next to him.

I can't help but wonder how how used he feels, having been part of a morality band-aid for them then, and now someone that Hillary hates on in public.

by ogre 2008-03-26 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Funny...

And let's put an end to the assertion that Obama should have disowned Rev. Wright as soon as the YouTube videos came to light.  Would you trust a man who would turn his back on a long-time friend and mentor as soon as the going got tough?

by KTinOhio 2008-03-26 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Funny...

If one of the key messages of Christianity is that you're supposed to hate the sin and love the sinner, it seems to me that Reverend Wright did his job with Obama rather well.

by Rorgg 2008-03-26 08:59PM | 0 recs
Good Luck Jerome

I'm looking forward to seeing this site become even more of an insulated echo chamber for right-wing talking points.

Your site is pretty much worthless to the Democratic party this year.

by atomica 2008-03-26 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Good Luck Jerome

So why are you here?

by Denny Crane 2008-03-26 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I agree with Armstrong.  It happens much less here than at TMP, but I'm really sick of being called a troll and compared to Tonya Harding simply because I am supporting Clinton.

If you are an Obama supporter who loves attacking and ridiculing Clinton and her supporters, you should make lots of friends at DKos and TMP.

I actually work in politics, for a political consulting company and my own clients as well...for DEMOCRATS in the SOUTH. And in my real life work, I find the attacks much less vicious than online.  

I have alot of patience and general respect for my opponents, but there is a limit.

by MKyleM 2008-03-26 06:01PM | 0 recs
Hmmm. I've heard the opposite somewhere...
(CNN) -- Bill Clinton took aim at critics of his wife Hillary Clinton Wednesday, adding that "if a politician doesn't wanna get beat up, he shouldn't run for office." "If a politician doesn't wanna get beat up, he shouldn't run for office," the former president said in Parkersburg, West Virginia. "If a football player doesn't want to get tackled or want the risk of an occasional clip he shouldn't put the pads on." "Clipping" is an illegal football maneuver where an offensive player tackles a defensive player from behind, or below the waist. Clinton added that the recent rough tone of the campaign didn't trouble him. "I don't give a riff about all this name-calling that's going on. They've been going on ever since Iowa. I've heard them say all these things about her," he said. "Apparently it's okay to say bad things about a girl." He added that the advisers on both campaigns who'd been forced to resign because of controversial comments should have stayed put. "I don't think any of these people oughta be asked to resign. All these guys that say bad things about any other campaign, they say, 'Should they resign?' My answer is no; they're repeating party line. They oughta stay right where they are," he said. "Let's just saddle up and have an argument. What's the matter with that? That's what America's about, right?"
Ironically, I disagree with Bill, but anyone who says that Clinton supporters are more abused than Obama supporters on this site is being pretty disingenuous.
by Travis Stark 2008-03-26 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm. I've heard the opposite somewhere...

"Let's just saddle up and have an argument."

excellent. Clinton as Swearengen.

On the actual post, I think it is pretty limited to assume that say of us are making our judgments about abuse over support for Clinton or Obama based on this site alone.

by hctb 2008-03-26 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

It happens on both sides and is unfortunate.  I may get snarky sometimes, but I hope I stick to the issue and do not get personal.

Frankly, I like this site better than others because it hasn't gone completely to Obama.

Yes, I am an Obama supporter, but I want to hear what Clinton supporters have to say.  Maybe I am a bit of a hypocrite because I respond to some posts with "humor," but I hope that we can all treat each other with respect.  If I ever honestly offend, I hope someone calls me out respectfully.

As Jerome wrote in an earlier post, we all need to figure out how to come together around the eventual nominee.  Name-calling and disrespect won't get us there.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-03-26 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Ditto. I will be very happy to see a community where we can start getting along. I think we're closer to making that happen. We have to stop seeing ourselves in terms of Obama or Clinton supporters and start seeing ourselves in terms of serious and not-so-serious.

by vcalzone 2008-03-26 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'd rather be kicking GOP ass right about now.

by KTinOhio 2008-03-26 08:16PM | 0 recs
Jerome the defeatist is at it again.

It's fricking MARCH for crying out loud. John Kerry was leading Bush by double digits in June of 2004 -- and wound up losing.

Bill Clinton at this time in 1992 was in THIRD FRICKING PLACE behind Bush and Perot. THIRD PLACE! There was talk that the Democratic party was on the verge of anhilation. That the philandering, draft dodging Clinton was going to drag the party to the depths of hell in November.

Polls in March -- especially during a hotly contested primary -- mean diddly squat.

Jerome of all people should know that.

This site has gone down the tubes, man. It is nothing but a big stinking pile of concern trolls now.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-03-26 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome the defeatist is at it again.

But what about the Obama folks using these head to head match ups for the past three months to show that Obama is more electible?

Why are they invalid now?

by FitnessNerd 2008-03-26 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome the defeatist is at it again.

"Why are they invalid now?"

Probably because taking polls in the week immediately after a controversy directed against one of the candidates isn't the most unbiased technique around?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-26 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome the defeatist is at it again.

>>>But what about the Obama folks using these head to head match ups for the past three months to show that Obama is more electible?

Why are they invalid now?<<<

Because onlt one side of the equation is hitting below the belt on a regular basis: Hillary. Obama's people here and there are jabbing and counterpunching, but nothing on the scale Hillary is doing it at.

And Obama's attacks on her are more about her tone and her negative campaigning and her honesty.

They are not red meat stuff that will kill her in a general election. Has Obama nailed Hillary on Wal*Mart?!? He could pummel her on that. That's Hillary's Jeremiah Wright with hardcore ethnic white union households.

He barely said anything about the whole Tuzla airport thing.

So, he's been taking a lot of incoming -- and she hasn't. Meanwhile, McCain is getting zero negative coverage.

It's more a function of McCain not being part of the mess, than anything.

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-03-26 06:27PM | 0 recs
The media is smearing HRC every hour of the day

by Bill Keaton 2008-03-26 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome the defeatist is at it again.

According to Obama's camp Hillary is:

hysterical
a whiner
a liar
a racist
a race baiter
a monster
secretive
trying to change the rules in the middle of the game
married to a McCarthyist
a kneecapper
callous to hurricane Katrina victims
manipulative
someone willing to tear the Democratic Party apart in order to steal the election

and, oh yeah, a negative campaigner who is publicly acknowledging a "kitchen sink" attack on Obama

Hillary says Obama is:

unvetted
not as experienced as her
not offering universal healthcare

The great myth of the election is that Obama's campaign is "jabbing and counterpunching, but nothing on the scale Hillary is doing it at."

Fighting (even fighting dirty) isn't anything to be ashamed of. But let's get realistic.

by kevko24 2008-03-26 10:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome the defeatist is at it again.

It's such a relief to find people out there that recognize this.

The question is: why won't a single Obama supporter admit the blatant hypocrisy?

by Apostle 2008-03-27 12:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome the defeatist is at it again.

He's got too much cred. We're instituting a one week freeze on new accounts tomorrow that ought to give us time to clear it out to just leave the thinking.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-26 06:51PM | 0 recs
Jerome,

I'm a refugee from Brand X and would like to support this site through a subscription or a donation, but I don't see a link for that.

I'm awfully glad to be here.

by Radiowalla 2008-03-26 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome,

It gets enough on the ad rev side to pay these guys out, but thanks.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-26 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome,

Well, then I'll just have to visit more often to drive up those numbers!

by Radiowalla 2008-03-26 07:20PM | 0 recs
We're glad to have you Radiowalla

Lots of refugees around here.  Be sure to check out Alegre, Universal, Texasdarlin, and so many, many others will make you glad you came!  

by chieflytrue 2008-03-26 11:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome,

I am a refugee too. I skipped the GBCW diary at the orange place and just quit visiting there.

by J Rae 2008-03-27 02:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome the defeatist is at it again.

Sigh, probably for the best.  I know that neither side has any reason to fold up their tents before June 6th.  But, I look forward to when we can discuss election strategy and tactics again.  

Jerome, did you know that Olbermann identified MyDD as the Hillary supporting site a few nights ago.

My guess is that the Supers will be knocked into line shortly after June 6th.  Then someone drops out.  Until then don't expect much peace.

by NvDem 2008-03-26 08:41PM | 0 recs
Let's try logic for a change

John McCain has gotten a free ride in the press while Clnton has been slinging mud at Obama, giving McCain a 67% approval rating and explaining a lot of these results.

While John McCain is off looking in tough in Iraq (and not having his lies covered because the press likes his BBQ), the Dem primary gets uglier and uglier.

Also, Jerome, you could at least cite the new NBC poll for context instead of throwing down some dixie polls.  It actually has Obama LEADING McCain.  But that would undercut your beautifully crafted end-is-nigh argument.

Chuck Dodd with much more levelheaded analysis:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/03/26/821438.aspx

As for the damage this controversy did or didn't do to Obama, it's a mixed bag. Yes, Obama saw some of his numbers go down slightly among certain voting groups, most notably Republicans. But he's still much more competitive with independent voters when matched up against John McCain than Hillary Clinton is. And he still sports a net-positive personal rating of 49-32, which is down only slightly from two weeks ago, when it was 51-28. Again, the biggest shift in those negative numbers were among Republicans.

On one of the most critical questions we've been tracking for a few months, Obama showed resilience. When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton. All three candidates saw dips on this issue, by the way. In January, 67 percent thought Obama could unite the country; 68 percent thought McCain could do it; and 55 percent said Clinton would be able to pull it off.  

The fact that all three dropped equally in the last three months is a sign that the campaign is becoming more ideological and partisan.

In the head-to-head matchups, there weren't huge shifts in the numbers, with Obama and Clinton dead even at 45 percent in the national Democratic primary matchup (a slight increase for Obama from early March). In the general-election matchups, Obama led McCain by 2 points, and McCain led Clinton by 2 points; all margin of error results and nothing to get too excited over.

by dmfox 2008-03-26 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's try logic for a change

Same poll had HRC at 37% positive, her lowest level since 2001.

Hmmmmmm, who is more radioactive here?

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-03-26 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's try logic for a change

Yeah, but once Obama's group stops dragging Hillary's name through the mud and bows out when he loses the nomination, Hillary's positives will go back up.  Isn't that the normal thought process going on with this party?  The eventual winner's numbers will go back up when the loser drops out?  Anyone?

by phillipinthecolony 2008-03-26 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's try logic for a change

Obama is not the loser.  He is ahead in pledged delegates and popular votes.  

by Toddwell 2008-03-26 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's try logic for a change

Absolutely, if HRC is the nominee, her numbers will go up.  

THe first part, Obama dropping out, not sure I see it, but I salute your optimism!

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-03-26 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's try logic for a change

In this poll they admit they over-sampled African Americans. It is a flawed poll.

by ineedalife 2008-03-26 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's try logic for a change

You don't understand oversampling.

by The Animal 2008-03-26 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's try logic for a change

Oversampled (and announced).  Hmmm.  Might be worth understanding before criticizing.

Given the sample size for the whole poll... the black subsample would have been relatively small and thus had a huge MOE.  Ok?  

So to be able to actually look at the opinions of the black population meaningfully, they oversampled.  That gave them a big sample to examine for that crosstab.  But had they poured the oversample into the overall poll, then it would have been a problem.  But they didn't.

They normalized it, scaling the weight of the oversample's opinions down to the right weighting for the whole poll sampling.

Educate yourself before pontificating.  It save your from looking like an idiot.

by ogre 2008-03-26 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's try logic for a change

I did go back through and try to work out their numbers both with the over-sampled percentage and normalized to the 11% AA. Neither way gave their final numbers. In each case you end up compensating with the 14% of the non-white, non-AA segment and giving blowout margins to either McCain in some cases or the Democrat in other cases. Since they don't give the numbers of that 14% we'll never know.

by ineedalife 2008-03-27 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Let's try logic for a change

I wish they'd do local states with that, I don't think it tells us much about the GE if its not at the state level.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-26 06:13PM | 0 recs
Putting Rasmussen in perspective

While I think our chances in the presidential election aren't great, we do have to be worried about the Democratic brand.

We're seeing polls showing Obama relatively steady post-Wright, and we have Rasmussen (and possibly Zogby).  I would like to see anaylsis Scott's voter models and his likely voter screen.

In the end, does the brand suffer?  Do we start slipping in voter registration and party ID?
Check back in October on this.  Part of our problem is we're stuck with two weak candidates and McCain is so stron right now.

by mikelow1885 2008-03-26 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's try logic for a change

NBC polls oversapled blacks, who voting in close to 100% obama levels, make it worthless.

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-26 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Let's try logic for a change

Wrong. See ogre's excellent explanation above of what oversampling actually means.

by brimur 2008-03-27 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

So HRC wins all those states?  Wow!  That is truly awesome.  Glad to see Alabama going blue this year.

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-03-26 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Jerome ~

I'm really glad you're cracking down on fly-by trolls.  

more and more, i feel like there are many Freepers and redstate a-holes just signing up to stir the kettle here ~ and so many just jump right in, on both sides.  

It'd be nice if we stopped have anti-candidate diaries, and just have pro- ones, but eh . . .

looking forward to the primaries to be over so i can come back and read a blog i loved ~

by pholkhero 2008-03-26 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

How is this reconciled with latest  NBC/Wall Street Journal showing Obama beating McCain but Clinton loosing to him? We probably needs to compare the individual state numbers for Clinton and Obama, each, against McCain?

Obama 45, Clinton 45
Obama 44, McCain 42
McCain 46, Clinton 44

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/d ocuments/WSJ-20080326-poll.pdf

by poserM 2008-03-26 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

That poll has a 3 plus margin of error.  I believe it is a 3.7.  They are statistically tied.

by Scotch 2008-03-26 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...
Thanks for the hard data. Too bad the MSM is drinking all that Kool-Aid.
Obama was knee-capped by Wright, Rezko, Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, Weather Undeground, his "for the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American" wife and himself.
Quit crying and go somewhere else- no Kool-aid served here!
by ProudMilitaryMom 2008-03-26 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...
And none of it has stuck! He's still doing great. That's what is so amazing. Mr. Teflon.
by Becky G 2008-03-26 06:39PM | 0 recs
Why not post the recent polls showing Hillary

losing (but Obama winning) Washington and Minnesota

Or Obama winning Nevada (Hillary also winning, albeit by a smaller margin)

Or Obama tying in Colorado, Hillary losing by 14 points Colorado

Do those not fit your "reality of what's happening"

by bobdoleisevil 2008-03-26 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Why not post the recent polls showing Hillary

Those states don't count. They are insignificant.

by RedMask 2008-03-27 12:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Man - it must be fucking hard work to keep coming up with something - anything - that will help this disastrous Clinton campaign - even if all you can come up with is a few selected statistics designed to skewer the nominee. Let's see - Obama will win the delegates, popular vote and a large majority of the primaries. Other than that, Hillary's doing real well.

Let's see some of the polls after the incoming-sniper-Sinbad serial lie-a-thon.

by Shiloh 2008-03-26 06:10PM | 0 recs
Fair and balanced coverage

You left this stat out of your report. . . from the same website:

General Election: McCain vs. Clinton   

NBC/WSJ    Clinton 44, McCain 46, Und 5    McCain +2

General Election: McCain vs. Obama   
NBC/WSJ    Obama 44, McCain 42, Und 7    Obama +2

by maconblue 2008-03-26 06:10PM | 0 recs
by hctb 2008-03-26 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Obama is the new McGovern and why we have superdelegates.

McGovern knows this and endorsed Clinton.

by gotalife 2008-03-26 06:10PM | 0 recs
Excellent point.

Because, people so fondly remember the guy who beat McGovern.

Let's compare Obama to McGovern. I guess that makes McCain Richard Nixon?

by Hesiod Theogeny 2008-03-26 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Excellent point.

Is McCain Nixon? Let me see.

"Win with honor"? check

Cold Warrior? Check

Hot Temper? check

by dMarx 2008-03-26 06:54PM | 0 recs
As a member of the rabble...
If you guys really want to sit around talking only to people with the same opinions as you, then I can leave now. I'm not sure why I bother dropping in here anyway. It's WAY depressing. So much bile.
by Travis Stark 2008-03-26 06:11PM | 0 recs
Oh please.

The biggest offense of Obama supporters here is that they don't agree with you.

Read this site for a half hour. Just read without thinking about commenting. The abuse by the Hillary supporters so far outweighs that of the Obama people. It's not even close.

by Travis Stark 2008-03-26 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: As a member of the rabble...

Yes, the pro-Clinton hit pieces constantly on display in the rec'd diaries are the height of political discourse.

by rfahey22 2008-03-26 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: As a member of the rabble...

Hey, Bob's been cranking out some greatest hits lately.... don't overlook the greatness.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-26 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: As a member of the rabble...

I do appreciate Bob's greatness.  It is all too rare around here.

by rfahey22 2008-03-26 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: As a member of the rabble...

There is generally a fair amount of good, constructive conversation here, and it exists over on DKos too, if you weed out the ridiculous goobers on both sides.

Anonymity + Keyboard = Goober
for a good portion of the population.  It's just unavoidable.

I can deal with that, I generally just avoid it.

The only thing I've seen here that really worries me was having my ratings ability yanked for a run of downranks of comments that specifically made blanket personal-style, non-substantive attacks on Obama supporters as a group.

If you can't use the system to show disapproval of irratonal name-calling, what good is the system at all?

by Rorgg 2008-03-26 09:04PM | 0 recs
And it's back

kudos to whoever returned it.

by Rorgg 2008-03-26 09:07PM | 0 recs
Let me try to explain

If I want to get fired up about something, I go to Daily Kos.  MyDD is the place I go to discuss strategy and tactics of the political process, you know the boring stuff.  

An Example: What is the impact of net neutrality and how do we mobilize forces, frame the issue, what tactics are the other side employing and all of the other boring little details to make net neutrality a reality.

MyDD is more of an online war college for democrats. If I really want to understand the background so that I can be a better political opinion leader, I go here.  Then I put it to use with our political leadership.

After the primary (or about a week after someone drops out) we'll go back to planning to win the election.  Lately the water has been kind of murky.

Right now, I don't agree with Jerome about a lot of stuff, but it's temporary.  The ultimate goal is a common one, we are just following different paths to get there.

This does not stop me from checking in daily.

by NvDem 2008-03-26 09:14PM | 0 recs
Something to remember.....

No candidate who is creating a "revolution" to change the country should be losing a state by 36 points to anyone.  Those numbers are downright alarming, and I have seen multiple polls from Kentucky and Indiana to confirm that.

Yes, they're red states, but it suggests that if you bleed away more and more votes in these areas, that votes aren't there in areas where you can win (like neighboring Ohio), and that's where it really hurts.

Remember while Bush did win Kentucky twice by convincing margins, Bill Clinton did win this state twice.  There is a Democratic base in the state.

A poll I haven't seen mentioned was from SUSA when they did all 50 states, where Hillary won West Virginia by 5%, and Barack Obama lost it by 18%.

by takingbackamerica 2008-03-26 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Something to remember.....

You don't know your political history very well, do you?

It's called re-alignment. Happens from time to time. Last happened in the 90s, when the "Southern Democratic Party" which, by all of our modern measures of liberal vs. conservative was pretty much a third party buried in the Democratic party, turned to the GOP.

You may remember the days after the 94 election, when the southern and western reps and senators just kept getting up for the Democratic seats and walking over to the GOP side. Very depressing.

But people had been expecting it for decades. Some people give credit to Nixon, other to Reagan, some to the widespread adoption of air conditioning.

A similar, reverse case seems to be happening in the Northeast, where longstanding liberal Republican enclaves finally turn Democratic. It's too soon to tell if this is its own realignment, or part of the same sort of partisan solidification that took place in the south.

And this is why a 50-state strategy is so flipping important. For decades in the south, there was no Republican party to speak of. It wasn't until northerners (many, ironically, leaving the liberal northeast) came south and began establishing the Republican brand that you even saw GOP candidates. It took a while for the bench to get strong enough to win... and start producing its Newt Gingriches...

There is room for a new re-alignment out west, especially with the influx of Latinos. If the Democrats don't screw it up, the war and economy -- coupled with the severe unpopularity of Bush and the GOP -- could make the west reliably blue. There's no reason why states like Utah, which stood up against "No Child Left Behind" have to be taken for grated as GOP. There's room there for a larger party.

by Lettuce 2008-03-26 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

This shows it's time to pull together behind our nominee and quit the sniping. Like it or not, our nominee will be Obama. We have much work to do between now and November. Let us begin.

by fugazi 2008-03-26 06:14PM | 0 recs
THANK YOU

I always love your comments and perspective.  Refreshing.  Thank you for having a site that ISN'T completely one-sided.

by easyE 2008-03-26 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: THANK YOU
Wow - what site are you on? Do you also believe Fox News is fair and balanced?
by Rockville Liberal 2008-03-27 03:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

"We're gonna be working over the coming month to instituting some measures to make it more difficult..."

It's your site - knock yourself out. Presumably, you'll be booting out those who post scurrilous nonsense about Obama, too (and McCain!)

Why pretend to be neutral? Nobody's buying it.

OTOH, if you truly intend to become the most high-minded site on the internet, you'll probably be left with maybe five or six unbanned users.

It's a messy business, and I don't envy your task.

by Ddeele 2008-03-26 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

As a political junkie I love this site, and visit it several times a day. Todd and Jonathan are amazing analysts, but I usually skip over you Jerome because  your writing reads like spin.

by JoeFelice 2008-03-26 06:15PM | 0 recs
slop

... made a couple of updates on the fly...

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-26 06:16PM | 0 recs
Are you really telling people to leave your blog?

That's interesting.

Hey, what do you make of the Clinton campaign distributing a piece from American Spectator that claims that Obama has a "Jewish problem?"

And what do you make of this and the Judicial Watch hit piece on Obama coming the day after Hillary meets with rightwing slimebag, Richard Mellon Scaife?

And you want to talk about "dealing with reality," Jerome?

Hasn't the Clinton campaign and its team of slimy Beltway insiders become everything you once abhorred about the Party?

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-26 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Are you really telling people to leave your bl

Yea, I'd like to thin the ranks here a bit, too much clutter and childishness.

I'm going to Israel in about two weeks for a political trip, so I'm sure I'll learn more. From what I've heard, its not much, about 5-10 percent that Obama loses vs Clinton.

Do you really believe that stuff about only Clinton having insiders Bob?  Do you know what team he already had in place waiting for him-- Obama-- when he arrived on the hill?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-26 06:27PM | 0 recs
Great Post As Usual

Keep up the great work Jerome.

by alegre 2008-03-26 06:32PM | 0 recs
I would say

that some of the responses to your post certainly support your decision, Jerome. Not because of political disagreement. But because of the nasty, personal way in which this disagreement is expressed.

The whole thing reminds me of cyber-bullying, when junior high school and high school kids get together and beat up kids online.

by OtherLisa 2008-03-26 06:45PM | 0 recs
I find it highly ironic that you are backing the

... the candidate who is practicing the same, old three or four state strategy that you railed on in your book.

In fact, you're promoting that very strategy in your posts. "Ohio" this and "Florida" that.

You have become the very thing you argued against.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-26 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I find it highly ironic that you are backing t

Does the 50 state strategy say that all states are equal? Or is it that all states should be included and organized?

by hctb 2008-03-26 08:12PM | 0 recs
You tell me.

Clinton's campaign didn't even bother organizing in many states and when she lost, her campaign mocked them as not counting.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-26 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: You tell me.

I find it ironic that you press for the 50 state strategy, but are quite content to hang the voters of two of those states out to dry.  And that you are backing an arbitrary "rule" made up to appease Iowa and New Hampshire, as if they were kindergardners arguing over a cookie, that is now disenfranchising two states we need in November.  What's more important: disenfranchisement because of an illogical, preferential ruling...or the right to vote and to have one's vote count?    

by miriam 2008-03-27 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: I find it highly ironic that you are backing t

The 50 state strategy is to have democratic candidates campaign and fight everywhere.  Leave no seat unchallenged.  Every congressional district, every senatorial race, right down to dog catcher.  

The past strategy has been for the party to focus on 5-6 battleground states and cede the rest to the republicans.  Hence the 'states that matter' theme from the Clinton Camp.

by NvDem 2008-03-26 09:29PM | 0 recs
Slimy Beltway Insiders?

Excsue me?

Hey as one of her MANY volunteers / supporters / fans (and we're talkin' millions here) I really take offense at that Bob.  I may not be on staff but I log in hours upon hours a day working away on her behalf and I consider myself PART OF HER TEAM.

Seriously - since when do Democrats call other Democrats SLIMY?  We USED to reserve that for the republicans man.

Or is this part of the hope and change you guys keep talkin' about?

by alegre 2008-03-26 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Slimy Beltway Insiders?

Amen!

It's that kind of verbiage that sent me fleeing from DailyKos.  

by Radiowalla 2008-03-26 07:31PM | 0 recs
Terry McAuliffe?

Go read Jerome's book. He rails on the very people running Hillary's campaign. You've obviously never read "Crashing the Gate."

There is incredible irony in Jerome's backing of Clinton.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-26 07:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Terry McAuliffe?

Is it as ironic as Bill Clinton being called a racist?

by hctb 2008-03-26 08:13PM | 0 recs
Not germane to this discussion.

But knock yourself out.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-26 08:28PM | 0 recs
bob?

"Do you know what team he already had in place"?

well do you?

by John Wesley Hardin was a Friend to the Poor 2008-03-26 09:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Terry McAuliffe?

Agree, some of the folks on the strategy side of Hillary Clinton's campaign aren't doing her many favours. Frustrates me as much as you.

Still, and I'm sure you'll agree, she's the more progressive candidate and would make a superior head to the executive branch of the government.  

by carrieboberry 2008-03-27 04:11AM | 0 recs
Half the Story

You're intentionally only telling half the story.

The state polls can be categorized in the following ways

McCain leads both Dems
Arkansas (rasmussen)
Alabama (susa)
Missouri (susa)
Kentucky (susa)
North Carolina (susa) (Link?)

Hillary Clinton over McCain
Ohio (susa)

And never mind Colorado, Nevada, Virginia, etc that become competitive because of Obama.  It has become cartoonish.

by PantsB 2008-03-26 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Everybody is getting so testy lately.  Our candidates are currently tearing each other to pieces, while McCain gets a free pass.  I can't see why their numbers against McCain wouldn't be going down or specifically Obama v. McCain.  Not saying that he'll skyrocket, but if he is the nominee and this part of the campaign is over, I think his numbers will begin to rise.

by venavena 2008-03-26 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

in more important news, 22% say Hillary should drop out while 22% say Obama should drop out.

by alex100 2008-03-26 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

i still have my "don't blame me, i'm from massachusetts" bumper sticker.

by campskunk 2008-03-26 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Whether it's Judas on one side, and Joe McCarthy on the other, fugazi, I don't know how we bring all this together.

It's noble to want to, and it's the only way we win. But one candidate giving up and dropping out is not going to make this reconciliation any easier.

Hurtful things have been said by both parties, and people have been made to feel like because they support someone else, that this Democratic party no longer has a place for them.

I've seen firsthand in my daily experiences what has happened between Clinton and Obama supporters.  This thing has become more heated and more personal than simple Democratic vs. Republican battles.  The discourse isn't about the issues, and isn't about who's better, it's become about finding a way to make the other person look like a demonic incompetent fool.

by takingbackamerica 2008-03-26 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I agree on the vast majority of your points, but I disagree on this:

"one candidate giving up and dropping out is not going to make this reconciliation any easier."

I can't see how that WOULDN'T help.  For one thing, it removes all the rationalization of the infighting.  Obama supporters rail against Clinton, trying to show how she's the weaker GE candidate and has already lost but is ignoring reality.  Clinton supporters are trying to show how Obama's unelectable or otherwise flawed.

Once the primary's over, all that stops, and we have to assume that the candidate who drops will endorse the other, which should at least start the reconsiliation.

Sure, there are nutbags on the edges on both sides who will go around yelling "Vendetta!" and swinging tiny knives, but I think the combined forces of the rational people will kick them aside relatively quickly.

by Rorgg 2008-03-26 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

If indeed this is a site for political junkies then you have to know that Clinton cannot win unless the superdelegates overrule the six-month cross-country primary elections. You also have to know that denying the winner of the most pledged delegates the nomination would be absolutely suicidal for the Democratic party.

So - ban me or anybody else you want. Just don't claim to know anything about politics while you're doing it. If all you've got is "the Hillary way or the highway", then it isn't much of a place to discuss politics.

by Shiloh 2008-03-26 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I agree with those who've talked about how premature it would be to worry about these numbers.  Important numbers right now are PA, NC, IN, and WV...and even those contests are a few weeks away.

Once the nominee is chosen, either one will have the majority of America on his/her side when it comes to Iraq and health care.

by writtenwithoutwax 2008-03-26 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Shiloh, the problem is superdelegates were instituted for the sole purpose of being a deciding factor in a primary process to keep nominees out who could not win.

The process was set up to keep from another McGovern from being nominated.

If superdelegates were simply in place to pick whomever won the popular vote in their states or districts, there would be no purpose for them in this process.

The process needs a serious overhaul.  And while it may have consequences to supercede the vote of the people, we have to, as a party, do whatever is best to ensure victory in November.

If that candidate is Hillary (and I believe it is), then we have to do that.

by takingbackamerica 2008-03-26 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

"Shiloh, the problem is superdelegates were instituted for the sole purpose of being a deciding factor in a primary process to keep nominees out who could not win."

Who determines who can win and who can't? I thought it was the voters at November, based on their views of who should win.

Therefore if Democrats want to decide who can win, they should be trying to convince people of who should win.

But this view of mine respects the point of democracy to much - you know, the whole idea of choosing your candidate based on merits and then arguing in their favour to improve their chances in the general.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-26 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...
Wow ... that is some big brother, let the 750 elites, do the thinking for you ...
I am fundamentally against altering the will of the people.  2000 is still too raw for me.
by stryan 2008-03-26 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I appreciate your stance, but I can't see how it's true from a practical standpoint.  There will be a very real backlash if the party insiders decide to overturn the combined election results -- I haven't tried to see anyone argue otherwise.

You can make your case about the reason for the Supers, and their role, and why it's important, and even if we all here concede that you're RIGHT, it still won't really matter, because the mechanism of using them in that way would have such a huge negative effect in practical terms.

by Rorgg 2008-03-26 09:22PM | 0 recs
I'm sick of those two


I really am, I didn't like Clinton that much to begin with, but Obama? He managed to seriously piss me off in a short period of time. I cannot believe he didn't anticipate this and had no plan, and he is leaving us neck-deep in @$%!

Give me someone else!
Biden! Gore! Kucinich! I'll take anyone (from the left of course)

by TaiChiMaster 2008-03-26 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Holy **, this is one disingenuous argument.

by Pat Flatley 2008-03-26 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I think the only people who have a right to display a worry about the polling of Obama vs McCain are people who have actually supported Obama against McCain (rather than the opposite as Hillary has done).

Feel free to show me the last time you supported Obama against Republicans' attacks.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-26 06:25PM | 0 recs
Is this from people who've called

Hillary, Bill, Geraldine and Jerome racists?

If so, I'm a little amused at the fauxrage.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-27 12:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Is this from people who've called

Oh, I despise the Clintons. But unlike people that despise Obama, I don't pretend that it's the "lack of electability" that bothers me about them. It's the lack of honesty, dignity or principle.

That's my point: that people that act all concerned about electability must actually want that person to be elected in the first place. Do you want to see Obama elected if he does get the Democratic nomination? If you don't want him elected, if you don't plan to vote for him in the General, then you oughtn't complain about his electability or lack thereof.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-27 06:36AM | 0 recs
Well Said Jerome

Thanks for putting this all in one place.  This is still a race - with just 1% separating the two fine candidates for our party's nomination, we've got 10 more primaries to go and Hillary's still going strong.

This thing's not over - not by a longshot and when you talk about the general election and who's got a better shot at beating McCain there's no contest.  It's Hillary all the way ;o)

by alegre 2008-03-26 06:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

You can thank the Clintons for this.

Anything for the Clintons.

by Fichetail 2008-03-26 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

yep. read jerome's post. all that reverend wright mess is hillary's fault. she forged obama's name on the church membership rolls. she drugged him and dragged his comatose body to that church, and propped him up in a pew. for twenty years she did this. curse her!

by campskunk 2008-03-26 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Thank Obama and his minister.

by owl06 2008-03-26 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

The minister that Bill and Hillary invited to the White House in the 1990's?

by Toddwell 2008-03-26 06:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Obama has been in bed with that minister for 20 years.

by JoeySky18 2008-03-26 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

not the same. try again.

by owl06 2008-03-27 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...
Here's something I never quite understood about Obama and his supporters, when something bad happens they stick their head in the sand hoping that it will go away, or worse still, find a way a link it to Senator Clinton.
When the Rezko scandal broke Obama was less the forthright and instead pushed a photo of Rezko with the Clintons that was taken during a fund-raiser for another prominent Illinois democrat.
When the Wright scandal broke finally (it was brewing fro a long time in the right-wing sites and Fox News) he was again less than forthright. He gave a flowery speech heavy on rhetoric but lacking in specifics (nothing new there, that's why I don't listen to his speeches but read them instead), then 48 hours later he gave it a new life by pushing a picture of Wright shaking Bill Clinton's hand in WH. That in itself made Wright a campaign issue. If Hillary attacked him on this now (she did not IMO) then it is justified. Worse the Obama supporting blogs like HuffPo decided to bring it on the front page again. How stupid is that? That by no means is damage control instead he just elevated Wright to a major major campaign issue all by himself. And let's not forget that if he does become the nominee it will be there for the Republicans to use. So hiding their heads in the sand is not helping and nor is resurrecting it over and over any help.
by tarheel74 2008-03-26 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I like how Clinton supporters attack Obama on his speaking abilities.  Classic Rove tactic to take your opponents greatest strength and make it a weakness.  Especially when Hilliary has far less communications skill.  Her husband has speaking skills similar to Obama, guess that would rule him out from ever making a good president.  

The elephant in the room Clinton supporters fail to talk to is exactly how she is going to win the nomination.  I suppose if she got 70% of all the remaining states you could make the case Obama is no longer viable.  That's about as likely as McCain dropping out.  

So what is she trying to accomplish?  From all of the Clinton supporters on this site I keep reading that Hillary's ability to play hardball is why she is a better candidate.  But her only path to the nomination now is use those hardball skills to destroy Obama.  Too bad it also damages the party but that's not a concern to Clinton or some of her supporters here.  

Face it, if the roles were reversed Clinton would have turned the screws on the inside connections they have in the party leadership to force Obama to drop out if he didn't do it himself for the good of the party.  But the roles aren't reversed and no one in the party has the weight to tell Hillary to call it a day.  

by VogonPoet 2008-03-26 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

This is a good point.  Obama has indeed linked the Clintons both to Rezko and to Wright.

He's no saint.  Is that your point?

by writtenwithoutwax 2008-03-27 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Hillary seems to favor McCain vs. Obama.  With partymates like that, who needs enemies?

by Fichetail 2008-03-26 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Obama's lost the general.

by owl06 2008-03-26 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...
Now that's what I'd call a convincing argument.
by Pat Flatley 2008-03-26 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

tarheel, I think these Wright comments, along with Michelle Obama's zingers are more toxic in the general election.

Obama's asset is claimed to be the appeal to moderates and Independents.  These are the voters who would be most affected by the statements made.

I have no problem with liberation theology, but let's put this into a general election context: There are millions of whites who don't understand why this message would be appealing to anyone, and who find it entirely racist, repugnant, and un-American.

Those are the people Obama has been struggling to win in the primary, and I think he will even have a harder time in the general.

His message is clearly based on something different.  But the charges of inconsistency and outright hypocrisy are coming from the GOP.  We know their game, and what they're bringing.

by takingbackamerica 2008-03-26 06:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

it goes beyond liberation theology and that's the problem. I do not have a problem with that but what is caustic are his comments about 9/11 and the stuff about HIV and AAs. That will bury him in the GE. He handled the entire thing very very poorly. His speech might have salvaged something but it raised more questions than were answered, again goes back to him not being forthright from the beginning, added to that was the disingenuous photo-pushing of Wright in the WH. Disastrous.

by tarheel74 2008-03-26 06:39PM | 0 recs
So true-- except

boy do I have a problem with that liberation theology.  Wright has his own special brand.

But for now, let me just keep it clean.

I too, think in the GE this is fatal because it tears apart the heart of his candidacy.  And for me it's not just whites.  I did expect the Audacity of Hope guy would be a Joel Osteen. I expected a corporate, hope and change, uplifting (if a little wallet uplifting too) but overall Mr. Positivity with a Rainbow Coalition congregation of 30% Hispanic 30% Black 30% White 10% Catch all.

There are too many churches and places of worship in every community.  Choosing this one says a lot.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-26 11:57PM | 0 recs
Re: So true-- except

Ignoring the damage that has been done by Obama's choice of minister as his moral compass is foolhardy.  It's not showing up now with the force it will have in November, because most liberals are made extremely uncomfortable by an accusation of racism.  Republicans have fewer scruples when it means winning or losing, and they WILL use this. Obama's tactic has been to cry racism when he's criticized or questioned.  But the Republican response to him will be "So what?"  

What's just as worrisome is the sword of Damocles hanging over all our heads in the form of what will next be disclosed about Obama.  We haven't heard the last of Wright, or Rezko, or Meeks, or Auchi...and then there are those we haven't heard anything from...yet.  It's risky business backing a still virtual unknown.  And I heartily wish Obama supporters weren't so gullible as to believe he will remain the media's darling.  The REAL vetting won't begin until AFTER he's the nominee.        

by miriam 2008-03-27 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Nice job, Jerome. Thank you.

by americanincanada 2008-03-26 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Sometimes you not only have to spell it out, but you have to have to draw pictures, too.

by Scotch 2008-03-26 06:34PM | 0 recs
the much hyped WSJ/NBC latest poll is rigged

Did you see Tweety tonite hyping the latest WSJ/NBC
poll as the Rev.Wright having no negative effect on BO?

...........

The Journal-NBC poll was conducted March 24-25 and included telephone
interviews with 700 registered voters, with an oversampling of 177
black voters. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.7
percentage points for all registered voters, 4.3 points for white
voters and 7.4 points for black voters.
http://tinyurl.com/2rx3r4

Shocking!  ;o)
It's rigged.

by toddy 2008-03-26 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: the much hyped WSJ/NBC latest poll is rigged

I made that same point earlier. Funny how basic math escapes some people.

by tarheel74 2008-03-26 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: the much hyped WSJ/NBC latest poll is rigged

Neither of you understand what oversampling means.  They polled extra African-Americans so their MOE on that subset wouldn't be astronomical.  Then they re-weighted based on the normal A-A percentage so the totals are correct.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-26 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: the much hyped WSJ/NBC latest poll is rigged

You don't understand basic polling. You're making a fool of yourself. Look into what oversampling actually means and how it works.

by brimur 2008-03-27 08:36AM | 0 recs
so Obama won red states to lose them to McCain?

and he lost blue states to Hillary. It sounds like he is less republican than McCain and less Democrat than Hillary. Who is he? In order to defeat Hillary he is trying to attract people from McCain side. In order to win against McCain his strategy is to attract people from Hillary side? Where is his side?

by engels 2008-03-26 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: so Obama won red states to lose them to McCain

not to mention that his campaign and supporters (blogs included) are going out of their way to alienate the Clinton supporters. Unless things change and fast we have disaster written all over.

by tarheel74 2008-03-26 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: so Obama won red states to lose them to McCain

I fear we have seen nothing yet,

the GOP has probably a tape ready with the Wright 911 comments, Michelle Obama, a few pictures without lapel pin contrasted with the fall of the twin towers and the cries of the victims.

That kind of stuff would bring down Jesus himself.

Oh I forget about Obama girl! You think I'm kidding? Just ask Harold Ford if I'm kidding.

by TaiChiMaster 2008-03-26 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: so Obama won red states to lose them to McCain

Good thing they've got nothing to throw at Clinton!

by Ddeele 2008-03-26 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: so Obama won red states to lose them to McCain

they tried for 35 years, but she knows how to handle it

by engels 2008-03-29 03:02AM | 0 recs
The electability argument

(Jerome also)it is nice to see it isn't dead and buried...

Exhibit A ladies and Gentlemen: John Kerry 2004.

I thought it was a mistake to give access to the front page to candidate surrogates, knowing the fever swamp that ensued during the 2004 primaries.

What a surprise that it has gotten out of control.

You reap what you sow I guess.

by Nazgul35 2008-03-26 06:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

177 out of 700 is 25.3% African-American.

Around 40 of 50 states have less of a population than that.  Not exactly representative polling here.

by takingbackamerica 2008-03-26 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

They oversampled African-Americans so they could report on that subpopulation without an astronomical MOE.  Then they re-weighted them back to their normal percentage when calculating the totals.

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-26 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I think their misrepresentation of oversampling is intentional. They can't be so obtuse.

by brimur 2008-03-27 08:40AM | 0 recs
Did Hilary's numbers also decline?

Might say more about the state of the activities between the candidates and their surrogates than anything else.

Man oh man I can't wait for the silly season to be over!

by Nazgul35 2008-03-26 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Once Clinton stops funding John McCain's candidacy, we will see the numbers get much better.

The more time to draw contrasts between Obama and McCain, the better for Obama.  It's too bad for all the Democrats that Clinton is intent upon dragging this out to the detriment of the party and the progressive movement.  Even when it's apparent she will have to create a civil war in the party to snag the nomination.

by digdug 2008-03-26 06:45PM | 0 recs
An analogy:

If your breath smells and all your friends tell you your breath smells, you can deny it all you want but it wont change the fact that your breath probably smells.

So it goes with partisanship and the complaints of many about the cheerleading here...

by beermeister 2008-03-26 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

tarheel, very true.

It has happened to me in real life too.  People's actions toward me have changed because I chose to stand w/Hillary Clinton.

I've been called everything from a racist to a neoconservative.  That's hardly going to unify this thing.

The actions of supporters I've found have affected my view of the candidates.  It's caused me to like Obama less for the actions of his supporters.

by takingbackamerica 2008-03-26 06:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Why do Jerome's bitter screeds always include a passage like this:

We're gonna be working over the coming month to instituting some measures to make it more difficult to have an account here at MyDD. I'm sure there's many places on the web where people that having nothing better to do than attack other users will be welcome, but not here.

Hypocritical much?

by BITNPB 2008-03-26 06:49PM | 0 recs
if you don't like it

head out.

by Bill Keaton 2008-03-26 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: if you don't like it

One overpuffed performance art "strike" is all a campaign season can bear...

by ogre 2008-03-26 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

So...Clinton is performing just about as dismally in these states (including trailing in Arkansas - wasn't that the key to her 270+ EVs?), but now we only have to be concerned about Obama?  Which people should she "throw under the bus" to increase her standing in the polls?  Sinbad?

Sometimes these diaries just throw all sense of credibility out the window...    

by rfahey22 2008-03-26 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

if the point escaped you, Obama runs his campaign claiming that victory in Red State primaries makes him the favorite for the GE. NO. He loses in the Red States and in the swing states like OH and MO and PA. In the other Blue States he has lost the primary and has in fact alienated the Clinton supporters who form the majority in those states. So as of now, the math looks like he is not really winning any states in the GE. If this trend continues he will lose and lose big. His first task and of his supporters and bloggers is not to alienate the Clinton supporters with baseless accusations and smears.

by tarheel74 2008-03-26 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Yeah, yeah, Clinton supporters have become so touchy that literally dozens of anti-Obama hit pieces can appear on the rec'd diaries, and the main diaries remind us on a daily basis about the Wright story and how this has supposedly made Obama unelectable, but God forbid an Obama supporter write something the least bit snarky for fear of offending people around here.  If you didn't want to get dinged occasionally, you probably shouldn't post on this website.  Heck, as a Clinton supporter on a pro-Clinton site, I'd say that you've got it pretty easy.

Whether you like it or not, there is no indication that Clinton would be a superior candidate.  She has run an incompetent campaign and her negatives are higher than both McCain's and Obama's.  In many states, she has almost identical numbers with Obama in the head-to-head polls.  I know you have an incentive to prove that we cannot win with Obama, but that does not prove that Clinton is any better.  

by rfahey22 2008-03-26 07:08PM | 0 recs
key word almost

Clinton beats Obama in the big swing states: FL, OH, PA. Even MI and MO aren't great for Obama. That has always been Clinton's argument, she wins with the working class base in the big swing states. These polls show that Obama's counter-argument, that he is a map changer, is falling apart. Obama's electability argument was always weak, and the more he is exposed to Republican attacks the weaker he will be with Independents and crossover Republicans. His problem now is that his argument for his candidacy -- unifier, map changer, new politics -- is in tatters and he has very little time to shift gears and appeal to those he needs to win in the general, Clinton's base: Democrats.

Given the right candidate it is easy to win the Democratic primaries if you are willing to burn the house down, just use race.

by souvarine 2008-03-26 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: key word almost

...and Obama beats Clinton in WA, OR, NV, IA, and MN.  Let's everyone play the selective poll game!  They're all damn near worthless in March, and trying to make a point by selectively choosing polls is worthless squared.  That electability argument worked so well for Democrats in 2004, too.  

Let's just finish the nomination process and work with the candidate we end up with, shall we?

by CA Pol Junkie 2008-03-26 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: key word almost

I was responding to rfahey22, who claimed there was no electability argument for Clinton.

As it happens I am not arguing from polls in FL, OH MO and MI, but from the results in their primaries. Limited GE predictive power, I'll grant you, but they show each candidate's relative strengths and weaknesses. The PA primary, given current polls, looks to turn out like OH. Obama's electability argument was always based on his self-proclaimed map changing ability, he loved pointing out places like Alabama and Mississippi where he would win in the general by turning out more African Americans (but not because he is AA). That argument is very hard to make in the face of even worthless March polls.

I would usually dismiss electability arguments, but they are what superdelegates will be looking at. At this point it is clear that neither candidate can get enough pledged delegates to win, so it is up to superdelegates.

by souvarine 2008-03-26 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: key word almost

Why listen to the campaign's arguments on electability anyway?  We have data that we can analyze on our own.

Poblano's got a great site called fivethirtyeight.com that has running GE matchup analyses based on the available head-to-head numbers.  Now, granted Pob's an Obama supporter, but he lays out his numbers and methods, and I think anyone who's going to try to make a serious case that Clinton's a better GE candidate -- one that will stand up to scrutiny -- should advance something of at least similar structure to justify the argument.

by Rorgg 2008-03-26 09:12PM | 0 recs
Re: key word almost

Poblano? Who's model proved Clinton would lose New Hampshire after Iowa? And then proved Obama would have a blowout Super Tuesday?

Yeah, getting into the weeds with a guy who thinks more digits after the decimal point means more accuracy isn't really my thing. That's more Chris Bowers level analysis.

by souvarine 2008-03-26 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: key word almost

Having done some of this before Texas and Ohio myself, all I can say is this: he gave an accurate picture of the data that was available.

Sometimes it paints an accurate picture.  Sometimes it doesn't.  Sometimes the situation changes very quickly in a short timeframe and data collection can't keep up with it, or isn't sufficient to be trusted.

An ad hominem on him, though, doesn't address the issue at all.  Because, we've seen in this very exchange that if you go "oh, well, what about Arkansas!" then someone else says "Ho ho!  Iowa!" and we get nowhere.

And we can all bloviate our opinions, and they're valid, but it's silly to ignore the data we DO have because it's not always indicative, or because things will change.  If you think his methodology is unsound, then that's a fair argument.  What you said is basically irrelevant.

by Rorgg 2008-03-26 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: key word almost

No, poblano did not give an accurate picture of the data available. Yes, his methodology is unsound. One way you can tell is because he claims impossibly precise results from too few samples, i.e. too many digits after the decimal point.

We are talking in broad strokes here about events seven months away. From what we have seen to date Clinton does better than Obama in FL and OH, and given the proximity of PA that looks better for her too. Obama's argument was that his favorables were much better than hers and that he could turn red states blue, now his favorables are pretty bad and against McCain his ability to turn red states blue looks like the fantasy it always was. And the Republicans have barely got a lick in.

by souvarine 2008-03-26 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: key word almost

I actually don't think that superdelegates are stupid and that all they do is look at Rasmussen polls to make up their minds. We have to give them so credit here.

If all they did was look at polls, then, there is one number that has remained constant, which is Senator Clinton's favorability rating. Month in, month out, that number has remained in the negative which indicates that she does not command enough support among Democrats to counter her negatives among Republicans.

Since there is no guarantee that she'll beat McCain in enough big delegate swing states to tip the scale, the four state strategy remains unconvincing.

I think that undeclared superdelegates are talking to their constituents, reading mails from their constituents, weighing how much effect any bad bargain endorsement would have on their re-election.

They're also looking at what effects each solution to this quagmire would have on critical demographies whether core or emerging.

It's anyone's guess what their conclusions are or how that might change, but the idea that they'll make up their minds based on match up polls that change by the week is neither here nor there.

by Olu Oguibe 2008-03-26 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Do you have a compare/contrast with these states pre-Wright?   I think it would be more powerful to show the juxtaposition.

by stryan 2008-03-26 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

It is becoming obvious that O will say or do anything to get the nomination.  but that also means he is the guy who is trying to do the knee capping, and not Clinton.  Obama's troubles have been brought on by himself, his pastor and his own comments.  Obama is using dirty personal insult attacks against Clinton and has been for this whole campaign.  He has been trying to drive down her numbers as much as he can.  He already knows he will lose the election, but he still wants the nomination anyway.  Obama cares about one person and that is Obama.  First he kept repeating the Carl Rove line "Hilary is so divisive" in the attempt to make it so in the minds of democrats.

Well it has become so in the minds of two groups, those people who support O and those nasty national scum sucking press dogs that attack and insult Clinton personally, not on any issues, but rather on personal insult lines, then O used the scurrilous charge against Both Hillary and Bill claiming they were racists.  What a dishonest and disrespectful thing to say about Clinton.  Neither of them are actual racists, and I was surprised that so many AAs bought it, but my feeling on this subject is that O used code words and phrases to imply it even if he didn't come right out and say it.  

His campaign did in fact accuse them and their surrogates of being racist.  Any thing said against O was attacked and claimed it was racism.  this began to divide this party along the racial lines way before the Wright controversy.  Now he is using the personal insult that she is "untrustworthy and dishonest", these personal things not issues, or even anything she could change, unlike the charge from Clinton that O needs more experience, something he could in fact correct, or she has said that her plans are better than his, that is on the issues, but O and company have decided that he must make her personally unacceptable.  His insults didn't stop at those, he has often used sexist types of insults, like whining for example, to diminish her when ever he can.  he has had plenty of help in this endeavor on the far left blogs where insults are the game of the day.

This may help O in the short run, but actually it will eventually damage him, because this is in no way the new kind of politics he promised people.  So while dirtying up Clinton, he dirties up himself, maybe beyond recovery.  the Clinton supporters, who are half of the party after all, are seeing this and may just have second thoughts about someone who says that he wants a new kind of politics, but practices the old kind instead.  

He is just another politician willing to do or say anything to get the nomination.  I would observe that half our party wants her the other half wants him, and in the end, we might just get neither in the WH.  This cannot be all blamed on Clinton, it is O who is doing the dirty work with much help.

The Wright mess will only get worse as time goes by.  O's lofty speech will be just great for his supporters and the dogs of the national yellow press, but the middle of the road Americans just might have a different idea.  My sincere feeling is that this Wright thing, and O's kind of politics will show up in the reaction of our base.  Without the base of the democratic party, the candidate cannot win, neither one.

by democrat voter 2008-03-26 06:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

That's Democratic, and it should be capitalized.

by Ddeele 2008-03-26 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

democrat voter, I think that's a pretty "fair and balanced" view of this thing.

We all have our candidate, but neither one is faultless in this endless division.  Both have placed their punches on each other, and that has brought the chances of people supporting their candidate and not the other one up.

I feel Obama has done more to disenfranchise the voters and twist the hands of superdelegates in an undemocratic fashion, which I find repugnant.

by takingbackamerica 2008-03-26 06:56PM | 0 recs
But, but, but. . .

. . .I thought Obama has "game" in the Red States, Obama will "change the map," Obama will run a "50 state strategy," Obama does not seek merely "50% + 1" like Hillary, Obama will have a mandate, Obama will have coattails in the Red States, Obama is "growing the party," . . .

by freemansfarm 2008-03-26 06:56PM | 0 recs
We need a break down of these numbers by demos

If we look at the break down of these polls by demographic, it will be more instructive. The last one i saw and it was desegregated by gender, race, age, income, location, and level of education provided a very instructive piece of information. That is, Senator Obama still has a problem with rural, <50K/year, non-college graduate, and women<65. These are the same demographic groups that he lost consistently to Senator Clinton and now he is losing them to McCain.

In Ohio, for example, Senator Obama loses more democratic voters to McCain than he attracts republicans and independents. The net gain for Senator Obama is a negative one, this is why he is losing Ohio. The situation in Missouri is even worse. He loses the rural vote by such a margin that even if he gets a high score in urban areas and other demo. groups, it was not be enough to cancel out the rural vote.

In all honesty, the situation in the battle ground states--Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida--is not looking that great. The good news is that he still has time and money, and the economy is in a bad situation. The bad news for Senator Obama is that he does not know how to talk or connect with rural folks, and all the negative snipping with Senator Clinton campaign is kind of hardening other demographic groups against him such as elderly, <50K/year and so on.

Senator Obama will not win without carrying the majority of Senator Clinton demographic groups. That is for sure. I don't think this election will be a realigning one as it was built last year.  

by likelihood zero 2008-03-26 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

freemansfarm, it's called spin.

And it's really a 48-state strategy.  Florida and Michigan need not apply to this change express.

by takingbackamerica 2008-03-26 06:59PM | 0 recs
I am sorry, but the 48-state strategy is a waste

of money and limited resources. If Senator Obama spends one dime on Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, it will be a waste of money/time.

There are states that you just don't need to bother with because they are republican at the embryonic level. And a presidential election is not going to revert that.

by likelihood zero 2008-03-26 07:15PM | 0 recs
snicker...

this is not a cheerleading blog for either of the candidates

We're talking about polls comparing a Democratic candidate for the nomination (contested) to a GOP de facto nominee, and looking at red states, and at polls "from the past few days" (depth of the Wright hyperventilating?).  

I'm looking forward to seeing the same concern about Hillary's numbers in those states after the media shitstorm over her serial assertions that she ducked and covered at Tuzla.  Whatever the real reasons for her, um... erroneous assertions... they play as lies to the vast majority who aren't hanging on every parsing in the blogosphere... and particularly among  the vast slice of America that's dubious to wary of Hillary (and that is not a slam, it's a sad and weary observation on how over a decade of right wing smear efforts, coupled with some gaffes and miscues have left the American Idol obsessed electorate).

Whether one believes Obama's comments is a personal decision--he says he hadn't heard the comments that were the focus of hysterics AND he said that he'd had conversations for years with Wright about differences of opinion.  Maybe, maybe not... it's at least plausible.  Hillary's not going to get that maybe yes, maybe no break in media and public perception.  She's on video making the claim repeatedly... and on video that says that her claim is simply false, plus there are eye witnesses who pooh-pooh it.

That's going to hurt.

Which sucks.  But that's reality.

Having vapors now over numbers for a candidate versus nominee, after one tempest in a teapot and before an honesty scandal is... well, perilously close to cheerleading.

by ogre 2008-03-26 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Of course, Armstrong forgets to note that Clinton's numbers in these states are WORSE than Obama's.

by sharris0512 2008-03-26 07:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

You know, the funny thing is that the people around here are convinced that Wright has rendered Obama unelectable, but I don't here any prescription for Clinton to improver her numbers.  Wouldn't that actually make her the worse candidate?  I mean, if the unpopularity is due to a single, discrete issue, then perhaps that can eventually be overcome.  If Clinton's problems are less identifiable, or less obvious to the astute political observers here, then how could she fix them?

by rfahey22 2008-03-26 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Sharri, in Kentucky where Obama loses by 36 in this poll, Hillary loses by 10.

Big difference.

by takingbackamerica 2008-03-26 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...
Here are a few more poll results for consideration: Ohio: McCain vs. Clinton SurveyUSA McCain 44, Clinton 50, Und 6 Missouri: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 50, Clinton 41, Und 9 North Carolina: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 50, Clinton 34, Und 16 North Carolina: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 51, Obama 42, Und 7 McCain +9 Nevada: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 41, Obama 45, Und 14 Obama +4 Nevada: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 43, Clinton 44, Und 13 Clinton +1 Washington: McCain vs. Clinton Elway Poll McCain 41, Clinton 38, Und 9 McCain +3 Washington: McCain vs. Obama Elway Poll McCain 39, Obama 45, Und 10 Minnesota: McCain vs. Clinton Rasmussen McCain 47, Clinton 46, Und 7 McCain +1 Minnesota: McCain vs. Obama Rasmussen McCain 43, Obama 47, Und 10 Obama +4 General Election: McCain vs. Clinton FOX News Clinton 46, McCain 43, Und 11 (All taken from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/latestpolls/index.html In short, HRC is doing no better than BHO in the red states (much worse in fact in NC)and is running worse against McCain in a purple state (NV)and in two blue states (MN and WA), which more than counterbalances her better performance in Ohio. Indeed, it might suggest that Clinton may have as much problems with one part of the Democratic base as Obama has with the other. Indeed, they may even be worse because they're self-created, the product of the campaign she's waging right now. Whereas Obama has to win over blue collar and moderate Democrats by addressing their concerns and proving that he's not a scary person, Clinton will need to win back a chunk of the party who have become alienated, if not alarmed, by her tactics and rhetoric. She has suggested John McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama. One of her strongest advocates called one of our party's most distinguished figures a Judas (unlike Samantha Powers, James has not bee asked to leave the Clinton campaign). She has sat down with Richard Scaife, one of the leading figures of the right wing propaganda machine and has tried to reignite the Rev. Wright controversy. As a former very fervent Clinton supporter and life long Democratic it grieves me to say that I am nearing the point where I do not believe I could vote for her. (One more point. Bill Clinton was only able to win KY because Perot took a big chunk of the right center vote out of the GOP column in 1992 and 1996)
by Reference Librarian 2008-03-26 07:08PM | 0 recs
Absolutely right

"We're gonna be working over the coming month to instituting some measures to make it more difficult to have an account here at MyDD. I'm sure there's many places on the web where people that having nothing better to do than attack other users will be welcome, but not here. . .
But this is not a cheerleading blog for either of the candidates, its a political junkie site that doesn't flinch to relay the reality of what's happening. If you can't deal with that and discuss it like an adult, you don't belong here.  . .This isn't 'concern trolling,' it's reality. . . If you want to ignore it, go someplace else."

I only wonder why you haven't done this sooner. Every day we see viral colonists from a particularly worthless and disgusting website come here and post diary after diary and post after post of vile attacks on Hillary and her supporters, diary after diary and post after post consisting of nothing but cheerleading for Captain Hopey, and exhibit nothing but scorn for you, the person who owns and runs this site, because you haven't drank the Kool Aid. Kick 'em out and keep 'em out.

Their candidate has crippled himself by his 2 decade long association with a racist, crackpot conspiracy theorist. And he has crippled the other candidate with his race baiting. Now our party, which might be divided anyway after a long and bruising primary fight, is bitterly polarized over race too. And, if Obama wins the nomination, he is going to have an uphill battle convincing even moderate white voters that his post-racial rhetoric is anymore than just that, rhetoric. And, if Hillary wins, she is going to have an uphill battle regaining the support of African Americans. Our party depends on a multi-racial coalition in presidential elections, and Captain Hopey has impaired, if not destroyed, that coalition for his selfish gain in the primaries.

Too bad if the fanboy don't want to hear it. It's the truth.

by freemansfarm 2008-03-26 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Absolutely right

<snark>It's refreshing to read such an enlightened view of the issue of Race in America, and such an optimistic assessment of the electorate.</snark>

Thing is, it's the Republican formula, and we're talking about Democrats here.

by Ddeele 2008-03-26 07:24PM | 0 recs
Enlightened

You may not think it very "enlightened," but most white Americans don't like Black racist crackpot conspiracy theorists who believe "the government" (which is run by "rich white people" )created AIDS as part of a genocidal campaign against people of color. You don't have to be a Republican to know that. And, in case you don't know it, in the general election, Republicans and Independents get to vote too, not just Democrats. On the other hand, many African Americans may well be wary of voting for a woman whom the leading African American politician in the country has tarred as a racist. Obama has crippled our party for his own short term gain. We should not hesitate to say it, even if it makes some people uncomfortable to hear it

by freemansfarm 2008-03-26 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Enlightened

I ask you truly:

How many people who would vote for any Democratic candidate believe that Barack Obama buys into all that "rich white people", "AIDS", "genocide" crap?

Obama has raised the level of discourse to include people whose ideas are wrong, but are based on real (if anecdotal) data that have been ignored forever.

This assumption that America can't handle the truth is one of the things that pisses me off about Clinton's supporters.

by Ddeele 2008-03-26 07:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Enlightened

Please, spare me the BS about Obama "raising the level of discourse." All Obama did was employ a lot of fancy rhetoric, childishly simplistic history lessons, self-valorizing non sequiturs, attempts to drag Hillary into the mess, strained attempts to be "historic," throwing the sick elderly woman who raised him under the bus, and all the rest of his verbal pryrotechnics in the Great Speech in an attempt to deflect attention from one simple fact: that he has maintained close relations with a man who is a crackpot racist conspiracy theorist.

Whether Obama "buys into" Wright's garbage is not the point. If Hillary's "pastor" was a white racist crackpot, don't you think that would be a pretty big issue, even though we know that she is not herself a white racist crackpot? Why is it different for Obama? Why the Obama rules?

As for what America "can handle," I think, if it were really true that Wright was only a "family member" of Obama, the "crazy uncle" that Obama talks about, then yes, people would be like: well, the guy is his uncle, whether he "repudiates" him or not, he's still his uncle, we all have relatives like that, let's cut him some slack. But Wright is not Obama's uncle. He is simply not "family" to Obama, no matter how you cut it. Obama did not even meet Wright until he was in his late 20's. Wright is not a lifelong friend, nor a "friend of the family." Wright is a PUBLIC FIGURE with whom Obama chose to maintain a 20 year relationship, who Obama chose to call his "spiritual advisor," who Obama chose to be on his campaign committees, and so on. Obama chose to have close, formal relations with a racist, and no, I don't think America likes that. Nor should it.

As for Wright's ideas. I find it odd and patronizing that posters here and elsewhere have presumed to think that Wright is some kind of hayseed, or uninformed guy, who, for this reason, has an excuse for believing the nonsense he spouted about AIDS. Wright's father was a minister. His mother was a doctor. He attended several colleges and has a BA and masters degree from Howard, plus another masters degree, and other degrees, honorary and otherwise, as well. Wright should have known that "the government" did not create AIDS. I beleive he does know this, but was pandering to lowest common denominator in his congregation. And, please, spare me the story about the Tuskegee experiment. I know all about it, and I believe that a well-educated man like Wright either was, or should have been, able to distinguish between the facts of that horrible and disgusting episode, and the conspirarcy theory about AIDS.

All in all, I am not impressed nor convinced by the desperate attempts to rehabilitate Wright, nor to excuse Obama for his consorting with him.

by freemansfarm 2008-03-26 08:09PM | 0 recs
Okay then

That's your position, and I have no choice but to respect it.

I happen to believe that we're ready to be better than that.

by Ddeele 2008-03-26 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Okay then

Again, spare me the piety. It is Wright, and, by extension, Obama, who should have been "better than that." I have had a bellyfull of moral lecturing from Obama, his wife, his campaign, and his supporters.

Obama is the one who screwed up here. He is the one who chose, and kept, a racist as his pastor and mentor for the better part of 2 decades. I don't need Obama now to invite me to a "national dialogue on race." I'm not the one who associates with racists, he is. And, I am not the one running for president, he is. Instead of telling me what I have to do to be worthy of his exalted self, why couldn't Mr. Perfect just have said, "I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I should have cut my formal ties with Wright years ago." If he had done this, then he could have gone on to explain how, for reasons of sentimentality and loyalty, this was hard for him, and how, despite his racism, he still admires other things about Wright.

But no, instead, we get a pseudo-historic speech and a bunch of double talk. Obama is now in the dog house with a lot of white America, and while it is easy to say that white America "should be better than that," it would have been even easier, and more appropriate, for Obama to have admitted he was wrong, and apologized.

by freemansfarm 2008-03-26 08:41PM | 0 recs
Cause, maybe,

It wasn't a mistake?

Maybe over 20 years of association, he found more to Wright than you did in 90 seconds of video?

Maybe he's not all about pandering to what you think "white America" expects of his relationship to his preacher?

You're not winning me over with these arguments.

by Ddeele 2008-03-26 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Cause, maybe,

If "white America" doesn't like Black racists, is that a bad thing? Would respecting that dislike be "pandering?" Again, turn it around. If Hillary's "preacher" was a white racist, would she be "pandering" to African Americans if she admitted that it was a mistake to remain in his church and apologize for that mistake. Again, why the difference? Why the Obama rules?

It is possible, despite what some Obama supporters think, for Obama to make a mistake. His attitude reminds me a lot of Bush. Somehow, adnmitting that you are wrong, or that one of your associates is wrong, is seen as weakness.

As for the 90 seconds of video, that is totally disingenurous. Theree is the AIDS thing, there is the drugs thing, there is the Bill and Hillary thing, there is the Italian thing, there is the Farrakhan award. We are not talking about one instance here. And, who knows what Wright said when the cameras weren't running and the microphones were turned off, giving how he seemed to have no scruples about making wild claims and slurs when he knew a record was being made?

I don't expect to "win you over." Candidate preferences are now set in stone, and neither side is likely to give an inch to the other. But it is Obama who has to win over the white voters, if he gets the nomination. Maybe a little humility, for once, on his part, wouldn't be such a bad thing.

by freemansfarm 2008-03-26 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Enlightened

I'll vote for just about any Democratic candidate, and I get a strong sense from Obama's campaign that he was the poor, underpriviledged black child of a single mother who has come to lead America beyond all the divisions that those rich corrupt white people in DC are responsible for.

I know that campaign stuff is BS, you have to ignore that Obama is actually well connected, well educated, and rich, but Rev. Wright did capture that aspect of Obama's message pretty well.

I'll still vote for him if he wins the nomination, but I'm not the working class voter discovering it's all BS.

by souvarine 2008-03-26 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Enlightened

When we get a candidate who is not well connected, well educated, and rich, I'll eat a bug.

by Ddeele 2008-03-26 08:22PM | 0 recs
Every Obama supporter should read this link

http://www.attacktimeline.com/

It is incredible to see it all strung together how much toxic poison has come out of the Obama camp.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-27 04:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Every Obama supporter should read this link

bluestatedude, I just checked the link.

First, no surprise, it's linked to HRC's campaign.  That doesn't make it invalid, but it raises an eyebrow.

Second, I clicked on the a few of the articles at the beginning of the timeline, and several of the labels on the timeline misrepresent the article or the comment.

I'm not disputing that Obama has attacked, criticized, campaigned against Clinton.  I just think this timeline is a little overstated.  Nevertheless, I'm glad you posted it, and I'm going to continue examining it.

by writtenwithoutwax 2008-03-27 08:05AM | 0 recs
Self defeating...

"Diary after diary and post after post of vile attacks on Hillary and her supporters"

Er. Have you ever checked the rec list? The ratio of Obama/Hillary attacks is about 5 to 1. And as for vile attacks...

"Kick 'em out and keep 'em out.Their candidate has crippled himself by his 2 decade long association with a racist, crackpot conspiracy theorist."

In a better world, Jerome would 'weed out' contributors like yourself who stuff every phrase with a name call and baseless assertion, whether they supported Obama or Hillary.

by brit 2008-03-27 04:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Self defeating...

I was referring to posters who do nothing but post horrible attacks on Hillary. Who troll rate all those who dare disagree with them. Whose sole purpose in coming to this site is to "colonize" it for one candidate.

Finally, everything I said about Wright stands, he IS a racist, crackpot conspiracy theorist. Too bad if Team Obama doesn't like it.

by freemansfarm 2008-03-27 05:02AM | 0 recs
Posters who do no thing but post horrible attacks

Look in the mirror, mate

by brit 2008-03-27 06:13AM | 0 recs
Wright's most recent statements

that appear in Trumpet magazine looks less like isolated incidents and more like a philosophy. Obama's newsness on one hand is refreshing, but on the other has a downside where people are forming opinions about him -- his 20 year association with Wright (and Ayers) has become apart of Obama's narrative. This goes to the core of Obama's character and judgment. Obama cannot unring this bell. Wright has hurt Obama and the story is not going away. To ignore this is irresponsible. Jerome is correct and has provided that data to support it.

by grlpatriot 2008-03-26 07:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Clinton's positives are now 37% nationwide.  Pretty, pretty bad.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-26 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Shhhhhhhhh!!!  This is not a "cheerleading site" for either candidate.  Don't you know that we have to get our 2-minute Obama hate on?

by rfahey22 2008-03-26 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Jerome, thanks for pointing out this important change in trend.  

Obama's problems will follow him like his shadow.  Even if Hillary dropped out, his problems will not magically go away.  He can't erase 20 years of his life with 1 speech.

by JoeySky18 2008-03-26 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

And he shouldn't have to "erase 20 years of his life."  Obama did the right thing.  What ever happened to hate the sin, love the sinner?

Sorry, all this faux hand-wringing over Wright is a bit laughable.  Clearly, there is a lot of wishful thinking about Obama becoming unelectable as that is the only path for HRC to get the nomination just like there is a lot of Obama wishful thinking that HRC will just 'do the right thing' and drop out.

<snark> What you guys need is the photos of BO snorting coke off the chest of Spitzer's hooker.  Please fire up yer copies of Photoshop!</snark>

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow 2008-03-26 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I joined Daily Kos a few years ago, to break the Drudge habit, and now that Daily Kos has gone haywire, I'm trying to use this site to break that habit.

Anyhow:

The Wright coverage was the first serious media scrutiny Obama has faced. Of course it was going hurt his poll numbers, at least temporarily.

But the Republicans were going to develop (or serve as distributors of) fake, distorted or exaggerated Obama scandals eventually, no matter what, and we see from the Tuzla sniper frenzy that the Republicans can help amplify (and, presumably, create) Hillary scandals.

Whether Obama is the nominee or Hillary is, s/he has to respond to the media feeding frenzies in an calm, intelligent, reasonable way, but s/he also has to show some backbone. I think that one way candidates can show the are tough is to stand up to media feeding frenzy.

Hillary can't admit her Iraq war vote was mistake, and Obama can't repudiate his pastor or his church. The consequences of them caving on points like those would be worse than the direct consequences of the media feeding frenzies.

Also, McCain might be sailing along right now, but that's because he hasn't ever gotten serious media feeding frenzy scrutiny.

Once reporters start digging into his Senate career, chances are that he will drop in the polls for awhile, and he and the Democratic nominee will be on an even footing for at least a few weeks.

In the end, voters will weigh the fact that McCain is a funny guy who enabled Bush to get away with murder, domestic wiretapping and (in spite of his efforts against torture) torture, against the fact that the Democratic nominee has no military experience but says sensible-sounding things and little to do with the Bush administration's failures.

by sclminc 2008-03-26 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

the Democratic nominee has no military experience but says sensible-sounding things...

What sensible-sounding things?  Abolishing our nuclear deterrent?  Promoting Djibouti and Kenya as the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy?

by He Who Must Not Be Named 2008-03-26 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

The most sensible thing that Obama says is that he's going to listen to people in other countries.

That's a really basic thing, but it's not something the United States has been doing lately.

I think that Hillary Clinton would make a fine president, but one thing I dislike about her campaign is the effort to criticize Obama's suggestion that he would talk to some of our enemies.

If the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff say having a specific dialogue with a specific leader could cause problems, OK, maybe we shouldn't have that conversation.

But, in general, how can saying that we won't talk to X, Y or Z because X, Y and Z are too evil be helpful? If the secretly ambivalent bad guys of the world realize we won't talk to them, what incentive do they have to use means of communication other than violence?

And, OK, Djibouti and Kenya are not the center of the foreign policy universe, but I think that having cousins in Kenya and step-relatives in Indonesia might give Obama useful insights into how people outside the OECD really think.

Finally, are Hillary Clinton and Obama's foreign policy positions all that much different?

It seems to me what they're both really saying is, "We're going to get out of Iraq as fast as we can, but that might not be all that fast; we both will stick up for Israel; we want to reduce dependence on foreign oil; we like windmills; we hate global warming; we want to get along with Europe; we like the theory of free trade but we have problems with some of the real-world consequences, and we have to do something about those; and we will stop doing the obviously stupid things that the Bush administration has been doing (and which McCain has enabled)."

What else can they really say that would be particularly realistic?

Bush, to his credit, spent all of 2000 talking about the importance of avoiding foreign entanglements and nation building. Then 9/11 happened, and all that commonsense went out the window.

by sclminc 2008-03-27 08:07AM | 0 recs
McCain and the media

The media are not going to give McCain any scrutiny, ever. I don't expect his negative numbers to go up based on media coverage. The media love McCain, unfortunately.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-27 04:03AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain and the media

McCain tends to get positive coverage because he, unlike (from what I read) Hillary Clinton and Obama is friendly to reporters. He makes an effort to be nice and responsive.

My understanding is that Hillary Clinton, maybe because of the terrible experiences she's endured, has the world's scariest, most alienating media operation. It sounds as if Obama's media operation is a little more polite but is also weak.

If Hillary Clinton and Obama want better press, they have to turn over a new leaf and try to be more helpful to reporters. Hillary Clinton, in particular, needs to stop having her press people make scary calls to reporters' editors, except in truly extreme circumstances.

On the other hand: McCain has a long legislative record, the contributions to his campaigns are listed at FEC.gov, and he's been a popular public speaker at corporate events for years. Investigating him will be pretty easy, and I think his turn in the spanking machine will probably start once the Democrats choose a nominee.

by sclminc 2008-03-27 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

All due respect, I find the arguments expressed in this post a tad disingenuous. All year Obama has had stronger GE numbers than Clinton in key states, and I heard nary a peep out of you guys about what an electoral disaster she'd be. In fact, most of you were saying again and again that GE polls were meaningless this far out and that we should support Clinton because...well, just because.

Now that Obama is stuck fighting both Clinton and McCain, he's stuck in the worst of both worlds. On one hand, he's being hit by the Republican attack machine such as Hannity and others. At the same time, Clinton supporters such as Jerome, far from pushing back against Hannity, are hitting him too. Then you turn around and say - hey look, Obama's numbers went down, he must be unelectable! Well, no kidding, but after months of contributing to that effort, are you really surprised? What's the end game here?

by animated 2008-03-26 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

And Clinton has been attacked by the MSM, all of her Democratic opponents, and all the Republican candidates. And people run around talking about how high her negatives are. Well, no wonder. But look how well she has done inspite of it. Obama's pastor disaster has nearly derailed him. Obama is a weaker candidate.

by grlpatriot 2008-03-26 07:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

How do you define "nearly derailed?" Going down a couple points in the polls while he's getting hit by both sides? Nearly derailed is more like what happened to McCain last summer. Obama will be fine. It's a natural vetting process.

by animated 2008-03-26 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Obama's numbers were good because the Old Media has been giving him a free ride. There was a little blip with the Rezko thing buts that's about all.

by usedmeat 2008-03-26 08:25PM | 0 recs
If Obama supporters are smart....

they should support Obama and denounce Wright as strongly and vigorously as they can.

I say this as a Hillary supporter sincerely trying to give good advice to Obama and his supporters.

Obama should be distancing himself from Wright everyday unlike what he did in North carolina today.

Maybe Obama is worried that if he threw Wright under the bus then all Wright has to do is give a single network interview and say Obama was there at his controversial sermons.

Maybe this is the bargain Obama has struck with Wright and is therefore stuck with Wright forever.

This bargain is not good for the Democratic party!

by BigB 2008-03-26 07:35PM | 0 recs
You just hypothisized a &quot;deal&quot;...

...and then based your whole argument on it in the same post.

Listen, Wright would never intentionally screw with Obama because they're friends.  You know what those are, right?

Fox and Friends won't let go of Wright, because that's all they've really got on Obama.  By election time, people are going to be so sick of it... and they're going to take so much slack for race-baiting... that it's going to get dropped.

This is, ironically, where Bush screwed his own legacy.  By race-baiting against John McCain's little Bangladeshi daughter in 2000, Bush provided Obama the perfect defense against such smears: McCain would have to condemn such attacks, and not just the half-hearted condemnations like Bush gave about Kerry's swift-boating, we're talking full-on repudiation and defense of Obama, or he looks spineless.

by Dracomicron 2008-03-26 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: You just hypothisized a &quot;deal&quot;...

Fine, you don't like my hypothesis. Your explanation is that they are "friends?"

You didn't address my first point which is support Obama and denouce Wright for the good of your candidate and our party.

by BigB 2008-03-26 08:38PM | 0 recs
No.

They ARE friends.  Friends are loyal to each other.  More than that, they're Christians.  Christians love the sinner, but hate the sin.

You want people to make snap judgements based on inflammatory attack material.

That's wildly short-sighted.

Wright is a good man who has said some dumb things.  The good he's done by far outweighs the bad.

You haven't seen fit to take in that a lot of people look at what Wright has done, and not care so much about a few bad days when he was angrier than usual.  I wouldn't want to be judged solely on my worst day.  Would you?

by Dracomicron 2008-03-26 08:57PM | 0 recs
Lot more than a few bad days

Have you seen what Wright has published on the pastor's page of the church magazine, Trumpet?

It just came out that he published the Hamas Manifesto on the pastor's page.

He referred to Italian-style lynching on one of his comments and suggested that the country is being run by KKK.

I admire your ability to look at everything in context in light of everything Wright is upposed to have done and your ability to talk about sin and the sinners.

Did you do that with Don Imus? Don Imus has raised a lot on money for helping youngsters, autism, and so on. Does that in your mind excuse his remarks on air? Since you are for looking at the totality of a person.

Who else would you apply this criterion to? David Duke? Trent Lott? Strom Thurmond?

This kind of rationalization is a slippery slope.

by BigB 2008-03-27 05:40AM | 0 recs
Oh, come on.

Don Imus... I didn't really make a judgement on him because I wasn't familiar with his show, but it sure looked like he just had a Ferraro moment; it wasn't anything overt about his character.

David Duke is a white supremecist, and the more accurate comparison to him is Farrakhan; both of them can be admired for what good they've managed to do, but that doesn't change the fact that their ideology is reprehensible.  Wright is not like either of them in his overall philosophy or what he teaches.  Wright has some interests in common with Farrakhan, but the Italian people had an interest in common with Mussolini in getting the trains running on time, too.

Thurmond is reaching.  The guy would be okay with slavery.

Trent Lott... Listen, he's a Republican.  I expect most of them to say ridiculously insensitive garbage.  I'll work my ass off to get rid of people like him anyway

I have not read the Trumpet piece, and, from what I can tell, almost all reporting on this is anecdotal from some Newsmax hatchet.  Regardless, studying Hamas and understanding why they do what they do is not wrong or evil or un-American.  If we are going to bring lasting peace to the Middle East, we're all going to have to get past the idea that you can't give a single inch, or that people who resort to terrorism don't have legitimate complaints, no matter how counterproductive their methods of expressing them are.  Time and time again, Israel has approached peace, only to let a new round of inevitable attacks let them slip into their well-worn and comfortable combat boots again.

So no, I have no problem with studying Hamas.  Understanding people is not treason.  The slippery slope is defining when you can and when you cannot reach a hand out to people.

by Dracomicron 2008-03-31 05:48AM | 0 recs
Re: If Obama supporters are smart....

It would seem us black folks will need to move on. We'd make a third party instantly viable.

by RLMcCauley 2008-03-26 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

This is meaningless.  Right now Obama is getting the negative attention while McCain is getting a pass.  There are plenty of skeletons in McCain's closet that will be rattled when the time comes (ie. Keating). He will also get hung for the "100 years", "I don't know much about economics" and the "Bush Hug." Not to mention he is older than dirt. I wouldn't worry about it. He'll get creamed.

Obama is trying to transcend the whole Liberal vs Conservative thing and create a new political paradigm. The Bill Clinton Republican Lite approach is not the only way to get independent votes, which are all that matter in the GE.

This has the opportunity to be a truly transformative election, like Lincoln in 1860 or FDR in 1932, but not with Hillary at the helm. "Liberal" is no longer a four letter word, thanks to that other four letter word in the White House.  

By the way, the only states that matter in the GE are: Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Missouri, Virginia, in more or less that order. Let's not worry about how Alabama goes.  

by MikeWalk 2008-03-26 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Here's what I don't get.  And this isn't meant towards you directly, just that you posted on it, and your the last post right now and I'm too lazy to skim through this.

Yes, McCain has skeletons.  All people have skeletons, and politicians often have more.  The idea that an individual can change politics moreso than politics can change the individual is a fallacy, not for its intent, which is positive, but rather for what politics is, which is an expression of human nature.  

Anyhow, back on point.  What I don't get is this ... why is this the perfect storm (not your words, but others have used it) for Democrats?  Let's leave aside Bush, McCain, and the Republicans for a moment.  Let's also leave aside whether or not a candidate will turn towards the mdidle.  Both HRC and Obama would have to inch towards the middle (Obama in policy, and HRC in rhetoric) to win a GE.

Do we truly believe that the 50/50 split that this country had ideologically at the start of the century has advanced that much to the left?  I'm just not certain (leaving aside, for the moment, the argument that liberalism in America is right of center).  Even if you believe as I somewhat do that part of the problem has been with the seller, and not what's being sold, do we have the evidence at hand to show that the right seller is in place?  For example, the blue collar/rural vote has bedeviled our party for a couple decades now.  There hasn't been evidence that Obama can effectively sell the agenda, and despite the positive climate politically (poor economy), you still need to sell, otherwise folks will move on to other reasons to vote.  Has Hillary shown the ability to attract the far left of the party?  That's certainly very debatable based upon the rhetoric online.

There was that poll last week (or maybe it was 2 weeks ago) that noted how most Americans believe the economy will turn around.  If so, that's a, pardon the language, damning situation, for us.  We aren't going to win an election solely based upon foreign policy, as many are looking to domestic issues and concerns.  Even then, Obama's foreign policy stance is one that I question if it will resonate as strongly as his supporters suggest in a GE.  Nevertheless, if people believe in an economic turnaround, then the domestic sell becomes a harder process.

Anyhow, this isn't meant in an antagonistic way, but rather, I'd love to hear why you, or others, think this election should be a cakewalk.  I'm just not sold.  I think it was going to be close from the beginning, and I still think that way.

by toonsterwu 2008-03-26 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Thanks for the thoughtful response.  

I would suggest you read "What's Wrong with Kansas".  It sets out the basic contradiction that has been plaguing us for several decades (since the "Reagan Revolution"), which is why people in the Heartland(where I live) vote against their own economic interests.  Basically I think it is because they have been duped by the exploitation of their fears and the fact that they can't handle the speed with which society has been changing.

I see that starting to shift now. In our area we had more Democratic ballots picked up for the primary than Republican, and the ratio is usually 2 to 1 Republican. This is despite the fact that here in Illinois Obama was a sure thing and didn't need the turnout. The evangelicals are also starting to decline and many of their voters are casual voters who only went to the polls because the ministers whipped them up over abortion, gay marriage, etc.  I don't see that energy going on this year. We have evangelical churches on every corner around here, and I talk to these people every day. They are quiet and , I think, disillusioned. On the other side, the energy is with the Democrats, particularly Obama.

If Clinton is the candidate, not only will that rouse the sleeping evangelicals, but she will not be able to transcend the Liberal/Conservative dialogue other than by saying that she is not a Liberal (which I think she actually is despite her  
centrist posturing).  When I see people like Pat Robertson start getting on the Liberal bashing horse, I can see Obama shrugging it off and saying it is not relevant any longer and we all have to get together to face up to the tsunami that is headed towards our shores.

When Bush was "elected", I told people not to worry because he would lay bare the bankruptcy of the conservative approach.  Sometimes the best way to defeat the Right is to let them win.  Now I think it's our turn.  Maybe it's a Yin/Yang thing.  

by MikeWalk 2008-03-27 05:40AM | 0 recs
I agree with you that Missouri is important

But, did you see the Missouri numbers that Jerome cited?

by bluestatedude 2008-03-27 04:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...
Bill and Hillary have been in the Old Media's cross hairs for 16 or more years and she is still going toe to toe with Obama.
When the Old Media fully turns on Barak expect to see his numbers plummet.
by usedmeat 2008-03-26 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Can we take this to mean that you're on board with the Old Media?

That they should rule our world?

by Ddeele 2008-03-26 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

No, what this means is it's going to be Obama's turn in the barrel. Once the Old Media realizes this they will do everything in their power to ensure a McCain presidency. Will the Obamatons be up to the task of refuting the shit storm of lies and distortions that will be coming his way?

by usedmeat 2008-03-26 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Okay, I give. I see that Hillary has it all worked out with Richard Mellon Scaife, so she won't have that problem.

If she does encounter the odd oppo-hit from somebody who hasn't gotten the memo, she'll surely have the benefit of the doubt on her side.

It will be a cakewalk.

by Ddeele 2008-03-26 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...
i may need to dust off my tin foil hat, but the fawning coverage of Bo's speech makes me wonder if the corporate media isn't pulling for Obama to seal the nomination because the Gop wants to run against him now.
Maybe not, but nothing in that speech is memorable to me expect that he admitted no error, not even poor judegement, and he brought his grandmother into it, which doesn't sit well with me, at all. Granny was not the source of controversy, now she is branded.
by the Walrus 2008-03-26 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

"Obama didn't deal with Wright correctly (if he possibly could have), and its hurt his standing vs McCain, especially in Red and purple states. If you want to ignore it, go someplace else."

Frankly, I'm not sure we know the answer to this question yet.  The polls you cite, if I'm not mistaken, were taken mostly right around the height of the controversy.  The NBC/WSJ poll that just came out TODAY seems to suggest that he has managed to weather it just fine.

by leshrac55 2008-03-26 08:12PM | 0 recs
As did the CBS poll out yesterday

n/t

by Rorgg 2008-03-26 09:32PM | 0 recs
The Missouri poll

came out yesterday, more than a week after Obama's race speech and almost two weeks since the Pastor's comments came out widely.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-27 03:58AM | 0 recs
Re: The Missouri poll

Sorry, you are correct.  I still stand by my original statement, though, that it's still too early to tell whether he "dealt" with it properly.  Stuff like this takes awhile to settle down again.

I agree, it's not great news for either of our candidates... but I think we'll have a much clearer picture of the hills our candidates will have to climb once we actually have a nominee.

by leshrac55 2008-03-27 11:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

McCain isn't Bush. He doesn't even like him himself and McCain can easily say hey I even ran against the guy its not like were buddies.

McCain is seen as a maverick, a war hero the American people do not view him as Bush.

Unfortunately for us the Republicans nominated the one Republican who might be able to defy the odds and win this year. Romney or Rudy never stood a chance. Right now I say McCain takes the White House and Democrats make gains in Congress. Historically Americans prefer a Republican President and Democratic Congress

by rossinatl 2008-03-26 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

He defies the odds with a big push from the Old Media. Go to Dailyhowler and Mediamaters to read about it. For a blunt assessment read Bartcop.

by usedmeat 2008-03-26 08:21PM | 0 recs
Oh Brave New World

well then as I was saying the other day, Hillary needs to try swimming in the big kids pool and give her speech about race and religion. Obama did it, even Mittens did it.

Considering Hillary wants to stage a hostile takeover over of the Democratic party,more or less merge it with the GOP, make it a subsidiary of Fox, and institute religious tests, well she might just want to let the rest of us in on this big plan for the Democratic party.

by bernardpliers 2008-03-26 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh Brave New World

Funny, I don't recall Hillary's minister making controversial comments about whitey or gays.  

by usedmeat 2008-03-26 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh Brave New World
he isn't just obama's minister.Obama has called him his mentor, his moral compass and his sounding board.
minister is one thing(enough for me), "moral compass" is something else.
by the Walrus 2008-03-26 09:32PM | 0 recs
Obama's Minister - Gay Friendly

He has ordained gays.

So saying that Obama belongs to homophobic church is yet another reverse racist smear.

by bernardpliers 2008-03-27 05:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

While we're flaunting poll numbers......I guess Jerome didn't see the NBC poll out today - Obama beating McCain and Hillary losing to McCain

I guess he DID respond to wright in the correct way

I guess that the only people that want wright to hurt obama are rightwingers and clinton supporters like Jerome on this site

by uscpdx1 2008-03-26 08:28PM | 0 recs
The NBC poll numbers

Don't show anybody beating anybody. All of the head to head results are within the margin of error.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-27 03:53AM | 0 recs
Beeton &amp; Singer

decent political analysis most of the time but you've turned into a DLC cheerleader. A far cry from Crashing the Gate.

Purge away. You'll get even less traffic than you do now.

by RLMcCauley 2008-03-26 08:31PM | 0 recs
Locking the Gates

Sad

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-26 08:31PM | 0 recs
So

What do you have in mind wrt: We're gonna be working over the coming month to instituting some measures to make it more difficult to have an account here at MyDD.?

I'm kinda interested how that will work. Anything you care to share now?

by kaleidescope 2008-03-26 08:33PM | 0 recs
What you are saying

Basically, what you have here is that Hillary's effort to kneecap Obama for the general is working, his negatives are going up and someday they might even be as bad as hers.  Meanwhile, she's still not going to win the nomination in any way that will allow her to win the general, and pretending she's still in this only allows her to solidify her position for her 2012 run against an incumbent GOP.

Spin it all you want, it's still yet more evidence for why Hillary needs to be out of the race, one way or another.

by APoxOnBoth 2008-03-26 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: What you are saying

I think that Hillary brought up the Wright sermons, but the reason the sermon story has legs is that Fox News and the Republicans took the story and ran with it.

Her campaign did the creative work, but the Republicans handled distribution.

On the other hand: this feeding frenzy was convenient for the Republicans because they didn't have to do the hard work, but, of course, when the Democrats aren't giving them material, they'll come up with their own material. If they don't have something meaty, they can always come up with a sequel to the "War Against Christmas" campaign, such as "Why do the Democrats hate Labor Day?" or "Why do the Democrats hate summer?" or something like that.

I think the key is that, no matter how biased some parts of the media will be, the Democratic nominee will get a ton of air time between now and November. The nominee will have plenty of time to communicate directly with likely voters and make a real impression.

At this point, for example, I personally haven't seen much of any one debate, and I've only seen snippets of Hillary or Obama actually speaking on TV.

If that's true of me, I suspect it's also true of many poll participants. One thing that Hillary has going for her, if she's the nominee, is that she's a lot better at public speaking than she used to be, and one thing that Obama has going for him is that he's great on camera. Fox News at all will give him extra time on air just because he's telegenic.

And I think it's also important to remember that the idea of a Democrat coming close to beating Bush in 2004 seemed absurd in 2002. Once Kerry had the nomination, the idea of him beating Bush swung back and forth between seeming impossible and seeming like a done deal.

So, I think the main thing is not to obsess about the polls and whether Obama seems un-American, or whether Hillary bowed her head in Tuzla or simply trudged along, but how the candidates are responding to the media frenzies that do erupt, how they look and sound on camera, how they are finding ways to flesh out policy proposals and convert their ideas into slogans, etc., etc.

If they are fundamentally solid candidates, then they can survive media frenzies. If not, not.

by sclminc 2008-03-26 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: What you are saying
what is this hillary's kneecap efforts stuff. You blame Hillary for Rev. Wright? Blame Obama's poor judgement and poor choices.
if he believes he made the right choice of mentor he is an unacceptable candidate for President.
by the Walrus 2008-03-26 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: What you are saying

The Wright thing is over.  Hillary's supporters clutched at the straw for all it was worth, and it turned out not to be worth much.  I said as much, before it blew over, now it has and pretending otherwise won't change reality.

Nor will Hillary trying to resurrect it distract from her lies (not mis-speaking, she flat-out lied to make herself look heroic) about her trip to Bosnia.

by APoxOnBoth 2008-03-26 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: What you are saying

its not over. people are talking about it from sea to shining sea.
It may be over for the media. at least until the nomination is settled. it may be  over until the gop 527s crank up "GodDamn America" in an endless loop while quotes from Obama calling him his mentor and moral compass scroll past.

seriously, how effective do you think that will be in October?

by the Walrus 2008-03-26 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: What you are saying

Compared to those same GOP 527's running something like this?

Bring it on, and let's get it started now.  They run Pastor Wright, we run Hagee and Parsley, and it all comes out in the wash.

by APoxOnBoth 2008-03-26 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Hillary's efforts? Who did the Reverend Wright minister to? Who stayed in his congregation when he made those comments. Get real.

by usedmeat 2008-03-26 08:39PM | 0 recs
It's unfortunate that MyDD

will just become a pro-Clinton propaganda site. One of MyDD's strengths has been that it has writers open to both Clinton and Obama.

I do find it ironic that McGovern is supporting Clinton.

by AdrianLesher 2008-03-26 08:47PM | 0 recs
Want to face reality?

This "Snipergate" story isn't going away. It will be used over and over again to ridicule Hillary and to symbolize what she is all about. It will be far more damaging than Rev. Wright is to Obama... you may have a point in arguing that it shouldn't be, but when someone makes a ridiculous fool of him/herself like Hillary did in telling that big fish story, contrasted with video evidence of the real story with Chelsea and Sinbad and Sheryl Crow... a story like that is not going to die. It is manna for the wingnuts... a gift that won't stop giving.

And the polls that you pick - I would say cherry pick, but apparently, you find that accusation offensive - have taken place before the legs of this sniper story have caught on. Let's see what these polls look like in another week.

by clawed 2008-03-26 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Want to face reality?

The sniper story is a nothing issue.  It's only important to pundits.  It's not even a wisp of smoke compared to "God damn America" (while working-class people are dying in Iraq) and sermons that Obama sat through saying that "typical white people" are to blame for everything bad in the world.  Stop looking at your navel for a second and try to see what ordinary working people see.

by PlainWords 2008-03-26 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Want to face reality?

So telling a flat-out lie, a complete fabrication, for political gain, isn't going to haunt her?  Not going to feed the "Hillary is completely ruthless in pursuit of ambition, no matter what" narrative?

Face it, she's done.

by APoxOnBoth 2008-03-26 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Want to face reality?

Ha ha.  No lie there.  Her memories were based on the briefing she got.  Read it.

Oh wait, to do that, you'd have to care about the truth.

by PlainWords 2008-03-28 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Want to face reality?
And they say that Obama supporters bury their collective heads in the sand? There was a front page story about Tuzla on almost every single major newspaper website. I didn't see a peep about Wright. Sadly enough, I also didn't see much about 4,000 Americans dead either...
by Rockville Liberal 2008-03-27 04:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Want to face reality?

The Wright connection won't go away.  It's a candidate-killer.  Obama will never be President.  But go ahead, keep supporting him.  All you True Believers are going to be lonely in November.

by PlainWords 2008-03-28 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Just thought I'd post this in its entirety - for the hillary supporters to see that even superdelegates are bothered by her campaign strategy

Making excuses for her doesn't help

From NBC/NJ's Matthew E. Berger
At a time when Sen. Hillary Clinton is increasingly relying on superdelegates to vault her to the Democratic Party's nomination, a handful of undecided and pledged superdelegates are coming forward to say her campaign's tactics in recent weeks are doing more harm than good.

The Democratic Party insiders say they believe Clinton's direct attacks against Sen. Barack Obama in recent days are hurting the party and its chances in November, and also say it is showing a calculated, desperate-to-win side of Clinton that they dislike.

"In looking at the manner in which the candidates are campaigning, I think it would be best they focused their attention on the presumptive nominee and showed our party which one is better in campaigning against McCain," said Garry Shay, a California superdelegate, who announced his support for Clinton.

Unlike some in the party, these superdelegates said they do not believe Clinton should drop out of the race. They said they are committed to the democratic process, and want to allow the states still remaining to cast their ballots. But they acknowledged Obama is the likely nominee and suggested the personal attacks were only hurting the party and its viability.

The Clinton campaign has been actively wooing these delegates, believing a plurality represents the strongest, and increasingly the only, way for her to win the nomination. But one undeclared delegate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the recent tactics are turning her and other superdelegates off.

"I don't think anybody's saying 'step aside,' but 'stop with the garbage' is what people want to say," the delegate said. "Just chill a little bit."

As activists committed to the party, they said, they have been impressed by Obama's ability to bring new Democrats into the fold, and they worry that Clinton is threatening that.

"We like the fact that there is a candidate that has won so many states overwhelmingly," the delegate said. "We're feeling her advisors are leading her in a path that diminishes her as well as him."

Several said they were angered by comments from James Carville, who called Bill Richardson "Judas" for backing Obama after serving in the Clinton White House. One delegate said Richardson's rationale for supporting Obama, and his implicit frustration at the Clintons' heavy-handed approach to garnering his support, was echoed among superdelegates.

Others said they were frustrated by recent reports that Clinton embellished her description of landing in Bosnia as First Lady, and said it suggested she would do anything to win. "I don't remember what movie I saw two weeks ago; I don't necessarily remember what I had for dinner last night," one superdelegate said. "But I would remember having to duck and run from sniper fire."

The final straw, though, were Clinton's comments Tuesday, when she said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright "would not have been my pastor." Several superdelegates saw it as a direct, personal attack on Obama.

"I think it's very dangerous for any candidate to constantly thrum on what they perceive as sensational criticisms of their opponent," said Debra Kozikowski, an uncommitted superdelegate from Massachusetts. "I would be more likely to respond positively to discussions of issues that effect Americans versus what might be perceived as character flaws."

Clinton campaign officials said Clinton's comments were a direct response to a question she received at an editorial board meeting and suggested personal attacks have gone in both directions in the primary race.

The party activists said they have been receiving calls from members, a majority of whom want them to support whoever has won the popular vote. Many superdelegates are themselves elected by the Democratic Party and believe most will follow the will of party members for the party's future, and their own viability.

And they say they are not buying some of the Clinton campaign's explanations as to why they should support her, whether it is her victories in large states, primary states or those likely to go Democratic in the November election.

"Periodically, over the last couple of weeks, you will see a news story or get something from the campaign, and you'll go, 'How stupid do you think I am?" one uncommitted superdelegate said. "All of us watch television all the time, read the newspapers. We all play with the little charts online too. We know it is virtually impossible."

One delegate said the Clinton campaign is "using Jeremiah Wright to scare white people."

"A full and fair debate about issues and differences and even fights is good," the delegate said. "Mud slinging, personal attacks and lying is never good for any political fight or party. And I see a lot of that coming from one side more than the other."

The delegates said there is little the party or its leaders can do to prevent the current back and forth. But some said they were increasingly in touch with Clinton campaign officials to say their support is in jeopardy.

"Uncommitted delegates can come out and say, 'If you don't stop this now, we won't vote for you,'" one uncommitted superdelegate said.

by uscpdx1 2008-03-26 09:15PM | 0 recs
What does the first sentence of this post mean?

I have been trying, fruitlessly, to understand it.

by marchingorders 2008-03-26 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: What does the first sentence of this post mean

The first (actually second) sentence means that it has been difficult to convince Obama supporters that he is in trouble, both in the primary and general election.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-27 03:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

It's only going to get worse for Obama, but he did it to himself.  Even with the free ride he's gotten from the media and the trashing of Clinton, Obama has managed to shoot himself several times.  

The Rev. Wright thing is the worst, and we haven't even seen the full damage yet.  Right now the media is offering him a pillow, but if Obama is the nominee the Repubs will play the Wright tapes over and over, along with his early denials about never having been there when those things were said.  Then they'll play the video of him saying well maybe he was there.  And then they'll use the stuff about how he and Wright discussed whether he might have to deny their connection.  All of this will come off -- rightly -- as very calculated and dishonest.  It's the sort of thing that makes ordinary people hate liberals.  It will be particularly damaging for a candidate who has marketed himself as the candidate of change.  His whole campaign will just seem cynical, even as the pundits keep trying to push it on the public.

It's no statistical sample, but I've heard some lifelong Democrats -- especially women who have no time for politics because they're too busy taking care of the kids or doing church work -- tell me they're thinking about McCain.  They've heard about Wright and the "typical white person" and they don't like it.  Couple that with the trashing of Clinton -- especially Obama accusing HER or racism! -- and they're angry.  When Obama and his liberal apologists try to gloss over it, that only makes it worse.

And I've thought about myself in this too.  I've never voted for a Republican.  Yet I've gone from feeling I could support either one (or Edwards) to feeling like it might be better if the Democrats lose, not because I like McCain but because I think the party hasn't learned its lesson yet.  The race-baiting and Swift-boating of Clinton by the Obama team, the sneaky tricks of Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, MoveOn..., the nastiness of the people over at DailyKOS and so many other phony "progressives," the punishment of Florida and Michigan when it's really the DNC that made the mistake with a rule that was insanely stupid in the beginning... I just don't want to be on the same team with those people, especially with a racist candidate at the top of the ticket.  Obama won't just have problems with Independents.  He'll have problems in his own party!

Putting it in plain words, I don't like these people.  Why should I vote for them?  It sounds bizarre, but at this point, if Clinton doesn't win, the only way out for the party might be a convention deadlock and then a compromise, on Edwards.  Either that, or it's President McCain.

by PlainWords 2008-03-26 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Awesome. Please explain that to the families of the soldiers that will die under President McCain. Lead with the part about how the Democratic party needs to learn its lesson about proportional punishment for violations of primary scheduling rules.

Then you can segue gracefully into how the half-white/half-black candidate was an America-hating racist by reading them the full 'typical white person' quote:

"The point I was making was not that grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society. We have to break through it, and what makes me optimistic is you see each generation feeling a little less like that, and that's powerful stuff."

Acknowledging current racial divisions while remaining optimistic about our power to improve relations over time? That bastard. It's clearly worth a few thousand more flag-draped coffins to put him in his place.

by Brannon 2008-03-26 10:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Clever.  But dishonest.  Obama has played the race card from the beginning.  He has deliberately stirred up racism.  If you want to blame someone for putting McCain in office, then blame Obama.  Most Americans will not vote for a racist, and Obama is one.  And blame yourself, for being an apologist for him.

And by the way, I am offended by the "typical white person" statement.  The context does not make it okay for him to slander all of us just because he doesn't think much of his grandmother.

As for additional war deaths, that is your cheapest shot of all.  In the first place, McCain is the last person to throw away lives in war.  He has been in one.  And despite McCain's silly statement about a 100-year war, you don't know that the war will last one day longer with McCain as President than Obama.  In fact, it's Obama who is the phony about the war, because he is telling the public one thing while his advisors are saying that he really doesn't mean it.

by PlainWords 2008-03-28 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

The crux of your response is that you think McCain should be President. That's fine, that's your opinion. You're a Republican and that's pretty much how most Republican's feel. They have their own blogs and everything. You should go find one.

by Brannon 2008-03-31 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I'm not a Republican and have never voted Republican.  Nor do I want McCain to be President.  I want HRC to be President.  I think you are looking for a place to blog where everybody agrees with you.  You should go find one.

by PlainWords 2008-04-01 01:51PM | 0 recs
How has the Tuzla fantasy uproar

affected Hillary's ratings in those same states?  When will numbers come out for that so we can make a before and after comparison?  It's still a-bubbling.  

Somehow I think it might be more damaging to have a scandal that reflects poorly on the stated raison d'etre of your campaign than to have a scandal based on statements made by your pastor.  It might anger and frighten white southern bigots to hear Jeremiah Wright shouting the N-word, but at the end of the day, the fact remains that Obama said none of those things, and this is guilt by association.  

But, of course, Jerome's point doesn't go to the issue of whether or not it's fair to blame Obama for any of this.  His diary is meant to say that this thing is "out there" now, so no matter how tangential it is to Obama and his campaign, it's going to hurt him, so we have to talk about it, (poor Obama) and since we have to talk about it, it's going to hurt him.

Except... the poll numbers don't really show that, do they?  These are interesting state matchups, but the latest polls released today show Hillary has been more hurt by the Wright controversy than Obama.  Her favorability numbers have declined to the point where they are actually lower than the people who favor her for president in the poll!  Which leads one to wonder, why would they support her if they don't approve of her?

by Dumbo 2008-03-26 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: How has the Tuzla fantasy uproar

For all of us who couldn't support her because we didn't trust her, the Hillary supporters we were just beinf misogynist, or echoing the GOP Hate Machine smears.

Well, here it is: She lied, repeatedly.  She elaborated on the lie over time.  When put on the spot, she repeated the lie with additional embellishments.  And now that the video evidence of the lie is presented, she "mispoke" and "was tired".

No, she lied.  For nothing but a petty political point to shore up her questionable "experience" resume.  And now she's trying to lie about the lies.  So, why were we wrong to distrust her?

by APoxOnBoth 2008-03-26 10:24PM | 0 recs
Two rebuttals

I would take issue with you on two points:

1. There is a poll out yesterday showing very similar favorability ratings problems for both Obama and Clinton -

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/overall_favorable_ratings_ for_presidential_candidates

Obama 46% favorable, 51% unfavorable
Clinton 44% favorable, 54% unfavorable

Looking closer at these numbers - Clinton's are about where they were in mid-February. Obama's are trending worse and worse.

2. In the poll you mentioned, which I presume is the NBC/WSJ poll, Obama and Clinton are at 45-45 in voter preference which trumps the favorability issues and shows a dead heat.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-27 03:44AM | 0 recs
Thank you for strengthening standards

I am one of those who fled kos. These days I admire the courage of anyone writing a diary because the personal attacks they engender are pretty disgusting.

by ellend818 2008-03-26 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I was so mistaken. I thought the slide of Obama vs McCain that's happened the last half of this month actually could be understood without having to spell out more than one of the lopsided results without claims that it was cherry-picking.

I thought it was obvious to everyone who follows politics that polls 8 months before an election are meaningless.

They're only good for making bogus arguments about electability -- the fools way of deciding who to support since it can only be guessed how others will vote months from now.

by Kobi 2008-03-26 10:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I always say ... look at the scoreboard ... Winners win ... and losers don't ... There are always some mitigating factors to deal with but by and large the premise holds true. In a head to head competition the better candidate with the better message and the better skills will win. If you haven't seen John McCain's latest attempts at major policy speeches on the tv I suggest you start looking for them on U-Tube. These things are going to be classics. Now put him in a debate forum with a Harvard type Law Professor. It will take a shear act of self deprivation to cast a ballot for the dinosaur.

by hgs3 2008-03-26 10:46PM | 0 recs
Scoreboard includes FL and MI

and the Harvard law professor was never a professor-- guess who just had so much fun with that?

Karl Rove.  Expect more of that.  Because what with the anti patriotic stances of the Obamas and their pastor, plus the exaggerations of a thin resume Obama is in trouble in a GE.  

Obama the Great Debator?  Not so much?  I won't be unkind, but he's not the world's greatest debator.

Lastly, if he doesn't agree to seat FL and MI delegates soon or come up with a way of having their votes heard he'll be flushing Dems down the toilet.

Winning by losing?  Winning by not counting?  It's illigitimate.  Better get to the bargaining table.

by chieflytrue 2008-03-27 12:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I think what Jerome is trying to say is GO BACK TO KOS YOU TOXIC CULTIST OBAMABOTS!  Or something to that effect.....

by BlueDoggyDogg 2008-03-26 11:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I joined Red State once. It was back when I was defending John Kerry and the nasty attacks he was enduring. As a Vietnam Veteran I was just concerned about media distortions. Anyway I was very polite and pressed what I thought was a well reasoned and rational argument with absolutely no animosity towards those who follow the Red State message.

They banned me ... They do not want to hear anything contrary to their beliefs. I changed my screen name and joined again. I used the same arguments worded even more politely and they Banned me again.

I have concluded that conservative is just another name for frightened pussy. They see Commie Islamo-facists behind every bush, and they have the gaul to label Liberals soft, what a bunch of wimps

by hgs3 2008-03-26 11:09PM | 0 recs
Jerome, thanks for your &quot;concern&quot;

by bigdcdem 2008-03-26 11:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Jerome,

It has been really dissapointing to see your posts become so biased towards Hillary's campaign.  You can pretend that you are not a 'cheerleading' blog for a certain campaign.. in fact it seems accurate.  It is more like an attack dog against a candidate.  

The fact that you are now clinching down on the process of getting accounts should really open your own eyes about what is happening.  This was once a forum for dialogue about Democratic politics.  It has increasingly become a one-sided frontpage diatribe about why the race should go on and Clinton can still win it.

For the sake of the Democratic Parties chances in November, please take a moment to step back and accept that someone has to lose this race, and all of the signs point to Obama winning.  It is fine to continue the election and see if things change, but please don't try to tear down the excitement and enthusiasm that is building around Obama's campaign when it is going to be all we have to root for come November.

You can cancel my account if you want to, but it doesn't seem to be the way things should be run based on what this site once was.

by jbsloan 2008-03-27 02:19AM | 0 recs
biased?

What about Jerome's analysis of the current polls is biased? If you are going to make a serious charge like that then you should back it up with a substantive argument. For example, do you have another take on the Missouri polling that Jerome discussed, which is newly released polling? Do you have a link to other current polls that tell a different story?

by bluestatedude 2008-03-27 03:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Why don't you go over to DailyKOS and complain about the Obama bias in the DailyKOS cesspool?  MyDD is fair and civil.  I dare you to answer me!  Have you complained about the bias at DialyKOS?  If not, then you are a fake and a phony.

For the sake of the Democratic Party's chances in November, YOU should take a moment to step back and accept that Obama is a deeply flawed candidate who cannot win the general election.  Jerome and people like him are trying to save the party from disaster.

Think about it.

by PlainWords 2008-03-28 01:02PM | 0 recs
PA should be a good test of this

If Republicans and independents are really turned off to Obama post-Wright, he should get really demolished in PA. In OH, pre-Wright, he lost 55-45 and got a lot of Republican crossovers. If he gets <40% in PA, it could be a sign of unelectability, having lost a good part of his coalition.

by techfidel 2008-03-27 02:20AM | 0 recs
For the Record - Illegitimi non Carborundum

I very much depend upon this site's open and committed support of Clinton to keep my support of Obama as realistic as possible. My official line is that there are things about each that I like and things about each that I don't like. My official line continues that I am from Illinois, I support Obama.

I do not fear for my continued good graces at this site. My main concern is for the health of the front-page posters in the face of emotion laden criticism of their Clinton openness and support.

Keep up the good work you do. Do what you need to do in the short run to maintain your perspective and energy.

Illegitimi non Carborundum!

by Jeff Wegerson 2008-03-27 02:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Of course, we have not even begun to go negative on McCain, and his signature issue, Iraq, is going South again.  His numbers will go down.  From what I have seen thus far, he is a seemingly tired, unintelligent, uninspirational campaigner on the stump.

But I do believe Pastor Wright is Obama's Achilles heel, and superdelegates will be weighing that.  Remember that the nominal close second in this race would probably beat McCain.

by Bob H 2008-03-27 02:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

The Republican slime machine has not even greased its engines yet on the Obamas

And yes they will go after Michelle too just ask Hillary about that

by rossinatl 2008-03-27 02:59AM | 0 recs
I agree, Jerome, please clean up this web site

I came over here with Alegre after being disaffected with Daily Kos. I have noticed a growing trend in the past week or so of comments on this site becoming more and more personal, overly sarcastic, flippant, and generally not contributing to intelligent debate. I hope the MyDD site will address the issue you raised head on as you stated:

"We're gonna be working over the coming month to instituting some measures to make it more difficult to have an account here at MyDD. I'm sure there's many places on the web where people that having nothing better to do than attack other users will be welcome, but not here."

This site is still much better than the mudslinging Daily Kos or the radical conservative sites like Newsbusters. But, let's not let the site deteriorate and become hijacked by meanness.

by bluestatedude 2008-03-27 03:05AM | 0 recs
Missouri is particularly interesting

Obama narrowly won Missouri vs. Clinton, but now Clinton is outperforming in that state in head to head match ups vs. McCain.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/missouri/election_2008_mis souri_presidential_election

McCain 53, Obama 38
McCain 50, Clinton 41

This is striking because it refutes what the Obama people have been saying - that Obama's wins in primaries early in the process are going to translate to wins in November. Part of this is undoubtedly that the political landscape has shifted as a result of the Pastor Wright flap. The previous Obama voters in states like Missouri are having buyer's remorse. There are newly released statements from Wright that Fox News has been covering since last night about smears against Italians. If the mainstream media picks these up, it will certainly be damaging. Clinton needs to stay in this race!

by bluestatedude 2008-03-27 03:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Missouri is particularly interesting

But Clinton won the CA primary and the latest polling there shows her performing worse against McCain than Obama does (46-43 versus 49-40). So is that not also "buyer's remorse" according to this logic? Personally I think a few points difference in polling in MARCH is not worth getting too excited about one way or the other, especially when the picture is so mixed - a few points more to Obama in some places, a few points more to Clinton in others.

by al1 2008-03-27 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Jerome, I applaud you for your fairness on this blog.  You have given Hillary hell from time to time (which is as it should be), but don't hesitate to judge Obama on his merits and on the political realities, either.  That is a rarity in the progressive blogosphere these days.

Is there a link where I can donate to keep you up and running?  I believe in supporting reality-based blogs.  

by WMCB 2008-03-27 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Jerome,

Don't the polls you quote also show that Hillary Clinton has been even more hurt over the last two weeks?  Why is that trend excluded from your report?

Including that trend changes the narrative from Wright hurting Obama to the in-fighting hurting both candidates.  I think we need to be more precise in identifying what is driving the numbers.

Thanks!

by cwsaterfield 2008-03-27 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...
'These are just red states, of course...'
A pretty important caveat, I think. As someone else commented, who cares how well Obama and Clinton are doing in Alabama? - they aren't going to win there in the GE anyway. A serious discussion about the polling evidence for electability would be concentrating on the swing states, and even Missouri with a -10 defeat in 2004 is scarcely in that category. Ohio, yes by all means, but then let's also consider other states like Colorado and Iowa where McCain looks much more vulnerable against Obama than against Clinton. On my read his underperformance against Clinton is only really a problem in OH and FL, and I'll accept there is some evidence she would have a better shot at turning these two blue than Obama. But by the same token I think Obama has a better shot of turning CO, IA, NM, NV and VA. Overall I don't think the polls make a strong "electability" argument one way or the other, quite apart from the fact that we're still more than 7 months from the GE anyway. And rather than speculating about what effect this or that incident (such as Wright or Bosnia) might have, why don't we just look at favourability ratings, which surely are the best measure? In the polls just out for CA and CT, Clinton has net NEGATIVE figures - and that in 2 of the bluest states around. Frankly, if she were on the verge of becoming the nominee, I think this alone might be inducing a good deal of "buyers' remorse"...
by al1 2008-03-27 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

I can't imagine, with these numbers, that the SD will select Obama over Hillary. I just can't believe our party will chose to lose.

by JFK464 2008-03-27 07:48AM | 0 recs
Hillary is now doing worse than Obama v McCain

Even in California.

"If the 2008 presidential election were held today, likely voters say they prefer Barack Obama over John McCain (49% to 40%), while a race between Hillary Clinton and McCain would be closer (46% to 43%)."

PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp ?i=802

Obama stronger than Clinton in California
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/pol itics/blog/2008/03/obama_stronger_than_c linton_in.html

New Clinton Lows in New Poll - MSNBC
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/03/26/821438.aspx

Hillary on FOX, Burning Down the Democratic Party
(you'll have to click on "Hillary Clinton" once the page loads)
http://tinyurl.com/2yuczw

"You can always go to the convention. That's what credential fights are for.  Let's have the Democratic Party go on record against seating the Michigan and Florida delegation three months before the general election. I don't think that will happen.  I think they'll be seated. So that's where we're headed if we don't get this worked out."

There's nothing like pouring gasoline on someone's home to endear them to you?  I'm sure super delegates like Pelosi, Gore, Dean, and Edwards will love being threatened like this.

by Todd Smyth 2008-03-27 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

If Obama is the nominee, the Democratic Party will take a loss of epic proportions.  It will make the huge losees by way of McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis pale by comparison.

We in Ohio knew that Obama was toast after primary night on March 4.  If the media were not so eager to fawn over Obama and thus ignore his negatives, they would have noted that this primary result was the big story of the year.

Why?  Ohio is a very key bell-weather.  Only once wrong (JFK in 1960, when he had LBJ and a rock-solid Democratic South at his side) in one hundred years!  And Barack Obama did dismally--not just failing, but failing dismally--losing 83 of 88 counties, many by more than 60%.

We in Ohio, living not in Obama World but in firm reality, knew then and there that Ohio would never be in his column come the fall.

What is even more astonishing is the fact that his primary losses on March 4 occurred BEFORE the flap of the Wright videos.

When those videos surfaced, many of my Ohio friends, like my own family all inveterate Democrats, collectively proclaimed that our party was done-for.  We know it would be back to the political wilderness for the Democratic Party after 2008.

Obama, despite his fawning media and huge campaign war-chest, was always going to be extremely risky.  He was, and remains, widely unknown, as to both his past and his less-than-palatable affiliations.

But now he would represent a party, most of whose own core constituents (aside from African-Americans) have rejected him.  And he would emerge a nominee who did far better in Republican Red State America than in Democratic Blue State America.

Such a nominee is without precedent in Democratic Party history.  Supposing John McCain had lost key Republican states like South Carolina, Texas, and the key bell-weathers of Florida and Ohio?  How would Republicans feel about putting up such a standard-bearer for their Party, if his rival had triumphed in key Republican regions and he had not?

After March 4, it was Obama, and not Clinton, who should have been universally viewed as toast.

The reason the drum-beat is still for Obama is quite simple: the MSM wants the death of the Clintons.  After that, its smooth sailing for the GOP for many years to come.

The Clintons taught the Democrats how to win, win again, and govern successfully from the center.  If Democrats themselves now want to trash their own last twice-elected President in favor of a still widely unknown, unvetted Freshman Senator from Illinois, so be it.

Karl Rove, Roger Ailes, Russert/Williams/Matthews and the gang have spent sixteen years attempting to do what the Democratic Party itself would do if it nominates Obama--rejecting the Clintons.

I yet believe that Hillary will endure and triumph.  Both her own and her husband's epitaphs have been written repeatedly for many years.  Yet they have always astonished their critics.

The Democratic Party can follow the ways of losers like Howard Dean, John Kerry, Bill Bradley, Ted Kennedy, and company, or go with the winners--the Clintons.

If their own party wants to trash them, I strongly urge (and millions of us will be strongly urging) that they bolt the party and run independently.

An independent run by Hillary will instantly make her the strongest independent candidate in American history (at least since Teddy Roosevelt bolted his party in 1912), and her scores of supporters will follow her.  

And unlike Teddy Roosevelt, she has a very good shot at making the Presidency.  Many core Republicans aren't particularly enthusiastic about John McCain, and aside from African-Americans, most core Democrats have no enthusiasm for Barack Obama.  Obama is very much the candidate of Red State and Fringe State cross-overs and indies--but not of bedrock blue America.

And just as Mike Gravel has left the Democratic Party, so will scores more be leaving, having felt insulted by their party's own trashing of former President Bill and First Lady Hillary Clinton.

Whatever Barack Obama's "movement" is, it does not resemble anything myself or my family--sixty years Democrats who have never voted any other way--want to be associated with.

Senator Obama won't carry Red State America--wherein he has done best in the primaries and caucuses.  He won't carry my native Ohio.  And forget about Michigan and Florida--he elected to disenfranchise those states a long time ago.

I would advise my fellow Democrats to likewise leave this bizarre party that would choose a freshman Senator, ignoring the reality of his inevitable landslide loss in November.

If Hillary Clinton isn't given the nomination, an independent run by her would be best for country itself, now in shambles since the end of the Clinton years.

It may not be much better with John McCain, but at least he hasn't trashed the Clintons.  At least there is  a maturity in John McCain, borne of heroism in war and long political campaigns.  

Obama's path to the presidency is by way of a few "present" voting Senate years by way of the Illinois State Senate--no non-African-American candidate would have been considered for the presidency with so little experience.

And Obama's group hates the Clintons much more so than any Right Wing noise machine did in the worst days of Impeachment.

I know that most of us Clinton folk will feel very proud to have the first woman AND independent President of the United States.

by lambros 2008-03-27 08:25AM | 0 recs
Can everyone just STOP ...
... patrolling sites looking for comments to flame and just read the diaries for what they are? A lot of diaries ARE in fact candidate shills, but some are not, including this one. Jerome is really not trying to say "vote Hillary because Obama is tanking." He says very clearly that Hillary is tanking in these red states just as badly, and nowhere does he try and make a case for Hillary over Obama. What he's saying, very clearly in my opinion, is that Wright has hurt Obama pretty mortally in these red states. Not as bad in purple states like Ohio, where he can easily still win. Since Obama, and his supporters, have been trying to make the case the his candidacy puts all sorts of blood-red states into play, I think it's a completely fair point. Look, the very first prerequisite for effective, winning campaigns is to see things clearly and objectively. It's why campaigns poll. No campaign is without flaws that have to be corrected in this way. It's clear that, whatever the complex impact of the whole incident (Wright plus Obama's speech) in blue and purple states, and in the Democratic primaries in general, it has cost him a LOT in red and reddish-purple states. To the point where those are off the table now. That's not catastrophic for him, and certainly won't cost him the nomination, but it's reality. Accept it or just go work full time for the Obama campaign. Either is perfectly noble.
by ColoradoGuy 2008-03-27 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

So chief HRC-cheerleader Jerome Armstrong wants to look at the latest polls at RealClearPolitics, so let's have a look:

March 27th:

Oregon (Rasmussen)
Obama +6
Clinton -6

National (NBC)
Obama +2
Clinton -2

Connecticut (Quinnipiac)
Obama +17
Clinton +3

California (PPIC)
Obama +9
Clinton +3

March 26th

Missouri (Rasmussen)
Obama -15
Clinton -9

March 24th

National (Rasmussen)
Obama -10
Clinton -10

National (Gallup)
Obama -1
Clinton -3

North Carolina (Rasmussen)
Obama -6
Clinton -16

Nevada (Rasmussen)
Obama +4
Clinton +1

Washington (Elway)
Obama +6
Clinton -3

Minnesota (Rasmussen)
Obama +4
Clinton -1

National (Fox News)
Obama -1
Clinton +3

New York (Quinnipiac)
Obama +11
Clinton +10

So except for a poll in MO (where both are trailing significantly) and one national poll (from Fox News), Clinton is not doing better in ANY poll, not even in her home state. To concede that Obama is "doing fine" in blue states is quite an understatement since Clinton is losing Oregon, Washington and Minnesota according to these polls.

I will not take these polls as proof that Obama is a stronger GE candidate (even though I think he is), because I simply think that GE polls in a time when one party's primary is settled and the other's isn't are quite meaningless. But to spin the latest poll results as somewhat doom for Obama (esp compared to Clinton) is more than a strech.

by micha1976 2008-03-27 10:42AM | 0 recs
OK - bye bye Jerome

I've had an account on MyDD for longer than I can remember. However, apparently my differing opinion on Barack Obama and his chances against McCain has led Jerome to tell me to "go somewhere else".

Okay, already. I will cancel my account and remove MyDD from my Favorites list. I've had it with Jerome's irrational knee-jerk anti-Obama reaction to any and all presidential political news. This is stupid. Jerome - if you want me to go, I'll go.

by robin oz 2008-03-27 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Nothing to see...

Jerome has gone way over the deep end. His hostility and resentment towards other Democrats and progressive is boiling over.

Once people's ego's get so tied up in supporting a candidate that they can't step back for a minute and  think about the big picture, it makes for bad commentary and not much of a community. Since about 80% of the well educated liberals who populate sites like these are Obama supporters, Jerome's irrational anger towards all Obama supporters is going to cripple this site in the long run.

by andrewbellinger 2008-03-27 04:37PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads