The Clinton Talking Points

I whole-heartedly agree with Jerome's point in yesterday's "Deal With Defeat", but I don't think he took it far enough. Yes, Obama supporters should be prepared to lose West Virginia (as well as Kentucky), but so too should Clinton supporters be prepared to lose the nomination.

Jerome is right. Clinton is going to do well in West Virginia, and blindly accusing that state of racism doesn't make any more sense than blindly accusing North Carolina of sexism. Truth be told, this is one Obama voter who is happy to see Clinton pushing hard in WV and Kentucky. Assuming both candidates are capable of running positive campaigns, I welcome sending them to states Romney and Giuliani didn't even dream about. We are registering millions of new Democratic voters, and if Obama and Clinton can focus on McCain rather than on each other, the remaining primaries will be wonderful opportunities for our party.

But even if Clinton wins landslides in WV and KY, this nomination seems just about locked up. As far back as March 21, Clinton advisers were privately putting their chances at a mere 10 percent. If it was just 10% all the way back then, what is it now that North Carolina and Indiana have spoken and the superdelegates have turned?

I am sympathetic for Clinton's supporters. I've been on the losing side myself - Howard Dean and John Edwards in 2004, and Joe Biden in 2008. There's a reason I call myself an Obama voter rather than an Obama supporter. It hurts, but reality is reality, and none of the remaining Clinton talking points make sense. You've heard most of the arguments before, but I'd like to sum them up in one post.

  • Clinton will win the popular vote once MI and FL are settled: There are three things wrong with this argument. First of all, it assumes that not a single person in all of Michigan supports Obama. Real Clear Politics has Obama up by about 846,801 without those two states and up 113,498 with them, but that latter figure does not give Obama any of Michigan's "uncommitted" vote. If you're determined to count every vote, you certainly can't ignore a full 200,000 voters. Second, the results of those two states are in no way reflective of this campaign. If my memory is correct, Indiana is the only state where both candidates have aggressively campaigned and Clinton's lead has not narrowed (or disappeared altogether). This pattern would no doubt have held in MI and FL, where no campaigning took place and Obama's name recognition had not yet taken off. A true reflection of those state's sentiments would certainly lean towards Clinton, but probably by a narrower margin. And third, even if you assume Edwards did as well as Obama and award him only half MI's uncommitted vote, he still picks up 119,084 votes and leads Clinton by well over 250,000. Do we really think that WV and KY will net her that many votes? To put it in perspective, Pennsylvania didn't, and it has a larger population than KY, WV, and PR combined. Throw in Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota, and I can't see Clinton catching up.

  • Clinton is more electable because of the big states: As before, there are three things wrong with this argument. First of all, it's just silly to claim no Democrat can win the White House without Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida. If you want to bind us to the electoral map of 2000 and 2004 for the rest of time, perhaps you'd have a point, but the map has changed before and it will change again. Obama took swing states like Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Virginia, and North Carolina, and he's likely to take Oregon. These swing states matter, too. The second problem with this argument is it contradicts any notion that the popular vote matters. If you want to argue for the popular vote model, you can't obsess about Ohio and Florida while ignoring Louisiana, Idaho, and Mississippi. The Clintonistas are trying to have it both ways. Finally, primaries test only the Democratic electorate, and so hardly predict general election results - does anyone really expect Clinton to win Tennessee in November by 13 points, or McCain to swamp California? By this logic, Bill Clinton should have lost New Hampshire in 1992 and John Kerry should have won Iowa in 2004.

  • Clinton is more electable because of Obama's scandals: It's certainly true that the Jeremiah Wright scandal received more coverage than the sniper fire story, and that Obama's "bitter" comments dwarfed Clinton's elitist inability to pump gas. The last few months, however, are hardly the standard by which to gauge coverage of the coming election. Obama had the decency not to bring up Whitewater, the 1994 health care debacle, or the candidate's spouse's extra-marital affairs, but the Republicans won't be so kind. Yes, Clinton can argue that those scandals are old news, but that won't matter as long as they are THE news. I guarantee that Republicans will harp on her past as much as they will Obama's, reminding voters what they didn't like about the 1990s. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming this is a good thing or that it helps Obama; I offer this only as a counter to the Clintons' talking point. The Wright scandal and "bitter" remarks are certainly powerful, just no more so than the equally unfair coverage Clinton will receive.

  • Clinton is more electable because Obama can't close the deal: Of all the Clinton talking points, this is the one I am probably the most sick of. Thank God it has largely faded since NC. As recently as February, Clinton had a 20-point lead in national polls; today, Obama leads by 2. A year ago, he was an afterthought and she was inevitable - yet we're supposed to believe that because he can only gain 22 points and become only a slight frontrunner, he's not good enough? How exactly is this an argument for someone who LOST 22 points? Isn't Senator Inevitable the one who can't close the deal against the young upstart? The latest reincarnation of this argument is that a frontrunner should be able to win WV and KY - perhaps, although I wasn't aware they'd changed the definition of "frontrunner" to "the candidate who wins every single state."

    I don't want Clinton to drop out. Unlike some of Obama's other voters, I don't despise her; she's done impressive things in New York and Washington. I do, however, want her to apologize for implying that the superdelegates should take African Americans for granted, but once she's done that, I'm thrilled to have her go on to WV and KY and register thousands of new voters. This race should be settled on June 5, not May 11 - but just as Jerome wants Obama supporters to be cool about WV, so too should Clinton supporters be cool about the popular vote, the pledged delegate lead, the superdelegate lead, and the Michigan uncommitteds. Last year we kept talking about our abundance of riches and our wonderful slate of candidates. That's still true, folks. These are the same people we had running last year, with the same potential.

  • Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, big states, Electability, Hillary Clinton, Kentucky, president, West Virginia (all tags)



    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    Great diary. Thanks for refuting these talking points in one location. I too have no desire to see Clinton drop out early as long as her campaign can keep things positive.

    by upstate girl 2008-05-11 01:09PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    thanks texan for a respectful thought out diary. even though i support hillary to the bitter end i appreciate your kind words. not the hillary hate i read on most blogs on the net.

    by terrondt 2008-05-11 01:26PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    Ditto on this, which actually includes the one point  I think the diarist didn't cover.

    No one is saying Sen. Clinton absolutely must drop out immediately. What people are saying (and ideally should never have had to say) is that Clinton should refrain from saying or doing things that can't be taken back and only hurts everyone involved. This isn't to point fingers or say who did or did not go negative and when they did it, but reality being what it is we're at a point where negative campaigning won't win the primary for Clinton, and the only effect of going that route will be to alienate potential Democratic voters in the fall and remove Clinton's ability to help the general Democratic cause if Obama is the nominee.

    It's entirely possible for Sen. Clinton to campaign hard, stand up for what she believes in, and be competitive every last day of the primary season without saying or doing anything that will turn people off of Obama or make her appear a hypocrite when she campaigns for him if he is the nominee.

    by werehippy 2008-05-11 01:27PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    There are a few who want Hillary to drop out - Pat Leahy and George McGovern come to mind. I'm with you on what should happen, though.

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-11 01:29PM | 0 recs
    by minnehot1 2008-05-12 06:58AM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    Yep.  Sen. Clinton is down by three touchdowns with :45 to go in the fourth and Obama with the ball.

    You can't fault her for continuing to play every snap, but if she tries to injure the opposing QB there's a problem.  Thus far, since NC/IN, she seems to be campaigning more positively; I sincerely hope this trend continues.

    by mistersite 2008-05-11 01:29PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points
    Hopefuly, your diary can be the starting point of the healing process.
    She should stay in agreed, but it would require her not to do the negative campaigning that she is good at, and it will be difficult for her. In particular , I am not impressed with this latest tactic of her saying that Obama can't appeal to 'white, working class voters'. Especially in WV, wheren they tend to go Republican.
    by xodus1914 2008-05-12 06:16AM | 0 recs
    I'm not sure what to say

    I really didn't expect to come here and find that diary on the front page. If MyDD could exhibit more of this kind of measured reasonability, it would regain a good deal of its credibility.

    Nice work. Hope to see more from you.

    by bookish 2008-05-11 01:16PM | 0 recs
    Re: I'm not sure what to say

    Thanks for the encouragement! I'm a weekend frontpager, and owe that privilege to Jerome. I would post diaries during the week as I used to, but alas work has caught up with me.

    This place'll be as rational as any blog once we move to the General Election, I'm sure of it. :)

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-11 01:22PM | 0 recs
    Extra good to know

    that it's a fellow Texan keepin' it real.

    by bookish 2008-05-11 02:40PM | 0 recs
    Re: I'm not sure what to say

    I sure hope so, watching this primary from abroad, I sometimes think everybody has lost his/her mind. :-)

    by Johannes 2008-05-11 03:02PM | 0 recs
    Re: I'm not sure what to say

    REGAIN credibility?  PLewase come down from Planet Obama.

    This is about the only blog WITH ANY credibility left.

    by dembluestates 2008-05-12 09:16AM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points


    by obamaovermccain 2008-05-11 01:17PM | 0 recs
    Refuting talking points...
    If Hillary is to apologize for imply that Super Delegates should take AA voters for granted, then who is going to apologize to working class, rural white folks on behalf of Obama's campaign for not trying to get their vote? Actions speak louder than words and Obama's complete lack of campaigning in in rural NC and IN is as much of an insult to those folks as anything Hillary might or might not have implied. Who is going to apologize or rather win back the rural vote in NC to turn that into an acutal swing state, as we would all like it to be?

    We cannot, absolutely will not win in the general election if we do not carry PA, FL, or OH- those are the facts- it has never happened before. Having to work for votes in PA is not a position we should be in and yes, if Obama is the nominee, he WILL have to work for it there- what a waste of time!
    by linc 2008-05-11 01:18PM | 0 recs
    Re: Refuting talking points...

    Obama won plenty of rural areas in NC.

    by parahammer 2008-05-11 01:21PM | 0 recs
    Re: Refuting talking points...

    parahammer quoted:Obama won plenty of rural areas in NC.

    I sure hope he can carry North Carolina in the General Election--otherwise, we're in tttrrrouble.

    by Check077 2008-05-11 01:25PM | 0 recs
    Re: Refuting talking points...

    He has a better shot than Clinton.

    by parahammer 2008-05-11 01:26PM | 0 recs
    Re: Refuting talking points...

    Yeah, he will lose PA, OH, FL, and MI. Some other states that he will lose are MA (Massachusetts) in the Fall. Yeah, it's a shame the media henchmen have basically slammed Hillary on the concrete slab--even while she bloodily regains her composure. Ah, what shoud I do this fall: Write Hillary's name on the ballot, sit on my hands, vote third party, vote only down ticket, or Vote McCain. Well, the last one could be tough--but the first four are pretty viable options among myself and other Hillary supporters.

    by Check077 2008-05-11 01:31PM | 0 recs
    Re: Refuting talking points...
    OK so you want McCain in Nov. Too Bad.
    I would vote Clinton were she to get the nom.
    by parahammer 2008-05-11 01:33PM | 0 recs
    Re: Refuting talking points...

    PA, OH, FL, and MI are swing states so I can't argue either way with those but MA?  Seriously?  The people's republic of Massachusetts?  Not going to happen.

    by Gene In PA 2008-05-11 01:43PM | 0 recs
    Re: Refuting talking points...

    At the end of the day, I just have a hard time seeing the American people wanting to elevate Republicans to majority status after the last eight years of turmoil.  Republicans can argue all they want about how Barack Obama and Democrats are undeserving of being elevated to majority status, but that doesn't mean the public believes that John McCain and Republicans are deserving of it, either.

    by Brad G 2008-05-11 02:00PM | 0 recs
    Re: Refuting talking points...

    You are seriously delusional if you think McCain will win MI & MA.

    by Brannon 2008-05-11 02:56PM | 0 recs
    Re: Refuting talking points...

    Check077, this is Houston, come in Check077.  Obama has zero chance of losing Massachusetts, and he currently outpolls Clinton against McCain in Michigan.  

    More to the point, the election is a hair under six months from today.  Do you remember the state of the race(s) six months ago?  Clinton was leading Obama among African American voters.  Giuliani and Thompson were the golden boys of the GOP.

    Further, in the summer of 2000, a hearty percentage of McCain supporters said they wouldn't vote for Bush, but most did.  It's simply inane to make declarations about the GE from polls six months out.

    by deminva 2008-05-11 07:21PM | 0 recs
    Re: Refuting talking points...

    He has no chance whatsoever.

    by doyenne49 2008-05-11 03:06PM | 0 recs
    To make it a swing state?
    I don't think so. He wouldn't have won if AAs hadn't voted for him 92-94%. This is the democratic primary, the only way we win in NC in the general is by pulling those rural voters. AA voters could turnout 100% and vote for Obama 100%, but that would only make it a close race- we need the rural working class white voter as much as we need the AA voter- thats what is being missed in all of this and it is not, absolutely not a good thing.
    by linc 2008-05-11 01:25PM | 0 recs
    Re: To make it a swing state?

    The only way to win in the general is to pull in independents.

    by parahammer 2008-05-11 01:27PM | 0 recs
    Re: To make it a swing state?

    A black vote is as good as a white vote and he ended up winning the whole thing by 13 points. Your argument only works if the majority of the white people that voted for Hillary are now going to go over and vote for McCain. An energized Democratic base of white AND black voters makes North Carolina competitive for Democrats.

    by wengler 2008-05-11 01:30PM | 0 recs
    lets start by not trying to make me into a racist. The demographics in NC are such that rural white voters, no matter how large the AA turnout in NC, will be the swing vote in the GENERAL. The fact that Obama only won by 13 points in NC is bothersome- it means, that in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, the only way he won was by driving out the entire AA voting block. Its primary versus general, there is a difference.
    by linc 2008-05-11 01:35PM | 0 recs
    Re: OK

    It's a problem that Obama only won by 13 points? How many primaries has Hillary won by 13 points?

    by Brannon 2008-05-11 02:59PM | 0 recs
    Re: OK

    I won't call anyone a racist, but it would be a sad commentary on  Democrats and their party if they chose a nominee based on the pigmentation of skin -- whether of their candidate or some voters.

    But fortunately, and proudly, Democrats have rejected such a notion in choosing Obama.

    by Kobi 2008-05-11 03:02PM | 0 recs
    Re: Refuting talking points...

    There's a huge difference between not campaigning somewhere and verbally stating that because you won the white vote, you should be the nominee. That said, I completely agree with you that our candidates need to campaign aggressively in rural areas, and it's a shame the Obama campaign didn't push their rural efforts as hard as the Clinton campaign did. The counterargument, however, is that it shows Obama knows how to win - his strategy paid off, and Clinton's didn't. In fact, most of the rural NC towns Bill Clinton vited actually went to Obama.

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-11 01:24PM | 0 recs
    Her point is that she won
    the Reagan Democrats and there fore should be the nominee. It guarantees us OH, PA, AR and probably even FL and WV. Thats the win in November right there. It could put TN and KY into play- this demographic that she is referencing IS the swing vote in OH, PA, AR and sometime TN and KY. Its a great position for the party to be in starting the general election and it gives the party the ability to go after some other states in the fall. If Obama has to spend a good deal of time campaigning in OH and PA, then it is going to be a close one come November...
    by linc 2008-05-11 01:32PM | 0 recs
    Re: Her point is that she won

    And Barack Obama's point is that no person's vote is morally superior to another person's vote -- whether the person is black or carries a confederate flag in the back of his/her pickup truck; whether the person speaks English or just speaks Bush; whether the individual prays every Sunday morning or solely just before math tests; etc.  That has been the crux of his candidacy.

    by Brad G 2008-05-11 01:57PM | 0 recs
    And that's a great moral point
    I wish morals were what won elections in this country.
    by linc 2008-05-11 02:05PM | 0 recs
    Re: And that's a great moral point
    Since when do Reagan Democrats become so important  to us? Do they ever vote Democratic?
    Aren't they really just Republicans now?
    Do they hold true to Core Democratic values ? Because Reagan sure as hell didn't!
    by xodus1914 2008-05-12 07:37AM | 0 recs
    Re: Refuting talking points...

    As far as NC voting is concerned - the game is played along the I85 and I40 corridors. If you follow I85 where it enters NC from SC and follow it up to Durham and then follow I 40 from Winston Salem to Raleigh. You will hit 75% of the population that live within 1 hour of each of those interstates.

    As far as this primary is concerned, Obama won almost every single county that touched on those interstates and the top 10 counties by population. The biggest difference is that in the rural areas where Clinton won she won the white vote by 80%+. In the urban areas, Charlotte for example, Obama won nearly half the white vote. So while anyone who wins NC would like to do well everywhere those middle corridors are where the action is.

    by southerndemnut 2008-05-11 02:10PM | 0 recs
    Re: Refuting talking points...

    I think Hillary put herself in a position where she can't take the African-American vote for granted.

    Obama has a strong activist base across all 50 states. Clinton has several empty spots on the map. You know if Obama can be competitive in places like Texas and North Carolina, then even if he loses those people will have the experience of being able to see that they might be able to make a difference someday in their one-party states.

    It is extremely depressing to live in an area under one-party rule with that party being the opposite of yours. If given the option to be able to campaign in 50 states or only 18 what would you do? The first time the Democrats actually employed this strategy it was worth 6 Senate seats and over 30 House seats with absolutely no defections. Isn't it good to try it again?

    by wengler 2008-05-11 01:26PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    Uh, that's funny, because I read some of Jay Coast's diaries and come away with a completely different understanding of what could transpire in the coming weeks. But--oh--I guess an occassional hyperbole from an Obama supporter is to be expected. Keep in mind that most Hillary supporters--thankfully--are not reading the blogger's version of junk mail these days. However, I do respect your effort in trying to have your cake and eat it.

    by Check077 2008-05-11 01:20PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    The big State argument is also faulty for assuming things stay as they were on Primary day - California a perfect case in point.  In fact, Obama won California if you only count the votes cast on the day of the Primary.  Hillary's edge was as a result of early voting. And a recent poll showed that if an election were to be held today Obama would beat Clinton statewide.  

    by Piuma 2008-05-11 01:22PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    Yeah, there was a SUSA poll last week showing Obama ahead of Clinton by 6 points in California(I'm not sure why a CA poll was conducted, but it was). The difference is explained primarily by a large shift among Asian-American voters as well as white men.

    by DPW 2008-05-11 01:32PM | 0 recs
    West Virginia isn't racist

    West Virginians look for comfort and generally find it in the familiar.

    So when faced with a couple of politicians, they will go with the one most familiar to them.

    This is one of many reasons Hillary will win resoundingly, and has done so in Applachia.

    by Walt Starr 2008-05-11 01:23PM | 0 recs
    Re: West Virginia isn't racist

    That, and the fact that Obama isn't really campaigning there. As I wrote above, everywhere he and Clinton have both campaigned (except Indiana), her lead has been cut or erased. I'm sure she'd win a contested WV, but not by the thirty points she's got now.

    You should add Don Cazayoux to your sig line.

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-11 01:27PM | 0 recs
    Re: West Virginia isn't racist

    I've actually heard much the same thing about PA. Off the top of my head, no state wide or national official has won their first time on the ballot in PA in decades.

    Does anyone know if this is a more general Appalachian trend, or just a weird fluke of these two places?

    by werehippy 2008-05-11 01:30PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    Can we get past this narrative that Obama supporters despise Hillary. We don't. I don't. I/We just think Obama is a better candidate. Yes passions are displayed and it can get rough. But there's no animosity coming from the majority of us towards her.

    So those few, yet loud, assholes that are either here to cause trouble or don't know how to win gracefully should be seen as such. They don't represent the majority of us.

    And as far as all the pundits calling for Hillary to get out. They are Obama supporters either. You won't see anybody from the Obama camp calling for Hillary to get out of the race. So get mad at the media. Not Obama.

    by recusancy 2008-05-11 01:32PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    There is Senator Leahy from the Obama camp...

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-11 01:36PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    What about him?

    by recusancy 2008-05-11 01:39PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    You wrote, "You won't see anybody from the Obama camp calling for Hillary to get out of the race."

    Leahy's a high-profile long-time Obama supporter who has said just that. George McGovern has also called for Hillary to drop out, but he's a new supporter, I'd hardly say he speaks for the campaign, so I only point to Leahy instead of both.

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-11 01:47PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    Well... I guess there are a few. But he called for her to drop because she was still attacking Barack.

    Either way the campaign says she should stay in as long as she wants. And I agree.

    by recusancy 2008-05-11 01:58PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    I'd like to say I don't despise Hillary.  And truth be told, I probably don't, but I have to say that this campaign has certainly pushed me in that direction.

    I went into this Primary season supporting Hillary.  I was hoping that Obama didn't run, because it felt to me that the better tactical move for the Democratic Party was to run Clinton now, and Obama in 2016 (I still think that, and part of me wishes Obama would have waited).

    The problem is how Clinton has conducted her campaign.  From trying to restrict voting locations in Nevada, to Bill's day-and-night transformation from an asset to an asshat, to her insulting insistence that the bogus FL/MI "elections" count, to the most recent gas-tax pander, to her continuing to use overtly racially polarizing language even in the wake of her door-slamming results last Tuesday....I've grown to really, really resent her and what she's done during this Democratic Primary.

    Of course, Obama (and more specifically his campiagn) aren't choirboys either, but he's been FAR more subdued and has generally taken the high road, for which I respect him greatly.

    So no, I probably don't "despise" her.  But she's got a lot of fences to mend before I'll ever be an ardent supporter again.

    by ChrisKaty 2008-05-11 02:07PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    Amen.  I've always been great supporters of both Clintons.  But this campaign has been just....unreal.

    The Michigan issue really gets me.  How the Clinton campaign can make a 360-degree switch from agreeing with the DNC's penalties, to insisting that Michigan's voters cannot be "disenfranchised," just sickens me.

    The fact that HRC can insist, with a straight face, that she should get the votes from Michigan as-is, even though Obama wasn't on the ballot, is absolutely stunning and appalling.

    by erzeszut 2008-05-12 08:29AM | 0 recs
    Awesome diary, Carnacki.

    Very well thought out and even handed.

    Bravo.  Truly a breath of fresh air on the front page here at DD.

    by lojasmo 2008-05-11 01:33PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    If you dont like MyDD and the people here then leave, for those Obama kids go to Daily Kos. Stop Complaining!

    by bsavage 2008-05-11 01:37PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    I was at MyDD before the Clinton Kos boycott, and I'll be around after. I see your first diary is from this February - over a year after I wrote mine. This blog is even older than Daily Kos, and was never designed to be a Clinton echochamber. This is a blog for all Democrats, no matter who they voted for in the primaries. It's good to see you here, welcome, but don't expect to find a place devoid of dialogue.Besides, since when is "disagreeing" the same as "complaining?"

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-11 01:45PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    I think you want this site instead. MyDD is a Democratic blog, not Clinton central.

    by upstate girl 2008-05-11 01:46PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    I've been here for four years. This will be my seventh presidential election so I'm hardly a kid (heck, my kid isn't even a kid anymore).

    by Gene In PA 2008-05-11 02:42PM | 0 recs
    Democrat First or Second?

    This indeed IS a good diary. The Democratic Party is LUCKY to have had such a strong and spirited primary season albeit one with a few bumps. As with any contest - there will be a winner and a loser. It is a measure of the winner's deft touch to not gloat and likewise the other to not be a sore loser.

    In the spring of 2005 I opined on this very blog on a front page article how we basically had to accept Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee and what that meant. Then and up until the fall of 2007 virtually everyone assumed that Hillary would get the nomination and the primary season would be rather a formality. Of course that was not to be. I don't need to go into the details of the how and why (as we just lived through it) but the point remains that anyone who assumes anything in politics is likely to come up short.

    Who would have guessed that Obama - who burst onto the national scene with that eloquent speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004 - would slay the First Lady of Democratic politics. Who would have thought that Hillary Clinton - oft described as the Barbra Streisand of politics - would become the new standardbearer downscale white voter angst and become the 'conservative' candidate.

    Such as the life in politics - again one who assumes is one who is likely to get burned. I myself started out as an Edwards supporter (no surprise given I live in NC and supported him since his first ran for the US Senate in 1998) then eventually got on board with Obama once the NC primary approached. I write this not as an Obama supporter but rather as someone who is ready to get it done in November. Too many times the Democrats have been accused of picking poor candidates (I was not in love with Kerry nor Mondale nor Dukakis) but this year we were blessed to be able to end the primary contest with two of the most able candidates the party could have produced ever.

    The key moving forward is to bring us together and not concentrate on who voted for whom. It is true that NC went heavily for Obama and it is likely that WV will go heavily for Clinton. Does that mean there is anything wrong with that? Absolutely not, but the bigger question for all of the primary voters past and present and future is are you a Democrat first or second? I am a Democrat FIRST and can proudly say that I have voted for every Democratic Presidential candidate since I was eligible to vote. I am hopefully that that viewpoint will be shared by ALL who participated in the process especially those who are registered Democrats. The Democratic party will not prosper until ALL Democrats come together regardless of whom they supported.

    So the big question is are we going to stand as Democrats and win in November? Or stand aside and spout and spew what ifs and what could have beens. Well?

    by southerndemnut 2008-05-11 01:44PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    Well, maybe someone should take the talking points seriously, but I'm not quite sure why.

    The storyline is playing out with strong parallels to the 1976 primaries and General.  I'd point out that the person who came in third, who took his fight all the way to the Convention, was painted as absurd toward the end.  And was behind on delegates and lost easily on the Convention floor.  But then smoked the competition in 1980.

    The parallels between Obama and Jimmy Carter are getting painfully obvious.  For now, Obama supporters think that's a good thing.

    by killjoy 2008-05-11 01:53PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    The 1976 primaries and General- es_presidential_election,_1976

    It should be pointed out that Carter faded rapidly after the 1978 midterm elections.  He also had the wonky sorts on board, and a lot of people who believed in him as a Southern conservative, Christian, racially reconciling, bipartisan, anti-war, etc.

    He was always technically in the right, but ended up always being politically in the wrong because his analysis of things was never historically deep enough.  He usually resorted to moralizing rather than understanding that compassion required tolerating, going along with, and helping out people in the wrong.

    by killjoy 2008-05-11 02:02PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    All fair arguments, but for me, the big difference between the two is Congress. One of the main reasons Carter was such an ineffective President was his rocky relationship with Congress. Obama, on the other hand, has the backing of the Senate's number two man, Durbin, as well as chamber lions like Ted Kennedy and, though it clearly doesn't count for as much anymore, Tom Daschle. He himself is a Senator, wheras Carter was a Governor. Additionally, Obama spent far more time doing legislative work in the Illinois State Senate than Carter did in the Georgia State senate. Much of what hobbled Carter once he got in office just doesn't touch Obama.

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-11 02:16PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    Ive always felt Carter got hobbled by two things which really had nothing to do with party dynamics but were more cultural and world event dynamics which no president would have been able to effectively counter in the short term - Iran Hostage Crisis and the Oil Embargo.

    Gas lines and US citizens being held hostage.  Two things that Carter really couldnt address in the immediate with simple slogans and answers which as the sitting president he takes the blame for (rightly or wrongly).  The US got caught up in new world issues it wasnt prepared for.  We had the cold war down and in place but these two issues were where the US had gotten fat and lazy and got caught, rightfully, flat footed.  We 'didnt expect' anything like this (outside of really, really insider wonky foreign affairs and intelligence people).  So this changed the mood of the country and it was down from there.  It made us look more impotent on top of our already sour mood from Vietnam.

    I would imagine without these events Carter would have fared much better (dont know if he would have won a second term, but he wouldnt have been viewed as such a 'failure').

    Ive always felt Carter is unfairly maligned.  Maybe he wasnt the right man at the right time, maybe he wasnt a great president, maybe he just needed a bit more time, but I see him as a victim of things outside of his control and he paid for it.  Its the way it is.

    by pattonbt 2008-05-11 07:08PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    Patton, I think most folks would agree that Iran and the economy brought Carter down, and that he had little to no influence over either. However, he did not display the confidence or optimism Americans look for in a leader. Psychology matters, it can effect results (especially on economic issues), and Carter failed to give us the leadership we needed. Reagan was the opposite - terrible policies, but he knew how to lead people.

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-12 04:13PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    True, I didnt think about that aspect.  Psychology has such a huge impact whether it be rational or not.  Carter just didnt have the charisma and overt leadership skills to pull it off.

    Sad, because I always really liked Carter and have respected him most out of all the ex-presidents of my lifetime.  I always hate to see how much he is maligned.  Granted, some of the criticism is justified, but he should not be looked upon as some albatross as some would make him out to be.

    by pattonbt 2008-05-12 05:52PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    "I am sympathetic for Clinton's supporters. I've been on the losing side myself - Howard Dean and John Edwards in 2004, and Joe Biden in 2008"

    I think this is worth emphasising because I think it goes to the heart of why some of the current Obama supporters have trouble sympathising with the indications of how some Clinton will react when she withdraws.

    I also was a Biden supporter. When he withdrew I transferred my support to another candidate without brooding over the 'unfairness', the 'if onlys' of his defeat.

    Perhaps the expectations of many of the Hillary supporters were higher than many of us who originally supported Biden etc. Even so, if we can suck it up and move on, if we have dealt with defeat, the Hillary supporters can/should do the same when she withdraws.

    (part of my assumption is that former Biden, Edwards etc supporters disproportionately switched to Obama, current Obama supporters are more likely than Clinton supporters to have successfully come to terms with 'defeat')

    ((and yes, I did 'predict' the withdrawal of Biden and Edwards before it was actually announced))

    by My Ob 2008-05-11 02:11PM | 0 recs
    On vetting

    About this point: "Clinton is more electable because of Obama's scandals"

    You're correct that Republicans will make Hillary's past front page news, but I think this is missing half of the story. The Clintons have eight years of business deals and connections made through Clinton Global Initiative that have been largely ignored, between 2000-2008.

    Now I'm certainly not implying that any of these connections are remotely shady or even worth mentioning, but it doesn't matter. Republicans can and will blow anything out of proportion, and harp on it endlessly. Nominating Hillary doesn't insulate us from this.

    by s5 2008-05-11 02:19PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    "Obama had the decency not to bring up Whitewater, the 1994 health care debacle, or the candidate's spouse's extra-marital affairs, but the Republicans won't be so kind. Yes, Clinton can argue that those scandals are old news, but that won't matter as long as they are THE news."

    This is an underappreciated point: Obama has been remarkably restrained about this stuff. We haven't heard a whisper about Marc Rich or Clinton's last-minute pardons, no criticisms of who the Clintons have been making money from during the past few years, none of that Lincoln bedroom nonsense, nothing about the Democratic health care debacle. And it could all have easily been brought up with the sorrowful "Republicans will use it in the fall" line.

    The primary was nasty at times but it could have been so much nastier. Maybe this is because of enlightened self-interest on Obama's part, because he calculated that Democratic voters wouldn't stand for it. Or maybe he just didn't want to run that kind of campaign. Whatever it was we should all be glad for it.

    by vinc 2008-05-11 02:27PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Electoral Map

    Texas T  your claim that he can win the general without FL, OH, or Pennsylvania is absurd at best.  Obama needs two of three to win the General election.  N.C is a dream that will end in a nightmare even if he gets 100% of the A.A vote. And VA is a solid GOP state (not unless Warner was on the Ticket.)  

    by nzubechukwu 2008-05-11 02:40PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Electoral Map

    It's time to think beyond the discredited 14 state strategy of the hidebound DLC.

    by Kobi 2008-05-11 02:42PM | 0 recs
    Warner on the ticket

    Uhhh ... Warner will be on the ticket.  He's running for the Senate.  And Kaine and Warner and Obama and Webb will be going around stumping for the Democrats throughout the Old Dominion.  I think folks will be surprised by VA this fall.

    by DailyKingFish 2008-05-11 02:59PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Electoral Map

    Obama won't need two out of three.  Provided he wins New Mexico, Iowa, and Colorado (all of which were close states in the past and Obama polls well in), he can lose OH and FL and still win the election.  

    It's harder without PA, but it's possible.  I think Obama will ultimately win all Kerry states, CO, NM, NV, and IA, though he'll have some shoring up to do in MI and PA.  I can't see it argued that he is a weaker candidate there than Gore or Kerry were, so I can't see how he could lose states that were won by Democrats consistently since 1992.  

    by telephasic 2008-05-11 04:03PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    It's good to see a front diary say what we peons have been saying all along.

    by Kobi 2008-05-11 02:41PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    I'm but a peon myself, who got promoted through sheer dumb luck. ;)

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-11 02:51PM | 0 recs
    Re: Kobi

    Kobi quit fooling yourself.  Look at the recent polls in Missouri, Florida, and Ohio where Obama is trailing McCain.  Once again it will come down to Ohio because Florida seems out of reach...

    by nzubechukwu 2008-05-11 02:49PM | 0 recs
    Re: Kobi

    You have zero credibility after predictions like this one: 247/25940/44#44

    by Brannon 2008-05-11 03:06PM | 0 recs
    Sorry but

    "I do, however, want her to apologize for implying that the superdelegates should take African Americans for granted"  - is a bunch of garbage.  The Clintons have never taken AAs for granted but Obama has no such equivalent track record with women or poor whites, or I dare say AAs.  

    I really disagree with what you have written and seen it as more of the same from Obama supporters.

    by Molee 2008-05-11 03:01PM | 0 recs
    Re: Sorry but

    The Clintons have a great track record on issues important to the black community, but I think her recent USA Today quote is exactly that, taking them for granted:

    "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

    If you look through my diaries and comments, you'll find I'm hardly a gung-ho Obama supporter. He was my third choice, and I chose him with great reservation only after Biden and Dodd dropped out.

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-11 04:02PM | 0 recs
    Just a polite askance..What was the point
    in referring to Clinton supporters as Clintonistas?
    I was enjoying reading the diary but then this in the third paragraph threw me off.
    by louisprandtl 2008-05-11 03:13PM | 0 recs
    Re: Just a polite askance..What was the point

    I meant nothing by it, and if it offends, I'll change it.

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-11 04:04PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    I certainly agree about the partisanship of not counting the uncommitted vote in Michigan as largely being votes for Obama. This isn't a guess. There was a huge campaign to have Obama supporters vote uncommitted. It is there in black and white. Why should those votes be uniquely ignored while Clinton supporters (not Clintonistas or any other demeaning name) insist on all favorable votes be counted for Clinton? The rationale that Senator Clinton has used for the counting of Michigan and Florida votes has been the fundamental unfairness of not counting millions of people's votes. Why would Clinton supporters dirty that argument by the hyper-technical argument that Obama's name wasn't on the ballot (obeying party rules) when they can see the video and read the news coverage of the massive and successful effort to have Obama voters vote "uncommitted."

    One larger point. Clinton supporters have repeatedly been asserting that Obama will be unable to win the votes of certain white voters. Some white voters will never vote for a black candidate. There is residual racism in America, and to be afraid to speak about it is foolish. However, the larger argument about the white vote is that Obama will be unable to make the economic arguments that Clinton has been making.

    There are at least two responses to this argument. First, any objective observer of the primary season has to realize that Obama entered as a relatively unschooled candidate. But watching him has been amazing. He learns new skills every day. He is a better debater than at the beginning. He has broadened his appeal. He has been tested by weeks of fire from Senator Clinton and her husband, from McCain and for some of that time from Rev. Wright. He has gotten stronger and more supple through all this. And he has Senator Clinton to thank. Her battle with him has taught him a world of skills and focused him. He will be far stronger in the GE for it.

    The other response is this: Obama's greatest strength in the early days of the campaign was his stance on the war. The war then faded from first place in the people's concerns. Take a look at recent news from Iraq. There is a very good chance, unfortunately, that the war is going to become more prominent in the coming months as the lull created by the surge fades away.

    by anoregonreader 2008-05-11 03:44PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    The latest reincarnation of this argument is that a frontrunner should be able to win WV and KY - perhaps, although I wasn't aware they'd changed the definition of "frontrunner" to "the candidate who wins every single state."

    I'm not a big clinger to this argument, but think I kind of see where it's coming from: if it's true that Hillary has zero, zilch, nada chance of winning at this point (which seems to be the general or at least most pervasive agreement among the media, Obama supporters and even some Hillary supporters since May 6th), it does seem kind of illogical that she's on the verge of winning two states by some of her largest margins to date. If this really is "all over" shouldn't those large margins in WV and KY be narrowing? (Now, I guess we haven't had any polling coming out of those states in the last few days, so it may very well be tightening up, but the general consensus around here seems to be that she'll win by large margins in both states despite the media, most Obama supporters and a lot of Hillary supporters saying "it's over.")

    If it really is so "over" why would so many people still vote for her?

    (I understand that this argument is based on voting that hasn't even happened yet, but I'm basing it on assumptions you agree with in your post: that Hillary is going to win WV and KY by large margins.)

    by forecaster15 2008-05-11 03:47PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    I think the reason her margins in WV aren't narrowing is that she is campaigning aggressively there wheras he is not. With that kind of a local environment, if her campaign fails to INcrease her margin, that will say something.

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-11 04:05PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    Sorry, but there is nothing illogical about it. Look back at past campaigns. Many candidates had their nomination sewn up and still lost primaries to favorite sons or regional favorites. It is simple. A front-runner is not the same thing a someone who wins every single primary.

    by anoregonreader 2008-05-11 04:51PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    I was commenting more on the "largest margins to date" part than the winning at all part. I understand that someone could win a contest even after everyone has decided they're done for, what I'm noting is that with everyone crowning Obama the nom I would've thought that her margin in W.V. would  narrow a bit even despite his lack of campaigning there.

    by forecaster15 2008-05-13 01:32PM | 0 recs
    Re: Brannon

    WOW, talk about digging in the crates guy!  I guess 60% is 10% off of my prediction!

    by nzubechukwu 2008-05-11 03:49PM | 0 recs
    Re: Brannon

    1 more thing Brannon, you claim "I have no credibility"  I guess you can say the same thing about Survey USA and ARG who had the same internal demographics.

    by nzubechukwu 2008-05-11 03:58PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    This is a great diary.  I couldn't agree more.

    by chewie5656 2008-05-11 05:05PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points
    For big state argument, I really don't see any Democrat can win the White House without Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Florida. The Obama people keep talk about CO/VA strategy. I am not sure about CO, but for VA, I rally doubt Obama can carry VA. All those Democrat won VA in recent year are conservative Democrat(pro-gun, pro-life). Obama is so not "conservative democrat". His chance on VA is really slim.
    If we want to win on Nov, let's keep it real.  
    by peartree 2008-05-11 05:20PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    I think one or more of those states will be either necessary or at least heart-attack-preventing for the General Election, but I think Obama will pull at least one of them once the GE starts - probably PA, judging by my family's reporting on how he was received in central PA.

    All of the current poll numbers are speculative; until we unify behind a single candidate, those numbers will be off by a bit on the low side.  And until we start hitting McCain hard on his supposed strengths, we won't see what his real level of support is.

    Further, we cannot continue to look at the same Electoral strategy that has failed us in two elections; we must broaden the number of states we can win and reach into areas that have not voted for the Democratic candidate recently.  To do otherwise is to give the Republicans a narrow target area to blanket with their attacks and propaganda.  In a year when we have a fundraising advantage, we should be on the attack, not the defense.

    by Phoenix Rising 2008-05-11 06:20PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    As a black woman, I am offended that people think that Hillary Clinton played the race card when stating the OBVIOUS.  She is winning the core of the Democratic Party... White, working class, union, religious men and women.

    That's racist?  Obama is getting 90+ OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTE!  And somehow that's not racist???  Oh come on.  If you think black people are voting for Obama based on his decades of experience and legislative achievements, then you are delusional.

    Again, it's about making Hillary out to be something she's not.

    I agreed with Harold Ickes:
    Hillary is better than her campaign

    by stefystef 2008-05-11 06:27PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    That's absurd. Nobody calls white people racist when they vote at greater than 90% rates for a white guy--why would we call AA's racist for voting over 90% for a black guy?

    As an Obama supporter, I think that 90% of everyone should be voting for him. Looking through that lense, the question isn't "what's wrong with AA's?", it's "what's wrong with everyone else?". See how different perspective leads to different conclusions?

    Now clearly there is some identity politics going on here--but we should apply the same standards we apply to white voters. It's only racist if you are voting against someone--not for someone. And even the most cynical Hillary supporter would not honestly say that AA's are voting against her, they are just excited about Obama.

    by Brannon 2008-05-11 10:12PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    You must be a republican troll. 611/86463/93

    Anyone who would LEAVE the democratic party and vote for McCain is either a troll or was never a democrat to begin with. I find it hard to believe that a AA woman would put abortion rights into jeapordy.  (read all of her past comments). I am starting to believe you are really not really a Hillary supporter, as she has said numerous times vote for a democrat in the GE.

    by susu1969 2008-05-12 07:50AM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    I'm not saying it's racist to win certain segments of the vote, or to point out who you're winning. I am saying it's taking black voters for granted to suggest that whoever the whites vote for should be the nominee, blacks bedamned, as she implied to USA Today last week. It's not that she said she's winnign that vote; it's that she said that vote is more important than a majority of votes or the AA vote.

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-12 04:06PM | 0 recs
    Decent diary overall...

    It might help to be more objective though.

    Pennsylvania netted Hillary 210,000 votes with a 9.2% margin of victory in a closed primary.  Heavily lopsided margins as we're expecting in Kentucky, West Virginia, and possibly Puerto Rico produce enormous shifts in the popular vote.  Mississippi is a great example, having yielded over 100,000 votes for Obama even with relatively low turnout.  

    Kentucky has 1.6 million registered Democrats.  With 50% turnout, a 30% win by Clinton = 240,000 votes.  

    West Virginia has less registered Dems, but a 30% or 35% margin there could produce another 100,000 for Hillary.

    Puerto Rico, with over 4,000,000 people and a primary open to all voters is a wild card.  Historically, they have 80% turnout for local elections but it's hard to gauge how much interest there will be for this.  A 15% spread for Clinton could be huge.

    Montana and South Dakota are so small that it's difficult to imagine a spread of over 5,000 votes either way.  We'll know more from what we can infer from the Nebraska "beauty contest" primary on Tuesday.

    Oregon is another wild card.  It has slightly less people and considerably less registered Dems than Kentucky and the margin probably won't be as lopsided as the one we see in KY.  

    At the end of the day, the scenario may very well be:

    Clinton wins the popular vote  


    Obama may win the popular vote, depending on how many "uncommited" votes we imagine him entitled to receive in Michigan.

    If that's the case, different imaginations will produce different votes.

    The fact will remain undisturbed that Clinton received more votes in her name than any other candidate.

    I anticipate SD's will try to push this under the rug and coronate Obama.  But the dissonance between pledged delegates and PV will hover around Obama's candidacy much as the specter of Florida and Election 2000 tainted Bush.    

    As for November,

    Clinton has the far better map, hands down.  That extra 1-3% she has over Obama in all the McCain matchups in poll averages is huge.  It's concentrated in the large swing states that she can win, where Obama is not competitive.

    North Carolina and Virginia have never been considered battleground states in modern presidential politics so you may want to revise your misrepresentation above.

    Essentially, Obama has a tenuous chain of several states of which he must win every single one in order to win the election.  McCain only has to peel one or two away from this category.  If he wins Pennsylvania, McCain wins.  Ditto for Colorado, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, NV/NM.  McCain has several viable paths to victory.  Obama has one difficult path.

    The reemergence of Delaware and Maine as competitive states is even more headaches for Obama.  

    by BPK80 2008-05-11 06:28PM | 0 recs

    Transplanted Texan, it's disgraceful that you use the term "Jeremiah Wright scandal."

    There is no "scandal," unless going to church on Sunday has become a "scandal." The only "scandal" is the way the corporate media has covered the Wright issue.

    Let's be precise with words in a contest this important.

    by JD Lasica 2008-05-11 07:55PM | 0 recs
    Re: Disgraceful

    JD, I have an article in today's Dartmouth Free Press defending Rev. Wright. Not defending Obama, but defending Wright himself. You and I must be defining the word "scandal" differently - I think, given the trouble it gave his campaign and the media coverage that blanketed the event, that Wright was a scandal, but I don't think it should have been a scandal.

    by Nathan Empsall 2008-05-12 04:09PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    Even when you discount MI votes, Hillary will be ahead in the popular vote at the end of the primaries. ceblog/chooseyourown.html

    The argument that clinton is more electable is an appropriate argument.

    Hillary Clinton will be only 1-2% behind obama in pledged delegates - she could very well win this once fl/mi is counted and if she takes it to the convention floor - which I hope she does since I will NOT be supporting Obama in November.

    by nikkid 2008-05-11 08:19PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    I hope that you live in either a very red or very blue state, then.

    Because if you live in a competitive state, your hardheadedness and refusal to vote for the Democratic nominee could doom us to another four years of Bush policies.

    Is that what you want?

    It's not what Senator Clinton wants.  She's urged her supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee in November, whoever that may be.

    I live in Alabama.  So if Senator Clinton somehow manages to get the nomination (remarkably unlikely at this point), I can choose to be "pissy" and stay home, and it won't matter.

    But if you live in a state where the outcome is actually in doubt, I encourage you to rethink your position.

    I also encourage you to give up on the fallacy of the "popular vote" metric.  Who cares?  It doesn't matter.  That's not how the Democratic Party picks its nominee.

    Al Gore won the popular vote in the 2000 general election, too.  It.  Doesn't.  Matter.

    by erzeszut 2008-05-12 08:39AM | 0 recs

    It continues to amaze me that people keep making these arguments or that it is even necessary to refute them.  Alas, it is necessary, and you do so elegantly.

    by oxman 2008-05-11 08:52PM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    Truly great post!

    by Graham1979 2008-05-12 01:03AM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    I really don't beleive that you can count on the youth vote to continue to be involved. It takes a long slog through information and also it takes attention. Due to technology, the attention span of Americans is becoming shorter and shorter. Take a look at our media market. It wouldn't be "movie-star" based if people weren't more interested in that than politicing. I guess if a movie star touts a cause, its important and gets attention. I've been surprized at how little some people really know about the issues and what is driving policies. Its the local elections that really matter to me and I can't count on my local population to pay attention when American Idol is on.

    by glennmcgahee 2008-05-12 05:10AM | 0 recs
    Re: The Clinton Talking Points

    And we wonder why young Americans are increasingly apathetic... as older Americans talk down to them and accuse them of being shallow and useless.

    You win the "Get Off My Lawn!" award for best crotchety old voter.

    by BWasikIUgrad 2008-05-12 06:42AM | 0 recs


    Advertise Blogads