You'd think, graphs included

by Jerome Armstrong, Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:02:46 PM EST

Seeing something like this, from Gallup (Results are based on telephone interviews with 6,657 national Democratic voters, aged 18 and older, conducted March 7-22, 2008):




... you would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?


The Republican activists, now that they've engaged in the Democratic nomination, can be counted on to be an equal opportunity basher, allied on either side as the ebb and flow of the new scyles happens, piling on both candidates.

A couple other graphs to show how closely divided this is, from Gallup:




And Pollster has a terrific "Plus or Minus 3" entry, where this comes from, the Rasmussen & Google daily tracking numbers:


This tie in the polls won't last through the nomination, one or the other will win, but the divide might last beyond.

Also, from Rasmussen, 22% of Democrats want Clinton to drop out, 22% of Democrats want Obama to drop out. I'm glad to be in the majority 56% saying to let this continue. I'll vote for the Democrat against McCain, but for that 44 percent, this will have to get resolved in a manner that both sides feel is legitimate if the hardcore supporters of the other candidate are to be expected to help out in November.




Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 351 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 5)

"You would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?"

Cut the crap.  It's not as if HRC supporters have been silent.


by KTinOhio on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:06:12 PM EST

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 3)

Thank you!!  It cuts both ways.  It seems, for whatever reason, that MyDD has become the Hillary camp while DailyKos has become the Obama camp.  Who is alienating who?  How can Obama supporters win over Hillary supporters when Hillary claims that only her and McCain have "crossed the threshold"?  It's just silly.  The bigger question is: Will Hillary supporters(those that say they'd vote for McCain over Obama) cut off their noses to spite their face?  Do they really want to live another 4 years under Rethuglican rule?


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 3)

Well, otherwise, how would you get all wound up and ready to go?


by Jerome Armstrong on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama could address the questions many have.. (2.00 / 4)

for example, I posted a diary yesterday that brought up some important questions on Obama's healthcare plan - important questions.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/25/2021 36/064

If Obama could address questions like these, on the viability of his healthcare plan - people like me would feel much better about him, because right now we feel as if he is deceiving the American public, especially his supporters.


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama could address the questions many have.. (1.50 / 2)

Cut the crap.  We all know that what he will do will be much better than McSame.

Hillary Dems need to stop being primadonnas and support Obama if he gets the nomination (same applies to the smaller percentage of Obama supporters).


by Timetheos on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:01:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 8)

Actually this is not two-sided, if you believe, as Obama supporters say over and over, that this race is over. And that's precisely Jerome's point. IF you believe that, then it's up to you (and of course Obama) to reach out to Clinton's supporters. NOT the other way around. To argue that it's Clinton's side's responsibility is incredibly arrogant.
by ColoradoGuy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 3)

"IF you believe that, then it's up to you (and of course Obama) to reach out to Clinton's supporters. NOT the other way around."

I'd like to, but I get too much flak when I try.  Besides, if I assume BO has the nomination in the bag and you don't agree, wouldn't you view anything I say about the matter as condescending?


by KTinOhio on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:29:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

Yes.


by 07rescue on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:39:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 2)

Proves my point.  There's nothing Obama supporters can say at this point that won't be seen as hostile, condescending, or both.


by KTinOhio on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:42:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

they are spoiling for a fight (2.00 / 2)

not a discussion


by Chimpeach on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:48:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: they are spoiling for a fight (2.00 / 2)

Amen to that.  

After Edwards dropped out my vote was up for grabs.  I was desperate for a discussion of issues and, especially, accomplishments.  I got that from Hillary's supporters.  All I got from Obama's people was "Peace, hope and love, dammit."


by creeper1014 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:09:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I wonder how Obama's supporters can ignore... (2.00 / 2)

the healthcare issues..

What bothers me is that many of his supporters see him as a reformer, and they don't realize that theguts of his plan are basically Jim Cooper's plan (the so called "Clinton Lite") that killed the Clintons universal healthcare in 1993.

The problem with it is that too many people will opt out, making the price for thise who need it the most climb tremendously.

Low income people are afraid of Clinton's mandate but they shouldn't be because the poor will be heavily subsidized.

Obama's plan is simply unworkable.. its set up to fail and his choice of Jim Cooper shows so.

I did a diary on this yesterday..

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/25/2021 36/064


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: they are spoiling for a fight (2.00 / 1)

HRC supporters just got lumped together as 'primadonnas' up thread a bit by another greek name

I see that a lot and it isnt talking it is demeaning other Democrats


ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:39:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not condescending, maybe premature (2.00 / 3)

It ain't over till the fat lady sings. And the fat lady in this case is that lump of undecided super delegates. Both candidates need that lump to win, just no way around it.

Who knows? The supers may look back over the two campaigns and see that Hillary hinted she could very well pick Obama as her Veep. Big Dog gave a speech in which he described a Clinton/Obama ticket as "unbeatable".

No such gracious hinting from the Obama camp yet, but I'd sure like to see it.

Imagine if the two camps got together behind the scenes and agreed to make a mutual announcement. Obama will pick Hillary and she has agreed to accept or Hillary will pick Obama and he has agreed to accept.

Then our two candidates could spend the rest of the nominating campaign discussing the issues, not each other and all the rest of us could start making bets rather than nasty comments at each other!

Ahhh. Peace, at last, in Democratic land.


by RickWn on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:53:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And... (none / 0)

we could watch those red and blue lines start diverging as they should.


by creeper1014 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:12:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 1)

It's sort of hard to reach out to Clinton supporters when the Rec list is full of Anti-Obama diaries, which leaves no room for the the diaries that are trying to reach out.

The diaries that are reaching out just go off the page and into obscurity...


If you are not voting Obama, please let me know so I can replace your sorry ass with another new voter.
by Darknesse on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:11:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

I looked at the rec list and every other day there are one of two Bob Johnson anti Hilary pieces, it is not one sided on this site, that is why it is a good site IMO ...


ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:41:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Question (2.00 / 1)

I agree that perhaps Obama supporters need to extend a hand, but 1) it's more likely that the HRC supporters are simply not interested in any scenario whereby HRC doesn't ride off into the sunset and Obama's career destroyed and 2) on what issue, as between Obama and McCain, do Hillary supporters need convincing?

Which issue is going to push HRC supporters to vote McCain over Obama? If you are a Democrat than I really don't understand what it is that would make you decide that McCain is a better option. It seems like it's a personality question, and I don't know that short of meeting the candidate that supporters can do anything to change another's mind.


by highgrade on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (1.60 / 5)

It's more than that. Because HRC's campaign is now dedicated to making Obama unacceptable, she is radicalizing her supporters so that they start to hate him. This is going on to a much lesser extent in the Obama camp, but her scorched earth fuck-the-party behavior is a major cause of this.


by MNPundit on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:42:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

I remember when HRC and BO both said words to the effect " No matter what, in the end we will all come together as Democrats to end repuglican rule". So I say to all who are threatening to vote against their own candidates wishes, SHAME ON YOU!
I only wish Clinton didn't go down the wrong "Wrght" path.
by eddieb on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:02:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

Bump!


by Timetheos on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:04:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 2)

Actually, I think it's Obama's camp that is making itself look unacceptable.  


by cmugirl90 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:04:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 3)

Yes, because Obama is the one regularly attacking Clinton from the Rove playbook, the one whose surrogates are consistently trying to undermine the agreed upon process by saying 'look at who is ahead if you count electoral votes' or basically finding every way their candidate can win that is outside the rules.


by MNPundit on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:19:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

Actually, my problems with Obama are not often mentioned. Things like being for nuclear power, wanting to cut funding for NASA, and Hillary being first to talk about refunding basic science to counteract what the Repubs have done.

That's not to mention universal health care, which Obama will NOT be implementing.

Those are the kinds of things that matter to me, not all this other stuff that everyone else is talking about.


by splashy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:34:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome circa CTG...where are you???? (2.00 / 3)

SOmebody send a search party out.  Jerome, you've clearly stooped to bating the other side.  What gives?  I'm amazed every time I come to MYDD...this place used to be a must visit and I have to cringe and wade through the spin.


by Chavez100 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:40:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Jerome circa CTG...where are you???? (2.00 / 1)

Maybe a Freeper stole Jeromes laptop.


by Timetheos on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:06:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 1)

http://electioninspection.wordpress.com/ 2008/03/26/on-gallups-numbers/

Jerome, you really need figure out how to read more than one data set


by TheNewMexican on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 1)

Actually, I would think Democrats would vote for the Democratic nominee.

If you can't vote for Obama - who is essentially the Democratic nominee - and you'd prefer to vote for McCain? Perhaps you need to change your voter registration to Republican...

And no, I'm not going to kiss your ass in order to get you to vote for the Democrat. If you'd prefer 100 years of war in Iraq over the change Obama is working towards, by all means - go vote for that.


by Elise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:04:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

Now THATS the way to mend bridges. Way to go with trying to make things better. (sarcasm)

That's what is so annoying about folks that lead with an attack.


by splashy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:22:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 3)

One thing this poll leaves out:  Many Clinton supporters will not vote for McCain, but intend to write Hillary in.  


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:07:03 PM EST

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 1)

It's all coming full circle!

First, Clinton authorizes the war in 2002.

Then, her supporters help elect the man who continues the war for many more years.


by Sinbad Sinbad on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:22:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

Make that 100 more years...


Vote Change in '08!
by iowa dem on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:37:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 1)

"First, Clinton authorizes the war in 2002.

Yes, she authorized the war ALL by herself. No one else in either chamber of Congress supported the invasion of Iraq... But hey, keep pounding that hate and shoveling that nonsense down Hillary Clinton supporters... That'll be the clincher to win us over.


Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"
by JHL on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:41:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq (2.00 / 1)

Hillary - Aye.

Is that really hateful?

Sorry I hate this war. I cry when I see pictures of little babies who have had their daddies blow up in a senseless idiotic war. I look at my kids and think "what if it was me" and their mom was telling them I won't be coming home - ever again.

And even worse, those parentless children will be paying for this war for thier entire lives.


by Chimpeach on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:52:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq (2.00 / 2)

I hate the war too and participated in a protest march, I wrote to my Senators and my Congressman... I even wrote to some who were not my representatives. I abhore this war. It served no purpose beyond individuals' agendas IMHO. So I understand where you are coming from. My only serious problem is with the vitriole and insults and attacks that come from some people in these posts. It's dreadful and serves no positive purpose.


Take it to the Convention! Hillary '08"
by JHL on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:12:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq (none / 0)

Same story here.  Marched, wrote, called, seemingly to no avail.

Clinton's vote for AUMF still bothers me.  However, lest anyone believe she has not had second thoughts about it there is this:

"Well, obviously, I've said many times that, although my vote on the 2002 authorization regarding Iraq was a sincere vote, I would not have voted that way again."  Hillary Clinton, February 26, 2008 Debate

I would still like to hear her admit flat-out that it was a mistake.  But I'll settle for this.

Obama's supporters should be tickled pink that she hasn't said she's sorry.  If she did, Barack Obama's campaign would be history.


by creeper1014 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:49:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

Why is it hateful to remind voters of HRC un-repentant vote to authorize the war? She had every chance and can still repudiate that vote.She can also reject and repudiate her vote for authorizing action against Iran while she's at it! It's easy watch. " I eddieb am sorry for my vote and it was an honest mistake. Hillary just admitted on national TV she makes mistakes didnt she? She said it was an honest mistake claiming she dodged sniper bullets, running straight to her car and not stopping to hear a childs poetry in Kosovo! See she can admit mistakes cant she. I don't think I'm hateful just hopeful.


by eddieb on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:18:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 1)

This is getting really old already. You all know full well that Clinto did not vote for war, and said so at the time, and Obama hedged like crazy on his anti authorization speech. Give it a break, who wants to type this junk over and over.


by 07rescue on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:41:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

Yes. Her vote was a vote for peace!!!!!!


by Sinbad Sinbad on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:31:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

actually... (none / 0)

my memory from a conversation i had with her at the time (shortly after the vote) notes that hillary recognized that she was voting to invade iraq.  but things change, including hillary's memory, and hindsight is supposedly always 20-20...


"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell
by bored now on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 2)

I don't get angry often but this sentiment is really infuriatingly stupid. If enough HRC supporters feel this way and are willing to let the election go to McCain if the frontrunner in every criteria doesn't give them their way I have no respect for them at all. I can see why they support a person who is willing to do the same. I don't believe for a minute they will really follow through on those threats but to make the threat is beyond stupid. It's childish and petulant. Sometimes that kind of attitude can work to get you your way in your home but in the outside world it really doesn't work.
by Becky G on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:51:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks Becky (none / 0)

"If enough HRC supporters feel this way and are willing to let the election go to McCain if the frontrunner in every criteria doesn't give them their way I have no respect for them at all."

They feel like they deserve it - it's their right and damn anyone who would take it away.


by Chimpeach on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:54:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks Becky (none / 0)

if you mean we think she deserves it b/c we feel the most qualified candidate deserves it hell yes


ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:44:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 2)

When one side is consistently demonized, targeted by the left and right, demeaned with blatantly sexist epithets and stereotypes, pilloried by the sneering media, it causes deep feelings of resentment and helplessness.  
And here's what often does work at home, and in the "outside world" as well: take responsibility for your role in the conflict, instead of calling the other side childish, petulant and beyond stupid.
On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:07:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

take responsibility for your role in the conflict (none / 0)

Are you suggesting that Hillary should "take responsibility for her role in the conflict" by admitting that the Vote for the Iraq War was a mistake?

She would damage herself politically if she did that.


by Chimpeach on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:13:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: take responsibility for your role in the confl (2.00 / 2)

How clever, novel and off-point.  


On to the Convention Floor!
by oh puhleeze on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:19:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

"You would think that Obama supporters, and his campaign, confident as they are that it's 90% sewed up and in the bag, that they'd stop to think a bit about not alienating the Clinton voters that they'd need to win over McCain, wouldn't you?" Or Hillary can just drop out since her own staff admits shes only got a 10% chance of winning
by anujtron on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:08:32 PM EST

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

What makes you think the 28% would choose Obama if Clinton dropped out? I would think that would only make it worse.
by ColoradoGuy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:24:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Third party candidacy.. (1.00 / 1)

I think Hillary should run as a third party candidate if the Dems give the nod to Obama.


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:42:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Third party candidacy.. (2.00 / 2)

"I think Hillary should run as a third party candidate if the Dems give the nod to Obama."

Great idea, Senator Lieberman.


by KTinOhio on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:53:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah.. (none / 0)

I can see a republican troll saying this just cause  they want to divide the Dem party.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:19:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

I am pretty sure you meant BOTH sides would learn not to alienate the other side right?

since those number are high on BOTH sides?

right? why is this only an issue on Obama's side? are you saying that Hillary wont need that 18%?

its a problem on both sides and it shows why this primary needs to end, both sides are becoming to entrenched


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:09:33 PM EST

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 3)

No, I don't think he DOES mean that. If you believe that Obama has this race won, then the urgency of reconciliation is all on Obama's side. If he hopes to win in November, that is.
by ColoradoGuy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:27:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

so what do you believe?

you believe Hillary will win, but she doesn't have it won yet so her side doesn't need to worry about reconciliation right now?

can someone tell me why its only Obama's side but not Hillary that needs reconciliation, espeically when the majority of posters on THIS site believe its Hillary who will be the nominee


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:41:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (1.66 / 3)

"are you saying that Hillary wont need that 18%"

In my view that 18% of Obama supporters will never support Hillary, and it doesn't matter how nice and conciliatory any of us are. I have not experienced much that I could call reasonable behavior or thinking from the most extreme Obama supporters.


by 07rescue on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:47:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

and you are saying its not on Hillary's side?

ok do me a favor go to taylormarsh.com right now and read some of the posts they say about BO and his supporters,

TM herself refers to his supporters as Obamabots, and i am pretty sure you can't write them of as extremists or not representative of Hillary's base.

well you can try but i will quote you over there to see their response and if they would say that mydd represents hillary's base


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:01:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

likewise for the most extreme Hillary supporters.


Check out McCain.
by you like it on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:02:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

I am pretty sure you meant BOTH sides would learn not to alienate the other side right?

since those number are high on BOTH sides?

right? why is this only an issue on Obama's side? are you saying that Hillary wont need that 18%?

its a problem on both sides and it shows why this primary needs to end, both sides are becoming to entrenched


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:09:44 PM EST

Re: You'd think, graphs included (1.80 / 5)

BO, his campaign, and his supporters have nothing but contempt for both HRC and anyone who supports her.  dkos is nothing more than a hate site now and MM thinks he is the fing democractic party.  The BO crowd can say all they want about how mean HRC is the the fact of the matter is BO and his crowd are going to have to ask HRC supporters for their vote IMHO alot of them will be say not thanks.

But we can agree on two things.  BO supporters will accussing HRC supporters of not being REAL democracts and if BO loses they will blame HRC.

davi


by giusd on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:10:01 PM EST

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 1)

If you don't vote for the Democratic nominee in a presidential election, then you're not a democrat......


by Sinbad Sinbad on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for making my point.  What about number two will you be blaming HRC if Bo loses.  I assume so.  

david


by giusd on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:12:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i think (2.00 / 1)

this shows Obama supporters are more principled. Not as many  hiss fit throwing fake democrats.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i think (2.00 / 1)

Let's see, "hiss fit throwing fake democrats", is that someone's idea of a convincing presentation of her views and reasoning power?

Does anyone else think that's an effective way to promote a candidate or opinion?

I haven't been convinced or anything by that approach. If anything, I find myself ever more doubtful of that point of view.


by 07rescue on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:54:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i think (none / 0)

Come on Rescue, Kindthoughts may temporarily have lost their cool a bit it the face of an overwhelming majority of HRC supporters here, but one has only to scroll up or down to see a plethora of HRC support statements with even less substance.

Fair is fair.


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:06:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was making an (none / 0)

observation.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:02:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not at all... (none / 0)

it's not hillary's fault that the primaries have lasted so long.  people who run for president don't quit unless they run out of money or you make them cry.  neither has happened, and that's just the way it is.

rational people recognize that candidates who run for president are highly competitive, ambitious people -- not exactly the kind of people likely to put the good of the party before their own ambition.  it's not like you get a chance at doing this every year...


"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell
by bored now on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:40:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

or you make them cry (none / 0)

Hillary has cried trice and stayed in anyway.


by Chimpeach on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:16:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

but no one made her cry... (none / 0)

anyway, the comment pertains to dirty tricks (ala, muskie in new hampshire)...


"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell
by bored now on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:18:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 2)

If you don't vote for the Democratic nominee in a presidential election, then you're not a democrat....

I that case, Sinbad Sinbad, then the Democratic Party has just shrunk by 35%. I hope you figure out a way to make up those numbers.


by Check077 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:18:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Contempt Comes From The Clintonites (2.00 / 1)

The real contempt seems to be from the rabid Hillary Clinton supporters, and it shows in their lack of loyalty to the Democratic party and their willingness to have McCain win out of spite. Just think of the damage McCain will do, starting with the Supreme Court.

The Clintonites have from the getgo had the attitude that any result other than a Clinton win is an affront to the natural order of things. Obama has repeatedly been slimed as unaccomplished and shallow, despite all available evidence to the contrary.  Clintonites can't understand why this blind refusal to treat Obama with the regard appropriate to his accomplishments and intellect is suspected as having its basis in bigotry, but there you go.

Contrary to the disingenous claim that Obama supporters are a "cult," what this shows is that Obama supporters are willing to defer to rationality and put the best interests of the country above their affection for their candidate.  I wish the same could be said for the more extreme Clinton supporters.


by AdrianLesher on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:33:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Contempt Comes From The Clintonites (1.66 / 3)

I think this a really interesting and telling post.  Because my guess is there are what we all refer to as Reagan democrats and not really "HRC supporters" as you say in you post.  This really says more about the demographs of who supports which candidate.

So frankly i totally disagree with your hypothesis which really is nothing more than one more chance for you to smear HRC and her supporters.  Making personal insults against HRC is a BIG theme of BO supporters like you.

david


by giusd on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:53:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

another way of describing reagan democrats... (none / 0)

is blue collar workers.  from the exits i've seen, this is one of hillary's bases of support...


"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell
by bored now on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Loyalty To the Party (none / 0)

Like the Democratic party itself is giving us much to be loyal to these days?

Like Barack Obama's loyalty to the voters of Florida and Michigan?

Troll-rate me for party-bashing if you must.  But I'm not seeing much there to engender loyalty from me nor demonstrate it on the part of either candidate.  I'll hold my nose and vote for Barack Obama if he's the nominee but it won't be because he's a Democrat.  It will be because I believe he's a better man than John McCain.

Period.


by creeper1014 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 1)

yeah only Repugs who vote for Obama in the GE are loyal Dems!
registered Dems that are not BO Dems are not real Dems!
only Dems for a Day and only if they are BO GOP not HRC GOP!

Only the Dems who have passed the 'BO loyalty test' are REAL TRUE BLUE Dems-

and BO gets to say who's a Dem and who's not, like Bush says who's a patriot and who's not

-meet the new boss, same as the old boss-


ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

Exactly what in the hell part of my comment below deserved a troll rating?

Are you just trying to emphasize my point?


by zonk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:13:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 1)

"you and the Clinton supporters consider that being childish, entitled, spoiled brats who think holding their breath until they get their way is a viable strategy."

I think attacking Jerome and HRC supporters in this insulting fashion likely inspired the TRs.

I agreed after considering it for a couple of moments, and TRed you also. I don't do it often, but when a comment seems to be mainly a personal attack with nothing of substance or value otherwise included, it seems to qualify for a TR.

Like it or not, many of us are principled, lifelong Democrats who are fighting for what we sincerely believe in, and Republican lite anti progressive candidates are not who we consider to be Democrats, either. We may lose, of course, and "bipartisan" free market corporate politics may win, but it's certainly not what I believe in, nor will I support. If I wanted to vote for a Republican, I would join their party.


by 07rescue on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:04:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (2.00 / 1)

They will have no body but to  BLAME THEMSELVES.

This is not an honest campaign to conduct. You cannot call everyone who DOES NOT agree with you a racist.


by Tudor on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:34:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

neither obama, nor his supporters, have... (none / 0)

done that.  some of us, myself included, have called racists racists -- as i think we should.

no one can excuse your wife being called a whore, and i would have pummeled a person who called my wife a whore, but i certainly wouldn't be blaming some candidate they supported for such disgusting behavior.  i'd have blamed them, the person calling my wife names.

noting that there are still racists in the democratic party is completely different.  it is completely legitimate to call out someone -- including a former president -- for using racist frames and racist code words.  hillary has apologized for these occurrences from her campaign, so that takes the edge off.  but the desire to suppress movement towards racial justice and racial equality just because white people don't like hearing that their views are racists isn't a democratic value.  we should support minorities in their quest for equality and justice.

i thought that's what the democratic party stood for...


"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell
by bored now on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:25:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (none / 0)

I don't hate you I disagree with you. I HATE Bushbag and what his Clone Clown McSame will do if we don't get our act together and put a Dem in the oval office after this primary battle is over. I promise you if HRC wins I will vote for her. Will you make  the same promise for the good of all of us and our party and country?


by eddieb on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:41:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you got my promise (none / 0)


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:24:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hill is NOT a Democrat (none / 0)

She's a DLC Democrat, which is pro-NAFTA, pro-war, anti-separation of church and state and all about moving toward issues that move swing voters to the exclusion of  the base.  

What the F*** is the matter with you people?  Have you all simply given up on crashing the gate and building a party from the grass roots?  Do you really want your voice to be overturned by lobbyists and Washington insiders?  Do you really believe that triangulation and appeasement is called for in this sunset moment of American prestige?

I just don't get it.


by zadura on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:04:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hill is NOT a Democrat (none / 0)

Well the graphs tell the story, but it is a sad tale. I really dislike Hillary, but wouldn't hesitate to vote for her over any Republican on the planet. I suggest that the super-vocal Hillary supporters wake the fuck up and realize that this country can not afford, under any circumstances, to let the Republicans stay in power. It's really that simple.
by defibialater on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:52:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

bullshit... (none / 0)

you may not agree with her, or the dlc, or any other centrist democrat, but you don't define whether or not they are democrats.

they do.

democrats in congress actually prove their support for the party by voting for their party's nominee for speaker or majority leader.  that's about the full extent of party loyalty democrats have been accustomed to.

afaic, we should be welcoming people into the democratic party, not trying to expel them from it.  sure, some of the folks here are probably republican trolls, now that there primary contest is over.  but still, hillary is clearly a democrat.  you can argue that she's not progressive, but it's disingenuous to say she's not a dem...


"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell
by bored now on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:29:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: bullshit... (none / 0)

You are correct.  She is a Democrat in the tradition of Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford and Evan Bayh.  

It is also correct for me to say that the owners of this site once supported the progressive wing of the party and opposed the weak-kneed triangulation that is a hallmark of the Clinton/DLC faction.  And I have a right to wonder what the heck happened to their "direct democracy" model if they are now willing to throw the whole thing in the shitter for a 30 pieces of silver...

Clinton is not and will not ever be a progressive.  She will not ever overturn the power structure in Washington, and she will certainly not be the candidate to "crash the gate."


by zadura on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:37:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hill is NOT a Democrat (none / 0)

Hmm. She's for universal health care, funding NASA, and was the first to speak out for more funding for pure science.

Obama is into more nuclear power, which is not very progressive to me, because he gets funding from the nuclear industry. I am definitely against that.

She is against the private mercenaries, he is not. Is he progressive there? I personally would like those mercenaries to go completely out of business.


by splashy on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 04:57:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow (1.75 / 4)

So that's your answer, Jerome?

Stop being so mean to the folks that are every day using such luminaries as Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Scaife, and Sean Hannity to attack Barack Obama as anti-semetic, racist, unpatriotic, and everything awful under the sun?

Geee... hadn't thought of that one.

I'll give it some consideration.

While I do so, how if you and the Clinton supporters consider that being childish, entitled, spoiled brats who think holding their breath until they get their way is a viable strategy.


by zonk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:10:03 PM EST

Re: Wow (2.00 / 2)

Thanks Zonk, in your lecture to Jerome I learned that I am "being childish, entitled, spoiled brats who think holding their breath until they (I) get their (my) way is a viable strategy".

You taught me so much about myself:
 - I have an entitlement complex
 - I am childish
 - I am spoiled
 - I am a brat
 - and I hold my breath until I get my way

Thank you.  I am now convinced to go vote for Obama.  The truth is I will vote for Obama (ugh), but you are doing nothing to help me keep that position.


by oaktownchicken on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:21:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (none / 0)

You wouldn't have voted for Obama anyway. And yes, those words are very accurate.
by Becky G on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:57:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (2.00 / 1)

becky, you too, are brilliant.  Let's see, I write that I WILL vote for Obama and you respond that I won't.

Sounds like you and Zonk don't want to vote for Obama.  I say I will, you two disagree.


by oaktownchicken on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:40:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (2.00 / 0)

Pot, meet kettle.
by ColoradoGuy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:29:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow (2.00 / 1)

I know I feel warm and fuzzy with unity and hope when a Democrat calls millions of fellow supporters of a chosen candidate:

"childish, entitled, spoiled brats"


ginaswo
by ginaswo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:55:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Voters are horrible at hypotheticals... (2.00 / 3)

I wouldn't worry.

But to blame the Obama campaign is a bit senseless. Both campaigns have engaged in typical attacks. But only one campaign has actively pronounced McCain as better than their Democratic opponent.

hmmm. Could that have an effect on her supporters???


by Sinbad Sinbad on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST

Also only one side is actively alienating (none / 0)

African-American's by accusing the TUCC of being a "Hate" church.

I guarentee you that most AA's don't see it that way and will not forgive and forget the Clintons for tossing them to the sharks.


by Chimpeach on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:28:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Also only one side is actively alienating (2.00 / 2)

Umm ... not so much. Obama has lost support among African Americans too, since the Wright tapes. Seems as though most African Americans don't actually go around saying "God Damn America" and blaming the U.S. for AIDS.
by ColoradoGuy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:30:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

feel free to provide data to support this... (none / 0)

i'm really surprised to hear that.  if anything, i get the feeling that barack's support among african-americans has increased.  and i doubt there are very many blacks who don't recognize wright's use of black liberation theology.  it's not exactly outside the mainstream of african american churches...


"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell
by bored now on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:42:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Also only one side is actively alienating (none / 0)

Link?

A new (3/25) PPP poll shows that Obama leads 80%-14% among black voters in North Carolina.  Did he lose AA support there too?  Down from what, 100%?

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm emo.com/2008/03/poll_obama_ahead_21_poin ts_in.php


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:19:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals... (2.00 / 1)

Here is the differnce.  BO is going to have to ask HRC supporters for their vote not the other way around.  

david


by giusd on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:39:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals... (none / 0)

but this is implies that you admit that Hillary wont win the nomination.

do you admit this?


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 01:42:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals... (none / 0)

Yes, i think it very unlikely that she will win.  I think my feeling about this is well documented in the way i say and write things.  But IMHO HRC does still have some small chance and I want here to stay in until BO has won.  

Furhtermore, if (as BO suppporters whine about every fing day) HRC is forced to quit or seen to be pushed to quit before BO WINS this will drive even more voters to McCain. And this nonsense is on dkos all the time.  This is something MM just doesnt get because he so wants his candidate to win.

So imho if I supported BO the last thing i would want is for HRC to qute.  That 28% number could get much higher.  And as i wrote above this number (28%) very likely represents the demographs of who supports who.  These are very likley reagan (working class) democracts who have a long history of voting dem for congress and GOP for pres.  

So please no HRC supporters are not real dems.  HRC supporters are real dems.  Instead of smearing HRC all the time maybe BO and his ilk could try to make a connection with these working class voters instead of insulting their candidate.

david


by giusd on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:09:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals... (none / 0)

ok good if you admit that she won't likely win then you have to also admit her supporters going on the media and attacking Obama is out of the question!

a democrat does not attack the democratic nominee in the press!
bring it up to the SDs is one thing but she is attacking and fueling the GOP.

why should she drop out? BECAUSE SHE IS FUELING THE GOP.

thanks to Hillary the GOP dont have to question whether or not Barack is ready on day one, they just bring up all the times Hillary questioned it

Thanks to Hillary Mccain doesn't have to say that Obama hasn't passed the C-i-C threshold just Quote Hillary when SHE said it.

Thanks to Hillary, Mccain doesn't have to say Obama is not the one we want to answer the phone at 3 am, just show HIllary's add when SHE questioned it.

do you see what she is doing! this argument that oh well the GOP will use these attacks in the fall so I can use them now is foolish.

if the GOP use them we can unite as a party against them, but when Obama is the nominee and the GOP is simply replying and quoting Hillary, THEN what can we say? we would be forced to throw Hillary under a bus to disavow what she is saying.

THIS is why Hillary needs to drop out.

either play nice like Huckabee did (he NEVER questioned Mccain, he simply said I am in it till Mccain clinches) then its ok, but its not what she  is doing, she is trying to make him un-electable so she can pull off a win, This is why she needs to drop out.

I have seen people on this site attack obama now for

Acting like he is the presumptive nominee without actually having the votes yet, because this is condesending. so he should fight untill he ACTUALLY wins.

but!

there are other posts that say if we were so sure that he was going to be the nominee why is he fighting so hard?

HRC and her supporters are actively trying to destroy Obama (visit taylormarsh.com recently?)

Obama should drop out because Hillary supporters will ONLY vote democrat for her? and this is suppose to be a plus for her? we should tell the SDs to vote for Hillary basically because her supporters are black mailing the party?

its Hillary or no democrat you choose


Congratulations to Barack Obama, the presumptive Presumptive Democratic Nominee
by TruthMatters on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:29:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals... (2.00 / 1)

First off I find you starement above disgusting.  And these are the typical shrill post of BO supporters.  BO has not won yet and where i come from you dont quit until it is over.  The bell hits and we are done.  And this is also typical of the nonsense you post.

Hillary is this and hillary is that.  She is the negative one blab blab blab.  BO supporters have also run a very negative but you dont see this because you so HATE HRC it clouds you judgement.  And we are forced to read this "HRC and her supporters are actively trying to destroy Obama" nonsense from you.

HRC has a right to stay in until BO has won and not we think he may run.  The real issue here is the anger issues you have that are well document in your post.  And it is shit like you have written above why BO will likely lose IMHO.

Hillary Mccain????  If you had any pride, which you clearly dont, you would should some remorse for what you have written but you wont.

You say HRC should quit for good of the party but you hateful comments also hurt the party but you dont seen to care.  IMHO i find comments like this unhinged.

david


by giusd on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:14:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

the problem with this complaint... (none / 0)

is that this is what always happens in primaries.  granted, the stakes may seem higher, but attacking the character of your opponent is par for the course, because character is one of the biggest reasons why voters decide who they are going to support.

that the opposition will pick up on these attacks is normal.

only barack and hillary can decide when they will concede the race.  it is unrealistic to expect that either candidate will put the "good of the party" before their own particular interests.  it just doesn't happen.  even if it appears over (or not) to us, they are the only ones who really decide when the fat lady sung...


"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell
by bored now on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:45:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

we're just the opposite... (none / 0)

i'm supporting barack, but i won't believe he won until she concedes.  hillary comes to this race with some very significant institutional advantages, and their import only increases as it all comes down to superd's.  so it's ironic...


"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell
by bored now on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:30:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals... (none / 0)

Let's speak hypothetically:

Obama wins the nomination sooner or later.

What would HRC do in this scenario?  Will the DEMOCRATIC Senator from NY throw her support behind McCain?  Cut ties with the democratic party altogether in a show of protest?  Or will she stand behind the Party and it's nominee?

The biggest question to be answered is this:

What will YOU do in the event that HRC, the candidate you trust and admire, concedes the race, calls for unity, and endorses Barack Obama as a superior candidate to John McCain?


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:25:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals... (none / 0)

Dude,

Let me get this you think HRC will support McCain.  Based on what.  Do you have proof of this or is this just more ranting from the unhinged bo crows.  HRC has said many times she will support and work for who ever wins.  But you are to busy calling her a racist and lier to read or hear this.

david


by giusd on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:47:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals... (none / 0)

Are you serious or...?

The questions are rhetorical devices meant to assert the opposite.  My point is that OF COURSE HRC will support the Dem nominee if she loses.  The language was designed to pose a question to those HRC supporters like yourself who vow not to vote for Obama in the general, should he become the nominee.

Let's try again.  I'll make it easy for you:

Will you (david / guisd) vote for Obama in the General Presidential Election if Hillary Clinton tells you to?

It's a pretty simple question.  Yes or No?  Oh, and for the record:  I've never called her a racist because she isn't one and I've only called her a liar when it's been proven that she did, in fact, you know, LIE.

Check yourself, before you wreck yourself, eh?


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:26:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals... (none / 0)

This is true.

BO is going to have to ask HRC supporters for their vote, since he will be the one standing in November still.

I do think that both sides need to rachet some of the rhetoric and personal attacks down, but it is kind of hard when you see what I can only agree with as "Tonya Harding" style politics going on.


If you are not voting Obama, please let me know so I can replace your sorry ass with another new voter.
by Darknesse on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:48:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voters are horrible at hypotheticals... (2.00 / 2)

Oh that is so convenient.

Did you forget that night after night after night the Obama campaign and their surrogates on CNN, MSNBC, and every blog out there writing and saying that "there are things we really do not know about Senator Clinton. How many skeletons does she still have in the closets" They actually call Senator Clinton, the Clintons, which is very sneaky way of undermining her.

Just yesterday on Anderson Cooper that Jamel guy who is an Obama surrogate said " senator Clinton need to open her closet and bring everything into light." That implies that she is hiding something bad. That she is hiding a corruption scandal or some kind of crime. While no one, i mean no one, can say anything about Senator Obama without being accused of racism. No one can say anything about the fact that he did drugs when he was a young man; no one can say anything about his long long friendship with a Chicago tug just like is friendship with a racist pastor who said that Hillary Clint is going to fuck the black community like her husband fucked Monika; no one can say anything about his deals with the nuclear lobby; no one can say anything about his pastor and the relationship that he has had with him for 20 years; no one can say anything about the fact that EVEN THOUGH Obama likes to thinks of himself as this new politician that will unit the country and promote bipartisanship, HIS RECORD IN THE SENATE DOES NOT INDICATE THAT AT ALL. Actually Senator Clinton had more pieces of legislation sponsored by republicans and passed by them. No one can say that the guy has 2 years of experience in the senate. No one can say that the guy is weak in rural America, weak with elderly, weak with blue collar workers and that he cannot win Missouri, Ohio and Florida with these numbers. And so forth and so on. There are so many issues that on one can dare even open his/her mouth about them because people are scared of being called racist. Well, i am NOT you can call me racist as long as you want.

I think the guy is deeply flawed and i think the republicans are going to tear him apart. They have already framed him as unpatriotic, now they will start call him a liberal several thousands times to sink in and that is how you win elections. So much for the new politics.


by Tudor on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 02:56:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You'd think, graphs included (