The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Cross posted atNo Quarter

Warning: This is a long diary. It contains substance. If you are fact challenged or allergic to truth go elsewhere. This diary may be harmful to your health.

US News has a very important and extremely enlightening article about the strength of the respective candidacies of Hillary and Obama. While no one can deny that Obama has carried more states, his actual strength in many of the states has been very concentrated, not widespread as the campaign would have you believe. Michael Barone states that Obama Appeals to Academics and Clinton Appeals to Jacksonians. And yes, the title speaks for itself. Obama's support is largely concentrated in areas where among other things he has vast African American support. While Hillary's support is more widespread across the country.

In reviewing the maps of the Democratic primary results, in Dave Leip's electoral atlas, I was struck by the narrow geographic base of Barack Obama's candidacy. In state after state, he has carried only a few counties--though, to be sure, in many cases counties with large populations. There are exceptions, particularly in the southern states with large numbers of black voters in both urban and rural counties. But overall, the geographic analysis has pointed up to me a divide between Democratic constituencies--a divide as stark as that between blacks and Latinos or the old and the young--which has not shown up in the exit polls. It's a division that helps to explain the quite different performances of Obama and Hillary Clinton in general election pairings against John McCain.

As an example of Mr. Barone's very detailed analysis, let's take a look at Michigan where Obama withdrew from the race but encouraged his supporters to vote "Uncommitted."

Michigan. The Democratic National Committee has ruled that these results do not count, and Obama was not on the ballot, though prominent Democrats urged Obama supporters to vote for "Uncommitted." Hillary Clinton beat "Uncommitted" by the unambiguous but not overwhelming margin of 55 percent to 40 percent. Yet Obama carried only two of 83 counties: Emmet County, a small county at the northern tip of the Lower Peninsula, and Washtenaw County, the site of the University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University. "Uncommitted" beat Clinton in two of 15 congressional districts, the black-majority 13th and 14th districts.

As is quite clear, Obama did well in only two counties in the whole state. Two counties out of 83. Not exactly widespread popularity. Conversely, in South Carolina Obama did very well. He only lost two counties. One to Hillary and one to Edwards.

In Florida, again Obama did not do very well considering the margin by which he lost the state. He won in only 5 Congressional districts statewide. Considering his lack of popular support in Michigan and Florida it is no wonder he is standing in the way of having their votes counted. In fact he only won in 7 of 67 counties in Florida.

Florida. The Democratic National Committee has ruled that these results do not count; all the candidates were on the ballot but didn't campaign here (unless you count a national cable TV ad for Obama and Clinton's arrival in the state on Election Day). Obama carried five of the state's 25 congressional districts--the two panhandle districts (1, 2) with narrow pluralities over Clinton and Edwards and the three black-majority (or near-majority) districts (3, 17, 23). In terms of counties, he carried only seven of 67 counties, including Duval (Jacksonville), Alachua (the University of Florida), and Leon (the state capital and Florida State and Florida A&M universities). He trailed Clinton by fairly large margins in the big I-4 corridor and Gold Coast counties where Edwards was a minimal factor.

According to Barone, it was in Georgia that a pronounced split began to occur between the supporters of Obama and the supporters of Hillary. While Obama won Georgia big, the strength of his support began to dwindle in the northern counties where they they went dramatically for Hillary. This marks the beginning of the distinction between what Barrone defines as the Jacksonians and the Academics.

But note that the counties at the northern edge of the state voted for Clinton, in many cases by wide margins. This was the first sign in the primary season of Obama's great weakness among Appalachian voters--call them Jacksonians, after their first president. We see this also in Alabama, where Obama lost all but one county north of Birmingham and several counties in the southern wiregrass region: These are almost entirely white counties (indeed they were conquered from the Indians by Andrew Jackson and settled by Tennesseans). Note Clinton's 85 percent in Winston County, a hill county ornery enough to have opposed the Confederacy in the Civil War.

This pattern of voting continued in Tennessee, Arkansas and Oklahoma, where Obama only carried one county. The trend continued even into New Mexico where Obama won in the more affluent communities but Hillary won more overall and more wide spread throughout the state. In Missouri where Obama claimed victory, he carried only 5 counties in the entire state. And most in counties that were heavily African American. The pattern of Jacksonian defection was also demonstrated in Obama's home state of Illinois.

Then there's Missouri. Obama's 49 percent-to-48 percent win didn't net him any delegates, but it gave him rights to brag that he could carry the southern-accented Midwest. Except that he carried only small geographic parts of it: St. Louis City and St. Louis County (the county is much larger than the city, and more blacks live in the county than in the city), Jackson County (central Kansas City), Cole County (Jefferson City, the state capital), Boone County (Columbia, the University of Missouri), and rural Nodaway County in the far northwest (did some Iowa caucus organizers go over the line?). He lost Pike County, Mark Twain's home county, 63 percent to 33 percent, and Dunklin County in the southeast boot heel 78 percent to 18 percent. There's a similar pattern to Obama's landslide victory in his home state of Illinois, which he carried 65 percent to 33 percent but where he lost 14 of 102 counties, all of them in far downstate Illinois, all of them originally settled by southerners--more Jacksonian country.

In Texas where Hillary won 51% to 47% Obama won in only 24 counties while Hillary won in 226. Quite a significant difference. And in Ohio where Hillary turned this race around, Obama carried only 5 counties and 4 Congressional Districts.

In Ohio,
Clinton won 54 percent to 44 percent. Obama carried only five of 88 counties: Cuyahoga (Cleveland), Franklin (Columbus: state capital, Ohio State University), Delaware (upscale Columbus suburbs), Montgomery (Dayton), and Hamilton (Cincinnati). He carried only four congressional districts, 1 (Cincinnati), 3 (Dayton), 10 (east side of Cleveland), and 12 (Columbus), and came very close in 15 (the other side of Columbus). Clinton won between 61 percent and 70 percent in four districts: 6 (Ohio River from Portsmouth up toward Youngstown), 10 (west side of Cleveland), 17 (Youngstown-Akron), and 18 (east central Ohio). Here we see our Jacksonians again, very negative toward Obama. On Fox News on election night, I emphasized the strong Clinton (or weak Obama) showings in southern Ohio, and I think rightly so. I was stunned by the size of the Clinton margins, and I have thought ever since that this bodes ill for Obama's chances of winning votes in western and central Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and perhaps (though it's a small part of the state) western North Carolina.

Barone sees this as an epic battle between two tribes within American culture, the Academics and the Warriors (Jacksonians).

Obama is of course the Academic.

Like Stevenson, he speaks fluently and often eloquently but does not exude a sense of command. He is an interlocutor, not a fighter. His habit of stating his opponents' arguments fairly and sometimes more persuasively than they do themselves has been a political asset among his peers and in the press but not among Jacksonians, who are more interested in defeating than in understanding their enemies.

And Hillary is obviously the Warrior.

In contrast to Obama, Clinton has given herself the image of a fighter. And it's not entirely inauthentic. Against very unfavorable odds, she is continuing to campaign and to insist--and for Jacksonians, this is among the most admirable of qualities--that she is not a quitter. She is fighting fair and foul--think about her lies about being under fire in Bosnia--but she is still fighting, and Jacksonians may not hold her lies heavily against her. We have seen her rebound from humiliations professional (healthcare) and personal (Monica Lewinsky) and keep fighting. This is off-putting to academics but admirable, or something close to that, to Jacksonians.

That's our gal. She never gives up, never gives in. She projects strength and seasoned experience. Exactly the qualities we need in our President. And Barone agrees, he believes that because Hillary is a warrior she stands a very good chance of getting the popular vote, with or without Michigan and Florida.

Clinton's support from Jacksonians gives her, as I have argued, a chance to overtake Obama in the popular vote and an opportunity to argue to the superdelegates that she should be the Democratic nominee. They're a significant bloc of voters in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, West Virginia, and Kentucky (although I should note that this week's polls in Pennsylvania show her running behind my projections). The Democratic Party has seldom won a presidential election without their support: Jimmy Carter carried Jacksonian voters in 1976, and so did Bill Clinton in 1992 and, by a lesser margin, in 1996. If Al Gore had carried just West Virginia or Kentucky or Tennessee or Georgia or Arkansas--all states carried by Carter in 1976 and Clinton in 1992, all heavy with Jacksonians--he would have been elected president in 2000, and we wouldn't have spent 37 days arguing how to count the vote in Florida. This Democratic primary contest has become a bitter fight between blacks and Latinos, young and old, upscale and downscale--and academics and Jacksonians.

All in all this very detailed analysis completely disputes the lie propagated by the Obama campaign that they are the one's that have the more widespread support throughout the country. When the numbers are actually examined it becomes very clear that Hillary is the candidate that represents the vast majority of America. And the only Democratic candidate that will win the White House.

Tags: Electoral Strength, Hillary, Michael Barone, obama, US News (all tags)

Comments

155 Comments

Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Too bad "THE PARTY" doesn't take the time to do analysis! The information is out there, they just choose to ignore it.

by ProudMilitaryMom 2008-04-04 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Yeah "THE PARTY is to busy counting states, votes, money raised, donors, etc...you know those nominal things

by chicagogene 2008-04-04 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Yeah, their 48 state strategy will really pay off in November

by AnnC 2008-04-04 08:00AM | 0 recs
50 states

They will have campaigned in all 50 states by the general election, don't fret.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-04 08:05AM | 0 recs
The citation of republican U.S. News

is troubling.  Repug talking points seem to be whence a goodly portion of these posts are coming these days.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-04 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: The citation of republican U.S. News

Reilly, if you were supporting Clinton, you would better understand that we do not have a free press or an unbiased one. There is a lot of information that is simply not being reported. Al Gore went through this in 2000. I was trained by the AP to vet sources and be exrtremely critical of where information comes from. But it would seem as if rightwing information outlets now are some of the only places one can find the truth. I think this election is standing traditional assumptions about new sources on its head.

by linfar 2008-04-04 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: The citation of republican U.S. News

If right wing news organizations are the source of "the truth," I think it's far more likely that you have predetermined "the truth" and then went looking for "sources" to prove what you already believe, rather than the other way around.

by coronado 2008-04-04 09:55AM | 0 recs
Snicker

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-04 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: The citation of republican U.S. News

If you have evidence that disputes the facts then present it. Otherwise your admonitions are fruitless  and foolish.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-04 10:01AM | 0 recs
I have neither the time nor the

inclination to persuade avid Hillary supporters  of the truth or untruth of much of anything.  You are only interested in facts and figures which will boost your beloved candidate, eschewing and disdaining all others.  Which is all allowed, and should be on this blog.  The amount of time some of you spend on here is interesting.  It's become a vital support group for the rear guard.  But don't expect us Obama supporters to be drawn into your world other than a comment here and there, because we have more important matters to attend to, such as in our case preparing for the delegate convention in WA state, a lilly white state that Obama won by a huge margin.  We have worked harder and raised more money and have by far the most inspirational candidate. We will not be denied.  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-04 10:54AM | 0 recs
Barone doesn't have a horse here

He just calling it as he sees it.  There is no question that he has Republican sympathies but there is also no question that he is a authoritative expert on US political history - a much more substantial one than virtually anyone who posts on these pages.  You may not like what he says but there is no denying his expertise.

I think he has framed this Democratic party divide very well and haS done so in a way that is understandable and in perspective of historical traditions.

by lombard 2008-04-04 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Clinton can carry all of the small counties she wants, what matters is winning where the damn people are located. Ask her boy ed rendell how he became governor of pa, carried 10 of 67 counties. The analysis of michigan and florida is nonsense, because neither candidate campaigned there.

by aaaa05 2008-04-04 06:34AM | 0 recs
Odd claim!

Even Obama admits that he ran ads in Florida although he claims that he couldn't help himself.  If I am not mistaken he also had a news conference or two when he was there for fund raising.  

Blindness to facts is a pitiful condition.

by macmcd 2008-04-04 06:52AM | 0 recs
Zzzzt, wrong answer

He ran ads on MSNBC, which would not selectively show or not show the ads in certain states.  

He reported the issue, and they didn't deem it a major problem, since they'd also given Clinton leeway about the campaigning thing, since she'd been down there "fundraising."

Thankfully, the DNC is flexible on this sort of issue.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-04 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Zzzzt, wrong answer

If I'm not mistaken, they were allowed to fundraise in the state, just not campaign.

by AnnC 2008-04-04 08:01AM | 0 recs
Yep

And I'm sure Clinton didn't give any campaign-related speeches while she was fundraising in Florida just after New Hampshire, and of course she wasn't campaigning when she advertised beforehand that her rally in Miami which was taking place the instant the polls closed.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-04 08:08AM | 0 recs
Cites?

"Reported the issue?"

To whom?  When?  And who are these "they" who didn't deem it a major problem?

Let me say a couple of things.  First, I flat don't think that happened, unless you are referring to the Obama camp's claim that they got an OK from SC's Democratic Party chair (now an Obama superdelegate).  If you are referring to that, your language is odd, which suggests to me that you were stating a "fact" you're not very sure about, which is a questionable practice.

Second, the pledge was a mutual pledge between the candidates.  It was not administered by the SC Democratic Party, the DNC, or anybody else.  There was no one to "report" it to, and no outside party who had the authority to "deem" their action anything.  Unless they had the permission of the Edwards and Clinton campaign, which they most assuredly did not because I know that Clinton, at least, protested Obama's action as soon as his campaign announced it would happen, then they were breaking their promise to those campaigns when they ran the ads.  Clinton and Edwards kept their promises, in reliance on the other campaigns to do the same.  Unfortunately, their reliance on the Obama campaign was misplaced.

by Trickster 2008-04-04 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Cites?

Obama's campaign reported it to the SC chapter of the Democratic National Committee, not the same thing as the SC Democratic Party. SC's chapter cleared it with the national Democratic National Committee and informed Obama's campaign of that decision. It was in essence this: If you are advertising on a national or international media that cannot exclude any particular market or state, then it's not in violation of the rules. Just like internet banner ads, which all the campaigns bought, which all ran in every state, even every country, even Antarctica (researchers there do have internet connections). By your logic, Obama, and everybody else have been campaigning in Antarctica. See how absurd that sounds?

Since the rules were made by the DNC, don't you think they are the best ones to interpret them, not the opposing campaigns?

by BeekerDynasty 2008-04-04 11:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Zzzzt, wrong answer

Obama did "fundraising" in Florida also.

by Alice in Florida 2008-04-04 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Odd claim!

"Blindness to facts is a pitiful condition."

It's also a surefire way to get to the top of the MyDD rec list.

by Rumproast 2008-04-04 10:21AM | 0 recs
Bring it on..the revote 2008

"Neither candidate campaigned there".. Clinton is not afraid of a revote - BO, not so much.  

by Molee 2008-04-04 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Eloquent fool?  Quite the fool - beating your fighter in every known metric.  

by interestedbystander 2008-04-04 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool
Did you watch the Harball hour? It was quite funny. I especially enjoyed the question about what he would do when the phone rang at 3;00 a.m. and there was a hijacking of American planes.
Well, it appears he would give a long speech about his superior judgement and take lots of time to get good  intelligence, talk to people and consider the right thing to do for the country and the world. Do you want someone who diddles about in an emergency? There isn't time to set up a commitee! Sounds like the pet goat... No part of his answer had anything to do with the question. Lord help us..... the 'eloquent fool' for sure.
by georgiast 2008-04-04 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

And Hillary would convene a focus group and find two other sides to a triangle.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-05 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Electoral vote shows that she will beat Obama and McCain.  She will win in GE.

by JoeySky18 2008-04-04 06:41AM | 0 recs
I don't think anyone can rightly

assert that Hillary OR OBAMA will not beat McCain in the GE

by SocialDem 2008-04-04 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Don't get ahead of yourself.  She needs the nomination first.  The odds on that are slim to none and slim is sitting on the bus leaving town.  The bus driver is about to start the engine.

by lockewasright 2008-04-04 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Forget the bus.  I liked the "jumped off the cliff" analogy better.  :)

by fogiv 2008-04-04 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Gracias!

by lockewasright 2008-04-04 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

I think you just pointed out how stupid the warrior is. If she couldn't figure out how to target areas with the most delegates up for grabs, it seems to disprove how smart you all think she is.

by lion king 2008-04-04 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Easy on the insults Simba.  

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-04 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Yes, us eloquent fool supporters really should learn some manners.

by lockewasright 2008-04-04 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

I'm am eloquent fool as well.  We should set an example.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-04 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

I've always considered myself an ineloquent fool.

by the mollusk 2008-04-04 12:59PM | 0 recs
Meh.

In contrast to Obama, Clinton has given herself the image of a fighter. And it's not entirely inauthentic.

Not entirely, no, but pretty close. Sleepwalking through the Bush years, with plenty of votes - AUMF, flagburning, Kyl-Lieberman - that supported rightwing policy in defiance of her own party does not a "warrior" make.

Hillary knows how to fight Democrats. It's republicans that she's pretty weak against.

by MBNYC 2008-04-04 06:51AM | 0 recs
Once again, primary victories are ABSOLUTELY

NO indication of the GE.  There is no direct correlation there.  This argument is deeply flawed.  As a commenter just said:

"Clinton can carry all of the small counties she wants, what matters is winning where the damn people are located. Ask her boy ed rendell how he became governor of pa, carried 10 of 67 counties. The analysis of michigan and florida is nonsense, because neither candidate campaigned there."

by SocialDem 2008-04-04 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Once again, primary victories are ABSOLUTELY

    I suppose the Obama supporters would vote for her in the GE. The fact that AA voters support Obama doesn't mean they wouldn't support her if she were the nominee. Only the sexists would rationalize not voting for her.

by RC01 2008-04-04 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Perhaps if she had done a bit more winning, she wouldn't need to do so much warrioring.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-04 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

This post deserves a celebratory end-zone dance. Bravo.

by Lettuce 2008-04-04 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

I thank you, madam (takes a bow).

by interestedbystander 2008-04-04 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Catfish - please uprate, or you will shortly be banned for ratings abuse.  If you don't know the rules, read the FAQ.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-04 02:05PM | 0 recs
Well done.
That will be President Eloquent Fool in due course.  
Just think of all the years of angry diaries we have to look forward to on the preferred website of the "loyal opposition."
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-04 07:45AM | 0 recs
Brilliant and heartening.

Thank you for this fine diary.  It is no wonder that Hillary does not quit and it is also no wonder that the Obama people are so afraid of her staying.  They see the handwriting on the wall just as Hillary and we do.  It has got to be a sick feeling in the pits of their stomachs.  I'll be that is why they are so filled with hate and vitriol.

Recommended!!!!!!!

by macmcd 2008-04-04 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Brilliant and heartening.

Fleaflicker is in the top tier of our best writers.

And he consistently does the work -- the hard work -- of both researching and thinking through what he is writing about.

This isn't some cut-and-paste job.  This is REAL WRITING.  (Too little of that on the 'net.)

by susanhu 2008-04-04 07:29AM | 0 recs
Wow

This isn't some cut-and-paste job.  This is REAL WRITING.  

If I didn't see the name, I'd think this was subtly mean-spirited sarcasm.

Just.... wow.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-04 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Brilliant and heartening.

Thanks so much Susan. Coming from you that is a high compliment.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-04 10:04AM | 0 recs
Explanations for the Intelligence Impaired

Obama's whole campaign has been about how widespread his strength is. His campaign and his supporters like to point out how many states he has won. They don't bother to mention that the chances of a Democrat actually winning in those states during a GE is minuscule. The Obama campaign has also criticized Hillary for concentrating on and WINNING in the states we need to win to gain the electoral votes necessary to win in November. You can't have it both ways. And as this brilliant article makes clear, it is Hillary that actually has the most widespread support.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-04 07:00AM | 0 recs
Once again, primary victories are ABSOLUTELY


NO indication of the GE.  There is no direct correlation there.  This argument is deeply flawed.  As a commenter just said:

"Clinton can carry all of the small counties she wants, what matters is winning where the damn people are located. Ask her boy ed rendell how he became governor of pa, carried 10 of 67 counties. The analysis of michigan and florida is nonsense, because neither candidate campaigned there."

by SocialDem 2008-04-04 07:03AM | 0 recs
How about the Gallup poll?

Spin that away.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-04 07:55AM | 0 recs
Ok then, dispute my

argument then.  So a win in California is indicative of how Clinton can win there. Is a win from Barack in Idaho indicative that he can beat McCain in the GE?

by SocialDem 2008-04-04 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Ok then, dispute my

Or how about a state like Alabama? or Mississippi?

by SocialDem 2008-04-04 08:01AM | 0 recs
I realize this is the latest Clinton talking point

You can choose to ignore the polls, that's your perfect right.  Rasmussen shows Hillary's negatives holding steady at 52%, the highest of any of the three by far.  I think we can stipulate that percentage to be set in stone, as HRC is known to all, and people have made up their minds about her at this point.  When her tax returns finally become public and the Clntons' fraud trial gets underway there will not be much left to salvage.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-04 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: I realize this is the latest Clinton talking p

I think SocialDem's point was that primary wins automatically meaning that the winner of that primary will carry that state is completely flawed.  He wasn't arguing for Hillary, in fact he's arguing against the people that say that because Hillary won many deep blue states, Barack can't win them.

by thatpurplestuff 2008-04-04 08:46AM | 0 recs
Exactly

by SocialDem 2008-04-04 02:10PM | 0 recs
Soitgoes

If you troll rate me again, I will report you to the admins.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-04 09:37AM | 0 recs
Or is it your position that

California will go red because Obama is the nominee? Or New York? or Mass? Gallup polls on GE matchups at this point are completely pointless in April.

by SocialDem 2008-04-04 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Explanations for the Intelligence Impaired
But you do know of course that Obama is never ever responsible for what anyone in his campaign does or says...
;-)
by DemAC 2008-04-04 07:33AM | 0 recs
He is responibile, but to use the words of one

of his own and then right away assume that that is his position or his feeling on the subject is just plain wrong.

by SocialDem 2008-04-04 08:02AM | 0 recs
For instance

Should we assume what Ferraro said about Barack is how Hillary Clinton feels?

by SocialDem 2008-04-04 08:04AM | 0 recs
Who Was The Fool?

Who spent all her campaign funds in January, because the contest would surely be over by Super Tuesday?
Who hired Mark Penn, McAuliffe, Wolfson and Ickes to drive her campaign into the ditch?
Who lied in recorded public speeches at least 3 times about 'sniper fire', although the incident she lied about was also recorded?
Who voted to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq, but she didn't think he'd actually do it?
Who thinks she deserves the nomination with fewer elected delegates, fewer popular votes, fewer states, and fewer grassroots donors?
Who thinks she's Rocky Balboa, who lost the fight by a vote of the judges.

Wow, you go, girl!

by toyomama 2008-04-04 09:07AM | 0 recs
The Name Recognizers and the Educated

Clinton consistantly leads in voters who do not pay close attention to politics and have never heard of Barack Obama until very recently.

That's certainly true, and is basically the crux of the article.

Obama can't be everywhere at once; he can only get his word out a bit at a time, and Clinton's 16 years of name recognition is a huge hurdle to jump, but he's doing it, and consistantly enough that he's winning the hearts, minds, votes, and money of people all over the country.

Clinton is winning those things, too, but they don't make up nearly as much of her vote as the people who generally vote Democratic and remember the '90s fondly as a time when we weren't bogged down by war & recession.  In the choice between the known (Clinton) and the unknown (who names their kid "Barack," anyway. O'Bama, is that Irish?), they go for the known.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-04 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: The Name Recognizers and the Educated

That's certainly true, and is basically the crux of the article.

Funny.... I didn't read that ANYWHERE in the article.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-04 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

If only that "warrior" had shown up during her seven-plus years as a Senator, against Bush and Cheney, instead of during the last two months, against another Democrat, maybe she wouldn't have to be fighting so hard right now.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-04 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

At least she showed up....

by susanclare 2008-04-04 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Yup. To vote for Bush's war. And her husband lobbied for it.

If that's what they show up for, can they stop showing up?

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-04 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

hmmm.... more ratings abuse from Clinton supporters.  

I think I'll go on strike.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-04 02:55PM | 0 recs
Disconnect

Neither in passages quoted from Barone, nor even in Fleaflicker's contribution, is there anything to suggest Obama is a "fool". But Fleaflicker just had to jam the cheap insult in there.

Says a lot.

Shame, really.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-04 07:27AM | 0 recs
Yes it does. There has been many a plea

for civility, but as we can see that for some, that plea has fallen on deaf ears.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-04 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes it does. There has been many a plea

What gets me is that quite a few people that are being insulted right now argued to the mods that some of the people tossed off for being divisive should be unbanned. Well, we feel awfully foolish now, lemme tell ya.

Just can't do ANYTHING without insulting Obama or his supporters, huh?

by vcalzone 2008-04-04 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Disconnect

I thought it was a Brilliant title!

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-04 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Disconnect

Fool.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-04 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Disconnect

I thought it was moronic.

Please explain how someone who's won more states, more votes and more delegates and has raised more money from more contributors can compare as a fool to a lesser candidate.

by bookish 2008-04-04 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Disconnect

False. And offensive. And I'm complaining about it to the mod.

by vcalzone 2008-04-04 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Disconnect

I would hate to be a mod on this site. "Mod, Hillary supporters are touching me again!" "But Obama supporters started it!"

I think everyone could use a few deep breaths here.

by Okamifujutsu 2008-04-04 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Disconnect

We're not even talking about harsh criticism, we're talking about a direct insult. And not even on the supporters this time, on the candidate. Suppose I made a post called "Hillary the Tough Idiot". What do you think would happen?

by vcalzone 2008-04-04 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Disconnect

We have to get rid of the whining, but it starts by getting rid of the stuff that deliberately incites anger. Fleaflicker is one of those people. And admitted they only did it to draw attention, which just makes it more damning.

by vcalzone 2008-04-04 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Disconnect

I'm sure you did.

Which is both funny, and sad.

by BlueinColorado 2008-04-04 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

its really sad but I will admit if she turns this around and actually wins the popular vote she will not only be a warrior but magician too I would be very very shocked  Impressed but very shocked  

by wellinformed 2008-04-04 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

You should cross-post this on Kos but for Kos and myDD, change the title. No need to call him a fool.

There was an old diary I liked that likened him to Hamlet. Whatever..but find a less antagonistic name.

by NY Writer 2008-04-04 07:35AM | 0 recs
No, Hamlet would be John Edwards

Although he would be of the cornpone variety.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-04 07:52AM | 0 recs
Fool. The educated fool.

The intelligent fool.

What did Malcolm X say about what white folks call black folks with a PhD?

All those black folks who are passing in the ultra white states are pretty damn sneaky.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-04 07:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Fool. The educated fool.

What did he say - not snark, I'm a brit and don't know too much about that era (although I am trying to catch up)?  Thanks in advance.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-04 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Fool. The educated fool.

Malcolm X said that White Americans will still call him a (insert offensive racial slur here which I would feel comfortable using since I'm black but don't want to offend and it's not necessary.

His point of course was that no matter how accomplished, a black man is always seen as less than worthy of full human rights and respect.

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-04 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Good information and great diary.

by environmentally blue 2008-04-04 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

After the 2004 election, Republicans gloated about how the electoral map showed enormous swaths of red. "They only get the coasts and the Great Lakes!" they  taunted.

And yes, when viewed as a mere graphic, it was impressive to see all that red covering almost everything west of the Mississippi and up to the West Coast.

But while it was some nice eye-candy for the base, it also meant little. For all their bragging, Kerry still got within about 150,000 Ohio votes of winning the presidency.

As you know, this is because the 500,000 people living in Wyoming are far fewer than the 12 million living in Pennsylvania. Likewise, 1,000 people spread out over an enormous rural county is fewer than the 100,000 in a compact urban county.

If it contents you to say that Clinton does better in rural counties or Appalachia, that's great. As for us, we'll be fine with taking the votes and delegates that actually determine the nomination.

(And really, you just couldn't have made the same point without the petulant little insult in the title, could you?)

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-04 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Warriors are the people that her vote sent off to die in Iraq.

Actually that's slightly misleading.  A lot of the dead are children and civilians too.

by lockewasright 2008-04-04 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

I appreciate the time you put into this, but I'm not sure how compelling this is.  Arguing "most counties" seems to me similar to arguing "most states".  I just don't see that it means too much.

I'm going to remain focused on "most votes", as I believe that is the framwork most consistent with progressive values.

by bobbank 2008-04-04 08:03AM | 0 recs
Solitaire Doesn't Count

It's very odd that a diary so full of 'substance' would lead off with two states that didn't hold legitimate primaries.

Beyond this, it's absurd to think that Obama will lose the same states in the GE as he does in the primary.  Try and make sense of this logic for me.

When one of the candidates drops out, the (non-Limbaugh) voters will rally around the Democrat.  Those who claim they will vote more McCain are few and bluffing.

There are plenty of good arguments to be used in support of Hillary.  This kind of tortured spin isn't needed.  

Oh, and the name-calling.  It's not OK for Randi Rhodes and it isn't OK for you.  Show some class.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-04 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

I'm going to remain focused on "most delegates", as I believe that is the framework that has ALWAYS BEEN THE ONLY METRIC THAT COUNTS which makes it most consistent with how the nominee selection process has always worked.

Anything else is an attempt to make the winner not the winner.

by lockewasright 2008-04-04 08:39AM | 0 recs
Warrior Fool

Hillary will become the joke candidate if she stays in much longer.

I just heard on the Young Turks that Obama has now caught up in declared superdelegates. He's outspending Hillary 5-1 in PA advertising. Soon it'll be clear to everyone, except Hillary, that she cannot win, and that's just embarrassing...

by End game 2008-04-04 08:43AM | 0 recs
I just have one thing to say

and I know full well that this is going to get troll/hide rated but the source (US News and WOrld Report) demands that I do this:

snark on

SNIPERS, SNIPERS, SNIPERS
I AM HIT AND I AM GOING DOWN
I AM TAKING MASSIVE CASULTITES
SNIPERS, SNIPERS, SNIPERS
What my advisers would never talk about a free trade agreement with another country after I came out and opposed it.
Shame on you for disparaging my record (even though the fliers had it correct)

snark off

If you look at the map of Missouri do you know where democrats usually win, Where Sen. Obama won, in the Map of Ohio the counties he won (except for the cincy suburbs) aer the counties a democrat wins.  In texas who won where democrats roll up their margins there, Senator Obama.

Also what a wonderful source to cite (Mr. Barone), lets see how his predictions hold up once we finish the primary.

by Student Guy 2008-04-04 09:22AM | 0 recs
How to Influence People

The goal of this post, ostensibly, is to convince more people to support Hillary Clinton rather than Barack Obama. You severely undermine your argument when you start with:

"Warning: This is a long diary. It contains substance. If you are fact challenged or allergic to truth go elsewhere. This diary may be harmful to your health."

You've just insinuated that everyone who does not agree with you is someone who completely disregards substance, is "fact-challenged", and should "go elsewhere". Why, WHY would you do this to your target audience? You're going to end up further alienating those who don't agree with you while making Clinton supporters look pompous, arrogant, and generally a bad crowd to be around.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I don't bear that much animosity towards Clinton. I think she's run an awful, awful campaign, and she's cast a few very ill-advised votes, but she really isn't so bad. But some of her supporters - especially the ones who now run the rec list on this site - are repellent. I look at this group and think, "wow, I really want nothing to do with this group". I think you've become an impediment to liking or supporting Clinton. I try to ignore it - because a candidate is not the worst of their supporters - but its hard.

Yes, there are plenty of jerks supporting Obama as well. I yell at them on dkos sometimes. But it's really not as bad on the Obama side right now...look at the dkos rec list. There's a diary tracking the Clinton tax returns - not a hit piece, no attacks or false dichotomies, just a forum for discussion. There are overzealous Obama supporters in the comments, but they're roughly balanced out by people telling them to calm down and/or shut up.

Also - arguing that Obama supporters are all academics is idiotic on a few levels. First, there aren't 14 million academics in America. Secondly, why the hell are you insulting academics? What do you have against learning? Our candidates both come from intensive academic legal backgrounds! When you attack academics, you're attacking your own candidate. Why, why, why...

Lastly, trying to cast Clinton as the insurgent candidate is bordering on insane. This is the candidate who cultivated a lead of over 100 superdelegates among party insiders before voting started. The candidate who still retains that superdelegate lead on the strength of her support among unelected DNC officials. The candidate who, until recently, relied almost entirely on big-donor checks, "Hillraisers" and the like to bundle checks.

Your candidate is at this point down to a very, very shot at winning. You should be doing something to help with that, instead of making your fellow supporters look bad.

by jaiwithani 2008-04-04 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: How to Influence People

Geez... it's just a warning. No need to read too much into it. It only means EXACTLY what it says. It doesn't insinuate a thing.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-04 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: How to Influence People

bullshiat.

the TITLE of your diary entry implies Obama is a fool.  from the get go you're "flicking" insults rather than trying for at least a reasoned analysis.

and the criticisms of your source are correct: the examples of Michigan and Florida are hugely misrepresentative, for the mere fact that Obama did not campaign in either state.  he STUCK to the principle of working with the DNC.  and now people want the votes for MI and FL to count as is.

i'll accept that you want to show how Hillary might be a better candidate than Obama, but let's not distort what you're doing either.

by fightinfilipino 2008-04-04 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: How to Influence People

Great comment, jaiwithani. There are really only a handful of over-the-top Hillary people here like FleaBitten, but apparently they have the run of the place, for better or worse. Mostly worse.

by jwolf 2008-04-04 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

And that's without even counting the lower middle class and poor women 40 and over of ALL races that are her strongest supporters.

And if any trolls trash women like myself (a 41 year old of the lower middle class, who lived far under the poverty line during my late childhood and youth when my parents divorced) for being a strong part Hillary's base for voting for Hillary "just because she's a woman" I will point out no one is criticizing African American voters of both genders (but weaker support from lower middle class and poor women 40 and over, especially if they were or are single mothers because they tend to support Hillary more)for voting for Obama.

The women who are that strong base for Hillary are there because she has proven to be the much stronger candidate on women's and children's issues. Both in her Civil service sector work and in politics. Do not mock or minimize this like the media- left, right and center has done. Women's and children's issues are real issues- core issues to millions of people.

That always comes first for me- women's and children's issues. Yes, I'm a feminist activist- and proud of it. I've been a feminist since I was   around 7 years old. It's why I was backing Hillary from the start, even though on other issues I was more in line with Kucinich and liked Edwards real life understanding of what it's like to be from the lower class in the US and his fierce determination for universal healthcare. Obama wasn't saying anything that connected with me, and when I saw his weak record on women's issues I knew he wasn't a candidate for  me. I didn't start disliking him, however, until he started making sexist attacks on Hillary and trashing the progressive activism of the 1960's and 70's. Praising Reagan didn't do him any favors in my book either. (and don't parse what he said, please- I saw the interview. Right before he praised Reagan he again trashed the progressive activism of the 1960's and 70's again. Those things are tied together.) Obama's misogynist supporters in the media- left and MSM, have only solidified this part of Hillary's base, and have turned many against voting for Obama- ever. Even should he get the party nomination and Hillary beg us to vote for him. They are going to either just not for president or are going to write Hillary in. I'm strongly considering the later.

Every time an Obama blogger harasses a Hillary blogger you just make that Hillary blogger that much more determined to vote for Hillary and never vote for Obama. Think about that, for your candidate's sake. Every nasty comment loses your candidate votes should he win the nomination. If you stop stalking Hillary bloggers and harassing them you lessen Hillary bloggers anger at Obama bloggers- and remember, you as bloggers represent your candidate here. You want to see less angry Hillary blogger diaries stop harassing them and making them more angry.

by K1966 2008-04-04 09:32AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

I'm going to insist that you reference and source:

"weak record on women's issues"
and
"sexist attacks"

If you can't do that then your argument has no weight other than as hollow hyperbole and there's no point in listening to anything you have to say.

Also, if you think that not voting for the eventual candidate will help your cause with women/feminist issues, then just consider that the next president will likely nominate 2-3 judges for SCOTUS. If you want to turn the gun on yourself, go right ahead, but you lose the right to complain about the results of your actions after the fact.

by bookish 2008-04-04 11:58AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

I don't need to reference what I've heard and seen for months. Go google his record and his words yourself, plenty of bloggers have referenced Obama's sexist comments, even bloggers that haven't committed themselves that strongly to either candidate like Liss at Shakesville. Quit pretending people who disagree with you haven't researched things themselves and have very valid backing for their conclusions. Obama's voting record on women's and children's issues is also available online.

Don't be so sure Obama will be the candidate. Hillary is just as likely to be the nominee.

And if he is the nominee, I probably won't vote for Obama because his record on women's and children's issues is hardly different from McCain's.

Since you brought up justices- he praised and initially endorsed Robert's nomination to the Supreme Court, only changing his vote when his own chief of staff told him it would look bad on his future presidential bid if he voted for an extreme conservative like Roberts.

Hillary spoke out against Robert's nomination and did not vote for him. I have zero confidence in Obama appointing a justice to the Supreme Court that would be supportive of women's  issues. Obama has outright said he would appoint justices like Roberts to the bench. That's no different from McCain.

So no "hyperbole" here, research (for voting records) and my own ears for the sexist comments. I will not vote for either Obama or McCain (or Nader for that matter- while not being as overtly sexist, he has dismissed women's issues as "unimportant", so no votes for Nader from me.) Hillary is my candidate, the only one who supports the issues most important to me. Which starts with women's and children's issues but includes other progressive issues as well that Obama is the  weaker candidate on.

by K1966 2008-04-04 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

I can't find any sexist comments or see anywhere that he's weak on women's issues, so I guess I'll just have to disregard that part of your comment.

The idea that Clinton and Obama have an equal likelihood of becoming the nominee is...nevermind, there's no need to go there.

You are obviously a dedicated partisan follower of your candidate, and that's a good thing for the primary season. But if you decide to take the hurt you are likely to feel going into the general and use it as an excuse to either not vote or vote against the Democratic nominee, then you run the risk of undermining the progress you hope to make on issues of importance to you.

I'm sorry you feel that Obama could somehow not be attuned to women's issues. I think you may be minimizing his dedication in your own mind out of a sense of loyalty to your candidate. I hope you'll revisit his record at some point and parse it in a more objective manner.

by bookish 2008-04-04 03:59PM | 0 recs
Playing the Roe card

Women were told, when they objected to anti-choice Harry Reid being named Senate Majority Leader, "Don't be a single issue voter."  Now after disregarding us, the Obama camp, who only very late in the day are beginning to realize they need the gender gap to win (and many sadly still don't realize it), says, "Be a single issue voter."

We are not fools, and not so easily bought.

I don't support Obama not only because Hillary rocks, but because I don't believe he has the experience required to pick good justices (among other things).

Much to the dismay of Michael Farris in Constitutional Law for Christian Students:

In 1992, the Supreme Court considered the case of Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 120 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1992). ...Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, and Blackmun joined together to hold that Roe was still valid and that speculation on its demise should be put to rest.

   All five of these justices were appointed by Republican presidents. Justice Blackmun was appointed by President Nixon in 1970. Justice Stevens was appointed by President Ford in 1975. Justices O'Connor and Kennedy were appointed by President Reagan in 1981 and 1988 respectively. Justice Souter was appointed by President Bush in 1990.

   The only justice appointed by a Democrat president, Justice White, appointed by President Kennedy in 1962, joined three Republican appointed justices, Justice Scalia (Reagan, 1986), Chief Justice Rehnquist (Nixon, 1972), and Thomas (Bush, 1991) who argued that Roe should be reversed.

by Larissa 2008-04-04 06:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Playing the Roe card

So you've projected things you were told about Harry Reid and court related instances that occurred in 1992 onto Obama? I don't think this response addresses my original query about hard evidence of sexism or a weakness for women's issues in the Obama camp. Please let me know if I'm missing something.

by bookish 2008-04-04 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

K, I loved your comment. There are a lot of us out here who feel this way...and we're not going to be around in this democratic party much longer...

by susanclare 2008-04-04 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Thank you. I think it's better to stay and fight the sexism, don't stop fighting it. If Shirley Chisholm,  Bella Abzug, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton and others could do it, so can I. The Democratic party means something to me and I'm fighting for that.

by K1966 2008-04-04 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Excellent dairy. There are still 43% of us who think she can still win. She needs to keep going because we will continue to support her for as long as she wants to continue.

It is always amusing to hear the other candidates supporters calling on her to quit. If she were not a threat everyone would ignore her. if it is clear to everyone that she can't win then her rival should win ALL the remaining contests. If that happens, I will personally call on her to quit.

by LadyEagle 2008-04-04 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Too ridiculous for words, but hey ho here we go ...it is a 2 horse race where one horse is ahead by a small but insurmountable margin.  Nobody (except Bill? OK cheap shot, sorry) is afraid of Hillary, but the job is not done just yet.  Everyone keeps campaigning hard until the job is done.  It won't be long - maybe April 23, maybe a bit later.  But not long.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-04 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Catfish what was troll worthy about this comment?

by interestedbystander 2008-04-04 12:06PM | 0 recs
I agree

If she were not a threat everyone would ignore her.

If she were not a threat to the Democratic party's chances of winning the presidency, I'd pay her no mind.

by bookish 2008-04-04 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

As a Democrat you should ashamed of yourself calling our current Democratic frontrunner a fool.

If you can't keep this positive, you might as well just vote for McCain.

by chewie5656 2008-04-04 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

I have already stated publicly that I have no shame. At least not as far as with anything that has to do with Obama. It isn't some great secret.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-04 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

I guess that makes it OK then.

by chewie5656 2008-04-04 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

This should be cross posted in as many places as possible. You may want to change the title to the Warrior and the Intelligent Academician. or something less controversial.

Great job. :)

by LadyEagle 2008-04-04 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Thanks, but I like the title the way it is. I am rather fond of fools, being one myself. Or rather, not being one. It's cryptic.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-04 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Maybe you got the first letter wrong?

by interestedbystander 2008-04-04 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

No problem. There's an old quote I use in reference to myself sometimes, "God takes care of fools and children of which I am both."

by LadyEagle 2008-04-04 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Excellent research and diary, Ff, highly recommended!

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-04 09:38AM | 0 recs
MyDD never ceases to amaze

I'm floored by how many people in this place consider single-sourcing "excellent research." I doubt anyone would trust this method for new drugs or vehicle safety or any number of other regulated practices, but here it is the pinnacle of intellectual rigor.

by bookish 2008-04-04 12:22PM | 0 recs
Re: MyDD never ceases to amaze

Indeed.  What people consider to be well-sourced around here is appalling.  

by rfahey22 2008-04-04 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

I read the Barone piece, it was well researched and very accurate, but it raises some troublng points. It also confirms some of our worst fears about some parts of this country. Take a look at the pieces of geography he isn't winning. Most of the state of Tennessee, the same state where Harold Ford was slandered with a white woman/phone sex ad that played to horrible racial stereotypes. The Klan was founded there, and the state has, well at best a mixed history on civil rights. How about northern Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia? These are places where entrenched groups of angry white people reside. This is where voters live who believe Obama is a Muslim, even after the Wright flap. A lot of them honor the Confederate Flag, and live in very lily-white communities they made to effectively avoid integration. Look at the racial makeup of these places, they;re 75-95% white. Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia, Western N.C, Virginia and Maryland. These are areas where a significant enough part of the people are being quoted in polls by the AP saying that they disapprove of interracial marriage and think civil rights have gone too far. But hey, people can vote for who they want, that's America, and I am not going to use the insulting terms to describe these people that others have. But as a college-educated person who has family in these regions, it doesn't surprise me that she's getting their support.

If you really believe that race doesn't still play a role in America, you need to consider this article.

by AnyDem2008 2008-04-04 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

If everyone from both sides who insulted the other candidate were to vote for McCain,then we would have  a landslide for McCain in November.

Think about the insults Obama has received compared to the ones Hillary has received.

by LadyEagle 2008-04-04 09:40AM | 0 recs
Cherry-Picked Facts Only

This "analysis" is based largely on two states where Obama had no ground organization and did not campaign, and other states where he had substantial disadvantages going in.

What happens if we look at some other states?  Some states that will be in play in November?

Lets look at Wisconsin.  Obama won by 18%.  Obama won about 60 counties compared to Clinton's 10.  And in Clinton best two counties she only got 56%.

Support: http://elections.state.wi.us/docview.asp ?docid=13359&locid=47

Or lets look at Virginia.  Obama won by 28%, with Hillary's successes limited a small pocket of low-population counties in the west.  Obama won in  urban and suburban counties around the state, including the largely white areas of the NoVa DC suburbs.

Are these facts considered or addressed in Barone's hit piece or this cut and paste reprint?  No.  Who is allergic to the facts here?

by OaktownDad 2008-04-04 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Cherry-Picked Facts Only

Perhaps you should read the ENTIRE article.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-04 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Cherry-Picked Facts Only

I did.  Barone references the results in these states, which entirely contradict his conclusions, but does not explain how his conclusion can stand in light of them.

Your diary does neither.

So what's the answer?

by OaktownDad 2008-04-04 10:32AM | 0 recs
Hillary is the warrior...

...who bursts into tears when she's losing, loses her temper when she's challenged, blames everyone else for her mistakes, and thinks the whole world--especially the media--is out to get her.

She's run the most whiney campaign in recent history, but some people insist on calling her the "warrior."

by Mystylplx 2008-04-04 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is the warrior...

I know, the level of delusion is quite funny really. Not to mention the opportunities to introduce sniper fire into the conversation.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-04 11:07AM | 0 recs
All Right Jerome


   we now have a RECOMMENDED DIARY blatantly disrrespecting not only a candidate (which I don't mind since we all do it) and supporters of said candidate (which I got flagged for and rightly so).

  I hope this diarist gets that blocked warning. If my comment calling a poster a liar merited such scrutiny, surely this diary does as well!! Thank you!!

by southernman 2008-04-04 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: All Right Jerome

I did NOT disrespect the supporters of ANY candidate.

by Fleaflicker 2008-04-04 11:36AM | 0 recs
I might also add

   that warriors don't confuse being shot at with hugging children on a tarmac. Apparently, the "warrior" in Hillary could use a little work.
by southernman 2008-04-04 10:53AM | 0 recs
Your Missouri Analysis is flawed


    Obama carried the same areas that Claire McCaskill carried in 2006. The same areas that Carnahan carried in 2000. The same areas that Holden won in 2000.

   In short, the same areas that Democrats win, when they win statewide races in Missouri.

   He won the state. Criticize it all you want, he won the state.

by southernman 2008-04-04 10:55AM | 0 recs
Interesting Question - Don't Know Answer

Who has won more counties, Clinton or Obama?

by activatedbybush 2008-04-04 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Clinton has won more counties, because she tends to win the less-populated ones.

by AnyDem2008 2008-04-04 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

When you add all the numbers more Democrats vote for Clinton than for Obama. The Independents and Republicans who are voting for him now will defect to McCain in the GE.

by LadyEagle 2008-04-04 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

And since we all know Republicans and independents don't get to vote in November, that's a great thing!

by ipsos 2008-04-04 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

My tea leaves disagree. I think you're underestimating just how horrible Bush is. A lot of independents and even some republicans are ready for anybody but Bush/Bush Lite(heavy?)<sup>TM</sup>, and they seem to go for Obama.

So, I disagree with your analysis.

by Okamifujutsu 2008-04-04 02:39PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

First of all calling your candidate's opponent a fool is probably not the best way to win over his supporters.

Let's talk about Michigan since you brought it up. Uncommitted does not equal Sen. Obama, it means uncommitted or more likely "somebody other than Sen. Clinton." As you should know, if you follow politics at all, if you are a write-in candidate, or if your voters have to vote for something like "uncommitted" to express support for your candidacy, it's an automatic 15-25 point dissadvantage. What you are really saying is that Sen. Clinton lost in two counties to "Someone other than her" by at least 15 to 25 points. That is remarkable. I do agree with Sen. Clinton on Michigan, a re-vote there would definitely favor Obama, which is partly why, contrary to popular belief, he isn't apposing it. What he has apposed, so far, are setups that clearly favor Hillary. Have Hillary's supporter in the Michigan Governor's mansion come up with something approaching a fair proposal and you'll find Obama out front and center supporting it.

As for Florida, it looks like local laws there will prohibit a DNC sanctioned re-vote. I do not think shutting them out completely is fair either since the voters there had no choice but to vote on the day the lawmakers (including the Democratic ones by the way) decided. I suspect the right answer to Florida is to treat them at least as well as the RNC did by taking away half instead of all their delegates. The DNC should seat at least half but not all of the delegates. That way the voters still have some significant say in the process, but it will still likely eliminate further "leapfrogging" by states in the future.

by BeekerDynasty 2008-04-04 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Warrior and Fool

Obama is a talker;  Hillary is a doer.

I myself prefer doers.

by moevaughn 2008-04-04 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Warrior and Fool

That is a ridiculous simplification. I mean, really, truly ridiculous.

by LandStander 2008-04-04 12:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Warrior and Fool

Hillary doubleplusgood.

by the mollusk 2008-04-04 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Warrior and Fool

Considering this is a campaign, all either of them are doing at the momment is talking, so I don't see how you can make that distinction.

by Okamifujutsu 2008-04-04 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

I'm short on time here at work and am only part way through the diary, but I have to take issue with at least one "fact".  Following a US News discussion of the MI results, you state,

As is quite clear, Obama did well in only two counties in the whole state. Two counties out of 83. Not exactly widespread popularity.
Now, in what universe was Obama on the ballot in MI?  Yes, he encourages voters to vote uncommitted, but that's a far cry from campaigning, and the MI vote itself was anything but representative of, well, anything relevant.  It could easily be spun that HRC managed to lose two states to "uncommitted".  Not exactly universal popularity.

Hey, I'm all for you & your efforts for Hillary, but if you're going to advertise "facts", you really need to bring them.  It's not enough that some of what you report is factual, it all needs to be to validate the advertising.

by rb608 2008-04-04 12:32PM | 0 recs
Uh....that would be two &quot;counties&quot;.

by rb608 2008-04-04 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

The article is troubling, but not as much as it seems. Obama didn't carry the counties while running against another Democrat, so Democratic voters likely went with a name they already knew and trusted.

Furthermore, once he gets the nomination, he would change his strategy running against McCain. Against Clinton, he has the exact same policies, so he has to run more liberally. Once we hit the general election, look for a lot more tough talk. That will help.

As will us Democrats uniting against McCain. We ARE still doing that, right?

by vcalzone 2008-04-04 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool


 

In contrast to Obama, Clinton has given herself the image of a fighter.
 

Dodging all those sniper bullets, like a true Warrior! What a steaming pantload this diary is, with the usual right wing sourcing. GAK!

by jwolf 2008-04-04 12:53PM | 0 recs
Barone the Wizened Historian


 

In other words, we were facing a brutal dictator with the capability to develop WMDs and the proven willingness to use them. A dictator whose regime had had, as the 9/11 Commission has documented, frequent contacts with al Qaeda. We have no conclusive evidence that he collaborated with al Qaeda on 9/11--but also no conclusive evidence that he did not. Under those circumstances, George W. Bush acted prudently in deciding to remove this regime. He would have been imprudent not to have done so.  

Yeah, that Michael Barone really knows his stuff!
We needed to invade Iraq, 'cuz we were FACING a brutal dictator (lol). Imprudent not to, dontcha know, considering that "we had no conclusive evidence that he did NOT collaborate with AQ". Good lord what a fool.

by jwolf 2008-04-04 01:20PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

   No wonder Obama would rather maintain an illegitimate advantage than risking losing as an honorable man.

by RC01 2008-04-04 01:36PM | 0 recs
Um, what?

I can't figure out what you're talking about. Has Obama done something I haven't heard about?

by Okamifujutsu 2008-04-04 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, what?

Blocked revotes in MI and FL.

by MediaFreeze 2008-04-04 03:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, what?

  He has blocked the re-vote of MI and FL, haven't you heard about that? So much for democracy. Not even dictatorial regimes would stoop so low.

by RC01 2008-04-04 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, what?

Wow. What power. He controls the legislatures!

by RLMcCauley 2008-04-04 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Um, what?

No way would there have been a re-vote in Florida (actually, I think Obama's people were pushing for a re-vote back in February, FWIW). The Republicans in the legislature were never going to pay for cleaning up the DNC's mess, in fact, I'm sure they had a big laugh about it. Nobody had any confidence that the Florida Democratic party was capable of creating a fair process for a re-vote (including party officials themselves, though they did present a proposal).

by Alice in Florida 2008-04-04 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

Oh, Fleaflicker, you've done it again. You're written an article with entirely no substance whatsoever. Tee hee. Silly Fleaflicker.

How about you look at a few other states- not including two that he didn't campaign in- swing states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Virginia, Colorado, Washington, and then apply your stunning analysis to the very, very few counties geographically close together that Obama won there. I'd love to hear about it.

Oh, wait- you won't do that! It'd prove you're nothing more than an "eloquent fool"!

Tee hee!

by ragekage 2008-04-04 03:46PM | 0 recs
U.S. News...

They care greatly for the Democratic Party, don't they?

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-04 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool
    You mean the caucus states? I hate to break it to you but there are no undemocratic Caucus votes in the General election, no "democrats for a day" and no thugs to rig the election.
    Who is the greatest fool here?
by RC01 2008-04-04 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool

with all due respect based on looking at these comments it seems to me that clinton supporters just use their strong opinions and emotions to debate and make their points and Obama supporters tend to deal more with the cold hard facts

anyone feel free to write a diary on my little observation

by wellinformed 2008-04-04 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: The Warrior and the Eloquent Fool
The disconnect that BO has with common people is remarkable. I had mentioned Barone's analysis earlier after reading about it on Jerome's diary together with the electoral map site. The analysis is something which will be played-up in the GE. Obama's base is not the Reagan democrats that he says but really the liberal elite, the academic crowd. If anyone believes that Obama will be able to carry Wyoming, Utah, South Carolina, Colorado in the GE based on the current demographics he or she is seriously delusional. Hell he will have trouble in NH, IA, WA, OH, FL and PA....and that spells disaster. The voters he appealed to with his Republican for a day campaign are the Republicans who want to see Clintons out of office. Do not have any doubts that all these same Republicans will vote for their own candidate in the GE, that is what they do.
I live in NC, a red state if ever there was one, so much so the governor himself has said that he likes watching "King of the Hill" to get a pulse of the voters. A lot of voters here are Democrats, or rather conservative southern Democrats who vote for a Democratic state legislature but a Republican at the center. Needless to say because of that Liddy Dole has more than 50% approval rating although she is a terrible senator. I do not see Barack Obama making any headway with them. He might get crossover Republican voters who will vote for him against Hillary but his real base lies in the Triangle, Chapel Hill, Durham, Fayeteville, Asheville and Boone. These are either college towns or have large AA population. In Chapel Hill Obama is the rage and given that I have very low opinion of the Chapel Hill liberal socialists in their $200k+ houses (that is median value of houses), strict zoning laws that relegate African Americans to the back lots of the town and with a median income of approximate $90k, it is hard for them to connect with blue collared Jacksonian America. That is the truth.
Obama's affectation's of appealing to the farmers and blue collared workers in PA appear as out of place as Grandpa Fred with his Gucci loafers in the IA state fair mud or John Kerry with his orange duck hunting suit. I cannot see Hillary doing that either yet she does appeal to the bread and butter issues of blue-collar America and that's why she gets their votes. She appeals to conservative Democrats and gets their votes too and these are the people who are the Reagan Democrats, who left the party after the Carter years. So yes she still has hope. She still needs to fight and organize. Yes we are in it till the convention.
Go Hillary!
by tarheel74 2008-04-04 06:24PM | 0 recs
Michael Barone??

From Fox News All-Stars?  

Look, there's no reason he can't be right, but it's just very odd that you would take his anti-Obama analysis and try to spin it as pro-Hillary fact.

But, okay, let me point out one huge, glaring mistake here which makes it impossible to take anything else seriously.

Obama did not run in Michigan.  Despite the author's claim that Obama himself asked Michigan voters to vote Uncommitted (and I'd love to see a source for that), we still have the fact that Uncommitted is not Obama, nor is it even a real name.  The fact that it was held in the first week of January without any organizing or campaigning or advertising should at the very least suggest that it is too anomalous to draw such conclusions.  

And let's also not forget that many of the big blogs were actively encouraging Michigan dems to cross over and vote for Romney just because Hillary's name was the only one on the ballot.

You might also want to ask yourself if the demographics of the Uncommitted vote might reflect on Edwards in some way, since his name wasn't on the ballot.  Were Edwards voters in Michigan academics, elites, and blacks?  Because if you draw conclusions about Edwards voters from the same Uncommitteds, then they are indistinguishable, thus making the whole Michigan vote an irrelevant mishmosh for drawing any conclusions.

So this is crap.

The ultimate answer to anybody suggestiong that Obama isn't electable is the simple observation that he is winning and Hillary is losing.  You can try to say that he can't beat the Republicans, but even if he can't, (just for argument's sake) why would the candidate who has been losing to Obama be more likely to win?  

by Dumbo 2008-04-04 08:13PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads