Gotterdemocraterung

[Bloggingheads]

.

[Eastwest]

It's time for Barack to step aside, with apologies, for the good of the party and the good of the country.

Apologies for what?

Apologies for arrogantly putting himself forward with no experience, poor judgment, bad friends, and so many negatives that there is absolutely no way he can ever beat the Republican attack machine.

The whole basis for choosing the Democratic candidate needs to be who has the best chance of beating McBush.

If Barack had the brains to stay away from the race issue entirely, or, when unavoidable, the smarts to downplay it as much as possible, he might have stood a chance. But no, he had to foreground it instead with a sermon to the country on the topic which had nicely been put to sleep where it belongs (at least during campaigns wherein racists make up over half the electorate).

The Result: The "Bradley / Wilder Effect" will kill him for sure, even if the polls look OK in the fall, thus also guaranteeing at least four more years of Republican insanity, both internationally and domestically.

Thanks, Barack. What an idiot.

EW

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Eastwest

It's time for Barack to step aside, with apologies, for the good of the party and the good of the country.

Apologies for what?

Apologies for arrogantly putting himself forward with no experience, poor judgment, bad friends, and so many negatives that there is absolutely no way he can ever beat the Republican attack machine.

The whole basis for choosing the Democratic candidate needs to be who has the best chance of beating McBush.

EW

I haven't had a chance to watch the diavlog, yet; and I'm not sure if you're kidding. But I don't think the problem is with the particular candidates - the current process and political context seem only to be capable of producing structurally weak candidates on the Dem side. I'd like for that not to be true - especially when, as I see it, the Federal judiciary is in danger of being fatally compromised by Republican appointments - but, I think the truth is we have met the enemy and he is us. I think the party is in need of grass roots reorganization similar to what the GOP underwent prior to 1994. Until either the party power structure or the demographics of its constituents have changed. I had, and still have to an extent, hopes for Howard Dean in this regard - but anybody who styles himself an agent of change in an organization like a major political party has a real battle to win.

[mumi]

First, Jeralyn - I love you and you are Great for Bloggingheads. When this election cycle is over I hope you will be here a long time.

However, your arguments for Hillary are weak and absurd on the face. This isn't a courtroom. Sophistry only goes so far outside the court. Mark has embarrassed you.

Barack Obama has won the race and it is time to unite behind the candidate. Continual bickering is awful for us.

mum

[popcorn_karate]

I Agree completely Mumi.

Hillary has no chance for the nomination. All of her wins come after Republicans started voting in democratic primaries for Hillary - so she can lose in November. All she is doing now is trying to ensure that Barak loses to McCain.

and Jerralyn - you might want to consider that if you have to make completely obtuse and absurd arguments, and never actually address what Mark is saying - you just might be wrong.

the "big states" argument is just ridiculous.

she's getting the "blue collar, gun owners" - ha! nobody that cares about gun rights is going to vote for Hillary of all people.

[piscivorous]

let me give you a recap. I'm right...no I'm right... your facts are right...yes they do... I'm right ... no I'm right.

[Eastwest]

Neither Kleiman, Mumi, nor Popcorn have woken up and smelled the coffee:

The Bradley effect will kill Obama.

Folks keep trying to blame Hillary for exposing Barack's obvious negatives and thus making him "unelectable."

Excuse me: Barack is his own worst enemy. He had the negatives even before Hillary pointed them out.

So we're supposed to think that, absent Hillary, the Republican attack machine would somehow have either not noticed Obama's negatives, or out of abundant tastefulness and nobility, would somehow not have brought them up at all?

Kleiman and all the other Obama Kool-Aid drinkers love to demonize Hillary. They are just refusing to recognize the fact that their darling Barry is unqualified, arrogant, damaged goods who doesn't stand a chance of winning the White House. What are they smoking?

EW

[bkjazfan]

I have been listening to discussions on race for longer than Obama has been alive and now he comes up the ingenious idea to have another one. Either he's late to the party and used it to deflect the reason he sat and listened to anti-white, American comments from his spiritual advisor for 20 years.

John

[submersibledirigible]

Jeralyn: "I'd like to hear Barack Obama for once say I will go out and campaign for Hillary if she's the nominee"
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/104...3&out=00:39:31

You're in luck Jeralyn! Not only has Obama indicated he'd campaign for Hillary Clinton if she's the nominee, but he's indicated his Organizing Fellows program would even work on Hillary's behalf if she won the nomination.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/6/11170/54536

Q. You recently talked about a fellowship program where you will train some of the young grassroots activists that have joined your campaign. Can you talk more about that?

A:Basically what we've done is we've been attracting so much volunteer talent, so many young people who have gotten involved in the campaign, that we wanted to give a handful of them an opportunity to have some more intensive training. So we've asked them to apply for fellowships. I think they're called Obama Fellows. They will get intensive training, and they will be put on staff and will have an experience, starting in June.

Q:The nomination may not be decided by then, are you sure you're going to be ready to set those grassroots volunteers loose in June?

A:We're still going to be interested in training. Even if I'm not the nominee, I'm still going to be somebody who cares very deeply about the Democratic Party winning in November, and still will hopefully have a little bit of influence on the process.

[Bloggin' Noggin]

I won't opine on what Hillary should do or whether Barack is a weaker candidate than Hillary. But you're certainly right that Ms. Merritt is, shall we say, "logically challenged."
Here's the pattern so far (15 minutes in):

Ms. Merritt proposes an argument.
Mr. Kleiman points out that the argument depends on an assumption that has not been supported and that seems implausible.
Ms. Merritt's next step SHOULD be to defend the premise or propose some more plausible alternate premise that gets her to her conclusion.
This is not what she does. She either returns to her original talking point or changes the subject. And when Kleiman insists that she fix up the lacuna in her argument, she just falls back on "maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree." Sorry, Ms. Merritt, but logic is not just a matter of opinion -- either your argument is valid or it is not. Kleiman has (so far) shown that all your arguments are invalid and you do nothing to repair your arguments. Therefore, Kleiman wins the argument. It's always possible that his ultimate position is wrong -- perhaps a better arguer than Ms. Merritt could have met the challenges that he offered -- but there really isn't any doubt that he has exposed big flaws in her arguments which she is unable or unwilling to close.

[MightyRick]

"The Bradley Effect will kill Obama"? Please don't misuse an already misunderstood phenomena. The Bradley Effect speaks to only the surface regarding what happens, not why it happens. What happens is that the polling numbers for black candidates are sometimes higher than the resulting votes. Lots of ideas have been advanced for why this is so, but it is still not well understood. The only potential effect here is that people might say, "Look, Obama is beating McCain in the polls, so let's nominate him." But the numbers may not accurately reflect how the voters will actually vote, thus overstating one of the reasons to nominate him. Actually, I think the Bradley Effect has been diminishing, but has come back into play with Obama.

Regarding this diavlog, it was painful to watch. She was all over the place and he wouldn't back up and rephrase his many badly stated questions. For example, he asked, "Name a big state Clinton won." She replied with lots of them. He then said, "But those don't count...no Democrat is going to win Texas, any Democrat will win Mass., etc." She then (correctly) replied, "But you asked me to name big states..." He should have just backed up and said, "I'm sorry, I should have stated the question better. Leaving aside the states that won't be in play, which big state did Hillary win that is going to be in play in the fall?" This type of behavior would have saved us a lot of nonsense.

[Happy Hominid]

But that's fine. Like Jeralyn says, we just have to let it play out. It's absolutely clear how it will eventually play out, but no one should (any more) ask Hillary to step aside. It's pointless. She's not going to and her supporters are behind her.

Is this likely to help McCain in the long run? I suspect only marginally. Once Obama gets the nod, it will be all about his philosophy vs. More Of Bush. If Obama can't win then it's not Hillary's fault.

[uncle ebeneezer]

Well said Bloggin'. Thanks for putting into much kinder words than I would have chosen. The part I loved best was when Kleiman went through all the ways in which Obama is winning the nomination (popular votes, pledged delegates, and more super-delegates breaking for him since the very begining when Hillary was still seen as the "inevitable") and then we are treated to the fine pretzel-logic of why actually, no, Hillary is winning because she's winning the big states (the ones that are already custom-made for her) in a Democratic primary. Anyone who still insists that looking at Obama vs. Hillary and tries to extrapolate the results to predict Obama vs. McCain, is just mixing up their apples and oranges so much that I have trouble taking anything they say seriously. I thought Kleiman tried to admirably point this out, but Ms. Merritt refused to follow his basic premise. I find it incredibly rich that the people who need to use such mental gymnastics to frame it such that Hillary is winning, have the audacity to suggest that the rest of us are the ones drinking the Kool Aid. Clinton has the biggest political machine, name recognition, former President playing her attack dog, etc., so why can't she close the deal? Or better yet, why is she losing?

[Bloggin' Noggin]

I like the diavlog title, but that um laut over the 'e' is like fingernails on the blackboard to my pedantic soul! In German, you can put an um laut over an 'a', an 'o' or a 'u', but not over an 'e'.
There is, of course a second um laut in "Gotterdammerung" [not sure how to put the um lauts in here], but it is over an 'a' (thus turning it into an 'eh' (given the double 'm' after it) rather than an 'ah').
Please, please take it out! I'm tearing my hair out here, and I haven't got much left!

[Eastwest]

Re Mighty Rick's "Please Don't Misuse 'Bradley Effect'")

I presumed too much of readers (that they would understand the concept refers to polling numbers portraying an unreasonably rosy picture for the prospects of a black candidate in a general election.)

This is also known as "Wilder Effect" in reference to that black governor's predicted margin of 10% shrinking to 1% final margin.

So perhaps prefer: "The unpleasant realities disguised by the 'Bradley / Wilder Effect' lead Obama-cult dreamers to suppose he's got a chance of reaching the White House when in fact he doesn't have a prayer."

It would be nice if semantic precision would help your friend Barry, but, unfortunately, he's dead meat twisting in the wind, a gruesome testimony to the problem presented by cult-dreamers stampeding a nominating process to a foolish and unrealistic conclusion.

Result: We get two "exotics": the first woman or the first Black, neither exemplifying the best those categories have to offer, this when a simple safe candidate (like Biden or Dodd) would have beat McCain no problem.

An Obama nomination would be another fine example of how Democrats always manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

EW

[Eastwest]

Re Uncle Ebeneezer's:

Well, why is Hillary losing?

She's not. The more folks find out about Bary, the more they realize he's unelectable. (See my immediately preceding post.)

Insofar as she is losing, it's because the other 40-55% of the democratic base along with the "race-loyalists" have been suckered into thinking a fatally-flawed incompetent can somehow win in November.

I refer to it as the "stupid fools" effect.

EW

[AemJeff]

"Barack Obama is black, therefore he can't win." Speculating about the "Bradley Effect" prior to the national election without reference to, at the very least, the effect of McCain's support for the war and how that might offset whatever effect race might have on the contest is premature, at best, and, probably, disingenuous. But you did get to call him "Barry!" Well argued, sir!

I'm with everybody who made the claim that Jeralyn wasn't very good here. This was painful to watch.

[Eastwest]

Re Aemjeff's:

I'm with everybody claiming Jeralyn wasn't very good here. Painful to watch.

Of course. This is expected from Obama-cult echo-chambers. Not surprising you found it "painful." (Reality's hard for dreamers to swallow.)

Sure, go ahead and discount "Bradley Effect" as somehow inoperative in the polls' misrepresenting Obama's very-dismal prospects. I wish you were right. But the fact is, outside of university intelligentsia, out-of-touch elites, and idealistic newbie voters, racism is alive and well in the American electorate, especially when the level of insecurity in that same electorate is sky-high due to Republicans so ably pushing those buttons. (Prediction: Al Qaida scare in late October.)

I would vastly prefer your ideal world. Trouble is: We live in the real one.

Obama's minted-in-Deval-Patrick-land "hope" is a false one. He was frustrated as an arrogant young freshman senator that he does not have the interpersonal skills necessary for wheeling and dealing with the ossified and corrupt minds of the US Congress. Can't blame him for trying to do an "end-run." Trouble is, end-running for president exposes all one's faults and raises everyone's worst fears, even the unreasonable ones.

Obama doesn't stand a chance in November.

EW

[look]

Originally Posted by Eastwest

Re Aemjeff's:
...racism is alive and well in the American electorate...

Not just the malignant racism of my father, but the benign racism of my mother.

Can't blame him for trying to do an "end-run."

I think he didn't expect to be so successful. This was probably supposed to be a trial run to gain exposure.

I think the most significant thing Kleiman said was that even if they go on from here to split the remaining votes, Hillary would still need 80% of the remaining supers.

[Happy Hominid]

What is the EVIDENCE that either of them is "more electable"? I know (I assume) what you would say to show how Obama would lose. But what about the reasons Hillary would lose? She is the most unpopular politician in America. Middle-roaders who hate Hillary, might have voted for a Dem this year, will vote for McCain. I can see evidence for either of them having problems, but no definitive evidence that either is worse. Nearly every poll over the past 4 months has shown Obama doing better against McCain than Hillary. I'm not saying polls are perfect, but what evidence do you have that they are wrong?

So where does it leave us? With nominating whoever wins the most delegates, regardless of what states those delegates come from. This is not about who we IMAGINE is a tougher candidate in November. It's about who gets the most delegates in the nominating process. And she will lose that battle - eventually. I'm not for shutting her down now. Let her fight on so that she KNOWS she has been rejected.

[lamoose]

As someone who joined the Democratic Party for one reason--to vote for Obama in my primary--it's things like this diavlog that make me wonder if I've made a huge mistake.

It's not that I don't love Obama. I do, and I hope against hope that he'll be the nominee and elected president.

It's the Clinton supporters, who apparently make up a very significant portion of my party.

I know I fall squarely within Obama's demo (mid-20s, white, male, college education, etc.), but it's truly shocking to me that there are so many people out there who love Hillary so much that they're oblivious to the damage she's inflicting on the eventual nominee. I'm not one for ad hominem attacks, but I don't see how else you can describe this behavior... It's positively idiotic, hysterical.

This TalkLeft person is, in the words of someone describing Meghan McArdle (a bit unfairly!), weapons-grade stupid. People actually visit her blog on purpose?

I can't take much more of Clinton's supporters' kindergarten-level arguments... but kudos for Mark in trying to reason with this sad creature.

[Wonderment]

"Barack Obama is black, therefore he can't win."

This is, sadly, a very real question. Mind-boggling that it is, 40 years after the murder of Martin Luther King, we still may very well be a country with enough bigots to impede the election of an African-American.

Obama tried to overcome this "handicap" by pretending to be a post-racial candidate, but he actually had a biography (and autobiography) behind him that would -- by definition - stir up the racists. My guess is that even Condi Rice or Colin Powell would have a "Rev. Wright" someone in their lives that the race-baiting oppossition would discover and loop in campaign ads. Everyone has a Willie Horton, and it really is the KKK of America as far as a 10% bloc of swing voters are concerned.

So after all the cogitation of pundits like these two, there is a real electability issue: Will Barack turn into McGovern or Kerry or Dukakis? Superdelegates may not deny Obama a victory he deserves, but they may feel they are commiting electoral suicide as they cast their ballot.

I am an Obama supporter, but there is some reality to be faced about his prospects. Perhaps if Democrats and independents distanced themselves sufficiently from the core precepts of the military-industrial-congressional-prison complex, they might be sufficiently worried about a Clinton presidency .

Clinton last week threatened to obliterate Iran with nuclear bombs. So much for Democrats spreading goodwill in a world damaged by Bush unilateralism. Do we really want a president who is threatening the world with genocide?

[Joel_Cairo]

He showed some real Zen Mojo in keeping all calm and cool while Jeralyn spouted all this crazy talk. The force was clearly with him.

[AemJeff]

["Barack Obama is black, therefore he can't win."]
a very real question

It's undeniably true. The point I tried to make in response to EW is that, from where we sit now, it's not necessarily determinative. There's been no such contest, yet. The Hillary/Obama fight is a pretty approximate test and doesn't shine that much light. There will be a lot of factors in the fall. I've just spent >$3.50/gallon to fill up my car. My home equity has plummeted in the last twelve months. My current job seems secure, but I worry about the effect of a long downturn. al Sadr's organization is threatening to resume all-out war. It's possible that in November the conditions will be such that the Dems could run Ronald MacDonald and still win. Or not...

I'm on record worrying about the viability of both Democratic candidates. I dithered about whom to vote for until the last possible minute, and I still have doubts about the choice I made. I can see profound weaknesses in all three major candidates from both parties. I think that anybody who claims they have a clear idea of who really has the advantage has a significant burden to demonstrate why that might be true. I haven't heard any convincing arguments, so far.

[popcorn_karate]

Originally Posted by Eastwest

Re Mighty Rick's "Please Don't Misuse 'Bradley Effect'")n.

Result: We get two "exotics": the first woman or the first Black, neither exemplifying the best those categories have to offer, this when a simple safe candidate (like Biden or Dodd) would have beat McCain no problem.

EW

This is what I've been saying for a LONG time. It is so obviously true. I can't believe my party chose to implode this election cycle instead of nominating a safe, competent candidate that could win hands-down, so we could get on with the business of repairing our country. Dodd was my original choice.

p.s. calling Barak "Barry" just makes you seem petty and ridiculous. (while mostly you sound pretty intelligent and reasonable)

[rfannan]

She repeatedly claims that Barack has never said he would campaign for Hilary. That's just nonsense. He has said numerous times, in debates and otherwise, that he would support the nominee of the party and do whatever is needed to win in November. Jeralyn is really a terrible debater. She constantly changes the topic when she can't answer a question or doesn't like Mark's answer.

[popcorn_karate]

Nope - Hillary is a disaster. She's a Republican-lite Authoritarian, with the added downside of loving nanny-state regulations, as well.

I'll take 4 years of McCain, with both houses of congress in democratic hands fighting his policies, over 4 years of Hillary enacting the Republican agenda while democrats in congress go-along because she's a Democrat.

If Barak loses in the fall, many of us will blame hillary. Maybe then we can start rebuilding our party with-out the likes of the Clintons, Liebermans, Mickey Kaus and other corporate shills.

If he wins - even better.

[Wonderment]

If Barak loses in the fall, many of us will blame hillary. Maybe then we can start rebuilding our party with-out the likes of the Clintons, Liebermans, Mickey Kaus and other corporate shills.

Or, more likely, he'll get blamed, and she will be back in 2012.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate

Maybe then we can start rebuilding our party with-out the likes of the Clintons, Liebermans, Mickey Kaus and other corporate shills.

PK, Be careful what you wish for. If you want eliminate everybody you don't like from the party, you end up with something like the Greens or the Libertarians.
The only nationally successful Democrat we've seen in forty years is Bill Clinton. (Carter lost his second term.) An ideologically pure party purged of its successful tacticians would be an excellent way to guarantee Republican hegemony.

[Wonderment]

p.s. calling Barak "Barry" just makes you seem petty and ridiculous.

And racist (Make sure he keeps a slave name, like the folks who continued calling Mohammad Ali ,"Cassius").

[harkin]

Jeralyn is the same person who in her previous BH appearance declared that republicans who change parties to vote for a democrat in the OH primary should have their web comments investigated to see if they do not meet her prescribed level of sincerity (those who do not go to jail if Jeralyn has her way).

How's the investigation coming Jeralyn? Did you change your tune because these voters are voting overwhelmingly for HRC or because you realized you had no understanding of constitutional law?

[Bloggin' Noggin]

Originally Posted by Eastwest

Re Aemjeff's:



Of course. This is expected from Obama-cult echo-chambers. Not surprising you found it "painful." (Reality's hard for dreamers to swallow.)

Sure, go ahead and discount "Bradley Effect" as somehow inoperative in the polls' misrepresenting Obama's very-dismal prospects. I wish you were right. But the fact is, outside of university intelligentsia, out-of-touch elites, and idealistic newbie voters, racism is alive and well in the American electorate, especially when the level of insecurity in that same electorate is sky-high due to Republicans so ably pushing those buttons. (Prediction: Al Qaida scare in late October.)

EW

It really is possible to distinguish between the following two propositions and assign them different truth values:

1. Obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread (whole wheat, I guess) and will win easily in November

and

2. Ms. Merritt did a lousy job of defending her position, from a logical point of view (as opposed to a spinmeister's point of view).

At least most of us can make such distinctions: for example, my political position is closer to Bill Scher's than Jonah Goldberg's, yet in their diavlog together, I think Goldberg did better than Scher. I think in last week's Scher/Carroll diavlog, Scher wasn't very effective against Conn. I like Obama, but I don't think he did very well in the PA debate. See? It's not so hard.

I think Obama has a better chance of winning than you do, but that doesn't mean I think racism poses no dangers for his candidacy. I do take seriously your concerns, but I don't regard them as established with the certainty you project. Perhaps things will turn out as you expect, but I don't think your case is strengthened either by calling everyone who disagrees deluded or by claiming that Ms. Merritt did a good job of defending her position.
Your persuasiveness would be enhanced by an attempt to be (or at least appear) a bit more judicious.

[jh in sd]

Wonder, Are there still too many racisist in America to elect a black person, or maybe too many chauvinists to elect a woman? I would like to think not but cannot say I totally disagree. But if McCain were to win the election against either of these candidates, I would not count it as a reinforcement of that idea because with both of these candidates, I think the issues is whether the country is willing to take such a hard turn to the left. Although Clinton is talking more as a centrist in the campaign stage, I think her record will show, as will Obama's, that she is further to the left than the majority of Americans. One thing we can be sure of, though, is given the current contentious nature of political dialog, it will be difficult to have an honest discussion about the subject.

(On a personal note, Wonder, I hope you don't mind that I'm using a nickname for you, as I feel the word "wonder" has such a musical sound to it. I reminds me of a line from a beautiful poem by James Agee: "Sure on this shining night I weep for wonder, wandering far alone of shadows on the stars." Also, it sound like the name of a hippie-child, which I suspect you may have been at one time. jh)

[Eastwest]

Re BlogginNoggin's:

Perhaps things will turn out as you expect, but I don't think your case is strengthened either by calling everyone who disagrees deluded or by claiming that Ms. Merritt did a good job of defending her position.

First: If you'll trouble to review my posts, you'll notice I never made any reference to Ms. Merritt or any acknowledgement of her arguments. (I didn't find her overly eloquent. Nonetheless, the negative characterizations of her POV owe more to righteous indignation than objective analysis.)

Second, On my calling folks out for "delusion," etc. it's a bit of a diagnostic tactic and therapeutic stratagem.

"Delusion" refers to an inability (willful or otherwise) to see reality as it actually is (as distinct from how one might wish it to be).

The diagnostic aspect: Where folks react strongly, then I know how acute their "Obama Deification Syndrome" has become.

The therapeutic stratagem: For those amenable to learning (maybe 20%), this may actually facilitate awakening to realities.

Sorry if you might have taken this personally. Your right, though: People don't like straight talk. They'd rather be told what they want to hear (common echo-chamber sentiment).

Cheers,
EW

[Wonderment]

Wonder, I hope you don't mind that I'm using a nickname for you, as I feel the word "wonder" has such a musical sound to it. I reminds me of a line from a beautiful poem by James Agee: "Sure on this shining night I weep for wonder, wandering far alone of shadows on the stars." Also, it sound like the name of a hippie-child, which I suspect you may have been at one time. jh)

Guilty as charged.

[AemJeff]

Nonetheless, the negative characterizations of her POV owe more to righteous indignation than objective analysis

Really? I'm curious. By what metric have you determined the truth of that?

Where folks react strongly, then I know how acute their "Obama Deification Syndrome" has become.

I've reacted in a fairly strong way. Nonetheless, I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time finding much in the way of Obama worship in anything I've written.

For those amenable to learning (maybe 20%), this may actually facilitate awakening to realities.

Your clear analysis of the lesser beings among whom you're unfortunately beset gives the rest of us a clear example to which we can strive.

[Andrya6]

I think there is a Bradley effect in the polls about Obama, but there are two other factors, comparable to the Bradley effect, that will drag down Clinton and McCain, respectively, in the general election. I suspect the Bradley effect will be quantitatively the least of the three.

For Clinton- Obama has definitely done negative campaigning, but he hasn’t thrown the whole sink at HRC- but the Republicans will. There is a LOT of bad stuff about Clinton which people have forgotten, but which the Republicans will hammer on if she is the nominee. Examples: The attempt to take publicly owned furniture when she left the White House. Lying about Travelgate. The amazing returns on her cattle futures investment. Representing clients in Arkansas in front of regulatory boards appointed by her husband. The pardons when Bill Clinton left the White House- of Marc Rich, of terrorists, and especially HRC’s brothers’ involvement in the pardons.

Clinton even has a "Willie Horton" moment in her past- her minor apparently sympathetic involvement in the Black Panthers murder trial when she was a law student. I don't think she did anything wrong, but wait till Rush Limbaugh gets going on that!

For McCain- most people don’t know how far right he is on domestic issues. His commitment to privatizing social security is going to be pure poison. (George Bush got away with this because Kerry didn’t push the issue- a mistake that neither Clinton nor Obama will repeat.)

[handle]

We should be listening to Jeralyn, a resident of Denver CO., she knows how the wind blows in the "heartland", where I also lived for a couple year snippet of my misspent youth.
If Obama (who I will enthusiastically support, against Mcquagmire) does not transcend "clinggate" in a big way, we better start painting our signs for the big Iraq march on Washington in the fall.

Why?

I hope you watched Mickey and Robert's sort of tongue-in-cheek exchange on (sorry to paraphrase) the idea that we expect people to suddenly adopt our viewpoints if they are empowered to greater economic or social status, because we see our points of view are simply right. (sorry no dingalink.. I have to download the WMV)

I'm going to tell you something that will probably scare you: I think the vast majority of the "heartland people" from the south, the midwest, and virtually
all rural and working class areas in this country are not misguided, dumb, or inarticulate.
Their cultural viewpoints, while different from many urban dwellers, are completely rational and reasonable for anyone working to carve out a decent life in those environments.
I am going to use an extreme example to illustrate this:
When your closest human neighbor may live a mile or more from you, and the nearest town is ten, twenty, or more miles away, having a gun handy is probably the closest thing to security you can muster. Mistrust of outsiders, yes especially if they don't look or think or talk like you has evolved from basic community protection and policing, by people who don't have a lot of time for considering gray areas. Hence the "love it or leave it" type of rationale.
And "clinging" to religion is not just bible thumping, it's a place you go to interact with the people in your community, and see they are on the same page as you, and know the value of a moral existence, thus, you can rest somewhat assured, that they are on your side.
I am not addressing racism here because I see no monopoly on that ugliness in any demographic, or geological area.

OK, you say, but many of them live in urban or suburban environments now. True, but that doesn't change a persons world view. The American frontier has been settled for many years now, but people still want to live like pioneers, and idolize the cowboy-pioneer culture.

The assumption that they are misguided, and need to be shown the light, spells death to the left wing. It leaves them no alternative than to embrace the carpet bagger mentality of the right, simply on face value of principles put forth to them even when those principles are voiced under completely false pretenses.

When I looked at in this way, I can see that even an urban progressive, change embracer like myself, would rather be pandered to, than told that I didn't know what was good for me, and that my principles were all wrong, and that you were going to fix things for me.

Here is what I see is the core problem: these voters have decided most (all?) of the presidential elections.
We have NOT had a Democratic president from the North, since JFK! Regardless of race, background, or stumpablity.
You may see Black and White, I see North and South.The Clintons hail from Arkansas. Obama claims Illinois.
Transcend race? we are way past due. We might want to transcend closed mindedness in our political party as well.

I think we are in BIG trouble.... I pray that I am wrong, but I'm giving even odds that I'm not. (not much of a gambler, I'm afraid, two-to-one maybe?)

Not sure if a conservative should be able to contribute to the love fest going on here but first let me say that I am pretty sure at this point that unless these 2 become some combination of P and VP that McCain is looking real good. Its going to be hard getting YouTube video of any new McCain anger outbursts unless he stops laughing long enough.

Can you imagine THAT first lady hanging around the White House with Bill...picking out china and stuff? OMG there is another SNL or MADTv skit in there somewhere. Wonder if she is still runnin proud of her bitter, ignorant, little country.

Seriously....the biggest thing that I find rather funny/ironic over and above you Dems ignoring the votes in MI and Florida (of all places) but the fact that the supposed "party of the people" ...doesn't trust "the people" and thus we have "super-delegates". How effing elitist IS THAT!!!!??? Not to mention that Obama can get more delegates from an Idaho caucus than Hillary gets from winning TX. Pretty funny stuff. No wonder you are all wound up so tight.

In case you forgot all the problems with Obama...
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/104...5&out=00:35:58

And of course Hillary is ...well...Hillary.

[handle]

I agree, the mich fla thing is a disaster, but if I"m not mistaken, It was the Repub state Govmts that moved them up knowing full well about the Dem rules.
So nice slimy lawyer type move you guys! Another back door win for the party of Morality, and right thinking! Need I say "fair and balanced" too? How bout "dittos"?
I know, you don't care 'cause it works for you. Well, you better get busy working for your war guy, 'cause we are gonna "swift boat" him big time!

Sorry, was that mean? I was just groovin' on your SNL reference. NHI