Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama's OTHER Forgotten Demographic -- Older Voters

While the Obama campaign and its surrogates have been trumpeting the fact that it is bringing in “new voters”, it seems to have forgotten a key component of the “old Democratic coalition” that it disparages.

“Old” voters. Literally.

The Clinton campaign consistently includes Hillary Clinton’s appeal to seniors when it discusses why she is the better choice to face off against John McCain – but the media seldom mentions older voters, choosing instead to concentrate on Clinton’s appeal to “white working class” voters to hype the race angle in the campaign.

The Obama campaign’s use of talking points involving “new voters” and a “new coalition” is sending a message to older voters – that “old” is worth a lot less to them than “new”, that young voters are more important than older voters, and that the “new coalition” means that the concerns of the “old coalition” members are no longer critical to the Party.

And all this is going on when the Republican Party will have a 71 year old as its nominee.

THE NUMBERS

Obama’s numbers are appallingly bad among voters 60 years old and older. In the twelve states that have chosen their delegates since Super Tuesday for which exit polling is available, Obama has not only lost the “older” vote to Clinton by an average of 13 points (Clinton 55%, Obama 42%), his support among older voter is 11 points below his overall support. (Obama support among all voters – 53%, Obama support among older voters—42%).

older_1

Data for Obama’s Forgotten Demographic—Older voters Chart 1
	% of 
       voters 60 
       & older	    Clinton %   Obama %
IN	25%	     65%	35%
NC	30%	     53%	44%
PA	32%	     62%	38%
OH	23%	     69%	28%
MS	29%	     52%	47%
RI	33%	     67%	33%
TX	22%	     62%	35%
WI	29%	     54%	45%
VT	26%	     41%	58%
MD	23%	     48%	47%
VA	25%	     44%	56%
LA	33%	     48%	41%
AVERAGE	28%	     55%	42%
    · Older voters make up an average of 28% of the primary electorate in these states. In only two of 12 states were older voters less than one quarter of the electorate.
    · Clinton carries the older vote in 10 of 12 states
    · In the five states where Clinton won the popular vote her margins among older voters by at least 30% (Indiana, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island).
    · In 5 of the states that Obama carried by double digit margins overall, he lost the “60 plus” vote (Maryland, North Carolina, Mississippi, Wisconsin, and Louisiana.)

older_2

Data for Obama’s Forgotten Demographic—Older voters Chart 2
	OBAMA SUPPORT
	Voters 
        60 and   All
        older	voters
IN	35%	49%
LA	41%	57%
MD	47%	60%
MS	47%	61%
NC	44%	56%
OH	28%	44%
PA	38%	45%
RI	33%	40%
TX	35%	47%
VA	56%	64%
VT	58%	59%
WI	45%	58%
AVERAGE	42%	53%

THE RHETORIC
Is easy to understand why Barack Obama does so poorly among older voters: The rhetoric employed by Obama, his surrogates, and his supporters not merely fails to appeal to older voters, it seems to be designed to alienate older voters.

· The constant iteration of how important Obama’s appeal to “new” voters does more than simply sell an overt signal to older voters that they are not crucial to the Obama campaign, the constant use of the word “new” would have a subliminal negative impact because it is the opposite of “old”
· The constant iteration of how Obama is going to win with a “new coalition” sends the overt signal to older voters that their concerns will be given a lower priority because the concerns of the “new” coalition members must be addressed.
· The constant iteration of the “change” theme by a candidate with a virtually non-existent resume is not appealing to older voters. They’ve lived through decades of “change”, some of it good, some of it bad, and unlike younger voters don’t consider “change” itself a virtue absent a clear and unambiguous agenda.
· Obama’s overt and tacit disparagement of the concerns of white working class voters will not merely alienate “white working class seniors”. Many of the “middle” and “upper middle” class white seniors didn’t start out as “middle class”, but were born into working class families themselves.
· Obama’s willingness to adopt Right Wing framing on the issue of Social Security – that there is a “Social Security crisis” that he plans to address, is counter-productive to appealing to older voters. This is especially true given Obama “change” message, his emphasis on “new” (younger) voters and his “new coalition”, and his denigration of the concerns of“white working class” voters.

Obama may make promises to older voters, but he provides ample reason to believe that when it comes time to make the hard choices, the concerns of older voters will be low on his list of priorities.

And while the primary results show that Obama clearly benefits from “identity politics”, when it comes to older voters there is little question that in the general election “identity politics” is going to work against Obama among older voters. The GOP is running an “older” candidate with whom older voters can readily identify.

And the unfortunate fact is that every single voter who is at least 60 years old what at least 16 years old when the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 means that older white voters grew up in an environment where racial prejudice and stereotyping were a given, As a result, promises made by an African American nominee with a sparse resume employing the rhetoric of “change” and the crucial importance of the “new” are likely to be treated with a great deal of skepticism by this key demographic that has consistently supported Democratic Presidential candidates.

CONCLUSION

While the enthusiasm of Super-delegates for “new voters” is understandable, ignoring the preferences of constituencies that were key to the victory of the only Democrat to win two Presidential elections since Franklin Delano Roosevelt could well result in a disaster for the Democratic Party in 2008. Barack Obama has promised to bring “change” through “unify”. But not only has Obama failed to demonstrate that he can achieve meaning for change with or without unity, while talking about “unity” he divided the Democratic Party, and while talking about “change” has relied upon traditional “identity politics” to remain competitive in the race for the nomination.

Barack Obama has promised a “new coalition”, but to date it is merely an empty promise. There is simply no evidence that he can create a successful “new coalition” in crucial swing states, and in most traditionally Democratic states. Nor is there any evidence that his success during the primary season in heavily Republican states can provide the Electoral College votes to replace those he puts at serious risk in states that Democrats have traditionally relied upon.

The Democratic Party relies on the judgment of Superdelegates when there is no clear choice among Democrats for the Party nomination. That judgment, and the necessity of providing Democratic office-holders, members of the Democratic National Committee, and other “Party leaders” with an automatic voice in the nomination process is being tested. What isn’t at stake is access to Barack Obama’s donor list and “grassroots organization”, but the future of the nation and the world.

The choice faced by Super-Delegates is simple – do you go with a “sure thing”, even if it means alienating “new voters” and not forming a so-far imaginary “new coalition”, or do you roll the dice on an untested and unproven nominee?

SOURCE NOTES:
Data for charts and tables is from CNN election results and exit poll pages, which can be found at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari...

0
No votes yet

Comments

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

people who get things done, have a long list of things they've gotten done. Obama graduates from Harvard Law School, goes to work for a medium sized civil rights law firm, and doesn't lead on a single case. Does that mean in those years, there wasn't one civil rights case brewing in Chicago that needed a smart young attorney ready to make his name? I doubt that. I just don't think he does stuff. Clinton wasn't holding office, but that didn't stop her from finding federal funds to build medical facilities in rural Arkansas. That didn't stop her from creating a homeschooling program for the families of toddlers who didn't have access to HeadStart. That didn't stop her from creating a micro-loan program that funded business ventures for poor Arkansans. She got stuff done while working full time at Rose Law. She's always doing stuff.

I just don't see obama tackling projects that benefit other people. I think he's all about the schmoozing and not about the accomplishing.

Lastly, in the 90s, Chelsea got sick at school one day. When the school nurse went to call her parents to come get her, Chelsea told the nurse to call her dad. Her mom was too busy. I have no doubt that's a true story.

"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays

Submitted by lambert on

... if the rhetoric seems designed to alienate?

Isn't Obama supposed to be pretty good with rhetoric?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

white_n_az's picture
Submitted by white_n_az on

and if pressed, I am quite certain that Axelrod will tell us that the over 60 crowd never votes for Democrats anyway.

Seems that they're really good on identifying the ones that don't vote for Dems.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I think that what led McCain to call out Obama on his "new politics" yesterday was claiming Obama was dogwhistling "ageism" when he said Senator McCain had lost his bearings. This demo seems the most likely to be rich for McCain to mine in November.

I talked to a lot of older voters (60+) in NH and they openly disdained Obama as someone who hadn't done anything. I didn't get the feeling that when they said they thought experience was important they were kidding. If you look at the votes he gets from people who say experience is their number one quality, he's very, very low. Single digits sometimes.

It's amazing that he's gotten so many in the Democratic Party to revise the normal standards of "experience" as applied to presidents. I don't think they'll get the rest of America to go along so easily.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

wasabi's picture
Submitted by wasabi on

Who needs the old folks anyway when you have all that young fresh blood entering the party? Someone smart should be able to corner the market on ice floes and make a mint.

All I need to know about how the seniors view this election is to talk to my mother and her pals at her apartment complex. They are aware on the periphery of the general issues during this campaign. As they have weathered many election seasons and some have lived through some tough times, they have a good grasp of who has been a good president and what the characteristics are that are needed for the job. I didn't find much enthusiasm for Obama because they thought he lacked the required breadth of experience. Thank god most of them have never read blogs, where they'd find out they should just go die already to make way for the youngens. But they were White, so maybe they are all just racist.

Submitted by lambert on

prefer a younger demographic to target for advertising has nothing at all to do with their support for Obama.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I think that what led McCain to call out Obama on his “new politics” yesterday was claiming Obama was dogwhistling “ageism” when he said Senator McCain had lost his bearings.

yeah, it was that "ageism" thing that made me look at older voters. The GOP is setting itself up nicely -- they can use Obama's lack of experience in a genuine dog-whistle effort, and any protests about 'dog whistling' will be met with hostility by voters who identify themselves as representing the virtues of "maturity" and "experience"

Boston Boomer's picture
Submitted by Boston Boomer on

when Obama made it clear that he didn't need or want votes from us baby boomers. I'm an early baby boomer. I turned 60 in December. After the baby boomer remarks and the McClurkin episode, I knew I couldn't vote for Obama.

I wasn't a Hillary fan back then, but she won me over in the debates. The woman is brilliant and knows the issues inside out. Once I started to listen to her, I realized she was a really likeable person too.

If the superdelegates give the nomination to Obama, we will lose the election. I've pretty much resigned myself to President McCain. Hillary can run again in 2012. But the Democratic party will be done if we lose this year. We are going to need a new party.

Davidson's picture
Submitted by Davidson on

I honestly think most people believe that there's no way Obama would be considered a serious presidential candidate, let alone the (likely) nominee if he wasn't experienced. So they just assume he must be. Combine that with misogyny and the fact that actually questioning Obama on any legitimate issue, let alone basic qualifications or experience, is radioactive (Racist!) and we have our current catastrophe.

orionATL's picture
Submitted by orionATL on

p'luke

this good work.

i was wondering after indiana if anyone would take a look at the older vote.

p.s. you write "where the data" is available. i'm not sure what that means, but i have become annoyed with "holes" for critical data in the cnn exit polls data.

i have found that cbs news "election 2008" (or some such title), does a more complete job across states on demographics.

basement angel's picture
Submitted by basement angel on

I'm astounded at how much even his own supporters don't know. I challenge them on what he's done all the time, and they never have any idea. They talk about what a potent legislator he is or how he was this blazingly brilliant civil rights attorney - and they have no idea that he has a genuinely subpar record by any objective standard. I start listing things Clinton has done in and out of office, and they just refuse to believe that Obama doesn't have similar accomplishments. But, of course, he doesn't.

"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays

Pat J's picture
Submitted by Pat J on

Axelrod is an idiot. As long as this bashing keeps up it only strengthens my resolve to either stay home in November or write in Hillary on my ballot. I am not about to cast a vote for an inexperienced, unqualified, race baiting, smug character like The One. Assuming that by November I will just get onboard and vote this trainwreck into the WH just ain't going to happen. I marched in the 60s for civil rights, marched against the Cambodia bombings, supported the Women's movement, held signs in the rain outside voting precincts, supported Democratic candidates on local, state and national levels to have my presence dismissed this easily? I won't vote McCain but if he wins too bad. The Democratic Party is a farce.

Pat J

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

who voted Democratic in the primaries are going to vote for the Democratic nominee in the fall. Claiming older voters or white working class voters who voted for Hillary are going to swing en masse to McCain is as silly as saying all those black voters, college educated voters and kids who voted for Obama would vote for Johnny boy.

Boston Boomer's picture
Submitted by Boston Boomer on

I'm an older voter (age 60). I not only won't vote for Obama in November, I won't vote for any Democrat who has endorsed him--and that means in future elections. That means I won't vote for Kerry or Kennedy again, and I'll work to replace them, with women if possible.

I've learned my lesson. The Democratic Party no longer wants my vote, because I'm and "older woman." But I'm from a long-lived family, and I've been voting Democratic in every election since 1972. Next week, I plan to change my party affiliation to Independent. I've had it.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Older voters and white working class voters who vote in Dem primaries actually have a record of swinging to the republicans, whereas Obama's supporters don't.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

p.s. you write “where the data” is available. i’m not sure what that means, but i have become annoyed with “holes” for critical data in the cnn exit polls data.

First off, thanks for the CBS link -- its actually the exact same exit polling stuff as CNN, but its much better organized! All news organization rely on the same exit polling -- some are more agressive than others in adjusting their polls to reflect reality (which isn't actually a bad thing -- the first exit polling data come out of 'key precincts' that are supposed to be representative of the entire electorate, and have already been "adjusted" to be consistent with expectations for those precincts.) The New York Times, for example, winds up with different results from CNN/CBS based on the exact same polling data, the differences are occasionally important (for instance, NTY has 14% AA turnout in Indiana, while CBS/CNN has it at 17%. The difference in those numbers translates into 5 to 6 points in the Clinton/Obama overall margins -- and understanding election results is all about where the margins came from). But I checked the the CNN data against the Times data, and while there are diferences, those differences are statistical noise when compared to the huge differences found in Clinton's and Obama's support among older voters.

this was really just a "fast and dirty" analysis. Usually, when I do this kind of stuff, I use every data point available (i.e. all primary/caucus states with exit polls). But it would have taken me at least a full day to do the "full" analysis, and spot checking other states told me that the overall results of a "full" analysis would not be significantly different.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Don't mean doodly. Ask President Kerry.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Older voters and white working class voters who vote in Dem primaries actually have a record of swinging to the republicans, whereas Obama’s supporters don’t.

You would think that a supporter of a candidate who is wholly dependent upon the exploitation of identity politics for his status as "presumptive nominee" would be a little more concerned with the potential for McCain to exploit the same kinds of techniques used by Obama.

But, who are we kidding. "Obama Rules" trump all logic and data.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

That corresponds to experience.

I was talking to Obamaphiles and I asked why one supported Obama. The answer? He makes me feel good. Why? His multicultural upbringing? I was a racist for mentioning he went to very elite private schools.

Then I asked what Obama would mean as president. Oh, he's against lobbyist influence. Didn't he have a lobbyist as state chair in NH, NV, and IN? Well its not the details, its the intent. But didn't you just put your entire stock on an Obama presidency on his position on lobbyists? you're dishonest, not all lobbyists are bad. But you just said...

Whatever, Obama voted AGAINST the war. Do you know when AUMF was? 2002/3. When was Obama elected? Uh, I'm guessing around 2001. Wasn't it 2004 so he didn't have to vote on it? Well, he never voted for the war.

In a nutshell: many support Obama because of the thrill up their legs, per their own admission (look at the text of his prominent endorsers speeches). The last refuge of scoundrels when they can't find a good reason to support Obama is AUMF (again, look at his endorsers statements).

Only tyrants rig elections.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Or do you really think that the votes in Ohio were accurate and untampered with?

I really need some Kewl-Aid(we need to start differentiating this).

Exit polls are the metric the UN uses to verify the veracity of elections worldwide. Nov, of 2004 was the 1st time they had ever been substantially off. The first exit polls are usually wildly inaccurate, but that is because they haven't finished consolodating the data yet.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

Showed that there was some 'splaining to do... this charge of vote rigging swings both ways.

(President) Kerry has nothing to apologize except for conceding before the count was finished in Ohio- the exit polls were correct.

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

Older voters and white working class voters who vote in Dem primaries actually have a record of swinging to the republicans, whereas Obama’s supporters don’t.

The record of younger voters is to not show up at all.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

I keep agreeing with Aeryl -- which must mean she's really smart! ;-)

The first exit polls are usually wildly inaccurate, but that is because they haven’t finished consolodating the data yet.

Hell, when the first exit polls are released, they haven't even been adjusted to reflect the returns in the precincts that were polled.

And if you're polling 100 out of 600 people in a precinct, the odds that the results of the poll of that precinct being off by at least 5-6% are pretty high...

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

all the Boomers are now late 40s-60something, and they're the ones who have already swung (to Reagan if not others)....plus, they're considered more moderate if not conservative compared to younger Americans, and they're far more reliable voters overall--when you've been voting for decades, you automatically go vote each time--young voters don't, as we've seen over and over.

Plus, many are parents, too, which means they care about govt actions that affect kids and families--and many also have their own parents still alive as well (the Sandwich generation).

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

And the unfortunate fact is that every single voter who is at least 60 years old what at least 16 years old when the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 means that older white voters grew up in an environment where racial prejudice and stereotyping were a given, As a result, promises made by an African American nominee with a sparse resume employing the rhetoric of “change” and the crucial importance of the “new” are likely to be treated with a great deal of skepticism by this key demographic that has consistently supported Democratic Presidential candidates.

I could interpret that in at least a couple of ways, one of them I'm not thrilled about, but before I pounce I wanted to ask for a clarification.

trishb's picture
Submitted by trishb on

I'd put down every penny I have. I lived in Lebanon where the votes were being counted for Warren County. Supposedly, the vote count was closed because of a warning from Homeland Security. The county commissioner claimed on a scale of 1 to 10, the threat was a 10. Makes me wonder if Al Qaeda was supposed to be targeting the cows, the soybeans, or Joe's produce stand.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

You're gonna have a hard time convincing me that all those boomers (I'm 52) who protested the Vietnam War, who make up a large portion of the 60 to 70% of this country who are against the War in Iraq are going for McCain. Reagan's dead, GW Bush has exposed conservative theories of government for what they are: fraud.

We had less than $1 trillion dollars in debt when Jimmy Carter left office. It took two world wars, a civil war, umpteen recessions and depressions, all of US history from 1776 to 1981 to run up that tab. IN 27 short years of the Republican "revolution", trickle down, supply side tax cuts for the richest one percent that debt has ballooned to $9 trillion and counting.

John McCain said in 2001 Bush's tax cuts "offended his conscience", now he wants to make them permanent. That's unsustainable, your kids and grandkids are going to have to pay for it whether or not you got rich off those tax cuts.

That's how you win votes of older folks, white, black, rich, poor Democratic, independent or Republican. Nobody wants to leave our kids or our country in the poor house.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

is that everything else being equal, "older voters" are far more likely than "younger voters" to be skeptical of promises made by an African American candidate than a white one.

I'm not talking about voters who won't vote for a black candidate. I'm saying that because Obama is black, he's going to have a harder time gaining the trust and support of older voters because the way the mind works, the stuff you learn as a child has a considerable impact on how you process information.

Because she's a woman, Clinton has had to work extra hard to gain the trust and support of these same voters -- people who grew up in a society where "womens libbers" were considered "radical". The Feminine Mystique wasn't published until 1963 remember. No one objected to "a woman's place is in the home" when older voters were growing up, and to suggest that women should be equal to men in all things was a truly radical concept.

Bottom line here is that I think that Obama has already done considerable damage to his prospects among older voters --- and any candidate, white or black, would have difficulty repairing that damage. The fact that Obama is black just makes it more difficult for him to do so between now and November.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

that is getting me to not vote for my Representative, Anna Eshoo, its her silence on FL and MI. I'm most likely moving after June, but I will be forced to sadly vote against Anna Eshoo in the June 3 primary. Not sure who to write in yet, though.

Only tyrants rig elections.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

You're telling me that the majority of boomers didn't go for him 2x? They did--in giant numbers.

And even more recently, they went Bush in 04--a majority did.

And McCain already has been getting anti-war voters in primaries--god knows why, but it's fact.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

The Vietnam War was long over. Reagan won because Teddy tore the party apart. In the fall Reagan ran against Kennedy's urban agenda even though his opponent was Carter. The battleground had shifted to the suburbs and suburbanites didn't care for Great Society programs and aid to big cities that Kennedy and big city mayors wanted to restore after Nixon and Ford. Neither did blue collar workers who were seeing their industries and jobs gutted by foreign competition.

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

You’re gonna have a hard time convincing me that all those boomers (I’m 52) who protested the Vietnam War, who make up a large portion of the 60 to 70% of this country who are against the War in Iraq are going for McCain.

Kerry protested the Vietnam War too?

That worked out for him how?

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Were you for the Vietnam War and are you now for the War in Iraq?

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

You’re gonna have a hard time convincing me

we know...

but as someone who referred to police officers as "pigs" as a teenager, who thought that the Weather Underground were heroes, and had nothing but contempt for anyone stupid enough to get drafted and serve in Vietnam, allow me to assure you that older voters aren't all still living in the sixties.

But despite the fact that my attitude has changed considerably toward respecting people that you disagree with, a lot of the core values that I picked up while growing up in the 1960s remain.

And those values are why I'll sit it out in November rather than vote for Obama, whose racist-baiting of the CLintons was a violation of those core values.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

That's a myth of the sixties. The anti-war protesters were overrepresented by middle and upperclass white college students.

You know, today's latte-sipping liberals.

My dumb redneck older cousins (I was too young) volunteered to go.

I enlisted when I was 18, but the war was already over.

-----------------------------------------------

" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

And those values are why I’ll sit it out in November rather than vote for Obama, whose racist-baiting of the CLintons was a violation of those core values.

A life long commitment to ineffectual politics. Maybe you should rethink.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and mark makes it seem like none became Yuppies later either--and that all boomers were old enough to protest (all Boomers born in the mid-50s and later were really too young--they didn't turn 18 til 73 or later).

(i'll also throw in that they've always been incredibly selfish on the whole, and have voted for selfish economic reasons a lot too)

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

can you work up a graph tracking that generation to see who the majority voted for from 72 til 04?

I know for a fact that my group -- the very last boomers, including Obama himself (i was born 64 and that's the last year births were over 4 million/yr, til this new millenial boom) have all along been more likely to vote GOP, they say.

also, most boomers were born 50s, no? that would have made the majority of them too young to vote before 76 or later, i think. this list shows that the majority of boomers were born from 1954-1964 -- http://pages.prodigy.net/wrjohnston/poli...

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

Most baby boomers were not protesting the war OR going to college in the 60's. Fifty-something thousand of them were dying in Vietnam. Most of the rest were starting families, going to high school, or paying the rent.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

especially over college deferments. The poor kids had to go fight, but the rich kids didn't. The rich kids protested a war they didn't have to fight.

That's why the "draft-dodger" issue was used against Bill Clinton.

BTW - Bill Ayers of Weather Underground fame was a rich kid. His dad was very rich.

-------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

from 99, and about how Xers vote less (millenials haven't yet proved they'll vote more, btw, i don't think) -- http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199908/gen-x

--
"... Voting rates are arrestingly low among post-Boomers. In the 1994 midterm elections, for instance, fewer than one in five eligible Xers showed up at the polls. As recently as 1972 half those aged eighteen to twenty-four voted; in 1996, a presidential-election year, only 32 percent did. ..."

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

And those values are why I’ll sit it out in November rather than vote for Obama, whose racist-baiting of the Clintons was a violation of those core values.

Not to mention he speaks so fondly of Roberts and GOP ideas on "regulation". Ever noticed how pro-life judges are also anti-regulation? Obama's been subtle, but he hasn't been completely silent. A big f-you to women who didn't vote for him is just the sort of petulant behavior we should be expecting.

Only tyrants rig elections.

SunnyLC's picture
Submitted by SunnyLC on

think of what's going on today???
Recent Posts

"Today’s Foreign News that Obama Probably Doesn’t Know a Thing About…"
http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/

Who can forget that interview way back in 2000 when George W. Bush was asked who was heading Pakistan? Bush dismissively answered that it was some general and that it didn’t matter if he couldn’t recall the name, because he would be surrounded by advisers who knew all this stuff.

Were you impressed then? I sure wasn’t and I’m not impressed with Obama’s “expertise” on foreign policy either. His policies speeches may come chapter and verse straight from the party platform and he can buddy all he wants with Jimmy Carter…but that sort of “foreign policy by association” doesn’t cut it with me, especially after seeing Bush and Cheney in action. Spending a few years in Indonesia as a kid, having a dubious relationship with Odinga in Africa, and never having the curiosity to explore Europe doesn’t count either.

So, when I ask if Obama knows the name of the current Japanese prime minister it’s because I want to see his ATTITUDE when he answers. Is he going to act like Bush?

I wake up to the BBC World Service news every morning via shortwave radio and in about 5 minutes I learn more than I could ever learn from the American media. Today was a BIG NEWS DAY on at least 3 fronts–Russia, Lebanon, and, yes, Japan. Having followed a lot of the related news while churning out the World Media Watch for Buzzflash for quite a few years, the stories I heard really woke me up, fast! Because the spectre of Obama (or McCain) reacting to some of the situations reported gave me a kick in the gut.

MORE MORE MORE at my blog post...

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

During the Vietnam War. (30)

Iraq War, no.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

The only single issue voters I see on our side are female abortion rights activists.

Case in point, my idiot Repub congresswoman Judy Biggert is pro choice and gets support from Planned Parenthood though she never mentions it. She's voted with the Repub majority 93% of the time overall.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

You can always try and re-up if you believe in the Iraq War. They took a 70 year old doctor from MN a few years ago.

I went down to the post office when I turned 18 in 1974 to get my draft card so I'd have something to burn if they ever reinstated the draft.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

(i’ll also throw in that they’ve always been incredibly selfish on the whole, and have voted for selfish economic reasons a lot too)

Coming from people who seem to vow to they'll take their ball and go home if Hillary isn't the nominee.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

It was 72, in 1968 18 year old males (not females) could be drafted and sent off to die in a war they didn't believe in without the right to vote or buy a beer.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

1--on selfishness, you yourself just said--"The battleground had shifted to the suburbs and suburbanites didn’t care for Great Society programs and aid to big cities" = selfish -- Reagan ran on selfishness to a large extent, and on exacerbating a selfish resentment of all social programs that helped the poor and needy and old and schoolchildren and....

(there are many other things missing from your explanation of 80, including Carter's perceived failures and weaknesses, and Anderson, etc, as well)

2-- over and over here i've made it crystal-clear that i'll vote Dem in November no matter who it is. I'm one of millions who won't sit it out and who won't vote GOP. There are many other millions who will stay home or vote McCain--many of them are boomers, btw, who have already shown they'll swing with the wind.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Actually most GIs died after Nixon took the presidency in 1968 promising an end to the war. We didn't officially end our involvement until early 1973.

The nation as a whole turned against the war long before that. Walter Cronkite, the most trusted news anchor of the time (when there were three major evening newscasts) turned against the war in Feb 1968. Life Magazine put the faces of one week's worth of US war dead on the cover June 27, 1969.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Reagan won because Teddy tore the party apart.

I guess gas shortages, inflation, Afganistan and the Iran Hostage crisis had nothing to do with it. But let's assume you are correct.

Who is Teddy backing now?

BTW - Nice try but the subject was Vietnam war protesters. Rather than admit you were wrong, you try to infer that I support the Iraq war. So you were wrong twice in one post.

-----------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and a basic Democratic value, i think ensuring that the candidates believe the same basic things is not really being single-issue in the common usage.

Just as pro-life is in their platform, and all their presidential candidates are expected to care about it. A pro-life Republican is not commonly considered single-issue, but simply as a Republican.

The fact that Obama doesn't care about so many basic Democratic values --like choice --is of concern to all of us.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Actually most GIs died after Nixon took the presidency in 1968 promising an end to the war.

Nixon took office in January 1969. The casualty rate peaked in 1968 and dropped off sharply beginning in 1969 because Nixon shifted the emphasis from a ground war in the south to an air war in the north.

Give it up.

" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

Ask for our vote. That's the price.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

horseloverfat's picture
Submitted by horseloverfat on

You mean like Rosa Parks?

Some people just prefer other options to the back of the bus.

Disrespect voters at your peril, Obama people.

Horselover Fat

"A lie told often enough becomes truth."

- V. I. Lenin

H F

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

They expect us to ask for nothing for our vote because that's what a lot of the "creative class" did. Well, they may give up their votes for free. As someone representing a class of people who have been allowed to vote for less than 100 years out of the 219 years since the Constitution was enacted, I think I'll make folks earn mine.

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right -- for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't. " - Eleanor Roosevelt

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Gas shortages, stagflation, (but not Afganistan) and the Iran Hostage indeed had a lot to do with it. There was an economic crisis in this country and white suburban voters didn't see Teddy's call for better welfare benefits or Carter's malaise speech as
a solution to their problems. So they grasped at Reagan's blaming government spending and Democrats for all their problems. Teddy learned his lesson from 1980.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

Gas shortages, stagflation, (but not Afganistan) and the Iran Hostage indeed had a lot to do with it. There was an economic crisis in this country and white suburban voters didn't see Teddy's call for better welfare benefits or Carter's malaise speech as
a solution to their problems. So they grasped at Reagan's blaming government spending and Democrats for all their problems. Teddy learned his lesson from 1980.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

You're right myiq2xu! Congratulations!

1965 1,863
1966 6,143
1967 11,153
1968 16,592
1969 11,616
1970 6,081
1971 2,357
1972 641
1973 168

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

the Olympics, but you think that had nothing to do with the election of Ronald Reagan?

What evidence do you have that Teddy "learned his lesson?"

-------------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Try Deez nuts

--------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

hysterical! perfect! (esp bec McGovern just switched to him!)

mark, he's not winning fair and square at all--in fact he's gotten fewer registered Dems than she has--and relying on red states and caucuses and open primaries and "Democrats for a day", etc, and denigrating Democratic voters, values, and legacies--and all issues-- is certainly not cool or square at all. He knew beforehand that he could never win the normal way.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

what Obama denigrates all the time--don't you find all his permanent DC Dem support weird and hypocritical, mark?

Submitted by lambert on

A link? Yes, I would like to know the breakdown of total primary votes into D and R.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

caucus states don't release all the info, lambert. Maybe Paul knows?

i don't have proof-- except for the overwhelming number of blue state wins and the big state wins and closed primary wins--NY and CA and FL and OH and PA and MA, etc, each had millions and millions of actual registered Democratic voters per each primary alone, compared to the empty states and open primaries Obama won, and the very low total votes in many of those states entirely.

i think Hillary's bases of support show it too-she clearly got more repeat voters who are Democrats, and Obama's intentional strategy not to go for those voters but for non-Democrats and first-time voters.

(and i've seen many other things online that state it, but i guess it's anecdotal too--and also it's based on our Party's history with primaries--the Bradley/Hart/Brown/Stevensons/etc are not the ones that the bulk of the party votes for usually)

I'd love to know for sure tho, but i'm not sure it's possible. i believe it tho.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

but nice try.

She said "Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again,"

She had to add the caveat of white Americans, after she mentioned hard working, because Obama is not weakening in his AA hard working support. If she had left out the white Americans remark, she would have been attacked for excluding his working class AA support. So instead you attack her for specifically stating that his support is among white working class is falling, a statement that is 100% accurate.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

In fact everybody knew the rules beforehand (except maybe Mark Penn her chief strategist who accroding Harold Ickes thought our primaries were winner take all like the Republicans) and they all accepted them. The aforemntioned Ickes signed off for the Hillary campaign on stripping any state that jumped the primary line of it's delegates as a matter of fact.

Let's face it the nomination was hers for the taking, she was the inevitable candidate, if she'd run a competent campaign, hired the best professionals instead of loyalists and contested all the caucuses and primaries and won them I'd be working my ass off this summer and fall to get her elected. Same for Edwards. He was my fav in 2004.

But she didn't. She got beat by a more inspiring candidate with a better organization. For the life of me I don't get why you're not more angry at her about that idiot Mark Penn, all the money they wasted (on what I don't know, and Patti Solis Doyle who couldn't be bothered with returning phonecalls while watching soap operas in her office as IA went down the drain. She wasn't a bad candidate but her campaign was. And that blows the electability argument all to hell.

Submitted by lambert on

.... was a simple question of fact, markg8.

Did Obama, in a closely contested series of primaries, win the majority of Democratic voters, or not?

You answer No.

Thank you. Ever hear the saying "doth protest too much?"

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

of what Obama denigrates all the time? Evidently not.
What Obama denigrates when he says we have to get rid of the old politics is the politics of division. Rovian attacks on based on gays, guns, and God instead of real issues like war and the economy.

I think not a little of that was pointed at Hillary's chief strategist Penn who thought he could microtrend us to death, divvying up the electorate into tiny subgroups and having Hillary pander to each in their turn. It's a shame because if they'd let her be the woman she is instead of trying to neuter her early on (to make her look more CINC like?) she would have done much better. When she let her guard down in NH and showed she was human she killed. My guess is a lot of that was backlash against the cablenets who tried to play it safe and came off looking bizarre themselves. Like they'd never seen anyone express a human emotion before. She wasn't my candidate but I was really pissed at them about that.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

The campaigns had absolutely nothing to do with the penalties given to the states. The only thing the campaigns signed off on was a pledge to not campaign in those states. Pulling themselves off the ballot in MI was not even an agreement put forward by the DNC, but an effort by the lower tier candidates to gain some influence in IA, which Obama jumped on, and is now using to prevent a fair seating of those delegates.

Patti Solis Doyle who couldn’t be bothered with returning phonecalls while watching soap operas

And that's just flat out sexist.

he says we have to get rid of the old politics is the politics of division.

Well, that's a massive FAIL.

It’s a shame because if they’d let her be the woman she is instead of trying to neuter her early on (to make her look more CINC like?) she would have done much better.

This is very true, and since she's been winning, I think you can say that's a lesson learned. Unfortunately, Obama's supporters & the media protect him from failure, even when he does fail,(Even though Obama lost PA by 10, he still won!) so he hasn't had to learn any lessons this primary season, a fact of life you will have to deal with in the GE, when the media isn't so friendly to your candidate.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and that both parties are to blame, and that partisanship is wrong.

It's not about Rove or simply election tactics or hot-button issues (altho he denigrates all who fight to get equality and rights, etc, too--all are hot-button not because of both parties but because of Republicans alone)

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

mark, if it's in the party platform,
new
Submitted by amberglow on Fri, 2008-05-09 19:06.
[...]
The fact that Obama doesn’t care about so many basic Democratic values —like choice —is of concern to all of us.

The remark above is, plain and simple, a lie.

What we have here is that people who lie about Obama and spread republican disinformation, write endlessly to complain about how they don't get respect. Well, you don't get respect from Democrats for the same reason Rush doesn't get respect.

Submitted by lambert on

Perfectly happy, at this point, not to be part of your party, rootless. I presume that's your objective?

Obama supporters feel free to step in to maintain the thread....

NOTE On choice, which I think is the point of rootless's latest foolish diktat, others have noted that choice is not at all easy to find on Obama's website -- the one the OFB were trained to tell us to go look at when we ask about policy. Hence, "doesn't care."

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

NOTE On choice, which I think is the point of rootless’s latest foolish diktat, others have noted that choice is not at all easy to find on Obama’s website — the one the OFB were trained to tell us to go look at when we ask about policy. Hence, “doesn’t care.”

As an excuse for
The fact that Obama doesn’t care about so many basic Democratic values —like choice —is of concern to all of us.

When google gets you this link easily
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/election...

So, once again, when you LIE about the record of a pro-choice democrat, you should not be surprised if you are not respected. The fact that you have the Addison-esque audacity to complain that it's hard to find on the web page as an excuse is just emphasizing the problem

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

What time does your shift end, rootless?

----------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

Was there a shift change at Trollville?
new
Submitted by myiq2xu on Fri, 2008-05-09 22:38.

What time does your shift end, rootless?

I like your substantive response.
Amberglow posts a lie.
I call it.
Lambert defends the lie by complaining about the Obama web site
You chime in with a clever troll line

Come on. Can't one of you either have the courage to discourage wild accusations against a Democratic Senator or try to back it up?

Nothing?

I bet that means people are busy working on their substantive reply on health care? No?

All you have is sense of grievance that, in your opinion, licenses anything.

Submitted by lambert on

This is too easy. Someone else take it. I've got stuff to do.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

It's like Groundhog Day.

" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

Timesink, thy name is rootless!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

Anything you can do to lighten this up a little?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/9/19271...

that one is just about choice, but do i really need to show you all the other issues like SS and healthcare he's not upheld Democratic positions on?

it's no lie--he doesn't care about many if not most of our values--he won't fight for any of them according to his own rhetoric and they're the "old fights" and divisive and "partisan",etc--and he has made not one of them a priority in his campaign or in his promises.

i'll throw these too-- voting for Cheney's energy bill, and the Class Action Fairness Act -- both of which even Hillary knew enough to vote against. (for more on the horrible Class Action Act, see here-- http://www.counterpunch.org/martens05052... )

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Or let him play with himself.

-----------------------------------------------------------
" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

Amberglow, in classic concern troll fashion, raises concerns about the pro-choice credentials of Senator Obama - a guy with a 100% rating from NARAL.

Lambert, the proprietor and guardian of discourse, defends Amberglow because - the Obama blog does not meet his standards of easy to read.

No attempt to actually grapple with the question of why it is acceptable to produce this slander.

And tomorrow, you guys will pop up with the same story - because just because it's counter-factual doesn't mean you can discard something from your narrative of how the party left you no choice.

Submitted by lambert on

You know I didn't say what you say I said, rootless.

Amberglow gives the links you demand, you shift and make more accusations.

It's 11:16. That means you got a quarter hour OT. Why don't you go home?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and he thinks it's ok for rape victims to be turned away from hospitals.

it's no slander, and credentials are not the point, nor is talk--votes and action in support of vital issues are the only points that count. (Also, contrary to Obama's belief, choice is in no way a "moral issue" and that itself is a rightwing description of it explicitly used by anti-abortion people)

it's about his "judgment" and priorities as well--like making a speech against a war, then fully funding it since then, and never lifting a finger to end it or even restrict it when you could have--and then using it as a campaign issue as if you actually did something against it when you never ever did. It doesn't make him against this war in any way shape or form--except his mouth.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

The campaigns had absolutely nothing to do with the penalties given to the states.

Hillary's campaign didn't complain until it became clear she'd need them. In fact she and her campaign made assurances to IA and NH beforehand that she didn't support these attempts. Lotta gamesmanship.

The only thing the campaigns signed off on was a pledge to not campaign in those states.

All the campaigns except Hill agreed to pulled their names from the ballot in MI when they were all trailing her inevitability meme and fatcat donor base except for a couple. I think it was Dodd, Kucinich and Clinton who didn't. Dodd and Kucinich had nothing to lose and like I said lotta gamesmanship. If she wasn't going to try to pull this crap why keep her name on the ballot and lie to voters in IA and NH?

Obamais now using to prevent a fair seating of those delegates.

Hillary has rejected a compromise of 69 for her 59 for him and all the MI super dels being seated. How is that not fair? She only won 55% of the Dem vote against two nonentities Kucinich, Dodd and nobody. Plus Kos and others were urging Dems to vote for Mittens to keep him in the race. In a fair fight Obama would have won Mi with votes in Ann Arbor, Flint, Detroit, and Lansing alone.

And that’s just flat out sexist.

And that's just flat out stupid. I have a buddy who watches soap operas every day. When he's working the day shift at the ACME he tapes 'em. I don't care if she was watching ESPN or the military channel Solis Doyle blew it.

Politics of division. Well, that’s a massive FAIL.

If we can beat the Clintons and their oh so subtle versions of it kicking McCain's ass will be much easier. It's not bragging to say I did pretty good against Hillary using self restraint against a fellow democrat. Against McCain I will not be so kind. If you're so inclined later you can thank me and those like who will working our asses off to get the Dem nominee elected.

and since she’s been winning, I think you can say that’s a lesson learned.

She just got her ass kicked in another big top 10 state NC. Obama wiped out the popular vote gains she made in PA. That's the kind of state she'd have to win according to her own powerpoint presentation. Can't do it without black and educated voters but she refused to even try. Make Paul L explain to you how none of that matters.

Obama’s supporters & the media protect him from failure, even when he does fail,(Even though Obama lost PA by 10, he still won!) so he hasn’t had to learn any lessons this primary season, a fact of life you will have to deal with in the GE, when the media isn’t so friendly to your candidate.

You're kidding right? You have heard of Rezko and Wright and the term "bitter" the last couple of months haven't you? The only reason Clinton hasn't gotten the Huckabee treatment is because the Dem "race" such as it is sells papers and commercial time on teevee.

(Even though Obama lost PA by 10, he still won!)

He started out 20 points down, made his own "sleep deprived" f*ckup and his own preacher tried to kill his candidacy. He still lost by only 9.2% in a state that votes tribally. I know. I worked the great Northeast in Philly in 2004 and have friends all over NE PA too.

so he hasn’t had to learn any lessons this primary season

Beating the Clintons for the Dem nomination is the hardest lesson he has to learn this year. I'm not saying McCain and the Repubs will be a piece of cake but it's not going to be this hard. Fatcat donors just don't gravitate to him like they do Hillary.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

on those IL "present" votes--gaining political cover is not a good reason at all to avoid taking a stand -- "... Sutherland said Planned Parenthood calculated that a 'present' vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation. "They were worried about direct mail pieces against them. The more senators voted present, the harder it was to mount an issues campaign against the senator."

... the Illinois branch of NOW did not support the strategy of voting present, at least as far as the 2001 votes were concerned, and added: "At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy."

A lobbyist for Illinois NOW, Susan Bramlet Lavin, told me that "we asked our legislators to vote no" on the 2001 bills and never endorsed the Planned Parenthood strategy of voting present. "They were horrible bills, and we wanted no votes," said Bramlet Lavin. She said that Illinois NOW declined to endorse Obama when he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. " -- http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-chec...

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

here you go rootless--
Submitted by amberglow on Fri, 2008-05-09 23:09.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/9/19271

that one is just about choice, but do i really need to show you all the other issues like SS and healthcare he’s not upheld Democratic positions on?

So your evidence is someone else saying Obama's positions are hard to find on his website? And that what she points to on his site is not good enough. This is the text on the Obama page btw
REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE
Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose:
Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Maybe the typeface isn't big enough?
Is google too hard?
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/...
Or you could go back to Obama's website and read
EMILY'S List Called Obama's Remarks "A Rousing Call To Arms, And A Touching Reminder Of Why We Are Doing Everything We Can To Make A Difference By Electing Pro-Choice Democratic Women." EMILY'S List Insider News reported, "It's difficult to pinpoint the highlights from this year's 15th annual Majority Council Conference on May 11 and 12, because there were so many!..This year's conference was held in conjunction with "Change," our Washington, D.C., luncheon with more than 1,100 members from the across the country. Illinois Sen. Barack Obama headlined the event. His remarks were a rousing call to arms, and a touching reminder of why we are doing everything we can to make a difference by electing pro-choice Democratic women." [EMILY'S List Email, Subject: Insider News - Taking control in 2006, 5/19/06]
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/200...

Or go back to Mydd
Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are fully pro-choice. NARAL Pro-Choice
America endorsed all three candidates in their previous campaigns. All
of the candidates have voted pro-choice; have publicly affirmed that
they are pro-choice; and have taken actions that back up their
pro-choice voting records and statements. All three candidates endorse
the Freedom of Choice Act
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/issues/a bortion/access-to-abortion/freedom-of-ch oice-act.html

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/25/1246...
Or you could find out about who put their money where their mouth was
In the third, Howard discusses Obama's support for the pro-choice organizations that successfully mobilized to fight the South Dakota abortion ban in 2006. "Sen. Obama was the only U.S. senator to help in this effort," Howard says. "He wrote a letter, he raised money. Every pro-choice senator was asked and Sen. Obama was the only one to step up to the plate."
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tappe...

So on the one side a totally clear and comprehensive record. On the other side some witless complaints about how hard things are to find on a website and vague insinuations.

Don't you have any shame?

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

and this is key--
new
Submitted by amberglow on Fri, 2008-05-09 23:40.

on those IL “present” votes—gaining political cover is not a good reason at all to avoid taking a stand — “… Sutherland said Planned Parenthood calculated that a ’present’ vote by Obama would encourage other senators to cast a similar vote, rather than voting for the legislation. “They were worried about direct mail pieces against them. The more senators voted present, the harder it was to mount an issues campaign against the senator.”

… the Illinois branch of NOW did not support the strategy of voting present, at least as far as the 2001 votes were concerned, and added:

I see, Illinois NOW and Planned Parenthood disagreed on strategy, and by following PP instead of NOW, Obama showed that he was not supportive of reproductive choice.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

that one is just about choice, but do i really need to show you all the other issues like SS and healthcare he’s not upheld Democratic positions on?

Absolutely. These things are repeated ad nauseum here, but nobody can ever provide any back any better than what you provided on choice.

On social security - as noted here many times - even Edwards attacked Hillary for not supporting his and Obama's position on SS caps. What exactly is it that you claim Obama proposes on SS against democratic positions?

On healthcare - as noted here many times - there are prominent progressive analysts who support Obama's plan over Hillary's as more progressive. Hillary's plan is not universal health care, it is mandatory purchase of insurance.

But I expect that mere facts won't bother you.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

I have to take my brother and sister in law to the airport at 6am. Keep telling them the truth Rootless.
They've been misinformed too long.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Trolls crave attention, just like Paris Hilton.

" . . . we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender . . ."- Winston Churchill

x

------------------------------------------------
“I don't belong to any organized political party. I'm a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

Submitted by lambert on

Seems to me that threatening to ban rootless causes him to actually engage, and provide evidence and reasoning. Interesting result. I guess I'll have to do it more often. Now, of course, he'll insult me, or revert to more trollishness, and I'll ban him (again) out of sheer whimsy, but it's always nice to see somebody elevate their game. Kudos.

UPDATE Of course, if somebody now stomps his evidence and reasoning, then we'll really know where we are, won't we? (Links, always links!)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Off shift, mark?

Hillary’s campaign didn’t complain until it became clear she’d need them.

So because Clinton was politically astute enough to realize that continuing to penalize MI & FL was going to cause legitimacy problems and effect our GE prospects, she's evil. Remember the delegate strip was a ruling which means that it is perfectly legitimate to change the ruling, after the fact.

All the campaigns except Hill

No, several other candidates also agreed with Clinton(since I've never seen you refer to Obama as Barack or Barry, why don't you demonstrate to her the same courtesy, asshole?) that their supporters should not be denied the opportunity the show their support. Edwards and Obama felt that showboating to IA and NH was more important. Her move was applauded by those in MI. Not my fault your candidate is a political dolt.

Hillary has rejected a compromise of 69 for her 59 for him and all the MI super dels being seated. How is that not fair? She only won 55%

And you answer your own question, how convenient is that. She got 55% percent of the vote. Giving Obama 59 delegates is allowing him all of the uncommited delegates, and still taking some away from her. That is what "not fair."

I have a buddy who watches soap operas every day. When he’s working the day shift at the ACME he tapes ’em.

You implied that Solis Doyle was such a laxy bum, she did it on the clock, for one. Your buddy watches off the clock, so not a valid comparison. And if you had accused Penn of devoting his working hours to watching ESPN, that too would have been sexist.

kicking McCain’s ass will be much easier.

Evil Witch's Cackle, LMAO!!

She just got her ass kicked in another big top 10 state NC.

She came back by more than Obama did in PA, in less time with less money, so is that a win or a loss? And Obama's Non-AA working class vote dropped by 15%, how is that win?

You have heard of Rezko and Wright and the term “bitter”

Not as much as I heard the "Swift Boat Vets For Truth" in 2004, the haven't even scratched the surface. You must be very young.

He started out 20 points down, made his own “sleep deprived” f*ckup and his own preacher tried to kill his candidacy.

See NC answer above. And Wright's media tour didn't happen until after PA the vote, but nice try. I guess Obama's not the only one sleep deprived.

Beating the Clintons for the Dem nomination will be the hardest lesson he has to learn this year.

No bringing the party back together will be, and Obama still hasn't learned that(look at the current coronation lekkery going on?).

Fatcat donors just don’t gravitate to him like they do Hillary.

You just keep on believing that.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and by preferring to cover his own ass and others instead, "Obama showed that he was not supportive of reproductive choice."

"Don’t you have any shame?"
You don't--show me a vote and some action protecting women's rights, and show me more than just a little support for SD once. And show me what he learned from what happened in SD, too.

And show me his swearing on his life now to only nominate pro-choice judges if president--he hasn't done it, and i bet he won't--it's divisive and partisan and not "unity"--it's an "old fight" according to him.

Barney Frank has it exactly right--"Senator Obama also bemoans the "same bitter partisanship" of that period and appears to me to be again somewhat critical of those of us who he believes to have been engaged in it.

I agree that it would have been better not to have had to fight over some of the issues that occupied us in the nineties. But there would have been only one way to avoid them -- and that would have been to give up. More importantly, the only way I can think of to avoid "refighting the same fights we had in the 1990's", to quote Senator Obama, is to let our opponents win these fights without a struggle.

It would have been nice in the nineties not to have had to fight to defend a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, and I would be very happy if that fight ended tomorrow." -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-barney...

Submitted by cg.eye on

Now at least we know when they'll take off their costumes, punch their timecards, and stop pretending they give a damn about constitutional government in this country.

Oh, yeah, their other trait? winning the argument by slamming home points long after others have left a thread. Classy, guys, real classy.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

I sure wish someone would pay me for this but alas they don't. I'm a lowly volunteer and have never made a dime for any political work. Duckworth's campaign in 06 would have given me $100 on election day to ferry canvassers but I missed the call (Doh!) and worked out of another field office instead.

So because Clinton was politically astute enough to realize that continuing to penalize MI & FL was going to cause legitimacy problems and effect our GE prospects, she’s evil. Remember the delegate strip was a ruling which means that it is perfectly legitimate to change the ruling, after the fact.

“The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it’s by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules,” —Bill Clinton

In my eyes that would be the MI and FL legislators who were warned they'd have their credentials stripped if they broke the rules and evidently think they (along with the Clintons) deserve special treatment at the expense of the other 48 states. Hillary flip flopped and started calling for FL to be counted before their primary as it became clear she was going to get buried in SC. Then she flew into Fl the night their primary for a "private fundraiser" to declare victory.

I think we can all agree we ought to fix our primary system. I like the idea of of a series of rotating regional primaries, apparently IA and NH will always have theirs first because of tradition or something, but there should be a system in place that precludes the gamesmansship we've seen from all sides this year.

(since I’ve never seen you refer to Obama as Barack or Barry, why don’t you demonstrate to her the same courtesy, asshole?)

Hill is easier to spell. Besides is "Hill" now some insult? Somebody tell Taylor Marsh! Hillary is what she uses on her signs website, etc. and I have used Barack a number of times on this site, go look it up.

Using the first name personalizes a candidate. Last year before he flamed out I cautioned people from referring to Guiliani as "Rudy" because it sounded too familiar, like everybody's favorite uncle. You should be happy I use her first name. Sometimes it's necessary to differentiate her from Bill.

No, several other candidates also agreed with Clinton that their supporters should not be denied the opportunity the show their support.

The aforementioned Dodd who dropped out after IA and the moribund Kucinich campaign. They were allowed to show their support, nobody stopped them from holding their beauty contest primaries as these kind of contests are referred to. In MI she had virtually no competition on the ballot and still attracted only 55% of the vote. Contrast that will Bill in 1996 who faced none either and got 96% of the vote in MI. BTW that guy applauding her stance is one of her supporters who screwed up MI credentials. I'd hardly expect him to be pointing the finger at himself. It's a moot point anyway now. Even with MI and Fl seated just the way she'd like them she still has no chance of overtaking Barack.

And you answer your own question, how convenient is that. She got 55% percent of the vote. Giving Obama 59 delegates is allowing him all of the uncommited delegates, and still taking some away from her. That is what “not fair.”

Apparently the MI delegation thinks it is, it's their plan. The MI superdels all support her and she'd get them too, unless they switch.

You implied that Solis Doyle was such a laxy bum, she did it on the clock, for one.

She did do it on the clock. That's the whole point. She was blowing off big donors who were getting panicky and underlings who were trying to warn her that IA field still wasn't going well.

And if you had accused Penn of devoting his working hours to watching ESPN, that too would have been sexist.

She would have been better off if Penn had spent his time watching teevee instead of going on it. That guy is emblematic of what went wrong. Your pollster should be testing to see if your message is working, not dictating the msg and butting in where he doesn't belong. He's the Bob Shrum pinata of 2008.

She came back by more than Obama did in PA,

PA margin of victory: 9.2%
NC margin of victory: 14.7%

Try again.

in less time coming off her "big" win in PA you'd think she'd have momentum, Rev. Wright on the cablenets nonstop, along with the meme that he can't put her away.

with less money, he has 1.5 million small donors and she has maxed out bundlers. Whose fault is that?

so is that a win or a loss? It's a loss of course.

And Obama’s Non-AA working class vote dropped by 15%, how is that win?

Seeing as Bill campaigned nonstop in white rural areas almost exclusively, never once appearing in a AA or Obama stronghold what do you expect? She went after only a certain segment of the population and microtrended herself right out of contention.

Not as much as I heard the “Swift Boat Vets For Truth” in 2004, the haven’t even scratched the surface. You must be very young.

Then you evidently haven't been watching any CNN or MSNBC the last few weeks. I'm 52 but I try to stay young at heart.

And Wright’s media tour didn’t happen until after PA the vote, but nice try. I guess Obama’s not the only one sleep deprived.

Obama made his Philadelphia speech on race March 18
as the "goddam America" snippets were playing nonstop on the cablenets. They never stopped playing and Hillary's people never stopped talking about it. Can hardly blame them for the guilt by association gift horse but it was their killer issue and it didn't kill him.

No bringing the party back together will be, and Obama still hasn’t learned that(look at the current coronation lekkery going on?).

You may be right you may be wrong about bringing the party back together but time will tell. Not familiar with the term "lekkery". If you mean superdel endorsements well what do you expect? the cold hard numbers say he's the presumptive nominee.
BTW a word to the wise, if you want to broaden the base of blog readership stay away from insider code language. Newbies come to the site and have no clue what you're talking about and leave as quickly as they came.

Fatcat donors just don’t gravitate to him like they do Hillary. You just keep on believing that.

McCain has raised $70 million and has opted in to Public Financing though he's unlikely to pay anymore attention to the law than he has so far and stay in. Obama has raised $230 million and is expected to have 3 to 4 times the cash for the general as McCain. That's if he doesn't have to spend much fighting Hillary the rest of the way.

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

You're the one who came in at 3am. I went to bed at 11pm my time. It's 9am now and I have to go canvass for a local congressional candidate now. I do notice no one can refute what rootless says.

Here's a site that has his stances, votes with some of his quotes on abortion, stem cells etc.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack...

He has a 0% rating from the the NRLC.

rootless's picture
Submitted by rootless on

no, by failing to take a clear position,
Submitted by amberglow on Sat, 2008-05-10 01:05.

and by preferring to cover his own ass and others instead, “Obama showed that he was not supportive of reproductive choice.”

Excuse me, but this is what is known in rhetoric as a "lie". Obama took a very clear position. He has repeatedly voted and issued statements that are unambiguous. What you attempt to do is use a legislative tactic in which Obama and Planned Parenthood employed one tactic, and other people apparently preferred another tactic to slander his record.

You don’t—show me a vote and some action protecting women’s rights, and show me more than just a little support for SD once. And show me what he learned from what happened in SD, too.

Ok, so you want action, but you don't want to know about his being the only senator to assist in the extremely important SD vote. It's not important to you, i guess, because Obama worked on it. Of course, he learned from it. He learned that the RedStates that the DLC writes off as lost territory are not lost and that grassroots actions can defeat the right even in SD.

He has a 100% voting record from NARAL, but that's not important because, I guess, those votes don't count. Here's a guy who, before the primary started, gets rave reviews from Emily's list as an inspiring defender of reproductive and women's rights.

And you don't have a single vote against reproductive rights and single statement that opposes or shades support a single credible figure who questions his commitment. You just hate the guy and so everything bad follows naturally.

As for Barney Frank, I think he's a great guy but wrong on this. Please note that you probably should stop quoting him since he has called for Senator Clinton to quit and that probably means he has become evil.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

It is quite alright for Marsh to call her "Hill". She knows her. You've never met her. It ascribes a familiarity that you are not entitled to. And obviously you have never worked in an office, where all the men are treated professionally by their co-workers, like being called Mr. ???, while the woman was resigned to being called by her first name, or even "cute" nicknames, so fuck off. It is sexist, and the fact that you don't get it, tells me all I need to know.

I have no problem with insinuating that Solis Doyle wasn't doing her job. Next time, just say that, instead of going into the insulting and denigrating BS of "watching soaps".

Obama was down in PA by 20%, in six weeks he gained 10%. Clinton was down by 24% in NC, and in 2 wks cut that by 10%. So who won? Don't forget that Obama has been microtrending his focus as well. Look around and see how much money he's spend in traditional black media. AA voters interests have been completely ignored this election cycle, and that is the fault of Obama, since he race-boated Clinton, making AA outreach pointless for her, and they are supporting Obama without asking anything for it.

Also, Clinton's campaign never touched Wright, unless a reporter brought it up.

Lekkery is when a bunch of people put forward an aggressive stance in an attempt to scare off or depress their opponents supporters, like Obama saying he's going to claim the nomination on May 20, before the voting is done. Or calling voters in WV, and telling them they don't need to vote next week.

The technical definition of Lek, is where types of male animals gather to demonstrate aggressive postures, in an attempt to woo the ladies. In this case the male animals are the Obama supporters(who are not all male, I know) and the ladies are the media, who they desperately want to become.

Now, in one post you said Obama didn't have fatcat donors, I proved that he does(most of his money hasn't come from those small donors, it just makes a good smokescreen). In the next you brag about how much money he will have to take on McCain. What's your point? That Obama isn't beholden to big money interests or that he is.

You blamed Obama's PA loss on Wright's media tour(his pastor actively trying to hurt his campaign, is what you said). The original Wright story was inadvertent(by Wright), not a deliberate attempt to hurt Obama's candidacy(by Wright), and his PA speech was a month before voting in PA, but keep believing that too. I'm sure it will console you on his loss in Nov.

And as of yet, I haven't seen any Wright campaign ads or books about Wright, whereas the SBVFT had all that and more. It hasn't even begun, sweetheart.

When the FL & MI debacle began, everyone believed that the nominee would be decided. Well the nominee isn't decided, and having their vote not affect the outcome will hurt us later. The reality changed and we must adapt to that reality. I understand though that lots of Obama's supporters believe we make our own reality, so it's not that big a deal to you. We'll see who is right in Nov.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Submitted by lambert on

I'm going to force you to elevate your game.

When I feel like it -- that is, randomly, so you can't tell when it will happen -- I'm going to delete your quick hit comments. "New low," and so forth. All they do is clutter the threads and make you look like a troll.

When you write long posts that really take on an argument, using the tools of evidence and reasoning, as you did on the women's policy thread last night, I'm going to leave them up. And please don't go into cut and paste mode here; I've can tell when that's happening.

Don't think of this as being censored; think of it as being managed. Be grateful I'm investing the time. We'll see how it goes. No response from you is needed.

READERS What this means is that if you respond to rootless's quick hits, your responses might end up being deleted as well.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by cg.eye on

Part of their strategy is to tire out commenters who bring their A-game to the posts.

I always bring my C-game, and I'm usually late, so it's no never mind to me should I get deleted.

I guess I can ask this here: Why are we valuable? Under 300 people are reading this blog when I'm logged on, and we don't control many resources, by all the self-reliance talk. I know my own faults, and why I post, but I'm doing so reactively, and I feel I'm in good company.

They're in territory where should they win, they have to persuade their opponents to give up valuable ideas, but those ideas don't turn into cash readily, and our natural stubbornness is making that harder work than perhaps they thought. So, then, why?

markg8's picture
Submitted by markg8 on

It is quite alright for Marsh to call her “Hill”. She knows her. You’ve never met her.

How do you know that? For all you know I introduced her to Tony Rezko at that fundraiser where she and Bill had their picture taken with him.

"It ascribes a familiarity that you are not entitled to."

Um, who are you to judge that?

"And obviously you have never worked in an office, where all the men are treated professionally by their co-workers, like being called Mr. ???, while the woman was resigned to being called by her first name, or even “cute” nicknames, so fuck off. It is sexist, and the fact that you don’t get it, tells me all I need to know."

Sheesh, I gave up working in any but my own office back in 1982. The last office I worked in before I started my own biz we called everybody by their first names. You must live in some hellish timewarp from the 1950s. I'd try and get another job if I were you. BTW you sure do say "fuck off" and "asshole" a lot. I can't imagine anyone thinking up a cute nickname for you, so you're probably safe on that count.

I have no problem with insinuating that Solis Doyle wasn’t doing her job. Next time, just say that, instead of going into the insulting and denigrating BS of “watching soaps”.

She was watching soaps from what I read. Sorry if that annoys you but I didn't make it up. But in case you missed it what's important is she wasn't doing the job one of her best and most loyal friends paid her millions to do.

Obama was down in PA by 20%, in six weeks he gained 10%. Clinton was down by 24% in NC, and in 2 wks cut that by 10%. So who won?

Obama. On Friday May 2 the Honorable Junior Senator from New York, former First Lady of the United States, noted sharpshooter since the age of four, globetrotting ambassador, exemplar of American female pulchritude and virtue and vodka shot slayer of John McCain, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton said of the upcoming NC contest, “This primary election on Tuesday is a game changer. This is going to make a huge difference in what happens going forward. The entire country – probably even a lot of the world is looking to see what North Carolina decides.”

The people of NC looked, they saw, and picked the other guy by a 14% margin.

Don’t forget that Obama has been microtrending his focus as well. Look around and see how much money he’s spend in traditional black media. AA voters interests have been completely ignored this election cycle, and that is the fault of Obama, since he race-boated Clinton, making AA outreach pointless for her, and they are supporting Obama without asking anything for it.

I think black folks are capable of making up their own minds about who to vote for, who race baited whom, etc. Barack wouldn't have spent any money on broadcast teevee commercials to the AA community in any case lest he be branded "just the black candidate" like Bill (it's ok if I call him Bill isn't it?) tried to do. Besides the only teevee network that broadcasts solely to a black audience
is BET which is owned by that noted misogyny peddler Bob Johnson who is one of her best friends. There's a reason why BET is the only network that markets itself to a black audience and that's because Johnson besides being a speech making advocate for dismantling Social Security has successfully quashed any and all efforts at competition in his AA niche on cable. And Johnson probably wouldn't have aired them anyway.

Also, Clinton’s campaign never touched Wright, unless a reporter brought it up.

I wouldn't say that but they didn't need to, the media was more than happy to do it for them. Constantly, 24 hours a day. It was good for ratings.

Lekkery is when a bunch of people put forward an aggressive stance in an attempt to scare off or depress their opponents supporters, like Obama saying he’s going to claim the nomination on May 20, before the voting is done. Or calling voters in WV, and telling them they don’t need to vote next week.

That's not Obama himself saying that, he's careful to say that the race isn't over, and has never called for her to drop out.

Axelrod and Obama's surrogates OTH are making the case to superdels that come May 20 he's going to get enough pledged dels in OR to give him the majority that she can't overcome, i.e. there won't be enough uncommitted delegates of any kind for her to reach 2025. It would be campaign malpractice on a par with dissing Martin Luther King when running against a black candidate for the Democratic nomination for president or watching soap operas in the middle of the day while the first contest of the primary season slips out from underneath you to do otherwise.

"The technical definition of Lek, is where types of male animals gather to demonstrate aggressive postures, in an attempt to woo the ladies. In this case the male animals are the Obama supporters(who are not all male, I know) and the ladies are the media, who they desperately want to become."

You're losing me. Obama supporters want to become media?

Now, in one post you said Obama didn’t have fatcat donors,

Read it again. I was talking about McCain and his anemic fundraising as part of why he's such a weak candidate.

I proved that he does(most of his money hasn’t come from those small donors, it just makes a good smokescreen). In the next you brag about how much money he will have to take on McCain. What’s your point? That Obama isn’t beholden to big money interests or that he is.

Obama's fundraising from Opensecrets.org:

Individual contributions $233,823,614--100%
PAC contributions $250-- 0%
Candidate self-financing $0-- 0%
Federal Funds $0-- 0%
Other $921,217-- 0%

You blamed Obama’s PA loss on Wright’s media tour(his pastor actively trying to hurt his campaign, is what you said). The original Wright story was inadvertent(by Wright), not a deliberate attempt to hurt Obama’s candidacy(by Wright), and his PA speech was a month before voting in PA, but keep believing that too. I’m sure it will console you on his loss in Nov.

The Hillary campaign and others begged the media to run the Wright and Rezko stuff ever since Barack became a threat in January. They finally did. You should be pissed they did it in that month long lull before the PA primary. As it was he handled it well and it didn't hurt him in much at all in NC and IN.

PA was always problematic for Obama, second oldest state age wise in the nation, Hillary's family ties, as rednecky as they come outside Philly, Pittsburgh and Harrisburg and their burbs, and the tribal voting I spoke of.

And as of yet, I haven’t seen any Wright campaign ads or books about Wright, whereas the SBVFT had all that and more. It hasn’t even begun, sweetheart.

Is that your cute nickname for me? Pretty damn sexist wouldn't you say?

When the FL & MI debacle began, everyone believed that the nominee would be decided. Well the nominee isn’t decided, and having their vote not affect the outcome will hurt us later.

MI and FL voters get to vote in the fall. The only ones hurt by the "debacle" as you call it are the party apparatchiks who tried to cheat the other 48 states. If they'd stayed where they were supposed to be instead of playing chicken (and losing) with all the campaigns and the DNC their primaries would have been right in the thick of it. They gambled and lost and any delegates to the convention they get will have to reflect the will of voters in states that waited their turn, didn't try to cheat, and who picked the nominee.

Besides in almost every other most primary season the nominee is decided after IA, NH, and SC. They stuffed the NV caucus in to give the West representation this year. One candidate is left standing in mid February because the funding dries up for the others and they drop out. All those other primaries hardly ever count. That's just the way the Hillary folks wanted it too. She was going to wrap it up on Super Tuesday no matter what happened in IA and SC they all said. Only it didn't happen and she blew most of her money trying.

The reality changed and we must adapt to that reality. I understand though that lots of Obama’s supporters believe we make our own reality, so it’s not that big a deal to you. We’ll see who is right in Nov.

The reality is FL and MI aren't more important than the other 48 states. And yes we'll see who is right six months from now. Keep in mind six months ago Guiliani was the front runner for the Repub nomination and Hillary was our inevitable candidate.

A lot can happen in six months. Come November I expect most people in MI and FL if asked whether it's meaningful to them that a couple of hundred of their local political farts got dissed by the DNC,
got less than prime hotel rooms or the worst luxury suites above the convention hall three months before in Denver will say "get the fuck out of my face, my neighbor just lost her house, that's the third on my block this year. I can hardly afford to fill up my gas tank, I think Morgan Stanley robbed my 401K, I got two kids who'd like to go to college but I don't know where I'm gonna get the money now that the loans have dried up which I couldn't afford anyway, the older one is talking about the army first which if we get McCain in there scares the bejesus out of both me and the wife, and you're asking me that shit? What's wrong with you?"