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.

… 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

Don’t mean doodly. Ask President Kerry.

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.

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).

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!!!

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.

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.

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…

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

i don’t think—except for the socially conservative ones.

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.

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

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.

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)

or was it 68?

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.

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

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…

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/ge…

—
“… 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. …”

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.

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…

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

During the Vietnam War. (30)

Iraq War, no.

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

More here.

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

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

Then win the nomination fair and square instead of insisting like Hillary did today that’s she’s more electable because most white people would rather see the guy who did go sit in the back of the bus.

He never ran for president again but became a lion in the senate. Which would probably be Hillary’s best career move if she wants to further her agenda too.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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!!!

looks like we might win a special election

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.

…. 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.

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.

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!!!

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)

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

same rhetorical tactics. Same disrespect for evidence and facts. Same grievance based reasoning process.

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.

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

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… )

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.

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.

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsh…

I really wouldn’t use them as a valid or honest assessor of any politician’s record.

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…

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

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