Women will vote for Hillary Clinton, and will show up in very large numbers in the primaries/caucuses to do so.
Democrats shouldn’t evoke the name of Reagan if they have accepted endorsements from Unions.
Competence is beating hope as a campaign theme among Democratic voters so far.
Not enough people even know John Edwards is in the race outside the blogosphere.
The republicans are truly batshit crazy. And racist. And I don’t just mean their candidates.
Screaming 9/11 as the sole basis of your campaign is no longer a winning strategy.
No one in the media or the campaigns wants to talk about Iraq anymore. Or torture. Or the loss of our civil liberties. Except fake news broadcasters like Jon Stewart.
Don’t bet the house on a sweeping Democratic victory this Fall.
Chris Matthews is a pig. No, that’s not fair to pigs. He’s a limp dick unless an old manly Republican shows up. Then what he becomes can’t really be described if I want to keep my post’s PG-13 rating.
* These comments are the sole opinion of the author and in no way have been endorsed by anyone else, much less the site’s proprietor.
This is really depressing. It saddens me that so many women apparently think that voting for a female DLC candidate is going to produce results that are somehow different from voting for a male DLC candidate.
I can’t wait for the first time that President Clinton — provided we avoid President McCain — looks for a “compromise” position on abortion.
I think not many people are aware of the DLC outside of political junkies. Which in itself is a sad commentary on the state of our nation.
a majority of the women voting for Hillary don’t know what is DLC.
What’s weird to me is that I know progressives who are Edwards fans, but who would vote for Hillary next. I don’t understand how anyone who supports Edwards could support Clinton unless she was truly the only choice on the ballot.
Ignorance?
Stop calling people on every blog out there ignorant b/c of who they support! It’s childish and … well, ignorant.
I don’t understand how anyone who supports Edwards could support Clinton unless she was truly the only choice on the ballot.
Because Obama has been a crappy Senator (he’s mine, and I’d love it if he’d actually represent me or had a staff that would respond to letters, etc.). He does nothing, sponsors nothing, and stands for nothing. I don’t want President Hope or President Lofty Ideals or President Fuzzy Happy Bunnies. I want a President who understands the gritty details of economic policy, of foreign policy, and who will work to make the country better every day. I want a President who is willing to work for that every single day. And dammit, I want a President who is actually equipped for the job.
I see people here fussing about Clinton’s willingness to compromise, and then they turn around and support someone who praises Reagan (to get a useless newspaper endorsement – there’s strength of character!), trashes Bill Clinton’s presidency, and pledges to “bring the parties together” (i.e., compromise till there’s nothing left to give).
I want to know what people are smoking if they think that Obama is the great progressive savior. He’s not. He won’t take stances or stand up for anything. He has the thinnest record of any major-party candidate that I’ve ever seen. He was crushed in his only competitive race and I he’ll be overwhelmed in the general election. He’s an empty suit with a pretty face.
Furthermore, his conduct after Nevada (claiming to win, no speech to his supporters, no call to Clinton) shows him to be a spoiled, egotistical brat who could use some class. And don’t even get me started on the fact that his campaign has twisted a statement of historical fact into “Hillary and Bill are racist.” That was the final straw for me, not only b/c it’s untrue but because comments like that marginalize him and piss off a lot of people – all to win one primary.
RHL, I’m not unloading on you personally. I’m just sick of going to one of my favorite web sites and reading about how I’m stupid b/c I support Clinton over other candidates.
I voted for Obama in 2004, but I have to say that I’d vote for John McCain if Obama/McCain were my choices – and I’ve only voted for one Republican in 20 years. And even then, I walked precincts for the Democratic candidate despite detesting him both personally and as a politician. I wouldn’t do that for Obama.
I didn’t see Clinton give a speech after Nevada either. I think it’s hard to claim victory when you lost the delegate count.
I agree re the Reagan comment – he could have chosen another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, for example.
Re his record – he’s gotten more healthcare legislation passed than Hillary, so let’s be fair here. She had the full power of the White House behind her and couldn’t do it. He was a freshman state senator, and pulled it off. That’s impressive. The legislation was not what he wanted, but it was what was possible. Those who defame compromise have probably never tried to get a bill passed.
I certainly don’t think Obama is some progressive saviour. I think he’s a guy who allows us to turn a page and try another tack in this country. I really don’t want to go back to the Clinton years and more deeply dividing partisan hatred. I don’t want to go there again.
I can’t speak for anyone else who would vote for Edwards first and Hillary second, but I can give you my reasons. I want someone who thoroughly understands how bad the Republicans are, not just in terms of policy but in terms of what they will do to get and keep power (i.e. anything). I want someone who will fight and not let bygones be bygones. That is what we did after Nixon and after Iran/Contra, and we got the same slimy bunch back running things again ten years later.
I don’t trust Obama for this. He is too into transcending and reaching out and being hopeful. I know all of Hillary’s background and advisors and mistakes. I wish those things were different. But I still think she would be a better president than Obama.
Now maybe I am wrong about Obama. I keep watching and listening to see whether this reaching out business is just campaigning and he really does know what it will take to defeat the Republican’s. But if he does he’s not showing it. Quite the reverse – he gets more conciliatory by the week.
Thank you for answering the question. I appreciate that.
I agree – we don’t know what kind of a fighter Obama is. We may or may not find out in time.
But sometimes, the best way to win a fight, is not to engage, to take the high road. I’ve seen Obama do that a couple of times now, to his benefit.
But it’s an open, and valid, question.
I agree pretty much with everything you just said there, except the idea that Clinton is going to fight the Republicans. Her habit as a Senator of giving the Bush administration blank check after blank check without any real fight — on the war and on nominations, particularly — tells me she isn’t much of a fighter.
But yes, the rest of the Dem field doesn’t exactly inspire much confidence, either. My plan for the elections remains what it has been for the past several years — show up, pick what seems to be the lesser of the two officially approved evils, and keep saving my pennies so I can eventually emigrate.
I go back & forth on whether Obama or Clinton is worse. Obama talks good, but I don’t see anything behind it. On the other hand, I don’t like dynasties or NAFTA.
Today I think Obama is worse. His stated policy is in favor of H-1b guest visas. He talks liberal & acts corporationist.
Hi Steven. For what it’s worth I just posted about torture over here. I know we’re not a big media outlet but we aren’t fake either.
Is it competence when you vote to give George Bush – I mean, a guy who is NOT an unknown quantity, whose own father took us to war in Iraq when HE was president – a blank check? Is that competence?
Is it competence to set out to create universal healthcare and to fail so miserably you couldn’t get ANYTHING passed, even with the full power of the White House behind you?
Obama opposed the war from the beginning. And Obama DID get expanded healthcare passed in his state at a time when it was considered impossible to do.
From where I sit, hope and competence come in the same package, but voters are choosing the woman over the black guy. That’s what I see.
the muslim robo calls in the last few days (NV) did not help Obama.
Anyone noticed today’s date? 1.20.
On 1. 20. 09, we’ll be seeing the back of Bush as he boards whatever to take him back to Crawford. TX.
Is it too early to start chilling the champagne?
yeah – those are really deadly.
I had a guy who knows I’m supporting Obama come to my office last week saying, is it true? Is he a Muslim? I had to explain to him it was not true, that this is how campaigns work, etc. He’s a young guy and seemed depressed either way – depressed if it was true, and depressed that people would send out such a thing if it were not true. I felt sorry for him. He’s a jew, from Iran, and loves it here. Or at least, so far….
Would it matter if he was Muslim? It’s good to correct misinformation, but the first response should be “What difference does it make?”
Minor correction:
It’s Jon Stewart on television.
John Stewart is the singer/songwriter who passed away this weekend. Wrote many good songs but was famous for “Daydream Believer,” which was actually a good song too, if someone sang it in a not-so-chippy singsong.
I exchanged letters with him maybe 25 years ago and back then he was railing about the music industry, from the companies to what music gets played. He wasn’t wrong then either.
“Cheer up, sleepy Jean.
Oh, what does it mean
for a daydream believer
and a homecoming queen?”
You left out;
Bill Clinton is BATSHIT crazy.
Bill Clinton is dragging the Democratic party over the cliff AGAIN, they are going along with itof course.
Both Obama and Edwards are running not against Hillary, but the CLINTONSSSSSSSSSSS!
The only good thing re all the press coverage is that people are finally seeing the nasty side of Bill Clinton. He was no hero. I was sickened when I first saw people on the blogosphere praising him. He made me cringe to vote for him.
is a form of Democratic party politics in which you form no strong opinions about anything, attempt as quickly as possible to stab your own side in the back to gain temporary victory and have no strong ideological beliefs.
It’s not really a form of Democratic Party politics at all.
CLintonism is one of the main reasons we have been losing since 1992.
it’s so bad that Newsweek wrote
Leading Democrats To Bill Clinton: Pipe Down
the damage is done. Clinton has lost Af-Am support. On 11.04 we may just leave the donkey to craze in the coral. Sit home and watch the show.
both parties are in a slow suicide mode. More so the Dems. This enhances a Bloomberg third party run and he’ll likely win.
…at present, the Kennedys are pretty much a house divided, with the cousins working for either Clinton, Obama or Edwards. Kennedy is keeping mum for the moment and will probably throw his support to whoever wins.
That being said, I think the Clintons are hoping that they can substitute any black vote for a Latino vote, and thus play punisher later on to show they (and Dems) truly don’t need blacks.
See this one and then this other one.
Don’t say I didn’t warn yall if it happens.
Re Edwards, I’ve never felt his actions were consistent with his words. I like what he says, and his focus on the poor, but I’ve always felt there was a little, well, show, about it. After he went to West Virginia, following a path carved by the Kennedy brothers during the 1960 campaign, the press quoted Edwards as asking his staff, “Did they compare me to Bobby Kennedy?” There’s something about him that has struck me as inauthentic.
So it’s not just people who don’t know him. I asked someone at work who was fairly progressive how he felt about Edwards. I had no idea if he even knew who he was, as the guy was young, but I wanted to get his reaction. He said oh, my friends and I feel the same about this. Fortress, he said, rolling his eyes, referring to the hedge fund operation Edwards joined between runs. Edwards’ major funding came from the people at that company, per a news article I read.
I’d vote for what he says. But I won’t vote for who he is. In Obama’s case, it’s the opposite. I vote for who he is, not what he says.
regarding what you just wrote “the press quoted Edwards as asking his staff, “Did they compare me to Bobby Kennedy?” That is pretty vague as far as this voter is concerned. “The press” could be someone’s high school newspaper for all I know. Do you have a link or something so I can read it for myself so I may form an informed opinion? It is just some “press” tend to be gossip rags or rumour mills these days. Might just take what “they” write/spew with a big grain of salt.
It was either the AP or New York times – when I say “the press” that’s what I mean, and I remember it being a major news source. I don’t read high school papers or small journals.
this doesn’t have the quote with Edwards asking did they compare me, but it makes the same point:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/politics/19edwards.html?fta=y
in the article you just linked to:
“Mr. Edwards, though saying he did not deserve to be compared to Kennedy, whom he described as his political hero, nonetheless sought to link his campaign’s central theme, the elimination of poverty, to work that Kennedy championed.”
I guess we all have our own interpretation. You are not showing us where he said “Did they compare to to RFK” and you are giving your own interpretation of something completely different from what he said. He diod say he wanted to finish what Bobby started. This is why Edwards gets a bad rap. People like you are saying things that you cannot back up. That is a tragedy.
Since Reagan scapegoated the poor (after Black people) in the 1980 presidential election, advocating for the poor has been, if not the third rail of politics, at least among the lowest priorities of the middle class. Greed, helping the wealthy, probably holds more promise as a campaign motto than resolving poverty.
Ain’t none of them perfect. I have no problem calling Edwards out when I don’t like something, even if I am strongly in favor of him.
He uses symbolism to promote his campaign, and he has one unsavory investment. I don’t see these as major flaws. The other two candidates have their own set of fluff and unsavory investments.
Edwards takes no corporate PAC money. Obama copied the idea but took corporate money before he announced. The corporationists seem worried about Edwards. That’s a great endorsement in my book.
.
Advantage to Clinton (% of voters between brackets)
White (65%)
Latino (15%)
Catholic (27%)
Female (59%)
Non-union (71%)
≈ Cross-posted from BooMan’s diary — Nevada Caucus Results ≈
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Steven, as to Matthews, the technical term is < whispering > woodie.
Re Reagan, I just saw a reply of Obama’s comments on that on “Meet the Press” a couple of minutes ago. First, it’s clear a lot of context had been edited out.
But what he said in no way condoned Reagan, and was true, on the face of it. Reagan did represent a major shift, and not for the better, in this country. The Republican ideas did reign for the last many years, so much so that Clinton has to pay DLC respect to them. So I get what he’s saying.
I wish we could all try to tone down our knee-jerk reactions to things. Edwards isn’t just Fortress. Obama isn’t just Reagan. Clinton isn’t just her anti-war vote. That said, of course, I do think that actions speak louder than words, and that people will say anything on the campaign trail they think will help them get elected.
I really think the best way to know what someone will do in office is to look at what they have already done.
That examination led me to support Obama over the rest.
Lisa, how much of the interview did you listen to? I went through the whole thing. The part where he mentioned Reagan by name was an elaboration of a comment he made about a minute earlier that “Presidents who had moved the country forward had a mandate” While “Reagan transformed the country” may be a simple fact, I don’t see how “Reagan moved the country forward” is not an endorsement. Plus his superfluous kicking at antiwar sentiment as “70’s love-ins” reinforces stupid republican talking points that undermine us.
But Clinton should talk. She lists Reagan and Bush Sr., but not JFK or LBJ, among her favorite Presidents. In a sense, that’s all you need to know about her.
As for Edwards, I have doubts about his sincerity too, but the fact that the media ignores him speaks very well of him.
It’s a depressing field, but the other side is out of Bosch.
As I said – the interview was edited. I haven’t heard the whole thing, and I’ve said here and elsewhere that while I understand what he though the was saying, it was really kind of dumb, to be honest!
Re Clinton – where’s a source for that? Never heard that one.
Re Edwards, the media ignores him simply because he doesn’t stand a chance of winning the nomination.
Here it is from Hillary’s own website:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=4674
I think Obama meant it about Reagan. I think that our generation (I’m his age) has a chip on its shoulder about the boomers that is mostly just generational identity politics (though sixties excess looked scary to a young child), that Obama shares this, and that it serves Republicans who are always running against the 60’s and 70’s. It concerns me about him. But at least, unlike many of his defenders and Hillary’s, he’s not denying it. He has not to my knowledge “clarified” his remarks; the blogosphere has been doing it for him. When he says he sometimes agrees with the Republicans, I believe him.
As for the Edwards blackout, when McCain looked deader than Edwards has ever looked, he still got coverage. Giuliani still gets coverage now, and he’s getting spanked by Ron Paul. It’s ideological.
I’m his age, and couldn’t disagree more re chip on its shoulder, or that sixties excesses look scary to a young child – sounds like BS, sorry.
Obama made one comment somewhere on the news re the comment – I saw it in the last day somewhere – was flipping between channels so I don’t remember where. I’m sure he’ll make a clarifying statement in the next debate. I’d suggest not putting words or motives in his mouth until then.
Re McCain vs. Edwards and Giuliani and Paul, you’re not following the national polls. The media coverage is directly proportional to where candidates stand in the national polling reports at http://www.realclearpolitics.com. I’m amazed this simple fact is rejected by so many.
Lisa, obviously emotions are high now, but there’s no need to get huffy, is there? We can have a nice genial conversation.
I’m not putting words in Obama’s mouth. He said “moved the country forward”, he said “love-in of the 60’s and 70’s”. You are the one saying he means something other than what he said. While I would agree that saying Reagan transformed the country is not necessarily an endorsement, it is certainly not necessarily a disavowal either. And there are other indicators: his economic team includes Liebman; his mentor in the Senate was Lieberman. Being a community organizer in youth doesn’t mean much. Most of the neocons were much further left than that in youth.
If it makes you feel better, I will vote for him anyway if voting for Edwards seems pointless. I think he’s being pretty upfront about his centrism, unlike Clinton, and consider it ironic that many of his supporters have to claim he’s being disingenuous.
As for the chip on the shoulder, well, that’s a complicated argument, and not one easy to settle empirically. Let’s just agree to disagree.
regardless of his INTENT, the CONSEQUENCE of mentioning Reagan in ANY POSITIVE SENSE has not been positive.
I think, in retrospect, that the interview was a mistake. His intent was to laud Reagan’s political skills, while not condoning his policies. How can that be wrong? I certainly agree that Reagan’s period of time was very influential.
And, additionally, regardless of what the self-deluded, totally confused Democrats around Clinton believe, Democrats have NOT been the party of Ideas since 1970. The Republicans have been. Their ideas are bad, wrong and stupid, but they are new, and they were presented in a way which convinced many dummies to vote for them.
If we do not realize that the Republicans were the Party of Ideas, we will not learn from the Republicans. Because there are lessons to be learned.
I agree that the Repubs have been the party of (bad) ideas. The liberals have become the Burkeans – defending a status quo because it has worked over ideas that can be more readily argued from first principles. I think this is a mistake: Burkeanism is a losing hand, which is why the conservatives have ditched it for radical conservatism like we see today. I disagree about Obama’s intent though: he was elaborating on an earlier remark about Presidents who had moved the country forward, so I think he was praising Reagan in substance, not just in tactics. In fact, as Digby has argued well, he is not emulating Reagan’s rhetorical strategy at all, as Reagan conceded nothing to the other side, and didn’t ridicule the extremists on his own, but rather covered for or, at worst, ignored them.
At best, it was poorly worded. He could have mentioned Reagan’s transformative nature while still emphasizing that he transformed the country in the wrong direction.
Btw – am I the only one who thinks Huckabee looks a bit like Nixon, from the side? There’s something about his voice, tone, and shape that just gives me chills, and not in a good way.
Fundies/Taliban/what-have-you strike me as a very scary lot even before the Nixon lookalike reference. Full case of shivers for me!
There is a modest physical resemblance. Mostly due to the fact that they are about the same age.
Huckleberry is a far more effective politician, however. He has genuine charm, and is a very good speaker. He is able to deliver very nasty policies in a pleasant and friendly way. He is a dangerous guy