Daily Kos

Obama Solid With White Voters, Clinton Not So Solid With Black Voters

Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:13:37 PM PDT

Not everyone reads the NY Times, but today's the day to do so. Via Al Giordano, I caught this fascinating story and graph by Charles Blow, who published an important graph and analysis of NY Times/CBS poll data (Clinton's goes back to 2005 while Obama's goes back to Jan 2007.)

The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much.

On the other hand, black Democrats’ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period).

While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways.

It's tough to summarize this better than Al Giordano:

So, to sum up: Look at the damn graphs. You can see that Clinton is in a staggering free-fall among African-American voters, her favorability is down 36 points while 17 percent view her more negatively than before, while Obama’s favorable and negative ratings among whites have paired at five point increases. You can even see the small dip - about two percentage points - in his popularity among whites that can be attributed to the news cycles about his ex-pastor, and see that it has leveled out and is now on a straight horizontal line (meanwhile, Clinton’s numbers among blacks continue on an extreme downward precipice). The greater context is that even including Obama’s slight dip, he’s more popular today among white voters than he ever was prior to February.

Not since Ronald Reagan has an American presidential candidate withstood such an assault in the media and seen his popularity not hurt by it, but, rather, galvanized by it. That’s what is meant, in politics, by the term "Teflon."

Those facts won’t stop many media (and Internet) talking heads from continuing - whether out of gullibility or intentional dishonesty - to prop up the "white voters" narrative, but it ought to inoculate you, kind reader, from believing it.

I have been writing for some time that the polling hasn't moved much despite the bloviating from broadcast media, especially. In that, it reminds me of Iraq. It seems some opinions have simply already been made, and while the talking heads may get palpitations over a minor issue, the voters don't care because they see the big picture.

Your/our job as political junkies is to understand what's going on, and just because the so-called pundits don't always do their job is no reason for us to avoid doing ours. This remains a fundamentally difficult election for Republicans, and the media's zest for Democratic conflict stories doesn't change that one bit.

  • ::

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 288 comments

  •  McCain would be jealous (13+ / 0-)

    of Hilary for getting 8-10% of the black vote.

    My question is this...why can't Hilary close the deal?

    Republicans are not a national party anymore. Read My Lips: One Spouse, One House.

    by jalapeno on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:15:23 PM PDT

  •  the truth is.... (19+ / 0-)

    the media found an easy narrative and grabbed onto it.  Unfortunately for them, but fortunately for us, it's not true.

    Obama will do just fine among white Democrats in the fall.  Especially given the enormous issues McCain has.

    "Years from now, you'll look back and you'll say that this was the moment-this was the place-where America remembered what it means to hope."-Barack Obama '08

    by anoodle on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:16:32 PM PDT

  •  Politico has Obama's closing ads (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    majcmb1, NCJan, allep10, paintitblue, ahaaja

    They are gooders for sure.  Take a peak.

    http://www.politico.com/...

  •  Now, can someone roll up this newspaper (24+ / 0-)

    and slap Chris Matthews with it, like he's a puppy that's just made a mess?

    Please?

    -dms

    Having trouble finding stuff on Daily Kos? This page has some handy hints and tricks.

    by dmsilev on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:17:17 PM PDT

  •  Yesterday on Hardball (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, kanuk, majcmb1, brein, oak510

    Matthews had on Ron Brownstein, who was pointing out how horribly Obama does among "real" (white) voters. The two of them proved pretty horrible themselves as a mutual admiration society.

    •  Fuck them, (8+ / 0-)

      these polls show the truth. This shores up my faith in the people, who lets face it, picked this guy. The media didn't, their filly was Hillary, the blogsphere didn't, our horse was Edwards, while the Democratic Elites of course, were backing Hillary too.

      •  Are you watching the Derby, PLS? (0+ / 0-)

        Lots of horserace talk.

        Not that there's anything WRONG with that.

        Who's your pick?

        "I've got a (blog) crush on Droogie."

        by Brooke In Seattle on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:46:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I forgot it was on! (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Brooke In Seattle

          Thanks, it is just about to start. I was wicked into racing as a teen, till Ruffian died. I do try to watch these days though, so, thanks again!

          •  Wow, (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            TrueBlueMajority, brein

            just watched. The horse that won, "Big Brown", was favored to win, but he was at poll position 20, meaning he had the most ground to make up to draw even with the horse in the first poll position. In fact, the last winner from that poll position to win was in 1929. He made up the ground and won going away, almost, except for this one filly. She was gaining a bit on him even as he was pulling away, then she fell back a bit, before turning it on again and finishing a strong second. I would bet that's the best finish for a filly in the Derby ever. Then she collapsed, and one announcer said "She ran her heart out", although they didn't know for sure what had happened.

            Really, really weird.  

    •  what is a real white (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueMajority, NCJan, brein

      and how can we identify them? Secret handshake or special tatoos or is it in the greetings?

      •  no, they refer to white voters as "real people" (10+ / 0-)

        and also "regular people."

        Whereas Obama only does well among America's black aristocracy.

      •  "Real White" = NOT Affected, Pseudo-Sophisticates (0+ / 0-)

        Ivory tower whites & little white kids in college don't know the real world.  The subset of academic liberals, left-wing idealogues (e.g. Kennedys & Jane Fondas) and literati (media & criterati) interact more in the marketplace of selling ideations and affectations than in concrete success and production.  

        The ivory tower world & left wing cultural literati don't deal in reality but potentialities.  They don't engage in concrete thinking, but inspiration and persuasion.  You don't have to have an idea that really works, just one that is exciting, along with your social influence abilities and connections to get others to listen to you and publish your papers.

        The ivory tower & left-wing ideologue world is to the world of reality what the NFL would be if no games were ever played in reality, but only decided on by clusters of powerful and persuasive analysts and commentators, and the sports junkies that provide an echo chamber.

        It's ironic that in this election, it's the blue collar people who are engaging in the concrete thinking, weighing experience, specifics, policy pragmatics and tangible qualities of leadership.

        "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." -Barack Obama

        by AsperGirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:25:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  sadly, no (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          paintitblue

          by that definition you are describing a lot of low information voters who, far from engaging in

          concrete thinking, weighing experience, specifics, policy pragmatics and tangible qualities of leadership

          are currently basing their vote on whether someone wears a flag pin, sings the National Anthem with his hand over his heart, has a funny name, and went to a church they approve of.

          Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
          69 days until the '08 elections. Let's paint the country BLUE!

          by TrueBlueMajority on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:33:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Low Information Voters" is a Meaningless Term... (0+ / 0-)

            when the blogosphere and media is full of so much propaganda.  Mark Twain said that those who don't read the news are uninformed, those who do read the news are misinformed.  In this primary election, there's so much bloviation, and passion from truly motivated Obama supporters that all information channels are full of junk.  The quality of the "analysis" and "information" being pushed right now is about as sound as the marketing of those great mortgage-backed structured derivatives that can't fail.

            The blue collar and non-higher degreed voters are not taking in all that mainstreamed pseudo-analysis and pseudo-intellectual junk.  They're looking at Obama's speeches and not seeing any substance, but too many vague intangibles.  No, they're not impressed, as Karl Rove pointed out in his Newsweek article last week, by the policy papers written for Obama by academics that were posted for him on his campaign website in response to criticism that he never addressed specifics.  Anyone who is thinking critically can see how Obama's failed to win 21 debates over the course of a year and has become so defensive that he will no longer agree to debate Clinton.  Blue collar voters can see he lost the last debate and that he won't face Clinton in a debate anymore.

            The blue collar voters aren't reading Maureen Dowd's affected, snarky and snide op-eds each Sunday, claiming that Obama, who hasn't even been in Congress for four years, really has SOO much relevant experience to run the country with.  Blue collar voters, despite their lack of higher degrees, can critically enough to weigh whether or not they think a Freshman senator has enough experience to run the country in the middle of multiple wars, economic problems and an energy crisis.

            Blue collar voters are thankfully more immune to all the horsesh** that's being pushed at high data rates over broadband channels to the public this election year that hypes Obama and covers up the unfortunate lack of qualifications mentioned above.

            Mostly, the blue collar workers aren't inspired by the potential for a semiotic candidate, where the power of a President's candidacy is all about his rhetorical leadership into a new world of reformulated liberal paradigms and memes.  Obama's semiotic leadership potential that gets the left-wing ideologues so excited about a liberal Reagan doesn't really excite blue collar workers.  They just, wisely, say Huhn?  What does that have to do (literally) with the price of rice in China?   (I say we don't need a semiotic, semantic, rhetorical President in the middle of all these crises, either.  Not this year.)

            Obama's supporters are supposed to be so educated and intelligent, but his candidacy is based on the shallowest possible agenda: blind, unspecified change brought about by someone who appeals to you viscerally.  And those people to whom he has this visceral appeal are the only ones who fell for his rhetorical charms or the fact of his racial identity (literati, ivory tower whites enthralled with his promise of semiotic transformation of the political debate, college students and blacks).

            Seriously, the blue collar voters are thinking concretely and critically in this election cycle.  It's the ivory tower whites, pseudo sophisticates, little kids and blacks who see Obama for what he's not.  Obama even admits what he is (a face man):  He said in his book he's like a screen onto which others project their ideas.   That's more or less the definition of a face man.

            In this election year, it's the blue collar voters who are the concrete, critical thinkers.  It's the post-graduate degreed and young ivory tower whites who are the culturally-blindered, emotionally connected, irrational voters.  Just look at the posts all over this site.

            "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." -Barack Obama

            by AsperGirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:45:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  this is really nonsense analysis (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              TrueBlueMajority, paintitblue

              that pits one group against another.

              The fact is that there are two good D candidates and a not-so-good R candidate. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. In the end, Obama  has more strengths and more delegates than Clinton, who has her own strengths. it's really not more profound than that.

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by DemFromCT on Sat May 03, 2008 at 05:59:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're Deluded (0+ / 0-)

                with all the faux analysis and bloviation of the pro-Obama echo chamber.

                The spin that the press has been putting out for months is that "there is little air" between the candidates on issues, that there's little difference between the two candidates and that most of the difference is due to personality.  Therefore, let's pick the one with the best personality.  To help accomplish the acceptance of this argument, Obama credibly puts out a Xerox of Clinton's policies, with just enough changed so as to not look like plagiarism, like his major address on economic policy that followed hers by 2 days after he got back from the Caribbean.

                The fact is that they are not both good candidates.  Clinton is a good candidate.  Obama's under-qualified, callow, cannot debate Clinton and win, has academics write his policy positions and papers and post them on his website for him and that apart from his racial identity and rhetorical skills, the freshman senator has little of what it takes to solve the problems we face today and lead in any of them: military, economic, political, foreign policy or health care.

                Obama's never even won a contested election against a credible opponent.  All his prior elections were virtually unopposed (uncredible opponent) or he pulled something like getting his opponent disqualified.  (That's why his main strategy right now is to manipulate the Dems & public opinion into short-circuiting the process and forcing Clinton out before the convention).

                I wouldn't even consider Obama until he has at least 8 years more experience.

                "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." -Barack Obama

                by AsperGirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:36:04 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  would "you" would consider means little (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  TrueBlueMajority

                  what the public and the voters would consider means a lot.

                  For all I know, you are a paid Clinton shill. You certainly write like one. There's no way to know on the internets. But the fact is (and it is a fact) that the public does not agree with you. And it's their votes, not yours or mine, that counts.

                  The public sees two well qualified candidates. The one you like least has more delegates. Them's the breaks.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by DemFromCT on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:58:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If You Reduce Issue to # Delegates Don't be (0+ / 0-)

                    shocked or disappointed if just the number of delegates, in the face of insurmountable negatives, turns out to be not enough to win the nomination.

                    I don't write like a paid shill.  A paid shill would never say the frank things I say about race, etc.

                    "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." -Barack Obama

                    by AsperGirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:08:47 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  as to that, the jury's out (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      TrueBlueMajority

                      until the nomination is decided. Using pejoratives like 'delusional' for those that don't agree with you is just nonsense, and shill territory.

                      I will be neither shocked nor disappointed if Clinton gets the nomination. I doubt it'll happen, mind you, but we'll see...

                      As to 'reducing the issues to the delegates' well, duh. There's a primary mechanism for a reason. Hillary will have to win it, or she'll be held at her word.

                      Another 'duh' is claiming Obama's fundraising prowess is a sign of weakness. That's just flat out stupid.

                      "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                      by DemFromCT on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:19:21 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Clinton is a good candidate? (3+ / 0-)

                  Now I know this is a lost cause.  I hope you are a paid poster, because you are definitely piling it high without any proof.

                  These above posts are only your opinions.  Polls and facts do not bear any of this out.

                  But since we are here to talk...

                  some people (including me) think that the most important qualification a president needs is good judgment and a desire to do what is best for the country.  John McCain has a lot more "experience" of the kind HRC is touting.  Is that enough to make you vote for McCain over Hillary?  Dick Cheney has a lot of "experience" by the standard political definition also, would that make him a good president?  Please.

                  Callow--I do not think that word means what you think it means.  A man of 47 is considered a mature adult except in the eyes of women over 60 (hmmm, maybe that explains everything!).  And HRC knows perfectly well she cannot match life story and life experience with Obama--she has stayed away from that whole area like a hot potato.  But again, if you are going to judge someone on life experience, doesn't McCain best Hillary in that area too?  Does that metric also mean that by your definition you should vote for McCain over Hillary?

                  Clinton has academics write her position papers also.  It is much more likely that Obama had direct input in the writing of his position papers since he is a writer and she is not.  But he also puts his positions across in his speeches, and I feel I understand his positions well even though I have never read any of the position papers.  What's wrong with having competent advisers?  After the last seven years the country is longing for that!

                  What military experience does Hillary have?  What foreigh policy experience?  You are beginning to sound like a McCain voter to me.  Why are you bothering with a Democratic website?

                  Hillary has put forth some crazy economic ideas.  This gas tax holiday thing is a joke.  Health care mandates have not worked in Massachusetts, will not work nationwide, and leave her open to the exact same attacks that caused her 1993 health care plan to tank. Whoever is advising her has a screw loose.

                  Clinton's never won a contested election against a credible opponent.  Rick Lazio? Are you kidding?  I don't even know the name of the sacrificial lamb the Republicans put up against her in 2006.  (And remember, Rs wanted her to win re-election in '06 so that they could savage her as the 2008 Dem nominee.)

                  In his 2004 election, Obama got 50% of the vote in a seven way primary, and did not "get" his opponents disqualified, although some of them had to drop out through no fault of Obama's.  As for the earlier race where a possible candidate was disqualified, it's funny how HRC people are always complaining about Obama following the rules of the game.  I guess that's because they don't bother to follow rules.

                  Hillary is 10 games behind with 9 games to play.  She is the only one who does not realize that she is just playing out the string.  But if O is that good at manipulating public opinion, that's a really strong leadership characteristic and one a president definitely needs.

                  What Obama has to solve the problems we face today is intelligence and a willingness to listen to the people and do what is best for them.  He is surrounding himself with knowledgeable advisers rather than yes men and opportunistic power brokers.  The American people haven't had that kind of good judgment for quite a while and that's what they want.

                  You don't say what kind of additional experience you want Obama to have in the next 8 years, but whatever it is, Hillary doesn't have it either, so that is not a good reason to prefer her to him.  And I like many other people are not convinced that the only experience metric that matters is time spent playing the same old same old DC political game.  Every now and then a fresh face with fresh ideas comes along to shake everything up, just as Bill Clinton did in 1992.  

                  The amount of time that it is taking to rebut your talking points and misconceptions is flirting with the "don't feed the trolls" line.  But I am pretty sure that I am not the one who is deluded.  Low information voters are real and Hillary is counting on them because she is incapable of making a case on her own merits.  All of the things HRC has to offer are things I believe Obama can do better precisely because he has less baggage and fewer enemies.

                  You need more than just your unsupported opinions to make any headway in this community, so I can't figure out what you are doing here, unless you are a paid troll whose mission is to waste our time writing fruitless replies to you and spend less time on phonebanking and GOTV.  It won't work.

                  Hillary can't even run a competent presidential campaign.  How can anyone claim she even has the basic administrative skills to run the country?  A "good candidate" would be winning, and she is losing by every rational means of measurement.

                  I'll end by echoing what DemFromCT said:

                  For all I know, you are a paid Clinton shill. You certainly write like one. There's no way to know on the internets. But the fact is (and it is a fact) that the public does not agree with you. And it's their votes, not yours or mine, that counts.

                  The public sees two well qualified candidates. The one you like least has more delegates. Them's the breaks.

                  Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
                  69 days until the '08 elections. Let's paint the country BLUE!

                  by TrueBlueMajority on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:31:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  more data here (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              TrueBlueMajority

              "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

              by DemFromCT on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:25:41 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Data Shows that $11M & 6 Wks Bought Incremental+ (0+ / 0-)

                All your data plot shows is that $11M and 6 weeks of unflagging campaigning bought incremental improvements across some demographics over Obama's performance in those demographics in OH.  Is there another plot that shows how much $$ Obama would have had to spend for those incremental improvements to have added up to a win?  About $110M.

                "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." -Barack Obama

                by AsperGirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:44:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  What the data really shows is that the data (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  TrueBlueMajority, paintitblue

                  hasn't moved much between Ohio and PA.  If anything, Obama has improved slightly. Too bad for your preferred candidate, but those are the facts, similar to the main post.

                  "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

                  by DemFromCT on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:02:35 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You're overlooking the $11M & Full Court Press (0+ / 0-)

                    Obama's historic $11M on ad buys and other unprecedented campaign spending, endorsements and a full-court press by the pro-Obama media chattering for weeks about how there was no way Clinton could win the nomination, failed to produce a win for him.

                    There is no amount of money, extended get-to-know-me time, media propaganda and packaging that will make Obama win some important must-win states in the general election.  That includes Florida, by the way.

                    The simplistic assumptions in the notion that Obama would be the choice of most Clinton voters if Clinton wasn't in the race lack any basis except in wishful thinking.  The fact is that he's unacceptable to at least a third of Clinton voters vs. McCain is obvious in the polls that have tested that notion.

                    Obama is unelectable in the general election.

                    "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." -Barack Obama

                    by AsperGirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:14:53 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  I'll tell you why I won't vote for Clinton. (2+ / 0-)

              - Her family has been in the White House already. I am opposed to dynasties for reasons that shouldn't require explanation.

              - Her health care mandate would kill me. I need that 10% every month.

              - She favors smaller, more targetted social programs. I disagree with that on principle. If we're going to have social programs, they need to be encompassing.

              - Beyond policy, though, she did something that made me angry: during the "bittergate" news cycle, Clinton was the first to call Obama a "liberal elite." Frankly, that's a Republican talking point and Democrats shouldn't be repeating it. I'm sick to death of DLC candidates resorting to this New Republic-style back-bending to score a few imaginary authenticity points. You know what? You'll never be more "authentic" than the Republican candidate, if "authentic" means "less liberal." So, I refuse to reward a Democrat who'd choose to play it that way.

              •  Not Good Reasons for Voting for Candidate (0+ / 0-)

                >>"- Her family has been in the White House already. I am opposed to dynasties for reasons that shouldn't require explanation."

                This point actually has no intrinsic meaning or implicit argument, which is probably why you don't supply an explanation.  Many Presidents have been from political families with prior relatives in the White House.

                >>"- Her health care mandate would kill me. I need that 10% every month."

                Many people are single-issue voters.  You can be, too.

                >>"- She favors smaller, more targetted social programs. I disagree with that on principle. If we're going to have social programs, they need to be encompassing."

                That is also not a point that has any intrinsic meaning or implicit argument.  It's just a reflexive political affectation.  Sounds like a need for simplification on your part.  In reality the creating of broad entitlement programs is hard to push through Congress.

                >>"- Beyond policy, though, she did something that made me angry: during the "bittergate" news cycle, Clinton was the first to call Obama a "liberal elite."

                I'm not sure she called him a "liberal elite".  I think she said his comments were both "elitist" and "out of touch".   She was right.

                There's a difference, by the way, between being "elite" and being "elitist".  The former is a status.  The latter is an affectation, snobbery.  Clinton was calling Obama an out of touch snob.  Which is true.  That is why it stuck and has still stuck.  Obama's trying to campaign his way out of that tag right now, dragging his wife and kids around in shirtsleeves and drinking a Bud out of a can in a bar in Indiana.  Needless to say, he's pandering, and having difficulty pulling it off.

                "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." -Barack Obama

                by AsperGirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:57:01 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Re: (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  TrueBlueMajority

                  This point actually has no intrinsic meaning or implicit argument, which is probably why you don't supply an explanation.  Many Presidents have been from political families with prior relatives in the White House.

                  I'd count that against them if they ran, too. Look, the argument I didn't bother with I didn't bother with because I assumed you'd have heard it before. I am committed to the American Revolution philosophy of liberalism, to which the idea of dynastic power is anathema. The fact that she herself has no qualms about using her time in the White House to extend her time in the White House tells me everything I need to know about Sen. Clinton, vis-a-vis liberalism.

                  Many people are single-issue voters.  You can be, too.

                  Making rent is an important single-issue. Sue me.

                  That is also not a point that has any intrinsic meaning or implicit argument.  It's just a reflexive political affectation.  Sounds like a need for simplification on your part.  In reality the creating of broad entitlement programs is hard to push through Congress.

                  As well it should be. The creation of new entitlement programs is dangerous, politically and pragmatically. On the other hand, targetting programs narrowly ensures that in many cases, the broad mass of people paying cannot benefit from them. That's a legitimate concern about the shape and scope of government and I don't see why it shouldn't affect my vote.

                  I'm not sure she called him a "liberal elite".  I think she said his comments were both "elitist" and "out of touch".   She was right.

                  There's a difference, by the way, between being "elite" and being "elitist".  The former is a status.  The latter is an affectation, snobbery.  Clinton was calling Obama an out of touch snob.  Which is true.  That is why it stuck and has still stuck.  Obama's trying to campaign his way out of that tag right now, dragging his wife and kids around in shirtsleeves and drinking a Bud out of a can in a bar in Indiana.  Needless to say, he's pandering, and having difficulty pulling it off.

                  Maybe I don't remember her wording correctly; if not, fair enough. I do remember that she followed those comments with some horseshit about duck hunting that immediately called to mind John Kerry and his stupid vest-and-rifle pictures. Obama is wasting his time with the beer photo ops. I would prefer if Democrats avoided that sort of thing entirely; it displays a lack of personal dignity that is unpresidential.

                  •  Reasons for Voting/Not Voting Clinton (0+ / 0-)

                    >>"I am committed to the American Revolution philosophy of liberalism, to which the idea of dynastic power is anathema."

                    Dynastic power is not a premise of having a relative in the White House previously, even if you were a member of the former First Family.  The implication of dynastic power exists only if the elevation of the relative to office is without regard to merit or qualifications.  If Clinton's the best candidate in the field, it's not dynastic to pick her.

                    >>"Obama is wasting his time with the beer photo ops. I would prefer if Democrats avoided that sort of thing entirely; it displays a lack of personal dignity that is unpresidential."

                    It's not unpresidential to show that you can meet people on their cultural ground.  Clinton's references to duck hunting weren't trivial.  There is relevance in the cultural connections that a politician can and can't establish with the electorate.  In this particular case, Obama's being hampered by his "otherness".  Clinton's background in being taught to shoot by her Dad in PA is relevant to her cultural connectedness to the PA voters.  Obama, with having spent formative years in Indonesia and with foreign fathers, can't understand all of the swaths of America that Clinton does.  The inverse of his explicit argument that being internationally raised means he could interface and interact better with the world is that, of course, he is hampered in his ability to interface and interact with Americans.

                    Clinton, in invoking her father while connecting culturally with PA voters is in one sense describing a metaphor for the bigger transformation she's pulled off in recent weeks: what she was doing in a political sense was channeling her Republican father and her old days in high school and college as a Goldwater girl.  She has a rich background, intellectually and emotionally, in her Republican roots, and she effectively connected and channeled those.  There is a new and growing respect between the Republicans and the Clintons.  While Obama has claim to international diversity, Clinton has claim to diversity in the broad fabric of BOTH American political parties.  There's a good article in the Weekly Standard about this aspect of her renewed electability claims.  More and more Repubs are falling for Clinton in the last couple of months.  Establishment Repubs from the "vast right wing conspiracy", like Bil Kristol, Richarde Scaife & Bill O'Reilly.

                    If you understand the cultural issues and her inner political strengths, including the depth of her political experience and development, you can see what Obama is facing, and why so many Clinton supporters think he's just too shallow, callow and insubstantial (at his current level of experience) to replace Clinton for their vote if he gets nominated.  Just blaming Obama's eroding support on the racism of whites is simplistic and destructive.

                    Going back to the Q of this thread, there is no "real white" in the sense of there being a monolithic white as there's no monolithic black church.  But if he can't get in broad swaths of the diverse peoples in the electorate, you can't blame them for not giving him their votes.  I.e. Obama can't blame his disconnects with classes of whites on their racism, anymore than George Bush can blame Rev. Wrights for not voting for him out of black racism.  Bush has a lot of disconnects that aren't due just the the fact that he has white skin.

                    "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." -Barack Obama

                    by AsperGirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:58:33 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Re: (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      TrueBlueMajority

                      The implication of dynastic power exists only if the elevation of the relative to office is without regard to merit or qualifications.

                      I disagree. Queen Elizabeth of England had plenty of merits and qualifications; her claim to rule was still dynastic and I wouldn't want to be governed by her word.

                      I think it's ridiculous to slum around like you're so street, when everybody knows you're very wealthy and connected. It used to be easier to pull off that sort of basic dishonesty because the electorate knew less about the candidates and their lives. The Democrats come off as insecure when they play this game today, and I'm convinced that it costs them in the general election.

                    •  Repubs R falling for Clinton? Scaife? O'Reilly? (0+ / 0-)

                      of course--they want her to win!

                      Then they either get to savage her as the nominee and prevent her election, or they get to bash her in office.  Clinton is good for their business!  If you can't see this then I can't help you, Sundance.  Obama on the other hand is a threat to everything they stand for.  Hillary is, even though they hate her, at least a promise of more of the same and no threat to the basic status quo.

                      It's tough to be a high information voter sometimes.

                      But at least you admit there is no such thing as a "real white" person.  There is hope.

                      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
                      69 days until the '08 elections. Let's paint the country BLUE!

                      by TrueBlueMajority on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:41:49 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm voting for Hillary because of... (0+ / 0-)

                      Hillary's Chocolate Chip Cookies

                      1. Preheat the oven to 350 degrees F. Brush baking sheets lightly with vegetable oil or spray with a cooking spray.
                      1. Combine 1 & 1/2 cups of flour, 1 teaspoon of salt and 1 teaspoon of baking soda on waxed paper.
                      1. Beat together 1 cup of shortening, 1 cup of packed brown sugar, 1/2 cup of white sugar and 1 teaspoon of vanilla extract in large bowl with electric mixer until creamy. Add 2 eggs and beat until light and fluffy.
                      1. Gradually beat in flour mixture. Stir in 2 cups of rolled oats and then 2 cups of semisweet chocolate chips.
                      1. Drop batter by rounded teaspoonfuls onto baking sheets. Bake for 8-10 minutes or till golden brown.
                      1. Cool cookies on sheets for 2 minutes. Place cookies on wire racks to cool completely.

                      Serve warm with a glass of cold milk!

                      ~Doc~

                      -7.88 -8,77 Just a wine sipping, brie eating, $6 coffee drinking, Prius driving, over educated, liberal, white, activist, male New Englander for Barack Obama.

                      by EquationDoc on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:37:02 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Okay, I call Troll (0+ / 0-)

                      There's a good article in the Weekly Standard pretty much says it all.

                •  O campaigned in shirt sleeves way back in Iowa! (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  paintitblue

                  and all last summer!

                  now we're criticizing his clothes?

                  That's the last thing I expected from headband no headband ever changing hairstyle Lady in the Yellow Suit Clap Clap Point Point.

                  your above post definitely reads like political operative-speak, and if you're not getting paid you should be.

                  Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
                  69 days until the '08 elections. Let's paint the country BLUE!

                  by TrueBlueMajority on Sat May 03, 2008 at 08:36:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  blind unspecified change? (0+ / 0-)

              it seems really specific to me.

              Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
              69 days until the '08 elections. Let's paint the country BLUE!

              by TrueBlueMajority on Sat May 03, 2008 at 07:57:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  While I wonder (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          sarashina nikki

          ...which part of the ivory tower I occupy (I'll think about while I'm mowing the lawn tomorrow), I do have to ask you about the 80-90% of the black vote going to Obama...assuming that a number of them are blue collar workers, do they count as voters who "are engaging in the concrete thinking, weighing experience, specifics, policy pragmatics and tangible qualities of leadership"?    

          Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

          by BarbinMD on Sat May 03, 2008 at 09:38:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  "This remains a fundamentally difficult election (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Livvy5

      for Republicans"

      More to the point here, it remains a fundamentally difficult election for the pundits, too.  They've not seen this type of candidacy before, anymore than the pundits in 1960 had seen a Catholic take on the WASP establishment, and our talking heads have not made the changes in their thinking to get their heads around what's coming.

      Remember, "conventional wisdom" is an oxymoron.

    •  If Only Ivory Tower Whites & Blacks Voted ... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Gym N Jim

      ...then Obama could win the general election in the Fall.  But it's hard to sell an intangible like "hope" as a commodity to people who have to think concretely about how to feed their families every month.  

      Those stupid, blue collar whites don't have the luxury of waving off lack of experience, lack of specifics and lack of leadership success in exchange for rich rhetoric, when picking a President.

      "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." -Barack Obama

      by AsperGirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:19:07 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  it's been asked before a million times (7+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    kanuk, NCJan, Jimdotz, brein, Kyman, Julia C, timfred

    but, why are we acting like there's any real possibility Obama isn't going to be the nominee?

    •  Because of those very disconcerting polls (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      PssttCmere

      coming out of NC.

      If he tanks completely and loses NC, the race is wide open.

      •  And if my grandmother (12+ / 0-)

        grows testicles, she'll be my grandfather.

      •  No, it's not. (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority, lauramp, ArtSchmart

        That's the effing point. He's not losing enough support to lose the nomination.

        We the People ordained our Government to promote our General Welfare;
        If We the People want Health Care for All, Government should provide it.

        by Jimdotz on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:22:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  do the math (4+ / 0-)

        By my math he can lose NC and IN and still be ahead, except in Wolfson's fantasies. Unless someone assumes Hillary is going to receive 100% of the vote in both primaries.

        •  That's the assumption Hillary is making (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueMajority, brein
        •  The assumption (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          AsperGirl

          is that a clear shift in momentum, represented by Hillary running the table from here out, would affect enough superdelegates to give her the majority.

          Is that rocket science?  I thought it was pretty obvious.

        •  You Don't Need 100% of Vote (0+ / 0-)

          You just need enough of a lead in some districts that the opponent doesn't qualify for the proportional distribution.  Clinton would get a lot more delegates if she can run the tables in Appalachia (KY & WV) and deny Obama proportional vote allocated delegates and take all the delegates of states like those.

          If Clinton can do that in enough of the rural districts, she can pump up her delegate allocations.  

          She would still have to do really well in IN & NC, tho.  It would still be uphill all the way.

          "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." -Barack Obama

          by AsperGirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:24:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's not the Math Anymore (0+ / 0-)

          About the math; it's not all math.

          If Clinton clearly beats Obama in popular votes, comes close in delegates (with his won mostly in caucus states), has the informal but persuasive wins in FL & MI on her side, along with the fact that Obama would have no non-black-dominated state wins since February (sorry, Guam's not a state), there's no way the superdelegates can choose Obama.  

          With the latest threats that blacks will boycott or rebel if he's not given the nomination, Obama's supporters are increasingly sending the message that Obama's candidacy is about his being black, and that black community racially inflammatory tensions are spiking against whites and against Clinton and her supporters.  Whatever they're trying to accomplish, the boycott-threateners are sending the message that Obama's a racial candidate and that there are racial problems now.  That all spells U-N-E-L-E-C-T-A-B-L-E.  They might as well nominate David Duke.

          Finally if surveys and polls continue to show a trend that the majority of whites, along with Catholics, Hispanics & seniors, have turned their backs on his candidacy, there's no way he can present himself as electable in the general election.

          The only thing that made Obama's inexperience acceptable before was his promises of transcendence and teaching America post-racialism.  All the threats of racial boycotts of Clinton and racial inflammation in the Democratic Party, totally undermines the transcendence, unity, healing-divisiveness and post-racial arguments for his candidacy.

          You don't pick a nominee who can't win, because of some technical numbers arguments that are questionable in a flawed election year when two major states were disenfranchised (rightfully or not).  It's not the Democratic Party's obligation to pick a loser, and the threats of black rebellion just highlight Obama's status now as a black candidate of a racially polarized, inflammatory campaign.  That and his inexperience makes him unacceptable.

          "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." -Barack Obama

          by AsperGirl on Sat May 03, 2008 at 06:26:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  actually no (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        brein

        Hillary would have to win NC and Indiana and ALL the remaining states with about 70% of the vote to erase Obama's delegate lead.

        Ain't gonna happen.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
        69 days until the '08 elections. Let's paint the country BLUE!

        by TrueBlueMajority on Sat May 03, 2008 at 04:34:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Chicken little (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      kanuk, Sophie Amrain, lauramp, DripWise

      People here watch too much cable news and complain about it instead of subverting it by making phone calls and canvassing.  

    •  thank you... (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueMajority, Julia C

      That's what I keep trying to understand lol People still act like hillary is the frontrunner and barack is playing catch up lol

      Common sense isn't so common..

      by sillycilla on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:36:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It appears that taking the high road (9+ / 0-)

    does work.  Contrary to popular MSM opinion.  All of Senator Clinton's negative campaigning is finally showing true colors in the polls.  

    Damn it. Enough. I've had enough. And boy, does that word enough look weird when you type it enough times.

    by klnb1019 on Sat May 03, 2008 at 02:18:04 PM PDT

  •  Im so disillusioned... (12+ / 0-)

    How can MSNBC run 4 hours of Obama/Wright coverage and completely ignore any number of Clinton scandals that have broken this week?

    Its dishonest, disgraceful sickening and lots of other adjectives.