SD expectations

The South Dakota primary is on June 3rd, and there's been some news on the primary. First, we get a poll next week:

A statewide poll next week could shed more light on whether the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments about the United States have had an effect on voters. The poll is being conducted by the McGovern Center for Leadership and Public Service at Dakota Wesleyan University.

Steve Jarding, who is managing Sen. Tim Johnson's re-election campaign, thinks Obama turned out a good speech this week, but Jarding isn't sure it was enough. Some Democrats are concerned about how Wright's taped rantings will affect the race.

"You do hear that," Jarding said. "I talk to a lot of Democrats every day. It's on people's minds."

Sen. Hillary Clinton had a good shot at winning the South Dakota primary before, Jarding said, and now her chances have improved.

"This might be one where she could surprise people."

Johnson, one of the state's Democratic super-delegates, supports Obama. But Johnson will vote for Clinton at the national convention if Clinton wins the June 3 primary in South Dakota, Jarding said.

Johnson's a Senator who is up for re-election in a tough red state, but cruising to date, yet he's putting some hypothetical distance between himself and Obama; no doubt, due to the Wright attack on Obama.

SD Democrats met yesterday, and considered whether to open the primary to Independents, but it was decided to wait, and not institute that change for this primary.

Tags: 2008 election, Senator Tim Johnson, South Dakota (all tags)



Re: SD expectations

Now if only Richardson, Kennedy and Kerry will follow suit and vote accordingly.

Johnson, one of the state's Democratic super-delegates, supports Obama. But Johnson will vote for Clinton at the national convention if Clinton wins the June 3 primary in South Dakota, Jarding said.

by KnowVox 2008-03-23 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Really?  Did you check the math?  Can you please show me the number?

by observer11 2008-03-23 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Yes, really. So now Super Delegates are supposed to vote strictly against their constituents? LMAO! It's the New Obama Math!

by KnowVox 2008-03-23 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

lame. Hillary Math® is the original dim-witted math. It's sold millions to date.

I'd advise you come up with a more original name.

by alex100 2008-03-23 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

How is Obama behind this?

I though Obama was a bad guy because his people were encouraging superdels to vote their state, rather than their conscience.

Either way, SDs vote any way the hell they want. That's the rule, that's what should be followed. It's not Obama math or Clinton math, it's the rules.

The Rules(tm). They're kind of what we have.

by Lettuce 2008-03-24 04:07AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Superdelegates don't represent their states, they represent the entire Democratic party, not for who won the state they are from, or who wins the most delegates.  

Therefore, they should vote for whoever is ahead in the popular vote.

by RussTC3 2008-03-23 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

So Super Delegates are wrong to announce ahead of time who they'll vote for before we know the results of the popular vote?

by KnowVox 2008-03-23 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Their votes don't matter right now, so I don't care who they vote for.  But they better choose the candidate with the most votes come convention time.

by RussTC3 2008-03-23 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Funny, but they sure think their votes matter....

by KnowVox 2008-03-23 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

I said their votes don't matter RIGHT NOW.  By the time the convention rolls around they will CHOOSE the candidate.

I think we can all agree that it's going to be incredibly hurtful if they go with the candidate that is 1) behind on states won, 2) behind on pledged delegates won and 3) behind in the popular vote.

I'd support Clinton though if they overruled 1&2 so long as she was ahead in terms of the popular vote.

Hopefully you agree that votes are more important than delegates.  I don't want another 2000 where Gore won the popular vote but lost in the electoral college.

by RussTC3 2008-03-23 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Can we get an advance ruling on whether or not this state "counts"?

by rfahey22 2008-03-23 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Yeah, like  Florida and Michigan...

by KnowVox 2008-03-23 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

So only if Clinton wins?

by rfahey22 2008-03-23 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations


by cwsaterfield 2008-03-24 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Interesting. Johnson seems to be one of the first that may back away over Wright.

Wright was the talk all over the easter weekend from the relatives who were visting. They don't want to vote for McCain because of his policies but the Wright incident really turned them against Obama.

Jerome, you see to be one of the few bloggers that really seem to get what this is doing and how it's playing out there in the real world.

Joe Scarbrough said that Obama has created "white resentment" with his speech and his "typical white person" statement that the GOP will be able to expoit to win in the fall. What do you think?

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-23 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Wright was also the talk Easter weekend among my relatives, who contrasted their church service experiences in a "typical white church" with the expletives uttered by Sen. Obama's pastor.

by KnowVox 2008-03-23 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

yeah, I bet it was the same as my "typical white church" even though my church is racially integrated. It was all about the resurrection right? When I was in church it brough back to me how disgusted I was by Wright's sermons. And thinking that if I heard that junk, I would walk out.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-23 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

That was the unanimous consensus. And BTW, my relatives' churches are also integrated, but probably fall outside the Obama definition of a "typical white church."

by KnowVox 2008-03-23 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

After reading these posts I think it's clear that Obama is done as a candidate. He should drop out now, move to a home in the mountains and never be heard from again.

The 5-30 of your relatives is a large enough sample size for me to show that the polls have moved completely against Obama.

No we can't.

by SFValues 2008-03-23 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Funny! You sound exactly like the folks who want Hillary to drop out! LOL!

by KnowVox 2008-03-23 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Over the weekend, Chris Mathews received plaudits from Democrats for calling out his own station's (Fox News) "Obama bashing."  What was the bashing about?  Taking Obama's comment regarding "typical white person" out of context.  Not only are you WILLFULLY misinterpreting him on what should be a thoughtful and bipartisan dialogue, but you are actually misquoting him.

It is very frustrating to read this kind post on a supposedly pro-Democrat blog.

by cwsaterfield 2008-03-24 06:49AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

There are (too) many on this blog that would trash (and I'm not talking about simple experience or turn the page jibes) thier fellow democrats to help thier candidate win.

Disgusting really.

by Timetheos 2008-03-24 06:57AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

I can tell you didn't watch the whole sermon(s).

by Timetheos 2008-03-24 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

He created "white resentment" apparently by coming off with a sactimonious speech about race. Or at least that's how it played outside the pundits. Scarborough didn't say that Obama created it originally, only that he has created "white resentment" against himself as a candidate.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-23 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

He only created "resentment" among those who get upset hearing an mature adult talking about a difficult issue in a mature way to the American people as if they, too, were adults.

I think for anyone who is "resentful" at that, prefers being treated like an idiot, and as such, they'll never be his candidate.

But hey, all those polls showing the speech help has to be wrong! You know people who disagree! It must have failed!

by Lettuce 2008-03-24 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

I don't think its as big a problem for him in getting the nomination, especially compared with the GE. The Republicans have already done the job of laying the spring groundwork. It only took a week. They'll just bubble it up all summer until the Fall, and then bring it up for a second round. I do not think Obama's church is helping him at all either, they are just feeding the fire.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-23 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

I think that this issue has reached its apex of importance. How much more can we see the same footage of Rev Wright before its effect wears off. I think whoever pressed these videos into wide release at this moment did Obama a great deal of good for the GE.

by wasder 2008-03-23 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Yeah, can't wait until the Rethugs replay ALL Rev. Wright's incendiary anti-American, anti-Jewish sermons in Oct and Nov. if BO is the nominee. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

by KnowVox 2008-03-23 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Unless there is something new to come out about Wright, I don't see how these particular videos are going to maintain their symbolic power all that time. November is a long time away.

by wasder 2008-03-23 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Really - We're talking 7 months plus.

The political world looked very different 7 months ago. McCain's candidacy was dead. Clinton was far ahead in the polls.

Who knows what the next 7 months will bring?

My crystal ball isn't that good.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-23 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Unless there is something new to come out about Wright, I don't see how these particular videos are going to maintain their symbolic power all that time.

It's been 20 years since "Willie Horton" became a household name -- but we still know who he is.

by He Who Must Not Be Named 2008-03-23 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

That's a disgusting comparison between a minister and a murderer/rapist. I understand your point, but the fact is that they won't play the same way, either for better or worse.

All you people who talk about Wright like he's a monster would do well to go check out the actual text of his sermons at Andrew Sullivan's blog.

by vcalzone 2008-03-23 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

So why are the polls showing much of the damage has passed?

by Timetheos 2008-03-24 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Interesting. Johnson seems to be one of the first that may back away over Wright.

These are the straws Hillary must grasp at. "Seems," "may," and "possibly."

by Liberal Avenger 2008-03-23 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

We'll see, I remember all the talk before Hawaii being Hillary was going to pull off a miraculous upset. Didn't she end up losing that one by like 50 points?

by Progressive America 2008-03-23 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Hawaii was a caucus where young Obamabots can shout people down and use Chicago style intimidation tactics. This is a primary without a large African American vote to save the day

by rossinatl 2008-03-23 05:02PM | 0 recs
you got some proof?

by kindthoughts 2008-03-23 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

"Hawaii was a caucus where young Obamabots can shout people down and use Chicago style intimidation tactics"

Ya, you get a lot of those Chicago style intimidation tactics in Hawaii.

Come on.

by SFValues 2008-03-23 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Just picture the Daley machine, with flip flops.  Totally the same thing.

by enozinho 2008-03-23 06:01PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

ahh, i really do miss Chicago...

by alex100 2008-03-23 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

If that's true, it's good that the flabby Clinton machine has been supplanted by one that knows how to win.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-03-23 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Were you in Hawaii?  That is such an unfair characterization!  Please, don't spread gossip that has no foundation.  Also,much has been made about the racial trend as evidence by the vote in Mississippi.  This demonstrates an incredible ignorance as to the democratic party make-up in that state.  Comparing the votes on racial lines between Mississippi and any other state is being ahistorical and unhelpful.

by cwsaterfield 2008-03-24 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Johnson's a Senator who is up for re-election in a tough red state, but cruising to date, yet he's putting some hypothetical distance between himself and Obama; no doubt, due to the Wright attack on Obama.

A front threader once again indulging in petty personal swiping at the nominee of the party they claim to support.

Since Tim Johnson is an ABAR (All But A Republican)it's no wonder he distances himself from all Democrats. He probably wouldn't be seen with Hillary or Bill either (nor Daschle).  

by Liberal Avenger 2008-03-23 05:00PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

You're kidding right?

I have been in a room talking to both Daschle and Johnson at the same time before, at public events with cameras and everything.

by Dave B 2008-03-23 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Only if Armstrong is kidding too. But whether he is or no, it's pretty divisive for someone who runs a blog about helping Democrats to attack the party's all but certified nominee.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-03-23 06:25PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

obama isn't all but anything.

i voted for him and now feel like a victim of fraud. He wouldn't when half those votes if we knew then...

these calls for people to give up and get behind BO are silly.

by the Walrus 2008-03-23 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

i voted for him and now feel like a victim of fraud.

SURE you did.

these calls for people to give up and get behind BO are silly.

The call is only to those who have in the past passed themselves off as voices of unity and political realism.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-03-23 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

i did, in Missouri. When i thought he was what he said he was.

our primary was shortly before i heard his wife announce she was proud of her country for the first time in her life.
say what? was my reaction. oh well, she seems a bit ditzy and it doesnt matter what first lady thinks....

his chosen mentor and "moral compass" of 20 years turns out to be a stones throw from a black panther.

his back to the wall he decides to start a national soul search on race which he starts by equating his grandma with his racist raving lunatic mentor, etc
its easier for you to just call me a liar i guess.. sure i did
what amzes me is you obama people can't seem to understand how anyone could have any problem with this.

by the Walrus 2008-03-23 06:45PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

i did, in Missouri. When i thought he was what he said he was.

I have no sympathy for fools who whine about misusing their votes.

From the rest of your post, you sound like someone who has probably whined about voting for Bush twice too.

by Liberal Avenger 2008-03-23 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

fuck you pal.

by the Walrus 2008-03-23 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations


by Liberal Avenger 2008-03-23 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

I agree that the other commenter was being unfair.  

However, I would also ask you to try to view Pastor Wright in a historical context and recognize that your disgust might be connected to the gap btw segments of white and black America.  I feel like closing that gap is a positive and believe that Obama can help close that gap much more successfully than Hillary. I also think that we should judge Obama on his actions and his words which, I would argue, have not in anyway supported the angry elements of Wright's sermons.

Is it the most important issue? No.  Ending the war is!  On that, I hope, Obama should earn all of our votes.

by cwsaterfield 2008-03-24 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

What people haven't come to terms with is how the Wright controversy has now defined Obama. Before, he was credible as a centrist candidate, who might appeal to Independents and Republicans.

Now, he has been transformed into a distinct, and fairly extreme, left wing candidate. His core supporters from here on out will be left wing activists and sympathizers, and, of course, African-Americans.

All the signs are that there will be no Obama coattails in red states, or even purple states come the general election.

And everytime Democrats defend Jeremiah Wright and Obama's continued connection to him, they only reinforce that perception of Obama.

by frankly0 2008-03-23 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Recent polls have found that above assessment to be incredibly off the mark.

by RussTC3 2008-03-23 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

If you take a look at the recent state-by-state match-ups between McCain and Hillary and McCain and Obama, it's obvious that McCain is pulling away the independents and certainly the Republicans from Obama, and Hillary is doing far, far better.

It's in those head-to-head matchups, particularly in swing states, that the real effect of the Wright controversy will be seen -- much more so than in direct Obama vs. Hillary numbers.

Obama and Hillary now basically split the Democratic party in half, with Hillary taking the centrist portion, and Obama now being pretty much reduced to the leftmost wing of the party (despite having announced somewhat less progressive policies, on balance).

by frankly0 2008-03-23 06:24PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

McCain hasn't felt any real heat because Hillary's been been building him up and going after Obama, and Obama has been splitting time between the 2.

If Hillary changes her tone, or one of the 2 drops out, then McCain will probalby start dropping.

by Timetheos 2008-03-24 07:02AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

I'm just glad that Barack Hussein X was exposed in time.  No one saw the Revolution coming.  His praise of Reagan, calls to solve the Social Security "Crisis" and his lack of commitment to true Universal Healthcare were just an elaborate ruse to keep Whitey confused.

Thank God we have a real centrist just waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces.  

by enozinho 2008-03-23 05:53PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Unfortunately for Obama, it won't be his stated policies vis-a-vis Hillary that will define him as left wing or not. He will be defined by the right wing machine by his association with Jeremiah Wright -- which will be made by them to sing in unseemly chorus with his flag pin thing and his failure to put his hand over his heart when the national anthem was played and with his wife's professed lack of pride in America until her husband ran for President. That is how it is done. Obama has provided the ammunition, which they will now simply proceed to fire.

It's what happened to Michael Dukakis, as just one example -- he could talk his face blue about being a "fiscal conservative" and try to play up his centrist credentials, but he was defined by how he handled a bill regarding the flag, and the Willie Horton issue.

And this gets to what makes Obama such a poor candidate, if you're a progressive: he has all the downside risk of someone easy to depict as having a soft spot in his heart for a loopy radical left, with far less upside in terms of progressive policy payoff than his Democratic opponent.

by frankly0 2008-03-23 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Mike Dukakis had none of Obama's political ability and grace under fire. We are witnessing a candidate who defies the traditional laws of political gravity and meets his challenges head on.

by wasder 2008-03-23 06:41PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

a candidate who defies the traditional laws of political gravity

It makes me feel so good to know that Obama defies the laws of science, and can perform magic, and that that his way out of all political difficulties.

But you will need to clap louder!

by frankly0 2008-03-23 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Barack Obama is not Michael Dukakis.  You know that and I know that.  So lets not pretend.

by enozinho 2008-03-23 06:42PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Oh yeah, so it's the Obama magic again. Everything's different for Obama because he comes with the special sauce.

Got ya.

by frankly0 2008-03-23 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

he transcends gravity!

by the Walrus 2008-03-23 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

I never said that.  Michael Dukakis was a poster child for the Liberal twerp.  Short, ugly, smarter than everyone, and not afraid to show it.  Democrats keep foisting these wonky dweebs on the country, and nobody wants them.  Sure, their policies sound fine, but they aren't good advocates for the party, and that's why they lose.

It has nothing to do with magic.  It's just a fact that Barack Obama doesn't fit into the description above.  

by enozinho 2008-03-23 06:58PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

So what we really need for a nominee is "tall, beatiful, and dumb as a rock"?

by J Rae 2008-03-23 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

If that candidate is liberal and capable of promoting progressive policies, then yes.  But we all know Obama isn't dumb as a rock.  Try again.


by enozinho 2008-03-23 07:28PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

The "description above" is a gross charicature of Dukakis. So, the fact that Obama "doesn't fit" it proves nothing.

It's easy to mock Dukakis now. But, at the time, he seemed like a very strong candidate. OK, he wasn't physically beautiful. But he was not seen as a poster child for Liberalism until the GOP slime machine got a hold of him. He was actually seen as a moderate Governor of a very liberal state, which is no mean accomplishment. He had balanced its budget. As for being too "smart," back then, many people thought being smart was a good thing. Dukakis was the longest serving governor in Massachusetts history, which goes back a long way. He was given credit for enabling his state to be one of the first to leverage its "human resources" (such as it great universities like Harvard and MIT) into the creation of new jobs. The "route 128" corridor was one of the earliest high-tech areas in the country. And Mass. went from having a dying, industrial-based economy to being one of the leaders in the new, computer economy during Dukakis' tenure. This was no small thing in the eighties, when the tale of the dying "rust belt" was new and very painful.

Also, Dukakis had a positive life story. Both of his parents were immigrants. His father worked his way up to being a Harvard-trained doctor. Dukakis himself was an Eagle Scout and went to Harvard Law School. There were no major scandals, personal or political, associated with him.

Dukakis ran a good primary campaign, defeating Gephardt and Simon decisivley, and outlasting Jesse Jackson. He was easily won the nomination and was leading Bush in the polls by almost 20%.

Then, he got "Willie Hortoned" and "card-carrying member of the ACLU'd" and "tanked" and "Would you be against the death penalty if your wife was raped?" and "liberaled" and so on, by the GOP slime machine and the mass media. And the rest is history.

The point of all this is not to claim that Obama is just like Dukakis. He isn't. They have different strengths and weaknesses. But anyone can be made to look like a bum after they've lost. After all, they are "losers," and that probably gets you at least half-way there. But similar nasty, one-sided pictures to the one you painted of Dukakis could be made for Carter, Mondale, Gore, and Kerry. Were thay all yo-yos?

Maybe, a more realistic assessment would be that our Party starts with a disadvantage in presidential elections as a result of the realignment that began with Nixon and was completed by Reagan. The south and mountain west states are almost impossible for us to crack, and the big majorities we can pile up in states like CA, NY and Ill don't really matter. You might claim that Obama is the one to undo that realignment, and you may be right. But I heard similar claims made for Bill Clinton, and it didn't happen. Nor do the state-by-state polls for Obama give me confidence that he is going to do it either.

If Obama does lose in the general election, will that prove that he is just another "Liberal twerp" too? With whatever other negative stereotypes you care to label him with?

by freemansfarm 2008-03-23 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Those are all fair points.  My issue was that the only reason Obama is being compared to Dukakis is because of the spectacular loss he presided over in '88.

I was 11 years old when Dukakis ran, so my image of him was based entirely on how he came across on television.  To me he looked like a Hobbit.  It isn't fair and it isn't right, but sometimes that's what it comes down to.  George Bush certainly didn't get re-elected for his resume.

by enozinho 2008-03-23 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

OK, and I thank you for agreeing that my points were fair.

But, perhaps, your youth in 1988 is coloring your analysis. Certainly, no one thought Dukakis was a hunk, but I think most commentators attribute his loss more to the "swiftboating" avant la lettre he recieved from the Republicans than to his homeliness. If you recall, Bush I was not exactly handsome either. Also, looked at another way, Dukakis did much better than Mondale had done in 1984. It was not easy running against the GOP when Reagan had just presided over 2 terms to most people's satisfaction and had annointed Bush I as his successor. In addition, Gore and Carter were not seen as particularly ugly, and they went down to defeat too.

I agree with you, though, that there is no basis for equating Obama with Dukakis at this time. The two candidates, as I said, are very different, and, obviously, we don't if Obama, unlike Dukakis will win.

by freemansfarm 2008-03-23 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

The people in Massachusetts did not have an easy relationship with Dukakis, and were mostly sort of shocked he got as far as the presidential nominee.  It was not the Willie Horton smear that got him, it was his inability to counter it.

The other thing is, I'm starting to think, that possibly the most appealing trait in a candidate (obviously outside of their poltiics, whether you agree with them on issues) is their comfort in their own skin.  That's what makes Obama a good candidate, and I think that is where Hillary Clinton sometimes has a problem.  You can't re-invent yourself, it doesn't work, you kind of just have to show what and who you are.  Dukakis was truly not comfortable in his own skin at all, he was always warily looking for the right way to be.

by mady 2008-03-23 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

The people of Mass elected him as their governor for a longer time period than anyone in their history. I lived in Mass. for part of that period. Certainly, some people liked and some didn,t. But facts are facts, and they count more than your subjective characterization of the Mass. voter/Dukakis "relationship."

As for the Wille Horton thing, it always to say that a candidate didn't "counter" his opponent's charges well enough. I guess that's what brought down Carter too? And Gore? And Kerry? Please, the GOP slime machine is very good at what it does, and is not as easily "countered" as all that.

Finally, I've heard this "comfortable in the skin" claim before. How one goes about measuring it and comparing it is a little vague. I'm might agree that Dukakis did not have this attribute, but, I think Hillary has it more so than Obama.

Hillary, at least since her Wellesly days 40 years ago, has been on a straight line. She knows who she is and where she is from and what she wants to do. She has never changed her religion, or her political party. When her husband cheated on her, she knew exactly how to handle it. She can win people over to her side, who first encounter her with a view pre-poisoned by the GOP slime machine and the mass media, with her warmth and genuineness.

Obama, on the other hand, had a well-publicized "identity crises" deep into his 20's, which was only 20 years ago. He did not get his religion until then. Arguably, he chose his racial identity then. He still seems to have issues with the European American women who raised him. To me, he does not seem comfortable at all.

by freemansfarm 2008-03-23 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

I have lived in Massachusetts most of my adult life, for a long time, and Dukakis was in and out of favor regularly.  If I remember, he lost one election, and then took the statehouse back the one after that. I liked him and voted for him, but it really was astonishing he got as far as he did nationally.  

The GOP slime machine is very very good at what it does, and unfortunately a lot of both candidates' supporters in this primary seem to be taking a leaf from it.  Who knows, maybe it will toughen them for the general, or maybe it will just bring our house down.  I hope it's the former.

by mady 2008-03-23 09:56PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

He did lose one election. But he won a lot more. I'm not questioning your MA bona fides, I'm just saying that the voters of the state, on balance, seemed to like him. As for Dukakis getting as far as he did nationally, you may have been surprized by it, but that doesn't mean he was a bad candidate. After all, longterm governors are usually considered to be "presidential timber," and most of the presidents over the last 40 years or so have been former governors.

As for your second paragraph, I totally agree.

by freemansfarm 2008-03-23 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

And another point about the Dukakis analogy.

Actually, I was being overly generous to Obama in that comparison.

Dukakis never had a story one tenth as damaging to him, potentially, as the Jeremiah Wright connection is to Obama. The Willie Horton ad was a fairly desperate attempt to pull out something out of Dukakis's background that might put him in an unflattering light, even though his connection to the Horton case was extremely remote by any rational reckoning.

This is emphatically NOT true with Obama and Jeremiah Wright. There Wright is, in the pulpit, right after 9/11, taking great satisfaction in the terrorist acts of only days before -- nearly as pernicious in his sentiments as Ward Churchill himself. And there Wright is, marrying Obama, baptizing his daughters, and "mentoring" Obama for 20 years.

For the right wing, this is like finding the Holy Grail of attack stories. I'm sure that they are pinching themselves over their incredible luck -- probably the one way they could possibly hope to win this cycle, and the Democrats have managed to  offer it up.

by frankly0 2008-03-23 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

So, basically they are nothing alike.  That's what I said.

by enozinho 2008-03-23 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Did you actually read the sermon?  It is posted on this site.  It is not what you think it is.

by mady 2008-03-23 09:10PM | 0 recs
Obama and unilateral disarmament

Unfortunately for Obama, it won't be his stated policies vis-a-vis Hillary that will define him as left wing or not.

Oh, there's fodder in his stated policies, too.

In his 2007 foreign policy speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, Obama quite reasonably stated, "We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads."

In his Iraq speech last week, he's changed his tune, pledging to "once more seek a world without nuclear weapons."

This isn't quite endorsing unilateral disarmament; but it's close.

by He Who Must Not Be Named 2008-03-23 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

barack hussein X?

you're not even a closet racist are ya'?

revolution? Praise of Reagain? "true universal healthcare"?

yours is a vile post filled with no-truths and half-truths at best.

by alex100 2008-03-23 07:06PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

It was supposed to be a joke.  My posts are commonly 90% snark.

by enozinho 2008-03-23 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Yeah, I picked up on it immediately, but your sarcasm may have been a little too spot-on there.

by rfahey22 2008-03-23 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Well, I have to keep things somewhat obtuse.  Last time I expressed what sounded to me like the general takeaway from the Wright story, I got one of those warnings.  Think I hit a little too close to home.

by enozinho 2008-03-23 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

that explains it. I couldn't figure out how someone writing these things could be on these boards, but i've seen stranger things.

still, vile. Perhaps you need to push the vileness even further. Then it might read more as snark.

by alex100 2008-03-23 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

wouldnt it be funny if John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, and Tom Dashle's states all went for Hillary...two down so far and South Dakota to go...I would howl with laughter at that one since they are supposedly Obama's puppet masters....

by athyrio 2008-03-23 05:11PM | 0 recs

I pray tell to you that I have indeed been drinking warm milk liberally this fine March evening, but let me further elaborate onto you, good sir, that I would totally snort milk out of my nose and chortle gleefully if this farcical event indeed happens in reality.  I tip my hat to you and wag my cigar at you for your fair appreciation of regal sport, and will now sit back and laugh heartily again for the clear implications of your jest.

by atomica 2008-03-23 05:27PM | 0 recs
Tom Daschle

Do not forget about former SD senator Tom Daschle. He has endorsed Obama and is one of his campaign co-chairs. I imagine Tom Daschle will be out campaining for him in SD.

by harmony94 2008-03-23 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Man, you people sound really, really angry.  Might be a good time to step away from the Internets for a bit.

by enozinho 2008-03-23 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

From what I read Obama went to SD to fight against the abortion bill and he just about has the state sewed up.

by Spanky 2008-03-23 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

That is not the only issue that's important to SD.

by stefystef 2008-03-23 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Everything that has happened over the last 3 months suggests that Obama will win South Dakota by his usual 60-40 margin in states of a similar disposition.  Any analysis to the contrary is just crazy talk.  If anything, one could construe this as a Johnson endorsement of Obama since the Illinois senator is so likely to win in SD.

by IrishObserver 2008-03-23 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

A lot has happened, this is a CLOSED Primary not a caucus.

He does have the edge, lets wait for the poll.

by el mito 2008-03-23 05:38PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

I am glad the kept it closed, let the DEM choose their candidate.

by el mito 2008-03-23 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

It works both ways.  The fake Independent and Republican votes that Clinton received in Texas resulted in a win for her there.

by RussTC3 2008-03-23 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

I totally agree with you... The only way I would accept it is that person signed an affidavit that they WOULD vote DEM in the GE or not voter at all...  but that is just me.

by el mito 2008-03-23 05:43PM | 0 recs

MSNBC Exit poll

Category: Democrat
Clinton Obama
53       46

by Shawn 2008-03-23 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas

nothing like facts.... I was trusting the comment above to have based his remarks on data.


by el mito 2008-03-23 05:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas

It is based on facts.  Obama's win among Republicans and Independents was quite narrow (53/46 among Republicans and 49/48 among Independents).

All parties vote in the GE.  I'm pretty sure Obama and Clinton are going to have little problem getting Democrats to vote for them. :)

by RussTC3 2008-03-23 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Texas

haha, so, Clinton won Texas because she kept Obama from getting all of his Republican vote.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-24 04:47AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

I don't think Hillary has a chance in South Dakota, Oregon or Montana.  Anyone calling them a toss up is either misinformed or not paying attention.

by Socks The Cat 2008-03-23 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

So you know more than Steve Jarding about SD?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-24 04:48AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Also, why are Clinton supporters still clamoring for Kerry and Kennedy to switch to Clinton?  If all supers did it based on their states i believe Obama would be ahead in Supers right now.

by Socks The Cat 2008-03-23 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations
I haven't heard a single clamor for them to change, but I have heard it pointed out that they are not voting like their state voted, and I believe that that was Obama's previous claim as to what should happen. It was Hillary argueing that SDs should be free to do what they want. It is being brought to the attention of the public that Obama's delegates are not following his will.
The fact is that half of them are hypocrites like Richardson, who just a week ago said that delegates should vote the way their states vote.
Do you have anything to back up your statement that Obama would be ahead if that was the case?
by Scotch 2008-03-23 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Circular, comes back to FL & MI, after a Clinton lead under 100, iirc.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-24 04:49AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

I'm pretty sure that that would be the case, too, so by all means, let the Clinton supporters have their way on that point.  A few of the more clever ones have argued that Richardson's endorsement "proves" that the "will of the people" argument should not be followed.  Of course, that ironclad argument ignores the fact that neither candidate controls the superdelegates, who are free at any time to endorse whomever they want (and to disregard any such "will of the people" argument if they so desire).  Obviously, over half the superdelegates have in fact endorsed a candidate based on criteria known only to themselves.  The "will of the people" argument is merely an argument for how uncommitted superdelegates should vote, not a rule dictating a particular outcome.  

by rfahey22 2008-03-23 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

No real Clinton supporter would ever want Kennedy or Kerry near Hillary.  From what I've heard, the people of Mass didn't want them either.

Oh yeah, there's change in the air.

by stefystef 2008-03-23 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Bigger states typically have more Democratic representatives and more DNC superdelegates than smaller states. By winning NY, CA, Texas (primary) Ohio, etc, she should have a lot more superdelegates than Obama.

by gomer 2008-03-23 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

The entire system needs changed to include just Democrats and noone else in the state primaries, including in caucuses, if we have to have caucuses.  I would like to get rid of those too, they are so exclusionary to people who cannot easily get to the caucus site, like disabled individuals and older people, not to mention those who have to work for a living.

But I was completely unaware of just how many republicans and independents had a vote in a Democratic election until this year.  Why even call it the Democratic nominee?  Why not have a free for all regardless of party, where the two people with the most votes nationwide then just run against each other in the General. Why label it Democratic if it isn't Democrats who are choosing their nominee?

Coming from a closed primary state, all of the open primaries and caucuses do not make sense.

by Scotch 2008-03-23 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

The argument that I present is that each system tells something different.  Each have different strengths and weaknesses.  A closed primary demonstrates who is most popular with the party but runs the risk of selecting someone who has broad but tepid support who doesn't appeal to anyone outside of the core.  An open primary lets independents weigh in on who most appeals to them - an important fact to know for a general - but has the risk of gaming the system.  A caucus shows depth of support and the ability to have a good ground game, but it does put more barriers on voters to come out.

I like the idea of having a mixture.  It forces the candidates to demonstrate different skills.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-23 06:15PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

What about republicans?  What purpose do they serve voting in our primary.  They have their own, why would they want to in a primary and why should we let them?

by Scotch 2008-03-23 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

99% of the time it's not a big deal.  It's just this year where we had a battle and they didn't that it became an issue.

by thezzyzx 2008-03-24 04:08AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Well, if you are so bothered by that, then not only would you have to move to a closed system, but you would also have to introduce fairly stringent certification requirements that many states simply do not have in place.  I mean, what sort of barrier would a closed primary be if that state also permitted same-day registration?  

I remember that this line of thought went to absolutely absurd lengths about a month ago, in a diary criticizing Obama for trying to register Democrats to participate in the PA primary.  Some people were actually advocating for registration more than 60 days in advance of the primary and a prohibition on individuals switching parties.  Of course, those requirements are stricter than many (perhaps any) states currently have in place, but they were thought necessary to "innoculate" the Democratic primaries from outside influence.  My point is that there will always be some people who traditionally do not vote Democratic but who participate in our primaries, unless you're willing to go to ridiculous lengths to prevent that from happening.  

by rfahey22 2008-03-23 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Frankly, I am from PA.  I have voted there all my life.  The primary is closed with registration at least a month before the primary.  It ends tomorrow.  It has worked out fine, and in fact the people who register as independents, at least the ones I know, have no real desire to vote anyway, and use it as an excuse not too.  No, same day registration would defeat the purpose.  But like I said, why label it the Democratic nominee when it isn't Democrats  deciding the candidates.

by Scotch 2008-03-23 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

See, I happen to like same-day registration because I think that it helps the party to recruit among certain groups, such as college students and lower income voters who might otherwise not be aware of registration requirements.  I would rather have fairly lax registration requirements unless it can be proven that "outsiders" clearly meddled in the party's affairs (by which I mean they supported a candidate they had no interest in supporting in the GE), and then I would only tighten them in states where the meddling occurred.

by rfahey22 2008-03-23 06:59PM | 0 recs
Honest Question

There are still over two months before the SD primary and five months before the Democratic Convention. Are people still going to be talking about Wright in June?  Did Wright forever "define" Obama with crucial swing voters?

If so, obviously it's bad for Obama.  For better or worse, I think that the country will have moved on. Something like an attack on Iran or a bankruptcy by a huge financial firm would send Wright into obscurity.  

by howardpark 2008-03-23 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Honest Question

Or more news like this -- the real reason to even care about politics: middleeast/24iraq.html?hp
BAGHDAD -- As many as 20 mortar shells were fired Sunday at the heavily fortified Green Zone, one of the fiercest and most sustained attacks on the area in the last year.

The shelling sent thick plumes of dark gray smoke over central Baghdad and ignited a spectacular fire on the banks of the Tigris River. It ushered in a day of violence that claimed the lives of four American soldiers and at least 58 lraqis around the country.

American military officials said the soldiers were killed by a homemade bomb about 10 p.m. as they patrolled southern Baghdad in a vehicle, pushing the number of American service members killed in Iraq closer to 4,000. Another soldier was wounded in the attack."

by politicsmatters 2008-03-23 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Honest Question

"Did Wright forever "define" Obama with crucial swing voters?"

Not for you, you've already got yours. For those who hadn't, yes, certainly. I don't think the rightwing will let go of this brand.  As for the Democratic primaries, and Democrats in general, only in the states where Obama hasn't yet introduced himself.

This was incredibly damaging for Obama among Independents.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-03-24 04:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Honest Question

Any numbers to support that?

What I am seeing here: 2008/president/democratic_primaries.html 2008/president/national.html

Doesn't seem to be that big of diff.

by Timetheos 2008-03-24 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Honest Question

It is possible that the Wright affair will "define" Obama negatively with independents but this is far from a done deal. Basically you have already had these videos played and played and played, at a certain point they will lose their "scary" power and there will be a window of opportunity for Obama to introduce himself to the independent electorate in the middle of the summer (provided that he has the nomination by then). What your analysis doesn't take into account is that Obama has shown a propensity for overcoming the kinds of attacks and smears that other candidates have succumbed to (willie horton, swiftboat et al) and this is because he has much better communication skills than Kerry or Dukakis and a ideological grounding that is harder to paint into a corner. While it is certain that there are some voters who will not be able to get past the Wright thing, I believe it is just as likely that there will be voters who appreciate his ability to present complex issues to voters in ways that they can understand. This will of course take time, but there is a lot of time until November.

by wasder 2008-03-24 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Honest Question

Another day, another post by Jerome flogging Rev. Wright.

The rest of the country is starting to move on, as is clearly showed by the polls, and there is even pushback (Jack Kemp, Chris Wallace) on Fox News, of all places.

How long are you going to keep this up, Jerome?

by tysonpublic 2008-03-24 07:20AM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations
so far I expected PA, WV, KY & PR for Hillary for sure and NC, IN & OR as may be. Now SD & MT in "may be" category for Hillary too!
I am changing my forecast for these 9 states from +77 for Hillary to +85 for Hillary. It means that she will get by mid of June not just popular vote,
but a tie in delegates and more total than Obama with superdelegates and eventual Florida and Michigan counting!
by engels 2008-03-23 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Oh what wishful thinking! Haha!

by tom32182 2008-03-23 07:15PM | 0 recs
And don't forget the next step for Caucus States

Many caucus states will have their district caucuses in April and May.  It will be interesting to see if Obama can hold his support at that level among his delegates.

by katiebird 2008-03-23 07:23PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Jerome Armstrong has now attributed any motives of any politician that makes any statement regarding anything Obama related as some warning that Obama is lossing support.  

It's really bizarre.

by tom32182 2008-03-23 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: SD expectations

Paul Rosenberg with a pretty great post over at openleft:;jsessio nid=CFA58C5032593CFD38DAE26969BCD9FF?dia ryId=4727

by alex100 2008-03-23 07:24PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads