Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right Reasons

Greg is another of the 50 state bloggers that will be posting on the frontpage through the PA contest, alongside bloggers for NC, IN, and WV, jeome

Let's face it - Barack Obama has run a great campaign, inspired a lot of people, and will probably win the nomination. So why is Hillary Clinton doing so well in Pennsylvania?

In short, it's the economy, stupid. Much of Pennsylvania was once supported by enormous manufacturing operations who supported entire regions of workers. Pennsylvanians still haven't fully recovered economically from the effects globalization had on manufacturing hubs.

In my hometown, some estimate that Bethlehem Steel once employed 40,000 people, and Pittsburgh has a similar history with US Steel. Those companies closed years ago, but the economic and emotional wounds run deep in Pennsylvania. As those large companies faded away, new businesses failed to take their place, and workers were left worrying about their pensions and the lifetime of health benefits they were promised.

Pennsylvania has been hurt further by NAFTA and other trade deals that are unfavorable to workers. Since 2000, we've lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs. Walking downtown in many parts of our state can be a sobering experience - where mom and pop stores once thrived and profits were recycled back into small businesses, big box stores now suck dollars out of the local economy.

Barack Obama has been talking about "his story" and what it means for America, but that's not the sort of thing that resonates with Pennsylvanians. We're a pragmatic state because we've seen all too closely how the whims of so-called "visionaries" affect real workers, and how plans from self-professed Smart Guys can wreak havoc on entire regions.

Honestly, I don't have anything against Barack, and I'm kind of disappointed that Hillary hasn't gracefully bowed out since the numbers are so clearly against her. But I'd like to see the Senator from Illinois stop telling me his story and start telling me about how he's going to change the story for people in places like Pennsylvania.

Say what you will about her, but Hillary has done that and she's done it well. She's told us she recognizes that we got the shaft with NAFTA, and that to stay competitive we need universal healthcare.

Rather than show up in Philadelphia to give a big speech that most Philadelphians will never hear, Hillary walks around our towns and sees what has happened to places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. She's told us that she's learning the lessons along with the rest of us, and here in PA, that's something we can respect.

When it comes down to it, I know they have just about the same positions on everything. I just wish Senator Obama would take some time out from talking about himself to let us know.

** Greg Palmer is the Publisher of Keystone Politics and the former Technology Advisor to Rep. Henry Waxman's Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Pennsylvania (all tags)



Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

Hillary was always going to "win PA". No big surprise there. But last I saw she'd squandered a 40 point lead down to 10. That would seem important.

My bet is she wins the state by 20 points or less. Safe bet huh.

by Travis Stark 2008-03-27 04:48AM | 0 recs
The economy everywhere is terrible..

And Hillary is resurgent in many more states than PA.

Or hadn't you noticed?

Oh, and Obama is deceiving millions about his intentions on health care.


http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/26/2264 6/9320

by architek 2008-03-27 05:04AM | 0 recs
Re: The economy everywhere is terrible..

No kidding. I hear his plan is almost exactly the same as Clinton's, so I understand your skepticism of it.

by ragekage 2008-03-27 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: The economy everywhere is terrible..

His plan is inferior to Clinton's and was designed so the universal coverage portion will collapse, leaving the government subsidies to private insurance companies intact.

Whether that is intentional or just a dumb mistake is difficult to tell.  Either way, Obama has never gone to bat or worked hard for any controversial piece of legislation.

Its hard to imagine he would suddenly change and promote real health care reform. More likely he would work on it enough to please his donors for the next election cycle, then let the rest of the more difficult provisions fall by the wayside.

Obama isn't a hard worker, he's a smart worker. He only does the absolute minimum necessary to benefit himself.

by Betsy McCall 2008-03-27 05:28AM | 0 recs
Re: The economy everywhere is terrible..

Hmm. You make some interesting claims there; the opinion based ones are yours to make, but I fail to see your point as to the health care differences between Senator Clinton and Obama.

Perhaps you could illustrate the collapse you speak or, or go over in more detail the shortcomings of his plan, I would be more understanding.

by ragekage 2008-03-27 05:37AM | 0 recs
Adverse selection...

Google that word, in quotes, maybe add Obama to it..

Add "Jim Cooper" and then you will get an idea of whats going on.

Obama's plan is a very close replica of the Cooper plan that was used by the right to derail universal healthcare in 1993

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht ml?res=9B00EEDD1431F93AA25757C0A96295826 0&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId =4004

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1 282/is_n4_v46/ai_14885300/pg_1

There are many more.. Read my diary from yesterday...

by architek 2008-03-27 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Adverse selection...


I read your diary, the articles you quoted, re-watched the Harry and Louise commercial, compared it with the Clinton's plan from 1993, and I'm sad to say I don't see any of the similarities or downsides you are alluding to.

I'm afraid someone's going to have to explain it to me in more detail.

by ragekage 2008-03-27 06:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Adverse selection...

Here is Obama's spin on it:

"What I have said is that the way she approached it back in `93, I think, was wrong in part because she had the view that what's required is simply to fight. And Senator Clinton ended up fighting not just the insurance companies and the drug companies, but also members of her own party. And as a consequence, there were a number of people, like Jim Cooper of Tennessee and Bill Bradley and Pat Moynihan, who were not included in the negotiations. And we had the potential of bringing people together to actually get something done."

Except that in Obama's world "getting something done" seems to be sacrificing the parts of the Clinton plan that would bring the costs down for people. He doesn't seem to care that without a mandate, the cost would be high, comparable to today's 'high risk pools" because adverse selection would make it that way. And that would kill the entire thing, like it did in 1993, which suits the people who were doing the 'alternative plan' like Cooper, JUST FINE.

That was their goal.

by architek 2008-03-27 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Adverse selection...

Again, you're making generalizations and not providing any evidence. I'd say what killed the plan in '93 was the Clinton's unwillingness to deal with anything contrary to their vision, lack of transparency on the issue, etc. And I don't see how you can make "The Clintons wouldn't bring anyone else to the table to try and get things done" into "ZOMG!!! JIM COOPER!!"

But a side-by-side comparison of the two healthcare plans with the pros and cons would be helpful. But it seems to me you're unwilling to provide this sort of information, instead delving into rhetoric to support your point.

by ragekage 2008-03-27 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: The economy everywhere is terrible..

I'd like to see the Senator from Illinois stop telling me his story and start telling me about how he's going to change the story for people in places like Pennsylvania.

I hear his plan is almost exactly the same as Clinton's, so I understand your skepticism of it.

It seems to me that Obama talked quite a bit about what he thinks needs to be done to help people who face losing their homes and neighborhoods being destroyed by evictions.  I don't agree that Obama just talks about "his story" while Hillary is full of specifics.

I also don't quite get the idea that the wife of the man who pushed NAFTA down congresses throat is going to be accepted as the person who can reverse that disaster.

by Fred in Vermont 2008-03-27 07:31AM | 0 recs

I don't know how good your memory is, but that (NAFTA) was one of the areas where Hillary openly disagreed with Bill.

Google it..

by architek 2008-03-27 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Fred..

There's no way to prove or disprove that claim. At best, is was very dishonest of her to openly and actively support something publicly she didn't approve of in reality; it's a diminishing of her character. Will she be able to stand up for the right things in the future? I'm unsure.

by ragekage 2008-03-27 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Fred..

Supporting something publicly while not approving of it privately as DIMINISHING of CHARACTER?

Surely you're heard of the strange concept of politics, right?

by Sieglinde 2008-03-27 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Fred..

I've googled it. In fact, it's very hard to find evidence that Hillary opposed Bill and it, and especially not openly.

On the other hand, it's very easy to find evidence that she supported NAFTA (whether on Bill's behalf or not) and that Clinton insiders such as David Gergen are now lying on her behalf to try to cover that up.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 08:30AM | 0 recs
there is evidence she supported it

As first lady, Hillary Clinton publicly supported her husband's position. In 1996, in a visit with unionized garment workers, she said the words Obama now quotes. "I think everybody is in favor of free and fair trade. I think NAFTA is proving its worth," said Clinton, according to an Associated Press report.

Clinton wrote positively of her husband's efforts on NAFTA in her memoir "Living History," published in 2003:

"Creating a free trade zone in North America -- the largest free trade zone in the world -- would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal."

source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ statements/374/

by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 08:41AM | 0 recs
Re: The economy everywhere is terrible..

Obama's been way out in the lead on solid plans for the economy. It'll be interesting to see what Clinton has to say in her speech today. Obama's yesterday was very well received.

Clinton's plan for the housing market, on the other hand, has been described as "the dumbest solution to the current mortgage mess I've heard from a top presidential contender". Other publications have said that it would cause chaos and worsen the housing plight of the nation. It'll be interesting to see if she revises or dumps this idea.

The economy is not an issue that Clinton is going to be winning PA on right now, though. She still can -- it's a ways to the primary -- but right now Obama's plans are considerably stronger.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: The economy everywhere is terrible..

It depends on what you consider solid. If you look at his plans and listen to his speech Obama is advocating light regulation to allow the market to correct inequities, and he places the blame for job losses on lobbyists stifling competition:

I think all of us here today would acknowledge that we've lost that sense of shared prosperity.

This loss has not happened by accident. It's because of decisions made in boardrooms, on trading floors and in Washington. Under Republican and Democratic Administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales. The result has been a distorted market that creates bubbles instead of steady, sustainable growth; a market that favors Wall Street over Main Street, but ends up hurting both.

That is why the pro-business publications like Fortune and Conrad Black's right-wing NY Sun, which you link to approvingly, prefer Obama's plans. That is why Mayor Bloomberg introduced Obama for today's speech. It is also why Obama has such a tough time in working class states like PA. Workers and left of center economists like Paul Krugman do not like Obama's plans, and prefer Clintons, because Clinton recognizes that market forces cannot achieve universal health care or correct the growing income disparity.

by souvarine 2008-03-27 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: The economy everywhere is terrible..

This is a pro-regulatory stance. Obama is placing blame squarely on "practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productivity and sound business practices". That's the opposite of a free-market approach; a free-market approach would allow such practices.

Remember that Bill Clinton (not Congress under Bill -- Bill, by executive order) set the state for Enron by allowing accounting rules to be set up that allowed for things like Enron. Remember that deregulation is not solely a Bush-era phenomena, that Clinton set into motion quite a bit of deregulation.

The support that Obama is getting from that side of the table is based on an understanding that our system has become entirely too unbounded. We've dabbled with disasterous underregulation; we don't need to dabble with disasterous overregulation (not that I'm saying that Hillary Clinton is a vote in that direction).

However, Obama is in fact much better positioned to create new regulations and stabilize the system, because he is beholden to far fewer big-money donors and interests than is Clinton. His economic plan draws so much support from labor organizations because it focuses on improving labor conditions, wages, salaries, and trade agreements in labor-centric ways, and because he focuses on reregulation in ways that are actually likely to improve economic conditions.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The economy everywhere is terrible..

Obama begins with a mandate for children only
this is the critical issue
I have worked in health insurance for 20 years
If you dont start with a universal mandate, the ability of the health ins industry to raise premiums and vary risk 'pools' and limit pre-existing conditions is still intact

THAT is what drives the premiums
that is where we will get the most savings

starting with the mandate on the kids only will INCREASE costs for parent b/c children with chronic illnesses will have higher premiums (b/c the risk pool is not universal since Obama didnt mandate universality) so adults with kids will pay more and due to mandate will be in worse shape

this is a really short brief, you need a white paper to see the money and the difference and you need a longer brief on how the risk pools work and premium ties ins to lives under the claims experience to really get the picture but it is a bottom line issue anyone in the industry understands, and so do Obama's advisers...
it is very clear

by ginaswo 2008-03-27 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: The economy everywhere is terrible..

If you do start with universal mandates and do not have an extremely strong regulatory position in place as to cost management on the insurance company side (which Clinton's plan really doesn't have, it has fairly weak cost controls that aren't significantly different than Obama's), what you've done is remove any incentive for insurance companies to cost-manage or cut front-end costs since their revenue stream is protected by the US government.

The risk pool is fully universal for children, so your argument makes no sense there. There is a mandate on coverage for children and not adults because there is already an existing framework for providing extremely low-cost coverage for children (SCHIP, for which Clinton gets some level of credit, and other programs), whereas there are not such frameworks in place for adults.

Again, without extremely stringent controls on front-end costs, what you're doing with mandates is not "making the risk pool universal", what you're doing is forcing low-income people to fund insurance companies by force of government. When you hear reports that Obama's plans will leave X million not covered, they're not referring to healthy people with decent incomes. Those people are overwhelmingly likely to opt in because costs are low, benefits are good, and they have the income to support it (versus more expensive partly-employer-funded options -- my "employer-paid" coverage costs me hundreds a month).

No, the people that they're arguing are left out are poor people with iffy medical histories. Such people definitely deserve coverage too. But including them does not improve the risk pool, it makes it worse. And for healthy poor people it actually significantly harms them, because they're now required by legal mandate to pay for health care that they do not need. For unhealthy poor people it's still a net loss, because we're shifting funding from emergency rooms to the backs of the poor. Yes, emergency room care is the worst way to provide health care, but this isn't a better way for poor people.

If you want a scheme like Clinton's to work, you need the "enforcement mechanism" to be an income threshold such that anyone who cannot pay for health care by some reasonable standard has it provided for them without mandates, sanctions, wage garnishment, etc. That of course starts to somewhat approach single-payer, at least for the poor.

In the absence of such a requirement, what you're really doing is mandating that poor people fund health insurance companies to their own detriment. That's hardly a progressive solution to health care.

Obama's plan, while flawed, at least provides some mechanism for cost containment and refuses to treat the poor as a mandatory profit center for the insurance industry.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 10:03AM | 0 recs
You mean like Pro-Nafta Hillary?????

The Clinton's sold the poor and the middle class down the river in the 1990s.  The supposed economic boom was built on speculation in the tech market and now housing market that crashed and burned.  While Bill's folksy accent fooled me before, NAFTA hasn't been good for PA.  I live here.  The area has been saved by the defense industry that has been propped up by horrid war.  Like the 90s the current economic state isn't sustainable.  The national debt will crush the working man.  Pharma has been hit by major reorganizations and structural adjustments due to law suits.  Ed Rendell's big plan?  Casinos!!!! Awesome...more service sector jobs that don't offer much hope for upward mobility or an avenue for jobs the future.

I'm sorry to take an aggressive tone but this kinda crap, sorry for those words, is useful to low information voters.  Peddle it elsewhere.

by Chavez100 2008-03-27 05:25AM | 0 recs
Answer the question on healthcare...

You are trying to change the subject..

by architek 2008-03-27 05:57AM | 0 recs
Hillary de-railed healthcare

Healthcare reformed failed because of Bill and Hillary's ego....plain and simple.  I'm as progressive as one can be but you can't storm the Bastille with one pitchfork.  You need a movement of millions who will stand together and let the companies and dirty politicians know that their time is done.  Yet, they still haven't learned.  Instead of going to the people they are repeating the same mistakes of the 90s.

On topic??? Answer the question? Come'on.

by Chavez100 2008-03-27 06:43AM | 0 recs
Maybe that will happen after people realize Obama

was deceiving them. But it won't be good for America or peoples faith in the current system. You could see a whole generation turn away from political activity. (which maybe is the whole point of this, I don't know. I wouldn't put it beyond them.)

And those demonstrations, riots (because of agents-provacateurs), etc, would be a Godsend to people on the extreme right who desperately want an excuse to declare a state of emergency and suspend democracy 'to preserve order'.

You know its true..

by architek 2008-03-27 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: You mean like Pro-Nafta Hillary?????

good post. nafta came late though, didn't it? the steel industry was on the skids before Deer Hunter (w/DeNiro) came out. whose fault was that? also, i hated to see three rivers stadium torn down. i recall the big fight: how was pittsburgh going to pay for two stadiums when they had not yet paid for one? btw, i love pittsburgh. i'm from the south and pittsburgh was the first big city i saw in my life. what wonderful bridges! go steelers!

by hueydixiepearl 2008-03-27 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: You mean like Pro-Nafta Hillary?????

Jim Cramer at PA last night said th old steel factory is being turned into a casino??!!!

by ginaswo 2008-03-27 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: You mean like Pro-Nafta Hillary?????

my family must have missed that in the 90s, that's when we made all our money and moved into the 'upper' classes the NIKEs like to say only support Obama

I remember very clearly the booming economy, budget surplus, and the worker and environmental protections written into NAFTA that Bush has refused to enforce

by ginaswo 2008-03-27 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: The economy everywhere is terrible..

I really appreciated your diary, thanks!

by 07rescue 2008-03-27 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: The economy everywhere is terrible..

Such as, maybe Connecticut?

Barack Obama, 52 percent; John McCain, 35 percent; someone else/don't know, 10 percent.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 45 percent; John McCain, 42 percent; someone else/don't know, 10 percent.

Barack Obama _ 59 percent favorable, 24 percent unfavorable.

Hillary Rodham Clinton _ 46 percent favorable, 47 percent unfavorable.

John McCain _ 52 percent favorable, 31 percent unfavorable.

Independent voters support Obama, 45-38 percent and voters younger than 45 back him, 63-30 percent.

Wait, I forgot, that's an insignificant state. Let's try California. That's one of those big states where Clinton wins and Obama loses, right?

If the 2008 presidential election were held today, likely voters say they prefer Barack Obama over John McCain (49% to 40%),
while a race between Hillary Clinton and
McCain would be closer (46% to 43%). Likely voters give Obama higher favorability ratings than Clinton or McCain. Obama and McCain split the independent vote (44% Obama, 42% McCain). Between Clinton and McCain, the race is a toss up: 46 percent of likely voters in the state support Clinton and 43 percent support McCain. Among independent voters, McCain has an 8-point edge over Clinton (44% to 36%).

Oops. But Obama's going to lose women and Latinos, right?

Obama leads McCain among women (50% to 37%), while men are divided (47% Obama, 44% McCain). Obama has higher support than McCain among Latinos (70% to 20%), while whites are divided (46% McCain, 43% Obama)

Oops again.

Yes, neither of these are Pennsylvania. They're not even demographically similar to Pennsylvania. But they put the lie to your contention that Clinton's resurgent. In fact, it looks like she's doing considerably poorer than Obama vs. McCain in Democratic states.

We already know Obama does better vs. McCain in red states. Apparently he does better vs. McCain in blue states too.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The economy everywhere is terrible..

from the poll you cite above Clinton is ding much better against McCranky in CA then Obama is ..

Among likely voters in California, 46 percent would support Clinton and 43 percent would support McCain
if the presidential election were held today. Clinton enjoys solid support among Democrats (80%), while
McCain has solid support among Republicans (85%). Among independents, 44 percent would vote for
McCain and 36 percent would vote for Clinton. Clinton outpolls McCain among women (54% to 37%),
while McCain leads Clinton among men (49% to 37%). Latinos solidly favor Clinton (74% to 18%), while
whites are more likely to back McCain (50% to 39%). A recent national USA Today/Gallup poll finds
Clinton with a slight edge among likely voters (51% Clinton, 46% McCain).

by ginaswo 2008-03-27 09:37AM | 0 recs
Re: The economy everywhere is terrible..

The big numbers were:
Obama 49, McCain 40 (Obama +9)
Clinton 46, McCain 43 (Clinton +3)

That's not doing better under any measure I understand.

Clinton is doing better than Obama with women and very slightly with Latinos. Obama is doing better with men and among independents of all subgroups.

Yes, they'll both win California in the end. That's not the point. The point is that Obama is clearly running better than Clinton in one of those big Democratic states that's supposed to be her base, and isn't losing to a major extent any of the demographic groups that are supposed to be his undoing, while doing much better than Clinton with independents, which are (as always) the true key to victory.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 10:08AM | 0 recs
Listen to good advice


Greg Palmer who is a local blogger is giving your candidate very good advice.

You (Obama and other Obama supporters) should listen to this advice instead of trying to make some gratuitous point about poll numbers.

Obama is not going to win if he is the nominee without attracting working-class voters in places like PA, OH, MI, WV, and KY. You should acknowledge this and want him to start focusing on this if you have his interests at heart.

by BigB 2008-03-27 05:24AM | 0 recs
Let's get it on the record then....

Local blogger with a bias.

by Chavez100 2008-03-27 05:27AM | 0 recs
Dismissive attitude doesn't help

This kind of dismissive attitude towards constructive criticism is not the way to expand your voting base or win elections.

Like it or not, the empirical evidence is that working-class Democrats are not voting for Obama.
He is not connecting with them. Without winning their allegiance, Obama is not going to win anything.

You and other Obama supporters can be snarky, engage in wishful thinking, and attack Hillary all you want. None of that changes the fundamental fact that his rhetoric is not appealing to working class voters.

As a Hillary supporter, I am happy you all are so defensive and dismissive about this problem.

by BigB 2008-03-27 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Dismissive attitude doesn't help

As an Obama supporter, you have a point.  This has nothing to do with Hillary, this is something Obama needs to focus on more.  He is doing a small-group trip around the state, and I think will be able to make some inroads with that, in addressing this group of voters, in settings where some of the garbage being flung in this election is less intrusive.

by mady 2008-03-27 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Dismissive attitude doesn't help

I agree with you. Obama has an opportunity to appeal to them with this bus trip. This is a good move on his part and a good beginning.

by BigB 2008-03-27 08:06AM | 0 recs
You Obama folk don't realize it..

But we are trying to help you. If Obama came out and spent a few days working through these issues, question by question, and addressed them, many of us might consider voting for him.

What does he have to lose? Seriously.

Unless he has something to hide-

by architek 2008-03-27 08:21AM | 0 recs
Re: You Obama folk don't realize it..

He has given hundreds of town hall meetings where he truthfully and completely answers these questions as asked by voters.  I'd really suggest going to one, they are quite enlightening.

He's doing a whole series of them with his bus tour through PA.

by bawbie 2008-03-27 08:30AM | 0 recs
Re: You Obama folk don't realize it..

Obviously, these "thousands of town halls" still haven't helped him one bit in appealing to working class Democrats (which will be known as McCainDemocrats if Bambi wins the nomination). The rhetoric of "hope" and "Change" and constantly complaining about how mean ole Hillary is attacking you at campaign rallies does not appeal to these people. Barack needs to change the narrative, because if he can't attract that base, there's no way he's going to win key swing states in November if he wins the nomination. Say goodbye to Ohio, Michigan, PA, and there are other states that he is polling down to McCain in, such as New Jersey and Mass that could go red.

by zcflint05 2008-03-27 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: You Obama folk don't realize it..

"Bambi"?  Really?

Jerome asks people here to act more mature and you call him "bambi"??

Obama's problems are more geographical then demographical.   He has won a lot of working class Dems in the upper midwest and rockies.  

by bawbie 2008-03-27 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: You Obama folk don't realize it..

Would you like me to call him "High Lord and Holiness", or what?

Bambi has a problem winning states with large populations of working class voters that identify as Democrats. Please don't try to counter Ohio, PA, Michigan, etc, with Wyoming, Idaho and Colorado, because that doesn't really add up, you know what I mean? (PS--talk about working class in the West--Hillary wins AZ, CA, NV on the strength of that group, so no, I don't think Obama does that great with them).

by zcflint05 2008-03-27 10:46AM | 0 recs
Re: You Obama folk don't realize it..

Call him Barack or Obama, just like the most of us call her Hillary or Clinton.  

There is just no need for a derogatory name like "bambi".

What makes you think that performance in the primary has any affect on performance in the general?

(i'd like to point you to the poll out today that shows Obama outperforming Clinton in CA in the general)

by bawbie 2008-03-27 11:23AM | 0 recs

Michigan? The place where Clinton running uncontested only scraped up 55% of the vote and where 2 out of 5 democrats decided to show up just to vote AGAINST Clinton?

If that's the sort of place where she's strong, I'd hate to see the sort of place where she's weak.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-03-27 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Dismissive attitude doesn't help

Obama is going to get wiped out in the general because of it. His main argument towards working class whites is to accuse them of racism if they don't support him.

by bigbay 2008-03-27 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to good advice

The primary is April 22 and Obama will be do plenty of campaigning there, right along the lines outlined.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-27 05:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to good advice

Yeah, I like BO and I thought this was a good diary.    He needs to put some of those Chicagolanders from the mills from the 80's in busses crisscrossing the state talking about how he helped them.

Where PA is now, New England was in the 70s and 80s, and soon the South will feel it more than they do now.    Everyone is interested in how to lift post-industrial America up, either by bringing it back or finding something else.

If we all scuttled the snark for a bit and contributed like this diarist did we might survive this election.

by drowsy 2008-03-27 06:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to good advice

Agree. This is one of the best posts on the primary I've read here in a while. It was fair and even-keeled. I don't care about balance, don't expect balance. But this, too, was balanced.

And the advice was good. I would like to see Obama push hard on Nafta and individual post-industrial issues. That worked wonders for Clinton(B) in New Hampshire -- his awareness of that issue and its deep hurt is likely what made him survive the early states and win the nod. maybe even the presidency.

But let's remember -- this has been an issue for years. And if Billy Joel couldn't solve it in "Allentown" -- I doubt either candidate can.

/snark. But seriously, good post.

by Lettuce 2008-03-27 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to good advice

Actually, I agree with this. This is why Obama is hitting hard on the economy and why he's doing a bus tour of Pennsylvania, to get out there and appeal directly to the voters on the real issues of this campaign.

Obama's economic plan is considerably better than Clinton's. I wrote earlier on her plan for foreclosures, which has been described as causing chaos, destroying the housing market, and the stupidest plan any serious contender for the Presidency has proposed.

The problem, as you say, is connecting with the everyday voters, and that's why he's going to be doing small-venue events. He does extremely well in a town-hall meeting forum, because he's both highly intelligent and does a great job of putting things in terms regular people understand.

Clinton's doing well in PA because the perception is that she's strong on the economy, and perception really is everything in politics. But perception sometimes does catch up with reality, and you can be sure Obama's working hard to make that happen.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to good advice

I'm not sure why you think right-wing pro-business attacks (stupid, chaos, wreck the housing market) on Clinton's progressive economic proposals will win you any converts in Pennsylvania or on a Democratic blog.

Obama recognizes the problem and has reasonable, market-based proposals, but they don't go far enough to make a difference in the underlying economic problems. More progressive proposals would, though of course they will be attacked by Fortune and the WSJ.

by souvarine 2008-03-27 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to good advice

Those are not "right-wing, pro-business" attacks, unless you consider homeowners to be business.

Clinton's proposals on the housing market are terrible. Yes, they would bail out people with bad mortgages now. They would also make it pretty much impossible for anyone else to buy homes for the foreseeable future.

I agree with you that more progressive proposals would be better, actually. I'm a proponent of that approach. But Clinton's proposals on the housing market are not progressive, they're a combination of anti-business and anti-consumer, and act to protect existing homeowners for a limited time by destroying the lending industry (rather than merely the bad part of it) and destroying the ability of existing homeowners to refinance out of the disaster, so that when her freeze ends there'll be nowhere for them to go.

I wouldn't be attacking Clinton's progressive economic plans; to the limited extent that she has any, I supporting them. I do support some of her views on redoing the tax system, but then Obama has the same view. Aside from that, Obama has put himself in a better position to actually make progressive economic changes.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Listen to good advice

I'm not denying this at all. PA is bleak. Woe is the Obama campaign. She's going to win by 20 points.

by Travis Stark 2008-03-27 10:15AM | 0 recs

What's funny is that the diarist argues that NAFTA anger works to Clinton's advantage...you know, the candidate whose husband actually passed NAFTA.  

I also find it pretty laughable that Pennsylvania voters would take their NAFTA anger out on Obama because he's a "visionary" and "smart guy", who would by association be likely to pass another NAFTA.

Mind-melting logic there.

by Skaje 2008-03-27 05:32AM | 0 recs

It can't be her husband's work passing NAFTA and all the meetings she went to to support the effort.  People in PA and on this blog can't be that gullible.

It has to be her six years on the Board of Directors of the heavily anti-union and anti-worker Walmart that attarcts the average voter in PA.  I mean she is the people's champion, right?

See: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex? id=4221079

But whatever you do, don't vote for the other guy.  He is just an empty suit.

What a joke.

by Daddy Warbucks 2008-03-27 05:48AM | 0 recs
Look at why she left WalMart..

It wasn't because she agreed with them...

by architek 2008-03-27 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Look at why she left WalMart..

Silence, most often, equals complicity.

by bookish 2008-03-27 06:20AM | 0 recs
She wasn't silent..

she was a thorn in their side..

by architek 2008-03-27 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: She wasn't silent..

That would be why she burned her bridges with Wal-Mart and they hate her now, right?

Oh wait -- that says Clinton gets more money from Wal-Mart officers and directors than any other Presidential candidate. She should be a thorn in more people's sides, if that's how thorns get treated.

I'm not as critical of Clinton on Wal-Mart as some people are. She really did do some good on the board there; she did good things on breaking the corporate glass ceiling, for instance.

But on economic issues, such as unionization, benefits, wages, etc, she was silent. And in the end Wal-Mart cares much more about money, where she was not a thorn in their side, and continues to not be a thorn in their side, than about promoting women.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: She wasn't silent..

You are a heart without a brain.  In order to be an effective progressive, you are going to have to use both.

by zadura 2008-03-27 09:41AM | 0 recs

Yeah, pretty mind numbing since the Clinton's, including Hillary, pushed through the NAFTA, which this Clinton did help push through NAFTA as recent information has come to light, it seems extremely strange that those voters in PA would take out "NAFTA on Obama now doesn't it?

Must be something else at work there, ya think?

Also I find it very interesting that the diarist didn't mention that obama has been advertised to give this major speech on the economy that's on right now.

Obama is also going to have a major bus tour through PA for the next week, why that also should bring information that those folks in PA should know.

I think they will be informed, now that's not saying that Obama will 'win' there, no, that's a Clinton state but what it means is that more much needed and sought after information will be available to the voters so they can make better, informed decisions.

And information such as the voters in PA get means that voters in other states will have as well--it's a win, win, win situation all the way around!

by Wary 2008-03-27 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

Too bad BO really needed to win PA to show his viability in the general. Last night I heard BO's campaign was trying to make it appear as though Hillary has to win by 20% in order to claim victory -- ha, ha. You guys are so funny even as you appear clueless about presidential politics.

Wouldn't it be wild if with FL and MI counted (after revoting) and Hillary's wins in some of the upcoming states that she has more pledged delegates going into the convention? I would just love to hear the wild spin BO puts on that. She can do it, too...but, I suspect BO and the press knows that which is why they are trying to spread this lie about she can't win.

I also loved that she opened the door for an independent run if something isn't done to rectify MI and FL. That would be awesome -- the DNC has treated her and her supporters so badly -- we'll take our experience, sound economic policy and military support and win against mccain. BO can have the AA and youth vote and lose.

by seattlegonz 2008-03-27 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

Actually, Obama doesn't need to win PA at all. It's Hillary who has to win it by at least 20 points to not be a joke going forward. Carry on.

by Travis Stark 2008-03-27 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA

Hey friend, does Keith "Next Connie Chung" Olbermann email you his talking points every day so you can copy and paste?

The bottom line is, according to the most recent poll, 84% of Americans want Hillary to stay in this race. She's taking it all the way to the convention--obviously if Bambi has this locked up, you wouldn't be using half your time to beg her to drop out, McCain didn't do that to Huckabee because he wasn't a thread and there was no way he could win.

You know the Bambi campaign is getting desperate when they are now trying to project what's going to be a 15 point loss as a "moral victory" for Obama. Shit, losing by only 22 in MS would be a "moral victory" for Clinton in that case.

by zcflint05 2008-03-27 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA

The math is simple... Oh why bother. Sure. She can win. Carry on.

by Travis Stark 2008-03-27 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

Yeah, that's what BO and his supporters say. But, as you know, since neither one is likely to win enough pledged delegates to clinch the nomination the campaign is now about making a case for the best candidate going forward. The factors that will play into the super delegates decisions:

1. pledged delegates

  1. popular vote
  2. Which states were won, and which states are winnable in November -- who will get 270 electoral votes.
  3. FL and MI (If Hillary is the nominee FL and MI can be seated and there won't be any problem because they won't overturn her nomination.)
  4. Vote demographics -- who is winning required  constituencies.
  5. Oh, and, sorry but Rev. Wright -- do Dems want to hear non-stop replays of God Damn America for the 3 months following the convention.

It's funny how you keep talking about the math, as though this were a math problem. It makes me realize how ignorant BO and his supporters are about presidential politics.

by seattlegonz 2008-03-27 09:27PM | 0 recs
Telling his story.,..

You have a point. Though it's a remarkable and very pro-American story, Obama has now introduced himself to the electorate. He HAS spoken about substantive issues - but I would admit I'm also a little fuzzy on what he'd for the economy.

It's quite clear what Hillary would do - and it would be a repeat of the 90s, but without the underlying strengths of the technological boom. I absolutely believe Obama will have better advisers, a more radical strategy, and the oomph to get a bigger coalition together ready for change. But as the Nafta argument showed, I'm still not quite sure what he'll do.

Hopefully that's exactly what he'll explain on his bus tour.

by brit 2008-03-27 04:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Telling his story.,..
As far as his plans for the economy Obama is giving a major speech today in NY on the economy. He will be introduced by Mayor Bloomberg. I hear it will be live streaming on CNN. Then he will do a 6 day bus trip around PA stopping in towns to meet with people. Not sure when that happens, though.
by Becky G 2008-03-27 04:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Telling his story.,..

The bus trip starts in Pittsburgh tomorrow.  

by bawbie 2008-03-27 04:58AM | 0 recs
Could Obama answer the HEALTHCARE QUESTION?


http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/26/2264 6/9320

Stop changing the subject....

by architek 2008-03-27 05:59AM | 0 recs
I think YOU changed the subject - PA & Economy

by brit 2008-03-27 06:03AM | 0 recs
I meant of the thread..

By the way, healthcare IS a hugely important question to everyone in the US. Why? Because the tiny amounts of equity that many workin people had built up during the good days in the past can be stripped away IN A FEW HOURS OR DAYS by one healthcare incident, THATS WHY...

This is a nation of terrified, intimidated people because of healthcare.


by architek 2008-03-27 08:26AM | 0 recs

Did you get lost?

This is a diary about Pennsylvania and not about health care, in which a specific question was asked about Obama's bus trip and which I answered.

And you accuse me of "changing the subject"?


by bawbie 2008-03-27 06:12AM | 0 recs
Could Clinton answer the Health-Care question?

The real question we need answered is mandates and how she will enforce them. I understand fully your perception of how UHC works and that Obama's plan is, in your opinion, a trojan horse designed to not get us to UHC.

Fine, that's your belief.

I'm for single-payer, actually; I don't like either plan. But your argument seems to be that healthy people are going to opt out of the system and raise costs for everyone.

Now, on its face, that seems like a rather poor argument. After all, to the extent that there's allowed to be rate discrimination in the first place, healthy people would pay lower rates, so they have less incentive to drop out. Also, experience with such plans has been that the people who drop out are very low-income people who tend to be un-*healthy. So by your own logic Obama's plan should actually considerably cut health care insurance costs for most people, albeit raise emergency room costs.

On the other hand, Clinton's plan needs an enforcement mechanism? Are you going to arrest people who don't get covered? Garnish their wages? Fine them? Tax them (no, that's single-payer, in essence)? How much of a penalty will they pay for breaking the law? Suppose they have no wages to garnish, or can't pay the fine -- are we could to have mandatory work (remember, the welfare system isn't what it was, and who did *that again?) or debtor's prisons?

Honestly, the Clinton plan sounds like a government mandate to purchase the product of a private corporation or face a nebulous enforcement mechanism. Yes, we do this right now with auto insurance, for instance -- but you can avoid it by not owning a car, and you only need to carry very basic liability. There doesn't seem to be a low-cost "basic health" option in the Clinton plan, and there's no way to opt out of it.

Against that you have some very vague promises to "cut costs" -- but remember there's zero economic incentive for the insurance companies to cut costs because people are mandated to buy the product, no matter what it costs. Of course, there can be economic competition between insurance companies, but is there really an incentive to compete economically if level of coverage is mandated?

Economic competition works between auto insurers because they can manage level of coverage, provide varying levels of customer service, be more or less draconian in what they cover, take more or less risk in terms of their asset to risk balance, etc. It's not at all clear that health insurance companies will have flexibility to manage costs in those ways. By including mandates you remove any threat to the front-end revenue stream, so you're essentially arguing that they'll cut costs and lower the front-end cost out of the goodness of their heart.

Essentially, my view is that the Clinton form of UHC is a multi-billion-dollar giveaway to the health insurance companies, putting them in a privileged monopoly position in which the legal system will enforce mandatory purchase of their products and removing external incentives for them to streamline their processes. The Obama plan, while not nearly as good as single-payer, still preserves some chance of actual cost controls within the system, and allows people who would be unable to pay even a low-cost plan to opt out, instead of penalizing them for the crime of being poor.

There's a reason why Clinton receives the most donations from the healthcare industry of any presidential candidate. Maybe it's just that she was "inevitable" and they want a seat at the table. But it may also be that they see this as rolling out a giant trough for them to feed at.

There. Done changing the subject.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Could Clinton answer the Health-Care question?

Sorry about the extra bold -- had an asterisk in the wrong place.

Preview is your friend...

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Telling his story.,..

I've been thinking for a while that a strong speech on the economy was way overdue in his campaign.  It's very interesting that Bloomberg is introducing.

by mady 2008-03-27 05:45AM | 0 recs
Who is better prepared?

Let's see, Clinton is listening to Rubin who helped create the current economic debacle and the coming spiral of inflation. Volcker is advising Obama. Volcker helped break the back of stagflation under Carter and Reagan. It seems to me Obama is better prepared to deal with the coming Clinton/Bush engineered economic meltdown.

by anothergreenbus 2008-03-27 05:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Who is better prepared?

Volcker created the worst depression since 1929...by the way, anti-inflation arguments come strongest from capital. During Volcker's time de-industrializaton became the norm in the Midwest. Good luck peddling him to laid off steel workers.

by bigbay 2008-03-27 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Who is better prepared?

Volcker created the worst depression since 1929

Yes, he made us take our bitter medicine to cure the country of stagflation -- and it worked.

...by the way, anti-inflation arguments come strongest from capital.

That's true, but it's not such a bad thing. Look at Germany -- they're strongly anti-inflation and have one of the most highly-unionized workforces in the world.

During Volcker's time de-industrializaton became the norm in the Midwest.

Not sure what could possibly have stopped that -- aside from full-on autarky.

Good luck peddling him to laid off steel workers.

I can probably count the percentage of laid off steel workers (or voters of any stripe) who know who Paul Volker is on one hand.

by RP McMurphy 2008-03-27 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Telling his story.,..

On economic issues Clinton thinks government has to take an active role, and that market forces are not doing the job. Obama has been more cagey, but generally prefers market based solutions while sharing Clinton's priorities. A close look at their various plans illustrates the differences in their approaches, Krugman has identified the key differences. In summary: on health care Clinton creates a public insurance plan that competes with private insurance across the board, Obama also creates a public plan but restricts it from competing for the bulk of profitable customers, those who work for medium to large businesses; on the mortgage crisis Clinton is willing to put in longer term reforms now to correct the underlying inequities, Obama prefers short-term stimulus and letting the market sort itself out. Obama's choices appear to be driven by domestic advisors like Goolsbee.

by souvarine 2008-03-27 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Telling his story.,..
Here's Obama's economic speech from today
http://thepage.time.com/full-remarks-of- obamas-economic-speech-in-new-york-city/
by politicsmatters 2008-03-27 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Telling his story.,..


by souvarine 2008-03-27 08:01AM | 0 recs
Obama's market preference

Barack Obama, Cooper Union, March 27 2008:

I do believe that government has a role to play in advancing our common prosperity: by providing stable macroeconomic and financial conditions for sustained growth; by demanding transparency; and by ensuring fair competition in the marketplace.

This is the first time I've seen him explain his approach so clearly, and it is why he has such a hard time with the Democratic base. The workers in Pennsylvania know that getting government out of the way will not help them. Their problem is not lobbyists in Washington, it is the market based approach to job growth that Obama outlines in this speech. Our government has not done enough in the past twenty years, even in the Clinton years, to take care of working and middle class people. Clinton is talking about that, Obama is pushing market based solutions.

by souvarine 2008-03-27 08:19AM | 0 recs
Well, under free market principles, if I am

a company that uses a lot of labor, I am going to go wherever labor is cheapest, which I think would be the dollar a day countries..

Its "my duty to my stockholders"

What is Obama going to do to CHANGE THAT?

One thing to remember. Moore's Law. Every eighteen months, the power of computers available for a given dollar price doubles. Its increasing exponentially.

What that means is that not too far in the future, almost all scriptable jobs will be done by machines in one way or another.

At that point, we will need to be concentrating on how to preserve wealth in the middle class and lower class because THERE WONT BE MUCH WAGE INCOME TO SPEAK OF FOR MANY OF THEM.

Silicon will be cheaper.

Right now, humans are the cheapest supercomputers available. Thats why we can walk, drive, and the million other things we can learn well, quickly.

With networked computers, teach one how to do something and they all learn it. With autonomous navigation, computers will be able to drive.

The financial motivation is huge and its happening.

by architek 2008-03-27 08:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's market preference

This is the first time I've seen him explain his approach so clearly, and it is why he has such a hard time with the Democratic base.

With a certain part of the Democratic base -- the part that's dying, specifically. The part that the Clintons largely ignored in pursuing their Third Way politics.

The workers in Pennsylvania know that getting government out of the way will not help them.

Then it's a good thing that Obama has suggested no such thing.

Their problem is not lobbyists in Washington, it is the market based approach to job growth that Obama outlines in this speech.

I'm actually rather fond of the market-based approach to job-growth. It's quite a bit more successful than the statist-based approach. You'll notice that unemployment in the U.S. hasn't reached 6% in more than 15 years. In countries where the government takes a much more active role, it's generally much higher. Now, you can argue that jobs in those countries are better, but you certainly can't argue that they're more plentiful.

Our government has not done enough in the past twenty years, even in the Clinton years, to take care of working and middle class people. Clinton is talking about that, Obama is pushing market based solutions.

No, I think Obama is talking about that as well. What Obama does avoid, however, are ham-fisted gimicks like a temporary freeze on foreclosures. Obama puts more emphasis on education and retraining, which are the only solutions for out-of-work laborers.    

by RP McMurphy 2008-03-27 09:05AM | 0 recs
the part of the base that's dying

The old industrial base may be dying, but it is still a major part of our coalition in swing states like PA, OH and MI. That base is the subject of this diary and a critical weakness in Obama's coalition.

I would argue, though, that the number of people being adversely affected by a pure reliance on market solutions is growing, as architek suggests in his post above yours. I take your point on job growth being driven by the market, I should have referred to income inequality. Income inequality and the health coverage crisis are the structural problems in our economy that are hurting working people. Market based solutions are not adequate to resolve those problems.

by souvarine 2008-03-27 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's market preference

You're misreading what Obama said (and no, I'm not accusing you of an intentional misread). You're mistaking his talk of "fair competition" as meaning a hands-off market-based solution.

Fight for Fair Trade: Obama will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs. He will use trade agreements to spread good labor and environmental standards around the world and stand firm against agreements like the Central American Free Trade Agreement that fail to live up to those important benchmarks. Obama will also pressure the World Trade Organization to enforce trade agreements and stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and nontariff barriers on U.S. exports.

That's not a hands-off market-based free-trade solution, that's a barriers-based solution that places barriers in sensible places (labor and environmental standards) rather than blanket tariffs.

Obama will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama will ensure that his labor appointees support workers' rights and will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama will also increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation to ensure it rises every year.

Again, these are not free-market-based solutions in the sense you're intending. These are pro-labor positions that operate to establish rules for the free market. This is part of why many unions are pro-Obama.

Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act: The FMLA covers only certain employees of employers with 50 or more employees. Obama will expand it to cover businesses with 25 or more employees. He will expand the FMLA to cover more purposes as well, including allowing workers to take leave for elder care needs; allowing parents up to 24 hours of leave each year to participate in their children's academic activities; and expanding FMLA to cover leave for employees to address domestic violence.

Again, this is not a free-market approach. The free-market view would be that this is a benefit and benefits should be determined by employers. This is a rights-based regulatory approach.

"Ensuring fair competition" is actually a pro-regulatory view. The free-marketers in general believe that merely providing a free market is in itself ensuring fair competition. That's not what Obama's talking about here. He's talking about a regulatory framework within which fair competition exists.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's market preference

I'm not saying Obama's a Republican, he's not. Fortune magazine will never pick him over a Republican free-marketeer. But on economic issues he is a moderate to conservative Democrat. The positions you mention above are straight out of DLC policy papers, and typical of what Bill Clinton championed in the '90s. Obama's approach, as he says in his speech, is to rely on market forces as much as possible, and government intervention as little as possible, to achieve Democratic priorities.

Hillary Clinton proposes a different balance, and she does not believe that changing the rules of the market will achieve universal health coverage or reduce income inequality.

by souvarine 2008-03-27 09:52AM | 0 recs
My suggestion:

Don't just listen to the snippets played in the news.  Go see him on this bus tour.  Listen to him give a town hall, where you get to hear the stump and hear him answer questions.  

Then come back and tell us if he only talked about himself of it he talked about the people and problems of Penna and what he'd do to solve them (with out help, of course).

by bawbie 2008-03-27 04:55AM | 0 recs
Why is Jim Cooper on Obama's team?

He's the man who destroyed our chances of having universal health care in 1993

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/26/2264 6/9320

by architek 2008-03-27 05:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Jim Cooper on Obama's team?

It's called listening to every viewpoint before making a major decision on policy as opposed to working in an echo chamber. Haven't you had enough of that for the past seven years?

Oh, I guess not.

by LtWorf 2008-03-27 05:19AM | 0 recs
Have you ever heard about Google?

well, use it..

Jim Cooper, "Clinton-lite", adverse selection

by architek 2008-03-27 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Jim Cooper on Obama's team?

You do realize that your link has no outside sources, we are just supposed to take your word for it.

And it has absolutely nothing to do with my comment or this diary.

by bawbie 2008-03-27 05:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Why is Jim Cooper on Obama's team?

Actually, Hillary's approach to health care really undermined its chances of passage. Sen Moynihan begged her to bring in members of Congress in developing the policy and she refused to do so.  Then she didn't have allies who had been involved and had bought into the policy approach, and this made things rather impossible when the plan came under attack.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-27 05:54AM | 0 recs

Ask THE experts.. doctors, health care advocates, real activists, they will tell you.

Cooper killed universal health care.

And now he's Obama's guy on healthcare.

by architek 2008-03-27 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Spin...

Neither candidate is going to bring us universal healthcare.

by Whash 2008-03-27 06:19AM | 0 recs
What can we do to bring it about?

Because 70% of Americans want it.

People from other countries see us as barbarians and idiots and its hurting our long term credibility as a developed nation.

by architek 2008-03-27 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Spin...

Please. Don't push this line that there is consensus that one person killed health care. It's just not true. It was multi-causal -- more than enough blame to go around.  And Hillary Clinton's approach was part of it.

Let's not promulgate simplistic, monocausal explanations. They are almost never right and it's certainly not the best explanatory approach in this situation.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-27 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Spin...

Here's a very good article on what happened to UHC under the Clinton proposal: What Happened to Health Care Reform?.

While it definitely criticizes the Cooper proposal, the blame is all over the place, and falls most heavily on the reliance of the Clinton plan on employer mandates, which were never going to pass Congress.

Jim Cooper didn't kill healthcare coverage in 1992. His plan was flawed; Clinton's was flawed. His plan was more likely to be passed, and would have fixed a large part of the system while changing the game to allow second-phase reforms. Clinton's plan was just plain unacceptable, and most of its flaws weren't things that could easily be fixed by a second-phase reform strategy.

Read, respond, and debate. Don't just parrot that Jim Cooper killed UHC.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 09:43AM | 0 recs
No, no, no...

Obama is an empty suit who only talks about himself and people vote for him just because he makes pretty speeches and he makes people fell good.

I love this place!

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-27 05:12AM | 0 recs
Changing the subject again..

SEE how good they are at it?!

anything BUT an answer to the question..

by architek 2008-03-27 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Changing the subject again..

Not sure if you noticed, but you are the one changing the subject. Everyone here is talking about the topic in the diary. The only thing you are talking about is Jim Cooper and healthcare. We understand that you are a single issue voter, your single issue is Jim Cooper. If that is the case don't vote for Obama.

I think that a plan which makes health care affordable for all Americans is what we need. People aren't uninsured because they don't want insurance, they are uninsured because they can't afford health insurance.

by Obama08 2008-03-27 06:29AM | 0 recs
How is Obama's plan different than the state

high risk pools. The voluntary high risk pools?

because if it is voluntary, its going to become something only those who REALLY need, buy, which is going to make it three or four times as expensive as it would need to be.

People don't realize how expensive healthcare is when employers buy it.

Its getting to be around 1/4 to 1/3 of the costs of hiring a new employee.

I think that healthcare needs to be decoupled from jobs - because jobs as we know them are going away.

Computers are good, we could not live the way we do, without them. But they also are a fairly new technology whose impact is still not mature. When it is mature, a very high percentage of jobs people do today, will be done by THEM.

Its been going on for years and it is accelerating.

One thing we could do to increase the number of jobs is shorten the working week. Obviously, since workers are so much more productive now, they deserve it.

Other countries do it, in France, the workweek is 35 hours.

Just throwing out some suggestions a REAL progressive might consider.

by architek 2008-03-27 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: My suggestion:

Gotta love the Bambi bots. "Just listen to him...and you will convert". Personally, I think the guy's a dullard who tries to copy the cadence of Martin Luther King everytime he speaks. During his speech on race, I swear he was going to lead off with "I HAVE A DREAM TODAY--THE DREAM THAT THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN PROVE YOU'RE NOT RACIST IS BY VOTING FOR ME, BARACK OBAMA".

by zcflint05 2008-03-27 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: My suggestion:


Way to raise the level of discourse here.  You are a real piece of work.

On the other hand, please go ahead with the current plan of choosing a presidential candidate by not listening to what they have to say.

by bawbie 2008-03-27 10:16AM | 0 recs
If only

Hillary's message about why she should be president was as positive and focused on the issues as your advocacy for her is, she would have lower negatives, probably more votes and no one would be concerned about the campaign going on untill the last primary even if she had only the tiniest chance of winning.

It would mean more on the ground organizing and retail politicking good for the party and whoever is the nominee. But promoting McCain as a better choice then her Democratic rival and the kitchen sink strategy has not gotten her any closer to the nomination it's just boosted McCain.

To bad because she has a strong story to tell on the economy but the negative campaigning is stepping on her own message and doing more damage to herself then to Obama or McCain.

by hankg 2008-03-27 04:59AM | 0 recs
Obamas negatives are very high among the Democrats

which means that Obama has no chance of winning unless he changes that.

yes, its the same way for Hillary.

If Obama could address some of the unanswered issues, that would help. There is a point at which you have to stop managing your appearance and start telling people specifics.

See http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/26/2264 6/9320

by architek 2008-03-27 05:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Obamas negatives are very high among the Democ
From the NBC/WSJ poll:

"The negativity of the Obama-Clinton contest seems to be hurting Sen. Clinton more, the poll shows. A 52% majority of all voters says she doesn't have the background or values they identify with. By comparison, 39% say that of Sen. Obama, and 32% of Sen. McCain."

"More ominous for Sen. Clinton is the net-negative rating she drew for the first time from women, one of the groups where she has drawn most support. In this latest poll, women voters with negative views narrowly outstrip those with positive ones, 44% to 42%. That compares with her positive rating from 51% of women in the earlier March poll.

Both she and Sen. Obama showed five-point declines in positive ratings from white voters. But where she is viewed mostly negatively, by 51% to 34% of whites, Sen. Obama's gets a net positive rating, by 42% to 37%. Among all voters, he maintained a significant positive-to-negative score of 49% to 32% -- similar to Sen. McCain's 45% to 25%."

So after the Rev. Wright week, among white voters Clinton's positives are 34% and Obama's 42%. A bigger decline for Clinton then Obama. And the Bosnia fiasco is not reflected in these numbers. If she thinks the kitchen sink is a winning strategy she can keep hammering away. Her positives will wind up below GWB's. It's hard to see how the path she is on will get her elected to anything.
by hankg 2008-03-27 05:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Obamas negatives are very high among the Democ

The problem with Hillary Clinton as far as electability, and I was looking at some new polls this morning that continue to show this, is that she doesn't sink, she doen'st rise in the polls.  She has hit her maximum level of national support in the forties, and nothing seems to make that budge.  Obama, on the other hand, has sunk, but also risen above the 50% marker a number of times, indicating to me that people have not made a firm decision about him yet, and that he has a much greater chance in the GE.  People know exactly what they think of her for better or worse, and that is not likely to change.

by mady 2008-03-27 05:51AM | 0 recs
Hillary was not promoting McCain

she was just pointing out that Obama was an irresponsible choice, given what we know about him.

Something Obama has done far more about her than she of him, BTW.

by architek 2008-03-27 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary was not promoting McCain
Obama has certainly pointed out why he thinks he will make a better CIC and President then Hillary. He has never implied that McCain has past some test that HIllary has not or that he is better qualified then Hillary to be President. Hillary is entitled to be as tough as she wants, she can trash Obama 24/7. The one thing that no Democrat can do is make the case that McCain is a better choice then Obama as she has repeatedly done. You may as well endorse Bush over Obama.
by hankg 2008-03-27 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Obamas negatives are very high among the Democ

Obamas negatives are very high among the Democrats which means that Obama has no chance of winning unless he changes that.

Well, at least Obama has a net positive rating even among Clinton voters (50-29). The same cannot be said of Clinton's rating among Obama voters (35-43).

by RP McMurphy 2008-03-27 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA by single digits

Then She'll lose in Indiana, and North Carolina, Oregon, Montana, and South Dakota.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-27 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA by single digits

but the superdelegates will be convinced to give the nomination to her!

by soros 2008-03-27 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA by single digits

Yeah they'll go along with commiting the Party's self-destruction by nominating Clinton. Right after they are released from their stress positions in Gitmo.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-27 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

Agreed. Hillary is going to win PA. Personally, i think by double digits. Possibly even 20+

by poserM 2008-03-27 05:04AM | 0 recs

She won New York by 17%.  I seriously doubt she could beat that in Pennsylvania.

by Skaje 2008-03-27 05:27AM | 0 recs
The Pennsylvania version of Jerome!


When it comes down to it, I know they have just about the same positions on everything. I just wish Senator Obama would take some time out from talking about himself to let us know.

Greg, did you know that the Reverend Wright would not be Hillary's pastor?


by Bob Johnson 2008-03-27 05:10AM | 0 recs
Obama not substantive

By saying that Obama only talks about himself and not the issue you show that you are already biased in this race. Obama has been a very substantive candidate and talks about the issues in every one of his speeches. In fact a comparison done by the Chicago Sun-Times showed that he was every bit as substantive as the other candidates.

Obama not being substantive is a myth which you are only propagating.

by Obama08 2008-03-27 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama not substantive

It seems the truth about Hillary's "at least five" meetings in support of NAFTA have once again fallen on deaf ears in PA.  Why is that?

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-27 05:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama not substantive

Perhaps because she is talking about solutions going forward? And not harping on what happened years ago? People are willing to put the past behind them.

by ineedalife 2008-03-27 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama not substantive

So, if she supported and helped shoe-horn a policy that she now says she is opposed to, we should give her a free pass?  

by zadura 2008-03-27 05:41AM | 0 recs
The problem with Obama isn't that he..

doesn't "talk about things" he does.

he just talks about the wrong things, he makes vague generalities and AVOIDS talking about the specific aspects of his agenda that might reassure people like us that he was an actual progressive candidate.

And indications from inside his campaign of what his real intentions are are not good.

See this:

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId =4004

by architek 2008-03-27 06:21AM | 0 recs
The number of UNINSURED..

will almost certainly RISE and continue rising under Obama/Cooper's 'plan'

by architek 2008-03-27 06:25AM | 0 recs
Move on...

We understand that you don't want to discuss the topic at hand, please take your rant to another thread where it is on topic.

by Obama08 2008-03-27 06:31AM | 0 recs
Re: The number of UNINSURED..

The HTML code for "Bold" doesn't make something that's inaccurate suddenly accurate.

Using All Caps does that.
And referring to those who disagree as "trolls."

by Lettuce 2008-03-27 07:59AM | 0 recs
Silliness on Display

In your world, the best person for president would have the most detailed plan, whether it could be implemented or not.  

by zadura 2008-03-27 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama not substantive

That is up to the voters of PA. And they are giving her a fresh listen and liking what they hear.

by ineedalife 2008-03-27 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA

I agree with the gist of this story. Barack Obama should start talking about "America's Story." Storytelling is a great communication device, but people want to know more about what will happen to the economy if he should be elected president.

by Zzyzzy 2008-03-27 05:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA

A lot of us this his story is America's story.

by bawbie 2008-03-27 05:29AM | 0 recs
Not many of us had a father who went to Harvard

or got into Harvard as legacy admissions..

Not many of us have slumlord pals.. Not many of us are such eleoquent speakers that we can dodge questions as deftly as Obama does.. (most of his rapt supporters, dont even realize just how sweetly he does it)

yes, he is a REAL POLITICIAN...

by architek 2008-03-27 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Not many of us had a father who went to Harvar

Harvard Law doesn't legacy the children of parents who went to Harvard College.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-27 06:29AM | 0 recs
Why do you only tear him down?

You are just following this thread and tearing down Obama every time someone says something positive about him, is it necessary or helpful?

by Obama08 2008-03-27 06:35AM | 0 recs
Yes, you do, and that's not helping

by lombard 2008-03-27 08:54AM | 0 recs
If Hillary wins it will be single digits

And my PA opinion is that Obama has a real chance to win PA.

Hillary's self inflicted wounds to her credability are taking a HUGE toll on her here.

In PA we know all about fighting for change, and freedom, justice and religous freedom from persecution.

Go Obama

by Silence Do Good 2008-03-27 05:19AM | 0 recs

Precisely how was Pennsylvania impacted negatively by NAFTA? With some empirical evidence, please.

by ragekage 2008-03-27 05:22AM | 0 recs

A lot of people are going to be confused when Clinton wins PA by 10% but still loses the nomination.  Netting a dozen delegates isn't going to cut it.  Obama probably gets more than that out of Indiana and North Carolina, which combined are larger than PA.  But don't let that be a distraction from the big state meme.

by Skaje 2008-03-27 05:25AM | 0 recs

After her PA win, Clinton will also take the lead in the popular votes.

She wins the big blue votes, she'll lead in the popular vote...looks like this is going to Denver.

Obama should never have taken his name of the Michigan ballot. Very poor decision to curry favor in one state while neglecting another.

by njsketch 2008-03-27 05:36AM | 0 recs

How can that possibly happen?  She is behind by 800,000 votes now.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-27 05:56AM | 0 recs
Not plausible

If all 4,000,000 PA Dems voted (an impossibility for all intents and purposes) and she won by 20%, she still would be short of Obama's lead including caucuses and would barely catch him if we only count primaries.  If she only matches her best performance of the campaign (18%) she'll fall short of even just primaries.  

And 4,000,000 voters aren't going to turn out for the Democratic primary.  Best case scenario is closer to 2,000,000.  

by PantsB 2008-03-27 06:03AM | 0 recs
Maybe Obama took his name off in MICHIGAN

because he is afraid of blue collar states where industry and good jobs for the working class have been decimated, probably for good..

A guilty conscience?

by architek 2008-03-27 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Obama took his name off in MICHIGAN

Is that why Edwards pulled his name off too?  

Because of a guilty conscience over blue collar job losses?

You are just too much!

by bawbie 2008-03-27 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Obama took his name off in MICHIGAN

Or maybe because he signed a pledge to not participate in the election?  You know, the one that Clinton signed too, but appears to be more than happy to disregard now that she needs the votes?

by ChrisKaty 2008-03-27 07:26AM | 0 recs
What makes you think he will win Indiana?

The state is rather like Ohio.

by lombard 2008-03-27 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: What makes you think he will win Indiana?

The state is really much less similar to Ohio than it is to downstate Illinois and large parts of Wisconsin. The cities of Indiana are closer to downstate Illinois cities than anything in Ohio; a good chunk of the northwest is effectively suburban Chicago, and the east is only somewhat similar to Ohio.

Downstate Illinois or midstate and urban Wisconsin is a much better parallel, and those are both places that Obama ran quite well.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 10:23AM | 0 recs
Techinfadel did a demographic analysis of IN

just the other day.  His analysis showed that Indiana has less of Clinton's core demographics than PA but more than OH.  You should check it out.

by lombard 2008-03-27 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

This is a pretty fact-free post.  

If I use Progressive Punch to compare the voting records of Obama and Clinton, I see almost identical records on labor and economic policy issues.  When I look at their past history with labor organizations, I see that Hillary did nothing to improve worker rights as a Wal-Mart board member, that she supported NAFTA with women's groups as First Lady and has long been involved with the centrist DLC, which is pro-WTO and pro-NAFTA.  And then there's the policy prescriptions from both Clinton and Obama, which if you do a comparison between the two, is about 99% similar.  

If it is the economy, stupid, and the Pennsylvania economy in particular, you are going to have to rectify that with the fact that Bethlehem Steel filed for bankruptcy in 2001 and U.S. Steel remained solvent primarily by all its subsidiaries by 2000.  If the 1990s were a magical time for our economy, why did two of our industrial giants collapse a year later?

It would be wise to bear all of these things in mind when trying to differentiate between the two candidates on economic policy issues.

by zadura 2008-03-27 05:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

Thank you for your views...
At least this poster lives in the area..
(Waxman has always been one of my House heroes)
I  am sure Obama will be PA specific as he campaigns in your State.
He has a major address on Economy today in Cooperstown...

...and please folks..
Greg presented this as a opinion not a rant...he admitted that Obama is set to be our nominee.

by nogo war 2008-03-27 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

Yes...I know Cooperstown is in NY..

by nogo war 2008-03-27 05:38AM | 0 recs
Curious about something

Hillary walks around our towns and sees what has happened to places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. She's told us that she's learning the lessons along with the rest of us, and here in PA, that's something we can respect.

When has Clinton done this?  I'm not disputing - I don't know.  I don't see any significant difference in behavior between the candidates as far as appearances.  They fly or drive to a state and hold a series of rallies attended by thousands.

I will grant that Hillary, over the last 20 years, has spent far more time in the state and that the demographics there highly favor her - but I think that's more a history than a style of campaigning

Can you show me how - in the last year - Hillary has spent time in smaller towns of PA, dates, places, etc?

Because the places where that kind of campaigning has taken place are places like Iowa.  And Obama has won them handily. So  If that's what PA responds to - then I think this upcoming Bus tour Obama is launching will be more successful than I'd thought.

Again - I expect Clinton to win PA - but I'm increasingly confident that the win will be well under double digits...  which means the delegate count won't change much.

by its simple IF you ignore the complexity 2008-03-27 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Curious about something

Thats what I was wondering.  It seems like thats assumed without evidence.  The idea that Hillary is campaigning NH or Iowa style (house to house, walking the streets or the like) seems a bit silly.

At the same time, we should be thankful for the civil tone and reasonableness of the post.  He merely is requesting that Senator Obama reach out to the people more.  That type of civility has been lacking from most front page stories of late.

by PantsB 2008-03-27 06:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Curious about something

If she is out going house to house, it's probably because her campaign is largely broke and in debt.  She's been outspent, what... 3:1 in most states since Iowa, right?

by Whash 2008-03-27 06:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All

Why would blue collar workers be for the Clintons since they passed NAFTA?

by Spanky 2008-03-27 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All

Because Obama hasn't done a very good job of linking her to it.

by Whash 2008-03-27 06:06AM | 0 recs
Pennsylvania and Ohio

I grew up in Milwaukee in the seventies.  The largest employer in Wisconsin then was Allis Chalmers, headquartered in my hometown, the industrial suburb of West Allis.

By the mid-seventies many of Milwaukee's factories were closing to move to union-free states like Texas.  This happened across the mid-west. By the mid-eighties, Allis Chalmers was dead and the main drag in West Allis looked pathetic -- boarded up shops, former shoe stores or ladys' clothing stores now selling cheap decoupage junk made at home by hobbyists.

It was grim there.

And I know from the road trips I took to NYC in those years -- driving across Ohio and Pennsylvania on I-80 -- that eastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania were at least as grim -- probably worse -- then than southeastern Wisconsin was.

So if these blue collar industrial union strongholds were basically de-industrialized by right-to-work southern states by the late 1980's, how could things have gotten dramatically worse in recent years?  They certainly haven't gotten dramatically worse in southeastern Wisconsin.  In fact, things have improved a little there.

Is the "It's the economy, stupid", patina to politics in Ohio and Pennsylvania something left over from the economic devastation of the seventies and eighties?  Or has something happened recently in that region to make the economy there much worse?

by kaleidescope 2008-03-27 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

Thanks for a great post. I appreciate your willingness to say positive things about your candidate's opponent.

However, I must respectfully disagree with your assertion that the race is over. It's essentially tied and the momentum is with Hillary. The reasons that you list for why Pennsylvania doesn't go for Obama is why many of us in other states don't as well. Further it's why we will lose purple states like Pennsylvania if he is the nominee.

As for the angry messages from the Obama supporters on the thread, keep talking folks. Each time you pop off with why Hillary must leave the race it's like an angel getting wings.

by cath 2008-03-27 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

It seems to me that it's not "essentially tied."

Pelosi and some other superdelegates have said that the winner of pledged delegates should get the nomination.  In that case, the magic number is 1,627 - 50% plus 1 of the pledged delegates.

If this is the criteria used, Obama only needs to win 37% of the remaining pledged delegates to get there, while Clinton would need to win 66% of them.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-27 06:00AM | 0 recs
Poor Obama can't win

First the meme is 'what do we really know about this guy?', followed up by 'He has no experience'.

So he talks about who he is and what his experience is.

Now the meme is 'why does he keep talking about himself?'

Some people are never satisfied.

by GFORD 2008-03-27 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Poor Obama can't win

Is Obama black enough?

Oh, wait, is Obama TOO black to be president?

You know, because apparently, you need to be 39% black or less to be president or something.  Obama is 50%.  I guess he doesn't qualify.

Is Obama Muslim?  Is he Christian?  Oh he is Christian!  Is Obama an angry black Christian?  Is he the right kind of Christian?

Seriously, though, as far as I can tell no Democrat is qualified to be president.  They are either too liberal, too conservative, to centrist, to religious, not religious enough, not patriotic enough, etc. It's like Fight Club, too old, to young, too fat, too skinny etc.  Of course this is all nonsense.  Clinton, Ewards, Obama, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden are all qualified to be president.  We would be lucky to have ANY of them as our nominee.  This year gave us one of the best crops of Democratic contenders we've ever seen.  We're down to two good candidates.

by Q 2008-03-27 07:25AM | 0 recs
Clinton is a hard working fighter.

Clinton lead on the economy and Obama is just now giving his speech because he cut and ran to the beach.

Obama is lazy and late to the party as usual.

by gotalife 2008-03-27 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is a hard working fighter.

Be careful of your frames here.  These labels are common stereotypes that we should avoid.  I don't think you are consciously doing it, just mind the language.  As Democrats, ANY sort of sexist, racist, classist, or homophobic language or frame is self-defeating.  

by Q 2008-03-27 07:29AM | 0 recs
Actually, your comment betrays racism

If I hear the words "lazy and late to the party," nothing within me triggers the image of a black man.  But, something inside of you does.

by lombard 2008-03-27 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, your comment betrays racism

If I hear the words "lazy and late to the party," nothing within me triggers the image of a black man.

And yet you obviously were aware of what the other commenter was referring to -- as was I. Saying that one ought to tread carefully because of the existence of a stereotype is not the same thing as endorsing it.

by RP McMurphy 2008-03-27 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, your comment betrays racism

Good point, I didn't mention any language in particular, yet this person knew exactly which part I considered racist.  

by Q 2008-03-27 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, your comment betrays racism

I recognized the phrase as racist because I have been bombarded with racial stereotypes my entire life.  A person doesn't have to be racist or believe such things to be familiar with these stereotypes.  

Portraying blacks as lazy and as being chronically late are extremely common stereotypes.  I think only a small minority of people in this country would not be familiar with such stereotypes.  There is no need to make a list of these stereotypes, but since we're all aware of them, and since they perpetuate inequity and injustice within our country and would only serve to divide Democrat against Democrat, I think we should avoid such language or evoking such frames.  There are plenty of issues that make good fodder for criticizing Obama.  Using language like this is just not a valid reason for criticizing Obama.

by Q 2008-03-27 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually, your comment betrays racism

OK, but I hear Hillary can't play golf... /snark

by zadura 2008-03-27 10:52AM | 0 recs
Let's look at these words and phrases

"late to the party"

That doesn't mean the same thing as "chronically late for work."  It means you arrived at an idea or movement later than many others.


Maybe that plays into some people's stereotypes, but the word "lazy" is so universally applied to individuals of all shapes, colors, sizes, and ethnicities that I simply wouldn't associate it with any particular group.

And, yes, I knew what you were implying because you were obvious about it and I'm not a complete ignoramous.

by lombard 2008-03-27 11:11AM | 0 recs
You left out the &quot;as usual&quot; part

You left out some important words, in "late to the party".  The full phrase gotalife used is "late to the party as usual".  The "as usual" changes the meaning of "late to the party" greatly.  The "as usual" gives a sense of, "isn't this how we all knew it would go?"  The fact that he used a metaphor that implies tardiness is significant.  There were many other metaphors that could have been used to criticize how developed Obama's policies are.  Why use a metaphor with so much racist baggage?  And it's not clear gotalife was referring to policy here anyhow, as you suggest.  

To spell this out, gotalife used three phrases regarding Obama that all pull up very common racist stereotypes.  

The first is  "because he cut and ran to the beach."
It implies Obama is a loafer, or lazy.  That he is derelict of his duties.  These are all common racist concepts that are propagated about Blacks.

The second is "Obama is lazy"
Pretty cut in dry and repeating the above "lazy" frame, but do you honestly believe Obama is lazy?  Clinton and Obama both campaign heroic amounts and both have been doing so for over a year now.  A three day vacation during that time does not seem lazy, so why use the "lazy" frame?

The third is "late to the party as usual."
I discussed that one above.  Tardiness is another stereotype made regarding Blacks.  Why use a metaphor that implies tardiness when it has racist undertones when so many others were available to criticize Obama's policy positions?  

The fact that these metaphors were used all at once and that they all bring to mind several different common racial stereotypes of Blacks, I find it hard to not take his/her comment as racist.  I feel like its intent was racist and that there is no innocent interpretation to be made here.

by Q 2008-03-27 11:46AM | 0 recs
How do you manage to get through a day?

Because with your incredibly heightened sensitivities and thin skin, every day would have to be a bombardment of sleights both real and imagined.

"late to the party as usual" probably indicates that the poster thinks Obama is copying other people's ideas or campaign focus.  That's not a flattering comment but it hardly has any racial overtones.

I've already addressed the lack of racial connection in the word "lazy."  Do I think Obama is lazy?  In an absolute sense or relative to the average politician - NO.  Compared to someone who is perceived to be as hard working as Hillary Clinton - MAYBE.  Again, that is just comparing two individuals, nothing racial there.

"because he cut and ran to the beach"  Again, that is a comment about an individual, not complementary, but not racist either.

But, since you bring up stereotypes, your response plays into some very negative stereotypes about liberals:

1) See everything as a sociological issue where every comment is aimed at groups rather than behavior of individuals.

2) Have ridiculously heighted sensitivities and insist on giving droning lectures about how people must watch every word they say to the point where conversation or language becomes lifeless.  

You know, Americans on the whole don't like oversensitive people, particularly males.  That's one reason why many liberal male candidates are rejected by voters.

by lombard 2008-03-27 12:54PM | 0 recs

First, please cut the personal attacks.  "How do you get through the day" is not exactly civil.  We're having an honest discussion, let's keep things respectful.  

So, to address your comment:
"Because with your incredibly heightened sensitivities and thin skin, every day would have to be a bombardment of sleights both real and imagined."
I think what gotalife said was blatantly racist.  I don't think gotalife thinks of himself/herself as racist, but I think that person tried to draw up these stereotypes to hurt Obama.  That is racist.  Thick or thin skin has nothing to do with it.  I think it was loud and clear.  Also, being conscious of racism is not being "thin skinned".  You are framing opposition to racism as being overly sensitive.  And whether I am being "overly sensitive" or not has no bearing on whether gotalife's comment was racist.  Your statement of oversensitivity is a fallacious argument.

""late to the party as usual" probably indicates that the poster thinks Obama is copying other people's ideas or campaign focus.  That's not a flattering comment but it hardly has any racial overtones."
I don't think the person meant Obama was copying people's ideas.  I think the comment was intended to portray Obama as constantly lagging and tardy.  The easiest way to do this is call into people's minds the stereotype I previously described.

"I've already addressed the lack of racial connection in the word "lazy.""
From Wikipedia: "Not only are African Americans present less frequently in the media than Whites, they are often portrayed negatively. In the past African Americans have been depicted as subservient, lazy, violent, and maybe "slow;""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype# African_American_stereotypes

I don't know if Wikipedia is a good enough source for you, but this stereotype is present.  Now have you ever heard the word lazy leveled in a political campaign before?  Aside from Gravel (the former Senator from Alaska that ran a half-ass campaign for president), I never have.  Why call up such a concept?  To draw upon peoples stereotypes.  I have yet to see a credible reason why gotalife used that word.  You may believe Clinton is a harder worker, but do you really think the lazy labeling is applicable here?

""because he cut and ran to the beach"  Again, that is a comment about an individual, not complementary, but not racist either."
When you think of someone on a beach, don't you think of someone lying in the sun?  Did you see the picture of Obama in the Virgin Isles?  He's in a lounge chair.  I think the intention of the imagery is to frame Obama as a loafer.  By itself, I wouldn't think anything of it, but connected with the following two comments, I do think it was meant to call up the "lazy" stereotype.

"But, since you bring up stereotypes, your response plays into some very negative stereotypes about liberals:"
There's no need to bring up liberal stereotypes.  They are unfortunate.  In the 1950s, there were conservatives and Republicans who considered themselves "liberal".  The word has been demomnized since.  Complaining about racism is what "liberals" do now.  You probably consider yourself liberal, yet you have these conservative concepts in your head about what it means to be liberal.  You are connecting what you consider to be my unfair argument as something that belittles liberals.  That is my perception at least.  But that doesn't refute my argument.

I'll continue addressing your "1)" and "2" comments in another comment.

by Q 2008-03-27 02:10PM | 0 recs
I manage quite fine, thank you

"1) See everything as a sociological issue where every comment is aimed at groups rather than behavior of individuals."
Yes liberals are portrayed that way.  That does not refute objections to racism or sexism a liberal may make.  Abolitionists were demonized in their day, people who were Civil Rights pioneers were demonized, people today who fight sexism are also demonized.  When someone from the Clinton campaign complains about something sexist, they are accused of playing the "gender card".  Do I want a world where we have to tread carefully in regard to everything we say?  No!  But sexism and racism are rough devils.  The effects of racism are very real (sexism too).  But, racism acts very subtly.  The human mind thinks in metaphorical frames, we think in pictures we are familiar with.  Subtle phrasings can bring up stereotypes people have absorbed without them thinking something racist has been said.

"2) Have ridiculously heighted sensitivities and insist on giving droning lectures about how people must watch every word they say to the point where conversation or language becomes lifeless.  "
Clearly, you are referring to my long comments.  I would say our discussion has been far from lifeless.

"You know, Americans on the whole don't like oversensitive people, particularly males.  That's one reason why many liberal male candidates are rejected by voters."
JKF was a liberal.  Truman was a liberal.  FDR was a liberal.  LBJ was a liberal.  Nobody accuses any of those liberals of being overly sensitive.  Read up on LBJ's time in the Senate.  He was a tough bastard.  This is a frame Conservatives have driven home over the last 40 years.  Perhaps you are trying paint me as a weak, overly-sensitive liberal.  That's one frame you can view through, albeit a conservative one.  I like to think I don't put up with racist bullshit.

by Q 2008-03-27 02:33PM | 0 recs
Old vs. new liberal males

"JKF was a liberal.  Truman was a liberal.  FDR was a liberal." (and LBJ, too)

Truman may well have been the least politically correct president of the 20th century. (Read Plain Speaking sometime if you haven't already).  LBJ wasn't very far behind.  There are virtually no liberal male role models today like these men.

JFK may have been very verbally gifted but was a very regular guy.  FDR had a certain uniquely likable patrician persona (possibly Jay Rockefeller comes closest today).

The modern image of the liberal male is Tom Daschle.  Ugh!  Kerry wasn't the greatest but better than that. Obama is cut of the same modern cloth.

by lombard 2008-03-27 06:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

So, really, you invited a few bloggers to editorialize about how Clinton is better than Obama.

Man, this blog really sucks.

by sharris0512 2008-03-27 06:27AM | 0 recs
Hillary supports NAFTA and the outsourcing of jobs

It just goes to show that there are a lot of low info voters in PA.  If they blame NAFTA for the loss of their jobs then they should not vote for Hillary.  Obama has his problems with NAFTA, but the Clintons were the biggest advocates of free trade and still are.

Obama will be doing a bus tour of PA soon.  I expect the poll numbers in PA to tighten.  If Obama can keep PA close -- 10 pts or less -- that will be a big victory for Obama.

by Terry from Killingly CT 2008-03-27 06:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary supports NAFTA and the outsourcing of

I think you've touched on something here. It may explain why, at least in part, Clinton does so much better on law information voters. AND, it may explain why Clinton tends to loose voters when Obama  campaigns.

by poserM 2008-03-27 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary supports NAFTA

Not true.

The Obama campaign falsely claims that Hillary was not critical of NAFTA in the early 1990s.  

Here is Carl Bernstein's take:

While discussing who John Edwards supporters would vote for on CNN, Carl Bernstein made the following statement about Hillary's take on NAFTA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahXDVLesZ SA

Carl Bernstein: Hillary Clinton's economics, the ones she preached to her husband in the White House are much closer to John Edwards then you would think. She argued with Bill Clinton when she was First Lady, her husband, she said `Bill, you are doing Republican economics when you are doing NAFTA.' She was against NAFTA. And if she would somehow come out and tell the real story of what she fought for in the White House and failed in a big argument with her husband she would end up moving much closer to those Edwards followers.

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-03-27 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary supports NAFTA

<blockquote>Here is Carl Bernstein's take</blockquote>

Carl Bernstein also has interesting take on Hillary and the truth -- that the two are often incompatible. But I suppose that Carl Bernstein is only to be trusted when he's saying nice things about Hillary, correct? Or are you willing to accept that Hillary's a liar if I accept that she was anti-NAFTA?

by RP McMurphy 2008-03-27 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary supports NAFTA

Pot vs. Kettle, huh?

by Hurdy Gurdy 2008-03-27 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

Hilary Clinton's solution to the latest economic crisis is to put the people who CREATED it in a room together and let them tell us what to do. All I ever hear her talk about it is herself (or attacking Obama). Everything with her is in the context of "I" she doesn't understand that she is powerless without the will of the people. That her initiatives will fail unless she actively uses the people as her allies.

She wants me vote and my money, but not my help.

by MNPundit 2008-03-27 06:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Error

"When it comes down to it, I know they have just about the same positions on everything. I just wish Senator Obama would take some time out from talking about himself to let us know."

Just thought I'd point out the error in your piece. It should read:

"When it comes down to it, I know they have just about the same positions on everything. I just wish Senator Clinton would take some time out from talking about herself to let us know."

Although, I have to say, her storytelling about Bosnia and her bravery at the airport was right up there with the imaginings of Homer Simpson.


by malc19ken 2008-03-27 06:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

I'm not so sure Obama is "probably going to win the nomination." I think that remains to be seen, given a lot of factors that will take place over the next few months, including who the Superdelegates think is more electable.

I think the Rev. Wright story makes it impossible for Obama to win the general election, in addition to his not being able to win the big traditionally Democratic states, and that will be a huge factor in their decision.

by cc 2008-03-27 07:07AM | 0 recs
You think

that the superdelegates are going to look at the situation and say "the first black candidate to come close to the presidency can't be our nominee because he goes to a black church with a pastor who says insensitive things, even though he has the most votes and delegates, we are going to chose someone else."

And that will help the party in the fall?

HA! </tweety>

by bawbie 2008-03-27 07:11AM | 0 recs
Re: You think

Using race to blackmail superdelegates may well work, but it is a very divisive and destructive strategy. We've already seen Jesse Jackson Jr. using primaries to threaten African American superdelegates, not doubt we will see a lot more of that behavior from the Obama campaign going forward. It is the only card they have.

by souvarine 2008-03-27 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: You think

Oh, right, I forgot.

The whole Wright thing is not about race, it's about .... what exactly?

When in the history of white men running this country has somebody been rules ineligible for the presidency because of their pastor?

If you are going to argue that Obama is unelectable because of Wright, then race place a role in that because the whole Wright thing is about race.

by bawbie 2008-03-27 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: You think

I don't know about you but I take people as individuals, and I don't project what one person says on to a whole category of people. Rev. Wright is not all African Americans, and the hatred about Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the United States that came out of his mouth is about him, what he teaches, and what he hates, not about African Americans. Obama's choice to follow Rev. Wright is about Obama, not about all African Americans.

by souvarine 2008-03-27 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: You think

Rev Wright preaches a common sermon (of course, you don't listen to most of them) for a segment of black churches.  

If this isn't about race, you should be able to show me one example in the history of this country where a white man was deemed ineligible to be president because of his church or pastor.

Obama's choice of when, where and who with to worship the God he choices should be of no concern to the member of the Democratic party, if we stand for what we say we stand for.

by bawbie 2008-03-27 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: You think

I've listened to a number of Wright's sermons, some of them I like very much. I can give you a list of white men who I do not think should be president because of the churches and pastors they support, but off the top of my head: Mike Huckabee, Gary Bauer.

by souvarine 2008-03-27 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: You think

It's not blackmail, it's a matter of how things will be perceived by Democrats and the country as a whole.  If a black candidate captures the most popular votes, the most pledged delegates, more states, and creates more excitement, and then that candidate is then passed over as the nominee by rules that a significant fraction of Democrats think are unfair, that will look so awful.  

It would look unfair if that happened to any candidate.  But for any candidate that is not a white male, whether they be black, female, latino, or gay, the person will appear to not get the nomination because the person is black, female, latino, or gay.  If Clinton was leading in all those categories, and her nomination was overturned by superdelegates, such a result would appear sexist, whether that is the case or not.

by Q 2008-03-27 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

Considering that the democratic nominee will win the big blue states in Nove. Wouldn't it be wiser to select the candidate that can win the "small blue states" in addition to the big blue ones that are already in the bag?

by poserM 2008-03-27 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

The nominee is likely to win big and small blue states, what is at issue is big purple states like PA, OH and FL.

by souvarine 2008-03-27 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

Don't forget Nevada, New Mexico, Virgina (which has turned purple very fast), Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, Colorado, and Oregon just to name a few.  Whomever it is that gets the nomination, that candidate will have to battle for these states.

by Q 2008-03-27 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

I think it's wildly unlikely that the SDs will hand the nomination to the candidate that's behind in pledged delegates, total delegates, popular vote, and states won.

Yes, the SDs can vote for whoever they like, but they have to know the repercussions if Clinton gets the nomination under these conditions.  Overriding the will of the people is one of their purposes, but doing so requires VERY solid justification, and very real evidence that points to unelectability.  And Obama's not showing that at all -- he's doing every bit as well as Clinton nationally, if not better.

You're fooling yourself (and hurting the Democratic Party in the process) if you honestly don't think that Obama's "probably going to win the nomination" at this point.  It would take a MASSIVE collapse on his part, with Clinton sweeping every remaining state and passing him in popular vote, IMO, and the odds of that happening are slim-to-none.

by ChrisKaty 2008-03-27 08:02AM | 0 recs
Win PA - For All the Right Reasons

Congratulations on a well-reasoned, articulate comment. Senator Clinton should be proud of supporters like you. And yes, she will will won PA, but not by the 65-35% margin she needs to make a significant difference in the delegate or popular vote lead.

I am one of Senator Clinton's constituents who lives in the economically blasted Upstate zone that stretches just west of Albany through Utica, Syracuse to Buffalo and down to PA. While she glibly uses Bush as an excuse, Senator Clinton has been mainly MIA up here, and we are in worse straits than we were when she was elected. We don't expect much, but Senator Schumer has been much more proaactive. Hey, I voted for her twice -- but when it comes to walking the walk, Senator Clinton has often been far more active facilitating visas for Indian employees of her friend Mr. Tata than building jobs here.

by NYWoman 2008-03-27 07:11AM | 0 recs
Um, George W. Bush is president
in case you haven't heard.  The country is royally fucked up right now.
You can't blame Senator Clinton for upstate financial problems.
You were doing pretty damned well when Bill Clinton was president.
by squid 2008-03-27 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

The only thing Hillary is accomplishing is splitting the party and attacking the likely nominee. She has been caught red handed lying about her so called experience. She has her has been husband out there with his pompus holier than thou act embarrassing himself.

Further as is being reported on CNN,MSNBC and in the print media, the Clintons are doing more harm to themselves and the democratic party in their scorched earth attempt to wrestle the nomination away from Obama. He wasnt my choice either, but she is an phony through and through...

by adb67 2008-03-27 07:13AM | 0 recs
Oh God. The Robotic Talking Point

Straight from the desk of Rove:  We must not let Clinton continue because she is dividing the party.

by squid 2008-03-27 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh God. The Robotic Talking Point

What does Rove have to do with it?  Look at the polling numbers of both candidates versus McCain.  The fact that Clinton remains in the race and that the race is getting pretty negative is very clearly and quantifiably damaging.  It's especially frustrating given how slim her chances are of winning the nomination.

by ChrisKaty 2008-03-27 08:04AM | 0 recs
Oh God. The Robotic Talking Point

Straight from the desk of Rove:  We must not let Clinton continue because she is dividing the party.

by squid 2008-03-27 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh God. The Robotic Talking Point

Actually, we have a serious problem.  There is very strong evidence that the Democratic party is splitting into two.  It's not just a talking point.    It's a problem that could make the Democratic party irrelevant for the next 20 years.  That's bad for all of us, no matter who we want to be the nominee.

by Q 2008-03-27 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

It's called name recognition or name branding... we'll see how it goes soon but the reason she always starts out with big leads is her brand name.  What is so difficult to understand about that...

by losdela 2008-03-27 07:20AM | 0 recs
Obama Termites Hijack another Thread
After swarming and reducing the blogs like Daily Kos and My DD to nothing but a rubble of echoing Obama talking points, they blanket MyDD.  
Mission: obliterate every vestage of Clinton support from the web.
by squid 2008-03-27 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Termites Hijack another Thread

Did you see The Good Shepard? ....you know, the "boys"....naked, playing in the mud, with their brothers to be watching from above and urinating on them.   Symbolic.

by LindaSFNM 2008-03-27 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Termites Hijack another Thread

they take the LIEberman mentorship all the way.  They love the attacking Democrats, while lying and whining their way through,  because, End justifies their means....just like the other NeoCons.

by LindaSFNM 2008-03-27 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Termites Hijack another Thread

Obama backers are Democrats.  And the person you are agreeing with just called us "termites".

But we are the neocons who attack other Democrats.  


by bawbie 2008-03-27 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama Termites Hijack another Thread

if you don't like what we are saying, refute us.

if you are looking for a Clinton echo chamber go to hillaryis44 or taylor marsh, blogs that don't claim to be progressive or democratic, just Clintonian.

by bawbie 2008-03-27 07:32AM | 0 recs
How much do you get paid

to hang in a blog all day like this?
And how many of you are there under all these ids?  
One Troll with a fancy software set-up to
quickly swap out ids?  

Or do you do this with multiple computers?

by squid 2008-03-27 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: How much do you get paid

We have as much right to be here as you do. Further, all of the Obama supporters have been making fair points, a lot of points which have simply been refuted with individuals saying that we are astroturfers or saying that Obama has no real policy. What is wrong with us saying why we support our candidate and saying why we disagree with this post?

There are many Obama supporters here. Some of them have been here as long, if not longer than you. I think that a lot of us have decided that as the nomination has been decided we might be able to come back.

by Obama08 2008-03-27 07:50AM | 0 recs
Can you answer my question?

Are you being paid by Obama or by Republican interests, and if so, how much?

by squid 2008-03-27 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Can you answer my question?

No I am not, are you?

by Obama08 2008-03-27 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Can you answer my question?

BRockNYC, why do you downrate me and not the one who was accusing me of being a troll. I've been here for well over a year.

The point of my responding, "No I am not, are you?" was to demonstrate that these types of accusations don't get us anywhere.

by Obama08 2008-03-27 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Can you answer my question?

Perhaps you could stop the personal attacks. Good folks support Obama just as good folks support Clinton.

by politicsmatters 2008-03-27 08:00AM | 0 recs
Because you blanket threads

and snuff out everything except your own voice.

by squid 2008-03-27 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Can you answer my question?

Obama and his supporters have not been the ones using Republican frames.  I think this accusation is misplaced.  

by Q 2008-03-27 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: How much do you get paid

Is it your impression that Obama doesn't have much support?  

by politicsmatters 2008-03-27 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: How much do you get paid

I have had this an account under this username and only this username both here and at Dkos since early in 2004.

I find it highly offensive and troll worthy to even be accused of such.

by bawbie 2008-03-27 08:06AM | 0 recs
Guys... please

both of you please.

Trash talk coming from either side is just boring. Get over it.

We all know that Obama is in the lead and that the nomination is ALMOST his to lose. Many of us think that he just may do that. And many of us think that Hillary Clinton is the better candidate and we're glad that she's sticking it out.

But to pretend that Obama has it in the bag and that Hillary is trying to steal it from him is just not right. If indeed he does have it in the bag, then he's not a very strong candidate if someone can come along and snatch it from him. Obama supporters should be calling on their candidate to step up and close this thing out. Build up your guy because he doesn't seem to be able to close it out.

by carrieboberry 2008-03-27 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win

Hillary wins in the Pickle (couldn't resist) state and moves on to win the NOMINATION!

OK, I could have said, Hillary takes the Klondike,

Or, PA seals Hillary with a Kiss (Hershey-get it, get it?).

....but either way, we all win in November with Hillary!

by LindaSFNM 2008-03-27 07:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win

Alrighty then.

by LarsThorwald 2008-03-27 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

Never in history have so many harbored such a delusion in Hillary stealing the nomination from Obama, much less winning the election after doing so.

by Kobi 2008-03-27 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA -

Hillary will win Pa, it is just the matter by how much.  I read your post and was open to it until I came to the part where you were 'disappointed that she had not gracefully bowed out'.

I don't get it.  Despite what MessSNBC and other media in the tank for Obama has told you, this race is still very close when it comes to the popular vote.

As long as Mi & Fl are still left hanging there, she still has a very viable chance to the nomination.  Even if you don't count Mi & Fl, the fact that he would win the nomination based on a lead of pledged delegates without the inclusion of 2 very important states taints the nomination and would leave the party further divided.

Even if you don't count MI & Fl, it is my guess that at the end of June 3, the difference in popular voe will be less than 300k. That is too close based on millions of voters voting and not counting over 2mill votes giving it to a canidate who is not winning the Dem base and who has shown that he can not win the big states and who in head to head matchups with McCain makes Dem likely states change to Dem leaning states.

I reject that line in your post. Also, I think that Hillary has shown herself to be a fighter, she has shown a willingness to listen to the voters, she has shown herself able to connect to our base which any Dem. nominee will need to win i.e women, seniors, latinos, catholics, union/blue collar workers.

by shark 2008-03-27 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

While maybe their rhetoric is slightly different, both candidates are saying more on trade and more specifics on their trade policy positions than ever before.

You can see their entire trade platforms at www.citizenstrade.org/positions.php.

The real question is, with the bar set so high on charting a new course on NAFTA and NAFTA-style trade agreements, who will actually do what they've been promising during the campaign? That's what Pennsylvanians should be considering when they go to vote.

by hollysnj 2008-03-27 08:02AM | 0 recs
Health Care for Dummies

Here's the fundamental "dispute" between Clinton and Obama on health care: Will a health care mandate's effect on adverse selection monetarily outweigh the combined costs of implementing an enforcement regime and artificially skewing the supply/demand curve?

To say that the answer to this complex economic question is unclear is the understatement of the year.  How real is the adverse selection problem?  We don't know.  How much money will it cost to implement and maintain a mandate enforcement bureaucracy?  We don't know.  How much would a mandate tend to inflate costs by skewing the supply/demand curve artificially?  We don't know.  What level of coverage would the mandate require citizens to get?  We don't know.  

Personally, I am a proponent of a single-payor system.  However, I agree with both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton that moving immediately to a single-payor system is not politically feasible.  I think both candidates envision their plans as a step towards an ultimately single-payor system.  That being the case, I believe that Senator Obama's plan is the better first step.  Why do I think this?  Because we have two pieces of evidence that mandate's don't work as advertised: One, the Massachusetts experiment proves that mandates don't work as advertised.  Second, ou national experience with car insurance -- mandated by most states -- demonstrates that mandates tend to artifically inflate costs (Warren Buffet invested in GEICO because he knows that car insurance is the only type of insurance in our country where profits are made from the premiums alone, as opposed to investment gains on float).  

Also, I'm not sure that Clinton's plan contains Obama's catastophic reinsurance idea.  That to me is a hugely important part of Obama's plan.  

On the economy, it doesn't take that much work to go look at some of the things that Obama is proposing.  He's proposed plans that will definitely bring our country blue-collar jobs.  His infrastructure bank plan is just one example.  

Obama has done just fine in blue-collar states: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, and Iowa are all examples of midwestern states with lots of blue-collar industry.  And he would win Michigan if there were a real campaign there.

by Aaron Michael 2008-03-27 08:30AM | 0 recs
70% of Americans actually do want universal...

healthcare now.

So, IF this is a democracy, it IS politically feasible, NOW.

by architek 2008-03-27 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: 70% of Americans actually do want universal...

The term "universal health care" -- like the term "universal health coverage" -- is a vacuous term.  Asking Americans in a poll whether they want "universal health care" is like asking people whether rainbows are pretty (you're pretty much guaranteed to get most people answering one way).  

If Americans understood what moving to a single-payor system entailed in the short term, you would not get close to this 70% number.  That's why it's not politically feasible.  

We'll get there at some point, I have no doubt.  But it will be in step-wise fashion, just as our Founding Fathers would have imagined.  Under both Clinton's and Obama's plans, you'd probably see citizens gradually but manageably opting out of the private, employer-based health care system.  At the same time, businesses could gradually but manageably raise salaries to reflect their decreasing group costs or to accomodate those who opt-out of the employer-based plan.  We'd then hit a critical mass where single payor would be feasible with little systemic disruption.

by Aaron Michael 2008-03-27 12:07PM | 0 recs
.whims of so-called &quot;visionaries&quot;

..........We're a pragmatic state because we've seen all too closely how the whims of so-called "visionaries" affect real workers.......

What the heck does that even mean?

William Penn? Benjamin Franklin? Carnegi? Frick? Westinghouse? Jonas Salk? Warhol?

What are you talking about?

by bernardpliers 2008-03-27 08:38AM | 0 recs
Obama's Economy

I keep hearing that about a year ago Obama introduced some an economic plan.  Does anybody have a link to that?

by venavena 2008-03-27 08:43AM | 0 recs
Re: For All the Right Reasons

What a great post. Very fair and balanced (but not in that Fox sort of way).

I think the fact that Obama will likely not win PA is actually an advantage for him. He's likely going to be the nominee, but he needs to figure out why Clinton continues to beat him amongst our blue collar coalition and how he can bring them to him if/when she is out of the race.

I think the bus tour will be a great dry run so he can have a stronger message for these voters in the general.

I definately look forward to reading more posts like these in the future.

by SFValues 2008-03-27 08:47AM | 0 recs
Yes, he DOES need to figure that out...

doesn't he...

In MORE than WORDS alone..

by architek 2008-03-27 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, he DOES need to figure that out...

Well, he can't prove it in action until he gets the job.

by SFValues 2008-03-27 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

Why is no one on MyDD able to write a pro-Clinton diary without attacking Obama? In the real world, Obama has done far more than "tell us his story." He's offered what the NYT editorial board today called the best plan for dealing with the mortgage crisis (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/opinio n/27thu1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&o ref=slogin). He's made major speeches on race, Iraq, American foreign policy and the cost of the war -- all in the last two weeks.

Moreover, as the tizzy of a tale from Tulza tells, Hillary is also invested in "telling her story." It's just that the real story of being second banana to her husband for thirty years in not that interesting, so she has to lie about being shot at.

Obama has cut Clinton's lead in PA in half, from 19 to 10 points, in two weeks. You might want to see what the numbers look like after he actually starts to campaign in the state before you count your chickens.

by BITNPB 2008-03-27 08:51AM | 0 recs
Obams says he will INCREASE military spending

Which in the long run is the real issue. The problem with much military spending is that it is not subjected to an adequate level of scrutiny - resulting in HUGE wastage..

The fact that Obama wants to increase military spending may sit well with the right wing but its disturbing to me.

I would spend more money on basics, but subject ALL military spending to a much higher level of examination, by the military leadership in partnership with Congress.

Some of this could be done by means of secure web applications. The point I am making is that we are AGAIN, spending much MORE and getting MUCH LESS than we should for our money.


The fact that Obama is going around, implying through his utterances on Iraq that he is going to cut military spending for social programs, while saying to other audiences that he means no such thing is also HIGHLY disturbing to me.

He is dishonest. Where it matters, he is really dishonest.

by architek 2008-03-27 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Obams says he will INCREASE military spending

The fact that Obama wants to increase military spending may sit well with the right wing but its disturbing to me.

You ought to ask Hillary's newfound supporter, John Murtha, about cutting military spending in Pennsylvania. And yes, military spending is going to have to be increased for a while to compensate for the damage that Iraq has done to the military.


Agreed -- and I think Obama's the right person for the job.

The fact that Obama is going around, implying through his utterances on Iraq that he is going to cut military spending for social programs, while saying to other audiences that he means no such thing is also HIGHLY disturbing to me.

Well, you'll have to explain to me how he's implying that he's going to cut military spending when he's said the exact opposite.

by RP McMurphy 2008-03-27 10:20AM | 0 recs
It is not enough that she wins PA

she needs to win that state convincingly (by at least 10% i think). She also needs to surprise Obama in either Indiana or NC by winning there and cancel-out his money advantage; meaning that being outspent doesn't equate electoral victory.

by likelihood zero 2008-03-27 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

by likelihood zero 2008-03-27 09:00AM | 0 recs
Hillary is ahead in states by electoral votes...


by architek 2008-03-27 09:31AM | 0 recs
Hillary is ahead in states by electoral votes.

and Obama is ahead in the delegate count, popular vote, and number of states won. Interestingly he has also won more swing states.

by Obama08 2008-03-27 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

I feel like there is significant disconnect between the msm coverage of Obama and his actual speeches.  In the wake of the speech on race, Obama gave a speech on the economy, focusing on links between the current woes and the war.  This week he's been doing into more detail regarding his plans, including a lengthy speech yesterday.

You might disagree with his plans, but they are substantial, and they have been stated publicly, just not covered much by the msm.  

Since there is so much misinformation in the comments, it is crucial that the actual post be fair and accurate.

by cwsaterfield 2008-03-27 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

I agree with you that the MSM only wants to talk about the race speach and not his economic proposals. But it's not their job to get Obama's message out. He needs to find a way to get that to the voters.

Being on the ground in PA for an extended period of time is a really good start.

by SFValues 2008-03-27 09:17AM | 0 recs
I don't disagree that pouring money down a hole

in Iraq is hurting us economically (except for those of us who own Blackwater or Halliburton or Dyn-Corp stock)

But I disagree that our current economic woes are due to the Iraq war - Militarism certainly would be a more appropriate target.

The US has well over 1000 bases in foreign lands.. I think the number is something like 1700 total..

In many cases, we are sworn to depend countries that have huge, healthy economies of their own. The fact that we are threr defending them gives them a huge economic advantage over us.

Typically, its 'because we dont want them to make nuclear weapons' but the reality is that they probably do anyway, they just keep it secret.

In the cases of many countries, its a very disadvantageous setup, and IMO, its mostly in place for the benefit of US military contractors, not those countries.

But its a huge waste of money. Meanwhile, the US is slipping behind so far in other areas that the deficit is going to be very hard to reverse.

For example, Korea. Sixth largest economy in the world. They can afford to defend themselves against North Korea. (even though it WILL be HUGELY expensive, THEY CAN AFFORD IT)

Same thing goes for Japan.

The American military-industrial complex is like an addict. We must learn to say NO.

by architek 2008-03-27 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

by likelihood zero 2008-03-27 09:07AM | 0 recs
If she's Going to Win PA, why should she quit?
I'm sorry, I don't understand the logic of this at all.  The only reason Obama is ahead at all is because he's sitting on FL and MI.  She can still rack up a lot of popular and delegate support and if the poster were honest, neither candidate can win without superdelegates.  And why shouldn't they pick her?  She's the better candidate for all of the reasons you list and she's won the major states, including the swing states that are being left out in the cold.  
Can we knock it off with the "regretfully, the stupid bitch just won't quit" schtick?  It's getting old and Obama is losing voters because of it.  
by goldberry 2008-03-27 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: If she's Going to Win PA, why should she quit?

The only reason Obama is ahead at all is because he's sitting on FL and MI.

In delegates or popular vote? Because you could give Hillary all the delegates from Florida and Michigan and Obama would still be winning. You could also giver her the popular vote from Florida and Obama would still be winning. So your assertion is incorrect.

And why shouldn't they pick her?  She's the better candidate for all of the reasons you list...

She won less votes, states, and delegates, has raised less money, has higher negatives, and is less trusted. I guess I'm oblivious to nominating someone in that situation.

...and she's won the major states,...

How does a state become "major?" Do I live in a "minor" state? Moreover, does ability to win a state in a primary translate into an ability to win it in the fall? I think not -- otherwise John Kerry would've won quite a few states.

...including the swing states that are being left out in the cold.

Obama's won quite a few swing states.

Can we knock it off with the "regretfully, the stupid bitch just won't quit" schtick?

I don't think anyone has used those terms, so you're reading quite a bit into this. But, at some point, I think that Hillary's going to have to face the fact that unless Obama implodes, she has no path to the nomination that doesn't result in a loss in November. If anyone here honestly believes that the super-delegates are going to overturn the  pledged-delegate leader, or that Obama's supporters are just going to accept that outcome, you're fooling yourself.

by RP McMurphy 2008-03-27 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA

All the OP says is that he thinks Obama has been disconnected with rural, working class whites, not in large cities, and hopes that he can reconnect with them. And then all of the OBAMA-BOTS come on here and jump all over him immediatley? Do you not take any critsisim of your canidiate? You're so pompous and arrogant, and I love how you usually credit Clinton's rural victories to 1) racism or 2)a percieved lack of intelligence. Just a reason why I will be casting my ballot for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

by zcflint05 2008-03-27 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA

I think you've misread the complaints from Obama-supporters. In general we're agreeing that Obama needs to connect better with PA voters; we're disagreeing that he can do it. And we're disagreeing with the assertion that Clinton somehow has better credentials on the economy.

You do realize that Clinton's surrogate in PA, Ed Rendell, has effectively said that Clinton will win rural PA directly because of racism? That didn't come from the Obama side, that came from a Clinton supporter.

And the statement that Obama needs to connect better with voters really is a statement that they're low-information about him. I don't think people are accusing them of being low-intelligence, just low-information.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-27 10:30AM | 0 recs
Hillary's WILL Win PA - AND the nomination

PA is one great state.  It used to be better.  

It can be great again, because the people are great.  They care, they work hard, they are responsible and have great pride.  They live Liberalism and Democracy quite well.  They invest in to their communities and help each other.  

Pittsburgh.  Carnegie Mellon, Heinz (yes they've outsourced most everything and buildings lay empty all over-BUT, [Pitt] has been working on converting them, between Lofts, wharehouses, etc) Isleys and the KLONDIKE, US STEEL (my entire family before me worked there, including a cousin), Hershey, Keystone Pretzels-the Oatzel!  The stores my Grandma shopped at are STILL THERE.  

by LindaSFNM 2008-03-27 09:19AM | 0 recs
Just A Thought

Let's say Clinton blows Obama out of the water in PA by 20 points or more, but the rest of the race goes as expected and he's the nominee.

Could such a display by Clinton put Ed Rendell into the VP discussion?

He's a white male, would have proven his appeal to the Clinton voters, he would have proven he can deliver PA and he's Jewish. We know the GOP is going to play the anti-semite claim on Obama and Rendell would crush that immediately not to mention maybe playing well in FL.

I don't think he's got any foreign policy credentials, but he's got a lot of upside.

Just a thought.

by SFValues 2008-03-27 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Just A Thought

I don't think he's got any foreign policy credentials, but he's got a lot of upside.

And therein lies the problem. Rendell, Strickland, and Tim Kaine would all be really good picks, but Obama needs someone with foreign policy experience. He's going to have to pick someone like Biden or Webb (maybe even Bob Graham).

by RP McMurphy 2008-03-27 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Just A Thought

I agree that it could be a problem, but I guess I'm just still not sold that McCain is going to be able to sell the American people on that point.

I think any Democrat is going to be able to say that while McCain has a great deal of foreign policy experience, all that experience has led him to be wrong on all of the issues.

You put forth his plans for Iraq (Stay), Iran (Attack) and the rest of the world (Don't talk to me) and I question how well his arguement sells.

by SFValues 2008-03-27 09:59AM | 0 recs
Here is my thing

This article highlighted the two main problems I have with HRC (after she insulted my candidate and me and my state, so she has a lot of negatives, anyways), you say BHO will probably win, yet her ego and her firm belief that she is entitled to the presidency won't allow her to drop out. Great woman.

Second, she was in the front lines of Bill's administration right (even though we've seen this disproved it is the cornerstone of her campaign)? He pushed for NAFTA, ergo, she has fucked the state of Pennsylvania. Great.

by edhula3 2008-03-27 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Here is my thing

Here's what pissed me off about YOUR canidiate: when he took time on the stump to demonize me as "part of the status-quo", threw the gays under the bus a record 4 times in this election cycle (SHIT, HUCKABEE DIDN'T EVEN DO THAT), insulted my canidiate by telling us all how "periodically, when she's feeling down, she'll attack me". Obama's a myoginist and a homophobe, and he's lied on being present when Wright was speaking (double talk, went back and told us he was there when he said he wasn't before), NAFTA-gate, Resko (amount of money donated), and God knows what else. Quit complianing about Hillary's "going negative" when Bambi, the so called "canidiate of change" has been doing it the whole election cycle. I can't believe how brainwashed you cult members are...

by zcflint05 2008-03-27 10:39AM | 0 recs
my candidate=richardson

go fuck yourself buddy.

by edhula3 2008-03-27 11:18AM | 0 recs
Let Her Know That!

If you believe that Hillary Clinton should be President of the United States, please share why you are voting for her here:
http://hillary-clintons-voice.com/quick- note/

And, send that link on to other Hillary Supporters. We need a central place to show others that there is a LOT of Hillary support out here!

by lanesharon 2008-03-27 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

You probably made a lot of Obama supporters happy with your stance. There is an equal or more number of people who get inspired by Clinton's work ethic, strong commitment to the public good, and her tenacity and toughness. I don't agree with the demonization of Clinton by his supporters and I don't agree with the myth perpetrated that Obama is all noble. He is just another dirty politician and in many ways cowardly, running a well calculated campaign despite his flowery rhetoric of lofty goals. If I want to be inspired I will go to a pastor (wait, not the Wright kind); If I want a good economy, intelligent foreign policy, I will go to a smart politician who can deliver. Nothing in his past tells me he can deliver (present votes, wrong button, taking credit for other people's work, not articulate enough with policy details and can't think or talk intelligently and knowledgeably about issues on the fly and on his feet -- that is, without a teleprompter).

Go ahead; prop him up and make him the nominee. But be prepared to lose in the GE. You may have won the battle but lost the war.

Two things will work against Obama in the GE and will make him unelectable:

  1. 20 years with Wright
  2. disenfranchising FL and MI
Both are self-inflicted and have nothing to do with Clinton.

by pm317 2008-03-27 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary's Going to Win PA - For All the Right

One question: The diarist asserts that Clinton has "done it before" with regards to helping a struggling economy, but since she's never held administrative office and hasn't passed anything of the kind in Congress, I'd be curious to know what the diarist is thinking of. Her only economic of achievement that a know about is her key role in promoting NAFTA, as confirmed by her daily schedules, recently released.

Some might argue that with NAFTA, as with Iraq, the best hope of reform lies with the candidate who didn't embrace the failed policy in the first place. But doubtless that is too simple for some people.

by BITNPB 2008-03-27 02:23PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads