MyDD :: Republicans For Hillary

Republicans For Hillary

by Todd Beeton, Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:31:07 PM EST

As I wrote HERE, Barack Obama's performance on March 4th represented a real loss in support among non-Democrats who up until last week had tended to support him over Hillary Clinton by fairly large margins. We're seeing the same thing in Mississippi today.

According to CNN's exit poll, 13% of those that voted in the MS Democratic primary today were Republicans and they went for Hillary Clinton by a huge margin of 77-23%. Among independents who voted in the Democratic primary today, Clinton loses only by a slight 48-51% margin. These results represent a phenomenal improvement for Clinton among these groups as compared to her overall pre-March 4 results when she lost among Republicans 29-64% and among Independents 36-56% (h/t Open Left.)

The real story here is Clinton's performance among Republicans though. This is the first open primary since John McCain secured the nomination, so it makes sense that they would participate in the Democratic primary in larger than normal numbers (Republicans represented about 9% of the Dem primary electorate in the last 3 open contests in Wisconsin, Texas and Ohio) but going for Hillary by more than 50%? What made her Republican support in TX and Ohio so surprising was that she had closed the gap to a single digit deficit or a tie, but here she is well ahead. I was skeptical of the right-wing campaign to turn out for Hillary Clinton so that the battle for the Democratic nomination would drag out even longer, supposedly meant to help John McCain (John, who?), but today's results make it difficult to ignore. Although, the more insidious side of what may have motivated these Republicans to vote for Hillary against Barack is that the racist vote may have been alive and well. The electorate was deeply polarized along racial lines (90% of black voters went for Barack, 73% of white voters went for Clinton) in Mississippi today and I don't think it's entirely unrelated that the exit polling The AP did show Clinton benefiting from a distinctly anti-Obama sentiment.

--[Just] 4 in 10 Clinton voters said she should pick Obama as her running mate if she wins.

-- Nearly three-fourths of Clinton voters said they would be dissatisfied if Obama wins the nomination.

--Only about one in five Clinton voters said Obama [offered clear and detailed plans to solve the country's problems.]

Tags: 2008 presidential election, democratic nomination, mississippi primary (all tags)

Permalink :: 142 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

Geez ... Harley Barbour is Gov. of Mississippi .. so the Rethugs in that state are not very smart .. and did they ask the Republicans why the voted for Hillary? .. is it because they think she is the easier one to beat in November?

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:27:47 PM EST

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

Probably.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Agree. It is called the Limbaugh effect: the Republicans would rather run against Hillary than Obama in November.

Hillary will also help to reinstitute and galvanize the Republican base. Don't ask why. Her positions on foreign policy are identical to McCain's.

Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.

by shergald on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:55:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

Talking with people from the region I'm pretty sure the only reason Republicans are voting for Clinton is many of them are racists who think Obama is going to dramatically expand welfare and redistribute their wealth to black people.

This isn't just Republicans, I've heard southern Democrats use the n-word a dozen times talking about this.

by js noble on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:21:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you can not make the racist argument (none / 0)

when Black people are voting the way they are. Who are the racists here?

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008

by TeresaINPennsylvania on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:35:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can not make the racist argument (none / 0)

I'm guessing that most black people that voted for Obama this year, have also voted for white people in previous years.

Not sure that most white people who voted for Clinton in Mississipi, have voted for any black presidential nominees in years past.

The comparison is thus flawed.

by Aris Katsaris on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:18:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you can not make the racist argument (none / 0)

There's a about a 3000 mile-wide gap between traditional identity politics and crossing party lines to vote AGAINST a candidate because he's black or in their words a "n****R".

If you think Black people voting for Obama is racism you belong at LGF or Free Republic. Not here.

by js noble on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:10:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Former Director Policy Plan - Memo Hillary (none / 0)

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community /post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBqNQ

Greg Craig, former director of the Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department sent out this memo today:

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims - i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign - would conclude that Senator Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, "[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord." With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that "[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one."

News of Senator Clinton's claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph's report at the time, "[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn't on it."

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that "Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn't hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage."

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, "I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments - U.S. diplomats. President Clinton's top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue." Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration's National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that "she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations."

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote - urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda - in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America's failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama's speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women's rights. But Senator Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton's speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama's speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called "a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." In that speech, he said prophetically: "[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would "fan the flames of the Middle East," and "strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda." He urged the United States first to "finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda."

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama's advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation's history. Some of the most "experienced" men in national security affairs - Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others - led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation - the War in Iraq - Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled "The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq." As she cast that vote, she said: "This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction." In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued - remarkably - that she wasn't actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization - like a blank check - to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader - an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

by dearreader on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:37:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Former Director Policy Plan - Memo Hillary (none / 0)

I didnt know we were just posting campaign literature on here..

In that case http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id= 6465

Over the last few weeks, Sen. Obama has successfully undermined his credibility with a series of statements to reporters and voters that have been contradicted by the facts. Unfortunately, he's doing it again today by having his campaign issue a fundamentally misleading attack aimed at glossing over the doubts Americans have about his readiness to be Commander-in-Chief. Once again, Senator Obama is proving the point that his campaign is about "just words."

Despite making hard end-dates a centerpiece of his campaign, Senator Obama's top foreign policy adviser said those plans are not anything he'll rely on as president. Despite repeated denials and five different parsed statements by his campaign that have been called misleading by media reports, his top economic adviser did in fact dismiss Senator Obama's NAFTA criticism to the Canadian government as just political rhetoric.

And now today, Senator Obama is at it again, sending a false attack memo from his campaign making claims that are contradicted by the facts. Still reeling from its losses in Ohio and Texas, the Obama campaign has come out swinging, taking aim at Senator Clinton's considerable foreign policy experience with false claims and baseless attacks. After last week's defeats, the Obama campaign faced a choice: try to convince voters that Senator Obama is ready to take the 3am phone call in a positive way or try to tear down Senator Clinton's accomplishments.

Considering that his foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice, cited Senator Obama's "legislation on ethics reform" when asked this morning about his foreign policy experience, it is clear that the Obama campaign is unable to make a positive case for its candidate's experience. They have chosen to attack and today's memo continues the pattern of statements contradicted by the facts. Given the credibility gap his campaign has developed over the last few weeks, these latest attacks today should not be believed.

There is a reason that thirty former Generals and Admirals have endorsed Senator Clinton -- they know she is prepared to lead this nation as Commander in Chief with strength and experience on day one. Here are the facts about Hillary's experience.

Northern Ireland

The Obama campaign claims George Mitchell, the person in charge of the Good Friday acccords negotiation, supports their view that Hillary's claims about Northern Ireland are exaggerated. John Hume, who won the Nobel Prize for Peace for his work on Northern Ireland:

I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland... Anyone criticizing her foreign policy involvement should look at her very active and positive approach to Northern Ireland and speak with the people of Northern Ireland who have the highest regard for her and are very grateful for her very active support for our peace process.

George Mitchell, who is cited in the Obama memo as an authoritative source, told Katie Couric last night that Hillary played "a helpful and supportive role" in Northern Ireland that ended up making "a difference in the process." He described what Hillary has said about her role as "accurate."

More on Hillary's work in Northern Ireland HERE.

Kosovo

Concerning Kosovo, the Obama memo - citing their own advisors and supporters -- falsely claims that Hillary played no role in the larger effort to open the border to more refugees. Richard Holbrooke, the architect of the Dayton Accords, lays out the facts:

It was dire in May 1999 when Hillary Clinton arrived in Macedonia. The government of Macedonia had slowed the flow of refugees from Kosovo to a trickle. After visiting refugees and gaining a first-hand assessment of the situation, the First Lady had intense talks with President Gligorov and Prime Minister Georgievski. In these talks, one in the Presidential Palace, another in the residence of the American Ambassador, Christopher Hill, Mrs. Clinton pressed the Macedonian government to fully open the border so that Kosovar Albanian refugees could flee the war zone to safety. She also committed herself to work with the government and people of Macedonia who also faced an emergency because of the threat to their own safety and stability. Hillary Clinton promised to take action to help the Macedonian economy. Returning to Washington, she pressed hard in the administration for action to support the Macedonians. She even contacted American business executives to ensure that American textile contracts in Macedonia were not canceled. There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of those people I worked with in the Balkans at the time - that her intense efforts resulted in easing a crisis of significant dimensions and contributed to saving many lives.

Hillary's trip to Kosovo in May 1999 took place during the air war over Kosovo. Despite concerns about security, she traveled to the international border on the edge of the war zone, and visited with refugees. More, including more testimonials, HERE.

Bosnia

The Obama campaign has resorted to mocking Hillary's trip to Bosnia in 1996, belittling it as a U.S.O. tour and saying there was no danger. But Hillary toured the frontlines of the international peacekeeping mission. CNN reported:

At a second outpost, Camp Bedrock, Mrs. Clinton visited a M.A.S.H. unit, the only full-service U.S. Army hospital in Bosnia. The three-hour tour of the frontlines of the international peacekeeping mission were filled with the gritty reality of a military operation, a far cry from traditional first lady photo opportunities, and Mrs. Clinton seemed more than comfortable with that. [CNN, 3/25/99]

A day later, the Charleston Gazette reported that "Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday...This trip to Bosnia marks the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone..."

China

The Obama campaign diminishes Hillary's historic speech in Bejing as meaningless. But her speech at the conference - where she famously declared "women's rights are human rights" spurred real action. The AP reported:

Brazil has promised free cancer-screening exams for women. The United States is spending $ 1.6 billion to try to end domestic violence. South African President Nelson Mandela is setting up a unit in his office to monitor the status of women. A year after 189 states pledged to make equality of the sexes a reality in the 21st century, many governments are crediting the conference for their latest steps to help women. 'The momentum is on - and this momentum is not only by women but even by governments and by men,' said Gertrude Mongella, secretary-general of the Fourth World Conference on Women that adopted a 150-page plan to achieve women's equality. Inspired by last September's U.N. conference in Beijing, five Mongolian women ran for parliament in June and won, bringing the total number of female legislators to seven out of 76. Women's groups in Zaire joined forces to try to change laws that bar women from traveling or opening bank accounts without their husbands' permission. [AP, 8/25/96]

Rwanda

On Rwanda, the Obama campaign is eager to diminish Hillary's advocacy. Hillary visited Rwanda in 1998 and made forceful public statements about the administration's failings. This is how she described the trip and the administration's followup in her book, Living History:

Expressing great regret for genocide in Rwanda and our legacy of slavery sent a message of concern and respect to Africans who confront the intertwined challenges of poverty, disease, repression, starvation, illiteracy and war. But Africa needs more than words; it needs investment and trade if its economics are ever going to develop. That requires both significant changes in most governments and a partnership with the United States. That's why the African Growth and Opportunity At, which Bill proposed and Congress passed, is so critical. It creates incentives for American companies to do business in Africa." [Living History, pg. 457]

The Obama campaign spends considerable time trying to "prove" that a private conversation between Hillary and President Clinton never happened.

Good talking past you.

by hctb on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:47:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, please don't. (none / 0)

There is plenty of pasted campaign litterature already. Just call it out without shrinking the scroll bar unnecessarily.

by corph on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:12:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

MSNBC had it at 11% Republican and 85% of them went for Hillary.

This probably also explains the unusually-low turnout of AA voters in comparison to white voters.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:28:30 PM EST

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

They heard the dogwhistle.

by scvmws on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

Don't forget the Rush Limbaugh effect... I'm sure there are many dittoheads in MS.

It profits a PUMA nothing to give their soul for the whole world... but for McCain? --Sir Thomas More (if he were here now)

by LordMike on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:28:36 PM EST

not really (none / 0)

maybe they would rather have Clinton if they have to have a democratic party president.

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008

by TeresaINPennsylvania on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 05:38:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 2)

Why is it an issue when Republicans voted for Hillary? Republicans and so-called independents have been voting for Obama for months. Do you really think Republicans in MS voted for Hillary to destory the nomination process for Dems? No. I think a lot of republicans in MS happens to be white.

Sadly, after endless racial baiting by Obama camp, now we are witnessing true division between racial groups. This is what you will get for the GE. Thank you very much Obama camp!

by praxis1 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:30:37 PM EST

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

So Obama is responsible for racism? That's a pretty interesting line of thinking.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 3)

I do not think Obama is responsible for racism. However, I think Obama camp is responsible for making race an issue for this election.

by praxis1 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:34:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

Let me see here. You are a HC supporter. You then are bias. You can't see that lots of people in both camps, probably more on the Clinton side(see Ferraro & Bill), have brought up the race issues?

If you can't see that, then I don't know why I'm even writing this. Forget it, it's hopeless...

by chill on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:52:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Really? No, seriously, you really believe that Obama has been the one pushing race? Not the candidate of Geraldine Ferraro? Not the candidate who dismissed South Carolina as a "Jesse Jackson" win?

When 1/5 of Clinton supporters in Ohio say they'd never vote for a black candidate, and when the white candidate has lost to the black candidate in Iowa, Wisconsin, Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont, and a host of other lily-white states, and when one of the white candidate's prominent surrogates claims that the black candidate has it easy because he's black - it takes a certain amount of gall to accuse the black candidate of playing the race card.

I'm a white guy. I pretty much hate identity politics. I've also been a huge backer of Barack Obama for a while, and see no evidence that he's tried to inject race as an issue into the campaign. And I admire him for that.

Unable to rec or rate
Still supporting Obama
Still not putting up with "preening" posts

by jaiwithani on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:55:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 2)

Yup. 'Cause if I were a black man named Barack Hussein Obama trying to figure out a path to win the White House, top of my list would be "Emphasize RACE." Right under "Hint that you might secretly be a muslim." Sounds like good strategy to me.

by Ryan Anderson on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:08:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Right.

If Obama hadn't been black, he wouldn't have succeeded in baiting Shaheen, Ferraro, and Bill himself into saying stupid things about race.

I think Hillary should boycott the remainder of the primary season until Obama agrees to campaign in white makeup.

by zonk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:03:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Are you f'ing kidding me? Obama has jumped every which way but sideways to AVOID making this about race. But he gets dog whistle racist crap from all corners all the time and now he's making this about race?

by elrod on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's fault for being black (none / 0)

[snark]Certainly if all candidates were the same race, race wouldn't have been an issue, so I guess it's all Obama's fault for being black.[/snark]

Unless you have more specific accusations to make about how it's Obama's fault, when it has been consistently the Clintons and their staff that are bringing up the race issue and the references to Jesse Jackson, MLK, etc?

by Aris Katsaris on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 09:31:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

Republicans who intend to vote republican in the general voting for hillary in the primary has nothing to do with a "racial divide."

by LiberalFL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:35:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 3)

Republican race has not been competitive for a while. Republicans can not care less about the nomination process at Dems. As far as I know, Hillary did not make a flyer saying "Be a democrat for a day".

It is quite ridiculous to think that voting for Obama represent the will of people while voting for Hillary is just a conspiracy against Dems.

by praxis1 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:46:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Not when arguably the nation's most well-known conservative commentator is running an active campaign to get Republicans to vote for Hillary. That's a game-changer.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:08:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Ummmm, all I can say is ..... you're welcome.

by Carlo on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:52:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Blaming Obama for Racism? (2.00 / 2)

"Sadly, after endless racial baiting by Obama camp, now we are witnessing true division between racial groups."

Your ability to construct this bullshit argument is truly astonishing. Are AAs now responsible for racism? That makes about as much sense as your claim that Obama is responsible for race becoming an issue in this campaign. Duh! Why would it be in Obama's interest to make race an issue when he is a member of the group that hes been on the loosing end of centuries of racism? Your post is a particularly ugly form of "blaming the victim."

I don't loose my cool very often but this is an astonishingly stupid post.

The unwillingness of Clinton supporters to acknowledge what is readily apparent to most voters and most pundits is amazing. Hillary Clinton is running an increasingly negative campaign and thus far has shown a willingness to say or do whatever she thinks is necessary to try to win.

Try watching Howard Fineman's comments on MSNBC. He flat out stated that the Clinton campaign is making race an issue because they think it will work to their advantage in PA. Ask yourself a simple question: who benefits by making race an issue? You seem to think that it is Obama. In case you haven't noticed, Obama is trying to get elected in a country were AAs are only 12% of the population. Why the hell would he want to make race an issue?

Lying is bad, believing your own lies is dangerous. I am sorry if this post is a bit belligerent, but it displays an attitude that is extremely dangerous for our party and our country.

by upper left on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:22:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

I also think it had to do with the fact that there's no Republican race to vote in.

by cmugirl90 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:41:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Conservatives (none / 0)

She also took self-identified conservatives by a big margin, so those numbers are consistent. Hard to imagine them voting for either candidate except to stir the pot.

"Mom, baseball, apple pie, and a unified Democratic juggernaut."

by Purplepeople on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:30:49 PM EST

Re: Conservatives (2.00 / 2)

There are many conservative Dems in the south. They are left over from the old party. Hillary is very popular among the ones in Arkansas. They tend to be New Deal type Democrats, very concerned with economic issues but otherwise fairly conservative.

by DaleA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

Anti-Obama sentiment from her supporter aside, if Ferraro is not gone by end of the week, she loses my vote. I'd rather write-in Obama or Gore than sell out my moral values by voting for someone who condones this blatant racism and DEFENDS it. Unbelievable... I didn't think she was that big of a POS... This is positively Rovian. She has proven she and her followers will go to any lengths to secure power.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:30:52 PM EST

It's worse than Rovian. Rove was subtler about it. (1.00 / 3)

by Hesiod Theogeny on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:56:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (1.75 / 4)

Ferraro doesn't work for the campaign. She can run her mouth till hell freezes over.

Apparently Obamacrats are not Democrats.

by lyzurgyk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

She is on Hillary's National Finance Committee.

by upper left on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 3)

You are being an absolute hypocrite! If those are your standards for voting, you should have condemned Obama for not distancing himself from Jesse Jackson jr when Hillary won NH.

Bill Clinton made the Jesse Jackson comment after SC primary, not before it. So if you have any sense of logic, you will know Obama campaign brought up racism to get the AA votes immediately after NH. You had Gene Robinson, Donna Brazile, Jesse Jackson Jr and the Obama SC campaign coordinator releasing those racist memos.

You blindly follow lies and then spread them too. That is why Republicans are successful. They find you easy target.

by Sandeep on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

Your "facts" are not my facts. The thing started much earlier and you know it. Brazille is an uncommited SD and not in the Obama campaign by any means. JJJr made a stupid comment - he shouldn't have done that. It was after the whole thing got started though, and it didn't get started by Obama. He himself never even mentioned race, for obvious reasons. He knows it will only hurt him as he tries to win the Presidency. The Clinton campaign knows that too - which doesn't say they are using that knowledge to gain an advantage, but just to give you some perspective. You seem to lack it.

by marcotom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:36:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Since your signature line is an Obama quote, my guess is she didn't have your vote anyway.

by cmugirl90 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:42:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

**I just posted this on the MS results thread, but since this post is all about it, I'll post it here as well. Sorry for those who come across it twice. But theres an addition at the bottom!*

Over at Ben Smith, he's noting exit polls that show a large majority of indys and, more importantly, republicans are breaking for Clinton. Most people on that blog are arguing that the Republicans are following Limbaugh's advice...

They're probably right, but I had a thought: maybe Mississippi is one of the only states where disaffected republicans would genuinely vote for hillary clinton because they want her. I know that sounds weird, and its just a gut reaction, but imagine you're a white southern republican (i know its hard, go with it...and by southern, you know what I mean. Not metropolitan or South Floridian). You aren't making money cause the economy sucks, and the republicans havent come through on any of their promises to enforce mandatory church attendance or whatever they were going for in 2004. Abortion is still legal and people in some parts of the country can still get gay married.

You don't like the Republicans anymore, but being a white deep south republican, while you're ready to vote Dem, you can't (won't) vote for a black man (sad I know, but kinda true).

Isn't Clinton the logical choice?

Im not saying Clinton is racist or courting those votes in any way, just a thought I thought I'd throw out there*

Addendum: If its true that the Limbaugh campaign is affecting the Dem primary (I don't know if it is, but these results are striking) does that compel the SDs and bigwigs in the party to intervene sooner? Is it possible that this Limbaugh shit will effect the primaries in other states as well? (Republicans can still register as Dems until late march...)

by LiberalFL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:33:07 PM EST

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

That shouldn't have been bold, apologies

by LiberalFL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:33:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

I believe Mississippi is one of the last open primaries (not positive) so I don't think the strategic voting of Republicans will be a problem from this point forward. But I do think this is a good reason not to have open primaries in the later states. I can see an argument for attracting new Democrats by having them be open, but when it can have an impact on the nomination process, people who intend to vote for a Republican in the general should not be included! I know Democrats who have taken advantage of open Republican primaries and it wouldn't surprise me that there are Republicans doing the same.

by Mr DC on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

I'd agree. I think indy's should be included tho. That way we can see who they prefer and hopefully get them to vote Dem.

by LiberalFL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:49:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 2)

A lot of southern voters are Republican because of social issues and national security. In hard times they tend to return to their roots in the New Deal. Hillary is running as FDR. She is a strong military, economic populist with social programs for everyone. This draws some southern voters.

by DaleA on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:36:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

Are you intimately familiar with the Deep South? Probably not, because if you were, you'd know that people who dislike African Americans are pretty likely to think women don't belong in power. Even Republican women in that region feel that way a lot of the time. They don't want a female president. It's not that they're self-loathing -- not really, anyway; they just think "it's a man's job." No joke. A lot of them just don't know any better.

You may be half right -- about disaffected Republicans not wanting to vote for a black man, but I seriously doubt your theory holds much water. Between a black dude and a white chick, hardcore southern bigots have nowhere to turn.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:04:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

At least 90% of the people who dismiss these states and talk about racists don't know anything about those states. And don't care. Most of the people who talk about the South as if we're all bumbling hillbillies are actually as bad or worse than the actual people they're talking about. Bigotry is not limited to ethnicity or religion.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:15:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

Exactly. Seems to me like some people around here dismiss the South a lot more eagerly than Hillary ever thought about doing. The South -- and perhaps most especially the "Deep South" -- is a very misunderstood region. And I don't think most people are interested in understanding it.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 11:37:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

we need more info that Smith is reporting--particularly the most important issue and demographics. There are many self-identified republicans that break dem at the Presidential level. Look at the NES from 96, 00, 04--over 10% of republicans report voting for the Democratic candidate.

Do their votes not matter?

We either have a very strict closed system, or we are big tent.

by hctb on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 03:57:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

But how much of that is Republicans now playing a spoiler in the Democratic Primary now that the Republican primary is over. I think there is a lot of that.

John McCain wants you to be poor!

by nklein on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:36:21 PM EST

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 6)

It's funny. When Republicans vote for Obama, Obama is the uniter. When Republicans vote for Hillary, it is either because they want to destroy Democratic party or because they are racist. Very interesting.

by praxis1 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:37:06 PM EST

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Well, I think we're not really quite sure what's going on here. It's extremely unlikely that there was like an 80 point swing among Republicans in general... so there's another factor at play here. The most likely is that it's simply a regional issue. Make your own judgments as to what that means.

by leshrac55 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:44:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 3)

Unfortunately not everybody is reasonable like you. I bet so-called pubdits at MSM as well as blogsphere will spin this as an evidence of republican strategy against Dems. I guess the memo is already out.

by praxis1 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:50:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

Again, you are just as much to blame for spinning it in whatever way works for your candidate. If you are asking the MSM and other people here to not jump the gun and make rash judgements too soon, then you should not be either.

The numbers are suspicious. I would like a further look into them.

by chill on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:57:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Comment unfairly TR'd.

Uprated it.

Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.

by sricki on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 01:08:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"regional issue" (none / 0)

like Republicans in MS (incl. Trent Lott) believing they got screwed by the insurance companies after Katrina. On Bush's watch.

And so on.

by Redstar on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:32:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "regional issue" (none / 0)

Not sure why this would swing it in one direction or the other regarding Clinton/Obama.

by leshrac55 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:43:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "regional issue" (none / 0)

Clinton is more of a populist and would appeal to pocketbook issues. They also might think she is more qualified and experienced like I do.

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008

by TeresaINPennsylvania on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:00:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

I guess you got the memo.

by praxis1 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:54:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

Wow, that's the first time I've been called a troll. I'm trying to prove that people on here who are soooo in love with one candidate or the other should take a step back from time to time and take a good long look without having their love shades on.

These numbers are interesting and worthy of some speculation. Read down further b/c another post breaks down the exit poll numbers and what kind of people were voting for HC.

by chill on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:07:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

Thanks for clarifying...I didn't think I said anything to warrant that. Praxis and Washington Woman are a bit fired up, and I think it may be rubbing off on me as well. Despite the fact hat I am trying to remain as neutral as I can...but the Clinton cam p is making that harder and harder these days.

by chill on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (none / 0)

Not really that interesting.

So Obama wins MS by 20 points rather than 21 or 22.

Big deal.

He still crosses the next threshhold to picking up an extra delegate and ads to his sizeable lead.

Clinton and her cult of personality need to reconcile themselves to the fact that they cannot win this nomination -- and need to ask themselves just how badly they want to damage the Democratic ticket this fall.

If Clinton thinks that she can cost Obama the general election in 2008 - and then try again for the nod in 2012, she's in for a number of rude awakenings.

Democrats like me are the ones that kept her husband in office in the 90s - and we've been the ones scoffing, attacking, and constantly doing battle with Limbaughian forces.

If she thinks that former support gives her carte blanche to hurt the party, she's got another thing coming.

She won't just be finished on the national stage - she'll be drummed out of the party. What happens after that is her own problem.

by zonk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:11:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

baloney (none / 0)

they probably want a populist president who is experienced and qualified.

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008

by TeresaINPennsylvania on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:01:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Christ, this is MISSISSIPPI we're talking about. No sane person would expect Republicans or Independents to vote for Obama, or think that how they vote here is an indication of how they would vote in any other states but Alabama. Mississippi is still a racially polarized electorate, in which Gore got 96% of the African-American vote and Bush got 81% of the Whites.

by Ron Thompson on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:40:48 PM EST

Please explain this (2.00 / 2)

Why is it when independents and repugs vote for Obama, it shows how he can bring sides together.. his "unity" thing.

But... when Hillary Clinton does well with independents and repugs, it is automatically assumed that there must be something insidious and wrong behind their votes?

How about we just start having CLOSED Primaries?

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:41:27 PM EST

Re: Please explain this (none / 0)

Because he wasn't winning them 3 or 4 to 1. Because there was a competitive Republican primary going on, and now there isn't one. Because 11% or 13% of the Democratic primary in Mississippi is consisting of Republicans.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:46:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

some of you people are (2.00 / 2)

really strange.

What is good for Obama can not be a good thing for Clinton... right? It is impossible that anything good can happen for Clinton, right?

They way many of you, from both sides, think you know all, by micro targeting little things, is just nonsense.

Every state is different, the people in each state are different. repugs and democrats are not the same across the nation. It is just silly to say YEAH Obama "unites" and then try and find ways to say that there is no way Hillary Clinton can unite.

All of this is crap.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please explain this (none / 0)

How about you read the post that is two above yours before saying the exact same thing.

And close primaries do nothing but assure that our candidate is guaranteed only 35% of the vote. And that's assuming every registered Dem votes in both the primary and the general.

Shut out Republicans, but independents are necessary

by LiberalFL on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:47:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about (2.00 / 1)

you not worry if i said the same thing as another post above mine? OK?

geeez.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:51:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please explain this (2.00 / 5)

Thats pretty much what the exit polls are telling us:

From exit polls:

70% of those who said neither Clinton nor Obama have a clear plan for the country picked Clinton

74% of those who have a strongly favorable opinion of Mccain picked Clinton

78% of Republicans picked Clinton

25% of those who say that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy picked Clinton

It seems Hillary voters have a strangely low opinion of the person they are voting for. Why would you vote for someone who you think has no plan for the country and who you think is not trustworthy?

by hankg on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:01:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sorry I forgot (2.00 / 2)

All that Obama does and all who vote for him are ... GOOD!

All that Hillary Clinton does and all who vote for her are .. bad, racist, mean and just plain yucky!

right?

whatever.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:06:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry I forgot (none / 0)

Your letting your emotions run wild. If you let some logic and reason slip through, you might be able to see this just a little more clearly.

Many people on here are just asking some relevant questions and trying to understand why the numbers have dramatically swung in HC direction.

It has nothing to do with what is good or bad.

BREATHE.

by chill on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

emotions nothing (2.00 / 2)

I am just tired of this BS. I am not needing to "breathe" as you say. I am thinking very clearly thank you.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:18:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: emotions nothing (none / 0)

b/c of your more than obvious bias, maybe there is some truth to the "bs," that's why you are getting so defensive.

Don't freak out, it's only an attempt to help you try to become a bit more rational before typing on that key board.

Really, I don't like to see fellow dems, progressives, what have you, this upset. We are trying to bring clarity and truth into this discussion.

by chill on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:44:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: emotions nothing (2.00 / 2)

don't patronize me. I am biased for fairness.

Who is "we" and who asked you to bring "clarity" to this discussion?

Here is what comes from tha vast majority of O supportwers on the "tubes".

The Clintons are .. racist, mean, vile, petty, cheating, stealing, nasty "monsters" and just plain bad people who will destroy the Democratic party and the country.

Obama on the other hand is Practically Perfect in every way, and all of his votes and supporters are genuine and pure, he can't help but be a true uniter, leader and all around swell guy because he is so messiah like.

By the way... unless you don't know. I AM a TRUE Democrat and will always be. I WILL vote for the nominee and my first choice was Wes Clark then John Edwards.

OK?

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:53:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

practically perfect in every way (2.00 / 1)

I too keep thinking of that quote in terms of Obama and his blind supporters. I had to ask myself where it was from and why did it come to mind.
Then I remembered it is a quote from Mary Poppins.

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008

by TeresaINPennsylvania on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:09:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: emotions nothing (none / 0)

sometimes there are valid reasons why a particular candidate is getting negative press. Sometimes it is just to sensationalize things. In the case of Clinton, maybe you should start asking which attacks are warrented...they all can't be just made up and silly.

by chill on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:31:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and (2.00 / 1)

maybe the same can be said for Obama or... hm... any candidate.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:39:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry I forgot (2.00 / 1)

This is just a breakout of Republican voters and voters who have a very low opinion of Hillary yet voted for her.

I'm sure lots of good Democrats voted for her because they think she is the best candidate.

In the grand scheme of things dittoheads and wingnuts voting for Hillary because they want her to continue to bloody Obama and soften him up for the general are having a minuscule impact on the race. If they manage to swing 2 delegates Hillary's way it would be a miracle.

by hankg on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

what makes you think they dislike her? (2.00 / 1)

maybe they are responding to her message of economic populism.

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008

by TeresaINPennsylvania on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:12:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That's possible (none / 0)

but highly unlikely. Why did they discover this old populist bent just after the Republican races stopped being comptetitive? And why such high disapproval ratings for the candidate they're voting for? Obama's and Clinton's policy positions have been out there for a while now. I heard of no decisive move in the last week by either campaign to highlight economic issues in a populist frame.

I do know Limbaugh has twenty million listeners and they tend to exhibit flock-like behavior. It's hardly a stretch to believe there are enough of them in MS to make a dent in the race.

Note: I am not saying it's illegal for Rs to do this (it's not) or that Clinton isn't entitled to their votes. This is an argument for superdelegates to step in now in support of Obama and effectively end the race before Republicans make it even more chaotic. For the record, I don't think they will.

by corph on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 12:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry I forgot (none / 0)

Have you ever played Apples To Apples? Someone lays down a green card with an adjective and players lay down one of their red cards with a noun that best fits it. Then the person who laid down the card picks the noun that they think best fits that adjective.

I live in Georgia, and I have family in Alabama. And these are by no means rednecks, they're fairly affluent. They're not bigots, they're probably some of the most tolerant people I know. And every time I play this game and get Hillary Clinton, I know that just waiting for a sufficiently negative adjective to be laid down gives me a 75% chance of winning.

Do NOT underestimate the degree to which Southern voters dislike or distrust Hillary Clinton. We've known this all along, which is why we're pushing so hard for Obama.

If you're being chased by an angry bull and then you notice you're also being chased by a swarm of bees, it doesn't really change things. Just keep on running.

by vcalzone on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 07:23:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please explain this (none / 0)

The only statistic there to me that suggests a Limbaugh effect is the fourth. You don't vote for a candidate if you think he/she is untrustworthy, unless you are being malicious.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:50:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

did they say they think she is (none / 0)

untrustworthy? You Obama folk sure are good at making assumptions.

DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008

by TeresaINPennsylvania on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 06:13:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: did they say they think she is (none / 0)

Yes, if you read the exit polls. 15% of Clinton voters said she was untrustworthy. Only 4% of Obama voters said the same thing. But feel free to attack me needlessly. Anyway, I'm off to register new Obama voters in Pennsylvania. See you in April.

Jim Oberweis

by cilerder86 on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 02:03:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please explain this (none / 0)

As I have said elsewhere-- this stat is meaningless. You need the comparative rating of both candidates in order to determine that the respondent was behaving strangely. It could be that the respondent rated both untrustworthy, in which case your argument doesnt hold up.

And no you cannot prove this with aggregate numbers-- EF.

by hctb on Wed Mar 12, 2008 at 04:09:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Please explain this (none / 0)

I wouldn't have a huge problem with Clinton's totals, but for the fact that there has been an ongoing meme for weeks now that Clinton is supported only by "real Democrats" and therefore should receive the necessary superdelegates, whereas Obama's higher vote totals are somehow inferior because he's received votes from independents and Republicans. I'm all for ending this stupidity, but if Clinton wants to persist, her totals certainly are not above question.

by rfahey22 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 11:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Rush has also requested (none / 0)

that Repubs vote for Hillary since their nominating contest is finished.

by mishiem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:43:00 PM EST

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 5)

I think these statistics from the exit polls clearly show most Republicans are not voting for Hillary because they like her (see http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3 /11/204837/232/320/474613 and CNN exit polls):

70% of those who said neither Clinton nor Obama have a clear plan for the country picked Clinton
74% of those who said both do picked Obama
74% of those who have a strongly favorable opinion of McCain picked Clinton
75% of those who have a strongly unfavorable opinion picked Obama
25% of those who say that Clinton is not honest and trustworthy picked Clinton
7% of those who say that Obama is not honest and trustworthy picked Obama
19% of those who say that Clinton does not inspire them, voted for Clinton
4% of those who say that Obama does not inspire them, voted for Obama
87% of those who are inspired by neither Clinton nor Obama voted for Clinton
78% of Republicans picked Clinton
59% of White independents picked Clinton
56% of conservatives picked Clinton

Unless there are figures out there that prove the contrary, it seems that most Republicans vote for Obama because they do like him, whereas most of the Republicans who back Hillary have ulterior motives.

by sitesatlas on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:46:58 PM EST

Re: Republicans For Hillary (2.00 / 1)

Thank you for that. These figutes are very ominous..

"Behold, I send you out as sheep amidst the wolves! Therefore, be as wise as a serpent, And as harmless as a dove."

by Setrak on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:50:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BS (1.50 / 2)

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 09:58:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BS (2.00 / 1)

nice substantive comment as usual.

What drives your support, I wonder? I've made very clear what drives my support of Obama and intense distaste for the Clintons.

What's yours?

It's all about McCain/Bush now...

by thereisnospoon on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:04:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: BS (2.00 / 1)

as usual?

What a joke. I do not need to feed your ego with a substantiative comment. If I feel like saying BS, then that is what I will say. Is that OK with you?

What drives my support? Hmmm... I guess you have never seen my MANY comments and diaries then.
What do you think "drives" my support? Why do you care? Do you think I have an "intense distaste" for Obama?

See, I have no idea what drives your support, nor do I really care.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22262 on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Also (2.00 / 1)

can you O people ever post anything without posting a link to a diary at Dkos?

Also, why don't you go through ALL of the states that have voted and look at the exits polls with a fine tooth comb.
Also, try and put that in context with how Obama is not looked at as the inevitable god anymore. He is looking, acting and being reported on more like he is a political candidate.

Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog

by kevin22